Open Mike 27/11/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 27th, 2017 - 111 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

111 comments on “Open Mike 27/11/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed 1
    27 November 2017 at 6:17 am

    Actions speak louder than words.
    The New Zealand police are being hailed by the corporate media for a ‘hilarious video to lure recruits.’ The video was ‘ was targeted at 18- to 24-year-olds, women, Māori, Pacific Islanders, and people from all other ethnicities and backgrounds “to better reflect the communities we serve”.’ according to the police.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11948014

    Pity then the police act like this then in South Auckland against Tongan supporters.

    ‘We witnessed this @nzpolice man aggressively grab 2 #Tongan flags out the hands of the occupants of this moving car, then snap the flag poles & walk off. When confronted for an explanation, he signalled to 3 more officers to talk to the occupants. Disgusting.’

    ‘My 15 year old daughter just got her flagpole taken off her by the police because said it might be used as a weapon . I’m furious this racist heavy handed policing had killed off the community coming out to celebrate together ‘

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/26-11-2017/it-felt-like-they-were-in-a-riot-mode-police-tactics-turn-ugly-in-otahuhu/

    • Ed 1.1
      27 November 2017 at 6:23 am

      More from that article.

      ‘Papatoetoe resident Ema Tavola was in Otāhuhu last night, and described the atmosphere as “something I had really been looking forward to, to see my community in such a happy state.” She was alarmed at the large police presence.
      “It felt like they were in a riot mode. They definitely wanted their presence to be felt in a really assertive way. Their presence was aggressive and didn’t feel like they were there to support the energy, which was really disappointing.”’

      ‘The aggressive style of policing contrasted markedly with the friendly facilitation of the Lions tour, and the swiftly-planned community events which followed the America’s Cup win. Tavola lamented the way they dealt with the crowd’s Tongan flags, which had become the enduring image of the tournament.
      “The manner in which flags were ripped out of people’s hands and broken was a really aggressive way of saying ‘we’re in charge’. That’s not how you broker safety with a community, that’s how you intimidate people.”

      That kind of policing is really going to recruit from a diverse sector of the population.

      Our friends in the corporate media have a lot to answer for too.

      ‘Many people have voiced concerns about the portrayal of Tongan and Pacific Island supporters in the media, which they feel has exacerbated the police response.’

      • greywarshark 1.1.1
        27 November 2017 at 10:00 am

        The police should be in touch with the population they work within and what the mosh pit of the media says should be just part of their understanding of the situation, not a main ‘intelligence’ source.

        I remember that dopey farmer-type with a sign about Jacinda being a pretty communist or something. He had two poles on his sign and was being provocative – I wonder did he have his poles snatched and broken?

    • Rosemary McDonald 1.2
      27 November 2017 at 8:32 am

      “Actions speak louder than words.”

      Indeed, when the opening shots, forgive the pun, feature the NZ Police Summary Execution Squad…. https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2017/11/under-fire/

      As for the rest of the recruitment video, I must be getting crankier in my advancing years because I found it adolescent.

      Pretty much sums up the culture and mindset of the boyz and girlz of the NZ Police.

      • Anne 1.2.1
        27 November 2017 at 8:42 am

        I must be getting crankier in my advancing years because I found it adolescent.

        An amateurish performance all round.

  2. Ed 2
    27 November 2017 at 6:21 am

    Another day, another whingeing comment from the Soper household.
    Yesterday it was Heather.
    Today it’s Barry.

    And the Herald continues its relentless whining about the new government. ‘Granny’ Herald sounds more like ‘grumpy right wing’ Herald.

    • Johan 2.1
      27 November 2017 at 7:17 am

      It’s a pity that these RWNJs cannot take in the fact that they have lost the election.
      Those spiteful losers, born-to-govern attitude will continue to come to the surface.

      • cleangreen 2.1.1
        27 November 2017 at 7:37 pm

        100% Johan,

        National were indictrinated by S Joyce into a brainwashed state of believing they were “invincible” but here comes the crunch.

        Labour are doing a deep auditing of the finacial books of the National MPs activities
        Goinng back nine years and anomilies are being found so national MPs are sitting nerviously waiting for the phone to ring nbecause they dont know how deep the financial auditing is going on.

        They may be found out using public funding inappropriately and be charged with fraud.

        I am not privy to the specifics here but labour are finding some interseting stuff we are informed.
        So the Nat’s MPs are trying to construct a diversion to take the heat off themselves.

    • North 2.2
      27 November 2017 at 7:27 am

      Barry Soper characterises as wasteful Pike River decision making intended to be evidence based. It’s not encouraging that Soper conflates Key’s duplicitous disaster milking with respect for evidence. His claim – “Essentially it doesn’t advance the issue greatly from when National was running the shop, safety has always been the key.” The article otherwise ? Facile. So Barry and Heather……especially the headline.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11947781

      • Psycho Milt 2.2.1
        27 November 2017 at 7:34 am

        “Essentially it doesn’t advance the issue greatly from when National was running the shop, safety has always been the key.”

        I think Soper’s confused: “safety” and “arse-covering” are two different things.

    • Grey Area 2.3
      27 November 2017 at 7:34 am

      Yep, Barry’s turn today. A very poorly constructed piece of journalism from “Newstalk ZB’s Political Editor”.

      “Say anything slightly critical of Jacinda Ardern and you do so at your peril. The social media trolls, or at least those who live in the Labour cave, can’t abide anything close to criticism of the woman anointed by Winston Peters just over a month ago and who, not surprisingly Donald Trump thought was Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s missus.

      What? Tortured nonsense.

      “So with her obviously not in mind there have been a couple of decisions made by her subordinates over the past week that have, or will, dip into the taxpayers’ pockets, raising a few eyebrows”.

      So it’s not about Ardern then, but the headline – “Barry Soper: Criticise Jacinda Ardern At Your Peril” – screams that it is. Confused? I am.

      The opening paragraph (which the provocative headline has been based on) stands in isolation as there are no supporting references in the piece itself. Soper doesn’t even seem to understand the meaning of the term “troll” and what trolls do. But maybe he does and it’s just a lazy way to score some points.

      What trolls? What cave? Where are some examples of this “can’t abide anything close to criticism”? There aren’t any.

      It reads like something thrown together without conviction or deep thought. So I guess it’s business as usual then.

    • DH 2.4
      27 November 2017 at 8:30 am

      Some of these columnists look to be feeling the heat, Duncan Garner was moaning about the flak he was getting on social media too.

      Perhaps Soper might want to ask himself why he needs to criticise Ardern in the first place.

    • marty mars 2.5
      27 November 2017 at 9:25 am

      Yep sour faces all round at the Allen house. Plastic road markers make more sense and offer viable commentary comparred to their horror house of horseshit.

    • mary_a 2.6
      27 November 2017 at 9:44 am

      Ed (2) … NZH and it’s pathetic columnists (note not journalists) are still dancing to the tune of its major benefactor Natz. So obviously orchestrated by Joyce.

      NZH, Natz a pair of prickly sore losers!

      • cleangreen 2.6.1
        27 November 2017 at 7:54 pm

        well said mary-a.

        Joyce is freakingout as they have something on hhis $11.7 billion hole now.

        I have a belief he has left some dabts undeclared.

        I believe he knows it, as it is his fault, so he probably has undeclared debts he amassed and left for labour.

    • Psych nurse 2.7
      27 November 2017 at 9:59 am

      The issue for Soper and his ilk, is that now they are no longer in the inner sanctum they have no relevance. Don’t feed them and they wither and die.

      • Muttonbird 2.7.1
        27 November 2017 at 10:54 am

        This is it. They don’t have the same access to the decision-makers which was a process fostered by the corrupt Nats. The only people they can get exclusives from now is the opposition.

        Here’s a suggestion – why not try to build trusting relationships with government ministers? That is part of their job.

  3. eco maori 3
    27 November 2017 at 7:46 am

    Our Farmers are the envy of OUR world and We have to help feed all the people of OUR. So we can’t make changes that dramatically reduce there out put. Now all the talk of our world having a food shortage will come true in the near future. So we need to invest in research on Organic farming as this type of farming boost our topsoil and more topsoil is what we need to my coal could be used to boost our topsoil I’m not sure they used charcoal in the past.
    It was about 25 before I learned that I was cack handed I can use both hands just as good while working so in any job I all ways catch up to the fastest person. I’m going to learn the Taiaha and increase my skills and Mana.
    But I cannot write with both hands as my writing is bad my granddaughter writing is better Many thanks to OUR New coalition government for doing a excellent job great that you gave OUR young people that are studying a rise in income they are our future. I’m off to work now I wonder what my view escorts have planed for me today. Kia kaha

  4. halfcrown 4
    27 November 2017 at 8:03 am

    Quite a few people have written that we are returning to the medieval feudalism
    brought on by the Neo-Cons. Well, it is now happening.

    https://renegadeinc.com/britains-ifeudalism/

  5. eco maori 5
    27 November 2017 at 8:06 am

    Many thanks to breakfast for showing all the positive effects that a well funded railway system will have on NZ Ka pai

  6. The Chairman 6
    27 November 2017 at 8:12 am

    Is this National’s way of indirectly implying Labour should have increased core benefit rates? Or are they merely implying Labour shouldn’t have increased student allowances?

    As for their concern, the safeguards are there. And they should know as they installed them.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/national-claims-jobless-will-pretend-to-be-students-for-money.html

    • marty mars 6.1
      27 November 2017 at 8:26 am

      ‘…sensible beneficary taking advantage…’
      That sums up the gnat false concern – and the way they work – scums

    • millsy 6.2
      27 November 2017 at 8:57 am

      Anyone moving from the Job Seeker Support to Student Allowance would lose their Accomodation Supplement, so they wouldn’t be all that better off anyway. No caviar and Meet just yet…

  7. ScottGN 7
    27 November 2017 at 8:28 am

    Best laugh you’ll have all day,

    According to Judith Collins it was Kiwirail’s responsibility to release the NZTA report commissioned in 2016 that highlights the $1.5 billion of benefits that investment in passenger and freight rail brings to the economy EVERY YEAR!

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/trains-save-nz-1-5-billion-a-year-report.html

    • millsy 7.1
      27 November 2017 at 8:58 am

      National’s agenda was to close down the rail network and sell it for scrap.

      • savenz 7.1.1
        27 November 2017 at 9:54 am

        More like cheaply to mates.

      • greywarshark 7.1.2
        27 November 2017 at 10:07 am

        Wasn’t there an idea of using the line to Gisborne or Napier for a cycle track for overseas visitors ?
        Another case of going forward with the latest money-maker and bugger the rest of the population and the services they need.

        • savenz 7.1.2.1
          27 November 2017 at 10:51 am

          Has anyone noticed that everything seems to be important for overseas folks like cycle ways, but for the local community who are paying rates and taxes there seems to be a general reluctance to invest in public services for recreation for locals?

          In Auckland just getting the parks or lawns mown seems to be an issue.They hate it so much they try to pave every square inch and then dig it up every 2 minutes for piecemeal infrastructure, first metro water, then chorus, then new paving, then cycleway then repeat and create traffic and walking chaos and little paving patches littered all around. (p.s. grass is cheap, permeable and easy to dig up, but clearly out of vogue for the last 30 years). Then they wonder why there is so much flooding. Go figure!

          Last year went to Long Bay regional park in Auckland where they are doing MASSIVE multimillion dollar development with property and the beach was absolutely full of people, every square inch taken, it was like Europe with 3rd world planning, all the parking was taken and then people were parking on areas that had meter high lawn growth. Nobody bothered to mow the lawns over the holidays.

          The council takes the money from the development but does not seem to understand that they that means more people and more money needed for public services and actually more recreational areas. If they don’t want to pay for this, don’t develop and put more people there!

          In typical neoliberalism they take money in at one end of the council for one budget and then starve the other end and since it’s someone else’s budget they don’t seem to be able to link up the two. They will be coining it for rates but who knows where it is going – gold paving? road maintainance? America’s cup? Consultants on stadiums, Lawyer mates? CEO wages?

          Drove one hour in Auckland yesterday. There was 2 detours, around 4 roadworks digging up the road or verge. And we only have 4 million people and some people want 35 million! A generation will spend their entire lives in roadworks, who knows what it will do to health.

          The local economy for business is suffering as nobody wants to navigate through Auckland anymore. I’m sure lovely for big business like hotels and casino’s for tourists who never need leave central Auckland, so why worry? sarcasm.

          • cleangreen 7.1.2.1.1
            27 November 2017 at 7:57 pm

            bang on savenz,

            Make tourists pay for their way here, we dont need ‘free-loaders” high-jacking us here.

            We want equal rights as a safe low cost place to live and enjoy with our children and families thanks.

  8. alwyn 8
    27 November 2017 at 8:47 am

    Are the current Government really planning to give $114 million to Grant Dalton and his millionaire mates in order to have the ultimate rich men’s toys race around the Waitemata Harbour?
    That is $114,000,000.00 when you write it right out.

    What are the poor bloody tax-payers of New Zealand supposed to get out of that? Apart that is from drinkies for the Politicians on Superyachts while the event is on.
    How many hip operations would that pay for?
    How many houses could you build?
    How many trees could you plant.
    What the hell do they think they are doing?

    Let the bloody thing go to The Emirates. Anyone who wants to can watch it on TV. That is as close as a normal New Zealander is going to get anyway.

    • ScottGN 8.1
      27 November 2017 at 8:51 am

      No doubt you’d prefer the government to give the money to the House of Saud so they can build an America’s Cup racetrack in the desert?

      • alwyn 8.1.1
        27 November 2017 at 9:08 am

        Your comment apparently must mean something to you.
        God knows what and he isn’t talking.

        • North 8.1.1.1
          27 November 2017 at 9:28 am

          “Right wing altruism rockets upwards under PM Ardern.”

        • ScottGN 8.1.1.2
          27 November 2017 at 8:35 pm

          What I was trying to say Alwyn, before I dashed off to work, was that given the Sth Canterbury Finance, Mediaworks and Tiwai Point bailouts and the Saudi Sheep Deal debacle and the incredibly close relationship with SkyCity, anyone who supported the previous government is in no position to criticise the current government of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

          • alwyn 8.1.1.2.1
            27 November 2017 at 8:58 pm

            As far as they go.
            I would never have included SCF in the guarantee in the first place. Once they were in there was no way to avoid paying out or dropping them from the scheme. That, I am afraid was Cullen. It wasn’t a bailout either. The company was wound up.
            Mediaworks wasn’t a bailout. They changed the rules to make media companies pay up for the next 20 years or so in one go rather than yearly and then let them, at a very high and quite risk free interest rate, pay it off in something like 5 year chunks. That was actually a spectacularly good deal.
            I wouldn’t have offered a deal to the Smelter.
            I have never been sure what the Saudi deal was. I never comment on things about which I am ignorant.
            It is very hard to see how a deal with Sky City cost New Zealand anything. We didn’t pay them anything and I assume we have some sort of a Convention Centre.
            So no. National supporting the America’s Cup was stupid. The others, with the exception of the smelter weren’t.

    • Molly 8.2
      27 November 2017 at 9:29 am

      In total agreement with you on this Alwyn.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.3
      27 November 2017 at 9:29 am

      What are the poor bloody tax-payers of New Zealand supposed to get out of that?

      Development of the economy, particularly R&D in materials.

      It’s just a pity that all those benefits will only accrue to a few rich people due to the way that capitalism works.

      How many hip operations would that pay for?

      None. It’s a different set of resources. Unless you want to forcefully retrain all boat builders and marine engineers into being doctors.

      How many houses could you build?

      Well, I suppose we could use it to support the training of a few unemployed into carpenters and plumbers. Or, perhaps, we could use the R&D from the race into producing better houses more cheaply.

      How many trees could you plant.

      Depends upon how many people that can be employed over what time frame.

      What the hell do they think they are doing?

      The same thing that governments all around the world think that they’re doing when they support these sorts of things – boosting the economy.

      Unfortunately, they’re doing it wrong.

      Far better to put that money directly into government research and then make the results of that research publicly available so that anyone can use it. That would actually develop the economy. The way that they’re doing it leaves the results developed in the hands of a few private individuals and prevents the overall development of the economy.

      • greywarshark 8.3.1
        27 November 2017 at 10:28 am

        Put that money into supplying Councils with an allowance of $s to get some of their deferred jobs done as Task Force Green.

        Offer maraes a set number of apprenticeships for some young people who would train and then would return and add value to the marae.

        Fund the women’s refuges to run assertiveness training for the women and their children, and have workshops on goal setting and communication, and family outdoor camps. See if they can form little co-operatives to organise a project, run it successfully and have a certificate and trip to Wellington and the Beehive for the winners. Let’s have some recognition of movers, shakers and achievers at the grassroots level.

        Invest in the people, so as to unlock the pathways to the mind and get thinking going at a higher level than just how to cope with the oppressing government that everyone thinks is supposed to be helping. Fund small initiatives, a small music tour, small personal initiatives, big outcomes. Get something going.

        We had SHAs and they were prompting people to start housing initiatives different from the office blocks that are built for housing by present day developers. Then Labour is cancelling SHAs. No it isn’t. Well the information seems to be that… We can’t be sure yet, keep trying.

        This is what is happening. A lack of commitment to getting ordinary people mixing in, putting their own muscle in – a fund of $100 million would produce a whole lot of small projects with multiplier effects, all round the country. But not as showy as the snobs want. The ordinary people are so boring, unstylish often not even picturesque, and probably not even picaresque.

    • marty mars 8.4
      27 November 2017 at 9:37 am

      What do we get ? What do WE get. Typical right winger – selfish pricks

      • alwyn 8.4.1
        27 November 2017 at 11:37 am

        Who do you think you are talking to Marty?
        Your comment is numbered as being a reply to my original one but it then seems to be blaming me for something I never said.
        You talk about “WE”. If you read what I actually wrote you will discover that I never once used the word “WE”. The closest I came to it is when I mentioned the “poor bloody tax-payers of New Zealand”.

        Are all tax-payers “right wingers”?
        Are all tax-payers “selfish pricks”?
        What do you really mean Marty?

        Or is the “WE” referring to yourself? Are you just a selfish prick?

        • marty mars 8.4.1.1
          27 November 2017 at 12:33 pm

          What WE are you? Hmm definately a wee wee probably even a wee wee wee but I’m not into judgment. Are you a wee wee wee wee? Well we’ll let history be the judge of that I think alwyn.

          • alwyn 8.4.1.1.1
            27 November 2017 at 1:11 pm

            Would someone please wipe the little chap’s mouth.
            He is dribbling down his pinafore again.

            • marty mars 8.4.1.1.1.1
              27 November 2017 at 1:34 pm

              ‘ and with that one last statement the 2nd age of the dinosaurs ended – known as the moaning epoch it was thankfully very short.’

          • cleangreen 8.4.1.1.2
            27 November 2017 at 8:03 pm

            100% mm,

            To many negative nat’s around tioday, they need to get over loosing eh!

    • savenz 8.5
      27 November 2017 at 9:57 am

      Yep, 114m of taxpayers money to America’s cup is corporate welfare. They should raise the money themselves. It’s a sport for billionaires – get their wallets out. A tax on accomodation for example. Apparently the hotels raise up the prices to triple when there is an event on – they profit and they should pitch in to the sport that contributes to that profit.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.6
      27 November 2017 at 10:07 am

      Considering the timing these negotiations and agreement were probably done under National and this government’s just supported that agreement.

      So, would you have been just pissed of about this if National were still in power? Did you, as a matter of fact, complain when National supported the previous America’s Cup challenge?

      • alwyn 8.6.1
        27 November 2017 at 11:29 am

        I would be just as pissed off.
        And yes I did complain about the Government, any Government, putting money into this foolish event at that time.
        You can believe your first sentence if you like I suppose.
        It certainly isn’t the way Parker is going on though, is it?

      • Molly 8.6.2
        27 November 2017 at 12:26 pm

        alwyn does post about spending on events using ratepayer or taxpayer money, even when National were in power. One issue where I find myself in agreement with him.

  9. Morrissey 9
    27 November 2017 at 9:32 am

    Heroes
    No. 1: EDWARD SNOWDEN

    “Snowden should, in my opinion, be welcomed home with honors for his service to his country, and for his courage and integrity in the manner in which he performed this service. Apart from exceptional circumstances, citizens have every right to know what their government is doing, in particular what it is doing to them – in the present case, as Snowden revealed to us, keeping citizens under extensive and deeply intrusive surveillance.”—NOAM CHOMSKY, September 2014

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/edward-snowden-pardon-bernie-sanders-daniel-ellsberg

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/edward-snowden-interview-there-is-still-hope-a-1166752.html

    “Heroes” is a series devoted to those courageous and brilliant people who show us that, in a world seemingly run by crooks, abusers, bullies, scoundrels, mass murderers and liars, there are still reasons for optimism.

  10. halfcrown 10
    27 November 2017 at 9:34 am

    +1

  11. greywarshark 11
    27 November 2017 at 11:38 am

    Looking through The Telegraph list of the 20 best countries to do business in the world, with lovely scenic pics to go with each listing. Don’t know which year the info refers to – could be 2015 or 2016.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/12051361/Revealed-The-20-best-countries-in-the-world-to-do-business.html?frame=endScreen

    Denmark is 1st.
    ( 1. Denmark – For the second consecutive year – and fifth time in eight years – Denmark has been declared the best country in the world to do business. Forbes said Denmark, one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world, ranks well for its personal and monetary freedom as well as low corruption. There are only four procedures needed to start a new business )

    NZ 2nd, No details – was 1st in 2012.
    Norway 3rd $67,200 GDP per capita 2nd highest in top 20.
    Ireland 4th with 5.2% growth GDP.
    Sweden 5th.

    Could we match up to the description of Denmark’s attributes that have put it in top place many times?

  12. The Chairman 12
    27 November 2017 at 11:53 am

    Council says it will be more than 10 years before all of its 2300 houses and units would meet its own WOF standards.

    The council is in the middle of a 20-year, $400 million upgrade programme, expected to be finished by 2028. 

    However, MacLean said even some of the housing upgraded since the programme started in 2008 may not tick all the boxes. 

    The WOF standards were “demanding”, but every property was expected to meet the standards by the end of the upgrade programme, he said.  

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/99203316/council-flats-would-fail-rental-wof-they-ought-to-fix-their-own-properties-first

  13. The Chairman 13
    27 November 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Open and transparent or shady and dodgy?

    Where has the 38 page addendum gone?

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/government-insists-there-is-no-secret-document-with-nz-first.html

    • The Chairman 14.1
      27 November 2017 at 1:04 pm

      I wasn’t explaining how Labour might solve child poverty. That’s largely already out there. I was merely answering a question you put forward.

      • McFlock 14.1.1
        27 November 2017 at 1:08 pm

        OK, well, when Labour start rounding up the children of poor people in order to meet their child poverty reduction target, I’ll believe your answer.

        • The Chairman 14.1.1.1
          27 November 2017 at 1:20 pm

          That wasn’t the question nor was it what my answer was referring too.

          So why are you attempting to tar me and mislead other readers?

          • McFlock 14.1.1.1.1
            27 November 2017 at 1:27 pm

            The link is above.

            I said that addressing child poverty will address adult poverty. You said child poverty could be reduced by excluding adults. I asked how. You said removing the children from those poor conditions was one option.

            How do you interpret that discussion other than you suggesting that Labour might solve child poverty by rounding up the children of the poor?

            • The Chairman 14.1.1.1.1.1
              27 November 2017 at 1:46 pm

              No.

              After explaining to you (in the post before) how Labour are planning to largely exclude those in poverty that don’t have dependent children from the improvements they plan to make. I went on to answer your question, pointing out (one way and hypothetically of course) how a Government could avoid benefiting the parents of the children.

              Which should have been clear as not only did I explain what Labour plan to do (and provided a link) I also agreed with you (up above) that the parents of the children will most likely gain in the improvements made under Labour.

              Speaking of dodgy, I questioned you on your assertion that solving child poverty will solve almost all adult poverty. And you have yet to produce the numbers (how many people in poverty have dependent children, opposed to those in poverty that don’t?).

              Another way the cash benefits could avoid going to the parents is free meals in schools. While those that can afford to feed their kids will make a little savings, those most hard up that can’t afford to feed their kids (thus send them to school hungry) won’t be able to save what they didn’t have to spend in the first place. Hence, apart from their kids being fed, there will be no fiscal benefit for them.

              • marty mars …
                27 November 2017 at 2:04 pm

                Has there been any article or links including white papers on this subject of labour wanting to take children off their parents. I don’t see how it would alleviate poverty for anyone – why do you like the idea?

                • The Chairman …
                  27 November 2017 at 2:17 pm

                  “Why do you like the idea?”

                  I don’t.

                  “Has there been any article or links including white papers on this subject of labour wanting to take children off their parents.”

                  Not to my knowledge. I posted a link on what Labour largely plan to do.

                  Here it is again.
                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11942007

                • The Chairman …
                  27 November 2017 at 2:26 pm

                  Additionally, Marty, the notion isn’t totally unheard of.

                  Anne Neale, one of the report’s authors, said: “Charges of neglect are used to punish, especially single-mother families, for their unbearably low incomes.

                  Donna Clarke, whose granddaughter was taken from her teenage mother and handed to adoptive parents, will speak on Wednesday at the launch. She said families were being punished for living in poverty. “It is a form of social cleansing,” she said. “Vulnerable people are having their children taken away. It is all about them judging the risk of significant harm but if they spent the money on putting in the support that was needed many of these families would be able to keep their children.”

                  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/18/children-parents-foster-social-care-families-adoption

                  • McFlock …
                    27 November 2017 at 2:42 pm

                    So you’re concerned that Labour will copy UK Tory social policies.
                    Although with the numbers needed to halve child poverty in NZ, it’s more the Aussie “Stolen Generation”.

              • McFlock …
                27 November 2017 at 2:34 pm

                I don’t need numbers if you can’t produce a method of helping kids without passing on some similar assistance to adults.

                That thread started at you being concerned that Labour was only focussed on child poverty. You have yet to name a method that would manage to exclude adults from the resulting poverty reduction.

                Free meals in schools will not increase the household income, so poverty levels will not change. Removing 100,000 kids from poor families is just a weird proposal – and will stimulate the foster care industry, anyway.

                On the other hand, if 10,000 or 20,000 households got a boost in income in the most deprived areas of the country, that’s got to be good for economic activity in those areas. And therefore the poor adults in those areas. Maybe even almost all the poor adults.

                What can’t be done is eliminating child poverty without knocking off the majority chunk of adult poverty. And even if you finally come up with a way of doing so, that just makes the decision to leave people poor more stark, making it easier to lobby for that final step.

                • weka …
                  27 November 2017 at 2:38 pm

                  “That thread started at you being concerned that Labour was only focussed on child poverty. You have yet to name a method that would manage to exclude adults from the resulting poverty reduction.”

                  Not sure what you are meaning there exactly, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Labour’s policies at the moment are targeting families with children, which by definition exclude adults without children and leave them in poverty.

                  Equally obviously, adults in families that have children will have poverty reduced.

                  That’s two different sets of adults.

                  I assume that TC was referring to the first.

                  • McFlock …
                    27 November 2017 at 2:47 pm

                    Well, to extend the targeting terminology, I’d be impressed if they managed to relive the poverty of 100,000 or 200,000 children without a significant amount of collatoral damage – as in relieving the poverty of tens of thousands of adults not in households with dependent children.

                    People don’t live in a vacuum. There will have to be socioeconomic flow-on. It won’t solve all poverty, but it will solve more than enough to make the final step achievable and politically normal.

                    • weka …
                      27 November 2017 at 3:01 pm

                      ah, the sideways seep theory. A trickle down theory for poor people.

                      Here’s how I would frame that. You poor, disabled people wait over there, we might get to you. Not sure how long that will be, sorry.

                      Just listened to a bit on RNZ about MMP. The guy was talking about how National did the major lifting on Treaty issues in the 90s despite that being against what some of the party and their own support based believed should happen (Bolger and Graham made the moves). So I think there are ways to implement things that are right and change the culture as you go.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 November 2017 at 3:21 pm

                      That’s one way of framing it. I don’t think it’s particularly accurate, however.

                      National could progress the Treaty because it was against type. Labour poosting benefits to the living wage tomorrow would just hand 2020 on a plate to the tories, and they’d reverse it equally as quickly.

                      Implementing a policy that requires major change requires multi-government consistency. Labour or the nats working to far to their stereotype just encourages pushback by the following government.

                    • weka …
                      27 November 2017 at 3:35 pm

                      I don’t think anyone has suggested lifting benefits to a living wage immediately. I get your general argument about the value of incremental change in establishing that change in society, but your example belies that.

                      We’re essentially arguing over two things. One is whether Labour can be trusted on this to be actually intending to lift all benefits and just isn’t talking about it for pragmatic reasons. The other is timeframes. Not sure how long is valid or reasonable.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 November 2017 at 4:19 pm

                      On either point I’m not too worried.

                      Labour have (knowingly or unknowingly) put themselves into a corner to measure and solve poverty, not just child poverty. Voters will see homeless people in the street and go “didn’t the government promise to fix this?”

                      As soon as the government stop moving forward on issues like poverty, they will stagnate. I think NZ will move much further this time than under Lab5.

                • The Chairman …
                  27 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

                  “I don’t need numbers …”

                  I was under the impression when people assert things as fact here they are obligated to back up their claim.

                  Raising family tax ­credits excludes those in poverty that don’t have dependent children.

                  Raising the ­income threshold for ­family tax credits excludes those in poverty that don’t have dependent children.

                  Giving all families with newborn babies an extra $60 a week “Best Start” payment for the first year, regardless of income, and for two further years on an ­income-tested basis, again does nothing for those in poverty that don’t have a newborn.

                  And these (above) are the ways Labour plan to directly exclude those in poverty without dependent children.

                  However, I agree, that indirectly (via the expected economic stimulus it will generate) some others may benefit. But how many and by what degree is yet to be established.

                  “What can’t be done is eliminating child poverty without knocking off the majority chunk of adult poverty “

                  Here you go again, stating an assertion as fact. How do you know eliminating child poverty will knock off the “majority” chunk of adult poverty? Where are your numbers to substantiate this claim?

                  • McFlock …
                    27 November 2017 at 4:11 pm

                    Not every claim needs numbers. They simply require effort and patience.

                    For example, now you agree that Labour’s child poverty plan may benefit adults not in households that have dependent children, so it is merely the number of people and degree to which they will be assisted that we are quibbling over.

                    Incrementalism well illustrated, I think.

                    • The Chairman …
                      27 November 2017 at 11:47 pm

                      “Not every claim needs numbers”

                      Well yours does if you want to substantiate the premiss of your argument.

                      While I agree to some extent that there may be some that will indirectly benefit, in this case, the degree to which people will benefit is vital to whether or not they are lifted out of poverty.

                      Which, of course, is an unknown at this stage.

                      Therefore, although some may benefit, we can’t affirmatively say the stimulus from the trickle down will lift any others out of poverty.

                      For example, employment opportunities may improve from the stimulus, but merely securing a job isn’t a guarantee one will be lifted out of poverty. Around half the kids in poverty today come from working families.

                      Then there are those that are unable to work, therefore a stimulus is unlikely to produce any mass difference for them.

                      There is one policy where Labour (and I like this one) may possibly have a major impact and that’s in their job creation policy of planting more trees.

                      However, and this is vital, if they fail to offer employees a living wage, the opportunity will be largely wasted.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 November 2017 at 12:34 am

                      Oh well, if we’re looking at policies beyond those revolving around families in need, it’s lucky there’s more than tree planting in things like the regional development policy, and then there’s the housing policy (lots of building jobs), paying employers the equivalent of the dole for every apprentice they take on, yadda yadda yadda.

                      “Trickle down” is the wrong way to put it – that was the theory that if you gave rich people more money, they’re throw some crumbs at the plebs.

                      My position is that income to poor families is more of a resource well – disadvantaged people have more kids (for a variety of reasons), and tend to clump together geographically (for a variety of reasons). They also have to spend their money more immediately and more directly in the local community (which is why GST is a regressive tax). Even in a modest amount, it’s actually a bloody good way of developing and rejuvenating depressed areas. If you give 2000 homes in a depressed region $60/wk more, that’s an extra half million dollars straight into the local economy every year. The equivalent of funding an SME.

  15. Peroxide Blonde 15
    27 November 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Brexit…tick…tock

    England has to come up with some hard and acceptable proposal within the next week if they want to start trade talks with the rest of the EU. The three prereqs are:
    #The Divorce Settlement Stg40-60M
    #No Border in Ireland.
    #Rights of EU and UK Citizens in each area.

    The solution that works for the EU and Ireland is to put the border in the Irish Sea. While Northern Ireland will remain in the UK it will also remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union. This has the Unionist and Brexiteers spitting bile and racism on the pages of the Telegraph and Mail.
    However the border in the Irish Sea looks acceptable even to the Unionist population.
    from Slugger O’Toole
    “In September, we asked a representative sample of the Northern Ireland population to react to the statement that: ‘People should be prepared to accept border controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, if this is agreed in the Brexit negotiations between the Government and the EU’.

    Overall, 49% agreed with this, and 39% disagreed (with 12% neither agreeing or disagreeing). But, perhaps surprisingly, willingness to accept such controls was stronger among Leave voters (64% agreed), supporters of unionist parties (59%) and Protestants (54%).”

    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exclusive-poll-unionist-supporters-content-with-east-west-post-brexit-border-controls/

  16. Colonial Viper 16
    27 November 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Camille Paglia: there’s no female Mozart because there’s no female Jack the Ripper. These gender traits go along together.

    [CV, I’m going to ask you to not comment in that thread. There’s a long history on TS of problematic threads for women, and you’ve often been part of that. At the moment the focus is on TS becoming a place that is attractive and easily accessible for women to take part especially on issues that affect them directly. – weka]

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

  17. Ed 17
    27 November 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Rowarth is a corrupt and compromised scientists.
    I’d love to know who sponsors her research.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/business/farming/epa-chief-scientist-says-irrigation-good-environment

    • mac1 17.1
      27 November 2017 at 4:19 pm

      “Irrigation, when carefully managed, is a “great boon” to the environment,” Environmental Protection Authority chief scientist Dr Jacqueline Rowarth says.

      The devil is in the detail of what “carefully managed” means.

      She then said, “The major problem with swimmability was with sediment and sediment problems were caused by forestry, construction, cropping and then pastoral. New Zealand’s rivers were some of the best in the world.”

      Hmmmm……

      She then stepped outside of her scientific expertise to become an economist and a political commentator.

      “There was a large amount of water in New Zealand and most of it went “out to sea”.

      “I wouldn’t be taxing it when it’s supporting the rest of the economy,” she said, referring to Labour’s pre-election plans for a water tax.”

  18. Puckish Rogue 18
    27 November 2017 at 4:25 pm

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/11/ghahraman_defended_not_prosecuted_the_genociders_in_rwanda.html
    https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/11/golriz-ghahraman-defender-human-rights-genocidal-maniacs/

    Normally wouldn’t link to whaleoil but its mostly screen grabs of twitter and its backed up by kiwiblog but Phil Quin certainly isn’t a happy chappy

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      27 November 2017 at 4:29 pm

      You can’t have a successful trial without defence lawyers, or the rest of the court staff. Farrar and Slater are trash, but what’s your excuse?

      • Puckish Rogue 18.1.1
        27 November 2017 at 4:30 pm

        Its more that shes wasn’t exactly forth coming with what she actually did as opposed to what she did

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.1
          27 November 2017 at 4:32 pm

          What part of putting someone on trial* doesn’t involve defence lawyers? It’s more that you’re clutching at straws.

          *the term used in her resume.

    • marty mars 18.2
      27 November 2017 at 4:34 pm

      Actually you seem to exclusively link to them – ah well gotta do what you gotta do….

  19. rhinocrates 19
    27 November 2017 at 4:30 pm

    Kim Stanley Robinson discusses how climate change will affect capitalism and society:

    https://theinterval.org/salon-talks/02016/may/11/how-climate-will-evolve-government-and-society

    Humanity’s adaptation to climate change will require novel, global cooperation and societal evolution. The award-winning science fiction author of 2312, the Mars Trilogy, and Aurora shares his vision for how the world must change in advance of his 02017 novel New York 2140. Hosted by Stewart Brand. From May 02016.

  20. Pete 20
    27 November 2017 at 4:48 pm

    An example from today of another nappy being peed in.

    “Has any Government every[sic] been so secretive and arrogant after just one month in office?”

  21. cleangreen 21
    27 November 2017 at 8:27 pm

    We have been hoodwinked by the likes of the ‘road transport forum’ and their CEO Ken Shirley this week.

    This when he snarled at assusations from the daming report out on NZ rail vs road freight emissions, – showing road freight is the main culprit in climate change transport emissions.

    This is all featured in this weeks listener, entitled on the front page as; “The great rail revial,- can we rid roads of killler trucks”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99257012/rail-has-saved-new-zealand-15b-a-year-study-shows

    Apparently a report was prepared by EY a consultancy agency for Ministry of Transport and NZTA a year ago that meassured the emmissions of all transport systems and made road freight look so bad that it was somehow held back from being released by Treasury and the national party then or the ministry of transport or NZTA, so it paints a picture of National while in Government holding back important documentation we had a right to see released so we could get action sooner on climate change.

    This is what we had long complained about with the Nats with holding evidence on so much stuff over the years including the panama papers, TPPA, Afganistan, Todd barclay and Winston peters leaked private information.

    Now we see a laughable act of national jamming up labour MP’s with over 6000 questions claiming “it is our right to know what the Government are doing”!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am feardful that labour need to act strongly and foercefully now on climate change issues.

    Consider ; Importance of rail.

    All motorised transport produces Carbon Dioxide (CO2) one of the so called “greenhouse gases” that contribute to climate change.

    Trains are an energy-efficient carrier of people and goods and hence produce
    relatively less CO2 emissions per passenger than other modes.

    Travelling by rail reduces your contribution to climate change. Emissions of CO2 per passenger/Km are, on average, approximately half that of travel by car.

    In 1998 rail produced only 1% of the U.K’s total emissions, road transport meanwhile accounted for 23%

    Climate change – Freight Transport

    The majority of our freight in the UK travels by road. Switching some of this to rail would result in a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions. Carrying freight by rail results in an 80% cut in CO2 emissions per Kilogram carried compared to road haulage.

    Public Health

    Up to 24,000 vulnerable people are estimated to die prematurely each year because of poor air-quality and transport is a major contributor to this problem through engine exhaust emissions.

    Although rail carries 7% of U.K traffic it emits only 0.2% of Carbon Monoxide, 2% of Nitrous Oxide, 1% of Volatile Organic Compounds and 2.5% of Sulphur Dioxide emissions

    Electric trains are also pollution free at point of use, and do not contribute to localised air quality problems in urban centres.