Open mike 25/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, November 25th, 2014 - 221 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

greed-is-goodOpen mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

221 comments on “Open mike 25/11/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. AsleepWhileWalking 1
    25 November 2014 at 6:58 am

    The Law Commission is given another chance now that Collins is no longer around to dismiss their recommendations
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63498551/Sex-victim-reforms-back-on-table

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      25 November 2014 at 11:58 am

      So, National are now doing exactly what Labour said it would do.

      Where’s the attack lines about dropping the presumption of innocence?

  2. North 2
    25 November 2014 at 7:03 am

    Guyon Espiner interviewing Russel Norman RNZ Morning Report 6.42 this morning – tetchy-like conflating by Espiner of yesterday’s leak of the guts of the Gwyn Report with the Report’s apparent finding that the Prime Minister’s Office used the SIS to damage political opponent Goff.

    Excellent devil’s advocacy Guyon, or failed facile distraction Guyon. Whichever it is Norman made hay. The Prime Minister’s Office (TODAY’S definition of that term please?) used the SIS for perceived political gain.

    On a day when it is sought to extend the powers of the very agency commandeered by the Prime Minister’s Office (TODAY’S definition of that term please?) for perceived political gain.

    What has happened to New Zealand ?

    • North 2.1
      25 November 2014 at 7:20 am

      Ha ! – 7.12 am Suzie Ferguson Morning Report with Nicky Hager…….in her singularly obtuse way seems she too is picking up the ball of – “A leak….a leak…..Oh My God how frightening……give me answers” – (my paraphrase).

      This is not the devil’s advocacy – it’s a framing designed to distract. Who commanded that ? Who said “this is the way we spin it……” ?

      • Paul 2.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 7:32 am

        Unbelievable.
        The abject failure of NZ media.

      • Olwyn 2.1.2
        25 November 2014 at 7:39 am

        They almost certainly don’t need commands as to how to spin it. The imperative to retain access to the warm, cosy inner circle goes without saying, the question is then about how to frame things accordingly.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.3
        25 November 2014 at 10:23 am

        Notice how the narrative would change if the leak was ‘TO THEM ONLY’

        “we can reveal that……”

        • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.3.1
          25 November 2014 at 11:00 am

          moderation seems to be delaying ordinary items again.
          Normally I dont mention it, but could be because of high level bugging from NSA, you know because they can.

          • Anne 2.1.3.1.1
            25 November 2014 at 11:10 am

            Linking to TS and individual posts and comments is also frustratingly slow. It started yesterday…

            [r0b: lprent is working on it as and when he has time…]

      • Tracey 2.1.4
        25 November 2014 at 2:04 pm

        Given it was leaked yesterday why does the media only notice it today? Advanced knowledge of Keys squeals of labour leaked it?

  3. amiriterawshark 3
    25 November 2014 at 7:07 am

    In the aftermath of what’s come out on SIS and PM’s office manipulating information with intent to smear a opposition politician, Labour should vote against the new anti terror laws that this Govt wants to push through under urgency, because it will be abused to spy on ordinary citizens and used to smear political opponents.

    • Skinny 3.1
      25 November 2014 at 9:33 am

      Key was very nervous during the election, until Dotcom left him off the hook. The behavior between our spy agency and the ruling Govt is gross misconduct. Key has now been proven to have abused his power and must now face the music.

      Let’s be clear what has happened here in akin to cold war type spying and propaganda. We should be marching on parliament calling for his (head) resignation.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 12:28 pm

        Can’t recall KDC leaving Key “off the hook”. In fact, I seem to recall the revelations that KDC made very public.

    • Colonial Rawshark 3.2
      25 November 2014 at 12:17 pm

      Labour should vote against the new anti terror laws that this Govt wants to push through under urgency, because it will be abused to spy on ordinary citizens and used to smear political opponents.

      Labor in Australia had no issue supporting Tony Abbott in pushing through new empowering surveillance and terror legislation. Makes you wonder doesn’t it.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        25 November 2014 at 12:30 pm

        I stopped wondering some time ago – the old Labour parties around the world are part of the status quo that we need to change but we won’t get that needed change from those parties.

    • Murray Rawshark 3.3
      25 November 2014 at 6:54 pm

      Labour would vote against them anyway, except that they no longer deserve to call themselves Labour. The laws are bad, and unnecessary.

  4. Jrobin 4
    25 November 2014 at 7:11 am

    Dirty Politics fallout perfect setting to show the contrast between Labour’s new leader and Key. The honest straight shooter versus the slippery striptease artist.

    • phillip ure 4.1
      25 November 2014 at 8:21 am

      @ jobin..

      “..The honest straight shooter versus the slippery striptease artist..”

      that pretty much summarises why little will beat key in ’17…

      ..(labour could adopt it as a major theme of their ’17 campaign..)

      • adam 4.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 9:27 am

        Just keep calling him Honest John.

        Every time he says anything the left and the whole left, should respond by calling him Honest John, no sarcasm, no spinning it, nothing, just delivered plain and flat day in and day out for the next 3 years.

  5. Dont worry. Be happy 5
    25 November 2014 at 7:16 am

    Morning Report went with the leak that Key was conspiring with the SIS to win an election…..by attacking the obvious target, the leader of the Green Party…..not kidding….over the morality of leaks.

    They then “ran out of time”. Indeed. The MSM media have long run out of things….ethics, courage, mana, relevance. Not sure if they have gone back to this “item” which looks suspiciously like a consitutional crisis in any democracy….hurled radio across room.

  7. sabine 7
    25 November 2014 at 7:24 am

    Dear Leader and Dear wannabe Leader English misspoke when they announced a surplus. It instead is going to be a small deficit. A very very small deficit, so small that it could be mistaken for a surplus.
    Math, who is still doing it?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11363728

    also too, As long as dear Leader has a 100 million + for a Flag referendum and pretty brightly colored currency he has his legacy sorted.
    Priorities, Dear.Leader.has.them.

  8. Whateva next? 8
    25 November 2014 at 7:26 am

    Morning report TRYING to swing the narrative saying the “leak” of the IGIS report “dirty politics” …are you avin a laff?

    • Paul 8.1
      25 November 2014 at 7:31 am

      Yes they keep going on about it. Someone is writing their scripts. 4th reference to this terrible leak as Andrew Little is asked if he knows about it. Someone needs to challenge these media charlatans about their narrative.
      A leak a few hours before the release of a document that is already coming out or using the spy agencies to attack and smear your political opponents.

      Which is more important Radio New Zealand?

      Does anyone esle find Suzie Ferguson to be the most shallow of interviewers?
      Always trying to trip up…

    • ghostwhowalksnz 8.2
      25 November 2014 at 9:40 am

      Thats the same line that is appearing in Slater as well.
      Goff leaked SIS report, Slater leaked Goff briefing. Nothing to see here.

      You can tell Key has been busy yesterday afternoon. Somehow the secret briefing to Goff , which is misrepresented, is all the same as a peek ahead of an embargo of an official investigation.

      As usual the Key and his office hides his fingerprints over their background work on opinion leaders.

  9. Jenny Kirk 9
    25 November 2014 at 8:08 am

    Sorry to break into this thread – its fascinating what’s starting to come out … and some in the media are finally starting to do their jobs properly!

    But I have an urgent request to make of Standard Posters. Thanks.

    The deadline for getting basic submissions into the Env.Protection Agency is Thurs 27 Nov – to object to a multi-national bringing in yet another pesticide which will further harm BEES. Bees are hugely important to our eco-system, and are already being threatened with varooa and other factors. So its important to try and get as many submissions in as possible. They need only be brief. Extra information is below the first link:

    Submissions close on November 27. NO time to waste ….. please send in a basic submission opposing this application

    Bayer/Syngenta are trying to apply for a licence to import a pesticide that has been banned in the EU and is linked to millions of bee deaths… If we send in enough submissions objecting to this, we have a chance to stop them.

    Links:

    http://www.epa.govt.nz/…/Submissions-sought-on-Poncho-Votiv…

    http://www.epa.govt.nz/…/APP202077_APP202077_Application_Fo…

    http://agri.eu/bayer-and-syngenta-are-suing-eu-on-pesticide…

    • cricklewood 9.1
      25 November 2014 at 8:24 am

      Hi Jenny, just want to preface this by saying I think all neo insectides should be banned in nz…
      But Poncho is already widely used in nz and the product they are trying to now import is of lower concentration and contains bacillus which is a beneficial fungus that has much promise in terms of an organic pest and disease control.
      It seems to me that this product is an improvement on current practice and in the absence of any movement towards banning this chemical group entirely blocking this product will be counter productive.

      • Jenny Kirk 9.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 4:42 pm

        Taken a while for me to get back to you Cricklewood – but I don’t think NZ should rely on Bayer’s statements that Poncho Votivo is going to be better than just using ordinary Poncho as they have been doing up to now.

        Bayer’s credibility on this has been questioned in the UK. See comment in Wikipedia about it.

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

        ” Following on the release of the EFSA report in January 2013, the UK Parliament has asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence they have submitted to an investigation.[49] ”

        And it seems fairly obvious from other information on the same Wikipedia site that this is fairly new science, and needs further investigation. NZ is too often used as an “experiment” for such things – to the detriment of our eco-systems.

        ” ….. In 2012, several peer reviewed independent studies were published showing that neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, had previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen, and nectar; that sub-nanogram toxicity resulted in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality, the primary symptom of colony collapse disorder; and showing environmental persistence in agricultural irrigation channels and soil.

        “These reports prompted a formal peer review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which stated in January 2013 that neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies’ claims of safety have relied on may be flawed and contain several data gaps not previously considered. Their review concluded, “A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. ……… ”

    • Draco T Bastard 9.2
      25 November 2014 at 1:06 pm

      Your links don’t work as you haven’t copied the entire links. You’ve copied the shortened ones that are used for display purposes.

  10. Jenny Kirk 10
    25 November 2014 at 8:19 am

    apologies re bold above in my request for submissions against Poncho Votivo – meant only to have one line bold – to draw it to your attention.

    [karol: fixed]

    • Clemgeopin 10.1
      25 November 2014 at 9:31 am

      @Jenny and @Cricklewood.

      Contradictory posts there! Confusing!…..Made me think of Hamlet…’To be or not to be’!

  11. Penny Bright 11
    25 November 2014 at 9:38 am

    Let’s look at the underpinning LAW covering the role role of the SIS (and the Prime Minister?) on this now. about to be proven case of VERY ‘Dirty Politics’:

    New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1969/0024/latest/DLM391813.html

    4AA Political neutrality of New Zealand Security Intelligence Service

    (1)The Director must take all reasonable steps to ensure that—

    (a) the activities of the Security Intelligence Service are limited to those that are relevant to the discharge of its functions:

    (b ) the Security Intelligence Service is kept free from any influence or consideration that is not relevant to its functions:

    (c) the Security Intelligence Service does not take any action for the purpose of furthering or harming the interests of any political party.

    (2) The Minister may not direct the Security Intelligence Service to institute the surveillance of any person or entity or any class of person or entity within New Zealand.

    (3) The Director must consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of keeping him or her informed about matters relating to security.

    (4)Subsection (2) prevails over section 4(1).

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Haven’t yet been able to find the section which covers ‘Offences’ and ‘Penalties’ if this above-mentioned LAW has been breached ….

    Not sure either, to whom to make a complaint – but I’m sure I’ll find out …..

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption whistle-blower / Public Watchdog’

  12. phillip ure 12
    25 November 2014 at 10:13 am

    i am actually quite looking forward to doing my commentary on questiontime this afternoon..

    ..and i don’t recall feeling that much before…

  13. tricledrown 13
    25 November 2014 at 10:45 am

    The illegal recording of Phil Goffs breifing backfires on the SIS,s WarrenTicker John Key and his Office and Cameron Slater.
    Goff should go to the Police!
    Afterall Slater has managed to have the Police search Nicky Hagers private property!

    • alwyn 13.1
      25 November 2014 at 11:49 am

      What is this “The illegal recording of Phil Goffs breifing” you are talking about?

      • tricledrown 13.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 12:00 pm

        Mentioned on 9 to noon this morning that the SIS were secretly recording Warren Tuckers breifing to Phil Goff.
        No warrant was sought if their was Key has more questions to answer.

        • Colonial Rawshark 13.1.1.1
          25 November 2014 at 12:15 pm

          Sheeezus having a crew in the SIS illegally, unaccountably and covertly surveil Opposition political leaders for purposes unknown.

          It’s all fucking down hill for our democracy.

  14. johnm 14
    25 November 2014 at 10:58 am

    “Free” markets radically restrict choices to individual consumption…exaggerating the most negative aspects of human potentiality. It turns you into someone who is dedicated to maximizing individual gain without social concern… creates a sociopathic society and is completely unsustainable:

  15. Weepus beard 15
    25 November 2014 at 11:28 am

    “I have received an unreserved apology from the NZSIS for providing incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information to my office.

    “I’m aware that current NZSIS Director Rebecca Kitteridge has also apologised to Phil Goff, which is appropriate.

    – John Key

    John Key gets the SIS to apologise to him too, conveniently diluting the spectre of any further criticism and framing him as just as much of a victim in all this as Phil Goff, in fact more so since he adds Kitteridge’s official apology to Goff as an afterthought to his own apology.

    Staggering.

  16. Weepus beard 16
    25 November 2014 at 11:36 am

    Comments go to moderation after an edit. What’s up?

    Edit: All my comments now going to moderation. Have I done something wrong?

    [r0b: No not you, a database glitch is causing random problems – many are affected – we’re trying to keep clearing the queue]

    • lprent 16.1
      25 November 2014 at 12:02 pm

      As r0b said it is a problem in the db. Probably caused by some recent ‘upgrades’ causing a deadlock clash.

      I spent way too many hours last night just sorting out what the problem is. It turns out to be a deadlock clash on a particular record in the options table. Hopefully some of the changes I have put in will prevent the outright death of the site as happened yesterday morning. But I’m unsure of which modules are triggering the clash. It has probably been there since last week, but required an increase in traffic for it to become apparent.

      During this evening, I will be searching for the problem module I will be turning off modules one at a time, then seeing if the issue shows up.

      It is complicated in that it only happens semi-randomly and only on the working system. I need a sufficient number of comments happening at the same time to see it, and I will need to be in position to read the error logs to see if what I am doing is working. In other words I have to be at home rather than work.

      This evening…

      • The Al1en 16.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 12:17 pm

        And I thought I had dramas with a cpu fan alert on this mornings boot up.
        Sure sounds like it won’t be, but hope the fix is as quick as my 30 seconds connector re-seat.

  17. weka 17
    25 November 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Re welfare payments and voter enrollment, has anyone heard anything about this other than what’s below? I’m hoping that Labour are being quoted out of context rather than this being a true reflection of their furthering bene bashing and stigmatisation of an underclass of people. Also looks like there is a racism element.

    Anyone got futher info on the judge’s review into Te Tai Tokerau?

    Welfare payments could hinge on enrolling to vote, if the Labour Party gets its way.

    It says New Zealand should follow other countries and make enrolment a pre-condition of state support – like benefits or state housing.

    Labour’s made the suggestion in its submission to a judge’s review of voter enrolment and turnout issues in Te Tai Tokerau.

    Party general secretary Tim Barnett also believes people aren’t enrolling to avoid their address becoming publicly available – including to debt collectors.

    He says more people should be able to join the private electoral roll.

    https://nz.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/25591287/no-welfare-without-enrolling-to-vote-labour/

    • The Al1en 17.1
      25 November 2014 at 12:14 pm

      First I’ve heard about it, but on principal, I’m not really opposed. One have to have an ird number among other requisites to get state assistance, so enrolling to vote doesn’t mean much in the big scheme of things. The right to not vote isn’t hindered, so no big deal is my gut reaction.
      Of course if getting payments from winz or ird IS reliant on actually voting, then that’s a different matter entirely and one I’d rally against.

    • Te Reo Putake 17.2
      25 November 2014 at 12:33 pm

      Sounds like an excellent idea. Beneficiaries are the most disenfranchised sector of our society and a group that has so much to gain from the political process, so anything that gets them involved has to be welcomed.

      • weka 17.2.1
        25 November 2014 at 12:44 pm

        The way I read it, if you’re not enrolled you can’t access welfare. Or if you are already on welfare and you don’t enroll, then WINZ would stop payments. Given that WINZ have a very long history under Labour and National govts of treating beneficiaries like shit, to me this looks like it will yet again marginalise and penalise the most vulnerable people.

        If Labour wants to get better enrollment, use a carrot not a stick.

      • b waghorn 17.2.2
        25 November 2014 at 12:46 pm

        As they enrol they could offer some free political ed courses to cover why we should vote and how MMP works.

        • Draco T Bastard 17.2.2.1
          25 November 2014 at 3:33 pm

          They should probably make that a compulsory part of their 13 week How To Get A Job courses.

      • Karen 17.2.3
        25 November 2014 at 12:48 pm

        I think it is an absolutely appalling idea that would further demonize beneficiaries. Why should people who need state assistance by forced to enroll? Encouraged, as in having the forms available and getting them completed if the person agrees would be okay , but I really object to making it a requirement of receiving help.

        • Te Reo Putake 17.2.3.1
          25 November 2014 at 12:59 pm

          Well, change the law then, Karen. It is a legal requirement to be enrolled. If a person wants state assistance, why shouldn’t they be required to follow one of the most basic rules of being a kiwi?

          • weka 17.2.3.1.1
            25 November 2014 at 1:07 pm

            That’s not the issue at all TRP. It’s whether one sector of society should be punished if they don’t enroll (and an already badly marginalised sector at that).

            If you want to force people to enroll, do it across the whole population not just beneficiaries.

            “If a person wants state assistance,”

            Would you include students, pensioners, public servants etc too then?

            • Colonial Viper 17.2.3.1.1.1
              25 November 2014 at 1:59 pm

              And this is how Labour goes down the track of making ACC claimants, beneficiaries, etc jump more and more hoops, just to stay still.

            • Tracey 17.2.3.1.1.2
              25 November 2014 at 2:10 pm

              And dock a fine from wages through IRD for everyone who didnt enrol or vote… Simple integration of ird and electoral data…

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 November 2014 at 4:11 pm

                Integrating IRD and electoral data…in this age of big brother surveillance, what could go wrong!

                • Tracey …
                  25 November 2014 at 4:22 pm

                  I agree. Merely pointing out Labour isnt making a point of punishing this group for not enrolling, when they could. Ergo a deliberate choose to focus on beneficiaries. I struggle with how Wekas point has been taken by many here.

            • greywarshark 17.2.3.1.1.3
              25 November 2014 at 3:12 pm

              is getting r and d state assistance? Science grant? Depreciation write off?
              Special new laws that say everybody has to work any hour required for someone marginally different, and called an employer. Arts and sport charity tax writeoff? Should be for those aiding the poorest!

            • Draco T Bastard 17.2.3.1.1.4
              25 November 2014 at 3:41 pm

              If you want to force people to enroll, do it across the whole population not just beneficiaries.

              Essentially, we already do. If you’re not enrolled and the Electoral Commission knows your address you will be told to enroll on pain of being fined. I don’t know if they actually fine people as I always enroll but I have received their threats.

        • weka 17.2.3.2
          25 November 2014 at 1:54 pm

          “Encouraged, as in having the forms available and getting them completed if the person agrees would be okay , but I really object to making it a requirement of receiving help.”

          Thanks for getting the point Karen.

        • Draco T Bastard 17.2.3.3
          25 November 2014 at 3:36 pm

          Why should people who need state assistance by forced to enroll?

          You do understand that it’s already compulsory to be enrolled don’t you?

          • weka 17.2.3.3.1
            25 November 2014 at 5:52 pm

            of course. But some people here are failing to see the difference between the existing situation and what Labour are supposedly proposing. The existing situation targets all NZers who come into contact with the electoral commission*. There is no targeting by class. Labour are suggesting an additional scheme that specifically targets a class of people with threat of additional penalities. I’m really surprised to have to be explaining this tbh.

            *I seem to remember things like change of address forms at the PO triggered this, don’t know if they still do.

          • Murray Rawshark 17.2.3.3.2
            25 November 2014 at 7:32 pm

            So what? WINZ is not a law enforcement agency. They’re supposedly there to help people, but Labour once again sees a chance to bash the disenfranchised of our society.

            • Te Reo Putake 17.2.3.3.2.1
              25 November 2014 at 7:44 pm

              Yes, Murray. “Bash them” by making them do something they have to do by law and takes all of 5 minutes. Oh, the humanity.

              • Murray Rawshark …
                25 November 2014 at 8:01 pm

                What is your ACT membership number? You should be “sense of entitlement” spokesperson and take a bit of the load off Seymour.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  25 November 2014 at 8:16 pm

                  Hilarious. Keep fighting to keep the poor down where you think they belong, Murray. You’re doing great work, even though it must be hard to see through the ragged little eyeholes in your white sheet.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    25 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

                    TRP – you are using the classic dirty politics framing of “you Lefties WANT the poor to STAY POOR for your own ends”

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 9:18 pm

                      Er, nope. Interesting perspective, though, CV and you’ve made me stop and think for a moment or two.

                      It’s been a weird thread in a lot of ways. Most people commenting clearly want to be on the side of the beneficiaries, but a few seem to think filling out a form is beyond them. It’s the condescending from the likes of our xenophobic friend Murray that I’m finding hard to take. This came from the judicial review into Te Tai Tokerau. It’s the poor and the young in Te Tai Tokerau that aren’t on the roll. Think how that disenfranchisement effected mana, for example. If this was already policy, Hone might still be an MP.

                      Enrolling is a civic duty. It’s not too much to ask that when people ask for support from the state, that the state asks them to fulfill a minor, but important, clerical matter. It’s easy to do, and a one time thing. It’s a practical matter, as well. How else do you get to these people? Go round knocking on doors? Another naff yoof video? If the non-enrolled are coming to WINZ to apply for a benefit or whatever, then they are right there and available to fill out the form. It’s just not a biggie in practical terms, but it does seem to be part of the social compact between citizen and country.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 9:45 pm

                      TRP, you generally have interesting perspectives that you bring to ts, irrespective of whether I agree with them or not. But in this case you are just being an ignorant, entitled prick who obviously has no clues about how WINZ operates on a day to day basis, nor how increasing prejudices against beneficiaries are impacting both individuals and the culture as a whole.

                      “Most people commenting clearly want to be on the side of the beneficiaries, but a few seem to think filling out a form is beyond them.”

                      You said going online or going to the PO. Some people can’t access those things easily. It’s already difficult to get on a benefit, not because people aren’t trying to access entitlements, but because WINZ excels at putting barriers in the way.

                      Telling people that they now have to go to the PO can make that much harder. I’ve lived in places where there is no PO and no WINZ office. Some beneficiaries or people in need of a benefit don’t have cars, or are too ill to travel, or too socially isolated to get a ride. Some struggle with paper work, or having the right ID. There will be issues around ‘case managers’ being arseholes and using this new hoopjumping in mean and puntive ways.

                      In many cases that extra requirement that you think is easy peasy will mean the difference between the person getting the benefit this week or not getting it until next week or the week after, or sometime down the track. For people under the poverty line that can be catastrophic, either they don’t have enough food for that time, or they have to cancel an urgently needed doctors visit for themselves or their child, or their phone gets cut off because the telco are arseholes too.

                      I’m not making this shit up, it already happens all the time and you want to give WINZ another stick with which to either beat or trip up people.

                      I don’t believe you don’t care, so I assume you are incredibly naive about WINZ actually works. As I said upthread, it might be different if Labour could bring themselves to even mention fixing the clusterfuck that WINZ is. But then all they have to do in this instance is do what Little has suggested instead of what you are suggesting ie have the forms there to be used on a voluntary and supported basis.

                      “How else do you get to these people?”

                      “these people” Seriously?

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 9:48 pm

                      Part 2,

                      “It’s just not a biggie in practical terms, but it does seem to be part of the social compact between citizen and country.”

                      Right, so target all citizens. But you’re not suggesting that, why is that?

                      Instead you are suggesting that the govt target a distinct class of people. This class is already subjected to heavy duty prejudice from many in NZ, so any furthering of separating this class from everyone else will just reinforce the prejudice. I’m guessing that you fail to appreciate how much of a problem this is.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:02 pm

                      There is nothing condescending or xenophobic in what I have said. I don’t know where you keep your head, but if it was in a place not too dark, you might have some idea how WINZ treats people. Giving them extra powers to cut people’s income is ridiculous.

                      I’m glad you find what I say hard to take, because you are out of touch with reality here.

                    • RedLogix …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:03 pm

                      Nah – I agree with TRP.

                      If you are in the WINZ office looking state assistance – it’s not onerous to be filling out a simple form at the same time. And no-one is suggesting that WINZ could withhold any benefit because you’re missing ID or some detail necessary to enroll.

                      FFS – beneficiaries are grown ups, not children who are all rights and no responsibilities.

                      It this sort of stupid, stupid line that just fucks off the majority of New Zealanders.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:30 pm

                      Sorry Red, but you have no idea how WINZ actually functions.

                      If the govt sets policy that receiving a benefit entitlement is dependent on voter enrollment, then it can be guaranteed that some ‘case managers’ will use that to deny people entitlements. This kind of thing happens all the time already. It won’t matter if there is a memo saying it’s ok to grant leeway for wrong ID etc, some WINZ staffers will still deny entitlements.

                      There is a lot of discretion in WINZ on how to enact policy, which is why you get such huge discrepancies from office to office or area to area on how beneficiaries get treated, or entitlements get given.

                      There is no problem with providing forms for people to be encouraged to fill in, but as soon as you tie it to entitlements there will be abuse by staff and people falling through the cracks because the system is so fucked up. All for what? You think people forced to enrol on pain of loss of income are actually going to be incentivised to vote? For the govt that just treated them like shit? Really?

                      If you want to change voting culture in NZ, then patronising, damaging policy from govt is not the way to do it.

                    • RedLogix …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:45 pm

                      If the govt sets policy that receiving a benefit entitlement is dependent on voter enrollment,

                      Not being suggested.

                      Yeah WINZ can be a pack of basterds – but that’s a separate matter.

                      And others have also made the excellent suggestion that every time anyone interacts with a government dept there should be an expectation that an enrollment is either confirmed or completed.

                      We need to start taking democracy a lot more seriously in this country. Australia gets along just fine with compulsory voting.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:45 pm

                      Oh, bollocks, weka. If they are applying for a benefit, then they are already filling out forms somehow, whether in person or online. So it’s no biggie to do the enrolment at the same time. You haven’t thought that one through at all.

                      And all citizens are targetted. Have you forgotten that already? It’s the law, d’oh! This is about access to a group of people who are not on the roll. It’s about the practical aspects of getting them on the roll when they are already in the process of interacting with the state.

                      btw, you might be very, very surprised about my circumstances and my current relationship with the welfare system. I’m entitled, but not in the way you seem to think!

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:53 pm

                      “If the govt sets policy that receiving a benefit entitlement is dependent on voter enrollment,”

                      “Not being suggested.”

                      Except this is exactly what this conversation is about – whether Labour (or Tim Barnett) suggested that benefits be dependent on voter enrollment. Plus, if you think that’s not true then why did you make the proviso that wrong ID would exempt someone?

                      IF you want to have a conversation about how to encourage or enable beneficiaries to enrol to vote, that’s an entirely different conversation, as has been made bloodly clear on a number of occasions. Stop muddying the waters.

                      “Yeah WINZ can be a pack of basterds – but that’s a separate matter.”

                      No, it’s not. Because if Labour were to suggesting benefits being dependent on enrolment, then that’s being suggested by a party that so far refuses to even talk about how to fix WINZ let alone develop policy, so for all intents and purposes any proposal would be enacted by WINZ as it is now.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:58 pm

                      “If they are applying for a benefit, then they are already filling out forms somehow, whether in person or online. So it’s no biggie to do the enrolment at the same time. You haven’t thought that one through at all.”

                      Mate, you’re the one that thought it was about a trip to the post office. Make up your mind and tell me what you’ve thought through. The look at the real life examples that Murray and I have given and tell me what you’ve thought through about those scenarios.

                      “And all citizens are targetted. Have you forgotten that already? It’s the law, d’oh!”

                      That’s already been addressed at least twice in this conversation. Are you not actually reading what people say? All citizens are NOT being targeted in the way we’re discussing, that’s the whole bloody point of the original comment.

                      “This is about access to a group of people who are not on the roll. It’s about the practical aspects of getting them on the roll when they are already in the process of interacting with the state.”

                      Fine, so make it voluntary then, no problem.

                      “btw, you might be very, very surprised about my circumstances and my current relationship with the welfare system. I’m entitled, but not in the way you seem to think!”

                      I can only go on what I see here, which quite frankly has come as across appallingly in the past half day.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 November 2014 at 12:07 am

                      If the govt sets policy that receiving a benefit entitlement is dependent on voter enrollment, then it can be guaranteed that some ‘case managers’ will use that to deny people entitlements.

                      No they can’t. When they apply for a benefit and the case manager finds that they’re not enrolled they then have a requirement to go through the form with the applicant making them enrolled at the same time as the application goes through. The ones already on the benefit get a notice through the mail that they have to sign and send to the Electoral Commission.

                      Another option is to make it so that anyone on a benefit is automatically enrolled but this could be tricky with those few who engage in fraud.

                      Fine, so make it voluntary then, no problem.

                      Why? It’s not a voluntary act – people actually have to be enrolled.

      • weka 17.2.4
        25 November 2014 at 1:04 pm

        “Beneficiaries are the most disenfranchised sector of our society and a group that has so much to gain from the political process, so anything that gets them involved has to be welcomed.”

        Actually no. Beneficiaries under both Labour and National govts for the past 25 years have been increasingly worse off. Treating them like a special caste in NZ whereby they are penalised for not enrolling is completely the wrong way to go about engaging them in the political process in ways that will help them. It just reinforces that the govt (left or right) thinks that they have less value than everyone else.

        • Te Reo Putake 17.2.4.1
          25 November 2014 at 1:17 pm

          Actually, yes. They have the most to gain from the political process if they participate, precisely because they have got so little from it in recent years. As the old saying goes, if you don’t vote, don’t complain. Your support for keeping beneficiaries disenfranchised is puzzling, weka. One of those rare occasions where you and the right agree?

          • weka 17.2.4.1.1
            25 November 2014 at 1:49 pm

            You’re not listenting TRP, and you are missing the point of the thread. I completely support the govt enabling beneficiaries to enrol. I don’t in any way support a scheme whereby they would be penalised for not enrolling. This is because (a) many are already too vulnerable to not fall through the cracks, and (b) it further stigmatises beneficiaries in a state that already treats them as an underclass and uses legislation and policy to reinforce this.

            I”m puzzled why you would support that.

            I’m also puzzled as to why you support welfare assistance having increasing conditions beyond need. That’s Paula Bennett’s line.

            You see the scheme and think increased beneficiaries on the roll. I see the scheme and see the people who will end up fucked over by the system, how that will both increase feelings of powerlessness amongst beneficiaries and feelings of antagonism amongst bashers.

            • Te Reo Putake 17.2.4.1.1.1
              25 November 2014 at 2:55 pm

              Giving people money is not a penalty, it’s an incentive.

              • weka …
                25 November 2014 at 5:54 pm

                Labour aren’t proposing to give people $ for enrolling, wtf are you talking about?

                I am curious to see if you will continue to run this line of benefits being a gift rather than something that all NZers are entitled to, esp because of the irony of you comparing my position to that of a right wingers.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  25 November 2014 at 6:44 pm

                  “Labour aren’t proposing to give people $ for enrolling, wtf are you talking about?”

                  Did you not read your own comment and link?

                  “I am curious to see if you will continue to run this line of benefits being a gift ”

                  Never said that. Are you Phil Ure in disguise?

                  • weka …
                    25 November 2014 at 7:49 pm

                    Can’t back up your argument so resorting to ad hominems? 🙄 Plus phil ones at that, how ironic.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 8:31 pm

                      That’s not an ad hom, it’s pointing out that you did to me what Phil did to you yesterday. Don’t make shit up, weka, you’re much, much better than that.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 9:00 pm

                      Bullshit. If you’re not running the line that benefits are a gift in return for enrolling, then just clarify.

                      I’ve been extremely clear on what I am talking about and the issues I’ve brought up. You still aren’t getting it.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 9:55 pm

                      OK, I’ll clarify: You’re running a strawman argument, claiming something I never said. Got it now?

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:19 pm

                      No, and that’s just disingenuous debating. Quote what I said and correct it. I don’t know what you are referring to. And by correct it, I don’t mean another smart arse version of ‘you’re wrong’, I mean add something to the understanding in this conversation.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 10:49 pm

                      Ok, to further clarify:

                      “I am curious to see if you will continue to run this line of benefits being a gift”

                      Never said it and don’t believe it to be true.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 11:00 pm

                      no, I mean go back to the thing I was referring to and clarify why you didn’t mean what I interpreted it as. I already know you disagree with me, I don’t know why or what you originally meant.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 11:20 pm

                      I’m not sure what part of my explanation that I don’t think benefits are a gift you aren’t getting. I didn’t say they were, but you said I did say it. Hence my reference to a strawman argument. I didn’t say, it but you attacked me for saying it.

                      Anyway, this is getting pretty circular and the long suffering LP is about to spend the rest of the evening rejigging the site, so probably time to move on. It’ll be interesting to see tomorrow whether this issue is the first crack at Andrew Little from the dirty politics team at Nat HQ. That’s probably the bigger picture.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 11:31 pm

                      Ok, I’ll explain tomorrow and hopefully you can then clarify what you actually meant.

                      I’m curious what will happen with McQuillan’s Little vs Tim Barnett thing, and what the actual source of all this is.

                      Little has handled it well, here and on twitter. He’s building trust that’s been missing for a long time.

          • Tracey 17.2.4.1.2
            25 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

            Actually its you and the right who are in agreement. Take a vulnerable section of society seeking help and treat them very differently from everyone else.

            • Te Reo Putake 17.2.4.1.2.1
              25 November 2014 at 2:59 pm

              It’s treating them the same as everyone else, Tracey. It’s a legal requirement to be enrolled.

              • Tracey …
                25 November 2014 at 3:13 pm

                You are being deliberately obtuse.

                No one else has their income threatened if they dont enrol.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  25 November 2014 at 4:00 pm

                  Wrong, Tracey. If you don’t enrol, your income can be garnished to pay the fine.

                  • weka …
                    25 November 2014 at 4:08 pm

                    Still being obtuse. All earning people can have their pay garnered. You support and extra, much more likely penalty for one class of people. A vulnerable class at that.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      25 November 2014 at 4:19 pm

                      Actually, it’s a much less likely penalty as it can all be done, including the enrollment and automatically putting people on the private list, when you apply for state assistance.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 5:59 pm

                      Still missing the point. The most vulnerable will be those who fall through the cracks in the system you just suggested. It also doesn’t address the huge number of people already on benefits. There will be lots of beneficiaries that will do ok in what you propose, but the ones that don’t are the ones already being penalised by systems that expect them to behave in certain ways when they can’t. I suspect that you and TRP are largely unaware of the very real barriers that such a system would create for the people most in need of assistance.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      25 November 2014 at 6:31 pm

                      No, weka, I support an incentive to get people on the roll. It’s an easy peasy process, either online or at the Post Office, and as it’s in the interests of the people concerned, I still find it weird that you would object.

                      ps, best you look up the meaning of ‘obtuse’. It’s not what you seem to think.

                    • weka …
                      25 November 2014 at 7:58 pm

                      I think you are being “annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand” (obtuse, from the dictionary).

                      “No, weka, I support an incentive to get people on the roll. It’s an easy peasy process, either online or at the Post Office, and as it’s in the interests of the people concerned, I still find it weird that you would object.”

                      That comment tells me two things.

                      One is that you have no idea how difficult it can be navigating WINZ’s various systems in order to obtain basic entitlements, and the kinds of barriers that might making getting to the PO or online difficult for people needing a benefit ie not ‘easy peasy’. I suspect quite a high degree of ignorance if you can’t imagine any number of scenarios where people would fall through the cracks of an already extremely dysfunctional and punitive system. I would give you some examples but I think it’s obvious that you have no goodwill towards understanding at this point in the conversation. I hope this changes.

                      The other is that you are still not listening to what I am saying. I’m not objecting to the govt enabling enrollment of beneficiaries. That you still suggest this this far into the converation is just bullshit.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      25 November 2014 at 11:24 pm

                      The system is dysfunctional and so it requires fixing but that isn’t an argument against requiring people to be on the electoral role (which is already compulsory) to receive a benefit.

                    • weka …
                      26 November 2014 at 12:13 am

                      It is when there are better alternatives, and when the compulsory route will make the lives of vulnerable people harder and/or ensure more people fall through the cracks.

                      The compulsory bit is unnecessary, discriminatory, and counter-productive.

                  • Tracey …
                    25 November 2014 at 4:18 pm

                    Can you point to Labours media release to make that a formal policy of theirs

    • McFlock 17.3
      25 November 2014 at 12:43 pm

      aren’t we legally required to be enrolled anyway?

      I haven’t had a think about tying enrolment to benefits (although my reflex thinks it’s ookey), but certainly tack the forms onto every other government form.

      • weka 17.3.1
        25 November 2014 at 12:45 pm

        “but certainly tack the forms onto every other government form.”

        with what penalties for failing to comply?

        Perhaps workers who don’t enrol could have their pay docked?

        • McFlock 17.3.1.1
          25 November 2014 at 2:13 pm

          Why bother? Just having a quick section whenever a house is leased, a benefit signed up for, or licence/registration renewed would significantly boost the enrolment stats.

          The real trick would be getting people out to vote.

        • Tracey 17.3.1.2
          25 November 2014 at 2:13 pm

          Snap! Instant fine deducted by IRD?

        • Draco T Bastard 17.3.1.3
          25 November 2014 at 3:47 pm

          Perhaps workers who don’t enrol could have their pay docked?

          As with any fines the law is legally able to do that.

          • weka 17.3.1.3.1
            25 November 2014 at 4:11 pm

            And yet tha state isnt actively pursuing non enrolled, but Labour suggest targeting beneficiaries with penalties.

            • Draco T Bastard 17.3.1.3.1.1
              25 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

              It does actively pursue the non-enrolled as I point out above. If they find them or not is another question.

              • weka …
                25 November 2014 at 6:01 pm

                By actively pursuing I mean taking money off people. You’ve admitted you don’t know if this currently happens.

          • Tracey 17.3.1.3.2
            25 November 2014 at 4:19 pm

            Right. But Labour has not chosen to focus on getting that group of people compliant with law under threat of cutting income, have they?

      • The Al1en 17.3.2
        25 November 2014 at 12:53 pm

        The only problems I see with the plan is that it’s only those on assistance being compulsory enrolled, and is therefore discriminating and privacy (as noted). A better and fairer way would to have ird handle it.
        Everyone has a number and a card from birth (or through residency/citizenship), so they know how old you are, why not every election cycle they send an email or letter to everyone over 18 to verify their details. That way addresses wouldn’t appear on the electoral role, just lots of numbers.

        Too simple?

        • weka 17.3.2.1
          25 November 2014 at 12:59 pm

          The whole point of my comment was the fact that Labour are targeting beneficiaries and want to use penalties (if the article is correct).

          Whether the govt should be trying to increase enrollments across the whole population is a completely different conversation, so please don’t confuse things here.

          edit, that was a reply to The Al1en whose comment has just disappeared. Now reappeared.

          • Tracey 17.3.2.1.1
            25 November 2014 at 2:15 pm

            Has Labour published data to support the notion that those receiving benefits are disproportionately represented amongst non registered voters?

            • Murray Rawshark 17.3.2.1.1.1
              26 November 2014 at 7:55 pm

              Not as far as I know, but several people here seem to be blaming unenrolled beneficiaries for Key winning the election. I’m appalled that people who can think of themselves as being on the left can think like this.

              We have a dysfunctional society where no social contracts are honoured by the government, so let’s bash beneficiaries who don’t feel compelled to participate in it. Bloody great. Hunger macht frei!

              • RedLogix …
                26 November 2014 at 8:18 pm

                but several people here seem to be blaming unenrolled beneficiaries for Key winning the election.

                Speaking for myself – absolutely not.

                The clear message being conveyed is that enrolment is an obligation on all citizens. And that every opportunity should be taken to make it easy and efficient for them to do so.

                And IF it is true that beneficiaries are over-represented in that persistently non-enrolled group, then they would be a logical starting point.

                let’s bash beneficiaries who don’t feel compelled to participate in it.

                They are not children – asking an adult to fulfill a very simple and universally required responsibility is not the same as ‘bashing’ them.

                And I don’t care if someone doesn’t feel like voting – we all have to do things we don’t feel like doing as part of our normal social obligations. I’m appalled that people who can see themselves as being on the left can think like this.

                • Murray Rawshark …
                  26 November 2014 at 8:30 pm

                  Winz’s job is to stop people starving, not to punish them for not fulfilling some abstract social obligation. If what has been written here about how WINZ offices act even without this new power has not had any impact on you, I despair.

                  How about building a bloody society that is inclusive and gives all people a reason to participate? Nah, not when we can give some frustrated bureaucrat the power to make their life miserable. FFS.

                  • RedLogix …
                    26 November 2014 at 8:35 pm

                    to punish them for not fulfilling some abstract social obligation.

                    Sorry but where did that idea come from?

                    Yes we all know WINZ needs fixing.

                    Want an inclusive society? Well voting for it is a start.

          • McFlock 17.3.2.1.2
            25 November 2014 at 2:46 pm

            I’d like to see just what Labour are proposing. Media being what it is, it could be anything. Or a proto idea that will morph during policy development into something quite good, like enrolment available at all winz offices.

          • Jenny Kirk 17.3.2.1.3
            25 November 2014 at 8:03 pm

            As far as I know, this is NOT Labour policy. It might have been a suggestion made to the review committee by an individual, but it has not been debated or decided upon by the Labour Party as a whole.

        • greywarshark 17.3.2.2
          25 November 2014 at 3:18 pm

          having ird handle it. turn bennies over to the dark side where the quality of mercy is strained. now why don’t the police handle it!

          • The Al1en 17.3.2.2.1
            25 November 2014 at 4:06 pm

            Yes ’cause case managers have a history of implementing policy with warmth and understanding.

            As an aside, I wouldn’t trust the police to handle the secrecy of vulnerable women very well, so probably best to stick with ird, who have dealings with everyone anyway since forever.

    • Tracey 17.4
      25 November 2014 at 2:07 pm

      And pensioners?

    • Murray Rawshark 17.5
      25 November 2014 at 7:06 pm

      Nah. They already find enough reasons to keep from giving needy people their entitlements. That Labour would even come up with this shows just how removed they are from the coal face. They should be thinking about making it easier to get help, not adding more things that incompetent WINZ workers can get wrong.

      • weka 17.5.1
        25 November 2014 at 9:01 pm

        Interesting that they can suggest this but can’t even bring themselves to mention the need to fix the cluster fuck that is WINZ.

        • Murray Rawshark 17.5.1.1
          25 November 2014 at 10:12 pm

          They do not want to be seen as being lenient on beneficiaries. I see this as very deliberate. While pretending concern, they are actually making things harder. I’m having a discussion about it on Facebook as well. In reply to someone who is openly Tory, I said this:

          “Have you ever been reliant on a benefit to eat, xxx? They would cut people off, then send them a letter 3 weeks later telling them about it. Then the person, who may actually be enrolled, would have to go into the office, possibly with no money and no public transport. Then, if security let them enter, they’d find that hadn’t brought the appropriate proof……I could go on, but I suspect you’re familiar with Kafka.”

          I’m surprised anyone would fall for it.

          • weka 17.5.1.1.1
            25 November 2014 at 10:23 pm

            Sometimes I think people who’ve never had to deal with WINZ have cognitive dissonance, because how could something be so inanely dysfunctional with such large dollopings of meanness and cruelty? ‘cos this is NZ right? The kind case manager a WINZ will help you figure out the right forms and ID needed then it’s just a quick trip to the PO, hey presto! Besides, you’ve got nothing better to do, eh?

          • greywarshark 17.5.1.1.2
            26 November 2014 at 11:02 am

            @ Murray Rawshark
            Thanks for your efforts for the WINZ victims. It needs people to keep providing examples of their filthy behaviour and directives. It only needs to happen to one person to make it abhorrent, when it is widespread it can be beyond words. From those affected. So someone else needs to keep airing the disgrace.

  18. The Al1en 18
    25 November 2014 at 2:06 pm

    I did just write a reply that got lost during the latest site whiteout, and I fear, much like the moody blues original lost Knights in white satin, the redo won’t be anywhere near as, to quote their word, perfect.

    I did state it was discriminatory and add the notion of penalties for not enrolling is crass, but in isolation and not part of a new perverted red wedge, it’s not a shocker to comply. If it were benefits pegged to child school attendance or other such nonsense the game would change dramatically.

    Yes targeting beneficiaries is unfair, that’s why I suggested an alternative through ird. Solutions not problems and hopefully not misleading. If the system were implemented, unfair or otherwise, I would hope privacy for domestic violence victims and others with a need to keep their details secret, unlike the rest of us, would be argued for and demanded as part of the scheme.

    Other than that, at present I don’t share your fears or outrage, but will watch for any policy gossip or announcements if the paper ever gets firmed up, reserving my right.

    [lprent: Sorry about that. I suspect something is just not right on the system. Looks like I will have to take the system offline tonight and rebuild. Something that I have been trying to do incrementally for weeks will now be somewhat more abrupt. ]

    • The Al1en 18.1
      25 November 2014 at 3:03 pm

      No worries, it probably wasn’t half as presentable as I’d imagined, so no tears over it. Truth be told, the second version was lots better, so make of that what you will about the first.

      I know I’m not alone in appreciating your craft and your dedication to maintaining and improving the site. :thumbs up:

  19. phillip ure 19
    25 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

    (questiontime-commentary..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/new-zealand-parliament-list-of-questions-for-oral-answer-tuesday-25-november-2014/

    (excerpt..)

    ..finlayson nuts off a bit in reaction to tureis’ questions..where turei accuses the current spook-head of ‘interfering in the 2014 election’..

    ..’wrong and malignant’..next question ‘especially malignant’..’speaking filth like that’..

    (ed:..if he were able to shoot lightening out of his fingertips..which i am sure is a power he wd like to have..finlayson wd have zapped turei..eh..?..as it was he left spat-tacks splattered all over his desk..heh..!..)

    • RedBaronCV 19.1
      25 November 2014 at 9:50 pm

      And Finlayson’s nasty quote seems to be the lead on whatever radio station I had on. balanced coverage – no way

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    25 November 2014 at 3:24 pm

    The Tech Worker Shortage Doesn’t Really Exist

    “There’s no evidence of any way, shape, or form that there’s a shortage in the conventional sense,” says Hal Salzman, a professor of planning and public policy at Rutgers University. “They may not be able to find them at the price they want. But I’m not sure that qualifies as a shortage, any more than my not being able to find a half-priced TV.”

    It’s about the US tech sector but I wonder how much it applies to different sectors here such as builders and labourers in Christchurch.

  21. chris73 21
    25 November 2014 at 5:04 pm

    So to catch up with all the comings and goings, Judith Collins exonerated, John Key shown to have done nothing and the left wailing and gnashing their teeth in impotent fury

    So really its business as usual

    I’ll say Little probably did the best he could, in regards to the caucus reshuffle, with the paucity of talent he had though with Robertsons track record of supporting past Labour leaders finance might not have been the best thing to give him

  22. phillip ure 22
    25 November 2014 at 5:07 pm

    at first i was rather shocked at the decision by nat-rad to put tau henare on their panel..

    ..given how he is so often such a braying-boofhead..

    ..but after just sitting thru his second appearance as a panelist..(which inspired me to email mora asking if he had any henare-regrets..)

    ..i am now a supporter of him continuing in that role..

    ..with constant repititions of how he is a former national party person..

    ..with/by using his own words..

    ..henare could not be a clearer example of the serious lack of any depth in the national party gene-pool…

    ..and that is a good thing he is doing..

    (oh..!..b.t.w..henare said he shouldn’t have said lorde danced like an epileptic.that he should have said she dances like she is on ecstasy..

    ..good that he cleared that up for us..eh..?..)

    ..henare..a hoot a minute..

  23. Paul 23
    25 November 2014 at 5:18 pm

    Tr***

    [lprent: Move it to OpenMike. ]

  24. Paul 24
    25 November 2014 at 5:23 pm

    Mora’s interview of Judith Collins should be a reason for him to leave RNZ now.
    He is not a journalist of any calibre, just a light entertainer..with the emphasis on light.

    • phillip ure 24.1
      25 November 2014 at 5:51 pm

      yeah..wilson does all the heavy lifting..

      ..i thought that one was interesting for how resolutely collins threw slater under the bus..

      ..he cd well be off her xmas card list…

  26. Ross 26
    25 November 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Regarding employers stealing from workers: Supermarkets Refund Docked Pay

    I asked yesterday, what is missing from this story?

    The Labour Party.

    Now all the news is about the government stepping in and putting this right. They get kudos. Labour gets to remain irrelevant!

  27. chris73 27
    25 November 2014 at 7:01 pm

    I’m astounded that in spite of the warnings, in spite of what the moderators keep saying posters on here still think they can tell the moderators how to run the blog

    • felix 27.1
      25 November 2014 at 8:08 pm

      I’m astounded that in spite of you knowing that pretty much nobody who reads your drek is convinced that you comment in good faith and are worth taking notice of, you continue to waste your time commenting here.

  28. Te Reo Putake 28
    25 November 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Brown tongued headline of the week:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63525346/Cameron-apologises-to-Collins

    Cameron? Cameron!?

    I suppose it’s possible that the jonolist concerned is related to Slater, or a close personal friend, or is, perhaps, his lover, but really, that’s a little familiar, doncha think?

  29. Jenny Kirk 29
    25 November 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Okay folks – I thought there was something weird with the comment that Labour would insist on people being enrolled to vote to be able to get a benefit : So I contacted Andrew Little and asked him. This is his answer.

    So be aware in future please – dirty politics in the media (and no doubt – also elsewhere) is alive and well and still playing in NZ !!

    Hi Jenny,
     They’ve made this up. They asked me whether electoral enrolment should be compulsory if you claim a benefit. I said it was compulsory regardless, but that enrolling on the electoral roll at the same time as you sign up to a benefit would make enrolment efficient. I said nothing about the benefit being conditional on enrolment. I have asked the media team to correct what ZB has written, but obviously it hasn’t changed yet. I will follow up.
    Andrew
     Andrew Little MP

    • Olwyn 29.1
      25 November 2014 at 8:42 pm

      Thanks for that Jenny and thanks also to Andrew for the prompt clear reply.

      • Colonial Rawshark 29.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 8:54 pm

        Indeed. It didn’t help with experienced Labour Party members like TRP going “hey what a great idea!!!”

        • weka 29.1.1.1
          25 November 2014 at 9:05 pm

          That’s for fucking sure. Was enlightening though.

        • phillip ure 29.1.1.2
          25 November 2014 at 9:12 pm

          @ col raw..

          ..+ 1..

        • Te Reo Putake 29.1.1.3
          25 November 2014 at 9:29 pm

          Oh dear, how embarrassing for the few commenters here who reckoned it was “bene bashing” from Labour!

          • weka 29.1.1.3.1
            25 November 2014 at 10:15 pm

            looks like you are the on doing the ‘phil’ here mate.

            go reread the opening comment.

            • Weepus beard 29.1.1.3.1.1
              25 November 2014 at 10:25 pm

              Not sure what’s got into him. He backs that nonsense then calls a kid a huge scary man and backs US cops in the Ferguson case.

              Time for TRP to go to bed.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                25 November 2014 at 10:58 pm

                Oh, dear, beardie, you obvious didn’t watch the video of the ‘kid’ assaulting a shopkeeper. The ‘kid’ was 6ft 4 and weighed 280 pounds. He was definitely a scary dude, especially when robbing people. But none of that means I backed the cop (no ‘s’, he was on his own). You seem to have misread or misunderstood what I actually wrote. I have real doubts about what the cop did and whether the killing was justified. As you rightly pointed out, 12 shots is a lot. But as I pointed out, it’s America and that’s pretty much par for the course. Cops there don’t stop shooting till you go down. It’s their culture, it’s their training.

                • RedLogix …
                  26 November 2014 at 8:05 am

                  Exactly – in their gun soaked culture almost every interaction with a suspect has the potential for lead to start flying.

                  US cops see themselves very much in an arms race with their own citizens.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  26 November 2014 at 8:41 am

                  Maybe Brown was killed in a justifiable police shooting, TRP.

                  Was it also justifiable that his body was left lying uncovered bleeding on to a baking hot street for hours?

                  Was it also justifiable that the police officer stayed on duty on full pay after the shooting as if nothing had happened?

                  Was it also justifiable that the police appear to have lied multiple times about the actual circumstances around the shooting eg the relative positions of Brown and the police officer during the confrontation?

                  Was it also justifiable that despite widespread public anger and concern it has taken so long for the system to decide that no charges are answerable by the police officer?

                  etc

                  Basically TRP this is not just about anther young unarmed black man getting shot dead by some white guy with a gun and a badge (that happens all the time in the USA), this is about an entire system which treats young black men like worthless undignified shit.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    26 November 2014 at 9:14 am

                    Some good questions, CV. I don’t have all the answers but I’ll give a couple a crack:

                    The body being left there for four hours is probably Ok for forensic reasons, but it should have been covered out of respect. It wasn’t “baking hot” btw. 24-28 degrees according to weatherunderground (I checked just to see).

                    Full pay? Absolutely justified. That’s standard in employment law in most western countries.

                    Police lies? There don’t appear to be any, though the cop that shot him seems to have tried afterwards to say that at some point in the incident he came to the conclusion that Brown was the robber in the convenience store. That was seen as irrelevant by the jury, anyway (ie. they seemed to believe that the initial struggle, the running away and then the running toward the cop were grounds for the use of force, whatever crime Brown had already committed).

                    Time: The grand jury system is what they use in America. It takes time. At the end of it, 12 jurors decided there were not grounds for a prosecution. According to the Independent, the grand jury listened to 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses, including three medical examiners. They also heard from Darren Wilson, the officer who fired the shots. It met on 25 separate days.

                    Was Brown a worthless undignified shit? Well, possibly. He was certainly a thief and a thug. But, that’s beside the point, because that behaviour wasn’t known for sure by the cop at the time. The real question is whether the shooting was justified in the circumstances at the time. Here in NZ, I would think not. In the US, apparently it was.

                  • greywarshark …
                    26 November 2014 at 9:43 am

                    Thanks colonial r 8.41 am
                    I feel that all the facts you have stated illuminates this horrible Missouri happening.

                    Why always the South? (Rhetorical. Don’t try to answer or explain. I already know.) Can’t they ever get a more humane and fair approach to all the people there? (Despair.)

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  26 November 2014 at 8:58 am

                  Oh, dear, beardie, you obvious didn’t watch the video of the ‘kid’ assaulting a shopkeeper. The ‘kid’ was 6ft 4 and weighed 280 pounds. He was definitely a scary dude, especially when robbing people. But none of that means I backed the cop (no ‘s’, he was on his own).

                  But thanks for the description of how Brown was a big scary black criminal dude.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    26 November 2014 at 9:24 am

                    Did I say black? Why, no, no I didn’t. Naughty CV, that’s so very Brentist 🙂

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cir05JyEsV0

                    Have a look for yourself and make up your own mind about whether he’s a scary dude:

                    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=464_1408123040

                    Yep, that’s a scary dude. Dude certainly scared the shopkeeper.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 November 2014 at 9:34 am

                      Jeezus you’re a shite.

                      A guy takes stuff from a convenience store, no weapon used but just grabs it, and its relevant to him being killed 10 minutes later by excessive police force, how?

                      You do think excessive police force was used against “scary” Brown, right? Because being black and “scary” is clearly justifiable grounds for being shot.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      26 November 2014 at 9:39 am

                      Have a coffee and re-read my comment. I specifically said it wasn’t relevant.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 November 2014 at 9:44 am

                      But do keep mentioning it, anyway, for balance.

                      It’s quite clear that Brown did assault Officer Wilson. Why that resulted in Wilson shooting Brown to death at a distance of 10m and probably more, is the question.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    26 November 2014 at 9:53 am

                    Fuck, that’s a weird response, given that you’re the one perpetuating it, CV. That Brown was being a thug a few minutes before his death is actually irrelevant to the shooting, (though it might go to Brown’s state of mind) so why don’t you have a crack at responding to the more substantial matters? If you’re not keen, that’s fine, I do have other stuff to do this morning, but I wouldn’t mind have a reasoned discussion anyway because it’s a fascinating situation.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 November 2014 at 9:58 am

                      That Brown was being a thug a few minutes before his death is actually irrelevant to the shooting

                      I personally would’ve thought it was irrelevant. But thanks to you for helpfully posting up video links to his earlier convenience store theft and assualt.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 November 2014 at 10:04 am

                      Both of you are correct. It isn’t mutually exclusive for Brown to have been behaving like a thug and threatening police – and the fact that young black people are treated like shit in the USA.

                      And their armed to the fucking teeth gun culture just about ensures bad outcomes.

                      When I’m not here I tend to take virtual hikes, vicariously enjoying the accounts of other people’s great adventures. One of them the CDT (Continental Divide Trail) takes you through the state of New Mexico for a month. It took me a while to understand exactly why so many of the journals expressed a very real fear of straying off the public route. (It’s not especially well marked in many places).

                      The reason is simple. Get found on a private ranch and the owner is quite likely to just shoot you on sight.

            • Te Reo Putake 29.1.1.3.1.2
              25 November 2014 at 10:28 pm

              How so? And why do you think I was referring to you? You didn’t use that term or write in that vein, that I recall.

              • weka …
                25 November 2014 at 10:37 pm

                Because you’ve been misrepresenting me for half a day and have now retrenched into 2 – 3 sentence comments that don’t clarify. Fair assumption on my part I think, but I am ok with being wrong if you want to be more specific what you meant.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  25 November 2014 at 11:00 pm

                  I haven’t misrepresented you even once, but I have disagreed with you. To clarify for you, I was laughing at Murray being fooled and leaping to the assumption that Labour was “bene bashing”. No fool like an old fool.

      • greywarshark 29.1.2
        25 November 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Andrew Little would be wise to answer such a question obliquely, saying that would be an overbearing approach, and undemocratic if just applied to beneficiaries. And comment that it might be an idea to encourage all teenagers to enrol during a civics course at school to help them to understand their role as citizens, perhaps as a pre-enrolment exercise which would result in a form being sent to them on attaining voting age.

    • weka 29.2
      25 November 2014 at 9:04 pm

      Thanks so much Jenny! And Andrew. I’ll pass this on on twitter where I picked up the original story.

    • weka 29.3
      25 November 2014 at 9:20 pm

      Ok, here’s the 3 tweets, in sequential order, from ZB’s Laura McQuillan, where the story originates.

      “Labour wants to see voter enrolment as a prerequisite to getting welfare, state housing and other government support”

      https://twitter.com/mcquillanatorz/status/536617756301336576

      “Labour leader & council disagree on voter enrolment – Barnett says it should be welfare pre-condition; Little says WINZ could help sign-ups”

      https://twitter.com/mcquillanatorz/status/536641098865590273

      “Asked if I was joking when I tweeted that Labour wants benefits tied to voter enrolment. No. Tim Barnett is the one pushing it.”

      https://twitter.com/mcquillanatorz/status/536659845118578688

      • ankerawshark 29.3.1
        25 November 2014 at 10:44 pm

        Lying toads (the media). They are spinning again, trying to trip Andrew up.

        • weka 29.3.1.1
          25 November 2014 at 10:47 pm

          Hard to know what’s gone on tbh. I’d like to see the judge’s review referred to, and also what the source is for the Tim Barnett bit.

          • Jenny Kirk 29.3.1.1.1
            26 November 2014 at 8:17 am

            Morning Weka and others (its now Wed 25 Nov) – just to clarify things re policy making in the Labour Party.

            Tim Barnett is the general secretary, and does NOT have a say in making Labour policy – that’s up to the members and MPs – so whatever ZB’s McQuillan was saying re Barnett suggesting any sort of policy via WINZ, he had no authority to say this (if, in actual fact, he did ….. which I’m wondering about).

            • weka 29.3.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2014 at 9:56 am

              Ok, so McQuillan was wrong to say ‘Labour’ intends etc, and should have said Barnett. She said in twitter this morning that her reporting was accurate. I’ve asked where the reporting is (apart from link in opening comment). I assume it was on air, but not sure how ZB archives.

    • miravox 29.4
      25 November 2014 at 9:49 pm

      Thanks Jenny.

      I agree with Andrew. I reckon it would also be efficient if enrollment forms were available and encouraged when people sign up for many government services…. especially driver licence renewal and passports.

      Also a link to enrollment on most government websites with a little positive reminder about rights and responsibilities in a civil society.

    • RedBaronCV 29.5
      25 November 2014 at 9:56 pm

      And how quickly does efficent become obligatory. Oh that’s right beneficiarys are not allowed to make adult decisions for themselves anymore. It’ll be shoved in front of them and they’ll be told they will be prosecuted otherwise. The Nact’s will pick this up, lets right wing businesses have all lower income addresses.

      • weka 29.5.1
        25 November 2014 at 10:17 pm

        Yep. And unless a Labour govt starts addressing the real problems within the WINZ culture and tory proofs new policy, the next National govt will just enable WINZ to fuck with the benes using the new requirements.

    • McFlock 29.6
      25 November 2014 at 10:07 pm

      lol

      good call on the fast response, too

  30. Weepus beard 30
    25 November 2014 at 8:54 pm

    Just read that the police officer who shot and killed the lad in Ferguson, MO let go 12 rounds.

    12 rounds, and they still let him off.

    • Te Reo Putake 30.1
      25 November 2014 at 9:47 pm

      What difference does the number of shots make? He was hit six times, and kept coming after being hit at least once. The question isn’t how many were fired, but was it legal for the cop to fire at all. Apparently it was. But then, it’s the States. Might have been different here, but I’m not entirely sure.

      btw, he wasn’t a ‘lad’. He was a fucken huge 20 year old man. Have a look at the video footage of him robbing and assaulting a shopkeeper a few minutes before his death:

      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=464_1408123040

      That’s one scary dude.

      • Te Reo Putake 30.1.1
        25 November 2014 at 10:01 pm

        Whoops, 18 yrs old, not 20.

      • Weepus beard 30.1.2
        25 November 2014 at 10:01 pm

        I’m no expert but 12 attempts to subdue an agitated person says “him or me” rather than proper police training.

        • Te Reo Putake 30.1.2.1
          25 November 2014 at 10:25 pm

          Yep, does seem a lot, though two shots were in the car when the initial struggle took place (one bullet grazed Brown’s hand). I’ve just been trying to find out what kind of gun it was, without success. There is no reference to the cop reloading, which suggests it was a 12 bullet clip, which I would have thought was unusual. It also suggests small calibre bullets, hence Brown not being stopped after initially being shot in the torso.

          Just as an aside, in my teenage years, I used to belong to a pistol club and good quite good at it. We used to help train the local cops. Back then, they were taught to fire in pairs (ie two shots at a time) and aim for the torso, because it was more likely that they would hit the person they were aiming at. One thing I remember is being told that when someone is hit, it’s not like in the movies and they do not get blown off their feet. Forward momentum continues, which seems to be the case with Brown.

          By the way, I suspect “him or me” probably is proper police training in the states! The cop says in his testimony that they are taught not to back down from a threat.

          • McFlock 30.1.2.1.1
            25 November 2014 at 11:00 pm

            standard size magazines for semi-auto pistols can be anywhere from 10-20 rounds for anything from 9mm up.

            Not that the cop thought the kid was a roobbery suspect at the time.

  31. greywarshark 31
    25 November 2014 at 10:16 pm

    Ergo he has time to waste, or it is part of his comfort blanket of survival in today’s uncertain times – he gets certainty of being from the reliability of a reaction from the inmates here when he pokes his stick at us. I have a poke at TS commenters, they react, therefore I am.

    • Weepus beard 31.1
      25 November 2014 at 10:32 pm

      Nice diagnosis of Chris there. I was interested when he said he was busy at work. I wonder what his employer thinks of his forum activities?

      • McFlock 31.1.1
        26 November 2014 at 12:50 am

        [furtively adjusts tie]
        let’s not start telling employers that blogsites exists, k?
        I might have some ‘splaining to do… 😀

  32. Murray Rawshark 32
    25 November 2014 at 11:31 pm

    I am not, and never will be on the side of people who think it’s a good idea to encourage people by potential starvation and homelessness. I’m appalled at some of the posts supporting this idea.

  33. weka 33
    26 November 2014 at 12:18 am

    That was quick!

  34. lprent 34
    26 November 2014 at 12:22 am

    Back up and running. The question now is if change the database from MySQL 5.6 to Mariadb 10.1.1 will fix the issue. The Aria XtraDB data base is meant to be a whole lot better at deadlock handling. If not then I will shift it to the Aria db

    I guess we will find out if the auto moderation comments continue.