Open Mike 31/12/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 31st, 2017 - 191 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 …

191 comments on “Open Mike 31/12/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed 1
    31 December 2017 at 7:06 am

    On the NZ Honours List.
    Another unbelievable selection.
    We’ve already heard Rolleston and L’Estrange Corbet are being recognised.
    Now this.

    Companions

    ‘The Honourable Peter Francis Dunne, Wellington, for services as a Member of Parliament.’

    The Honours are a political and corrupt joke.

    • Grey Area 1.1
      31 December 2017 at 7:38 am

      I think the pure concept has merit – recognising the efforts of good people to make their communities better places.

      But because politicians control the process they inevitably pervert it by using it to recognise themselves and their cronies thereby demeaning the whole process.

      I agree about Dunne. His honour is for services to Peter Dunne. And the English private secretary to royalty who already has three knighthoods – what’s that about?

      Time to start again.

      • Ed 1.1.1
        31 December 2017 at 7:51 am

        ‘Dunne. His honour is for services to Peter Dunne.’

        And for services to the National Party 2008-2017.
        And as a consequence, services to the rich, the powerful and for services to the establishment.

        Services for toadying.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2
        31 December 2017 at 1:23 pm

        I think the pure concept has merit – recognising the efforts of good people to make their communities better places.

        And it would probably work if it was the communities deciding who those people were.

        But because politicians control the process they inevitably pervert it by using it to recognise themselves and their cronies thereby demeaning the whole process.

        QFT

        John Key should probably be in jail for all the lies that he told while PM. Instead, he got knighted for fucking up the country for the benefit of the rich.

    • James 1.2
      31 December 2017 at 9:08 am

      Is it a political and corrupt joke Annette King gets an honour ?

      • Stunned mullet 1.2.1
        31 December 2017 at 9:12 am

        It is a political and corrupt joke that any politician gets an honour for doing the job which they are paid to do.

    • eco maori 1.3
      31 December 2017 at 9:19 am

      Yes I don’t agree with dairy dack dune getting a houners it’s should be shame Peter Dune his son was the lawyer for the dairy dack big wigg this is fact and this is well known what a joke he should go hide in shame. I say it was part of national bribe so he would bow out with out a big fuss during the election so as not to damage national credibility. Sorry national your credibility is shit Ana to kai

    • Psycho Milt 1.4
      31 December 2017 at 9:39 am

      ‘The Honourable Peter Francis Dunne, Wellington, for services as a Member of Parliament.’

      I expect he was put on the list before he decided to leave National in the lurch during the election. Nicely done, but then he always was a sharp operator.

    • reason 1.5
      31 December 2017 at 11:35 am

      It would appear that NZ has a dis-honors system …. Key, Dunne, Doug Myers, Talley etshitera etshitera.

      Dunne, apart from being a skillful ship jumping rat for the benefit of himself left a few other ‘achievements’ ….. for NZ.

      He is partially behind the Pokies charity money fraud opportunity laws we have ….. Where just about every town in NZ has examples and convictions of Pub owners and other Pokies operators funneling charity money to themselves and their mates …. aka Brent Todd.

      He has called Medicinal Cannabis and its users ‘Garbage”, he did this when responding by email to Greg Sore, a chronically ill man and at the time head of Green Cross NZ.

      While blocking reform and continuing the criminalisation for natural Cannabis Dunne temporarily legalized the much more dangerous ‘Synthetic High ‘ chemicals. …. Leading to our present deadly black market situation where over 20 deaths and hundreds of times that in expensive hospital admissions has occurred …. in the last 9 Months alone.

      He was revenue minister and kept quiet when Key turned NZ into a tax haven for foreigners …. Initially after the Panama papers broke Dunne claimed NZ was not a tax haven …. despite Mossack Fonseca and other scumbags marketing and using us as one …..

      Finally he rather quietly was involved in donating $600,000 of our money to the white helmets, a bullshit quasi first aid outfit affiliated with ISIS, Al Nusra/ Al Quada and other head chopping Muslim mercenaries…..The white Helmits also provide propaganda for their Pro war paymasters … the usa and u.k. http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/23/syrias-white-helmets-war-by-way-of-deception-part-1/
      http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/28/part-ii-syrias-white-helmets-war-by-way-of-deception-moderate-executioners/

      But a small sample of Whatsy Dunnes ‘work’ for us ………. He deserves a big long drink of Sir John Keys legacy river water.

      • eco maori 1.5.1
        31 December 2017 at 12:23 pm

        Thanks for that reason this just shows that shonky and dairy dack dune are like 2 peas in a pod they don’t care who there revenue gathering scheme hurt or kill to them us people the 99% are just $$$$$$, to them this type of behavior will never be allowed to happen again
        Ana to kai

        • reason 1.5.1.1
          31 December 2017 at 5:52 pm

          Cheers eco maori …… I hope the coming new year is good to you and your whanau.

          A couple of corrections to what I wrote …..

          Greg Soar is the correct spelling for the NZ Green Cross man Dunne abused.

          And I should have qualified the Muslim mercenaries as being ‘extremists’ ….

  2. Agora 2
    31 December 2017 at 7:36 am

    Someone has just enrolled for a doctorate on Weinsteins contribution to feminism.

    Happy new year.

    • Stunned mullet 3.1
      31 December 2017 at 9:11 am

      Hardly new – universities have been going down the track of ‘politic correctness’ and ‘groupthink’ to the detriment of open discourse and argument of ideas for quite a while.

    • joe90 3.2
      31 December 2017 at 11:19 am

      tl;dr

      Jumped up little twat sez nazis are people too, and we should listen to their hate speech.
      /

      nazis he sez we should listen to include:

      The comments—from a time before Yiannopoulos appeared to publicly defend pedophilia, and when Simon & Schuster still intended to publish his book—include critiques of his argument, his opinions, his personality, his language, his grammar, his analogies, and his humor. There are also factual corrections and calls for evidence, and in one case, a request to remove an entire chapter. Though this is all part of the usual process of editing a manuscript, there’s something especially delicious about seeing so many of Yiannopoulos’ arguments described as “gratuitous,” “ridiculously reductive” and “DELETE UGH” by his increasingly exasperated editor.

      https://slate.com/arts/2017/12/the-best-editor-comments-from-milo-dangerous.html

      btw, Yiannopoulos is a thief, too

      https://wonkette.com/627564/does-milo-yiannopoulos-even-know-he-plagiarized-american-psycho-because-he-totally-did

      and:

      Let me tell you why Ben Shapiro actually aggravates me. It is not his voice or demeanor, though I understand why others find these characteristics grating. Nor is it the way he inserts references to first-year law school doctrines even when they aren’t actually relevant. It is, rather, that Ben Shapiro is lying to his audience, by telling them that he is just a person concerned with the Truth, when the only thing he actually cares about is destroying the left. “Facts don’t care about your feelings” is a fine mantra, albeit kind of a dickish one. But it’s worthless if you’re going to interpret every last fact in the way most favorable to your own preconceptions, if you’re going to ignore evidence contrary to your position, and refuse to try to understand what your opponents actually believe. The New York Times actually quoted a sensible-sounding ex-Shapiro fan, who said he realized over time that Shapiro was just concerned with convincing other people he was right, rather than actually being right. Shapiro is annoying because he claims to love speech and discourse, to believe you should “get to know people… get to know their views…discuss,” but if you’re an Arab he’s already convinced you’re a secret anti-Semite, and if you’re a poor black person he doesn’t need to know you to know that you’re culturally dysfunctional.

      https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

      • james 3.2.1
        31 December 2017 at 12:08 pm

        “tl;dr

        Jumped up little twat sez nazis are people too, and we should listen to their hate speech.
        /”

        Thanks for proving my point.

        and since you raise the Nazis – you lose.

      • adam 3.2.2
        31 December 2017 at 12:08 pm

        Yiannopoulos is that ugly type of pedophile, he sanctions and promotes the grooming of young boys, and by inference young girls.

        I like how the snowflakes on the right seem comfortable with itt. Beating kids, and grooming others ah james, it’s an ugly road you support mate, ugly.

        • Psycho Milt 3.2.2.1
          31 December 2017 at 12:16 pm

          The best propaganda always has a grain of truth buried somewhere under the edifice of bullshit built on top of it. Doesn’t make it any less fucked, though, even if the target is someone like Yiannopoulos.

          • adam 3.2.2.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 12:32 pm

            I take you never heard the interview then Psycho milt?

            • Psycho Milt 3.2.2.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 1:10 pm

              I did – that’s how I know there’s a tiny grain of truth buried at the bottom of that propaganda bullshit you posted.

              • adam …
                31 December 2017 at 2:32 pm

                No argument, just the usual “I know best” statement from you.

                You get how tiresome that is psycho milt?

                Just an observation.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  31 December 2017 at 3:21 pm

                  What’s tiresome is when a man tells an interviewer about his own lived experience and his political opponents seize the opportunity to misrepresent it so they can smear him as a pedophile. It’s the kind of thing Ad was recommending for the left in his “Man of the Year” post the other day, but in reality it’s the kind of thing the left shouldn’t touch with a bargepole, because integrity matters. Yiannopoulos being an unpleasant character himself doesn’t excuse it, unless you’re happy to be on his level.

        • james 3.2.2.2
          31 December 2017 at 12:19 pm

          Funny tho isnt it – you say that the right are comfortable beating kids, yet in NZ by far the highest prevalence of child abuse is by Maori, who it would seem from the last election vote Labour.

          Facts vs rhetoric..

  4. Ed 4
    31 December 2017 at 9:17 am

    Alcohol
    A blight on our society
    #2

    ‘A central Christchurch street is cordoned off after a brawl left three people in hospital, one with serious injuries.
    Christchurch police were called to reports of fighting on St Asaph St before 2.30am.
    Three people have been admitted to Christchurch Hospital after the brawl which left one person in a serious condition. Two others suffered moderate injuries.
    Police say a number of people were arrested at the scene – near the intersection with Manchester St – for fighting.’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11967885

    • dv 4.1
      31 December 2017 at 9:38 am

      The hospitals and police etc should be given the ability to charge the alcohol industry for any costs they incur from alcohol related issues.

      It could run like the ACC. (Alcohol Compensation Fund)
      The alcohol industry pay a fee to the ACF
      Hospital, police etc claim from the ACF.
      Tops ups occur if needed each year to the ACF by the alcohol industry.

      • Ms Fargo 4.1.1
        31 December 2017 at 10:04 am

        Brilliant idea! Also add an actual ACC level to every drop of alcohol sold in NZ. Just like my car ACC levy you are then targeting the consumers.
        Those who assault, drink and drive, injure themselves, increase the burden on the health system because of alcohol related disease under the influence pay directly.

        • james 4.1.1.1
          31 December 2017 at 10:58 am

          “Those who assault, drink and drive, injure themselves, increase the burden on the health system pay directly.”

          fixed it for you. Why limit it to drinkers?

          Put a bit of accountability into society.

          • dv 4.1.1.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 11:03 am

            Eating a lot of barbecue red meat causes an increase chance of colon cancer.

            So that increase the cost on the health system

            Yes lets put a bit of accountability into society James

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 11:18 am

              No, let’s not. User pays means only the wealthy can afford healthcare.

            • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.1.2
              31 December 2017 at 11:20 am

              I’m interested in the possibility of cancer being caused by hair dye. Women and men are constantly dying their hair as a normal activity and from what I have read there is no health-oriented official control on what mix of chemicals go into them.

              Could much of the cancer that strikes young and middle-aged people be due to dosing the body with these chemicals.

              Is the health system taking responsibility for ensuring that the populace is not innocently causing their own serious illnesses?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                31 December 2017 at 11:51 am

                No, and yes.

                Women using permanent hair dyes are not generally at increased risk of fatal cancer. Women with prolonged use of dark, particularly black, hair dyes may have increased risk of fatal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma, but these women are a small fraction of hair dye users.

                • greywarshark …
                  31 December 2017 at 2:06 pm

                  Thanks OAB and One Two – some facts for me to chew on. After lunch which is going to be a toasted sandwich which I hope will be reasonably healthy.

                  • Andre …
                    31 December 2017 at 2:32 pm

                    That depends on how much and what kind of gratuitous fats you put on it to help get those scrumptious crispy gold and brown bits stuffed full of acrylamides from the Maillard reaction. Or if you put in some pork stuffed full of nitrites to give it that gorgeous flavour and lovely pink colour. Mmmmm, bacon…

                    Mine would give the healthy food zealots absolute conniptions.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    31 December 2017 at 3:18 pm

                    Just remember, where toxicity is concerned, dosage is everything.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    31 December 2017 at 3:28 pm

                    All food is “healthy” unless it contains toxins or microorganisms that will make you ill, so your toasted sandwich is likely to be OK.

              • One Two …
                31 December 2017 at 11:57 am

                Hello GW,

                Not just hair dye..

                The entire ‘make-up’ based industry of products including lotions, potions which are slathered onto the bodys largest organ…

                Is essentially unregulated regarding the chemical compounds and toxicity levels..

