Open mike 28/11/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 28th, 2011 - 161 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…

161 comments on “Open mike 28/11/2011”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    28 November 2011 at 6:14 am

    Well the people have spoken.

    Labour got a bit of a towelling on Saturday. I have been, as therapy, analysing some of the figures and there are some interesting features to them and also, I believe cause for medium term optimism. The features include:

    1. Low turnout. The continuous stream of negative poll results and adverse media effect had its effect on Labour supporters who just stayed home.

    2. Labour dipped substantially in the Maori electorates where the presence of the Mana Party sucked up valuable party votes.

    3. The NZ First phenomenon clearly had an effect of Labour’s support base where a number voted strategically to make sure NZ First was over the line. My gut feeling is that this could have been as high as 3% of the total vote. The Greens pretty well account for the rest of the loss.

    4. In Auckland the result was relatively good. Labour’s support declined on average by less than 4%.

    5. South Auckland performed very well with a swing towards Labour. Mangere was the standout with a 10% swing. Sua William Sio and the Mangere organisation did really well.

    6. Christchurch suffered a cataclysmic downturn in support with a 10.6 overall swing against Labour and turnout noticeably dipping. The effect of the earthquake and people’s response to it obviously need more analysis but at this stage it looks like Labour has to do a major rebuilding job. Despite the swing Dalziel and Dyson did well and held their seats and Clayton Cosgrove only just dipped out. The party vote in his electorate was especially strong for National and given this his performance was incredibly good.

    7. The counting of special votes will be interesting. Jacinda Ardern probably will not swing Auckland Central back but Carmel Sepuloni still has a chance in Waitakere of unseating Bennett. And if we can knock off one more tory MP the figures get that much tighter to manage.

    • Pete George 1.1
      28 November 2011 at 7:27 am

      1. Low turnout. The continuous stream of negative poll results and adverse media effect had its effect on Labour supporters who just stayed home.

      Maybe, just maybe, it’s not everyone else’s fault.
      Maybe, just maybe, Labour is not attracting and inspiring Labour voters.

      Have you given any thought to that? Maybe Labour has disillusioned too many ex-supporters.

      Dunedin has previously strongly supported Labour, but there are very worrying signs. Clare Curran has already been put on notice (not by me).

      • kriswgtn 1.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 7:34 am

        Have you given any thought to answering my questions??

        o btw the letter I wrote condoning your behavior should be hitting your hairpiece wiggy by tuesday or wednesday

        thats right a letter so he cant say he never got it

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 9:42 am

          Condoning or condemning?

          • kriswgtn 1.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2011 at 10:21 am

            both

            as a prospective MP he had no right to blog his vicious bullshit on THIS site
            IF he wants to bag beneficiaries then do it on his poor blog

            • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2011 at 11:06 am

              The ‘vicious bullshit ‘ was suggesting that beneficiaries who deservedly need assistance would be better off if they were helped more, not just with money but with education opportunities and assistance with things like budgeting and how to provide good nutrition on a budget, and that the minority abuses that are occurring were addressed more effectively.

              • Vicky32 …
                28 November 2011 at 5:39 pm

                The ‘vicious bullshit ‘ was suggesting that beneficiaries who deservedly need assistance would be better off if they were helped more, not just with money but with education opportunities and assistance with things like budgeting and how to provide good nutrition on a budget, and that the minority abuses that are occurring were addressed more effectively.

                How stupid do you think we are? That’s not what you said and you know it.

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1.2
              28 November 2011 at 11:28 am

              You realise that condone and condemn are polar opposites?

      • mickysavage 1.1.2
        28 November 2011 at 7:36 am

        Um Pete.

        The turnout was low. People stayed at home and did not vote.

        And when you are active in a party that has standing and electoral gravitas I will give your thoughts proper consideration.

        • Pete George 1.1.2.1
          28 November 2011 at 7:40 am

          “And when you are active in a party that has standing and electoral gravitas I will give your thoughts proper consideration.”

          That arrogance sums up one of Labour’s major problems, probably their biggest problem.

          And full of irony.

          • The Voice of Reason 1.1.2.1.1
            28 November 2011 at 7:52 am

            Er, I would have thought irony was a failed candidate accusing a party 50 times more popular than his own of failing to inspire voters. And isn’t it time you joined the Conservative party, Pete? At least they have a future beyond contributing to Peter Dunne’s retirement fund and may actually get some list candidates elected next time.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.1.1
              28 November 2011 at 7:56 am

              Pete George will shortly be joining any party who will have him. A candidate truly worthy of following in Peter Dunne’s political footsteps.

            • Pete George 1.1.2.1.1.2
              28 November 2011 at 8:01 am

              Conservatives are not my thing at all. Far too narrow.

              My main focus now is continuing to build a strong cross party (and non party) voice for Dunedin. Regional politics rather than party politics, current party politics is failing Dunedin as indicated by the abysmal voter turnout.

              And as per usual here the personal attacks divert from Labour’s denial problem. It’s everyone else’s fault.

              • Afewknowtheturth …
                28 November 2011 at 8:29 am

                PG.

                The problem with Disunited No Future is that nobody knows what they actually stand for -other than hyposcisy, looting the planet, denialism and opportunitsm.

                I think it is a great shame that there are still sufficient numbers of uninformed, deluded people around for UF to still exist. The same applies to ACT, of course.

                • logie97 …
                  28 November 2011 at 10:11 pm

                  Last night I wrote this on OpenMike

                  (Update He missed by one – he was second up this morning – seems he is still trying to campaign)

                  Quote
                  logie97 34
                  27 November 2011 at 10:22 pm
                  Who was that guy Pete George who appeared to be using this blog as a platform for his own ends.?

                  Now that the ballot has closed and the dust virtually settled, perhaps he will disappear and allow reasonable discourse to resume in these columns. I guess we won’t know till we open up “OpenMike” in the morning to see whether he is still trying to be first poster. Obviously not many of his beloved UF followers read these pages (or maybe they followed him here and saw each and every one of his arguments put in their place …) Dunne holds on just. What a joke.

          • mik e 1.1.2.1.2
            28 November 2011 at 4:36 pm

            Purile git hopefully next election when the 1 man band takes some more party votes of Nationa that don’t count it will be hard to imagine with an idiot like you promoting them 132 votes wow thats a successful campaign!
            But dunne is nearly finished 3 more years of a no growth economy and he and National will be dunne for.

    • Brooklyn 1.2
      28 November 2011 at 8:44 am

      8. Most of the Nat gain is via ACTs collapse, no paradigm shift and certainly not the grand mandate they’re claiming so if the Greens can hold their support there is be a strong and natural left coalition in the wings.

    • ianmac 1.3
      28 November 2011 at 9:42 am

      Labour’s support base where a number voted strategically to make sure NZ First was over the line.
      Yes. I thought long and hard about voting strategically for NZF but in the end I couldn’t. It didn’t seem possible that Labour could win this time but NZF could become a spoiler and damn near did.

    • side show bob 1.4
      28 November 2011 at 11:47 am

      What a load of tosh. Labour failed in it’s policy’s, failed with it’s candidates and now fail to see the error of their ways. Why did so many stay away, try no passion, no inspiration to start with. You guys just don’t get it, fortuitously most Kiwi’s do. Perhaps it was because of polices like money for working for nothing. Perhaps it was the same dumb candidates that believe the only way to voters hearts are to bribe them with other peoples money.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1
        28 November 2011 at 12:03 pm

        …the only way to voters hearts are to bribe them with other peoples money.

        That sounds like NAct. They’re the ones causing major a deficit blow-out through their unaffordable tax cuts.

      • William Joyce 1.4.2
        28 November 2011 at 12:09 pm

        “money for working for nothing.”
        Side Show Bob – Try to pay attention. There is a discrimination case(s) working its way through the system that has a good chance of finding that there is discrimination in not offering WFF to beneficiaries.
        Which leaves two choices to any government cough up the dosh for benes or axe the scheme altogether.
        Do you think for one minute Mr “I need to be love” Key would have campaigned on axing WFF?

      • mikesh 1.4.3
        28 November 2011 at 3:47 pm

        Ronald McDonald’s understudy is only able to form a government because of the rorts in Epsom and Ohariu.

      • mik e 1.4.4
        28 November 2011 at 8:28 pm

        Side show bob other peoples money coming Debt from overseas at high interest and higher if [Greek European proportions] national fail to get the economy growing at more than the 0.1% it has under the dipstick.National will need to grow the economy at more than 2.5% to start paying off Debt at more than interest costs we are paying 6% for our debt the US 2.5%.The exodus to Australia will gather pace a lot of young ones I know are not waiting for another 3 years of National that includes one of my children if the CHCH rebuild doesn’t get under way soon my other child and husband and 3 grandchildren have gone already.

  2. Jenny 2
    28 November 2011 at 6:40 am

    8. David Parker’s 6,000 votes allowed ACT into parliament.

    9. Goff’s support for 15% GST dismayed Labour grass roots activists.

    10. Labour’s call to raise the retirement age to 67 alienated older workers.

    11. Labour’s unanimous vote to excuse police law breaking against Tuhoe angered Maori voters.

    • weka 2.1
      28 November 2011 at 9:13 am

      12. The Greens enabled Paula Bennett keeping her electorate seat.

    • Lanthanide 2.2
      28 November 2011 at 9:43 am

      I support 15% GST. Consumption taxes are good. The problem is that National cut taxes to the top 10%, not the bottom 50% as was required.

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        28 November 2011 at 1:34 pm

        And in fact it was only the top 2% who got the really big tax cuts ($120K pa and over)

      • Vicky32 2.2.2
        28 November 2011 at 5:57 pm

        I support 15% GST. Consumption taxes are good

        I assume that’s because you don’t have a family, and you do have a high income. Consumption taxes harm the poor, because they spend everything they get, whereas the rich save their money.

        • Lanthanide 2.2.2.1
          28 November 2011 at 6:41 pm

          Try reading past the first two sentences. A rise in GST should be engineered so that those in the bottom 50% end up with a real tax cut, after price rises, while everyone else pays more.

          • Colonial Viper 2.2.2.1.1
            28 November 2011 at 6:46 pm

            Increasing a regressive tax like GST makes it extremely difficult to raise top end taxes enough to create a bottomline progressive change.

            Why don’t you just decrease regressive taxes and increase progressive taxes instead.

            • Lanthanide 2.2.2.1.1.1
              28 November 2011 at 7:32 pm

              Because consumption taxes are taxes on consumption. Consumption = consumerism and destruction of the environment.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 November 2011 at 8:00 pm

                But consumption taxes are also usually regressive ones.

                Why not go for better targetting of consumption taxes? Eg a luxury goods tax.

                If you want to reduce consumption why are you taxing a 2L BMW at the same rate as a 5L BMW?

            • mik e 2.2.2.1.1.2
              28 November 2011 at 10:20 pm

              instead of having a graduated stepped tax system ie 20% to 35% why not have a continually graduated system with computers now it would be easy and would create less poverty traps and resentment from the rich .
              Capital Gains Tax would be more acceptable from the right if business tax was reduced with some of that increase in tax which would encourage the productive sector
              Capital gains should be on all capital gain at a lower rate which would be more acceptable as well
              Small businesses need simpler easier systems computerizing all small businesses systems and having instant gst would reduce paper work needed for small business
              Small businesses are the backbone of employment in this country if their Acc levies and all the govt taxes and rebates were paid as they earned it would save a lot of head aches for small businesses we on the left need to make sure its easy for these businesses to thrive and survive

    • alwyn 2.3
      28 November 2011 at 10:27 am

      You have obviously discovered fraud in the way the election was run.
      David Parker’s 6,000 votes? The organisers of the election only credit Parker with 3,093.
      Quick, who stole the other 2,900 you think he got?

      • mik e 2.3.1
        28 November 2011 at 4:41 pm

        that seat only provided one MP so it was Acts Disaster changing hats half way through the electoral cycle.

    • Boadicea 2.4
      28 November 2011 at 12:15 pm

      see also – excluding the poorest meembers of the community from working for families, the seabed and foreshore act (yes still), the increased gap between rich and poor after 9 years of labour government, and entitlitis that led to labour ministers rorting the system for travel perks, hotel pornography, unfortunate examples of public behaviour, giving large amounts of money to rich people for a boat race, changing school terms for a sports tournament and trevor mallard. In nine years of government all they succeeded in doing was alienating their consituency. Apart from the departure of Cullen and Clark the labour caucus has very few new faces and have borrowed all their new policies from the greens, proving that for them it’s not about integrity but about jumping on popular bandwagons to regain power.

  3. chris73 3
    28 November 2011 at 7:00 am

    Kudos to the grace shown by Goff and most of the posters on here. I fully expected an outpouring of bile and venom about the election result (and had looked for some youtube clips in response) but I’ve been pleasently surprised by the restraint on here.

    So the questions are:

    How long will Goff stay on as leader for and who’ll replace him if he goes?

    • Carol 3.1
      28 November 2011 at 7:19 am

      Answer to your last question: Christmas

      Parker- Robertson is the front runner at present says Vernon Small:

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6045621/Jockeying-starts-as-Goff-set-to-quit

      Cunliffe is non-committal, but is apparently being blamed for not coming up with numbers for Goff quick enough in the campaign. He denies he’s considering runing with Dalziel as deputy.

      Other potential leaders named have included former union leader Andrew Little, who was elected from the party list on Saturday, and Mt Albert MP David Shearer, though it is seen as too soon for both.

      Shane Jones has ruled himself out of leadership contention.

      I can’t say that Parker inspires me at all. He seems very MOR and lacking in passion – too managerial.

      Of the ones mentioned, I’d go for Little (with Ardern). That’d be a lively and energises team, along with Little’s gravitas and ability to think assertively on his feet. Fresh – new, not old-style managerial, has the potential to engage with disengaged struggling workers and poor. And combines with a youthful, female and smart image.

      • mickysavage 3.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 8:07 am

        Carol if you want to see someone who is capable on their feet you cannot go past David Cunliffe.

        IMHO he is the outstanding potential leader and is the one best positioned to take on Key.

        I am disappointed that some within the party are putting out anonymous spin lines in the media. This is not helpful.

        Shame on them.

        • gingercrush 3.1.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 8:17 am

          He’s also negative and I’m not sure he could do a positive campaign. Do Labour really just want to attack John Key in 2014 as they have in 2011 and 2008. Do they want to campaign once again negatively rather than positively?

        • ScottGN 3.1.1.2
          28 November 2011 at 8:50 am

          The problem for Cunliffe is that he will make a very good Finance Minister but good Finance Ministers rarely make good Prime Ministers.

        • Carol 3.1.1.3
          28 November 2011 at 9:19 am

          micky, I like Cunliffe a lot – have given my electorate vote to him in the last couple of elections. I think he is very good on his feet, in the House and with “tough” media interviews. But he also needs to have the support of the majority of the caucus. I wonder if he is personable enough to have wide voter appeal.

          However, RNZ this morning is talking a 2 horse race between Parker and Cunliffe. In that case, I would go for Cunliffe. Parker is too bland and just comes across as a middleclass suit. he’s not going to be able to engage with some of the disengaged battler sections of the electorate. Cunliffe has a certain mongrel appeal.

          But I would have someone softer, more personable and youthful as his deputy – eg Ardern.

        • Lanthanide 3.1.1.4
          28 November 2011 at 9:56 am

          Cunliffe has no charisma.

      • rosy 3.1.2
        28 November 2011 at 10:03 am

        I don’t believe Key will see out the full term. And on that basis I reckon it would be crazy to not remain with Goff – he got profile,experience and kudos for his performance this election. People began to connect with him, and the media grudgingly appreciated him. Absolute madness for him to stand down. Stay, Phil – with Jacinda as deputy. Call the shots – you have the mandate now to do it on your own terms.

    • lprent 3.2
      28 November 2011 at 7:33 am

      Why did you expect that? The right have been somewhat more restrained than in their hysterical witch hunt in 2008. The reaction is consequently less.

      The answer to your question is when he feels it is appropriate, and there will be caucus discussion and a vote. It isn’t a direct party decision – it is a caucus decision.

      • Bored 3.2.1
        28 November 2011 at 7:43 am

        Without being too apocalyptic there are some major sea changes happening out in the wider world that will change how we view the role of the future politician: if Labour are to present any credible alternative they will have to look like saviours of the coming train wreck.

        Moving on Goff now is pointless, better to see who understands the future best and represents it best. None have shown the vision and world awareness they will need, so until somebody does just wait.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 7:53 am

          if Labour are to present any credible alternative they will have to look like saviours of the coming train wreck.

          Small problem. If people actually believed that there were real ‘train wreck’ magnitude problems coming up, they wouldn’t have voted National.

          However, they don’t so they did vote National. Orlov, Kunstler and many others are right. By the time the signals become obvious that BAU is failing badly, it will be too late to do much about it on a Governmental level.

          • Afewknowtheturth 3.2.1.1.1
            28 November 2011 at 8:57 am

            Bored.

            Yes, the financial ‘tsunami’ is ‘tuindering up the beach’ and WILL hit in a matter of months. The peak oil is more akin to a ‘rising sea level’ that will inundate everything over the next few years, and environmental collapse a ‘wild card’ that could hit hard and fast or just erode everything currently people take for granted over the next decade.

            You cannot be ‘too apocalyptic’ because apocalypse actually means uncovering or revealing [of that which has been hidden]. Much WILL be revealed very soon, starting with exposure of the ‘economic growth will save us’ fraud.

            CV.

            Yes, you are right. ‘If people actually believed that there were real ‘train wreck’ magnitude problems coming up, they wouldn’t have voted National.’

            The only consolation is, fewer people are deluded by the flag-waving and fireworks displays than in 2008.

            The real issue is that the time to start preparing for the mess we are now in was over the period 2000 to 2008, when we had a Labour government that was composed of deniers and ‘clowns’, many of whom are still hanging around and giving off bad smells like slowly decomposing cadavers.

    • freedom 3.3
      28 November 2011 at 8:31 am

      “I fully expected an outpouring of bile and venom about the election result”

      It is telling how the bulk of the bile is spewing from the victors, perhaps that well dressed little cricket we all possess is gnawing at their sense of reason?

    • pollywog 3.4
      28 November 2011 at 9:04 am

      How long will Goff stay on as leader for and who’ll replace him if he goes?

      How can anyone go past the dynamic duo of Kris Faafoi and Darien Fenton ???

  4. kriswgtn 4
    28 November 2011 at 7:30 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/business/6045209/Mighty-River-Power-set-to-be-first-on-sell-list

    Mighty River Power, followed by Meridian, Air New Zealand, Genesis and then Solid Energy in that order.

    and so it begins…………………

    • LynW 4.1
      28 November 2011 at 7:40 am

      Heartbreaking!

    • freedom 4.2
      28 November 2011 at 8:32 am

      John Key, spin away but 29% is not a mandate

      • Brooklyn 4.2.1
        28 November 2011 at 8:53 am

        Peters on RNZ yesterday basically said the voters will have to learn the hard way if they insist on voting against their own interests. Quite right, but at what cost?

        • uke 4.2.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 10:58 am

          Most NZers, unfortunately, don’t know their own history very well and have forgotten the lessons of, say, the Great Depression. The next depression – which approaches quickly – will provide many fresh lessons. However, it will be too late as far as our economic sovereignty is concerned, what with the asset sales, TPP, etc.
           
          There will be unrest (5 years?) ahead and I expect NACT will foster closer military ties with the US over the next term. In the long run, they probably won’t want to rely on the NZ Army to enforce the new economic hegemony.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.2
          28 November 2011 at 12:18 pm

          Quite right, but at what cost?

          Two possibilities:- 1) We get another stupid government in that actually pays to get the assets back or 2) we get a government that got the will to just re-appropriate them with no compensation.

          What we will need is the latter. We will probably get the former.

          • uke 4.2.1.2.1
            28 November 2011 at 12:34 pm

            If Labour, NZ First, Greens, Mana, really cared as much about these asset sales as they say, they would have signalled Option (2) pre-election. This would have been adequate warning to any potential investor.

    • In Vino Veritas 4.3
      28 November 2011 at 10:00 am

      As mandated by the people. Democracy in action.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.1
        28 November 2011 at 10:40 pm

        As mandated by what – less than 35% of registered voters? Don’t wank on about democracy when a referendum directly asking about asset sales would have returned at least a 75% NO

    • mik e 4.4
      28 November 2011 at 10:29 pm

      Mighty river is the most profitable SOE so National will see what funds can be raised from it if its a failure they can abandon the sales program and go back to their main policy of borrow and hope!
      Act said they would stop the National party from selling assets if they didn’t get a good price for them!
      Banks sold NZR for nothing to his mates and sold Auckland airport shares to his mates for nothing expect the same again!

  5. Bored 5
    28 November 2011 at 7:38 am

    Monday post election and the wolf packs are salivating:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/6045662/Mighty-River-Power-set-to-be-first-on-sell-list
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/business/6045210/A-good-appetite-for-SOE-shares-likely

    Likely because of the way a million of us just dont care or feel too disenfranchised to bother.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769246

    On this side (a Left blog) its all doom and gloom, especially if you were looking to take the reins of “power” in what is seen as BAU, the steady state growth economy. Well look at this little storm arriving full tilt…

    http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/

    As the world economies plunge into a storm the 1930s would have regarded as a minor blip we blithely hand our fate to a bankster. You can remain amazed at your fellow citizens stupidity and short sightedness BUT thats democracy, no complaints please.

  6. tc 6
    28 November 2011 at 7:45 am

    I’m personally asking anyone who says anything about any party if they voted……that turnout is a very sad apathy indicator so be good to know where the hypocrites are.

    If you didn’t vote you have no right to comment whatsoever IMO……so shut up hold tight and pay attention.

    • Uturn 6.1
      28 November 2011 at 8:11 am

      People don’t vote if they are disenfranchised from the process and outcomes. Try to understand that it is not the same meaning as apathy. Apathy is a measure of inaction. Disenfranchisement is the motive behind a choice of action. Try to understand that those that are disenfrancised will excercise valid complaint by not voting and their complaints will be valid after they also don’t vote.

      If you ignore and attack the disenfranchised, how will you ever grow the voter turnout? Where will your extra voters come from? Will you ship them in? Give everyone else an extra vote?

      If you ignore the disenfranchised you are ignoring those who need information, explanation and assistance. Worse, you are dismissing the core of an active democracy – to engage all people and both sides of every argument.

      And if all else fails, ask yourself, if you were faced with the choice of being ignored by one man or or being ignored by another, which would you choose? What about if the choice was between two men who would oppress you?

      • Jack Beanstalk 6.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 8:31 am

        I have wondered how much pre-election media coverage and polls contribute to voter turn out as I suspect that a number of people fail to vote based on reports of media and polls and coming to a conclusion that their vote is either note needed or will be wasted depending on how exactly the media are covering their preferred party.

      • Afewknowtheturth 6.1.2
        28 November 2011 at 9:22 am

        Uturn.

        Voting papers need to amended to provide the following options for voters to tick:

        1. No candidate in this electorate worthy of my vote.

        2. No political party listed worthy of my vote.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.2.1
          28 November 2011 at 9:25 am

          And another box afterwards to tick that says “I am the centre of the universe, and if you don’t play by my rules I’m going to pack a big sad.”

          • Uturn 6.1.2.1.1
            28 November 2011 at 10:18 am

            What you’re advocating here is that politicans should decide the direction of the Nation, isolated from the people i.e. no democracy. That is why the no vote no complaint slogan is anti-democratic. Generating a paternal attitude about it is pathetic at best, counterproductive at worst.

            Every party in the last election could have gained from at least 25% extra support. They failed to engage those voters. Key would have a true mandate. ACT might not be all but dead. Labour might be in power. The Greens might have been the majority base of a left coalition. NZF might have…. everything would be different. It’s stunning our political parties could be so short sighted – this is an MMP environment.

            An MMP parliament does not mean either National or Labour cabinet, plus some pet coalition partners who get thrown a concession or two. While parties continue to believe that, they can expect to be overrun or corrupted by the majority party of a coalition. If people are increasingly disenfranchised, the old arguments of persuation will no longer work. There is no need to apologise for past regimes if your new presentation explains the basic concepts of why you create particular policy. Not rich vs. poor, not dollar vs. future, not slogan vs. slogan, but what is right and why. No need to sigh over present reality in your campaign ad’s if clear reasoning is present. Then even if a voter does not vote for you, they will vote for your allies. Cement your support. Create dialogue. If the basic concepts behind policy are truely right, they will be right regardless of economic climate.

            Any party that thinks that percentages are all that matter cannot tap into the lost vote.

          • Akldnut 6.1.2.1.2
            28 November 2011 at 10:38 am

            Umm… IMO I believe that kids should be enrolled in year 10 by their high school and there be a mandatory fine/debit of say $100-150 for not voting which could be data linked into IRD for collection.

            That would get all the youth and low income out to vote.

            • rosy 6.1.2.1.2.1
              28 November 2011 at 10:41 am

              The trouble with that is only the dictatorial right would create that sort of system, and they are sooo not interested in the young and the poor voting.

              • Akldnut …
                28 November 2011 at 10:58 am

                (Off the top of my head) Could voting be linked in with a census?

                • William Joyce …
                  28 November 2011 at 11:18 am

                  Enrolment is compulsory but not enforced.
                  if we can’t enforce that then we wont enforce voting.
                  The census people want people to participate and be honest. Any likelihood of bad consequences from completing the census will drive people to avoid it.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    28 November 2011 at 11:36 am

                    The US know this only too well. Back in WW2 they used census results to round up Japanese citizens or those of Japanese descent and lock them in internment camps.

                    Now they have a difficult time trying to get the nutjobbers from completing the census, because in this case the nutjobbers actually have proof that needs to be taken seriously.

        • Uturn 6.1.2.2
          28 November 2011 at 10:27 am

          AFKTT

          They do, an option of no confidence; if for nothing more than an indicator to parties where they have failed to engage.

        • mik e 6.1.2.3
          28 November 2011 at 8:31 pm

          afew You want everything to collapse so you should have voted Act

      • pollywog 6.1.3
        28 November 2011 at 10:29 am

        What about if the choice was between two men who would oppress you?

        choose the one with the lube.

  7. Carol 7
    28 November 2011 at 7:51 am

    In my email this morning:

    Dear Save TVNZ 7 supporter,

    John Key will be negotiating with ACT, United Future and The Maori Party to form a government from Monday.

    United Future and Maori Party both support public service TV and TVNZ 7.

    Please urgently call, email or write to Peter Dunne and/or Te Ururoa Flavell to remind them about TVNZ 7 in their upcoming negotiations.

    Peter Dunne contact details:
    peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz
    (04) 478 0076 or (04) 560 4773
    Parliament Office
    Private Bag 18888
    Parliament Buildings
    Wellington 6160

    Te Ururoa Flavell contact details:
    teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz
    (07) 3503261 or 0508 924 274
    1489 Eruera Street
    PO Box 12028
    Rotorua Central Mall 3045

    Thanks as always

    Myles Thomas
    Save TVNZ 7

  8. freedom 8
    28 November 2011 at 8:26 am

    The three principal reasons that NZ lost the Election to a Corpocracy

    Television media
    Print media
    Radio media

  9. Colonial Viper 9
    28 November 2011 at 8:45 am

    Steve Keen on Hard Talk: Parasitic Capitalism and Debt

    At least Keen is starting to hit the mainstream now. “The credit system has failed”

  10. ScottGN 10
    28 November 2011 at 8:56 am

    I thought the photo on the front page of The Southland Times this morning summed the situation up nicely. Key meeting senior Cabinet Ministers (Brownlee, English, Joyce and McCully) at home in Parnell.
    Five middle aged, born-to-rule white guys in their weekend uniform of blue striped Rodd and Gunn shirt tucked into jeans arrayed around Key’s living room which has all the warmth and personality of a hotel room.

  11. Brooklyn 11
    28 November 2011 at 9:03 am

    Peters will thrive in his natural opposition habitat which will doom the left to coalesce with NZF should they get the numbers in 2014 (please). That is a problem. Quite apart from trust issues the man never really leaves opposition. Oh… and Andrew Williams anyone?

  12. Hannah 12
    28 November 2011 at 9:16 am

    Curran got well and truly spanked in a formerly Labour stronghold seat. Dunedin people don’t like her – she is sour, intolerant and focuses on fringe issues. Even the City Councillors believe she is a waste of space – keeps bleating on about painting seats in the Octagon. The best thing that Curran can do for Dunedin is to go back to Australia.

    • ScottGN 12.1
      28 November 2011 at 9:45 am

      I think you are letting personal feelings cloud your judgement here. Curran won the seat with a 4,000 odd majority, hardly a spanking. As for the party vote I believe boundary changes in recent years have pushed the seat more towards Middlemarch which might account for National’s increased party vote.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2
      28 November 2011 at 1:09 pm

      keeps bleating on about painting seats in the Octagon.

      I lived there for a few years and I can assure you, from my perspective, the whole city needs a bloody good clean. Some fantastic architecture but it’s dirty and the foot paths are black with grime.

  13. Adrian 13
    28 November 2011 at 9:18 am

    I ripped the shit out of 2 friends of family uni students yesterday, ” We’re Labour all the way, yeah ” ” did you vote? ” Tried to bluff but didn’t get away with it. ” Aw didn’t get around to it ” was the worst admission they could have made. I realised later that it was probably the first time these two had ever been made to be accountable for slackness. Don’t think they will be back, good riddance. Don’t let these lasy ungrateful little shits off the hook, years of getting 18 yr olds the vote, interest free student loans, 18 year old drinking age and decent wages. If thats not worth 5 minutes time to vote any way they have the right to, they deserve all the shit thats going to hit them in the next 3 years. The same goes for anybody else that you come across who didn’t vote . tear the fuckers a new arsehole.

    • Bill 13.1
      28 November 2011 at 9:56 am

      The same goes for anybody else that you come across who didn’t vote . tear the fuckers a new arsehole.

      Why? I mean, this ‘representative’ malarky is two minutes out of one day every three years. Hardly a scenario that encourages participation or any level of engagement whatsoever. Inbetween times, we are subjected to parliamentary tedium and soap opera with no further opportunity for meaningful input until another (approx) 1095 days have gone by.

      I’m much more concerned with those that view meaningful democracy as consisting of those two minutes every three years.

      Given the choice between somebody who will support political activism and not vote, or someone who will merely vote, I know who my frustrations would be focussed on.

      • pollywog 13.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 10:39 am

        I wasn’t even enrolled for the first 2 elections i was eligible to vote in.

        I figured if the choice is between the lesser of two evils or the devil you know. I ‘d rather not vote for a devil or evil at all.

        You can’t lose if you don’t play.

        The sooner we get secure txt voting from a smart phone the sooner you’ll engage the youngers to vote. It’s just stupid that we use online banking, pay by phone and ATM’s but don’t engage that technology for voting.

        a tick on a piece of paper behind a cardboard box in this day and age ???…you’ve got to be fucking kidding !!!

        • Bored 13.1.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 10:59 am

          Polly, I was so impressed by your analysis of why my stupid vacuous office girl wanted to vote for Key that I have taken the liberty of reposting here (in italics). In short she is very vulnerable if this company crashes in the coming depression and if she has to support her son on sonn to be cut welfare (and perhaps be forced to find a job at Makkers). Yet she voted for a man who “worked so hard to get rich…just like we can)>>>Yeah right.

          Living the dream

          Congratulations people, you bought the aspirational middle class dream Key was selling. You didn’t
          want the reality Goff was selling and why would you ?

          The reality is high unemployment, no jobs, stagnant wages, rising cost of living, NZ’s best and brightest leaving NZ in record numbers, an aging population reliant on welfare, an angry youthful
          demographic also reliant on welfare, a property investment boil that needs lancing and a wealth
          disparity chasm that will only widen with asset sales.

          I mean, who in their right mind wants to face that reality ?…and buy into it, let alone deal with it, when you can live the dream of aspirational middle classiness. You too can come from living in a state house to make a fortune then become Prime Minister. Thats the shit people want to buy into and the shit Key was selling.

          And man did we buy it, hook, line and sinker, cos like i said on Dim Post, everyone thinks they’re middle class these days. There is no working class anymore, only the underclass, consisting of the working poor and the unemployed. But no one’s going to admit to being underclass. That’s the fucking nightmare class you read about on the news, committing violent crime, breeding for business and living of charity.

          Sure, you may be jobless and poor or scraping to get by, but your parents weren’t and they were middles class so you are too eh ? You just have to keep believing, have faith that Key can keep your dream alive. I mean, you’re a real life wannabe kiwi mum and dad whose better times are just around the corner.

          But you know the only trouble with living the dream is, sooner or later you wake up and have to face reality, either by your own choice or by neccessity of someone forcing you to. And don’t you just hate it when the realization dawns on you that the dream you thought you were living was only happening in your mind and for all that time you were just asleep.

          sleep tight NZ, don’t let reality bite…Vampires are real !!!

          Again superb analysis, well done.

          • pollywog 13.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2011 at 11:47 am

            thanks B.

            Underclass and proud of it…I own that shit and one day soon i and others like me will be Key’s worst nightmare.

            Not for the crime or the ‘breeding for business’ that drain welfare, but for the sheer weight of critical mass that happens when the 99% sleepers awaken and choose a new reality.

            Think Dune when Paul Atreides transmuted the waters of life. And like House Atreides inspiring the Fremen to storm the deserts of Arrakis and overthrow the Harkonnens to bring the Emperor to his knees.Theres gonna be hell to pay.

            They who control the spice controls the universe. We will take back spice production and own our future.

            Mark my worms !

        • William Joyce 13.1.1.2
          28 November 2011 at 11:02 am

          There is a real move (I think from the left) in the US to return to paper voting.
          The concern is that there are too many problems with machine voting, no audit-able paper record for electronic voting (and therefore greater chance of fraud, hacking or government interference), and too many jurisdictions that determine their own method of casting a vote.
           
          Yes, we have online banking etc but one of the secrets the banks keep quiet is the evel of “interference” that does take place.

          • pollywog 13.1.1.2.1
            28 November 2011 at 12:00 pm

            The difference between the US and us is population and the prohibitions to exclude voters there.

            If there was a cross party consensus to change the electoral status quo, it could happen practically overnight. No more silly land line polls and dodgy internet ones. People could txt in using their secure ird number and bank acct log in.

            A referendum on that would be way more useful than wasting time deciding on MMP alternatives. Imagine if we could real time decide on mandates for things like State Asset Sales.

            It’s inevitable we will eventually vote via the virtual cloud. Rather we own it and control it, make it happen NOW, or by proxy, facebook and the US through the banks will do it for us.

            IMHO

            • William Joyce 13.1.1.2.1.1
              28 November 2011 at 12:19 pm

              No doubt the new technology gives us the chance of fast, inexpensive feed back for all sort of issues that a government faces.
              It doesn’t solve the lack of participation.
              I could see a problem of buy in and the degree of representation.
              You would need to limit each person to one person one vote and be able to secure that so there is no staking of a referendum or other sort of poll.
              Then there is the technology to be used – smart phones for everyone? polling booths permanently on street corners like phone boxes?
              Do we want such events like a general election to be treated so casually?
              Still, something of the sort is in the future.

              • pollywog …
                28 November 2011 at 12:43 pm

                polling booths permanently on street corners like phone boxes?

                Using eftpos or ATM’s as voting machines tied into your bank acct secure pin and login details cross matched with your ird number and drivers license sent as a txt to confirm via answering a personal question you sent in using snail mail with your electoral enrolment form.

                It doesn’t solve the lack of participation.

                I’m pickin youngers would, if given the option, vote using their phone or an ATM, especially if you engaged them via social media and incentivised them with free credit.

                As a trial, get the systems up, trial some refererenda and then in the next elections just electronically vote on the party vote and see how irrelevent electorate voting is to the youngers.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 November 2011 at 1:39 pm

                  …see how irrelevent electorate voting is to the youngers.

                  This election has, IMO, proven that we need to get rid of electorate voting or bring in STV voting for the electorate. As it is it’s too open to manipulation and gerrymanders are still possible. If we do get rid of electorate voting then people have to become more involved with local politics which seems to be more or less ignored ATM.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 November 2011 at 1:35 pm

                You would need to limit each person to one person one vote and be able to secure that so there is no staking of a referendum or other sort of poll.

                You may not have noticed but the government already has a database (actually, they probably have several) that has everybody in the country on it. Tie the voting into that database, make the record of the vote permanent and that each person can see that record online (IMO, government data on a person should be available online for that person to view) with the option to change a vote once under supervision if the vote is recorded incorrectly.

                The voting is done online, database is government owned and controlled, software is developed in-house and is open source. That prevents private companies from being able to manipulate the voting directly and makes the software as secure as possible. Using Security Tokens makes the actual online transaction about as secure as you can get and possibly more secure than paper based options.

          • Vicky32 13.1.1.2.2
            29 November 2011 at 3:20 pm

            There is a real move (I think from the left) in the US to return to paper voting.
            The concern is that there are too many problems with machine voting, no audit-able paper record for electronic voting (and therefore greater chance of fraud, hacking or government interference), and too many jurisdictions that determine their own method of casting a vote.

            Absolutely right! There’s no way that Dubya really genuinely got re-elected in 2004 – we all know that much! Paper voting is safe, and if the younglings won’t do it, tough on them, lazy barstewards! Voting by text should never happen… I am teaching a bunch of lazy teens, and they think I am horrible, because there are some things up with which I will not put…

        • Bill 13.1.1.3
          28 November 2011 at 11:44 am

          How hard would it be to remove ‘personality’ from politics and have a more representative parliament in the process? Not hard at all, I reckon. Instead of lists of parties, why not have lists of policy direction that parties offer up (limited to x number of policies per party) with a ‘yes/no’ option and then the various parties attached to the relevant yeah or nay side of the policy?

          So for example, on ‘Asset Sales’ there would be a yes or no option and then, depending on your thoughts on asset sales, a further choice as to which parties prescriptions you’d rather see implemented.

          Same on tax free income. If 50% + favour it, then the signal as to whether Labour’s $5000, Mana’s $20 000 or whatever was preferred would have been signalled on the ballot paper. And then the party which had the largest vote next to it on that policy, would be charged with making it happen….executing the policy.

          The overall result…a representation of voter desire…would probably be a hoary bastard for parliamentarians to deal with. But if their job is to give effect to voter desires, then hey.

          If a particular policy couldn’t be implemented for genuine reasons (ie politiking aside), then at the next election it assumes a priority that needs only 50%+ to vote for it and then it must be implemented by the same party as before. No ‘if’s’ no ‘but’s’….no excuses whatsoever.

          In the space between elections, policy and not personality would be the only thing worth discussing. And unlike the Swiss system that appears to demand constant engagement, this allows people to ‘dip in and out’ of parliamentary shenanigans.

          Once every three years the politicians are directed on what they are required to deliver. It’s up to them after that.

    • Jenny 13.2
      28 November 2011 at 11:05 pm

      I think Mana’s idea of lowering the voting age has some merit.

      If young people had a chance to experience at least one election and maybe even two elections before leaving high school, young people may have a better appreciation of the democratic process as a valuable and empowering experience and therefore decide to stay more involved as adults.

      (To experience two elections while still at High School would mean lowering the voting age to 15)

      I would like to debate with others the merits/demerits of this idea.

      Would our youth just vote as their parents do?

      Would teachers have an improper influence over students’ political views?

      Are our objections based on fear?

      Are we frightened of what our young people would do with the mandate?

      I can’t help wondering, what would they would do with it?

      No doubt I imagine it will be something I can’t imagine.

      • Vicky32 13.2.1
        29 November 2011 at 3:36 pm

        Would our youth just vote as their parents do?

        To judge by what my younger son has told me about his former classmates, yes, a scarily large number would do just that.

        Would teachers have an improper influence over students’ political views?

        I don’t believe so…

        Are our objections based on fear?

        Mine certainly are! The monstrous idiocy displayed by many of the pupils at Western Springs College when L., was there is terrifying. One girl was convinced that Helen Clark was an unmarried lesbian, because her Daddy said so (see above). A boy was convinced that World War 2 was fought by the brave Americans (along with maybe 20 New Zealanders) against the evil Brits and the evil Nazis, all for the purpose of saving Jews and establishing the state of Israel. Another boy believed that whatever box you’re in precludes all other boxes – and screamed his disbelief that an Irish person they were learning about could be both a Communist and a Republican! Many 15 year olds would, in the wonderful words of my daughter in law speaking about her rest-home “ladies” – ‘vote for the Wombles if they were on the ballot” – the old dears because they don’t know what day it is, the teens, for the lulz…

        Are we frightened of what our young people would do with the mandate?

        Absolutely yes. Sadly, teens are irresponsible. It’s what they are!

        No doubt I imagine it will be something I can’t imagine.

        I can and it makes me blench! My youngest was a teen not to long ago, and I remember it all too well. His besetting sin was (and still is to an extent) self-righteousness and an absolute conviction that he’s always right. If you think Petulant Bean and old Tariana think they know what’s best for bennies, try a bunch of teenagers!

  15. brett Dale 15
    28 November 2011 at 10:32 am

    So when do the specials get counted?

  16. William Joyce 16
    28 November 2011 at 10:42 am

    Thanks Mickey for your analysis …you (and too many coffees) have got me thinking in an after-match-analysis sort of way……
     
    1. Low turnout.
    Traditionally the no-voters are on the left (for a number of reasons) and that we always hit the left hard if they don’t vote. I think that Labour and the Greens need to step up the game.
    a.We need to see the next three years like The South during the ’60s and have drives to increase voter registration. Make a concerted effort to help people outside the political process to dip their toes in the water and hope they wade in on election day.
    This is something I will be committing myself to in the next three years ( I have yet to checkout turnout in my area but I’m sure there is a need).
     
    b. Step up our efforts to get out the vote on the day. Cars, vans, umbrellas – anything to remove the barriers people have to voting. That involves some organisation at the grass roots and co-operation across the left (not sure how the greens will feel about all those car miles 🙂 )
     
    c. Non-partisan letterbox drops, well before the lead up to the election, with a series of well thought out, nicely produced, flyers that people can down load and distribute around their neighbour hood. A set number of drops, on certain dates, over the course of a year.
    These flyers would aim to educate people about the process, why we have an election at all, and why it is important for any citizen to vote and the efforts people, as seen in the news, are going to in order to get a say.
    Perhaps campaign slogans that have a uniform, pithy message that can be put on bumpers, posters etc. e.g. “If you don’t vote then don’t complain”, “If you didn’t vote I ain’t listening”, “Be part of the solution – Vote!”, “Vote first, bitch second”, “You’re only alive because politicians allow you to be”
     
    2. Labour dipped substantially in the Maori electorates where the presence of the Mana Party sucked up valuable party votes.
    Labour can no longer rely on being the dominant party on he left. The left is fragmented. But that should not necessarily be a bad thing. It is the nature of the left to be fragmented – we all have differing views about what in the status quo needs to be changed and we rally to that flag.
    Instead of it being a weakness that the right can use to divide and conquer,  the left needs to decide on what they can agree on, be gracious with each other, and leave the adversarial debate to the presentation of ideas during the election.
     
    Perhaps we need a association of progressives, a congress of like minded people that have a common ethos but differ in the details.
     
    If Labour wants to survive it needs to look at who it constituency is. With the advent of strong Maori voices the days of Ratana and Labour Maori safe seats are gone. Who does Labour speak for? The Middle class? Labour? Maori, Pacifica, Asians?
    Do they need to build a constituency? Organise union membership, campaign for better work conditions, get a profile in the foodbanks, elevate the “common man” in the party ranks, be proud to be socialist and promoting a return to a more caring NZ, boldly address the future like they have stated to but go further – peak oil, climate change, NZ for NZdrs and not trans-nationals).
    The Greens are on a roll and it is a generational thing. The young have the values and expectations that resonate with the Green message. They are the children of the greening of society and as they come of voting age there will be more of them. I say the young but I exclude brain dead “I’m a Key person” bimbos-for-hire that Key had following him – why weren’t they at work?!
     
    3. The NZ First phenomenon clearly had an effect of Labour’s support base
    I don’t think you could call Winston a leftie but the party does have an appeal to people who are older and are concerned about change, people who respond to ideas of national pride and their definition of NZ, people who feel they have invested in NZ and want to be recognised, who want to feel that not everyone is waiting for them to die out.
    Add to that the personality cult around him and the protest vote against the status quo and the belief that Labour were not going to be strong enough. There is one thing about Winston, he can deliver some scathing soundbites about “the enemy” that make us feel good and put the self-important in their place.
     
    5. South Auckland performed very well with a swing towards Labour. Mangere was the standout with a 10% swing. Sua William Sio and the Mangere organisation did really well.
     
    Again, who is Labour talking to? Are they being moblised to vote? Unionised? What’s the Labour profile at foodbanks, markets, in lobbying for the people who need help? Should their be more brown faces in the Labour benches?
     
    6. Christchurch
    The demographics are still to fluid for John Key to puff out his chest and say we must be doing a good job in Chch. I think te shit hasn’t fully hit the fan with CERA and I suspect that so much is still to be revealed that might piss people off. But then you only have so much energy and the energy levels in Chch have been drained by events.
    Again, the important role for Labour is advocacy, advocacy, advocacy. People remember who goes to bat for them when things are down.
     
    7. Carmel Sepuloni still has a chance in Waitakere of unseating Bennett
    I don’t give a monkey’s about Bennett, she’s in anyway, but Sepuloni would be a great loss. She’s one of those “watch this space” people.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.1
      28 November 2011 at 2:24 pm

      …bimbos-for-hire that Key had following him – why weren’t they at work?!

      They were at work – they just weren’t doing anything of any value.

      I don’t think you could call Winston a leftie…

      According to this analysis NZ1st is more left than the Labour Party. They happen to be more authoritarian although less so than NActUF.

      • William Joyce 16.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 2:36 pm

        So in 2008 terms NZ1st was left of Labour and the authoritarian thing would be the personality cult thing they’ve go going.
        …I would think Labour has moved to the left this election.
         
        What measures do they use for this?

        • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 6:32 pm

          They’ve got a simple test that they run political parties policies through (It’s not necessarily the most accurate way but it’s better than nothing and it’s fairly constant). The 2011 one didn’t have NZ1st on it otherwise I would have linked to it. It shows that Labour have moved right but probably within margin of error (ie, not moved at all).

    • Chris 16.2
      28 November 2011 at 6:43 pm

      I’ve been wondering since I have seen it quoted as fact a few times on this site how anyone knows that no-voters favor the left?

      By definition they didn’t express an opinion so there is no way to know.

      The only way I can see you would be able to do it is by comparing the actual results to polls and as polls are not scientific and there is no way to check if they are correct that would be meaningless as well.

      • lprent 16.2.1
        28 November 2011 at 7:01 pm

        You look at the enrolled vote (political parties are allowed to read and check the marked roll for things like the dead voting). If they didn’t vote then they are enrolled non vote and you look at them against against previous canvassing data or the deprivation index. Pretty damn clear

        But there are also academic studies looking at voting intentions with followup to ask about voting.

  17. Adrian 17
    28 November 2011 at 11:06 am

    Bill, because if they can’t give ” 2 minutes every 3 years” they will only be involved in the process by bitching about whatever the subsequent outcomes happen to be , and their negativism about “reperesentation ” will only foster more disenfranchisment.
    T.W.I.M.C. Stick with Phil, remember the lesson according to Ted, but just hope that it’s not as close as 8-7 in ’14.

    • Bill 17.1
      28 November 2011 at 11:55 am

      Maybe you mistakenly see the ‘representative parliamentary system’ as the crucible of democracy rather than as one among a number of obstacles to democracy?

      • Afewknowthetruth 17.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 12:56 pm

        Bill.

        Well said. Far too many people mistake the present sytem for democracy.

        Who was it that said ‘Democracy is a good system. We should try it some time’?

        • William Joyce 17.1.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 2:44 pm

          “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see….”
          “You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”
          “No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
          “Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
          “I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
          “So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
          “It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
          “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
          “Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
          “But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
          “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
          – Douglas Adams

        • mik e 17.1.1.2
          28 November 2011 at 8:35 pm

          Afew its not perfect but its better than any other option unless you are the despotic leader but in your case the only movement you will be starting will be followed by the sound of a cistern flushing unless you’ve invested in a composting toilet

  18. joe90 18
    28 November 2011 at 11:21 am

    A video by potholer54, aka Peter Hadfield: Climategate Part 2– the quotes and the context.

  19. Carol 19
    28 November 2011 at 11:59 am

    Big strike on Wednesday in the UK, maybe bigger than in 1979 (I remember the uncollected rubbish bags piling up on Clapham Common), and maybe bigger than the 1926 general strike.

    I do feel it’s pity that the strike is over changes to pensions and not to cuts to the public sector services. Note also that Stuff headlines are all to about how it will impact on Kiwi air travellers, whereas the strike itself is the big news:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/6047635/Air-NZ-to-rebook-strike-affected-passengers

    And there’s a threat of Cameron re-drafting industrial action law to restrict such strikes.

    Teachers, garbage collectors, construction workers and some medical staff are also among those who will strike in an escalating row over planned changes to public sector pensions.

    The biggest strike in decades was expected to close hospital operating theatres and thousands of schools closed, and prompted Britain’s government to warn that it could lead to tougher laws on industrial action.

    The walkout is expected to top the scale of Britain’s 1979 strikes – when tens of thousands of people halted work over pay disputes. Some labour unions claim the action could even eclipse Britain’s 1926 general strike, when about 1.75 million people joined walkouts

  20. Afewknowtheturth 20
    28 November 2011 at 12:23 pm

    OAB

    I see the pattern remains unchanged.

    You consistently make pathetic and inane comments that are feeble attempts at put-downs.

    I guess that’s as far as your brain can take you, poor thing.

  21. randal 21
    28 November 2011 at 12:50 pm

    blue stop playing the man and listen to what he has to say.
    otherwise you contribute nothing.
    come to think of it I never seen you round before.
    are you trolling?

  22. prism 22
    28 November 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Intermittent Signal 2011/8 (last 29/9)
    NZs making something, doing something clever always gets me hopeful that we have some future apart from getting stuck in the dropping of a cow’s back end or playing with money that somebody else has made. and circulating it with lots of drop-off points each taking a cut for participating in the round robin.

    Tait Electronics has been going for yonks and hasn’t been bought out yet!! Maybe never as I believe they have a trust structure that might prevent this. I pass on news item I saw about their radio system for London’s 7500 buses which Tait won the $19 million contract for in 2006 to overhaul London Buses’ Radio network with a system designed and manufactured in Christchurch. Tait will now maintain and support the network.

    We need to have a way of investing in an advance New Zealand entrepreneurs business. That would be fun, interesting with some risk, and a good proportion would be very profitable. Also a fund to buy out businesses when they have reached adulthood so we stop the overseas firms and destructive highly-leveraged equity types from picking them off and sucking them dry.

    • Draco T Bastard 22.1
      28 November 2011 at 2:52 pm

      We need to have a way of investing in an advance New Zealand entrepreneurs business.

      Government prints the money and loans it to entrepreneurs at 0% interest. This gives the entrepreneurs the boost they need. If the idea fails then the money is recaptured through taxes costing us all a few cents each but if it succeeds then the loan is paid back in full from proceeds plus we have something new in the economy.

      …and a good proportion would be very profitable.

      A proportion would be but it’s likely to be a small proportion. Profits are a dead weight loss which we need to avoid.

      Also a fund to buy out businesses when they have reached adulthood…

      Don’t need it – just need to ban sales of businesses and property to foreign owners. Doing so is, after all, bad for NZ.

      • prism 22.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 2:59 pm

        DTB Yes you seem to be making sense but I can’t always agree with you. As for NZs backing their own entrepreneurs and successful businesses, if there was a climate favourable to that it would be better than throwing money away to dodgy finance companies that are mostly just living off consumerism.

    • William Joyce 22.2
      28 November 2011 at 3:08 pm

      I’m all for a development fund that
      – provides the venture capital we’re too small a country to provide
      – takes a stake in any future profits, intellectual property etc.
      – keeps investment returns in the country
      – develops ideas and sponsors research
      – NZ is too small and could do with some central planning towards NZ Inc.
      They say government can’t pick winners but the private sector hasn’t done too well at it either.
      It would be better for NZ than stateless, disloyal, corporates getting welfare payments.
       
      Imagine what we could have done with a research/venture capital fund equal to the money we paid out on failed finance companies alone.

    • joe90 24.1
      28 November 2011 at 3:56 pm

      Also, Brin’s review of the Randian fantasy movie amused me.

      http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/11/atlas-shrugged-hidden-context-of-book_27.html

      The emotional payoff — two innovators triumphing over troglodyte naysayers by delivering an awesome product — portrayed Rand’s polemical point in its best conceivable light. I am all for that aspect of the libertarian dream! Indeed, it is the core theme that makes THE FOUNTAINHEAD sympathetic and persuasive. So, for ten minutes, we actually liked the characters and rooted for them. Significantly, it is the portion when nobody speaks.

      Alas, though. The film then resumed a level of simplistic lapel-grabbing that many of us recall from our Rand-obsessed college friends — underachievers who kept grumbling from their sheltered, coddled lives, utterly convinced that they’d do much better in a world of dog-eat-dog. (Using my sf’nal powers, I have checked-out all the nearby parallel worlds where that happened; in those realms, every Randian I know was quickly turned into a slave or dog food. Sorry fellows.)

  25. gingercrush 25
    28 November 2011 at 4:09 pm

    The mandate about asset sales is really annoying from all sides. As a government you have the right to introduce legislation to parliament. Doesn’t matter how unpopular that might be, as a government you get to introduce it to the house. And with parliamentary consent that policy can become law and thus mandated. To get consent you need a majority of parliament to agree to it. This parliament looks to be 61 votes in favour.

    John Key can’t actually say he has a mandate because his party did not get 61 seats in parliament. All that happened from the election was the ability to pass legislation with consent of other parties who carry seats. Likewise, its poor taste from Labour, their supporters and others opposed to asset sales. National by virtue of confidence and supply with others (or abstaining) has the legal right to introduce legislation no matter how unpopular it may be. As National themselves is not a majority. They still require further support to actually pass that legislation.

  26. Descendant Of Smith 26
    28 November 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Why would Maori ever want to spend their money on a stake in the power companies.

    It’s a cool plan though by the government – we’ll settle with you and pay you money and then give you this really great opportunity to give us (the government) the money back by getting a share of a power company you already own as a citizen.

    And people accuse Maori of having their hands out.

    Still at least Maori got the payouts legitimately unlike the investors who were bailed out after their poor investment decisions and who can now use taxpayers money to buy the power companies.

    • Carol 26.1
      28 November 2011 at 6:48 pm

      The MP say today that their agreement with asset sales is not likely to be part of their confidence and supply agreement with National. On RNZ, I heard Turia say the onlyquestions or communication they had had from their constituents about asset sales was from some iwi leaders/business people who’d like to invest 10% or so. Turia said that’s their business and the MP isn’t so into it.

      But, if no pressure is being put on the MP to support asset sales legislation, either Key is very sure of not losing 2 seats in the specials, or asset sales aren’t that important to them.

  29. Jackal 29
    28 November 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Netflix fail

    New Zealander’s wanting to join Netflix would have been disappointed by the message: Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country…

    • lprent 29.1
      28 November 2011 at 7:26 pm

      I was disappointed by that, but I can understand it. Unless I can find another dedicated server provider in NZ with a less painful policy on international traffic (current cap is 60GB, and $3 per GB over), this sites servers will be heading back offshore. The latency is less of an issue than losing the search spiders that bring new readers.

      • Jackal 29.1.1
        28 November 2011 at 8:35 pm

        It’s a totally understandable decision by Netflix Vice President Brent Ayrey. Can you imagine the backlash from thousands of customers experiencing lag and low quality. I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Nationals meaningless rhetoric.

        • Draco T Bastard 29.1.1.1
          28 November 2011 at 10:17 pm

          The lack of bandwidth is the result of the privatisation and deregulation of telecommunications. ~$20b in dead weight loss (profit) just going to Telecom. $20b that would have been used to build up and upgrade the network if it hadn’t been sold. On top of that is the extra billions lost through the building of extra unnecessary networks and profits in the other telecommunications firms.

          Once something becomes ubiquitous it must be brought into government ownership so that it can be used for the good of the country at minimal cost.

  30. Jackal 30
    28 November 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Occupy Auckland crackdown

    There’s no question that the lead up to the 2011 election has given the New Zealand Occupy movement a reprieve from any harsh Police action to break up their protests. However I predict that this time has come to an end…

  31. racolH 31
    2 December 2011 at 9:58 am

    Pelease … comparing David Shearer to John Key is far from complimentary. I believe Labours leadership demands a higher calling. A David I know was the ultimate leader … a true philosopher, cunning diplomat and talented musician. A fighter who fought and won many battles for his people, and as a wise leader united a tumultuous nation. The giants and battles we face today is not John Key and the National party but the broiling of a very troubled and disastrous economy not just nationally but worldwide. David also had a very faithful and loyal friend. However with all these high accolades David wasn’t a perfect leader or a perfect man, in fact he committed the sin of all sins, but his years alone with God, humbled and crumbled in the dark, developed the soul of a legendary philosopher-king, and forged a legacy that endures to this day.” Whoever is chosen may God’s blessing and favour be upon him.

  • Comments are now closed

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Older posts

Older posts

Older posts