Open mike 26/07/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 26th, 2012 - 171 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

171 comments on “Open mike 26/07/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dv 1
    26 July 2012 at 7:43 am

    Starter for 10,
    Who said this and when?

    “I think that the bond of trust that’s built up between a prime minister or politicians in the electorate is very important.”

    • bad12 1.1
      26 July 2012 at 7:53 am

      Slippery the Prime Minister to Shane Taurima on TV1’s Q+A, Sunday 22nd July 2012…

    • CnrJoe 1.2
      26 July 2012 at 7:58 am

      I’ll bite –
      Must be Keys cause it don’t make any sense.
      unless you want it to – then its a charming statement of guileless uncomplicated straight talking which is what this country needs from its leaders.

    • OneTrack 1.3
      26 July 2012 at 8:54 pm

      Doubt it was Labour or the Greens. I don’t think they do “trust”.

  2. Socialist Paddy 2
    26 July 2012 at 8:15 am

    Jesus Mary and Joseph.

    The latest Roy Morgan is out and Labour is down 2.5% and National is up 2%.

    This should be a wake up call to the Labour leadership.  Sleep walking to victory is not going to work.  They need to be doing something much more significant than playing guitar and talking about mango skins.

    • ad 2.1
      26 July 2012 at 8:31 am

      You may be right Socialist Paddy but they got this hit by going pretty hard against Maori over the water rights issue, and getting pretty tough on beneficiaries, again. Not sure the Left has an adequate counter for either of those yet.

      Interesting to see Maggie Barrie stepping into the ring.

      After Conference National are really emboldened. Apparently there was a great celebrity debate in which Key was mercilessly lampooned, and they all took it in great humour.

      2014 is definitely not there for the taking – it is there for forcing out of their cold dead hands.

      • felix 2.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 8:48 am

        “they got this hit by going pretty hard against Maori over the water rights issue, and getting pretty tough on beneficiaries, again. Not sure the Left has an adequate counter for either of those yet.”

        I don’t suppose they’ve tried sticking up for maori and beneficiaries, have they?

        You know, like a left-wing party might.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 11:05 am

          Of course not but what else can you expect of a right wing party that’s catering to the right while trying to appear left?

        • QoT 2.1.1.2
          26 July 2012 at 8:19 pm

          The Waitakere Myth is neither Maaori nor a beneficiary. ‘Nuff said.

      • BillODrees 2.1.2
        26 July 2012 at 9:35 am

        Your are too generous AD. By far. 
        Perhaps the voters cannot envision Labour winning?  
        Perhaps the voters cannot see what is different about Labour now from what it was the last time they rejected us?  

        • OneTrack 2.1.2.1
          26 July 2012 at 7:55 pm

          What is different about Labour now from what it was the last time they rejected us?

          • BillODrees 2.1.2.1.1
            26 July 2012 at 11:11 pm

            Nothing. Same team, slightly different face. That is why we are still behind in the polls from where we were in 2008.  If you keep doing he same thing, you keep getting the same result. 

      • Morrissey 2.1.3
        26 July 2012 at 12:53 pm

        …they got this hit by going pretty hard against Maori over the water rights issue,

        So did the Labour government, if you remember. Helen Clark sneered that she’d rather talk to Shrek the sheep than meet any of the Maori protestors (more than twenty thousand of them) in Wellington. She also got the likes of Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove to regularly make anti-Maori statements.

        and getting pretty tough on beneficiaries, again.

        You mean, getting tough on the poor. The rich beneficiaries are being looked after very well indeed. How much tax did they get out of paying in the last three years, I wonder?

        Not sure the Left has an adequate counter for either of those yet.

        How about: speaking out against bigots like Don (Enoch) Brash instead of panicking every time someone like him stirs up racial animosity? How about speaking out for the poor and oppressed instead of anxiously trying to show how “tough” you can be on them?

    • tc 2.2
      26 July 2012 at 8:49 am

      Don’t expect any change Paddy, watching labour reminds me of Telecom under Gattung,

      She was chosen by the incumbent fat cats to do as they say not what actually was required to grow the business…..unlike Telecom there’s no pot of gold from Joyce waiting for them just minor party oblivion.

      • Socialist Paddy 2.2.1
        26 July 2012 at 9:02 am

        Aye TC but when you think back to the leadership campaign and who was supporting Shearer you really have to question the sanity of many in Labour’s caucus.

        When right wingers like Slater, Farrar, Tamihere, Matthew Hooton, Michelle Boag and John Tamihere stood up and said that Shearer would be the best leader for Labour they should have smelled a rat and gone for Cunliffe.

        • muzza 2.2.1.1
          27 July 2012 at 7:46 am

          In order to control any given entity, you simply have to control key elelements.

          In this case its the senior Labour MPs, and the strategy people such as Pagani et al.

          Job done, really easy, Labour supporters aint ever getting “their party” back!

          The only reason people can’t understand this is because they simply can’t accept that our “democracy” is a sham!

          Its done, finished, until people wake up, and get very vocal/visible, in real life, not on the fucken net!

      • higherstandard 2.2.2
        26 July 2012 at 9:22 am

        That’s a bit harsh, Trevor’s been working really hard on his figure.

    • David H 2.3
      26 July 2012 at 10:05 am

      And until they get rid of Shearer and co, that’s where it’s going to stay in the doldrums. When are Labour going to realise that the experiment of silence and kissing up to Key does not work. Oh well they are now Nat lite, and not worth voting for. So a lot of non voters from last time are just shrugging their shoulders and saying that they won’t bother to vote next time too. And this time it really is their own fault. And now they want to be able to lock an incompetent in as leader, and make it so that you would have to lever them out with Dynamite and a crow bar. I am sorry, but at the moment they do not deserve the support that they are getting from us, as they are clearly interested in following their own agenda’s and to hell with their supporters.

    • Dr Terry 2.4
      26 July 2012 at 11:34 am

      More than “ä wake up call” is wanted – we have been demanding this for years! Labour requires arousal from a comatose state, a condition that might take long, even for ever!

    • bad12 2.5
      26 July 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Here is the real ‘imperative’ in the poll,

      ”This is the first time the New Zealand Roy Morgan poll has measured support for this new party”, unquote,

      Perhaps the 3% of support magically appeared for the Conservative Party in the past 2 weeks, or was it there all the time,

      3rd option, Roy’s pulling your left one,(with a small rate of success i cannot at the present register as a %),

      Riffmatic and stuff aint my strong suit so one of the people what’s brainy in that area might be able to tell us all what would have to happen within a poll for the sudden emergence at 3% of ‘another’ Party,.

      What the latest poll smells like from here is a ‘jack up’ pure and simple, the Right simply positioning itself early for the 2014 election where it needs coalition partners on the right with a chance of providing at least 1 extra seat off the back of a donated Electorate seat from National,

      Where a % of support may have evaporated from Labour/Green, (they both lost in this poll),is in the bizaare announcement from both Shearer and Norman that they have no plans to buy back the assets now being stolen by National on behalf of it’s 40% support base,

      That from both Labour and the Greens after months of protest by opponents of asset sales was a grand kick in the balls and now has me re-considering my voting options…

      • weka 2.5.1
        26 July 2012 at 3:34 pm

        I would have thought the margin of error would make such small percentages not that meaningful at this stage.

        • bad12 2.5.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 4:19 pm

          The rumor in Wellington is that Nationals own polling has them bouncing around on their traditional base 40-42%,

          But, Roy Morgan had to move things around a bit in this poll to accommodate the insertion of the Conservative Party for the first time,

          For National to Govern after the 2014 election, National themselves know that they are going to need more than Banks and the ‘Hairdo’ + the ‘Poodles’ even if they all keep the seats that they presently hold there’s a 99% chance that none of them will gather further electoral support,

          So, in order for it to be viable for National to ‘give away’ another of it’s safe electorate seats there need be every chance that ‘the Party’ it plans on gifting that seat to has every chance,(in the minds of National’s core vote) of bringing at least one more MP into the Parliament riding the coat tails of the gifted National held electoral seat,

          With the numbers at where i see them now the Party gifted that seat by National would have to gain at least 2 more seats off of the MMP % of Party votes for the present little jack-up to be of use to them,

          The latest Roy Morgan is simply an attempt to facilitate the above,(ie: give a Party with Zilch media attention oxygen), rather than the usual play the margin of error always showing the party’s of the right from the high side of the margin of error while showing the party’s of the left from the low side of that margin of error,

          Once they have ensconced ‘the Conservatives’ in the polls as a viable 3%, (to Nationals core vote),and, given that party oxygen and television airtime Roy can go back to business as usual as far as manipulative polls goes….

  3. rosy 3
    26 July 2012 at 8:20 am

    We can either end up living a life that others expect of us or lives based on our own truth. The difference is the difference between living a conscious life or one that is unconscious. And that’s the difference between living and not living.

    Stephen Gough, AKA The Naked Rambler

    The strangest little story is going on in Scotland. Stephen Gough has a mission to walk around naked. Something along the lines of people are good, people are their bodies so bodies are good it’s quite an involved, but at the same time simple realisation for him. So he walks naked. He’s gone from Land’s End to John O’Groats twice. Pyschologically, he’s fine.

    The problem is in Scotland he keeps getting arrested for breaching the peace, he defends himself naked, goes to prison naked, and determines to walk out of there naked – then he is promptly arrested again. He wants to walk home to the South of England – naked. The upshot is this has been going on for 6 years. That’s right – 6 years in prison, in virtual solitary confinement, for living his belief that the human body is not offensive and to believe it is isn’t rational. This truth means he walks up and down the country naked.

    It appeared that Gough and the Scottish legal system had unwittingly created the perfect legal quandary. How to release a naked man who is in prison for being naked?

    The prison management and police came to some agreement and a few days ago he managed to walk from Perth to Dunfermline, where someone complained and he was arrested again, 3 days after leaving prison. Currently he’s waiting for his court date. It appears if he can make it to the English border he’ll be ok because the interpretation of the law is more liberal. In Scotland it’s a theoretical idea that he might cause offense, in England you don’t get arrested unless it actually causes offense to sombody.

    he admits to experiencing doubts about his stance. “Yeah, of course. I wake up in the morning and think, what the fuck am I doing here? But what I’m doing isn’t about me. I’m challenging society and it must be challenged because it’s wrong.”

    There’s something philosophically pure about this that the legal system, even ones that use actual offense as the criteria for arrest, can’t handle.

    But if he was rambling in Europe it’s likely he wouldn’t even get a mention. Not sure how he’d do in New Zealand.

    • Carol 3.1
      26 July 2012 at 9:08 am

      I can admire the sentiment on living a conscious and considered life, looking critically at society. However, I don’t really understand the desire to walk around naked, especially somewhere like Scotland, the north of England, or anywhere in Scotland or England in winter.

      The conscious mind is always clothed in language, and the Naked Rambler. needs to explain why he is walking naked to make his point.

      Going naked is reactive against society’s norms, and is not proactively living as you want.

  4. Johnm 4
    26 July 2012 at 8:47 am

    James Lovelock may have backed off that Climate Change is affecting us hard and rapidly, but it’s still advancing worrisomely:

    Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July

    Scientists at Nasa admitted they thought satellite readings were a mistake after images showed 97% surface melt over four days
    Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa#

  5. Carol 5
    26 July 2012 at 9:01 am

    The RNZ Morning Report item on the progress of Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill yesterday, shows yet again how National is truly the nasty party. it’s the first bill reported on in the Parliament sends three members’ bills to select committee @8.13am.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/20120726

    Sue Goodhew had the gall to criticise Labour for spending recklessly and wanting to spend on something because it was a good idea, whether or not it was affordable! Jacinda Ardern sounds like she delivered a great speech, in spite of the Nat MPs shouting out that she wasn’t qualified to comment because she doesn’t have children….. “children or coal”.

    NAct continue to criticise the opposition for things they are guilty of….. they have become frighteningly Orwellian.

    • Carol 5.1
      26 July 2012 at 9:20 am

      And the Herald has an article on Maggie Barry’s “childless” snipe at Ardern & a poll about it:

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10822282

      “Stop subsidising heavy polluters and we can back kids. Build one less road of national significance and we can help kids and their families,” she said. “This Government has proven that their priority is not children.”

      Ms Barry, 52, responded by asking: “How many kids do you have?”

      The North Shore MP later added: “Don’t be so precious, petal.”

      The Opposition side of the House erupted with calls for an apology, which the first-term Government member refused to give.
      […]
      “Stop subsidising heavy polluters and we can back kids. Build one less road of national significance and we can help kids and their families,” she said. “This Government has proven that their priority is not children.”

      I would have thought an MP getting their information from comprehensive research, reports etc on such issues, is better than taking just one woman’s experience. Furthermore, Barry shows why it is a relevant issue to Ardern personally, because, at any time, she can/could be making a decision as to if/when to have children.

      Barry…. a light weight intellectually, and, just plain nasty.

      • aj 5.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 11:37 am

        Maggie & National just loses the vote of many swinging female voters who are not mothers yet. I can but hope.

    • Pete George 5.2
      26 July 2012 at 9:22 am

      The Herald on this (and they have a poll on it):

      MP snipes at Labour rival’s lack of children.

      Ms Ardern was asking people if they “preferred coal or children”.

      “Stop subsidising heavy polluters and we can back kids. Build one less road of national significance and we can help kids and their families,” she said. “This Government has proven that their priority is not children.”

      Ms Barry:”How many kids do you have?”
      And later: “Don’t be so precious, petal.”

      Labour MP Trevor Mallard later wrote on his Twitter feed: “Shame on Maggie Barry … Women parliamentarians should know better than to criticise each other for not having children.”

      Speaking after the debate, Ms Barry, who had her only child in her late 30s, said: “I am not apologising for it. I don’t think it’s a very sensitive issue. Jacinda dishes the dirt as much as any.”

      Barry is right, Labour can do it dirty too, but that doesn’t excuse her for unnecessary nastiness like this. Nothing is gained and respect is lost for the taunter.

      I agree with Mallard’s statement on it.

  6. Carol 6
    26 July 2012 at 9:39 am

    The Speaker has released the names of Lobbyists with security access cards to Parliament. And interesting list, with those representing interests in representing financial institutions or (largely unsustainable kinds of) energy companies/interests, or backgrounds supporting business and the National Party in the majority:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10822271

    ACCESS

    Nicholas Albrecht (Vector)

    Tim Clarke (Russell McVeagh)

    Peter Conway (Council of Trade Unions)

    Daniel Fielding (Minter Ellison Rudd Watts)

    Charles Finny (Saunders Unsworth)

    Helen Kelly (Council of Trade Unions)

    Tony O’Brien (Sky TV)

    Phil O’Reilly (Business NZ)

    Leigh Pearson (L.A. Pearson)

    Barrie Saunders (Saunders Unsworth)

    Mark Unsworth (Saunders Unsworth)

    Jordan Williams (Franks & Ogilvie)

    Pastor Rasik Ranchord (Parliamentary Breakfast Group)

    Philippa Falloon (Former MP’s spouse)

    Lady Jane Kidd (Former MP’s spouse)

    I had to look up some of these entities:

    Saunders & Unsworth (right leaning Lobbyist organisation)
    http://www.sul.co.nz/page/home.aspx

    (Commercial & Public Law)
    http://www.franksogilvie.co.nz/

    (foregrounds finance company cases)
    http://www.minterellison.co.nz/

    (represents “New Zealand’s leading corporations and financial institutions.”)
    http://www.russellmcveagh.com/

    Then there’s Sky TV & Vector.

    There are 2 people from the CTU with access cards, but it doesn’t really provide much balance to the other corporate/business entities that dominate.

    • Wyndham 6.1
      26 July 2012 at 9:46 am

      Why would Philippa Falloon and Jane Kidd still want access to Parliament ?

      • Tigger 6.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 10:31 am

        Sky TV sticks out a mile here. Why does our monopoly pay broadcaster have free access to Parliament?

    • Morrissey 6.2
      26 July 2012 at 12:32 pm

      Lady Jane Kidd? As in married to Doug Kidd? Is she the one who he left his first wife for?

    • MrSmith 6.3
      26 July 2012 at 7:34 pm

      For some insight into Russell McVeagh, (McLeech), Thirty Pieces of Silver By Anthony Molloy QC, is great reading.

      Also McLeech just happen to be representing King Salmon who are applying through the EPA to expand their Dirty, Disease ridden salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds.

  7. Wyndham 7
    26 July 2012 at 9:40 am

    Derogatory comment about female opposition party members “not having children” is nothing new from the National Party.
    Weren’t they always making snide remarks about Helen Clark along the same lines ?

    • Carol 7.1
      26 July 2012 at 10:06 am

      Yes, the Nats like to keep gender stereotypes in place, and for women to keep their (in Nat eyes) subordinate position as mothers. And they tend to use women to police other women in doing this (see Paula Benefit’s track record)…… unless they are a woman with a Taser, who is prepared to crush cars (preferably by making themselves a spectacle in fetishist high heels).

      And they do not have a good record in supporting women with children, especially if they are on low incomes.

    • Pete George 7.2
      26 July 2012 at 11:11 am

      Also in parliament yesterday:

      Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I am very glad that the National Party are talking about their so-called glorious, Nuremberg-like rally that happened at the weekend, because the Prime Minister came out of that, triumphant in his own mind that the National Party faithful…

      Also unnecessary and nasty.

      • felix 7.2.1
        26 July 2012 at 11:35 am

        🙄

      • Carol 7.2.2
        26 July 2012 at 11:47 am

        Not exactly parallel. The swipe at Ardern (as a working woman) was personal and targeting supporting women (of child-bearing age) who are the least powerful sex in the Nat scheme of things. Cosgrove was attacking a triumphalist party who have a strong record in government of anti-democratic policies and legislation.

        Although, I’m not that keen on such hyperbolism or use of that extreme metaphor, which will probably launch me into mod if I name it.

        • Pete George 7.2.2.1
          26 July 2012 at 1:17 pm

          I agree that the swipe at Ardern was quote a bit worse because it was personal.

          Mallard’s tweet was a tad ironic:
          “…parliamentarians should know better than to criticise each other…”
          – but correct when read in full.

      • Te Reo Putake 7.2.3
        26 July 2012 at 12:24 pm

        Do Not Feed The Tory.

      • Morrissey 7.2.4
        26 July 2012 at 12:35 pm

        …unnecessary and nasty.

        Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but the Key regime and its key hatchet men (Joyce, Collins, Carter) are nasty in extremis.

  8. Chris 8
    26 July 2012 at 10:43 am

    Maggie Barry is a nasty little common gardener. It seems that many people resort to just this sort of personal attack because they do not have the intellectual capability to argue the actual policy under debate.She is a nasty vindictive piece of work. The women of the National Party are all the same.A gaggle of shrews all vying to be Apha female in order to impress the little man.Wonder what he has been promising them?

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      26 July 2012 at 10:56 am

      And women keep voting National. And I know lots of younger women who do too. Go figure what the hell they are all thinking.

      • Lanthanide 8.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 12:48 pm

        If my former flatmate is anything to go by, they simply buy all of National’s brighter future tripe and don’t know anything about any of the people involved or any of the policies and what they mean.

        She works in ECE and was very angry about the 2010 budget. I suggested to her not to vote National next time; not sure how (or if) she voted in 2011.

      • grumpy 8.1.2
        26 July 2012 at 1:15 pm

        Could be that they identify with the hetero women in National rather than Street, Wall etc?

    • Bored 8.2
      26 July 2012 at 11:34 am

      You are so right about the Alpha females of National, trying to out macho one another. Whilst driving in the last few days (a rare event for me) Paula (lard arse) Bennett came on the radio and said words to the effect “We are going to take the benefit away from those people on the run from the police”….the shrill refrain followed by a giggle Dr Evil would have been proud of.

      My heart sank, is this the type of glib nonsense our leaders are reduced to I thought. Such a stupid statement by such an ill educated and pig ignorant bully. So lets break it down a little:
      * on the run from the Police….who decides who is on the run, or just not around etc?
      * on the run…does that mean guilty prior to charge or court? Or is that just assumed?
      * does guilty of an offense mean you should be kicked off of a benefit? Is Social Development now an arm of Corrections / Justice?
      * does Paula think that some cop stating you are on the run from the law means that you must be guilty and therefore to be stripped of your rights as a citizen at her whim?
      * benefit stopped as above…what happens to dependents? Or are they guilty by association?

      In short this bitch is playing fast and loose with the rights of the citizen, she is well out of order. Where are Shearer and Parker when you really need them to stand up?

      • katie 8.2.1
        26 July 2012 at 11:54 am

        the twitter hashtag #maggiebarrystandingorders is providing some real gems! My favourite so far: “You can only talk about asset sales if you have three TradeMe stars or more. #maggiebarrystandingorders”

      • joe90 8.2.2
        26 July 2012 at 12:06 pm

        #maggiebarrystandingorders

        Maggie Barry seems quite happy to talk about euthanasia. Maybe it’s a cry for help

        Only MPs named Sarah can talk about CERA

        MPs wanting to talk about taser will have to have been tased.

        Maggie, I have 2 children so can talk about Paid Parental Leave twice as much.

    • Bored 8.3
      26 July 2012 at 2:13 pm

      Maggie the boys lusted after, the middle aged men swooned, she of the fabulous red hair, such a flower, a blossom. We wise gardeners know that such beauties as anenome, clematis, daffodil, wisteria, lily etc are all poisonous. To quote the Bard “This potent poison quite o’ercrows my spirit”:

    • mike e 8.4
      26 July 2012 at 8:11 pm

      Then muck raking would be her strong suit.

  9. Dr Terry 9
    26 July 2012 at 11:43 am

    For some reason too many women appear to be lovingly obsessed with Key – many outwardly attractive people are sinister behind the facade.

  10. gobsmacked 10
    26 July 2012 at 11:51 am

    So Banks is in the clear.

    Short-term win but medium-term loss for National. They want Colin Craig, not the walking corpse of ACT.

    Paul Goldsmith won’t be happy!

  11. Chris 11
    26 July 2012 at 11:52 am

    John Banks cleared! Whod a thunk it!

  12. gobsmacked 12
    26 July 2012 at 12:01 pm

    “Police said they had established Mr Banks personally solicited donations which were subsequently recorded as anonymous” (Herald)

    The opposition should be able to use that. “Acceptable to personally solicit, Prime Minister? Are these the standards now?”

    Should be able, but probably won’t.

  13. gobsmacked 13
    26 July 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Well, the government’s good news lasted about ten minutes …

    From Red Alert, here are the new private members’ bills, drawn from the ballot today:

    State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill (Clayton Cosgrove)
    Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill (Catherine Delahunty)
    Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill
    Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill (Shane Jones)
    Minimum Wage Amendment Bill (David Clark)

    No Right Turn says “It’s all on.” See italics!

    i.e. Key (and yes, Shearer) now have to stop mucking around and vote Yes or No to marriage equality. Stand by for more squirming …

    • gobsmacked 13.1
      26 July 2012 at 12:51 pm

      And now the media have picked this up.

      Banks’ “win” will get a headline for a few hours. Louisa Wall’s win will make headlines for months.

      Now all we need is for MPs who favour marriage equality to say so – without waffle and weasel-words. Plus, the inevitable bonus of Craig and Tamaki and co ranting against this. Bigots being exposed, and ultimately, losing. With Key pandering to both sides.

      It’s a very good day!

      • grumpy 13.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 1:21 pm

        The problem is that although Labour think this Bill is the most important thing to happen bloody near forever, nobody else really gives a stuff. That is the answer to previous questions as to why women identify with Key and why young women identify with National, they simply have more important things in common to worry about (like children).
        Labour have isolated themselves into an “identity politics” party at the expense of wider support.

        • gobsmacked 13.1.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 1:35 pm

          It’s not a question of “the most important thing”.

          It’s a private members’ bill, and a conscience vote. Opposition MPs don’t get to write the budget, decide policy direction, or do much at all. This is one of the few things they can do. Yesterday’s double win was a good example.

          If there are easy votes in opposing this, National (i.e. Key) will oppose it. But there aren’t any more. So the law will pass, because it is now on the right side of public opinion. That’s good, right?

        • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.2
          26 July 2012 at 1:43 pm

          Human rights used to be considered fairly important but then we got a serious case of neo-liberalism and now everyone seems to have more important things to worry about like feeding themselves.

          Wonder why that is…

        • OneTrack 13.1.1.3
          26 July 2012 at 8:14 pm

          Labour can’t seem to see that though grumpy. Identity politics seems to be all they have left.

      • gobsmacked 13.2.1
        26 July 2012 at 3:03 pm

        That Stuff link (now updated) shows why this bill is not just morally right … it’s also good politics:

        Watch the Nats run for cover …

        Environment minister Amy Adams said she would ”give it some thought.”

        ”My initial view is that what we have seems to be working pretty well, but I’m not taking a position at this stage,” Adams said.

        Health minister Tony Ryall said he wanted to look ”at exactly what it is before we make a decision on that.” He refused to say if he supported gay marriage.

        New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young said he had no comment – other than he would canvas the views of his constituents.

        Defence minister Jonathan Coleman said he wanted to read the bill before forming a view.

        Translation – As soon as Key gives them the nod, they will (miraculously) make up their minds.

        Get a bulk order of popcorn, this is gonna be fun.

        • RedBlooded 13.2.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 4:37 pm

          In Maggie Barry world will they only be able to discuss Gay Marriage if they have a same sex partner. I get so confused about the rules coming from the Nasties.

          • OneTrack 13.2.1.1.1
            26 July 2012 at 8:25 pm

            Good, this obviously means I am allowed an opinion again on education, even though I am not a teacher. Yay.

            • gobsmacked 13.2.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2012 at 8:31 pm

              When were you not allowed an opinion?

              • Grumpy …
                26 July 2012 at 9:02 pm

                Every bloody five minutes on here……

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  26 July 2012 at 10:32 pm

                  If his, or anyone’s, opinion gets shot to pieces by logic and fact then they should probably change their opinion – not complain that they can’t have an opinion.

    • millsy 13.3
      26 July 2012 at 11:16 pm

      Looking forward to taking on the god-botherers over gay marriage. Its going to be a big scrap, like smacking was 5 years ago..

  14. Morrissey 14
    26 July 2012 at 12:29 pm

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-anti-semitism-that-goes-unreported-1.452594
    The anti-Semitism that goes unreported
    The daily dose of terror inflicted on these Semites isn’t noticed by most Jews – even though the incidents resemble stories told by our grandparents.

    by Amira Hass, Haaretz, July 18, 2012

    Here’s a statistic that you won’t see in research on anti-Semitism, no matter how meticulous the study is. In the first six months of the year, 154 anti-Semitic assaults have been recorded, 45 of them around one village alone. Some fear that last year’s record high of 411 attacks – significantly more than the 312 attacks in 2010 and 168 in 2009 – could be broken this year.

    Fifty-eight incidents were recorded in June alone, including stone-throwing targeting farmers and shepherds, shattered windows, arson, damaged water pipes and water-storage facilities, uprooted fruit trees and one damaged house of worship. The assailants are sometimes masked, sometimes not; sometimes they attack surreptitiously, sometimes in the light of day.

    There were two violent attacks a day, in separate venues, on July 13, 14 and 15. The words “death” and “revenge” have been scrawled in various areas; a more original message promises that “We will yet slaughter.”

    It’s no accident that the diligent anti-Semitism researchers have left out this data. That’s because they don’t see it as relevant, since the Semites who were attacked live in villages with names like Jalud, Mughayer and At-Tuwani, Yanun and Beitilu. The daily dose of terrorizing (otherwise known as terrorism) that is inflicted on these Semites isn’t compiled into a neat statistical report, nor is it noticed by most of the Jewish population in Israel and around the world – even though the incidents resemble the stories told by our grandparents.

    The day our grandparents feared was Sunday, the Christian Sabbath; the Semites, who are not of interest to the researchers monitoring anti-Semitism, fear Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Our grandparents knew that the order-enforcement authorities wouldn’t intervene to help a Jewish family under attack; we know that the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Police, the Civil Administration, the Border Police and the courts all stand on the sidelines, closing their eyes, ….

    Read more….
    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-anti-semitism-that-goes-unreported-1.452594

  15. captain hook 15
    26 July 2012 at 12:59 pm

    so for a bit of light relief who is going to support the WWF in their call for China, Vietnam and Thailand to do something about their contribution to Elephant and Rhinoceros extinction threats.

  16. Morrissey 16
    26 July 2012 at 1:08 pm

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1341612018.html

    The smearing of Julian Assange by the Guardian

    So I’ve read it all again, again. This time in English. Before I’d stuck to the Swedish versions of the leaked police interviews to make sure I was going to the closest source. The translation into English is good and accurate, in my opinion. Here’s the link…

    http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml

    It’s all here, virtually everything I tried to get the Guardian, the Independent, the Observer, the New Statesman interestsed in examining.

    One’s struck by lots of things in the police interveiws. Firstly the Swedish police can conduct telephone interviews in the case, as they’ve done with several of the ‘witnesses’, without the need to arrest anyone, so why not Assange?

    The almost total lack of any witnesses or evidence to confirm that any crime actually took place, apart from the statements of the two women involved, and they are ‘tainted’ and arguably wouldn’t stand up in court to cross-examination, even in Sweden, which is why the first prosecutor in Stockholm dropped the case like a hot stone.

    The two women did not go to the police and claim that Assange attacked, asssaulted, used violence, or raped them. And they should know. ….

    Learn more by clicking on the following….
    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1341612018.html

    • McFlock 16.1
      26 July 2012 at 1:19 pm

      Another cut&paste I see.
           
      By the way, what’s the provenance of the transcripts? I’ve not seen it mentioned that they’d been leaked before. I’d hate for someone to think that I just took random internet websites at face value.

      • Morrissey 16.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 1:24 pm

        You’ll notice that at the end of the post, I wrote that one could learn more by clicking onto the Media Lens site, and I helpfully provided a hyperlink.

        Maybe you missed it.

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 1:29 pm

          I did click on it.
             
          And the rixstep link.
               
          No evidence whatsoever that transcripts had been leaked. How do you know that this isn’t just Assange fanfic? 

          • Morrissey 16.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2012 at 1:43 pm

            No evidence whatsoever that transcripts had been leaked.
            They were leaked, all right. That’s an English translation.

            How do you know that this isn’t just Assange fanfic?

            It’s not. Unlike the fictional “case” against Assange, this leaked evidence stands on its merits: it has not been refuted.

            But what a neat and nasty little propaganda coinage: “Assange fanfic”.

            It’s demeaning to his defenders on two levels:

            1.) The FAN part of “fanfic” implies that, as well as being “celebrities like Jemima Khan”, Assange’s principled defenders (Chomsky, Pilger, Maguire, Ellsberg, and millions more) are merely “fans”;

            2.) The FIC part of “fanfic” implies that Assange’s defence is fictional, and fraudulent.

            Neat propaganda, but shallow, and utterly without merit—just like the fictional “case” against Assange.

            • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2012 at 2:01 pm

              How do you know that this isn’t just Assange fanfic?
              It’s not. Unlike the fictional “case” against Assange, this leaked evidence stands on its merits: it has not been refuted.
               

              So your evidence of the authenticity of these transcripts is that the Swedish government hasn’t commented on the accuracy of internet documents that claim to be leaked evidence in ongoing investigations? 
                     
              And I wasn’t suggesting Chomsky or Pilger invented the transcripts. Just that some little internet groupie who bought a “team assange” tshirt  might have wanted to write their own Shades of Grey.
                    
              Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any or all witness interviews have been leaked?  And that this “transcript” is accurate?
                      
              And even if the link IS true and accurate (doubtful), do you seriously have no qualms at all about publicly distributing the evidence gathered in ongoing police investigations into sexual assault? IMO, a group prepared to do that would be just as willing to fabricate “transcripts” to help defend their cause. The ends justify the means, and all that.
               

            • Te Reo Putake 16.1.1.1.1.2
              26 July 2012 at 2:03 pm

              “… millions more …”
               
              I imagine Assange’s supporters would number in the dozens nowadays. For some reason people tend to go off cowards who run away rather than face the consequences of their own sleazy actions. Those who have gone off him recently include most of the people that you list as being his supporters. They were helping him and showing a remarkeable degree of trust right up until he did a runner and blew the money they’d put up as security against him bottling out.
               
              On the up side, if he ever needs a bed for the night in NZ, I’m sure he’ll find you most obliging, Mozza. If you know what I mean 😉

              • Morrissey …
                26 July 2012 at 9:56 pm

                I imagine Assange’s supporters would number in the dozens nowadays.

                His supporters include the most admired and principled political dissidents in the world. And millions more, of course. But feel free to go ahead and pretend otherwise.

                For some reason people tend to go off cowards who run away rather than face the consequences of their own sleazy actions.

                His “sleazy actions” were to sleep with groupies. I’ll bet you would do the same if you ever did anything brave enough to give you the heroic status that Assange has earned. There is no evidence that he did anything illegal—but you would know that if you did any serious reading on the subject.

                Those who have gone off him recently include most of the people that you list as being his supporters.

                Oh really? And your evidence for this is…. what, exactly?

            • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1.3
              26 July 2012 at 8:31 pm

              Just so everyone is clear on the new convention here:

              Documents or links stating anything helpful to Assange’s defence shall be referred to as dubious or as fiction.

              Documents or links supporting the sexual allegations made against Assange shall be considered serious or factual.

              Anyone whose behaviour does not conform to this new protocol should be considered a rape apologist.

              Clear, everyone?

              • QoT …
                26 July 2012 at 8:35 pm

                Seriously, CV? Morrissey has been spamming the Open Mikes for days now with copypasted Assange defence crap. When asked to actually establish provenance for his sources, he cannot.

                Meanwhile, we’ve already had an epic thread wherein plenty of explanatory articles have been linked to and generally brushed away by Morrissey, yourself, et al because … well … Sweden should just cede its legal sovereignty, and Zionism, and also “sex makes fools of us all.”

                Yeah, but it’s the people who want Assange held accountable for his actions who are just meanies.

                Ever considered that maybe the way rape culture oppresses and victimizes women might be a little bit more important than how much it ~hurts your feelings~ to be called a rape apologist when you’re indulging in rape apologism?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  26 July 2012 at 8:41 pm

                  So all you are interested in is Assange being held accountable, yeah? Hey I go with that 100%.

                  If Sweden can give an assurance that they aren’t going to ship Assange off to Guantanamo Bay asap – a pretty easy statement to make I would have thought – than I agree Assange should be shipped off to Sweden asap to face the legal music.

                  If Sweden made such a statement, Ecuador would have no more grounds to protect Assange in their embassy either.

                  But yeah, why don’t you keep focussing on protecting Sweden’s ‘legal sovereignty to ship Assange to a US military prison anytime they want to’.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    26 July 2012 at 8:50 pm

                    Why didn’t the US extradite him from the UK?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2012 at 9:19 pm

                      Not sure. Factors might include:
                      – Level of media attention
                      – Lack of UK political agreement
                      – Strength of public support for Assange
                      – Complications from UK judicial oversight

                      Regardless, Sweden should give Assange (and the rest of the w/orld) an assurance that he will not be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay asap.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 10:17 pm
                       
                       

                       
                      Not sure. Factors might include:
                      – Level of media attention
                      – Lack of UK political agreement
                      – Strength of public support for Assange
                      – Complications from UK judicial oversight
                       
                      – becue Sweden doesn’t have any media?
                      – doesn’t do shit against a red notice
                      – damned Assande-hating swedes
                      – because the one and only time Swedish inteligence services broke the rules (just after 9/11) the courts didn’t get involved?
                         
                      And face it – the Swedes haven’t shot any electricians since 9/11, have they?

                       
                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2012 at 10:21 pm

                      So getting an assurance should be a walk in the park right, McFlock? One little assurance and the Ecuador embassy has no more grounds to protect Assange.

                      You get what you want: Assange with no where else to run to.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 10:36 pm

                      Did the UK provide the same assurance?
                           
                      A fair legal system means favours aren’t made just because you’re famous.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2012 at 10:43 pm

                      An assurance not to be shipped to Guanatano Bay under the pretext of routine investigative questioning on something completely irrelevant is not that big a “favour” now, is it.

                      And you would get what you want: Assange kicked out of Ecuador embassy protection and on a plane to Sweden.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 10:46 pm

                      Did the UK give the same assurance?
                               
                       

                  • Bunji …
                    26 July 2012 at 8:50 pm

                    Still: the US’s extradition treaty with the UK gives them pretty much carte blanche (thanks TB…), Sweden’s less so. Why would the US want him in a country it will be harder to extradite him from?

                    But I’m not getting into this, I’ve seen the epic threads…

                • Morrissey …
                  26 July 2012 at 9:31 pm

                  Morrissey has been spamming the Open Mikes for days now with copypasted Assange defence crap.

                  The examples of “spam” I posted were: (1) an official release by Women Against Rape, expressing the gravest concern about the sincerity and the truthfulness of the “allegations” against Assange; (2) a meticulously detailed Media Lens exposé of the (so-called) liberal media’s parroting of official lies about Assange; and (3) Nobel Peace laureate Mairead Maguire’s plea to the Ecuadorean government to grant Assange political asylum.

                  If that’s “spam” then Garth George is a brilliant journalist, Christine (Spankin’) Rankin is a child advocate, and Peter “Possum” Dunne is a profile in courage.

                  When asked to actually establish provenance for his sources, he cannot.

                  I can, and I did. It’s interesting, on the other hand, that the persecutors of Assange have provided not a scintilla of evidence.

                  ….generally brushed away by Morrissey, yourself, et al because … well … Sweden should just cede its legal sovereignty, and Zionism, and also “sex makes fools of us all.”

                  I’ve never said or written any of those things. You’re just making it up as you go. Have you considered a job with the Key administration?

                  Yeah, but it’s the people who want Assange held accountable for his actions who are just meanies.

                  There is no evidence against him at all, as you would know if you read up on this travesty with any seriousness at all. However, there is of course evidence that he did what a journalist should do, and exposed massive state crimes being perpetrated by (among others) the United States and its satellite regimes. Those are the actions that they want to punish him for; but they were not illegal, of course. Hence the invention of these sex allegations.

                  • McFlock …
                    26 July 2012 at 10:33 pm

                    The prosecutors of Assange seem to think there is probable cause. Contrary to what teamassange groupies might think, the interwebz are not the judiciary. 
                       
                    What “provenance” did you provide? A link to some random web page? No other sources to suggest that the swedes were investigating a massive leak of documents relating to sexual assault investigations? None of the witnesses confirming the contents of the transcript? No swedish “bradass87”?
                         
                    The faithful have been fabricating icons and supporting evidence for millenia. And not everything on the internet is true. All I want is some corroborating evidence.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2012 at 10:47 pm

                      Sweden should give Assange an assurance that he will not be shipped out to Guantanamo, the Ecuadorians will have no grounds to keep him in their embassy, and then you will get exactly what you want – Assange in front of Swedish criminal investigators.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 11:00 pm

                      So an entire Swedish legal system should compromise because some guy jumped bail in the UK?
                               
                      I much prefer the option of patient justice – if he ever wants to go anywhere in the developed world, he has Swedish and British fugitive notices to worry about, as well as US. And if Ecuador wants to build international links, well they’ve got him on tap, haven’t they. A cross between Carlos the Jackal and Paul Gadd.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2012 at 11:24 pm

                      Promising to not ship someone to military internment in Guantanamo Bay on completely unrelated matters can compromise a so-called justice system?

                      And if Ecuador wants to build international links, well they’ve got him on tap, haven’t they. A cross between Carlos the Jackal and Paul Gadd.

                      So you don’t want to get Assange in front of Swedish criminal investigators asap? You prefer to keep the Swedish women complainants waiting while some kind of international espionage intrigue gets played out?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 11:36 pm
                       
                       

                      Nope.
                      A promise not to extradite someone to country B is a compromise of the justice system:
                          
                      A promise not to deport straight to guantanamo means a promise not to extradite to the US, period.
                      A promise not to extradite to the US means a promise not to extradite to the US even on charges that are legitimate, such as if he raped someone in the US (if he’s ever been there).
                      A banket promise not to extradite to the US means a promise not to extradite to any nation that might give him to the US. Even if they, too, have 100% legitimate charges.
                          
                      Basically, you’re asking the Swedes to guarantee that he’ll never be deported to damned near anywhere on the panet, no matter what he’s accused of and no matter how much evidence and no matter what international obligations.
                         
                      But there’s no compromise if they look at requests on a case by case basis. Just like the UK did.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 11:39 pm

                      But I’d actually prefer it if Assange decided to take responsibility for what he did, and front up to face the charges. The dangers of plane flight back to Sweden would be a bigger threat to his life and freedom than the danger of rendition to the states.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 July 2012 at 12:00 am

                      Hey McFlock – where did you put your concern that the women complainants in Sweden get justice quickly, on that priority list of international law, intrigue and espionage?

                      Oh yeah I see now, you added it as a footnote: Assange should just man up and take the risk of being shipped out to Guantanamo Bay held under military arrest on the chin, as a matter of course.

                      I’m sure he’ll take that candid suggestion under advisement.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2012 at 12:04 am

                      Don’t be dumb.
                            
                      The choice between waiting for justice and compromising it permanently should be no choice at all.
                           
                      Why didn’t the UK send him to the states again? Why are the swedes more likely to?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 July 2012 at 12:23 am

                      Yeah McFlock, you’re all for justice eh?

                      You want to protect Sweden’s justice system and you want to protect Sweden’s sovereign right to extradite persons anywhere in the world that they are empowered to, for any reasons their justice system and various international treaties allow.

                      You want to protect the integrity of both the Swedish justice systems and international law. Is that right, eh? Are you sure that’s all?

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2012 at 12:41 am
                       
                       

                      I want justice systems to work with integrity. Extradition is part of that. That way they can hold all criminals accountable for their actions, and ensure that the innocent aren’t convicted unjustly.
                                  
                      That will improve public confidence in the justice system, so the public would be more likely to report crme of all types – especially sexual crimes, which have a microscopic reporting nature.
                           
                      That wil reduce crime.
                            
                      Is there anything inconsistent in all that? What more do you think I want?
                          
                          
                      oh, by the way:
                      Why didn’t the UK send him to the states again?

                      Why are the swedes more likely to?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 July 2012 at 12:56 am

                      I want justice systems to work with integrity. Extradition is part of that.

                      Are you truly genuine about that?

                      Specifically, do you believe that in addition to extradition, asylum from politically motivated prosecution is another legitimate part of the system of international law?

                      And if so, do you then accept that Ecuador has the full right (under established international law) to provide Assange with temporary refuge while its government assesses his individual case on its individual merits?

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2012 at 1:09 am

                      So why didn’t he ask for political asylum in the UK? They take asylum-seekers, too. Like Sweden does, interestingly enough.  
                            
                      I’m not sure I’ve ever criticised Ecuador’s right to consider and grant asylum. I’m criticising Assange for hiding behind conspiracy theories to avoid a sexual assault investigation. 
                           

                      oh, by the way:
                      Why didn’t the UK send him to the states again?

                      Why are the swedes more likely to?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 July 2012 at 1:19 am

                      To be clear then McFlock:

                      You accept that seeking asylum from politically motivated prosecution is a legitimate part of established international law. Just like extradition is.

                      You further accept that Ecuador has the right to give Assange temporary refuge while it assesses the merits of his case on its individual merits.

                      And since you said that you would be very patient with the necessarily slow movement of complex legal processes (in order to protect the integrity of the international justice system was your rationale), you will no doubt accept Assange exercising his rights under international law to request asylum, and for Ecuador to exercise its sovereign rights to assess that request thoroughly and with due process.

                      Am I correct, or have I misread your stance of principal on international law as being more genuine than it really is?

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2012 at 1:31 am
                       
                       

                      Nah, you’ve got a slide in there.
                             
                      I believe in asylum, I even believe in Assange’s right to claim asylum for protection against political prosecution.
                         
                      So why didn’t he ask for asylum from the UK? What was the ruling when his lawyers brought up political oppression in the extradition hearing. Did they? The UK can grant asylum too.
                         
                      He’s claiming asylum from country C because country B decided to extradite him to country A on probable cause for investigation into sexual assault and rape. 
                          
                      I believe in Assange’s right to claim asylum as protection from political persecution. I don’t believe in his right to pervert the principle of asylum by using it to avoid answering questions about sexual assaults. To me, it looks suspiciously like the latter.
                           
                       
                      So:
                      Why didn’t the UK send him to the states again?
                      Why are the swedes more likely to?
                      and I’ll add:
                      why didn’t he ask for asylum in the UK?

                       
                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 July 2012 at 1:41 am

                      So you are willing to wait for Ecuador to do what it needs to, in order for them to properly and legally assess Assange’s request for political asylum using thorough due process?

                      Lets wait and see what happens then. You won’t try and rush or prejudge the issues will you?

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2012 at 1:52 am
                       
                       

                      Ah fuck it, I’m off to bed.
                                
                      I have no choice but to wait for Ecuador’s decision. Interwebz arguments do not substitute for a justice system in any nation.
                         
                      I do find your hierarchy of competent legal systems intriguing, though:
                      Sweden is a corrupt politicised pawn of the US satan;
                      The UK is better than Sweden, but not good enough to be asked for asylum or indeed not extradite to Sweden;
                      Ecuador is an enlightened nation that will deliver the judgement of Solomon.
                              
                      Bear in mind that so far Assange has struck out with 2 out of 3 seperate judicial systems. And I get the impression that if Ecuador refuses asylum you’ll be saying “let’s try the next one”. And if he camps further and further down Embassy Row you’ll end up praising the wisdom and justice of the Iranian government.
                          
                           
                      Why didn’t the UK send him to the states again?
                      Why are the swedes more likely to?
                      why didn’t he ask for asylum in the UK?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 July 2012 at 2:07 am

                      And I get the impression that if Ecuador refuses asylum you’ll be saying “let’s try the next one”.

                      The justice system by its nature presents individuals with more than one opportunity for their case to be heard. That is what the system of appeals is all about.

                      I thought you would understand that.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2012 at 11:57 am

                      I do.
                           
                      My point was that it’s all very well for you to ask me to keep an open mind, but the fact is that your mind is closed to the possibility that he did it, knows there is no real risk of being deported to the US by sweden, but is using fear of TPTB as an excuse to avoid accountability for his actions. 
                           
                      Seriously, if that were the true state of affairs, how could someone convince you of it? All courts that rule against him are stooges of US imperialist hegemony. All accusers are ignorantly spreading black propaganda. The most flimsy uncorroborated internet link in his favour proves his innocence. Is there any theoretical way that the logical possibility of his guilt and abuse of asylum could be demonstrated to you, if it were true?
                               
                           
                      Why didn’t the UK send him to the states?
                      Why are the swedes more likely to?why didn’t he ask for asylum in the UK?  

    • OneTrack 16.2
      26 July 2012 at 8:39 pm

      Yeah they are only silly women making a silly rape complaint. Some things are more important than that when you are taking on the US. Take that Obama.

      • Morrissey 16.2.1
        26 July 2012 at 9:39 pm

        Yeah they are only silly women making a silly rape complaint.

        No, they did no such thing. There have been no rape complaints made against Assange.

        I’m interested to know something, my friend: why are you commenting on this topic when you have no idea what you are writing about?

  17. aerobubble 17
    26 July 2012 at 1:22 pm

    dogma, what you find when solutions never materialize, welcome
    to the under perfrorming NZ economy, for decades and decades.
    The same trite arguments that miss the essential point about the NZ
    economy, that we reward investment in housing over productive endeavors.

    But wait its worse.

    Values. Glen Owen charity is a role model hang over from the
    class system because it reinforces the view that we must be all
    wealth to be generous to our lesser citizens. That merit be damned,
    wealth is all that matters. Surely to be successful like Nordic nations
    we need also to look up to successful people who are fabulously wealth.
    In fact its because we speak the same language as Americans, and
    their culture dominates ours, and we don’t have Nobel prizes (or wealthy
    people who reward intellectualism), that we continue to pick the worse
    economic policies for NZ, because some trite US twit says charter schools,
    or whatever, is the next cool economic fad.

    National and Labour are hollow idiots pandering to poor policy prescriptions
    because they can’t beat out the nonsense imported from the US.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1
      26 July 2012 at 1:52 pm

      +1

      The biggest problem for NZs economy (and that of the rest of the world) is that we’ve been rewarding the rich for being rich and not only letting them get away with corruption but giving them multi-million dollar golden handshakes when their hands are caught in the till.

      • higherstandard 17.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 1:57 pm

        How have we been rewarding the rich for being rich in NZ ?

        • McFlock 17.1.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 2:04 pm

          Massive tax cuts and giving them a wonderful opportunity to buy our infrastructure at basement prices, to name two ways.

          • Bored 17.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2012 at 2:16 pm

            Not to mention tax cuts that have to be financed from debt paid for by the rank and file taxpayer….dont give me any crap about the rich paying the most tax.

            • higherstandard 17.1.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2012 at 2:38 pm

              Actually that’s a good point – where is that dataset that used to be regularly published of the tax take by tax type and income bracket ?

              • aerobubble …
                28 July 2012 at 11:10 am

                Its now a very real fact, that the artificial construct of a business entity is consider equivalent to a person (SCOTUS), but the greatest burden, tax if you will, upon Mother Earth has not yet been provided with even basic rights. Sue God? NO! Mother Earth should sue the USA.

          • higherstandard 17.1.1.1.2
            26 July 2012 at 2:37 pm

            I’m assuming that most still pay significant tax under the progressive tax system and have also been subject to the same GST rises as everyone else ?

            As for the SOE sell down if you’re bemoaning the fact that people can purchase a few thousand dollars worth of shares as a reward for the rich being rich I think you’re being overly bombastic.

            • McFlock 17.1.1.1.2.1
              26 July 2012 at 2:43 pm

              1: they pay less tax than they did 5 years ago. That is a “reward”. The poor pay more.
                
              2: Subject to the same GST rises… depending on how they structured their finances, how much goes through companies or trusts, and how much is invested. Unlike the poor, who spend all their money on personal goods and services therefore probably pay 15% of their entire “after tax” income on GST.
                     
              3: You might sniff at a few thousand bucks returning 18% not being much of a reward. Alternatively, the other 95% of the country would gratefully appreciate it.  

            • higherstandard 17.1.1.1.2.2
              26 July 2012 at 3:29 pm

              1. How do you know they pay less tax than they did five years ago, they might then again they might not with GST changes and other tweaks in the tax system? As I said there used to be an interesting dataset published by treasury I think on tax by type and income bracket.

              2. Again you make assumptions – this may or may not be the case.

              3. Are you suggesting that the shares in SOEs being offered are going to return 18% ….fantastic i’ll make sure to invest and if that’s the case you should invest as mush as possible yourself.

              • McFlock …
                26 July 2012 at 3:53 pm

                1: tax rates are lower in higher brackets
                2: indeed. Just as if my lotto numbers come up, I don’t have to collect the winnings.
                3: yeah good call – fubared those math alright 🙂 But it’s still an investment that poor people can’t make in infrastructure that everybody already equally owns.
                 

                • higherstandard …
                  26 July 2012 at 3:57 pm

                  1.Tax rates are lower than they used to be in higher tax brackets, they are still higher in the higher tax brackets and those in the higher brackets still pay the majority of income tax in NZ. I still believe that there is room for a high earners tax bracket in NZ in line with the highest level across the Tasman.

                  2. Not sure what you’re trying to say here.

                  3. I’ll bet you that even someone of very very modest means could lend money if they could ensure an 18% return.

                  • McFlock …
                    26 July 2012 at 4:07 pm

                    1: So because higher earners have a slightly higher tax proportion, the tax cuts they received (coincidentally just before we nosedived into massive deficit) is in no way a reward?
                               
                    2: they might or might not funnel their spare cash through trusts or companies. Therefore they might ot might not be subject to the same proportion of GST payment. Just as I might or might not  choose to pick up my winnings, the prize is still there for me.
                       
                    3: aye, that’s why I said I fubared the math. But they’re solid investments (barring ToW claims or a leftwing govt getting balls and renationalising at punitive rates). And rich people are the ones with the opportunity to invest – poor people have no assets against which they can borrow to play stockmarket trader.

                    • higherstandard …
                      26 July 2012 at 4:16 pm

                      1. Higher earners pay more tax always have and always should, as I’ve said in the present conditions I think there should be a high earners tax bracket in NZ in line with the highest level across the Tasman.

                      2. It is illegal to charge non-business expenses to a business

                      3. I think we’re getting into the argument about what is rich, there are certainly people who wouldn’t have the funds or be able to get the funds to invest, there are also likely to be many who couldn’t be classed as rich who could if they so chose. For those people i wonder if they should be offered to cash in the government’s contribution to their Kiwisaver funds to invest if they so chose ?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 4:30 pm

                      1: The question is, if they receive a tax break on what they previously paid – isn’t that a reward? Even if they still pay a higher proportion of tax?
                         
                      2: Yes. But it’s amazing what counts as a “business expense”.
                           
                      3: allowing people to use government retirement contributions to help them purchase part of a company they already own via the government? See, “rich” people don’t need to risk their retirement savings in order to buy something that they already owned.

              • urban rascal …
                26 July 2012 at 3:57 pm

                2. anyone who has run a business or worked as a contractor knows to claim back GST and minimize tax as much as possible. It’s prudent business sense to do so.
                So the only assumption is that you are assuming that NZ’s middle and upper class are not prudent in business.

                There is really no arguing that a high income tax break and a rise in GST hit’s PAYE earners whilst limiting the impact on high income earners.

                • higherstandard …
                  26 July 2012 at 4:03 pm

                  I’ll think you’ll find that if people are rorting GST they’ll receive a major rodgering from IRD sooner or later. Similarly you’re assuming that the majority of those on more than an average or those on high incomes a making that income through their own business i’m not sure that is the case and even if it is whether you could assume that they are all not paying their fair share of tax.

                  You’ll need to give me an example on the second point so I can understand what you’re meaning.

                  • McFlock …
                    26 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

                    The company doesn’t need to be their primary source of income.
                        
                    Just the mechanism through which they funnel their income, or hold assets in (e.g. Double Dipton and his trust). And it doesn’t need to be illegal rorting, just “minimisation” (as CV sorry, UR, said).

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2012 at 4:23 pm

                      pah, in editing completely stuffed strikethrough tag. 🙄  need coffee…… 

                  • urban rascal …
                    26 July 2012 at 4:20 pm

                    It’s not hard to rort GST on things that a low income earner couldn’t.
                    Transport, entertainment costs, furniture. It’s as easy as a couple becoming joint shareholders in your own company, suddenly dinners out are share meetings and offset tax.

                    Sure not all high income earners run their own trusts or companies (The majority i’ve met do).
                    But they still did get a tax break anyway while everyone below gets a GST hike. And the people below don’t have the opportunity/means to offset their GST.
                    No matter whether your rorting the system legally (which isn’t hard to do) or not, it doesn’t change the fact that this is an option generally only available to the wealthier.

                    • mike e …
                      26 July 2012 at 4:46 pm

                      holidays are conferences

                    • urban rascal …
                      26 July 2012 at 5:05 pm

                      Come on HS mate, you can’t seriously be trying to insinuate that the higher earners have had equal breaks to those on the lower rates under National.
                      You really believe that National’s policies are bringing a brighter future for the poor?
                      270,000 children in poverty, the great exodus of our talented and poor job prospects (unless you are high skilled and white apparently).
                      Surely a GST rise and a tax break for top earners wouldn’t be considered as rewarding the rich for being rich, would it?
                      It wouldn’t be a priority if I was in Government with the above environment.

                      Their policies risk a further exodus of our young and talented. The very young, talented youth who for 20 years our taxes have invested in through one of the OECD’s best education systems. This would be my priority, minimizing a massive loss on investment.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    26 July 2012 at 4:45 pm

                    Similarly you’re assuming that the majority of those on more than an average or those on high incomes a making that income through their own business i’m not sure that is the case and even if it is whether you could assume that they are all not paying their fair share of tax.

                    That’s not an assumption any more. We know for a fact that the bludgers are stealing from the rest of us.

                    • higherstandard …
                      26 July 2012 at 4:50 pm

                      How is that relevant to the majority of the ‘rich’ in NZ ?

                      And for that matter you should probably define rich – McF seems to be implying it’s anyone who used to be on the top tax rate ?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 July 2012 at 7:57 pm

                      Because we can assume that the majority of the rich in NZ are using similar wealth hiding schemes to minimise taxes.

    • mike e 17.2
      26 July 2012 at 10:45 pm

      Aero Noble sentiments indeed
      But a lot of the dynamite used in the world today is used to kill other people and dig up vast quantities of minerals for big corporations.
      Sweden has its first right wing government in a log time.
      so would you trust them .

  18. Morrissey 18
    26 July 2012 at 1:52 pm

    http://rixstep.com/1/20110130,02.shtml
    The Assange Police Protocol: Translator’s Note

    30,000 words in five days. Translators normally manage about 2,000 words per day. This feat was by no means a world record but it was difficult and a lot of hard work.

    The roughest parts were the transcripts. Transcripts are the next best thing to being there – to having a video recording. The task of the transcriber is to record every non-word, sound, and pause in addition to the actual content, this to as accurately as possible convey the attitude and reactions of the interviewee.

    Good translations normally never attempt a ‘word for word’ approach. It’s not only words that differ in different languages – it’s the ideas and concepts as well. The goal of a translator is otherwise to get the idea across rather than produce stilted language no one really grasps. But the translations of the transcripts necessarily took another approach: reproduce all the commas, full stops, ellipses, and even the strange constructs as found in the originals.

    There’s only one way to study these documents: as a whole and with the working assumption everyone is telling the truth. Save for several deliberate attempts by Anna Ardin to obfuscate the truth, this approach seems to work.

    The ‘case’ (if one dare call it that) hovers on two incidents. One takes place in Enköping in the morning. The two people involved have a simple exchange of two lines each before going at it again for what likely is the fifth time in a long sleepless night. The girl’s just come back to bed after being out early and shopping, the two of them make love again, and start dozing off to sleep.

    Suddenly the one starts all over again. The girl senses the man is about to penetrate her. ….

    Read more. . . .
    http://rixstep.com/1/20110130,02.shtml

    • McFlock 18.1
      26 July 2012 at 2:02 pm

      Yeah. Read that. Do you have any evidence it’s genuine?

      • QoT 18.1.1
        26 July 2012 at 8:26 pm

        It’s pro-Assange, ergo factual.

        If it were anti-Assange, it would obviously be lies, and probably Zionist. (That link may mark the point at which I chose to stop engaging people obviously willing to spin anything they can in order to avoid stating simple facts: “Assange should face the allegations made against him because they are serious allegations, and if the US wanted his ass David Cameron would have served it up to them already.”)

        • Morrissey 18.1.1.1
          26 July 2012 at 9:43 pm

          … it would obviously be lies, and probably Zionist.

          That’s twice today you’ve tried to trivialize my case by mentioning the word “Zionist”. The fact that I have never said anything like that probably won’t make any difference to you, but I’d like to point it out to serious readers.

          • QoT 18.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2012 at 9:47 pm

            I linked to exactly who did say it, Morrissey. Sorry for not actually tarring all you “shut up, all evidence against Assange is lies and if you aren’t pro-Assange you haven’t read anything about the case, except you might have read a lot but it’s all lies if it’s not pro-Assange” fanpeeps with the same brush.

            • Morrissey 18.1.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2012 at 10:11 pm

              I linked to exactly who did say it, Morrissey.

              Yes, it was Vicky, not me. And probably not most of the other supporters of Assange. I’m interested to see that you still chose to include it as one of the arguments you allege his supporters make, in spite of the fact they do not.

              Sorry for not actually tarring all you “shut up, all evidence against Assange is lies and if you aren’t pro-Assange you haven’t read anything about the case, except you might have read a lot but it’s all lies if it’s not pro-Assange” fanpeeps with the same brush.

              You don’t have to be pro-Assange, but if you are foolish enough to parrot the black propaganda of the U.S. and U.K. governments, then you either have NOT read a lot on this travesty of a case, or you are profoundly corrupt.

            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 18.1.1.1.1.2
              26 July 2012 at 10:18 pm

              The whole issue has become too bound up in absolutes. Of course Assange should comply with the laws of the countries he parades through. Of course he shouldn’t treat women (or anyone else) as though they are disposable. Of course an interview can be carried out by phone. Of course Assange should go to America and martyr himself, and of course the Yankees should stop pretending to occupy the moral high ground.

              Of course Ecuador should not let itself be used as a straight man to this clown’s antics. Of course Wikileaks should have properly protected its data from external access and/or betrayal.

              Of course Wikileaks can be a force for “good”.

              Of course we sound like economists discussing rational actors.

              • Morrissey …
                28 July 2012 at 9:14 am

                The whole issue has become too bound up in absolutes.

                So everything’s relative, is it? The lies told by the authorities and their media vassals like the Guardian, the Murdoch gang and the BBC somehow balance up the exposure of those absolute lies by truth-tellers like Assange and Bradley Manning? It seems that the fact that the U.S. military was absolutely caught out by an absolutely dedicated, absolutely determined journalist is just too much for you to take in, my friend. The only cure for that is more reading. Serious reading, that is.

                Of course Assange should comply with the laws of the countries he parades through.

                He does comply with the law. There is no evidence he has committed any criminal act. And… he “parades through” countries? Maybe you’ve mixed him up with that fraudster Barack Obama.

                Of course he shouldn’t treat women (or anyone else) as though they are disposable.

                Who says he does? Take care, my friend, not to automatically believe what government apparatchiks tell you.

                Of course Ecuador should not let itself be used as a straight man to this clown’s antics.

                So Assange is a “clown” now? A “clown” who “parades” through countries. Now that is a clown with gravitas.

                Of course Wikileaks should…

                How about dropping the sarcasm? There are enough bewildered people on this forum as it is.

  19. Kotahi Tāne Huna 19
    26 July 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Someone forgot to drink their kool-aid…

    ”Now the private sector needs to do the sort of things that the private sector claims it can do so particularly well.”

  20. Te Reo Putake 20
    26 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Dunno if this has been posted before, but its worth a second look anyway. I can’t eat your ghost jobs, John.

  21. Te Reo Putake 21
    26 July 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Speaking of dodgy men doing a runner, Sea Shepherd skipper Paul Watson joins the club.

  22. Kotahi Tāne Huna 22
    26 July 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Serious workplace accidents seem to be running at the pace of about one a day at the moment – I’m sure the market will sort it out.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.