Open mike 29/07/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 29th, 2013 - 187 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…

187 comments on “Open mike 29/07/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Alanz 1
    29 July 2013 at 7:30 am

    Was listening to Shearer on Morning Report. Just realised that my jaw has been sore as I have been clenching my teeth in trepidation that he might trip over his tongue. Whew. He hasn’t been THAT bad. Some good points made.

    • Paul 1.1
      29 July 2013 at 7:38 am

      Especially the comments about vested interests in the real estate industry making a lot of money out of foreign sales.
      Best form of defence is attack. Question the motivation of these opponents.

    • bad12 1.2
      29 July 2013 at 8:25 am

      Just heard a bit of Him defending Labour’s latest move on housing, interestingly someone here was having a nit-pick about Dave (the incumbent),calling the policy ‘his’ the other day,and, that’s the only point where he stumbled having to self edit meant that this came out as ”my/our policy”,

      Dave,(the incumbent),has come along in leaps and bounds in being able to deliver the message without the aaah ummm extended silence that punctuated His earlier efforts,

      He still tho has one major problem in that those that didn’t get their Dave,(not the incumbent),into the top spot still wont accept Him as leader with a large full stop…

      • Te Reo Putake 1.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 8:39 am

        The closer we get to the election, the less indifference Cunliffe supporters will show, I reckon. Whatever their feelings about the leadership, I’m confidant the prospect of knocking off Key will be enough for most Labour supporters to put the party, and NZ, ahead of their antipathy toward Shearer.

        • Anne 1.2.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 11:13 am

          Let me correct you TRP.

          There was no antipathy towards Shearer to begin with. Just a belief that Cunliffe was the better candidate. The antipathy resided with the ABC Club who chose to be malevolent towards Cunliffe and anyone who had supported him.

          Knocking off Key has always been the number one priority. There’s no reason why Shearer can’t do it, and I know of no-one who won’t be cheering him on. If he has the nous to stop listening to Cunliffe’s detractors and places Cunliffe back on the front bench where he belongs then all the better…

          • McFlock 1.2.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 12:13 pm

            “Captain Mumblefuck” was a term of endearment? Good to know.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:41 pm

              TV debates my good sir, the bloody election will be lost on the 2%-3% swing around the TV debates. Better be no mumbling then.

              • David H …
                29 July 2013 at 6:18 pm

                And then it will be too late to get rid of him if he fucks it up. And then we have 3 more years of a bunch of sell it all megalomaniacs, better he stands down now, in deference to someone who can at least string a sentence together, without stumbling ad mumbling all over the place. And his preoccupation with the word ‘I’. Someone needs to tell him that there is NO ‘I’ in TEAM. And he NEEDS a team to win and at the moment that is the biggest missing link in the Labour Party at present. So no team no win!

                • McFlock …
                  29 July 2013 at 6:28 pm

                  But there are two “I”s in “politics”. And three in “Prime Minister” 🙂

                  • David H …
                    29 July 2013 at 11:25 pm

                    But without a team he’s just another also ran. Who will lose his shirt, and us our assets, there is too much at stake to have a NON team player in charge!

                • Arfamo …
                  29 July 2013 at 6:33 pm

                  +1. Absolutely. Someone seems to have told him he should say “I” to show he’s in charge, or something. It needs to be “we”. It’s a team that makes policy, not Shearer, it’ll be a team that gets elected and implements policy.

                  No need to compete with Key by saying “I”. It’s fine for National to continue to show they’re all told what to do in every area of policy by a dodgy money trader.

            • Anne 1.2.1.1.1.2
              29 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

              I know of no Labour Party member who used that term. Even so, it was ultra mild compared to what some were calling Cunliffe. You do have a very selective memory sometimes McFlock.

              • McFlock …
                29 July 2013 at 1:11 pm

                Well, here’s the list of folk who’ve used it here. Not all of them are tory concern trools.

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:18 pm

                  Can’t tell from that list who are Labour Party members though. Might be better to search “mumblefuck” +colonial viper etc.

                  • weka …
                    29 July 2013 at 1:24 pm

                    forgot that the search engine here can’t handle multiple words well.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2013 at 1:31 pm

                      and then there’s trying to remember the people who’ve [plausibly] claimed to be Labour members.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    29 July 2013 at 1:43 pm

                    Quite happy to say that I have not (IIRC) and will not call Shearer by that nickname.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      29 July 2013 at 5:06 pm

                      He should wear it as a badge of honour, reclaim the language, that sort of thing 😉

                • felix …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:24 pm

                  Oh, I’ve used the term.

                  But only – and I really must stress this point – only because he’s a mumbling useless fuck.

                • David H …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:33 pm

                  You missed me. And I have, until this time, voted labour for the last 40 years. But not this time. Why should I vote for someone who does not give a rats arse about us, who is only interested in being the leader, even if the fucking shooting box goes down the crapper. And that’s what Mumblefucks legacy will be! The man who sank democracy in NZ, for a pay packet, and a fucking title. Way to go Shearer!

                  • McFlock …
                    29 July 2013 at 11:45 pm

                    Ah, thanks.

                    So much for Anne’s “I know of no Labour Party member who used that term”.

                    So much for this bullshit about nice people versus intractable careerists who would bring labour down to keep their jobs for three more years. Maybe if you guys can get over yourselves, then you could help the Left get somewhere rather than feeding bullshit to jonolists.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2013 at 11:53 pm

                      then you could help the Left get somewhere rather than feeding bullshit to jonolists.

                      Just checking. Are you referring to the caucus ABCs as well?

                    • felix …
                      29 July 2013 at 11:54 pm

                      To be fair, there’s a huge difference between Anne saying she didn’t know of something happening, and saying she knows something didn’t happen.

                      She claimed the former, you’re holding her to the latter.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 July 2013 at 12:03 am

                      Awwww CV, just because they’re tossers (if they even exist as a distinct group that is as entrenched as the acronym implies), you wanna be a tosser too?

                      Now what did you learn in kindy about that approach when you wanted to play with truckie and another kid wouldn’t let you?

                      Felix: not really. I’m pointing out she was wrong, that her perception was off. The cunliffe-crowd have given much more than they’ve got in dirty behaviour, if comments I’ve seen here are anything to go by. And if comments here aren’t anything to go by, then that speaks for itself.

                    • felix …
                      30 July 2013 at 12:36 am

                      Shearer is a dud =/= Cunliffe supporter. You’ve never really grasped that, McF.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2013 at 12:40 am

                      So you were excepting the ABC’s from your own wise advice about moving the left ahead and not feeding the jonolists, McFlock?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 July 2013 at 3:39 pm

                      idiot.

            • QoT 1.2.1.1.1.3
              29 July 2013 at 10:15 pm

              I didn’t coin it until he proved himself to be an incoherent, stumbling fool whenever asked difficult questions like “what is your policy?”

          • Te Reo Putake 1.2.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 1:13 pm

            Anne, I thought Shearer not sprinting to the front of the hall at the GCSB meeting to grab the mic, instead allowing Cunliffe to speak and applauding what he said was an indication that he trusts Cunliffe, so maybe the front bench isn’t out of the question.

            • weka 1.2.1.1.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

              You sure that the fact that he was boxed in and couldn’t reach the front of the room or the mike didn’t have something to do with it?

            • Anne 1.2.1.1.2.2
              29 July 2013 at 2:50 pm

              It does look good TRP. And I’m hoping it’s going to happen soon because we need Cunliffe there.

              Btw, there’s no way he could sprint to the front of that hall. It was jam packed like sardines. No-one was going to sprint anywhere.

            • felix 1.2.1.1.2.3
              29 July 2013 at 11:13 pm

              TRP I would’ve thought it was a good sign too if only Shearer didn’t look so nervous and frightened by it.

          • Jilly Bee 1.2.1.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 10:21 pm

            Hear, hear, Anne. I ventured into David Cunliffe’s office today to pick up some flyers to be delivered re the Power N Z meeting this Saturday at Kelston and walked out feeling generally despondent. I keep hoping that DC will be back on the front bench very soon.

          • felix 1.2.1.1.4
            29 July 2013 at 11:26 pm

            “The antipathy resided with the ABC Club who chose to be malevolent towards Cunliffe and anyone who had supported him.”

            Well, yeah. The clue is kinda in the acronym…

        • Boadicea 1.2.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 12:05 pm

          Hey, cut it. You silly pawn.
          Stop, for goodness sake, framing it as “anti Shearer = pro Cunliffe”.
          You are eating the lines of the TV3 news-creators and Robertson.

          All Labour supporters want a fairer society and to urgently roll back the inequities driven by Key & Co.

          How fucking dare you accuse hard working and extremely patient Labour members of ever putting anything ahead of that. My attitude towards the leadership is driven by that one cannon.

          Over the past year you, TRP, have pretended to be open minded on your support for one leader over another: yet invariably saying … Let us not change anything.
          That bullshit has us heading to an election defeat and three more years of Key and a very unfair society.

          • McFlock 1.2.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 12:18 pm

            How fucking dare you accuse hard working and ext[…]

            Because most of your hard work here seems to be spent on abusing Labour rather than National.

            And I think you meant “canon”.

            • weka 1.2.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:49 pm

              Yeah, because typos or incorrect spelling are really important right now.

              “Because most of your hard work here seems to be spent on abusing Labour rather than National.”

              But bad12 didn’t refer to the standard, so it’s reasonable to assume he meant all Cunliffe supporters and all Labour people who have criticised Shearer.

              There are very good reasons why the dominant narrative here has been anti-Shearer. I think you are one of the few people who doesn’t get it.

              • bad12 …
                29 July 2013 at 1:11 pm

                Eeeek, how did i get into the conversation this far into the debate Dave V Dave, umm no my previous comment didn’t mention the Standard, but, the basis of my comment when it comes to the acceptance of the incumbent Dave is solely based around what i have read here at the Standard,

                In the real world i don’t tend to have conversations with Labour supporters about who they support as leader, as i am not a Labour voter nor member such inquistions would possibly be seen rightly or wrongly as stirring…

              • McFlock …
                29 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

                But when B referred to “all Labour supporters”, it is reasonable to assume that those who comment here are a subset of that, no? Including B? Unless of course B is just another commentator overly concerned about the leadership of a party they don’t even vote for.

                I get that there are good reasons to not be particularly impressed or awed by Shearer as leader, but no, I don’t get why people are so anti to the extremes that some people seem to be.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 July 2013 at 2:16 pm

                  I don’t get why people are so anti to the extremes that some people seem to be.

                  If you think that the leadership is not a pivotal issue and that Labour is still on course for victory, of course the complaining will seem unnecessary and extremist.

                  • McFlock …
                    29 July 2013 at 5:05 pm

                    of course the complaining will seem unnecessary and extremist.

                    Rhino referencing a woodchipper was extreme. The extreme end of behaviour here, but I still don’t get it (even in jest). I don’t get how people can call a simple internal equality policy political suicide, especially this far out from the election. Nor do I get why people complain that not mentioning state housing policy while announcing other policy is a sign of closeted neoliberalism.

                    Criticism, that I can understand. But jumping at ideological shadows like some sort of lame “ghost hunting” reality TV show? Nah, I don’t get it.

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 2:25 pm

                  “I don’t get why people are so anti to the extremes that some people seem to be.”

                  Pretty simple. Many see the problem within Labour (the ABCs and Shearer) as preventing any shift away from the neoliberal clusterfuck are are in. This time period will be remember as the second time in my generation that Labour betrayed the country. It’s not as obvious as the 80s, but we’re in a holding pattern now waiting for the ABCs to retire or die. We can’t afford that wait.

                  Bigger picture McFlock. It’s not about Shearer, it’s about why Shearer is leader at this point in time and why nothing is being done about it.

                  • bad12 …
                    29 July 2013 at 3:17 pm

                    Putting aside the vexed question of just WHO should be sitting in the leaders chair for the moment can i ask you Weka if you firmly believe that, just to be topical, Labour would have a different housing policy than the one announced???,

                    Would David Cunliffe have a different ‘flagship policy’ and if so can you cite such a policy difference???

                    The leadership of Labour where i am concerned is one of who can sell Labour to the electorate the best,

                    As a supporter of those way further left than Labour i have to realize that to make any gains which betters my level of society, my class if we want to be ugly but totally realistic, Labour will be the party of Government that such gains if they can be made must be chiseled off of,

                    Much of the denigration of the current Labour leader seems to me to be more propelled by those who want the party to be something that it just is not,

                    How different in issues of ‘bread and butter’ would Labour be if it swapped one Dave for the other Dave, i would suggest that there would be very little difference as the middle class have grown Labour have grown into being middle class with it and are thus intent on formulating policy that definitely benefits that middle class,

                    Labour as a % of the party vote are then quite naturally a party in the 30,s as far as % goes, the Green Party, Mana Party, and, Maori Party hold the 15% of further left than Labour support that MMP allows the freedom of choice…

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 6:36 pm

                      I agree with much of that bad, and like you am fairly pragmatic in that I’m not expecting Labour to be moving radically left any time soon. So do I think that under Cunliffe Labour would be making different policy? Not particularly, but I guess there would be more room to move left (as opposed to the very thin space now). My point was more that it looks to me like the people in power in caucus would rather be in power in opposition than allow change to happen. That’s the betrayal. They’ll let NACT have another 3 years while they’re playing stupid factional power games internally. Don’t know how the membership can stand it.

                  • McFlock …
                    29 July 2013 at 5:48 pm

                    Bigger picture, okay:
                    Labour policy is pretty good so far.
                    Ideal government will involve Labour + greens + mana.
                    Greens are likely to get 10–15% of the vote.
                    Therefore labour needs 35–40% of the vote, so anything mana gets above that is gravy.

                    Currently, 35% for labour in a campaign is easily doable. 40% would be a big stretch of probability, but not so much in a year’s time. Things change.

                    So, what’s the big deal? Why do people get so worked up, calling commenters “pawns” or tools of TPTB. I don’t get it.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 6:28 pm

                      10 + 35 = 45

                      Yeah, let’s just trundle along, tralalala, not to worry, she’ll be right.

                      I suppose the big deal is that as bad as things are now, another 3 years of NACT will do irrepairable damage to that country. Exponentially more than they have done now and than they did in the 90s.

                      Someone said a while back that it was ok for the left to limp over the finish line to become the next govt. What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to risk losing the next election, given what is at stake. You above post makes it sound like, oh it would be nice to win, but it’s not really that bad if we don’t. For me it’s much more critical than that.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2013 at 6:43 pm

                      But there is no move that would guarantee a lab/grn government. After a certain level, you just have to admit that some things are out of our control.

                      Would [insert here] be a better speaker than shearer during the campaign? Possibly/probably. Would that person also have some quality or problem that will be done to death by the jonolists? Yep. Would they make bad moves, as well as good? Yep. Will these be blown out of proportion by the supporters of failed candidates as well as jonolists? Probably. Would garner/gower still foment the “imminent ruction within caucus” line? Yep. [Insert here] might be able to improve the polls, but then again a new leader has new targets to hit.

                      So yeah, Shearer’s not perfect, but nor will his replacement be. It’s not a case of “she’ll be right”, it’s a case of recognising that point where “constructive criticism” becomes “cheap invented bullshit for jono, otherwise pointless”.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:09 pm

                      McFlock, of all the things you don’t understand, this is the biggie. It’s not that Shearer isn’t perfect. It’s that he is really bad at his job. See the difference? Even if you don’t think that he is, surely you can understand that people that do think this are really frustrated (given what is at stake) and might be more angry about the situation than you.

                      Good to see Phil Twyford posting in the Housing Policy thread. Liked this

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/labours-new-housing-policy-shearer-on-qa/#comment-670807

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:43 pm

                      Even if he were really bad at his job (which I don’t think he is), no, I don’t get how people can’t understand that they’re getting so worked up that (and I seriously believe this) they’re hampering any chance of a left wing government much more than they think Shearer’s performance is.

                      This isn’t a traffic accident or similar emergency, where we’re all trying to think through a massive adrenaline rush that hampers our perceptions and if we don’t act this second people die. We are all sitting in front of some manner of VDU with an input interface of some kind. I seriously don’t get how people fall into a state of hearing a competent performance on the radio and the main thrust of their comment is how they were waiting to be dismayed. That can’t be doing their blood pressure any good, and it’s not Shearer’s fault. It’s their own.

                      Some people really need to take some time off the political news and gossip, and just chillax for a while.

                    • felix …
                      29 July 2013 at 11:38 pm

                      The problems with that, McF, are

                      1. We don’t hear consistent competent performances from Shearer.

                      2. Even if we did, which we don’t, “competent” isn’t going to win an election.

                      “Competent” is for managing a Burger King franchise without totally fucking it up.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2013 at 11:55 pm

                      “Competent” is for managing a Burger King franchise without totally fucking it up.

                      Ummmm. For the most part Burger King pays it’s shift managers just enough to get the level of competence their organisation truly deserves…

                      Detail: in NZ they aren’t franchises…

                    • McFlock …
                      30 July 2013 at 12:10 am

                      felix:
                      1 is down to your perception, and 2 is a baseless assertion that merely serves to justify your opinion. Basically, 2 means that in order to have someone in the top job next election, Labour need someone who is outstanding in all facets as leader. There is nobody in caucus like that, so you might as well just have a smoke, enjoy the view and put the blindfold on when the time comes.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2013 at 12:35 am

                      Basically, 2 means that in order to have someone in the top job next election, Labour need someone who is outstanding in all facets as leader.

                      Outstanding in just 3 or 4 out of 10 facets with mere competence in the others would be fine.

                    • felix …
                      30 July 2013 at 12:45 am

                      Yeah it’s also only a matter perception that the sky is blue and water is wet.

                      He sucks at the job, McF. That’s observable, predictable, and repeatable, and everyone seems to know it but you.

                      (I joke of course. I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t know it. I think I can I think I can)

          • Te Reo Putake 1.2.1.2.2
            29 July 2013 at 1:07 pm

            “Over the past year you, TRP, have pretended to be open minded on your support for one leader over another: yet invariably saying … Let us not change anything.”

            Not so, Boadicea.

            My preffered leader is Cunliffe, though I’m leaning toward Little. However, I have consistently said that policy is more important. And I have also consistently said that the leadership is a done deal. Shearer’s it for better or worse.

            Cunliffe was badly let down by the naivety of his supporters at the last conference. His chances of taking over ended there and then.

            “How dare you accuse hard working and extremely patient Labour members of ever putting anything ahead of that.”

            Whether you remember or not, many commenters here have said things like ‘not voting Labour till they change the leader’. What I said is that I belieive that atitude will diminish as we get closer to the election. I hope I’m right.

            • Olwyn 1.2.1.2.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 2:10 pm

              I have never called David Shearer names, and my anxiety about Labour under his leadership has always been based on the fear that the party has been hijacked again and is in the process of being neutered. If that fear still persists by the time of the election I will neither vote Labour nor assist Labour – I will instead vote either Green or Mana. Politicians are there to represent us. They are not there to be proxy rulers on behalf of people who do not give a damn about us.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.2.2.2
              29 July 2013 at 2:20 pm

              Cunliffe was badly let down by the naivety of his supporters at the last conference. His chances of taking over ended there and then.

              As opposed to a concerted media effort by his colleagues to attack and discredit him using lines around a non-existant coup, even before Conference had finished?

              • Te Reo Putake …
                29 July 2013 at 3:07 pm

                Yep, that’s how naivete works, CV. The failure to understand the implications or to guess the unintended consequences is what scuppered DC’s chances.

            • David H 1.2.1.2.2.3
              29 July 2013 at 6:31 pm

              I Have called Shearer names and I stand by what I said. Shearer is a ME, ME, Politician he uses I instead of WE ALL the time.

              CunLiffe on the other Hand has the ability to explain the most complicated shit in layman’s terms so ALL voters can understand him. Key is shit scared of Cunliffe. And not only that He would wipe the floor with Key in a debate. God help us with Captain Stutterbum in the debates!

        • Ad 1.2.1.3
          29 July 2013 at 12:56 pm

          That’s a galling assumption to presume the loyalty of all us volunteers, no matter what. That’s precisely the attitude that has seen members walk away over the last decade – or haven’t you noticed?

          Every Labour Party member has a duty to hold the leader to account. And to support them when they perform. Indeed according to our constitution we now have the right. And so we do, including here. We invest volunteer time and expect results. Leader: deliver.

          Instead, the Labour Party by every single measure is failing. Funding. Profile. Coherence. Membership. Media management. Polling. You can offload blame for that to Cunliffe loyalists all you want.

          But in fact yours is the attitude that needs to change: blind loyalty – and you expect come election just press the political-guilt button again. The Labour Party is a walking hollow corpse, and those electrodes don’t work any more. With your expressed attitude, the best chance for Labour to do better is for you and people like you including caucus to look in the mirror and tell the truth.

          • Tim 1.2.1.3.1
            29 July 2013 at 2:02 pm

            Hear Hear! to that Ad.
            I regard my vote for Labour’s 3rd term to have been partly due to “blind loyalty” and a vote for the least worst option at the time.
            Not again. There are actually other options.
            Thus far, I’m BEGINNING to see some good initiatives coming from Labour, and a SLIGHT improvement in Shearer’s performance, but UNTIL a few of them at least start to realise they don’t have some divine right to my vote, acknowledge more openly that the neo-liberal agenda has not worked and that they will at least explore alternatives – they’ll not get my vote again.
            More than that, they sure as hell won’t get my membership or financial support again until they’ve established a decent sort of record.

          • Te Reo Putake 1.2.1.3.2
            29 July 2013 at 3:26 pm

            Thanks, Ad and Tim for offering those words, which actually seem to confirm my point about the antipathy toward Shearer. Ad, it gives me heart to know that there are folks like you out there who can be persuaded to support Labour if the circumstances are right. For me, that’s policy. For some people, it’s leadership. I really hope that come election time, we’ll have the best of both and a better than even chance of changing NZ for the good..

            BTW, if you’d read my comments down the years, you’d know it’s not blind loyalty that drives me (or, I suspect, anyone else). It’s a rational choice in a western democracy to support the social democratic party that is best placed to lead the next Government, giving the lack of a mass supported socialist alternative. The LP is not within cooee of the kind of party I’d like to be in, but I keep trying in my own small way to move it to the left.

            • Tim 1.2.1.3.2.1
              30 July 2013 at 1:12 am

              “It’s a rational choice in a western democracy to support the social democratic party that is best placed to lead the next Government, …etc.”
              TRP – we’re in agreement, except that my point is that there is now (almost) another alternative for that ‘mass’. What’s required is for Labour to step up: to demolish the little Hipkins hissy fits; to spark when required; to hold the bovver boys in check when it’s quite obviously counter-productive, and release them when its not; to publicly and vociferously denounce the Natz bullshit at each and every opportunity (without delay – given the 24hr spin cycle – and there have been plenty). I realise the opportunities are precious – given the state of the MSM and its predisposition – which makes that all the more important.

              So far – in the scheme of things, there are better alternatives. I MIGHT (at a very very very small pinch – or should that be a large one) be persuaded to give Labour another chance. Given the record so far, and after almost a lifetime – it’s not likely in 2014.
              99 to 1 – that could change – I.e. NOT Labour.
              I don’t think I’m a masochist – or a martyr – right now, that’s what would be required to even consider it

      • Lanthanide 1.2.2
        29 July 2013 at 8:50 am

        I’ll accept Shearer as leader when he shows he can do the job. So far he hasn’t.

    • victoryforlabour 1.3
      29 July 2013 at 2:58 pm

      Shearer has been unable to articulate the new housing policy clearing. For the last 18 months, his performances have been cringeworthy. There were those of us who were prepared to give him a chance, but with polling staying around 31%, there is no way that Shearer can lead Labour to victory.

      A third term National Government simply cannot be an option.

      • Wolf 1.3.1
        29 July 2013 at 4:57 pm

        The elephant in the room, the emperor’s new clothes.

        Shearer Needs To Stand Down

  2. Pascal's bookie 2
    29 July 2013 at 7:46 am

    Worth keeping an eye on this thread : http://johnquiggin.com/2013/07/28/oz-nz/ where Aussie economist John Quiggin is looking at the comparative performance of NZ/AUS performance post war.

  3. muzza 3
    29 July 2013 at 8:18 am

    http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/07/28/lenders-set-bank-of-cyprus-bail-in-at-475/

    Only 47.5% this time around, phew, got away with that one didn’t they!

    Got all those large pesky savers with over 100K on loan to the bank!

    Would be interesting to see the stats on the accounts which were robbed!

  4. lprent 4
    29 July 2013 at 8:32 am

    Ah a standard morning.

    Wellington getting rocked by a 5.x earthquakes and a cluster of 3.x.

    Pete George using an evidence free approach to everything. Perhaps he should retrain as a jonolist? I posted that Jenny was wrong in saying Shearer said anything “angrily”. He didn’t. Having listened to the video Jenny referred to, she appears to have confused someone else intejecting with the words “not a review” with Shearer. And for the record, Pete, you really are a retarded fool if you think Jenny’s silly claims being repeated on TV3 wasn’t at the core of my post.

    Jon getting spied on by the NZDF is disturbing. Particularly since it appears that the only reason for doing so is to prevent embarrassment. I have been known to have the odd beer with Jon. Offhand I cannot think of anyone less likely to want to cause soldiers harm. But he does seem tenacious about digging out dodgy shit. Definitely a journalist…

    Time for coding..

  5. North 5
    29 July 2013 at 8:33 am

    Now we now how John Armstrong gets off – a pap piece on Simon Bridges.

    To think that our politics must be reported in terms of applauding Bridges’ entirely unremarkable and boringly prosaic “elder gentleman” jibe, as though it were Churchillian.

    Armstrong seems to be engaged in a wilful dumbing down. Why else right this shit as major stuff ?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong-on-politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502865&objectid=10903899

    • bad12 5.1
      29 July 2013 at 9:16 am

      It is becoming more apparent that between them the Heralds Fifth Column of commenters are producing pieces in that particular shoddy rag, working as a tag team in the vein of Labour must do this while pimping for support for the likes of National’s Bridges and the equally as awful Jamie Lee Ross, (who has something extremely ugly lurking just beyond His frontal lobe),

      Sooner or later as the fashion dictates the Herald will hide it’s on-line edition behind a pay-wall which will be a joy as i wont be tempted to read their utter sh*t Fifth Column political jonolism anymore…

      • s y d 5.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 9:44 am

        and then every now and then (well maybe 3 or four times a year) they premit Brian Gould to write a short piece, just so they can say….

        balance

      • David H 5.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 7:49 pm

        They wont put up a pay wall, they couldn’t stand the loss of readers.

  6. vto 6
    29 July 2013 at 8:43 am

    At times I post on things maori-pakeha. It is an interest in our land, peoples, archaeology, future… As part of that, posts have been made suggesting that the classification of Maori as NZ’s sole indigenous people may well change in the near future, if it hasn’t already. The point of indigeneity moves along a sliding time scale. It brings in new arrivals, it brings a first occupier, a subsequent occupier, several types it seems. This is seen in the history of most indigenous people around the globe.

    As part of that it has been suggested that pakeha will at some point be deemed indigenous, if they are not already. A little like the Afrikaner is regarded as indigenous to southern Africa. Of course this postulation is met with the typical poorly thought out “bigot” chant, “racist” chant, “hater” chant by people who only poorly think things out. More fool them.

    A few days ago, apparent support for something like this position was tumbled on within the late historian Michael King’s book A Short History of NZ, written a decade or so ago. In it King refers to Maori as New Zealand’s first indigenous people. What would King mean by that? It implies more than one, obviously. It implies that there are or will be other indigenous people subsequent to Maori. I read around and around the particular piece to try to glean some more to help paint the picture but couldn’t locate much to assist… (no longer have the book so can’t reference but it was in a post-WWII chapter around what the govt was doing with the dept of native affairs I think)

    Curiouser and curiouser….

    • bad12 6.1
      29 July 2013 at 9:05 am

      ‘Indigenous’, from it’s literal meaning would tend to suggest that none of us are, indigenous that is, none of us occurred here naturally as we all came from other places,

      Maori with the literal translation that i have, ‘Normal’, would seem a better descriptive, your debate of course is around what a Pakeha academic has chosen to label Maori as, i doubt many Maori have or do use the term indigenous…

    • marty mars 6.2
      29 July 2013 at 11:13 am

      Your plan to get rid of the Treaty won’t work – others far more bright, well read and intelligent have tried and are trying. Why not try the honest approach and just put up your agenda instead of lurking around it – it’s pretty obvious anyway but being honest would at least give a true reference point to begin actual discussions – may I suggest a list would help.

      • weka 6.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 11:50 am

        Have to agree. Vto, yet again your comment skirts around the issues making them vague enough that it’s hard to know what your actual point is. So I’m guessing that you are referring to the people that believe various theories around pre-Maori settlers, but who unfortunately (a) don’t have any background/experience that lends their views credibility and (b) are often connected to white supremacist groups in NZ or internationally. Then you wonder why the term racist comes up so often.

        btw, I’ve had discussions with people and read articles re Pakeha indigeneity that never reference the racist arguments of people like Ansell or Doutre. These conversations ask questions like what does it mean to be indigenous? What are the cultural and spiritual aspects that are associated with bein indigenous? What is the relationship between indigenous and the land? These conversations happen without any need to take anything away from Maori, and for the most part they aren’t based in Pakeha insecurity. Why are you not taking part in these conversations?

        You might want to re-consider the circles you are moving in, and the kinds of material you are reading. I also hear Maori who talk with ambivalence about who was here first. If you don’t understand the reasons why they do that, or why they’re not going to engage in the debate you want, then again, you are talking to the wrong people. Until I see some attempt by you to engage with Maori on their own terms, I can only assume you are like other Pakeha that are interested in the things that support their ethnocentric view instead of being open to wider, sometimes contradictory perspectives.

        Some background reading

        http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/dargavilles-media-should-honour-towns.html

        http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/ (connections between the pre-Maori settler theorists and white supremacists).

        http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2009/05/celtic-boulders-and-unbalanced.html

        • vto 6.2.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 12:13 pm

          You are paranoid weka and see things that aren’t there. Why don’t you just answer the question put in the post instead?

          What do you make of Michael King’s reference to maori being “the first indigenous people”? It is not a rocket science question.

          • weka 6.2.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 12:22 pm

            From what I remember King believes that non-Maori can become indigenous, so when he refers to ‘first’ indigenous he is stating his belief that Maori were here ‘first’.

            But I would have to see an actual quote, and in context. Maybe it’s actually an editing mistake.

            What do you think he means?

            • vto 6.2.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:27 pm

              Pretty much the exact same as you weka. Nothing more and nothing less. It is another piece of a very large picture about maori and pakeha place in these islands, that is all.

              The reason it was posted is that the idea in King’s statement is something I have been ridiculed for expressing on here.

              let the placing of the 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle continue ………

              • weka …
                29 July 2013 at 12:31 pm

                “The reason it was posted is that the idea in King’s statement is something I have been ridiculed for expressing on here.”

                [citation needed]

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 12:39 pm

                  Anyway, I seem to remember the last time you started up on this, you referenced someone as supporting your argument, and that person turned out to be known racist and white supremacist John Ansell (and we only learned that because I searched for the audio, listened to it, and then reported back to the ts thread). So I don’t really trust you when you say you read something once. Your ability to misrepresent your argument is now well known. Am pretty sure that by the end of this round we will have demonstrated that Michael King didn’t say what you think he said, that you are misrepresenting his views, and that what you really believe is more along the lines of Doutre and co. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but you never say what you actually think, and then we find bits of the jigsaw hidden under the tablecloth or on the floor.

          • bad12 6.2.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 12:23 pm

            King as i point out above has mistakenly used the term ‘indigenous’, to be indigenous Maori or anyone else would have had to have been resident here when our little islands split off from where-ever they split off of,

            So what is there to debate about King’s mistaken use of the English language…

            • vto 6.2.1.1.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:29 pm

              Hi bad12, thanks for your comment there. I understand your point there but take this as being indigenous within the NZ context i.e. on the assumption that Maori are indigenous…….

              • bad12 …
                29 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

                Point taken VTO, but working off of an assumption that in its entirety is incorrect leaves you in danger of basing everything else upon that incorrect assumption thus reaching a wrong conclusion,

                A far better description of Maori would be ‘first people’ which is entirely unambiguous, it is then easy to ‘see’ that such a first people had ‘property rights’ not just in the European sense but in far more ephemeral areas,

                Obviously such property rights do not translate from the Maori into the English in their entirety which is why we still have Treaty issues,

                Inherent in such issues is the Maori ”it is mine but it is not mine”, in English that term is totally ambiguous and a contradiction, for Maori hardly so…

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:50 pm

                  “A far better description of Maori would be ‘first people'”

                  Only if you accept that Pakeha definitions trump Maori ones. If you deny Maori the right to use the term indigenous, then you exclude them from their relationship with other indigenous peoples in the world. And you make this about reductionist biological constructs instead of holitic ones. I don’t see how that helps matters.

                  • Tim …
                    29 July 2013 at 2:18 pm

                    Just as an aside – somewhere (and I’ll try and locate it from a uni history paper if I can), there is a U.N definition of the descriptor ‘Indigenous’ which not only suggests the concept of ‘first people’, but also those subjected to some sort of subsequent ‘oppression’ or adverse cultural influence (such as colonisation).
                    It might be a losing battle to locate however – the attic is knee deep in old notes and books and I no longer own the place.

                    …. ah! I note Karol’s comment below too

                  • bad12 …
                    29 July 2013 at 2:37 pm

                    Here’s indigenous, occurring in a country or region naturally, at a squeeze Maori are indigenous in terms of region, originating in terms of recorded history from the Pacific region,

                    To use such a definition tho would be to insinuate that all Pacific people are then indigenous to New Zealand,

                    LOLZ, i have never heard any Maori, those in the family or from elsewhere, use the term indigenous, that does not preclude that some might of course,

                    A bigger LOLZ is your contention that if i deny Maori the right to use the term indigenous i deny them something, along with your lead into that concerning Pakeha definitions trumping those of Maori,

                    My contention that ‘first people’ is a far better description of Maori when measured against ‘indigenous’ in no way contends that Maori should never use indigenous, and my use of ‘first people’ is akin to the American Indian self description of ‘first nations people’,

                    If you asked my nieces and nephews whether or not they are indigenous i can assure you the reply would be one large HAH???,

                    Therein lies the disconnect, ‘indigenous’ is an entirely Pakeha concept, ask my lot instead how they come to ‘belong here’ and you will get a recitation of ‘whakapapa’ from the mountains to the sea, including the rivers and lakes along with the more ephemeral connection through different ancestors to various
                    Gods from Tane Mahuta to Tangaroa, which also may include the odd connection to a specific taniwha,

                    Indigenous then can come no closer in comparison than the divide between Maori and Pakeha that has always exsisted…

                    • karol …
                      29 July 2013 at 3:01 pm

                      Well, yes. Indigenous is a European term. And originally I think it was just applied to country of birth. But it is a term adopted by indenous people – maybe more politcal than in everyday language.

                      As I understand it “First Nation” – also a useful term – is one coined in Canada and applied to indigenous people there.

                      Googled “first people” – ah the confusion of language. It seems there’s a prior usage of the term,

                      he First People were believed to be a mysterious group of ancient humans, supposedly the first race of humans to evolve on the planet. The First People were the creators of the Machine and were thought to have been exterminated by a mysterious event. In fact, The First People were Walter Bishop, with possible aid from Astrid Farnsworth and Ella Blake.

                      But also it has been claimed by colonsied people, and on at least the website of the first Peoples World Wide, is linked with the term “indigenous”.

                      First Peoples Worldwide was first developed in 1997 by Cherokee social entrepreneur Rebecca Adamson, as a program of her non-profit First Nations Development Institute. In 2005, Rebecca and her daughter, Neva, founded First Peoples Worldwide as a full-fledged organization in its own right. We focus on funding local development projects in Indigenous communities all over the world while creating bridges between our communities and corporations, governments, academics, NGOs and investors in their regions. We facilitate the use of traditional Indigenous knowledge in solving today’s challenges, including climate change, food security, medicine, governance and sustainable development.

                      And they have a page defining indigenous people, thus:

                      There is no rigid definition of what makes a group Indigenous, but the United Nations and the International Labour Organization have outlined a few characteristics that usually define an Indigenous group:

                      ● We are descended from the pre-colonial/pre-invasion inhabitants of our region.
                      ● We maintain a close tie to our land in both our cultural and economic practices.
                      ● We suffer from economic and political marginalization as a minority group.
                      ● A group is considered Indigenous if it defines itself that way.

                      bad12: ask my lot instead how they come to ‘belong here’ and you will get a recitation of ‘whakapapa’ from the mountains to the sea, including the rivers and lakes along with the more ephemeral connection through different ancestors to various
                      Gods from Tane Mahuta to Tangaroa, which also may include the odd connection to a specific taniwha,

                      Well, if someone asked where I belong, or where my place is, I’d go into the places my ancestors have been, and their cultural connections etc. Often it’s stuff I don’t find worth celebrating, but, it is what it is.

                    • bad12 …
                      29 July 2013 at 3:42 pm

                      LOLZ, Karol, we have then come full circle in the debate from what i said in my first comment,

                      In Maori the closest i can come to the term ‘indigenous’ is in fact the word Maori for which i have a translation to mean ‘Normal’ and in terms of the definition of indigenous ”originating or occurring naturally in a country or region” would seem an adequate fit,

                      Scholars of the reo might of course be able to submit a far more definitive term of indigenous but Maori does it for me and ‘first people’ seems far more defining than indigenous for those who need some other form of descriptive other than Maori,

                      Lol, must be a slow day i don’t normally indulge in such wordly debates…

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 3:48 pm

                      Hi bad,

                      Here’s indigenous, occurring in a country or region naturally, at a squeeze Maori are indigenous in terms of region, originating in terms of recorded history from the Pacific region

                      To use such a definition tho would be to insinuate that all Pacific people are then indigenous to New Zealand,

                      That definition comes from biology. A different definition, with regards to people, has been in use for a long time. Sorry if you and your whanau haven’t come across that before, but it’s been used by Maori for ages, including internationally.

                      My contention that ‘first people’ is a far better description of Maori when measured against ‘indigenous’ in no way contends that Maori should never use indigenous, and my use of ‘first people’ is akin to the American Indian self description of ‘first nations people’,

                      Except the racists use it to point out that Maori got here just a bit earlier than Pakeha and therefore don’t really have that much right to be treaty partners or call themselves tangata whenua or whatever.

                      Therein lies the disconnect, ‘indigenous’ is an entirely Pakeha concept,

                      Well by that argument, we can’t use the word ‘Maori’ to refer to people of Iwi decent.

                      ask my lot instead how they come to ‘belong here’ and you will get a recitation of ‘whakapapa’ from the mountains to the sea, including the rivers and lakes along with the more ephemeral connection through different ancestors to various
                      Gods from Tane Mahuta to Tangaroa, which also may include the odd connection to a specific taniwha,

                      Ae, a fairly acceptable definition of indigenous imo.

    • karol 6.3
      29 July 2013 at 12:25 pm

      Why do you have a need to erase colonisation and its legacy, resulting in a continuing impact on the lives of the majority of Maori, by trying to claim equal arrival and settlement status?

      You are playing with words.

      • vto 6.3.1
        29 July 2013 at 12:32 pm

        “Why do you have a need to erase colonisation and its legacy, resulting in a continuing impact on the lives of the majority of Maori, by trying to claim equal arrival and settlement status?”

        no such need
        no such claim

        Really Karol, that is entirely assumption and projection on your part. Why have you done that? Why don’t you just answer the actual question about King’s point?

        • weka 6.3.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 12:42 pm

          We can’t answer the actual question abotu King’s point, because you haven’t posted King’s point. What you’ve done is presented a version of King’s point amongst a whole bunch of other points and it’s hard to know what the fuck you mean. I feel manipulated, by you. You are setting us up to garner support for your covert views, instead of just being honest about what you think. That’s why people now call bullshit on your posts about ethnicity straightaway.

          • vto 6.3.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 1:00 pm

            ffs give it up. Everytime. Simple questions weka, simple questions. And now it has happened again – why do you obsess about the personal? Why is every question treated as some kind of pointer to some other agenda that I don’t have? You are like that other commenter above who never ever comments on the issue and only ever on the person who makes the comment.

            I recall you saying a while ago that the ‘who’ of a comment is at least as important as the comment made. I would suggest that this feature of your thinking is bananas and is what is taking you down this path of paranoia. Try concentrating on the actual issues.

            • weka 6.3.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 1:12 pm

              Nice sidestep.

              Ok, actual issue. Did Michael King say ‘first indigenous’? No idea.

              Where do we go from here?

              Still have no idea why you even bought this up. Are you really asking if it’s possible for Pakeha to become indigenous?

              edit, and you know what? If you don’t want to discuss the meta issues around race then DON’T BRING THEM UP IN YOUR FUCKING OPENING COMMENT.

              • karol …
                29 July 2013 at 1:17 pm

                Exactly, weka.

                Are you really asking if it’s possible for Pakeha to become indigenous?

                Exactly, and why is this even important?

                • vto …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

                  “why is this even important?”

                  it’s not is it

                  • marty mars …
                    29 July 2013 at 2:40 pm

                    Correct – it is not important or relevant to creating a sense of place for pākehā, unless to create a sense of place, that means reducing Māori which is what you are trying to do. Many have found their place here by accepting Māori and accepting what happened here and accepting the way the world is now – but not you vto, you continue to try and create division and anger by pushing your views out there as if they were somehow objective and devoid of your own personal baggage – which they aren’t. Your views are aligned with ansell and 1law4all and you diminish yourself by trying to pretend otherwise. I have no problem saying that Māori are indigenous in all the vagaries of that word, because they fulfill the definition set out by others of what indigenous means.

                    These type of debates, fomented by you, always follow the same trajectory yet you cannot stop yourself can you? Why? They bolster your twisted view of the world that’s why, they reinforce your preconceived ideas and strengthen your bigotry by providing evidence in your own mind of why and what you already believe. You don’t discuss or debate in good faith – you just use the good arguments of others to help you continue to see the world through a distorted lens.

              • vto …
                29 July 2013 at 1:24 pm

                “Still have no idea why you even bought this up.”

                There’s that paranoia and complication thing again. Try reading the first two sentences in the post.

                And perhaps you could highlight which comments in my opening post were about any other race issue other than indigeneity origins rather than yelling swear words in my face.

                • karol …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:41 pm

                  At times I post on things maori-pakeha. It is an interest in our land, peoples, archaeology, future… As part of that, posts have been made suggesting that the classification of Maori as NZ’s sole indigenous people may well change in the near future, if it hasn’t already. The point of indigeneity moves along a sliding time scale. It brings in new arrivals, it brings a first occupier, a subsequent occupier, several types it seems. This is seen in the history of most indigenous people around the globe.

                  Right there, you start muddying the waters. Because you fail to grasp the significance of the way tangata whenua were colonised.

                  <IAs part of that it has been suggested that pakeha will at some point be deemed indigenous, if they are not already. A little like the Afrikaner is regarded as indigenous to southern Africa.

                  Really? Citation needed? Because Africaner were major oppressors of the indigenous people of Africa.

                  And it still doesn’t answer the question why you want to claim “indigenous”‘ status, when it will largely work to blur historical memory about colonisation?

                  vto, if it’s not important to you, why do you keep raising issues around it?

                  • karol …
                    29 July 2013 at 1:42 pm

                    PS: and why don’t you mention anything about colonisation in your opening comment?

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:43 pm

                  First two sentences:

                  At times I post on things maori-pakeha. It is an interest in our land, peoples, archaeology, future… As part of that, posts have been made suggesting that the classification of Maori as NZ’s sole indigenous people may well change in the near future, if it hasn’t already.

                  All I can tell from that is this:

                  1. you post on things Maori-Pakeha from time to time
                  2. someone (we don’t know who) has suggested on ts that other-than-Maori will soon be designated indigenous (but we don’t know who, by who, or how).

                  What did you want to happen next?

                  Did you read the link I gave about Ani Mikaere’s view on Pakeha and being indigenous?

                  Meta issue (and manipulation set up):

                  Of course this postulation is met with the typical poorly thought out “bigot” chant, “racist” chant, “hater” chant by people who only poorly think things out. More fool them.

                  • vto …
                    29 July 2013 at 2:01 pm

                    Perfect example weka. You see things that are not there.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 2:13 pm

                      Fuck off vto. That’s a classic example of you making an assertion about something but leaving it to the mind readers amongst us to know what you are talking about.

                      edit: Actually, doubly fuck off, because even when I do respond to the actual main issue you raise, when I take the trouble to do so, you simply ignore that and go for the surrounding meta argument. I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you have no genuine interest in the topic, you simply raise the issue here so you can indulge your confirmation bias that everyone who disagrees with you basic premises on race are paranoid hate mongers.

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 2:33 pm

                      fuck off yourself weka. You see things that don’t exist (see comment just below where I have tried to simplify things).

                      The issue described was around previous comment on here that rubbished claims that it may be possible for pakeha to be seen as indigenous. Michael King provided some further ballast. But you seem to think that it is a Trojan horse for all sorts of other matters.

                      Further, your claim that I somehow ask tricky questions that expose commenters true positions – if that were actually true then so fucking what? Some people are very deceptive and hide their true colours. Sometimes they don’t even realise they are bigots or racists or sexists or someotherists.

                    • marty mars …
                      29 July 2013 at 2:48 pm

                      Freudian slip there vto

                      “Some people are very deceptive and hide their true colours. Sometimes they don’t even realise they are bigots or racists or sexists or someotherists.”

                      THAT IS YOU!

                      If you just accepted it then an actual discussion could be had because the true parameters would be set – meanwhile you continue to dance on the hotplate – aren’t your feet getting fucken hot by now – FFS be honest at least with yourself and the mirror – you are not fooling anyone else.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 3:54 pm

                      “Further, your claim that I somehow ask tricky questions that expose commenters true positions – if that were actually true then so fucking what? ”

                      Except that you never do ANYTHING other than make assertions. Who is a bigot and why? If you can’t answer that then it’s all hot air and diversion.

                      eg you just said I’m seeing things that aren’t there. I don’t know what you are referring to, because my comment contained a number of points. You’ve had two comments to say what you are referring to, but you’ve chosen not to. It wouldn’t be that hard to be specific, so I can only assume you either have poor communication skills and don’t know what I mean, or you have another agenda. Each time this happens, you leave other people in the position of either guessing what you mean (and then you get all defensive), or just not responding (in which case you get to say shit without being called on it). It’s starting to look like quie a sophisticated means of tr0lling.

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 6:53 pm

                      “Except that you never do ANYTHING other than make assertions”

                      If you look closely weka you will see that both the original post of mine and the rehash were framed entirely by a question to posters about King’s intentions with those words. A question. In both. Not an assertion.

          • Clockie 6.3.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 2:01 pm

            Probably most have had a guts-full of the topic by now, but for those who want to proceed on the basis of an actual quote to refer to, here is one to be going on with:

            “In that same year (1946) New Zealand still possessed a Department of ‘Native’ Affairs, whose function it was to assist the country’s first indigenous people and, by organising the development, lease and sale of their land, contribute to what almost all New Zealanders believed were the ‘best race relations in the world’.” (p.413 Ch25 The Penguin History Of New Zealand 2003)

            For what it’s worth I’m with B12 on this. It’s a non-issue. Indigenous is the wrong word to use in this context and I thought most “indigenous” people these days avoid this distraction by using the term “first peoples” ??

            • vto 6.3.1.1.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

              Agree clockie, I think most have had a gutsful too. And thanks for the quote, that was the one.

            • weka 6.3.1.1.2.2
              29 July 2013 at 2:11 pm

              Thanks Clockie, looks like an editorial misjudgement rather than King making a statement about anything.

              “For what it’s worth I’m with B12 on this. It’s a non-issue. Indigenous is the wrong word to use in this context and I thought most “indigenous” people these days avoid this distraction by using the term “first peoples” ??”

              On that basis Maori should be excluded from the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Sorry, but we can’t just wipe out a whole bunch of things because some people think the word indigenous should only used in its biological sense (I assume that is the objection here).

              • vto …
                29 July 2013 at 2:17 pm

                editorial misjudgement? how so?

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 2:31 pm

                  I’d need to see the context, but the way it reads would suggest that either the Dept of Native Affairs or King believe that the indigenous people were first. Is that a term that the DNA would have used? If not and its King’s choice of words, it seems odd to use them when discussing something from the 1940s. If neither, it’s a redundancy and should have been edited.

                  • vto …
                    29 July 2013 at 6:49 pm

                    Well I suspect they are King’s words and not the Dept of native Affairs from the 1940s. But bear in mind King was discussing this in the 1990s/2000s and not the 1940s, hence the use of his words “New Zealand’s first indigenous people”, when such terms were more widely understood.

                    And further, I know historians are very careful with their selection of words. It would be interesting to see if King has discussed this issue elsewhere.

          • QoT 6.3.1.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 10:25 pm

            +1 to everything weka has said, and props to weka for having the fortitude to illuminate vto’s flamebaiting bullshit for newcomers.

        • karol 6.3.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 1:22 pm

          No. it looks exactly like what you are doing – trying to erase the status of tangata whenua – the significance of that status is strongly linked to colonisation and its impact. So an attempt to claim indigeneity for Pakeha looks like an attempt to erase all that, or at least muddy the water.

          If you are looking for something to name a Pakeha place of belonging, it is in the word “Pakeha”. It is in our forbears’ history. That history includes colonisation – for some of us serial colonisation – Ireland, etc.

          • vto 6.3.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

            You see Karol “looks like….” is intensely subjective isn’t it. That is your problem – too subjective.

            Please point out where I tried to do those things you charged me with in the original post above. For your own credibility of course.

            • Rosetinted 6.3.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

              karol
              Now you know – your problem is that you are too subjective? Sigh.

            • karol 6.3.1.2.1.2
              29 July 2013 at 1:34 pm

              Maybe, vto. But, it’s because you are putting a lot of stress on claiming the word “indigenous” for Pakeha NZers. Indigenous is a word in recent times that colonised people have claimed as part of their articulation of the legacy of colonisation.

              Any attempt for people of European or other non-Maori lineage to claim indigenous status looks to me to be erasing the importance of the word “indigenous” to colonised people.

              So, you may say it is “subjective”. To me it is a matter of logical deduction.

              Why do you think it is so important to be able to claim indigenous status? Why not look for a word that is unique to Pakeha experience? Why not just stick with “Pakeha”?

              • weka …
                29 July 2013 at 1:47 pm

                Unfortunately this is what happens in these discussions with vto. Instead of addressing the issues you raise they will post something about what is wrong with you.

              • vto …
                29 July 2013 at 1:49 pm

                I have said before – it is part of a search of pakeha’s place here. Don’t know where that search will end up.

                Is there something wrong with that? It may well be that the current status of Maori is affected in that search. It may be completely unaffected. It may be that the term pakeha is enough, as you say. Other factors may arise in the future affecting the question.

                One thing is sure – all such questions are met with heavy resistance. The current frame around this debate in NZ is stiff and unrelenting. It is like the frame has been built to not bend or allow for future flex. Such a frame will not bend of course – it will simply break, or be ignored….

                The left should welcome these debates, as difficult as they are to conduct, because it is a defining issue for many people not of the left when it comes to voting patterns.

                Communication communication communication

                • weka …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:57 pm

                  “the current status of Maori”

                  In what possible ways?

                  “One thing is sure – all such questions are met with heavy resistance.”

                  Complete and utter bullshit. Such questions from you are met with challenges to racism. If you can address those issues, then the topic itself will be discussed. Like I said, I’ve had this conversation with people and we never had to get bogged down in all this other shit.

                  A big hurdle for you now vto is to demonstrate that you are not aligning yourself with the likes of Doutre and Ansell, or if you are just be honest about it. It’s not hard to clarify and I really think these conversations would go better if you did. You’ve identified with Ansell’s views in the past, so it’s not unreasonable to think that that is where you are coming from (even if you aren’t as extreme as he is).

                  • vto …
                    29 July 2013 at 2:10 pm

                    Get off the grass weka, I have never identified with Ansell or whoever the other prick is.

                    Let me try again from the start ………

                    “In the past I have suggested that indigenous people in NZ at some point may include pakeha. This has been dismissed out of hand by some commentators here, notably marty mars. In the weekend while reading Michael King’s recent history of NZ, it was noticed that he referred to Maori as NZ’s first indigenous people, implying that there are or may be in the future, further indigenous people. What say thee?”

                    Now heaven forbid that you can find anything else in there other than what I am trying to say, but give it a crack…..

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 6:59 pm

                      weka, if you’re around – did you see this rehash? I have tried to lay it out as clearly as I can with the least number of possible misunderstandings, double entendres, alternative meanings, lost or hidden agendas or anything else that might get in the way of understanding what I was trying to say.

                • karol …
                  29 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

                  I have said before – it is part of a search of pakeha’s place here. Don’t know where that search will end up.

                  Is there something wrong with that?

                  No nothing wrong with looking for a sense of place. I do that myself in researching and learning about history. But in doing that I see no need to claim “indigeneity”. A sense of place is as much as in where we (and our forebears) have been – its in the journey as much as in the destination.

                  As I have said before “indigenous” and indigeneity” is now most commonly used as a way of articulating the experience of, and responding to colonisation. And, for the most simple explanation of this, it’s in the wikip definitions, taken from the UN definitions.

                  There is no single, universally accepted definition of the term “indigenous peoples”; however, the four most often invoked elements are:[7]

                  a priority in time
                  the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness
                  an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession
                  and self-identification

                  My bold.

                  Now a search for a sense of place can be done in many ways.

                  Why do you need to bring in the word “indigenous” to explain Pakeha sense of place.

                  And to me “place” is as much about cultural and historical place, and places traveled to and from, the travelling as much of the destination.

                  Why do you think the word “indigenous” should be one applied to Pakeha? Because, the impact of naming Pakeha as indigenous, will negate the aspect of Maori history and legacy that is in bold above – as I have said. The result will be a denial of colonisation and a muddying of the waters.

                  • vto …
                    29 July 2013 at 2:15 pm

                    Karol, I was not saying it needs to be, I am investigating whether it could be. And there is no need for such a position to negate anything historic or muddy any waters.

                    If the result is that pakeha are seen as indigenous (less the recent colonisation aspect) then there will need to be some honesty in facing up to it. If not then so be it, on we go, honestly and squarely facing the future.

                    The focus on “indigenous” here is because it is one of manyplaces to conduct that search for place. That is all. There is no ulterior motive.

                    • marty mars …
                      29 July 2013 at 3:22 pm

                      This investigation you are doing – have you read or referenced any Māori writers? And if so, can you put those references here – I’d love to read them. And if not, why not?

                      Just another small point, the colonisation aspect continues to this day albeit under different guises or perhaps disguises is the better word.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 4:04 pm

                      vto, if Pakeha are to eventually becomes indigenous, it’s not something that can just be decided and applied. It would be a long process that would evolve over generations. It’s not a policy to be implemented. When you talk about it, it sounds like you think it is just something that can happen now if we want it to.

                      Personally, I believe that what we currently call Pakeha could become indigenous. I don’t see it happening any time soon because I see one of the core tenets of being indigenous is the relationship of the collective with the land. Pakeha have a long way to go before they will let themselves be part of the land as a culture. Which is a shame because we still have our indigenous roots with us from the UK and Europe and it could merge very well with what is already here (I don’t know how this works for non-Caucasians).

                      Having said that I don’t generally support discussion of Pakeha becoming indigenous with people who don’t fully accept the treaty and are who aren’t working towards decolonisation. For a start, it’s extremely rude to expect Maori to listen to such conversations when the dominating culture can’t even afford them basic protections form racism, let alone address grievances. Then there is the matter of the very large ignorance about Te Ao Maori by Pakeha. How can we have this conversation when we don’t even understand how Maori are indigenous?

                      I also find that the conversations tend to go badly amongst people who are not settled in their own Pakeha identities. I feel very comfortable in mine most of the time, even when I feel challenged by issues raised by Maori, but I don’t see most Pakeha being like that. Many Pakeha get thrown by the issues raised by Maori and then seek to redefine themselves in relation to that. That is understandable, but it is something we need to get past.

                      I also agree with Karol, why do we even need to have this conversation at this time? I know who I am, I know about my place in the world, and my relationship to tangata whenua is always developing and doesn’t undermine my sense of self. So I don’t understand the need to talk about us becoming indigenous in the context of how that will redefine Maori. When you say that Maori may be redefined I smell a kiore.

                      I would also be interested to know who from Maoridom you have been reading. But who in general you are reading if you’ve never come across the name Martin Doutre. If you’re not reading the likes of him, it may help clear the air here for you to link to what you are reading (or talking with).

                      As an aside, here are the links to the last argy bargy, where you referenced something said by Ansell.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15052013/#comment-633462

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17052013/#comment-634309

                      I’m willing to accept your word if you say that you don’t support Ansell’s premises, but I’d like to see you refuting them when they come up in these discussions.

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 7:18 pm

                      weka, just seen this comment here. Thanks for the feedback.

                      I see this, as I say, as something that is about a search for place. It is not a need, it is a curiousity. Well in many ways it is a need – a need for a people recently displaced or tossed out or seeking escape from persecution or oppression to find their feet again. To feel comfortable that their home is their home. I think that is lacking in some ways today. Pakeha don’t feel fully accepted here at times I think. Pakeha still get told to ‘go home’ sometimes.

                      Our own whanau (the majority ‘wing’) arrived with a full blown culture in place. One fully indigenous to its own previous land. That culture and that community has since been added to by other peoples and subjected to the vagaries of a new raw nation at the end of the world already occupied by another full blown people. It has taken time for pakeha to find their feet again.

                      It is not something which is decided on by vote of course. It is most definitely something that develops over time. In my opinion that is happening though. It is also a question (pakeha’s place in aotearoa) which is near solely for pakeha to determine, and only in a very limited way a question for Maori input. Our place is described by our attachment to a place, how that has come t be, sheer timeframes, uniqueness, and other factors, but imo the main describer is ‘our’ sense of it. It stems from us and we must answer it.

                      …. Some hastily penned further thoughts requiring enhancement and sharpening …….

                    • marty mars …
                      29 July 2013 at 8:59 pm

                      “It is also a question (pakeha’s place in aotearoa) which is near solely for pakeha to determine, and only in a very limited way a question for Maori input. Our place is described by our attachment to a place, how that has come t be, sheer timeframes, uniqueness, and other factors, but imo the main describer is ‘our’ sense of it. It stems from us and we must answer it.”

                      So nice you are allowing yourself all that vto, almost brings tears to my eyes. If you read some of the comments from some above you will see that it is actually easy to have a sense of place here, a sense of belonging and a sense of peace within your heart about who you are and the home you live in – but that can’t happen when you ignore Māori and their place in and on this land. It is about working together not replacing – it is about respect and allowing, it is about acceptance and truth. No doubt your research and journey will continue, as it must, until you get one of the basics sorted – the answers are right in front of you if you choose to open your eyes.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:19 pm

                      I’m sorry this is hard for you vto. I appreciate your latest comment, there is a lot there, complexity, and I don’t feel I can do justice to a reply tonight (been a challenging day today). I think what you have written is worth exploring and is something I’d like to respond to at another time. When you write about things more personally like this it is easier to see what the issues actually are. Thanks.

                    • karol …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      I have also been curious about a sense of place. I’ve read a lot of research and analysis of it, usually in the realm of “new geography” – an approach to geography that developed in the late 20th century. Basically understanding place is more than just about where a section of society/community/ethnic group has lived.

                      And there’s ways of understanding one’s place in the world, without trying to ignore the history of racial difference – a human construct with material impacts on lives, where some are dominant and others marginalised.

                      Some new geographers deal with “race” and place, without erasing the history of racial oppression and marginalisation. It means understanding the historical legacy of Pakeha in colonising Aotearoa.

                      Some in other countries look at understanding whiteness. RRichard Dyer’s “White” is a classic – about the way whiteness is both dominant and ignored, or rendered invisible.

                      I have particularly liked the work of Nigel Thrift on place and geography, which also includes the various ways people’s sense of place is influenced by class and other social positions.

                      And Doreen Massey on gender, culture, globalisation and place.

                      And agree with marty mars: thinking about one’s place in the world can’t be done without thinking about others and their place and the relationships between us all.

                • Chooky …
                  29 July 2013 at 6:30 pm

                  @ vto I agree this is an important topic

                  I do believe that Pakeha NZers are different from Europeans….one only needs to go overseas to realise this. …And I also believe that Pakeha who have been here for generations have very deep feelings for the land and do have the right to a special sort of standing in New Zealand…..From what I can remember Michael King wrote a lot of Maori history and then when Maori wanted to write their own history and told him to go away he was very hurt…..so Michael King went in search of his own Pakeha identity. “Being Pakeha Now” could have been the title of his book.

                  I personally know of NZers with absolutely no Maori blood who are imbued with Maori culture and understanding and live alongside Maori ….so much so you would almost think they were a Maori in a Pakeha skin ( maybe they have been reincarnated.. ha ha)…

                  Also I once met a Maori with long blond hair and blue eyes at university who had a Maori name and said he was Maori…when I thought he was joking he spoke to me in Maori and told me his Mother was Dutch and his Father a Maori….

                  And this is the case of many NZers. You would be hard pushed to find a “pure” genetic Maori .Also many Pakeha whose families have lived in NZ for generations (eg ancestry British whalers who married Maori women) have some Maori blood…..

                  I also know of Maori who look Maori but you would think they had the mind set of a European Capitalist ( ha ha)

                  To complicate this even further some new immigrants adopt everything in NZ culture -, Maori language , culture , tramping , mountaineering , fishing , rugby , sport and beer drinking with such an enthusiasm that they are almost more Maori or Pakeha than the indigenous NZers.!!!!…All to the good … I guess in the end what is important is respect.

            • karol 6.3.1.2.1.3
              29 July 2013 at 1:50 pm

              PS: Credibility?

              We all bring subjectivity to any issue. I try toown mine, vto, partly in the language I use. It’s actually part of examining something objectively and rationally, by making the subjective an explicit object of scrutiny.

              All I see in your comments is disavowal of your own subjectivity under claims of total objectivity.

              I’ve spent a lot of my life learning about colonisation and its impacts – read widely on it (and written on it as part of courses). And I’ve also spent a lot of my time reading “sub texts” – underlying meanings. Part of such readings includes identifying what is not said – always an important indicator.

          • North 6.3.1.2.2
            29 July 2013 at 8:12 pm

            Congrats Karol @ 6.3.1.2……….famously well said !

            For my part the “specialness” of Maori is not to be unilaterally deprived of Maori, ever.

            • vto 6.3.1.2.2.1
              30 July 2013 at 7:44 am

              Yes well North, if you read closely you will notice that Karol’s statement there was her own assumption and nothing to do with my question around King’s reference.

              But mustn’t let such realities interfere with our own biases and assumptions eh.

              • Chooky …
                30 July 2013 at 1:00 pm

                @ vto

                Go somewhere quiet and talk to the land …again and again…. it will give you the answers you seek…King did this at the end of his book “Being Pakeha Now” ….This same land has talked to farmers, gardeners, hunters, sailors, mountaineers , trampers, artists and poets…..in the end it is the land that tells you whether you belong and are indigenous. ….it requires silence and reverence.

                • vto …
                  30 July 2013 at 1:33 pm

                  Chooky, don’t you worry about that I do heaps of it. It is inferred at my comment above at 7.18. I spend more time alone and on in the land that probably 99% of people. Alone, remote, nothing but land sea sky….. It is possibly one of the reasons this subject is excessively raised by me.

                  • Chooky …
                    30 July 2013 at 2:11 pm

                    @vto OK ….well and good….Well I don’t see the point in arguing about it…..

                    ….The issue really is whether one lives in harmony with the land and cherishes it and derives spiritual sustenance from it….this is the acid test as to whether one is indigenous or not …

                    …..Or whether one is one of the ‘NEW VULGARIANS’….an exploiter and
                    de-sacrilizer of the land , an over- populater , a barbarian speculator , a dirty polluter…whose God is materialism and consumerism and profit….and to HELL with the natural environment.

  7. Rosetinted 7
    29 July 2013 at 10:11 am

    I don’t like Mike Williams as a ‘Spokesperson For Labour’. This morning he put a size 20 foot in his mouth by commenting on policy on housing purchase dampening with negative comments because it will have an immediate increase effect before Labour can be elected in 2014.

    Then on top of bad mouthing positive efforts to help this complex difficult problem, felt worldwide, he then increases the fault by referring to Chinese speculators. First that sounds anti-Asian, second he has not referred to the stats on this which show definite peaks for certain western countries, and third he continues his white-anting of the left. Get him out of the media, he can be assessed as 80/20 in his value to the left, with the 80 being against.

    • weka 7.1
      29 July 2013 at 10:47 am

      Unfortunately Labour don’t appear to measure their value to the left, let alone care about it.

    • Rosetinted 7.2
      29 July 2013 at 11:13 am

      Further to my comment above already I have heard John Bank’s whiny little voice castigating the comment about Chinese as if it had been spoken by the Labour leader. Get Mike Williams off Radionz – deny his right to say anything for the left, publicly disagree with him, present him as a turncoat. And do it now. He is bad news for Labour.

      And of course on political comment this a.m. Mike Williams hasn’t much to say about reporting on defence force activity and trying to claim everything as being ‘subversive’. He has said something against the surveillance state. Franks is frankly speaking just himself. You know what to expect from him.

      • karol 7.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 11:24 am

        Great. Mike Williams makes judgments on Labour’s housing policy based on his own experiences in his area of town – eg being gazumped by an overseas buyer when trying to buy a home, price of rents in his area, etc.

      • Tim 7.2.2
        29 July 2013 at 2:34 pm

        I tried a while ago RoseT. Unfortunately to no avail. It’s been “from the Right [substitute Mike W, Jose P, etc], and from the Right [substitute Mathew H, Steven F, etc]” for quite some time now.
        Mike Williams is increasingly using the “I’m in agreement with you [Mathew, Steven]” kaka.
        Maybe spending too much time with Paul Henry or fawning over his friendship with Holmes.

  8. Boadicea 8
    29 July 2013 at 10:53 am

    . “There’s an avenue for him [Mr Humayun] to go to the police if the guy refused to pay the fare. But in terms of racial abuse, the threshold is very high.”

    Susan Devoy. The friend in court of the rednecks. He sounds determined to stop racial abusers getting convicted. Dies she have a clue what her job brief is?

  9. amirite 9
    29 July 2013 at 11:36 am

    Next the apologist will be saying booze made him do it.

  10. johnm 10
    29 July 2013 at 11:54 am

    The U$ was and is where the implementation of Neoliberalism started. It is the garbage ideology that Yankey continues to follow. What is the result? A once great Nation because of the New deal is now on the point of collapse economically and socially with an immense privatised prison gulag, a corrupt finacial class in bed with a corrupt government, a corporate fascist state in reality and yet our crazy politicos still buy into the American Nightmare, including NSA style spying on kiwis who have contrary political opinions and activists. Why is the U$ so influential? Mainly because it has a huge military presence which we gratefully hide behind to put off China becoming the regional leader in the Pacific and to help us if Asia’s huge numbers decide to invade us.

    The American Nightmare Yankey is pushing us to with stripping minimal income rights from the poorest Kiwis and further privatisation:

    “The United States of… Class War, Inequality, and Poverty
    New survey data shows perilous state of US economy and suffering of a majority underclass”

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/28-1
    “It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position.”

    “There is no class war. The 99% is in complete and abject submission to the 1% through the phony (D) vs. (R) bullshit paradigm. The working class has been corralled for shearing by the Democratic Party, which is simply a flavor of the Plutocracy Party which runs the United States.

    Obama and most of the Democrats are merely reflections of this reality. The fact that the Plutocracy could get Americans to overcome their racism in the election of an African American Plutocracy Candidate is a testament to the success of the (D) vs. (R) propaganda meme.

    The working class cannot fight back until it is able to have a voice – and giving it a voice is the thing that the Plutocrats fear most: Hence, billions are spent maintaining the absurd Kabuki illusion that there are two parties in the United States.

    It is time to wake up and reject the false D/R bullshit and cast off the self-fulfilling fear that only the Plutocracy Party’s candidates are “electable”.

    There will be no change in the status quo until the Democratic Party – the primary tool of the Plutocracy to keep the working class in line – is dis-empowered and left bereft of its national power.”

  11. Rosetinted 11
    29 July 2013 at 12:47 pm

    Is the Wizard of Oz just a shyster in a cloud of green smoke – is he an Aussie is he, is he, Is he an Aussie is he eh? (Old comedy song)
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon
    Radio nz this a.m.
    Oz- Kiwis falling through the cracks in Australia ( 16′ 39″ )
    09:30 With Maree O’Halloran – the official spokesperson for the National Welfare
    Rights Network (NWRN) and the Director of Sydney’s Welfare Rights Centre. Duncan Sandilands – Founder of the Fair Go 4 All campaign.
    and
    Concept of operationshttp://www.fairgo4all.com/concept/
    Further
    http://www.fairgo4all.com/phil-goff-continues/

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/214673/campaign-for-fair-go-in-australia

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10888229
    Auckland-born student Diana Drysdale became a military cadet at 13, and has only ever wanted to be in the airforce.
    But the 15-year-old, who lives near Brisbane, will not be able to fulfil that dream in her adopted home of Australia because her family will never qualify as residents….

    The Australian law change was designed to stop backdoor migration from the Pacific Islands and Hong Kong Chinese, who gained New Zealand residency to settle in Australia. Mrs Drysdale believed that the effect it had on military recruitment was unintentional and undesirable.
    “The military recruitment people here say they can’t believe it either. They get applications every week from Kiwis wanting to join. It is crazy.”
    Mr Sandilands, 53, served as a territorial soldier for seven years. His frustration with being excluded from the ADF was deepened by his family’s rich Australian history – his great-grandfather was Lord Mayor of Melbourne and his grandfather fought with Australian troops at Gallipoli.

    (It is surprising that the strongest claim we have for having equal rights in Australia and being treated with the respect of an allied neighbouring country with diplomatic and economic treaties and as we extend most of the rights to Oz residents, is through wanting to serve in their armed forces. Life sure is queer.)

    • Tim 11.1
      29 July 2013 at 2:40 pm

      I’ve often wondered when a NZ gubbamint of whatever flavour is going to ask the Australians when they intend putting the NZ back in ANZAC. At the moment it’s only pulled out on ANZAC day mornings.
      The last tune-ty, John Key was too busy sucking up to Joolya and looking for foto-ops so he can reflect on all those hoi pear people in his scrap book after he fucks off into the Hawaiian wilderness.

      • Rosetinted 11.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 8:52 pm

        Tim
        And it has been shown from journalists queries on Anzac Day that many young people don’t know that it stands for the combined forces of our two countries. It’s just a word that they don’t connect with NZ at all.

  12. johnm 12
    29 July 2013 at 1:17 pm

    The Key Government’s plan for us:

    http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/the-spirit-of-the-workhouse-is-alive-and-well-in-tory-britain/#comments

    A brilliant insight into the reasons for current social policy towards beneficiaries.

    • blue leopard 12.1
      29 July 2013 at 1:38 pm

      @ Johnm

      Great link

      I question your use of the word ‘social’ policy though, ‘antisocial’ would be a more accurate term. 😯

  13. weka 13
    29 July 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Anyone else see this?


    Prime Minister John Key, speaking to ONE News deputy political editor Jessica Mutch in South Korea, says he’s is prepared to compromise with NZ First leader Winston Peters to get further support for his GCSB Bill in Parliament.

    “I wouldn’t rule that out. What I’ve said is that there’ll be the SOP process, so a Supplementary Order Paper. So when the bill comes back to Parliament, it’ll have its second reading. Then what happens from there is the committee stage. At the committee stage, we already know a list of things that Peter Dunne will introduce. Now, in a theoretical world, if NZ First or any other political party – let’s take NZ First – came along and said, ‘We will support the legislation if you make these changes,’ and they were acceptable to the government, there is always that window of opportunity to make that change,” Mr Key says.

    Mr Key told the Q+A programme that his office had approached Mr Peters on numerous occasions, “offering to sit down with me, the officials, in writing. We’ve put all of those sorts of requests there,” but when asked if the lack of response meant it was unlikely the two could work something out, Key says: “never say never”.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1307/S00346/prime-minister-not-ruling-out-further-changes-to-gcsb-bill.htm

    • karol 13.1
      29 July 2013 at 5:07 pm

      So, Key is crawling to Peters now?

    • bad12 13.2
      29 July 2013 at 5:27 pm

      i am pretty sure that i have seen Winston Peters on my TV directly saying that the Slippery little Shyster has not contacted NZFirst on any changes that party would want in exchange for supporting that legislation,

      If that is the case, Slippery’s latest is simply Him using the media, and i should put an emphasis on the word ‘using’, to be the Slippery little Shyster we all know Him to be…

    • blue leopard 13.3
      29 July 2013 at 6:41 pm

      I wonder whether NatKey are courting Peters for opposite reasons than they are presenting: In order to discourage people to vote for NZF?

      He might be an option against National; and therefore if people are making that choice against voting for NZF and find out there is a chance Peters would team up with National; then perhaps less support, under 5% returned and bingo! Kingmaker no more. Back to Act & co

      • North 13.3.1
        29 July 2013 at 8:34 pm

        Leopard……..I see the picture……..scary as it “oligarchy” is.

        No doubt Mine Potty@Gower and DungCan Gooner will have something rivetingly profound to offer the homogenous listener/viewer.

        Part of me feels it’s all played as a shitty game. First and second paragraph. A game of self advancement

        Not to overstate it they are fucking round with the nation’s psyche. Our values, our democracy.

        • blue leopard 13.3.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 10:29 pm

          @ North

          Glad you ‘got’ what I was wondering, because I see I made an error in my comment, which makes it a little hard to understand! (The second time I wrote ‘NZF’, it should have read ‘National’).

          They really are fucking around with the nation’s psyche, our values and our democracy. ~ Well said

      • bad12 13.3.2
        30 July 2013 at 3:14 am

        Leopard, i will take the Slippery little Shysters new found ‘trust’ in Winston Peters and NZFirst on face value, that face value being that even with the ‘Hairdo’ and the ‘Crim’ one small % of vote loss on the 2011 election result and the Shyster will be Slipping right on out of here,

        Add to that no Maori Party in the next Parliament,(all gone-burger), and where have the Rats got left to run,

        The only possible way i can see that National and it’s head used car salesman can Govern after November 2014 is with the help of NZFirst,(if they can get 5% of the vote)…

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    29 July 2013 at 7:08 pm

    The moral case for science and innovation policy

    In other words, I am advocating for a moral case for science and innovation funding. It is the same argument that is made for funding culture and the arts although a little weaker as there is little that is uniquely Australian about science and innovation (although the astronomers and marine biologists make great counter-cases).

    Science and innovation are good for society and thus we should do it. Forget the financials, society is about more than just making a profit.

  15. Rosetinted 15
    29 July 2013 at 8:47 pm

    This is interesting.
    Radionz on Windows on the World which started at 8.20 pm and I don’t know how long it goes has something to say to us. If you can’t hear it on Radionz and I think they don’t have audio rights then you can I think get it by going direct to BBC.

    They are talking about Kenya where there is 40% unemployment. Yet there is a vital economy developing. As ours becomes more moribund and the government finds new ways of stripping the poor and poorish of tax while the fat cats put theirs on Cloud Nine or somewhere, this might help communities to avoid going bankrupt as in USA.

    A firm in Kenya, and there are Kenyan, Chinese, Connecticut and Danish nationals interviewed also, has developed a way of making payments or accessing money through an ordinary mobile phone. It seems that you buy a credit at one of their offices which is like charging your cellphone. Then you have virtual money wherever you go and that cuts out theft. If you are caught short at a remote location I think they said that you can get a small loan immediately. They have found the system works well.

    This may be necessary for this country if the banks are going to screw us. These fancy-pancy new aids to nil balances from these super sensitive money-fly cards are apparently being foisted on us. The Kenyan idea would be a good alternative to having to carry lots of cash if they are going to reform the eftpos and credit card systems against our best interests.

    This type of vitality might indicate that areas like this are worth shifting to, as NZ appears to have reached the downward slope of the bell curve and is determined to keep going forward, in that downward direction. Australia is not attractive under their present divisive policies, Oz on one side and us on the other. Might be worth while learning Swahili!

  16. karol 16
    29 July 2013 at 11:04 pm

    good reason for leaving the car at home as often as possible. An article says research shows NZ cities are as polluted as bigger cities overseas.

    Results showed those taking private cars were worse off than those who took public transport or cycled to work.

    “The air inside motor cars is generally more polluted that the air in buses, trains and for cyclists,” Professor Kingham said.

  17. Robbie Kaiviti 17
    30 July 2013 at 3:13 am

    Become a special surveillance operative in Operation Goose. A unique protest against the GCSB Bill. Them spying on us, us spying one them.

    Enlist here.
    http://www.facebook.com/events/486194154796447/

    Robbie Kaiviti.
    New Zealand People’s Mandate Party.