Open mike 30/01/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:40 am, January 30th, 2014 - 304 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

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 …

304 comments on “Open mike 30/01/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. millsy 1
    30 January 2014 at 7:57 am

    Apparently Key wants to change the flag, and plans to have a brainstorming session with his cabinet about it (cue images of he and his ministers gathered around a whiteboard shouting out idea) before submitting a bunch of cheesy corporate designs out to be voted on.

    Keep the flag it is.

    • Chooky 1.1
      30 January 2014 at 8:23 am

      +100 millsy….Key is getting desperate and it is a red herring…

      Key is feeling his leadership is under threat and his Ponzi Bankster New Zealand and NZ assets for the Chosen few morality is being questioned around the country

      ie Key isnt a real New Zealander with New Zealanders interests at heart…. (unlike David Cunliffe and Hone Harawera and Metiria Turei and Winston Peters) so he is trying to assert himself over ALL New Zealanders by dictating a flag change and putting himself out there as final arbiter ( he is losing the plot and showing his real grandiosity EGO)

      Lets hope Russell Norman …generally a good guy and fine leader…..doesn’t blunder and fall for this diversion from the real issues ( and start blabbing on about changing the flag and getting rid of Queenie or Charles the Greenie… for God’s sake!…Norman should be using HRH Charles the Greenie to the Greens PR advantage! )

      Lets hope no other Left politicians get diverted by Keys infantile attention seeking flag waving….from the Real issues facing New Zealanders..eg Education, STD of Living, Housing , Health etc. Cunliffe has made a great campaign start….Keep the ball rolling!….. Let Key hang himself out to dry!

      • Bill 1.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 8:29 am

        Nah. He only has to distract the media to rob oxygen from important stuff. Candy from bairns.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 11:04 am

          +1

          Actually, he was probably trying to distract from the expected OCR raise this morning. He’s probably feeling rather relaxed now that it didn’t go up.

      • David H 1.1.2
        30 January 2014 at 9:19 am

        But Key did say he would put it to a Referendum. And we all know how he values the results of Referendums.

    • felix 1.2
      30 January 2014 at 8:45 am

      1. The govt is going to put up ONE flag. We got to choose between that and the real one.

      2. The one the govt puts up will be a silver fern on black. That’s the one Key likes.

      3. Key will consciously link himself (and National) with the silver fern flag. The lazy media will reinforce the link.

      4. The subtext for lazy voters is that voting National goes hand-in-hand with voting for the silver fern.

      5. Key is trying to trick a bunch of idiots into voting for the All-Blacks.

      • mikesh 1.2.1
        30 January 2014 at 9:18 am

        If the silver fern is that powerful a symbol, perhaps we should launch an All Blacks party.

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 9:38 am

          You do realise that it‘ll get over 5% easy?

          • tinfoilhat 1.2.1.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 9:53 am

            Slight problem that both the silver fern logo and All black will be trademarked.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 6:07 pm

              Well, if it were to be done properly the NZRU would do it (no problem with trademarks) and have the party become the king makers in this years elections.

      • Tracey 1.2.2
        30 January 2014 at 11:03 am

        Yup. Rugby and nationalism…. and from an ardent royalist too. This is so transparent if you bother to look below the surface.

      • Will@Welly 1.2.3
        30 January 2014 at 11:15 am

        This is the same trick Key used with the Rugby World Cup – he was closely associated with the All Blacks winning that.

        • Pasupial 1.2.3.1
          30 January 2014 at 6:31 pm

          W@W

          As close as only a 3-way handshake can be.

          • Will@Welly 1.2.3.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 8:18 pm

            I made a suggestion, elsewhere, that if we were to change our flag, that should be our emblem. The desperate third-hand, interloping – John Key style.

            • McFlock 1.2.3.1.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 8:29 pm

              sort of like the Isle of Man flag, but with arms instead of legs?

              nice

              • Will@Welly …
                30 January 2014 at 8:57 pm

                I was thinking of a white background, as in surrendering – our sovereignty, our commerce, our liberty, our land, and whatever else snake oil is proposing to sell.
                It would seem fitting that any change comes in under his watch – he has fundamentally screwed this country for a generation or two.

                • RedBaronCV …
                  31 January 2014 at 8:25 pm

                  Why only a white background – make the whole lot white, then them craven little Nacts could wave it at evry multi national event.

    • Lanthanide 1.3
      30 January 2014 at 9:18 am

      One of the only flag designs that looks in any way professional: http://www.silverfernflag.org/

      Also I called this: http://thestandard.org.nz/anti-democratic-tendencies/#comment-701020

      • miravox 1.3.1
        30 January 2014 at 9:47 am

        Yes, that was a good call Lanth.

        Although I’d have to go for the Hundertwasser design, just sayin’ 😉

      • Olwyn 1.3.2
        30 January 2014 at 10:16 am

        Your suggestion is the second choice for me, after the United Tribes one. However, the latter seems to be greatly favoured by a small number but rejected by the majority. As to the All Blacks flag, it is OK for a sports team, but as national flags go, the symbolism is too confusing. The white-on-black is suggestive of the skull and crossbones, while the white fern itself is suggestive of a white feather, historically associated with cowardice.

        Good on you too for your call on this. Playing flags is a bit like “trying to make a difference” on the PTA by lobbying for a new school uniform.

      • Tracey 1.3.3
        30 January 2014 at 11:04 am

        Yup… nationalism is rolled out…

      • aerobubble 1.3.4
        30 January 2014 at 4:18 pm

        The idea that NZ should have a pirate flag minus the skull and cross bones and plus a silverfern, is laughable.

  2. Philj 2
    30 January 2014 at 8:01 am

    Xox
    If you want the background on the electricity ‘reforms’ in New Zealand from Geoff Bertram check this out on http://www.ziln.co.nz/video/6031iln.

  3. Flood 3
    30 January 2014 at 8:23 am

    Never once is discussed what the Maxim Institute actually do. This not a typical family. Granny sucks once more.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11193953

  4. Steve James 4
    30 January 2014 at 8:26 am

    Hmmm…

    • The Best Start Payment provides desperately needed support to the estimated 50,000 children under three who are currently living in poverty.

    • The Best Start Payment will benefit all New Zealand children born after 1 April 2016.
    
https://www.labour.org.nz/beststart

    So the ‘Best Start’ payment is desperately needed for 50,000 children alive today but non of them or any child born during the next two years will even qualify for it. What the hell is going on here?

    • freedom 4.1
      30 January 2014 at 8:30 am

      yeah, why don’t they just say whatever will win votes
      then, like National did, use urgency to pass policies they never campaigned on in the first place 🙄

    • Bill 4.2
      30 January 2014 at 8:33 am

      Would you rather the approx 50 000 under three’s in NZ after April 2016 continued to live in poverty?

      • Steve James 4.2.1
        30 January 2014 at 9:19 am

        Absolutely not Bill. I want those children fed, clothed and educated. Most importantly I want those poor children’s parents to take responsibility for the feeding and clothing if they haven’t already. Not too much to ask, is it?

        • Bill 4.2.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 9:24 am

          So, just to be clear, you are in favour of them being provided some means to better ‘feed and clothe’ – ie, materially care – for their children, yes?

        • bad12 4.2.1.2
          30 January 2014 at 9:33 am

          Steven James, it may be imprudent not actually knowing you to accuse you of being dumb, the fact is tho that you have just made a dumb statement,

          IF benefit levels and/or low wages prevent the parents of poor children from being able to adequately fulfill such ‘parental responsibility’ then YES it does become too much to demand that these parents fulfill the responsibility that they know they have to their children, a situation damaging to not only the children but the parent as well…

          • Steve James 4.2.1.2.1
            30 January 2014 at 12:18 pm

            Yes it would be imprudent to call me dumb. Excuse the late reply, Thursdays are busy for us as we have Fridays off.

            Sorry I don’t buy beneficiaries being ‘prevented’ from fulfilling their responsibilities. Ones children are too important to put them second to anything. The DPB pays 3+ times what a single person would receive on the dole or sickness benefit; there is no excuse for not providing your own children with their fundamental needs.

            Yes, it could be more but then so could most peoples wages. As a former grateful recipient of the DPB I understand the value of simple budgeting and doing without some luxuries and/or bad habits; its not that difficult. Buying say cigarettes or Sky TV before feeding and clothing your children to me is nothing but child abuse.

            • McFlock 4.2.1.2.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 12:33 pm

              Actually, I agree – failing to feed and clothe your kids while you waste money on luxuries for yourself is neglect. There are mechanisms to deal with that. If you really know of such a case, you should fucking well report it rather than bitching here.

              But in the real world, rather than the repugno-homunculus that is Planet Key, tens of thousands more parents are struggling to feed and clothe their kids because 3 times fuck-all is still fuck-all.

              But then of course we have, once again, the tory line it wasn’t that difficult for me, therefore it cannot be that difficult for everyone else, because I cannot imagine that another person is not exactly like me.

              • Steve James …
                30 January 2014 at 2:53 pm

                Normally I don’t reply to people who swear McFool but I will today. Don’t think for one second I would not report people for child abuse as I hope you would.

                We choose to have our children and it doesn’t take a genius to know that if you struggle to feed the children you have having more will only make things worse.

                I suspect you are receiving welfare so how about being grateful for it.

                If simply being sensible is ‘towing the Tory line’ then perhaps the Tories have it right and deserve to be in government. Sadly if you are representative of Labour party support we are in serious trouble.

                • miravox …
                  30 January 2014 at 3:04 pm

                  Always amazed how righties automatically suspect people on this blog who support beneficiaries positions are all receiving welfare.

                • McFlock …
                  30 January 2014 at 3:37 pm

                  Well, aren’t you fortunate that I choose to respond to fools who promote the suffering and hardship of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of their fellow New Zealanders, but dare to take the high horse on the patois of the street.

                  Do you know what I am grateful for? I’m grateful for the good luck that I’m not on welfare. Because I look at the multitude of coincidences and little tweaks of happenstance to got me where I am today (rather than on the dole or even dead), and I am grateful. I recognise that I’m not a master of the universe. I’m fortunate to have met people who later on could help me out, and I’m fortunate that the area I happen to have a modicum of talent in (and enjoy) is an expanding field with room for the less-than-elite practitioner. I’m a grain of sand in the ocean that’s swept around by currents I cannot even imagine.

                  So are you.

                  And it’s an enormous conceit to pretend that where you are is the result of your “better choices” for the simple fact that it is pure luck that your choices had a positive outcome.

                  While you judge your imaginary hordes of the wilfully poor, you assume that you will not be in their place in 10 years time.

            • bad12 4.2.1.2.1.2
              30 January 2014 at 3:56 pm

              Another dumb comment, the ability to fulfill parental obligations may be seriously constrained by something as small as where you live and the amount of rent you pay,

              As we all know State Housing is being sold off by un-Housing Minister Nick Smith so more and more of those on low incomes are forced to rent privately and i suggest that you carefully read the comment at (3) which highlights a couple with one child receiving the dole paying $440 weekly in rent, obviously they will have been receiving the accommodation supplement as well but given such conditions just how far do you think benefits stretch in today’s reality,

              Please save your ”i was once on the DPB” rubbish for those of a gullible nature i personally do not believe a word of it…

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.2.1.3
              30 January 2014 at 5:04 pm

              Ones children are too important to put them second to anything.

              The landlord doesn’t agree with you
              The power companies don’t agree with you
              Neither do the phone companies

              They all think that they should be paid before the baby is fed.

            • RedBaronCV 4.2.1.2.1.4
              30 January 2014 at 7:51 pm

              Yes That’s what those fathers do after they dump their kids on the welfare. Sky TV smokes booze.. Good on ya Steve for going out and rounding those bludger Dads up.

          • srylands 4.2.1.2.2
            30 January 2014 at 4:45 pm

            There is nothing we can do about existing children, but surely we should be discouraging poor people from having children at all? We want high income people to have children. Then we can fill any labour force gaps via immigration.

            • McFlock 4.2.1.2.2.1
              30 January 2014 at 4:52 pm

              Why are the children of the rich more valuable for society than the children of the poor?

            • fender 4.2.1.2.2.2
              30 January 2014 at 5:00 pm

              And if a rich person with kids loses their wealth?? Exterminate them??

              You’d do that for free eh sslands..

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.2.1.2.2.3
              30 January 2014 at 5:02 pm

              @ Srylands

              Lolz ‘stirring for sport’ is what I would call that comment.

              Better, though, that you stick to mindless stirring than attempting to prove The Liar isn’t one

              Perhaps you are bright enough to have realised the futility of attempting to prove the impossible through a reasoned argument and that stirring is about the only slim hope your cause has of winning the next election.

              😆

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.2.2.4
              30 January 2014 at 5:11 pm

              And SSLands comes in with the eugenics answer.

            • KJT 4.2.1.2.2.5
              30 January 2014 at 8:38 pm

              Just what we need. More greedy, sociopathic, incompetent and entitled little twits that grow up to use way too many resources.

              Go Srylands. More Gina Rienharts is just what the community needs.

      • Lanthanide 4.2.2
        30 January 2014 at 9:22 am

        Bill, under the current proposal, only children born after 1st April 2016 get payments. Even if they’re 1 year and 1 day old on 1st April 2016, they won’t qualify for the “under 3 year” payment.

        • Bill 4.2.2.1
          30 January 2014 at 9:29 am

          You absolutely sure about that Lanth? You saying that the parents of a child born in April 2015 will not, under any circumstances, qualify for the year 2 and 3 payments?

          • weka 4.2.2.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 10:26 am

            from the PDF

            Funding for the Best Start Payment will be introduced via Budget 2015 and it will come into effect for children born on or after 1 April 2016.

          • Lanthanide 4.2.2.1.2
            30 January 2014 at 10:50 am

            They’ve basically tailored it that way to coincide with revenues from their CGT, which under previous modelling takes 2-3 years before it really starts to ramp up in revenue.

            Ultimately I think they’re going to have to change it, because the way it’s proposed, it means a child born on 31st of March 2016 will not qualify for payments, but one born on 1st April 2016 will.

            Lets just see how many pregnant mothers are using delaying tactics during labour to get the delivery time past midnight on the clock. It’s quite unseemly.

            • Bill 4.2.2.1.2.1
              30 January 2014 at 10:59 am

              Agree that some possible unintended yet predictable consequences of this as it stands are…not good.

              Very fixable though.

    • mickysavage 4.3
      30 January 2014 at 8:52 am

      Um Steve I’m not sure if you are aware of this but Labour is not in power right now …

      • weka 4.3.1
        30 January 2014 at 9:10 am

        Plus it takes time to set up new schemes like this, always does.

        Of course, NACT could adopt the policy now and then it would be up and running 9 months earlier.

      • Steve James 4.3.2
        30 January 2014 at 9:21 am

        Good point mickysavage. I will take that into account in future.

    • bad12 4.4
      30 January 2014 at 8:55 am

      Fair point Steven James, there has been a couple of ‘lapses’ round the announcing of the ‘Best Start’ program and i would hope that Labour get the next big announcement out without such ‘holes’ appearing,(although the previous point of picking by the ‘wing-nuts’ where much was attempted to be made from the fact that those already in receipt of Paid Parental Leave will have to wait until they have used their allocated weeks befor they begin to receive ‘Best Start is part of the program i totally agree with),

      Had David Cunliffe signalled that ‘Best Start’ would start soon after the 2014 election i can well imagine the incoherent screams of the ‘wing-nuts’ along with Slippery the Prime Minister,who obviously plans on leaving the coffers empty, about Labour not having the money to pay for this program,

      It is ‘fiscally prudent’ for Labour knowing it has other un-announced programs to fund to introduce ‘Best Start’ over a number of years remembering that either in the current Parliament or at the earliest opportunity in the next the extension to paid parental leave will have to be accounted for,

      The message then to low income people from Labour and the Green party translates as one of ‘Hang on help is on the way’ and as we have been waiting here for year after year another couple knowing the programs proposed will be waited out with relief…

      • Steve James 4.4.1
        30 January 2014 at 9:27 am

        Good points bad12, difficult to argue with.
        I am ok with this policy actually as $60 will mean more to low earners than those of us who earn more than that each hour. The two things I am very keen to see is that the money actually goes to the children and the administration doesn’t cost more than 1 or 2% of each payment; this is not likely.

        • bad12 4.4.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 9:49 am

          Are you suggesting Steve James that the vast majority of the low income and benefit dependent households who will receive the full $60 from the ‘Best Start’ program are all going to blow it on Scratchies, Tinnies,and Pissing it up against the wall???,

          i find ludicrous any such suggestion and it is demeaning of those with tragically low oincomes to suggest such,

          Having said that, of course there are a small group within the demographic who are likely to do just as i have suggested above, But, when you couple Labour’s ‘Best Start’ with the ‘Hubs in Schools’ announced by the Green Party then it is likely that such parents who do will easily be able to be identified and targeted for further assistance not necessarily of a financial nature…

        • Colonial Viper 4.4.1.2
          30 January 2014 at 9:50 am

          Dont worry about that mate, it’s the NZ state. All these systems are already in place.

          Further, Labour trusts NZ parents to do the right thing for their baby and will support them in their good decision making.

          Why is it you dont you trust NZ parents to do the right thing, Steve James?

      • PapaMike 4.4.2
        30 January 2014 at 2:28 pm

        Has this been dubbed “KiwiStart” yet ?

    • McFlock 4.5
      30 January 2014 at 9:49 am

      typical fucking tories. Yesterday he his problem was that it gave money to the wrong people. Today he whines it doesn’t give enough money to other people.

      Meanwhile, the government he fellates on a regular basis continues to sabotage the care for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

  5. bad12 5
    30 January 2014 at 8:34 am

    The Maxim Institute, who would have thunk that someone working for such a place would have a critical view of Labour’s ‘Best Start’ program or that the Herald would have to stoop that low to find some criticism,

    In a tale of two doctors the Herald online publishes the stories of one who would have been extremely grateful for the $60 a week Labour ‘Best Start’ program while the other,(with a combined income of $150,000 annually says they do not need it,(Jacinda Adhern succinctly points out that ‘it’ aint compulsory so if anyone wither doesn’t need or want ‘Best Start’ they simply need only not apply for it),

    i am always amused when i read of low income people ‘freezing’ in their homes in winter, the layered method of clothing keeps me ‘toasty as’ during winter,(there’s no money here that i either want or can afford to simply burn), Hell if needs must 3 pair of track pants, 4 tee shirts, 2 track tops with hoodies, and a woolen jersey on top of that isn’t all that uncomfortable,(and since ‘swine flu year i havn’t had a winter flu)…

    • felix 5.1
      30 January 2014 at 9:02 am

      The immigrant couple in the story seem to be saying they don’t really need it but would take it anyway:

      The Smiths, who came here from the United States in 2008, say they would be grateful for the extra $60 a week, but they could do without it.

      Bludgers.

      Also, this:

      “If the NZ Government was in a position where it was flush with money and there were surpluses everywhere, and education was going well and health was going well and poverty rates were decreasing, then great, that would be excellent,” she said.

      Oh right, so if poverty rates were decreasing, then you’d support doing something about poverty.

      Fucking idiot.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

        Oh right, so if poverty rates were decreasing, then you’d support doing something about poverty.

        Fucking idiot.

        You weren’t really expecting anything else from the Maxim Institute were you?

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      30 January 2014 at 12:45 pm

      Hell if needs must 3 pair of track pants, 4 tee shirts, 2 track tops with hoodies, and a woolen jersey on top of that isn’t all that uncomfortable

      And if they can’t afford to buy that many clothes?

      • phillip ure 5.2.1
        30 January 2014 at 5:49 pm

        “..And if they can’t afford to buy that many clothes?..”

        you still haven’t answered that question..there..bad..

        ..mmm???

        phollip ure..

  6. North 6
    30 January 2014 at 8:35 am

    No surprises for guessing how this right wing couple would respond to the Herald’s “challenge”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11193953

    And ShonKey Python’s flag crap gets top billing on Herald online.

    What a shit rag !

  7. Philj 7
    30 January 2014 at 8:48 am

    Xox
    Flag waving sounds like a Key ploy from National to distract from the real issue of poverty. How many other distractions will we see?

  8. felix 8
    30 January 2014 at 8:58 am

    So it’s just a benefit for hippies and black people? Is that the story?

    • weka 8.1
      30 January 2014 at 9:08 am

      Hmm, really trying to see what that was a reply to…

      • felix 8.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 9:13 am

        Try harder. You can do it.

      • Bill 8.1.2
        30 January 2014 at 9:17 am

        Possibly covering all possible bases on comments posted here so far – ‘Best Start’ only applies to hippies and black people and us whiteys have more important flag issues to discuss?

      • North 8.1.3
        30 January 2014 at 9:19 am

        You didn’t try hard enough to see what Felix was referring to Weka, before picky pickying. Or you didn’t read the Herald article.

        • weka 8.1.3.1
          30 January 2014 at 10:19 am

          It’s true I don’t read every link posted in comments on ts. I doubt that anyone does.

          Picky, picky? What’s with the snarky shit?

          Besides, I like Bill’s explanation better.

          • North 8.1.3.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 10:49 am

            Weka you’re still behind the 8 ball if as your comments suggest you haven’t read the article. Sorry if you see that as snarky. You give Felix the picky picky just as you did extraordinarily gratuitously with Bad 12 yesterday when he conjectured re the state of SlaterPorn’s mental health.

            Without reading the article you won’t see that Bill’s comment simply reflects that unlike you he understands what Felix had to say.

            • weka 8.1.3.1.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 11:27 am

              North, my comment to felix was neutral. It was just a passing observation, not really a big deal. I have looked at the article since I made that comment.

              That you are tying what I said into something I said yesterday suggests you have a problem with me, fair enough, but please at least try to be accurate when you are having a go at me.

          • lprent 8.1.3.1.2
            30 January 2014 at 11:16 am

            It’s true I don’t read every link posted in comments on ts. I doubt that anyone does.

            I try to. However it would be correct to say that I don’t really read them most of the time. I scan them for patterns of interest to me. I’m also a bit lazier during weekends.

            • weka 8.1.3.1.2.1
              30 January 2014 at 11:56 am

              Yeah I do the scan thing unless it really grabs me. I’m more likely to open a link if the URL or the comment tells me what it is about.

              • KJT …
                30 January 2014 at 10:05 pm

                And. I really hate the ones that dump me in Kiwibog. Ruins my entire day.

                All that scrubbing ruins the complexion, ya know.

  9. adam 9
    30 January 2014 at 9:15 am

    http://www.nuvo.net/GuestVoices/archives/2014/01/24/military-vet-tossed-from-hjr-3-hearings

    One step backwards? Hir-3 I mean. Also shows that the left/right divide is sometimes something the media beat up – not people who live through this shit.

    And reason I read this blog – great bike advocate.

    http://www.nuvo.net/blogs/BicycleDiariesofaBigGirl/

  10. Norm 10
    30 January 2014 at 10:09 am

    With Waitangi Day approaching one gets to thinking. It is, of course, a time of celebration and traditionally the time when new arrivals to Aotearoa are awarded Citizenship. How would it be if each year on February 6th we all got to vote for one current New Zealander to be “ucitizened”. That is to say, stripped of the honour of being a New Zealander for behaviour unbecoming. I’m going to construct a poll. What names would you like to see appear on it?
    One can think of at least one “louse” from Auckland that might make the list.
    Let rip. #uncitizen

  11. captain Hook 11
    30 January 2014 at 11:20 am

    John Key is a poltroon and he looked like he has pooed himself on the telly last night when he was floating the idea of a ablack flag.
    He has no idea of history. His family were immigrants from easten europe and he left New Zealand as soon as he could when he aquired the skills to fleece investors in the money market.
    He will push off back to where he came from when he gets the shove in November. He cant even remember where he was in 1981 let alone the history of New Zealand yet he has the temerity to make suggestions about the flag to which he has no spiritual connection whatever. And he should remember that when the other Manques from the NZRFU affected to dress al lin black then we lost everything.
    Anyway his vision looks like a melanoma and would be just as cancerous if it was adopted!

    • karol 11.1
      30 January 2014 at 11:24 am

      The RSA doesn’t support a flag change. I’d have thought that would include a few Nat voters.

      Just a Key diversion, desperate for photo ops until the royals arrive.

    • miravox 11.2
      30 January 2014 at 1:47 pm

      “He has no idea of history. His family were immigrants from easten europe and he left New Zealand as soon as he could when he aquired the skills to fleece investors in the money market.”

      Central Europe -but what’s a few degrees here or there… I agree he has no idea of history. Apparently he doesn’t know his own because his mother didn’t want to reflect on it. If he bothered to find out more about her story I can’t believe he would be making the deals he does or promoting his divisive policies.

      I simply don’t understand his apparent lack of curiosity about the events around his mother’s flight from Europe. Or if he is clear on them, how he can justify his own politics.

  13. captain Hook 13
    30 January 2014 at 11:29 am

    Well the royals have no choice but to be clasped in the smarmy embrace of the greasiest leader ever to be put up as a ring in in New Zealands proud history. Kiwis will look back on this administration as the greediest and most venal and self serving ever.

  14. Craig Y 14
    30 January 2014 at 11:37 am

    So, Prime Minister…you’re talking coalition with the Conservative Party, along with their “bottom line,” binding citizens referenda. And yet, your government wants the rest of us to believe that the centre-right is the epitome of “fiscal responsibility” and limited government spending.

    Do I spot a contradiction here?
    “Blue Elephant: The Conservatives, Binding Referenda and Public Spending”
    http://www.gaynz.com/blogs/redqueen/?p=5310

    • Draco T Bastard 14.1
      30 January 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Oh dear, another person who thinks that people shouldn’t be able to govern themselves.

      • Craig Y 14.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 3:23 pm

        No, I just don’t think that affluent sectional interests should be able to hire public relations consultants and cause populist congestion of the political system under the guise of “participatory” or “direct” “democracy”. Which is basically what happens in US binding “citizens” referenda. Take a look at California, which has become fiscally ungovernable due to referenda addiction and manic tax cutting/gutting of public services. In that case, a surfeit of referenda were somewhat inimical to citizenship. If we need an alternative to parliamentary sovereignty, then let’s have a written constitution. Not something that can be used to attack vulnerable minority groups by unscrupulous extremists.

        • Craig Y 14.1.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 3:34 pm

          If we’re going to have referenda on a regular basis, then they should only take place if they are subordinate to New Zealand’s domestic human rights and civil liberties safeguards, as well as the international treaties that we are signatory to on such matters. For example, what would have happened to Ahmed Zaoui if the raving right had called a CIR to have him expelled from the country, instead of exposing glaring inadequacies within our immigration and security services?

          • KJT 14.1.1.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 8:49 pm

            “New Zealand’s domestic human rights and civil liberties safeguards”,

            Who decides what they are. You, Rodney Hide, John Key, Don Brash, parliament (LOL)?

            It is a particularly immoral and arrogant stance to believe that 160 people should be allowed to decide the lives of 4 million.

            As for Ahmed Zaoui. A referendum would have most likely been on his side. New Zealanders have a well developed sense of fairness.

            • Craig Y 14.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2014 at 1:33 pm

              Right, so you’re willing to suspend scepticism and assume that would be the case every time, would you, and to hell with baseline guarantees of human rights and civil liberties? Unfortunately, Winston Peters and New Zealand First exist. Would the Zaoui case have been settled so expeditiously if he’d put up a particularly dirty or paranoid argument?

        • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.2
          30 January 2014 at 5:20 pm

          No, I just don’t think that affluent sectional interests should be able to hire public relations consultants and cause populist congestion of the political system under the guise of “participatory” or “direct” “democracy”.

          Then you put in place legislation to prevent that.

          If we’re going to have referenda on a regular basis, then they should only take place if they are subordinate to New Zealand’s domestic human rights and civil liberties safeguards, as well as the international treaties that we are signatory to on such matters.

          Agree on the civil rights but not so much on the international treaties as some of them are detrimental to NZ.

          For example, what would have happened to Ahmed Zaoui if the raving right had called a CIR to have him expelled from the country, instead of exposing glaring inadequacies within our immigration and security services?

          You wouldn’t have a referendum on that as that would be the province of the courts.

        • KJT 14.1.1.3
          30 January 2014 at 8:45 pm

          California compared to what?
          Seems to be doing a lot better than many other US states, who are without BCIR. referenda.

          “manic tax cutting/gutting of public services”. Many Governments have done rather well in that regard, without BCIR.

          “attack vulnerable minority groups by unscrupulous extremists”. Also happens regularly. More regularly in countries with less, not more, democracy.

          • Craig Y 14.1.1.3.1
            31 January 2014 at 1:37 pm

            As for suitably manipulative leaders, Hitler held a plebiscite to ratify his takeover of the Saarland in 1935, and Napoleon III held one to legitimise his coup d’état, suspension of freedom of expression, media autonomy, and violation of civil liberties through imprisonment of opponents of his takeover. Unsurprisingly, given his populist appeals to the French electorate, it passed. Referenda are no guarantee of actual democratic processes and sometimes work against accountability and transparency.

  15. fisiani 15
    30 January 2014 at 11:47 am

    https://twitter.com/nzlabour/status/427900914133766144/photo/1

    Anyone care to explain how this is not deception. It clearly shows What Cunliffe said in his speech was a deliberate lie that he was caught out in.
    Or is Jacinda playing the long game and white anting The Cunliffe so that he loses the election and thus the leadership.

    • McFlock 15.1
      30 January 2014 at 11:57 am

      Nah, you’re just being a fucking moron who rehashes shit that was patiently explained to you yesterday.

      It’s not “deception” if you are only pretending to be confused. And if you’re genuinely that fucking stupid, I shudder to think that you might be targeted by that policy. There’ll be no hope for the nation’s future.

      • weka 15.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 2:43 pm

        It’s actually really interesting the people who assumed that you could get paid parental leave AND and extra $60/wk, and when they find out they can’t they’re upset.

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 15.1.2
        30 January 2014 at 4:31 pm

        It totally doesn’t matter that Labour can’t proofread a public announcement on its major policy platform, only RWNJs care about spelling mistaeks.

        • McFlock 15.1.2.1
          30 January 2014 at 4:37 pm

          Indeed. A stray “i” in a twitter comment can completely destroy its gravitas.

          Meanwhile, BLiP’s chronicle of John Key’s barefaced lies continues to grow…

          • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 15.1.2.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 4:42 pm

            Continuing this week’s Labour Lollercaust, we have David Cunliffe engaging the media with all the adeptness and comms savvy we’ve come to expect from NZ Labour:

            Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken responsibility for wording in his speech that claimed more parents would receive his planned $60 baby bonus than would actually get it.

            “The buck stops with me,” he said today, after yesterday saying he did not pen the line promising that “for 59,000 families with newborn babies, they will all receive a Best Start investment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life”.

            It turned out that about 25,000 people a year on paid parental leave, worth up to $488 a week, would not receive the payment at the same time.

            Cunliffe hit another snag today when he could not explain the details of his policy on extending antenatal checks.
            ..
            Asked whether free antenatal classes was a new policy, Cunliffe said “free antenatal classes have been to some extent available”.

            “What we are being very clear about is that we will have them for all expectant mums,” he said.

            Labour would increase the target for 10-weeks checks to ensuring 80 per cent of mothers would get them.

            Asked again whether antenatal classes were free to all mothers now, he said: “Not in every case, but I will have to check on the details.”

            He said his advice was that it was not generally freely available to everyone, but he could not say who would miss out.

            Pressed on his knowledge of policy detail, he said: “When was the last time you asked John Key a question to five decimal places?”

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9667593/Cunliffe-takes-rap-but-fumbles-again

            (pssst – David – I think you’re supposed to call him “my opponent”. Or did you realise that was fucking retarded too?)

            • McFlock 15.1.2.1.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 4:49 pm

              “Lollercaust”?
              And you’re giving Labour comms and PR criticism… 🙄

            • mickysavage 15.1.2.1.1.2
              30 January 2014 at 4:53 pm

              So David does not know eligibility for every single Government policy. So what?

              You also left out the important parts of the article:

              Pressed on his knowledge of policy detail, he said: “When was the last time you asked John Key a question to five decimal places?”

              The Ministry of Health’s site makes it clear that free maternity and pregnancy services, such as 10-weeks checks, are available to virtually all, including those in the country on some visas.

              But it says “there may be some charges for antenatal or childbirth education classes, and some tests at a private laboratory“.

              • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                30 January 2014 at 5:05 pm

                There are three things that David Cunliffe needs to be the country’s greatest expert on right now, and those are:

                1. NZ’s current parental leave scheme
                2. NZ’s current antenatal care scheme
                3. Exactly how his new policy relates to 1 and 2.

                You know what David Cunliffe needs to not happen this week? Being caught out with an answer of “I dunno” by the news media when questioned about those three things.

                Hey McFlock, I’ve got another one for you: failapalooza.

                • McFlock …
                  30 January 2014 at 5:22 pm

                  yeah, failapalooza is merely trite, cumbersome, and doesn’t have anything to do with genocide.

                  You should have gone with that one first, being a pr genius and all.

                  • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                    31 January 2014 at 3:23 am

                    Here’s a sign that your communications are one big clusterfuck of incompetence: not a single mention of it on Red Alert.

                    The Leader’s big speech, outlining the policy that he thinks will win the election.

                    Red Alert: “what speech? who?”

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 9:28 am

                      thankyou, Dale Carnegie.
                      “My” comms? You’re an idiot.

                      From what I hear, Red Aert is maintained by another self-professed pr guru.

                • Blue …
                  30 January 2014 at 8:54 pm

                  Actually no, all DC needs to do is stop giving out so much detail about Labour’s policies. Take a leaf out of National’s book and just announce something without saying anything about how it will work.

                  The journos, they get confused if there are too many words. When they get confused they ask stupid questions and then they get upset when they can’t understand the answers, which leads to more stupid questions and so on.

                  National know to keep it simple. The chance of a journo asking them for any details is pretty much nil and the result is a nice, simple article with National’s spin printed as gospel. That’s how you feed the chooks.

                • Naki Man …
                  30 January 2014 at 9:42 pm

                  Just another stumble from clusterfuck Cunliffe

                  • mickysavage …
                    30 January 2014 at 9:45 pm

                    Cant the right wing send us better trolls than SHG and Naki?

                    • McFlock …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:05 pm

                      I’m not sure – they all seem to be loosing their groove at the moment.

                      Even key accidentally told the truth in parliament:

                      Metiria Turei: If the 1970s welfare State was so good to the Prime Minister when he was a child, will he consider reviving some of the core policies that were in place at that time, such as secure State housing, a universal child benefit, and genuinely free public education to every child now; if he will not, why does he believe that today’s kids are not entitled to the same support he had when he was a child?

                      Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

                      No memory-fades, no barroom bluster, just a simple “fuck you” to the kids of today from someone who was fortunate enough to be raised in, in some ways, a more enlightened time.

                  • fisiani …
                    31 January 2014 at 9:09 am

                    Bring back Shearer.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 January 2014 at 6:05 pm

                DC needs to start handing more responsibility and questions over to the rest of the Labour spokespeople. Hyper-capable as he is, he can’t be the strategic visionary guy as well as the detailed micro-policy guy all at the same time.

                • Roflcopter …
                  30 January 2014 at 6:21 pm

                  Helen Clark would disagree with you, she was formidable on both counts.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    30 January 2014 at 6:34 pm

                    Helen Clark had a veritable titan in the form of Heather Simpson (and others) backing her up.

                • bad12 …
                  30 January 2014 at 6:49 pm

                  CV, i agree with you there, at first even i had trouble consuming the detail of the ‘Best Start’ program so it is easy to see why when launching it David Cunliffe didn’t try and give all the detail in what i would assume was to be a hard hitting speech,(which it was), for fear of either putting the audience to sleep or hopelessly confusing them,

                  What need occur on such occasions i believe is that David Parker need be on hand to give a follow up on the main speech where He(i assume here that Parker would be fully up to date on all the complications involved),explains the policy in detail,

                  Having said all of that i have no problem with the fully explained policy and still applaud it as a good piece of Socialism giving the most to those who ‘need’ it the most…

                  • srylands …
                    30 January 2014 at 7:22 pm

                    “..still applaud it as a good piece of Socialism [cut]”

                    I agree which is why it will be a disaster with the electorate. The word “socialism” is electoral poison. Watch Labour decline by 2% in the next poll.

                    Honestly these policies lost their appeal in 1986. The capitalised baby bonus in Australia was shocking policy. The new government in Australia as had to appoint an audit commission to unravel all the crap middle class welfare.

                    • bad12 …
                      30 January 2014 at 7:28 pm

                      SSLands, F off back there, as for your latest little rant, what a fucking load of shit, Working for Families, a masterful piece of Socialism which i have one ongoing complaint about, made the voters run did it…

                      Ps, SSLands, perhaps Labour might like to take your point, there is another name for it which may well suit a Labour Government better, Redistributive Capitalism…

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 January 2014 at 8:38 pm

                      Honestly these policies lost their appeal in 1986.

                      Yeah, that would explain all the protests and the 1st Act government getting booted out in 1990.

                      Really, go watch this and you may learn just how fucked up the policies that you want left this country.

                    • srylands …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:00 pm

                      It is “srylands” not “SSLands”. I have pointed that out to you before. You must have a tic.

                    • srylands …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:04 pm

                      “Really, go watch this and you may learn just how fucked up the policies that you want left this country.”

                      Um I have spent most of my life designing said policies. I don’t think I am persuaded.

                    • KJT …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:07 pm

                      Dumped the policy because it didn’t make for a higher birth rate, didn’t they?

                    • KJT …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:09 pm

                      Socialism is such electoral poison that your hero, Key said, “New Zealanders are socialists at heart”.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:11 pm

                      Um I have spent most of my life designing said policies. I don’t think I am persuaded.

                      well, fuck you very much for that.

                    • srylands …
                      30 January 2014 at 10:14 pm

                      “Really, go watch this and you may learn just how fucked up the policies that you want left this country.”

                      You seem to be behind the game. Try to keep up.

                      http://www.ea.govt.nz/industry/monitoring/enquiries-reviews-investigations/2013/#historical-costs

                      “”It is a myth that the old hydro plants were low cost for New Zealand, as they often had very high capital costs that more than offset their very low running costs. The total cost to New Zealand was often very high, but consumers were not charged the full cost of supplying electricity to them.”

                      In other words we are playing catch up. Stop complaining.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:52 am

                      And that one I linked to said the exact opposite. The hydro dams and other generators and the lines were all fully paid for on a pay-go basis – exactly as it should be. And that’s straight from someone who spent years studying the entire history of electricity in NZ.

                      Treasury has been getting away with telling BS about how things were.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 January 2014 at 1:12 am

                      srylands is such a little shit head.

                      The value of a hydrodam is not the money it makes. It is the nation that it powers.

                      These crony capitalists are nothing more than stupid financialised acolytes.

                    • felix …
                      31 January 2014 at 1:15 am

                      srylands has never been to NZ.

                      He doesn’t have a clue what NZers think about socialism or anything else.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 January 2014 at 1:21 am

                      Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder. Forgot he was a shit eating turd for hire.

            • idlegus 15.1.2.1.1.3
              30 January 2014 at 5:01 pm

              you missed this bit “Cunliffe today went to a Trentham kindergarten, where he read a book on dinosaurs to children, to try to switch the focus on the early-childhood components of his policy released on Monday. ” … so stuff can read his mind ? “to try to switch the focus…”, quite a clear bias there dont ya think?

            • phillip ure 15.1.2.1.1.4
              30 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

              reason number 53 cunnliffe should have given his tub-thumper parliament speech..

              ..at the kelston school..

              ..instead of that bloodless/over-written effort..

              ..(and yes..this ‘mistake’ is a storm in a teacup..

              ..but really..?

              ..all that effort/over-writing..

              ..and they still got it wrong..

              ..(duh..!..eh..?..)

              ..phillip ure..

    • Steve James 15.2
      30 January 2014 at 3:35 pm

      I’m with you on this one fisiani; looks to me like a strategy that has back fired.
      Just ignore McFool, she’s having a bad day.

      • McFlock 15.2.1
        30 January 2014 at 3:47 pm

        Steve, you were doing so well pretending to be all sensible and mature, and sniffing at bad language. But you fuck it up when you resort to name-calling that even a primary school kid would discard. At least try and be creative about it, if you want to take both roads.

        By the way, your tory-fuckwit support group and echo-chamber is back online after the DoS attack, so you two can whisper words of encouragement in your natural habitat. The denser atmosphere over there enables you to float a little bit higher than the “awards for participation” crowd you exemplify here.

      • phillip ure 15.2.2
        30 January 2014 at 6:10 pm

        fisani and james..

        ..a marriage made..somewhere..

        ..phillip ure..

  16. joe90 16
    30 January 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Everyone’s favourite peer says things..

    Very important: If you are claiming any handout, you are not entitled to vote. Taxpayers will have the right to vote, but taxpayees will not. That way, no one can vote himself a handout.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wnd-save-democracy-prohibiting-anyone-who-receives-public-benefits-voting

    • Draco T Bastard 16.1
      30 January 2014 at 12:59 pm

      As I’ve said before, the RWNJ hate democracy.

      • Bill 16.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 2:02 pm

        So do LWNJs Draco. Jist sayin.

        • KJT 16.1.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 8:59 pm

          Some do, Bill, depressingly.

          Some would rather have their 3 to 6 years in dictatorship, even if it means the neo-liberal right can continue their swath of destruction in between.

    • KJT 16.2
      30 January 2014 at 1:55 pm

      Well. That would take the vote off;

      Movie producers.
      Farmers.
      Health system users.
      Businesspeople.
      Exporters.
      School and tertiary students. Ex and present.

      AND politicians.

      🙂 🙂

      I can see that flying…………….

      • phillip ure 16.2.1
        30 January 2014 at 6:13 pm

        include the rich/greed pricks and prickesses who claim w.f.f….and/or the pension..

        ..all the armed forces/police..

        ..all gold card holders..

        ..basically..everyone..

        ..phillip ure..

        • KJT 16.2.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 9:02 pm

          Though. Don’t have any problem with rich pricks who get the pension or WFF, or any Government services, so long as they are prepared to support them by paying their fair share in tax.

  17. captain hook 17
    30 January 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Sorry but I cant agree with Domposts editorial contention this morning that being an MP is a job.
    Just because the salary is pretty good does not make it a job. The job of an MP is to represent the people in his/her electorate and if we lose sight of this then democracy as we know it will be over and bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

    • KJT 17.1
      30 January 2014 at 1:59 pm

      The MP’s job is to follow the hot button issues of a relatively small number of unprincipled swing voters to ensure they get into power. So they can enact legislation, which secures their post parliamentary pension. In the form of directorships from wealthy thieves and grateful corporates.

      Fixed it for ya. 🙂

  18. Saarbo 18
    30 January 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Stuff doing a PR peice for National/John Key here suggesting that this Kawerau paper mill expansion will add about 60 jobs, they frame it in such a way that it suggests that it is adding 200 jobs:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9666869/SCA-Kawerau-to-open-60m-expansion

    Except that to get those 60 additional jobs, SCA closed this site in Te Rapa losing 140 jobs. The “securing 200” jobs is a load of crap as 140 approx of those jobs already existed at Kawerau..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9566433/Tissues-run-out-at-Te-Rapa

    More pro National media bull shit…this is a shocka.

    • Will@Welly 18.1
      30 January 2014 at 6:21 pm

      On Prime News, it was stated that the “investment’ guaranteed the 200 jobs would stay in New Zealand, while “creating” an additional 10 jobs. Phenomenal growth. Here comes the recovery – look out!!
      The way I see it, for every job “created”, we have to lose at least two first.
      The forestry/lumber/timber processing industry has “lost” 2700 jobs in 5 years under National. Source – TV 3 News.
      Key, ever the denier, denies this.

  19. Penny Bright 19
    30 January 2014 at 1:10 pm

    First CCOs – then PPPs?

    Whose interests are being served by Auckland Mayor Len Brown?

    Great article Tony Holman!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11193858

    Penny Bright

  20. gunner 20
    30 January 2014 at 1:17 pm

    NZ Labour needs to control the likes of Clark and Parker.
    To talk about banning Facebook or taxing Google/Amazon is complete non-sense. These two have become already object of ridicule.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.1
      30 January 2014 at 1:45 pm

      Yes, we should bring your negotiating position to the table with all tax-avoiding multinationals. You get under the table and start worshipping them, and I’ll show them the plans for the temples in which you and all the other authoritarian sycophants can go to genuflect daily.

      Get off your knees.

      • Bill 20.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 2:00 pm

        Get the taxes. But as for ‘banning facebook’, does that guy understand anything?! You don’t hit the people who you want to have on your side, ie – in this case, facebook users.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.1.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 2:22 pm

          Yes, I’m sure 3 News has reported their remarks completely in context. The context of a question asked by a three news reporter.

          “Should the government consider banning Facebook?”

          Clark: “The government should always have in its back pocket…”

          This becomes “Labour proposes banning Facebook” and leads to Bill English being asked “Isn’t that censorship”?

          In real life, of course, the IRD shuts down, bankrupts, prosecutes companies on a regular basis. Apparently this doesn’t apply to multinational corporations.

          This then gets beaten up by Farrar and Pete George 🙄 who fail to notice that 3 News also reports Clark’s reluctance to take any such measure except as an absolute last resort. The reporter also fails to ask Bill English what his last resort would be.

          This is all Clark’s fault, naturally. Sigh.

          • Bill 20.1.1.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

            Yeah okay, maybe I’m being unfair on Clark. The basic principle stands though. Never fuck the ‘innocent’ bystanders.

          • weka 20.1.1.1.2
            30 January 2014 at 2:34 pm

            Good precis OAK.

            I couldn’t find the actual Labour Party policy the other day, the only thing was the tv3 interview.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.1.1.1.2.1
              30 January 2014 at 2:50 pm

              Thanks Weka. The article also fails to establish what penalties the current legislation provides for tax evasion.

              Rendering it extraordinarily pointless from a news perspective. I’m sure it served its purpose of making a story though.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1
      30 January 2014 at 1:50 pm

      …the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years…

      The present cycle includes a sharp decrease in activity after 1960 in Western Australia. This is in contrast to the increasing frequency and destructiveness of Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones since 1970 in the Atlantic Ocean, and the western North Pacific Ocean

      Thanks for that Grumpy. This is exactly the sort of thing you expect to see with climate change. Well, not you, obviously; you’re too busy picking cherries and quote mining.

    • joe90 21.2
      30 January 2014 at 2:04 pm

      With increases in other regions except the south west Pacific.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/05/1301293110.full.pdf+html

  22. Puckish Rogue 22
    30 January 2014 at 1:43 pm

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/back-2/

    – Just to let everyone know its back up and now you can check out his response

    • Bill 22.1
      30 January 2014 at 1:56 pm

      That’s a shame. Anyway, I’ll take your word on it being back up. As for his response, whatever it might be, he can go fuck himself.

    • felix 22.2
      30 January 2014 at 9:52 pm

      What a fucking crybaby. Where did Cameron get the idea that supporting freedom of speech means a) no-one is allowed to respond to his speech and b) no-one is allowed to enjoy the sight of it all going tits up for him?

      Oh and he’s still telling lies about death threats from the family of the victim. If there was a word of truth to his claims he would’ve sent them to the police.

      But there’s not, and he didn’t, because he’s a lying snivelling cowardly bullying crybaby.

  23. joe90 23
    30 January 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Slippery will not be pleased.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke publicly with the White House Wednesday on trade policy, instantly imperiling two major international trade deals and punching a hole in one piece of the economic agenda the president outlined in his State of the Union address a day earlier.

    Mr. Reid told reporters he opposed legislation aimed at smoothing the passage of free-trade agreements, a vital component to negotiating any deal, and pointedly said supporters should back down.

    “I’m against fast track,” Mr. Reid (D., Nev.) said, using the shorthand term for legislation that prevents overseas trade agreements from being amended during the congressional approval process. “I think everyone would be well-advised just not to push this right now.”

    The move spells trouble for two sets of complicated talks, one with the European Union and the other with countries in the Asian-Pacific region. Both deals likely would have required such a “fast track” approval to clear the Congress. The U.S.’s negotiating partners wouldn’t likely commit to a final agreement that could be unpopular back home without assurances that it couldn’t be modified by U.S. lawmakers.


    Reid Deals Body Blow to Obama on Trade

    This too:

    http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Why-We-Don-t-Like-Fast-Track-It-s-a-Job-Killer

  24. ScottGN 24
    30 January 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Pity the suckers who rushed into MRP shares. According to RadioNZ they’ve fallen to $1.94.

    • chris73 24.1
      30 January 2014 at 5:17 pm

      Why? The dividend returns are good and either A. National get back in and the price will increase or B. Labour get in and buy back the shares for what they were sold or C. Labour get back in and do nothing

      However if you want to sell your shares then yes sad for them but I’m in it for the long haul

      • ScottGN 24.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 5:24 pm

        You obviously didn’t just listen to Brian Gaynor on RadioNZ. He said this has been a poorly performing company that’s losing market share. And more importantly any selldown was mostly small investors (mums and dads for those that like NACT spin) who have simply given up on this company. If English decides to throw Genesis into the mix it’s going to be a very long haul for investors.

        • chris73 24.1.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 5:32 pm

          How does that change what I just said?

          • ScottGN 24.1.1.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 5:51 pm

            At some point, even for you, a poorly performing company with diminishing market share in a sharemarket already over-supplied with similar energy shares is going to affect dividends. And you forgot to add ‘D’ to your list of possibilities – that is that Labour and the Greens win government and implement their electricity market reforms. But the real tragedy, of course, is that ordinary NZers were suckered into this by Key, English and Joyce.

            • chris73 24.1.1.1.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 10:20 pm

              Don’t need to add because if Labour don’t reimburse the people who bought shares fairly then you can kiss most foreign investment in NZ goodbye and Cunliffe ain’t stupid

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 January 2014 at 10:39 pm

                Kiss it goodbye then. We don’t need the kind of foreign investment which simply vultures up what we have already done for ourselves, and can do for ourselves.

        • Will@Welly 24.1.1.2
          30 January 2014 at 6:07 pm

          They say that a fool and his/her money are easily parted. Those who listened to Bill English/Tony Ryall must be really kicking themselves – lose, lose, lose.
          Sounds like the National Party strategy.

      • freedom 24.1.2
        30 January 2014 at 6:00 pm

        “A. National get back in and the price will increase ”

        umm National are in power now and the price is falling, so what is your rationale for this absurd statement?

        • chris73 24.1.2.1
          30 January 2014 at 10:27 pm

          The rational is uncertainty or more specifically theres an election coming up and Labour and the Greens are talking about reforms.

          The market is reacting to the possibility of the Left coming to power however if National regain power theres at least 3 years of no changes

          So while theres the possibility of the Left coming to power the share price will drop but once the election is over and if National are returned to power the share price will increase

          If the Left gain power then the shares will be brought back at the initial share price (at least) so I won’t have lost any money and the dividend payment is still better then what I would have got by leaving it in a bank

          • McFlock 24.1.2.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 10:33 pm

            lol

            Keep telling yourself that

            • chris73 24.1.2.1.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 11:00 pm

              What do you disagree with and why

              • McFlock …
                30 January 2014 at 11:08 pm

                what’s to disagree with? You’re applying simple asumptions of motives and predictions to every actor in a complex and chaotic system, as well as assuming that any buy-back of shares will be at the initial sale price rather than the market price at the time.

                It’s hilarious.

                • chris73 …
                  30 January 2014 at 11:19 pm

                  The stock market isn’t efficient, just read anything Warren Buffet writes and you’ll understand that the market runs on rumors and speculation

                  As an example a company posts a lower then expected profit and the share market reacts by lowering the price of the share even though it still posted a profit

                  Or how hype can make share prices sky rocket (the dot com boom and bust)

                  So its natural that when the possible threat of nationalization is hanging over a companies the share price will go down

                  Now I’ll grant you that I’m making an assumption about what Cunliffe will do if he wins but being that hes not stupid and his wifes quite onto it I’m confident that Cunliffe won’t do anything too outrageous with the power companies

                  • McFlock …
                    30 January 2014 at 11:29 pm

                    so you’re assuming that your risk assessment is not the prevalent risk assessment of the sharemarket? And your risk assessment is the correct risk assessment?

                    Wow, you must be one of the smartest guys in the local and international sharemarket. why are you quoting Buffet – you should have written your own book for everyone to study…

                    …alternatively you could be one of the gullible wannabes that provide fodder for the grown-up investment funds. Someone’s gotta lose when the pyramid collapses…

                    • chris73 …
                      30 January 2014 at 11:33 pm

                      I do follow a fair bit of Warren Buffets teachings and he loves utilities for a very good reason and thats stable earnings and reliability

                      So in this instance I feel the investment is worth the risk

                    • McFlock …
                      30 January 2014 at 11:44 pm

                      oh indeed,

                      every acolyte needs their oracle.

                      Read an article a while back that reckoned the % of successful sharemarket speculators was basically at a level that was indistinguishable from chance. Everyone’s got their theories, just like every cup-day punter has a theory about the best horse pick.

                    • chris73 …
                      30 January 2014 at 11:50 pm

                      My theory being that power generation is a good choice to buy shares in because of the dividend return, built in need of the product and historically power generation has always yielded good returns

                      But thats just my opinion of course but what it really boils down to is whether the person who bought the shares (in this case me) thinks it was a good investment and since the returns I’m getting are better then what I’d get in the bank I have to say I’m happy with it

                      and yes I know thats not what the left want to hear but thats life

                    • McFlock …
                      30 January 2014 at 11:55 pm

                      no, it’s fine, we all know you’re a greedy fuck who will try to profit off the looting of the nation. Like food hoarders in times of famine.

                      The fact is that you think you know better than the market, all by yourself. Based on a pretty monodimensional analysis. And forgetting the fact that if you really did know better than the market, you would have waited for the share price to plumment so you could make even greater returns.

                      Hilarious.

                    • felix …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:26 am

                      Exactly McF. If chris73 wasn’t 100% full of shit he’d be bragging about how many shares he bought today, not last year when the suckers bought them.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 8:55 am

                      Nope, the ups and downs of a market arn’t all that important. Warren Buffet buys for the long term and buys when the price is right not trying to wait to see if the price might or might not fall and I’ll follow Warren Buffets lead over any share market advice from posters of the standard

                    • miravox …
                      31 January 2014 at 8:58 am

                      Did Warren Buffet buy shares in New Zealand’s electricity assets when they were offered by the government?

                    • felix …
                      31 January 2014 at 9:02 am

                      Nah, but he’s not a sucker like chris73 is pretending to be, for money, from the National party.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 9:22 am

                      market says he’s underestimated the medium term risk of renationalisation or failure (under this govt, it’s possible).

                    • miravox …
                      31 January 2014 at 9:26 am

                      Pretty pleased I followed Warren Buffet’s lead and left those shares alone.

          • felix 24.1.2.1.2
            30 January 2014 at 10:44 pm

            “If the Left gain power then the shares will be brought back at the initial share price (at least) so I won’t have lost any money”

            Hilarious. This isn’t Bill English and South Canterbury Finance we’re talking about.

            You bought the ticket, you take the ride. No guarantees, no backsies.

            • chris73 24.1.2.1.2.1
              30 January 2014 at 10:59 pm

              So if the left just take back all of the shares without fair payment whats to stop them doing that with anything someone from overseas buys

              In which case why would overseas investors consider investing here

              Zimbabwe is probably not where the left should be getting their ideas from

              • felix …
                30 January 2014 at 11:13 pm

                Who said anything about “without fair payment”?

                You’re the one who thinks you can demand the country pay you more for our shares than the market says they’re worth.

                You’re wrong. You’re not entitled to special treatment. And you should think yourself lucky you’re getting anything at all back; if it were up to me you’d be in jail for treason.

                • felix …
                  30 January 2014 at 11:16 pm

                  (and if you were, you should think yourself lucky you got away with just jail. The punishment for treason is usually far more severe.)

                • chris73 …
                  30 January 2014 at 11:24 pm

                  “our shares”

                  – You bought some shares then?

                  • felix …
                    31 January 2014 at 12:28 am

                    “Our” doesn’t include you, traitor.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 8:51 am

                      lol 🙂

                    • felix …
                      31 January 2014 at 9:00 am

                      Wasn’t joking. You made a choice to betray several generations of your fellow NZers.

                      And now you want special treatment for doing so.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:08 am

                      “You made a choice to betray several generations of your fellow NZers.”

                      – You are so full of shit, you going to make the same claim against members of the labour party that sold of 100% ownership of companies? (unlike Nationals partial sell down)

                      You going to make the same claims against the people that kept voting them in as MPs?

                      Well?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:28 am

                      I think you’ll find that the answer to both questions is along the lines of “yes”.

                      I know this is an alien concept to you, but it’s not a case of “my team good, your team bad, even when they do the same thing”.

                      Asset sales are bad, regardless of who commits the act.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:54 am

                      Oh I see the issue now, see heres the thing Labour carried out asset sales (100% sales) whereas under National its partial privitisation meaning we (NZ) still have majority control.

                      See Labour betrayed NZ a whole lot worse then National ever did so I hope that clears it up for you…National bad Labour worse

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

                      You obviously have been misled by the unequivocal support many commenters here have expressed for goff, king, and lab4 in general, not to mention all the commenters who believe lab5 went as far as it could, like another MJS government.

                      🙄

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:13 pm

                      See I’d believe that if Labour supporters didn’t keep voting them in.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:19 pm

                      you’re blaming commenters here for that?

                    • felix …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:25 pm

                      I know you’re just doing your job, chris, but fer christ’s sake you could work a little harder at it.

                      And yeah as McFlock said, of course the answer to both the questions is yes.

                      Are you really that dense? Oh that’s right, just doing your job.

  25. phillip ure 25
    30 January 2014 at 6:16 pm

    crikey..!

    ..tim groser has ‘given up’ on the comb-over..

    ..he has surrendered to the forces of gravity..

    ..time for a number two..there..tim…?

    ..and kennedy graham is kicking his arse..

    ..( i am watching replay..)

    ..and parker is doing well against english..on tory-poverty-denial..

    phillip ure..

  26. home help 26
    30 January 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Well Johns got a new bag, change the flag pretty much sums up how much of an NZer he is.
    Maybe he meant the Skull and Xbones givin what hes done in the last 5 yrs
    If he new how much the dead of 2 world wars gave to this country he would run in hide, arrogant little hun bastard
    Who needs a bloody financial wizz kid to run this country
    Somebody with integrity would help who has a living history that goes back before 1962
    Being the in the middle of the baby boomers generation I can say with authority of experience having endured Rogernomics and now him, Key we really need a new bag maybe invite the Icelandic solution,
    To be done over by Keys sort, WHAT A BETRAYAL OF THIS COUNTRY
    By the way the Russians lost over 25 million people in the second world war so dont con us with your history

  27. Zorr 27
    30 January 2014 at 6:36 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9667761/MPs-clothes-jibe-leads-to-racism-call

    How DARE Metirei Turei wear clothes and shoes and then lecture about poverty! If she wants to talk about poverty she should walk uphill, both ways, in the snow with only plastic bags on her feet and clothes made from sack cloth.

    As always, she calls it right as what it is – a racist dog whistle to all those who believe there is no poverty except that which people bring upon themselves and that they don’t deserve representation.

    • fender 27.1
      30 January 2014 at 6:56 pm

      Unbelievable.

      “The Greens’ co-leader is entitled to turn up in Parliament every day in expensive designer clothes, and good on her for doing just that,” Tolley said.

      “But don’t then lecture everyone else about poverty.”

      WTF!

      Next Bennett will chip in with something like: Don’t bring up hungry kids unless you haven’t eaten for weeks!

      • Ad 27.1.1
        30 January 2014 at 7:34 pm

        Next minute, politicians will be expected to fight fair.
        Metiria needs to figure out that perception matters.

        • fender 27.1.1.1
          30 January 2014 at 7:42 pm

          If Metiria had been saying MP’s are suffering from (financial) poverty Tolley might have a point.

        • Zorr 27.1.1.2
          30 January 2014 at 7:47 pm

          So – a professional woman who wishes to represent the rights of the downtrodden must live as downtrodden as possible in order to represent them? Yeah… just had to articulate it to point out just how fucking retarded your argument is and that of anyone who might ever support statements such as Tolley’s.

          • felix 27.1.1.2.1
            30 January 2014 at 10:01 pm

            According to the National party activists who comment here, the act of advocating for anything but your own self-interest is some kind of perverse hypocrisy.

            • Zorr 27.1.1.2.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 11:49 pm

              I’m all good for advocating for them to fuck off and go jump in a lake. It’s in my self interest 😛

            • miravox 27.1.1.2.1.2
              31 January 2014 at 12:11 am

              I guess by Tolley’s logic Bill Gates should be ignoring Africa. Him having access to wealth, food, clean water, housing and the best medical treatment and all. I mean what a hypocrite.

              Or is it only the taste in clothes that count?

        • marty mars 27.1.1.3
          30 January 2014 at 7:47 pm

          Perception is manipulated and there are those who love nothing more than distorting via manipulation. The clothes she wears has ZERO to do with anything she was saying and that is the evidence for the manipulation.

        • Colonial Viper 27.1.1.4
          30 January 2014 at 7:52 pm

          Yes but no.

          Many of the people who were instrumental in pushing womens suffrage through were men. Many of the people who were instrumental in pushing humane prison conditions through had never been imprisoned themselves. Many of the people who campaigned for marriage equality were 99.99% het.

          So the angle is: Poverty is a universal concern. It is an affront to every NZer in a nation which is this wealthy. You don’t have to be poor to understand how damaging poverty is. You just need to believe in a universal right to living a life of dignity and independence.

      • marty mars 27.1.2
        30 January 2014 at 7:43 pm

        Pure fucking racism – the gnats are so afraid and that is cool but this bullshit is shocking. Metiria is correct when she says

        <blockquote"They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work," she said. </blockquote.

        It also shows that those who attack people for their clothes, or weight, or any other such irrelevant areas are in the company of tolley and collins and if that doesn't make them see the error of their ways nothing fucking will!

        • Colonial Viper 27.1.2.1
          30 January 2014 at 7:54 pm

          I realised quite early on that high prices in a restaurant weren’t necessarily a reflection of quality. But often a desire to keep out the poor and the coloured.

          • marty mars 27.1.2.1.1
            30 January 2014 at 8:05 pm

            yes and it is amazing to watch the reaction, as we have seen with the example of tolley, when an ‘other’ gets into their space –

            Oi what are you doing here?,
            Are you looking for someone?
            Is this your car?
            bang! bangbang! bang! bangbangbangbang! – ok he’s down, now check him for weapons.

        • chris73 27.1.2.2
          30 January 2014 at 10:34 pm

          Don’t be so silly, its not racism:

          “I’m actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designer jackets and tells me I’m out of touch,” Tolley said.

          Where in that statement is there anything remotely to do with race?

          • marty mars 27.1.2.2.1
            30 January 2014 at 11:30 pm

            chris, the naive act really is unbecoming and a bit of a waste of time

            • chris73 27.1.2.2.1.1
              30 January 2014 at 11:35 pm

              Show me where theres any racism and I’ll concede you have a point, all I see is someone showing up Tureis hypocrisy nothing more nothing less

              • Arfamo …
                30 January 2014 at 11:53 pm

                Handbags at dawn stuff. If a bloke MP said the equivalent to another bloke MP it’d be seen as just a clever and possibly even apt way of making a political point. Wouldn’t class it as racist either.

                • Zorr …
                  30 January 2014 at 11:58 pm

                  Actually, John Key has pulled similar stuff with Hone and it has come off as very racist. Especially over the Mandela funeral.

              • Zorr …
                30 January 2014 at 11:56 pm

                You tell me why what a professional women wears in the context of her role has any relevance to the policies she is advocating? Does her jacket somehow magically cause those 1 in 4 kids in poverty to matter less?

                “I’m sorry Metiria, but I couldn’t see the starving children behind the price tag on your jacket”

                Has any other politician ever been attacked over the cost of their wardrobe? Ever?

                • Arfamo …
                  31 January 2014 at 12:13 am

                  Well…there was Tuku Morgan’s $89 underpants…

                  • Zorr …
                    31 January 2014 at 12:15 am

                    What? This one where it was part of misspending $4000 of public funds?

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=887175

                    You can try harder I’m sure.

                    • Arfamo …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:27 am

                      No I think the underpants crisis is going to be my number one. There wouldn’t be too many other cases of a politician being attacked over the cost of his jocks anywhere, I reckon. That one’s always gonna be a standout for me.

                    • Zorr …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:33 am

                      So… just to make sure we are crystal clear.

                      In the case of Tuku Morgan, the $89 underwear was part of a misspending of public funds. He was being attacked over the fact that he had misspent public funds and it was mere circumstance that his underwear featured at all (because he had spent some of the funds on a shopping spree)

                      In the case of Metiria, this is just her business wear, much like anyone elses.

                      And these situations are somehow remotely equivalent to you?

                    • Arfamo …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:40 am

                      Only insofar as they are both objects of attire used by politicians to attack an opponent. I don’t see Tolley’s attack on Turei as racist. I see it as bitchy.

                    • Zorr …
                      31 January 2014 at 7:29 am

                      So it’s not a racist attack because they’re women? Good to know.

              • marty mars …
                31 January 2014 at 12:43 am

                Chris this is what Metiria said

                “I’m shocked that the National Party would attack me and my home and my appearance. I think it is a racist attack,” she said.

                “I think they seem to think it is all right for them to wear perfectly good suits for their professional job but that a Maori woman from a working-class background is not entitled to do the same. I think it is pure racism.”

                Ask how the attack was racist, Turei said she shopped at the same place some of her opponents did.

                “They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work,” she said.

                “I buy my clothes from some of the same shops they do. I think they find that they can’t cope with that and I think it’s because I’m a Maori woman from a working-class background.”

                I happen to agree with Metiria and her assessment of the situation for a number of reasons including her experiences in her life as a Māori woman. I think she actually knows what she is talking about in regards to this issue. Now sure you may disagree or think she (and my agreement with her) is wrong – but really, to be brutally honest – that disagreement (or your view if you like) doesn’t really mean much.

                You say, “all I see is someone showing up Tureis hypocrisy nothing more nothing less” and that is true i’m sure – that is all you see but that doesn’t mean that is all that there is, it just means you are looking at it through your particular privilege lens. And that is okay in and of itself because we all do that but your lens is not someone elses lens and your perception of what you see is not someone elses either. Humility chris imo that is what you must work on.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 January 2014 at 1:18 am

                  Concern for those struggling in poverty should be shared and expressed by anyone who believes that a life of dignity, creativity and social engagement should be a universal civil right.

                  Shit heads like Tolley and the other Tory gits naturally do not see the world in terms of universal civil rights.

                  Therefore to them poverty is something that only the poor need worry about.

                • Pasupial …
                  31 January 2014 at 2:57 am

                  MM

                  +1
                  I’m not normally into Chrissie’s shtick, but; damn! He really inspired some eloquence in you there.

                • chris73 …
                  31 January 2014 at 12:25 pm

                  As you say in your opinion however I see this:

                  a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
                  2.
                  a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
                  3.
                  hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

                  Now I may be pedantic but comparing Tolleys comments to the above definition of racism and simply put Turei is wrong, she may feel its racist but it just isn’t

                  • felix …
                    31 January 2014 at 11:36 pm

                    How about you link to the definition you used so we can see what you left out…

                    • BLiP …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:47 pm

                      ‘

                      Prolly this one – here’s one bit /she/he/it/them missed out.

                      racism (or) racialism (ˈreɪsɪzəm, ˈreɪʃəˌlɪzəm)

                      — n
                      1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

                      2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

              • felix …
                31 January 2014 at 7:11 am

                ” Show me where theres any racism and I’ll concede you have a point, all I see is someone showing up Tureis hypocrisy nothing more nothing less”

                chris, you show me the hypocrisy and I’ll gladly point out the racism. However I’m not interested in bad faith so you will need to note the following obvious points first:

                1. Metiria didn’t claim to be poor, and

                2. There is nothing hypocritical about advocating for those worse off than you.

                • chris73 …
                  31 January 2014 at 8:48 am

                  There is simply no racism in Tolleys comments as much as Metiria would like there to be to score points

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    31 January 2014 at 8:53 am

                    Tolley is blind to both poverty AND racism then, chris73.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:12 am

                      Tolley did not make a racist comment, Turei saying its racist does not make it a rascist comment

                      There was no racist comment. I’m sorry if you lefties can’t understand it but I cannot make it anymore clearer.

                      Turei is playing the race card and you lefties are falling for it (or using it to score points which is fair play)

                    • marty mars …
                      31 January 2014 at 11:57 am

                      “Turei saying its racist does not make it a racist comment” but somehow you saying it is not racist makes it not racist. Why the difference?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:04 pm

                      Let’s defer to chris73, after all he’s a privileged white guy who is world reknowned for knowing what constitutes racism and what does not.

                      = privileged AND blind to racism

                      (see I am learning how this works lol)

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:10 pm

                      Prove me wrong then, show me where its racist. Should be easy for you.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:15 pm

                      you’re like a completely colour-blind person demanding someone prove to you the difference between a red square and a green square.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:29 pm

                      No McFlock you can’t prove something that isn’t there in the first place. You can’t prove to me its a racist comment because theres no racism in the comment.

                      If there was then any number of posters on here would have shown it to me by now

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:35 pm

                      Chris, the difficulty of explaining even basic concepts to people who have a significantly more restricted perspective than oneself is a theme that goes back to Plato’s analogy of the cave.

                      You are arguing that because you cannot perceive something and it cannot be explained to you, it does not exist.

                      Pure hubris.

                    • marty mars …
                      31 January 2014 at 12:47 pm

                      Gee chris seeing as how your interpretation is the one that should, in your eyes, be used by everyone especially someone who is actually in the group being discriminated against, does that mean you’ll be branching out and giving your learned insight into the interpretation of other forms of discrimination?

                  • felix …
                    31 January 2014 at 11:30 pm

                    chris, I offered to show you the racism if you would first show me the hypocrisy.

                    I note that you have thus far chosen not to do so.

                • srylands …
                  31 January 2014 at 12:14 pm

                  It is hypocritial. Why doesn’t she wear cheaper clothes and donate the balance to poor people?

                  It is also hypocritial to argue for GHG emission reductions while personally having and enormous carbon footprint!

                  • weka …
                    31 January 2014 at 1:43 pm

                    “Why doesn’t she wear cheaper clothes and donate the balance to poor people?”

                    Why doesn’t Tolley?

                    Driving a car to an oil-free protest makes you a hypocrite, right? Wrong: I support an oil-free future in the long term. I agree with divesting from oil exploration in the short term. Ultimately, I believe in moving from a fossil-dependent economy toward a sustainable and more environmentally-responsible economy. What underpins my stance is the reality of man-made climate change and the need for man-made societal change. However, there are people out there who would want me to believe that unless I am able to live my life, run my household, and raise my kids without utilising any products of our oil-dependent society, I have no right to demand anything different. They say to do so would mean that I am a hypocrite. Right?

                    Wrong. Most of the people making this kind of absurd allegation really don’t care about a genuine response. It is a tactic to shut you down. Unsurprisingly, many of these same people refuse to acknowledge that we are changing our climate, so reject also the responsibly we share in doing something about it. So this isn’t for them, this is for you. This is to tell you that it is ok to drive your car to an oil-free protest.

                    http://hot-topic.co.nz/why-its-ok-to-drive-your-car-to-an-anti-oil-protest/

                    hattip QoT.

                    • felix …
                      2 February 2014 at 3:04 pm

                      “Why doesn’t Tolley?”

                      Well there’s the rub, weka.

                      You’ll never get an answer from these righties about hypocrisy. They’re happy to use the word, but ask them to point out where it lies in a specific situation like this one and they go very quiet very fast.

                      You know why? Because “Why doesn’t Tolley?”, that’s why.

                      Because according to the logic that says Turei is a hypocrite for being rich and wearing a coat and caring about poor people, the only way you can be rich and wear a coat and NOT be a hypocrite is if you really don’t give a fuck about poor people.

                      It’s very straightforward logic that every righty here grasps instinctively, but boy is it hard to get them to say the second half of it out loud.

      • RedBaronCV 27.1.3
        30 January 2014 at 8:06 pm

        Tasteless by Tolley. For all she knows Metirei may be buying her clothes in a sale. Not that any of this matters. Or in Tolleyworld are the Nats supposed to wear gold cloth and ermine fur, labour factory spun cotton and wool and the the Greens homespun after chasing the sheep. And Hone a grass skirt perhaps?

        Spare us please.

    • Paul 27.2
      30 January 2014 at 9:32 pm

      Desperate nasty National Party.

    • ScottGN 27.3
      31 January 2014 at 6:07 am

      Putting aside the racist dog whistle element I think the interesting thing about Tolley’s harebrained comments (if you follow her argument then nobody in Parliament would be justified in addressing issues around poverty since none of them are poor) is that it’s one more sign that NACT are feeling more and more vulnerable on issues of inequality and poverty. Labour, Greens and Mana should just keep hammering away on this – it’s working.

      • weka 27.3.1
        31 January 2014 at 1:45 pm

        +1 about following the argument. Tolley has basically said keep discussions about poverty out of parliament.

        Once you make it into the club, you might be accepted even if you are not the right colour or sex, but you have to stop relating with those other people down there. You can’t wear the uniform AND keep talking about those that are denied the uniform, it’s against the rules. Turei is not playing the game right, how dare she, she has to be taken down. This isn’t just about Turei, it’s teaching all other up and coming power holders what the rules of the game are.

  28. chris73 28
    31 January 2014 at 11:17 am

    There wasn’t any rascist comments, no really tell me where Tolley mentioned anything about race. You show me that and I’ll say you’re right and I’m wrong.

    Heres what she said:

    “I’m actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designer jackets and tells me I’m out of touch,” Tolley said.

    Please point out to me anything that has to do with race in that. Its just Turei playing the race card and you lefties falling for it because your dislike of Tolley has clouded your judgement.

    • freedom 28.1
      31 January 2014 at 11:23 am

      the bit I like is the glaring self-contradiction

      “The Greens’ co-leader is entitled to turn up in Parliament every day in expensive designer clothes, and good on her for doing just that,” Tolley said.

      • chris73 28.1.1
        31 January 2014 at 11:31 am

        Fair enough you call Tolley out for that but she didn’t make a racist comment

        • fender 28.1.1.1
          31 January 2014 at 12:13 pm

          While not being explicitly racist, racism is the underlying sentiment behind her comments IMO.

          • chris73 28.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2014 at 12:35 pm

            Fair enough, I think Tolley was saying Tureis a hypocrite

            • fender 28.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2014 at 12:44 pm

              I replied to your “wonderful Collins” comment on todays open mike. In case you missed it, I’ll repeat:

              Collins is a wonderful example of an anemic, pale-faced subterranean cave dwelling cellulite infested lard ass insensitive burst sausage 😀

              And Tolley is just a dried prune desperately in need of hydration, not a kaleidoscopic nana frock.

            • felix 28.1.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2014 at 11:33 pm

              “Fair enough, I think Tolley was saying Tureis a hypocrite”

              And yet you can’t find it within yourself to explain how she is being hypocritical.

              Very telling.