Open mike 22/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:10 am, November 22nd, 2014 - 358 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

358 comments on “Open mike 22/11/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    22 November 2014 at 7:28 am

    there is a cool gig on in auckland tonite..(aside from the rolling stones..)

    ..the jubilation choir are performing in a church in ponsonby..

    here are the relevant details:

    “..on Saturday the 22nd of November we’d love you to join us for some gospel and a drink or two. Doors open at 7.30 and we’ll start the show at 8.

    Apologies for the late notice ….we know it’s a busy time of year but we’d love to see you there !

    Buy Tickets through NZ Tix
    nztix.http://tickets.nztix.co.nz/Default.aspx?Event=47990

    • mac1 1.1
      22 November 2014 at 8:23 am

      The Jubilation choir must be one good reason to live in a big city like Auckland. I’d be into that like a shot.

      Meantime, our first gig tonight with a hot fiddle player at a ceilidh.

      • Ecosse_Maidy 1.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 9:04 pm

        How about going to one of these?..Where people go to see a political leader..Can you imagine going along with 12000 other people to hear what they have to say?

        check this out..

        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-30115800

        If this happened in New Zealand we wouldn’t be concerned about what the nats have to say or the greens as Scotland shows it can be done.

  2. Once was Tim 2
    22 November 2014 at 7:38 am

    yes …. will be excellent. btw @ PU, are you a mate of Rick? Just that I think we’ve crossed paths somewhere in the dim distant past

    • wyndham 3.1
      22 November 2014 at 8:16 am

      Occurs to me that the two superpowers (China and the U.S) competing for influence in the Pacific region, place N.Z. in a similar position to Yugoslavia after WW2 when Tito craftily played off one against the other (U.S. and Russia) to his great advantage.

      Is Key on the same track ?

      • Chooky 3.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 9:10 am

        Key talks about the merits of free trade….but when it comes to Russia he advises Fonterra NOT to trade with Russia ….when Russia would take our dairy products at a very good price …and NZ dairy producers are suffering record lows for their milk returns …some in debt will go to the wall…so our dairy producers are being squeezed through lack of free trade …hypocrisy

        imo…as an amateur watcher of world affairs….We are a bit pawn in USA’s drive to dominate the Pacific ( TPP)….and USA’s/ Israel’s strategy to dominate the Middle East….ie isolate and economically undermine Russia with trade sanctions, stir up the civil war in Ukraine ….and undermine Russia’s influence in the Middle East ( Russia’s support for Assad in Syria …peace plans for Middle East ) …the end game being to to fragment Iraq, Libya , Syria and Iran and bring them under USA/Israel economic control

        John key wont care if NZ farm land is sold…more land for investment ….property developers and increased population and motorways and infrastructure development …he also wont care if farmers have to sell their land to foreigners …great in foreign corporate portfolios eg Goldman Sachs

        ( now please tell me I am wrong ! )

    • anker 3.2
      22 November 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Yes Paul @ 3……………….Was Audrey moonlighting as a waitress to get such intimate details of the dinner? Or does she just lap up every word Key utters??

    • Murray Rawshark 3.3
      22 November 2014 at 8:14 pm

      Ooh. How embarrassing. I’m totally over the way the All Blacks suck up to Key.

  4. Paul 4
    22 November 2014 at 7:54 am

    Another law for the rich.

    ‘More wealthy Chinese visitors will have their New Zealand visas fast-tracked as part of a new joint agreement signed between the two countries’ leaders this week.’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11362683

  5. Dont worry. Be happy 5
    22 November 2014 at 8:10 am

    National “Government” fast tracking entry for rich Chinese.

    Again!

    China gets our milk…we get their billionaires….National builds their donor base….the mega rich tighten their grip on our country, our values of a fair go, our tradition of giving people a hand. This is the 1% in action.

    • Chooky 5.1
      22 November 2014 at 9:15 am

      +100…yup…and the Chinese will be the vanguard excuse for the rest from other parts of the world i fear…NZ is getting a John Key makeover…and he wants to to change our flag too!

      ….too bad about the rights and futures of young New Zealanders and Maori and those at the bottom of the economic pile…it is going to be New Zealand for rich non New Zealanders and the foreign corporates

      • srylands 5.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 10:07 am

        Get a grip. What are you suggesting? That we decline Chinese investment? The alternative country you aspire to already exists. It is called Samoa.

        There is no alternative to globalisation. China is our future. Good public policy will help us make the best of the opportunity. Regulation and stopping wealthy Chinese coming here is not our future. It will never happen.

        • millsy 5.1.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 10:41 am

          You do realise that China do not let thier workers form unions and do not have sick leave or minimum wage. They have a slave economy and will impose thier values on us. How long before Chinese employers start lobbying out government a out law trade unions, scrap paid leave, and get rid of minimum wages.

          China should be told to fuck off. Before we end up being thier serfs.

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 12:10 pm

            +1

          • Murray Rawshark 5.1.1.1.2
            22 November 2014 at 8:18 pm

            Of course SSlands realises that. He just wants to profit from the first few billionaire Chinese to leave their cars in his parking building. He thinks they’ll tip well. The rest is an ACT wet dream.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2
          22 November 2014 at 12:09 pm

          That we decline Chinese investment?

          Yes. We’ve never needed foreign investment as we have our own resources. We can produce anything we choose to.

          There is no alternative to globalisation.

          There’s internationalisation as an alternative. You know, where all countries are independent but get on well with one another. Much better than globalisation where the US dominates everyone and attacks them if they try to be independent.

          Regulation and stopping wealthy Chinese coming here is not our future.

          Actually, that is our future because we really can’t afford the rich and we can’t afford to have any more people here.

          • alwyn 5.1.1.2.1
            22 November 2014 at 2:38 pm

            There goes the Standard.
            We sure as hell can’t produce computers from scratch.
            Where exactly are you going to put the multi-billion dollar fabrication plant to make the computer chips we will need?
            No computers, no Standard.
            No modern cars either. Still we could probably dig out the plans for the model A Ford of 1930 and build them from scratch.

            [lprent: How? I try not to move the boxes that The Standard is in because of those pesky wires. It is hard enough upgrading it because I have to slide it out. The Standard doesn’t go anywhere.

            Be careful invoking the name of The Standard because I’m liable to take you literally. Check the policy about consequences. ]

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 3:14 pm

              We sure as hell can’t produce computers from scratch.

              Why not? It’s where everyone else started.

              Besides, we wouldn’t be starting from scratch. We’d be starting from the position of all the publicly available research in the field and the research going on in our universities.

              Where exactly are you going to put the multi-billion dollar fabrication plant to make the computer chips we will need?

              I was thinking three to five of them connected to the public universities in the main centres. The universities get them for research to make them better and the private sector gets to have their designs made for cost.

              No modern cars either.

              Why not? Cars have been made in NZ before. I recall a sport-scar that was made in South Auckland back in the 1980s. Sold for about $250k and only made to order. Unsurprisingly, it wasn’t sold in NZ. And now we have the Hulme Supercar.

              Your ignorance of what NZ has already done and what we’re capable of is disturbing.

              • alwyn …
                22 November 2014 at 6:13 pm

                Now I know you are kidding. three to five fabrication plants you say.
                According to Forbes magazine these cost rather a lot. To be precise

                “All this equipment is extraordinarily pricey, costing millions or even tens of millions of dollars per tool. That’s why a modern wafer fabrication plant can cost as much as $10 billion to build and equip.”

                So there goes a quarter of New Zealand’s GDP. Just to make chips for our home-grown computers. With the improvement in the chips I believe they only last about four years but I can’t find a clear statement on line about that. There is material indicating that the cost of a modern plant doubles every four years.

                You also offer us the Hulme Supercar. When I looked at the link you kindly supplied I see that they were going to deliver them starting in late 2012. Can you tell me how many they have managed to sell. Does the number happen to be zero?
                Your other car sounds much cheaper. Only $250k each. That will certainly persuade us to use public transport if the cheapest car on the market costs $250k. All the parts, and I mean ALL the parts, were made in New Zealand were they?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 November 2014 at 7:35 pm

                  Always worried about price. It’s not the price that stops us from doing these things but the lack of political will. We have the resources.

                  And, yes, three to five. I’d expect one to be down pretty much at all times to be upgraded.

                  As for the cars, I put them forward as an example to show that we’ve already done what you claim we can’t do. If we built the necessary factories we could easily make cars that are just as good as anything imported for the same price. That’s the thing about modern factories – they’re all as efficient as all the others and size makes no difference.

                  Do I expect to be able to do these things overnight? Nope, I expect to spend some time developing them. The point I’m getting at is that there’s nothing stopping us from doing so. We have the resources and capability but you seem to believe that NZers aren’t as capable as the USians were in the 1960s.

                  • alwyn …
                    22 November 2014 at 8:38 pm

                    The last time I looked there were efficiencies of scale in automobile production. The were surprisingly low but were still in the 200,000 vehicles/year bracket. I won’t be held to that number as it was a long time ago I am trying to remember.
                    Of course we can produce anything we want to if we don’t care what it costs. I prefer to produce things like dairy products and sell them overseas to buy things like cheaper cars.
                    I am old fashioned person who studied economics and I still believe in producing things where we have comparative advantage and trading them. Nobody has yet convinced me that that is silly.
                    I also don’t believe that, on the scale at which we would be operating we can, as you suggest “easily make cars that are just as good as anything imported for the same price”.

                    Quite apart from this matter, do you happen to know whether anyone did buy a Hulme?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      22 November 2014 at 11:33 pm

                      I am old fashioned person who studied economics and I still believe in producing things where we have comparative advantage and trading them.

                      There’s no such thing as comparative advantage, no absolute advantage and no efficiencies of scale either. Not when we’re talking automated factories that are as efficient when producing low quantities as when producing large.

                      And then there’s the finance:

                      The theory of comparative advantage is not sufficient to justify the advocacy of free trade in consumer goods, even under textbook assumptions.

                      Of course we can produce anything we want to if we don’t care what it costs. I prefer to produce things like dairy products and sell them overseas to buy things like cheaper cars.

                      The cost of producing dairy is the destruction and poisoning of our environment. That’s a cost that we seem to determined not to count and it costs more than any amount of money. And the cars aren’t actually cheaper. In fact they must be more expensive due to the added costs of transporting them and transporting our goods to the other side of the world.

                      I also don’t believe that, on the scale at which we would be operating we can, as you suggest “easily make cars that are just as good as anything imported for the same price”.

                      Kia Motor Corporation:

                      Today, Kia produces more than 1.4 million vehicles a year at 14 manufacturing and assembly operations in eight countries. These vehicles are sold and serviced through a network of more than 3,000 distributors and dealers covering 172 countries. The Corporation has more than 40,000 employees and annual revenues of more than US$17 billion.

                      I think we can spare 5000 employees to produce 175,000 cars per year.

                      Not that I’m advocating for that. As I said, a small factory is just as efficient as a large factory and thus economies of scale don’t apply anyway.

                      The big problem with the economics that you learned is that it ignores the actual use of resources in favour of trying to describe the movement of money and thus it fails to produce a truly economic system. As I said:

                      The problem with economics today is that it’s uneconomic.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      23 November 2014 at 6:53 am

                      Not that I’m advocating for that. As I said, a small factory is just as efficient as a large factory and thus economies of scale don’t apply anyway.

                      This is not true in the slightest, and only applies in a dream world where theorists with fuck all real world manufacturing experience write shit which they know will never ever be tested out in real life.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  23 November 2014 at 6:50 am

                  Now I know you are kidding. three to five fabrication plants you say.
                  According to Forbes magazine these cost rather a lot. To be precise

                  “All this equipment is extraordinarily pricey, costing millions or even tens of millions of dollars per tool. That’s why a modern wafer fabrication plant can cost as much as $10 billion to build and equip.”

                  So there goes a quarter of New Zealand’s GDP.

                  Sheeezus dude. Just ignore cutting edge nodes and implement the still world-wide used 65nm standard and you can build whatever chips you want. Yes the standard is almost 10 years old and yes the chips built using it will tend to be slower and use more power than ones built on the latest processes but you can also build a whole fucking fab with off the shelf equipment for $250M or less. Four for $1B. What a bargain.

                • Tautoko Mangō Mata …
                  23 November 2014 at 7:51 am

                  “New Zealand may be a small country, but the choice of locally made cars is huge — while the quality is world class.”

                  http://www.classiccar.co.nz/articles/kit-car-directory-221

                  • alwyn …
                    23 November 2014 at 9:25 am

                    I looked at the link you provided. I would have to agree that it illustrates a wonderful variety of toys.
                    However I don’t think I could find something I would want to use on a daily basis.
                    As an empty nester I only need a two seater car so they would be suitable in that respect. However what happens to families who need to fit a child or two in?
                    On the other hand none of them have a roof and it sometimes rains here in Wellington. They are also a bit low and I would, I fear, have great trouble getting in and out of them at my age.
                    They really look great and would be very suitable for the person who has everything and wants something to play with on a fine summer day.
                    I remember seeing a McLaren F1 (the road car) in Melbourne about 20 years ago. It was at a car show just before the Grand Prix and the designer was giving talks about it. He said they were designed on the assumption they would be driven for 3,000 km/year. They were apparently amazed when one owner turned up having done about 10,000 km in six months. This was completely unexpected as they weren’t really intended for that. He also broke the news that we could, at that time, still buy a new one for about $1,250,000 Australian dollars. I had, much to my regret, to pass on the offer.

                    • Tautoko Mangō Mata …
                      23 November 2014 at 9:55 am

                      I agree that the cars are not designed for the family. My point was that we do have the capability and expertise that could be used as a basis for the production of some type of eco-car, not just the current nice-to-have-toy market.

            • alwyn 5.1.1.2.1.2
              22 November 2014 at 5:58 pm

              @lprent
              That comment wasn’t intended to imply that it would be compulsorily shifted. However to develop, and run a system with all the features it has needs a lot of processing power and if we had to develop and build all the computers, by ourselves and exclusively in New Zealand, including all the chips we wouldn’t be able to do it at anything like an affordable cost.
              That was all I was trying to say.

              [lprent: You should have said that, then I wouldn’t have noticed. As soon as you invoke the site name and suggest that it has an opinion, my scanning eye catches it because there is it is self-martyrdom offense in the policies. One that was stuck in because too many people were trying to avoid debate by invoking a abstraction ratehr than dealing with whoever they were talking to or about. ]

              • Draco T Bastard …
                22 November 2014 at 7:21 pm

                Where did I say that we’d stop trading with the rest of the world?

                What I said was that we could produce whatever we wanted from our own resources without foreign investment.

                • alwyn …
                  22 November 2014 at 8:48 pm

                  As you did say
                  “Yes. We’ve never needed foreign investment as we have our own resources. We can produce anything we choose to.”

                  I put the emphasis on the second sentence. If what you mean is purely that anything we want to make here can be built with all the New Zealand manufactured parts being built in New Zealand financed companies I see what you mean. That would allow us to import cars, and computers that were manufactured overseas.
                  It is only the second sentence in isolation that I think is silly. That assumes of course that we can trade for any IP we need.
                  I still don’t think that includes competing with Intel.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    22 November 2014 at 11:38 pm

                    That would allow us to import cars, and computers that were manufactured overseas.

                    It would also allow us to produce those cars and computers here but I’m not against trade in goods. I do think we do ourselves a disservice by importing products that, with a little bit of effort, we could produce here and actually develop our economy.

        • Foreign waka 5.1.1.3
          22 November 2014 at 12:34 pm

          There needs to be some pragmatism employed and more so – balance. NZ can easily become a test ground for the differences between west and est. So I would be careful with what you wish for. By the way, China may well be the future of NZ but it will end its culture, social structure, democracy, private ownership etc. Honestly, no big issue with me but I suggest certainly for Maori. I wont even touch on the social issues that would in comparison put our 250 000 kids into the shade of oblivion. Free Market? Look at Hong Kong. The devil is in the detail.

      • David H 5.1.2
        22 November 2014 at 3:42 pm

        @Skinny “and he wants to to change our flag too!” To what a black background, with a golden Dollar sign.

      • greywarshark 5.1.3
        22 November 2014 at 7:51 pm

        Is it a new sort of highland clearing? Commons grab by landowners.

    • millsy 5.2
      22 November 2014 at 9:58 am

      The guys are too used to phoning the local barracks when their workers go on strike.

    • Clemgeopin 5.3
      22 November 2014 at 12:19 pm

      China gets our milk

      That is a very good thing, but what is really really bad is that they get our COWS now!

  6. Jenny Kirk 6
    22 November 2014 at 8:24 am

    Two good stories on Andrew Little’s first days – Andrea Vance in Stuff News, and John Armstrong in the Herald. Hopefully – this is a good sign for the future.

    • tc 6.1
      22 November 2014 at 9:25 am

      Nothings really at stake yet and clobbering him this early just highlights their known bias.

      They will revert back to type soon enough armstrong especially as a proven nat sycophant.

      • Paul 6.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 9:45 am

        Also they can use to provide proof they are balanced.
        Armstrong May just be worried the Nats will be arrogant and not take Little seriously

      • Anne 6.1.2
        22 November 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Nope tc. I can’t agree on this one. The way Armstrong wrote that piece suggests to me he sees in Little exactly what many of us on the inside saw some time back and that’s why we gave him the no.1 spot. Full credit to him.

        I love this quote:

        …there will be more MPs claiming to have voted for him than was actually the case….With a reshuffle pending, no one wants to be offside with the leader.

        What’s the bet if someone tallied up the number of Labour MPs who said they gave Little the top spot, it would be double the number of votes he actually got!

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11362536

      • greywarshark 6.1.3
        22 November 2014 at 7:54 pm

        Ooh tc that is either wise or deeply cynical. Either way you may be right. Wouldn’t it be nice to be wrong.

  7. Raa 7
    22 November 2014 at 9:46 am

    I think that Key’s success is at least partly due to the perceived
    wealth effect of a booming – largely Auckland – property market,
    but the phenomenon is global due to the huge amount of money pumped
    into the system to stap Wall St crashing a few years ago.

    Enjoy it while you can ..

  8. millsy 8
    22 November 2014 at 9:56 am

    Just heard that Harre is to resign as Internet Party leader.

    The biggest sign that the organisaton is about to fold up. Which is a pity. The party had a lot of potential. I just think that too many mistakes were made. Namely KDC should have been kept in the background. You dont see National’s wealthy Chinese donors on the stage with John Key…

  9. fisiani 9
    22 November 2014 at 10:03 am

    Little really struggling to answer Lisa Owen. I give him 12 months before Robertson rolls him.

    • ankerawshark 9.1
      22 November 2014 at 10:10 am

      Fisi @ 9. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ………….read my comment below.

      I am afraid (for you and your nact colleagues) Andrew was stunning. He does that pausey/mubbley thing I talked about, but his answer are brilliant. I don’t think NZders will mind the mubbley/pausey thing, because it makes him seem what he is. Genuine.

  10. ankerawshark 10
    22 November 2014 at 10:07 am

    Andrew Little on the Nation:

    Lisa Owen “how many houses is it o.k. to own Mr Little (forceful tone” ( I’am asking the hard questions, being a good interviewer”), having asked it before).

    Little: “With all due respect Lisa that is a silly question”

    Brilliant………………..I am so glad I voted Little and he got in. He’s no slouch.

    He still has a very slight pausey/mubbling thing happening. But unlike Shearer, he then gets it out and what he says ranges from good to brilliant.

    • BM 10.1
      22 November 2014 at 10:30 am

      Implying the interviewer is an idiot, to be honest that’s not very smart.

      • LynWiper 10.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 10:33 am

        It was a silly question as it showed she was missing his point. And he said it politely.

      • ankerawshark 10.1.2
        22 November 2014 at 10:39 am

        bm. @ 10.1 I don’t think he did imply the interviewer was an idiot, but that it was a silly question. But if you are right, so be it. That approach of treating the media like idiots has worked really well for Winston Peters! (smiley wink which I can’t do)

        • BM 10.1.2.1
          22 November 2014 at 11:02 am

          Peters is a minor party leader, he can say whatever he wants, he’ll never be PM.

          I just think Little needs to dial back the bluntness, I’m sure Owen didn’t enjoy been made to look like a fool, she won’t forget it either.

          Politicians do need the media on their side to be successful.

          • ankerawshark 10.1.2.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 11:23 am

            BM People do like Peters though. He is popular. I take your point that he only leads a minor party though.

            Little was right imo to call Lisa Owen on this and he did it respectfully and politely. The media are attempting to walk over Little. He’s not letting them do that. The punters will notice. They will set it as strength. And that is my point about Winston.

            Its like when unruly kids get a new nanny. The nanny has to set the boundaries firmly but not unkindly. People respect that. Little did that.

            • Jim 10.1.2.1.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 5:17 pm

              You miss the point mouthing off works well for Winston Peters because of the position he is in. This method would unlikely work for someone else who is not in that position.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1.2
            22 November 2014 at 12:27 pm

            Politicians do need the media on their side to be successful.

            Only if we live in a dictatorship.

          • felix 10.1.2.1.3
            22 November 2014 at 4:51 pm

            “I’m sure Owen didn’t enjoy been made to look like a fool, she won’t forget it either.”

            Maybe Little should have his office threaten Owen and tv3 and make them pretend he never said what he did.

            Or maybe he should get the police to raid their offices.

            “I just think Little needs to dial back the bluntness”

            I think you should quit voting for the Labour Party if you don’t like the leader.

          • weka 10.1.2.1.4
            22 November 2014 at 5:32 pm

            “I just think Little needs to dial back the bluntness, I’m sure Owen didn’t enjoy been made to look like a fool, she won’t forget it either.”

            You haven’t bothered to watch the video have you BM? You are missing the tone and context of Little’s comment entirely. He wasn’t blunt and he didn’t make Owen look a fool.

            that’s been quite a pattern of yours in the past week, of not reading things properly. Have you had your astro hours cut back?

            • McFlock 10.1.2.1.4.1
              22 November 2014 at 5:55 pm

              well, sspylands is back, so maybe some of bm’s hours have been outsourced to aus? 🙂

            • Tracey 10.1.2.1.4.2
              22 November 2014 at 6:09 pm

              He doesnt even read links he posts WHY would he have watched the interview. He only knows anything if he read it on wo or kb. If he can critically think, he doesnt bring it to this site.

              • srylands …
                22 November 2014 at 6:14 pm

                “He only knows anything if he read it on wo or kb.”

                Can you provide proof? Citation please showing that Whale Oil Beef Hooked (WOBH) and Kiwiblog are really the exclusive sources of all BM’s knowledge. Otherwise I ask you to consider withdrawing and apologising.

                • Tracey …
                  22 November 2014 at 6:22 pm

                  Is BM your new amour de jour? Have you swapped your fawning defence of farrar to defend BMs honour.

                  You obviously werent here recently when BM post a link. Then in a following post asked a question answered in his link.

                  “..I ask you to consider withdrawing and apologising.. ” dont use your lines to david farrar on me sly.

                • McFlock …
                  22 November 2014 at 6:23 pm

                  Shit dude. You’ve already poached some of BM’s astroturfing hours, it’s a bit late to start defending him.

        • Manuka AOR 10.1.2.2
          22 November 2014 at 1:20 pm

          anke (smiley wink which I can’t do)

          ; ) = 😉 🙂

          http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies#What_Text_Do_I_Type_to_Make_Smileys.3F

        • left for deadshark 10.1.2.3
          22 November 2014 at 5:27 pm

          : wink : but with now spacing. 😉

          Manuka AOR, DON’T NO HOW THAT HAPPENED,you were couple of hours ahead of me. 👿

      • Foreign waka 10.1.3
        22 November 2014 at 12:43 pm

        Unless it is true.

      • McFlock 10.1.4
        22 November 2014 at 1:15 pm

        thanks for your concern

    • weka 10.2
      22 November 2014 at 10:33 am

      Excellent 😀 I’m very pleased he got voted in too. Am just listening to the Kathryn Ryan interview from the other day and think he’s intelligent (including emotionally intelligent), and his views on the future seem grounded in reality rather than rah blah blah vision stuff.

  11. LynWiper 11
    22 November 2014 at 10:31 am

    Andrew Little as Labour’s leader is doing a great job. As has been said, the least polarising choice, as most voters second option if not their first. Great on the Nation this morning and you will only get better. Exciting times ahead.

    • Tracey 11.1
      22 November 2014 at 6:11 pm

      The people saying little didnt really win seem to be overlooking how many didnt want robertson as their second and third choice. So it seems you either wanted robertson at one or four. That is prima facie proof of a polarising figure amongst voters

      • Karen 11.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 6:43 pm

        Exactly Tracey.
        In a divided caucus it is much better to win as most people’s second choice, as it will be easier to bring everybody together.

        Basically Robertson had the same support in caucus as last time, but increased his party vote. This is unsurprising given his high profile and the fact he has been campaigning for the leadership for over a year. Little only had 4 weeks, and did incredibly well.

        Hopefully he can now manage to put together a credible front bench without making too many enemies within caucus. On ‘The Nation’ he said he’d be trying out people in new positions so that could be interesting.

        • newsense 11.1.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 10:19 pm

          What would you like to see?

          I’d like to see Robertson take Social Welfare, Cunliffe marking Joyce in whatever that is…Health? Hipkins Education.

          • greywarshark 11.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 10:21 pm

            What good ideas has Robertson got for all the people on Social Welfare, and who have been put to one side of the social welfare steps?

          • Karen 11.1.1.1.2
            23 November 2014 at 8:56 am

            I’d prefer to see Robertson take on Health or Education – he isn’t great on welfare. I’d like Cunliffe to take on Social Welfare – the Nats have had an easy ride over the past 6 years. If Robertson took on Education then Hipkins could take Health. Finance should be Parker but if he doesn’t want it then he should be given environment and regional development. That leaves finance – not sure of Robertson’s ability here but he is clever and maybe could step up. It would give him status which seems to be important to him.

  12. weka 12
    22 November 2014 at 10:39 am

    Little on Nine to Noon (19/11/14) talks about a UBI! Starts at 22:40, not a lot of detail but discussed in the context of radical and deep change.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/20157838/what-policy-changes-will-andrew-little-usher-in

    Keith Rankin has more on TDB

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/21/universal-basic-income-and-labour-policy/

    I agree LynWiper, exciting times ahead.

    • Lanthanide 12.1
      22 November 2014 at 11:40 am

      Thanks for highlighting this, very important development!

      So glad AL won. I’m sure we wouldn’t be hearing this from GR.

      • phillip ure 12.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

        “.. I’m sure we wouldn’t be hearing this from GR…”

        + 1..

        • Craig H 12.1.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 11:59 pm

          I voted for Andrew Little on the basis that he is in favour of a UBI, so it’s good to hear that he’s pushing it in MSM as well.

          • phillip ure 12.1.1.1.1
            23 November 2014 at 6:33 am

            @ craig..

            ..hearing him talk of that was what swung my support behind him..

            ..as noted above..hell wd freeze over before either robertson or parker let those words pass their lips..

            ..(this fact puzzles me..when i hear so many young labour members support robertson..don’t they know he is an unreconstructed neo-lib trout..?..do they even know what an ‘unreconstructed neo-lib trout’ even looks like..?..w.t.f..!)

            ..and a universal-basic income cd be a poverty-busting tool of major success..

            ..there is no way nz’ers wd vote to give benificiaries more money..

            ..but little cd achieve that same end by pushing a universal basic income as a way to counter/compensate for the vagaries of modern employment..(zero hrs contracts..and all that..(as he has hinted he will do..)

            ..and on a basic theme of fairness..

            ..and then little cd lift everyones’ boats at the same time..

            (..something clark-labour failed to do..

            ..with their ‘working for (some) families’..)

            ..in fact..the more i am seeing of little..

            ..the more i am liking what i see..

            ..and should he manage to get a u.b.i. thru..

            ..he will go down as one of the great-reformers in new zealand history..

            ..(and that is some powerful medicine..)

  13. Morrissey 13
    22 November 2014 at 11:39 am

    Government propaganda campaign against Kim Dotcom is relentless;
    It’s endorsed by Matthew Hooton and his patsy Mike Williams
    The Nation, TV3, Saturday 22 November 2014

    This morning Laila Harré tried valiantly to deal with a particularly nasty, sneering Patrick Gower on TV3’s dismal The Nation. She is without doubt the most eloquent, probably the most intelligent political leader in New Zealand, but she has faced nothing but a (government-led) campaign of ridicule and marginalization. Gower’s performance was simply outrageous; one of these days somebody will thump him live on air. (You read it here first.)

    I cannot bear watching The Nation in its entirety, but from what I’ve seen, it’s not a lot better than Jim Mora’s godawful radio chat show The Panel. After Gower’s display of contempt for Laila Harré, Lisa Owen announced that (yes, you guessed it) a panel would discuss that interview: depressingly and predictably that panel will consist of Gower, the right wing activist Matthew Hooton, and Mike Williams, who, far from representing “the left”, always bends over backwards to find common ground with Hooton, and endorse nearly everything he says.

    To make things even worse, Lisa Owen then decides, unwisely, to have a go at being witty: “Coming up after the break,” she giggles, “an interview with a political leader with a name that’s a gift to headline writers everywhere—Andrew Little.”

    Another writer who suffers from the unfortunate misconception that he is funny is the former Listener sub-editor Denis Welch. During the week Welch put up the hilarious observation on Twitter that the Labour Party in New Zealand is now led by Andrew Little and the Labor Party in Australia is now led by Bill Shorten. “Diminished expectations or what?” chortles Welch. Gower gleefully recycles this lame quip, then repeats that those names are “a gift to headline writers.”

    UPDATE: The panel discussion was mostly taken up with trashing Laila Harré. Mike Williams agreed with every single thing that Hooton said. Even when Hooton, who was integrally involved in the Brethren’s corruption of the National Party in 2005, had the temerity to rail about Kim Dotcom “thinking he could subvert democracy by spending millions of dollars”, Williams nodded gravely and said “Yep.” Such abject behaviour will hardly come as a surprise to anyone who has endured his double act with Hooton in the past. Earlier this year, he sat dumb as a stone after Hooton stated on National Radio: “John Key does operate with a degree of integrity that is unusual in politics.”

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    I’ve been commenting for several years now on Williams’ failure to do his job…..

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20012014/#comment-760012
    http://thestandard.org.nz/muppets/#comment-745840
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10062013/#comment-646438
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25032013/#comment-609198

    Occasionally, he does show a bit of backbone….
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22042013/#comment-622940
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17122012/#comment-563862

    • phillip ure 13.1
      22 November 2014 at 3:23 pm

      it’s a shocker..

      ..one of gowers’ worst..

      ..even owen was pulling him up at the end..

      ..as he did his vipurative-rant against harre…

      • ianmac 13.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 4:26 pm

        Gower and Garner have a lot in common. Nasty. Vindictive. Unjust. Obsessive.
        As strong National bigots they do belong in the Key coven.

        • Once was Tim 13.1.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 5:31 pm

          “Gower and Garner have a lot in common”. That’s because Gower has modeled himself on Garner – right down to the puppet string-like arm movements. Really, their problem is they’ve both got over-inflated egos

    • Matthew Hooton 13.2
      22 November 2014 at 5:03 pm

      You need to read The Hollow Men more carefully. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Brethren – first I knew about them was along with everyone else.

      • felix 13.2.1
        22 November 2014 at 5:23 pm

        That’s what they all say now.

        • Matthew Hooton 13.2.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 5:30 pm

          That’s what the book said at the time

          • phillip ure 13.2.1.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 5:50 pm

            have you put an implant into mike williams..?

            ..to make him yr devoted yes-man..?

            ..doesn’t it embarrass you..?

            ..how much he ‘agrees’ with you..?

            .does he also do laundry..?

            ..having williams purportedly ‘speaking for the left’..

            ..is the equivalent of having the mad butcher presenting the vegan point of view..

            • Matthew Hooton 13.2.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 6:02 pm

              It’s just another cross I have to bear.

              • phillip ure …
                22 November 2014 at 6:21 pm

                it is quite amusing when he has a particularly out-there orifice-pluck..and you laugh it out of the room..

                ..and then he agrees with you..(!)

                ..that is classic/gold..!..

                ..have you thought of taking him onto the nation wearing a fetish-collar..?

                ..and on a lead..?

                ..he cd sit right next to you..

                ..on a lower chair/stool..

                ..and make neo-lib noises on command..

                ..much like he does now…

          • Tracey 13.2.1.1.2
            22 November 2014 at 6:13 pm

            But everything else about you was true…

      • Morrissey 13.2.2
        22 November 2014 at 5:26 pm

        Along with everyone else in the National Party caucus, you mean. I don’t believe you were unaware of them, any more than you were unaware of the even nastier antics the National Party was up to as outlined in the most recent Hager book.

        • Matthew Hooton 13.2.2.1
          22 November 2014 at 5:34 pm

          See this is why you need to read the book more closely. I wasn’t in the National Party caucus. Or working in parliament. Or even in Wellington. I was in Auckland, at university and then looking for a job when our first child was on the way.

          • Tracey 13.2.2.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 6:15 pm

            Be fair, keeping up with your twisting of facts, distortion of truth and lies can be a difficult. It is to be expected that sometimes people will impugn you based on this kind of history when you werent involved that time.

    • Zolan 13.3
      22 November 2014 at 8:51 pm

      So glad I could read transcriptions of the interviews online so I don’t have try watching them.

  14. Morrissey 14
    22 November 2014 at 12:00 pm

    As you read the following, bear in mind that the U.S. government regularly lectures other regimes about human rights….

    America’s longest-serving prisoner in solitary has conviction quashed
    The Guardian, Friday 21 November 2014

    When Albert Woodfox, the longest-standing solitary confinement prisoner in the US who has been in isolation almost without pause for more than 42 years, was told on Thursday his conviction had been overturned, he had difficulty reading the court ruling. Prison guards refused to unshackle him, to free his hands.

    “The guards wouldn’t release even one shackle from his hand so that he could turn the pages. I had to turn them for him,” said his lawyer, Carine Williams.

    The 37-page ruling from the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit gives Woodfox, 67, the only member of the “Angola Three” still imprisoned, his greatest hope yet of release. He has been held in a 6x8ft cell, enduring the psychological impact of isolation exacerbated by chronic claustrophobia, for all but three years since he was put in “closed cell restriction” in 1972.

    Woodfox was convicted of the murder that year of a guard in Angola prison, in Louisiana, where he was serving time for armed robbery. He has always protested his innocence, insisting that he and his Angola Three fellows were victims of a political vendetta because of their then membership in the Black Panther party.

    The fifth circuit judges upheld a lower court’s opinion that Woodfox’s conviction was secured through racially discriminatory means. In 1993 he was reindicted for the murder of prison guard Brent Miller – after an earlier court ruling had overturned the sentence – by a grand jury led by a white foreperson.

    The court found unanimously that the selection of the foreperson formed part of a discriminatory pattern in that part of Louisiana. Concluding that it amounted to a violation of the US constitution, the judges struck down Woodfox’s conviction.

    Read more….
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/21/albert-woodfox-angola-three-solitary-confinement-42-years-conviction-overturned

  15. fisiani 15
    22 November 2014 at 12:41 pm

    John Key was yesterday elected Chairman of the International Democrat Union. This is the global union of centre right parties. It is unprecedented for the leader of such a small country to become the chair.

    It has 54 members including the Australian Liberal Party, Canadian Conservative Party, Taiwanese Kuomintang, French UPM, German CDU, UK Conservative and US Republican Party. It was founded by Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, Jacques Chrirac and George H W Bush. John Howard has just retired as the Chairman.

    Andrew Little was not the preferred choice of 27 out of 31 Labour MP’s.
    He got the job because a few faceless union bosses put him there.

    I really hope that Andrew Little is still the leader at election 2017. He is obviously well loved.

    • Lanthanide 15.1
      22 November 2014 at 1:16 pm

      🙄

    • Clemgeopin 15.2
      22 November 2014 at 1:24 pm

      It has 54 members including the Australian Liberal Party, Canadian Conservative Party, Taiwanese Kuomintang, French UPM, German CDU, UK Conservative and US Republican Party. It was founded by Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, Jacques Chrirac and George H W Bush. John Howard has just retired as the Chairman

      This is an international union of right wing capitalist cabal, working to usher in a greedy, selfish, pro-capitalist, pro-wealthy, pro-corporate culture by coordinating policies and powerful governments around the world, entrenching the ordinary people and the poor to be their ever silently suffering slave workers for their own unlimited monetary gains. People with conscience, care, intelligence and common sense should reject the machinations of these RW parties that work directly and indirectly for the capitalist callous crooks in this world.

    • swordfish 15.3
      22 November 2014 at 1:29 pm

      John Key = manipulative liar with a malevolent streak

      Andrew Little = honest straight-shooter with integrity

      Expect a slow, but tangible, mood swing in the Country over the next 2 years. Tragically, Fisi, it looks like the end of the road for the bloke you adore.

      • fisiani 15.3.1
        22 November 2014 at 1:38 pm

        You guys have been trying this meme for 7 years and getting nowhere. Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Why would there be a mood swing? Wishful thinking? Misplaced optimism? Got any evidence for such a delusion?

        • swordfish 15.3.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 2:32 pm

          Well, honey-child, let’s see…..

          Broad Context: The dreaded Third Term when voters suddenly lose the faith (and I know full well you Tories are secretly worried. You all manage to summon up a bit of bravado when you come here – but back on Kiwiblog where your amongst your own kind ???, an orgy of Fear, Angst and Loathing as all your insecurities about National’s prospects gush out with wild abandon)

          Severe Economic Downturn = An increasingly stale and dishonest Government will begin to cop the blame from traditional swing-voters.

          The implications of the Dirty Politics scandal will continue to percolate away among lukewarm, softly-aligned Nats and slowly but surely a Labour leader increasingly (though grudgingly) accepted by the MSM as an honest, straight-shooter will begin to look more and more like a very refreshing change. Don’t think for a minute, Fisi-poos, that Dirty politics had zero impact. UMR research suggests Key was in an increasingly precarious position until he dumped Collins. He took a hit on honesty and integrity ratings. Hence the stories of bare-faced panic within National ranks – as told to journalist Selwyn Manning by various sources inside the Party. Make no mistake, the scandal will fatally undermine Key over the long-term.

          Oh and incidently, both UMR and Farrar’s Curia Polls suggest the Nats were heading for about 45% until the highly counter-productive KDC Big Reveal. Both polling companies recorded a two-point swing back to the Nats in the final few days of the campaign as a direct result of this mega-flop. And on 45%, the Key Government would have been in a very precarious position indeed. You’re mistaken if you think Nat support is rock-solid, my Tory chumley.

          • fisiani 15.3.1.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 2:53 pm

            Will you be so confident in January when Labour support starts with the digit 1?

          • Murray Rawshark 15.3.1.1.2
            22 November 2014 at 8:52 pm

            I wonder how much Bumbler Bradbury ran the Big Reveal strategy. I bet he was advising Dotcom all the way.

        • Draco T Bastard 15.3.1.2
          22 November 2014 at 2:54 pm

          Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

          And yet you RWNJs still insist that giving the rich more of our wealth will get of poverty despite the fact that doing so has resulted in an increase in poverty.

          • felix 15.3.1.2.1
            22 November 2014 at 4:04 pm

            They know perfectly well that their actions create and entrench poverty, that’s exactly why they repeat them.

            And they say so quite openly when they think the commoners can’t hear them, cf John Key: “We would love to see wages drop”.

        • Morrissey 15.3.1.3
          22 November 2014 at 5:36 pm

          Why would there be a mood swing?

          The more people actually get to know the real character of Key, the greater the disaffection will be. His cavalier, irresponsible attitude as he commented on the escaped child molester-murderer last week won’t be forgotten except by people like you, who I suspect wouldn’t change their minds even if Key himself was the murderer-molester.

          Public opinion is not a hard and fast commodity—-just ask Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby how long the affection of the people lasts when you get exposed.

        • ankerawshark 15.3.1.4
          22 November 2014 at 5:39 pm

          Fisi @ 15.3.1. Its called repeating the truth.

      • anker 15.3.2
        22 November 2014 at 2:23 pm

        Swordfish 100+

      • srylands 15.3.3
        22 November 2014 at 2:34 pm

        To call the New Zealand Prime Minister a “manipulative liar” is very rude and disrespectful.

        He has just been elected as Chair of the International Democratic Union. That would hardly have happened if he was a manipulative liar.

        I don’t know what you hope to achieve by such unjustified rudeness.

        [lprent: So? It is an opinion which is what this site is designed to service.

        For instance wikipedia expresses the opinion that

        The International Democrat Union (IDU) is a conservative international alliance of political parties. Headquartered in Oslo, Norway,[1] the IDU comprises 54 full members.

        I have the opinion that it sounds like a pile of manipulative liars acting in concert. I’ve never noticed that many conservatives are that interested in widespread democracy. Certainly the National party isn’t well known for its interest in having much. So I suspect that the name is simply a figleaf for fooling suckers like yourself that manipulative liars care about others.

        BTW: It is generally a bad idea to claim authority from something that is so easily checked. ]

    • Draco T Bastard 15.4
      22 November 2014 at 2:37 pm

      John Key was yesterday elected Chairman of the International Democrat Union. This is the global union of centre right parties.

      So that would make as democratic as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

      Andrew Little was not the preferred choice of 27 out of 31 Labour MP’s.
      He got the job because a few faceless union bosses put him there.

      He was democratically voted in according to the rules. Also, the unions voted, not just the representatives.

      You really are gullible aren’t you? Believing all the spin and lies that the 1% feed you.

      • TheContrarian 15.4.1
        22 November 2014 at 2:52 pm

        Only one union let its members vote – the rest were done by representatives. As someone who bangs on about how fucking awesome direct/participatory democracy is I would have thought you’d be against this sort of thing, Draco.

        • weka 15.4.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 2:56 pm

          You do realise that the country you live and presumably vote in also uses representatives?

          • TheContrarian 15.4.1.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 3:01 pm

            I do.

            • weka 15.4.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 3:29 pm

              Do you think we don’t have a democracy then?

              • TheContrarian …
                22 November 2014 at 3:52 pm

                Not at all. I think representative democracy is just fine and I have no problem with Labours rules and as I am not a member it isn’t for me to criticise.

                I was querying Draco who often derides representative democracy in preference for direct or participatory democracy. I would have thought, given his stance, he would be dead against representatives for the union voting on behalf of the members instead of all the union members voting themselves.

                • weka …
                  22 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

                  How do the representatives get chosen?

                  • TheContrarian …
                    22 November 2014 at 3:58 pm

                    I don’t care how the representatives get chosen. Could be through a battle to the death for all I care. I am curious of Draco’s thoughts on representatives voting on behalf of all the members when he himself believes we should have a direct, not representative, system.

                    It doesn’t matter what I think, I’m not in a union, I’m not a labour party member and have no concern for how they elect leaders.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 3:59 pm

                      Yes, I suspected all you wanted to do was have a go at Draco.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:08 pm

                      It’s a valid question. I am genuinely curious given his commitment to direct democracy.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:13 pm

                      That didn’t come across in your question.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

                      Well I am glad you were here to clear it all up.

                    • Manuka AOR …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:30 pm

                      TC: “I’m not a labour party member and have no concern for how they elect leaders.”

                      TC, do you know how the National Party select their leader?
                      This is a genuine question – I have asked elsewhere on the site and so far no one seems to know. And I have searched through pages of google links that purport to explain but don’t actually do so.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:36 pm

                      No idea

                    • felix …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:48 pm

                      I think they just ask Lord Ashcroft.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:58 pm

                      “Well I am glad you were here to clear it all up.”

                      You are welcome. Next time I won’t give you the benefit of the doubt and will just call you a troublemaker.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      22 November 2014 at 6:58 pm

                      It’s a fairly straight forward question given Draco’s history of supporting direct democracy over representative.

      • weka 15.4.2
        22 November 2014 at 2:59 pm

        “Andrew Little was not the preferred choice of 27 out of 31 Labour MP’s.
        He got the job because a few faceless union bosses put him there.”

        And yet he still ended up leader. How was that? Think carefully.

        Little says that he asked all of caucus before the selection if they would support him if he became leader and they all said yes. How come? Think carefully.

        • fisiani 15.4.2.1
          22 November 2014 at 3:18 pm

          Caucus did not want him. Members did not want him. 6 unions overruled the caucus and the members. Stupid system.
          Why not make it just the caucus -the National system.
          Why not make it the just the members-The Green system
          Make it the faceless Union system.
          121 Unions are not allowed a vote. Of course not. Care to explain why Labour is democracy by union oligarchy?

          • Stephanie Rodgers 15.4.2.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

            44% of caucus. 46% of members.

            • swordfish 15.4.2.1.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 3:29 pm

              Shhhhh !!! That’s the bit our Tory chumleys want to keep quiet.

              Reality: Little received the support of close to half the Party Members and caucus along with an overwhelming majority of the affiliates. Simple as that.

            • fisiani 15.4.2.1.1.2
              22 November 2014 at 3:31 pm

              4/31 is not a ringing endorsement. Any by your own contrived third round second and third rate option results still not a winner. Grasping at straws!

          • weka 15.4.2.1.2
            22 November 2014 at 3:21 pm

            “Caucus did not want him.”

            Are you stupid? He asked all MPs if they would support him if he became leader and they said yes.

            • fisiani 15.4.2.1.2.1
              22 November 2014 at 3:34 pm

              Grant Robertson said he would (stop laughing) support him. If you believe that I have a bridge for sale..

              • weka …
                22 November 2014 at 3:57 pm

                what do you think Robertson is going to do instead?

                • fisiani …
                  22 November 2014 at 4:19 pm

                  Robertson will continue to “polish up the handles so carefully” till he gets to within 6 months of the election when he can roll Little and not be thwarted by the unions.

              • Clemgeopin …
                23 November 2014 at 1:37 am

                Which bridge? Key’s extra long one or the silly minister?

          • Draco T Bastard 15.4.2.1.3
            22 November 2014 at 3:28 pm

            121 Unions are not allowed a vote.

            But they would be if they joined Labour as an affiliate.

            Care to explain why Labour is democracy by union oligarchy?

            Why would I care to try to explain something that only exists as right-wing Dirty Politics?

            • fisiani 15.4.2.1.3.1
              22 November 2014 at 3:37 pm

              Care to explain why affiliates can overrule members and caucus?
              Care to explain what is Dirty Politics about the union oligarchy?
              Is Dirty Politics the new attempt at insult or means of not answering a question?

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                22 November 2014 at 3:42 pm

                Care to explain why you can’t math?

              • weka …
                22 November 2014 at 3:44 pm

                “Care to explain why affiliates can overrule members and caucus?”

                They can’t.

                • fisiani …
                  22 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

                  They did.

                  • weka …
                    22 November 2014 at 3:56 pm

                    no, they didn’t. Strangely for a right winger, you seem to have trouble understanding what the term overrule means.

                    • fisiani …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:16 pm

                      Stephanie Rodgers 15.4.2.1.1
                      22 November 2014 at 3:20 pm
                      44% of caucus. 46% of members.

                      Even after 3 rounds Little was still the loser but annointed by the union oligarchy.

                      Is arithmetic not your strong point?

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:21 pm

                      I don’t know what Stephanie’s numbers refer to, but you said that the Affiliate vote overrules the member and caucus vote. It doesn’t. It’s taken alongside, at the same time. Any of the three group votes could be said to tip the result eg if the MPs had voted differently, Robertson would have been it.

                      overrule |əʊvəˈruːl|
                      verb [ trans. ]
                      reject or disallow by exercising one’s superior authority : the Supreme Court overruled the lower court.
                      • reject the decision or argument of (someone) : he was overruled by his senior managers.

                      How do the Affiliates have the power to overrule the other votes?

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:23 pm

                      weka – my figures are the final numbers of support for Andrew. fisiani is playing a cute little game of pretending that only first preferences matter, and trying to propagate the rightwing meme that no one in the membership or caucus supported Andrew.

                    • lprent []
                      22 November 2014 at 5:33 pm

                      Preferences matter quite a lot.

                      What astonished me about the caucus voting was that Grant Robertson didn’t get a single second preference vote and (from memory) only picked up four 3rd preference votes.

                      Since Nanaia Mahuta got knocked out first, this implies that Grant Robertson wasn’t picking up MPs from the Maori caucus. It was like his campaign was running a first-past-the-post system. In their campaigning, didn’t they ask MPs for their second and third preference votes?

                      I think that the wide support in caucus for Little after their favourite candidates got knocked out is quite hopeful for getting a more cohesive caucus.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:01 am

                      @Iprent:
                      It is astonishing and depressing that the so called ‘expert political commentators’ do not seem to understand preferential system of voting which is so much different and more meaningful than FFP!

                      I myself gave my 1st preference to Nanaia Mahuta and Second preference to Little, for different personal reasons, but knowing that I liked both of them as possible good leaders, again for different reasons.

                      I am glad I voted like that and no regrets at all. I do think that Little will be great for Labour and later as PM for the country.
                      But, I am still quite weary of the MSM and the seemingly biased usual professional commentators. A case in point: On the nation on TV3 had a good interview with Little, but the prominence was given to Internet Party and Harre in preference to Little both in the order of the programme and the 6 pm TV3 news. Seemed a bit daft, biased and quite stupid to me.

                      It would be difficult for Labour and Little to over come this quite strange unbalanced unfair media we have at present in New Zealand now.

              • RedLogix …
                22 November 2014 at 3:49 pm

                Care to explain why John Key is Prime Minister when most New Zealanders did not want him?

                • weka …
                  22 November 2014 at 3:56 pm

                  I’d like an explanation for that too 😉

                • fisiani …
                  22 November 2014 at 3:59 pm

                  Care to tell me any PM in NZ history with majority support? But what’s that got to do with the union oligarchy overriding the wishes of caucus and members, or do you think attempted deflection will work?

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 November 2014 at 4:04 pm

                    If you cannot explain why John Key is Prime Minister when he (along with many other PM’s of course) did not receive the support of a majority of voters – then you have no business asking the same about Little.

                    It’s not a deflection at all – it directly demolishes your argument.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:05 pm

                      I think that was the sound of something wooshing over fisi’s head.

                    • fisiani …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:11 pm

                      tell me who are the affiliates at a general election.? Deflection attempt demolished.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:16 pm

                      Still no explanation for why Key is PM then?

                      Until you can answer that – no-one owes you anything.

                    • fisiani …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:26 pm

                      Over a million people voted for National. That got them 60 seats. Those who voted for MP, ACT and UF also wanted him as PM. That’s a clear majority. He did not need a Union Sugar Daddy.
                      Don’t rabbit on about non voters. I did not rabbit on about the members who did not vote and the union members who were disallowed a vote.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:47 pm

                      We accept the general election result because that is how the system works. And democratic systems all over the world are many and varied. There is no one perfect voting system that is a gold standard – they all work differently and get to a result in their own unique fashion.

                      Labour have a different system that is designed to meet their particular needs – and it generated this result for their party.

                      If for example the caucus had voted 100% for Robertson, and the members and union vote had not changed, then he would have won easily. But then would you be here faffing on that ‘the caucus had overruled the members’ ? Somehow I don’t think so.

                      It’s not your party – and they didn’t hold this election to please you fisi.

                    • swordfish …
                      22 November 2014 at 4:59 pm

                      Fisi

                      “Those who voted for MP, ACT and UF also wanted him as PM. That’s a clear majority.”

                      Government Bloc (Nat+MP+ACT+UF) = 49% of 2014 Valid Vote.

                      Maori Party = 1.3%. Pre-Election polls suggested clear majority of Maori Party voters preferred a Labour-led Government. So subtract a little over two-thirds from Government Bloc = around 48%

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    23 November 2014 at 1:52 am

                    Fisiani, you idiot! The union affiliates did not overrule anything. They were not even to know how the caucus and the members voted, as the voting period was about a month long, and it was confidential voting,. Besides, the affiliates had only 1/5 of vote. the caucus and members had 4/5. And oh, it WAS NOT FFP system. It was PREFERENTIAL electronic vote and all four candidates had to be ranked. It did not matter too much how the preferences fell because all preferences counted in the end, if there was no result in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. A lot different from FFP! Get educated about preferential voting subtleties man, instead of being churlishly childish, idiotically ignorant and vacuously vexatious.

                  • GregJ …
                    23 November 2014 at 3:52 am

                    Care to tell me any PM in NZ history with majority support?

                    You could look it up but quite a few:

                    1890 – Ballance – Liberals (56.2% vote)
                    1893 – Seddon – Liberals (57.8%)
                    1899 – Seddon – Liberals (52.7%)
                    1902 – Seddon – Liberals (51.8%)
                    1905 – Seddon – Liberals (53.1%)
                    1931 – Coates – United Reform Coalition – (55.4%)
                    1938 – Savage – Labour (55.8%)
                    1946 – Fraser – Labour (51.3%)
                    1949 – Holland – National (51.9%)
                    1951 – Holland – National (54.0%)

                    Under MMP – Governments (NB. not Parties) have more often had 50% plus of the vote – it is just a little more complex than FFP was generally. MMP has been better at having Governments that have a majority of the votes as well as the seats – its not perfect but better than what FFP delivered for its last 30 odd years.

                    1999 – Clark – Labour/Alliance Minority Government + Partners = 51.64%
                    (Coalition 46.48% + Greens 5.16 %)

                    2005 – Clark – Labour/Progressive Minority Government + Partners = 55.85% (Coalition 42.26% + NZ First 5.72% + United Future 2.67% + Greens 5.30%)

                    2008 – Key – National Minority Government + Partners = 51.83%
                    (National 44.93% + ACT 3.65% + Maori Party 2.39% + United Future 0.87%)

                    2011 – Key – National Minority Government + Partners = 50.65%
                    (National 47.31% + ACT 1.07% + Maori Party 1.67% + United Future 0.60%)

                    In 2002 you could make the argument that generally the government had a majority of the vote as the Greens usually voted with the Government although they had no Confidence & Supply agreement in that Term:

                    2002 – Clark – Labour/Progressive Minority Government + Partners = 49.65% (Coalition 42.96% + United Future 6.69%) + Greens 7% = 56.65%

                    for the sake of completeness:

                    1996 – Bolger/Shiply – National/New Zealand First Government = 47.22% (National 33.87% + NZ First 13.35%)

                • Jim …
                  22 November 2014 at 5:25 pm

                  Deal with it Labour lost National won. That is just a stupid statement no one came anywhere close in the preferred Prime Minister rankings.

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 November 2014 at 5:38 pm

                    I realise that. But technically the majority of people did not vote for John Key’s party.

                    Deal with it Labour lost National won.

                    Now would you please tell fisiani that ‘Little won Robertson lost’? (Anything more nuanced than this seems lost on the wee dear.)

              • Draco T Bastard …
                22 November 2014 at 4:23 pm

                Care to explain why affiliates can overrule members and caucus?

                They can’t.

                Care to explain what is Dirty Politics about the union oligarchy?

                There is no union oligarchy.

                Is Dirty Politics the new attempt at insult or means of not answering a question?

                Dirty Politics is the right-wing smear machine that spreads lies and disinformation. You’re practicing it now.

                • fisiani …
                  22 November 2014 at 4:33 pm

                  You obviously struggle with English

                  oligarchy
                  Subject: Classical studies
                  Any form of government in which there is ‘rule by a few’; for example, by members of a self-regulating elite having domination over a larger society.

                  6 powerful unions wielding the power to decide who could rule the country is truly an oligarchy.

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 November 2014 at 4:55 pm

                    6 powerful unions wielding the power to decide who could rule the country is truly an oligarchy.

                    Silly boy – how do you think John Key got to be made leader of the National Party?

                    • Manuka AOR …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:35 pm

                      “Silly boy – how do you think John Key got to be made leader of the National Party?”

                      RL, please can you clarify? (How was he selected?)

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 5:39 pm

                      I dunno – Key is fisi’s hero. Maybe he can tell us.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    22 November 2014 at 6:02 pm

                    You obviously struggle with English

                    No, that would be you. either that or you’re trying to twist the language to fit your own delusions.

                    I know what an oligarchy is. It’s what we have in the Western world as the rich rule us through their ownership of our elected officials.

                    6 powerful unions wielding the power to decide who could rule the country is truly an oligarchy.

                    But they don’t. They haven’t got a chance of doing so either as the fact that John Key is PM proves. They didn’t even select the Labour leader as that was done through democratic vote.

                    • fisiani …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:35 pm

                      Key is the cream that rose to the top. That’s the National way. Talent.
                      Little has gone by virtue of the blessing of the unions from being last on the list and only eligible after the specials to being first on the list for next time. Or so he thinks.
                      If he fails to deliver his promises to the unions he is toast.
                      How dare the unions dictate policy.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      22 November 2014 at 11:41 pm

                      That has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and everything to do with your sycophancy of Key, who, from what I can make out, has no talent at all except that of brown-nosing rich people.

                      BTW, Little would have risen to the top of the unions on talent and the unions aren’t dictating anything.

                  • Tracey …
                    22 November 2014 at 6:38 pm

                    Can you post the results of the voting of brash and then key as leader of the national party and the rules for selection. Thanks in advance

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:08 am

                      Looks like caucus pick the National leader and it has to be endorsed by the Board.

                      Leader
                      82. (a) The Parliamentary Section shall appoint its Leader as soon as practicable after each General Election.

                      (b) If at any time the leadership of the Parliamentary Section falls vacant, the Parliamentary Section shall appoint a Leader to fill such vacancy. Notwithstanding Rule 82 (a), the Parliamentary Section may at any time between General Elections confirm or change its Leader.

                      (c) The Leader of the Parliamentary Section shall, upon receiving the approval of the Board, become the Leader of the Party. The Board shall consider such approval as soon as practicable after the appointment by the Parliamentary Section of its Leader.
                      Responsibilities

                      https://www.mynational.org.nz/Folder?Action=View%20File&Folder_id=118&File=Rule_Book.pdf

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:13 am

                      I believe that Key was picked by Michelle Boag.

              • Tracey …
                22 November 2014 at 5:45 pm

                Care to explain how they over ruled anyone by casting their votes? They could only be deemed to have over ruled caucus and members if they had the final say on selection, they didnt. Wo and kb are working almost as hard as you

        • Tracey 15.4.2.2
          22 November 2014 at 6:31 pm

          Funny that it could be argued that voters either wanted robertson as first choice or last choice. Applying fizzys fuzzy logic, that means robertson was the most polarising candidate.

          Watching Nats throw stones at the election process is funny given the shadowy methods by which they elect theirs. These protectors of transparency and integrity in democracy.

          Fizzi is prostituting for faceless pimps who installed brash and then key. He does it for free though.

    • Tracey 15.5
      22 November 2014 at 6:17 pm

      It cant be true. Slyland constantly says the nats and key have no right wingness about them at all.

      • srylands 15.5.1
        22 November 2014 at 6:20 pm

        Who is “slyland” ? Stop being so rude.

        This is not contentious. If you think John Key runs a right wing Government, you should go for counselling.

        • McFlock 15.5.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 6:30 pm

          If it’s not contentious then there would be no disagreement. Many commenters here obviously disagree, so obviously you’re either a liar or an idiot.

        • Tracey 15.5.1.2
          22 November 2014 at 6:42 pm

          Slylands

          Could you show me the link to your post to farrar either correcting his assertion about keys right wingedness or your admission that key has gained the position through deception

  16. Clemgeopin 16
    22 November 2014 at 12:45 pm

    QUIZ: What do you know about Andrew Little? Score out of ten questions. ( I scored 6/10)

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10795892/Quiz-Do-you-know-Labours-new-leader

    P.S:
    The hints are in this article. Good idea to read this article first before doing the quiz.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63427772/Andrew-Little-A-reasonable-man

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 16.1
      22 November 2014 at 7:01 pm

      4/10 for me and I didn’t read the article first.

    • Murray Rawshark 16.2
      22 November 2014 at 9:39 pm

      0/10, but I also don’t care about any of those things. What I care about is whether he will be able to work with Greens and Mana to make our country worth living in again.

  17. weka 17
    22 November 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Nice bit of collective monkeywrenching,

    The picture looks slightly different when viewed by job rather than employer. We have occupational data for 19.5 million of the estimated 20.6 near-minimum workers, and according to our analysis the most common occupations for those workers are cashiers (1.4 million workers), retail salespeople (1.1 million) and cooks (1.05 million). (We do wonder a bit about the 11,000 or so near-minimum workers who gave their occupation as “chief executive.”)

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/17/where-near-minimum-wage-workers-work-and-how-much-they-make/#more-264942

  18. millsy 18
    22 November 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Is it just me, or is being a union member in 2014 New Zealand starting to feel like being a jew in 1934 Germany?

    [lprent: Or a moderator sighing as they reach for the godwin button? ]

    • fisiani 18.1
      22 November 2014 at 2:14 pm

      It’s just you. Godwined!

    • felix 18.2
      22 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

      Starting to feel like being a union member in 1934 Germany.

      The black-shirted fisianis and srylands of the world were as determined to crush the rights of workers then as they are now.

      • fisiani 18.2.1
        22 November 2014 at 10:23 pm

        You cannot find a single quote from me about crushing the rights of workers. You are despicable to link me with Fascists. Stop making shit up. It makes you increasingly pathetic.

        • Clemgeopin 18.2.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 10:33 pm

          What are your views about workers, unions, increased wages, collective bargaining, worker rights?

        • felix 18.2.1.2
          22 November 2014 at 10:42 pm

          Your consistent praise of the law enabling workers to be fired with no reason given whatsoever is on display to anyone who searches for “fisiani 90 day”.

          You align yourself with fascism with no help from me.

          • fisiani 18.2.1.2.1
            22 November 2014 at 11:22 pm

            The 90 day right to prove yourself law is a fantastic success giving employment to over 20,000 people. Case law proves that you cannot fire for no reason. I cannot understand why anyone like you would make it harder to find a job. The 90 day provision increases workers rights.

            • McFlock 18.2.1.2.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 11:35 pm

              Lie with your first sentence.
              Straw man with your second sentence.
              Outright lie as a straw man with your third sentence.
              And your fourth sentence is a lie so obscene that it is the absolute reverse of reality.

              Seriously, doesn’t it make you feel slimy to be such a shameless propagandist?

            • Craig H 18.2.1.2.1.2
              23 November 2014 at 12:56 am

              Case law does no such thing. Case law says employers have to have a legal employment agreement, and the agreement must have the requisite clause, and it has to be the employee’s first employment with that employer, but if all that is met, the employer is absolutely permitted to sack the employee without cause in the first 90 days.

              • Tracey …
                23 November 2014 at 2:36 pm

                Fizzy doesnt respond to facts, hopefully you have ended it.

                The idea that it is to an employees advantage to have to prove themselves with the arbiter of proof being the far from impartial employer suggests to me fizzy still gets his “understanding” of issues like this from that impartial critic of government policy, mr farrar, the governments paid pollster and purveyor of mistruths

            • felix 18.2.1.2.1.3
              23 November 2014 at 9:58 am

              So fisiani, do you think employers should have to give a reason or not? That’s a yes or no question.

              If you answer yes, then please point to the piece of legislation or case law which says employers who fire a worker subject to a 90 day trial period must provide a reason for doing so.

              If you can’t, then you are defending an employment regime that contradicts your own beliefs.

              If you answer no, then you have been defending a law explicitly on the basis that it doesn’t allow something that you think it should anyway.

              Take your time. Yes or no.

              • felix …
                23 November 2014 at 10:18 am

                (p.s. option 3 is you choose not to answer the simple yes/no answer at all, and let readers judge why you didn’t)

                • Tracey …
                  23 November 2014 at 2:38 pm

                  Felix, if you expect fizzi to hang around once the facts have been laid out you are sorely mistaken. He has already moved on from this untruth and is working on spreading the next one

        • Tracey 18.2.1.3
          23 November 2014 at 2:30 pm

          How is it different to you calling people commies or pinkoes or other epithets. Godwins law is flawed because it overlooks the speed with which, in any political discussion a right winger will invoke the devils mantra and hissssss commie or similar

  19. AsleepWhileWalking 19
    22 November 2014 at 2:13 pm

    What we have to look forward to if NZ accepts the TPPA

    Monsanto and Dow are suing Maui b/c they voted to reject further GM crops : (

    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/alert-monsanto-is-trying-to-crush-maui-right-now/

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    22 November 2014 at 2:31 pm

    American journalists not happy about Royal visit dress code

    “Why should the United States’ press corps — who barely bother to brush the muffin crumbs off their polo shirts before lobbing questions at the President of the United States — schlep extra pieces of clothing to work just so they can make small talk with a (perfectly nice-seeming) British air ambulance pilot-in-training and a former chain-store accessories buyer?” asked New York magazine.

    Personally, I’m on the side of the journos. Why should they have to smarten up for a couple of foreign dignitaries when they don’t so for their own?

  21. marty mars 21
    22 November 2014 at 4:01 pm

    I have never found moon’s comments particularly enlightening, whereas Moana Jackson is often insightful, as is the case with this quote

    It actually does get a bit tiresome when so called experts like Paul Moon, seem to believe that the received history, is defined by pakeha, as the only valid way of understanding what has happened in this country. And if he accuses the tribunal of distorting history, then I think, he is equally guilty of not just distorting but also ignoring crucial parts of the Maori evidence which was presented to the tribunal.

    http://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_story_id/ODM3Mw==/Moon-ignoring-Maori-accounts

    moon says, “In particular, the Tribunal alleges that ‘Britain went into the treaty negotiation intending to acquire sovereignty, and therefore the power to make and enforce law over both Maori and Pakeha’. This is simply not true,” says Professor Moon, “and there is an overwhelming body of evidence which proves precisely the opposite.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11358654

    Can someone tell me what ‘precisely the opposite’ ends up like – I don’t get it.

    • RedLogix 21.1
      22 November 2014 at 4:33 pm

      I’d agree however that the last sentence quoted from Moon doesn’t make much grammatical sense in the context. I’d be inclined to put it down to a poorly written or edited article.

      I’d argue however if Moon is being selective its not much better however when the pro-Maori separatists are do the same about which bits of our history they want to talk about marty.

      From a quick read around the bloggers and commentators over the last few days – this most recent document from the Tribunal seems to lay open several options:

      1. The separatists can now claim that sovereignty and mana were never signed away and still rightfully resides with them. And should be effectively made real with the dismantling of a now discredited NZ State and full restoration of iwi mana.

      2. The Pakeha side can claim that this means the Treaty was nothing more than a fatally flawed historical curiosity and that the NZ State is effectively the sovereign de-jure. And then set a timeline to bring the ToW process to a closure.

      3. Or – the position I argue for – is that we stop being selective about our history and figure out how to create a unique and united nation from the pieces we have on the table.

      4. Or face reality and accept our real status as a province of the new Empire of China. /slight sarc.

      • weka 21.1.1
        22 November 2014 at 5:11 pm

        can you please clarify who you mean by separatists?

        some links would be good too.

        • RedLogix 21.1.1.1
          22 November 2014 at 5:41 pm

          Ideally, Māori should have the opportunity to have their sovereignty reinstated in real terms

          http://thestandard.org.nz/johnkeyhistory/#comment-928562

          • weka 21.1.1.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 5:54 pm

            You really think I am a Māori separatist? That’s very weak Red. Put up some links or your argument looks disingenuous. Getting pretty sick of you misusing other people’s arguments tbh.

            • RedLogix 21.1.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 6:01 pm

              Please then explain what you meant in that link. If you’re vague you can hardly get grumpy with me for misunderstanding it.

              • weka …
                22 November 2014 at 6:53 pm

                I don’t think I was vague. It was the middle of the night and I stated my base position which is that Māori should get to have sovereignty in real terms. What that means is up to Māori. I think one of the main differences between your position and mine is that I trust Māori, and I see potential rather than hard and fast lines about what sovereignty means. From what I can tell you believe that sovereignty for Māori would mean x, y, z, and those things to me look very narrow and, to be frank, from a Pākehā world view.

                I once made a disparaging remark to a friend about how the US govt likes to keep its natives on the reservation, and she pointed out to me that the reservation system in the US brings many benefits to Native Americans that Māori are denied. Her comment made me stop and think about this from her perspective and how my own view and politics might not necessarily be meaningful in the context of what her people might need and want.

                For instance, I think you said elsewhere that Māori were never one nation so how could they have the unity needed for sovereignty. My question would be, why is unity needed? Māori had sophisticated iwi-based systems of governance before Europeans arrived that included inter-iwi relationships. Do you think they have lost that capacity?

                • RedLogix …
                  22 November 2014 at 11:54 pm

                  What that means is up to Māori. I think one of the main differences between your position and mine is that I trust Māori, and I see potential rather than hard and fast lines about what sovereignty means.

                  OK that sounds fine. It really does. Let’s go with this trust model. Let’s look at how peacefully things worked before Maori behaviour was constrained by the arrival of Europeans.

                  Or if that seems unfair and out of date – how about we look at how iwi have used the ToW settlement money and resources they have gained in recent decades? How has that worked out for the average Maori so far? Been lifted much out of inequality and injustice? Or has it mainly benefited a small brown elite?

                  Or perhaps I could examine the core value and concept of the Maori world – mana. According to the article I quoted above (and is consistent with what I’ve been told personally) – Therefore to have mana is to have influence and authority, and efficacy—the power to perform in a given situation. This essential quality of mana is not limited to persons—peoples, governments, places and inanimate objects can possess mana. There are two ways to obtain mana: through birth and through warfare.

                  Whakapapa and riri. Does that not raise any questions?

                  Of course I’m being selective; there is way more to maoritanga than this – but neither can these two core elements be expunged. The idea that we can solve all the problems in the Anglo-Western world model – by simply ditching it and replacing it with a traditional Maori one is more than a tad problematic.

                  Or we could be thinking about how we could fuse the best elements of both world-views – creating something respectful of our mutual pasts and yet fresh, new and adapted to a 21st century.

                  • weka …
                    23 November 2014 at 12:02 am

                    “The idea that we can solve all the problems in the Anglo-Western world model – by simply ditching it and replacing it with a traditional Maori one is more than a tad problematic.”

                    Again, you are the one making that suggestion not me. I challenge you to find a single example where I have suggested that we should ditch the Anglo view and replace it with a traditional Māori one.

                    You are listening but still not hearing Red.

                    “Whakapapa and riri. Does that not raise any questions?”

                    Sorry, but I am not taking my queues from wiki.

                    “OK that sounds fine. It really does. Let’s go with this trust model. Let’s look at how peacefully things worked before Maori behaviour was constrained by the arrival of Europeans.”

                    Sure. Want to start with child abuse?

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:24 am

                      Well how about the Maori dictionary then:

                      http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3424

                      I won’t quote it because it’s basically similar to the wikipedia one although it refers obliquely to ‘great deeds and words’ rather than just warfare.

                      Clearly it is a system based on a complex blend of descent (whakapapa) and merit which traditionally meant success in the annual taua (warparty). In recent times the emphasis has shifted onto oratory and leadership.

                      Child abuse was almost non-existent for several reasons; mainly because their highly communal lives meant there was almost no privacy that is the pre-requisite for all abuse. Secondly parenting was a lot more distributed than the European nuclear family model, and thirdly most indigenous societies simply don’t have high rates of any kind of sexual deviancy of any sort. That’s a whole other topic.

                      Oh and if you did get caught – and you almost certainly would be – punishment was swift and direct.

                      Of course this rosy picture is dependent on a lot of pre-conditions and assumptions that simply don’t obtain in the modern world.

                      At your substantive point though – OK I’m happy to accept that at face-value.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:40 am

                      “Clearly it is a system based on a complex blend of descent (whakapapa) and merit which traditionally meant success in the annual taua (warparty).”

                      Er, no. That’s not what the link says, and obviously mana is a complex concept across time and place so why are you trying to make it into this simplistic thing?

                      “OK that sounds fine. It really does. Let’s go with this trust model. Let’s look at how peacefully things worked before Maori behaviour was constrained by the arrival of Europeans.”

                      I took that to mean you didn’t trust Māori because they were violent until Europeans arrived and made them change. Is that what you intended to communicate?

                      For every story you tell about the violent savages, I’ll tell you one about generosity and social intelligence. See how we get on, eh?

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:44 am

                      I deliberately used the phrase ‘complex blend’ and you somehow read it as’simplistic’. But if you are absolutely determined to read an exact opposite into everything I say – knock yourself out. I’m not stopping you.

                      I took that to mean you didn’t trust Māori because they were violent until Europeans arrived and made them change. Is that what you intended to communicate?

                      It does demonstrate they were not some kind of noble savage living is some kind of peaceful nirvana. They would get a good laugh if you suggested that.

                      For every story you tell about the violent savages, I’ll tell you one about generosity and social intelligence.

                      Exactly. But you have to tell both stories. You don’t get to be selective.

                      And for every story you tell about the greedy, land-grabbing violent colonials, I’ll tell you one about generosity, understanding and social intelligence.

                      Do that and we’ll get on fine.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:40 pm

                      “But you have to tell both stories. You don’t get to be selective.”

                      Red, I’m not the one telling selective stories about Māori in this conversation. YOU are, and they have pretty much all been ones about how violent Māori are, and how colonisation was peaceful. Those things feed into exactly the racist narrative of the violent savages, and that’s why people have been calling you out on it.

                      I haven’t actually gotten to the point of telling stories about Māori history, other than to express an opinion that (a) colonisation of NZ was violent and (b) the colonised get to define what violence is, not the colonisers. Nothing about whether Māori were x, y, z, or a, b, c.

                      No-one here is making out that Māori were noble savages. YOU are the one buying into that meme and reacting against it, but it’s all in your own head.

                      When I say I trust Māori, it’s not because I think they’re perfect or because I think they’re better than Pākehā. It’s because that relationship of trust has been built up over time. On the other hand, you seem to not trust Māori, because of your perceptions of them as violent in the past. YOU are the one indulging in applied, one sided stereotypes.

                      Own your noble/violent savage ideas and stop projecting them onto other people.

                      (and if you don’t believe my analysis of this is right, go and find a single instance where I have said that Māori were peace and love and shit, or whatever equivalent you have for the noble savage meme).

      • marty mars 21.1.2
        22 November 2014 at 5:18 pm

        What is a “pro-Maori separatist”?

        We can make a nation but it cannot be built upon lies, distortions and inequality. It is time for this nation to grow up and own up/confront/reconcile the truth of our past and I see the Tribunal contributing to that by putting the positions it takes, out for public discourse. It is difficult to have any decent debate or movement forward when those with the power continue to pretend they got it with daisy chains and sweet whispers.

        • RedLogix 21.1.2.1
          22 November 2014 at 5:42 pm

          Agree completely.

        • weka 21.1.2.2
          22 November 2014 at 5:57 pm

          Oh I get it now, pro-Māori separatists refers to Pākehā like me who believe that Māori should get to decide what sovereignty means to them in the 21C 🙄

          • RedLogix 21.1.2.2.1
            22 November 2014 at 6:03 pm

            Fair enough – but then you can hardly deny non-Maori to decide what sovereignty means to them either.

            And if these things to turn out to be different?

            • weka 21.1.2.2.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 6:15 pm

              Then Māori and the Crown (who still represent non-Māori) have a conversation. It’s actually not that difficult.

              Might make tau iwi wake up and think about what sovereignty means too, before we lose it (myself I’m not sure if it will be the Chinese or the USians).

              • RedLogix …
                22 November 2014 at 6:30 pm

                Exactly. Or – the position I argue for – is that we stop being selective about our history and figure out how to create a unique and united nation from the pieces we have on the table.

                That would require that both sides approach such a conversation in good faith. Yet here we are – even when you and I are almost on exactly the same page – struggling to establish good faith.

                One of the reasons I’d suggest is that both sides keep on being selective about which part of our very interesting history we want to talk about. That both Maori and Pakeha have a narrative to tell – and that the colonisation of New Zealand was just part of a much bigger story taking place in that century.

                Once people start getting a sense that they are being heard – they tend to stop being quite so positional.

                • weka …
                  22 November 2014 at 7:00 pm

                  Pākehā have yet to allow Māori to tell their story. That needs to happen (and Pākehā need to hear not just listen) before there can be dialogue.

                  As far as I can tell most Pākehā still don’t understand that Māori have radically different world views, and that in order to understand them Pākehā need to enter into Māori space openly and being willing to learn. I think there is fear that in doing that one has to give up one’s own personal sovereignty. That’s the issue for Pākehā to work through.

                  I don’t think you and I are nearly on the same page. I believe that colonisation of NZ was very violent and that the narrative of the last week that it wasn’t is just another version of Pākehā asserting their world view as the most valid one (not least in how violence gets defined).

                  • Tracey …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:12 pm

                    The Acts that I posted are also mechanisms for violence against maori in the past and more recently. Those laws made possible by the existence of the treaty, and relied upon as such. Until it is inconvenient law. Like contra proferentum. Inconvenient because it doesnt favour the established pakeha view of the treaty and the now imposed middle ground proposed by red which is not as middle, imo, as he supposes.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:16 pm

                      Yep, legislation was one of the things I was thinking of as violent.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 9:33 pm

                      Yep, legislation was one of the things I was thinking of as violent.

                      That’s the problem with stretching the definition of the word violence to mean ‘almost anything I don’t like’.

                      We laugh when some RWNJ defines anyone to the left of Genghis Khan as a ‘communist’ because it erases a wide and rich range of ideas and experiences into one cartoonish caricature.

                      Legislation is not violent. It can be wrong-headed, unjust and infamous – but it is still always preferable to and distinct from sending in the troops to slaughter the resistance.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:22 am

                      “That’s the problem with stretching the definition of the word violence to mean ‘almost anything I don’t like’.”

                      This isn’t about my personal preferences (or yours I might add, seeing as how you are littering this conversation with how you prefer to be abused rather than murdered). It’s about how Māori experienced colonisation.

                      “Legislation is not violent. It can be wrong-headed, unjust and infamous – but it is still always preferable to and distinct from sending in the troops to slaughter the resistance.”

                      In the UK at the turn of the 19thC the law allowed that a boy caught poaching deer could be hanged. Please make the argument for how that’s not violent.

                      At the same time in the US, the law allowed that people of African descent could be enslaved. How is that not violent?

                      In NZ there was successive legislation designed to force Māori into cultural submission or oblivion (I gather Tracey posted a list yesterday*). These are violences. They were intentional mechanisms that used force against a class of people to make sure that they were in situations that damaged them individually and collectively.

                      Colonisation, by its very nature, is violence. The guns are just one tool of many to ensure the same end.

                      * http://thestandard.org.nz/johnkeyhistory/#comment-928372

                      You are running some pretty despicible lines Red. That Māori were cannibals and therefore better off after the British arrived. That they were so terribly violent that the arrival of the Brits provided some kind of containment of their violence and thus colonisation was an improvement. That a cultural trait is backstabbing. I think we are building a pretty good picture here of where you stand in regards to the indigenous people in NZ.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:45 am

                      That Māori were cannibals and therefore better off after the British arrived. That they were so terribly violent that the arrival of the Brits provided some kind of containment of their violence and thus colonisation was an improvement.

                      Open your eyes and actually read some of the accounts of say the exploits of Te Wherewhero.

                      http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/te-wherowhero-potatau-or-potatau-i

                      It is a fact that Maori were cannibals. It is a fact that the slaughter of the early 1800’s was so extreme that by 1840 surviving Rangatira were extremely keen to find some way to end it.

                      Let me put it this way:

                      1800 -1840: Aproximately 40,000 deaths and massive displacement and hardship. Cannibalism and mass war rape a commonplace.

                      but according to you this is nothing compared to:

                      1845-1870: 2100 deaths (along with hardship and displacement) But not much eating of prisoners and slaves. Nor much more raping of women in wartime.

                      Of course from our modern perspective both are deplorable periods in our history. But you want to pretend one of them never happened. You think I’m being despicable even mentioning it.

                      In the UK at the turn of the 19thC the law allowed that a boy caught poaching deer could be hanged.

                      In our eyes we see it as a deplorable law. But not by the lights of the 19thC. They saw it as justice.

                      Same as Maori in 1800 believed that cannibalism was a fine thing- eating your enemy defeated in battle meant that you literally absorbed his mana.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:01 am

                      Ok, this is getting stupid.

                      I know enough about Māori history. Go back and find a single instance where I have said there was no cannabilism, or denied its existence.

                      “but according to you this is nothing compared to:”

                      I haven’t said anything of the sort and frankly if keep making shit up about me things are going to get nasty. I’ve asked you to stop a number of times now, take this as a last warning.

                      “You think I’m being despicable even mentioning it.”

                      No, I think it’s fucked up that you are using it to run the John Key line that colonisation was peaceful. I think it’s fucked up that you think that x thousand deaths means that other kinds of violence are minimal or not important. And I think it’s esp fucked up that you run those lines as a presumably Pākehā man in a conversation about colonisation of Māori while refusing to consider that Māori might see it differently and might be entitled to have their view respected.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:18 am

                      That Māori were cannibals and therefore better off after the British arrived.

                      In modern terms yes. I would argue that the ending of cannibalism after the British arrived was a good thing. I know most Maori would think so too. Do you know any who miss it?

                      That they were so terribly violent that the arrival of the Brits provided some kind of containment of their violence and thus colonisation was an improvement.

                      By 1840 the Rangatira themselves understood this – they were desperate for some kind of circuit-breaker to end the very real violence of the last 40 years.

                      That a cultural trait is backstabbing.

                      Fuck off.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:31 am

                      What was the point of the backstabbing anecdote?

                      “That Māori were cannibals and therefore better off after the British arrived.”

                      “In modern terms yes. I would argue that the ending of cannibalism after the British arrived was a good thing. I know most Maori would think so too. Do you know any who miss it?”

                      Shifting the goal posts. We’re talking about the time the treaty was signed and the overall context of colonisation at that time. You’ve repeatedly used examples of Māori violence as part of your argument that colonisation by Europeans was peaceful.

                      It was pointed out to you early in the conversation that the time of the musket wars was part of the colonisation process. No doubt you will deny this, but this just keeps us in the territory where you think your analysis trumps Māori experience.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:17 am

                      It was pointed out to you early in the conversation that the time of the musket wars was part of the colonisation process.

                      It started well before any actual colonials arrived. While it can be argued that the availability of muskets from Australia enabled the slaughter – no-one forced Hongi Hika to buy 300 muskets in 1821:

                      These wars have been described as a prime example of fatal impact theory in practice. In the wake of contact with Europeans, Māori are said to have grabbed as many guns as they could and killed as many of each other as they could. The assumption was that the introduction of European technology alone was responsible for these wars.

                      In her book Taua, Angela Ballara questions the validity of the term ‘musket wars’. The musket could be seen as having contributed to Māori history rather than determining it. These wars were about tikanga (custom) and often involved the settling of old scores. Ballara argues that they would have occurred regardless – the musket was merely a new tool. The new technology made conflict more destructive but did not cause it.

                      Ballara and fellow historian James Belich point out that muskets contributed less to the bloodbaths of the early 19th century than the ‘humble spud, which created the food surpluses war parties (taua) needed to supplement captured supplies and human bodies.’ As Gavin McLean points out, neither ‘Potato Wars’ nor ‘Taua’ stuck, so Musket Wars they became.

                      Māori had always fought rival kin groups. Historian Gavin McLean observes that men fought for ‘land, for resources, for women and for the sheer hell of it.’ Warfare was both ‘an integral part of the Maori political system’ and a ‘legitimate cultural response to offences or crimes of any kind’.

                      Conflict increased as the population grew. Resources were depleted and insults demanding a response multiplied. Wars were fought in autumn – after food for winter had been stored – using hand-to-hand weapons such as mere and patu. They were often ritualised affairs that caused relatively few deaths. The victors gained land and booty and increased their mana (status).

                      The losers sometimes had to migrate to a less desirable, unpopulated area.

                      http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/musket-wars/overview

                      In other words all the slaughter was entirely of Maori agency. The simple brutal and inevitable fact of history is that whenever an isolated people are first exposed to a larger expanding population there are bad consequences. This is not colonisation – it’s just a fact of life. Even if the British (and everyone else) had never ventured past Australia and somehow had decided to leave the Maori to themselves – it could be argued they may well have fought themselves to virtual extinction.

                      What was the point of the backstabbing anecdote?

                      A small joke with marty.

                  • marty mars …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:16 pm

                    A lot of Pākehā want Māori to trust them but they cannot trust Māori for some reason.

                    • Tracey …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:44 pm

                      I am Pakeha. My ancestral roots are scottish. I am sixth generation NZer.

                      I dont know why Maori would trust Pakeha to do what is best for Maori. And not a Government which bears a striking resemblance to the ideology of the New Zealand Company and certain ministers of the early govt.

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:21 pm

                    I believe that colonisation of NZ was very violent

                    Yet as I pointed out the other night a total of 2100 Maori and 800 Pakeha died over a period of about 35 years – a rate of 85 per year.

                    That can be compared with say the Great Famine of 1876-78 in India where some 5.5 million people died in large part due to the policies of the British Raj.

                    Or the Musket Wars just a few decades prior. Estimates vary but the accepted toll is in the order of 40,000 , some 40% of the population.

                    There are many, many other examples.

                    Yes you are free to make a value judgement that the colonisation of NZ was very violent. But equally I’m entitled to point to the context of the era and suggest that while NZ colonisation certainly was not peaceful, and certainly had a detrimental impact on Maori – there other things going on the world at that time which were indeed very, very violent. And against that yardstick – the NZ Wars were fairly small beer.

                    Otherwise is it fair to say that you want Pakeha to assimilate the Maori world-view and all will be well?

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:28 pm

                      No it’s not fair to say that at all, that’s just another example of you projecting.

                      Plus, you are still defining violence in conventional Western terms. I’m not, but I suspect you don’t realise what I even mean when I say that the colonisation process here was very violent. Even to make the comparison of x deaths here compared to y deaths there, is coming from a very specific world view. I’m pointing out that it’s not the only valid way to look at this.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:57 pm

                      No I do get it. I do realise that that the Maori and European world-views were very different.

                      But not so mutually different that Maori in were extremely quick and competent at getting to grips with their new visitors – and very rapidly engaging with trade, industry and commerce at a remarkable level.

                      The big tragedy of the NZ Wars was not so much the military violence – but the cutting short of the economic promise of the initial contact period in the 1830-40’s.

                      Equally it’s true that many – but by no means all – Pakeha remained pretty isolated from much direct understanding of the Maori world view. Yet the two cultures have influenced each other much. As a pakeha I only have to travel to England to realise that I’m not English anymore. We’ve not only intermarried more than almost any two other races – but we’ve collectively exchanged a lot culture as well – a process that is still happening.

                      Many, many younger kiwis of all backgrounds are far more open to learning more about the Maori world view. I’ve no problem at all with non-Maori understanding much more about the Maori world.

                      But that does not necessarily resolve the fundamentally political issue we are discussing. It may well better prepare us to have the conversation though.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      22 November 2014 at 9:55 pm

                      Violence is not measured in terms of deaths. Using your logic, David Tua could whack you upside the head for an hour or two and, as long as you survived, dribbling and brain damaged, nothing violent happened.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 11:34 pm

                      Murray

                      Yes there were the injured, displaced and dispossessed as well.

                      But casualties is a reasonable first aproximation proxy for the total of these things.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

                      I have come to the conclusion that your part in this discussion is disingenuos. You have answered assertions you say others made, which they patently did not. Once to me and at least twice to weka.

                      Anyone who challenges your view on this is belittled. And you wonder there is no way forward. Anything which challenges your view that is not within the confines of your current knowledge, you brush off or ignore.

                • Tracey …
                  22 November 2014 at 7:09 pm

                  And that some, including you, are being selective in their application of westminster law. The english legal system foresaw thevery problems a dual language agreement could bring, and set a legal principle.

                  That law is clear, where there is confusion, the maori interpretation is preferred at law.

                  That means many of your statements including pakeha get to determine what they think sovereignty is, is flawed. At law. The english law that governs this land.

                  How many peolle know of this very well known principle at law? And why do you think they dont know? Cui bono.

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:27 pm

                    That means many of your statements including pakeha get to determine what they think sovereignty is, is flawed. At law. The english law that governs this land.

                    I think you are wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

                    You cannot argue that the Maori retained sovereignty – and that therefore English legal framework has no force in this land – and then insist on applying legal principle from it.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:30 pm

                      “and that therefore English legal framework has no force in this land”

                      I think you are the person arguing that line, because you can’t conceive of the treaty being honoured and British law co-existing.

                    • Tracey …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:37 pm

                      What???

                      I think you lack some understanding.

                      The treaty made some assertions, in english and maori. The british version suggested sovereignty was passed over to queen vic by maori. Maori interpretation strongly suggests governance not sovereignty passed over.

                      Contra proferentum, the law that governs the treaty says on that issue the maori version is preferred. Ergo governance given, not sovereignty.

                      Discussion of sovereignty by pakeha is therefore moot or irrelevant.

                      That is my arguement, what you just stated is my argument is not and never has been in these past few days.

                      Now back to YOUR statement that both maori and pakeha get to have a go at defining sovereignty. You are simply legally wrong.

                      The maori interpretation is legally preferred.

                      Now what to do about it, is a different issue BUT you cannot move to that issue upon a flawed foundation.

                      So, what is the difference between governance and sovereignty?

                      Maori have sovereignty = what?
                      Crown has goverance = what?

                      But stop discussing whether sovereignty given or not and depends on perspective.

                    • Tracey …
                      22 November 2014 at 7:39 pm

                      Weka @ 730pm

                      I agree with your interpretation there

                • Manuka AOR …
                  22 November 2014 at 7:17 pm

                  Reply to Red: “Or – the position I argue for – is that we stop being selective about our history and figure out how to create a unique and united nation from the pieces we have on the table.” (my emph)

                  Desperately needed, if Aotearoa is to have any kind of sovereign or independent self-determining future. However the danger here is that foreign-origin others with their own financial, military or other expansive agendas will co-opt the process and steer the dialogue away from our own self-determination as a nation.

                  And as Weka wrote in the earlier/ linked comment, ” In reality the approaching crises of PO/AGW/GFC mean that we have little political leeway and less time.” (my emph)

                  Do we still have time, or have we, NZ/ Aotearoa, already been sold out, sold off and signed away?

                  • weka …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:25 pm

                    I’m not a great fan of unity, because it seems often to be used to try and shut people up, esp those at the margins. Dissent is highly valuable and NZ is not that great at being able to work together and value dissent at the same time (hence the shambles of this year’s election). Māori I suspect are better at this.

                    Re PO/AGW/GFC, I think we still have time politically, but not an idea amount of time. The time that’s really running out is GHG limitation and mitigating AGW. In the face of that issues of sovereignty are kind of redundant. But I will guess that the two will converge the close we get to the crisis point. Best we are prepared, and I don’t see us doing very well at that. We have the freedom to hold our own individual positions because for many people it’s academic rather than literal.

            • Tracey 21.1.2.2.1.2
              22 November 2014 at 7:04 pm

              Um, are you still ignoring the english legal principle of contra proferentum.

          • marty mars 21.1.2.2.2
            22 November 2014 at 6:12 pm

            Not really sure if your comment was to me or red.

            Personally I find anyone like red using the ‘separatist’ line gives their game away, and I suspect it is a secret code-carrion call for like-minded people.

            • RedLogix 21.1.2.2.2.1
              22 November 2014 at 6:22 pm

              Personally I find anyone who is deliberately vague and fails to give details about what they mean by “Māori should have the opportunity to have their sovereignty reinstated in real terms” – is also giving their game away.

              Now the Tribunal – and you – have come out and said quite plainly that the Rangitira never signed away their mana. Therefore they still have it but merely lack the practical means to exercise – but they want it back.

              While the Crown via the PM has simply said that it still runs the country.

              These are two separate positions. Which one do you support?

              • marty mars …
                22 November 2014 at 6:50 pm

                Yes Rangatira never signed away their mana. But much was lost – that is why there has been grievance from the early days.

                Mana is not an easy concept to understand certainly not with the english translations imo it means a whole lot more than most realise.

              • weka …
                22 November 2014 at 7:07 pm

                “These are two separate positions. Which one do you support?”

                And there’s the nub of it. In te ao Pākehā, that is an inherently contradictory situation with no resolution that doesn’t involve one side losing. Worse, you present it as an either/or, a situation where one has to support one ‘side’ at the expense of the other.

                In other world views, such paradoxes aren’t necessarily blocks to solutions and are much more easily held without needing to be resolved into a neat linear, reductionist, final result.

                • RedLogix …
                  22 November 2014 at 7:36 pm

                  Yes – fair enough. But in the concrete pragmatic terms needed to run a nation, how do you see that working? Who runs the country?

                  Two different sets of traffic laws for Maori and Pakeha?

                  Different taxes according to each iwi’s local policies?

                  Silly examples – but these are the plain ordinary things that it takes to run a country. Boring practical details that are hard enough to work through in our current system.

                  If you want to propose mulitple, nonlinear, non-reductionist, overlapping sources of authority – that’s fine. But most people are going to want more detail before they buy it.

                  • marty mars …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:42 pm

                    concrete and pragmatic – you often come back to this which is deep-rooted in your way of seeing the world – have you read the latest JMG – you should, it covers this malaise.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:03 pm

                      Yes I did read it marty – but we don’t need to invoke magic to determine which side of the road to drive on.

                      I’ve asked numerous times for some thoughts about how you, or anyone else, think multiple sovereignties (or whatever) might work in practise. It’s a fair question and so far no good answers.

                    • Tracey …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:10 pm

                      Maybe cos you keep asking the wrong freaking question, steming from an apparent misunderstanding of law and the treaty itself.

                      Also IF that was all you wanted to know, the whole musket wars etc was irrelevant to that but you went down that road and now seem exasperated that others went down the path to

                    • marty mars …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:15 pm

                      maybe there isn’t any clear answer yet – for me I’m not going to put much energy into the nuts and bolts until I see actual movement towards equality – I think that we would pleasantly surprise ourselves with solutions once we have really understood the problem and issues we are seeking solutions for.

                  • Tracey …
                    22 November 2014 at 7:57 pm

                    Can you give your definitions of

                    Sovereignty

                    Governance

                    • marty mars …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:28 pm

                      I think that question was to me.

                      Sovereignty imo relates to mana and ability to effect self realisation and self determination where self obviously relates to the group. The word is problematic because it relates to topmost. I prefer to think of overlapping and interconnected layers of responsibility depending upon the circumstances but I’m not sure if I can think of an english word that really covers it.

                      Governance is a subset or a lower hierarchy of Sovereignty imo.

                    • Tracey …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:33 pm

                      Thanks marty. It was for red, but everyones definitions are welcome.

                      Have you ever looked at condominion sovereignty?

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 8:41 pm

                      You’ve asked this several times – I’ll reply here.

                      Sovereignty is the larger abstract concept. In political terms its’ encompassed by the idea of the the “power, authority and prestige” to direct the self-determination and agency of the nation state. In practical terms – a supreme authority over which no outside body can have influence.

                      Governance is a process by which sovereignty is expressed in real concrete terms. It is the making of laws, regulations and policies that give effect to sovereign will.

                      In this view governance necessarily flows from sovereignty and cannot be separated from it. In particular it is not possible to a single governing body to answer to multiple sovereigns because there is no way to deliver consistent laws, policies and regulations in response to the conflicting agendas that would arise.

                      Nor is it simple to see how multiple sovereign bodies could exist if their authority is forever constrained by peer bodies that they must consult and coordinate with.

                      Because while there is no objection to having for example separate Maori and Pakeha Parliaments – at some point they would both need to surrender part of their sovereignty to a higher authority in order to resolve the inevitable political conflicts.

                      The traditional alternative is to arm to the teeth and take one party out of play.

                      Although a condominium has always been recognized as a theoretical possibility, condominia have been rare in practice. A major problem, and the reason why so few have existed, is the difficulty of ensuring co-operation between the sovereign powers; once the understanding fails, the status is likely to become untenable.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium_(international_law)

                      (Sorry to be cribbing from wiki all the time – its a shortcut that saves a lot of typing time and keeps the conversation flowing.)

                  • weka …
                    22 November 2014 at 10:53 pm

                    “Silly examples – but these are the plain ordinary things that it takes to run a country.”

                    You think this is where the conversation starts. Others see it differently. Until you are willing to follow other people’s line of conversation, this will never go anywhere because most of the people you are talking to simply don’t think about it in those terms. You insisting that this is what should be discussed won’t change that.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:20 pm

                      I had been wondering about a way to acknowledge the sovereignty and governance thing…

                      Become a republic with an elected president as figurehead, similar to the governor general but not called that. Everyone can vote BUT candidates must be Maori. Just as not anyone can become queen or king of england.

                      New Zealand in acknowledgement of its founding document and indigenous people always has a Maori President.

                      No governor general.

                      PMs meet with president as PMs meet with a monarch. The President opens parliament and so on.

                      To my mind it is a simple way to acknowledge and restore a national notion of mana.

                      I am not able to discuss this further with Red. He doesnt want to discuss anything outside his established framework. Despite my best efforts to get his mind engaged around contra proferentum, he wont, presumable cos it upsets his applecart.

              • Murray Rawshark …
                22 November 2014 at 10:04 pm

                The Tribunal found that sovereignty was not signed away in the BOI and the Hokianga in 1840. They made no finding about anything that happened after that. I hope they do in the future. Please stop misrepresenting the Tribunal’s finding.

                • RedLogix …
                  22 November 2014 at 10:19 pm

                  A quick read suggests I’m not the only one taking this line.

                  If I am misrepresenting what the Tribunal said and it actually changes nothing – then why all the cheers and whooping from the crowd when it was announced?

                  And while they may not have said anything about what happened after 1840 yet – what do you think are the logically consistent things that they could say – and you are hoping for?

                  • Murray Rawshark …
                    22 November 2014 at 10:35 pm

                    What I think happened is that sovereignty was taken illegitimately, by force. I never try to predict what lawyers will say though, because understanding what they have said is hard enough.

                    What I am hoping for is a process where Maori work out how to recoup their sovereignty. I have little idea how that could happen, but am keen to see the process begin.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 10:47 pm

                      Fair enough – I’m not here to disrespect an honest viewpoint.

                      I agree it’s hard to see how it might come about – but surely you have some vision of what the result would look like?

                    • McFlock …
                      22 November 2014 at 10:58 pm

                      I’m not sure anyone has any idea what the result will look like.

                      Maybe something similar to Canadian First Nations /Quebecois recognition, but I’m not sure that there’s any real precedent to follow. And we can be sure that there are fervent supporters of a thousand different alternatives to the status quo.

                      lol
                      just like nobody really knows what the outcome of the flag debate will be. But this debate is a bit more important for the longer term.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 November 2014 at 11:11 pm

                      Let me rephrase that.

                      Let’s re-imagine NZ society based on the traditional Maori world-view and values?

                      What would you hope it would look like?

                    • McFlock …
                      22 November 2014 at 11:28 pm

                      Personally I’d just be happy if damned near every single negative indicater didn’t have Maori/Polynesian with the highest rates and European/Pakeha with the lowest rates, and vice versa for the positive indicators.

                      But maybe others want separate political structures, or even geographic borders. Or maybe just different approaches within existing political structures.Or maybe no change, but an apology and a pm who wasn’t a fucking imbecile when it comes to NZ history.

                      There is really no horizon to the possibilities. But we have to do better than we are now, and acknowledge what wrongs have been done.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:06 am

                      The Maori project manager who took me on my first underground here in NSW a few months back probably wouldn’t count himself a ‘negative indicator’.

                      Nor the loco engineer mate who’se pulling down $185k in the Pilbara at the moment.

                      The majority of Maori who move to Australia actually do very well. It was a very well known Kaumatua who told me why – they get out from under the burden of low expectations here at home. Not just Pakeha expectations – the expectations of their own people.

                      If you think this will be fixed by demolishing the NZ State and establishing 15 or 20 iwi bantustans in their place – good luck convincing me or most other people.

                      If you think multiple sources of sovereignty will fix this – then I’m all ears and keen to seem some prior examples that might indicate how well it will work.

                      But yes – a PM who isn’t a complete rasu tabula about our history would be a good start.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:26 am

                      Are you serious?

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:46 am

                      I think we’ve now moved into cringe territory.

                      All Māori obviously have the same problems and the same solutions. They’re backstabbers, and they hold their own people back by low expectations. This means that they’re better off outside of their own culture. Hence the argument that colonisation wasn’t so bad after all. See, the Europeans saved Māori from themselves and they didn’t shoot too many of them, so all good.

                      Red, I have no idea if you actually mean those things, can’t quite bring myself to believe that you do, but that is certainly how you are coming across.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 12:51 am

                      @ Murray

                      Well your non-answer above was an invitation to speculate.

                      We are well past the point of acknowledging the wrongs of the past. A hell of a lot has been done to arrive at an acceptable remedy where possible.

                      We all understand we could have, should have done better. Seeing as how you are the serious expert here – you tell us.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:03 am

                      who are you talking to?

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:03 am

                      @weka

                      Well the person who told me these things was Maanu Paul. The bantustan vision was his too, although he may have pulling my tit:-) The Maori world is way more complex than anyone here is portraying.

                      Nor was his the only voice I heard saying things in a similar tone.

                      Of course nothing I’ve said takes away from all the fundamental injuries that colonisation inflicted on Maori. I keep saying that but no-one hears. It’s just a buzzing sound in your head you ignore until you get to the next little snippet you can bitch about.

                      I didn’t make this shit up – I was on plenty of marae in the 80’s (and a few since) and the one crucial lesson I learnt the hard way was this. I was a Pakeha. I did not have to pretend to be a Maori. I did not have to carry their burden for them, I did not have to pretend that Maori were some kind of brown noble savages wholly corrupted by the white people. They were perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. This they told me themselves.

                      All they wanted was for me to be respectful, to listen to their whole story and under no circumstances reduce it to a narrow cartoon of victimhood.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:34 am

                      RL,

                      When you responded to my comment about Maori being over-represented in negative social indicators in New Zealand by arguing that two individuals with whom you were/are acquainted wouldn’t count themselves as negative indicators suggests to me that you’re not very good at listening to a whole sentence, let alone a story.

                      And then you pulled a massive assumption out of your arse.
                      Māori emigrants to Aus might do relatively well compared with Māori who stay in NZ, but:

                      Nearly four out of every 10 employed Māori migrants in Australia worked as a labourer, machinery operator or driver. This proportion far exceeded the share for non-Māori New Zealanders (19per cent), or Australian-born Māori (22 per cent)”

                      and

                      The median income for NZ-born Māori men of $54,964 was only slightly lower than for the total Australia male population ($57,301) but significantly below the median income for NZ-born non-Māori ($63,148). The difference is likely to a number of factors including differences in qualification and skills level and occupational structure. For Māori women, income differences were much smaller compared to the comparator groups.

                      In three of the top five Māori occupations, Māori migrants earned higher incomes than the average Australian worker and similar incomes to NZ-born non-Māori. However, in the higher-skilled jobs that dominate Australia’s occupational structure, Māori (both migrants and Australian-born) earned less than the average Australian worker and New Zealand-born non-Māori

                      read more here

                      “The majority of Maori who move to Australia actually do very well” seems to be a bit of an idylic oversimplication.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:37 am

                      @ illogical
                      I never claimed serious expertise in this area. I have also never spoken to the guy who took it upon himself to speak for the Maori Council.

                      You can speculate as much as you like. I’d rather help with the process as it happens. What I do know is that it’s unlikely to happen because of the actions of the super conservative Maori Council.

                      One thing that I have noticed is that Australians, who must have used up all their racism on their own indigenous people, do not share the pakeha prejudices about Maori. But more than a few Ngati Skippy come to share the Australian prejudices about aboriginals.

                      Basically what you’re saying is that Maori should forget what happened to them and get on in your world. After all, there have been heaps of treaty settlements. Yeah sure, about 2% has been compensated.

                      People have given you heaps of answers about what they think could happen. You want a five year plan? Too bad, there isn’t one.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:51 am

                      “The Maori world is way more complex than anyone here is portraying.”

                      Well I’ve been trying to have a conversation with you for 2 days about the complexities of different world views and you still appear to have no idea what I am talking about.

                      The rest of your comment about the noble savage meme is completely from your own head. You are the one struggling with the violent/noble savage bit, and portraying Māori in those terms. I’m not in that place and don’t think of people in that way. I’ve been in lots of these discussions and invariably people still caught in the duality can’t understand that the difference between the noble savage idealisation and the position of basic respect for the gulf between the Pākehā and Māori world views.

                      Plus, the whole noble savage meme as accusation thing is boring.

                      When I say that there are different kinds of violence associated with colonisation you get something about me thinking Māori are perfect (or victims, not sure quite what you’ve got going on there).

                      btw, I haven’t seen anyone here portraying Māori as victims other than you.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:00 am

                      @McFlock

                      The majority of Maori who move to Australia actually do very well” seems to be a bit of an idylic oversimplication.

                      I’d have dug into it a bit deeper – but I’m juggling three or four conversations But certainly they do not form a large part of the intractable underclass we see in NZ.

                      And having met and talked with more than a few in the last year – it’s a recurring theme. A bittersweet sense of nostalgia for whanau they terribly miss back home – but an awareness that going back isn’t something they want to do just yet. Everyone of them thinks that coming to Aus was the best thing they ever did.

                      Why is this so surprising. At every social level NZ has become a narrow and claustrophobic society. The first thing we noticed coming to Aus (even when they are in a major downturn) was a sense of energy and possibility.

                      So why is it such a strange thing when I suggest that Maori are just as vulnerable to a low expectation environment as anyone else? And this before we factor in the highly stratified nature of Maori social order. It’s quite peculiar how blind pakeha NZ is to the meaning and importance of whakapapa. It’s not just class, it’s a highly detailed and precisely calibrated pecking-order.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:14 am

                      Well, it’s a bit of a strange thing because it’s a long fucking way from even beginning to consider what we do about the forced theft of sovereignty and self-determination from an entire population and the hundred and fifty years of economic and social suppression that followed.

                      But please, tell us more about your mate in australia who earns three times the median income for Maori in Australia. It is such a relevant anecote.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:15 am

                      @ Murray.

                      I have also never spoken to the guy who took it upon himself to speak for the Maori Council.

                      Heh – you reduce Maanu Paul to a one line smear – class. Or ignore the numerous other kaumatua whom I’ve had the privilege of listening to. Not in highly politicized spaces – but in a completely different setting where for a time I was deeply fortunate to be allowed inside. My life has moved on but I actually rather miss it.

                      I have to hold back on the whole story because I cannot tell it properly here. Nor should I when I come to think of it.

                      But what I’m seeing here is a whole lot of Uncle Tim (google that up) behaviour from a bunch of pakehas who like to think they understand Maori. But don’t.

                      Really.

                      Basically what you’re saying is that Maori should forget what happened to them and get on in your world.

                      Now try and reconcile that with what I have actually claimed for myself – as distinct from merely answering other peoples misconceptions of what I’m saying.

                      “Or we could be thinking about how we could fuse the best elements of both world-views – creating something respectful of our mutual pasts and yet fresh, new and adapted to a 21st century”.

                      Or feel free to ignore it and have a rant about other detraction.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:29 am

                      @weka

                      The rest of your comment about the noble savage meme is completely from your own head.

                      Well yes it’s a shorthand for the fact that your entire contribution to this discussion has been framed in terms of how nice and trustworthy Maori are – and how greedy, violent and untrustworthy Pakeha are.

                      I just condensed that into a sort of ‘noble savage’ meme you had going on. I’m sure you don’t like that label – but if you go back over what you are saying that’s pretty much how it parses out.

                      But I won’t use it if everyone is going to have a tanty about it.

                      It’s embarrassing to have to type out the blindingly obvious point I’m making – Maori are neither more or less inherently better or worse people (as a society) than anyone else. Compared to Europeans their society has it’s strengths and it’s weaknesses. We have ours too – and they are different ones.

                      And for certain there is a simplistic logic in saying – let’s give back Maori their mana and right to order their own society on their own terms and that will make everything better.

                      But it ignores the plain fact of history that in practical terms Maori and Pakeha society can no longer be separated without fatal harm to one or both.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:37 am

                      Haha. I googled it:
                      “Uncle Tim
                      Whites who challenge white racism and white supremacy.

                      The term originated in poor faith towards a white anti-racist activist Tim Wise.
                      That guy is challenging my racist behavior, and he’s white too!?! What an Uncle Tim!”

                      I bet you love Alan Duff. He says a lot of the same things you do. He loves anecdotes. Weka has been kind enough to present a few facts that show much of what you claim is wrong. You call smearing Maanu Paul “classy”. Sorry I can’t be classy enough to make up my own facts.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 2:53 am

                      @McF

                      But please, tell us more about your mate in australia who earns three times the median income for Maori in Australia. It is such a relevant anecote.

                      Because anecdote is sometimes just more interesting that droning on with data.

                      But what most non-Maori are quite blind to is that Maori themselves are a highly class oriented society also. If you are born into a low status whakapapa family you are at the wrong end of a double whammy – the structural consequences of colonisation AND the rather more personal impact of who you are in purely hapu terms.

                      This does not of course negate the real and legitimate need to undo colonisation. But also lays bare the fantasy that this alone is the whole solution. There is no reason to think that a wholly self determined Maori society would be any improvement on an equivalent European one. It would just be different.

                      Then when you confront the very real practical problems of accommodating two very different self-determining societies in the same rather confined geography and tightly intermarried population – it’s fair to challenge the thinking around it all.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:00 am

                      @ McF

                      Then there is the Urban Dictionary version. I’m sure you googled that but you didn’t like it so much.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:19 am

                      Who has expressed anything close to the fantasy that you mention?
                      But surely a society that recognises and seeks to redress the injustices in its past is an improvement on what exists before, even if it’s not “the whole solution”.

                      And it might be a bit premature to be “challenging” the idea of “accommodating two very different self-determining societies in the same rather confined geography and tightly intermarried population” before anyone’s actually come up with an actual proposal or range of proposals.

                      Or as I said, before you decided to be more “interesting” and less “relevant”, “There is really no horizon to the possibilities. But we have to do better than we are now, and acknowledge what wrongs have been done.”

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:23 am

                      @RL 3am

                      wtf are you talking about?

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:42 am

                      There is really no horizon to the possibilities.

                      Statement of the obvious.

                      But we have to do better than we are now, and acknowledge what wrongs have been done.”

                      Exactly what do you think the entire ToW process has been about these last 30 odd years?

                      But you have to accept that while everyone here is dead keen to return self-determination and real sovereignty to Maori – not one of you seems to have a clue how to do it nor any details around what it might mean in practise.

                      You’re all taking it on faith that it’s a ‘good idea’ and it will all magically work out.

                      Imagine you were about to abseil off a face – good plan because you need to get off the mountain to safety. But you don’t bother checking whether the rope will reach the bottom or not. Still a good plan?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:50 am

                      Isn’t the ToW process the one that’s just said Maori didn’t sign over their sovreignty in 1840?

                      You’re the one assuming that we want to abseil off a face without checking the ropes, simply because someone said “oh shit the weather’s turning, we should get off the mountain, let’s look at what options we have and see what ideas the rest of the group have”.

                      I’m of to bed. Feel free to keep making shit up.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 November 2014 at 3:56 am

                      Isn’t the ToW process the one that’s just said Maori didn’t sign over their sovreignty in 1840?

                      Oh is that ALL it was. Can we take the formal Crown apologies and all the settlements back then? Seeing as how you want to pretend none of it has happened.

                      And still not the faintest clue as to how you imagine to achieve handing over sovereignty to Maori. Here you are insisting it must be done – yet you cannot begin to tell us the first substantive thing about it. So no you don’t have a clue how long the rope is. Do you.

                      And you think I’m making shit up???

                      let’s look at what options we have and see what ideas the rest of the group have”.

                      Actually no. The only choice on offer seems to be to fling ourselves down the rope. This entire thread is evidence that even a small deviation from the borg is not welcome.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:28 pm

                      And you think I’m making shit up???

                      Yes. Yes I do:

                      The majority of Maori who move to Australia actually do very well. Made up

                      If you think this will be fixed by demolishing the NZ State and establishing 15 or 20 iwi bantustans in their place Made up. Nobody mentioned anything like that, you brought it in to the conversation

                      the fantasy that this alone is the whole solution made up. Nobody has expressed anything close to this fantasy.

                      Basically, the only thing you’ve said that’s relevant ant true is what I said in my first comment: “I’m not sure anyone has any idea what the result will look like.”

                      But this is not a bad thing. Frankly, I’d be a little bit concerned if the analogy that came into my head to illustrate redressing an historical (and continuing) injustice was “omg, we’re dangling off a cliff on a frayed rope”. Especially when we could be, e.g., walking down a pathway to the future, side by side, and prepared to negotiate (in good faith) each intersection we come across.

                    • weka …
                      23 November 2014 at 1:44 pm

                      He’s also made up this convoluted shit about how we’re all enamoured of the noble savage ideal and think that all Pākehā are evil and all Māori are Good and how he’s the only one that’s being real about the complexities of a whole race of people (at the same time as making gross generalisations about them).

                      You’re being a complete dick Red.

            • weka 21.1.2.2.2.2
              22 November 2014 at 7:13 pm

              “Not really sure if your comment was to me or red.”

              Mostly to Red, who had made the comment further up and I initially thought he was referring to Māori.

              I agree it says much about him, but it fucks me off to have my own ideas so badly mangled and labelled and IMO in a way that supports his own views. I wish he would just be honest instead of projecting.

              • marty mars …
                22 November 2014 at 7:54 pm

                yep I agree – this argument is a well-worn pathway for red. The listening is simply a preparation for another pre-planned line. It seems to me that some of the reasons for the difficulty in discussing with honor this topic is that the worldviews of even discussion are very far apart. Some want greater understanding and movement towards and others want to ‘win’ – it’s pretty boring but necessary mostly I find.

                • RedLogix …
                  22 November 2014 at 8:21 pm

                  OK – you point to where I have demanded a ‘win’.

                  I completely accept and understand that we have different world-views – but you cannot demand I respect yours without that respect being returned.

                  For instance you tried to baffle me with bullshit about how fucking mysterious ‘mana’ is. And when I replied with a reasonable attempt – unlikely to be perfect – to define it and demonstrate that I had been paying attention – you go silent. And then tell me I lack honour.

                  I recall now a kaumatua once telling me how “backstabbing was the favourite Maori indoor sport” – with some considerably dark humour.

                  • marty mars …
                    22 November 2014 at 8:30 pm

                    15 love

                    lol I just haven’t gotten to it yet… sorry

                  • Tracey …
                    23 November 2014 at 2:49 pm

                    Why have you quite deliberately skirted the entire notion of contra proferentum since i first raised it as a valid part of the discussion two days ago? All your knowledge about non musket potato wars your marae visits in the 80s, chats with kaumatua dont address this simple legal concept which makes it clear that the preferred interpretation of a treaty clause, when their is disagreement is the Maori interpretation.

                    If you could get your head around that, accept it, you might find alot of your consternation around – but how does this work in the real world – might get a clearer focus, from everyone. But YOY have muddied it by ignoring or dismissing anything that challenges your seemingly immoveable view of how things really were and therefore how the future can be framed.

                    • RedLogix …
                      24 November 2014 at 5:42 am

                      Why have you quite deliberately skirted the entire notion of contra proferentum since i first raised it as a valid part of the discussion two days ago?

                      No I did answer you at @7:27pm above.

                      No-one here, including you, has been willing to define exactly what they mean by ‘maori sovereignty’. In fact most have clearly stated that they either do not want to. That leaves a vacuum into which I am entitled to make some assumptions. Because logically you can only have one supreme source of authority in a nation, either:

                      1. The Crown based NZ State is the sovereign power de-jure.

                      OR

                      2. Maori never signed away sovereignty in 1840 and therefore have been the legitimate power in this country all the time since.

                      It really has to be one or the other. A binary choice. Is anyone realistically suggesting that NZ is actually a nation with two separate sovereign powers that are co-existing at the same time? And if so, why is it that no-one can tell me how it works?

                      The standard ToW interpretation of a partnership between Maori and the Crown is ruled out by option 2 above – because in that scenario the Crown does not exist as the supreme authority, nor can any of the system of legal governance that flows from it have any legitimacy. (We discussed these definitions earlier.)

                      A legal system is a component of governance. It does not exist in isolation. Legitimacy of governance derives entirely from the authority of the sovereign power it is dependent on. If that is lacking – then pointing to a legal principle which is part of it carries no weight.

              • marty mars …
                22 November 2014 at 8:17 pm

                “Mostly to Red”

                I thought I was asking the same question as you. In that comment the paragraph after was not connected to the question, in my mind.

      • Tracey 21.1.3
        22 November 2014 at 7:02 pm

        “…I’d be inclined to put it down to a poorly written or edited article. .”

        Why not assume the bit between quotations is how moon phrased it?

        • RedLogix 21.1.3.1
          22 November 2014 at 7:05 pm

          Because I agree with marty and Bill – it just makes no sense in any context.

          • Tracey 21.1.3.1.1
            22 November 2014 at 7:59 pm

            And?

            Has anyone who says the words cannot be what he said, sought confirmation or clarification? Has Moon stated he was wrongly quoted?

            It doesnt make sense but that is not so unusual amongst certain academics as to rule it out so readily.

            David seymour and jamie whyte apparently were academics.

            • RedLogix 21.1.3.1.1.1
              22 November 2014 at 9:06 pm

              Yes there are several possible explanations – Moon’s statement was incoherent and illogical because he is an utter dingbat, or the way the article was written failed to convey his meaning accurately.

              I’ll leave it to others to assign relative probabilities to each case.

              If you really want to know I’m sure it’s not too hard to contact Moon himself and find out.

            • weka 21.1.3.1.1.2
              22 November 2014 at 10:33 pm

              There are a couple of videos in marty’s original link, one with Moon. I haven’t watched them yet, but is that the source of the quote?

    • Bill 21.2
      22 November 2014 at 5:00 pm

      Well, isn’t the opposite that the British Crown sought to subjugate itself to the existing powers, customs and laws of the time? I mean, that must be it, aye?

      • marty mars 21.2.1
        22 November 2014 at 5:20 pm

        That’s my reading of it Bill. The opposite of the Crown going in to achieve sovereignty is that they went it to not achieve sovereignty and that seems absurd in the extreme to me.

  22. Tautoko Mangō Mata 22
    22 November 2014 at 4:30 pm

    There is an interesting article by Bill Moyers in which he compares the attitude towards political donations which initially were regarded as potential sources of corruption and which nowadays are considered to be “contributions”. There is a embedded video in which he discusses
    “How Public Power Can Defeat Plutocrats” which is particularly interesting as in the last part the problem of how to get the progressive message out considering that the MSM is costly and generally owned by the rich.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/21/dividing-spoils

  23. dale 23
    22 November 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Oh yes the moment of truth, what a joke that was. Totally discredited by Key and the left got shafted. Traitors should be shot. But hey it just went to show how stupid they thought the voters were and now imp is history. Best news ever.

    [lprent: I can’t see any relevance of this comment to the post you were replying to. Moved to OpenMike. Stay on topic, or reply to something related, or you will find that I will reduce my workload by banning you. ]

  24. ankerawshark 24
    22 November 2014 at 5:36 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/63429262/sexism-we-cant-escape-it.html

    This is surprizingly good for NZ journalism. Good stuff

    • weka 24.1
      22 November 2014 at 5:59 pm

      I thought so too. Interesting what comes out when journos are allowed to write under ‘Opinion’.

  25. Zolan 25
    22 November 2014 at 7:06 pm

    It seems that Spark/Telecom now have their telemarketers going door-to-door.

    There he was; Immaculately groomed, with perfect Indian-English, textbook body-language, professional, polite, and utterly committed to take any and every opening to try a new tack.

    Good on him.

    But I wondered about the wider context.
    ..Opportunity vs exploitation.
    ..What a poor use of industrious and intelligent individuals.
    ..It’s no so far removed from what many NZers already have to do; dealing with others under increasingly conflict-prone obligations for their masters’ benefit. ..Civil society?
    ..Is it just competition? Or is there more to Telecom’s desperation for market share? (From memory, it’s always Telecom)…

    Corporatocracy with a captive underclass felt unexpectedly immanent.

    • Weepus beard 25.1
      22 November 2014 at 9:03 pm

      ..It’s no so far removed from what many NZers already have to do; dealing with others under increasingly conflict-prone obligations for their masters’ benefit. ..Civil society?

      I have noticed this too. Current social policy has us at each other’s throats.

  26. greywarshark 26
    22 November 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Heard on rnz that Abbott in Oz is to cut $250 million from the ABC and the SBS.
    Really bad for them. What fools we are to allow these right wingers to strip our gains under democracy over the past century.

  27. Tautoko Mangō Mata 27
    22 November 2014 at 9:02 pm

    “Less than 24 hours after reports broke that the USA Freedom Act failed to move forward in the Senate, a powerful interim committee for public utilities in the Utah state legislature held a hearing on a bill there that would start the process of turning off water and other state assistance to the recently-opened NSA data center in Bluffdale.”

    Is there anything we can get turned off here to get rid of the GCSB?
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/27580-utah-tries-where-congress-fails-to-keep-nsa-within-constitution

  28. Ecosse_Maidy 28
    22 November 2014 at 9:08 pm

    Dear Pete George
    What a surprise, i thought they had packed you off on that probe to that comet….i must have been mislead or its a conspiracy
    Do u need fresh batteries?

  29. Cave Johnson 29
    22 November 2014 at 9:26 pm

    Renewable Energy? Nucleur Power?
    .
    Former Naval officer and current editor of The Register writing at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
    reporting that Google scientists worked for years on renewable energy sources that were affordable and offered a nett reduction in Carbon emissions but have now abandoned the search. Koningstein and Fork believe that the answer to the carbon menace is a reallocation of R&D spending, to seek out high-risk disruptive technologies.
    .
    NASA scientist Dr James Hansen (described as Daddy of Global warming fears) however believes that only nucleur power has real potential, but only if we allow it to loosen its safety standards to allow the same kinds of risks and death rates that we see from other energy production modalities.
    .
    I’m not sure how valid the reasoning is behind this report, but it does provide an interesting angle to think about.

    • RedLogix 29.1
      22 November 2014 at 9:41 pm

      Well how about this for disruptive?

      http://ecat.com/news

    • Murray Rawshark 29.2
      22 November 2014 at 10:27 pm

      As far as I can see, the report starts from the point of view that we should continue to increase our energy usage. They don’t look at all at the necessity of a future which uses less energy, although the report forces us to this in an indirect way. It doesn’t surprise me that Google wants to keep capitalism.

      • RedLogix 29.2.1
        22 November 2014 at 10:35 pm

        Yes the comment thread is pretty useful too:

        I read the paper in IEEE Spectrum, and I think it says something very different than what Lewis Page seems to think.

        The PhD engineers didn’t say that renewable energy was insufficient for producing electricity. They were saying that even if we could wave a magic wand and turn all electricity production into renewables, we’ve already exceeded the “safety threshold” of CO2 concentrations. We exceeded that limit about 25 years ago. And besides electricity, there are plenty of uses of energy that are not anywhere close to ready to be replaced by renewable energy, so at best RE electricity will just slow down the increase of CO2.

        Their point is that renewable energy is necessary, but not sufficient, to halt the climate change. We need to focus on the bigger picture, and fund the research and development to fix it.

        Paper

  30. greywarshark 30
    22 November 2014 at 10:19 pm

    Haven’t you people got any kittens you can throw things to over and over again.?
    Try throwing them something fishy, they would like the taste.

  31. David H 31
    23 November 2014 at 1:12 am

    There is a very good program on tv1 called Inside Job, its all about the financial crisis. and how it happened and who was involved. Every major bank and finance company.

    Fishy and sorrylands need to watch it to see how their hero’s screwed up the world for more money than they could ever spend, and Key was donkey deep in one or two of these companies.

    Here’s the trailer