Open Forum – Tuesday

13 November 2018

Forum

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few, first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria.

Free speech is an important principle here but some people who might pose a risk to the site may be limited.

Next Post
Leave a comment

77 Comments

  1. David

     /  November 13, 2018

    Oops. Bit of competition for Twyford for the award of most disappointing Minister.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12157577

    What a mess.

    Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  November 13, 2018

      The Herald is part of the NZME group which supports the National party,take anything that rag prints with a grain of salt…very bias

      Reply
  2. robertguyton

     /  November 13, 2018

    Where’s the outrage, the furore that was definitely going to result from the release of the Haumaha report? Wasn’t Tracey Martin going to be fired for delaying the release? Where’s the righteous anger we were promised here?

    Reply
    • It’s hard to understand why martin dithered so much over releasing the report – and then the only official statement was from State Services Minister Chris Hipkins:
      https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/scholtens-inquiry-released

      However this is one step – the IPCA investigation is looking at more serious things that emerged after the appointment process.

      Robert – are you happy with Haumaha remaining as Deputy Commissioner? Are you happy with his support of Brad Scholten? Do you disagree with Louise Nicholas’ concerns?

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  November 13, 2018

        Pete – the report cleared the appointment. “Claims the high-ranking officer lacked integrity for the job were found to be unsubstantiated., with the process of his appointment deemed, “adequate and fit for purpose”>
        Are you trying to undermine the findings by diving back into the details”? What is it about the report you don’t agree with?

        Reply
        • You are missing the major point – Scholten looked at information available at the time of the appointment process. There are other things that have arisen since then that are subject to further inquiry.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  November 13, 2018

            You are missing a major point; I’m discussing the report. You may feel there’s more to come, but the report is what it is and the caterwauling around it and it’s delayed release now sounds ridiculous – the point I’m making. Now, your talking up the next step, but talking up the report went nowhere.

            Reply
          • duperez

             /  November 13, 2018

            ‘Information available at the time … other things that have arisen since’ comes into it?

            It seemed a couple of weeks ago that that didn’t come into it when it was Lees-Galloway. Will those who played that tune then be feverishly putting up new music now?

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  November 13, 2018

              ‘zakly

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  November 13, 2018

              Louise Nicholas would have people believe that every day as she walked home from school past the police station, a policeman would call her in to be raped on the table.

              She was exposed in court as a liar and fantasist. I read her own website before she took it down, and it was so far-fetched that nobody with any sense would believe a word she said.

              One man was so shattered by her false accusation that he killed himself.

  3. robertguyton

     /  November 13, 2018

    Note to Pete: you might like this article, Pete, as the basis of a post. It’s really thought-provoking and soundly constructed, I reckon. Topical too. Here’s a “clip” and the link.

    “It is naive to think that these environmental debates can be solved by scientists and science. Instead, we resolve them by sitting down together to respectfully speak and hear about our different values, beliefs and cultures. Then we engage in some good old-fashioned person-to-person negotiation to find a way for both sides to be part of the solution.

    Only then are scientific information and scientists most useful – values first, facts second.

    * Wayne Linklater is Associate Professor of Conservation Science at Victoria University.”
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/108533174/facts-dont-give-scientists-a-monopoly-on-the-truth

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  November 13, 2018

      An interesting article. A bit Kumbaya at the end, and ignores the fact much of the anti-1080 crowd use incredibly non-factual statements as a basis for their attacks, whereas the pro-1080 use people use reality, even if skewed with values.
      The bludgeoned road kill presented as 1080 victims at parliament are a good example.

      Good comment under the article:
      “Except for the most part your subjective claim to science is rubbish. yes a measure like moderately humane can be subjectively interpretated, but it is a qualitative measure.
      if you’re talking about safety of a chemical, there are frameworks that have been developed, usually over decades and on an international scale, about the safety of the chemical. These frameworks include everything from the concentration of the chemical, where it is used (is there water around, slope, etc), the nature of the chemical (ie. some will move through soils/water, others won’t) and the risk factors in the area (is it in a commercial area, industrial, residential, or forest?).

      this is at least how we judge safety of chemicals in a contaminated land situation. I can assure you there’s nothing subjective as to how we just risk. the subjective part comes down to how you deal such that risk”

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  November 13, 2018

        Colour me sceptical. Judging risk is subjective since it amounts to predicting the future with significant unknowns. Confidence in the predictions must vary with the degree of those unknowns.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  November 13, 2018

      Had a short but telling conversation with an ecological science post grad recently. Was telling me that published papers in that field were now written from the point of view of supporting good government ecological policies. I said that wasn’t science it was politics. Science was there to uncover and present the facts to the world. They said it had to be written that way to get funding.

      Ecological ideology has corrupted science.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  November 13, 2018

        Did you read the article, Alan? It’s written with you in mind, I reckon.

        Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  November 13, 2018

        Scientists, making claims from the basis of their values, has corrupted science, according to the article.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  November 13, 2018

          Yes, but political funding of science driven by enviromental alarmists has motivated scientists to corrupt their profession.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  November 13, 2018

            This happened since way back before “environmental alarmists” came onto the scene. Separating fact from opinion isn’t easy, even/especially for scientists involved in issues that attract public debate, e.g.; the use of 1080 or GMO.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  November 13, 2018

              “Scientists’ assurances about 1080’s “safety” aren’t helpful because they are expressions of their personal and cultural values, not the “facts” that they pronounce them to be.

              How poisonous 1080 is, and what and how many animals are killed, can be measured and established as a fact. But to conclude that 1080 is “safe”, scientists must interpret those facts subjectively, in ways that are influenced their values and beliefs.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 13, 2018

              I disagree entirely. Facts can be confirmed or disproved by experiment. Opinions cannot.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 13, 2018

              Yet that was the premise of the article, hence my question, did you read it.
              The problem is, of course, that when a scientist says, “it is safe”, he’s offering an opinion, not a fact.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  November 13, 2018

              Safety is a robust measure usually obtained through consensus in the scientific community – it is used for food, poisons and many other items. Safety is not defined by cultural values – its safety is rated by monitoring time to breakdown, what it breaks down in to and its effects on a population. Some substances are unsafe at any level, while others are safe until large quantities are exposed or consumed.
              Forest & Bird have a list of “facts” which combine to show a robust “safe” verdict:
              http://www.1080facts.co.nz/facts-in-pictures.html
              It is more often the case that cultural values over-ride facts to lead to incorrect assumptions – such as on issues like 1080 and Fluoride.

              In science it is more common for dogma and politics to lead to skewed results and data.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  November 13, 2018

              If a scientist says that X is safe to use because they have done many tests, I would expect that to be a fact, not an opinion. An opinion would be if they look at X but don’t test it because it’s like Y in many respects and Y is safe.

  4. Corky

     /  November 13, 2018

    Looks like the West is officially dead. That will happen in December. Any arguments regarding immigration will be after the fact..and post Western culture.

    Too many Westerners were asleep at the wheel. It’s not like the warning signs weren’t there for all to read.

    Quotes:

    ”A new UN agreement, which almost all member states plan to sign in December, propagates the radical idea that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.”

    ”The UN has no interest in admitting that its agreement promotes migration as a human right; until recently, there has been little debate about it. More debate might risk jeopardising the entire project.”

    But of course. The UN one world governance model they promote in various guises was coming unstuck as people woke up and started voting for hard right parties. And as for Trump, who does he think he is putting America first?

    Any guesses who will be first up to sign with a huge smile on her face?

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13263/un-migration-human-right

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  November 13, 2018

      Aren’t you lucky the UN is a largely symbolic and almost completely powerless organisation Corky? As you Righties keep saying …

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  November 13, 2018

        Like I say , Parti..socialism is like rust, it never sleeps. New Zealand has signed up to UN charters. That affects our legislation, and in some cases what we can and can’t do.

        Yeah, sure the UN is basically powerless. But its influence is massive for Western member states.. states who think their bs is just marvellous.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  November 13, 2018

          Rust only attacks where the metal is weak …

          Yep, their influence sure is massive … The good ole United States of Amnesia is a fine example of that …

          Maybe the UN’s “bullshit” is just marvellous?

          People stuck in an essentially feudal timewarp just can’t see it …

          “I don’t wanna be a peasant! I wanna be a Noble … or the King! And I can do it … if I exploit, keep subdued and trample on enough of my fellow peasants …”

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  November 13, 2018

          ”Rust only attacks where the metal is weak …”

          No, rust only attacks when metal isn’t protected. That’s why you and your ilk continually chip away at that protection.

          ”Yep, their influence sure is massive … The good ole United States of Amnesia is a fine example of that …”

          That’s only because America doesn’t have a lick spittle president at the moment. Hell, that UN building takes up precious real estate in New York. If Trumpy had his way it’d be gone.

          “I don’t wanna be a peasant! I wanna be a Noble … or the King! And I can do it … if I exploit, keep subdued and trample on enough of my fellow peasants …”

          That’s where you lose any rational person with a sense of perspective. You also denigrate many hardworking people who have built fortunes the honest way.

          You are why I’m a Rightie.

          Reply
  5. Corky

     /  November 13, 2018

    Jonsey seems to be getting off lightly at the moment. I wonder if this latest tree planting fiasco will ignite a fire?

    Reply
  6. Corky

     /  November 13, 2018

    Apparently Hillary Clinton may run again for president. Please do, I think that’s a fantastic idea. Let’s hope her supporters don’t read this:

    https://www.salon.com/2018/11/12/one-big-midterm-lesson-democrats-will-need-an-inspiring-presidential-candidate-to-beat-trump-in-202/

    Reply
  7. lurcher1948

     /  November 13, 2018

    What can one say about Donald Trump,..lots really

    Reply
  8. PartisanZ

     /  November 13, 2018

    A fabulous although rather long offering from Evonomics on UBI … thoroughly explaining the rationale for all key objections to Universal Basic Income and answering them completely …

    The kind of journalism Righties claim to crave …

    In reality, UBI would possibly sit more comfortably with libertarian economics than it does with liberal economics?

    “Third, the marginal wellbeing returns to keeping all of my money are diminishing.
    Diminishing marginal returns mean that if the first few hundred pounds of income massively improve my well-being, then the next few hundred improve it slightly less, and so on.

    A few years ago, Karthik Panchanathan, Tage Rai, Alan Fiske and I produced a simple model of what resource distribution a selfish actor should prefer when there are positive social externalities, and diminishing wellbeing returns.”

    http://evonomics.com/nettle-daniel-defense-universal-basic-income/?utm_source=newsletter_campaign=organic

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  November 13, 2018

      “This is the reasoning I would use with a well-off person to advocate funding a UBI from their taxes. The money you put into other people’s UBIs will directly increase your individual wellbeing, because in a society where no-one is desperate, it’s easier for the things you really value and derive benefit from to flourish.

      Furthermore, as already discussed, UBI offers security to you too. You may not need it right now, but you could do in the future. Both of these are self-interest arguments, where self-interest is construed sufficiently broadly.” (Ibid)

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  November 13, 2018

        “If people’s life ambitions were limited to gaining some modest level of income of £5000 or £10000 per annum a year and then stopping, then frankly, the behaviour of the vast majority of people in Western societies for the last century would be completely incomprehensible.

        Lottery winners almost universally continue to work, though often not in their previous jobs. Academics don’t work less when they become full professors: they work harder.”

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  November 13, 2018

          A job massively improves your well-being. A UBI won’t provide that and may actively prevent it.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  November 13, 2018

            Probably not Alan … The evidence seems to speak otherwise …

            “Insecurity, in this context, means not being able to be sure that one will be able to meet one’s basic needs at some point in the future, either because cost may go up, or income may fluctuate. Insecurity is psychologically damaging: most typologies put security as one of the most basic human emotional needs.

            Insecurity dampens entrepreneurial activity: one of the big reasons that people don’t follow up their innovative ideas is that these are by definition risky, and they worry about keeping bread on the table whilst they try them out. Insecurity deters people from investing in increasing their skills: what if they cannot eat before the investment starts to pay off? It encourages rational short-termism: who would improve a house or a neighbourhood that might be taken away from them in a few months’ time for reasons beyond their control? It also increases the likelihood of anti-social behaviour: I would not steal a loaf of bread if I knew there was no danger of going hungry anyway, but faced with the danger of starvation tomorrow, I would seriously consider it.

            Insecurity is a problem that affects those who have little to start with especially acutely: hence the link between insecurity and inequality.”

            Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  November 13, 2018

        “I believe that under a UBI scheme, work would continue, and become better: innovation, worthwhile work, scholarship, and the arts would flourish, whilst degrading or miserable jobs would have to pay people more or treat them better. Hardly the end of civilization as we know it then.

        If people persist with their intuition that UBI incentivizes people to do nothing, then the argument of last resort is the following: If you think it is stupid to give money to people even if they do nothing (UBI), then you ought to think it really stupid to give people money only on condition that they do nothing (the current means-tested benefits system). How much sense does that make?”

        – Daniel Nettle

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  November 13, 2018

          I find it hard to believe that a dustman who was on a UBI would still be a fulltime dustman. I wouldn’t.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  November 13, 2018

            You can pretty much guarantee that someone would though Miss Kitty …

            Remember the UBI will be maybe $10K – $15K and the dustperson will earn him-or-herself another $30K – $40K on top of that. They’ll only be taxed on their wage earnings and may end up paying $10K tax on a total income of say $47K …

            EVERYONE will be better off … including the former dustman who will find himself a much more satisfying job … for him …

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  November 13, 2018

              Ohhhhh, downtickers … It’s scary stuff eh? A really cogent argument in favour of UBI … SCARY!!!

              Especially when it would appear to be the only remaining option for limiting the size of government … a Libertarian’s wet dream …

              Neoliberalism sure as fuck ain’t done it … has it now?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  November 14, 2018

              $30-40,000? They earn minimum wages. Really minimum. A year or so ago it was $14 an hour for starters.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  November 14, 2018

              The UBI is just shove-ha’penny, though, moving money around.

  9. MaureenW

     /  November 13, 2018

    Good to see the Council quietly beavering away finding ways of extract more money from hapless rate-payers
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12159099
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12159096

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  November 13, 2018

      That’s probably just added $35k to the value and price of existing houses. Well done, Council.

      Reply
  10. MaureenW

     /  November 13, 2018

    Given New Zealand has such an embarrassing problem with child abuse, it would be heartening to see more substantial punishments for the cowards who abuse babies – the abusers are good for nothing anyway.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12159221

    Reply
  11. Gezza

     /  November 13, 2018

    Anutha stunner day in North Welly with hardly a whisp of wind – and what there is of a breeze isgetting funnelled up the Strait as an Easterly. The planes are coming over on landing approach to Welly airport. I just watched the big Air Allblacks Boeing 777-200ER going in.

    It’s such a great sight – so big compared to the Airbus A320’s. As it throttles back its engines give off a very deep, satisfying, howling whine, and today with no wind they had a deep “boom” quality to the sound.

    It’s blimmin hot outside. I might watch Question Time this arvo.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  November 13, 2018

      There’s an old document. a journal that begins with ‘Today the Hundred Years War began.’

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  November 13, 2018

        OK

        theres an old song called ‘when the war is over’ I prefer this

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  November 13, 2018

          The journal could have both monetary and historical value, like the cache of coins with 359BC on them, which are very rare as well as very old.

          Reply
  12. robertguyton

     /  November 13, 2018

    15
    13 November 2018 at 10:17 am
    This was from NZ News on FB and shared by a farmer who would normally vote blue, maybe the farmers are starting to hate John Key and opportunity for NZ First?

    “In 2008 New Zealand’s population was 4.2 million people, and total government debt was 10.3 billion dollars.
    By 2017, after nine years of the John Key led National government New Zealand’s population had climbed to over 4.7 million, a gain of over 500,000 people and net government debt had soared to $66.4 billion a rise of $56.1 billion!
    But how could this be? For nine years Kiwis have been told that we have a rockstar economy, that we have economic growth, and that the economy is doing well!
    The truth is that Kiwis have been lied to.
    New Zealand has not had economic growth all we have had is massive population growth, and our economy has not been keeping up with the enormous inflows of people.
    In 2008 New Zealand did not have capacity in our schools for another 500,000 people, we did not have capacity in our hospitals for another 500,000 people, we did not have capacity on our major motorways for another 500,000 people, and we did not have enough housing stock for another 500,000 people. But that did not stop the National Party who used immigration to fool the public into believing we had a strong economy by opening the floodgates, even while they were running current account deficits and borrowing money to help infrastructure cope with the massive new demands.
    For the last ten years, the New Zealand economy has been underpinned by construction activity. This is not construction activity associated with economic growth ( which would be paid for out of foreign exchange earnings, ) it is construction activity associated with population growth (building houses) and has been funded in the main by a massive increase in the country’s mortgage debt.
    Mortgage debt increased from around 130 billion dollars in 2008 to over 250 billion in 2016 as Key and English used immigration to prop up the National Party.
    John Key isn’t the first to use immigration to create a false economy, Helen Clark also relied on it, and Jacinda Ardern is carrying on, even though pre-election promises were contrary.
    So why did Key do this to fellow Kiwis?
    John Key said on a number of occasions that governments live and die on employment, in other words, the voting public will retain a political party if they feel things are going well and their jobs are ok. Most of the New Zealand public do not understand the economy, and even today most are unaware that under Key total debt in New Zealand has ballooned to a historic 500 billion dollars.
    John Key never said that immigration was good for the economy and he never said it was good for the environment, his priority was to retain power so he could continue to be PM and if that meant misleading the voters,( like a lot of politicians do) then so be it.
    If New Zealand wants to be a wealthy country, then we must protect our number one source of wealth, our environment, and we need a small population. The larger our population becomes, the poorer we will become.”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-11-2018/#comment-1549514

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  November 13, 2018

      John Key isn’t the first to use immigration to create a false economy, Helen Clark also relied on it, and Jacinda Ardern is carrying on, even though pre-election promises were contrary.

      From that article. She’ll have to go, robert ! 😡

      I think the FemGreens are probably just as bad, especially with OwnGoal Golriz wanting to bring in more Muslims as well. I hope you’ll be doing your bit to vote these lazy buggers out & vote for some other party.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  November 13, 2018

        I’m sure Pete has asked me, nay, demanded of me several times, to use the correct names for parties and politicians. Seems he doesn’t mind that you don’t, Gezza.

        Reply
  13. robertguyton

     /  November 13, 2018

    “Karel Sroubek’s mother is interviewed.

    It seems Karel’s former wife’s new partner, Mark Davis is a member of the National Party. He stood in the 2016 local body elections under the right wing ‘Auckland Future’ banner which was supported by National presidents past and present.

    Woodhouse claims he has never met Davis but of course he doesn’t have to does he…”

    https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-13-11-2018/#comment-1549717

    Reply

Leave a 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