Open mike 27/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:33 am, April 27th, 2014 - 264 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike 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 …

264 comments on “Open mike 27/04/2014”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    27 April 2014 at 6:56 am

    Bernard Hickey supports Colombo’s claim – kind of. And is against bank bail outs.

    But the concerns about Auckland’s houses being overvalued and New Zealand households having too much debt are valid, as is the risk that a slump might affect our banks.

    Colombo’s assumptions about what would happen if house prices did fall were off the mark, but the reasons are not reassuring.

    Essentially, New Zealand’s housing market and banking systems are unlikely to crash because they are “too big to fail”. Even if they were to fall, the authorities are unlikely to let them.

    This is shown by the bank bailouts in 2008 & 9 when the property market was in danger of crashing.

    But next time, it may be the lack of guarantees on bank deposits that results in savers taking a big hit, to protect the banks.

    But it does raise the bigger issue of what happens next time our economy receives a 2008-style shock. Currently, our banks are not guaranteed by the Government and the Reserve Bank has set up a system known as Open Bank Resolution — if a bank is in trouble, the Reserve Bank can shut it down and force an overnight recapitalisation that would see term-depositers receive a haircut by having their deposits written down, and the bank can open again the next day.

    This is not something everyone is told when they deposit their money in a bank.

    It is a fig leaf because no New Zealand Prime Minister with borrowing capacity would allow term-depositers to take that pain. They would bail out the bank in the same way the Irish, British and American Governments did.

    • RedLogix 1.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:42 am

      That’s pretty much my take as well.

      The two points that Colombo missed are that traditionally the Aus/NZ banks have been willing to tolerate negative equity mortgages as long as the debt was being serviced. Unlike American banks they do not bundle up (securitise) and on-sell their mortgages and for this reason have far more skin in the game. This means the banks here, while they will act against the outlier defaulters – will in general look to protect their customer base.

      Secondly bankruptcy law here means that if you do default on a mortgage you cannot walk away as is common in other countries. Here in NZ if you default you will still be left with any residual debt if the bank does not recoup all of it’s losses and costs via a mortgagee sale. This is a big disincentive not to default.

      As a result when the property market turns bear, it is the volume of sales that drops, not prices.

      Having said all that, there are two wild-card factors to consider:

      In 2009 there was a six month period when around 90% of all new mortgages in NZ where actually written by Kiwibank. The big Aussies had simply stopped all new lending and without KiwiBank our property market would have gone through a very dramatic shutdown.

      The other big change is the increasing portion of our housing stock now owned by overseas investors. How they might react to a bad bear market is completely unknown.

      • alwyn 1.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:45 am

        Do you have a reference for the statement about Kiwibank providing 90% of new mortgages in six months of 2009?
        I wasn’t aware that it reached anything like that number and I would like to have a look at it.

        • RedLogix 1.1.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:07 pm

          Fair point. I’m going by memory. It may not be as high as 90% – but it was a startlingly high number.

          It wasn’t that Kiwibank wrote a vast number of mortgages, but that for a short period the others simply stopped.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2
        27 April 2014 at 12:08 pm

        Secondly bankruptcy law here means that if you do default on a mortgage you cannot walk away as is common in other countries. Here in NZ if you default you will still be left with any residual debt if the bank does not recoup all of it’s losses and costs via a mortgagee sale. This is a big disincentive not to default.

        Which needs to be changed as well. We legally need to recognise and accept the risk that goes with loaning money to people and banks and not protect those that take those risks.

        • blue leopard 1.1.2.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:20 pm

          Yes, was just reading an article about that point you make there DTB,

          How Neoliberalism takes a hypocritical stance.

          They give markets and market theory the highest priority and position it so it is pivotal to the system, yet they do not accept ”market discipline. They do this by allowing those loaning money (digits) to get bailed out – this removes the risk from those loaning money and places it on the borrowers and takes out market discipline from the equation. Ergo they have taken out the very thing that ‘balances’ the market. They don’t even follow their own theories when push comes to shove.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 12:26 pm

            That’s because the politicians are more concerned with saving the wealthy from the risks that they take and the reason for that seems to be because a) the wealthy rule and b) the politicians are also wealthy. It’s in the rhetoric that we need the wealthy to pay for things but, of course, the wealthy never pay for anything – it’s how they get rich.

            • blue leopard 1.1.2.1.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 12:28 pm

              +1

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.1.2
              27 April 2014 at 8:09 pm

              and the reason for that seems to be because a) the wealthy rule and b) the politicians are also wealthy.

              Also, politicians know that they all have inherently insecure jobs, but they get a taste of the lifestyle and would like somewhere nice to go to after leaving Parliament to keep up that lifestyle.

    • Clemgeopin 1.2
      27 April 2014 at 11:39 am

      How Iceland dealt with their failing Banks : Watch Iceland President’s video below

      http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/iceland-heres-how-you-deal-with-a-bank-crisis/

    • Draco T Bastard 1.3
      27 April 2014 at 12:04 pm

      It is a fig leaf because no New Zealand Prime Minister with borrowing capacity would allow term-depositers to take that pain.

      Which would be the wrong thing to do. Essentially, what a government guarantee of bank deposits does is allow a few people to get an income from neither working nor taking any risk. Can’t call these people anything but bludgers.

      Of course, I happen to think that people getting interest happen to be bludgers anyway. Having money should not entitle you to an income from others work.

      • RedLogix 1.3.1
        27 April 2014 at 12:12 pm

        While there is the Islamic (and traditional Christian) prohibition on interest, I’m not so sure it would work in the modern world where virtually all money is credit.

        Personally I’d prefer a self-imposed limit on interest rates in the 1-3% range (depending on the risk) and a cap on table mortgage terms of 20 years.

        That would be a more moderate and workable compromise.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:28 pm

          While there is the Islamic (and traditional Christian) prohibition on interest, I’m not so sure it would work in the modern world where virtually all money is credit.

          Well, the answer there is to stop money being created through credit.

          That would be a more moderate and workable compromise.

          No, it wouldn’t because after awhile institutions and people would be going well beyond it.

      • karol 1.3.2
        27 April 2014 at 9:05 pm

        “Bludgers” using term deposits? really? Well then I am one of those bludgers. But where else can I put my savings? I don’t own property. I need to keep my savings somewhere. So what am I meant to do? Put it under my mattress? My term deposit hardly earns me a vast income. I don’t put the money there so it will gain me extra income – just somewhere to keep it til I need it. It is the least speculative place to put the money. It generally doesn’t grow in value the way a lot of property does.

        That money is to go to my full retirement as I will be continuing to rent.

        • Murray Olsen 1.3.2.1
          27 April 2014 at 9:20 pm

          I’d be a bludger too in that case, karol. I’ve basically rented all my life, apart from a few years helping pay off a mortgage that was retrospectively defined as rent. I get interest on what I’ve got saved, but hardly more than the rate of inflation. I’m hoping to buy a dwelling of some sort once I retire, but what are my other options for looking after the money I’ve saved? The interest is certainly not enough to live on.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.2.2
          28 April 2014 at 12:55 pm

          “Bludgers” using term deposits?

          Yes. Anyone with income from either interest or shares is getting money from others work rather than their own. Can’t think of anything more accurately described as bludging.

          It is the least speculative place to put the money.

          Kiwibank has a 0% interest on call account that’s government guaranteed. It will, of course, lose value to inflation. I’m also not suggesting that you use it – present conditions dictate that you need to use the term deposits.

          You’ll note that over the last year or two I’ve been suggesting policies that make having any sort of accumulated money worthless. I’m not backing away from that just because someone I have some respect for is upset about it.

  2. Hamish 2
    27 April 2014 at 8:51 am

    God I’m sick of these lying arseholes making up shit about the Labour party. Here’s one example from fucktard Tamihere:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9981934/Labour-reels-in-Jones-wake

    Former Labour MP John Tamihere said Jones represented a Labour constituency that was increasingly being sidelined as interest groups gained greater control.

    “The real debate isn’t about Shane Jones, it’s about certain sector groups in Labour having far too much say in advance, well in advance of their constituencies in the street.”

    The party was becoming dominated by “liberal academic elites” more focused on social engineering issues such as the so-called anti-smacking law than issues such as creating jobs which had a broader voter appeal, he said.

    What a load of unadulterated crap. What is happening is that actual leftwing people are starting to establish themselves within the party, ie McCarten, and, quite rightly, they’ve got no time for people who aren’t actually committed to leftwing policies.

    Eventually the electorate will swing away from National and the reason they will is because they will be sick of being shat on by right wing policies.
    When that inevitably happens there will be a strongly leftwing opposition ready and waiting to tear their putrid policies for the privileged to shreds.

    • Ennui 2.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:47 am

      Makes me sick too. It would seem that a good thing to come out of the Cunliffe leadership is that the rats are leaving the ship. Shane “Hand Shandy- Blue Movie” Jones was damaged goods with an ego and expectation level way out of proportion. Pagani, ditto. Tamihere actually does things for his community, but why he should weigh in about sector groups is rather strange. Surely the sector groups issue was dealt to by the recent leadership election.

      • Hamish 2.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:18 am

        but why he should weigh in about sector groups is rather strange.

        Because Tamihere’s ego still can’t handle that Labour rejected him. It’s fucking pathetic.

        • Ennui 2.1.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:24 pm

          Probably true, he has been out for such a long time now that I am surprised he thinks he still matters.

      • greywarbler 2.1.2
        28 April 2014 at 12:40 pm

        Tamihere likes to talk. So we have the Tamihere and Willie Jackson song and dance team coming out with good and pathetic things as well. It’s mainlytop-of-the-head talk and makes for scintillating chats, but the sound and fury is the main thing, rather than thoughtful critique supporting a Party that is struggling towards its left wing roots, to have some substance.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 2.2
      27 April 2014 at 11:25 am

      I’ve seen suggestions on Twitter that it would be lovely if the Jones/Tamihere/Trotter/Pagani brigade were to set up their own party – put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. If there’s such a large faction of left-leaning blue-collar blokes just crying out for representation which speaks to them and only to them, surely they’ll have no trouble getting over the 5% line.

      • Hamish 2.2.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:39 am

        Hey! Now that’s a good idea! Let’s see how many votes their bullshit can really get.

      • blue leopard 2.2.2
        27 April 2014 at 12:02 pm

        +1 Stephanie Rogers

        …and Snap! (similar sentiments expressed at the end of my comment at 12.4)

      • Ennui 2.2.3
        27 April 2014 at 12:31 pm

        Such a comment displays a degree of tribalism that mirrors what it says….hey why dont we ignore these peoples opinions and send them into a heretics exile…nice one, what a way to attract other people to the Left…come over here and get done over as a form of initiation. (I cant believe I am defending them but hey…we might do better to reflect on our own position).

        PS Why Trotter gets added to Pagani etc is beyond me, every time the “Left” attacks him I sit and laugh because the attackers cant see that he is invariably on the button…or does that just piss off those who cant think and see things as lucidly as him?

        • Anne 2.2.3.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:41 pm

          Some in Labour – including caucus – are in denial over Trotter. He sometimes goes over the top with his intellectual and flowery language but his basic assumptions are often right on the button. He’s definitely not in there with the Paganis and the Tamiheres…

          • blue leopard 2.2.3.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

            I have enjoyed Trotters articles in the past. I appreciate Trotter’s ability to put things in historic context, however perhaps you haven’t read some of his more recent articles on ‘The Daily Blog’? – he seems to be awfully quick to put the boot into Labour in a manner that shows he is prone to being suckered in to right-wing framing of matters.

            What are political commentators for? For spreading propaganda or analysing it? I expect political commentators to be providing informed commentary and insight to the cut and thrust of political propaganda – not swallowing it whole (or half)-heartedly and then spreading it. Recently Chris appears to have been ‘challenged’ in achieving this end in his role of ‘commentator’.

            On the Paul Henry Show, he came on after Cunliffe (and good on Paul Henry for bringing on someone supposedly left). Trotter proceeded to express the view that Jones departure was a great blow to Labour – there was no mention of counterarguments to that view. There are counterarguments to that view – and it is an academic’s role (as I take Trotter to be) to provide this balance. Trotter did not provide an informed view at all.

            I really don’t know what is going on with Trotter just now, but when he has the role of ‘commentator’ and especially ‘left-wing commentator’ and gets on mainstream media only to provide right-wing framing – than there is something very wrong with the equation and I believe a great deal of damage is done to left-wing interests from this occurring.

            • anker 2.2.3.1.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 1:12 pm

              BL +100

            • Anne 2.2.3.1.1.2
              27 April 2014 at 1:14 pm

              That may well be correct blue leopard. I don’t follow much of his media commentary. I was thinking more of his blogsite writings.

            • Mark 2.2.3.1.1.3
              27 April 2014 at 1:15 pm

              Couldn’t agree more.

            • Hamish 2.2.3.1.1.4
              27 April 2014 at 1:34 pm

              I don’t think Trotter is quite the same category as the others but what is going on with Trotter is the same as what as what is going on with Armstrong et al. As I said below (/open-mike-27042014/#comment-804920)

              Trotter will be shut out of the inside of Labour now. Many of his old contacts in Labour will now be worthless because those contacts no longer hold the reins of power within the party.

              That’s why he has been framing the Greens as the rising power and trying to consign Labour to the dustbin of history. It’s sour-grapes. He may not even be consciously aware that he is doing it but it is sour-grapes nonetheless.

              He is also being drowned out. Pre-internet he was one of the few declared leftwing political commentators in the media. Now there are heaps, his once solitary voice is now getting lost amongst a hoard of other leftwing voices and that not only hurts his ego but will hurt his income too.
              And that means he is actually beholden to the MSM because they are his paymaster. The only things he has going for him are those panel appearances on Q+A, the articles that get printed in fairfax newspapers etc. He cant slum it like us and do it for free on the net because he’s got to keep up his comfortable middle class lifestyle.

              What is ironic is that Chris was championing the take-back of Labour by the members but the result is that he has become less and less relevant as the party becomes more democratic.
              Chris’ status has always relied on an authoritarian Labour Party, controlled from caucus, ala Helen. That was why his opinion was valued, because he was an insider to an exclusive club. Now…not so much

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                27 April 2014 at 3:27 pm

                Good to have some reasoning offered, it certainly puzzles me a lot.

              • left for dead …
                27 April 2014 at 3:51 pm

                Trotter has been causing problems for the Left since the eighties,their will be a few out there who’ve seen him in action ,when he was inside Labour party.As been said,he’s on the way out.A cheap commentator for MSM at the moment.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  27 April 2014 at 4:42 pm

                  Trotter has been causing problems for the Left since the eighties

                  Someone needed to. And more should.

                  If at least some on the Left aren’t occasionally challenging and even defying the political establishment – including the establishment Left – then they are simply paying fealty to the system we got pushed on to us in the 80’s. Centre right neoliberalism.

                  • left for dead …
                    27 April 2014 at 5:51 pm

                    very true,but I feel Chris Trotter has failed on that score many times in resent history.Just take a another look at his resent effort on,(your going to make me say it)the (Paul Hendry showoff).thats not balanced.The so-called left have had enough trouble with MSM.So is he a leftwing com……..I leave that open,or just a blogger for the MSM.

                    • Jim Nald …
                      27 April 2014 at 5:55 pm

                      This one?
                      http://www.3news.co.nz/Political-expert-calls-Jones-departure-significant/tabid/1837/articleID/341103/Default.aspx

                      Hmm, Chris Trotter could have done better.

                      Shane Jones – a ‘cathedral’? If that is damning by overinflated praise, that would be much too subtle for many? 🙄

                    • blue leopard …
                      27 April 2014 at 6:16 pm

                      Left for Dead,

                      By ‘causing problems to the left’ I feel certain that you didn’t mean ‘challenging the left’ I feel pretty sure you were relating to the type of problem that I wrote about – that of simply swallowing and propagating right wing spin.

                      My opinion is that CV’s response to you was highly disingenuous and twisted the meaning of what you were saying.

                      I found your comment informative because I hadn’t known Trotter had been swallowing rightwing propaganda and propagating it for as long as he probably has been.

                    • left for dead …
                      27 April 2014 at 6:29 pm

                      blue leopard,yes thank you.

                    • blue leopard …
                      27 April 2014 at 6:38 pm

                      @ Left for Dead,

                      Cheers 🙂

                    • RedLogix …
                      28 April 2014 at 1:15 am

                      This recent Chris Trotter article has me:

                      http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-greens-stand-alone.html

                      I was saying something similar a few years back:

                      In truth I’ve long believed that while Labour is the proud heritage of the left; the Greens are it’s future. Within a generation, maybe even sooner, it could be Labour who is the minor party… unless it is willing to completely reform it’s internal processes.

                      The reason for the Green’s success this election? In two parts; many thought is safe to ‘give the Greens a go’ because this election was a foregone conclusion. But more importantly… look at the quality of the people they have; fresh new generational faces like Holly Walker, Gareth Hughes… inspiring choices like Mojo Mathers. And all of the Green MP’s … when they speak they all make sense… taking as their role model Jeanette Fitzsimmons.

                      Now while the Green party may well have some considerable maturing to do; that’s a process underway nicely thank you. The same cannot be said of Labour; internally it’s struggling with renewal, not so much in a policy sense, but in a people sense. For decades Labour could count on a solid backing of funds, people and moral support from the Unions. The right wing has very successfully diminished that base, and for the same reason they have destroyed the Student Unions as well. (Next stop the Teachers Union as well…)

                      The challenge here is Labour’s. Personally I’ve put my 2c on Camp Cunliffe; because as you say he has the track record, the experience and the communication skills to be a Leader now… not in two elections time. If the caucas cannot see that … then it will be an important failure and one that most certainly hand the initiative firmly to the Greens.

                      But given I happily back both horses I guess I’m not too fussed in the long-term.

                      2c on the leadership

                      Nowhere near as eloquent at Trotter, but on the same page.

          • Paul 2.2.3.1.2
            27 April 2014 at 6:04 pm

            Yes Trotter is totally different to Pagani. She comes across as a self promoter and a careerist.
            No understanding of loyalty to her team…spends more of her time in the company of Talkback hate merchants like Williams.
            If she has problems with the Labour Party, she should be airing them within the movement, not shouting off to any corporate media person, who needs her for the faux left spokesperson for their ‘balanced” debates.
            And if she really does not like the Labour Party, she should leave it, found her own party.

        • blue leopard 2.2.3.2
          27 April 2014 at 12:42 pm

          Ennui,

          Have you considered that the views expressed by Jones and Tamaheri could accurately be considered ‘tribalism’?

          Have you considered how a large party representing peoples’ interests might need to be careful about supporting views that alienate potentially half of the population in order to cater to a smaller percentage?

          Stephanie Rogers comment has merit.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 2.2.3.3
          27 April 2014 at 1:02 pm

          It’s got nothing to do with driving people out – we’re talking about people who are no longer inside Labour. Just like Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland, Tamihere and now Jones have left their party, declared that they have masses of support behind their ideas, but can’t prove it.

          The line that Shane Jones was somehow ‘driven out’ or ‘exiled’ from Labour is just silly. He was number 5 in caucus and given significant portfolios and opportunities to speak on behalf of the party. He was leading the so far very successful, very high profile Countdown story. Yet commenters insist on acting like he received the kind of treatment Cunliffe did at Shearer’s hands. It is simply factually wrong.

          • Anne 2.2.3.3.1
            27 April 2014 at 1:19 pm

            The line that Shane Jones was somehow ‘driven out’ or ‘exiled’ from Labour is just silly.

            Can attest to that. It’s blatant and provable rubbish. All the evidence points to the opposite…

          • Ennui 2.2.3.3.2
            27 April 2014 at 1:42 pm

            Steph, what line about driving Shane Jones into exile? Read again please. Personally I am pleased he took himself, and i think Trotters blog on the reasons he did is very persuasive..

            If you read my comments more carefully (or if I could write more lucidly) what I was alluding to was the propensity of “leftist” bloggers to drive people they dont agree with away in a very “tribal” almost mob orientated manner. The message is that our behavior often mirrors the people we rage at.

            • Ant 2.2.3.3.2.1
              27 April 2014 at 1:49 pm

              You ascribe far too much power to leftist bloggers.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 2.2.3.3.2.2
              27 April 2014 at 2:02 pm

              I don’t need to read anything again, Ennui. Your comment accused me of ‘tribalism’ and wanting to send people into ‘heretics exile’. This aligns with comments others have made about Jones being driven out of the Labour Party – it’s been a common theme of the past week. As I said, in the case of Shane Jones it’s laughable to suggest he was ‘sent into exile’, and in reference to my own comment it’s silly to suggest I was promoting such an option.

              • Ennui …
                27 April 2014 at 2:33 pm

                Steph, we disagree…cool. I have looked at your site, and I cant say I am 100% on your page. Despite that we might have to agree to disagree if we are going to fight the common enemy, which I suppose was the root of my comment about not driving allies away.

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  27 April 2014 at 2:54 pm

                  Your comment accused me of: tribalism; ignoring other people’s opinions; demanding people get ‘done over’; and being ‘pissed off’ because I don’t ‘think and see things’ as lucidly as Chris Trotter.

                  I really dislike people who use the ‘agree to disagree’ card when they’re the one who started throwing around insults.

        • anker 2.2.3.4
          27 April 2014 at 1:21 pm

          Ennui………….who do you think Shane Jones represented? Who is the demographic that he and Tamihere and Pagani are talking about who feel unwanted in the party?

          Is it Maori? Blue collar workers? middle age, middle class, males? Who? Is it pro-mining, anti-gay what?

          What is it that’s so important to them that they feel Labour isn’t doing? Don’t just say Labour isn’t a broad enough church for them, cause that means nothing.

          One thing I think is interesting is Shane got less votes in his electorate (and failed to win the seat off Sharples), than the Labour Party vote.

          • Ennui 2.2.3.4.1
            27 April 2014 at 1:44 pm

            Who knows who Shane Jones represented? Certainly not me. I suspect Trotter is correct that Jones only ever really represented Jones, and that by not accepting that he was “divinely ordained” to lead the Labour Party did poor little Shane wrong.

            • Skinny 2.2.3.4.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 2:02 pm

              I am with you and others Jones was all about himself like ‘a legend in his own mind’
              Think he got a bit of a wake up call reading opinions on this blog site. Hope he is true to his word and stays out of the media.

          • Olwyn 2.2.3.4.2
            27 April 2014 at 2:04 pm

            My own thought is that people like Jones assume that by supporting business they are automatically helping the workers, which in fact is sometimes true and sometimes false. It depends on the business, whether or not it employs people and pays them well, (or underpins the viability of other businesses in an area), whether or not its effect on the environment is commensurate with the good it does, and so on and so on. These people are no doubt good fund raisers, since they come across to business as relatively safe hands on the left. The problem is that they are then tempted to undermine the broader values of left to shore up their cred in that area – like Jones’s attacks on the Greens, for example.

            This of course turns off people who look to the left for protection from the powerful. Such people are not fooled for one second by smoko-room chat, even if the big donors think its a winner. It is as though they are being told, “Look mate, I’d like to help you, but if I did I would alienate my powerful mates, and if I do that I won’t be able to help you,” which is of course deeply circular, and far from convincing.

            The problem lies with the weakening of the unions, and Labour being forced to seek funding from much the same sources as National. It can only be solved by building up such numbers that it starts to look as if we can win without their help.

      • Once was Tim 2.2.4
        27 April 2014 at 12:34 pm

        +1
        They could get Mike Williams to be their campaign manager too, and Mathew Hooter as PR man three

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.5
        27 April 2014 at 2:58 pm

        If there’s such a large faction of left-leaning blue-collar blokes just crying out for representation which speaks to them and only to them, surely they’ll have no trouble getting over the 5% line.

        The Labour Party dove under 30% of the vote last election. Labour bled votes to the Greens, NZ First, and of course a group out there which ended up with way more people than Labour in the election day polls – i.e. non voters.

        Today Labour can barely hold 32-33% in the polls yet you have the audacity to dismiss the working class with this kind of hubris. Yeah.

        • Ergo Robertina 2.2.5.1
          27 April 2014 at 3:05 pm

          I read it that Stephanie was calling out the pagani et al brigade on purporting to represent the working class, when they do nothing of the sort.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.2.5.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 3:20 pm

            +1 Ergo Robertina

            @ CV,

            Would have been good had you answered some of the astute questions Anker poses @ 2.2.3.4 prior to referring to Jones as representing the working class in the way you just have.

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.5.1.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 3:27 pm

              My point was that Labour has NOT been representing the blue collar working class.

              NB I was referring to a Labour Party WITH Shane Jones. So IMO Shane Jones did nothing in that dept apart form being vaguely blokey at times, which the working class is typically smart enough to see right through.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                27 April 2014 at 3:30 pm

                Well perhaps in future you might check out the context with which the comment you are responding to is written in then prior to responding with unfounded indignation.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 2.2.5.2
          28 April 2014 at 8:16 pm

          Not dismissing the working class at all, Viper. Dismissing the idea that the blue-collar red-neck narrow-minded hates-women-and-gays faction, so beloved of Shane Jones, Tamihere et al, exists. Once again I must ask you to stop assuming you know what I’m saying. Your assumptions are generally wildly off the mark.

  3. Hamish 3
    27 April 2014 at 8:59 am

    And this from J Pagani in the same article:

    Former Labour candidate Josie Pagani agreed, saying those in the party who had rejoiced in Jones leaving “are guilty of sectarianism at its worst”.

    The division in the party was between those focused on social mobility and those focused on social engineering – “we’ll make you better off versus we’ll make you a better person,” she said.

    “we’ll make you better off versus we’ll make you a better person”????

    Where the fuck does she come up with this shit? What a moran. Is this the result of being shunned by the like of TS? She no longer has as much access to the internals in the party so she’s spews out this shit because shes having a big sulk?

    • phillip ure 3.1
      27 April 2014 at 9:08 am

      within that cliched/bullshit litany from those rightwing losers…

      (i swear if pagani sheds any more crocodile-tears..she will start hanging out in ponds/waterways..)

      ..within this drivel was this:

      “..Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly pointed out that the unions had overwhelmingly supported Cunliffe –

      who took 71 per cent of the union vote – compared with 12 per cent for Jones.

      “David Cunliffe actually appeals to blue collar workers –

      hundreds of them got out to vote and voted for him.”

      She said the belief ‘a Harvard-educated industry-boy like Shane’ would appeal to workers ‘is very patronising’.

      Half the workforce were women –

      and Jones also did not appeal to them – she said.

      She rejected claims of a divided party – where dissenting views were not welcome..”

      • Harry Holland 3.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 9:46 pm

        Helen Kelly in good form with facts at her fingertips rather than speculation and rhetoric. It would be good to see more of her (rather than Tamihere, Trotter).

    • Paul 3.2
      27 April 2014 at 10:16 am

      Maybe she gets money from National sources just the way Jones did.
      Her task ….to undermine Labour at very opportunity.
      Might also explain why she’s always at the top of the list of invitees as a ‘Labour spokesperson’ by the corporate media.
      Just join the Nats Josie..that’s where your heart is.
      Just be honest.

      • Ant 3.2.1
        27 April 2014 at 10:24 am

        Well her husband works for NZ Oil and Gas who donated to Jones so join the dots on that one.

        • Paul 3.2.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 10:30 am

          Never knew that, thanks you.

          Here’s his bio on their site.

          “John Pagani

          External Relations Manager

          John Pagani joined NZOG in September 2012. He has a degree in politics from the University of Auckland and a law degree from Victoria University of Wellington. After working as a news producer at Newstalk ZB in Auckland, he moved to Parliament where he worked as a communications director and senior strategist, taking time out to start a public affairs consultancy specialising in development in 2002.”

          So that explains a hell of a lot.
          Pity that conflict of interest within the Pagani household is not mentioned by the corporate media.

        • Will@Welly 3.2.1.2
          27 April 2014 at 1:20 pm

          Thanks Ant.
          NZ Oil & Gas – the firm that proudly stood behind Pike River.
          Creditability there. If ever a firm deserved buggering, there’s one.

    • Ant 3.3
      27 April 2014 at 10:19 am

      Pagani is sadly hilarious, Whale Oil reblogs her posts and the problem is with the rest of the left, sure thing…

      Here’s a pro tip Josie, if Cameron Slater is supporting what you are saying and helping to disseminate your message, it probably isn’t good for the left.

      • Paul 3.3.1
        27 April 2014 at 10:31 am

        She knows it.
        Her husband is a shill for big corporate interests who don’t want a left wing party winning in NZ.

        • phillip ure 3.3.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 11:23 am

          i agree..pagani is totally focused/on (her own) message..

          ..and that message is rightwing/neo-lib/randite-apologist in nature..

          ..like jones..she is just pretending..by claiming to be in labour..

          ..(and slater pimps her drivel..?..whoar..!..)

        • felix 3.3.1.2
          28 April 2014 at 8:19 am

          Yep.

          She’d be ok with a Labour govt, as long as Labour steers right.

      • Ennui 3.3.2
        27 April 2014 at 2:12 pm

        A few years ago when Josie stood for Labour I had some trouble reconciling what she was saying and who she was to the Labour party I was once a member of:. She seemed to me to be an unreconstructed neo lib. In a funny kind of way I put it as being akin the great Semitic faiths, Jews and Islamics and Christians each have a “broad church”, but that does not include somebody of one of the other faiths. I cant see how Labour as a “broad church” can include neo libs, they belong to that other “broad church” that includes National.

        As per the modus operandi of neo lib right wingers, Pagani (either of them) represent what is specifically good for the individual (who is Pagani) first and foremost.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.4
      27 April 2014 at 12:41 pm

      What a moran.

      It’s moron. That misspelling really grates on me 🙁

      I always get pissed off by the claims about social-engineering and it always seems to come from the right. They don’t seem to realise that their own policies are also social-engineering – just very, very bad social-engineering that will destroy our society as it always has done before.

    • Anne 3.5
      27 April 2014 at 12:46 pm

      Does Pagani even know what she means when she comes out with these ‘pearls of wisdom’ ? – lols.

  4. phillip ure 4
    27 April 2014 at 9:33 am

    could susan wood be a worse/more cliched/simplistic interviewer..?

    ..she doesn’t so much think..

    ..as jump from (pre-prepared) bullet-point to bullet-point..

    • phillip ure 4.1
      27 April 2014 at 9:41 am

      and then rachel smalley ups the ante in the mindless/stupid-questions stakes..

      ..stupid and stupider..

      ..and smalley seems to believe her bullshit..

      ..furrowed-brow and all..

      ..head thumping into table stupidity..

      • David H 4.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 6:18 pm

        I really thought Smalley was better than that. Must have to get brainwashed, when you go work at TVNZ.

  5. Hamish 5
    27 April 2014 at 9:37 am

    Do all the muppets in the press, like John Armstrong, Chris Trotter, Josie Pagani, Fran OSullivan, etc have it in for Labour because their usual contacts within the party Goff, Mallard, Jones etc are now on the outer and are therefore of little value to them?

    Gallery journalists try and build relationships with politicians so they can get leaks. They must be fucked off that those relationships, which they built up over the course of many years, are now completely worthless.

    And the result is we get anti-labour dreck from a bunch of sulky hacks.

    • RedLogix 5.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:53 am

      And that probably is the truth of it. They’ve gotten used to been spoon-fed insider tip-offs and have become lazy.

      Now they have not much more than their own prejudices to write about. Shows doesn’t it.

  6. Chooky 6
    27 April 2014 at 9:55 am

    National Radio on Sunday morning is quite good with Wallace Chapman ( even although I miss Chris Laidlaw)

    Unfortunately no audiolink up (yet?)…but very good discussion on what is best for New Zealand education and the importance of highly university trained professional teachers and taking education professionals with you in any changes in education.

    John Key and NACT are proposing unqualified teachers and are ignoring the teaching profession’s s views …as well as undermining/attacking teacher unions and teacher professionalism.

    From international education experts also…. the thumbs down for Charter Schools and privatisation of education

    8:40 New Zealand Principals’ Federation national president Philip Harding
    Philip Harding attended The International Summit on the Teaching Profession. He talks about how New Zealand can achieve better educational outcomes.

    • ianmac 6.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:25 am

      That was a pretty disappointing Radio report on the Education Forum Chooky. There was too much time wasted on the froth and on the chosen reps who just said blah blah blah on amorphous cliches. The nearest to real stuff was from the man from Finland who you notice referred to the PISA testing as a sideline and unfortunate that some countries narrow their teaching just to do well with PISA. Sure there was a black mark for Charter Schools and that NZ underfunds education and ignores funding in the areas that would make a difference.

      NZ does not do well it seems, in the lack of Government cooperation/listening to those who actually do the teaching.

      • Chooky 6.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 12:19 pm

        @inamac….yes the end was a bit fudgey from some NZers…. and the conclusions could have been more of a ‘sock it to ’em’ ….but overall all… the points covered by the international experts were pretty succinct against devaluing the professionalism of teachers ,privatisation and Charter Schools and PSIS testing …emphasis was placed on how important teachers/educators are and upgrading their status (which has been devalued in the last 5 years under NACT) and letting teachers/ educators/universities /research lead educational and teaching practice change

        …overall it was pretty good from Radio NZ i thought

        …..( i am trying to be positive here, after my rather negative statements about Guy Espiner)

  7. Ant 7
    27 April 2014 at 9:58 am

    Mother of god, Darien Fenton learn to choose your f’ing battles, The Lego Movie isn’t one of them:

    “Key said yesterday most people would take The Lego Movie line “for what it is – a light-hearted line in a children’s fantasy film”.

    But Opposition tourism spokeswoman Darien Fenton said Key should use his contacts to tell Warner Bros the “Middle Zealand” references were not on.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11244890

    She obviously hasn’t learnt any lessons from the Mad Butcher comments that went down like a cup of cold sick. There is a severe lack of comms discipline in the Labour caucus at the moment.

    • phillip ure 7.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:16 am

      “Middle Zealand….a “wondrous land full of knights, castles, mutton, torture weapons, poverty, leeches, illiteracy, and, um … dragons.”

      ..um..!..what exactly is incorrect about that lego-movie statement..?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 7.2
      27 April 2014 at 11:27 am

      She said on Twitter that it was a joke which had obviously failed.

      • Ant 7.2.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:52 am

        The joke is on us this Monday when John Key starts talking about Labour wanting to “ban” The Lego Movie.

        No doubt National are laughing their arses off.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:54 pm

          Yep. It may not have gone down so well with a few people but I figure most people will grin at it.

        • Paul 7.2.1.2
          27 April 2014 at 6:15 pm

          And if some member of Labour don’t realise the media in on the other side by now, then they are fools or in the pay of that same media.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3
      27 April 2014 at 12:15 pm

      Key The Minister for Warner Brothers can probably be credited with the “illiteracy” jibe: you could quote him from Hansard on numerous occasions upto November 2008 telling precisely the same lie.

      I note that Winston, the master attention seeker, decided it merited a comment. In that context I’m not sure what Fenton has done wrong.

      Looks like The Herald isn’t too chuffed about it either: the article starts: “New Zealand has been insulted…”

      • miravox 7.3.1
        27 April 2014 at 3:15 pm

        Just one of the little in-jokes that pops up from time to time in animated movies. Probably Warner Brothers executives having a laugh at begging bowl NZ ministers, with not enough money, not understanding the employment law they enacted to enable the Hobbit movies.

  8. Bearded Git 8
    27 April 2014 at 10:04 am

    Robert Reid has just put the boot in to the Key government in fine style as a member of the panel on Q and A-worth a watch on TV1+1.

    • phillip ure 8.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:10 am

      robert reid is a total star..

      ..i especially like how he called all the media/commentators on their utter jones-fretting bullshit..

      • Anne 8.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 10:32 am

        I was almost in tears listening to the hysterical crap pouring out of Coddington’s mouth and being confirmed by that Professor chap whose name I’ve forgotten and don’t care. Both of them were following the right wing line and blindly echoing the bullshit being fed them by others. Then along came Robert Reid and knocked them down. I hope we see much more of him!

        The most revealing piece of info. came from Shane Jones and Moira Coatsworth when confronted with the question: who leaked the story?

        Jones was clear. He didn’t leak it. He planned to tell the Caucus at the first meeting after the break (I presume that would have been Tues. 6th May) and then it would have become public – on Labour’s terms.

        Coatsworth when asked the same question told Smalley… I think you’ll have to ask the National Party.

        Back to Whale Oil? No wonder the MSM pay the slime-bag so much homage. You scratch my back boys and girls, and I’ll scratch yours.

        • Hamish 8.1.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 11:33 am

          Coddington is an utter moron. Her tiny hamster brain couldn’t help but vocalise that the ‘last nail in the coffin’ line she’d been fed (probably by demnetia-riddled Richard Prebble) was overly dramatic.

          Meanwhile Robert Reid absolutely crushes them! Calls them on their creation of bullshit re: Shane Jones-working-class-hero bollocks. Except he’s too kind, calls it myth making instead of telling coddington and miller and woods right to their rotten faces that they’re a bunch of well-heeled liars.

          Susan Wood is the absolute pits. And she can always rely on her sycophantic pet, Raymond Miller, to bleat the blairite, centre right horseshit.

          what was his line? Labour’s constituency is very fragile? What a load of shite, how is it more fragile than any other parties’ constituency? He would have said the same about National in 2002. He’s one of those morons that think if he just plants his opinions somewhere in the middle he’ll stay relevant.

          • ianmac 8.1.1.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 12:08 pm

            Just watched Q+A. Robert Reid was great. Especially pointing to the Media Myths promoted against the truths. And that Media were right there talking the myths. And Coddington is unbelievably awful as a commentator. Perhaps she is there as a Labour plot to show the shallowness of the NAT/ACT?
            Election year and Q+A better start getting their Qs straightened out.

    • anker 8.2
      27 April 2014 at 1:56 pm

      Yes BG re Robert Reid. He was marvellous and raised that interesting point the Countdown pay their workers $2 more per hour than NW (I think it was NW). This gets lost in the whole “Jones the hero of the working man”. His countdown thing was good, but it seemed a bit random and not part of a coherent plan, policy for workers and jobs.

      And I am still asking who will leave the party or no longer support the party because Jones has gone? Whose voice did he represent? And who is it more important that Labour represents?

    • bad12 9.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:22 am

      The deputy editor of the Herald on Sunday gave a good hint this morning that Shane Jones ”will be back”,

      Apparently Jones hasn’t finished with politics but we are left up in the air as to what such a small but loaded point means for the future,

      My speculation is that Winston Peters close to the 2017 election will force the resignation of one of His Caucus after having quietly inserted Jones as ‘next in line’ on the NZFirst Party list,(or Peters will use His influence with whoever is the Government to buy out of the Parliament one of the NZFirst MP’s with ‘a job for the boys’ ala the current situation with Jones),

      At the point of having inserted Jones into the Parliament Peters will announce His retirement and Jones as the leader,(which might put a twist in a few noses in the NZfirst Caucus,

      Pure speculation of course…

      • millsy 9.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 10:48 am

        Im guessing he will be writing a column for the Herald.

      • Ron 9.1.2
        27 April 2014 at 11:09 am

        He cannot insert someone into the list during the term The list must be presented before this election and holds fast until next election

        • Disraeli Gladstone 9.1.2.1
          27 April 2014 at 1:27 pm

          Yep. People on the list may turn down the option to take the seat in their vacancy, but for Bad’s hypothetical to be correct, Jones would need to be on the NZ First List for the 2014 election.

      • Chooky 9.1.3
        27 April 2014 at 12:28 pm

        I’m guessing he will resurface as John Key’s right hand Maori
        …replace Tau Henare or Tariana Turia

        ….National must be running out of new high profile Maori by now

  10. phillip ure 10
    27 April 2014 at 10:07 am

    so..are we all thoroughly overdosed on the musings/self-justifications/poor-me! whinings of the jones..?..

    ..is the chorus of ‘good riddance!’ getting even louder..

    ..and is the right in labour..trying to lose this election..

    ..so they can seize back control of the party..?

    ..post-election..?

    (raising the pension age being a total vote-killer..?

    ..shearer/that west coast guy..adding to the jones chorus..?..w.t.f. was that about..?..)

    • Bearded Git 10.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:19 am

      Agreed Phillip-I’m hearing “good riddance” getting louder too.

      The political scientist on Q and A Raymond Millar just said Jones leaving may have done Labour a favour as there will now be no Jones attacking the Greens as a coalition partner in the campaign.

      • Jackal 10.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 2:07 pm

        In my opinion, having an MP who has a weak work ethic, has alienated half the voting public and has been actively working against the left wings best interests for a very long time remain in the Labour party was never a good idea. After all, he was being paid by Nationals associates to undermine Labour’s core values, and that I believe is the main reason for him resigning being ushered out.

        Although the subject matter is a bit boring, Jones saying that he was not willing to work with the Greens as a reason to leave is secondary to him recently being caught out taking bribes from the right wing. It is his way of undermining any future left wing government that might curtail the fossil fuel industry and inhibit slaver-fishing vessels. After all, these are the industries that have been generously funding his, shall we say, lifestyle.

        I presume that Jones was the perpetrator of various leaks to the media that have damaged Labour in the past. That’s why I’m happy to see him go. Without Jones, the biased media in New Zealand are panicking about losing their mole and their fear of not having any dirt to dish on Labour leading up to an election is showing. Perhaps they might like to start actually working for a story, instead of just parroting right wing attack lines and making stuff up.

        I must say that I’m enjoying the reality check recent commentators on The Standard are giving MP’s and various media hacks who are also well past their used by date. The MSM have even been whinging about it. Let’s hope their propaganda is just as transparent to the average voter.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 10.1.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 3:49 pm

          Good points well said Jackal

        • Anne 10.1.1.2
          27 April 2014 at 5:34 pm

          I presume that Jones was the perpetrator of various leaks to the media that have damaged Labour in the past.

          I think that award probably goes to Trevor Mallard.

  11. Ad 11
    27 April 2014 at 10:17 am

    Great to see the new electric trains launched. Took governments of left and right to do.

    NZHerald and TransportBlog have full coverage.

    • millsy 11.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:44 am

      First proposed in the 1920’s and supported by the hardcore Marxist greenie Gordon Coates, railways minister in the far left socialist United-Reform coalition….

      Great day for Auckland, goes to show, despite everything, things other than roads can still be built up, not torn down.

  12. Disraeli Gladstone 12
    27 April 2014 at 10:27 am

    I’m going to choose my words carefully about the whole Shane Jones situation because emotions seem pretty charged on the topic.

    For me, I didn’t care overly for Jones. Some of his economic positions were similar to mine, but I consider myself a social liberal and Jones’s attitudes were quite ghastly, at times. Personally, I’m not bothered to see him leaving, though I will miss some of his bombastic deliveries of speeches.

    However, the real issue is the almost congratulatory nature of some that he’s left. That’s the issue where I think Pagini is actually a little bit true. Jones did speak for some of Labour in its broad church. He did win 16% in the leadership election. People did like him. When they see people high-fiving Jones’s departure, it does tend to suggest that their position is not actually welcomed anymore in the party. Even if only a third of his supporters consider voting for NZ First or National, that might be 1.5-2% of the votes moving away from Labour. In a close election, that might be important.

    I think the Labour MPs have covered themselves well. Regardless of what they think of Jones and his attitudes, they’ve made all the right sounds. We like him, we wish him luck, Kelvin is a great replacement, we move on. However, if the celebratory nature of some Labour members extend into the media narrative (which it’s starting to do), then there’s cause for concern.

    The best thing would have been to do what the MPs did. Instead of having people writing about how Jones going is actually a good thing and good riddance.

    • millsy 12.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:47 am

      You have to give him credit. Somehow he turned pimping this country out to the extractive industries into a ‘core Labour value’.

      • phillip ure 12.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:03 am

        yeah..since when did fuck the oceans?drill baby baby drill!/dig that dirty-coal/let’s frack!..

        ..when did these become ‘core labour values’..?

        ..what’s that you say..?

        ..they are current labour party policies..?

        ..whoar..!

        ..what’s up with that..?

        .and along with the stunning silences since the release of the doom-report on climate-warming..

        ..we have parker attempting to rally the troops..

        ..”.it’s the l.v.r..!..to the barricades..!..”

        ..if ya didn’t laff..you’d cry…

        • Once was Pete 12.1.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 11:27 am

          Hey Phillip. I see you can spell words now. Well done. Have you tried putting a capital letter at the beginning of each new thought. You finish each thought with a dot. One dot, not two. These are then called sentences.
          Similar thoughts or sentences are grouped together and these are called paragraphs. This is important because it allows readers to follow your reasoning in a logical fashion. Otherwise they might think what you are writing is just mindless crap!

          • phillip ure 12.1.1.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 11:30 am

            i have always been an excellent speller…

            ..can’t repair a car-engine..but boy..!..i can spell..

            ..know yr strengths..eh..?

            ..what are you good at..pete..?

            ..and tell me pete..why do you squash all yr words/sentences up into a block..?

            ..post-‘sentences’ is the only scrawny piece of white-space relief you offer..

            ..’white-space’ is free..eh..?

            ..no trees are harmed..

            ..let yr words/sentences breath…eh..?

            • Clemgeopin 12.1.1.1.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 12:40 pm

              Phil, your first sentence ends with 3 dots. Why not two?
              Not that it matters, just curious if that has some significance.
              But I do like your musings…

              • phillip ure …
                27 April 2014 at 12:46 pm

                i was feeling generous..

                • McFlock …
                  27 April 2014 at 3:38 pm

                  as you evidently do periodically 🙂

                • Chooky …
                  27 April 2014 at 4:00 pm

                  lol phil…you do provide me with a lot of laughs….i was told by a professional book editor it is definitely three dots…definitely de rigueur

                  ….also never take any notice of mad ‘Once was Pete’ …he is a BAD speller!…i am a bad speller but he is worse

                • Clemgeopin …
                  27 April 2014 at 5:40 pm

                  LOL! Oh, Ok. That well explains your extra unexpected ‘periodical’ period. Cheers

              • Chooky …
                27 April 2014 at 4:05 pm

                is that 3 dots i see or do i need glasses?

                • Clemgeopin …
                  27 April 2014 at 5:51 pm

                  I think you are seeing three.
                  I don’t think you need more glasses, but may be something even more in them, shaken or stirred.

          • bad12 12.1.1.1.2
            27 April 2014 at 11:41 am

            Now now, that’s very unkind to Phillip don’t you know, its Phillip’s ‘art’ cannot you see…

    • Anne 12.2
      27 April 2014 at 10:50 am

      Agree Disraeli Gladstone. There’s been overly negative stuff on this site about Shane Jones. I was not in agreement with his views, but he certainly isn’t the bastard some here have tried to paint him.

      It’s looking more and more likely the story was prematurely leaked by the National Party (see my 8.1.1) and that, in my view, is where the anger should be directed.

    • mickysavage 12.3
      27 April 2014 at 10:55 am

      the real issue is the almost congratulatory nature of some that he’s left. That’s the issue where I think Pagini is actually a little bit true.

      Certainly there have been some comments but as far as I can make out predominately by Green or Mana supporters. This line has been used to suggest that there has been a whole lot of Labour members dancing on Jones’ grave and to be honest I have not seen any real evidence of it. There has been robust discussion as there always is.

      • Anne 12.3.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:13 am

        mickysavage is right. The bulk of Labour members and supporters who have publicly commented here and elsewhere have been reasonably respectful of Jones’ decision to leave.

      • Skinny 12.3.2
        27 April 2014 at 1:00 pm

        Some of us within the party make no apologies for giving Shane stick, and fully justifiable when you consider he has turned renegade on a political party of which he is still an mp, and that is endeavoring to win an election in under 6 months.

        Critiquing this mornings Q&A there are a couple of things I will point out. Moria Coastworth accusing, I presume some of us on here of mouthing off, like we weren’t well qualified, or it was somehow unjustifiable. Pretty piss poor Moira that you didn’t show some guts like Robert Reid did and call Shane out, atleast on his non disclosure that he ‘did not consult with the McCully job offer’ and as LP President that come as a huge disappointment. So how about you show some leadership of your own or maybe while there is a purge happening you might consider joining Jones.

        Good work Bob Reid for balking at the bullshit notion that Jones reps working class people. Also for pointing out that Countdown/Progressive Enterprises is but one half of the supermarket duopoly, in that sense the issue has broadened out as we knew it would lead on and hence the support given to the attack by some of us. I maintain that Jones was fronting for his Croatian family/business mates Tally’s, financial donations garanteeded. Which reminds me Jones putting up Willow Jean as the Northland LP candiate is hardly done the party a favour, more likely the Mana & the Greens. Tell us how many of the Affco (Tally’s owned) blue collars are going to vote for the partner of the ‘hated boss’ that locked them out for 26 weeks? Another classic Jones fuck up!

        • Hamish 12.3.2.1
          27 April 2014 at 1:49 pm

          I think Coatsworth is party of that caucus clique where they have to publically pretend they’re all respectful of each other and matey matey etc but actually they fucking hate each others guts.

          • Skinny 12.3.2.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

            Ha ha got a laugh out of your comment, not quite that bad but certainly 2 divisions. Let us hope the tension will subside and allow some breathing room with Jones out of the picture. Must have been rather testing trying to contain a mule headed Jones, exerting his own deep seeded hatred of the Greens.

            The next breach of discipline/unity will be the party list rankings I would assume. The staff in the engine room will have written up a summary execution type notice, and force every MP and candidate to sign well prior to the list release. You can guarantee a number of MP’s are going to be effectively shunted out of parliament and may not want to go amicably, more likely kicking and screaming. Any thought of such happenings needs to be spelt out when they gather after the current break, McCarten’s not so subtle style is probably required for that.

    • blue leopard 12.4
      27 April 2014 at 11:27 am

      Who is to say that the people who took the time out to look up on this website (and perhaps the Daily Blog) can not see sense in the reasons people provided for asserting that Labour may be better off without Jones.

      Amongst other things, it is highly jarring when one has read clear messages from the Labour leader after their strategy meetings earlier in the year, that the leader (at least) recognises the merit of speaking well of the other biggest left wing party and working well with them and then to have one member of the party coming out with the things Jones said about the Greens.

      That such incidents occurred indicate poor discipline and raise questions re harmony within the caucus due to the expressed conflict with the main themes that have been discussed and reported about Labour-the-Party’s stance toward other left-wing parties that they are likely to have to work with in some way, shape or form.

      That Jones was quick to cite Labour’s stance on the Greens as a reason for leaving makes a whole lot of sense and removes the concerns raised in the previous paragraph.

      Who is to say that the people who liked Jones didn’t find it odd that he took a job from one of the National party strategists, Murray McCully allowing National to make statements that ‘Jones is joining our government’ (Key).

      Who is to say that people who liked Jone’s character, and took time to read the opinions of people on this site expressing discontent, didn’t leave the site with a shifted perception; that those who expressed frustration at the framing of this event ‘as a disaster for Labour’ made a valid point?

      If Shane Jone’s qualities cited here and elsewhere reflect him accurately, that he appeals to a certain misogynism and boorishness out there in the community. One has to really question – how much of these qualities can Labour – as a large political party on the left – afford to cater to such stances without alienating large sections of the community and alienating themselves from their own major political principles? i.e. How can a party ‘for the people’ take a stance against half the population in the name of appealing to a small percentage of the population?

      Really, these are sincere questions that need to be asked and addressed.

      • phillip ure 12.4.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:53 am

        well the main ‘caterer’ to those ‘misogynism and boorishness’ ‘qualities’..

        ..has now walked out the door..

        ..perhaps he could form his own party..?

        ..the ‘mysoginists and boors’ party..

        ..then we would be able to evaluate his actual level of support out there..

        • blue leopard 12.4.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 12:00 pm

          +1 yes, did you see Stephanie Roger’s comment at 2.2 above? (Snap!)

          This would be the way to go. I don’t think a large party can cater to degenerate aspects of our culture. Leave that to a small ‘special interests’ party. It would, indeed, be interesting to see how many votes are gathered by such a party.

          • Colonial Viper 12.4.1.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 3:10 pm

            This would be the way to go. I don’t think a large party can cater to degenerate aspects of our culture.

            That’s a good way to for a political party to reconnect with its constituency of poncy snotty well educated morally self exalting social liberals.

            Consider that National, the party of the 1%, wins far more votes than Labour, the so called broad church for the 99%.

            It’s not only ironic, it points to a massive disconnect with wider NZ society that Labour has not dealt with yet, especially considering that since the 1930’s, National has had significantly more years in power than Labour has, and it was Labour who opened the nation’s gates wide open to neoliberalism and corporate financialisation.

            The resentment and anger many still hold towards what Labour did, and what it has since become, isn’t “degenerate” – it is valid and quite justifiable.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.4.1.1.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 3:15 pm

              You appear to have missed answering the questions that earlier I posited need to be answered.

              If Shane Jone’s qualities cited here and elsewhere reflect him accurately, that he appeals to a certain misogynism and boorishness out there in the community. One has to really question – how much of these qualities can Labour – as a large political party on the left – afford to cater to such stances without alienating large sections of the community and alienating themselves from their own major political principles? i.e. How can a party ‘for the people’ take a stance against half the population in the name of appealing to a small percentage of the population?

              Let me make it clearer for you:
              How many people in NZ do you think Shane Jones represents?
              How many people in NZ do you think he alienates.

              p.s. I am not ‘a political party’.

              • Colonial Viper …
                27 April 2014 at 4:58 pm

                How many people in NZ do you think Shane Jones represents?
                How many people in NZ do you think he alienates.

                Shane Jones was an irrelevancy to the working class last month, and he is an irrelevancy to the working class today. They might have appreciated his gumption on a couple off issues but in terms of representing their interests with any authenticity? Few thought so. I have a few Tory mates who thought he was alright however.

                So now, let me ask you another set of questions.

                What proportion of people in NZ do you think the Labour Party represents the interests of?

                And how many of the people in that group would actually agree with that?

                You see, that’s the disconnect.

                • blue leopard …
                  27 April 2014 at 6:08 pm

                  O.k, so you respond to my questions by saying Shane Jones is an irrelevance to the working class last month and today.

                  This response strikes me as a bit of a cop out CV.

                  I take it, therefore that you are saying he represents no one, and therefore must alienate no one?

                  I disagree. I think that the element of truth occurring with the mainstream media’s narrative of this is that there is a section of NZ that do respond to misogyny and boorish behaviour.

                  And I was responding to that aspect of their narrative by questioning whether Labour can afford to cater to such attitudes if they wish to appeal to many.

                  You appeared to have a problem with that comment, yet do not appear to be capable of answering it honestly. This precludes the possibility of having an honest and constructive discussion on the matter with you.

                  I for one would be very interested in knowing what sort of numbers we are talking about here. How many people do the Shane Jones style politicians of NZ actually represent? Who are they? And how many people are alienated, put off politics, or voting due to parties/ media narratives scrabbling after this section of New Zealand? How big is this section of NZ?

                  It is questions such as these that need to be addressed in order for a political party such as Labour to retain relevance.

                  The narrative by the media answer none of these questions, nor do you, yet both yourself and the media are prepared to write about such notions just the same. This is simply about playing shadow boxing games devoid of any real information. This is the type of behaviour that hurts the left far more than the right-wing. Because the left requires a bit of thoughtfulness. The right doesn’t and I suggest to you that that is the right’s competitive advantage and nothing else.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    27 April 2014 at 9:57 pm

                    This is simply about playing shadow boxing games devoid of any real information. This is the type of behaviour that hurts the left far more than the right-wing.

                    You want data on Shane Jones appeal to the wider electorate?

                    Fine, but if that information exists anywhere it will be in the private internal polling done by the political parties, so source that if you can.

                    The only data I have to go on is the few % of Labour Party members who actually voted for Jones in the leadership vote last year. I guess in the most concrete sense, that’s his constituency.

                    Because the left requires a bit of thoughtfulness. The right doesn’t and I suggest to you that that is the right’s competitive advantage and nothing else.

                    Wrong. National understands the mindset and the mood of NZers better than Labour does. And it shows routinely. While Labour moans that the Royals visit is playing politics in an election year, Key just gets stuck in and NZers simply find Kate and George charming, lovely and gracious (and cute).

                    Another thing, National never apologises for acting in the interests of it’s own constituents. Corporate casinos, private property developers, dairy farmers, finance company investors, etc. It just goes out there and does what it needs to in order to help its mates. Whereas Labour always seems to be apologising for something. Except raising the retirement age of course, they seem really righteous about that one piece of policy which will fuck over workers and the unemployed in an attempt to balance the books and be “fiscally responsible”.

                    This is how the Tory party serving the interests of the 1% regularly manages to get almost 50% in opinion polls. But the “broad church” Labour Party of the 99% struggles to get even 33% in opinion polls.

                    I can’t say it any louder: MASSIVE DISCONNECT with the wider electorate.

                    So I return back to my original point – Shane Jones was irrelevant a month ago and he remains irrelevant now.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 April 2014 at 10:06 pm

                      I’ll add this in more direct response to you – yes Jones pissed many people off and alienated many others.

                      But on the scale of what Labour has done to turn away supporters, voters and potential voters, the things I listed above, and many others, are WAY higher up the list.

                      Where Jones’ political body finally gets buried will have zero impact on how people view Labour on election day. He’s irrelevant.

                    • blue leopard …
                      28 April 2014 at 12:13 pm

                      No, CV, it is not wrong. National may be able to go sucking up to a couple of wealthy elite and get a boost in ratings for doing so, yet would it not be perceived as somewhat incongruous if Labour – representing workers did so?

                      Shouting at me re massive disconnects hardly serves your purpose. Perhaps it might be better to listen and realise that what I am saying is not in conflict with what you appear to be wanting to shout back at me? What I am saying to you is there is this narrative re ‘blue collar workers leaving in droves’ from the Labour party going along, yet not once is this ‘blue collar worker’ defined apart to say that a person like Shane Jones represents them.

                      As Mr Reid on Q&A so astutely put it half of workers are women – top marks Mr Reid on being the first person to mention this obvious little fact. Women are also up there in the worst paid most unemployed stats, I would hazard a guess that this is the type of constituency Labour need to appeal to, yet references to ‘blue collar workers’ persist (perhaps largely by the media)and perhaps this sector is largely dominated by men? I don’t know what this term is really referencing. Trades people appear to be on pretty good wages last time I checked when compared to the type of work women traditionally do. (There are safety issues that effect some section of this group – I doubt very much that such people are supportive of National’s stance on the matter).

                      I hold to my previous comment that Labour cannot getaway with the type of clowning that National can (it is easier to appear cavalier and that ‘it dunt matta’ when this is your genuine attitude), the way Labour wins is by knowing their strengths, knowing their most likely supporters and knowing National’s weaknesses and shaping everything they say and do to these three factors.

                      I actually have a feeling this is what they are doing and this process takes time to show results. Any mistakes that have occurred is from Labour lacking focus in this respect – buying into rightwing framing and being overly concerned about offending the sections of society that will never vote for them anyway.

                      The left came very close to winning the last election – there is no reason why they cannot achieve an election win this time around.

    • phillip ure 12.5
      27 April 2014 at 12:09 pm

      @ disraeli..

      ..nah..!..he’s a rightwing-plant in labour..

      ..best he’s gone..

      ..and best his old-school-reactionary views be painted as they are..

      ..it has a cauterising effect/benefit..

      • Disraeli Gladstone 12.5.1
        27 April 2014 at 1:31 pm

        Oh, I’m not saying it’s not good that he’s gone. I’d agree with that.

        But I think the “crowing” of Jones’ opponents is making the issue worst. I agree with Mickey that a lot of the crowing is done by Greens/Mana/Whoever Bomber’s Being Paid For Now. But there are some Labour members adding their voices.

        I think if everyone can of just nodded, “oh right, Shane, well good luck. Now, Kelvin, good man,” I think Labour could have really got away with hardly any damage.

        • phillip ure 12.5.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 2:25 pm

          i think it has moved on from there..

          ..i think even his most fervent supporters will be going stfu shane..!

          ..he is doing far more damage to his own cause with his own mouth..(and seeming to be trying to inflict as much damage on the party that gave him what he got..ungrateful prick..!..)

          ..and if he hadn’t insisted on going out the door cock in hand – and spraying everyone/thing labour in sight/he can..

          ..he may have been able to retain some dignity..some mana..

          ..as it is..?..

          ..yeah..nah..eh..?

          ..the game has moved onto:..’just fuck off jones..!’..

    • Once was Tim 12.6
      27 April 2014 at 12:52 pm

      “That’s the issue where I think Pagini is actually a little bit true.”
      ….. and of course that’s exactly why these shills are given airtime and the ability to exercise their so-called left-wing creds.
      …… they’re always just “a little bit true” – a bit like most of those economic commentators we see on the nightly gogglebox ‘news’, and why they claim “From the Left” creds on Nine-to-Noon.

      (“I tend to agree with you Mathew”) – which of course is code for ‘I’m a moderate leftie’ – despite the pendulum having had 30 years to swing right. Tony Blair anyone?

  13. Daveosaurus 13
    27 April 2014 at 10:40 am

    The ‘elephant in the room’ about the whole Shane Jones situation is that it highlights the absolute dearth of talent within the National Party, that they need to shoulder-tap an Opposition MP because none of their own possess the necessary competence.

    • blue leopard 13.1
      27 April 2014 at 10:51 am

      +1 Daveosaurus

    • ianmac 13.2
      27 April 2014 at 10:58 am

      Good point Dave. And perhaps there was an aspiring soon-to-be ex Nat MP being a bit pissed off. “That should have been my job McCulley!”
      “But,” says McCulley, “None of youse are as capable as the Jones boy. You are Nats after all.”

    • mickysavage 13.3
      27 April 2014 at 11:52 am

      Yep they had 13 candidates left! I wonder what Tau Henare thinks of the appointment?

  14. Ray 14
    27 April 2014 at 10:44 am

    Phillip Ure, regarding literacy (snigger)
    NZ is rated at 7th in the world and the only reason we are not top is possible thanks to your fearless work

  15. mickysavage 15
    27 April 2014 at 10:59 am

    I came across this comment on Facebook posted on Kelvin Davis’s page:

    Men should take responsibility for male violence but it isn’t that simple. The following is a quote in reaction to that comment, is it a fair call?
    In the case of many Maori men, they had their first taste of being beaten up by their (solo) mother until they got old enough to leave home and big enough to be the boss themselves. At this point woe betide the woman who tries,or appears to try to dominate him. No father around modelling good behaviour because the DPB allows resource to flow from men to women without reciprocation so women have kids alone.
    Feminism and the erosion of mana tane (male honour and prestige) is the colonisation that dare not speak its name. Good luck with those Labour Party Hand Mirror feminists Kelvin; they’ll love you while you’re in your white knight “it’s all men’s fault” phase, but as soon as you follow the facts, look at the bigger picture and hold women to account for their part in these problems you’ll realise what a poisoned chalice you hold.

    Get that people? This person thinks that women help perpetrate violence against themselves.

    Guess who made the comment?

    • Te Reo Putake 15.1
      27 April 2014 at 11:25 am

      JT?

    • Bill 15.2
      27 April 2014 at 11:27 am

      Hmm, let me see….dumb-arse connection of disparate dots by means of bald assertion followed by the wise council to ‘follow the facts’. Gee, Mickey, give us a clue while I away for a wee cuppa made from bagged up factory floor sweepings, will you? 😉

    • Stephanie Rodgers 15.3
      27 April 2014 at 11:33 am

      I know the answer! And thanks for the copy-and-paste, micky, when I saw a link to this on Twitter the comment had mysteriously vanished.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.3.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:39 am

        Is it destined to become (yet) another media distraction, perhaps timed to burst into life around the time of Parker’s speech?

    • Ant 15.4
      27 April 2014 at 11:36 am

      Wow. He’s such a scum bag.

      Also, men taking responsibility for male violence is that simple, that’s the entire point of….uh…..men taking responsibility for their role in perpetrating violence.

    • cardassian 15.5
      27 April 2014 at 11:47 am

      Let me guess. Is it old PG? seems like the kind of drivel Petey would say and then claim it’s a middle ground common sense conclusion.

      • mickysavage 15.5.1
        27 April 2014 at 11:51 am

        Chocolate fish to cardassian!

        • phillip ure 15.5.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 11:57 am

          please petey..!

          ..don’t explain…eh..?

          (and should that purler be quoted endlessly back at that bottom-dweller..?

          ..yes..yes it should..)

        • Ant 15.5.1.2
          27 April 2014 at 12:09 pm

          Kelvin’s unequivocal response was great. No doubt PG will go through some weasel like contortions over this one.

          edit: looks like he already is contorting, like I said, he is such a scum bag.

          • weka 15.5.1.2.1
            27 April 2014 at 12:48 pm

            +1

            On the upside, it’s linkable and likely to be a good archived example of what he really is about – both his politics and his weaseling.

          • Once was Tim 15.5.1.2.2
            27 April 2014 at 1:01 pm

            How very dare you! He’s a perfectly work-life-balanced specimen that works on logic and weighing up all the evidence in non-partisan FASHION. Furthermore – he’s a total legend (even IF in his own mind).
            At least we have a point of measurement I ‘spose. Shame it’s a fossil.

        • marty mars 15.5.1.3
          27 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

          OMG. pete george is a dirty bastard. Seriously, that comment of his makes me sick and is offensive on many, many levels.

          • weka 15.5.1.3.1
            27 April 2014 at 12:47 pm

            sick’s right. Now he is telling lies and doing his usual clusterfuck of communication – see the Greville Whittle thread esp where he claims he was quoting someone, that they’re not his words, he wants to ‘promote engagement’ etc

            Someone with a FB account might want to go over there and warn people that they’re dealing with a special kind of tr8ll.

        • weka 15.5.1.4
          27 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

          Wow, just wow. Sometimes PG let’s the facade slip and shows what nasty reactionary racist and misogynistic little shit he really is.

          It’s still up here, with Davis’ and others’ replies,

          • Stephanie Rodgers 15.5.1.4.1
            27 April 2014 at 1:05 pm

            Mea culpa. I forgot I’d blocked Pete George on Facebook so as to avoid seeing his comments! 😀

            • weka 15.5.1.4.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 1:08 pm

              rofl!

            • Once was Tim 15.5.1.4.1.2
              27 April 2014 at 2:21 pm

              good move. why burden yourself with the irrelevant?
              If I could, I’d do likewise – it’s only that I don;t subscribe to Facebook – or most other ‘supposedly social’ media.
              Apparently I should be devastated because I haven’t signed up for twitter.

              (The double breasted suit will soon be back in fashion – or so I hear …. oh – and cuffs on men’s strides – or so I hear – that’ll be so so so cool won’t it?)

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                27 April 2014 at 2:57 pm

                I much prefer Twitter. It’s a weird situation: Facebook tends to be much more focused on interacting with people you already know and presumably share interests with, but a lot of people find Twitter far more engaging and personal.

          • miravox 15.5.1.4.2
            27 April 2014 at 3:32 pm

            “Wow, just wow. Sometimes PG let’s the facade slip and shows what nasty reactionary racist and misogynistic little shit he really is.”

            +1 I take back every every gram of guilt I felt when I wrote something I felt was a bit mean to him.

        • RedLogix 15.5.1.5
          27 April 2014 at 1:11 pm

          The thing with PG is how he takes a perfectly good debate and drops deadshit all over it.

          There is a kernel of a point in what he’s saying.

          My partner and I are dealing with a neighbor we’ve gotten to know whose relationship with her boyfriend is unhealthy. Too much angry screaming and shouting. We’ve confronted it twice now.

          We’ve made it clear – any hint of violence and things will be really simple; the cops will get called immediately. No compromise on that.

          But actually dealing with the underlying causes and fallout is so much more complex than just ‘it’s all his fault’. And most people, from their own direct experience, know this.

          If an alcoholic gets in a car and drives they take all the responsibility and blame. But figuring out why they are getting all fucked up, and off abusing alcohol is a whole different discussion in which blame isn’t helpful.

          • weka 15.5.1.5.1
            27 April 2014 at 1:19 pm

            Sigh. I really hope we’re not going to get into one of those conversations again 🙂

            Who, other than PG, has said “it’s all his fault”?

            All the people I know that work with violence acknowledge and work with multiple causes.

            PG’s framing is one that sets up a false premise that kind of sounds like it might make sense, as a way of introducing some pretty fucking dodgy theory – men are violent because Māori mothers don’t have husbands and beat their kids. And you’ve just bought into his racist, misogynist scam, not because you are like him but because he has such a good hook.

            I doubt that you can ressurrect the perfectly good debate and try and talk about it in this context Red. Pretty sure there will be strong resistance to talking about domestic violence in the way you are suggesting, in the context of what PG has just done.

            • marty mars 15.5.1.5.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 1:31 pm

              Plus 1 weka. I also hope that, I really do.

              • miravox …
                27 April 2014 at 7:40 pm

                I agree with so much of what you say on the blog RL, but on abuse issues I feel you have something of a hair trigger (as do I).

                On the paragraph Pete used I believe it’s not framed as a gender issue as such, but as a DPB issue – i.e. If women have kids and leave the fathers (because those fathers would be good role models) the ones who incite young men to violence can only be women. If the DPB was denied then women would have to stay with the men who fathered their children and the problem of kids learning violence from their mothers would be solved. Moreover this is a Māori problem.

                In this framing it’s not a case of whether men or women are responsible for domestic violence (obviously both are, because the author admits boys will grow up to hit women). It’s that domestic violence is a result of:
                1. Sole parent Māori women
                2. The availability of benefits to women with children.

                I think you’ve missed the point by arguing about whether women commit violence against their sons (clearly, some do). Seeing we agree on that, is it possible to have a discussion about the framing of the piece?

            • RedLogix 15.5.1.5.1.2
              27 April 2014 at 1:41 pm

              It’s worth restating the common ground here: violence is always the responsibility of the person who lashes out. Regardless of gender, race, class, provocation or anything.

              PG is indeed on very fucking dodgy ground by framing it as a race issue because it’s not.

              Equally anyone framing it solely on gender grounds is on similarly thin ice considering that whereas men’s physical strength and cultural conditioning mean they are responsible for the most harm; women contribute to domestic violence and abuse stats in their own special way that cannot be ignored.

              I drew a comparison with alcohol abuse because it’s a slightly less ‘loaded’ issue (bad pun intended … sorry). I think that was my sole point – to avoid the kind of bad conflation that PG has made it’s useful to be very clear about the distinction between an absolute, very simple responsibility for committing violence – and having a completely separate discussion about the root cause of why families degenerate into being so angry and dysfunctional with each other in the first place.

              Ambulance, fence, cliff and all that.

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                27 April 2014 at 2:05 pm

                I don’t see anybody framing violence ‘solely on gender grounds’. What Kelvin Davis has said is (the fact) that the majority of violence is committed by men against women and children, and his opinion that an important way to address this issue is for men like him to stand up and acknowledge the problem.

                • RedLogix …
                  27 April 2014 at 2:22 pm

                  I don’t see anybody framing violence ‘solely on gender grounds

                  Fair enough.

                  hat the majority of violence is committed by men against women and children

                  But what are you doing just there?

                  The point is that while violence is a universal issue, neither is it a uniform one. The violence men commit is indeed the most dangerous, lethal and apparent. Women also commit violence that while it may be somewhat less dangerous, less lethal and far less apparent – frequently leaves emotional and psychological scars far deeper than physical ones. (On this point I speak personally.)

                  A similar point can be made if we look through the issue from the perspective of race; poor, marginalised and dysfunctional families (and for economic reasons also frequently happen to be Maori or Pacifica) have their own particular experience and patterns of domestic violence that is different to the less apparent but equally reprehensible violence that goes in in ‘respectable’, white, middle-class homes.

                  So yes I completely reject any attempt to frame this issue around race, gender or class. It may not be uniform in it’s manifestations, but it is universal in it’s harm.

                  • Stephanie Rodgers …
                    27 April 2014 at 2:59 pm

                    Once again, you’ve taken my words to mean ‘no woman ever commits violence ever.’ Once again, no one’s saying that.

                    • weka …
                      27 April 2014 at 3:27 pm

                      +1, apart from PG of course.

                    • RedLogix …
                      27 April 2014 at 3:29 pm

                      Well to be fair neither did PG say ‘no white person ever commits violence ever’ either.

                      (In fact a small mischievous part of me might argue that us whitey boys have a special talent for organised mass murder in the form of industrialised warfare – but that’s a tangent too far)

                      I’m thinking that maybe the left has drifted into this mistake before. Take the S88 Reform Bill debate. Now I died in a whole dozen ditches here defending and promoting that reform. There were of course the church fundies and die-hards who were not going to budge from their belief that it was their God-given/cultural prerogative to beat the crap out of their children if it so pleased them.

                      But they were a minority. Albeit vocal and organised – but still a minority.

                      The real problem were the big middle of New Zealanders, all of whom have grown up in a family or have children – and have an experience of the kids getting a smack or a bit of a whack or two. Most of it probably harmless enough. And most people could a good day get their heads around the idea that smacking kids was probably counterproductive and they might be able to raise them without resorting to it. With a bit of encouragement.

                      Yet the way the debate was framed we fell into the trap of making too many of these middle New Zealanders feel wrong and guilty about it. And it was that which stirred up so much emotional resentment. And probably lost the 2008 election for that matter.

                      Now where I am in Victoria (Australia is a decade behind NZ in this domestic violence issue) there have been a string of grotesque family murders. Virtually every woman my partner makes friends with has some appalling story. I’m not seeking to minimise this issue one tiny bit.

                      But here’s the rub. Along with many men, while I’ve never, ever, slightly assaulted a woman, my only personal brush with domestic violence was when a woman rather badly kicked me. (A long time ago.) And most men, while willing to take responsibility for their actions, willing to stop the violence, even if needing a fair bit of encouragement – at the same time are very resistant to the idea that somehow the cause of it was always their fault and they are ones who are always guilty and shamed.

                      Even if that message is not the intended one, when we focus just on men’s violence it is too often the only message heard. And it provokes the same counterproductive resentment encountered over the S88 Reform. We do that when we conflate responsibility for stopping the violence – with responsibility for the root cause of the anger and dysfunction leading to it.

                      The counter is to frame the issue in universal terms. When we said “The law does not permit us to assault adults for any reason, why then should it make an exception for children who are even more in need of protection” the heat would go away. Because that argument made sense, and ultimately was why almost every Party in the House voted for it. (Except the execrable ACT Party. It was the beginning of the end for them.)

                    • weka …
                      27 April 2014 at 3:44 pm

                      “at the same time are very resistant to the idea that somehow it’s all always their fault and they are one who are always guilty.”

                      How about you stop buying into that false framing then. And stop promoting it.

                    • RedLogix …
                      27 April 2014 at 3:51 pm

                      Was it my fault that a woman kicked me? Did I deserve it?

                      (I did need to edit the bit of my comment that you have quoted for clarity.)

                    • weka …
                      27 April 2014 at 4:13 pm

                      I don’t feel in any way qualified to have an opinion about that situation where you were assualted Red.

                      You do seem to be mixing things up. Neither myself, nor Stephanie, nor Kelvin Davis, nor most of the commenters on his FB thread have said that men don’t ever experience violence at the hands of women. Or that all violence is soley the fault of men. So I am at a loss to know what your point is.

                      I will say again, no-one is saying that it is all men’s fault (apart from PG). If you see people saying that, then I can only suggest that you check out what they really mean and see if it fits what you are thinking.

                      Please stop supporting PG’s false framing and racist/misogynistic framing.

                      (I don’t understand your edit sorry).

                    • RedLogix …
                      27 April 2014 at 4:30 pm

                      I don’t feel in any way qualified to have an opinion about that situation where you were assualted Red.

                      Well if hypothetically I had been the one doing the kicking would you then feel qualified to have an opinion?

                      Or that all violence is soley the fault of men. So I am at a loss to know what your point is.

                      My point boils down to this:

                      “Even if that message is not the intended one, when we focus just on men’s violence … too often is is the only message heard. And then it provokes the same counterproductive resentment encountered over the S88 Reform. We do that when we conflate responsibility for stopping the violence – with responsibility for the root cause of the anger and dysfunction leading to it.”

                      Please stop supporting PG’s false framing and racist/misogynistic framing.

                      It would help if you stopped reading demons into little isolated fragments of what I’m saying. Please feel free to ask for clarification if I am unclear.

                    • Pete George …
                      27 April 2014 at 4:48 pm

                      “I will say again, no-one is saying that it is all men’s fault (apart from PG).”

                      I’ve never said that, so it’s ironic you’ve (weka) claimed that at the same time as accusing me of “false framing”.

                      Redlogix makes a very good point. I think he’s right about S88, I had a lot of experience debating against smacking children but it became apparent that many decent parents felt very confronted and shamed by “smacking is illegal”.

                      And the same thing applies in wider debates about violence. I’ve debated extensively against violence, especially on Kiwiblog, but I can confirm what Redlogix suggests, it’s counterproductive to blame violence on men and traget men specifically.

                      Men are obviously a major factor in violence but far from the only one. Many women can also be violent, and some even defend violent partners over the wellbeing of children.

                      But the key point on this (and some could take a lesson on it in politics too) – if you single out and attack groups, whether they be Maori or men or beneficiaries or whatever, you are far more likely to alienate than engage. It’s often counterproductive.

                    • felix …
                      27 April 2014 at 6:01 pm

                      I think what weka means is you were the one accusing others of holding that view when no-one had actually expressed it Pete. As you said here:

                      Good luck with those Labour Party Hand Mirror feminists Kelvin; they’ll love you while you’re in your white knight “it’s all men’s fault” phase

                    • weka …
                      27 April 2014 at 9:43 pm

                      “Well if hypothetically I had been the one doing the kicking would you then feel qualified to have an opinion?”

                      Of course not.

                      “It would help if you stopped reading demons into little isolated fragments of what I’m saying. Please feel free to ask for clarification if I am unclear.”

                      I don’t know what you mean by ‘reading demons into little isolated fragments’. When I asked you to stop supporting PG’s framing, I meant that the act of trying to have a conversation about domestic violence, in the context of what PG did (racist, misogynistic framing to a Māori man in a community that will include many Māori including Māori mothers), and where you believe at core PG has a point… that act is supporting bullshit irrespective of what your actual argmuent is.

                      “Even if that message is not the intended one, when we focus just on men’s violence … too often is is the only message heard. And then it provokes the same counterproductive resentment encountered over the S88 Reform. We do that when we conflate responsibility for stopping the violence – with responsibility for the root cause of the anger and dysfunction leading to it.”

                      Don’t know who you mean by ‘we’ in that statement, who exactly focuses ‘just on men’s violence’? Who is conflating responsibility for stopping violence with responsibility of the anger and dysfunction leading to it?

                    • weka …
                      27 April 2014 at 10:08 pm

                      “I will say again, no-one is saying that it is all men’s fault (apart from PG).”

                      “I’ve never said that,”

                      Yes you did,

                      Open mike 27/04/2014

                    • RedLogix …
                      28 April 2014 at 12:28 am

                      @weka.

                      Unless someone is trolling, drunk or emotionally wound up – it’s rare for someone to make a statement in a blog that is completely right or wrong. I’ve read a fair portion of the 800,000 comments here on TS over the years, and if there is one thing I have learned it is that discussions are generally more fruitful and satisfying if you look for those points you can agree on and work from there.

                      Even the most superficially obnoxious and upsetting comment (and yes they still do) is worth trying to a deep breath on and having a bit of a think about before launching into an angry, testosterone-poisoned rebuttal. Or maybe I’m just getting old and boring and I don’t have it in me anymore 🙂

                      So if you thought I was 100% backing PG’s position – you have it wrong.

                      However I’ve spent much of the last four hours reading The Hand Mirror. Lots of great articles – but nothing relating to my experience. Four hours isn’t long and I may well have missed something, but the tag cloud didn’t lead anywhere obvious.

                      What happened to me was a quite serious assault. A close friend of mine who witnessed it 35 years ago still recalls it clearly. (It was at a party.)

                      Of course at the time I never reported it. It never occurred to me at the time, I simply would not have defined in my mind that what happened was wrong. Until very recently I would have told you it was my fault. And because of that denial my next really big mistake was in marrying that person. The many consequences of that error still echo in my life to this day.

                      I’ve been blogging here since 2008 and this is the first and only time I’m going to refer to it. Because if you cannot tell that one person seriously kicking another (regardless of gender or ‘circumstance’) is domestic violence – then frankly I’m out of this discussion.

                    • weka …
                      28 April 2014 at 1:58 pm

                      Red, please take this kindly… you are really missing what I am saying in my comments. To try and clarify,

                      Of course women can be the offender in domestic violence. That’s a given. You will never have seen me say anything to the contrary, and I don’t think I’ve seen any of the feminist minded people here on ts say that either.

                      I didn’t feel qualified to have an opinion about either of the situations you put forth, simply because there was no information. You said she kicked you hard, in my response I called that assault. I didn’t know if it was domestic because I didn’t know what the relationship between you and her is, but it was obviously assault. Someone assaulting someone at a party doesn’t in itself equal domestic abuse (as opposed to other kinds of assualt), but I wasn’t assuming anything, I just said I couldn’t comment. There was nothing in anything I have said that even implied that women can’t be violent towards men. I also didn’t, and still don’t know what you wanted me to say in response to

                      Was it my fault that a woman kicked me? Did I deserve it?

                      I suspect part of the problem is that you are thinking in terms of blame and guilt and, from the sounds of it, misapplied responsibility. I don’t really think about it in those terms.

                      The last time I was around physical violence, it was the neighbours yelling at each other in their backyard. It was at night, and I listened for a bit to get a sense of how serious it might be. Then something changed (he picked something up and hit her with it), and she started screaming at him. I drove my car up their drive and talked to them from the rolled down window but with the doors locked (I didn’t know either of them well enough to feel safe). I asked her to come over and talk to me on her own, which she did and she said she would be ok and I believed her. He was apologetic and shame-faced.

                      I wasn’t sitting there thinking ‘it’s all his fault’. I was thinking about my own safety, whether she would be safe, whether I would need to call the police etc. None of that had anything to do with assigning blame or guilt. It was simply that he lost control of his anger and stepped over a line and I responded by taking action (as did his partner).

                      I didn’t know her, but I did know him from around the community and certainly knew people who knew him. Later in the week she came over and had a cup of tea and I felt reassured that things were not that out of control (she left him some time later). I saw him round the community over time and was open and friendly to him in the same way I had been before. I told one other neighbour what happened because I thought someone else in the vicinity should know, but I told it neutrally, a recounting of what happened. I didn’t assign blame other than to say that it was him that did the hitting (that’s not really blame that’s just responsibility). I didn’t tell anyone else what had happened, but if someone had talked about him to me in terms of violence I would have considered telling the story or not based on the context.

                      So, I made a whole bunch of judgement calls in that situation, based on wanting things to be good for all people. If he had done things that suggested he thought it was ok to hit her or tried to blame her for his actions, I would have no doubt made different judgements, not because those things make him evil, but because they lessen significantly the chances of him not hitting her or someone else again. They also would have suggested he had some fucked up ideas about human relations and women, which would have affected my opinion of him as a person.

                      I can understand with the kind of experiences you have had that your situation has had many effects on you, including probably quite complex ones around being male and violence and where the boundaries are in terms of your own safety. I also understand that men have unique challenges in this because of the roles that the kyriarchy place on them. It’s to our society’s shame that for someone in your situation there is mainly the MRA groups instead of positive, affirming places to go to get support.

                      I need you to understand that in this conversation my points are political and I’m not speaking about personal experiences. I think both are valuable, but I also think you are responding from your own experiences not to what my actual politics are.

                      So when I say that PG has done something despicable, what I mean is that he told lies about the people he was speaking to, and he told them in such a way that clouded the issues which enable him to then put forth some fucked up theories of racism and misogyny. None of the people in the conversation that started on Kelvin Davis’ FB page appear to believe the idea that ‘it’s all mens’ fault’. Nor does feminism in general believe that (talk to feminists raising sons and you will understand how much women have a vested interest in not demonising men). Pete’s whole approach told lies about Davis, feminists, and subsequently a number of us. The problem for you is that you tried to have a conversation about personal experiences of violence in a context that was already too fucked to be repaired (which is why I suggested to not do it).

                      Beyond that, I can understand why some men think that some women think that ‘it’s all men’s fault’ despite it usually not being true. I saw that you didn’t see the difference between that and what Stephanie said for instance. I think there is useful dialogue to be had here that is more focussed on checking things out rather than assuming. It’s possible that we might even get some shared understanding. However I also note that some of your politics clash with mine (and others) on this… I think getting to point where we understand what each others’ politics actually are before we argue about them might be useful. Not sure that now is the right time given the PG Tips effect.

          • Once was Tim 15.5.1.5.2
            27 April 2014 at 2:31 pm

            …. see 12.6 above
            Problem is that it’s not even ‘the kernel’. It’s usually some manky, insect-bitten, rodent shat-over, Hooton pissed-over crust.

          • phillip ure 15.5.1.6.1
            27 April 2014 at 2:35 pm

            but they had a ‘point of view’ you agreed with..

            ..eh petey..?

          • mickysavage 15.5.1.6.2
            27 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

            So Pete do you agree or disagree with what you posted?

            BTW your link does not work.

            • Pete George 15.5.1.6.2.1
              27 April 2014 at 3:13 pm

              I asked Martin to provide proof to back up what he said, as you may have seen (I presume you checked things out). I think it’s likely some truth to at least some of what he says, family violence has many complex causes. Male violence is a major, but it’s not isolated. There seems to be a high number of Maori solo parents, I think close to half of those on the DPB are Maori.

              Violence isn’t limited just to those on benefits, but a lack of money, a lack of support, a lack of a positive father figure, revolving boyfriends, disinterested fathers and disinterested boyfriends are all factors in awful levels of family violence. This is complicated by the fact that violence is an inter-generational problem deeply embedded in some parts of our cultures.

              The link: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/04/davis_priorities.html#comment-1311863

              • weka …
                27 April 2014 at 3:30 pm

                There are two options here Pete, although they’re not mutually exclusive. One is that you do believe, pretty much, with what you posted. The other is that you are a complete imbecile when it comes to online communication. Either way henceforth you will be known for espousing some pretty fucked up views on Māori, women and violence.

                • freedom …
                  27 April 2014 at 4:19 pm

                  You would think he at least would know how to use quotation marks and paste a link with all the copy pasting he does. Why is there no link to the source on his Facebook post I wonder? Didn’t want to expose Kiwiblog to the bad press?

                  but this old chestnut raised its head pretty quickly “To push the whole message you need evidence and statistics. Is anything substantial available?”

                  He is still wanting everyone else to do his fact-checking work for him

                  • weka …
                    27 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

                    We know that he does know how to use quotation marks, so the reasonable assumption is that he either wanted to confuse people or he wanted to weasel his way out of his opinions while expressing them. or both.

                    “Rhys Dwyer Is this the same Pete George who is Editor in Chief of the fact checking site Politicheck?”

                    😉

                  • felix …
                    27 April 2014 at 6:10 pm

                    “Why is there no link to the source on his Facebook post I wonder?”

                    Because he thinks “as someone said” carries more weight than “as some hateful bigoted imbecile on kiwiblog said”

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      27 April 2014 at 9:57 pm

                      To be fair, that’s a good assumption. If Pete had been honest about his sources, most people would have reacted by saying ‘why should we dignify racist, sexist commentary from the sewer?’

                      And whether you believe him when he says he wants to ‘promote engagement’, or whether you think he just wants to stir up anger and upset in order to high-mindedly opine about it on his own blog later, it would’ve failed either way.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2014 at 10:03 pm

                      I’m sure the high-minded opining will happen, anyway 🙂

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                27 April 2014 at 4:58 pm

                Genuinely, Pete, I felt like you’ve been unfairly picked on around these parts.

                I take that back.

                Because your actions today have been ghastly and horrible. To use such a sexist comment to try and simulate some debate is simply reprehensible.

                • Pete George …
                  27 April 2014 at 5:02 pm

                  Is it sexist to suggest some women are responsible or partly responsible for our massive problems with violence? If you think it is do you think it’s sexist to single out men on violence?

                  • Disraeli Gladstone …
                    27 April 2014 at 5:12 pm

                    No one, no one is saying that domestic violence is 100% a male caused problem. It’s a complex issue with many causes. However, it is predominantly a male problem and Kelvin Davis is making the point that males should step up and help stop it and not just leave it to “Hand Mirror feminists” as your quoted friend likes to put it.

                    But let me quote the quote that you were happy to use to try and get some engagement and debate going:

                    “being beaten up by their (solo) mother until they got old enough to leave home”

                    “because the DPB allows resource to flow from men to women without reciprocation so women have kids alone”

                    “Feminism and the erosion of mana tane (male honour and prestige) is the colonisation that dare not speak its name.”

                    “Good luck with those Labour Party Hand Mirror feminists Kelvin; they’ll love you while you’re in your white knight “it’s all men’s fault” phase, but as soon as you follow the facts, look at the bigger picture and hold women to account for their part in these problems you’ll realise what a poisoned chalice you hold.”

                    “their mums prioritising getting drunk over having healthy kids.”

                    If you don’t think those aren’t the words of a toxic misogynist then I cannot help you and I’m not going to engage with someone so out of touch.

                    And if you can see that they are the words of a deeply sexist position, then why on earth were you granting them legitimacy by using it as the platform for debate.

              • left for dead …
                27 April 2014 at 5:23 pm

                mr George,I’m just dipping my toes on this blog,but o’dear me.you may just find…that…… (to with an inch of your life)you have no hand to hold it.Now enough of the toilet jokes.You must try not to prove the point about being educated beyond your intellect.

              • Harry Holland …
                27 April 2014 at 10:47 pm

                I see a pattern.

                Pete pokes the borax. Usually based on a valid point but phrased in a contentious manner.

                Standard readers swarm and attack Pete.

                Rinse repeat.

          • Jackal 15.5.1.6.3
            27 April 2014 at 3:09 pm

            Just a big fail all round there Pete George. However it’s this sentence that is most troubling to me:

            No father around modelling good behaviour because the DPB allows resource to flow from men to women without reciprocation so women have kids alone.

            The paraphrasing here is that women should no longer receive the DPB because it encourages them to have children alone. This is the same old argument that we’ve seen a million times from the idiot neoliberals that don’t want to pay their taxes.

            Btw, women also pay taxes in New Zealand, so there is no “flow from men to women without reciprocation”. Whoever wrote that is a very sick individual.

            The problem is that without welfare which allows solo mothers to survive independently, they and their children are more likely to be forced to reside in violent situations. Restricting finances is one of the ways in which an abuser tries to trap their victims so that they cannot escape.

            Is that what you want Pete George…for woman to not have a financial means of escaping the abuse?

            • weka 15.5.1.6.3.1
              27 April 2014 at 3:40 pm

              I think it’s worse than that. The implication is that women should find and stay with a man and be dependent on him.

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                27 April 2014 at 9:59 pm

                And the assumption is that any two-parent heterosexual family setup must be better than a solo-mother set up (it’s also funny how the staunch defenders of men like to ignore the solo dads out there!)

        • karol 15.5.1.7
          27 April 2014 at 6:20 pm

          As I was reading through this thread, that was my first guess, too ms. And behold.

      • Murray Olsen 15.5.2
        28 April 2014 at 12:42 am

        Pete the Weasel seems to be claiming that it’s a quote from somewhere else (he doesn’t say where) to stimulate discussion. I used to find him amusing. Now I almost vomit in disgust.

    • Bill 15.6
      27 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

      One wee thing that puzzles me about PG’s facebook offering is that he preludes what you’ve cut and pasted with (paraphrasing) “here’s a quote in response…”, but then doesn’t use quotations or ascribe the (supposed) quote to anyone.

      Maybe somebody who can be bothered with him would care to have him clear that one up? I mean, are they his words or not? If he doesn’t agree with what’s being said, then why post it with no qualifying commentary? etc

      • weka 15.6.1
        27 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

        Just before that bit he says,

        “Men should take responsibility for male violence but it isn’t that simple.”

        I take that to mean that he agrees with what he then cut and pastes. But of course the way that he is communicating this means he has an out. He can express reprehensible ideas but he doesn’t have to take responsibility for that.

        “If he doesn’t agree with what’s being said, then why post it with no qualifying commentary? etc”

        Because that’s his modus operandi? To let everyone react to something he can then deny. Someone said the other day that it’s all about attention. This is starting to reach pathological proportions.

        Besides, google returns only one hit from a random sampling of the ‘quote’, and that’s the FB page. It’s possible that he could have typed it out from hard text but it would have been so easy to attribute it too, so either way he’s just being his usual disingenuous, tr*lly self.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 15.6.1.1
          27 April 2014 at 1:18 pm

          What text would mention the DPB and the Hand Mirror and not be linkable?

          Perhaps he records and transcribes talkback radio in his spare time?

          Whatever, it just looks like yet another attention-seeking gesture.

          Perhaps he wants to be the centre’s answer to Cameron Slater.

          • weka 15.6.1.1.1
            27 April 2014 at 1:23 pm

            “transcribes talkback radio in his spare time?”

            lolz, perfect.

            yeah, there is this

            “Good luck with those Labour Party Hand Mirror feminists Kelvin”

            Would it be on FB? Do FB comments end up in google searches? That it’s addressed to Kelvin suggests it was on his FB page.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 15.6.1.1.1.1
              27 April 2014 at 1:40 pm

              I guess if the comment was on a private fb page it wouldn’t be visible to Google.

              Either way it’s another “Weasel Words Disrupt Debate Again” moment.

              • marty mars …
                27 April 2014 at 2:16 pm

                This is what pete says, “I’ve posted here (it was a quote, I didn’t say it) to promote engagement.”

                I hope pete is kicked from his factfinder general role and wins a darwin award too – I am so over that wanker pete george.

                • freedom …
                  27 April 2014 at 6:10 pm

                  I imagine Rory has some serious thinking to do. We have to believe Rory is aware of Pete’s behaviour today, indeed of this past week.

                  I sincerely want a site like Politicheck to not only exist, but succeed and proudly stride towards its ambitions. How can it with Pete George shackled to its ankles.

                  • felix …
                    27 April 2014 at 6:22 pm

                    I just had a look at poliwannacracker today to see how it’s evolving. It seems to be nothing more than another Pete George blog.

                    The “facts” being checked include items of conjecture like “Will NZ First only decide after the election?” and “Will party members decide on Mana/Internet Party alliance?”

                    In other words, utter trivia. Pretending to answer the questions no-one is asking. Might as well check “What does Pete feel like waffling about today?”

                    Verdict: Business as usual for Pete. Not looking good, Rory.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2014 at 6:43 pm

                      yeah I had a similar reaction.

                      Pity.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      27 April 2014 at 10:10 pm

                      The stated goal of Politicheck is: … to analyse all statements made during the election by all parties and say whether or not, based on evidence available, they are telling the truth.

                      Yet they have so far done:

                      4 checks on Labour statements
                      4 checks on the Internet Party (one about Mana/Internet, one about Clare Curran joining the IP)
                      1 about ACT
                      1 about a Campbell Live poll
                      2 about Simon Bridges – one of which about the troubling question ‘have the Greens ever been in government?’
                      1 about Labour claims about National policy – involves taking 1 tweet from David Cunliffe and saying ‘the government isn’t technically doing nothing’
                      1 about John Key claims about Labour policy – verdict: he was obviously wrong but we’ve asked for him to verify it

                      To be honest, that’s not a particularly impressive list (and there’s no tagging/categorising of posts so you have to scroll through the whole list to check what they’ve covered!)

        • karol 15.6.1.2
          27 April 2014 at 6:33 pm

          But he also responds to criticisms of his original comment by saying this:

          You’ve made a number of assumptions without knowing anything about me. otherwise I agree with much of what you’ve said. It’s nothing to do with “don’t pick on us”, but if it’s addressed as a male problem only from my experience it can alienate the people that need to be engaged with.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.6.2
        27 April 2014 at 1:08 pm

        I think Karol answered that the other day when she described his links (you could hardly call them comments) as “bait”.

        PS: Google returns one hit for quotes from the comment. *snap Weka

      • marty mars 15.6.3
        27 April 2014 at 1:10 pm

        If the editor of a factchecking site cannot put quotation marks in or provide a source they are a complete fake. I suspect that the non use of the quotation marks was deliberate rather than a display of utter dim that usually encompasses petes comments and I say that based on his numerous postings to date.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 15.6.4
        27 April 2014 at 1:10 pm

        I think it’s very convenient for Pete to phrase his contributions in this way. It allows him to disown any responsibility for the terrible things he writes by claiming (as he does on Facebook) that he’s just trying to ‘promote engagement’ and of course it’s ‘not his opinion, it’s just a quote’.

      • miravox 15.6.5
        27 April 2014 at 10:56 pm

        “but then doesn’t use quotations or ascribe the (supposed) quote to anyone.”

        Yes, very bad form from someone who professes the technical skills of an editor. I’m pretty sure he’s been pulled up on quoting skills before on TS.

    • David H 15.7
      27 April 2014 at 10:10 pm

      You forgot this bit Micky. God forbid I have to support PG but you did leave this paragraph out and it’s pertinent.

      No word on fetal alcohol syndrome? That would be a good place to start, by stopping kids futures being stolen before they’re even born by their mums prioritising getting drunk over having healthy kids.

      Unfortunately when my partner was Pregnant, we used to see the young teen mothers to be coming to anti natal classes hung over, and some were as young as 17. So to me Drinking when pregnant is just another form of child abuse. The babies just start getting abused earlier.

      edit: Come to think on it this is probably the most sense he has made in all my time here about 3-4 years.

  16. Redbaiter 16
    27 April 2014 at 11:23 am

    Looks to me like the Green Party has taken over Labour.

    No wonder Jones quit.

    What a shambles.

    Job killers who say they’re for the workers.

    What a message that sends to voters.

    [How about you actually back up your claims with the odd fact? There is nothing more annoying than having to deal with inane comments that have no basis in reality – MS]

    • RedLogix 16.1
      27 April 2014 at 11:34 am

      Looks to me like the Green Party has taken over Labour.

      Oh good. At last.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2
      27 April 2014 at 11:36 am

      I note their housing insulation policy required work to be done. Job creators. I further note their giving confidence and supply to a government that achieved the lowest unemployment rate in New Zealand history.

      I further note that an example of a “Green” practice is riparian planting which increases per-acre yield.

      Whereas you don’t know what Green policy looks like other than vague references to the bogeyman. It’s not unusual to find this sort of fear-mongery in a right-winger, with your engorged amygdallae and so-forth.

      All a bit pitiful really. My deepest sympathy.

    • blue leopard 16.3
      27 April 2014 at 11:37 am

      “Job killers who say they’re for the workers.”

      Yes, National should stop doing that – people will eventually work out what type of jobs and working conditions National encourage; degenerate ones if any at all.

    • Redbaiter 16.4
      27 April 2014 at 1:36 pm

      [How about you actually back up your claims with the odd fact? There is nothing more annoying than having to deal with inane comments that have no basis in reality – MS]

      Fair enough. (The left though would be in serious trouble if their comments were filtered by that same criteria).

      I’ve written a blog post to substantiate my opinion.

      http://truebluenz.com

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.4.1
        27 April 2014 at 1:43 pm

        Nah, you didn’t write that: it was your amygdala.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 16.4.2
        27 April 2014 at 2:57 pm

        All you have supplied is an extended opinion. Your article is devoid of justification – that is, you haven’t provided any information as to how your opinion is based in reality -I can see why you are having severe problems achieving that aim.

      • mickysavage 16.4.3
        27 April 2014 at 3:37 pm

        I must have missed the meeting where the Green Party operatives walked in and announced that Labour was being taken over …

        Sriously?

        • phillip ure 16.4.3.1
          27 April 2014 at 4:22 pm

          i understand baseball bats were involved..

          ..(followed by some healing-oils..)

          (ol’ red has a particularly fervid imagination..eh..?..)

          ..everything is in garish/cold-war colours…

          ..in his world..

  17. Ron 17
    27 April 2014 at 11:24 am

    Why on earth do Labour bother running their Red Alert blog. Last posts that I could see are back in March. If they cannot keep it up to date and topical then they should close it

    • phillip ure 17.1
      27 April 2014 at 12:01 pm

      they would brook no deviation from the ‘message’..

      ..they censored with the fury of a single-armed paperhanger..

      ..everyone yawned..and walked away..

      ..not so much red alert..as red snooze..

  18. Ergo Robertina 18
    27 April 2014 at 12:16 pm

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2593805/exceptions-to-the-rule

    Wallace Chapman interviewed Far From the Tree author Andrew Solomon on RNZ this morning.
    I read this incredibly thorough and sensitive book recently, and can’t recommend it too highly.
    Solomon interviewed hundreds of families with children who are different from them – by virtue of disability, prodigy, mental illness, criminality, gender identity – and revisited some over several years. There is also a chapter about children born after rape.
    Every story is told with sensitivity and humour, and each chapter gives an overview and history of the historical/medical/social issues of the identity.

  19. Clemgeopin 19
    27 April 2014 at 1:54 pm

    WHY I WILL NOT VOTE NATIONAL

    A good post/article/view on Stuff Nation. The over 200 comments are quite interesting too, being overwhelmingly in support of the article as far as I could see. That pleasantly surprised me.

    Have a read if you are interested.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/what-issues-will-get-your-vote/9974809/Why-I-will-not-vote-National

    • freedom 19.1
      27 April 2014 at 4:23 pm

      & those comments that are pro-National are spinning some awfully familiar fact-free slogans.

      • Paul 19.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 5:56 pm

        That’s all they have slogans.
        Keep the debate on the issues and drop the personality driven agenda the media will attempt to foist on the debate.
        Remember how Robert Reid dealt to the media’s agenda.

  20. Clemgeopin 20
    27 April 2014 at 2:13 pm

    A thought for Sunday:

    When Judas betrayed his leader for thirty pieces of silver and left, none of the other disciples followed him.

    • ianmac 20.1
      27 April 2014 at 4:53 pm

      Aha! But other hand when his leader flung himself on a sort of cross none of the remaining others in his team joined him there either.

      • Clemgeopin 20.1.1
        27 April 2014 at 6:00 pm

        True that! People are such fearful creatures! Anyway, they did follow him and sing his praise when he rose again and proved who was!

  21. rhinocrates 21
    27 April 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Oh shit, another bloody technical problem when a post disappeared.

    I want to say… blah blah blah

    Jesus, I’m sick of this crap.

    OK… actually, nope, I can’t be bothered, last straw and all that. Fuck it. Goodbye.

    • blue leopard 21.1
      27 April 2014 at 6:48 pm

      lol I do hope that is just a momentary I’ve-lost-patience goodbye, and not meaning that you’ve completely given up on overcoming these technical issues you are experiencing….

  22. Tautoko Viper 22
    27 April 2014 at 9:41 pm

    An evaluation on the effects of privatisation of schools in US shows us the importance of voting out this current government.

    “From 2010 to 2013, Rocketship increased it assets from $2.2 million to $15.8 million. And while it posted impressive test scores at its first schools in California, over the last four years, test scores have fallen at every Rocketship school. All seven Rocketship schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to federal standards for the last school year.

    “Given that Rocketship places such a strong emphasis on standardized testing, it is telling that, even by this measure, the company has faced struggles and disappointments,” Lafer writes.

    While Rocketship is a nonprofit, its business model enriches its directors through a deal with a licensed software company called “DreamBox,” supplied by for-profit vendors, who happen to also sit on Rocketship’s board.”
    https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/25-2

    This is the path that Act would drag our education along!!

  23. logie97 23
    27 April 2014 at 10:20 pm

    A lot of comment here and elsewhere viz Jones, Tamihere, Pagani, Trotter suggesting the Labour Party no longer represents them. Would be interesting to know which party they will vote for come September. Or will they join the 800,000…?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Older posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    Labour
    2 weeks ago

  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    Labour
    2 weeks ago

  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    Labour
    3 weeks ago

  • Tax refund season ends near $600 million
    Almost $600 million has been paid into taxpayers’ bank accounts in the past two months, after the first season of automatic tax assessments. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash says the completion of this year’s tax refund season is a significant milestone. “The ability of Inland Revenue to run auto calculations for ...
    Labour
    3 weeks ago

Older posts

Older posts