Open mike 31/08/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 31st, 2016 - 317 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

317 comments on “Open mike 31/08/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • te reo putake 1.1
      31 August 2016 at 8:22 am

      Rotten Apple. No worries though, they’ve got a new Iphone to flog in a couple of days, so the profits from that will easily cover the cost of this decision.

      ps, how corrupt are the Irish government? They intend appealing the decision so that they can keep on sucking up to the likes of Apple and keep on ripping off their own citizens.

      • riffer 1.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 8:32 am

        It’s scandalous all right, but thinking of Ireland’s defence of Apple, can you imagine any Government sitting back and letting over 6,000 of their citizens lose their jobs? They are covering their arses.

        Interesting that the NZD$20,000,000,000 is approximately 27% of their 2015 profit only. Hardly going to cripple the company is it?

        The world’s most profitable company. With some of the world’s most worker-unfriendly policies. Tell me again about how they use all that money for public good?

      • mickysavage 1.1.2
        31 August 2016 at 12:40 pm

        Yep Ireland wishes to appeal a decision giving them more tax, lots more tax …

        • Bob 1.1.2.1
          31 August 2016 at 4:58 pm

          That is one side of it, the loss of 5,500 jobs (and the income tax take from those jobs on an ongoing basis) is probably what they are more worried about, that is before the new €1Bn data centre construction/running is taken into account. It’s no wonder they are fighting it.
          The issue is, Ireland ripped off the rest of the world (in terms of local taxes) to get out of the GFC hole they were in, now the chickens are coming home to roost.

      • Scott 1.1.3
        31 August 2016 at 3:46 pm

        They are not ripping off their own citizens. Apple would not be there but for the tax advantage, and it being there actually provides some benefit to Ireland (about 6000 well paid jobs etc).

        Ireland are ripping off the tax-payers in the location where Apple would naturally locate were there no tax advantages in doing otherwise. That is probably the US, or maybe China.

        Almost as bad in my book.

        • te reo putake 1.1.3.1
          31 August 2016 at 4:03 pm

          Good point, Scott. I was only thinking in terms of the tax take that the average Irish worker pays, but you are correct. The decision appears to pivot around the idea that the Irish government is disadvantaging other European countries by offering ridiculously low tax rates to the likes of Apple.

    • Bill 1.2
      31 August 2016 at 10:33 am

      About a week ago I read a Guardian article that alluded to the US admin taking some type of retaliation if the EU went ahead with that decision.

    • Puckish Rogue 2.1
      31 August 2016 at 8:27 am

      Its well worth visiting the Steampunk HQ if you’re a bit of a geek like I am

      • Robert Guyton 2.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 9:14 am

        There’s a rift between the Steampunk HQ (industrial steampunk) guys and the Steampunk Festival people, who favour stylish Victoriana costume and teapot racing. I ran with the latter when I went to Oamaru, as they opened their festival with an evening of absinthe tasting, glass towers and all. Artists .v. Industrialists, really.

        • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 9:28 am

          I just thought the HQ was really interesting but then I read too much 2000AD in my youth and a lot of the stuff in there reminded me of Nemesis the Warlock (specifically the Gothic Empire series)

          • Wensleydale 2.1.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 4:15 pm

            Nemesis was a whole bucketful of awesome. Well, him and Strontium Dog.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 4:34 pm

              Always partial to D.R. and Quinch, myself.

              And Dredd, of course. Fuck, Rogue Trooper and Bad Company, as well…

              • riffer …
                31 August 2016 at 6:00 pm

                It would appear the vast majority of people on the Standard today are aged between 47 and 53. Me too. I count some of the artists on that magazine among my friends now.

          • millsy 2.1.1.1.2
            1 September 2016 at 1:00 am

            Back in the 1990’s I found a Nemesis anthology in the young people’s section of the local library.

            It was quite a fasincating read.

            Could do with a movie adaptation.

            • Wensleydale 2.1.1.1.2.1
              1 September 2016 at 3:12 am

              Well, if they can pull off something like Warcraft, there’s no reason they couldn’t do Nemesis the Warlock. (Karl Urban did a sterling job in ‘Dredd’.) They’d need some decent writers though, and given the nature of the strip and the level of violence involved, it would most definitely not be a kids movie.

        • Rosie 2.1.1.2
          31 August 2016 at 1:21 pm

          Good to get the inside word on steampunk factionalism Robert – it does seem Oamaru is the spiritual home of Steampunk NZ.

          Mr Rosie is considering taking up steampunkery. As a senior retired Goth I think he will assimilate well.

          • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.2.1
            31 August 2016 at 9:00 pm

            If Mr Rosie can unearth some squid jewellery, call it “Kraken”, sew it to a sea captain’s jacket, polish up a piece of copper pipe and affix a lens of some kind to one end to create a spy-glass that sees into the future, grow a beard dyed red, clamp a monocle to one eye and strap a patch to the other, pull on a black coat trimmed with gold-chain and plumb-bobs, fashion a ray-gun from an old flit-gun and a length of perspex tubing, he’ll fit in like one of the ol’ crew. He’ll need a ‘punk name though; it’s the first thing he’ll be asked. I carried a black cane, topped with an antique bicycle tail-light, but he’ll be fine without a stick. Unless there’s trouble 🙂

    • Halfcrown 2.2
      31 August 2016 at 9:19 am

      Thanks for that Stuart. If I had the chance I would move there tomorrow, I think it is one of the best small towns in NZ with lots of character and culture and only an hours drive from Dunedin the best city apart from the weather in NZ.
      All the old Victorian architecture of the old town has been preserved and has not gone under the bulldozer blade of the greedy speculator, Oh sorry, developer.
      It is also a stones throw from Central Otago the best bit of NZ in my eyes. It is also a good centre for anyone interested in geology and bird watching, and now they have a cycle way from Ben More to Oamaru.
      Hopefully, I will be down there again this coming Feb for a few weeks
      Not you personally but they can shove going overseas when we have these gems in out own backyard.
      Lets hope it does not get ruined by all the tourists like the Blue Springs at Pataruru have.

      • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1
        31 August 2016 at 9:37 am

        I’ve always thought (and if I’m wrong I’m sure someone will correct me) that the reason Oamaru still has its building is because the financial boom of the 80s bypassed them (like many other small towns) so there was no money or reason to tear down the old building and build a new one in its place

        In which case one of the very few positives of the economic downturn is that is helped preserve the buildings

        Also if you’re going down there then having lunch at the small harbour (I’m not sure if its called harbour because I’m not a boating person) behind the steampunk HQ, where they’ve done up the esplanade, is quite nice

        • Halfcrown 2.2.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 12:39 pm

          I think you could be right Puckish, as I remember the first time I visited Oamaru instead of passing through it in the 90’s the wool stores which are now the Historical Precint were very much in disrepair. Not sure of my facts but I think you will find that Oamaru was a major port for exporting wool, but became derelict when they stopped exporting wool from there.
          Thanks for the heads up on the cafe, we will look out for that.

          I also agree with Weka
          “I think the trick is to make all towns in NZ good places to live instead of us all moving the ‘best’ ones 😉”
          Also thanks for that website I have bookmarked it for future reference

          • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 1:02 pm

            I’ll admit that from my younger days the first thing that sprung to mind when thinking of Oamaru was the lolly factory on the main road 🙂

            I should clarify that theres no café there but that its just a nice place to stop at the carpark and have takeaways or something, its also near the road to the blue penguin colony so not hard to find

        • Daveosaurus 2.2.1.2
          31 August 2016 at 5:17 pm

          I think practically every boom since about 1900 bypassed Oamaru… the town reached a sort of equilibrium and kept its character while 20th-century architecture happened to other places.

      • weka 2.2.2
        31 August 2016 at 9:40 am

        Good things happening with organics and sustainability too. And transition.

        http://www.sustainableoamaru.org.nz/

        I think the trick is to make all towns in NZ good places to live instead of us all moving the ‘best’ ones 😉

        • Robert Guyton 2.2.2.1
          31 August 2016 at 10:03 am

          Your final sentence is gold, weka. I do fear, however, that Oamaru will become too dry, as will other North Otago towns and surrounds. Crops that enjoy the dry, such as olives, will be a good option for those areas.

          • Puckish Rogue 2.2.2.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 10:09 am

            How would wine do, I know some vineyards are being built in the Kurow Valley but is that because its a good place or is it more hopeful?

            • weka 2.2.2.1.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 10:23 am

              Pretty limited market for export wine in a post-carbon world. How about we stop exporting wine and stop importing olive oil and instead grow lots of olives and less grapes?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                31 August 2016 at 10:36 am

                How about we let people who want to, make wine and let those who want to, grow olives and see how they go

                • weka …
                  31 August 2016 at 10:45 am

                  Shall I assume from that that you see no need to either mitigate CC or adapt to it?

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    31 August 2016 at 10:59 am

                    You can take it I’m not comfortable in telling people what they can and can’t grow especially when its their own money they’re putting up

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:06 am

                      No place for advisory boards then, Puck? Research into markets and climate changes to empower growers to make the best choices? Just let them work it out for themselves without advice from any interfering -3rd parties?
                      Interesting world view.
                      Weka shouldn’t express his views about agri/horticulture?
                      I don’t see that he was “telling people what they can and can’t grow”, was he?
                      As to wine, I’d tell any winegrower I met that I don’t support his/her use of tanalised posts throughout the vineyard. The potential for tanalith to get into the wine I buy is worrying. I’d buy from organic growers every time, biodynamic above all and certainly from local winemakers who eschew the use of preservatives in their wine.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:10 am

                      So the area around the Kurow Valley has good potential for growing wine then, good to know

                    • weka …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:23 am

                      “You can take it I’m not comfortable in telling people what they can and can’t grow especially when its their own money they’re putting up”

                      Yes, and now I’m also clear that you think money is more important than life (or you don’t believe in CC).

                      It might be their money (that’s still debatable) but it’s our water and atmosphere and land.

            • Robert Guyton 2.2.2.1.1.2
              31 August 2016 at 11:13 am

              The vineyards of Marlbourough (dry as) are impacting heavily on the water that might otherwise be available to people for drinking and the un-farmed environment for existing. Grape growing can have a deleterious effect on the quantity and quality of water. Do you think, Pucky, that someone should mention this to the growers? It seems they haven’t worked it out for themselves. Or should your “market” decide?

          • weka 2.2.2.1.2
            31 August 2016 at 10:28 am

            Reforesting now while they’ve got the rainfall would be a good idea too. Plus all that wetland restoration potential off the Waitaki catchment in the wider area.

            Wishful thinking 🙂 (we probably still have time though).

      • Stuart Munro 2.2.3
        31 August 2016 at 4:14 pm

        Don’t thank me, thank Oamaru.

        NZ communities can create great things if the white collar criminals gtfo of their way. Wearable art, wildfood… no shortage of talent at the grassroots. It’s only the head of Maui’s fish that’s rotten.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      31 August 2016 at 7:48 am

      Because doing so would get in the way of the profits of foreign nationals.

      • Manuka AOR 3.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 9:37 am

        “Clean green” has become a sad joke, a distant memory.

        Our poisoned waterways … apparently it’s the birds wot done it: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/environment/312172/swimmable-lakes-would-require-a-bird-cull-smith

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 10:05 am

          Right wing farmers love to blame birds for failing water quality, despite the science repeatedly showing how slight an effect birds have compared with hoofed stock. It’s the blunt farmer’s favourite whipping boy, ahead of townies’ sewerage.

          • Bill 3.1.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 10:44 am

            Been on tank rain water for over ten years now. Bugger all in the way of filtration and in spite of (no doubt) a fair bit of bird shit and probably some possum shit finding its way into my tank, I haven’t had any issues with water quality or gastric health. (And I sit directly below one of those “seabird highways” if you know what I mean)

            Anyway, anyone sets a cow or sheep on top of my water tank for an afternoon and I reckon I’d be having something to say about it.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 10:48 am

              You might not want a swan there either 😉 (campylobacter carrier apparently)

            • joe90 3.1.1.1.1.2
              31 August 2016 at 10:48 am

              Twenty three years on tank water with a couple of mesh filters between us and the bird shit and never been crook.

              • Macro …
                31 August 2016 at 2:19 pm

                30+ years here and just rely on the natural filtration of grass in the gutter 🙂 no illness either.
                Upon moving to town and after a year or two of chlorinated, fluoridated, alum saturated, town water – I installed a tank just for drinking and watering the garden. You can tell the difference between the two water supplies just by sniff test… The town supply smells foul! and tastes just as bad. The tank water has no smell and no taste of chemical treatment at all.

                • joe90 …
                  31 August 2016 at 3:05 pm

                  Our town water is drawn from a lime stone aquifer that runs all the way up to Ruapehu – comes out of the bore damn near effervescent and clean as a whistle but by dog it’s so hard you struggle to get a lather.

                  And it tastes bloody awful, too.

                  • Macro …
                    31 August 2016 at 5:16 pm

                    Our town supply is from a catchment in the Kauranga Valley and should be good being surrounded by DoC land and regenerating forest – but the treatment results in a – to me anyway – foul product. I can understand the hardness issue. No problems on that issue with tank supply!

  4. Tautoko Mangō Mata 4
    31 August 2016 at 7:33 am

    Part 2 of a series of articles on ISDS

    International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. Part two of a BuzzFeed News investigation

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/the-billion-dollar-ultimatum?utm_term=.xnOQv6Rkp#.vfJx8pVwv

    Part 1 THE COURT THAT RULES THE WORLD

    Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.
    Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
    Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court’s authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as “The Club” or “The Mafia.”
    And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing — and its decisions so unpredictable — that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/super-court?utm_term=.qnLVyDN7e#.qeOlDM8Bj

  5. The Chairman 5
    31 August 2016 at 7:34 am

    The price of tobacco products in New Zealand has climbed steadily over the last decade as a result of tax increases.

    This (link below) is the result of making tobacco a very valuable commodity.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/83723820/black-market-for-cigarettes-fuels-robberies-in-canterbury

    So while high tobacco prices are forcing a number to quit, it’s also creating harm, fear and potential loss of life in society.

    Are you concerned allowing your kids to go down to the comer store alone for fear they may get caught up in a robbery? And if not, should you start to be?

    Thoughts?

    • riffer 5.1
      31 August 2016 at 8:34 am

      Sure. Allow the tobacco companies to sell as many cigarettes as possible. But legislate for a zero limit of nicotine in them. Because people really smoke for the taste.

      And make nicotine a Class C drug.

      • The Chairman 5.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 10:54 am

        “Allow the tobacco companies to sell as many cigarettes as possible”

        No. However, reconsidering further tax increases would be recommended.

        • riffer 5.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 1:46 pm

          Tongue in cheek comment Chairman. My point was, that without nicotine they’d be hard pressed to sell at anywhere near the same amounts as previous. Who’s going to buy cigarettes with no nicotine in them?

    • Gabby 5.2
      31 August 2016 at 7:39 pm

      Corner stores just might decide carrying tobacco isn’t worth the candle.

      Discuss.

  6. The Chairman 6
    31 August 2016 at 7:45 am

    Labour claimed the Maori King got it wrong about Andrew Little not wanting to work with the Maori Party.

    But did he?

    Well here is Little’s answer.
    https://youtu.be/M9tX9-oBkWY?t=26m14s

    What do you make of it?

    • BM 6.1
      31 August 2016 at 8:07 am

      Little hasn’t got a political bone in his body.

      • The Chairman 6.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 8:13 am

        He seems to have great difficulty answering a yes or no question.

        • Jenny Kirk 6.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 8:25 am

          Not at all, Chairman. Andrew Little was absolutely clear he had never said Labour wouldn’t work with the Maori Party. He also said he’d had a researcher go through Hansard files thoroughly to check that out.

          As for BM’s comment – Hah ! BM doesn’t know a political bone when he sees one.

          • weka 6.1.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 8:35 am

            Did Little say that in that video?

          • BM 6.1.1.1.2
            31 August 2016 at 8:39 am

            He basically called them scum for supporting National and are responsible for all the homeless people in NZ.

            Stupid, short sighted stuff from Little, but it’s what you expect from him with his us vs them union mindset.

            • Leftie 6.1.1.1.2.1
              31 August 2016 at 8:47 am

              He basically said nothing of the sort BM. You’re shitstirring.

              • BM …
                31 August 2016 at 8:49 am

                That’s the way I took his comments, if that’s not what he meant, he really needs to work on his delivery.

                • North …
                  31 August 2016 at 9:04 am

                  What? To satisfy one bonehead like Bowel? Like Bowel’s the centre of the political and dictional universe and not just a troll?

            • weka 6.1.1.1.2.2
              31 August 2016 at 9:21 am

              “He basically called them scum for supporting National and are responsible for all the homeless people in NZ.”

              Stop lying BM, he didn’t say that.

            • marty mars 6.1.1.1.2.3
              31 August 2016 at 9:53 am

              He didn’t call them scum but did say they were responsible like the gnats for the homeless. Shackled is his new favorite expreßion.

              • BM …
                31 August 2016 at 9:59 am

                Shackled is his new favorite expression.

                Do you think it’s a back handed way of saying that the Maori party are Nationals “slaves”?

              • Leftie …
                31 August 2016 at 10:40 am

                The Maori party did vote in favour of National’s legislation to sell off state housing, that is contributing to homelessness Marty Mars.

                Andrew Little said in regards to the Maori party, that he doesn’t see them as a party that want change, he said: “they have shackled themselves to the National government for the last 8 years, they are as responsible as any National MP for the failure of people to get affordable houses, decent education and all those other issues.”

                <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9tX9-oBkWY

          • The Chairman 6.1.1.1.3
            31 August 2016 at 8:55 am

            Not from what Little said when questioned at 26:14 in the link, Jenny.

            By not seeing them as a force for change, he’s effectively ruling them out. Without actually saying that. Which would explain why the comment couldn’t be found.

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.3.1
              31 August 2016 at 9:23 am

              Little said that as far as he is concerned, the Maori Party totally cosy up to their mates the National Party, and have delivered nothing to Maori to show for it.

              So yeah that’s pretty much all over.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.3.2
              31 August 2016 at 9:27 am

              That’s a complete misrepresentation of what has happened.

              There is zero evidence that prior to the King’s speech Labour had ruled out working with the Mp. Zero.

              Since then Labour have done due diligence and looked to make sure nothing was said taht could be construed as ruling out the Mp and have found nothing.

              In that time period, there’s been shit stirring from a number of quarters, and of course the media are going to put Little on teh spot. In the light of the Mp’s recent behaviour, and given the two parties will be in direct competition for seats, it makes sense that Labour keep the Mp at arms length without ruling them out unless the Mp repostion themselves as being potentially interesting in a left-wing govt. That certainly haven’t come across that way in the past week or so.

              Labour haven’t handled this perfectly, but you are deliberately misrepresenting their positions, which is fucking stupid form someone who appears to claim to be left wing.

              • The Chairman …
                31 August 2016 at 11:30 am

                “There is zero evidence that prior to the King’s speech Labour had ruled out working with the Mp.”

                Yes. However, given the interview, there is now.

                “Labour haven’t handled this perfectly”

                Indeed. However, that’s putting it lightly. One could argue Labour have exacerbated the matter, claiming the King was incorrect.

                Nevertheless, not handling this perfectly is the concern, hence the discussion.

                I see you don’t deem this as an urgent issue, but it relates to the battle of winning the next election.

                Moreover, if Labour handled this better, perhaps the discussion could have been averted.

        • weka 6.1.1.2
          31 August 2016 at 8:28 am

          Probably because it’s not a yes or no question. I thought he was clear – if the Mp change and become a party for change Labour will work with them, otherwise they will wait and see how the numbers fall after the election.

          He would be foolish to say no when they might end up needing to rely on them for C and S. Or to say yes when they appear to be positioning themselves to be on the right going into the next election. Better to say that Labour will work with the parties committed change.

          • The Chairman 6.1.1.2.1
            31 August 2016 at 9:07 am

            “Probably because it’s not a yes or no question.”

            Rubbish. The question clearly was.

            Little was asked if he was saying he will work with the Maori Party? Which only required a yes or no answer.

            He should have simply stated that unless they are prepared to change, Labour will not consider working with them. Instead, he tried to dance on the head of a pin.

            Perhaps that’s because it will give ground to the King’s assertion.

            Even Willie was struggling to determine Little’s answer. It’s wasn’t a good look.

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.2.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 9:27 am

              Some Lefties are trying to spin this as if Little is leaving the door open to the Maori Party (which he clearly is not – or if he is in the slightest, he’s made it clear that it’s to be totally on Labour’s terms).

              The more interesting perspective to take is how National and Maori Party are going to act on Little’s comments.

              The Maori Party will be fucked off as being dismissed by Little as National lapdogs, and National will make the (accurate) point that the Maori Party and National have no option but to work more closely than ever.

              So yeah, Little has continued the long Labour trend of fucking over another potential MMP partner.

              • weka …
                31 August 2016 at 9:42 am

                How has he not left the door open? He’s said that Labour will work with parties that want to change the govt.

                You seem to be confusing ‘left the door open’ with ‘actively courting’.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 August 2016 at 9:50 am

                  As I said, it’s an ultimatum. Labour’s way or the highway. And Labour will promise nothing in return.

                  And what potential partner reacts well to such an “open door.”

                  • Leftie …
                    31 August 2016 at 10:50 am

                    Weka has it right. You are wrong Colonial Viper, listen to what Andrew Little is actually saying and not the made up version inside your head.

                    Do you want National to remain in power Colonial Viper?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:57 pm

                      Can Labour try and form a stable government on a result of 25% +/-3%? With this strategy of alienating potential MMP partners, I’d say they will fail.

                  • weka …
                    31 August 2016 at 11:07 am

                    “And Labour will promise nothing in return.”

                    You have no way of knowing that, so I’m going to assume that your antipathy towards Labour is informing your opinion here.

                    No party would be promising anything at this stage of proceedings, even if they were getting on.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:58 pm

                      No party would be promising anything at this stage of proceedings, even if they were getting on.

                      At this stage of proceedings? You mean 12 months before an election and 4 months before the start of election year?

                      OK, if you say so.

              • Jenny Kirk …
                31 August 2016 at 2:53 pm

                What you seem to be forgetting, CV et al, is that Labour (and Greens) are actually working right now with the Maori Party on their homelessness enquiry – going around towns together to find out just what people are experiencing in the way of difficulty in getting into a home. Happening right now.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 August 2016 at 3:00 pm

                  You are right, that would seem like a major initiative. But I didn’t hear a single mention from Andrew Little about working with the Maori Party on that enquiry. Did I miss him talking about it?

            • weka 6.1.1.2.1.2
              31 August 2016 at 9:31 am

              “Little was asked if he was saying he will work with the Maori Party? Which only required a yes or no answer.”

              Are you thick or what?

              Obviously the answer is “it depends”. Which it patently does, and that’s exactly what Little said.

              You can spin and manipulate all you like in order to backhandledly further your agenda, which appears to be you don’t like how Labour run themselves and you want them to be x, y, z. Unfortunately the fact that you do this in such a smeary way makes you inherently untrustworthy. I’m not cheerleading Labour, I just don’t see the point in lying about what they are doing.

              • Karen …
                31 August 2016 at 9:44 am

                +1 Weka.

                I haven’t got the energy any more to get into a dialogue with these guys but I am glad you continue to challenge them.

                • Rodel …
                  31 August 2016 at 10:39 am

                  Karen -From ‘these guys’ it’s this sort of false dichotomy question:
                  Where were you on the night of the 31st? Answer yes or no.

                  The logic has some similarities to the latest and perhaps the most memorable Trumpism, “I do know the issues. I actually know the issues better than people understand that I know the issues.”

                  • weka …
                    31 August 2016 at 11:08 am

                    I can’t tell if it’s the illogic or the underlying Labour-bashing agenda that is the worst 😉

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 12:08 pm

                    “Where were you on the night of the 31st?”

                    Just wanted to point out, the above is not a yes or no question. Whereas, what was put to Little was.

                • Leftie …
                  31 August 2016 at 10:51 am

                  I second that Karen.

                • weka …
                  31 August 2016 at 11:12 am

                  Thanks Karen. The really stupid thing about this conversation is that there are plenty of urgent things to be discussing constructively instead.

              • The Chairman …
                31 August 2016 at 9:54 am

                No. The question only required a yes or no.

                The “depends” is the reason behind the answer However, Little made it clear he didn’t view the Maori Party as one of change. Therefore, the answer should have been no.

                I’m not spinning anything. I’m merely seeking what others think while expressing my view on it. The footage is there for all to see.

                Moreover, the reason I disapprove with how Little often handles himself when questioned is I believe it’s costing the Party support.

                It looks indecisive and unprofessional. It’s like Labour fear to own their position, thus look untrustworthy.

                • weka …
                  31 August 2016 at 10:17 am

                  “No. The question only required a yes or no.”

                  Lolz. So you keep saying, but just because you keep saying it it doesn’t make it so.

                  The “depends” is the reason behind the answer

                  Right, so there is a ‘depends’.

                  However, Little made it clear he didn’t view the Maori Party as one of change. Therefore, the answer should have been no.

                  “will you work with the Mp?”

                  “it depends. We will work with parties that want to change the govt. At the moment, they don’t look like a party of change. Come the election we will let the voters decide”

                  If Little came out and said ‘no’, then that’s it, door closed. He obviously doesn’t want to close that door. What advantage is there to not closing the door if they actually want to? Or closing the door if they don’t want to?

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 10:41 am

                    “But just because you keep saying it it doesn’t make it so”

                    Of course not. However, the footage of the question is there for all to see.

                    Answering the question, then giving the reason why would have kept the door open.

                    However, because Labour have claimed the King was incorrect, answering the question has now become more difficult.

                    So now we have this situation were Labour claim the King’s assertion is not correct, yet, at the moment, Labour aren’t willing to work with them.

                    Technically making the King’s assertion correct and leaving Labour looking extremely questionable.

                    Are you implying that’s what Little wanted to achieve?

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 10:56 am

                      The footage shows that you are making it up and talking a load of shit, The Chairman.

                    • weka …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:03 am

                      No, I’m implying that your strategy, whatever it is, is failing.

                      If you have evidence that prior to teh King’s speech Labour had said they wouldn’t work with the Mp, I’d love to see it.

                      The issue isn’t that Labour claim the King was incorrect, it’s that he was incorrect. It looks to me like the Mp are positioning themselves to be part of the next conservative govt.

                      I don’t really have an opinion about Māori politics involved here, but if what this article is saying is true, Little will be aware of it and Labour will be making their moves accordingly,

                      “The Māori King could save Key from Winston the Kingmaker.”

                      http://www.newshub.co.nz/opinion/opinion-maori-politics-now-a-game-of-thrones-2016082612

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 11:38 am

                    “The issue isn’t that Labour claim the King was incorrect, it’s that he was incorrect.”

                    How could the King have been incorrect considering we’ve now established that his assertion is actually Labour’s current position?

                    • te reo putake …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:48 am

                      Um, haven’t we actually established that Little has not ruled out the maori party? Or are you just dizzy from all that spinning?

                    • The Chairman …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:16 pm

                      @ te reo putake

                      We have established at this current moment in time he has ruled out working with them. Albeit, that may later change.

                    • weka …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:19 pm

                      “How could the King have been incorrect considering we’ve now established that his assertion is actually Labour’s current position?”

                      You’re either outright lying there or incredibly thick. Either way, you are running a bullshit line there that is as bad as any RWer.

                    • te reo putake …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:33 pm

                      OK, I’ll ask again. I expect a very specific reply or I’m going to go into moderation mode.

                      Where is it established that Andrew Little and/or Labour has ruled out working with the maori party?

                • McFlock …
                  31 August 2016 at 1:25 pm

                  OK, so you reckon Andrew Little should have said “yes” to working with a party that reinforces the current regime of neglect and decay?

                  Well, that’s not going to happen. It’s would just give the remaining self-loathing labourites ammunition for another 5 years of internecine warfare.

                  So maybe he should have said “no” to working with the MāoriParty? Well, that’s foolish, because (unlike ACT) if the “Māori” Party leadership actually had a road ro Damascus moment and lived up to its bumper sticker and supported Māori, then all of a sudden the question becomes “will you work a party that promotes constructive policies around health, education and social welfare”, and the answer should have been “hell yes”.

                  Or, to paraphrase the Reverend Lovejoy: “long answer yes with an if, short answer no with a but”.

        • Muttonbird 6.1.1.3
          31 August 2016 at 9:47 am

          He seems to have great difficulty answering a yes or no question.

          – The Chairman

          Little was being very clear and honest and even more importantly, respectful of the voter.

          You and your stablemates BM and CV struggle with honesty, apparently.

          He said Labour and the Greens were parties of change. They are and the Maori party are not.

          He also said to let the voters have our say and that Labour would then talk to parties who wanted change after that had happened.

          If the Maori party would suddenly like to start working for Maori (or are even able to) at that point then I’m sure Labour and the Greens would work with them.

          • The Chairman 6.1.1.3.1
            31 August 2016 at 10:03 am

            As I stated to weka above, he should have simply stated that unless they are prepared to change, Labour will not consider working with them. That would have been far more direct, clear and honest.

            Instead, he tried to dance on the head of a pin.

            Perhaps that’s because it will give ground to the King’s assertion?

            Even Willie was struggling to determine Little’s answer. It’s wasn’t a good look.

            “He also said to let the voters have our say”

            Implying they may not even get over the line, hence he won’t have to deal with them. Or we’ll see how the landscape looks then, if we really require their support, we may talk to them.

            • weka 6.1.1.3.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 10:19 am

              “As I stated to weka above, he should have simply stated that unless they are prepared to change, Labour will not consider working with them.”

              No, what you said is that he should have said no because that is what he meant.

              Further, you said that he should have said yes or no, not ‘depends’.

              Your arguments are all over the place. You make less sense than you claim Little does.

              • The Chairman …
                31 August 2016 at 10:50 am

                “No, what you said is that he should have said no because that is what he meant.”

                Yes, that’s correct. And if he wasn’t later asked (hard to see that he wouldn’t have been) he should have quickly explained why. As I detailed above.

                Labour could have put this whole sorry saga to rest long ago if they only conceded the King was correct and made clear the reason for them taking their position. Moreover, that their current position was open to change.

                • Leftie …
                  31 August 2016 at 11:00 am

                  Bollocks the Chairman, and why admit to something you haven’t done?

                  Andrew Little was very clear in his well reasoned responses, you are just shitstirring.

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 1:46 pm

                    If it’s bollocks as you claim. Then answer me this, yes or no, are Labour willing to work with the Maori Party today?

                    Did the Maori Party change between now and the time the King’s speech was made?

                    Therefore, was the King’s assertion correct?

                    [OK, enough of this circle jerking. You’ve been asked politely to back up your claim. Clearly, you can’t. Take the rest of the day off and come back tomorrow and bore us shitless on some other topic. TRP]

                • weka …
                  31 August 2016 at 11:10 am

                  “Labour could have put this whole sorry saga to rest long ago if they only conceded the King was correct and made clear the reason for them taking their position.”

                  Let me get this right. There is zero evidence that Labour had previously ruled out working with the Mp. Labour certainly don’t believe they had. So you want them to lie and say that the King was correct, and that this lie should happen for reasons of political expediency?

                  Glad we’ve got your politics clear at last.

                  This is a very stupid conversation, I’m done.

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 12:03 pm

                    “This is a very stupid conversation, I’m done”

                    And that folks, is what is called a hit and run.

                    I’ll let you take this away to ponder. How could the King have been incorrect considering we’ve now established that his assertion is actually Labour’s current position?

                    • weka …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:17 pm

                      Oh good, I get to call you a liar for the rest of the week. You are lying TC, Labour haven’t said they won’t work with the Mp, not before the speech and not since. God knows what your agenda is, I can’t be bothered with this bullshit that ties up whole conversations in some ridiculous backhanded quest to make Labour see the error of their ways according to The Chairman, but I am happy enough to name outright lying every time I see it when I perceive it as damaging to the left, or in fact politics in NZ in general.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:37 pm

                      15 posts from weka with reference to your comment at 6.

                      Hardly a hit and run. weka has just had enough of you willful deafness.

                    • weka …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:06 pm

                      Thanks Muttonbird. It’s another example of the way that TC debates. Misrepresenting things seems to come too easy.

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 1:23 pm

                    Oh look, you’re back.

                    Were you lying when you said you were done?

                    “I get to call you a liar”

                    You’ve incorrectly called me that before. Therefore, I wouldn’t be surprised if you continue to do so.

                    “Labour haven’t said they won’t work with the Mp”

                    Really?

                    So answer me this, are Labour willing to work with the Maori Party today?

                    And yes, that is a yes or no question.

                    I’m interested in pointing out areas where I believe Labour require to up their game. And seeing if there is a general a consensus, in which Labour my take heed of.

                    And if you think they handled this badly, can you imagine how Little will now respond when being questioned about this interview?

                    • weka …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:44 pm

                      “Were you lying when you said you were done?”

                      Nope. I’m done with the stupid conversation. Now I just get to call you liar each time you repeat the lie.

                    • Jenny Kirk …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:58 pm

                      “are Labour willing to work with the Maori Party today?” asks TC

                      Right now, in Kaitaia they’re doing just that – holding a homeless enquiry with the Greens, and guess what – Marama Fox is there too – from the Maori Party in case you didn’t know

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 1:57 pm

                    “Were you lying when you said you were done?”

                    “Nope.”

                    Well clearly that is a lie.

                    And I see you couldn’t answer that simple question I put to you. Therefore, your accusation has no merit.

                    [I’ve been trying hard not to get into moderation mode in this thread because I’ve been involved in arguing content, but you have now stepped over a line. You’ve just called an author a liar. You’ve been asked by another author/moderator to back up a claim and you haven’t. You look to me like you are now trolling and I’ve had enough of the manipulation and misrepresentations across the board. Take a step back and find something else to talk about. You might want to reread the Policy regarding self-martydom offences and moderation. – weka]

            • Muttonbird 6.1.1.3.1.2
              31 August 2016 at 11:23 am

              As I stated to weka above, he should have simply stated that unless they are prepared to change, Labour will not consider working with them.

              – The Chairman, again

              For Little to have said that would be even more overbearing than you or your mates criticised him for being earlier, and completely leaves the voter out of the loop.

              Yours is a position somewhat typical of the entitled set, so I’m not surprised.

              • The Chairman …
                31 August 2016 at 1:35 pm

                I totally disagree.

                And the polls would suggest Little’s performance to date is failing to win voters over. I’m suggesting this sort of behaviour is one of the reasons why.

                PS
                The term hit and run refers to the derogation and the fact that weka insinuated she was done. It doesn’t refer to the number of posts weka made.

                • McFlock …
                  31 August 2016 at 2:02 pm

                  Actually, it was more “hit, hit, hit, hit again, get a bit puffed, walk away, walk back, give it another couple of hits, drop a safe on its head, walk away and do something interesting, maybe pop back in a while and hit it a couple more times, but by this stage the horse is well and truly just lying down and refusing to drink, move or even breathe, so maybe kick it once or twice for good measure and call it a day”.

            • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.3.1.3
              1 September 2016 at 1:28 am

              Oh crap – he didn’t bite on the wife beater – and spin it how you may nothing has changed.

              The Mp may think ‘aggrievedness’ will win them votes, but Winston has pretty much had that territory sewn up for decades. Little will play with them if he must, but if they don’t cool it he probably won’t enjoy it much.

              Question is whether the Mp are determined to go down with the Key ship if Little doesn’t need them – something for them to think about.

      • te reo putake 6.1.2
        31 August 2016 at 8:24 am

        “Little hasn’t got a political bone in his body.”

        You say this like it’s a bad thing.

        • Puckish Rogue 6.1.2.1
          31 August 2016 at 8:57 am

          We’ll see if you’re still saying that when (not if) Little goes up and loses against Key in the leaders debates

          That’s not arrogance either, that’s based on Key soundly beating Clark and Goff in the debates and winning (admittedly closer then I thought it would be) against Cunliffe and I think its fair to say that Little isn’t the politician Clark is/was and probably not the political debater Cunliffe is/was

          • te reo putake 6.1.2.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 9:07 am

            Dunno. Leaving aside that this has been, globally, a year for non politicians, Little is a trained lawyer who can hold his own in a debate. And I speak from personal experience there; I once found myself on the other side of the table from him in a legal matter and the exchange was rather torrid. Mostly for me, to be fair 😉

            • Puckish Rogue 6.1.2.1.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 9:22 am

              I’m not disparaging Little in this instance (no seriously I’m not) but as good as he probably is hes up against someone that dealt to Clark, Goff, Cullen, Campbell and Cunliffe

              Even you would have to admit that Little will need to bring his a-game to have a chance against someone as practiced as Key is, I mean who has Little beaten in a debate that’s as impressive as the list that Key has beaten?

              • te reo putake …
                31 August 2016 at 9:30 am

                You’re right that he will need to bring his A game. But he does have one, so he’s in with a chance.

                Andrew’s certainly not perfect and does have an annoying habit of shooting from the lip. He’s got to remember that he’s not debating to put one over Key, but to win support from the viewers. So his answers have to be tailored for the audience, not Key.

                However, he’s got a year to hone his delivery and I suspect he’ll be far less likely to have a ‘show me the money’ moment in the debates than some previous Labour leaders.

              • Robert Guyton …
                31 August 2016 at 9:54 am

                You’re entirely wrong here, Puckish Rogue. Little has sooo much material to throw at Key; think ponytails and greasy soap, sleeping in cars and Saudi sheep, that he’ll have a field day with the out-going PM. Little’s got the sturdy sort of mind and delivery that will make Key seem like a pinned insect in it’s final throes. It’ll be most enjoyable theatre.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  31 August 2016 at 10:06 am

                  I think you’re letting your emotions trump your logic here. Clark, Goff and Cunliffe all had ample ammunition to throw at Key and yet couldn’t do much with it though to be fair Cunliffe did better then I thought he would but he still came in at 55-45 to Key

                  Basically you’re saying that Little will be able to do what the three previous leaders of Labour were unable to do, the previous leaders who all had more experience of politics and debating then Little (ok I’m guessing the debating bit but not the politics)

                  That’s a big call

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    31 August 2016 at 10:17 am

                    My emotions!
                    No, Puckish Rogue, my view that Little has a plethora of ammunition to knock Key over at any moment is entirely logical, given that the Labour Party leader has more years of Key/National muck ups to cite than any Labour leader before him has had, many of those being recent and doubtless more to come. He’s spoilt for choice. Mr Little could simply pepper the debate with references to Key’s unpleasantness, without having to expand on those asides, to degrade the PM’s credibility/character. Little doesn’t have to debate policy, he simply needs to air Key’s dirty laundry, and do it dispassionately, on behalf of all New Zealanders 🙂

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 10:42 am

                      The thing is though I’m basing my opinion on what Key has done previously, who Key has defeated which is something everyone can take note of

                      You’re basing your opinion on what Little might do, what could happen, what you would like to see happen but hasn’t happened yet

                      You might be right and it may well go down like that but those who forget their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes and Key has a history of taking down Labour leaders, three in total but four if you count Shearer

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:22 am

                      “The thing is though I’m basing my opinion on what Key has done previously…”
                      Who cares, it has no relevance. The situation has changed.
                      “You’re basing your opinion on what Little might do…”
                      Pfft…I’m basing my claims on what Key has continued to do; stupid stuff, that any Labour leader could fire at him during a debate.Key’s made it very easy for any challenger to mock him, diminish his appeal and lampoon him on the spot, repeatedly, effectively. Key’s provided soooo much material for his own roasting, anyone could turn the heat up high. Little is perfectly capable and perfectly placed to do just that. He doesn’t need to, and shouldn’t, in my view, debate those stains on Key’s character, merely mentioning them will be more than enough.
                      Your logic in this sub-thread is lacking, Pucky.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 11:37 am

                      Your logic in this sub-thread is lacking, Pucky.

                      You’re a good writer but if you think a union lawyer that failed to convince the Labour caucus he was the right person for the job can achieve what Clark, Goff and Cunliffe all failed to do then you’ve let your emotions override your common sense

                      I’ll await your opinion when the leaders debates have concluded

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:13 pm

                      Cunliffe being elected one year out from the election didn’t give him much time, and you ignore other influential forces that were at play, like an extremely hostile msm and Key’s dirty politics.

                      And yet Andrew Little has successfully convinced Labour’s caucus to unite and work together. That fact alone blows your argument right out the window, and note there are no more leaks in Labour’s ship.

                      Helen Clark had already won 3 elections, that saw the Nats in opposition for 9 years Puckish Rogue. Bill English led National to it’s worst election defeat in 2002 with just 20.93% far worse than Labour’s result in 2014. The way you talk it’s like you think National winning 3 elections is unique, it is not. NZ politics is cyclic, and it’s as Helen Clark said, you can’t keep on winning elections.

                      Haven’t you let your emotions override your common sense?

                      Great posts there Robert Guyon.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:41 pm

                      Cunliffe being elected one year out from the election didn’t give him much time, and you ignore other influential forces that were at play, like an extremely hostile msm and Key’s dirty politics.

                      – Waah, waah, waah, excuses, excuses, excuses, you play the hand you’re dealt not the hand you’d like or is this something else to blame on John Key?

                      And yet Andrew Little has successfully convinced Labour’s caucus to unite and work together. That fact alone blows your argument right out the window, and note there are no more leaks in Labour’s ship.

                      – Yet Labour still can’t get out of the mid 20s

                      Helen Clark had already won 3 elections, that saw the Nats in opposition for 9 years Puckish Rogue. Bill English led National to it’s worst election defeat in 2002 with just 20.93% far worse than Labour’s result in 2014. The way you talk it’s like you think National winning 3 elections is unique, it is not. NZ politics is cyclic, and it’s as Helen Clark said, you can’t keep on winning elections.

                      – I don’t think winning 3 is unique but John Key winning 4 in a post-MMP world is and hasn’t been done since Kiwi Keith so yeah it will be impressive when he wins 4

                      Haven’t you let your emotions override your common sense?

                      – Dude I’m basing my arguments on past history and current polling, what’re you basing your argument on?

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 4:11 pm

                      But they are not excuses though. How do you know the polls are true and accurate?
                      National supporters have been crowing for years that John key will govern alone, 3 elections later he still couldn’t achieve it and in fact, lost a seat some months after the last general election.
                      FACT: John key hasn’t won a 4th term, and unless you think he can get away with rigging it again, there are no guarantees that he can win it again, in all likelihood, he could very well lose. Holyoake was not as impressive as the First Labour government that were in power for over 4 terms, (14 years), and it appears your past history is selective to say the least. Don’t let you National party bias blind you to the facts Puckish Rogue.

              • Leftie …
                31 August 2016 at 11:14 am

                And look at how dirty John key had to get Puckish Rogue. David Cunliffe did beat Key in the debates. Helen Clark was no pushover, Key had John Campbell sacked after an interview that showed him up, Key abused his position of office in dealing to Goff.

                How did John key deal to Cullen? Interesting that National has been employing his skills, isn’t it?

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  31 August 2016 at 11:29 am

                  David Cunliffe did beat Key in the debates.

                  – Debateable, people think Cunliffe won because he didn’t do as badly as people thought he would, I put Key at 55-45

                  Helen Clark was no pushover

                  – “You might be used to shouting people down at home, but you’re not shouting me down” Clark is no pushover yet Key beat her in the debates

                  Key had John Campbell sacked after an interview that showed him up

                  – Key showed up with no notes and showed Campbell up in that interview: “Prime Minister, you are a brilliant politician” and as for being sacked I’d suggest it up more to do with two years of falling ratings

                  Key abused his position of office in dealing to Goff

                  – Goff was showing up as a lightweight, a capable minister but not a PM

                  How did John key deal to Cullen? Interesting that National has been employing his skills, isn’t it?

                  – As Key learnt from Clark when you place your opponents in positions of power its a bit hard to argue cronyism

                  • Leftie …
                    31 August 2016 at 12:11 pm

                    Most knew that Cunliffe could and would out do Key in the debates. And he did.

                    I remember that. Helen Clark made a very good point there. Shows the strength of Clark that she could withstand a heavily biased environment of National’s rent a mob, any lesser person would have just walked out. John key has to use dirty tricks to stay in play.

                    What’s having no notes got to do with it? Everyone knows John key can’t do his job and relies on lies and obfuscation. Did John Campbell use the word “perfect”? Key didn’t like it when Campbell said he was being a real politician, and he most certainly didn’t like it when Campbell told key that he was playing the man instead of the ball. Do you remember what the interview was about that John key was being so defensive over?

                    In reference to John Campbell, didn’t Key say he wanted that bastard gone? and since Mark Weldon is a close personal friend of John Key’s, it wouldn’t of been hard to arrange. It is the pattern of the Key regime.

                    Re: Goff, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security’s report showed that John key abused the power of his PM’s Office.

                    You said Key “dealt” to Cullen. How? Cullen was no longer in parliament when National hired him, that’s not “dealing” to Cullen. “

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:26 pm

                      Well I disagree with you and I’ve noted why previously but based on what you’re saying I do have to ask if you’re aware that John Key has been PM since 2008?

                      I only ask because it sounds like you think John Key was beaten by everyone so I thought I should clarify

                    • Chris …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:26 pm

                      Another party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party.

                      How can Labour be so fucking on to it when they’re so fucking useless? It just doesn’t add up, wee Leftie boy.

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:46 pm

                      Now you are just being stupid Puckish Rouge and I have pointed out that John key uses dirty politics to beat people and to cling to power, and of course you disagree, truth hurts.

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:48 pm

                      I don’t know why you like parading yourself as a dimwit Chris. Again you are showing that you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic at hand.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 12:55 pm

                      “Now you are just being stupid Puckish Rouge and I have pointed out that John key uses dirty politics to beat people and to cling to power, and of course you disagree, truth hurts.” in other words “Key only won because of dirty Politics whereas we are noble and pure”

                      Does believing that ease the pain of another election defeat?

                      Does it make you feel better that the voters of NZ are “tricked” into voting for National, that one day the voting public will see John Key for what he is and will vote National out and herald the triumphant return of a left wing coalition government?

                      Is it too painful to consider that voting public of NZ know what John Key is like, know what National are like but vote National anyway because the alternative is too horrible to consider?

                      Just curious so you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:23 pm

                      I think you are fearful and in pain Puckish Rogue, you desperately assume and hope the opposition will be defeated at the next election, but you see your beloved liar John key and his defensive National government constantly on the back foot now, they are in trouble and you’re scared.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:28 pm

                      “Is it too painful to consider that voting public of NZ know what John Key is like, know what National are like but vote National anyway because the alternative is too horrible to consider?”

                      Too horrible to consider, Pucky?

                      That’s the most most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you; a Left wing coalition Government “too horrible to consider”

                      Pure drivel; riverlets, gobs, flecks and splatterings of it, right there, Puck.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:42 pm

                      I think you are fearful and in pain Puckish Rogue, you desperately assume and hope the opposition will be defeated at the next election, but you see your beloved liar John key and his defensive National government constantly on the back foot now, they are in trouble and you’re scared.

                      I’ll worry when National drops below 40 and Labour get above 30 🙂

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:43 pm

                      “Is it too painful to consider that voting public of NZ know what John Key is like, know what National are like but vote National anyway because the alternative is too horrible to consider?”

                      Too horrible to consider, Pucky?

                      That’s the most most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you; a Left wing coalition Government “too horrible to consider”

                      Pure drivel; riverlets, gobs, flecks and splatterings of it, right there, Puck.

                      and yet Nationals still in the driver seat to win a fourth election 😉

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      31 August 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      National, in the driver’s seat?
                      Ah yes, you’re thinking of Chester Burrows and his use of a car as a weapon when he drove over a woman’s foot – how’s that case coming along, I wonder? Were you meaning to associate Key and National with Burrows and his vehicle? Poor choice of imagery there, Pucky.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:07 pm

                      National, in the driver’s seat?
                      Ah yes, you’re thinking of Chester Burrows and his use of a car as a weapon when he drove over a woman’s foot – how’s that case coming along, I wonder? Were you meaning to associate Key and National with Burrows and his vehicle? Poor choice of imagery there, Pucky.

                      Ackshully I was referring to National still being well above 40% even after 8 years of being in power 🙂

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:18 pm

                      Nah, Pucky. You’re just enjoying winding people up on what must be for you, a slow day at work. I’m off now, to show a gaggle of school children how bees earn their living. Did you know that bees have two stomachs? One is for transporting nectar home to the hive. I’d always wondered why bees visited so many flowers, drinking as they went. It seemed as though they were over-feeding as they packed pollen onto their back legs, but now I realise, they carry two different cargoes.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:26 pm

                      How is Chester faring, do you know, Pucky? It’s just one of the awkward “news babies” that National is presently smothering. Remember the Northland MP? The Saudi sheep scandal? The ponytail pulling? The kauri swamp issue? That sort of stuff. Do you think, Pucky, that New Zealanders just don’t mind about those things now? The seemed to, pre-Key, but now, somehow, they have lost interest, cause…horrible Left wing, Pucky? Do you reckon?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      31 August 2016 at 2:28 pm

                      Nah, Pucky. You’re just enjoying winding people up on what must be for you, a slow day at work. I’m off now, to show a gaggle of school children how bees earn their living. Did you know that bees have two stomachs? One is for transporting nectar home to the hive. I’d always wondered why bees visited so many flowers, drinking as they went. It seemed as though they were over-feeding as they packed pollen onto their back legs, but now I realise, they carry two different cargoes.

                      I did not know that, everyday you learn something new is a good day indeed

                    • Leftie …
                      31 August 2016 at 4:29 pm

                      Yeah, you’re worried alright, and since you rely on the polls as a comfort blanket Puckish Rogue, it must be devastating for you and other blind followers in the John key cult, that John key’s ratings have plummeted from the unrealistic heady heights of 63% to 36.7% in such a short time.

                • whispering kate …
                  31 August 2016 at 1:50 pm

                  Nobody has brought up the moderator of these debates. Why does the moderator allow the PM to shout his head off and be disgustingly rude during these debates, surely there has to be some terms/rules set out beforehand so that the audience can hear coherent information which means something. Not insulting the crowd with useless bullying tactics.

                  My partner and I think there should be an off button which can be employed to shut up the run away motor mouth whoever it is and then the moderator can give scores up or down for good behaviour. At least this way the audience at home watching on the TV can get a responsible and factual account of the facts and not be subjected to abuse.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    31 August 2016 at 2:12 pm

                    Got any more excuses to run?

                  • Leftie …
                    31 August 2016 at 5:59 pm

                    +1 Whispering Kate, that’s a very good point, and you are right. And the moderators do get overlooked when discussing these debates and as we have all been witness to, they are part of the problem as well, that you have aptly described.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  31 August 2016 at 6:09 pm

                  Puckish Rogue said:
                  “John Key winning 4 (elections) in a post-MMP world … hasn’t been done…”

                  True, Pucky, true! Nicely said.

          • Stuart Munro 6.1.2.1.2
            1 September 2016 at 1:30 am

            Key has never won a debate in his life. Debates are won with matter, not blather. He may fool you, but he fills debaters with contempt every time he opens his lying mouth.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.2
          31 August 2016 at 9:28 am

          “Little hasn’t got a political bone in his body.”

          You say this like it’s a bad thing.

          You can’t really be accepting of this statement about Little.

    • te reo putake 6.2
      31 August 2016 at 8:18 am

      Thanks for clearing that up, TC. Andrew Little doesn’t rule out working with the maori party in the clip*, but does make it clear he doesn’t see them as a force for change.

      *I only watched the first couple of minutes, so if there is something else significant, let us know at which point in the interview it can be found.

      • The Chairman 6.2.1
        31 August 2016 at 8:47 am

        By not seeing them as a force for change, he’s effectively ruling them out. Without actually saying that. Which would explain why the comment couldn’t be found.

        The point of significance is the way in which Little answered the question.

        It’s like something out of a episode of Yes Minister.

        • te reo putake 6.2.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 8:54 am

          ‘Effectively’ is not the same as ‘explicitly’. So we appear to agree that Little has not ruled out working with the maori party.

          • The Chairman 6.2.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 9:12 am

            No. Little explicitly ruled out working with them at the moment. But was open to reassessing that if their position changes.

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 9:31 am

              Again, this is analysis from a Labour-centric point of view. I argue that Little’s comments will simply drive National and the Maori Party closer together.

              So, politically inept and unnecessary.

              However, I understand why he did it – he is signalling to Maori roll voters that Labour and the Maori Party will not be working together so if they want a Labour led government they need to vote Labour and Labour only.

              • weka …
                31 August 2016 at 9:33 am

                However, I understand why he did it – he is signalling to Maori roll voters that Labour and the Maori Party will not be working together so if they want a Labour led government they need to vote Labour and Labour only.

                And he left the door open if the Mp position themselves as potentially supporting a left wing govt. Which was smart.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 August 2016 at 9:46 am

                  That’s not an “open door” – it’s clear that Little has no idea of how to court a disaffected party, instead preferring to drive them into the arms of the other side.

                  • weka …
                    31 August 2016 at 10:01 am

                    That’s one way of reading it. Another is that given the Māori seats are at stake, it makes sense to be clear that there are conditions on working together. Even the GP does that (although I agree there are more adept and less adept ways of doing it).

                    I’ve been arguing for a while that the left needs to stop Mp-bashing, but the events of the past week (i.e how the Mp have behaved) make me think what’s the point? Pretty disappointing to see the Mp going down this track, even if Labour haven’t handled it perfectly either I can see why they’re keeping their distance too.

                    I’d be interested to hear what Labour could have done instead (if you can present that without the anti-Labour invective).

                  • te reo putake …
                    31 August 2016 at 10:23 am

                    They’ve been in the arms of the other side since the day they formed. And there is no indication that they want to be anywhere else. It’s not up to Little to save them, even if they were worth saving. Just the opposite, really; he should be working as hard as hell to win all seven maori seats, plus Ohariu.

              • The Chairman …
                31 August 2016 at 10:22 am

                “I argue that Little’s comments will simply drive National and the Maori Party closer together.”

                That’s logically rational.

                • Leftie …
                  31 August 2016 at 11:19 am

                  ROFL you are not being logically rational, The Chairman. It’s already like that between National and the Maori party, and it has nothing to do with Andrew Little’s comments.

                  • The Chairman …
                    31 August 2016 at 11:53 am

                    “It’s already like that between National and the Maori party”

                    Yes, hence CV used the words “closer together”.

                    Labour have put Hone in a similar position. Their MOU with the Greens have basically shut him out there, leaving him little option but to work with the Maori Party or go it alone.

                    • Leftie …
                      1 September 2016 at 6:25 pm

                      How? When Labour and the Greens announced their MoU invited any party who wants to change the government to join them?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 September 2016 at 6:34 pm

                      An impersonal invitation by broadcast media? Sure, that’s slightly more respectful than spam email.

                      In other words not intended as a serious invitation, and that is how it will have been received.

        • North 6.2.1.2
          31 August 2016 at 9:11 am

          Yes the episode you wrote Chairman – “No, most decidedly it WASN’T said Minister, but it’s like this……that it WASN’T said is proof perfect, unmistakeable I say, that indeed it WAS said !”

          • The Chairman 6.2.1.2.1
            31 August 2016 at 11:54 am

            “Yes the episode you wrote Chairman”

            I had no input in what Little decided to say.

  7. Puckish Rogue 7
    31 August 2016 at 8:33 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11702035

    Gotta say that sounds a bit like overkill but its a helluva statement, if true of course

  8. Whateva next? 8
    31 August 2016 at 8:40 am

    Europe more onto it with it’s refusal to fall for the “free” trade deal offered in TTIP .A relief that some statesmen, somewhere actually do still get it.

  9. whispering kate 9
    31 August 2016 at 8:56 am

    Can somebody explain to me where has the search engine has gone from TDB or has it been removed? Have I missed something somewhere where it has been explained already.

    • Chooky 9.1
      31 August 2016 at 9:10 am

      seems to be working

    • weka 9.2
      31 August 2016 at 9:19 am

      The search and replies tab haven’t worked properly for a while. Lynn appears to be working on them (things change a bit), but I think he is also very busy at the moment.

  10. ianmac 10
    31 August 2016 at 9:01 am

    Maybe I missed this earlier but Robin Williams suffered from Lewy Body dementia which is I guess why he ended it all. Like Gene Wilder who also suffered a form of dementia.
    I can understand the pressures once a person knows that it is going to end terribly with no reprieve. Go sooner rather than later?

    • weka 10.1
      31 August 2016 at 9:18 am

      Thanks ian, I didn’t know that either. It’s certainly one of the conditions for which I’d want euthanasia available for myself (not sure if it’s possible to legislate for that and protect vulnerable people though).

      • ianmac 10.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 10:40 am

        The trouble is that at some point one’s will and ability to end it all would diminish to the point that one would be incapable of ending it all by one’s self.
        A survey in UK of people over the age of 60, found that their greatest fear was succumbing to a form of dementia.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 1:12 pm

          It’s that up against the people in society who are most at risk of being pressured into death before they want it eg the eldery and people with disabilties.

  11. Error 404 11
    31 August 2016 at 9:41 am

    I was looking at the CPI data of 2015. Anne Tolley said it had fell -0.25% but after Consumers Price Index: March 2015 quarter – corrected, the CPI increased 1.1 percent over the year (Excluding cigarettes and tobacco). This resulted in many beneficiaries missing out on the inflation adjustments as legislated in 2011.

    Did Tolley short change to poor for less that what the MP’s get in accommodation subsidies.

    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/adjustments-super-veteran%E2%80%99s-pension

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/CPI_inflation/ConsumersPriceIndex_MRMar15qtr.aspx

  12. Mr Righty 12
    31 August 2016 at 9:57 am

    Regarding Little and his Maori Party comments, surely he could clear up any misunderstandings by saying Labour will not contest the Maori electorates and go into coalition with the Maori Party. After all Labour seems happy to stitch up a deal in Auckland with the Greens over the mayoralty………

  13. Observer Tokora 13
    31 August 2016 at 10:01 am

    .
    Who is that guy that interviewed Andrew Little and Winston Peters?

    He seems unaware that the Maori Party is a lackey to John Key and Billy English. Interviewers should try to be impartial.

    Even if he is a bit short in the brain department, he simply could not understand that the Opposition is seeking to work with people who want to change the Government. Both Little and Peters said it to him several times.

    I do not know why people of Peter’s and Little’s competence allow third rate interviewers to rake them over.
    .

    • TC 13.1
      31 August 2016 at 10:38 am

      Controlling the narrative and not letting the msm jonolists/DP players run with CT/nact memes is the oppositions biggest challenge

      The DP machine is being tuned for the next GE already as shonky’s nuanced ‘labours fault’ on housing shows.

    • The Fairy Godmother 13.2
      31 August 2016 at 6:59 pm

      I think it was Willie Jackson. He is a charter school proponent. I switch off Waetea news when he goes on about how great charter schools are and how dare Labour oppose them.

  14. Repateet 14
    31 August 2016 at 10:13 am

    David Seymour is concerned about those who set up charter schools.

    “…they had also found themselves “the constant focus of relentlessly negative attacks” from other sectors of the education system who seemed to believe that the education system was funded for them, rather than for kids.

    “I don’t think it is entirely fair that our Partnership school sponsors have had to be their own PR agents while also setting up schools in quite heroic and successful ways but nevertheless that is part of the reality they face.”

    Well here is the news for Seymour. Hard working teachers have been constantly under relentlessly negative attacks from mongrels like Tolley and Parata over years.
    The system of public schooling is under a relentless attack by Seymour.

    Teachers have to be PR agents while as part of the reality they face to defend their work, profession and protect the state system from being sold off.

    Seymour was all ballsy making his grand statements. How about him getting up on his hind feet with all the cameras on him and declaring that one of his main aims is to privatise all schooling in New Zealand, he is working relentlessly to achieve that and every step down the charter school road is another step to achieve his goal.

    C’mon David, going to show some of the “heroism” you say the charter school people have? Or are going to continue you to play gutless politics?

    • TC 14.1
      31 August 2016 at 10:42 am

      Seymour is a puppet like blinky and rortney before him.

      He talks when told to and does as instructed, if hes a good little boy they may even let him have another turn pretending to serve epsom.

      • Gangnam Style 14.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 12:14 pm

        He’s probably penning anonymous editorials like this attacking teachers…https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/education-changes-coming

        • Gangnam Style 14.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 12:17 pm

          & one of the comments below the editorial sums up my view nicely…

          “There are difficult to reconcile contradictions in this editorial. Teachers have a calling more than a career but it should run like a business with performance pay? Teachers are praised for their efforts and accused of not taking the needs of students and their families seriously enough? Hmm. We have higher levels of achievement under the current method but changes many believe will undermine success seem to be recommended.
          Looking at just one of these. If teaching is a calling, a business model will kill it. Teachers being business professionals; no more sports coaching for free, no more parent interviews when it works for parents in the evening (business hours), no more working with poorly behaved students (they will lower performance so we don’t want them as a client). Just a few aspects of a business model.
          Teacher union members (most teachers) do everything they can to notice the needs of children they teach and parents; who are their employers in a very real sense through boards of trustees. Teachers work shoulder to shoulder with students and parents every day. The Government does not. Government would be better to engage teachers, students and parents equally.”

  15. Observer Tokora 15
    31 August 2016 at 10:32 am

    .
    . “David Seymour is concerned…”

    . I rather think that Seymour is waiting for the Government to give him a Charter School. For services rendered.

    . This will quickly make him a millionaire.

    . Is just a pity that kids are sent to places where they don’t have teachers. Seymour will love it.

    . The dumb leading the dumb.

  16. adam 16
    31 August 2016 at 11:00 am

    Does anyone remember the time when the left was against militarism? When goose stepping retrogrades made anyone with a moral compass shiver?

    How about the utter waste of money?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG

    or the utter waste of human life?

    There use to be a left which cared about such things, which had a international outlook, I wonder where it went?

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      31 August 2016 at 3:27 pm

      Syria barrel bombing civilians bad – west must wage war for humanitarian reasons; Saudi Arabia using latest $$$ US and UK weapons to kill Yemeni civilians, meh.

  17. Puckish Rogue 17
    31 August 2016 at 11:33 am

    Just got to thinking what a debate between Lange and Key would be like, I’d pay money to see that and I wouldn’t care who won (ackshully the audience would be the winners)

    Massively entertaining, both extremely good at “owning” how they speak, both quick with a quip, both not needing notes

    • Muttonbird 17.1
      31 August 2016 at 11:43 am

      Lange would crush Key both in debate and in the eyes of New Zealanders.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 11:58 am

        Yes, yes of course he would (and of course can never be disproven)

        Anyhoo, it’d be a great show and some great one liners would come out of it

        • Muttonbird 17.1.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 12:11 pm

          Not sure what one-liners would come of it unless they were prepared earlier.

          What are the one-liners which both leader’s will be remembered for?

          Lange: I can smell the Uranium on your breath

          Key: Show me the money

          Lange’s was on the world stage in defence of a movement for no-proliferation in a time of heightened tension. It is, along with the 1981 Springbok protests, a watershed moment and source of pride for New Zealanders and at the core of our sense of independence.

          Key’s was a silly meme not original in thought and copied from a film. It was a cheap shot reflective of the popular American culture which defines the man.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 12:31 pm

            It was a cheap shot and it was copied from a film but and its a pretty big but it caught peoples imagination and made left Goff stumbling and mumbling

            So yeah low marks for style but top marks for effectiveness and would you rather lose pretty or win ugly?

        • North 17.1.1.2
          31 August 2016 at 9:39 pm

          What are you on PR ? Really.
          International stage – Lange at Oxford Union (remember?) – Key in Beijing……..really gets off giggling on global TV about escaped murderer of father whose child Phillip John Smith repeatedly raped……..”probably not your best choice of lunch guest hahahahaha……fuck I’m a jokester, everyone tells me so !”

          I know many quarters where actually that would have earned the big ponce a fucking good hiding. Not that I encourage or condone that. I mention it only to signify the measure in which so many decent people rightly identify the deficit of moral compass in this man(?) Key.

    • b waghorn 17.2
      31 August 2016 at 12:56 pm

      I’d pay to see shit key up against Mahingarangi Forbes any day , his brain and bowls were squirming like a toad the last time i it happened,

  18. Bearded Git 18
    31 August 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Radio NZ has just said that the Appeal Court has held that the land swap for the Ruataniwha Dam is ILLEGAL. Another pet project of the Gnats up in flames-back to the drawing board chaps.

    Any bets that Key will wade in using the Public Works Act to seize the land?

  19. joe90 19
    31 August 2016 at 12:42 pm

    The (alleged) organised criminal has a set back.

    Donald J. Trump and his now-defunct real-estate university lost another legal attempt to block former students from suing as a group in a California case accusing the Republican presidential candidate of fraud.

    Trump University is accused of cheating students by persuading them to pay tens of thousands of dollars for real-estate seminars that turned out to be “infomercials” for buying more classes. The former students also claim workshops were led by instructors who hadn’t been “hand-picked” by Trump as promised.

    […]

    Trump is also asking Curiel to undo class-action status in a second Trump University class action in San Diego in which the Republican presidential nominee is accused of racketeering.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-university-fraud-lawsuit-20160830-story.html

  20. Robert Guyton 20
    31 August 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Nick Smith of NZ rivers:
    “Our water quality is generally good by international standards. If you compare
    our biggest river in the South Island, the Clutha, and the biggest in the North
    Island, the Waikato, both would compare significantly better than waterways
    such as the Murray/Darling in Australia, the Thames in the UK, the Seine in
    France, the Rhine in Germany or the Mississippi in the United States.”

    Now,let’s look at those claims on a per capita basis, trends or years of occupation basis…

  21. Rosie 21
    31 August 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Spring is in the air (a bit early mind) and we can look to the future, approximately 12 months out from now. Recruitment has begun for returning officers for the general election. There’s something to put a smile on one’s face…………..

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/a.aspx?id=1152236026

  22. Robert Guyton 22
    31 August 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Puck’s mission is to discourage. He’s drip feeding insecurity on this site. You will lose, whispers Puckish Rogue, National will win.
    He’s a wormtongue.

    • Rosie 22.1
      31 August 2016 at 2:16 pm

      Oh, yes, thank you Robert, I’m all too familiar with PR’s motives and M.O. I never engage with him or srlyands except for a brief reply if they say something to me, which is hardly ever, and I’m not around much any more these days anyway.

      I don’t want to drain my energy by engaging in worthless discussion with the PR’s of this world.

    • Puckish Rogue 22.2
      31 August 2016 at 2:19 pm

      As opposed to being Pollyanna

      You’ll win hooray because Labour hooray and the Greens hooray and Winston double hooray and forget about National boo and John Key double boo because no one likes them hooray 🙂

      • Rosie 22.2.1
        31 August 2016 at 2:33 pm

        When did you ever hear me say that? You are putting words into my mouth. I have no idea if we’ll finally get rid of this govt. And don’t be such a patronising bastard.

        • Puckish Rogue 22.2.1.1
          31 August 2016 at 2:45 pm

          That was a reply to Robert not you, he called me wormtongue so I replied with Pollyanna being that shes annoyingly positive

          No hard feelings I hope 🙂

          • Rosie 22.2.1.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 3:06 pm

            OOOPS! I do beg your pardon PR. Of course. 22.2. My bad, I’m sorry. Try living with chronic sleep deprivation………..

    • b waghorn 22.3
      31 August 2016 at 3:38 pm

      i bet back when pukish was just a wee ish, he used to drive the other kids batshit with tails of how puk snr could beat their dads and had a flash car and he was probably just quick enough that no one pounded on him

  23. swordfish 23
    31 August 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Latest YouGov poll of UK Labour Selectorate (those eligible to vote in Leadership Election):

    Labour leadership election: Corbyn leads Smith by 24 points

    Smith campaign looks like it has failed to put a dent in Corbyn’s support, with Corbyn set to be returned with a healthy majority

    57% intend to vote for Corbyn, 35% for Owen Smith and 8% still undecided. Stripping out the don’t knows gives Corbyn a 24 point lead of 62% to Smith’s 38%.

    Corbyn received 59.5% of the vote at last year’s Labour leadership contest.

    Corbyn has majority support among all three groups of people that are eligible to vote in the leadership contest.

    Despite the Labour NEC’s decision to prevent members who had not been in the party for six months from voting, Corbyn is still the preferred choice of 52% of full members. …

    Likewise, the £25 asking price to join as a registered supporter – allegedly designed to skew the contest in favour of Smith – has backfired, with 70% of registered supporters saying they will back Corbyn.

    Just over half (54%) of trade union affiliates also say they intend to vote for the current leader.

    Bear in mind, though, that the Smith-supporting Labour hierarchy are currently instituting a major purge of members and supporters, seemingly in a last ditch effort to prevent a Corbyn victory.

    As YouGov warns at the end of their overview:

    Caveats: Our survey sample is composed of 1,236 members of the Labour selectorate, with the representation levels of difference membership types (member/supporter/union affiliate) based on how each group turned out in the 2015 leadership election. Changes in turnout have the potential to affect the results: this is particularly true of trade union affiliates …

    … The make-up of registered supporters is also difficult to judge, whilst the effects and scale of Labour party membership suspensions also has the potential to make a difference. Last, but not least, there are still three weeks left to vote, and unforeseen events could drastically affect the course of the contest.

    Nevertheless, Team Corbyn will be pleased by the security afforded by the double digit lead they are currently sitting on.

    • Scott 23.1
      31 August 2016 at 4:42 pm

      The poll those in Labour there should be most concerned to know about it not the that one. They should be polling on how many of the general voters would vote for Labour at the general election with Corbyn at its head, and how many would do so with Smith at its head. Make their decision based on that.

      It does the party no good to have a leader that merely sings the good songs to the membership. That might make them a happy opposition, but they need one that can help it to win power.

      I’d predict they will select Corbyn as their leader again, and regret it at the next election.

      • Whateva next? 23.1.1
        31 August 2016 at 5:10 pm

        Thank you dear

      • swordfish 23.1.2
        31 August 2016 at 5:26 pm

        Interestingly enough, this YouGov suggests that Corbyn supporters (among the Labour Selectorate) have far more faith in Corbyn’s “electability” than Smith supporters have in Smith.

        Among Corbyn’s supporters there is genuine optimism that he can lead Labour to victory, with 56% of those saying they will vote for him believing he can win the next general election. By contrast, and despite their candidate’s emphasis on the importance of winning general elections, just 33% of those intending to vote for Owen Smith think he (Smith) is likely to win a general election.

        Now, you might argue that those Corbynites are a little deluded but the pessimism of Smith supporters regarding their own preferred candidate is extraordinary. His whole pitch, remember, was that he has far more political nous and “electability” than Corbyn.

        Smith’s, in fact, shown himself to be quite inept on the campaign trail over the last few weeks. Both a lightweight and a fake.

        • swordfish 23.1.2.1
          31 August 2016 at 5:48 pm

          And, looking at the demographics, I see that women members continue to favour Corbyn by a decisive margin – 67% / 33%.

          This, despite all the nonsense about “Corbyn bros” and bricks through windows and alleged intimidation. Much (though not necessarily all) of which turned out to be a mix of exaggeration and fabrication. The plan to cast Corbyn and his team as anti-feminist – even misogynist – doesn’t seem to have worked too well.

          • Anne 23.1.2.1.1
            31 August 2016 at 6:57 pm

            Didn’t the Labour electorate office window with the brick thrown at it turn out to be the window of the office building next door?

            • te reo putake 23.1.2.1.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 7:37 pm

              It’s funny how some people will minimise violence against women when it’s politically convenient, Anne.

              It was her constituency office. Labour red window frames and all.

              There’s been some awful attacks on MP’s in recent months, the murder of Jo Cox being the most prominent. Supposed Blairite MP’s have been sent photos of decapitated bodies, a woman MP was sent a mocked up photo of her dying and Jeremy Corbyn has had death threats.

              Ugly stuff.

              • Anne …
                31 August 2016 at 8:18 pm

                It’s funny how some people will minimise violence against women when it’s politically convenient, Anne.

                And what precisely has that remark got to do with my comment? It was a genuine question btw.

                I read an item online shortly after the incident occurred that claimed the smashed window was actually the one next door to the Labour electorate office. I took it to be true but maybe it wasn’t. Even so, I have a major beef with the handling of the incident. There was no need to go rushing to the media with the story. All that achieved was to put ideas into other people’s heads and that is exactly what happened.

                When Helen Clark had her office window smashed, she and her office staff placed the matter in the hands of the police and, to my knowledge, made no public comment whatsoever. That is what should have happened in the British case. Instead there was an attempt to use it to discredit Corbyn supporters – that is how it came across to me anyway.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 August 2016 at 8:30 pm

                  I notice TRP is typically up to date with the anti-Corbyn spin coming out of the Blairite Labour hierarchy.

                  Basically, they utterly failed to tackle Corbyn directly, so they moved to smear his supporters and try and pull Corbyn down on the way.

                  Such a shame, since Corbyn is a true socialist at heart, and I would think that TRP could find a kindred spirit there if he bothered to look.

                • Anne …
                  31 August 2016 at 8:35 pm

                  Oh and btw trp, I was once the recipient of smashed windows, obscene phone calls, maimed pets and other malicious incidents, so please don’t accuse me of minimising violence against women. I’ve had personal experience.

                • te reo putake …
                  31 August 2016 at 8:37 pm

                  Anne, it was immediately after Eagle announced she would be standing against Corbyn. It’s not exactly drawing a long bow to spot the connection. Some saddos have frothed on about it being a false flag incident, hence my comment, but in reality it’s just another example of violence against a woman who apparently didn’t know her place.

                  Ironically, Eagles response to the attack on her office was identical to Helen Clark’s; call the cops and release a statement condemning what happened.

                  “This is violent criminal behaviour and there is no place for it in a democracy,” Helen Clark said through a spokesman. “It shows how extreme the views of some people are on this subject.”

                  “It is bullying. It has absolutely no place in politics in the UK and it needs to end.” Angela Eagle.

                  • Anne …
                    31 August 2016 at 8:54 pm

                    I recall her being interviewed on UK TV and it was clear she was inferring that Corbyn was – at least indirectly – complicit in the matter. Being upset and fearful (naturally) did not give her and her colleagues the right to use the incident to ‘get at’ Jeremy Corbyn. I’m sure Corbyn would have supported her all the way had she/they handled the incident with a bit more integrity. They didn’t.

                    • te reo putake …
                      31 August 2016 at 9:07 pm

                      Eagle may have over egged it a bit. She did say something like ‘it’s being done in Corbyn’s name and he should get them to rein it in’ or similar sentiments. However, a few short weeks after burying Jo Cox, I think that’s forgiveable.

                      And as I noted, it wasn’t restricted to one camp or other. Death threats to Corbyn, Eagle or to any MP are equally bad.

                      Apologies, Anne, for the way I structured that first sentence in the comment above. It wasn’t meant as a go at you and I should have written it better.

                    • Anne …
                      31 August 2016 at 10:07 pm

                      However, a few short weeks after burying Jo Cox, I think that’s forgiveable.

                      Fair enough. I accept that as a reason for her response. And thanks for the apology. I wasn’t sure whether you meant it the way it came out, which is why asked the initial question.

                • Reddelusion …
                  31 August 2016 at 8:56 pm

                  Where is that written in stone how an mp should respond to violence, and who are you to tell the Brits what to do

                • swordfish …
                  31 August 2016 at 9:22 pm

                  From Craig Murray:

                  The “brick through Angela Eagle’s window” story is repeated continually by the mainstream media to show the violence of Corbyn supporters.

                  But in fact the broken window was in a stairwell of an office block, actually on a different face of the building to the one on which Angela Eagle’s office has windows. There is no evidence at all that Ms Eagle’s office was the target, let alone that a Corbyn supporter was the perpetrator. I have been able to find no evidence of the existence of the brick.

                  What is interesting, is that on this common stairwell, not connected to the Labour Party, a Party poster was used to close up the void, thus giving a photo opportunity that all of the mainstream media used and reinforcing the false impression – more than impression, false statement in the entire mainstream media – that it was Ms Eagle’s window that was broken.

                  Eagle’s office is on the ground floor and displays a prominent red Labour Party sticker – yet her office windows weren’t targeted. They were left untouched.

                  Her publicity pictures of the broken window – given to the MSM to discredit Corbyn supporters – had the curtains pulled across. Draw them back and a communal stairwell (for 5 other business offices) is revealed.

                  As Peter Hitchens has pointed out:

                  Remember that window in Angela Eagle’s Labour party office in Wallasey, that was supposed to have been broken? Remember the insinuation that this had been done by wicked Corbynites? Well, I asked Merseyside Police, and they told me that the window wasn’t that of Mrs Eagle’s office, which wasn’t broken. It was the window of a stairwell and hallway, in an office building which Wallasey Labour Party shares with several others. Bear this in mind when reading coverage of this contest.

                  Another alleged incident of misogynist intimidation – the claim by one of the coup plotters Seema Malhotra that her Parliamentary office was broken into by Corbyn supporters who harassed and intimidated:

                  Malhotra claimed they:

                  frightened my staff, including a new intern, who have become concerned about their safety, and as such took the decision that no member of staff was to be left alone in the office.

                  This quickly became a major story in the mainstream British Media (ever ready for yet another anti-Corbyn meme).

                  In reality, Malhotra had resigned from the Shadow Cabinet more than a month before and was expected to have vacated her Office. A month on, the office manager with keys to the office, decides to check. And finds that, No, she’s still there. Malhotra (who has form – a while back she spread rumours that John McDonnell was mounting a leadership bid) blows this into a full-scale scandal.

                  A formal complaint was lodged with the Speaker of the House. He ordered an investigation and reported back that there was no case to answer.

                  A third example would be the absurd allegation that a letter from the very politically-correct Leftist commentator Owen Jones to a number of women (as well as a number of men) on Labour’s NEC asking them to support Corbyn’s automatic inclusion on the leadership ballot – constituted some sort of sinister misogynist intimidation.

                  As Murray suggests:

                  A key weapon of the neo-liberal establishment in delegitimising the emergence of popular organisation to the left, is to portray all thinkers outside the Overton window as dangerous; actively violent, misogynist and racist …

                  … The Establishment will always attempt to characterise any root challenge to its hegemony and ideology as violent, atavistic and subscribing to appalling beliefs and behaviour. The theme of challengers as “Barbarians” runs through history. We will have to put up with it for some time. The good news is, they are seriously rattled.

                  • te reo putake …
                    31 August 2016 at 9:26 pm

                    As I was saying …

                    • swordfish …
                      31 August 2016 at 9:37 pm

                      Brilliant counter-argument. Who needs facts when we can opt for such wonderfully erudite little bon mots.

                      Reminds me a little of Israeli apologists’ systematic use of the anti-Semitism smear.

                      In this case, accept and regurgitate some rather dodgy claims (made by a Blairite/Brownite sector of the PLP that have form in this regard) or I’ll characterise you as a “misogynist minimiser” (not entirely unlike Israel’s characterisation of Jewish critics of IDF massacres as “self-hating Jews”)

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 August 2016 at 9:47 pm

                      Do you accept then TRP that the broken window fallacy is nothing more than a false Right Wing Blairite PR meme which you should stop propagating?

                    • North …
                      31 August 2016 at 9:58 pm

                      As you were saying in your self-talk TRP……..”Fuck I’m losing this one against Swordfish oh well I’ll just come out all Keyish…….’because I’m right !’ “

                    • te reo putake …
                      31 August 2016 at 10:03 pm

                      In order:

                      Dope
                      Nope
                      No Hope

                    • swordfish …
                      31 August 2016 at 10:12 pm

                      As I was saying … erudite little bon mots.

                      Read a lot of Oscar Wilde, do you TRP ?

        • Olwyn 23.1.2.2
          31 August 2016 at 7:02 pm

          It is not just about winning elections, it is also about having an opposition that actually opposes the status quo. It hardly matters whether or not you win the election if nothing is going to change, while an effective opposition, one that knows how to stand up for its constituency and unequivocally oppose those who treat it shabbily, is able to put the establishment on notice, even though they may fail to win an election. An appeaser cannot do that whether they are electable or not. Margaret Thatcher, remember, counted Tony Blair among her greatest achievements, for just that reason.

          • Colonial Viper 23.1.2.2.1
            31 August 2016 at 8:32 pm

            But what does “opposing the status quo” mean in the modern 21st century situation?

            • Olwyn 23.1.2.2.1.1
              31 August 2016 at 9:26 pm

              The short-term answer is to push for the public good as central, as opposed to the return to the shareholder, emphasising fundamental human rights, such as the right to stable housing and the right to earn a living. The long-term answer is to work toward building a society that does not rely on consumerism and financialisation to get by. That is the hard one, but we still have to start out from where we are.

              • Colonial Viper …
                31 August 2016 at 9:43 pm

                Thanks for your answer Olwyn. In essence I agree.

                Yes we have to start out from where we are.

                But we don’t have 20 years to move towards a non-capitalist, non-consumerist economy. We have to begin making big moves in a new direction now, if we are to survive as a cohesive nation.

              • North …
                31 August 2016 at 10:00 pm

                That’s a beautiful answer Olwyn. Thank you.

          • Chris 23.1.2.2.2
            31 August 2016 at 9:56 pm

            “Margaret Thatcher, remember, counted Tony Blair among her greatest achievements…”

            And Key, no doubt, counts the current Labour party as among his. Clark set the scene, but no nactoid leader could ever wish for more than a so-called left opposition that you’re never quite sure whether they’re going to support your policies or not.

            • North 23.1.2.2.2.1
              31 August 2016 at 10:02 pm

              That’s an idiot answer Chris. Thank you for defining yourself so appositely.

            • Leftie 23.1.2.2.2.2
              1 September 2016 at 12:02 am

              I doubt John key counts the current Labour party as that Chris. In your blame game why have you omitted the National Bolger/Shipley and Richardson’s mother of all budgets government that “set the scene” for Clark’s Labour government?

              • Chris …
                1 September 2016 at 12:24 am

                That’s right, they did. How far back do you want to go? And the fourth Labour government paved the way for Bolger/Shipley/Richardson. The main point is that at no time did Labour, whether in opposition or government, ever draw a line to say enough’s enough since Rogernomics days. So what does that tell us about the future? Oh, that’s right, it means nothing to you because you’re a pathetic Labour-can-do-no-wronger, eh? Fuckwit.

                • Leftie …
                  1 September 2016 at 2:40 am

                  More pointless abuse, you must be feeling pretty defensive. National can do no wrong aye Chris, easier just to blame Labour for what the Nats have been doing over the last 81/2 years, typical National party sycophant. You most certainly do not expect any transparency or accountability from this National government over their own actions, do you?

                  How far back do you want to go? Don’t forget Muldoon and National’s forever hero Sidney Holland, they certainly “set the scenes” and “paved the way.”

                  Didn’t you say Labour was neo libs? So what did you expect then? Like Andrew Little said this week, he is not responsible for previous governments.

          • UncookedSelachimorpha 23.1.2.2.3
            31 August 2016 at 10:04 pm

            Completely agree Olwyn – politics is about much more than just the next election. And real political and social change can take decades to develop.

      • swordfish 23.1.3
        31 August 2016 at 6:28 pm

        From YouGov:

        “Likely to lead Labour to victory at the next General Election”

        ……………………………………… Corbyn ………………. Smith

        UK Adults ………………………….. 9% …………………….. 5%

        2015 Labour Voters ……………13% ……………………. 8%

        Labour Selectorate …………… 33% ………………………12%

        (Current Labour supporters are generally more pro-Corbyn than the 2015 Labour voter category)

        The little secret that Blairites and Brownites (and their vast army of Establishment acolytes in the MSM) never get around to mentioning is that the British public are as sceptical about the “electability” of potential anti-Corbynite Labour leaders as they are of Corbyn’s ability to take the Party to victory. That was true of Cooper (Brownite) and Kendall (Blairite) last year (both of whom were less popular than Corbyn with British voters as a whole) and of Smithie now.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.3.1
          31 August 2016 at 6:48 pm

          Stop with all your facts and figures swordfish, all the neoliberal Blairite Labour types know better, thanks.

  24. Macro 24
    31 August 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Has anyone else had problems commenting on the Post by KJT on the Spy legislation?
    Are they watching?
    Of course they are…

    • Anne 24.1
      31 August 2016 at 7:18 pm

      I think that was the post I was trying to read this morning and it kept telling me it didn’t exist. 😕 OK now though.

    • Leftie 24.2
      1 September 2016 at 7:02 pm

      @Macro. It was the same with another previous KJT article. I think the comments are moderated before allowing them through.

    • Leftie 25.1
      1 September 2016 at 6:59 pm

      Heaps of +1’s William Joyce.

      Brilliant!!!

      • Chris 25.1.1
        1 September 2016 at 8:51 pm

        And you are fantastic, Leftie, simply fantastic.

        • Leftie 25.1.1.1
          1 September 2016 at 8:57 pm

          And you are not, you never seem to tire at being an idiotic arse. Stop stalking and trolling Chris.

          • Chris 25.1.1.1.1
            1 September 2016 at 9:18 pm

            Idiotic arse. Yes, I like that. An idiotic arse I certainly am. I cannot deny that. I like it because it’s the truth. Thank you Leftie.

            But getting back to my main point. You are again correct. You are fantastic and I am not. I just needed to confirm that with you. And I’m not trying to be smart here, therefore I will confirm that I do mean that you (Leftie) are fantastic, and that I am not. Thank you Leftie. You are truly fantastic.