Open Mike 31/01/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 31st, 2018 - 173 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

173 comments on “Open Mike 31/01/2018 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. WILD KATIPO 1
    31 January 2018 at 6:45 am

    Goodbye , Mr English. Your days are numbered.

    And I hate to have to say ,… ‘ I told you so ‘ . And all the other petulant , far right wing deniers who couldn’t see the obvious when it was so patently obvious the man and his Mont Pelerin / NZ Initiative policy’s are cancer to New Zealand and its people.

    So good riddance. One more rabid , callous neo liberal walks the plank. We don’t want your sort around here as the nation heals .

    National Party preparing plans for Bill English’s successor: Barry Soper
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz › New Zealand

    New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
    http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html

    • red-blooded 1.1
      31 January 2018 at 6:54 am

      I won’t be sorry to farewell Bill English. Interesting to note the role of Simon Bridges, though. He may have got a bit of a bump from boxing clever on numbers and forcing the issue of select committees on day one, but he’s not one of the established big hitters. I guess they want to seem like they’re renewing.

      We’ll watch this space…

      • WILD KATIPO 1.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 7:06 am

        They’ve got a lot of clowns lined up to replace Blinglish.

        Either they are bland personality’s – or ones tainted with past skeletons in the closet. Not a lot to choose from for the popular appeal.

        Would we really want a high pitched screaming under confident Simon Bridges or an aggressive , oafish Judith Collins ? … forget Bennett – shes a joke and a destructive laughing stock , and castings ones mind back over the last decade… all of their inner circle were shown to be bumbling sociopaths…

        Good on you , Winston.

        You played the long game and won.

        • mary_a 1.1.1.1
          31 January 2018 at 5:47 pm

          Agree Wild Katipo @ (1.1.1) –

          Just one for the road … I wonder if the name Ashley Farrell jonjours up nightmares for Bennett! I hope it does, as it well should.

      • ianmac 1.1.2
        31 January 2018 at 8:49 am

        Simon Bridges represents the anti-charisma brigade.

    • Ad 1.2
      31 January 2018 at 12:37 pm

      English is a political gift.
      Long may he stay in there.

  2. eco maori 2
    31 January 2018 at 7:40 am

    Good morning Jack and the rest of the Breakfast crew . This is the first time Iv watched the new show your new set is excellent . I will be watching the skies at 2 am to see the SUPER BLUE MOON an the eclipse TE-NGANGANA is a beautiful part of our environment Ka pai . Jack it’s not nice making Matty blush lol you people show our kiwi culture using maori words whenever can .I have seen the eco maori effect when I turned on my computer to the Breaks show lol .

    Many thanks to all OUR MPs that are going to vote for the GREEN PARTY’S version of the Medical bill this is a logical intelligent bill to lead US all to a bright prosperous future for all OUR MOKOS .

    Many people have miss judge my Intelligence because I’m brown they end up regretting this discrimination of my Maori culture in the end .I feel for all OUR Mokos who go through this bad part of NZ CULTURE .Ka kite ano

    • Stunned Mullet 2.1
      31 January 2018 at 7:48 am

      The only thing people here have got to judge your intelligence on EC is your comments. As I’ve commented before many would enjoy some of your website videos in open mike.

      • mary_a 2.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 6:04 pm

        Stunned Mullet @ (2.1) … have to agree.

        Eco has a great website. Living by what nature and life have given him and his whanau, an environment to use and live with and not abuse.

        From what I’ve seen, IMO Eco’s site would be a very good education tool for youth as well as adults.

    • Carolyn_Nth 2.2
      31 January 2018 at 8:02 am

      eco maori,this morning RNZ is reporting on a study that shows there is lot of racism in our schools

      It is particularly bad for Māori students.

      The report said many of the comments were from face-to-face interviews with 144 mostly Māori students who were not well served by the education system, though some also came from an online survey of 1534 students.

      It said 26 percent of the respondents “really like going to school”, 67 percent thought school was “okay”, and seven percent would rather be anywhere else.

      The report said students wanted their teachers to understand them and have good relationships with them. They wanted education to fit their needs and interests, and they needed to be happy and comfortable at school.

      I enjoy reading your comments eco maori – always interesting, and informative.

    • greywarshark 2.3
      31 January 2018 at 11:39 am

      ecomaori
      You express your feelings in your own way which has a particular Maori openness, directness, plain speaking, a bit of te reo and you like to finish with ka pai leaving on a positive note.

      Once people write in a number of times you can tell how their mind works, and what they are on about so we generally get your drift ecomaori. Kia kaha.

    • mary_a 2.4
      31 January 2018 at 6:24 pm

      Eco Maori (2) … Intelligence comes in many forms. Spirituality being one form and from what I’ve learned from your posts, you have plenty of it.

      Also like many contributors here Eco, in my opinion you are an asset to this site, continually contributing and sharing worthy information. Much appreciated.

  3. eco maori 3
    31 January 2018 at 8:07 am

    Off to work now I have to keep my Waka going forward kai pai Breakfast people
    Ka kite ano

  4. Ad 4
    31 January 2018 at 8:45 am

    These poverty measures are going to make Budget 2018 quite interesting:

    There are four primary measures:
    1. Low income before housing costs (below 50 % of median income, moving line)
    2. Low income after housing costs (50% median, fixed line)
    3. Material hardship (using the EU’s standard threshold)
    4. A persistence measure (for low income, material hardship or both)

    In addition there are six supplementary measures, which help build a deeper understanding of the impact on child wellbeing. These are:
     low income before-housing-costs (60% of median, moving line)
     low income after-housing-costs (60% of median, moving line)
     low income after-housing-costs (50% of median, moving line)
     low income after-housing-costs (40% of median, moving line)
     severe material hardship
     both low income and material hardship (using 60 percent AHC moving line and the material hardship measure from the primary list).

    Can I state the obvious that it is gutsy for any government to put anything so clear out there that enables a government to be held accountable , not only every three years, but every budget.

    May not feel like it yet, but it’s a rolling political earthquake.

    • Psycho Milt 4.1
      31 January 2018 at 10:50 am

      Number 2’s going to be the one to watch – it’s housing costs that are fucking people over, so there’s not just poverty to deal with, there’s housing. The inter-relationship’s going to make fixing it a real prick.

    • McFlock 4.2
      31 January 2018 at 12:50 pm

      That 40% of median is good to see, too – means they can’t just nudge the “only just poor” over to “not poor” without doing anything substantial.

  5. Bill 5
    31 January 2018 at 8:53 am

    From the guardian –

    Once Isis had established its authority in Mosul, it administered the city using a two-tier system – privileges for ‘brothers’, hardship for everyone else.

    But not in Syria…

    • McFlock 5.1
      31 January 2018 at 12:56 pm

      What do you base “not in syria” on? There’s no mention of Syria except as a destination/origin for trucks. The article is about life in Mosul.

      • Bill 5.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 2:57 pm

        Same Wahhabist inspired Jihadists occupied and ran areas of Aleppo (eastern), Eastern Ghouta, Raqqa, Deir al Zour and other places in Syria.

        Yet for “some reason”, reports from those places are about government sieges (causing loss of life, stopping aid deliveries etc) and cities “falling” (to the country’s army).

        There must be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the wildly different behaviour of the Jihadists who occupied cities across those two countries, yes?

        • McFlock 5.1.1.1
          31 January 2018 at 3:04 pm

          Assuming that your summary of the coverage is perfectly fair and balanced, the immediate response is that one would expect a different emphasis in coverage if one army attacking a bunch of pricks is itself a massive bunch of pricks, whereas the other army attacking a bunch of pricks has a substantially lower number of pricks in its ranks, particularly the higher echelons.

          FWIW, the kurds have also come under criticism for levelling villages that demographically are more Arab and leaving the kurdish-majority villages intact (using UXDs as an excuse), but they also wait for civilians to leave before demolishing the place.

          • adam 5.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2018 at 3:25 pm

            “FWIW, the kurds have also come under criticism for levelling villages that demographically are more Arab and leaving the kurdish-majority villages intact (using UXDs as an excuse), but they also wait for civilians to leave before demolishing the place.”

            In Syria? The YPK or YPP? Are you trying to tar them with the same brush as the KRG? .

            • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2018 at 3:29 pm

              🙄

              • adam …
                31 January 2018 at 8:40 pm

                Serious question dude, you put up the FWIW. Which Kurds are the Kurds you are talking about?

                Or can I expect more of you sardonic side steps?

                • McFlock …
                  31 January 2018 at 10:37 pm

                  Pretty much all of the above, but especially in Iraq. ISTR an international investigation into the Syria-based Kurdish TLAs said that there wasn’t evidence of anything that amounted to an accusation of ethnic cleansing, but they did get criticism for displacing the residents without adequate welfare provisions. And they did it a lot.

                  But it’s to fucking hot and late to go through war crimes stats for links. Google it..

          • Bill 5.1.1.1.2
            31 January 2018 at 6:18 pm

            McFlock my “summary” as you want to call it has got nothing to do with it. You’ve read the reports from Aleppo and other Syrian cities, and you’ve read the reports from Mosul.

            If the Wahabists installed brutal forms of governance in one area but not others, what accounts for that?

            It can’t have anything to do with the army they were fighting, and it can’t have anything to do with Kurds or whatever. (If you think it does, I’d be keen to hear your explanation running along those lines)

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.2.1
              31 January 2018 at 7:08 pm

              If the Wahabists installed brutal forms of governance in one area but not others, what accounts for that?

              The fog of war? People telling lies? It’s 100% true no shit I seen it! Wahhabists are people and may not all follow the party line?

              The various administrative cohorts were small (and beset by ridiculous god-bothering dogma) and the individual ethics of those involved resulted in different outcomes?

              It’s so hard to get good henchpersons these days?

              [You previously spent a number of days running interference across a range of comments. I won’t be indulging that behaviour again. If your comments come across as being designed to derail discussion, or close down discussion or clutter discussion with noise or pointless smart-arsery, I’ll be treating it as deliberate trolling. This is your only warning.] – Bill

              • Bill …
                1 February 2018 at 9:10 am

                Interested that although you seem to be indicating that both things are/were the same, you suggest the perception of difference is/was solely down to the national armies that were opposing them.

                It was “our” media that tirelessly promoted that illusory difference. And it was “our” media that put anyone who might have challenged that promotion through the wringer.

                People who bought into “our” media’s narrative (and a huge number of people did)…I wonder how many unwittingly, and out the goodness of their hearts, donated money to Jihadist orgs that “our” media were promoting as good guys and heroes?

                • McFlock …
                  1 February 2018 at 12:33 pm

                  I’m saying simply that if, as your position seems to be, the occupiers of Aleppo and Mosul were exactly the same sorts of folks, the armies attacking them were definitely not the same sort of folks.

                  More time spent on talking about the attackers’ faults might apparently diminish the faults of the occupiers, but it’s simply a fact of edited column inches.

                  Even on the ground, while being occupied by the same bunch of people one group might be more scared of the occupiers than the attackers and the other group might be the opposite.

                  There might be actual difference between the occupiers. There might not. Even if there aren’t, your observations about differences in reporting could well be the result of balanced reporting just as much as it could be the result of biased reporting.

                  • Bill …
                    1 February 2018 at 2:56 pm

                    Jesus wept. In case you missed it, the people (ie, radical Sunni Jihadists) who occupied and ran eastern Aleppo were lauded as heroes. The same radical Sunni Jihadists who occupied and ran Mosul were condemned as radical Sunni Jihadists.

                    That’s not simply “diminishing the faults” of one set of occupiers because of a focus on one country’s national army as a supposedly evil aberration.

                    It’s straight up propaganda of a deeply cynical and hypocritical nature that was/is fed by the simple fact that in one country, there is a government that many western governments want removed for openly stated economic and political reasons.

                    Why ignore the simple uncoverable facts of the matter, and skitter dance on homespun psychology to the tune of a thousand and one “ifs, buts and maybes”?

                    • McFlock …
                      1 February 2018 at 3:14 pm

                      Simply because I think you’re also incredibly biased in the matter and therefore I take your “uncoverable facts” with as much scepticism as I take MSM news reports. Which actually is a fair amount of scepticism.

                    • Bill …
                      1 February 2018 at 3:25 pm

                      The facts (those that can be uncovered) have nothing to do with me McFlock.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 February 2018 at 3:30 pm

                      That’s what the MSM say, too.

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.2
        31 January 2018 at 6:46 pm

        What do you base “not in syria” on?

        Beats me. Media coverage of Raqqa’s suffering under Da’Esh in Syria has been pretty extensive. I think it’s an implied premise that Aleppo was occupied by Da’Esh (or a group effectively equivalent) without media reporting on how awful that occupation was. If you accept that implied premise, Bill’s comment makes sense. “If you accept the premise” being the sticking point…

        • Bill 5.1.2.1
          31 January 2018 at 8:14 pm

          Well yes, there’s the premise.

          Robert Fisk went to Aleppo province as it was being cleared of Jihadists. (You’d maintain they were rebels if my recollection of previous discussions is right)

          Robert Fisk, whatever anyone may think of his analyses, is a seasoned journalist who, I’d suggest, is unlikely to be “taken for a ride”. Of course, plenty of other independent journalists wrote plenty of similar stuff – stuff that western media in general “declined” to pick up on.

          Here’s two pieces from Fisk, writing from Aleppo province, that appeared in The Independent. And a third from the evacuation of Homs.

          And sure, you may still not accept the premise that the same people (ie –
          Jihadists) occupied the cities in Syria and Iraq and installed brutal forms of governance.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-aleppo-syria-defeated-fighters-leave-crucifixion-stands-scorched-earth-robert-fisk-a7656736.html

          http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/homs-evacuation-syria-russia-military-supervision-bashar-al-assad-regime-rebels-a7652481.html

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.1.1
            31 January 2018 at 10:02 pm

            Not seeing anything in those Fisk stories that suggests east Aleppo was occupied by Da’Esh or an equivalent group. He does show a commendable ability not to think in terms of good guys and bad guys though, as usual. I expect the answer to the question of whether the citizens of east Aleppo suffered a “brutal form of governance” via a multi-year siege and bombardment or via the rebel groups resident there will continue to depend on whether one has a liberal or illiberal outlook.

            • Bill 5.1.2.1.1.1
              31 January 2018 at 10:22 pm

              Not seeing anything in those Fisk stories that suggests east Aleppo was occupied by Da’Esh or an equivalent group.

              The first link above begins…..”You can’t mistake the front line between the Syrian army and Turkey’s occupation force east of Aleppo. The Syrians drove Isis out just a month ago…”

              And later in the same article…

              “Remarkable, too, was the way in which the largely Islamist forces – “terrorists”, as the Syrians insist on calling them, of course – had used precisely the same underground tactics in open countryside as they had used beneath the streets of Aleppo and Homs”

              But you could see nothing in the article to suggest any such thing?

              And I “like” how you expect the answer to what went on in Aleppo to not be provided by the citizens of East Aleppo.

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 February 2018 at 1:04 pm

                “…east of Aleppo.”

                Er, yes. Da’esh were operating east of Aleppo. Raqqa, for instance, is “east of Aleppo.” That says nothing about who Assad and Putin were besieging within Aleppo, however my money would be on “the people who lived there.”

                Re the practice of building tunnels, you’re reading way too much into it. The Viet Cong also built tunnels, it’s a fairly obvious practice if you’re completely defenceless against observation and attack from the air. I’d be surprised if any urban-based rebel groups didn’t build tunnels.

                And I “like” how you expect the answer to what went on in Aleppo to not be provided by the citizens of East Aleppo.

                People living under a regime like Assad’s give whatever answer they think the government minders observing them would want them to give, so yeah, until there’s a change of regime I wouldn’t be much interested in hearing from them. No doubt there are some who successfully fled Syria and don’t have family remaining there they need to worry about – their comments would be interesting.

                • McFlock …
                  1 February 2018 at 1:08 pm

                  People living under a regime like Assad’s give whatever answer they think the government minders observing them would want them to give, so yeah, until there’s a change of regime I wouldn’t be much interested in hearing from them.

                  Which goes back to the original guardian story – a retrospective on life in Mosul when daesh were around. They sure as shit weren’t telling reporters all that at the time.

                  • Bill …
                    1 February 2018 at 2:39 pm

                    There have been interviews of people with very critical opinions aired on Syrian state TV. Which flies somewhat in the face of this Stalinist set-up you seem keen to present PM.

                    And BBC journalists have been openly and spontaneously challenged by ordinary people in the street for their bias reporting. (ie – no government minders or any such clap-trap around).

                    Meanwhile, independent, english speaking journalists have interviewed people from eastern Aleppo. Do their stories run on the BBC and such like? Of course not.

                    But sure, I get it. You have a line. The line is known. And you will follow that line for as long as it can be followed.

                    McFlock. There was little to no reporting from Mosul (bar the very illuminating propaganda videos from kidnapped journalist John Cantlie) in contrast to all the supposed “citizen journalists” (who were all aligned with the so called rebels, all with very good communications equipment, levels of media savvy and rather excellent access to western media) in Aleppo.

                    The links to western governments funding (the ‘correct’) “peoples’ media” operations and such like in Syria has been linked to before (eg- a surprisingly informative Guardian article that ran off the back of UK government papers.)

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      1 February 2018 at 4:49 pm

                      There’s hardly a country in the Middle East where state TV gets to air stuff the government doesn’t want aired. Not Stalinist, just authoritarian, and Syria’s more authoritarian than most in a richly contested regional field.

                      I bet BBC journalists have been publicly and “spontaneously” accosted by people in east Aleppo, but it’s unlikely that these journalists were walking around without a government minder. That’s been a feature of reporting from Syria for decades.

                      I’m familiar with the “independent,” English-speaking journalists you refer to, and there’s a reason the Syrian government trusts them out without a minder.

  6. Chuck 6
    31 January 2018 at 8:55 am

    Sue Bradford on twitter does not pull her punches on what she thinks about the current Green Party leadership…

    “How dishonourable of the Greens to support the waka-jumping bill; if Rod & Jeanette hadn’t been able to leave the Alliance, Greens would never have entered Parliament in 1999”

    To deny other MP’s to follow the same path the Green Party were able to take to come into existence is, to put it mildly dishonorable.

    • weka 6.1
      31 January 2018 at 8:59 am

      I haven’t looked at this in a while but didn’t the Greens leave the Alliance through a normal party splitting process rather than waka jumping?

      • weka 6.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 9:05 am

        Matt J. Whitehead‏ @MJWhitehead
        Replying to @suebr

        Technically you’re wrong Sue- neither the old law (which is quite different) nor the new law would have prevented the Greens entering Parliament in 1999. Neither of those laws deal with electing parties that split in a general election. They deal with mid-term splits.

        Matt J. Whitehead‏ @MJWhitehead
        Replying to @MJWhitehead @suebr

        The old law would have kicked them out of parliament in ’97, but let them return in ’99. The new law would potentially have allowed them to stay in Parliament, as they did honour their commitment to support the Alliance until the election.

        IMO, the bill is a time-waster.

        Full thread https://twitter.com/suebr/status/958196964050415616

    • weka 6.2
      31 January 2018 at 9:06 am

      Next time please put the link. It’s always better to see people’s words in context.

    • Psych nurse 6.3
      31 January 2018 at 11:50 am

      A list seat belongs to the party, an electorate seat to the individual MP who won it. I have no issue withan electorate MP taking their seat elsewhere but I do with a list MP.

      • McFlock 6.3.1
        31 January 2018 at 1:14 pm

        This is another one of those issues that I vacillate over – what if the caucus diverts from the party principles, e.g. Lab4 or the Alliance supporting the invasion of Afghanistan?

        Maybe a party membership ostracism vote is more the go for list mps…

  7. Puckish Rogue 7
    31 January 2018 at 8:56 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11981063

    “The Hapua St house was the most expensive standalone home but the most valuable property was a 8082sq m tranche of vacant land, valued at $3.5m on Garus Ave in Mangere.”

    Seems to me the most obvious solution would be to sell the 3 million dollar house and build some new houses (could probably fit a few) on the vacant land

    • veutoviper 7.1
      31 January 2018 at 10:39 am

      PR, there was a longish discussion on this article yesterday under 6 on Open Mike 30/01/18, albeit more focused on the tone of the original commentator towards the longterm tenant. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22-01-2018-2/#comment-1441182

      As the tenant appears to be interested in moving, it would indeed seem sensible to move him to appropriate accommodation elsewhere and I suspect that this may well be on the cards.

      However, I also note that your suggestion is to sell the house and build new houses on the vacant land. I am sure that you know/realise that it is the land that is worth the money – not the house (see the photo in the article).

      So (LOL) is this you stirring in an aroundabout puckish way or really aimed at heading the discussion towards the outraged and outrageous article in the Herald this morning on this property by that icon of intelligentsia, Mike Hosking?

      • Puckish Rogue 7.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 11:38 am

        If you can sell the land for three million and have vacant land then doesn’t it make sense to sell and then build

        Hell sell both and build even more houses then, i mean getting past the whole ideological thing doesn’t it just make sense?

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          31 January 2018 at 1:38 pm

          No. It’s someone’s home.

          • BM 7.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2018 at 1:44 pm

            Yep, the taxpayers, old guy should have been moved into a unit years ago.

            Why he wasn’t is what needs to be answered.

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2018 at 1:47 pm

              Because state housing used to be about homes, not storage units for the poor.

              • BM …
                31 January 2018 at 1:51 pm

                Times change, housing is in short supply.

                Get him out, sell home develop vacant land.

                • McFlock …
                  31 January 2018 at 2:01 pm

                  Nah. Let the person stay in their home, but fire the people who reduced HNZ stock and replace them with someone who can make it run competently.

                  Oh wait, we did that last year.

                  • Stunned Mullet …
                    31 January 2018 at 2:25 pm

                    “He said if he had a choice he wouldn’t live there – the area had become too busy for his liking.”

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 2:47 pm

                      Well, he’s still there so obviously they haven’t offered him a better home.

                      If the house is vacant, then we get into the debate about whether selling state houses in more expensive areas merely increases ghettoisation and alienation.

                      But all this is irrelevant until the tenant chooses to move to another home.

                      Otherwise it’s just another case of tories wanting to treat people like shit and pretending it’s for their own good.

                      EDIT:
                      “He said if he had a choice he wouldn’t live there – the area had become too busy for his liking.”

                      TL:DR Give him a better fucking choice then

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      31 January 2018 at 2:49 pm

                      🙄

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    31 January 2018 at 2:27 pm

                    Fuck yes. Why should this guy have to suffer for Tory inability to run a state housing system without adopting an Applied Misanthropy business model?

                    • mac1 …
                      31 January 2018 at 2:57 pm

                      Why do I feel that this issue is about poor folk living where rich folk want and can afford to live? Poor folk don’t deserve to enjoy a view. Let them live amongst their own down in the valleys.

                      It’s similar to former state housing areas that became gentrified.

                      The old state housing ideal was predicated on some important factors. First, that it not only for the poor. Second, that the pepperpot policy meant that some social mix was achieved.

                      The man who has lived in the same house for 37 years would have moved into that house under those factors.

                      Now, some want that he move after a lifetime of building his life, friendships and all those ties which link us to our homes.

                      Relocating or ‘downsizing’ has a similar effect and an Auckland advisory group toured the country pointing out the social upheaval caused by people persuaded often ill-advisedly to downsize into smaller houses or ‘units’ for financial reasons in unfamiliar localities.

                      I live in a small town and the mixing of state and private housing was quite prevalent. There is less social stigma in that, even though certain streets are still seen as ‘over the tracks”.

                      However, certain streets here enjoy possible fine river views and I will be watching that these don’t become purely the preserve of the wealthy.

            • Rosemary McDonald 7.1.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2018 at 3:27 pm

              Yep, BM, the racist, who should have been banned from TS for what he wrote last night.

              Yet here he still is.

              Why?

          • Puckish Rogue 7.1.1.1.2
            31 January 2018 at 1:45 pm

            So say 300 grand to build a house (rough figure) and you sell the property for 3 million you could build ten houses on the spare land and you still think it shouldn’t be done

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.2.1
              31 January 2018 at 1:49 pm

              Because if HNZ needs three million for new homes, it should come from progressive taxation rather than taking people’s homes.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                31 January 2018 at 2:01 pm

                Why tax people more when you can sell one home and build ten? That makes no sense at all.

                • weka …
                  31 January 2018 at 2:22 pm

                  BECAUSE IT IS SOMEONE’S HOME.

                  (shouting because you appear to not be hearing).

                  • weka …
                    31 January 2018 at 2:24 pm

                    when we let the property market determine people’s human rights to a home, we end up with the housing crisis we have now. The crisis has nothing to do with money and everything to do with values (and I don’t mean property values).

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      31 January 2018 at 2:27 pm

                      Human rights to a home ..what ?

                      “He said if he had a choice he wouldn’t live there – the area had become too busy for his liking.”

                      If he can be rehoused elsewhere and the property can be developed to make more housing for people in need what exactly is the point you’re arguing ?

                    • weka …
                      31 January 2018 at 2:37 pm

                      that there is a principle that the market value of a property alone shouldn’t be more important than someone having a *home.

                      When we treat people as stock units, or as McFlock said, housing as storage units for the poor, then we break community. Some people look at a property and see dollar signs, others look and see the person/people who live in the house, the relationships with the people around them, the years put into the verge garden or trees, the sense of place etc.

                      If the guy who wants to live there wants to move, then help him move, not a problem. But moving someone from their home just because of perceptions of money, that’s fucked up.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:14 pm

                      No Weka its not his home, he doesn’t own it

                      Taxing people more when you have a clear cut case like this is whats fucked up

                      10 homes for the price of one is not about the money, its about building homes for potentially 9 families for cost of relocating one person

                      One person suffers a minor inconvenience and 9 families gets homes is a very good deal

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:27 pm

                      It’s not his house, but it is his home.

                      Losing your home isn’t a “minor inconvenience”.

                    • OncewasTim []
                      31 January 2018 at 5:09 pm

                      I doubt he’ll umderstand the diff. Life’s all about economic units.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:30 pm

                      Not his home and for the 37 years hes lived in the house is it that unreasonable to expect him to move to another property so that another family can live in it

                    • weka …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:31 pm

                      When you say ‘home’ you mean ownership. When I say home I mean the place that someone live that supports them on all levels not just the survival one. Reread what I said in that context. Treating all rentals as storage units kills community.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:35 pm

                      I know that fuzzy hu-mon emotions can be difficult for tories to understand, but if you live 37 years in a place, it’s you’re home regardless of who holds the deed.

                      It’s pretty simple: if you want him to move, offer him a residence more suitable to his current and future needs. If he refuses, make him a better offer.

                      But just going ‘you move to address X in 40 days or you’re on the street’ is indeed very unreasonable.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:52 pm

                      It’s pretty simple: if you want him to move, offer him a residence more suitable to his current and future needs. If he refuses, make him a better offer.

                      I agree, up to a point.

                      But just going ‘you move to address X in 40 days or you’re on the street’ is indeed very unreasonable.

                      I never said that at all. I’d expect he gets moved to a place that caters to his needs but I’d expect him to be moved

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:57 pm

                      So he’s in a place that he would maybe like to move from, you offer him a place, he refuses that specific new place, so you move him there anyway?

                      That seems reasonable to you?

                    • weka …
                      31 January 2018 at 4:12 pm

                      ‘moving to another place’ is what you do to cattle or furniture. As McFlock says, there are solutions that don’t involve turning tenants into objects.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 January 2018 at 4:15 pm

                      Does this seem reasonable to you? There needs to be good faith, on both sides.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11787549

                      TRC housing general manager Neil Porteous said it had been in discussions with Rauti about moving to an alternative home in Tamaki since July last year.

                      She had been offered five properties over the past four months and a “new warm, dry home” nearby was being held for her.

                      “We have not received any feedback from Ms Rauti on the houses we have offered her. We are hoping she will contact us so that we can discuss her specific needs and assist her in moving to the property we are holding for her. In the meantime, we will be following the legal process. “

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 4:25 pm

                      Sure seems unreasonable that they need to demolish every single house all at once.

                      Sure seems unreasonable that “transparency about the plan” doesn’t mean they were willing to make any allowances to it.

                      Sure seems unreasonable that they had to say “warm and dry” as if that’s not the minimum expectation – what if she’s happily “warm and dry” where she is?

                      Sure seems unreasonable that it was some sort of private developer tearing down the state houses. How did that happen?

                      Sure seems unreasonable that polite people going to visit her and find out what she wants couldn’t get any “feedback”. Unless that approach wasn’t made, in which case that is also unreasonable.

                  • patricia bremner …
                    31 January 2018 at 4:58 pm

                    Go Weka!!

              • Chuck …
                31 January 2018 at 2:19 pm

                “Because if HNZ needs three million for new homes, it should come from progressive taxation rather than taking people’s homes.”

                Ok, I understand what you are saying with the above comment, no sale of land.

                However, the land the current house is on could be developed to allow additional people/families a place to call home would that not be a good outcome?

                This still requires the current guy to be moved, at least until the section has been redeveloped.

                • McFlock …
                  31 January 2018 at 2:43 pm

                  No, you failed to understand it.

                  That house is someone’s home.

                  Do not take someone’s home unless, for example, you can satisfy all the requirements for eminent domain appropriation. Not just to make your ledger look better.

                  Offer them money or a better home, wait for them to die, whatever.

                  But don’t take someone’s home simply because the government has run state housing for a profit and completely bollocksed the housing market over decades.

                  • weka …
                    31 January 2018 at 2:45 pm

                    “eminent domain appropriation”

                    What’s that?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 2:53 pm

                      Compulsory purchase where the highway gets built over people’s land despite refusal to sell, sort of thing.

                      Requires a bit of work in NZ – has to justify not just necessity but also why that exact thing needs to be taken. Can’t be done on whim.

                      In a state house rental, obviously it’s owned by the state, but if it’s also a home then the tenant should need to be compensated for that fact, in my opinion.

                  • Chuck …
                    31 January 2018 at 3:36 pm

                    I do understand its someone’s home, who has lived there for a long period of time.

                    All over the country people who own their own homes have for various reason had to sell the family home (too big, move out of the area etc.) Their children may have been born and grown up in the house. It’s tough no matter if you own or a state house tenant.

                    In this particular situation, the size of the section could house vastly more people, in an established suburb.

                    Should one person hold up 50 more getting into a home?

                    I agree completely a suitable new house must be provided, and done in a way that mutually respects both the tenant and the state.

                    If it’s not about “profit” rather making the best use of available resources (the land) would you still have the same view?

                    I can’t see how Eminent Domain relates to a state house. A tenant has the use of but does not own it.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 January 2018 at 3:49 pm

                      All of this stuff about the house and land allowing money or space for more homes for more people is just marsh gas.

                      The residency of a single home has nothing to do with HNZ’s bottom line, housing stock levels, or any of that shit. It’s a billion dollar operation – if one house is the difference between 50 people being housed, HNZ is incompetently run. What will happen in the real world is they will do whatever they want with the house, but the overall stock will vary only according to government policy.

                      Eminent Domain was an example of the level HNZ should have to meet to justify forcibly remove a tenant, in my opinion. Funnily enough, that might eventually include your resource efficiency problem if the “inefficiency” becomes severe enough. But in this case, it’s not.

                • weka …
                  31 January 2018 at 2:45 pm

                  “This still requires the current guy to be moved,”

                  vs

                  “This still requires the current guy to move”

                  It would be nice if we didn’t treat tenants or poor people as passive objects.

                  • indiana …
                    31 January 2018 at 4:50 pm

                    Have you not worked out the difference between a private landlord and state landlord?

                    Private landlords would love to have tenants that are long term.

                    State landlords need to treat people as passive objects because they only provide housing for their current needs – these needs are not fixed over time. If the needs of that person is long term, then they still need to treat them as passive objects and move them around their housing stock to accommodate the people they are responsible for.

                    A home is where a person makes it and if you are renting, its your home only as long as the term of your tenancy. After that you need to think about where you next home is, or in the case of state landlord, where they tell you to move next.

                    • weka …
                      31 January 2018 at 5:11 pm

                      “Private landlords would love to have tenants that are long term.”

                      Only when it suits them. Try talking to people who have had to move a lot and it’s a different story.

                      There is no reason that the state can’t provide longterm or lifetime tenancy for people, other than ideology.

                      If you think it’s acceptable to move people around, then you are endorsing the end of community.

                    • indiana …
                      31 January 2018 at 6:01 pm

                      “If you think it’s acceptable to move people around, then you are endorsing the end of community.”

                      That’s the harsh reality of having the State as your landlord. The State has to make a choice, move a current tenant to a dwelling that is suitable for their needs so that the needs of another state tenant can be met or preserve the community. The thing is, the State knows that communities are fluid. Some neighborhoods blossom and some degrade, the state can’t control that. If a drug gang privately purchased a house and moved in next door to a statehouse, is it the State’s responsibility to move the state tenant when their needs are being met?

                    • Carolyn_Nth …
                      31 January 2018 at 6:29 pm

                      The harsh reality is people’s homes (whether they, private landlords or the state owns the buildings and/or land) are a basic necessity. They should not be treated as market commodities. And people should not be treated as objects to be shunted around to suit amoral, predatory capitalists.

                      Eventually capitalists run out of other people’s lives and activities to appropriate and commodify, and they become extremely callous about the way they treat humans as a result of their fetish for profiteering at other people’s expense.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      31 January 2018 at 6:50 pm

                      That’s the harsh reality of having the State as your landlord.

                      No, that’s the harsh reality of having right-wingers operating an Applied Misanthropy model of state housing. The solution is to not let right-wingers run the country.

                    • weka …
                      31 January 2018 at 7:25 pm

                      “The thing is, the State knows that communities are fluid. Some neighborhoods blossom and some degrade, the state can’t control that.”

                      The State can protect communities though. There’s no good reason that the state can’t both run social housing fairly *and look after the community. In fact they’re dependent upon each other.

                      “If a drug gang privately purchased a house and moved in next door to a statehouse, is it the State’s responsibility to move the state tenant when their needs are being met?”

                      Not sure what you mean. If the tenants need to move for some reason then of course the government should help.

                      This stuff gets easier to understand if you stop seeing people as things.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 January 2018 at 7:43 pm

                      Private landlords would love to have tenants that are long term… in some fairyland version of the “free” “market”.

                      On Earth, actual market conditions apply, as Mr. Augustine Lao and Mr. Peter Talley can attest.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 January 2018 at 7:58 pm

                      harsh reality

                      Translation: I project my amygdalan fears onto everything.

  8. weka 8
    31 January 2018 at 9:03 am

    Greenpeace NZ‏Verified account @GreenpeaceNZ

    BREAKING >> Greenpeace activists have boarded the Amazon Warrior’s supply ship – the Mermaid Searcher – in New Plymouth. We’re taking a stand to #EndOil exploration in New Zealand.

    https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceNZ/status/958422435753160704

  9. esoteric pineapples 9
    31 January 2018 at 9:21 am

    I was just reading a “New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union that claims it : “represents 31,000 members and supporters.”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1801/S00124/taxpayers-union-responds-to-the-spinoff.htm

    I was wondering does anyone know if the TU has ever proved its claim of having thousands of members. Is there any source online that proves they have thousands of members? Obviously, “supporters” can mean anyone in the world.

    Also, I was wondering if the name “New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union” is something they have “copyrighted” or anything like that. In other words, do they now have sole rights to use that name or anything similar?

    • OncewasTim 9.1
      31 January 2018 at 6:49 pm

      You mean something similar….as in the Taxpayers Onion where you peel away each layer revealing layer upon layer of vested political and economic interests up the chain each pissing the other’s pocket?

  10. Kay 10
    31 January 2018 at 9:24 am

    I can’t help thinking that the MSM, – calling out Stuff in particular- intentionally or not with their ongoing and more recently blanket coverage of the rental squeeze have opened another front in the “divide and conquer” campaign. Which, like their great success in turning a good section of the population against beneficiaries we are now seeing some very vitriolic tenants vs landlord nastiness emerge, in the name of “news”, but enabled by opening comments and inviting people to write in with their own stories (read: Stuff).

    It’s been common knowledge for a long time there’s a severe housing shortage in much of NZ for some time now. But what’s the reason for pitting tenants against private landlords? It seems to me to be a continuation of the class warfare we’ve somehow found ourselves in, the latest front being “I’m superior to you because I own property and have secure, stable housing and you don’t.” Well that’s the dominant theme reading the comments, but knowing what we know about how certain groups of people with an agenda deliberately overload comments sections and try and influence readers with the up and down votes, who knows exactly what the majority of private landlords are thinking? But these comments, even reading them ( I know, dumb move) with a cynical mind, it’s easy to get drawn in and find myself loathing ALL landlords because of the alleged views of some very vocal ones, despite knowing from experience they’re not. From that I can conclude said campaign is working well.

    But is is also designed as a scare tactic? To keep us living in a state of permanent anxiety thus keeping us distracted from what else is going on, to wear us down so much and stop participating in the democratic process?

    • Rosemary McDonald 10.1
      31 January 2018 at 9:30 am

      “But is is also designed as a scare tactic? To keep us living in a state of permanent anxiety thus keeping us distracted from what else is going on, to wear us down so much and stop participating in the democratic process?”

      Yes.

      Your comment would make a great guest post Kay.

      • Kay 10.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 9:52 am

        Rosemary, I was thinking about it. Maybe after this heatwave ends (if it ever does!) My brains total mush right now. I imagine this “campaign” will still be going on into Autumn…

    • Olwyn 10.2
      31 January 2018 at 10:10 am

      I notice that the NZH article that Puckish Rogue has linked, about state houses “worth” millions, carries the same snooty tone, and includes such dog whistles as a certain house’s being worth … 61 times more than the $49,588 a primary school teacher would earn in their first year of work and almost 40 times more than the $75,949 a teacher could earn after seven years’ service.

      I think it’s a case of the property industry fighting back. The new government’s success or failure depends to a high degree on how well they address the housing crisis. And addressing the housing crisis threatens the Ponzi scheme that property developers and their real estate mates have been enjoying for the past nine years.

      • greywarshark 10.2.1
        31 January 2018 at 11:52 am

        This business of state house values is likely related to putting a market price on the houses. This should not be done for state houses, except in the rare occasion of them being made available for sale.

        They should instead be practically valued at land cost plus expenditure, plus a mark up each year according to the CPI. That is all the state needs to know because the houses are public property for the use of the public that need them.

        There should be a warning clause in big letters, stating that if any of them are sold, there should be three valuations done by separate assessor firms, and the highest of these should be compared to the recent sales of that area and they should be sold for cash obtained privately by the buyer.

    • Chuck 10.3
      31 January 2018 at 10:13 am

      Kay, you do realize while Labour was in opposition and during the election and still now while in Government they have/are demonizing private landlords?

      Phil Twyford has solicited letters from prospective tenants and then plastered his MP office window with those letters. Other Labour MP’s are doing similar.

      The current Government is the ones pitting landlords verse tenants.

    • patricia bremner 10.5
      31 January 2018 at 5:02 pm

      This is a right wing tactic world wide.

  11. Kay 11
    31 January 2018 at 11:08 am

    Chuck, I’ve been renting privately for 25 years, so under National and Labour Govts. I’d much rather be in State housing for the tenure security but there isn’t any. Funny that.
    What’s the vilification from Labour exactly- wanting healthy homes fit for habitation, non-extortionate reasonable rent rises? More security of tenure? How is that villifying?

    What I’m seeing is an exact replay of beneficiary vilification, by politicians and the media: Find the stories of the minority extreme bad experiences with both parties (landlords and tentants) and given them the front page. Let the “other side” know just how bad landlords and tenants can be, and tar us all with the same brush.

    I see (read) landlords saying they’re getting out of the market because of all the extra costs of having to do up the rentals and potential tax changes so it’s the governments fault, the implication being tenants should be greatful to have ANY roof over their heads and how dare the Govt tell us what we should do with our investment etc.

    And the tenants read this and of course they interpret “greed”, especially those who have lost their leases multiple times for no reason except they legally could, or were finally priced out. Then they have no hope of finding anywhere else, especially if they’re on a low income, because the reality is there’s major discrimination going on, especially from Property managers.

    Now, why are we getting bombarded with all the extreme landlord/tenants all bad, airB&B more profitable and screw society? Why aren’t the media emphasising the systematic selling off of State and Council housing over the last 20 years, and the actual reasons we’re in this mess, and the very real social problems going with it? because they get more clicks from the us vs them articles?

    Not all private landlords deserve demonisation which many renters can attest to. But there are some who can for their behaviour, and certainly some just for their attitude. Like those who say if we don’t like renting then get a better job and save up for a deposit. And I have no time for tenants who don’t take care of their rental.

    For me personally, I only just managed to secure a 2 year tenancy, but I’m living in the very real fear of becoming homeless, even with a disability, and I’m the perfect tenant with a perfect credit record and guaranteed income. That’s something I would never have even considered possible 10 years ago. There’s a lot of us about.

    • adam 11.1
      31 January 2018 at 11:17 am

      chunk like many Tory commentators on here, has no moral compass. To make up for that, they make fake moral crisis so they can justify their hate.

    • Chuck 11.2
      31 January 2018 at 12:26 pm

      Thanks, Kay, I appreciate your considered reply. Although I beg to differ that the Labour narrative has contributed to the MSM running with these types of stories.

      For the MSM it sells newspapers or gets them the clicks. Do I dare say it’s like a sports event?? demonize the other team…fill the stadium and push up the TV ratings.

      Politicians know the game all too well and are happy for this to occur when it suits there agenda. Us verse them, right verse wrong, evil verse good…

      Point in case; see adams reply to me @ 11.1

      At the moment I am renting, on a 12-month term as a widowed father so have an understanding of the tight rental market.

      • adam 11.2.1
        31 January 2018 at 2:58 pm

        How ironic, you’re the one pushing the division line you Tory hack.

        • Chuck 11.2.1.1
          31 January 2018 at 4:07 pm

          “How ironic, you’re the one pushing the division line you Tory hack.”

          Calling me a “Tory hack” “no moral compass” “justify their hate”, is not pushing the division line adam?

          • adam 11.2.1.1.1
            31 January 2018 at 8:47 pm

            So you realise your a divisive tory hack then, at least getting in touch with yourself is a start.

            And of course it is, you don’t know any other language.

    • David Mac 11.3
      31 January 2018 at 1:42 pm

      I don’t think it’s a reality that property managers are discriminating Kay, well no more than if you were to decline my invitation to dance. I think it’s discernment rather than discrimination.

      This doesn’t change the outcome you highlight, yes, the demand for rentals has become so strong tenant seekers can compile a short list of applicants that meet every one of their ‘Got to have’ and most of their ‘Nice to have’ pre-requisites.

      I think you turned me down and accepted George’s invitation because Clooney is better looking and richer…maybe another time.

    • patricia bremner 11.4
      31 January 2018 at 5:17 pm

      Yes Kay, like the lady who bought a teepee and lives in a camp ground because there were no or too highly priced units.

      Some owners are now selling up, because they don’t wish to upgrade, even with Govt help.

      They are finding they are now feeling pain losing money to sale costs and a less competitive market. They were never long term investors in housing.

      Good tenants like you are like workers who find their pay cheque does not cover their living costs, and they end up with payday loans, or in your case no roof.

      There is soooo much to fix. This is what we have been left by that smug lot.
      You are right, the coalition has hit the ground running and they have their eyes firmly on legislation to assist.

      Let us hope the 3 parties continue to work in people’s best interests.

    • Carolyn_Nth 11.5
      31 January 2018 at 6:33 pm

      but I’m living in the very real fear of becoming homeless, even with a disability, and I’m the perfect tenant with a perfect credit record and guaranteed income. That’s something I would never have even considered possible 10 years ago. There’s a lot of us about.

      Yep.

  12. adam 12
    31 January 2018 at 11:15 am

    Love this, not really political. But it’s an international project with a kiwi involved. Bit how we need to start thinking, more across the borders. The stinking capitalist are internationalist, especially with their trust and offshore banking. Bugger the borders. Nationalism is just another distraction to keep you suppressed.

  13. Ad 13
    31 January 2018 at 11:55 am

    If you really want to get the dairy industry to listen, find a way to regularly review their entire competitive structure.

    IN a really obscure little Bill now on the order paper, thye are proposing regular reviews of the entire NZ dairy industry:

    https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-digests/document/51PLLaw24631/dairy-industry-restructuring-amendment-bill-2017-bills#RelatedAnchor

    The Bill provides for a process that requires the Minister to regularly request and respond to reports on the state of competition in the dairy industry. Seems like an innocuous little thing to form reports, but it’s the firs time I’ve seen any evidence that any government since the 2001 legislation that formed Fonterra really want to revisit the entire dairy structure at all.

    And with that review goes the future of our fresh water system as a whole.

  14. Ad 14
    31 January 2018 at 12:01 pm

    I liked this one:

    Emma Hart
    @Ghetsuhm
    I have this theory that cycling is as close as a middle-class straight white guy can get to understanding Being Female. People have a reckless disregard for your safety, you have to treat everyone like they might hurt you, and if you do get hurt people will blame you for existing

    • You_Fool 14.1
      31 January 2018 at 12:25 pm

      Also some people will just hate you in general and call out rude and demeaning insults. Some will think they can invade your space and get as close as they want without any thought to your thoughts on the matter. The rules of the road are made to suit cars and if you break them to get ahead you are vilified, but if you try and stick with them you are abused because you are not a car.

    • Psycho Milt 14.2
      31 January 2018 at 1:05 pm

      Ha! True! Although, don’t extend the analogy too far – once we get off the roads onto cycle paths through pedestrian areas like parks, we’re back to being a potential threat (I’m not actually a threat to pedestrians, but there’s no way for pedestrians to know that).

      • Ad 14.2.1
        31 January 2018 at 1:19 pm

        The full Twitter hashtag goes through all the imperfections of the analogy.
        Emma has also posted on her site with more detail.

  15. Puckish Rogue 15
    31 January 2018 at 1:58 pm

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/01/30/79601/the-brendan-horan-never-again-bill?amp=1

    I think if the Greens vote for this it’ll be the final nail in the coffin of the Greens holding the “moral” high ground and will start the slide of the Greens becoming just another power above all else party, it might also hurt the soft Green vote as well

    I say this because the Greens tend to be strongest in , mostly,middle class suburbs

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11931989

    The five strongest electorates for the Greens were Wellington Central, Rongotai, Mt Albert, Auckland Central and Dunedin North – the same five electorates where its vote was strongest in the 2014 election.

    “The historical profile [of a Green voter] tends to be urban professionals, tertiary educated, often in public service roles.”

    So if the Greens become just another party then they’ll probably leak more votes to Labour

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1
      31 January 2018 at 4:21 pm

      The final nail

      🙄

      What sort of coffin lid only requires one nail?

      • Puckish Rogue 15.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 4:24 pm

        Well theres been a few so far…maybe i should have used a tipping point analogy instead?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.1
          31 January 2018 at 4:25 pm

          Wondering what you think the others were.

          • Puckish Rogue 15.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2018 at 4:29 pm

            Getting rid of the two traitors, possibly supporting the CPTPP, MTs meltdown, support for the waka bill in exchange for concessions off the top of my head

            • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2018 at 4:43 pm

              Clendon & Graham broke with the GP’s kaupapa. To abandon that kaupapa would indeed have been a nail. No nail there.

              CPTPP: does your imaginary nail have a name?

              I know you feel that way about Turei and I also know plenty who don’t.

              Just as I thought.

            • alwyn 15.1.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2018 at 6:34 pm

              “support for the waka bill in exchange for concessions”.
              Please tell us. Except for allowing them to ride in the back of the Ministerial BMWs what concessions did they get? I can’t think of anything.
              They sold out very, very cheaply didn’t they?

  16. The Chairman 16
    31 January 2018 at 2:27 pm

    KiwiSaver “fees clock” shows how big a bite fund managers take out of returns

    A few highlights from the report (link below).

    The clock is spinning round at $1000 a minute.

    In January alone, KiwiSaver schemes charged a combined $40 million in fees.

    “KiwiSaver is now one of the most profitable lines of business for banks.”

    KiwiSaver fees were “the single biggest determinant of (an investor’s) future returns”.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/101034999/low-cost-kiwisaver-provider-simplicity-launches-kiwisaver-fees-clock

  17. Ad 17
    31 January 2018 at 2:30 pm

    Another good one, for first reading to introducing a bill that would enable day: Fletcher Tabuteau puts up the KiwiFund Bill, starting the process for the state to own and operate its own Kiwisaver fund for New Zealanders, rather than the banks’ preferred providers getting all of it.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2017/0007/latest/DLM7514804.html

  18. joe90 18
    31 January 2018 at 3:02 pm

    Oops.

    The Cabinet Files is one of the biggest breaches of cabinet security in Australian history and the story of their release is as gripping as it is alarming and revealing.

    It begins at a second-hand shop in Canberra, where ex-government furniture is sold off cheaply.

    The deals can be even cheaper when the items in question are two heavy filing cabinets to which no-one can find the keys.

    They were purchased for small change and sat unopened for some months until the locks were attacked with a drill.

    Inside was the trove of documents now known as The Cabinet Files.

    The thousands of pages reveal the inner workings of five separate governments and span nearly a decade.

    Nearly all the files are classified, some as “top secret” or “AUSTEO”, which means they are to be seen by Australian eyes only.

    But the ex-government furniture sale was not limited to Australians — anyone could make a purchase.

    And had they been inclined, there was nothing stopping them handing the contents to a foreign agent or government.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442

  19. ropata 19
    31 January 2018 at 3:41 pm

    Good news for renters:

    Banning letting fees and allowing landlords to only increase rents once a year are two of the ways the government is looking to make life easier for renters.https://t.co/JtlvW1eLnw— RNZ (@radionz) January 30, 2018

    • BM 19.1
      31 January 2018 at 4:06 pm

      How does that help?

      1) You raise rents once a year but by a bigger amount.

      2) You add the letting fee to the rent, so the tenant gets hit multiple times, longer they stay more “letting fee” they pay

      Btw Kiwi build is bullshit and if it ever gets started will take 10 years at least to make a difference.

      This rental crisis is what is going to sink this government.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11985151

      • The Chairman 19.1.1
        1 February 2018 at 9:39 am

        I concur the rental crisis will hurt and perhaps sink this Government.

        Labour’s policies are a driving factor when it comes to rents increasing. And unfortunately, they don’t seem to see it.

        • ropata 19.1.1.1
          6 February 2018 at 4:08 pm

          You wish. Tenants are people with rights and shelter is a basic human right. This Government is going to improve tenants rights and if landlords get shitty about it they can fuck off out of the market.

  20. joe90 20
    31 January 2018 at 3:49 pm

    Purge at nine.

    All Americans deserve accountability and respect — and that is what we are giving them. So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers — and to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xsLy_F0SAh0J:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-state-of-the-union-address-trump-transcript-full-text/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-b

  21. mac1 21
    31 January 2018 at 3:50 pm

    Tantalising stuff from TV3. A Reid poll out tonight. Results promised that will ‘devastate” at 6 pm.

    • McFlock 21.1
      31 January 2018 at 3:54 pm

      ah, the joys of the first year of a parliamentary term, when one can not give two shits about polls 🙂

    • Anne 21.2
      31 January 2018 at 4:47 pm

      Some party has dropped 2 to 3 points. Newshub calls it devastating because it attracts viewers. The likelihood is its National which might explain the Barry Soper item re- English’s imminent demise.

      • chris73 21.2.1
        31 January 2018 at 4:50 pm

        You’re probably right ref: the dropping 2-3 points but, on current polling, it would be devastating for NZFirst or the Greens to be that low

    • Chuck 21.3
      31 January 2018 at 5:09 pm

      With a headline like that…TV3 is going all out for a rating winner!

      This poll, in theory, should have Labour and Jacinda racing away.

      The honeymoon period for the new Government, baby news, etc.

      If its a drop of 2 to 3 points that would suggest either the Greens or NZF going below the 5% threshold with that TV3 headline.

      • Chuck 21.3.1
        31 January 2018 at 6:15 pm

        Lol the best part was watching Winston being followed around by the TV3 reporter!

        I am surprised that Labour is still behind National, with National not losing any support.

        • mac1 21.3.1.1
          31 January 2018 at 6:29 pm

          Labour up to 42%.
          Labour plus Greens could form a government.
          Labour leader outpolls National’s leader as preferred PM by 12%.
          Friendless National need more than NZF to form a government.
          50% say government doing well or better. 20% say worse. 20% say it’s too early.
          Minor parties insignificant.
          NZF drop but as with all minor parties they will languish between elections.
          Greens bucked that trend.

          Who’s devastated, TV3?

          As Winston said, “You have a good day.”

          • BM 21.3.1.1.1
            31 January 2018 at 6:36 pm

            Back to FPP.

            This is as good as it gets for Labour, Nationals base is around 44 -45%.

            The rental crisis, dropping house prices will take its toll, high chance of an outright win for National in 2020.

            Can you imagine Collins as PM with over 50% of the vote, the left wing would be apoplectic.

            • Pat 21.3.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2018 at 6:40 pm

              Thanks BM…on a hot day when there is plenty of news of concern its nice to know that some still live in a world of delusional hopefulness….onya!

            • mac1 21.3.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2018 at 6:47 pm

              Luckily I have an imagination that tends towards the benign.

              House prices are stable at the moment.

              The rental crisis helped bring down the National government. I’d expect the new governments’ moves will address the problem.

              I remember not so long ago a government saying there was no housing crisis.

              I remember National at 23% whilst under the present leader.

              FPP? National atm have one only friend with 0.3% support. They’d need FPP, gerrymandering and rotten borough all.

              • BM …
                31 January 2018 at 7:13 pm

                I’d expect the new governments’ moves will address the problem.

                What, dumping more cost onto landlords who pass those costs onto their tenants?

                Renters are going to be hating Labour over the next few years, they’ll be yearning for the return of National and lower rents.

                As for FPP, there will be only the Lab/Green block and National, they’re the choices, one side is left one side is right.

                Will NZ want to stay left?, I don’t think so, 2020 is going to be a defining point in NZ history, whoever wins is going to have the ability to take NZ where they want, no holds barred.

                • mac1 …
                  31 January 2018 at 8:40 pm

                  Hmmm, I wonder how many ways a new left-wing, socially-committed, humane, compassionate, people-oriented government can find to solve our housing needs?

                  What you suggest, BM?

                  BTW, why do you keep mentioning FPP? We’ve not been there for twenty years, two decades, a generation. You’re not yearning for The Good Old Times, are you?

                  They’re a bit like National, and those good old times with poor mental health services, declining education performances under national standards, homelessness, suicide, increase in meth use, water and other infrastructure problems, drops in water quality standards, slow EQC responses, rack-renting, worker exploitation, 90 day trials with firing with impunity…….. yeah, those ol’ good ol’ days….. under National.

        • Psycho Milt 21.3.1.2
          31 January 2018 at 6:59 pm

          I am surprised that Labour is still behind National, with National not losing any support.

          Why are you surprised? It’s not like the right-of-centre voter has credible alternatives available. Take-home message is that Labour/Green could govern without NZ1 on today’s numbers – the proportion of that support held by each party is irrelevant (unless there was a really massive change in the proportions).

          • Chuck 21.3.1.2.1
            31 January 2018 at 7:35 pm

            I would have thought there was up to 10% of “soft National vote” that would have seen at least some drift off to Labour.

            So I am surprised they held and even gained slightly. It does indicate 44 – 45% is a base for National.

            I bet weka would like a snap election to occur tomorrow! without having to rely on NZF to govern!

            The first 100 days are officially over. Labour now need to deliver… this will not help them…

            “Housing rents have been picked to increase rapidly in the next two years – an issue which will overtake high house prices as a far bigger problem, according to Property Institute chief executive Ashley Church.”

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11985151

            National do need a support partner. Which party in the current Government is closed to the center? and is holding back Labour and the Greens from their intended policies?

            If as most on this blog want to happen – English and co. get shown the door…a lot of the huff and puff from Winston will be gone and he always does better on election night taking the fight to the Government of the day (so I am suggesting he will either be fired or leave on his own accord over an issue, more so if he is still 3 – 4% in 2020).

            • weka 21.3.1.2.1.1
              31 January 2018 at 7:49 pm

              Having Labour in coalition with NZF currently is a good thing for the Greens and the progressive movements. See if you can figure out why.

              • Chuck …
                31 January 2018 at 8:10 pm

                If I had to guess – without NZF in coalition with Labour, both Labour and the Greens would be on the opposition benches today?

  22. indiana 22
    31 January 2018 at 4:00 pm

    Jacinda has perfected the art of stringing people along…

    “We have set aside an appropriation, but . . . ultimately we have set our sights on the goal itself. There is no plan B. The plan is re-entry in the safest way possible.”

    Don’t forget to get your selfie with her!

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/west-coast/101024478/pike-river-recovery-agency-launching-in-greymouth

  23. Anne 23
    31 January 2018 at 4:49 pm

    Jacinda has perfected the art of stringing people along…

    I guess she learnt how to do it by watching John Key.

    • chris73 23.1
      31 January 2018 at 4:51 pm

      Which makes her smart in that shes learnt from John Key and John Key learnt from Helen Clark

      • Anne 23.1.1
        31 January 2018 at 6:32 pm

        Hmmm… now I don’t recall Helen Clark stringing anyone along. She pretty much called a spade a spade and in doing so, made quite a few enemies along the way. In the end they ganged up on her big time. 🙂

  24. veutoviper 24
    31 January 2018 at 4:59 pm

    On top of everything else going on today:

    There is apparently a Newshub-Reid Research poll out tonight at 6pm which will “delight, daze, and devastate”;

    The PM is also due to give her Child Poverty speech at 5.30pm from St Peters Church in Wellington;

    And
    Chloe Swarbrick’s medicinal cannabis Members Bill is due for its First Reading after the current debate on Rates Rebates which on current pace is due to finish about 5.40pm. This means the introduction of Chloe’s bill may start before the dinner break (usually 6 – 7.30pm) rather than after.

    Ooops – Reid poll already under discussion at 21 above. Sorry.

  25. Morrissey 25
    31 January 2018 at 5:37 pm

    Another day of dishonesty from the National Party.

    Wednesday 31 Jan. 2018

    “No one’s going to ‘Kill Bill’. … There’s a LOT of talent in the National Party…. Amy Adams, she’s VERY bright…”—Michelle Boag, on The Panel, RNZ National, 4:20 p.m.

    “Yeah, I’m feeling great! Ummmm….”—-Paula Bennett, News, RNZ National, 5 p.m.

    “I’m right behind Bill and Paula, at the moment….” —National Party M.P. (female), 5:10 p.m..

    “Who knows where the future goes? All I’m saying is I want Bill as leader.”—-Paula Bennett, 5:12 p.m.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie#/media/File:Zombies_NightoftheLivingDead.jpg

  26. Morrissey 26
    31 January 2018 at 6:06 pm

    More shame and disgrace for another Faux News bimbo

    https://deadspin.com/report-britt-mchenry-is-fake-news-1822514814