Open mike 28/01/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:56 am, January 28th, 2014 - 217 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step right up to the mike …

217 comments on “Open mike 28/01/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. JK 1
    28 January 2014 at 7:18 am

    The Herald’s poll on David Cunliffe’s speech, and Best Start, is showing big numbers opposing it – as is usual with these Nat trolls –
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192808

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1
      28 January 2014 at 8:31 am

      That says something about the political views of Herald readers, and little else.

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 8:43 am

        it could reflect that some people with less than 150k but more than a lower amount dont think they need another $60 a week? I would agree with them.

        Cunliffe didn’t have the courage to make it what it should have been… a payment to the households earning under 50% of median or thereabouts…. instead he didnt want to be seen to be cutting out the middle class… he’s still doing a josie pagani and flirting with the magical middle class. My household income is about 95k per year. Is he flirting with me? Cos it’s not working.

        I am still voting greens after hearing the 3 state of the nation speeches.

        • aerobubble 1.1.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 11:11 am

          I like Campbells interview that showed that not only would middle class NZ want the money, but they recognized interest rates were going up and they were for a second squeeze on their budgets. Though of course I will continue to support the Green party on the list.

    • Rosie 1.2
      28 January 2014 at 9:27 am

      JK, I wonder, is the Herald poll anything like the stuff.co.nz polls where where you can repeatedly click on the same option? That is, X amount of votes can be generated by the same person therefore making the poll a total sham, – (as if it was representative anyway!)

      • bad12 1.2.1
        28 January 2014 at 10:09 am

        Rosie, better to wait for the next Roy Morgan, it’s not necessarily something to hang our coats on as totally correct but as the most frequent of polls will give us an indication within the ongoing trend which we should be able to see both the Labour and Green’s start to the election campaign…

        • Rosie 1.2.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 10:53 am

          Oh absolutely bad12. Really, I ignore all online msm “polls”, especially the stuffed one due to the issue mentioned.

        • lprent 1.2.1.2
          28 January 2014 at 11:16 am

          Rosie, better to wait for the next Roy Morgan

          Generally not the next Roy Morgan. You usually want the one that is about 5-6 weeks later to get the immediate effect.

          The logic is that they will probably be mid-collecting now so the next poll will only partially reflect. It usually seems to take the NZ public a couple of weeks to actually process/read about/discuss political announcements and come to some considered judgement. Just consider that many only get around to considering opinion from commentators when it shows up in the weekend papers roundups. Then it takes two weeks to collect the canvassing.

          Of course the hysterics of the right are busy trying to mould opinion right now in the astroturfing of Stuff. But ultimately that is really just preaching to the converted…. It is as pointless as snap polls on MSM websites.

          • swordfish 1.2.1.2.1
            28 January 2014 at 9:05 pm

            Yep, the next few Roy Morgans will be interesting reading. All I’ll say for the moment is that in late 2007/early 2008 and in late 2010/early 2011, the Left Bloc was receiving 42% and 40% respectively (and they turned out to be relatively close elections – particularly, of course, 08). Currently, the Left’s averaging around 46% so things aren’t looking too bad (though I still remain slightly – very slightly – pessimistic).

          • Anne 1.2.1.2.2
            28 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

            It usually seems to take the NZ public a couple of weeks to actually process/read about/discuss political announcements and come to some considered judgement.

            A couple of weeks? More like a couple of months sometimes.

      • JK 1.2.2
        28 January 2014 at 11:45 am

        Rosie – No. I’ve tried that, and I get a message flash up to say I’ve voted

        • Rosie 1.2.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 12:02 pm

          Lprent: Interesting, noted.

          JK: Ok, comes back to your original point then – the nat trolls out in force!

    • logie97 1.3
      28 January 2014 at 1:29 pm

      Can someone help with the maths and its relationship to opinions expressed please?

      Using a rough estimate of polling as a guide …
      Nats 45 %
      Lab 34 %
      Green 12 %
      NZF 4 %
      Act 1 %
      UF 0.5 %
      Con 2 %
      Mp 2 %
      Others 1

      (I understand that the likes of O’Reilly, Barnett, have just one vote each, just like the rest of us…)
      so how is it that the Media sources comment from all and sundry on the Right for their views on things and very little from the left?

      Now just looking at the above, I would have thought that on the figures of national representation, the likes of Dunne, Boscowan, Prebble, Hide, get a disproportionate amount of air time. For every 49 Right wing commentators, there should be 49 from the Left.

      Just saying

      • TightyRighty 1.3.1
        28 January 2014 at 1:38 pm

        Read the daily blog? you’ve got 49 blowhards right there.

        in the press, trotter, mccarten, armstrong (dave), one of the rotation of “academics” pushing a left wing cause. against, hooten, hide and one of the normal business type leaders pushing a right wing cause in the business pages.

        pretty evenly balanced. Of course, you’ll hate political journos as they tend to offer balanced opinion and insight. which of course makes them closest right wingers to any right-thinking lefty.

        • logie97 1.3.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 1:43 pm

          … and the bulletins on radio?

          Try again

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2
          28 January 2014 at 4:05 pm

          Of course, you’ll hate political journos as they tend to offer balanced opinion and insight.

          No they don’t, they offer RWNJ opinion and whinging.

  2. tricledrown 2
    28 January 2014 at 7:21 am

    Surprised at Paul Henry show last night Henry gave Key a Hard time about going into coalition with winston Peters.
    He was pretty fair with Cinliffe.

    • geoff 2.1
      28 January 2014 at 7:38 am

      That is surprising. Might have to have a look.

    • felix 2.2
      28 January 2014 at 11:12 pm

      Nah tricledown Henry may as well have sucked him off on live tv.

      His first question to his old mate the PM was to ask him whether he agreed that we should all be grateful to have a PM who is so rich and awesome.

      That’s why he’s been bought back for election year and that’s the job he’s doing.

  3. tricledrown 3
    28 January 2014 at 7:21 am

    Surprised at Paul Henry show last night Henry gave Key a Hard time about going into coalition with winston Peters.
    He was pretty fair with Cinliffe.

    • aerobubble 3.1
      28 January 2014 at 11:09 am

      You can’t lie to people if they don’t trust you. I leaving off watching his show until the election is called, then I won’t be played by his obvious right wing bias. I did however flip and catch 30s of it and it look real cheap.

  4. Saarbo 4
    28 January 2014 at 7:26 am

    Took my brother in law to David Cunliffe’s SON yesterday, he was really impressed and after voting Key in 2008 and 2011 will be switching to Labour 2014.

    • Molly 5.1
      28 January 2014 at 7:56 am

      Bit simplistic chris73. Do you watch Parliament TV?

      If they were docked for asinine, or childish behaviour I’d agree. 😉

      But if you are in opposition, with little chance of changing outcomes – then perhaps the public gets more for their money if you are out working in the community – serving your constituents.

      • alwyn 5.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 10:47 am

        If they were docked properly for such behaviour I think we could run Parliament at a profit. It would end up with MPs having to pay us to go there, rather than us have to pay them.
        The funny part is that, after penalties were levied, the highest paid MPs would be people like Bakshi, Prasad and Prosser. Can anyone, from memory, say the parties those three belong to?

  7. Castleberg 7
    28 January 2014 at 7:41 am

    Looks like National Party bloggers David Farrar and Cameron Slater have got a new favourite dictator… http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/from-hoxha-to-bainimarama.html
    What does this say about their commitment to democracy in NZ?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      28 January 2014 at 4:24 pm

      The RWNJs have never supported democracy in NZ. They just say that they do so that the country will be mislead about their intentions.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 4:35 pm

        Correct. But the public accepts it because National gets stuff done, without endless rounds of consultation and navel gazing.

    • Murray Olsen 7.2
      28 January 2014 at 10:31 pm

      Slater has been in love with Bananarama for quite a while now. He acts as an enthusiastic chairleader for the state torturers when they inflict anal pain on prisoners with metal rods. He is one very sick puppy and the fact that our PM’s office has direct links with him is a real worry. Farrar probably presages a change of approach on behalf of NAct.

  8. Tracey 8
    28 January 2014 at 7:54 am

    The media ought to have to refer to The New Zealand Initiative as fka the business round table… interesting to see them gaining profile in election year. Been quiet since 2008.. must be slightly worried.

  9. burt 9
    28 January 2014 at 8:06 am

    Have you selected your candidate for Southland – yeah, nah.

    [Burt TS is not selecting candidates for anywhere, nor is it an entity that you can have discussions with – MS]

    • tricledrown 9.1
      28 January 2014 at 8:53 am

      Burt you are on the wrong site but it won’t be hard to find anothet hayseed for National to replace the double dipping dipstock from dipton.
      I see Nationals one of many broken promises to get rid of the Maori seats has been completely forgotten Butt Burt if that had happened both Clutha Southland and Invercargill electorates would be marginal andLabour repectfully as Many Maori live in both electorates .
      So your side swipe at CV is Hollow.
      This time if he stands I hope he prosecutes the National party neatherthals who made threats of violence against A very brave Tatloo.
      Burt you don’t have the balls to come any where near Tats bravery.
      Even on this site you wouldn’t reveal your real name you coward.

