Open mike 24/09/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, September 24th, 2014 - 252 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 …

252 comments on “Open mike 24/09/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    24 September 2014 at 6:47 am

    rightwing-rag..the herald..has an editorial today..

    ..urging support for mass-surveillance..

    ..and urging the govt to hurry up and catch up with the latest american war effort…

    (and/but they shouldn’t worry..john key will be right behind both..

    ..should we hold a sweepstake as to the day key announces we will be going ‘to help’ the americans..?

    ..i’m picking within a week from now..we will again be at war..

    ..and again as americas’ spear-carriers/mercenaries..)

    • vto 1.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:17 am

      Maybe the herald could show some credibility and stand behind its words by naming its anonymous editorial writers …. if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear.

      • phillip ure 1.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 8:18 am

        @ vto..

        ..john roughan..the writer of that hagiography of key..probably..

        .it’s all his way of thinking..

        ..and yeah..it is an arcane/byegone practice..

        ..the refusal of writers to ‘own’ editorials..

      • The Lone Haranguer 1.1.2
        24 September 2014 at 9:04 am

        And we could all use our real names here too, but for various reasons – no doubt some very good ones too – we dont

        (Phillip being the exception of course)

        • vto 1.1.2.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:25 am

          Lordy I don’t know how many times this silly subject has arisen.

          Imo it is entirely legitimate to remain anonymous here, for the exact same reasons that voting is anonymous.

          On the other hand the Herald is claiming that everyone’s entire information should be known to the state. In addition the herald and its writers in the past have claimed that bloggers should not be able to hide behind anonymity, while hypocritically penning anonymous articles and ed pieces itself.

          Who cares anyway, I gave up on editorials a very long time ago. They are basic, they are partisan, they are pieces of shit.

        • Murray Olsen 1.1.2.2
          24 September 2014 at 10:56 pm

          You start. What’s your name, LH?

    • phillip ure 1.2
      24 September 2014 at 8:26 am

      but we have no real airforce..

      ..maybe bennet cd load up our cargo planes with benificiaries..

      ..and go and throw them at isis..?

      ..(just trying to think laterally/problem-solve here..)

      • vto 1.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 8:31 am

        We could start problem solving by trying to get some reliable and true information on the situation over there.

        At the moment all we have is the corporate-owned media and politicians and I don’t believe one tiny bit of their propaganda bullshit.

        • halfcrown 1.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 9:01 am

          RT “appears ” to give a different prospective.

          You have to take their “news” with a pinch of salt, but by watching RT you can compare their reporting against the right wing crap from CNN and Sky and our media and come up with a more or less what really is happening scenario.

          • alwyn 1.2.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 9:37 am

            Please help me. Who, or what, is “RT”?

            • Hanswurst 1.2.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 9:42 am

              Russia Today.

              • alwyn …
                24 September 2014 at 10:17 am

                Thanks.

                • GregJ …
                  24 September 2014 at 7:32 pm

                  Can I also suggest France 24 (if you can find the English Language Channel – assuming your French or Arabic isn’t up to it!!)?

                  It’s particularly good on Africa and even South America. Also try Deutsche Welle which is also quite good.

                  Broadly speaking both are “public broadcasters” giving an international view slightly different from the Anglophone broadcasters (and as an aside observe what a proper public broadcaster might look like!).

                  France 24 has a quite good Iphone & Android Apps as well.

                  • alwyn …
                    24 September 2014 at 8:35 pm

                    I will have a look at these.
                    My French is almost fluent but I wouldn’t even recognise that someone was speaking Arabic and I only recognise about one word in ten in German. A traditional New Zealand education I fear.
                    Russian Today has only had a glance but it looks very interesting.

      • CnrJoe 1.2.2
        24 September 2014 at 10:18 am

        pickin up on phillip ures laterleness ……seen the Israeli trucks?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQZ4FZJ4uBM

        weell, muckspread cowshit over ISIS? Herculean effort to spread our 100%pureshit

    • travellerev 1.3
      24 September 2014 at 10:49 am

      That would be about right!

    • Chooky 1.4
      24 September 2014 at 12:10 pm

      maybe more people should cancel their subscriptions to The Herald…some have already

  2. bearded git 2
    24 September 2014 at 7:00 am

    People are writing Labour off. Come on!

    If Labour had got 3% more, and the Greens 2% more, both of which should and could have ocurred had events not transpired against them, we would be celebrating a relatively progressive government with an intelligent and progressive PM.

    It can be done next time. 35% is a good base to build to 45%.

    But right now the MSM should hold its head in shame for the way it conspired with Key to bring about this result.

    • chris73 2.1
      24 September 2014 at 7:29 am

      If…

    • adam 2.2
      24 September 2014 at 8:27 am

      And yet almost a million adults didn’t vote – labour are dead, because they sold out their constituency. They chose to hurt the vulnerable, then did nothing to redeem themselves for 30 years.

    • Hanswurst 2.3
      24 September 2014 at 8:42 am

      I think the MSM can be pretty proud of the result they achieved. And therein lies the problem.

      • phillip ure 2.3.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:02 am

        i think if the ‘msm’ has any collective-consciousness/self-awareness..

        ..you’d think they would be getting somewhat red-faced as it sinks in for them how they so allowed themselves to be played/used by the right..

        ..in so so many ways..

        • Hanswurst 2.3.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 9:44 am

          What makes you think they have a problem with it?

        • phillip ure 2.3.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 11:04 am

          even rightwinger fran o’sullivan notes/confirms how the media have been suckered..’played’ as rubes…..

          “.The media will also be more scrappy towards the Government after journalists found out the extent to which they had been played in the previous three years..”

          • Rodel 2.3.1.2.1
            24 September 2014 at 8:49 pm

            Try Tracey Watkins in Wednesday’s Press…. Choice of adjectives almost orgasmic as she salivates over Labour’s problems.
            Is she a journalist or is she back handed by Crosby Textor and just copies what they tell her to write?
            Other journalists should cringe at her ethics but Slater must love her as a true partner with identical values.

      • Gosman 2.3.2
        24 September 2014 at 9:18 am

        Set your own damn media up then. Oh wait. You can’t do that without 10’s of millions of other peoples money via the State for some reason.

    • Lanthanide 2.4
      24 September 2014 at 9:01 am

      “we would be celebrating a relatively progressive government with an intelligent and progressive PM.”

      If Winston had gone with Labour.

    • Gosman 2.5
      24 September 2014 at 9:34 am

      It’s all the naughty media’s fault. Bad media, bad!

      • phillip ure 2.5.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:25 am

        @ gossie..they definitely had their part to play..

        ..anyone doubting this should go to the nation website..and watch the interview gower did with harawira/harre..

        ..for me..that was a journalistic/campaign-nadir..

        ..of some note..

        ..really really ‘bad media’..

    • infused 2.6
      24 September 2014 at 10:45 am

      Cunliffe is already proving what a lot of people thought about him. There is no way he is going to stay leader.

  3. Adrian 3
    24 September 2014 at 7:01 am

    And not a word of criticism of Key on Pike River entry. There is bound to be a lie there somwhere.
    But both the Herald and Stuff know every word spoken in the Labour caucus meeting and even a head count on who’s not supposedly supporting Cunliffe.

    • tc 3.1
      24 September 2014 at 7:29 am

      The real enemy is within the caucus and party leadership, banish them or continue to decline.

    • phillip ure 3.2
      24 September 2014 at 7:31 am

      the obvious questions for key being:

      ..did key know..?

      ..when did he know..?

      ..why did he keep silent about it..?

      ..and if he didn’t know…why not..?

    • RedBaronCV 3.3
      24 September 2014 at 9:12 am

      Or if they don’t know MSM make it up to cause further trouble.

    • amirite 3.4
      24 September 2014 at 9:57 am

      It’s come out only now because it would show this Govt for what it is: heartless and only caring about money. Note the five failed attempts to obtain OIA on the safety of entering the mine? Compare it to the speed with which they are delivered to WhaleOil.

      • dv 3.4.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:59 am

        They got the OIA from another dept concerned with safety, not Solid Energy. I believe.

      • McFlock 3.4.2
        24 September 2014 at 1:00 pm

        that and the revised growth stats.

        In my glum phases, I need to resist the urge to simply believe that rats were elected by turkeys. sigh.

        Still, democracy is better than the alternatives.

    • Murray Olsen 3.5
      24 September 2014 at 11:17 pm

      If Labour talked to their members and had networks in the community, they may have known about the decision about safe entry well before now. They could have hit NAct with it. Wouldn’t have changed the election, but it would have been another straw on the camel’s back. FFS, the party came from the mines and was deeply rooted in those communities. What’s it deeply rooted in now? Some organic vegan restaurant in Wellington?

  4. Scott1 4
    24 September 2014 at 7:12 am

    Bearded git,
    except NZ1st would have gone with National because that means they are negotiating with only one party.

    Also that extra 10% is hard to get and that 35% is near impossible to loose.

    Of course none of that means one should “write off” labour, just realize there are some voters there that labour should be winning if it want’s to govern (as opposed to the non voters who will never vote).

    • adam 4.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:35 am

      (as opposed to the non voters who will never vote).

      That’s a lie Scott – I know many people who were encouraged to vote again because of Mana and Hone. A big bunch voted green, or followed the strategic voting guide over at the daily blog. I also know many people who regret voting for labour in their electorate vote because of what labour did to Mana.

      Also, to dismiss non-voters just makes you sound like another right wing drop kick, or an apologist for all of labour’s failures.

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:03 am

        “I know many people who were encouraged to vote again because of Mana and Hone.”

        Yes, and the results and turnout suggest that a lot of them went out and voted National, specifically to keep Mana out.

      • Scott1 4.1.2
        24 September 2014 at 3:41 pm

        Adam,
        No there is a subtle difference.

        I did not mean that you can’t get a voter or two who would not otherwise have voted to vote via an additional get out the vote strategy.

        Just that there are so many people who will not vote that targeting them as a group is pretty ineffective. You will waste a lot of effort on a lot of people most of whom who will not vote.

        As to your assessment of what voters did – if we assume you are correct there must be some larger and opposite effects that completely obscured your effects.

        Does that always seem to be the case? What is your record for predicting political results?

  5. Once Was Tim 5
    24 September 2014 at 7:12 am

    Labour (both the old guard/ABCers), Labour members, and indeed anyone concerned with democracy should reflect on this:
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/24/one-party-state/
    Astute analysis by Wayne Hope (as always)

    • Tiger Mountain 5.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:08 am

      A different and worthy perspective by Wayne Hope from that which many other commentators have made imo. He explores the cultural basis for Nat support.

    • Bill 5.2
      24 September 2014 at 10:12 am

      I disagree with only one thing in that article.

      If I read him right, he’s saying we are on the cusp of ‘one party rule’. But you don’t need one party when you have professional politicians spread over parties. The illusion of choice and the act of voting for alternatives can remain – although the alternatives are just mute shades of one another.

      Thinking I prefer the term I used yesterday somewhere to describe what’s coming up – dictatorial governance.

      That aside, a ‘nail. head’, post.

  6. SPC 6
    24 September 2014 at 7:26 am

    When the Labour Party rules were written it was expected that the election would be in November – the election loss would have been analysed prior to the year end and then on reflection there would have been a leadership confidence vote in February.

    The early election date means an alternate plan is to be considered.

    The problem for the party under the new rules is that a leader who has lost caucus confidence can still contest the subsequent contest and possibly win.

    Having a leader without caucus confidence is a recipe for disunity and this leads to losing public confidence. No better is having a favourite of caucus as leader if they do not have the confidence of the party members.

    Neither a leader beholden to activists, nor a leader and caucus who are not true to the will of the wider party appeals. The party not existing to facilitate the aspiration for the baubles of office as a National lite regime change.

    The best option here is a party review, and a decision to have a leadership contest next year, one not requiring a caucus vote first or any contestant to resign their existing position. If no one but the existing leader runs then there is no contest, otherwise there is.

    • Ennui 6.1
      24 September 2014 at 7:45 am

      SPC, spot on observation Having a leader without caucus confidence is a recipe for disunity and this leads to losing public confidence. No better is having a favourite of caucus as leader if they do not have the confidence of the party members.

      Listened to the radio this morning, cant work out who is more keen to kill David, the media or the caucus. Bland faceless non entities the lot of them. There is absolutely nobody amongst the old guard to inspire, why the fekk are the likes of Mallard, King and Goff still lurking?

      Three years goes fast, I would counsel caution in any fast decision, without a clear strategy its deckchairs on the Titanic.

      • Tracey 6.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 8:23 am

        they moved fast last time, went into cannabilism mode, and look how well that worked. Yet. Here they go again.

        Clayton Cosgrove, the “I” doctor.

        • adam 6.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 8:40 am

          I do hope labour supporters vote with their feet and leave. But no, they will bury their heads in the sand and take this same old shit for another 30 years?

          The right wing of labour make me sick.

          Nice analysis of Cosgrove by the way Tracey – once again, nail, head, bang on…

  7. adam 7
    24 September 2014 at 7:59 am

    This helps explain one part of the explosion of health care insurance providers in NZ. And what that business model is morphing into. Notice Cigna in the mix – Mmmm maybe you want to ask some firemen in NYC what they think of Cigna.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/22/15562/health-insurers-turning-who-knows-what?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-cce1722a86-100020097&mc_cid=cce1722a86&mc_eid=c346e018f7

    And on the good news front of labour and their struggles.

    http://libcom.org/news/seattle-solidarity-network-wins-first-multi-worker-strike-22092014

  8. Dont worry. Be happy 8
    24 September 2014 at 8:27 am

    Looks like the Key Government sat on an Official Information response until after the election. Turns out it has been safe to go up the drift at Pike River for almost a year. On Saturday, Coasters gave their party vote to National. They were tricked. The Chief Ombudsman warned that this sort of behaviour form Government meant “We could kiss our democracy good bye.” Looks like the country was tricked. Why, so far, is the media ignoring the Minister’s and Key’s role in this? Scared? Bought?

    • Tracey 8.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:40 am

      reduced growth promise from 4-2%

      Announced resignation of jason ede…

      Pike river

      I am not sure why anyone thought the lying would stop. But as someone wrote yesterday apparently its irrelevant cos 50% of voters dont care.

      • Sans Cle 8.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 8:53 am

        I find it depressing.
        It’s like the election is a clean slate for National. “win” the election, and put the dirty politics allegations, the lying over GCSB all behind them. Pull a blanket over the sordid lot, and Put it down to Politiking, without addressing any issues, and without Key having to answer to anything. Meanwhile, the biggest opposition party squabbles and enables it all to be swept under the carpet. I really despair.

        • Hanswurst 8.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 9:02 am

          Labour aren’t allowing it to be swept under the carpet. If they didn’t squabble, somebody would have had a cat turn up after being presumed lost for a month… and that would be more newsworthy than Key’s lies. If Labour pointed out that Key was lying, Key would be on television with a soundbite saying, “Of course they are going to come out attacking my credibility. They’ve just been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders, who will see this for what it is, which is a smear campaign from the Left”.

          The blame for allowing it to be swept under the carpet lies squarely and solely with journalists in the MSM.

        • phillip ure 8.1.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 9:08 am

          @ sans cle..

          ..you can cheer up a bit..’cos those dirty politics and spooking-scandals have not gone away…

          ..the number of official investigations already launched will ensure that..

          ..and the injunctions against the msm using that whaledump material given to them..

          ..are being worked thru…

          ..rest assured..there is no ‘clean slate’ for key/national..

          ..this will all unfold..in due course..

          (and of course..key will ‘distract’..by again taking us to war..

          ..at the behest of the americans..)

          • Hanswurst 8.1.1.2.1
            24 September 2014 at 9:14 am

            That sounds interesting. What evidence is there that injunctions taken against the MSM are being worked through?

    • Rosie 8.2
      24 September 2014 at 9:26 am

      This must be devastating news for the Pike River families and was shocking to see on Campbell Live last night.

      What if Solid Energy’s reason for not entering the drift comes down to $$$? What are the other reasons?

      As for West Coast Tasman giving their party vote to National, that was staggering, they have been mucked around by the Government for years over the Pike River disaster. (“mucked around”, a condensed version of the final chapters in Tragedy at Pike River Mine: how and why 29 men died, by Rebecca Macfie).

      • yeshe 8.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:53 am

        isn’t it sick, rosie. i wonder if it something to do with liability, as to where bodies might be found ? key is cold, callous and cruel, albeit welcomed by many as a true leader. go figure.

        • Rosie 8.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 10:54 am

          Liability/ lack of access to insurance funds? Campbell Live will no doubt keep up with the situation. It seems like they are the only media who care.

          BTW: have kept up with your concerns over the TPP being singed and GE crop seed being allowed into the country. I share those concerns. I know there is a pro GE faction within fed farmers but hadn’t realised how tight the connections with Monsanto are, as you suggested a few days back.

          It’s tragic this is the likely path we will go down, along with intensified dairying. more animal suffering and an environment degraded, potentially beyond repair under the removal of protections of the RMA. The vision the Greens had was the opposite.

        • greywarbler 8.2.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 12:02 pm

          @yeshe 9.53
          Would this southern West Coast National result come from the faction that were getting uptight about Shane Jones being a real man of the people yet not getting a go at leader. Perhaps Shane was their idea of a good politician and a working class hero and when by-passed all their brain cells sort of got fried.

          • yeshe 8.2.1.2.1
            24 September 2014 at 3:35 pm

            so hard to know isn’t it ? but we could safely bet the seat would not be blue today if these hidden OIA docs had appeared last week. Evil bastards the bunch of them.

      • Bill 8.2.2
        24 September 2014 at 10:28 am

        You ask, “What are the other reasons?”

        Hows about we already had footage showing rescue boxes had been opened, meaning that some miners survived the explosion. So, pre-election, does a ruling party that made ‘a million and one’ promises, while determinedly doing nothing, want evidence suggesting men were simply left to die?

        You might recall that rescue workers wanted to enter the mine soon after the explosion (methane gone) and were prevented from doing so on the basis that more explosions were imminent. How long was it til the second explosion? I can’t remember, but am sure it wasn’t mere hours before that methane built up again.

        Then you might also recall the days and weeks that passed while ‘air quality’ measurements were taken, suggesting methane was hovering at 12% (the concentration it’s apt to explode at).

        And remember all the tosh that because there was a fire in the mine, temperatures within the mine were at ‘coal fire’ temperatures, meaning entry couldn’t take place?

        That’s just off the top of my head before the first coffee of the morning is down.

        In short – bad, dog shit cynicism – adverse publicity was to be avoided pre-election.

        • Rosie 8.2.2.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:18 am

          “So, pre-election, does a ruling party that made ‘a million and one’ promises, while determinedly doing nothing, want evidence suggesting men were simply left to die?”

          A entirely plausible but horrifying scenario Bill. We know that Key and his Ministers are capable of outright deceit so withholding this information about the drift entry being possible in October 2013 fits comfortably with their other demonstrated methods of self preservation ( ala Dirty Politics).

          Chapter 10 and 11 in MacFie’s book cover the day of the explosion and the events in the days and weeks after, including the air testing, expected mine temperature, and intense disagreement between police and mines rescue about the safety of entering the mine to retrieve the bodies. I recall thinking “what a shambles” when reading it.

          Haven’t got time to re read those chapters now to refresh the memory but it would be good to.

          Where did I hear, a while ago, one reason the mine couldn’t be re entered was due to the changes in regulation at WorkSafe? Since the Pike disaster WorkSafe deemed that all mines in NZ must have a second egress, Pike doesn’t and therefore they wouldn’t send a body recovery mission into the mine. (prior to that NZ was one of the few places in the world that didn’t require a second egress, a fact which caused a lot of upset among the overseas miners working at Pike).

          When I heard that, where ever it was, I thought that was a lame and convenient excuse for Solid Energy to reneg on it’s duty to remove the bodies. There’s certainly something very fishy going on.

          • yeshe 8.2.2.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 5:56 pm

            here we are, as suspected …. .. at the forefront of the directors’ minds, according to Solid Energy CEO …

            ‘The board of Solid Energy also has its directors’ liability “at the forefront of their minds”, Mr Clifford said.

            “Directors’ liability is an important thing, and it’s been taken very seriously. There’s been a fundamental change in the law since Pike River. We need to learn from that, and it’s been taken seriously.”

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11330799

        • yeshe 8.2.2.2
          24 September 2014 at 3:37 pm

          so heartbreaking Bill …

  9. James Thrace 9
    24 September 2014 at 8:52 am

    We should remove the right to vote from residents and only allow citizens to vote. We are one of only a few countries that do allow residents to vote.

    I’m not in favour of that. Residents can up sticks and move anytime… And don’t have the historical knowledge to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

    A least a citizen has a long term vested interest in the country.

    It would be illuminating to know the breakdown of voters by residency/citizen numbers.

    I daresay majority of residents would have gone National. NZH article in April this year highlighted a number of residents intending to vote National because “national good for business, Labour bad” which we all know isn’t borne out in reality.

    • Hanswurst 9.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:09 am

      Citizens can up sticks and move any time, too. Similarly, vilifying non-citizen residents for voting National in the majority is entirely misleading, since that also applies to citizens.

    • Rosie 9.2
      24 September 2014 at 9:36 am

      James, your suggestion would mean Mr Rosie would lose his right to vote. He has lived most of his life in NZ and is more committed to the well being of our society than many of the citizens we know who couldn’t care less and don’t vote. He’s a CD volunteer, a promoter of H&S in the workplace and a Left voter.

      He has shown that he has a “long term vested interest in the country”. I wouldn’t paint all residents the same colour. Such apathy and ignorance among the voters can’t really be put down to their status of citizen vs resident. It’s more complex than that.

      • alwyn 9.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:58 am

        I never thought I would go along with James but on this occasion I agree with Paragraph one of his comment. I too think that only citizens should be allowed to vote.
        I don’t agree with the rest of what he says and I hope he doesn’t mean we should try and find out the answer to the fourth para. That would mean identifying everyone’s vote.
        As far as Mr Rosie goes one can only ask, if he wants to vote, why doesn’t he take up citizenship? It isn’t really that hard is it?
        I would actually extend the requirement a bit further. I would have a rule that an MP must be EXCLUSIVELY a New Zealand citizen. No dual citizenship would be allowed for an MP and before they could become one they would be required to renounce any other citizenship they hold. Australia do that and I think it is an excellent idea.
        ps There is a minor problem for people born in Greece, and possibly other countries in that they don’t allow you to renounce their citizenship but that can be got around by the Australian rules.

        • Blue 9.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 10:07 am

          Citizenship costs over $500 to apply for. Many couldnt afford that, I’m sure its one of the valid reasons deciding not to.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 3:38 pm

          I would actually extend the requirement a bit further. I would have a rule that an MP must be EXCLUSIVELY a New Zealand citizen. No dual citizenship would be allowed for an MP and before they could become one they would be required to renounce any other citizenship they hold. Australia do that and I think it is an excellent idea.

          /agreed

          Thing is, it used to be like that until Labour changed it because they wanted one of their own to have dual citizenship. And, yes, it was one law change that I was thoroughly disgusted by.

          And it’s not just Australia that does that either – the US and other Anglo countries do as well.

          • alwyn 9.2.1.2.1
            24 September 2014 at 6:41 pm

            I remember it slightly differently, but you may be right.
            As I thought it was you were allowed to hold dual citizenship and become an MP but no sitting MP could take citizenship of another country without them forfeiting their seat.
            That is what sitting MP Harry Duynhoven (spelling?) did. He took out Dutch citizenship. The Labour Government, when the complaint was made pretended they hadn’t received it for a day and hurriedly changed the law in the interim.
            A friend of mine, now a QC, said that he thought that the seat had been vacated the moment he took the new citizenship and the effect of the law Labour passed was to appoint H.D. to the position of MP for New Plymouth, without an election, as he had already vacated the seat.

        • Murray Olsen 9.2.1.3
          24 September 2014 at 11:59 pm

          “Australia do that and I think it is an excellent idea.”

          It’s actually law, but the Liberals don’t feel bound by it. Abbott probably hasn’t renounced his British citizenship. Some other guy with a German name had been elected without renouncing his other citizenship. When caught, he renounced it, but his whole campaign had been illegitimate. He should have been booted, but that doesn’t seem to happen with the right.

          If you live in a country and you pay taxes, you should get a vote. You’re likely to have more interest in the future of the country than some foreign CEO with a deputy assistant whose secretary has Key on speed dial.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2
        24 September 2014 at 3:34 pm

        James, your suggestion would mean Mr Rosie would lose his right to vote.

        No he wouldn’t. If he’s married to a NZ citizen then he’s probably already a NZ citizen and if he isn’t it’d just be a formality for him to become one.

        Permanent residency is a step along the way to becoming a citizen. Sure, not everyone would take that step but if you don’t take that step then you shouldn’t have the right to vote.

    • Granted 9.3
      24 September 2014 at 9:53 am

      Wonderful, would you be writing the same opinion if they are all voting left?

      So if you can’t win, lets change the rules.

      • Jesse 9.3.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:31 am

        Changing the rules to what just about every other country does. Doesn’t matter what your political orientation is, only people with a long term commitment to a country should be able to determine its future.

        • Granted 9.3.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 12:49 pm

          So would that apply to people who fund parties?

          • Draco T Bastard 9.3.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 3:41 pm

            I think it should. I also think that businesses, trusts, unions or any other legal entity shouldn’t be allowed to fund political parties.

    • Blue 9.4
      24 September 2014 at 10:01 am

      So your election strategy is to deny residents who are long term taxpayers the right to vote? Charming. Dont you think some Pacific Island citizens would be hurt by this? what about Sub-continent residents? Asian residents? The broad church eh? Do you have evidence that “majority of residents would have gone National”.

      • Jesse 9.4.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:32 am

        Those people are free to apply for citizenship if they want to vote. Like in just about every other country.

    • Potato 9.5
      24 September 2014 at 10:06 am

      I have been arguing this for a long time. Its about commitment to this country and its future, not ethnicity. I have tried to explain it to people with the anology… that I own a house that I share with my partner. We take in a boarder. Partner and I have a commitment to our future and long term interest in our home. We’re not going to give the boarder the same say in the care, maintainence and ownership of our home as each other.
      So why do we do it with our country?

      So might I also ask ask why Mr Rosie hasnt taken out NZ citizenship ?

      • Rosie 9.5.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:28 am

        Potato and alwyn. The first and foremost reason Mr R doesn’t have NZ citizenship is the cost, which Blue has referred to. We can barely keep up with weekly living expenses and are running into the red with unexpected bills, all the while the to do list keeps piling up.

        Secondly he doesn’t see himself as anything but an NZer he’s been here for so long. To him citizen ship would just be a bit of unaffordable paper, and a hollow gesture at patriotism, after all this time.
        He is a NZer in all respects and it shows in his actions and in the way he contributes to our community.

        • Jesse 9.5.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 10:36 am

          If citizenship is needed to vote, then the cost of people getting it should be made cheaper. Cost shouldn’t be a major consideration here though, it is about the future of our country. Voting is considered a privilege of citizenship of a country, and we give the right away too easily in NZ.

          • Draco T Bastard 9.5.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 3:47 pm

            The costs should be waived. Get away from the user pays system that punishes the poor.

      • logie97 9.5.2
        24 September 2014 at 10:32 am

        “No taxation without representation!”
        And the hundreds of thousands of New Zealand Citizens who live permanently overseas without any intention of coming back to New Zealand. They should vote?
        I guess you would argue that anyone with Scottish heritage should have been able to vote in the recent referendum as well …

        • alwyn 9.5.2.1
          24 September 2014 at 10:54 am

          There are rules that require that you have some continuing contact with New Zealand, although I don’t think they are tough enough. A citizen has to have been back in the last 3 years, a permanent resident in the last year.
          Personally I would toughen them up.
          I lived in Australia for years and voted in New Zealand. On the other hand I did not take out Australian citizenship, returned several times a year, owned property here and paid New Zealand taxes as well as my Australian taxes. I certainly never lost contact with New Zealand, intended to return to live permanently and felt no guilt about voting.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.5.2.2
          24 September 2014 at 3:50 pm

          How about:

          No representation without citizenship

      • Puddleglum 9.5.3
        24 September 2014 at 9:00 pm

        “Those people are free to apply for citizenship if they want to vote.”

        So willingness to commit to New Zealand to the extent required to gain the solemn right to vote is determined by a willingness and ability to pay several hundred dollars to Internal Affairs?

        An ex-colleague of mine (from Britain) was working here in New Zealand for 6 years during which time he and his family began their application for citizenship. After the 6 years he applied for, was offered and he accepted a job in Australia (where he and his family now live). A year or so ago, he came back (on holiday) to complete the ‘in-person’ part of the citizenship ritual and then returned to Australia with his New Zealand citizenship.

        I’m a permanent resident (have been since 1967) as are all surviving members of my birth family. I’ve lived in New Zealand (in Christchurch) for all that time (as have all members of my birth family) except when I went on my ‘OE’ at age 21 for 1.5 years. I have a New Zealand-born (fifth generation) partner and New Zealand-born and raised daughter. I have worked for a (very New Zealand) employer continuously for the last 23 years.

        Why, then, am I not a citizen?

        One of the things that has put me off applying for citizenship is the citizenship ritual. I dislike nationalism – singing anthems, pledging allegiance (to flags, queens and other symbols), mouthing oaths, etc..

        (One of the ironies is that I have British citizenship but, of course, never had to pledge allegiance to queen and country to gain it – yet I would have to do that here in order to gain New Zealand citizenship :-))

        Frankly, I would feel hypocritical performing what I’d see as empty rituals and, if I’m going to be hypocritical, perhaps I should go the whole hog and show my commitment to New Zealand through John Key and I ritualistically slicing the heels of our thumbs and uniting as blood brothers?

        At that deeper, personal level I also know that my ‘heart’ does not respond sentimentally to the words ‘New Zealand’ and to mythic cultural norms (e.g., barbecues, rugby, the beach, sailing, tramping in the hills, whitebaiting, Bluff oysters, etc.) in the way that their hearts apparently do for people born here (although I genuinely do have a deep emotional commitment to Christchurch, specifically).

        For those ‘deep’ reasons, I would actually feel a bit of a fraud to claim citizenship because that deep sense of ‘belonging’ is not embodied in me the way it seems to be in most native-born New Zealanders. And it never would be. That is simply the emotional truth of the matter.

        Nevertheless, until now I have believed that my enduring good citizenship (in the generic sense rather than some nominal sense such as ‘New Zealand citizenship’) is my prime claim to being treated as a citizen of the country in which I live, in terms of rights. But maybe that’s not enough.

        As you can see, I do appreciate the tribal point you are making. It makes me think that I should not vote in future elections, based on that principle.

        Although, of course, that tribal point could only ever apply to those actually born and raised in New Zealand. If the aim is to get as close as possible to a guarantee of deep commitment to the country perhaps only such people should be allowed to be citizens and, hence, be allowed to vote? (e.g., only people born in New Zealand and who have continuously lived the first 20 years of their life, at least, here?)

        After all, they are the people most likely to have real, embodied, emotional, familial and enculturated commitment to New Zealand – as a nation, place and people – rather than the kind of commitment that money, a few years, an instrumental mindset and a liking (or tolerance) for ritual can get from Internal Affairs.

        Maybe the bar for voting rights should be set that high to ensure commitment of the voting population to this country and its future?

        An interesting discussion.

    • Jesse 9.6
      24 September 2014 at 10:27 am

      I totally agree, only citizens should have the vote in NZ. You have to be a citizen to vote in Australia and in most of the rest of the world. There is a reason for that- only people with a long term commitment to a country should be able to determine its future. And then also make it compulsory to vote, like in Australia. Australians have had a better deal than us over the last 30 years, they have been shafted much less, maybe their electoral system has something to do with that. And make applying for citizenship much cheaper- $500 seems excessive. You only have to have been in NZ for 5 years to be apply to become a citizen.

      • Rosie 9.6.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:32 am

        “There is a reason for that- only people with a long term commitment to a country should be able to determine its future”

        Mr R has voted in every election since 1990. If that isn’t long term commitment for you I don’t what is.

        There is an insinuation on this thread that permanent residents are somehow less worthy and less committed than citizens and should be denied the right to vote. It’s a very excluding view bordering on xenophobia and one that would not benefit the country in any way.

        And how the voting rights of residents somehow contributed to a defeat for the left is beyond me.

    • Bill 9.7
      24 September 2014 at 10:38 am

      As a resident, you might be pleased to hear I’ve a fairly solid grasp of NZ history…more, it seems, than many NZ born folks, and voted for a further left choice than most.

      Also, it’s simply not true that I can ‘up sticks and go’.

      Here’s an alternative.

      How’s about only people who reside in the country and pay taxes get to vote? That was the situation in the recent Scottish referendum that I (fairly) couldn’t vote in, in spite of having been born and raised there as well as having spent a good portion of my adult life living there.

      • weka 9.7.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:57 am

        The way it stands at the moment is that if you live elsewhere you can vote so long as you have visited NZ in the past year (or 3 years?). That I assume is a nod towards people that still have ties here, as opposed to people that have left permanently. It strikes me as problematic (eg getting home from Oz is easier/cheaper than getting home from the UK). However I don’t think disenfranchising people who have say gone to Oz for work who will most likely return at some point is a good way to go.

        Not sure why James bought this up. Is there even an issue here with mass residents voting and then leaving town? Maybe voting rights should kick in a the citizenship mark (5 years?) irrespective of whether one takes up citizenship or not.

        • miravox 9.7.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 6:02 pm

          an expat needs to have returned home once in the previous 3 years to vote.

          As for voting, I don’t think it’s as simple as being physically resident in NZ or not. For example we are NZ citizens who work overseas on a fixed term contract for a company that operates in NA. We don’t have residency overseas and we’re paid in NZ, own our home in NZ and are tax resident in NZ. Most expats we know are working overseas on a similar basis.

          Another example – would an exemption apply for government or diplomatic staff? I’m sure there are also other situations where removing the right to vote would appear unfair to a non-resident.

          • alwyn 9.7.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 6:45 pm

            It is three years for citizens, one year for permanent residents. There are special rules for people who are representing New Zealand overseas including diplomats and people in the armed services.
            Imagine if, in WW II, all the 100,000 or so soldiers overseas had been banned from voting because they had been away for more than 3 years?

            • RedLogix 9.7.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 12:10 am

              Nor would it be reasonable to totally disenfranchise the 620,000 odd New Zealanders working in Australia who could easily finish up in a situation of not being able to vote in either country.

              • alwyn …
                26 September 2014 at 11:12 am

                I don’t actually have any problem with accepting that. If they are New Zealand citizens but don’t have any real connection to the country I don’t see why they should be allowed to vote here.
                Diplomats working in New Zealand embassies for New Zealand or soldiers serving in New Zealand forces overseas are a different thing to people who have chosen to depart voluntarily.

    • Murray Olsen 9.8
      24 September 2014 at 11:52 pm

      Thank you for giving us the views of Winston First. I live in Australia at the moment and I can’t vote. They are kind enough to let me pay taxes and they have performed major surgery on me. But I get no representation. I would love to vote for a party that would keep that level of medical care for everyone in Australia, but I can’t.

      I firmly believe in no taxation without representation.

      • RedLogix 9.8.1
        25 September 2014 at 12:14 am

        Same boat here Murray. This is a real festering issue for both countries that a succession of governments on both sides of the Tasman have failed on.

  10. Lanthanide 10
    24 September 2014 at 9:01 am

    Does anyone know what will happen to Hone’s Feed the Kids members bill that was drawn out last Parliament?

    • phillip ure 10.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:11 am

      @ lanth..

      ..goneburger..

    • alwyn 10.2
      24 September 2014 at 10:15 am

      It lapses with the dissolution but can be reinstated by the next Parliament.
      See section 20 of the Constitution Act
      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM94243

      • Lanthanide 10.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:26 am

        Right, so the rules say everything expires and has to be specifically reinstated.

        But how does it work in terms of convention? Are member’s bills, by convention, reinstated?

        • alwyn 10.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:03 am

          On that you will have to get someone who is more of an expert than I am. I am only up to reading the procedures without really understanding the detail. I do know that when a member retires (or gets kicked out) any private member’s bill they were promoting is often taken up by some other member of their party. This happened with the same-sex marriage bill didn’t it?
          Quite who would take up Hone’s bill when the whole party is gone I don’t know. I suppose someone from the Green’s might do so.
          I am also not really clear on what “reinstatement” means for a private members bill and where in the process it comes back.
          Graeme Edgeler, where are you?

  11. The Lone Haranguer 11
    24 September 2014 at 9:01 am

    So Labour have 32 seats and NZ First have 11. And the great purge of 2014 is about to commence (or not).

    And the left wing activists I see on here seem to think that getting rid of the ABCs and all right leaning folk in Labour who have failed to support the the leader and have failed to work for the party, is the way forward.

    By my calculations there are about 10 labour electorate MPs (give or take) who might fall into that category. Others who know the MPs better may get a more accurate figure than I can.

    So where could these “treacherous Labour lite MPs” go? None have the energy to form their own party and lets face it that long forgotten middle party from the 90s with Gilbert Miles didnt have any shelf life.

    So the only logical option would be for them to join forces with Winston and NZ First. And that would give Winston more MPs (maybe) than the freshly purged Labour Party, and Winston could, and would no doubt, claim to be the leader of the opposition, and ask for the baubles of power that go with that position.

    And that would leave Labour left with what? Being just another minor party in Parliament, but with a chance to rebuild “out left?” or dead in the water? How much more demoralisation can your party faithful take?

    Labour needs to sort its seething MPs out and it needs to work as a united team. Anything less is letting down the voters in New Zealand.

    • Hanswurst 11.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:07 am

      Winston could, and would no doubt, claim to be the leader of the opposition, and ask for the baubles of power that go with that position.

      There are no baubles of power that go with that position.

    • alwyn 11.2
      24 September 2014 at 10:32 am

      Winston can do anything he likes but if he wants to be the leader of the opposition he is going to have to get a hell of a lot more votes. The position is defined in law and with the results of this election it is, unless they go into a coalition with National, the leader of the Labour Party.
      The have one right, they get briefings by the SIS. That was the one that bit Goff when he publicly denied getting one and basically accused the head of the SIS of breaking the law. Silly boy. He could have just shut up when he was shown to be wrong.
      They also get the right to make the first speech in the budget debate and so on.
      See the definition of the Leader here.
      http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/about-parliament/how-parliament-works/people/00CLOOCHowPWorks1411/people-in-parliament

      • The Lone Haranguer 11.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:59 am

        Leader of the Opposition

        The Leader of the Opposition is the member who leads the largest political party that is not part of the Government.

        The Leader of the Opposition’s role in the House is to:

        be the leader of the ‘government-in-waiting’
        lead opposition responses in major debates.

        The Leader of the Opposition sits directly opposite the Prime Minister in the debating chamber.

        What it hasnt ever had to do is to define if the largest opposition party is the one who got the most votes at the previous election or whether its the one with the most MPs, if electorate MPs were jump ship from Labour to NZF.

        Having extra TV time on the 6 oclock news would suit Winston.

        • alwyn 11.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:20 am

          I have memories of reading that it was the opposition party that had the greatest number of votes in the preceding General Election, rather than the most seats, but for the life of me I can’t remember where I saw that.

  12. dv 12
    24 September 2014 at 9:11 am

    Meanwhile

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/10537574/Fonterra-profit-plunges-payout-forecast-cut
    The co-operative’s net profit for the year to July 31 was $179 million, down 76 per cent from $736m last year, while its pre-tax earnings slumped by 50 per cent from $1 billion to $503m.

    AND
    Debt
    88,963,432,720
    Interest per year
    4,359,265,206

    • Gosman 12.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:31 am

      Guess the economic slump is going to happen a couple of months too late for you. Sorry guys about that but jeeze that John Key certainly knows how to schedule an election doesn’t he?

        • Gosman 12.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 9:41 am

          Well if the economy had tanked just before the election instead of looking quite healthy the left may well have had more traction and therefore a better result. Don’t you agree?

          • dv 12.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 9:57 am

            SO the economy IS tanking.
            Is that the cusp?

            • yeshe 12.1.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 9:59 am

              maybe this is the ‘something special’ Key has in mind for us all ?

              • phillip ure …
                24 September 2014 at 10:40 am

                it’s a downward-‘cusp’..that we are on the edge of..

                ..fonterra is tanking..and will tank further..

                ..(a predicted five yr glut driving that..and of course there is the impending arrival of mufree to totally disrupt their business-model..)

                ..and imagine when the housing bubble bursts..eh..?

                ..whoar..!

                ..and gosman is right..key timed the election for those reasons..

                ..the forecasters told him the sooner the better…for the election..

                ..’cos we have pear-shaped economy coming up..

                ..so yep..!..he’s/key’s as cunning as a shithouse rat…

                ..albeit one with a gold toothpick..

                • phillip ure …
                  24 September 2014 at 12:26 pm

                  but wait..!..there’s more..!

                  rnz is reporting an expert on the sector saying he thinks fonterra are being too optimistic –

                  – even with that downgraded prediction…

            • Gosman 12.1.1.1.1.2
              24 September 2014 at 10:15 am

              It very well could be, couldn’t it?

          • thatguynz 12.1.1.1.2
            24 September 2014 at 10:20 am

            Being the astute economic analyst that you have claimed to be you will have known for quite some time that the global economy on which we heavily rely, is on shaky ground. Wouldn’t you?

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.3
            24 September 2014 at 4:55 pm

            Yes, National fucked the economy, knew that they had and had a reasonable idea as to when it would tank and so called an early election. I believe that this was mentioned at the time that National called the election.

          • GregJ 12.1.1.1.4
            24 September 2014 at 8:45 pm

            Wouldn’t have made any difference – the payout will be for the current season (2014-2015) and won’t really start impacting for another 6-12 months. This time next year I would expect to see the full impact to the wider economy as the decisions farmers are making now around investment and spending kick in.

      • Lanthanide 12.1.2
        24 September 2014 at 10:07 am

        Yes, Key does know how to exploit the electoral rules of our country to his advantage.

    • RedBaronCV 12.2
      24 September 2014 at 9:47 am

      Well the farmers can’t get out of Fonterra fast enough and I look forward to them as a group letting their party Nact know how shafted they feel . Maybe they will suggest that the exchange rate needs to be a little lower??

  13. millsy 13
    24 September 2014 at 9:21 am

    I still do not see anyone putting ACT under the microscope for its election performance. Even though they only got 0.7% and thanks to National’s political welfare scheme a boy for an MP. In 2008 they had 5 (life) experienced MP’s and 2 ministers and a swag of concessions and promises. ACT had a fresh leader and a new start and policies like getting rid of the RMA and privatising the schools. Where is the analysis for ACT? They brought in Bassett to carry on about Labour, but he is ACT now. They should be quizzing him about the direction ACT is taking. If NZ had moved to the right, then ACT would get more.

    And no discussion about whether Boscawen would have led ACT to a higher total.

    • Puckish Rogue 13.1
      24 September 2014 at 10:16 am

      Acts in power theres the difference

      • thatguynz 13.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:22 am

        Through their own merits or from the benevolence of National?

        • Puckish Rogue 13.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:28 am

          Does it matter? The problem with the left is they’re too busy worrying about things like this and not enough wondering why the Greens (for example) have been around for 24 years yet never been in government

          • thatguynz 13.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 11:46 am

            I think you missed Millsy’s point mate. In the context of what he/she wrote of course it matters as it is pertinent to what he/she was saying. In the context of the wider left bloc etc. it matters not a jot but that’s irrelevant to the initial comment.

            • Puckish Rogue 13.1.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 12:35 pm

              What he wrote (I think hes a dude) I guess I’m thinking hes trying to say “hey look the left did bad but Act did bad as well”

              Which is true and I’d cut Act loose and woo Ron Marks instead but it doesn’t help the Left which has to face some uncomfortable truths such as they’re out of touch with NZ and why are they out of touch…

    • phillip ure 13.2
      24 September 2014 at 10:43 am

      @ millsy..

      ..who really gives a flying-fuck about any aspect of act..?

  14. Logie97 14
    24 September 2014 at 9:25 am

    Frontera couldn’t have seen that coming a week ago, before the election

    • GregJ 14.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:53 pm

      What – that the forecast & profits would be lower?

      It was pretty widely understood in the farming community that the payout would be lower and that profit would be lower. Global Dairy prices have slumped nearly 40% in the last 6 months. It just doesn’t get much coverage in the MSM outside of the Farming news sections and certainly gets very little actual economic analysis (and certainly didn’t make it into the political analysis during the election).

      Whether Fonterra choose to delay the announcement until after the election may be a discussion worth having if you are so minded.

  15. The Lone Haranguer 15
    24 September 2014 at 9:25 am

    Thats because nobody really cares about ACTs future but a lot of people care (and have opinions) about Labours future

  16. RedBaronCV 16
    24 September 2014 at 9:36 am

    Now lets get back to holding Nact up for all to see. See in stuff he wants ideas about poverty from his governement.
    Well Mr key are you and your ministers going to go and tour the poorest areas of the country or sit out the front in a Winz office??? Actually go and connect with poor people???
    Does anyone here know when any of that lot went near or opened anything in one of these areas?? Do they even know where they are?? Can we embarass them about this or something else – don’t forget that the social media does shape how people think and that turns up in his little focus groups!

    • Granted 16.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:58 am

      OK, so if Nats do nothing = moan. Now they say they will do something = moan.

      get a grip

      • weka 16.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:49 am

        We will stop moaning when National actually does something (as opposed to talking about it, or tinkering).

        • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:31 am

          They managed to shut down the health portfolio as a source problems so I have a good feeling about this

          John Key is smarter then anyone (currently) on the left so its quite possible he’ll shut down the left on this as well

          • Murray Olsen 16.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 12:30 am

            For a certain definition of smart, maybe. What he does have is an ability to hide his limitations from most people. Most of this is based on the flawed idea that the suit in charge is competent and trustworthy.

      • RedBaronCV 16.1.2
        24 September 2014 at 4:12 pm

        Its just talk Grant where’s the walk huh? There is nothing new about the poverty or the Nact arrogance.

  17. yeshe 17
    24 September 2014 at 9:58 am

    A loved and trusted friend told me yesterday of a client of his, from mainland China, still lives in mainland China, but now owns 50 residential properties in Auckland, all made possible by low interest loans in China at about 1% or 2%.

    No visible taxes even ??

    Where is your property register dictator Key ?

  18. cricklewood 18
    24 September 2014 at 10:06 am

    There is no way in the world that the caucus will unite and swing behind David Cunliffe as long as the ABC club remains the leaks will continue and any hint of disunity gets punished at the ballot box.

    So there are two workable options as I see It both nuclear and both signalling the future direction of the party,
    1, Cunliffe resigns and caucus gets their preferred candidate through a singular nomination for leader, obviously this will result in much aggravation amongst the membership and likely position the party more towards the centre.

    2, Expel the ABC club and start again from what will be a much smaller base. It would be likely that some electorate mp’s would end up as independents or perhaps they would resign and force a by-election that labour may not win going by the party vote in places like Hutt South where in all likelihood name recognition got Trevor through.

    I guess the 3rd option is to have the Primary in which the members deliver Cunliffe against the will of the caucus and the white anting continues unabated for 3 more years or there is a messy leadership spill again a year out from the election triggered by caucus voting no confidence as per the constitution which I think will be fast track to electoral oblivion.

    As an aside I had Phill Goff knock on my door 3 times in the lead up to the election and I can honestly say he promoted the Labour party and their policy’s he was the only local candidate I saw and I think his effort had a lot to do with the high personal vote he achieved. I voted Green for the first time as I refused to vote for the rabble that labour had become this cycle but I gave Phil my electorate vote. Im sure people that voted right did the same…

    • weka 18.1
      24 September 2014 at 10:51 am

      What is the Labour Party’s internal process for expelling MPs? I doubt that Cunliffe can just tell them to go.

      • adam 18.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:50 am

        What’s this move towards the centre. Hell as they stand, labours economics are centre right – any shift right will put them further to the right.

        But, no lets not talk about the fact labour are economically speaking, a right wing party – No unity is needed and the rest of the left better shut up.

        • Scott1 18.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 3:55 pm

          In that case how about a plan to reverse that dynamic so that it is the left side that is doing the Trojan horsing.

          • RedBaronCV 18.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 4:14 pm

            Just quietly retire a couple of the worse because by- elections rarely favour governments and it won’t change the MP numbers

    • Colonial Viper 18.2
      24 September 2014 at 10:18 pm

      cricklewood: thanks for your anecdote of Goff’s hard work. I don’t like his centrist political economics, but also think he should have stayed on after 2011.

  19. westiechick 19
    24 September 2014 at 10:10 am

    Yes we were on the cusp of all sorts of stuff which is why we had to get the election done in hurry. We were possibly on the cusp of Cunliffe getting some name recognition, familiarity and traction with voters which takes a long time. Has anyone ever taken leadership less than a year out from an election and won? On either side? Ever?
    I hope we are not on the cusp of having mumbleface back again as our champion. I worked hard as a volunteer for labour in the election because I believed in the policies and believed in Cunliffe. The disloyalty during the campaign slayed me. If they shaft him, I’m afraid I will be on the cusp of withdrawing my loyalty to the party I have voted for in the last 10 elections.

    • Nan 19.1
      24 September 2014 at 10:42 am

      My thoughts are the same. I wish the ABC outfit would grow up or go away.

    • Rosie 19.2
      24 September 2014 at 11:41 am

      +1 westie chick. Big ups for your hard work too.

      It was David Cunliffe that brought me back to being a Labour voter. Then along came the impressive policies and that sealed the deal. If he goes and Labour muck around AGAIN with a new less capable leader I will completely lose my faith in the Party.

      DC has the support of the membership and Unions behind him. Thats what should matter, not the petty ambitions of a few self serving caucus members.

      • bad politics 19.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 2:14 pm

        I read that Key holds the record of time between becoming leader of a party & then becoming PM, which was about 2 years.

      • Rodel 19.2.2
        24 September 2014 at 9:00 pm

        Rosie- My thoughts also. I want Cunliffe as PM as much as I admired and respected Helen Clark. Takes time.
        If Cunliffe stays so will I.

  20. James Thrace 20
    24 September 2014 at 10:22 am

    Can’t reply on Mobile..

    Alwyn – won’t need to identify individual votes. Its easy enough to cross reference the marked roll of those who voted with their status as a resident or citizen. No vote identification necessary.

    I believe that the enrollment form asks for details on residency or citizenship status.

    Australia doesn’t allow residents to vote (but as outlined above do make exceptions where citizenship cannot be revoked by countries such as Greece)

    As for Mr Rosie – good on him for his work in the community, but the point stands… Citizenship is relatively inexpensive, and some do get sponsored by employers etc.

    • alwyn 20.1
      24 September 2014 at 10:41 am

      I read the comment, and the bit that followed as meaning that you wanted to know how they voted. That was what worried me.
      Please note that I would only forbid dual citizenship for MPs, not for everyone. That is what Australia does. People with dual citizenship can vote over there. The Australian exemption is for the odd MP who was born in Greece.

    • weka 20.2
      24 September 2014 at 11:14 am

      “Citizenship is relatively inexpensive”

      In other words bugger the people who don’t have $500, they can just do without voting.

      • Jesse 20.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:22 am

        If the rules were changed, and the government needed to process a bulk lot of citizenship applications for people who just wanted to vote, then economies of scale should apply and the costs significantly reduced to reduce hardship on people who have been here a long time and just need to formalize their relationship with this country. There is always a way to make a change like that fairer.

  21. weka 21
    24 September 2014 at 11:12 am

    Governments must shift subsidies and research funding from agro-industrial monoculture to small farmers using ‘agroecological’ methods, according to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

    Modern industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, due to the impacts of overlapping environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability.

    The UN official said that new scientific research increasingly shows how ‘agroecology’ offers far more environmentally sustainable methods that can still meet the rapidly growing demand for food:

    “Agroecology is a traditional way of using farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with society. New research in agroecology allows us to explore more effectively how we can use traditional knowledge to protect people and their environment at the same time.”

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2566719/un_only_small_farmers_and_agroecology_can_feed_the_the_world.html

  22. Puckish Rogue 22
    24 September 2014 at 11:44 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10538018/Labour-woes-Rift-between-the-Davids

    I think the Cunliffe should stay on as hes good for National but this, this would be even better for National

  23. Chooky 23
    24 September 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Brilliant post Election analysis by Dr. Wayne Hope :

    ‘One Party State’

    By Wayne Hope / September 24, 2014

    “In years to come this election will be seen as a historic turning point towards one party rule…”.

    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/24/one-party-state/#sthash.FgjntQ65.dpuf

    (Pretty interesting comment below this article also….saying a unified Left is the only way to go into the future)

    • Puckish Rogue 23.1
      24 September 2014 at 12:31 pm

      Meh, much of a muchness really, although i will say hes a pretty good writer but really its a rehash of what you read on here

      Blaming the MSM
      Blaming the money (which didn’t do much good for KDC or Colin Craig)
      Blaming resources

      Not no pointing the finger at the left for its own failings

      • Chooky 23.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 2:33 pm

        glad you read it Pucky…maybe it is true?

        • Puckish Rogue 23.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 2:39 pm

          What i’m saying is you can pretty much read the same thing on here as what that guys written which boils to this: Its not our fault we suck its someone elses fault

          • Chooky 23.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 2:44 pm

            actually …there has been quite a lot of soul searching as to what went wrong …and it is not always “it is not our fault”…far from it if you read many of the comments

            this is not to negate the validity of what Dr.Wayne Hope says

            • Puckish Rogue 23.1.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 3:14 pm

              The problem for the left its always “we did some things wrong BUT *insert whatever excuse you like here*”

              MSM
              Funding
              Resources
              Cameron slater
              John Key
              the people don’t understand our policies (thats my favourite one by the way)

              Until you accept your failings you can’t fix them

              • Draco T Bastard …
                24 September 2014 at 5:11 pm

                His willful blindness is truly a wonder to behold.

              • Hanswurst …
                24 September 2014 at 6:04 pm

                The problem for the left its always “we did some things wrong BUT *insert whatever excuse you like here*

                So it’s not appropriate for people who are observers, rather than players, to point out that a large and infulential group are spreading misnformation?

  24. Puckish Rogue 24
    24 September 2014 at 12:25 pm

    I do wonder what it is that makes celebrities act the way they do:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2766871/Leonardo-DiCaprio-s-climate-change-hypocrisy-As-Hollywood-star-lectures-U-N-MailOnline-reveals-jetset-lifestyle-includes-19-flights-world-year-borrowing-mega-yacht-owned-oil-billionaire.html

    Not saying all are look this as there must be some who walk the walk as well as talk the talk but it does make me wonder at times

    *Disclaimer, this is not about climate change but rather celebrities*

    Unless of course you want to talk about climate change then thats cool as well

  25. JeffRo 25
    24 September 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Reasons for Nationals win?
    28th on the Happy planet index in 2012. Up from 109 in 2009. -From wikipidia

    Fifth in Legatum’s prosperity index. Been around 3rd to 5th since 2009.
    “So who’s the happiest? As has been the case the past five years, that distinction goes to countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity: Norway, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand.”

    Are we doing OK- Yes
    Could we do better- yes.

    We are lucky to live in NZ.

    I think this is a large reason the government was returned on Saturday night.

    • weka 25.1
      24 September 2014 at 1:41 pm

      “28th on the Happy planet index in 2012. Up from 109 in 2009. -From wikipidia”

      Something is suspicious about those figures.

      • JeffRo 25.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 1:59 pm

        Just passing on the info….

        All international measures have NZ pretty near the top of the pile.

        And lots have us number 1 in education.

        Not the feeling around that there was a need to change the government.

        In fact a sound endorsement.

        We are also rated as having very low corruption.

        • weka 25.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 2:02 pm

          It would help if you provided links. Like I said, there is something very odd about the happiness figures.

          • JeffRo 25.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 2:11 pm

            I will have a crack at posting the link.

            Why are they odd to you?

          • JeffRo 25.1.1.1.2
            24 September 2014 at 2:13 pm

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index.

            That’s what I looked at

            Hope it helps

            • Hanswurst 25.1.1.1.2.1
              24 September 2014 at 7:35 pm

              Looking into the Happy Planet Index figures a bit more fully, it would appear that New Zealand’s results in the 2012 report show a negligible improvement in life expectancy over its 2009 counterpart (from 79.8 to 80.7 years), whereas the ‘life satisfaction’ indicator has plummeted (7.8 to 7.2). The big improvement noted between the two reports is in the ecological footprint (down from 7.7 to 4.3). That would appear to be a huge stride forward on the environmental front under National, until one notices that the ecological footprint in the 2012 report is based on figures from… 2008 (full 2008 data on ecological footprints here). So it would seem that the report only accounts for a lightening of the ecological footprint under the most recent Labour government (although I’m sceptical of that, too, as I’m not sure exactly what happened under Labour that would have made that kind of difference).

              So the only relevant indicator in that report for the National government is a big negative. I hope that helps.

        • Draco T Bastard 25.1.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 5:14 pm

          We’re rated as having having a very low perception of corruption. Dirty Politics proved that we’re probably one of the most corrupt though.

      • JeffRo 25.1.2
        24 September 2014 at 2:18 pm

        The wiki happy planet score, isn’t just around people, it rates the eco footprint as well.

      • Blue 25.1.3
        24 September 2014 at 2:49 pm

        Maybe you should petition for a recount?

    • Colonial Viper 25.2
      24 September 2014 at 10:35 pm

      LEGATUM lol more fucking right wing think tankery

      Measuring how rich the rich are. Joke. A cruel joke.

  26. greywarbler 26
    24 September 2014 at 1:21 pm

    British David Mitchell, comedian and author talking about Amazon recently
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/23/david-mitchell-amazon-cynical-life-crushing-business
    laid into Amazon for its business model: “They already have an enormous technological edge but apparently that isn’t enough. They also have to have a rapacious near-monopoly.” He also criticised the retailer for its tax payments, pointing to the fact that Amazon paid just £2.4m in corporation tax in 2012, on £4.2bn of UK sales….

    Yesterday, after reading an extract from his forthcoming book, a collection of his Observer columns in which he calls Amazon “a benefits scrounger”, Mitchell was greeted with “rapturous applause”, reported the Bookseller….
    Yes it is tough, but print book sales through bookshops are still strong”, and that “we should reiterate our belief that booksellers believe in freedom, diversity, partnership and a profitable book industry for all”.

    But Mitchell also sounded a note of positivity. “For all that there is hope,” said the comedian. “Theatre and radio still survive, after lots of people were predicting their death, and people are wrong in their depressing predictions. Sometimes bad things don’t happen just because most people don’t want them to.”

    So think positive and keep trying.

  27. weka 27
    24 September 2014 at 1:39 pm

    120 new members have joined the Green Party since the election (just got an email).

    • karol 27.1
      24 September 2014 at 3:47 pm

      Interesting. I’ve been reading some comments about the surge in GP membership.

    • Tracey 27.2
      24 September 2014 at 3:51 pm

      over 6000 volunteers.

      I gave about 250 in total I think. I like the way they ask for support for different things be it ads or a policy campaign.

      • karol 27.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 3:56 pm

        I’m not a member, but did some volunteering. It’s a bit dispiriting that the extra energy didn’t seem to pay off in extra votes.

        There needs to be some re-assessment into how the energy was spent.

        I also think there needs to be a building of relationships, and community participation at a flax roots level – something organisational. I know the Greens regularly do some meet and greets around various places. However, I think something more solid needs to be done to build the networks within communities.

        • weka 27.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 4:27 pm

          I reckon the GP lost some votes to Labour (who lost votes to NZF and the non-vote) and to IMP. In other words, your effort help the GP retain their MPs 🙂

      • Chooky 27.3.1
        24 September 2014 at 4:22 pm

        @karol re-Labour…..yes but do they know who they are supporting as leader?….seems like it is an attempt to get rid of David Cunliffe!….nasty PR campaign?

        …not a good look imo….looks like Labour has been infiltrated and is imploding….i can see the Labour Party being split into ‘Red Labour’ and ‘Rogered Labour’

        …i feel for committed Labour Party people for their agony …but quite frankly the Labour Party people I know eg family …..would move sideways to the Greens without much trouble ( and they do NOT like Shearer… who demoted Dalziel who then jumped …and Chauvel, who fled) )

        ….so Labour needs to look at its loyal ( thus far) but nevertheless soft core

  28. karol 28
    24 September 2014 at 4:01 pm

    This on DPF’s dirty politics. By Dr Jarrod Gilbert, Sociologist. Maybe it could best be referred to as the politics of deception and manipulation.

    In the lead up to the election the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley launched a gang policy. In order to justify the government’s approach she used gang figures that overstated the gang problem. Not by a little bit, but a lot. And I mean a lot. I couldn’t prove it at the time (I can now) but because they were so obviously nonsense I called her out and said I would eat a suitcase full of carrots if she was correct.

    Carrots proved to be the least of my problems. My problem proved to be the dishonest Right Wing blogger David Farrar. I initially took Farrar’s challenge in good humour thinking it would be a healthy tussle to seek the truth. It wasn’t. As we know now, he and Cameron Slater are birds of a feather, but where Slater is dim-witted Farrar is marginally smarter and this makes him more insidious.

    Fully explained at the link, along with all the nastiness of the KB followers who descended on the good Dr in order to attack, denigrate, mislead, and stifle honest debate.

    • Chooky 28.1
      24 September 2014 at 4:15 pm

      +100 karol…the egg stinks…”As we know now, he and Cameron Slater are birds of a feather, but where Slater is dim-witted Farrar is marginally smarter and this makes him more insidious”.

    • RedBaronCV 28.2
      24 September 2014 at 4:43 pm

      I think we need another of Blip’s lists of people whom Slater & Farrar have attacked.. So far I have see this bloke, a south auckland local body politician, the herald food writer, Brian Gaynor on being sued, Fisher in the herald again.

      Perhaps next time an academic has this problem, and I can see his argument, he could drop on over here for some help. We can dig out some figures for him etc, etc
      Like the bottle of wine photo. i’m sure the MSM read here and the real facts might shut them down a bit. They have lawyers you know.

      As for the cops and gang associates, looks like they count everyone in the same burb.

    • Chooky 29.1
      24 September 2014 at 4:13 pm

      talking to yourself again …eh Pucky?…trying to interest us in kiwiblog now?

    • karol 29.2
      24 September 2014 at 4:13 pm

      What is interesting about them? Explain why I should go to KB.

      • Puckish Rogue 29.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 4:21 pm

        First off as a pollster hes obviously pretty good, good enough to get a ringing endorsement from the PM on election nigfht whereas Labours pollsters were…well a bit shit really

        Secondly you might learn something

        • karol 29.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 4:24 pm

          So no reason to click on the link then. Also see Dr Jarrod Gilbert above for an endorsement of just how honest and upstanding the good DPF is.

          • Puckish Rogue 29.2.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 4:26 pm

            He got it wrong and apoligised, a lesson some on the left might like to learn

            • karol 29.2.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 4:30 pm

              He apologised after all the nastiness? And what lesson is it that the left should learn, given that it doesn’t generally indulge in such orchestrated campaigns of attack, divert and denigrate?

              • Colonial Viper …
                24 September 2014 at 10:37 pm

                Puckish Rogue is full of shit…again.

                Gilbert is a good guy and his expertise and credibility is seen as sufficient threat to warrant personal attack by the National smear machine.

            • dv 29.2.1.1.1.2
              24 September 2014 at 4:33 pm

              ‘He got it wrong and apoligised, a lesson some on the left might like to learn.

              Good heavens Farrar apologised!!!!

            • weka 29.2.1.1.1.3
              24 September 2014 at 4:36 pm

              hahaha. Is Farrar apologising for being an integral part of dirty politics? Thought not. It’s a clayton’s apology from someone who got caught.

        • weka 29.2.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 4:28 pm

          🙄

          not very good at this click bait thing are you?

        • Draco T Bastard 29.2.1.3
          24 September 2014 at 7:24 pm

          good enough to get a ringing endorsement from the PM

          And that would be an appeal to authority.

          So, tell me, are you able to make an argument without logical fallacies in them?

          A good example in this case would be to show if DPF has actually been right about anything at all ever. Or, perhaps, showing that he hasn’t lied.

  30. Blue 30
    24 September 2014 at 4:58 pm

    At least he’s not apologising for being a man I guess. He’s apologising for making an error and rightly so. A rarity for the left, even when an incompetently run campaign ends in a trouncing at the polls. It’s simple costed policies delivered in a coherent manner that win elections.

  31. cricko 31
    24 September 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Well, seems National voters know what they think.
    Now we watch Labour eat each other to death.
    So sad.

    What does Labour stand for today ?

    In one sentence, can anyone articulate ?
    thng is, nobody knows now.

    We are doomed untill someone can answer that question in one sentence that makes
    sence.

    • Hanswurst 31.1
      24 September 2014 at 11:37 pm

      Okay, turning that around: Can you put into one sentence what National stands for, in a way that is appealing, comprehensive and accurate? I’m asking for a verifiable statement of intent, not a vacuous piece of branding like “Working for New Zealand” (the same could be said of most political parties, including Labour). Equally pointless would be a couple of throwaway founding principles like “freedom, private enterprise and getting ahead”, because that would be no more or less (in)accurate than saying that Labour are for “equal opportunity, fairness and workers’ rights”.

      If you can’t, can you admit that formulating a vision and a plan in a single sentence is a pointless exercise, and that nobody should bother taking up your challenge?

      • Colonial Viper 31.1.1
        25 September 2014 at 12:28 am

        People feel comfortable with National and don’t require any words. When you ask most National voters, they also can’t explain why they vote National in very many words, but they do know, somehow, that National are just better than the other options on the table.

        • Hanswurst 31.1.1.1
          25 September 2014 at 12:43 am

          Agreed. I just think that asking for a solution that is simple, straightforward and to the point is putting the cart before the horse. I can’t claim to be familiar with all the ins and outs of Labour’s situation, but I think get the impression from reading here and elsewhere that there is a very complex set of issues with the party including on-the-ground promotion, media communication, responding to National’s media utterances, opposing National’s policy, identifying the targets of Labour’s own policies, communicating those policies and personnel manangement at caucus level. In my opinion, those all need to be quantified and a strategy developed at a complex and detailed level, so that the actual players with the time, inclination and obligation to evaluate the complex issues understand the entirety – then it’s time to think about how to package any resulting strategy for people who want the short version.

          “Working for New Zealand”, Iwi/Kiwi etc. have been effective for National, but they worked because they encapsulated an existing narrative and strategy, not because they actually communicate in a single soundbite what the party stands for.

          • Colonial Viper 31.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2014 at 7:28 am

            Labour doesn’t have a team with the experience, skills, focus and resources to execute that, at the moment.

            • RedLogix 31.1.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2014 at 7:36 am

              CV.

              And if all those ‘missing million’ working class people cannot bring themselves to vote for Labour then maybe the activists who keep it running should have taken the hint a while back – and kicked it to the kerb.

              Look the left isn’t going to win any election anytime soon. I think Wayne Hope’s analysis is pretty accurate. The behaviour in the Labour caucus post-election has highlighted the truth of it.

              Now is the perfect time to demolish and rebuild.

              • Blue …
                25 September 2014 at 11:25 am

                Do you know for sure that the missing million are “working class”? Maybe they just cant be fucked voting? Maybe they are waiting for a party that shares their view of the world as they would like to see it. Just because the left got trounced, where is the correlation that they would all have voted left? Maybe that group would reflect those that voted in their preferences. I ask this because the last election was the same, the refrain was “if they had voted we would have won”, not necessarily.

    • think 31.2
      25 September 2014 at 12:17 am

      That is the problem for sure they have to start at the mass of the people at the bottom end of society and understand that they have to work from there to the top
      no good even addressing Nationals tornts you have to be 100% focused on who is missing out in nationals policies

    • blue leopard 31.3
      25 September 2014 at 2:26 am

      This is bizarre for me because I thought Cunliffe’s Labour was very clear:

      People first and Inclusiveness.

      It did seem all year, though, here on the Standard that others didn’t pick up on that message, which I thought was extremely clear and simple and also a message to counter the neo-liberal mindset.

      I wonder why the hell I heard it so clearly and so many others didn’t?

  32. Colonial Viper 32
    24 September 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Predicted on Twitter today that when the voter demographics come out, just over 1/8th of Pakeha males will have voted for Labour.

    • Blue 32.1
      25 September 2014 at 10:31 am

      Or 1/16th of eligible voters

    • Chooky 32.2
      25 September 2014 at 10:42 am

      much to my surprise my son was going to Party vote Labour( neither of his parents have for years) …but he was outraged by the axing of Hone…so ruled out Labour ….I would have thought he would have chosen Int/Mana next….but indoctrinated by commercial radio ( eg Sean Plunket) and its poison against Dotcom ….he ruled out INt/Mana!

      …. instead he Party voted for the Greens ( all decided in the last week of the Election campaign)

      …many others I know were confused up to the last minute …and obviously didnt vote at all ( i forced all the “confused” I knew to at least vote for a party on the Left)

      • Colonial Viper 32.2.1
        25 September 2014 at 11:01 am

        And in the last week the Labour campaign came out with the very blatant lie…Only a party vote for Labour will change the Government.

        Bloody awful, harmful decision to insult the intelligence of your supporters.

  33. weka 33
    24 September 2014 at 7:35 pm

    Politicheck website has expired. Did anyone notice? 😉

    http://www.politicheck.org.nz/

  34. chris73 34
    24 September 2014 at 10:29 pm

    For all those who think National is far right:

  35. THINK 35
    24 September 2014 at 11:26 pm

    The point about Dotcom is he is a genius if you look at the continum of his two hrs of footage , uninterrupted viewing on my old crappy laptop, get that anywhere else I dont think so ,no advertising interruptions or the plug pulled by the nations security services
    people ought to get savvy the guy is an asset not a liability because a few people got fucked up in america and are they just playing the movie moguls game, has any one complained about mega yet
    YOU think about the security of any ideas you have and post them thru conventional commercial internet communications anything from the gcsb to the american patent office can view it
    THERE IS NO SECURITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL NO MATTER HOW HONEST THEY ARE

  36. Dramaticus 36
    24 September 2014 at 11:54 pm

    The election everyones stoned /stunned on KEY -XKEYSCORE USA SECURITY
    HELLO its 1984 rowing backwards
    TELL all these politicians its a 5 oclock start for 12 hrs till they get off no tea breaks AND drug tests before you start and go home, the cops watching you go home pissed so you get busted
    See how theyd like that
    The real world of a good worker

  37. Blue 37
    25 September 2014 at 11:30 am

    “..the cops watching you go home pissed so you get busted”. Whats driving home pissed got to with it? If you drive a car after drinking too much you’re an unbelievable moron.