Key not backing away from public protest

Some are making a lot of booing and objects being thrown at John Key and claim it’s a sign of massive public displeasure at Key and the government.

It’s impossible to gauge how the general voting public see events over the last two weeks, beginning with the large turnout for the TPPA protest in Auckland, followed closely by the Waitangi debacle and Key’s appearance at the Auckland nines, and then with the Big Gay Out baying at Key in the weekend.

A Herald headline claims TPP protests put damper on long Key honeymoonbut is it?

Key says he expects protests to continue but it won’t put him off public appearances.

Yesterday, Mr Key said he expected to encounter protesters against the Trans-Pacific Partnership for the rest of the year.

But he would not be changing his public appearances to minimise the encounters.

“… I’m not going to back away from it or engaging with other New Zealanders because you get a small group of very noisy protesters.”

It could be that the protests are helping dent Key’s popularity, although the opposite may also happen in reaction against over the top actions of a few.

The Herald compares preferred Prime Minister polls between Key and Helen Clark but they are crucially looking at different times in their terms.

  • Helen Clark after 6 years – ‘nearly 60%’
  • Clark prior to losing in 2008 – 41.6%
  • Key after seven years (December 2015) – 65.2%

That was before this month’s protests and attacks. The next poll on both party support and leader support will give us a bit of an idea about whether the protests are effective or counter-productive.

But if Key keeps appearing in public and fronting up in spite of protests it could be an indication that his own polling isn’t causing him any concern.

Leave a comment

283 Comments

  1. kiwi guy

     /  16th February 2016

    Good on him for standing up to Ms Kelsey’s Marxist mob.

    The level of hatred expressed by these unhinged Marxist is disturbing, like I said before it’s probably only a matter of time before they try something violent against the Prime Minister like throwing acid. They have already resorted to arson.

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  16th February 2016

      Who’s ‘they’ pee wee. There is no indication as to who did. Acid? Your world must be awash with violence, the one in your head that is. Try the real world, it’s actually a nice place.

      Reply
      • alloytoo

         /  16th February 2016

        “Try the real world, it’s actually a nice place.” – Which makes the protesters appear even more unhinged

        Reply
        • @ Alloytoo – at least its a place where one is free to protest, however “unhinged” one might be? Or shall we all just “fall in line” and join the queue?

          @ Kiwi Goy, I think your harping on about someone throwing acid is sick. The PM only needs to adjust his security arrangements in light of current protest and he can continue to make his appearances. What’s the problem?

          Do you think he should get a ‘PopeMobile”?

          Reply
          • alloytoo

             /  16th February 2016

            @PZ – Said nothing about their right to protest, merely their rationale and behaviour.

            Just as they have a right to protest, I have a right to point and laugh.

            Though I do believe the traffic offenses should be prosecuted.

            When all is said and done Maccas and BK probably did well out of the 1000 or so protesters “Big Day Out”.

            Reply
        • Rob

           /  16th February 2016

          As it does with those who blindly follow.

          Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  16th February 2016

        Acid and arson ? Where ? When ? Where do people BUY acid, anyway ? And if they did, wouldn’t whoever sold it remember and dob them in ? I would !

        Reply
    • Blazer

       /  16th February 2016

      Kiwi guy walks into a Cultural marxist…Club…..all is right with the world! 😉

      Reply
    • Mike C

       /  16th February 2016

      @Kiwi Guy

      I have to agree with you.

      The Radical Activist Lefties are getting more and more desperate every day that goes by … because nothing they have done over the past 8 years has managed to put a dent in John Keys popularity.

      It only takes one Radical Activist off their Bi-Polar Meds to have the voices in their head tell them to shoot the Prime Minister 😦

      The possibility of someone trying to harm John Key is exactly the reason why there are about half a dozen men on his Police Protection Team … because those guys aren’t there for decoration …they are highly trained experts in that field.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th February 2016

        this is not America…….yet!

        Reply
      • @ Mike C – As far as I’m aware Key’s or any PM’s police protection squad has not changed in size for many years? One radical misogynist could just as easily have shot Helen Clarke?

        Your’s and Kiwi Goy’s claims of “new” clear and present danger is backed up by what? Booing and Glitter throwing at a GayPride Picnic!? FFS

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  16th February 2016

          Aaagh ! I agreed with and upticked Blazer (faints) The one who made 4 5 was me, Blazer. You now owe me one.

          PZ; I would guess that KG is a Goy in reality as well as in a typo. What a schlemiel.

          Reply
      • Timoti

         /  16th February 2016

        The body count would be high if Key was protected by the American Secret Service. In a way its good we are more relaxed and our PM can visit any part of the country without it having to be scanned by a full spectrum satellite. However, I agree with you. To use Star Wars terminology, there has been a subtle change in the force. These is desperate times for the Left. They know another defeat at the polls will psychologically destroy them. In fact they will become a tattered joke. You bet some crazy, after listening on talkback to Kelsey, may do something evil to that greedy, Jewish,Yanky boot licking, sell-out, corrupt, lying, Israeli loving, money trading, Remuera living, nepotist, ponytail pulling, rape joking, Hawaiian villa, golf playing Prime Minister of ours.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  16th February 2016

          ‘ greedy, Jewish,Yanky boot licking, sell-out, corrupt, lying, Israeli loving, money trading, Remuera living, nepotist, ponytail pulling, rape joking, Hawaiian villa, golf playing Prime Minister of ours.’…take a bow Uncle…your best post yet…abridged of course.

          Reply
        • Timoti

           /  16th February 2016

          LOL…I would love to give Blouser the ” Saddam Hussien IQ test.”

          Reply
        • Rob

           /  16th February 2016

          “These is desperate times for the Left. They know another defeat at the polls will psychologically destroy them. In fact they will become a tattered joke. You bet some crazy, after listening on talkback to Kelsey, may do something evil to that greedy, Jewish,Yanky boot licking, sell-out, corrupt, lying, Israeli loving, money trading, Remuera living, nepotist, ponytail pulling, rape joking, Hawaiian villa, golf playing Prime Minister of ours.” Good lord you’re a joke. Does a four year old write your stuff? Attack you? You don’t deserve anything better for your absolutey insane, asinine comment. Opinion, lol. You’re entitled to one but at least try to keep it sane. Next you’ll be telling us beheadings will soon be taking place in Queen St.
          And the chances of it coming from either side of the spectrum are just as good. Why was a trade hall bombed a few years back and one person killed Timoti. I kind of doubt it was a union leftie. More likely a union hater such as yourself and your ilk. You’re also the one who is constantly talking about ‘tapping’ people so you seem to be a likely candidate to do something stupid.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  16th February 2016

            “Next you’ll be telling us beheadings will soon be taking place in Queen QueenSt.” Should read Next you’ll be telling us beheadings by lefties will soon be taking place in QueenSt.

            Reply
          • Timoti

             /  16th February 2016

            “Good lord you’re a joke. Does a four year old write your stuff? ”

            No, only lefties on this and other sites. The names that is. Easy with the tapping thing. You make me nervous..

            But its true isn’t it Rob. Admit it. The Left lose this election, they are history at worst. Major ructions at best, Will you have the guts to front the day after on this blog( if it has been closed down by,Pete), Rob? Or will you snivel off into the sunset?

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  16th February 2016

              Er, Rob, it was a few decades rather than years ago that the bomb went off. Apart from the Rainbow Warrior, this was our only bombing-not many countries can say the same !

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              What about the Free Trade Hall in Wellington?

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              Ignore that.

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              Years decades what does that matter. Do you believe it was a union supporter or non union supporter. I’d personally go for the second but no one was ever prosecuted so noone can say for sure. Someone died, for what, some crackpots mental state. Just saying they exist on both sides and Timotis assertion about listening to Kelsy then doing someting because they’re a leftie is absurd. They’re merely insane, left or right. Key is a poli as I’m sure you’re aware, need a thick skin for that and he seems able to take most crap hurled at him. They all get shit thrown at them as is obvious in here with the crap that’s thrown at both sides by both sides.

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              Why would I disappear Timoti. You think you’re going to come in here and give me a bollocking? Hahahah. Would you if Labour won? I doubt it. I’ve mentioned numerous times in here that I voted Nats last time, obviously you haven’t been paying attention. I vote on what I think is good for the country as a whole, not blindly follow a party line like you. The only reason PG might close this is because of whiners like you who think they’re gonna expose all the trolls and alts that you make up in your silly little conspiracies. You’ve obviously tried to influence PG at least once Timoti. Any more? Don’t bother being dishonest, I don’t really need an answer. Didn’t like being exposed for the sniveller you are? To bad, learn to be a little more honest. Keys got the guts to front up, why don’t you get some. You and others in here seem to be under the impression that someone with a different opinion to yours should be banned, harden up sonny.

    • jamie

       /  16th February 2016

      kiwi boy, mike c, and timoti, this is truly paranoid stuff, and also poorly thought out.

      Key’s security can’t stop glitter, Joyce’s can’t stop a dildo, Brash’s couldn’t stop a handful of mud, etc etc etc.

      It doesn’t matter how many of them there are or how well trained they are, there’s no way any of them could have stopped a bullet or any other projectile intended to cause actual harm rather than as a protest to make a point.

      Thankfully that’s usually the extent of it in NZ. There have been a few exceptions where people have been harmed and even killed over politics, most notably the Rainbow Warrior and Trade’s Hall bombings, and history shows the violence has not typically come from the left.

      Reply
  2. Iceberg

     /  16th February 2016

    If it was really about the TPP people might take notice, but their nonsense objections have so easily been batted away with facts. So it’s just anti Key for the sake of it. That’s been such a winning strategy for the last 8 Yrs. He’s laughing all the way to 2017.

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  16th February 2016

      And what ‘facts’ would those be. Noone in here or anywhere else has presented ‘facts’ merely speculation on what may or may not happen over the long term. And that’s from both sides.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  16th February 2016

        Think you’ll find PG has done plenty of posts on the facts. As have dozens of other bloggers, commentators and news outlets. You are either too far down the Rabbit hole, or too far up your own arse to notice.

        Reply
        • mrMan

           /  16th February 2016

          PG’s post on the TPP today seems to be absolutely devoid of facts, and short of a few questions as well. In fact he doesn’t seem to know what’s happening. None of the other posts on the TPP here have been any better.
          So much for being ‘batted away with facts’.

          Reply
          • Just after this you posted:

            Ugh, that’s how internet forums work isn’t it?
            Someone makes a first tier comment, someone addresses the comment (second tier) and someone addresses that (third tier, fourth etc).
            A dialogue takes place.
            It seems you would rather that we all make first tier comments, untouchable and noble statements, and definitely not up for discussion.

            Some of my posts are aimed at contributing facts into issues.

            Some like this one are starters for discussion. I don’t have the expertise nor the time to do justice to many TPPA topics – few seem to – so this was pretty much a ‘first tier comment’ to get dialogue rolling.

            A major aim here is to facilitate and instigate discussion, not to be an authority on everything.

            Reply
        • Rob

           /  16th February 2016

          Someone saying this or that will happen are not facts. Head up my arse? No need for abuse as I’ve been told the ‘right’ doesn’t do that. Obviously the person who said that is wrong.

          Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  16th February 2016

      Really Iceberg do you think the protesters are just protesting because the don’t like the look and speech of John Key?
      They are just protesting for the mere sake of it, something to do today agenda?
      Was that 25 thousand strong protest rally held in Auckland last week made up of JK haters?

      Winning strategy for the last 8 years 😦 IMO it has been a complicit MSM and people who make up things being given to too much oxygen to pull the wool over the eyes of the ‘can’t think for themselves voters’, you know the ones … yeah I voted for John because he sounds good and the TPPA is good cos he said, I Believe in Him brigade.

      The main thrust of the TPPA protest was …Why shouldn’t we have access to ALL information that directly or in directly affects us. So now we get more dribs and drabs to satisfy, who.

      John didn’t look like laughing at the BGO in fact he looked like he had enough of taking it on the chin, bit like Stevey. I am expecting him to be On Fire in Parliament at Question time and not just from sun burn.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  16th February 2016

        You have got access to all the information. You are just too damn lazy to go look at it like the rest of the ignorant ratbags making a fool of themselves.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  16th February 2016

          get real as if the average voter is going to wade through near 6000 pages!Do you think Key or Joyce has?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  16th February 2016

            The the lying scum who have read it and are misleading the ignorant idiots on the marches should be pilloried by every journalist with a smidgeon of integrity and competence. That seems to exclude most.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              ‘ vigilance has to be informed, intelligent and balanced – not just ideological’

              ‘the lying scum who have read it and are misleading the ignorant idiots on the marches should be pilloried by every journalist with a smidgeon of integrity and competence. That seems to exclude most.’

              same poster,same day……you be the judge.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Both are accurate and justified. Challenge the facts if you can, but of course as usual you can’t.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              there are no ‘facts’ presented,just your opinion,and even the greatest illusionist in the world could not dress that up as ….facts!

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              “You are just too damn lazy to go look at it like the rest of the ignorant ratbags making a fool of themselves.”
              “The the lying scum who have read it and are misleading the ignorant idiots on the marches should be pilloried by every journalist with a smidgeon of integrity and competence. That seems to exclude most.”
              damn lazy
              ignorant ratbags
              lying scum
              ignorant idiots
              PG did a post about this kind of shit last night. Guess you must have missed it. It’s ok if it’s warrented which in this case it isn’t, you simply have an opinion with no facts to back it up, but straight to the name calling.
              “..That seems to exclude most.” Yeah, simply because they don’t write what you think they should.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th February 2016

              In your case, Rob, it is always warranted.

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              As it is in yours Wilkinson.

        • Pickled Possum

           /  16th February 2016

          Don’t make assumptions about me Alan for shits and giggles.

          You are assuming that the All of the TPPA information has been in the public arena since it was written.
          Lazy I am not and trying to shut me down with words like damn lazy ignorant ratbags fools just is not going to fly today.
          I was replying to a statement that Iceberg made re all protesters are just JK haters
          how redic is that.
          My take on the Tppa is about the secrecy surrounding the trade treaty
          I am not a spokesperson for the fine print in the TPPA unlike your good self.
          I will speed read the copious written info on the treaty and get back to you but it may be in 150 years.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  16th February 2016

            Stop repeating your nonsense to yourself. There is no secrecy around the TPPA. It is public as is the bureaucracy’s analysis of it’s pros and cons.

            There was secrecy around the negotiations because that is the only way any treaty like this can be negotiated. But a huge number of people were involved in the negotiation and as far as I can see they have done a good job for this country and for the world.

            Ignorant and misleading protests do everyone a disservice. So do their supporters and apologists.

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  16th February 2016

              “There was secrecy around the negotiations because that is the only way any treaty like this can be negotiated.”

              I’ve heard this said many times, but no-one has been able to explain it.

              From whom exactly is the detail being negotiated kept secret from?

              Certainly not from any of the negotiators.

              Presumably the negotiators don’t keep it secret from their political masters either.

              So that just leaves us ordinary citizens. Doesn’t it?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Yes, because negotiations always start with participants claiming extreme positions in their favour and publication would just feed alarmists and self-interested lobbyists who would exert political pressure to abandon the process completely and before any compromise could be reached.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              Secrecy doesn’t in anyway preclude lobbyists and corporates from influencing the negotiators and the negotiations. It does stop lobbyist A finding out that lobbyist B got what they wanted whilst A didn’t. But it did’t stop A and B greasing some palms and setting up future employment for the negotiator.

            • jamie

               /  16th February 2016

              Alan, if everyone knows that – and the implication of your comment is that it is common knowledge that this is how things are done – then you haven’t yet made an argument for secrecy.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th February 2016

              @mrMan: “Secrecy doesn’t in anyway preclude lobbyists and corporates from influencing the negotiators and the negotiations”

              Rubbish. It means they can’t fake credibility to inflame the public with misleading nonsense.

              @jamie, all negotiators know that which is exactly why they maintain a lot of secrecy.

            • mrMan

               /  17th February 2016

              ¿¿¿Rubbish. It means they can’t fake credibility to inflame the public with misleading nonsense.???

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th February 2016

              @mrMan, exactly why the Kelsey mob were so desperate to get hold of drafts of the TPP and scaremonger with them. Which is exactly what they did. Now that their scaremongering has been exposed as false they resort to complaining about the secrecy. Creeps.

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              “..exposed as false..” You’ve been exposed as false over the last days Wilkinson. Snert

            • mrMan

               /  17th February 2016

              You’re talking at odds again Wilkinson. I’m talking about lobbyists and corporations getting in at the start of the process, your rebutting with radicals at the end of the protest. Keep up dude, you’re drifting.

            • mrMan

               /  17th February 2016

              I can’t understand you when my ‘they’ and your ‘they’ aren’t even in the same country. Speaking of which I’ve left a please explain in the pharma post

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th February 2016

              “your (sic) rebutting with radicals at the end of the protest”

              Nope, Kelsey’s mob were actively stirring from the start. The issue is secrecy during the negotiations and everyone with a clue knows that it is necessary for successful compromise.

            • mrMan

               /  17th February 2016

              Who gives a fuck about her. I’m talking about corporate influence over the creation of the document, and the real possibility of those same corporates influencing our lawmaking. And you keep piping on about a protestor. Drop it man.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th February 2016

              Of course corporates influence lawmaking. That is perfectly legitimate when they have interests and expertise. The issue is only whether the outcomes are transparent and reasonable and whether the processes are honest, equitable and not corrupt.

            • mrMan

               /  17th February 2016

              not while the negotiations are done in secret. not while palms are being greased in backrooms. And not when the influence at the start of the process is invisible at the end.

              “who paid how much for the inclusion of this vague line?”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th February 2016

              Negotiating secrecy is irrelevant to all of that. NZ would never be party to the processes behind other nation’s negotiations nor they to ours irrespective of whether the actual negotiations were public.

              That NZ is free of corruption can only be ensured by the integrity of our people, our bureaucracy and our politicians. I think we do pretty well though never perfect.

            • mrMan

               /  17th February 2016

              So you’re saying that even the good boys at MFAT who did such a bang-up job of negotiating our case,were totally on the outside of the corporate influence that happened overseas.
              So how do they look after our interests?

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              “The issue is only whether the outcomes are transparent and reasonable and whether the processes are honest, equitable and not corrupt.” I’m sure we can all count on that, according to you anyways.
              “Of course corporates influence lawmaking.” And yet you’ve been in here telling us how little influence they will have in that regard. Go figure.

      • Iceberg

         /  16th February 2016

        You are in the same rabbit hole as Rob. The text is public you imbecile. Miliions of people in 12 countries, probably more, have been discussing the facts for quite some time. Thousands of articles are in print and online, governments have been working on it for the better part of a decade, the world is awash with facts on the TPP. But despite the terabytes of facts, none of the protesters could answer simple questions about the TPP. So you tell me, what the fuck were they doing there if not at an anti Key rally, stirred up by whinger for hire, Bradbury?

        Reply
        • mrMan

           /  16th February 2016

          none of the protesters could answer simple questions about the TPP

          none of the protesters that were cherrypicked for broadcast in one 2 minute piece on 1 television network could answer simple questions about the TPP.

          There, fixed to for you.

          Reply
          • Iceberg

             /  16th February 2016

            Let’s assume then, that each of those interviewed by BOTH TV networks and several radio stations were cherry picked. Let’s go further and say that those media outlets conspired to make sure they showed no one who could answer simple questions, and that they pre vetted them to be certain. Why then we’re those cherry picked idiots at the protest. And how far up the stupid scale do you have to be be believe the above actually happened?

            Reply
            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              When it’s a fucktard like Hosking laughing at a handpicked imbecile you don’t have to assume anything.

              “pre vetted them to be certain.” You think it was live to air? A 7pm broadcast of a lunchtime protest?
              And you’re calling me stupid?

        • Pickled Possum

           /  16th February 2016

          Settle down you potty mouth freak your hate for the any one with a different view Right or Wrong to your self is truly scary.
          FYI M. Bradbury has taken a stance that has brought him into the sunlight with a avalanche of negative words raining down upon his head so in my opinion he has the courage of his convictions, dontcha think Iceberg is that a lettuce or a pile of ice floating in the ocean.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  16th February 2016

            Abuse and name calling is all Iceberg has.

            Reply
          • Iceberg

             /  16th February 2016

            Being a useful idiot for the likes of Bradbury is not something to be proud of. Get yourself informed about the TPP and come back. When you are informed you will discover that your objections are completely anti government based. And that’s just fine, but at least front up in an honest fashion rather fill forums like this with disingenuous bullshit.

            Reply
            • Pickled Possum

               /  16th February 2016

              @ Iceberg
              Shhhhhhh
              I’m reading!!!
              I have just one more thought on this TPPA saga to share with you
              Why should I sit down and say nothing when the NZ government is giving my Tipuna signature on Te Tiriti O Waitangi over to America and Co without knowing all of the fine print and consequences for the future Maori children. Or will my mothers mokopuna spent their life time protesting about some finer detail that has negative actions for them.
              I’ll get back to you when I have read the pacific treaty and unlike Andrew Little who got the papers in Dec ….I will persevere through the info with my trusty Oxford dictionary.
              Have a stress free day

            • Iceberg

               /  16th February 2016

              You shouldn’t say nothing. But perhaps you could get better informed and then open your trap. If you think we are handing over the Treaty to America then you have either been duped, or are totally stupid.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              shes not actually…FYI only 2 countries have the right of veto re the TPPA…one of them is the U.S.A and the other one is not..NZ!

      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  16th February 2016

        “Was that 25 thousand strong protest rally held in Auckland last week made up of JK haters?” – Has grown from 10,000 to 25,000??? This time next week will it be 40,000?

        “The main thrust of the TPPA protest was …Why shouldn’t we have access to ALL information that directly or in directly affects us” – during all the live interviews taken with protestors in Auckland the lack of knowledge on what they were actually protesting about was plain for all to see. The information has been available for a while but the protestors in the main haven’t even read it – Andrew Little admitted the other day he only skimmed through 500 pages.

        Andrew Little: “A draft of the text was available from November last year. I spent a part of my Christmas break working my way through the text. I got through possibly 500 pages, and it tested my patience”.

        Reply
  3. Timoti

     /  16th February 2016

    Key made one of his most important political decisions recently. He turned down US requests for troop deployment in the fight against ISIS. That has taken away a major political protest from the Left. They could have dined on that until the election, should Key have caved into US requests. Should a NZ soldier have been killed, the Left would have become incensed with mock rage.

    But the Left isn’t one to let things rest. Hager et al will be leaning on contacts The slightest whiff of the SAS being in deployment will have Sue, and her band of merry losers on the protest trail again.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  16th February 2016

      ‘ They could have dined on that until the election, should Key have caved into US requests. ‘

      dead rats on the menu for the foreseeable future though…Uncle.

      Reply
    • Rob

       /  16th February 2016

      “…the Left would have become incensed with mock rage.” Meanwhile you would have been cheerleading it as at least someone got tapped. Why don’t you go shine your boots and polish your bullets and head on over to die for a foreign power who really has little interest in you.

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  16th February 2016

        Man, some people are angry this morning. Blouser talking of dead rats, and Rob has “tapping” on the mind.

        Pity they can’t add any substance to the debate, Look at Olivers post guys, and see how its done.

        Reply
        • Rob

           /  16th February 2016

          Substance? to a comment like this? “…the Left would have become incensed with mock rage.” Mock rage? You really think you’re something don’t you Timoti, accusing others of having mock rage is a substandard, low blow. Didn’t think you were that low.

          Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  16th February 2016

          You can look at this thread and see examples of the typical posting throughout this blog of Blazer and Rob – hardly ever do they post directly on the subject at hand, instead they automatically reply and attack other people’s comments like some sort of deranged rabid attack dogs who are too scared to put their own views up for discussion. Watch them come after this one like moths to a flame……this is what Pete should clamp down on to improve the flow of the blog & encourage new people to join in the discussion.

          Even though Oliver is obviously not all there (holocaust denier) and has been proven to have posted under different names on this blog at least he puts his views up front for discussion at times (see his post below). As long as you are NOT JUST attacking other people’s posts all is good.

          In terms of the subject at hand – watch Key either the same as previous polls or higher – a few righteous & clueless protesters don’t speak for the bulk of New Zealanders.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  16th February 2016

            “…deranged rabid attack dogs who are too scared to put their own views up for discussion.” And you just did the same thing pants down. Don’t see any comment from you in regards to Keys decision, merely into the attack straight away. Hypocritical to say the least. Do you expect comments like Timotis to be ignored? The lefts mock rage? He can put crap like that in and noone can say a thing? Why’s that, because he’s on your side? Again, get off your high horse, you’re no better than the rest of us in here, left or right.
            As for Keys decision, I thought it would be obvious to any thinking person it was the right one.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              You can go through my posts Rob and find plenty of examples of me posting directly on the subject, posting with links to what I am saying, and not just attacking people for the sake of it. You won’t find ANY posts of mine where I have made really personal insults.

              The most in-depth discussion I have seen on here was the one on the Maori sovereignty issue with guest poster Scott the academic which I was heavily involved with – guess which people didn’t post on/hijack that subject hence why it flowed so well & remained largely on topic…….

              “The left’s mock rage” – as you keep telling me you are a ‘centralist’ why does this offend you so? Did Kiwi Guy’s first post on this thread deserve the response you made to it?

              My comment regarding this subject was at the bottom of my initial comment – I started with the ‘attack dog’ issue because this thread shows this quite clearly (so yes – I’m guilty of going off topic to prove a point).

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              ““The left’s mock rage” – as you keep telling me you are a ‘centralist’ why does this offend you so?” It would offend me if it was about the right. I tend to think that we as a people are above ridiculous assertions such as this.
              And you can find plenty of me posting on the subject as well. Not saying I’m better than you, just saying you’re no better than most others.
              KGs post? Yes it did. He deserves nothing but derision for his absolute rubbish, You may think differently but there is no point in any discussion with him at all, he merely throws out more of his garbage. Do you think conversing with him will change anything? Only makes it worse.
              “..(so yes – I’m guilty of going off topic to prove a point).” The only point you made is thaat you do the same, and on a regular basis. Not trawling your posts to prove my point when all’s you will do is deny it or have some form of excuse. You said those of your ilk don’t stoop so low as the stsndard etc. Somes comments in this thread alone prove you wrong and this is but one thread.

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              No, ones saying you can’t have go at me , Rob. We just ask you put up, for change, so we can critique your views. Simple stuff.

              As to the ” mock rage.” The Left are know for it. Remember, Rob, under socialism, the government owns your Labour and Life. The individual is of no importance, except as a useful idiot.

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              I gave my view in a later post. “As to the ” mock rage.” The Left are know for it.” So your saying the left would be in a mock rage over someones death. That in my opinion is a stupid thing to say simply because it is untrue and if you believe it you really do suffer from leftie derangement syndrome. What would the right be doing Timoti, celebrating it? Well we sure showed them.
              And what does socialism have to do with this, absolutely nothing so bringing that into it is pointless, but I’ll reply.
              The individual is of no importance, except as a useful idiot. NZ has many aspects of socialism as do many western countries, so I guess that makes you a useful idiot as well doesn’t it.

          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            instead they automatically reply and attack other people’s comments

            Ugh, that’s how internet forums work isn’t it?
            Someone makes a first tier comment, someone addresses the comment (second tier) and someone addresses that (third tier, fourth etc).
            A dialogue takes place.
            It seems you would rather that we all make first tier comments, untouchable and noble statements, and definitely not up for discussion.
            That sounds a bit dull, doesn’t it?

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              Read my comments again: If all you pretty much do on this blog is reply with insults to other people’s comments then that is just attacking for attacking’s sake – there is no ‘discussion’ involved at all. The ‘dialogue’ becomes a dick waving contest and the discussion gets hijacked and jammed up with petty bickering. You are not going to attract new posters with that going on in every thread.

              There is nothing in my post saying no one can reply, but I do point out that if you are also not posting directly on topic on occasions you are more than likely one of the asses trying to railroad the blog.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              I realise this, just pointing out the logical extreme.

              “You are not going to attract new posters with that going on in every thread.”
              Why should this be of concern to anyone? Pete’s page views, and ad revenue (if he has any, got adblockers on, so I wouldn’t know) are totally his concern, not yours and certainly not mine.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              YOU may want to discuss on here with a small group of regulars but I welcome new poster’s, new ideas, fresh perspective. Nothing to do with Pete and his concerns.

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              People answer in different ways. you’d have us all following your lead which would be pretty much agreeing with everything you say. Doesn’t work that way. And yes I’ve seen you get into name calling, deny it all you like. And again you didn’t post directly on topic in your first post direct to the attack. But now it seems it was to show us what happens. Sure. Nothing in any of mine says you can’t reply either. And unless you read every one of my posts you wouldn’t have a clue whether I’m on topic or not. Directly on topic? You just proved you don’t. Pointless argueing with you pants down. Have a nice day.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              You enjoy your day too.

        • Blazer

           /  16th February 2016

          Uncle Tim and pantsdown praising Oliver!!!!What a difference…a day…makes!

          Reply
    • Oliver

       /  16th February 2016

      Timoti you are correct in saying JK made a significant decision regarding the SAS. However this had less to do with morality and more to do with next years election. Regular force troops in Iraq end there contribution early next year. Obviously Key doesnt want any baggage going into an election. So this about timing and cutting away anything that could hurt him.

      As for your comment on the left. While I agree that the far left are anti war most people seem to be for the fight on ISIS so it could cost him votes.

      Reply
  4. Oliver

     /  16th February 2016

    It doesn’t matter why he was booed, what does matter is that Key is loosing popularity. Now this is not a good thing for any leader where image is everything. You may be thinking well there wasn’t that many people booing, but this is just one event, what about the next event or the one after that. It could have a snowball effect. And we see Key is brushing it off as nothing to be worried about but don’t be fooled he is well aware of the significance of this. This well telling year for our PM.

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  16th February 2016

      Loosing popularity ??? This well telling year for our PM ? There wasn’t that many people ?

      Ouch. A howler in every sentence ! BINGO !

      Reply
  5. Mefrostate

     /  16th February 2016

    I feel like a well-moderated televised TPP debate between Kelsey and Key/McClay/Groser would help immensely. Cut through all the rhetoric, name-calling, and article-by-article tennis match, and just let those most informed have at each other.

    If the TPP truly is the golden ticket we’ve been sold, then Key should have no problem swatting away Kelsey’s concerns. Similarly, where there are genuine elements that give cause for concern, Kelsey can raise these (in an environment that will sort the hyperbole from the reality).

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th February 2016

      Agreed. I’ve little doubt Key would destroy Kelsey in such a debate just as he destroyed Campbell last year.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th February 2016

        funniest thing I’ve read on here ever….as if Key has even read it….rehearses nearly every speech he makes,after compilation and vetting from his handlers.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th February 2016

          Vacuous as ever, Blazer. You could be a Lefty journalist, you are quite on a par with Toby Manhire and his ilk. Brainless, clueless and with a totally useless opinion about everything.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  16th February 2016

            a well thought out,and worthy reply that reflects your belief in free speech and tolerance for alternate viewpoints.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              With free speech you get what you pay for. I don’t tolerate fools. An alternate viewpoint that has an intelligent and well-founded basis is an entirely different matter.

              I used to enjoy the old (NZ) Independent when it was run by Jenni McManus and Warren Berryman and ran intelligent alternative contributions from, for example, Bruce Jesson and an ex planner whose name now sadly escapes me. Both wrote intelligently but from opposite sides of the spectrum. Since Trotter went barmy there is no-one on the Left in NZ writing anything worth reading.

            • Iceberg

               /  16th February 2016

              You troll this site all day trying to redirect or shut down every thread with inane, low calorie, idiotic comments. So don’t play the free speech card, it’s pathetic.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              you try and create snowmen everyday and then meltdown ,leaving behind a small puddle and a carrot when the blowtorch of fact is aimed in your direction.

            • Kevin

               /  16th February 2016

              You appear to be confusing your metaphors.

          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            Brainless, clueless and with a totally useless opinion about everything.

            Black pot, say hello to black kettle

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Yep, you and Blazer can have a good conversation. Unlike you lot I have opinions only on stuff I know something about.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              where do you post ..those opinions then!Its certainly ,not on this forum.Lightweight.

    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  16th February 2016

      I would like to see Kelsey/ Key one-on-one debate – however I think Key would be more for that than Kelsey – far easier for her to shout slogans to people through loud speakers.

      The TPPA is in the public domain, the govt backs it therefore the onus is on it’s opponents to find major problems with the agreement. They haven’t done that. For example some of their major claims;

      * “Losing our sovereignty” – doesn’t cut it. A slogan, catch-cry & generalisation with no supporting evidence given. Something for some people to rally behind but not helpful in serious debate.
      * Saying that Maori are worse off by the TPPA disproven with the clear protections of the treaty of Waitangi in the agreement (specific to New Zealand).
      * Saying we couldn’t stop foreign land sales also disproven with the ability in the TPPA for us to tax them out of the market if we wish to do so.
      * Scaring people with ‘corporations will sue us’ unproven as we have that same provision in all our other trade agreements and we haven’t had an issue. You need to have that provision in any trade agreement to protect companies being disadvantaged once they have made the investment commitment to a country (also our own companies get the same protection overseas). The threshold is also very high in order to sue and the business doing so must bear all costs of the action thus it wouldn’t be used for any minor claim.
      * Prescriptions will cost a lot more: The govt and Pharmac say it won’t – take it up with them if they are found to have lied otherwise I suggest you have to take their word on it. At this stage can not be proven or unproven 100%

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th February 2016

        if Key relied on your ‘bullet points’ he would be massacred…..they are easily disputed…as an example ..the last one…the govt and Pharmac both agree prescription drugs WILL COST more!

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  16th February 2016

          Show us your proof of the drugs costing ‘the protestors’ more (you could be playing semantics by saying that it will cost the govt more, but drugs will cost the govt more over time regardless of the TPPA).

          The others can’t be disproven – where’s your evidence? I’ll make it easy on you, prove just one “Losing our sovereignty’.

          Reply
      • mrMan

         /  16th February 2016

        * Scaring people with ‘corporations will sue us’ unproven as we have that same provision in all our other trade agreements
        Whilst this is true, what is not in the other FTA’s is vexatious and litigious American corporations – who already have game in invoking investor state lawsuits.

        The TPPA is in the public domain, the govt backs it therefore the onus is on it’s opponents to find major problems with the agreement.

        It still has to be ratified by the governments of all participating nations, when this is done we can say it has the support of government, but until a vote has been cast who can really say. Everybody say ‘flip-flop’

        What’s the argument ‘fo’r the TPP? Surely it has to more than ‘the argument against it is lame’. That’s not going to cut it.

        (p.s, Public Domain means ‘not under copyright’, not ‘in public’ )

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  16th February 2016

          The closest example we have is the US-Australia trade agreement signed in 2005 – as far as I am aware ‘0’ cases of Australia being sued due to it. They were sued by Phillip Morris under the Hong Kong-Australia trade agreement but Australia won and were compensated all their costs back.

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            That’s just the closest example we have with 0 cases.*
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Examples

            There’s 6 cases there, 5 by US companies, 1 by a Canadian. 4 of them lost by the government.

            *And 0 cases, except for 1 = 1 case. Saying 0 is dishonest.

            Reply
            • SteveRemmington

               /  16th February 2016

              How many of them were against Australia?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              11 years of a free trade agreement with the USA – zero court cases Australia has been subject to due to it as far as I know. Many of the provisions similar to the TPPA.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              Does that FTA have an ISDS clause in it? I can’t find anything that says it does.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              The Banana massacre (Spanish: Matanza de las bananeras[1] or Masacre de las bananeras) was a massacre of workers for the United Fruit Company that occurred on December 6, 1928 in the town of Ciénaga near Santa Marta, Colombia. After U.S. officials in Colombia, along with United Fruit representatives, portrayed the worker’s strike as “communist” with “subversive tendency”, in telegrams to the U.S. Secretary of State,[2] the government of the United States of America threatened to invade with the U.S. Marine Corps if the Colombian government did not act to protect United Fruit’s interests. An unknown number of workers died[3] after the conservative government of Miguel Méndez sent the Colombian army to end a union strike for better working conditions.’
              ‘the government of the United States of America threatened to invade with the U.S. Marine Corps if the Colombian ‘

              very friendly of them!

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              “And 0 cases, except for 1 = 1 case. Saying 0 is dishonest”

              You referring to the Phillip Morris case?? No dishonesty at all – was nothing to do with a the trade agreement the Aussies had with the USA (in fact under that agreement Australia couldn’t be sued by Phillip Morris hence why they tried a back door approach).

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              They were sued under a treaty with Hong Kong, it’s still being sued under a treaty by a US corporation – who under the TPP wouldn’t have had to go through the ruse of filing in Hong Kong

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              I didn’t introduce the caveat that anything discussed has to relate to Australia – you did. That’s shifting the goalposts. The disputes between the US and Canada are more illustrative, so I see why you would want to exclude them from the conversation.

      • Mefrostate

         /  16th February 2016

        Sadly the nature of the modern media is such that the public debate on TPP is mostly distilled into voxpops and catch-phrases (“threat to our sovereignty”, “rent-a-crowd”). When you dig into it though there are a number of obvious downsides and a number of perfectly valid concerns.

        * Losing our sovereignty – is really a product of concerns over the extent to which ISDS will limit the government’s ability to freely regulate in the interests of NZ. See point 4

        * Maori – I agree, the TPP seems explicit about giving consideration to the treaty

        * Foreign land sales – I agree, and think this is a strange cross for Labour to choose to die on

        * ISDS – While there is certainly a role for ISDS to foster investment flows, there are certainly legitimate issues over the appointment and accountability of arbitrators, interpretation of the wording of ISDS (particularly for ‘undertakings’ and the burden of proof for discrimination). I also think there need to be greater punishments for frivolous suits. Regardless, ISDS still seem on balance to be a negative for NZ (we have greater risk of being litigated against than we do of our companies needing to litigate).

        * Pharmac – the government and Pharmac have both admitted that it will cost more for Pharmac to operate. They also have to be much more transparent in their decisions, making them accountable not just to NZers but to pharmaceutical companies.

        * Copyright extensions

        Whether these negatives are outweighed by the positives is somewhat a matter for personal judgement. I land on the pro-TPP side of this, but it is extraordinarily arrogant to conclude that all anti-TPPers are misinformed or wrong.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th February 2016

          ” ISDS still seem on balance to be a negative for NZ (we have greater risk of being litigated against than we do of our companies needing to litigate).”

          Absurd. The history of the WTO is that NZ has taken many actions successfully against other protectionist nations and not a single one has been taken against NZ.

          Pharmac has been well canvassed. The additional costs are 0.25% of Pharmac’s budget whereas the guestimated 1% benefit to GDP would pay for the entire Pharmac budget.

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            The WTO is a nation to nation dispute, ISDS is a company to nation dispute – they’re not comparable. Apples and oranges, if you will.
            Yes, NZ’s record with the WTO is very good, but the bar is set very high for a corporation to convince its government to go to the WTO to sort out a problem.
            How high is that bar set for a company to sue a government under an ISDS?

            Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  16th February 2016

              I think the best framing of this question is “why are ISDS needed over and above the existing WTO scheme?”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              The bar is very high considering there are safeguards for justifiable Government interventions and that a government has not only immense legal and scientific resources to defend itself with but ultimately is able simply to walk away from the TPP altogether.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              “ultimately is able simply to walk away from the TPP altogether.”
              From Wikipedia “most such treaties foresee post-termination-protection for many years after the termination has become effective”
              Besides, you always trot out this “we can leave” line, but will we really? And is that the best argument for the TPP?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              “And is that the best argument for the TPP?”

              What was your argument against the TPPA again?

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              And what was yours for it?

              My argument is perhaps that there has been no solid argument in favour of it, I guess.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Of course it’s not the best argument for the TPP. It is simply the refutation of yet another brain-dead anti-TPP lie that it creates a loss of sovereignty.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              So your best refutation of “the TPP will cost us our sovereignty” is “I don’t think it will, but if it does we can cancel the deal”. Way to go there tiger. Top work.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              It doesn’t because we can always cancel it. It always remains our choice whether to the benefits outweigh costs or disadvantages. NZ has not ceded that option and there is no “I think” involved. Try to be honest even if it is a struggle for the Left.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              No “I think” gotcha. So..
              So your best refutation of “the TPP will cost us our sovereignty” is “it will, but when it does we can cancel the deal”.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              It doesn’t cost us our sovereignty because it is always our choice whether to observe it or not just like every other treaty we are party to. Fairly simple even for the Left to grasp I would have hoped.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              You keep saying “the left” has no argument , but I really do believe, Alan, that the emperor is wearing no clothes. I mean for someone who resorts to nasty little quips against people you deem to be inferior to your great intellect you really, and truly , do have no more of an argument in favour of the TPP than ‘ we can cancel it ‘
              I don’t actually think it will cost us our sovereignty , and I’ve never said it will. It’s an emotive claim, and a step too far.
              I do however think it will influence our lawmaking in some very insidious ways. I suggest that you do some reading around the TPM chapter in the DMCA and educate yourself in the protections that corporate america have grown accustomed to. Especially the MPAA and the RIAA, who already hold great sway in NZ. They’ve already, as I said before, had the Hobbit law change enforced, and the 2011 copyright act that introduced the 3 strikes law that made torrenting illegal.

          • Mefrostate

             /  16th February 2016

            Fair points. I still think we have a way to go before arriving at the right system for ISDS. And they still create a (minor) deterrent to passing regulation due to the vague possibility of having to defend a policy. This is certainly a con for NZ.

            Yep, a qualitative cost-benefit of TPP seems to clearly come out as a winner.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              ‘Yep, a qualitative cost-benefit of TPP seems to clearly come out as a winner.’….how so….who says….are you referring to psychic ‘ predictions for 15 years hence?

            • Mefrostate

               /  16th February 2016

              Lol, I’m an economist so I know how the forecasts of GDP growth are constructed. And yes I trust them, indeed they’ve historically underestimated the benefits of free trade.

              Nowhere have I seen any TPP costs which come even close.

          • Blazer

             /  16th February 2016

            so you’re fine with ‘guesstimates!…In 2013 Graeme Wheeler Res Bank governor warned interest rates could hit 8% by 2016….the reserve bank also said they could see the OCR move to 4.75% over the next 2 years.Hello…and the pro TPPA faction rely on projections with an increase in GDP of 0.9% by 2030!Wow ,talk about unconvincing and underwhelming.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              The whole ‘climate change debate’ is based on guestimates – so how come the ‘science is settled’ on those? Projections are just that, can protestors prove 100% that a nasty corporation will sue us? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean they can’t argue the toss that it MIGHT happen.

              If you had it your way we couldn’t debate anything currently on the table as we don’t know 100% what the next day will bring.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              the discussion is about the TPPA,trying to conflate issues is a common tactic the right resort to when they are being flogged by facts.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              List your ‘facts’ as haven’t seen them?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              When the guestimates are based on the best available knowledge and judgement, yes, and when the project is based on sensible principles, also yes, and when the alternative is likely to cause significant harm, absolutely yes, and when the opposition is led by raving nutters and limited to people with no interest in factual and objective information, certainly yes.

              Any other questions?

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              My example with the Reserve bank shows how wildly inaccurate they are with all the ‘best information’ available over a 2 year projection,so what makes you think the projections re the TPPA will be any different over a much longer time frame?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Your example was just yet another of your lies:

              “The Reserve Bank says the official cash rate could increase by 2% from 2014 to the beginning of 2016, which could mean interest rates on first mortgages of 7 – 8%.
              The central bank says if the LVR restrictions do not slow house price inflation, larger increases in the benchmark interest rate would be required.”

              http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/223608/central-bank-foresees-8-percent-interest-rate

              It was never an estimate or a forecast, it was a threat the RB might deliberately act to raise interest rates. Is there no end to your b.s?

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              ‘ Res Bank governor warned interest rates could hit 8% by 2016….the reserve bank also said they could see the OCR move to 4.75% over the next 2 years.’…no lie there ,sorry ,you do not know or care what you are talking about.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Liar. Now you lie about your lies. God help anyone who has to deal or live with you.

        • mrMan

           /  16th February 2016

          * Copyright extensions

          Yes please, let’s talk about this.
          The one aspect of this that everybody misses is that not only does the TPP increase our copyright period by 20 years. Which is very sad. NZ has a very reasonable term at the moment and one of the largest public domains in the world. But that it creates a totally new class of copyright “performers rights”.
          At present a song has a copyright that belongs to the songwriter, and another that belongs to the owner of the master tape of the recording of the song. Performers rights will create a new copyright that belongs to the performers on the recording.

          Performers are defined as…
          performers means actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;

          And are to be given a right to distribution, a right to reproduction and a right to performance to the public.

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            It also introduces criminality to the bypassing of “technical measures”. Which means it will become a criminal offence to do stuff like jailbreak your phone, load a dvd onto your hard drive, fix the computer part of your car or John Deere tractor, even to access data it has collected on you. The list goes on….

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Wrong:

              “The TPM provisions will not require New Zealand to
              criminalise uses of copyright works that are currently
              legitimate under New Zealand law. This is because New
              Zealand has negotiated an exceptions provision to
              ensure people can continue to break TPMs for legitimate
              purposes. These exceptions are not set out in TPP –
              the Government will determine what they are during
              implementation.
              The Government intends to provide exceptions for
              situations where use of a copyright work either does
              not infringe copyright in the first place, or is otherwise
              permitted because there is a copyright exception under
              New Zealand law. Examples might include breaking a
              region-code on a DVD legitimately purchased overseas
              in order to enable it to be viewed on a New Zealand DVD
              player, breaking a TPM to allow reverse engineering
              of software or interoperability of devices, breaking a
              TPM to reformat a work to enable access by the print
              disabled, or breaking a TPM to protect privacy.
              A broad and flexible exceptions provision also applies
              to all the copyright provisions in TPP. This means TPP
              Parties will retain their current ability to adopt and
              maintain copyright exceptions under international
              law. New Zealand’s current copyright exception for
              temporary electronic copies (such as cached or buffered
              copies of websites and internet data) would not need to
              be changed.
              TPP Parties will also endeavour to achieve balance in
              their copyright and related rights systems, including
              through the adoption of new exceptions and limitations.
              This obligation will help ensure copyright laws remain
              relevant in light of changing technology.

              https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Intellectual-Property.PDF

              Never mind the facts. Keep on scaremongering.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              By-passing region restrictions to play a DVD is, the only TPM bypass that is legal under NZ law at the moment.
              Meanwhile in the USA, there is a long list of things that are on the do not bypass TPM list. All of which are on the list under copyright law (the DMCA). I suggest you look it up rather than cut and past the MFAT sheet.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              What are you denying in the MFAT analysis? It is clear NZ has flexibility and intends to use it so the USA law is irrelevant.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              USA law is very relevant, because the TPM protection is in there to bring everyone else in line with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is the act that has made it a breach of copyright law to repair/alter a long list of devices including phones, cars and tractors.
              Educate yourself Alan, and stop relying solely on the MFAT fact sheets, they don’t even start to tell the story.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              I mean look at how many John Deere tractors are sold in NZ.
              In the US they are given protection of their software in the tractors, do you think they won’t want the same protection here once the TPP gives them the provision to seek it?
              That protection makes it a criminal offence for a farmer to fix his own tractor.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              And there are very few facts in that MFAT doc, it’s all mights and maybe’s.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              The salient fact is that NZ has discretion re implementation and intends to use it. That refutes your allegation that we are under its thumb and must implement US law.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              We all know, thanks to the Hobbit employment laws that the NZ government is a damp towel when it comes to influence from US interests.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              The weasel technique: When your absolute lie is exposed look for some exception you can claim to be a prediction.

              No, the Hobbit employment controversy was settled to benefit NZ’s best interests, not the US’s. And it has, as evidenced by our booming tourist industry.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              The Hobbit law was enforced because a contractor that worked on lord of the rings won an employment court case that ruled he was an employee, and owed all the protections and benefits of one.
              Warner bro’s decided that they couldn’t afford too make the film in NZ if they were going to have to give everybody holiday pay etc, and they let it be known.
              John Key bent over and gave them what they wanted.
              That you frame it as a win for NZ and Tourism is weasely, what it was was a foreign company telling us what the cost of doing business with it was going to be. And we paid it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Nope. The Government determined that the benefits to NZ from having the film made warranted their intervention. And they were correct.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              The government sold out a better employment deal for hundreds of workers for a 30 second advert at the start of a movie.

              The pertinent point is that the Key government has game in changing the law to suit foreign interests. As I said further up, it’s not just the hobbit law but the 2011 copyright act, 3 strikes law. That law was done under pressure from NZFACT who is really just the MPAA and the RIAA..

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              Is “intervention” just a rather cute way of saying “bent over and took it”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Without the intervention there would have been no employment for hundreds of workers.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  16th February 2016

            Fixed the formatting. Maybe PG can delete the messy one:

            Wrong:

            “The TPM provisions will not require New Zealand to criminalise uses of copyright works that are currently legitimate under New Zealand law. This is because New Zealand has negotiated an exceptions provision to ensure people can continue to break TPMs for legitimate purposes. These exceptions are not set out in TPP – the Government will determine what they are during implementation.

            The Government intends to provide exceptions for situations where use of a copyright work either does not infringe copyright in the first place, or is otherwise permitted because there is a copyright exception under New Zealand law. Examples might include breaking a region-code on a DVD legitimately purchased overseas in order to enable it to be viewed on a New Zealand DVD player, breaking a TPM to allow reverse engineering of software or interoperability of devices, breaking a TPM to reformat a work to enable access by the print disabled, or breaking a TPM to protect privacy.

            A broad and flexible exceptions provision also applies to all the copyright provisions in TPP. This means TPP Parties will retain their current ability to adopt and maintain copyright exceptions under international law. New Zealand’s current copyright exception for temporary electronic copies (such as cached or buffered copies of websites and internet data) would not need to be changed.

            TPP Parties will also endeavour to achieve balance in their copyright and related rights systems, including through the adoption of new exceptions and limitations. This obligation will help ensure copyright laws remain relevant in light of changing technology.”

            https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Intellectual-Property.PDF

            Never mind the facts. Keep on scaremongering.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              quote govt sources and their ‘take’ as much as you like….the reality is…YOU are out of your depth…!An example of a heavyweight ego subsumed by a lightweight intellect.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Troll off, fool.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              He’s got a point…
              Even when your whole argument is just to copy and paste something, you still can’t get it right.

  6. rayinnz

     /  16th February 2016

    Here is a pretty even handed look at the TPP by a lefty economist
    http://pundit.co.nz/content/do-the-idsd-provisions-in-the-tppa-reduce-our-sovereignty

    Reply
    • @ rayinnz – Thanks for that link. I agree it is “pretty even handed”.

      One cannot comment on this without drawing fire so here goes …

      Qualification of entire comment: I understand the projected ‘trade’ benefits of TPPA.

      I don’t know why anyone is still debating that the words of the agreement are not ‘facts’? That these are facts seems self-evident to me.

      The future benefits and potential problems of the application of these facts are all projection – however “sound” – and speculation IMHO. Why these SHOULDN’T be debateable is beyond the ken of my human intelligence.

      “For me personally Easton’s most telling comment is, “What I think is going on here, is that economic globalisation is undermining the ability of states to govern themselves exclusively.

      [TPPA] reinforces the reduced sovereignty that foreign direct investment is already causing” but “not [greatly] compared to all the many international concessions New Zealand has already made” and “the benefits … are not huge either even though they are there”.

      Andrew Geddis’ and all the other commenters opinions are interesting too.

      Mike Kirk : Default assumption: globalisation is a good thing and will continue …

      I also wonder what difference protest, debate and submissions to Parliament can possibly make? It looks to me like a “done deal”?

      Flying under the radar here IMHO are the SOE and Government Procurement provisions of the agreement, which are aspects of the greater “globalisation” question.

      Reply
      • Pickled Possum

         /  16th February 2016

        @ Parti Pono
        sounds like Warning! Warning! #Willwereareu
        Low flying SOE and Government under the radar … again.
        but who cares ? what is to be done?
        Protest Debate and submit your findings?

        That people think globalisation can a good thing for our local art vegy meat food, child minding and school communities.
        Makes me think that the closer we say or think we are, the further apart we really are.
        #rayinnz Good link thanks
        You critique well Parti

        ‘Husband; “Oh what a Good wife you are you have cleaned this house like a crime scene”.
        Wife;” Well, You did murder Joy”.

        Reply
        • ahiahi pai Possum

          And when one cannot exactly quantify one’s concerns about speculative or projected negative repercussions – or indeed about globalisation generally – one is accused of “all and sundry” by people who appear to accept speculative and projected benefits, some of which may very well come to pass.

          Ask me to understand this? I can’t. I’m not capable of understanding this.

          Might as well put a gun to my own head quoting Kelsey here, “The chapter would not ban SOEs outright, but aimed “to constrain governments giving any preferential treatment to state enterprises that private enterprises might see as damaging to their competitive position”, she said. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69700590/tpp-agreement-will-undermine-nz-stateowned-enterprises-critic-warns

          Although there is good news here – http://www.bilaterals.org/?reach-of-tpp-s-soe-disciplines – about rules and exceptions, especially for Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. There is still the pervasive implication that ‘price’ is the only thing worth considering. I already know I am never in my life going to agree with this.

          Procurement here – http://www.vox.com/2015/11/6/9677788/tpp-procurement-rules
          (This may be biased? I don’t have time to look for another)

          My unsubstantiated (but I believe) reasonable feeling, is that the cumulative effect of Investment, SOE, Govt Procurement, ISDS and Copyright provisions will amount to a significant further intrusion of globalisation – hence by Easton’s definition, “loss of sovereignty (by degrees)” – which I cannot help thinking favours large transnational-global corporations. They have the competitive advantage over smaller Kiwi firms and especially start-ups [Infant Industry argument].

          To exaggerate; its a trade-off like, “We get things cheaper – stuff and services – and in exchange we have less chance of being self-employed or small business owners (providing govt/local govt goods and services) and as global corporate employees we earn low-wages”. (I am exaggerating for effect – no apologies). Where these things are concerned, there is, in effect, no requirement for a govt to consider its own nation’s population? The very people who elected them. This strikes me as peculiar.

          Possum, “the closer we say or think we are, the further apart we really are”.
          This is a profound statement toku hoa.
          I also tend to believe (human) things are inherently paradoxical. It’s in the nature of our consciousness.

          So much writing I ask people to read. My apologies …

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  16th February 2016

        “What I think is going on here, is that economic globalisation is undermining the ability of states to govern themselves exclusively.”

        That is a fair comment, but it is a long, long way from loss of sovereignty. It means harmonising international rules and regulations in order to facilitate free trade and all the economic and personal advantages that means. Mass air travel would be impossible without it, as would disease control and all kinds of manufacturing and agricultural production.

        If we wish, we could isolate ourselves like North Korea and other pariah states but the cost in lost opportunities and human lives would be enormous. Nevertheless we have that choice and the Left can pretend we should take it.

        Reply
        • Oh Alan, it would have been such a good, reasonable response to my so, so reasonable comment if only you’d resisted the urge to “put the boot in” with your last paragraph. Shame … Yellow Card …

          PnZ says “reduced sovereignty” but he must mean “loss of sovereignty” and almost certainly “loss of all sovereignty” … This serves my purposes …

          Maxwell: The old “predetermined assumption” trick eh? Lucky I have the cone of silence Chief!

          This “hack away” propensity of yours really highlights your self-promoted image as the ultra-rational, super intelligent commenter here on YourNZ. The one who will “suffer no fools”. (Although I understand your exasperation with some commenters)

          “the cost in lost opportunities and human lives would be enormous”. Do you really think I don’t know this Alan? Let me make it explicit. I agree.

          “Mass air travel would be impossible without it, as would disease control and all kinds of manufacturing and agricultural production” These things are already happening – along with a great deal of “free trade” – which is NOT to say TPPA won’t make them easier. My question is, in essence, “Is easier necessarily better?”

          I don’t think I can be convinced it is. Certainly not by being hacked in the scrum. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating I think. And there’s no stopping the eating now, is there? [Don’t take that to automatically mean I want to either].

          Here’s an example: It would appear that the globalisation of food supply simultaneously means the globalisation of food with less food value in it?)

          I reiterate, the implication that TPPA and globalisation should not be questioned is entirely outside the ken of my human experience and rapidly reaching the limits of my human endurance.

          Have another hack …

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  16th February 2016

            You take everything far too personally, PZ. The last paragraph or indeed any of it wasn’t aimed at you at all, but at the political operatives leading the anti campaign.

            Reply
            • Perhaps you should have addressed it to them then? Perhaps in response to a comment one of “them” has posted?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              For heavens sake, PZ, it was NOT addressed to you. It was addressing the comment by Brian Easton. I am not going to start every paragraph with a disclaimer that PZ must not take this personally but you CAN take this one personally.

            • You’re asking me to believe that had you addressed it @ PnZ you would have written it differently? You didn’t pick Easton’s “What I think is going on here …” statement out of the article, did you? You picked it out of my comment.

              Fair enough though. I take your point about “general debate”. I want to take part in general debate too.

              I still think the last paragraph is entirely unnecessary. Who do you think on here wants NZ to be like North Korea for heavens sake? Name some names? Otherwise, maybe you can save yourself the trouble of writing that sort of thing?

              Bloody hypocritical thing of me to say eh? Me the “novel” writer?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              If we want to be part of the modern trading world we have to make and abide by trading agreements. If those compromises and the structures and rules they impose are to be described as loss of sovereignty and a compelling reason to avoid them then the only alternative is North Korean style isolation. Those who oppose these treaties for this reason have to be honest about that.

              Those who oppose them while pretending the alternative is not disastrous are dishonest. Those who oppose them while not realising the alternative is disastrous are ignorant.

              Obviously the bigger the market a trade agreement represents, the greater the potential cost of not joining it. Those who want to argue we should stay out of this one need to be honest about that fact too.

  7. Blazer

     /  16th February 2016

    good link….the article is unequivocal….the TPPA does REDUCE SOVEREIGNTY….to what degree is debateable.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  16th February 2016

      So now you say ‘reduce our sovereignty’ (a little bit) how does this equate with the protestor slogan “Take away our sovereignty’ – exaggeration much?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th February 2016

        your twisting and turning and diversions do not alter the fact.You should also know Key has acknowledged that prescription drugs costs will increase,but the govt/taxpayer will subsidise that rise.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  16th February 2016

          The govt/taxpayer have always subsidised drugs – so what’s the difference? Zip, zero, zilch. The protestors are in the main concerned that drugs will cost the paying public more – that isn’t true. The financial benefits of the TPPA easily cover any rise in the cost of drug subsidies.

          Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th February 2016

      It doesn’t reduce sovereignty. A government can walk away from the TPP at any time. Like any agreement it provides for contributions from both sides but that is not a reduction of sovereignty, merely an exercise of it in making the agreement.

      Next piece of unmitigated nonsense?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th February 2016

        ‘A government can walk away from the TPP at any time’…except it can’t …it must give 6 months notice and be preparedfor an avalanche of corporate litigation should it so do.Try sticking to facts,it gives your ‘arguements’ more credibility.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  16th February 2016

          “and be preparedfor an avalanche of corporate litigation should it so do”

          Your proof?

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th February 2016

          Rubbish. A government can do what it likes and is immune to corporate litigation since it writes the law. You remember the consequences for the French Government breaking its agreement on the Rainbow Warriors, or meeting the EU’s budgetary rules? Yes, nothing at all.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  16th February 2016

            Now a glimmer of hope…the big dog here is the U.S,the insignificant ,chop licking lapdog is…Key and co,selling NZ down the road to corporations.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              You are just a drivelling idiot, Blazer. You hop from one piece of nonsense to the next leaving a trail of refutations behind you. A better example of Lefty vacant cluelessness I have yet to see.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              you are pathetic…confident huff and puff,bluff and bluster ,and completely demoralised by calm factual response to your emotion based ,empty rhetoric.Away with you fool.

            • @ Alan – re Blazer, “A better example of Lefty vacant cluelessness I have yet to see”

              Oh darn! I was hoping to get that gong …
              Perhaps I still can?
              I’m late today guys, but can I join the gunfight?

              What’s it about … ?
              Oh, yes, I see below …
              mrMan has really got down to it … “yukky”!

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              the gunfight’ is long over …Mrman has unleashed a deadly accurate volley that has decimated the opposing side,all thats left to see are flyblown….carcase.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              You are not in the race, PZ. You would need to be pig-headedly stupid to a degree that you could not survive in the Hokianga. To be that isolated from reality you need to live in a city, preferably in an institution where you can be fed and sheltered.

            • Kevin

               /  16th February 2016

              You left out the evil Joos. Or am I confusing you with Oliver? Oops, my bad.

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              Nobody mentioned Jews, except you. Got a problem Kevin?

          • Rob

             /  16th February 2016

            ” A government can do what it likes and is immune to corporate litigation since it writes the law.” Lol
            The Frech? Government vs Government, nowhere near what’s being discussed. The usual from Wilkinson.

            Reply
          • jamie

             /  16th February 2016

            “A government can do what it likes and is immune to corporate litigation since it writes the law.”

            ISDS takes the dispute out of the country’s legal system entirely.

            That is the basis of the objection to ISDS.

            Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th February 2016

        you have already shown you have NO IDEA….refer to..’The WTO is a nation to nation dispute, ISDS is a company to nation dispute – they’re not comparable. Apples and oranges, if you will.’……shot down,and run away.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th February 2016

          Moron. A company has less resources or excuses to attack NZ with than a nation.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  16th February 2016

            you are an uninformed empty vessel,but you do make alot of…noise.

            Reply
          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            “A company has less resources or excuses to attack NZ with than a nation.”

            NZ’s oversea’ debt is 254 368 NZD Million, whereas Dow Chemical (chosen at random from the list of companies that have instigated ISDS suits) has Net cash-end balance/reserved for future use $5,654,000,000 USD .

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              USA GDP is $15,517,926,000,000 USD. Would you rather be attacked by Dow Chemical or the USA?

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              Two different scenarios, again.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              But their debt is $19 trillion, Dow Chemical’s got nearly 6 billion in cash just lying around, someone like Apple has even more.
              And the idea that a nation can throw it’s GDP into the war chest is ridiculous.
              Fact is Alan, governments are debt ridden, big US corporations are cash rich. Richer than NZ, Richer than the US.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              Governments have a guaranteed income, corporations don’t. US Govt spending is $6.5 trillion so Dow’s entire war chest is just 0.1% of that budget – lost in the rounding error. Richer and more powerful than the US Govt? Pull the other leg.

            • Blazer

               /  16th February 2016

              GM generates more revenue than Denmark,Ford more than Sth Africa.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              My point is made: large companies have more than enough capital to take on a government. FFS they’v done it, it’s happened. What important is not whether a country has more resources, but whether the corporation has enough.
              6 billion is more than enough.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th February 2016

              @mrMan, they also have to have a valid case. My point is that countries with more than enough resources have never taken any cases against NZ.

            • mrMan

               /  16th February 2016

              Yeah I know, we’ve been through that. You’re like a stuck record – had all your points argued so you go chasing your tail back to the start.WTO, blah blah, never lost, BLAAH, dozens of cases, blah
              Valid case? Hollywood already disputes the $25 charge to serve notice under the copyright act – in fact they haven’t sent out a single notice yet. That could well be case number one. Case number 2? One of the companies that prospected for oil and gas in the wairarapa/hawkes bay the other year won’t get a licence. Who knows. It’ll happen.

          • Blazer

             /  16th February 2016

            ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES and TPPA
            LAST UPDATED ON 13 JANUARY 2015
            There have been some 450 ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES arising out of previous free trade agreements which include ISDS provisions similar to those proposed for the TPPA:
            By the end of 2011, corporations like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill had launched 450 investor-state cases against 89 governments, including the US, to fightcommon-sense environmental laws and regulations. Among these cases were challenges to bans on toxic chemicals, fracking, timber,mining regulations, programs that incentivised green jobs and renewable energy programs.

            Recently Peru has been required to pay Renco the largest ever damages award of USD$ 4.2 billion for banning products that had contaminated the La Oroya, Peru environment and had poisoned 95% of children there. An incredible outcome protecting the polluter!!

            Read more…

            Reply
      • mrMan

         /  16th February 2016

        A government can walk away from the TPP at any time.

        Ohh, baby, I’ll pull out, I promise. Do it on your belly

        Yeah, right!

        Reply
        • Mike C

           /  16th February 2016

          @MrMan

          What a yukky analogy 😦

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  16th February 2016

            But a good one.

            Reply
          • mrMan

             /  16th February 2016

            Would you trust John Key to pull out? Not a risk I’m keen on taking.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  16th February 2016

              Andrew Little says he doesn’t like being there, hates it in fact and thinks its god damn awful and unethical but he also said he wouldn’t pull out…..

            • jamie

               /  16th February 2016

              It doesn’t matter what Little thinks unless you’re planning to vote for him.

              Key on the other hand is the PM. What he thinks and does actually matters.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th February 2016

          A real Government could, but not a Little Labour one of course. And the reason? They know the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages but they don’t want to tell the voters that now.

          An example of the lying scum I mentioned.

          Reply
        • Nelly Smickers

           /  16th February 2016

          @mrMan

          That’s not YOU is it Wayne?

          Reply
          • Robby

             /  16th February 2016

            If that pic is from the big gay out Rob, then I’m a little surprised that the crowd was so unfriendly 😉

            Reply
          • Timoti

             /  16th February 2016

            Want to talk about it, Rob.?

            Reply
            • Robby

               /  16th February 2016

              Talk about what Timmy? Do you have something you’d like to share???

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              I’m talking to Rob. Are you Rob?

            • Robby

               /  16th February 2016

              Oops, my bad. I’m so used to you confusing us, that I got confused myself 🙂

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              No problemo. Put Rob on.

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              Hey potato (no e) head. Back to this bs again eh. when are you gonna get those private dicks onto this. Remember them? Poor Timoti, still thinks it takes more than one to shoot him down. Oh well, carry on.

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              Hey potato (no e) head. Back to this bs again eh.???

              Good to see you were awake too. Rob.

            • Robby

               /  16th February 2016

              I’m not sure what Rob is up to ATM. Keep in mind that you have been warned about making inferences like that

            • Robby

               /  16th February 2016

              Oh, there he is LOL

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              Yeah I’m awake, pity you’re not. You haven’t been awake since you popped out of the womb. You might wake up one day.

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              Inferences? Like you said: “Oops, my bad. I’m so used to you confusing us.” I was confused. I meant to say:” no problema”

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              Think you can wake up long enough to get those private dicks on to the case? Although how you’re going to pay for it when you’re on a benefit should be interesting.

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              Yeah, LoL.

            • Robby

               /  16th February 2016

              You know exactly what you implied there Timmy.

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              Private dicks? Infantile pictures of John Key. On a benefit, which I am not. That puerile behaviour, Rob. Dude, you have problems.

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              Private Dicks is a term for private investigator. Even used in movies. Surprised if you don’t know that. What’s infantile about a man enjoying a hot dog, nothing that I can see. Must be your dirty little boy mind again, seek help.

            • Timoti

               /  16th February 2016

              I was implying a phallic fixation.

              “What’s infantile about a man enjoying a hot dog, nothing that I can see. ”

              Well, like Robby said, its the inference. Of course I’m not allowed an inference like Robby, am I Rob.

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              “I was implying a phallic fixation.” No, really? I never would have guessed. You can infer anything you like, don’t see anyone trying to stop you.

  8. Blazer

     /  16th February 2016

    trust Uncle Sam…https://youtu.be/jFMInh3KPEg

    Reply
  9. Blazer

     /  16th February 2016

    corporations vs govts!

    Reply
  10. Blazer

     /  16th February 2016

    watch the vid and you can see why Indonesia hasn’t signed up for the TPPA.

    Reply
  11. Blazer

     /  16th February 2016

    TPPA opposition in the U.S.
    This makes the TPP essentially a Get Out of Jail Free card for Monsanto and other corporate polluters and we need your help to stop it from overriding America’s laws.

    Independent analysis of the TPP has confirmed that this secret trade agreement would be like the Monsanto Protection Act on steroids, but for multiple industries, basically giving free reign for corporations to overwrite democratically written laws in independent nation’s and allowing giant corporations to sue country’s if they believe a law passed by their elected officials potentially harms or limits corporate profits on highly dubious products like GMOs and pesticides and harmful practices like fracking.

    Make no doubt about it; this is the greatest assault on democratic freedom that we have witnessed by out of control corporate lobbyists and their front groups.

    Already ExxonMobil and Chevron have used similar rules in other trade deals to initiate more than 500 lawsuits against 95 governments.

    Reply
  12. A song I promised mrMan, for Blazer and everyone, and most of all my friend Possum –

    “See that line there moving through the station,
    I told you … I told you … I told you …
    I was one of those …”

    There’s a post-9/11 version of this. Joe Cocker, arguably the most unique male voice of the 20th century, pulled no punches in the last years of his life.
    I can’t bring myself to put it on here though.
    For when I watch it I weep and I hear Kent from King Lear saying –

    “Break heart. I prithee, break!”

    Reply
    • Robby

       /  16th February 2016

      Been looking forward to it PZ, and you didn’t disappoint me. Now for something a little more upbeat…

      Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  16th February 2016

      @ kia ora toku e hoa

      “They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
      For trying to change the system from within”
      #memorylane

      What a day ah Parti so much knowledge to be hoover up 🙂
      I’m going to listen to Joe’s version now and pono that man has a voice that reach’s in and moves the heart…now where did I put the tissues.

      ma te wa
      Possum

      Reply
      • “I’m guided by the signals in the heavens
        I’m guided by the birthmark on my skin
        I’m guided by the beauty of our weapons …
        First we take Manhattan …. then we take Berlin”

        Joe’s version is tough I reckon. Really tough …

        Reply
  13. Blazer

     /  16th February 2016

    one for the ‘girls’

    Reply
  14. Alan Wilkinson

     /  16th February 2016

    Stick to music, you lot. That might be something you know something about and in any case can do little harm.

    Reply
    • Robby

       /  16th February 2016

      A little light relief harms no-one Alan, like you said. You should try some sugar in your tea for a change, rather than lemon juice 😉

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  17th February 2016

        I prefer Rooibos. It doesn’t have the bitter after-taste of tea and doesn’t need sugar.

        Reply
    • Timoti

       /  16th February 2016

      I call it called communal communication. Two people talk to each other with nonsense. Its a typical ( the word l’m not allowed to use) tactic. Nelly Smickers uses it on me. Pay it no mind. I enjoy it for a laugh. However, it does show you how serious they take themselves, ironically. Remember John Tamahere’s summation of Lefties in his Investigate Mag article?
      Same applies here.

      Reply
      • Pickled Possum

         /  17th February 2016

        Communal communication get you a different perspective Timoti


        Nz DuD

        Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  17th February 2016

          No mistake
          NZ DuB

          Reply
          • Possum – CHOICE!!! You still there? Here’s a favourite of all time from my playlist for you. No special significance … Perhaps not the best song ever written but one of the most unusual …?

            Reply
  15. Timoti

     /  16th February 2016

    I see Blouser mentions John Pilger above, Like Blouser, Pilger is your typical lying Leftwing toe-rag much of the time. I’m sure by dint of luck he gets some things right.

    http://awesternheart.blogspot.co.nz/2005/07/john-pilger-lying-again.html

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  16th February 2016

      It’s all a conspiracy against you. Even the guy who says Pilger is lying is actually lying. It’s you we’re really after. Internment camp for you Timoti. You’ve been marked as a danger to the real world, it can’t handle so much stupid from one person at one time, namely you. Depends time.

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  16th February 2016

        “It’s all a conspiracy against you” What has this got to do with Pilger and Blazer.?

        “Even the guy who says Pilger is lying is actually lying.” Ok, now we are getting somewhere
        .
        Your counter evidence, Rob.

        Reply
        • Rob

           /  16th February 2016

          He’s an alien and he’s out to get you but since you’re always asleep you’re hard to track. So now we’re all alts just to confuse you. Don’t want to talk about those private investigators do you. Go ahead, we won’t laugh. snigger.

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  16th February 2016

            Oh, I do want to talk about the Pi’s. I just can’t be bothered finding my posts. Why don’t you find them and then you can show me up. The Pi’s, I mentioned were in reference to the TV 3 trolls who hacked my network, which I explained. You have spun it to imply I was aiming to get a PI to investigate this site.

            That’s dishonest, Rob,

            “He’s an alien and he’s out to get you but since you’re always asleep you’re hard to track. ”

            More puerile tripe, Rob?

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              You talking to PG about using them to to back up your accusations, nothing to do with TV3 in this post. To easy

              Timoti / December 23, 2015

              I was about to say I will back my troll accusations up, offline.
              I would have used the findings of a Private Investigator to
              prove my point and help you see your predicament . But, honestly, I can’t be bothered.

              Have a happy Xmas.

            • Rob

               /  16th February 2016

              And this from a later date
              “Your threats about a private detective were extremely unbalanced, and way beyond sheer nosiness and vulgar curiosity…”
              Not going to say who posted that one, you may get all tappy on it.

            • Rob

               /  17th February 2016

              So as you can see Timoti, I’m not the one being dishonest here, you are.

    • Thanks for the link to that blogspot above Timoti, the Western Bile Duct.

      Reply
  16. @ Alan – “If we want to be part of a modern trading world …” (above, replies are too narrow now). You are probably correct in a strictly pragmatic, political realist sense.

    Did you see Possum’s paradox earlier? “The closer we think or say we are, the further apart we are in reality”? There is a similar ‘paradox’ in what you are saying. Similar and, I think, much more ghastly. (To be perfectly honest I doubt there’s any point you reading on)

    @ Alan – “Those who oppose them while pretending the alternative is not disastrous are dishonest … are ignorant” The only alternative is an isolationist economy like North Korea blah, blah, blah … (which I don’t accept because “trade” is to the human race as “eating” is to an individual human being. The example of one wildly abberation economy is disingenuous)

    But I think what you are effectively saying is “THERE IS NO CHOICE”.

    You are describing the very centrepiece of Inverted Totalitarianism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

    If I accept, which I do, that the SOE, Govt Procurement et al provisions of TPP – “those compromises and structures and rules” of free trade agreements we MUST necessarily make, those concessions we HAVE NO CHOICE over – favour large corporations over local suppliers – Broadspectrum being an obvious example – and globalisation over national interest – then I am accepting International Corporatism or Inverted Totalitarianism.

    I have NO CHOICE. This mindset, not the only mindset and not even the only “capitalist” mindset, has nonetheless “won”.

    Even if, by chance, Fonterra takes over the ‘dairy world’ and this greatly benefits NZ farmers (which I doubt because of the tenant of fierce competition which will always force down prices and bottom-out with low-wages), this will simply be Fonterra’s, and by association New Zealand’s “mini-win” at Inverted Totalitarianism.

    As we can already see very clearly, and perhaps has been evident since WW2 (or before) I.T. will be accompanied everywhere it goes by War, its Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    This probably writes me off your’s and dave1924’s reply to list … Oh well …

    Reply
  17. Alan Wilkinson

     /  16th February 2016

    @PZ, that wasn’t too bad, for you, and I did get to the end of it.

    In a sense you are right and there is no choice since the alternative of isolation is horrendous however much you abhor free trade, international competition and cheaper goods and services that are not locally made or provided.

    But each choice of itself is a real choice that can be decided on the balance of costs and benefits. What is invalid is the argument that though all trade agreements involve commitments and obligations this one should be avoided simply because it does too. There is an onus to demonstrate that its disadvantages outweigh its advantages in a way that the many others we have implemented do not.

    This, it seems to me, the opponents of the TPP have notably and consistently failed to do.

    Reply
    • @ Alan – the alternative isn’t “isolation” and nor is there only one alternative. One of many alternatives might be more limited FTA’s like P-3 or P-4 which TPP started out as.

      You are implying that I and others abhor free trade, competition and cheaper goods and services. This is simply not true in my case. I don’t think that free trade, competition or cheaper goods – which actually means “cheapest” goods with labour component smashed down to bedrock or lower – are the only alternatives. Sometimes other considerations such as local industry and employment, higher wages and even higher prices might be better if they offset inequality, poverty, environmental damage et al.

      A perfectly legitimate inversion of what you say would be me saying you abhor locally made or provided. I know you’re not saying that. Your saying locally made must compete to be “cheapest” with overseas made. But I could make a few people think you abhor locally made I reckon …?

      Here’s what I think might have happened or be happening. Analogy – It’s 1987. Rogernomics is steaming ahead. Early October Roger tables the idea of privatising all education. This stretches the tolerance of even the more hard-line ‘reformers’ and creates some popular doubt in a NZ public already reeling from liberalisation.

      Almost simultaneously on Tuesday 20 October – Black Monday across the date line – the Hong Kong stock market crashes and spreads contagion all around the world …
      The cost is deadly for many but some relief is also palpable in NZ. The introduction of an education system way more libertarian than America’s will not be tested here … not for now anyway … the tipping point came from across the seas …

      Had it been tested, I believe there’s little doubt there would have been widespread protest and an absolute shit fight with educationalists, teachers unions and possibly even the education department itself. It would have been a tipping point …

      The cumulative effect of 30+ years of global free trade and globalisation’s encroachment on sovereignty and nationhood – with its mixed consequences – has reached the same kind of tipping point in the public’s consciousness. I DO NOT CARE about the rightness or wrongness of it financially because a) that’s only one way of measuring things and b) down at ground zero POLITICS IS ONLY THE PUBLIC’S CONSCIOUSNESS.

      “Has this gone too far?” people are asking. Some are stating, “This has gone too far”. Are the benefits worth the cost, not just financially, but ‘cultural’ too – and i don’t mean only ethnic – although that clearly plays a part in NZ?

      I haven’t read Jane Kelsey’s ‘The Fire Economy’ yet but I wouldn’t mind betting I’ll find in it a precis of “what might be done to pull this back from the brink of ‘loss of national identity’?

      Or something …

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  17th February 2016

        Except your tipping point seems still most likely to leave Key in power for a fourth term.

        And if you think global free trade has encroached on sovereignty and nationhood I wonder what you thought Muldoon’s command economy did before it? Forced price freezes, carless days and import controls that handed big profits to businesses favoured with the precious import licences.

        Reply
        • I only meant tipping point enough to instigate notable levels of protest. I think its a foregone conclusion Key gets a 4th term and TPPA gets ratified.

          And, of course, I don’t mean a return to command economy, although I do think neoliberalism may only have led to different and perhaps more insidious forms of “favour”, including informal and institutionalised forms of graft and corruption …?

          Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  17th February 2016

          Reply
      • Blazer

         /  17th February 2016

        sublime post Pz.

        Reply
  18. Wicked!!! Frankly homeless …
    Possum, does it seem strange now these white guys singing about this?
    Nowadays I see it as a song almost as applicable to the poor and disenfranchised?
    It has its own level of universality … “How do we dance …?”

    Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  17th February 2016

      Yaaaa my fav from the ozzie eco warrior
      went to his NZ concert when he fell off the stage he nearly fell on ME sigh

      Reply
      • If you mean Logan Campbell Centre in about 1984 I was front row centre upstairs! (The stereo focal point) That was before ‘Dead Heart’ etc but still amazing. “The Power and the Passion”. I don’t remember Garrett falling that time? Only thing I wish is I’d had ear-stops or something. I see that concert as the beginning of my tinitus … high pitched cicaders 24/7 all year round!!!

        Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  17th February 2016

          No not that one 🙂 Mt Smart Stadium Tent 1991
          He kind of danced and akwardly fell right off the stage, something to do with broken communication with the stage crew. 😦 The was the encore and he just finished saying he was going to sing Beds are burning again…then it was Trip, Plop, Scream and then wait 1/2 hour…he came back sang the song, in much pain I seem to recall. Fabulous.
          He sings so intensely.

          Reply

Leave a Reply to Pantsdownbrown Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s