Open mike 27/07/2011

161 comments on “Open mike 27/07/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. happynz 1

   27 July 2011 at 6:21 am

   My partner and I are early risers and as a part of our routine we catch a bit of the BBC news on TVOne from 5am until Te Karere comes on at 05:35. This week though the BBC disappeared only to be replaced with that jumped up Jesus peddler Kenneth Copeland.

   C’mon TVOne, get your act together and give us back our morning BBC.
   • Aero 1.1

     27 July 2011 at 1:14 pm

     One noteable problem with network programming is its inability to engender trust by being consistent. If a program is flagging in ratings then trust the network to dump it and leave the fans annoyed and frustrated. as for religious programming every morning seems an astonishingly stupid move given the rabid rightwing religious nutter in norway. What a loser he is, the guy thinks its smart to target children, even al quada doesn’t do that, sure kids die from its attacks but not young people. what’s with losers who think its their right to commit heinous violence to defedn society against what they fear most, having to change and grow as human beings.
     • Vicky32 1.1.1

       27 July 2011 at 6:28 pm

       as for religious programming every morning seems an astonishingly stupid move given the rabid rightwing religious nutter in norway

       I was told that they put religious programming on at 06.00 in the hopes that no one would watch it! (That was by a TV3 programmer, and their religious programming is American, and paid,  like an infomercial). It’s only in the last few years that I have heard of anyone watching TV at 06.00! It seems a very American habit. How can anyone have breakfast, get ready for work etc, while glued to the idiot box? That’s what radios are for… 😀
       • sweetd 1.1.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 6:39 pm

         Why don’t you introduce state athiesm? It worked so well in the soviet union.

         “Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, elimination of religious beliefs. Within about a year of the revolution the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).”

         But this is okay because its only right wingers that are bad.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 10:45 pm

           Who you quoting there?

           BTW, I’m pretty sure Vicky32 is Catholic.
           • Vicky32 1.1.1.1.1.1

             28 July 2011 at 6:03 pm

             Thanks DtB, I’m Anglo-Catholic! 🙂 (Believe it or not, I had to read the Wikipedia definition to be sure that’s what I am…)
2. The Baron 2

   27 July 2011 at 6:53 am

   Oh noes – sorry fanbois, the Fairfax poll is out and Labour is dead in the water. So much for that trend in the Roy Morgans – it ain’t showing up anywhere else.

   Looks like the public hate CGT as much as they continue to hate Phil. 6% in the PPM ain’t how you win elections at all.

   Quick Eddie, spin, spin!
   • ropata 2.1

     27 July 2011 at 7:26 am

     The impression I got from visiting Parliament a while back was that Labour was composed of a good mix of people who truly represent New Zealanders, whereas the National benches were occupied by pinstriped corporate sellouts, all mouthing the same empty marketing slogans, like a production line of cyborgs.

     Try having an independent thought “Baron”, or are you just a computer program?
     • Gosman 2.1.1

       27 July 2011 at 8:30 am

       Yet despite the fact that the Labour party in parliament is seemingly more representative of society Labour is languishing in the polls. Democracy is a strange thing eh?
       • jackal 2.1.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 8:52 am

         Polling is a strange thing don’t you mean. Recently we had a poll on Bill English’s website that showed around 85% of voters support a capital gains tax.

         Now we have a poll on Trueblue showing nearly 85% of voters who think Ken Ring is more credible than Nick Smith.

         Go figure.
         • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 9:58 am

           Ken Ring might spout crap about earthquakes and weather. But at least he doesn’t pretend there’s a crisis at ACC, raise levies and then lower them again when it turns out he made it up after all.

           Ken Ring is therefore mostly harmless.
       • swordfish 2.1.1.2

         28 July 2011 at 2:57 am

         I think you’ll find The Dominion Post’s Fairfax Media-Nielsen polls have a long history of over-stating Nat support and under-stating Labour support.

         Their final poll before the 08 Election, for instance, was way off. In the Election itself, National (45%) beat Labour (34%) by 11 percentage points. The final TV3-TNS poll had the Nats 13 points ahead (+2 from actual result), the final One News-Colmar Brunton had the gap at 12 (+1), the final Herald-Digi suggested the Nats were 11 points ahead (=). And the Fairfax Media-Nielsen ? Well, they put the Nats a whopping 18 percentage points ahead of Labour ! (+7).
         • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1

           28 July 2011 at 3:36 pm

           Somebody needs to do what that guy did in the US to accurately gauge the positions of the parties from the results biases observable from the various polls.

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

           He became a star by being able to guess pretty much exactly how election day results would actually go, based on analysing the consistent biases of various polling companies over time.
   • Gosman 2.2

     27 July 2011 at 8:18 am

     Hey Baron you forgot to link to the news.

     Here it is http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5344291/National-Party-could-govern-alone

     I’m sure it has something to do with the fact that South Aucklanders don’t have enough landlines listed for lprent to ring them up.
3. Sanctuary 3

   27 July 2011 at 7:29 am

   No, the polls are telling us the public really, really, really hate Phill Goff and he has to go – even now is not to late. The worst thing is, the party activist base know this. They also know that the venal careerists who make up the elite parliamentary leadership haven’t got the guts to get rid of Goff now and offer the electorate and their base something else before the election, preferring to drift towards a crushing defeat, and an outright hard right majority, than put their own well padded arses on the line by changing leadership now.

   Labour has yet to come up with a way of exposing Key for what he is. Yet the senior leadership – who have failed in this one simple task – present their credentials for comfortable complacency and a simple desire to stay in power based on their ability and experience. They are failures.

   Voters are still in love with John Key, a man who carefully stands for nothing, a man deliberately designed to give them a blank canvas to project whatever image they wish him to be onto it. Swing voters are not interested in a warmed-over Helen Clark apparatchik.

   Everyone knows this. All that will save Labour is a low turn out in general combined with a maximising of their support base turn out in particular.
   • Carol 3.1

     27 July 2011 at 8:00 am

     If winning an election depends on having a glossy, superficial, media-friendly celebrity leader, then democracy is frakked.
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1.1

       27 July 2011 at 8:36 am

       Or, put another way: if everyone doesn’t agree with me, democracy is frakked.
       • Gosman 3.1.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 8:54 am

         Those pesky voters can’t be trusted with running a democracy. Much better for the intellectual elite to manage them to come to the ‘correct’ decision.
       • felix 3.1.1.2

         27 July 2011 at 10:59 am

         You mistake Carol’s specific statement for a general one, probably deliberately. She didn’t say that at all.
   • Pete George 3.2

     27 July 2011 at 8:01 am

     Labour has yet to come up with a way of exposing Key for what he is.

     I think Labour simply can’t understand why Key remains so popular, and it frustrates the hell out of them.

     Key exposes himself far more openly than most politicians, and readily accepts he isn’t perfect. It’s an honesty that resonates.

     Goff is trying too hard to be something he isn’t and it’s obvious, people see him as a try-hard with his knickers twisted by his party, not as himself. In contrast to Key he won’t admit mistakes which often digs his his hole deeper. That is an ingrained political trait that most people really don’t like.
     • Lazy Susan 3.2.1

       27 July 2011 at 8:10 am

       Key exposes himself far more openly than most politicians

       What utter bullshit. Key’s agenda is to take from the many and give to the few yet he parades around pretending he’s working for the betterment of “ordinary” New Zealanders.
       • Gosman 3.2.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 8:21 am

         Yet it seems very, very successful strategy for him. Whereas Labour’s policy to set up a ‘fairer’ tax system seems to have hardly made a dent. Go fugure huh?
         • Lazy Susan 3.2.1.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 8:31 am

           Yes, have to agree, his dishonesty seems to be deceiving the electorate..
         • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.2

           27 July 2011 at 8:42 am

           Ahem. Connect with reality and ask yourself if people really don’t get that NACT is making themselves and their family members, on the whole, poorer.

           While they treat their own mates to even more lush wealth and help themselves to our strategic state assets.

           Even the sleep walkers are awakening now.
           • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.2.1.1.2.1

             27 July 2011 at 8:45 am

             “Even the sleep walkers are awakening now.”

             But, according to all of the polls, would vote National in record numbers.
             • Gosman …

               27 July 2011 at 8:53 am

               Yes weirdly even though CV states people are now waking up they seem to be stating they would prefer to vote National rather than Labour.

               Perhaps it is all a ploy on behalf of the waking sleep walkers to trick the people who woke them up as you know it is never a good idea to wake up a sleep walker.

               Otherwise it is all to do with the landlines lprent can’t locate in South Auckland.
       • Pete George 3.2.1.2

         27 July 2011 at 8:49 am

         Lazy Susan – your political desperation is blinding you from common perceptions.

         Key is the first National Prime Minister that I’ve really warmed to.
         I generally liked Goff as an MP but he’s the least impressive Labour leader I’ve seen.

         I have my gripes about the National Government but I think overall they are doing ok.

         Labour look like they haven’t gotten over their loss in 2008, they don’t look like they are doing any serious rebuilding yet, and the muddle and blunder along. They are not yet ready for serious consideration for Government – in my opinion, and obviously it’s a widely shared feeling.
         • framu 3.2.1.2.1

           27 July 2011 at 9:11 am

           key word there being “preceptions” of course
           • Carol 3.2.1.2.1.1

             27 July 2011 at 9:15 am

             Indeed. My response yo Key is that he’s about the least likeable PM NZ has had in a few decades. He always has seemed like a slippery used car salesman to me, and an inadequate PM/Party leader who doesn’t have a very coherent understanding of the nitty gritty of political policies, or the reality of many Kiwis lives.
             • Pete George …

               27 July 2011 at 9:25 am

               The polls disagree with you Carol.
               • Carol …

                 27 July 2011 at 10:59 am

                 Doesn’t change my perception. I don’t get over-excited about polls, one way or another. I’m more interested in the policies.

                 There’s only one poll that counts & I’ll wait til then to see what it throws up.
         • Lazy Susan 3.2.1.2.2

           27 July 2011 at 11:41 am

           I’m neither politically desperate or blind. I just look at NActs policies and understand they don’t work to improve the lot of “ordinary” New Zealanders. This does not correlate with what Key says he’s doing so I see a disconnect.

           As for “common perceptions” I completely acknowledge that many people are being fooled by Key. You are clearly one of them.
           • Pete George 3.2.1.2.2.1

             27 July 2011 at 11:47 am

             Labour is looking a more foolish option right now.
         • Ianupnorth 3.2.1.2.3

           27 July 2011 at 4:13 pm

           Do you fancy him Pete, do wake up in the middle of the night imagining he is there with you?
     • felix 3.2.2

       27 July 2011 at 11:09 am

       “Key exposes himself far more openly than most politicians”

       True to a point, but also missing the point entirely. Definitely deliberately too.

       What Key exposes openly are the “harmless dickhead” aspects of his personality. The funny (for 10 mins) drunk uncle at the bbq. The “I’ll give that a go for a laugh” kiwi blokeness that most of us relate to.

       In short, the mildy amusing sideshow that has little to no effect on anything important.

       What he doesn’t expose so much are his beliefs, his attitudes to society, where he sits on the political spectrum, his ambitions, his vision, what he really thinks of ordinary people. His relationship with the truth.

       In short, the stuff that actually affects policy and impacts on all of us right now and into the future.

       And yes, if kiwis saw more of these aspects they wouldn’t be so keen on having him at the barbie.
       • Pete George 3.2.2.1

         27 July 2011 at 11:16 am

         In extended interviews Key often also exhibits a lot of knowledge and common sense. This, along with his personal financial success, means he successfully combines ordinary blokeness with extraordinary capabiity.

         Those who frantically see him and portray him as bad only succeed in beating themselves up.
         • felix 3.2.2.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 11:24 am

           By “exhibits a lot of knowledge and common sense” you just mean “says things I agree with”. That’s what the words “common sense” mean – if you both perceive something the same way it’s common to the two of you.

           But yes I agree that his personal wealth probably impresses quite a few people.
           • Pete George 3.2.2.1.1.1

             27 July 2011 at 11:30 am

             No, obviously acting and talking in a way that many people agree with. A lot of people (indicated by the polls) who would not normally favour National like John Key.

             Key’s a non-politician sort of politician, people have been saying for a long time the want something different to normal political bullshit and he give’s them something different.

             Goff’s problem is he keeps dishing up more of the same old.
             • Colonial Viper …

               27 July 2011 at 11:36 am

               Fuck it PG don’t be an idiot. NZ has been getting poorer and poorer for the last 30 years.

               And your kowtowing to an investment banker acting to help his mates get their hands on our high income earning strategic state assets to accelerate this process is embarrassing.

               Key’s a non-politician sort of politician

               wtf. If you believe that anything that Key does isn’t precisely political, then you must be so naive as to be still a virgin.

               Bottom line is that LAB’s jobs is to take the message out to the electorate that we have a long term plan to build up this country and its people.

               If the electorate wishes to vote for NATs who are selling down our workers and buying in trains and housing from China, then they should know exactly what they are doing.

               Only one real poll this year after all 🙂
             • felix …

               27 July 2011 at 11:52 am

               “Key’s a non-politician sort of politician, people have been saying for a long time the want something different to normal political bullshit and he give’s them something different.”

               Precisely.

               It’s the non-political aspects of Key that people like.
               • Treetop …

                 27 July 2011 at 12:53 pm

                 Talent scouts look for three main attributes:
                 1. Attractiveness
                 2. A sense of humour
                 3. Capable of causing conflict

                 Key is a wolf in sheeps clothing as he plays all the cards BUT does not deliver.

                 I am interested in a politician who delivers and I think Goff’s score will be higher on this. No leader is bigger than their party is also my philosophy.
         • Campbell Larsen 3.2.2.1.2

           27 July 2011 at 11:39 am

           Ha ha ha, where do you get your lines Pete? You are top notch comedian…
           And to talk of a beat up even as you trot out party political broadcast one after the other ad infinitum…mirth!
     • Frida 3.2.3

       27 July 2011 at 2:43 pm

       “Key exposes himself”?

       I’m really really glad I missed that.
     • Vicky32 3.2.4

       27 July 2011 at 6:41 pm

       Key exposes himself far more openly than most politicians, and readily accepts he isn’t perfect.

       Key waffles, dithers and refuses to state any position clearly. He’s not honest and he doesn’t come across as honest. Neither is he popular, PG. The only poll that matters is the election, I think an honest person would admit that.
   • higherstandard 3.3

     27 July 2011 at 8:56 am

     The public don’t hate Phil Goff at all, they just don’t really think of him at all.

     As I’ve said before he was a very competent hard working minister but he just won’t capture the publics interest as a PM. Elections in NZ and in many other countries are a pure popularity/unpopularity contest with a mix of tribal voting which points to the public face of the party being an important piece of the puzzle to capture votes.

     At present Key is popular and the Nats will likely win the election on the back of that popularity as Labour have no-one to match him on the popularity stakes, hence they’ll either need to find someone or wait/make Key unpopular in much the same way as Clark/labour became more unpopular over time.
   • Janice 3.4

     27 July 2011 at 11:58 am

     I think that National is panacking and thinks that if they can psyche the labour party into getting rid of Goff by saying he is hated, then it will be better for them.
4. Tiger Mountain 4

   27 July 2011 at 8:51 am

   Re: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5344291/National-Party-could-govern-alone
   • Commentators concerned about polling methodologies (Bomber, Trotter etc.) have good reason, the polls can be both predictive and drive voter behaviour, and are weighted to conservatives. I.E they are bent. But as the line in the Batman movie went “this town’s so bent, who ya gonna rat to?” and New Zealand feels a bit like that at the moment.

   • NZ society is well atomised after 25 years of neo liberalism and a lot of people have disappeared up their own niches, others just marginalised and disconnected. Key supporters that have the balls to admit it to me are to a person selfish individualist bastards desperate to cling on to what they have, even if the poorer ones have nothing but aspiration. Can you eat aspiration? We’ll find out soon enough, though the food banks probably know the answer.

   • The right wingers here happy for their ‘team’ are pathetic in their lack of interest in their fellow citizens. Maybe it is just too soon for enough kiwis to admit they fucked up in 2008 with Shonkey to consign him to one term, the prick will likely be off before the end of a second anyway.

   • 138 (small) businesses in the Far North have crapped out in the last year, burgs and other property crime is crazy, so it is just counterintuitive that people are so poll happy about a dirty filthy government that has ripped into ECE, ACC and a dozen other social wage acronyms. It will be great to have some decent demos again tho!
   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.1

     27 July 2011 at 9:56 am

     http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/a-polling-scandal-and-a-saviour-on-the-horizon
     • Tiger Mountain 4.1.1

       27 July 2011 at 10:24 am

       Cuts no ice with me, half man half biscuit. There are no quick fixes for two things: Bent polls (pollsters get paid, they don’t do it just for something to do) and False consciousness, where voters actually vote against their own best interests.

       The performance or lack thereof of the opposition and others not into the tories upwards wealth transfer is another matter. Rising inequality will see a wider fightback and the rise of the likes of Mana movement.
       • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.1.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 10:45 am

         Bent polls (pollsters get paid, they don’t do it just for something to do)

         Yes, but it is in their economic interest to produce a poll that is as accurate as possible.

         False consciousness, where voters actually vote against their own best interests.

         As judged by…you? What you are saying is that you know better than the voters what is best for them. Just the sort of attitude which condemns Labour to their present position in the polls.

         Rising inequality will see a wider fightback and the rise of the likes of Mana movement.

         Good-o. When will we start seeing this?
         • Tiger Mountain 4.1.1.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 11:07 am

           Don’t tell me “what I am saying” biscuit.

           A number of change voters in ’08 were always arguably cruising for a bruising from a National led govt given their track record of wealth transfer to the already wealthy (amply illustrated by graphs in the back posts of this blog).

           Now it is well proven that a tick for tories for a number of the 75% of kiwis on $50k per annum or less, and particulary those on $22k or less, has been a miserable experience.
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.2

           27 July 2011 at 11:41 am

           Yes, but it is in their economic interest to produce a poll that is as accurate as possible.

           No it is in their interests to produce polling which is as profitable as possible.

           And getting a National Govt in again is definitely what is most profitable for the media barons.
           • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.1.1.1.2.1

             27 July 2011 at 1:28 pm

             Are you saying the polling companies tell one party what it wants to hear (faking results in the process)? That’s rather a short term strategy, isn’t it? Won’t their paymasters be a little upset when the election results do not reflect the polling?

             I just love the way it has to be a conspiracy whenever the left poll badly. You seriously need to consider the possibility that the Labour party is actually this unpopular.
             • Lanthanide …

               27 July 2011 at 2:11 pm

               “Are you saying the polling companies tell one party what it wants to hear (faking results in the process)? That’s rather a short term strategy, isn’t it? Won’t their paymasters be a little upset when the election results do not reflect the polling?”

               No, they tell the public what the one party wants it to hear. The party does their own polling to get the real numbers.

               Duh.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.2.2

             27 July 2011 at 2:09 pm

             +1
             • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

               27 July 2011 at 2:19 pm

               Bizarre.

               If it’s that easy, why doesn’t Labour pay a polling company to say it is polling 87%?
               • Lanthanide …

                 27 July 2011 at 2:24 pm

                 You missed this part:

                 “And getting a National Govt in again is definitely what is most profitable for the media barons.”

                 The media barons aren’t interested in a Labour Govt.

                 Note: I don’t believe that there is any deliberate bias or fraud going on with these poll results, but I do believe their results are biased and the reporting of them is definitely biased (see last week’s TV1 poll that Guyon went nuts over). I’m just replying here because you seem to have a distinct lack of reading comprehension.
                 • Pete George …

                   27 July 2011 at 2:28 pm

                   The media barons aren’t interested in a Labour Govt.

                   Has this suddently changed since the Clark nine years?
                   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                     27 July 2011 at 2:40 pm

                     This is beyond hilarious.

                     Way you go. Keep believing it is all a corporate plot. And see what happens when the election results come in.
5. Adrian 5

   27 July 2011 at 9:34 am

   My 19 year old at Uni said that kids of around her age told her that they liked Key simply because he was an idiot, not like usual pollies. The one consolation is that when it comes to the crunch ( i.e actually voting, ) he may be just too lightweight. The latest poll was commisioned by Fairfax, the same people whose senior editor admitted privately that they had given Key free advertising in the Herald in the last week of the last election because “he was the underdog”. If this poll is anything like correct why is National shitting itself in Epsom, Ohariu and New Plymouth?
   • Gosman 5.1

     27 July 2011 at 11:16 am

     “…whose senior editor admitted privately that they had given Key free advertising in the Herald in the last week of the last election because “he was the underdog”. ”

     I presume you have some evidence for this rather serious allegation do you?
   • Chris 5.2

     27 July 2011 at 11:25 am

     I admit I have no idea who the senior editor for fairfax is or his work history, but on the face value of this comment I am very interested in how he managed to get free advertising in a rival newspaper…
     • Gosman 5.2.1

       27 July 2011 at 12:09 pm

       So Adrian care to explain how a senior editor for a rival newspaper group got John Key free advertising in the Herald prior to the last election and also provide some actual hard evidence for this claim?

       BTW I don’t remember individual political leaders having advertising on their own during election campaigns beyond for their specific electorate.
   • Colonial Viper 5.3

     27 July 2011 at 11:26 am

     That Fairfax poll under-represented by 3% 2008 Labour voters to start with – it only had 31% LAB voters in that poll; in 2008 LAB got 34% of the vote.

     Fraking stitch up from the start in other words.
     • Gosman 5.3.1

       27 July 2011 at 12:06 pm

       Even if you included that 3% figure the gap is still too wide to be put down purely to errors with polling methodology.
     • Treetop 5.3.2

       27 July 2011 at 1:05 pm

       Far too many political polls. I’d rather see about four neutral polls every year.

       Do you have an idea of how many polls annually and how neutral they really are?
   • swordfish 5.4

     28 July 2011 at 3:13 am

     @ Adrian (and Colonel Viper/Treetop) See my comment further up-thread for bias of Fairfax polls.
6. Bill 6

   27 July 2011 at 9:39 am

   Just one small but not incidental strand in the yarn of parliamentary politics.

   Remember when Labour bought into all that ‘War on Terror’ crap and shoved through regressive legislation on the spurious back of ‘national security’?

   National said nothing. Probably voted for it.

   Then Labour sought to pass sensible legislation on light bulbs etc and aided in the passing of anti-child assault legislation.

   And National jumped up and down screaming that the ‘nanny state’ was robbing us of freedoms.

   Forget that the real loss of freedom was backed by National. They were the only ones to articulate what people were feeling. And so Labour became synonymous with heavy handed bureaucracy.

   In seeking a bob each way; jumping aboard the bandwagon of paranoia and legislating against us instead of leaving all that crap for the UK and the US to inflict on their citizens (as Norway and doubtless others have done) and then seeking to legislate good stuff Labour, with a little helping hand from National, hung themselves with regards public perception.

   And it seems they still don’t ‘get’ that.

   Labour still use paternalistic language when they refer to us punters. I’ve noticed that time after time Ph. Goff’s speech patterns are such that he is assuming to talk for what I think. He ascribes his own conclusions to me, the listener. (Listen to him the next time he speaks. There is no room to attach shades of your own thoughts or opinions to what he says, he assumes to know the entirety of what you think and shoves it on you as a bald statement of fact. It’s degrading.)

   John on the other hand allows the space for people to draw their own conclusions. He usually throws in a ‘I think NZer’s…’

   If you are one of the many voters who is swaying this way or that and basing your ‘choice’ on how the menu looks rather than on how the food tastes, then the John menu wins hands down.
   • just saying 6.1

     27 July 2011 at 10:52 am

     Amen.
     Ironically it is Goff who almost perfectly represents what turns voters off Labour. Much more than Clark ever could. Aping the’ big boys’, siding with the bullies, it just comes across as pathetic and sychophantic.
   • RobM 6.2

     27 July 2011 at 11:39 am

     “If you are one of the many voters who is swaying this way or that and basing your ‘choice’ on how the menu looks rather than on how the food tastes, then the John menu wins hands down.”

     Good point, the sour aftertaste may catch a few out post election.

     I’d like to know how many undecideds swing to the incumbent when pressed.

     Colmar Brunton ask the following questions to gauge party vote:

     “Firstly thinking about the Party Vote which is for a political party. Which political party would you vote for?” IF DON‟T KNOW “Which one would you be most likely to vote for?”

     After being pressed around 10% refuse or say they don’t know. I like to know what percentage of the original sample respond “don’t know” to the first question.

     My guess is 10- 15% of the Nats support is from these “most likely” undecideds.

     Source here: http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/files/20110721103849-1311201529-0.pdf
7. chris73 7

   27 July 2011 at 9:58 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5344291/National-Party-could-govern-alone

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5344293/Voters-seem-to-have-taken-vow-with-Key

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5344292/Goff-steering-Labour-to-knackers-yard

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5344290/Voters-undeterred-by-PMs-stumbles

   Reasons why for the above headlines:

   Labour seem fixated on exposing the “real Key” as if hes some kind of boogey man, this is off putting to the general public as its been going on for how many years now?

   John Key seems to be a “what you see is what you get” type of person, what I see is someone whos come from not a lot, worked hard, become successful and still seems quite affable, in short what most NZers want to aspire to

   Attacking John Key hasn’t worked the last couple of years and its not going to work coming into the next election (maybe after the election?)

   John Key admits his mistakes, admits his stuff ups but compare this to Phil Goff (I can’t even call him Goofy now because its like being mean to a defenceless puppy) People got tired of Helen Clark and her “never apoligise for anything, put the blame on other people” policy and it appears Goff is doing the same thing

   After the last election people wanted a clean out of the Clark era to show they’d learnt their lesson but it never happened so from the publics pov Labour didn’t admit it was wrong

   This is what a large number of the general public think but no doubt one or two people on here will (respectfully of course) disagree 😉

   I’d put up more reasons but I’ve got to walk my dog before he tears the house up
   • felix 7.1

     27 July 2011 at 10:53 am

     “John Key seems to be a “what you see is what you get” type of person”

     Then what he is depends entirely on what you see. And you see what you want to see. And you seem to want to see a “what you see is what you get” type of person.

     See how meaningless that is?
     • chris73 7.1.1

       27 July 2011 at 10:59 am

       No, whats meaningless is making a remark like yours

       It doesn’t address why Labour and Goff is doing so poorly and why National and Key is doing so well

       However if you think you’ve “won” well good on you and see you on polling day
       • felix 7.1.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 11:21 am

         Neither does your remark address any such thing.

         Mine was simply demonstrating that yours begs the question.
         • chris73 7.1.1.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 11:46 am

           No, I was stating why Labours doing poorly and why Nationals doing so well
           • felix 7.1.1.1.1.1

             27 July 2011 at 11:57 am

             No, you were stating that Labour’s doing poorly and National’s doing well.

             The “why” bit was begging the question.
             • Tigger …

               27 July 2011 at 12:55 pm

               “John Key seems to be a “what you see is what you get” type of person” = total line of PR spin. It’s been very well sold to certain voters but it isn’t true.
     • Deb 7.1.2

       27 July 2011 at 4:11 pm

       WYSIWYG – What you see is what you get is a positive characteristic. To most people it signifies openness and a lack of a hidden agenda.

       Now Labour supporters can be in denial all they like, they can continue the Key/Brash (whoever is at the helm of the Nats) bashing, but the public simply do not like it, especially when we have 9 years of Labour history to draw on for a quick comparative hypocrisy monitor at virtually every turn. Bashing is not only a put off, it undermines the hard work Labour policy people are putting into manifesto.
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1

         27 July 2011 at 10:55 pm

         What you see is what you get is a positive characteristic.

         Only when you’re talking about a word processor. When talking about a person then you need to start asking what’s he hiding.
8. jackal 8

   27 July 2011 at 10:16 am

   Asshole of the Week Award – Te Ururoa Flavell

   In a despicable column in Rotorua’s Daily Post newspaper, Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell suggested a “very hard stand” should be made on suicide. He thinks that “one is almost wasting time asking why this happens.” Really! We’re wasting our time asking why young people kill themselves?
   • Bill 8.1

     27 July 2011 at 10:58 am

     fuck-ing-hell!

     I thought all that catholic ‘bury them in non-consecrated ground outside the gates where their souls will gnash in purgatory’ crap was….nah, speechless.

     (sigh) I guess there are pills designed to put a happy smile on the face of medicalised, (formally) perceptive and unhappy individuals so that the fact that the world is crap is veiled by ‘smiley happy happys’.

     How many ‘lolly scramble’ anti-depressants are prescribed again? Is it 1 in 4 people getting medicalised so as not to perceive and react in an ‘inapproprate’ natural fashion?

     “Don’t act. Just pop!”

     Wonder how much pressure that puts on the ‘yet to be medicalised’ in terms of isolation and doubt as to the veracity of their feelings?

     And further wondering if prescribing anti-depressants and generating a false surface impression throughout society might generate a social vortex of denial as to the real state of various affairs thereby increasing the incidences of individuals who will experience depression and alienation, deepen the effect felt by said individuals and ultimately lead to an increase in the number of suicides.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       27 July 2011 at 11:30 am

       Firstly, anti-depressants are being given by the tonne to people who are merely feeling a bit listless or down.

       It takes away the emotional incentive to actually examine why they are feeling listless or down, and to do something about it.

       Secondly we are in a world where this is encouraged commercially all the time. Avoid examining your life and why it doesn’t feel right by…buyoing something, eating something, wearing soemthing, driving something.

       These strategies are not going to work well in an energy and resource depleting world. The disconnect is going to drive people over the edge.
       • Pete George 8.1.1.1

         27 July 2011 at 11:35 am

         That touches on one of our society’s biggest problems. People sit back expecting quick fixes, delivered by someone else and paid for by someone else if possible).

         The adults are willing sheep, their kids become lambs to the slaughter.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1

           27 July 2011 at 12:00 pm

           Sorry mate you don’t get the idea that people need help from their wider communities and from Government in order to get ahead. The Masters of the Universe meme doesn’t work for those 95% on the bottom of the pile.

           What you’ve helped create with neoliberalism is a community of individualists i.e. not much of a community at all.
       • higherstandard 8.1.1.2

         27 July 2011 at 12:13 pm

         “Firstly, anti-depressants are being given by the tonne to people who are merely feeling a bit listless or down.”

         Bullshit, very few, if any competent health professionals would rX antidepressants as a first option to a person who presented feeling a bit listless or down.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1

           27 July 2011 at 12:18 pm

           Mate I don’t disagree with your qualifier one bit (“competent”).

           However you obviously haven’t been talking to pharmacists around the South Island.

           A lot of people fleeing Christchurch (i.e. with Christchurch addresses) were presenting with scripts for ADs in pharmacies all around the place.

           Edit – you should also check out the number of 18-21 year old students in the uni population who are also on ADs.
           • higherstandard 8.1.1.2.1.1

             27 July 2011 at 12:35 pm

             Firstly I’d imagine that a prior to exiting CCH that a similar percentage of the CCH population is on antidepressants as the NZ population in toto, if they left CCH it is hardly surprising that they’d present to fill a script outside of CCH.

             Secondly I do not accept that someone from CCH presenting with serious symptoms of depression could be diagnosed as merely feeling a bit listless or down, antidepressants are most often prescribed for moderate or severe depression and are next to useless for mild depressive conditions.

             Yes please supply pharmhouse data from HBL regarding antidepressant usage amongst 18-21 year old students in the uni population, alternatively if you can’t stop blowing smoke out of your arse and spouting anecdotes.
             • Ianupnorth …

               27 July 2011 at 4:18 pm

               Biggest dispensed drug in local pharmacies are NOT antibiotics but SSRI’s – you’d be hard pressed to find a family that doesn’t have at least one member on them.
               • Treetop …

                 27 July 2011 at 5:14 pm

                 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10621351

                 Prescription list
                 Drug treatment for mental illness year ended June 2009
                 Prescriptions for antipsychotics drugs: About 390,000
                 Prescriptions for antidepressant drugs: About 1.23 million

                 This info is at the end of the article. Also of note the importance of having a good diet which contains the necessary nutrients appears to improve mental health.
               • higherstandard …

                 27 July 2011 at 6:32 pm

                 I would suggest that the largest volume prescribed medications in NZ are analgesics followed by aspirin and HMG CoA inhibitors followed by certain antibiotics and antihypertensives although antidepressants would certainly up there.
               • Vicky32 …

                 27 July 2011 at 7:11 pm

                 but SSRI’s – you’d be hard pressed to find a family that doesn’t have at least one member on them.

                 I was offered SSRIs after my brother died in 2004, and refused – because he may have been on them himself.. and he’d committed suicide! (SSRIs are implicated in suicidal ideation – by which I mean they won’t cause suicide alone, but will encourage a person who’s already on the edge, to go over it.)
               • higherstandard …

                 28 July 2011 at 8:18 am

                 As suspected no antidepressant within the top 10. (pg15)

                 http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2010/12/15/2010AnnRev.pdf
                 • rosy …

                   28 July 2011 at 8:43 am

                   My pet hate omeprazole (losec) is at no.4.

                   BTW the article page 8 of that .pdf by Dr Lance O’Sullivan is a worthwhile read.
                   • higherstandard …

                     28 July 2011 at 8:48 am

                     What have you got against omeprazole – it’s a very effective and useful medicine.
                   • rosy …

                     28 July 2011 at 8:56 am

                     Yep I know, I use it every day. But that’s because I have to take diclofenac everyday so the diclofenac doesn’t cause stomach problems. My pet hate is that omeprazole is more often than not used for to mitigate the effects of a bad diet and costs Pharmac a fortune.

                     If less money was spent on drugs lifestyle factors then maybe the savings could be used for better meds for inflammatory conditions and thus reduce the need for diclofenac. Yes, I know it’s a selfish thought and I’m not very reasonable about this.
       • M 8.1.1.3

         27 July 2011 at 11:22 pm

         Excellent CV, drugs are doled out too readily and people just sometimes need to experience sadness or moderate unhappiness which will hopefully harden into anger/dissatisfaction and impel them to action.

         The latest Max Keiser shows how finance/Big Pharma “creates” conditions that they can then treat:

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUl6aFgL41U

         I hate to think what will ensue when industrial civilisation and therefore Big Pharma makes it probable non-linear descent – mass suicides, a la Jim Jones when people have been medicated to the point where they cannot cope with the smallest problem or disappointment?
9. William Joyce 9

   27 July 2011 at 10:21 am

   In the early hours of the morning, as I listened to the news, I occurred to me that it would be of no surprise, given the neo-nazi style problems fermenting in Scandinavia, that the events in Norway were the product of right wing extremists.
   I was later watching Fox (yes, I admit it – it was *ahem* research) and there was one of those brain-dead, arrogant, warmonger, Neo-cons John Bolton.
   Even when the news was beginning to dismiss an Islamist connection, John Bolton was doing his best to make it an issue of his pet War on Terror.
    

   “This kind of behavior is very un-Norwegian to say the least. And the speculation that it’s part of right-wing extremism or something like that, I think that has less of a foundation at this point, than the concern that there is a broader political threat here.”

   I bet that he was paid handsomely for the bit of analysis.
   Article & Clip
10. Campbell Larsen 10

    27 July 2011 at 10:42 am

    Meh, open mike polluted with fawning shonkey love by the usual suspects – go form a fan club FFS
    • chris73 10.1

      27 July 2011 at 11:48 am

      Wow, jealous much?
    • Draco T Bastard 10.2

      27 July 2011 at 2:20 pm

      They already have one – it’s called the National Party.
11. Wayne91 11

    27 July 2011 at 11:42 am

    Capmbell Larsen

    The “shonkey” fan club has been formed and over 50% of the population have joined.
    • felix 11.1

      27 July 2011 at 11:54 am

      That’s a rather candid admission, Wayne91.
    • Tigger 11.2

      27 July 2011 at 11:56 am

      Fan club is right, fainting school girls, puff pieces on his holiday home, pics of his wife adorning the cover of women’s mags…he’s our first celebrity PM. Congrats NZ, I officially don’t recognise you anymore.
      • chris73 11.2.1

        27 July 2011 at 12:07 pm

        Thats part of the problem for lefties, you’re fighting a political battle in the old style but thats moved on (for better or worse)

        Adapt or become extinct
        • Tigger 11.2.1.1

          27 July 2011 at 12:15 pm

          So chris, without Key which National pollie would you celebritize? Blinglish? Ryall? Collins? Key is all you’ve got mate.
          • chris73 11.2.1.1.1

            27 July 2011 at 12:21 pm

            Fair point and my response is so what?

            We do have him so theres no point in bleating “if you didn’t have him”

            Not that Labour haven’t tried in the past to woo the womens magazines and failed

            Maybe Labour could try doing what National did and go looking for a charismatic leader rather then trying to make one up
            • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1.1

              27 July 2011 at 12:25 pm

              Yeah you’re just selling the Celebrity Leader stereotype.

              Doesn’;t pay our country’s bills, give us jobs or increase our standing in the world tho does it.

              Especially when he works for the Bankster Occupiers.
              • chris73 …

                27 July 2011 at 12:46 pm

                Says you

                and again with the smearing…seriously how long is it going to take you to realise that trying to smear Key just isn’t working

                When plan A isn’t working (and with Key overwhelmingly popular and Goff overwhelmingly unpopular I’d say its not working) I’d suggest Labour switch to plan B (I assume there is a plan B or is that part of the problem?)
                • lprent …

                  27 July 2011 at 1:19 pm

                  Ummm does it never seem to occur to you that many of us (including me) think that John Key is a irresponsible fuckwit who does not have the interests of the whole of our society at heart. What does that have to do with smearing? I’d suggest that you learn to learn to live with that rather than whining.

                  As a side issue and a warning, I’d also like to point out that my last moderation sweep I was starting to hover over your comments. I noticed that you now have an interesting pattern of comments with a standard troll pattern of boring and largely meaningless repetitive statements like the one above. I was quivering on the edge of an anti-troll ban until I hit the early morning comments. Then I found a few comments that were actually readable, non-repetitive, and didn’t remind me of a robot with a phrase book.

                  I’d suggest that you stick with the former rather than the latter because your pattern over the last few days has been getting you filed in the ‘questionable’ column – especially with how frequently you’re getting caught in the troll phrasebook trap and requiring my effort to release your comments (recently I have just been flushing a number of them to spam because I tend to regard people who don’t learn as being particularly stupid).
                  • chris73 …

                    27 July 2011 at 1:49 pm

                    Ummm does it never seem to occur to you that many of us (including me) think that John Key is a irresponsible fuckwit who does not have the interests of the whole of our society at heart. What does that have to do with smearing? I’d suggest that you learn to learn to live with that rather than whining.

                    Many of you do but the majority don’t and Labour doesn’t have the whole of societies interests either (you know rich pricks and all) Its funny but it only seems to be whining when it disagrees with lefts views on things

                    In response to the side issue: I don’t deliberatly troll. I make comments based on what I think or feel about whatever subject I post on. Trolling is subjective.

                    I mean if you ask me I could probably point out a bunch of trolling done here but its from the left side so its let slide

                    For example: “Especially when he works for the Bankster Occupiers”

                    What kind of a response is that going to generate?
                    • lprent …

                      27 July 2011 at 2:50 pm

                      Read the about if you’re unsure of why the site was set up. It makes absolutely no news media pretensions towards reflecting society apart from those parts of it that it was set up for.

                      The types of things that drop you into auto-moderation are precisely the thoughtless phrases like “rich prick”. Perhaps you should use your brain and look up who it was said by, in what context, and exactly why it was said at the time. Basically your misuse of what you think is a phrase describing a general attitude says more about your pig-ignorance than it says about the left. I think that I should just start handing out stupidity bans for people using it out of context….

                      I’m aware you don’t deliberately troll – which is why you got a gentle warning in conversation. I try to warn commentators when I think that they’re falling into the habits that will result in a moderator hitting a sequence of remarks and handing out a ban.

                      The commentators of the left do get warnings as well, but they are notable on this site in taking immediate notice of them and amending their behavior (which is the intent of the warnings). I find that I do have to hit some of the right with a club to get their attention. I guess that reflects who feel that their ability to access this site for comment is valuable.

                      Oh and I agree about CV’s comment. And your response was also appropriate. But you have to think what we see as moderators because that is what we will warn and ban on..

                      CV generally* doesn’t write enough troll comments in a sequence to trigger moderators attention. Some of his comments are as reactive as yours frequently are. However he doesn’t do whole sequences of very similar comments as you did earlier today.

                      Remember that we see all comments in reverse entry order across all posts and have very little view of the reply context apart from who was replying to whom. What we’re interested in is what individual commentators are saying as an overall troll behavioral pattern. We also look for individual comments that violate the rules. We look at what you say yourself and are pretty uninterested in what the other person says.

                      We have little choice about that. There are so many comments flowing through there that we have to run it as a batch process rather than providing individual attention. It does tend to work mostly because people who comment here a lot become aware of what we’re looking for pretty rapidly through comments like this.

                      * He has had a number of warnings though over the last year or so. He does tend to relapse a bit…
              • Pete George …

                27 July 2011 at 12:58 pm

                Especially when he works for the Bankster Occupiers.

                You mustn’t be very observant. Outside the left hit squad bubble the main criticism of Key is that he won’t do anywhere enough fast enough for the capitalist/consmurist purists.

                And that doesn’t look like changing unless you’re obsessed by the conspiracy theory that competes with the-communists-are taking-over-the-world.
                • framu …

                  27 July 2011 at 1:57 pm

                  ” main criticism of Key is that he won’t do anywhere enough fast enough for the capitalist/consmurist purists.”

                  thats the main criticsim coming form the fran osullivan club (for want of a better term)

                  youve highlighted the other end of the spectrum and tried to paint it as the centre
            • the pink postman 11.2.1.1.1.2

              27 July 2011 at 1:32 pm

              Strange this desire for a charismatic leader .Was not the most charimatic leader of the 1930s one Adolf Hitler. He shouted Key smiles ,both have the same effect .
12. gobsmacked 12

    27 July 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Sanctuary is spot on, up-thread.

    I can’t stand Key. I fear a NACT second term, with Brash in and the masks off.

    But Labour have failed in their duty, and it all comes down to the fact that when theyfail, we pay the price, and they don’t.

    The fossilised Labour leadership will be back, whatever happens on Nov 26. They’ve looked after themselves nicely, with a self-serving party list. Not just Goff, but Mallard and King and Horomia and the rest. I would love to vote Labour AND vote the old guard out … but I can’t.

    So I’ll vote Green, and just have to hope that there really is a clear out from within the Labour caucus, post-election.

    Today, the so-called chief strategist for Labour is blogging about (wait for it …)

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/07/27/julian-dean-several-for-the-team/

    … watching sport on telly. In an election campaign. I am not (alas) making this up.

    Laugh, cry, vote Green because at least they’ve earned it …and then start again on Nov 27.
    • Lanthanide 12.1

      27 July 2011 at 1:06 pm

      If you keep up with these sorts of comments I might just vote Green…
    • Draco T Bastard 12.2

      27 July 2011 at 2:25 pm

      …watching sport on telly.

      They’ve been do that quite a lot. It probably puts off the large percentage of the population who have interest in sport.
13. Aero 13

    27 July 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Key is an idiot, say kids. Kids aren’t likely to read in between the lines. Key is a liar, not an idiot, kids see liars and idiots as the same thing maybe? Key’s politics is about speaking to he’s one of us, will lie for us, but we can trust him really. Goff however doesn’t show any ability to push astonishingly stupid statements in front of panels of voters in private rooms to find what resonants with them. We all know we need a CGT, but we need to know the guy pushing it has the ability to lie and cheat logic to win it into law. do we really want to waste our vote on Goff when we can just vote for the ‘winner’ and be a smug bastard about how brave and fearless we are. Since the conservative revolution is all about being smartly smug sanctimonius.
14. Lanthanide 14

    27 July 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Americans just waking up?
    http://www.truth-out.org/new-court-filing-reveals-how-2004-ohio-presidential-election-was-hacked/1311603015

    Have a look at the comment thread there.
15. prism 15

    27 July 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Bill English on news this morning being questioned about something – Point 1, Point 2, and mumble Point 3, I think I heard “and paying off the debit from past 10 years”. Has this brainwashing of twisted history registered in everyone’s brain yet?

    By the way this a.m. Morgan Spurlock was interviewed by Kathryn Ryan about his new doco looking at product placement in everything we see. The pr advertising firms put focus group people into MRIs and scan brain reaction to adverts to see which part of the brain reacts to sex or whatever so they can correlate which part of an ad has most impact. Yuk.
16. happynz 16

    27 July 2011 at 1:31 pm

    I thought we had a parliamentary system here? As much as the media is enamoured with presidential style politics, it just doesn’t work that way. If Labour wants to get on top of this they need to do the hard local yards, get out the vote (GOTV) for their local electorate candidate, and hopefully fire up the voters to tick the party vote.

    Unless I understand the system here mistakenly, the only people that can directly vote for Key are those in his electorate. Same with Goff.
17. freedom 17

    27 July 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Maori Party adds fuel to their funeral pyre
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5346356/MP-Bury-youth-suicides-outside-cemetery
18. battleheed 18

    27 July 2011 at 2:00 pm

    So who really thinks Labour’s going to win the election then? Who thinks Phil will be Prime Minister after November 26?
    • Lanthanide 18.1

      27 July 2011 at 2:12 pm

      Me. Currently put $43 on it on ipredict. If I’m right, I’ll get back $274.
19. Carol 19

    27 July 2011 at 2:06 pm

    There’s too much focus on backing winners. My focus is on what will be best for NZ. I’m not a great Goff fan and these days I’m a Green voter. I think a Labour-led government would be far better for the country’s future than a National-led one.
    • battleheed 19.1

      27 July 2011 at 2:10 pm

      So do you think Phil will be Prime Minister after this election Carol?
      • Carol 19.1.1

        27 July 2011 at 2:33 pm

        I don’t know. Will wait & see.
20. McFlock 20

    27 July 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Re: the FairFx RI survey:

    Cycling through the graphs on gosman’s link, I couldn’t find any data on methodology. And then on the preferred PM chart it said “thirty percent of voters polled are undecided”. No other information on methodology.
     
    So, if they have a response rate of 70% for the survey, and no word on their contact methodology, colour me unimpressed. And while they point out that Labour is (according to this news article) close to its 1996 vote take (of course, 80-odd% voter participation), they forget to mention that Labour was within a whisker of forming a coalition government that year. Indeed, that’s the direction many NZ1 voters expected Winston to go.
     
    This is a “cautious meh” survey, not anything to wank over like some of our tory brethren/sistren (hat-tip Pratchett)seem to be doing.
21. the pink postman 21

    27 July 2011 at 2:20 pm

    The adverts on our TV channels are often in bad taste . Last night on TV one we saw an advert for all the diferent food available for dogs. The next news item was showing the poor starving people in Somalia . Who plans these adverts ? have they no idea what is really offensive?
    • Draco T Bastard 21.1

      27 July 2011 at 2:41 pm

      I’m at the point that I think all advertising should be banned. It’s a huge waste of resources that’s designed to keep the majority of people uninformed and compliant.
      • Lanthanide 21.1.1

        27 July 2011 at 3:07 pm

        What I want to see is whenever there is a person talking directly to camera about why you should buy something, throwing their celebrity into it (see Stacy Jones pimping for a finance company, and the horrible Family Health Diary ads etc) is a requirement for the person to disclose how much they have been paid and by whom to deliver this message.

        “You should buy avigra, it has the same quality you’d expect, but it’s cheaper! I have been paid $7,800 to deliver this message by pfizer”

        I think that would shut down those ads pretty quick.
        • Ianupnorth 21.1.1.1

          27 July 2011 at 4:22 pm

          Only the USA, Canada and NZ allow prescription pharmaceuticals to be advertised on TV – first law I would change is to ban those. Consumer choice should NOT be something that is allowed in medicine.
          • higherstandard 21.1.1.1.1

            27 July 2011 at 5:40 pm

            “Consumer choice should NOT be something that is allowed in medicine.”

            Oh bullshit Ian, firstly I couldn’t give two hoots if a patient comes in and asks for a medicine after having seen it on TV the final choice of who gets what is with the rXer and you’d have to be a pathetic wimp to Rx something which you thought was not in the patients best interest.

            Secondly although you have correctly identified that our law in common with that of the USA and certain states of Canada allows advertising of rX pahracmeuticals there is open slather on OTC and general medines some of which the general public gorge on to their detriment and many of whose manufacturers make all kinds of claims regarding the efficacy and safety.
            • Draco T Bastard 21.1.1.1.1.1

              27 July 2011 at 11:03 pm

              Secondly although you have correctly identified that our law in common with that of the USA and certain states of Canada allows advertising of rX pahracmeuticals there is open slather on OTC and general medines some of which the general public gorge on to their detriment and many of whose manufacturers make all kinds of claims regarding the efficacy and safety.

              Which is why medicines shouldn’t be advertised at all. People making decisions from a position of ignorance is bad for them and society.
              • Vicky32 …

                28 July 2011 at 4:03 pm

                Which is why medicines shouldn’t be advertised at all. People making decisions from a position of ignorance is bad for them and society.

                Seconded!
      • Vicky32 21.1.2

        28 July 2011 at 3:57 pm

        I’m at the point that I think all advertising should be banned. It’s a huge waste of resources that’s designed to keep the majority of people uninformed and compliant.

        Junk mail! Just today, I have cleared out 3 lots ofglossy brochures from my letter box, they clog the first class slot, and real letters end up in the perpetual puddle on the street outside. I always think of the people paid 0.5c an item to deliver it, but also of the ad agency people paid thousands to generate all this rubbish, and that they can afford to be completely indifferent to the fact that it all ends up in the recycling bin, unread. ‘No circulars’ signs are ignored (the people who deliver this crap are instructed to ignore such signs) but the businesses who ultimately pay the ad agencies are probably blissfully unaware that their junk isn’t even read. It’s a massive waste of resources!
22. chris73 22

    27 July 2011 at 2:56 pm

    In reply to lprent:

    Fair enough
23. battleheed 23

    27 July 2011 at 3:12 pm

    So only Lanthanide is prepared to say they think Phil will be PM after the election. Interesting.

    [lprent: I’d suggest that you do not use the “if you don’t answer then my point wins” style of argument or anything that even looks like it. Most of the time the main significance is that many here cannot be bothered interacting with a fool.

    Using a pwned/owned etc style of argument is pretty much evidence that you are a fool because it is one of the more stupid ways to ignite boring flamewars. At this point you should read the policy to find out how I deal with people who start flames. ]
    • McFlock 23.1

      27 July 2011 at 4:03 pm

      Not really – I normally skip over your comments. I only noticed this one because it was at the end of the comment list at the moment.
       
       
      What IS interesting is that you seem to have done the pollster’s folly: confusing “prepared to pay attention to me and respond to a manipulating question” with “results accurately reflect the opinions of the wider population”.
       

       
      FWIW, I tentatively give labour 60/40 at this stage for a coalition govt. Still to early to make a claim, though, and I don’t give a flying frack about “preferred PM” polls.
      • lprent 23.1.1

        27 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

        I don’t give a flying frack about “preferred PM” polls.

        Yep. I think Helen was below the teens in those when she nearly won in 1996, and was still something less than 20% when she won (and less than Bill English when he lost badly in 2002). Then less than 6 months later she had figures like John Key has now. Preferred PM polls are just pap for the newsies.
    • Carol 23.2

      27 July 2011 at 9:55 pm

      I said I don’t know. Which means I’m also not prepared to say that Key will be PM after the election. In fact, how many people here have said they think Key will be PM after the election?
      • Vicky32 23.2.1

        28 July 2011 at 4:07 pm

        In fact, how many people here have said they think Key will be PM after the election?

        No, he won’t, I’ll say that! Unless people are stupider than is even possible!
24. prism 24

    27 July 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I am coming to think that a death penalty is needed for vicious offenders – those who have repeatedly killed, or comnitted numbers of violent crimes or predatory crimes and then a murder. I am not suggesting that every murder would receive this outcome. Vicious repeat offending would be targeted.

    The idea that we can’t have capital punishment because it can kill innocents, or that next thing the state will be killing for excusable crimes or political repression, I don’t think those fears are justified. We are trying to protect rights and standards we hope will one day be universal but that will never be achieved in our society, and it is costing millions to keep people locked up who are no doubt toxic to all they know, in and out of prison. When possibly good people go bad and then repeat their behaviour, we need to admit they are damaged beyond repair, and consider how expensive they are to be held in custody and unsafe to have around after that both to their family and associates and the wider community.
    • chris73 24.1

      27 July 2011 at 4:22 pm

      I think that for certain crimes if you’re found guilty you then should have a second trial (with a higher threshold level) in front of 3 (5?) judges to then determine death or life without parole
    • Campbell Larsen 24.2

      27 July 2011 at 9:48 pm

      A society that kills in revenge, masquerading as justice, is no better than the murderer. There is no financial gain that outweighs the loss of compassion, the loss of our humanity. There is no risk greater than that implicit in a rhetoric which seeks to redefine the most arrogant of deeds, the taking of another life, as a virtue.
      • rosy 24.2.1

        27 July 2011 at 10:06 pm

        For me opposition to capital punishment is not to do with the possibility of executing an innocent person (although that is in itself, outrageous and a good reason to oppose it). The world may be a better place if some people weren’t around, but I agree with CL… nobody (human) and no body (state, or any other body) has any right to murder (or execute, if you prefer) a person. The state does have the obligation to protect, and to protect innocents from criminals this translates in to incarceration and rehabilitation.
        • Vicky32 24.2.1.1

          28 July 2011 at 4:14 pm

          For me opposition to capital punishment is not to do with the possibility of executing an innocent person (although that is in itself, outrageous and a good reason to oppose it). The world may be a better place if some people weren’t around, but I agree with CL… nobody (human) and no body (state, or any other body) has any right to murder (or execute, if you prefer) a person. The state does have the obligation to protect, and to protect innocents from criminals this translates in to incarceration and rehabilitation.

          Seconded, because I could not put it better myself!
25. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 25

    27 July 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Trotter is on Natrad recommending that the Labour caucus roll Goff.
    • Pete George 25.1

      27 July 2011 at 4:38 pm

      I’ve come to that conclusion too. Goff should resign, he appears to be under too much pressure and is not getting anywhere. But he won’t admit little mistakes, he’s not likely to admit his biggest one.

      Labour should be brave and bold and take a punt on an up and comer targetting 2014. Have a good practice run now and at least recover a bit of support if possible. Have a decent promotion of new talent after the election and start rebuilding properly. They can’t do much about this wasted term now except se themselves up for something different for next term..
    • McFlock 25.2

      27 July 2011 at 5:02 pm

      A while ago I came to the conclusion that Trotter is the tories’ pet leftie – has a history of being an activist but has since been well trained.
26. prism 26

    27 July 2011 at 4:42 pm

    The Panel on Radionz with Dita de Boni and Chris Trotter has some interesting comments on the political front after latest negative poll. Chris thought that David Cunliffe had looked good on Q&A, but Phil Goff lacked vitality.

    They spent some time wondering if this was a time to do a Mike Moore who took over late from Geoffrey Palmer, and think about that for Phil Goff and sidekick. If it was to happen, and suggested that it would be extremely difficult, it would have to happen fast and be out of the way before the Rugby takes over the country and all its media (ad infinitum).
    • Carol 26.1

      27 July 2011 at 4:49 pm

      Well, that was their view. But they also ended up saying changing leader now was probably not a good idea. And that no-one in the Labour Party has the “Kooky” factor that they reckon Key will fly sucessfully during the RWC. But I think there’ll be a load of Kiwis who switch off from thr whole Rubber Wool Cap thing.

      And I was just bemused by by the panel’s view of how much Key seems to Kiwis to be just like them….. they identify with him etc etc….

      So I don’t count as an ordinary Kiwi then? Key does not connect with my life at all. Mind you, Trotter et al were talking in terms of average Kiwis as heterosexual families at the BBQ.

      And the people on the Panel were following the line that it’s the leader that has most influence on how people vote.

      I’m still in wait & see mode.
      • prism 26.1.1

        27 July 2011 at 6:18 pm

        @Carol – The Goofy factor was the term used about Key. Gee,. shucks, I’m just an ordinary guy, having fun, trying to do my best, and what’s more I’ve got rich. Wouldn’t you like to be like me? What’s to dislike? They were talking about Key’s appeal to the average Kiwi, and there must be something in that because of Nats high ratings.
27. Marjorie Dawe 27

    27 July 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I think his popularity has more to do with the celebrity status which the right wing media gives him. An example is David Beckham. I wouldnt have known who he was unless the media and magazines had told me. To me he certainly wouldnt be a celebrity if I didnt know who he wasun.
    The same goes for John Key. Even before he officially became Mr Smile and Wave, he was lauded in the press. This has continued and the media seems to be more interested in his so called celebrity status than the lies and uncaring attitude he has displayed.

    Of course our very intelligent and grounded Labour Party arent given the same media space and the plan seems to be to invisibilise them by not showing them at allunless it is absolutely unavoidable.

    These subliminal messages are telling us the familiar person is somehow more important than the invisible one. I think it might be psychology 101.
    • ropata 27.1

      27 July 2011 at 10:59 pm

      Exactly so. Brand Key is a carefully manufactured image designed to connect with Kiwis, the affable persona is completely at odds with the nature of the “smiling assassin”. Policy is not an issue for many voters, democracy is literally a popularity contest and the Left needs to play to Goff’s strengths — I don’t know what they are??

      I’d like to see a robust Goff getting angry about the incredibly selfish policies of the NActoids, not being so reasonable all the time.
      • prism 27.1.1

        27 July 2011 at 11:43 pm

        @ropata Agree. Some fire that could startle voters. And spelling out a vision and implementation timeline that they could grab onto and get excited about. And while it is a given thing that good Labour politicians will care about families and us being able to afford fruit and veges, there’s got to be more than talk about how we can get by now, what of the future?
        Some ideas for the advancement of the country and jobs with reasonable pay and R&D into new technology. And Santa can I have a public service tv channel too.
28. battleheed 28

    27 July 2011 at 8:30 pm

    LPRENT, saying Phil Goff will be the PM doesn’t mean he’s the preferred prime minister. It’s confidence that He will lead Labour to victory and well get the numbers up to form a government, I didn’t mention preferred PM polls at all so stop creating straw men. At least Lanthanide had the courage to say she thinks Goff will be the PM after the election. What do you think LPRENT, don’t tell me you don’t read this because all my comments go into moderation. Do you think Phil Goff will be Prime Minister after the election?
    • lprent 28.1

      27 July 2011 at 9:26 pm

      So you’re either a bit of an idiot or you don’t know how to read replies in whatever junk reader you’re using.

      I wasn’t talking to you – my reply was to McFlock about the preferred PM polls. This is a threaded forum and not everything is about your fragile wee ego.
29. Ianupnorth 29

    27 July 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Who cares – this is nearly 40 years old http://www.scottishleftreview.org/li/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336 – and is worth a read; the New York Times  described it as “the greatest speech since President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address”
    The relevant bits to NZ today I have made bold!

    Alienation is the precise and correctly applied word for describing the major social problem in Britain today. People feel alienated by society. In some intellectual circles it is treated almost as a new phenomenon. It has, however, been with us for years. What I believe is true is that today it is more widespread, more pervasive than ever before. Let me right at the outset define what I mean by alienation. It is the cry of men who feel themselves the victims of blind economic forces beyond their control. It’s the frustration of ordinary people excluded from the processes of decision making. The feeling of despair and hopelessness that pervades people who feel with justification that they have no real say in shaping or determining their own destinies.
    Many may not have rationalised it. May not even understand, may not be able to articulate it. But they feel it. It therefore conditions and colours their social attitudes. Alienation expresses itself in different ways by different people. It is to be found in what our courts often describe as the criminal anti-social behaviour of a section of the community. It is expressed by those young people who want to opt out of society, by drop outs, the so-called maladjusted, those-who seek to escape permanently from the reality of society through intoxicants and narcotics. Of course it would be wrong to say it was the sole reason for these things. But it is a much greater factor in all of them than is generally recognised.
    Society and its prevailing sense of values leads to another form of alienation. It alienates some from humanity. It partially dehumanises some people, makes them insensitive, ruthless in their handling of fellow human beings, self-centred and grasping. The irony is, they are often considered normal and well adjusted. It is my sincere contention that anyone who can be totally adjusted to our society is in greater need of psychiatric analysis and treatment than anyone else.
    They remind me of the character in the novel, Catch 22, the father of Major Major. He was a farmer in the American Mid West. He hated suggestions for things like Medicare, social services, unemployment benefits or civil rights. He was, however, an enthusiast for the agricultural policies that paid farmers for not bringing their fields under cultivation. From the money he got for not growing alfalfa he bought more land in order not to grow alfalfa. He became rich. Pilgrims came from all over the state to sit at his feet and learn how to be a successful non-grower of alfalfa. His philosophy was simple. The poor didn’t work hard enough and so they were poor. He believed that the good Lord gave him two strong hands to grab as much as he could for himself. He is a comic figure. But think, have you not met his like here in Britain? Here in Scotland? I have.
    It is easy and tempting to hate such people. However it is wrong. They are as much products of society and a consequence of that society, human alienation, as the poor drop out. They are losers. They have lost essential elements of our common humanity. Man is a social being. Real fulfilment for any person lies in service to his fellow men and women.
    The big challenge to our civilisation is not OZ, a magazine I haven’t even seen let alone read. Nor is it permissiveness, although I agree our society is too permissive. Any society which, for example, permits over one million people to be unemployed is far too permissive for my liking. Nor is it moral laxity in the narrow sense that this word is generally employed although in a sense here we come nearer to the problem. It does involve morality, ethics, and our concept of human values. The challenge we face is that of rooting out anything and everything that distorts and devalues human relations. Let me give two examples from contemporary experience to illustrate the point.
    Recently on television I saw an advert. The scene is a banquet. A gentleman is on his feet proposing a toast. His speech is full of phrases like “this full-bodied specimen”. Sitting beside him is a young, buxom woman. The image she projects is not pompous but foolish. She is visibly preening herself, believing that she is the object of this bloke’s eulogy. Then he concludes – “and now I give … ” then a brand name of what used to be described as Empire sherry. The woman is shattered, hurt and embarrassed. Then the laughter. Derisive and cruel laughter. The real point, of course, is this. In this charade, the viewers were obviously expected to identify not with the victim but with her tormentors.
    The other illustration is the widespread, implicit acceptance of the concept and term, the rat race. The picture it conjures up is one where we are scurrying around scrambling for position, trampling on others, back-stabbing, all in pursuit of personal success. Even genuinely intended friendly advice can sometimes take the form of someone saying to you, “Listen, you look after number one”. Or as they say in London, “Bang the bell, Jack, I’m on the bus”.
    To the students I address this appeal. Reject these attitudes. Reject the values and false morality that underlie these attitudes. A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement.This is how it starts and before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat-pack. The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human spirit. Or as Christ put it, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?”
    Profit is the sole criterion used by the establishment to evaluate economic activity. From the rat race to lame ducks. The vocabulary in vogue is a giveaway. It’s more reminiscent of a human menagerie than human society. The power structures that have inevitably emerged from this approach threaten and undermine our hard-won democratic rights. The whole process is towards the centralisation and concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. The facts are there for all who want to see. Giant monopoly companies and consortia dominate almost every branch of our economy. The men who wield effective control within these giants exercise a power over their fellow men which is frightening and is a negation of democracy.
    Government by the people for the people becomes meaningless unless it includes major economic decision making by the people for the people. This is not simply an economic matter. In essence it is an ethical and moral question for whoever takes the important economic decisions in society ipso facto determines the social priorities of that society. From the Olympian heights of an executive suite, in an atmosphere where your success is judged by the extent to which you can maximise profits, the overwhelming tendency must be to see people as units of production, as indices in your accountants’ books.
    To appreciate fully the inhumanity of this situation, you have to see the hurt and despair in the eyes of a man suddenly told he is redundant without provision made for suitable alternative employment, with the prospect in the west of Scotland, if he is in his late forties or fifties, of spending the rest of his life in the Labour Exchange. Someone, somewhere has decided he is unwanted, unneeded, and is to be thrown on the industrial scrap heap. From the very depth of my being, I challenge the right of any man or any group of men, in business or in government, to tell a fellow human being that he or she is expendable.
    The concentration of power in the economic field is matched by the centralisation of decision making in the political institutions of society. The power of Parliament has undoubtedly been eroded over past decades with more and more authority being invested in the Executive. The power of local authorities has been and is being systematically undermined. The only justification I can see for local government is as a counterbalance to the centralised character of national government.
    Local government is to be restructured. What an opportunity, one would think, for decentralizing as much power as possible back to local communities. Instead the proposals are for centralising local government. It’s once again a blueprint for bureaucracy, not democracy. If these proposals are implemented, in a few years when asked “Where do you come from ?”, I can reply: “The Western Region”. It even sounds like a hospital board.
    It stretches from Oban to Girvan and eastwards to include most of Glasgow conurbation. As in other matters, I must ask the politicians who favour these proposals – where and how in your calculations did you quantify the value of a community? Or a community life? Of a sense of belonging? Of the feeling of identification? These are rhetorical questions. I know the answer. Such human considerations do not feature in their thought processes.
    Everything that is proposed from the establishment seems almost calculated to minimise the role of the people, to miniaturise man. I can understand how attractive this prospect must be to those at the top. Those of us who refuse to be pawns in their power game can be picked up by their bureaucratic tweezers and dropped in a filing cabinet under “M” for malcontent or maladjusted. When you think of some of the high flats around us, it can hardly be an accident that they are as near as one could get to an architectural representation of a filing cabinet.
    If modern technology requires greater and larger productive units, let’s make our wealth producing resources and potential subject to public control and to social accountability. Let’s gear our society to social-need, not personal greed. Given such creative re-orientation of society, there is no doubt in my mind that in ” few years we could eradicate in our country the scourge of poverty, the underprivileged, slums, and insecurity.
    Even this is not enough. To measure social progress purely by material advance is not enough.Our aim must be the enrichment of the whole quality of life. It requires a social and cultural, or if you wish, a spiritual transformation of our country. A necessary part of this must be the restructuring of the institutions of government and where necessary, the evolution of additional structures so as to involve the people in the decision making processes of our society. The so called experts will tell you that this would be cumbersome or marginally inefficient. I am prepared to sacrifice a margin of efficiency for the value of the people’s participation anyway, in the longer term, I reject this argument.
    To unleash the latent potential of our people requires that we give them responsibility. The untapped resources of the North Sea are as nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people, I am convinced that the great mass of our people go through life without even a glimmer of what they could have contributed to their fellow human beings. This is a personal tragedy. It’s a social crime. The flowering of each individual’s personality and talents is the pre-condition for everyone’s development.
    In this context education has a vital role to play. If automation and technology is accompanied as it must be with full employment, then the leisure time available to man will be enormously increased. If that is so, then our whole concept of education must change. The whole object must be to equip and educate people for life, ne solely for work or a profession. The creative use of leisure, in communion with, and in service to our fellow human beings can and must become an important element in self-fulfilment.
    Universities must be in the forefront of development, must meet social needs and not lag behind them. It is my earnest desire that this great University of Glasgow should be in the vanguard initiating changes and setting the example for others to follow. Part of our educational process must be the involvement of all sections of the university on the governing bodies. The case for student representation is unanswerable. It is inevitable.
    My conclusion is to reaffirm what I hope and certainly intend to be the spirit permeating this address. It’s an affirmation of faith in humanity. All that is good in man’s heritage involves recognition of our common humanity, an unashamed acknowledgement that man is good by nature. Burns expressed it in a poem that technically was not his best, yet captured the spirit.
    In “Why should we idly waste our prime,” he writes:
    “The golden age, we’ll then revive, each man shall be a brother,
    In harmony we all shall live and till the earth together,
    In virtue trained, enlightened youth shall move each fellow creature,
    And time shall surely prove the truth that man is good by nature”.
    It’s my belief that all the factors to make a practical reality of such a world are maturing now. I would like to think that our generation took mankind some way along the road towards this goal. It’s a goal worth fighting for.

    40 years ago!! This is the leadership this country needs!!
    • Bill 29.1

      27 July 2011 at 10:05 pm

      You know that that speech is now a part of the curriculum in Scottish schools?
30. Ianupnorth 30

    28 July 2011 at 9:28 am

    Didn’t know that – I go back to it every now and then because it helps me reinvigorate myself against the right.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS