Open mike 26/09/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, September 26th, 2014 - 330 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 …

330 comments on “Open mike 26/09/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    26 September 2014 at 6:37 am

    (..the following is a comment/question directed at the latest piece from rightwinger fran o’sullivan..attacking cunnliffe..

    ..and it says it all..really..)

    “.It is obvious by your writings that you have no liking for any party left of centre – that is why I don’t understand why you are all so keen to get the Labour Party to dump David Cunliffe.

    All of you from the editorial down are almost begging to have him removed.

    The only reason that I can figure out is that you all think of him as a threat –

    – otherwise if you really think that he is useless you would all be suggesting that he be given another chance –

    – to cause more disruption in a party of which none of you make any effort to hide your dislike.

    Why do you all want him gone?..”

    (and this is an editorial comment i made this morn..on this issue..)

    (ed:..i hope he does..’stand again’..’cos the reasons he was voted in still apply…

    ..as the debates showed..he is able to take it to key..

    ..whereas my times doing commentaries on questiontime in parliament has shown me that robertson clearly does not have those skills..

    ..shearer has already proven he hasn’t..

    ..and outliers like nash..are just a joke..

    ..there is no-one better equipped to do the job..

    ..it’s as simple as that..)

    ..and i wd add he was only in the job for 11 months..

    ..was kneecapped by the national-lite policies..

    ..and has faced a biased/undermining media and rightwing colleagues..

    ..he deserves a fair go at the job..

    ..and i repeat..there is nobody better equipped..

    ..if labour throw out cunnliffe..they will be throwing away their best chances at victory in 2017..

    • Paul 1.1
      26 September 2014 at 6:43 am

      Their philosophy.
      All threats must be removed.
      Anyone threatening to end the neoliberal nightmare must be attacked, taken out and destroyed.
      Harawira
      Cunliffe
      Sykes
      Harre
      Hager

      This is thought provoking.
      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/24/one-party-state/

      • phillip ure 1.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 6:54 am

        those a bit older will also remember for how long helen clark was so ‘unlikeable’..

        ..this is just that anti-labour media-meme being repeated..by a rightwing press/media..

        ..who can’t see that..?

        • Paul 1.1.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 6:57 am

          The only Labour Party acceptable to the corporate overlords of NZ is the 1980s variety, as embodied by Phil Goff and other neoliberal puppets.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 7:09 am

            the piece from o’sullivan that that commenter demolished is almost funny in its’ predictabilty..

            ..she bangs on about ‘talented but sidelined’ mp’s in labour..

            ..i’ll leave it to you to guess which gang of usual (rightwing)-suspects she name-checks/indicts..

            ..as being favoured by her/the right..

            ..the first one starts with ‘g’..

            ..and get this..!..she credits him with persuading america to join the tpp-negotiations..(!)..(..i know..!..i know..!..)

            ..kinda like praising vichy for his skills in dealing with the german invaders..

            ..the sell-out of national interests is potent in both..

            • phillip ure 1.1.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 7:21 am

              and imagine how that coup-attempt on clark wd have gone down..

              ..with the saturation media coverage we have now..

              ..imagine a lower-lip-quivering gower lurking outside clarks’ door..

              “..phil goff has just gone in to tell helen clark to resign..she must go..!..how can she withstand the pressure..!’

              ..the rightwing-media are trying to drive events/change in labour..

              ..to get a labour party of their ideological-liking..

              ..they should just be told to shut the fuck up..

              ..them and that cabal of rightwing sellouts..

            • Peter 1.1.1.1.1.2
              26 September 2014 at 8:22 am

              The thing is Fran and her ilk are writing for middle NZ. Their undeclared job is to get the centre voting Right not Left. Despicable in its dishonesty, but very effective.

              The pity for NZ is that we do not have a counter to the NZ Herald, as is the case in the UK where the Left/Right bias of major dailies is well known and accepted.

              With the recent advent of NZME we now have the dominant joint multimedia forces of people such as O’Sullivan, Armstrong and Hoskings swaying middle NZ via their orchestrated on-line news and commentary offerings. Things will definately get worse. The question is how will the blaring messengers of the right be challenged as their stranglehold increases?

              • Rodel …
                26 September 2014 at 9:09 am

                Peter. Tahu Potiki in his column in the Press has joined the Fran/Tracy Tory propaganda club.

                The success of the election was the Maori voters finally succeeding in getting rid of (nearly all) of Johnkey’s puppets on a string and returning their real representatives.Maori party preferences in 2011, massive rejection of National was ignored by Dr. Sharples and his colleagues.

                The Press headline..”Maori Swing to Labour Misguided”.

                There goes your mana Tahu.

          • Hanswurst 1.1.1.1.2
            26 September 2014 at 7:50 am

            While I am absolutely of the opinion that Labour should ignore the MSM and retain Cunliffe, there is no evidence that the MSM would show Goff in a positive light. They shat on him from a great height in 2011 as well.

            • phillip ure 1.1.1.1.2.1
              26 September 2014 at 8:08 am

              @ hans..

              yep..!..that’s what they do..help put in their man..and then shit on him at will

              ..c.f..shearer..

              ..and should robertson now lead labour..those same rightwing media etc will take in a deep breath..

              ..and then launch their co-ordinated attack/shit-on plan on him..

              ..who can not see that..?

              (tracey exempted/excused from that question..)

            • swordfish 1.1.1.1.2.2
              26 September 2014 at 8:22 am

              Hanswurst

              Absolutely right.

              They presented the 2011 Election Campaign as a Labour leadership Crisis. Even commissioned polls asking voters whether or not Goff should be removed as Labour leader – precisely the same relentless MSM undermining that we’ve just witnessed with Cunliffe.

              While some of this is no doubt sheer intellectual laziness or scarce time and resources or a pack mentality that enjoys a good savaging (and therefore a good front-page story) regardless of political affiliation, you’d have to say that, for at least a few prominent journos, the attacks have indeed been grounded in a deep Right-Wing partisanship / or, at the very least, a clear understanding of which political stance is best for their career in the Corporate MSM.

              Phillip

              “…help put in their man…and then shit on him at will”

              Spot on, Phillip.

            • Scott Chris 1.1.1.1.2.3
              26 September 2014 at 3:15 pm

              Cunliffe’s brand is poison. Time to move on. Forget Robertson – middle NZ isn’t liberal enough to accept let alone embrace a gay PM.

              Ardern would be a sensible choice for leader imo. Okay, she’s a beltway politician but she has a couple of things that that the rest of the Labour caucus lacks in that she has charisma and personifies ‘a fresh start’. I suggest Cosgrove would make a good deputy.

        • Belladonna 1.1.1.2
          26 September 2014 at 7:23 am

          I listened to Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan on Radio Live last night as they are the only unbiased radio hosts in the country. The majority of callers supported David Cunliffe – this was noted by Karyn towards the end of the programme. There were many intelligent callers who made good points and many also pointed out the bias of the media and the hopelessness of the ABC faction.
          It was quite heartening to hear. Shame the rest of the incompetent media dont do the same.
          David must not resign. It will take us years to recover if he does.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.1.1.2.1
            26 September 2014 at 10:55 am

            Bedwetters. The lot of you.

            David Cunliffe led Labour has their worst result since Vegemite was invented (true fact: look it up) and the reason is because he is such a threat?

            Don’t change him. See what happens.

          • Chris 1.1.1.2.2
            27 September 2014 at 11:14 am

            So limping along with a caucus at each others throats is a good thing for Labour?

    • Scott1 1.2
      26 September 2014 at 7:18 am

      the media are primarily Media and secondarily party tools.
      This means that not everything they say will be party propaganda, a lot of it will just be an attempt to write a story that will get people worked up and feel they need to read it (ad you did I suppose).

      They particularly like these sort of campaigns against a wounded leader… and of course have to pretend that there is some great alternative.

      That being said – I think you are probably right that changing to Robertson reduces Labour’s chances as would going with Nash. It is hard to see who Labour should go with, they just don’t have a john Key as far as I know.

      • Hanswurst 1.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 7:56 am

        They should stick with Cunliffe. If the party gives the MSM the finger for long enough, stories about Labour Party unrest will lose their appeal in terms of selling papers. If they change leaders, the stories of upheaval and scandal will just gain wings and plague the next person even worse – plus they will have the disadvantage of having to start learning on the job, and of being less capable than Cunliffe. It was a different story when Shearer was leader, since he made himself a permanent liability by shooting his mouth off every time he opened it. Cunliffe doesn’t do that.

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 8:28 am

          I am a long time David Cunliffe supporter, and will work for his retaining of the Labour Party leadership if that is what he wants.

          But regardless of who is Leader going into 2017, it is now plainly obvious that a large number of the self-serving, self-promoting, self-involved Labour caucus require de-selection in 2016.

          • aj 1.2.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 8:32 am

            I support him too, but I fear the ‘I’m sorry for being a man’ out-of-context comment will be the relentless chant if he does.

            • Hanswurst 1.2.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 9:14 am

              I doubt it. These silly sensational things always seem big at the time, but they grow tired with the news cycle just like anything else. The Right (within Labour and without) and the MSM would undoubtedly look for other sticks to beat him with, but they won’t just be able to slag him off with a greatest hits of past inglories. I think that the more a leader weathers these mini-scandals that are thrown at them, the less effective the scandalmongering becomes. Clark is the best evidence of that.

          • Hanswurst 1.2.1.1.2
            26 September 2014 at 9:16 am

            +1, and it’s hard not to assume that that would be why they might be behind the furious leaking at the moment. They want to pre-empt that possibility.

    • Chooky 1.3
      26 September 2014 at 8:24 am

      +100 pu

    • Karen 1.4
      26 September 2014 at 8:41 am

      +1 Phillip
      I find I am starting to agree with you quite a lot. Ever since you discovered the joy of peanut butter and banana on toast.

    • ianmac 1.5
      26 September 2014 at 9:15 am

      Exactly PU. Why would Right Wingers want David out? Because he is no good?
      Or because he can foot it and threaten Key?

  2. Paul 2
    26 September 2014 at 7:02 am

    A tragic outcome of the election. 3 more years of us locked into climate policies that will end up in catastrophic climate change.

    Read Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/19/this-changes-everything-capitalism-vs-climate-naomi-klein-review

    and Desmond Tutu’s article.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/desmond-tutu-climate-change-is-the-global-enemy

    and listen to Emma Thompson’s speech.

    We need to act for our children and grandchildren.

    • tc 2.1
      26 September 2014 at 7:18 am

      Yes but until the big boys Do something it’s not looking good, Oz just effectively gave the finger to AGW and they burn lakes of coal in power generation as one example.

      Sadly anything we do is symbolic on a global scale but it was a great excuse for the Nats to gift farmers and big business more at others expense so you have to admire their opportunism.

      • Paul 2.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 7:21 am

        You can follow or you can lead.
        What ever happened to that vision of a clean, green New Zealand.
        Gone by lunchtime.

      • phillip ure 2.1.2
        26 September 2014 at 7:35 am

        the good news is that china has signaled a premature end to their coal-boom..

        ..and they are going gangbusters on green-tech..

        ..and in a short period of time..

        ..have done more than america has done in that area in the last 30 yrs..

        ..and ‘cos of all this..we can expect the cost of solar-panels to drop..

        ..and funny story..!…our prime minister couldn’t even be buggered hopping on a plane and going to the un conference on climate-change..

        ..he joined that other environmental bad-guy..abbot from australia..

        ..in that absence..

        ..’clean green nz’..eh..?

        ..you can pack that one away…

        ..for at least another three years..

        ..and that is kinda fucken depressing..

        • Paul 2.1.2.1
          26 September 2014 at 7:41 am

          We can attend events things like this..

          “The Waiho Papa Moana Hikoi to Stop Deep Sea Oil is coming all the way down from the Far North to tell the national petroleum industry conference in Auckland that they oppose deep sea oil drilling off the coast of Northland and Aotearoa. More info on the hikoi here: https://www.facebook.com/events/589243067864324/
          Join us to boost the numbers and support them with the final leg of their hikoi up Queen Street to the Summit at Skycity. Meet opposite Britomart at midday on Tuesday 30 Sept.
          The Norwegian oil giant Statoil, the same company who is threatening to drill for deep sea oil off the coast of Northland (and the Arctic) are partly funding this conference. Together we will tell Statoil and the oil industry that we want clean energy not dirty deep sea oil.
          The Waiho Papa Moana hikoi is made up of Northlanders who are standing up to protect the ocean and coast for current and future generations. They are joined by people from the East Cape (Te Whanau-a-Apanui) and Kaikoura (Ngati Kuri ki Kaikoura) who are also under threat from deep sea oil drilling. Let’s make sure they know that Aucklanders support their kaupapa.”

        • Scott1 2.1.2.2
          26 September 2014 at 7:49 am

          Good then,
          because China is the game that matters considering it exceeds the emissions of The USA and Europe combined – and is growing it’s emissions much faster than the US and EU will reduce their emissions.

    • higherstandard 2.2
      26 September 2014 at 8:00 am

      What nothing from Matt Damon ?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 8:50 am

        The group quoted are doing exactly what the scientific community has been asking them to: bringing information to the public.

        Scientists are not great communicators and even if they were, their work is more interesting than battling right wing lies.

    • mike 2.3
      26 September 2014 at 8:04 am

      Paul

      What a crock of s..t. There is no evidence of the planet warming in the last 20 years. There is no evidence of natural disasters being any worse or less than nature has always thrown at us. There is no evidence that any serious effects on the climate are caused by humans.
      However as proof you offer up the rantings of a left wing social activist, a bishop and an actress.

      Why not add a butcher a baker & a candlestick maker? It would be just as valid.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.1
        26 September 2014 at 8:44 am

        Yes, there is evidence that climate-related damage has increased while other types (earthquakes etc.) have stayed static. Ask Munich Re.

        Yes, there is evidence of the planet warming in the last twenty years: your faith in narrow interpretations of the surface temperature record is misplaced. Melting ice is a good proxy, there are plenty more.

        Yes, there is evidence that increased atmospheric carbon comes from fossil fuels: check the isotope ratio trends if you doubt it.

        Yes, Quantum Mechanics explains the Greenhouse Effect. You do have a basic grasp of QM I hope.

        • Rob 2.3.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 1:57 pm

          Actually OAB, whats your pedigree. How deep is your basic grasp of Quantum Mechanics.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 2:28 pm

            😆 Deep enough to appreciate the truth of my statement. Are you challenging it?

            • Once was Pete 2.3.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 2:42 pm

              You put your credentials out there. Afraid to substantiate your bluster?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                26 September 2014 at 2:56 pm

                How will my “credentials” say anything about the validity of Callendar 1938: The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature, published in the Journal of the Meteorological Society?

                It goes into great detail. The short version is that some molecules form – or rather, are – dipoles.

                You don’t have to have “credentials” to understand or cite Physics.

            • Rob 2.3.1.1.1.2
              26 September 2014 at 2:47 pm

              Its great you are so self assured on this topic and the many others you have made other statements on.

              So how much physics and science pedigree do you have, and why is your knowledge of quantum mechanics so vast.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                26 September 2014 at 2:59 pm

                😆 I make a statement that specifically cites observations and science authored by other people and he calls it self-assurance.

                I am pretty confident that Munich Re aren’t part of a global conspiracy to get research funding, I guess they could be though 😆

                • Rob …
                  26 September 2014 at 3:58 pm

                  I don’t even know why I am bothering to respond to this but here goes.

                  Nice twist, you called someone out on their knowledge on quantum mechanics and spouting on about isotope ratios, like you are some sort of expert. I was actually honestly intrigued as I thought you may have been an ex CRI type. My wife is in a snr science role at a CRI and for my sins I actually have a basic science background originally. But it “appears” all you do is spout journals that you probably read while you are having your cornflakes.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 September 2014 at 4:04 pm

                    Specifically, the business with atmospheric carbon isotopes is covered in Stuiver, Burk and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748

                    Also by Francey et al, 2002.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 September 2014 at 4:11 pm

                    Can there be anything more pointless than an attempt to establish the credibility of the anonymous?

                    Deal with the argument. Dipolar molecules don’t behave as QM states?

                    Munich Re are lying about the uptick in climate related claims?

                    Massive ice loss isn’t being observed?

                    The surface temperature record isn’t a partial observation that excludes the deep oceans and the poles, although data points multiply as conditions and technology allow?

                    • Rob …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:21 pm

                      Arguing with you would be like having a debate with ‘the Oracle’ from the TV programme ‘Benidorm’.

                      I wasn’t even disagreeing with your point, I am not a climate change denier , I was just curious as to your background. Carry on.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:35 pm

                      Then why didn’t you say so? My academic credentials are vocational and specific, my professional career has dealt more with applied science than theory, and I like a good aphorism.

                    • Rob …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:45 pm

                      Applied science is good , at least you do something. Rather than just measure, model and extrapolate (aka predict), which can be about as accurate as drawing a circle in the ground, throwing some chicken bones in it and the trying to arrive at the answer by interpretive dance.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:55 pm

                      Um, yeah. Applying science is a practical demonstration of the way that measuring and modelling allow us to extrapolate. If I set this trap you will walk right into it. If you learn something in the process I won’t be at all surprised, that sort of thing.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 September 2014 at 9:16 pm

                      Really Rob? Could you get any more moronic?

                      You can’t do applied research without the basic research done first.

          • Murray Olsen 2.3.1.1.2
            26 September 2014 at 10:21 pm

            My pedigree’s not too bad, and OAB is correct. The deniers are wrong.

      • adam 2.3.2
        26 September 2014 at 11:19 am

        Chemtrails I suppose as well Mike. Man on the moon? Any other conspiracy theories you want to bring up?

        Because if you take the time, and I hope you will – I think that you will find that, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agree that there is climate change happening. And now, the majority of these scientists believe that humans have had a hand in that.

        But please do no research, and just believe in conspiracy theories – it’s such a win, win solution for you. Oh and don’t complain, or moan or beg for help when the shit hits the fan ok – just stick fast to that ideological rigidity, it will see you through.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.3.3
        26 September 2014 at 12:48 pm

        You know, after 40 years of the scientists telling us that we’re warming the world you’d think even the RWNJs might start to accept the truth. But, no, still in denial and refusing to accept responsibility.

      • McFlock 2.3.4
        26 September 2014 at 2:02 pm

        well, we need to use social activists, bishops, and actors, simply because quite a few fucking morons have ignored the general consensus of the population of climate scientists, the thousands of peer-reviewed articles that cover the basic physics, long term trends, shorter term trends, the geological evidence, the archeological evidence, the biological evidence, the historical evidence, and indeed pretty much every other piece of evidence that does not include the Bible or Exxon’s balance sheet.

        And unfortunately those few fucking morons happen to be at the apex of national and international power structures across the globe. Probably coincidental.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.3.4.1
          26 September 2014 at 2:40 pm

          +1111

        • mike 2.3.4.2
          26 September 2014 at 3:54 pm

          Actually your abusive language doesnt lend any credence to your arguments. Give some specific examples to show the world is warming, the ice caps are melting and that sea levels are rising. Then perhaps a civilised conversation will ensue!

          • McFlock 2.3.4.2.1
            26 September 2014 at 4:03 pm

            Actually, your idiocy prevents any possibility of reasonable discourse.
            I genuinely believe that it is impossible for someone who makes bold claims about global warming to have not heard the acronym “IPCC”. You are therefore not interested in discussing AGW in good faith, so kindly go fuck yourself. Because my abusive language is not half as insulting as the contempt you obviously feel for literally everyone who might read your comments on AGW, and indeed the contempt you feel for every generation that follows you.

            • mike 2.3.4.2.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 4:22 pm

              McFlock, thanks for your response. Of course I have heard of the IPCC. If my memory serves me correct some of their main “scientists” are the same people who claimed in the 60s & 70s that we were heading for a new ice age. Also the same people who predicted “peak oil” & that the world would be out of fuel by the year 2000. According to Al Gore in his movie an unfortunate truth the ice at the polar caps would be mostly non-existent by 2000 and Pacific AGW refugees were already flooding into NZ?

              I fail to see how you consider I have contempt for future generations when there are many in the current generation dying from lack of clean drinking water and basic medicines. Given that the IPCC and by association yourself and other advocates of taxes to stop AGW occuring would prefer to spend money on talkfests, then I feel pretty comfortable with my choice to support charities working to alleviate current world problems.

              It seems pretty obvious to me that your command of any branch of science is sadly lackly since you have advised me to perform an act that is anatomically impossible!

              • McFlock …
                26 September 2014 at 4:34 pm

                Google it. Not from work, though.

                As for the rest of your drivel, your request for “specific examples” was disingenuous seeing as you think you know about the IPCC, putting quote marks around “scientists” does not mean they aren’t a fuckload more qualified and honest than you, you confuse climatologists with oil industry geologists (and fail to understand what peak oil actually is), you get the title, dates, predictions and scientific accuracy of an inconvenient truth wrong, and that’s in your first paragraph.

                Your denialism (denihilism, maybe?) is pitiful, and you should at least broaden your horizons with a google video search. You might discover something you find more enjoyable to do than wasting people’s time here. And that way everyone’s day would be just a little bit less shit.

                • mike …
                  26 September 2014 at 4:59 pm

                  McFlock, try some anger management – i cant detect your blood pressure rising as you blog!

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 September 2014 at 7:14 pm

                    McFlock’s response to your feeble dreck embodies mockery and contempt far more than anger, and I’m sure the distinction is lost on you.

                    In any event, your failure (befuddled, flailing, flatulent to the last letter) to respond with anything resembling a substantive rebuttal is probably wise – you just had your ass handed to you on a plate and we don’t want blood all over the walls again.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                26 September 2014 at 6:20 pm

                If my memory serves me correct some of their main “scientists” are the same people who claimed in the 60s & 70s that we were heading for a new ice age.

                There was one, count it, ONE paper that suggested an ice age and the authors were misquoted on that by the MSM who jumped on it.

                Also the same people who predicted “peak oil” & that the world would be out of fuel by the year 2000.

                Actually, the prediction by Hubert from back in the 1950s was reasonably accurate – we hit Peak Oil in 2005/6 according to the IEA. And no one predicted that we’d be out of fuel by 2000 which means that you’re either woefully ignorant and spreading malicious lies through your ignorance or just lying.

                I fail to see how you consider I have contempt for future generations

                You’re planning at killing them all off through your denial of anthropogenic climate change. I’d say that was a huge amount of contempt.

                Given that the IPCC and by association yourself and other advocates of taxes to stop AGW occuring would prefer to spend money on talkfests,

                The only ones doing talkfests are the RWNJs (John Keys Jobfest back in 2008 that resulted in nothing) and climate change denials who shout a lot of BS to confuse people so that we can’t get on with doing what’s needed.

                • mike …
                  27 September 2014 at 10:09 am

                  Good idea to google the predictions of the 70s rather than just rely on common sense. This one below is a good example!
                  http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    27 September 2014 at 3:00 pm

                    Can’t this idiot get anything right?

                    Reality check: The link illustrates (in a pretty picture so Mike can understand it) that far more papers published in the 1970s predicted warming than cooling.

                    Now Mike has learned the facts, one might expect him to change his tune, and perhaps be a little annoyed at the liar who has made him look such a fool.

                    He won’t: Mike will cling to his false beliefs like a security blankie.

        • Murray Olsen 2.3.4.3
          26 September 2014 at 10:29 pm

          +1
          Greed thinks it doesn’t have to obey the laws of nature. It’s in for a shock.

  3. Tracey 3
    26 September 2014 at 7:21 am

    There are some regular folks who let their dogs off lead to race about in th epark behind my house. I often join them with my dogs and over the last 3 years we have become aquaintances.

    Yesterday we sat and they brought up the election.

    Deographics as far as I a can tell

    White Male GP over 50
    White female real estate agent over 55
    White female administrator about 40

    Gp is in epsom electorate voted for goldsmith and party voted Green. Thought Labour were no option until they “learn to get along with each other how can they run a country”
    Rea Estate Agent. In Shearers electorate and voted for him and party voted National because their message was clear and was going to vote Green but didnt because she “didn’t want to waste her party vote so voted national” Didnt consider Labour and noticed no Cunliffe billboard. Saw their online Ads on Friday and agreed that we didnt need more taxes which was what Labour offered.
    Administrator. She party voted national and for Goldsmith. She said at dinner on Saturday night she said she didnt know who to vote for so voted national. Her dinner companions, she said, were stunned and said to her but you are so liberal why did you vote for national. She said she now feels embarassed cos she didnt bother to find out anything before voting, including about national. Has since read some more and would have voted Greens or labour. She also said some of the pictures she had seen of Key made her think he was the kind of guy who could be friends with.

    Not surprisingly in a small park in Epsom my demographic sampling is white and over 40. Nonetheless is through up some interesting stuff if anyone in Greens, Labour or nats are interested.

    Just putting it out there

    • Ennui 3.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:29 am

      Well done Tracey, they pretty much sum up middle NZ, “she’ll be right mate”!

      • DoublePlus Good 3.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 12:04 pm

        Yeah:
        Let’s vote for the side that’s most likely to win so we can feel good about ourselves!
        Let’s vote for the smiliest candidate!
        Let’s vote for the candidate that said taxes are bad!
        I despair…

    • adam 3.2
      26 September 2014 at 10:45 am

      I’ve been saying among friends that middle NZ is out of touch.

      We all have similar stories, especially amongst those who are kinda doing OK. They sort of thought about, they sort of like Key, they sort of think things are good under national.

      It’s like they know they should participate, and vote and the like. But, they really don’t want to think about it, too much.

      Listening to these stories, I can see why some of the national supporters are crowing like hell here – they need to convince themselves they are winners and people trust them.

      It will be a very interesting next few months – if the drought that is predicted is as bad as some think – we may have very little in the way of raw commodities to sell.

  4. Herodotus 4
    26 September 2014 at 7:23 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11331562
    Why do those entering into commercial loans such as these landlords not pay commercial bank rates ?Surely they have a greater exposure to risk for the banks than owner occupies. In any other form of business debt it is impossible to obtain a commercial bank loan lower than a residential mortgage.

    • Herodotus 4.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:06 am

      Whist on to housing affordability, and I know that this has lost importance after the election & the disunity of a labour caucus ( that we were told many times from insiders on the site that wasn’t the case and that they were fit to run our country !!!) but the need continues to exist even with the election past. Many areas within England such as York are facing a housing situation similar to Auckland in that average house 8x medium income and building only 50% of what is required, we in NZ are not alone as many other places are experiencing the same issues as we are.
      IMO solve housing and we solve so many other issues: health, disposable incomes, social unity. BUT no, what concerns many is the disintegration of the political arm of the left by a few ‘It’s all about me” people who should feel so privileged at rep the left and so many people in dire need of their representation.

  5. Saarbo 5
    26 September 2014 at 7:26 am

    Tonight on Prime at 9.40 is Plunkett discussing Labour
    Confirmed to appear:
    •MIKE SMITH – former General Secretary of the party.
    •ROB SALMOND – polling advisor and debate trainer to David Cunliffe this campaign.
    •ASSOC PROF JIM MCALOON (VUW) – currently writing a history of the NZ Labour Party.
    Maybe Mike Smith will respond to Iprents comment 10, http://thestandard.org.nz/no-rush-to-judgment/

    • Tracey 5.1
      26 September 2014 at 7:58 am

      any of them ever been on the vacuous “Panel” or “from the left and right” on RNZ’s substitute for people thinking for themselves/

    • Ant 5.2
      26 September 2014 at 8:19 am

      I’m betting it will be some lip service to a review then Nash/Ardern will get suggested. Seems to be the shape of things to come going from what a lot of insiders are pushing.

      Unless Nash is the scare candidate to make everyone vote for Grant :p

  6. burt 6
    26 September 2014 at 7:38 am

    How about that Cunliffe eh, scared of the real world where he wouldn’t get a job flipping burgers.

    [karol: that’s totally off topic and is plain trolling.

    This thread moved from the Dirty Kiwiblog post]

    • Tracey 6.1
      26 September 2014 at 7:46 am

      what do you do for a crust “burt”

    • phillip ure 6.2
      26 September 2014 at 7:50 am

      look..!..it’s spurt..!

      ..and tell that to the harvard business school..eh..?

      ..you auto-eroticist..you…!

      • nadis 6.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 9:34 am

        actually wasn’t Harvard Business School, it was Kennedy School of Government. Just as prestigious but for some reason Cunliffe liked to claim Harvard Business School rather than School of Govt. No idea why. Just another of the many shortcuts for no good reason on his CV which is impressive enough with any embellishment.

        • phillip ure 6.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 9:59 am

          @ nadis..

          ..chrs 4 that..

        • GregJ 6.2.1.2
          26 September 2014 at 10:29 am

          The MPA is awarded by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government but it is a flexible, multi-disciplinary qualification where extensive amounts of time are spent at Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School. Nearly half the time of the qualification can be spent at the Business School.

          There is no evidence he ever claimed it was awarded by the Harvard Business School – just that earning the qualification involved attendance at the three schools within Harvard University.

          • greywarbler 6.2.1.2.1
            26 September 2014 at 1:10 pm

            @ GregJ
            You corrected that – every misapprehension must be dealt with, before a limp bit of rubber is blown up into an explosive dirigible!

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.3
          26 September 2014 at 12:59 pm

          Harvard Kennedy School of Government

          And, of course:

          He was a Fulbright Scholar and Kennedy Memorial Fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, including some courses at Harvard Business School in 1994 and 1995, earning a Master of Public Administration. He worked as a business consultant with Boston Consulting Group in Auckland from 1995 to 1999.

          So, another beat up by the RWNJs.

  7. SPC 7
    26 September 2014 at 7:41 am

    The issue for the Labour Party since 1984 is over whether the party can trust caucus.

    The current conflict is over who determines selection of the party leader, caucus or the wider party membership. Cunliffe’s leadership is the issue it is because he supported the change in method of determining party leadership contests and the caucus (via media) posed him as undermining their choice of leader (Shearer) in doing so. They and the media asked Shearer to prove himself a strong leader by moving against Cunliffe. Having done so Shearer lost the confidence of the wider party, so as soon as leadership was up for contest he resigned rather than stand.

    Whoever used this play to get rid of Shearer failed to beat Cunliffe in the subsequent contest. But once Cunliffe goes, they can try again.

    And Labour can get the leader their caucus deserves.

    Those who want a democratic party of and for the people can party vote Green.

    • SPC 7.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:40 am

      Cunliffe should stand simply to uphold the right of the wider party to participate in the leadership selection process. His doing so also allows other candidates who are also not the preferred option of caucus to come forward.

  8. Te Reo Putake 8
    26 September 2014 at 7:42 am

    It’s looking rather like this is DC’s last day at the helm. I think he is going to announce a resignation effective in a month or so, and that he is not going to stand again. He will be a caretaker leader until his replacement is found.

    Stuff and the Herald are both reporting that the caucus are leaning toward Robertson/Adern. That may be complicated by Shearer’s sense of unfinished business and Nash’s senseless self promotion.

    My feeling is that Andrew Little will have spent the last couple of days sounding out his comrades in the unions. If he stood, he would have reasonable backing in caucus, affiliates and the wider party. At the very least, a useful base from which to build support. If he had a reform minded running mate, he could be a reasonable compromise alternative. He has the brains, the passion and the debating skills and he’s relatively untainted by the shenanigans of the last 3 years.

    Rather than reward the right in the caucus, the party could hardly do better than choose someone who remains in touch with the missing million and who has a proven history of representing working Kiwis.

    Thoughts?

    • Tracey 8.1
      26 September 2014 at 7:55 am

      It looks that way to me too. Was driving to tauranga yesterday, singing along to paul Simon and marvelling at some of his awesome lyrics and thinking about stuff people here wrote int he stay or go debates about Cunliffe

      I concluded for myself that the people who say he should go probably have a point and those who say labour should swing back tot he centre (read right of centre) are also probably right. As long as those folks understand that means we will get fundamentally more of what we have under national with some slow and quiet tinkering at the edges. Labour needs tot ry and gobble up NZF and grab back some Nats… it tried to be a bit zenophobic to match Peters but not enough. Whichever way they go the Right will still bang on about them being commies or lefties or whatever.

      Maybe it needs to do what Nats do with ACT. Use the Greens as the “well we have to work with others” while behind the scenes actually wanting the Greens in because they give the “excuse” to do some of the icky vote-losing leftish stuff that some in labour find repugnant and a block topower.

      For my part I still believe that getting alongside the unions and building that membership up toward 35% of the workforce will do two things;

      Improve wages and workplace conditions for many that labour says it stands for; and
      Increase the likelihood of votes for it next time.

      BUT I also think Labour are scared that middle NZ is scared of unions and rather than work for three years to change that perception from the shop floor up, they will push the unions to one side.

      So, stand down Cunliffe, you did your best, leave the others to it. Even leave politics and see if Groser will win the by-election. OR put jacinda in his seat to go toe to toe with Groser and see who “wins”

      • phillip ure 8.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 8:02 am

        @ tracey..

        ..i guess you deserve some respect for sticking yr rightwing flag so firmly in the ground..

        ..so..fire cunnliffe..and move to the right..eh..?

        ..be more like national..eh..?

        ..that has worked such a treat up until now..eh..?

        • Tracey 8.1.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 9:37 am

          fuck off phil. I voted green and will vote for them again if an election were tomorrow. lp has chosen reps who dont want what traditional labour stood for. so… they should fuck off to the centre and leave the left to the left…. they are lying to their core supporters.

          if you dropped your dislike for me and actually read what I write without that bias you might get it. itz like you are a dog who bas pissed on open mike to make it yours.

          • phillip ure 8.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 9:54 am

            @ tracey..

            ..i don’t know you..i cd hardly ‘dislike’ you..

            ..i am far more removed than that..

            ..it’s more i feel you often spout utter shite..

            ..yr advice for cunnliffe to go..and labour to move to the right..

            ..being just the latest example of this..

            ..and you well know i am not the only one who finds yr words here are often ‘point’-less…

            ..more just elucidated fragments of thought..

            • Tracey 8.1.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 9:59 am

              when you wake up and realise that this lp doesnt want to be a party of the left…. hence cu liffe said they wld work with nzf before the greens… then you will maybe begin to understand my point

              you didnt vote labour cos they aren’t left. why try to make them left… leave them to the centre right and focus on those with left values.

              if you think thats shite so be it.

              do you know john key?

      • Saarbo 8.1.2
        26 September 2014 at 10:21 am

        @Tracey

        The problem I see with the Labour Party moving right is
        1)1 in 4 voters are still voting Labour, so labour need, in the first instance, to look after this cohort (in business it is always easier looking after existing customers than getting new ones). I presume this group voted Labour because they were happy with Cunliffe and Labour Policy.
        2)I’m not sure what changing the leader will do in terms of shifting the party “right”, the Leader does not unilaterally define party policy.
        3) Given current Labour Party policy, what does shifting “right” look like?

        • Tracey 8.1.2.1
          26 September 2014 at 10:44 am

          I am assuming if cunliffe goes his replacement will be a robertson or shearer type backed by goff… et al.

          I guess I am saying they need to be honest. I dont know what their 24% look like or if they can be grouped but if mps truly deliberately didnt advocate for party vote then that is a clue and they are unlikely to think strengthening unions is a winner.
          by honest I mean the right leaves or the left leaves… they dont seem able to co exist and nor should they in mmp.

          there are places for left labour to go and right labour but keeping the labour party as it is…

          their about us says progressive… nzf is anything but progressive, yet that was tge preferred partner.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.2
          26 September 2014 at 11:38 am

          1 in 4 voters are still voting Labour

          Which translates into just 1 in 6 Kiwi adults of voting age. Pathetic – for a political party which claims to be a “broad church”.

          • Saarbo 8.1.2.2.1
            26 September 2014 at 12:10 pm

            My point is that Labour need to ensure that they look after this group, despite what all are sayng, 24.7% it is still a huge group that voted labour.

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.2.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 3:16 pm

              True. But hardly anyone in Labour thinks like this…where’s that soft centrist National voter we can go after next…some parts of the Labour Party seem really eager to cosy up with the comfortable upper middle class.

      • miravox 8.1.3
        26 September 2014 at 6:18 pm

        I’m in NZ at the moment and on a taxi ride to the airport the Pacifica taxi driver was listening to a radio station in a Pacific language. Before he knew anything about me he felt strongly enough to relate to me that they were talking about how no leader has won an election after being in power for only a year. He was very upset that Cunliffe might be forced to quit and said neither he, nor anyone he knew would vote for Robertson. He and his family were happy with the way Cunliffe had become more assured in the election campaign.

        It was interesting to hear from someone from a different walk in life than me expressing his view so strongly to a total stranger, and to find myself agreeing with him.

    • phillip ure 8.2
      26 September 2014 at 7:57 am

      if little/robertson/shearer are the answer..

      ..the wrong questions are being asked..

      ..and if what you predict happens..

      ..it will be an own-goal of momentous proportions for labour..

      ..’little’..?..are you fucken kidding me..?

      ..he makes parker look charismatic…

      ..he ‘um!’s and ‘ah!’s more than shearer did..

      • Hanswurst 8.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 8:05 am

        Exactly. Robertson will never win an election. He is a charisma-free zone, doesn’t debate anywhere near as well as Cunliffe and would simply be ignored by the public. Labour must not listen to the media or cave to Cunliffe’s opponents in caucus. Any Labour leader who develops enough profile to contest an election realistically will be hounded relentlessly by the media. Getting rid of Cunliffe will not solve that problem.

        • Chooky 8.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 8:36 am

          Hanswurst +100 agreed …and look at the hounding given to Helen Clark!…it was relentless and squalid …..despite her being so successful with the NZ voters.!…She was hounded from the Right and from the Left….and she and her husband were stalked by the Exclusive Bretheren!

          Labour rank and file have to stay staunch for David Cunliffe…He is good (Proof: that is why the right wing are attacking him!…why else ?)

          Labour has to get its policies into line with what their grassroots want ( focus groups, polls , consultations, consultants to advise on how to get their message across)

          Labour has to work strategically and cooperatively with the other Left Parties…and not compete with them…show cooperative inclusive leadership

      • Karen 8.2.2
        26 September 2014 at 8:38 am

        +100 Phillip

      • Te Reo Putake 8.2.3
        26 September 2014 at 8:53 am

        “he ‘um!’s and ‘ah!’s more than shearer did..”

        Nope. He’s articulate in the extreme. You don’t get to run the EPMU without being able to argue your corner! I can even put in some personal experience; we were once on opposite sides of the table in an employment dispute and we argued each other to a standstill. And then agreed to a reasonable compromise. I found him to be a very skilled, clever and passionate advocate, but also able to recognise the worth of an alternative argument. And, he was clearly focussed on working to find a win/win outcome. Most impressive.

    • higherstandard 8.3
      26 September 2014 at 8:02 am

      If you think Andrew Little is the answer to National/John Key then you are asking the wrong question.

      and yes I agree with phil as well.

      I always thought Steve Maharey would’ve been an excellent option to replace Helen.

      • Te Reo Putake 8.3.1
        26 September 2014 at 8:33 am

        Totally agree about Maharey, but his personal circumstances overwhelmed his public life. What is that scares you about Little, HS?

        • higherstandard 8.3.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 8:38 am

          “What is that scares you about Little, HS?”

          Absolutely nothing, IMO he’s way less electable than Cunliffe.

          Regarding Maharey – Yes it was a real shame but you can’t blame him in the least, very tough to go through what his family did and it probably put things into a different perspective for him, for all the crap we give politicians I wouldn’t want their job.

          • Te Reo Putake 8.3.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 8:55 am

            Yep, life can be pretty cruel. I think NZ missed out on the chance to have a great LP leader, but I’m pleased he’s moved on personally and professionally. He’s a nice guy. Too nice for politics?

            • higherstandard 8.3.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 9:10 am

              Yep, certainly in relation to leading the two major parties, I think you have to have a really tough streak and be pretty single minded to the exclusion of vitally everything else.

              There have been what I would call some very, very pleasant who’ve led the smaller parties though, although many might disagree with their policies I can’t think of many people who would dislike Rob Donald, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell.

              Perhaps the problem is we’re only really able to assess them once they’ve left politics and none of us have as much baggage to carry around about them any more, I think you’d find that many who had a decided dislike for Helen when she was PM are now far more favourably disposed to her now.

    • swordfish 8.4
      26 September 2014 at 8:50 am

      TRP

      Yep, does seem to be an air of inevitability about it. Which is a great shame. Those who have spent a good deal of time subverting both his leadership and Labour’s chances now get to blame him and quite possibly advance their own political careers. Aint right.

      Certainly prefer Little’s broad political stance but he lacks any sort of charisma as far as I can see.

      • Colonial Viper 8.4.1
        26 September 2014 at 11:40 am

        It’s just the media beat up and constant leaks from caucus which have created this atmosphere.

        As Giovanni Tiso said on Twitter yesterday – and I paraphrase – if the Robertson camp had their numbers all sewn up, they wouldn’t be leaking like a sieve.

        • Ant 8.4.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 1:23 pm

          That assumes that its either Cunliffe or Robertson and there isn’t a faction trying to screw both sides.

          Look at the begrudging “oh no I guess I’ll run now that you want me” that Shearer did last time.

    • bearded git 8.5
      26 September 2014 at 9:10 am

      phil twyford would present well to the public. i know he is to the right of the spectrum but he is a good communicator and smart

  9. Tracey 9
    26 September 2014 at 8:00 am

    “Cairns appointed Nott, who has been a solicitor for 37 years, to defend him against the serious charge of perjury, for which a conviction can lead to a lengthy custodial prison sentence. Nott has been described as “one of the best and most experienced solicitors in the country”, by an English judge.”

    Cairns has been crying poverty for soe time. Backed by his friend Dion nash. HOW then, can he afford this guy??

  10. karol 10
    26 September 2014 at 8:08 am

    Does anyone know anything about this?

    Global Citizen Festival NY Sept 27 2014:

    At a reception last week for the upcoming Global Citizen Festival, Hugh Evans, the festival’s founder and CEO of The Global Poverty Project, said that the already vaunted lineup of Jay Z, Carrie Underwood, Tiësto, the Roots, fun. and No Doubt would see a special guest added to the lineup. On Thursday, organizers revealed that Sting would join No Doubt to help raise awareness of the fight against global poverty. Alicia Keys, one of last year’s headliners, was also announced as a separate guest performer.

    Global Citizen website

    The Global Citizen Aotearoa website is confusing. The concert they seem to be referring to was in August.

    • adam 10.1
      26 September 2014 at 9:41 am

      Yeap, bought and paid for by BP and other corporations.

      It’s going to be like Live aid, all over again – good intentions – does wonders for white guilt. But really, does sweet bugger all.

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 11:47 am

        Yep all carefully permitted and stage managed; a way for activists to waste their time and divert them from actual civil resistance against corporate power.

        A variation on the bread and circuses theme.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 1:14 pm

          That’s becoming a widespread tactic as well and why such organisations need to have their sponsors front and centre. I remember reading an article about it a few years ago and the example used was a ‘forestry protection society’ that was fully funded by the same corporations that were lobbying to cut down the forests. Its apparent goal was to get them into scraps with other activists that were actually working to save the forests thus wasting their time and resources as well as removing some activists from actually working to protect the forests.

          People need to know the sponsors so that they can determine if the organisation is on the level.

  11. outofbed 11
    26 September 2014 at 8:12 am

    Please Please not Grant Robertson
    2 elections in a row Labour party Wellington party vote has Labour third.
    behind the Greens and National.
    Most people I talk to don’t like Cunliffe which is unfortunate.
    Take a chance with Jacinda

    • Ennui 11.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:33 am

      When Grant gets the nod we can all assume the game is up. As the Bard said “A house divided cannot rule’!

      There is a simple solution: the party must expel MPs who don’t fall into line with party members preferences and with the published “principles of the Labour Party”.

    • rich the other 11.2
      26 September 2014 at 8:52 am

      Leadership easily resolved .
      Have a run off , MP’s are supposed to represent voters and their wishes , it seems that some in the Labour caucus are only interested in what they want , to hell with labour voters
      Cunliffe should trigger a run off , who ever looses exits with their supporters to the back bench , a run off is the only way to find out who is genuinely supported .
      It’s interesting that the Robertson faction isn’t keen to have one , Cunliffe has nothing to loose .

      • Hami Shearlie 11.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 9:37 am

        Robertson can only become leader if Cunliffe won’t run against him – is that really someone who could EVER become Prime Minister – he has no charisma, no statesmanlike qualities, can’t debate as well as Cunliffe, CV dismal beside Cunliffe’s, he’s gay and won’t appeal to the ordinary person, and he doesn’t have the look of a Prime Minister, he always looks kind of rumpled. More to the point, Steven Joyce can steamroller right over him so how would he fare against Key?? – And the Caucus think he’s a winner? Oh God Save us from this man!!!

        • KJT 11.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 1:22 pm

          I don’t think that being Gay is an issue in New Zealand. The working class in Te Atatu supported and voted for Chris Carter.

          In fact I was unaware Robertson was Gay until very recently. Other peoples sex lives are none of my business..

          There are other reasons why I do not think he should be leader. Participating in undermining the parties democratic choice of leader, with lukewarm support being one.

          • Hami Shearlie 11.2.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 7:51 pm

            Carter wasn’t the Leader though – I can’t see the working man accepting Robertson! Being gay is not the real problem though – Robertson is totally devoid of charisma and charm, and he doesn’t look the part – doesn’t debate nearly as well as Cunliffe either – he is a bit player and will always be!

            • Hanswurst 11.2.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 8:43 pm

              It isn’t my impression that Robertson’s sexuality is an issue at all, but the rest of what you say seems pretty accurate.

  12. vto 12
    26 September 2014 at 8:28 am

    I just feel sorry for Hone ….

    Keep your head up Hone and don’t give up the good fight

  13. Rosie 13
    26 September 2014 at 8:50 am

    Last night on 3 news a reporter quoted Solid Energy “we’re not going to go with the she’ll be right attitude……….” in regard to, or in defence of their reluctance to enter the drift at Pike River Mine. They also said the drift isn’t a straightforward tunnel (words to that effect for both quotes) saying that it is made up of soft limestone, rock and a coal seam, and is now unstable after the explosions.

    News F-ing flash Solid Energy, it was the “she’ll be right” attitude that killed 29 men, at both legislative and corporates levels and yes, the drift isn’t straightforward as was discovered when it took twice the scheduled time and cost to build it due to the lack of knowledge about the make up of the layers of rock, rotten rock and limestone, but that didn’t stop Pike River and the former DOL being ok with that being the sole point of entry and exit for the mine.

    Such excuses are see through and somewhat offensive given WorkSafe gave the go ahead in October last year. Which PR company works for Solid Energy I wonder?

    • vto 13.1
      26 September 2014 at 9:05 am

      Yep.

      This tragic saga is a sad reflection on the state of corporate people in NZ.

      And the Solid Energy people are continuing this sad state daily right now. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    • ianmac 13.2
      26 September 2014 at 9:12 am

      Seems strange that the drift along which every worker moved every day to carry out their job is now too poisonous and in need of a second egress which they lacked before. What could be a reason for avoidance?
      It is State owned so who in Government want it stalled?

      • vto 13.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 9:29 am

        The whole matter is getting worse not better. It wouldn’t surprise me if people have already been in all the way.

      • yeshe 13.2.2
        26 September 2014 at 9:39 am

        ianmac — the law has changed since the disaster now placing personal liabiity on directors …

        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

        • Tracey 13.2.2.1
          26 September 2014 at 9:41 am

          was the law in last year when it was declared safe.

          • yeshe 13.2.2.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 9:52 am

            interesting point .. will try to find out …

            • Tracey 13.2.2.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 9:55 am

              so tbe directors are using this to protest the law change… see how it has hamstrung us they cry

              • vto …
                26 September 2014 at 10:02 am

                The directors are concerned about their personal liability, not the safety of the rescuers.

                Just like when Pike River deaths happened.

              • cricklewood …
                26 September 2014 at 11:26 am

                The law change is the single best thing to come out of Pike River. Now directors have skin in the game the change in attitude and focus on H&S has been remarkable.

                I have some sympathy for the position of the New Directors who under the new law can and will be held responsible if something goes wrong during the re entry and all steps hadn’t been taken to ensure safety (such as a second egress.)

                I think if cross party consensus could be obtained there should perhaps be a special exemption written into law waiving directorial responsibility in the case of re entry into Pike river to speed the recovery process.

                • yeshe …
                  26 September 2014 at 12:06 pm

                  I am guessing the families would agree to a special waiver/exemption provided they were guaranteed that original directors under whom the disaster took place would be formally called to justice and prosecuted for their failures under then H and S laws.

                  Otherwise, what you suggest is almost too ironic to contemplate as these new directors are proven as loose with the truth as the previous ones.

                  • cricklewood …
                    26 September 2014 at 12:18 pm

                    Would certainly be for the newly appointed directors only. Although somewhat ironic I see it as the only way to speed things up and bring a form of closure to families.

                    It seems that the laws in place when the disaster occurred allowed the directors to slither away not sure what can be done about that.

                    Generally I’m pretty uncomfortable with retrospective law but given the will full negligence I could probably live with it.

        • Rosie 13.2.2.2
          26 September 2014 at 9:49 am

          Correct. And now Solid (soiled?) Energy are using the law change (all mines now requiring a secondary egress) that should have been there in the first place when the mine was functioning, as part of the excuse platform. And yes, you were right about the liability suspicion you had yeshe.

          Are dodgy morals in leadership now just a normal way of doing business in NZ?
          Have we really given up that easily?

          • Draco T Bastard 13.2.2.2.1
            26 September 2014 at 4:31 pm

            Are dodgy morals in leadership now just a normal way of doing business in NZ?

            I think that they’ve always been there but now we’re starting to notice.

        • bad politics 13.2.2.3
          26 September 2014 at 9:54 am

          Mines Rescue were on RNZ the other day & said by definition their work was dangerous, they didn’t need a second egress because they don’t usually get one anyway. & now its come out that someone has been up the dirft this year sometime? Also, Govt just gave Solid Energy a bail out days after they won the election.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.2.2.3.1
            26 September 2014 at 4:33 pm

            Also, Govt just gave Solid Energy a bail out days after they won the election.

            Link?

    • Tracey 13.3
      26 September 2014 at 9:40 am

      plus 1.

      worksafe said the mine was safe and yet under the no surprises policy the minister wasnt told??????

      • yeshe 13.3.1
        26 September 2014 at 10:11 am

        something very wicked is going on here again …

        @Tracey … the ‘law change’ the CEO refers to — it’s not clear to me all of a sudden .. do you think he is referring to a law change specific to directors’ liabilities, or the mining law change that now demands a second egress which therefore affects the directors’ liabilities ?

        thx

        • Rosie 13.3.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 10:58 am

          Sorry to be unhelpful after raising the issue. I’ve got to head off for the day and the person I know (Mr R! H&S expert who has been following developments at the new WorkSafe) who can answer those questions, (including when the new laws were passed) is away and I get hold of him during the day at the moment. Unfortunately I don’t have time to search the WorkSafe legislation.

          As for the law change the Solid energy guy is referring to, I believe it is both. Two excuses are better than one.

          I am interested to know what PR Co is behind it too. Is it Matthew Hooton’s Excelsium, Carrick Graeme’s Facilitate, Saunders and Unsworth or any one of the other PR co’s that operate in NZ?

      • adam 13.3.2
        26 September 2014 at 8:40 pm

        Where have I heard that line before…

  14. Rodel 14
    26 September 2014 at 8:54 am

    100 + SeaLord jobs to go in Nelson announced just a week after the election. Great timing… delayed?…… But Wait! There’s More!

  15. travellerev 15
    26 September 2014 at 8:58 am

    It seems another anti-National Facebook page has been taken down. The Facebook page was called: National Party Billboard Makeovers and it was unavailable this morning. The Facebook page became notorious for the burning John Key effigy video and sported photos of hilarious National billboard makeovers. Looks like a pattern to me!

  16. Pat O'Dea 16
    26 September 2014 at 9:02 am

    With the continueing expansion of the Hadley cell in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere, can we expect annother drought this summer? (The third in a row)

    • adam 16.1
      26 September 2014 at 9:33 am

      But, Pat that assumes people think science is real. When right thinking people know it’s something Colin Craig says is just wrong, and Jamie White denies it even exists.

      Silly question – Does this mean we can do anything we like to Epsom now – as they don’t believe in climate change?

  17. grumpy 17
    26 September 2014 at 9:14 am

    Hi guys, I’m back! Anything been going on while I’ve been away?

    [lprent: I just released 8 bans for the 26th.. Pretty sure that grumpy was one of them. So I will release his comment from autospam. ]

  18. Rodel 18
    26 September 2014 at 9:17 am

    Jim Anderton is finally commenting on the fundamental causes of the election result.

    As he is one of our most successful and long lasting politicians Labour should listen to what he has to say.

  19. amirite 19
    26 September 2014 at 9:25 am

    Duncan Garner on Radio Live this morning claimed that the ABC Labour MPs deliberately lost the Party vote and won electorate votes knowing Labour will lose the election and Cunliffe would have to go. They loathe him THAT much.

    Do you want a Party with people like that to represent you? As a long time Labour voter I know I don’t.

    • bad politics 19.1
      26 September 2014 at 10:01 am

      Absolutely not!

      I don’t like my boss very much but I still do my work in a professional way & just get on with it.

      Also, if Labour get a new leader then the whole media circus merry-go-round starts again, as inevitably ‘dirt’ starts coming out, it seems maybe with Cunliffe John Keys dirty top drawer is empty, after those pathetic attempts at smears.

    • Te Reo Putake 19.2
      26 September 2014 at 10:06 am

      Yeah, Duncan Garner … so that’s not utter bullshit, then.

  20. adam 20
    26 September 2014 at 9:26 am

    A New Board Game has hit the market

    Where in the world is Jason Ede? Junior Detective Edition. 

    FROM THE BOX: 
    “Attention Parents of Junior Detectives: 
    Your children don’t need to read to track Jason Ede! That’s right, New Zealands most popular master manipulator is now appearing (and disappearing) in a new game designed to introduce young children to New Zealands politics. 

    Players secretly hide color coded pictures of Jason Ede beneath politicians, then search for pictures of their color. Kids will have so much fun searching for Jason that they won’t even notice that they’re learning the lies, deceit, and manipulation of New Zealand’s political system.

    CONTENTS: 
     Game Board 
    4 playing pieces 
    33 politician Cards
    12 Jason Ede Picture Tokens 
    4 million Pawns 
    Complete Instructions, give to the media – but never used

    Own your copy today! 

  21. Not a PS Staffer 21
    26 September 2014 at 9:56 am

    A year ago, almost to the day, David Cunliffe announced his new front bench.
    Cunliffe bent over backward to bring ALL the Caucus together: Parker; Shearer; Hipkins; King; Robertson et al. That is what the membership wanted.

    Now we discover that Robertson and Ardern have been undermining him all along and are now leaking like a sieve.

    Cunliffe has to take this matter to the membership. He has no alternative.

    I’m looking forward to seeing Roberson and Ardern on front of a few hundred Labour Party members. The feed back will be strong.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11128844

    • Hami Shearlie 21.1
      26 September 2014 at 11:14 am

      Indeed it will – Robertson would never ever become a Prime Minister – In this I agree with Sean Plunket and that’s a first for me!! David Cunliffe, STAY and FIGHT – the Party Members are with you!! A few caucus members who will be shuffling off soon are way down the list of importance compared to the thousands of members who joined because they wanted David Cunliffe as Leader – this party belongs to the Members, not the stale ABC brigade!

  22. Gosman 22
    26 September 2014 at 10:00 am

    From the thread on David Farrar as I thought it was slightly off topic.

    Universities are probably the closest there is to the concept of Charter schools in the NZ Education system at the moment. Universities have a huge amount of freedom to choose the areas they focus in and Students are free to select which one bgest suits their needs. Would you prefer Universities were more like Primary and Secondary schools instead?

    • lprent 22.1
      26 September 2014 at 10:11 am

      Are you suggesting that we should take children with their partially formed brains and start treating them like adult 18+ students?

      Your analogy just shows that you haven’t outgrown your childhood yourself.

      • Gosman 22.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 11:08 am

        So a 17 year old at high school can’t be taught by an unqualified teacher but a 17 year old at university can. Care to explain the logic in that? Why would you not want university lecturers and tutors to be qualified teachers as well?

        • Saarbo 22.1.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 12:25 pm

          I think that’s called dancing on a pin. What are Charter Schools target children like versus a 17yo going to varsity?

        • Sans Cle 22.1.1.2
          26 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

          eh Gosman, I suggest you research a little more on how to set up a teaching course in a university………try here, for a start, for Uni of Akl:
          http://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/aboutus/sc/cuap/cuap-handbook

          • Gosman 22.1.1.2.1
            26 September 2014 at 1:58 pm

            Haven’t gone through it with a fin toothed comb admittedly but I didn’t see any reference to someone having to have a minimum level in teaching qualifications. Where is that?

        • KJT 22.1.1.3
          26 September 2014 at 1:39 pm

          Have you been taught by some university lecturers? 🙂

          They do have to learn teaching skills, by the way.

          • Gosman 22.1.1.3.1
            26 September 2014 at 1:50 pm

            Are they fully qualified teaching professional?

          • Peter Matthews 22.1.1.3.2
            26 September 2014 at 2:28 pm

            A couple of years ago I worked with an Architect who also taught papers for the architecture degree. She had no teaching qualifications whatsoever

            • Sans Cle 22.1.1.3.2.1
              26 September 2014 at 7:45 pm

              From what I understand (my brother is an architect, trained overseas), much of the teaching within architecture is done by professionals…..as they are more up to date on process, materials and the industry want to train people that can transition directly into work at a practice. They are one of a few industries that match university skills directly with what industry requires…..more like the industry training organizations for trades.

        • DoublePlus Good 22.1.1.4
          26 September 2014 at 1:49 pm

          Universities are for teaching adults in an adult environment. Schools are for teaching children in an environment for children. They have entirely different approaches to pedagogy and require different skills from the educators.
          Furthermore, it’s way over the top to require a university lecturer who has spent a minimum of 7 years (if they do the fastest PhD ever) or a tutor who has spent at least 2 years of study at tertiary institutions to then go and do a 3 year bachelor of education before they are permitted to teach at a university.

        • Clemgeopin 22.1.1.5
          26 September 2014 at 2:12 pm

          You have no problem with government 9tax payer) funding private Charter schools that get to keep their profits, have a class roll of 15 minus, while the state school have over 25 plus, where teachers don’t need to be trained or qualified and per student funding is 6 times that of a student in a state school?
          Where is the fairness, ethics and indeed fiscal responsibility here?

    • Molly 22.2
      26 September 2014 at 3:00 pm

      Your comment shows a lack of differentiation in term of the learning stages of children, and how primary and secondary schools are set up to teach skills rather than in depth knowledge. Scaffolding really for further education.

      Taking your comparison further the funding pressures on universities in the US, has resulted in a wide variety of questionable (and expensive) corporate colleges.

      For a lightweight and slightly off-topic look at colleges in America watch John Oliver’s Student Debt” piece. Another documentary worth looking out for will be Ivory Tower when it becomes available.

      University of Auckland last year dropped a large number of social science courses – because funding was not forthcoming. Those options that contribute to the knowledge base and benefit of the wider community are not those that are sought by a economic benefit only funding model.

      Despite all the rhetoric about charter schools providing “choice”, there is a natural entropy that occurs when all the previous state funded schools have closed down, and the consequence of allowing profit making enterprises to have a stake in education is revealed by very limited choices, and very low quality delivery.

      After all reducing costs is where the most profit lies.

    • Draco T Bastard 22.3
      26 September 2014 at 6:11 pm

      Interestingly enough, public schools in NZ can already provide all the ‘choice’ that parents want – they’re not choosing it.

      The major problem with ‘choice’ in education – you get dumbfucks, such as yourself, without a shred of knowledge as to what they’re talking about making fucken stupid decisions about education and then forcing those decisions on others (school is a large social institution) that make our children worse off.

      National Standards and Charter Schools are are prime examples of this stupidity, hubris and outright bloody arrogance.

    • Rodel 22.4
      26 September 2014 at 8:45 pm

      Gs
      What utter bullshit.
      Oh gawd, now he’ll ask another inane question.

  23. Taxidriver 23
    26 September 2014 at 10:04 am

    The smart thing for the Labour team to do is to sit tight and take the next couple of months to reconsider their future. Any selections now would be knee jerk choices that will blow up in their faces later, the best thing is taiho and have a cuppa and a think. Another thing is you can’t play the same game as the Nats, they will screw you up good with their attack dogs, you need to play your own game, play your own music, be distinct, be original. Labour also needs to come out fresh, new faces, new policies not the old same old same old.

  25. Pat O'Dea 25
    26 September 2014 at 10:36 am

    As the right wing media and fifth column ABC faction try to subvert the democratic leadership selection process by trying to pressure David Cunliffe to resign.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/10546182/Cunliffes-exit-is-assured-but-by-which-route

    It may be difficult even impossible for David Cunliffe to persevere, especially if he hasn’t got the support of his deputy.

    Under that condition, Cunliffe has a stark choice to make, he needs to take a strong stand and demote David Parker and promote Adern or Little to the role of deputy, or resign himself, and so cheat the membership of their hard earned right to decide the leader.

    Has David Cunliffe got the intestinal fortitude to weather the storm, until the members can have their say.

    • Gosman 25.1
      26 September 2014 at 11:11 am

      Face facts. Cunliffe is a gone burger. He cannot stay on even if he wanted to and even if he won the support of the Unions and membership.

      • Pat O'Dea 25.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 1:11 pm

        Thank you Gosman you have confirmed for all of us that Cunliffe should stay on. And whether he wants to or not, is irrelevant. David Cunliffe owes it to the membership that put him there there to remain. It his duty to protect their hard fought democratic right to have a leader of their choice and not have this right undermined by the ABC dominated caucus.

    • Hami Shearlie 25.2
      26 September 2014 at 11:16 am

      Cunliffe must stay, or Labour is gone for the foreseeable future!!! I think David Cunliffe has a large supply of intestinal fortitude, I think he’s made of very stern stuff!!

      • Puckish Rogue 25.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 1:06 pm

        I agree, he should stay

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 25.2.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 1:38 pm

          Labour’s problem is like the US Republicans’ problem. If the leader appeals to the base he or she will probably be repugnant to everyone else in New Zealand.

  26. Dont worry. Be happy 26
    26 September 2014 at 10:43 am

    30% of dairy cows in the upper North Island have a fatal parasite probably allowed to be brought in by (deregulated) market, from Oz. The disease is moving south.

    Meanwhile, in Southland, hundreds of dairy cows have been fed herbicide resistant swedes (GE.?) and have died of liver failure. An unknown number are sick or dying.

    The drop in milk prices may already have sent 40% of dairy farmers back to their (Australian) banks pleading for more money.

    Expect the farming “community” to be lining up for benefits. They wont be called beneficiaries of course, more like the “backbone of the economy”.

    The rock star economy starts to look like the Death Star…

    The rock star Prime Minister starts to look like every washed up rock star…

    The media shut their eyes and go “la la la”…

    [lprent: Completely off topic. Do that again if you want to find out what being banned is like. Moved to OpenMike. ]

    • greywarbler 26.1
      29 September 2014 at 1:19 pm

      @ Dont worry. Be happy. 26/9 26
      Can you give a link or source where I can get more information about the North Island cows affected by a fatal parasite. I would like to find out more about this parasite in detail. Where did you find out about it? If you can give this info I’d appreciate it very much.

  27. Saarbo 27
    26 September 2014 at 11:14 am

    For anyone who thinks Jacinda Aderne is leadership material, watch Paula Bennett debating Aderne verses Paula Bennett debating Meteria Turei. Bennett is relaxed and dominates Aderne, however this is turned right around when she debates Turei, Turei has the measure of Bennett and Bennett knows it.

    Aderne is 10 years away from leadership of the Labour Party in my view.

  28. minarch 28
    26 September 2014 at 12:07 pm

    Heres one for all the randroids/libertards

    The story of Galts Gulch a libertarian paradise..

    Ayn Rand’s Capitalist Paradise Is Now a Greedy Land-Grabbing Shitstorm

    http://gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-now-a-greedy-land-grab-1627574870

    • Sans Cle 28.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:49 pm

      Never got to “Atlas Shrugged”. The Fountainhead was more than enough for me to stomach, to satisfy my intellectual curiosity as to what Thatcher revered/aspired for in her homage to Raynd.
      As for the story in your link, it reminds me of Thoreau’s ‘Walden’, who proved long ago that you cannot escape from Government controls…….which is why we have to ALL involve ourselves in political discourse, participate in civil society, make our elected representatives accountable…….and ensure that even though power corrupts, that absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely…..(although we are sailing close to the wind with last weekend’s election result).

  29. minrach 29
    26 September 2014 at 12:12 pm

    a libertarian fantasy story

    ( not written by me)

    I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

    “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

    “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

    “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

    The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

    “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

    “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

    He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

    “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

    I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

    “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

    “Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

    “Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

    It didn’t seem like they did.

    “Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

    Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

    I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

    “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

    Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

    “Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

    I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ’08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

    He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

    “All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

    “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

    “Because I was afraid.”

    “Afraid?”

    “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

    I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

    “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

    He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

  30. minarch 30
    26 September 2014 at 12:12 pm

    a libertarian fantasy

    ( not written by me)

    I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

    “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

    “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

    “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

    The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

    “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

    “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

    He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

    “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

    I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

    “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

    “Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

    “Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

    It didn’t seem like they did.

    “Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

    Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

    I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

    “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

    Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

    “Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

    I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ’08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

    He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

    “All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

    “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

    “Because I was afraid.”

    “Afraid?”

    “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

    I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

    “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

    He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

  31. travellerev 31
    26 September 2014 at 12:25 pm

    The other “John Key has disappointed New Zealand” is now also shut down. So we have the First one 16.000 members, the Funny National billboards Facebook page and the Split off “John Key has Disappointed New Zealand” site with about 600 members all shut down without warning and without explanation. Me thinks there is a pattern here. Shame Facebook allows itself to be used as executor in court cases where you don’t need to prove anything you say and it is all done in secret.

    I suggest that everybody who doesn’t like John Key starts to download their Facebook data and archive it so you can use it on a new one!

  33. cricko 33
    26 September 2014 at 1:14 pm

    What am I missing ?

    What does Jacinda Ardern bring to the table that I don’t see ?

    Why is she ranked so high in Labour.

    Consider; No life experience. Never held a real job. Gets chewed up and spat out by
    Paula Bennet in question time. Can’t win an electorate seat. Either Trevor Mallard or
    Parker has to come to her aid in the House. Spent three years banging on about a
    specious problem of 200,000+ Kiwi children living in abject poverty, starving with no
    shoes or no raincoat to wear to school that people do not believe.

    And now her name is mentioned in some quarters as a possible deputy leader.

    What is it about her that some people see that I can’t ?

    • blue leopard 34.1
      26 September 2014 at 2:26 pm

      I started reading it but couldn’t get through it because some of the first points are so out of touch, I lost heart and patience.

      For example:

      “1. $60 a week baby bonus – where did this help families that are having a tough time now? It didn’t, it’s a stupid idea.”

      Umm…all people with babies now…

      “2. Raising minimum wage twice in the coming year – another stupid idea. Why on earth would you raise something that should be seen as entry level only? “

      The trouble is, they are not entry level for some, they are what people are living on, and it doesn’t cover costs and the government is then being called in to supplement these unsustainable wages.

      The point also doesn’t take into account the whole reality of people being paid more leads to more custom for businesses.

      And:

      “4. Handing more money to those on benefits – the benefit system is fairly generous and handing out even more money is not the way to stop people staying on benefits for life. “

      There are some serious faults with the benefit system which makes it extremely hard to get out of the rut. This has been discussed many times on The Standard, so won’t go into it – what a pity MSM don’t inform the paper reading/TV News watching public of the issues. Perhaps then people might base their voting decisions on reality, not made-up fictitious shite.

      I may try to read her points again later, because it is usually very enriching to read opinions that are different from one’s own but this article really is distressing for the points I have already read that so clearly display the effects of uninformed opinion.

      #WhatHasThisCountryBecome?

  35. Ergo Robertina 35
    26 September 2014 at 1:54 pm

    The ‘specious’ problem of child poverty? What do you mean by this?
    Labour’s policy response to the problem could be described as such though.
    Jacinda is well meaning, but she is a member of a neoliberal party that embedded the structural conditions that doubled child poverty from its early 1980s level.
    Personally I don’t think Jacinda has the mettle to be a high ranking MP, let alone leader or deputy.

    • cricko 35.1
      26 September 2014 at 2:07 pm

      I mean that while most people will accept that there is a problem that needs to be
      addressed with some of our poorest families and their children, when you over egg it
      and exagerate it out of all proportion as Jacinda Ardern constantly does you defeat
      your own purpose. People just do not believe you.

      It is specious because we all know that when she insists over and over that it involves
      over 200, 000 children she is not real.

      Regarding your final sentence. We agree on that. The question is, “What is it that gets
      her such a high ranking ?” If there is, ‘nothing’ then that surely points to a major
      problem that the Party needs to address.

      • Ergo Robertina 35.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 2:24 pm

        You’re in denial.
        See the Otago University’s child poverty monitor: 285,000 children in poverty, 180,000 in material hardship.
        http://www.childpoverty.co.nz

      • McFlock 35.1.2
        26 September 2014 at 2:26 pm

        It is specious because we all know that when she insists over and over that it involves
        over 200, 000 children she is not real.

        Well, that’s the government figure.

        But feel free to bury your head in the sand. Who cares how the other quarter of children live.

        • cricko 35.1.2.1
          26 September 2014 at 3:37 pm

          O.K. Lets conceed that by some definitions there are 285000 children in poverty.
          Thats one thing, however…..point is…..I repeat, the point is…..

          1 . What has Jacinda Ardern done to justify her high ranking in Labour ? Who
          would care to address that question ? ( It has happened, there must be some
          reason, someone must know the answer.)

          2 . The public are not stupid. Why would they vote for us when they see us
          elevate people with no talent, no gravitas, no Mana to the top of our tree
          and infer that we think such a person is qualified to lead our country ?

          3. Is there something inherently wrong with our Party when drones like this rise
          to the top of the Labour Party.?

          • Ergo Robertina 35.1.2.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 3:44 pm

            Probably for the same reason people can gloss over 285,000 children living in poverty.
            It’s a shallow world. Jacinda is good looking, and non-threatening, and there’s an element of right wing stirring involved. Same dynamic as got Shearer the job.

            • cricko 35.1.2.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 4:00 pm

              Duh !

              You must be joking.

              So, in your mind the qualification for a high ranking in Labour is to be good
              looking and non-threatening. (and the real horror is that you probably believe that.)
              So that is the best we can up with to answer the three genuine questions that I posed sincerely @ 3.37 above.

              With that thinking Labour is doomed.

              • Ergo Robertina …
                26 September 2014 at 4:17 pm

                You are a waste of time, cricko, and I doubt you posed the questions sincerely.
                In what sense does my comment indicate approbation for this state of affairs?
                Where do I say or imply that such traits qualify a person for the job of leader?
                And why would my thoughts on the matter accord with Labour or Labour’s future direction?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                26 September 2014 at 7:06 pm

                So, in your mind the qualification for a high ranking in Labour is to be good looking and non-threatening.

                That and being wealthy is what got John Key his role in National.

          • McFlock 35.1.2.1.2
            26 September 2014 at 4:17 pm

            Youngest sitting MP when she got elected. High profile in a number of policy areas. Holds her own in debates both in the House and in the media. Hard worker. Well qualified in public policy (useful for a legislator, I would have thought). A decent amount of life experience. Former president of International Union of Socialist Youth.

            Not a bad option for advanced roles, I would have thought.

            • Puckish Rogue 35.1.2.1.2.1
              26 September 2014 at 4:27 pm

              Holds her own in debates both in the House and in the media

              – Except when up against Paula Bennet

              Former president of International Union of Socialist Youth.

              – wow that’ll get the voters excited

              A decent amount of life experience.A decent amount of life experience.

              – doing up caravans and baking cup cakes

              Yes its true the right fear Ardern 🙂

              • McFlock …
                26 September 2014 at 4:38 pm

                🙄

                • cricko …
                  26 September 2014 at 6:20 pm

                  McFlock
                  rises to defend Jacinda.
                  Is blown away by a couple of erudite observations by Puckish Rogue.

                  McFlock responds with a smiley face.

                  Says it all.

                  And.. Ergo Robertina @ 4.17 abandons the debate and resorts to a personal attack.
                  Typical.

                  • McFlock …
                    26 September 2014 at 7:45 pm

                    Cricko:

                    • thinks PR talking about a leading MP “baking cupcakes” blew me away.
                    • Doesn’t know the difference between a smile and rolled eyes.

                    yeah, pretty typical.

          • Draco T Bastard 35.1.2.1.3
            26 September 2014 at 7:04 pm

            O.K. Lets conceed that by some definitions there are 285000 children in poverty.

            There’s only one definition that matters and it’s called reality. In reality there are 285000 children and their parents living in poverty.

            Everything else you wrote sounds remarkably like a concern tr0ll.

            • cricko 35.1.2.1.3.1
              26 September 2014 at 8:38 pm

              Try to avoid the natural tendency to attack me personaly Draco and see if you are able to respond to this because this is the crux of the matter.

              This is what the voters of New Zealand understand and showed on 20/9/14
              and you and Jacinda don’t get yet.
              This is where you and Jacinda part company with reality and the mainstream New Zealanders.
              Think about these two questions.

              1 How do you define poverty ?
              2. Do we have any answer to the problem other than to throw more taxpayers money at it ?
              People now realise that giving out free money will not work.

              The answer to Q1 must be believable to New Zealanders.
              The answer to Q2 is what will make or break Labour.

              Paula Bennet seems to understand that the answer to Q1 is not critical.
              The answer to Q2 is critical.

              Think…. What is the Labour/Jacinda Ardern answer to Q2 ?

              At present no one knows Labours answer to Q2.

              Get it ?

              • McFlock …
                26 September 2014 at 9:06 pm

                1: Nobody here defines poverty. It was defined in any of the links people gave you when you poured scorn on the 200k figure. A definition established over years of research. You have the links, try knowing what you’re talking about before you pretend to know everything.

                2: Actually, throwing money at it would solve the poverty issue by definition. There is also quite a bit of data that suggests every dollar thrown at children in poverty saves the state $11 down the line (try looking at some of the CPAG resources). So why do you want the state to spend 1100% more on the poor rather than solving the problem?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                26 September 2014 at 9:09 pm

                Belief is not a measure of reality no matter how much you RWNJs like to think it is.

                We have a good measure of poverty, one that generally works, it shows 285000 children in poverty.

                Now fuck off you tr0ll.

              • adam …
                26 September 2014 at 9:21 pm

                Wow, just wow cricko – have you read any left wing economics or left wing theories on economics? Actually at this point, even Keynes will do.

                Because, well there are several answers to your so called limiting the debate so you can understand it question 2. One you could enforce tax collection, under the current system at least 5 billion dollars is unpaid by business and corporation each year – but that’s a neoliberal solution. let’s move on.

                How about, strong unions. People who choose to freely associate, having the power to form big industrial unions. How does that end poverty? Over history cooperative, or collective associations have a tendency to acquire wealth rather well, then distribute it equally as well. So socialism, by choice – which by the way, is effectively illegal under the current labour laws. But, in a sick twist of irony, our biggest corporation is a cooperative and it distributes it’s payouts in a fair and equitable manner.

                We could remove gst and other flat taxes. Instal trade barriers and give protection to our small and vulnerable economy. But, the ideological purist, would blow a gasket at that suggestion.

                Many, many more solutions, from full employment, to enhancing Whānau Ora, a tax on all financial transactions, art classes, but most of all and this is something the left has all over the right – we can offer hope.

                As per you first question, Paula Bennett is a godless, poltroon. She won’t even help her own family, why should New Zealanders trust her with anything.

  36. Colonial Viper 36
    26 September 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Is twitter down for everyone? Haven’t been able to connect to the site for ages.

  37. Cancerman 37
    26 September 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Christ looking at these numbers reported on Stuff http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10548216/Does-Grant-Robertson-have-the-numbers Cunliffe has to stay. It’s clear that the party wanted him then and even if the lost election has blunted these numbers a bit I doubt it is that much. Caucus just next to suck it up or if individuals can’t, move on or become independents.

  38. Hanswurst 38
    26 September 2014 at 6:35 pm

    It’s interesting to see the headline in the Herald online reading “Cunliffe supporters blamed for vote leak”. It refers to this article, although the headline quoted above is from the Politics page, with the article page itself bearing the slightly more long-winded “David Cunliffe supporters blamed for union vote leak”. It’s curious that there has never been a headline reading “Robertson supporters blamed for caucus leak” or “Shearer supporters blamed for anti-Cunliffe leak”.

    Further, it is apparent from the article that those blaming Cunliffe’s supporters are Robertson supporters. Why isn’t that in the headline? It seems that the Herald wants to give the impression that only one group is engaging in political machinations. It’s also interesting, on the page itself, that the only reference in the headline is to the “union” vote, although it is the figures for the entire party that were leaked. So it’s a negative spin on Cunliffe for all those political bulls to whom the word “union” is inexplicably a red rag.

    An honest oversight by overworked editing staff? Possibly, but if a newspaper complain about Cunliffe signing a routine letter eleven years ago, or hesitating for a second in a debate, then it can damn well take a pasting for misleading reporting, however minor.

    • Ant 38.1
      26 September 2014 at 7:16 pm

      Robertson supporters are blathering all over social media blaming Cunliffe, Hooton is also blaming Cunliffe – that tells you a lot.

      They seem to forget that there is another group in caucus who also loves whiteanting potential leaders and Hooton is way more friendlier with this group. Just because something is bad for Grant it doesn’t mean it is good for David Cunliffe, he’s position is pretty weak right now.

      I’m betting they’ll sow havoc between both these camps and then a “begrudging hero” will put his name forward as a compromise candidate. :p

      • Karen 38.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 7:32 pm

        Yep, and that “hero” will be the man Hooton has been promoting as the best leader for Labour since 2012 – David Shearer. I used to think Shearer was just politically naive, I now think he is a vehicle for another stint of Rogernomics 21st century style.
        This is a battle for the soul of the Labour Party.

        • Hanswurst 38.1.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 7:55 pm

          I doubt, however, whether Shearer could win the membership or union vote, since there isn’t a soul in NZ who thinks he could win an election against a blue goat, let alone the blue goat. Hooton, of course, says that Shearer could win (or at least that he could have)… what better evidence could there be that he doesn’t think so?

  39. Scott Chris 39
    26 September 2014 at 6:39 pm

    (having worked out The Standard’s comment format and having realised I had replied to a reply to some Phil Ure spam I’ve decided to repost as a stand alone comment)

    Cunliffe’s brand is poison. Time to move on. Forget Robertson – middle NZ isn’t liberal enough to accept let alone embrace a gay PM.

    Ardern would be a sensible choice for leader imo. Okay, she’s a beltway politician but she has a couple of things that that the rest of the Labour caucus lacks in that she has charisma and personifies ‘a fresh start’. I suggest Cosgrove would make a good deputy.

    • Hami Shearlie 39.1
      26 September 2014 at 7:42 pm

      Jacinda can’t even win an electorate seat – neither can Cosgrove – a winning combo – yeah right!

      • Scott Chris 39.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 7:51 pm

        Were they given safe seats to run in?

      • lprent 39.1.2
        26 September 2014 at 8:39 pm

        What is astonishing is how close Jacinda got this time. The whole of Grey Lynn was removed, and that used to be the core of the left vote in Auckland Central.

        • mickysavage 39.1.2.1
          26 September 2014 at 8:48 pm

          Turnout was tiny. It plunged by about 11k votes. Some analysis of the reason is needed.

          • phillip ure 39.1.2.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 9:50 pm

            i dunno about the vanished votes..

            ..but again lab/grns cannabilised each other..

            ..and national walked thru the centre..

            ..what is so hard to understand about that..?

            ..and why can lab/grns not sort out how to stop doing this..?

            ..if they continue not to sort it out..

            ..the right will just walk away with elections..

            ..again and again..

        • cricko 39.1.2.2
          26 September 2014 at 9:13 pm

          See my effort at 8.38pm today. 35.12 13 etc.

          Don’t be astonished, get real.
          “Oh, it’s so unfair, if only the boundary changes were fair we would have won in a landslide.” FFS
          What puke.

          When we have no idea why we lost we have no chance for the future.
          You, Iprent and mickeysavage need to get a grip on reality.

          We can keep on bullshitting ourselves forever.
          The answer is quite simple.

          Why are you ‘astonished’ that Jacinda lost ?

          That mind set will just doom us forever.

    • Chris 39.2
      27 September 2014 at 11:07 am

      Pandering to the middle isn’t good for the Left. Labour has to win the middle over with Left policies. Pandering to the middle with what you think they want to hear, or in other words competing with National for the centre vote. When this happens all that remains is identity politics. That’s why Helen Clark remained popular for so long…until someone more “popular” came along. With two main right-wing parties it’s simply a matter of luck who wins.

  40. Clemgeopin 40
    26 September 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Cunliffe had the majority mandate to be the leader. In spite of the evil and unfair attacks from the media and uncontrollable distractions from elsewhere, Cunliffe did a pretty good job during election campaign. The labour defeat was not caused by him but by many factors outside his control.

    In my opinion, some of the caucus members have been pretty unwise in stupidly airing their divisive personal views and leadership change issues in public to the media. All of them, except for a couple of the spokespersons, should have shown better sense, kept silent in public and aired their views in private at their caucus meetings so that they could all collectively decide there what the best strategy for the party was. They have done considerable harm to the party by their unthinking selfish ways.

    In my opinion, there is no reason for Cunliffe to be rolled at all. He should stick to his grounds.

    May be the leadership rules should be changed too. Either the caucus should not have a say in the leadership vote at all, except individually as a party member, or, if the present rules continue, then after the election, only the votes of the members and the unions should be published but the caucus votes should be kept private for ten years at least. That way, the leader will be able to choose his cabinet based purely on merit rather than on blind loyalty.

    • Draco T Bastard 40.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:15 pm

      Either the caucus should not have a say in the leadership vote at all, except individually as a party member

      This. Giving caucus any sort of extreme power will always cause strife.

    • Hanswurst 40.2
      26 September 2014 at 8:28 pm

      In my opinion, some of the caucus members have been pretty unwise in stupidly airing their divisive personal views and leadership change issues in public to the media.

      I think it would pay to be careful with statements like that. So far, Shearer has come out with some rather unwise statements (not necessarily nasty of him – he has always said politically stupid things in interviews, so this is just more of the same). Robertson was actually very cautious and measured. The evidence presented in the media of Parker’s disloyalty to Cunliffe was also fairly slight. There is evidence that Cunliffe is being undermined (Hipkins’ election as whip, for instance), but we should still be wary of swallowing hook, line and sinker the carefully cultivated media implication that large numbers of Labour MP’s are publicly denouncing Cunliffe. That isn’t happening.

      • Clemgeopin 40.2.1
        26 September 2014 at 9:10 pm

        I take your point.

        I wonder if some disloyal MPs are leaking stuff privately to media to strengthen their own interests. Whoever is the leader should get full loyalty and absolute support in public to show complete unity at all times. That is priority number one. The MPs should know this instinctively. See how well the Nats and Greens do this. Any leadership issue should be done privately in caucus in complete confidence.

        I do think, for the next election, Labour has to thoroughly review and revise their policies, not only because they are good for the country, but also to maximise voter support. But that is not the immediate issue for now.

    • JeffRo 40.3
      26 September 2014 at 8:46 pm

      Cunliffe, suffered from a very basic and fundamental problem IMO.

      A large part of the caucus wanted to win the election and govern. They knew and still know Cunliffe will never deliver that. And they were right and still are right.

      I’m not sure who is best to led, but by adding “may have a chance of appealing to a wider voting base put Labour in with a shot at winning in 2017” as a strong consideration when selecting, has got to be a must. Highly principled opposition forever is pointless.

      • Hanswurst 40.3.1
        26 September 2014 at 9:24 pm

        So what qualities does Cunliffe lack in terms of winning an election that any other person in the caucus has? If you want to tout the support of the caucus, there’s no evidence that anybody enjoys that; also, since media frenzies over a divided Labour caucus have persisted under successive leaders, one very logical conclusion would be that the solution isn’t changing the leader. Caucus unity (or the lack of it) is therefore not a quality of the leader, but a quality of the caucus.

        • JeffRo 40.3.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 9:42 pm

          Good valid points. And you will convince many people on this site along with a good % of the party faithful. But the general public won’t be electing a Cunliffe led Labour government. That’s my point, looking at a Labour party leader , from the point of view of the public.
          What does the party faithful want? If forming a government is top of the list then DC isn’t leading.

          • mickysavage 40.3.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 9:51 pm

            But you will not be voting for Labour so why lecture us on what to do? I could say that supporting John Key as National’s leader will end in tears and I would be talking rubbish. So I don’t. So why tell us what to do?

            • adam 40.3.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2014 at 9:55 pm

              Because they feel very insecure in their Great victory Micky. Very insecure, indeed.

              • JeffRo …
                26 September 2014 at 10:05 pm

                Do you think Labour can win in 2017 with Cunliffe at the wheel?

                Can he appeal to the same public, that he didn’t appeal too this year?

                For the average Joe, their opinion of the leaders has much more of an influence on their decision than the more informed voter.

                John Key may not be your cup of tea, but you have to admit he attracts support for national like a magnet.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  26 September 2014 at 10:16 pm

                  Are you so stupid or superficial in your political analysis as to think that changing the Captain on a sinking Titanic is an actual solution?

                  • JeffRo …
                    26 September 2014 at 11:19 pm

                    National did it after 2002, no reason to see why Labour can’t do the same.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 September 2014 at 11:25 pm

                      Your theory for Labour party success appears to be based on the example of Don Brash replacing Bill English in 2002.

                      That’s just fucking genius, if I may say so.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  26 September 2014 at 10:42 pm

                  “For the average Joe, their opinion of the leaders has much more of an influence on their decision than the more informed voter’

                  You do make a valid point there. But the thing is this. Cunliffe I am sure is aware of that and is capable of endearing himself over time with the public. He had only 11 months this time. It took Clark over four years to win over the public. The same was the case with John Key (and Walter Nash and even Norman Kirk as I read somewhere)

                  • JeffRo …
                    26 September 2014 at 11:25 pm

                    Thank you!
                    At last a reason!
                    He sure has ground to make up. You would like to think, if he did he would get full support.
                    Single minded direction and support must be a conclusion to Labours election review.

            • JeffRo 40.3.1.1.1.2
              26 September 2014 at 9:58 pm

              I have voted both ways. Yes, national this time.

              But from the point of view of someone who doesn’t get that interested apart from the few weeks around the election, even I know the fickle public- and I could be classed as that, didn’t warm to him.

              I’m not telling you what to do, I just can’t see how he could turn the public opinion around.

              • Hanswurst …
                26 September 2014 at 10:08 pm

                […] even I know the fickle public- and I could be classed as that, didn’t warm to him.

                I could be classed as a left-wing voter. That doesn’t give me any particular insight into mindset of left-wing voters in general.

              • mickysavage …
                26 September 2014 at 10:11 pm

                So you have been interested in politics for a couple of weeks and you are confident that what happened now will happen in three years time. Your analysis is superficial, your confidence grossly unrealistic and your understanding is shallow. So why is your opinion valid?

                • JeffRo …
                  26 September 2014 at 10:28 pm

                  History.
                  Helen Clarke didn’t win in 1996, but Labour wasn’t far off. NZF decided the government. She came through in 1999. But not from 12% personal ranking

                  In 2002 Bill English, was as popular as cold sick and National was lucky to hit 20%. He was replaced.

                  • mickysavage …
                    26 September 2014 at 10:33 pm

                    Superficial in the extreme. And you are wrong about the personal ranking. Cunliffe hit 18% in one poll. And Clark did not have the full scale assassination that Cunliffe had. Now about my criticism of the superficiality of your analysis. You have responded by stating two factoids. Either you do not know what you are talking about or you do have some understanding and are trolling.

                    • JeffRo …
                      26 September 2014 at 11:15 pm

                      I’m not a troll.
                      As I’m on a PC, I can quickly research a few facts and figures.
                      I don’t claim any deep knowledge. And that is sort of my point.
                      I would like to hear some opinions on Cunliffes chances of winning 2017.
                      Only really got grumpy replies.

                  • Hanswurst …
                    26 September 2014 at 11:16 pm

                    Helen Clarke [sic] didn’t win in 1996, but Labour wasn’t far off.

                    What Clark did do in 1996, however, was lead Labour to a significantly lower proportion of the vote than had been registered by voters for Labour candidates in the previous election, after National had won the 1993 election with a majority of one seat. 1996 also returned a far more comfortable majority for the Right than this election. Comparing the 1993 and 1996 elections is a bit apples/oranges because 1993 was still FPP, but it still blows your claim of historical precedent right out of the water.

            • JeffRo 40.3.1.1.1.3
              26 September 2014 at 10:09 pm

              But if the goal is to win an election, then support for John Key for National party members is the best way to win another. Popular leaders win elections.

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 September 2014 at 10:19 pm

                You’re not a systems thinker are you, just an idol worshipper/fanboy.

                • JeffRo …
                  26 September 2014 at 10:40 pm

                  it might be a bit stink, but the cult of the leader is true. I didn’t make it that way, but even I can see that.

                  I can see my position is unpopular here.

                  How much effect do you think a popular or unpopular leader makes?
                  I think it is significant.

                  And do you think that David Cunliffe can lead Labour to victory?

                  I don’t think he can for two simple reasons-

                  He is unpopular with the general public.

                  Because of the influence of the leader on people voting decisions, the unpopular guy won’t win.

                  So if you have some reasons why you think he can, then lets have them.

                  • Hami Shearlie …
                    26 September 2014 at 11:45 pm

                    Who says he’s unpopular with the public – the media and the ABC brigade!! His ratings in the popular vote for Prime Minister polls were rising during the campaign while the Party’s were staying the same – He’s very popular in his electorate and with the members of the Party and the Unions – some of the caucus may not like him but their judgement is laughable – they chose Shearer to be the leader, someone who can’t string a few words together without stumbling and mumbling!

                    • Scott Chris …
                      27 September 2014 at 3:38 am

                      Hamish, at best 88% of those who expressed a preference as to who they felt should lead our country said Cunliffe shouldn’t be that person – bearing in mind the choice was limited and included John Key as an alternative.

                      I suspect that Cunliffe has all the positive qualities possessed by forerunners such as Michael Cullen but the difference is that Cullen was self aware enough to know that he came across as a supercilious twat whereas Cunliffe appears not to have that same degree of insight.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    27 September 2014 at 12:00 am

                    Fuck off with your Presidential mode of politics/scapegoating. Multiple electorates failed in their party vote campaigns, and many key decisions made at the campaign management level were the wrong ones.

                    • JeffRo …
                      27 September 2014 at 12:21 am

                      It’s not my mode. Is just the way it is.

                      Hope you have a pleasant weekend!

                      PS- It does show a bit that you can’t argue your point.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 September 2014 at 2:44 am

                      LOL what a loser. How about addressing my points around your tilt to presidential politics and letting the rest of the Labour front bench off on a pass. You don’t get to define ‘political reality’ by saying so except in your own dreams.

    • JeffRo 40.4
      26 September 2014 at 9:52 pm

      He may have done a good job, but the result was rubbish.

      He may have given it his best shot, but if the public think the leader is rubbish then his mob don’t win. And the public thought he was rubbish, as the PM polls showed, again and again.

      If the labour party can’t take the really clear message delivered on the 20th, all they will prove, to the public, is they are not worth the 24% they got. Labour will get slammed at the polling booth if they can’t even recognise that simple fact.

      Not saying that is right or fair. But it is fact.

      • Hanswurst 40.4.1
        26 September 2014 at 10:06 pm

        The preferred PM polls show that the public support John Key, not that they think Cunliffe was rubbish. Other data showed that the public don’t trust John Key. Reactions to the debates indicated that the public do see Cunliffe as doing a good job.

        The sum total of actual analysis in your post is:

        1. John Key rated higher than Cunliffe in preferred PM polls
        2. Labour polled 24% on the 20th.
        3. This was while Cunliffe was leader.

        Seeing as:

        a) Everybody already knows about 1. and 2.
        b) You choose to ignore completely any issues like Labour having changed leaders twice following the previous election, Cunliffe only having been in the job for under a year, other controversial members of an apparently divided caucus, and the recent historical precedent of Helen Clark;

        your point is either vacuous or it is spin. I don’t really care which.

    • Hami Shearlie 40.5
      26 September 2014 at 10:24 pm

      Added to that we have had a caucus member/s leaking the details of the long caucus meeting to the media via Gower and Dann – that is the type of member/s we can do without – Wonder who that was – Mallard, Cosgrove, Nash or ??? I have a very dim view of that.

  41. weka 41
    26 September 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Morgan Godfery ‏@MorganGodfery 18 mins
    In 2011 support for marriage equality was higher among Maori/Pasifika people than among Pakeha. We’re not homophobes http://www.researchnz.com/pdf/Media%20Releases/RNZ%20Media%20Release%20-%202011-07-12%20Same%20sex%20marriages.pdf …

    So cut out that talk about Labour losing South Auckland under Grant (code for don’t piss off brown homophobes). Actually worry about Pakeha.

    Who has always pushed back against those movements and supported the status quo (i.e. inequality)? Mainly middle class Pakeha society.

    I mean, this is genuinely infuriating, who has anchored the socially progressive movements in this country for a century? Maori and Pasifika

    The assumption that South Auckland is homophobic has disturbing racial undertones. We’re more progressive than white people ffs.

    It was Louisa Wall – the MP for South Auckland’s *Manurewa* – who passed the marriage equality bill. She’s also a lesbian – and Maori.

    https://twitter.com/MorganGodfery/status/515396361408098304

  42. weka 42
    26 September 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Meanwhile, across teh ditch,

    Russell Brown ‏@publicaddress 5 mins

    Terror laws clear Senate, enabling entire Australian web to be monitored and whistleblowers to be jailed

    http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/terror-laws-clear-senate-enabling-entire-australian-web-to-be-monitored-and-whistleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140926-10m8ih.html … via @smh

    • Draco T Bastard 42.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:23 pm

      Give Key and National a few months and they’ll do the same.

      • adam 42.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 8:53 pm

        As there has been no terror here, the only target is working people.

        Actually on that note – I’ve been trying to think of non-violent ways to shut down a petrol station.

        I mean apart from the obvious, cover it in bodies, banners and the like. But I’ve been trying to think of creative ways to shut down a petrol station and stop people from buying from them, because it’s well – shut down.

        Think people, be creative – and non-violent. Let me stress again, nonviolence is the only option!

        • weka 42.1.1.1
          26 September 2014 at 9:12 pm

          That’s very interestin adam. I’ve been enjoying your input on ts btw, I like watching your ideas and responses. Makes me feel better about the potentials for doing something too.

          • adam 42.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2014 at 9:52 pm

            Thanks Weka,. Sometimes my grammar leaves a lot to be desired though.

            I feel good about the left, I really do – yes there are problems and yes a lot of soul searching is going on. Especially for those who have put their body and soul into labour party. They should not ever feel deserted by the left – the reality is, they are good people and in the case of many who write here – excellent people!

            It’s just the case, as a society, we have walk slowly into a corporatocracy. We can fight it – it won’t be simple and god knows there will be days. But remember nonviolence people, it’s the only way to fight our wacked out elites.

            • Colonial Viper 42.1.1.1.1.1
              27 September 2014 at 2:58 am

              Nonviolence and transparency. What we see happening in the US (eg Ferguson), Australia (false flag terrorism exercise run a week before extreme anti-democratic legislation is pushed through), UK (police forces buying water cannon to use against their own citizens) , Canada (rights of indigenous people utterly abrogated in favour of tar sands miners) is filtering into NZ.

              As a purely academic exercise in peaceful civil resistance. Petrol stations are complex systems i.e. requiring multiple interlocking interdependent subsystems to function properly in order for the entire system to function properly. Any such complex system has multiple modes of failure.

              For instance: a petrol station with an EFTPOS terminal which relies on broadband access becomes highly impaired in its operations if it loses its internet connection.

              Virtually all petrol pumps require electrical power to operate. A petrol station might have GJ of energy stored underneath it in tanks – but no way of delivering fuel to vehicles if it loses electrical power.

              Regulatory compliance. Petrol stations cannot legally operate if they do not meet multiple routine safety regulations and audits.

              ETC

      • weka 42.1.2
        26 September 2014 at 9:11 pm

        I think they will be more subtle here, esp because as adam points out, we have no overt terrorism.

  43. Clemgeopin 43
    26 September 2014 at 9:36 pm

    Drawing the poison
    Posted on 26th Sep, 2014 by Puddleglum

    Interesting article about the current Labour leadership issue:

    http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/drawing-the-poison/?replytocom=29346#respond

    • weka 43.1
      26 September 2014 at 11:40 pm

      thanks, that’s very good. The problems within Labour are structural

      • Clemgeopin 43.1.1
        26 September 2014 at 11:45 pm

        ” The problems within Labour are structural”

        May be, but Labour is still the very best party there is overall. I have no doubt about that. Sadly, the voters haven’t recognised that at this election.

        • Colonial Viper 43.1.1.1
          27 September 2014 at 3:02 am

          May be, but Labour is still the very best party there is overall. I have no doubt about that. Sadly, the voters haven’t recognised that at this election.

          Voters (and more properly, non-voters) have correctly recognised the current state, disposition and performance of the Labour Party.