Open mike 25/01/2012

82 comments on “Open mike 25/01/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   25 January 2012 at 6:17 am

   Maritime Union National President Gary Parsloe argues that his union’s dispute with POAL is political.

   http://www.munz.org.nz/2012/01/24/ports-of-auckland-management-fact-sheet-short-on-facts/

   Maritime Union of New Zealand National President Garry Parsloe says not only is the “fact sheet” misleading, but it is a symptom of a deeply politicized management who need to be brought under control by the ports shareholders.

   The Maritime Union leader also criticised the line being pushed by the right that this dispute was about pay rates. This deliberate misrepresentation is also being repeated by some left apologists as an excuse to oppose giving support to the wharfies.

   Mr Parsloe says the Ernst and Young produced fact sheet repeats the misinformation propagated by POAL management.
   He says it avoids the fundamental issues in this dispute which are about security of employment and privatisation, not pay rates.

   As long as the left keep repeating the right wing lies as a justification for not supporting the struggle against contracting out.

   And refuse to gather around the wharfies….

   Then a management victory is inevitable.

   And for the first time in over 100 years the Auckland wharves will be non-union.
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     25 January 2012 at 8:19 am

     The large accounting firms serve their paying corporate clients well, don’t they.
     • Bored 1.1.1

       25 January 2012 at 8:45 am

       Where the fekk are Shearer and Brown????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
       • Jenny 1.1.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 9:00 pm

         Well here is Mayor Brown:

         Mayor gives striking port union the message

         Mr Brown said he expected the stoush between Ports of Auckland and the union to be resolved soon.

         “I would encourage them to do everything they can as loyal Aucklanders to resolve this issue without any further unnecessary time wasting,” he said.

         Mr Brown – a member of the Labour Party who received a $2000 donation from the Maritime Union towards his 2010 election campaign – yesterday said the board and management of the 100 per cent council-owned port company had his full confidence but he refused to express confidence in the union, which he was not responsible for.

         Mayor Brown could end this dispute right now. If the Mayor came out publicly and demanded that the Ports of Auckland management reverse their decision to out source the union jobs.

         Dispute over.

         Of course this may be a bit of a problem for Mayor Brown, as like other Labour Party members the Mayor can’t even acknowledge what the dispute is about.
     • aerobubble 1.1.2

       25 January 2012 at 2:23 pm

       Cheap oil and credit made it advantageous to beat up on unions because workers could get debt easy and managers could force down wages while activity was high in the economy, people would take longer to pay off mortgages on high priced homes. So it made it easy to crush the working stiffs. No longer, cheap oil and cheap credit are over, managers who blame their workers to crush another round of corporate bonuses are bad for businesses and investors. As Auckland council are now finding. Investment payoffs are not going to come from the old economy (unless there is a oil energy saving), the money is in investing in the energy sector.
2. The Voice of Reason 2

   25 January 2012 at 7:02 am

   ” This deliberate misrepresentation is also being repeated by some left apologists as an excuse to oppose giving support to the wharfies.”
    
   Or not, as the case may be, Jenny. Isn’t it ironic that you would would use a press release issued to disprove deliberate misrepresentation to make some deliberate misrepresentation of your own?
   • Jenny 2.1

     25 January 2012 at 6:20 pm

     If MUNZ want Labour and the Greens to declare their hands, then I will support my party getting on board. But I don’t think that will happen, because it is not in the immediate interests of MUNZ members for that to happen as its an industrial dispute at this point, not a political one. Yet.

     The Voice of Reason 21 January 2012 at 12:14 pm
   • Jenny 2.2

     25 January 2012 at 6:43 pm

     This dispute is about a business trying to cuts its wage bill so that it can undercut a competitor.

     And that’s why, for now, Labour and the Greens are smart to stay out of this, and why the union wants them to stay out. The parties wouldn’t do any favours to the workers if they turned what is essentially a story of a greedy company and workers just wanting to keep what they’ve got into a national political issue.

     EDDIE 16 January 2012 at 8:38 am
   • The Voice of Reason 2.3

     25 January 2012 at 7:02 pm

     Can you show me where I opposed support for the wharfies? Or eddie did? No, I guess you can’t. This is MUNZ’s dispute not yours and at this point they don’t want any political support and they are even turning down offers of donations. What part of this do you not understand?
     • Jenny 2.3.1

       25 January 2012 at 8:48 pm

       This is MUNZ’s dispute not yours and at this point they don’t want any political support and they are even turning down offers of donations. What part of this do you not understand?

       I understand this very well.

       As you have pointed out this MUNZ’s decision.

       Faced with contracting out all their jobs, MUNZ are on the horns of a dilemma and have only two choices.

       1 Accept outsourcing of their jobs and the end of a union presence on the Auckland Waterfront.

       or,

       2 Refuse to accept contracting out and mount a fighting campaign.

       The fact that MUNZ have chosen to make this an international issue is evidence that MUNZ want to make a fight of it.

       http://thestandard.org.nz/ports-of-auckland-vs-400000-wharfies/

       But international support alone will not win this dispute.

       No matter how sharp their international support is, it is like having only one half of a pair of scissors.

       That they have not chosen to make this a national issue as well, is out of place especially if they intend to win.

       What could be the reason for this?

       As Colonial Viper points out;

       demands like this aren’t usually issued between erstwhile allies unless an affirmative response has been coordinated and guaranteed, as rejection or even delay in repsonse will appear politically damaging. Certainly, the left could put on a very strong show if it did co-ordinate and act in concert. The protests around the 90 day right to fire show the possibilities of what could be done.

       Colonial Viper 21 January 2012 at 11:56 am

       The fact that Gary Parsloe feels the need to go public to counter the argument that “this is not political issue”, Is a sign that the behind the scenes efforts by MUNZ to gain national support from the Labour Party and their affiliated unions is failing.

       In a previous thread I questioned you as “a Labour Party supporter and a union official, both. Will you be calling on your members to support the wharfies, or not?”

       Which you ignored.

       So I will ask you again.

       As a Labour Party supporter and a union official, both. Will you be calling on your members to support the wharfies, or not?
       • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 9:13 pm

         Very tenacious Jenny.
       • The Voice of Reason 2.3.1.2

         25 January 2012 at 9:16 pm

         I didn’t ignore the question, I told you to piss off. And this is madness:
          
         “The fact that Gary Parsloe feels the need to go public to counter the argument that “this is not political issue”, Is a sign that the behind the scenes efforts by MUNZ to gain national support from the Labour Party and their affiliated unions is failing.”
          
         You make shit up, Jenny. Badly.
         • Jenny 2.3.1.2.1

           25 January 2012 at 9:28 pm

           I hope to be proved wrong.

           I would be the first to celebrate.
       • Frank Macskasy 2.3.1.3

         25 January 2012 at 9:20 pm

         PoAL’s decision to share information (Ernst & Young audits) with David Farrar and Cactus Kate ratchets this dispute up another notch.

         I think whether Shearer and Brown like it or not – they will have to become involved, eventually.

         Tony Gibson appears to be totally out of control… http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/propaganda-as-an-industrial-dispute-weapon/
     • Jenny 2.3.2

       26 January 2012 at 7:37 am

       Can you show me where I opposed support for the wharfies? Or eddie did? No, I guess you can’t.

       The Voice of Reason

       This dispute is about a business trying to cuts its wage bill so that it can undercut a competitor.
       And that’s why, for now, Labour and the Greens are smart to stay out of this,….

       …….And, frankly, do you back Labour’s PR team to do more good than harm to the wharfies’ cause? I don’t. For the same reason, the Occupy movement should stay clear of the wharfs for now.

       EDDIE
3. AnnaLiviaPlurabella 3

   25 January 2012 at 7:37 am

   Jonathan Coleman, Dotcom’s Party, National Party and loads of Money

   So far John Banks has conceded that he accepted hospitality from Dotcom and endorsed Dotcom’s largess to local causes. He is paddling furiously to distance himself from the possibility that Dotcom donated to his Election Campaign fund..

   Jonathan Coleman is notorious for his poor decisions on accepting hospitality. Let us see how well he handled himself with Dotcom. If Dotcom had invited Banks over for a party, it is likely he would have invited the party loving nearby MP and immigration minister over too!

   Today’s Herald:
   “Prime Minister John Key said Dr Coleman was informed because of Immigration’s “no surprises” policy, but his approval was neither sought nor given. “The decision was made by the officials. The minister knew about the circumstances but was not required to make the decision … He was simply made aware of it.”. If Dr Coleman had disapproved, however, it is highly unlikely the residency would have been been granted.”
   • mickysavage 3.1

     25 January 2012 at 8:08 am

     Aye ALP I would love to see National’s list of donors.

     Coleman’s “indifference” was a tacit nudge nudge wink wink to the Immigration Department.
4. randal 4

   25 January 2012 at 8:19 am

   the press reports that megasnarfload made $500,000,000 last year.
   thats a lot of little brown paper baggies filled with spare cash.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     25 January 2012 at 9:46 am

     And just think, all those media companies could be making those sorts of revenues if they changed their business models too…
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       25 January 2012 at 10:14 am

       As opposed to the Hollywood studios busines model which is to use the coercive force of Government and law enforcement to raise their own margins while stomping on the rights of everyone else to create, store and use their own data including data and backups of that data they have already paid for legitimately.
5. Janice 5

   25 January 2012 at 8:22 am

   Why is the government picking a fight with its farmer supporters? For years now at meetings with Fonterra, farmers have been trying to reduce the amount of milk that has to be sold to Fonterra’s competitors, especially those competitors who sell on the international market. Selling to local speciality cheese makers who sell on the local market is not a problem, and it is these that the legislation was set up to protect. It is the overseas owned (who owned by is not specified) who receive subsided milk from Fonterra and then go head to head with Fonterra in its markets. I believe one of these companies is Russian and another American, and no doubt the Chinese have interests somewhere. This is called overseas investment, but this type of overseas investment is not needed as it takes straight from New Zealand farmers’ pockets. Has the TPP got anything to do with it, perhaps it is not only Pharmac that is threatened by the TPP? No doubt in any free trade agreement Fonterra could be forced to sell as much raw milk as these companies wants. Any person living in a provincial town in New Zealand knows how much their economy depends on the income of the local farmers, and if this forced sale goes ahead no doubt some of the city types who dislike farming will find out where their support comes from.

   “Fonterra chairman Sir Henry van der Heyden said he could “live with” commission involvement and it was valid for Fonterra to assist domestic market suppliers with milk, but to require Fonterra to supply largely foreign-owned New Zealand-based exporters which competed against it overseas “defied logic”.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/6308146/Milk-price-scrutiny-supply-proposals-anger-farmers
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     25 January 2012 at 8:40 am

     Key is playing a game here to respond to NZ consumer concerns about high dairy prices (although that is secondary), while backing foreign nations that we trade with (Fran O’Sullivan’s latest piece on why Key will sell Crafar Farms to the Chinese provides an instructive background).

     One scenario: by generating local industry outrage he will “prove” to foreign trade partners that he is stirring the pot on their behalf; however by the time the proposals come to be finalised, they will be watered right back down from the 5% mark back towards today’s 3% mark.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     25 January 2012 at 10:40 am

     Any person living in a provincial town in New Zealand knows how much their economy depends on the income of the local farmers…

     Considering reality (Peak Oil, pollution from the farms, drying up of the rivers from Climate Change) they better start diversifying their income streams as a lot of farms are going to away. We will have no choice but to close them.
     • Colonial Viper 5.2.1

       25 January 2012 at 12:44 pm

       We will have no choice but to close them.

       They’ll be nationalised as the country will still need the food output despite the financial economics no longer stacking up. And farms are going to become much more labour intensive, once again.
       • McFlock 5.2.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 1:18 pm

         Yeah – actually, this could be a positive outcome of oil shocks/ climate change. Less intensive farming, land use more suited to the area, and better quality waterways because of it.
          
         Pity about the food prices, though.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1

           25 January 2012 at 1:52 pm

           Yeah, the way I see it is that 50%+ of farms will be closed down and the rest used solely for feeding NZ. Those farms that are closed should be replanted with native forest which will help clean up the land, help maintain the soil and allow hunting to become normative again (in about 5 centuries).
   • Augustus 5.3

     25 January 2012 at 11:18 am

     That would be ACT policy in the making again. Their erstwhile leader is on the board of one of those “competitors”, who have to be sold cheaper milk so they can make more profits overseas.
     • KJT 5.3.1

       25 January 2012 at 6:57 pm

       For once I am with the cockies.

       Fonterra, along with POT and POAL, is now the latest to be sacrificed on the alter of the “competition” god.

       Which of Key’s Mum and Dad mates will have shares in new dairy companies?

       There is a reason why our overseas competitors prefer to be monopolies.
       • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 7:12 pm

         Capitalists in general and not just overseas competitors have always preferred to be monopolies as it allows them to rort far more from the populace as the populace are dependent upon the monopoly. National and Act always go on about people being dependent upon government and yet they enact policies which makes people dependent upon the capitalists. The latter, of course, is far worse as a government is accountable to the populace while the capitalists are answerable to no one and so it is under capitalism that the Road to Serfdom is built.
     • KJT 5.3.2

       25 January 2012 at 7:07 pm

       When are we all going to realise that NACT is only out to get the best results for their offshore puppet masters.
6. John Dalley 6

   25 January 2012 at 9:05 am

   Thank you Christchurch.
   Just received my house (Auckland) insurance bill. Increase of just under 50% on last year. Still to come will be contents which may also rise.
   • vto 6.1

     25 January 2012 at 9:24 am

     Yeah, sorry about that. You should see our contents premium now. It is seriously worth considering self-insurance – especially when one don’t have much stuff.

     Bloody earthquakes.

     Back from a break which cleared the head and the stress and within couple days the brokenness and shaking bring it all back again.

     And the city is emptier now than I have ever seen.

     We here all trying to stay positive but it no easy.
     • Lanthanide 6.1.1

       25 January 2012 at 9:53 am

       Over on this side, nothing’s really changed. I guess it’s a bit busier.
       • vto 6.1.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 11:42 am

         Yes Lanthanide, it is definitely a city of two halves…

         At least out east the sewers are repaired meaning the sea is clean again.
     • Bored 6.1.2

       25 January 2012 at 11:50 am

       I was there last week….a few minor shakes but enough to be disconcerting. What I did notice was the activity compared to Wellington etc, Canterbury appears to be buoyant (by comparison) with here. Must be the influx of cash to fix the place and the work now it is ramping up. My question is what happens after that?
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1

         25 January 2012 at 4:26 pm

         Rural commodity prices are good, while in Welly people are losing their jobs and public sector contracts are not being renewed.
7. Bored 7

   25 January 2012 at 9:18 am

   As per usual at this time of year I have been reading history….the parallels and rhymes are just too good. Could not help but notice that the banksters and their political institutions rather resemble the medieval Papacy…..default is the highest of all sins, you get excommunicated.

   The bail outs appear to be rather similar, whole nations have their collective rights to pass into the Kingdom of Heaven held in the hands of the IMF, the theocratic economists curia who deliver edicts for compliance that resemble Papal bulls and interdicts. Salvation will be delivered through austerity, the people will pay for their material consumerism, the Inquisition will deny you further credit and demand torturous repayment schedules.

   A little peep inside St Peters at the time is very revealing: the wealth of the medieval world extracted to the greater glory of the Papacy, benefices distributed to their insiders, enormous sums of cash gathered for the few from the masses. Pope Bernanke? The money market the Dominicans? Tetzel a Wall St bankster selling indulgences in the form of toxic debt derivatives?

   Nothing new in human nature, Luther and the reformation is the next chapter…..
   • ianmac 7.1

     25 January 2012 at 10:05 am

     Just been reading about the Romans in Britannica, Bored and the anti-Robin Hood was at work there too. And through-out history the same.
     I wonder what the takers actually believe about their wealth? Let’s ask John Key?
     • Bored 7.1.1

       25 January 2012 at 11:25 am

       Bloody interesting question: what do the takers actually believe about their wealth?

       If we rejected a currency as legitimate we would by corollary be rejecting the authority of that currency and the institutions that support it. Maybe wealth takers are not interested in the dollars or what that can buy for the individual but are interested in the power vested in our agreement with the currency.

       I have a feeling that power and wealth aggregation get out of whack with social arrangements, for example when money was reintroduced into the feudal world the danger the lord was supposed to protect you from did not disappear. The church, the lords and finally the royal houses went to a cash economy, on the ground social contract for protection from other lords etc failed yet the power positions still demanded their part of the social contract.

       We are currently well out of whack, the democratic state that we developed to protect the citizen from abuse of socio political power by institutions such as corporations, or wealthy interest groups is failing. Interesting times. John Key straddles both camps but only operates for one….
       • AAMC 7.1.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 5:43 pm

         Snippet on money creation and alternatives from Ted

         http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2011/11/jem-bendell-reveals-money-myth-ted-talk/
         • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1

           25 January 2012 at 9:08 pm

           Good talk. Clearly explains the problems with today’s delusional monetary system and puts forwards some ideas on how to correct.
8. Lanthanide 8

   25 January 2012 at 9:45 am

   Pete George, what do you think about the head of Otago Museum being paid a $310,000 salary per year?

   Note that this is more than cabinet ministers, the head of Te Pap and the mayor of Auckland.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     25 January 2012 at 10:44 am

     He’s still on holiday for another few days.
     • Lanthanide 8.1.1

       25 January 2012 at 11:27 am

       Pity. For all his waffle about a new local inclusive approach to politics, this seems like something he could get involved with.

       The Dunedin council under an act of parliament are forced to give the same or greater sum of money to the museum every year and have no transparency or oversight into how it is spent.

       A board member from the museum was on the radio this morning saying it was fair, for example the head of Te Papa might have a managerial staff of 20 under him that he overloads work to, while the head of Otago only has 3 or 4 and has to do a lot of work themselves.

       But in response to that, I’d suggest that being the head of Otago museum can’t possibly be more difficult, stressful or have more responsibility than being a cabinet minister and yet he gets paid more. It also doesn’t strike me as a position that requires a particularly specific skillset; I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find someone else who could do a comparable job for $150k/year.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1

         25 January 2012 at 12:08 pm

         I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find someone else who could do a comparable job for $150k/year.

         That’s pretty much true of all CEOs.
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2

         25 January 2012 at 12:39 pm

         $310K? Sounds like a total and complete rort of ratepayers.

         How much does the Dunedin Mayor earn?
         • Chris 8.1.1.2.1

           25 January 2012 at 7:58 pm

           Just over $100k in remuneration – this would not include other benefits he receives but doubt he would receive that much in other benefits
           • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1.1

             25 January 2012 at 8:10 pm

             I guess I underestimated how lucrative (and unaccountable) running a small museum can be.
     • Anne 8.1.2

       25 January 2012 at 7:39 pm

       still on holiday for another few days
       Could it be extended?
   • Bored 8.2

     25 January 2012 at 11:26 am

     WTF, $310K???? Are you sure?
9. randal 9

   25 January 2012 at 12:15 pm

   and all the paintings he can steal too.
10. McFlock 10

    25 January 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Had an interesting chat in the doctor’s waiting room today. Guy pointed out that of course Meridian was going to cancel the windfarm if it was up for the chopping block. Who needs all that construction debt on the books bringing the price down?
    • tc 10.1

      25 January 2012 at 1:09 pm

      Another tactic will probably be low or no spending in traditional areas to bolster the bottom line/dividend/sale price leaving the impacts to be picked up post float via higher power prices as inevtitable you have to catch up.
11. John D 11

    25 January 2012 at 12:48 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: stay on topic. If you want to divert, then write your own comment in OpenMike.

    Originally in http://thestandard.org.nz/funding-the-puppets-of-denial/ ]
    
12. John D 12

    25 January 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Comment deleted. I was commenting on climate funding in an article about climate funding.

    [lprent: It is a post about funding of climate change denier groups. But you just wasted my time answering a question with something you are quite aware of. Banned 2 weeks for doing so. Moving comments to OpenMike.

    Originally in http://thestandard.org.nz/funding-the-puppets-of-denial/ ]
13. John D 13

    25 January 2012 at 1:01 pm

    You might as well ban be permanently
    Cunt

    [lprent: Granted.

    Originally in http://thestandard.org.nz/funding-the-puppets-of-denial/

    Took me some time to get the move tool back again.. ]
    • Frank Macskasy 13.1

      25 January 2012 at 9:15 pm

      Saved & bookmarked.

      Thanks, Lynn.
14. lprent 14

    25 January 2012 at 1:23 pm

    Looks like the re-edit disappeared in a recent update

    http://wordpress.org/support/topic/plugin-wp-ajax-edit-comments-version-505-edit-function-broken

    If I understand the problem here from other threads, the new version is missing some files, and the current developer doesn’t seem to care. Or at least isn’t paying attention. 🙁

    I’m pulling the previous code out of backups.
    • lprent 14.1

      25 January 2012 at 2:03 pm

      Ok. seems ok here. Let me know if anyone has further problems.
      • Jackal 14.1.1

        25 January 2012 at 7:49 pm

        Your tweak might have fixed the edit/delete countdown clock for Chrome users as well 🙂
15. Frank Macskasy 15

    25 January 2012 at 1:28 pm

    And meanwhile, the stench of something unpleasant is emanating from the Ninth Floor. Connect the dots… http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/farms-politicians-and-emails/
    • Bored 15.1

      25 January 2012 at 1:36 pm

      Selling off NZ farms (and anything else) to foreigners is a sure way of exporting profits. And sovereignty. Ah but business is “international” and if you have a home in Hawaii and shares on Wall St…well you are “international”. So fuck NZ and its residents (sorry peasants).
      • Frank Macskasy 15.1.1

        25 January 2012 at 1:47 pm

        Indeed, Bored.

        And there’s another factor I hadn’t considered, which Fran O’Sullivan raised in her piece on the Herald; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10767987

        If an overseas investor purchases a farm or dairy-processing company; exports the products back to their home country; with the label “Masde In New Zealand” – what happens if a melamine-type of food tampering occurs?

        I can imagine, for example, milk powder being mixed with another substance, to “bulk” out the product. (Just as heroin dealers ‘cut’ their product with all sorts of crap, to maximise profits.)

        When this happens (not “if”) – then our international reputation will take a major hit. And watch the politicians run and duck for cover.

        We aren’t just selling our farms and profits – we’re selling our reputation.
        • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1

          25 January 2012 at 2:12 pm

          All it really comes down to is that the government is selling our livelihood. There is no gain for selling off NZ assets to foreign owners.
          • aerobubble 15.1.1.1.1

            25 January 2012 at 2:31 pm

            Fonterra is a worker collective yet its farmers and their workers vote overwhelming for National. So the real joke is who is selling off what? It was Fonterra Farmers that voted for the back door for China to buy their farms by allowing any with a farm to buy Fonterra shares. aka why china wants Carfer. And now that looks to have failed, what is National and the farmer lobby doing now??? Well they are going to take more of Fonterra milk (via big government intervention and hand it over subsidies by farmers to foriegned owned exporters). WTF! So why again do farmers buy National’s crap? Simple because they do what they are told. Well Winston saw the gap, even the jounralists missed, and went around farmers plying for their vote. And he’s only going to take more of Nationals vote come the next election if National keep attacking their base. No farmer wants their natural local tourist attrcation turned into a mine and their land poisoned. Yet National goes and does this anyway!!!
            • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1.1.1

              25 January 2012 at 8:12 pm

              Fonterra is NOT a worker collective. It is a SUPPLY COMPANY collective. Neither dairy farm workers nor dairy factory workers have any ownership share in Fonterra.

              Rural Tories have always seen the value of collective organisations – for themselves.
              • aerobubble …

                27 January 2012 at 2:37 pm

                Yes you are correct, but the farm workers invarible rise to become the new tory farm overlords, either by inheriting or by saving, borrowing and buying. I mean where did all these farmers get the money to run up all the farm debt we have in NZ, farm property bubble. So yes, its not every joe is in the collective but is a damn sight like the workers owning the company.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  27 January 2012 at 2:44 pm

                  You’re referring to ages gone by where you could work as a farm hand or sharemilker and one day afford your own farm.

                  Thanks to the property bubble its extremely hard to do that now – that upward mobility has been reduced to a greater extent.

                  You have to recognise that it might look like a workers co-op but its not. Its a farm owners co-op.
        • Chris 15.1.1.2

          25 January 2012 at 7:19 pm

          Except we can’t stop anyone putting made in New Zealand on anything already.

          I saw a newspaper article awhile ago about some people who made pens or some crap like that in Korea I think it was who called them made in New Zealand and their logo was basically the same as our branding.

          Basically the gist of it was we could sue them and make it stop but it would only stop that one specific product in that one country and it wasn’t worth the money.
16. Dave Kennedy 16

    25 January 2012 at 2:43 pm

    After attending the Leave the Coal in the Hole Summer festival in Mataura recently, I am ever hopeful that science and truth will eventually overcome the blinkered greed displayed by Solid Energy and the National Government.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2012/01/transparency-and-truth-will-win-lignite.html

    [lprent: off topic – moved to open mike. ]
17. randal 17

    25 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

    aero you might as well know that nashnil is the gubmint of the short term.
    they need the money so they can go to london and play wealthy pastoralists from downunder or some other myth that they have constructed for themselves.
    they are worse than robber barons because they haven’t got a f*cking clue what they are doing and nor do they care.
    all they want is the cash.
    NOW!
18. Jackal 18

    25 January 2012 at 7:46 pm

    Bob Parker – Hero of the Week

    Once in while, a local body government will take the time to look properly at the evidence available and put people and the environments wellbeing ahead of financial gain. It doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, we should congratulate those who have pulled their heads out of the sand.
19. prism 19

    25 January 2012 at 10:04 pm

    The latest interesting radio doco on Radionz is about the wealth gap between them and us. Tonight it was how ordinary people in London can’t afford to live there. Their wages haven’t gone up but house prices have – a 2 bedroom flat would cost half a million pounds. The average house price is sixteen times the average wage. A well paid teacher would have to have a 20% deposit of 100,000 pounds with 400,000 pounds on mortgage which she wouldn’t get because banks wouldn’t lend her more than four times her annual wage which as a teacher is one and a third of the average wage of 26,000 pounds. Property prices are rising, so rentals are rising to unaffordable levels too.

    The program started off with an interview with the owner of a new shop on Regent Street which is selling two centimetre Faberge eggs with little jewels inside at stupendous prices which are expected to be snapped up. It is a hundred years since the last time such a shop selling these jewel eggs was in London. The point is that in Britain the economic climate has returned to that of pre-WW1. So all those millions of people who died for freedom etc etc which was justified by the fact that life got better for all, have not achieved lasting peace and prosperity. How bloody sad.

    We have to find ways of managing past this rapacious management and house speculating class as we have been trumped while taking it easy, thinking that good conditions were set in concrete. Now making changes require conflict of some kind although it may be a rearguard action.
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      25 January 2012 at 10:09 pm

      Go long guillotine manufacturers. That’s where it’s going to end up, once again.
20. RedBaron 20

    25 January 2012 at 10:35 pm

    It’s going to be an interesting race around the farmers isn’t it.

    Will Big Biz NACT manage to sell sufficent farms to change the power dynamics inside Fonterra towards Corporate farming and keep their donations safe?
    Or will local farmers who have a local farmer NACT MP under their control suggest these farmer NACT MP’s form a group within the party to threaten the overseas corporate type NACT’s control of the party?

    Personally my money is on the local farmers but they will need to get out of the blocks quickly.
21. Jackal 21

    26 January 2012 at 9:21 am

    ? I seem to be getting a blacked out page on todays open mic… so will comment here.

    Questions about Rena need answers

    The government is poised to announce a plan to restore the Bay of Plenty coastline to the condition it was in before the Rena disaster. Meanwhile their idea of a cleanup response for areas that aren’t important to tourism is to drop off a couple of rubbish skips and let the locals fend for themselves…
22. Jackal 22

    26 January 2012 at 11:26 am

    Nick Smith posturing on dogs

    Despite new laws meant to toughen up dog control, that’s an increase of 35% since 2003 for people getting treatment for dog attacks. So why the huge increase in the amount of dog attacks and subsequent injuries?
    • prism 22.1

      26 January 2012 at 12:50 pm

      Yes Jackal this is an important issue and needs a cool head doing something intelligent. Though
      the old leftie idea that good wages, housing etc will prevent most bad events is wishful thinking. It is in people’s minds that bad things are fostered and fester. It is the letting things happen because – ‘I can’t manage to do something to change things’ that keeps the cycle of sh…t happening. A beneficiary’s dog bit two little dogs to death when they were in an exercise park recently. The pound contained it for weeks. There were pleas and letters to the paper about how sweet the dog was, how broken-hearted the owner would be if it was destroyed etc. Gagging stuff. No understanding of the irresponsibility of the owner, or the distress of the dead dogs and their owners. Also the fact that there would be cost involved in buying dogs of breeding, not just the result of random pairing that somebody had been happy to pass along.

      An example I have are two women dog owners whose dogs chase my cat. I will have to suggest to them that when they come off their property they already have a leash on their dog to stop them rushing across the path, something that they should be able to think for themselves. Instead they mutter sorry and rush to catch its collar, and tell me that’s what dogs do, (ie I just have to put up with it because they are helpless against nature). One said ‘It’s a game really’ only my cat isn’t sure about that. A lead does the job and turns a careless stupid dog owner into an intelligent, responsible one that has control over their pet.

      Obedience training should be mandatory for all dog owners who register, with a large discount in the year they attend and present a completed certificate to the Council. I believe in money as a strong incentive, particularly with those that haven/t got sufficient. And because that lack doesn’t stop them getting a sweet, itty-bitty puppy that grows up into a large bunch of muscle that’s energetic and a handful if it has little training.
      • Jackal 22.1.1

        27 January 2012 at 10:04 am

        I’m not aware of any evidence that dogs of breeding have better temperaments. I agree that it is mainly dog owners that are responsible, however there is also the factor that some dog breeds are more dangerous than others. Some dogs are bred because they are vicious… and restrictions on such animals should be enforced properly.

        A person who cannot feed their dog because of a government decision should not be blamed when their dog goes roaming to find food. The alternative to that is to tie the dog up and let it starve. That is what some government decisions have caused… the repercussions of which we see in climbing dog attack statistics.

        I don’t think it’s helpful that you’ve labelled it wishful thinking that people want an end to poverty which leads to more dog abuse and attacks. It should not be wishful thinking that people have enough money to look after their animals and be able to afford the training you talk about.
23. Jackal 23

    26 January 2012 at 11:32 am

    Teapot tape released

    Please seed it: http://tinyurl.com/goldenturkey
24. aerobubble 24

    27 January 2012 at 2:44 pm

    why do Police have such a hard time catching drug dealers? I mean dealers have to advertize themselves, their buyers need to find them, the transactions need to take place away from either the dealers or the buyers assets (since they can be seized). if they use unwitting landlords hotel rooms or flats to cook P, could they also be using their neighbors house when the neighbors are out to sell drugs from??? But wouldn’t Police know this, is that what the new power to place surveilance on private property is all about, to get track dealers down????
    • Colonial Viper 24.1

      27 January 2012 at 2:51 pm

      But wouldn’t Police know this, is that what the new power to place surveilance on private property is all about, to get track dealers down????

      Apparently not, it seems that the new powers are to be used to help wealthy Hollywood studios bolster their profit margins by tracking down suspected internet pirates.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS