Open mike 26/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, April 26th, 2014 - 251 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open 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 …

251 comments on “Open mike 26/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    26 April 2014 at 7:22 am

    Election year spending promises aspirations from Tony Ryall.

    Looks like the usual model: promise vandalism, pretend surprise at public outcry. Hold “talks” with people it’s your job to communicate with and support. Promise reduction in vandalism.

    Get a friendly reporter to frame it just so, even going so far as to blame management when there’s an elephant in the room.

  2. Pete George 2
    26 April 2014 at 7:25 am

    John Armstrong at NZH – Labour’s brutal week reveals Achilles heel:

    Senior Labour figures are bracing themselves for an expected hit in the opinion polls, but are confident it will be shortlived.

    Before this week’s disasters, Labour’s own pollsters were said to have been registering the party’s vote at around 30 per cent. That is very close to the 29.5 per cent recorded in the most recent Herald-DigiPoll survey.

    However, usually reliable sources say National’s private polling over the past week points to the real scale of Labour’s horror story with support crumbling to a mindblowing low of just 23 per cent.

    Even thirty is not flash, and not enough. If Labour take a hit in the next poll or two – and Roy Morgan will have been polling right through this week – it could be shortlived, but that will take a lot of work and a significant improvement from Cunliffe, his PR team and the Labour caucus.

    Shane Jones will be out of the picture by the election. An inability to manage things well will be the big picture unless it is rectified.

    Don’t lash out, own the problem and address it positively.

    • MartinH 2.1
      26 April 2014 at 7:33 am

      Labours Presidents the problem and next problem is Matt McCarten has shown to be inept and not up to the job and equal with that Cunliffe has made a lot of mistakes and shown to not be up to the job either. So summing it up they are not any good to govern a country so Im not surprised by 23% they definitely deserve an E.

      Labours probably finished as a major party, too many extremists in there, gaggle of gays as that West Coast MP said.
      Unions represent such a small percentage of Nzers now, time for labour to become a minor party of unionists and their gay bedfellows?

    • Pete George 2.2
      26 April 2014 at 7:39 am

      More from Armstrong.

      With the left of the party running its own agenda which puts purity ahead of pragmatism, Labour’s appeal is shrinking. Those voters whom Labour needs to capture will see Jones’ exit as a further narrowing of Labour’s appeal.

      Those voters will also view the disdain shown towards Jones and accompanying calls for the purging from Parliament of such Labour stalwarts as Phil Goff, Annette King and Trevor Mallard as pretty solid evidence that Labour’s disunity is such that it is not yet fit to govern.

      Much of the arguing of the past few days has taken place in social media and the blogosphere. Too late Labour has discovered these tools can be double-edged swords. They are fine when it comes to disseminating a message. But not so fine when the protagonists in a digitally-sourced debate start hanging out their party’s dirty washing simply to score points against a competing faction.

      Diss, deny….then digest. Social media can help Labour but only if it dispels the image of disarray and damaging dissmania.

      • MartinH 2.2.1
        26 April 2014 at 7:43 am

        Bomber Bradbury is one of the biggest problems of the left as hes like a one man maniac left marketing man and hes very unlikable with his rants

        • Te Reo Putake 2.2.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:00 am

          Well don’t vote for him then. Oh, wait …

          • MartinH 2.2.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 8:04 am

            If you had actually understood the post i was responding to was Petes comment about Labours social media and i was saying bomber is very un-appealling.
            Your diligence seems as good as McCarten and Cunliffe

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.1.1
              26 April 2014 at 8:09 am

              Bomber doesn’t work for the Labour Party. I can see why you would dishonestly pretend that he does though, because otherwise your entire narrative would collapse.

              I wonder why the National Party is never represented by honest commenters. Don’t they know that people like MartinH make them look shifty and mendacious?

              • MartinH …
                26 April 2014 at 8:21 am

                I never said he works for Labour,
                Hes on the left and looks unappealling in terms of left social media just as Whaleoil does often look unappealling on the right.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 April 2014 at 8:31 am

                  You forgot to mention MartinH. He makes the Right look bad too: so far all he can manage is false frames and red herrings, and he apparently knows fuck all about Labour Party policy.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  26 April 2014 at 8:31 am

                  How sweet. Bomber is totes unappealing, Slater is unappealing sometimes. Nice to know where you’re coming from Martin.

        • miravox 2.2.1.2
          26 April 2014 at 8:05 am

          🙄 we have a tag team…

      • jh 2.2.2
        26 April 2014 at 8:35 am

        Diss, deny….then digest. Social media can help Labour but only if it dispels the image of disarray and damaging dissmania.

        when we had compulsory unionism there were deeper and stronger connections in the workforce. Most workers were quite sensible and moderate (they looked around at their own community to make judgement). Now we have activists dregs standing in for the worker.

        • MartinH 2.2.2.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:38 am

          And thats what the Green party leaders are too, activist dregs

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.2.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 8:56 am

            That’s the way: when your bad faith comments make you look mendacious and hostile, start calling people names.

            That’s what personal responsibility means.

          • Paul 2.2.2.1.2
            26 April 2014 at 11:30 am

            You don’t really sound like someone who ever voted Labour.

      • David H 2.2.3
        26 April 2014 at 8:44 am

        Shit Petey why not just cut n paste the whole fucking article in one hit???

        • karol 2.2.3.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:50 am

          It’s just bait – so he can link to it on a post on his own blog, then say how it’s just more of the usual (alleged) nasty personal responses on TS.

        • Pete George 2.2.3.2
          26 April 2014 at 8:54 am

          Two different points. And there’s still a lot of Armstrong’s column not quoted, it’s not the done thing to copy/paste commercial media in full.

          But shit Davey H, any old excuse will do for a double diss.

          • David H 2.2.3.2.1
            26 April 2014 at 9:44 am

            “Two different points. And there’s still a lot of Armstrong’s column not quoted, it’s not the done thing to copy/paste commercial media in full.”

            Why not you do it all the time.

          • Lanthanide 2.2.3.2.2
            26 April 2014 at 3:07 pm

            Pete, the netiquette suggests that double-posting is a bigger sin than having two ‘different’ points in the same post.

      • David H 2.2.4
        26 April 2014 at 8:44 am

        Shit Petey why not just cut n paste the whole fucking article in one hit???

      • Psycho Milt 2.2.5
        26 April 2014 at 9:01 am

        More from Armstrong.

        Just out of interest – do you get your accounts of the National Party from Brian Edwards, or does this shit only flow one way?

        • Pete George 2.2.5.1
          26 April 2014 at 9:42 am

          ?? I read Edwards sometimes but that’s a very strange question.

          I thought Armstrong’s comments were worth discussing here rather than pretending these issues don’t exist. If there are issues related to National I tend to inject them into Kiwiblog or Whale Oil to stir up discussion there. Horses for courses.

          • Psycho Milt 2.2.5.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 11:00 am

            I read Edwards sometimes but that’s a very strange question

            I don’t doubt you find it a strange question, because you appear to be completely oblivious to your own biases. If it were otherwise, you would get what the question is asking you immediately.

            Let me spell it out for you: John Armstrong is not an impartial observer. Neither are you. Your and his opinions on the Labour Party are neither objective nor likely to be helpful to them.

          • phillip ure 2.2.5.1.2
            26 April 2014 at 2:16 pm

            “..I tend to inject them into Kiwiblog or Whale Oil to stir up discussion there…”

            are you as universally loathed in those places..

            ..as you are here..?

            • karol 2.2.5.1.2.1
              26 April 2014 at 2:32 pm

              Does he then use the responses to post on his own blog, about how awful posters/commenters are on those blogs?

              • phillip ure …
                26 April 2014 at 3:00 pm

                i dunno..i haven’t been near either farrars or slaters for a very long time..

                (and the oft-cited by edwards the younger blog of peters..never..)

                ..but i seem to remember he was reviled @ kiwiblog for much the same reasons he is reviled for here..

                ..his seven-faces-of petey..

                ..that wisp of smoke of a man..

                • karol …
                  26 April 2014 at 3:09 pm

                  Ditto, pu, on never visiting those sites – I just saw the Pingback from urnz sitting in moderation earlier today – enough to provide the gist. Now resting at the bottom of today’s open mike.

      • Sanctuary 2.2.6
        26 April 2014 at 10:20 am

        Poor, poor Rory. He was warned you were a total lemon, but would he listen?No. You’ve wrecked his little project before it was born and now we’ve all been saddled with a newly empowered and totally dishonest concerned troll. If I were Robert DeNiro I’d banstick you with a (metaphorical, of course) baseball bat for crimes against gullible Greens. And for being old and obnoxious, a condition that all of us will eventually attain but manage a lot better than you.

        • phillip ure 2.2.6.1
          26 April 2014 at 2:24 pm

          wouldn’t it be be more ‘silly silly rory’..?

          ..and surely one in dire need of doing his own politi-checking..?

          ..to have both not known (?) george is a rightwing concern-tr*ll..

          ..and to have appointed him to do something he is clearly incapable of..

          ..and has the editorship/project not moved on from being a set-up/punchline for an anti-george joke..?

          ..that’s sad..

          ..’cos something like that..doing what that purported to want to do..

          ..is sorely needed..

          ..but the gales of continuous laughter since george was appointed editor..

          ..pretty much ensures this ain’t it..

          ..poor/silly rory..

          ..and what a prick that editor must be..’playing’ him like that..

          ..imagine the litany of false promises proffered by that ‘editor’..

      • blue leopard 2.2.7
        26 April 2014 at 10:53 am

        Hi Pete George,

        I don’t understand the logic in your quote:

        Those voters will also view the disdain shown towards Jones and accompanying calls for the purging from Parliament of such Labour stalwarts as Phil Goff, Annette King and Trevor Mallard as pretty solid evidence that Labour’s disunity is such that it is not yet fit to govern.

        Much of the arguing of the past few days has taken place in social media and the blogosphere. Too late Labour has discovered these tools can be double-edged swords. They are fine when it comes to disseminating a message. But not so fine when the protagonists in a digitally-sourced debate start hanging out their party’s dirty washing simply to score points against a competing faction.

        As I understand it, the only people witnessing such talk are the ones reading blogsites. How do the majority of people even know that a certain disdain re Jones has been expressed when it hasn’t been reported in the mainstream?

        I told one person who doesn’t read blogs about the screeds of opinions expressed re Jones leaving not being a disaster for Labour, quite the opposite -that it was a good thing. That person responded by strongly questioning why that hadn’t been reported on TV News to counterbalance the view that it was a disaster, because it puts the event in a totally different light to the one that the media have reported. I totally accept that this is simply one person’s opinion – Just using it as an example of what views may be if a variety of opinions were reported – and this example indicates that your conclusion may be quite wrong re people being put off by such views.

        I wonder whether you can clarify this for me; how do the ‘general public’ know of such views when they haven’t been reported?

        • Pete George 2.2.7.1
          26 April 2014 at 11:08 am

          I don’t think Jones leaving is a disaster for Labour and there are some positives as well as negatives.

          You’ve raised a good point about how the ‘general public’ know of various political views. Most of the public take little or no interest in politics most of the time.

          But political views and feelings grow over time based on often very small pieces of information. While some people will obviously take some notice of what journalists or commentators say I think most judge politicians by their language sense and authenticity versus platitudes and avoidance), their appearance and their body language a lot, and these judgements can be made very quickly.

          They are not always accurate but over time a general public perception is built. It is also spread a bit via word of mouth.

          Apart from isolated conversations the only measure we get of all this is via polls and even then we are left guessing a lot.

          • blue leopard 2.2.7.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 11:13 am

            I mainly agree with your view here, apart from the fact that if something is repeated enough times – people do start to perceive this as a truth – whether the message repeated is true or simply made up/opinion.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                26 April 2014 at 2:07 pm

                On the one hand, who gives a toss what Petty George finds dubious?

                On the other, attempts have been made to quantify the “Truth Effect”, so we can actually see exactly how wrong Petty is.

                My gut tells me that Hodson and Busseri’s 2012 findings on IQ, prejudice and political bias are relevant here, given the tendency for “low levels of contact with out-groups”, and of course Rachel Maddow’s excellent exposure of the Right Wing Echo Chamber.

                Left Wingers, being such excellent and noble specimens, are of course immune to such things 😈

            • Pete George 2.2.7.1.1.2
              26 April 2014 at 12:06 pm

              Yes you’re right, repeating is thought to embed a ‘truth’ in people’s perceptions, that’s why party PR and activist action keep repeating things.

              I’m dubious how effective this can be overall, they probably score some hits but people can be good at spotting repeated nonsense too, and it can be more damaging to establish a perception of being repeatedly out of touch or dishonest.

              • blue leopard …
                26 April 2014 at 1:55 pm

                Yes, the [very brief] article I linked to covered that issue:

                “Because TV adverts are repeated many more times than this, advertisers now use subtle variations in the ads to recapture our attention. This is an attempt to avoid the fact that while familiarity can breed liking, over-familiarity tends to breed contempt”

                I guess if an advertiser or political party had access to experts in the field (such as, for example, a company like Crosby-Textor) they would gain advantage in how to slightly shift their message in a manner that wasn’t off-putting and therefore retained effectiveness to affecting general public opinion.

                ‘Fair and reasonable’ certainly was repeated more than 3-5 times (the estimated limit the article cites) in the lead up to the previous election in NZ and this didn’t appear to have an off-putting effect to those receiving such messages.

                The article also states that when people are paying ‘little attention’ repetition works better.

                I would say we need a public that pays a wee bit more attention if we are to get good and effective policies voted in and not have people suckered in to manipulative techniques that only serve a very small section of our society and damage conditions of wellbeing for the rest of us.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 April 2014 at 2:12 pm

                  From the study linked above:

                  The more often people are exposed to falsehoods, the more likely they are to believe them, even if they believe the source isn’t reliable. As source information
                  is rapidly lost in the transition to semantic memory, so is our ability to discriminate facts from falsehoods.

                • Pete George …
                  26 April 2014 at 2:16 pm

                  Simon Wilson made an interesting point on The Nation this morning. He said to attract attention in politics you have to be entertaining in some way. He cited Shane Jones and Judith Collins as examples.

                  To an extent I think he’s correct. Winston Peters is an old master at attracting attention too, and this worked well for him last election.

                  • blue leopard …
                    26 April 2014 at 2:25 pm

                    Aaaah!…so perhaps this is why we have clowns, not competent people, running our government! 😆

                    Come on peeps, just go to the circus if you want to see clowns and start basing your voting decisions on who will provide us with a competent government, not one full of clowns.

    • bad12 2.3
      26 April 2014 at 8:55 am

      Shane Who???, are we discussing that clown again this morning, He that obviously set out to destabilize the Labour Party He belonged too having realized that His outbursts had many of His Caucus colleagues considering Him unfit as a Cabinet Minister in a left leaning Government,

      His non-committment to Party unity exposed by the fact that He had not the decency to tell His boss of the details of the ‘done deal’ with the National Government, said boss, David Cunliffe only hearing of the ‘done deal’ via the radio,

      Seems like the actions of a self serving wanker to me, Good Riddance Shane Jones, what a waffling wanker…

    • weka 2.4
      26 April 2014 at 8:56 am

      “Don’t lash out, own the problem and address it positively.”

      Good point PG. Two main problems. One is that you believe that National is being honest about its own polling. If supposedly non-partisan commentators like you and Armstrong are going to take this stuff seriously, then internal polling should be made public, including methodology and questions used.

      Second problem is that you present Armstrong as an independent commenter. I’m not even going to ask why you would do that, but I agree that we should own this problem and address it positively 😈

      • Pete George 2.4.1
        26 April 2014 at 9:27 am

        Two main problems with your claims.

        One is that you believe that National is being honest about its own polling.

        I take claims about polls by politicians and parties with much skepticism, unless they can be backed up with credible poll information.

        I said “Even thirty is not flash” because that’s about what published polls have been saying (29.5 in the last Roy Morgan).

        Second problem is that you present Armstrong as an independent commenter.

        I didn’t.

        Do you disagree with what Armstrong said or you just dissing and denying?

        • weka 2.4.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:52 pm

          “I take claims about polls by politicians and parties with much skepticism, unless they can be backed up with credible poll information.”

          Bullshit. You just posted Armstrong’s comments as credible and he is talking about internal polling.

          You also blamed Labour/DC, again, for Armstrong being a right wing hack.

          “Second problem is that you present Armstrong as an independent commenter.”

          “I didn’t.”

          yeah you did. Otherwise you would have acknowledged Armstrong’s right wing bias and put your comments in the context of that. Instead you put it up without criticism as if it were credible, useful information and used it to try and make some point about Labour being sucky at media.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 2.5
      26 April 2014 at 10:12 am

      ‘Labour’s own pollsters were said to have been’

      Boy, that’s a mouthful of a statement, which neatly gets around saying exactly who was saying it. Maybe a fact-checker could do some investigating of Armstrong’s claims.

      • Pete George 2.5.1
        26 April 2014 at 10:47 am

        You could try getting parties to give you their polling information if you like but I don’t like your chances.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 2.5.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 11:57 am

          Try reading the comment again, Pete.

          Armstrong says ‘it has been said that …’

          My question is ‘by whom?’

          It’s got nothing to do with whether or not Labour’s internal polling has put it at 30%. It’s about who is claiming this to be the case.

          • Pascal's bookie 2.5.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 2:39 pm

            Amazing, isn’t he?

          • Pete George 2.5.1.1.2
            26 April 2014 at 3:04 pm

            My question is ‘by whom?’

            You could try asking Armstrong that but journalists tend to have a thing about not revealing their sources.

            But what’s your point? There’s little point in fact checking something that won’t reveal facts. I believe it’s common for politicians and PR staff to feed journalists information under the understanding their identities won’t be revealed. Do you think the source/s could be lying? Or Armstrong is lying? Or he shouldn’t write about it? Or you want to know the motives of the source/s?

            • Stephanie Rodgers 2.5.1.1.2.1
              26 April 2014 at 6:08 pm

              Still not the point, Pete. I’m not a fact-checker. I’m actually not interested in chasing down the ultimate source of John Armstrong’s opinions. I point out the holes in his argument to show that there are holes in his argument.

              Your insistence on presenting things at face value and brushing off criticism with ‘oh well, no one would ever tell the truth anyway so we can never prove anything’ is par for the course, of course.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.1.3
            26 April 2014 at 3:46 pm

            🙄

            Te reo piripiri.

    • David H 2.6
      26 April 2014 at 1:24 pm

      I have a question If Jones wanted to talk to his caucus colleagues first, who leaked he was leaving to bloody Gower??? Someone is STILL telling the media shit designed to hurt Labour. Labour HAS yet to plug the leaks.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.6.1
        26 April 2014 at 1:32 pm

        Murray McCully. Via Shane Jones. Please note: this scenario requires Jones to be lying, but since he asked McCully for work four years ago, I expect he’s had plenty of practice. Like when he forgot to mention it during his leadership bid, for example.

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    26 April 2014 at 7:50 am

    I wonder when Armstrong is going to comment on National’s extensive use of social media, and what sort of “image” that projects.

    Labour need to get out there and campaign, which so far as I can tell from social media and my own experience, is exactly what they’re doing.

    In any event, there’s little point in discussing this in a dishonest right-wing frame.

    • MartinH 3.1
      26 April 2014 at 7:54 am

      One Anonymous Bloke
      Labour campaigning? Stopping trucks on an outer lane and putting the price of drinks up for blue collar me?
      Stopping Nigella promote a NZ company
      Campaigning perhaps, but its against me.
      They are useless fools

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 7:58 am

        Are those the only Labour policies you know about? Makes me wonder on the one hand, where you get your information from and on the other, how you can possibly imagine you’re going to be taken seriously in a political discussion forum.

        I suppose you could just be a dishonest concern tr0ll. Are you a dishonest concern tr0ll, Martin?

        • MartinH 3.1.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:59 am

          yes only them of late and the housing one which i support.
          Seems they now want me to pay more for a beer
          I dont support bringing the rail loop forward unless the strict targets are met. i dont support them getting rid of the new motorway to help northland or them getting rid of transmission gully.

          Those are what matter to me

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 9:15 am

            That’s a shame. Myopia is treatable, I think.

          • amirite 3.1.1.1.2
            26 April 2014 at 10:54 am

            Martin H
            Yet you don’t mind paying more for petrol with the govt putting the taxes up all the time?
            If you are a responsible drinker a couple dollars more for your drink won’t affect your drinking much. If it does, then you’re just a pisshead and you deserve to be hit in the pocket and you may try seeking help because you have a drinking problem.

            • MartinH 3.1.1.1.2.1
              26 April 2014 at 11:41 am

              But how much do you think Labour and the Greens will put that up

              • Paul …
                26 April 2014 at 11:47 am

                You’ve been a very busy boy today mh.
                Why are your bosses so worried that they’re paying you overtime to work on this blog?

            • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1.2.2
              26 April 2014 at 8:54 pm

              Martin’s trucking company is more worried about the price of diesel. He doesn’t run his trucks on petrol.

        • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.2
          26 April 2014 at 8:59 am

          Are those the only Labour policies you know about?

          I expect so – after all, they’re the only ones Whaleoil and DPF have been telling him about (not that any Labour policy has mentioned Nigella Lawson that I’ve noticed, but lies are the stock-in-trade of propaganda merchants).

          • Paul 3.1.1.2.1
            26 April 2014 at 11:48 am

            Think the Herald has been dribbling on about the Nigella story.
            So 3, not 2, completely biased sources of news.
            Amazing.

      • phillip ure 3.1.2
        26 April 2014 at 8:42 am

        “..Campaigning perhaps, but its against me..”

        as you are clearly a tory twat..this is quite likely the case..

    • Stephanie Rodgers 3.2
      26 April 2014 at 10:15 am

      Yes, it’s a bit odd to mention Labour’s failures in social media, and not the frequent flamewars kicked off by people like Judith Collins or Asenati Lole-Taylor (to mention my two favourites).

  4. karol 4
    26 April 2014 at 7:56 am

    astroturfers up and on it early today.

    Shows they must be scared of the potential mobilisation of the left for the upcoming election.

    DNFTT

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      26 April 2014 at 7:58 am

      +1

    • MartinH 4.2
      26 April 2014 at 8:06 am

      Yeah just as Cunliffe was shown to be such a big concern lol

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1
        26 April 2014 at 8:13 am

        The “big concern” for authoritarian fear-mongers is the manner of his election.

        • MartinH 4.2.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:18 am

          Im not a fear monger, im just glad those who voted him in have now got such a low polling Labour that they deserve from it.
          Seems that includes you.
          Do you realise that Labour is doing so bad in middle NZ? Do you realise why?
          Or do you not care as so long as you a represented by Cunliffe you dont care if Labour gets into government or not?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 8:29 am

            Right, so you’re hostile to the people who elected Cunliffe – which renders your “analysis” suspect at best, but as I said, your big concern is the manner of his election.

            As I’ve already noted on TS the changes to the NZLP leadership election rules were always going to provoke a reaction, and here you are.

            • karol 4.2.1.1.1.1
              26 April 2014 at 8:31 am

              It’s always interesting to see who the rightees go after – exposes who/what they fear.

              • Pete George …
                26 April 2014 at 8:48 am

                My biggest fear is that Labour will crash and we will have our Parliament and politics dominated by one big party.

                Greens would like to build themselves into the biggest alternative but while they are in a solid position I doubt they have that much growth potential. Many people like a bit of Green but I think most are very wary of too much Green.

                A centre-left weakness weakens the whole caboodle. The only feasible option for addressing this is for Labour to get their act together.

                David Parker is on The Nation this morning but a major Labour economic announcement won’t be made until next Tuesday. Very odd timing.

                • weka …
                  26 April 2014 at 9:03 am

                  🙄

                • RedLogix …
                  26 April 2014 at 9:13 am

                  My biggest fear is that Labour will crash and we will have our Parliament and politics dominated by one big party.

                  We’ve been dominated by the ‘one big neo-liberal’ party for 30 years now Pete.

                  The problem is this. When the NZLP changed it’s leadership rules, (following the example of the UK LP and the same that the ALP is in the middle of incidentally) it shifted the ground under this neo-liberal gridlock just a little.

                  Cunliffe is represents the first real possibility of crack in the dominance of the neo-lib agenda for a very long time. He is capable, articulate, passionate and very intelligent. On a level playing field he would eat Key for brunch.

                  Which is why Tory sympathisers and activitists like John Armstrong (whose gutter dreck you have the temerity to post here) have been so openly, assiduously and viciously working to erode the field under Cunliffe at every possible opportunity.

                  And here is Armstrong gloating: Labour’s embarrassment at losing Shane Jones as a result of a quite brilliant piece of politics on Murray McCully’s part left Labour powerless to hit back at National. over using a Ministerial appointment to the public service to clearly achieve a political end. Disgusting sell out. Armstrong was always known to be right-leaning, but he’s clearly decided he’s near the end of his career and any dregs of professional credibility can be shed to serve winning Key another election.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 April 2014 at 9:18 am

                    Don’t forget there’s no appointment or even job description at this point. After all, McCully might realise it looks a bit fishy and have no choice but to regretfully change his mind.

                  • Pete George …
                    26 April 2014 at 9:30 am

                    I think the McCully part of the Shane Jones exit story has been overstated. Jones was obviously disillusioned with his political prospects anyway. He’s best getting out and letting Kelvin Davis in sooner rather than later.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 April 2014 at 10:05 am

                      So which is it?

                      Jones was about to quit anyway and this fortuitous little bait from Darth McCully just innocently happen to waft by – or Armstrong is making shit up to serve his blatant agenda of undermining Cunliffe?

                    • Pete George …
                      26 April 2014 at 10:54 am

                      “Jones was about to quit anyway and this fortuitous little bait from Darth McCully just innocently happen to waft by”

                      McCully might have influenced a bit but Jones seems to have wanted to get out regardless. That’s what he has said.

                      “Armstrong is making shit up to serve his blatant agenda of undermining Cunliffe?”

                      I haven’t seen evidence Armstrong is “making shit up”, nor that he has a “blatant agenda of undermining Cunliffe”. There’s more chance RedLogix is making shit up and has a blatant agenda of trying to undermine Armstrong.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 April 2014 at 11:06 am

                      So when the Armstrong article you so breathlessly quoted above says:

                      Labour’s embarrassment at losing Shane Jones as a result of a quite brilliant piece of politics on Murray McCully’s part left Labour powerless to hit back at National.

                      Does this mean that Armstrong either:

                      Thinks McCully’s offer had little to do with the resignation as you are claiming?

                      OR

                      Thinks McCully’s offer was a “quite brilliant piece of politics” that played an important part in the resignation?

                      Take your time – I realise it’s a tough question.

                    • Pete George …
                      26 April 2014 at 11:13 am

                      I disagree with Armstrong on that, I believe Jones when he says he had lost the passion and drive for politics (which for him only seemed to be spasmodic anyway), but Armstrong’s got a lot more experience observing politics and McCully than me.

                  • Disraeli Gladstone …
                    26 April 2014 at 10:55 am

                    I still don’t buy into Cunliffe as a crack in the neoliberal armour. To me, he Schrodinger’s cat. He says one thing to the unions and one thing to the corporate world at the exact same time. He was definitely on the right of Clarke’s ministers. You look at the policies being released and like either lprent or Mickey said, they haven’t actually moved that far to the left.

                    I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed with Cunliffe if he ever becomes Prime Minister. The disillusionment of Chris Trotter has already began. Cunliffe’s gone from messiah to a very naughty boy in only a year.

                  • Bearded Git …
                    26 April 2014 at 10:56 am

                    Well written RL. Agree entirely. +100.

                    Can I suggest no more posts here about Shane Jones (or Josie Pagani) and lets get back to policies.

                    Cunliffe will be brilliant on policy in the campaign. That is why Armstrong and his Nat/Act mates fear him.

                  • blue leopard …
                    26 April 2014 at 11:03 am

                    +1 RedLogix 9.13am

                  • anker …
                    26 April 2014 at 6:18 pm

                    Red Logix 1000+

                • amirite …
                  26 April 2014 at 10:59 am

                  PG, this is not FPP any more and the most National can get to on election day is 47%. They will still need coalition partners.

                  • Pete George …
                    26 April 2014 at 11:16 am

                    Some National hopefuls think National could go it alone but I agree that 47% should be the best they get and they will need coalition partners.

                    • Bearded Git …
                      26 April 2014 at 11:38 am

                      The thing is that if 47% becomes 44% then Lab/Green/ManaNet will be in power.

                      So we are talking about a 3% shift, and Cunliffe will be better than Key in the campaign and Labour’s policies will be better for the majority of NZers.

                      Go figure who is going to win!

                    • Pete George …
                      26 April 2014 at 5:01 pm

                      “The thing is that if 47% becomes 44% then Lab/Green/ManaNet will be in power.”

                      There’s no doubt that National is in a potentially precarious position, but you have left NZ First out of your equation. Most people seem to be picking success for Winston again, and I think there’s a very good chance of that.

                      So National on 40-44% could form a government with NZF on 5-8%.

                • Paul …
                  26 April 2014 at 11:35 am

                  Drivel

            • MartinH 4.2.1.1.1.2
              26 April 2014 at 8:34 am

              Yes they do cause me concern as Cunliffe has shown himself to be inept, in another party he would of being rolled by the caucus but the leadership rules means he cant be rolled by them.

              Dont you see that as being a problem unless you think Cunliffe being leader is more important than the partys need to be in govt?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                26 April 2014 at 8:42 am

                Caucus can initiate a leadership election. You really haven’t done your homework have you?

                • MartinH …
                  26 April 2014 at 8:50 am

                  I heard on tv3 they couldnt. How does that work?
                  Why havent they? They are dropping like flies?
                  Is it because the union vote will only put Cunliffe back in?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 April 2014 at 9:01 am

                    Have you mistaken your homework for something I could care less about? I am not your personal tutor.

                  • bad12 …
                    26 April 2014 at 9:01 am

                    You heard on TV3, says it all really, 🙄 🙄 🙄 …

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    26 April 2014 at 9:07 am

                    “Is it because the union vote will only put Cunliffe back in?”

                    The two biggest unions didn’t put up a preference in the leadership election, Martin. You need to put those smears on a leash before taking them out in public.

                • weka …
                  26 April 2014 at 9:06 am

                  To be fair though OAB, I think MartinH had more of a stab him in the back kind of leadership change, one where a few people do the stabbbing and everyone else goes along with out of fear or out of consideration of their personal careers. That’s the kind of system we want choosing our leaders!

              • David H …
                26 April 2014 at 1:35 pm

                Just wait until the Debates. Cunliffe will run rings around TricKey. And when the Prefu comes out. Then the shite will hit the fan, I have a feeling that when the books are opened it’s going to be worse than when Muldoon crashed out in a haze of Red Wine.

                • Skinny …
                  26 April 2014 at 4:42 pm

                  One thing similar to Muldoon is Key is hitting the sauce quite strongly. Maybe it’s the real shape of the books as you point out?

                  A bit of heat and slimy Key gets flustered and unsettled. Quite a few people I know loved it he got egged in Napier ( which is about a far as it should go) never know Key likes being trendy (planking, goofy selfies) so maybe that trend continues through to the election. Small things like this give Kiwi’s a laugh and is pretty tame ready, also get people wonder what was their beef?

                  Very confident the vote is coming out this time, while the right do there best to paint the polling as how things are a clear cut winner and don’t bother wasting your time to vote, surely this is realised as shut that option down.I
                  Pretty simple if Labour & the Greens can resource their respective social media, TV & radio & print campaigns around much of the fact that 10,000 votes was the difference. This is a figure that anyone can workout that it ridiculously low out of 800,000 non voters.

            • RedLogix 4.2.1.1.1.3
              26 April 2014 at 8:55 am

              Let me see now:

              First of all first of all the right was trying to frame Cunliffe ‘tricky’ – but now it’s ‘inept’, yet you can’t give any actual examples.

              The you tell us about how you can’t stand the direction Labour is heading in, but you can’t give any examples.

              You assure us that Labour is doing very badly with this mythical ‘middle NZ’, but you don’t get around to explaining why you believe this.

              Then you demonstrate a fairly extensive ignorance of Labour Party policy or procedure..

              The you trot out the risible old concern tr0ll line about ‘how I used to vote Labour’, a line that has been dishonestly used so often that only the most naive fool would use it.

              So far you’re not racking up any credibility at all Martin.

              • MartinH …
                26 April 2014 at 9:33 am

                The baby policy for starters

                • RedLogix …
                  26 April 2014 at 9:51 am

                  What do you have against families having babies?

                  • MartinH …
                    26 April 2014 at 11:47 am

                    That people on massive incomes were going to be given a hand out when they had a baby

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 April 2014 at 1:41 pm

                      Whinges about family tax policy benefiting top earners.

                      Supports tax cuts to the top earners so long as only they get them.

                      Yet another dishonest right winger. Are there any honest ones?

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 April 2014 at 2:00 pm

                      I see the game.

                      If Labour had restricted the policy to just low income families then you’d be making ugly noises about ‘paying loser ferals to breed’.

        • David H 4.2.1.2
          26 April 2014 at 8:57 am

          “The “big concern” for authoritarian fear-mongers is the manner of his election.”

          You got the right OAB , the method of election was totally alien to them. It was Democratically done.

          And for the myriad of T 🙄 S here, the meaning of the word.

          “Democracy” as referring to a system involving distribution of political power in the hands of the public which forms the electorate, representative government, and freedom of speech,

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

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2.1
            26 April 2014 at 1:44 pm

            Not quite: the Greens have been electing their leaders this way for ages. The difference is that the leader of the Labour Party will become Prime Minister.

    • ianmac 4.3
      26 April 2014 at 9:39 am

      Yes karol. A sort of Big Brother variation. They will capture the floaters and those who are casual politically.

  6. jh 6
    26 April 2014 at 8:10 am

    RBNZ Questions NZ Population Ponzi

    The Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) Michael Reddell has written an interesting paper questioning the merits of New Zealand’s high immigration program, which appears to have crowded-out (through higher interest rates and a high average real exchange rate) other productive investment, lowering living standards in the process:

    Reddell’s paper follows analysis completed earlier this month by the New Zealand Treasury, which questioned the merits of high immigration, and recommended a reduced immigration intake in the event that the economy is unable to adequately cope with population pressures.

    It also follows a 2011 report by New Zealand’s Savings Working Group, which also supported the notion that high levels of immigration tend to put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates, which can crowd-out productive sectors of the economy.

    As argued many times on this blog, a big negative of high rates of immigration is that it places increasing pressure on the pre-existing (already strained) stock of infrastructure and housing, reducing productivity and living standards unless costly new investments are made, which in turn chokes-off other productive investment.

    Indeed, as explained in a 2011 speech by the Reserve Bank of Australia’s Phil Lowe (summarised here), rapid population growth (immigration) since the mid-2000s has placed upward pressure on rents, as well as caused a big surge in utilities prices as the capacity of the system struggled to keep pace with the growing demand, requiring costly new investments.

    In a similar vein, modelling by the Productivity Commission has found that immigration is neither beneficial for the economy or living standards, nor can it sustainably alleviate the impacts of an ageing population.

    Any objective examination of the facts suggests that the case for a high level of immigration is anything but clear-cut and those advocating a strong migration program need to justify their position.

    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04/rbnz-slams-the-population-ponzi/
    Labour started the population ponzi. In the U.K a speech writer says the goal was “to rub the rights’ nose in diversity“.
    Reckless out of touch elites.

    • karol 6.1
      26 April 2014 at 8:29 am

      “Rub their noses in diversity”? Really?

      Actually if you look at NZ’s net migration flows, it has until last year had more migrants leaving than arriving in NZ. And most of the net increase, is due to less people leaving for Aussie. The biggest immigrant group comes from Aussie.

      Australia was the biggest contributor of new migrants, with 19,500 permanent and long-term arrivals in 2013, a gain of 31 percent from a year earlier. That was followed by 14,000 people from the UK, down 0.4 percent from 2012 and 8,200 people from China, up 5.9 percent.

      The problems for NZ are not migration flows, but the flows of international capital – the privileging of relatively wealthy buyers of property and investers in business.

      • jh 6.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 9:47 am

        “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

        The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

        Actually if you look at NZ’s net migration flows it has until last year had more migrants leaving than arriving in NZ. And most of the net increase, is due to less people leaving for Aussie. The biggest immigrant group comes from Aussie.

        After the period of very subdued population growth, New Zealand’s population growth accelerated rapidly from the early 1990s and, relative to other advanced economies, the pace remains strong. Public policy played a decisive part in the change – it is not just a matter of the free exercise of individual New Zealanders’ preference (either through having more children, or choosing to stay rather than leave New Zealand).

        Immigration policy was markedly reshaped and liberalised in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In macroeconomic terms, the most important element of the change was the very substantial resulting increase in the net inflow of non-New Zealanders…
        Figure 17 tells the story. The net outflow of New Zealand citizens fluctuates (with the New
        Zealand and foreign business cycle) but has been negative for several decades. The
        average annual outflow – around 0.6 per cent of the population over the last decade – is large
        by international standards. But it is now typically more than offset by the increasing number
        of net arrivals of non NZ citizens: from around 10000 in the period prior to the reforms, to
        something closer to 40000 per annum now.
        The difference makes a material
        macroeconomic difference; on average, for example, equivalent to around half New
        Zealand’s house-building in a normal year. As a share of population, the average net intake
        of non-New Zealanders is one of the largest anywhere; directly as a matter of policy choice.
        The net inflow of non New Zealand citizens has accounted for around 80 per cent of average
        population growth over the last two decades.
        The split of the data here between New Zealand and other citizens is simply to help illustrate
        the nature of the policy “shock”. Nothing in this paper relies on, or implies, any differences
        in the fundamental characteristics of New Zealand citizens and immigrants to New Zealand from other countries 62 . The only critical difference is that New Zealand citizens can come
        and go as they wish – their choices are totally endogenous to, e.g., relative economic
        conditions. By contrast, Australians aside (who make up a very small proportion of
        migrants), non-citizens can migrate to New Zealand only other policy provisions set, and
        altered from time to time, by the New Zealand government. Thus, although gross and net
        flows of non-New Zealand citizens can and do fluctuate, the substantial increase in the
        average net inflow since the late 1980s is a direct result of domestic policy choices.

        http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/seminars_and_workshops/Mar2013/5200823.pdf

  7. Tautoko Viper 7
    26 April 2014 at 8:12 am

    Labour will be more unified without Shane Jones’s constant stuff-ups. Bugger the polls.
    Now is the time to get in behind which ever left leaning party suits you best and do whatever you can to help it. I choose to help Labour because it needs the most support. What are YOU doing to help oust the current government who are asset stripping, diminishing our human rights and treating our disadvantaged citizens harshly and without respect. Whinging is not enough! Join a team and help.

    • karol 7.1
      26 April 2014 at 8:20 am

      I signed up to help the Greens, even though I’m not a party member. Having been asked to do anything yet. Also gave them a donation – about the first time I can recall having done so.

    • MartinH 7.2
      26 April 2014 at 8:30 am

      Bugger the polls???
      Seems you dont know care that most of NZ dont agree with the Policies of the left.
      Diminishing our human rights please explain? that might swing me left?
      Treating what disadvantaged citizens without respect?

      • Tigger 7.2.1
        26 April 2014 at 8:36 am

        Yes, I want to spend my Saturday convincing right wing posters on a left blog.

        • karol 7.2.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:39 am

          Clearly they have been sent out in force this morning – that or a few woke up very worried about the possible gain in momentum from the left.

          • Pete George 7.2.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 9:13 am

            Clearly you’re making things up karol. It’s kinda ironic that you claim others have been “sent out” just after saying “I signed up to help the Greens”.

            I didn’t wake up worried, but I am concerned about the possible losses of momentum by the left, Labour in particular. Aren’t you?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.1.1
              26 April 2014 at 9:20 am

              DNFTT

            • bad12 7.2.1.1.1.2
              26 April 2014 at 9:28 am

              Your worries are a total irrelevancy George, mind you it aint like your whole life hasn’t been the same, 🙄 🙄 🙄 …

            • weka 7.2.1.1.1.3
              26 April 2014 at 9:32 am

              The difference, and it’s all the difference in the world is that karol is upfront and honest about her agenda and her activism.

              “Clearly you’re making things up karol.”

              Clearly you are asserting shit because you don’t have a credible argument. Today you are not so much a concern tr8ll. Instead you are blatantly undermining Labour and the left. I know you think you are trying to help, but your approach has the exact opposite from what you intend, and that puts you in a special tr8ll class all of your own.

              • marty mars …
                26 April 2014 at 12:35 pm

                Pete may be thick but he’s sneaky too – thus his postings, which i agree makes him a special. Thing is pete this self appointed role you have assumed is all in your head – banging around like a bird trapped in an empty room.

            • captain hook 7.2.1.1.1.4
              26 April 2014 at 11:13 am

              No I am not. I dont listen to anybody who ends their arguments with an intterogative. They are dishonest, disresoectful and an invalid mode.
              aren’t they?

        • MartinH 7.2.1.2
          26 April 2014 at 8:39 am

          Lazy attitude. Sums up the the left now doesnt it just.
          Im not right im middle, But yes thats now far right compared to Labour

          • Te Reo Putake 7.2.1.2.1
            26 April 2014 at 8:52 am

            Poor Martin, let me guess. You’re chairman of Pooter George’s support group aren’t you? Here’s a fact for you; ‘I’m neither right nor left’ is code for I’m a rightie. Ask Peter Dunne, he knows.

            • MartinH 7.2.1.2.1.1
              26 April 2014 at 8:54 am

              Id never vote for Dunne, hes against capital gains tax yet he says hes centre

              • Te Reo Putake …
                26 April 2014 at 9:10 am

                Another thing you’ve got in common with Pete George; he didn’t know who he was going to vote for at the last election and he was a UF candidate!

          • karol 7.2.1.2.2
            26 April 2014 at 9:01 am

            And just for some “balance” – here’s the explanation from a member of the public on Stuff’s “Stuff Nation”, on why he won’t be voting National this election.

            It includes a long recap on Key’s brain fades, and the many ways key’s government has not acted in the interest of the majority of Kiwis.

            Firstly, before the usual suspects start making their “typical Leftie” or “typical Labour supporter” – or even “typical bludger” replies, I should state I am an ex-National voter, I am a health professional and have never been on a benefit.

            Secondly, I vote for the party that has the policies that benefit most of the general public – rather than sticking to one specific party “because Mummy and Daddy always vote for them”.

            He explains why he thinks National has not been good for the NZ economy. he ends by indicating he’s leaning towards voting NZ First.

            • weka 7.2.1.2.2.1
              26 April 2014 at 9:15 am

              In other words, maybe if National actually did employ an extra 3000 nurses, they should put them mostly into neurological services, to help them with their “brain fades”.

              lol. Good read thanks karol.

            • David H 7.2.1.2.2.2
              26 April 2014 at 9:18 am

              @ Karol.
              Wow I must remember to go back tomorrow and read the comments section. What’s the bet it will be full of flaming, and abuse. But no Real answers to what he has written there. Also I am amazed Stuff even printed it. Hey Blip Can I Borrow your list? I wonder if they would print that.

        • David H 7.2.1.3
          26 April 2014 at 9:07 am

          Tigger that’s one hell of a masochistic streak you got there. Convincing RWNJ’s of anything. It would be easier to just beat your head against a brick wall. Because they are either
          A: paid to disrupt. Or
          B: Just too brain dead to do anything constructive. Or
          C: They have a plan. A plan so cunning, and deceitful that they will just throw random words, and a link or 6, and call it a comment.

      • karol 7.2.2
        26 April 2014 at 8:38 am

        Seems you dont know care that most of NZ dont agree with the Policies of the left.

        Citations needed. Polls most Kiwis were against asset sales; most Kiwis are worried about employment.

        Your claims rest on how well Kiwis know and understand the policies on offer, and how much their views are skewed by some of the dominant lines run in and/or by the media.

        • MartinH 7.2.2.1
          26 April 2014 at 8:52 am

          Well seems like most kiwis are more worried about what the lefts effects on employment would be- take a look at the polls thats the only citation that matters overall

          • miravox 7.2.2.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 9:01 am

            MartinH, Have a look at the employment stats for Labour and National and if that’s your main concern, you’ll vote Labour – especially as you’re interested in a capital gains tax as well.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.1.1.1
              26 April 2014 at 9:28 am

              Nah, Martin isn’t going to address any of the economic indicators – despite constantly referring to them as though he had done his homework – he only cares about beer and roads.

              • miravox …
                26 April 2014 at 9:37 am

                Oh and Nigella (much as I admire her, I wouldn’t base my vote on her visa status).

                But yeah, I lived in hope for MartinH there for a few short minutes.

            • MartinH 7.2.2.1.1.2
              26 April 2014 at 9:38 am

              Yeah but that doesnt show the net effect of the GFC.
              Yes i would of voted Labour but i dont like they way they are now, they are too far left, the capital gains tax is appealling

              • miravox …
                26 April 2014 at 9:52 am

                I’m not sure you actually looked at the link that has graphs that go back way before the GFC. The long term graphs are why I chose that link, from many, to show Labour is better at producing jobs, and at the same time reducing government debt btw, than National.

                The GFC is a poor excuse for the current National government doing nothing, as far as I can see. Where I live, in a country with a positive employment policy, smack in the middle of the EU, the unemployment rate has remained below New Zealand’s since 2008.

                • MartinH …
                  26 April 2014 at 11:50 am

                  Hows our employment rate compare to others over time?
                  Have labour being in in more favourable headwinds such as 2000-2008 when the world was booming?

                  • Paul …
                    26 April 2014 at 11:53 am

                    Your antipathy to Labour is quite virulent for someone who voted Labour.
                    You also repeat a lot from talk hate radio and extreme right wing blogs.
                    Don’t reckon you are who you claim to be.

                  • miravox …
                    27 April 2014 at 12:05 am

                    “Hows our employment rate compare to others over time?”

                    According to Wiki 5th best in the OECD in 2007. Only 14th best now, despite the Christchurch rebuild.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                26 April 2014 at 9:58 am

                Yeah, but it completely destroys your dishonest bad faith “concerns” about employment levels and the Left, and so you changed the subject to pretending that the GFC is an excuse for the National Party’s poor record, and you’re transparent and really really bad at this lurking under a bridge lark.

                We need better wingnuts.

                • MartinH …
                  26 April 2014 at 11:53 am

                  No im concerned as to what the greens will do that will affect employment and the Labour party that is now more left than the centrist party it was that wont stop such anti industrialisation moves

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 April 2014 at 12:39 pm

                    Claims to be concerned about employment.

                    Votes for a party that has consistently produced higher unemployment.

                    Tells lies about Green Party policy.

                    No wonder research shows that low IQ predicts for right wing political beliefs.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      26 April 2014 at 3:59 pm

                      Fuck I’m annoyed about Labour cause they are too far right.

                      I can’t see for the life of me how you can satisfy your disillusionment with Labour by saying you support the selfish, line your own pockets, look after the top, demonise the citizens you’re supposed to be looking after, sell off the legacy assets bought by the population of years past, debt accumulating, bailout high risk investor, earth polluting, small business hating, democracy attacking National Party.

                      Maybe you supported the bastard Labour government who started this crap.

                      That would explain it.

                  • bad12 …
                    26 April 2014 at 3:52 pm

                    Here MartinH you’ve really earned it, 🙄 🙄 🙄 …

      • Tautoko Viper 7.2.3
        26 April 2014 at 8:49 am

        The US has become an oligarchy because of the political donation system. It is obvious that parties that represent the 95% are going to attract less wealthy donors than those that favour the top “earning” 5%. Even in NZ, it is more difficult to raise political funding from those who are stretched financially in order to represent them. Think of the ways that you can help. Getting people to enrol or update their enrolment to vote if they have recently shifted; talking to others about the negative changes in education and housing over the last 5 years; the untruth about the “fiscally neutral” tax break for the top “earners”; the difference between the piddling beneficiary fraud amount and the large estimated tax evasion, etc.
        Pick out even one aspect that will affect your new young voter and motivate them to vote.

    • Skinny 7.3
      26 April 2014 at 4:56 pm

      Agree and good stuff getting amongst it. All very well slinging from the side like a few on here different doing the mahi.

  8. millsy 8
    26 April 2014 at 9:13 am

    Martin what policies do u want Labour to drop or pick up?

    Do you support publicly provided health and education and healthcare and employment law and rail transport?

    • MartinH 8.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:40 am

      Support roads of national significance and pick up rail.
      Drop taxing alcohol more, drop any anti mining, drop this housing nz policy which seems to give people in housing NZ houses for life when the rest of us have to work for one.
      Drop their opposition to the law which gave my cousin who had being in jail work the 60 day employment law or whatever its called.
      I dont know about education

      • bad12 8.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 10:59 am

        Says everything about you doesn’t it MartinH, you believe that wages of the low paid workers are such that they can ever afford to purchase a home???,

        The way forward for such low paid workers is in fact for the State to provide them either with a low cost rental and or that low cost rental with a defined pathway to ownership of it wouldn’t you say MartinH,???

        In an economy that has not had full employment since the 1970’s MartinH how can you maintain that people in State Housing are somehow ‘privileged’…

        • MartinH 8.1.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

          No, i very much want low paid workers to be able to afford their own home, i think that is very very important. Thats why i support banning foreign property investors/ a capital gains tax and more than 15% Labour talks of and i also think the unused areas to the east of howick, north of albany and around Kumeu should be open up to housing and industrialisation for job centres immediately.

          No i dont think that the govt should provide low cost rental to ownership. I think that the govt should provide a market where people can get a house with low wages and that requires removing speculation /capital gains and building lots of new houses.

          I never said people in state houses are priviledged, they are lucky they get given state housing bthough and i think most of them deserve it, but they should also be made to try and better themselves.
          I dont want the state to support people who dont want to make a fist of it, if they dont want to contribute then it should be taken back from them and given to people who actaully want to contribute

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 1:26 pm

            It’s pretty clear that all the money tax-payers spent educating Martin were a complete waste of resources: he hasn’t a shred of empathy or decency and is more concerned with scapegoating the most vulnerable members of society than helping them.

            I propose that he be made to return the full value of every societal benefit he has ever received.

          • bad12 8.1.1.1.2
            26 April 2014 at 3:49 pm

            Has anyone ever described you MartinH as a Fucking Idiot, i fear that i am fast reaching such a conclusion based upon the dribble of drivel you have so far seen fit to Post here as comments today,

            How in an economy that is run on the basis of 6% being unemployed do you propose to ”make” people try and better themselves,

            Are you really so facile and dead in the head that you cannot grasp the simple facts surrounding low wages and unemployment,

            in such an economy X person bettering themselves by securing employment simply means that person Y has to take a turn being unemployed, as this situation of rotational employment/unemployment is the reality for the low waged economy,(somewhere around 300,000 people), how the fuck are they supposed to better themselves or do you really buy into the stupidity that believes that everyone on the dole simply sits being unemployed all their lives,

            Your ‘ideas’ on housing are just as ”dense”, private housing is developed by developers gaining the maximum amount of profit from building the biggest most expensive house on a piece of land they have aquired, by definition that shuts out the 300,000 engaged in rotational employment from ever owning a home,

            The State can by using land it already owns build housing of a lesser magnitude and using tools such as the future payments of benefits such as child payments put such people into home ownership, this has been accomplished befor and should be again…

      • Paul 8.1.2
        26 April 2014 at 11:39 am

        Given this list, I just don’t see how you ever voted for Labour.
        ACT sounds like your kind of party.

        • MartinH 8.1.2.1
          26 April 2014 at 12:04 pm

          I do support Acts three strikes rules but i also think they a naive int terms of how less govt a country needs

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 1:28 pm

            Have you stopped to ponder why the legal profession is so against them? Or considered any of their arguments? Or do you go along with everything Jamie Unclecousin tells you?

      • The Lone Haranguer 8.1.3
        26 April 2014 at 12:31 pm

        I would probably vote Labour if they kept supporting diversity across the board – but Im not sure how that works when diversity includes letting foreigners into NZ, but maybe doesnt let them actually buy a roof over their heads.

        But then I let myself down by wanting them to assimilate in as “New Zealanders” – but probably without house ownership.

        And I think that Labour is totally dishonest in leaving domestic housing out of its CGT. Nobody has yet explained a viable economic or taxation based reason to have that exclusion.

        Why should a family in Auckland (or parts of Christchurch) be able to bank maybe $200,000 tax free on a house sale when the poor saps in Tokoroa will struggle to even get their original capital back?

  9. bad12 9
    26 April 2014 at 9:23 am

    ”Its awful isn’t it”, so said ‘the Hairdo’ Peter Dunne, standing in the middle of Naenae’s shopping center with Campbell Live presenter John Campbell,

    Most commentators have taken this to mean Dunne was commenting on the ‘legal high’ shop at the center of the program, they got it wrong,

    A clearly shaken Dunne, an instant cure for His anal retention causing a painful tightening of His sphincter, was obviously commenting on His view of the Naenae shopping centers grim outlook as a whole,

    The shallow little prick might like to reflect that this stark wasteland is the sum total of the profits of 35 years of the Neo-liberal economic experiment, i doubt tho Dunne could even begin to connect the dots between the drunk staggering and mumbling in near incoherence to the ‘brighter future’ He has helped implement in 30 odd years of Parliamentary dis-service to the people,

    Aside from the abysmal Dunne, sometimes the odd commentator gets it right, this from John Roughman in today’s Herald online:

    ”The lesson here may be that there are no half measures in drug policy–if stuff is truly harmful, ban it. if it is no worse than alcohol, let the market match its supply to demand”…

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:35 am

      Unfair. Dunne has never had any power over anything substantial. The political party that is the Treasury department has had a far greater influence.

      • bad12 9.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 10:29 am

        Totally fair, Dunne has been in Government for a great part of the Neo-liberal trashing of New Zealand,

        It pleases me that Dunne was subjected, albeit for the briefest of moments, the end result, the stumbling mumbling drunk and the trail of people who feel the need to change the reality of their daily grind,(who tho can blame them for escaping such a reality)…

      • jh 9.1.2
        26 April 2014 at 5:42 pm

        The political party that is the Treasury department has had a far greater influence.
        …
        so why don’t National, Labour or the Greens heed treasuries advice on immigration levels? Why aren’t treasury working papers discussed in the news media?

    • ianmac 9.2
      26 April 2014 at 9:48 am

      Agreed.Mr Dunne meant that he disliked the Naenae shopping Centre. He did at least front up but seemed out of touch with the locals.

    • David H 9.3
      26 April 2014 at 10:22 am

      Didn’t Mallard show up looking like he was one of the users? unshaven and just generally shabby.

  10. Clean_power 10
    26 April 2014 at 9:29 am

    Something to ponder.
    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8835307/jones-damages-labours-election-prospects

    From Labour’s perspective, the worst thing about losing Shane Jones is that his departure will almost certainly be perceived as a vote of no confidence in the party’s ability to win the election.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:49 am

      Perceived, or framed?

      By Jones’ own account he asked for the “job” four years ago; the timing of his departure was designed to give that impression.

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      26 April 2014 at 11:14 pm

      Nah, the way I see it, Jones expected Labour to win and didn’t like the idea of actually having to do some work in government. Opposition is much easier, where he just uses big words inappropriately and makes some stupid statements now and again.

  11. RedLogix 11
    26 April 2014 at 9:36 am

    Yet Jones himself made it clear that one the big motivations behind giving it away (apart from McCully’s 30 pieces of silver that is) – was that he was not happy at the prospect of working in a coalition government with the Greens.

    Fair enough that was his call.

    So which is it – that he didn’t think the left could win this election, or that he believed they would?

    • bad12 11.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:56 am

      The heart of the matter???, Jones on TV3’s the Nation– ”In march i had a conversation about my place on the Party list with the Labour Party Prez”‘–or words to that effect,

      my view is that Jones knew in March that the writing was on the wall, and from the view point of slipping public poll numbers for Labour, Jones has done a little calculation based upon the public polls and His earlier conversation with the Party Prez which has caused Him to ‘toss the toys’ now rather than face not returning from the basis of low public polls and a low position on the Party list…

      • RedLogix 11.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 10:13 am

        Oh – I don’t get NZ tele here so I missed that.

        That really does put a less attractive face on the whole deal.

        Now for the other ventricle – who leaked the resignation while Cunliffe was in a car driving to Waipu to talk to Jones?

        • bad12 11.1.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 10:37 am

          Pure speculation– Jones or Murray McCully, i would lean toward Jones if there is any truth to what He said about having had the conversation about Party list placings with the Party Prez in March,

          What also leans me in Jones’es direction is the ”you’re kidding” from Slippery the Prime Minister who seemed genuinely in the dark when first quizzed on the supposed ‘job for Jones’ by the media when the story first broke,

          i am also picking that the ‘job for Jones’ might quietly die in the coming months as Slippery throws a little un-public hissy fit with McCullly for not keeping Him informed…

          • bad12 11.1.1.1.1
            26 April 2014 at 10:44 am

            PS, i also think that Winston Peters has His fingerprints all over this as well, while Jones isn’t a drinking buddy of McCully’s, Peters is, as is Jones with Peters, i should imagine that if Jones knew the ramifications of His conversation over His list placing in March this would have been a point of discussion over drinks with Peters,

            Might be the source of the rumour going round previously linking Jones with NZFirst,(something that might resurrect itself should National not be forthcoming with the ‘job for Jones’)…

  12. ffloyd 12
    26 April 2014 at 9:36 am

    An article in the national party voice for the public aka the herald about the mew CEO of Auckland city having his salary downsized to 600.000 or so. Right at the end of the article the writer added in apropos of nothing that John key donates “a good part of his salary” to charity. Why did he need to add that on? And we all know who his favourite charity is, don’t we.

    • tc 12.1
      26 April 2014 at 12:41 pm

      Yet another piece of bs from shonkey, hes never proven he gives a cent to any charity. Its a vote winner but strangely its never substantiated, wonder why.

      No fact checking on the nat daily and no surprises about that.

  13. Penny Bright 13
    26 April 2014 at 9:46 am

    FYI (Sorry – had computer problems – posted now FYI)

    I have had to remove the links to the mainstream media articles because otherwise it seems that I would not have been able to post this :

    24 April 2014

    Bribery and Corruption complaint to SFO CEO Julie Read, re: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully’s ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’ job offer to Labour MP Shane Jones

    I wish to make a formal complaint to the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office (SFO) alleging bribery and corruption against Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully, under s.103 (2) of the Crimes Act 1961:

    (PLEASE NOTE – THIS IS A ‘BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION’ COMPLAINT – NOT A ‘SERIOUS AND COMPLEX FRAUD’ COMPLAINT!)

    Please also be advised that if the SFO chooses not to prosecute, it is my intention to engage the services of Graham McCready, Prosecutor for Private Prosecution Services Ltd.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328748.html

    103 Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament

    (2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any member of Parliament in respect of any act or omission by him or her in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament.

    The ‘offer’ made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Murry McCully, being the job offer of ‘Pacific Economic Ambassador’ to Labour Party MP, Shane Jones.

    The ‘intent to influence any member of Parliament in respect of any act’ being to encourage Labour Party MP Shane Jones to leave Parliament as an MP.

    EVIDENCE (and ‘public interest’) relating to this matter:

    Mainstream media coverage of this issue:
    ……………………….

    Shane Jones to leave Labour, set to work with Murray McCully
    Tuesday, 22 April 2014, 6:15pm
    Source: TV3
    Shane Jones is quitting, and there’s a job already lined up for him a a job offer from the enemy, the National Government.

    ………………………………

    Shane Jones best pick for new role – McCully
    Wednesday, 23 April 2014, 9:15am
    Source: TV3
    Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully denies Shane Jones’ new role was created in order to derail Labour’s election campaign.

    Shane Jones to leave Labour, set to work with Murray McCully
    Patrick Gower 3 News Political Editor
    By Patrick Gower
    Political Editor
    Tuesday 22 Apr 2014 6:01p.m.
    ……………………………….
    …………………………..
    …………………………….
    By: Michael Sergel, Corazon Miller, and Laura McQuillan, Latest Political News | Wednesday April 23 2014 5:08
    UPDATED 6:50pm: Shane Jones has lost his drive for politics.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/jones-quitting-politics-ck-155095
    Shane Jones quits politics
    NBR Staff | Tuesday April 22, 2014 | 25 comments
    ……………
    Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint at your earliest convenience.

    Yours sincerely,
    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption/anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’
    Attendee: 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate (polled 4th with 11,723 votes, campaigning against corrupt corporate control of the Auckland region).

    ……………….
    ……………….
    ………………..

    • Browsing 13.1
      26 April 2014 at 1:39 pm

      Just out of interest…

      How many of your complaints have progressed to either a prosecution, or some other punishment or warning of the people you have complained about?

      • Penny Bright 13.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 5:35 pm

        errr…. I (and others) helped to get John Banks into Court to face an electoral fraud charge?

        Myself. Lisa Prager and Trevor Mallard all made complaints about John Banks, which ended up with the Police.

        When the Police choose to do nothing, Graham McCready filed a private prosecution, and the rest is history…..

        Rather a significant and historically-unprecedented result?

        Banks will be in the Auckland High Court on Monday 19 May 2014, and the hearing is set down for 10 days.

        I predict Banks will be convicted – which means he will have to leave Parliament.

        For some background information which is evidence of the significant amount of (unpaid) time which has gone into this campaign:

        http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

        Also – further (unpaid) background work on trying to get ‘one law for all’ to equally apply to John Banks (and Don Brash) as former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd:

        http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

        Kind regards,

        Penny Bright

        PS: There are more examples of successful ‘complainng’ – but this should help make the point?

        • Browsing 13.1.1.1
          28 April 2014 at 5:29 pm

          Cheers Penny,

          So not sure how many cases you have taken, but one has been (I guess still to be confirmed) successful. The “Errr” seems a bit defensive. I was not being critical at all, I just wondered what sort of results you were achieving.

      • Penny Bright 13.1.2
        26 April 2014 at 5:35 pm

        errr…. I (and others) helped to get John Banks into Court to face an electoral fraud charge?

        Myself. Lisa Prager and Trevor Mallard all made complaints about John Banks, which ended up with the Police.

        When the Police choose to do nothing, Graham McCready filed a private prosecution, and the rest is history…..

        Rather a significant and historically-unprecedented result?

        Banks will be in the Auckland High Court on Monday 19 May 2014, and the hearing is set down for 10 days.

        I predict Banks will be convicted – which means he will have to leave Parliament.

        For some background information which is evidence of the significant amount of (unpaid) time which has gone into this campaign:

        http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

        Also – further (unpaid) background work on trying to get ‘one law for all’ to equally apply to John Banks (and Don Brash) as former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd:

        http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

        Kind regards,

        Penny Bright

        PS: There are more examples of successful ‘complainng’ – but this should help make the point?

  14. millsy 14
    26 April 2014 at 9:47 am

    So martin you want to kick state tenants out even though they cannot afford private sector rents?
    Do you support environmental regulations so mining companies don’t foul our rivers. Do you think unions should be banned. Do you think north lands rail network should be closed? What is your view of the US health system?

    • MartinH 14.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:51 am

      No, if they cant afford it then definitely not, i think they should be downsized to smaller units if they have spare rooms.
      Yes i dont want mining companies fouling our rivers.
      No i dont think northlands rail network should be closed,
      I dont know abut the US health system but it sounds expensive

  15. millsy 15
    26 April 2014 at 9:52 am

    Do you think workers should be striped of all rights and have no sick leave or holidays and treated like disposable slaves? Do you want homosexuals barred from the teaching profession?

    • MartinH 15.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:54 am

      Millsy. Of course not, thats offensive, both of them, id pick up arms against no sick leave or holidays

  16. bad12 16
    26 April 2014 at 10:16 am

    David Parker on TV3’s the Nation, my view this person is the one impediment to a Labour lead Government being elected in September,

    Why–superannuation, Parker, “We are not moving from our policy of raising the age of superannuation”

    Interviewer–”But are you not making it impossible to form a Government with NZFirst being totally against such a policy”

    Parker–”We are not moving from our policy of raising the age of superannuation”,

    Missing from Parker’s rhetoric this time round, ”there is no alternative”, now its spurious comments that superannuation costs more than this, that, and, the other, BUT, Parker chooses to treat ALL of us as if we are stupid, NO numbers not one,

    The facts: between 1980 and 2012 the number of those collecting superannuation doubled, because of GDP growth between 2008 and 2012 we afforded those payments,

    Between 2012 and 2035 the number of those collecting superannuation will double again, can this be afforded, YES, based upon the rate of GDP growth between 1980 and 2012 and applying that rate of GDP growth to the years ahead to 2035 what we have previously afforded is also affordable,

    The superannuation policy is in my opinion costing the Labour Party between 2 and 5% of the vote, again in my opinion this one policy will be the difference in there being a Labour lead Government after the September election or not,

    Parker’s intransigent position on Superannuation would suggest the result will be more likely ”Or Not”…

    • ianmac 16.1
      26 April 2014 at 10:29 am

      So your belief is that GDP growth will continue at an adequate rate regardless of a shift in exports like a collapse in dairy or the ending of earthquake rebuild?
      If numbers collecting super doubles again wouldn’t GDP have to double also?

      • bad12 16.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 11:23 am

        You’re right ianmac, ”if numbers collecting super doubles again wouldn’t GDP have to double also”, unquote.

        If i apply the figures for GDP growth in Billions of dollars from 1980 to 2012 to the years ahead to 2035 i get near a doubling of GDP in terms of billions of dollars,

        From memory the total shortfall in terms of billions of dollars over that whole period is about 12 billion dollars, not yearly, over the total period out to 2035,(now how many billions of dollars is in the Cullen super-fund again),

        i am basing my belief TOTALLY on the rate of GDP growth between 1980 and 2012 in terms of billions of dollars, it is in fact the only LOGICAL means of looking at the future by applying that rate of GDP growth out to 2035,

        i will dig the figures out for you later if you want to see how i arrived at what is my BELIEF based upon actual rates of growth in dollar terms from 1980 to 2012,(i have stuff that needs doing half an hour ago),

        You have to remember that the figures from 1980 to 2012 also contain any number of financial crisis, share market crash etc, along with shifts in production and exports,

        My opposition to the proposed raising of the age of entitlement is not only based upon what i see as wrong headed Neo-liberalism from some in the Labour Caucus but my belief that the economics just do not support the notion that superannuation is in any way going to become unaffordable…

    • RedLogix 16.2
      26 April 2014 at 10:50 am

      The whole superannuation thing baffles me.

      It’s the same policy being heavily pushed by the Abbott government It’s a right-ward moving policy if there ever was one.

      Why is Labour going anywhere near this sad, unimaginative, unattractive policy – when there are far more interesting alternatives?

    • idlegus 16.3
      26 April 2014 at 3:40 pm

      parker in my opinion is utterly unlikable, & the right wing superann idea is scary.

      • bad12 16.3.1
        26 April 2014 at 4:13 pm

        Yep, we only have to look at other jurisdictions to see what the ”plan” is, by degrees the likes of Parker will move the age of entitlement further and further out, this time to 67,the next to 70, install compulsory savings and sooner or later none of us will get a pension,

        The top end of town will tho in the future get another round of tax cutting, this is all about wealth redistribution, aimed solidly at keeping the middle class happy…

  17. phillip ure 17
    26 April 2014 at 10:47 am

    every sat morn i sit down with the intention of doing a review of the nation..

    ..but usually i just come away with a few fragments of thought..

    ..there just isn’t enough to review..

    ..this weeks’ fragments are that parker continued his (incredibly stupid) die-in-the-ditch stance on raising the super age..

    ..and yes..he said it wouldn’t start until 2020..going up by 2 months a year..

    ..which only begs the question..

    ..so why the fucken rush to die in the ditch over it now in 2014..?

    ..when..especially..especially..when yr needed/crucial/essential coalition partners don’t want a bar of it..(!)

    ..so..you will never get it hru…

    ..so given this clear failure in that art of the possible..

    ..once again…that brings me back to the question:

    ..why the fuck die in the ditch on this in 2014..

    ..could this be more quixotic/stupid on the part of parker..?

    ..and what really really disturbs me..is that parker seems not to have the fucken nous to be able to see what to me is as obvious as a wart on the end of a nose..

    ..that it will fail..that it will sour/complicate coalition-negotiations..

    ..and making up the trifecta..it will cost the votes of those who only hear ‘labour is going to raise the age of super’..(and they will turn away..many for just that reason..)

    ..and of course this will weaken support amongst maori for labour..given their shorter life-spans..

    ..many maori already die before the current age..

    ..so yeah..einstein..they’ll support raising that age even further..eh..?

    ..and tho’ peters is adamantly opposed to raising the super age..he will be rubbing his hands in delight/glee that parker/labour is pushing for it..

    ..’cos many of those voters that turn away from labour..over just this policy..will turn to him/nz first..

    ..these facts/political-realities are what make me so gobsmacked at the blind/ever-more-pig-headed determination to hurt both the voter-base..

    ..and to further complicate coalition negotiations..

    ..and for what..?

    ..like i said..this die-in-a-ditch-over plan doesn’t kick in until 2020..

    ..what – is – the – fucken – rush..?

    • phillip ure 17.1
      26 April 2014 at 10:57 am

      oh..!..and rightwing-trout pagani carried on like a rightwing-trout would..

      ..and dunne is clearly in serious damage-control over his disasterous legal-high regime..

      ..(and personally..i am waiting/hoping for a tipping-point..

      ..where most go:..’w.t.f..!..just decriminalise/regulate/tax/test pot..!

      ..’cos..funny story..!

      ..those places that have packed away the insanities of cannabis-prohibition..

      ..and have decriminalised/regulated/taxed pot..

      ..they have no ‘legal-high’ issues…eh..?

      ..and could this legal-high/ban-pot!-clusterfuck-madness be more of a telling example..

      ..of the ‘cure’ being far worse that that which it purports to heal..?
      ‘cos the fact of the matter is that cannabis is the safest intoxicant of all..

      ..end of story..

  18. joe90 18
    26 April 2014 at 11:36 am

    The long version of a review in today’s dompost .

    .
    Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty, translated by Arthur Goldhammer (Belknap Press)

    Income inequality in the United States and elsewhere has been worsening since the 1970s. The most striking aspect has been the widening gap between the rich and the rest. This ominous anti-democratic trend has finally found its way into public consciousness and political rhetoric. A rational and effective policy for dealing with it—if there is to be one—will have to rest on an understanding of the causes of increasing inequality. The discussion so far has turned up a number of causal factors: the erosion of the real minimum wage; the decay of labor unions and collective bargaining; globalization and intensified competition from low-wage workers in poor countries; technological changes and shifts in demand that eliminate mid-level jobs and leave the labor market polarized between the highly educated and skilled at the top and the mass of poorly educated and unskilled at the bottom.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed

  19. big bruv 19
    26 April 2014 at 11:45 am

    So did anybody else here turn up 15mins late for Dawn parade and then disrespect the fallen by checking their phone for messages during the service, or was that only David Cunliffe?

    • Paul 19.1
      26 April 2014 at 11:51 am

      Politicising ANZAC Day.
      And copying stories from Slater’s sewer.
      You expect a discussion on this ‘story.’
      Prat.

    • lprent 19.2
      26 April 2014 at 2:26 pm

      Another non-story from Whale eh? I guess he is too ignorant to discuss policy.

    • mickysavage 19.3
      26 April 2014 at 2:37 pm

      I was there. DC turned up just before the start after having attended the New Lynn Anzac parade shortly before. I did not see him check his phone once and he read the sermon. He then hung around afterwards talking to people like he always does.

      Big bruv I presume that you have a reliable source for your story?

      Edit: I just saw the photos at the sewer. It looks like he is taking a photo which is quite possible. But everyone was. So BB where is the evidence that he was late?

      • ianmac 19.3.1
        26 April 2014 at 2:59 pm

        Good to read a true report there micky. It did read at WO like a wild exaggeration and the rat smelled worse when bigbruv turned up. I tried to imagine what if anything David photographed behind the tree? Grass? A brick wall?
        There must be fear in the Nat camp to try such petty stuff that they would invent such trivia.

        • mickysavage 19.3.1.1
          26 April 2014 at 3:14 pm

          Cheers ianmac. Behind the seats in front to the right where DC is photographing was the flags, the memorial area where the wreaths were laid and various groups of young children who were either singing or presenting a wreath. Lots of people were taking photos. I took quite a few myself. The RSA manager asked if I could so that they could then be displayed in the RSA

          The right has no shame. Imagine how they would have treated this if an identical allegation was made. It does look as if at one stage DC looked at his phone but so what?

    • Murray Olsen 19.4
      26 April 2014 at 11:29 pm

      Ukraine is calling you. Off you go. Rambo killed lots of Russians in Afghanistan and now it’s big bruv’s turn in Ukraine. Key might even go to your funeral, as long as his son isn’t playing croquet or whatever it was, and [Deleted.] Bye bye big bruv.

      [RL: I realise this is a public domain story, but I very strongly believe in keeping family and private lives out of the political domain unless there is good reason. I would much, much prefer The Standard didn’t go there.]

      • Murray Olsen 19.4.1
        27 April 2014 at 8:10 pm

        My point still stands without that example. Key will go to army funerals if he has no family engagements, then he gives them precedence. Doesn’t matter if it’s sport or the other, the soldiers come second. Fair enough, except that he’s the one who sent them into danger.

  20. big bruv 20
    26 April 2014 at 11:56 am

    Not at all Paul. I am surprised that Cunliffe even bothered to turn up given that Clark never attended a dawn service. She used to say that she “did not do mornings”. Mind you, what more could you expect from a person like Clark who once spat on returning soldiers.

    I also note that you do not deny that Cunliffe was late and spent the service checking messages.

    The man is a low life, thank goodness he will never be PM.

    • Paul 20.1
      26 April 2014 at 11:58 am

      No, you’re not politicising ANZAC Day.
      Of course not.
      Are you for real?

    • MartinH 20.2
      26 April 2014 at 12:30 pm

      thank goodness he will never be PM.
      Cunliffe is just one big continuous output of ineptitude and has no humility

      • Colonial Viper 20.2.1
        26 April 2014 at 3:06 pm

        Keep writing your fiction, there is a special place in hell for liars like yourself, don’t you know.

  21. big bruv 21
    26 April 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Paul

    Would I be politicising ANZAC day if I were to wear a white poppy like so many of the low life left?

    And I could not help but notice that again you missed the chance to refute the claim that Cunliffle turned up late and spent the service checking his messages.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1
      26 April 2014 at 2:15 pm

      What claim? I haven’t noticed it being made by anyone credible. “Bruv and Cameron say” doesn’t make the cut, sorry.

  22. Tiger Mountain 22
    26 April 2014 at 12:13 pm

    “forgotten men from a forgotten war…”

    Imperialist wars Bruv consist of a bayonet with a worker on each end, or maybe a drone controller as it is these days.

  23. greywarbler 23
    26 April 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Further to karol’s post on housing earlier on – 25 Apr 2014 Key Govt asset stripping state housing.
    This is from Radionz this afternoon on houses designed that you can build yourself and could pay off with two people working in five years. These are based on practical and clever design to produce a nest that can be built quickly with minimum tools. It’s even better than my description
    so here’s the link. This is something that forward thinkers like us could get behind.
    http://spacecraft.co.nz/

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thiswayup
    Wikihouses ( 10′ 38″ )
    13:15 The “Wikihouse” is a new global open source building movement that’s
    trying to revolutionise how we build our homes. Designers Danny Squires and Martin Luff are hoping wikihouses can play a part in the Christchurch rebuild.

    Share
    Download:
    Ogg  |  MP3

    Happy cities? ( 21′ 32″ )
    13:25 In his book ‘Happy City’ Charles Montgomery argues that cities can be happy
    places to live. With the world’s urban population forecast to nearly 5 billion or 60 percent of the world’s population by 2030, let’s hope he’s right!

    Radio nz notes on the above and on cities generally.
    After the 1pm news, a new global open source building movement that’s trying to revolutionise how we build our homes. It’s called the ‘wikihouse’ and we’ll meet 2 designers hoping the idea could be part of the Christchurch rebuild.

    Then at about 1:25pm the Canadian writer Charles Montgomery reckons cities can be happy places to live. And with the world’s urban population forecast to rise from 3.2 billion today to nearly 5 billion by 2030, 60 percent of the world’s population will really be hoping he’s right! We speak to Charles about his book Happy City: transforming our lives through urban design (Penguin).

  24. Bearded Git 24
    26 April 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Ad made the following comment in Open Mike yesterday:

    “Here in Wanaka people just laugh when I talk about Labour or Greens. Phrases like “a house divided cannot stand” and “country’s doing great” for Labour, and “ewwww!” And “ha hahaaa” for Greens.
    Everyone’s income is addicted to real estate, tourism, and superannuation. Those in agriculture can’t get comprehensive irrigation fast enough.
    Quite bracing. Pour me a Pinot.”

    I live in Wanaka. Ad must be mixing with the wrong kind of people. The residents I talk to are disillusioned with most of this government’s policies, especially the carte blanche on dairy. Lake Wanaka is unfenced and cattle regularly shit on the beaches.

    The Green vote was a healthy 11.8% in the Waitaki electorate in 2011 (of which Wanaka is part), and from memory was higher than this in the Wanaka ward. I expect it to go higher this time.

    Cunliffe/Norman/Turei versus Key will be worth 5% in the campaign, and Peters will knife Key too. The bubbly is on ice.

  25. Paul 25
    26 April 2014 at 5:17 pm

    Piketty’s ideas and the US’s rights response is worth a post in its own right.

    Labour and other left should be making inequality 1 of the 2 MAIN issues of the campaign.
    As this article shows, the right have no answer. They can only resort to name calling.

    “In his latest column for the New York Times, award-winning economist and best-selling author Paul Krugman continues to champion the new book on inequality from French economist Thomas Piketty while ridiculing conservatives for having no substantive response to Piketty’s work.”

    “The really striking thing about the debate so far,” Krugman writes, “is that the right seems unable to mount any kind of substantive counterattack to Mr. Piketty’s thesis. Instead, the response has been all about name-calling — in particular, claims that Mr. Piketty is a Marxist, and so is anyone who considers inequality of income and wealth an important issue.”

    “No, what’s really new about “Capital” is the way it demolishes that most cherished of conservative myths, the insistence that we’re living in a meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved.

    For the past couple of decades, the conservative response to attempts to make soaring incomes at the top into a political issue has involved two lines of defense: first, denial that the rich are actually doing as well and the rest as badly as they are, but when denial fails, claims that those soaring incomes at the top are a justified reward for services rendered. Don’t call them the 1 percent, or the wealthy; call them “job creators.”

    But how do you make that defense if the rich derive much of their income not from the work they do but from the assets they own? And what if great wealth comes increasingly not from enterprise but from inheritance?

    What Mr. Piketty shows is that these are not idle questions. Western societies before World War I were indeed dominated by an oligarchy of inherited wealth — and his book makes a compelling case that we’re well on our way back toward that state.”

    Krugman isn’t surprised that conservatives are flummoxed, though, saying that because Piketty’s book so debunks one of their core convictions about the economy, it’s hardly a surprise to find them grasping for answers. “[T]he insistence that we’re living in a meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved,” Krugman writes, is “that most cherished of conservative myths…” But Piketty “demolishes” it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/krugman-the-piketty-panic.html?hp&rref=opinion

  26. Penny Bright 26
    26 April 2014 at 5:59 pm

    Seems that New Zealand is not only ‘soft’ on foreign bribery?

    http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/new-zealand-not-immune-from-foreign-bribery.htm

    New Zealand not immune from foreign bribery, says OECD

    17/10/2013 – New Zealand must significantly increase its efforts to detect, investigate and prosecute foreign bribery.
    Since joining the Convention over 12 years ago, New Zealand has not prosecuted any cases of foreign bribery and only four allegations have surfaced to date.

    Outdated perceptions that New Zealand individuals and companies do not bribe may have also undermined detection efforts.

    The OECD Working Group on Bribery has just completed its report on New Zealand’s implementation of the Convention of Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and related instruments. Recommendations made by the Group to improve New Zealand’s fight against foreign bribery, include:

    Broadening the possibilities for holding companies liable for foreign bribery and ensuring they face significant sanctions for this crime;
    Addressing gaps in the Crimes Act regarding the foreign bribery offence;
    Strengthening New Zealand’s capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute foreign bribery through law enforcement training;
    Raising greater awareness of the risks of foreign bribery and of channels for reporting allegations to law enforcement; and
    Ensuring the non-tax deductibility of all bribe payments, including those paid through intermediaries.

    The report also highlighted positive aspects of New Zealand’s efforts to fight foreign bribery. New Zealand has broadened the range of confiscation tools under its legislation and assets derived from foreign bribery can now be confiscated by the new Police Asset Recovery Unit without waiting for the outcome of criminal proceedings. It has also adopted a comprehensive whistleblower protection law and made efforts to encourage and facilitate whistleblowing. Steps have also been taken to review the framework for mutual legal assistance to ensure requests for information from foreign countries are effectively addressed.

    The Working Group on Bribery – made up of the 34 OECD Member countries plus Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Latvia, Russia and South Africa – adopted New Zealand’s report in its third phase of monitoring implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

    The Report, available here, lists all of the recommendations of the Working Group to New Zealand on pages 45 – 50, and includes an overview of recent enforcement actions and specific legal, policy and institutional features of New Zealand’s framework for fighting foreign bribery.

    The Working Group invited New Zealand to submit a written report in six months on progress made in establishing the liability of legal persons for foreign bribery and every six months thereafter, if needed. As with other Working Group members, New Zealand will submit a written report to the Working Group within two years on steps it has taken to implement the new recommendations. This report will also be made publicly available.
    ……”

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

  27. karol 27
    26 April 2014 at 6:36 pm

    Are NZ bloggers mostly “deranged”, as claimed by Stephen Price, or is it just Slater? Peter Aranyi on the issue of bloggers becoming “media”. – he concludes there’s not enough in it for the MSM or bloggers.

    • lprent 27.1
      26 April 2014 at 6:39 pm

      I agree with him. I can’t see any particular reason for us to jump on that bandwagon. It is deeply flawed. I expect that the only ones who will are the deranged and mischievous.

      Left a comment to that effect.

  28. ffloyd 28
    26 April 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Shane Jones was on tv3 blagging the Greens. Parroting key’s mantra “the Greens are anti progress” etcetera, etcetera. Think there is a lot more to his leaving than meets the eye. Key has said that there is no job description yet but Jones will be perfect for the job. Huh! Obviously going to be another one of key’s make s..t up s he goes along convoluted meandering machination. Is Jones due for the front bench in the national party? Something stinks!

    • karol 28.1
      26 April 2014 at 7:12 pm

      Most of the commenters so far, are far from convinced by the Jones’ traitorous behavior.

      • Jim Nald 28.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 7:39 pm

        “Mr Jones will leave his job as a Labour MP in a month and it seems until then he will take every opportunity to attack Labour’s closest ally, the Greens.”

        So, not only will taxpayers continue footing his salary (and super contributions?) for another month, but the Progressive Left will have to stomach his shit that he continues to keep spraying around for another approx 30+ days ??

        The idiot must be a very very very good friend of Natz.

    • Colonial Viper 28.2
      26 April 2014 at 7:16 pm

      Where “progress” has brought the global ecosystem and even our very civilisation itself, to the brink of irreversible collapse. It’s going to be a very interesting 20 years as the fossil fuel resources we run the world on extensively deplete.

  29. Harry Holland 29
    26 April 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Stuff reports that David Parker is hinting that Labour will amend the Reserve Bank Act to provide more flexibility. Parker went on to talk about the NZD being over-valued, which has led commentators to suggest he will add the exchange rate to the current inflation goal. The policy is due to be announced on Tuesday.

    One of the interesting things about this is the question of what it would mean to coalition negotiations with NZ First.

    Broadening the parameters of the RB Act is perhaps the number one policy on the NZF website.
    – “the need for a flexible monetary policy.”
    – “Reform the Reserve Bank Act to reflect that New Zealand has an export-dependent economy and create a sensible exchange rate regime that serves New Zealand’s economic interests.”

    By adopting this policy, Labour is borrowing from/gazumping (choose whichever you prefer) NZF. So what effect will this have in relation to NZF? (I am speculating that there will be coalition talks between NZF and Labour post-election).

    Will it drag NZF voters back to Labour? (I doubt it)
    Will it win any votes off any other parties? (I doubt it)
    Will it annoy or please Winston? (I’m guessing annoy)
    By stealing NZF’s number one policy (and an easy brag/win for Winston in coalition negotiations) will it force NZF to focus coalition demands on less prominent/more expensive NZF policies, thereby making it harder to settle coalition negotiations? (e.g. Strengthening the OIO, Investing Cullen fund locally, Increase defense spending). I note that many of NZF’s other policies seem quite compatible with Labour’s current/assumed policies, so the scope for Winston to boast a big win is somewhat constrained.

    “RBNZ to get one big new tool under Labour”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9981554/RBNZ-to-get-one-big-new-tool-under-Labour
    http://nzfirst.org.nz/policy/economic-development

    • Ergo Robertina 29.1
      26 April 2014 at 9:22 pm

      Winston’s indicated he’s happy if a little bemused to see Labour adopting a broader monetary policy.
      And Labour signalled this move quite a while ago.
      It’s not like a party with 5-6% of the vote could swing a change in monetary policy through a post-election deal anyway, it’s too fundamental to economic policy.
      What I’d like to see is more analysis of the cost benefit from a lower dollar in terms of the gains from import substitution as it becomes more viable to manufacture here.
      Winston gave his view on the subject in this ‘Vote Chat’ interview with political scientist Bryce Edwards earlier this month:

      • Harry Holland 29.1.1
        26 April 2014 at 10:33 pm

        So four options.
        1. This is about sound monetary policy and the good of the country
        2. This is a philosophical move
        3. This is designed to win votes
        4. This is purely tactical

        Devaluation and an increase in inflation may improve the balance of payments and please exporters, but not importers and will not be popular with a public addicted to cheap imports and mortgages. Long-term it may create new export businesses, but in the short term, perhaps Labour’s proposed changes to the RB Act are mainly designed to make it harder for Winston to justify entering a coalition with National.

        • RedLogix 29.1.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:28 am

          A thoughtful comment HH.

          You present four options – but not why you think they must be mutually exclusive?

        • Ergo Robertina 29.1.1.2
          27 April 2014 at 2:47 am

          I don’t agree with your Winston point, as he is more than capable of controlling the narrative to justify going with National if need be.
          On Labour’s monetary policy shift, I’d go with your first three options, adding it’s a sign the party is stirring from its neoliberal slumber, during which New Zealand pioneered inflation targeting.
          The old certainties are gone: a paper by IMF staff released this month entitled Monetary Policy in the New Normal is typical of the questions being asked:
          http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1403.pdf

          What Labour plans is not radical change. The Reserve Bank will still be ‘independent’ under its planned framework, which would view controlling inflation as a means to growing the economy, rather than the sole objective. That’s what I gleaned from Parker’s interview on the Nation, anyway.
          There are short-term risks for New Zealand if the currency drops, which is why decent analysis is needed. While I’m no Parker fan, he is highly intelligent within his conventional paradigm, and will understand the issues you’ve mentioned.
          Tourism, manufacturing, exports stand to benefit, while call centres like the Telecom directory service would have less incentive to be based offshore.
          And, if Labour enacts policy to encourage wider cost benefit analysis of awarding government contracts, preventing the likes of the Kiwirail Chinese wagons debacle, further momentum and traction for local firms is gained through the lower dollar.

  30. greywarbler 30
    26 April 2014 at 9:09 pm

    I wondered what made the comments number go up to 238. It is I think mainly Pete George and his irritation that has got every body scratchy and vocal. His flatulence has blown the comments up to a ripe level. Hold your noses all, or has it all blown up already.

  31. greywarbler 31
    26 April 2014 at 10:11 pm

    How are you going xtasy. Pete George has been busy filling gaps that you might have filled! It only lightly rained at the civic service, just a few light drops.

Links to post