Shearer Says

161 comments on “Shearer Says ”

• Comments are now closed

1. xtasy 1

   30 November 2012 at 3:44 pm

   “That’s why it was so disappointing to hear the Prime Minister dismiss New Zealand’s 100% Pure brand by comparing it to a McDonald’s marketing slogan. John Key might think protecting our environment is a joke, but I don’t.”

   And

   “Starting in 2014, the next Labour Government will make restoring our environmental reputation a priority. Labour will fix the Emissions Trading Scheme and return New Zealand to the Kyoto fold.”

   Yes, Key we know, “disappointed”, as I have known all along that this would happen, dear David!

   McDonalds is part of “NZ culture” now, so John Key is right on that one, as he seems to love trivialising NZer’s intellect and culinary choices to the lowest common denominator. That makes him feel sooo goood.

   100 per cent pure is a joke now, and so is Key. The environment has never been a priority for National or/and Key, we knew this since before 2008.

   Bringing this up is maybe necessary, but it is overdue. Maybe this distracts a bit from the fiasco of the housing plan that kind of fell through on fragile basics, sort of.

   So why are we waiting for 2014 to take a clear stand on Kyoto and what comes after? Is it perhaps, that the election is between then and now?

   I try to get you out of your mess, dear David, but you already dug yourself such a deep hole, I cannot even see you anymore (too deep down there).

   I also believe that NZ’s future must be “green” and regenerative, and that is EXACTLY why I WILL VOTE GREEN NEXT ELECTION. HA HA David, got it???
   • Jackal 1.1

     30 November 2012 at 4:11 pm

     I don’t get it xtasy… You say you agree with what he says but then bag him for saying it.

     Perhaps you can let me know how exactly Labour is meant to usurp the electoral process to make policy changes concerning Kyoto now instead of after the 2014 election?

     Could you also let me know why Labour siding with the Greens on environmental issues is a bad thing? Because as far as I can tell it’s what all politicians would do if they weren’t invested in or aligned with polluting industries somehow.

     You’re basically saying you will vote Green because Shearer is agreeing with Green ideals and promoting policy that will go some way in helping New Zealand to live up to that 100% Pure branding. We will never achieve 100% pure of course, but at least Labour has signalled it will do the right thing by pursuing GHG emission reductions through the Kyoto protocol and restoring an ETS.

     In many ways I’m surprised that a so called lefty would be critical of such a stance… I mean do you think the Greens should have some sort of patent on doing the right thing in terms of protecting the environment or something? Such policy elitism is particularly stupid in my opinion.

     You do also realise that the Greens don’t want your electoral vote, so who are you going to give it to xtasy?

     Anyway, I fully support what David Shearer has written here. I think it’s great that Labour will ensure our international reputation is somewhat repaired by ensuring we do our part to reduce GHG emissions.
     • xtasy 1.1.1

       30 November 2012 at 4:19 pm

       My point is:

       Shearer has been towing the “green” line, same like many other policy “lines” since he was appointed as “leader”. He has shied away from clear stands and also defended mining, drilling and else, which in itself may be justified “in measures”, but he never declared a clear “green” line.

       Now he suddenly comes with this nice “line”, and I simply DO NOT BUY IT!

       So that is why I feel he is a bit on shallow grounds. Of course he is welcome to join the “green” and “environmental movement” and whatever, but to suddenly come with it now, and to use this as a distraction of an appalling failure in policy delivery and promotion (i.e. housing policy built on silly figures), that is POOR, simply damned POOR and not convincing.

       So thank you, do not hammer me for that, I am just stating the facts.

       Shearer AND Labour are totally welcomed and expected to deliver on environmentally friendly policies.

       The 100 % pure branding is redundant now, given this government’s stance on it. It is nothing but a sick joke now, and soon, if not already, consumers and prospective tourists in Europe and the US, even Asia will pick it up.

       Mc NZ is the next gimmick, I am so damned sure of!
       • Jackal 1.1.1.1

         30 November 2012 at 4:51 pm

         You can take what Shearer says at face value or not I suppose… But saying it’s merely a “distraction of an appalling failure in policy delivery and promotion” is entirely wrong! Shearer is doing what he’s supposed to do as Leader of the Opposition and highlighting Nationals failures. The government’s environmental failure is the biggest one around.

         You believing the housing policy is built on silly figures just shows you are naive. Perhaps such delusions are based on reading too much right wing propaganda, or perhaps just based on your idealogical belief that Labour is bad? Either way, here’s a couple of things you need to understand… The price is averaged across the country and there’s lots of land that the crown already owns that’s suitable to build upon.

         National politicians have been quoting free market prices in order to discredit the policy, when these will not be entirely relevant to its implementation. That means the government can build houses cheaper than the free market that is utterly failing to provide enough affordable and healthy homes for Kiwi families.

         Funny how National is claiming it can’t be done while kicking hundreds if not thousands of families out of their state houses (156 state housing families evicted in Glen Innes alone) to reclaim land to supposedly build more low cost housing. They aren’t doing this of course, with the actual amount of state housing falling dramatically under the latest National government.

         In fact between 2008 and 2011, the amount of vacant state houses increased by a whopping 471 and the overall state houses available for people to live in declined by 171. Labour’s policy will go some way in addressing this mismanagement and the amount of falling home ownership, falling home ownership levels that are far worse than the 75% to 65% decline reported recently by the MSM.
         • xtasy 1.1.1.1.1

           1 December 2012 at 2:14 pm

           “You believing the housing policy is built on silly figures just shows you are naive. Perhaps such delusions are based on reading too much right wing propaganda, or perhaps just based on your idealogical belief that Labour is bad? Either way, here’s a couple of things you need to understand… The price is averaged across the country and there’s lots of land that the crown already owns that’s suitable to build upon.”

           Yes, “lots of land that the crown own already”, you say.

           When I look at Auckland City for example, the Crown held land is mainly parks, stretches of grassy areas along creeks and other water off-flows, bits along parts of certain water fronts and the likes.

           So do you suggest that those parks will under Shearer’s and Labour’s middle class targeted “home building plan” be built up with homes, apartment blocks, town-houses and units?

           I dread the day when that happens, as parks and reserves are highly cherished and needed for city dwellers to get some fresh air, to exercise, have picnics and the likes, just to get a deserved break from the weekly rat race, intensive traffic and living door to door with others.

           Saying that, I totally agree with you on the scandalous development under this government in the state housing area. Having said that, I have not seen or heard of Annette King or other Labour MPs attending any protest actions there in Glen Innes or elsewhere. Also was there not much coming from King until the last few months, where she started asking a few more questions re all this in the House. I got a letter answering some of my questions some time ago, and it was extremely disappointing what she had to say re housing affordability and accommodation supplements. It was “shining” with much ambiguity and vagueness.
           • Jackal 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 December 2012 at 11:32 am

             Of course I’m not arguing for parks and reserves to be built upon xtasy… I very much doubt that Labour is proposing to do so either. So your argument there is another false dichotomy. Clearly there are areas available to build on that will not impact other recreational activities or conservational ideals both Labour and New Zealanders enjoy.

             Saying that Labour somehow support National undermining state housing because they have not attended any protests, protests I might add that are often violent and result in people becoming seriously injured, is also a straw man argument.

             My argument to those who think there aren’t enough places to build 100,000 additional houses in New Zealand is to get out and about and open your eyes. New Zealand is a vast country that we have largely underutilized in terms of areas that are suitable to live in. In fact there are many places where all the ground works and even roads are already in place, all that is needed is houses and people. Even in our largest city there are many areas that remain empty because of our previous tendency to spread out.

             In terms of population and land mass, Auckland is one of the least inhabited cities in the world. That translates as unused sections, which in turn means inefficiency and waste.

             As for your comment regarding a letter from Annette King to yourself I cannot comment… However being that she’s been rather prolific for a long time concerning housing issues, I would have to disagree with your assertion re ambiguity and vagueness. Your argument is obviously formulated from your own ignorance.
             • xtasy …

               3 December 2012 at 1:04 am

               Annette King has been “active” writing these comment pieces and a few press releases. Going through them it becomes apparent that she has been more vocal over recent months, but earlier in the year was not heard much from.

               Living in Auckland I see that those many vacant lots or sections you refer to are not as many as you may think. Some is in industrial land and other lots are strewn amongst other built up areas. Section prices would not be that high, if land was easily available.

               I would agree that more intensive use of land is necessary, so blocks of units or small to medium size apartment blocks are the way to go in some places. Yet not everyone wants to live in an apartment, and most of Auckland is built on as it is.

               As for Housing NZ protests, they do not need to turn violent, and at least in some cases it has been the police aggravating matters getting out of control. If an MP like Annette King would be present, there may actually be a chance of less “violence”. The police treated protesters very differently when Hone Harawira joined one protest not long ago in Glen Innes.

               That is just a cop out argument to talk about violence and risk of getting injured. The truth is, senior MPs like King do not like to get their hands dirty. That is also a sign of being out of touch with the people she claims she is intent on helping.
     • ianmac 1.1.2

       30 November 2012 at 5:59 pm

       +1 Jackal. Fault finders want to rule.
   • McFlock 1.2

     30 November 2012 at 4:22 pm

     “So why are we waiting for 2014 to take a clear stand on Kyoto and what comes after? Is it perhaps, that the election is between then and now?”

     Yes.
     NZ won’t go back to Kyoto under National.
     It will under Labour/Greens.
     But to get a leftish government, we need an election.
     The next election is in 2014.
              
     Seems a bit rich to blame Shearer for National idiocy and/or not launching a leftish coup d’etat. 
     • xtasy 1.2.1

       30 November 2012 at 4:27 pm

       I am not blaming Shearer for National idiocy, I am blaming Shearer for not having taken a more resolute stand earlier or now! That is the issue, he has been to willy nilly. It is overdue for him to step up! Question remains also, how much per-centage of his vigour and conviction is behind this.
       • shorts 1.2.1.1

         30 November 2012 at 4:35 pm

         agree with ya there xtasy

         lead don’t follow
         lead don’t react when the timing suits

         show some passion for that which you believe… its more than a post it note of falling under the heading stuff to do when I’m the boss
       • McFlock 1.2.1.2

         30 November 2012 at 4:38 pm

         When did NZ leave Kyoto?
           
         For a lot of people that was the line in the sand. Key can bullshit and quibble about water quality, put in different threshholds, etc –  there’s always the chance that he’s just a bit dense, or maybe doesn’t realise the extent of the problem, as opposed to being intentionally evil.
              
         But ditching Kyoto is a clear indication he doesn’t care whether his grandkids live in an irradiated “Mad Max” world or not.
                
         How long from ditching Kyoto to Labour’s first criticism of it? Same day is my guess. I would be gobsmacked if this were Labour’s first mention of it. So I think you’re laying on a bit much outrage. 
     • Fortran 1.2.2

       1 December 2012 at 1:51 pm

       McFlock

       Hope you are right in the prediction of a left government in 2014, but bear in mind that Winston has to be appeased also, as he could very well have the balance to put a Labour/Green government in.
       Remember he is a prostitute and will sell himslf to the highest bidder irrespective and is not averse to seriously disliking the Greens.
       • McFlock 1.2.2.1

         1 December 2012 at 5:04 pm

         I’m not so sure about Winston going nat. He’s old-school conservative, not full neoliberal. Remember, his gimme for getting into coalition with national 15 years ago was free healthcare for under fives. There doesn’t seem to be much love lost between him and Key, that’s for sure.

         Whether that means he’d be a positive addition to a lab/green coalition is another matter. But it’s Dunne who’s the purest mercenary..
2. Crimson Nile 2

   30 November 2012 at 4:30 pm

   Unfortunately, my understanding through various contacts is that David Shearer currently has a somewhat limited environmental and conservation ethos. Perhaps he can be educated because I believe that he needs it.
3. gobsmacked 3

   30 November 2012 at 4:46 pm

   Hi David

   Good to know you care about the environment.

   Could you please let us know where you stand on fracking?

   This week the Parliamentary Commissioner released her report. You said it was good. Jackal said it wasn’t. You think fracking is OK. Jackal doesn’t.

   Now, you needn’t worry, because Jackal will agree with you whatever you say (because criticising what you say is “undermining” you, and that’s really naughty).

   And while we’re at it, who is Labour’s spokesperson on the environment? Is it Shane Jones? I just ask because he’s the one who keeps popping up on telly, having a go at the Greens.

   It’d be good if you could clarify these matters, Dave.
   • Jackal 3.1

     30 November 2012 at 5:14 pm

     You’re confusing my dislike for unfounded criticism with valid questioning of political policy. By all means criticize policy you don’t agree with, but don’t expect me to agree with disinformation and baseless tripe clearly designed to undermine the left.

     You’re again conflating two entirely different things in order to discredit gobsmacked. It’s actually a form of mental illness to not be able to differentiate between such things properly. PS I’m not David Shearer or his advisor btw.

     Funny how similar many of the so-called leftists arguments on these threads are to those on KB and WO.
     • Olwyn 3.1.1

       30 November 2012 at 5:35 pm

       It is not conflation to list two separate pieces of evidence in support of the point you are making. The idea seems to be that if David Shearer is as concerned about the environment as he claims then he will hold a position on fracking (1), and will also discourage Shane Jones from making negative comments on the Green’s position (2). You are being disingenuous. In an earlier comment on http://thestandard.org.nz/why-im-still-worried/you told Sunny that calling Shearer “cringe making bad” and also “tricksy” was contradictory when it is not – you can be both of those things at the same time. Furthermore, most people who are disappointed in Shearer are not concerned to spread “disinformation and baseless tripe” – they are disappointed either because they doubt Shearer’s competence or they doubt his commitment to Labour principles, or both. Note the words “most” “or” and “both” before you start accusing me of conflation and/or disinformation.
       • Jackal 3.1.1.1

         30 November 2012 at 6:37 pm

         That’s nice Olwyn… However you missed out the bit where gobsmacked called me a David Shearer suck up. The conflation was between something I don’t agree with that Shearer said and something I don’t agree with that some commentators have said.

         1, Shearer holds a position on fracking similar to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, that I happen to disagree with.

         2, Lots of people have been making baseless claims about Labour and David Shearer that I also disagree with.

         To try and join these two things together is an illogical conflation and only evidence of mental instability.

         I’m not sure what you mean by “[Shearer] will also discourage Shane Jones from making negative comments on the Green’s position” as I’ve never said that he would?

         You are being disingenuous. In an earlier comment on http://thestandard.org.nz/why-im-still-worried/you told Sunny that calling Shearer “cringe making bad” and also “tricksy” was contradictory when it is not – you can be both of those things at the same time.

         There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out the meaning of words Olwyn. “Cringe worthy bad” translates as incompetent and unless Sunny was complementing his attire, Tricksy means crafty, cunning and devious. These two meanings are a contradiction in terms, hence my request that Sunny works on his/her wordsmithing.

         Furthermore, most people who are disappointed in Shearer are not concerned to spread “disinformation and baseless tripe” – they are disappointed either because they doubt Shearer’s competence or they doubt his commitment to Labour principles, or both.

         That’s not my observation… It appears that most of the criticism that’s been directed at the Leader of the Opposition recently has been entirely baseless. This is especially the case for this thread whereby there’s nothing at all wrong with Shearer saying he supports the Kyoto protocol and wants to fix the ETS.

         Are you guys really so deluded as to be arguing in support of Nationals environmentally disastrous policy? If that’s the case, I suggest you might find a more conducive crowd at WO and KB.

         Note the words “most” “or” and “both” before you start accusing me of conflation and/or disinformation.

         It is wrong to say that most criticism of Shearer is based in reality (exhibit 1 xtasy above) but this is of course a matter of opinion. You have conflated a number of my arguments there btw Olwyn, even from comments to other people from different threads.

         Please note the words “deluded” and “different” between “1” and “2” before you attempt to reply Olwyn.
         • Olwyn 3.1.1.1.1

           30 November 2012 at 8:17 pm

           Sorry Jackal; I re-read your reply and now see that your focus was on the criticism of your good self rather than the points Gobsmacked raised about Shearer’s apparent ambiguity. That said, you do have a tendency to accuse others of logical fallacy where none exist, while not being so logically scrupulous yourself. Note your own false dichotomy: if I do not support what Shearer has to say, then I must be arguing in support of National’s disastrous policy. Nonsense. I can argue, as Gobsmacked has, that given Shearer’s acceptance of fracking and his failure to rein in Jones, his environmental policy looks ambiguous and inadequate.
           • Jackal 3.1.1.1.1.1

             30 November 2012 at 9:22 pm

             Why is it nonsense Olwyn to point out that expending energy on continues and largely baseless attacks instead of focusing on the real enemy is a waste of time and undermines the left? It’s not illogical to point out a dynamic that is happening all too regularly on so called left wing blogs.

             Exhibit 1 when xtasy was saying Shearer should make policy changes concerning Kyoto now instead of after the 2014 election is what I was referring to. I was either being a bit ambiguous myself or you’re once again misconstruing my statement. What Xtasy and many others are actually doing is more commonly known as a straw man argument.

             As for a false dichotomy… You’re welcome to point out where I’ve said there should be blind obedience to Shearer if you can. I think you’ll come up rather short there Olwyn.
             • Colonial Viper …

               30 November 2012 at 9:27 pm

               You’re welcome to point out where I’ve said there should be blind obedience to Shearer if you can.

               Shit dude why didn’t you just say? Cunliffe will be relieved to hear that.
               • Jackal …

                 30 November 2012 at 9:30 pm

                 I think Cunliffe is probably as sick of your I hate Shearer club as I am Colonial Viper.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   30 November 2012 at 9:38 pm

                   But I don’t hate Shearer. He will make an excellent Cabinet Minister when he gets a little more Parliamentary experience and subject area expertise.

                   On the other hand…what were you saying about not having to swear blind allegience to the Labour Leader?
                   • McFlock …

                     30 November 2012 at 9:44 pm

                     To be fair, there is a middle ground between “blind allegiance” and “refusing to demonstrate even the barest minimum of allegiance”.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 9:47 pm

                     “refusing to demonstrate even the barest minimum of allegiance”

                     Who exactly refused to meet this barest minimum standard?
                   • McFlock …

                     30 November 2012 at 9:54 pm

                     fuck, again?

                     Cunliffe, when (for example) at an annual party conference he decided to not express full confidence in Shearer’s leadership, or even to rule out a leadership challenge at this time.

                     Wow, it’s almost like the main contender for the leadership didn’t realise that it would ensure that HE was the story, rather than the party’s policy announcements, structural changes and keynote speech from the leader to who he was allegedly loyal…
                   • Jackal …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:01 pm

                     Interesting that you set the bar so high for Shearer CV, when it’s been set so low by Key… You do remember who John Key is don’t you? He’s that guy who’s currently destroying the social fabric of New Zealand. In comparison to Key, I think Shearer will do just fine as Prime Minister. Clearly it’s not swearing blind allegiance to have such an opinion.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:02 pm

                     And who escalated talk of a leadership challenge against Shearer and an early Leadership vote, through leaks (as un-named Labour sources) to the media, and also on the record to journalists?

                     You do realise that other Labour MPs also refused to swear in front of cameras which they would vote in 3 months time in a constitutionally secret ballot?

                     Perhaps Labour MPs walking to the caucus room to vote in the secret ballot in Feb should all be required to announce their allegience to the waiting cameras first? Good ol democratic process that.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:09 pm

                     Interesting that you set the so bar high for Shearer CV, when it’s been set so low by Key… You do remember who John Key is don’t you?

                     Key is a fucking excellent political and media player, one with access to excellent staff work and advice.

                     Do I set the bar high for Shearer? Of course I do. Don’t you?
                   • McFlock …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:10 pm

                     Who leaked? I don’t know – that’s why it’s called a “leak”.

                     And yes, other mps refused to say which way they would vote. But you seem to forget that Cunliffe is likely to run. After losing the last challenge.

                     Fair call, good luck to him, but he should have been up front about ruling himself in or out. Saying the leader has one’s loyalty and then refusing to say whether one would actually support him at best shows just how valuable one’s “loyalty” actually is. And playing silly buggers like that at the party conference clearly demonstrated that Cunliffe wanted the story to be about him, instead of about Shearer or even the party.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:18 pm

                     yeah Cunliffe lost the last challenge. After he toured the country with Shearer, speaking to a couple of thousand Labour Party members and supporters from north to south.

                     Remind me how many of those Labour Party members got to choose the “winner” of the challenge, again?
                   • McFlock …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:26 pm

                     Beside the point. The issue is whether Cunliffe did anything to stop the coverage of the party conference being about anything other than himself. He didn’t. He didn’t create unity by ruling out a challenge, and he didn’t minimise the damage from a split by being clear about a Feb challenge in the previous weeks and then keeping a low profile. 
                              
                     He took the coverage away from the entire party and was happy to be the focus of attention. You know what? That’s not even failing to meet the minimum measure of loyalty to the party leader: it’s failing to meet the minimum measure of loyalty to the party itself. Either that, or he’s not much more media-savvy than Shearer. 
                      
                   • Jackal …

                     30 November 2012 at 11:00 pm

                     I wouldn’t be too hard on Cunliffe. He had about as much say in what the MSM was doing as I have in what The Standard does… Basically none. Hindsight is a great thing though, and it may be that he could have done more to close down the speculation earlier, and thus save his own arse.

                     I’m also not sure about this swearing allegiance thing, as there’s no evidence that Shearer required this other than some comments on blogs that are entirely unsubstantiated as far as I can tell. Obviously lots of people still have an axe to grind over Labour.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 11:13 pm

                     McFlock – so the ABCs start a drumbeat of talk about a leadership challenge and calling an early vote…all this during the time Conference was still on…and you blame Cunliffe for the Conference messages getting swamped?

                     Let me buy you a Tui.

                     Now having said that, should Cunliffe have just STFU and repeated the company line ad nauseaum, as you suggest? Sure there would have been merit there as well.

                     Beside the point.

                     Of course it’s beside the point, when is referencing the historical context of any use whatsoever.
                   • McFlock …

                     1 December 2012 at 11:02 am

                     If your ABC leak scenario is correct, Cunliffe could still have scotched the debate by clearly expressing his intentions either way. At best all you’re saying is that he’s as manipulative and self-centered as the “ABC”s.
                            
                     And the “historical context” is irrelevant: whether Shearer was elected by the membership or just the caucus, Cunliffe’s neither-here-nor-there smugness seriously detracted from what should have been the key event of Labour’s year.
                 • Rogue Trooper …

                   30 November 2012 at 9:56 pm

                   can I butt in?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:02 pm

                     Haha only if you keep it covered
               • Populuxe1 …

                 1 December 2012 at 4:49 pm

                 Tsk tsk CV, insufficient public and ostentatious demonstrations of loyalty to the leader are punishable by a stint in the re-education camp after a flashy show trial.
                 • Rogue Trooper …

                   1 December 2012 at 4:53 pm

                   coincidence or not? I love your humour
             • Olwyn …

               30 November 2012 at 9:50 pm

               ‘…there’s nothing at all wrong with Shearer saying he supports the Kyoto protocol and wants to fix the ETS.

               Are you guys really so deluded as to be arguing in support of Nationals environmentally disastrous policy?”

               There you have it. The implication is that if you do not find Shearer’s newsletter convincing, given his acceptance of Kyoto and his desire to fix the ETS, then you must be arguing in support of National’s environmentally disastrous policies as well as being delusional. That is a false dichotomy. There are lots of reasons why you might partially or wholly reject Shearer’s newsletter that will not leave you supporting National’s policy.
               • Jackal …

                 30 November 2012 at 10:22 pm

                 Like what? Because as I see it if you don’t support the Kyoto protocol and fixing the ETS, you may as well vote National. I’m sorry Olwyn but saying there are “lots of reasons why you might partially or wholly reject Shearer’s newsletter” when I was being very specific about the Kyoto protocol and the ETS just doesn’t cut the mustard.

                 You might note that fracking is not raised in the newsletter, it has however entered the debate as a reason to dismiss Shearer saying “Labour will use the levers of government to back not just our workers, families and businesses but also to protect our environment.”

                 Although not mutually exclusive, they are distinguishable policies and so shouldn’t be conflated. In other words supporting New Zealand once again joining the Kyoto protocol and strengthening the ETS, both worthy aspirations, shouldn’t be criticized just because David Shearer hasn’t got all the facts on fracking yet.

                 That’s like not giving credit to National for voting in favour of the UN recognizing Palestine just because you don’t like something else they have done. Thankfully there has been widespread support from left wing politicians, showing that they are largely unbiased. A pity the same cannot be said about many Shearer detractors.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   1 December 2012 at 8:29 am

                   Because as I see it if you don’t support the Kyoto protocol and fixing the ETS, you may as well vote National.

                   Riiiiiight, so I should go vote National?

                   Thing is, I doubt that Labour having us joining the new Kyoto Protocol will do anything more than what they did last time that saw our emissions go up. Their actions in the past contradict what they say now. Thing is, they also contradicted what they said then. If they had policy to drop the faux competition in the electricity sector so that it could then work for the good of the country rather than pursuing the dead weight loss of profit and plans to close down and recycle every fossil fuelled power plant in the country then I might believe them.
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 8:50 am

                     Riiiiiight, so I should go vote National?

                     That depends on if you support reducing our GHG emissions through an effective ETS and an international agreement to do so in the form of the Kyoto protocol Draco T Bastard. If you don’t support reducing GHG emissions, I suggest National is a party that represents your beliefs.

                     If they had policy to drop the faux competition in the electricity sector so that it could then work for the good of the country rather than pursuing the dead weight loss of profit and plans to close down and recycle every fossil fuelled power plant in the country then I might believe them.

                     ? Dead weight loss of profit… Are you saying that Labour shouldn’t worry about making money from publicly owned power companies? Ridiculous! What exactly does having profit have to do with reducing GHG emissions anyway? If you want people to have cheaper power, they will use more and thus increase GHG emissions… A rather large contradiction in your argument there Draco T Bastard.

                     So Labour needs to have policy to recycle every fossil fueled power plant in the country before you believe they will make restoring our environmental reputation a priority? In other words it’s not what they say, it’s what they’re not saying that matters. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that reducing the reliance on fossil fueled power plants would be a part of Labours plan? A plan you expect to be written out in detailed policy more than two years away from the next election.

                     But that’s right, Shearer is just lying according to you eh Draco T Bastard… Care to supply some actual evidence?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     1 December 2012 at 9:50 am

                     That depends on if you support reducing our GHG emissions through an effective ETS and an international agreement to do so in the form of the Kyoto protocol Draco T Bastard. If you don’t support reducing GHG emissions, I suggest National is a party that represents your beliefs.

                     False dichotomy.

                     I support lowering GHG emissions just not through the market system due to the market being a complete failure that only enriches a few at everyone else’s expense. As for the international agreement – well, last time it didn’t work too well and so it it seems to me that looking for a different solution might be worth it. Still, I’d actually sign up to the agreement.

                     ? Dead weight loss of profit

                     Yes, profit is a dead weight loss as the government having to pay Telecom to do what they already should have done with what we paid them proves.

                     Are you saying that Labour shouldn’t worry about making money from publicly owned power companies? Ridiculous!

                     Yeah, pretty much and, no, it’s not ridiculous. Cover costs, sure but not a profit.

                     So Labour needs to have policy to recycle every fossil fueled power plant in the country before you believe they will make restoring our environmental reputation a priority?

                     Yep, pretty much.

                     A plan you expect to be written out in detailed policy more than two years away from the next election.

                     I don’t expect detailed plans at this point – just a commitment to make and implement those plans once in power. Unfortunately for Labour, I don’t actually believe them.

                     …Shearer is just lying…Care to supply some actual evidence?

                     I didn’t say he was lying. I said I didn’t believe him due to Labours past actions. Labour ratified the Kyoto Protocol and then our emissions still went up as Labour catered to business.
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 10:28 am

                     Still, I’d actually sign up to the agreement.

                     And yet you don’t support Shearer for saying he will rejoin the Kyoto protocol as well… Go figure.

                     Yes, profit is a dead weight loss as the government having to pay Telecom.

                     OK So the lost profit from privatized companies could be considered a dead weight loss… But you were talking about SOEs Draco T Bastard.

                     Yeah, pretty much and, no, it’s not ridiculous. Cover costs, sure but not a profit.

                     Profits from SOEs are used to build other things that the country needs. So by not ensuring they are profitable, where exactly are you going to get the funds to build things like schools and fix roads?

                     Unfortunately for Labour, I don’t actually believe them… I didn’t say he was lying.

                     These two statements are a contradiction. I realize that you think Shearer is not an effective leader, but Labour will do what Shearer says. That’s why his statement above is important, because it shows that Labour will work towards protecting the environment through an effective ETS and an international agreement to reduce GHG emissions.

                     Labour ratified the Kyoto Protocol and then our emissions still went up as Labour catered to business.

                     Different times, different leaders and different policy. Besides your statement is not technically correct according to MFE, which states:

                     Between 2006 and 2007 the decrease in total emissions resulted from: a reduction in coal-fired electricity generation with the commissioning of the combined cycle gas turbine at the Huntly power station.

                     There has now been an increase between 2009 and 2010. Unfortunately international statistics show New Zealand has had the second largest increase in GHG emissions of developed counties, so you do have a point. Previous Labour led governments could have done more to reduce GHG emissions.

                     It’s your prerogative if you believe Shearer is being truthful when he says the next Labour government will work to restore our environmental reputation or not. I personally see no reason to doubt he’s being sincere, and that means New Zealand will do its part in reducing global GHG emissions when a Labour/Greens/Mana and perhaps NZ First government is formed in 2014.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     1 December 2012 at 11:41 am

                     And yet you don’t support Shearer for saying he will rejoin the Kyoto protocol as well… Go figure.

                     It’s not for me to support him – I’m not a Labour voter and unlikely to be. Now go back and re-read what I said and do try to comprehend it this time.

                     …where exactly are you going to get the funds to build things like schools and fix roads?

                     Where we’ve always got them – taxes. The SOE power companies making profits is just another form of taxation under the scenario that you suggest and not a particularly good one.

                     Then there’s the fact that the profit drive, even if it is by an SOE, forces excess use. This is shown in the way that power companies significantly drop the price at night when demand is down. This is done because the higher use of the resource lowers the fixed cost per unit sold and thus boosts profit. I’m not against time shifting the use of power so as to reduce the need to increase power generation but it should be done by planning and not through chasing profit.

                     These two statements are a contradiction. I realize that you think Shearer is not an effective leader, but Labour will do what Shearer says.

                     No they’re not and not necessarily. Shearer will do as the caucus decides and the caucus is still the old guard.

                     Besides your statement is not technically correct according to MFE, which states:

                     And what happened between the ratification of the first Kyoto Protocol and 2006?
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 8:22 pm

                     What happened between ratification of the first Kyoto Protocol and 2006? Go and look at the link Draco T Bastard… Lazy fucker!
                   • RedLogix …

                     1 December 2012 at 9:12 pm

                     There are just three fundamental ways governments can effectively change behaviour:

                     1. Use the law to prohibit the undesired behaviour.

                     2. Use the tax system to penalise it.

                     3. Education and ‘social engineering’.

                     The most powerful approach is to use a suitable combination methods; for each problem is of a different nature. For instance we don’t really use the tax system to discourage murder … we just flat-out make it illegal; whereas we’ve used a different mix to discourage smoking. We’re accustomed to these kinds of small-scale problems and have some skill at responding to them.

                     Excess atmospheric carbon came with a whole new dimension; it challenges directly the prime energy source of our civilisation, and it is global in scale. These two factors have made it exceedingly vexed for national governments to devise a coherent global response.

                     The disinformation campaign against global warming was a perfect re-run of the methods used by the tobacco companies, in some instances by the same people. The purpose of this was to create doubt, dissension and to de-rail the people from speaking out in one voice and to render Option 3 ineffective.

                     But alone this was not enough, Governments knew the truth as well. Effective government response via Option 2 had to be de-railed as well. The answer was to promote “Emmission Trading Schemes” as a market mechanism that meant to masquerade as a ‘taxation’ … but could be far more readily gamed and perverted to render it useless.

                     Governments readily embraced the ETS idea because it meant they could look like they doing something about AGW, while not having to take much responsibility for the lack of results by blaming ‘market failure’. The correct response would have been a proper carbon tax; but the window of opportunity for this to be effective has probably passed.

                     So we are left with Option 1. Sometime within a decade or sooner, the burning of fossil fuels will have to made increasingly illegal. Criminally illegal that is.
         • Adele 3.1.1.1.2

           30 November 2012 at 8:31 pm

           Kiaora, Jackal

           “To try and join these two things together is an illogical conflation and only evidence of mental instability.

           The last time I read the DSMIV there was no mention of illogical conflation being a diagnosis for mental instability or illness. You are a bully.
           • Jackal 3.1.1.1.2.1

             30 November 2012 at 9:21 pm

             I’m not a bully for pointing out that gobsmacked either has a reading disorder or mild mental retardation when he/she tries to say I will agree with Shearer no matter what, and worse yet implies that I’ve said any argument against Shearer is unjustifiable just because it might undermine him. Just to make it clear, it’s the baseless hateful tripe that I’m rallying against, not any reasonable arguments.

             Both of the mental disorders outlined are diagnosed in the DSM-IV btw. I may not have been technically accurate by saying it’s an illogical conflation, and will endeavor to be more accurate in my defense in the future… After all your stringent adherence to medical diagnosis is a prerequisite to debating trolls eh Adele?
           • weka 3.1.1.1.2.2

             30 November 2012 at 10:29 pm

             “You are a bully.”
              
             Tena koe Adele. Thank-you for naming this. I’ve been trying to figure out why Jackal is so unpleasant to debate with, and I think you have named it well.
           • Jackal 3.1.1.1.2.3

             30 November 2012 at 10:45 pm

             Oh boo hoo… The big meanie Jackal is hard to debate because he’s a bully. How sad for you to have to resort to childishness weka. Next you’ll be calling me a supporter of rape culture again. Is it too much to ask for some well considered debate around here?
             • weka …

               1 December 2012 at 9:49 am

               What an excellent example of well considered debate, thanks for that. 
                
               Alot of what you write is interesting. But then you pepper that with these quite bizarre attempts at insults that don’t reflect anything real. They often come across as projections (really, who is being childish here? Who is accusing people of being illogical while being illogical themselves?).
                
               I think Adele’s observation was astute. You possibly don’t even realise you are doing it.
                
                
               • Jackal …

                 1 December 2012 at 10:47 am

                 Don’t reflect anything real? So you’re again claiming that you didn’t say I support rape culture weka? I can find the actual links again if you like where you claim I support things that get woman raped.

                 I find such accusations to be highly offensive and abusive weka. If your baseless abuse isn’t bullying, I don’t know what is. That’s what makes you taking offense entirely ridiculous! It makes you a hypocrite!

                 In comparison to your repugnant statements about me, my claims that gobsmacked might have a reading disorder or is a bit retarded look entirely reasonable… Especially if you consider what his/her argument actually was.
                 • Te Reo Putake …

                   1 December 2012 at 11:17 am

                   I think the relevant discussion is here, Jackal.
                    
                   Reading the page again, I think it’s fair to say you don’t support rape culture in  your comments and you put up a reasonable argument for your position, (even if I don’t agree with it).
                    
                   The same can’t be said for a couple of other posters, who, again don’t appear to support rape culture in a general sense, but seem OK with sexual assault if its being done by Julian Assange, because of the slim possibility that his sexual criminality may ultimately lead to him being incarcerated in the US.
                 • weka …

                   1 December 2012 at 1:29 pm

                   I was talking about your behaviour in the past few days/threads. For instance, when you called me childish, it didn’t reflect anything real. There are other insults you might choose that do reflect my behaviour today, but childish doesn’t even come close. I’m not sure what happens in your head, but it’s like you pick an insult at random and then construct an argument to fit it. I’ve seen this done with other people too.
                    
                   As for your idea that I think you support rape culture, my memory of that is that you took something general I said and applied it to yourself and have had a bee in your bonnet about it ever since (and I suspect that you are deliberately doing that as a way of pushing your own agenda about either men and rape, or Assange, or both). I find that bizarre, but looking at TRP’s link I can see that there were a few people who were misunderstanding what I was saying, and some misinterpreting. Had you the requisite social skills we would have sorted that out back then, but I remember you being like you are now – full of insult, misconstruings, and there was no way to resolve anything other than to acquiesce to whatever it was you wanted.
                    
                   Please do link to where I said you support rape culture. TRP’s link below doesn’t show that.
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 8:23 pm

                     Pushing your own agenda about either men and rape, or Assange, or both.

                     WTF! You said I support things that cause women to be raped weka. There was nothing to misconstrue about what you said. I have no agenda concerning men, rape or Assange. I do however have an opinion. My opinion on you is very low atm… Words such as deluded, hypocrite and manipulative spring to mind.
                   • weka …

                     1 December 2012 at 8:49 pm

                     Supply a link to where I say that you, Jackal, support rape culture, or shut the fuck up. I’m sick of you ignoring my responses to you and instead cherry picking from my posts to continue whatever shit you’ve got going in your head about me.
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 10:27 pm

                     I’ve already previously linked to your accusation weka to try a jog your selective memory.
                   • McFlock …

                     1 December 2012 at 10:42 pm

                     Well, if you want to constantly revisit a particular comment, try bookmarking it so it’s easy to show the rest of us.
                   • weka …

                     1 December 2012 at 11:12 pm

                     “I’ve already previously linked to your accusation weka to try a jog your selective memory.”
                      
                     That’s pretty lame. Nevermind, we can put this to rest now and assume you are full of shit.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 December 2012 at 12:09 pm

                     I simply don’t want to waste time weka when you’re clearly in denial about what you wrote. However here’s the link to the various comments you made concerning rape culture that I have taken offense at… And here’s some excerpts where you claim left wing male commentators on The Standard all support things that get woman raped:

                     Look, now we have our own painter on the roof story! Because as we all know, it’s completely possible to tell whether something was rape from the other side of the globe

                     Also, that’s two clear examples in this thread where the wellbeing of women is expendable according to leftwing men.

                     […]

                     Are you avoiding the discussions today about Assange, here on TS, where women are deemed expendable? It’s a strategy also, and it’s in full play here on TS. If you are taking part in this debate, where that stategy is being used, and you aren’t naming the problem and arguing against it, then you are supporting the expendability of women.

                     […]

                     IMO it’s the actions of the left that are reinforcing rape culture here as much as anything.

                     You were clearly trying to bully people into silence weka, and not just people who were making comments that might be considered supporting rape culture… You were trying to bully all male left wing commentators into silence. As a left wing male who does not support rape culture in any way whatsoever I found that to be insulting. It’s not for you to tell me about what I should be offended at weka.

                     Let me know when gobsmacked is offended enough to respond to my comment, otherwise it would seem you’re the one who’s a bit lame there weka, faux ignorance and all.
                   • gobsmacked …

                     2 December 2012 at 12:27 pm

                     I didn’t respond to your comment abour mental illness, Jackal, because it doesn’t deserve one.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 December 2012 at 2:09 pm

                     So were you offended when I called you a retard gobsmacked?

                     [lprent: I could be. I fail to see any point? ]
                   • Jackal …

                     2 December 2012 at 2:52 pm

                     Well despite your cold-shoulder gobsmacked, if my comments about your mental stability caused any real offense, I apologize unreservedly.

                     See, that wasn’t so hard now was it weka?
                   • weka …

                     2 December 2012 at 3:28 pm

                     Right, glad we got that sorted out. It’s clear that I didn’t say “Jackal supports rape culture”,  as you have asserted:

                     “Next you’ll be calling me a supporter of rape culture again.”
                     “Don’t reflect anything real? So you’re again claiming that you didn’t say I support rape culture weka?”
                     “I can find the actual links again if you like where you claim I support things that get woman raped.”
                     “You said I support things that cause women to be raped weka.”

                     Instead, when I made some generalised comments about rape culture, and how men on the left marginalise women and often consider them expendable when it comes to politics, and that I saw this happening on ts during the debates about Assange, you took offense at that.

                     You decided that it was personal to you (I’m pretty sure it wasn’t, I had other ts commenters in mind at the time when thinking the issues through).

                     A couple of points:

                     1. I made comments in the Assange debate about and to several ts commenters specifically (cv and RL come to mind). It wouldn’t surprise me if those men were insulted, even though my comments weren’t intended as insults. Unlike with you Jackal, I said things about them directly. Also unlike you, both those men addressed the actual issues and we argued them out. While I’m sure we still disagree on much, both those men and myself moved on after the debate. This means that now when I talk with them onsite, there appears to be no animosity. I don’t know how they feel, but I do know that their behaviour is respectful and that this means we can get on well enough within the wider debates happening on ts. IMO this is how mature, well socialised adults behave.

                     You on the otherhand, seem to be holding some kind of grudge, for a perceived insult that didn’t in fact occur. Now when I disagree with you about something you have posted, you reply with an insult and when I note that, you bring up this idea again that somehow I have mortally offended you.

                     It’s not possible for me to do anything to resolve that (apart perhaps from telling you that you are right and I am wrong).

                     2. Rape culture is sanctioned all the time within NZ society. Many people support that without even realising it, in the same way that mainstream NZ society sanctions racism. This doesn’t make everyone evil racists or evil misogynists, and it doesn’t mean that those people aren’t also trying to address racism/rape culture. Even if I had accused you personally of supporting rape culture, it’s not the extreme insult you think it is (unless you deliberately and overtly support rape culture, in which case my replies would have been very obviously directed at you). I think that of the men on the left who don’t have a good understanding of rape culture, most of them are largely unaware of the issues of how women’s politics on the left get sidelined. Most of the debate around Assange demonstrated this. I don’t think that makes those men evil, and any man who takes the degree of insult that you did has me raising my eyebrow. Methinks you doth protest too much, not because I think you are a rapist, or promote rape culture, but because I’ve obviously triggered a nerve. What that nerve is I’m still not sure, and I concede this may just be about your personality and apparent need to carry around perceived insults.

                     As for the rest of you post…

                     “You were clearly trying to bully people into silence weka,”

                     Bullshit. All I did was argue the issues, sometimes strongly. There is nothing in my arguments that tries to silence people (although feel free to provide some evidence beyond your own personal feelings). To call me a bully in this situation is actually pretty enlightening. You seem to be saying that a woman who starts talking about the dynamics of rape culture within the political movements of the left is being abusive and is attempting to silence people. If that is so, then all of ts is likewise being abusive and silencing people, because this is how the culture here works – people argue about shit, sometimes difficult shit, and they argue hard.

                     I think this accusation is just another one of your illogical projections, but unfortunately it’s also problematic because it suggests that women shouldn’t bring this issue to the table. Which was my point. That women’s issues get sidelined by men on the left. But it’s worse than that. Some men when confronted with the realities of rape in our culture get defensive, not because they are rapists, but because they’re scared of being accused of rape. But to  try and make out that a woman talking about rape culture amongst supposed allies is abusive because of your own insecurities is just sick. Unfortunately this is not an entirely uncommon dynamic, and all I can do is name it and say bullshit.

                     “And here’s some excerpts where you claim left wing male commentators on The Standard all support things that get woman raped:”

                     But that’s not what I said, is it. In fact, there were a number of men who had posted about their disgust at the way Assange was being idolised at the expense of women, or the way that the case was being discussed that blamed Assange’s accusers. The crucial word in the above quote is ‘all’. Which I never used. If I said that rape is predominantly a crime commited by men against women, only an idiot would think I meant all men are rapists.

                     There is a degree of ambiguity in making generalisations, but this can easily be resolved by asking the person what they meant. You seem incapable of that, as if once you feel insulted there is no logical way out of that in your head.

                     “now we have our own painter on the roof story! Because as we all know, it’s completely possible to tell whether something was rape from the other side of the globe
                     Also, that’s two clear examples in this thread where the wellbeing of women is expendable according to leftwing men.”

                     Yes, and it’s pretty clear that you still have no idea what I meant by that. And that you still refuse or are unable to ask for clarification.

                     “It’s not for you to tell me about what I should be offended at weka.”

                     By all means feel free to be insulted by whatever you like. But being insulted on the internet doesn’t mean much in and of itself. What counts is why someone was insulted, the context that it happens in, and whether it was intentional. Also the kind of communication that happens afterward. I am still at a loss as to why you took such offense when other people didn’t (or were able to get past the offense), but I don’t really want to look to much closer at your psyche, so will leave it at that.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 December 2012 at 5:03 pm

                     weka, I realise your memory may be on the fritz, but the quotes I have given are not the only ones where you claim the left reinforces rape culture… Here’s another one:

                     If you don’t know those things then it doesn’t surprise me that you fail to see how the left is reinforcing rape culture here.

                     It’s a pity that you continue to fail to understand that such comments include myself as a commentator on The Standard who is male and left wing.

                     You decided that it was personal to you (I’m pretty sure it wasn’t, I had other ts commenters in mind at the time when thinking the issues through).

                     Your statements were generalized and directed at male left wing commentators on The Standard weka. As far as I’m concerned, you didn’t properly differentiate between those you were commenting about, and that’s why I was offended. It’s important to me as a male that I’m not sullied by the actions of other males who abuse females. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

                     This means that now when I talk with them onsite, there appears to be no animosity.

                     Well that’s nice weka… But has little to do with you now seeming to expect me to apologize for being offended at things you’ve written. If you say you are offended at me saying gobsmacked is retarded, and accuse me of bullying, why shouldn’t I give an example of something you have said that I find offensive weka? In my opinion, saying that people support rape culture when they don’t is far worse than saying someone is retarded, isn’t it?

                     Also unlike you, both those men addressed the actual issues and we argued them out.

                     So now I’m not even addressing the issues? Funnily enough I think most other people here will probably think I’m exceeding in my attempt to address the issues. So another baseless accusation from you weka… You’re making a bit of a habit of it.

                     IMO this is how mature, well socialised adults behave.

                     You on the otherhand, seem to be holding some kind of grudge, for a perceived insult that didn’t in fact occur.

                     I’ve used something you’ve said as an example to show your hypocrisy weka… It’s not a grudge. As I said before it’s not for you to judge whether I’m (not mortally) offended at what you wrote.

                     I don’t think that makes those men evil, and any man who takes the degree of insult that you did has me raising my eyebrow. Methinks you doth protest too much, not because I think you are a rapist, or promote rape culture, but because I’ve obviously triggered a nerve.

                     It appeared that you included me in your comments about people who support rape culture… I’m insulted by your comments because I don’t support rape culture weka. It’s as simple as that.

                     To call me a bully in this situation is actually pretty enlightening. You seem to be saying that a woman who starts talking about the dynamics of rape culture within the political movements of the left is being abusive and is attempting to silence people.

                     Not at all… In fact I think women and men for that matter who talk about rape culture in ways that don’t offend all men by (ambiguously or not) inferring we’re all rapists, or support rape culture, is an excellent thing. That’s why including all left wing males who comment on The Standard in your statements is not helpful to your cause is it? You actually need the help of males to reduce rape culture don’t you? So is your mission to simply offend or actually help fix the problem weka?

                     Which was my point. That women’s issues get sidelined by men on the left. But it’s worse than that. Some men when confronted with the realities of rape in our culture get defensive, not because they are rapists, but because they’re scared of being accused of rape.

                     I’m not sure I follow you there weka… Are you again including me in that accusation? Clearly another completely unfounded statement weka… You’re obviously just trying to be offensive again.

                     But to try and make out that a woman talking about rape culture amongst supposed allies is abusive because of your own insecurities is just sick. Unfortunately this is not an entirely uncommon dynamic, and all I can do is name it and say bullshit.

                     Please do enlighten me about these insecurities of mine weka? The fact that you think I’m afraid of being labelled a rapist is somewhat bemusing! Let me clarify once again, as you have gone off on a totally baseless tangent…

                     I welcome a debate about rape culture. I do not welcome being accused of supporting rape culture, or the other various insults you are now dishing out.

                     The crucial word in the above quote is ‘all’. Which I never used.

                     So you didn’t mean all left wing males support rape culture when you wrote that all left wing males support rape culture, good to know weka.

                     There is a degree of ambiguity in making generalisations, but this can easily be resolved by asking the person what they meant.

                     Wrong! I asked you not to make such generalizations at the time you made them weka. I again asked you to stop including myself and other left wing male commentators in your accusations. You can continue to deny the meaning behind your generalizations, but to me and I think others there was no mistaking your anti-male sentiment.

                     You seem incapable of that, as if once you feel insulted there is no logical way out of that in your head.

                     There are a number of steps here… First I have highlighted your abuse in an attempt to ensure it doesn’t continue… You have not acknowledged that abuse nor recognized that I was offended. I have highlighted that abuse again, which you have again dismissed. You have highlighted me abusing gobsmacked, which I have acknowledged and apologized for. You have then implied that I might have ulterior motives because I have again highlighted your abuse. I have explained why I highlighted your abuse, which you claim are wrong because you don’t want to accept that it is abusive to include all left wing males in statements about rape culture.

                     Well done weka, what an excellent example of well considered debate there from you. /sarc.

                     Yes, and it’s pretty clear that you still have no idea what I meant by that. And that you still refuse or are unable to ask for clarification.

                     I understood what you meant weka, you’re welcome to explain yourself without needing me to prompt you. I’ll accept your explanation if it is reasonable. So far it has not been.

                     I am still at a loss as to why you took such offense when other people didn’t (or were able to get past the offense).

                     Other people didn’t take offense weka? A nice way of trying to justify your comments from a lack of knowledge. Did you perhaps question everybody who had read your comments? Thought not. Therefore your grandiose comment that your’re right is clearly feckless!

                     Therein also lies the problem, because you don’t recognize why I was offended at what you wrote there can be no resolution to the problem. You’re therefore likely to continue in that abusive mindset that does your cause no good at all. Belittling me for being offended is rather silly, and is just another sign of an abuser.

                     But I don’t really want to look to much closer at your psyche, so will leave it at that.

                     …Thus confirming your hypocrisy weka in admonishing me for calling gobsmacked mentally unstable.

                     But yeah! Whatever… Carry on including all left wing males in your commentary about people who support rape culture weka. I will endeavor to not be offended by giving your comments a cursory glance at best.
           • Sunny 3.1.1.1.2.4

             1 December 2012 at 10:14 am

             +1 Adele. Jackal dashed off a similar (illogical) response to me recently. As my old uncle used to observe, ‘ It would be damned amusing if it weren’t so damned annoying’.
             • Jackal …

               1 December 2012 at 10:50 am

               I think what you find most annoying is that I’m interrupting the usual David Shearer bashing that takes over these threads… Probably best to find something worthwhile to bitch about instead Sunny.
             • ianmac …

               2 December 2012 at 2:42 pm

               The irony of Sunny calling himself Sunny. Most National trolls try harder than he.
           • TheContrarian 3.1.1.1.2.5

             1 December 2012 at 11:17 am

             Jackal isn’t a bully, he’s an idiot.

             Never mistake malice for what can easily be explained by idiocy.
             • Te Reo Putake …

               1 December 2012 at 11:24 am

               Well, that certainly sheds a new light on your own contributions, TC.
             • Jackal …

               1 December 2012 at 11:28 am

               TC mumbles into a mirror… But what do you think about what Shearer says TheContrarian? Usurping this thread to an I hate The Jackal club instead wasn’t really what I had planned.
               • TheContrarian …

                 1 December 2012 at 1:10 pm

                 “Usurping this thread to an I hate The Jackal club instead wasn’t really what I had planned.”

                 I didn’t ask for the job of insulting you. In another life, we could have been brothers. Running a small, quirky taverna in Sicily. Maybe we would have married the local twins instead of wasting each other’s time here in this dump. But it was not to be. So hop it.
                 • Jackal …

                   1 December 2012 at 8:17 pm

                   Don’t you mean zip it sweetie? Showing your allegiance once again there TheContrarian. You didn’t ask for the job of insulting you? Did they appoint you to your current position then as head of the I hate The Jackal club?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     2 December 2012 at 9:45 am

                     Oh I don’t hate you, but I do have the sense that you are suffering some sort of development disorder. Your mutant rage and inability to follow the laws of logic speak to either low intelligence or a parasitic brain infection.

                     Yeah I know, my complaints about ad homs from others will now seem hypocritical…but at least I am demonstrating an awareness of my own poor behavior.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 December 2012 at 12:28 pm

                     Mutant rage? Interesting turn of phrase there TC. Playing too many video games again are you? I bet you’re about as useless as this guy.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.3

           30 November 2012 at 8:37 pm

           However you missed out the bit where gobsmacked called me a David Shearer suck up.

           That’s likely for shit like the following that you wrote:

           Shearer has already demonstrated on numerous occasions that he’s a match for John Key. In fact he’s likely to utterly trounce the deluded investment banker.
           • McFlock 3.1.1.1.3.1

             30 November 2012 at 8:46 pm

             lol

             even though I don’t see any major difference between the Davids, without some significant oratorical panelbeating that is a – er – a pretty major call 🙂
             • Colonial Viper …

               30 November 2012 at 8:53 pm

               “oratorical panel beating” that would make Brian Edwards and other media trainers “Oratorical Panel Beaters”? 😀
               • McFlock …

                 30 November 2012 at 8:58 pm

                 Indeed.
                 I mulled over the appropriate analogy, and felt that the desired imagery involved a shiny, smooth product being unveiled after several days of hammering, swearing, sparks, explosive atmospheres, and a final polish…
                 • Rogue Trooper …

                   30 November 2012 at 9:18 pm

                   Thats Fuuuuneee
               • Jackal …

                 30 November 2012 at 9:32 pm

                 Edwards is to Oratorical Panel Beating what Key is to brand management.
           • Jackal 3.1.1.1.3.2

             30 November 2012 at 9:23 pm

             That’s an opinion based on observing John Key and David Shearer Colonial Viper… There’s nothing about that statement that shows I’m sucking up to David Shearer.

             If you truly believe I’m a suck up, pray do tell what my motivation might be? Because as far as I’m aware there’s no reason for me to make such an observational statement other than it being based on facts. I can link to some of those Key/Shearer performances to show why I’ve formed such a belief if you like Colonial Viper? But being that your intellect is far superior to mine, I would have thought you might already be aware of them.
             • Colonial Viper …

               30 November 2012 at 9:33 pm

               That’s an opinion [that Shearer is very likely to trounce John Key] based on observing John Key and David Shearer Colonial Viper… There’s nothing about that statement that shows I’m sucking up to David Shearer.

               Oh OK, it just came across that way. That stuff about Shearer having proved on numerous occasions that he’s a match, more than a match, for John Key etc., I mean.

               If you truly believe I’m a suck up, pray do tell what my motivation might be?

               Not here to psychoanalyse ya brains mate. Yeeeuch. Who knows maybe you got money riding on iPredict???
               • Jackal …

                 30 November 2012 at 9:46 pm

                 Nup! iPredict looks pretty naff if you ask me. Just political wonks spending money to try and influence public discourse.

                 Just to spell it out for you Colonial Viper, I wasn’t asking you psychoanalyse me… I was pointing out that I have no reason to suck up to David Shearer. My opinion is based on what I observe and wanting what’s best for New Zealand, nothing more.

                 If you say that I’m wrong in my prediction that Shearer is very likely to trounce Key in the lead up to the next election, at least have the courtesy to tell me why? As I said before, I can give you many examples on which I’ve based that assertion.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   30 November 2012 at 9:53 pm

                   *shrug*

                   Read lprent, Trotter, Edwards, Eddie, QoT, etc. Myself I have no original thinking.
                   • Jackal …

                     30 November 2012 at 10:38 pm

                     So your opinion is based on the opinion of others and as a copout to providing any semblance of an argument for your criticism of my assertion, you hide behind them. Pretty weak there CV.

                     Perhaps they might like to come to your defense Colonial Viper, and provide some evidence that David Shearer is not a match for John Key… Although I somehow doubt this will occur, basically because despite their criticism of Shearer, they all know I’m right.

                     It would however be amusing to see the left wing commentators you’ve named trying to support the National party leader in a comparison test. Just to conclude; compared to Key, David Shearer is far more linguistically skilled etc and will make a far better PM than the deluded investment banker ever could.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 November 2012 at 11:20 pm

                     You want evidence? Why do you deserve evidence? Forget my derivative prognostications. The evidence comes in 2014 mate, I hope you are right and I am wrong.
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 8:27 am

                     The evidence comes in 2014? But you’re saying there’s already evidence to show John Key is better than David Shearer… That’s why you’ve already written Shearer off isn’t it? So yes! I want you to provide some evidence for what you believe? If you can’t do that Colonial Viper, I will have to surmise that you’re wrong!
   • rosy 3.2

     30 November 2012 at 7:49 pm

     Could you please let us know where you stand on fracking?

     And where you stand on the use of and cleaning up of water? Especially if your stand of fracking is to proceed at pace.

     Of the issues listed that you could have used to highlight the difference between National and Labour you choose the contentious ETS for 2014? As worthy as that is, it does not resonate with the public in the same way as dirty water, imo. How is Labour going to ‘fix’ the many competing issues around water come 2014?
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   30 November 2012 at 4:49 pm

   Like most Kiwis I’m proud of New Zealand’s strong tradition of conservation and environmentalism.

   No such tradition exists. If it did our rivers, lakes and estuaries wouldn’t be so polluted. We’ve done a few feel good projects here and there but on the whole our entire history is one of rapacious destruction.
   • Jackal 4.1

     30 November 2012 at 5:00 pm

     You’re confusing the general population (to whom Shearer is referring) with polluting industries such as farming and pulp and paper mills. Most Kiwis respect the environment… In fact it was the publics biggest concern leading into the last election according to NZ Herald polling. So yes! Kiwis are genrally conservationists and environmentalists… Unfortunately many of our industries don’t share the same values.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

       30 November 2012 at 5:15 pm

       And the governments pass laws supporting the farmers and industries polluting. In fact, they’ve been going on about balance between the economy and the environment since the 1980s and the environment always comes off worse off.

       So, yes, the general population do have conservationist leanings but that has had no or very little effect on what’s actually been happening.
       • Jackal 4.1.1.1

         30 November 2012 at 5:19 pm

         I can understand your resentment at the past policies that have led to such a mess. But the upshot is that Labour will likely work to repair some of that damage, if David Shearers post above is anything to go by.
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1

           30 November 2012 at 9:55 pm

           But the upshot is that Labour will likely work to repair some of that damage

           it takes Labour 2 terms in power to undo 1 Tory term. Do the math on where that leaves the country over time.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.2

           1 December 2012 at 8:10 am

           We’re talking about the past and in the past the Labour led governments passed legislation that was “balanced” in favour of business and against the environment. It may not have been as detrimental as what National do but it was still detrimental.

           Now they expect us to believe that they will actually work to protect the environment? I call BS. Their past actions show that they won’t.
           • Jackal 4.1.1.1.2.1

             1 December 2012 at 8:35 am

             So you don’t think Shearer is telling the truth when he says Labour will sign back up to Kyoto protocol and fix the ETS. You base your belief that Shearer is lying on the fact that there was previous environmental destruction while Labour was in power under various other Prime Ministers.

             When David Shearer says a “Labour Government will make restoring our environmental reputation a priority” you write him off as a liar because of things that happened in the past that he had no control over. Is that right Draco T Bastard?

             You could also try blaming Shearer for the things National is doing if you like, as both assertions seem equally unreasonable.
             • Crimson Nile …

               1 December 2012 at 8:49 am

               I don’t quite understand the focus on what Shearer says or does not say in a single email. People who want maximum robust action in conservation and environmental issues should probably vote for the Greens.

               Labour tends to be considered a very average option by members of conservation organisations. They are seen to have a tendency to be a bit slow and out of touch (sometimes very out of touch) with local conservation issues. Ask anyone involved with Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, Federated Mountain Clubs etc.

               Albeit they are better than how National performs of course.
               • Jackal …

                 1 December 2012 at 9:05 am

                 Fair enough Crimson Nile, in fact I totally agree… But the assertion wasn’t about whether the Greens are more focused on conserving the environment than Labour, which they are of course. DTB was judging David Shearer on things he had no control over. Clearly it’s wrong to say he’s being disingenuous now just because historic Labour has got some things wrong.

                 It appears to me that Shearer is more likely to acknowledge the current environmental problems New Zealand faces and do something about it by implementing progressive policy. In fact the Greens as coalition partners are likely to ensure the next Labour led government does the right thing in terms of protecting our environment for future generations.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               1 December 2012 at 9:53 am

               So you don’t think Shearer is telling the truth when he says Labour will sign back up to Kyoto protocol and fix the ETS.

               Shearer is just the front man for the organisation and the majority of the organisation hasn’t changed.
               • Jackal …

                 1 December 2012 at 10:55 am

                 Shearer is the leader of the Labour party and the things he states in the article above will define Labours policy direction. Saying the leader has no power to ensure what he publicly states is adhered to is a pretty silly argument Draco T Bastard. You again have no real reason to doubt Shearers sincerity apart from your doubts as to his leadership skills.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   1 December 2012 at 11:46 am

                   You again have no real reason to doubt Shearers sincerity apart from your doubts as to his leadership skills.

                   Which, considering his lack of leadership, would seem reasonable.

                   Besides, I don’t believe in leaders, I believe in people. When Labour becomes democratic so that the MPs do as the members say then I may have some faith in what their front man says.
                   • Jackal …

                     1 December 2012 at 8:25 pm

                     Yes! I figured your argument would be based on the anti-establishment ideals you often express Draco T Bastard… Nothing really new there then. Do you honestly expect things to just change to fit your belief system, or should we deal with reality? Lack of leadership… Please!
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 December 2012 at 5:40 am

                     Yes! I figured your argument would be based on the anti-establishment ideals you often express Draco T Bastard… Nothing really new there then.

                     What argument? I stated a well observed fact – Shearer shows no leadership. If he showed leadership then there wouldn’t be any leaks from caucus, there wouldn’t be any problems with Cunliffe (and I don’t believe Cunliffe is the problem there either) and Shane Jones wouldn’t be speaking out of turn every chance he gets.

                     Do you honestly expect things to just change to fit your belief system, or should we deal with reality?

                     Changing the status quo is why I’m in politics and I wouldn’t be able to change it without having an idea as to what should replace it. So that has got to be the worst insult you’ve tried to fling on this entire page.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 December 2012 at 12:36 pm

                     What argument? Get with the program Draco T Bastard… Your argument that you don’t believe in leaders. See your comment @ 11:46 AM above, plus the other thousand or so anti-establishment comments you have been making FFS!

                     The leaks are not necessarily from the caucus btw, and were happening long before David Shearer became leader… As was Shane Jones’ brain farts.

                     Fixing these problems will take time, and unfortunately Labour has moved in the wrong direction in my opinion by re-appointing John Tamihere. Was that a decision only Shearer had control of?
5. vto 5

   30 November 2012 at 4:53 pm

   Hello Mr Shearer.

   Good on you for taking things on and fighting for what you believe in. If only more people in the world acted on their principles etc.

   Don’t know about the wording of your newsletter though – I guess its gotta be a little staid and diplomatic but it reads like it has been very very carefully written. What about showing a little guts and fire in ya belly. Stick it to Key and the other vandals. Poke them in the eye, pull their pants down, give them a brown eye. Key and vandals only know fire and strength. They don’t acknowledge much else. So fire up. Take your jacket off when on the telly, show some muscle (Key doesn’t have any muscles). Shoulders back and cocky as all hell. Get it into it man

   2c from Lalaland.
6. bad12 6

   30 November 2012 at 5:32 pm

   Appearing upon a web-site such as the Standard i cannot possibly comment upon Bwana Dave’s latest wee homily from my anonymous cloak of Bad12 as Bwana Dave has also recently voiced His displeasure at the temerity of us mere peasants who dare to question His utterrences from such a position,

   The Bwana’s latest of course is yet another large YAWN as Bwana Dave presumably on the advise of His Neo-Liberal string pullers is really making a play to drag back from the Greens any of the Liberals who have flocked to that party in recent times and may be wavering now as their support is sought by Bwana Dave and His newsletters of utter inspiration which resound among the electorate in the same fashion as thrown mud, mud winning by a long nose in the contest of ideas as espoused by Bwana Dave,

   As Labour’s recently announced Housing Policy is patently of, for,and, by the middle class and so is the latest drizzle of mud from the Labour Leader, oh don’t get me wrong, as a policy to get middle class people onto the ladder of home ownership it has been well crafted, to appeal to the middle class that is, i cannot imagine that the minimum wage workers who every night clean the offices of Bwana Dave and Company could ever hope to be shoe-horned into home ownership off of the back of this piece of Labour policy,

   For those minimum wage workers Bwana Dave hasn’t even deigned to sweep the odd Mango skin off of the Labour table, shut out of being able to rent at 25% of income by the lack of State rental housing it is the minimum wage workers who will remain trapped paying for the investments of the middle class landlords, those whom Bwana Dave seems to be taking the advice of….
   • Jackal 6.1

     1 December 2012 at 9:35 am

     You do realize that 100,000 new houses is going to reduce a lot of pressure on the housing market bad12? Is that why you don’t like it, with property investments and happy to sit back and watch them become unaffordable for most Kiwis?

     In other words Labours housing policy will reduce competition for houses which is good because it will mean less heat in an overly heated market. If things continue the way they are, there will be a collapse, which is bad for investors. Labours policy will likely avert such market dysfunctions while increasing affordability.

     House prices will likely level off… With more home ownership and houses being built there will also be more houses to rent. In other words that means more affordable rental accommodation and therefor better living standards for people on low and fixed incomes. But don’t let that dynamic to what is an excellent housing policy get in the way of your ranting bad12.
     • bad12 6.1.1

       1 December 2012 at 5:32 pm

       Nope, your barking or more to the point whining up the wrong tree questioning myself about having ‘property investments’, i despise those who indulge in the act of purchasing family homes as an investment and then have a tenant(s) installed so as to pay the (usually overblown) mortgage,

       Such people, particularly in Auckland are bringing the day ever closer when those able to buy such property will be listed companies only interested in the % return above cost and sit within the social strata about as low as those who fell all over themselves to purchase as ‘investments’ Housing NZ properties when the Tory scum began the sell off of such which in turn has lead directly to the situation we have at present,

       You seem in your blind haste to attack me have had a failure of comprehension as to what the contents of my post intended to convey to the reader, my view having just read your little solo effort in this particular post in defense of Bwana Dave Shearer is that the failure of comprehension is one of deliberation but that’s just my opinion,

       I do agree with you on one point, and although i will repeat myself here as a small attempt at enlightening you personally as it is previously stated in my previous comment the point made is clearly understood by everyone but the bluntest knife in the draw in that comment,

       Sure Tonto has a plan, 10,000 new houses a year to be sold to those with the means to purchase them at a guestimated price of around 300 thousand dollars,

       Put that figure against the average house price in Auckland at the moment 450-500 grand and Tonto will have them flocking at the door to apply,

       Now ask yourself WHO on income will be capable of servicing a 300+ grand mortgage and the obvious answer to anyone who aint blind will be NOT the minimum wage workers, its a housing policy obviously, and perhaps cynically, directed at the middle class, the Socialism if you will of, by, and for the middle class,

       To benefit from this ‘housing policy’ will require an income of between 50-70 thousand a year, left to the ‘property investors’ will be those who struggle along at or just above the minimum wage who could never hope to service the mortgage required and shut out of Housing NZ tenancies by the poverty created by the neo-Liberal economics of the past 30 years,

       The fact is that in its current guise Labour’s much vaunted housing policy simply assures that as far as rack renting of the working poor goes by the middle class ‘investors’ many of whom are Labour voters, the song remains the same, at it’s core it says to the electorate, we at the heart of the Labour Party that won in the neo-liberal game of ‘winners and losers’ have accrued to ourselves a nice tidy ‘investment nest-egg’ in rental accomodation but the down-side to this is that our educated, professional, children are being shut out of that 1st home ownership as the game of monopoly we have been playing has driven the price of 1st home ownership beyond the reach of the kids,

       Lets all design a housing policy to get the children of the middle class into home ownership, Bwana Dave will sell it for us and to hell with those we have trapped renting further down the economic tree….
       • xtasy 6.1.1.1

         1 December 2012 at 8:03 pm

         “To benefit from this ‘housing policy’ will require an income of between 50-70 thousand a year, left to the ‘property investors’ will be those who struggle along at or just above the minimum wage who could never hope to service the mortgage required and shut out of Housing NZ tenancies by the poverty created by the neo-Liberal economics of the past 30 years.”

         Thanks for that, some do not get it, and this is necessary, to hit it home, so to say.

         Labour is too scared to call the problem by its name, and they are too scared to be seen “too left” and “interventionist”, so Shearer and his ABCers are simply continuing to catch votes from Nat supporters to get back into government.

         This is NOT good enough, for sure, and it will show in disastrous new polls I dare to foresee already!

         A massive state housing plan is needed, as too many will under market conditions NEVER be able to get their OWN home on incomes they have.

         Also other issues need addressing at the same time, e.g. controls on speculation, not just CGT, but caps on price growth on sections and real estate, at least over periods that can be defined. Then we need a stop to overseas buyers being able to buy property on the local market, without even being permanent residents. Also it must be tightened, who as permanent resident can buy a property within a given time, and certainly it must be stopped to have such buy more than one property, and to get away with calling this an “investment”, when NZ needs investment in productive areas, not property!

         I could go on, but I will leave it at throwing this spanner in for now. Labour has NOT addressed any of the other issues I raised. Simply allowing a scheme to build more for legal residents, and for first home buyers, not setting tight rules re on-selling and the likes, that will change too little, for sure. Many will grab the opportunity, buy or build for 300 k, and then wait until the market allows them to on-sell for a nice tax-free gain.

         Fuck that, it is a dumb idea, altogether, I am sorry, dear Labourites.
       • Jackal 6.1.1.2

         1 December 2012 at 8:20 pm

         According to National they can’t be built because they are too cheap, but according to you bad12 Labour is meant to supply free housing for the poor. Let me know how they’re meant to pay for it after National has accrued a $75 billion dollar foreign debt and I will support your argument… Until then you’re just whistling in the wind bad12. cc xtasy.
         • xtasy 6.1.1.2.1

           1 December 2012 at 8:54 pm

           WHERE are the cheap and affordable SECTIONS to build the “affordable” homes on, dear Jackal?????
           • Jackal 6.1.1.2.1.1

             1 December 2012 at 10:35 pm

             You want me to give you a list of all the sections around the country that are suitable for Labours housing policy? Don’t be stupid xtasy… Such information isn’t even centrally held by the government yet as far as I’m aware and will take some time for councils to collate. But that’s OK, because you’ve clearly won the debate by requesting the impossible. /sarc
             • xtasy …

               3 December 2012 at 12:51 am

               Are you telling me that Labour and Nat vote hunting Shearer announced their plans for 300 k homes without having collated such essential information? How can they – same as you did in other recent comments – claim that they can get sections at about 50 k in places like Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington or else? Or are the new home owners all expected to move to some place in the remote parts of the South Island, where land is cheap, whether there are jobs or not?

               Even with intensive housing constructions – the section costs in Auckland are enormous.

               But I am sure that Shearer and Co will soon deliver us the details.
         • xtasy 6.1.1.2.2

           1 December 2012 at 8:58 pm

           You tend to repeat yourself, dear Jackal, what about giving answers to those other issue I raised, e.g. easy option of overseas buyers and the likes? Or do you and Labour fear the “racism” tag, perhaps, even if it is not relevant?
           • McFlock 6.1.1.2.2.1

             1 December 2012 at 9:06 pm

             Actually, if the welcome-home loan criteria were applied to the labour houses, most of the issues you raised would disappear. The income-related rent issue remains (and it’s arguable whether that is even a priority for this policy, and more than income-related rents are meant to be solved by rejoining Kyoto) as does whether the scale is large enough to affect the general housing market. But by and large a mountain of problems has become requirement for a few small tweaks.
         • bad12 6.1.1.2.3

           2 December 2012 at 11:40 am

           Dare i suggest that that you have further deigned to NOT comprehend what my previous comments are attempting to impart,

           A house provided by the State on the basis of 25% of ALL the tenants incomes is NOT a free house, AND, prior to the deliberate creation of an economic class of poverty over the past 30 years of Neo-Liberal economic mismanagement those who were then the bottom of the economic ladder, the minimum wage workers were in fact the bulk of such tenancies,

           What has been created in the past 30 years is a new class of poverty as employment has become an export of note and thus the minimum wage worker has been by dint of ‘need’ and the number of State houses forced into the arms of the private sector landlords,

           As the number of ‘new’ poor has expanded so has the opportunities in the private rental housing market also expanded thus helping to fuel the upward spiral in house prices and so those without a ‘profession’, the low waged workers are now shut out of the stability and ability to have a stable rental regime where ‘they’ can plan for a future,

           Instead this cohort of non-professional low waged workers are trapped paying market rent to the mostly middle class landlords of both National and Labour who have done quite nicely thank you very much from the economics of the past 30 years, and my question here is where is Labour’s policy to have these low waged non-professional workers housed,

           Your wee query of where is the money to come from to provide affordable housing to the working poor, the same place that Bwana Dave Shearer proposes to get it to provide affordable housing to the middle class….
           • Jackal 6.1.1.2.3.1

             2 December 2012 at 1:10 pm

             First you write:

             shut out of being able to rent at 25% of income by the lack of State rental housing it is the minimum wage workers who will remain trapped paying for the investments of the middle class landlords.

             Then you write:

             A house provided by the State on the basis of 25% of ALL the tenants incomes is NOT a free house.

             Thanks for the history lesson there bad12, I can asure you it wasn’t required. What you seem to be failing to understand still is that housing is and will never be free in New Zealand. Somebody has to pay for it somehow. So that’s why I asked how exactly how a government might fund such a large expansion of state housing?

             Your wee query of where is the money to come from to provide affordable housing to the working poor, the same place that Bwana Dave Shearer proposes to get it to provide affordable housing to the middle class.

             The money for Labours housing policy will come from those who gain housing. It will mean money that has been getting paid by the government on rents to landlords will once again go back to the government. Granted, it’s a user pays system that means only people who can afford to save for a deposit will gain access to these houses. But people who are able to save gaining access to housing they will one day own will take pressure of the rental market and therefore over the long term reduce financial hardship for low waged and welfare dependent people.

             The other problem with your argument bad12 is that you simply don’t know what the financial criteria will be, do you? I’m pretty sure Labour will devise the specific financial aspects of their housing policy to ensure as many low waged families gain access to better houses as is possible.

             The policy is very specific about it paying for itself and the main reasons the government can provide more cost effective housing is that they have access to cheaper startup capital investment and already own lots of land that can be used. They also have the organizational structure to ensure cost effective strategies can be implemented.

             If it’s not to be a user pays system, where exactly is the money going to come from bad12? New Zealand is pretty much tapped out in terms of foreign debt. There’s also no real financial return to encourage any private investment, and as I’m sure you realize the low waged and welfare dependent cannot afford to build 100,000 houses. So you are effectively arguing for increased foreign debt bad12, which is something no competent government should be undertaking.
             • bad12 …

               3 December 2012 at 9:07 am

               Labour have publicly stated that the monies needed to build its 10,000 a year Kiwibuild program will be BORROWED and i will assume that such borrowing from a Labour Government will be through the same channels as monies borrowed by the present Government,

               Oh don’t get me wrong, i fully understand what you are conveying in you replies to me, IE: that such Labour Government borrowing will be short term in that once a KiwiBuild home is sold to an eligible recipient the Government will be reimbursed via the bank that holds the eligible recipients mortgage,

               What you and Labour are effectively advocating and openly supporting is more of Ruth Richardson’s abhorent Neo-Liberal ‘Winners and Losers’ rhetoric,

               This is simply the Socialism of, for, and, by the middle class and those unable to service a 300+ thousand dollar mortgage need not apply,

               Those ‘Losers’, those who toil daily at or just above the minimum wage need not apply for State house rental of 25% of income either as they are effectively shut out of such housing by the creation of a new class of impoverished over the past 30 years,

               Such ‘losers’ are now told by the likes of you that if they wait long enough being rack-rented by the very same middle class who will be the main beneficiary of Labour’s KiwiBuild rents might go down over a period of time,

               As a policy to house the children of the middle class who now struggle to afford current home ownership Labour have hit the spot,but, this is no panacea to dramatically alter the basic costs of housing for the working poor,

               The dramatic ‘fix’ needed is for Labour to radically increase the number of State owned rentals so as to be able to offer those who toil daily at or just above the minimum wage accommodation at 25% of their income, (how the world used to work 30+ years ago),

               The fact is Government owned rental accommodation becomes ‘more’ effective when there is enough of it to accommodate not just the poorest of the poor and the fact is that when waged workers of ANY earnings capability are housed by Government at 25% of house-hold income the subsidy required to service such State owned rental housing becomes less and less, in other words it pays for itself,

               I will also call BULLSHIT on the notion that Government has to borrow from the private market the monies necessary to build it’s own rental housing stock,

               Such Government borrowing is in fact the economics of the Neanderthal,Government can, and in fact should, simply print the necessary capital it needs to construct such housing, the asset, the built State owned rental housing is a physical manifestation reflecting the total value of the monies printed,

               Only the present day economic Neanderthals believe that expansion of production MUST precede expansion of the supply of money whereas the reverse is easily achieved in fact desirable and only need be constrained by an adherence to a inflation band target which i or the printing of such monies have no problem with whatsoever…
7. karol 7

   30 November 2012 at 6:38 pm

   Mr Shearer & all of the Labour caucus, Citizen A on TPP – scarey!  It won’t matter what your policies are on climate or privatisation – once NActs have done the deals, they’ll be most likely locked in by TPP giving too much power to mulinationals.

   And, as Gordon Campbell says, don’t listen to F O’S on trying to silence Jane Kelsey – FO’S and her failed ideologies are as anachronistic as Maggie Smith’s character in Downton Abbey. 
   • kiwicommie 7.1

     30 November 2012 at 7:30 pm

     There is no way to be polite about Fran, she is a heartless bitch that can’t get off her neo-liberal high horse. The right only stands her because she keeps most of her moaning towards the left. xD
8. lefty 8

   30 November 2012 at 7:08 pm

   Emissions Trading Schemes!

   Only the maddest neo liberals believe in them anymore.

   How backward can you get?
9. Rogue Trooper 9

   30 November 2012 at 9:22 pm

   well i thought it was a well written “Shearer Says”
   • Jackal 9.1

     30 November 2012 at 9:28 pm

     +1
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     30 November 2012 at 9:54 pm

     Who wrote it?
     • Rogue Trooper 9.2.1

       30 November 2012 at 10:02 pm

       God knows 🙂 Night, sleep tight, don’t let the (imagine little Procrustes crustaceans I spose) Bite. 🙂
       aaaarrrrhhhooooo.
   • ianmac 9.3

     1 December 2012 at 9:28 am

     +1 @ 9
10. Jim 10

    1 December 2012 at 7:33 am

    Sorry but he lost me when het let his colonels persuade him to do the dirty on Cunliffe. His core attraction as a leader was that he was a non-politician who was above all the crap. Now we know that’s not true I’m really struggling to see what he offers.
    • Jackal 10.1

      1 December 2012 at 9:10 am

      So you don’t like Shearer because he’s a politician… Finally an argument that makes some sense.
      • ianmac 10.1.1

        1 December 2012 at 9:34 am

        It is interesting that Mr Shearer took action to “discipline” Mr Cunliffe. And gets condemned.
        Mr Peters took action to “discipline” Mr Horan. Until the case is cleared.
        Mr Key does not “discipline” Mr Banks or Ms Parata and gets condemned for inaction.
        Funny chaps these politicians or is it the response of the voters that is funny?
    • seeker 10.2

      1 December 2012 at 6:29 pm

      +1+1+1 Jim @10 Am surprised at Jackal and Ianmac not being able to see this.
      I do not trust the weakness and lack of integrity/ethics I witnessed in David Shearer last week, anymore than I trust the seemingly complete lack of integrity and certainly ethics I have seen in Key over the last four years. Poor Shearer he just seems a lighter shade of pale to me now, no matter how hard I (or he) try. Hence I do not agree bigtime with Ianmac and Jackal on Shearer, whereas, until now I have usually found myself in agreement with their comments on most things
      Apparently Shearer has turned out to be a crowd pull..aparter judging by the comments on here. He could become as divisive as Key. Now is that a prophecy or a warning?

      Anyway Labour is not the only opposition to national, thank God.
      • Jackal 10.2.1

        1 December 2012 at 8:28 pm

        Labour are still the main opposition party, and therefore shouldn’t be simply dismissed with such silly arguments. Comparing John Keys obvious lack of ethics with David Shearer is entirely fucked in the head. Do you really think Shearer would undermine workers rights, the environment, social welfare, Woman’s refuge centres, the economy, our sovereignty and our international standing etc etc like Key has? Talk about deluded seeker… What planet have you been living on for the last four years?
        • xtasy 10.2.1.1

          1 December 2012 at 8:51 pm

          Shearer’s record on welfare: The beneficiary roof painter!

          what are you on about Jackal, get bloody real, thanks. He has NO time for beneficiaries and dares to rubbish them, not even contemplating to apologise. You are fighting a LOST battle for your chosen leader, who is NOT a leader of quality or competence or both!
          • Jackal 10.2.1.1.1

            1 December 2012 at 10:39 pm

            You can’t be seriously comparing a throw away comment by Shearer with National’s sustained attack on beneficiaries xtasy?
            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1.1

              2 December 2012 at 9:29 am

              You can’t be seriously comparing a throw away comment by Shearer with National’s sustained attack on beneficiaries xtasy?

              Did you mean the “throw away” comment written in by Shearer’s speech writing staff, then approved and used by Shearer himself?

              National’s sustained attack on beneficiaries xtasy?

              How does this compare with Labour’s 30 year attack on beneficiaries? True, the last 10 years of which wasn’t really awful active attacks, more like a cold war freezing out or passive aggression.
              • Jim Nald - Once Was National …

                2 December 2012 at 1:27 pm

                “Did you mean the “throw away” comment written in by Shearer’s speech writing staff, then approved and used by Shearer himself?”

                If the Labour Party can rediscover its head, heart and soul, it would throw away not just the comment.
        • Draco T Bastard 10.2.1.2

          2 December 2012 at 5:48 am

          Labour are still the main opposition party, and therefore shouldn’t be simply dismissed with such silly arguments.

          Just hopefully not for much longer.

          And BTW, that’s not an argument for not dismissing them.

          Comparing John Keys obvious lack of ethics with David Shearer is entirely fucked in the head. Do you really think Shearer would undermine workers rights, the environment, social welfare, Woman’s refuge centres, the economy, our sovereignty and our international standing etc etc like Key has?

          Well, his beneficiary bashing does seem to indicate that he’s playing from the same songbook.
          • Jackal 10.2.1.2.1

            2 December 2012 at 1:58 pm

            So Draco T Bastard and Colonial Viper are also comparing David Shearer saying:

            Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.

            He said: “see that guy over there, he’s on a sickness benefit, yet he’s up there painting the roof of his house. That’s not bloody fair. Do you guys support him?”

            From what he told me, he was right, it wasn’t bloody fair, and I said so. I have little tolerance for people who don’t pull their weight.

            We don’t like others ripping the system off – and those who get most incensed about it are people like this bloke who works hard, does what he believes is the right thing and earns close to the minimum wage.

            His comment cuts to the heart of something very important to New Zealanders: fairness.

            With John Keys proven track record on beneficiary bashing? Here’s some examples:

            Welfare reform ‘beneficiary bashing’

            Under the reforms, teenagers who have dropped out of school, work or training will be able to earn an extra $30 a week from the Government for going back to class or taking budgeting courses; and solo mums who find work before they are work-tested will be able to keep their benefit for longer.

            Unemployment up to 7.3pc – a 13 year high

            Full-time employment shrank 0.8 per cent to 1.7 million while part-timers rose 1.4 per cent to 519,000.

            The number of jobless people, which includes people who might not be actively seeking work, rose to 294,900 from 271,200, while underemployment, which counts people who are part-time but want to work more hours, rose to 113,300 from 109,500.

            Workers in professional, scientific, technical, administrative and support services recorded the biggest decline in jobs, falling to 249,400 from 259,300 in the June quarter, while manufacturing shed 6,100 jobs to 240,400. The number of people working in construction fell to 166,600 from 171,300.

            Total hours worked shrank 0.8 per cent to a seasonally adjusted 73.18 million and were down 2 per cent from a year earlier.

            Youths aged 15 to 24 not in employment, education or training (NEET), a target demographic for the government, rose to 13.4 per cent from 13.1 per cent in the June quarter.

            Protestors slam welfare reforms

            “John Key himself grew up in state housing and his mother was a solo parent enjoying all of the benefits of the welfare state. That enabled him to enjoy a decent education and eventually led to him being able to become the parasite he has become,” Minto said.

            He was also critical of current moves to transform state housing.

            “If you look at housing, state houses are being pulled down or moved off their site, and the land prepared for private property investors to come in and build housing,” Minto said.

            “When the Government moves and gets rid of state housing it means that people lose their income related rents, they have to go private and people move from having to pay $90 a week, if you’re on benefit, to paying $300 a week so it’s another way to screw the public.”

            Working poor’ lift food bank demand

            A growing number of “working poor” in Southland are putting a strain on food banks as people struggle with job cuts.

            Demand for food parcels at the Invercargill Salvation Army Food Bank has doubled this year compared with last year.

            Volunteer Jan Smithies said the food bank supplied 483 clients with food parcels between June 1, 2010 and June 1, 2011 but it had supplied 821 in the 2011-2012 year.

            UNICEF Report – Government Policy Impacting Child Poverty Levels

            The report maintains that poverty is not an inevitable situation but is susceptible to government policy. Dennis McKinlay, Executive Director at UNICEF NZ, said, “The Government needs to do a lot better for our children in New Zealand. As this report shows, policy choices have a significant impact on the lives of our young people. The right choices give young people the opportunity for a good start in life and have the ability to solve some of our most serious social problems.”

            New Zealand’s spending on children and families is relatively high on the league table at 3%of GDP. McKinlay added, “It could be said that a good proportion of that spending is in remedial services, to counter the effect of low spending in the early years of a child’s life, which is less than half of the OECD average.

            The list of Nationals failures goes on and on. Clearly comparing David Shearers throw away comment with the sustained and extensive abuse of the poor by John Keys National government is entirely deluded! There is no comparison, only a fool would think otherwise.
            • Jackal 10.2.1.2.1.1

              2 December 2012 at 2:21 pm

              Sorry, used the wrong quote from that first article:

              From October, the 30,000 people on the domestic purposes, widow’s or woman-alone benefits will have to be work-tested for part-time employment once their youngest child turns 5, and for full-time roles when their youngest child turns 14.

              Having an extra child while on a benefit will bring only a 12-month reprieve from these obligations _ a disincentive to having more children.

              […]

              Greens’ co-leader Metiria Turei said the changes would result in solo mothers spending less time with their children during their most crucial development years.

              But Mr Key defended the moves, saying the current welfare system cost $8 billion a year to pay benefits to 351,000 people _ 13 per cent of the working population.

              “It’s costing taxpayers a lot of money but it’s also not delivering good outcomes for those who are on it.”

              A second stage of welfare reforms – affecting the unemployment, sickness and invalids benefits – will take effect in July next year.

              So these changes are clearly designed to save the government money, which effectively means less money in the hands of beneficiaries. That equals more hardship and increasing child poverty rates, which seems entirely unfair to me while the rich are getting richer from tax cuts and huge increases in the top wage bracket.
              • Colonial Viper …

                2 December 2012 at 2:54 pm

                I notice you quoted Metiria Turei’s criticism of the DPB, widows and woman-alone benefit changes.

                What was Shearer’s (or Labour’s?) response to the issue?

                Clearly comparing David Shearers throw away comment with the sustained and extensive abuse of the poor by John Keys National government is entirely deluded!

                How exactly does a “throw away comment” end up at the top of Shearer’s pre-prepared press/speech release?

                Do you think that Shearer approve those comments when they were written in to his speech and distributed to the media?

                Can you not acknowledge that those comments were put there deliberately, and not as a throw-away mistake?
                • Jackal …

                  2 December 2012 at 3:17 pm

                  I have no idea about the mechanisms used by Shearers speech writers Colonial Viper, or indeed if he even uses them. My statement about it being a throw away comment is that I think it’s trivial. Shearer says Labour doesn’t like people ripping the system off… It’s hardly a new or groundbreaking statement is it?

                  Here’s a good place to start re Labours response to Nationals welfare reforms. But again that’s not what the debate is really about.

                  xtasy believes, and it appears you and Draco T Bastard agree with him/her, that what David Shearer said in a speech is comparable with National’s sustained attack on beneficiaries.

                  There’s a huge disconnect in that argument, firstly that it’s something that Shearer has said while it’s destructive policy that National has actually implemented. One thing has caused some outrage but relatively no social harm, while the other has caused serious hardship for a large amount of Kiwi families. Therefore there is no comparison CV.

                  Perhaps it might be advantageous to resolve that issue before we get sidetracked about whether what Shearer said was right or wrong?

                  If you actually want me to engage in that thoroughly thrashed topic again, at least tell me what the guy Shearer was talking to actually told him about the sickness beneficiary painting his roof… Being that you are so outspoken on this topic you presumably know this already?
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    2 December 2012 at 3:26 pm

                    Whaaa? Shearer made the comment, you’re giving it a pass because you think what – it was an insignificant accident (even though it ended up at the top of the press release)? – and now you want me to explain how it came about? Nah mate. That’s not how it works.

                    Secondly, your insistence that Shearer would be somewhat better than Key and Bennett for beneficiaries is fine, that’s a safe conclusion.
                    • Jackal …

                      2 December 2012 at 5:35 pm

                      I thought you were the one requesting me to explain how Shearers speeches were devised Colonial Viper? Yep! Here it is:

                      How exactly does a “throw away comment” end up at the top of Shearer’s pre-prepared press/speech release?

                      Did I give it a pass? News to me… Actually what I said is that I think it’s trivial in comparison to Nationals beneficiary bashing, which was the initial topic of debate Colonial Viper. Your avoidance of answering that question is telling.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      2 December 2012 at 5:47 pm

                      Don’;t be a fucking idiot. A Labour Leader needs to be doing way better than needing excuses for the occasional, deliberately placed bene bashing comment.
                    • Jackal …

                      2 December 2012 at 6:00 pm

                      You’re being the idiot Colonial Viper for thinking a single statement in a speech by Shearer is comparable to the extensive damage National has caused to our society through its extensive and detrimental welfare reforms. But carry on trying to sidetrack with some baseless abuse.

                      Just incase you missed it, Shearer didn’t retract the statement… So I’m not sure where the “A Labour Leader needs to be doing way better than needing excuses for the occasional, deliberately placed bene bashing comment” statement comes from. Labour have not made any excuses fuckwit!
              • Adele …

                2 December 2012 at 3:39 pm

                Jackal,

                The tone of your argument infers that Labour under Shearer is likely to reverse National’s welfare reforms. If so, why have they not stated such forcefully and unequivocally?
                • Jackal …

                  2 December 2012 at 5:42 pm

                  I’m not sure that’s really the case Adele, as if I thought that I would have just come out and said as much.

                  In turn you’re implying that Labour somehow agrees with Nationals beneficiary bashing policies, despite the link above to numerous press releases by Labour clearly showing that they don’t.
                  • Adele …

                    2 December 2012 at 7:52 pm

                    Jackal,

                    In turn you’re implying that Labour somehow agrees with Nationals beneficiary bashing policies, despite the link above to numerous press releases by Labour clearly showing that they don’t.

                    Well, given that Labour has issued numerous press releases saying that they don’t agree with National’s beneficiary bashing policies, it should be a fairly easy step for the Labour Party to then elevate the rhetoric to a full-blown policy annoucement that effectively says:

                    “We abhor the current government’s stance towards those on benefits particularly solo parents, youth, the unemployed, and the sick. A Labour government will repeal all legislation enacted by this National government to the detriment of beneficiaries, and will restore benefit levels to a rate commensurate with a benchmark standard of living.”

                    To do less would suggest, amongst other things, a Labour Party full of rhetoric only.
              • xtasy …

                3 December 2012 at 1:28 am

                Jackal: Thanks for putting all that together!

                While you were busy collating all that information, did it not strike you that Metiria Turei (Greens) and John Minto (Mana) expressed vocal disapproval of the government’s failed policies and attacks on the poor?

                You also quote information from certain agencies, but where is just one comment from a Labour spokesperson, let alone David Sheaerer on this?

                I was at that one protest in Henderson by the way, and there were also some from Labour. But I saw no Labour MP there, regrettably.

                Other protests do get a lot of support from Mana, and some also from the Greens. It has been witnessed with frustration that support from Labour has over years been rather small and limited.

                This is what I and others have been noticing. So it does not develop much trust, I am afraid.
        • seeker 10.2.1.3

          2 December 2012 at 6:25 pm

          Well Jackal, David Shearer publicly undermined, humiliated and dismissed probably the best member of his front bench two weeks ago. He appeared to do this quite arbitrarily based on hearsay and media hype and continues to provide no evidence for his decision to ‘execute’ David Cunliffe.

          I find arbitrary leaders distasteful and divisive. Charles I lost his head for arbitrary leadership which cost Britain a civil war. Thatcher’s love of it eventually led to her down fall having cost many people much suffering under her arbitrary and divisive ‘reign’. She was always asking imperiously”are they one of us?” .

          Hence, by witnessing Shearer’s actions the other week, I felt that he showed weak leadership that lacked justice and integrity when he pronounced such a draconian and smearing pronouncement on Cunliffe using not a shred of evidence to back his “judgement”. And then relied on weak, unquestioning people to ‘unite’ and follow him. Well not for me. this sort of leader can lead to allsorts of unprincipled decisions, hence my acknowledgement of Key’s outstanding skills in this area. If Shearer is so unprincipled as to use his manipulated ‘backing’ power to condemn unjustly ( i.e. no evidence), who knows where he may tread next. Labour is meant to stand for justice, otherswise what is the point?

          An unprincipled man cannot lead a country justly, and my observation of Shearer’s injustice on November 20th 2012 is what prompted me to write my “silly argument” comment (10.2) December 1.
          I ended with a ‘warning’ or ‘prophecy’ that he could become as divisive as Key.
          His unwise pronouncement has already caused much division in a party I had never thought to become divided from.

          I was also prompted to mention my concerns regarding my severe division in thought from both you and Ianmac who I had usually concurred with when reading, imo, your generally principled, observant and insightful comments. And that, Jackal, is without mentioning your very fine, of the moment, socially aware and highly necessary almost watchdog for social integrity blogsite on which you must work so hard and which I fervently usually appreciate.

          Thus based on an almost physical aversion to injustice, and not wanting to waste anymore time for this country and our children, I will not allow myself to be led up the garden path by media and peer hype over someone, Shearer, I have observed to prove themself to be not up to the job of leadership. Nor will I unite with him, as I don’t trust him now, anymore than I, and many others, know not to trust Con Key.

          However slight and easily glossed over one may feel this proof to be, all I can say Jackal is ‘this blogger, firmly on planet earth, is not for glossing’.
          • Jackal 10.2.1.3.1

            2 December 2012 at 6:41 pm

            That’s funny seeker, as I thought it was also a number of people on this site that ensured Cunliffe was publicly undermined, humiliated and dismissed two weeks ago.

            As for showing:

            “weak leadership that lacked justice and integrity when he pronounced such a draconian and smearing pronouncement on Cunliffe using not a shred of evidence to back his judgement”

            …I would have thought that the evidence was pretty clear from the torrent of posts here and elsewhere. Have those various comments and their influence somehow vanished from your memory seeker? To expect Labour to just ignore them would I’m sure elicit even more condemnation.

            Being that most people viewed Shearers actions as strengthening his position as leader of the Labour party, and there was a unanimous vote for him to remain in that position from the caucus, I really don’t see how you can honestly say that Labour is divided?

            And that, Jackal, is without mentioning your very fine, of the moment, socially aware and highly necessary almost watchdog for social integrity blogsite on which you must work so hard and which I fervently usually appreciate.

            Thanks seeker for a very nice thing to say. You know that although I am very forthright in my arguments (some would say unpleasant) I hope that this doesn’t cause any rifts on topics where we might agree in the future.

            Can I also add that I have observed the opposite to you about David Shearer. I think he will make a good Prime Minister and have no ulterior motives in saying so. Being that Labour has recently increased in the polls, and can now easily form a government with the Greens and Mana, I would have to conclude that ianmac and myself are not the only ones to think so.
            • seeker 10.2.1.3.1.1

              2 December 2012 at 7:52 pm

              Thanks for your prompt reply Jackal. Am trying to reply before my aged computer crashes for as long as it wants to again.

              I am sure we will agree on the majority of topics in the future as I perceive you to be a person of integrity. And I like and admire that in a person, as you will have realised.
              As far as David Shearer goes, however, I respect the fact that your observation of him leads you to a very different opinion of him to mine, and that you are in the good company of Ianmac and others. Though I and my opinion are in the good company of other respected commenters too. Division?
              I can only say that time will tell which observation and therefore which of our opinions will prevail. I must say I have surprised myself at the depth and strength of my opinion about Shearer, which has it’s roots in the Thatcher era I think. Am eternally suspicious now since her repetitive treacherous phrase “are they one of us?” of her own countrymen and even more so since the rise and spin of Honest Con Key.
              I carry my “gross lack of principle, integrity and justice” diviner with me at all times.

              Meanwhile, I wish you well and thankyou for the stirling work you do on your really worthwhile blog. Long may it continue, it is so needed, for ‘divining’ of the best quality.
11. Fortran 11

    1 December 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Should not Policy cover a broad church, as very few of the potential elctorate could care less re Fracking and Kyoto as neither puts food in their mouths, or get jobs, or pay rents or mortgages.
    Get real to proper policy – 196 houses a day is a good start, and get Parker a hand calculator so he can get his arithmatic right.
    • RedLogix 11.1

      1 December 2012 at 6:35 pm

      and get Parker a hand calculator so he can get his arithmatic right.

      And while we’re at it someone install a spell checker for this man. I think there must be an internet law about this sort of thing.
12. Poission 12

    1 December 2012 at 3:24 pm

    And it is shameful that the National Government is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. New Zealand should be leading the charge on climate change – instead we are now seen as one of the world’s climate wreckers.

    The KP is a dead duck,it is an oversome complex tome with an overbearing framework that will do little in reducing radiative forcing, and without capturing emergent nations such as India and China.

    In contrast with the Montreal protocol we had less so called interference from the political spectrum,and more science based resolutions for mitigation and some remarkable results in terms from both a world avoided with the ozone depletion and its effects on climate change (an indirect effect) ie reducing GHG gases equivalents (O3 depleters are also GHG) by five times the total emission reductions that were possible under the KP.eg UNEP Assessment 2011

    The Montreal Protocol and its Amendments and Adjustments have made large contributions toward reducing global greenhouse gas emissions (Figure ES-1). In 2010, the decrease of annual ODS emissions under the Montreal Protocol is estimated to be about 10 gigatonnes of avoided CO2-equivalent1 emissions per year, which is about five times larger than the annual emissions reduction target for the first commitment period (2008–2012) of the Kyoto Protocol.

    Secondly the observed changes in the southern hemisphere climate are primary results of ODS eg UNEP,

    There is increased evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole has affected the surface climate in the Southern Hemisphere. Climate models demonstrate that the ozone hole is the dominant driver of the observed changes in surface winds over the Southern Hemisphere mid and high latitudes during austral summer. These changes have contributed to the observed warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and cooling over the high plateau. The changes in the winds have also been linked to regional changes in precipitation, increases in sea ice around Antarctica, warming
    of the Southern Ocean, and a local decrease in the ocean sink of CO2.

    Niwa is an important part of the MP it also maintains the main datasets ,Here reductions in funding by both the NP (Lauder) and previous Governments have decreased the ability of the NZ scientific community to both maintain some of the NZ and pacific recording stations to provide continuous coverage for ongoing research.
    • xtasy 12.1

      1 December 2012 at 7:52 pm

      So, what does Shearer say on this?
13. Anne 13

    1 December 2012 at 8:25 pm

    … reductions in funding by both the NP (Lauder) and previous Governments have decreased the ability of the NZ scientific community to both maintain some of the NZ and pacific recording stations to provide continuous coverage for ongoing research.

    It started in the 1970s and has gathered momentum particularly in the past 4 years since the election of the NAct government. What is so ironic: global warming (or Greenhouse gases as it was called back in the 70s) became a major issue around the same time. So, what did governments around the globe do? They cut back on funding so that it became increasingly difficult for scientists to prove their thesis and allowed the mad deniers to gain false credibility.

    Shearer was the Labour spokesperson for Science and Innovation before he became the Labour leader, and he showed a considerable amount of knowledge on the subject.
    • xtasy 13.1

      1 December 2012 at 9:05 pm

      I accept this, where is he communicating his knowledge and understanding, please?

      I see him well placed as a minister for education, tertiary education or perhaps a science related job. I stated this repeatedly. My criticism about Shearer is: He is NOT the RIGHT type of leader for the whole party. That is all I have to say, yet again. I do not think he is bad or totally incompetent. He can do some good jobs and he proved it working on UN projects.

      But to lead the main opposition party, up against a political manipulator and “rogue” like Key, more is needed than David Shearer can offer. Thank you!
14. Anne 14

    2 December 2012 at 9:05 am

    Hang on xtasy, I wasn’t attempting to belittle or argue with anyone’s views on Shearer. I agree totally with you. I was merely responding to Poission’s comment and pointing out Shearer seems to have the knowledge and understanding to make a good Minister for the Sciences.
    That’s all.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS