Open Mike 30/09/2017

85 comments on “Open Mike 30/09/2017”

• Comments are now closed

1. patricia bremner 1

   30 September 2017 at 6:24 am

   Duncan Garner having a lash at Winston in Stuff. Shows his vitriol and “born to rule ” mentality.

   Also shows his lack of understanding/respect for MMP.

   So I sent him a message via facebook. He is a Nat mouthpiece.
   • Carolyn_nth 1.1

     30 September 2017 at 6:30 am

     Definitely shows his lack of understanding of MMP – got bored and stopped reading halfway through.

     Did he say anything about the Epsom, hollow ACT party rort, undermining democracy – with one MP dictating some policy Nats never included in their election campaigns?
   • eco maori 1.2

     30 September 2017 at 8:35 am

     +100
   • AB 1.3

     30 September 2017 at 9:10 am

     If the situation was reversed and there was a single monolithic party on the left that had 45% of the vote (after specials) and three smaller parties on the right that combined had nearly 50%, we’d be hearing none of this stuff:
     – nothing about the largest party having a spurious ‘moral mandate’
     – nothing about the smallest of those right wing parties being obliged to support the large left party to create ‘stable government’
     – nothing about the supposed deficiencies of MMP
     Not a dicky bird – there’d be total silence. Just lots of approving noises about how mature we are as a country, how well we’d adjusted to the principles of proportional representation and the idea that governments must constitute a majority. That we should take time to work the process through and that showed the strength of our democracy, etc. etc. John Roughan would be pulling out the flabbiest examples of his purple prose to say these things.
     So although Garner is a vulgar clown, it’s not that he doesn’t understand MMP, it’s that he doesn’t like the result it has thrown up.
     • Anne 1.3.1

       30 September 2017 at 9:52 am

       Yes. I’ve been thinking along the same lines these past few days AB.

       In the event of a political reversal of electoral fortunes, the MSM would be pushing a totally different line such as:

       “The will of the people has spoken and a significant majority are calling for change. There is no reason why a multi-party government cannot be strong and steady as has happened before in both National-led and Labour-led governments. Labour must concede their coalition govt with NZ First and C and S arrangement with the Greens between 1999 and 2008 was a success…….”

       I can picture the NZ Herald using those exact words!
       • DH 1.3.1.1

         30 September 2017 at 10:54 am

         It’s interesting looking back to 2008 and the last Peters saga. I recalled a particularly vicious editorial from the Herald and tried to find it… links are dead all I could find was an article with quotes from it.

         I won’t link to that, just copy & paste some of the Herald editorial;

         ” The departure of Winston Peters, a relief as it is, does not mean he is gone entirely from our political life. Thanks to MMP he needs only 5 per cent of the electorate – one voter in 20 – to give New Zealand First their party vote at the coming election and he would return to Parliament. …

         After all that has been disclosed this year it seems unthinkable that anyone would still believe him worth their vote but he has had a following that seems impervious to political reasoning. They are older people mostly, on low fixed incomes, unsettled by social change and suspicious of minorities, migrants and trends they fear.

         Mr Peters has exploited their fears and suspicions mercilessly, sometimes at the expense of minorities and careless of the damage done to this country’s standing in migrants’ homelands.

         To supporting audiences Winston Peters liked to portray himself as lonely hero assailed on all sides by rich and powerful interests that he alone would expose and hold to account.

         In recent weeks it is he who has been exposed as a recipient of money, a lot of money, from rich and powerful interests and he has resisted the sort of accountability he demands of others.

         The National Party has written him out of the script for post election negotiations. Even if he summons enough support to survive, National’s John Key says he will not be acceptable in any ministry he might form. He has destroyed Mr Peters’ political leverage at a stroke.

         Soon it will be up to his previous voters. Have they seen through him at last? Or have the disclosures of the past few months gone completely over their heads, merely reinforcing his heroic pose for them? Probably the latter. Ever susceptible to his rhetoric, grooming and charm, they might forgive him anything.

         But he would return for nothing. The last of his credibility has disappeared. So should he.”

         Now all the dust has settled on that Owen Glenn saga it’s quite disturbing to look back at the malice and vitriol that was emanating from the media. One thing I’m sure of is they won’t leave Peters alone, we’re in for a rough ride.
         • Anne 1.3.1.1.1

           30 September 2017 at 4:02 pm

           I remember that editorial. It was mind bogglingly vicious.

           The Owen Glen saga is reminiscent of the David Cunliffe saga in 2014. Full of misrepresentations and outright lies. Owen Glenn was exposed as a liar about his past communications with Mike Williams. The MSM – in particular NZ Herald columnists – were exposed as liars about Cunliffe’s previous communications with the Liu character.

           The media, like a pack of rabid wolves, pounce on their prey and proceed to tear them from limb to limb for no other reason than to indulge in a print version of mindless blood-sport.
           • DH 1.3.1.1.1.1

             30 September 2017 at 4:23 pm

             I think it was Roughan wrote that editorial Anne, they tried to keep him anonymous back then but admitted at some point he’s been the Herald’s main editorial writer. It looks like his writing style and, lo & behold, here he is again in todays rag mouthing off with the same bile.

             Whoever Peters runs with we can expect three years of the media constantly chasing Winston scandals and we don’t deserve that.
             • Anne …

               30 September 2017 at 7:01 pm

               Whoever Peters runs with we can expect three years of the media constantly chasing Winston scandals and we don’t deserve that.

               Not if he coalesces with National. Unless or until he falls out with them over something then they will turn on him.
     • alwyn 1.3.2

       30 September 2017 at 9:58 am

       Of course the left made all these objections when they were on the other side of the divide..
       Don’t you remember in 2005 when the lefties demanded that Labour stand down from Government as they had no moral right to govern?
       After all, the opposition parties in the previous Parliament had gained a majority of the seats in the new Parliament.
       Labour did what was required. Helen quit and, saying she had no legitimacy, refused to try and form a new Government with the help of the former opposition parties like New Zealand First.
       Well perhaps you remember that.
       I certainly don’t though.
       • red-blooded 1.3.2.1

         30 September 2017 at 11:54 am

         alwyn, no-one’s saying that the Nats don’t have the right to try to form a government – just that they’re not the only ones with that right.
       • swordfish 1.3.2.2

         30 September 2017 at 1:15 pm

         I am I, Don Quixote !, the Lord of La Mancha !!!
         Destroyer of Evil am I !!!

         Once again tilting at Windmills, me old Walrus
       • alwyn 1.3.2.3

         30 September 2017 at 3:06 pm

         I think I should have put “sarcasm” on this item.
         The only thing I am objecting to is the attitude that says National do NOT have the right.
         I am sure I can find comments about how Winston must go with Labour because the people “voted against the current Government” or such like.
         • Kevin 1.3.2.3.1

           30 September 2017 at 3:19 pm

           Maybe if they quit with all this ‘moral majority’ shit they would get a little more respect.
           • alwyn 1.3.2.3.1.1

             30 September 2017 at 3:32 pm

             I am honestly not sure who you are referring to when you say “they would get a little more respect”.
             Who is the “they” that you are referring to?
             • Johan …

               30 September 2017 at 3:43 pm

               National Party members are liars, and con-artists who have no credibility with civil minded people.
               • alwyn …

                 30 September 2017 at 3:58 pm

                 And you are an idiot. There, I’m sure my opinion is at least as accurate as is yours.
                 You see the only person I have ever seen talking about having a “moral mandate” was Phil Twyford. He seems to have made the expression up and then tried to accuse Bill English of claiming it.
                 Phil is a very facile liar himself of course as he demonstrated when he talked about National “cutting” health spending. Frankly I don’t regard him as an honest authority on anything. Good example of a Labour MP of course.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   30 September 2017 at 6:46 pm

                   Who to believe?

                   The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, or the National Party?

                   That’s a tricky one. If only one of those organisations had a track record of telling lies…
                   • alwyn …

                     30 September 2017 at 7:03 pm

                     It isn’t a tricky one at all.
                     They are using the same little fiddle as Twyford used.
                     They take as their starting year the 2009-2010 financial year. That was the first year for which National was responsible for the Budget.
                     They should have used the last year of the previous administration, for which Labour were responsible. That is the 2008-2009 year.
                     The 2009-2010 was an unusual one in that there was a massive, one-off boost in spending. That was mostly to try and fix the problems that Labour had left. There was in that year a real increase, after allowing for inflation and demographic changes, of about 6% from the last Labour year.
                     Twyford, and now the Doctors’ Union are setting it as being the “base” year of their calculations, rather than treating it as a one-off clean up year.
                     Have a look at Twyfords release from, I think BERL, and you will see the way the fiddle works.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     30 September 2017 at 7:12 pm

                     Yeah yeah, everyone’s lying except the National Party

                     Indications of unmet need in New Zealand are reflected in the Commonwealth Fund’s performance indicators for access to services…

                     I’m happy to leave it there: you believe what National tells you without question. If I need your opinion I can ask Steven Joyce.
                   • alwyn …

                     30 September 2017 at 7:23 pm

                     OAB.
                     And as always the Labour party acolytes are starting with 2009-2010. If they are going to claim “Labour good, National bad”, why don’t they look at what the Labour Party did in their last year?
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     30 September 2017 at 7:29 pm

                     Meanwhile, in the paper I linked, Figure 1 starts at 1950. Figure 2 starts in 2000. I suggest you examine Figure 2: “Health” is the thick blue line that is trending down.
                   • alwyn …

                     30 September 2017 at 9:05 pm

                     OAB @7.29pm.
                     I find it very hard to determine anything about the way the Health spending is going from that figure 2.
                     The numbers are cumulative for the year and health is only the difference between 2 lines. About the only thing that is clear from that graph is that the total Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP fell from about 2011 onwards. The individual parts are almost impossible to discern from that graph though. After all it isn’t the fall in the top of the Health segment that matters. It is the difference from the top of the Education Sector to the top of the Health sector. I would suggest that the steepness of the Health line from 2008 to 2009 is greater than the line for Education below it, which implies that the Health Sector was growing between those years.
                     An honest presentation, talking about Health would, at the very least, put the health segment at the bottom of the graph so its level was obvious.
                     That isn’t what they want of course.

                     By the way Twyford’s material was done by Infometrics, not BERL.
                     Shame really. They used to be very good.
                 • marty mars …

                   30 September 2017 at 6:50 pm

                   Youre a useful tool al – bill english the leader of the gnats admitted lying by omission re todd barclay and you worship him. And when someone points that out you call them names. Weak effort by you indeed – typical gnat.
   • DH 1.4

     30 September 2017 at 9:15 am

     The Winston Peters show always reminds me of the old saying about glass houses. Most of the media angst is petulant dummy spitting from overinflated egos, they’re hardly in a position to pass judgement on Peters.
     • Carolyn_nth 1.4.1

       30 September 2017 at 7:14 pm

       For years, mainstream media outlets have been doing their opinion polLls. Very often the journos authoritatively conclude that NZF will be King maker. Now that the election has delivered this, no MSM journos have anything to say about what an NZF-Nat government might look like.

       It’s not as if they didn’t have some time to ponder on it….?

       Garner lashes out at Peters; others are contemplating the plausibility of a Nat-GP coalition…. but, who is looking at the actual likely outcome of NZF-Nats?
   • Hongi Ika 1.5

     30 September 2017 at 4:56 pm

     The guy still doesn’t understand MMP, he really is thick ?
2. Upnorth 2

   30 September 2017 at 7:56 am

   I’m betting greens will jump at national offer.
   I would be happy. They would be less radical than nzf and also the kiwi public would enjoy have strong financial management by national and the soft caring edge of the greens.

   I think the public should open their minds.

   If done well we could see a 3 or 4 term national green government….that would be amazing for our country

   Time for people to open their minds

   [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
   

   [lprent: Clearly you didn’t read the post – which covered those points in detail. I regard commenting without referencing the post as simple trolling. Banned for 4 weeks. ]
   • garibaldi 2.1

     30 September 2017 at 8:03 am

     Good god Upnorth, you just don’t get it do you ?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2

     30 September 2017 at 8:32 am

     I’m betting…

     A fool and his money are easily parted. What does that say about the Greens? Nothing at all.
   • Cinny 2.3

     30 September 2017 at 10:26 am

     For reals Upnorth? Keen to do a wager on it, a self imposed ban? I’m up for it, just let me know.
   • Foreign waka 2.4

     30 September 2017 at 12:49 pm

     Its not so much a question about the greens entering a coalition., its just not any coalition. The question is much more whether National is ready to change its slash and burn policies, water issues, health system failure, the catastrophic hosing situation etc. These are after all policies pursued by the greens. The laissez fair party would have to make some fundamental changes – are they actual ready for that? I have my doubts. I hope that the greens are a party of principles.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1

       30 September 2017 at 1:50 pm

       fundamental changes

       For example, surgeons would have to figure out how to perform an amygdalectomy.
   • NewsFlash 2.5

     30 September 2017 at 5:20 pm

     In a word !!! PRINCEPLES, is what separates the Greens from National, and it’s pretty clear which one has them and which one doesn’t.
3. tracey 3

   30 September 2017 at 8:28 am

   Has anyone read this report about NZ plummetting to 156th in the world on our treatment of children?

   I am not a stats/methodology person so wondered if those who have read it have thoughts on how it was measured?

   https://e2nz.org/2017/05/17/worst-places-to-be-a-child-nz-ranked-158-out-of-165-for-childhood-rights/
   • The Fairy Godmother 3.1

     30 September 2017 at 9:46 am

     It is dreadful a result of abdication of state or collective responsibility for our children. Some individuals do great things. I know of a group of librarians in South Auckland providing out of their own money bread and spreads for the hungry children who hung out in their library in the holidays. There are teachers who give children their own food. There are charities like feed the need and kids can. There is no will from government to have a systematic approach to solve the problem. As a country we deserve that rating.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     30 September 2017 at 12:27 pm

     The methodology for obtaining the final score in the Index is such that extremely poor performances in one domain cannot be compensated by higher scores in other areas, as all children’s rights are equally important. Extreme underperformance in one of the domains therefore creates an insurmountable bottleneck that automatically demotes the concerned country to the lower-most region of the Index

     In other words, the total score is the lowest score. It takes no account of the other areas.

     New Zealand’s scores for non-discrimination and budget fell from an average to the lowest score, but itsscores remain incomplete – there was no score for state-civil society cooperation in either 2011 or 2016.

     And it’s data is incomplete anyway.

     So, not worth the time to read it.
     • tracey 3.2.1

       30 September 2017 at 12:30 pm

       Thanks. I confess I didnt know what they meant about high scores and low scores etc
4. Glenn 4

   30 September 2017 at 8:34 am

   Not a lie after all. Joyce’s missing hole finally found.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11928008
   • tracey 4.1

     30 September 2017 at 12:31 pm

     Hehehe
5. Graeme 5

   30 September 2017 at 9:00 am

   Saturday funny….

   I saw this clickbait on facebook about industrial diarrhoea, had to have a look

   https://www.wimp.com/the-moment-these-people-knew-they-were-going-to-quit-their-jobs/8/?utm_source=fba&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=vito/

   #8….
6. eco maori 6

   30 September 2017 at 9:08 am

   It was a MSM piece on our Womens Rugby team to jog my thoughts that my writing could cause problems for our uninformed police and we could not have that because I never harm another unless it is self defence there are a lot of good people in our police force. There is a lot of good people in NZ to .
   It would be awesome when our women’s Rugby team get to host there World Cup
   In our beautiful country with our clear skys we see the star every clear night you can hear the birds chirping its not perfect and we will improve it Come on Steve Tu back our ladys and get the Cup hosted here we need all the good publicity we can get.
   P.S ladys and Joseph Parker’s team get a good publishes as I have seen someone go from O to hero with a good Publishes as this is the way the world work’s
   Ka Pai
7. Andre 7

   30 September 2017 at 10:25 am

   One of the dudes that helped create the myth that tax cuts (at the top rates) create growth and pay for themselves looks back out how it worked out. Short answer: not how the sales pitch said it would.

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.fb9a7b5e91bb
   • tracey 7.1

     30 September 2017 at 12:55 pm

     I thought it was accepted theory that tax cuts to high end in economic crises takes money out of the economy either by debt pay down or hols overseas? That if you want to stimulate an economy you give cuts at the lower end?

     The following is also the ilusion/delusion thst Nats campaign on and peole buy….

     ” but the prosperity of the ’80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the ’70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent…..

     The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.
     “
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       30 September 2017 at 1:51 pm

       That if you want to stimulate an economy you give cuts at the lower end?

       Tax cuts to the lower end are just higher income for the top end (The lower end spend all their money and the top end are in a place to grab it all) and still don’t produce better economic outcomes.

       There’s probably a point where tax rates become excessive for the rich but we haven’t reached it yet. Even at 95%.

       On the other hand, we have had tax rates too high for the lower end causing poverty and hardship. It’s why progressive income taxes that are proportional were brought in.
8. Bill 8

   30 September 2017 at 11:07 am

   “This Way Up” after 12 O’Clock on Radio NZ has a piece on rising atmospheric CO2 impacting on the nutritional levels of food. I’m wondering if they will cover the recent study by the US DofA that found goldenrod (a crucial food source for N American bees) has lost 30% of its nutritional content since the 1840s and make the obvious connections….

   Should I add the aside that Tanya Carlson commented on sheep wool being degraded when compared to wool of the 70s? (Point being – not the one she made – that nutritional deficiency likely shows up in coat/skin quality, yes?)
   • weka 8.1

     30 September 2017 at 11:23 am

     But, but, all that extra carbon makes plants grow bigger and greener!!!
   • weka 8.2

     30 September 2017 at 11:25 am

     there’s probably some overlap with degradation of soil causing less nutrients in foods too. Would be interested to see the science on both of those and if they can separate them out. Plenty of other good reasons to stop fucking with the soil, but that it would be useful if increasing soil health mitigated the CC effect (so long as we actually take action to limit CC).
     • Bill 8.2.1

       30 September 2017 at 12:39 pm

       The original observation (increased growth rates and dropping nutritional content) was first observed in a marine environment. Basically, oceanic algae was given a surplus of light to boost growth with the thought being that zoo-plankton would flourish in a food rich environment. But that didn’t happen. The zoo-plankton began to struggle because it was malnourished.

       For oceanic algae, think plants and for zoo-plankton, think pollinators (or other organisms further up the food chain if you want).

       This doesn’t end well and ends quite abruptly and devastatingly if there is a level of CO2 above which pollinators starve rather than “merely” suffer from malnutrition.

       (Goldenrod grows in soil that’s never been messed with btw, suggesting that regen ag, heirloom seeds etc won’t halt or reverse any decline due to elevated CO2 levels)

       Imagine a world with no seeds and no fruits bar those resulting from wind blown pollination? If there’s a CO2 “guard-rail” or “tipping point” for pollinator survival, then we’d only need to exceed it for a few months or a single growing season….

       I was talking with a marine biologist friend and his gallows humour suggested that Trump might tear down the wall and issue Mexicans with brushes and set them to hand pollinating the ‘wheat prairies’ of the USA.

       edit – and he’s going to give me a shout if he comes across any marine experiment that takes sea water back to pre-industrial CO2 levels and measures algae nutritional content in that environment. (It’s far easier to run an experiment in an aquarium than it is to run one in fields and the results from an oceanic environment could probably be taken as running somewhat in tandem with terrestrial ones.)
       • tracey 8.2.1.1

         30 September 2017 at 1:05 pm

         Thanks for this comment Bill. I do learn shitloads of stuff put here
         • patricia bremner 8.2.1.1.1

           30 September 2017 at 10:43 pm

           Same. Thanks.
9. North 9

   30 September 2017 at 11:45 am

   How embarrassing for whiney schoolboy Garner.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/97391717/duncan-garner-the-megalomaniac-reigns-all-over-nationals-parade

   At worst he doesn’t understand MMP at all……..at best he understands MMP but only selectively. Which really is more egregious than being just stupidly unaware.

   Garner demonstrates four things: firstly he disrespects the nation’s democratically registered preference for MMP all those years ago; secondly deep down he’s a Tory; thirdly he has a personal axe to grind because Winston always whips his fat ass; fourthly hubris propels him to engage quite unashamedly off-the-planet bullshit to rival Alex Jones.

   No MMP election can be finally resolved when election night seat spread doesn’t include the cast of 300,000 plus votes, That is particularly so when history shows that this dynamic can result in the loss/gain of seats.

   What sort of self-respecting political commentator carpingly demands a settled coalition when votes in that order are not accounted for ?…….,.yes Dunky, those pesky things called peoples’ votes, I know……..the political commentator who reflects 1-4 above.

   STFU Dunky. Patently you’re not ‘Da Man’ your vaingloriousness says you are. You define the cheap right-leaning polemicist actually. Like so many of your cohorts.

   Garner calling anyone a megalomaniac ? Phew ! That’s rich. You’ve not changed a bit since I witnessed you at McDonalds Wellsford early one morning some years ago. Strutty and ‘loudy’…….’look at ME look at ME common rabble’
   • Bearded Git 9.1

     30 September 2017 at 4:47 pm

     @ North
     The interesting thing about this article is that if NZF had got 4.9% (just 2.1 less than their likely final 7%) the Nats would probably have been able to govern alone and people like Garner would have been yelling from the rooftops “fantastic result for National, democracy has been served.”

     He would, of course, immediately forget all about the lies and leaks that lead to that result.
10. tracey 10

    30 September 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Boards of businesses smaller than the NZ Govt take weeks, months and sometimes years to negoiate a partner for lesser ventures. Why would we want out Governance rushed?

    Perhaps our journalists have forgotten how to write about anything else and know they will have to for a few weeks.

    I havent read the piece does he pile scorn on Merkel too?

    I thought he was spending more time fathering tgese days?
11. Incognito 11

    30 September 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Hi weka,

    I’ve sent you a message with a Guest Post for The Standard and I hope you’ll have time to read & put it up.
12. The Chairman 12

    30 September 2017 at 2:39 pm

    Some food for thought
    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/28/50736/what-if-winston-bill-or-jacinda-cant-go-on
13. Matiri 13

    30 September 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Andrew Geddis on why the wait for Special Votes – it’s the law!
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/340568/special-votes-why-the-wait
    • tracey 13.1

      1 October 2017 at 11:01 am

      Oh the law! Pah! 😉 The media dont research so wouldnt know this… and therefore most us dont know.
14. Incognito 14

    30 September 2017 at 3:00 pm

    A nice wee blog (with links) about the need for imagination and critical thinking to go beyond capitalism: https://sciblogs.co.nz/ariadne/2017/09/24/thinking-beyond-capitalism/
15. rawshark-yeshe 15

    30 September 2017 at 3:05 pm

    Question please, if anyone can help ? With our caretaker govt in place, could Blinglish sign us on to TPPA during this period, as it was actively ‘in process’ prior to election ?
    Many thanks .. I have nightmares about this 🙂
    • lprent 15.1

      30 September 2017 at 3:25 pm

      In theory – yes. In practice – no. Not as a caretaker government.
      • rawshark-yeshe 15.1.1

        30 September 2017 at 4:14 pm

        Thanks lprent .. some comfort in your reply 🙂
      • tracey 15.1.2

        1 October 2017 at 11:11 am

        The GG ought not sign it off in the current circumstances?
16. lprent 16

    30 September 2017 at 3:17 pm

    Congrats to anyone going to see London Grammar tonight even if it it is the Vector arena. Pretty damn awesome…

    I’d have done something rare and organised tickets if I’d realised that they were coming here. They have been on my playlist pretty continuously for the last couple of months. Very nice music.

    But I had my nose buried in the blog during the election, and there isn’t that much cash left over after paying two mortgages. Hadn’t budgeted for concert tickets. *sigh*

    This looks like a fan video + the released track for Non Beliver.
    

    And a BBC live version
    

    Interesting. The jetpack youtube linkages are not working.
17. Draco T Bastard 17

    30 September 2017 at 3:26 pm

    Most men in the US and Europe could be infertile by 2060

    Also, although the prevailing evidence shows a decline in reproductive health, not all studies show this; there are some geographical differences. It will be critical to determine what the key differences between geographical regions are – such as genetic differences and exposure to specific pollutants – so we can then examine treatment strategies to limit these negative effects.

    So, what are the probable causes of Western men in industrialised nations losing their fertility?
18. xanthe 18

    30 September 2017 at 3:37 pm

    psudo estrogens …. ie environmental pollutants that act like estrogens
    http://www.psr.org/chapters/boston/resources/environmental-chemicals-and-estrogens.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
19. Draco T Bastard 19

    30 September 2017 at 3:54 pm

    How did Labour’s immigration stance impact its immigrant vote?

    All but one (looking at you, Helensville) of Auckland’s electorates have a proportion of residents who were born overseas that’s higher than the New Zealand average of 23.6% – often much higher. And many of them went National’s way. East Coast Bays, where 47.4% of residents were born overseas, gave 63% of its vote to National. New Lynn, where 42.7% were born overseas, put National over Labour by eight points. Pakuranga, with a 44.1% foreign-born population, went 62.9% for National. Te Atatū, where 34.3% of residents were born overseas – and where Phil Twyford was a candidate – went narrowly for National, 43.3% to 41.9%.

    And this isn’t to mention other National strongholds with high foreign-born numbers, such as Botany, Epsom, North Shore, or Upper Harbour.

    So, has National been importing its voters?

    Oh, and it really does look like Phil Twyford has been vindicated.
    • alwyn 19.1

      30 September 2017 at 4:55 pm

      While you are about it why don’t you enlighten us on what happened in the various Labour strongholds like the Mangere area.
      On the other hand don’t bother. For all anyone knows nearly every foreign born voter might have been cast for Labour or the Greens.
      There. Let’s see you prove me wrong

      You do realise that the Green Party seems to be importing their MPs, rather than their voters? If, as many commenters on this blog seem to assume, they get another MP after the specials that will mean that 25% of their MPs will have been born overseas. That is higher than the New Zealand average.
      The Green Party also seem to get more of their votes from people who don’t even live in New Zealand than any other party. Look at what seems to happen with the allocation of votes cast overseas each election. Why do we allow people who are long term overseas residents from voting here anyway?

      Aren’t these silly statistics rather fun?
      • JanM 19.1.1

        30 September 2017 at 6:20 pm

        Don’t be cute, Alwyn – you know perfectly well that the country of origin of voters in Mangere is not the same as those resident in East Coast Bays. At least, if you don’t you need to get out more!
        • alwyn 19.1.1.1

          30 September 2017 at 6:39 pm

          Of course the “country of origin of voters in Mangere is not the same”
          So what are you saying about the Labour Party policy? Are you implying that they are racist bigots who will only allow immigrants into New Zealand if they are from races who are likely to vote Labour?
          The Labour Party policies don’t publicly admit that they regard some races as being superior to others but you seem to think they should.
          • JanM 19.1.1.1.1

            30 September 2017 at 6:50 pm

            I have said nothing at all about Labour Party immigration policy – it’s you who’s wittering on about it. I merely pointed out that immigrants from different cultures and countries have different ideas and beliefs
      • solkta 19.1.2

        30 September 2017 at 6:36 pm

        Yes that’s right, before the Green Party existed those who hadn’t quite conceived of its existence realised that a refugee from Iran would be essential (you know, for something) so they imported an eight year old girl.
      • Draco T Bastard 19.1.3

        30 September 2017 at 6:46 pm

        Why do we allow people who are long term overseas residents from voting here anyway?

        We don’t. If you’ve been outside the country for more than three years you’re not allowed to vote. That applies to everybody.

        Meanwhile, we allow non-citizens to vote after only living here for a year. No sane country does that.
        • alwyn 19.1.3.1

          30 September 2017 at 7:11 pm

          Coming over from Australia for a weekend to attend a wedding counts as still retaining the right to vote I believe. I lived in Australia for more than five years and was always qualified to vote. I didn’t vote in 1993 though as I didn’t think I should be eligible.
          I would also be surprised if it was ever checked.
          As far as non-citizens go I wouldn’t allow anyone who isn’t a citizen from voting at all. It should be a privilege for New Zealand citizens only.
          • Draco T Bastard 19.1.3.1.1

            30 September 2017 at 7:57 pm

            As far as non-citizens go I wouldn’t allow anyone who isn’t a citizen from voting at all. It should be a privilege for New Zealand citizens only.

            I’d agree with that.

            A lot of those north-eastern people who can vote keep their citizenship for that foreign country because it doesn’t allow dual citizenship but they still get to vote in NZ if they’re residents.
          • tracey 19.1.3.1.2

            1 October 2017 at 11:13 am

            How moral of you. Imagine if that morality stopped you voting for people who lie to you cos they think you are easy to manipulate
    • NewsFlash 19.2

      30 September 2017 at 5:42 pm

      Draco,

      On election night at the National party headquarters when English was arriving, the TV cameras panned across the crowd gathered to congratulate him, in the front rows were mostly non NZ decent supporters, which made a quite a large proportion of the crowd, so “YES”, immigration is a good for National, that s why they keep it going.

      Many of the immigrants come from very conservative countries, with no, or few social services and safety net.
      • alwyn 19.2.1

        30 September 2017 at 6:42 pm

        Please tell me that this is only a typo.
        “non NZ decent supporters”. I would really be disappointed if you were someone who doesn’t think that anyone who doesn’t follow you own political leanings was somehow not “decent”.
        • Draco T Bastard 19.2.1.1

          30 September 2017 at 6:48 pm

          I assume it’s supposed to be ‘descent’ but even that’s an issue. Many people in NZ who are NZ citizens have descended from other than white European or Māori.

          You really cannot tell who is or is not a NZ citizen by looking at them.
20. Draco T Bastard 20

    30 September 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Barnaby Bennett posed this question:

    All this commentary and I still haven’t read one single article about what an NZF/Nats government might look like? Why the lack of reckons?

    And I must admit that I’m somewhat stumped. Why aren’t people speculating as to what a NZ1st/Nat coalition would look like and what would it do.

    Any reckons?
    • JanM 20.1

      30 September 2017 at 6:21 pm

      Implode rapidly?
      • Draco T Bastard 20.1.1

        30 September 2017 at 6:51 pm

        Probably but what sort of policy structure would we be looking at?

        Would National suddenly start backing trains?
        Would they can immigration or NZ1st go for increased immigration?
        Renationalise a whole heap of stuff that NZ1st wants renationalised?

        Etc, etc.

        I certainly can’t see possible policy structure that would suit as their policy structures are too different.
    • Stuart Munro 20.2

      30 September 2017 at 6:56 pm

      NZF will have their own ideas of course. But the Gnats will set out to nobble them.

      Foreign affairs for Winston – gets him out of the way a lot.
      Health for Shane Jones – a poisoned chalice to cripple his future prospects.

      If they are generous

      Armed Forces for Ron Mark – Gerry’s getting a bit heavy for the helicopters eh.
      Education for Tracy Martin – has more clues about it than any Gnat.
      • Barfly 20.2.1

        1 October 2017 at 2:05 am

        And work hard to siphon enough waka jumpers to destroy them all
    • tracey 20.3

      1 October 2017 at 11:15 am

      And why ACT is being haranged for not giving away all its principles to go with Labour?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS