Open mike 24/01/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 24th, 2013 - 80 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

80 comments on “Open mike 24/01/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    24 January 2013 at 6:19 am

    ‘

    Crunch time for the Obama administration

    Will Obama stand up for the planet and people, or bow down to the demands of big business and the right?

    As the effects of unadressed climate change start to devastate the planet, will Obama be remembered for taking a stand, or for betraying humanity?

    In an echo of New Zealand Green Party policy on climate change, Obama’s policy of not making climate change “a singular priority” may become his undoing.

    Obama, standing before hundreds of thousands of people on the National Mall on Monday, had vowed to ‘‘respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.’’

    But in the White House briefing room a day later, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said he couldn’t speculate about future actions. He said that while climate change was a priority for the president, ‘‘it is not a singular priority’’……

    For environmental groups, Obama’s next best chance to make good on his inaugural address is a looming decision on the Keystone XL pipeline running from Canada to the Gulf Coast……

    ‘‘If we are going to get serious about climate change, opening the spigot to a pipeline that will export up to 830,000 barrels of the dirtiest oil on the planet to foreign markets stands as a bad idea,’’ said Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    Just as Green Party advocacy for the disadvantaged and less well off will be forgotten if they refuse to stand up for the climate.Obama will earn the undying enmity of the environmental movement and lose informed liberal support, if he approves the XL pipeline, . Obama may try and recover this support by rightly standing up for equal rights in marriage, but this may not be enough to save his reputation, or the reputation of the Democratic Party ultimately costing them and us dearly.

    • muzza 1.1
      24 January 2013 at 8:18 am

      Jenny, I think you’re forgetting who runs the place, and calls the shots, hence your message is aimed at the wrong entity!

      Note: It’s not the POTUS who calls the shots!

      • McFlock 1.1.1
        24 January 2013 at 12:25 pm

        illuminati?
        Or if you actually type their name, will they appear behind you?

        • muzza 1.1.1.1
          24 January 2013 at 1:21 pm

          McFlock, even with your blindsighted ignorance, I would give you credit for understanding that the POTUS, is a figurehead, who speaks/implements what the *influential/powerful*, direct him to!

          Have I over-estimated you?

          • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1
            24 January 2013 at 1:49 pm

            Even with your unprovoked first-use of angry punctuation, I gathered “influential/powerful”.

            Do they issue orders via intermediaries? Is Bill Gates in the club?

      • Jenny 1.1.2
        24 January 2013 at 9:37 pm

        Note: It’s not the POTUS who calls the shots!

        muzza

        In the matter of the XL pipeline that statement is actually factually wrong. Because the XL pipeline crosses State boundaries it requires the Presidential approval to proceed. You read it right. The president actually has to act, to allow this pipeline to proceed. In this case the POTUS most definitely calls the shots.

        And that is not all. The POTUS does have powers to act against climate change if he chooses.

        No More Excuses

        Policy experts from the environmental organization Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Tuesday unveiled what they are a calling a “groundbreaking proposal” designed to combat the threat of climate change by sharply reducing carbon pollution from America’s fleet of aging power plants.

        The proposal, contained in a report titled Closing the Power Plant Carbon Pollution Loophole: Smart Ways the Clean Air Act Can Clean Up America’s Biggest Climate Polluters, promises to thwart the unwillingness (or inability) of Congress to rein in carbon pollution by advocating that the Obama Administration—by implementing regulatory authority already granted to the EPA—go after the country’s largest source of climate-changing pollution: emissions from hundreds of US coal and gas-fired plants.

        “The President put climate change on the national agenda, and NRDC’s plan shows how the United States can make big reductions in carbon pollution that drive climate change, with a flexible approach that promotes clean energy investments and delivers big benefits for Americans’ health,” said Peter Lehner, NRDC’s Executive Director. “This year’s ravaging heat waves, drought, wildfires and Superstorm Sandy underscore why the nation must tackle head-on the biggest source of dangerous carbon pollution now.”

        By calling the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards for these existing plants—America’s largest source of carbon emissions that fuel climate change—NRDC says the move would “cut millions of tons of carbon pollution, save thousands of lives and create thousands of clean energy jobs.”

        Frances Beinecke, president of NRDC, says the proposal is good news precisely because the authority for implementing it already exists. “The

        Obama Administration already used the Clean Air Act to set carbon standards for cars and propose them for new power plants,” she said. “Now the same law can be used to address carbon pollution from existing plants.”

        “The impact is huge,” said Dan Lashof, NRDC’s Director of Climate and Clean Air programs, and a principal author of the plan. “Our proposal would eliminate hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution, save thousands of lives and stimulate a surge in clean energy and energy efficiency investments, all at a lower cost than many would expect.”

        David Roberts, policy writer at Grist.org, put emphasis on the fact that Obama could pick up this policy recommendation without any input from Congress, which has repeatedly stalled any and all climate-related legislation in recent years. “This chance to spur decarbonization in the power sector is Obama’s greatest second-term opportunity on climate change,” he said.

        “The genius of NRDC’s proposal,” Roberts continues, “is that it solves the most difficult dilemma facing the agency when it comes to stationary-source regulations.”…….

        ……..Roberts concludes by asking if President Obama will seize the “extraordinary opportunity” of a simple and flexible plan that “is already in [his regulatory] toolbox; does not require any action by Congress; reduces U.S. emissions by 10 percent by 2020; and has the net effect of stimulating the economy through lower power bills and better health.”

        Roberts contends: “Whether he does will determine whether he goes down in history as a climate champion or someone who, despite lofty rhetoric, fiddled at the margins while Rome burned.”

        Common Dreams staff

  2. KhandallaViper 2
    24 January 2013 at 7:08 am

    The Labour Party needs to get out of its current malaise, the pregnant silence between the Leadership team and the members is deafening.

    National had a free run in the press this week with fluffy confectionary. We will be p*ssed if that is reflected in the next polls. The Trotter, Eddie, Cactus Kate, Mike Williams and the 2pts drop in polls stories were the only thing from the Left, all negative. And that was the opening week in the political year!
    The bad policies of the government are not only a PR issue. Another 1,000 went to Australia this week. 250,000 kids went to bed hungry.

    What game-changing strategy does Annette King, Grant Robertson,Trivor Mallerd and David Shearer have to win New Zealand’s support for a Labour Victory? Another rehearsed speech can only be a minor component in the necessary game changing strategy. The National Party cannot be allowed another term.

    • ad 2.1
      24 January 2013 at 8:55 am

      Hopefully all will be revealed in David Shearer’s game-changing speech on Sunday.

      • Anne 2.1.1
        24 January 2013 at 9:19 am

        There have been two rumours doing the beltway track in recent times.

        1. Shearer was going to put the leadership question to the members and affiliates.
        2. Shane Jones was to be reinstated to the front bench.

        Who started them? The same source as last year, and the year before? Mischief making again?

        NB. No rumours concerning David Cunliffe – yet.

        • David H 2.1.1.1
          24 January 2013 at 10:40 am

          Now all we need is that moronic reporter (Gower) from TV3 making shit up again!

          • Anne 2.1.1.1.1
            24 January 2013 at 11:29 am

            Coming soon on a TV screen near you!

          • Murray Olsen 2.1.1.1.2
            24 January 2013 at 7:51 pm

            When will Gower ask Shane Jones if he will only hire DVDs of Shearer’s speeches next time he stays at a motel?
            I cannot respect anyone who can attack Cunliffe while promoting Jones and that back pussy guy from the Waitaks.

            PS I don’t get email notifications any more. How paranoid and accusatory should I be? 😛

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.3
            24 January 2013 at 8:49 pm

            Cunliffe not challenging Shearer

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8218444/Cunliffe-not-challenging-Shearer

            Clean shaven – unlike the bearded version following his failed leadership bid last year – and wearing a beige cap, Cunliffe told media he supported Shearer.

            “I’ve already stated a number of times he has my full support.

            “I am not challenging David Shearer.”

            And his support was not contingent on a decent spot in the party’s frontbench reshuffle due early next month.

            “It’s a matter for the leader,” Cunliffe said.

            Typical MSM. There was absolutely no fucking “leadership bid last year” at COnference. Nevertheless, I still believe that its crucial that the wider Labour membership be permitted to vote and confirm Shearer in Feb, for the sake of party unity and energy going into 2014.

            • The Al1en 2.1.1.1.3.1
              24 January 2013 at 9:21 pm

              I’m still hoping he’ll break away and start a new left party.
              Easy 5% and his seat, easy.
              Cometh the time, etc

              • 4wardthinking …
                24 January 2013 at 9:44 pm

                I watched the TV3 news tonight and the quotes from Cunliffe were mighty different from Gower’s interpretation of them – or even on Stuff – same thing. Maybe just me, but I didn’t read what he said as an unequivocal rejection of him standing as leader. He seemed to be really careful in his words. The vote on 4 Feb is purely about whether the caucus (and hopefully the party) still have confidence in his leadership. It only has something to do with Cunliffe or Robertson or anyone else that chooses to chuck their hat in the ring if the he doesn’t get the support of caucus….or am I missing something? Oh, and just for the record….I’m not from the looney left either. I’m pure mainstream left (if there is such a thing)!

  3. halfcrown 3
    24 January 2013 at 7:24 am

    “What game-changing strategy does Annette King, Grant Robertson,Trivor Mallerd and David Shearer have to win New Zealand’s support for a Labour Victory?”

    From where I am standing, none.

    • felixviper 3.1
      24 January 2013 at 7:32 am

      Sit still and quiet and wait for National to politely hand over the reins.

      • tc 3.1.1
        24 January 2013 at 8:08 am

        And stifle any dissent whilst sitting silent then take the reins (whenever that is) with no idea whatsoever of how to repair the damage or get our kid’s futures back.

  4. Benghazi 4
    24 January 2013 at 8:14 am

    What makes you think that Mallard, King, Robertson care about game changing strategy or winning the next election? Those oldies are just pissed they don’t get parliamentary super like Goff so they need to hang on in there to keep the fortnightly payroll coming. I hear Mallard is fairly down on net worth after a split or two. And the Wn mayoralty doesn’t pay as well as King currently gets.

    As for Robertson, he’d have to own the failure of the 2011 election strategy where he was key before he could learn how to do better. But this team of three is not about learning and embracing but power plays at any cost.

  5. Benghazi 5
    24 January 2013 at 8:15 am

    What makes you think that Mallard, King, Robertson care about game changing strategy or winning the next election? Those oldies are just pissed they don’t get parliamentary super like Goff so they need to hang on in there to keep the fortnightly payroll coming. I hear Mallard is fairly down on net worth after a split or two. And the Wn mayoralty doesn’t pay as well as King currently gets.

    As for Robertson, he’d have to own the failure of the 2011 election strategy where he had a key role before he could learn how to do better.

    But this team of three is not about learning and embracing, but power plays at any cost.

  6. Te Reo Putake 6
    24 January 2013 at 8:28 am

    A humble request for LPrent: if you have a moment, can you lose Feedburner please? I use the RSS feed as the simplest way to keep up with comments, and its particularly useful for continuity in the more popular posts.

    Feedburner is always 20-40 minutes out of date, meaning constantly having to reload the main page, check the comments box, then click on each comment individually to see what’s being said. The previous RSS feed constantly updated itself, so keeping up with conversations was a breeze.

    Cheers, TRP.

    • just saying 6.1
      24 January 2013 at 10:46 am

      Doesn’t that render your inbox completely unmanageable TRP?

      T’would be great if we could get answers to our own comments but not the whole thread.
      It’s hard to keep track of my own sometime comments and questions, and any responses beyond the immediate.

      • Anon 6.1.1
        24 January 2013 at 12:02 pm

        No, js, I was meaning the ‘comments RSS’ button, top right hand side of the page, just above the rolling list of recent comments. When it works well, it gives you all the recent comments in chronological order, so in a minute or so, you can catch up with all recent postings, rather than have to click on each seperate comment. It’s really great if you are in an ongoing discussion, because it saves a lot of time.

        If you click on it now, you will see what I mean (though it will be 20 minutes out of date, and this comment won’t come up). It’s really great tool, but only if its up to the minute.

  7. tracey 7
    24 January 2013 at 9:09 am

    Does anyone know how many films Warner Bros has been involved in, in New Zealand, since the Hobbitt finished shooting about 3 years ago?

  8. vto 8
    24 January 2013 at 9:24 am

    ”it is appropriate for the Government to take a bridging investment role to ensure the right projects can get underway”

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    David Carter mimicking Jim Anderton, his hero obviously, in picking winners

  9. bad12 9
    24 January 2013 at 10:01 am

    Bill English pontificating upon the growing inability for ‘the market’ to address the growing issue of housing un-affordability,

    ”It takes the market 8 years before it has provided a house for a new immigrant” unquote, Bill English, Minister of Finance speaking to RadioNZ National,

    Having said that Bill went on to point the finger at the Auckland City Council claiming that they are stifling new building activity by not bringing new areas of land into the home building equation,

    Auckland City Council in reply point out that there are currently 13,000 sections available to build upon within the City, FAILURE of the argument put forward by the Finance Minister equates to further FAILURE of market driven policy in housing,

    Again Bill puts His foot firmly in His mouth by claiming that the Auckland City Council should commit political suicide and dictate that developers build affordable (hence smaller) houses simply pointing out a further FAILURE of the market philosophy where any developer, as pointed out by someone else on the Standard a few days ago, would be stupid in terms of ‘markets’ to not build the biggest most expensive house on any particular piece of ground as to do otherwise would be to forgo a large tranche of profit,

    Having stupidly claimed that His National Government has no mandate to legislate to ensure the building of low cost houses in the cities of greatest need Bill forgets that without that same MANDATE and on behalf of a small sliver of the electorate Bill’s National government has trashed whole democratically elected councils,

    Having admitted that the housing market has FAILED Bill then retreats into the realms of MARKET IDIOCY, to have admitted such a market failure and then flatly refused to intervene with a measure to correct this FAILURE of the market Bill, the Minister of Finance no longer appears to be addressing the people of New Zealand from a position of market ideology but has retreated to the perceived safe haven of MARKET IDIOCY….

  10. bad12 10
    24 January 2013 at 11:06 am

    Kia Ora Te Pa O Ratana, Green Party Leader Metiria Turia has been invited to address the annual Hui at Ratana Pa, (one of very few woman to be given such Mana)…

  11. xtasy 11
    24 January 2013 at 11:32 am

    It appears that the “Maori Party” is going to be a “dead” or “dying” party soon.

    Founded by Tariana Turia upon leaving Labour, due to issues with their foreshore and seabed legislation, Sharples and others joined her to establish a party to seek redress from what Labour introduced into law, and a kind of “movement” was started.

    The downfall of the Maori Party started by going into a support agreement with a National led government, and to agree to a range of policies, also to amend the law affecting foreshore and seabed matters. But Maori Party members – repeatedly told by their elected MPs, that the agreement with Key and his National led government is good, necessary and will bring more benefits than being in opposition, have increasingly felt hood-winked.

    Harawira brought on the challenges that arose through working with National and its other support parties. An internal rift developed, and Harawira left, to form Mana.

    Mana is supposed to be a new, inclusive “Left Party”, but most know, it is primarily led and organised by and through Harawira and his closest supporters. Yet he always wishes to emphasize, that Mana stands for the rights of Mana PLUS others, e.g. Pakeha, negatively affected by bad right wing policies.

    Maori Party support has dropped and they will struggle to get voted back into Parliament, since Tariana has announced her retreat. Sharples is just too much of an old power loving hanger-on now, as one must seriously question his ability to influence the decisions of the government he supports, and is member of as a Minister. Flavell made a challenge, but Maori Party leaders are too scared now to see it through.

    Harawira makes comments on National Radio this morning, basically admitting, that Mana is the other Maori Party. He talked about working together, some form of alliance, or something in that direction. He also presented his interest as a “leader” for Maori interests.

    There was suddenly not much talk about inclusiveness and Mana being not just an “alternative Maori Party”.

    Looking up their website tells you enough, how it is run and what the priority political emphasis and support base is:
    http://mana.net.nz/
    http://mana.net.nz/2013/01/is-mana-maori-a-possibility/
    http://mana.net.nz/kaupapa-vision/

    It appears to be an “inclusive” party so far, through some images and presentation, but when looking closer, it becomes clearer to me, that Mana is primarily a party established by Harawira as “independent” MP for Tai Tokerau, who appears to have seen a need to try and boost membership and support by allowing in Minto, Bradford and a few others, to establish a wider set of leading members. Yet in polls it still struggles to get above the 1 per cent rate.

    See also this newspaper article from the Northern Advocate:
    http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/harawira-id-lead-maori-mana-party/1724449/

    See also this news and blog site:
    http://yournz.org/tag/mana-party/

    So I feel, Harawira now has to come CLEAN, on what is ultimate mission is, where he stands, whether he really wants to be primarily a Maori leader, or to keep working on a more inclusive leftist party.

    My suspicions are, he wants to be the former, as that is what he feels more passionate about.

    Hence again, my conclusion is that not just is Labour in a situation where it is struggling to find a “new way” as a “left” or at least “left of centre” party, Mana is also about to fall to pieces, given Harawira’s newly revived true aspirations.

    Consequently, as the Greens are also not committed to be identified as “left” as such, or in principle, there is a TOTAL NEED and an ideal time now, to create and establish a NEW LEFT PARTY in NZ, that is truly left of centre and inclusive, not restircted to individual MPs or member’s interests and selected agendas.

    Maori Party will soon be “dead”, I would expect, at least no more than a party in a similar situation as ACT is in now.

    P.S.: I tried posting this under a thread on the state of the Maori Party today, but for some reason the comments appear to not register after I press the “submit comment” button.

  12. xtasy 12
    24 January 2013 at 11:35 am

    I tried to post a comment on the state of the Maori Party, but for some reason, it does not appear to be accepted at all by the system!

    Has there been a “block” placed on any comments for whatever reason?

    Even when trying to put the post under “Open Mike”, it just does not appear.

    This is disappointing, indeed, and raises some questions.

  13. Penny Bright 13
    24 January 2013 at 11:37 am

    Hi folks!

    Seen this?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8212901/Further-charges-possible-for-John-Banks

    How long will shonky John Key be able to defend the indefensible dodgy John Banks?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    • bad12 13.1
      24 January 2013 at 12:40 pm

      Do i see the perfect storm forming for this abysmal failure of a Slippery lead Government,John(the already once convicted)Banks gets another couple of convictions to add to his rap sheet and is forced to resign from the Parliament,

      And then,

      The Supreme Court rules against the Government over Maori rights to water prompting Slippery the Prime Minister to introduce legislation to over-ride the Courts decision giving the Maori Party no option but to resign from it’s coalition,

      The fun it seems has only just begun…

    • McFlock 13.2
      24 January 2013 at 12:40 pm

      heh.

      Always nice to see someone making life difficult for a tory

  14. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 14
    24 January 2013 at 12:36 pm

    I like Rod Oram’s reasoned comments on the state of our commerce.
    I bought a book of reprints of his columns.
    This is something that rings a bell.

    …Australia is a very small economy in world terms. Having exhausted the domestic opportunities for scale and efficiency, businesses are turning to NZ. Their ownership of our banks was only a precursor to the wave of bids we’re seeing for our companies. We’re rapidly becoming an AUSTRALASIAN (my caps) economy….

    We think our economies are outward-looking and internationally competitive, but they are not. NZ’s exports are only 30% of our GDP, we’re running prodigious trade and current account deficits, and we have built up high levels of private debt.

    Australia IS ALMOST AS WEAK (mine). Its exports are a weedy 18% of GDP, its trade deficit is 2% of GDP, its current account deficit 5.5% of GDP, and its households the most indebted in the OECD, although NZs are right behind them….

    AN AUSTRALASIAN ECONOMY LOOKS NO MORE ENCOURAGING IN TERMS OF SCALE OR GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS.
    SO DO WE THROW OUR LOT IN WITH THE AUSTRALIANS OR TRY TO CHART A DIFFERENT COURSE????
    Sunday Star-Times, 16 April 2006 in Reinventing Paradise

    Will the figures have improved in the years to 2012?
    And does Labour have any commitment to change our nation’s commercial health and encourage jobs with reasonable hours work and wages? Putting up numbers of homes will only be an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and that is only if they are designed to be real homes with fences and yards for children to play safely etc.

    • halfcrown 14.1
      24 January 2013 at 1:07 pm

      “And does Labour have any commitment to change our nation’s commercial health and encourage jobs with reasonable hours work and wages? Putting up numbers of homes will only be an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and that is only if they are designed to be real homes with fences and yards for children to play safely etc.”

      NO

  15. bad12 15
    24 January 2013 at 1:07 pm

    From RadioNZ National news at 1.00, David Cunliffe has reportedly said that He will not challenge David Shearer for the Labour Party leadership in February,

    Unless there is another challenger it looks like Labour Party members are stuck with Dave Shearer, suck it up people and let’s hammer Labour on policy direction rather than play ‘swap the leader’….

    • bad12 15.1
      24 January 2013 at 1:16 pm

      PS, i hope that Parliamentary Labour have been smart enough to see fit to give David Cunliffe a front bench position in any upcoming reshuffle where He is tasked with regularly taking Finance Minister Bill English to task on His many FAILURES…

    • KhandallaViper 15.2
      24 January 2013 at 1:35 pm

      Whether Cunliffe says that is neither here nor there.
      He cannot be expected to carry the burden of the party.

      A non vote in February fixes NOTHING.
      Te members vote for change in the Party’s approach and democracy.

      THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

      A non vote only emphasises the dis-connection of the leadership.

      • Anon 15.2.1
        24 January 2013 at 1:59 pm

        Hur hur, the members voted for exactly this potential outcome, KV. This is the system they wanted, this is the system David Cunliffe wanted. IT HAS HAPPENED! Just not in the way DC (and you) thought.

        Can we talk about policy now?

        • KhandallaViper 15.2.1.1
          24 January 2013 at 2:49 pm

          Anon? What is the weather like up in the Manawatu today?

        • Anne 15.2.1.2
          24 January 2013 at 3:03 pm

          Anon

          Why do you keep making the claim It has happened. Just not in the way DC (and supporters) thought etc.

          I’ve said it before and I say it again. Most (repeat most) delegates who voted for the constitutional changes did so without actually having specific individuals in mind – at least not in the forefront of their minds anyway. How do I know? Because I was there, and I spoke with a number of delegates whose views on the proposed changes were surprisingly similar. From what was said to me, the outcome clearly had as much to do with years of frustration by members etc. who (rightly) felt they were undervalued by many in the caucus.What happened following the leadership challenge in 2011 was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back.

          • Anon 15.2.1.2.1
            24 January 2013 at 3:58 pm

            I keep repeating it because it’s true, Anne. And like you, I was there, too. I’m pretty sure I saw DC’s hand point to the ceiling in favour of 60% during the vote, so he personally supported the change, as far as I can tell. The DC supporters thought this option was going to see their man get up in February. My feeling is that those that thought that way hadn’t thought it through. Not only does the trigger stay in caucus, which means that without an in-caucus challenge it’s a moot point, but it also ankle taps a potential leader who has support in the wider party, but minority support in caucus.

            Or, to put it another way, the members and affiliates wanted more democracy, but they promoted and voted for a system that gave caucus a veto over that democracy.

            It’s not Shearer’s fault that he won’t take it to the party. It would be madness for him to do so. He’s already won, the majority of members seem happy with the outcome*, and we now move on to winning the election. It’s over Anne. The next conference can look at it again, I suppose, but the opportunity to install someone other than Shearer has passed.

            *There haven’t been mass resignations, for example, so political junkies like you and I and others here atTS discussing the issue does not apparently reflect the real feeling in the party. My summary of that feeling is that members remain unsure of Shearer, but are willing to give him a go. Lukewarm support, but support none the less.

            • Anne 15.2.1.2.1.1
              24 January 2013 at 4:26 pm

              I agree with most of what you say Anon except I don’t believe the majority of delegates who voted for the 40/60 regime did so with the sole expectation of having a vote for Cunliffe in February. It was an act of admonishment on the part of most of them… continue to ignore us ordinary members at your peril! The most oft heard phrase I picked up on were the words “we want our party back” or “it’s just as much our party as it is theirs”.

              I agree with you that Cunliffe would have been a fool to challenge Shearer next month. Anyway he is far too intelligent to have even considered it.

              It’s the caucus members who have to mend some fences with the membership, and that is probably one of Shearer’s biggest challenges. If he doesn’t face up to it (or not succeed for whatever reason) all the policy in the world won’t help much because he (they) could be without a solid base of ‘on the ground’ workers.

            • mickysavage 15.2.1.2.1.2
              24 January 2013 at 6:54 pm

              the members and affiliates wanted more democracy, but they promoted and voted for a system that gave caucus a veto over that democracy

              Um are you sure TRP?

              Previously only caucus had a say in who the leader was. Now if the leader does not get more than 60% support in caucus on various occasions then the members get a say.

              So democracy is increased.

              Stop trying to diss people by saying it was a Cunliffe Shearer thing. It was a membership caucus thing. And the members won.

              Long live democracy in the Labour Party.

              • marxgirl …
                24 January 2013 at 7:37 pm

                I am devostated by this. I thought David Cunlife was going to make Labour more socialist again.

                But I thort also that David Cunlife did say to that reporter lots of time last year that he was NOT trying to take over from David Shearer. I guess Cunlife was telling the truth.

                I am also devistated for David Cunlife!

      • bad12 15.2.2
        24 January 2013 at 4:09 pm

        Oh i would say that Cunliffe having said He will not challenge for the leadership in February definitely falls within the ‘here’ realm of reality,

        We will all have to wait a couple of weeks befor we know the out-come of the Labour Caucus vote to see if the Party wide contesting of the leadership will take place,

        My view is that other than Cunliffe, Grant Robinson is the only other member of Labour’s Caucus that has the Mana, the presence and the ability to project a serious Prime Ministerial demeanor via the much despised 5 second television sound-bite in that Caucus,

        I hold the view of course that it should be the Labour annual Conference that holds the ‘trigger’ on the question of both who the leader will be and who will be the Cabinet under that leadership, that would make a truly democratic Labour Party and a truly democratically elected Labour Government who would adhere to Labour Party policy at the risk of losing their positions should they not,

        Having said that, IF there is to be no leadership vote,(disappointing i know), it is far more positive for us lot commenting on the Standard to then accept what may or may not turn out to be a very poor set of cards dealt to us and to then debate policy(and you never know what gains might be made),

        i have been banging away here ad nauseam on the issue of housing for months now and in a short space of time both Labour and the Green Party have produced housing policy which (in different ways than i would have expected) has answered most aspects of any concerns i hold over the provision of affordable housing for ALL New Zealander’s…

        • Colonial Viper 15.2.2.1
          24 January 2013 at 4:38 pm

          I hold the view of course that it should be the Labour annual Conference that holds the ‘trigger’

          This is the UK Labour system which TRP pooh-poohs. A low 20% caucus threshold which if triggered, gives the membership a decision as to whether or not they want a full blown leadership competition.

          • Treetop 15.2.2.1.1
            24 January 2013 at 5:06 pm

            The annual Labour Conference vote for leader needs to be deferred until August, (just after a Roy Morgan poll). Cunliffe then needs to challenge and in the mean time Shearer needs to RETURN Cunliffe to cabinet.

            Hopefully commonsense will prevail as I cannot make sense of Labour’s current strategy re Shearer being the leader and Labour’s stuck in the mud poll ratings. As well the Labour caucus need to lose their arrogance re the Labour membership having a say re leader and direction/policy.

        • karol 15.2.2.2
          24 January 2013 at 4:40 pm

          And it is in print here:
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/126374/cunliffe-says-he-won't-challenge-shearer-for-leadership

          Labour MP David Cunliffe has given an assurance he will not challenge David Shearer for the leadership when it comes to a vote on 4 February….

          But Mr Cunliffe, who was demoted after the conference for failing to rule out a challenge, said on Thursday Mr Shearer’s position is safe.
          He said he wants to be a constructive member of the Labour team and help the party win next year’s election.

          • KhandallaViper 15.2.2.2.1
            24 January 2013 at 8:17 pm

            Karol

            “We the People” are pissed with how a group in the Caucus has hi-jacked the Party in 2008.
            And in Nov/Dec 2011
            And in Nov 2012.

            No change.

            The Party needs a fundamental change.
            The Membership does not have confidence in the Leadership Team.

            “We the People” still have the objective of change the Leadership Team to one which can be endorsed by the majority of the membership and unions.

            Nothing has changed since yesterday.

            • karol 15.2.2.2.1.1
              24 January 2013 at 8:25 pm

              Indeed, KV. And I hope it’s successful. The idea of Shearer as PM is a complete turn-off for me. But at least I have the Greens or Mana to vote for.

    • muzza 15.3
      25 January 2013 at 8:50 am

      Wondering how long it takes for people to realise they’ve been played – The Cunliffe challenge beat up, was an act, to cement DS as leader and it looks like DC was in on it!

      The media and politics working together, keeping the suspense alive, keeping people from seeing what is actually in front of their faces!

      Cunliffe has been around too long to be the saviour, he is part of the system, who came through the “training” of Boston Interational!

  16. beatie 16
    24 January 2013 at 1:34 pm

    A foretaste of the Nats welfare ‘reforms’. I fear that the disabled and those with chronic illnesses won’t know what’s hit them after July.

    http://www.newstatesman.com//politics/2013/01/shadow-state-atos-and-work-capability-assessment

    • Treetop 16.1
      24 January 2013 at 5:42 pm

      These bastards sending nearly 4,000 people to an early grave need to be held responsible for manslaughter.

      40 % success rate on review and it has cost 60 million.

      When a person is not fit for work, to send them to work means that they have to work harder than a person fit for work. I do not think that a work contract states slave labour or forced labour.

  17. Benghazi 17
    24 January 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Hey I still want to see a vote for members and affiliates. I want to see all other aspirants campaign: Robertson, Little etc. I want to hear all their ideas for how we work better, new potential policies etc. Then I want a vote. Either to confirm Shearer as the best or choose another. What I don’t want is no vote, and then the wait until Mallard/King decide Shearer is to be replaced by Robertson. Now is the time to bring all that into the open, deal with those plans honestly, and then we can all unite.

  18. PlanetOrphan 18
    24 January 2013 at 4:20 pm

    How amiguous is this Statement from Education Minister ….

    “I think that I had a very successful range of visits to each of the 36 schools… We will talk to them about what we think our intentions going forward are.”
    (My Bold)

    Great communicator isn’t she, not sure what her intentions are, but she’s happy to talk about them M8’s!

  19. bad12 19
    24 January 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Slippery the Prime Minister in His speech to the annual hui at Ratana Pa has given a sniveling display to those gathered there befitting of a 4 year old who having had the ice-cream snatched from His hand throws a horrendous tantrum,

    National having first been upstaged by Labour over affordable housing and today being administered the coup de grace from a stunning release of Green Party housing policy totally trouncing Nationals dysmal record of ‘hands off’ and market driven housing policy FAILURE had Slippery haranguing Ratana over the standard of housing at the Pa itself,

    Hah, Whakapahone to you Slippery, hope they have shown you the door with a fitting send-off,(spit)…

  20. bad12 20
    24 January 2013 at 5:21 pm

    In a fitting welcome to Ratana, leaders of the Ratana Movement have openly welcomed the formation of a Labour/Green coalition in 2014,(no wonder Slippery the Prime Minister is throwing tantrums befitting a 4 year old)

    May i humbly add to Ratana’s ‘take’ by adding that 2014 cannot but come soon enough…

  21. Anne 21
    24 January 2013 at 8:09 pm

    Ooops a daisy:

    A sleazy new deal maybe taking shape?

    Cast your mind back to the mid 1990s. MMP had arrived, and the Nats were looking for a coalition party. Along came Alan Gibbs and together with his sidekicks (Craig Heatley, Michael Fay, David Richwhite and Trevor Farmer to name the better known) he set up the ACT party. The sole purpose of the venture was to supply National with a support partner.

    It all started with a hiss and a roar and several million dollars to back it up. All went well for a couple of parliamentary terms and then slowly it turned to dust. Alan Gibbs had shot off to greener pastures and his new pet project, the amphibious car. The dollar bags dried up.

    Fast forward to 2013. The Maori Party is imploding. United Future is a barely visible joke. ACT is all but gone-burger. The Nats are once again looking for a coalition party. Into the valley of political chicanery rides Alan Gibbs. ACT rises from the ashes (perhaps with a new name) and with the help of a further coterie of wealthy sidekicks hey presto… National has a new support party in time for the 2014 election!

    Plausible? Well he and his mates did it once, so they could do it again.

    • karol 21.1
      24 January 2013 at 8:23 pm

      Well, it seems Chris Simmons has stepped down as party prez & Boscowen has taken over. Simmons wants to be an Act candidate next election.

      • Anne 21.1.1
        24 January 2013 at 8:51 pm

        Yes Karol. It looks to me like ACT is about to be resurrected. If I’m right then Gibbs and co. will be throwing huge sums of money at it again – buying high profile people to front the party just as they did in the mid-1990s. Why would Simmons be interested in standing for a political party that is all but dead?