Open Mike 24/02/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 24th, 2016 - 263 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

263 comments on “Open Mike 24/02/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bearded Git 1
    24 February 2016 at 7:09 am

    Interesting-the sheep deal has made McCully a liability-the smiling assassin has sent him on his way. Wonder who the Nats have lined up for this plum seat and maybe it will become vulnerable with no McCully and a swing to Labour?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11594246

  2. paaparakauta 2
    24 February 2016 at 7:22 am

    Bill McKibben on the Koch brother’s new brand

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/koch-brothers-new-brand/

    • miravox 2.1
      24 February 2016 at 7:41 am

      Oh another Koch Brothers article that will get me pissed off I thought (I’ve read a few), but

      Jeezzzuzzzz…. Reading that made me nearly physically ill.

      Trigger warning for people who have been subject to the machinations of serial F***in a*se***es.

      • David H 2.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 10:11 am

        I reckon,
        They are saying the Kocks are pissed that Trumps ahead, because he’s rich and paying his own way, so they cant get their claws in there. But Trump in the Whitehorse? This could put the US back to the days of Hoover, with his attacks on the Muslim Religion, and the other insanities coming out..

        • AmaKiwi 2.1.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 9:56 pm

          More likely it will put the US back to the days of Germany 1933.

          That guy also had no economic policy except, “I will make this country great again.” His only election message was anger and outrage because of his country’s fall from power.

    • locus 2.2
      24 February 2016 at 8:18 am

      and on the same nybooks.com page this…

      Today, one one-thousandth of the American electorate is responsible for 25 percent of campaign funding. Members of Congress spend 30–70 percent of their time raising money for their next campaign. No one doubts that politicians are more responsive to the one one-thousandth than to the 99.9 percent.

      …so sad to see the twilight of democracy in the US eclipsed by neofascist kochocrats

      • AmaKiwi 2.2.1
        24 February 2016 at 10:00 pm

        Tonight 1 out of every 100 US adults will spend the night in prison. More young American men of color are in prison than are in university.

        That’s more than “sad.” It’s catastrophic.

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    24 February 2016 at 7:26 am

    Oh noes! Bill English vs. reality!

    Maybe, just maybe, those despised ‘academics’ are right, and the problem is the GINI. Nah! Defund the academics!

    • BM 3.1
      24 February 2016 at 7:42 am

      Read that article, public service not delivering, can see why the government wants to get private organizations involved.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 7:54 am

        You’re either being deliberately obtuse or you’re an idiot, arguing from bad faith or stupidity. In other words, it’s a complete waste of time discussing this with you.

        The problem is the GINI, and that won’t stop fuckwits like you doing even more harm.

      • locus 3.1.2
        24 February 2016 at 8:35 am

        since when have private organisations ever improved anything that reflects or measures social or economic disparity???

        • BM 3.1.2.1
          24 February 2016 at 8:48 am

          From the article

          At one point during his speech he said the Salvation Army was “the only agency in New Zealand that seems to be bothered about whether we get results”.

          Can see why he’s keen to get iwi and the sallies involved in running the state house system.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 9:04 am

            Meanwhile, the Sallies have just released a report saying they’re sick of being lied to by the National Party.

            The problem is the National Party.

          • reason 3.1.2.1.2
            24 February 2016 at 2:09 pm

            National had a golden chance to lower the rates of domestic violence, lower the number of childhood abuse victims ……….. and lower our prisoner numbers.

            It was the Alcohol law review …………..

            They had good advice from medical professionals, police officers and others.

            But they spent the bulk of their time meeting with liquor company lobbyists ( and political donars ?), and ended up ruling out any changes which would lower alcohol abuse …………….

            Our high rates of domestic violence and abuse are Nationals achievement …….and they will use their crisis to give us something that will make us even sicker ……

            TPPA ………..Serco to run cyf’s ???????????

        • whateva next? 3.1.2.2
          24 February 2016 at 6:56 pm

          but they do absolve the government of any responsibility for anything, which is what Nats like.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.3
        24 February 2016 at 10:22 am

        A comment on the story says:

        When you look at the total cost to the government of domestic violence, including: police, prison and court time, and prevention. The amount spent on prevention is less then 1% of total money spent. It’s no surprise nothing changed, and if anything we can expect further cuts to prevention as the government ‘invests’ more money in the prison complex. I think this government will instead focus it’s energy’s on coming up with new ways of measuring data.

        • BM 3.1.3.1
          24 February 2016 at 10:32 am

          I just googled domestic violence prevention programs nz

          Looks like there’s lots of options.

          The real issue is more about people realizing they’ve got a problem and for those people to take the necessary steps to deal with their anger issues.

          How you convince people to do that is where it all gets a bit tricky and I don’t think more money is the answer

          • McFlock 3.1.3.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 11:32 am

            more money = (more cops + more social workers) – income related stress

            It might no be the answer (as if there could even be a single answer for a complex problem), but it’d be a bloody good start.

          • maui 3.1.3.1.2
            24 February 2016 at 11:42 am

            That’s the right’s answer to everything, is that it all comes down to personal responsibility if you’re not a winner in life, blah bla bla, a bloody great scapegoat that one. You don’t have to offer any solutions, its all your own fault.

          • lprent 3.1.3.1.3
            24 February 2016 at 12:41 pm

            I have had family involved in several of these as volunteers or professionally. They are largely run on a voluntary basis by groups outside the government, and usually get a slither of funding but are grossly underfunded.

            Perhaps you should ask yourself a more basic question – why are there so many ‘options’ and how many of them are effectively defunct. Try using the date filter and see how many of those sites (which is what you were looking at) are dead.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1.4
            24 February 2016 at 2:09 pm

            Looks like there’s lots of options.

            Which is probably part of the problem. People simply don’t know where to go.

            The real issue is more about people realizing they’ve got a problem and for those people to take the necessary steps to deal with their anger issues.

            People with anger issues usually don’t realise that that they have anger issues. They need to have it pointed out to them which means that we need a proactive organisation doing so.

            Such an organisation would be where people who need help from people with anger issues can go to get that help and then that organisation would have the power to force the people with anger issues into dealing with their anger.

      • Jenny Kirk 3.1.4
        24 February 2016 at 4:29 pm

        BM has let the cat out of the bag ! at 3.1

        He says “public service not delivering, can see why the govt wants to get private organisations involved”.

        This is THE classic tactic. Run down the public service, deprive it of the necessary funds, then say its not working and the private sector can do it better ….. and hey presto – the private sector comes in with a big financial incentive from the govt.

        • pat 3.1.4.1
          24 February 2016 at 10:09 pm

          with a watertight contract that ensures they get the taxpayer dollars even when they fail to deliver the promised results…but hey, its better value ,right(wing)?

      • AmaKiwi 3.1.5
        24 February 2016 at 10:03 pm

        “public service not delivering”

        . . . which is the fault of the minister in charge of that ministry.

        So privatizing is an admission that the National cabinet are crap managers.

        That is 1,000% true of the minister in charge of prisons.

    • miravox 3.2
      24 February 2016 at 7:49 am

      “Defund the academics”

      That’s because they’re all saying “we told you so..” The treasury child can’t handle it.

      It’s also a prelude to introducing another useless pet project that when the eventual failure occurs will be blamed the poor not the project.

    • Sabine 3.3
      24 February 2016 at 8:05 am

      read the comments.

      there is much love for Aunty Double Dipper from Dipton Bill English, also Finance Minister for our current National led Government.

      It must be him admitting that despite cuts to all services in regards to Domestic Violence, nothing was achieved that brings out the love sweet love. His solution? More cuts 🙂

      I think he is trying to get his micro surplus up and going 🙂

      • miravox 3.3.1
        24 February 2016 at 8:14 am

        Weird that the article is categorised as ‘business’

        • Sabine 3.3.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 8:33 am

          because it is a business. Nothing weird about that. Especially the privatising part of it is business, big business.
          I think Pull’s her Benefit calls it ‘sexy business’ the selling of vital services to for profit business…cause you might can’t milk a stone, but you sure can milk a poor person for what their worth, and then off to a private prison they go 🙂

          • miravox 3.3.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 9:11 am

            Now that is an A+ response. Poor Bill must be so conflicted that the cost of that private prison business is coming from the budget for which he’s guardian *cough*

    • Nic the NZer 3.4
      24 February 2016 at 8:28 am

      Problem is the accademics are not interested in the data because the solution is bleedin obvious. Put more actual money into poverty reduction programs. The governments new fangled data department is (if successful) a cost cutting measure on the other hand. If they dont start getting results soon they will start burying the issues.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.4.1
        24 February 2016 at 8:36 am

        Um, which ‘academics’ are you talking about? How will spending more money on poverty reduction address domestic violence in middle and upper income families?

        The problem is the GINI: our level of inequality is too high. The notion that it only affects the poor is a common misunderstanding.

        • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 8:44 am

          So if we made the poor richer, and the rich poorer i.e. reduced our GINI, then the newly worse off middle class households will have less domestic violence?

          How does that work?

          Again my general point: most money and most effort in our universities is no longer focussed on solving the crisis level problems facing Kiwis and facing the country.

          The role of universities as the “critic and conscience of society”? Out the window. University departments up and down the country should have been backing Jane Kelsey up against the TPP. Instead: crickets.

          And it is understandable why that is the case: these are areas with limited international and academic prestige, they are areas which are longstanding and easy to neglect through familiarity, they are areas which are politically controversial and hence always a problem for funding, they are areas which are seen as too low brow pragmatic and not conceptually or theoretically challenging enough, etc.

          • weka 3.4.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 8:52 am

            “So if we made the poor richer, and the rich poorer i.e. reduced our GINI, then the newly worse off middle class households will have less domestic violence?”

            We need to reduce inequality across the board (not just who is rich and poor economically). When we do that, reducing domestic violence programmes will be more successful. Do both.

            • savenz 3.4.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 9:40 am

              Actually domestic violence/family violence has been shown to be across the board in socio economic, race and class groups.

              Family violence is not just done by the poor, it is just they get caught more and get more media attention.

              Ie The white rich prick is just as likely to be beating up his family as the brown poor prick.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.4.1.1.2
            24 February 2016 at 9:08 am

            Is that the only way you can think of reducing inequality? I’m pretty sure that such cak-handed incompetence would cause a backlash, so I suggest we don’t do it your way.

            Why do upper salaries have to fall if lower ones are rising? Is it because that was the only white-anting approach you could think up on the spur of the moment?

            • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.1.2.1
              24 February 2016 at 9:14 am

              Why do upper salaries have to fall if lower ones are rising? Is it because that was the only white-anting approach you could think up on the spur of the moment?

              That of course would be the smarter way to do it, but when Nic the NZer suggested simply giving more income to the poor, you dismissed the suggestion out of hand with your typical clever bullshit reasoning.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 February 2016 at 10:29 am

                Flawed reasoning: see below:

                it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones

                • Colonial Viper …
                  24 February 2016 at 1:32 pm

                  Fine, so Nic the NZer gets to put more money directly into anti-poverty programmes, and you get to hand over more money to comfortable and high income earners.

                  Win win all round.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    24 February 2016 at 6:50 pm

                    Win win? Doesnt that involve AOB not being the only winner? Doesn’t seem like thats a win win for him.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 February 2016 at 7:01 pm

                      Yawn. If you feel like engaging with CV’s feeble desire to put words in my mouth, go right ahead. You’re wasting your time though.

