by frog
Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Fri, December 2nd, 2011
Tags: general debate
General debate, December 2, 2011
Published: December 2, 2011
Comment via Facebook
209 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
National Geographic has a program on Sky next week called Finding the next earth… about finding another planet to live on after we’ve ruined this one.
What a sick joke that meme is. Not only is it a pie in the sky dream that there is any planet within the range of our technology that could sustain human life but we have now expended too much energy on non productive development and wars.
I hate to tell you this and destroy your little Hollywood dream but unless some aliens come along and give us space ships to fly around in… planet earth is it. Therefore we should start to look after it properly.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
y’know this headlong rush to sign-up with national…
..especially given their intentions..
..d’yareckon it looks a bit tawdry/opportunistic at all..?
..from here on the outside..?
..especially at a time when there is such an imperative..on so many fronts..
..to get off the fence..?
..and do something..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
11 (-9)
to make a stand..?
..not time to ‘understand’..
..as it were..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
i think many of us here on the outside view the likes of the green mps/harawira to be activist-politicians..
..not politicians we want to snuggle up to the powers that be..
..whoever they may be…
..and if we look back at the record of yr ‘understandings’..with both labour and national..
..the record for us out here/the environment has been pretty dire..eh.?
..under nine years of the rightwing labour regime of clark..
..the environmental-destruction just got worse and worse..
..and this just accelerated under national..
..and is looking to just get more and more worse under this 2nd key/nact-regime..
..please..!
..stand with us..
..not with them..
..that way is proven not to work..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
10 (-8)
“..Does this seem vaguely familiar?..”
it sounds/reads a hell of a lot like this nact-regime the greens seem to be so eager to ‘understand’..
..to my eyes..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/01/julian_assange_surveillance/
Orwell missed that one. He only thought your TV would spy on you.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Kyoto – Not unconditional [sic]
I guess we should have expected it… National looks set to bypass the Kyoto protocol. Not that New Zealand adhered to the deal to reduce emissions the first place…
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
bj..given the subjects i cover/causes i argue..
..’key’-words i use..
..and given that animal-rights people have become the new/this years’ ‘terrorist’…
..i have long assumed some form of surveillance…
..the pork board may well have to join a queue..
..and given i am just the grumpy old guy sitting in the corner moaning/banging on..
..they can surveil away..if that is their wont..
..reading http://whoar.co.nz/ wd keep them pretty much up to speed..
and..heh..!..if being bugged..
..they would catch me talking to animals…
.and speaking of animals..
..that little stray kitten that has hooked up with us is settling in well..
..(currently a small warm lump sleeping on my leg..)
..and has lost that wild-fear..(much/constant handling works well..)
..and has pretty much taken over…
..and has no fear of the dogs..just a curiousity..
..large/old dog was lying under a chair i was sitting on…
..and kitten rocked up and curled up in large dogs’ front leg-pit..
..and fell fast asleep..
..large dog was left looking at me with a puzzled look…
..a dog-w.t.f..!
..and i was trying not to disturb the tableau..
..and was heaving with suppressed laughter…
..it was so funny/cool…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
Send in the bullies
Earlier this year the National party completely failed to consult with local Iwi about their plans to explore for oil off the East Coast of New Zealand. To combat the negative public backlash National have now appointed a former District Commander and Superintendent of Police as Iwi Relations Manager, who just happens to have a history of violence and corruption…
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Peters won’t rule out release of tea tape
He is legally allowed to read out what was said in the House of Representatives. I think I might even start to enjoy parliamentary debates. Game on.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Support locked-out workers
111 Meat workers are still locked-out from the jobs at in Rangitikei. They’ve been more than six weeks without wages and they need support. This weekend is a national day of fund-raising and action in support of the locked-out workers. McDonalds are being targeted, as they are one of the primary customers of the company. There are events organised all over the country…
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
(the other day it was mark twains’ birthday…
..this link takes you to an open-thread of people posting their favourite twainisms..
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/happy-birthday-mark-twain/
..and including this one..
“..Politicians are like diapers; -
- they need to be changed often – and for the same reason..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
i can’t believe it has taken untill dec 2011 for the police/insurance companies to put a list of stolen-vehicles on the internet..
..i mean..isn’t that a bloody obvious..?
..f.f.s..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
I’m in this for the long game, Phil. Bring people over to Green principles and policies, and build the Greens’ numbers in Parliament to a level that we have real political power to implement our policies.
It is a number game, and is dependent on getting the public support to get the numbers. Things look to be working well in that regard. The Greens have almost got there, although sadly, not quite. 3 more seats for the Greens at the expense of National would have tipped the balance and given the Greens real political power.
I know you are impatient, and so am I, actually. But the Greens behaving as a lobby group rather than a political party isn’t going to achieve change. There are already some great lobby groups doing the mahi on ecological sustainability and social justice. I think the role of the Green Party is to represent those lobby groups’ supporters at a Parliamentary level – not to try to be a lobby group itself.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
toad..that is a strawman argument..
..an effective parliamentary-opposition is not a ‘lobby-group’..
..different-beasts..different equations/imperatives..
..i am talking about the greens being a strong/loud voice within their parameters..
..they haven’t been..
..and that is largely down to that ‘understanding’-self-muting..
..and sorry..but 10% support after all these years..
..of ‘understandings’…
..isn’t as you claim ‘working well in that regard’.
..as far as i can see..
..i think you should consider that strong opposition/green-voice..
..especially against such open-pit-mining bastards as this craven crew..
..you should be running at full speed away from any ‘understanding’ with them..
..craven bastards that they are..
..(and hey..(..they will still do more insulation..)
..they/it dosen’t need it/you..
..your efforts are needed elsewhere..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
and wasn’t that a lucky escape..?
key didn’t need you..
..so didn’t have to dangle baubles in front of you..
..moral-resolves/self-interest imperatives weren’t put to the test..eh..?
..that was a close one..
..and a good example of bauble-addiction has to be the frantic mewlings of sharples at the very idea the gravy-train will leave without him..
..he sheds mana by the minute..
it is most undignified..
..and an object-lesson for the ambitious-green..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
“I guess we should have expected it. National look set to bypass the Kyoto protocol”. Oh dear how sad never mind, it was and is a con of epic fucking proportions as well you know. What will the left do now ? Wealth redistribution has taken a hit, it’s just not cricket.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7 (-1)
You really don’t understand, do you. The Greens are about policy gains. If Key did “need” the Greens, I suspect the first Green demands would be for them to take privatisation, welfare “reform”, and coal mining off the agenda.
If that were no go from the Nats, end of discussion, regardless of what baubles may be offered.
Don’t presume every political party is as unprinciple as NZFirst or ACT.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
don’t presume any politician is a ‘saint’…
..and do you have inner-circle-knowledge of just what it would have taken..
..or was that yr opening-gambit..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Under the Green Party rules, any arrangement involving confidence and supply (including an abstention) has to be approved by the membership at a Special General Meeting.
What I know is that from my knowledge of the views of the membership of the Green Party, is that if National insisted any of privatisation, welfare “reform”, and extended coal mining remained on the agenda, any possibility of Green support for an arrangement on confidence and supply would be a dead duck because the Green membership would veto it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
y’know toad..if the party leaders came out all gung-ho..in favour of a deal with national..
are you saying those hand-picked delegates..(squeaky-wheels need not apply..)
..that theu will/would stand up against that leaders/group-will..?
..and anyway..i understand turei has said that there is no need now for party approval of any deal..
..no sgm..
..and her and norman are/have been given a free-hand to do a deal with national..
..n’est ce pas..?
and/so that strong opposition idea dosen’t even get a look in..eh..?
..your loss..
..’cos peters and harawira and labour/shearer will be understanding-free..
..and will be going gangbusters…
..given all that..
..do you really think an understanding-muting is a wise tactic in those circumstances..?
..three more years of silence won’t grow yr vote..i reckon..
..in fact i reckon it will shrink it..
..how will it not..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
interesting that nobody is questioning my call on yr history of soft-pedalling..
..the only arguments seem to be how much insulation it has wrought..
..that being nice..to both labour and national..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
Like or Dislike:
12 
0 (+12)
Short memory.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
side show bob
I disagree. The Kyoto protocol was and is a reasonable step towards reducing the dangerous levels of carbon emissions that many countries including our own are emitting into the atmosphere in ever increasing quantities. The way in which some government’s including National utilized it to give polluting industries millions of dollars of our tax money is the con.
IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said:
Maintaining zero emissions would be highly costly if it’s achievable at all. The solution the right wing seems to be proposing is to meet the cost of the effects from climate change. This would far exceed any costs from implementing greener technologies and reducing emissions right now. I prefer the solution of meeting reduction targets outlined under the kyoto protocol as this gives a balance to maintaining production levels and meeting environmental concerns.
Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should be asking; what will the right do now?
The left is a vast group of people that I do not speak for. I can only represent myself. As your question applies to me, I will continue to show the climate change deniers up for the fools they are and prepare for the consequences of their inaction.
Wealth creation has taken a hit. If the wealthy capitalists continue to make the poor even poorer, they will soon find that the very thing they depend on to make money will not be so profitable.
It’s not rugby either. What’s your point?
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
and a cheap shot at mana…
..three years of harawira leading opposition to the shit from national..
..and the self/greed-inflicted death of the maori party…
..could well see mana snapping at yr heels sooner than you seem to think…
..and i am presuming any rebirth of labour will see them moving back to their social-care roots…
..the rightwing model was an abberration…
..(and even what they offered ‘to end poverty’ this time was fucken pathetic…
..extending the tax credit by 2018..(!)
..that is seven fucken years away..
..two governments plus..
..and are they really wondering why the poor/underclass could see no reason to vote..?
‘cos there was still nobody representing them/their interests..
..so any revamp of labour will be very left..
..and be warned..willbe very green also..
..still think that understanding-muting is a good idea..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
Guys! I don’t think your debate is being very productive.
phil u, I realize you fear the Green party might become pale green and voice your opinion with anger because you know all too well what a coalition agreement with National would mean for the Green party, but give it a god damn break man… your basing your fear on the Greens decision to not rule out a coalition partnership with National outright like they did prior to the 2008 election. If you take the polling into account, their decision seems to be correct. Put your opinion aside and ask yourself was it the right thing to do for the party?
Valis, I realize you believe emphatically in the Greens process but you are just arguing yourself around in circles. You ask phil u for evidence when you know there is non apart from what the Greens have said on TV etc. “It’s highly unlikely” clearly doesn’t cut the mustard with phil u. My evidence is that a request for the minutes of the meeting where the Greens decision was made has not been provided. If there is no problem, why not release those minutes? As an outsider I hope your belief in the Greens process is not tested… but banging on about it is not doing your party any favours.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
and c’mon toad..!
(from memory) the alliance was at 22% at its’ peak..
..those people are still out there..
..but the green party is not connecting with them..
..absolutely no reason to be at all smug over 10% support..
..you should be looking/searching for why you aren’t at 20-25%..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
This article is worth a read: Action urged on ships’ carbon emissions
Surely there’s an alternative?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
and jackal..
..i think it is totally relevant i be arguing/airing this..
..’cos the green party is being sleep-walked into a deal done by key/norman/turei..
..and for all the reasons i have already given..
..i think that will be very bad for the health/growth of the green party..
..and nobody else is arguing questioning this..
..are you all happy to be lead by the nose..?
..shouldn’t the party be debating this issue..?
..the role the party should take in this upcoming very different parliament..?
..why do the co-leaders just get to make that call..?
..how does that make you any different from any other top/down political party…?
..why isn’t this question being taken back to the party..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
phil u
My vote didn’t collapse… I’m not standing for election. The 2008 result was 7% and this one was over 10%. Even accounting for the low turnout… the Greens have gained votes. I’m not saying this is solely because of the decision to not rule out a coalition deal with National, because clearly there have been other factors involved.
Yes! I agree with you… but that is the umpteenth time you’ve said it and it’s smelling a bit stale. Perhaps it’s time you put it in the compost until there’s a new development.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
12 (-11)
phil u
You don’t honestly believe the biased pre-election polling do you?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Bob… you are still putting on that side-show about the left and wealth redistribution when the actual problem is that YOU will happily set the stage for our grandchildren to be fishing on the WAIKATO GULF. Being a bunch of idiots, most of National hasn’t quite worked out that Mother Nature won’t back up because smile-and-wave Johnny is too busy glad handing our cash back to his banking buddies to actually do anything to fix our economy, our educational system or the environment. She won’t wait.
Most haven’t noticed that not one argument of theirs has TOUCHED the science behind AGW. Too busy slandering and libeling scientists who haven’t a political bone in their bodies… in the service of a set of people who claim to understand money and have the economy of the entire planet completely trashed. Like smile-and-wave, who comments that “he understands this stuff”, when the only part of it he DOES understand is the part where he manages a giant ponzi scheme to legally separate citizens from the products of their labour without ever actually paying them for it.
No SSB. The Con Game is all on your side. You yourself are one of the patsies, unless you’re really QUITE a lot wealthier than everyone else you are merely kidding yourself about who pays for what and who benefits from the real government handouts.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
“..have you been wrong?..”
‘wrong’ about what exactly ..?
..and we don’t know yet..do we..?
..the deal is still/yet to be done…eh..?
which is precisely why i am arguing it now…
..soon it will be too late..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
“..You don’t honestly believe the biased pre-election polling do you?..”
well norman obviously was a tad seduced..
..he was on the telly musing about having 18 mp’s…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Ignoring green growth
So there are economic advantages to implementing a renewable sector over and above the obvious environmental benefits. All it takes is a government with the willpower to set out some very achievable goals…
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
and c’mon jackal..i wasn’t the only one to note that green vote collapse…
..i’m raising an issue here…an important one..
..and i hope internal-discussions/questions are going on..
..that is what i am trying to stimulate..
..for greens to start asking these questions of their leaders..
..all power has been taken into yr co-leaders hands..
..and that is not very ‘green’…
..to my mind…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
phil u
Or more likely there is no coalition deal… in that case we’re wasting our time debating it again. I don’t think endlessly going around in circles is going to change the mind of any Green MP’s. Save you outrage until you know that there is something to be outraged about.
Perhaps you endlessly going on about the same thing made people decide to vote for Winston Peters instead… because they certainly didn’t change their mind and increase Hone’s vote much more than what he gained for the Maori party in 2008.
As I said before… there is nothing new being brought into this discussion.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
When Peter Dunne dominates an argument spouting repeated interruptions about how nobody has ever tried a financial transaction tax someone needs to interrupt back at him, right in his face, to point out:
A. That is a good recommendation because what IS being done, same as we always do, IS NOT working
and
B. It is well known that it cannot be done by a single country, but NOW with most of Europe and Japan and Australia eager to go ahead with it… it almost certainly WOULD work.
I wanted to strangle the ignorant, self-aggrandizing asshole. I hoped but didn’t expect Russell would do it and it was Winston Peters who pointed out the lies.
Which is the nice thing about Winston. He doesn’t take any sh!t from Dunne. I think its personal for them.
Russell is a far nicer person in person than I am. Possibly too honest and nice to succeed in this game so well.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Jackal says “The 2008 result was 7% and this one was over 10%.”
If you used the way you’ve measured other parties votes up til now, they’d be under 5%.
So how come you measure votes in different ways for different parties?
You use election results for parties you want to do well.
But for parties you don’t like you dilute their vote against the whole population including those who didn’t vote and those who are not allwoed to vote.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
The article says:
Not calling the sgm that would be required to approve coalition means that coalition is not being sought, i.e. no point in calling a meeting if there’s nothing to talk about. But phil says:
Not what was said, just a product of your over active imagination. Nothing has changed and Metiria didn’t suggest anything had. The remit stays in place until another general meeting rescinds it. At any point in the next three years that an arrangement involving confidence and supply with the Nats was to be considered, it would have to be taken to an sgm.
The article goes on to say that after the Nats have formed a govt, talks on an MoU extension would begin, exactly what Metiria and Russel have been saying was most likely for six months.
Green Party members aren’t asking your paranoid questions because the co-leaders are doing EXACTLY what the membership agreed they should do.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
I took no cheap shot at Mana. I’ve said before I thought they ran a good campaign and Hone was in top form. You’re happy to point out that the Greens vote was a few percent lower than the polls even though still well within the margins of error. But the two or three additional MPs touted to come in with Hone that didn’t, mean 2/3 to 3/4 of his caucus didn’t materialise. All the small Mana vote seems to have come from the Maori Party. Despite choosing to be a left based party rather than just Maori based, Mana had almost no success at all with the left. 118 party votes in Waitakere from the highest profile candidate outside Hone is an epic fail. The Nats thought Sue would split the vote but she was barely noticed. There’s clearly a lot of work to do.
But my point was that as a party happy to shout from the sidelines, we’ll have a good contrast comparing Mana’s progress to the Greens over the coming years.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
13 (-13)
and i am puzzled by the/any references/comparisons to mana..
..i can’t see the/any point you may be trying to make..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
photon
Because you said National had gained half the populations vote you dick. 23% is clearly not half the population.
Valis
Now you are just talking crap! How can you know this?
I’m expecting both parties to grow comparatively equally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
9 (-9)
Valis
You do realize that was a fictitious argument that phil u could drive a bus through if he wanted to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
No one can say for sure, we’ll have to wait for the NZES to get a better clue. But why is it crap? The Maori Party went down by 1% and Mana went up by 1%. The vast majority of Mana party votes came from the Maori electorates. I haven’t looked at all general electorates, but Sue Bradford only got 0.4% in Waitakere – not exactly inroads.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
National’s privatization dreamland
Despite the National party only gaining 23% of the populations vote, John Key believes National has a mandate to sell off our best performing SOE’s…
Valis
I realize it wasn’t your quote, but you made the same argument. There will be a percentage of Green voters who went with Mana perhaps because the Greens did not strictly rule out working with National. I think this is probably a small proportion in comparison to the more centrist pro National vote they might have picked up… it would be nice to see some proper data instead of speculating.
That’s a pity. Sue Bradford is a great campaigner and would bring a huge amount of skill and professionalism to parliament. She is perhaps Manas strongest candidate. Sometimes I wonder if New Zealand knows what’s good for it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Can’t see where you put that caveat on it anywhere in this thread.
How many times does it need to be explained?
- The remit/sgm is about enabling a govt to form with Green support. That’s all it was ever about.
- The MoU is about working on areas of common policy. The membership does not require this to come to them for approval as it involves no policy trade offs. The membership expects the co-leaders to make what progress they can on Green policy and is happy with the MoU as a vehicle to do so. Even Sue Bradford was happy working this way with National.
- Process wise, the MoU is between the National party and the Green party. The Green Executive must agree to the establishment of the MoU framework and future project additions to it. The co-leaders to not have final say.
As you refuse to understand the remit or the position of the membership, you constantly make erroneous statements like these.
It has already happened, FFS!
We would if we were doing what the Maori Party is doing, but we are not!
It is an absolute straw man to wrongly imply the remit/sgm process covers other working relationships and then say it’s being abandoned and that the co-leaders are running amok. Whether you make such things up or are just dense, it’s still bullshit that needs to be set straight, because it questions the integrity of the Green Party and it’s leaders. The real problem is you’ll do the same all over again next week too.
It seems you just can’t accept that someone might disagree with you so have to assume a conspiracy to believe it. Well this is the position of the Green Party membership, just get used to it. I’ve no issue that you think it’s crazy – why not just debate that instead of bringing in all this bullshit all the time.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0 (+9)
We can only speculate at this stage but it can’t be that complicated. Just look at the numbers. Mana got less than 20k party votes and 3/4 came from the Maori seats. The Green Party tripled it’s vote on avg in the Maori seats and the Maori Party went down by the same number as Mana got. Sure it won’t have been 100% direct transfer from one to the other, but that hardly matters.