                Suncreen, ‘medical products/treatments and proceedures’, sanitary products, baby products…

                Wild West…

                • Rosemary McDonald …
                  31 December 2017 at 2:13 pm

                  Ten years ago, exactly, I went under the knife for the removal of my womb.

                  First ever surgery for me. First real hospital admission other than birthing.

                  The aneasthetist did he pre- surgery thing, with BP, pulse, heart monitoring the whole nine yards…and I somewhat jokingly remarked that as a smoker they’d not bother with the paddles if I coded under the sleepy juice.

                  “Your’e not wearing make-up” he commented, “do you usually?”

                  I replied in the negative, that I’d never daubed shit on my face, and he assured me I’d have no problems at all with the anaesthetic…..unlike other middle aged women who did use make up.

                  Who knew?

                  • One Two …
                    31 December 2017 at 4:36 pm

                    Hi Rosemary, thanks for sharing your experience…

                    What you describe illustrates many ‘holes/gaps’ in the processes, which all things being equal…would often be taken for granted…

                    As being ‘safe’…

                    More, and openly the ‘consensus’ is being challenged, and the ‘constructed mirage’ is breaking down…

                    Much more to be done, but momentum is gathering rapidly around the world, and I’m optimistic it will generate major establishment exposés

                    Happy New Year…

                    • Rosemary McDonald …
                      31 December 2017 at 6:58 pm

                      :More, and openly the ‘consensus’ is being challenged, and the ‘constructed mirage’ is breaking down…”

                      Yes. Please.

                      Let this be the mantra of 2018.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 January 2018 at 11:38 am

                      More, and openly the ‘consensus’ is being challenged, and the ‘constructed mirage’ is breaking down…

                      [multiple citations needed]

                      Vague assertions lacking evidence are not “challenges”. The establishment doesn’t need to knock you down when you can’t get up in the first place.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                31 December 2017 at 12:05 pm

                Hello GW.

                Just to let you know that cosmetics are covered by Sections 24 and 26-36 of the Medicines Regulations 1984.

                Just in case you were inclined to believe some random bullshit or something.

              • One Two …
                31 December 2017 at 12:36 pm

                http://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/2017/12/05/the-hazards-of-an-unregulated-cosmetics-industry/

                The cosmetics industry, unknown to many, is essentially not regulated by a federal regulatory agency.

                Cosmetics technically fall under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), but there are few requirements that manufacturers must comply with.

                The FDA only requires that manufacturers comply with several labeling regulations so companies can avoid listing a product’s total ingredients, and the FDA does not require manufacturers to report health complaints.

                The FDA instead relies on direct reports of adverse events from consumers, which has the potential to delay remedying a potentially dangerous situation.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                31 December 2017 at 1:56 pm

                Whereas in New Zealand (which is not the USA), the appropriate authority is Medsafe.

            • Mister Smokey 4.1.1.1.1.3
              31 December 2017 at 11:29 am

              James (Cowkill?) loves

              “a bit of botulism in the snarlers of an evening.”

              • james …
                31 December 2017 at 12:21 pm

                umm OK – well I guess you think thats an intelligent comment.

                good on you.

                • joe90 …
                  31 December 2017 at 12:57 pm

                  If you ever contracted the likes of botulism and required ICU life support, you would most definitely be treated in a public sector facility,

                  And the taxpayer, not the private health care you pay for, will pick up the tab.

                  • james …
                    31 December 2017 at 1:16 pm

                    OK – just to show you the level of ridiculousness in your argument.

                    How many cases of botulism in NZ from eating cows?

                    FFS – you people are desperate to come up with such stupid arguments.

                • Mister Smokey …
                  31 December 2017 at 5:55 pm

                  James, you’re The Proud Cowkiller.

                  Yeah, I read your BBQ stir, two weeks back.
                  Words crafted, to hit.
                  And placed first up on the site, for max impact.
                  Guess to cause a bit of mayhem among peaceful souls on a Sunday?

                  Here’s to any carnivore comments that may head your way.
                  You’ve earned ’em.

                  Anyway, I’m on the side o’Daisy.
                  As DV points out~ the red-meat, (in time), may getya?
                  As for now, I just wonder what’s in the snarlers, mate.
                  Botulism is a factor. Take care.
                  I’m being helpful here.

                  Intelligent comment? Well, those are your words.
                  Pity, right here, you missed out.

                  Cowkill for you, right?
                  Comes from (one o’your mob?), Kilgore, in the movies.
                  (A good man for your barbie I’d say)

                  But understand this, Kilgore thrived in the morning.
                  There’s the link to the quote.
                  If you still don’t crack it, James ~ go for the veges, mate.

                  • James …
                    31 December 2017 at 6:11 pm

                    Just t clarify – if you had of read the thread – I don’t know how to butcher a cow – I had someone do it for me (a professional.

                    Cracks me up how worked up some (normally vegans) got over someone having a family BBQ.

                    Get out a bit – lots of people have them. With meat and everything

                    • Mister Smokey …
                      31 December 2017 at 8:12 pm

                      James,
                      I see the pattern. Here, it’s not really about the meat.

                      You stir first. With care. As with this one.
                      Glorying in the kill. Writing designed to upset gentle vegan folks on a Sunday morn. That was your intent.

                      More recently, first post o’the day, on Trump’s “achievements.”
                      For a sec I hoped it was an original piece.
                      No such luck, but well chosen for your purpose. Many items to be disputed for a good James hit.
                      All set to provoke on this site.

                      Then, later, after some mayhem, you chime in, kinda “reasonable.”
                      Gotta laugh.

                      Yes, I read your meat post.
                      And so Daisy’s revenge on James comes to mind: You with a botulism snarler. Go Daisy.

                      Bit of a joke, mate. Sorry you missed it.

                      You piked on “Kilgore.” Too hard?

                    • James []
                      31 December 2017 at 8:48 pm

                      The trump achievement post was basically a link to the paper and a summary of the points.

                      I didn’t write it – a major American newspaper published it.

                      But I guess you are a bit of a fan of echo chambers only – scared to actually look objectively some of the point raised – you take it as some attack.

                      Re the botulism- more likely to get it preserved vegetables (oh the irony).

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    31 December 2017 at 8:13 pm

                    I’m being helpful here.

                    You’re being an idiot here. The chances of getting botulism from sausages is way lower than getting it from tinned vegetables. Stop embarrassing yourself.

                    As DV points out~ the red-meat, (in time), may getya?

                    DV (and you) shouldn’t believe the hype. Plenty of vegetarians get colon cancer, so those vegetables (in time) may getya too.

            • james 4.1.1.1.1.4
              31 December 2017 at 12:12 pm

              tis OK – I pay for private heath care.

            • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.1.5
              31 December 2017 at 12:12 pm

              Eating a lot of barbecue red meat causes an increase chance of colon cancer.

              More accurately, some studies have shown a very slightly increased risk of cancer to be correlated with red meat consumption. The increase is so small it’s more likely to be down to confounding factors in the studies and confirmation bias on the part of the researchers than any actual increase. In any case, correlation != causation.

              All of which shows why a user-pays to health care is a really, really bad idea.

              • james …
                31 December 2017 at 12:13 pm

                and it just shows how stupid and unformed people are when they rush to try and score a pathetic point on the internet – and just show themselves up as not knowing what they are thinking about.

            • Ed 4.1.1.1.1.6
              31 December 2017 at 2:02 pm

              Yesterday I decided to stop replying to James.

          • Tricledrown 4.1.1.1.2
            31 December 2017 at 7:48 pm

            Keeping people in poverty increases the burden on the health system.
            James

        • eco maori 4.1.1.2
          31 December 2017 at 12:28 pm

          +100ms fargo

      • red-blooded 4.1.2
        31 December 2017 at 10:44 am

        We already tax alcohol to offset costs to the health system, legal system etc. Of course, the taxes collected don’t match the costs (although I guess you could add in other the taxes like the GST on sales of alcohol and the PAYE on earnings of employees making and selling alcohol…etc to get a fuller picture of the economic inputs vs costs). NZ’s alcohol excise taxes are pretty modest (much lower than Australia’s for example).

        The factsheet I’ve linked to above only considers the excise tax and says The most recent estimate of the cost of harmful use of alcohol is $5.3
        billion a year. That is $14.5 million per day. Excise tax revenue from alcohol in 2008 was $907million.         It seems to be pretty old, though, with the latest info quoted coming from 2008. There hasn’t been any significant change to the excise rate since then (just annual adjustments for inflation).

        Your suggested scheme is really complicated. Why not just adjust the system we already have? Even that would be pretty complex, though. At the moment, different types of drink are taxed at different levels according to their alcohol %. Some argue that wine is under-taxed – others that wine has health benefits as well as harms.

        Quite a hornets’ nest.

        • dv 4.1.2.1
          31 December 2017 at 11:04 am

          Yes fair enough.
          But in a sense we have a model already in the ACC

          In my ‘defence’ I have only thought about it for 10 mins, and some of that was editing spelling!!!

          Your point about the excise tax is good.

          Re

          But not very transparent, and it has a short fall according to the figures from 2008

          The use of a ACF vehicle should be more transparent, and hopefully up to-date.
          May be the excise tax could be paid directly into the ACF. And adjustments to the excise tax made deeding on the state of the ACF.

          • red-blooded 4.1.2.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 11:17 am

            The ACC model wouldn’t work at all in this case. ACC is based on a general tax (we all contribute) and an employers’ tax. Costs to employers go up or down depending on if/how many people are injured at their workplace each year. How on earth would that work for alcohol producers/retailers? Let’s think about it:
            1) How would you definitively prove that any particular harm was caused by alcohol? If costs were being adjusted according to harms, you’d need to be able to do this, and it would be contested. Hugely complex and costly.
            2) For costs to individual alcohol producers to be adjusted according to harms caused, we’d need to be able to figure out exactly which alcohols caused any particular accident, brawl, or (even more complicated) cumulative health damage. Pretty well impossible.
            3) Lots of alcohol sold in NZ isn’t made here, so presumably retailers (and importers) would have to be included. How would their contribution be calculated?
            4) Lots of alcohol produced here isn’t consumed here, so the taxes on producers would have to somehow exclude that proportion of their production.

            … I think we can see why no country runs this kind of system.

            • dv 4.1.2.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 11:21 am

              Yet from your first comment

              The most recent estimate of the cost of harmful use of alcohol is $5.3
              billion a year

              So there is a measure.

              • red-blooded …
                31 December 2017 at 11:27 am

                Note the word “estimate”. If you want to sheet home specific costs to specific companies, you need provable, individually identifiable, actual costs.

                Plus, I note you haven’t replied to any of the points I made in my previous comment.

                dv, I think I’ve made my point. You had a passing thought – I can understand your motivation, but it’s really impractical and I’m not particularly interested in arguing about it past this point.

      • Stunned Mullet 4.1.3
        31 December 2017 at 10:48 am

        NZ has an excise tax on alcohol.

        http://www.ahw.org.nz/Portals/5/Resources/Fact%20Sheet/Info%20Sheet%20Alcohol%20and%20Tax%20Final%2009.pdf

        Rather than the breweries/wineries and those who don’t overindulge in NZ being pinged again on top of their current tax/GST/ACC why not target any further charges to those who are causing the havoc with harsher penalties for disorderly behaviour and recovery of any alcohol related idiocy expense they are involved in.

        • Graeme 4.1.3.1
          31 December 2017 at 5:04 pm

          Unfortunately it’s no longer an offence to be drunk in public in New Zealand. That got legalised (or rather de-illegalised) some time ago. Can’t seem to find any reference to when, but seem to remember it happening in 90’s. That was about when behaviour seemed to go southwards, but also coincides with the drinking age going down to 18.

          Geoffrey Palmer made submissions to reinstate the sanction on public drunkenness in 2009, but it didn’t go anywhere with a National government.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2767426/Being-drunk-in-public-should-be-an-offence-again-Sir-Geoffrey

          Hopefully this might get revisited under the current administration. Current set up is far too costly to the community. The mess after this was unbelievable.

          https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/lakefront-revellers-intoxication-levels-alarming
          https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/christmas-drunkenness-could-trigger-ban

          • SPC 4.1.3.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 5:27 pm

            Unfortunately Labour’s inclination is otherwise, their plan is to look at a minimum pricing regime.

            It’s premise is to double the price of the cheap drinks and impact those the most price sensitive (make the poor people drink less or pay much more in tax – as they have with tobacco, hitting poor Maori particularly hard – but with the Maori Party’s consent, so “all’s good”).

            Currently there is twice as much money from tobacco tax as alcohol – despite far fewer smoking.

            Note Labour’s plans would not impact on craft beers at all (but on the cheaper half dozen/dozen lagers), but might on some of the cheaper wine (basically end the sale prices – forcing up regular prices, so their sale prices would be current standard retail).

            • Graeme 4.1.3.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 6:11 pm

              Hopefully that will be another of the odd policies Labour adopted in the wilderness that quietly goes away.

              I was involved in one of the obvious outcomes of that sort of palaver at CIT in the early 80’s. Lots of young engineers up in Wellington for 3 months from down south. We were rather used to $7 swappas from the Robbie and just couldn’t get our heads around $14 in Wellington. So someone had a flat and a wee home brew operation got going. After a month or so production had got up to about 20 dozen of a 6 day stout. Then Labour weekend came along and a batch was bottled early. Oooops, it didn’t stop, 20 dozen bombs, mostly in the halls of residence and most “owners” went away for the weekend. Came back to a note to present myself to the Proctor’s office on Tuesday morning…

          • Carolyn_Nth 4.1.3.1.2
            31 December 2017 at 5:35 pm

            Looks like being drunk in public was part of a 1966 Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act that was repealed in 2008.

            37A Persons found intoxicated in public place
            [Repealed]

            Section 37A: repealed, on 1 October 2008, by section 130(1) of the Policing Act 2008 (2008 No 72).

            Just before JK became PM – so a Labour-led government amendment.

          • Psycho Milt 4.1.3.1.3
            31 December 2017 at 6:41 pm

            Unfortunately it’s no longer an offence to be drunk in public in New Zealand.

            Why is that unfortunate? The simple fact of being intoxicated shouldn’t be an offence. If there are people causing trouble, we already have the Summary Offences Act to enable policing it.

            • Graeme 4.1.3.1.3.1
              31 December 2017 at 7:53 pm

              “If there are people causing trouble, we already have the Summary Offences Act to enable policing it.”

              Except that Police have practical difficulties with that approach,

              From a Police Assn submission to the 2011 changes https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/49SCJE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL10439_1_A172911/37d3bdf6aac8c192a3cd59429c900745789c35c1

              “54. However, it is critical that Police also retain the power to arrest for breach of liquor ban offences. Liquor bans were introduced because communities were suffering a serious negative impact from uncontrolled drinking in public places exploding into serious disorder and mayhem. Police response after such disorder begins is resource intensive, hugely disruptive to affected communities, is often unable to prevent property damage, and exposes officers to violence. Imposition of liquor bans, backed by the power of arrest, has been critical to early intervention to keep control of likely flash-point situations before they boil over. Alternative provisions giving power to arrest, such as for disorderly behaviour and disorderly assembly, are less suitable
              because they require behaviour to have already escalated to the point of serious disorder. In the case of disorderly assembly, this also implies that a constable is already facing a disorderly group, with the greatly increased risks and difficulties that situation entails. The dynamic of drunk crowds means taking action once such a situation of disorder has already arisen risks actually sparking off wider disorder.”

              • Psycho Milt …
                31 December 2017 at 8:09 pm

                Arrest for breach of a liquor ban seems more reasonable than arrest for the “crime” of being drunk.

                • Graeme …
                  31 December 2017 at 10:47 pm

                  Problem is the police don’t have the tools (laws) to deal with a problem before it becomes too big. A recent example down here was a crate day two years ago. By the time the Summary Offences threshold had been reached it was decided containment and management of several hundred drunken louts was the only way of dealing with the problem. Arresting people would have led to a riot. I saw the situation and it was totally out of hand. The problem is that there are no consequences for the people who behave poorly.

                  The result of the Christmas event will most likely be a permanent, year round liquor ban on public reserves in Queenstown Lakes, so no more picnics on the gardens, or quiet evenings on the waterfront with a drink for locals and visitors. This is because a liquor ban is the only way it can be managed at present and that affects everyone, not just those that get drunk to the point of being obnoxious.

                  To use your words below, this will only sanction the non-arsehole drinkers.

      • james 4.1.4
        31 December 2017 at 10:56 am

        and what do you think will happen to the cost of Alcohol with your master plan?

        and what happens when the cost of alcohol goes thru the roof?

        What if the person has a history of breaking the law – then does it again with alcohol – does that become a alcohol related issue? or is it that the person is an ass.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.4.1
          31 December 2017 at 11:24 am

          Why would (say) a 1c per standard drink levy cause the price to go through the roof, Chicken Little? Are you flailing much?

          I mean, I guess you oppose the idea, so you’d better come up with something better than that drivel.

          • Psycho Milt 4.1.4.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 11:45 am

            The idea’s ridiculous for various reasons – increasing the price of alcohol for non-arsehole drinkers is only one of them.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.4.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 11:53 am

              That’s the same argument used to inflict ‘user pays’.

              • Psycho Milt …
                31 December 2017 at 12:07 pm

                Well, yes – the suggestion in comment 4.1 is effectively for user pays in the health system. If people are going to insist on promoting user-pays on a left-wing blog, they should at least get it right.

          • james 4.1.4.1.2
            31 December 2017 at 12:06 pm

            who said it was going to be 1c.

            it could be a lot higher than that.

            and then it could increase year on year like the tax in cigarettes.

            and again – the additional cost will hurt those who can afford it least.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.4.1.2.1
              31 December 2017 at 12:14 pm

              Not if they respond to a price increase by reducing consumption, and in any case, the solution to right wing cry-baby bleating about taxation is higher wages, not lower taxes.

              If you feel like rote-learning a cogent argument against the proposal I recommend you learn from R-B at 4.1.2

              Yours are low-grade ‘b’-team objections that will probably hinder your cause.

        • cleangreen 4.1.4.2
          31 December 2017 at 1:04 pm

          Make alcohol products yourselves?

          Our family had joined one of many wine and beer clubs.

          There you will learn about making wine and beer and distilling the dregs of leftover “must” that is left after making wine.

          Our family has been a making wine formerly for many years, so know about this,

          So if alcohol is to pricey make your own.

      • Psycho Milt 4.1.5
        31 December 2017 at 11:02 am

        The hospitals and police etc should be given the ability to charge the alcohol industry for any costs they incur from alcohol related issues.

        It beats me why so many on the left are enthusiasts for bringing “user pays” back to the health system. Bring it in for your pet hate, alcohol, and just watch it proliferate.

        • David Mac 4.1.5.1
          31 December 2017 at 11:39 am

          I agree. When we start hitting up Booze Inc for the harm done, why not Toyota for road deaths and Smith and Wesson for gunshot wounds?

          Booze Inc could easily argue ‘When your regulations allow an 18 year old to down a box of Woodies what on Earth do you think is going to happen?’

          Young men have been acting the goat since mankind began. Adding a further tax to booze will change nothing. The price is not the problem and Bacardi buying hospitals is a rubbish solution.

      • greywarshark 4.1.6
        31 December 2017 at 11:14 am

        I don’t know if everyone has noticed, I hadn’t, but in my insurance policy I see that my input post-accident may now include some serious $. ACC are refusing to pay for long term rehabilitation to the injured and I would be obliged to meet the cost of that once ACC have carried out their specified treatment. (Sounds like USA private-insurance-based systems creeping in here!)

        This is not related to a special clause inserted after the insured has had a number of accidents. I certainly have had only one or two bumper bings in all my driving life. If someone wants to know more, ask and I will dig out the policy and quote the wording.

        • red-blooded 4.1.6.1
          31 December 2017 at 11:23 am

          ACC has been slowly eroded for ages. If you break your teeth and require caps, for example, they’ll only meet about half of the cost. I also had to have root canals and they adjust the percentage they’ll pay for that according to age. I was in my 40’s and they argued that my roots wouldn’t have been perfect anyway, so paying the full cost of the root canal would be returning them to better than pre-accident condition. This, of course, begs the question – does anyone deliberately break their teeth, killing their roots and causing them to wobble for more than a year in order to claim ACC? Somehow, I doubt it.

        • Carolyn_Nth 4.1.6.2
          31 December 2017 at 11:31 am

          I’m not sure how your private insurance policy relates to ACC – ACC is a state policy.

          On the ACC linked website it says:

          What does ACC pay for?

          Anyone in New Zealand who has an accident resulting in disability or a significant impairment receives help from ACC for as long as they need it, regardless of the cause of the injury.

          there’s also stuff on the website about ACC supporting permanent injuries financially.

          • greywarshark 4.1.6.2.1
            31 December 2017 at 2:37 pm

            Carolyn nth
            This is the information that AMI gave:

            This is in response to ‘a change the Government has made to the Sentencing Amendment Act 2014 that will affect your third party fire and theft car policy’

            What has changed?
            Before, if you caused an accident like a car crash by driving carelessly, the Courts could only order you to pay for the property damage or emotional harm you caused.
            Now the Courts can also order you to pay for loss of income or treatment costs not covered by ACC. This won’t replace ACC, but means that anyone injured can get a ‘top up’ if the Court approves it.

            What does this mean for you?
            Because of this change to the Act, we’ve updated your policy. It now includes a benefit for reparation costs that you may be ordered to pay. Take a look at the terms and conditions…..etc.

            This opens the way for treatments that the Court may agree to, not presently handled by ACC, and also for ACC to draw back on treatment and passing the restorative burden to the driver. And it could be very costly if the Court decides that the injured person or persons should get certain extra treatment, possibly not standard in NZ, or having to be accessed from a private medical facility.

            It would seem that a loss of income amount is very possible in any case. I note that the AMI wording says ‘or’ treatment costs so I hope that it is definite that not both can be landed on the erring driver.

    • Psycho Milt 4.2
      31 December 2017 at 9:38 am

      People
      A blight on our society
      #2

      ‘A central Christchurch street is cordoned off after a brawl left three people in hospital, one with serious injuries.
      Christchurch police were called to reports of fighting on St Asaph St before 2.30am.
      Three people have been admitted to Christchurch Hospital after the brawl which left one person in a serious condition. Two others suffered moderate injuries.
      Police say a number of people were arrested at the scene – near the intersection with Manchester St – for fighting.’

    • james 4.3
      31 December 2017 at 10:50 am

      Its not the alcohol – its the people drinking it.

      Most people can happy have beers with mates or a nice pinot noir with a good steak without running around and causing mayhem.

      To just blame alcohol is simplistic thinking.

      • adam 4.3.1
        31 December 2017 at 12:15 pm

        “Its not the alcohol – its the people drinking it.”

        “Guns don’t kill people – people do”

        WHo’s doing simplistic thinking….

        • james 4.3.1.1
          31 December 2017 at 12:23 pm

          There are many thousands of guns in NZ – do not see them killing anybody when used carefully by a responsible owner.

          Sometimes the simple things are right.

          Firearm related deaths per firearm in nz is 0.00003567 – so yeah – kind proves there are not a whole lot of guns out there killing people.

          • adam 4.3.1.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 12:41 pm

            *sigh* really that’s what you saw in what I said.

            Let me spell it out for you in small words . As irony can be tough, I get simplistic people have difficulty picking it up.

            Your whole argument james is simplistic. That better, nice and simple for ya.

            • james 4.3.1.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 1:21 pm

              no the argument that alcohol is a blight on NZ and is the cause of the problems listed by ed is simplistic – and that is what I have been arguing.

              “Its not the alcohol – its the people drinking it.

              Most people can happy have beers with mates or a nice pinot noir with a good steak without running around and causing mayhem.”

              My statement is entirely correct, even if simplistic. There is more to alcohol as being the problem.

              But hey – if you cannot work that out – I hope you dont drink at all – else you might end up being arrested for throwing rocks thru the windows of a old peoples home – alcohol makes you do that you know.

              • adam …
                31 December 2017 at 2:11 pm

                I drink very little. A beer or two every few weeks, and the occasional Brandy. Mind you had a very nice Scotch when the election results were finalised.

                So an alcoholic is fine in your world awash with alcohol at every turn. Yeah that is working out fine.

                That aside, debate words by putting counter arguments rather than just cheap cliché response. which is exactly what “Its not the alcohol – it’s the people drinking it.” it is a tired cliché – bit like the other one that I put up.

                So alcohol fuelled violence is acceptable to you? I’d say by any definition, it’s alcohol is “a thing” in the definition of blight

                https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=blight&oq=blight&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

                • james …
                  31 December 2017 at 3:05 pm

                  Did you go out and have an orgy of alcohol fuelled violence afterwards?

                  why not?

                  I means its alcohols fault right?

    • reason 4.4
      31 December 2017 at 6:26 pm

      Alcohol Abuse is the problem ED

      National shat over any meaningful steps to lower New Zealands Alcohol Abuse problems…..

      Sir John Key and his sleazy Dirty politics crew backhanded beaten children and other victims of violent alcohol abusers.

  5. eco maori 5
    31 December 2017 at 9:31 am

    Great music this morning many thanks to the Rock radio and Duncan and your lady all the best for the for the arrival of the new baby
    This will change your view on life for the better as it did mine all those years ago. All the best to Bryce and his lady for the arrival of the new baby.
    Many thanks to all the people associated with the Rock radio station.
    Kai kaha

  6. Carolyn_Nth 6
    31 December 2017 at 10:22 am

    Why do so many left wingers spend a lot of their time actively supporting Facebook by using it?

    Glenn Greenwald on Facebook’s complicity with US and Israeli government propaganda – by censoring criticism of these governments.

    IN SEPTEMBER OF last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.”
    …
    Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decadeslong, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials.

  7. red-blooded 7
    31 December 2017 at 10:59 am

    The Spinoff have just reposted some of their best (but under-read) articles from 2016. This one is a really thought-provoking read. It explores a range of interlinked concepts – the basic instincts of conservatives vs progressives, the rise of neo-liberalism, arguments for and against a UBI, arguments for and against the social investment approach to provision of social services… It argues from a broadly leftist viewpoint, but doesn’t dismiss the concerns of the right. It was written before the election. Well worth a read.

    • Antoine 7.1
      31 December 2017 at 11:50 am

      Seems like he does a really good job of putting the left-wing case for ‘social investment’

      A.

      • red-blooded 7.1.1
        31 December 2017 at 12:12 pm

        Yes, I thought it was pretty compelling. I’m sure there are arguments to be made about privacy, means of provision (the Nats were big on privatising social welfare provision, or farming it out to charities), cost cutting vs effective spending… etc, and the author did note that none of the research into outcomes was available yet (which is fair enough – a lot of the outcomes would be measured over the long term, after all), but I did find myself questioning the extent to which I may have dismissed this concept on the basis of what the author calls meta instinct (or gut instinct – “If Bill English/Paula Bennet are keen on this, it must be bad”).

        I do think the whole piece is worth thinking about, though. Glad you took up the suggestion, Antoine.

        • Antoine 7.1.1.1
          31 December 2017 at 12:16 pm

          I had read it when it first came out, I don’t normally read the Spinoff, perhaps it was linked to from here or something

    • Morrissey 7.2
      31 December 2017 at 4:44 pm

      The Spinoff usually runs top-drawer articles. But not always. A couple of years ago one “Sumo” Stevenson tried to channel Roger Kahn, failed dismally to establish contact with the great man’s spirit, and ended up writing one of the most laughably pretentious analyses of a rugby match ever…..

      http://morrisseybreen.blogspot.co.nz/2017/12/a-critique-of-sumo-stevensons.html

      • stunned mullet 7.2.1
        31 December 2017 at 5:29 pm

        Third rate stenographer turns his hand to sports journalism …………and fails.

        • Morrissey 7.2.1.1
          31 December 2017 at 8:27 pm

          He’s not a stenographer, he’s supposed to be a journalist. But, as I showed in my critique of his lamentable article, he’s NOT a journalist in any meaningful sense of the word because he overlooks the central fact about that disastrous, farcical “match”: the Tricolours did not try.

  8. Whispering Kate 8
    31 December 2017 at 11:04 am

    The Fire Service are appealing to residents in Queenstown and other tourist spots to not light bon fires tonight for New Year’s Eve but they said they that they couldn’t stop fire works being let off and if anybody sets a fire going with fireworks it would be their responsibility. What happens if neighbouring hedges or houses catch fire – who is responsible if their homes are damaged or destroyed. Our new immigrants into NZ just love their fireworks as I can attest to and they regularly with any excuse will have a session out on the street with whizz bangs and whatever.

    The ground is appallingly dry and any slight spark will set off a fire – its staggering that there isn’t more stringent enforcement – I can see the result of tonight with fires set off everywhere. We are a stupid lot if you ask me. There should have been a blanket ban on barbecues, fires of any description all over the country, New Year’s Eve is when we become even more stupid and juvenile than ever. The country is like a powder keg about to explode at any time until we get decent rain.

    • Graeme 8.1
      31 December 2017 at 11:24 am

      + ∞ there WK

      Queenstown Lakes is a bomb right now, white grass and green trees / scrub. If it catches it’ll go like mad. Combine that with heaps of people that don’t understand the climate and it could be all on.

      Not just new immigrants either, had some neighbours letting fireworks off last week. All born here, and lived in Whakatipu for as long as I can remember. And got rather shitty when asked to desist by other neighbours.

      • weka 8.1.1
        31 December 2017 at 12:16 pm

        Looks like there’s already a fire ban in QL that includes fireworks,

        https://www.otagoruralfire.org.nz/fire-season/fire-season/

        https://www.otagoruralfire.org.nz/fire-season/season-information/prohibited-season/

        That suggests that people can phone the authorities if they see someone letting off fireworks. I would.

      • greywarshark 8.1.2
        31 December 2017 at 12:34 pm

        Letting off fireworks is part of the freedom that one gets in the free market where if you can pay for something that’s all right.

        Fires from fireworks, fright from fireworks going bang like guns or sometimes whistling like falling bombs, throughout the year at 10pm – an early time to what it might be – that’s okay. No-one has the right to ask for something to be stopped, contained, controlled, managed in this self-centred, unconsidering political climate that the Nats have left.

        Maybe the Labs will have the strength of will and arguments to counter the whining from the spoilt and materialistic who externalise anything that doesn’t suit them.
        Starting with banning firework sales to people.

        Government could make a target of no more public or corporate firework displays until the war in the Middle East is over, all the people in refugee camps are fairly rehoused, climate change controls bring down temperatures by .1 degrees etc. It would show solidarity with those suffering in the world, and everyone at these great occasions would be encouraged to give a small donation to Medicine sans Frontieres who would apply it directly onto the nearest wound. Go on laugh at me, cynically and insultingly.

    • Rosemary McDonald 8.2
      31 December 2017 at 11:25 am

      “The country is like a powder keg about to explode at any time until we get decent rain.”

      No decent rain here south west of Hamilton since the 29th of November…which for us provided just, maybe, enough rain to flush our recently cleaned spouting.

      We are totally dependent on rain collected from our roof. Our tanks are sitting at about a 1/3 full….or to be pessimistic 2/3 empty.

      We have some water collected from small outbuilding roofs that has been used to sustain our small vegie garden…but once that is gone…that’s it. We learned back in the Big Drought of 2007/2008 not to use our domestic supply for anything other than domestic use.

      Showers? Very short, if at all. Getting to the stage where we’ll have to go into the city and shower at a friend’s.

      The ground is parched. The trees are wilting. The dust coming off the adjacent state highway, compounded by holiday traffic, is phenomenal.

      One carelessly cast off cigarette butt ,or god forbid the neighbours decide to celebrate New Year’s pyrotechnically, and we could be in a spot of bother.

      Will common sense prevail?

      Probably not.

      We’ll just have to rely on luck.

      • Antoine 8.2.1
        31 December 2017 at 11:51 am

        Often a nervous time for them as live in the country (I remember similar worries from years ago as out of towners lit bonfires on the beach upwind of our section).

        Hope the worst doesn’t happen

        A.

        (shouldn’t councils be laying down some total fire bans? Though such things are not always obeyed)

        • weka 8.2.1.1
          31 December 2017 at 12:16 pm

          there’s already fire bans in place, see my comment above.

          • Antoine 8.2.1.1.1
            31 December 2017 at 12:42 pm

            Thats good

            • Whispering Kate 8.2.1.1.1.1
              31 December 2017 at 1:07 pm

              I have no grizzle over fireworks in general, people like to have their fun but when the country is so dry and there hasn’t been any decent rainfall in many provinces I would have thought a blanket ban on any sort of fires, even barbecues which use charcoal or wood plus fireworks would be the logical way to go. By the way how do people get hold of fireworks this time of year, do they hoard them over from Guy Fawkes night. I didn’t think they were allowed on sale any other time.

              Its not just tall foliage which catches fire but any grass which hasn’t been mown for some time, roadside berms etc are a hazard for stray cigarette butts – anything will catch alight which is dry like kindling wood. I see many times bare industrial lots which have been left to grow 4 foot high grass which is just inviting a fire in newly emerging shopping and industrial areas. Why don’t councils get hold of these absentee land owners and remind them to keep their lots mown regularly. Councils are remiss as well, here in the Super City many roadside berms alongside arterial roads are a disgrace in this dry weather. My am I having a grizzle today!!

              Happy New Year folks and all the very best for the coming year.

              • weka …
                31 December 2017 at 1:35 pm

                Afaik there *is a ban on fireworks in areas that have a total fire ban (much of Otago currently, including Queenstown). See my links above (open fire BBQs are also banned, gas one’s aren’t, not sure about charcoal but I would guess technically it’s banned too). I’d be interested to know where the Fire Service said they can’t stop people letting off fireworks. I wonder if they mean people are doing it despite the ban.

          • cleangreen 8.2.1.1.2
            31 December 2017 at 1:18 pm

            Hey Weka,

            Where are Country Boy & Wild Katipo?

            Must’ve gone to the beach for xmas/new year?

            Happy new year Weka.

      • cleangreen 8.2.2
        31 December 2017 at 1:14 pm

        Hi Rosemary McDonald;

        We had good rain up on the Raukumaras south of Opotiki in Matawai south of the Waioweka Gorge, as the mountains/hills are all green and grass is growing madly I need to get out the weedwhacker around the farmhouse now.

        Tall weeds are all very green, so no fire risk up 1650ft in the Raukumaras.
        Happy new year.

    • Ed 9.1
      31 December 2017 at 1:58 pm

      Mark Blyth speaks a lot of sense.

    • McFlock 9.2
      1 January 2018 at 1:46 am

      cliff notes?

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1
        1 January 2018 at 10:53 am

        Looking only at averages ignores and even dismisses the damage that has been done to the not so well off resulting in the rise of populist leaders such as Trump who then implements even worse economic policies.

        • McFlock 9.2.1.1
          1 January 2018 at 8:08 pm

          True enough. Focusing on means is definitely one technique used to disguise the damage of tories.

          • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.1
            1 January 2018 at 8:23 pm

            He points out that the right and the left do it. When the left do it they’ve actually stopped representing the people that their political parties were set up to represent which is what we’ve seen across the world over the last 30+ years.

            • McFlock 9.2.1.1.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 9:36 pm

              I think it’s a bit more complicated than that – left wing parties that ended up going tory did so to a large part because left wing economics failed or at least appeared to fail, and neoliberal economic tools had to some degree not been tested. And because economics is largely entrail reading anyway, neoliberal economics satisfied the measures conventionally used (e.g. GDP, unemployment rate) while delivering an opposite effect to what those measures were supposed to represent (GDP rising by favouring a few at the top, unemployment being maintaned at “low” levels while underemployment skyrockets and worker productivity becomes less rewarding).

              But I think that the difference in the left wing parties is that many of them believed the TINA to greater or lesser degrees.

              But I think a lot of tory mps don’t actually care – it’s just bullshit to throw at the populace while they enrich themselves.

  10. Ed 10
    31 December 2017 at 2:39 pm

    Wayne Mapp’s predictions for 2028

    ‘Peace in the Middle East, with Israel and Palestine making real progress, and the Syrian civil war ending.’

    Then he must be expecting the leadership of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. to change.

    • red-blooded 10.1
      31 December 2017 at 5:01 pm

      Ed, it’s worth noting that this is listed along with other wild predictions. He’s clearly not expecting this to happen (more’s the pity).

    • Morrissey 10.2
      31 December 2017 at 7:46 pm

      Wayne Mapp thinks he’s still in government and still has to keep telling monstrous lies.

      Silly old fool.

      • Stunned Mullet 10.2.1
        1 January 2018 at 11:37 am

        Third rate stenographer and purveyor of low brow ramblings accuses others of telling lies…oh the irony.

  11. eco maori 11
    31 December 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Yes I found a good use of social media.
    And I no that this site and the author of this wonderful website have had a positive effect on OUR society.
    Many thanks to everyone whom has seen this site keep up the good work.
    I believe that we must keep this site Mana up and find more authors if that is what is need many thanks to Iprent I see you every now and then I won’t say to much Ka pai well I got my first link up it wasn’t to hard so when I get the time I can post all the links to backup
    .my story’s Ka kite ano

  12. timeforacupoftea 12
    31 December 2017 at 8:07 pm

    Lets not keep stats for 2018 !
    The Standard dot org would be a friendlier place James.

  13. Morrissey 13
    31 December 2017 at 8:21 pm

    Thatcher’s Henchmen
    No. 1: MICHAEL PORTALOO

    Margaret Thatcher’s former Transport minister, and John Major’s Defence minister Michael Portaloo was, and is, infamous for bringing nothing to the table other than a deep tan, a deep voice, a fine head of hair and an IQ hovering at about room temperature. Watch him in this clip dismiss the massive protests of 2003 opposing the aggression against Iraq as “a million people strolling in the park”….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9TVSB2LMV4

    The creep is still hated and despised in Wales….
    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/anger-thatchers-man-michael-portillo-2183673

    “Thatcher’s Henchmen” is compiled and presented by Morrissey Breen for Daisycutter Sports, Inc.

    • greywarshark 13.1
      31 December 2017 at 9:49 pm

      I thought that name sounded a bit suspect, sort of smell about it!
      Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo (born 26 May 1953) is a British journalist, broadcaster, and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister of the Conservative Party. Wikipedia

      (Incidentally Christine Keeler has just died. She was a model who connected with a British politician called Profumo, but also a Russian when the Cold War was on. The suspicion of pillow talk and cross-gossip got him shifted from Parliament. As with David Lange’s smelling the uranium on your breath quote, there was a British one heard often when joining a group, ‘I think I smell a Profumo’.)

      Her story was an example of a disadvantaged female abused by the male-dominated system I think.
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/05/christine-keeler-obituary

      It is interesting to think that politics could be said to have adopted vertical integration in having someone with journalist and broadcaster background becoming an MP and Cabinet Minister. If they could only take over the voting activity involved in getting elected, the hard work of getting known, sweetening their people and enough of the others, life would be easier altogether.

  14. McFlock 14
    1 January 2018 at 1:52 am

    happy new year, folks 🙂