                      Just because something is possible doesn’t mean I consider it a desirable outcome. Knocking down CV’s strawmen is too easy.

                      If you want a clearer picture of my opinion see the discussion with Weka below:

                      If everyone else is genuinely doing ok then maybe…

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      24 February 2016 at 7:09 pm

                      Or you could admit your first paragraph at 3.4.1 was just you mouthing off and poverty reduction programes will likely improve violence measures and GINI measures. (Even if some body else said it)

            • weka 3.4.1.1.2.2
              24 February 2016 at 9:14 am

              Do you think it’s ok for some people to earn shit loads of money if everyone else is doing ok?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 February 2016 at 9:23 am

                Well that depends on how you define shit loads.

                Australia, for example, has a lower GINI than we do, and a higher average wage, so clearly the “make rich people poorer” approach is nonsense, although I can see why those who specialise in white-anting (whether from the right or the left) fixate upon it.

                It is widely acknowledged (among those despised academics at the World Bank, OECD, etc.) that a lower GINI increases a country’s wealth across the board.

                So it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones.

                • weka …
                  24 February 2016 at 9:53 am

                  “Well that depends on how you define shit loads.”

                  Yes, and it follows from that you and CV might use the word ‘rich’ differently.

                  You didn’t answer my question 🙂

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    24 February 2016 at 10:11 am

                    I don’t have a strong opinion about it one way or another. Where “earning shit loads” involves environmental degradation, for example, it follows that everyone else isn’t doing ok.

                    If everyone else is genuinely doing ok then maybe…

                    • weka …
                      24 February 2016 at 10:37 am

                      I don’t think it’s possible to earn shitloads without damaging the environment and/or social conditions.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 February 2016 at 1:35 pm

                      Yep. The Left still hasn’t really seriously come to terms with the idea of a steady state economy.

                      It’s still all about growth growth growth.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 February 2016 at 2:40 pm

                      While generally very wealthy people develop power to cause mischief somewhat akin to that of states, some enterprises do not intrinsically degrade the environment. JK Rowling’s work wasn’t particularly destructive if you accept that the publishing industry would have printed something else had she been absent.

              • Nic the NZer …
                24 February 2016 at 9:27 am

                Seems AOBs reasoning fails on its own merits here however. Or does somebody want to seriously claim that middle and upper income house holds are engaging in domestic violence because they are not paying enough tax?

                The main reason to remove wealth from the top to me seems to be so their political power doest reach extremes.

                And i would always point out pragmatically you should not put on hold the near term goal of spending on the lower end, to wait for the ability to collect from the top end. Its not an easy task getting wealth off the wealthy and putting poverty reduction on hold is a disservice.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  24 February 2016 at 9:36 am

                  I suppose that incoherent mess translates as the false assumption that I favour redistribution as the way to tackle inequality.

                  I don’t. I think pre-distribution is a far superior approach.

                  PS: it would help you grasp the issue if you informed yourself about it, as opposed to these rather hysterical displays of ignorance.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 February 2016 at 9:39 am

                    Waiting to hear what you think the top initiatives in pre-distribution for NZ are, and how we would push for them politically.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 February 2016 at 9:52 am

                      The Living Wage campaign is a good example. The fact that union members get paid more is another.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 February 2016 at 1:36 pm

                      Superb. So where’s the disagreement? Raise wages for all (not just union workers, they are only a small minority of wage earners) and implement a universal basic income set at a decent level. No one here would disagree with that.

                      Next – how are you going to fund it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 February 2016 at 2:39 pm

                      how are you going to fund it.

                      You are mistaken: it results in gains not losses.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 February 2016 at 2:44 pm

                      Next – how are you going to fund it.

                      You’re still looking at it the wrong way. The UBI and other government spending is what funds the rest of the economy.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 February 2016 at 2:50 pm

                      DTB – well I know that, the question is, does OAB. Or does he think that we are going to have to tax and borrow to fund his proposals.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 February 2016 at 3:11 pm

                      well I know that,

                      So, just to clarify, both you and OAB agree that measures such as a living wage and maybe even a UBI are affordable.

                      You’re just looking for an argument as to why you both agree.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    24 February 2016 at 11:45 am

                    You really should go back and address wtf you mean leading up to 3.4.1.1.2.1

                    As far as i can see i suggested pretty sensible plan of funding poverty reduction programs which would help with abuse rates (I believe).

                    Of course this would also improve GINI statistics if it reduced absolute poverty.

                    Apparently thats not going to address middle and upper income abuse rates. But you didnt seem to have any plan yourself there (other than demanding GINI rates fall). Whats the plan there? Your going to bring GINI rates down by shouting at them? Will that address middle and upper income abuse rates anyway.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 February 2016 at 11:55 am

                      1) boost incomes for the poor. While the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same monetary amount, the percentage drop in their income will be much lower than the percentage increase for the poor because that’s how capitalism works.

                      2) if there is a socioeconomic relationship at all consistent with almost all other forms of violence and harm, the decrease in violence amongst the poor will be quantitively and proportionately many times greater than any corresponding increase amongs the upper and middle classes

                      3) one could also imagine a socioeconimic mechanism whereby in more equal societies there is less risk associated in leaving an abusive relationship with a rich partner

                      4) for the rest, other solutions apply such as social workers, support groups, mandatory follow-ups on IPV incidents to make sure the behaviour isn’t continuing, etc etc etc. Money isn’t the sole factor for any problem except poverty, just a major one for many other problems.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 February 2016 at 12:01 pm

                      the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same monetary amount

                      Not necessarily: as above,

                      It is widely acknowledged…that a lower GINI increases a country’s wealth across the board.

                      So it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones.

                      @Nick: already answered above at 9:52 am. Lower GINI, less violence across the board. There’s lots of information about the mechanisms involved at the Equality Trust site previously linked.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 February 2016 at 1:39 pm

                      @Nick: already answered above at 9:52 am. Lower GINI, less violence across the board. There’s lots of information about the mechanisms involved at the Equality Trust site previously linked.

                      Next: timeframe.

                      Things are at a crisis point so how many years are we going to give ourselves to signficantly reduce GINI? Maybe four or five?

                      Edit – Helen Clark’s govt did nothing to lower GINI. Levels of GINI during most of Key’s term appear directly comparable to Helen Clark’s day.

                      What’s the problem again?

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      24 February 2016 at 7:02 pm

                      “Boost incomes for the poor. While the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same”

                      Its a bit hard to resolve what the exact policy is from comments like this. That may have something to do with missconceptions in economic discussions.

                      I fully agree with AOB that its good enough if you can get incomes at the bottom to gravitate up maybe with govt subsidies of some form. Better if that reduces some GINI measure. You dont need to collect more tax for that to happen. The left has already tried to push forward policies about taxing wealth more (and paying less to supposedly well off pensioners). The problem is if they are unpopular then the left doesnt get elected and cant do anything. Clearly thats not doing the best for left wing constituants.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 February 2016 at 7:58 pm

                      “if”

                      Hmm, yes. What do opinion polls tell us?

                      I note Warren Buffet’s observations about wealth and 70% taxation.

              • greywarshark …
                24 February 2016 at 10:37 am

                For those who have forgotten what a GINI is – voila Wikipedia.

                The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality.
                Gini coefficient – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

                Further explanation:
                A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example, where only one person has all the income or consumption, and all others have none).[3][4]

                However, a value greater than one may occur if some persons represent negative contribution to the total (for example, having negative income or wealth). For larger groups, values close to or above 1 are very unlikely in practice.

                Now you know, or not, as the case may be. Clear as mud.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.4.1.1.2.3
              24 February 2016 at 2:18 pm

              Why do upper salaries have to fall if lower ones are rising?

              For the same reason that lower incomes are falling/stagnating while upper incomes are increasing.

          • McFlock 3.4.1.1.3
            24 February 2016 at 11:47 am

            nice straw man

            With preconspetions like that, who needs an education…

        • Nic the NZer 3.4.1.2
          24 February 2016 at 8:48 am

          In the article you linked English complains that only the Salvation army is interested in his data.

          Probably violence in middle and upper income families is more difficult to address, but its a more prevalent issue for low socio economic groups.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.4.1.2.1
            24 February 2016 at 9:06 am

            And you take what English says at face value? The Sallies say his party tells lies: perhaps everyone else has noticed that it’s counterproductive dealing with callous deceitful hypocrites.

            • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.2.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 9:08 am

              Sure, if they no longer want their funding.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 February 2016 at 10:33 am

                What’s the point of doing a whole lot of research into lies? You’re not going to get published anywhere reputable, unless you shift focus and do a Poli-Sci analysis of exactly how and why the lies are being told.

                I think if academics were in it for the money academia wouldn’t appeal to them.

              • greywarshark …
                24 February 2016 at 10:47 am

                On the funding note, and on what is smiled upon charity-wise and what is not, I thought it was interesting looking at a 2002 ‘book’ guide on charities
                to see the following (which says a lot about government wanting people to be fully informed):

                2. Under Advancement of education as a legal charitable purpose, the last entry reads:

                Education for political or other similar purposes is not charitable as it does not provide a public benefit.

                Our problem in NZ a government that desires and ensures our ignorance of our polity! (Being a bit ignorant myself, I checked I had the right word –
                Google defined it – an organized society; a state as a political entity.)

            • Nic the NZer 3.4.1.2.1.2
              24 February 2016 at 9:29 am

              Not sure what your implying. Are you saying the accademy is very interested in govt data but English doesnt want people to know that?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 February 2016 at 9:34 am

                I’m saying that English is a minister of a government that tells lies, as detailed by the Sallies, and that while academics would no doubt love to get their hands on the data, they can’t, because the National Party has constructed a dishonesty machine.

                All this has been detailed in the Sallies’ report: ‘Moving Targets’ – I suggest you familiarise yourself with it.

        • Sabine 3.4.1.3
          24 February 2016 at 9:10 am

          you are correct in saying that funds spend on poverty will not eradicate ‘all’ domestic violence, but it will alleviate the worst of it.

          I think that to a large extend it depends how one defines ‘domestic violence’ on a private level – violence by family members, and how one defines ‘domestic violence’ on a state / governmental level – violence by a state who simply does not care how its populace survives.

          On a private level, one can help by providing funds to schools for a. appropriate and science based sexual education, education about how to prevent being violent oneself, how to speak to someone in authority should one be a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault at home etc etc.
          Then funds could be provided to Shelters and Refuge Centers, so that victims of domestic violence and sufferers of abuse have a save place they can go to.

          On a state / governmental level funds could be provided to create social housing and / or maintain current social housing stock (aka State Houses) so that children and their parents can live in a decent home that they can afford.
          Benefit levels could be reviewed so that Children and their Parents have enough funds to not only pay rent, but also pay electricity and have food.
          Benefit levels could be reviewed so that children of poor parents (there is a big growing class of working poor here in NZ) will receive adequate clothing and other needed items for their schooling.

          Not eating, not being warm, being bullied at school for being poor are all symptoms of ‘domestic violence’.
          Children dying of cold in a government owned and maintained state house?

          Not having Police around to patrol the streets and make certain parts of town safer is a part of ‘domestic violence’ and usually it is women who bear the costs. i.e.
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77201968/Police-seek-information-about-Invercargill-assault

          Now these are just a very few examples of how to ‘fight’ domestic violence, and all of the examples listed would prolly not cost more than the money that the Double Dipper from Dipton has squandered on ‘Statistics’ to prove that nothing can be done.

          What I would like to know is why these guys are actually in government if they believe that the private industry is so much better at governing. It must be that they are so bad that no one would want them in private business.

          • weka 3.4.1.3.1
            24 February 2016 at 9:17 am

            “Not having Police around to patrol the streets and make certain parts of town safer is a part of ‘domestic violence’ and usually it is women who bear the costs. i.e.

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77201968/Police-seek-information-about-Invercargill-assault”

            That’s not domestic violence. The most straightforward solution to that is to put a curfew on men. But ultimately men have to do the anti-violence work or the problem just goes somewhere else. Having police patrol the streets to the degree needed to stop rape in public places is ineffective, inefficient and makes people paranoid.

            • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.3.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 9:23 am

              That’s not domestic violence. The most straightforward solution to that is to put a curfew on men.

              Who is going to enforce your “curfew on men”, robots???

              • weka …
                24 February 2016 at 9:55 am

                good idea. Or women police could do it. Or do you think that women aren’t capable and that only men can do such a job?

                edit, thinking about it, in some places in NZ police men could probably be trusted with the job, whereas in other places obviously not. I’m sure we could come up with a system that allows us to determine who is trustworthy or not.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  24 February 2016 at 10:24 am

                  There’s an inverse relationship between the GINI and the level of trust in society. Just saying… 😀

                  • weka …
                    24 February 2016 at 10:40 am

                    I was thinking about what we could do in our ambulance at the bottom of the cliff culture, rather than waiting for the revolution to come.

              • greywarshark …
                24 February 2016 at 11:01 am

                The Two Ronnies and Diana Dors presented one scenario of bringing men to heel
                (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZYCPHuRW_0

              • Colonial Viper …
                24 February 2016 at 1:50 pm

                good idea. Or women police could do it. Or do you think that women aren’t capable and that only men can do such a job?

                No, I’m saying your solution of a curfew on men is fucked.

            • Sabine 3.4.1.3.1.2
              24 February 2016 at 9:35 am

              Frankly i consider the Idea to put a curfew on Men a bit ‘out there’, and maybe to harsh, as there are also female offenders, and there are also man who get raped. And most rapes happen with someone we know and in areas / homes/ office we live and use, aka our domestic environment.

              But, our police force is being harmed by budget cuts, an extension of these budget cuts results in certain areas to loose their cop shops, the loss of presence of cops in the street and loss of community constables etc etc. In such an environment were effectively the state has abandoned its duty to provide safety to all citizens, domestic violence will grow. Mugging, Burglaries, Dairies being robbed, assault and sexual violence are all a consequence of this.
              This is not a case of this is someone who will beat the living day light out of his/her partner or child/ren, or if this is someone who will assault someone alone in a park. Both happen because they can.

              both are instances of domestic violence, if i consider the Park, the road, the sports fields and the shops were i get my milk and bread an extension of my domestic area of habitat.

              I don’t say that police on the streets can prevent all rapes or many, but not having police in the streets will for sure do nothing.
              I am not saying that having science based sexual education, education re sexual boundaries, and sexual assault, and sexual consent in schools will prevent pregnancy, std or rape, but not having programmes like will surely not create a better outcome.
              So we need to have an approach that works in the intimate area of the family home, and the more open area of the families community and surrounds.

              • weka …
                24 February 2016 at 10:20 am

                “Frankly i consider the Idea to put a curfew on Men a bit ‘out there’,”

                Me too. I’m not actually suggesting we should do that, it’s more a device to get people to think (and to see which regressive men would argue against it 😉 ). If we were serious about ending domestic and other sexual violence we would be looking at the behaviour of men and the control structures in society.

                Rape of adults (which is what your link was about) is an act done overwhelmingly by men. Yes women can rape, but most women and men who are raped are raped by men. See, that’s putting the responsibility back on the class of people who do the bad thing.

                I agree that police should be better funded and that a presence on the street in a community based way is a good thing. But if we are at the stage of thinking that police patrols are needed to control violent crime after dark then we’ve lost a lot of ground. To have prevented the assault in that link by patrolling would have required a huge police presence. I think there are better ways of using police time.

                “if i consider the Park, the road, the sports fields and the shops were i get my milk and bread an extension of my domestic area of habitat.”

                Fair point, although we don’t know if that was the case for the woman who was assaulted. I also think there is value in differentiating between sexual assualt that happens at home or by one’s partner/family and that which happens in other contexts. As you say, most rape is done to women by people they know in places they are familiar with.

                • Sabine …
                  24 February 2016 at 10:47 am

                  I don’t base anyting on that case, but it is a standard case. A dark park, as per comments from people that live near the area for some reason Lights have been cut in this park so now its dark, is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. That is my point.
                  A neighbourhood with our a presence of police is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. Taht is my point.

                  Children who think that Dad beating Mum, Mum beating the kids is normal, will do what if no one tells them that it is not normal.
                  Children who think that being sexually abused by Dad, Uncle or Cuzzie is normal will do what if no one tells them that it is not normal.

                  So we need to look at domestic violence as ‘societal violence’ that to an extend is even condoned – Women and Children as chattel to be treated as the owner – Dad – Head of the Family – sees fit, and if he spares the rod he spoils the chattel. This is still a valid thought in the eyes and brains of many hyper religious types of all creeds.
                  And in a nutshell, this is what Bill English is essentially saying, We can’t do anything about it, so lets stop wasting money on it. These ‘domestic violence’ incidents might be not so violent at all, when one has a religious believe in which a women is helpmeet, subservient to the husband, and ultimatively only does as he pleases. (and a women can have an education and a job and still live by the doctrine that the father or husband will decide what is best for her – after all she is only women).

                  This is the thinking that kills women and children world wide, by direct violence, by omitted health care on religious grounds http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners , by lack of education, smaller portions of food, less value to the community etc etc etc .

                  So really we have to look at domestic violence as something that happens intimately in families all over the country, but also as something that happens with the blessings of the state, that refuses to secure the outdoors for the public, that refuses to educate the young ones on how to build boundaries, keep themselves safe, and on how to report domestic violence and to whom, a state that refuses to assure that everyone has a safe dwelling and a plate full of nutritious food to eat, a state that refuses to keep communities safe by rationing their community constable away. (something i am sure that will only happen in certain neighbourhoods), and we have to see domestic violence that is while not outright condoned by our churches – after all violence is bad – but still tolerated in the name of biblical teachings and christian(insert any other creed in that suits you better) values.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    24 February 2016 at 11:14 am

                    Not disagreeing with anyone here so don’t take this the wrong way but there seems to be a strong theme of religion in your views, its probably just my view (being an atheist) but does religion in NZ still have that strong of a hold outside ethnic minorities?

                    • Sabine …
                      24 February 2016 at 11:32 am

                      Generally speaking most of our current laws are based on a system stemming for an age where the church (roman catholic, or protestant or anglican) has very much decided the norms and laws.

                      Don’t forget that until the seventies a women could not have a bank account without her husbands signature, could not have a cheque book without her husbands signature and could not get a contraceptive without her husbands permission to name just a few. These privileges that men have held were those given to men by the church/law of yesteryears. And if you look at communes like the Brethren, LSD, Evangelic Christians (purity, sexual abstinece,), you will find that christian/judaic/islamic believes are still very much alive and still rule when it comes to the relationships of women vs men there is a certain undertone of man knows best and mum goes with the flow.

                      And yes, religion in NZ is big, have a look at the mega churches being build, chirstian radio stations, tv channels etc etc.

                      I do believe that half of domestic violence is simply just people not being able to deal with life and letting someone else pay for their frustrations by controlling / beating / abusing partners, kids or elders, and the other half of domestic violence is simply just people living out their believes, i.e. women have to be submissive and do as the husband wishes, and the same counts for children, and she / he is poor and its their fault for them being lazy and this is why they should live in a hovel and only eat when we (government/state/society) judges that they have suffered enough or jumped through enough hoops (WINZ anyone) to get a food voucher, or a bed voucher.

                  • Molly …
                    24 February 2016 at 12:06 pm

                    “A dark park, as per comments from people that live near the area for some reason Lights have been cut in this park so now its dark, is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. That is my point.”
                    Agree.

                    Our planners and park designs are purely functional (often for singular sports) and ignore the myriad uses to which the local community can put them.

                    In particular, sports fields which are used only in evenings and weekends and make up the majority of easily accessible park spaces for most NZers.

                    Planners also provide blind alleys in the suburbs, where walkways are surrounded by 2 metre high fences, and follow the back or sides of houses where community eyes are unlikely to be looking. (A solution: allow similar builds to laneway homes on back sections, and you will completely change the atmosphere of current dark and unloved spaces.)

                    Parks and community spaces need to be designed to encourage multi-use, and multi-generational use. In many European communities the public spaces are considered an extension of your home, and social activities with friends and family utilise those spaces at all times of the day and night. As NZ has not been limited by space or transport when planning, designing and building – this public extension has not been common. But it has benefits, and needs to be encouraged.

                    Better community social cohesion, and also, better public safety due to that extended use and sense of community ownership.

                    • Molly …
                      24 February 2016 at 12:25 pm

                      Better link for alley/laneway houses.

                      It would be a good initiative programme for some of our currently ignored Auckland suburbs, where family overcrowding is rife.

                      If you are an owner-occupier of a house, then you should be able to build a small home on the back of your section that both provides affordable living to friends and family (not just an elderly relative) and provides a community benefit of redirecting attention to currently unwatched (and unsafe) public spaces.

            • Sacha 3.4.1.3.1.3
              24 February 2016 at 10:52 am

              Most family violence happens in the home – which is exactly where a curfew would put men. Not a solution.

              • weka …
                24 February 2016 at 11:20 am

                Yes, I think I made that point (that the violence just shifts elsewhere). My suggestion was to prompt people to think about what is going on when a woman gets sexually assualted at night in a park by three men.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 February 2016 at 11:24 am

                  The problem is that most men will think wtf because its just completely out of their scope of understanding whereas the men that do this sort of thing won’t care at all

                  How to stop I don’t know

                  • BM …
                    24 February 2016 at 11:26 am

                    You can’t.

                    • BM …
                      24 February 2016 at 11:39 am

                      I suppose you could if you had millions of cameras in every nook and cranny and every one was chipped.

                      Every time there was a crime you’d just look at whatever camera caught the incident, over lay that with the stored chip ids and voila, no one would commit crime because you could never get away with it.

                    • marty mars …
                      24 February 2016 at 11:43 am

                      go to the source mate – that is where the answers lie

                    • weka …
                      24 February 2016 at 11:44 am

                      I think you mean “I can’t”, in which case you should get out of the way and let the people who are making a difference do so.

                  • weka …
                    24 February 2016 at 11:47 am

                    “The problem is that most men will think wtf because its just completely out of their scope of understanding whereas the men that do this sort of thing won’t care at all”

                    In my lifetime the attitudes of men have changed hugely. Men can be educated and made aware of what the issues are and what is acceptable and what is not. Plus, this conversation is happening in the context of GINI and inequality. Do something about those and many other things become easier to solve.

                    “How to stop I don’t know”

                    Listen to and support the people that do know.

                  • marty mars …
                    24 February 2016 at 11:48 am

                    “The problem is that most men…”

                    perhaps PR if you believe it is just individuals rather than a culture – that is men’s culture, masculinity as defined and applauded within our society and so on

                    most men know exactly what the problem is and a fair few know the answers too imo

                  • Sabine …
                    24 February 2016 at 12:04 pm

                    one easy way to start is to not laugh when certain man make jokes about rape among their mates or on the radio.
                    another way is to accept that if a girl does not like her hair pulled and she says no, that she said no, consent was not given, and that the pulling of the hair has to stop and not call that ‘horsing around’ or ‘having a bit of fun’.

                    Baby steps really.
                    IF you don’t want to have it happen to your wife/mother/ sister/daughter/cuzzie/coworker etc etc then dont let it happen to someone else, and don’t just go a shucks if it does happen saying nothing can be done.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      24 February 2016 at 1:08 pm

                      Agreed and when others start talking about inserting beer bottles where they shouldn’t be or start using swiss balls in ways they weren’t designed we really shouldn’t turn a blind eye

                  • Sabine …
                    24 February 2016 at 1:18 pm

                    Puckish Rogue …
                    24 February 2016 at 1:08 pm
                    Agreed and when others start talking about inserting beer bottles where they shouldn’t be or start using swiss balls in ways they weren’t designed we really shouldn’t turn a blind eye

                    ouch. and no i don’t even want to know what swiss balls are. But i think it goes without saying that is as equally abhorrent as some bloke on the radio joking about soaps.

                    and now I need brain bleech and a cute puppie.

          • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.3.2
            24 February 2016 at 9:20 am

            you are correct in saying that funds spend on poverty will not eradicate ‘all’ domestic violence, but it will alleviate the worst of it.

            Exactly.

          • Whispering Kate 3.4.1.3.3
            24 February 2016 at 11:24 am

            “What I would like to know is why these guys are actually in government if they believe that the private industry is so much better at governing. It must be that they are so bad that no one would want them in private business.”

            Sabine, I believe it goes deeper than that, more complex. These guys, Double Dipper, Paula Benefit and Ann Tolley for example are well paid and receive exceptionally generous superannuation benefits plus perks so they hang in there. They could get jobs outside from directorships etc – but they would never get the freedom and power to exert the control they do without being scrutinised and these punitive cost cutting exercises put pain on vulnerable people and affect morale in State Services Departments – like the police, teachers and nursing staff. Its more a control thing which is very addictive, plus there has to be a streak of sadism/vindictiveness in their psyche to enjoy stretching the rubber band so fine. Control is a big component of family violence as well and it makes the person perpetuating it feel more powerful and its like a dose of “feel good” for them. No normally balanced human being would enjoy cost cutting, to the state that ill and unemployed exist hand to mouth week by week. I suggest that these ministers just love their jobs.

            • Sabine 3.4.1.3.3.1
              24 February 2016 at 11:56 am

              Yes, hence why I call it ‘state sanctioned domestic violence’.

              i suggest that these ministers are control freaks that not only love their jobs, but that also love the power that they have and the misery they can inflict.
              Marquis de Sade comes to mind ,and most of what the dear Marquis wrote about had nothing to do with sex but all to do with what people that have power do to people that don’t have power.

              • Colonial Viper …
                24 February 2016 at 2:28 pm

                I knew a kid at school who had way too much fun playing with a magnifying glass and scurrying ants on a sunny day. Wonder if he went into politics.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                24 February 2016 at 3:09 pm

                i suggest that these ministers are control freaks that not only love their jobs, but that also love the power that they have and the misery they can inflict.

                Otherwise known as psychopaths.

  4. Sabine 4
    24 February 2016 at 8:40 am

    DA Beach was bought 🙂

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/themes/beaches/77204688/abel-tasman-beach-offer-accepted
    Quote: An offer on the Abel Tasman beach has been accepted.

    It’s been a long wait for the thousands of Kiwis who got behind the campaign to buy the beach for New Zealand.

    Beach campaigner Duane Major announced the good news on Wednesday morning.”Quote End.

    🙂

    oh yeah!

    • ianmac 4.1
      24 February 2016 at 8:53 am

      Maggie says that the generous Government put in a “modest amount”. Are we as outraged as we were with Gareth? Other bidders put in some dollars as well. Announcements later today.

      • Sabine 4.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 9:15 am

        We were outraged with Gareth? What did i miss?

        I am actually just pleased that this bit of land is not going to enter the trophy box of some oversees ‘investors’.
        I am pleased it stays owned by NZ.

        • Gangnam Style 4.1.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 9:35 am

          Gareth Morgan offered to put in a big chunk of money if his family could have a little section for themselves for 15 years or something.

          • Sabine 4.1.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 9:47 am

            ah, his philanthropist side showed again?

            • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 10:01 am

              didn’t he come out and say it was a ruse to get ‘ordinary’ kiwis to go hard to beat him and ensure the campaign succeeded – I didn’t buy it of course 🙂

            • joe90 4.1.1.1.1.2
              24 February 2016 at 10:33 am

              I reckon he was trolling – get your arses into gear and raise the money – or you’ll be gazumped by a rich prick like me.

              • greywarshark …
                24 February 2016 at 11:07 am

                If so, he was smart, it apparently worked. Can we try something similar for the next election to get what we want for NZ?? We have tried asking nicely, we have thrown a dildo, we’ve pushed in an onion on a stick! (Referring to comedy Rinse the Blood off my Toga.) We’ll do – almost – anything.

              • Gangnam Style …
                24 February 2016 at 4:15 pm

                If that is indeed the case then that’s quite funny, he’s an infuriating bastard but opinionated people usually are.

      • miravox 4.1.2
        24 February 2016 at 9:35 am

        “Are we as outraged as we were with Gareth? “

        No, because the government (I hope) is not going to, whenever it’s in residence , prevent people walking above the high tide mark (and what a bargain residence that would have been, getting the public to part pay).

        I wonder what a modest amount is?

    • weka 4.2
      24 February 2016 at 8:54 am

      Who will be the eventual legal owner?

    • Lanthanide 4.3
      24 February 2016 at 10:24 am

      The most interesting part of this is that Maggie Barry said on RNZ this morning that the government is going to buy up other parts of Abel Tasman and merge them into the national park as well. She was expecting to announce this within 3 weeks.

      So it seems National is tapping this crowd-funding and cheerful sentiment around it for votes.

      Fair enough; but at what cost? Where is the money coming from?

      • marty mars 4.3.1
        24 February 2016 at 10:39 am

        yep they’ve found a seam of gold – smacked the original claim owners over the head and proceeding to take the ‘claim’ over and dig the shit out of it – until it runs dry or their pollsters tell them someone else has some better gold over there.

      • Ad 4.3.2
        24 February 2016 at 11:10 am

        Hopefully funding for National park extensions would come from fresh funding from the taxpayer. Funding through tax is the ultimate and fully democratically sanctioned original crowd-funding.

      • AmaKiwi 4.3.3
        24 February 2016 at 10:44 pm

        Every NZ government does a sort of crowd funding in terms of hospices. Every MP knows hospices save tens of millions in the health budget.

  5. savenz 5
    24 February 2016 at 9:43 am

    Am I the only one who sees the irony of the public crowd funding to keep a piece of beach, while the government can’t wait to sell as much land off as soon as possible?

    • Sabine 5.1
      24 February 2016 at 9:48 am

      no, i think you are in excellent company.

      here have a coffee 🙂

    • marty mars 5.2
      24 February 2016 at 9:58 am

      imo the measurement is ‘popular’ – after rigorous polling the MOST popular (to middle potential swing Gnat voters) is determined. This is then championed, alluded to, connected to the gnats via maskKey. This then dipilaTories from general popularity into popularity for the gnats. Meanwhile the polling continues 24/7, day and night – else how will the gnats know what to support and push.

      • BM 5.2.1
        24 February 2016 at 10:15 am


        Meanwhile the polling continues 24/7, day and night – else how will the gnats know what to support and push.

        Up to date relevant data is the key to success.

        • marty mars 5.2.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 10:34 am

          depends how you define success and how ‘up to date’ and ‘relevant’ the data is or ever can be.

          • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 10:48 am

            Being able to govern is a pretty decent way of defining succes

            • Stuart Munro 5.2.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 11:27 am

              Yeah but there are levels within that success.

              Caligula was able to govern, but he didn’t do a lot for his country. Like Brownlee, he diverted national resources to ambitious construction projects. Ultimately he was killed by his own security people.

              Suppose Key were toppled in a bloody insurrection by a charismatic antipodean Danton – she too would be able to govern.

              Mere governance is no achievement at all – there is always someone on top – the trick is to get considerate folk who leave things better than they found them. That doesn’t describe the Gnats at all – they’re wrecking the place.

    • Kevin 5.3
      24 February 2016 at 11:57 am

      A fact I have been trying to point out to people but it goes straight over their heads.

      • Molly 5.3.1
        24 February 2016 at 12:27 pm

        I’m a bit ‘meh’ on the whole campaign as well. As mentioned above, National have found another wagon to hitch their “fern” to and will ride it for all its worth.

  6. ianmac 6
    24 February 2016 at 9:49 am

    Gareth wanted the use of the existing bach for 15 years. That upset many folk. I think that under DOC that bach will be demolished as not allowed in a National Park. The bach was I think an old boat dragged up from the beach years ago.

    • weka 6.1
      24 February 2016 at 10:23 am

      Are DOC still erasing human history from National Parks? They should leave the bach standing and make use of it.

      • Ad 6.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 11:11 am

        Or demolish it, plant it, and return it to the natural state from whence it came.

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 11:14 am

          Why that rather than preserving the human history? If it was an old pa or kaik site would you want it removed?

        • maui 6.1.1.2
          24 February 2016 at 11:32 am

          In a lot of cases replanting creates a human interpretation of what land should look like, returning land to a “natural original state” is almost impossible. I’ve seen many restoration projects where they don’t even have the care to plant species from that same region. Then there’s the issue of no one being certain of what the land looked like 1,000, 100,000 or a million years ago.

          • weka 6.1.1.2.1
            24 February 2016 at 11:51 am

            True, although there are also groups that source plants from within the rohe. We don’t have to go back 1,000 years (especially given that there has been localised climate change in that time). If there are still local intact native ecosystems they will tell us a lot. But I take your point, much of the restoration happening is about making it look like something rather than be something.

  7. esoteric pineapples 7
    24 February 2016 at 10:51 am

    “The electronic voting machines are owned by private corporations, which are Republican in orientation, generally. And the courts have ruled that the source code on these electronic voting machines is proprietary. So, even the governments that buy or lease these machines have no access to a final verification process.”

    “And this year, about 80 percent of the vote nationally will be cast on electronic voting machines. There is no verifiability. In six key swing states—Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona—you have Republican governors and Republican secretaries of state, and no method of verifying the electronic vote count. At midnight or whenever it is on election night, those two guys can go in there with an IT person and flip the outcome of an electronically counted vote within about 60 seconds.”

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      24 February 2016 at 3:14 pm

      Which just tells us that we shouldn’t be using voting machines or proprietary software for online voting.

      • AmaKiwi 7.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 10:54 pm

        A humorous short video about how easily 4 University of Michigan undergraduates hacked to pieces a Washington, D.C. election site that used computer voting. The kids had a great time, but no one has learned the lesson they are teaching us.

  8. The lost sheep 8
    24 February 2016 at 11:11 am

    Is there any meaning in what the site policy refers to as ‘ reasonably rational debate’ if a ‘debater’ can simply ignore any point that is inconvenient to them?

    IMO, the level of ‘genuine debate’ on this blog would be greatly improved if there was a tighter expectation that commenters should engage directly and honestly with ‘reasonable’ discussion points.

    At a minimum, If a commenter has willingly engaged in a discussion, and a point is put to them that is: directly relevant to the original post, their own comments, is tightly focused, is based on referenced facts, draws a logical conclusion from those facts, is put politely….
    Then it is entirely reasonable that the point should be met in a genuine and direct manner?

    Can a discussion actually be ‘debate’ if that minimum level of engagement is not met?

    • Ad 8.1
      24 February 2016 at 11:12 am

      Open Mike is Open Mike for a reason.

      Specific posts are more closely moderated.

      • weka 8.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 11:18 am

        Some are some aren’t 😉

        I think sheep is meaning that he is sick of people giving him shit. Which is fair enough. It’s also fair enough that people are sick of his right wing ideas.

        • The lost sheep 8.1.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 11:56 am

          You yourself always attempt to answer points directly and honestly Weka.
          If you put a rational fact based point to someone yourself, do you have an expectation of a genuine reply?

          And If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs, would that bother you?
          (On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, as I think that kind of comment says more about the abuser than the abused), but what I would ask is whether or not that kind of approach has any place in a ‘reasonably rational debate’?

          And does ‘not liking someones ideas’ justify refusing to engage with reasonable fact based points they make, and simply abusing them?
          Does ‘don’t like’ make something untrue and therefore requiring no rational debate?

          Just over time, I have noted how small a group of people it is who comment here, and how rare it is for new commenters to join the discussion. Do you think that the quality of ‘debate’ and the ‘abuse’ has something to do with that?

          • weka 8.1.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 12:19 pm

            “You yourself always attempt to answer points directly and honestly Weka.
            If you put a rational fact based point to someone yourself, do you have an expectation of a genuine reply?”

            It depends on the person and the context and whether I’ve been giving that person a hard time recently or given them respect.

            “And If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs, would that bother you?
            (On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, as I think that kind of comment says more about the abuser than the abused), but what I would ask is whether or not that kind of approach has any place in a ‘reasonably rational debate’?”

            Pig fucker and rat fucker accusations bother me because I think that animals deserve more respect. Generally that particular insult is aimed at people with right wing ideas. I don’t think anyone has used it at me.

            There is a lot of commentary here that isn’t rational debate. The rational response to that is to work with what is, or if one wants to fight it or argue within it, then accept the consequences.

            “And does ‘not liking someones ideas’ justify refusing to engage with reasonable fact based points they make, and simply abusing them?
            Does ‘don’t like’ make something untrue and therefore requiring no rational debate?”

            Depends on the ideas. The rationale I hear for abuse is that the ideas are sufficiently abhorrent as to need ridicule in response. OAB takes it to the extreme and condems all people he perceives as fools before the words have even left their mouth. Most other people engage then give up. The point where they reach their limit varies.

            You have to understand too that many people here know you from past exchanges, so they’re going to come down hard on the same kinds of right wing ideas.

            “Just over time, I have noted how small a group of people it is who comment here, and how rare it is for new commenters to join the discussion. Do you think that the quality of ‘debate’ and the ‘abuse’ has something to do with that?”

            I think stomping on newbies as soon as they arrive like OAB and Lynn do is very counter productive. But I don’t think the robust nature in general is the problem, so much as the lack of moderation around politics. Hence we have few feminist authors here, and while there are more women commenting than there used to be, I’m sure the culture here puts many off. How much of that is the politics and how much the macho stuff I don’t know, I’d say both are a problem.

            In general I see the long threads where people end up slagging each other off as tedious. But you take part in those as much as OAB or McFlock or whoever, hence my suggestion that if you don’t like how you are being responded to, talk to different people. There are good commenters here who don’t behave like that. Others of us just like the argument. I have a foot in both camps.

            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 12:30 pm

              ok I’ve just looked at the thread you are referring to and it’s full of people engaging in genuine debate, a lot of effort put in by people to addressing points and backing their views up with facts. Your complaint seems disingenuous now. This is a robust debate culture. It includes people being rude. But people did respond to your ideas, so what’s the problem?

              http://thestandard.org.nz/another-poverty-report-to-ignore/#comment-1136536

              • The lost sheep …
                24 February 2016 at 1:11 pm

                What’s the problem?
                As you point out Weka, ‘many people are put off commenting here’, such as ‘feminists’.

                Given the general left wing ideals of tolerance, respect, open mindedness, inclusion, etc, that many here would claim to uphold don’t you think there is something wrong when this forum’s culture is such that so few people are willing to engage with it?

                • weka …
                  24 February 2016 at 1:16 pm

                  Ok, so now you don’t want to talk about rudeness and you don’t want to talk about what constitutes reasonable debate, you want to debate whether there should be a robust debate culture on the standard? Lynn replied to you below, why not take it up with him? He’s one of the ones that ultimately controls what happens here.

                  • lprent …
                    24 February 2016 at 7:16 pm

                    Ummm. Just because he hasn’t read the whole policy isn’t a reason to say “enter the dread portal, it is totally safe”. It is entrapment of a sucker…

                    • weka …
                      24 February 2016 at 7:29 pm

                      I was running out of patience.

                      It’s very generous of you to allow he might not have read the whole policy given how long he’s commented here 😉

                • lprent …
                  24 February 2016 at 7:17 pm

                  I hadn’t noticed a shortage of people commenting. I have a overheating machine that says something quite different.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.2
            24 February 2016 at 6:40 pm

            If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs

            As McFlock and Weka have pointed out, your mendacity is generally intolerable, and ridicule and contempt ensue.

            It’s already been explained to you that one of the local vernaculars for a loaded question can be seen in references to homo-porcine miscegenation.

            Ask loaded questions, invite references to animal husbandry. That’s how it is.

    • weka 8.2
      24 February 2016 at 11:17 am

      Hard to comment on that without you giving an example so we know what you mean. But there is no onus on people here to have to talk to anyone, so if you don’t like the kind of responses you are getting, try talking to different people.

    • lprent 8.3
      24 February 2016 at 12:36 pm

      The level of engagement is purely up to the people concerned. We deal with the trolling behaviour of bait and run as flame starters or diversion from the post, but what you are describing doesn’t sound like that. It sounds like someone has raised a point, you have answered it and they have ignored your point for whatever reason. That sounds more like a degree of shunning – which in your case sounds more like your methods of presentation than anything else. But moderators generally don’t perform forcing to debate..

      There is a particular case that we will enforce replies. That is when someone makes an unsubstantiated assertion of fact without a link or a explanation. Usually someone stating an opinion of a bit of outright bigotry or urban myth as fact. That is a practice that is designed to start flamewars and is for the site legally dangerous. We keep an eye out for those and will force substantiation on the penalty of a long ban because idiots who do that make the moderators lives a lot harder and we can do without them.

      But generally we aren’t going to act on complaints from the floor if they don’t point to instances in the comment (yours did not) and an explanation about why we as moderators should be concerned about it for the good of the site (we really couldn’t give a rats arse about why you or anyone else personally thinks it is important).

      • The lost sheep 8.3.1
        24 February 2016 at 1:33 pm

        So if someone makes a claim something is ‘fact’, and ‘facts’ are produced to challenge that statement, there is no kind of expectation that the person who made the original claim should address those facts?

        I had wondered whether this part of the policy implied that there was an expectation of a certain level of genuine engagement with a reasonable debate, but it seems it does not?

        Typically trolls do not interact with other commentators as they either ignore what others say in reply or write a reply that ignores what they said. In either case it is ignorant, anti-social, annoying to read, and will often result in a banning

        • weka 8.3.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 1:44 pm

          can you please link to two specific examples so it’s clear what you mean?

          • The lost sheep 8.3.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 3:18 pm

            Sure Weka.
            Look at the link I give above if you are interested.
            Consider the discussion around whether or not the Salvation Army said that Material Hardship was dropping or not.

            “Does the report make the following statement based on Perry’s data?
            “Table 2 reports estimated changes in material deprivation or hardship measures between 2010 and 2014, and this offers a slightly more positive picture. The number of children estimated to be living in households experiencing levels of material hardship that might be seen as more than moderate is reported to have fallen from 210,000 in 2010 to 145,000 in 2014. This is encouraging.”

            Simple eh. Only one possible answer? Would you have a problem accepting that point Weka?

            Or the discussion on whether or not the data that backed that assertion was sound or not.
            You’ll see I provided the factual evidence that the S.A. considered the data perfectly sound, and a statement from the Author himself that countered OAB’s claim that the data was not valid.
            Simple then. We accept the data is sound and the S.A. is making that statement based on it? But no. The answer is a tirade of explicit sexually themed abuse…..

            I’m just wondering if ‘debate’ has any credibility at all if no one ever has to concede a point to facts?

            • McFlock 8.3.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 3:55 pm

              See, what you’re rather dishonestly doing is ignoring other parts of the Sally report.

              The quote you made referred to “more than moderate material hardship”. You’ve confused it into “Material Hardship”. So the literal “one simple answer” to your question is that there is insufficient data upon which to base a response.

              You’ve then ignored other comments in the report that have a wider focus than just one aspect of one estimate of one measure, such as

              CHILD POVERTY RESULT
              While the data offers a mixed picture, in total it is difficult to see any meaningful change in rates of child poverty and material hardship since the GFC. It is beginning to appear that this area of social progress is not a political priority at present given that the economy and household income have continued to grow modestly.

              In that case, the simple answer to your question is “possibly, possibly not, but overall the measures are pretty constant”.

              And you argue that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report” means that measures not included in those examples are considered “perfectly sound”.

              Those are a few examples of why I think that time is better spent calling you a fuckwit than actually engaging with your pretence of a debate.

              But be sure, the finite and arbitrary number of these examples doesn’t mean that I regard any other comment by you as being perfectly sound. While there is a theoretical possibility that you might end up understanding the implicit messages used in conversational English, the odds are higher that you’ll yet again fail the Turing test worse than an ’80s text adventure computer game.

              • The lost sheep …
                24 February 2016 at 5:38 pm

                The quote you made referred to “more than moderate material hardship”. You’ve confused it into “Material Hardship”. So the literal “one simple answer” to your question is that there is insufficient data upon which to base a response.
                I agree that anyone who had not read the report might be confused by that. Apologies.
                To clarify the data in Table 2 of the report, The number of children living in ‘more than moderate hardship’ (EU standard threshold) in 2010 was 210,000, and in 2014 it was 145,000. The number of Children living in ‘severe’ hardship was 90,000 in 2010, and 80,000 in 2014.
                Combined children in hardship figures are 300,000 in 2010, and 225,000 in 2014. (% figures: -30%, -11%, -25%)

                1.These figures are correct McFlock?

                While the data offers a mixed picture, in total it is difficult to see any meaningful change in rates of child poverty and material hardship since the GFC. It is beginning to appear that this area of social progress is not a political priority at present given that the economy and household income have continued to grow modestly.
                In that case, the simple answer to your question is “possibly, possibly not, but overall the measures are pretty constant”.
                The Sallies certainly say that. But if you look at the figures above or what they quote for the peak of the GFC, (the % drops being -34%, -23%, -32%. 110,000 less children in hardship),
                2. I find it very hard to reconcile those figures with ‘no meaningful change’?

                And to go back to my original point, which was that the report was further evidence that the ‘poverty and hardship are increasing meme was false.

                3. You will agree that ‘difficult to see any meaningful change’ does at least eliminate an ‘increase’?

                And you argue that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report” means that measures not included in those examples are considered “perfectly sound”.
                No. I say that they do not say all data is unsound, and in some areas they explicitly state they have confidence in the data. For Child Poverty they state ‘we have a number of official measures of income adequacy and material deprivation that allow us to create a consistent
                and useful picture of poverty trends over time’, and they clearly reference Perry as the source of much of their data. They make definite assertions based on that data.

                4. That is correct isn’t it McFlock?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  24 February 2016 at 5:57 pm

                  poverty and hardship are increasing meme

                  Is not a meme. The meme, if you insist, is that poverty and hardship have doubled since 1984 (using median household income as a metric) as a result of neoliberalism and will not improve until neoliberalism is abandoned (I’d like to see it smashed and broken too) in toto.

                  Please try and stop lying about the meme.

                • McFlock …
                  24 February 2016 at 6:16 pm

                  1) I have no way of knowing if those figures are correct. Wasn’t it only a couple of years back that Treasury seriously fucked up the raw data for some of Perry’s work?

                  2) whoa there, fucko, what happened to “my original point, which was that the report was further evidence that the ‘poverty and hardship are increasing meme was false.” Let’s call that “1b”

                  1b) from the paragraph above Table 2 in the report:

                  The proportion of children estimated to be both materially and income poor has declined from around 13% in 2010 (or about 130,000 children) to 8% in 2013, before rising again to around 9% or 90,000 children in 2014.

                  So, well after the peak of the GFC, the number of children in poverty and hardship seems to be on the increase again. If the figures are accurate. And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?

                  2) Well, any meaningful increase. But then you need to be clear that you are comparing apples with apples, rather than taking a single measure that happens to suit your data. This is where you keep falling over. But, for example, according to Perry all the income poverty measures had increases from 2013 to 2014. They might not be meaningful, but they are increases.

                  3) That appears to be the same data source they used in their 2013 report, and the data source turned out to undercount by 20,000. So while it’s correct from a certain point of view, from other points of view its reliability could be regarded as “debatable”.

                  But bear in mind that this is the best you can do using the peak of the GFC as a starting point. No meaningful change. Not “massive improvement”. Not “continued gains”. Advances in some narrowly-defined measures balanced by regressions in others.

                  And comparing the rates with 10 years or thirty years ago, the increases are most definitely meaningful.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    25 February 2016 at 8:32 am

                    1) I have no way of knowing if those figures are correct. Wasn’t it only a couple of years back that Treasury seriously fucked up the raw data for some of Perry’s work
                    Yup. Detected back in 2014 and corrected well before the data the Sallies base their report on.
                    As I have said several times. The Sallies are happy with the figures…

                    So, well after the peak of the GFC, the number of children in poverty and hardship seems to be on the increase again. If the figures are accurate.
                    The number of children in both income poverty and hardship rose by 1% between 13/14, at the same time as the total number of children in moderate or severe hardship dropped by 15%. (see tables 1 and 2)
                    This reflects an increase in relative income poverty measure, and further illustrates how the linkage between the 2 measures is problematic.

                    And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
                    Table 2. Total number of children in hardship 2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000. That’s 110,000 less by my calculation. (How is that not significant? If it had gone up by that amount it would not be significant?)

                    2) Well, any meaningful increase.
                    Agreed. But yes, relative income poverty measures showed a small increase in the year. According to Perry, “On the moving line approach there was a reported rise to 2014, reflecting the sharp rise in the median. ” Again, indicating that Relative poverty can increase at the same time as hardship drops.

                    And comparing the rates with 10 years or thirty years ago, the increases are most definitely meaningful.
                    Perry makes very interesting reading on trends since 1980.
                    In short, Inequality has increased significantly.
                    Income has risen for 80% of us (bottom quintile stayed flat).
                    Income based poverty measures have been very mixed over that time, and peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping. Currently, depending on the measure used they are roughly between 3-10% above 1980 levels.
                    On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2016 at 8:57 am

                      Between 2011 and 2014 you say! Astonishing. Something must have happened in the meantime to make that big a difference!

                      Oh, yeah, that’s right, they changed the way they measure it in 2012. I know this because I can remember the last time you tried to make something of it.

                      Your insincerity is tiresome and cretinous.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      25 February 2016 at 9:24 am

                      Link please?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2016 at 1:48 pm

                      Detected back in 2014 and corrected well before the data the Sallies base their report on.
                      As I have said several times. The Sallies are happy with the figures

                      You can say it all you want, but the fact remains that Treasury phoned it in in 2013. You know, less than reliable.

                      And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
                      Table 2. Total number of children in hardship 2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000.

                      Your numbers are incorrect:
                      Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold:
                      2011: 220,000
                      2014: 145,000

                      75,000 might or might not be significant. But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators, some of which measure things precisely but are indirect, and others that are estimates of estimates but are slightly more direct. And through it all there’s the filter of political interference that affects at least, but not restricted to, two indicators relating to the wellbeing of children in NZ. Looking at hardship, extreme hardship has bounced up and down in alternate years, while moderate hardship has decreased. Is this meaningful, if the number in extreme hardship remains steady? Meanwhile, income poverty is not even that rosy.

                      Income based poverty measures have been very mixed over that time, and peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping.

                      well, until 2007, then they’ve not been dropping. Of course, stating which tables you’re getting this from would be useful, too, given that the Perry report is 229 pages.

                      Currently, depending on the measure used they are roughly between 3-10% above 1980 levels.

                      you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
                      not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.

                      On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.

                      Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?

                      Basically, you are so full of shit it’s not funny. Then you whine when people point this out.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      25 February 2016 at 2:43 pm

                      Your numbers are incorrect:
                      Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold: 2011: 220,000, 2014: 145,000
                      Total number of children in both categories of the table…..2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000…

                      75,000 (110,000) might or might not be significant.
                      25-32% might or might not be significant? If it was Auckland house prices it would not be significant, or an increase in unemployment, or inequality? I bet you would be saying it was…

                      you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
                      not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.
                      Page 98. The graph does start at 1980. I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.

                      Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?
                      Page 86. The Constant Value Threshold does take inflation into account and according to Perry it “reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.”

                      But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators,
                      I do understand that McFlock, but my point is that we should be willing to look at all those indicators that are credible with an open mind. It seems to me that you and some others here are unwilling to accept any indicator which doesn’t suit your dogma, even when it is from a credible widely accepted source that is being used quite happily by organisations like The Sallies and The Child Poverty Monitor.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      25 February 2016 at 2:52 pm

                      @OAB
                      To quote from that document …
                      1. There is no on-going ELSI time series, but the MWI series begins from 2012–13. Because items are common to earlier and later datasets, Perry considers there is sufficient commonality to have a ‘good-enough’ index that will show the shape of the trend line from 2006–07 to 2013–14.

                      Nowhere in the document does it make any suggestion that Perry’s figures as used extensively by themselves and The Sallies are incorrect.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2016 at 3:34 pm

                      “Incorrect”.

                      Apart from in the entire introduction, where it casts doubt on anything that comes out of this government. You’ll deny that, and it’s all there in black and white.

                      what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument gauges

                      ..and what McFlock said.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2016 at 3:37 pm

                      Your numbers are incorrect:
                      Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold: 2011: 220,000, 2014: 145,000

                      Total number of children in both categories of the table…..2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000…

                      On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
                      Do you understand what the term “threshold” means?

                      75,000 (110,000) might or might not be significant.

                      25-32% might or might not be significant? If it was Auckland house prices it would not be significant, or an increase in unemployment, or inequality? I bet you would be saying it was…

                      Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand. As a human being, you’d understand all this, of course.

                      you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
                      not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.

                      Page 98. The graph does start at 1980. I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.

                      Do you mean graph F.2? Y intercept is 1980. Do you see a fucking data point at the Y intercept?
                      It’s this sort of sloppy shit from you that fucks people off.
                      But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around.

                      On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.

                      Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?

                      Page 86. The Constant Value Threshold does take inflation into account and according to Perry it “reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.”

                      Table and figure E.1, right? Labelled:
                      “CV threshold set at 60% of the 1998 median expressed as a proportion of the contemporary median (BHC)”
                      That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures. So what table or chart did you use as your basis for your claim “On the ‘Constant value’ measure […], current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.”?

                      But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators,

                      I do understand that McFlock, but my point is that we should be willing to look at all those indicators that are credible with an open mind. It seems to me that you and some others here are unwilling to accept any indicator which doesn’t suit your dogma, even when it is from a credible widely accepted source that is being used quite happily by organisations like The Sallies and The Child Poverty Monitor.

                      “Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction.

                      But what fucks me off about you is that you confuse “any indicator” with “any relevant indicator”. You bounce around with what measurements you use, and finding out what your basing your bullshit on is like extracting hens’ teeth. And nine times out of ten, when we do find out what you’re talking about, it turns out that you’re either making massive assumptions or you’re completely delusional. And then you whinge when people call you a stupid fuckwit because of it.

                      Here’s a thought: if you don’t want abuse, stop being a dickhead. If people ask for evidence, don’t make them hunt through a 220 page document: at least give the table/chart reference. That way we can quickly see “oh, the lost sheep is just being a fucking moron again, they still haven’t grown a brain”.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      25 February 2016 at 5:19 pm

                      On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
                      My basis is the figures the tables show and the commentary provided for them. It’s plain enough IMO, but as you and I are not going to agree on it, I’m happy to leave it to any interested party to read it themselves.

                      Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand.
                      That is politspeak. You’ve entered the world of smoke and mirrors and I’m not following you in there. I say that a 30% change in any figure is significant, and If it was going the other way you would be claiming it was hugely significant.

                      But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around
                      The data measure across that timeline is based on Household measures. Children do tend to live in households I believe.

                      That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures.
                      I referred to ‘hardship’ not poverty, but agree it is not an ideal measure. As I have quoted Perry above “it (CV) reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.” The tables on real income do show a steady increase for all except the lowest quintile…but i will see if I can find more explicit figures for ‘hardship’ across that time.

                      “Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction
                      Sorry McFlock, but that is a fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’. Absence of explicit criticism is just that. It is not evidence of anything else at all.
                      The fact is that Perry is perfectly well accepted as reliable data by the Sallies and Child Poverty Monitor and everyone else. You and OAB do not accept it and that’s fine by me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2016 at 5:26 pm

                      It isn’t ‘politispeak’ – not even Physics deals in absolute numbers – your frequent references to ‘proof’ indicate that you don’t really understand this,

                      Luckily, we have Einstein to explain it:

                      As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2016 at 8:08 pm

                      On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?

                      My basis is the figures the tables show and the commentary provided for them. It’s plain enough IMO, but as you and I are not going to agree on it, I’m happy to leave it to any interested party to read it themselves.

                      So, no basis for that assumption. If Perry had meant 350,000, Perry would have said 350,000. Because people with 8 or more criteria by definition meet the threshold for 4 or more criteria.

                      Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand.

                      That is politspeak. You’ve entered the world of smoke and mirrors and I’m not following you in there. I say that a 30% change in any figure is significant, and If it was going the other way you would be claiming it was hugely significant.

                      So a change from three degrees to two degrees is just as significant as a change from thirty degrees to twenty degrees?
                      Or three cases of measles in one year and two cases the following year is as significant as the same population having 30,000 assault hospitalisations down to 20,000 the following year? No, because the context of the numbers dictates the significance of those numbers.

                      But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around

                      The data measure across that timeline is based on Household measures. Children do tend to live in households I believe.

                      Not evenly distributed, however. Which is why the data in section H of perry’s report differs from the household data. Again, your assumptions lead to your irrelevance.

                      That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures.

                      I referred to ‘hardship’ not poverty, but agree it is not an ideal measure. As I have quoted Perry above “it (CV) reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.” The tables on real income do show a steady increase for all except the lowest quintile…but i will see if I can find more explicit figures for ‘hardship’ across that time.

                      So just to clarify, the page 86 chart (E1) comparing CV against REL was irrelevant not just to hardship, but also to child poverty, and your entire case. You fucked up.

                      “Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction

                      Sorry McFlock, but that is a fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’. Absence of explicit criticism is just that. It is not evidence of anything else at all.

                      So it is not evidence of how “happily” (or grudgingly) research is used in an environment that involves less than straightforward or reliable measures.

                      The fact is that Perry is perfectly well accepted as reliable data by the Sallies and Child Poverty Monitor and everyone else. You and OAB do not accept it and that’s fine by me.

                      I can’t help but notice the continued absence of explicit evidence to support your description of how happy everyone is.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 February 2016 at 7:40 am

                      It isn’t ‘politispeak’
                      It was straight from an episode of Yes Minister.

                      As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

                      This is an equally pathetic attempt to cast doubt on perfectly credible and accepted data, in order to avoid facing up to facts that contradict your dogma.

                      So tell me OAB/McFlock, are you going to be consistent in your stance that no data can be really said to be ‘real, certain or significant’?

                      Or will that just be data you don’t like?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 February 2016 at 7:47 am

                      *whoosh*

                      No, you graceless cretin, it isn’t an attempt to cast doubt.

                      “Facts” 🙄

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 February 2016 at 8:25 am

                      @McFlock.
                      Thinking about the discussion re. the level of ‘debate’ here McFlock, we have made some good progress, thanks, but I’m no longer going to respond to points that would involve both parties in a 3rd repetition of what have obviously become fixed and immovable points.
                      And I think we’ve reached that state on some of the areas we’ve been discussing.
                      Happy to continue responding to any point that still has some potential for ‘progression’ in the debate.

                      “So just to clarify, the page 86 chart (E1) comparing CV against REL was irrelevant not just to hardship, but also to child poverty, and your entire case. You fucked up.”
                      I’ve already stated 3 times what Perry says the significance of it was. As a general indicator of those factors, it shows a very steady downward curve from 1980…..make of that what you will.

                      I looked to see if I could find any more direct data on ‘material hardship’ across 1982 – 2015, but the answer seems to be that there is no such comparison available due to lack of credible data pre 1998.
                      Perry, in The material wellbeing of NZ housejolds etc, page 57 on, explains why it is only scientifically valid to report on trends from 2007 onwards, with very limited reference back to 1998.
                      The rest of the chapter contains in depth the material that forms the basis of almost all discussion on material deprivation in NZ, including the base material for the reports of The Sallies and C.P.M much discussed in this thread.
                      You can choose to acccept it or not McFlock, but as all credible organisations do accept it, it doesn’t matter a damn if you don’t.

                      Page 57/58 also contain the authors full explanation of why OAB’s claim that ‘changes in data measures completely undermine the validity of the conclusions’ is poppycock.

                      I can’t help but notice the continued absence of explicit evidence to support your description of how happy everyone is.
                      You are battling against your own strawman McFlock. I have made no such statement.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 February 2016 at 8:48 am

                      You are incapable of summarising my argument. Either that or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it.

                      You are the one expressing confidence in Perry’s conclusions about material hardship. I am saying that you haven’t made your case, and the problems with the data as detailed by the Sallies cannot be ignored.

                      Is there the remotest chance you could avoid lying about that in the future?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2016 at 1:46 pm

                      I’ve already stated 3 times what Perry says the significance of it was. As a general indicator of those factors, it shows a very steady downward curve from 1980…..make of that what you will.

                      No, you haven’t.
                      You made a claim

                      On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.

                      I asked:

                      Which table?

                      And a supplementary question. You responded:

                      Page 86.

                      and an explanation about adjustment for inflation.
                      The only tables and figures on page 86 have nothing to do with either the CV or REL rates of poverty. The proportionate value of CV is 13% below 1982 REL levels.

                      You might think all this is piddling stuff, but it’s actually a really good example of why people find more value in just calling you a fuckwit. We’ve said a lot, but the debate has gone nowhere because you:

                      a) Don’t understand that abstract numbers require context to have significance
                      b) Make assumptions about adding figures together when you might merely be adding a subset with the population from which it was taken
                      c) Don’t understand labels on a chart, so refer to data from 1980 when no such data is reported
                      d) Don’t understand how to read the shape of a chart line (“peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping” becomes “I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.”, so you actually misrepresented a full third of the shape of the line)
                      e) Refer people to 200-page documents or entire comment threads rather than actually link to the specific comment or give the actual table or chart number that supports the narrow point you’re misrepresenting
                      f) Don’t understand how little you actually understand.

                      This is by no means an exhaustive list: what’s also concerning is that you confuse “best available” with “ideal”, and that you seem to believe that silence equals approval. And then there’s your outright bullshit “Perry, in The material wellbeing of NZ housejolds etc, page 57 on, explains why it is only scientifically valid to report on trends from 2007 onwards, with very limited reference back to 1998.” Where in section G does it even mention the year 1998? Let alone “scientific validity” (don’t use words too big for you to understand).

                      If this tit-for-tat had all your unsubstantiated bullshit and outright imcompetence removed, there would be almost no discussion remaining. You might call that “good progress”, but it’s not. It’s activity masquerading as utility. That’s why you’re frequently on the receiving end of abuse: you’re a fucking moron who thinks they’re a genius. You never acknowledge imperfection on your part, and therefore any disagreement with you must be incorrect. You’re a pointless waste of space.

                      Much more productive to just call you a stupid fuckwit. Now go write another comment on open mike about how people are mean. Then run crying to your mummy, she’s waiting for you.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 February 2016 at 3:33 pm

                      Thanks McFlock, but they are all points that we have batted across the net several times now, and have obviously irreconcilable positions on. I’m not going to restate the same answers a third time.

                      Besides which, I’m really over this situation where you and OAB on the one hand deny the credibility and/or significance of Perry’s data, while at the same time asking me to answer points based on Perry’s data….

                      bullshit fucking moron pointless waste of space stupid fuckwit run crying to your mummy, she’s waiting for you.
                      Mate. I worked for 20 years in freezing works / coal mines / fishing boats / building sites / farms, and after that I can assure you that blank shots fired by an effete intellectual hiding behind the anonymity of a computer screen has absolutely zero effect on me.
                      Abuse can have gravitas, but IMO, only in a situation where the abuser is in the direct vicinity of the abused, and delivers the abuse in full awareness that they will be personally responsible for it. That can take real balls. But abuse from a position of hiding is just cowardice.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 February 2016 at 3:41 pm

                      McFlock hasn’t denied the credibility of the data: they’ve pointed out that you don’t understand it, and where you have misrepresented it.

                      Whereas I pointed out (among other things) that (even if your reading of Perry were correct, which it isn’t) relying on a single study as proof of anything is a mistake, especially under the circumstances outlined by the Sallies.

                      Is there the remotest chance you could refrain from misrepresenting that in the future?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2016 at 6:01 pm

                      Thanks McFlock, but they are all points that we have batted across the net several times now, and have obviously irreconcilable positions on. I’m not going to restate the same answers a third time.

                      Restate? Answering even once would be fine. It’s pretty obvious,really: when you said CV rates today were 13% below 1982 levels, you meant that the value of the CV poverty line was 58% of the corresponding REL line in 1982, but is only 45% of the REL value today. But you can’t admit the slightest error, so you keep digging yourself a hole.

                      Besides which, I’m really over this situation where you and OAB on the one hand deny the credibility and/or significance of Perry’s data, while at the same time asking me to answer points based on Perry’s data….

                      You’re the one who brought Perry into this. I’m pointing out that what Perry authored isn’t what you say. I’m also suggesting that people who had to put a full column disclaimer at the top of their website might have experienced a little bit of trepidation at having to rely on the same source in future, rather than being “happy” about it.

                      Mate. I worked for 20 years in freezing works / coal mines / fishing boats / building sites / farms, and after that I can assure you that blank shots fired by an effete intellectual hiding behind the anonymity of a computer screen has absolutely zero effect on me. Abuse can have gravitas, but IMO, only in a situation where the abuser is in the direct vicinity of the abused, and delivers the abuse in full awareness that they will be personally responsible for it. That can take real balls. But abuse from a position of hiding is just cowardice.

                      lol: besides the confusion between “anonymity” and “pseudonymity”, you just called me a coward from behind a pseudonym. So you’re a hypocrite as well as a fucking moron, even if you’re ever so butch.

                      But perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: I don’t call you, for example, “a moron so stupid that any of your repeated attempts at pigfucking could well have resulted in your telling an extremely confused zebra to start squealing” because I want you to feel bad. I do it because it provides more opportunity for creativity and catharsis than “debating” statistics and complex issues with someone who can’t even read a single-line chart.

                      I’m not really too worried about you, your dissonance is strong enough to preserve your ego from even the most accurate criticism. Saying that I’ve trod in horseshit with more brains than you is not expected to have any effect upon your self esteem. I just find it a cleansing experience to describe you as more fucking stupid than Donald Trump’s hairdo.

                      So suck my balls, I soaked them in Evian rosewater just for you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 February 2016 at 6:26 pm

                      @McFlock, I’m pretty sure I’m the zebra in the equation 🙂

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2016 at 6:27 pm

                      lol each to their own 🙂

            • weka 8.3.1.1.1.2
              24 February 2016 at 6:03 pm

              I’m not going to read a whole day’s worth of debate lost sheep. The onus on you is to give specific examples by linking. If you want to be taken seriously.

              eg, here’s the actual quote you just gave in context so people can see that it was part of a comment, not a comment on its own, and that it was part of a very large conversation.

              http://thestandard.org.nz/another-poverty-report-to-ignore/#comment-1137279

              Again, if you don’t want to be ridiculed, I suggest you don’t pull such disingenuous stunts as you have just done in reply to me. You’ve been here long enough to know how this works.

              “Simple eh. Only one possible answer? Would you have a problem accepting that point Weka?”

              Only one possible answer if you are a badly programmed AI who doesn’t understand any nuance or context. People did answer you, you just don’t like what they said. You don’t get to dictate how people debate here.

              As for the rest, why on earth would you expect me to know what went on in a conversation I wasn’t part of? You give OAB shit for not linking, then you don’t link and then you come here and whine about it. FFS man, if you want to pick a fight with the site, just be more honest about it.

              If you want a gentlemen’s club where people abide by the rules that you have had a part in setting up, you are in completely the wrong place.

              The reason you attract so much derision is because of how you debate. Today in OM is a classic example, although people seem remarkably restrained given you pull this shit as a matter of course. Me, I’m fucked off at having my time wasted.

              I don’t talk to you very often, but my memory is that this is how it always goes. You got a good debate yesterday, so stop complaining about it. No-one here is going to do what you want them to so long as you keep trying to make them behave better than you are.

              • The lost sheep …
                24 February 2016 at 6:35 pm

                You didn’t even have to reply to my first comment Weka. I didn’t force you…

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  24 February 2016 at 6:55 pm

                  Weka’s considerably more tolerant than I: I consider her a role model. Me, I’ve been reading your zombie arguments for too long – thirty years at least, and it’s not like these are academic points of difference.

                  The only controversy here is political, which is utterly shameful, and you’re all bent out of shape because you think you were called names.

                  Priorities.

                • weka …
                  24 February 2016 at 7:14 pm

                  “You didn’t even have to reply to my first comment Weka. I didn’t force you…”

                  Ok, my summary of your comments in OM today is that you appear to believe you get to control what other people do and you don’t like it when people don’t do what you want. Lol, good luck with that. As Lynn said recently, it’s like trying to herd goats.

                  Thanks for also reminding me that you are basically incapable of engaging in ways that generate discussion that doesn’t end up in this mess. Which is a shame, because even though I disagree with much of your politics, you do have the ability to raise important issues from a RW perspective to be debated here and we need that. If you can find a way to drop the resentment that people don’t act in the way you want then it would probably go way better.

                  The other thing I was thinking through this was that although I get frustrated by the regulars who love arguing more than I do, I also know instrinsically that people like McFlock and OAB contribute a huge amount to this site. Maybe look at that way, what is it you want to contribute? At the moment it doesn’t look too flash.

        • lprent 8.3.1.2
          24 February 2016 at 7:12 pm

          Nope. It explains what moderators will look for with fire and forget trolls.

          Not getting the conversation you desire under your rules of engagement (which to my reading you read like you are after) isn’t part of that.

          I notice that you haven’t said why you think this will be good for the site for months you to try to set the rules of behaviour. Perhaps you should read further into the policy. I am sure I may have noted how we feel about non-existent authors trying to set policy for their own benefit.

      • The lost sheep 8.3.2
        25 February 2016 at 9:11 am

        I’m not trying to change anything here.
        Was simply trying to get clarification on the level of ‘debate’ here, so that I could adjust my expectations accordingly. I’ve shifted them down a notch or three.
        Personally, I think that a discussion where neither party has any obligation to meet a fair point squarely is something short of ‘debate’ and definitely of less value, but arguments are more fun.
        The best rule of thumb here is to take it as given that a point ignored is a point proven.

        • McFlock 8.3.2.1
          25 February 2016 at 12:17 pm

          The best rule of thumb here is to take it as given that a point ignored is a point proven.

          In your case, a point ignored should be considered a fortunate piece of bullshit in the target-rich environment you create

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3.2.2
          25 February 2016 at 3:52 pm

          …a point ignored…

          I note that you have not denied your penchant for animal husbandry: according to your rules that’s proof.

          Do you see why they call them “loaded” questions yet?

  9. Sabine 9
    24 February 2016 at 11:34 am

    This pleases me very much, i fucking hate cheese cutters

    https://www.nzta.govt.nz/media-releases/new-motorcycle-friendly-safety-rails-a-game-changer/

    Quote: nnovative safety rails especially designed to protect motorcyclists if they crash have been installed on New Zealand roads for the first time.

    The new rails have been added to existing roadside safety barriers along a 130km state highway route called the Coromandel loop. Popular with riders, it passes through Kopu, Whangamata, Waihi and Paeroa.

    Statistics show around four per cent of fatal motorcycle crashes involve collisions with the traditional roadside barriers, which are designed primarily to protect people in cars.”Quote end.

    • weka 9.1
      24 February 2016 at 11:53 am

      Have they added an extra rail to that one in the photo, is that the difference?

      • Sabine 9.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 12:07 pm

        yes,
        those legs can and have cut of heads and limbs. scary fucking shit.

        cheese cutters.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          24 February 2016 at 12:21 pm

          ah. Good to see they are doing something. Lots of money going into new roading or upgrading roading, so some should be going to this too.

          • Sabine 9.1.1.1.1
            24 February 2016 at 12:50 pm

            well considering that we pay some of the highest Rego and ACC levies, yes.
            Considering also that riding on two wheels uses less space, less engergy/oil etc etc yes.

            We had quite a bit of a ruckus at the time when the ACC levies increased and teh Cheese Cutters became the norm.

            And yes, every year we loose people to these machinations from hell, and needlessly.

            So yes, this pleases me, but only the Coro Loop? I would like to see these extra rails added to the cheese cutters on our motorways and elsewhere.

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2016 at 1:03 pm

              It’s pretty mindblowing that when safety rails were introduced they didn’t make them safe for all road users.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.2
              24 February 2016 at 2:30 pm

              Rumour always had it that Transit NZ despised motorcyclists.

              • weka …
                24 February 2016 at 2:44 pm

                how come?

                • sabine …
                  24 February 2016 at 7:16 pm

                  Gangs, i heard that some 30 years ago some NZ government went on a crack down on gangs and all male bikies are gang member and all chrome vixens must be gang owned pussies.

                  And sadly that idea is still prevalent in the minds of many, and also we are a good cash cow to milk. Many of us have a family car, and a bike, so we get to pay ACC on both, even tho we can only drive / ride one at a time.

                  but heck when the bike hikoi went to Nick Smith, Fuckwit for ACC in Wellington at the time, NZ had no issues giving us shit. right or left, cause bikies…. Never mind that our double triple and quadruple (some have spontaneously multiplying bikes, and cars…..addicts i think would be the right word, and lovers of chrome) ACC donations made for a big fat surplus.

                  • Molly …
                    24 February 2016 at 8:44 pm

                    ” ACC donations made for a big fat surplus.”

                    I’m thinking the surplus comes from the failure of ACC to pay out on claims. There are a lot of claimants out there not getting the service they need to get back on their feet.

                    A systematic move to denigrate the ACC in the minds of the public, before privatisation.

    • Macro 9.2
      24 February 2016 at 7:59 pm

      Ahh! I drove over to the beach at Whiritoa today (absolutely magic weather) and saw the new guard-rails up! They went up quickly. Mind you as a motorcyclist from way back ( have just restored my 1957 R50 BMW) I think some of the riders going over that route are just accidents waiting to happen. My bach is right by the road and I see the way they ride – as if they are on a race track. Its a narrow winding road and there can be a lot of traffic during the weekends and logging trucks as well.

  11. weka 11
    24 February 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Vis a vis, the ‘common man’ meme.

    “The real damage is done by those millions who want to ‘survive.’ The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.”

    ― Sophie Scholl

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/801549.Sophie_Scholl

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

    • sabine 11.1
      24 February 2016 at 7:19 pm

      ahh, Sophie Scholl,

      once upon a time when i was about 11 years old I went to find a ‘good german’.

      I did not find many, but i did found her and her brother. So much honor, so much humanity, so little fear of living and even less fear of dying. She was made of good stuff this Lady.

      • weka 11.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 7:38 pm

        I periodically stop to think about what it would be like to be willing to die for what one believed in and how one could do that well. We are so far away from that here*. Finding Sophie Scholl was a gift.

        *outside of war, who have we had? The guy who tried to blow up the Whanganui computer comes to mind.

  12. ianmac 12
    24 February 2016 at 1:22 pm

    The Government put in $350,000 for the beach. How generous with taxpayers money. I guess my modest donation is very modest.

    • Ben 12.1
      24 February 2016 at 2:03 pm

      Imagine that. Spending taxpayers money on something that benefits the taxpayer. I would much rather my tax was spent on a beach than on some academic trougher that after 3 years will tell me that excessive sugar will make me fat.

      Waiting for some considered and vote-winning words from Little on this one.

      • alwyn 12.1.1
        24 February 2016 at 5:21 pm

        You know what Andrew is like.
        He was calling for the Government to jump in wasn’t he?
        Now he will be screaming blue murder because the Government did so.
        “They didn’t oughta have done it” will be Andy’s call now.

        “after 3 years will tell me that excessive sugar will make me fat”.
        Really? That seems an amazingly short time to discover that. I thought it would have taken some academic their entire career to work that out?

  13. AsleepWhileWalking 13
    24 February 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Aussie housing market about to implode. Video covers mining town first, but about half way through indicates this will happen nationwide.

    Youtube comment says that mortgages in Australia are full recourse. Good Lord…

    • ianmac 13.1
      24 February 2016 at 2:52 pm

      Meanwhile in the Bankers Paradise NZ…

    • alwyn 13.2
      24 February 2016 at 3:57 pm

      “mortgages in Australia are full recourse”.
      As are they here. It was only in the US, as far as I know, that it was normal to just be able to walk in to your mortgage holder, drop the keys and simply walk away from any further obligations.

  14. Gangnam Style 14
    24 February 2016 at 4:08 pm

    News producer legend Mark Jennings leaves Newshub/Mediaworks, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/297334/head-of-news-resigns-from-mediaworks

  15. Tautoko Mangō Mata 15
    24 February 2016 at 4:11 pm

    Jay Kuten: ‘Rent-a-pols’ muddy TPP waters

    “Investors” – that is, multinational corporations – can sue New Zealand under the treaty, and taxpayers get to pay damages for lost corporate profit.

    New Zealand cannot sue the corporation/investors for any damage they may do. In effect, for corporations it is “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    If the TPP is truly without danger from ISDS, as Mr Borrows would lead us to believe, then why have we signed a side agreement with Australia stipulating neither we nor they will allow their corporations to sue under ISDS against the other.

    Smearing of TPP opponents is designed to paint peaceful protesters as radicals, hence untrustworthy. But the radical shoe is on this government’s foot amd no amount of cognitive diffusion can hide the fact the TPP contains a Trojan horse called ISDS, bringing an invasive force of legions of lawyers of multinational corporations.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503423&objectid=11594671

    Jay Kuten is not the only one to bag the ISDS.

    The German Magistrates Association rejects the proposal of the European Commission to establish an investment court within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The DRB sees neither a legal basis nor a need for such a court.

    The investment court ICS was the proposed substitute for the ISDS that was rejected by the EU for being so flawed!

    The German Magistrates Association sees no need for the establishment of a special court for investors. The Member States are all constitutional states, which provide and guarantee access to justice in all areas where the state has jurisdiction to all law-seeking parties. It is for the Member States to ensure access to justice for all and to ensure feasible access for foreign investors, by providing the courts with the relevant resources.

    https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/eu-us_trade_deal/2016/english_version_deutsche_richterbund_opinion_ics_feb2016.pdf

  16. Sabine 16
    24 February 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Head of News TV 3 resigns?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/297334/head-of-news-resigns-from-mediaworks

    Qutoe: Mediaworks’ head of news Mark Jennings has resigned from the role.

    Mark Jennings had been with Mediaworks since 1989.

    Quote:” Jennings joined MediaWorks TV in 1989, and was appointed director of news in 1994. In December 2014, he was appointed to lead the integration of MediaWorks’ TV, radio and digital news operations into an unified news team, which launched as Newshub earlier this month.
    Earlier today it was revealed that ninemsn editor-in-chief Hal Crawford had resigned to take on the “chief news officer” role at Mediaworks, and he will join the organisation “in the coming months”.
    In a statement released this afternoon, Jennings said the company had become part of his DNA”.Quote End

  17. rod 17
    24 February 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Perhaps they will offer the job to Garner or Gower. Key would like that.

  18. Andre 18
    24 February 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Jaeezusss – just started looking at the Nevada Republican Caucus coverage on the Huffington Post and it’s a fresh ROFL on every link

    KKK turns up…
    Dropouts from months ago still on the ballots…
    Trump supporters voting twice…

  19. ianmac 19
    24 February 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Surely not!
    “The latest interim dividend figures from the partially-privatised Mighty River Power, Genesis, and Meridian show that the Crown has forgone $945.14 million in dividends since the asset sales. The National Government spent $96 million on the asset sales programme, including bonus-share sweeteners for investors. Combined, that means the asset sales have a total cost of $1.041 billion to date.”
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1602/S00347/asset-sales-cost-hits-1-billion.htm