Open mike 30/07/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 30th, 2013 - 167 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

167 comments on “Open mike 30/07/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    30 July 2013 at 6:19 am

    This will be the third election since the site started. I merely start escalating the length of times for repeat bans as an inducement for people to find their better behaviour in the election year. It is amazing how some of the inter-election bickering diminishes as the ban length steadily rises towards “after the next election”.

    I try to go for the whole subtle approach..

    lprent

    Yeah right

    In response to Jono Hutchinson reporting on a comment on mine on this site, Lynn Prentice with the help of others has engaged in a character assassination of myself.

    This character assassination probably springs from Lynn’s insecurity that left commentary departing from the Labour Green political script will be picked up by the media.

    As part of this character assassination Lynn Prentice has let Qot a poster on this site make comments slandering me as a inveterate liar. Fair enough I suppose. But if I try and defend myself by asking her and others who attack my integrity to provide just one example to back up their accusations. Lynn censors my comment.

    It seems that on this site you have the right to be attacked but no right to defend yourself.

    This character assassination launched on me is obviously building up to justify a complete ban to prevent me making comments during the run up to the elections next year.

    Lynn Prentice himself has called me delusional and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of twisting his words. It is not my fault that he has changed his testimony since I first commented on them.

    As it looks likely that I will be banned from commenting on this site during the elections. I have decided to put up the debate here. And let the readers decide whether it is justified, or not.

    Jenny
    30 July 2013 at 4:11 am

    Lynn. Whether or not it can be proved that Shearer shouted out “We will be having a review”. I know what I heard. (And saw) Your supporters are not even saying that I am mistaken. You let them call me a liar, letting them attack my integrity at will. When I challenge them to show just one example of this, which you know they can’t, you blank it out. In this you are colluding with those who are trying to paint me as a liar. These are the actions of a bully.

    I know that you are hostile to my attempt to make climate change an election issue, which by all accounts indicate it will not be. To this end you are trying to use a minor dispute to attack my integrity and ultimately to shut me out, so that you can happily have your election coverage and debate in peace, free to ignore climate change. Don’t deny it you have already expressed this view. It is, “Politics 101″. not to expend political capital on this one issue, you said.

    I can see the writing on the wall. Go ahead disgrace yourself.

    In my opinion we should be expending every form of capital we have to defeat this menace.

    In this ongoing debate between you and me, it doesn’t surprise me that you take David Shearer’s side against David Cunliffe. In my opinion David Cunliffe is the only parliamentarian who has taken climate change seriously.

    I thought Cunliffe’s contribution was dignified and sincere while Shearer’s was churlish and uncalled for. You disagree. I suppose we all make our own bed and have to lie in it. Live then, with an administration that will permit the continuation of climate change and the collection of metadata against its citizens, you will have done your part to bring it about.

    Now I’m aware that you have been avoiding this next question. There would have been NO reason for him to tell Cunliffe to hew to the party line then – because Cunliffe had already finished doing exactly that. Basically you appear to be both illogical and delusional on this point which has been raised by others and you have not addressed

    Lynn Prentice

    Jenny
    28 July 2013 at 10:06 pm

    Cunliffe said there would be a review. Shearer said there would be a review. There was no difference between the two men’s positions

    Te Reo Putake comment 6.3

    Shearer angrily correcting Cunliffe … by, er, saying exactly the same thing Cunliffe said. Only louder. And angrier.

    Te Reo Putake comment6.3.2.1.1

    That’s the crux of the matter TRP. If Shearer was saying exactly what Cunliffe was saying why did he need to so rudely interject it?

    And by the way, there were a number of other people who have confirmed they heard David Shearer say “We will be having a review”. Notice the full stop. This was after Cunliffe said our leader has promised a review and “this law must not, will not and can not stand”. Shearer’s unmissable message is “WE WILL BE HAVING A REVIEW’ full stop. And no, heartfelt “this bill cannot stand” nonsense will be tolerated.

    It looks to me that we are in line for another tragic sell out.

    • Jenny 1.1
      30 July 2013 at 6:29 am

      Oops! I missed the date stamp on Lynn’s comment showing that it was made after I had addressed the question he accuses me of avoiding.

      • lprent 1.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 7:48 am

        It is cross over. Takes time to write comments and read other comments. I had the same irritation about telling you repeatably to read the update at the end of my post

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2
      30 July 2013 at 6:30 am

      🙄

      Come and see the violence inherent in the system! I’m being repressed!

    • Colonial Viper 1.3
      30 July 2013 at 6:34 am

      Popcorn for breakfast!

      • Tiger Mountain 1.3.1
        30 July 2013 at 8:11 am

        The major nuisances imo on The Standard open mike (which users are fortunate to have going by many other blogs) for me are ranked thus:

        • over long pieces
        • boring others who use some of their valuable time visiting and contributing here
        • being at variance with any recognisable version of political reality
        • posting the same crappola once too often

        So I end up automatically skating over about a dozen regulars but stopping and reading every word from about the same number who write pithy relevant comments.

        • Lanthanide 1.3.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 12:14 pm

          +1

        • Rosetinted 1.3.1.2
          30 July 2013 at 4:03 pm

          Tiger Mountain
          You could be criticising me I think. So my defence for longer items –

          . over long pieces – I will often copy some of a longer piece that makes good points that are relevant, and then I put the links so others can read the rest for themselves, if…
          . boring – they don’t think the subject is boring. And not everything can be absorbed on any given day but is still important to others.
          . being at variance…with political reality – What is it? Can reality be
          definitely established? And could I and others survive the actuality which might
          be entirely lacking in hope for something better. Endless chewing of cuds of trivia though just becomes boring when it seems to be fantasy fiction. One hopes of course that it is.
          . posting the same crappola once too often.
          My thing is that it would be a better world if we applied more carrot and less stick, more
          community kindness and less rule-driven judgementalism, more care for parents and help for them so there were less distressing results of wrong doing, and concentrating on happy families working together etc etc I get repetitive about this. But seeing it seems obvious to me and is not a new idea but continues to be resisted by policy makers and policy followers, I think it does need holding up continuously as a worthwhile and achievable goal.

          And I don’t think short sharp comments show much thinking. They are more just acknowledgments and reactions from people who know about the matter. Sometimes a mere agreement with a well-written comment, or a pithy, funny, clever, heartfelt or whatever one is good.

          But to inform on a thought at least a few words are needed, a bit of explanation to fill out the opinion etc. People who know what they are talking about or trying to present the matter in a new way make the thread interesting. I choose my favourites but also look at the thought lines of others, and soon find those who I consider haven’t got joined up synapses and skip them. And the ones that are obviously RWNJ spoilers I enjoy applying some well-rounded phrases as they usually seem no more than naughty children throwing stones to annoy while at the same time being prepared to impact and hurt.

          • Chooky 1.3.1.2.1
            30 July 2013 at 4:42 pm

            +1 Rosetinted….and I am being supportive of you

            Boring is in the mind of the interpreter …what bores one will not bore another …and divergence is good ….so bring on all those boring old farts and right wingers and vulgarians and lets have some fun! ( too many smart people can be mind numbing)

            Also I like Jenny and what she has to say ….so keep going Jenny ….keep fighting for Cunliffe ….and whatever happened to Xstasy ?

            • Rosetinted 1.3.1.2.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 5:07 pm

              Thanks Chooky
              I know I do a few long ones but not all about the same thing though. Jenny is very focussed and long. I have to skip – I haven’t the time. Diversity is good, but focus is important and Jenny’s can be excellent but I like detective stories for a long read.

              • Chooky …
                30 July 2013 at 5:50 pm

                Reply Rosetinted

                I like obsessive compulsives myself…and Climate Change is important to be harped on about ( that said I would also be interested in those HAARP conspiracy stories my American friend used to go on and on about until she went off the internet…ha ha) ….Labour Leadership cant be let go of either ….someone has to keep at it like a Rotweiller with a bone!….WATCH DOGS are the answer. I am rather partial to conspiracy theories and Sci fi myself for a longer read.

      • weka 1.3.2
        30 July 2013 at 9:05 am

        Now, now CV, better watch what you say or you will be next 🙂

    • lprent 1.4
      30 July 2013 at 8:02 am

      No, I was asking you to put up evidence, a timeline, anything to examine your claims. After all there were a pile of mics, cameras, and people at that meeting – surely you’d be able to find some kind of support. Something that was so clearly lacking when you made the assertion in the first place and that fool Hutchison wrapped a story around it.

      When you did I looked at it with the results I reported. I see you haven’t dealt with that at all in this comment. Have you even listened to that video’s audio track? Or did gathering evidence get lost in your obsessional drive to put your own spin and unsupported assertions on events.

      Basically I think that your assertions about what Shearer said are outright fantasy

    • karol 1.5
      30 July 2013 at 8:14 am

      More rope?

    • bad12 1.6
      30 July 2013 at 9:23 am

      Jenny, out of mole hills mountains are made, your claims about what Dave,(the incumbent),said or didn’t say to the other Dave,(not the incumbent), and in what manner he said it, including that Dave(the incumbent) was trying to Bully Dave(not the incumbent) have become in terms of what has occurred since farcical,

      Having read parts of this ‘debate’ what i have so far ascertained is that you will not answer even the most simple of questions, ‘were you in the hall when the interjection by Dave(the incumbent) was made and if so where in the hall were you’,

      Your assertion made here this morning that LPrent is attacking you for sinister reasons, that being ‘your’ attempt to make Climate Change an election issue, have i missed something, can you add a little proof to such an assertion like in what Post and on which days such an attempt has been made,

      i can assure you that Climate change is and will be an election issue, do you know why, the Green Party will be standing in that election, full stop,

      You don’t seem to accept the criticisms leveled at you, no big thing i certainly struggle to do the same, however this morning’s calling for martyrdom of yourself takes the farce to new heights,

      Take a deep one jenny, let it go…

      • Tigger 1.6.1
        30 July 2013 at 9:45 am

        Fight the real enemies.

        • bad12 1.6.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 10:10 am

          Yeah exactly, the amount of vitriol and invective leveled at Dave(the incumbent), would scorch what remains of the natural hair off of the head of the Slippery little Shyster we have as Prime Minister if leveled at Him,(leaving Him with only a large patch of soft hairs gathered from the anal crevice of a blind donkey called Brucie)…

          • Jackal 1.6.1.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 9:40 pm

            You do realise that John Key already wears a toupée? All that fretting about who he ripped of as an investment banker I guess. Didn’t realise they made toupées from the “soft hairs gathered from the anal crevice of a blind donkey” though.

      • Veutoviper 1.6.2
        30 July 2013 at 10:01 am

        Well said. bad12. Her refusal to state whether she was actually there and if so, where in the hall totally undermined her credibility in my eyes.

        But re your request that she identify her posts on climate change, Jenny has put up many comments seeking to make climate change the only issue (usually the first post on Open Mike). In many of these posts, Jenny has at the same time claimed that the Greens have sold out on climate change and attacked them for this supposed sell-out. I gave up reading any of Jenny’s comments on this issue long ago.

        • bad12 1.6.2.1
          30 July 2013 at 10:26 am

          Yeah i have read a number of these comments from jenny and commented on the odd occasion about Her little obsession,

          Read paragraph 2 of Her little effort today and there is a direct accusation that LPrent is attacking Jenny over the ‘Dave interjection’ because LPrent does not like what Jenny has previously commented on about ‘climate change/election issue’, blah blah and on She goes,

          Such Machiavellian Bull-s**t simply does my head in where the is no proof offered to back up such an assertion,

          i have no reason what-so-ever to be a Dave(the incumbent) supporter, in fact after the ‘sickness bene on the roof speech’ exactly the opposite, but, give the bloke a ‘fair go’, the training wheels will definitely come off if Labour decide to keep Him as leader and He becomes the Prime Minister but it wont be ummmm aaah that he will be roasted over should this occur…

      • weka 1.6.3
        30 July 2013 at 10:23 am

        Your assertion made here this morning that LPrent is attacking you for sinister reasons, that being ‘your’ attempt to make Climate Change an election issue, have i missed something, can you add a little proof to such an assertion like in what Post and on which days such an attempt has been made,

        That would be the same LPrent who has written and commented extensively on AGW in these very pages, both promoting good science and knowledge of the realities of AGW and combating CC deniers and idiots.

        • bad12 1.6.3.1
          30 July 2013 at 10:35 am

          LOLZ weka, it’s probably time to resort to the rolly eyes icon, Jenny seems to formulate Her comments in the same vein as the wing-nuts do except from a left perspective,

          i have a giggle reading some of them and occasionally comment to Her but like a lot of others tend to go yawn and keep scrolling when it’s the same thing over and over…

          • red rattler 1.6.3.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 12:20 pm

            I find all this stuff symptomatic of trying to paint Shearer in a good light.

            The guy is not only a total failure as a leader, he also represents the right wing of Labour.
            The substantial difference between the two statements on Thurs night is clear go me.

            The future leader Cunliffe made a statement that opposed the Bill outright, taking an implicit repeal position (Must not, cannot and will not stand) not dependent on the review.

            Shearer understood this challenge and rejected it shouting out ‘we will do a review’.

            • Te Reo Putake 1.6.3.1.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 12:51 pm

              “Shearer understood this challenge and rejected it shouting out ‘we will do a review’.”

              Yeah, nah. Cunliffe said there would be a review, Shearer (allegedly) said there would be a review. That’s it, no contradiction between them at all. Unless, of course, you have the evidence Jenny has failed to provide …

              No, of course you don’t have evidence. There were hundreds of people in the hall, a host of big and little cameras and not a single recording of Shearer contradicting Cunliffe. Because it didn’t happen.

              • Molly …
                30 July 2013 at 2:15 pm

                I also attended the meeting, and because I was standing on the left hand side and out of view of the stage, spent most of my time watching the crowd.

                Posted on the David dynamic on the Daily Blog the next day. Would’ve refrained if I knew what a dissection the interaction would have resulted in.

                From my perspective – at the hall – and with full view of all three Davids:

                David Cunliffe did not know that David Shearer had arrived, and stood up to speak because the mike and attention were directed to him, as he had been there since the beginning front and centre. He did not appear to be aware of Shearer during his answer, because Shearer was out of direct sightline, and Cunliffe was skillfully addressing the crowd and not the questioner alone.

                David Shearer made tentative but silent moves to answer the question, but as usual in a meeting – since attention was already directed to the front – had little chance of being noticed. When a review was mentioned (and I too thought it was Shearer) – the tone seemed supportive rather than corrective or aggressive, but since I don’t know Shearer’s personality and communication skills intimately – my take is completely personal. In the appreciation following Cunliffe’s “it will not stand!” most people missed it – and also – missed the opportunity to notice Shearer and ask for further clarification.

                The interaction, while interesting, was typical of what happens during any informal meeting, and happened in the space of a couple of minutes.

            • bad12 1.6.3.1.1.2
              30 July 2013 at 2:51 pm

              red rattler, AND, the next day clarified that interjection by stating that there will be a full review and we will change the legislation based upon that review,

              Mountains out of molehills…

      • Jackal 1.6.4
        30 July 2013 at 9:43 pm

        bad12

        i can assure you that Climate change is and will be an election issue, do you know why, the Green Party will be standing in that election, full stop,

        Well said bad12. Despite the mainstream media ignoring anything to do with anthropogenic climate change (that means it’s man made), there has been some recent serious developments that should mean climate change is once again on the agenda.

        As much as these current events about who’s the biggest liar in parliament are entertaining, not much of that performance is going to compare when the effects of climate change start costing us the entire worlds GDP.

        Ground-breaking analysis has found that the likely cost of methane emissions as Arctic permafrost melts is 60 trillion dollars (39 trillion pounds) globally, nearly equalling the 70 trillion dollar (46 trillion pound) value of the global economy in 2012.

        The dire warning of an “economic time-bomb” comes from the first ever calculation of the potential economic impact of a scenario which some scientists consider increasingly likely – that the unprecedented thaw will trigger the release of methane from the East Siberian Sea in the polar region.

        Although the sea holds only a fraction of the Arctic’s vast methane reserves, experts from the universities of Cambridge in England and Erasmus in Rotterdam, Holland warned that even the release of that relatively small proportion of the area’s methane could result in climatic catastrophe around the world.

        In that case, politics will truly become the entertainment branch of industry, and the politicians “performance” will be all too horribly inadequate.

  2. Boadicea 2
    30 July 2013 at 7:21 am

    Reader Poll on Stuff.
    Support the Party’s housing policy.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/

    • Paul 2.1
      30 July 2013 at 8:25 am

      48% think it’s a really good idea
      24% playing the race card

    • Paul 2.2
      30 July 2013 at 8:35 am

      Another of National’s mouthpieces the Herald is also worried about Labour’s new policy on housing and doing a survey.
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/

      • Molly 2.2.1
        30 July 2013 at 9:49 am

        At 9:46am, 2650-2700 votes.

        Support: 60%
        No: 34%
        I’m not sure: 6%

        Pretty good support ratio. And since Labour’s policy is in line with Mana and the Greens a thumbs up for all those parties to continue along this vein.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 3:06 pm

          Given the higher income and asset owning profile of The Herald it seems like Labour has picked the right policy. But they’ve got to get out there and sell it right and sell it hard!

    • Te Reo Putake 2.3
      30 July 2013 at 12:59 pm

      Looks like Granny didn’t like the results of that poll. It’s been replaced with another poll likely to give a more comforting result for their Tory masters..

    • Paul 2.4
      30 July 2013 at 8:55 pm

      “Would parties’ policies on home ownership influence you to change your vote?”

      Yes
      612 votes, 45.1%

      No
      602 votes, 44.4%

      Not sure yet, need to hear more
      142 votes, 10.5%

      They must be really freaking out now
      The rwnjs have asked their editors to run a 3rd poll in a day.
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/

  3. Rosie 3
    30 July 2013 at 7:37 am

    TV3 News, your pro govt news channel, according to a commenter on this stuffed article says that TV3 did apologise last night for their bold error on Saturday night’s news where they stated that bottles had been thrown at the Palmy GCSB protest when in fact they hadn’t.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/8977658/GCSB-protesters-lay-TV-complaint

    I guess if they get their tip off’s from random emails that contain no photographic evidence and they don’t bother to verify the claim, then they are willing to say anything as long as it is sensational and frames the mighty anti GCSB movement as just another flakey protest.

    I missed the news last night, did anyone see the apology? Must have been a sheepish one.

    Also on that Saturday bulletin they “misrepresented” the truth in regards to the gates at parliament and access for the protesters With repressed mirth they talked about protesters climbing over the closed gates when there was a gate open nearby. The reality was the immediate entrance was closed and 1000’s had to squeeze through the small side gate.

    All this on top of the- you-know -what Jonolism story last week (see Jenny at post #1) it looks like they have a real agenda to pursue.

    Just as well John Campbell is there to shine a light

    • Te Reo Putake 3.1
      30 July 2013 at 10:58 am

      Hi, Rosie, I did see it. Very short and a fair way into the bulletin, unlike the original item. Though, to be fair to them, they were pretty open about the nature of the mistake and promised to do better. So I’m confident there will be no more Jonolism on TV3 till, ahhhh, 6 O’clock tonight.

  4. millsy 4
    30 July 2013 at 7:55 am

    The reaction at Labour’s housing policy by the right, only tells me how many people would embrace a full annexation by the Chinese.

    • Sanctuary 4.1
      30 July 2013 at 9:12 am

      That is the thing, generally speaking the Slater/Farrar sewer racism is to loath Polynesians, but worship Chinese. This seems to be because they can only see the the world in terms of fearful, Manichean objectification.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 3:59 pm

        Manichean

        That is the thing, generally speaking the Slater/Farrar sewer racism is to loath Polynesians, but worship Chinese.

        Actually, what they worship is wealth and power and it’s obvious that China is becoming very wealthy and powerful.

        • millsy 4.1.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 8:35 pm

          Plus if it wasant for China, neo-liberalism would have fallen over long ago. Capitalists need that huge pool of slave workers in China.

          Every boardroom in the world should have a picture of Deng Xiaopeng up in it. He did more than Reagan, Thatcher, Douglas, Hawke, Keating, Mulroney, Tebbit, Lawson, Lamont, Howe, Douglas, Prebble, Lange, Volker, Clinton, Summers, et al ever did for neo-liberal capitalism.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 8:37 pm

            None of us voted Deng in. We did however vote many of the other pricks in.

  5. vto 5
    30 July 2013 at 7:56 am

    The Labour party if in government will implement a policy of banning sales of residential houses to people who live overseas and not in NZ.

    John Key says this will be in breach of a number of free trade agreements.

    Therefore the free trade agreements restrict the ability of our Parliament to pass what laws it wishes – i.e. they directly affect our sovereignty.

    The people of NZ have never agreed to have our Parliament restricted in such a way.

    The free trade agreements are therefore invalid.

    This has been apparent for some time but always ignored. NZ’s Parliament has no ability to enter into any FTA which attempts to limit our voting rights or sovereignty.

    This is a sleeping giant.

    • Dv 5.1
      30 July 2013 at 8:40 am

      Re the FTA agreements
      Does that mean nzer can buy and own property in China?

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 8:53 am

        large areas of China are polluted by industrial and agricultural carcinogens. Avoid. Also China is in the middle of a massive unsustainable debt fuelled residential property bubble.

        Two reasons Chinese might want to trade in their local property for NZ property.

      • lprent 5.1.2
        30 July 2013 at 9:21 am

        No because their local laws don’t allow for private property even for their own citizens. Just the same as our local laws can be whatever we want. Like we insist on clear titles for instance which is a rarity in most countries.

        My understanding of it is..

        The FTA says (broadly) that kiwis seeking to do doing business in China are treated no worse than any other investor from any other country and not treated any different to their own citizens. There are various exemptions to that.

        That means that it is reasonably hard to lease property in China. But that is largely because it is just hard to find suitable places there. It is usually more of a pain getting stuff past border controls or even figuring out how to deal with the distribution networks. At least that is what people I know doing business there say. They often go through distributors in HK even now.

        Similarly we can put largely whatever restrictions we want on purchasing property. However we cannot give other citizens from countries better access than we give the Chinese or the aussies and depending on how the FTA’s are written some other countries..

    • bad12 5.2
      30 July 2013 at 9:34 am

      Foreign buyers are not completely banned, from my reading of the policy, and feel free to correct me if i have got this wrong,

      Foreign buyers who are not resident in New Zealand can buy land and build upon it within a year, i assume that they then have a year to sell that property or become resident,

      i doubt whether any Government we have an FTA with will object to that, the Labour policy simply attempts to shut out foreign speculators buying existing houses…

      • vto 5.2.1
        30 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

        Yes and there doesn’t seem to be an explanation around that exception. Why would that exemption be any use? I don’t buy the “adds to the housing stock” argument.

        • bad12 5.2.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 3:05 pm

          vto, but it would add to the housing stock, IF foreign investors are prepared to buy land and build upon it they are entitled to make an amount of profit from selling that house to a person resident in New Zealand,and pay any tax due i might add,

          The whole ban on foreign residents buying existing property isn’t a big deal in my opinion and will probably result in demand shrinking by 2-5%, i see no negative in the policy for New Zealands residents and citizens,

          The only small niggle i have is that with the Australians being exempt from the proposal we may find that while British and Asian speculators are driven out of the market that the demand from Australian speculators grows as their dollar value and higher wage rates will then make them the ‘wealthiest buyers’ and having British and Asian buyers with more wealth than them may yet prove to have held that Australian speculation in our housing market in check to a certain extent…

          • vto 5.2.1.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 3:21 pm

            Well yes I suppose it could add to the housing stock…. but it kind of defeats the purpose of the policy as foreigners will simply look to get their bolthole by building new rather than buy existing. Overall the effect could be pretty similar to the current result, pre-policy.

            2-5% is a significant chunk in my experience. Vary the demand side by that amount and it will have an effect. But also bear in mind that affordable housing requires a multi-pronged solution – this is one of them prongs.

            And I have seen with my own few eyes the very real bidding out of young families by a foreign buyer. And this is the other benefit of such a policy…

            … it creates more ownership within the community and that makes a community stronger.

            The family that was outbid went back to renting, with its attendant greater transience and weaker strength. Eventually they moved away.

            The policy has two very positive features;

            1. Drives down capital values. High capital values only benefit banks.
            2. Leads to stronger ownership etc within the community as opposed to more transient renters.

            It is a no-brainer.

            • bad12 5.2.1.1.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 6:35 pm

              vto, no not from my reading of the proposal, non residents can buy land and build on it but cannot hold either the built on land or bare land for more than a year,

              The only bit of that i am unsure of is the total actual time they can hold the land, i am going to assume that they have just the 1 year to build and sell, that’s more positive ‘investment’ than allowing non-residents to buy existing houses and then hold them until the price has risen to a point where they are happy to sell and take the profit for doing nothing…

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2
        30 July 2013 at 4:07 pm

        the Labour policy simply attempts to shut out foreign speculators buying existing houses…

        Yep, the Labour policy doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. It should be an outright ban on foreign ownership of anything in NZ.

        • srylands 5.2.2.1
          30 July 2013 at 4:23 pm

          “It should be an outright ban on foreign ownership of anything in NZ.”

          That really is a brave call. It would be fascinating to try. So you mean literally that New Zealansd would have zero foreign direct investment? That has never been acheived in modern times by any nation. But I guess we could be the first.

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

          So in 2015 the list of FDI by size might read:

          Rank 151 Tajikistan $US million 1,046
          Rank 152 New Zealand Nil

          Is that what you actually mean?

          • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 6:28 pm

            Yes. We have no need of foreign money to develop our own economy. Thinking that we do is delusional.

            That has never been acheived in modern times by any nation.

            That’s not an argument against it no matter what you think.

            • srylands 5.2.2.1.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 6:36 pm

              OK. If you ban all incoming FDI, won’t you need to ban all New Zealand outgoing FDI because otherwise you will run out of capital?

              Are you going to ban imports too or is that still OK?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                30 July 2013 at 11:58 pm

                OK. If you ban all incoming FDI, won’t you need to ban all New Zealand outgoing FDI because otherwise you will run out of capital?

                Nope. Two reasons:
                1.) The government can create more money.
                2.) I expect other countries to do the same.

                Are you going to ban imports too or is that still OK?

                I didn’t mention trade but generally I’m supportive of it. It needs regulating of course else we end up with society becoming worse off as we’ve seen over the last few decades.

                I expect, over time, that trade will minimise.

          • millsy 5.2.2.1.2
            30 July 2013 at 8:13 pm

            And you would have this country’s economy 100% owned and controlled by foreign interests, would you not?

  6. vto 6
    30 July 2013 at 8:18 am

    If Shearer gets into trouble with this housing policy banning foreigners he should not get defensive, rather he should attack harder. Show some mettle, show some aggression, take a fight directly to Key and make it hostile. Accuse Key of being a racist. Accuse Key of being deceptive and a liar. And don’t back down.

    Shearer should have done this with the bad man ban too.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      30 July 2013 at 8:56 am

      Too scared of the power of the right wing media.

      • vto 6.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 9:11 am

        sheesh CV, if that is so then he should be outski. Is Shearer scared of everyone and everything? Is the Labour Party similarly scared like scaredy cats?

        I don’t buy that if it is the reason for his slipper-wearing approach to every issue. If the right wing media are hostile then he should still stand up and not back down to them too.

        Like Irishbill says on that other post, middle NZ are not stupid. And where they go the media will generally go too.

        After all, why is Shearer there? He only has one life like most of us (apparently) so why doesn’t he grab it by the balls? To be or not to be …….. surely

        Spark up Shearer, spark up man.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 10:50 am

          sheesh CV, if that is so then he should be outski. Is Shearer scared of everyone and everything? Is the Labour Party similarly scared like scaredy cats?

          Not scared of their own dissenting MPs and party members

      • srylands 6.1.2
        30 July 2013 at 6:38 pm

        I thought we had a left wing media?

        • Bill 6.1.2.1
          30 July 2013 at 6:41 pm

          and pissed the bed and thought it was the springs?

        • Arfamo 6.1.2.2
          30 July 2013 at 6:42 pm

          What makes you think that?

          • srylands 6.1.2.2.1
            30 July 2013 at 7:09 pm

            OK I confess I can’t demonstrate that the MSM is left wing. I take it back.

            I am sure that the MSM is stupid, produces mostly rubbish, and is (with a few exceptions) not worth reading. I think because I find it irritating, I have a tendency to assume it is left wing, but I see now that is unfair of me. So I withdraw and apologise.

            • Arfamo 6.1.2.2.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 7:25 pm

              +1. Your comments are usually worth reading srylands. I may not always agree with them but at least you explain your reasoning well, even when you are taking the piss.

        • lprent 6.1.2.3
          30 July 2013 at 7:00 pm

          Ah you have just been reading the fools at KiwiBlog and Whaleoil. While some journos may be left leaning, their bosses running the few remaining media companies are most definitely not – they’re mostly interested in money. And generally you make money by sucking up to the lowest possible common denominator.

          That lower standard usually equates to talkback, comments on whaleoil, reality TV, paul henry, and seven#. In other words absolutely convinced of their own moral rectitude despite the occasional lapses into fornication, fighting, bigotry, racism, and beating on the missus while absolutely paranoidly certain that everyone else is getting a better deal out of life than they are. And too stupid or lazy to look stuff up.

          Seen a mirror lately?

          (I do so love it when someone gives me the straight line..)

  7. David H 7
    30 July 2013 at 8:31 am

    Can’t have the real poor getting Computers and Internet, they might learn bad stuff about National and vote this time!..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/budget-2013/8754279/Computer-scheme-funding-halved

  8. Pete 8
    30 July 2013 at 9:00 am

    I listened to a great episode of the Food Programme (mp3, 13MB 28 mins.) from BBC Radio 4 yesterday, covering food poverty. You can read the programme blurb here.

    Food insecurity is a growing issue in the UK, linked with inadequate social welfare, lack of transportation and exacerbated by benefit “reforms”. Similar issues are faced by many New Zealanders as we have seen from the food in schools issue in recent months.

  9. mac1 9
    30 July 2013 at 9:02 am

    Frustrating time listening to a Mr Wall of an Auckland Real Estate firm attacking Shearer on Morning Report, accusing him of racism, xenophobia and basically not having a clue with the new policy for sales of housing to non-resident foreigners..

    Mr Wall talked about NZ being built on immigration when he should have known that the Labour policy cøncerned overseas, non-resident owners. He did not know that similar laws were current in several countries but pronounced on how hard the new law would be to enforce “because in most of the cases he dealt with (20 per year, high end sales) he didn’t even know who the parties in the deal were.” Several times he said that he “didn’t know about that” but still continued to make comments.

    How did they ever pick him for his ability to add to our sum general knowledge?

    Finally there were two good comments from listeners who heard the same self-serving ignorance both of Labour’s policy and the outside world.

  10. North 10
    30 July 2013 at 9:14 am

    RNZ pridefully holds itself as the centre of mature, technically informed expression. That is becoming more of a laugh everyday.

    Who the hell in RNZ devised to have a Mr Wall from Wall Real Estate vent his self-interested spleen about policy concerned with foreign non-resident buyers ? Any bets that Mr Wall is a mate or a mate of a mate of someone in RNZ who could jack it up for Mr Wall and his ilk ?

    His company deals extensively with the very people the policy is concerned about. Oh no, the policy is all racist shit according to the patently self interested Mr Wall. A policy he’d expect to hear from the racist Invercargill taxi rider he spits, in his mock rounded vowels.

    RNZ has allowed Mr Wall to publicise himself as the go-to man when/if such a policy is implemented. It is outrageous that RNZ presents that sort of contribution from the likes of Mr Wall as expert, well-informed, uninterested.

    Well done RNZ. Dumbing down is the order of the day.

    • bad12 10.1
      30 July 2013 at 9:40 am

      That one is hardly worth the effort of raising the spittle to direct His way, when asked about the fact that Kiwi’s cannot buy property in China the liquid excrement flowed,

      ”Oh i don’t know what goes on in China” says He, jesus doesn’t such utter sh*t make you see violent shades of red…

    • Rosetinted 10.2
      30 July 2013 at 3:27 pm

      North
      Don’t concentrate your spleen on our only public broadcasting service that still is standing after the right-wing earthquake. If there’s something wrong mention it but don’t drop s..t from a great height. Someone in government may be listening and the next thing we know, is that Radionz is being downsized because the public find it unsatisfactory – and it’ll all be your fault! Then we’ll all be sorry. I have the feeling that the gubmint often runs on anecdote when it matches the direction they would like to take.

      Listen to some other sites (commercial or student) and let us know how they are. That would be interesting as I don’t do that much. By the time that the good vibes from advertisements for elkhorn nostrums or whatever have been heard a few times it’s goodbye from me.

      If I don’t like things on Radionz I’ll probably let them know and why. Why don’t you do the same instead of dissing them so strongly.

      • North 10.2.1
        30 July 2013 at 4:43 pm

        A strange response there Rosetinted.

        I CANNOT agree that my comment – “RNZ……becoming more of a laugh everyday” (the wheeling in of sham commentators I mean, obviously), nor my suspicions as to how/why Mr Wall was asked to comment/rant in the first place, nor my sardonic thanks to RNZ for the brilliance of its impartial, informative invitees (not)…..amounts to venting my spleen or dropping shit from a great height.

        I AM NOT about to take seriously your fear that my comment may activate the dark forces to cancel RNZ.

        I AM NOT about to take your direction to listen to “other sites (commercial or student)” and report back to you, firstly because I can’t handle the constant inane guffawing one finds on such “sites”, and secondly because you don’t seem to have expended the effort to do so yourself.

        I AM about to ignore the busybody in you. You who misrepresents how I said what I said, and then, just by the way, fails to venture any view on the question.

        If then it’s a case of my styles your riles…….tough. Rile away !

        • Rosetinted 10.2.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 5:01 pm

          Thans for your reply North. A little thought would have made it shorter and sweeter but there you are. It takes all sorts.

          • North 10.2.1.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 5:52 pm

            Shorter ?………from you ? Hahahahaha.

            Styles and riles again methinks. Same answer.

          • North 10.2.1.1.2
            30 July 2013 at 5:53 pm

            Shorter ?………from you ? Hahahahaha.

            Styles and riles again methinks. Same answer.

  11. just saying 11
    30 July 2013 at 9:51 am

    The deadline for submissions re the consitiutional review is the 31st (tomorrow).
    Does anyone know for sure, if that means today is the last day to get one in, or tomorrow is the last day to submit?
    Really don’t have much time today (shouldn’t be here….)

    Thanks in advance

    • Veutoviper 11.1
      30 July 2013 at 10:24 am

      Hope this helps from http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/How-to-make-a-Submission

      “Send your submission
      Please send us your submission by 5pm 31 July 2013.

      You can make a submission in a number of ways:

      Make a submission online
      Fill out the quick submission form and post it to us.
      Email a submission to constitutionalreview@justice.govt.nz with “CAP submission” in the subject line. You can attach documents to your email.
      Or you can post a submission to:

      Submissions
      Secretariat, Constitutional Advisory Panel
      C/o Ministry of Justice
      DX SX10088
      Wellington

      To make a valid submission you must supply your name. If you are submitting on behalf of an organisation please supply the name of the organisation.

      If you have questions about how to make a submission, please call 0508 411 411.”

      • just saying 11.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 11:09 am

        Cheers VV.
        Youre a champion.
        I’ve only got a rough outline and I really need to sit down and spend a couple of hours on it.
        Time I’ve got tomorrow but not today.

  12. bad12 12
    30 July 2013 at 10:00 am

    A Herald-poll shows that the majority of respondents support the children of Beneficiaries being included in the Working for Families Tax Credit scheme,

    Admittedly only a small poll of 700 but a small ray of light nonetheless,” If beneficiaries want working for tax credits they can get a job”, those words which finally severed any desire for me to either support or vote for Labour,

    Just how much denigration can the children of beneficiaries be expected to weather, tax their meager income for spurious reasons, directly cut their meager income for even more spurious reasons, then deny them income from a government redistribution where hand over heart that government dared suggest that the children of families with $60,000 of income were more deserving,

    Indulging in the above doesn’t make ‘bad parents’, indulging in the above makes bad parenting a f**king government policy…

    • Lanthanide 12.1
      30 July 2013 at 12:25 pm

      WFF should be scrapped and employers should pay people what they’re worth.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 12:53 pm

        OR keep WFF AND make employers pay people what they are worth.

        • James 12.1.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 1:09 pm

          O would go along with that – you just have to recognize that some people are not worth much (professionally) – you have a $1 skill – you can sell it for $1.

          Simple.

          • blue leopard 12.1.1.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 2:31 pm

            @ James,

            Actually you point out a weakness in Lanthanide’s comment. What one is paid is not a reflection on what they are worth. If this is so, the person looking after, for example, your sick mother in hospital, or someone growing food that you eat, would be considered worth less than a lying and cheating fraudster in the financial system commanding oodles of bonuses whilst undermining the entire functioning of our society.

            However, is there anyone working who doesn’t deserve to be paid wages or a salary that covers their living costs?

            It appears that rather a lot of employers think this is o.k.

          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.2
            30 July 2013 at 2:53 pm

            O would go along with that – you just have to recognize that some people are not worth much (professionally) – you have a $1 skill – you can sell it for $1.

            Sure, as long as you recognise that some employers are so shit, workers should be paid bonuses for putting up with their BS.

            • James 12.1.1.1.2.1
              30 July 2013 at 3:24 pm

              Fair enough – I agree on that point. My wife works for the Auckland Council and they are terrible – she deserves more for putting up with them (Not that she will get it mind).

              But at lease we have been able to agree that some people simply do not have skills that are worth much and are compensated as such.

              Not nice – true – but reasonable.

              • blue leopard …
                30 July 2013 at 4:20 pm

                @ James,

                So you reckon it is reasonable to have jobs that do not cover the living expenses of the worker?

                I don’t.

                Hope you don’t expect government welfare costs to go down anytime soon if you think a job needn’t cover living costs.

                • srylands …
                  30 July 2013 at 4:47 pm

                  You can wish all you like but if workers are paid more than their marginal output value the business goes bust.

                  You must have no experience in running a business. I can tell you that the equaion is simple. Some workers produce more than otehrs but at the margin there will be a worker who is producing marginally more than his/her wages. If wages are regulated upwards beyond that break even point that worker has to go.

                  How can you not see that?

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    30 July 2013 at 6:04 pm

                    Probably because once you’ve read more than one or two simplistic libertarian Hayek/Friedman internet raves, it becomes hard to go back to such a trite view of the world.

                  • blue leopard …
                    30 July 2013 at 6:06 pm

                    Something is clearly wrong with the way we do things, working out new ways that have better results will never be solved by continuing to believe that old answers are working.

                    If a country continues to follow rubbish notions of what can and can’t be done, then, Srylands, they go bust like America, Greece, Britain, Ireland and New Zealand (we are all in massive debt are we not?) or become dependant on power-grabbers who have an obsession with gaining materially and whom have very little concern for the wellbeing of people.

                    If someone is growing carrots, and the owner can’t afford to pay him or her a living wage, then put the price of the carrots up, Noddy.

                    No, wait, I have an idea, we can’t put the price of carrots up because we have decided we can’t (or people won’t buy them for that price) so we will just put the workers wages down.

                    …Oh, what? the worker can’t afford to pay rent and food? I know we will give him handouts. Or better yet we will give him a loan to buy his own house. That way the workers will feel wealthier than they really are and won’t complain!

                    ….Oh what? the worker can’t afford to pay back the debt?
                    ~ Oh I know we will just borrow off other countries to cover up the little problem

                    …Oh What?? That didn’t work?
                    ~Oh I know, we will bundle the debts up into little packages and sell them as AA investments

                    …Oh What?? people aren’t repaying their mortgages and the banks have gone bust?
                    ~Oh I know, we will get the workers to pay for the bailout ….

                    The reason that wages are low is because employers want more profit than is possible. Or perhaps technology has lead us into this place of not-enough-profits-for-neccesities. Or perhaps it is that those with capital prefer to speculate on futures markets (thereby raising the prices falsely). Perhaps we need to change the way we organize ourselves.

                    The invisible hand can go and fuck itself for a start.

                    • srylands …
                      30 July 2013 at 6:48 pm

                      It fails at this point:

                      “We can’t put the price of carrots up because people won’t buy them for that price.”

                      Stop growing carrots. Sell house in Levin. Buy vineyard in Martinborough. Make wine. Run cool concerts in summer. Incentivise workers with profit sharing scheme. Everyone is happy.

                      Import carrots from Tasmania.

                      All the workers applaud by an invisible hand-clap 🙂

                    • blue leopard …
                      30 July 2013 at 8:37 pm

                      Well I might have agreed with you had you left out the bit about importing the carrots from Tasmania. If people won’t buy the carrots at a decent price and haven’t land to grow them themselves then they can jolly well go without.

                      I’m unsure what makes you think that the invisible hand has any time for niceties such as applauding…(perhaps the same notion that leads you to believe the invisible hand sorts our organizational problems out for us….)

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2013 at 9:17 pm

                      The srylands market mechanism controls food prices by making people go hungry.

                      That is what happens in NZ today.

                    • blue leopard …
                      30 July 2013 at 9:47 pm

                      but…but…Colonial Viper…you missed something there…
                      People go hungry (or into debt) so that some others may experience the freedom to do what they want regardless [of whether they are screwing anyone else]…especially they should be able to make as big a profit as their heart’s desire, and that is what is really important now, isn’t it?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2013 at 9:52 pm

                      Self interest properly understood would mean that the wealthy elite would not let things get too out of balance. The example of the French Revolution should not be so far from their minds, for instance. The wealthy elite enabled Roosevelt to act during the Depression, making significant concessions to the masses, while essentially saving the system of capitalism.

                      Unfortunately what we have now amongst the elite is self interest misunderstood.

                      They’ll bury themselves and us with them over the next 20-30 years.

                      PS a lot of these “rich” people are going to find themselves very poor in the coming years, as their paper wealth becomes worthless for exchange for real goods and services.

                    • srylands …
                      30 July 2013 at 10:14 pm

                      “The srylands market mechanism controls food prices by making people go hungry.”

                      So why are there so many fat people and most of them are the poor?

                    • blue leopard …
                      30 July 2013 at 10:17 pm

                      @ C.V
                      Although I understand what you are getting at, and the form of self interest you speak of is certainly healthier than the narrow self interest that has come to be the rule of the day, I really don’t think that a society that believes in an organizing principle of self interest is going to get far.

                      Societies come together for the benefits that mutual help and cooperation provides. Trying to ignore cooperation and turn the main organizing principle into one of self interest is never going to get far because it goes against the reality of why we clump together in the first place (or more scientifically speaking; that we are a ‘social animal’); i.e. working in groups leads to a better quality of life for the whole tribe; if this wasn’t the case, people wouldn’t bother.

                      Surely a far more productive organizing principle is to focus on the very qualities that leads to the intended aim–a better quality of life–not those that lead us to pull apart?

                    • blue leopard …
                      30 July 2013 at 10:26 pm

                      @ Srylands,

                      cos they can’t afford personal trainers, silly.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2013 at 10:26 pm

                      srylands: you are as ignorant about human nutrition as you are misguided about everything else.

                      BL: 🙂

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2013 at 10:30 pm

                      I really don’t think that a society that believes in an organizing principle of self interest is going to get far.

                      In olden times people believed that what was good for their nation was good for themselves. Eg. “For King and Country”. In earlier times they believed in the good of their tribe, their clan, etc.

                      These days the Left has become so intellectually and rationally clever that there is little remaining for people to believe in.

                    • blue leopard …
                      30 July 2013 at 10:41 pm

                      @CV
                      lolz (you have to laugh …sometimes…)

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.3
            30 July 2013 at 6:35 pm

            Are you sure you’d like that?

            these City bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial system to the brink of collapse. While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers to destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.

            For every £1 they are paid, childcare workers generate between £7 and £9.50 worth of benefits to society.

            For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate.

            We estimated, however, that for every £1 they are paid [hospital cleaners], over £10 in social value is generated.

            For a salary of between £75,000 and £200,000 tax accountants destroy £47 of value for every pound in value they generate.

            Our model projects that for every £1 of value spent on wages, £12 of value will be generated.

            See, I’m quite happy for people to be paid what they’re worth but the rich won’t like it because they’d owe the rest of us billions of dollars.

      • cricklewood 12.1.2
        30 July 2013 at 1:00 pm

        +1 all it does is artificially subsidize employers much a like the accomodation supplement subsidizes and therefore inflates rent. I’d imagine that if supplements wern’t propping up the rental market an investment property would become a whole lot more unattractive. I’d dare say it would take more heat out of the housing market than investor retsrictions…

        • bad12 12.1.2.1
          30 July 2013 at 3:17 pm

          Aha, also interest payments can be deducted from PAYE so why wouldn’t the middle class pile into ‘investment housing’ en masse with such subsidies,

          Don’t tho expect Labour to change any of that, they are after-all fighting with National for a slice of that middle classes vote and good luck to them,

          National wont touch Working for Families either in spite of the Slippery little Shyster when in opposition venting fit to burst a blood vessel that WfW is ‘Communism’…

      • blue leopard 12.1.3
        30 July 2013 at 1:28 pm

        @Lanthanide

        +1

        This is the real issue; ensuring people are paid a wage they can live on.

        I will add though, that if NZ is going to move into supplementing wages with welfare, as it appears to be doing, then NZers need to be clearly informed and realise the extent of this welfare and drop the whole stigma of receiving welfare.

        If governments are going to support landlords and employees by supplementing their requirement to charge higher rents than people can afford and wages that people can’t afford, then governments are going to have to quit the whole anti-welfare memes that they consistently encourage in order to get votes.

        If governments persist in ensuring that those on welfare are obligated to feel shame for receiving help, (and as Cricklewood pointed out this help immediately transfers into support for businesses and landlords) then governments need to also ensure that employers and landlords are made to feel obligated to provide wages and ask for rents that are affordable without requiring governments to make up the shortfall.

        In my opinion the issue of ‘welfare costs’ needs to be transformed into an issue of ensuring good jobs are available to all. This is the most positive and effective way of clearing up the matter for all NZers.

        • Molly 12.1.3.1
          30 July 2013 at 3:58 pm

          Attended a free New Economics Foundation workshop – run by Auckland Council (believe it or not), and one of their publications deals with the issue of remuneration vs value.

          A Bit Rich (2009) compares the anomaly created in valuing different occupations, and the SROI (Social Return on Investment) and community impact of different types of work.

          “We have tested our theory by taking a close look at a sample of highly paid and low paid jobs. We found that some of the most highly paid benefit us least, and some of the lowest-paid benefit us most. Although this will not always hold, it does point to a massive flaw in the system and highlights the need for reform. “

          Excerpts:
          “….While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers to destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.”
          “…. For every £1 they are paid, childcare workers generate between £7 and £9.50 worth of benefits to society.”

          Interesting read, and worth the read – even if only to provide interesting debates on these topics.

          • blue leopard 12.1.3.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 4:13 pm

            Thanks for the links Molly,

            I agree thoroughly and have been realising lately that the belief that one is worth more when one is paid more is really a problem for social cohesion. I also think it is hard for humans to not believe that they are worth more when paid a lot more than others.

            Trouble is, this is a false belief, noone is worth more just because they are paid more. Every human is worth the same, unless perhaps a human who is doing a great deal of good for others, in which case, perhaps they are worth more…to society at least.

            As the information you have shared points out most astutely; some of the people providing the most important services are paid the least and some who are destroying our society are being paid the most. Kind of scuppers the idea that a person is worth more depending on the pay they happen to receive.

            • karol 12.1.3.1.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 4:18 pm

              Agreed. And part of the problem is the “neoliberal” propaganda that private profit-focused businesses contribute more to society than than public sector work. Also undervalued is most of the work that cares for, educates, helps, heals and nurtures people.

              • blue leopard …
                30 July 2013 at 4:28 pm

                @ Karol
                Exactly!

                I hope we can start to move in a more positive and pragmatic direction than the belief in neoliberal propaganda has been allowing us to.

        • Molly 12.1.3.2
          30 July 2013 at 3:59 pm

          Attended a free New Economics Foundation workshop – run by Auckland Council (believe it or not), and one of their publications deals with the issue of remuneration vs value.

          A Bit Rich (2009) compares the anomaly created in valuing different occupations, and the SROI (Social Return on Investment) and community impact of different types of work.

          “We have tested our theory by taking a close look at a sample of highly paid and low paid jobs. We found that some of the most highly paid benefit us least, and some of the lowest-paid benefit us most. Although this will not always hold, it does point to a massive flaw in the system and highlights the need for reform. “

          Excerpts:
          “….While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers to destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.”
          “…. For every £1 they are paid, childcare workers generate between £7 and £9.50 worth of benefits to society.”

          Interesting read, and worth the read – even if only to provide interesting debates on these topics.

  14. Veutoviper 14
    30 July 2013 at 10:54 am

    An excellent Must Read now up on the Herald Online (Opinion) by Gerard McGhie

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10905042

    Two current issues need a great deal more transparency – the GCSB legislation and the Trans- Pacific Partnership negotiations, writes Gerald McGhie.

    [ From an earlier Herald articile : “Gerald McGhie is a former career diplomat who served as ambassador to Moscow and Seoul, High Commissioner to Port Moresby and Commissioner in Hong Kong. Now retired, he is a past director of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs and was chairman of the New Zealand chapter of Transparency International.”

  15. Rogue Trooper 15
    30 July 2013 at 11:41 am

    Bomber on “Native Affairs”. Chur Bomber, an excellent spokesperson for the left.(we all have some shortcomings).

    • bad12 15.1
      30 July 2013 at 3:20 pm

      +1 RT, got the message across loud and clear without wasting words, UP’s to Bomber it’s nice to know that i aint alone out here…

    • Penny Bright 15.2
      30 July 2013 at 4:43 pm

      So – why has ‘Bomber’ banned me from posting comments on his ‘Daily Blog’?

      Try asking him and see what he says?

      Penny Bright

      • bad12 15.2.1
        30 July 2013 at 5:08 pm

        Penny, i detect from the double post a level of anger, so much so that you have been unable to delete one of them,

        Your question is self evident, coz it’s His blog and he can, just as in the final analysis LPrent can give someone a spanking here at the Standard for behavior one day and ignore the same behavior from another the next,

        Bomber probably got sick of some of your more Loooooong efforts at posting a comment, i quite often do here on the Standard and simply skim such efforts as i scroll my way down the page…

  16. Veutoviper 16
    30 July 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Question Time today – should be interesting after the two week break and what has happened in that time.

    Shearer has his usual – twice (1 and 11) and Peters also has one at Q6. Norman is still on the “Dunne” case(Q2), and Parker is on ‘house price’ duty (Q4). Hipkins is going to give us another’Minister of Education’ moment; and Eugenie Sage is on water safety/quality.

    The rest are Nat Patsy questions.

    Questions to Ministers
    1.DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
    2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Did his Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, advise Parliamentary Service that United Future Leader Hon Peter Dunne had agreed to cooperate with the Henry inquiry and had consented to releasing his electronic phone logs; if so, why?
    4.Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “High house prices matter because many New Zealanders spend a large portion of their incomes on housing and that has helped fuel household debt and contribute to damaging imbalances in the economy”?
    6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
    7.EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: What percentage of sites identified as a river in the Suitability for Swimming indicator report released yesterday were categorised as “Very Good” or “Good” and therefore were safe for swimming?
    9.CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance that “The Government is focusing on ensuring that every teacher put in front of our children is competent”?
    11.DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
    ?

    • Murray Olsen 16.1
      30 July 2013 at 6:19 pm

      Pretty hard hitting stuff all round, but especially from Shearer.
      Why is it that the Greens, with far less parliamentary experience, almost always seem to do far better in parliament? Are Labour actually trying?

      • Veutoviper 16.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 8:01 pm

        I just despair, MO.

        For me, NRT put it quite succinctly in this post http://www.norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/oh-ffs.html

        By bringing up their housing policy, all Shearer and Parker did is open themselves up to Key etc making disparaging remarks, as nice soundbites for the MSM Fran Mold may be back in the fold, but there was so much more they could have been winning hits on but …………………

  17. Rosetinted 17
    30 July 2013 at 12:42 pm

    Alan Ray designer of CTV building has taken legal action to stop surveillance of his professional background. Ask the GCSB they’ll know. What a cheek. Its wonderful how these bare-faced scammers as he was, though within the law, can evade taking responsibility.

    I remember that he was known for designing buildings so they just achieved building requirements, therefore being efficient no doubt (utilizing a particular commodity or product with the least waste of resources or effort) which is usually judged in NZ as being cheapest.

    Joelle Dally wrote an article for stuff in which his name is given as Alan Ray. Other sources spell his name as Alan Reay. Poor journalism on someone’s part.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/7217699/Engineer-re-lives-inspection-of-CTV-over-and-over

  18. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 18
    30 July 2013 at 12:54 pm

    http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/everything-is-fixed-says-key/

  19. Pascal's bookie 19
    30 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

    ICC says they should open the Cricket World Cup at a ground that doesn’t exist yet and is mired in controversy.

    seems lgit

    http://rebuildingchristchurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/the-icc-bowls-an-underarm-at-the-people-of-christchurch/

    • Lanthanide 19.1
      30 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

      Olympic stadiums don’t exist when a city is to host a future olympics either. Yet it all works out in the end.

      I’m sure they’ll have deadlines by which time if sufficient progress isn’t made, the match will be moved elsewhere.

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 2:56 pm

        “Olympic stadiums don’t exist when a city is to host a future olympics either. Yet it all works out in the end.”

        Massive public debt, under used and under maintained facilities, hundreds of millions of tax payer provided corporate subsidies, etc.

      • Draco T Bastard 19.1.2
        30 July 2013 at 10:04 pm

        Yeah, sure they do but usually the city hasn’t got another ten years or so of recovering from massive earthquake damage to do as well.

    • millsy 19.2
      30 July 2013 at 8:21 pm

      We just have to hope that the Black Caps dont get bowled out for -57..

  20. Rosetinted 20
    30 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

    A very engaging NZ expert spoke on Radionz this morning. He is into DNA sequencing and tracing evolution through tests that can be done. Very interesting. Says NZ is very important and that we and the Galpagos Islands are important sites in the world. Though he can’t get funding in NZ and we don’t seem enough about our environmental history and present situation to support needed study. So he’s working in Australia. He says that the kiwi is originally Australian!!

    Dna sequencing expert interesting insightful
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon
    Tuesday 30/7/13
    Feature Guest – Professor Alan Cooper (27′ 54″ )
    10:07 Director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of
    Adelaide. Alan’s a former Wellingtonian who is leading groundbreaking research which uses ancient DNA to record and study evolutionary processes in real time, especially those associated with environmental change.

    He says that many clever talented people come from NZ but can’t get work or funding. And I started thinking yes, we came, we saw, we conquered the land and over-ran Maori and have settled into taking what we wanted that we could sell. We are pragmatic, we are ‘practical’, we have ‘common sense’.

    We don’t have a real love for our country or each other in society or it would pervade government as well. We are happy if we can get lots of money together, live in a gated community and rumble about the lazy b..s unemployed and the over-fertile women looking to the government to carry their responsibilities.

    The country was developed as a land speculation scam where people either came out of desperation from a Britain in recession, enticed here with extravagant promises and unreal scenarios of being in the tropics of the South Pacific, or sold land that hadn’t even been made available by Maori, or if it had, had not been formalised and paid for.

    And we were unable to find a working system between landowning farmers, business and unions just as we were reaching a more advanced state of development. Which had largely been achieved through the experience overseas from WW2 and the more sophisticated refugees and new wave of immigrants after the war. Then came defensive reaction to Britain joining the EU and fear that we would be locked out of replacement markets for our primary produce. So we dropped all our protections to show our sincerity and determination to have free borders and dropped the country in a huge cow pat.

    Along came neo liberalism, the right wing jumped right in and are prepared to go to jackboot stage as they seek to mould a country to their own personal wishes and interests. Now we have dropped our progressive tax system and brought in high GST that impacts on nearly all financial transactions, and apart from the most wealthy, the middle class are squeezed and the poorer get the toothpaste tube when it is almost flat.

    And no hope for better economic management from either major political party which would return us to an enterprising nation having employment for us all which would automatically produce better conditions – that is the final nail in the coffin.

  21. yeshe 21
    30 July 2013 at 1:45 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10905495

    Andrea Vance’s phone records were given by Datacom to Henry inquiry without request and Henry sent them back !!! carter apologises … question time in the house in 20 mins shd be fun !!

  22. yeshe 22
    30 July 2013 at 2:18 pm

    there is a fault in the House system .. no volume being broadcast … not questions time yet as offering congrats to baby george in UK …

  23. weka 23
    30 July 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Do you know what you are fighting for?

    A new age friend of mine (yeah, I know), made the statement recently that the problem with protesting against something is that it is inherently negative and doesn’t say what one actually wants. I generally find these kinds of statements to be idiotic and existing in a vaccum that is disconnected from political reality, but I do take the point that being anti- something without being pro- something can be a problem sometimes (depending on context). On the other hand, sometimes you just have to stand up and say fuck off.

    I was thinking about it more today and realised that most activists I know and follow do seem to know what they want as much as what they trying to stop. And the more I think about it the more I am struggling to see protests that have been important to me where we were fighting against something without there being a clear sense of fighting for something as well.

    So I thought I would ask. When you are protesting something are you thinking about what you want as much as what you don’t want? Am particularly interested in how activists have seen this over time as specific issues have been addressed and then things have moved on.

    Any examples of purely ‘anti’ protests?

    I’d also like to know to what extent the whole negative/positive thing gets discussed as strategy in activist circles. Is the whole anti/pro dichotomy a complete nonsense?

    • Rosie 23.1
      30 July 2013 at 5:01 pm

      Weka, I think it entirely depends on what the situation is, and that there doesn’t necessarily need to be a flip side, what one desires, as an alternative, to what one doesn’t desire. You talk about a dichotomy and as humans I wonder if we often fall into the trap of dichotomous thinking. If you don’t want this then you must want that, kind of thinking.

      Why must we justify our objection to something by introducing a nice and positive counter solution to make others feel better about what we do? (I’m thinking of your new age friend here) Sometimes the only thing that needs to be said is “No”. Of course we always need to fully understand why we fight for a certain outcome otherwise it is a meaningless effort.. I’d be surprised that anyone wouldn’t have a full grasp of the holistic value of what they are objecting to as they are marching along and chanting. But then again I have met serial protesters while out a protest. I was speaking with another woman a couple of years ago who said she hadn’t seen me out before. I replied, that I can’t get to everything and like to save my energy for a real and focused fight. We also have differing empathies and allegiances. I wondered if this person was more like a rent-a-crowd stand in, “what ever’s going, I’m in” kind of thing. Maybe this is an example of being purely “anti” without giving much thought to why, and what is beyond. I believe this example is an exception and most folks out protesting have a firmer grasp of their issue than this.

      During some protests the “positive” speaks for itself alongside the “negative” and are interwoven. Oppose the GCSB bill?/ (Negative) You want to retain your most basic right to privacy. (Positive) Look at all the placards in the photo’s online. Those two themes appeared equally in the protesters forms of expression.

      Can’t speak for strategy discussion in activists group,(in recent years at least) just my observations. As it is I am unavoidably surrounded by folks not of my ilk, right wingers, non voters and the odd new ager and the odd ultra conservative religious person. I find they will always make the same kind of statement as your friend. I agree that they “exist in a vacuum that is disconnected from political reality” . I find these kinds of statements infuriating for many reasons but the main one is that because this ignorance and judgement about protesting means for they are enabling the “enemy” for want of a better word. Inaction of the masses leads to the loss of democracy. So you know what I reckon, keep doing what you do and don’t be sidetracked by those who would make believe you’re “negative and therefore that’s a problem” because you make a stand.

    • marty mars 23.2
      30 July 2013 at 5:40 pm

      I was anti-tour and pro-equality, I was anti-foreshore and seabed legislation and pro-Māori rights, I am anti-exploitation and pro-environment. I don’t think the anti bit undermines the pro bit, they both co-exist. They have a relationship and are both entwined and you can’t have one without the other. In other words being anti-something is not possible without being pro-something even if at the time we don’t express it as such or aren’t even conscious of it. For me it is part of the fabric of existence and the dichotomies are inherent within the system, and manifested as a human attribute much like the almost automatic ability to catagorise or anthropomorphise what we experience around us.

    • Bill 23.3
      30 July 2013 at 6:32 pm

      Anti-anti democracy – and ‘everything’ that flows from anti democratic tendencies in society. And as two negatives make a positive 🙂

      Less trite answer? I think if some future vision isn’t borne in mind and modes of organising built around values of that future vision (eg, always pushing more democratic means of organising while resisting authoritarian habits), then protest becomes (sometimes) winning battles against the backdrop of a war that will inevitability be lost.

  24. Penny Bright 24
    30 July 2013 at 4:49 pm

    GOT SOME BIG BITES ON KIWIBLOG OVER THIS POST!!

    (Over 21 ‘dislikes’ – so must have jammed a few buttons on full! 🙂

    MEDIA ALERT: Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright:
    “Will National Party MP Nikki Kaye do the right thing and vote against the GCSB Bill?

    “Over 500 signatures have been collected, in Auckland Central, for a petition to National MP for Auckland Central Nikki Kaye, which says:

    “The will of the people is the basis of the authority of Government.”

    We, the undersigned, call upon YOU, as an MP, to defend the lawful human rights of New Zealanders to privacy, freedom of association and freedom of expression – that is – to oppose arbitrary search and surveillance by the State over citizens.

    If YOU, as an MP, vote for this GCSB Bill, which will allow widespread spying on New Zealanders, we hereby PLEDGE to campaign against your re-election in 2014, and to encourage our families, neighbours and workmates to do the same. ”

    “These petitions are now with the overnight courier, destined for Parliament, and should arrive in time for the National caucus meeting, which, as I understand it, should be meeting at 10am, Tuesday 30 July 2013.”

    “If there is ONE thing that politicians understand – it is VOTES!

    My very strong recommendation is that as many people as possible, email all National MPs, Peter Dunne (now ‘Independent’), and the DEFENDANT – ACT Party Leader and MP for Epsom, John Banks, who supported the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, at it’s first reading, and urge them NOT to support this Bill, ” says Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright.

    WHO VOTED FOR THE BILL AT IT’S FIRST READING:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/50HansD_20130508_00000024/government-communications-security-bureau-and-related-legislation

    A party vote was called for on the question, That the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 26 July 2013, and that the Intelligence and Security Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).

    Ayes 61 New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
    Noes 57 New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Independent: Horan.
    Motion agreed to.

    ____________________________________________________________

    CONTACT DETAILS for current NZ MPs:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/mps/current/
    _____________________________________________________

    THE MESSAGE MPS CANNOT IGNORE:

    “The will of the people is the basis of the authority of Government.”

    I call upon YOU, as an MP, to defend the lawful human rights of New Zealanders to privacy, freedom of association and freedom of expression – that is – to oppose arbitrary search and surveillance by the State over citizens.

    If YOU, as an MP, vote for this GCSB Bill, which will allow widespread spying on New Zealanders, I hereby PLEDGE to campaign against your re-election in 2014, and to encourage my family, neighbours and workmates to do the same. ”

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner
    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

  25. karol 25
    30 July 2013 at 7:04 pm

    An important documentary by Selwyn Manning, to be aired on Face (Sky & analogue TV) on Monday night (5 Aug 8pm)

    It is the result of investigations about the Ahmed Zaoui case, and the background we have never been told. It apparently raises significant questions about our intelligence services:

    he documentary feature film Behind The Shroud is scheduled to broadcast for the first time on New Zealand television on FaceTV and Sky channel 83 on Monday August 5 at 8pm.
    Behind The Shroud was researched and directed by me [Manning] and was produced over a seven year period.
    Behind The Shroud reveals for the first time secret testimonies of witnesses who appeared before the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security’s secret hearings into the Ahmed Zaoui case.
    This testimony is highly relevant today as we all debate how we as New Zealanders can all take a role in resisting gross abuses against our civil liberties and the excessive use of the State’s intelligence agency powers.

  26. lprent 26
    30 July 2013 at 7:41 pm

    The frequency of the double saved comments is increasing damnit. I actually have a fix for it (full MD5 to replace the existing check, increased size of the recent comment queue, an increased timeout, and flushing to auto-mod if it times out).

    BUT I coded it into a plugin designed for wordpress 3.6 – which last time I looked had just made it to RC2….. Ummm. wait I think..

    BTW: If anyone is interested. The timeline of revisions is really intense at present. But they’re starting to close more tickets.
    http://wordpress.org/news/2013/07/wordpress-3-6-release-candidate-2/

    • lprent 26.1
      30 July 2013 at 8:23 pm

      Oops. The momentary outage was my doing a apt-get upgrade rather than a apt-get update….. php upgrade meant the site was off for a minute.

    • lprent 26.2
      30 July 2013 at 10:46 pm

      Ok stopped fiddling. Showing a 12% increase in performance overall.

      But I’m getting not enough on the post with 700 comments damnit..

  27. North 27
    30 July 2013 at 7:52 pm

    Can’t find any comment on it above……………Geoffrey Palmer on Campbell Live. A powerful statement. Had “Churchillian” flashing across my head a coupla times. Which surprised me.

    So, so significant. He gave a clear, stern admonishment to New Zealand that democracy and our rights are under threat.

    Let’s see the ShonKey Python response – the level of response will say SO much.

    In a Vaudeville moment I see ShonKeyPython giving Jamie-Lee Ross his next gig ???

    • Arfamo 27.1
      30 July 2013 at 10:49 pm

      Yes. I watched Palmer on Campbell Live. He was very good. Very clear. Good journos everywhere would’ve been nodding their heads in agreement. So would most of the viewers I expect.

      • Colonial Viper 27.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 10:56 pm

        Despite his impressive calibre, he just wasn’t the right fit as a Labour Leader though 😉

        • Arfamo 27.1.1.1
          30 July 2013 at 11:07 pm

          His awkward dancing at a Pacific Islands forum did him in. Times have changed. John Key’s awkward dancing just seems to generate smiles, and even his planking probably increased his poll support. 🙂

          These things are clearly important to voters.

  28. logie97 28
    30 July 2013 at 9:00 pm

    Anyone out there remember Equiticorp?

    Some of us have worthless share certificates to remind us.
    It begs the question how this individual has been allowed to get near the finance markets since…
    Allan Hawkins was apparently sentenced for six (6) years for 7 charges of fraud and conspiracy in 1993.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10905449

    Or is this just par for the course behaviour of our captains of industry?

    • Colonial Viper 28.1
      30 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

      OK, I suppose fraud can be considered an “industry” nowadays.

    • North 28.2
      30 July 2013 at 9:59 pm

      That’s an example of what I complained of a day or so ago – (I was referring then to ShonKey Python and the MSM, especially television) – they’re fucking around with the nation’s psyche, our democracy, our values.

      Sadly that sort of stuff is business as usual in the public sense now. Our morals have been deadened.

    • Draco T Bastard 28.3
      30 July 2013 at 10:13 pm

      That would be par for the course.

      Of course, he supposed to have paid his debt to society and turned over a new leaf.

      • Arfamo 28.3.1
        30 July 2013 at 10:50 pm

        Clearly Hawkins needs to be denied access to any more leaves. I never thought we’d hear from him again in the business world.