Open mike 27/04/2016

40 comments on “Open mike 27/04/2016 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   27 April 2016 at 6:15 am

   What is the plan?

   http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/paulhenry/pressure-on-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases-2016042611#axzz46xJo9qGS

   “….opposition parties are slamming the government for failing to have an actual plan to reduce emissions.” PAUL HENRY @00:14 minutes

   “We have to make some cuts from transport”

   “We have to make some from energy”

   “We need to make some cuts from agriculture”

   MEGAN WOODS @00:55 minutes

   “What do you think of our goals?”
   “Goals are a bloody waste of time if you haven’t got a plan to get to them.” PAUL HENRY @1:48 minutes

   “Put a hat on it, call it Chernobyl” PAUL HENRY @3:39 minutes
   • Jenny 1.1

     27 April 2016 at 6:33 am

     What is the plan? II

     Defence force Major equates climate change with Isis in Anzac day address.

     http://thestandard.org.nz/anzac-day-2016/#comment-1165121

     Yesterday, Paul Henry asked our politicians, “What is the plan?”

     And found them all rather flat footed.

     Maybe Paul Henry needs to get Defence Force Major John Cook and Lieutenant General Tim Keating on to his show and ask them the same question. “What is the plan?”

     After all they are the people charged by us to be planning our defence.

     “Aren’t they?” (raised eyebrow, Paul Henry style)
   • b waghorn 1.2

     27 April 2016 at 6:58 am

     Its been interesting watching henry go from head in the sand about climate change to becoming quite vocal in the space of 6 months.
   • Bill 1.3

     27 April 2016 at 11:50 am

     Okay, I’m quite heartened by the attitude of Paul Henry. Given his popularity, it’s fucking excellent that he’s now taking it seriously and getting pissed off.

     Megan Woods saying that “these are plans that are going to take decades to implement” and praising the UK is….fucking fucked. We don’t have decades and the UK is no leading light on action around climate change.

     We have 15 years to get to zero on emissions from fossil. At the same time, agriculture and land use emissions have to drop too.

     Here’s a plan (in no particular order).

     1. Stop separating transport from energy – they are the same fucking thing.
     2. Do a ‘job audit’ and dis-establish any and all jobs that contribute to climate change while contributing nothing to the well being of society.
     3. Introduce a UBI or similar to mitigate the effects of 2.
     4. Legislate strict energy efficiency standards for all appliances and machinery that run on fossil (or electric derived from fossil)
     5. Retrofit every single home that is expected to be standing in 2040 – 2050 so that it can withstand a likely world of +3 or +4 degrees. (That mitigates 2 as well)
     6. Plunge money into R&D that’s targeted on CC mitigation.
     7. Begin building the new infrastructure we will be needing and retro fitting our existing infrastructure where possible.
     8. Stop subtly blaming all of us for a situation that has largely arisen because of the lifestyles and actions of a notional 10% of the population. Point the finger appropriately and (like smoking) make profligate individual fossil use unacceptable.
     9. Give all scientists working on climate change a cast iron guarantee on their future funding so that they no longer feel compelled to ‘paint rosy’ pictures on our prospects.
     10. Act on the basis of the hard science and stop acting on the basis of magical thinking that has future technologies delivering us workable carbon capture and storage.
     11. Produce and disseminate the year on year progress on the necessary ~15% reduction from fossil.

     Meanwhile, spend a worthwhile 30 min listening to what scientists and engineers are saying.
     • Pat 1.3.1

       27 April 2016 at 11:53 am

       or at least have some plan of action…
       • Bill 1.3.1.1

         27 April 2016 at 12:22 pm

         No.

         Not ‘some’ plan. ‘Some’ plan is like rounding up 11 random people to play against Real Madrid with the following game plan – “Get out there and put this round thing between those posts over there.” Unlikely to work.

         Any plan has to be realistic. That probably entails a massive social/political shift. Every plan must give principle consideration to thremodynamics. Everything else – everything else – is secondary to that.
         • Pat 1.3.1.1.1

           27 April 2016 at 12:26 pm

           some plan is better than no plan….atleast then it can be evaluated and modified as necessary….very difficult critique and adjust something that doesn’t exist.

           It also equates to an admission that something needs to be done…..do we have that now?
           • Bill 1.3.1.1.1.1

             27 April 2016 at 12:51 pm

             According to the Copenhagen Accord that the NZ government signed up to – yes.
             According to the Paris Agreement that the NZ government signed up to – yes.

             And they have a plan. Buy credits. Underplay the severity of the situation. Kick everything down the road into a future they’ll no longer be playing a part in. And so on.

             You really think that’s better than having a clean slate? You believe that can be modified to produce something worthwhile and workable?

             There is a real world problem. It’s easily understood. Our possible actions are (or should be) determined by the reality. That’s what any evaluation or critique gets stacked against; the reality – not some self referencing critique or evaluation of a plan that hasn’t taken reality into account.

             The 11 guys plucked off the street to play Real Madrid. You can modify, critique, or fuck with the game plan they have till the cows come home, but no modification of the plan is going to succeed.

             And I, and anyone else with even a scant understanding of the problem (never mind the scientists and the engineers here) can tell you that, at present, our governments and their plans, really are akin to 11 random Jos playing Real Madrid…there’s nothing to modify. It won’t work because it can’t work. Actually – the 11 Jos have some immeasurably small chance of pulling it off. Governments and their plans have none.

             edit. Any comment on the actual suggestions I listed – or is the fall-back of ‘some plan’ just a way of ignoring the points, avoiding ‘hard shit’ and essentially shoving your head in the sand?
             • adam …

               27 April 2016 at 1:37 pm

               Avoiding hard things is now a national past time.
             • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) …

               27 April 2016 at 4:43 pm

               Bill,
               I only wish we had politicians with the guts to take up your suggestions and transform our society – God knows, we need to do it.

               But also, both those climate scientists referred several times to the 1% causing a disproportional amount of carbon emissions. Perhaps, as a necessary step towards your points, we need to eliminate the elite? Now, more than ever, we can’t afford the rich!
             • Pat …

               27 April 2016 at 6:33 pm

               you’re welcome….carry on.
         • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1.2

           27 April 2016 at 1:46 pm

           Steve Keen has put some thought into thermodynamic modelling of economics.

           And to head down this road we need a financial and monetary system which is aligned with thermodynamic realities.

           Currently we are running our country like it is an electronic money numbers game. Minimal relationship to physical, thermodynamic reality.
2. weka 2

   27 April 2016 at 7:47 am

   Yesterday Hooton was laying some more bait along the lines of NZF and the Greens will benefit as National falls, and that once they are both on 15% and able to form govt with Labour Peters will insist on being PM. To me that mostly looks like Hooton bullshitting and stirring, but I’d be interested in some actual analysis. Is it technically possible that a smaller party leader could be PM? How? How would the electorate react?
   • Sabine 2.1

     27 April 2016 at 8:30 am

     The question in my book is not so much could it? But rather Why not?

     If the smaller parties come up in large enough numbers, if one of these smaller parties has a Leader or Co-leaders that the country would stay behind, the question is Why should a smaller party not bring the PM and the other Parties bring in the MP’s.

     This is the whole point of forming a Coalition, especially if the coalition is supposed to work and last.
     • weka 2.1.1

       27 April 2016 at 9:10 am

       “The question in my book is not so much could it? But rather Why not?”

       If it’s not constitutionally or legally possible, then ‘why not?’ becomes a completely different question.

       My first response is that we vote in parties, not PMs, and I think most people expect the largest party to lead. If a smaller party PM was an option, that would need to be explained and debated well before the election.

       Next, I would want to know how it works. Would the smaller party PM do all the governing things like appointing cabinet? Essentially the balance of power within the coalition would shift to the smaller party. Is that useful? How are the 75% of the coalition voters that didn’t vote for that party going to feel about it?

       I guess it depends on what we see a PM as. I’m not in favour of a presidential style system where the leader is separate from the party. So in NZ the PM role is intrinsicaly part of the major party in the coalition.

       If the PM role were to be separated from that, I’d like to see how that might work.

       Co-leadership is a different issue, with a different set of questions that go with it.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1

         27 April 2016 at 11:59 am

         Would the smaller party PM do all the governing things like appointing cabinet?

         Cabinet is made of the Ministers and is thus not appointed. The only exception is that of Ministers Outside Cabinet thus cabinet is not appointed per se.

         Essentially the balance of power within the coalition would shift to the smaller party.

         No, the balance of power would remain unchanged.

         How are the 75% of the coalition voters that didn’t vote for that party going to feel about it?

         Take the present Roy Morgan poll. If things follow on that path and we get NZ1st @ 15%, Greens @ 15% and Labour at 20%. How are the 60% who didn’t vote for Labour going to feel with a Labour PM?

         Personally, I think it should be set to a preferential vote once the coalition is agreed as to which party provides the PM. We might actually be surprised by the result 😈

         I guess it depends on what we see a PM as. I’m not in favour of a presidential style system where the leader is separate from the party.

         Interestingly enough, in NZ the PM is just another minister. They really don’t have any more power than the other ministers but they are responsible for the actions of the other ministers. I think you’ll see the conflict of interest in the PM actually being a member of a party there.

         So in NZ the PM role is intrinsicaly part of the major party in the coalition.

         That’s not written into law anywhere and so the PM could be whoever of whichever party the coalition decides.
         • weka 2.1.1.1.1

           27 April 2016 at 1:09 pm

           “Cabinet is made of the Ministers and is thus not appointed. The only exception is that of Ministers Outside Cabinet thus cabinet is not appointed per se.”

           Yes, and the leader of the party appoints MPs to various ministries. The point being that the leader of the pary chooses who is in cabinet. Are you suggesting that the PM should even if they are from a smaller party?

           “No, the balance of power would remain unchanged.”

           You can assert that, but do you have any evidence that that is how it would go? Or even some explanation of what you mean?

           “Personally, I think it should be set to a preferential vote once the coalition is agreed as to which party provides the PM. We might actually be surprised by the result”

           I would be interesting looking at changing our system, but my questions about the current system and the idea that Peters could be PM from a minority party position.

           “Interestingly enough, in NZ the PM is just another minister. They really don’t have any more power than the other ministers but they are responsible for the actions of the other ministers.”

           That’s a significant power difference.

           I think you’ll see the conflict of interest in the PM actually being a member of a party there.”

           Or the other way round. Why not explain how you see it?
           • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1.1

             27 April 2016 at 4:07 pm

             Yes, and the leader of the party appoints MPs to various ministries. The point being that the leader of the pary chooses who is in cabinet. Are you suggesting that the PM should even if they are from a smaller party?

             In a coalition agreement the ministers that each party has, if they have any, is stated. Each party then will choose which of their MPs is a minister.

             You can assert that, but do you have any evidence that that is how it would go? Or even some explanation of what you mean?

             The balance of power is determined by the number of members.

             That’s a significant power difference.

             The PM is responsible for the actions of ministers but he can’t tell them what to do or even how to vote. In other words, if a minister behaves badly then the PM will pull them up on that and that’s about it. They have to take the ministers word unless there is evidence to the contrary at which point The Speaker may refer them to a Privileges Committee.

             Or the other way round. Why not explain how you see it?

             Just look at how FJK has treated ministers of National that have obviously done corrupt things and how he treated Winston Peters at the end of the last government. The bias in favour of National is obvious.

             That said, it would be hard to get anyone not connected to the party system in NZ.
       • Sabine 2.1.1.2

         27 April 2016 at 5:32 pm

         i don’t know about constitutional legality, so lets leave this aside for a moment.

         I really believe that if we have a proper coalition having an PM or even a Co-PM Team would not be an issue at all, as the parties should decide well before the election how these things would work and address these issues with their voter base and with the electorate at large.
         The issue for me is rather would any politician be able to swallow their egos and actually act for the good of the country.

         In fact, i am very much hoping that our Opposition Parties a. talk to each other, b. may even announce in due time what type of coalition they would form and who within this coalition would take over what part of government.

         It would leave the voters with an actual choice.
         • weka 2.1.1.2.1

           27 April 2016 at 5:46 pm

           Ok, but in context, we’re talking about Peters and he will definitely not say before an election who he will go into coalition with, let alone do negotiations pre-election. That’s not even getting to whether Peters will work with the GP.

           I get the attraction of the idea of the best MP being MP irrespective of the party, but really I wanted thoughts more in context of the next election and bearing in mind Hooton thinks its a goer.

           “The issue for me is rather would any politician be able to swallow their egos and actually act for the good of the country.”

           yeah, but Peters.
       • swordfish 2.1.1.3

         27 April 2016 at 6:23 pm

         “Would the smaller party PM do all the governing things like appointing Cabinet ?”

         Bear in mind, that Labour Cabinets are elected by caucus, with the PM simply allocating portfolios (whereas, with National, Cabinet is indeed chosen by the PM).
         • weka 2.1.1.3.1

           27 April 2016 at 7:25 pm

           “Bear in mind, that Labour Cabinets are elected by caucus, with the PM simply allocating portfolios”

           How does that work? Is cabinet a set number? I had assumed that cabinet was formed from the MPs that are ministers, and given the leader allocates portfolios he is by default appointing cabinet.
3. Murray Simmonds 3

   27 April 2016 at 7:54 am

   Another USA Tax Haven, this one apparently shared by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-26/trump-and-hillary-refuse-explain-why-they-both-share-same-address-delaware
   • gsays 3.1

     27 April 2016 at 8:11 am

     Hi murray, thanks for that link.
     But it is OK tho, a Clinton spokesperson said no federal, state or local taxes were avoided. So that’s that sorted.
     Contrast Clinton’s response to trump:
     She claims to get tough on tax dodgers while dodging tax herself, and trump acknowledges the rort by saying he pays plenty of tax.

     Just because 285000 companies reside at that address, there is nothing ro see here.
   • AmaKiwi 3.2

     27 April 2016 at 1:41 pm

     Murray Simmonds

     From your link: “being registered in the tiny state (Delaware) allows “companies to legally shift earnings from other states to Delaware, where they are not taxed on non-physical incomes generated outside of state.”

     Got that folks? Delaware is a tax dodger’s delight. And both Hillary and Trump use it. The American voters will have a genuine choice come November. Tax Cheat A or Tax Cheat B. A curse on both their houses.
4. Tautoko Mangō Mata 4

   27 April 2016 at 8:56 am

   This Thom Hartmann interview with Curtis Ellis gives an insight into the rationale for the TPP and TTIP and is well worth watching.
   
5. adam 5

   27 April 2016 at 10:54 am

   Coping with Reality.

   Hard watch, but well worth it.
6. Puckish Rogue 6

   27 April 2016 at 11:13 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11629381

   Let me save them some time and money: No compensation, now we’ve got that out of the way Peter Ellis deserves to have his case re-looked at
   • reason 6.1

     27 April 2016 at 3:08 pm

     I’ll send you a Judith Collins mask Puckish ……… go full mode and put it on when you post.

     Drink a box of her high strength roastbuster RTD’s as well ………….

     Live the dream and spread her wisdom.
     • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1

       27 April 2016 at 4:09 pm

       I’m not sure what you’re on about but at least you’re giving it a go 🙂
7. Lanthanide 7

   27 April 2016 at 12:32 pm

   This excellent video is relevant to many of the Bernie cheerleaders on this site:
   
   • adam 7.1

     27 April 2016 at 1:29 pm

     Hey Lanthanide – were you paid to put up that link? If not, I’m sure you can put you hand out. Fire off an email to this Super PAC, and get your cash reward.

     http://correctrecord.org/
   • Bill 7.2

     27 April 2016 at 1:36 pm

     When two vaguely unbright people get together with an idea to make a smart video…

     Anyway Lanth. Given NY and today’s results it looks likely that Clinton will get the nomination. Hardly a reason for anyone with a skerrik of humanity to celebrate though, is it?
     • Lanthanide 7.2.1

       27 April 2016 at 3:42 pm

       Sure, I’d prefer Bernie was the nominee too.

       But that doesn’t give people an excuse to refuse to accept reality, as many on here have refused to do for months.
       • GregJ 7.2.1.1

         27 April 2016 at 9:23 pm

         I’ve found this to be the best site for giving an indication of how close the respective nominees for both parties are to being on target:

         http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

         It doesn’t add in the super delegates for the Dems – just those allocated after the Primaries or Caucasus. Sanders has been behind getting what he needs since late February. Mathematically he could still get more than Clinton but only if he won California and New Jersey by enormous margins (and pretty much everything else by the same large margins).
         • Lanthanide 7.2.1.1.1

           27 April 2016 at 10:33 pm

           Yes, I’ve been following FiveThirtyEight since they launched, and on each pro-Bernie post that has been on this site, I’ve always pointed out that Bernie is behind his targets, and for most of the time, he has been slipping behind, not gaining, on Clinton.
8. adam 8

   27 April 2016 at 1:16 pm

   Put this date in your Diary May 9th. then go to this link – the hits keep on coming.

   https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/#_ga=1.221854872.1813182034.1460448378
9. Penny Bright 9

   27 April 2016 at 9:27 pm

   FYI – my request for Mayor Len Brown to please reconsider the decision to decline speaking rights to Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright at the upcoming Auckland Council Governing Body meeting:
   __________________________________________________

   27 April 2016

   Mayor Len Brown,

   This is a request for you, as Chair of the Auckland Council Governing Body, to please reconsider the decision made to deny my request for speaking rights,( five minutes only), at the Public Forum section of the Auckland Council Governing Body meeting to be held (tomorrow), Thursday 28 April 2016, 9.30am at the Auckland Town Hall.

   The reasons given for declining my request for ‘speaking rights’ were as follows:

   “Your public input request to speak at the 28 April 2016 Governing Body meeting regarding the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 has been declined for the following reasons:

   · The bylaw involved a hearings process and public input is not to be used to speak about a matter that has a separate public hearings or consultation process attached to it – SO 7.7.4 b)

   · The making of the bylaw is an Auckland Transport responsibility. Auckland Council has a formal delegation from Auckland Transport to enforce the bylaw and has to apply the bylaw as it is

   · It is not considered appropriate for a potential mayoral candidate to speak at a Governing Body meeting regarding electoral issues.”

   The reasons for which I am asking you to reconsider, are as follows:

   1) “The bylaw involved a hearings process and public input is not to be used to speak about a matter that has a separate public hearings or consultation process attached to it – SO 7.7.4 b)”

   a) I am requesting the revocation of the entire Auckland Transport ‘Election Signage By Law 2013’, on the basis that in my considered opinion it is ‘ultra vires’ a number of enactments, as I outlined in my original request for speaking rights, so, in my view the following does not apply ” public input is not to be used to speak about a matter that has a separate public hearings or consultation process attached to it – SO 7.7.4 b)”

   b) I have given formal notification today to the Minister for Transport, Simon Bridges, that I intend to petition him to use his lawful authority vested under s.22AC of the Land Transport Act 1998, to ‘disallow’ the entire Auckland Transport ‘Election Signage By Law 2013.’

   2) “The making of the bylaw is an Auckland Transport responsibility. Auckland Council has a formal delegation from Auckland Transport to enforce the bylaw and has to apply the bylaw as it is.”

   a) I am questioning and challenging the lawful authority of Auckland Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) Auckland Transport to make this By Law covering ‘Election Signage’ – which is arguably highly political and concerns the lawful rights of Auckland citizens and ratepayers to express a political opinion, on their private property.

   b) On the face of it – what does that have to do with Auckland Transport?

   c) Where under the Land Transport Act 1998, does the ‘scope’ of that Act, specifically cover election signage?

   d) Where is the ‘Council control’ of Auckland Transport as a CCO?

   e) Why does Auckland Council have to ‘apply the bylaw as it is’ – when arguably Auckland Transport shouldn’t have had the lawful authority to make this by law in the first place?

   3) ” It is not considered appropriate for a potential mayoral candidate to speak at a Governing Body meeting regarding electoral issues.”
   a) WHO exactly considered it ‘inappropriate’ for myself as a ‘potential mayoral candidate’ to speak at a Governing Body meeting regarding electoral issues’?

   b) The last time I looked, my lawful rights to ‘freedom of expression’ as a citizen (albeit a ‘potential mayoral candidate’) were not thus curtailed or restricted in any way under s.14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990?

   c) Upon what lawful basis is relied for this (new) purported exemption / restriction for a ‘potential mayoral candidate’ such as myself?

   d) I have an alternative view – that as a ‘potential mayoral candidate’ I am arguably a directly-affected party in this matter, thus arguably have even more reason to address Auckland Council on this matter.

   Finally, I am trying to do things in a proper way, and avail myself of the opportunities to directly address Auckland Council, as provided in the underpinning Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

   I look forward to commonsense and the ‘rule of law’ prevailing, and being given the five minutes to address the Auckland Council Governing Body, in ‘Public Forum’ as I have properly requested.

   Kind regards

   Penny Bright
   ………
   • Chooky 9.1

     27 April 2016 at 11:27 pm

     +100 Go Penny!
10. Chooky 10

    27 April 2016 at 11:26 pm

    ‘Stop Trump Crusade’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/341076-trump-republican-nomination-gop/

    “Take your pick – an act of political genius or chaotic desperation! The Ted Cruz-John Kay-sick electoral pact to deny Donald Trump the Republican nomination is bold but also very risky. Voters may not take the bait. It would seem the GOP establishment will do anything to determine who runs in November, regardless of the base.

    CrossTalking with David Paul Kuhn, Gianno Caldwell, and Ivan Eland.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS