The Standard line: Showerheads

41 comments on “The Standard line: Showerheads ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tim Ellis 1

   15 October 2008 at 9:41 am

   SP, could you please explain what “the Standard Line” means?

   Labour would say it was not Labour Policy to outlaw occasional smacking of children. It was Green policy to do so. A policy option comes up, with a recommendation to change the building code. Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code.

   That sounds like it does contradict your statement that it was never Labour Party policy to limit water flows.

   If we take the 2005 election as a precedent, Helen Clark said it would be unnatural to ban smacking. The Greens are very supportive of limiting shower flows. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is resurrected if Labour wins government again.

   We know what the Greens’ instinct is. We also know what Labour’s instinct is–the initial decision.
2. higherstandard 2

   15 October 2008 at 9:58 am

   SP

   1. I thought you were a stronger supporter of the Green party than the Labour party – this policy is clearly environmentally friendly and should rightly be championed by the Greens and yourself.

   2. I thought the Standard was a forum made up of various posters with differing views (As Lynn frequently points out) – is this no longer the case ? Are you now the mouthpiece for The Standard ?

   [lprent: And still do say. Just a ‘standard’ phrase that is now wasting some of my precious time 🙄 answering questions ❗ ]
3. Steve Pierson 3

   15 October 2008 at 9:59 am

   Tim. ‘what is the standard line’ read the post.
4. Pete 4

   15 October 2008 at 9:59 am

   Ministries come up with policy ideas all the time. It is important that new ideas are discussed. Some of them are pretty oddball but unless they have been accepted by the politicians they are not official policy. The Minister for Housing, Shane Jones, has firmly said the Government and the Labour party will not be accepting this idea.

   Hmmm so Shane Jones was never briefed by officials on the consultation document? I find that VERY hard to believe. Perhaps an OIA request asking for all relevant documents is in order but then I’m guessing the Department of Housing will fudge release of any documentation until well after the election…

   Bad look for Mister Jones supposedly one of the bright spark Labour MPs of the future.
5. r0b 5

   15 October 2008 at 10:02 am

   If we take the 2005 election as a precedent

   Sadly that seems to be exactly what National are doing. Crosby Textor tactics, tax cuts as their only issue, let us hope however that they are going to refrain from the kind of tactics that cost Don Brash his political career.

   Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code.

   Could you link to that announcement please? I’d be interested to have a look.
6. Tim Ellis 6

   15 October 2008 at 10:09 am

   SP I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying, and I did read the post, which is evident because I commented on the substance of it. The post title is “The Standard line:…”. I don’t want to appear pedantic, and I’m just seeking clarification.

   What does “The Standard line” mean? Does it mean “the official view of the blog known as The Standard”, or does it mean something else?

   [lprent: Nope – posters write as individuals. I’d guess that it is some kind of play on the association between the sites name and a common political phrase.]
7. Doug 7

   15 October 2008 at 10:11 am

   Rob

   Check out this site.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10536755
8. Paul 8

   15 October 2008 at 10:15 am

   So back to planet earth (what’s with the semantic chess?)

   This illustrates how bad they want to get into power. They are willing to lie their ass off and we in New Zealand have a good press but a bloody spineless pathetic press when it comes to being critical of the so called facts.

   He’s a lying bastard and until the day the media in NZ picks up on any of the politicians lies (red, blue, green or brown – or Vanilla) then we are going to get shat on from on high time and time again. And they think tagging is the start of crime – think again, it bloody well starts with those habitual liars.
9. Ianmac 9

   15 October 2008 at 10:16 am

   Tim Ellis said:”Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code.”
   This is another flat lie. Shane Jones said:” There was a discussion document put out for industry discussion re: conservation of power/energy. The 6litres pm was one of the suggestions like insulating hw cylinders. The 6 litre shower is out of the question, unless of course conservation minded people would like to choose so.”
10. Tim Ellis 10

    15 October 2008 at 10:17 am

    It’s too early in the day to feel so venomous Paul. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?
11. Dom 11

    15 October 2008 at 10:20 am

    Paul Henry misled everyone during the interview with Jones. He complained that the online calculator was complicated. What he showed to the public was the workings behind the online calculator – not the calculator itself which is fairly tame for these types of things.

    Jones himself is up the food chain and might not have realised that himself…

    Course, this is the same Henry who cheers during Breakfast when a caller says they are voting National… And who once told a wife who thought she was a lesbian on How’s Life that it was just a phase and to go back to her husband. I hope I never run into him in the street…
12. r0b 12

    15 October 2008 at 10:23 am

    Rob Check out this site.

    Thanks Doug, but I don’t see the announcement that Tim referred to. “We won’t make the changes until the rule is firmed up, which they say is going to be the end of October” – so obviously possible regulations are being discussed, not final ones.

    Ianmac said: “This is another flat lie. Shane Jones said: ‘There was a discussion document put out for industry discussion’ “.

    So Tim – is that it? Or do you have an actual source for your claim?
13. Tim Ellis 13

    15 October 2008 at 10:27 am

    ianmac, let’s deal with the idea that the flow-limit on showerheads was just a policy option that the Government hadn’t decided on:

    The DBH’s website says:

    Changes to the energy efficiency provisions in the Building Code and H1 Compliance Document were consulted on in May 2007. Following on from this, the Building Code has recently been amended to require hot water systems in houses and HVAC systems in commercial buildings to be more energy efficient. Corresponding changes to the H1 Compliance Document need to be finalised.

    Followed by:

    The changes to the Building Code Clause H1 come into force on the 1 February 2009. The amended H1 Compliance Document will be published at the end of October 2008.

    This was not just an idea put up by an official. It was the intended outcome. It would have been the outcome if a big fuss had not erupted over it.
14. Steve Pierson 14

    15 October 2008 at 10:28 am

    ‘The Standard line’ is a pun – this blog is called ‘The Standard’, people try to run their ‘standard lines’ in debate or argument, this series of posts is intended to arm people with some basic arguments for various issues – hence ‘the standard line’… like most of my humour, it is self-deprecating

    if you read the post you will quite clearly see that it dos not claim to be the official opinion of all the Standard writers anymore than any other post does.
15. higherstandard 15

    15 October 2008 at 10:37 am

    You, self-deprecating ?
16. r0b 16

    15 October 2008 at 10:41 am

    That’s fascinating Tim, but I was looking for the source of your claim that: “Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code”. Do you have a source for that?
17. Felix 17

    15 October 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Tim if you’re going to lie, at least make it entertaining.

    Also, do you think the words disappear from the page when you make a new comment or something? We can all read exactly what you wrote so please, come up with a better story.

    So boring.
18. Ianmac 18

    15 October 2008 at 12:21 pm

    I guess the shower limit is just another effort to label Labour as “Nanny State.” This Tim, will haunt you should National have to take on governing responsibility. Just imagine, that now the population is tuned into the Nanny state mythology, every time a Government plan is introduced there will be the silly call that “National is Nanny State!”
19. John Stevens 19

    15 October 2008 at 12:45 pm

    I liked the suttle rebuttal from HC last night saying that it is not Labour policy to introduce the 6l/min showerheads. That may be true, but it will be a Lab/Grn govt that would pass this legislation as Lab would not have the numbers in govt.

    Remind me again what HC said about parental displicing before the 2005 election? Then blame repeal of the S59 defence on the Greens when Lab MPs were told that they had to back the Bradford bill.

    You cannot trust Labour not passing this into law one way or another if re elected with the Greens.
20. John Stevens 20

    15 October 2008 at 12:47 pm

    National want to move away from the nanny state. It will be a hard road though after the surplus has been Cullenated.

    They want to instill In-dependence, not dependence when it comes to state help. Even the MP are tring to get rid of the dole.
21. randal 21

    15 October 2008 at 1:47 pm

    the national line is meatheads unite
22. higherstandard 22

    15 October 2008 at 1:52 pm

    The Randal line is gibber gibber, rant, misspell, don’t use apostrophes, belch !
23. Tim Ellis 23

    15 October 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Come on HS, Randal’s entertaining! I do sometimes wonder if he’s a right-winger pretending to be a Labour Party troll. Everything he says is pretty inoffensive, and sometimes quite funny, because he takes such a ludicrous position so often.

    SP, thank you for your clarification on the use of the term “the Standard line”. I’m still a bit perplexed by it, but it’s not a big issue. It was obviously a degree of subtlety that was lost on me.

    r0b and Felix, I don’t resign from my position that the showerhead issue was almost certainly going to be included in the building code, and that the tone of Shane Jones statement was to defend its inclusion, before the PM shut it down. The Government had already done its consulation 18 months ago and had written the amendment to the Building Code, which was due to come into force in a few months’ time.

    It is fair and reasonable to say that it wasn’t Helen Clark’s intention to limit shower pressure, because I very much doubt she knew about it. Shane Jones clearly knew about it–perhaps after the fact and only after protests, but his initial position last week was to defend it. That was a wrong judgement call on his part. In the scope of things it really is pretty trivial, but it’s trivial things like this that have the potential to flare up and derail campaigns.
24. randal 24

    15 October 2008 at 2:58 pm

    tim ellis. It is not easy being green! hs take three thorazine and go to bed.
25. randal 25

    15 October 2008 at 3:05 pm

    you see tim I have worked for large enterprises and understand economies of scale and toeing the corporate line and the sacrificing of individuality to the greater purpose. I also understand the power of compound interest and double entry bookkeeping but I treat them as inventions and not laws for the domination of other human beings. As Adam Smith said the primary goal of employers is the command over labour. It has more psychological imprtance than money. so think about that while all the little tinopot tories go vibrating off into a positive futuure its all crap desinged to obscure their pathological desire to tell other people what to do.
26. tony norriss 26

    15 October 2008 at 3:30 pm

    There is a much stronger case for government interference so far as light-bulbs go. Labour are legislating to force people to use the economy versions. No grounds to dispute that. Typical nanny-state stuff.

    I tried one the other day. It purported to be 15W but equivalent in brightness to a 60W bulb. Well, it took about 20mins to reach maximum brightness, and when it did, it was nothing like the 60W equivalent for brightness. It said on the box it would last up to seven years. It died within three days. Also, there is the dangers of mecury poisoning when they break.

    Sounds like a bad joke, yet its still going to be forced on the country if Labour get back in.
27. Felix 27

    15 October 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Tim you’re doing it again. Here’s what you said first:
    “Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code.”

    And now you say:
    “I don’t resign from my position that the showerhead issue was almost certainly going to be included in the building code”

    So essentially you admit that your first statement was pulled out of your arse.

    You’re not even a good liar Tim, and certainly no more than an amateur thinker. Back up what you said or apologise for misleading the house.
28. Tim Ellis 28

    15 October 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Felix thank you for the lesson in integrity from somebody who calls other people liars from the veil of anonymity.

    Shane Jones said:

    The Facts are:

    • The proposed amendments are only intended for new homes and additional water systems and will not apply to existing homes unless a whole new system is installed.

    • The rules are to improve the energy efficiency of hot water systems and will help people save money on their energy bills.

    • The low-flow rate is not mandatory. People will have an option to use a shower head of their choice.

    • A high-flow head could be used if an efficient heating system is installed, like a heat pump or a solar system. The important point is the over-all energy efficiency of the water heating system.

    That was the standard due to come in force in a few months’ time. Shane Jones’ initial reaction was to defend it. He only canned it when the PM reined him in.
29. r0b 29

    15 October 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Felix thank you for the lesson in integrity

    Good, because you need it. It is starting to look like your style to mix lies in with reasonable argument and the usual spin. The only question is whether this is down to a genuinely distorted world view (you genuinely believe your incorrect claims) or whether it is completely deliberate propaganda (you know exactly what you’re doing).

    The bullet points you have quoted above come from here here. They make it clear that what is discussed is “proposed amendments” which are “not mandatory“. And you missed a couple out:

    • The Department of Building and Housing have consulted on the proposals. All submissions will be carefully evaluated before a final decision is made.

    • Any such measures will come into force after a full and considered reflection on the consultation.

    This is so far from your original claim that it ain’t even funny.
30. Tim Ellis 30

    15 October 2008 at 5:35 pm

    r0b, again I value your attempt, behind the veil of anonymity, to accuse other people of lying, when you don’t have the integrity to put your own name to the accusation.

    Did you see the Close Up show on Monday? Shane Jones pretty much conceded it would have gone ahead if there had not been a public backlash against it. The regulation was due to come into force in a couple of months’ time. Spare me the sophistry of a consultation process. You don’t change regulations just a couple of months before they’re due to come into force, eighteen months after the official consultation round, unless you’ve faced overwhelming public pressure.

    If this issue had been outside the confines of an election campaign (like the smacking issue), then the Government would have ploughed ahead with it.

    And now it’s over to you to ignore the overwhelming evidence and nit-pick tiny holes in what I’ve said. You might ask me to define the word “the”, or produce a reference as to whether Shane Jones really is the responsible minister.
31. r0b 31

    15 October 2008 at 5:43 pm

    r0b, again I value your attempt, behind the veil of anonymity

    Don’t get all snotty Tim, anonymity is the norm on blogs. How do we know Tim Ellis is your real name? We don’t. And we don’t care – why should we? You are the quality of your arguments here, that’s one of the things I like about it.

    As for the lie with which you started this thread, you should really stop digging comrade. You said “Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code”. It’s a bit of a worry that you regard being called on a blatant lie a “nit-pick”.
32. Tim Ellis 32

    15 October 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Anonymity isn’t the norm on blogs r0b. It seems to be the norm from trolls.

    [lprent: You’re incorrect. It is more common for people to use anonymity than real names exposed. It has been that way since the networks started linking when I was was a student for the first time. In the end it is peoples ideas rather than their identities that carries weight.

    There are very few people whose real identity carries any weight on the nets – after all you seldom know where they acquired it from. However a good strong on-line personality does carry weight. You can search for it and see what they said and thought decades ago as you can with ‘lprent’. You do have to know where to look of course.]
33. randal 33

    15 October 2008 at 5:55 pm

    notice how its all the tinpot tories who find it vitally importan to be so CLEAN. must be the blood of the workers on their hands!
34. r0b 34

    15 October 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Anonymity isn’t the norm on blogs r0b.

    Oh don’t be silly. At the time of posting the “Latest Comments” column listed various nicks. Ten (taken at face value or with public context) I would classify as not anonymous: Tim Ellis, Rex Widerstrom, Ron Hanson, lprent, bill brown, tony norriss, jo zinny, Steve Pierson, John Stevens, Brian Dooley.

    Anonymous posters? Thirty three: r0b, barnsleybill, higherstandard, Quoth the Raven, insider, Robinsod, Bill, simon, Weather Eye Of The North, pdm, Roflcopter, gobsmacked, Ben R, Felix, Peter, Aj, Scribe, bobo, Tane, randal, Dom, vidiot, Paul, Daveski, Pascal’s bookie, Nick, Hauraki, Ianmac, Ari, mondograss, milo, burt, rosa.

    Anonymity is the norm on blogs Tim. This is the second time I’ve seen you called on a lie, and trying as a last resort to appeal to your use of the nick “Tim Ellis” as some proof of your moral superiority (the “argument from authority”). Doesn’t work that way. Here our demographics and socio-political signs and signifiers are null and void. Here we are the quality of our arguments. You need to lift yours – a little basic fact checking before you post.

    I’ve still got work to do before the day is done, so bye now.
35. Felix 35

    15 October 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Right Tim (if that is your real name), so if you were 100% sure that you knew exactly who r0b or I were, then you could bring yourself to admit that you’ve been caught out in a bare-faced lie.

    And not for the first time – it’s a pattern with you. You start with a complete lie, then when challenged you argue some trivial side issue until people forget what the discussion was about or get bored and leave. Then you claim you were never arguing that point anyway.

    And now you label others “trolls” because we see through and call you on your shallow, transparent bullshit.

    Lets have it again: “Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code”

    Your words. Back them up, whoever you are.
36. randal 36

    15 October 2008 at 6:28 pm

    he’s busy in the shower…not clean enough yet.
37. dad4justice 37

    15 October 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Do you shower once a decade randal?
38. randal 38

    15 October 2008 at 7:16 pm

    I never shower at all dad.
39. higherstandard 39

    15 October 2008 at 7:20 pm

    And I thought the pong was just the stilton and pickled onions I had after dinner.

Links to post

1. Nevermind » Washed Out: posted on 15 October 2008 at 9:47 pm
2. Fact checkin’ round 2 at The Standard 2.02: posted on 3 November 2008 at 7:58 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS