Open mike 30/04/2012

146 comments on “Open mike 30/04/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pete George 1

   30 April 2012 at 6:53 am

   Positive change – more openness and engagement at party grass roots level, and much better media access leads to more public exposure – National far more open than last year.

   A step in the right direction for Mainland National, I hope this spreads and works it’s way up to Wellington. National have been too closed off while working in their Government bubble.
   • tc 1.1

     30 April 2012 at 7:16 am

     A party political broadcast on behalf of the Nats brought to you by UF.
     Like the level of sarcasm also, you should stick this crap on your own site with all the other ‘they’re really good guys just misunderstood’ material.
     You’d be right at home in a trough alongside the hairdo.
     • Pete George 1.1.1

       30 April 2012 at 7:31 am

       It’s just my personal view, I’ll applaud any party that demonstrably moves towards more openness and accessibility.

       Do you think that’s a bad thing?
       • Te Reo Putake 1.1.1.1

         30 April 2012 at 7:46 am

         Openness? From National? You’re having a laugh, Pete. Two words for you: John Banks.
         • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1

           30 April 2012 at 7:53 am

           What I’m referring to here has nothing to do with John Banks. It’s a story from the other island.
       • freedom 1.1.1.2

         30 April 2012 at 8:02 am

         Is this the openness you are applauding Pete?
         http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6826917/Councils-kept-in-dark-over-oil-well-plans
         “Environment and Conservation Organisations co-chairwoman Cath Wallace said the lack of consultation was “appalling” and becoming a trend for the National Government. “They know damn well that people are concerned.”

         It seemed to be a Cabinet edict to consult local government bodies and iwi, but not the rest of society, she said. “
         • Pete George 1.1.1.2.1

           30 April 2012 at 8:12 am

           Obviously not, I was referring to one situation only. Hopefully the approach at the Mainland conference will spread it’s way up the party.

           I commented “And it sounds very much a step in the right direction, driven from the grass roots of the party”. As I said in my first comment, I hope it can spread up the party. I think the National government has been far too enbubbled.
           • freedom 1.1.1.2.1.1

             30 April 2012 at 8:36 am

             saying the grass roots of National affect the character and nature of the party is like explaining to a homeowner that painting the roof is a good way to fix the broken piles.
     • rod 1.1.2

       30 April 2012 at 5:01 pm

       One thing about this site, it certainly gets Pete George out of his cot early in the morning trying to set the agenda for the day.
       • tc 1.1.2.1

         30 April 2012 at 8:20 pm

         It’s the only reason he gets out of bed, trying to link whore to his own site.
2. locus 2

   30 April 2012 at 7:20 am

   The Banks embarrassment is now being reported in Europe by The Guardian Newspaper. The Guardian article also links to the surreal comedy skit between Paul Holmes and John Banks on TVNZ

   Arrested internet tycoon says minister John Banks broke rules to accept large anonymous donation in mayoral campaign. Banks, who was elected to parliament a year later, had asked Dotcom to split a suggested $50,000 (£26,000) donation into two parts, so that it would fall beneath the maximum level for anonymous contributions, Dotcom told local media. Under New Zealand electoral law it is an offence for a recipient to classify any donation over $1,000 as anonymous if he or she knows the donor’s identity.

   If Dotcom’s claims are vindicated, Banks is likely to have to resign his seat. While a National or ACT candidate would almost certainly win a byelection in the blue-ribbon Epsom constituency, it would be another blow for Key, a prime minister who has encountered a steady supply of controversies since his re-election for a second term at the end of last year.
   • locus 2.1

     30 April 2012 at 7:31 am

     The Guardian link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/29/kim-dotcom-donation-claims-rock-new-zealand
   • freedom 2.2

     30 April 2012 at 8:05 am

     although the situation is a serious one there will no doubt be an undertow of kiwi mirth helping it to stay afloat. As with most good comedy it is not what was said but how, and wow did Banks look like a clown doing a pratt fall in that interview
     • Pete George 2.2.1

       30 April 2012 at 8:14 am

       I think on this there’s little reason to doubt that John Banks is telling the truth.

       Of cabbage boats and king hits, self inflicted.
       • freedom 2.2.1.1

         30 April 2012 at 8:39 am

         bustd link Pete
         • Pete George 2.2.1.1.1

           30 April 2012 at 8:43 am

           I’ll try again: No reason to doubt John Banks telling is the truth.
3. Salsy 3

   30 April 2012 at 7:31 am

   Is it possible to get DC’s speech on here? It represents a very bold move away from the centre. Attacks the neoliberal ideology, provides analysis of why Labour lost last election.. Really exciting stuff, this guy is such an inspiration.Will NZ buy into this? I reckon they will…

   GET YOUR INVISIBLE HAND OFF OUR ASSETS
   Speech to the New Lynn Women’s’ Branch, New Zealand Labour Party, 29 April 2012

   https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/david-cunliffe/get-your-invisible-hand-off-our-assets/10150721718297798
   • Pete George 3.1

     30 April 2012 at 7:50 am

     Yet another stupid metaphor:

     When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

     I think we all need something to deaden the pain of this sort of rhetoric.
     • felix 3.1.1

       30 April 2012 at 10:22 am

       It’s a very well constructed metaphor. You may not like the information it conveys, but the metaphor itself is excellent.

       What don’t you like about it?
       • Pete George 3.1.1.1

         30 April 2012 at 10:37 am

         It’s got nothing to do with the information it conveys – what exactly is that?

         It’s one of those wee parables where all the faithful nod in agreement without knowing what it’s really supposed to mean except for “them bad, us good”.

         If it was worded like this…

         When the left-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the right-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the right-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

         …I would think the same way. Crap portrayed as cleverness.

         In reality most of the time most of what National and Labour do is cut different toenails and play the same “this little piggy went to market”.
         • felix 3.1.1.1.1

           30 April 2012 at 11:08 am

           What does it convey?

           It says “My opponents want to do the ‘wrong thing’, and others want to do less of the ‘wrong thing’, whereas I don’t want to do the ‘wrong thing’ at all”.

           It’s nothing to do with “them bad, us good” at all, it’s showing where your ideas differ from your opponents.

           The metaphor still works perfectly in your example, you just have to apply it to a different ‘wrong thing’ from a right-wing perspective. Probably some sort of tax I imagine.
         • Bill 3.1.1.1.2

           30 April 2012 at 11:21 am

           “In reality most of the time most of what National and Labour do is cut different toenails and play the same “this little piggy went to market”.”

           Labour and National tickle you? I thought you were only tickled by that glorious leader of yours Pete.
           • Pete George 3.1.1.1.2.1

             30 April 2012 at 11:29 am

             Then you thought wrong, I’ve mostly been independent and fairly cross-party, happy to be tickled by any party that does things sensibly.
             • muzza …

               30 April 2012 at 2:26 pm

               So Pete you have wasted however many years, trying to find a party in NZ’s political system, that does things, or wants to do them, or will at least talk about doing anything the right way…

               Gullible!
               • felix …

                 30 April 2012 at 5:17 pm

                 I don’t think that’s fair to Pete. IIRC he only hooked up with UF in the year or so before the election and I think he’s been pretty clear – on here anyway – that he saw it as a potential vehicle for his own ideas.

                 That doesn’t mean he’s been desperately looking for a party to join any more than every single person is desperately trying to get married.
         • McFlock 3.1.1.1.3

           30 April 2012 at 1:55 pm

           So, who makes bigger cuts, petey? In the context of government services?
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2

       30 April 2012 at 1:26 pm

       Context Petey, context. Within the context of the speech it’s meaning is obvious.
       • Pete George 3.1.2.1

         30 April 2012 at 1:42 pm

         Ok, context:

         The second reason these rogues get away with it is because, as the Tony Blair example shows so clearly, the opposition parties, which are supposed to be the solution, too often become part of the problem.

         When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

         Government has little to do with chopping off limbs. It has far more to do with deciding what sort of food to provide for the mouths and how to try and clean up the shit.

         Cunliffe follows with:

         I think that’s a major reason that nearly one million voters deserted us at the last election. It wasn’t because we failed to communicate our policies. Quite the opposite. Those voters saw that our policies – with the exception of asset sales – were mostly the same as National’s. So we can’t really be surprised at the result.

         a) “nearly one million voters” didn’t desert Labour, just as well someone with his grasp of numbers isn’t Minister of Finance.

         b) He still doesn’t get it. Voters thought Labour were not suitable candidates to try and deal with a difficult economy. Their poor selling of a few alternate policies just reinforced that.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1

           30 April 2012 at 4:21 pm

           The context is the entire speech up to that point not just one sentence before hand.
         • felix 3.1.2.1.2

           30 April 2012 at 5:02 pm

           I’m beginning to think Pete just doesn’t understand how metaphors work. I’m quite serious.
           • QoT 3.1.2.1.2.1

             30 April 2012 at 9:30 pm

             I am totally with you. Either that or the line:

             Government has little to do with chopping off limbs.

             … was Pete’s attempt to set a new record in Kiwi deadpan comedy.
   • Carol 3.2

     30 April 2012 at 8:03 am

     I can’t access that facebook article without logging in. But Bomber has posted an enthusiastic report on it this morning:

     http://www.tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/tumeke-exclusive-cunliffe-launches-true.html

     Cunliffe launched a personal vision of what I’d call ‘True Labour’, a renouncing of the neo liberal agenda and an explanation that the reason a million enrolled voters didn’t bother to vote Labour was because despite a few policy differences, Labour was still the lighter shade of blue.

     Cunliffe argued that it’s the acceptance of the flawed free market mantra by Labour that has betrayed its social democracy principles and this betrayal of principle was the reason so many Labour Party supporters were uninspired to bother voting.

     Such a response to the 2011 election defeat is a resounding blow to the orthodoxy of the free market dogma, and this speech, (what Cunliffe is describing as the first of a series of vision statements), contextualized the failure of neo liberalism over the past 30 years. Tracing the corrupt practices of consultants consulting asset sales for themselves from our own recent history, Cunliffe presented an argument that touches the egalitarian raw nerves of fairness and challenged the rational of simply going along with the failing Washington consensus that we didn’t consent to.

     Cunliffe has also posed about it with a facebook link, on RA. Someone has asked for access to the speech without having to log in to FB. I agree. It’s annoying to be given such links when I avoid logging into FB as much as possible.
     http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/04/29/economic-development-ideas/#comments
     • KJT 3.2.1

       30 April 2012 at 8:54 am

       Here is the speech.

       It is so good I hope I will be forgiven for cutting and pasting in this instance.

       Can you see why many of us, who supported Labour before the 80’s, prefer David Cunliffe to Shearer.

       Great to hear someone in Labour apologising, finally, for the 80’s also.

       Quote….

       You know that at the last election, the one that we lost so badly, nearly 1 million people didn’t vote. Over 800,000 people: a fifth of the population didn’t vote.

       Now you know, there are lots of reasons that people didn’t vote, and there were even more reasons why people didn’t vote for Labour. Let me give you just a few.

       The major reason that voters didn’t vote for Labour, and sometimes didn’t vote at all, is simply that Labour failed to inspire voters that it was a credible alternative to National.

       This is the first of a series of speeches on economic development. I am going to start with the basics – why the invisible hand of the market failed us and why we need a clear and distinct Labour view on economics; why you can’t cut and sell your way out of an economic hole; and what a Labour economic development plan should contain. We need to be clear about the context before we can go on the policy journey.

       I want to be clear from the outset that this speech represents my own views and does not pretend to represent overall Labour policy. All policies are being reviewed in the post-election period.

       The Invisible Hand

       The Labour Party was traditionally a left-wing party. Before we debate the future of the Labour Party, we should define what the terms left and right-wing mean.

       Left-wing generally means community ownership and or control and/or responsibility.

       Right wing means individual ownership and/or control and/or responsibility. By modern standards, even the National party would have been a left-wing party until the 1990s. That’s because most New Zealanders accepted the idea that the government has not just a right, but also a duty to be there for them.

       New Zealanders wisely accepted that finance companies needed regulation. New Zealanders wisely accepted that it was the government’s job to ensure that the electricity didn’t go off. They wisely accepted that it was the government’s job to ensure the children didn’t grow up in poverty, that medical care was available for people who needed it, that decent housing was available for the poor and the elderly.

       However, by the 1980s, the New Zealand economic system had grown clumsy and slow. Most people agreed that it was in need of reform. That’s what most people wanted, economic reform. That is, they wanted the existing system, but they wanted it to function more smoothly, more efficiently and more fairly. They did not want it replaced with a system that simply handed over most of the wealth and power to rich people.

       Yet, that’s what happened, and to our eternal shame, the Labour Party was the party that introduced many of the so-called economic reforms that have proved so disastrous.

       The National Government that followed it took the experiment further; with the ‘Mother of All Budgets’ that savaged social services, more privatization and deregulation, and the odious Employment Contracts Act that set us on the path of becoming a low wage economy.

       You hear the National government talking about the need to sell assets because we have so little money in this country. Do you know why we have so little money in this country? It’s because a large percentage of our economic assets are overseas-owned. For example, when the Australian-owned banks make billions in profits here (and it’s up a quarter to a third this year alone). That money isn’t returned to New Zealanders. The money goes straight back overseas.

       And, as if that were not bad enough, the National government now wants to sell our other major state assets, which is simply going to mean higher prices for ordinary New Zealanders and it’s going to mean still more profits disappearing overseas. It’s madness, and you know it’s madness and most ordinary Kiwis know it’s madness.

       But let’s go back a bit.

       I know that most of the people in this room think of the 1970s as a period of long-haired hippies and revolution. However, beneath the events that were happening on the surface, there was a much more sinister revolution going on in the background.

       While the hippies were out protesting in the streets, a professor at the University of Chicago called Milton Friedman, was selling his students the idea that taxation was evil and that businesses worked best when they were deregulated.

       Does this sound familiar? It should be. The Republican Party in the US, the Conservative Party in England and the Labour Party in New Zealand enthusiastically took up Friedman’s philosophy, which is now called neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism has become such a dominant economic philosophy that it is now the only economic philosophy taught in many universities.

       Friedman revived a belief in the “invisible hand” of the market. It was a fairy tale that Adam Smith had said a century earlier would automatically deliver the best of all possible economic worlds.

       Of course many of the rogues who benefited from it have never believed that – they remember how they got rich. However, neo-liberalism was a convenient way of selling the idea of inequality to the masses.

       Hands off our assets!

       Let me repeat, none of this happened by accident. The people who were the most enthusiastic supporters of neo-liberalism were the people who stood to make the most money from it. Let me give you just one example:

       In the 1980s and 1990s, merchant bankers Michael Fay and David Richwhite were advisors to government.

       Michael Fay and David Richwhite recommended that the government sell the state-owned New Zealand Rail.

       The government agreed and put the company up for sale. Fay and Richwhite and some partners, then purchased New Zealand Rail at a bargain price.

       That’s right: Michael Fay and David Richwhite, the consultants that government hired to advise them on state asset sales, advised the government to sell New Zealand Rail, then Michael Fay and David Richwhite bought a large chunk of New Zealand Rail.

       The story gets worse: Fay and Richwhite and their partners then sold many of New Zealand Rail’s most valuable assets, such as land, without improving the company as a true rail operator would.

       Then, in 1995, Fay and Richwhite sold their shares in New Zealand Rail, having made hundreds of millions in profits. Because Fay and Richwhite had sold many of New Zealand Rail’s most valuable assets without investing in trains or tracks, New Zealand Rail was virtually bankrupt.

       The government was then forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep the rail service operating. Does this sound crazy? It is.

       This sort of madness has been repeated all over the world, and it’s always the ordinary taxpayers like you, who end up paying the bills.

       Roll the clock forward to the current National Government and nothing has changed except the packaging.

       They can try to soft-soap it by calling it the “mixed ownership model”. But you and I and the 10,000 other New Zealanders who marched up Queen Street yesterday to fight it – know it is still privatization.

       We know why privatizing our power companies is nonsense.

       Generations of Kiwis worked to build up those assets and we don’t need to be told we have to buy them all over again. That’s assuming we could afford them of course.

       The fact is that when sold, they will not be state owned enterprises covered by the SOE Act at all – they will simply be companies like any other – in which the taxpayer has a much reduced shareholding.

       We know they make a healthy return for the taxpayer now. In fact, over the last three years the total return was around 16% – far higher than the cost of Crown capital at around 6%.

       They pay good dividends –over $300m a year for the last four years. But the Government deliberately failed to show that in the Budget documents when it banked the supposed sale proceeds well before the last election.

       To complete the hypocrisy, the government is now saying the loss of dividends is so low that no sane buyer would pay the money they want without driving your power prices through the roof.

       National tried to buy iwi support by saying treaty rights would be protected. I doubt this, but even if true it would mean the taxpayer bears 100% of that risk including on behalf of the new private investors.

       Yet the biggest porky of them all – that the government would retain majority ownership and control. Yeah right. Not when SOEs like KiwiRail are already busy flogging off major components like Hillside Workshops. Not when SOE bosses told Parliament they are free to sell off 100% of subsidiaries.

       In other words, the SOEs are like a horse. The government intends selling the horse off bit by bit, leaving the taxpayer owning nothing more than the saddle.

       The fact is, this is old fashioned privatization with new spin and the same old result. The people lose. The ticket clippers win (it costs up to $300 million in banker fees to sell the shares!). And the voter is told to “eat that”.

       So how do these rogues get away with it?

       The answer is twofold: on one hand, the news media has been a solid supporter of neo-liberalism.

       Did you know, for example, that British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, regularly lunched with Rupert Murdoch, the far-right media boss? Tony, apparently, used to test which policies would be acceptable to Murdoch.

       Thus we have a far-right media boss influencing the policies of what was supposed to be the party of the people. It’s shameful.

       The second reason these rogues get away with it is because, as the Tony Blair example shows so clearly, the opposition parties, which are supposed to be the solution, too often become part of the problem.

       When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

       I think that’s a major reason that nearly one million voters deserted us at the last election. It wasn’t because we failed to communicate our policies. Quite the opposite. Those voters saw that our policies – with the exception of asset sales – were mostly the same as National’s. So we can’t really be surprised at the result.

       Towards a New Economy

       So where to from here? Let’s be absolutely clear – New Zealand cannot cut and sell its way to National’s so-called “brighter future”.

       New Zealand cannot simply milk more cows and hope that commodity prices stay up.

       Nor can we pretend that mining national parks won’t destroy our precious global brand.

       National has no new ideas and no credible plan. It has laundry lists of actions, many of which take us in the wrong direction.

       The reason is that they still fundamentally believe that some combination of the “invisible hand” of free markets, and the “sleight of hand’ of dirty deals with casinos, dotcoms, film and media magnates, and telcos, will do the job.

       The good news, if you can call it good news, is that the economic myths that drove the world into this current mess are starting to unravel. Let me quote economics writer Bernard Hickey, who regularly contributes to the New Zealand Herald:

       “It’s time for me to say what I’ve been thinking for months: the economic god of completely free markets and capital flows is not worth believing in any more.

       I think the Global Financial Crisis …has demonstrated the failure of the economic model most New Zealand policymakers have adhered to for nearly 3 decades.

       I think we need to rethink the way we run monetary policy, the way we allow foreign ownership of assets, the way we encourage savings, the way our financial institutions are regulated and [to] change the things we are aiming for.”

       All around the world, this realization is sinking in: the unregulated marketplace has been a disaster, and the costs have always been borne by ordinary people.

       Europe’s current economic crisis was caused by bankers who loaned money on riskier and riskier ventures until the whole structure collapsed.

       Were those bankers jailed and their assets seized? Of course not. Instead of the bankers paying the bills for their reckless speculation, the ordinary taxpayers are being screwed, left, right and centre.

       And you know what? Despite all the promises that the European economic austerity measures would turn this tragic situation around, the opposite is occurring.

       Austerity economics does not work. It did not work in the Great Depression of the 1930s and it will not work in the Great Recession of the current decade.

       When you start closing down your government services and firing your workers, those people have no money to spend. Because they have no money to spend, the local businesses suffer. So they start firing staff. And so the economy goes into deep recession, with no easy way out.

       Am I the only one who thinks this is complete lunacy?

       You know, these problems that we face today stem from a lack of appropriate regulation or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations.

       The global financial crisis was caused by unregulated banking. Leaky building syndrome was caused by deregulating the building industry. The Pike River mining disaster has raised numerous questions about deregulation of the mining industry. Does anyone still seriously believe that big business can be safely left to regulate itself?

       Yet, regulation has become a dirty word.

       Do I favour regulating the lives of ordinary New Zealanders? Certainly not: I have great faith in ordinary New Zealanders.

       Do I favour supporting positive businesses? You’re damned right I do. Businesses help create jobs and economic growth. I want to see a future Labour government get stuck in and do more to help the economy grow.

       Do I support all businesses? No way. Businesses that let workers die unnecessarily, or abuse and exploit their workers, or steal from old people: all these business need a strong, legal response from the state.

       All this requires regulation, and it’s there to protect ordinary people from becoming victims of greed.

       Labour is strong on encouraging positive business and positive economic growth. And Labour is also about legislating to control negative businesses and their effects on our people and our environment.

       Caught between a naïve belief in free markets and direct pressure from vested interests, National is unwilling to confront the downsides of unregulated markets.

       Fortunately we’re not. And an increasing number of journalists and politicians are saying what ordinary people already know: that the economic policies of the last 30 years have mostly been an unmitigated disaster.

       But you’d never know this if you listened to John Key. Like a quack doctor whose cure has failed, his response is to double the dose until the patient is dead.

       Sorry, John, but let me quote Sir Winston Churchill:

       “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”

       No matter how many politicians and economists still defend the economic policies that led us into this mess, the truth is steadily showing itself.

       You know, there’s not much difference between a Wellington school teacher struggling to find an affordable home and a Northland freezing worker who’s just lost his job. Whether we earn our living by our hands or by our words, we’re all working people, whose lives have grown harder and whose world has grown steadily darker. We’re all in this together.

       We all resent those who squander our tax dollars by helping out large corporations, while we struggle to pay our mortgages. We all resent those who seek to sell the very state assets that help keep us afloat. We all resent those who claim to represent us in Parliament, but who really represent the rich and the powerful, at our expense

       Instead of National’s failed economic model, we need a simple, credible economic development plan that serves the interests of all New Zealanders.

       One that keeps more of what we earn here in the country we love.

       Conclusion

       I believe the Labour Party is now uniquely positioned to take up the reins when this current government’s policies collapse under their own weight.

       Labour has a new leader with strong values, who’s focused on reconnecting with the voters and has the courage to stand up to bullies. It’s up to us, as a Party, to share with our leader, our hopes, our fears and our dreams, to reconstruct the Party from within, to reclaim our natural constituency of decent, ordinary New Zealanders who believe in fairness and hard work.

       Now it’s up to us to turn this around: a hard task, but not an impossible one.

       When Labour proposed a nuclear-free policy, it was seen as an impossible dream. Yet nearly thirty years’ later, this dream is a solid reality, and it’s helped protect us from the sort of nuclear disaster that Japan has just endured.

       The New Zealand Labour Party faced enormous pressure, from inside and outside New Zealand, to back down and change its anti-nuclear policy.

       But we didn’t. And we don’t have to back away from creating policies that can turn us away from the economic insanity of the last three decades. New Zealanders are decent, fair-minded, hard-working people. We want a government that reflects our own uniquely Kiwi values.

       It’s going to be hard, but we’re not afraid of hard work. With your help, and the help of the people of New Zealand, we can win the next election.

       We can move forward to a future that rewards hard work and stops rewarding dishonesty. That gives the poorest of our citizens the chance to a decent life. That gives us all a chance to live in a nation that was once called ‘God’s own country.”

       We can become God’s own country again. Thank you.

       UnQuote.
       • A.Ziffel 3.2.1.1

         30 April 2012 at 1:15 pm

         When Labour proposed a nuclear-free policy, it was seen as an impossible dream. Yet nearly thirty years’ later, this dream is a solid reality, and it’s helped protect us from the sort of nuclear disaster that Japan has just endured.

         Since Japan’s problems were neither related to nuclear weapons or nuclear powered vessels I’m bemused by Cunliffe’s interpretation of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.
   • mickysavage 3.3

     30 April 2012 at 8:03 am

     Excuse me for link whoreing Salsy but it is up at the New Lynn Labour website at http://newlynnlabour.nationbuilder.com/speech_get_your_invisible_hands_off_our_assets

     The website is experimental at this stage. It combines blogging, events, Facebook and twitter feeds, email broadcasting and helps to communicate with volunteers. Comments welcome.
     • Carol 3.3.1

       30 April 2012 at 8:24 am

       Thanks, Micky.

       Inspirational stuff. Although, I’m unhappy about his continuing use of the term “growth”. Sustainable economics, that produce a society where everyone can not only survive, but have a reasonable life, should be the aim, IMO.

       And I like this metaphor:

       When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

       And I like his attacks on “austerity” measures.

       And, to add to Cunliffe’s egs and arguments, the BBC reported a day or so ago, that, in these times of austerity, the rich have got richer.

       http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17883101

       The newspaper’s research found the combined worth of the country’s 1,000 wealthiest people is £414bn, up 4.7%.

       It means their joint wealth has passed the level last seen in 2008, before the financial crash, to set a new record.
       • Bored 3.3.1.1

         30 April 2012 at 11:56 am

         Can somebody find a way of giving Cunliffe a loud haler please? Leadership would have been the best way, (within the speech he has shown deliberate loyalty to his uninspiring boss).

         On a secondary note read Cunliffes language: he does not try to talk “neo lib market gibberish”. Thank God for that, go David.
         • james 111 3.3.1.1.1

           30 April 2012 at 1:16 pm

           Wont be long before Cunliffe and the boys Roll Shearer. The biggest trouble for Labour is the message he preaches is to the converted Socialists you guys.

           The Public don’t want that message they are more to the Centre than the Pink Champagne Socialists as describe by Damion Occonor .

           Unless Labour has a message that can get through to the Centre then try to govern without interfering in people lives too much. They will never be in or in for long. They are a party full of control freaks who want to tell everybody how to live, and who are prepared to legislate to get them to obey, this does not tend to go down to well with the majority of New Zealanders.
           • AAMC 3.3.1.1.1.1

             30 April 2012 at 3:21 pm

             As the failure of Austerity continues to show itself in Europe, the continuation of the GFC as a byproduct of a neo-classical crisis attempting to be solved by the neo-classicals who caused it, a continued erosion of asset prices – now rolling out in Ozzie and soon here – I don’t think it will be that long before the public are looking for a new narrative, which it looks like Cunliffe has timed well.

             That neo-liberalism and it’s invisible hand have in reality been a Trojan Horse for Feudalism is becoming increasingly obvious to all but the most indoctrinated, the most Faithful, as you prove James111.

             Of coarse actions speak louder than words, and if he intends to deliver this new vision without being prepared to question some orthodoxies and high priests of both the Left and Right, then in reality it will just be more amputation at the knee at the service of the Kleptocrats.
           • Bored 3.3.1.1.1.2

             30 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

             Jimmy, you are obviously either very young and naive, or you are intractably stupid and ill educated. It appears to me that your lexicon of “socialism” is anything that is not extreme “neo lib”.

             For a starter socialists are not all the same….a socialist of the Marxian school would object to Cunliffes speech because he at no point mentions the removal of capitalism. A Fabian socialist would argue that capitalism stays and gets regulated. Idiot “neo libs” accuse Keynes of socialism, the bugger saved capitalism…not exactly a socialist mission.

             Go away, get a life, read something and get your lazy mind into gear before you go spouting off. Fool.
             • james 111 …

               30 April 2012 at 6:14 pm

               Thanks Bored you have just put your finger on the problem with the Left no support for the new Labour idea!, as the public was tired of the old Labour so how are you going to get them back on side they don’t care about your petty internal battles.

               just want to see new fresh policies not entirely based around spend , spend again Tax Tax again

               No unification of ideas no one person can lead the party as it full of factions ,and activists all with their own little agendas trying to have their day in the sun.
               Poor David Shearer about to fall on the sword yet he has done nothing wrong just the left dont really like him, but then who do they really like? will they ever be happy? does their idea of utopia fit with the rest of voting public I think not.
               • Bored …

                 30 April 2012 at 8:27 pm

                 Jimmy, read my post a couple down and start learning. I have provided you with some translations as your first lesson.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.1.1.3

             30 April 2012 at 4:28 pm

             They are a party full of control freaks who want to tell everybody how to live…

             See, this is your biggest problem – your confusing NACT with Labour. It’s NACT that want to tell people how to live (in poverty so NACTs mates can live it up in luxury) and what they can do (bow and scrape to the rich while working to ensure that the rich remain rich).
   • David 3.4

     30 April 2012 at 8:09 am

     Will Hutton’s version of this for the UK situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/will-hutton-george-osborne-intellectually-broken
     • Bored 3.4.1

       30 April 2012 at 12:11 pm

       What a laugh that article is…it can be summed up with “please come and bail out business Mr Government with the peoples money despite us having f****d up badly”.

       It used the normal terms. Let me translate:
       double-dip recession = depression
       austerity measures = scorched earth policies
       debt service demands = the bankers demanding public money
       imported American rightwing polemics = local neo lib gibberish
       quantitative easing = printing cash to pay the interest demanded by the bankers
       aggregation into securities = bundling debt up for sale to loan out to create more debt
       social contract = services to public that represent opportunity for privatisation
   • Stephen Doyle 3.5

     30 April 2012 at 8:33 am

     Have to say I’m relieved that the party hierarchy is espousing some positive philosophy, that is being reported. Has it appeared in MSM yet?
   • David H 3.6

     30 April 2012 at 3:39 pm

     Got a link for those of us that don’t use Facebook ?? Please
4. Pete George 4

   30 April 2012 at 7:44 am

   Here’s both flood gates and slippery slope in one news report:

   Decriminalising euthanasia will open flood gates

   Family First national director Bob McCoskrie is against the idea, saying it could be the start of a slippery slope.

   Any law change could be the start of a slippery slope. But there’s no proof of that happening in the past, why would it suddenly happen with this.

   It sounds little more than a slippery argument.
   • dd 4.1

     30 April 2012 at 8:16 am

     Abortion?
     • QoT 4.1.1

       30 April 2012 at 9:32 pm

       (a) Abortion isn’t legal in NZ, merely decriminalised in certain circumstances

       (b) Oh yes, that’s right, the Great Infanticide Epidemic that occurred after abortion was legalised anywhere, I remember it so well …
   • Olwyn 4.2

     30 April 2012 at 9:25 am

     Pete you are being disingenuous. Apart from the Family First argument, you have also heard arguments opposed to euthanasia from John Kleinsman, and arguments at least urging caution from Grant Gillette. Kleinsman probably gives the best slippery slope story, to which you have not answered. (1) We do not have adequate palliative care in NZ, (2) We do have older people in NZ who are considered burdens on their families (3) We do not like pouring money into aged care. These things, and probably others, present pre-conditions for euthanasia, euphemistically called “death with dignity,” to potentially become the status quo. If it were to become the status quo, then the burden of proof would fall upon the terminally ill person who did not choose “death with dignity,” rendering euthanasia non-voluntary. That, or something like it, is what you should be answering with better arguments, rather than dismissing. Is anyone willing to seriously address the listed conditions so as to ensure that voluntary euthanasia is genuinely voluntary? I very much doubt it.
     • Pete George 4.2.1

       30 April 2012 at 9:44 am

       Kleinsman did not adequately answer the slippery slope question, he just says it’s a risk. All legislation – existing or proposed – could have a slippery slope risk, but it rarely occurs.

       dd suggests abortion, to an extent that’s true but it’s a different situation, abortion law is losely applied (so is marijuana law) but assisted death legislation (as proposed by Street) would be limited to terminally ill people with clear restrictions and controls so there’s no freason to believe it would apply to completely different circumstances.

       (1) I agree that we don’t have sufficient high quality palliative care, but we do have it and even then it can have deficiencies, as I point out here – personal end of life experience.

       (2) We already have elderly people that some may consider to be a burden on society, we already have family pressures, we could have murder of family members, but that has nothing to do with the proposed law and wouldn’t change.

       (3) I agree that insufficient attention is given to funding elderly care and providing decent care. My stepfather has been in care for several years, for some time in a facility that I believe gave inadequate and sometimes poor care, and some of the blame at least is due to funding and staffing. He has since been moved to a much better hospital. But this has nothing to do with euthanasia.

       Kleinsman said we shouldn’t discuss euthanasia until we have top palliative care available for everyone and decently funded elderly care. I disagree. We will never have sufficient funds for ideal universal care, and even if we could they are different issues. We should be able to discuss and try and address all issues at the same time.
     • Pete George 4.2.2

       30 April 2012 at 10:44 am

       Here’s a good comment on the slippery slope irrelevance:

       The slippery slope argument is entirely valid as you only need to consider the parallel with abortion.

       There is no parallel – abortion is a false analogy. In that case, the law has left a loophole and people who want abortions are using it, something which has no relevance to the euthanasia debate. An abortion analogy that supported the euthanasia slipperly-slope fallacy would be as follows:

       1. Abortion is made legal for women who choose it.
       2. Later, women’s families or the state start making the decision for them.

       I’ve yet to see anyone make a case against abortion on the basis that it’s a slippery slope to women’s families or the state making them have abortions, but somehow large numbers of people feel free to leap to a similar illogical conclusion about voluntary euthanasia.

       http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/04/support_for_euthanasia.html#comment-962126

       “Slippery slope” is code for “I’m against it so will warn of drastic possible effects without any supporting evidence” that is irrelevant and for which there is virtually no likelihood it could ever happen, especially with the proposed law.
       • Olwyn 4.2.2.1

         30 April 2012 at 11:51 am

         Except that hardly anyone would formulate the argument in the way you have given it. The analogy in question would surely have to do with the increased prevalence of whatever it is after a law change, taking the conditions that contribute to its prevalence into account. With the abortion example, we do not have abortion on demand, but we have a higher number of abortions than some countries that do have abortion on demand. This is because there are conditions in our society that may press women to see an abortion as necessary, even where it is against their inclination: the poverty and contempt heaped upon solo mothers, the requirement of two incomes to maintain a household, and so on. There will be abortions done in NZ that the mother consented to with great reluctance, because of the above-mentioned conditions. I say this because in the countries where there are less constraints on abortion, but also less of the conditions that push people in that direction, there are less abortions.

         Kleinsman has listed some of the conditions that would tend to push euthanasia in the same direction. In which case “death with dignity” could effectively become state sanctioned manslaughter, with the similarly reluctant consent of the person in question.
       • Vicky32 4.2.2.2

         30 April 2012 at 4:35 pm

         2. Later, women’s families or the state start making the decision for them

         The state doesn’t, thankfully, but trust me, womens’ families do make the decision for them!
   • felix 4.3

     30 April 2012 at 10:28 am

     Now that’s a poorly constructed metaphor for you Pete.

     Cunliffe 1 – McCoskrie nil in the monday morning metaphor round robin.

     As an aside, could the media stop pretending McCoskrie is a director of something? We all know it’s just him.
   • Vicky32 4.4

     30 April 2012 at 4:32 pm

     Any law change could be the start of a slippery slope. But there’s no proof of that happening in the past, why would it suddenly happen with this.

     There most certainly is! Look at the Netherlands, and as someone says below, abortion! We have de facto abortion on demand, which I hope, was never intended..
5. David 5

   30 April 2012 at 8:13 am

   More UK generic parallels from the Guardian’s article “posh boys stood on the burning deck” (below). Posh/ rich boys, with little real world (ie beyond class privilege and money markets) experience; out of touch with everyday people’s issues; giving tax cuts to the rich on thin pretext and in the face of deficits, cuts to services and austerity; taking the top job because they thought “they might be quite good at it”; now unrepentent and barely bemused when the social costs of their programmes come home.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/28/andrew-rawnsley-cameron-osborne-poshness
   • joe90 5.1

     30 April 2012 at 12:25 pm

     The Washington Post on the disconnect between Republicans and sense.

     Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
6. dd 6

   30 April 2012 at 8:18 am

   What did everyone think of Shane’s interview of Paula Bennett on Q and A? It seems to have upset a few people.

   I thought it was brilliant.
   • felix 6.1

     30 April 2012 at 10:53 am

     Lol, I reckon Paula’s pretty upset about it.

     Not sure if she’s ever faced an actual interviewer before.
     • David H 6.1.1

       30 April 2012 at 4:50 pm

       The look on her face at the end of sorta said WTF.
7. muzza 7

   30 April 2012 at 8:47 am

   “He doesn’t accept that groups just say ‘no’

   DHB chairman Dr Peter Ballanytne told members at their meeting in Greymouth on Friday that the minister wanted the board to try harder to bring Gloriavale into the vaccination programme.

   Board member Mary Molloy said talking more might pick up one or two others in the wider community.

   Meanwhile, the board was also told it was still under scrutiny with its forecast of a large deficit

   Let’s see if the board get sacked , and the pressure get put onto the Gloriavale Christian Community in new and inventive ways…Perhaps something like the Waco episode. They could send the SAS/SIS in there, and just shoot everyone, including the kids.

   Can’t have people outside the sytem, it is a threat to the system itself right!
   • higherstandard 7.1

     30 April 2012 at 10:40 am

     Immunization programmes work best when a high proportion of the public are vaccinated hence the minister and DHB are correct in trying to increase the numbers of those vaccinated.
     • muzza 7.1.1

       30 April 2012 at 10:52 am

       Why should it matter how many people have them? If they are worth having then they are 100% right, if they are not 100%, then they are not worth having!

       Compulsory vaccinations will be with us all in a few years in any case, you know, for the good of the herd!
       • higherstandard 7.1.1.1

         30 April 2012 at 11:20 am

         “Why should it matter how many people have them? If they are worth having then they are 100% right, if they are not 100%, then they are not worth having!”

         No, that’s not the way that vaccination programmes work – for a short overview go to the link below.

         http://www.who.int/topics/immunization/en/
         http://www.immune.org.nz/home
         • muzza 7.1.1.1.1

           30 April 2012 at 11:32 am

           Um, no need to read the WHO thanks HS. Keep lapping up the info though. Keep the herd stong, take those shots!

           The Christians have it spot on!
           • higherstandard 7.1.1.1.1.1

             30 April 2012 at 11:57 am

             Each to their own I do hope you realise that you have the efforts of organisations such as WHO to thank for the fact that illnesses like smallpox and polio are not the threats they once were.
             • muzza …

               30 April 2012 at 12:30 pm

               “Each to their own” – Exactly HS, and that is how it should remain!

               Continued reference to Polio is irrelevant!

               J90, suggest you go have a search for SV40!
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 30 April 2012 at 2:27 pm

                 Well, I think that muzza has proven himself an idiot.

                 http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19989

                 In this mumps epidemic in the Netherlands, most cases were living in low vaccination coverage areas and were unvaccinated, orthodox Protestant children. The orthodox Protestant population has been affected by several outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, including poliomyelitis in 1978 and in 1992 to 1993 [25,26], measles in 1999 to 2000 [14] and rubella in 2004 to 2005 [12].

                 http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/5222511/Measles-outbreak-likely-to-spread

                 The outbreak could have been contained far sooner if it not had begun in a community with particularly low rates of immunisation, Dr Hoskins said.

                 People who don’t immunise are basically ignorant.
                 • muzza …

                   30 April 2012 at 2:35 pm

                   “Well, I think that muzza has proven himself an idiot.”

                   —-You have jumped to an amazing conclusion/assumption there DTB, thanks for the insult though!

                   “People who don’t immunise are basically ignorant”

                   — People who dont respect the right to choose, are tyrants. Pretty sure I read you talking about right to choice in the euthanasia discussion DTB, which is it?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     30 April 2012 at 4:37 pm

                     Two things:-
                     1) I didn’t say anything about removing peoples choice
                     2) You not immunising affects the entire community (increases possible epidemics) and thus the community should have a say about it whereas someone at the end of their life choosing to die only affects them and thus the community should stay the fuck out of it
                   • muzza …

                     30 April 2012 at 4:48 pm

                     Two things:-
                     1) I didn’t say anything about removing peoples choice

                     —–Yes you have, and did! I would re-read your second comment below if I was you!

                     2) You not immunising affects the entire community (increases possible epidemics) and thus the community should have a say about it whereas someone at the end of their life choosing to die only affects them and thus the community should stay the fuck out of it

                     —– Thanks for the clarification above. Community can have their say, but then I will have mine, its called personal choice, not herd choice, and if you have the right to choose to die, then you have the right to decide what you do and don’t put in your body! Its the same thing no matter which way you cut it!
                   • TheContrarian …

                     30 April 2012 at 4:53 pm

                     “You not immunising affects the entire community (increases possible epidemics)”

                     it only affects those in the community that chose not to immunize, not those who are immunised. Thus the community shouldn’t have a say about it because choosing to not immunize only affects them and thus the community should stay the fuck out of it
                   • higherstandard …

                     30 April 2012 at 5:11 pm

                     Immunisation programmes generally require a sufficient proportion of the population to be immunized to be effective in decreasing and in certain cases eliminating infectious diseases. The more non-immunised persons there are in any community the higher the risks are for the young of certain highly infectious and dangerous viral and bacterial pathogens as well as the potential hazards to the immunosuppressed and immunocompromised individuals in the community and within the hospital setting.

                     The last thing most DHBs need is very ill or infectious patients presenting at General Practice or secondary care who could’ve been protected by immunization not only does it use up considerable resources it is a potential infectious vector for at risk patients.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     30 April 2012 at 5:13 pm

                     I am all for immunisation programs – just playing devils advocate on Draco’s weird idea that the community should decide on what someone puts in their body
                   • Bill …

                     30 April 2012 at 5:23 pm

                     @muzza. If you choose to not immunize, does your community have a right to ostracise you? And if not, why not?

                     and @ contrarian. It’s not just those who choose to not immunise that are affected. What about those who are too young for particular shots or whatever? Don’t they deserve a reasonable ‘buffer’ of vaccinated people around them?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     30 April 2012 at 5:26 pm

                     Like I said, I am all for vaccinations. One of the great medical advances of or civilization. Just the idea of a community forcing injections I don’t like
                   • McFlock …

                     30 April 2012 at 6:32 pm

                     “it only affects those in the community that chose not to immunize, not those who are immunised.”
                              
                     Assuming vaccinations have 100% effectiveness. Which they do not. 
                          
                     So by reducing the herd immunity, people who are pointlessly anti-vaccination (i.e. who don’t have an allergy to the vaccine, they’re just worried about catching autism) are actually hurting people who do get the vaccine, anyway.
                            
                     I’d be tempted to have a maximum % of unvaccinated kids in schools or ECE, unless the child has a significant allergy. First come first serve, if the hippies leave enrolment too late then tough. 
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     30 April 2012 at 7:42 pm

                     it only affects those in the community that chose not to immunize, not those who are immunised.

                     Wrong as the community will be the ones paying to clean up their mess through higher hospital and doctor use. The first article I linked pointed that out.
                   • rosy …

                     30 April 2012 at 8:12 pm

                     “it only affects those in the community that chose not to immunize, not those who are immunised.”
                     – and those who are too young to be immunised
                     – and those who are immune-suppressed
                     – and those who were not completely immune following their immunisation

                     for 2 recent stories about the impact of measles on unvaccinated children …. one who contracted measles when too young to be vaccinated and one whose parents made a personal choice, based on wrong information, not to vaccinate.

                     I know we were pretty unimpressed when an immune-suppressed little girl in our family was put in serious danger from an un-immunised measles carrier who visited the children’s ward where she was being treated, and another who turned up at her sibling’s kindergarten with measles.
                   • muzza …

                     30 April 2012 at 9:38 pm

                     @Contrarian – Agree, if people want to vaccinate themselves, or their kids, thats their choice, all for it, and respect it, as I expect my choices would be respected!

                     @Bill – Does society have the right to euthanize the elderly if they are a strain on the medical system, or if there was an illness that only affected them? There is not an argument I would ever accept about forced medication, from anyone, expecially “society”!

                     @ Rosy – Why did you not balance out your post with links to those who have died on the wrong end of a vaccine? Why do people who post about death from illness, seem to not want to acknowledge the other side of the equation, or the thousands of deaths every year from pharmacutical drugs in general?

                     Basically the strong are being made weak, by the weak, or immune suppressed. You say those who are not completely immune following immunization, what a crock…how about those who took advice to vaccinate, and then suffered or died following it? Is that receiving the wrong information too, or just collateral damage in your opinion for the “greater good”?
                   • Bill …

                     30 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

                     Muzza. Don’t know what you were answering to, but it wasn’t the question I asked. I’ll re-phrase it….if your society perceived you as a risk to it would it have the right to ostracize you? And if not, why not?

                     Nothing about forced medication or euthanasia.
                   • McFlock …

                     30 April 2012 at 9:48 pm

                     Muzza, do you really believe that more people die as a result of vaccination than not?
                      
                   • muzza …

                     30 April 2012 at 10:14 pm

                     @ Bill, if not vaccinating = some perceived threat leading to being ostracized, then my reposnse that if there was a medical threat affecting old people could society then force euthanize those elderly…its the same concept, where the herd , or society as you refer it, are the judiciary! No thanks

                     @ Mcflock – Not even relevant a question sonny jim – You obviously are cool with some collateral damage too, awesome! Whats with your anger at the “freaks” as you call them…sounds like you have some issues to deal with towards stoners (on the pot thread), from your uni days, fits with the your question to me, which implies that collateral damage is ok for you! I guess they are just collateral damage from pot right!

                     Uni must sounds like it may have damaged you bro….
                   • McFlock …

                     30 April 2012 at 10:26 pm

                     Collateral damage is even less relevant.
                                
                     But dealing with nutbars (such as people who refer to low incidence complications of lifesaving medication delivered only by informed consent as being “collateral damage” to imply said medication is equivalent to dropping high explosives into apartment buildings) – yes, I have a short tolerance for nutbar morons.
                      
                   • locus …

                     1 May 2012 at 8:50 am

                     Well Muzza, you have managed to irritate me into an emotional outburst. I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for “your choice” regarding opposition to people being encouraged to be vaccinated. Given your view I frankly couldn’t care if you if you suffered from a very horrible bout of an entirely preventable illness. However, for the sake of people I love and have loved I would urge you to go and research and rethink your position on immunisation. What I find particularly infuriating is how you think your choice allows you to argue publicly that immunisation causes suffering and death. You know absolutely nothing about this subject which is evident in all your sweeping unsubstantiated comments and your extreme unwillingness to accept any data or research that you think is sponsored by the people and organisations you have decided in your conspiratorial mentality are not to be trusted. I like many others have had our nearest and dearest threatened by people who either by choice or disadvantage were unimmunised and carriers of mortal disease. Promoting immunisation has nothing to do with the herd. We are not talking about animals here but about PEOPLE who are unprotected from mortal illness due to their compromised immune systems. Your unwillingness to look into the facts concerning immunisation and your determination to prove others wrong on this matter is breathtakingly selfish. While your attempts to link the discussion about immunisation to completely unrelated issues is ignorant at best and manipulative at worst. Furthermore you have clearly not properly read and understood what others, who are less emotionally than me, trying to say on this subject.
                   • McFlock …

                     1 May 2012 at 5:51 pm

                     love that – you use perjorative terms, then claim it’s insulting when they’re thrown back at you and a distraction when you’re called on them.
                          
                     But okay then, let’s get back to the main issue.
                        
                     You demand a choice as to whether you get your kids vaccinated purely out of pique. Not allergies to the medium, not because of immune system issues, just because you don’t want your kids vaccinated. Fine, I’m cool with that. 
                          
                     However, I don’t believe that your idiocy should endanger the lives of other children. So in the case of a serious disease that re-emerges because 10 or 20% of the population were as selfish and stupid as you, your kids shouldn’t be allowed to attend ECE or schools. 
                          
                     It should be a clear choice for you – it’s about balancing risk to yourself and the risk to others. Have fun thinking of yourself – and getting it wrong. 
                   • McFlock …

                     1 May 2012 at 6:03 pm

                     are crap – meant to follow on in the thread after Rosy 1 May 2012 at 12:10 am, but the edit window closed before I could change it.
                        
                     Must be the flu vaccine affecting me brainpan. 
                 • rosy …

                   1 May 2012 at 12:10 am

                   Muzza

                   I used the Euronews example to illustrate herd immunity, not to say people don’t have adverse reactions to vaccinations. I think my personal example shows that I am very aware that some children should never be vaccinated (e.g. toddlers who are on chemotherapy drugs and have had bone marrow transplants). People who are immune suppressed or have underlying serious disease should not be vaccinated and MUST rely on others to protect themselves.

                   If you want to link to examples where healthy children with no underlying conditions who have been adversely affected by childhood immunisation, be my guest. But I’ll guarantee those numbers are ginormously outweighed by the numbers of children who have died or been seriously disabled by contracting the disease itself.

                   As for thousands of deaths from potent, side-effect riddles drugs, I agree with you. But that’s a whole different topic. I suggest taking a look at Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science to see that people can advocate for immunisation and at the same time rage against unscrupulous pharmaceutical marketing of dangerous drugs.
                   • muzza …

                     1 May 2012 at 7:39 am

                     ‘People who are immune suppressed or have underlying serious disease should not be vaccinated and MUST rely on others to protect themselves”

                     —If I read this right, you are saying that people should vaccinate for the sake of those who are weak, is that right? If so I could not disagree with you more!

                     Babies, chemo…..very sad for parents to be faced with situations such as that, and having to put faith into such hidious medical treatments at any age, least of all young ones. Ill let you do the trawling for links, there are plenty out there,, and those parents/children involved in such cases are not one shred less relevant to any discussion such as this.

                     @ Mcflock, continued use of derogatory names is not really needed is it! If you cant see the relevance of collatoral damage, then I hope you have no influence over anyone elses life but your own.

                     “delivered only by informed consent as being “collateral damage” to imply said medication is equivalent to dropping high explosives into apartment buildings) – yes, I have a short tolerance for nutbar morons.”

                     —–Informed consent, still implies a choice, that choice must remain IMO! – And where on earth did you get the apartments into your dribble? Short tolerance for morons, yes indeed flock member, yes indeed!
                   • rosy …

                     1 May 2012 at 8:07 am

                     “f I read this right, you are saying that people should vaccinate for the sake of those who are weak, is that right? If so I could not disagree with you more!”

                     I’m saying that’s one of the reasons. In the situation I know, that meant a child who was underwent those treatments. There are a lot of people who are temporarily immune-suppressed for a lot of reasons, and will recover, they just require a little space from infection to do so… you think they don’t deserve a little leeway in their recovery. Interesting – well actually I find that distasteful, but I guess that’s just me.

                     But this is getting away from the main reason for vaccinations. And that is to prevent many people from getting some very nasty infectious diseases. There is a whole lot more evidence in support of the efficacy and good outcomes of immunisation programmes than there is in support of any other alternative.
                   • muzza …

                     1 May 2012 at 9:03 am

                     @ Rosy “you think they don’t deserve a little leeway in their recovery. Interesting – well actually I find that distasteful, but I guess that’s just me.

                     —- Rosy, not sure how you read this in my post. Of course sick people need isolation and time to recover their health. People can vaccinate as they see fit, or not, and that is my only position, the right to choose!

                     “But this is getting away from the main reason for vaccinations. And that is to prevent many people from getting some very nasty infectious diseases. There is a whole lot more evidence in support of the efficacy and good outcomes of immunisation programmes than there is in support of any other alternative”

                     — I’m not debating alternatives, but if I was, it would be a complete change to the way our bodies are impacted by the polluted toxic world we live in!. The argument that vaccination is the best option available, is not really good enough for me, but again, its about personal choice. People have the right to choose, what they do or dont put in their body.

                     @Locus – You got irate over something I never said…People can CHOOSE. If they want to vaccinate, that is fine, if nto that is also fine with me. Your emotional outburst is so full off inaccurate assumptions, and illustrated fully why I would never let the herd make decisions on my behalf, EVER!
                   • McFlock …

                     1 May 2012 at 1:12 pm

                     Muzza,
                     “collateral damage” is a military euphemism for killing civilians. 
                     It most frequently occurs when fighting in urban areas, including dropping bombs of firing artillery at apartment buildings to kill one or two soldiers.
                          
                     Medicine is about saving lives. If a medicine kills anyone, this is a bad thing and a lot of work is done to try to stop it happening again, even a single instance. Every death is analysed, compared, scrutinised in order to find out what happened and how it could have been avoided. Not so much in “collateral damage”. 
                          
                     Using that expression in relation to vaccines is pretty similar to a Godwin. And because you seem to earnestly believe it to be appropriate, yeah – I reckon the “nutbar” tag suits you quite well.
                   • muzza …

                     1 May 2012 at 1:41 pm

                     @ McFlock – Nice diversion away from the issue of choice, to focus on use of terminology, followed by the standard petty name calling!

                     “If a medicine kills anyone, this is a bad thing and a lot of work is done to try to stop it happening again”

                     —- So while medicine is doing “alot of work to try stop it happening again” (not vague at all), would you say that people should be forced into taking that chance, against their will?

                     Note, I really dont mind what you think, I was only highlighting the point of choice, in case you felt like wasting the energy replying, and missing it again!
                   • higherstandard …

                     1 May 2012 at 3:55 pm

                     @ muzza – the primary reason for immunizing oneself is of course to protect oneself, that it also provides benefit to those around you is of course an added benefit.

                     You comment that

                     ……’ but if I was, it would be a complete change to the way our bodies are impacted by the polluted toxic world we live in!. The argument that vaccination is the best option available, is not really good enough for me, but again, its about personal choice. People have the right to choose, what they do or dont put in their body.’

                     Absolutely healthy living is beneficial, however, it is no guarantee of overcoming infection and certainly nowhere near as effective as immunization, many have posited that far more damage was done to the Early American cultures by infectious diseases than by actual military action.
                   • muzza …

                     1 May 2012 at 5:23 pm

                     @HS
                     “@ muzza – the primary reason for immunizing oneself is of course to protect oneself, that it also provides benefit to those around you is of course an added benefit”

                     —Of course its not really a benefit to those who do not want to have a vaccine, or those who end up sick or dead from taking them. Again it’s about personal choice, and never , should people be forced to put foreign entities into their system against their will. Are you advocating this HS? The added benefit of choice, is that we can still lay claim to live as free people, as opposed to living under tyrany!

                     “Absolutely healthy living is beneficial, however, it is no guarantee of overcoming infection and certainly nowhere near as effective as immunization, many have posited that far more damage was done to the Early American cultures by infectious diseases than by actual military action”

                     — So you are saying that human beings NEED to have foreign bodies and toxins pumped into them as some sort of insurance policy, because our bodies which are the perfect machine, are no longer capable of functioning naturally? Come on you have got to be joking, with those comments!

                     Even if it could be proven, that vaccines are 100% safe, and work 100% of the time, and have 0% long term negative effects on the human body/mind, I would still advocate the right to choose. Are we comprehending yet, that a human beings body is their own, not anyone elses, because once that changes, and people are forced to medicate etc, then you are no longer capable of dreaming, the illusion that was freedom!
                   • rosy …

                     1 May 2012 at 5:51 pm

                     Muzza, don’t you see you are reducing people’s right to choose by promoting false assumptions about immunisation? Where is the evidence of healthy children dying from vaccinations?

                     I think we both agree that people’s right to choose is also taken away by group think. You complain about immunisation being pushed on people, but what if one of those Gloriavale people want to be vaccinated because s/he can remember an outbreak of a vaccine-controlled disease or may be read about some appalling outcome? That person can’t – because there is no option for dissent. Unlike people in the wider community who can still have a choice to read information, follow any debate, search through opposing views and still decide to vaccinate, or not. Who are the propaganda-pushers here?

                     Health people are working out how to get their view across with information and logic. In NZ They have yet to force anyone to vaccinate.
                   • McFlock …

                     1 May 2012 at 5:59 pm

                     love that – you use perjorative terms, then claim it’s insulting when they’re thrown back at you and a distraction when you’re called on them.
                          
                     But okay then, let’s get back to the main issue.
                         
                     You demand a choice as to whether you get your kids vaccinated purely out of pique. Not allergies to the medium, not because of immune system issues, just because you don’t want your kids vaccinated. Fine, I’m cool with that. 
                          
                     However, I don’t believe that your idiocy should endanger the lives of other children. So in the case of a <strong>serious</strong> disease that re-emerges because 10 or 20% of the population were as selfish and stupid as you, your kids shouldn’t be allowed to attend ECE or schools. 
                          
                     It should be a clear choice for you – it’s about balancing risk to yourself and the risk to others. Have fun thinking of yourself – and getting it wrong. 
                   • higherstandard …

                     1 May 2012 at 6:43 pm

                     @ muzza

                     “Should people be forced to put foreign entities into their system against their will. Are you advocating this HS?”

                     UM no … however, you should be aware that this is happening pretty much every time you inhale or you sit down for a meal.

                     You seem to have some very extreme views in relation to immunization I can only reiterate that immunization is one of the most cost effective, effective and safest medical interventions ever invented. Without it we would still be living under the constant threat of some very nasty illnesses and I would certainly encourage everyone to have themselves and their children vaccinated.

                     I would also add that the majority of those who do not vaccinate do so out of either unfounded fears or lack of motivation both of these reasons reflect poorly on our health service.

                     Your allusions about the human body being the perfect machine and not requiring immunization to avoid infectious disease are patently absurd in light of the specific risk to those who aren’t immunized in relation to infectious diseases covered by immunization.
                   • muzza …

                     1 May 2012 at 7:22 pm

                     @HS – I have no extreme views at all, let alone against vaccination, and peoples right to choose to have them. If the right to choose for myself, not to have vaccinations is seen as extreme, well it shows just how far people have decended into fantasy!

                     You are welcome to encourage people to have themselves and their children vaccinated, that is called free speech, all be it from an ignorant point of view, it is your point of view and that is fine. I prefer to keep my opinions out of such sensitive business of others, other than making the point here about my right to choose, I have not told anyone else what they should or should not do, despite what one poster accused me of!

                     “UM no … however, you should be aware that this is happening pretty much every time you inhale or you sit down for a meal”

                     —-Do you read your posts, because they are getting worse, the above is strange to say the least, do you discuss using similar argument in real life? I mean that is truly awful!

                     “Your allusions about the human body being the perfect machine and not requiring immunization to avoid infectious disease are patently absurd in light of the specific risk to those who aren’t immunized in relation to infectious diseases covered by immunization”

                     —-Shame that you feel my comments about the human body are absurd, but it speaks volumes about how little you comprehend the world around us. Don’t worry , you are safe in numbers, as the overwhelming majority have no idea what life really is, and your comments speak volumes about what you interpret living as being!

                     I’ll leave it a that for now, and respect your opinion, and point of view on this topic. Cheers

                     PS – Mcflock, when did I ever mention kids!
                   • higherstandard …

                     1 May 2012 at 8:05 pm

                     @ Muzza … where to begin ?

                     “@HS – I have no extreme views at all, let alone against vaccination, and peoples right to choose to have them. If the right to choose for myself, not to have vaccinations is seen as extreme, well it shows just how far people have decended into fantasy!”

                     I don’t think anyone is suggesting that your right to choose is extreme. However your views on the utiity of and danger from vaccination could certainly be considered extreme.

                     “You are welcome to encourage people to have themselves and their children vaccinated, that is called free speech, all be it from an ignorant point of view, it is your point of view and that is fine. I prefer to keep my opinions out of such sensitive business of others, other than making the point here about my right to choose, I have not told anyone else what they should or should not do, despite what one poster accused me of!”

                     No it’s not an ignorant point, nor is it solely my point of view as it is reflective of the vast amount of knowledge both published and peer reviewed. I would suggest that my view is shared by the vast proportion of medical professionals in NZ and worldwide as well as by the scientific community who understand the processes of immunity and infectious disease and immunization far better than yourself.

                     “—-Shame that you feel my comments about the human body are absurd, but it speaks volumes about how little you comprehend the world around us. Don’t worry , you are safe in numbers, as the overwhelming majority have no idea what life really is, and your comments speak volumes about what you interpret living as being!”

                     I expect I’ve seen far more of life and medicine in particular they you have or ever will.

                     “I’ll leave it a that for now, and respect your opinion, and point of view on this topic. Cheers”

                     Well it’s evident from your comments that you have no respect for my opinion but never mind I have very little respect for your opinion on this topic.
                   • McFlock …

                     1 May 2012 at 8:13 pm

                     Oh, so it’s not even all about the poor wee kiddies – just yourself?
                        
                     Fair enough then.
                     When it looks like we’re approaching the next significant epidemic, you personally should be banned from all public gatherings and facilities as being a walking public health risk.
         • joe90 7.1.1.1.2

           30 April 2012 at 11:55 am

           You obviously have no memory of the polio epidemic. In 1957 polio claimed the life of a kid who lived next door and left my cousin with a life long disability.I can vividly recall being isolated from other kids and the panic of my parents and their relief at the mass vaccinations in 1960.
           • ianmac 7.1.1.1.2.1

             30 April 2012 at 3:14 pm

             In 1947 we kids had to stay home from school. (What a shame. Yahoo!) It was thought that sun shining on your neck could cause infantile paralysis (polio) so we all had to wear hats. Correspondence lesson were sent to all the kids (and not done) as schools were closed for the summer months. Chooks were thought to be a cause too. So chooks were watched with some anxiety.
             It is great that medical science has moved so far yet there are those who take it for granted.
             The serious side was the awful lifelong damage done to so many, and to have the few self-indulgent idiots who oppose vaccination – madness .
           • Vicky32 7.1.1.1.2.2

             30 April 2012 at 5:05 pm

             and their relief at the mass vaccinations in 1960.

             I vividly remember this as well! Polio was to my parents what Meningococcal disease was to me in the 1990s. (I was constantly afraid for my children – it’s been wonderful since the vaccination became available).
       • John72 7.1.1.2

         1 May 2012 at 4:17 pm

         Nothing is !00%. If it was there would not be a debate. I have been Epiliptic for 40+ years and medication has never controlled it BUT a) Without medication I would probably be dead now.
         b ) Because someone was experimenting with new medication 20 years ago I have lost 2 fingers and both hands are permantly deformed.
         Do I give thanks for the life I have recieved or dwell on the fingers lost?
         Over the last year or so I seem to have been growing out of the Epilepisy. Life is an adventure.
         • r0b 7.1.1.2.1

           1 May 2012 at 4:52 pm

           I have a close family member with a very similar story John72. Not an easy road. All the best to you.
           • John72 7.1.1.2.1.1

             1 May 2012 at 7:34 pm

             r0b, I can expand on 3 things that seem to have been of help to me. The Standard has my e-mail if you want to persue it.
8. muzza 8

   30 April 2012 at 9:40 am

   Bin Laden’s killing and Al Qaeda’s stumbling efforts to regroup are now the national security centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign

   This sort of unchallenged writing keeps streaming into the media space….mostly AP articles. The sentence in the link above, pretty much says it all!

   I wonder what it might be like to control both sides of the same fight, you could keep it going indefinitely….
9. captain hook 9

   30 April 2012 at 10:42 am

   hey. I’m gonna get me a speedboat an a ute and go hunting long finned eels.
   they are nearly extinct so I may as well give them a helping hand into oblivion.
   gee I’m tough.
   • Hateatea 9.1

     30 April 2012 at 7:01 pm

     I sincerely hope you are joking, not that it is a joking matter to our whanau for whom tuna (eel) has long been an intrinsic part of the diet.
      
     BTW, why would you need either a ute or a speedboat?
10. muzza 10

    30 April 2012 at 10:50 am

    Data recorders in New Zealand were initially limited to Holden VE series Commodores, Hummer SUVs and some Chrysler vehicles, but Toyota and Honda had recently added the technology

    The little black box in the car…wonder what else this could be used for!

    Argh, the sweet smell of technological facism, keeping us safe!
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      30 April 2012 at 11:22 am

      That’s why I am choosing to walk more and more.
    • joe90 10.2

      30 April 2012 at 11:44 am

      The little black box in the car…wonder what else this could be used for!

      This.
      • muzza 10.2.1

        30 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

        Automobile Association spokesman Mike Noon said the spread of such technology was inevitable and he did not believe it was “necessarily anything people should be fearful of”.

        “They would only establish whether people have acted in a criminal or negligent way,” – Insurance Council chief executive Chris Ryan

        I particulary like comments such as the above, the second one should ring bells!

        Where does acting in a criminal, or negligent way, actually stop, who controls the definitions, and what can be recorded using technology. Perhaps people will be concerned once there is a “black box” in their house, recording all their activities….wait on!

        Scope creep, incrementalism…all for our own safety of course!
    • Draco T Bastard 10.3

      30 April 2012 at 2:34 pm

      Seems like a good idea to me. You don’t have a right to drive, what you have is the communities permission to drive and thus the community has the right and responsibility to ensure that you drive within the limits set by the community.
      • muzza 10.3.1

        30 April 2012 at 2:40 pm

        “Seems like a good idea to me. You don’t have a right to drive, what you have is the communities permission to drive and thus the community has the right and responsibility to ensure that you drive within the limits set by the community”

        —-This comment is frankly bizarre, and makes me wonder where you might draw the line with the “the community has the rights…blah blah.

        Driving is a right, so is having respect for others choices. If you dumb down every aspect of life , where does it end B!

        You ok today?
        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1.1

          30 April 2012 at 4:46 pm

          and makes me wonder where you might draw the line with the “the community has the rights…blah blah.

          Oh, that’s easy. When what you do affects no one else then you don’t have to get anyone’s permission to do it. The problem is that almost everything you do affects someone else.

          Driving is a right…

          No it’s not. When you drive you affect other people and thus you need their permission which is 1.) The drivers licence which equates to a general permission to drive and 2.) The rules of the road which you agreed to when you asked for and received your drivers license.

          If you dumb down every aspect of life

          Where did I say anything about dumbing down life?
          • muzza 10.3.1.1.1

            30 April 2012 at 8:54 pm

            “Where did I say anything about dumbing down life?”

            — You didn’t, I did. See the thing I take a position against is having the rules set for the herds biggest morons, which is the vast majoroty, not just driving, everything. The herd are scared, stupid, and never, do I want them, telling me what I can or can’t do, or voting for those who then do it for them. They are mostly incapable of running their own life, which is why I object to being told, I must be legislated against, by people I did not ask to write laws, voted for by people who don’t understand simple politics/finance etc, or even have basic manners any more. They stand zero chance against the simple, yet clearly very effective programmig techniques they claim do not exist, and you think that I expect to take direction from any of those groups. The herd think that those they hand responsibility over to, to govern, medicate, educate etc, are actually there to make sure that the herd is “progressing”, lol, it really could not be further from the truth. The herd in being moved into positions that are against their best interest, and therefore mine, the difference is, I can see it coming!

            No thanks DTB, I will not ever listen to the herd!
      • millsy 10.3.2

        30 April 2012 at 10:53 pm

        Whether one speaks of the ‘right to drive’ is not the issue.

        Cars can be quite deadly, and if and when there is an accident, there should be some form of data recorder to aid investigators, no different to airliners.
11. dd 11

    30 April 2012 at 11:21 am

    Can someone inform me what Banks meant by “I think you think I came up the river on a cabbage boat”

    Is it an old term or something???
    • Bill 11.1

      30 April 2012 at 11:27 am

      Heard of water biscuits (name of a type of biscuit) and banana boats (a type of dessert) used in the phrase ‘Do you think I came up/over… some named body of water… on a water biscuit/ banana boat’). Never heard of cabbage boats though and have to say it makes no sense whatsoever
      .

      edit. I take that back. There exists in cooking such things as cabbage boats.
    • Carol 11.2

      30 April 2012 at 11:27 am

      It’s an old term of John Banks:

      http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/john-banks-and-the-whole-cabbage-boat-business/
    • joe90 11.3

      30 April 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Perhaps a reference to the fruit and produce grown by Māori, who until early in the twentieth century owned and worked the majority of market gardens, and delivered to communities by trading waka.
12. Dave Kennedy 12

    30 April 2012 at 11:23 am

    The facts and the Parliamentary Library support Russel’s claim that the tax cuts have caused the economic crisis.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/tax-cuts-caused-current-crisis.html
13. uke 13

    30 April 2012 at 11:26 am

    There was a very good interview by Kim Hill on Saturday with the economic writer Chandran Nair in support of his book “Consumptionomics”. He discussed the problem of billions of Chinese and Indian people acquiring a Western-style addiction to consumerism in the next few years:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2517123/chandran-nair-consumption-and-asia.asx
14. Pete George 14

    30 April 2012 at 11:38 am

    An interesting post – Let Shearer be Shearer.

    It shares the widely held view that Shearer “is genuinely nice guy”, but also the other widely held view trhat he is failing to articulate himself and his visions adequately. And…

    The problem, as I understand it from a couple of Labour people, is that David Shearer does have some innovative and exciting ideas around policy, ones that break the stereotype of right vs left. But the problem is he has been unable to get them through his caucus, who remain largely wedded to their current policies.

    As the Herald editorial says: ” People do not follow leaders who lack the confidence to be themselves.

    Is this the crux of Shearer’s problems? Blocked by caucus and lacking the confidence (and support) to be appear as a strong leader.

    “Same old” Labour appears to be too entrenched to allow a Shearer led recovery. This is quite noticable when a branch speech by David Cunliffe gets promoted here as “some good vision”.

    There seems to be some blinkers on around the Labour camps.
    • james 111 14.1

      30 April 2012 at 1:19 pm

      Peter
      Shearer is not to the left enough for the Fabian Socialists based in Wellington so they are always going to undermine him, until they have one of their ilk in the Leaders seat
      • Bored 14.1.1

        30 April 2012 at 4:28 pm

        Jimmy, as I said above you know jack shit, better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and confirm it.
        • james 111 14.1.1.1

          30 April 2012 at 6:21 pm

          Bored
          As I said above shame when you have a party full of activists ,and factions that they cant accept one leader. No unification in the party always full of internal fighting. This will not get the voting public on side they want to see a party that isnt internally imploding all the time.
          • Bored 14.1.1.1.1

            30 April 2012 at 8:24 pm

            Jimmy Dipstick, whose party? Whose leader? I never claimed them as mine so dont call me on this. What you may have missed in your anxiety to post more cretinous drivel is what may be a seminal moment. Idiot Righties like yourself love to frame everything in neo lib “market” terminology and the fools who claim to be on the Left have played ball for too long. You failed to notice but Cunliffe just stopped doing that. And your side are screaming blue murder because it is the first real challenge for years from a Labour Party MP. Enjoy the fight fool.
    • bad12 14.2

      30 April 2012 at 3:38 pm

      The blinkers would be far more apparent as apparel in the United Future camp as the ‘sensible hairdo from Ohariu’ refuses to aknowledge that the United Future Party as such is merely a mental construct of its leader and a few acolytes who would all easily fit into a toilet cubicle in the Parliaments ablutions,

      As such United Future should be given another new name and My suggestion is the ‘Dunny Party’, a name easily remembered and the pun is intended,

      My view is that United Future no longer fit the legal definition of a political Party, if that definition is still 500 paid up members then United Future would seem to be in need of another 490 and had best get busy on a ‘sensible’ membership drive…
    • Draco T Bastard 14.3

      30 April 2012 at 4:48 pm

      Um, Kiwiblog article and thus should be ignored to protect you sanity.
      • QoT 14.3.1

        30 April 2012 at 9:34 pm

        Especially when stealing great lines from The West Wing and applying them to leaders who aren’t exactly Josiah Bartlet’s calibre … (because he’s an idealised fictional character and all)
15. Te Reo Putake 15

    30 April 2012 at 2:40 pm

     
     
    A fire brigade call out to Peter Jackson’s mansion after a mysterious mist set off the alarms. If the reviews of the Hobbit trailer are an indication, the mist was just his talent evaporating into the ether.
    • Vicky32 15.1

      30 April 2012 at 5:09 pm

      😀
16. Carol 16

    30 April 2012 at 7:07 pm

    I can’t access Mike Smith’s Firewall post.
17. ianmac 17

    30 April 2012 at 8:47 pm

    It is 8:45pm and on Maori TV they are having a very interesting panel talking about current issues. Spokespeople from each of the Parties (except ACT>)
    Good stuff and it continues now……
    • Hateatea 17.1

      30 April 2012 at 8:52 pm

      I will have to wait until they put it up ‘on demand’ to watch as I cannot get Māori Television at the moment:-(
    • ianmac 17.2

      30 April 2012 at 9:38 pm

      Why the hell can’t other channels air important issues as well as Julian Wilcox does on Native Affairs. Winston in fine form but Minister Parata not so much. Asset Sales, J Banks, Len Brown, Casinos, Algerian custody, Charter Schools in brief (But next week Charter Scools in more detail) and much more. This is good stuff and there is nothing like it on mainstream TV.
      Mana Party, Maori Party, Labour Party, Greens, NZ First, and National all had their chance.
      • Hateatea 17.2.1

        30 April 2012 at 9:49 pm

        In all seriousness, I think it is because it is Māori Television that it is willing and able to reach out across the board each time. They have also stood up to various people who have tried to bully them eg Min ed over Moerewa. Julian Wilcox and Annabelle Le-Harris do an excellent job. Mind you, I also think Shane Taurima is much better than Guyon Espiner was on Q & A.
        • ianmac 17.2.1.1

          30 April 2012 at 10:53 pm

          Tonight Julian had a little exchange with Parata re Moerewa. Reasons for sacking and NCEA results etc. Parata was less than convincing. Stumbling. (Winston hit the spot.) Can understand why she had avoided any contact at earler attempts.
      • freedom 17.2.2

        30 April 2012 at 10:40 pm

        “Why the hell can’t other channels air important issues as well”
        you mean apart from the fact it might lead to horrific and traumatic circumstances such as trough snorting pollies being forced to communicate with an informed public?
18. freedom 18

    30 April 2012 at 10:44 pm

    a quick reminder that the Hikoi does the Turangi to Palmerston North leg tomorrow,
    Taihape march scheduled for about 3pm i believe
19. Poission 19

    1 May 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Getting overlooked by the donation problem,is the trade imbalance and by proxy the current account deficit.

    The trade imbalance is mostly caused by currency revaluation around 7%pa over the last 24 months.There are a number of contributing factors
    – Reserve Bank policy
    -Us RB policy to allow the US to fall due to the Yuan being fixed against the US$
    -Arbitrage
    -Cheaper imports/dearer exports reducing profitability to local producers.

    The latter being the foremost factor in lower tax receipts for govt revenue,larger unemployment for local manufacturers (who find it difficult to compete against subsidized imports from China)

    This is a sustainable policy option,and the paybacks would be fast and positive.

    There needs to be rigorous policy attack on the Govt by all opposition of which only the Greens seem to have identified.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1205/S00027/rba-rate-cut-shows-need-for-monetary-policy-reform.htm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS