Open mike 30/10/2023

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 30th, 2023 - 25 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 Policy).

Step up to the mike …

25 comments on “Open mike 30/10/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dennis Frank 1
    30 October 2023 at 8:57 am

    Anti-Trump issues commentary on the current state of the Republican contenders:

    Republican presidential candidate and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at an annual leadership meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, on Oct. 28, 2023, in Las Vegas… former Vice President Mike Pence announced Saturday that he’s abandoning his White House bid.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/29/pence-christie-gop-debate-00124123

    Must be God's will. Perhaps he informed Pence that he wasn't a winner in this contest.

    “In the end, it just means this race is narrowing, which everyone said that it would,” Christie said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, after praising the former vice president for running “a tough race.”

    Christie is set to take the debate stage Nov. 8, alongside three fellow Republican presidential hopefuls — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — who have all hit the RNC’s polling and donor requirements, according to POLITCO’s analysis.

    The campaign of Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) also says he has met the necessary thresholds to join the group on stage in Miami. Former President Donald Trump, who leads the field by a wide margin and would easily qualify for the debate, is hosting a rally in Florida on the same day and is not expected to attend. Both Scott and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson are trailing Christie in national polls.

    Christie, "whose stated mission has been to keep Trump from ascending to the White House once more" seems to be emerging as a moderate capable of capturing the midde ground. Hitherto he hasn't shown sufficient strength of character – yet the zeitgeist effect could easily snowball his support base. A sensible alternative to Trump will seem desirable to many American voters.

    • Professor Longhair 1.1
      30 October 2023 at 2:41 pm

      Chris Christie is a "sensible alternative to Trump"?

      You are joking, surely.

      • Dennis Frank 1.1.1
        30 October 2023 at 2:58 pm

        Differentiating between screwball rightists is something only a keen amateur sociologist would enjoy, eh? However, ain't my tastes that matters – it's how they each come across to screwball yank voters that will set the scene for Trump to have another tilt at the Deep State windmill – or not.

        I have a hunch he's not gonna like the verdict of history (I've been wrong before). Could be that Republicans lack sufficient faith in Trump to put him up against Biden again. A moderate contender, if sufficiently adept to avoid the various traps in his path, could give Trump a real convention fight. Then it just hinges on the undecideds and a seemingly moderate option could easily persuade them. Christie has seemed too flakey in the past but he just needs to up his simulation game…

        • SPC 1.1.1.1
          30 October 2023 at 3:21 pm

          The party operates in fear of Trump's red MAGA cap takeover of the GOP membership base.

          These people are either running to be there should Trump be removed from candidacy, or to set up a future campaign.

          The reason no Trump loyalists are running (yet) is because they do not want to offend the boss of bosses.

      • fender 1.1.2
        30 October 2023 at 5:26 pm

        Compared to tRump, Christie is most definitely sensible.

        Christie:

        – Admits Biden won the election.

        – Confirms (based on available evidence) tRump has committed many crimes and should be charged like any other citizen.

        – States that tRump is totally unsuitable to occupy the White House due to his antidemocratic stance and various character flaws.

  2. Dennis Frank 2
    30 October 2023 at 9:13 am

    In alt-reality, things get somewhat tricky – depending how alternative facts blow in the wind. Some fly well, others just drift away:

    Trump lawyer Alina Habba called Cohen’s credibility into question. Despite Cohen’s pleading guilty to federal tax evasion charges in 2018, he said in court this week that he wasn’t actually guilty but had simply committed “tax omission” and failed to correct inaccurate loan paperwork. He also claimed he had been lying when he told lawmakers that he didn’t recall Trump or Weisselberg asking him to inflate Trump’s financials.

    But after the court’s lunch break, when Cohen returned to the witness stand, he suddenly backtracked and said his 2018 testimony had not been false. By that point, a lawyer for the New York attorney general stepped in for questioning, and Cohen clarified that what he meant was that Trump hadn’t explicitly directed Cohen to fudge his financials, because the former president “speaks like a mob boss” and “tells you what he wants without specifically telling you.” For example, Cohen said, Trump would say things like, “I’m actually not worth four-and-a-half-billion dollars. I’m really worth more like six.”

    Cohen’s waffling on this point compelled Trump’s legal team to demand a verdict in favor of Trump—and Judge Arthur Engoron promptly denied it. That led Trump to throw his hands up in the air and abruptly leave the courtroom in a huff. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/keeping-up-with-the-trump-trials-michael-cohen-mark-meadows-jenna-ellis.html

    In alt-reality, Trump is worth whatever he said at whatever time he said it, ipso facto. Obviously a paid servant would take his word for it – a reality check would require Trump to be floated on the market, buyer's bids to be compared to establish his market value. Due process, as it were, establishing true value in accord with divine market law.

  3. adam 3
    30 October 2023 at 3:33 pm

    Lets start a Tontine on the fall of the NZ economy.

    Join in

    See who will be left standing.

    And because I'm an optimist I'm calling time of death – March 11th 2024 – the day the NZ economy falls over.

  4. Joe90 4
    30 October 2023 at 5:39 pm

    On Netenyahu's 14 years empowering Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority, jigger the prospects of peace, and prevent progress toward a two state solution.

    https://archive.ph/iziSF

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000

    • SPC 4.1
      30 October 2023 at 8:09 pm

      It's symbiosis.

      With Likud (since 1977) there were now two actors who want to win it all and not abide by the international consensus of 1947-48. The irony is that the extremists see each other as the reason why they can win.

      They each want to marginalise the PA, Likud wants the WB and Hamas wants all Palestine.

  5. pat 5
    30 October 2023 at 5:51 pm

    "Perhaps it’s only the Labour Party that can bring working people into Parliament. And just because Labour has been failing on this doesn’t mean that the party can’t change."

    https://democracyproject.nz/2023/10/30/bryce-edwards-new-zealand-needs-a-more-working-class-parliament/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bryce-edwards-new-zealand-needs-a-more-working-class-parliament

    After nearly 4 decades of betrayal of their roots I doubt the working class will allow the Labour Party any more chances.

    • Belladonna 5.1
      30 October 2023 at 6:37 pm

      I don't know what the answer is to this. We certainly seem to have an abundance of lawyers and parliamentary staffers among the MPs. [NB: true of all parties, not only Labour]

      Perhaps it's inevitable in an institution that is designed to created and administer laws, that there would be more people who have (at least begun) a career in a field which prioritizes political and legislative skills.

      But it's not representative. And, those upper-middle-class establishment policy geeks get out of touch really easily with large sectors of the electorate.

      Part of the problem is that most working class people have no desire to go into Parliament – and no patience with the air-brushed, anodyne, PR persona which is apparently required to get elected.

      • pat 5.1.1
        30 October 2023 at 7:03 pm

        Im increasingly of the opinion that the only solution is MPs by random ballot….akin to jury selection

        Appointed for one term (perhaps 4 or 5 years) and then a new set of randomly selected citizens.

    • Craig H 5.2
      30 October 2023 at 10:43 pm

      The time commitment is absolutely brutal, particularly for constituency MPs who are ministers.

      • SPC 5.2.1
        31 October 2023 at 5:56 am

        The UK selects its Ministers from the Commons and Lords.

        The US President has a wide scope in choosing people for executive positions.

        For mine we either need more MP's to improve Select Committee performance, or fewer MP's with Cabinet responsibility – thus source some from outside parliament.

        One option would be allow all retired MP's to be available for Cabinet office holding – a certain irony whereby ambition might reduce ones time as an MP. And maybe also all those who receive an honourary title (public service etc), which would then (also) include those being regarded as qualified to be a Minister.

        Yes Minister, said the retired bureaucrat (with an honourary title) looking in the mirror – whose the new Cecil …

        • Belladonna 5.2.1.1
          31 October 2023 at 10:08 am

          But neither of your options widens the background base. Appointing ex pollies or ex civil servants, just entrenches the Wellington-centric, professional-administrator bias.

          Also, any loyalty from those un-elected Ministers, is going to be solely to the PM (not even to the party). I don't feel that we need more lockstep uniformity – but, rather, greater debate, and more voices being heard.

          • SPC 5.2.1.1.1
            31 October 2023 at 10:19 am

            Really?

            If we have a less onerous workload for MP's and also Ministers, we get better performance – for the electorates, on SC (Minsters more accountable to them) and also in the executive delivery of government programme (the party sets the manifesto, and the caucus can have some say over who is appointed Minister in such as system – after all they will work for the caucus as well as PM in delivering on policy goals).

            That will attract not just better quality MP’s, but a wider range of them (those no longer put off by the burden on family).

            And all of these people, even as ex MP's, could be appointed Minister.

            • Belladonna 5.2.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2023 at 12:36 pm

              Yes. All extant retired Ministers and (especially) civil servants belong to the current professional managerial class. Not a single working class bloke (or blokess) among them.

              Why would you think that the caucus would have any say over the appointment of Cabinet ministers from outside the caucus? By definition, this would reduce the 'baubles of power' available to them – why would they *ever* think this is a good thing?

              Under this scenario, 'ordinary' electorate MPs would have virtually zero chance of ever being at the levers of power. Why would that be attractive to them? Most people go into politics to make a change (and, TBH, with very healthy egos believing they are the 'chosen ones' who can do this).

              Unless you are proposing to radically adjust Parliament as well (nothing in your current proposals would do so) – then the ordinary parliamentary sittings are the things most destructive to family life. And there is no proposal to change this.

              I believe that this would reduce any individuality in government. The chance that a 'maverick' MP would be appointed Minister in your scenario – is approaching zero. Why would the PM take the chance of appointing someone like Damien O'Connor as Trade Minister (when he's been less-than-respectful of the Labour Party), when they can just appoint a MFAT bureaucrat?

              While, in theory, all ex-MPs 'could' be appointed Ministers, the actual result would be to concentrate power, even further, in the Wellington bureaucracy.

              It sounds as though, what you are actually proposing is an appointed 'Executive' (much like the US system) – separating this from the legislative function; rather than the Westminster Parliamentary system which combines both.

              I don't feel that this has sufficiently distinguished itself in the US – to make it a model worth following.

  6. Adrian 6
    30 October 2023 at 8:09 pm

    Government is now so broad and complex and requiring in depth knowledge of everything from international affairs, economics and cultural sensitivities and the many interactions and machinations of such as well as the huge amount of daily reading required of even a humble backbencher that some knowledge or proficency of many subjects that most "working people " would struggle to have the time and money to be able to get themselves up to speed with on the off-chance they may get selected. This is not to denigrate such well meaning people but anyone who has say, a partner and children , a mortgage and God knows what other hurdles and then wants to run a campaign really should disqualify themselves immediatley. There is a lot of very good reasons why parliament is the deathknell of relationships and marriages and fertile ground for burnout.

    • Belladonna 6.1
      30 October 2023 at 9:44 pm

      I would agree for Ministers, and even for the Opposition front bench – but we've had plenty of examples of air-headed MPs (the list I leave to you) on the back benches – who have contributed little except their vote to their party – either in policy formation or governance.

      The problem is that the skill-set required to get elected, is very different to the skill-set required to govern effectively.

      But I certainly agree that anyone who goes into Parliament for more than one term, places their political aspirations above their private life (especially their family).

      Again – I don't know what the answer is in making the environment more workplace friendly. Or, rather, I have ideas, but feel they would be resisted.

      Things like: stopping pointless debate in Parliament – if you want to practice the 'art of debate' do it on your time, not mine – (patsy questions to Ministers; generic 'do you have confidence in' questions from the Opposition) – spend more time on actual committees (legislative change), and less in the House. Stop evening sittings (part of the getting rid of pointless debates). Allow whips to hold the proxies – so MPs aren't required to be in the building… just in case. Require accurate and succinct answers to Ministerial written questions – with meaningful penalties for failing to answer, and turning it into a political speech- and if the Minister isn't present to take the question – 'I don't know' is not acceptable as an answer. Allow MPs with electorates more leeway in weekend leave (they're the ones most likely to have families out of Wellington). Allow more to work from home – even answer questions in Parliament remotely (we're in the 21st century, now) Lose the ban on 'unparliamentary' language – if someone is a liar – then they should be able to be called a liar in Parliament (with evidence, of course). Allow backbench MPs a lot more leeway in expressing different opinions to the leadership (more like the British system). Allow local electorate committees a lot more say in their candidates – they know who works locally. Save high list placings for senior Ministers, then the next generation of leaders – brightest and the best (not a refuge for MPs who fail the electorate hurdle). Set term limits on parliamentary representation. This should not be a 20+ year career. 3 terms and out for a term. Maximum of 15-18 years total (OK, I'll allow some exceptions for the Cabinet).

      No idea how practical or otherwise this rather…. eclectic …. list is. But it's the kind of thing which might address the environment which puts 'ordinary' people off even thinking of being an MP.

    • Michael P 6.2
      31 October 2023 at 4:50 am

      To become an MP doesn't require an in depth knowledge of anything. The public service personnel do the in depth knowledge and law writing stuff, To say or suggest that a working class person is less capable in terms of being a politician than someone who has a law degree or whatever else is snobbery at it's finest, congratulations.

      It's amazing how people (especially on the left) are clamoring for more and more diversity in areas such as gender, race and sexual orientation and all the while parliament and our representatives are becoming less and less representative and diverse (in terms of socio economic. educational and 'class' backgrounds)

  7. newsense 7
    30 October 2023 at 10:57 pm

    The Standard needs to do something useful like publish 1,001 petty revenges for public servants being asked to do a bunch of pointless new crap like a bunch of new regular evaluations of every single beneficiary’s ability to get work, while cutting 40% of their staff.

    Small pieces of dog crap in the shoes of ministers attending powhiri and other meeting house business my contribution. Not sure if from a very small diligent dog or a fairer distribution of a large deposit.