Open mike 28/04/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 28th, 2012 - 116 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

116 comments on “Open mike 28/04/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. logie97 1
    28 April 2012 at 7:22 am

    Kiwibank

    Surely this sort of journalism is not a reflection of the state of New Zealand’s MSM.
    (not to mention the dreadful editing/proofreading)
    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/opinion/political-report-april27-2012

    • Jilly Bee 1.1
      28 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

      @logie97 – I had a wee glance at the newstalk link, yuk and pathetic. And as for Veitchy on Sunday another yuk and pathetic. I’m afraid this sort of tacky journalism is very much a reflection of MSM in NZ

      • logie97 1.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 6:17 pm

        Cannot imagine what people accessing the Newstalkzb site from overseas to get some insight into New Zealand News and current affairs would think.
        (Wonder how Leighton Smith would rate the standard of writing on his own beloved channel).

  2. mouse 2
    28 April 2012 at 7:28 am

    Anyone read this, this morning…Dotcom’s secret donation to Banks

    “John said, ‘Wait a minute’,” Dotcom recalled last night. “‘It would be good if you could split it up into two payments of 25 [thousand dollars], then I don’t declare publicly who made it’.”

    “Last night, Mr Banks said there would be nothing wrong with his telling people how to give anonymously.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10802016

    • Bill 2.2
      28 April 2012 at 8:41 am

      heh. I liked this bit – “Mr Banks said there was no issue in his stay in Hong Kong. He paid for every aspect of the trip himself.”

      Now, is it just me, or is that potentially misleading? Shouldn’t that more accurately read ” Mr Banks said there was no issue in his stay in Hong Kong. He paid for every aspect of the trip that required payment himself.”?

      The way it’s worded, he could theoretically have accepted ‘gifts’ from Dotcom and still claim that he paid for everything that he had to pay for but mask the fact he got stuff for nix.

      • freedom 2.2.1
        28 April 2012 at 12:04 pm

        for example the Herald article states pretty clearly that DotCom sent his own limo for Banks in Hong Kong
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10802016
        “He arranged for his limo to collect Mr Banks from the airport and later to drive him to a helicopter pad for a trip to Macau.”

        very generous actions from a guy Banks only spent twenty minutes with and cannot recall discussing a fifty grand donation with. How fucking stupid does Banks think people are?

        oh yeah forgot where i was for a moment there
        the country that voted the NActs back in, maybe Banks will be fine after all.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          28 April 2012 at 12:59 pm

          You know what. Banksie’s responses are going to piss Dotcom and his wife off even more. And I’m betting that Dotcom has a small, very competent, and highly paid team who keep these kinds of detailed historical matters on file for him. Down to the date, time and kilometres travelled in the limo in HK, as well as what was said to the driver along the way.

          Banks has fucked this up, he needed to get back on side with Dotcom, and has instead gone completely the opposite way.

        • bad12 2.2.1.2
          28 April 2012 at 6:29 pm

          Of interest would be what Banks got up to on His visit to Macau, Macau being the world capital for gambling with a bigger dollar turnover for gambling than even Las Vegas,

          SkyCity by any chance have a casino in Macau???…

    • aerobubble 2.3
      28 April 2012 at 9:41 am

      A side question. With all that cash flooding through political campaigns, is there ever the temptation of politicians to siphon off money to themselves? How would they do that? I suppose the first step would be to declare a random number of donation of the same amount as anonymous, then each donator won’t know if there cash had got to the purpose they donated it for. Not thinking of any particular politicians alleged behavior recently in the news.

    • bad12 2.4
      28 April 2012 at 10:23 am

      The last line of your comment, a quote from Banks outta the Herald sez it all as far as the over-bloated sense of entitlement held in the minds of the likes of Banks goes don’t it???,

      Banks seems to think that the Law was written specially for the likes of Him and the likes of those who would give Him campaign funding to hide the source of that funding from the public,

      It might take a few months sitting in a cold jail cell for Him to wake up to the fact that if HE(Banks), knew where the coin was coming from the Law sez it aint anonymous…

      • bad12 2.4.1
        28 April 2012 at 10:30 am

        Oh by the way,there is NO corruption in New Zealand, until a big smelly pile of it turns up on ya telly at 7 on a Friday night that is…

    • Hilary 2.5
      28 April 2012 at 10:45 am

      I just cannot believe the lack of any self reflection by Banks that this is Unethical Behaviour. What doesn’t he get?

      • freedom 2.5.1
        28 April 2012 at 12:16 pm

        John Banks understands the law says small donations can be anonymous, so he simply sees all donations need to be small. Personally $25,000 is not a small amount of money and i never have been convinced that one single donation to any political party should be anonymous.

        My understanding is the ‘small donations’ are anonymous to ease administration etc. At least that is the usual propoganda behind lies like this. It is a scam written by the past scammers to aide the future scammers. Pure and simple and i will never be convinced it is anything else.

        You either proudly and openly support a party or you don’t.

  3. just saying 3
    28 April 2012 at 8:04 am

    From the article:

    Political candidates are required by law to declare donations if they know who made them. Failure to do so is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine.