In the general seats, Mana got less than 5000 votes nationwide. Don’t know what the future will bring, but there is no way it can be claimed they were successful with the left in 2011.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
so much factually wrong..and total mis-representations of what i said..
..i can’t be fucked listing them..
…readers can make their own minds up..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
David Farrar writes about Trotter’s call for an end to unions joining Labour
Now let’s contrast that with the National party that is made up of ex bankers, farmers and climate change deniers. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to poke holes through Farrars argument, being that he is advocating for Labour to chop off their nose to spit their face. I mean Labour taking political advice from Farrar is like Gandhi dressed up as Hitler… it’s not going to happen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
it’s obvious the option of being a real opposition party isn’t even on the table..
..and hasn’t ever been put on the table…
(you have been stockholm-syndromed into an ‘understanding’ mindset..)
..so now we can all cross our fingers and wish/hope..
..that that role hasn’t been given away for just a few more bales of pink batts..
..and my concerns over the electoral-outcomes that muted-opposition role may engender..
..will..i guess..play out over time..
..and i must admit..it does surprise me that so many of you/greens seem to have absolutely no concerns over what i am saying..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
That’s the only reason I bother.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Jackal says “Because you said National had gained half the populations vote you dick.”
You use completely different systems to give election results for each party.
You use actual election results for parties you like.
And for parties you don’t like you give them just half their election result.
Then you hurl personal abuse at anyone who highlights your rediculous system.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
David Farrar thinks Shearer’s the right man
Ha! Farrar says “I think Shearer will pose the most risk to my beloved National party but want him elected anyway”. If you ever needed any further confirmation that David Farrar is a complete RWNJ there it is. Labour taking political advice from Farrar is like Attila the Hun marrying Mother Theresa… it’s not going to happen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Addressed yesterday at 4:40pm and 9:02pm. We just don’t think your tactics will work. This is exactly why Greens want to grow, and we’re being led by the new generation in this.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2 (+10)
(this is kinda cool..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/steve-jobs-vision-of-the-world-the-apple-founders-words-of-wisdom-video/
“..When you grow up you tend to get told the world is the way it is -
- and you’re life is just to live your life inside the world.
Try not to bash into the walls too much.
Try to have a nice family – have fun – save a little money.
That’s a very limited life.
Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact:
Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you -
- and you can change it – you can influence it -
- you can build your own things that other people can use.
Once you learn that – you’ll never be the same again…”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
(then there is the slightly grimmer view..)
“..Thus the tragedy of the consumer state: The manner the present age of media-borne illusion usurps our instinctual drives and individual longings–
–the appetites and imaginings–that compel our life force to its zenith–
–but instead will induce us to spend our lives in the pursuit of careerist vanity – and consumer dreck -
- and, in so doing, serves to deliver our passions to a wasteland of electronic dust.
When the inhuman demands of a seemingly implacable system control the lives of a people –
- an aura of nebulous fear, nettling resentment and habitual passivity, alternating with impulsive aggression, will seize the spirit of a culture…”
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/amid-the-architecture-of-declining-capitalism-memes-death-genes-and-real-estate-schemes-%C2%A0/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
11 (-11)
i await with growing trepidation the waving of the piece of paper..
..and the announcement..
“..pink-batts in our time..!..”
..when so much is given away..
..by so few..
..for so many…
..for so little..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
Young Natz are boring
Six young natz show just how brain dead boring they are in a video negatively endorsing Cunliffe. I transcribed it because the audio is shite!
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
phil u
Yeah! Why the hell weren’t they doing that already. This and the police database on stolen cars are pretty slow off the mark. What other obvious things are they ignoring that could make a huge difference to New Zealander’s lives?
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
“..That’s the only reason I bother…”
thanks for stepping up/into the role as/of foil…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Pretty much. The MoU is simply not so controversial within the Party, because we have traded away nothing to get those projects funded.
..and i repeat..the option of ‘what to do now?’..after evaluating the election-outcome…
..has not/is not being offered/considered by the party..
..post-election..(n.b..’post-election’..)
Which, and I repeat yet again, the membership decided on so is happy about. This is how it worked after the last election. If there was a concern, the process would have been changed via Exec or at a previous AGM. Members determine what they get consulted directly on and have decided consultation through their Exec reps is enough for this. Get over it.
..those decisions are all being made by management..
Management in this case being Exec, the voting members of which are chosen by the locals in each of our nine provinces. The co-leaders don’t get a vote, nor the co-conveners.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
“..because we have traded away nothing to get those projects funded…”
..just yr opposition-voice/mojo…
..which is/has been my main argument..
..and you still haven’t quite grasped that..?
..are you fucken kidding me..?
..oh well..!
..so long as you are all happy..eh..?
..time will tell if yr complacency over shelving that role will play out for you..
..do you see the party moving further to the right..?
..have/are you given up on winning the left/centre-left..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
It appears that TV1 News does not know about the Toxic Shellfish warning, with reporter Matt McLean stuttering about the shellfish being safe to eat. However there is still a warning out for Tauranga and other areas, The Waikato District Health Board reiterated the warning today:
Toxic shellfish warning remains in place
What kind of reporting is that? He is putting peoples lives in danger.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Sometimes I wonder if New Zealand knows what’s good for it.
Jackal… I do not “wonder”
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
..just yr opposition-voice/mojo…
..which is/has been my main argument..
..and you still haven’t quite grasped that..?
..are you fucken kidding me..?
Believe me, I get it phil. It’s what you think, you’ve been very clear, OK? How can I be clear too – YOU ARE WRONG, YOUR ANALYSIS IS SHIT. Do you grasp where I’m coming from now too?
We’re not going to agree on this, eh? But I’ll continue to argue with a logic that says we mute our criticism to work with the big parties, because it’s bullshit.
As I’ve said, I don’t think we mute our criticism at all, and I don’t think we’d be doing any different if we’d never worked with a big party. I think we still wouldn’t meet your standard for opposition and you’d just be claiming some other reason for why. And it would probably be just as wrong.
..time will tell if yr complacency over shelving that role will play out for you..
That’s what I meant by comparing our progress to Mana. Mana would seem to be planning the sort of opposition you approve of, so we’ll see how these two strategies work out over the next ten years. Should be interesting. I know where my money is.
..do you see the party moving further to the right..?
..have/are you given up on winning the left/centre-left..?
That’s Bryce Edwardian in it’s stupidity. Our policies and priorities are clearly on the left and that hasn’t changed in all the time we’ve been in Parliament.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
..which is/has been my main argument..
..and you still haven’t quite grasped that..?
YOU haven’t grasped that the folks at the top of our party right now are for the most part, too polite to make the ruckus you want to see.
Yeah… I’d like to have a more forceful “take no prisoners” persona up there.. but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the MOU or some backroom deals. I wonder whether a party that works democratically and by consensus as we do, can really have people like that lead it.
?
However, it has nothing to do with trading mojo.. or some secret codicil to the MOU …
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
phil – it comes down to whether you want to spend you whole life as a stone thrower, and achieve nothing, but delude yourself that you’re true to your cause.
OR be pragmatic, and actually achieve REAL gains for your cause.
So when you get to pensioner age, will you still be “true” to your cause but have acheieved zero change, or will you be pragmatic and actually have made a difference?
Personally, I have little doubt that on the track (read attitude, and you can probably add jackal to this) you are on, you will have made little difference to your own, or anybody elses lives, in the next ten or twenty or thirty years.
I can see you as an angry abusive old man in a place not particularly changed from where you are now.
For some Greens, making a difference is most important. For others, it’s sticking to a cult…er…I mean …ideaology – regardless of if it makes any difference or not.
So while in my opinion the Green Party is deluded on some financial issues, I think they’re pragmatic enough to get some real gains on environmental issues, that wouldn’t happen if they just wanted to be stone throwers.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
photon
You know nothing about what I achieve in my personal life you tory bastard!
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
photon
For the fourth time you idiot! You lied that half the population had voted for National when this was only 23%. Your obfuscation deserves as much scorn as frog will allow.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Corruption Checklist – New Zealand
On Thursday, Transparency International released it’s 2011 ‘Corruption Perception Index’ saying that New Zealand is perceived to be the least corrupt country in the world.
However if we put New Zealand through the Corruption Checklist, we find that the policy makers are ensuring that corruption remains alive and well in Aotearoa…
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
13 (-12)
phil u
Don’t forget the croniest, lecherous, twisted, mealy mouthed, worst bunch of no good varmints this countries ever seen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
y’know what also puzzles and disturbs me..?
norman dosen’t like winston peters..
..but he likes john key…
..the hollow man..
..wonder why..?
..so do i..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Russel has said he gets on with Key ok, Winston doesn’t get on with anyone. Doesn’t mean he likes either one of them. Sounds like just your latest way to justify your unfounded conspiracy theories.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
yeah ok valis..
carry on..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
9 (-9)
Goff’s ego has finally got the idea – no matter three years of unqualified harm – keep the silly ol’ crown Phil – Hermann Goering is your political godfather.
The two Dave’s should get married – between them you’d have a good Labour Prime Minister.
Can’t resist a final word for Goff; – everyone said you’d never win two years ago – the last thing we need is A King without Ears (already got one of those) Opposition – means different Phil….work on that or get another job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For someone who has a masters degree in politics, it is amazing how much hurt philu is feeling towards the Greens.
Surely all the studies and masters degree thesis writing would have made him realise that party politics (in ALL political parties) is always at the behest of the members.
Greens have moved towards a more responsive political position over the last three years and philu does not like the abondonment, from radical ideals to pragmatic socialism.
Political parties change to face the realities of the landscape, voters change as their knowledge grows.
The Greens are facing up to the fact that one can be either radically opposed or constructively responsive (via MOU’s) to the political climate.
So do its members.
Even the Mana party has altered its initial focus from a straight out Maori activist party model to a multicultural (with primary Maori focus) entity.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
They claim to be willing to look at improving waterways – call them on it. And add support for food programmes in poor area schools …
And try to extend the insulation programme to a requirement for rental property to be insulated within say 5 years.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
And ensure any child not part of the Well Child B4 School programme is looked at when they start school – also medical visits to poor area schools … dental care for children in beneficiary families etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
The Green party hasn’t changed all that much. I think the increased vote is a symptom of people becoming more environmentally aware more than anything else.
You’ve failed to included basic opposition without using the “radical” terminology. This fits in well with those who claim a few people with unregistered guns are “terrorists” and anybody on a benefit is a “dole blunger”. Such a mentality is why the right wing will ultimately fail… their stubborn refusal to accept reality.
I didn’t realize the Greens membership had appointed you as their spokesperson Gerrit.
This is totally unrelated. The Mana party is about as likely to support National as you are of getting into government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
sheesh..!
i’m just asking/expecting them to be an opposition party worthy of the name..
i’m not asking them to storm government house..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
photonz..
and i see you as a rightwing git..
..of indeterminate/irrelevant age…
..and indeterminate/irrelevant ideas..
..meh..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Jackal says “For the fourth time you idiot! You lied that half the population had voted for National when this was only 23%.”
Todd – you’re an idiot. I’ve NEVER claimed half the population voted for National. (despite you going on & on & on & on with your silly formula)
I did claim around half the population SUPPORTS National – based on results from poll after poll after poll after poll (including the election).
You are the one who uses the election results for parties you agree with, and the election results, halved, for parties you disagree with.
Halving the election results, but only for then parties you don’t like, is pathetic.
Really pathetic.
I actually think the Greens did really well in this election. I don’t halve the results for Greens, but use actual results for all other parties.
Only a total dickhead would do that.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
phil says “and i see you as a rightwing git..
..of indeterminate/irrelevant age…
..and indeterminate/irrelevant ideas..
..meh..!
..eh..?
For that to cause even the slightest offence to me, first I’d have to understand the sentence, and secondly I’d have to see that it came from someone who contributes even a little bit to society.
But in reality, unless your attitude changes, in another decade you’ll exactly where you are now – bitter, bludging, twisted, and abusing everyone – from the Greens to the far right
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
The Greens Are Far Right…!
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
photonz,
It is pretty hard for philu to cause offence when his record shows him to be a self confessed (the crack made me do it!), convicted armed robber of a chemist store.
His masters degree (with honors) in politics has been questioned in the past. Not to my knowledge ever confirmed the degree was ever attained.
How can one take offence?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
“..bitter, bludging, twisted, and abusing everyone..”
you left out ‘bulging’…
and a dictionary definition of ‘git’ is ‘an unpleasant or contemptible person’..
(i hope that helps..)
..and gerritt..it was heroin..not crack..(that came later..)
..and the old kiwiblog ‘i’ll bet you he hasn’t even got a degree!’-meme…
..i haven’t seen that one in ages..
..points for nostalgia there..
..oh.other rightwing-git…
..eh..?
(i do so love the smell of a fresh fool..early in the morning..
..and this morning i get two..!
..aren’t i the lucky one..?)
anyway..enough fun..news calls..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I think we should expect it. National look set to ignore the Kyoto Protocol
I guess we should expect it … China looks set to ignore the Kyoto Protocol. New Zealand is not adhered to deal to reduce emissions in the first place
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Glad to see philu’s memory is improving.
As back in 2005 it was
Brain restorative powers of cannabis?
So you do have an actual degree (masters with honors) in politics?
WOW
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
um..!..smack is heroin…it is not crack..
and..
“..WOW..”
yes..and after all those drugs too…!
..now..imagine it were alcohol was the drug i had gone ballistic on..?
..comparably heroic amounts of alcohol would have left me drooling…not studying…
..food for thought…?
..eh..?
..drink up..!
oh judgemental-rightwing-anti-druggie-git..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
i am watching the replay of sunday from last week..
i wd advise all to go to tvnz on demand and watch the interview with turei/norman..
..it is cringe-material..
..and turei calls key ‘john’…
..your leaders are far far too close to the wreckers/scumbags..
..the host is also fairly scathing of the pink-batts successes of the last 15 yrs in parliament..being about it..
..turei gets quite prickly over that..
..and then peters comes on..
..promising to blow the lid off the schemers behind the asset-sales..
..and to do everything he can to stop those asset-sales..
..do a compare and contrast with yr ‘understanding-john’-leaders..
..and fucken cringe..
..eh..?
..how can you not..?
..and this couldn’t be a clearer example of the dangers i have been trying to alert you to…
..parliament hasn’t even started..and peters is showing more opposition..
..and by a factor of bloody ten..
..the green leaders are jonesing for their meeting/deal with ‘john’..
..(and you know what..?..key is playing them/the greens like a fucken violin..
..reason to cringe..number two..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
minor mystery of the media..
why the fuck is that mike williams everywhere..
..all he ever does is the bleeding-obvious-hindsight..
..he has nothing else to offer..
..ever..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
watching the nation..
shearer has to have it in the bag…
cunnliffe speaks like a rote-politician..
..shearer speaks like a human being…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
the host interviewer is the usual useless..
not asking/probing where each may take labour..
..he burbles irrelevant nonsense..
..asking them what their election-slogans wd be three years from now..
..f.f.s..!
that..and when did they last speak to helen clark..?
..double-f.f.s..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
garner is calling cunnliffe..(!)
w.t.f.has he been smoking..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
good grief..!
hapless host asks gould same inane election-slogan-three years from now question..
..(and beams at his own cleverness at asking it..(!)..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
that editor of metro has got that rolling stones young-hair/old-face look going on..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Phil – I feel entirely different about this – Shearer is fuzzy-as and refuses to express his opinion about a number of things – pointed questions, important questions, he dodges. Cunliffe knows his own mind and the policies. Shearer is wallowing in his inexperience. One is sharp, the other vague. Vague won’t cut it. I despair at the support Shearer is getting. Phil, Farrar and Slater are anointing Shearer. Phil, Farrar and Slater are anointing Shearer. Phil!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i agree that the beginnings of his answers are more equivocal than cunnliffes’..
..but as far as i can/could see shearer got there in the end…
..and i liked what he had to say..
(brownie points to cunnliffe tho’ for threatening to re-nationalise any sold-off energy-assets..if it all goes ahead..that may be the only option..)
..and fly…just because farrar and slater happpen to agree with what i say..
..dosen’t make me question my call..eh..?
..and key wants cunnliffe..
..’cos he knows shearer cd whup him..
..cunnliffe wouldn’t pose such a risk to key..
..’nuff said..?..’nuff reasons..?
..i’d like shearer as leader..cunnliffe doing finance..
..’cos..from doing commentaries on questiontime..i know cunnliffe is good in parliament against both english and key..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
a reinvigorated labour will tear back those labour voters who have drifted green…
..and did you hear shearer with his ‘clean and green’..?
..whoar..!
..you really risk being out-flanked..
..by labour on one side..
..and mana on the other..
..and you still think this should be seen as a good time for you to be seen to be ‘understanding’of key/national..?
the next parliament is going to be a bare-knuckle brawl..
..entirely different to the zombie-democracy of that last term..
..really greens..
..a time to make yrslves heard..eh..?
..not a time to muffle yr voices with pink batts..eh..?
..you risk dooming/silencing yrslves to irrelevancy..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
photon
Anybody with half a brain can see through your pathetic argument Tory.
greenfly
I thought it was telling when Shearer spoke dishearteningly about Labour under Helen Clark… he seems to be taking onboard the opinion from those who want to destroy Labour. I mean what a pile of dog turd that meme is… Helen Clark was perhaps this countries best PM after big Norm. Paintergate and a speeding car… who gives a rats arse!
Personally I agree with Helen Kelly’s assessment… Cunliffe and Shearer are both up to the job.
phil u
C’mon phil u. The opposition will work as a rolling mall to decimate National. It will be a relentless attack and there will be National casualties. Greens support will not be reduced by supporting Labour or Mana. The opposition need to work as a team… your divide and conquer mentality isn’t going to be advantageous for Mana.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
how am i trying to ‘divide and conquer’..?
i am urging the greens to stand as a strong opposition party..
..that there now is a strnger imperative for them to be heard…
..and re clark..
..i don’t share yr assessment of her time..
.and no..i don’t give a rats’a rse about her paintergate/speeding..
..i do care about her willfull ignoring of the poor..
..her growing of the underclass..
..her nine yars are where third world diseases amongst poor children returned/surged
..her accelerated destruction of the environment..
..her fostering of the housing bubble..
..her treatment of the green party..(post-elections/most of the time..)
..and her ignoring of the poor went hand in hand with her introducing welfare for the rich..
..f.f.s..!
..clark and national before her..
..got us to the sad/sorry state we are now in..
..bloody oath any new labour needs to distance itself from that rightwing travesty/abomination/abberation…
..that was the clark-regime..
..if she is ‘second greatest’..?
..we are fucken doomed..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
phil u
Well how would you rate them then?
All of those things are true to a degree. In many cases Labour just left things as they were. That is the problem with the three year term… government’s often win the election and then get complacent. All too happy to sit back and sponge their huge salaries off the taxpayer for doing jack!
That’s not how the last John Key government worked though… with a war like mentality on making things more difficult for the poor and creating the biggest inequality this countries ever seen. You can choose to try and cannibalize the Green party phil u, or support the lesser of two evils.
You don’t see National infighting, which is one of the reasons 23% of the population voted for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
..’cos he knows shearer cd whup him..
..cunnliffe wouldn’t pose such a risk to key..”
You reckon?? You believe Key when he says he wants Cunliffe to lead the Labour Party, because he’s confident he’ll ‘whup’ him, and that he ‘doesn’t want’ Shearer because he fears he’ll get whupped by him?
This seriously strains credibility, Phil. You take Key at his word (choke), and align with Slater (choke) and Farrar (choke)??
I’m very much taken aback.
It seems to me that Cunliffe is facing his mistakes intelligently and will act decisively. I recall that it was on issues of figures and money that Key dealt the coup de grace to Goff in the debates. Cunliffe would not be caught out there and would be able to mount a lethal attack on Key in the field in which he excells. Shearer would be slain. I’m clearly not tribal Labour and am not factoring-in that detritus – my reaction is around competence – anyone who stumbles is lost under the present ‘presidential’ system. Shearer bumbles and dithers over simple questions, not only those he doesn’t have the answer for, but where he isn’t willing to commit. That augers badly for him. I see a huge vulnerability.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
“..You believe Key ..”
it is not a matter of believing key…he didn’t say it..
..but it does seem to be one opinion yonder pundits share..
..and i repeat..just because farrar/slater agree with my cunnliffe/shearer assesment/comparison signifies what..?..exactly..?
“..and would be able to mount a lethal attack on Key in the field in which he excells…”
and that’s a rosier view of keys’ abilities – that i don’t share..
..key ‘excells’ at not answering questions..
..he’s as slippery as an old eel..
(but he will be getting the blowtorch on the genitals..this term..from both the media..(who are feeling very ‘played’..and getting grumpier by the minute..)..and those opposition parties that chose to act as opposition parties..
..and let’s get back to the main point here…
..yr green leadership are panting puppies for ‘understanding’ from/by key…
..and i see that as a major ‘bumble/stumble’..
..perhaps a lethal/fatal one..
(i mean..!..seriously..!..you new green mp’s watching this should be thinking about how long to want to be there/in parliament..
..the path of appeasment to this bunch of bastards will be a shortcut to a shortened political-career..
.think on..!..eh..?
..and speak up..!..
..if only out of self-preservation..
..”..Shearer bumbles and dithers over simple questions..”
no..he speaks like a human being not a politician..
..that to my mind is a positive..
..and is part of the appeal that key has/had..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“..You can choose to try and cannibalize the Green party phil u..”
i am not the one ‘cannibalizing the green party’..
..that is being done from within..
..appearing to be sacrificed on the personal/short-term ambitions/desires of yr leadership..
..and the (willing/unthinking?) coterie surrounding them..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Stuff reports: Battered ship leaks more oil
Just after they released more birds and had been trying to tell everybody the beaches are fine. No sign of a cleanup vessel… just let the oil hit the beaches again. FFS!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
phil u
I’ve heard this argument before from Farrar and Slater… I’m independent.
You think Russel and Met are going to ignore their supporters for their own personal gain. This says more about your lack of trust. Please link to some evidence instead of your unrelenting speculation?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Thousands Protest At Cop17
Countries that don’t commit to a binding agreement to reduce emissions are committing a crime against humanity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
You’re both wrong. The populace supports John Key the person, and as he leads national, that brings National in with JK.
And as long as the peole like JK, he’s going top stay in power along with his party.
Phil just can’t seem to understand this, and has this gormless opinion that polcies matter (they don’t – if they did then JK would have been rolled based on asset sales), and that any of the current labour party folks can hold a flickering candle to Key – they can’t.
Phil: If you want a really really party left of JK in power then you (a) have to understand what you’re up against, and (b) find some potential candidates that the people like a lot, of which there currently aren’t any, so we’re a multi-election timeframe away from change.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
dbuckley
You’re generalizing! The populace does not support Shonkey. 23% of the population voted for National (not accounting for specials)… your point being that some of those only gave their vote because keys can smile and wave is irrelevant to photon talking rubbish by saying half the population voted for National.
“I’ve got a god damn mandate” screams key while approximately 10% of the population actually voted for MOM privatization.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Question: What percentage of the population voted for National? Answer: 23%.
Question: Of that 23%, how many support MOM privatisation? Answer: Less than half.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Don’t hold your breath, Jackal.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
Jackal
It is the end of this road. Any agreement has to be ratified by the US Senate by a 2/3 majority. The likelihood of this is zero. That house is only barely able to muster a Democratic majority and Republicans are competing with each other to see who can make the most stupid statement about climate science.
In about a decade, some of the fools will be dead, and more of the impacts of AGW will be hammering the USA, and it won’t be so easy to be a denialist… not so easy to be a neo-con. Mother Nature will be delivering the first of a series of blows that will give a taste of “shock and awe” to the “masters of the universe” as the wall-street insiders style themselves.
Maybe then we can get started. It will by then be far too late to avoid bad things happening. It will not be too late to avoid worse things.
The real disappointment is that when the guilty parties are actually recognized, they will almost all be dead anyway. This is why it is called “generational theft” and inter-generational crime.
Our job is to keep right on fighting them. Keep right on pointing out the science and the “inconvenient truth”. Keep right on telling them that they are criminals.
Our responsibilities are not diminished by THEIR failures.
On a practical level we need to prepare the nation with infrastructure that is more resilient and further above the sea-level we can expect, and my crack about the Waikato Gulf includes the Hamilton fishing reef complete with a dive spot with a real undersea casino…
That’s what happens in the end… and we’ll need something to connect our string of islands – all that will be left to us as the rest will have been stolen at that point by people long dead.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
the ‘evidence’ is ..
1)..the previous pattern of ‘understandings’..
..with both labour and national…
..and for what..?..ya hafta ask..?
..so many years of ‘understandings’..
..for so little..
2)..the unseemly closeness of the party leaders to their friend ‘john’…
..noted during the many questiontimes i have commented on..
http://whoar.co.nz/?s=questiontime
..and that i have commented on in those commentaries..
3)..the unseemly apparant eagerness to ‘talk with john’..
..and ‘do a deal’..
(that only emphasised by that cringe-making appearance on sunday last week..
..watch..!..even norman flinches when turei beams out ‘john’..)
now..given the case i am making is that yr leadership is rushing unthinking into a deal where they will be seen to be offering moral-support to a rightwing-bastard government..
..one hell bent on selling off assets..
..and fucking over the economy..
(f.f.s..!!..do i really have to point this out to you..?
..are you fucken blind…?)
..and the damage this will do to both yr support base..
..and likely yr voter-numbers..
..i reckon that is some solid evidence..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
Jackal – you halve election results of parties you disagree with, and give full results for parties you support.
This is so idiotic that if any media did that, they’d be laughed off the airwaves.
The first reason it’s so idiotic, is that you can use your rediculous method to argue the exact opposite – that only 20% of the total population voted for parties opposed to asset sales (or 80% of the population didn’t care enough to vote against asset sales).
The second reason it’s so idiotic, is that to get a mandate using your method (over 50% of the whole population) – a party would have needed MORE THAN 100% of all votes in the 2011 election.
The third reason it’s idiotic, is that using your method, no government ever has, or ever will, have a mandate to do anything.
That’s why we have an election – a poll of 2 million people who care about issues enough to bother ticking a box.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
12 (-11)
The third reason it’s idiotic, is that using your method, no government ever has, or ever will, have a mandate to do anything.
The only way to get a mandate to do something is to have a vote on JUST THAT THING.
… which hasn’t happened.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
BJ says “The only way to get a mandate to do something is to have a vote on JUST THAT THING. … which hasn’t happened.”
That’s just as silly. Cause using your theory we should have had nationwide votes on on
-GST increases,
-tax decreases,
-anti smacking law,
-working for families,
-harsher criminal sentences,
-partial asset sales,
-buying back Air NZ,
-starting Kiwibank,
-starting Kiwisaver,
-buying back Kiwi Rail,
-buying into Shell service stations,
-changes to ACC,
-national standards,
-private prisons,
-mining,
-drilling,
-dairying,
-irrigation,
-ETS,
-free trade deal with China,
-Treaty settlements
-foreshore and seabed law
-etc
-etc
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Quick? You fling nasty shit all day, most of which I ignore. I just thought it a bit odd for Jackal to ask for evidence from you after all recent arguments have shown you don’t have any.
..passive-aggression on steroids..eh..?
And you are an irony free zone as well if you can say that. The most aggressive person on this blog complains about aggression. My heart bleeds.
And your “evidence” is still nothing but opinion and uninformed conjecture.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/9-ways-to-start-your-own-revolution-slideshow/
“…Judge the current economic and political system by its outputs: rising inequality, climate change, and mounting economic volatility.
Things are not going as planned.
Across the world, and in the Occupy Wall Street movement, the shouts of protest are getting louder.
But will protest alone be enough?
Experience suggests otherwise.
Instead, we need to consider new methods of political change.
Not lobbying politicians, not signing petitions, but action, by ourselves, now.
This is the old school way – if you want something done, you’ve got to do it yourself.
Here are 9 principles to consider in guiding that action.
This is a different form of politics where we set up better systems to replace the old: -
- non-profit banks, cooperative companies -
- and truly inclusive participatory forums of decision-making.
And this method – non-violent, consulting those most affected –
- offers a route to real and lasting change -
- not more “politics as usual”…”
(cont..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/9-huge-blows-to-the-catastrophic-war-on-drugs-will-we-have-sane-drug-policy-some-day/
“…2011 has been a watershed year for the movement working to end our county’s disastrous war on drugs.
Below are the top stories of the year that exemplify the momentum -
- and give us hope that we can find alternatives to drug war madness…”
(cont..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Being an optimist, I could have argued that the election could have been about partial privatisation, and Goff could have made that the issue, almost single issue politics. But then Goff went and used the CGT word.
Thus anyone who was naturally a National supporter who might have been considering flopping because of asset sales instantly had a wake up call reminding them how stupid it would be for them personally if they voted with the reds.
As is so often the case with left leaning politics – opportunity lost.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
phil u
Your evidence is the way Met said John? C’mon man… that’s just ridiculous!
Please stop saying “your leadership”. The Greens are not my leaders… I’m independent.
photon
By your rules the Natz still don’t have a mandate to sell assets… being that they gained 957,769 votes while 2,235,054 voted. 42.8% is not a mandate to sell assets. 53% who voted National do not want asset sales… so that still works out to be only 22.5% of those who voted are in favour of asset sales. Time for a referendum.
What you’re saying is that any party that gets into power can do whatever they like?
~
Good to see the Greens getting some coverage on the Sea Lion’s moving a step closer to extinction because of National’s uncaring policies. What a travesty that coverup of the oil spill response ship is. National should hang their heads in shame!
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Photonz
Don’t be more of an asshole than you have to be.
A mandate is not the same as the right to make a law.
Defining when a mandate is needed to allow the government to do a thing isn’t covered, but claiming that one HAS a mandate is.
No right to claim that if the specific question was not asked. YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE and you just feel like being obstreperous.
Is it necessary to have a “mandate” for any of the things on your list? I think some of them should require one, or a 2/3 agreement of parliament rather than a simple majority… which ones?
My point however, which you are being dense about, is that you cannot claim a “mandate” on the basis of the general election.
You can claim a mandate to keep MMP, as a specific question was asked.
You want a mandate you have to ask the specific question.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
BJ says “Don’t be more of an asshole than you have to be. A mandate is not the same as the right to make a law.”
What a load of nonsense. As soon as you don’t like something you say the govt doesn’t have a mandate.
They have a mandate to pursue their policies. They’ve just been voted back in with a record percentage, and it’s not as if partial asset sales were kept secret.
To have a nationwide vote every time there’s a contentious issue (i.e pretty much every month) would bring the country to a standstill – it’s an incredibly dumb idea.
And considering we’ve have tax and WFF changes that make a difference of $20 per week per person and $100 per week with no referendum, and you want a referendum for asset sales that makes a difference of less than 0.50 cents per week per person.
The govt takes annual tax of equivalent to $16,205 per person. And you want a referendum about losing dividends that contribute $27 per person per year (but will save more than that because of less debt).
That’s not even a quarter of 1% of the governments income (i.e less than 1/400th).
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
jackal says “By your rules the Natz still don’t have a mandate to sell assets”
They’ve taken a record percentage of the vote, so they’ve got the biggest mandate any MMP govt has ever had.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
i presume you haven’t watched it jackal…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
A party is not an MMP government coalition.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“”we should have had nationwide votes on”"
Yes, we should have, if enough people want them.
It’s called democracy, Photo.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Gee, Photonz1. If solkta was here, reading your ‘mandate’ drivel, he’d give you the biggest QUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!
Like or Dislike:
7 
6 (+1)
I watched it, which is how I know you’re full of it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
greenfly – The irony is you make animal noises, and complain about drivel, in the very same sentence.
Are animal noises the epitome of intellectual leadership from the Southland Greens?
They must be so proud down there.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
photon
Not to sell assets they don’t. That’s because over half of those who voted for National don’t want asset sales either and it’s not just those who vote who own those assets… they’re owned by all New Zealander’s.
The problem is your argument is so stupid, people are rightfully ridiculing you photon… once again I feel sorry for you. Poor little tory troll… perhaps the sewer can give you the “intellectual” stimulus you desire.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
What a load of nonsense. As soon as you don’t like something you say the govt doesn’t have a mandate.
They have a mandate to pursue their policies. They’ve just been voted back in with a record percentage, and it’s not as if partial asset sales were kept secret.
No… Most laws don’t have long term effects tying up resources and costing billions over generations to come. Most laws don’t actually make a huge difference to our future. Asset sales are hard to reverse… as in somebody loses big-time when they get re-nationalized.
Believe this Photonz… they WILL be re-nationalized because it is incredibly stupid for YOU to claim that there is a mandate to implement every single policy that National espoused just because Key is a popular PM. You know better.
And considering we’ve have tax and WFF changes that make a difference of $20 per week per person and $100 per week with no referendum, and you want a referendum for asset sales that makes a difference of less than 0.50 cents per week per person.
Which aren’t generational changes. They aren’t robbing the whole of the country for decades into the future. If anything they are inconvenient laws that get changed around with every shift of government. You want to sell the things the nation owns to foreigners mate. Cause unless NZ actually builds something instead of swapping houses at ever increasing prices (I know you can say CGT but your brain is clenched so tight it won’t let you) the money HAS to come from overseas. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!!!
Now go find someplace else to squawk your nonsense. A mandate is ONLY available on a specific issue. You want one you have to ask the specific question. Having a general election with results that depend on a dozen different policies, leader’s personality traits and who made the last media slip? That elects a party, but CANNOT GIVE A MANDATE FOR ANY SPECIFIC POLICY. If you think otherwise you are dead wrong.
You can’t claim a mandate to sell assets. What you have is the right as government, to make the laws you see fit. You can in fact go ahead and sell assets. That’s LEGAL… but it isn’t because you have a mandate to do it.
You are usually a lot smarter than this. What’s gotten into you? Been drinking too much to celebrate the great (fractional percentage) victory?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Put another way… a mandate is what you have if you can be sure that the opposition won’t reverse your action because a fair few of them voted for it too.
You do not have a mandate to sell assets.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
You are taking a terrible drubbing here, photonz1 and I wonder when you’ll realize that when someone gives you a quacking, it’s a signal to you to think a little more deeply about what you’re currently espousing. Think of it as your own personal bullshit detector going off.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
The only thing i can say is : National Geographic sucks…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/robert-reich-the-rebirth-of-social-darwinism-%C2%A0/
“…What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want?
I’ve been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy – a broadly-shared vision – an ideal picture of America.
They say they want a smaller government but that can’t be it.
Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security.
Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States – eradicating possible terrorists, expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders.
They want stiffer criminal sentences – including broader application of the death penalty.
Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private life.
They call themselves conservatives but that’s not it, either.
They don’t want to conserve what we now have.
They’d rather take the country backwards – before the 1960s and 1970s – and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid;-
- before the New Deal – and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, laws against child labor, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era -
- and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.
They’re not conservatives.
They’re regressives.
And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.
It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise – but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom.
Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry;-
- the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm;
- urban slums festered; -
- children worked long hours in factories; -
- women couldn’t vote – and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; -
- and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.
Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought.
Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America – and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.
Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner’s writings – but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.
To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive –
- and through this struggle societies became stronger over time.
A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.
Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner…”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
(one for the vegetarians…)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/jeffrey-masson-is-there-such-a-thing-as-humane-meat-video/
“..Bestselling author, Jeffrey Masson, has written many popular books about animals – such as When Elephants Weep –
- Dogs Never Lie About Love – and The Face On Your Plate.
Watch Jeff talk about a few topics: Cesar Chavez encouraging him to go vegan;-
- how children have to be indoctrinated against their instincts to eat animals; -
- and what Jeff said to his friend, chef Alice Waters, when she told him that in her gourmet restaurant, Chez Panisse, they never serve an animal that hasn’t led a wonderful life.
Jeff’s response will crack you up!
This is a very short excerpt from the Q&A portion of Jeff Masson’s fascinating talk…”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
When propaganda goes wrong
The government, fishing and tourism industries want the pollution pushed under the carpet because they only care about money. They appear ready to provide obvious false information that is putting peoples lives in danger to protect their brands…
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
greenfly says “You are taking a terrible drubbing here, photonz1 ”
Oohh – the horror. I got some little downticks from someone who likes to abuse and make animal noises rather than debate issues.
In the meantime, we can get the assets ready for partial sale. The loss in dividends is LESS THAN 1/400th of the govts income.
By the time private dividnds are taxed, it will be around 1/600th.
And there’s people who think the dividends are vital for the govts economic income – it just shows they have no idea of how insignificant the dividends really are.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
BJ says “Most laws don’t actually make a huge difference to our future.”
Yeah right – Shifting less than 1/600th of the govt income from income to debt repayment will make a “huge difference to our future”.
Have you actually thought how insignificant the difference is before you wrote that?
Treasury has stated over the last few years the assets in question have paid dividends of $300m per year to govt.
If 49% is sold, then $150m dividend goes to the new owners, but $50m is taxed back.
So the govt losses $100m per year, against an income of over $60 billion – that’s 1/600th or 0.16 of 1%.
Countering the loss of $100m, is a sale of $5b – $7b which will allow us to save $300m to $420m per year in interest (at 6%).
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Time to sue for Pike River
Firstly the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson refused to accept there was a problem with mine safety because of a reduced inspectorate. Then she flip flopped and promised to increase the mining inspectorate. However two months on and there is still only one under-trained inspector for the entire country…
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Sheesh frog… this thread is absolutely huge. Nobody with dialup is going to bother.
photon
How do you explain the fact that government debt has increased so dramatically under National while private sector debt immediately started to fall after they were elected in 2008? MOM asset sales are merely another tool for the wealthy to funnel the publics money into private hands. There is no trickle down effect so there is no good argument for this dynamic from the publics point of view.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Jacka asks ‘How do you explain the fact that government debt has increased so dramatically under National while private sector debt immediately started to fall after they were elected in 2008?”
You expect us to beleive you’re so ouy of touch you don’t know about the global financial crisis? Or the Christchurch earthquake?
You’ve probably also conveniently forgotten that BEFORE the 2008 election, Cullen and Treasury forecast a decade of deficits.
That’s what happens when the whole country spends 15% more than it earns, year after year. And government spending increases at a rate far faster than economic growth.
Surely you know what “unsustainable” means.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
So what you are saying photon is that the Christchurch earthquakes and global recession has enabled the private sector to start paying off their debt since National gained power?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
It’s little wonder you attract derision and caterwails.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
greenfly – that’s rich coming from you. You haven’t even botherd to make an arguement.
You’re still not even bothering to debate the issue.
You never do. You just abuse and make animal noises.
Jackal says “So what you are saying photon is that the Christchurch earthquakes and global recession has enabled the private sector to start paying off their debt since National gained power?”
If you can read, you’d see I didn’t say anything remotely like that.
And you still fail to acknowledge that a decade of deficits was forecast by treasury and Cullen BEFORE the 2008 election.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
photon
I can read just fine. You failed to answer the question in your usual avoid the stuff you can’t answer way.
What’s that got to do with the additional debt National has got us into or my question concerning private debt?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
photonz1, O Centre of our Attentions,you are not thinking. I graciously alerted you to your unconscious blindness to the arguments of others that demolish, disable and dismiss your own, but still you cannot see that it’s happened here, with the ‘mandate’ argument. Demanding that I join the fray reveals that truly, you cannot recognize when you have already been trounced by logical argument. There is no need for me to ‘debate the issue’ – that debate has been had and so have you. You let yourself down when you rabbit on this way. (Cue onomatopoeic rabbit noise, beginning softly, rising to a sub-audible squeal, smelling of lettuce and chamomile and ending with a short series of furry foot stamps.)
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
greenfly = you prove my point.
When you take away your abuse and putdowns – there’s nothing left.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Abandoning the lost cause and trying for a shift of topic is what we seem to see from you Photonz. Fly is simply acknowledging and reminding us about that… so doesn’t NEED to make any further argument.
We can shift, I don’t mind. The money balanced out over time may be more to your liking but making borrowing the assumed source of any additional money required, to replace a one-shot funding (obtained from the sale of stuff that we collectively, including our children’s children, own) is NOT what WE generally have in mind.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Joyce lies again
A couple of days ago, Steven Joyce was on television saying that a dedicated response vessel and a plan to back it up would have made no difference to the outcome of the Rena disaster…
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
“…What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want?
Nice catch there Phil. Very appropriate.
…and just the same thinking going on in some parties here too.
I don’t think it matters if we get Cunliffe or Shearer, in 3 years Key will have worn out his welcome.. I’ve met Cunliffe but not Shearer. I reckon him not easily misled by the sophistry of Key. The News Media of course, would be misled by the sophistry of Donald Duck… so little I think of them.
… again, good catch.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
bj – “Fly is simply acknowledging and reminding us about that… so doesn’t NEED to make any further argument. ”
Greenfly has NEVER debated an issue with me in years. He has ONLY been abusive.
I’m happy to debate asset sales.
Particularly why you think dividends making up just 1/600 of annual government income will make a “huge difference to our future”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
anyway..photonz..
bottom line..
..assets sold without a clear mandate to sell those assets..
..(and no..that isn’t just a general election win..)
..will just be renationalised at the next change of govt..
..so ..buyer beware..!..eh..?
..y’see..!..if they campaign on just that..
..going by yr rules..
..they’ll have their/a mandate to re-nationalise..eh..?
..your dancing around the edges is made irrelevant by just that fact..
..eh..?
phil (whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Here ya go then, photonz1, chaw on this view from me good ol’ mate darkhorse:
“BillE is planning on selling them to our retirement fund so that we end up in the interestingly circuitous situation of buying something we already own so that we can then pay our retirement investment funds more than it cost us to own them so that our retirement funds can pay for our retirement and the retirement fund administrators a nice profit and BillE can then spend our retirement funds on something else. It is a devious waay for govt to get its hands on our retirement savings without having to pay interest – we will pay the interest through our power bills. This is even stupider than selling assets.”
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
did anyone watch campbell-live..?
..the beagles…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
phils says “bottom line..
..assets sold without a clear mandate to sell those assets..”
Using your measure, no govt has ever had a mandate, So effectively mandates are meaningless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
greenfly – the arguement that we’re buying what we already own is pretty common, but it has some fundamental errors.
1/ It’s like saying if I sell my car, then I have no car. But doesn’t take into account I have the money I got paid for the car.
2/ It also fails to account for the fact that if we all part own the assets, then we all must ALSO part own the debt.
So a $5b sale of assets is not a loss – it is balanced by $5b less debt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
we are of course all aware that the spca approves all these vile experiments on animals..eh..?
..the spca is a key component of the vivisection-establishment/enabling..
..they sit on the ‘ethics’-committees…up and down the country..
..and on the national overseeing/approving body..
(yoo-hoo..!..bob kerridge..!..man who holds cute puppies for media..!..frontperson/enabler of the vivisection-industry…!
..kerridge and his organisation give their stamp of approval for all the vile/cruel experiments on animals..
..that his society is called the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals..
..has to be one of the sickest jokes around…
..it is a vivisection front-group..
..a dog i liberated from them had been sold to a vivisection company in wellington..
..how do these evil fucken bastards sleep at night..?
..they go to ‘work’ each day..
..to perpetrate cruel/evil abominable acts on defenceless animals..
..this is all going on all around you..
..in blank factories in industrial estates..
..and in idyllic/rural hell-holes..
..the exercise in beaurocratic ‘evil’ who appeared on campbell..
..the boss of the organisation citing with ‘animal welfare’..
..was all tetchy about dead dogs in rubbish bags..(‘process-failure..)
..she was quite au fait about beagles having their knee cut open..and a major tendon cut/damaged..
..with some dogs then getting the ‘healing-drug’..
..and others the/a placebo…
..and..as an aside…
..i wonder how many of those horrified by this cruel treatment of animals…and watching campbell..
..were eating some other animal..
..raised in even crueler conditions..
..as they watched/emoted..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
has the green party ever said ‘boo!’ about the evils of the vivisectors..?
..i don’t think so..eh..?
.just to be sure..i keyed ‘vivisection’ into the frogblog search engine…
..i got this result:..
“..Sorry, we couldn’t find any results based on your search query..”
..sez it all really..eh..?
..mind you.the last green party spokesperson on animal welfare..
..not only cares for them..she eats them..
..and to my mind..
..that is up there with the kerridge/spca sick-meme..
..she ..like them..just dosen’t/didn’t fucken care…
..i mean..surely there were moments at dinner parties..where she said she was the spokesperson for animal welfare thru a mouthful of their flesh..eh.?
..and probably irony-free with it..eh..?
(and claiming between mouthfuls of flesh/fat/blood that she only eats ‘humane-meat’..(another beyond sick joke.)..
..which we all know is a big lie..
..both in the oxymoron that term is..
..and that that is the only flesh/fat/blood they eat..
..will you try a bit harder next time..?
..and have a vegan as animal welfare spokesperson..?
..oh that’s right..!
..you don’t have one..eh..?
..a vegan…
.phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
photonz1 – I’ll try not to scoff, but is that the totality of your take from the argument I presented? Nothing on the retirement roundabout? Just a transparent re-jigging of the ‘we already own them’ argument?
Goodness.
This was funny from you:
” It’s like saying if I sell my car, then I have no car. But doesn’t take into account I have the money I got paid for the car.”
In fact, if you sell your car, YOU HAVE NO CAR (just so’s we’re clear.)
As for ‘you’ having the money from asset sales, I’ve heard (that nice Mr Key said) the farmers of Canterbury will be getting a lovely new irrigation scheme from the proceeds! Ain’t that grand! The money’s to be channeled to some of us. Gratifying, satisfying and fair enough, wouldn’t you say so, photonz1?
It’s how those right-wingers like to roll and you it seems, roll with them.
I think it’s a disgrace.
But I digress, back to the retirement rort – whadda ya reckon ol’ bud?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
i mean..just who do you/the green party represent for..?
you don’t represent for the animal welfare people..
you don’t represent for the vivisected animals..
you don’t represent for the non-animal eating way of life..
you don’t represent for the cannabis law-reform people..
..(remember them..?..those who first got you into parliament..and who you cut loose five minutes after you got there..?)
who do you represent for..
..is it just some animal-eating twat in grey lynn..
..who aspires one day to have a prius..?
..and a few solar panels..?
..like labour..
..you have gone a long way away from your roots..
..and are in danger of representing nobody..
..save for that aspirational twat in grey lynn..
..think on.!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
If i sell my car i will have not really sold my car as i will have money for a taxi. Quack.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
If I sell my water I wont really have sold my water because I can buy a bottle of water. Quack!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
If I sell my duck-caller…
…nah, I’d never sell my duck-caller!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXjxS1hyTeY
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
greenfly says “Nothing on the retirement roundabout? ‘
I didn’t reply to your retirement arguement because it doesn’t make sense.
For it to make sense, you have to count boths sides of the ledger, but you never do.
Just like Solka and Jackal above – both proudly displaying they have no idea of basic economics.
They think a loss of dividend of $100m a year is terrible. And can’t see further than that.
They fail to account for saving $300-$420 million in interest. They fail to understand that $100m is just 1/600ths of the government income.
And you seem to think this 1/600th makes a significant difference to our future retirement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
Peter Garret on uranium exports
Yesterday, idiotic delegates endorsed Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s request that Australia should export uranium to India, with 206 people voting in favour and 185 opposing it. Unbelievable!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(i’ll repeat that question..there..valis…)
“..and reality -check there valis..
this isn’t just ‘a big party’..
..this is an open pit mining/oil-drilling/asset-selling/stripping/pogrom on poor bunch of offspring of popular name for female dog..
w.t.f.are you thinking..?
..how fucken bad would they actually have to be for you to go taiho..!..?..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
8 (-8)
it’s a funny old world..isn’t it..
former maori radical/activist mair is negotiating with a scumbag rightwing govt..
..for ministerial positions…(maybe one for him..?..)
former environmentalist-activist party..the greens..
..are seeking to do a deal with that same scumbag rightwing/environmental-vandals govt..
it’s an upside down world…alice…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
BJ says “Believe this Photonz… they WILL be re-nationalized ”
No government would be that stupid.
Because the vast majority of benefit from the power generators comes to government no matter who owns them.
Take Genesis for example. They sell $1.8b of energy per year, which generates around $270m for the govt, just in GST alone. Their workers pay another $20m or so of paye. And it pays on average around $40m per year in company tax to govt.
It doesn’t matter who owns the power company – ALL this money ($330m) still still goes to govt.
It is only the dividend that goes to the owner (Genesis didn’t pay any dividend this year). However they’ve averaged $18m per year for the last 8 years.
So typically 95% ($330m of $348m) of the tax and income from Genesis goes to govt, even if they don’t have a single dollar invested in the company.
When it comes to the crunch, treasury will be strongly advising against any govt forking out billions of dollars to re-buy assets just to get the last 5% (1/20th), than what they already get 95% with zero investment, and zero risk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
phil
“former environmentalist-activist party..the greens..”
I don’t see any sensible evidence coming from you to back up this claim, and I sure as hell don’t believe it.
Is this the case of if you repeat a falsehood often enough and it will eventually become true. The world does not work like that I’m afraid. Give it a rest would you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
What is photonz not saying?
Over the last 8 years the equity in Genesis has gone from $940M to $1.7B. Thus the real return from ownership of the SOE has been the rising value of this asset.
The increase in the value of the asset over the 8 years has been greater than the cost of government debt. Dividend income is on top of that.
So we will worse off for not owning all of it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Photonz
DIVIDENDS? WTF you talking ’bout fool?! Ain’t talking no steenking div..eee..dends.
Talking about the benefit of owning stuff, same as effin cap.it.al.ist peeegs do. ‘ceptin it’s the peeple as ownz it.
….
There is a common meme in the National party and it is always the enrichment of the already wealthy. Depriving regular people of the nation, of the means to manage their own affairs and maintain their own society, is a by-product of this. I do not think they intentionally mean to hurt people. They just do. Oblivious to that particular consequence. Most of them anyway.
Selling the assets is so unbelievably stupid as a LONG TERM way of dealing with our problems as to be criminal and it is clear to me that some of the people in National are aware of the criminal nature of what their leadership is planning.
If out schools and medical establishments are in some state of parlous disrepair as a result of under-funding on a long term basis, that lack of funding IS NOT something that goes away because you sell off part of NZ to pay for repairs. That under-funding is happening because some people are too fncking poor to pay their taxes. You know, the ones on 200K and up who don’t have enough fncking money to pay tax AT THE SAME EFFECTIVE RATE SOMEONE ON 60K IS PAYING.
Is National’s selling our asses to the highest bidders is going to fix ANYTHING? No! It is a one shot that doesn’t fix the underlying problem at all. Because National isn’t planning to actually fix anything long term… and never has planned to fix anything except.. except the odds in favor of the wealthy pr!cks who own them.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“..I don’t see any sensible evidence coming from you to back up this claim..”
well..how about you tell me who the green party represents for..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“..National isn’t planning to actually fix anything long term… and never has planned to fix anything except.. except the odds in favor of the wealthy pr!cks who own them…”
nice line there..b.j..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For me of course, the power companies are a special case… because our REAL wealth is the work we control, and the KwH should be backing our money. There can be no correction of our monetary system without government control of substantial power resources.
So to my way of thinking, selling off the power companies is double-down dumb.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It doesn’t matter who owns the power company – ALL this money ($330m) still still goes to govt.
So why sell it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what does my head in is that national are meant to be the ‘economic-rationalists’..
the shortsighted/greed-driven selling of our energy companies for the immediate gain of the 1% scumbags who rule over/exploit us..
..kinda puts a lie to that ‘economic-rationalists’- aphorism..
re-nationalise them..!
..let’s get that meme/assumption rolling..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Our situation is the same as in Greece, except that we have raised our own exploiters to power….
In response, democracies are demanding referendums over whether to pay creditors by selling off the public domain and raising taxes to impose unemployment, falling wages and economic depression. The alternative is to write down debts or even annul them, and to re-assert regulatory control over the financial sector.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/debt-slavery-%E2%80%93-why-it-destroyed-rome-why-it-will-destroy-us-unless-it%E2%80%99s-stopped/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/yasmin-alibhai-brown-dont-be-fooled-were-not-all-in-this-together-inequality-is-not-only-an-unfortunate-result-of-the-economic-crisis-it-is-the-ideological-tenet-of-the-right/
“…It would be terribly intrusive – but boy wouldn’t we like to know the pre-Christmas spending habits of the Camerons, Osbornes – and the terrifically jovial, blond Johnson clan?
Shop assistants, sadly, are not whistleblowers, but we can assume the puddings and pies will not come from Aldi, ale will not replace champagne – and there is little chance members of these great houses will be spotted at New Look.
That’s bitchy.
Maybe, enthused by Kirstie Allsopp, loaded queen of crafts, the genteel Laydees have decided to gift down and are knitting bracelets for diamond charms.
It’s all relative, isn’t it?
The Queen, for example, faces a pay freeze until 2015 – only £30m per annum.
See how frugally she lives – storing food in Tupperware boxes, turning the lights off in all the thousand and one rooms she owns.
And this is how we repay her.
Must be why she is cheering herself up with a new filly for £500,000 -
- paid for from her own incalculable private fortune.
Kate is to have her own new palace and her sister Pippa is not doing badly either.
Penguin has, apparently, given her an advance of £400,000 for a book on party piffle.
In the top-range glossy mags there are watches, handbags and coats costing so much -
- each one would feed a family for months.
OK so they have it and flaunt it, as they have through history.
The rich, like the poor, are always with us.
But, until now, nobody pretended that thieving bankers with their bonuses still rolling in -
- and tax-avoiding businessmen and politicians from hideously privileged backgrounds -
- suffer in bad times as much as the lone mum bringing up her kids on benefits -
- the disabled widower in care -
- and the man in the cornershop open day and night making a hard living.
But, they say we are “all in this together” -
- and they are honourable men.
This slogan is a cover for policies which calculatedly seek to “sacrifice” a section of the population and to wreck the welfare state.
Inequality is not only an unfortunate result of the economic crisis -
- it is the ideological tenet of the right -
- as unshakeable as any fundamentalist religious belief.
The haves are the saved, God loves them; -
- the have-nots are damned – and can expect no pity or salvation.
We have witnessed the fervour of this cult in power.
There is to be no Tobin tax to get money out of people who can pay – but just won’t.
They hate public service workers – even though in that sector there is NO tax dodging.
Women will suffer disproportionately – and so too those with vulnerabilities.
Unemployment is rising mercilessly.
But, they say, we are in this together -
- and they are honourable men…”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Jackal – I doubt whether Australia selling uranium to India will increase any traffic in yellowcake through New Zealand ports. After all, we are 1500km in the opposite direction!
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
SPC says “Over the last 8 years the equity in Genesis has gone from $940M to $1.7B.”
Genesis’s own figures show total equity has been stagnant at $1.4b for years.(see below) This, despite pumping the majority of their profits back into the company, and massively increasing debt in five years from $500m to $1 billion, the total equity (assets minus debt) has remained at $1.4 billion for years. It hasn’t even kept up with inflation.
All this for a dividend that averages just over 1%.
See
http://www.genesisenergy.co.nz/annualreport/financial-performance.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Photonz
Take it to other thread.
[frog: I've moved that comment by photonz1 over there BJ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photon seems to be arguing that Genesis is a poor performer. He thinks that privatisation will improve dividends/profit. I wonder if he thinks the same about kiwibank? Kiwibank’s profit was very poor compared to the Aussie banks. Why shouldn’t kiwibank screw as much profit out it’s customers as it can?
Genesis is providing an essential service to the people, surely it can make more profit.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
More slippery slime from photonz – selectively quoting the 2005-2010 equity figures and ignoring the lower 2003 equity of $940M and the 2011 annual report equity figure of $1.7B.
Clearly you are here to spin and mislead, but not inform.
You referred to the 8 years (2003-2011) concerned to show the low rate of dividend return, as if the government would not be losing much by selling half the company. They however do not only lose dividend return but also ownership of assets.
The increase in equity is way over the cost of government debt let alone the lower inflation rate. With the dividend return on top of that the return is quite reasonable – to imply otherwise is to presume any private investor buying them was a mug.
And talk of rising debt is another mislead – equity is assets less debt, so if equity has risen from $940M to $1.7B, this is after debt is accounted for.
PS There is a $15M dividend in the 2011 annual report financial statements.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Trevor29
Unfortunately because of current uranium shipping routes, that’s exactly what it will mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC says “Clearly you are here to spin and mislead, but not inform.”
How’s this then for spin, misleading, and uninformed.
You look in the annual report under dividends, and look at #15 in the notes column.
You try to claim that note #15 means 15 million dollars.
That’s hillarious.
When you actually look at note 15, you’ll see that the dividend paid and declared for 2011 as ..quote ” $ 000 “
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
phil
“well..how about you tell me who the green party represents for..?”
For one it represents me, I can’t speak for others.
Also your the one making the claims in question, not me.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
That was simply a careless mistake.
But since you have looked at note 15, you will see they paid $39M in dividends in 2010 – above the 8 year average of $18M you cited even without any dividend in 2011.
The latter zero dividend was because Genesis acquired assets off another SOE and the focus of the year was this change (at government direction and delivering cash to the government) than paying a dividend.
In future the SOE will likely pay higher dividends and either take on more debt or impose higher charges on consumers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – and they paid a similar dividend of $36m the year before, despite making a loss of $136 million.
Though whether partial asset sales mean the govt loses half of a 1% dividend or half of a 2% dividend is inconsenquential….
…compared to the $270m it earns in GST, $20m in paye and $40m in company tax.
Which will all contuinue to be paid to the govt whether Genesis is 100% govt owned, 51% govt owned, or completely private.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Again you avoid the real issue the loss of half ownership of appreciating in value assets.
Ever tried to borrow without owning assets that have a market value?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Jackal – shipments of yellowcake from Australia through NZ are likely to be destined for US or Europe, not India. Just look at a map.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
SPC says “Again you avoid the real issue the loss of half ownership of appreciating in value assets.”
No – it’s not a real issue.
Beacuse with your plan of never selling, it wouldn’t matter if they went up by billions of dollars. The NZ taxpayer won’t gain a single dollar of benefit from the capital appreciation.
Capital gains are only a benefit if they are realised.
But you plan to lock them away so NZ never ever gets a single dollar benefit from all that capital gain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Credit ratings agencies compare assets owned to debt held, if you think that does not make a difference ask the Europeans when they seek to borrow more money.
Ask a business trying to borrow against a home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)