- Date published:
6:00 am, June 26th, 2017 - 221 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
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 …
A reminder from Emmerson for all NZers ..
Thanks Ed. Like you I don’t feel it, but it is apparent that some people get a lot of enjoyment from watching sport.
Team NZ This morning – Beautiful.
Awesome sailing, 100% fly time. Such a pleasure to watch.
One win to go …. here is hoping there is no repeat of the last challenge (I doubt there will be).
Going to be a buzz if it comes home. Not to mention great for NZ and Auckland assuming that is where we defend it.
Please see Emmerson’s cartoon above.
It was drawn for people like you.
I must concede that I don’t think Oracle has got any answers to team NZ this time. Well done Team NZ.
It’s got to be a showcase for kiwi innovation and tech (for some companies at least) on the world stage.
For sure, kids were buzzing out this morning when explained that both vessels were built in NZ and one of them looked puzzled when told Oracle had Aussies on board.
It’s the engineering that buzzes me out, the harnessing of natural energy.
I agree that there is more to life than sporting trophies- but I’m also smart enough to know that you can enjoy it without detriment to other items.
Most people will agree with this.
But I reiterate that this (and the lions tour) will create a real feel good factor before the elections.
Would love for little to come out and be a grumpy old man like you paul (ed) – he would drop to low 20’s
So you don’t care about child poverty.
I would love the Labour Party to come out and offer a socialist alternative. Then like Corbyn the Labour Party would rise to 45.
For the many, not the few.
So Ed, Paul you don’t care about climate change because you care about child poverty, most people can care about more than one thing, is this to difficult for you to grasp likewise many people believe child poverty is better solved through other means than socialism, that does not mean you dont care about child poverty but is a typical arrogant and sanctimonious attack strategy of LWNJ
Poverty has never been solved by any means other than socialism.
You solve poverty by making sure everyone has enough. Socialism.
All of the other means tried always seem to create more poverty while making a few people very, very rich. Strange coincidence eh?
A bit too far before. Still, maybe Bingles can call in a favour and get a nationwide tour of sports trophies going with spontaneous parades thrown in, a bit nearer election time.
I am conflicted about the America’s Cup. On the one hand, it is completely over hyped here, a perfect case study in the white middle class echo chamber that is our news and current affairs in NZ.
Yet on the other hand, it is an impressive triumph of NZ high technology. Don’t forget Oracle is backed by a Silicon valley billionaire, and have the likes of Airbus Industries doing their aerodynamics. Money is no problem for a team backed by one of a superpower’s richest men using all the most high tech companies in the Western world.
TNZ has taken on this technology and beaten it, and I would much prefer it if our image was this sort of technology (along with Rocket Lab) than one of being sleepy hobbits in middle earth tending polluting dairy farms.
…much prefer it if our image was this sort of technology (along with Rocket Lab) than one of being sleepy hobbits in middle earth tending polluting dairy farms.
Fuck, yes. Still can’t bear to watch rich people’s hobbies being made the centre of a jingoistic spectacle on the news though. It’s worse than golf.
Nothing is worse than golf.
Just chill and cheer up PM
Ain’t no thang – you can usually channel-hop the news to avoid the America’s Cup, rugby and stories about royals, so my blood pressure is safe.
Well done to the sailors, boat builders and engineering boffins.
I go along with that, and as Sanctuary said, we should be promoting that. I have had the privilege over the years to work with some mighty clever engineers, graduates of our universities so I am not surprised we have taken on Silicon Valley and beating them.
Just one wish as a sailing nut I would like to see this “boat” race, if you could call it that, get back to some traditional racing sailing boats as this is not sailing as far I am concered, Fuck it is more like a cycle race on the water.
Lets go back to lead mines doing 6 knots. So exciting.
Not over till its over though.
It would be cool to hold it on Lake Wanaka
at what point does using pedal powered hydraulics to “trim” the wing become “ooching” ?
This article suggests Oracle was “pumping” in AC34 and suggests that it was not precluded in the rules.
“Ooching and pumping should never have been banned in the first place.
The rules were changed to prevent more active sailing, because athletic young sailors were using it, to beat old farts sitting in their boats like potato sacks.
The New Zealand First campaign opening leaders’ speech:
A few highlights:
– A universal student allowance
– Major programme of sealing unsealed rural roads
– Properly invest in rail to give it a much bigger role in the regional economy
– 25% of government royalties for mining, petroleum, and water to stay in the region of origin. Specifically singles out Coca Cola, Suntory, Oravida, and Fiji Water
And not a mention of any sport at all!
yeah but other than Winston we get the likes of ron marks and possible jones the arrogant self serving fool,
Yes bwaghorn, that is the biggest problem with NZF….. too many clowns/fools/underpants kings in tow.
“too many clowns/fools/underpants kings in tow.”
Surely that’s the case with any political party in NZ with more than one or two candidates.
Edit.. actually a problem with all political parties in NZ on second thoughts.
yes but if they are down the bottom of the list it doesn’t matter, not so when they are near the top , i know nat voters who are thinking of changing due to bennet being 2ic
Labour slams PM’s conference speech
Little was quick to jump on National for not having any new policy, saying the party was out of ideas and out of steam.
However, after 9 long years in opposition (and with less than 3 months till the election) Labour’s own policy page is looking rather bare.
Last election Labour had a radical Kiwisaver plan, which with being compulsory along with the uncapped variable saving rate, created a bit of voter unease. Yet with less than 3 months till the election, voters are still unclear if Labour have now dropped that policy?
When will Labour present their full policy package?
It’s a bit rich slamming National for running out of steam and new ideas when Labour itself currently has little on offer.
… and given your opening sentence was a reported critique about National policy….
… National’s policy is?
The critique about National was they have nothing new.
Don’t you think Labour should be better than that?
Moreover, don’t you believe we should call them out on that?
Speaking out is a way for us to hold their feet to the fire, which will hopefully lead to them upping their game.
Thanks for your concern.
If you don’t know what Labour’s policies already released are, that’s on you. It’s normal for political parties to release policy over time. Labour’s 2014 Kiwisaver policy was announced at about this time in the election cycle. But by all means don’t let reality get in the way of your need to say Labour are shit.
“If you don’t know what Labour’s policies already released are, that’s on you.”
You seem to be confused. It’s not that I don’t know what Labour’s policies already released are, it’s that the cupboard is looking rather bare. Moreover, a number of them fall short.
“Labour’s 2014 Kiwisaver policy was announced at about this time in the election cycle.”
Implying we can expect their 2017 Kiwisaver policy soon?
It’s not that Labour are “shit ” but they clearly aren’t at the peak of their game.
These sort of forums can help build consensus among supporters giving the party a better indication of our expectations.
I think Labour should be doing more to win and that of course includes having a full policy package that will widely resonate, thus help build their support.
It seems you disagree. So lets see what others have to say.
My position is that at this point in the election cycle we need to support parties to do the right thing, not bash them or undermine them. This doesn’t mean we can’t critique them, it means that we criticise constructively.
You appear to think that constant negative criticism will make them better but I don’t know many people that respond well to that. Mostly I think that some people will read all the Labour bashing and either not vote or vote NZF or Mana or TOP in protest because they’ve been assured that Labour are useless. That shit will lose us a tight election. Or lessen the chance of Labour/Greens governing without NZF.
“My position is that at this point in the election cycle we need to support parties to do the right thing”
Great! Do you believe not having a full policy package at this point of the election cycle is doing the right thing? And do you deem someone who is asking about that as someone bashing Labour?
I highlighted Labour’s own policy page is looking rather bare. That last election Labour had a radical Kiwisaver plan which created a bit of voter unease, thus suggesting the unease remains as it’s still unclear. And finished with pointing out how Labour came across.
Do you find that to be too harsh? Can we not have that kind of discussion on here?
Instead of shafting Labour for not having a full policy package – that you agree with – why don’t you make a list of policies that you think are necessary? Do some work yourself instead of the lazy NZ thing of just sniping from the sidelines at the people engaging in the action.
Let’s have a discussion about what you and we would like and start asking Labour what they are going to do about each one as a separate enquiry so they have to concentrate.
And if you think that lazy NZs doesn’t apply to you, then ignore that and give us the list. There is too much time spent getting up each other’s nose at present. There is no time for that now.
First off, I’m not shafting Labour for not having a full policy package that I agree with. I was highlighting they don’t have a full policy package.
As for making a list, I’ve put forward policy proposals for discussion on here before, but it isn’t just up to me. This is something we can all participate in. But to keep it simple I’d suggest we stick to one at a time.
Moreover, at this stage we’ve yet to establish if there is a consensus for Labour to present and run with a fully policy package.
Therefore, instead of you sniping from the sidelines at me, why don’t you participate in the discussion and tell us where you stand on Labour having a full policy package?
“Do you believe not having a full policy package at this point of the election cycle is doing the right thing?”
I think in terms of organisation that they are doing the best they can (mostly), and that they know a shit load more about what will work than you or I do. Would I like more policy? Of course, but you can’t get blood out of a stone. I don’t believe they are twiddling their thumbs or ignorant of process.
“And do you deem someone who is asking about that as someone bashing Labour?”
No. I deem someone who puts the boot in every chance they get to be bashing Labour.
I wasn’t playing the ‘poor me’ card. Merely highlighting McFlock’s intent. Rather than solely discuss the topic at hand (Labour’s policy) McFlock is intent on attacking me.
Disappointingly, you agreeing with McFlock plays into that (making me the topic).
“I think in terms of organisation that they are doing the best they can (mostly), and that they know a shit load more about what will work than you or I do.”
In terms of organisation it’s clear they aren’t doing the best they can. They had more policies last election, hence showing they are capable of doing more.
“Would I like more policy? Of course, but you can’t get blood out of a stone. I don’t believe they are twiddling their thumbs or ignorant of process”
Great, you agree. However, if you don’t believe they are twiddling their thumbs or ignorant of process what do you believe the hold up is?
The election is only months away and they must give time for the policy to get out there (having people talk and come to terms with it) thus time for momentum to build. So while they may know a shit load more about what will work than you or I do, why do you think this is being overlooked or dropped?
I’ll tell you what another pitfall is in not having a full policy page, it comes across as if they have something to hide.
“No. I deem someone who puts the boot in every chance they get to be bashing Labour.”
So this line of questioning is alright, yet you also seem to be implying I’m bashing Labour? Excuse me for being confused.
You also gripe on about negative criticism opposed to constructive criticism but failed to clarify if you believe what I’ve initially stated was too harsh?
“These sort of forums” can also be used by beige concern trolls to focus attention on perceived motes in Labour’s eye while ignoring the massive planks in National’s.
I wouldn’t mind it if you actually had a fucking point, but no, you’re all about the disingeuous question followed by the passive-aggressive barb. BM’s a cock, but they’re still more useful and entertaining than you.
I don’t care what you “expect”, or what vapid tautologies you want to put out instead of actual political insight. A full policy package that widely resonates will build support, you say? That’s fucking amazing, you’re a political genius.
Do you think the most important bit for a manifesto to gain support is being “full” or merely “resonating”? I suspect it’s the “resonate” bit. Clean water, healthy homes, regional development, all good solid stuff. Of course, none of this will “resonate” with you because you’re not the voter equivalent of a bell, more like a small beige pile of crap. Any clapper that comes in contact with you will simply produce a soft “splat” and get covered in shit.
What a load of self-opinionated crap.
If you genuinely “don’t care” I suggest you stop reading my comments.
I do care that your entire purpose here seems to be to concern troll your way through the election.
Typical of you to conveniently misunderstand a sentence, though.
Just because I air my concerns doesn’t make me a troll.
Effectively, you’re trying to shut me up.
If supporters can’t publicly air their concerns what does that make us? China?
help help I’m being oppressed! /sarc
Get a life.
You almost never offer a specific opinion, and even when you do it’s as vague as possible: you want a full policy manifesto, for example, but what would you want to put in it? Way to avoid the issues, dude.
You’re nothing but air and concerns. How is wanting you to actually make a decent point and actually contribute to discussions “trying to shut [you] up”? It’s not. It’s the opposite: make a point, share a strong but reasoned position. You’re terrified of showing an opinion, and you suck everyone else’s ideas and attention with your “concerns”.
“Just because I air my concerns doesn’t make me a troll.
Effectively, you’re trying to shut me up.”
Have to agree with McFlock here. Playing ‘poor me’ won’t go down well. Nor does continually reframing the criticism of your incessant negativity as ‘airing concerns’ make for genuine dialogue.
The more you do that shit, the more troll-like you become.
“You almost never offer a specific opinion, and even when you do it’s as vague as possible…”
I put forward opinions and answer questions, but that is you attempting to make the discussion about me again.
“You’re nothing but air and concerns. How is wanting you to actually make a decent point and actually contribute to discussions “trying to shut [you] up”? “
If you genuinely want to have a decent discussion, lets see if you can refrain from taking personal pot shots. In others words, play the ball and not the man.
Before we go filling the policy void, lets see if we can obtain a consensus on whether or not they should run with a full policy package?
I’ve already put forward a number of reasons why they should. So if you disagree, lets here why?
dude, one good policy is better than a full manifesto of crap. So much for just another in a long line of vapid discussion points.
“Do you think the most important bit for a manifesto to gain support is being “full” or merely “resonating?”
A full policy package allows voters to see the larger picture of where Labour stand. So it’s important. But so to is having policy that widely resonates. Therefore, attempting to have both should be the goal.
And while a number of their policies are OK, polls indicate there not resonating wide enough. Hence why I’ve been advocating for more to be done.
Which policies did you like? What policies do you think will “resonate”?
Personally, I’m not too worried about the polls at this stage – it’ll be a coalition government, not Labour governing alone.
There’s enough evidence in political science that most people do not vote according to policy. Publish all you want (as Lab did in 2014) but it will not win an election.
Does that mean that having no policy or having crap policy won’t diminish chances? I would have thought that for LW parties at least that while not sufficient, good policy was a prerequisite (which is different to what you are saying I know).
People vote on confidence. Apparently policy plays a very small part in that for non-wonks. We are not a reporesentative crowd.
The best I heard it explained is: watch a politician on TV with the sound turned off. That’s what people are voting on. Hence it causes way more damage for Bill English to have Hilary Barry interacting in a clearly ‘WTF?!’ way than any amount of detailed figures about tax promises, hip operations or ‘affordable’ houses.
Helps explain why an unflappable sociopath like Key prospered so well.
Nice subthread. Good analysis Sacha thanks.
“The critique about National was they have nothing new.”
Do you agree?
And if you do, what was their old policy?
“Do you agree?”
National’s policies largely don’t appeal to me. But it’s no excuse for Labour not having more.
“When will Labour present their full policy package?”
More to the point, WHEN will National present their full policy package? If remember correctly also at the last election there was none, just vague talk about “tax cuts”. They put all their energy into destroying Cunliffe (my, wasn’t people sucked in with all that being a man bullshit) aided by crap lying journalist’s like Armstrong and Gower.
Here’s an excellent interview on what is going on between Saudi Arabia and Qatar
Or it could be an old fashioned tribal power grab.
When Mohammed bin Salman was just 12 he began sitting in on meetings led by his father Salman, the then governor of Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Province. Some 17 years later, at 29 and already the world’s youngest defence minister, he plunged his country into a brutal war in Yemen with no end in sight.
Now the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is jousting dangerously with its regional foe Iran, led by a man seemingly in a big hurry to become the Middle East’s most powerful leader.
If you are been recorded at work, is the employer obliged to inform you?
By this I mean camera in chiller or over till.
Do they have to inform you in writing?
I’m not really current with that, but they never used to. As long as it didn’t get audio or up your skirt / down your top it was fine, criminal law-wise. Dunno how it goes with the employment relationship. Check it out with your union rep (even if you’re not a member, check it out with a union).
I will give the union another go, haven’t had a lot of luck getting a response from them in the past about other issues.
Being recorded at work goes right to the heart of “good faith” in an employment relationship.
From the Employment Relations Act 2000
(4)(1A)The duty of good faith in subsection (1)—
(a) is wider in scope than the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence; and
(b) requires the parties to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which the parties are, among other things, responsive and communicative; and
(c) without limiting paragraph (b), requires an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his or her employees to provide to the employees affected—
(i) access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees’ employment, about the decision; and
(ii) an opportunity to comment on the information to their employer before the decision is made.
So if the employer is engaging in covert recording, its unlikely to be “establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship” and is also likely to be contrary to the “mutual obligations of trust and confidence”
So in other words, if you know you’re being recorded, and that there’s a legitimate business reason for it (stock theft, money disappearing etc) then it’s unlikely to be an issue.
If you are aware that cameras have suddenly been installed, and no reason given for it, then it’s likely to be a lack of good faith.
Who is your union? You could always contact the CTU if you’re not getting any response from your union.
thank you james.
i am entering the 4th month with new employer in hospitality.
i assume, after a little googling, etu is the union to join.
the reference i made earlier, was to unite, left a couple of fone messages and e-mail. it turns out they cover fast food workers, not restaurant staff.
am waiting to renegotiate my contract as am out of the first 90 days, and employer assured me at start of contract we would revisit the contract after 3 months.
Did you get it in writing that the agreement would be revisited after the 90 days, or was it a verbal statement?
ETu would be the one to join. The old Service and Food Workers Union would have been the one to join, and they almagamated with ETu
I negotiated every 2nd weekend off, 3 month contract review and a couple of other small details and shook hands.
Boss has gone back on the 2nd weekend of a few times.
This why I want to get new contract and get this stuff in writing this time.
Irks me as I have more than honoured my end of the deal and offered systems, recipes and a few cost cutting ideas.
I realise word is no longer bond.
Unfortunately that is the way these days. Can’t trust anyone to honour their word. Hard life lessons especially when it comes to employment matters.
You make it sound like there wasn’t a contract written in the first place? Forgive my imprudence, but I wonder why you signed a written agreement (if there was one) that didn’t include what had been negotiated?
If there’s no written agreement, that’s illegal and is something you should raise with the Labour Inspectorate.
There is a fairly generic contract, several pages. Blanks where position and wages are entered.
The boo boo I made was to not take it home and sleep on the decision and pencil in what was talked about.
Both the business owners are decent people.
Food budget blow outs, financial pressure has caused them to make cuts and as we all know, wages (hours) are a great place to start.
As you say and I am finding not everyone takes their word as seriously as I do.
The media seems to have lost interest in the intern issue for now, too busy chasing English (he keeps feeding them daily stories).
There are still important issues on the interns that Andrew Little wasn’t open and honest about on Q+A yesterday. He said “people closely associated with the Labour Party were involved without approval or authority or any mandate they went ahead and did stuff” and did nothing? He claims to have only acted last Monday as if it was the moral thing to do – acting on minor complaints from some interns.
It looks like Little is avoiding being honest while questioning English’s integrity.
How much did he really know about scheme? Did he quietly approve but is now distancing himself? He must have had contact with Mccarften who was supposedly running Little’s outreach programme in Auckland.
If Little didn’t do anything even though he knew an unauthorised scheme was being run how much of a disconnect is there between the Labour leadership and head office in Wellington, and at least part of Auckland Labour including MPs who seem to have been actively involved?
double yawn. This is the man who thought that Dickson and co were equalling responsible for what’s gone down with National as Barclay and the senior Nats who lied and covered up. He wouldn’t know integrity if came gift-wrapped in beige.
Talking about integrity, that’s a false claim. if you can’t substantiate it can you please retract it.
Why don’t you clarify your position on who was responsible?
That’s a cop out. You alleged something, it’s false, you have made no attempt to substantiate it, and are diverting from withdrawing it.
Is making an allegation and then when called out on it demanding someone prove otherwise acceptable conduct here now?
What I might say now has no bearing on what you based your allegation on. You made something up. You mentioned integrity in the same comment. Do you have any?
Fantastic. In the absence of you telling us what your actual position is, I’ll assume I was pretty close to the mark when I said you believe that Dickson and co are just as responsible as the National party liars and people doing the covering up.
And mate, I’ve got years of time on this site of backing up my statements and engaging honestly so I think I’ll let that stand as a sign of my integrity. You don’t like my opinion of your politics? Tough shit. I suggest you start being honest about what they are and then you might get some respect from me (probably still won’t respect the politics though).
You seem to have conceded that you made things up. You assume incorrectly, you were wide of the mark.
Am I allowed to say whatever I ‘assume’ about you? You could then state what your actual position is?
You can assume whatever you like Pete, but you’d be wrong in this case.
weka – you have it right
Cheers for digging up the link, couldn’t be bothered going over there myself.
hi pete, if you are trying to start a fire that has gone out, you need dry kindling and some decent fuel.
witness prime minister and his constant stoking of the blaze.
(no need for bellows and petrol as used by PM in the clutha debarclay)
Lol so true
double lol, great metaphor gsays.
“There’s not doubt that Bill English stumbled and fudged, and Barclay did some stupid things over a period of time, but those involved in the employment dispute, making complaints and going to the media are not beyond criticism either.”
Thanks for confirming I said nothing like what weka alleged.
So having read the link I actually think that Weka’s summary is a pretty good summary of what you wrote. Sure you never said [i]”that Dickson and co were equaling responsible for what’s gone down with National as Barclay and the senior Nats who lied and covered up.”[/i] but the whole article is best summed up by that statement. I mean if that wasn’t your intent, why were you quoting remarks from people calling Dickson horrible names, especially with apparently no commentary on why those remarks were made or anything around the circumstances…
Also I do like that you try to pretend you are non-biased and comment on political issues rationally; but you post a lot about attacking Labour and on how National’s faux pas are not really that bad, and there are other factors, and… blah blah blah
Good summation there. That’s how I remembered his post too.
PG disingenuous as always, and still won’t say what he thinks about the relative responsibilities of Dickson and co compared to the National Party liars.
I actually don’t know. I don’t have inside information, I only observe from the outside. Do you have inside information? If not how do you judge the relative responsibilities right now (not last year).
What would you say if a Dirty Politics type campaign was under way designed to bring down the Prime Minister? Would that worry you? Or if it’s only a National PM wouldn’t it matter to you?
Depends on what you mean by Dirty Politics, because I’ve seen you in the past define that as people being mean to each other.
I’ve watched Dickson being interviewed. It’s true she could be a very cunning woman who presents herself as principled but is in fact as nasty and unscrupulous as the PM, Barclay and the board. But I doubt it, she came across as genuine in her manner, her choice of words and restraint, and in the story she told. Beyond the party politics she looks like she is telling the truth. Which doesn’t mean that people didn’t organise to make certain things happen, but I don’t get the sense of her or the other locals as being out and out liars. I also trust Reid as a journalist. Then there is the whole he said/she said aspect, and that one is easy. Barclay has blatantly lied multiple times, so I’m going to take her word over his.
And so on. No need for inside information. That level was up to the National Party board and they fucked that up majorly. I generally trust people at a basic level until they prove otherwise. English and Barclay are now proven liars, the board have shown themselves to be unprincipled. Some of those people have broken the law. I’ve yet to see anything that shows that Dickson or Davie or the other locals who tried to get things sorted out have done anything other than do the right thing, and certainly nothing even close to what Nats have done.
Feel free to present some evidence otherwise, but in the absence of that I’ll also guess that your centrism stops you from condemning National to the extent they deserve and you look around to see if the others were evil too and then do a cop out by saying you don’t know enough to judge when to everyone else it’s blatant.
The more I read your contributions, PG, the more I see you as an obfuscatory prevaricator.
“Depends on what you mean by Dirty Politics, because I’ve seen you in the past define that as people being mean to each other.”
Another false claim/misrepresentation. You mentioned integrity?
Relative responsibilities are easy to judge: did someone make a secret recording, pay someone hush money about the secret recording, or otherwise pressure that person to not pursue a criminal act?
yes -> they bear some responsibility for the crime or its cover-up
no -> no responsibility is theirs.
It’s actually pretty simple. There might be wider systemic issues at play, but at the end of the day responsibility goes to the perpetrator, not the victim.
Lol, Pete you ask me what appears to be a genuine question, I answer it at length, you side steps all that, and now try to make out that in 2014 you didn’t run the same shit minimising lines about Dirty Politics as you’re running now about the Barclay affair. And how Labour does it too, and how saying horrible things about someone is Dirty Politics. FFS, it’s all there on record on TS, and many people here remember that about you because it went on for a long time. You really are a numpty of the highest order.
I remember you doing that Pete – come on don’t go the bill english way with the truth.
We get the media we deserve. Whatever is clicking well on the Herald’s front page, that’s what we’ll get. After a few more than 1 intern were interviewed the slave/slum story was revealed for the all smoke and no fire beat-up it is.
The Todd thing won’t go away because it keeps generating fresh headlines. With more probing, fresh deception keeps popping up. The media are loving it, it’s a front-page headline factory.
“It looks like Little is avoiding being honest while questioning English’s integrity.”
This is a concern I was pointing out to weka the other day. It was good that Little has fronted on this, however it looks as if it’s starting to unravel, which could result in Labour digging a larger hole.
Ha, if we’re going to point out politicians that are economical with the cold hard truth we’d run out of fingers long before politicians.
In this case though Little has claimed the moral high ground stepping and dealing with problems as soon as they arose – but avoiding explaining how much he knew about the scheme and when he knew, and also trying to minimise the party’s involvement when it appears to have been a full on campaign scheme for Auckland Labour.
There was either a major disconnect between Auckland and Wellington, or they are fine with working independently, or Little is not admitting greater involvement.
Yes dear, btw weve chosen you as our new spare bedroom wall colour.
Should look nice as it goes with most things without being strong or committed one way or another.
btw weve chosen you as our new spare bedroom wall colour.
You mean the one downstairs or under the house where we store all our useless junk?
Some can lie and get away with it while others are called to account.
True colours showing there chairman? Sad.
It would be sad to see Labour dig and fall into a larger hole.
Yeah but you and your mate pucepete keep digging that hole – wonder why…
No. Little was the one on Q&A.
I was the one warning of the concern.
Thanks for your concern.
I think the gnats need a better dead cat.
I’m starting to think that TC is a low end, long game astroturfer 😉
TC and pompous Pete tag teaming.
It’s possible that he doesn’t know exactly what McCrafton’s been up to.
If so, that would highlight a failure to keep tabs on it.
Lol or they are separate people dum dum dummmmm
The fellowship was called the 2017 Labour campaign fellowship, thus as it was using the Labour name it’s something the party should have kept tabs upon.
The failure of which would explain Little’s embarrassment.
When some-one “leaves the farm”, there’s not too much you can do about it, aye?
In the interview, Little states that the Labour Fellowship Programme was run without authority or approval. He basically acknowledges that the party was blindsided – that shit was done in their name without their knowledge.
As far as I can figure, McCarten and (from a post he did on TDB) Bradbury were the idiots who (I assume) thought they could manufacture a Corbyn/Sanders type thing in NZ by the simple act of enlisting volunteers who’d be enthusiasts of Sanders/Corbyn.
From reading the Bomber piece and a rudimentary “planning” doc that was released by (I think) Newshub, the whole thing strikes me as fucking madness slathered in deceit.
Will it hurt Labour in the media? Possibly. But much less than it could if they just continue to be up front. Will it hurt them financially? Yup.
Will a couple of arse-hole authoritarian leftists disappear forever? I’m very hopeful on that front 🙂
That’s optimistic 🙂 I wouldn’t be surprised if McCarten disappears for a while. Can’t see that happening with Bradbury so long as TDB is a goer.
I can’t imagine anyone wanting to touch McCarten with a barge-pole after this (assuming I’m reading the whole debacle correctly).
As for Bomber (and by association TDB), how much can you shred credibility before there’s nothing left to shred? Would you willfully associate yourself or your writing with a site run by a person with no credibility?
Well I try not to go there unless I see something interesting. There are still people writing there who I respect. And let’s not forget that TS has some reputation problems of its own 😉
That is a horrible thing to say about McCarten. You haven’t got a fucken clue about that man and his contribution.
I’ve had dealings with Matt McCarten in the past, so yeah, I have “got a fucken clue about that man”. And I know this isn’t a popular position to have, but I’ve no regard for him.
Rush to his defence if you must. (I don’t really care). Fact is, he just got disembarked, but not before he willfully or otherwise threw a fucking firework into the ship’s magazine.
Your analysis doesn’t align with mine. It all sounds a bit personal from your end to me.
“He basically acknowledges that the party was blindsided”
Will it hurt Labour? Some damage has already been done, yet it’s too early to fully gauge. As for whether it will do more damage, that depends on what more (if anything) comes out.
Mike Treen was also very much involved.
“He basically acknowledges that the party was blindsided – that shit was done in their name without their knowledge.’
Except that Little has said he knew about it: “This started out as an idea at the beginning of the year. I certainly became aware of it, um when it was raised with me.”
And he knew more about it: …”people closely associated with the Labour Party were involved. Without without approval or authority or any mandate they went ahead and did stuff.”
But then “The next I became aware was about May this year when the party was getting messages from students about to arr… within days of arriving, um, ah, the party stepped in straight away to people associated with it saying what is going on, there’s no approval for this, this is not the party thing.”
Does he expect us to believe that he discovered details of an unauthorised scheme in May, but did nothing about it until interns started complaining publicly last week?
Little isn’t being up front about what knowledge he had, and when he knew about things.
Cosgrove seems to have been on message for Labour on Newstalk ZB today:
” Oh well as I understand Matt McCarten, who used to be employed by the Labour Party came up with one of his you know you beaut ideas and Matt’s sort of characterised as a guru, god only knows why, he destroyed the New Labour Party, he destroyed the Alliance and everything he touches turns to the proverbial.”
McCarten only announced he was leaving Labour on 12 June. And then last week said he was having no more to do with the scheme.
Someone has told me “McCarten’s a voluntary scapegoat”.
Little is certainly not living up to the moral standards he suggested he adheres to.
Bill English is though, aye! And Key, he was a one!
John Key on Barclay from March 2016:
“From time to time, when you get a change of MP, you will get changes to staff, because the style’s a bit different, so I don’t have any other details other than that.” This was after he authorised a payout and he’d talked to English about it.”
“Pete George / June 26, 2017
That could be seen as a lie. How different is it to how many politicians talk?
Is it a hanging offence? Or just business as usual?”
Bill’s simply following-on with Key’s “business as usual”. Or is that a hanging offence?
It seems little different to Andrew Little being frugal with the truth regarding the intern issue.
I don’t think either are good. What about you?
You reckon Bill English and John Key were, “frugal” with the truth?
Yes, I suppose you do.
Complete strangers, more like. Divorcees. Deniers.
PG – you are purposely putting the worst interpretation on what Little said. He was aware of the initial idea, but it moved out of Labour Party control. You expect him to keep tabs on it all after it was no longer a Labour Party thing? Sorry, there is a gap there that excuses Little and your prevarications fail to prove any guilt at all. No doubt you will bore us by persisting…
I’m not putting the worst interpretation, I’m saying that Little hasn’t been open and honest. It looks like he’s trying to hide something.
The evidence shows that it was a Labour Party thing, and Little must have known more about it than he has said.
Pete I read your post. It does not prove a thing. Photos of possible interns at local meetings is not evidence of any sort of conspiracy.
Labour has become involved and is sorting the problem out. A number of us are hosting the interns.
I have been to the Marae and it is a really comfortable nice place.
I cant help but feel a whole lot of “Meh” about this issue.
It pales into insignificance when compared to allegations of possible obstruction of justice and illegal tape recording and use of parliamentary money to pay off a complainant.
I will give the union another go, haven’t had a lot of luck getting a response from them in the past about other issues.
Thanks for the link Pete. That clears stuff up for me. What I couldn’t quite figure out before, was how a “Labour Fellowship Programme” became a “Campaign for Change”. Turns out that the Fellowship Programme was…
People closely associated with the Labour Party had got them here and made promises to them
Without authority, approval or mandate they went ahead and did stuff. The next I became aware was about May this year when the party was getting messages from students about what was (unclear) within days of arriving …the party stepped in straight away to people who were associated with it and said “What is going on? There’s no approval for this. This is not a party thing”. The party was given assurances. ‘We’ve got funding, we’ve got a programme sorted out and nothing to worry about.’
Then we got the complaints this week and the minute that happened, because we were aware the Labour Party name was associated with it … it’s not about legal technicalities, I take a very dim view of those who hide behind legalities and say it it moral responsibility that is the most important thing, we take responsibility.
This week and in the weeks that follow, there are still questions to be asked, and we’ll get on top of that.
So it’s easy enough to join the dots with regards putting names to actions – and may they sink without a trace, never to be seen again. And absolutely all credit to Andrew Little on this one.
Much less impressed with those around these parts who came rushing at my curiosity with bullshit and wavy arms over the weekend. But hey, that’s life.
I said your curiosity was disingenous. I’m sorry you thought that was bullshit and arm wavey. Haven’t changed my opinion.
Disingenuous means deceitful and dishonest. I was being genuine marty. (Maybe you mean something else?)
The bullshit I had in mind was more to do with comments the likes of Lynn was throwing at me. The wavy armed stuff was to do with the idea coming from some That I should shut the fuck up because I was buying into some right wing anti-Labour spin.
Little’s statement aligns exactly with what I was saying.
I have no idea why some think of the Labour party as being some monolithic entity while also discussing factions inside it. Personally I find this trait a bit schizo.
In this case you have people floating an idea and going ahead without a sanction because they thought it was a good idea. This happens all of the time because basically Labour and most political parties are mainly a volunteer organisation.
What appears to have been unusual in this case was using the party name. And that confusing those who know fuckall about how Labour actually operates in Auckland. Relying on news reports from journos who usually know less about the internals of political parties than they do themselves is somewhat wierd as well.
At any one time there will be dozens of efforts running across the country that are barely known about even in the region or even electorate they are running in. Sometimes these are actually from one party or another, sometimes just groups of volunteers from across parties.
I tend to work ssmuch as is possibke mostly with facts that I can verify myself when it comes to the people in political groups.
If Little’s statement aligns exactly with what you were saying and also explains what I was trying to get to the bottom of, then there was obviously miscommunication or some-such going on.
Your comments from the weekend suggested the Fellowship Programme was an initiative of NZ Labour and possibly the Greens as well as others (your City Vision comparison) – ie, that it was not solely a NZ Labour initiative.
And that’s a whole big bit different from someone having “left the farm” as it were to indulge in a bit of craziness, that had no endorsement and (it seems) next to no funding, in spite of claims about a ‘mystery backer’.
What do you mean schizo? would that be schizoaffective or schizophrenic ? because while they are similar they are different and using that term is dissmissive and probably not what you mean’t to describe.
“The wavy armed stuff was to do with the idea coming from some That I should shut the fuck up because I was buying into some right wing anti-Labour spin.”
Really curious who on the standard said you should shut up?
If you really are curious, then go and look at the responses that were following on from my comments in various threads over the two or three days I was commenting on this stuff. (shrug)
I was in some of those convos and I didn’t see anyone telling you to shut up. Might have missed that of course but I suspect what you are calling stfu I would call criticism.
The victims that suffered the most in the recent Labour intern situation are those poor souls that want to see a National government come September. It’s proximity to the Todd Thing made people suspicious. Once scratched it didn’t bleed. A fizzer. It resulted in journalists asking ridiculous questions of interns: “Are you sure you’re happy?”
Yep a fizzer.yet some gnat supporters want to keep it going.
Yeah, I was disappointed to see Marama hop on and whip the dead horse. I’m wondering if Maori are thinking she could be spending less time in National strategy meetings and a bit more time on her own marae.
It’s a dead horse, whipping it along gets them no closer to the finish line. I hope they make it a cornerstone of their campaign but I think they’ll work out in a day or 2 that the horse has no pulse.
National strategy includes maori party strategy, looking after elite iwi interests with sinecures and troughs like whanau ora.
Marama will attempt to distance themselves as spin which being a parata clone shes good at
Don’t become to complacent Marty (and David) .
Don’t forget it’s yet to be established if Labour broke the law, which will guarantee further headlines if so.
Moreover, reportedly there was a secret backer who funded this and a potential leaker in the midst, which is potentially a recipe for disaster. Hence, we could yet see more on this.
Ahhh – no longer concerned for Labour’s welfare? Salivating at what you think is the scent of blood? Your true nature revealed, so-called Chairman. (Good luck with that wishful thinking, by the way.)
No I’m not salivating at the scent of blood. I was warning not to become too complacent as there may be more to come, thus the concern is one wouldn’t want to see them caught out on the back-foot thinking it was a dead and buried “fizzer”.
And as it happens, turns out there was more to come.
IMPORTANT, can someone who has twitter please advise media that they are asking the wrong questions about Barclay.
Media need to ask why Barclay was recording her (and it’s not because of a personality clash) and if it involved another senior politician.
Have been told it’s so much bigger, but bound by confidentiality agreement so was unable to be told more, but if those questions are addressed, more will come out. NZ is a small place JS
Yep much bigger and plenty still to come out. Why did Bill ring and tell her she had been recorded after Todd told him? Was that bills job? I don’t think so. Why not listen to The tape? Plausable deniability. Why did Todd want him to listen? Was bill mentioned on the tape?
For sures Marty, sounds like you are on to it. Let’s see if media do their job, because there is so much more to this than what we already know.
And she was not being taped because Todd didn’t like her, it’s way deeper than that.
I also think there is more to this. Apparently Melanie Reid said as much when interviewed yesterday (there’s more to come out). I’m happy enough if they string that out over the next couple of months 😉
Clever Weka 😀
This is the Reid interview eh? http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201848765/melanie-reid-investigative-journalism
yes, haven’t listened yet.
It’s interesting what political William’s get up to on the job and in their spare time……
Bennett adores Bill, Collins is sweet on Barclay and herself.
Especially herself. #mwah
ARIZONA HEATWAVE pics, melted wheelie bins, cooked eggs, melted fences and signs.
Today temp a roasting 46 degrees C.
Deserts are like that. Kuwait’s labour law says employers must send workers home when the temperature hits 50 degrees C. Funny how often the official max daytime temp was 49 degrees during summer…
Ditto in Arab Emirates Psycho. As you say amazing how often temp stopped at 49degrees. Though out at Al Ain it is very very dry. 35degrees in say Saigon is unbearable because of the high humidity.
Grades 1 to 5 were cancelled on Monday in Yakutsk, the world’s coldest city, which is located in the permafrost region in the Sakha Republic. It was the first time temperatures reached minus 45C (minus 49F) this winter, triggering the closure for younger students.
From your own link:
In fact, thermometers can sink much lower in Yakutsk. The lowest temperature recorded in Yakutsk was minus 64.4C
If your read the article carefully it’s clear that shutting junior schools at -45degC and senior schools at -50degC is a routine safety precaution implying this sort of temperature is quite normal.
I don’t think Hone is helping Mana get traction in the polls and I can’t believe that that the majority of Mana supporters think this is a good idea.
“NZ Drug Foundation @nzdrug 3h3 hours ago
FFS, Hone now advocating the Singapore drug model where they beat people with a cane for cannabis possession”
A good response, that i agree with, to Hone
Yes, I saw that article. It is very good.
I know Hone is strongly opposed to any drug use at all, but this punitive response is so appalling. I don’t really understand how someone as smart as Hone can think executing drug dealers and caning cannabis users is a good way of dealing with drug problems. I just don’t get it.
He didn’t say what NZ Drug Foundation are claiming i.e. he’s not suggesting that cannabis possession should be punished with caning. He did reiterate the death penalty for Chinese importers of P. Which is bad enough and should be criticised for its own sake, but that’s not the same thing. I can’t believe how much progressives are willing to skew the truth at the moment (it’s happening in the immigration debate too).
Actually I can believe it. I think we are all pretty stressed and tense, internationally because of Tr*mp and climate change, and more so in NZ because of the election. It’s still not good, and I’m not enjoying having to spend so much time fact-checking what *progressives are saying.
Death sentence, or changing NZ extradition arrangements so that Chinese people would be deported to China where they may face a death sentence? (Currently NZ will not deport to a country for an offence that may carry a death penalty)
No idea. He doesn’t have an actual policy with detail (even superficially) as far as I can see (haven’t checked the Mana website though). It’s a talking point to get attention for something, either the P thing, or Mana in the election. Both I guess with more emphasis on the latter.
P (and other drugs) need to be talked about. How to deal with havoc some drugs cause (either through their use, or in terms of indirect consequences) needs to be talked about. So that’s all good.
But I parted company with Hone and his approach to drugs way back with the Smokefree by 2025 thing.
We have a major problem in NZ with methamphetamine importation we either need to legalize it or go the other way with life imprisonment with hard labour.
When you have 21 year old Asian’s importing $191 million dollars worth of the stuff and getting 8 years in jail, which equates to 4 years the punishment does not fit the crime.
Politicans, judges and the police do not understand the damage this drug is doing to our communities. I agree with Hone about executing Asian P Importers, they have no morals neither do the NZ Gangs distributing this vile drug.
Re the talking point theory – in some ways that is worse IMO. Cynical, manipulative, and not giving a fuck about the consequences.
I assume you read the link Marty posted?
I have got increasingly angry about this through the day. I have friends that support Mana but there is no way any of them would support this from Hone.
I’ve just read it now. The main new thing there for me is the implication that it’s Chinese immigrants that are bringing P into the country. So that’s another complicating issue.
By talking point I didn’t mean he was being cynical and manipulative, I expect he does believe that harsh penalties are justified given the seriousness of the situation. I just meant that I doubt he is serious about writing this as policy. It’s not like Mana are going to have that kind of influence and he knows damn well that it would never get the agreement of other parties, so it’s an easy talking point to bring up without having to be real about it. As garibaldi says, he’s probably trying to grab some power, which is understandable. But also for me unforgivable. That and his equivocating about the Mp and National, which I also lay at the door of Labour. I’m just sick of the bloody lot of them 😉
I didn’t say that it was you that said it was manipulative and cynical, I was saying that if this was just a ploy to get attention then I thought it was manipulative and cynical.
Actually, what I really think is that it was a racist and ignorant appeal to rednecks. I am so angry about this I will not be commenting any further as I don’t want to fight with people who I otherwise respect. I will just say this – the “war on drugs,” as promoted initially by Bush, has led to untold misery world wide, and has done nothing to reduce drug use. In fact, it has led to the explosion of drugs like meth. What Hone is suggesting is straight out of the rulebook including blaming a specific ethnic group for the problem.
Saying it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t really mean it is crap. Of course it matters. He is promoting hatred against a specific ethnicity and more severe penalties for drug use. We already have far too many people in prison in NZ for drug related crime. He’ll get support for his extreme ideas from those who don’t have a clue about addiction and then it becomes so much harder to talk about what is really required because people can’t be bothered looking at the research.
I have Māori friends and family in Northland and I know about the problems with meth in the area. There are also big problems with alcohol and violence. There is also a high level of poverty. Dealing with the poverty and providing much better mental health and addiction services is what is required.
I have spent all my life fighting racism and promoting human rights and prison reform. I have worked in the drug and alcohol addiction fields. What Hone is doing here is unforgivable as far as I am concerned.
“I didn’t say that it was you that said it was manipulative and cynical, I was saying that if this was just a ploy to get attention then I thought it was manipulative and cynical.”
Yes, I was just trying to clarify that in my original point I didn’t think that HH was doing this as a cynical ploy, I think he probably does genuinely believe at least some of what he is saying, but because it’s Mana it’s easy for him to use this as a talking point (e.g. there’s no change they are writing an actual Bill or even a policy). In other words trying to get attention isn’t inherently cynical if one also believes in what one is saying.
“Actually, what I really think is that it was a racist and ignorant appeal to rednecks.”
Even if HH doesn’t hold personal racism against Chinese people, it’s an appalling piece of political racism given the context in NZ.
I’m pretty much in agreement with you on the drug issues. I’m not excusing HH, I think it does matter, and like you this is probably the turning point for me in terms of supporting Mana or him. I also have concerns about his position on the Mp and National. He’s playing games with that, and while I can understand why he might want to do that, what he’s doing is unsupportable from a LW perspective.
Okay, thanks. Have watched the interview and can see how the Drug Foundation came to that conclusion in that Hone said that he supports the Singapore 3 stage sentencing structure for drugs with execution the most serious punishment. In Singapore the punishment for cannabis use includes caning.
But really, my point was that this punitive approach to drugs is a very bad policy no matter how you look at it. It doesn’t help addicts and it doesn’t stop drug use. There’s plenty of research out there but for some reason Hone is going with the George Bush War on Drugs approach. It is really stupid, and it just allows rednecks to dominate discussion of an important issue.
I have worked as a social worker with drug addicts in London and in Australia, and this stuff from Hone makes me upset and angry. I can see why the Drug Foundation feel the same.
“But really, my point was that this punitive approach to drugs is a very bad policy no matter how you look at it.
To be fair Hone was only advocating a punitive approach from importers/pushers not users/addicts….and only at the extreme end of punishment if you’ve got a hint of the Tat Loo about you.
I haven’t seen the video, just read the article. I guess for me I go, ‘do I believe that HH personally or Mana politically would push for a policy of caning cannabis users, esp given how that would affect Māori?’. No, I don’t. So I went to see what was going on. Same with the water thing the other day. On and on it goes.
I agree with the rest about drug policy 🙂 and also understand why people are reacting to it. I’m in two minds about bothering to fact check Mana stuff now, if he’s going to be this stupid.
That’s it for me with Hone.
I have forgiven him all sorts of shit because of all the good stuff he’s done in the past but now he has gone too far.
Pretty much feeling the same way tbh.
This is better from the Drug Foundation, good on them,
How about walking in Hone’s shoes for a bit? He’s been fighting the destruction of many families/lives in the North caused by drug addiction for years and years. He has seen us all talking about it and tut-tutting whilst the problem keeps growing. He knows how absolutely fucking useless we are at helping/investing in fixing the problem. Why not suggest some ott methods when you know damn well that pakeha NZ is not going to deal to the problem?
He knows full well no-one listens anyway! Maybe, just maybe this might get some sort of message through.
We, as a Country, just aren’t prepared to throw the resources at this problem to fix it. It would take $billions to do it properly.
And that would be an infrastructure investment – building people’s personal strength and minds and achievable goals – and get them off wasteful drugs, wasting money, time, lives, personalities, partners and children’s lives. A real social investment in the true sense. But actually it is the perception of caring Gnats peddle.
Agree liberal wet lefty pakeha will never allow such policies, now in the Phillipines a different matter
There have been a number of high profile P related murders in his community and he has obviously had enough. What is the answer as what we are doing is not working ?
That’s how I took the first interview garibaldi, when I thought he was suggesting an ott idea to raise attention. And generally I like his radical. But his lack of clarity on drug users is hugely problematic, as is a politician wanting the death penalty. I have no idea if he is serious or if he thinks that because Mana have no say he can say these things. But either way he should have taken more care, and in this election I’ve got lessening patience for the bullshit.
No Pride in Prisons @noprisonpride Jun 24
The police have been trying to beat, shoot, and incarcerate the crystal meth crisis away for more than a decade. That approach doesn’t work.
No Pride in Prisons @noprisonpride Jun 24
Shrugging his shoulders + saying “Fuck it, just kill them” is an admission he’s given up trying to actually solve the crystal meth problem.
No Pride in Prisons @noprisonpride Jun 24
Hone’s so-called drug policy should be seen as the surrender to the right and dumb, brute force that it is.
There are enlightened, researched and thoughtful drug policies that actually work, without the need to be racist, deport or execute people.
Uriohau @uriohau Jun 24
Hone’s racist zero tolerance war on drugs is stupid policy it doesn’t work its repressive and it expand will expand mass incarceration.
How would it expand mass incarceration? I doubt that there area that many people bringing P into the country and even less are being caught.
I also doubt that he is taking a RW approach to this in the sense that he will want all those other progressive things to still be done too that the right won’t do (although I doubt he’s in favour of decriminalising). As per usual, it’s all sound bite stuff and the media playing the political bullshit game.
Sorry, just feeling particularly worn down by it all at the moment. Hoping we are at peak fucked up and can find a way to start talking to each other again.
I’m thinking about it like this; relatively harm-free drug use is decriminalised and treated as a health issue. Step over the line to dealing grimly destructive drugs like meth and opiates … you get hammered.
Executing brewery owners is probably a bit excessive.
Even though alcohol still causes the majority of drug related problems.
I am against the death penalty, anyway.
holy shit hes jumped the shark!!! bye bye hone and mana
For political parties media time is coveted. Regularly making the 6pm news, Q & A or Breakfast TV is almost enough by itself to see that person promoted. For a small party it is virtually impossible to get any of this free exposure. Peter Dunne would love to be peddling his barrow. Gareth Morgan managed to get a bit of exposure recently, cost him a million. Hone has about $8.50 in his media budget.
He’ll crank his position back to reality when it suits. State something like:
“Yes that is what I said, I have to start talking in extremes to get this horrid problem noticed. Decades of asking for help has achieved absolutely nothing, we’re going backwards.”
Hone doesn’t want to put people against the wall and shoot them. He wants media exposure. Seems to be working pretty well so far and he still has his $8.50.
It is a big call to assume you know what Hone is thinking David. I think it is wise to take people at their word until they actually say something different.
And the $8.50 thing – not sure that is such a good angle. But just my view.
Hi Marty, yes assumptions on my part. A chance of making an ass of myself. I didn’t get there by considering what Hone thinks but by considering what all politicians are thinking right now. ‘How can we get a plug for our party on the news tonight?’ Yep, I’m guessing the Mana campaign is $ poor… and cunning rich.
Looking at six to nine metre sea level rises by 2100 now according to the latest studies. Good interview on the subject here
Thanks for the link. Interesting and revealing segment/interview.
It’s 6 – 9 meters that will accompany 1.5 – 2 degrees and may rise by that amount over 100 or 200 years.
Here’s the entire presentation that featured, given by Eric Rignot at Victoria Uni in Feb of this year. (Intros take up the first 5 min)
Very good video. I had missed it and these are guys I know, respect and follow closely.
I think this “no pink hamburger” kerfuffle has more legs – it actually affects lots of restaurants and bars. So far Winston is making the running this angle. Very similar to the “showerhead” problem from the last year of the Clark government:
“It’s just nanny state gone mad” etc.
[Off-topic dribble – moved to Open Mike, BLiP]
I agree with you on GST.
I think the government Treasury’s accounts are now addicted to it, now that they’ve sold off most of the power companies.
Maybe a really adventurous state would simply nationalise fresh water, form its own company, and really make some tax. Every iwi leaders’ head would explode, but at least the benefits would be distributed to New Zealanders.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
A random question on something I’ve always been curious on: Why does “the Left” (using a broad brush) hate on White people, in particular White Men? There seems to be tacit permission on the left that racism is wrong, unless you’re white?
Apologies for duplication. Message flashed back saying it wasn’t posted and it didn’t initially appear.
Maybe it’s racist – have you checked? I mean REALLY checked?
A random question on something I’ve always been curious on: There seems to be tacit permission on the left (using a broad brush) that racism is wrong, unless you’re white? Why is racism towards white people tolerated yet other racism is condemned?
Because white people hold the power.
And that’s an excuse? Isn’t racism simply racism regardless of skin colour? Obama held power in the US so is is ok to pour hate on him.. Other races hold power. China probably holds more economic power than the US, so is it ok to be racist to Chinese?
There’s also the issue of how is the Left going to win over White voters if they are hated? Hating white voters while asking them to vote for your candidate is ultimately self defeating.
Mc Grath. Consider this. Let’s say there are 90 white people and 10 black people and they decide to have a democracy ie one person – one vote. How much sway would the black people get? Racism immediately rears its ugly head. The majority must make allowances for the minority if there is to be any fairness in a democracy.
OK it’s a bit simplistic but this may explain what you see as reverse racism.
Obama proved that theory wrong by persuading White voters to vote for him two terms in a row. If skin colour was the only issue, all white voters would have voted Republican. Look at Winston Peters as well. Based on “skin theory”, white voters wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole. Polls suggest otherwise.
Also: Making allowances is one thing, saying I’m black/brown and therefore I can racially down on White is a totally different ballgame & is ultimately self-defeating.
Geez, you took that and ran with it, didn’tcha.
Who said skin colour was the only issue?
Who said “the left” hates white people?
Oh, you did.
Folks tried to give you some perspective on how racism manifests in power imbalances, and the points went straight over your tiny little head.
i don’t see “the right” talking about how white men are the great problem in society. Also, personal attacks are often the first sign you’ve lost the debate.
lolnice: calls left wing racist, complains about personal attacks.
Suck my balls.
The prosecution rests.
Copy that: everyone on the left is racist against white people because I was mean to McGrath the racism dog.
Sorry about that, everyone, the revolution has been cancelled. My bad.
Well, McFlock, I’ve noticed that you can be a bit naughty at times..
McGrath has yet to show that his humour is conscious.
Yeah, I should probably have resisted the smb line. But two people had tried to give him a straight answer that he could have gone on from, and he’s still full of “skin theory”.
Anyone with even the most malfunctioned hypocrisy detector would probably have thought twice about using a “broad brush” reference to open a discussion about bigotry and slurs, ffs.
Fortunately in this country we have a well developed sense of fairness.
The majority did support LBGT rights, treaty settlements and looking after disabled people. It is the politicians who have lagged behind on those issues.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
I don’t think short termism serves, or has served, the Left well. Corbyn and Sanders would have to just about divide themselves to fill cabinet posts, let alone parliaments.
Roars rather than whispers are called for. Yet we don’t even get Finlay MacDonald v. Stephen Franks on Nat.Rad. 4 pm (where no one much will hear them).
The institutional Left is milk and piss, here and now. 1935 had a legion of roarers. What is lacking here is venom. Desperate belief. Money hasn’t bought off the belief, just the venom. Or, to say, enough.