    A vacancy is automatically created if any MP is convicted of an offence punishable by two years or more, no matter what punishment they get

    It’s hard to see how Banks can hold onto his seat, though I’m sure the right will pull out all the stops to drag this out and play for time.

    And the moral of the story is that the Labour caucus needs to get rid of Shearer right now. This could easily bring the next election forward by a year. Unfortunately, morality is not the Labour caucus’s strong suit.

    Ironically, given the whole non-politician game he’s playing, Shearer couldn’t look more like one with his continuing to lie about there being no problem in the leader’s office line. Looks like another cheap polly desperately trying to hold onto power. Doesn’t bode well for any chance of him steppping down for the greater good.

    edit: this is a reply to comment 2 and the article contianed in it.

    • Carol 3.1
      28 April 2012 at 8:19 am

      I don’t think we’ll be heading to a general election soon, unless another Nat MP goes after Banks does. It’ll just be a byelection for now. But Labour does need to get it’s sh*t together otherwise the Greens will be leading the opposition into the next election.

      Labour’s leadership issue are providing a distraction from NAct’s problems. While the NZ Herald is front-paging the Banks-Dotcom donation, Stuff and the Dom Post are second-paging Shearer leadership rumours, with nothing about Labour or NAct on the front page – though maybe the Dom Post is just slow and had today’s edition organised early last night…?

      • rosy 3.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 8:24 am

        +1 Carol, and yeah I noticed that on Stuff – well, noticed that wasn’t there on Stuff. Two negative Shearer stories and one about Collins’ defamation case. Nothing at all about Banks – I suppose that’s because Key’s office hasn’t issued a press release yet…

      • just saying 3.1.2
        28 April 2012 at 9:05 am

        True Carol,

        But I can’t help thinking that this will become one destabilisation too many.

      • muzza 3.1.3
        28 April 2012 at 10:03 am

        “While the NZ Herald is front-paging the Banks-Dotcom donation, Stuff and the Dom Post are second-paging Shearer leadership rumours, with nothing about Labour or NAct on the front page – though maybe the Dom Post is just slow and had today’s edition organised early last night…?”

        —-Absolutely not an coincidence Carol – It is obfuscation, nothing more than that. APN/Fairfax , its not really competition is it! No it is very easy to “collaborate” when there are only two players, and its not like this news will have only just broken. I would ask what the timing was trying to hide!

    • Vicky32 3.2
      29 April 2012 at 4:27 pm

      It’s hard to see how Banks can hold onto his seat, though I’m sure the right will pull out all the stops to drag this out and play for time.

      And so far, from what I have heard, that’s exactly what they are doing!

    • Vicky32 3.3
      29 April 2012 at 4:28 pm

      It’s hard to see how Banks can hold onto his seat, though I’m sure the right will pull out all the stops to drag this out and play for time.

      And so far, from what I have heard, that’s exactly what they are doing!

    • Vicky32 3.4
      29 April 2012 at 4:33 pm

      And the moral of the story is that the Labour caucus needs to get rid of Shearer right now.

      Why? What’s Shearer got to do with Banks’ sins?
       

  4. Adrian 4
    28 April 2012 at 8:37 am

    Is’nt the Dom editor a senior Nat advisor ? For all we know he was a Nat appointment to the Dom job , as the bloody rag reads like it.

    • marsman 4.1
      28 April 2012 at 8:59 am

      The DomPost editor is a she I believe and has been there for a while. But you are right she is fully NAct’s puppet. She put a piece in the paper a wee while ago to say they were fully committed to impartial journalism, that made me laugh out loud, it’s like John Key saying I’m committed to telling the truth.

      • freedom 4.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 12:45 pm

        look at the maelstrom of issues National are battling with, yet all you see in the Dom are questions on Labour’s leadership, dancing puppies and who may or may not have their own tv show

  5. Bill 5
    28 April 2012 at 8:54 am

    Eat your heart out John Clark 🙂

  6. Pete George 6
    28 April 2012 at 9:11 am

    Panel comments from the euthanasia debate in Dunedin this week: Euthanasia discussion – comments

    Participants:
    Shaun Davison
    Prof Grant Gillett, of the Otago Centre for Bioethics
    Maryan Street – Labour Party list MP
    John Kleinsman – director of the Wellington-based Nathaniel Centre, the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre
    Associate Prof Colin Gavaghan, a specialist in medical law and ethics
    Thomas Noakes-Duncan – post graduate Otago theology and religion doctoral student

    • bad12 6.1
      28 April 2012 at 4:31 pm

      At what point do you think such a law change will have an element of compulsion added to it???…

      • Pete George 6.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 4:45 pm

        At no time. I don’t think anyone will want to go there, and certainly nowhere near a majority will want anything like that. Many things that are legal are not compulsory.

        Scaremongering against the worst that might happen is a tactic to try and build opposition to a moderate and sensible modificaztion to what is allowed now. It’s quite unclear at the moment.

        • bad12 6.1.1.1
          28 April 2012 at 6:44 pm

          And here was me thinking that euthanasia was simply the ultimate efficency that the neo-liberals could think up for the Humans after their usefulness as a tool in the economic equation had been exhausted,

          I obviously don’t live in the same effete rarified world that you seem to occupy, we seem to live in parallel dimensions on the same planet at the same time,

          I personally know of old people who have had their life savings and their property removed from them by their own children by pretext and in situations where the law is powerless to intervene,

          If you care to conduct some research through Grey-Power I am sure you will be aquainted with any number of such cases,

          Changing the law to allow euthanasia will simply ensure that any number of these old people wont only be relieved of their possessions but also be relieved of their lives as well…

          • Pete George 6.1.1.1.1
            28 April 2012 at 7:25 pm

            Sensible euthanasia law won’t change oldies being ripped off by unscrupulous people at all, they are completely different things.m And sensible euthanasia law would not change the legalities of murdser either.

            You’re confusing giving people a carefully checked right to choose how to end their own lives when the end isn inevitable becasue of terminal illness, and extremes of abuse. I don’t know if that is deliberate or through ignorance.

          • Vicky32 6.1.1.1.2
            29 April 2012 at 5:05 pm

            Changing the law to allow euthanasia will simply ensure that any number of these old people wont only be relieved of their possessions but also be relieved of their lives as well…

            Seconded!

        • bad12 6.1.1.2
          28 April 2012 at 7:19 pm

          PS,as far as knocking off the rellies goes what is allowed now is NOTHING,there’s nothing ‘unclear’ about that its called by the law MURDER, or, MANSLAUGHTER,

          So, allowing for a law change that lets the rellies be dispatched from the mortal coil early aint a moderate modification and if there were any sense or morality in doing so I am sure that better minds than ours in years gone by would have formulated ‘sensible’ laws to allow such…

          • QoT 6.1.1.2.1
            28 April 2012 at 9:11 pm

            Gods, I hate to be in agreement with Pete George here, but … you don’t think elderly people get “bumped off” by unscrupulous relatives right now?

            Pretending that voluntary euthanasia has anything to do with a law which clearly spells out conditions and scrutiny around allowing people to make decisions themselves about the ends of their lives is basically dishonest, bad12.

            • bad12 6.1.1.2.1.1
              28 April 2012 at 10:30 pm

              What you seem to be saying is that seeing as there appears to be plenty of those who are engaging in the early dispatch of their elderly relatives now we should have a law which codifies the easy efficient dispatch of those elderly rellies,

              The second paragraph of your comment is incomprehensible to my small tired brain,I never received any tuition in Mumbo Jumbo during my limited education perhaps you could try a re-write in basic English…

              • QoT …
                28 April 2012 at 10:36 pm

                Okay, I made a typo, but I’ll try again with small, easy words:

                When. You. Say. That. A Law. Which. Allows. People. To. Make. Their. Own. Decisions. Is. Making. Murder. Okay. You. Are. A Liar.

                Voluntary euthanasia has nothing to do with “codifying” murder of people who are old or terminally ill.

                You might as well argue that we shouldn’t have a law on self defence, because that just makes murdering people easier.

  7. AnnaLiviaPluraBella 7
    28 April 2012 at 9:23 am

    An Epsom by-election: what strategy should Labour have?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      28 April 2012 at 12:26 pm

      Push the Conservatives to win.

      • QoT 7.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 2:12 pm

        My brain isn’t working ’cause it’s a Saturday: if Labour/Greens just went super-low-key, and allowed Goldsmith or whoever National stand to go basically unchallenged, thus rendering the National/Act agreement void … what policies would this affect by not allowing National to say “Oh no, we have to do this ’cause it’s in our agreement, we’re not rabid free market lucrephiles at all!”? Obviously charter schools is one, but that’s already underway so they can claim the trial is a Total Success and carry on …

  8. millsy 8
    28 April 2012 at 9:30 am

    Downer DEI snaps up the Auckland Council facilities maintanance contract

    My issues as follows

    1) Why didnt local firms get the tender
    2) Why doesnt the council just bring the work in-house.

    • Gareth 8.1
      28 April 2012 at 11:04 am

      Because its a competitive tender, quite possibly lowest conforming price. Also the contracts are made so large that only huge companies have the means to take them on. This is a mistake as small firms can often do a better job at a lower price if the contracts are of an approachable size. I know that a s,all firm is able to be around 25% cheaper and won.tproice gouge variation work.

    • muzza 8.2
      28 April 2012 at 11:15 am

      1) Why didnt local firms get the tender – Can’t see anything in the article that indicated it was not. Non tender procurement at AKL Council require special committee sign off, and will be available in meeting minutes etc in council website – More interesting questios would be,

      ” Who was the work with previously, and what is the difference in the cost of the work awarded to Downer?”

      2) Why doesnt the council just bring the work in-house. – Auckland Transport is CCO, it has been segregated off, has its own IT infrastructure, and support services. The reader can speculate why this was done, and where it might be heading. So far as bringing it back in house….not going to happen under the current arrangements!

      • millsy 8.2.1
        28 April 2012 at 1:22 pm

        Auckland Transport should do its work in-house — it being a CCO and all. It should even be able to purchase and operate its own buses.

    • DH 8.3
      28 April 2012 at 12:11 pm

      We don’t have (m)any local firms big enough, Aussies have bought them all. A large part of the Aus investment in NZ has been buying into the service sector that supports councils and govt. It’s a very lucrative market and the Aussies are no fools when it comes to business. The new PPP school in Hobsonville has a maintenance contract to another Aus company.

      Councils won’t bring it back in-house, the CEOs & upper management would have to earn their pay then. Can’t have that.

      (if we had a council with a conscience and any sort of competence they’d break the tenders up into smaller job lots so the Kiwi sub-contractors who end up doing the work anyway will be able to tender for the work directly)

      • Gareth 8.3.1
        28 April 2012 at 12:32 pm

        Funnily enough I know of one that has due to the frustration of dealing with the likes of Downers… Interestingly several contracts now cost less than they did between six or nine years ago even though the scope of work has barely changed.
        I am also aware that there is significant price gouging going on within contract variations with council officers signing off on work which is costing @ 3 times the industry average even though the are allowed to seek an alternative price if they the feel the quoted price is two high. I have seen one accepted variation price where the council was paying $250m3 for topsoil to be supplied and spread. (Usually this would be around the $100 mark give or take $10)
        Funnily enough there are some council officers running around in some pretty smart gear supplied by said company…

      • millsy 8.3.2
        28 April 2012 at 1:28 pm

        In the case of parks and playgrounds, I dont see why the community itself shouldnt be ‘contracted’ to maintain them through domain boards (as is the case with smaller councils).

      • Draco T Bastard 8.3.3
        28 April 2012 at 3:46 pm

        We don’t have (m)any local firms big enough

        Don’t count on it. I used to work for one of the local “small” outfits that did work for ACC, WCC and SCC. The big problem seems to be that the small firms want to be paid at the end of the work/week and the council wants to pay them every 6 months and for the company to carry all the expenses in between which, of course, small companies/sole traders can’t do.

  9. muzza 9
    28 April 2012 at 9:43 am

    More spin and BS for the sheep, about the mythical Al Queda

    What amazed me was the fact that they were able to state Ayman al-Zawahri, was the new leader almost immediately after the story made up about OBL having been killed…

    No mention of the fact that AQ are in Libya, Syria, Egypt and being used as the “freedon fighters, Free Syrian Army, Lybian Rebels”, and the like….

    “US intelligence officials say almost a year after the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda is essentially gone, but its affiliates still present a threat to the US homeland”

    — Yes of course they are now gone, this from the same people who seemingly could not stop the 911 attacks. If I were in America I would be rather nervy about the officials stating that “its affiliates still present a threat in the US homeland” – Better step up the police state , quick fast!

    Baaaaaa

  10. Julian 10
    28 April 2012 at 10:38 am

    Shearer appears to be on his way to oblivion. The Mount Albert by election with foot in mouth disease Melissa Lee already had tell tale signs of Shearer’s ineptness at debates and this trait has more or less remained for Shearer after being installed as Leader of the opposition. His supposedly “ground breaking” speeches were an unfortunate lurch to the right and for me, this alienated more left voters. Glad those speeches sank like a stone. I think the credibility of the people who masterminded Shearer’s rise and strategic direction must be called into question! It is unfathomable that National is still polling so high despite the fiascos they have been embroiled in. It is more a reflection of an inept opposition than anything else.

    The question now, I think is, will the subsequent blood letting in the labour ranks allow Cunliffe to shore up enough support for a good tilt at the leadership? He was the obvious choice for some of us from the onset of the race but the idiotic right faction of labour had won out to install a dud of an opposition leader. Also of equal importance, will the bid for a new leader result in the electorate coming away with a strong sense that Labour is unstable and in a state of constant flux? Transitioning to a new leader with perceived minimal in fighting will be so critical to its electoral success. Hopefully, cohesive policy ideas and strong selling of the messages will follow under new leadership.

    Grant Robertson is capable and has proved to be very effective in the house but I somehow think that New Zealand is not ready for a gay opposition leader let alone a gay prime minister. So his time might come but perhaps in the distant future?

    I wonder if there are any left field alternatives to Cunliffe or Robertson but they are the most obvious front runners? Perhaps Cunliffe as leader and Robertson as deputy will result in a dynamite duo that will send National scurrying for cover?

    • Carol 10.1
      28 April 2012 at 10:47 am

      Andrew Little?

      • bad12 10.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 11:22 am

        Andrew Little???, I would say no,while Andrew has the unblemished credentials of the left I don’t see Him as having the presence,(at this time),needed in a Prime Minister,

        Both Cunliffe and Robertson have a good amount of that undefinable ”it”,the personal and television presence capable of holding the attention of viewers/listeners for the length of time needed for the message being delivered to sink in,

        Either way round Cunliffe/Robertson, Robertson/Cunliffe there obviously has to be a change sooner or later as, sadly, Shearer seems to not have the mana to move voters in any direction except to maybe have them asking who???,

        Its interesting that the point of Robertson’s sexuality has been introduced to the discussion, being one of the decreasing number of hetero males in this world when asked if I would consider changing my vote back to Labour on the strength of a Cunliffe/Robertson ticket,(or vice versa),I would have to say yes and sexuality doesn’t enter my thoughts at all,

        My view is that if they are going to again change Leaders, Labour need do so sooner rather than later…

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          28 April 2012 at 11:32 am

          Let Andrew Little do a full term as an MP first eh (something Shearer never got); don’t kill off good talent by putting it in unwinnable situations that they do not have enough experience for.

        • Uturn 10.1.1.2
          28 April 2012 at 11:47 am

          Little may not have what is normally expected in PM “presence”, but then neither does Shearer, and to be frank, focussing on “PM presence” is what has led our style of politics down the garden path to the compost heap. Little is a lot closer to anything Left, than Cunliffe. If Cunliffe became leader, he’d only be part of a pointless holding pattern for Labour. Andrew Little’s brusque, matter-of-fact attitude when on the attack could also win a fair bit of average man support and if the old crew want to maintain the eloquent theatrics of parliament, well there are all the other MPs for that. Being short and to the point might even make him look more in control by comparison.

          It may be a moot point though, since finding necessary internal support for him is unlikely and unless Labour experience a road to Damascus moment soon, the Labour party will be an exhausted political power in a few years anyway. Their inexorable move to the Right has reached the point of no return.

          I agree about the Robertson/gay comments. It has no relevance whatsoever to the job and sadly only reveals how conservative Labour supporters have become by suggesting it is an issue. It’s another case of Labour giving up the advantage to, what I’m fairly sure is, a small minority in NZ. Realistically, even the most rabid right-wing bigot wouldn’t give a shit if your policies made him rich. I mean, of all the things you can promote about a candidate, the best they can come up with is “…he could be the first gay PM…”? Yeah, that’ll stop our assets being stripped.

          • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.2.1
            28 April 2012 at 12:28 pm

            If Cunliffe became leader, he’d only be part of a pointless holding pattern for Labour.

            Nah mate you’re 110% wrong on this.

            • Uturn 10.1.1.2.1.1
              28 April 2012 at 12:34 pm

              Expand?

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 April 2012 at 1:10 pm

                Cunliffe has the personal backing of a lot of the hardest, smartest and most experienced activists around the country. And he won’t be afraid to call on these activists to help break the Labour Rut the party is experiencing at the moment.

                Further, Cunliffe has the best economic grasp in caucus IMO. Transitioning from neoliberalism will be very difficult and you do not want someone in the leadership spot who has very little idea of what that will entail.

                Finally, only a few in the Labour caucus have thought through extensively what peak oil and peak resource extraction actually means for NZ this year, next year and the year after. He has.

                Finally, Cunliffe can speak and speak very well. Both of the cuff, and from experience as a senior Minister. Vital in times ahead.

                • QoT …
                  28 April 2012 at 2:26 pm

                  I’m totally biased as a former West Aucklander, but I completely agree. More to the point, narrow down Labour to people who have a few terms behind them, but weren’t elected before people who will be able to vote in 2014 were born, for Christ’s sake, hold or recently have held an electorate (though I await the day a list-only MP becomes PM) and your other choices are:

                  Clayton Cosgrove
                  David Parker
                  Parekura Horomia

                  … not a lineup that fills my soul with glee (though I think Parker would make a great finance backup for Cunliffe).

                • Treetop …
                  28 April 2012 at 5:36 pm

                  When Shearer was made leader and Robertson was made deputy I thought that this combo was too similar as both have strengths in humanitarian work. I wanted Cunliffe to be the leader due to having “the best economic grasp in caucus” as you put it.

                  There are two main problems in NZ, economic direction and poverty. Cunliffe needs to replace Shearer as leader and Shearer needs to be made deputy. Both deserve these positions as both are the most experienced in these roles; economic direction has to be strong to support and eradicate those living in poverty.

            • seeker 10.1.1.2.1.2
              28 April 2012 at 8:03 pm

              +111% Colonial V!

        • felix 10.1.1.3
          28 April 2012 at 1:14 pm

          “My view is that if they are going to again change Leaders, Labour need do so sooner rather than later…”

          Yes bad12, the sooner the better. A lot of us were saying the same thing this time last cycle, but they didn’t listen. Did they fuck.

          Wonder if they’ll listen now.

          Cunliffe has sound Labour principles, the ability to express them quickly and simply, a proven track record of campaigning, a detailed understanding of policy, a sharp wit, a good head for numbers, a lot of heart, and a bit of mongrel too.

          Unfortunately these are considered “negatives” in current Labour strategy circles.

          • Vicky32 10.1.1.3.1
            29 April 2012 at 5:14 pm

            Cunliffe has sound Labour principles, the ability to express them quickly and simply, a proven track record of campaigning, a detailed understanding of policy, a sharp wit, a good head for numbers, a lot of heart, and a bit of mongrel too.

            I’ve asked so many times that I have lost count by now, but never had so much as a **** off in response – someone please tell me, what do you all have against Shearer? As I pointed out and I was ignored every time, quotes of his supposed right wing views were false as a link to his real speech showed. So someone tell me, why is Shearer considered so awful? I really would appreciate an answer.

            • felix 10.1.1.3.1.1
              29 April 2012 at 6:18 pm

              I don’t have anything against Shearer.

              But I don’t have anything in particular in favour of him either, and that’s the trouble.

              A bit like Steely Dan.

              • Vicky32 …
                29 April 2012 at 6:20 pm

                I don’t have anything against Shearer.

                At last, a response! Thank you… 🙂
                Others positively despise him, from what I read here, and I can’t fathom why, given that, as I’ve previously said, he was massively mis-quoted here…

                • felix …
                  29 April 2012 at 6:41 pm

                  I don’t know that I’ve seen people express anything that would suggest they despise him – I’m not sure he arouses that level of emotional response. I think what you’re seeing is people who don’t much like the type of politics they think he represents.

                  The type where instead of campaigning on your principles and policies you campaign on being the most cordial bloke, the type where you don’t speak your truths in case someone disagrees with you.

                  But that’s not despising the man – as far as I can tell most people who come across him seem to think he’s very nice.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    29 April 2012 at 6:44 pm

                    they think he represents.

                    I think that’s the key phrase there.  Part of the problem is that even Standardistas go by what the msn says about Shearer, not what he actually says! 
                    He’s my local MP and he certainly is strong in campaigning for people in his electorate.

                    • felix …
                      29 April 2012 at 6:50 pm

                      Yes I chose that phrasing deliberately.

                      I have no doubt that he’s an honest, hardworking MP.

                    • Carol …
                      29 April 2012 at 7:17 pm

                      I don’t dislike Shearer, but I do prefer Cunliffe. Cunliffe has been my electorate MP, and he also works hard for the people in his electorate. We only have what they say, as reported in the MSM, but also as on Red Alert etc.

                      Cunliffe isn’t perfect either, but I think it was a VERY big risk to pick a leader who is so inexperienced. I’m not totally clear what Shearer stands for but Cunliffe has been very clear on what he stands for, and comes across very well in interviews on radio or TV.

                      Shearer may turn out to be a good leader, but it still remains uncertain and risky, IMO.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      29 April 2012 at 7:26 pm

                      Shearer may turn out to be a good leader, but it still remains uncertain and risky, IMO.

                      Carol, don’t you think that playing into the hands of the media and the RW by demanding his removal is equally risky? AFAIK, in fact I think I read something to this effect just today, it’s the Greenies here who want rid of him. As I’ve said, I don’t trust them, too many are blue-greens..

                    • QoT …
                      29 April 2012 at 7:31 pm

                      Yeah, shut up, Carol, Vicky’s experience and opinions are objective truth and anyone who disagrees is just a hater, and probably a man!

                      After all, if there’s anything you can really say about the non-Labour-aligned writers at The Standard, it’s that they (we) are just pawns of the mainstream media and secretly support National. *sincere nod*

                    • felix …
                      29 April 2012 at 7:32 pm

                      Remember though Vicky, the media and the RW played a large role in installing him as leader. If Labour was ever playing into their hands, it was then.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      29 April 2012 at 7:36 pm

                      Yeah, shut up, Carol, Vicky’s experience and opinions are objective truth and anyone who disagrees is just a hater, and probably a man!

                      Sigh… here he/she is again! Feeling bereft of attention are we deary? I was asking Carol’s opinion, not yours, I want to talk to the organ grinder not the monkey…

                    • QoT …
                      29 April 2012 at 7:40 pm

                      Yes, Vicky, I’m sure your question, which served chiefly to push your own personal views about Shearer’s leadership, was completely sincere and not in any way a “shut up or I’ll tell everyone you’re just a pawn” manoeuvre.

                      And I’m not sure how Carol can be my organ grinder, since I don’t think we’ve met …

                      And finally, it’s getting a little embarrassing how you keep thinking calling me “him” is a clever move, and definitely not convincing anyone in the “look how little I care about QoT” stakes.

                      Me, I just keep ridin’ ya because your lack of depth is funny and it’s Sunday evening.

        • seeker 10.1.1.4
          28 April 2012 at 8:00 pm

          “Both Cunliffe and Robertson have a good amount of that undefinable ”it”,the personal and television presence capable of holding the attention of viewers/listeners for the length of time needed for the message being delivered to sink in…..”

          I think Cunliffe has more “it” than Robertson, particularly the way he has handled the last few months.

    • just saying 10.2
      28 April 2012 at 10:53 am

      This is shaping up to be a remarkable rerun of the first term of opposition in many ways. Questions about Goff destabilised Labour for three years. Goff as leader, and the strategy the leadership team doggedly followed (and continue to follow) were disastrous. Everyone knew it. It fed continuous leadership coup rumours and was pretty embarrassing to watch. Now we have a new naked emperor who appears to be (I’m sure completely legally) in some kind of altered state of consciousness, and the same group-think team baby-sitting him.

    • Bill 10.3
      28 April 2012 at 11:11 am

      Transitioning to a new leader with perceived minimal in fighting will be so critical to its electoral success.

      Okay. Sod all the back stabbing and shitty behaviour that tends to mark power struggles. But if there is an effort to get a new leader up and running while presenting a facade of civility then doesn’t that just play into the hands of behind the scenes politiking?

      I’d rather have robust debates right out there in the public arena on the grounds that it’s far more ‘honest’ and neuters the back room power brokers to some extent or other.

      • KJT 10.3.1
        28 April 2012 at 11:29 am

        I havn’t been a Labour supporter for some time. My hope is that the Greens become the left party of record.

        But. From outside. Cunliffe and Robertson appear to be the only credible leadership possibility.
        Closely supported by some of the excellent youthful talent coming up.

        There needs to be a cleanout of the right leaning dross, including Pagani. I don’t even know why he is even in Labour. Maybe a National party plant?? 🙂

        • bad12 10.3.1.1
          28 April 2012 at 1:29 pm

          Perhaps us lot, the ex-Labour vote are being way to pedantic in our focus upon that party,and, perhaps being just more than a little spot mischievious to boot,

          Should Labour hold firm to the recently selected Shearer/Robinson leadership then perhaps We, looking in from outside the party should except that as the modern Labour party representing a left vision that ‘we’ cannot connect with,

          Obviously tho some 30% of the electorate do make that connection and my belief is that such support is garnered mostly from within the middle class of our society, in reaching that conclusion one has to remember that such occupations such as nursing,teaching,and,(even)being a wharfie in the scale of wages and salaries can now be considered to be middle class,

          Those of us who either left Labour or had Labour leave us who remain politically switched on have moved to the Green Party who in any post-election negotiation only need adhere to their policy’s and principles to in effect move Labour to the left,

      • Colonial Viper 10.3.2
        28 April 2012 at 11:35 am

        Bill. I agree. There has to be ideological and political blood spilt for the electorate to be convinced of true renewal and not just another beltway, stage managed transition to the face of the day.

      • lprent 10.3.3
        28 April 2012 at 12:31 pm

        Bill, I realize that you aren’t exactly a NZLP supporter and I must apologize for the moron journos at the herald and other places for brushing you and the other (left but not Labour party supporter) authors as being NZLP supporters. That includes whoever wrote the article in the herald this morning. They do have some pretty severe comprehension problems when they can’t encapsulate the left in a headline.

        We have already had the leadership debate for this term. In my opinion, there is no electoral advantage in having challenges except immediately after an election. The only people who seem to get off on them are the rather excitable media, people who don’t campaign in an organized way, and hysterics on the right. That was an still is my view with both Goff and Shearer because in the end it is the party that should be making the running. A leader (like MP’s) is a representative of that party… The NZLP strategists damn near airbrushed Goff out of the strategy last election – and it still didn’t make that much of an impression on results. The lack of strategy on targeting par Ty votes was much more of an issue.

        But I haven’t seen any authors associated with Labour calling for a leadership challenge or even any authors. Not that many NZLP commentators either – most of the noise is actually from people who aren’t their supporters. The NZLP leaning authors have been saying it is a bloody silly idea at every level. Which is what the posts have actually been about…

        That isn’t to say that we won’t criticize any parties strategies. After all how else are the politicians going to learn to live with social media. And besides which, I think it is healthy.

        Bit naive of David to let the Herald journos to spin him up that way this morning. But what the hell. If we aren’t irritating someone then we aren’t doing our task.

        • Ad 10.3.3.1
          28 April 2012 at 7:07 pm

          Aggrieved as I was with the leadership result, and I don’t mind being flattered by VP as a one of the Cunliffe core, I agree with you. We have who we have so make the best of it.

  11. Ianupnorth 11
    28 April 2012 at 11:39 am

    Here’s an interesting little piece that have been missed during the Qantas action across the ditch; I can only think of the parallels with POAL and Talley’s

    http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/up-up-and-away-how-money-power-works-down-under

  12. Molly Polly 12
    28 April 2012 at 11:49 am

    Cunliffe/Mahuta.

    It’s imperative we have women and Maori represented in leaderships positions.

    Two men at the top is not a good look. So National.

    Watch women and Maori finally give up on Labour if that happens and move over to the Greens.
    Metiria Turei as co-leader ticks all the boxes.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      28 April 2012 at 12:11 pm

      It may not be a “good look” to you that National has had two white men at the top of their party for the last 2.5 terms, and it may not have been a good look to you that they have had very few women in their top 10 bench positions for most of that time.

      But most NZers don’t really seem to care two hoots about that, as long as they think that the political party concerned has a strong grasp of the issues, and is doing a capable and competent job of leading the country.

      Metiria Turei as co-leader ticks all the boxes.

      Sorry Labour, but it’s time to learn that very large portions of the electorate definitely don’t give a shit about candidates who “tick all the (Left’s) boxes”. They just want to see competence, leadership and vision.

      BTW I was a very strong supporter of the Cunliffe/Mahuta ticket, and remain so.

      • Kevin Welsh 12.1.1
        28 April 2012 at 7:38 pm

        Yes, yes, yes.

        Clark and Cullen were a formidable because of their ability, not gender.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    28 April 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Spain bans cash transactions in business

    http://thedailybell.com/3814/Spain-Bans-Cash

    Lots of concerns for civil liberties here as governments and corporations will be able to (further) track everything you do, where you do it, and who you do it with.

    • freedom 13.1
      28 April 2012 at 12:52 pm

      ahh, displaying the craftsmanship of incrementalism at its finest.

    • muzza 13.2
      28 April 2012 at 2:12 pm

      Same play that Monti is trying to introduce into Italy….

      Yes this is the real stage setting attempts to remove cash…

      It started in the Louisiana USA, with a ban on cash for second hand goods!

    • Treetop 13.3
      28 April 2012 at 4:58 pm

      More bad news to have come from Spain in the last day.

      25% unemployment (highest ever).
      Back in recession.
      Standard & Poors have down graded Spain’s soverign debt.

      • Colonial Viper 13.3.1
        28 April 2012 at 6:18 pm

        Maybe cutting even more jobs, taking even more money out of communities and workers’ pockets, selling off even more productive assets and taking on even more bankers’ debt today to repay make tomorrow’s repayments to those same bankers will work.

        Or not.

    • Ianupnorth 13.4
      28 April 2012 at 7:34 pm

      Although it could be said it will stop business people fiddling the state of taxes?

  14. captain hook 14
    28 April 2012 at 12:13 pm

    I see David Shearer getting another pasting in the Dompost this morning.
    By and large they are right.
    He is tentative, has no grasp of the larger issues and is surrounded by a coterie of professional liggers who know the answer to everything but never achieve anything except holding onto their own jobs.
    and they use too much soap.

  15. Draco T Bastard 15
    28 April 2012 at 1:06 pm

    ‘Low value of vote, lack of trust’ key to poor election turnout

    A third of non-voters said they did not trust politicians, and a third said there was no point voting because polls had indicated the result was a foregone conclusion.

    More and more reason to get rid of or change polling.

    • KJT 15.1
      28 April 2012 at 1:16 pm

      All the more reason to have democracy.

      Making referendums binding would be a good start.

    • bad12 15.2
      28 April 2012 at 1:52 pm

      Aha,I have made mention of this befor,specially in relation to the I Predict type polling of NZFirst leading up to the 2011 election,

      Commenting on another web-site at the time, I was constantly harangued by commenters from the right who claimed NZFirst could not reach the 5% of the party vote needed for that party to re-enter the Parliament,

      My calculations of NZFirst support published on that web-site as 6.2%–12% of the party vote was based upon the %s of manipulation I detected on that I Predict web-site,

      The 2011 election was conducted with that underlying message,(successfully) used by the ‘right’ throughout the campaign that it was a done deal, National would govern alone and voting NZfirst was a wasted vote,

      The media polls leading up to 2011 simply reinforced that unwritten campaign and it is my belief that such media polling was,(and still is),focused upon using the margin of error in helping deliver the ”its a done deal” message to voters,

      Simply by ascribing to National the high end of the % within the margin of error and ascribing to Labour/Greens/NZFirst the % as calculated from the low end of the margin of error is such a perception created,

      Another 6% of those enrolled to do so did not vote in 2011, the Electoral commission’s research would tend to suggest that 30% of that 6% did not cast a vote on the basis of ”its a done deal” which in turn was based upon what i truly believe to be dishonest manipulation of those media polls,

      In effect, I see a clinic full of cynics,trying to twist the peoples wrists,they watch every move we make,we are all included upon their lists,

      Seems to work for them as well…

  16. captain hook 16
    28 April 2012 at 6:08 pm

    msn poll on private or public prisons was strongly in favour of public but over the day it began to swing to private.
    any ideas kiddies?

  17. Tony P 17
    28 April 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Banks and his campaign donations, bus driver getting murdered anti asset sales march-what does One News lead off with tonight. The death of a former All Black. Sure it’s news but the lead story?

  18. Salsy 18
    28 April 2012 at 7:48 pm

    So looks like United Future are now polling people to see who actually support asset sales –
    “We understand clearly that the only reason for our existence is to represent the voice of the people in our parliament. We believe that any party that is not constantly in touch with the views of the people is simply not doing its job. “…

    http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/do-you-support-john-keys-proposal-for-the/poll.do

    78% Say
    No

    Will he listen?
    What will the hair do?

    • deuto 18.1
      28 April 2012 at 8:38 pm

      Well, that was interesting. Popped over to the link and duly voted – result was 80.3% NO against asset sales, but not indication of how many votes that represented. Also there appeared to be only two comments – one in Oct 2011 and the other in Dec 2011. So this raises in my mind how long this poll has been running and how many people have voted as well as the obvious – will Dunne actually take note of the results.

  20. Anne 20
    28 April 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Thank-you CV. Best laugh of the day.

  22. Carol 22
    29 April 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Vicky, up-thread (have run out of reply buttons up there. I voted Cunliffe + Green Party for several years. If Cunliffe had been chosen leader I would have been more likely to look at voting Labour again.

    One of the things that puts me off the Labour Party in general, is that they have spent too much time pandering to the MSM opinions, rather than standing up for their principles – too much neoliberal-style managerialism.

    The Greens still are closer to their principles…. although not as much as they use to be. I will be chosing between Green and Mana next election (unless Labour does some big turn-around).

    • Carol 22.1
      29 April 2012 at 7:54 pm

      PS: I haven’t been very active in recent threads debating Shearer’s leadership.

    • Vicky32 22.2
      29 April 2012 at 8:04 pm

      too much neoliberal-style managerialism.

      Ah, thanks, I understand! That’s what I wanted to know… 🙂