Open mike 26/03/2015

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 214 comments
Categories: open mike

imageOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

214 comments on “Open mike 26/03/2015”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  2. 2

    the two lessons labour must take away from this northland bye-election are:

    1)..how to work with other progressive-parties to vote tactically to defeat the right..

    2)..and that they should be starting now –

    ..to work up a how-to-save/help-the-provinces plan…

    ..(and not just aspirational-bullshit/words..)

    ..’cos – as northland shows – safe tory seats can be up for grabs..

    2. 2.2

      1)..how to work with other progressive-parties or any other old mountebank that comes along to vote tactically to defeat the right..

      .

        1. 2.2.1.1

          No not at all – if I was in Northland I’d vote for him too, but It would make me feel like Annabel Chong.

                2. 2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2

                  have assiduously and diligently stayed out of it .. some minds are not for changing .. and that probably includes mine !

          2. 2.2.1.1.2

            Adrian @ 2.2.1.1 –

            Google Googled Annabel Chong
            Now I know the ‘beat’ you’re on !

            Voted Winnie yesterday……………..
            My bloody ‘schlong’ won’t go away !

            Democracy is highly recommended !

    3. 2.3

      Hi phil,

      Another lesson I’ve been thinking about is the difference between National’s messaging and Winston’s messaging.

      National’s is all about wanting to govern. If you don’t vote for us, we might not be quite so much in charge any more.

      Winston’s is all about wanting to represent. They’re not listening to you, they’ll listen to me.

      I realise that the circumstances don’t translate exactly to a general election, but I think there’s a lesson for everyone in those underlying themes.

      1. 2.3.1

        Well spotted Felix – I think you are right. Not only that, I think the line between wanting to govern and wanting to represent may well be the most important in a democracy. Key’s regime has relied on people mistaking one for the other. Winny has put pressure on that idea. That is one of the things that makes the by-election more exciting than most.

    4. 2.4

      ..how to work with other progressive-parties to vote tactically to defeat the right..

      Lesson number one.

      1. 2.5.1

        Yep and as has also been repeated here and elsewhere an overly aggressive support by Labour for Winston may drive swinging right voters back to the nats.

        1. 2.5.1.1

          Tell them to put their schlongs away then. Stop swinging and sit tight and concentrate on the place where the cross-hairs find the best model for the real future that extends to 2050 and beyond. Then fire at the other lot.

      2. 2.5.2

        It’s not just something Labour needs to do. It’s something every party who wants to change the government needs to do.

        For example as I noted the other day Labour and The Greens have been doubling up questions in the house which is a terrible waste.

      3. 2.5.3

        “if he wanted a clear field”

        I think that is a key point – imo he didn’t particularly want or need a clear field. The clear field would have been advantageous to labour as the largest opposition party because it would have mitigated any ambiguity regarding who to vote for. But I’m not sure how low the labour vote has to go up there before someone goes – whoops.

  3. 3

    Serious question:

    What is the best role for Grant Robertson in the shadow cabinet / actual cabinet?

    He’s a very talented guy and he seems to be working hard in finance, but I don’t think it’s his thing. There must be a portfolio that’s a better fit.

    2. 3.2

      I never understood why Grant never took on the welfare portfolio. He’s passionate, he’s at his best when fighting for the underdog, and he could change hearts and minds if he threw his all at it.

      It’s a incredibly tough position – it would require him to bring his A+ game. As the Tory scum constantly engage in – hate the benny game. Just a thought.

        1. 3.2.1.1

          That’s an interesting observation Stephanie.

          I’d assumed that it was National, in particular, wanting to leverage the view that women, in general, are caring. Therefore, any ‘tough on beneficiaries’ policies could be disguised as ‘tough love’.

          But your comment also suggested to me that it might be the prominence of ‘solo Mums’ in the rhetoric about ‘welfare’ and ‘welfare dependency’ that is behind this ‘gendering’ of the role.

          ‘Welfare’, I’d hazard, today more readily conjures up DPB recipients rather than the unemployed in many people’s minds.

          Further, when it comes to the unemployed, unemployment rate fluctuations make the counter to ‘tough on beneficiaries’ approaches easier to articulate: that is, what is needed is jobs rather than tougher benefit measures.

          By contrast, numbers on the DPB are less easily explained by changes in the economy (though they are still related, indirectly, through general social dislocation leading to pressure on relationships, abuse, etc.).

          Therefore having a woman front getting tough primarily on other women becomes a tactic to avoid charges of sexism in welfare policies.

          There’s also the fact that much welfare ‘toughness’ is aimed at ‘youth’. Once again, a woman fronting such policies can be blurred by the connoted notion of ‘motherly care’.

          1. 3.2.1.1.1

            +1 to all that, and especially your last paragraph: can you imagine the things Bennett has said in the past coming out of Steven Joyce’s mouth, or Simon Bridges’? It would read far less for-your-own-good “benevolently”.

        1. 3.3.1.1

          I think they should commercialise the whole enterprise even more, raise ticket prices further and bump up the price of venue beer another $2.

        2. 3.3.1.2

          The thing killing rugby is there’s to much bloody rugby and there’s no full on tours playing mid week games against the provinces .

    4. 3.4

      He’s an analytical thinker. He did a great job unraveling the various strands of the GCSB saga last year.

    5. 3.5

      What has he even done in finance? Is there something recent he’s done that is making you say this? Or is it the lack of anything that is making you say this?

      1. 3.5.1

        Just that when he’s in the house challenging English and Joyce it doesn’t seem like he’s thinking on his feet. It seems like he has his lines rehearsed, like he’s been cramming for a test, and isn’t that comfortable going off-script.

        Having seen him operating far more naturally, comfortably and skillfully in other areas I can’t help thinking that the finance portfolio is a waste of his abilities.

    6. 3.6

      get him working on a comprehensive plan to regenerate the provinces..

      ..devolving central-govt to those provinces wd b a good place to start..

      ..a plan that will be ready to present to the electorate in ’17…

      ..and i repeat – not just words/aspirational-bullshit..

      ..and if they need buildings in those provincial towns – for this to happen..

      ..a universal basic income wd free up all of those work and income palaces..for such a much more useful purpose..

      .eh..?

    7. 3.7

      ‘

      Education with the promise of Foreign Affairs if Labour gets in next time, I reckon.

      That’s because isn’t Finance like the No. 2 spot? Anything which looks to him like a demotion could be problematic so would probably have to be done softly-softly. He’s been clambering up the Parliamentary ladder since arriving in the Beehive Bubble back in 1999. Since obtaining the Wellington Central seat from his old boss in 2008, he’s spoken for State Services, Arts, Culture and Heritage, Foreign Affairs, Tertiary Education, Health. and, I think, Employment,

      But, yeah, Blinglish is just laughing at him. Not a good look.

      1. 3.7.1

        i hear that robertson is a ‘brain’..and possibly more left than many wd imagine..

        (both good qualities..)

        ..but in all the time i have been doing commentaries on q-time –

        ..i have rarely – if ever – seen him gain any traction – against anyone…

        ..in any portfolio-role..

        ..and this was the main reason i discounted him for the leadership..

        1. 3.7.1.1

          yes …Grant the Robertson is becoming more and more attractive as we run down the list

          …i for one regret voting for Little…turned out to be more Little Labour…no coalition cooperation and no shakeup of Spies

          1. 3.7.1.1.1

            Don’t be too regretful. Grant and his allies in caucus, who have helped taken Labour to this point over the last few years, would have sidled up with the establishment powers even closer and faster.

            1. 3.7.1.1.1.1

              +100 CR….Yes you are so correct!!!…thanks for reminding me….and I was/is a Cunliffe and Nanaia Mahuta Labour supporter first and foremost

      2. 3.7.2

        “That’s because isn’t Finance like the No. 2 spot? Anything which looks to him like a demotion could be problematic so would probably have to be done softly-softly.”

        Yeah there is that perception and it’s an unhelpful one. It’s not like it’s step up the pay scale.

        Really the most important job is the one you’re best at. I’m sure if Grant was asked where he thinks he’s got the most to offer, he wouldn’t say finance.

  5. 5

    I hope everyone remembers that I was the first one either on the blogs or the media to call Winston standing for Northland.

    1. 5.1

      what date was that..?

      ..so i can check my whoar-archives..

      ..’cos i called him both standing – and winning – and the reasons why – pretty early on..

          1. 5.1.1.2.1

            Quite a few of us were ‘done over’ when we called for Labour to withdraw their candidate in the early days. Millsy may have been the first to express as much. Dare I be a mingy brat and say… we told you so. :mrgreen:

          2. 5.1.1.2.2

            an interesting thread that one – for a variety of reasons..

            ..and yes – i think millsy called peters running first..

            ..but i will claim this one

            “….there is a huge pool of people who might vote..if there is a chance of throwing the tories out..”

            ..that seems to have come to pass..

            ..also interesting to read for the comments from weka and rodgers..

            ..heh..!

    2. 5.2

      I do believe you did exactly that Millsy .. I remember quickly replying to you with a Go Winston message and specially I recall because it was against the general grain of what was happening ! Well spotted Millsy !!

    3. 5.3

      What a lot of enthusiasts claiming part of the glory.
      No doubt they are all followers of the comment most often attributed to JFK.
      “Victory has a thousand followers, defeat is an orphan”.
      http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn110295.html

      Anyone willing to say that they were responsible for claiming that Labour and the Greens were sure to win the last General Election?
      I seem to remember lots of predictions of very high percentages for Labour and the Greens.

      1. 5.3.1

        “Anyone willing to say that they were responsible for claiming that Labour and the Greens were sure to win the last General Election?
        I seem to remember lots of predictions of very high percentages for Labour and the Greens”

        Yes, I was one of them. And I was wrong and way off. Shit happens!

        This is what I had, in August, guessed/estimated/predicted the election result would be:

        http://thestandard.org.nz/leading-voices-tv-debates/#comment-863295

        1. 5.3.1.1

          Congratulations for telling about it.
          Personally I think that I am never wrong.
          I only remember the things I get right.
          Thus I have no memory at all of ever having got something wrong.
          Like most people I guess.

  6. 6

    Pretty smooth move from Winston yesterday, announcing a bill to remove name suppression from pedophiles.

    He said there had been many cases of sexual violence where the offender hid “behind a cloak of secrecy imposed on the basis that secrecy protects the victim”.

    “In cases where the victim wants exposure of the crime and not secrecy, the sub-judice rule, name suppression and the legal cone of silence will be removed.

    “In addition to this measure, we will also introduce a sex offender register, so parents and families can know if one of these offenders is in their community or in their neighbourhood,” Peters said.

    That’s got to be worth a few votes in Mike Sabin’s old electorate.

      1. 6.1.1

        I suspect he would only want to be there when Key is. Unless he’s got something special he wants to say, of course…

      4. 6.1.4

        No. Saw him in Kaikohe lunchtime today. In the bus, no actually, inside the Chinese eating place opposite where the bus was parked…….outside the RSA. My ‘Means-To-An-End-MMP-Democracy” buzz was well satisfied by this consummately professional character who appeared to be in fine fettle !

        “All bullshit !” some might say…….Well maybe but at least I’m not being required to totally misconfigure my respect settings as in the case of ThePonceKey. At least you can meet Winston without Joyce and Osborne crowding down on you recommending you genuflect !

        Anyway, it’s not inapposite that a guy with whakapapa in the North going back 300 hundred years might represent Northland. Or are we gonna be stubbornly ‘pure’ and have MMP a cry for “More Mendacity Please” ?

        The ever vaunted ‘Invincibility’ starts to crumble the second Winston gets elected !

        1. 6.3.1.1

          true. I haven’t looked at the bill to see its worth, but people using sexual abuse of children for political gain is fucked up. Popular though.

          1. 6.3.1.1.1

            Winston figured out a perfect way to point out the hypocrisy of National’s ‘law and order’ ‘personal responsibility’ tropes. And given how charged the subject area is, it could be called “fucked up”, it could also be called politically courageous because from the UK example we know what happens when you let “prominent” people get away with this kind of criminal behaviour unchecked.

            1. 6.3.1.1.1.1

              +100 CR…good points…I do not believe pedophiles should have name suppression…and yes “politically courageous”

              (it always puzzles me the antipathy some people have for Winston in impugning the worst motives to him….he has always come in for a lot of covert racism imo…and of course the Nacts loath him)

              1. 6.3.1.1.1.1.1

                I think Winston is suggesting no name suppression for felon or victims when the victims do not wish it. Would be very good, but also allows victims of incestuous pedophilia to be protected if they or the one healthy parent want it for them. Excellent I think, meaning no more name suppression because of ‘being famous’ or ‘prominent’.

          2. 6.3.1.1.2

            To be clear weka, when I said it was a smooth move I meant he found a way to talk about [r0b:del] without talking about [r0b:del].

            I’m not commenting on the value of the bill, and as neither of us have seen it I presume you aren’t either.

          3. 6.3.1.1.3

            weka

            I think it comes back to what Felix said at comment 2.3:

            National’s is all about wanting to govern… Winston’s is all about wanting to represent.

            There is a clear interest in this issue in Northland voters. With some seeing the continued name suppression of Prominent New Zealanders’ accused of child sex offending as being due to political interference rather than a concern for the victims’ wellbeing.

            Contariwise, from MS’ March 20th post:

            One of the legacies of Mike Sabin’s time in Parliament has resurfaced. He claimed to be responsible for the development of a private member’s bill where the right to silence would be compromised if the complainant was charged with certain offences against children. If the bill is passed an adverse inference can be drawn if the defendant exercised the right to silence.

            http://thestandard.org.nz/national-wants-to-take-away-our-right-to-silence/

            The difference between the two approaches seems clear to me in this instance. National being focused on removing citizens’ right to a fair trial, NZF on consulting with the victims of crime during court decisions regarding their privacy.

  8. 8

    RE Grant Elliot and the cricket. Yes amazing play from Grant E, holding his nerve, hitting the winning six.

    Just as good if not better is the man he has been shown to be.

    1. Compassion and empathy for the losing team. “It could have been me sitting on that field crying”. His automatic response to go to the guy lying on the field (you can’t rehearse that).

    2. His comments about why he got into cricket “it wasn’t the wickets or the runs, but it was the team comradery. I want to be remembered as a good team member not for how many runs I scored”

    3. Watching cartoons the next morning with his four year old and wheeling his young baby around in a pram to help get him to sleep, day after major cricketing triumph.

    THIS IS SUCH A GOOD MODEL FOR OUR YOUNG MEN AND FOR ALL OF US. Its about empathy, compassion, working as part of a team and looking after our children. Go Grant Elliot. A true hero.

    ps I have used quotation marks, but haven’t quoted him verbatim.

    1. 8.1

      Bet all those Elliot nay sayers are being very quiet now but good on Jonation Millmow for admiting to being wrong about Elliots selection

    2. 8.2

      I said the very same thing yesterday – Grant Elliot is the very best we have imported in a long long time!! Great cricketer but an even greater person – one for kids to emulate and be proud of!!

  9. 9

    Mai Chen shines a bit more light on the St Bedes boys. Not as straight forward as it seemed:

    “The rowing case does not change the ability of schools to discipline their students for misbehaviour as long as the school follows due process and ensures that the particular punishment proposed was not disproportionate.

    In this case, the judge found that the school had not carefully considered all of the individual circumstances for each of the boys….
    The court said that “it is at least seriously arguable that to make the decision based on the emailed report of a head coach who was not present when the incident took place, without interviewing the boys in question or the other participants, and without gathering information on the consequences of the decision to assess whether it was proportionate to the alleged misbehaviour was unfair and in breach of natural justice”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11422882

    1. 9.1

      Does the fact that the two young men involved were on a good behaviour bond from antics at the previous Maadi Cup alter how a decision is made and the outcome?

      As for the consequences of the action. First, it was serious enough that a similar incident breaching airport security got a rocket for a senior cabinet minister, and secondly to have not punished a second breach of rules with the consequences having been already spelled out, would really handicap a school’s internal discipline and also in the the end disadvantage the boys concerned.

      Further consequences are to the school. St Bede’s does not need further publicity of this kind. I am an old boy of the College. It was not then bagged in the opinion columns as a school for the elite or for the rich. I went to school with the sons of North Canterbury farmers and Lyttelton watersiders both.

      Now it is seen as a school of privilege emasculated by litigious parents producing spoilt and narcissistic brats.

      I knew a few St Bede’s rowers. They trained fabulously hard and were successful. I never heard of any misbehaviour from those guys. I wonder what they would think of these two?

      1. 9.1.1

        The uninitiated out there might like to see what is involved in drawing up a RAM for an excursion these days – all because of these sorts of parents. And then despite their elected Board of Trustees approving them, the parents still leap up and down if their little one gets injured.

    2. 9.2

      Yep saw that comment. Who’d be a teacher/school wanting to arrange or participate in inter-school events these days. Since Picot (and sadly Lange’s reforms) the profession has been well and truly screwed.

    3. 9.3

      I am sorry Ianmac. I beg to differ on this.

      These boys broke the law. The school responded quickly. I think Mai Chen is writing from a legal point of view, which of course is her job, but it doesn’t make it right or a helpful stance.

      From a parenting point of view, what these boys have learnt is that they can do something quite serious ( a criminal offence) when they are already on a warning from previous behaviour. That those who are responsible for the boys, (the school, its a school trip) can be over riden by using money and a good lawyer. This is a very poor outcome indeed.

      I am not sure why a school should have to follow due process under such circumstances. They only have to make sure that they don’t break the law themselves e.g use corporal punishment.

      The parents should have told there kids they would have to wear the punishment.

      I

  10. 10

    Compare the result of a school banning the inclusion of a pupil of sporting merit in an important school away game, because that pupil’s parents couldn’t afford the expensive blazer that was part of the prescribed team uniform, to the golden boys dealt with above. Now is there natural justice in the difference of opportunity to get their chance between these two cases?

    1. 10.1

      You are right about the privilege of the few greyshark.. (It is estimated that the injunction would have cost $20,000.) The apparent escape of the two young men must be a very poor life-lesson for them.
      The young men must be held accountable. Absolutely.
      The crime is not in dispute by anyone.
      The poor process is what is at stake here. If a student is caught with say drugs at school he is still entitled to a process before sentence is carried out. The more serious the crime the more important the process must be.
      I guess in this case had the school been a bit more careful with the process the courts would not be involved. (eg:Maybe the teacher in charge should have spoken to the boys concerned?)

    2. 10.2

      Do you have an example of a case where someone was banned for not having a blazer, or is this just a hypothetical you have made up?
      If so what was the school and what was the final result?

  11. 11

    Please note as JMG states, “… this post is about attitudes toward science…”

    Scientists have by and large treated the collapse in scientific ethics as an internal matter. That’s a lethal mistake, because the view that matters here is the view from outside. What looks to insiders like a manageable problem that will sort itself out in time, looks from outside the laboratory and the faculty lounge like institutionalized corruption on the part of a self-proclaimed elite whose members cover for each other and are accountable to no one. It doesn’t matter, by the way, how inaccurate that view is in specific cases, how many honest men and women are laboring at lab benches, or how overwhelming the pressure to monetize research that’s brought to bear on scientists by university administrations and corporate sponsors: none of that finds its way into the view from outside, and in the long run, the view from outside is the one that counts.

    …That is to say, I don’t agree with the anti-vaxxers, the climate denialists, the creationists, or their equivalents, but I think I understand why they’ve rejected the authority of science, and it’s not because they’re ignorant cretins, much as though the proponents and propagandists of science would like to claim that. It’s because they’ve seen far too much of the view from outside.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2015/03/the-view-from-outside_18.html

    It is a very thoughtful and interesting post not least because of some of the ‘discussions’ held here.

    1. 11.1

      JMG is always good, but on the matter of the failure and decline of science in modern society, he is spot on.

      1. 11.1.1

        Give me science over lies, fraud and ignorance any day of the week. At least when people try fraudulent science, science has a tendency towards outing that in the long run.
        Also, I recommend Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan for y’all on here. It’s an exemplary laying out of the benefits and importance of science, the dangers of magical thinking and pseudoscience, how to detect bollocks, and the consequences of neglecting scientific education of the general public. It also discusses the importance of science communication.
        A book that similarly underlines the important of communicating science to the public, how fraud in science and pretend science fields alike operate, and how the media can improve on reporting and be more responsible in this area in general is Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

        1. 11.1.1.1

          “Give me science over lies, fraud and ignorance any day of the week.”

          That’s nice, but it misses the points. One is that people outside of the science culture have good reason to not let science’s authority rule. Good reason.

          The other is that science perpetuates degrees of lying, fraud and ignorance all the time, and this is part of the good reason why people don’t trust it. This doesn’t mean that science is inherently corrupt, it means that it’s sufficiently corrupt to have lost its authority. When scienceheads like yourself accept that, we can do something about it. As long as you are in denial about it, it’s not going to change.

          1. 11.1.1.1.1

            The main thing with science is to foster a culture against authority. You are right that the public shouldn’t be considering scientists as authority figures, just as they shouldn’t anyone else, really. All scientists should be doing is seeking evidence, evaluating it, and proposing policy/solutions/decisions to come out of that, in a transparent manner for public/official debate and examination.
            The problem comes when any of those things get violated – something is decided without evidence, the evidence is incorrectly obtained or presented to the public, evidence is evaluated with bias, information is concealed from public, official and scientist scrutiny. Any time someone just gets more favour because they’re ‘the expert’ there’s the potential for objectivity to be lost. A culture of objectivity needs to be fostered.
            Of course, that works against human nature, and we see that everywhere outside of science as well. Science at least does have a tendency to revisit things, and out old lies – the whole aim of the scientific method after all is to prove things through evidence, to re-examine conclusions, to question authoritarian proclamations. Science needs to do that better. But at least the core fundamentals are there in its methodology, which simply isn’t true in other fields.
            Homeopathy, for instance, is a field where people make up bollocks that sounds sciencey, ignore that actual science has proven that homeopathy cannot work, people hide evidence from public scrutiny, and refuses to acknowledge mountains of evidence that show it does not work. That’s no way to do things. When the same occurs in a scientific field, there will be scientists who will vigorously criticise the flimsy science. That should be encouraged further, and transparency of information should be encouraged further, as scientists can’t exactly criticise, say, a drug company with dubious studies supporting the use of a drug if those studies are not open for criticism.
            When the light of such criticism is not available and so decision makers and the public cannot make appropriate decisions, then the public is being dealt a great disservice and this erodes public confidence in science and decision makers.
            That is no argument in favour of pseudoscientific bollocks though. What would be the point in doing science properly if we do not hold everything else up to the same standard? That is why I will always critique fraudulent practises, be they within accepted medicine, or outside.

            1. 11.1.1.1.1.1

              Homeopathy, for instance, is a field where people make up bollocks that sounds sciencey, ignore that actual science has proven that homeopathy cannot work, people hide evidence from public scrutiny, and refuses to acknowledge mountains of evidence that show it does not work. That’s no way to do things.

              Oh fuck off. The intelligent well educated stupidity and prejudice you spilt here under the self-proclaimed banner of “objectivity” is amazing. For starters I’ve never met a homeopath who tried to make what they do or how it works “sound sciencey”. And I’ve never met a user of homeopathics suggest that they were taking them because they were impressed by how “sciencey” homeopathy is. That is entirely your projection.

              Cluebat: the status of science and technology in the modern world is so mediocre now, being characterised as “sciencey” or “scientific” is as much a liability as it is an asset.

              Now back to the basics of why people do often choose homeopathy. Its quite often because they have found that medical interventions fuck their bodies up or don’t work for them or best of all, fuck their bodies up AND don’t work for them, and so they go to something else which does a better job. Maybe the homeopathy is only a better placebo, but at least its not destroying their health further.

              1. 11.1.1.1.1.1.1

                …and I’m speaking as someone who doesn’t even use homeopathy and would be very unlikely to in the foreseeable future…

  12. 12

    Short history lesson

    They’re following in the footsteps of their ancestors who were persecuted and illegally imprisoned. Descendants of south Taranaki iwi Ngāruahine were in Dunedin today to visit sites of significance – including caves where scores of their ancestors were incarcerated.

    Very powerful and emotional and sheds light on our past and the way to the future.

    and imo THIS should be top of the news – this work is happening every day around this country and it is ignored for the most part. Imagine if citizens understood this – my how this country would improve.

    1. 12.1

      I only heard of people gathering there by accident – someone on the bus had seen them in passing. They remarked (and I agree), that the council could have at least closed the road for the duration so that people didn’t have traffic driving through the middle of them. (It’s not a vital road – the next turn on the left constitutes only the most minor of inconveniences.)

      Also. Rongo Rock was more or less obscured by vegetation until a couple of years ago. I don’t know who tidied the area up. And yeah…that wall around the harbour is being conveniently buried under asphalt by the on-going road widening project.

    2. 12.2

      I was there on a previous trip by Te Atiawa, I think, and it was deeply emotional and moving. The links between Ngai Tahu and Taranaki hapu was cemented forever in those holes in the rocks. Ka maumahara tonu.

      PS Marty, how do you get the macrons to work here?

        1. 12.2.1.1

          Kia ora mo tena. I need to go visit Te Taura Whiri and update my macronisor I think. My old one doesn’t work anymore 🙁

  13. 13

    Bribery and corruption a growing threat in NZ

    Deloitte’s full report is here.

    Of the respondents with more than 5,000 employees, 47% have experienced a domestic corruption incident in the last five years. This compares to 20% reported by respondents with less than 5,000 employees

    The top five types of incidents account for 69% instances and are:
    i. Undisclosed conflict of interest (16%)
    ii. Supplier kickbacks (15%)
    iii. Personal favours (14%)
    iv. Inappropriate gifts/hospitality (13%)
    v. Providing confidential organisational
    information to a third party (11%).

    This is serious. It is a case of inadequate enforcement by the government. Further, by playing favourites in their lackluster dealings with the private sector, this government has helped to create this environment and, indeed may well have behaved corruptly itself.

    1. 13.1

      One thing that seems we need is a review and update of corruption laws in NZ and a good educational push as to what corruption is and what people can and should do about it when they find it.

    2. 13.2

      hi ovid, while not exactly the same, i think this is related to blips post on keys lies.

      by this i mean the slipping standard of; langauge, the increased spending on spin doctors by government departments, the secret lobbying of mps…

      it is off putting and teaches our youth that this behaviour is ok.

    1. 14.1

      National proves their lack of a real plan by once again chasing the horse that bolted. A Government with a plan would have likely included these new measures in the recent changes to employment legislation. Changes which were strongly objected to by many groups, and which highlighted the very scenarios these measures are meant to curtail.
      I wonder how much of this new policy was only written in the last week?

  17. 17

    Broking News:

    John Key is flying directly from Japan to Dargaville. Because of the long almost sleepless journey, he has decided that soon after coming down to Earth, he will lie some more and feel quite relaxed after that.

    He says Osborne is an underdog. So, soon after embarking, he will announce another, a ‘little bit’ longer bridge, to surpass the S.Franscisco golden one and connect Broadwood to Tuatapere. Both Key and parrot say that Northland deserves it.

    But that is not all. There is more! The most exciting news titbit is that Key is bringing along, for moral support, Park Geun-hye Hangul:박근혜 as well as 内閣総理大臣, Naikaku-sōri-daijin.

    Rumour has it that Elizabeth 2 is also considering making a quick lightening visit to Kawakawaka at the end of the day over the weekend. At this stage that is likely to be on either Saturday or Sunday.

  18. 18

    Stephanie, well written piece on the hand mirror really needs to read by everyone here.

    Wonderful analysis Stephanie, I really enjoyed it.

  19. 19

    Hes good is Winston:

    A new bill to remove name suppression from paedophiles when the victims want their attacker named, is to be introduced to Parliament by NZ First.

    Leader Winston Peters, who is in Northland campaigning as for the by-election in which he is a candidate, announced the new policy today.

    He said there had been many cases of sexual violence where the offender hid “behind a cloak of secrecy imposed on the basis that secrecy protects the victim”.

    “In cases where the victim wants exposure of the crime and not secrecy, the sub-judice rule, name suppression and the legal cone of silence will be removed.

    “In addition to this measure, we will also introduce a sex offender register, so parents and families can know if one of these offenders is in their community or in their neighbourhood,” Peters said.

    99.9% vote winner right there (hell I’d even consider voting for him on the basis of that)

      1. 19.1.1

        I’d still prefer Labour over WinstonFirst anyday of the week but credit where its due and hes in his element

    2. 19.2

      I have one problem with this proposal, and it isn’t publicising the names of paedophiles.
      The crime is, by definition, child molestation. The victims are the children, NOT, primarily their parents. How can a child, say aged 6, possibly give an informed request that their molester should be named? That is the reason that the name suppression that the name suppression is given and I don’t see how they can possibly understand the situation enough to ask for the lifting of name suppression if it leads to them being identified.
      I was once a juror in such a case. I found it quite sickening. It was held in a closed court. The public were not admitted and only the judge, jury, defendant and the lawyers were allowed throughout the trial. I was most grateful that we were, at the end, excused from Jury service for five years.
      There was no possible way that the child concerned could possibly be old enough to understand what it meant to ask that the defendant should be identified.

      1. 19.2.1

        good point.

        Separately, I despise sexo registers – it’s one thing to police-check workers in a position of trust, but registers end up with someone thinking that the “John Smith” who moved in down the road is “John Smithe” the pedo in the other end of the country, and John Smith has his life torn apart or ended by malicious gossip or drunken mob justice.

  20. 20

    Rocky start on the streets for John Key’s on his tour of Northland today!

    One woman he stopped to speak to told Key “No use talking to me I’ve already voted”, before giving him an earful about the region being neglected. She told Key she had given her vote to NZ First leader Winston Peters.

    At a local haunt of Mark Osborne’s campaign team, Blah Blah Blah Cafe & Bar, Key got a warm welcome from diners and had a quick lesson in making coffee.

    Key took many selfies.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67510289/northland-byelection-rocky-start-for-john-keys-tour

    1. 20.1

      RadioNZ went so far as to say people on the street in Dargaville were saying to Key “Go Winston” or “Vote Winston”.

    2. 20.2

      I love the name of the cafe – perfectly suited for the tories.

      blah, blah, blah – then have a wet lunch…

    3. 20.3

      Granny reported that Penny Bright was in Dargaville holding up a poster about Mike Sabin when FJK visited. Good one, Penny.

    1. 21.1

      Supposedly it’s the investors that are taking all the risk but it’s the people at the bottom who actually lose everything while the investors get bailed out by government.

      1. 21.1.1

        Yep. Worst case for the investors is that they lose everything except what’s in the family trust or spouse’s name, declare bankruptcy and start again.

        To reference Clint Eastwood, it’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he’s got, and everything he’s ever gonna have.
        Not to mention their families.

        But we desperately need to change the flag, first… /sarc

        1. 21.1.1.1

          hi mcflock, i read in the paper that a 31 yr old tau henare (no relation to the mp) was massively injured in 2012 when a log rolled on him.
          the company (harvest pro, a subsidiary of kiwi forrestry international) was prosecuted by mbie and ordered to pay $40,000 reparation to mr henare in may 2014.
          the company appealed the decision and lost in oct 2014.
          now the wriggly bastards are claiming the company is in financial trouble.

          two things: when the state awards reparation, howabout the state pays the reparation then claims the money from the company.
          second, put one of these executives in jail.
          corporate manslaughter.
          5 years.
          then we may see more than just lip service being paid to worker safety.

  22. 22

    u.s. court has ruled that kim dotcom will lose all of his seized assets..

    ..he has tweeted this:..

    “..Kim Dotcom ?@KimDotcom 2h2 hours ago

    US Judge who ordered Megaupload to die WITHOUT TRIAL just ruled I’m disentitled & dispossessed WITHOUT TRIAL.

    The US Govt gets all my assets..”

  23. 23

    Is it time for Willow Jean Prime to now concede defeat and tell her supporters to vote for Winston?

    She is polling at around a mere 10%, however that 10% could end up becoming the deciding factor. Especially with Key heading to Northland to rally and bolster support.

    Therefore, not only could this potentially rob Peters of the win, but also result in leaving egg on Labours face.

    Surely Prime and the Party don’t want to be remembered as the ones that allowed National to slip in?

    Thoughts?

    2. 23.2

      No, that would be an immediate as well as a long term strategic mistake. It will incense ex Nat voters to come rushing in to vote for Osborne. The tactics that Labour, Little and Willow Jean Prime have adopted here is the correct one and is much superior. The voters will have got the message by now.

      The people who may now still vote WJP will be those who will vote for Labour under any circumstances and the ex Nat/ACT/Cons/FNZ voters that do not wish to vote Winston or the Nats this time around, but do not also wish to not take part in the by-election.

      2. 23.2.2

        I agree entirely with this assessment. Little has done the best he can to get the message across (and it seems to have worked). But those rusted-on Labour voters who have supported the party through thick and thin should be able to go vote for the Labour candidate with their heads held high.

        1. 23.2.2.1

          @ ScottGN

          And achieve what exactly? Potentially allow National to slip in?

          I don’t think there are too many die hard Labour supporters that would want to achieve that.

          1. 23.2.2.1.1

            The thing is that if you start regarding voters as your candidate’s winged monkeys to unthinkingly do your bidding no matter what, the voters tend to kick back (as the nats have just found out).

            Peters is well in front. Prime has lost almost all her vote. The nats are foreshadowing a defeat – even fisi doesn’t think osbourne will win. Prime issuing dictats to labour voters will only serve as a foil for the nats to claim persecution and maybe claw even more votes back. Prime endorsing peters is about as useful as ACT endorsing osbourne – comic relief that distracts from the campaign.

            1. 23.2.2.1.1.1

              @ McFlock

              Recommending Peters is not robbing voters of their right to decide, thus isn’t regarding voters as “candidate’s winged monkeys”.

              But Prime doing so (recommending Peters) would have an impact on that 10%.

              The Nats have already claimed persecution and played the victim card, thus it makes no difference.

              The election result isn’t a foregone conclusion, begging the question, does Prime and Labour really want to take that risk and potentially allow National to slip in?

              Are the benefits of Prime continuing the fight worth the potential risk?

              Surely Prime and the Party don’t want to be remembered as the ones that allowed National to slip in? The time to act is quickly running out.

              1. 23.2.2.1.1.1.1

                For a start, what McFlock said.

                Ad also this: Little and Prime have both been pretty clear in their messaging.

                Anyone who has heard that message and still intends to vote Labour, well there probably isn’t much you could say to convince them otherwise.

                And anyone who hasn’t heard that message yet, with 2 days to go, what makes you think they’ll hear it now?

                1. 23.2.2.1.1.1.1.1

                  @ felix

                  Better late than never, but I agree it should have been done some time ago.

                  A public statement advocating Peters would make national news, relieving her core supporters from their loyalties, freeing them to select Peters.

                    1. 23.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                      as do I.
                      Voters are already free to select whomever they want, it’s not like a candidate releases them from oathes of fealty. Instructing them as if they are servants can only piss voters off.

                    2. 23.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2

                      @ felix

                      It’s generally expected for one to put forward your reason why you disagree.

                      @ McFlock

                      I was talking about a public statement freeing her core and loyal supporters of their loyalties.

                      Recommending Winston is not telling or instructing them what to do. But it would encourage some.

                    3. 23.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.3

                      The Chairman: Prime should simply organise fifty Labour volunteers to help Winston out over the next few days. That’s the best assistance she can give him at this point.

      3. 23.2.3

        @ Clemgeopin

        National’s low polling and Key’s final push will help rally National support regardless, thus Prime now conceding could potentially counter that.

        It’s already largely perceived Labour support Winston, thus your assertion has failed to eventuate .

        Moreover, Prime’s core supporters (around 10% of the vote) are still supporting her, which of course could end up becoming the deciding factor robbing Peters of the win.

        It’s largely agreed the best thing for Northland from Primes current perspective is to keep National out. Continuing the fight won’t achieve that, but it may allow National to slip in.

        Is the benefits of Prime continuing the fight really worth the risk?

        1. 23.2.3.1

          “Is the benefits of Prime continuing the fight really worth the risk?”

          Yes. She isn’t ‘fighting’ as you put it. She has said what her ‘realistic’ chances of winning here are at this by-election. She is coming a distant third. She knows that and so does everyone.

          It is UP TO the voters themselves to figure out what is best for them and for Northland now. It is NOT for her or for Labour to explicitly tell people to vote for Winston or someone else. It would be both arrogant and stupid.

          If some people (Lab or Nats etc) still wish to vote for her, at least they have her name for them to cast their vote to.

          If this makes Winston lose, so be it! It is not HER fault!

          1. 23.2.3.1.1

            @ Clemgeopin

            By still running and not turning away votes she is still in this fight.

            But as you rightly put it, only to come in at third place. What’s the point of that?

            It’s not unknown for people to concede defeat and recommend their supporters support another candidate.

            And in this case it would be the wise thing to do. The risk out weights the benefits.

            Her name will remain on the ballot regardless, thus voters will still have that choice.

            Conceding and recommending Peters is her decision, thus she will be held accountable. Especially so if the decision results in it all going pear shaped.

            1. 23.2.3.1.1.1

              Labour is going to look a right Arse! If NZF is rejuvenated into a 10%+ party from this and then they go with national in 2017 time may prove that labour should of gone all out .
              The only real winner if Winston wins is NZF .

              1. 23.2.3.1.1.1.1

                @ b waghorn

                Labour initially went all out, got nowhere, hence changed their position.

                Winston was always the only one that could potentially be the winner.

                Labour never really had a chance.

                1. 23.2.3.1.1.1.1.1

                  I realize labour had no chance ( although it would’ve been interesting if Winny hadn’t of stood) but it’s possible that labour might have been better off in the long run if the Nats get in .
                  I hope I’m wrong and Winston rides into town and kills the tpp and force the nats into behaving better.

                    1. 23.2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                      Hope fully today’s wiki leaks might ad some pressure
                      I could never vote for or support a party that let’s corporates sue a country for doing right buy it’s citizen’s

                    2. 23.2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2

                      I’ll be the apostrophe killing Nazi today, if you’ll excuse me kind sir

                      lets corporates sue (no contracted word after “it” like “it is” etc.)
                      its citizens (no possessive apostrophe required)

                      (I used to get this wrong for years…)

                      😉

                  2. 23.2.3.1.1.1.1.1.2

                    @ b waghorn

                    Peters knows he will be on a two year trial, ensuring he’ll have to perform if he wants to retain the seat going forward.

                    In the meantime, Labour are going to have to learn how to form better relationships or massively increase their support, because the way they are polling they will never win in 2017 without partners .

        2. 23.2.3.2

          Not so sure you can call them her “core supporters” or “die hard Labour supporters” or (ScottGN’s) “rusted-on Labour voters”. Haven’t got time to go into the rationale at the moment, but I get the distinct impression that most of Prime’s 10% are Green voters. Looks to me like the overwhelming majority of Labour supporters have already strategically decided on Winston.

          Back in the early March poll, 2014 Green voters already comprised almost as much of Prime’s 16% support as 2014 Labour voters. Half of the Labour constituency at that point had already decided to go Winston (well before Little’s nudge nudge wink wink). Since then, the weight of evidence suggests the swing to Peters over recent weeks has come disproportionately from Labour voters- leaving the Greens as Prime’s core support base.

          1. 23.2.3.2.1

            @ Swordfish

            That’s speculation. And it would be flawed to think all those supporting her are Greens. There will be the loyal ones.

            Therefore, an announcement advocating Winston would have some impact. Moreover, will help her and the Party to save face if National slip in.

            1. 23.2.3.2.1.1

              +100 The Chairman….doubt very much whether Green voters would be so stupid as to support Prime or Labour especially as they have no show of winning

              …Greens generally understand MMP and vote tactically…

              the only people who will be supporting Prime will be Labour voters

              …also NZF voters and Green voters are often interchangeable in their voting habits and work well together

              1. 23.2.3.2.1.1.1

                In the earlier (March 5) TV3 Reid Research Poll, 43% of Greens said they would vote Prime, 34% said Peters.

                Compare that to Labour voters – 35% Prime / 48% Peters.

                It appears that close to 70% of Labour voters are now strategically voting Winnie.

          2. 23.2.3.2.2

            Interesting swordfish. You’re basically saying though, that Green voters won’t vote tactically too. They’ve shifted to Prime in the absence of a green candidate and refuse to move to Winston even though it looks a good bet that he’ll win the seat.

            1. 23.2.3.2.2.1

              Yep. I think there’s a stubborn sector of the Green vote (a large minority) that won’t go Winston.

              My comment was based entirely on the last two TV3 Reid Research Polls of Northland.

              Just in the last two hours, of course, Colmar Brunton have released their latest – with the overall results very close to TV3’s. Colmar Brunton suggests:
              (1) Prime is on 9%
              (2) 28% of Labour supporters are still intending to vote Prime and that
              (3) 20% of Northlanders intend to Party-Vote Labour at the next General Election…

              …So…28% of 20% = 5.6
              …So…5.6 is 62% of 9%…
              …Which means, according to this latest Colmar Brunton, the majority of Prime’s supporters (62%) are, indeed, Labour people. So Colmar Brunton’s results would suggest my assertion above is wrong.

              But I’m pretty sure the latest TV3 results will suggest otherwise (they haven’t released any breakdowns yet so we’ll have to wait to be sure). Given that 2014 Green voters were almost neck-and-neck with 2014 Labour voters in terms of Prime’s support-base back in the early March Poll, and the evidence that Labour voters have swung heavily to Peters over the last month, you’d have to assume that, in the latest TV3 Poll, Greens make up the lions share of Prime’s diminished support.

              1. 23.2.3.2.2.1.1

                Here’s an interesting finding from the latest Colmar Brunton:

                When asked whether National’s Bridge / Broadband promises would effect their vote…

                75% No, will make no difference
                20% Yes, Less Likely to vote National
                4% Yes, More Likely to vote National.

              2. 23.2.3.2.2.1.2

                @swordfish…well sorry still don’t believe Greens would be voting Prime and Labour when it is dead dog vote…and by default a vote in support of the Nacts…(no matter what your stats say)

                …goes counter to all the Greens i know…who are pretty savvy…and not anti Winnie and NZF…in fact vote sometimes Winnie and sometimes Green and sometimes Mana/Int..

                Labour core voters tend to vote conservatively and tribally Labour…no matter what ie they dont think MMP and vote strategically

    3. 23.3

      I see in the Northland Advocate Facebook that people are saying that they are being intimidated and harassed by phone calls that appear to be coming from national asking have they voted. One elderly man stated that he had already voted for Winston and was abused. Another said that she had one on her property stirring up her dogs until she told him to *go away* Apparently the *young turds* manning the phones supervised by Nikki Kaye. Key will do anything it takes to win this by election and imo it has nothing to do with making Northland a better and more prosperous place but everything to do with his inability to countenance losing. Nothing to do with NZ at all! We are not battling National Party but key’s huge pathological ego. If he loses this, that is his place in History gone. In six years he has APPARENTLY not set a foot wrong! Thank you nz herald for being so enabling. Oh and also thank you for the damage you have done to decent REAL kiwis and their lives in your diligent enslavement to president key. True kiwis you are not!

      1. 24.1.1

        yes..i know..

        ..but they do know what their masters want..

        ..and ‘mediaworks’..?..

        ..they also ignored what is a major story in their soft coverage..

        ..sky..and mediaworks..u cd hardly slide a playing card between them in their soft-coverage of key/this govt they both owe so much to/are so in bed with…

        1. 24.1.1.1

          I recorded TVNZ & TV3 and have just watched the coverage. No sense that Key faced protestors or any hostility in either bulletin. Yet it was clear that he did from the Checkpoint report. It seems TV news are still pretending everybody loves Key.

          1. 24.1.1.1.1

            So you believe that Checkpoint is right and TV1 and TV3 must be wrong?
            Why not the other way round? Would that go against the preconceptions you have?
            Yeah, right. Radio NZ is the untarnished, unbiased source of all truth.

            1. 24.1.1.1.1.1

              hi alwyn, rnz was not the recipent of a $32+M loan from the state so it could pay its broadcast fee.
              nor was minister of everything, joyce, a former director of rnz.
              maybe this helps.

              1. 24.1.1.1.1.1.1

                I doesn’t help very much at all really.

                “nor was minister of everything, joyce, a former director of rnz.”

                What is that supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that he was a former director of TV1? Are you trying to say he was a former director of TV3?
                Wrong on both counts.

                The ” $32+M loan from the state” is also a furphy. The rules were changed to make firms pay for the entire life of a license at the beginning of the term, instead of year by year. All broadcasters were allowed to pay it off over time at a higher fee.
                Canwest, with which Joyce was NOT associated, took advantage of the option. It was available to all firms.

                1. 24.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                  he was a former managing director of mediaworks radioworks division, and was critisized for showing a conflict of interest when approving the loan.

                  i am picking you are aware of this being the intelligent person you appear to be.

                  we all view things as we choose to.

  25. 25

    It’s amazing the bullshit Key comes out with. He stood there in Dargaville today saying “no we’re not desperate I always intended to come come back in the final days etc” Except he’s supposed to be in Tokyo right now concluding a State Visit no less.

  26. 26

    I’m looking forward (in a naughty way) to watching labour hq cheering and yaying when winston wins – what a weird race and contest this has been. Worth it labour? I spose we’ll see won’t we.

  27. 27

    Pumping tens of thousands of litres of whatever they use into the ground probably is “ultrahazardous”.

    On Tuesday, Maryland legislators passed legislation that would place strong limits on the extraction of natural gas in the state.

    The Maryland House of Delegates passed a three-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — in the Western part of the state, while the Maryland Senate approved a bill that would impose strict financial liabilities on fracking companies and would declare fracking an “ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity.” The bills must pass through the other chambers before heading to the desk of Republican Governor Larry Hogan for approval.

    —

    Meanwhile, the Senate approved some of the strongest liability standards for drilling in the country. The bill, which passed 29-14, would require fracking companies to carry a $10 million insurance policy for six years after each drilling operation, and would hold companies financially liable for any health or environmental problems associated with drilling.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/25/3638686/maryland-fracking-yes-no-maybe/

    1. 28.1

      So, “Raynor Asher” has bowed to political pressure? If the reason for the continued suppression is based solely on “protection for the victims” then someone influential should demand an explanation for his rationale. As far as I can tell, the victims never sought to have the suppression order continue. It was the alleged perpetrator who did so.

      In this case, the suppression order is likely to have to be removed at some point so why not get it over and done with?

      The NZ Justice System sucks!!!

        1. 28.1.1.1

          Oh interesting indeed. From your link:

          A clever and showy man, he has used his cleverness to solidify alliances in many areas but is still – or perhaps as a result of these alliances – considered my many to be a malleable patsy by those who put him on the bench. Justice Asher is a political animal with less regard for the rule of law than social relationships.

          How very convenient for the Key govt. he oversaw the appeal decision eh?

          Edit: and fits in quite nicely with my… the NZ Justice system sucks.

            1. 28.1.1.1.2.1

              You did note that he was appointed to the High Court in 2005.
              Now who was the Government then and what were they hoping to get out of him?
              I wonder what the Government of the day was thinking about?

              1. 28.1.1.1.2.1.1

                And since 2008 he has been pleasing National. He exceeded himself today. A certain type of political animal has loyalty to those in power, whoever they are.

  29. 29

    The corruption runs deep, doesn’t it ? To deceive a whole country in three elections ? Shame on them all. No-one’s children are safe in this maelstrom.

    1. 29.1

      that is intended as a reply to murray and anne .. but it moved about somehow !! it is not about Len Brown.

      2. 29.1.2

        My fault rawshark-yeshe @ 30.1

        I forgot to hit reply when responding to Murray Rawshark @ 28.1.1 so deleted and re-posted. Always forgetting… 🙁

    2. 29.2

      It actually makes me wonder if the alleged activities were not confined to only one member of the party. They could be more like the English Tories than I’d thought.

Comments are closed.