  10. phillip ure 10
    28 January 2014 at 8:10 am

    is it correct that this new measure from labour will not kick in until 2018..?

    ..so..in their second term..?

    ..have i got that right..?

    phillip ure..

    • freedom 10.1
      28 January 2014 at 9:23 am

      Labour’s Best Start

      *Parents with an income of less than $150,000 a year will qualify for it for the first year of their newborn’s life.
      *Will begin April 1, 2016.
      *Parents on modest incomes (up to about $70,000) will qualify for payments for two more years, abating after $50,000.
      *Expected to apply to about 59,000 0-1-year-olds and 63,000 1 to 2-year-olds.
      *Working for Families tax credits will not be affected.
      *Cost of the child payments is expected to be $528 million a year by 2017-18.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192808

    • Lanthanide 10.2
      28 January 2014 at 9:27 am

      No.

      Babies born after 1 April 2016 will qualify for the $60/week payment. Not sure when they play to bring in the paid parental leave, but as it’s currently a members bill before the house, they’d have no excuses not to bring that through in their first 100 days.

      Actually I think the hard cut-off date will be changed in practice, because otherwise we’ll see a bunch of mothers trying to ensure their babies are delivered after 1st of April, which is unseemly.

      A better approach would just be to say any babies under the age of 1 after the 1st of April will receive the payments. That way if they’re born on March 31st they won’t be penalised.

    • Allyson 10.3
      28 January 2014 at 10:08 am

      Well spotted. Its not gonna happen is it! Ithink we can call this policy an advertising slogan more than something more concrete.

      • freedom 10.3.1
        28 January 2014 at 10:47 am

        The majority of election year policies are always set in the distant future, not sure what the alternative is, unless you look at National of course.

        They do it a little differently. They present a long list of promises short on detail. Then once the election is over those policies get pushed further and further out, whilst policy they never campaigned on gets passed under urgency.

      • Tracey 10.3.2
        28 January 2014 at 1:16 pm

        remind me when the new top up for the top earning teacher/principals comes in?

  11. phillip ure 11
    28 January 2014 at 8:37 am

    is it correct that cunnliffe has vowed that there will be no marijuana law reform..

    ..under a cunnliffe-led labour govt..?

    ..have i got that right..?

    ..phillip ure..

    • bad12 11.1
      28 January 2014 at 8:43 am

      Lolz Phillip, did you only read the headline???…

      • phillip ure 11.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 8:54 am

        glad you’re ‘lolz’-ing..

        ..i’m fucken not..!

        “..”Labour’s policy is not to decriminalise cannabis. That is not our intention.”

        that was cunnliffe..

        and this from turei makes me puke even more..

        “..Greens Co-leader and former Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party member Metiria Turei said cannabis law reform wasn’t one of her party’s major priorities –

        -“but it is our policy and we’re not ashamed of it”.

        (she’s not fucken ‘ashamed’ of it..?

        ..wtf..!!!)

        ..how about you read the truth behind their bullshit..bad..

        .and then see how ‘lolz’ you are then..?

        ..eh..?

        ..turei viewed the aotearoa legalise pot party as a political vehicle..for her personal ambitions

        ..tureu viewed the green party as a political vehicle..for her personal ambitions

        ..she is a carnivorous.dead-animal skin wearing/pot prohibitionist opportunist..

        ..she comes not within a fucken bulls’ roar of being ‘green’ in any aspect of her life..

        ..she is a cynical political-opportunist..

        ..who claims/ed to be ‘green’..

        ..because she sees that as the best ‘vehicle’ for her personal ambitions..

        ..end of story..!

        phillip ure..

        • vto 11.1.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 8:57 am

          calm down mr ure, surely you can see the wave of decriminalisation sweeping places.

          our turn will come sooner than you think I think

          • phillip ure 11.1.1.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 9:06 am

            of course i can see sanity breaking out elsewhere..vto

            ..but not fucken here..

            ..just the same old same old bullshit..

            ..with the green brand particularly galling..

            phillip ure..

            • tricledrown 11.1.1.1.1.1
              28 January 2014 at 9:30 am

              ….slow down…
              Phil…
              The more votes that Go to the green party the better the chances of change…
              Child Poverty is a bigger issue.
              National will use cannibis reform to beat us.
              Be patient phil take some medical marajuana.
              The reforms in the US haven’t been all good .
              Let’s get a change of govt first.

        • bad12 11.1.1.2
          28 January 2014 at 9:06 am

          Lolz,Lolz, and Lolz again, tell me something Phillip, you have a Blog??? is that not part of your personal ambitions, are you then not trying to ‘use’ your readers as part of those personal ambitions,

          You forgot McGillycuddy Serious in your little list of those you accuse Mets of ‘using’ to further Her personal ambitions,as well as the Beneficiaries Movement in which She was also heavily involved back in the early 1990’s,

          The Green Party isn’t going to die in a ditch over the issue of decriminalization Phillip, and only a fool would expect them to make such an issue a ‘make or break issue’ in any coalition talks and as i expect the Green’s to be 12-15% of the vote in 2014 why the hell would they…

          • phillip ure 11.1.1.2.1
            28 January 2014 at 9:20 am

            good that you’ve clarified your stance..

            ..and that you are so fucken lolz/relaxed about cancer patients undergoing chemo..

            ..unable to access cannabis..?

            ..this isn’t about me wanting to sit down and smoke a fucken joint..

            ..i do that anyway..

            .it is about the cruelties of denying proven relief to people undergoing a health-hell..

            ..(and personally..of me seeing people go thru that shit…and how much cannabis can help them..)

            .still fucken serial-lolz-ing..?

            ..and it is tureis’ criminal neglect of that medical marijuana bill that was under her care..

            ..that says all you need to know about her..

            ..not a fucken word spoken for those cancer-sufferers..

            ..all now long-dead..

            ..phillip ure..

            • bad12 11.1.1.2.1.1
              28 January 2014 at 9:32 am

              Wah fucking wah Phillip, grabbing any excuse in an attempt to justify your outlandish attack on Metiria Turei,

              Funnily it is not until you are put under pressure that you start waving around the dead bodies of cancer victims in your pathetic, childish attacks,

              What Phillip do you think would have happened to the ‘medical marijuana Bill,(if there is one), had it by Chance been pulled from the members ballot, remembering all the while that as part of the Opposition the only way to get such a Bill befor the Parliament is if it is drawn in what is essentially a lottery,

              i would suggest in the current Parliament such a Bill even if with luck it had been drawn from the ballot would not have the numbers to pass it’s first reading…

            • phillip ure 11.1.1.2.1.2
              28 January 2014 at 9:33 am

              and that none of them have the balls/intellect to argue the potent/cogent-case for legalising/regulating/taxing cannabis..?

              ..the best they can aspire to is the half-arsed/half-baked worst of both worlds..?

              ..where the state still pisses away vast troves of money playing-prohibition..

              ..leaves control of the pot-market still under gangs/crims..

              ..and ..to say ‘no!’ to the river of green money in the form of taxation..?

              ..have they not heard..?

              ..do they have no examples of this happening elsewhere..?

              ..basically..can’t they/you fucken see this…?

              ..am i shouting in a room full of fucken morons..?

              ..and you defend this shit..?

              ..phillip ure..

              • bad12 …
                28 January 2014 at 9:38 am

                Wah wah wah Phillip, read carefully my comment above this latest of your cry baby bullshit,

                The only person shouting moronically to an empty room is in fact you Phillip…

                • phillip ure …
                  28 January 2014 at 9:45 am

                  so..arguing for cancer-suffers undergoing chemo..to be able to access the relief cannabis can provide..(a proven medical..as well as an observational..fact..)

                  ..this is ‘cry-baby bullshit’..?

                  ..arguing this..and the rationalities of the colorado-model..vs..prohibition..?

                  ..this is all ‘cry baby bullshit’…?

                  ok..guilty as charged..

                  ..phillip ure..

                  • bad12 …
                    28 January 2014 at 9:51 am

                    Phillip, please carefully read again my comment made at 9.32am, the last couple of paragraphs in particular,

                    Then can you please stop being a moronic little cry baby…

                    • phillip ure …
                      28 January 2014 at 1:40 pm

                      i read yr last 2 paras..

                      “..What Phillip do you think would have happened to the ‘medical marijuana Bill,(if there is one), had it by Chance been pulled from the members ballot, remembering all the while that as part of the Opposition the only way to get such a Bill befor the Parliament is if it is drawn in what is essentially a lottery,

                      i would suggest in the current Parliament such a Bill even if with luck it had been drawn from the ballot would not have the numbers to pass it’s first reading…”

                      i never said i thought it would have passed..

                      ..but turei had the perfect platform to advance that cause..

                      ..to argue for those cancer-patients..for medical-marijuana

                      ..she could have got on all the media outlets..

                      ..she could have pointed out the cruelties to cancer patients..

                      ..she did absolutely fucken nothing..

                      ..zero..zip..nada..

                      ..not a murmer..

                      ..and aside from anything else..

                      ..what does she/the greens think the people who first voted them into office would want her/them to do..?

                      ..and this current benign neglect from turei just emphasises the betrayal by the greens..

                      ..of those pot-advocates who first got them over the line..

                      ..without them/their votes..the green party as it exists would not be there..

                      ..and this is/has been the gratitude they have received..

                      ..ever since then the green party has just turned their backs on them..

                      ..(and as an aside..as for yr serial ‘cry-baby’ ad homs..i have two words..

                      ..one of them is ‘get’ and the other is ‘fucked!’..

                      ..mm-kay..?..)

                      ..phillip ure..

            • Polish Pride 11.1.1.2.1.3
              28 January 2014 at 1:21 pm

              This is New Zealand if Cancer patients want access to Cannabis they should have no trouble getting it.
              but yes it should be legalised and people not criminalised for their drug of choice

    • Tracey 11.2
      28 January 2014 at 8:48 am

      Yes, they differ over leagalising cannabis. On that basis Steven Joyce, and therefore the media, have panicked that there are cracks in the Labour green block… Overlooking that they are

      a. two separate parties;
      b. no different to Winston wanting to buy back assets, Key doesn’t, Colin Craig wanting to hit his children and Key not wanting that’

      • phillip ure 11.2.1
        28 January 2014 at 9:00 am

        factcheck:..they don’t differ at all.. tracey..

        ..phillip ure

        • Tracey 11.2.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 9:07 am

          it’s not labour policy but it is green policy. That labour will leave it to a conscience vote doesn’t change that it is not their policy to decriminalise, does it?

          • phillip ure 11.2.1.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 9:22 am

            you can keep dancing on the heads of pins if you like..tracey..

            ..i can’t be bothered..with yr tired/cynical-semantics..

            ..phillip ure..

            • Pasupial 11.2.1.1.1.1
              28 January 2014 at 9:41 am

              That is some P Ure bullshit right there! Yeh – I get that cannabis law reform is a priority for you, but that’s no reason to throw a tanty just because it is not as high priority to others. I’m not a fan of the term, but when you agitate for the opportunity to have specialist shops selling expensive luxury items, that truly is; boutique politics.

              • phillip ure …
                28 January 2014 at 1:46 pm

                “..that truly is; boutique politics…”

                no it’s not..it’s humane policy..

                ..it’s giving cancer patients access to relief..

                ..maybe not so urgent for you..

                ..more so for those current cancer-patients..

                ..needing that relief..

                (and as for me..?..i already know where to get good quality pot..

                ..it is not my (selfish) needs i am arguing about/for..

                ..patients..here..now..today..vomiting from their latest chemo-dose..

                ..them..

                ..how/where does that hang on yr fucken priority-list..?

                ..phillip ure..

                • Pasupial …
                  28 January 2014 at 3:37 pm

                  PU

                  It’s not so much that I disagree with you about the desirability of cannabis regulation (& taxation)/ decriminalisation, it’s just how tightly you let Gower wind you up over this one.

                  As for cancer patients; there are Pharmac approved antiemetics, but their side-effect profile may not be well tolerated in all cases. The same could be said of anadamoid agents though. It’s been my experience that chemotherapy patients who want it are presently quite as able to source decent quality herb as any other member of society (anecdotal).

                • Murray Olsen …
                  28 January 2014 at 10:46 pm

                  Mr Ure
                  I have cancer. I have no desire to smoke dope. If I did, it would not be hard to find.
                  It should be legalised because it’s used by the government and police to target a generation of our kids, mostly Maori, and lock them in Serco profit factories. It is also used to attack our rights in other ways.
                  As far as legalising dope goes, it should be done for a number of reasons, and the sooner the better. I personally think the medical marijuana issue is a bit of a diversion.

                  • felix …
                    28 January 2014 at 11:25 pm

                    “the medical marijuana issue is a bit of a diversion.”

                    Actually I think it’s worse than a diversion.

                    The reason to legalise marijuana is that it’s no-one’s fucking business if you want to smoke marijuana. Simple as that.

                    The medical thing undermines that stance. The medical thing says that there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to smoke marijuana and that the govt gets to decide which is which.

                    Bollocks to that.

                    • MaxFletcher …
                      29 January 2014 at 9:22 am

                      “The medical thing says that there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to smoke marijuana and that the govt gets to decide which is which.”

                      Totally agree

      • karol 11.2.2
        28 January 2014 at 9:27 am

        The NZ Herald article is just a repeat of the report on 3 News last night. I was at the Cunliffe press stand up after Cunliffe’s speech yesterday. I saw and (mostly) heard Gower asking question after question after question of Cunliffe about the Greens cannabis policy.

        I couldn’t hear or see everything – media scrum in small space with sound of people leaving the hall in the background – but it just seemed to me to be Gower pushing the wedge/cracks line re Laour and the Greens.

        What I did hear Cunliffe say: the Greens could put such policies on the negotiating table. Cunliffe said he wasn’t going to negotiate such things through the media. He said he wasn’t going to negotiate in advance about what was going to be negotiated when the negotiations start. He supports the Greens’ education policy that was announced the day before.

        On the basis of this qu and a, Tova O’Brien did a report on it in 3 News last night.

        The only evidence they have of the cannabis policy resulting in “cracks” between Labour and the Greens is this, as quoted in the report, and taken from Cunliffe’s stand up yesterday (omitting most of Cunliffe’s replies):

        “They can put on the table what they want to put on the table, but Labour’s policy is not to decriminalise cannabis,” says Mr Cunliffe.

        The NZ Herald article just repeats the 3 News report without attribution. I guess they could claim they got the info from Cunliffe’s qu & a yesterday.

        Watch for more wedge politics against the left, probably being led by Paddy Gower in future.

        phillip you have been played by Gower, 3 News and the NZ Herald – it’s all a beat up, don’t get sucked into their wedge games, aimed at undermining a potential Labour-Greens alliance.

        The bit from Turei saying that the cannabis policy was not high priority for them, seemed to follow from 3 News claiming the Greens were ashamed of the policy – if you watch the video of the 3 news report.

        • phillip ure 11.2.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 9:39 am

          @ karol..what ‘crack’..?

          ..they have both agreed to go nowhere near the subject..

          ..as i said..what ‘crack’..?

          ..there is no ‘crack’ for gower to exploit..

          ..phillip ure..

          • karol 11.2.2.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 9:43 am

            Exactly. So why use the scurrilous reports resulting from Gower’s questions, as a stick to beat Turei and the Greens with?

            • Zorr 11.2.2.1.1.1
              28 January 2014 at 10:57 am

              His comments here and in previous threads seem to confirm my observation that he has serious issues with strong women who have differing opinions and priorities to him

              Resulting in a need to attack them personally rather than engage in discussion

              • phillip ure …
                28 January 2014 at 9:26 pm

                @ zorr…heh..!

                ..(cheers 4 the chuckle..eh..?..)

                ..and i don’t attack people..

                ..i attack stupid ideas/arguments..

                ..i praise good ideas/arguments..

                ..the gender of that stupid/smart person is entirely irrelevant..

                ..as for yrslf..?..as an example..?

                ..i have no idea of yr gender..

                ..but whichever cap fits..?

                ..eh..?

                ..’serious issues with strong women’..heh..!..

                ..phillip ure..

          • Polish Pride 11.2.2.1.2
            28 January 2014 at 1:27 pm

            Phil be a bit smarter around this. To say that they are for decriminalization now risks political suicide and pushing a certain chunk of voters away. After the election once in power it becomes much easier to look at. It could even happen quite early on so any backlash dies down after it is decriminalised or legalised (even better) and people see that the sky hasn’t fallen.

            • phillip ure 11.2.2.1.2.1
              28 January 2014 at 1:57 pm

              @ polish pride..

              ..yes..i see yr arguments..

              ..and i wasn’t even going to mention pot this yr..(in that context..)

              ..but i have thought more on this..and personal-exposure to suffering cancer-patients..

              ..and realising how many more of them are out there here/now/today..

              ..made me realise this case must be argued long and hard..

              ..’go softly’ has been tried fr so long..

              ..and as for public opinion..?

              ..i say again..go look at that stuff comments-thread i mentioned earlier..

              ..90% of the comments support ending prohibition..

              ..haven’t you noticed the stunning-silences from the prohibitionists..?

              ..they are silent..because all of their arguments have been laughed out of the room..

              ..and a well-argued/coherent/humane policy-promise would find little opposition..

              ..and for now..i would be happy for a promise to extend access to plant-marijuana for those in medical-need..and already legally able to pay $1300 fucken dollars..to a fucken drug-company(!)..for..namely sativex..

              ..that is not a huge leap..and would face little/no opposition..

              ..what is so fucken hard about that..?

              ..and so i have decided ‘no silence’..

              ..and will argue this case..up ’till the election..and beyond..

              ..once again..we come back to those cancer-patients..here..now..today..

              phillip ure..

            • Murray Olsen 11.2.2.1.2.2
              28 January 2014 at 10:51 pm

              Do you mean they should bring in legalisation the same way they introduced Rogernomics, Polish? I’d rather they were more open about it. Cunliffe seems to have shut the door by saying it is Labour’s policy to not decriminalise, rather than it is not Labour’s policy to decriminalise. I’d decided not to vote Labour before that anyway, so it’s all a bit moot for me.

        • bad12 11.2.2.2
          28 January 2014 at 9:46 am

          Well said Karol, as part of the Government i fully expect the Green Party will attempt to find the ‘numbers’ from across all parties in the Parliament for the decriminalization of Marijuana,

          If such an exercise proves to have ‘the numbers’ then i would expect Legislation to ensue, as Lousia Wall showed in the present Parliament ‘contentious social issues’ when cross-party support is sought beforhand can become a simple matter of course…

        • Rosie 11.2.2.3
          28 January 2014 at 9:58 am

          “phillip you have been played by Gower, 3 News and the NZ Herald – it’s all a beat up, don’t get sucked into their wedge games, aimed at undermining a potential Labour-Greens alliance”.

          Thanks for saying it karol. I was just about to trawl through yesterday’s statements re the dope and put it up for phillip.

          (And phillip, I have to say, the attention you place on Metiria’s leather jacket is heading in the direction of OTT Comrade. Her choice of clothing has become a sticking point for you. It’s put me in mind of the Chills song despite the affection shown towards the item of clothing in that song)

          karol, back to your talk, last night, about the Tova O Brien “cracks” piece: It has been interesting to watch how she has been moulded into a “political reporter”. I remember her many years ago as a host on Radio Active’s Breakfast show when she was literally been shown the ropes of news reading by the politically aware and well informed Liam Luff. She often had trouble with the pronunciation of international and local politicians and leaders, mainly because she had never heard of them. Fair play she was young, green and learning but it seemed there was no connection with the political and social history of her own country. Interesting the changes a few short years make……….

          And yes, I do remember Gower’s “take” on Cunliffe becoming leader of the NZLP: the attention on the portrait on the wall and the residence in Herne Bay. Irrelevant stuff. Interesting point that Anne made about the Cunliffe portrait too and how it was a gift from an artist with an intellectual disability. Gower couldn’t have got it more wrong.

          • karol 11.2.2.3.1
            28 January 2014 at 10:13 am

            Bomber also made reference to Gower’s questions in his report on the conference – though I find Bradbury’s sentence structure a little confusing:

            Cunliffe was relaxed, made off the cuff jokes during the speech and managed to persuasively bat away any questions the media scrum tried to put to him on issues he had little interest in focusing on. Patrick Gower kept asking questions about cannabis reform after it was brought up with the Greens, Cunliffe’s best line when asked by Paddy to offer an opinion on Obama saying alcohol was less harmful than cannabis was to say, “I think Obama has more experience on that than me’.

  12. bad12 12
    28 January 2014 at 8:41 am

    Headlines that Lie: Labour has no intention of backing cannabis policy, so says the headline in today’s Herald online in an obvious and pathetically useless attempt by that rag to create division where there is none,

    David Cunliffe’s real stance on the decriminalization of cannabis if a Bill comes befor the Parliament seeking this, Labour will treat the matter as a conscience vote so it’s MP’s will be free to vote for or against decriminalization…

    • phillip ure 12.1
      28 January 2014 at 9:02 am

      at least cunnliffe is more honest than turei..

      phillip ure..

      • bad12 12.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 9:15 am

        For f**ks sake, what is dishonest about Mets reported comments on decriminalization, the Green Party has a policy of doing just that,

        In Government i fully expect the Green Party will put forward a Bill at some stage in the electoral cycle that would decriminalize cannabis,

        Befor this occurs tho i would suggest that like Louisa Wall on the conscience vote which saw same sex marraige pass into law an attempt will be made to gain support from individual MP’s across the Parliament,

        It is still a democracy Phillip,so we need a majority to make decriminalization happen and your abuse of Metiria Turei is childish and unhelpful…

      • tricledrown 12.1.2
        28 January 2014 at 9:55 am

        .,phil it took along time for gay rights to become mainstream.
        A change of govt is the best way to advance the cause.
        Most university educated MPs will have tried and regularly used marajuana while at University.
        I worked on student flats for 15 years less than 25% of those flats were marajuana free ,those students are Now our leaders National labour MPs.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 11:27 am

          I reckon marijuana decriminalisation IS mainstream. Pollies are always conservatives on these matters though, as the 30% (?) or so who remain against it are a very powerful and reliable voting block.

      • greywarbler 12.1.3
        28 January 2014 at 10:03 am

        phillip ure
        What’s the matter? Got a fish finger stuck in your throat and now you’re all scratchy and bitey?
        Where is the phillip u of yore with an overview who highlights the important factors in the debate?

        • phillip ure 12.1.3.1
          28 January 2014 at 10:20 am

          greywarbler..i have seen the tears of relief from a cancer/chemo-sufferer..

          ..as the effects of potent-cannabis kick in..

          ..and help to put them in another room from their suffering..

          ..that is the source of the ‘fishfinger’ in my ‘throat’..

          ..and if you saw that..you might even get a ‘fishfinger’ in yr own ‘throat’..

          ..this to me is cruel and inhumane..

          ..(the only ‘legal’-cannabis is the spray..sativex..and that costs $1300 for a months-script..(!)..)

          ..and this is happening today..every day..

          ..people are going thru this shit..and doctors will give them vast concoctions of pills..many with horrific side-effects..

          ..but the proven-relief-option of cannabis (no side-effects)..is denied to them..?

          ..just what sort of fucken madness is this..?

          ..and yes..the thought of a ‘progressive-govt/parties not having the balls/intellect to argue for this..?

          ..to just shelve it..(it’s not a ‘key’ policy’..?..)

          ..yes..that does fill me with fucken dismay..

          ..how could it not..?

          ..phillip ure..

          • greywarbler 12.1.3.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 12:00 pm

            Well phillip u you make a strong case. Just make sure that you always state what you are talking about – it doesn’t confuse people (me) then. If you don’t rant against Labour or politicians in general and just press for positive moves for the good reasons you state then you’re words will hit the target, they must. Which I agreewith and lots do, is one for aiming at.

            • phillip ure 12.1.3.1.1.1
              28 January 2014 at 2:04 pm

              chrs 4 the advice/wise-words..gw..

              ..your words make sense..

              ..it’s just that when turei opens her mouth about pot..

              ..all that history of betrayal floods back..

              ..and my blood starts to boil..

              ..but you are right…i should stick to the political/idea-arguments..

              ..(and i wd note that i published words of praise @ whoar re tureis wellington speech..

              ..my anger is at actions..and the lack of them..not so much the person..)

              ..phillip ure..

  13. ak 13
    28 January 2014 at 8:50 am

    Anyone else this morning feeling warm, comforted, even dare I say it loved by the sight of a committed, intelligent, slightly emotional, vulnerable even, tempered to a finely honed sense of deep and historically-proven values by the insidious forces of satanic personal attack who looks poised to offer a stark contrast to the mammon-based PR-focused plastic and shallow moneychanger front for oppression and greed and usher in the end of the era of middling, muddling, systemic passive-aggressive cruel and abusive torture of the most innocent and already-downtrodden victims and any individual who dares to propose supporting them? Good-oh, same here.

    • Tracey 13.1
      28 January 2014 at 9:18 am

      *applause*

    • bad12 13.2
      28 January 2014 at 9:23 am

      You mean a damn good double in the speeches of both David Cunliffe and Metiria Turei on Monday and Sunday,

      Definitely!!! two big steps in the right direction and while i might have a moan occasionally about how far up into th middle class these programs are targeted i am eyes open enough to realize that to implement such that middle class has to be taken into the fold to gain electoral support…

      • Pasupial 13.2.1
        28 January 2014 at 10:09 am

        Bad12

        +1 re: speeches.

        I can see how the “middle class welfare” meme might stick in the craw. Got to resist those divide & rule tactics. Universality would be better, but until we see the messes that NACT have swept under the rug while they’ve had charge of the account books, its best not to commit too far as yet.

        Community not Division!

        • bad12 13.2.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 10:28 am

          Parsupial, +1, totally agree, and where there is a perceived or real division in policy ‘we all’ should try and set aside our ‘tribal affiliations’ in favor of discussing the ways and means of finding a compromise solution that both parties members and supporters can accept…

    • Northshoreguynz 13.3
      28 January 2014 at 3:12 pm

      Absolutely.
      Isn’t National Super universal? Don’t hear anyone bleating about that!

  14. miravox 14
    28 January 2014 at 9:23 am

    Trickledown economics doesn’t work

    Although I guess this is preaching to the converted, this is a nice little summary of research that shows the trickledown approach to boosting wealth for all is a failed theory. The problem is of course overturning the theory, it’s so ingrained in the general population.

    The trickle-down approach has been bad economics. Not only has it failed to deliver on its own terms but it has actively damaged the health of our economy, society and political system. It has supported growing inequality which, rather than boosting economic performance, has deflated it. The UK grew more when we were a more equal country during the post-war, pre-Thatcher era than after. It’s damaging social effects are also mounting. High levels of inequality are increasingly seen as harmful to individual well-being and health, social cohesion and social mobility.

    Obama’s attack on trickle-down economics, echoed by Labour Leader Ed Miliband offered hope that our leaders are finally engaging in the possibility of dethroning this damaging philosophy but the recent response to a potential increase in income tax shows that the theory still festers. We must continue to counter an approach that has created a tide of inequality that lifts up the yachts while leaving the rest of us paddling harder. By pulling the rug out from under trickle-down economics other damaging myths can be exposed, such as the argument for high executive pay.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.1
      28 January 2014 at 5:05 pm

      I’ve been thinking lately that we need a maximum income of about $100,000 per year with anything over that to be taxed at 100%.

      Combined with a decent UBI this will correct the present massive inequality that’s tearing our society apart.

      Considering that this policy would be implemented after banning all foreign ownership it shouldn’t be too hard to return community assets that have been sold off back to the community.

      • miravox 14.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 11:37 pm

        “I’ve been thinking lately that we need a maximum income of about $100,000 per year with anything over that to be taxed at 100%.”

        I agree with maximum incomes, but not a dollar value – more a proportionate value – x-times the lowest income. Also a FTT.

        • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.1
          29 January 2014 at 12:25 am

          With the UBI set at 20,000 the maximum income would be 5x the minimum income and thus proportional 😛

          And, yes, all in favour of a financial transaction tax while getting rid of the regressive GST.

  15. tricledrown 15
    28 January 2014 at 9:37 am

    +1 mirvox.
    All the corporate welfar Nactional has handed out in tax cits direct lump sums and tax cuts for the well off have only lead to increased poverty especially of those who can’t vote. Children.

  16. Ron 16
    28 January 2014 at 9:58 am

    Help
    Just missed an item on National Radio must have been first up between 9:10 and 9:30 about outsourcing services to a Perth Company. I think the name of the company was Strike Trust or something similar.
    Cannot find anything on RNZ about the item can anyone point me to what the item was about?
    Thanks

    • freedom 16.1
      28 January 2014 at 10:10 am

      It is an odd idea, where we contract in an Aussie company to find New Zealand jobs for people on a sickness or disability benefit, and if that person is still in the job a year later the Aussie company get paid $2500.

      Hard to see how it works as a business model unless there is a massive chunk of the equation missing, and I strongly suspect there are hidden fees attached to this policy that have not been shared.

      • Ron 16.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 10:17 am

        Has anyone got details on the company eg. name etc and why it is being run as a trust in NZ?

        It is an odd idea, where we contract in an Aussie company to find New Zealand jobs for people on a sickness or disability benefit, and if that person is still in the job a year later the Aussie company get paid $2500.

  17. Philj 17
    28 January 2014 at 9:59 am

    Xox
    Just heard Kathryn on RNZ discussing the privatisation of MSD for placing solo parents and mentally compromised people into work. For a large fee of course. This is another nail in the coffin of public service provision, just like jails etc. More corporate hand over. Despicable that RNZ doesn’t even question the injustice to our public service.

  18. phillip ure 18
    28 January 2014 at 10:06 am

    i think/fear that labour have had a rush of blood to the head..

    ..following the ‘success’ of their american-styling leadership campaign..

    ..and are planning to subject us to a year-long american-styling election campaign..?

    ..(shudder..!..)

    ..i think this whole speech/strategy was ham-fisted..(excuse the non-vegan metaphor..)

    ..all cunnliffe need to do yesterday..

    ..was not to release any detailed-policy..

    ..but to speak directly to the unease felt my many (both left..and nats with a heart..)..

    ..of/at our current poverty/inequality..

    ..all cunnliffe needed to do was to speak to those concerns..

    ..and to promise that a lab/grn govt will be focused on righting those inequities..

    ..that..and promising to clean up the waterways..

    ..would have been enough..

    ..when pressed for policy-detail..cunnliffe answers..

    ‘..this is all being worked on..everything is on the table..

    ..we have to rethink how we are running our society..clearly we have some serious problems..ansd a lab/grn govt etc etc..an uncaring key-govt. etc etc..

    ..and our overall plan will be released at the beginning of the election-campaign..’

    …why didn’t cunnliffe just keep it simple like that..?

    ..why the (un-needed..and instantly attacked) policy-ejaculation..?

    ..and as for the cannabis issue..?

    ..all cunnliffe had to say is that ‘we are looking at fast-moving developments internationally..

    ..and will release a clear policy in that pre-election policy-release..

    …why didn’t he leave that door open..?

    ..and as a p.s..could someone tell me why labour are unable to even think about..let alone countenance as a possibility..let alone argue..

    ..the logic/rationalities of the colorado-model..?

    ..and if doubting the public mood on this..go read the comments-thread on that stuff piece from the other day..(highlighted in general debate thread a few days ago..)

    ..a long comment-list..

    ..95% arguing for/demanding an end to prohibition..

    ..i repeat..

    ..what are they fucken scared of..?

    ..phillip ure..

    • Pasupial 18.1
      28 January 2014 at 10:11 am

      P U

      Really: Get over yourself.

    • bad12 18.2
      28 January 2014 at 10:19 am

      Phillip, stop f**king lying, read the article i alluded to above in the Herald online, David Cunliffe has said that Labour as a party does not intend to decriminalize, BUT, if the issue comes befor the Parliament He will make it a matter of a conscience vote for Labour MP’s,

      i have now heard David Cunliffe say exactly that on RadioNZ national, TV3news, and He has been quoted thus in various newspapers,

      By the sound of you, you need a good puff on the ‘medicinal’…

      • weka 18.2.1
        28 January 2014 at 5:42 pm

        “David Cunliffe has said that Labour as a party does not intend to decriminalize, BUT, if the issue comes befor the Parliament He will make it a matter of a conscience vote for Labour MP’s,”

        Another smart move from Labour. Let the GP bring it up, but let Labour support it too without having to lead the way.

        Maybe we should start keeping a list of the ways in which L and the GP are going to be in a mutually beneficial relationship.

    • freedom 18.3
      28 January 2014 at 10:29 am

      “all Cunnliffe need to do yesterday was not to release any detailed-policy”

      If he had done that Phillip, then all we would be hearing is how Labour has no policy ideas

      =======
      No offence Phillip, and if you want to tell me to f-off and mind my own business that is your right. But may I pass on some advice I have been given (and given more than once.)

      Maybe some time away from the keyboard today would help the headspace. Get out in the sunshine and look for some of the good things that are still out there.

      I know all too well that battling the ills of the world without taking a regular break now and again is unnecessarily destructive to objectivity. Less critical items can artificially inflate their importance. It becomes increasingly difficult to stay focused on the wider issues. In that environment, the human mind has a tendency to foment stress.

      When looking for answers look to nature, find a quiet spot and think on the question most bothering you. I guarantee the answer is not sitting in the keyboard.

      I do hope your day improves
      Kia kaha

      • Polish Pride 18.3.1
        28 January 2014 at 1:34 pm

        +1 very good sound advice for everyone. Thanks freedom

        • freedom 18.3.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 2:54 pm

          thanks Polish Pride,
          on-line debate can get out of control at the best of times and with politics in particular it is such a simple thing to forget that people are at the other end. We need to look out for each other on-line as we do in real life. I recently took a big dose of my own advice (including a prolonged break from the FB) and must say I am glad I did. Reflection is an important part of any step forward

      • phillip ure 18.3.2
        28 January 2014 at 2:16 pm

        @ freedom..

        “.. Get out in the sunshine and look for some of the good things that are still out there..”

        i am doing that tomorrow..going to see/visit with a bunch of vegans i know..

        .(..and haven’t seen for awhile..)

        ..who have turned a dairy-farming-trashed valley..into a minor paradise..

        ..i am on a promise of a vegan banquet as a welcome-lunch..

        ..so yr advice is already in hand..

        ..(and i should add..freedom..that in person i attempt to fill my life with as much humour/good-humour as i can..

        ..i’m often the one wisecracking/making the jokes/trying to extract the best from any given situation..

        (..just don’t get me fucken started on things like how animals..and cancer-patients..just to name two ..are currently treated..eh..?..)

        ..phillip ure..

        • freedom 18.3.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 2:53 pm

          Cheers for taking it as intended Phillip.

          Have to say, i’m a little envious of the promised banquet, as I am sick of making my own food (The single people out there will understand. ) Enjoy the visit.

    • Bearded Git 18.4
      28 January 2014 at 8:49 pm

      Phillip-I respect your right to write in this style but I can’t be bothered reading your stuff because of it.

  19. Xtasy 19
    28 January 2014 at 10:22 am

    Not unsurprisingly serious questions are being raised about the new outsourced “mental health employment services” that MSD and WINZ have contracted out to various “service providers” like the Perth based ‘APM Workcare’, New Zealand based ‘Workwise’ and a few others.

    Remember this story from 22 January from Simon Collins, in the ‘New Zealand Herald’, titled “Oz firm paid to find jobs for Kiwis”:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11190002

    This morning Kathryn Ryan on Radio NZ National had Sharon Wilson-Davis, CEO of the STRIVE Community Trust, and Sandra Kirikiri from the Ministry of Social Development (Director of Welfare Reform) answer some good questions on the risks, the feasibility and other matters. Here is the link to the available audio track:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2583727/the-new-trial-to-get-sole-parents-off-benefits-and-into-work

    Sharon Wilson-Davis was once also a member on the controversial ‘Welfare Working Group’, that Paula Bennett had hand-picked to discuss getting more persons (also those sick and disabled) into work, as part of fundamental, indeed radical to draconian welfare reforms, of which the last major ones have been implemented since July 2013. There is some info on Sharon (and her ‘Strive Community Trust’) here:

    http://www.strive.org.nz/wawcs0148854/idDetails=164/Sharon-Wilson-Davis-–-Chief-Executive-Officer.html

    http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Sharon%20Wilson-Davis.html

    Here is also an older article in the New Zealand Herald from 11 March 2011, where she answers to strong criticism from Sue Bradford and others, that was directed at the ‘Welfare Working Group’ and their aims:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10711489

    I listened to the interviews that Kathryn Ryan conducted a bit after 09 am today, 28 Jan. 2014, and I was getting even more worried after hearing Sharon admit what very serious risks there are running such an “experiment” with often very vulnerable persons, who may have all kinds of health conditions and issues, that has left them disabled and disadvantaged to compete with “fit” and “healthy” people. Sandra Kirikiri from MSD was apparently a bit short for answers and explanations, and she basically admitted, it is just a “trial”, and it needs to be seen, how it will work. The pressures seem to be on the service deliverers to get persons into jobs, and if they do not meet a high enough success rate, they will run a loss. That fear they must have, running their “businesses”, will simply mean, they will put pressures on the “clients” referred to them, which will put especially mentally ill in very dangerous situations, fearing losing their benefit and else, should they not accept any kind of “ordinary” job on the open marked, that is deemed “suitable” by WINZ case managers, and by the staff working for the providers.

    I know that there is an OIA before MSD, asking for more info on all this, and it should be revealing yet more.

    This is truly worrying, and MSD are conducting “experiments” with “clients” from high risk groups. Remember ATOS and the Department of Work and Pensions in the UK, I’d say. It is time to stop such risky “experiments”, before any person suffers serious consequences. But we will likely not hear about it, as the providers may not be covered by the Official Information Act.

    Shame on this government, shame on Paula Bennett, I can only say!

    • Will@Welly 19.1
      28 January 2014 at 11:01 am

      This whole issue is ideologically driven. The trouble is we have to wait a generation or two before anyone will accept the proof that such acts are not working, but by then, such institutional changes are inground, and bloody hard to reverse.
      Why are we paying overseas institutions to run New Zealand institutions? Bad enough when we hire overseas consultants to confirm what we already know. To me this is an appalling waste of money, and if what we suspect is true, an absurd treatment of humanity.
      I still think Helen Clark’s dismantling of the mental health hospitals, whereby a lot of people were housed in collective units run by the DHB’s has not been entirely successful. Yes for some living out in the community has been a success, but now we are about to see the supports kicked out from under them.

    • Chooky 19.2
      28 January 2014 at 11:08 am

      @Xtasy and philj….agreed privatising services to the most vulnerable is not the way to go…it just means the NACT Bankster Govt ….. of Key and Joyce and pawn poodle Paula Bennett …..is less acountable to the most vulnerable New Zealanders…while screwing them …It is despicable!

      …… In the meantime bankster trader ‘custodians’ of New Zealand cream off what they can by selling State Assets and building multi billion dollar privatised toll motorways which will benefit them, their Trust funds and their ‘Chosen’ Bankster overseas mates

      1.) All NACT proposed super motorways should be AXED!( we dont need them and they will be an environmental sore)

      2.) …the billions saved should be used by the New Zealand Labour /Green government to support the most vulnerable….. mentally and physically disabled and beneficiaries ( this is the Christian way! ….to look after the most vulnerable in society!)

      3.) the money saved from the unwanted super motorways costing billions ….can then also be spent on upgrading NZ State free education to a very high quality …..free university education, free polytech education, free apprenticeships, free internships for NEW ZEALANDERS!

      ….lets look after New Zealanders instead of treating them like delinquents in their own country!!!!

      4.).there should be no young New Zealander or any New Zealander left untrained and without meaningful work….this is the job of the NEW ZEALAND government and not the ‘Chosen’ Bankster private companies!!!( from overseas)

      Let us ALL take back New Zealand for New Zealanders!

    • greywarbler 19.3
      28 January 2014 at 12:20 pm

      Interesting. The damned economy might pick up and there will be less unemployment which will bugger up the hitherto stable settings of our inflation! Am I on Planet Key I ask? And there is No Answer.

      Staff shortage looming for employers
      Updated at 7:12 am today
      The New Zealand economy has soaked up any spare capacity and will be moving into a period of excess demand this year, meaning it could get tougher for employers to get workers, an economist says.

      The Bank of New Zealand-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI), was up more than a point at 57.5 in December, compared with 56.4 in November. A reading about 50 indicates expansion.
      During the past year, the PSI averaged 55.8, compared with 53.9 in 2012.
      All five main sub-indices were in expansion last month, including new orders and business, activity and sales, and employment.

      Bank of New Zealand (BNZ) economist Craig Ebert said the economy was picking up and becoming much more generalised.
      “It really tells us that growth is not just good, it’s getting quite strong and it’s going to get stronger,” Mr Ebert said.
      “The issue we see ahead of us is how the economy is going to be able to cope with that in terms of supply.
      “Overall I think there will be some pressure coming from the demand side of the economy which will start to lift some of those inflation measures over the next 12 to 24 months.”

      The economy had soaked up any spare capacity it had during the past few years and if the growth indicators were correct, then the economy would be moving into period of excess demand as soon as this year.
      That equated to rising inflation and, in turn, to capacity constraints, including in the labour market, Mr Ebert said.

      “It may, for example, turn out that firms find it more difficult to secure staff.”

      The property and business category of the index nudged up to 57.5 in December, from 57.4 in November, which the BNZ said showed little sign the property market had fallen into a hole since the Reserve Bank introduced lending restrictions.
      The retail category hit 74.5 points which, although not adjusted for seasonal effects, was 13.5 points above December 2012.

      • Tracey 19.3.1
        28 January 2014 at 1:21 pm

        So now growth is not good news????

        • Ennui 19.3.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 2:30 pm

          Its obvious really, growth is good to a point…lets face it I stopped growing, as did you…if we kept growing the doors would not fit and we would crush the seats…or perhaps our size would have killed us. Once we had grown enough, well that was enough. Wish all the idiots out there whose answer to the economy is “growth” understood this, it cant go on for ever…(and in reality it has stopped except on bankers ledgers of imagined money).

      • McFlock 19.3.2
        28 January 2014 at 1:33 pm

        nah, they’ll boost interest rates to fuck up any recovery before it picks up steam.

        They might be insane, but at least they’re consistent.

        • Ennui 19.3.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

          Recovery???? Dont you mean the blip in the graph that makes the short term appear better (as opposed to the constant “real” decline for the last 30 years).

          • McFlock 19.3.2.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 2:29 pm

            whoops, my computer autocorrected to “English (NZ – Neolib)”. Sorry, yes that’s the one 🙂

        • greywarbler 19.3.2.2
          28 January 2014 at 2:33 pm

          LOL

  20. Pete 20
    28 January 2014 at 10:54 am

    The Guardian profiles Helen Clark and asks if she’ll be the next UN Secretary-General.

  21. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 21
    28 January 2014 at 11:53 am

    @patrickgowernz: David Cunliffe has just walked off on a press conference refusing to answer questions about the baby bonus

    Well, that’s inspiring.

    • BM 21.1
      28 January 2014 at 12:01 pm

      Oh Dear, The Cunliffe melts under the first sign of pressure.

      A terrible start to this years election campaign for the red team.

      • Chooky 21.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 12:17 pm

        no why should he talk to Patrick Gower and take this doggie’s shit? ….after all David Cunliffe is the next 2014 leader of New Zealand!……..eat your heart out Patrick Gower!

        …and eat your heart out BM!

        • TightyRighty 21.1.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 1:41 pm

          he loved it when they listened to kiwipower or whatever the fuck it was called. No real for it though. looks like the markets over the last 30 yrs have delivered lower than cost power prices.

          why wouldn’t he interact with journalists unless he’s worried they’ll see the pitfalls of this rubbish policy?

          all a bit underwhelming really.

          • Chooky 21.1.1.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 1:46 pm

            TightyRighty …i never laughed so hard when you were banned for trolling….now where is BiG Daddy?

      • Naki Man 21.1.2
        28 January 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Cunny cant think on his feet, he just reads speeches prepared for him by his spin weasels

        • Chooky 21.1.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 12:50 pm

          @ Naki listen to Ron!

          …you are a spin weasel if ever there was one….you just go off and suck on your rotten eggs

      • mickysavage 21.1.3
        28 January 2014 at 1:17 pm

        What a fertile imagination you have.

        Here is the film:

        http://www.3news.co.nz/Labour-Parents-wont-be-able-to-rort-baby-bonus/tabid/1607/articleID/330015/Default.aspx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

        So:

        1. It was a standup in the hall outside the Caucus room.
        2. Cunliffe spent 9 minutes answering questions on the scheme.
        3. He has a caucus meeting to go to.
        4. He left politely and said he had to go to the meeting.

        I would expect this sort of spin from a RWNJ but not a reporter.

        • Tracey 21.1.3.1
          28 January 2014 at 1:23 pm

          “@patrickgowernz: David Cunliffe has just walked off on a press conference refusing to answer questions about the baby bonus”

          patrick gower doesn’t get the answers he wants from cunliffe so flounces off on twitter

          FIFY

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 21.1.3.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 1:58 pm

            Gower is probably sore about the response that Cunliffe gave him last night that made it to air on TV3 (don’t usually watch that crappy 3news – it is full of bias – but wanted to see the framing).

            A loaded question was posed by Gower about poor people spending the $60 on tobacco & alcohol.

            Response from Cunliffe [not verbatim but can be checked on the TV3 Website] – ‘People wouldn’t want me in their houses telling them what to spend their money on and you [Gower] would be the first to call us a ‘Nanny State’ if we did’

            I was chuckling about that for the rest of the evening.
            The response was spot on – quick and appropriate

            Cunliffe ‘can’t think on his feet’ is nonsense – and don’t all you right-wingers know it.

        • Draco T Bastard 21.1.3.2
          28 January 2014 at 8:25 pm

          Unless the reporter was also a RWNJ.

      • Lanthanide 21.1.4
        28 January 2014 at 1:22 pm

        BTW, just so everyone knows, that tweet was from yesterday afternoon.

        • karol 21.1.4.1
          28 January 2014 at 1:59 pm

          Ha! Well the same comments as above applies. If his tweet was about yesterday, then most of the time Gower kept asking questions about cannabis. He seemed more interested in that than asking questions about the Best Start policy.

          Edit: Actually – it’s confusing. In Gower’s twitter stream, it says the tweet was made 3 hours ago. If you roll over the 3 hours, it says 27 Jan 1.37pm

          Edit#2: that 27 Jan time is US Pacific Time. Checked it re one of my retweets to @patrickgowernz within the last couple of hours.

    • Ron 21.2
      28 January 2014 at 12:27 pm

      He did not ‘just walk off’ He explained quite clearly that he had a caucus meeting and he had to leave.
      Sorry to spoil the great story you were trying to concoct.

      David Cunliffe has just walked off on a press conference refusing to answer questions about the baby bonus

      • karol 21.2.1
        28 January 2014 at 1:20 pm

        Well here he is at the stand up, answering questions on the policy.

        Sounds like Gower has a touch of this.

        Edit: note how Gower tries to dominate Cunliffe’s stand up, and often keeps getting ignored as Cunliffe also attends to questions from others.

        • geoff 21.2.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 2:06 pm

          I think he thinks he’s some kind of gonzo journalist but doesn’t realise he’s not funny.

          • karol 21.2.1.1.1
            28 January 2014 at 6:40 pm

            Gower is trying to be Ace Cub reporter. And there’s a battle of wills going on between him and Cunliffe. Yesterday, Gower dominated a lot of the question time, with mainly only Corrin Dann getting a question in.

            If you look at the video of today’s standup, Gower keeps trying to ask questions, but Cunliffe ignores him and takes questions from others. At one point, Cunliffe turns away from Gower. As a teacher I’d pretty much do the same if someone in the class kept trying to dominate the discussion. The rest of the journos are really polite and let other journos ask some questions, but Gower was always trying to be in there hogging the questions.

            Yesterday, as soon as the speech was over, before Cunliffe had left the front of the hall, Gower was up the front of the hall in front of the camera, with the camera lights on him. For Gower, it’s always “Me, Me, pick Me”.

            • geoff 21.2.1.1.1.1
              28 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

              Good to get that behind-the-scenes info. Ignoring Gower does sound like the best idea.

            • Rodel 21.2.1.1.1.2
              28 January 2014 at 8:55 pm

              Karol…..
              “Me! Pick me! Pick me!” . Wasn’t that the Donkey in the first Shrek movie?

              … Come to think of it the resemblance is uncanny..so is the annoyance factor.

              But seriously the other journalists look and sound quite good in comparison to donkey.

              The headline should be: “Thwarted Reporter Throws Hissy Fit”

              Have to admire Cunliffe’s calm patience and manner.He obviously doesn’t suffer fools but doesn’t sneer and become snide like Key.

              • David H …
                28 January 2014 at 10:35 pm

                “Me! Pick me! Pick me!” . Wasn’t that the Donkey in the first Shrek movie?”

                And since then. Every repulsive, self interested little wanna be, has repeated said happy refrain “Pick Me! Pick me! Pick me!”

      • WIll@Welly 21.2.2
        28 January 2014 at 1:39 pm

        If ever there was anyone desperate, it is Patrick Gower. Always strikes me as a stoat in the headlights.

        • Chooky 21.2.2.1
          28 January 2014 at 1:48 pm

          lol

        • karol 21.2.2.2
          28 January 2014 at 2:39 pm

          Gower will probably become increasingly desperate as Cunliffe’s fortunes rise. After Gower’s failed attempt to push Cunliffe from Labour leadership contention, he must now be worried about his future career.

          If his career is his main focus, Gower would be better trying to be a really good journalist, rather than a faux-based jonolist.

    • greywarbler 21.3
      28 January 2014 at 12:41 pm

      The baby bonus I think was a Muldoon term for something Labour instigated to help parents.
      Why would Cunliffe play to the plastic jonolists second life games?

    • Tracey 21.4
      28 January 2014 at 1:22 pm

      patrick gower doesn’t get the answers he wants from cunliffe so flounces off on twitter

      FIFY

  22. Molly 22
    28 January 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Is this the same Bob Jones?

    Without humanities, science could destroy us
    Handout culture should be starved to death

    Does he realise that humanity and humanities is linked?

    • geoff 22.1
      28 January 2014 at 2:30 pm

      Hey he’s made a lot of money, his opinion matters!

    • Murray Olsen 22.2
      28 January 2014 at 11:11 pm

      Bob Jones has been saying that sort of stuff for years. He once said he’d rather hire someone with a history degree than an MBA, on the basis that they would have a wider view of the world. In those days he was attacking economics, before Randian repeaters took over the faculties. Now he’s attacking scientists, in line with every other fool who doesn’t want to be responsible for global warming. All the while, he’s never stopped attacking workers, women, Maori,……..

  23. Chooky 23
    28 January 2014 at 12:43 pm

    …probably not…his business was based on the poor giving him handouts for renting his houses

  24. captain hook 24
    28 January 2014 at 12:44 pm

    BM wipe your bum.
    and who saw Steven Joyce on the teevee last night. The look on his dial shows that he knows the game is up.
    Byeeee to you and your crowd a.s.a.p.

  25. tricledrown 25
    28 January 2014 at 1:13 pm

    Bob Jones?? daughter was on the Dole for years she was staying in some run down flat in Dunedin she was suffering from depression very understanable.
    Bob Jones would come and visit her in disguise so no one would recognise him.

    • Tracey 25.1
      28 January 2014 at 1:24 pm

      source?

    • greywarbler 25.2
      28 January 2014 at 2:37 pm

      They give themselves the right to delve into the lives of others, the comfortably off that is. Actually I believe many of the c-o have quite serious mental problems, brought on by feelings of inferiority because of the high demands for achievement and inter-sibling rivalry they experience.

  26. Chooky 26
    28 January 2014 at 1:52 pm

    …yes she is not responsible for him…..and we have bigger fish to fry here counteracting the ugly trolls

    ( and much as I enjoy it…..I have got to go and do some work)

  27. phillip ure 27
    28 January 2014 at 2:51 pm

    cunnliffe is giving a blinder of a speech in parliament..

    ..and yes..he used the words..’there is an alternative…’

    ..phillip ure..

  28. ianmac 28
    28 January 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Graeme Aitken, Dean of Education has some very helpful cautions about the Government plan to pay millions for teacher Leadership.

    “Focus on social inequality will aid teachers
    The education changes announced last week are welcome. They acknowledge teacher professionalism and their ability to lead change. They encourage networking and collaboration within and between schools. They offer attractive career prospects that have the potential to significantly raise the status of teachers and teaching.

    They come, however, with some words of caution.

    The Prime Minister commented on the “mountain of evidence” that the quality of teaching is “the biggest influence on kids’ achievement”. That is certainly so if we only consider in-school influences but the mountains are more like foothills when set against the Everest of research that shows that socio-economic status is the strongest predictor of achievement.

    These changes will have limited impact if they are not accompanied by bold initiatives to address social inequality and poverty.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11192750

  29. Beatie 29
    28 January 2014 at 5:04 pm

    http://www.greystar.co.nz/content/blogger-puts-boot-0

    Cameron Slater’s latest piece of vindictive nastiness has Greymouth in an uproar. This family has lost four sons (including one killed at Pike River) and they don’t need this shit. Judd’s Mum is after Slater and I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes/

    • vto 29.1
      28 January 2014 at 5:56 pm

      Cameron Slater has just written himself a never-ending debt of horror from the people of the west coast.

      This is the second last time I will ever have anything to do with anything about the cunt. Probably just as well draft post was deleted. Worst person alive in NZ.

    • McFlock 29.2
      28 January 2014 at 6:03 pm

      wow.
      I’m surprised that I wasn’t overly surprised. Disgusted, of course, but not really surprised.

      Gives humans a bad name, that one.

    • Molly 29.3
      28 January 2014 at 6:34 pm

      Tui Bromley seems to have done her job well – making sure that Slater’s reference to Helen Clark was shown up for the lie it was:
      “The ‘feral West Coasters’ label has been around since 2000, when former Prime Minister Helen Clark was speaking on National Radio at the height of the native timber logging debate, but her comments were taken out of context.
      A transcript of the sentence in question shows that Ms Clark actually said: ‘Attitudes of some on the West Coast could be fairly feral’.”

      • vto 29.3.1
        28 January 2014 at 6:46 pm

        The Greymouth Star is a very enjoyable read and Tui Bromley an entertaining journo. It is highly informative (more so than msm shit) and it has a history relating to this website too believe it or not. Pretty much every single person on the coast reads the local rags ahead of anything mainstream.

        Imagine getting an entire region of 30,000 people calling for your blood.

        • Molly 29.3.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 7:00 pm

          Good to know.

          Was surprised to see a journalist actually looked up a transcript for an article. 😉

          Obviously spending too much time reading the Herald…

  30. Ron 30
    28 January 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Oh dear Blubber over at Whaleoil is upset that his site is down from a DOS attack.
    More likely he forgot to pay his server bill

  31. One Anonymous Knucklehead 31
    28 January 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Poor Cameron. Sob sob; personal responsibility means never having to say you’re sorry.

  32. BM 32
    28 January 2014 at 6:53 pm

    Ban Facebook?

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Labour-threatens-Facebook-ban-over-tax-issue/tabid/1607/articleID/330056/Default.aspx

    WTF is going on within labour, if this was cricket the ICC would be starting a match fixing investigation.

    Honestly do the left not want to win?

    • McFlock 32.1
      28 January 2014 at 7:07 pm

      hang on – who brought in the internet censorship law, where ISPs monitor automatically web traffic and send warning notices? And you still think solidly banning a website because of unpaid tax is laughably impossible?

      I think clark overextended himself, and let gower’s crowd do a “funny” editorial on a labour mp (see karol above), but only a little bit.

      • BM 32.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 7:14 pm

        Overextended himself. True, I got the feeling he’s in way over his head

        Maybe cleaning the skid marks off the parliament bogs may be more his level.

        Christ, what a fucking dumb arse.

        • McFlock 32.1.1.1
          28 January 2014 at 7:21 pm

          I know it’s the best news you’ve seen in days, but it’s really not that major. Gone by suppertime.

    • Draco T Bastard 32.2
      28 January 2014 at 9:53 pm

      Seems reasonable. If a company in NZ doesn’t pay it’s taxes it gets shutdown, usually via receivership but the how really isn’t the issue.

      What Labour should be doing is saying that they’re going to re-write the tax laws from the ground up so that companies, especially multi-nationals, can’t dodge the taxes that they’re supposed to be paying.

    • karol 32.3
      28 January 2014 at 10:02 pm

      LOL – another 3 News special. Where did the idea of banning facebook come from? Who suggests it? Watch the vid.

      TO’B: “Should the government consider banning Facebook?

      Clark: the government should always have in its back pocket the ability to ban websites.

      From that, the Headline: Labour threatens Facebook ban over tax issue

      another 3 News anti-Labour beat up.

      They really are out to get Labour this week!

      Mind you, Clark needs to be sharper and not fall into the faux jonolist traps.

  33. amirite 33
    28 January 2014 at 7:26 pm

    So fucking what? Facebook is so passe. Don’t touch Twitter though!

  34. Polish Pride 34
    28 January 2014 at 7:43 pm

    Thought for the day
    Capitalism is inhuman.
    Socialism is enslavement.

    • bad12 34.1
      28 January 2014 at 8:00 pm

      Polish, qualify the view that Socialism is enslavement, if socialism frees someone from poverty using any means then it is hardly enslavement,

      It is in fact Capitalism in it’s starkest form that is both inhuman and enslavement, look at the US at the moment, millions of unemployment benefits cancelled and no jobs, that’s the inhuman enslavement of people into total poverty in a land of plenty…

      • Polish Pride 34.1.1
        28 January 2014 at 8:51 pm

        Under Socialism is the goal of the government low unemployment.
        Are those who earn well faced with a higher tax to help support those less fortunate.
        Is the less fortunate man given enough to live what someone else has determined to be a dignified life?
        Does this man have dreams and aspirations that he perhaps cannot afford?
        Is his best chance at having them to one day find a job and earn enough so that he can make them come true?
        Is the generally accepted life in socialism Get an education, get a job, work until you are 65, then retire?
        That is enslavement and is not a system designed to enable man to be happy
        It is a system that man essentially has to continuously work for in order to survive. Or has to be reliant on the taxes of others given to him by the state

        If the goal of unions was to lobby govt to enact policy to have the goal of the govt to steer society on a course that made human happiness and maximising time spent with friends and family the aim of society. What if the goal of unions was to free people from having to work.

      • Polish Pride 34.1.2
        28 January 2014 at 8:57 pm

        you can earn enough to essentially break free of the enslavement of working under capitalism. It is harder to break free under socialism. The inhumanity of capitalism is in that whilst people can break free, others suffer terribly.

        You think a man is free because socialism has taken him out of poverty…….?
        I guess it depends on your definition of enslavement.

    • Te Reo Putake 35.1
      28 January 2014 at 8:34 pm

      94 years old and still kicking against the pricks. Here he is with John Cash:

    • karol 35.2
      28 January 2014 at 8:51 pm

      A life well lived.

      • WIll@Welly 35.2.1
        28 January 2014 at 9:41 pm

        I watched David Cunliffe’s speech, then switched over to watch the Grammy’s, because of Lorde. She did well. But that pales when I see Pete died yesterday. As you say karol, a life well lived.
        Him and Woody laid down the tracks which everyone followed. Thanks joe90, and Te Reo Putake.

    • joe90 35.3
      28 January 2014 at 10:04 pm

      Unsurprisingly his site is down so here’s the cache of Pete Seeger’s Statement to the Court prior to his 1961 sentencing for contempt of Congress.

      “Thank you, your honor. After hearing myself talked about, pro and con, for three days, I am grateful for the chance to say a few unrestricted words.

      First, I should like to thank my lawyer for his masterly presentation of my defense. He has worked over many long weeks and months, knowing that it is beyond my power to pay him adequately for his work. I believe that he, and great legal minds like Justice Hugo Black and Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, have explained far better than I can why they believe the First Amendment gives an American citizen the right to refuse to speak upon occasion.

      Secondly, I should like to state before this court, much as I did before Congressman Walter’s committee, my conviction that I have never in my life said, or supported, or sung anything in any way subversive of my country. Congressman Walter stated that he was investigating a conspiracy. I stated under oath that I had never done anything conspiratorial. If he doubted my word, why didn’t he even question it? Why didn’t he have me indicted for perjury? Because, I believe, even he knew that I was speaking the truth.

      Some of my ancestors were religious dissenters who came to America over 300 years ago. Others were abolitionists in New England of the 1840’s and 50’s. I believe that in choosing my present course I do no dishonor to them, or to those who may come after me.

      I am 42 years old, and count myself a very lucky man. I have a wife and three healthy children, and we live in a house we built with our own hands, on the banks of the beautiful Hudson River. For twenty years I have been singing folksongs of America and other lands to people everywhere. I am proud that I never refused to sing to any group of people because I might disagree with some of the ideas of some of the people listening to me. I have sung for rich and poor, for Americans of every possible political and religious opinion and persuasion, of every race, color, and creed.

      The House committee wished to pillory me because it didn’t like some few of the many thousands of places I have sung for. Now it so happens that the specific song whose title was mentioned in this trial “Wasn’t That A Time” is one of my favorites. The song is apropos to this case. I wonder if I might have your permission to sing it here before I close?”

      (At this point the judge refused to hear Pete Seeger sing.)

      “Well, perhaps you will hear it some other time. A good song can only do good, and I am proud of the songs I have sung. I hope to be able to continue singing these songs for all who want to listen, Republicans, Democrats, and independents. Do I have the right to sing these songs? Do I have the right to sing them anywhere?”

      Also, Toshi Seeger died last year.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/07/11/201159066/Toshi-Seeger-Wife-Of-Folk-Singer-Pete-Seeger-Dies-At-91