Open mike 29/07/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 29th, 2012 - 198 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…

198 comments on “Open mike 29/07/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    29 July 2012 at 6:22 am

    As Colonial Viper said on another thread “it will take more than a political party” to stop climate change.

    It looks as though collescing together are all the forces that are necessary to stop climate change in this country.

    As has happened in British Columbia and some Latin American countries the indigenous people are set to take the lead.

    See the determined and confident look on the face of Adelie Waititi.

    Te Whanau a Apanui will never surrender.

    In fact I believe that Te Whanau a Apanui have already won, and Petrobas won’t be back. Petrobras have not made a big song and dance about their defeat, they have just quietly slunk off back over the horizon. It is very unlikely that they will ever return, but if they do Te Whanau a Apanui will send them packing again.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1082170

  2. Carol 2
    29 July 2012 at 7:04 am

    Hmmmmm…. an interesting article about a new poll (ie new entirely in being a first), The first Fairfax Media/Ipsos political poll.

    Even the usually pro-Key, sycophantic Tracy Watkins (co-authoring with Kate Chapman), can’t avoid discussing the slip in popularity for Key and National (especially with women voters). The analysis has its good points, but the slant still goes in favour of National, or rather, in favour of the typical National/Key PR spin-lines.

    And the authors fail to account for the role the media (and Nat online/blogging spin merchants) have paid in promoting Key’s image – or the way the same spin machine worked to stir up antagonism against Helen Clark, resulting in her being, as the article’s authors claim, a very polarising PM.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7370214/Polarising-PM-losing-gloss

    The first Fairfax Media/Ipsos political poll shows National has enough support for a third term, 44.9 per cent to Labour’s 32.6 per cent, assuming the current mix of support parties. But it also reveals a growing divide, with many still strongly backing Key, but a growing sense of anger and distrust among others.

    Interviewers asked 100 people to describe Key in as few words as possible. The pollsters said many voters rated him a straight-shooter and good or excellent leader, but a significant number thought he was arrogant, smarmy and out of touch.

    Although later in the article the last point is elaborated on by referring to many people resorting to “derogatory” terms to describe Key – that means using swear words. And adding untrustworthy, dishonest, to arrogant, smarmy and out of touch.

    But the next biggest category of words and phrases used were what the pollsters lumped in the “derogatory” category – ranging from swearing to insults such as “dickhead”.

    The poll apparently shows that women voters disillusioned with Key are particularly unhappy with their policies on education:

    Women were quickest to fall out of love with Key – also worrying for National, which has capitalised on his appeal to females as a softer face for a party traditionally seen as flinty.

    Women were also more likely to feel anxious about their own prospects, and unhappy about the country’s direction.

    Before the last election, polls showed around 50 per cent of women supported National, but that is down to 39 per cent, the 1000 interviews done as part of the poll often returning to education and asset sales as reasons why Key has the country on the wrong track.

    The poll reveals women worry not enough money is being put into education, about class sizes, that early childhood education has gone backwards, and that the quality of what is being taught is poor.

    The article also says that Key is losing favour with many National voters, while also quoting an interviewee who still favours National, doesn’t agree with asset sales, but doesn’t think the 2011 election provides a mandate for those sales. And it says that Shearer is not (yet?) inspiring voters or providing an alternative for voters disillusioned with Key.

    And, of course, the authors can’t help but finish the article on a positive note, with a quote from a guy who voted Labour last election, but favours National now.

    • Pete George 2.1
      29 July 2012 at 7:21 am

      . The pollsters said many voters rated him a straight-shooter and good or excellent leader, but a significant number thought he was arrogant, smarmy and out of touch.

      I think that’s a fair reflection of Key’s apparent attributes (from media impressions). I’ve seen him speaking once in person and he came across very well then.

      I agree with all of those assessments, except that I tend more towards the good rather than excellent end of the scale on leadership.

      Bryce Edwards is quoted:

      …said there was a noticeable hardening in attitudes against Key, in line with the perception of a growing ideological divide with the Left, which opposes the sales.

      “I sense more hostility towards him than there was, but I get the sense it’s among those who are predisposed to be against him.”

      I sense the same as, the haters hate more – but that’s probably partly due to the fact that they hate being in opposition for another term and blame Key for that.

    • Policy Parrot 2.2
      29 July 2012 at 9:11 am

      The numbers on that poll suggest the following parliament:

      Right: National 57, ACT 1, UF 1
      Left: Labour 42, Greens 15, Mana 2

      So essentially, the Maori Party holds the balance of power with its 3 seats. Note that if Banks lost, ACT’s MP would go to National.

    • Fortran 2.3
      29 July 2012 at 1:28 pm

      Some participants in the survey are quite entitled to comment as they have done BUT there is no General Election – yet. That is when it tells, not a small opinion poll.

    • Vicky32 2.4
      29 July 2012 at 6:45 pm

      Hmmmmm
. an interesting article about a new poll (ie new entirely in being a first), The first Fairfax Media/Ipsos political poll.

      It was presented on Radio NZ as being a ringing endorsement for National/Key!
      It depressed me very much..

  3. Pete George 3
    29 July 2012 at 7:47 am

    The Fairfax poll is unusally comprehensive. One interesting part is on vote loyalty. National and Labour have very similar results:

    Voted National: 87% would vote for them again, 13% would not
    Voted Labour: 85% would vote for them again, 15% would not

    About 1 in 7 say they would not vote for National or Labour again. The response on NZ First is not surprising, Winston support depends on the vagaries of Winston:

    Voted NZ First: 69% would vote for them again, 31% would not

    Voted Green: 73% would vote for them again, 27% would not

    But Green loyalty is not as strong as claims of growing Green strength would suggest, with 1 in 4 not wanting to stay with them, and only 6% of undecideds leant towards Green.

    Something I often hear about Greens is that they contribute an important environmental view to parliament, but many see them as too extreme and impractical to want to risk them being part of government.

    That’s a potential problem for Greens – and also for Labour who seem to think Greens will help them run the next government.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      29 July 2012 at 8:01 am

      Give me the greens over the hairdo any day.

      • Pete George 3.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 8:35 am

        Are you deliberately ignoring the point, or just don’t see it?

        There could be a significant level of support for Greens being in parliament but not in government. If the Labour goal is based on Labour+Green they might find that vital few % to swing the deal very hard to get.

        Clark was a very astute coalition leader and she understood this. The 2014 goal should be Labour+options.

        • felix 3.1.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 8:39 am

          . 🙄

        • Fortran 3.1.1.2
          29 July 2012 at 1:30 pm

          The Greens will tell you that they are the only option to Labour gaining power.
          And they are right – on their terms.

          • OneTrack 3.1.1.2.1
            29 July 2012 at 6:15 pm

            Prime Minister Turei ?

            If not, why not?

            • McFlock 3.1.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 6:24 pm

              It would involve marginalising core green policies to get 35-45% of the vote.
                   
              Other than that, I think she’d be good. 

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2012 at 6:47 pm

                You mean the classic myth of needing to sell out to the middle class and centre-right in order to become a ‘credible major party’?

                Would one of these ‘left’ political parties please finally give a reason for the underclass and working class to turn out on election day, one apart from “we’ll be less bad on you than the Natz”.

                • McFlock …
                  29 July 2012 at 6:52 pm

                  Not necessarily “needing”, that just seems to be the practise in NZ. And the greens are no less vulnerable than labour.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.2
      29 July 2012 at 8:04 am

      🙄

    • Lanthanide 3.3
      29 July 2012 at 8:27 am

      We can only presume from the data presented that in the next election, no one is going to vote UF and that 100% of people who did are going to change their vote.

    • BillODrees 3.4
      29 July 2012 at 9:23 am

      DFTFT 
       

    • Dr Terry 3.5
      29 July 2012 at 7:40 pm

      So many New Zealanders do not want to see intelligence intrude upon their politics.

  4. Carol 4
    29 July 2012 at 8:17 am

    And other news this morning on the 2 main NZ newspaper sites:

    Tony Ryall is told to not listen to spivs ad start listening to professionals:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/7370330/Spiv-spat-sets-union-boss-at-odds-with-Ryall

    Association of Salaried Medical Specialists executive director Ian Powell made the comment in a reply to an annual letter of expectations sent to the country’s district health boards.
    …
    Hospitals were struggling, he said, with stories of a lack of specialists available to train staff, and even of basic stationary purchases being denied.

    The squeeze and a waste of funds are detailed in the response to Ryall from the association.

    What I at first thought was going to be an article on a new approach to policitcs by MPs like Jacinda Ardern (judging by the title and image on the main page of the Stuff site earlier this morning), turned out to be a bit of lifestyle fluff about which MPs have Tats:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7370266/Tats-the-way-to-do-it-MPs-are-hip-to-Beehive

    But Generation Y now strides confidently into the debating chamber bearing the symbols of modern culture: tattoos and piercings.

    Greens MP Julie Anne Genter could be described as New Zealand’s most edgy politician.

    Genter definitely is a pollie to watch, but I hope her edginess turns out to be to do with her actions as an MP and not her tats.

    Meanwhile, over at the Herald, the articles at the top of the main page are all rugby, Olympics, crime and celebrity fluff. Further down the page we get Matt McCarten comparing Banksie's treament by the police with that of Taito Phillip Field. Neither the police, their political masters, nor Banksie get off lightly in this piecce. And McCarten ends with a Biblical medidation for Banksie & ShonKey:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10822839

    After the winks and smirks are over between the Prime Minister and the Act leader, they might consider this passage from St Matthew: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

    I’m not sure if the HoS editorial (Title; Maggie strikes a blow for male chauvinists) on Maggie Barry should be classified as celebrity fluff, or a report of a crime against mature democratic debate. But Maggie is characterised as having so far traded on her positive, trustworthy, gardener image. Now she’s looking like she’s politically and intellectually incompetent and not so trustworthy.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10822844

    • LynW 4.1
      29 July 2012 at 9:16 am

      +1
      In particular re Maggie Barry. Totally unacceptable Maggie. Shame on you! Don’t shoot the messenger and belittle the message. This is a very important issue and as one who works closely with women, babies and families who would greatly benefit from extended paid parental leave this bill must be supported. Joint working families (both parents) are doing so to make ends meet, while also contributing to society. We need to value their contribution by supporting the family unit, ensuring close parental contact in the early months.

      I also love this article

      http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/07/27/gordon-campbell-on-the-national-partys-reversion-to-type-on-gender-issues/

      Well said Gordon!

    • muzza 4.2
      29 July 2012 at 8:50 pm

      I just don’t know where to start, so instead I’ll just leave it to the article, and some sentences in it to highlight where it seems you’re going wrong.

      What this is, is a quintessential example of what happens when people are elevated far beyond their capabilities, which if the mouth is kept in check and the brain in gear is not necessarily a problem, but exactly why the MP continues to have them…..

      Keep up the poor work, its hardly inspiring is it….B R A V O!

      “But if “most trusted MP” means the one who talks the least rubbish, Barry didn’t do much for her image this week”

      “As Labour MP Jacinda Ardern spoke to a private member’s bill proposing to extend paid parental leave from the present 14 weeks to 26, Barry heckled her by asking: “How many kids do you have?”

      “If Barry wants to continue to be trusted at all she needs to stop saying silly things. In the meantime, best she stick to bills about orchids and rose pruning. Oh, and motherhood, of course.”

      The NZH, usually a chronic bore/mouthpiece for the establishment, actually gets it right on this occasion.

  5. Kotahi Tāne Huna 5
    29 July 2012 at 8:24 am

    The Greens plus Labour plus Winston First would make for an “interesting” government. With any luck The Hair will be surplus to requirements.

    It’s good to see that people are waking up to what John Key is.

    An encouraging continuation of the previously noted trend.

    • weka 5.1
      29 July 2012 at 10:13 am

      Peters has in the past refused to work with the Greens.
       

      • grumpy 5.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 10:27 am

        🙄 this is good……..

      • gobsmacked 5.1.2
        29 July 2012 at 10:29 am

        Labour and the Greens could form a majority easily enough – say 38/12 or 35/15 or whatever.

        The tragedy is, Labour are “generals fighting the last war”. Shearer keeps saying nice things about Winston, the same way Goff did in 2008-11. It’s as though Labour want to have a government held to ransom by Richard Prosser of Investigate.

        I long for a Labour leader to say … “I intend to form a Labour/Green government. If other parties wish to support such a gov’t, they are welcome to do so. But my goal is clear.”

        Such a message would transform the leader’s reputation overnight. Confidence is contagious. Labour don’t seem to have any.

        • RedBlooded 5.1.2.1
          29 July 2012 at 11:00 am

          + 1.

        • OneTrack 5.1.2.2
          29 July 2012 at 6:21 pm

          By the time we get to 2014, it might even be Labour/Greens 20/25

          • Vicky32 5.1.2.2.1
            29 July 2012 at 6:50 pm

            By the time we get to 2014, it might even be Labour/Greens 20/25

            I seriously hope not! IMO, the Greens simply cannot be trusted.
            Middle class blue/green kiddies, who highly value the baubles of office, to quote Winnie (well, it’s a good phrase!)

    • Dr Terry 5.2
      29 July 2012 at 7:58 pm

      Hate to be cynical, but I would say rather too few people, after all these years, are truly “waking up” to what John Key is. I mean, just what does it take? Look at his record since November last, one would expect 20% to 30% support at this moment! If Matt can quote Scripture, so can I: Key and his lot are “Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel”. Among large numbers of voters, one can only think “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
      While we might like very much to see a falling trend with National, we dare not get carried away. First we will have to see a strong and viable Opposition. Shearer has “yet” to show up? How far can a a “yet” be extended??

  6. gobsmacked 6
    29 July 2012 at 8:56 am

    The Stuff/Fairfax poll and story simply tell us what anyone with any functioning antnennae has picked up over the past six months …

    1) Key is losing his halo. (And National have nothing else).

    2) Labour are a shoulder-shrug, at best.

    Amazingly, none of the voters quoted in that story said “I heard Trevor Mallard score a point of order with Lockwood Smith the other day … that’s what we’ve all been waiting for! Labour have got my vote!”

    Damn these voters with their silly real lives and problems.

    • Bill 6.1
      29 July 2012 at 9:40 am

      Going back to 2008. And yes, this is merely anecdotal, but I can’t help thinking now, as then, that it reflected a general feeling among (until then) Labour voters.

      There was a meeting attended by union organisers and delegates. The Labour front bench were the guests. Sitting in front of me were two union delegates who quietly expressed their disillusion with Labour to me and stated that although they wouldn’t vote for National, they would only vote for Labour if there was no-one else to vote for.

      And while the bulk of organisers generally clapped and cheered, there was noticably less enthusiasm among attendees who weren’t union employees. Of those I talked to after Labour’s ‘presentation’, there was a general feeling that Labour weren’t entirely up front or representative of their concerns. An interpretative conclusion of the discussions I had was basically that the ‘Lollies? Yes. But not until after you’ve eaten all your vegetables’ tactic of the Labour Party was pissng people off no end.

      Everything promised was always deferred. And then when the promise as delivered on it was a bit less than expected. (A hard boiled lolly instead of the expected chocolate one, as it were.)

      And that’s where (looking back) ‘brand Key’ came in. He was spun up as the ‘something else’ Labour voters could vote for while retaining their aversion to National. (He wasn’t really National afterall. He was a nice guy. National of old was no more and was really just ‘Labour lite’ now. ) So people could ‘take a punt’ and not feel coerced into voting Labour because of a lack of options.

      And now, even if people are tumbling to the ‘Labour lite’ deception, the fact remains that Labour are still viewed now as they were then. Worse. The Nats as ‘Labour lite’ has turned around to be Labour as ‘National lite’.

      If Labour want people to vote, they have to give people something to vote for. Relying on voters getting pissed off with National isn’t going to translate into more votes for Labour, but rather, just fewer people voting.

      That old guard…the backwash from the Helen Clark years (Mallard et al), who have neither the initiative or talent to make it outside of parliament…. really do have to go. Swathes of people feel robbed of parliamentary representation. And they have moved beyond the sentiments expressed by the two delegates I mentioned a few paragraphs back to a new position that tells them simply that there is no-one to vote for. Their old allegience has been broken.

      The ‘habit’ – the default position of voting Labour – was already stressed in 08. Back then it was going to be done, if and only if, something better didn’t pop up. Now that ‘something better’ is being percieved as not so good afterall. But then, neither’s Labour.

      • Pete George 6.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 10:10 am

        Swathes of people feel robbed of parliamentary representation.

        I see that too. I also see an increase in people wanting to speak up and to be heard, and also an increase in people speaking up. Social media helps give them the opportunity.

        But currently no party caters for this. Our way of doing democracy doesn’t cater for this well.

        I also see many attempts to do our democracy better, but most attempts are doomed by being “use democracy to do what I want” rather than changing the democratic fundamentals neutral of personal preferences.

        It’s something that is very hard to separate, because those most active in politics have their own politics to promote.

        • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 10:18 am

          🙄

        • Bill 6.1.1.3
          29 July 2012 at 11:14 am

          ‘Being heard’ and having agency are two completely different things. So there goes social media.

          And you’re correct that representative parliamentary democracy does not encourage agency. No party within a parliamentary setting can, because the context precludes such possibilities. (Representatives vote on [usually ‘macro’ – broad brush – and therefore not convincingly democratic] matters where only they have access to the relevent info and where only they have time set aside to consider said matters and the legitimacy to decide on them.)

          And in a democracy, of course people would have different takes on whatever was up for discussion. That’s where democracy comes into play. Which is different to ‘their own politics to promote’. In a democracy there are no politics of the type you refer to…sectarian or organisational agendas etc. (To the extent that there are provides a direct measure as to the diminuation of democracy.)

          edit. Ah shit! See how I went and been and got pushed off topic there? 🙄

          • lefty 6.1.1.3.1
            29 July 2012 at 11:43 am

            A party within a representative parliamentary democracy could promote, and if they were in government, establish a framework for a participatory democracy.

            Its what genuine socialists would be working towards.

            Arguably the socialist founders of the Labour Party thought this is what they were working towards, but the next generation of social democrats thought the representative parliamentary democracy, the welfare state and a social contract between labour and capital were the destination rather than a stepping stone along the way.

            Modern social democrats just want to be government and have no interest in democracy at all.

            When no political party is interested in democracy it is reasonable response to simply stop voting.

            • Pete George 6.1.1.3.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 12:21 pm

              Modern social democrats just want to be government and have no interest in democracy at all.

              Unfortunately that’s true, across the spectrum, but I’d suggest “have no interest in genuine democracy at all”.

              Parties and activist groups try to use our current democratic structure for their own advantage. That’s natural. But when they talk about being democratic and using ‘people power’ (and, dare I say it, use petitions and referenda) they don’t usually have democratic principles in mind.

            • KJT 6.1.1.3.1.2
              29 July 2012 at 1:32 pm

              Judging by the horrified silence when real democracy is suggested, actually giving us power to have a say in our own lives, instead of politicians, is anathema to politicians, and their supporters, no matter what their “side” is.

              PG has shown with his statements on referenda, such as the one on asset sakes, that he has an equal contempt for democracy.

            • Bill 6.1.1.3.1.3
              29 July 2012 at 2:01 pm

              A party within a representative parliamentary democracy could promote, and if they were in government, establish a framework for a participatory democracy.

              True. And I did a post to that effect a while back. Maybe if I’d somehow got the word ‘currently’ into my above comment I could have skited and claimed I hadn’t contradicted myself. Ah, fuck, who cares? Shit happens. Anyway. I agree with you that a genuine party of the left would make attempts to develop democratic forms even though those democratic forms would come at its own expense.

              • OneTrack …
                29 July 2012 at 6:30 pm

                If a true democratic party of the left, like Labour, was in power, they would listen to any citizens-initiated referendums, especially if the CIR got 80% support. Oh wait…. Damn.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2012 at 6:40 pm

                Democratic socialism and the democratisation of business is the way ahead, Bill.

      • just saying 6.1.2
        29 July 2012 at 11:48 am

        Do you reckon there will be another mini-lolly scramble of left-wing policies before the next election, when it again becomes apparent that doing nothing and standing for nothing, just waiting for National to fail, inspires virtually no-one new to vote Labour, and continues to bleed the left flank to other parties or to not voting at all? Will Shearer and the others in team Pagani panic and start throwing about policies like Goff did when he pitched lollies like beneficiaries getting working for families* etc. to avert a catastrophic loss of “base” voters in the 2008 election?

        The ads featuring Labour’s historic accomplishments when it was actually a labour party were another rally-cry for the left flank, and hugely hypocritical when compared with the beliefs and values of the Labour front bench.

        *Though typically, the devil was in the detail and it was to be “phased in” at some distant date

        • bad12 6.1.2.1
          29 July 2012 at 12:31 pm

          Yeah i viewed the ”beneficiaries to be included in Working for Families” and the immediate series of back-peddles as another nail in the Labour as a socialist Party coffin,

          Labour lost my vote at the point of Roger-spit-nomics-spit and reinforced the reasons i don’t vote for them when it introduced the new ‘Family benefit’, Working for Families and excluded the children of beneficiaries from such payment…

      • weka 6.1.3
        29 July 2012 at 12:18 pm

        Bill, your comment should be a post in its own right, maybe as a lead in to another discussion about Labour/alternatives to Labour.

        • Bill 6.1.3.1
          29 July 2012 at 2:08 pm

          Oh, I thought about that weka. But its a busy, lazy Sunday that has just become frustrating thanks to badly behaved paint, old tongue and groove ceilings and an old neck getting a bit of a crick in itself.

          That aside. There are plenty of people who put up posts within the context of parliamentary politics. And I prefer to posit alternatives to the system we have rather than (so called) alternatives within it.

  7. xtasy 7
    29 July 2012 at 9:46 am

    More proof today could be found on ‘The Nation’, that NZ is governed by buffoons and incompetent idiots, also lying to the public!

    Minister for mining or resources, Phil Heatley, was justifying deep sea oil drilling with that being practiced world wide (without problems), for instance in the North Sea. Now any person who knows a bit about the North Sea between Britain and the Continent knows full well, that it is not at all a deep sea area. Links to the following make this clear:

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

    http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/north-sea-physiography-depth-distribution-and-main-currents

    http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oilgas/nsfields.htm

    So more misleading of the public happening here in this area, and also did he state on the same program on TV3, which appears to become more and more “cosy” with the government, that Housing NZ tenants can take in boarders to rent rooms and share their housing, who get accommodation supplements from WINZ, and at the same time take advantage of subsidised, cheap rent from Housing NZ, thus getting it all virtually for “free”.

    All Housing NZ tenants I know have stipulations in their tenancy agreements that they are NOT allowed to sublet rooms to boarders or flatmates. All Housing NZ renters also do NOT get the accommodation supplement and must declare that only them and perhaps their immediate family (partner, kids) live in the home, and NOT offer accommodation to others.

    This adds to the lies by Paula Bennett at the National Party conference, claiming wrongfully that WINZ clients can “rort” the system and get more accommodation supplement than the actual total rent for the place they may be living in.

    But this is the truth about how WINZ calculates that benefit component, which is only paid to qualifying beneficiaries, who declare and prove their actual rental costs (with tenancy agreement or other document stating the individuals share of shared accommodation or in some cases total rent for solely occupied accommodation).

    http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/extra_help/accommodation_supplement/accommodation_supplement-90.htm

    But we know what the agenda is: Misinform, mislead, cover up true agenda aspects and bring in policies the government is pushing for.

    Sadly many journalists also prove to be buffoons and idiots, as they do not simply question the wrong, untrue, misleading info, likely themselves not knowing anything either.

    • muzza 7.1
      29 July 2012 at 11:17 am

      “But this is the truth about how WINZ calculates that benefit component, which is only paid to qualifying beneficiaries, who declare and prove their actual rental costs (with tenancy agreement or other document stating the individuals share of shared accommodation or in some cases total rent for solely occupied accommodation)”

      –Correct, in order to get the accomodation suppliment, hard proof of a tennancy agreement, or proof or payments for rent must be provided, and then only a percentage of the rental cost given.
      Sure whole familes on benefits might be able to swindle something, but its unlikely…I have not seen WINZ cover the full costs of accomodation with the suppliment alone.

      Perhaps Paula Benefits could say that in fact the big winners from the rental suppliment are the landlords whose houses are paid for as a result….

      Nah, just deflect and hammer the benficaries some more!

      LIAR, just like every single one of them!

      • Murray Olsen 7.1.1
        30 July 2012 at 2:35 pm

        Exactly. Rental supplements are just another example of welfare for the propertied class, who get half their houses paid for by WINZ, then sell at a huge tax free capital gain.

  8. marsman 8
    29 July 2012 at 9:58 am

    Heard on RNZ News yesterday that Destiny Church wants to take advantage of the Charter Schools Scam. They have two existing schools which they will ‘convert’ to Charter Schools. Did I hear that right? And if so what is to stop all Private Schools from getting full Govt funding from this Scam? Maybe that is the whole idea.

    • grumpy 8.1
      29 July 2012 at 10:30 am

      Why would that be bad? Parents who send their kids to private schools also pay tax…….

      • MikeG 8.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 10:51 am

        Private schools also receive taxpayer subsidies, so what is your point?

      • Pascal's bookie 8.1.2
        29 July 2012 at 10:52 am

        And people with no children at all pay tax! Gosh.

        We have compulsory education. We also have a publically funded education system. That’s why it’s paid out of the the tax system. Whether or not you have children, or whether or not you choose to use the public education system is beside the point. we don’t pay taxes to pay for our own education, health care, and road use, and what all else. We pay it for the nation’s, from which we all benefit.

        If you choose to use a private system, why should the taxpayer fund that?

        If the crown is paying for a system, it’s not private.

      • KJT 8.1.3
        29 July 2012 at 1:39 pm

        Unfortunately if they are allowed to leave the public school system they lose all interest in keeping the State schools excellent, and paying for them.

        As a result we get NACT standards, narrowing curricula, and and teacher bashing for State schools widening the gap and lessening social mobility.

        • millsy 8.1.3.1
          29 July 2012 at 2:35 pm

          Its really all about not wanting their kids around poor/brown people.

          • Morrissey 8.1.3.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 4:05 pm

            Its really all about not wanting their kids around poor/brown people.

            Agree with you 100 per cent, my friend.

        • OneTrack 8.1.3.2
          29 July 2012 at 6:38 pm

          And it’s nothing to do with their opinion that the public schools might not be as “excellent” as you say they are.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.3.2.1
            29 July 2012 at 6:44 pm

            Smaller class sizes, more individual teacher attention, more teaching resources as well as ample specialist subject area teachers are some of the good things about private schools.

            The Tories don’t think public schools and poorer kids deserve those advantages, of course.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.3.2.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 8:25 pm

              Smaller class sizes, more individual teacher attention, more teaching resources as well as ample specialist subject area teachers are some of the good things about private schools.

              Important but not the most important. The most important is for their kids to be socialising with the right people and making the right contacts to further their career.

              Once you get that, you don’t actually need a good education.

              • TheContrarian …
                29 July 2012 at 9:07 pm

                “Important but not the most important. The most important is for their kids to be socialising with the right people and making the right contacts to further their career.

                Once you get that, you don’t actually need a good education.”

                I love Draco’s blind assertions. He is the reason I read The Standard.

                • RedLogix …
                  29 July 2012 at 9:13 pm

                  It’s the reason why Auckland Grammar is so sought after.

                  The actual education is not so very much different than many other similar schools; but your peers are.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 July 2012 at 10:35 pm

                  What blind assertion?

                  Key cheerfully admits that, coming from Canterbury University, he would “not have had a dog’s show” of entering the company as a graduate.

                  “We started bonding people who went to Harvard. We would be paying the students’ association to point out to us kids that we thought in year one we should be tracking. It’s bloody sick.”

                  It might be sick, but it also might be why Key’s children – Stephanie, 12, and Max, 10 – go to private schools. Mostly, he says, that decision was for educational reasons. Their schools have smaller classes and are better resourced than most state schools. But he acknowledges that the connections children make are also important.

                  That first sentence and considering that Key’s a proven liar I feel justified in saying that the social contacts are actually the most important.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    30 July 2012 at 2:43 pm

                    I agree. They send their brats to private or elite schools so they’ll mix with the (far) right people and not be exposed to the underclass. Oh, except for the Maori and Pasifika that these schools find academic (rugby) scholarships for out of a sense of philanthropy (realising that their own spoilt brats can’t play for shit).

  9. marty mars 9
    29 July 2012 at 10:48 am

    I wonder if anyone can tell me what this article is saying – I’ve read it a few times but, well, … this is the end of it.

    The Treaty is a binding legal document. Wrongs have been committed, Maori property has been taken illegally and these issues should be addressed.

    But the same rights you claim to your people, rights I support, should also apply to me. It is wrong to take other people’s property by force, no matter who they are.
    By Damien Grant:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10822830

    I may have it wrong but it seems he’s moaning because he pays too much tax or something?

    • Pascal's bookie 9.1
      29 July 2012 at 11:00 am

      Yep. He’s an idiot.

      Interesting that he thinks he is paying the gst, (not his customers), and he is paying the PAYE (not his employees). If that’s true, then if those taxes were abolished he is saying that he would not lower his prices and he would slash his employee’s wages.

      He also seems to think that he has a treaty with the crown such that he doesn’t have to pay tax, and that therefore any taxation on him is theft.

      He also appears to be somewhat of a fuckwit.

      • Dv 9.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 11:18 am

        “I run a small business and almost all of my costs are labour. Every time I earn a dollar, the Government takes 15c. I use what is left to pay staff and the Government takes a third. More than 45c of every dollar that my business earns goes in tax – GST, PAYE, provisional tax, FBT, rates, petrol surcharges, liquor taxes, road-user charges, ACC and even a surcharge on my rates to pay for the museum.”

        He needs a new accountant.

        He thinks he is paying tax on turnover.

    • Bill 9.2
      29 July 2012 at 11:27 am

      heh Nothing about his exploitation of his workforce. Nothing about the infrastructure that taxes pay for, the absence of which would make his business impossible to operate. And no recognition of the fact that the same power differential he takes advantage of in business (employer/ labour) is the reason many scrape by on entitlements.

      In short. The worthy poor (those who have a job) deserve to be exploited by him but to be free from any tax. And the unworthy poor (those not being exploited by a boss like him) deserve what they get. Which in his world would be nothing.

      And that’s leaving aside the snide racism that’s splattered throughout his opinion piece.

    • vto 9.3
      29 July 2012 at 12:32 pm

      He is just unhappy at what he perceives as some unfair burdens. Unfortunately he completely fails to back up his whinge with a good understanding of most of the areas he touches on and then places them together like some sort of ill-fitting jigsaw puzzle with the pieces all out of place meaning the resulting picture is indecipherable.

      I think you need to tip your jigsaw puzzle upside down and start again mr damian grant.

      • Colonial Viper 9.3.1
        29 July 2012 at 12:42 pm

        I run a small business and almost all of my costs are labour. Every time I earn a dollar, the Government takes 15c.

        This is another example of Damien Grant’s extreme ignorance of the tax system. He talks about the 15% GST that he collects daily on behalf of the Government as if it is his own money.

        Damien – I suggest you talk to your accountant to learn the ABCs of GST. What you will learn is that you hold GST monies in trust for the Government and unlike income tax, it is never ever at any stage of the transaction or even while it is sitting in your bank account, ‘your money’. The IRD gets really pissed off if you treat GST money as if its your own because that is, literally, stealing from the Crown.

        For fucks sake do you not mind demonstrating to the world how clueless you are?

        [I note PB has essentially made the same point]

    • marty mars 9.4
      29 July 2012 at 3:13 pm

      oh dear, it appears i have unwittingly unleashed an internet warrior – anyone know the spell to put him back?

      • McFlock 9.4.1
        29 July 2012 at 3:23 pm

        lol.
                 
        Randian superheroes leave in a huff after it becomes obvious their opinions aren’t matched by reality.  
                 
        So far it’s happened each and every time. 

  10. damien grant 10
    29 July 2012 at 12:17 pm

    I do not need a new accountant, thanks DV, it is why I said most of my expenses are labour, and marty mars, my point is exactly that I am paying too much tax, and Bill, there is no racism, snide or otherwise, and Pascal, yes, I do think that my business pays the tax but that is not the point, the cash leaves the business, no matter how it is dressed up.

    I always enjoy the personal abuse I get here at The Standard.

    • bad12 10.1
      29 July 2012 at 12:20 pm

      You poor wee thing, Vanuatu is close if you want to re-locate to a tax free location…

      • damien grant 10.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 12:27 pm

        I think you miss the point of a tax haven. You can earn income there but live here.

        It works quite well, thanks.

        • bad12 10.1.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 12:33 pm

          Well if you are taking advantage of such a tax haven as you insinuate why the fuck are you whining like a bitch in heat that can’t slip the chain…

          • damien grant 10.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 2:15 pm

            Bceause bad12, I care about those who cannot, those on PAYE incomes who are voer taxed because the rich can arrange their income in such a way as they pay a very low marginal rate of tax.

            • bad12 10.1.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 2:30 pm

              What a load of f**king sh*t, your whole puerile article was simply Wah Wah Wah tax is theft why should you pay it,

              Your moral bankruptcy is on show here for all to view, if a certain income group is not paying their share of the tax as adjudged by the Parliament then you should be advocating to that Parliament that they tighten up the rules and enforcement around taxation and the collection of it,

              In particular if you are so concerned,(which incidently i don’t believe for a moment), you would be advocating through your access to the mainstream media that the deliberate avoidance of taxation become just as criminal in the eyes of the law as the evasion of taxation is,

              That you have not done so just goes to show that your faux concern for the ordinary PAYE worker expressed belatedly here is Bullsh*t,

              My view is that as a commenter you have imparted anything of worth,(nothing),in your previous comments and you are fast becoming a ‘smiley face candidate’…

    • xtasy 10.2
      29 July 2012 at 12:42 pm

      Well, if criticism here is instantly interpreted as “abuse”, the NZ Herald commenters that mostly comment to your so one eyed, biased articles in that mainstream media outlet, then you should be well used to “abuse” as a regular Herald writer, aye?

    • millsy 10.3
      29 July 2012 at 1:03 pm

      As a libertarian, the only acceptable level of tax for DG is 0%.

      • bad12 10.3.1
        29 July 2012 at 1:11 pm

        As wee damien seems to be insinuating He either avoids or evades taxation by the use of a foreign tax haven my diagnosis would be that He needs a good TAX AUDIT from the much maligned and under-staffed IRD where they turn Him upside down and shake Him vigorously in an effort to locate any small change they may have missed the first time round,

        To that end, always wishing to oblige and aid the wee damiens of this world, i will have to dig out the 0800 taxcheat number to try and arrange His massaging…

      • damien grant 10.3.2
        29 July 2012 at 2:31 pm

        Well, no. Libertarians believe in different things, a bit like Christians, but most believe that we need a state to do things like run a police force etc, and this needs to be paid for somehow.

        Thus, taxes cannot be zero, but would be minimal. The question of how these minimal taxes can be collected is an issue of considerable and often heated debate within the tiny libertarian community.

        • Colonial Viper 10.3.2.1
          29 July 2012 at 2:41 pm

          An economic system which more evenly distributes the wealth of society to labour, and not mainly to those who control capital, will allow you to dramatically reduce Government spending, and to dramatically reduce tax rates.

          • damien grant 10.3.2.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 2:49 pm

            Yes, I am aware of this argument and I can see its appeal but I am uncertain if the economics behind it work.

            Why does equality matter? Reducing poverty matters, equality is irrelevant. It assumes that there is a fixed stock of wealth in the economy, but there is not. Wealth creators do just that, make wealth where none existed before, often leaving everyone else a little better off than they were.

            Sam Morgan made a lot of money but in the process he left us all a little better off than we were before his company began.

            • Colonial Viper 10.3.2.1.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 3:12 pm

              So you’re not willing to explore economic changes which would allow Government to greatly reduce spending and greatly reduce taxation.

              Those are the things you say you want, after all.

              Wealth creators do just that, make wealth where none existed before,

              Amongst the most powerful capitalists in the system are ticket clippers and wealth siphoners. They create and produce nothing, they simply own.

              There’s a reason that Goldman Sach’s nick name is the ‘Vampire Squid’.

              Why does equality matter? Reducing poverty matters, equality is irrelevant.

              All the social sciences research says you are wrong. Increasing inequality leads to very much worse social and healthcare outcomes. But what would you care about such details?

            • Draco T Bastard 10.3.2.1.1.2
              29 July 2012 at 3:47 pm

              Why does equality matter?

              IMO,Two major reasons:
              1.) Status: As a social animal excessively low status causes problems for society which often end costing huge amounts
              2.) Those people without access to the resources needed to innovate don’t cutting off a source of betterment for society

              It assumes that there is a fixed stock of wealth in the economy, but there is not.

              Actually, there is only a limited amount of resources available at any one time this makes the economy a zero sum game whether you like it or not. We take some of that available and add to the sum total of wealth in society but even that hits hard physical limits after awhile as resources peak and then go into decline, i.e, Peak Oil. The only possible solution is a stable state economy that improves it’s position but does not use up resources.

              Now, back to that zero sum game: If 65% of the resources available goes to the top 10% of the population then the other 90% need to live on the remaining 35% and that means a hell of a lot of people living in poverty – just as we see in the real world every time free-market capitalism is tried.

              Sam Morgan made a lot of money but in the process he left us all a little better off than we were before his company began.

              Actually, the result of the capitalist function applied to TradeMe is that we’re all getting slowly poorer due to the dead weight loss of profit.

            • OneTrack 10.3.2.1.1.3
              29 July 2012 at 6:54 pm

              DG, equality is always better. Even if everybody was begging in the gutter, that would be better than if almost everybody was on 50k and just one rich prick was getting 60k.

              Except for party members of course. They are more equal.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2012 at 7:04 pm

                All I’d like to see is that every person who wants a full time job, gets a full time job, and is held accountable for doing that job well.

                That would begin to address some of the serious issues of poverty in this country.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                29 July 2012 at 8:29 pm

                The average wage is, IIRC, ~$58k. At that rate I don’t think anyone would be begging in the gutter which is what we have now due to a few people taking far more than they require or deserve.

      • mike e 10.3.3
        29 July 2012 at 10:55 pm

        Bailouts negative taxes are allright for libertarians all 0.0001 % of the population but the selfish little Narcissists have a much bigger say that their vote gets, money buys policy under mining our democratic right to set taxes to the ability to pay .
        building a fairer inclusive society(civilized)!

    • Pascal's bookie 10.4
      29 July 2012 at 1:08 pm

      “Pascal, yes, I do think that my business pays the tax but that is not the point, the cash leaves the business, no matter how it is dressed up.”

      Then you’re an idiot, as noted. But money leaves your business to pay all sorts of things. It’s called an economy.

      Where’s this thing you have that equates to the treaty by the way? I thought that was the most hilarious part.

      • Colonial Viper 10.4.1
        29 July 2012 at 1:12 pm

        Where’s this thing you have that equates to the treaty by the way? I thought that was the most hilarious part.

        His ego and self styled “Masters of the Universe” act?

        • damien grant 10.4.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 2:18 pm

          Actually, if you read carefully, I was admitting that I am not a Master of the Universe. Do the numbers and you will see I do not earn that much money.

          I am a small business owner earning less than a minister of the crown.

          • Colonial Viper 10.4.1.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 2:59 pm

            My ‘Masters of the Universe’ quip spoke to your attitude not to the reality. As a small business person, you should be more aware that you need to be focussing on sales and revenue growth not dodging taxes, if you want to get ahead.

      • damien grant 10.4.2
        29 July 2012 at 2:41 pm

        Honestly, why do you Standard types need to resort to personal abuse?

        I believe The treaty is about property rights and I have said before, it should be honoured.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10784921

        I was making the point that if you believe it is wrong for the Crown to take Maori property by force, and I do think that, then it is equally wrong for the Crown to take my property by force.

        There are arguments against my views of course, I can see both sides of the debate, but I liked the symmetry here.

        • Colonial Viper 10.4.2.1
          29 July 2012 at 3:01 pm

          I believe The treaty is about property rights

          The Maori who signed the Treaty didn’t believe in property rights at all.

          FAIL dude.

          • damien grant 10.4.2.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 3:05 pm

            Ummm,

            Actually, they did. The viewed property as being owed collectively, the English see it being owned by a person or a legal entity, but Maori believed that they owned and wish to retain their lands.

            • Colonial Viper 10.4.2.1.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 3:16 pm

              Wow you are just lost mate. The Treaty, from the Maori standpoint, centred upon the guarantee of tribal rangatiratanga.

              Not whatever the fuck you are making up.

        • Pascal's bookie 10.4.2.2
          29 July 2012 at 7:54 pm

          iI was making the point that if you believe it is wrong for the Crown to take Maori property by force, and I do think that, then it is equally wrong for the Crown to take my property by force.

          I know that’s the point you were making Damien, but that word ‘equally’ that implies that there is something like the treaty that you have to fall back on, something that the crown is not honouring with regard to your tax status. If there isn’t, then it’s not an equal situation. I don’t think there is such a thing.

          I just think you’re whinging about paying taxes that you were well aware of being owed when you set up business.

          You said you think people should follow the laws in place. Great. So that means your taxes aren’t theft. It’s not difficult.

          I’m also n unconvinced byt your bleating about insults. You post at SOLO right? Hardly wall flowers when it comes to throwing invective around.

    • Dv 10.5
      29 July 2012 at 1:27 pm

      Every time I earn a dollar, the Government takes 15c.

      Is that not a turn over tax?

      • damien grant 10.5.1
        29 July 2012 at 2:24 pm

        Yes, the math is not perfect, but being a professional services firm I have very little GST deductions, most of my costs are labour and thus not deductable, but there is a trade off in being exact and keeping the reader engaged. I’m writing an opinion piece to convey an idea, but I did use the word earn, and not invoice, if that helps!

        None the less, you understand my point, even if you do not agree with me.

        • Vicky32 10.5.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

          Yes, the math (sic) is not perfect,

          Sadly, neither is your English! 🙄 (trying that out!)

        • DH 10.5.1.2
          29 July 2012 at 9:19 pm

          “Yes, the math is not perfect, but being a professional services firm I have very little GST deductions, most of my costs are labour and thus not deductable”

          I’ll add a bit more to the GST debate….

          You’d pay very little, if any, GST in your line of business. You’re selling services to mostly other businesses. You charge GST and the (business) client claims it back. No GST is collected by the taxman from those transactions. Anything you purchase on the business tab you can claim the GST content back – no GST paid by you there either.

          I don’t know why you assume you ‘earn’ GST, you’d know that non GST-registered businesses can’t charge GST so it’s pretty clear that you’re collecting tax & not earning it.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.6
      29 July 2012 at 2:26 pm

      Taxes are payment for services rendered. You don’t want the services then you’re quite welcome to fuck off. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.

      • damien grant 10.6.1
        29 July 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Draco,

        Good manners cost nothing. If you wish to discuss this then I am pleased to do so, if you simply wish to hurl abuse, then of course you can do so on your own on the naughty step.

        Off you go.

        • Colonial Viper 10.6.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 3:32 pm

          You want to impoverish workers, the under class, and the country as a whole for your own personal benefit, but you want us to show you good manners?

          Fuck. Right. Off.

          • prism 10.6.1.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 9:20 pm

            Damien grant
            DG is a small business owner. He has become self-employed, or a contractor, and tried to break out of the wage earner, worker category. Now he thinks he had joined an upper class, on a higher level than wage earners. He doesn’t know how low mini SMEs are in the business ladder, and how Marx might still see him as petit bourgeois, just a fraction above wage earners.

    • Bill 10.7
      29 July 2012 at 2:53 pm

      Maori, let’s be honest, are disproportionately heavy users of the welfare system.

      That’s a nice ‘neutral’ way to refer to people claiming entitlements that are rightfully theirs in a situation where ye grande olde market economy has kicked them into touch, don’t you think? Now I get it that you don’t see things that way and would rather see poverty as a matter of choice. Which means you effectively say in your article that Maori are bludgers. Much bigger bludgers, as you’re obviously anxious for us to appreciate, than the whiteys… (Housing New Zealand reports 75,000 Maori living in state houses, many paying little or no rent, compared with just 54,000 Pakeha. As tax is based on income, Maori contribute less per head than Pakeha towards its funding.)

      So yeah. That’s just one example of the snide racist crap I was alluding to. I’m not even going to touch on the ridiculous and offensive notion you try to peddle, that you as a business person have as much right to feel aggreived as Maori when it comes to property rights.

      But it all A-OK. Coz those worthy Maori – those who are not in state housing or on welfare entitlements…well, you’ve nothing bad to say about them. I mean, hell, you even almost accord them the same status as you do yourself….in a patronising fucked up sort of a way. Y’know, the faux concern that the unworthy Maori are dragging the worthy Maori down in much the same way as they (the unworthy Maori) are dragging you (the worthy whitey) down.

      Some-one who is privileged and who cries ‘Victim!’ as an expression of their ill founded sense of entitlement is someone who is betraying themselves as a somewhat despicable excuse for a human being. Don’t you think so Damien?

      • damien grant 10.7.1
        29 July 2012 at 3:03 pm

        Bill,

        I have a belief that the current welfare system is broken and is not solving the problem of poverty.

        Maori are, in my world view, victims, because multiple generations are trapped into welfare.

        Now, I may be wrong, sure, make that case, and certainly the numbers on improving Maori engagement are impressive, but what about the counter-factual? What if there was no social welfare? Would the poor actually starve? Would they be homeless?

        I do not think that they would. I think that if taxes were lower and there was no social welfare then those who wanted to work would be able to, they would get to keep more of their money, and it would rain less.

        That means that I disagree with your politics, it does not make me a bad person.

        • Colonial Viper 10.7.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 3:24 pm

          I have a belief that the current welfare system is broken and is not solving the problem of poverty.

          Absolutely, I think that everyone who wants full time work should be given full time work, even if it is on the minimum wage, and be expected to perform that work to a good standard.

        • bad12 10.7.1.2
          29 July 2012 at 3:29 pm

          … 🙄 …

        • Bill 10.7.1.3
          29 July 2012 at 3:31 pm

          I have a belief that the current welfare system is broken and is not solving the problem of poverty.

          True. But then the welfare system is (at least these days) meant to provide the stick of poverty that will encourage people back into the market to sell their labour no matter the terms and conditions available in the market.

          Maori are, in my world view, victims, because multiple generations are trapped into welfare.

          Maori and poor people of other cultures are victims market entrapment – not the welfare provisions that were created to ameliorate the effects of being excluded from the market. And before you’re tempted to suggest I’m contradicting myself there, bear in mind that the imposition of the market forcibly robbed people of independent means and made them dependent on being able to sell their labour to get from others what they themselves used to be able to provide to themselves.

          Now, I may be wrong, sure, make that case, and certainly the numbers on improving Maori engagement are impressive, but what about the counter-factual? What if there was no social welfare? Would the poor actually starve? Would they be homeless?

          Of course they would be homeless and starve! the evidence is there in any and every other country that has a market economy but no welfare provisions.

          I do not think that they would. I think that if taxes were lower and there was no social welfare then those who wanted to work would be able to, they would get to keep more of their money, and it would rain less.

          Everybody already does work Damien. (Yes. Even the unemployed.) The point you’re missing is that only a small percentage of some types of work make money. And even in a zero tax scenario, the market could not possibly support everyone making money from their work activities. Competition would lead to those who go under selling their labour to others and then becoming homeless and starving in the event that the person exploiting them lost in the arena of market competition. So it isn’t hard to imagine workers on ‘starvation diets’ (boss needs to cut production costs to survive) working their arses off in heinous conditions only – and I do mean ‘only’ – to stay alive until the next day. And again. There are examples of this happening all around the world.

          That means that I disagree with your politics, it does not make me a bad person.

          Can a person who ascribes to misanthropic ideas be a good person? Maybe. But in such a case, their adherence to the idea would be short lived as it would have been based on a genuine lack of understanding as to the impact their idea would have.

        • McFlock 10.7.1.4
          29 July 2012 at 3:32 pm

          Now, I may be wrong, sure, make that case, and certainly the numbers on improving Maori engagement are impressive, but what about the counter-factual? What if there was no social welfare? Would the poor actually starve? Would they be homeless?
          I do not think that they would. I think that if taxes were lower and there was no social welfare then those who wanted to work would be able to, they would get to keep more of their money, and it would rain less.

          So your suggestion is that homelessness and starvation can’t exist in New Zealand? Or is it just that some people want to lose their homes or starve?
            
               
           

        • Bill 10.7.1.5
          29 July 2012 at 3:46 pm

          Sheesh 🙄 See how easily I was sidetracked. Again! Not a single word in that there reply from Damien about the racism contained in his ‘Herald’ article. Wonder why that might be? It’s certainly not because I’m seeing something there that no-one else sees. A quick read of the comments on the Herald web site show just how much various racist poodles appreciated Damien’s whistle.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.7.1.6
          29 July 2012 at 4:00 pm

          What if there was no social welfare? Would the poor actually starve? Would they be homeless?

          Yes, they would starve and be homeless. We saw it in the 19th century when modern welfare policies weren’t in place.

          I do not think that they would. I think that if taxes were lower and there was no social welfare then those who wanted to work would be able to, they would get to keep more of their money, and it would rain less.

          That means that I disagree with your politics, it does not make me a bad person.

          That’s because you’re denying the evidence as it goes against your delusional beliefs.

          One of the changes over the last few centuries is the realisation that we can’t run a community on opinion any more and that we have to base our decisions upon the evidence. Neo-liberal/libertarian and conservative socio-economic theories are an outright denial of that evidence. That’s why they never work.

          • TheContrarian 10.7.1.6.1
            29 July 2012 at 9:14 pm

            “That’s because you’re denying the evidence as it goes against your delusional beliefs.”

            says the guy with the delusional belief that NZ is a dictatorship.

            • McFlock 10.7.1.6.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 9:18 pm

              I’m intrigued. got a link? Not that I’d accuse you of taking something out of context, of course.

              • TheContrarian …
                29 July 2012 at 9:24 pm

                Draco will remember. Him and me have had this discussion before a wee while back. He’ll stroll along sooner or later and claim the same. Supporting his position with “it’s obvious”.

                • McFlock …
                  29 July 2012 at 9:42 pm

                  Oh wow, so no links then? Big surprise.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    29 July 2012 at 9:47 pm

                    Only because I am feeling generous today, Flocksie…

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-pollster-reveals-asset-sale-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-486339

                    edit: If you look up and down that page you’ll see him claim it a few times…..You’re welcome.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:02 pm

                      lolz.
                             
                      So basically you did take Dtb out of context. 
                      Nice thread, though – highlighting “dictatorship” really demonstrates how you fuck around with definitions to frame a debate, too.
                         
                      Like when dtb provided a readily accessible definition of what they were talking about here (which incudes “absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.”),  and you said “The definition of dictatorship is not under debate.”. Then 20 minutes later you supply your own definition which is a subtle slide from dtb’s.
                          
                      Dick. 

                    • TheContrarian …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:03 pm

                      So you’re saying NZ is a dictatorship?

                      “demonstrates how you fuck around with definitions”

                      If you have another definition of dictatorship I am all ears.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:07 pm

                      An elected dictatorship. 61 people following the guidance of one slippery prick can overrule the wishes of the rest of the country for 3 years. In practically any way he wants.
                             
                      No doubt you’ll conjugate that out of context, too. 

                    • TheContrarian …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:09 pm

                      “An elected dictatorship. 61 people following the guidance of one slippery prick can overrule the wishes of the rest of the country for 3 years. In practically any way he wants.”

                      Not a dictatorship.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:09 pm
                      If you have another definition of dictatorship I am all ears.

                       

                      read the post again. DTB supplied you with one, dick. You said you weren’t going to debate with it, then ignored it and supplied your own variation. 

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:14 pm
                      Not a dictatorship.

                       
                       

                      Definitely counts as overbearing or imperious control, even absolute (is the death penalty repeal retrenched?).
                         
                      You’ll have to do better than a “blind assertion“, toryboy

                    • TheContrarian …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:21 pm

                      “read the post again. DTB supplied you with one, dick”

                      So you are also going to claim NZ is a dictatorship?

                      Citation needed.

                      “supplied your own variation.”
                      Yes, because the definition I supplied was purely my own….oh wait….

                      Question for McFlock; NZ is a dictatorship – Yes/No?

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2012 at 10:27 pm

                      I’ve already said “elected dictatorship”.
                          
                      Oh, and the definition that happened to suit your framing – you never supplied a source. DTB did. I wonder if you took your definition as out of context as dtb’s statement?
                                  

                       

        • Vicky32 10.7.1.7
          29 July 2012 at 7:33 pm

          and there was no social welfare then those who wanted to work would be able to, they would get to keep more of their money, and it would rain less.

          The last 4 words of your quoted sentence show that you’re simply taking the piss!
          Yes, numbnuts, we would starve because the frakking jobs don’t exist! Half wit.

          • mike e 10.7.1.7.1
            29 July 2012 at 10:39 pm

            Contra starting with granny herald right down through the layers of power that run this country the right has controll pun. or is that Contraoll. upper hand.

  11. captain hook 11
    29 July 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Draco +1.
    oh gosh you are norty draco and its so great to have people like mr grant to put you in your place.
    larfffs.
    who the f*ck does he think he is?
    anyway I’m here today to ask everybody to get on to the Finance and Expenditure Select Cttee on the RBNZ Covered Bonds Amendment Bill.
    this bill allows overseas banks to borrow on our credit and if anything goes wrong then we have to pay.
    It also rearranges the debtors list so depositors are the last to get their money if the bank tanks.
    And it wasn so long ago that Westpac nearly bit the dust due to their own rogue traders adventures.
    Anyway time for the standard bearers to get down tothis comittee and or start asking the RBNZ questions.
    Dont let them get away with it.

  12. damien grant 12
    29 July 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Ok,

    I have to go now, thanks to the person who emailed me an invite to come here.

    Not sure about the level of personal abuse is necessary but ok. Good luck with the IRD audit there bad12, and Viper, keep up the good work!

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      29 July 2012 at 3:18 pm

      🙄

    • bad12 12.2
      29 July 2012 at 3:25 pm

      +1 🙄

    • Blue 12.3
      29 July 2012 at 4:18 pm

      Just a tip, Damien. Stop whinging about the personal abuse. The ‘poor me, I’m being abused’ schtick hasn’t worked for PeteyG and he’s been trying it on a lot longer than you have.

      If you step into the ring, people are going to throw punches at you. Learn to cope or go hide under your pillow.

    • prism 12.4
      29 July 2012 at 9:10 pm

      Fascinating Damien. Please do name the person who emailed an invite to comment on The Standard. You are too polite and self-effacing I think. Anybody can come to Open Mike, with a few controls and guidelines. Has crowd sourcing replaced the excitement of individual exploration?

    • TheContrarian 12.5
      29 July 2012 at 9:21 pm

      Yah dude, coming to The Standard with a different opinion is asking for abuse. These are some of the nastiest fuckers I have ever encountered. Which is saying something as I cut my teeth on conservapedia. Hell, those conservatives are tame in comparison to these swine.

      But thats what you get when you encounter internet tough guys with fuck all else to do but stride around a comment board pretending to be gods among crazy men.

      • McFlock 12.5.1
        29 July 2012 at 9:27 pm

        I love it when tory sloganeers form a support group. 

        • TheContrarian 12.5.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 9:35 pm

          I love it when people like McFlock label anyone who doesn’t share their narrow view on the world scream “tory”. Hell, I am probably more liberal than most of the people here but because I don’t share his particular brand of rationality….TORY!

          • McFlock 12.5.1.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 9:39 pm

            Yeah, you really come across as the next Len1n or Michael Joseph Savage. Shit, I bet you listen to the Red Flag every night.

            • TheContrarian 12.5.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 10:18 pm

              Yah, only McFlock can decide ones political opinions.

              You know McFlock, me and you probably have many things in common. We quite possibly share the same attitude towards justice, politics and social well-being. Shit, we could have been friends, lovers even (if I were so inclined – I am rather good looking but not gay).

              Unfortunately your knee-jerk reactions to people that might not agree with you 100% make you quite a nasty, irrational and revolting person. Heh, almost like a tory, you might say.

              Ahh well, good luck with that. Perhaps one day we can be together.

              • McFlock …
                29 July 2012 at 10:23 pm

                Apart from the fact that I can disagree (sometimes quite strongly) with dtb, cv, and a variety of other folk without thinking they are lying tory fuckwits.

                • TheContrarian …
                  29 July 2012 at 10:28 pm

                  Yes, all you have is “thinking” I am a lying tory fuckwit.

                  But it isn’t you that tells me what I believe.

                  I think you’re a bestiality driven necrophiliac and because I think it I must be right.

                  I’m going to bed. To sleep in my woven tory silk sheets a top a pile of slave babies. See you tomorrow, sweets.

                  • McFlock …
                    29 July 2012 at 10:31 pm

                    adios motherfucker.
                       
                    You’ve expressed quite clearly what you believe.  All the problems in the world are just there for you to trool about at your computer until you cum.

        • mike e 12.5.1.2
          29 July 2012 at 10:09 pm

          WE a000000000000000000000000re all flocking to take the Mc out of anyone who just follows the party line especially the rights bad policies.
          Theirs quite a bit of criticism of all views here do your homework and dish up policies that work
          in other countries and not failed policy.reheated from the likes of England and Germany the US where republicans have control in the upper and lower houses and stagnating the economy by inaction the latest spin from the right as they try to resell austerity and lower taxes the well off.
          The right want to take us back to only the most powerful have a right to taking all and giving as little.
          Civilization is about everybody having a right to participating.
          Otherwise we are going backwards to a model of primitive behaviour where the alpha males take all and the rest get left behind.
          Cooperation has brought civilization
          Selfishness is undoing civilization reducing it back to animal instincts winner takes all .
          All the O’s are my cat he thinks he’s computer literate! God you should see some of the stuff he writes it makes more sense than Shonkeys mumbling,
          I bet you he’s hoping they draw a ballet in parliament to make mumbling an official language!

      • mike e 12.5.2
        29 July 2012 at 9:49 pm

        contrary to your beliefs KB is far worse as it is humourless as well as bigoted if you want someone that agrees with everything you say try pg.

  13. Logie97 13
    29 July 2012 at 4:05 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10823015

    So Graham Henry appears to be asserting that in 2007 the All Blacks were playing 16 plus men. Of course the referee in that match told Luke McAlister that he was to cynically obstruct an attacking Frenchman so that he should then be able to send him to the sin-bin for 10 minutes.

    We need to remember that the All Blacks have never ever been beaten by better sides (not even by the all conquering 1971 Lions). The All Blacks just didn’t win on those days.

    • Murray Olsen 13.1
      30 July 2012 at 2:57 pm

      Spoken like a real kiwi patriot.

    • Morrissey 13.2
      1 August 2012 at 6:17 am

      So Graham Henry appears to be asserting that in 2007 the All Blacks were playing 16 plus men.

      “Sir” Graham has a book to sell. Whoever wrote the dull thing for him obviously decided he needed something juicy to stir up publicity and entice a few fools to actually part with their money for a Christmas present for Dad. The trouble is, however, that “Sir” Graham’s comments are not only dishonest, but demonstrably dishonest.

      Even worse for him, is that he (or more likely, his genius of a ghost-writer) has opened up the likelihood of further close reviews of the scandalous non-performance of the referee in last year’s RWC final. While there is not a skerrick of evidence to support “Sir” Graham’s dishonest claims, there is evidence that a referee colluded with his own team to pervert the course of rugby football….

  14. joe90 14
    29 July 2012 at 4:15 pm

    The mask slips, again.

    Aidan Burley MP

    Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multi-cultural crap. Bring back red arrows, Shakespeare and the Stones!

    The most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen – more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state! Welfare tribute next?

    That’ll be this Aidan Burley MP

    Friends of a high-flying Tory MP are ‘facing prosecution’ for chanting offensive Nazi slogans in a crowded restaurant at a French ski resort – where one of the party dressed in an SS uniform.
    Aidan Burley, MP for Cannock Chase in Staffordshire, was with 12 friends, some of whom chanted ‘Hitler, Hitler, Hitler’. One toasted the ‘Third Reich’ and one taunted a waiter for being French.

    • Morrissey 14.1
      1 August 2012 at 6:23 am

      Until last week Adrian Burley, John Banks and Maggie Barry would have been contenders for the world’s stupidest politician.

      But then “Mitt the Twit” stepped up to the podium, and removed all doubt.

      John McCain in 2008, now Mitt the Twit in 2012: if this is all the Republican Party can come up with, then not only that party, but the whole of the United States is in dire trouble. Would any other democracy tolerate such an openly racist candidate as Romney?

  16. just saying 16
    29 July 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Damn, this blog link deserves a better audience than the graveyard of Sunday night, so I’ll cut and paste it in tomorrow morning’s OM (unless anyone objects).

    From The Political Scientist’ Underneath the Underclass:
    http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/?p=571#more-571

    (and the links are well worth following – time for me to get some Bageant form the library!).

    …In the end, there’s an underclass simply because ‘we are all individualistic now’.

    Underneath the underclass is simply the logic of today’s world.

    Without wanting to distract attention from the severe plight of those most clearly at the sharp end of this experience, there is a real sense in which we are all experiencing, day to day, the forces that push people into the so-called underclass.

    Lives – and ways of life – are being dismantled constantly. Many in the middle class are simply better able to afford the self-medications and have the wherewithal to put enough strapping around the ‘centre’ to ensure it holds together each day.

    But there’s always the fear that the strapping will come loose. The last word on the scale of the underclass belongs to Joe Bageant…

    • mac1 16.1
      29 July 2012 at 10:05 pm

      just saying- try Bageant’s “Deer Hunting With Jesus” which was not mentioned in that link. I’ll try his later book mentioned- thanks for that. I was really struck by ‘Deer Hunting.”

      • TheContrarian 16.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 10:08 pm

        I didn’t enjoy “Deer Hunting With Jesus” myself. He started being Thompson-esque before finding his own voice. Seemed rather amateur to be honest. But that is just my opinion

        • mac1 16.1.1.1
          29 July 2012 at 10:28 pm

          My comment was directed at the substance of his argument and his description of the American underclass and its origins rather than his literary style. I don’t recall his style-just a description of an America that I wouldn’t want NZ to approach within a country mile but which I fear is the likely outcome of the policies of this government and some of its supporters.

          Could you see the NZ parallels within “Deer Hunting with Jesus?”

          • TheContrarian 16.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2012 at 10:29 pm

            Not really because it was so culturally Ameri-centric.

            • mac1 16.1.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2012 at 10:52 pm

              As are we in many ways so culturally Ameri-centric. Listen to our pop music, our ads, view our fashions, our TV and the origins of many of our political ideas- heh, even think of the place where our PM holidays.

              Consider the store chains, Burger outlets, fuel companies, franchises, blues, jazz, country music, hip hop, low slung trousers, OMG et al.

              The root causes of systemic poverty in the American way of life- poor education, restricted social vision, corporate greed, individualism, low wages, de-unionising, religious fundamentalism, inter-generational poverty of spirit and understanding, and more- described by Joe Bageant have their parallels here, that I can identify.

              Look at this government’s moves against beneficiaries, to effect lower wages, to introduce national standards in education, charter schools, lower taxes for the wealthy, gambling casinos. These mostly if not all have been major American initiatives.

              • Vicky32 …
                30 July 2012 at 6:36 pm

                As are we in many ways so culturally Ameri-centric

                • Vicky32 …
                  30 July 2012 at 6:41 pm

                  What on earth happened to the rest of it? There were 200 words at least!
                  Absolutely right! I see it here (because it’s what interests me) in spelling/grammar all the time! “Math”, “center”, “different than” etc., and it amazes me the lengths people go to justify it! *
                  I remember a couple of years ago, using a Kiwi idiom to a teenage receptionist at a company, and being met with a slack-jawed puzzled gape! When I translated it to American, she understood immediately.
                  I wonder how (or even whether) she communicates with her grandparents? 
                  * I remember a DJ on commercial radio years ago, prating on about ‘guess stations’ (he meant gas), and when I rang (I did that then, as my kids were young, and I was concerned about role models confusing them) and pointed out that petrol is not a gas until it enters the carburettor and not even then, as my son recently pointed out – the man sneered “Anyway, it’s short for ‘guessoleen’ (gasoline), whatever gasoline is – a brand name?

                  • Morrissey …
                    1 August 2012 at 7:01 am

                    “Math” is far superior to the ridiculous and almost unpronounceable “maths”.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:16 pm

                      “Math” is far superior to the ridiculous and almost unpronounceable “maths”

                      As a friend of mine called that once pointed out “Math” is a Welsh name!
                      On the subject of Americanisms, how can anyone pronounce ‘a orange’? How are they different?
                      My point was, no one over 20 grew up speaking American, so why are New Zealanders to whom it’s new, so fierce in defence of the language – because it’s that of Empire? I foresee a time not so long from now when I say to someone ‘Ka Kite’ and get the response ‘Wha’?’ (slack jawed grin) and when I say ‘have a nice day, see you later’ comprehension dawns…
                      When I hear someone say “I had gotten the elevator to put the trash out on the kerb, and I saw that next door’s cat had passed away (spelt past away, I saw today :D) when the garbage truck flattened it” I want to projectile vomit.
                      (What is it about passed away anyway? Why are people too scared/mealy mouthed to say ‘died’?)

      • Murray Olsen 16.1.2
        30 July 2012 at 3:01 pm

        Deer Hunting with Jesus is a great book. To imply that it is irrelevant to Aotearoa is to ignore the whole chardonnay socialist crap thought up by some overpaid bullshit artist, for a start.

  17. felix 17
    29 July 2012 at 8:36 pm

    I mostly like the way Damien thinks PAYE is a tax on him.

    Like if his employees didn’t have to pay tax to the state, they’d be able to pay it to him instead.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      29 July 2012 at 8:57 pm

      Hence, that is the way that King Damien sees his dominion.

      • felix 17.1.1
        29 July 2012 at 9:14 pm

        It’s never far from the surface with those fuckers, eh? Lib’ for me, ‘tarian for everyone else.

    • mike e 17.2
      29 July 2012 at 10:44 pm

      felix these type Damien are the devil reincarnate the only time they will be happy is when they providing Chinese sweat shop conditions for the workers

    • Draco T Bastard 17.3
      29 July 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Like if his employees didn’t have to pay tax to the state, they’d be able to pay it to him instead.

      He does see it that way. As Pascal’s Bookie points out, if PAYE was removed he wouldn’t actually pay his employees any more in hand – what he’d do is just keep the PAYE portion himself.

  18. Dave Kennedy 18
    29 July 2012 at 9:15 pm

    National may be more contemporary in their thinking than we thought, they are the ultimate steam punks.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/national-party-ultimate-steampunks.html

  19. prism 19
    29 July 2012 at 10:28 pm

    I hear Media Report advising NZ coverage of the Olympic games by newspapers does not include one female reporter – 17 males not one female. If it was the other way round I would see that was PC gone mad but there are some hot shot women out there able to do this sporty stuff.

    You backward-sliding macho so and sos, get your act together – you should have at least four
    women in the team, you girls blouses. (Just using some of the female put-downs dickheads understand.)

Links to post