Open Mike 27/02/2017

89 comments on “Open Mike 27/02/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jo Bond 1

   27 February 2017 at 6:17 am

   We are 87 days away from The Budget. RNZ’s funding has been frozen for the past 9 years. I have a petition running if anyone cares to put their name to saving a bastion of good journalism in this country. https://www.tinyurl.com/jg9e42t .
2. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 2

   27 February 2017 at 6:28 am

   Like many on the left, I suppose, I felt a general sense of dismay on the news of Labour losing the Copeland by-election – a seat they had held for 80 years.

   But there are ‘alternative facts’ and Jonathan Pie gives a few:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1cCgOwMeQs
   • Andre 2.1

     27 February 2017 at 6:37 am

     But if Corbyn is the Messiah and his policies are clearly the path to Nirvana, why didn’t the long term slide in Labour’s vote-share turn around?

     Maybe, just maybe, the Corbynites are putting just as much effort into backstabbing the more moderate Labour as they accuse the Blairites of doing to Corbyn?
     • garibaldi 2.1.1

       27 February 2017 at 8:55 am

       Give me Jonathon Pie over your Blairite ramblings anyday Andre.
       • Andre 2.1.1.1

         27 February 2017 at 9:17 am

         We’re not far from the home stretch of our own election. Candidate selections and policies are close to being finalised. The Greens and Labour will almost certainly include policies and candidates that are dead rats to many, especially those fond of slogans such as back-stabbing Blairites.

         So what to do? Choke down those dead rats with a forced smile and go hard supporting Labour or Greens as the best route to changing the government? Ignore Labour and Greens and go hard supporting a smaller party like Mana or Socialist Aotearoa and risk wasting votes which allows the Nats to sneak in for a fourth term? Go hard bagging Labour and Greens for their lack of purity and principle which amounts to supporting Nats into their fourth term?

         I’m going with the choke down the dead rats option.
         • Ad 2.1.1.1.1

           27 February 2017 at 9:22 am

           Glasseye Sauce is a winner.
         • Karen 2.1.1.1.2

           27 February 2017 at 9:36 am

           The first option for me too, Andre. The only way we get rid of the Nacts is to party vote Labour and the Greens. They are the only parties emphatically saying they will not go into a coalition with National.
           • weka 2.1.1.1.2.1

             27 February 2017 at 5:28 pm

             No National government

             Labour
             Greens

             Maybe a National government

             NZF
             TOP
             Mp

             Def a National government

             ACT
             (UF?)

             Not sure where Mana sits in that all that. I’m guessing the first one, but I think it’s reasonable all things considered to expect all parties to either be explicit or be in the second one.

             Any links on positions? I can put it up as a post.
             • gsays …

               27 February 2017 at 8:37 pm

               hi weka,
               the hone with national seems absolutely unthinkable, however…

               the idea of a maori voice/party in parliament may not naturally fall into a tory/socialist framework.
               listening to interviews late last week and weekend this notion became apparent.

               perhaps it is better for them to be at the table, regardless of where on the political spectrum the main party comes from.
               • weka …

                 27 February 2017 at 8:57 pm

                 That’s pretty much how I see it gsays. Hard to have that conversation in this Pākehā space though, because anyone who works with National is evil and should be pilloried.

                 I too can’t imagine Harawira supporting a National govt, but if the left wing parties reject him utterly where else is there to go?

                 The Mp seem conservative to me, not necessarily neoliberal but just not radical like HH is. It makes sense to me that they would want to be at the table of whichever side had power.
     • Adrian Thornton 2.1.2

       27 February 2017 at 9:34 am

       Maybe just maybe Corbyn is putting to fear of god into the centrists, both in the party and in the liberal media, and that is why…just maybe, no not maybe, in actual fact he is being attacked relentlessly by all nearly establishment liberal media like The Guardian… (Guardians of the establishment)
       http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html

       These liberal media outlets have to be seen as Trojan horses, infiltrating the progressive movements of the western Left, poisoning and disrupting any shift to the Left at every opportunity.

       Ask your self this…
       When was the last time a western Left wing party has been so popular?
       700,000 paid up members
       Conservative Party had 149,800 members as of 2013, probably to embarrassed to release any more current numbers.

       You would think any thinking progressive would be proud and happy at Labour UK’s numbers, but no, it seems so many people are willing to swallow the bullshit pumped into them by their so called liberal media…it really is a slow moving tragedy for the Left….
       • Andre 2.1.2.1

         27 February 2017 at 9:52 am

         Corbyn may very well be putting fear into centrists. And when centrist voters are fearful, they tend to swing conservative.
       • Wayne 2.1.2.2

         27 February 2017 at 11:17 am

         Well, Corbyn’s Labour may be popular with activist members, but apparently not with the wider swath of voters.

         Act used to have large numbers of enthusiastic activists, but it never translated to votes beyond about 6 or 7 %. I suspect the same applys to the Greens – lots of activist but not looking like it can break out of the 10% zone.

         Membership is only one factor in electoral success.
         • Morrissey 2.1.2.2.1

           27 February 2017 at 11:58 am

           Wayne, your attempt to compare ACT with the British Labour Party is beyond parody. It’s the funniest—even funnier because of its apparent sincerity—thing you’ve written on this site since you made the claim that New Zealand in the 1970s was “too equal.”
           • Wayne 2.1.2.2.1.1

             27 February 2017 at 4:55 pm

             Morrissey,

             I guess you missed the point that enthusiasm and size of the membership is not a guarantee of electoral success.
             • McFlock …

               27 February 2017 at 5:20 pm

               He just saw “Corbyn” and “ACT” in the same comment and became enveloped in a toxic cloud of smug…
               • Morrissey …

                 27 February 2017 at 7:19 pm

                 Could you define what you mean by the word “smug”? There’s a good angry and bitter fellow.
                 • McFlock …

                   27 February 2017 at 8:48 pm

                   Look it up in the dictionary. Your gravatar is the illustration.
         • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.1.2.2.2

           27 February 2017 at 6:30 pm

           I’d say that ACT is content with being a party of influence.
       • Psycho Milt 2.1.2.3

         27 February 2017 at 12:42 pm

         …in actual fact he is being attacked relentlessly by all nearly establishment liberal media like The Guardian…

         Well, yes, but that’s a given, which is why Labour parties are ill-advised to make their most left-wing people the leader. If it’s a choice between getting into government or comforting yourself with the thought that your guy would have won if only the media weren’t so unfair, I’ll take “getting into government” every time.
         • Bill 2.1.2.3.1

           27 February 2017 at 1:16 pm

           The bit you’re missing is that a political party can have all of the media (TV and newspaper) railing against them and yet go on to form a government. The trick is in effortlessly representing the wishes and will of people.

           Professional politicians (unsurprisingly) struggle to do that and so opt for getting on-side with media in the belief that all hopes and aspirations are shaped by them (the media) resulting in a kind of election by third party interference – get the media to endorse your programme and to hell with the people who might vote.

           They’ll mostly vote anyway and if they’ve nothing of substance to go for, then they’ll likely go for the medias ‘flavour of the month’.

           It’s lazy and in some respect much worse than corrupt insofar as corruption might be said to be up front and ‘honest’.

           edit – should maybe just note that the party in question sent a decidedly centrist Labour Party to the political scrapheap in the process (currently 15% in the polls)
         • Adrian Thornton 2.1.2.3.2

           27 February 2017 at 5:15 pm

           I wouldn’t describe the leader of the main opposition party being attacked by liberal media a as given.
           Normalizing the neoliberal establishments unethical distortion of the news though our own traditional news vehicles is not normal practice, and certainly not a given.

           Man you guys seriously fold at the first sign of a fight don’t you, haven’t you heard of sticking to your principles, or are they all negotiable for a taste of power?
           • Psycho Milt 2.1.2.3.2.1

             27 February 2017 at 9:23 pm

             Sticking to your principles at all costs is a luxury for people with little at stake. I share more of Corbyn’s principles than I have any other Labour leader of the last few decades, UK or NZ, and I’d love to see a government running on those principles. Problem is though, those principles aren’t mainstream ones. We’re a minority, and a small one at that. A party on 40% of the vote that adopts those principles can only be assumed to have an ambition of being a party on 10 or 15% of the vote.

             When I was a kid I loved the Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks, the Stranglers and the Clash – they were all way better than any of the other music being made at the time, but funnily enough the overwhelming majority of the population kept buying the shite music that they always do and the mainstream press agitated to have the good music banned. Corbyn’s a political equivalent of the Sex Pistols – we might think he’s great, but the mainstream is not going to buy the product.
             • Adrian Thornton …

               28 February 2017 at 9:29 am

               Yes well you may be half right, but what music from the mid to late seventies shaped the future and direction of all music in a way none had since the original British invasion sound of the early sixties?…Punk, why, because of it’s unquestioned authenticity and power.
               And what happened to a majority of the shit music that was being brought back then…nothing, crumbled and fallen from the annuals of history…why?..because that music , much like the economics of neoliberalism lacks human authenticity.

               Our principles is ALL we have got, and especially while we are the underdogs fighting this destructive power base hiding in full view at the so called centre politics…this is time when we show, by our own example, to the people around us, family, friends, work mates etc,that our principles are worth fighting for. even in the face of defeat…if not us then who?
           • Andre 2.1.2.3.2.2

             28 February 2017 at 5:30 am

             There’s a time for sticking to your principles and agitating – before policies and candidates are chosen, long before the next general election. UK Labour members have done that with Corbyn, and good on them for that. But it really doesn’t look like it is going to bring them to electoral success, unlike SNP in Scotland.

             Meanwhile in New Zealand, our next general election is soon. Do you want to change the government and get a little bit of movement towards policies that matter to you, or are you OK with the current lot returning to power and further trashing things that matter because sticking to principles is more important?
         • Morrissey 2.1.2.3.3

           27 February 2017 at 8:19 pm

           Corbyn supports traditional Labour policy, which most people in the United Kingdom also support. You know: decent public education, the best health system in the world with the possible exception of Cuba’s, decent wages, and no nuclear weapons.

           That’s “left wing” is it?

           I guess you think this patricidal fool is a hero rather than a chickenhawk?….

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj26SJAJhBY
           • Psycho Milt 2.1.2.3.3.1

             27 February 2017 at 9:26 pm

             Corbyn supports traditional Labour policy, which most people in the United Kingdom also support.

             Oh, well, that’s game over for the Tories then, innit? Corbyn can just stroll along to victory, bolstered by the polls showing massive popular support for his traditional Labour policy. What are you all complaining about?
     • Morrissey 2.1.3

       27 February 2017 at 9:36 am

       You keep calling the right wing, pro-nuclear, pro-Israel, pro-war, anti-worker, Blairite rump “the more moderate Labour”. Why?
       • Andre 2.1.3.1

         27 February 2017 at 9:48 am

         Because they’re a lot closer to the big fat hump in the middle of the bell curve of the range of voter opinions, where they’ve got a chance of attracting votes from people that might vote Labour in some circumstances or Conservative in others.
         • Morrissey 2.1.3.1.1

           27 February 2017 at 9:56 am

           Actually they are not. They are precisely on the big fat hump of the middle of the bell curve of the right wing press. The population of the United Kingdom does not want the destruction or downgrading or dismantling of its schools, its health system and its public transport systems. It is Jeremy Corbyn that voices those popular values.
         • Adrian Thornton 2.1.3.1.2

           27 February 2017 at 5:26 pm

           The real conservatives in this country now are the traditional Labour Socialists.
           A fair and equal society that protects and encourages all citizens.
           People.
           Family.
           Community.
           Environment.
           Country.
           Socialism.

           The fact is, Left wing Socialists are the new progressive conservatives.
   • Jo Bond 2.2

     27 February 2017 at 8:33 am

     My sympathy that your name is now associated with that kind of thing.
     • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 2.2.1

       27 February 2017 at 2:13 pm

       I presume you mean my name – I had it long before that f/w made it taste sour. Anyway, there are far worse crosses to bear – I have a house and a comfortable income, and food on the table. Many in this country are not so fortunate!

       Change the government!
       • Morrissey 2.2.1.1

         27 February 2017 at 7:21 pm

         And change the personnel at Radio Sport! Not just your namesake, but the whole damn lot of them, with the possible exception of Darcy Waldegrave.
   • Bearded Git 2.3

     27 February 2017 at 9:49 am

     Epic
3. Pete George 3

   27 February 2017 at 7:25 am

   The Greens seem to have hit a support ceiling, failing to increase their vote from the 2011 to the 2014 election. Polls suggest not much has changed since – a leadership change from Russel Norman to James Shaw doesn’t seem to have helped.

   Simon Wilson at The Spinoff: https://www.change.org/p/hon-amy-adams-minister-of-broadcasting-increase-funding-for-radio-new-zealand-in-this-year-s-budget

   Labour won 77 per cent of the vote; the Greens trailed with 11 per cent. Why did Labour do so well? They had many more people on the ground; the seat was theirs anyway; National and Act stayed away; the Greens don’t do well in by-elections because they’re a list party; and despite recent controversies centre-left voters wanted to signal confidence in Labour. And most of all, everyone likes Jacinda. Sure. But what it all boils down to is this:

   Labour sucked up all the oxygen and the Greens were left gasping for breath.

   http://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-02-2017/the-greens-mediocre-mt-albert-result-reveals-the-hill-they-have-to-climb-in-2017/

   Greens chose to give Labour oxygen. Genter said she campaigned to show their policies were mostly the same and she was mostly the same as Ardern.

   Greens need Labour to increase their party vote, but if they do too much to help they risk losing votes for themselves.

   The Mt Albert by-election was used to show how well Labour and Greens (actually Ardern and Genter, which is quite different) could work together.

   But if Greens want to hold ground or increase their vote they will need to give people a reason to vote for them over Labour. Promoting votes for Labour candidates and saying they have similar policies is unlikely to do that.
   • Sabine 3.1

     27 February 2017 at 7:31 am

     your concern is noted.
     • Pete George 3.1.1

       27 February 2017 at 7:43 am

       I’m not concerned. I think it’s interesting to see how this is playing out.

       Will Labour and Greens stick with this togetherness strategy right through to the election? Or if it continues to look like it isn’t working will either or both party switch to a more selfish approach?
       • Sabine 3.1.1.1

         27 February 2017 at 8:56 am

         hahahahahah

         don’t worry about the Greens and the Labour party.

         They are doing fine. Winning by elections and such. National on the other hand?

         blowing up budgets, can’t see the homeless cause it would infringe on their world view, like shit in rivers and in lakes – of course not where you live :), bleeding MP’s like someone gutted a pig.

         I would suggest you go and raise your concerns with the National Party about their issue re credibility, accountability and acceptable cowshit levels.
       • Ovid 3.1.1.2

         27 February 2017 at 1:37 pm

         It’s interesting how Mt Albert is being spun. Had Ardern lost to Genter, it would have been “Labour in Crisis after shock defeat”.

         Had she won in a squeaker, it would have been “[Labour] will immediately be in trouble. This poll is not just a measure of the value of Jacinda Ardern – it’s a checkpoint for the leadership of Andrew Little.” – Simon Wilson 24 Feb.

         But Ardern romps home handily and now it’s (to paraphrase) “Labour is ignoring Ardern’s wider appeal and they’re eating the Greens’ lunch”.

         It’s never pleasing you righties, is it?
         • lprent 3.1.1.2.1

           27 February 2017 at 1:50 pm

           What it really shows is that uncontested by elections tend not get as many votes. Although 12k is respectable. There have been a number of contested byelections lower than that in nz in recent decades.

           Uncontested byelections will favour the incumbent party. It might have something to do with having the organisation on the ground and the contacts.

           I suspect that the lowish green electorate vote isn’the out of line with their previous electorate vote.

           The real loser other of this is that National failed to contest the election. That will be fun to exploit in the general election.
           • DoublePlusGood 3.1.1.2.1.1

             27 February 2017 at 4:35 pm

             The previous green electorate vote was around 8000 (Labour 12,000, National 14,000), but they only got 1300 votes for Genter vs. ~3000 for the previous election’s candidate.
             So Genter didn’t do so well.
             National really lost because they failed to do the most destructive thing they could have: give a wink wink nudge nudge to their voters to vote for the TOP candidate.
             • weka …

               27 February 2017 at 5:44 pm

               “The previous green electorate vote was around 8000 (Labour 12,000, National 14,000), but they only got 1300 votes for Genter vs. ~3000 for the previous election’s candidate.”

               Which election are you referring to?

               8,000 was the Green party vote in Mt Albert in the 2014 GE (Labour 11,000, Nat 14,300*). The Green candidate vote was 3,152. But that doesn’t take into account turnout. Better to look at %.

               Genter got 11.5% of the candidate vote in Mt Albert this time. In the 2014 GE, the Green candidate got 8.5% of the candidate vote.

               But again, the comparisons aren’t that straight forward. National was standing then for instance. TOP wasn’t (they got 4.5% of the vote this time).

               The Green party vote in Mt Albert in 2014 was 21%. Let’s see what they get this time I think.

               http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-27.html

               *weird mix that when you look at the party vote across parties compared to the electorate vote. But I seem to remember this happened a bit, high Labour candidate votes but lower party votes.
               • DoublePlusGood …

                 27 February 2017 at 6:26 pm

                 I was fairly close for off the top of my head! The errors are regretted, I still have full confidence in all my ministers, etc.

                 High Labour vote in electorates in the GE is from two reasons I think:
                 1) Green and NZF voters voting for the Labour candidate because their party’s candidate is unlikely to get there and could let a Nat candidate through if they split their vote
                 2) Incumbency/name recognition. In Hutt South, for instance, Trevor Mallard got 6,000 votes more than Labour got party votes, which can’t be all from the other left parties. He basically got some right wing voters voting for him (at least 2,000) because he’s been in parliament for four thousand years.
                 • weka …

                   27 February 2017 at 7:25 pm

                   I think the criticism last time was around Labour MPs not being that good on getting the party vote, and being more focussed on the seat.
   • Psycho Milt 3.2

     27 February 2017 at 7:47 am

     You may be confused, Pete. There isn’t any party vote in a by-election.

     No-one can stop you or Simon Wilson trying to use an electorate vote as a proxy for party vote, but we can recognise how stupid it is.
     • Pete George 3.2.1

       27 February 2017 at 8:10 am

       You’re showing your stupidity.

       Of course there’s no party vote in a by-election, but this campaign was all about positioning for the general election for the Greens, where party vote is crucial for them.

       If Genter and the Greens had got a much better electorate vote in the by-election it is likely to have helped their campaign for party votes.

       Many voters will have seen their Mt Albert capaign as ‘vote for Labour’.
       • Sabine 3.2.1.1

         27 February 2017 at 8:37 am

         wow, you need a snickers. You come across as mean. And so early in the morning already.

         btw, do you think that with the current rate of National Party MPs resigning they will have enough to actually run next years? Seriously, i am very concerned about their ability to actually find living bodies wanting to stand for the good of the country.
       • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.2

         27 February 2017 at 8:37 am

         The Mount Albert by-election was about positioning for the general election?
         National are screwed then.
         • Sabine 3.2.1.2.1

           27 February 2017 at 8:57 am

           as i said, by the rate National MP’s are resigning they will be forced to not stand anyone cause they run out of warm bodies.

           🙂
           • marty mars 3.2.1.2.1.1

             27 February 2017 at 12:56 pm

             Yep the gnats are in disarray – I even felt a bit sorry for dim bill having to pull smirky key back into the media to help him – what a failure. I don’t think Bill will get to the election – notice how quiet bennett and collins have been – plans are afoot imo.
       • Bearded Git 3.2.1.3

         27 February 2017 at 9:54 am

         My guess is that the Nats new Dirty Rivers policy has added 2 per cent to the Green’s vote at a stroke.
       • Psycho Milt 3.2.1.4

         27 February 2017 at 12:50 pm

         Of course there’s no party vote in a by-election, but this campaign was all about positioning for the general election for the Greens…

         What does that even mean? Nobody outside Mt Albert was paying any attention to the campaign. The “positioning for the general election” consisted of getting some news coverage, which they did. Julie-Ann Genter didn’t go round the electorate telling people “Vote for me because we want to use my vote share as an indicator of the Green Party’s likely party vote share in the general election.”
   • Muttonbird 3.3

     27 February 2017 at 12:23 pm

     That’s the second time I’ve read that ACT not running in Mt Albert had an effect on the result.

     Act is a sub 1% party, heavily brain damaged, and reliant on life support from the long standing National Party dirty electorate deal. An ACT candidate would have trailed Penny Bright and struggled to crack triple figures.
4. Poission 4

   27 February 2017 at 7:43 am

   Should we be paying large fees (and salaries) to so called professional fund managers.

   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-25/buffett-says-100-billion-has-been-wasted-on-investment-fees

   Or should we be paying them bananas.

   https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/12/20/any-monkey-can-beat-the-market/#1663f8a6630a
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     27 February 2017 at 10:23 am

     Should we be paying large fees (and salaries) to so called professional fund managers.

     Nope. They should be on minimum wage as the research has shown that flipping a coin is a more effective way of managing your money.

     That will let them know just how worthless their job is as well as teach them what it’s like at the bottom.
     • greywarshark 4.1.1

       27 February 2017 at 11:42 am

       Talking about clever monkeys and what they eat, if anyone has some spare money to give a donation or set up a permanent payment, help the orang-utans. A guy who has worked with them says they are as sensitive and intelligent as us and don’t have the aggression, and cruelty that seem to arise in us. Leif Cocks suggests they should be classified as persons under threat of genocide.

       Great on Radionz
       Leif Cocks: Saving Orangutans
       From Nine To Noon, 10:14 am today 27/2
       Listen duration 30′ :02″ Add to playlist
       http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201834717

       Australian primatologist and zoologist Leif Cocks about his life-long work with orangutans. Leif is the founder and president of the international charity The Orangutan Project. He’s spent three decades campaigning on behalf of orangutans, and is working in particular to save the Sumatran orangutan.
   • The Chairman 4.2

     27 February 2017 at 12:02 pm

     KiwiSaver fees are ‘The largest household expense you’ve never heard of’
     http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/82559050/kiwisaver-fees-are-the-largest-household-expense-youve-never-heard-of

     Which reminds me, does anybody know if Labour have taken compulsory KiwiSaver off the table?
     • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1

       27 February 2017 at 1:22 pm

       I just wish that people would realise that money doesn’t pay for anything and that when it comes to retirement the nation needs to have enough productivity to support those who retire as well as the people working.
       • The Chairman 4.2.1.1

         27 February 2017 at 3:12 pm

         “I just wish that people would realise that money doesn’t pay for anything…” 

         Yet, we are discussing how much money (fees) should we be paying fund managers and whether or not their service is overvalued.

         KiwiSaver creator Michael Cullen says it’s time KiwiSaver fees fell
         http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/89636109/kiwisaver-creator-michael-cullen-says-its-time-kiwisaver-fees-fell
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.3

     27 February 2017 at 3:46 pm

     Another example of how real private wealth is usually made by ruthlessly exploiting your fellow humans, rather than the myth of riches rewarding hard work and creativity etc.
5. Ad 5

   27 February 2017 at 8:24 am

   Could someone please give an update on how the Riverton Environmental Centre fundraising is doing?
   • Robert Guyton 5.1

     27 February 2017 at 8:56 am

     We got there, Ad! Or rather, generous people from all over got us there with their pledges and donations; we’ve bought the building and couldn’t be happier with the support we received from so many people, many of whom we’ve not yet met. Our pledge Me campaign reached its target a couple of days before it closed, though people continued to contribute, and behind the scene-donations, many of them of a size that made my eyes water, got us up to the amount we needed for the purchase ($73, 000). There were contributions too from overseas: Japan, Canada, Scotland, France, from people who had visited the Centre as they traveled in NZ. All in all it was a heart-warming experience, though one that wasn’t without some anxiousness and lying awake at night, “considering” (not me, Robyn – I sleep embarrassingly well)
     Long answer, I know, Ad, but we’re buoyant just now and feel surrounded with support – thanks to the TS people who gave to our campaign; I recognised several from here.
     • Ad 5.1.1

       27 February 2017 at 9:23 am

       Awesome Robert and great to hear.
     • weka 5.1.2

       27 February 2017 at 12:28 pm

       Excellent!! Well done you lot down there.
6. Adrian Thornton 6

   27 February 2017 at 9:04 am

   Letter to RNZ this morning….

   Good morning.

   I am sure, given that you are all journalists there at RNZ, you must aware that Brent Budowsky was outed in no uncertain terms by Wikileaks, as being an insider for the DNC and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US primaries and presidential elections.

   http://www.mediaite.com/online/columnist-emailed-podesta-about-whether-his-column-would-give-you-a-problem/

   https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786798072722358273?lang=en

   https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

   My question to you is why, in light of his obvious personal and political bias, you would choose to have him of all people on RNZ to comment on Trump and the press?

   Could you please clarify for your listeners, your reasoning behind this decision.

   If he is to be used in future, please insert a disclaimer in your introduction of him as a simple courtesy to your listeners.

   Looking forward to your reply.

   Best
   Adrian Thornton
   • Morrissey 6.1

     27 February 2017 at 9:30 am

     Well done Adrian. I have thought exactly the same thing every time I’ve heard Budowsky wittering on. I also feel the same irritation every time Simon Marks comes on.

     By the way, I happened to hear the “BBC World News” at 8 o’clock this morning; first item was a report of a protest march in Moscow to mark the second anniversary of the Boris Nemtsov assassination. There was a crowd estimated variously between 5,000 and 15,000.

     Interestingly, when Britons march—in far bigger numbers than gathered in Moscow yesteday—against THEIR government, the BBC often ignores them….
     https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/28sbun/why_arent_the_bbc_reporting_a_massive_protest_in/
     • garibaldi 6.1.1

       27 February 2017 at 1:57 pm

       Good on you Adrian. Should have asked them to dump Mora’s dopey panel too. It’s way past its use by date!
7. Ethica 7

   27 February 2017 at 9:05 am

   Wellington Central-based National MP Paul Foster-Bell has been pushed out. He has been subject to a nasty internal Nat campaign for a couple of years and now they’ve won. Where is the examination of the detail of these nasty internal Nat politics? Was it because he dared to come out as gay? Media and blogs obsess about Labour and Greens instead.
   • tc 7.1

     27 February 2017 at 9:41 am

     Money talks in national he will be well looked after with a sinecure or 3 to keep his mouth shut.
   • mary_a 7.2

     27 February 2017 at 12:34 pm

     @Ethica (7) and it’s interesting to note Paul Foster Bell will be replaced by a former John Key adviser (?) Willis, who also has his support.

     So it seems the murky shyster currency trader is still doing the dirty deeds in the dark background as usual! Keeping Natziratzi on track obviously!
     • Red 7.2.1

       27 February 2017 at 12:47 pm

       KDS is strong in this one
   • michelle 7.3

     27 February 2017 at 3:20 pm

     why isn’t the media onto this issue its because they are too busy bagging the left
     when the gnats are at it themselves
     • Red 7.3.1

       27 February 2017 at 9:55 pm

       Uh maybe because there is no story, he’s leaving and unlike labour Nat MPs have careers outside of parliament, where for most labour MPs the salary and job is the gig of thier life, I mean Annette king can’t go back to been a dental nurse assistant, hence they will have to carry her out
       • bwaghorn 7.3.1.1

         27 February 2017 at 10:16 pm

         can’t see big jerry teaching woodwork again and i pity the fullas that have to carry him out
8. Morrissey 8

   27 February 2017 at 10:05 am

   Trump’s first run for the presidency, in 1980

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfuN9HRDVZY
9. UncookedSelachimorpha 9

   27 February 2017 at 10:21 am

   Well done this family for making this public.

   An appalling coverup by CYF after a toddler was murdered and CYF had failed dreadfully:

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325390/cyf-admits-failures-over-toddler's-death-to-family
10. joe90 10

    27 February 2017 at 10:58 am

    So there is a problem with migrants and crime in Germany, but it isn’t the problem we hear about.

    .
    Nearly 10 attacks were made on migrants in Germany every day in 2016, the interior ministry says.

    A total of 560 people were injured in the violence, including 43 children.

    Three-quarters of the attacks targeted migrants outside of their accommodation, while nearly 1,000 attacks were on housing.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39096833
11. Morrissey 11

    27 February 2017 at 12:18 pm

    One thing we can be sure of about today’s Academy Awards ceremony

    Nobody will make a speech as spineless as this….

    http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092543/edward-snowden-neil-patrick-harris

    or as ignorant as this…

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kevin-spacey-defends-venezuela-protests-694743

    or as naïve and stupid as this one…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0SKTX4f_vo
12. joe90 12

    27 February 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Of course previous cults of personality have been raging successes.

    To spend three days at this year’s CPAC, the annual right-wing carnival of politics and culture, was to witness an ideology conforming to an individual rather than the other way around.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/the-conservative-movement-is-donald-trump-214828
13. McFlock 13

    27 February 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Wow. So apparently the good side of state housing mismanagement is that the people you put up in motels get counted as “domestic tourists” rather than “homeless”.

    That’s some mighty interesting stat keeping – probably because before this government, any numbers being put up in motels by WINZ were statistically tiny.

    edit: lol argh shit missed half a post on just that, sigh.
14. weka 14

    27 February 2017 at 3:26 pm

    Zeynep Tufekci Retweeted Teen Vogue

    Teen Vogue does the Oscars, heh.

    Teen VogueVerified account@TeenVogue

    an #Oscars red carpet break to remind you that President Trump is still telling lies: http://tnvge.co/tm7hLGU

    http://www.teenvogue.com/story/we-fact-checked-all-lies-donald-trumps-administration-told-week?mbid=social_twitter
15. marty mars 15

    27 February 2017 at 5:07 pm

    “But first, to the leaks about stopping leaks from the Trump White House.

    Fearless in the face of what some have described as expletive-laden attacks on them by press secretary Sean Spicer, White House staffers dutifully lined up to give Politico magazine unattributed​ accounts of Spicer’s latest crackdown.

    Having consulted White House Counsel Don McGahn and accompanied by another lawyer, Spicer reportedly summoned a dozen of his communications staff to an “emergency” meeting late last week, at which they were ordered to surrender mobile phones and other devices, private and government-issued, for a “phone check” that might reveal who was leaking.

    After warning them that the use of encrypted apps, some of which delete a text after it has been sent, was a violation of the Presidential Records Act, Spicer sent the staffers packing – with a final warning that accounts of the meeting were not to be leaked.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89848281/paranoia-at-the-white-house-as-crackdown-on-leaks-begins

    LOL that’ll stop the leaks spicer you dingbat
    • weka 15.1

      27 February 2017 at 5:22 pm

      lol. Burner phones.

      I shouldn’t laugh though. It still all reads like the bit in a dystopian novel just before people start getting hauled off to jail. You know the bit where the people in charge can’t handle the disobedience or being laughed at.
16. The Chairman 16

    27 February 2017 at 5:17 pm

    Labour are offering a $20,000 one-off start-up grant backing young entrepreneurs.

    http://www.labour.org.nz/yep

    If the ventures of these young entrepreneurs go on to be successful, should Labour be seeking a percentage of the return (and a percentage of the sale if the venture is later sold)? Which could be recycled back into the scheme.

    Should Labour also stipulate a living wage be paid to employees of the recipients of the grant?
    • weka 16.1

      27 February 2017 at 5:24 pm

      yes to the last one. No to the payback if they end up paying a living wage.
    • McFlock 16.2

      27 February 2017 at 5:30 pm

      yes to living wage.

      The return for society on a grant is a going concern that employs people. I’m not too bothered either way if Labour wants to stipulate more than that.
17. Pete George 17

    27 February 2017 at 8:44 pm

    Negligible changes in the February Roy Morgan poll.

    – National 48% (up from 46)
    – Labour 26% (down from 27)
    – Greens 13% (up from 12.5)
    – NZ First 8% (down from 9)
    – Maori Party 2% (no change)
    – ACT Party 1% (up from o.5)
    – United Future 0% (down from 0.5)
    – Conservative Party 0% (down from 0.5)
    – Internet Party 0% (no change)
    – Independent/Other 2% (no change)

    Labour + Greens are 39% compared to National’s 48%.

    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7149-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-2017-201702271519
    • mlpc 17.1

      27 February 2017 at 9:29 pm

      Not much change from a year ago.
      Nats pretty much unchanged.
      Lab + Green down a bit.
      Winston First up a bit.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS