Open mike 27/05/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 27th, 2015 - 111 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

111 comments on “Open mike 27/05/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ergo Robertina 1
    27 May 2015 at 8:10 am

    Cullen to look into concerns over use of zerohour contracts at NZ Post and gives undertaking of sorts about their use.
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/343643/chairman-check-contracts

    ”The former Dunedin Labour MP told the Otago Daily Times when contacted yesterday he would ask chief executive Brian Roche about zero-hours contracts when the pair met tomorrow.
    ”I want to talk with the chief executive about that.
    ”I would be very concerned if we were involved in any kind of permanent arrangement around zero-hour contracts,” Sir Michael said.

    • Gangnam Style 1.1
      27 May 2015 at 1:17 pm

      & more information about NZ Posts PPM (Postal Pay Model – paid for volume not hours worked), is on the monday there was no mail because of snow (the trucks couldn’t get over the Kilmogs), so no volume, no pay.

      • Ergo Robertina 1.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 8:35 pm

        And there would be no delivery issue in Dunedin that day if the mail was not sorted in Chch as there was minimal snow in the city itself.
        Posties are part of a community network that grows more important with the ageing population, with more people at home in their old age.
        But instead we get a zerohours exploited workforce, privatisation by stealth to DX Mail, and a too readily accepted story about technology change/TINA.
        Some small providers are stepping up like taxi firms delivering mail in small towns, which is fine as it’s filling a gap in a public service, but leading to an overall outcome of fragmentation and inefficiency.

  2. AsleepWhileWalking 2
    27 May 2015 at 8:23 am

    http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2015/05/heres-the-most-pernicious-obama-administration-falsehood-on-tpp/

    No less than the president himself has promised, “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.” National Economic Council chief Jeffrey Zients has stated, “It is an often repeated, but inaccurate, claim that ISDS [a provision of the TPP] gives companies the right to weaken labor or environmental standards, for example, suggesting that a trade agreement could result in the United States having to lower its minimum wage. The reality is that ISDS does not and cannot require countries to change any law or regulation.”

    That’s right…. it’s a “choice”. Eliminating all but two options (in this case be sued or change the law – see you have ALL the control!) works for four year old children, so why wouldn’t it work for an apathetic, dumb and numb population?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      27 May 2015 at 9:52 am

      I don’t see it that way.

      “Being sued” is just another way of saying that the government would compensate for losses attributable to legislative changes. I’d love that. Road user charges go up, I get compensated by the government. Max Bradford enacts a faith-based electricity market, I get compensated for that too.

      Tell the corporations to get in line or fuck off. ISDS my ass.

  3. adam 3
    27 May 2015 at 8:41 am

    This is one of those reports you need to read to get to the good news. It appears that now 6 years after the banks melted down – we are getting some prosecutions of some individuals who knew they were acting immorally and corruptly. That said, some of the major players are still walking free – what a odd world we live in – when people who cause such despair, heartbreak, and death – walk free, because they have the biggest check book.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/05/22/17377/bankers-major-institutions-still-havent-been-held-responsible-financial-crash

  4. adam 4
    27 May 2015 at 9:10 am

    Because I saw the petition from Jacinda Ardern being promoted on the standard, and it’s not really appropriate to put this – on that page.

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/going-backwards-table-talk-2-at-ika.html

    Also I see Chris Trotter is calling trick dicky out. Well done Chris. Hoot’s your lying is getting out of whack again. I know, I know to you, it’s just propaganda promoting you set of ideals. However, when you cross the line – you will get called on it.

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/tricky-customer-why-is-matthew-hooton.html

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    27 May 2015 at 9:12 am

    Raw: Waitress knocks groping man to ground

    Seems reasonable. Unfortunately, everyone seemed to be more concerned with the perpetrator of assault than the person assaulted.

    • tinfoilhat 5.1
      27 May 2015 at 9:15 am

      @DTB it looks like she was more than capable of taking care of herself !

      A tough young russian lady, good on her !

      • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 9:52 am

        she probably knows how to field strip an AKM.

        • Rudi Can't Fail 5.1.1.1
          27 May 2015 at 1:38 pm

          akm = Chinese copy
          And yes they teach kids how to field strip an AK47 or they used to

          • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 3:18 pm

            Hmmm I thought Kalashinkov himself designed the AKM circa 1949 or 1950 to improve upon his original AK47 design. And yes, I suspect that China has made the majority of those worldwide now as what is generally called an AK47 is actually the slightly updated AKM model.

            Might have my facts wrong though…

      • ianmac 5.1.2
        27 May 2015 at 9:57 am

        Would she have responded so had she had her hair stroked/pulled?

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3
        27 May 2015 at 2:02 pm

        That doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need any support from those around her.

  6. just saying 6
    27 May 2015 at 9:24 am

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/here-are-7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-but-socially-liberal-dont-understand/
    via boots theory:
    https://bootstheory.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/qotd-on-being-fiscally-conservative-but-socially-liberal/

    And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That’s true even for the mildest, most generous version of “fiscal conservatism” — low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don’t intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called “social policies” that are supposedly separate from economic ones.

    Translation for the middle-class overlords in the Labour Party. The good deeds you do with your human rights policies (aka the odious term “identity politics”) are completely undermined by the harm you do to the groups you purport to support with your craven fiscal positioning.

    Unless you are only interested in protecting the human rights of the wealthiest 10-15 percent. Surely that couldn’t be true?

    • Colonial Rawshark 6.1
      27 May 2015 at 10:03 am

      Something to note about SR is she does not recognise that Labour are orthodox fiscal conservatives.

      I find it funny that it is the Labour Party which is driven to undermine the universality of the NZ welfare state.

      Almost the entirety of the hierarchy of the Labour Party assumes that money is a limited resource, when money today is nothing more than electronic ones and zeroes entered by keyboard in spreadsheets and databases. Oil is a limited resource. Gas is a limited resource. Fresh water is a limited resource. Top soil is a limited resource. Bismuth and helium are limited resources. But electronic ones and zeroes sitting on a spreadsheet? It’s a total misconception of what a “resource” is.

      Labour is simply avoiding asking itself the hard questions when it comes to socioeconomic policy like universal NZ super: is it a critical priority to fully fund it. If the answer is YES then money will always be available because the Government can spend into existence the money required. OR if its politics require it, it can instead TAX back in previously issued money in order to re-spend it on NZ super.

      In essence, what Labour is saying when it discusses means testing NZ Super or raising the Super eligibility age is:

      – We are not willing to borrow the money required to keep NZ super universal.
      – Neither are we willing to tax in the money required to keep NZ super universal.
      – Neither are we willing to issue the money required to keep NZ super universal.
      – We are however willing to cut Kiwis’ entitlement to universal NZ super.

      And as a reminder, these are MPs all on very generous parliamentary Kiwi Saver schemes all on incomes well into the top 2%, deciding this for everyone else.

      • millsy 6.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 10:19 am

        It doesnt really matter anymore. Little’s comments about super last week probably cost Labour the next election. They will not be trusted on super ever again.

      • te reo putake 6.1.2
        27 May 2015 at 10:32 am

        You’re the one calling money a resource, CV, so it’s you with the misconception. Whether you understand it or not, to retain value for you and I , the money supply must remain relatively tight. QE works, but only if it’s constrained. Your fantasy about ones and zeroes ends with massive inflation that actually ruins the lives of the majority. Have a look at the lessons from Zimbabwe and Argentina where the practical results of your fantasy can be seen. If you destroy the value of the currency, it’s working people that pay.

        • Bill 6.1.2.1
          27 May 2015 at 1:44 pm

          What is the difference between just flooding an economy with bank notes and flooding an economy with public works ‘paid for’ with newly created government money?

          I get how the first scenario leads to huge levels of inflation, but the second would appear to be a simple act of taking the real world resources that already exist and getting them in place…ie, there is no flooding of the economy with increasingly worthless bank notes.

          • The lost sheep 6.1.2.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 2:33 pm

            “a simple act of taking the real world resources that already exist and getting them in place…ie, there is no flooding of the economy with increasingly worthless bank notes.”

            There is Bill, because the money does not stay with the Public Works.
            In order to complete the public works the money has to go to suppliers / contractors / workers / architects / lawyers / etc etc, and so in fact it does spill through to the wider economy and act as an inflationary force.

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.2.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 2:47 pm

              If you are building up productive capacities and capabilities, inflation will not be a problem. And if inflation appears to be taking hold, the money supply can always be briefly tightened as new competitive suppliers are created.

              Of course, globally the economic problem is one of deflation – insufficient money supply in many areas of the real economy.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1.1.2
              27 May 2015 at 2:54 pm

              Over time and can easily be offset by use of taxes.

              You have to see money as a flow from the government and back to the government. From the government is creating the money and back to the government is destroying it.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                27 May 2015 at 3:02 pm

                Over time and can easily be offset by use of taxes.

                Or increasing compulsory savings.

                Or slowing down of credit/loans extended by the private sector.

                Or encouraging capital investment.

                Or any number of other ways to slow down or reduce money supply in the real economy

                There are so many ways to manage an economy intelligently, and all the orthodox types can think about is squeezing life out of the economy using the blunt inhumane mallets of keeping unemployment up, wages down, and benefits on the bread line.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.2
          27 May 2015 at 1:53 pm

          You’re the one calling money a resource, CV, …

          CV just, quite specifically, said that money isn’t a resource.

          Whether you understand it or not, to retain value for you and I , the money supply must remain relatively tight.

          Agreed but it’s really a question of how that constraint is applied. ATM there is, effectively, almost no constraint on the explosion of money in the system as the explosion in housing prices shows.

          • te reo putake 6.1.2.2.1
            27 May 2015 at 2:00 pm

            The ‘resource’ thing was CV’s strawman crack in the comment 6.1 above. He made it up, hence he’s the one calling it a resource, nobody else.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.2.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 2:04 pm

              Almost the entirety of the hierarchy of the Labour Party assumes that money is a limited resource, when money today is nothing more than electronic ones and zeroes entered by keyboard in spreadsheets and databases.

              Can you point to the part of that sentence that says that money is a resource?

              • te reo putake …
                27 May 2015 at 2:13 pm

                Yes.

                Edit: (I’ve got to disappear for a while, but the guts of it is this: we all know (including the Labour hierarchy) that the physical object ‘money’ is an unlimited resource. We can print more. However, if we do , it has real world consequences. That’s not because of what it is, physically or digitally, but what it represents; it’s agreed value. And when you dilute its value, most of us suffer. As recently as 1984 we had that happen in NZ and the ‘cure’ was Rogernomics. If we don’t learn from history …)

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  27 May 2015 at 2:49 pm

                  We can print more. However, if we do , it has real world consequences.

                  And, in fact, we are and the consequences are massive house price inflation especially in Auckland.

                  See, you can’t just say that we can’t print money while we’re massively printing money (well, the private banks are).

                  As recently as 1984 we had that happen in NZ and the ‘cure’ was Rogernomics. If we don’t learn from history

                  Yeah, I recall that and the cause was the same as today. Massive returns from investment for foreign investors in housing. Despite the capital controls of the time we were still being flooded by foreign investment wanting to get its part of the ~20% mortgage market here.

                  There’s a reason why both major religions in the world ban usury and it’s because it crashes the economy.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  27 May 2015 at 2:50 pm

                  That’s not because of what it is, physically or digitally, but what it represents; it’s agreed value.

                  This is a false concept. Money is already priced in multiple ways and therefore its “agreed value” is being constantly determined by what worthwhile things an economy can supply for the money you have. It is that focus on the real economy which is key.

                  Of course as TRP now admits, there is no real shortage of money other than the artificial one that the system is designed to inflict upon the majority of the population. In other words: austerity for you; ZIRP for us.

                  • te reo putake …
                    27 May 2015 at 7:21 pm

                    “as TRP now admits …”

                    I’ve never said otherwise. Sharpen up, CV.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 May 2015 at 11:01 pm

                      Oh TRP, I’m simply working through a process of discovery of your true views. No need for the condescension. You really are used to being the boss, I guess. More tomorrow.

                    • te reo putake …
                      27 May 2015 at 11:10 pm

                      Are you calling me a liar?

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 May 2015 at 11:13 pm

                      Are you calling me a dullard?

                    • te reo putake []
                      27 May 2015 at 11:14 pm

                      Answer the question, CV.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 May 2015 at 11:21 pm

                      Do you really think that you are the boss?

                      Check your reading comprehension skills dude; I said I was trying to find out what you really think. If you want to hide it, fine, I wasn’t that interested in the first place.

                      [Ok, so that second sentence confirms it. Withdraw or take some time off. TRP]

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      28 May 2015 at 9:12 am

                      I withdraw my previous comments as per your orders, Te Reo Putake.

                      [Thank you. Let’s move on, aye? TRP]

      • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.3
        27 May 2015 at 1:32 pm

        Something to note about SR is she does not recognise that Labour are orthodox fiscal conservatives.

        Please do not presume to make statements about what I do or don’t recognise. You are possibly the person least likely to have any insight on the matter.

        • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.3.1
          27 May 2015 at 2:20 pm

          Hi Stephanie,

          Then you’re welcome to agree, deny or clarify (or do nothing) re Labour being orthodox fiscal conservatives. The importance of keeping inflation low by keeping buying power and money supply tight, the use of unemployment to shrink consumer inflation, the importance of annual economic growth combined with tight fiscal discipline, the importance of government surpluses and balancing the books to keep the confidence of the markets, etc.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.3.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 10:30 pm

            Then you’re welcome to agree, deny or clarify (or do nothing) re Labour being orthodox fiscal conservatives.

            Nope. You are welcome to stop making up shit about authors on this site.

            Your definition of “orthodox fiscal conservatives” (i.e. anyone who isn’t advocating a total revolution of basic Western economic practices) is so broad and unrealistic to expect of a major party in a Westminster democracy that it’s laughable you think you’re making some kind of cutting argument by labelling Labour as such.

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.3.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 11:00 pm

              Why are you referring to authors privilege based on my commenting about something you wrote somewhere else? If you think my conclusion about your economic views are inaccurate, just say so. I am quite happy to be corrected.

              Your definition of “orthodox fiscal conservatives” (i.e. anyone who isn’t advocating a total revolution of basic Western economic practices) is so broad and unrealistic to expect of a major party in a Westminster democracy that it’s laughable you think you’re making some kind of cutting argument by labelling Labour as such.

              But is the label accurate or inaccurate, from your perspective? Again, you are non-committal about your actual views.

              Since the 1970s the establishment within each of the Anglo FVEY nations has adopted neoliberal economic paradigms and decision frameworks. The USA, UK, Australia, Canada and NZ. That’s been the true revolution.

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                28 May 2015 at 9:25 am

                Again, you are non-committal about your actual views.

                You say “non-committal”, I say “unwilling to be baited into a conversation where you’ve already set the ground rules so you cannot be argued with.”

              • felix …
                28 May 2015 at 9:42 am

                Give it up CV.

                If Steph wanted her opinions analysed or questioned, she’d publish them.

      • just saying 6.1.4
        27 May 2015 at 1:49 pm

        Something to note about SR is she does not recognise that Labour are orthodox fiscal conservatives.

        I think that’s unfair, CV.

        The whole point of the article is that if you care about people you care about economics and human rights. The two can’t be separated into neat little spheres. I think Stephanie understands this better than most.

        And I doubt she is naive about the Labour Party.

      • Craig H 6.1.5
        27 May 2015 at 10:22 pm

        The real problem is not that the Labour Party does or does not agree with Modern Monetary Theory, it’s that proposing it destroys fiscal credibility in the eyes of the public. The Greens proposed QE last election, and got relentlessly attacked on the subject for weeks, even if it now turns out everyone else is doing QE anyway…

  7. adam 7
    27 May 2015 at 9:53 am

    A observation on my readings this morning.

    It’s funny how all the right wing rush out the line GODWIN when anybody describes anything the right wing do as fascist.

    But conversely – when right wingers describe the left in tired old left, almost Stalinist terms – no one bats an eyelid?

    Hell I dislike the old left as much as the next person – unimaginative, staid, misogynistic, homophobic, and just too overbearing for words. Yes it was sacrilegious, but we have moved on.

    So why do we let the right define us as so?

    [lprent: The Godwin thing invariably degenerates into boring flamewars. Godwin is a shortcut for people who have seen it degenerate a thousand times before to say “shut the fuck up” to the idiot starting to use it it as if it was a new tactic. That includes the stalin, various kims, pinochet and every other pissant dictatorial metaphor to replace their inability to use their brains.

    When people express what they actually think rather than sprouting slogans we tend to be more tolerant. Doesn’t matter if we think they are nutters from the right or left (and there are many on the left who are exactly as dogmatic). But if they get boring about it and deteriorate into slogans then you’ll find that commenters and moderators will bat more than an eyelid. It isn’t a recipe for long term tolerance in any net environment. ]

    • Colonial Rawshark 7.1
      27 May 2015 at 10:11 am

      The Left have not got a strong defining narrative or paradigm for what its mission is in the 21st century, so others find it easy to define us especially as they have a powerful and far reaching communications infrastructure to do it with.

  8. Morrissey 8
    27 May 2015 at 10:48 am

    “We need to KILL THEM ALL!
    And if some women and children get killed, so be it.”
    Paul Henry, TV3, Wednesday 27 May 2015
    Paul Henry, Hillary Barry (sycophant), Jim Kayes (sycophant)

    “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something.” — Plato

    As the last item on the 7 a.m. news, Hillary Barry reads about a Danish radio host who has bludgeoned a rabbit to death with a bicycle pump, cooked it, then eaten it live on air. She is clearly appalled by this…..

    HILLARY BARRY: Bludgeoning it with a bicycle pump?
    JIM KAYES: Good kicker.
    PAUL HENRY: Now that’s a technical term and a lot of viewers won’t know what that means.
    JIM KAYES: “Kicker” means the last story.
    HENRY: Thank you.

    Hillary Barry’s brief display of humanitarian revulsion was interesting, especially in light of her reaction to the bloodthirsty ranting that would occur in the studio just over an hour later. While she made no bones about her tender feelings for the fate of a rabbit in Denmark, she was less keen to defend human beings in Iraq and Syria as they came under a savage rhetorical assault.

    7:12 a.m. ….
    Along with endorsing the Key government’s cynical, rotten “plan” to house people under power lines, Henry’s mission today is to endorse the American-led campaign against ISIS. To this end, Henry interviews Steve Hoadley, an extreme right wing American who glories in the title of “Associate Professor of International Relations” at Auckland University. Hoadley is notorious for stating, at the very height of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza in 2008-9—what Israeli generals chortlingly termed “twenty-two days of madness”—that he supported the Israelis because they were civilized compared to the people they were destroying. Today, however, Hoadley delivered an anodyne and uncontroversial summary of the situation in Iraq; the unhinged ranting would come not from him, but from Paul Henry.

    7:16 a.m. ….
    Henry heaps scorn on the Labour Party politicians who have dared to question the land that the government wants to force people to live on—next to cemeteries and under electric power lines. “How STUPID are THEY?” he snarls.

    8:05….
    Hillary Barry reads the weather, including for Alexandra, which she daringly and controversially calls “Alex”…
    HILLARY BARRY: I know you don’t like me saying Alex, but I DO.

    8:07….
    Jim reads the sports news, corpsing throughout, because he has just told a mildly amusing joke.

    8:10 a.m. …..
    HENRY: I just can’t get over the idea of the British putting in these duck lanes.
    JIM KAYES: That IS very funny.
    HENRY: It’s just too STUPID for words.

    After the 8 o’clock news, there’s a regular “panel”—two guests who are supposed to reflect on current issues. Today’s panel features former reality TV star Joe Cotton, billed as a “broadcaster”, and RadioLIVE host Andrew Patterson.….

    HENRY: All right, Labour have had a field day with this 430 hectares. It can’t ALL be beachfront property! Would you buy a house next to a graveyard? The thing that annoys me about this is that Labour—this is the opposition just saying things to be an opposition.

    Andrew Patterson apparently has nothing to say about this; he simply agrees with Henry. And Joe Cotton, instead of saying something thoughtful or challenging, launches in to an unfunny diversionary spiel about poltergeists and horror movies.

    HENRY: Are you in favor of our troops being in Iraq?
    ANDREW PATTERSON: No I’m not comfortable. But of course you’ve got to do SOMETHING.
    HENRY: It sends a very clear message that New Zealand is WITH the United States and the rest of the willing. Is this a fight worth having? You HAVE to say YES.
    ANDREW PATTERSON: [gravely] Of course, of COURSE.
    HENRY: This is a fight that we have to be on the right side of, isn’t it?
    JOE COTTON: [baffled sigh] Whooooooof….
    HENRY: We have to POUND them and SQUASH them don’t we?
    ANDREW PATTERSON: I guess the big question here is: how do we counter the ideology?
    HENRY: It’s hard. It’s hard…..

    8:35 a.m. ….
    HENRY: Absolutely we should be part of the fight. And we have to really take it to them!
    HILLARY BARRY: [softly] I’m afraid so.
    JIM KAYES: [softly, grimacing with moral doubt] Yes, I think so.
    HENRY: We have to be in there STRONG and HARD! We have to KILL THEM ALL! And in the course of this, bombs are going to bounce into tents where there are women and children! But we must not get up in arms about that! Kill them all!
    HILLARY BARRY: [clearly uncomfortable] Mmm hmmm.
    JIM KAYES: [gravely] That’s the reality of war.

    HILLARY: I’d like some feedback on this Alex/Alexandra controversy! Paul thinks I should say Alexandra.
    PAUL HENRY: I think you are being too casual towards the people of Alexandra when you call their town Alex.
    HILLARY BARRY: [mock-scolding] Look who’s calling me casual!

    HENRY: Just on this ISIS thing again. THEY thrive because WE hesitate. They’re not LIKE us.
    JIM KAYES: We fight in a conventional, honest way. Whereas—
    HENRY: Exactly! We need to KILL THEM ALL! And if some women and children get killed, so be it.

    PAUL HENRY: Right, on the phone, we have Cade from Alexandra. Are you happy with Alex, Cade, or is it Alexandra? For a fact we know that it is Alexandra not Alex, are we all agreed on that? What kind of a name is Cade anyway?
    HILLARY BARRY: [giggling] Stop being MEAN!

    Jim Kayes snickers dutifully.

    8:59 a.m……
    HENRY: I’d like to dedicate this show to our troops in Iraq, who are on the frontline in the war against ISIS—a war we are part of, like it or not.

    • halfcrown 8.1
      27 May 2015 at 12:47 pm

      And that is why my friend I do not watch or listen to Henry

      • Morrissey 8.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 1:10 pm

        Don’t worry, my friend, I watch and listen to creeps like Henry so that you don’t have to. Keep an eye out for some more transcripts* from some of his earlier shows, which I’m starting to write up now.

        * Yes, Felix, I know, I know….

        • the pigman 8.1.1.1
          27 May 2015 at 7:42 pm

          Haha, excellent.

          But tell me, was the 8:59am dedication a real thing, or a bit of poetic licence (for which you will receive 12 lashings)? Because if it was real… *vomits entire contents of his body, entrails, viscera and all, onto the floor*

          • Morrissey 8.1.1.1.1
            28 May 2015 at 9:49 am

            But tell me, was the 8:59am dedication a real thing, or a bit of poetic licence (for which you will receive 12 lashings)?

            He actually said that. I think I got that bit exactly verbatim.

            This morning, as a parting shot, Henry dedicated the programme to the senile thug “Sir” Robert Jones, whose actions apparently lend “colour” to our lives.

  9. Ffloyd 9
    27 May 2015 at 11:16 am

    paul henry unhinged. Very frightening. For this sub human we lose Clive??

  10. Alpha z 10
    27 May 2015 at 11:17 am

    JOHN BANKS : crook or not? read, listen to him & judge for yourself

    https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/john-banks-a-tale-of-two-cheques/

    • Morrissey 10.1
      27 May 2015 at 11:31 am

      Crook.

      His parents were two of the most notorious criminals in Auckland; the rotten apple doesn’t roll far from the tree.

      • Realblue 10.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 12:34 pm

        Indeed “Harawira” springs to mind.

        • Morrissey 10.1.1.1
          27 May 2015 at 1:14 pm

          That’s a foolish thing to say. Hone Harawira is a serious and thoughtful person. John Banks is not.

          Or do you have some evidence of Hone Harawira receiving secret, illegal payments of money like John Banks?

          • te reo putake 10.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 1:18 pm

            Parents, Moz. The comment was about the parents.

            • Morrissey 10.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 1:21 pm

              Fair enough, Te Reo—but this fool seemed to be suggesting Hone Harawira was in some way comparable to John Banks.

              • te reo putake …
                27 May 2015 at 1:35 pm

                Nah, Realblue was suggesting that Hone’s parents were somehow equivalent to Bank’s folks. Which is the purest bullshit, of course. Banks is a very complicated fellow and his upbringing in poverty hasn’t taught him any compassion for the poor. It’s just made him determined to be as distant from poverty as possible and by any means necessary. So the apple/tree analogy is pretty apt.

                • Morrissey …
                  27 May 2015 at 1:42 pm

                  Thanks for that, Te Reo. A model of exposition, as always!

                • Realblue …
                  27 May 2015 at 6:19 pm

                  One of Hones parents abused children, the appalling Titiwhai.Clearly you and Morrissey are ok with that. Fair enough. Morrisey brought Banks parents into it, then you join in with an inevitable “look over there” response. The classy left eh?

                  • te reo putake …
                    27 May 2015 at 7:20 pm

                    So that’s one parent, as opposed to both. So do you acknowledge you owe Hone’s dad an apology?

                    • Wolfgang …
                      27 May 2015 at 7:22 pm

                      Across a dalliance of rainbows,
                      A little crooked man smiles,
                      With time-filled grace,
                      Why do thee frown,
                      When across that big blue sky,
                      Ruptures of magnificence awaits?

          • Realblue 10.1.1.1.2
            27 May 2015 at 5:27 pm

            No I don’t, his and his family’s crimes usually involve violence. A much lesser sin in your eyes clearly.

      • JanMeyer 10.1.2
        27 May 2015 at 12:36 pm

        I’m going to call you out on that mate. Uncool to judge the guy for his parents’ mis-deeds, or anyone else for that matter.

        • Realblue 10.1.2.1
          27 May 2015 at 12:37 pm

          Agreed I’m surprised Morrisey hasn’t attacked Banks kids yet. Day isn’t over I guess. Shabby stuff indeed.

          • Morrissey 10.1.2.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

            Uncool to judge the guy for his parents’ mis-deeds, or anyone else for that matter.

            If John Banks was an honest, decent citizen, I would not invoke the memory of his criminal parents. The fact is, though, he is not a decent, honest citizen, and his parents’ criminality obviously did affect him deeply.

            • miravox 10.1.2.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 6:48 pm

              “the rotten apple”

              But you didn’t just call Banks out Morrissey, you made a sweeping generalisation about bad people and the perceived obviousness of their children being the same.

              Although I’d place Banks in the ‘crooks’ column, that’s a pretty rotten thing to say. People are not their parents and may or may not learn to be like them.

              • Morrissey …
                28 May 2015 at 9:54 am

                you didn’t just call Banks out Morrissey, you made a sweeping generalisation about bad people and the perceived obviousness of their children being the same.

                I recognize that there are people all over the country that have risen above their family circumstances, many of them far more onerous than John Banks’s circumstances, and gone on to live decent, honest lives where they have been an asset rather than an outrage to the community. Banks, on the other hand, has behaved with the most flagrant dishonesty; to point out the link to his criminal parents is entirely appropriate, I would have thought.

                Or do you think Banks’s behaviour just springs out of nowhere?

                • miravox …
                  28 May 2015 at 3:34 pm

                  Again, it was the sweeping generalisation I object to, not to a possible specific comment that Banks may have learned to be frugal with the truth from his parents.

          • Morrissey 10.1.2.1.2
            27 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

            Agreed I’m surprised Morrisey hasn’t attacked Banks kids yet.

            If one of Banks’s kids is involved with money-laundering of, say, fifty thousand dollars that he’s asked to be paid for in two separate cheques, then yes, the obvious influence of his father will be remarked upon.

            If, on the other hand, his kids somehow transcend the handicap of having a dishonest criminal stepdad, then I would applaud them, just as I would have applauded Banks if he had acted with integrity and honour in his political career.

      • Tracey 10.1.3
        27 May 2015 at 3:17 pm

        didnt his parent assist women to abort children? at a time when women were criminals for controlling their own lives and bodirs. Or have i confused them with someone else

        • Grant 10.1.3.1
          27 May 2015 at 3:32 pm

          The story is fairly well known and has been in the public arena for decades.

          From Wikipedia: “When he was a young child, his parents Archie and Kitty were imprisoned for procuring abortions. His father was a career criminal and his mother an alcoholic.”

          I think casting his parents as the altruistic and enlightened saviours of women with unwanted pregnancies is probably a bit of a reach. More likely it was just another string to their bow of criminal enterprise.

          • Tracey 10.1.3.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 3:39 pm

            as i wrote my memory wasnt clear. but it needs to be looked at in the context of the day. and reports of it in the same way.

      • Bob 10.1.4
        27 May 2015 at 4:45 pm

        How about Carmel Sepuloni’s mother then Morrissey? Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree there, or is that different somehow?

        • Morrissey 10.1.4.1
          28 May 2015 at 9:57 am

          How about Carmel Sepuloni’s mother then Morrissey? Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree there, or is that different somehow?

          Carmel Sepuloni has been charged with, or convicted of, dishonesty offences? If she has been, your analogy will have merit; if she has not, you are simply ignorant.

          To prevent us thinking you are ignorant, could you post evidence for us of Carmel Sepuloni’s criminality?

          • Bob 10.1.4.1.1
            29 May 2015 at 9:35 am

            Ah, okay, so even though you aren’t convicted of anything, the fact you are charged is the key to your argument.
            In that case Hone Harawira does fall into your criteria, mother has been convicted (assault) and he has been charged (failure to remove a vehicle from a road).

            Bringing families into politics is a bad idea Morrisey, Carmel Sepuloni isn’t her mother, Hone Harawira isn’t his mother (or cousins), and John Banks most certainly isn’t his parents.

            • Morrissey 10.1.4.1.1.1
              29 May 2015 at 11:11 am

              Bringing families into politics is a bad idea Morrisey, Carmel Sepuloni isn’t her mother, Hone Harawira isn’t his mother (or cousins), and John Banks most certainly isn’t his parents.

              You’re 66.6666 per cent correct there, Bob. Carmel Sepuloni and Hone Harawira are (or were) honest and respected members of parliament, notwithstanding the personal and irrelevant abuse that you and other right wing shills ceaselessly heap on them.

              Banks, on the other hand, is neither honest nor respected, and that won’t change no matter how much you try to divert and smear other, superior politicians.

              Harawira and Sepuloni have their faults, but neither of them has asked donors to make illegal payments in two separate cheques in order to (unsuccessfully) escape scrutiny. They are not like their parents; Banks on the other hand, has betrayed his public fiduciary duty as an elected representative—which makes him far worse than his notorious parents.

              • Bob …
                29 May 2015 at 3:49 pm

                “notwithstanding the personal and irrelevant abuse that you and other right wing shills ceaselessly heap on them”
                Like when Harawira was part of He Taua, which confronted drunk University of Auckland engineering students who performed a parody of the “Ka Mate” haka with obscenities painted on their bodies. The group including Harawira assaulted them with baseball bats and hoses, resulting in several broken bones? Or do we metaphorically abuse him?

                “You’re 66.6666 per cent correct there, Bob. Carmel Sepuloni and Hone Harawira are (or were) honest and respected members of parliament”
                Yeah, Hone was really respected for his “white mother fuckers” rant, and respected in that he had a complaint laid against him by all of the other Māori Party MPs because they had “lost trust and confidence” in Mr Harawira, that he “acted unethically and without integrity” and that he “deliberately undermined” the party and the leaders. Or respected because he said Osama bin Laden’s actions were those of “a man who fought for the rights, the land and the freedom of his people” and that people should not be damning him but mourn him?

                “Harawira and Sepuloni have their faults, but neither of them has asked donors to make illegal payments in two separate cheques in order to (unsuccessfully) escape scrutiny”
                No, Harawira made an alliance with the man that was all too happy to write those two cheques, then admitted to receiving payments from that man, but never declared how much he had been paid…hmm sounds familiar

                • Morrissey …
                  29 May 2015 at 8:22 pm

                  Unfortunately you have made some wildly confused statements in your rant, Bob. However, since you have at least endeavoured to defend your corner, I will deal with each of the points you raise, even though most of them are, sadly, quite spurious.

                  1.) Like when Harawira was part of He Taua….

                  Hone Harawira was, like other Māori students at Auckland in 1979, incensed by the racist, demeaning behaviour of the Engineering students’ mock haka party. For years, he and other young Māori leaders had repeatedly protested against those goons and demanded they stop their provocation. The He Taua action was the last resort, after the racists had treated all the Māori protests with contempt.

                  But it looks like you have made up your mind that the provocateurs were the victims rather than the instigators of the trouble; nothing anyone says is likely to change your mind. Let’s move on to your next point….

                  2.) “…white mother fuckers….”

                  Okay, that was a foolish thing to write in an email. You make a reasonable point there, Bob. I presume you have been equally outraged at the far more numerous racist and sexist outbursts by National Party MPs like John “Hone” Carter, Jonathan Coleman, —and John Banks.

                  3.) a complaint laid against him by all of the other Māori Party MPs

                  So he’s not a team player. That’s not a sin, and it’s not a crime, and it’s not an ethical lapse. Why would you even mention this irrelevant point?

                  4.) Harawira made an alliance with the man that was all too happy to write those two cheques…

                  The problem with what Banks did was not Kim Dotcom—it was Banks’s illegal actions. You don’t seem quite up to speed with the facts and issues of the case.

                  5.) …hmm sounds familiar

                  No, you’ve (perhaps deliberately) missed the point again. Hone Harawira’s open dealings with Kim Dotcom were utterly different from Banks’s hamfisted attempts to rort the system.

  11. Colonial Rawshark 11
    27 May 2015 at 11:21 am

    So the UK Tories are about to announce that anyone working up to 30 hours per week on the minimum wage will be income tax free.

    Interesting the playbook they are all sharing. What is UK Labour going to come back with? Blairite Nu Labour 2?

    • te reo putake 11.1
      27 May 2015 at 1:15 pm

      That’s not what you think it is, CV. Minimum wage workers already pay very little tax as the UK has a tax free threshold of ten thousand pounds. What this really means is locking in the minimum wage at its current low rate. It also allows the rich to sneer at the working poor (look how much I pay in tax while the plebs pay nothing etc).

      It’s actually a very Blairite kind of move; at first glance, vaguely progressive, but at heart, just more patronising conservatism. What’s needed is Labour’s policy of lifting the minimum wage and gradually bringing in a living wage.

      • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 1:18 pm

        Odd idea the Left has that making beneficiaries and low paid workers pay tax means the rich now sneer at them less. Has it worked in NZ?

        • te reo putake 11.1.1.1
          27 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

          Well, that maybe your idea, but that’s not what I wrote. Sharpen up!

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

            So you don’t think that beneficiaries and low wage earners should be subject to income tax? Or are you avoiding having an opinion on the issue?

            • te reo putake 11.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 1:31 pm

              Um, that question makes no sense. Can you try again?

              Edit: to save time, I should point out that I’ve never been short of an opinion. I thought that would have been pretty obvious by now! And my opinion on this matter is that all income earners should pay tax and that tax should be levied on a graduated scale, with lower income earners paying very little. A UBI would be even better starting point, of course.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                27 May 2015 at 2:28 pm

                Thanks for your answer to the question which “makes no sense” – that benes should indeed pay income tax.

                • Karen …
                  27 May 2015 at 4:11 pm

                  A historical note on taxing benefits – none were taxed until one day Muldoon decided unemployment beneficiaries should be taxed. up until then Sickness and Unemployment Benefit were paid at the same rate. When taxing of all benefits was brought in the already reduced rate of Unemployment Benefit was treated as if it wasn’t already taxed and taxed again.

                  IMO, rather than making low income tax free, all benefits need to be increased and so does the minimum wage. Incomes over $70,000 a year need to have a higher rate of tax, and an even higher rate should apply at $150,000. Capital gains of any sort should be taxed.

                  • Realblue …
                    27 May 2015 at 6:22 pm

                    70000 includes teachers, nurses, police. Perhaps you should asked them. Are you trying to punish them for something?

                • te reo putake …
                  27 May 2015 at 8:01 pm

                  “Thanks for your answer to the question which “makes no sense” – that benes should indeed pay income tax.”

                  D’uh! If you get some spare time, look up the words income and benefit and see if you can suss the difference.

  12. Herodotus 12
    27 May 2015 at 1:27 pm

    We are being continually told that aucklands housing problem is predominately all about supply.
    Well, we are lifting supply to the market, but there are “unforeseen” consequences:
    The ability to find contractors is prooving difficult, as the level of activity increases this is more than matched by price increase well beyond inflation. E.g cost of pipes, diesel is increasing flowing onto increase tender costs for the earthworks component.Council processing of consents, s224s late last year it was within 3 weeks now it is taking 2 months.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/construction-costs-making-impossible-build-affordable-homes-developer-6241175
    Does no one ever consider, that by increasing supply you are increasing the demand on building products the ability for construction coys to deliver ?

  13. Morrissey 13
    27 May 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Passengers applaud as obnoxious political extremist escorted off plane

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/sir-bob-jones-booted-off-flight-refusing-listen-crew-6322883

    • mac1 13.1
      27 May 2015 at 2:39 pm

      Since we left wingers have no sense of humour, according to Sir Bob, we don’t find this at all funny. No sirree bob!

  14. Philip Ferguson 14
    27 May 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Thousands of Turkish workers are currently taking on the bosses, the repressive state and the yellow union they were corralled into following the 1981 military coup:
    https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/turkish-car-workers-take-on-bosses-state-and-yellow-union/

  15. Chris 15
    27 May 2015 at 3:06 pm

    When is something going to be done about David Carter?

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-fingerprints-of-biased-speaker.html

    The guy’s a complete and utter failure as a Speaker. He must be the worst NZ’s ever had. Something needs to be done.

    • Anne 15.1
      27 May 2015 at 3:36 pm

      Oww… you beat me by 20 minutes link,n all.

      He seems to have some hang-up about the oppo. members doing their job and grilling their opposite numbers in the House. Yesterday was a supreme example. Peter’s was attempting to ask a supplementary question. He prefaced it with a handful of words to the effect his question was not in response to the first part of the minister’s answer. It was a point of explanation. Misterrrr Speaker appeared to take it the wrong way and issued him with a warning . Peter’s started to explain what he was doing. Misterrrr Speaker threw him out of the house!

      Previous to that incident Key had been screeching at Little across the chamber (including the Super gaffe 🙄 ) – none of them had anything to do with Little’s original questions but hey… that’s okay. He just gets a mild admonishment usually delivered in a voice tinged with amusement.

      • North 15.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 6:26 pm

        And frequently with the hint of a smile on his dial as well. Key gets away with more shit than I’ve ever seen any Speaker allow. It’s disgraceful ! The larrikan head boy has it all over the headmaster.

        • Anne 15.1.1.1
          27 May 2015 at 7:00 pm

          And frequently with the hint of a smile on his dial as well

          Yep, meant to add that. If all the m****s out there who thinks he’s such a loverlee guy watched question time in the House and saw his narrowed ice cold eyes and heard his sly, mendacious and puerile-ridden shrieking (at Little in particular) they would drop dead with shock. Serves them right. They are getting exactly what they deserve – which is nothing.

  16. Tracey 16
    27 May 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Given how quickly the PM said he wouldnt stop nzers from coming home who were fighting for isis… rather makes me think its cos he knows there arent any… which makes a bit of a mockery of his breathless haste to surveil cos of the threat of nzers being radicalised… just pondering

  17. wyndham 17
    27 May 2015 at 3:29 pm

    According to our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the using of NZ taxpayer funds to bribe a Saudi businessman is all the fault of the Clark administration!!

    But – – but – – Helen Clark did it. Where have I heard this before?

  18. hoom 18
    27 May 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Bob Jones thrown off a plane for being a douche.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11455485
    If only such would happen more often…

    Meanwhile in stacking public institutions with stooges/jobs for the boys news
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11455565

  19. North 19
    27 May 2015 at 5:40 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11455485

    Supreme Court of New Zealand, watch out. You just do not do that to ‘the entitled’ !

    Another fabulous role model drawn from our ruling class hahaha…….

  20. repateet 20
    27 May 2015 at 7:00 pm

    The All Blacks play well and have a good win. People like Paul Henry say, “We were all over them, we played well.” The All Blacks lose and people like Paul Henry say, “They were hopeless, they should’ve played better.”

    A war is happening and New Zealand troops are sent:
    HENRY: … Is this a fight worth having? You HAVE to say YES.

    ANDREW PATTERSON: [gravely] Of course, of COURSE.

    HENRY: This is a fight that we have to be on the right side of, isn’t it?
    …
    HENRY: Absolutely we should be part of the fight. And we have to really take it to them!
HILLARY BARRY: [softly] I’m afraid so.
    
JIM KAYES: [softly, grimacing with moral doubt] Yes, I think so.
    
HENRY: We have to be in there STRONG and HARD!
    _____________________________________________________

    I have opined before that if the need were so serious for troops to go, John Key and Mike Hosking would have ensured that their kids signed up, did the training and demanded they be sent. (Their parents would no doubt have done the demanding too.)
    Paul Henry, wanting to get in there ‘strong and hard’ seems to have the attitude to want to be, to demand to be their commanding officer. Yeah.

    • RedBaronCV 20.1
      27 May 2015 at 8:17 pm

      Any chance the TV could show us how serious it is about hard news and sent Paul Henry off to Iraq to do an imbed and go out on some patrols towards ISIS territory –