Open Mike 26/09/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 26th, 2016 - 193 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

193 comments on “Open Mike 26/09/2016”

  1. Paul 1

    Unelectable Corbyn Elected Again!
    Reporter Jonathan Pie lays into the media’s treatment of Jeremy Corbyn.
    Brilliant.

  2. nzsage 2

    An excellent example of how to circumvent those mercenary, thieving pharmaceutical companies. Long live “Four Thieves Vinegar”.

    http://tinyurl.com/zjxvfea

    • Paul 2.1

      And reading the Canary for your news is an excellent example of how to circumvent those mercenary propaganda outlets of the corporate media.

  3. Quasimodo 3

    British Press Coverage of the Referendum – London, 20 September 2016

    Was press reporting of the referendum campaign fair? Did Leave and Remain get equal and due coverage?
    The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has teamed up with media insight specialists, PRIME Research, to examine the output of the 9 national newspapers across the 4 months of the highly charged and divisive campaign.

    Their study, to be launched at the European Parliament’s office in London, reveals that 6 of them favoured Leave, with debate dominated by a limited number of voices. The research shows that highly polarised press coverage may have been significant in setting the terms of the debate.

    The findings were discussed by a panel including people from both sides of the campaign.

    Hashtag for the event: #EURefMedia
    Tweet #EURefMedia

    Watch the film of the event.

    IFRAME: https://player

  4. Puckish Rogue 4

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84636485/Labour-leader-Andrew-Little-dismisses-Helen-Clarks-advice-about-commanding-the-centre-ground

    If I was running for election and Helen Clark offered me advice I’d thank her very much but I’m sure Andrew Little knows what he’s doing

    • Paul 4.1

      And I think you know you are trolling.
      Dull, dull, dull…….

      • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1

        Sure its obviously trolling I mean what advice could, arguably, one of the most popular Labour leaders, a leader that won three elections from a 2% preferred PM start possibly give to Andrew Little, a man that’s managed to lose two electorate battles (in winnable seats) in a row and only just managed to get in on the list by the skin of his teeth

        (No Paul its not trolling but if it makes you then keep clamping your hands over your ears)

      • Chuck 4.1.2

        It would be funny if not so sad Paul that you hold this view (its trolling).

        On one hand a very successful Labour leader offering some common sense advice to one of the worst* Labour leaders.

        *Lets see if Little can beat Cunliffe’s 25% next year.

    • ianmac 4.2

      Have faith in the here and now of Andrew’s world PR. If that huge bloc of non-participants and dis-enfranchised were to be mobilised, it would cancel out those flaky middle voters. I think Andrew is gearing up for a Jeremy type renaissance. So keep watching PR

      • James 4.2.1

        Ahh the missing million. And they are all labour voters.

        • ianmac 4.2.1.1

          Or James they are not voters for anyone because no party represents them. But if any party was to resonate, they could change the nature of scrapping over the so-called middle ground. Fresh ideas James?

          • BM 4.2.1.1.1

            It’s a zero sum game at best and for a major party to continue to head down this route, just reeks of desperation.

            Outright majority for National looking highly likely.

            • mpledger 4.2.1.1.1.1

              It’s the very opposite of a zero sum game to entice people who didn’t vote to vote.

              • BM

                In your efforts to entice the non-voter you run the serious risk of annoying your existing voter base and either making them vote for the other side or not voting at all.

                Which is why in all probability it’s a zero sum game.

                • McFlock

                  Your definition makes any policy shift a zero-sum game, because any policy shift automatically alienates some voters who were attracted to your pre-existing position.

                  But with a couple of million eligible voters, the probability of any policy shift being a “zero sum game” is minute – the overwhelming probability is that any policy shift will have a positive or negative effect on a party’s total votes.

                  Your brave call for inaction is just more of the same friendly tory advice we’ve grown to know and love…

          • Gosman 4.2.1.1.2

            Why didn’t Mana or the Internet Party energise them in sufficient numbers at the last election?

            • Puckish Rogue 4.2.1.1.2.1

              Cameron Slater, MSM, Dirty Politics, Neo-Liberal, VRWC, Crosby Textor, Land Line Polls, Stupid Voters

            • DoublePlusGood 4.2.1.1.2.2

              They actually increased their share of the vote from 1.08% to 1.42% of the vote, and from 24168 votes to 34095 votes. Nationally they did ok, they just failed in Te Tai Tokerau.

          • alwyn 4.2.1.1.3

            “if any party was to resonate”
            The only resonating I’ve heard from the Labour Party lately was the sound of Andrew Little banging his head on the wall after the release of another poll result.
            There is an amazingly long reverberation period. I think the object being banged on the wall must be hollow.

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.2

        Little is much lower voltage than Jeremy Corbyn.

        You haven’t seen teenagers and young voters trying to clamber their way into an overcrowded Little meeting have you, like they did to Corbyn’s constituency meetings?

        Cunliffe was the only Leader who came close but the rightwing/careerists successfully shut him down here, unlike in the UK.

        • Bearded Git 4.2.2.1

          Yes but the 18-24 year olds supposedly voted 55-45 for Owen Smith. I think this may have something to do with the fact that most people in this age group didn’y vote/weren’t registered and the better-off (Blairite) types are more likely to be registered.

          There is a lesson here for the Lab/Gr bloc here. Get a registration drive on for the young voters NOW.

        • Cinny 4.2.2.2

          “You haven’t seen teenagers and young voters trying to clamber their way into an overcrowded Little meeting have you”

          YES I HAVE CV. JS since you asked and all that. When Little came to Motueka, the venue was packed, standing room only. There were teenagers and kids there, all wanting to talk to him, and he made the time for those kids, and the kids appreciated it so much.

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.2.1

            OK that was just in July? Nice one, maybe there is a momentum there behind Little that I haven’t seen down here in Dunedin.

    • BM 4.3

      So basically current Labour isn’t remotely interested in what the majority of people want, You have to admire that sort of blunt honesty.

      Having said that, not sure if it’s a great idea for the leader of the second largest political party to be so dismissive of the people who make up the bulk of the voters.

      Some may consider that a bit suicidal.

      • Stuart Munro 4.3.1

        By your ‘logic’ Labour’s job is to represent Gnat voters.

        The simple truth is, having won dirty by betraying every facet and principle of democracy RWNJ trolls crave the validation they could only obtain if the Left sold out. The Left are gradually realising however, that the pendulum has swung too far, and that there is no centrist niche for them.

        Labour isn’t interested in what you want – you should take your sociopathy to ACT, where it is not extraordinary.

        • BM 4.3.1.1

          If the left considers the center to be all national voters then the left is well and truly fucked.

          The dawning of a golden age is upon us.

          • Stuart Munro 4.3.1.1.1

            No – what you call the centre would vote for ACT – all less than the margin of error of you.

            Centrism doesn’t run to trolling on opposition sites – that’s a fringe behaviour.

            • Chuck 4.3.1.1.1.1

              The problem Labour faces is that National have moved over and occupied a portion of the centre left. The more right leaning National voters either vote ACT or hold there nose and tick the blue box anyway.

              Labour used to be a 40%+ party, Little has surrendered that notion with the MoU with the Greens.

              I do believe Andrew Little wants to take Labour further left…he says one thing when addressing the faithful (further left we are going) and another when its to the general public (that we are centre left).

              Little and Labour need to make up there minds, as the status quo has them stranded in no-mans land.

              Maybe another pasting for Labour come 2017 will be the catalyst needed?

              • Stuart Munro

                NZ has had a discontented mob of floaters for the last three or four decades. They flirted with NZF and with United Future. They deserted the Gnats under Bill English – but the relentless media and social media campaigns temporarily attached some of then to the disasterous Key Kleptocracy.

                As the results come in, and ‘Labour did it’ loses currency as an excuse for non-performance they will desert Key – many have left him already. There are numerous wedge issues that are bleeding popularity for this government – chiefest among these is the immigration/housing debacle. The government is resigned to losing this issue, hence the appointment of the gibbering idiot’s gibbering idiot, Nick Smith.

                Key is looking down the barrel of a resounding defeat – followed by a sudden flight or a lengthy period of incarceration. As befits the worst government NZ has ever seen.

                There are no votes for Little on the right – those far enough right to believe the rubbish about the Gnats drifting centreward will of course vote Gnat – those who are concerned that their children are obliged to flee the country to have any hope of owning a home will not.

                Things are coming to a head, and the real outcome of the ‘rockstar’ technical growth period cannot fail to disappoint.

                Labour will reach high 30s without any trouble – it’s mid thirties now. NZF will consolidate over 10% with disenchanted Gnats. The Greens have a solid 14% or so. The Gnats are toast – except that no amount of marmalade will make them palatable.

              • fisiani

                http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/01/labour_in_roy_morgan_polls.html

                Take one look at the Labour polling over the last ten years and you will see a pattern of steady decline. The near record low result of 2014 could well be lowered again in 2017. Already talk on the Left is how to unite Labour/Greens and NZF and not of how to outpoll National. Moving further to the Left to consolidate the 20% would mean not a single List MP.

                • Leftie

                  National still holds the record low: 20.93% (2002 GE).

                  Opinion polling, that you hold so dear, shows John key and National are trending downwards.

                  Do you realize it’s MMP and not FPP?

    • save nz 4.4

      @Puckish. Who knows if Andrew Little even said that? But if he did hopefully he takes Clarks advice… because the 64% of Kiwis own their own homes. That is a very large group that if Labour get that wrong again, will cost them the election.

      Non home owners are well represented by the Greens and other parties, no point competing with your partners for the 36% because even if you capture all those people (and many do not vote at all) you will still not have enough votes to win the election.

      Democracy is about putting policy to help the majority who then vote for you. Once in power you can then go back and help minorities.

      I’m not advocating Nat lite policy btw. Last election Labour seemed to signal austerity for workers and Kiwis homeowners and gave the corporates, super rich, spying, wars, dirty politics and and foreigners the thumbs up (or ignored those issues). It was schizophrenic Labour policy. Sadly this did not impress voters and now we are stuck with the Natz destroying our country for another 3 years.

      Hope Labour actually think it through and not so busy advocating for non homeowners and the homeless, they haven’t worked out that their housing policy does not really seem to have policy to help homeowners. (Crashing property 40% might not be considered helpful).

      Likewise Labour might be so busy attending every obscure event under the book of people who are not going to vote for them, that they fail to focus on those that don’t form part of a lobby group or hipster. The plain middle class Kiwi family who has a job (probably insecure), has a family, has a house and votes.

      • Puckish Rogue 4.4.1

        Well sure the media do lie but unless there’s a correction issued by Andrew Little I think its fair to assume he did say it

        It takes a bit to go through but this:

        http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/e9/html/e9_part8_party_index.html

        Suggests Green voters are probably amongst the better off (the old cliché of the rich housewife voting Green while hubby votes National probably isn’t too far off) as they seem to do all right in more upmarket areas

        but I agree with you that you have to get into power first, which seems obvious, but there seems to be a viewpoint that winning is almost a dirty word

    • Leftie 4.5

      Puckish Rogue, didn’t another troll already bring that up the other day?

      • Puckish Rogue 4.5.1

        This will come as a shock to you (and you won’t believe it anyway) but we don’t have a troll network set up where we decide en mass the topic of the day and who posts what

        However if it has been posted before then it was probably someone as gobsmacked as myself that Little would dismiss the advice of a three election winner

        • Leftie 4.5.1.1

          You don’t have a troll network Puckish Rogue? Really?

          Andrew Little is Labour’s leader, clearly he is his own person, and it’s his call how he wants to runs things, like having an MoU with the Greens, which Helen Clark probably wouldn’t have done if she were the leader today.

          • Puckish Rogue 4.5.1.1.1

            It would make things more efficient though, less double ups on postings, more double teams on unpopular posts…kind of like the days of old when political parties urged their members to ring up talk back

            Could make for some good times 🙂

          • Chuck 4.5.1.1.2

            “Andrew Little is Labour’s leader, clearly he is his own person, and it’s his call how he wants to runs things, like having an MoU with the Greens, which Helen Clark probably wouldn’t have done if she were the leader today.”

            You are dead right Leftie…Helen Clark did not need a MoU with the Greens, because under Clark Labour were able to still poll in the 40’s (of course until John Key took her out…but Labour were still in the mid 30’s in the dying days of the Clark administration).

            Now anything that does not have a 2 in front of it IS good news for Labour.

            • Leftie 4.5.1.1.2.1

              Incumbents always poll higher Chuck and do you not understand MMP? Since polling is what you based your argument on, what was Helen Clark’s and the Labour party’s polling prior to becoming the government? She lost the 1996 GE and was at one point polling at just 2% prior to winning the 1999 election.

        • Chuck 4.5.1.2

          Heck PR, should I cancel the weekend retreat for our troll group?

          The crayfish and eye fillet steak has already been ordered 🙂

          That dam Leftie is on to us!!

          • Puckish Rogue 4.5.1.2.1

            You just know there’s a couple of people on here that will ackshully believe that 🙂

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.5.1.2.1.1

              Why would anyone here believe you two when Nicky Hager and Blabbermouth Lusk have put the facts into the public domain?

              • Puckish Rogue

                Considering there people on here that are absolutely convinced that Winston will go with Labour/Greens and that its John Key under pressure not Andrew Little, I’d suggest there are people that’ll believe anything

                • Leftie

                  Why not Puckish Rogue? Winston supported Labour last time, in fact he has defended the previous Labour government in recent times. However, he hasn’t supported the Nats in almost 20 years, last time he apologized for it in 1998. And clearly you haven’t been paying attention to what Winston Peters is saying and how he says it. He’s furious with John key and the National government, he wants them out.

                  You’re in denial, John key is under pressure, particularly when it comes to the housing crisis. The Nats are on the backfoot on an increasing number of issues.

    • Gabby 4.6

      You’d agree that advice from the Secretary General of the UN would carry a weight that advice from a leader handed her arse by Ponyboy might lack?

      • alwyn 4.6.1

        “advice from the Secretary General of the UN”
        Really? I didn’t think Ban Ki-Moon would have even known who Andrew Little was.
        I can only assume that John Key has had a word with him.

  5. fender 5

    Please Mr.Key don’t insult the Russians on our behalf, you fuckn delusional child.

  6. Nick 6

    Wow, all the RWNJ out in force this morning….

    • Bearded Git 6.1

      +100 Nick it must be because the Right haven’t got a wonderful site like the Standard to comment/discuss on.

  7. Colonial Viper 7

    Look how Politifact is biased against Donald Trump:

    When Bernie claims that Black youth unemployment is over 50%, Politifact says the claim is “Mostly True.”

    But when Trump claims that Black youth unemployment is over 50%, Politifact says the actual number is more like 17% so Trump’s comment is “Mostly False.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/politifact-apparently-even-facts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

    • McFlock 7.1

      look how zero-hedge conflates the 17-20 age group with the 16-24 age group (i.e. including many who are either still in school at the lower end and many who are in established employment at the other end).
      Classic case of false equivalence.

      If politifact were truly biased, you guys wouldn’t need to make this shit up.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

        Yes, very convincing McFlock: Black 16 year olds and Black 21-24 year olds therefore have an unemployment rate which is only a small fraction (one fifth? One sixth?) of Black 17-20 year olds.

        Because when you include Black 17-20 year olds the unemployment rate shoots up from 17% to 51%.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1

          Actually, yeah, there is usually a peak of unemployment in the late teens. For example, if you look at the US BLS data, there’s a twenty point difference between the combined rate for African American 16-17yo and 20-24yo. Now, those are the BLS numbers that differ from Sanders’, but politifact did look into that (see below).

          If you looked beyond zero-hedge you’d find two points: firstly, the very specific phrasing Sanders used to describe the group he was talking about, and secondly that the Sanders camp, when approached by politifact, could point to the source of his figure (which used slightly different criteria to the BLS). Politifact pointed out issues with his use of terminology (unemployment vs underemployment being one possibility), but found that his numbers were reasonable and his general point was correct.

          Trump’s camp didn’t respond, so politifact doesn’t know whether he just made up the numbers, slightly confused his terminology, or actually has a source to back his shit up.

          So politifact were left with trying to reverse-engineer his numbers, and the closest they could come up with was the widest employment-population ratio, rather than any conventional assessment of un- or under-employment.

          But you don’t want to look beyond the hand-reared bullshit zero-hedge provided you, because anything else might not suit your preconceptions…

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Slam dunk? Seriously? Try to avoid using pwnage type language eh?

              Fact of the matter is that both Sanders and Trump said that Black youth unemployment was over 50%. Sanders got a pass for it from Politifact, Trump got a fail for it from Politifact?

              And why? Because Trump included African Americans up to 24 years old when he should have said twenty years old instead, like Sanders did.

              That’s not a “slam dunk” that’s a technicality.

              • McFlock

                No, Sanders was much more precise about whom he was talking in respect to age, ethnicity and education level, and his campaign provided evidence to back up his claim.

                Trump just made a bald statement that was accurate by no conceivable measure, and his campaign did not provide any evidence to support it.

                Only to a blinkered moron would that difference be a “technicality”. But then admitting to “technicalities” is as close as you ever get to admitting you’re outright wrong, so it fits that you’d use the same transparent passive-aggressive bullshit to defent your oompah-loompah overlord.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Hi McFlock, you are a perfect example of “passive aggressive bullshit.”

                  The point was how biased Politifact is. The main difference between Trump and Sanders was that Trump referred to the age group 16-24, whereas Sanders referred to the age group 17-20.

                  That’s a big MEH. And I am not surprised that the Trump campaign isn’t interested in dealing with Politifact.

                  • McFlock

                    Dude, if I’ve appeared passive then obviously I need to use smaller words for you. I thought my contempt for your lies was pretty explicit, unlike when you make shit up and then, when it’s pointed out that you made shit up, pretending that the difference is a mere technicality.

                    There were several differences between Sanders’ and Trump’s statements. Agegroup, education, availability of source data, and reported proportion.

                    Once again: Sanders precisely identified his target group, and provided a source so that politifact could identify his misuse of terminology (under vs unemployed). Trump made a blanket statement about “African-American youth” – he didn’t even say he was using the US-standard 16-24 age bracket for “youth” (in NZ it’s usually 15-24). Who knows what age group he meant. In the absence of any supporting information from the Trump campaign, the convential criteria applied. And according to those, he was waaaaaaaaay off.

              • Slam dunk was for mcflock not you – nothing but net. Feel free to censor me eh.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.2

        BLS Labour force survey – which is generally thought to significantly UNDERESTIMATE true unemployment:

        African American unemployment rate
        16-19 years old: 30%
        20-24 years old: 16.3%

        Looks like that Politifact 17% unemployment number that they chose to use is far too low.

        http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm

        • McFlock 7.1.2.1

          Well, that depends on the relative sizes of the populations, doesn’t it?

          I like it when you try to math. It’s cute.

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1.1

            Looks to me like the unemployment rate for that 16-24 age group is clearly in the twenty-something percent rage.

            Just saying that Politifact didn’t try very hard to identify the higher numbers that Trump may have been referring to.

            Simply saying that Trump’s number is fairly close for only the 17-20 year old age group would have done it.

            I like it when you try to math. It’s cute.

            Statistics isn’t real math. You should know that.

            • McFlock 7.1.2.1.1.1

              “Looks to me like “… yadda yadda yadda.

              The plain fact is that you do not have enough information from which to draw your conclusion. Again. Politifact didn’t “simply say” what you want because it would be at best as far off the mark as trump’s original statement.

              If they’d known what was in trump’s brain when he once again mangled reality, politifact might have given him a slightly higher grade. But it’s like any evaluation: if you bung in a wrong answer and don’t show your working, you’ll get zero marks.

              “Statistics isn’t real math. You should know that.”
              It is, it’s just frequently abused by morons who want it to demonstrate things that don’t match reality. So they either stretch what the numbers actually say, or just outright lie. Trump probably did the latter in this case, rather than the former, but we’ll never know because apparently his supporters don’t like having his facts checked.

              • Colonial Viper

                No, statistics is not real math. Mathematics is real math, yes statistics uses some of the results provided by mathematics, but it’s not real math.

                Further, it’s quite clear to me that the BLS data shows that the combined 16-24 year old age African American group has an unemployment rate in the 20-something percent range.

                That’s not Trump’s 59% number but it is way different to the low 17% number that Politifact chose to run with.

                Again Politifact gave Sanders a thumbs up while they gave Trump a thumbs down – because Trump used a 16-24 age range instead of Sander’s 17-20 age range.

                Both candidates were making the exact same point about African American youth unemployment being far too high.

                But it’s like any evaluation: if you bung in a wrong answer and don’t show your working, you’ll get zero marks.

                It’s amazing how stupid your comments are.

                • McFlock

                  Well, it’s sure not math when you try it. It is, however, entertaining.

                  What, by your idiotic averaging of different rates, might be a 5% undercount by politifact is still hugely different from Trump’s 36% overcount. And that’s if the denominator populations and unemployment rates are the same for each year of age – they’re not, which is why averaging the two-two year teenage cuts gives a different result to the four-year 16-19 cut. But all that difference in averages shows us is that the populations are different and that therefore your averaging is invalid.

                  Both candidates were trying to make a similar general point, true. One made a qualified statement about a narrow demographic sector and was able to provide supporting evidence for their claim. The other just made shit up and provided no evidence whatsoever. So one got “mostly true” and the other was lucky to achieve “mostly false”.

                  What you refuse to believe is that if Sanders had made the same broad-brush comment as trump, but with the 51% figure, and then refused to point to his evidence for making that claim, politifact would have called bullshit on him and said it was false. The trouble with your blinker is that they don’t seem to have a problem calling Sanders comments “false” when the evidence points to it.

                  Yes, Trump’s at a whole other level of bullshit, but we already knew that.

                  “It’s amazing how stupid your comments are.”
                  Yes, but I’m trying to explain simple math to a simpleton who thinks that simply averaging rates across populations provides logical inferences, so I really have to dumb the comments down into bite-size chunks.

  8. Ovid 8

    Sir Geoffrey Palmer has outlined a new constitution for NZ. It’s something I think I can get behind. I’m pleased this is being thought about before the Queen dies, because I can see us becoming a republic pretty rapidly afterwards and NZ politicians tend not to do so well with long term planning.

    [RL: Excellent link. Turned this into a post.]

    • Colonial Viper 8.1

      I’m pleased this is being thought about before the Queen dies, because I can see us becoming a republic pretty rapidly afterwards

      Not with the sky high popularity of William, Kate and George.

      • Ovid 8.1.1

        The thing about monarchy is that you don’t get to skip a generation.

        • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1

          http://www.thefrisky.com/2009-06-25/the-ickiest-sex-scandal-quotes-of-all-time/

          ”I want to be reincarnated as your tampon.” – Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles 🙂

          Strangely enough Len Brown and Colin Craig don’t get a mention

          • Paul 8.1.1.1.1

            The snide comments continue.
            Are you Jordan Williams?

            • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.1.1

              I thought that since Ovid was talking not being able to skip a generation then the next in line would be Prince Charles and since CV was talking about the royal popularity then it was rather pertinent to bring up some of the Princes scandals since it would have a bearing on whether NZ becomes a republic

              Plus its amusing 🙂

              • Kiwiri

                Ed VII waited for years until he was about 60yo to be the King, after his long-reigning mother moved on to the Pearly Gates. And then he ruled for around 9 years and 3 months; that’s like three electorate cycles in NZ’s current timing and good luck to pro-republicans in agitating for change.

                At the rate healthy and strong Lizzie is going, Charlie will still have to wait for a while and he may not rule for a very long time when he is in the seat.

                Wil and Kate are consistently and visibly fronting the news, e.g. being the darling family of four presently visiting Canada. No doubt, they will continue to be on the news and the Palace will be happy for them to do so when cute Georgie’s grand-daddy is on the throne.

          • Gabby 8.1.1.1.2

            Oh dear, he likes a lady’s private parts. That’s a sad waste of a public school education.

            • rhinocrates 8.1.1.1.2.1

              Yes, his tastes should have run more to the porcine I would have thought.

            • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.2.2

              I’m more disappointed that the best he could come up with, given his educational background, was wanting to be her tampon

              Even Colin Craig was more poetic…and less gross

  9. Leftie 9

    Big favour to ask posters on TS, will you support a petition being run by Sumofus.org please? The petition is to put pressure on big corporations like MSD Animal Health, that profits from shocking horse blood farms, to cut ties with that cruel and inhumane industry operating in Argentina and Uruguay. The more people that sign, the better.

    • Stuart Munro 10.1

      Very good – so how do we go about building a Momentum for NZ?

      • marty mars 10.1.1

        I think by never forgetting

        “Neoliberalism’s goals are not merely privatization and the decimation of unions and the social safety net. It also seeks to manage the social order and ensure the continued political dominance of the ruling class by absorbing social threats.”

  10. Chooky 11

    Absolute unquestioning propaganda disinformation tripe on Kathryn Ryan RNZ this morning on Syria blaming the Russians and Assad for the bombing of the relief trucks

    …(no talk of the Israeli interest in the Golan Heights ( see NY Times)or the mass of evidence of a US drone strike on the trucks or the anti Assad terrorists in the area)

    …I think Roth couldnt believe his luck at not being questioned on his blatant propaganda

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201817544/russia-correspondent-andrew-roth

    “Washington Post correspondent in Moscow Andrew Roth on Russia’s role in Syria and reports about Vladimir Putin forming a new super spy agency.”

    No wonder people are turning off the msm and turning on to RT where there is at least debate

    ‘The media’s Syria’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/360356-syrian-conflict-casualities-truth/

    “Conflicting narratives and competing agendas – this is the tragedy of the Syrian conflict. Western media coverage is focused on forcing political outcomes. In the process, the truth is often overlooked and even denied. Another casualty of war.

    CrossTalking with Jonathan Steele, Scott Bennett, and Daniel Lazare.”

    • Cinny 11.1

      The link for RT I really enjoyed their opinions, thanks. It’s helpful to get the story from different angles, rather than USA bias all the time

      Listening Post did a fascinating summary on Syria and the media back in February, here’s the link if you haven’t seen it
      http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/02/telling-syria-story-media-battle-lines-160213061229328.html

      Speaking of Israel, Hil’s and Trump have been meeting with Netanyahu – shudders

      http://www.npr.org/2016/09/25/495376424/trump-pledges-to-recognize-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital-in-meeting-with-netanyah

    • Wayne 11.2

      Chooky,

      Who else bombed them?

      It clearly wasn’t the US not withstanding your ridiculous assertion about drone strikes. Such strikes are carefully controlled. So in this instance there would have to be a large scale cover up about it. Anyone in the military doing the cover-up would be prosecuted. The senior officers would be disgraced.

      Obviously it would have to be covered up from President Obama, Sec State Kerry and Sec Def Carter. None of these people would lie about a drone strike.

      And if it was the insurgents, it was not an airstrike.

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.1

        Chooky,

        Who else bombed them?

        It clearly wasn’t the US

        Really? Multiple nations have full radar tracks of who and what was in the area at the time.

        So the “truth” is out there somewhere, but that’s largely irrelevant in this information-media war.

        I also note that the UN and also NATO Sec Gen Stoltenberg pulled back from original reporting blaming Russian airstrikes, saying that there was not yet enough information to ascertain what had actually happened.

        Anyone in the military doing the cover-up would be prosecuted. The senior officers would be disgraced.

        The US military is not the only American agency (or even American-allied agency) with armed predator drones in the area; but I’m sure you knew that.

      • One Two 11.2.2

        Drone strikes are carefully controlled…

        Military Industrial Complex does not do cover-ups…

        Politicians don’t lie…

        The worst type of dishonesty is that which is internal to ‘the-self’

        Once the state of internal deception is complete and any associated ‘guilt’ has been bypassed, there is only one direction for the human spirit to decend to

        How far has your spirit decended, Wayne?

  11. Bill 12

    Serves me right for listening to Hooten and Whatsisname.

    Corbyn only won leadership contest because of votes from Labour members (Whatsisname managed to deliver that in a sort of sneering dismissive fashion)

    Those members (apparently) didn’t even vote Labour at the last general election.

    They are merely members of a cult.

    NZ doesn’t have the same numbers of people with left political ideas and so the NZ Labour Party is safe from any kind of ‘hard left’ take-over.

    NZ Labour has chased the ‘missing million’ really hard over previous election cycles and would be ‘exhausted’ if it ever caught up with them.

    And liberals wonder why NZ Labour is kind of fucked? If whatsisname in any way reflects dominant thought within the Labour Party hierarchy, then (just to spell it out lest a PLP wallah is reading ts this morning) the Labour Party is fucked, dear wallah, because of you.

    • Leftie 12.1

      Yeah Whatsisname is a buffoon, and only speaks for himself. Wish the likes of Whatsisname and another rightie, Josie Pagani stopped implying that they speak on behalf of the Labour party, because they don’t. Their commentary is damaging to the party, and that’s why they do it.

    • Macro 12.2

      Serves you right for listening to “Politics from the Right and the Hard Right”

    • rhinocrates 12.3

      Idiot accidentally explains Labour’s irrelevance and unpopularity:

      Corbyn only won leadership contest because of votes from Labour members

      “He only won because people voted for him. That’s cheating!”

      Those members (apparently) didn’t even vote Labour at the last general election.

      “Labour is attracting new members. This is a bad thing.”

      They are merely members of a cult.

      “They wear different clothes, they don’t look like me.”

      NZ doesn’t have the same numbers of people with left political ideas and so the NZ Labour Party is safe from any kind of ‘hard left’ take-over.

      “I don’t talk to people like that.”

      NZ Labour has chased the ‘missing million’ really hard over previous election cycles and would be ‘exhausted’ if it ever caught up with them.

      “I don’t talk to people like that, so fuck ’em.”

      Thanks for the work Bill, but I’ve long given up on that Punch and Judy show.

      • Bill 12.3.1

        You have to believe me when I say it was an unfortunate accident. Although…that’s two weeks in a row, since I seem to recall ‘whatsisname’ claiming that the latest polls were confounding reality.

      • Leftie 12.3.2

        Lol that said it all, excellent comment Rhinocrates, many +1’s

    • Macro 13.1

      Thank goodness we now have an ombudsman who knows what the job is!

    • Richard Rawshark 13.2

      I just noticed a correlation between corrupt governments and getting information. The more corrupt the government the longer it takes anything to happen.

      2.5 years, that’s some delay… perhaps we should petition to Ombudsman to investigate why it took the ombudsman 2.5 years to start looking into it?

      Or should we just line the lot of them up and ask our army to dispense with them as they see fit. We do still have an army don’t we? They didn’t sell it or chuck it on the stock exchange for all our millions of mum and dad investors.

      /a whole lot of of sarke

      • Macro 13.2.1

        R R We now have a new ombudsman. The last was a shocker and the Nats got away with “murder”. Funnily their replacement has not been so kind. Obviously a bad choice. But we can now have confidence in a reasonable investigation by a competent person.

      • Anne 13.2.2

        Richard Rawshark the Office of the Ombudsman has been badly underfunded for a number of years and thus severely stretched staff-wise. I think that has had a lot to do with the delays.

      • Incognito 13.2.3

        If you’re interested in a scientific angle on corruption I’d recommend this recent paper in Nature entitled Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7595/full/nature17160.html

        Nature 531, 496–499 (24 March 2016) doi:10.1038/nature17160

        The actual paper is only accessible to subscribers but the abstract is clear enough, for example:

        The results are consistent with theories of the cultural co-evolution of institutions and values8, and show that weak institutions and cultural legacies9, 10, 11 that generate rule violations not only have direct adverse economic consequences, but might also impair individual intrinsic honesty that is crucial for the smooth functioning of society.

        Paraphrasing this: a corrupt government leads to more dishonest citizens.

    • Pasupial 13.3

      Apparently others including I/S, as well as Newstalk ZB have lodged complaints on this matter to the ombudsman:

      Back in 2014, John Key admitted that his staff were “briefing the bloggers” and using them as a backchannel to plant stories in the media. A number of people (including myself) were interested in this and lodged OIA requests for the details. The PM rejected these requests by playing the “hat game”: the information was held in his capacity as the leader of the National Party, not his capacity as a Minister…

      When I originally complained, I had argued that the PM had not established that the briefings were not given in an official capacity… bloggers were being briefed by staff employed by Ministerial Services – that is, paid by the public. If that is the case, then that would make them definitively official information.

      http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/09/investigating-keys-dirt-machine.html

  12. James Thrace 14

    There has been much discussion around the unacceptable difficulties facing first home buyers in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand.

    One option that I see as being potentially politically palatable to both sides of the debate would be to allow owner occupiers the ability to claim for both interest deductions and maintenance costs to their owner occupied home.

    Currently the status quo only allows for landlords to claim such costs.

    If the option were floated to allow owner occupiers to claim say, a maximum of $10,000 per annum in maintenance costs, and say $20,000 per annum in interest costs, these could be factored in by lenders to assist first home buyers more when purchasing a property.

    The flip side of course, is that at the same stroke of a pen, landlords would not be able to claim these costs as part of a “business”.

    When the inevitable “anti-labour brigade” becomes vocal, a simple rebuttal would be to simply point out that landlords could shift their mortgage(s) onto their own owner occupied property and claim such costs back on their own homes.

    All such a proposal would be aiming to achieve is making it a more attractive proposition for people to own their own home, rather than allow landlords to claim such costs (maintenance and interest) at the expense of renters and first home buyers.

    Coupling such a policy with the removal of LVR restrictions for first home buyers would go a long way to re-establishing communities, and providing kiwis with security and the ability to more easily afford a property.

    Such a policy would be a game changer for a party brave enough to upset the status quo.

    • BM 14.1

      So the government/taxpayers gives home owners a 30k tax refund?.

      • Wayne 14.1.1

        It would be much simpler for the govt to provide a guarantee to first home buyers that the interest rate for a mortgage will be below 5% (maybe 4%) for at least 5 years. I appreciate that in a sense this is also a guarantee to the banks, since if rates generally rose, they would be the ones getting the money.

        It gives certainly to first home buyers. At 5%, interest on a $500,000 mortgage is $25,000 and at 4% is $20,000. Clearly affordable for a wide range of families. But 7% it would not be affordable for many families.

        The guarantee only costs the govt if rates go above 5%.

      • Blackcap 14.1.2

        Thats exactly the system used in Holland for a long time. Although I think they are looking at changing it shortly. But when I was there that was how it plays out. When you get your mortgage, they (the bank) calculates your “tax refund” (you can claim interest) when working out how much you are allowed to borrow. Works well or has worked well over there.
        Not sure if the NZ market would be ready or willing to accept something like that though.

      • James Thrace 14.1.3

        BM – The government already gives landlords far more than that each year anyway. What’s the difference in giving it to owner occupiers as opposed to landlords?

        Don’t overlook the fact that as the mortgage reduces, so does the interest component. Could also have it linked solely to “one owner occupied property during your lifetime” reducing over a seven year period as well so;

        First Year: Up to $20K interest costs, up to $10K maintenance costs
        Second year: Up to $17K interest costs, up to $8500 maintenance costs
        Third year: Up to $14,500 interest / $7000 maintenance
        Fourth year: $12K interest / $5500 maintenance
        Fifth year: $9k interest / $4000 maintenance
        Sixth year: $7k interest / $2000 maintenance
        Final year:$4k interest / $1000 maintenance

        Total costs: $121,500 over a seven year period, per owner occupied household.
        There will always be a rental class. There are 1.6 million houses in NZ and close to 500,000 of them are rental properties.

        Assume that EVERY single one of those 1.1million properties that are not a rental property are owner occupied with a mortgage, this would only cost ~$133 million over a seven year period. If there is no mortgage, then only the maintenance costs would be claimed. We already hand back close to $1.2bn to landlords each year, for no appreciable benefit to society. This proposal has far more value to society and community than the current status quo.

        If you move house during the seven year period, it will not reset from the beginning. All that would happen is the remaining years would be transferred to your next owner occupied home.

        So if you moved house in the fourth year, then it would only be the last three years you could claim for.

        Much in the same manner that Kiwisaver only lets you borrow money for “one” first home, this would be the same scenario.

        • Ad 14.1.3.1

          James, If you are keen, set up a time with Phil Twyford and work him through this.

          Note he’s pretty briefed on this field already, so it will be a conversation that is worth your while.

          Perfect time to refine policy now, rather than into 2017.

  13. rsbandit 15

    Good to see Little coming out against Clark. The party does not need middle way – it needs to provide an alternative.

    They said Brexit wouldn’t happen. It did.
    They said Corbyn was unelectable. He wasn’t.
    They said Trump would go nowhere. How is that working out?
    They say Labour should regain the middle ground. Is now the time to lose our nerve?

    Go boldly into the future.
    Don’t listen to the past. Or the polsters. Or the neo-lib greeders.

      • Red 15.1.1

        Paul Plato had a lot to say about people like you a few thousand years go, an allegory about some dudes living in a cave, school your self up on it in between your daily doom mongering website trawling

    • James 15.3

      Just to clarify one thing:

      “They said Corbyn was unelectable. He wasn’t.”

      Most of us are talking about in the general elections. To this end I still think he us unelectable.

      So – a little early to call that one just yet.

    • Red 15.4

      ffs Corbyn is unelectable in a general election not in a overt take over of the Labour Party by the trade union and hard left nutters His election simply reflects Uk labour silly constitution of which nz labour is following suit Pauls a troll ( just to get that in)

      • Colonial Viper 15.4.1

        Corbyn has at least equal chances with the deadbeat Blairite hangers-on

        Who do you see as being more electable than Corbyn?

        Corbyn at least has the support of hundreds of thousands of new members; no one else in the Labour caucus can say that.

        • Red 15.4.1.1

          Dead beat X dead beat = dead beat squared. However I am with you on trump CV, he will win

          • Red 15.4.1.1.1

            Seriously history is not kind to Blair ( Iraq and all that ) but at the time he was one in a generation and extremely polished performer, charismatic and liked across the board, similar to Trudeau in Canada Corbyn has nothing on Blair at his peak

            • Chris 15.4.1.1.1.1

              What Corbyn might lack in charisma he makes up for with policies. Labour in NZ hasn’t learned what it needs to do when it doesn’t have an inspirational or charismatic leader.

  14. Adrian 16

    SHOCK NEWS>>>Andrew Little finally shows us all he has a decent set of kahunas and tell’s the queen of centrist’s Helen Clark to fuck off.
    Helen of course, wasn’t bothered at all, as she has her new bestie John Key on speed dial, and they just loveeee to talk.
    Turn Labour Left.

    • rsbandit 16.1

      + 100

    • Puckish Rogue 16.2

      So apart from Helen Clark how many three term Labour PMs can you name?

      • Adrian 16.2.1

        #Puckish Rogue – So you quantify a leader by their length stay in power, and not in their usefulness in the construction of a fair and equal society for all citizens?
        Typical centrist political analysis, flawed, outmoded, and ultimately of no long term use to a healthy progressive society.

        • Ad 16.2.1.1

          Helen Clark’s legacy is secured. Sure, she didn’t cure everything, or “turn Labour left” whatever that means to you.

          Any leader-wannabe can write cheques with their mouth that their ass can’t cash.

          The trick to altering the country is to promise, and deliver. She said what she was going to do, promised it in writing before the election to everyone, and delivered.

          And yes, that really did take three terms.

          • save nz 16.2.1.1.1

            In my view Helen Clark was trustworthy. She was straight up. I didn’t like her neoliberal leanings but maybe that was just a sign of the ideology of the times. She at least was left of Phil Goff. She bought in interest free student loans and I think many people were better off when she was leader.

          • Adrian 16.2.1.1.2

            Yeh just the sort of progressive socialist thinking that got us National Health, Women’s Voting rights, State Housing etc…oh no that’s right, the centrist ideology and free market thinking haven’t achieved anything like that, no their legacy have left us where we are today… $500, 000 affordable homes for working class hospital cleaners in South Auckland, trade deals with counties that allow companies and corporations to treat their workers workers like slaves, all the while crowing in the corner to the will of the middle class…yeh real progressive thinking, glad you are so proud that legacy.

            • Chuck 16.2.1.1.2.1

              “Yeh just the sort of progressive socialist thinking that got us National Health, Women’s Voting rights, State Housing etc”

              Adrian you are stuck in the 1900’s, the world is a very different place now.

              • Adrian

                #Chuck-If the the socialist ideology of building a fair and equal community and country for all citizens is an old ideology, so what, do you really think the belief that a society based on these most basic of human principles has a shelf life? are you really that cynical?
                The Clark type centrist free market ideology was just a softer version of the centre right, both set on ultimately the same path, only Helen’s path takes a little longer to get you there.
                I for one believe we can do better than that on the Left, we have done better, and we will do better, but we must turn left.
                Turn Labour Left.

            • save nz 16.2.1.1.2.2

              Adrian – I think you need to look at who has been in power for the last 8 years and it is not Helen Clark. Can’t recall million dollar houses in Auckland being normal 8 years ago… Also I think most workers were better off 8 years ago…. The environment was better 8 years ago… etc etc.

              The right wing spin of mimicking left ideas, homelessness, climate change, working for families etc has been very successful for the Natz. Post Truth politics and John Key a natural at lying has been good to confuse the left with ideology and what works, how to communicate it, and what is real.

              Maori has gotten worse off under National, but that’s ok because Johnny K will lie to their face and give them a few bribes they feel that is better than Clark who (rightly or wrongly) told them straight what she was going to do and then did it. Look at the Maori statistics from Clark to Key and find out whose planet they were better off in.

              On Planet Clark there were boundaries not to be crossed. If only the media were moaning on about energy lightbulbs again.. those were the days..

            • Ad 16.2.1.1.2.3

              Well, I’m pretty confident that nothing short of revolution would satisfy you.

              Since what you want is one great big ideological lurch after another, then you may as well be Roger Douglas or Robert Muldoon. That’s why we have MMP here: to stop extremists like you and Roger Douglas having their way in this country again.

              There will never be another Michael Joesph Savage government, or Roger Douglas reform movement, while we have MMP.

              And that is a very good thing.

            • alwyn 16.2.1.1.2.4

              Well it certainly wasn’t the New Zealand Labour Party that did any of those things.
              The Party didn’t even exist when they started.
              National Health. All hospitals were funded by the Government by the 1880s.
              Women got the vote in 1893.
              The first state rental houses were in 1906.
              None of those had anything to do with the New Zealand Labour Party did they? That didn’t even exist until 1916.
              Next try?

              • Adrian

                Firstly while the Liberal government did built a small amount of state houses, they only built 126, so not exactly a high priority for them I would say.
                However the first Labour government built over 30,000 so lets not get to pedantic on this question shall we, I think most people would accept that Labour initiated and maintained State Housing in the terms understood today.

                Secondly, National Health.
                From what I understand, what there was of ‘National Health’ prior to the first Labour Government was wholly inadequate and largely affordable for the needs of the poor and working poor.
                Hence under the first labour Government, the introduction of;
                Free inpatient treatment for the whole population-1939
                Free maternity care
                Free outpatient treatment
                Free medicines and drugs….
                I could go on but you get the point.

                Thirdly, well you are right, Woman did get the vote in 1893, though the suffragette movement was at least partially inspired by the burgeoning European and American feminist movements, which where themselves inspired by the Utopian Socialist’s, so I guess I will give you that one.
                Two out of three ain’t bad though. ( I would’ve probably argued two and a half out of three, but haven’t got the time).

                • alwyn

                  Good try but no banana.
                  You made a completely general claim that
                  “Yeh just the sort of progressive socialist thinking that got us National Health, Women’s Voting rights, State Housing etc”
                  As I have pointed out they didn’t get us those things. We had all of them already.
                  Claiming that “Labour did more” doesn’t cut it. You claimed that Labour started it, didn’t you?
                  After all, in nominal terms I could probably claim that the current National Government has spent at least 50 times as much on State Houses as the first Labour Government did between 1935 and 1949.

                  • Adrian

                    Have to disagree with you there pal,
                    What I claimed is that we have state housing because of Labour, end of story, as I pointed out, and I am sure you well know, Labour actually built and maintained the state house infrastructure that (only just) exists today, no one else built it.
                    The same is true for the National public hospital infrastructure that
                    (again only just) exists today, fully implemented and brought to a functioning reality for the citizens of the country by Labour, what existed previous to the first Labour Government would not be recognized today as a public health system, however what was left after that period of Labour governorship is pretty much what we have now.
                    Your last point, I don’t believe I have described my arguments in nominal terms, just pointing out that these two things exist in their forms known to us today only because of the socialist minded first, second and third Labour governments, sure the ideas might not have been original, but a Socialist Labour was the original and only builder of these things in the substantive way we know of them today, and that is because they where the only political party in NZ with that social conscience built into it’s core ideology.

                    • alwyn

                      You are of course at liberty to keep to those beliefs.
                      The problem is that on the evidence I gave you went too far.
                      If you had claimed that Labour introduced the first large scale state housing program you would have a case.
                      If you had claimed that Labour greatly extended the state health system you could make an argument for that.
                      You didn’t though. You claimed that without Labour they would never have happened at all.
                      That is false.
                      On the Woman’s voting rights you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Everything that exists now came in 1893.

                  • Adrian

                    OK if I was to accept your position, then you tell me what other political Party would or could have delivered State housing and Public Health on the scale Labour has in New Zealand, as an actual part of their political ideology?
                    I don’t believe I have gone to far, in fact I will go further, I believe only a socialist left governance delivers these type of social programmes as part of their core ideology (well used too anyway).

          • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1.3

            The trick to altering the country is to promise, and deliver. She said what she was going to do, promised it in writing before the election to everyone, and delivered.

            Yes that went well didn’t it. Put the Labour Party in debt for years.

            BTW given that according to you Labour delivered on its promises to the electorate, how come the electorate has rewarded Labour with 3 (about to be 4) terms in the wilderness?

            UNLESS of course, Clark didn’t deliver what the country wanted, she simply delivered what was required to win 2005.

            • save nz 16.2.1.1.3.1

              @ CV – well at least Clark was strategic enough to get in power and we did not have 8 years of Natz rule.

              I think most people blame Labour for Rogernomics not the Clark years.

              • Chris

                Labour was in government in the 2000s generally not because of its policies but because Clark’s modicum of charisma was the best on offer at the time. In 1999 she was up against a National Party in disarray. In 2002 it was English who’s inspiring as toenail clippings. Heck, in 2005 she almost lost to Brash. There’s been no-one since and unless Labour stops competing for the centrist vote they’re going to lose in 2017.

                • BM

                  Do you believe Labour can win by going further left in 2017? or do you see this as being a more long term objective, like 2026 or there a bouts?

                  • Adrian

                    I would rather lose in 2017 with a centrist and win in 2020 with a socialist, than have a centrist win both times, if that what it would take to get real left wing progressive into the beehive.

                    • Ad

                      Four times in a row, and National won’t care why they lost again. Same effect. It takes a real spectacular ideological selfishness to work against the political good because the perfect wasn’t happening.

                    • save nz

                      @Adrian – if the Natz win again, the country will be totally different by 2020. Land and assets stripped, water ways polluted, a political MSM that rules all messages, academics & more socially minded forced out of jobs for the Paula Rebstocks, TPP taken over our country, the treaty gone in real terms, welfare system gone in real terms to private social providers and corruption rife.

                      You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

                      Better to try for centre 2017 (and Labour is not centre anyway as they have partnered with the Greens) and then vote more socialist 2020 just to make sure the Natz don’t make it back.

                      Labour are not perfect obviously but more people need to vote for them and even if you don’t vote for them and choose Greens or someone else then you still don’t have to be so against Labour as it is also helping the Natz.

                      Put your anger and despair into posting against the Natz. Labour is still better than the Natz.

                  • Chris

                    Labour’s approach has failed since the late 1980s. The Clark years were due to the nats’ weaknesses rather than anything Labour really stood for over that time. Labour therefore needs to change its wider policy position. They need to be honest and upfront about it and they need to do it now. The message needs to be that Labour stands for a caring and compassionate society which the destruction of began around the time of the Fourth Labour government and then completely killed off in the 1990s. Labour needs to acknowledge the part it played in all of this because people at the moment do not trust them, which is understandable because the closest they’ve ever come to renouncing its nasty uncaring past is to say “we’re a different party now”, which doesn’t wash because it’s not backed up by action. The Clark years are an example of that.

                    This isn’t going “further” to the left because they haven’t moved since the late 1980s. Labour needs to convince the public that it’s about compassion and that human beings shouldn’t be judged in economic terms. This is the only way they can really beat National. The change must begin now, and if that means winning in 2017 then all the better. They need to have the courage to change in this way. Labour’s refusal to do this and instead to continue trying to guess what it thinks people want is destined for failure. It’s been proved that what ever Labour’s doing now doesn’t work. Restablishing itself as a party that cares about people not only must happen if they want to be relevant again, but that’s the only direction they can go. I think Labour’s been underestimating the public’s appetite for this kind of government and if they’ve got the guts to change they’ll be pleasantly surprised.

                  • Paul

                    “Further to the left’
                    You’re having a laugh!
                    Labour 2016 is way to the right of the National Party of the 70s.

            • Ad 16.2.1.1.3.2

              Well of course, she did both. Delivered what the country wanted, and won three times. The two are related.

              You can argue about why Labour hasn’t been re-elected for three terms. But the presence of Helen Clark isn’t one of them.

              • Colonial Viper

                You can argue about why Labour hasn’t been re-elected for three terms. But the presence of Helen Clark isn’t one of them.

                The presence of the gutless, leaderless, middle of the road, white collar caucus that she hand picked is.

  15. joe90 17

    Given Israel literally wrote his AIPAC speech, it’s hardly surprising Trump has shit all over Palestinian aspirations.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Sunday told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if elected, the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the campaign said, marking a potential dramatic shift in U.S. policy on the issue.

    During the meeting that lasted more than an hour at Trump Tower in New York, Trump told Netanyahu that under his administration, the United States would “recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.”

    While Israel calls Jerusalem its capital, few other countries accept that, including the United States. Most nations maintain embassies in Tel Aviv

    Palestinians want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in a 1967 war, as capital of the state they aim to establish alongside Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    • Cinny 17.1

      “Trump agreed with Netanyahu that peace in the Middle East could only be achieved when “the Palestinians renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State.”

      That does my head in, both Israeli’s and Palestinians are subject to generations of hatred and violence towards each other, drummed into them by their ancestors.

      As well since military service is compulsary in Israel, it’s a wonderful opportunity to effectively make sure all citizens are brainwashed and anti Palestinian.

      Jerusalem is a tug of war over religious holy places, whose god owns what and who was there first? Which country can capitalise on the tourism of religious places of significance? The priorities of money, power, religion, control, just another day in the world of Netanyahu.

      “A senior Clinton campaign aide offered a summary on Sunday evening on the Democratic nominee’s meeting with Netanyahu.

      “Secretary Clinton stressed that a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism,” the aide said on background.”

      Maybe USA and Israel also have media control as common interests?

      http://www.npr.org/2016/09/25/495376424/trump-pledges-to-recognize-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital-in-meeting-with-netanyah

    • One Two 17.2

      Good job, Joe

      Other than the missing exert with Hillarys Isreali perspective, you’re getting closer to one of the root cause problems

      Can you call it out?

    • Colonial Viper 17.3

      Given Israel literally wrote his AIPAC speech, it’s hardly surprising Trump has shit all over Palestinian aspirations.

      Unfortunately Trump is looking for political allies and for donations; he is short of both. And there is no more powerful a lobby in DC than the Israel lobby.

  16. save nz 18

    TDB just realised that Spinoff & Gen Zero are more of a right wing, young Natz rag – after Spinoff endorsed Nat lover, Ralston for the council elections.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/09/25/must-read-sunday-from-good-guys-to-fall-guys-the-spinoff-and-generation-zero-fail-to-endorse-mike-lee/

    • Ad 18.1

      Or maybe they know what it’s been like to observe Lee at work in Council and AT Board over the last term.

      • save nz 18.1.1

        So are you endorsing Ralston too, Ad?

        Is this some fucked up strategy to get the right in, to somehow help the left?

        • Ad 18.1.1.1

          Left and right are not the only propositions to vote on.

          If you knew anything about Auckland Council politics, you’d understand that. You’d also be able to put up some actual coherent reason to defend Lee’s track record of voting this term. But you didn’t bother, because you are lazy.

          The strategy for Auckland Council in the coming term is pretty simple:
          a functioning, progressive Council, that works with the government.
          No one of those three elements is enough, and all are necessary in Auckland for this Council to work.

          • save nz 18.1.1.1.1

            AD you are crazy if you think that Auckland council taking on National party policy is going to help Auckland.

            Ralston is best known for his ‘long lunches’ and cronyism, I don’t think this approach is going to turn around Auckland. Ralston’s approach is perfect for those who want to get ‘special treatment’ from the council. However there is enough of that going on already both in the council and government.

            What has Ralston even done for Auckland to beat Mike Lee?

    • Cinny 19.1

      Lolz his mrs seemed to be paying attention as the outgoing PM of NZ chaired the UN meeting

      “She liked my gavel work. She thought it snappy. Not too loud. Not too quiet. She’d give me high pass mark for that.”

      NZ media are the only ones giving Key any coverage of his visit to the UN last week. International media aren’t mentioning anything about him, why is that? Maybe they weren’t as impressed with is gavel work as his mrs was.

  17. Paul 20

    “Russia does not need to win these wars, it just can’t lose”

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    4 hours ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago