Who gives a hooton about climate change?

Written By: - Date published: 11:47 am, June 10th, 2018 - 125 comments
Categories: climate change, economy, energy, Environment, global warming, greens, jacinda ardern, james shaw, labour, Media, megan woods, newspapers, sustainability, uncategorized - Tags: ,

Matthew Hooton and Fran O’Sullivan have recently published articles in the Herald criticising Labour’s decision to stop off shore oil exploration.  Hooton thinks it was part of a nefarious plot designed to divert attention away from other issues and O’Sullivan thinks it was “disturbingly Orwellian”.  Are such criticisms valid?

Hooton writes well. Each sentence is spun the maximum possible amount and after finishing reading a typical Hooton column your first impression is how could he possibly be wrong?

But then when you check the detail …

In his article he postulates that Labour’s announcement of a halt to the block offer process was a cunning plan to divert attention, not a far sighted decision taken to get the country to a position where it is carbon neutral.  He says this:

It’s now clear Jacinda Ardern’s announcement in April to end new oil and gas exploration was made in the context of the constant political crises that came her way through March.

The ban was not Labour Party policy and was ruled out during the election campaign.

Is that right that it was not actually Labour Party policy?  It seems to me that the policy was pretty clear.

The headline was that Labour would “[e]nsure a just transition to a sustainable low-carbon economy with decent and secure jobs and, as a key to achieving ambitious emissions reduction targets, will establish an independent Climate Commission and carbon budgeting.”

And it said this about future discoveries of oil and gas:

Although the planet is already over halfway to a 2°C increase, the Paris commitment can be achieved through a rapid but just transition to a low-carbon economy. Crucially, fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. Carbon neutrality needs to be achieved worldwide in the second half of this century, with no more greenhouse gases being emitted to the atmosphere than are removed from it.

And in terms of loss of jobs it said this:

Economic transitions can cause major economic and social disruption. They have too often been done poorly in New Zealand, with workers and communities bearing the brunt. It does not need to be that way. A transition can be made equitably to achieve positive outcomes for workers, enhance communities and create new areas of growth.

Labour will provide leadership for a just transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy – one that maximises the benefits of climate action while minimising shocks and hardships for workers and their communities.

So I have to disagree that this was not Labour Party policy.  In fact I would suggest it was completely and utterly consistent with it.

And what about ruling out action during the campaign?  I can’t find a sign of this anywhere.  Perhaps someone could point out where.

Hooton also claims the decision went against official advice in these paragraphs:

Economically, ministers were told the industry was responsible for 8481 jobs nationally, 5941 of them in Taranaki. Discovering even a small new gas field would create 199 new jobs and add $160 million to regional GDP. A large one would boost jobs by 1163 and GDP by $1.4 billion.

On the environmental side, ministers were told the policy would most likely increase global greenhouse emissions, prevent domestic emissions from falling should more gas be found, and risk dirty coal replacing cleaner gas when existing reserves run out in seven years.

Precisely because this initial advice showed the proposal to be economically and environmentally vandalous is the most plausible explanation for why ministers decided to seek no more.

Hooton’s figure of 8481 jobs includes induced jobs.  Any sort of generated economic activity will cause further jobs to be created.  Sustainable energy projects included.  Greenpeace has stated that the equivalent investment in green energy creates four times as many jobs as the same investment in the oil industry.

Yesterday Fran O’Sullivan added to the debate and made similar claims.

She said that the decision was “disturbingly Orwellian”.  How could it be that Ardern was engaging in behaviour which was destructive to the welfare of a free and open society?

She also said this:

Official papers released by her hapless Energy Minister confirm what was already blindingly obvious to anyone who has observed closeup the process of Governmental decision-making — the ban was purely political.

A decision that was kicked upstairs and made by Ardern, NZ First Leader Winston Peters and Greens Leader James Shaw. And rushed through — without being contested through appropriate Cabinet consideration — so it could be announced on April 12 just before the Prime Minister headed to Europe.

What it also confirms — as I wrote in April — is Ardern put her debut as a global climate change warrior ahead of making credible plans to transition New Zealand away from a reliance on fossil fuels towards clean energy.

With the greatest of respect the decision was the end result of the block offer consultation conducted under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.  It was not an off the cuff announcement of untested policy.  The decision this year was to allow one onshore area to be surveyed for the presence of petrochemicals.  This is not a radical decision.  Over the past two years only two block offer survey areas have been taken up by the industry.  And the decision was legally the Minister of Energy’s to make.  There was cabinet consideration of the issue and the Minister’s decision was noted.

My reading of the briefing papers is that everyone, MBIE included, understood that no new block offers for offshore drilling would be made until the Climate Change Commission had reported back to Government.  One briefing paper included this passage:

What about the claim by both Hooton and O’Sullivan that the decision is bad for the environment?

The argument about environmental effects is one that heretofore climate change skeptics raise regularly.  Repeated ad nauseam the argument will mean that nothing will change because there will always be one corner of the world unwilling to stop doing something because somewhere else is slightly worse.  I think we just have to get on with it and start doing what we can locally and trust the rest of the world will do their bit.  And I have a lot of faith that China, the subject of the claim about dirty coal, is already adjusting to a coal free future.

An argument in support of strong action was neatly summarised by James Shaw in this letter dated February 20, 2018 to Megan Woods:

The simple fact is that all of the coal, oil and gas that has already been discovered cannot be burnt if globally we are to meet our Paris Agreement commitments to limit global warming to 1.5-2 degrees. We should not be looking for more.

The United Nations estimated last year that to meet climate targets, 80-90 percent of coal, 50 percent of gas and 35 per cent of oil cannot be burnt.

Realistically, currently known fossil fuel reserves may continue to be extracted and burnt for some time as the global transition to cleaner renewable energy sources takes place. But searching for more fossil fuels does not aid the transition, it delays it.  Every exploration dollar could instead be spent on renewable energy. Every investment creates an asset from which its owners will expect a return.

I urge you to end the Block Offer process for allocating petroleum and minerals permits immediately.  I understand that the most recent Block Offer was set in motion by the previous Government. I do not see any good reason why our new Government should begin another one.

Labour’s block offer announcement was not an attempted diversion from other issues nor part of an Orwellian conspiracy to wreck the Oil industry.  It was totally consistent with party policy.  It is what is required if we as a nation are going to become carbon neutral.

Hopefully the quality of the debate will improve.  This is far too important an issue to get wrong.

125 comments on “Who gives a hooton about climate change?”

  1. Kat 1

    It won’t improve if the Herald has anything to do with the commentary. Just read the utter tosh from HDPA today with headliner – “Greens should be nervous of Winston Peters taking charge” and “It might be quite nice to have an adult in charge for six weeks.”

    The attack on the Labour led coalition govt will be relentless and won’t stop until National drops significantly in the polls and Jacinda Ardern is voted back in with a healthy majority in 2020. National and its sycophantic media commentators are on a mission, not to hold the govt to account but to stir up as much anti govt sentiment through its dirty politics and character smearing commentary.

    • SPC 1.1

      The objective is to as much to intimidate the government by the vehemence of criticism, angry response to any challenge to privilege has always been used to pacify, whether in the home or in parliamentary government.

      • Ed 1.1.1

        Time then for the government to stop being so defensive and take the attack to such free market disciples.

    • patricia bremner 1.2

      IMO National Act are at their most dangerous now, as they are a wounded and humiliated beast.

      Their rancour towards Winston poisons all commentary, plus their mistaken view of Jacinda Ardern as a “girl” in the most demeaning way is a reflection of their “club” mentality.!!

      Hooten and O’Sullivan are putting up the meme, Duplicity etc will jump on board. But more and more people see them as sour.. sans Soper.

      This Coalition Government needs to keep the reforms coming. So many areas to fix.. they are doing great after just a bare 9 months.

      • Rozgonz 1.2.1

        Why should National be humiliated at the moment, for getting the most votes by a country mile in the last election perhaps?

    • Janet 1.3

      What riles me most is that Hooten’s opinion can go un-debated because “comments ” are no longer possible in The Herald . I guess because the public’s true opinion tends to shine through a string of comments and the shit gets sorted!

      • Incognito 1.3.1

        I completely agree!

        It is clear that some parties have an interest in avoiding or shutting down debate of any kind. They are the same who try to corrupt the political process and discourage people from voting let alone participating in our democracy. The result is that it becomes their ‘democracy’ and not ours, which is their goal, of course.

    • Wensleydale 1.4

      Don’t read Granny Herald. It’ll only give you stress-induced ulcers and a thumping migraine. Martyn Bradbury calls it a “troll farm”, and to be honest, I don’t disagree with him in this regard.

  2. Policy Parrot 2

    The question we should be all asking is:
    Is the oil industry delivering kickbacks to the Soper(s) and Hosking(s) columnists in order to get anti-government oil & gas sector opinion pieces published ad nauseam?

    • dukeofurl 2.1

      We know that The Business Round table was fairly openly paying journalists and writers for favourable articles and even ‘topping up’ the Dominions payments for published articles in the late 80 and 90s.

      Yes I know its ‘Investigate’ but what they say is based BRT leaked files. Ive left out some names but those check with the original source

      A source with access to the Roundtable’s confidential files dumped a number of them in the hands of this magazine that show:

      “Not only do the papers obtained by Investigate show XXXXXXXX failed to reveal a conflict of interest regarding her authorship of the book [Redacted], but that she looked forward to continuing her close relationship with the Business Roundtable while supplying “business/economy articles” to North & South and other news media as well.
      XXXXXXX decided to hide from the public the fact that she was secretly drawing a salary from the Business Roundtable because she worried that readers would doubt her journalistic credibility if they knew.”

      A letter from [redacted] to the Roundtable’s [redacted] in March 1994 begins:
      “I would like to write the piece you suggest for the Dominion, accepting NZBRT’s offer to make up payment to one day’s work at the agreed rate.”
      The article was about education.

      Another document shows Roger Kerr offering to top up another columnist’s usual payment from the Dominion by a further $500 “to make it worth the trouble” to write an article where the “thinking is in line with that in our study”.

      http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/14193/deborah-coddington-pinged/?doing_wp_cron=1528599155.9394140243530273437500

      Business groups would likely still be having well known voices on retainer/piece work !

    • Ed 2.2

      I think it’s fairly safe to assume that main leading ‘journalists ‘ and opinion writers are either compromised or paid…..or both.

  3. Macro 3

    When has Matthew Hooton or Fran O’Sullvan been right about anything?

    • dukeofurl 3.1

      Well Hooton did go as far as calling out Joyce and Key over the Sky City as ‘close to corruption’
      https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/skycity-debacle-offers-morbid-fascination

      His final paragraph from 2015 still gives me a scare in light of recent events
      The blundering Mr Joyce has already conceded all of SkyCity’s negotiating points, agreeing there has been and will be considerable construction-cost inflation, suggesting ratepayers and taxpayers might have to cough up ..

      I expect this time next year either Sky City or Fletchers will dump most of the overuns in the taxpayers lap….. you know because ‘we’ agreed to it.

    • James 3.2

      These columns are one series of many where they seem to get together over lunch and decide what to push next. Add in their good friend Don Brash and formerly Stuart Nash, Shane Jones and a couple of others and they had some sort of “power” lunch club meetings every so often.

  4. Tricledrown 4

    Hooton and Wilde both in the back pocket of big business and big oil.

    • Ed 4.1

      They are guilty of betraying the interests of all future citizens of this Earth.
      We need to have laws to deal with such gangsters and traitors.

      • Baba Yaga 4.1.1

        Yes of course, let’s shut down any dissenting opinion. That will lead to a better country. Right?

        • Ed 4.1.1.1

          Big business and the rich get more than their fair share of the opinion we have foisted on us through the corporate media.
          Time for some other voices to be heard.

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.1.1.1.1

            Completely missing the irony that hear you are, your voice published.

            Yet no one listens to what you have to say

          • Tricledrown 4.1.1.1.2

            Ed not satisfied with controlling the media
            They have trolls and minions come on left wing sites bullying BSing cynically trying to demoralize any open conversation.

            • Ed 4.1.1.1.2.1

              Someone described their actions on this site as ‘ trivial sneering ‘ which I thought was very apposite.

              The fact that the right wing troll army that swarms this site takes particular aim at me encourages me as It tells me that the information I post contains inconvenient truths for the narrative they peddle.

              I see I am now a Stalinist.
              Next I’ll be asked to go and live in Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
              These trolls really lack any intellect or originality.

          • babayaga 4.1.1.1.3

            Yes…the best way to win a debate is not to contest ideas you disagree with but to shut them down? Cute. Very Stalinist.

            • In Vino 4.1.1.1.3.1

              When an original idea comes up for the first few times, it is good to debate. But when RWNJ trolls deliver the same old cacklemush up for the nth time, they get their just deserts.

              • Baba Yaga

                What idea are you referring to? The post I was responding to called for the shut down of one particular group on ALL subjects.

                • In Vino

                  Baba – you RWNJs constantly harp on about freedom of speech on occasions like the above.
                  But I remember Germaine Greer being arrested for uttering ‘bloody’, and Tim Shadbolt being arrested for uttering ‘bullshit’ At that time our right wingers like you were endorsing a lost and very bloody war in Viet Nam. I now know who committed the greater crimes as regards that era.
                  Sorry, but there have to be certain limits on Freedom of Speech. But you are deliberately exaggerating what Ed said: in fact you are quoting yourself from your reply in the pretence of defending it. (4.1.1) Ed never agreed to what you said there.
                  Dream on, Baba

                  • Baba Yaga

                    Good grief you’re blaming me for things that happened when I was a child! Mind you, Germaine Greer is making good now.

                    • In Vino

                      No, you are trivialising and avoiding the main point: my paragraph beginning “Sorry, ..”
                      Are you one of the generation with no attention span?

        • patricia bremner 4.1.1.2

          Big money uses Police/Law to control dissenting workers…. often…. so we want that choice when greed damages the nation’s fabric.

        • Rozgonz 4.1.1.3

          That’s how the left operate – their way or the highway

  5. dukeofurl 5

    Ardern refused to rule it out ?

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1709/S00203/jacinda-ardern-refuses-to-stop-deep-sea-oil-drilling.htm
    Press Release: Greenpeace New Zealand
    Tuesday, September 12: Greenpeace has slammed Labour leader Jacinda Ardern for refusing to rule out new deep sea oil drilling, despite comparing climate change to our nuclear-free moment a few weeks ago.
    Ardern made the comments to Radio NZ host Guyon Espiner this morning, after questions about whether she would commit to the Green’s policy of no new oil and gas drilling.

    • mickysavage 5.1

      Thanks.

      Maybe this is what Hooton is referring to although refusing to rule out drilling but then banning drilling is hardly a broken promise.

      • babayaga 5.1.1

        It’s not a broken promise, but it is proof that the decision to ban was NOT Labour policy pre election. Given the lack of consultation with industry, the absence of analysis, the fact that advice from government departments was ignored, and that there was zero cabinet input into the decision, it is no wonder Ardern ran off the day after the announcement was made.

        • Ed 5.1.1.1

          What would you do to tackle issues of climate change?

          • babayaga 5.1.1.1.1

            The oil and gas exploration decision was not about climate change, it was about political expediency, deflecting from a disastrous period for the government politically, and virtue signally to smooth the way for the PM’s trip to Europe. The lack of consultation with the industry, the ‘spray and walkaway’ approach the PM took to the entire matter, was a disgrace.

            • Ed 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Interesting point of view.
              Anyway, pretend you are in power.
              What would you do to tackle climate change?

              • babayaga

                If I was in power in NZ, not much, until the larger emitters played ball. Human induced climate change is only part of the total picture, and NZ’s emissions are a miniscule content. My priority would be the health and welfare of NZ’ers, not building my personal reputation with power brokers of the UN (which is Arderns).

                I also don’t buy a lot of the hysteria. The doomsday merchants of climate change are beginning to sound like death cult, and have actually brought science into disrepute. I’m not prepared to through our national wellbeing under the bus for the sake of the latest hysteria.

                • Ed

                  I’m glad you outed yourself as a climate change denier.
                  Saves me wasting my time debating this and other issues any further with you.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Human induced climate change is only part of the total picture.

                  Yes: the part that we are in a position to do something about. We can’t do much about volcanoes or the sun, and there’s no evidence that they’ve contributed any major part of the warming seen so far anyway.

                  There is no way to explain the global temperature trend if you ignore the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

                  As for “doomsayers” who’ve “brought science into disrepute”, I note that is also a denier talking point created by a third party.

                  Polly wanna cracker?

            • Robert Guyton 5.1.1.1.1.2

              This (babayaga 5.1.1.1.110 June 2018 at 3:32 pm) however, is cacklemush (to use a word seen almost uniquely here on TS in response to the pabulum that issues forth from posters such as Baba Yaga).
              * don’t know how this comment settled here. Abandoning commenting for the evening.

        • mickysavage 5.1.1.2

          babayaga

          Want to read Labour policy which I have set out in the post and tell me how the ban is inconsistent with labour policy?

          And want to read the rest of the post, for instance the link to the Cabinet minute about the decision? And how much analysis do you need concerning climate change?

          • babayaga 5.1.1.2.1

            “Want to read Labour policy which I have set out in the post and tell me how the ban is inconsistent with labour policy?”
            I didn’t claim it was. But what Ardern’s comments show was that it wasn’t Labour policy. Any number of things could be ‘consistent with’ Labour policy, but in the context of threatening an entire industry these are just weasel words.

            “…for instance the link to the Cabinet minute about the decision?”
            You seem to confuse Cabinet being informed with Cabinet being involved in a decision.

            Do you seriously think that a decision to shut down an entire industry, one that ran counter to prevailing advice, including advice that the decision could actually increase greenhouse emissions, should not have undergone a far more robust process?

          • Kat 5.1.1.2.2

            Micky, commentators such as babayaga are entitled to their viewpoint, however those viewpoints appear always an opposing one and laced with inaccuracies. “zero cabinet input into the decision….” is a classic example and shows no desire for facts. The fact that the PM stood in a hall in Wellington in September 2017 and spoke about fossil fuels and climate change does not interest trolls, truth is not part of their game. Hooton is the puppet master of these types.

            • babayaga 5.1.1.2.2.1

              Kat

              1. Ardern is on record as ruling out an end to drilling in September 2017.
              [No she did not. Back this up or you will attract attention for troll like behaviour – MS]
              2. Cabinet did have zero input into the decision. The decision was made despite dissenting advice, including advice that in the context of climate change it could make matters worse.
              3. Ardern speaks a lot, but actually says very little. Her degree is in communications, and her words are vacuous. She’ll make a great UN employee.

              • babayaga

                https://thestandard.org.nz/who-gives-a-hooton-about-climate-change/#comment-1492286

                If she refused to rule out more drilling, she was ruling out an end to drilling. Unless you’re happy to live with her weasel words.

                • Ed

                  Says the climate change denier……….

                  • babayaga

                    …says someone who thinks 100% of climate change is man made.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      That “100% of climate change is man made” claim is
                      SUCH A CROCK (apologies for shouting).

                • mickysavage

                  So refusing to rule out doing something is ruling out not doing something. Do you realise how bizarre your proposition is?

                  • babayaga

                    You’re spinning yourself in circles trying to defend Ardern.

                    It really is quite simple. If the plan to not issue any further permits had been Labour policy at the election, Ardern would not have refused to rule out more drilling. You’re trying to suggest that something that is not inconsistent with Labour policy is, by definition, Labour policy. That is complete nonsense. As is your suggestion that a minute showing cabinet were notified of a decision was evidence they discussed or even debated it.

                  • Kat

                    Micky, time for some facts and clarity. That article in Scoop that babayaga refers to is merely opinion from a Greenpeace representative. If you listen to the tape of Espiners interview with Jacinda Ardern on September 12 2017 (https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201858163/election-2017-leaders-interview-jacinda-ardern) it is clear that her comment on deep sea oil drilling were about the process of transitioning and something she would pursue when in office. The PM had also spoken on moving away from fossil fuels and climate change in Auckland. You can see how the spin masters such as Hooton encourage trolling by taking words out of context and portray them to mean something else.

                • dukeofurl

                  Baba You dont understand how politics works.Let me enlighten you

                  A lot of issues are either or until you are in a position to be the one making a decision. So best to wait until that moment comes

                  Until then, if asked ‘nod your head rather than agree’
                  If pressed says its ‘under discussion’ and then if a particular action is requested ‘ refuse to rule it out.

                  Its pointless trying to work backwards to a particular phrasing for some ‘aha moment’

                  Hooten is lying when he says Labout campaigned on offshore oil drilling and you are doing the same to try to deconstruct policy.

                  Its all clear , the senior people got together and merged a compromise deal for 3 separate parties. Its MMP in action.

                  • babayaga

                    “A lot of issues are either or until you are in a position to be the one making a decision. ”

                    This is Jacinda’s nuclear issue. So no, I don’t swallow that bs.

                    “Its all clear , the senior people got together and merged a compromise deal for 3 separate parties. Its MMP in action.”

                    No, it’s a n abuse of power. If they can initiate 130+ talk fests about every other thing that is supposedly threatening life as we know it, why not allow some time to have the sunlight applied to this policy. The answer is obvious. Political expediency.

                    • Pat

                      This decision and its method have obviously caused you much angst baba….thats a shame.

                    • babayaga

                      Angst? Not sure. All governments make decisions I/we will disagree with. But the arrogance in this case, the lack of consultation, the signals this type of poor governance sends is damaging, not just to labour, but to NZ. The gutlessness of Ardern in not fronting the people of Taranaki earlier is the icing on the cake.

                    • Ed

                      Relentless……….

                    • babayaga

                      Evidence for your claim Ed? Humans are causing 100% of the climate change?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      There it is again “…Humans are causing 100% of the climate change?

                      …”
                      CROCK. OF.
                      Baba, you’re not very … convincing…

                    • Hongi Ika

                      Baby why don’t you put your pyjamas on and jump back into your cot you are an uneducated c**k ?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      There it is again “…Humans are causing 100% of the climate change?
                      …”

                      Robert, that wasn’t my claim, it was Eds.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      “Robert, that wasn’t my claim, it was Eds.”
                      You’re right, Baba Yaga, my apology; please accept it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      @Robert Guyton: Ed didn’t specifically state it: he may simply have been ignoring BY’s accusation, a smart move, considering BY’s habit of twisting words.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Thanks OAB. I’m misfiring just now, so will put head to pillow for the night.

                    • Ed

                      I never said that.
                      Read the transcript carefully.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      ” that wasn’t my claim, it was Eds”
                      That’s dishonesty from you then, Baba Yaga.
                      How… disappointing.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “I never said that.”

                      Yes, you did. You claimed I was a climate change denier for suggesting that mankind was not responsible for the full extent of climate change.

                • Matthew Whitehead

                  Logical fallacy.

                  Refusing to rule something out at a given time does not mean it is going to happen to any specific degree, there is room for eliminating that option in the future. It just means it is still under active consideration for the time being. You are grasping at straws.

                  • Baba Yaga

                    Ruling it out a matter of days before an election, when apparently you had every intention of carrying the decision out after the election (according to some here) is dishonest then?

                    • In Vino

                      No, it is brilliantly skilful political management, as certain Herald writers used to say of John Key every time he pulled far more weasely moves than this was.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “it is brilliantly skilful political management,”

                      So it was deliberate? Even more dishonest then. And that’s before we even consider the incompetence of a policy that will result in “less jobs, less tax, less royalties, less energy security, higher energy costs and an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions” (my thanks to David Farrar).

                    • In Vino

                      Are you slow or what?
                      My implication was that JK was far more crafty and mendacious in weasel-moves, and the MSM praised him for it.
                      As soon as you can find a case where (with foul intent) some bad motive for a Labour Govt action can be found, you and the MSM all leap in and condemn what you would have twisted into praiseworthy for John Key.
                      The irony seems to have been way above your head.

      • Pat 5.1.2

        except for the fact they havnt banned drilling….a minor detail.

  6. Tricledrown 6

    Babygaga repeating Nationals spin without any original editing .
    Pathetic.
    No facts or figures just reheating and repeating lies and propaganda.

  7. I think you need to add this to your comments, just to ram home that point

    https://giphy.com/gifs/sandra-bullock-XhQKOvAUJOeoU

  8. SPC 8

    The ultimate impact is likely to be to reduce the duration of the Methanex plants operation (exploiting the expiring Maui field).

    Which sort of prepares us for the end of Comalco (hydro surplus in the South Island) – as part of zero carbon – using that power for electric battery cars (South Island at least) and more secure (even in dry years) power across the Cook Strait.

    These are “old era” export industries.

  9. JessNZ 9

    Hooton and Wilde are both tools. Figuratively and literally. Previously, they were consistent and uncritical Nat govt media props and now It’s their job to try to destabilise the coalition government, so it would be shocking if they had any other perspective.

    The party line on any government intervention is Nanny State Bad and on any environmental protection is ‘the economy tho’. Later, rinse repeat for their voters to swallow down and regurgitate on social media.

    • Kat 9.1

      And the PM after less than ten months in office gets hounded about “when are we going to see results” and “why haven’t you done this when you said lets do this” and then gets pilloried for making decisions and taking action such as banning any further oil exploration. Makes you wonder what Hooton the spin master will dream up about the govt taking prompt and decisive action on the M Bovis situation.

    • Tamati Tautuhi 9.2

      Both paid MSM trolls or corporate prostitutes.

  10. Ed 10

    It is for this reason that Labour should have put their one of most efficient and competent ministers to tackle the media head on.
    Instead they put Curran on the job.

    Were I in charge, the corporate media would be in full retreat by now.
    The airwaves would be back under control of the citizens of this nation.

    • tc 10.1

      Curran’s way out of her depth in broadcasting and even worse with technology.

      You don’t have to beat up the corporate media it needs to be left alone and compared to independent intelligence offerings. Let in burn baby.

      Revamp RNZ and TVNZ by purging the Nact acolytes and installing proper journalism and kick start the almost dead NZ content driven TV production industry.

      We were very good at making tv for overseas markets in the 90’s and is ripe for a kickstart now almost every production companys been flogged offshore.

      Production across the range (kids, drama, comedy etc) combined with strong news current affairs isn’t that hard, we have the skill sets it takes guts and vision though.

    • Rozgonz 10.2

      “efficient and competent ministers” LOL

  11. Ad 11

    Mickey would you like some assistance turning this into a snappy riposte to Hooten and O’Sullivan for the NZHerald?

  12. R.P Mcmurphy 12

    o’sullivan has always been venal.
    that is her whole raison d’etre.
    people like her do not have the ability to create wealth themselves so they do the next best thing which is become a fawning flunkey to the real rich.

  13. cleangreen 13

    Shades of this is back again eh? ; dirty poliitics part two?????
    At least then pre=2014 election Hooten exposed steven Joyce as a crook.

    http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2014/08/Boag-Hooton-Williams-RadioLIVE-Sunday-morning-31Aug14.mp3 24057464 audio/mpeg

    « Sean Plunket comes around on the Watergate comparison (‘Dirty Politics’)The escape of exnzpat, Part 24 »
    Matthew Hooton’s assertions re the Prime Minister’s Office
    Posted in 31 August 2014Peter Aranyi9 Comments »
    hooton‘Explosive’ is one of those words that gets kicked around in politics and political reporting to the point where it’s almost lost its meaning.

    But it’s not an exaggeration to describe right wing spin doctor and self-declared National Party loyalist Matthew Hooton‘s performance on RadioLIVE this morning as incendiary. He effectively called Prime Minister John Key ‘dishonest’, said the PM’s office and chief of staff Wayne Eagleson is implicated in the Dirty Tricks scandal (viz. the SIS-Goff-OIA affair) and more, described Jason Ede’s black-ops brigade as ‘acting under orders’.

    And in a fiery exchange, he described former National Party President (and present-day apologist) Michelle Boag as ‘a hack’ with ‘no political views’ who is ‘all about is defending a government that has behaved in ways that [are] literally indefensible and you know it’ …

    Listen for yourself.

    UPDATE: The ‘fiery exchange’ has now been highlighted as a RadioLIVE editor’s audio pick here.

    Available on demand at RadioLIVE.co.nz dial up Sunday 10am.*
    Click to listen at Radio LIVE
    Click to listen at Radio LIVE (archived below)

    * I’ve archived it here too (audio player below) because RadioLIVE only keeps 7 days audio available and I’ve noticed sometimes Mediaworks launders its talkback station’s audio feed when things get … contentious.

    Mark Sainsbury hosts ‘Sunday morning’ at RadioLIVE with guests Michelle Boag, Mike Williams, Matthew Hooton & Duncan Garner 31 Aug 2014
    MP3 file

    – P

    enclosure:

    http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2014/08/Boag-Hooton-Williams-RadioLIVE-Sunday-morning-31Aug14.mp3 24057464 audio/mpeg

  14. Hooton , O’Sullivan, Bridges and Collins… the imagery…

    The Featherbrain Championship – YouTube
    Video for front row featherbrain non title fight▶ 4:20

  15. Observer Tokoroa 15

    Why do you waste time MS with Trolls ?

    Persons such as babayaga are just on this blog to try and pose as knowledgeable. When the exact opposite is true.

    If you want to know what a fluff she is – read this : “Baba Yaga is a supernatural being (or one of a trio of sisters of the same name) who appears as a deformed and/or ferocious-looking woman. Baba Yaga flies around in a mortar, wields a pestle, and dwells deep in the forest in a hut usually described as standing on chicken legs.”

    Devoid of IQ

    A slavonic nobody.

    In the few short months that Jacinda has been Prime Minister I have not seen any one best her, or come near her in debate. She has a fine command of her Objectives. Neither is she dishonest or a time waster.

    Also, I will thank this Slavonic nobody to treat the PM with respect.

    • Robert Guyton 15.1

      Observer Tokoroa; don’t underestimate Baba Yaga; the original at least, nor her significance to some of the readers here. Baba Yaga is a powerful figure in mythology and not despised, but respected, by many people who believe in the power and strengths of mythology, Slavic or otherwise. Why one of our political detractors here has chosen the handle, I don’t know. It irks me that he/she (ought to be she, by rights but reads like a he) is using the name; it’s similar to using Kali, for example, but there’s little to be done about that.

  16. Observer Tokoroa 16

    To; Robert Guyton

    I do not wish people who place their belief in childlike Myths any anxiety. Far from it.

    But Baba Yaga is set of three females that waste a hell of lot of time. let them get back to their pestle and chicken legs.

    Because of the Greed of the Capitalist Cult, many New Zealanders are in severe difficulties. Myths are not going to solve that. Not even Slav Theatre will solve the real problems Robert.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts