Because letting too much foreign investment into NZ would be political suicide. And as for coal mining, you saw the debacle about mining on conservation land. As most people were iffy about Petrobras prospecting oil off the North Island, there isn't much Key can do to gain large ammounts of foreign investment and cash without loosing votes because the public cannot on what they want best. A government that can actually invest in social welfare programs thanks to the shiploads of foreign investment money or a business owned by a Kiwi?

There needs to be give on all sides - we can have a little more mining, we can allow a little more foreign investment (even, shock horror, Chinese..), we can have a few asset sales, a few more tax dollars taken from the rich (and that's the real rich, not middle class).....

We aren't that far off Greece - everybody knows there needs to be some give, some compromise, things we wouldn't normally like to do if we want things to improve. But will Kiwis do it? I feel a Tui ad coming on.....

Tea-cup hearing: Tape was legal recording - defence
By Derek Cheng Updated 1:32 PM Tuesday Nov 22, 2011


The High Court this morning has heard arguments that the teapot tape was a legal recording of a public conversation, as lawyers for cameraman Bradley Ambrose laid out the argument for a prompt court declaration.

This afternoon the Crown is expected to argue against a declaration being given on the grounds that it might interfere with the ongoing police investigation.

The hearing started this morning in the Auckland High Court to consider the legality of a recording of a conversation between Prime Minister John Key and Act candidate John Banks.

Cameraman Bradley Ambrose, who was not in court, says he recorded the conversation accidently and is seeking a court declaration on whether the conversation was private; if not, his recording cannot be illegal.

At issue is whether Mr Key and Mr Banks ought to have reasonably expected not to be overheard.

Ambrose's lawyer Davey Salmon argued that no one was asked not to listen to the teapot conversation, and no was asked not to record it - despite the request to remove recording devices from the table.

He said the two ongoing issues where a court declaration could benefit Ambrose included his claim that he was being defamed, and the legality of publishing the teapot tape.

In expectation that Solicitor-General David Collins would argue to adjourn the hearing, Mr Salmon said a declaration would not be binding on a future trial, and would not interfere with a police investigation.

Mr Salmon said there were several reasons to provide a declaration, including:

* giving prompt certainty to parties bringing litigation about past conduct and future conduct

* likely to save time for numerous parties and if the police investigators regard it as not helpful, they can ignore it

* remove public confusion and misinformation

* clarify an important component in the "pervasive and ongoing defamation of my client".

* likely to end prejudice he is suffering in relation to future trials by "statements from on high that he is a criminal"

* ensuring openness and free reporting especially prior to an election

* there is no other avenue for resolving this

* there is not evidence to contradict his statements about intent.

Mr Salmon said it was relevant that the complaint was made by Mr Key.

"If the referring of a complaint by someone in high executive office were to function to stall the court's exercise of its jurisdiction, then the effect would be to effectively close off the court from one avenue of supervising executive conduct. Respectfully that's not right.

"It is not irrelevant that this complaint to the police was made by the country's most senior politician."

Earlier this morning the court saw raw footage from the event.

Mr Salmon said photos and images show a print journalist in the cafe doorway, visible to Mr Banks, and close enough to touch Mr Key on the shoulder through the doorway.

The journalist was later replaced with a cameraman holding a camera.

"Anyone who bothered turning on their directional microphone would have picked [the conversation] up," Mr Salmon said.

"In the inside of the cafe, during their discussion and presumably in the line of sight of security staff and administration staff, there was a cameraman filming."

If there was express or implied consent to record the conversation, it cannot be a private conversation under the Crimes Act.

Mr Salmon argued that the cafe was a public place, where no people were told they should move away, and where people walked past cameras and had their conversations recorded.

Justice Helen Winkelmann said when the microphones were asked to be removed from the table, it could have been interpreted as a request for privacy.

But Mr Salmon said not everyone heard the request, including Ambrose, and the media were never asked to stop recording.

"The words were not said to people around the Prime Minister in a way that suggested they couldn't listen."

Nor was the journalist in the doorway within touching distance of Mr Key and in full view of Mr Banks asked to move, he said.

"The impression taken is of a public place. The media were asked to move and they did. They were not asked to turn their microphones off and they didn't.

"Also unchallenged was that anybody who chose to intercept this conversation could have."

Mr Key laid a police complaint over the recording and police are expected to execute search warrants on four media outlets - the NZ Herald, Radio NZ, TV3 and TVNZ - tomorrow.

Ambrose is also considering taking a defamation case against Mr Key, senior minister Steven Joyce and the National Party for comments made about alleged criminal actions and comparing the recording to News of the World

He has asked Mr Key for a public apology, which the National Party leader has rejected.

The hearing is continuing.

So we agree. it was a mistake, something said obviously in private but obtained nonetheless is then distributed (for the public good?)

hard to see where it ends to be honest...

I thought he had every right to expect what he said in that car mike or no mike to be private....

We agree that is how the information was obtained. Clearly it stops if someone is discussing something personal and/or not in the public interest. Of course what is in the public interest will always be debated.

It would also stop if the recording has been obtained by illegal means (ie: bugging, hacking) the police will rule on this in the teatapes case.Also if the information obtained is doctored or altered to be misleading or not truthful.

I don't buys Key's argument that this is the start of 1984 in NZ and it's a short step from here to all of us being recorded in private places. That's nonsense.

There needs to be give on all sides - we can have a little more mining, we can allow a little more foreign investment (even, shock horror, Chinese..), we can have a few asset sales, a few more tax dollars taken from the rich (and that's the real rich, not middle class).....

We aren't that far off Greece - everybody knows there needs to be some give, some compromise, things we wouldn't normally like to do if we want things to improve. But will Kiwis do it? I feel a Tui ad coming on.....

But that's the point I was making. No one wants this to happen. And as for being near Greece, we're beyond that. $35 billion in fact.

I don't buys Key's argument that this is the start of 1984 in NZ and it's a short step from here to all of us being recorded in private places. That's nonsense.

It's nonsense because it's the Prime Minister that's being taped, not the people. And it isn't as the media is some sort of entity that has a mind of its own- it can be held accountable. But the fourth estate is a bastard when it comes to this sort of thing. Given his "everyman" personality (something which Goff doesn't have and Auntie Helen never had) and with a better understanding of how the media works, Key would be unstoppable.

^^There is nothing wrong with Key's understanding of the media at all. He's been excellent at dealing with the media all through his term, he is a very shrewd operator when it comes to the media/PR as a good politician should be. However in this case he was a bit sloppy.

"By accident"? Come on - that journo knew exactly what he was doing.

So a conversation in earshot of someone else can't be private? I'm astonished - someone might be able to overhear me, but that doesn't extend them a right to record that conversation (security/terror laws aside....).

Agreed though - John Key (and really, his press secretary) were very very sloppy. No excuses.

I dunno about you guys but Im getting quite excited about Saturday night watching the results come through.

I was wavering towards blue but I have no faith that they have any ideas for economic growth. The sale of assets shows that. Key thought he would have an easy run but now things are tightening up he is looking completely rattled. Red Im favouring a little bit more, Goff is starting to show a little more mongrel. But I find their welfare program completely abhorant.

It looks like Im going to be deciding on the day.

Just for interest value Im considering giving Peters my party vote. Anyone wanna talk me out of it?

I was wavering towards blue but I have no faith that they have any ideas for economic growth. The sale of assets shows that. Key thought he would have an easy run but now things are tightening up he is looking completely rattled. Red Im favouring a little bit more, Goff is starting to show a little more mongrel. But I find their welfare program completely abhorant. ?

Ask yourself what other country has faced the same issues that we have in the past couple of years.. Surely National have the runs on the board? And point me in the direction of a country irrespective of what side of politics governs it that has a grip on things....

Labour is still building at present, and in 3 years time will be a lot more competitive...


Just for interest value Im considering giving Peters my party vote. Anyone wanna talk me out of it?

:-) do what you must.... but you cant trust Peters is all I will say

"By accident"? Come on - that journo knew exactly what he was doing.

So a conversation in earshot of someone else can't be private? I'm astonished - someone might be able to overhear me, but that doesn't extend them a right to record that conversation (security/terror laws aside....).

Agreed though - John Key (and really, his press secretary) were very very sloppy. No excuses.

Precisely, when I make a mistake the first thing I want to do is go and profit from it by selling it to the highest bidder...

if it was a mistake it would have been deleted straight away

I can't make a decision. I'd vote Labour on most policies but probably vote for National simply because I think Key is a far better leader. Goff is just too stale and reminds me of the old Labour NZ voted to get rid off in 2008.

I can't make a decision. I'd vote Labour on most policies but probably vote for National simply because I think Key is a far better leader. Goff is just too stale and reminds me of the old Labour NZ voted to get rid off in 2008.

john key is just a happy face on debt riddled, low growth, stagnant economy 1990s national who new zealand voted to get rid of. strangely enough... we're now debt riddled, low growth, stagnant economy again...

john key is just a happy face on debt riddled, low growth, stagnant economy 1990s national who new zealand voted to get rid of. strangely enough... we're now debt riddled, low growth, stagnant economy again...

about the most pathetic thing i think i have ever read.. and I sometimes read what I write so thats saying something....

to pin it on National and ignore the global goings on and events here at home is frankly beneath you..

about the most pathetic thing i think i have ever read.. and I sometimes read what I write so thats saying something....

to pin it on National and ignore the global goings on and events here at home is frankly beneath you..


ahhhhh the scent of condescension.... you best jump down off that high horse before it bolts. nowhere did i claim the global financial crisis was national's fault. just like i didn't blame them for the late 1990s asian financial crisis and didn't give labour credit for the 2000s economic boom times.

it's called satire ;)

Faxed my vote today - Green Party (no surprises there). Here's hoping for a nice close election so that National/ACT can't pass laws with impunity. I still see National winning the election though.

Faxed my vote today - Green Party (no surprises there). Here's hoping for a nice close election so that National/ACT can't pass laws with impunity. I still see National winning the election though.

Good on ya, Craig and I are also voting for the Green Party :cheers:

ahhhhh the scent of condescension.... you best jump down off that high horse before it bolts. nowhere did i claim the global financial crisis was national's fault. just like i didn't blame them for the late 1990s asian financial crisis and didn't give labour credit for the 2000s economic boom times.

it's called satire ;)

ah the satirist calling the kettle perhaps :-)

let the people decide perhaps for themselves tomorrow. but then the left never accepts that do they...

Syd and Svart.. Cant help but say that the Greens have impressed me this time around. Russell Norman has obviously had a big impression on the party and hopefully they will be able to bring something to the table regardless of who prevails tomorrow

Yeah
The Greens talking to National is going to be interesting.
They will be disgusted (talking to National) and happy (possibly having some power at last) all at the same time ;)

I'll probably vote Green in my electorate (Wellington Central) because of the candidates plans for PT. But as for a party vote I just can't bring myself to do it.

The reason is that they seem to lack the ability to compromise. And I see that as a crucial element in being successful in politics. They have a holier than thou attitude which is "our way or no way" (though I agree this looks to be changing).

Right now, I have more respect for the Maori party because they realised that its pretty hard to effect change when you aren't in government. So they gritted their teeth, prepared to p!ss a lot of people off, and formed a coalition with National. Something that would have seemed unbelievable more than 3yrs ago.

Its the Greens "we won't work with National" approach (up to now) that p!sses me off. National don't need the Greens, but if the Greens want to really effect change, they need to be in government. And, this time (like last) that means working with National.

If they were smart, ditched their stubborn approach, they could be in government as a coalition partner in every government. Now how good would that be for issues such as the environment and PT?

I just heard on the news that John Key is set to win the elections?

Why would people vote for that low life individual again after all that he has put

the country through including the rating downgrade from AAA to AA?

I just heard on the news that John Key is set to win the elections?

Why would people vote for that low life individual again after all that he has put

the country through including the rating downgrade from AAA to AA?

To be honest, no one really gives a shit about the credit rating. When its going to cost $20 billion to fix Christchurch, a credit downgrade isn't exactly the end of the world.

Plus, he's a far more competent and more human leader than those other idiots we call politicians.

To be honest, no one really gives a shit about the credit rating. When its going to cost $20 billion to fix Christchurch, a credit downgrade isn't exactly the end of the world.

Plus, he's a far more competent and more human leader than those other idiots we call politicians.

Helen Clarke is 1000 times better than him, why is she not running?

Syd and Svart.. Cant help but say that the Greens have impressed me this time around. Russell Norman has obviously had a big impression on the party and hopefully they will be able to bring something to the table regardless of who prevails tomorrow

Likewise, I have never voted for them before but this time around things are different. I don't mind Key but I can't stand that dinosaur - Steven Joyce. Goff isn't a leader in my opinion so Greens is the way to go ;)

Helen Clarke is 1000 times better than him, why is she not running?

Because she retired to work for the UN, and the NZ public had had a gutsfull of the Labour nanny state which she was trying to implement in NZ.

Helen Clarke is 1000 times better than him, why is she not running?

Fuck no, she is 1000 times worse than Key. She hasn't been on the political scene in three years and now works for the UN, where she cannot possibly hope to fuck things up there.

We got rid of her because she, and the Labour Party in general, had lost the plot by the time Key won. He's had to deal with a lot of worse things than Clark ever did. Hell, Labour was going to go ahead with plans to regulate water pressure in showers.

John Key got my vote. He's a down-to-earth Kiwi bloke and is a good face for our country in international relations. :D

He's a down-to-earth Kiwi bloke and is a good face for our country in international relations. :D

Ha ha... you must be joking? He's an absolute embarrassment. At least Helen Clark, for all her many faults, could comport herself with some dignity on the International stage.

John Key's Letterman appearance explicitly illustrates his total lack of gravitas. He even makes George W. Bush look like an effective public speaker.

I can't understand why New Zealanders have chosen this undignified oaf to represent them again. I guess New Zealanders really dig that "common man" approach. I suspect the reason a lot of New Zealanders, particularly NZ men, hated Helen Clark so passionately was they felt threatened by her intelligence. They feel more comfortable with the less intellectual Key.

For the record, I also voted Green.

^^ Absolutely agreed.

I just hope Jacinda Ardern takes Auckland Central. That is all.

i think master_klon has explained exactly why new zealanders voted for him...

because he's managed to convince them that he's a classic kiwi bloke.

remarkable for a man who was once earning 5 million a year at merrill lynch, one of the chief architects of the current global financial crisis.

he put a lot of work into seeming to be a common man and you have to give it to him, he's played it well.

Who are ya!

Looking at the votes I think I might enjoy the next few years :cheers:

^^ Absolutely agreed.

I just hope Jacinda Ardern takes Auckland Central. That is all.

she didn't!

Pretty good result all round.

^^Yup I'm happy.

Well this is an excellent result. Normal thinking Kiwis voted against the politics of excessive welfareism, envy, hatred and jealously. Labour keeping Goff on was a joke and a major part of their downfall. Key's charisma and economic savvy shone thru as to be expected. Welfare socialism ia a corrupt and disatrous form of Gov.t that keeps the vulnerable traped in a cycle of hopelessness and dependancy. The Greens and Peters will have no power which is excellent news also - Peters is a self serving narcissist and the Greens are just basically anti progress who want to take Kiwis back to the dark ages. Capitalism is again the winner on the day. Excellent result.

Chris

^^
I especially agree with this:
"The Greens and Peters will have no power which is excellent news also - Peters is a self serving narcissist and the Greens are just basically anti progress who want to take Kiwis back to the dark ages. Capitalism is again the winner on the day. Excellent result".

I'm a happy chappy :cheers: and I suspect along with all my KiwiScraper fellow members, we are unanimous in that!!!!!!!!!!;)

The Greens should rename themselves the Anti-Everything party. They're dangerous for the country and I'm glad they're relegated to the cheap seats.

Anyway, I just returned from an alternative universe where the Greens had been running NZ for the last century. Enclosed is the photograph of NZs largest city.

http://www.davidduke.com/images/African-Village.jpg

Anyway, I just returned from an alternative universe where the Greens had been running NZ for the last century. Enclosed is the photograph of NZs largest city.


Sublime satire worthy of your handle, blah....

Actually the Greens are in favor of higher density urban development. It is right wing Governments who wish to restrict our cities to low rise hovels like those pictured.

I remain in a bad mood after what was, in my opinion, one of the most shameful and short-sighted results I have been unfortunate enough to witness. I am disappointed that people would eschew responsibility towards both the poor and New Zealand's future generations through th...eir implicit support of asset sales, flatter tax systems, and a lack of urgency towards matters of environment, education, and development, and can only hope that the negative effects of this government are of the sort that can be reversed by later administrations once the smiles and honeymoon period of this one cease to be as intoxicating.

Rant=over.

I'm a happy chappy :cheers: and I suspect along with all my KiwiScraper fellow members, we are unanimous in that!!!!!!!!!!;)

If only that would be true, most of the forum members are sandal wearing greenie bike riding commies.

'Nick Yeah' are you saying democracy is at fault here? - Just because you don't like the election outcome?
What do you suggest - a dictatorship? First past the post voting? Or just shooting people that don’t agree with your view of the world?
You arrogantly think 'voters got it wrong' as they don’t match your various ideologies. Democracy and the right to vote is a hard fought freedom that people have died for so I suggest you look in the mirror first prior to critizing others.

Chris

'Nick Yeah' are you saying democracy is at fault here? - Just because you don't like the election outcome?
What do you suggest - a dictatorship? First past the post voting? Or just shooting people that don’t agree with your view of the world?
You arrogantly think 'voters got it wrong' as they don’t match your various ideologies. Democracy and the right to vote is a hard fought freedom that people have died for so I suggest you look in the mirror first prior to critizing others.

Chris

The irony of you posting this is priceless, i'm speechless at how un self aware you are Chris.

The Greens and Peters will have no power which is excellent news also - Peters is a self serving narcissist and the Greens are just basically anti progress who want to take Kiwis back to the dark ages. Capitalism is again the winner on the day. Excellent result".

^^ Nothing wrong with being happy with the election result however this reads like the rantings of a parnoid and slightly unhinged nutter to me (Peters comment aside). Quite creepy Anders Breivik type undertones tend to permeate Chris's statements. Which is disturbing, then again I could be wrong Chris could just be your garden variety middle aged reactionary bore, the type you avoid at social gatherings lest they bundle you into a corner and tell you what they "reckon" about things.

Once again, the left has shown its qualities of cynicism and spitefullness.

^^Um do you mean spitefullness like Blah's post or Chris's? Or Maybe you mean like Rob's?

You see it's not about left and right it's about people who post ignorant garbage like above and this forum has people of both sides of the debate who do that.

From my point of view. There are plenty of posters on this forum who are not on the left and make intelligent and informed comments (KLK,Renardo and Buildemhigh are a few that spring to mind) and make it worth reading and then there are the ignorant knuckledraggers and trolls who admittidly should be ignored but just keep coming up with the same drivel time and again.

Instead of trying to understand and sympathise why voters would vote national/greens/whatever lets just assume that they are all mentally retarded. Not that I like NZ First or anything but good on them for getting back into parliament with such high numbers.

I hope this John Key guy will leave Air New Zealand alone!

John Key got my vote. He's a down-to-earth Kiwi bloke and is a good face for our country in international relations. :D

Pity that he will need an interpreter with him when he goes abroad
The guy can't speak proper and clear English.

Pity that he will need an interpreter with him when he goes abroad
The guy can't speak proper and clear English.

Neither could Helen Clark for that matter. Whenever she spoke, all I heard was shit.

And I'm assuming you can? Where exactly are you from?

^^Um do you mean spitefullness like Blah's post or Chris's? Or Maybe you mean like Rob's?

You see it's not about left and right it's about people who post ignorant garbage like above and this forum has people of both sides of the debate who do that.

From my point of view. There are plenty of posters on this forum who are not on the left and make intelligent and informed comments (KLK,Renardo and Buildemhigh are a few that spring to mind) and make it worth reading and then there are the ignorant knuckledraggers and trolls who admittidly should be ignored but just keep coming up with the same drivel time and again.

In general. People bitch and whinge because their preferred politician isn't in power. The left just happen to not be in power so people who happen to dislike John Key will wax lyrical about it.

Personally, I don't support the whole asset sales (but then again, one as to look at the NZPA and the newspaper industry to see that it has been done anyway) but people saying he shouldn't be in power because of the palava around the teacup epic might want to be reminded that Goff didn't handle the Darren Hughes scandal very well.

Quite creepy Anders Breivik type undertones tend to permeate Chris's statements.

I think you've really stepped over the boundries of good taste here.

I hope this John Key guy will leave Air New Zealand alone!

The govt has no place owning and operating an airline, as the govt have said they will keep a controlling share and sell off the rest. The problem with Air NZ isn't the govt they have been pretty much hands off, it's the idiot running the company, he's been systematically destroying all the good work Ralph Norris did before him.

your garden variety middle aged reactionary bore, the type you avoid at social gatherings lest they bundle you into a corner and tell you what they "reckon" about things.

Ouch.

Hilarious all the same.

I didn't vote this year as I am geographically challenged - a bit of a cop out as I am still eligible - but the options were not exactly compelling, and the results probably not relevant to me at this time.

I didn't make much of an effort to keep myself informed on things either, but from a distance, this seemed to me like such a default win, non-event election.

This is why National is in parliament :)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/18/article-1243905-07E767E1000005DC-804_634x645.jpg

I think you've really stepped over the boundries of good taste here.

Bit rich Rob considering some of the abusive and racist crap you've spouted on here. I stand by what I say his posts have very creepy undertones, no doubt. Maybe I should not have used that specific name i will concede that, however it was the best reference to illustrate what i was trying to say.

I actually thought that, on the whole, it was a disappointing election for the Greens.

They were polling higher than 10% (up to 13%?) for the last 6-12mths and with so many people leaving Labour, I think they would have expected a much higher number. NZ First contributed to that obviously.

They remain in a precarious position - should any of the major two parties - or both - move a little more favourably into areas of the environment from their current respective positions (think PT) then they will be a net loser of votes, potentially from both sides.

And I don't think they can improve their economic policies so much that a) it won't compromise their traditional ideologies (and voters) or b) they would be considered a more legitimate economic manager than National or Labour.

As per a previous post, they really need to work with National - and it seems they are warming to that. They represent 10% of the population, and yet that could count for nothing compared to the the representation minnows like ACT and United Future will enjoy (obvious political differences aside).

As an aside, my pet peeve about MMP is highlighted in this article - the makeup of a party's "list".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769652

I would have two rules for list MPs:

1) You have to have actually stood for election in an electorate. No "list only" MPs.

2) Secondly, the party does not determine the list - voters do. Every unsuccessful party candidate is ranked, based on their percentage of votes received in their electorate, after the MP's votes are taken out.

You'd soon see who was popular, and who was not. And you'd see who some of these people actually are and what they stand for, by virtue of having to stand for election in the first place.

Bit rich Rob considering some of the abusive and racist crap you've spouted on here.

Better get off that high horse before you come tumbling down. What racist crap?

As an aside, my pet peeve about MMP is highlighted in this article - the makeup of a party's "list".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769652

I would have two rules for list MPs:

1) You have to have actually stood for election in an electorate. No "list only" MPs.

2) Secondly, the party does not determine the list - voters do. Every unsuccessful party candidate is ranked, based on their percentage of votes received in their electorate, after the MP's votes are taken out.

You'd soon see who was popular, and who was not. And you'd see who some of these people actually are and what they stand for, by virtue of having to stand for election in the first place.

you want the people to vote on who stands in an election? that's a bit clunky... and kind of goes against the point of having a list... part of the function of a list is to allow parties to put people who are competent at governing in there even if they aren't charismatic or populist. you already get to choose who you want in parliament by voting for your party. there's no sneaking bad apples on there. don't like joe bloggs who's at 3 on the party list... don't vote for that party. their lists are published well in advance.

i think the list is the best thing that's happened to our parliament. it's the first time major parties have had to consider people outside their traditional demographic and makes for a more representative government.

my opinion on mmp is that we should remove the threshold. it's hardly democratic to set an arbitrary percentage figure. imo if you get 1.2% of the vote, you should get an mp. the fact that mana, maori, act and united future get an mp because they have someone who is locally popular while their party is nationally unpopular... when the conservatives get more votes than any of them but get no mp because they are not locally popular in an electorate is idiotic.

on the other hand, i'd also like to see the limit of electorate seats lifted for parties to bring extra politicians in... perhaps to 2 seats... so we don't get the epsom situation happening unless a party is capable of getting at least a couple of mps on it's own.

/imo.

Better get off that high horse before you come tumbling down. What racist crap?

Can't be bothered trawling through all these threads to pull out quotes. He's said it and he knows it, he's been pulled up on it a few times.

you want the people to vote on who stands in an election?

No, anybody can stand. But if you want to make it onto a party list (to determine who enters parliament based on the party vote), you have to have actually stood for that party in an electorate, somewhere.

you already get to choose who you want in parliament by voting for your party. there's no sneaking bad apples on there. don't like joe bloggs who's at 3 on the party list... don't vote for that party.

What if I love the party, but can't stand Joe Bloggs? You'd have to hate a lot of people on a list before it influenced you party vote. You probably know little about them in the first place.


their lists are published well in advance

Yes, but their policies,views, positions need not be. If no one would vote them in based on their particular brand of politics, why should they get in at all? And if they are just going to tow the party line, why bother with a different demographic?

i think the list is the best thing that's happened to our parliament. it's the first time major parties have had to consider people outside their traditional demographic and makes for a more representative government.

Not sure how it makes for more representation - unless you specifically target your list to include minority groups in some order of priority. Which they don't.

Can't be bothered trawling through all these threads to pull out quotes. He's said it and he knows it, he's been pulled up on it a few times.

I very much doubt that he is "racist". I know your type. You people throw that word around like it's going out of fashion.

I very much doubt that he is "racist". I know your type. You people throw that word around like it's going out of fashion.

^^
Its because its livid through the forum sometimes

Look a number of comments and issues we support each other on..

I just cant stand the "r" comments ..and will go head to head...with anyone


I cant wait untill the world is merged into one average colour/where capitilisim rules.....where making honest money is the route of all goodness!:lol:

Where by being a wealthy country..nz can look after its own

I have Jewish blood in me....maybe thats why:)

Can't be bothered trawling through all these threads to pull out quotes. He's said it and he knows it, he's been pulled up on it a few times.

The problem is i'm not racist, I believe that everyone in NZ is given equal opportunities but I fail to see why one group in particular should be given more assistance than everyone else. If that group of people fail then it's there own fault and not the fault of society in general.

Wanting equal treatment for people of all races is not racist.

get an mp because they have someone who is locally popular while their party is nationally unpopular... when the conservatives get more votes than any of them but get no mp because they are not locally popular in an electorate is idiotic.
/imo.

Agree to a point, however I think it also goes the other way.

As much as we heard that this isnt an American style election based on personalities thats exactly what we got. Key vs Goff which was always a bit one sided lets be honest.

I think Andrew Williams is a great example of someone who barely deserves to represent himself, yet he is now in parliament. My question would be how many of those that voted NZ First did so with the understanding of who he was and where he was on the list. They voted for Peters (rightly or wrongly). Williams has stood for a few public offices since being the North Shore Mayor and has resoundingly been sent a message...

I think the list is good, however its only as good as the lengths the electorate goes to in order to educate themselves on whos on the list etc.

2) Secondly, the party does not determine the list - voters do. Every unsuccessful party candidate is ranked, based on their percentage of votes received in their electorate, after the MP's votes are taken out.

You'd soon see who was popular, and who was not. And you'd see who some of these people actually are and what they stand for, by virtue of having to stand for election in the first place.

That's how it's done in Norway, you get to rank the MP's on the list according to who you like best, I think you get to rank the first 3.

Wanting equal treatment for people of all races is not racist.

It isn't in any sense of the imagination. Hell, I'd be considered one of those liberal lefty types wanting social justice and equality for all about my views on these sorts of things.

No, anybody can stand. But if you want to make it onto a party list (to determine who enters parliament based on the party vote), you have to have actually stood for that party in an electorate, somewhere.



What if I love the party, but can't stand Joe Bloggs? You'd have to hate a lot of people on a list before it influenced you party vote. You probably know little about them in the first place.




Yes, but their policies,views, positions need not be. If no one would vote them in based on their particular brand of politics, why should they get in at all? And if they are just going to tow the party line, why bother with a different demographic?



Not sure how it makes for more representation - unless you specifically target your list to include minority groups in some order of priority. Which they don't.

quote cutting is a little bit passive aggressive isn't it?

New Zealand is the World's least corrupt Country - again.

Transparency International today released its annual Global Corruption Perceptions Index. The Index, compiled by the Transparency International Secretariat in Berlin, shows that New Zealand is perceived as the least corrupt country internationally. The Index, which ranks 182 countries across the world, has consistently shown New Zealand as a country with a strong reputation for clean government. Transparency International New Zealand Co-Chair Claire Johnstone said: “New Zealand ranking first in the Corruption Perceptions Index is testament to the integrity and performance of all of those involved in New Zealand’s public sector. New Zealand’s reputation for clean government is an important driver of economic prosperity, but it is important that we do not squander or take for granted this reputation.”

Transparency International’s New Zealand Chapter warns against using the country’s performance on the Index as an excuse for complacency and urges the incoming Government to expedite necessary reforms in order to maintain New Zealand’s reputation. Transparency International New Zealand Director Suzanne Snively said: “The Corruption Perceptions Index is a measure of perceived public sector corruption only, and that assessment is made by experts and members of the business community. It does not address private sector corruption, nor does it serve as a measure of the broader public perception of corruption issues. Several other recent Transparency International publications have shown that there remains cause for concern in New Zealand.” Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer released in December 2010 showed that 3.6% of New Zealanders surveyed reported that they or someone in their household had paid a bribe to a service provider in the previous year.

Transparency International New Zealand’s own report As Good As We Are Perceived has shown that many of New Zealand’s largest firms lag behind when it comes to having codes of conduct that prohibit bribery. Transparency International’s New Zealand Chapter believes that government needs to step up its efforts in combating corruption. A recent survey by the Office of the Auditor General showed that 22.5% of public servants were aware of fraud having occurred in their organisations. While fraud is different from corruption, this is a worrying finding. Furthermore the New Zealand government appears to be falling behind in its international commitments to fight corruption. Suzanne Snively noted: “While New Zealand signed the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) almost 8 years ago, it now stands as one of only a tiny number of countries which has not yet ratified the convention, and consideration of the convention has been languishing in select committee “other business” for more than two years. We strongly encourage the new Government to address this urgently.”

quote cutting is a little bit passive aggressive isn't it?

???????

I just wanted to answer some - but not all - of the points you raised in response to my post. Thought it would be clearer doing that way, that's all.

EDIT

The problem is i'm not racist, I believe that everyone in NZ is given equal opportunities but I fail to see why one group in particular should be given more assistance than everyone else. If that group of people fail then it's there own fault and not the fault of society in general.

Rob, putting aside this ridiculously oversimplified nonsense above. What i was reffering to was more the casual slurs you drop in every now and then about different races. You have been pulled up on that before, you know that.

I very much doubt that he is "racist". I know your type. You people throw that word around like it's going out of fashion.

I doubt very much you know much about me or "my type". Your posts read like someone who has probably not mixed with a wide variety of "types". Could be wrong but that's how it comes across.

I agree with rob with the ideal that everyone should be treated equally... and thought it was exceptionally brave of Brash to make it a political issue in 2005.

However, the premise that everyone is treated equally requires that everyone starts equally... which is where it falls down in New Zealand. Most politicians - including Maori politicians are committed to equality. But there is an acknowledgement that Maori wealth and access to services has to be improved before we can legislate for true equality. The treaty process has been a positive step in the right direction... but it's just a start. the 130 - 140 odd years of cultural and financial exclusion all but the most aggressively ambitious Maori suffered isn't something that can be fixed by a single balancing piece of legislation.

There's also an issue with white middle class suburban New Zealanders and their perceptions of political correctness. Any casual glance through the comments section of any newspaper suggests that white middle class New Zealanders don't quite understand the problem. Most suburban middle class New Zealanders have been handed their health and wealth and opportunities care of their birth in a middle class world. This means that averagely talented and non-ambitious white middle class people can achieve an average lifestyle without too much effort. On the other hand, Maori born into rural poverty have to be exceptional to achieve that same average white middle class lifestyle. Anything short of this and they may fall through the cracks. This is where ambitions of true equality fall short. The simple fact that an average White person can achieve an average lifestyle, but Maori have to work harder to have the same lifestyle thanks to their birth.

I think that true legislated equality is something to aspire to... But to achieve this goal we would need a government (either National or Labour) who was committed to making equality a reality and this would take more than a 3 year election cycle. It would also require right wingers to ease up on the nanny state talk and left wingers to realise that personal responsibility does need to be a part of the solution. It would require white middle class suburbia abandoning it's strict pc attitude and would require Maori to move past victim syndrome.

I agree with rob with the ideal that everyone should be treated equally... and thought it was exceptionally brave of Brash to make it a political issue in 2005.

However, the premise that everyone is treated equally requires that everyone starts equally... which is where it falls down in New Zealand. Most politicians - including Maori politicians are committed to equality. But there is an acknowledgement that Maori wealth and access to services has to be improved before we can legislate for true equality. The treaty process has been a positive step in the right direction... but it's just a start. the 130 - 140 odd years of cultural and financial exclusion all but the most aggressively ambitious Maori suffered isn't something that can be fixed by a single balancing piece of legislation.

There's also an issue with white middle class suburban New Zealanders and their perceptions of political correctness. Any casual glance through the comments section of any newspaper suggests that white middle class New Zealanders don't quite understand the problem. Most suburban middle class New Zealanders have been handed their health and wealth and opportunities care of their birth in a middle class world. This means that averagely talented and non-ambitious white middle class people can achieve an average lifestyle without too much effort. On the other hand, Maori born into rural poverty have to be exceptional to achieve that same average white middle class lifestyle. Anything short of this and they may fall through the cracks. This is where ambitions of true equality fall short. The simple fact that an average White person can achieve an average lifestyle, but Maori have to work harder to have the same lifestyle thanks to their birth.

I think that true legislated equality is something to aspire to... But to achieve this goal we would need a government (either National or Labour) who was committed to making equality a reality and this would take more than a 3 year election cycle. It would also require right wingers to ease up on the nanny state talk and left wingers to realise that personal responsibility does need to be a part of the solution. It would require white middle class suburbia abandoning it's strict pc attitude and would require Maori to move past victim syndrome.

Here we go again:
You know Im not sure the people of New Zealand (including alot of Maori- I have a small bit of maori in me) will continue to allow a small percentage of our population preferential treatment this includes access to resources services.
There are of course many immigrants who come here with nothing and are quite able to build themselves a financially stable future without the help of the state.(I know youll have an argument for this)
I wonder if your arguments will be become a little unsophisticated and outdated as time moves on and New Zealand becomes increasingly wealthy, globalised and multicultural.
Also look "white middle class New Zealand " are not a homogeneous lot with the same opinions.The surprising thing is you wouldnt believe how different they all are.

It isn't possible for everyone to start equally. That needs to be accepted

I agree with rob with the ideal that everyone should be treated equally... and thought it was exceptionally brave of Brash to make it a political issue in 2005.

However, the premise that everyone is treated equally requires that everyone starts equally... which is where it falls down in New Zealand. Most politicians - including Maori politicians are committed to equality. But there is an acknowledgement that Maori wealth and access to services has to be improved before we can legislate for true equality. The treaty process has been a positive step in the right direction... but it's just a start. the 130 - 140 odd years of cultural and financial exclusion all but the most aggressively ambitious Maori suffered isn't something that can be fixed by a single balancing piece of legislation.

There's also an issue with white middle class suburban New Zealanders and their perceptions of political correctness. Any casual glance through the comments section of any newspaper suggests that white middle class New Zealanders don't quite understand the problem. Most suburban middle class New Zealanders have been handed their health and wealth and opportunities care of their birth in a middle class world. This means that averagely talented and non-ambitious white middle class people can achieve an average lifestyle without too much effort. On the other hand, Maori born into rural poverty have to be exceptional to achieve that same average white middle class lifestyle. Anything short of this and they may fall through the cracks. This is where ambitions of true equality fall short. The simple fact that an average White person can achieve an average lifestyle, but Maori have to work harder to have the same lifestyle thanks to their birth.

I think that true legislated equality is something to aspire to... But to achieve this goal we would need a government (either National or Labour) who was committed to making equality a reality and this would take more than a 3 year election cycle. It would also require right wingers to ease up on the nanny state talk and left wingers to realise that personal responsibility does need to be a part of the solution. It would require white middle class suburbia abandoning it's strict pc attitude and would require Maori to move past victim syndrome.

Whilst I agree for the most part on the above, I do have a few niggles. Saying that it would be hard for Maori to achieve the average lifestyle of the white man just because of the fact that they were born into a poor family is wrong. It is hard for anyone born into a poor family, white or Maori. And coming from a family in a lower economic rung of the proverbial ladder, let me assure you that money is indeed an issue, even with both parents working. Sure, I don't live in a state house, but it sure doesn't feel that way sometimes.

Secondly is the idea that Maori have to be "exceptional" in order to be successful. In which areas? Education? If Maori students actually put a little more effort and concentration into achieving decent grades at school, they could go a long way. This whole idea of anti-intellectualism permeated through imported American black youth culture is probably, I think, one of the main problems as to why many Maori students aren't doing well at school. They see the world as being smart=uncool and "gangsta"=cool.

I could be completely wrong, but I think the latter may have some truth to it.

It isn't possible for everyone to start equally. That needs to be accepted

Of course not. However, we need to get the idea that Maori do have the same opportunities as white New Zealanders. How they go about exploiting those is a different story entirely.

It isn't possible for everyone to start equally. That needs to be accepted

But anyone who starts with nothing can become someone, look at out PM, brought up in a state house, look at Graeme Hart started out as an apprentice panel beater and tow truck driver after leaving school at 16, now the richest man in Australasia. Even my own granddad left school at 14 to support his family after his brothers left for WW2, he's very wealthy, he came from a dirt poor rural family.

Anyone can make it if they have the right attitude, skin colour has nothing to do with it, maori need to stop playing the race card.

Of course not. However, we need to get the idea that Maori do have the same opportunities as white New Zealanders. How they go about exploiting those is a different story entirely.

see that's where you're not quite right. We aren't in a position to create or take advantage of opportunities until we're young adults and by then it's often already too late. Opportunities start with good food, care, access to first class health from infancy and by every single measure of societal health Maori are well behind Europeans from birth and this isn't just because Maori choose not to take advantage of our little utopia. It's because Europeans purposely disadvantaged Maori for more than a century. Your idea about opportunities is a great statement of aspiration, but it couldn't be further than the truth.

That's why I'm saying that there has to be give at both ends. Certainly Maori need to take a greater responsibility for their welfare - which incidentally is what both Mana and the Maori Party say - But the give also has to come at the other end and European society doesn't seem to want to. At the moment mainstream white New Zealand society isn't prepared to give because they believe (thanks to talkback radio and xenophobia in general) that they already give too much. They resentfully believe Maori get preferential treatment, when in fact, it's often simply the treatment that is required to allow Maori to advance to equal footing. Until attitudes change on both sides of this debate, there will always be a problem and we will have this argument again and again...

Londonlad above (while prefacing his argument with a token 'I'm part Maori' for moral value) displays exactly this erroneous idea of 'preferential' treatment that Maori get. In fact any special treatment is designed to help them bring their society onto equal footing so that we can have one rule for all. The irony is that as long as there are people who resent the 'preferential' treatment of Maori, it's likely that Maori will continue to be disadvantaged, thus requiring further 'preferential' treatment.

But anyone who starts with nothing can become someone, look at out PM, brought up in a state house

Of course they can... and I'm not suggesting this doesn't happen. We have many exceptional Maori in our society who have excelled. The problem isn't exceptional people. The problem comes in the averages. I can be an average achiever, from an average background and I am more likely to have an average middle class life than someone average born into poverty.

Like it or not, the vast majority of our population both Maori and non Maori are people of average ability. This isn't anti-excellence - we need excellence and need to strive for it. But most people simply wont reach it no matter how much they struggle. It's a statistical truth and our society requires it (someone has to take out the garbage). If the average Maori is born into a poorer household than the average non-Maori and only have access to lower decile schools, don't eat as well because of parental poverty etc... then they have to perform at a higher level in what ever measure you choose to achieve the same results as someone born with more advantages.

I'm not saying all European New Zealanders are better off, or that white people are homogeneous. I'm talking averages and citing one off examples are a waste of debating space in a discussion about the state of entire societies. So good on John Key for escaping welfare dependency. He's an exceptional man.

In prioritising maori you're effectively saying poor non maori aren't important enough to be given the same level of treatment, as I said there are just as many poor Pacific Islanders and many more poor white people than there are poor maori so why aren't they being helped and given a leg up? The system in NZ is slanted towards maori at the exclusion of other poor and underprivileged people, something which you have failed to acknowledge seaphorm.

In prioritising maori you're effectively saying poor non maori aren't important enough to be given the same level of treatment, as I said there are just as many poor Pacific Islanders and many more poor white people than there are poor maori so why aren't they being helped and given a leg up? The system in NZ is slanted towards maori at the exclusion of other poor and underprivileged people, something which you have failed to acknowledge seaphorm.

Absolutely right.Some of them have probably been repressed in their own countries which is why they're here.They probably can't believe the preferential treatment one group of people are getting it must seem bizarre.

Seaphorn we all want to know why Maori should get preferential treatment over other disadvantaged immigrants and poor white people.Remember by your own arguments if white people don't acknowledge them how can they get ahead.

In prioritising maori you're effectively saying poor non maori aren't important enough to be given the same level of treatment, as I said there are just as many poor Pacific Islanders and many more poor white people than there are poor maori so why aren't they being helped and given a leg up? The system in NZ is slanted towards maori at the exclusion of other poor and underprivileged people, something which you have failed to acknowledge seaphorm.

I haven't discussed that at all because that broadens the discussion too far... Both our current national government and the previous labour government have policy to specifically address poverty in the general populace and individual policies that look at issues within individual communities. Labour introduced Working for Families and National have continued with it, National are looking at welfare and education reform. It's complete rubbish and fairly uninformed to suggest government is ignoring poverty in other societies, rather they're looking at different situations and applying (what they believe is) the best solution in each case.

In the case of Maori there's a fairly clear set of wrongs that were done over a long time. Cultural oppression at a government level and seizure of land and resources. Those wrongs were often committed by government against specific tribes so specific solutions are possible. These can be specifically legislated for and that's what we're doing in the treaty process. Ask Chris Findlayson what he thinks of the Treaty process... It's his proudest achievement.

In the case of Polynesian or Armenian or Kablakistani poverty there are other grievances and other reasons for their poverty and smart governments look at solutions that work for each community. For example, our government has addressed specifically injustices done against Chinese immigrants (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gLevnyWgovQJ:www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/asian/docs/New_Zealand_Govt_Apologizes_to_Chinese_Community.doc+chinese+new+zealand+apology&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz) in the 19th century. If we give up this PC attitude towards cultures, we might recognise that there are all sorts of different issues in different societies which can sometimes be helped by specific solutions rather than one blanket answer.

Londonlad, Maori don't get special treatment, but they do get different treatment. I suggest you do a little more study on the Treaty of Waitangi. There are a number of university papers (http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/study/subjects/coursecatalogue.aspx?d=History&l=all&t=0&res=d#det100) which might help you understand... or perhaps give you slightly better grounds for your resentment... .

Seaphorm, please quote parts of my post that I actually posted rather than make up shit like you did with the second quote.

Also, if the don't get preferrential treatment, then why was I unable to get any help for my behavioural problems at school, yet any Maori students who had similar problems had the ear of the principal and all the help they needed.

And I'm also interested as to why Maori need to have separate Maori only classes in schools to, basically, learn the exact same stuff as we did in normal, mixed classes.

Also, your reluctance to call me up on the imported anti-intellectualist attitudes in Maori youth culture means that there might be some validity in that theory?

Nice sidestep seaphorn.Look we understand the treaty but the issue is all disadvantaged people from whatever background need,deserve and have an equal right to as much help as Maori.You still seem to believe that because of our history the Maori issue is the most important thing we have to attend to.What about other repressed and disadvantaged people.Yes the treaty is important but so is everything else Seaphorn.

Also, your reluctance to call me up on the imported anti-intellectualist attitudes in Maori youth culture means that there might be some validity in that theory?

crikey... my reluctance to discuss every single sub you raise issue was in order to not have 8 different discussion streams going at once which gets us nowhere except convoluted. I was trying to be specific. It would be good for the progress of our discussion if you do the same.

And I'm also interested as to why Maori need to have separate Maori only classes in schools to, basically, learn the exact same stuff as we did in normal, mixed classes.

Maori language classes are like French or Japanese... you can choose to learn the language... If you mean Te Reo classes and schools... Maori is an official language... The question should be why would we not offer some classes in one of our official languages if there's a demand? Do you have a problem with education being made available in sign language? damn deaf people getting special treatment and all.... and for consistency... I would be happy for there to be Chinese or Dutch classes in our schools if there was a demand for it and they were official languages.

Seaphorm, please quote parts of my post that I actually posted rather than make up shit like you did with the second quote.

Where was I making "shit" up? calm down... It's just a debate about something you're more than welcome to have an opinion on.

Also, if the don't get preferrential treatment, then why was I unable to get any help for my behavioural problems at school, yet any Maori students who had similar problems had the ear of the principal and all the help they needed.

I have no idea why you didn't get special treatment in school. I don't know your school and am not an expert in childhood behaviour or government policy towards it. Possible reasons could be: your parents didn't want you to have special treatment, your principal was a douche, they didn't think you were as bad as other students... etc etc... of course as I know absolutely nothing about your situation I'm just guessing. Can you tell us a little more about how Maori got special treatment in your school and what your school's policy was?

It does look like you have issues with Maori that go back to your childhood... should we get all pop psychology and start delving into that? It might help us understand your point of view.

Nice sidestep seaphorn.Look we understand the treaty but the issue is all disadvantaged people from whatever background need,deserve and have an equal right to as much help as Maori.You still seem to believe that because of our history the Maori issue is the most important thing we have to attend to.What about other repressed and disadvantaged people.Yes the treaty is important but so is everything else Seaphorn.

Actually, If you re-read my post I said that the government addresses each issue in a way that provides the best outcome in each situation. Maori have grievances that are specific, so the government addresses those issues specifically. For example: Maori communities had land taken unlawfully, so that land is being returned or compensated for. The government also addresses the issues of other groups, cultures etc with the best response. The Chinese example I gave is one where the government has responded to a specific grievance with an immigrant community. However there are plenty of other examples I can cite... after working with Refugee Services I can tell you that there's a wide range of government services which provide access and assistance to people who speak languages as diverse as Farsi and Serbian, there's an entire government funded service specifically to help them. The government funds an incredibly wide range of community programs across the country within specific communities. How much more direct do I need to be to answer your question?

Londonlad, you're guilty of focusing on Maori with your resentment... Every group believes their issue is the most important... Maori grievances are directly the result of past government misbehaviour so theirs warrant a lot of government time... They are up to 15% of the population so they're going to get more air time than Mongolian immigrants, but they are by no means the only group who get specific assistance in certain areas.

Maori language classes are like French or Japanese... you can choose to learn the language... If you mean Te Reo classes and schools... Maori is an official language... The question should be why would we not offer some classes in one of our official languages if there's a demand? Do you have a problem with education being made available in sign language? damn deaf people getting special treatment and all.... and for consistency... I would be happy for there to be Chinese or Dutch classes in our schools if there was a demand for it and they were official languages.

But they weren't just language classes. They did exactly the same stuff as we did in normal classes.

Where was I making "shit" up? calm down... It's just a debate about something you're more than welcome to have an opinion on.

It's not an opinion. You quoted something I didn't write.

I have no idea why you didn't get special treatment in school. I don't know your school and am not an expert in childhood behaviour or government policy towards it. Possible reasons could be: your parents didn't want you to have special treatment, your principal was a douche, they didn't think you were as bad as other students... etc etc... of course as I know absolutely nothing about your situation I'm just guessing. Can you tell us a little more about how Maori got special treatment in your school and what your school's policy was?

The principal was a douchebag who basically said if you had problems and you weren't Maori, he didn't want to know about it. My best friend at the time wasn't that good at learning. His father was Maori and so he received as much help as possible in classes.

But they weren't just language classes. They did exactly the same stuff as we did in normal classes.

thus:

"If you mean Te Reo classes and schools... Maori is an official language... The question should be why would we not offer some classes in one of our official languages if there's a demand? Do you have a problem with education being made available in sign language? damn deaf people getting special treatment and all.... and for consistency... I would be happy for there to be Chinese or Dutch classes in our schools if there was a demand for it and they were official languages."

The principal was a douchebag who basically said if you had problems and you weren't Maori, he didn't want to know about it. My best friend at the time wasn't that good at learning. His father was Maori and so he received as much help as possible in classes.

so you're saying the problem wasn't the system, but that you had a douchebag a principal...

Actually, If you re-read my post I said that the government addresses each issue in a way that provides the best outcome in each situation. Maori have grievances that are specific, so the government addresses those issues specifically. For example: Maori communities had land taken unlawfully, so that land is being returned or compensated for.

Right or wrong for land to be taken "unlawfully"(morally questionable yes) wouldnt New Zealand at the time have to have had a written constitution,be recognised by the UN and had laws that were policed.Some people would say your naively trying to apply 21st century political correctness to something that happened 100s of years ago.To fully enforce your logic wouldnt we have to go back to the year dot and sort out every grievance throughout human history.

The government also addresses the issues of other groups, cultures etc with the best response.

As long as they get equal time and effort as Maori I have no problem.

Londonlad, you're guilty of focusing on Maori with your resentment...

I want Maori to do really well ie fit in,be good citizens and be productive law abiding New Zealanders.(As most Maori already do)

Every group believes their issue is the most important... Maori grievances are directly the result of past government misbehaviour so theirs warrant a lot of government time...

Disagree here Seaphorn.Rather than expect Government time we want Maori to bust their asses in helping and assisting this Government in growing the economy,creating jobs and assisting less fortunate people than yourselves regardless of your perceived problems.

All you say is fine.... as I've said in every post... over and over... personal responsibility is important for Maori and having complete equality is a great aspirational goal... but the point you're completely missing.. over and over... and the reason I pointed you to university papers is because some Maori were directly impoverished by our government. You seem to be full of personal responsibility rhetoric with no real understanding of the issues. Being PC wont help... being realistic will.

I'm not going to try to convince you any more though... as our government already understands what I am saying and already have processes in place which I agree with. Good luck with your crusade though... they might listen...

last word in 3...2...1...

All you say is fine.... as I've said in every post... over and over... personal responsibility is important for Maori and having complete equality is a great aspirational goal... but the point you're completely missing.. over and over... and the reason I pointed you to university papers is because some Maori were directly impoverished by our government. You seem to be full of personal responsibility rhetoric with no real understanding of the issues. Being PC wont help... being realistic will.

I'm not going to try to convince you any more though... as our government already understands what I am saying and already have processes in place which I agree with. Good luck with your crusade though... they might listen...

last word in 3...2...1...


Well it's obvious that to some, Maori issues are way more important than other people who are in the same position and have suffered the same grievances.You know what, these people dont winge complain or expect anything from the government,they're just happy to be here and get on with it.
I'm glad governments do change and if it's a crusade were on to make things fairer for all New Zealanders without the need to favor a small section of our society(remember some Maori arnt the least bit interested in what you want) that's exactly what we'll do,you can count on it.

Still trying to figure out what happened on election night. That had to have been one of the dullest general elections ever. Even Canadians would be bored.

Interesting to see the additional greens MPs, looking at their party list and wondering which ones will get in is always fun. The only other bit of colour was the old firebrand Peters ruffling feathers. Labour supporters stayed away from the ballot box in droves. ACTs implotion earlier this year was always going to make for an interesting election night for them, Rodney Hide must be spinning in his political grave on hearing the absurd deranged like speech John Banks gave- "they have heard us in the valleys, in the mountains". wtf?????

My prediction for the next 3 years- National is going to crash and burn. If this is as good as it gets for them then they are on a hiding to nothing. This is the time for Labour to really get themselves a good base for the future- they should romp in in 2014.

Greens'll probably hold the same level of support.

ACT will be gone, they only held on due to MMP games.

United Future and NZ First will also be gone. They are really only one man shows- once their leaders retire there'll be noone to take over.

Conservatives will be interesting to watch. To have garnered such a large percentage of the vote in such a short space of time- and then for their leader to say to has every intention of being around in 2014.

Mana and Maori will probably kiss and make up and get back together again.

Mana and Maori will probably kiss and make up and get back together again.

:lol:

Not a chance. Hell would freeze over before Harawira ever goes back into the Maori Party again.

Durban: saving global climate agreement, adoption by 2015.
New Zealand at 32th rank, in climate change perfomance index 2012.

At the 17th UN Climate Conference in Durban was an agreement reached at the last minute on the roadmap to reach a global treaty on climate change by 2015, which will come into force in 2020. After a marathon 13 days of negotiations in the early hours of Sunday came the understanding that for the first time requires all polluters to undertake major initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases. The President of the Conference, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane: "We made history '
For the global agreement we will start working as early as next year. For this he was appointed an ad hoc working group under the 'platform of Durban. " The document, which instructs the working group to define the global agreement by 2015 underlines the urgency of stepping up and raising the level of reduction. The legal form of the agreement will be discussed further. As for the Kyoto2 after 2012, substantially affect Europe and a few other industrialized countries, as Japan, Russia and Canada have long since announced their no to the second period of the Protocol. The Kyoto2 serves as a bridge to the global agreement.
In the "Durban package" approved by the Conference, including the go-ahead operation of the Green Fund to help developing countries to support action against global warming. It's $ 100 billion in 2020.
The road map with the global agreement and the 'bridge Kyoto2 has as main goal to bring in the common struggle against climate change the new economies such as China, Brazil and India. The game is also important in the United States who have not ratified the Kyoto first period.
"In Durban after long and difficult negotiations has managed to avoid bankruptcy and to renew the Kyoto Protocol as a transition towards a new global agreement, which will involve the major economies of the world beyond the current conflict between industrialized and developing ". You said in a statement delal Legambiente, who continued: "The Platform of Durban calls for the signing of a new global agreement by 2015 and its implementation from 2020. This outcome is not obvious since the stonewalling of the United States, supported by Canada, Australia and New Zealand with Russia and Japan to give them a strong hand. But thanks to the role of Europe - finally convinced even with the support of our government - it was possible to create a coalition of the willing among industrialized countries and emerging developing countries are able to push India and China to abandon the game of vetoes and force opposing the United States to approve a mandate to conclude a global agreement to have the Kyoto Protocol as a lintel. "

*****

The Last and the expected ratio of Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), just unveiled at COP17 (Conference of the Parties) in Durban (South Africa) establishes the reference list of “good” and “bad” emissions of greenhouse gases (mainly responsible for global warming) and national policies to tackle climate change. Under the lens 58 countries who, alone, represent the source of 90% of the "dirty".
As in previous years, no country has come to Olympus to rank the top three, for those who can demonstrate the highest commitment to stop the tragic evolution to overheating (between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius, according to experts).

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-0.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-1.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-2.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-3.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-4.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-5.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-6.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-7.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-8.jpg

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/o_a3311a84d06d8a13-9.jpg

John Key: "100% pure NZ is aspirational"

:lol:

Not a chance. Hell would freeze over before Harawira ever goes back into the Maori Party again.

^^

Yeah - would suggest - the fallout and hate.....is pretty high

they would spit on each others back

Good thing David Shearer got the top job leading Labour over that smarmy prick Cunliffe. Had the latter won, you could guarantee another term for National.

^^

Yeah - would suggest - the fallout and hate.....is pretty high

they would spit on each others back

Not only that, but even remotely suggesting that two people who are almost bitterly opposed (well, Harawira is anyway) to what each other is doing is a bit strange, given they only agree on the state asset sales. That's about it.

The MP likes the relationship it has with National and Mana is just full of disaffected communists who disagree with anyone and everyone. How the two could end up working together is beyond me.

Not only that, but even remotely suggesting that two people who are almost bitterly opposed (well, Harawira is anyway) to what each other is doing is a bit strange, given they only agree on the state asset sales. That's about it.

The MP likes the relationship it has with National and Mana is just full of disaffected communists who disagree with anyone and everyone. How the two could end up working together is beyond me.

^^^^
Harawira - if we remember
Was invited to Libya in the mid-80s as a guest of the big G...
To unite first people against capitalism

Hence Mana..Is more about absolute extreme left wing socialism than anything to do with Maori

It’s a vessel for the man to preach his true beliefs ( albeit misguided and corrupted) of the perfect socialism nirvana.. That has little to do with advancement and wealth creation of Maori.

With this in mind..I yet again suggest that the Greens further distance themselves away from the extreme left..if they want to survive and thrive.... against an empowered and more central road labour party under new leadership

^^^^

From what I seem Maori vote in wolf packs almost collectives..based on tradition ..and tribal direction?This in the main would appeal to the over 30's



Id like to know the percentage of young maori that didnt vote

I would suggest it was significantly higher than the national average

"The U channel generation"

Have nothing in common with the " Labour generation" and in deed even less with the Mana party

In the main - they are Kiwi's..that will rage..party..study and leave NZ

The latest stats show as a percentage...more under "30" maori are in AU than pakeha kids?

maybe they hate being labled losers..by mainstream media in NZ?


So dont give an " F" about politics or NZ?

The fact most are half cast or less means they blend into most cultures...more so than Asians or polynesians


The question is...how do we get them engaged?...OR

Is this just a manifestation of 21st century youth?

and maori 21st century youth are just the first cab off the rank

COUNTRY BRAND INDEX 2011-2012New Zealand in 3rd position at world level and 1st in APAC.

Under the full report. See how New Zealand was ranked (on any subject) than other countries in the world. Enjoy! :)

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/1-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/2-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/3-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/4-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/5-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/6-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/7-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/8-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/9-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/10-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/11.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/12.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/13.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/14.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/15.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/16.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/17.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/18.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/19.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/20.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/21.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/22.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/23.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/24.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/25.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/26.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/27.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/28.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/29-1.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/30.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/31.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/32.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/33.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/34.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/35.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/36.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/38.png

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/ItalicSiciliano/39.png

the two sets of reports on this page say it all...

people think we're clean and green... our marketers are brilliant.

of course sooner or later (and it's already started in the uk) people will start pointing out our dirty little secret as represented in the first set of charts about our environmental performance...

Thanks for the report, IThomas, that last one showed I made a pretty good move. ;)

Still, it's good to see NZ highly represented in a number of categories. I'd like to read the methodology before I pass any comments though as really, these surveys overall mean very little. All countries offer something to different people.

the two sets of reports on this page say it all...
people think we're clean and green... our marketers are brilliant.
of course sooner or later (and it's already started in the uk) people will start pointing out our dirty little secret as represented in the first set of charts about our environmental performance...

Why do you say that NZ is not good and clean? From the outside, New Zealand looks like an enjoyable and comfortable place. If you want to explain, I like to listen and learn more about it. Thank you seaphorm. :)

Thanks for the report, IThomas, that last one showed I made a pretty good move. ;)
Still, it's good to see NZ highly represented in a number of categories. I'd like to read the methodology before I pass any comments though as really, these surveys overall mean very little. All countries offer something to different people.

Thank you. :) Oh yes ... you have made a good choice, Sweden is always good in any ranking. I agree with you that despite all these reports are very general and each country has something different to offer, but I like to bring all these news about SSC in order to know what think the people in general. :cheers:

Why do you say that NZ is not good and clean? From the outside, New Zealand looks like an enjoyable and comfortable place. If you want to explain, I like to listen and learn more about it. Thank you seaphorm. :)


you've provided an excellent example of why we have a problem here. our marketing is so good, that people from outside new zealand say "oh the place looks great - perhaps we can learn from you about the environment" - i had a swedish man say this to me last month... when the situation is actually the reverse. because of our image, our government isn't as concerned about the environment as they could be...

i was referring to the set of graphs at the top of the page that you posted regarding new zealand's climate change performance where we are squarely in the middle of the pack. the only reason we are "clean and green" is our low population and industrialisation compared to larger nations.

according to massey university more than 90% of new zealand's lowland rivers are now polluted by industry run off - for example, effluent from new zealand's cattle stock currently produces the equivalent waste of 80 million people - this has rendered many of our largest rivers dangerous for swimming and certainly not drinkable..

some foreign newspapers are starting to catch on to our clever marketing lie... the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/12/new-zealand-greenwash) for example... it's an insightful read. more press like this and perhaps we might end up being clean and green... but we are not at the moment.

So the only problem is that you can't swim in or drink from some of the rivers. Not a big deal, and why would you want to anyway

...

Then we would have to revisit this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKgnB29BBLE&feature=relmfu). Imagine the new campaign "82% Pure New Zealand"! :lol:
Seriously, thank you very much for explaining what you think. I think should work harder in the direction of the environment, given the data of the university (if it always alarming for politicians). :nuts:
It should to make an effort to defend the green, with a popular initiative for to do understand what is important for the people of NZ ... and then take the matter and put under the noses of politicians. If you allow me to say. Citizens be ready, what do you think? It may be feasible? :)

I wouldn't touch anything by the Guardian. They aren't insightful but more like a bunch of spiteful journalists that the BBC rejected.

I wouldn't touch anything by the Guardian. They aren't insightful but more like a bunch of spiteful journalists that the BBC rejected.

ok then... how about the bbc...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9480610.stm ;)

an academic would look at the research that the guardian is presenting and judge that... a hack would discredit it based on the medium of presentation... be it fox, RT or the guardian... which are you claiming to be?

this is not controversial... it's been doing the academic rounds for some years... labour was forced to answer hard questions as far back as 2003... things haven't really improved.

NZ 5th most democratic country in the world

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/46/127007858_130d0e8454_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidlampert/127007858/)
New Zealand 213 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidlampert/127007858/) by David Lampert (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidlampert/), on Flickr

New Zealand has beaten out Australia, the United States and Britain in a new survey ranking the most democratic countries in the world. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index ranked New Zealand fifth out of 167 countries surveyed. Australia came in sixth place, Britain came in 18th and the United States fell from 17th place last year to 19th in this year's survey.

North Korea was the least democratic country, ranking behind Iran, Myanmar and Saudi Arabia. Only Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden were ranked as more democratic countries than New Zealand. Meanwhile, European countries fell sharply in the rankings amid the spiralling Eurozone economic crisis. Italy and Greece were listed as "flawed democracies" and dropped to 31st and 32nd respectively, with both country's elected leaders replaced by technocrats.

Economst democracy index editor Laza Kekic said 2011 had been an "exceptionally turbulent" year characterised by weak governance. "It featured important changes in democracy, both in the direction of unexpected democratisation and a continuation of decline in democracy in some parts of the world."

^^^^

From what I seem Maori vote in wolf packs almost collectives..based on tradition ..and tribal direction?This in the main would appeal to the over 30's



Id like to know the percentage of young maori that didnt vote

I would suggest it was significantly higher than the national average

"The U channel generation"

Have nothing in common with the " Labour generation" and in deed even less with the Mana party

In the main - they are Kiwi's..that will rage..party..study and leave NZ

The latest stats show as a percentage...more under "30" maori are in AU than pakeha kids?

maybe they hate being labled losers..by mainstream media in NZ?


So dont give an " F" about politics or NZ?

The fact most are half cast or less means they blend into most cultures...more so than Asians or polynesians


The question is...how do we get them engaged?...OR

Is this just a manifestation of 21st century youth?

and maori 21st century youth are just the first cab off the rank

To be blunt if they are in Australia and not really interested in participating in NZ do we really want them back?

^^

Only if the individual will contribute.....mind you that could speak for all i suppose

Wellington and Canterbury become supercities.

New Zealand is likely to end up with three super councils – one in Wellington, one in Canterbury and the already established Auckland super-city council, a political commentator says. And the remaining councils in New Zealand will form alliances with the super councils leaving the country in three major blocks, according to political commentator Colin James. Mr James says councils throughout the country are already positioning themselves into alliances to gain greater power against the beast that is supersized Auckland. "Mayors and chairs elsewhere are worried Auckland will have too much clout, and puzzle how best to react so as not to lose influence," he says. But as the rush to forge new political relationships continues and the concept of yet more super-cities are bravely floated, a fundamental question remains unanswered – has supersizing Auckland actually improved anything?
Auckland Council's first year of existence has been far from a smooth one, what with Occupy protesters, the Rugby World Cup opening night transport debacle, a battle with central government over funding an inner-city rail loop, heritage issues, rates, the funding of a Maori Statutory Board and a contest of wills over delegating of powers to local boards and council controlled organisations. Inaugural mayor Len Brown is quick to claim success: "Generally 2011 has been a good first year for the council. We've brought the region together ... at the same time time we have driven $81 million in efficiencies and reduced the inherited 9.3 per cent rates increase down to 3.9 per cent." However, in a speech to the Auckland One Year On Conference, held in Auckland recently Mr James said: "Seen from outside, the mayor does not yet appear to have generated a whole-of-Auckland ethos. He comes from Manukau but is running a city that looks to many to be operating as if it is an extension of the old Auckland city." The government, too, has treated Mr Brown with little but contempt. "The greater mayoral authority hasn't stopped ministers trampling over him." Wellington's local body politicians are sharply divided on the prospect of a super-city, with the idea seeming to hold less appeal the further one gets from Lambton Quay. In November, Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde and a group of regional councillors circulated a discussion paper pushing for a Wellington "super-council". "It's no secret that my view is that we need some local government reform in the Wellington region," Ms Wilde told The Dominion Post last week. "We need the ability to grow." But while local mayors seem keen to advocate greater sharing of council services, they are far less enthusiastic about a political merger. The opposition is perhaps most intense in Wairarapa, which "does not want a bar of it", according to South Wairarapa Mayor Adrienne Staples. "We would lose our identity, our democracy." However, the issue doesn't seem to be exercising residents to the same degree. When the Wellington Mayoral Forum sought public submissions last year it received just 178. In the meantime, murmurings throughout the country are becoming louder as the reverberations of the changes to the political landscape continue. The opportunities – and threats – posed by a super Auckland have already seen responses. Earlier this year a group of seven upper North Island councils, including Auckland, met and formed the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance. The group represent about half of the country's population and half the national GDP, creating a new political bloc seeking to leverage the enlarged Auckland to more effectively lobby for what they want. The group plan to work together on issues including economic development, transport, tourism, emergency preparedness, ports, waste and water. "It will, if successful, centre half the economy on Auckland. If it acts in a concerted fashion, central governments will find it hard to ignore," Mr James says. To counter the upper North Island stronghold, Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown called a meeting in November of council leaders from the top of the South Island through to the Central North Island. The next step is to form a central New Zealand alliance. A South Island mayoral forum has also met with early plans to join tourism forces before looking at a wider alliance. But it is likely super-councils in Wellington and Christchurch will come before any other major alliance. "It is not a big step from Canterbury's water commissioners and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to a super-Christchurch or super-Canterbury," Mr James says. "If super-Canterbury transpired, Fran Wilde's attempt to build a super-Wellington might get legs ... If a super-Canterbury and super-Wellington were to evolve, say, over the next five to 10 years, where does that leave everyone else?" Mr James said the answer may be in emulating the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance and he believes the logical groupings would be a central New Zealand alliance anchored on Wellington and including New Plymouth, Napier-Hastings, Palmerston North and Nelson cities and the major regional councils; and a South Island alliance, anchored on Christchurch.

Great. This will embolden Aldo Miccio even further for amalgamation.

Very understandable that the Wairarapa region wouldn't want to be apart of it.
Maybe the Porirua, Wellington, Upper and Lower Hutt city councils could merge first to see how things go.

^^ wellington region is always mistaking as one city of 350000+ by people. At least theyd be right after this sort of change.

Yep, it'll just make it official because unofficially everyone living in Porirua, Lower and Upper Hutt consider themselves straight up Wellingtonians anyway. Going to Wellington city from those areas is just like heading into town aka "I live in Lower Hutt but work in town" the general feeling is you're in Wellington once you hit Porirua on state highway 1 or Upper Hutt on state highway 2.

Wairarapa and other areas like the Kapiti Coast on the other hand are definitely more separate with their identity to Wellington.

Probably the best place to post this ...

Police stats show drop in recorded crime

Recorded crime has dropped to its lowest level in 15 years, police figures show. According to police there were 20,289 fewer offences recorded in 2011 than during the previous calendar year, a decrease of 4.8 percent, with 406,056 offences recorded between January 1 and December 31. After taking into account the 0.8 percent rise in New Zealand's resident population over the same period, the fall in the crime rate for 2011 is 5.6 percent.

The largest decreases were in Canterbury (-22.2 percent), Southern (-13.1 percent), Northland (-10.5 percent), and Bay of Plenty (-5.6 percent). However Auckland City and Waikato saw increases of 8.3 percent and 1.7 percent respectively. Overall 47 per cent of recorded crimes were resolved. Homicide and related offending dropped 14.4 percent from last year, down 14 recorded offences from last year. Last year saw the lowest number of murders in a calendar year since 1995, with 39 murders recorded, compared to 46 in 2010.

queue government demands for cuts in police budgets...

/cynic

Foreign Politics. Europe to vote: France, Greece, Italy, Germany and Serbia.
http://static.sky.it/static/contentimages/original/sezioni/tg24/cronaca/2012/05/06/francois_hollande_getty.jpg

The announcement of Agence France Presse: Hollande, the Socialist beat Sarkozy in the second round. According to exit polls published in Belgium, the winner would win 53% against 47% of the outgoing president. High turnout, was 71.96% to 5 PM. "It 'a great joy," said Benoit Hamon, spokesman for the Socialist Party, the news of victory in the presidential Francois Hollande. Hundreds of supporters of the Socialist Party have been busy Rue Solferino, the Parisian street where is located the headquarters of the party, waiting to celebrate the victory of presidential candidate. It 'expected to march from there to the Place de la Bastille, where he made his speech even Francois Mitterrand in 1981 after his election. Few broadcasters gathered at the Place de la Concorde, where Sarkozy made the speech after the triumph in the elections of 2007. Over 46 million voters were called to the polls for the ninth presidential election in the Fifth Republic. Sarkozy and Hollande have 57 years, we have long known, both were at the helm of their parties. The new president would have liked to have Hollande's presidential candidate in 2007, but was overruled by his then partner, Ségolène Royal. Strongly determined, it is cast in the race for the Elysee just a year ago, when still a favorite in the polls was the economist and director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. After Strauss-Kahn has been sidelined from the accusation of rape in New York, in October Hollande has won the primaries against party secretary Martine Aubry. With a program marked by the reformist left, he managed to stay ahead of the pack to the polls.

A climate of uncertainty reigns especially in Greece where they are today 32 parties, 10 of which could exceed the minimum threshold of 3%, resulting in the probable formation of a fragmented parliament. Uncertain of the outcome of the vote for the two main parties of the country, members of the coalition led by economist Lucas Papademos, New Democracy and PASOK, the Greeks hit hard by the crisis seem determined to punish and more parties are invited to speak out against the 'Euro and savings programs.
The Conservative leader Antonis Samaras has ruled out wanting to repeat the PASOK and the Coalition is not clear what the majority can be formed if the vote today will bring out a majority in its favor. However the new government must still meet the conditions imposed by the European Union and International Monetary Fund in exchange for loans to the country to avoid bankruptcy.

Italians vote for local elections, more than ever useful to decipher the political mosaic of post-Berlusconi. Over nine million voters are called to the polls. Some stories with probable theater of historical defeats, mayor and renewed leadership 942 municipalities, including 26 capital cities. For the Prime Minister Mario Monti is the first election date, with just six months in office - technical - on the shoulders, and the weight of increasingly unpopular austerity measures. But the real test lies elsewhere. The vote will tell you in navigating the waters of the LEGA NORD (secessionist party of Northern Italy), swept by scandal just before the elections. The two big parties: PDL (Berlusconi's party) and PD (the Left Party) will see what Italian voters will choose, so that they can make a pre-test and make alliances for the upcoming 2013 elections, in which choose the new Prime Minister. Also comes the opportunity to evaluate the new entity on the Italian political scene, the MOVIMENTO 5 STELLE by Beppe Grillo. This fort of 150 local councilors, try to place first in more than one hundred common citizens. It is not excluded that in the future become the third political force in a country that is tired of the parties who think only of themselves and do not interact with people, and where the turnout is perhaps the biggest unknown factor.

In Germany, Angela Merkel is facing another electoral test, the first of two tests as important as difficult for the head of government. The CDU Angela Merkel seems to start a new regional parliamentary defeat in Schleswig-Holstein, where it seems unlikely that the vote may emerge a new edition of the CDU-FDP coalition. The only hope for the party of Merkel may be that of a grand coalition with the SPD, where the most voted party would express the head of government. But the current Social Democratic leader in the Land, Torsten Albig, hopes to avoid these and opt instead for a tripartite coalition with the Greens and the movement that represents the minority language Danish. The elections in Schleswig-Holstein are celebrated, however, only one week than those in North Rhine-Westphalia, next Sunday, the Land's most populous country in the western part of Germany, a vote expected as a test ahead of general elections next year. Angela Merkel, the German press points, followed very closely the elections in France, Greece and Germany, which might put the very question the rigor of his European policy and national. "At the federal level in Germany, Merkel seems invincible, but his rivals are weakened in the German federal states its power falters and the CDU fear a new defeat," wrote 'Der Spiegel'. And in this case a possible electoral defeat of the CDU would also have a particular symbolic value because it would mark the passage of a majority of states - 8 to 7 - under the control of the SPD.

Today we vote in a country facing the European Union, Serbia, a candidate country. Seven million voters to the polls for the presidential, parliamentary and local. An election date at its center - for the first time in years - worries about the economic situation looks set to weigh more claims on Kosovo and the issue of relations with the West. Two sides who compete for the votes of the electorate: the DS, or the Democratic Party headed by the outgoing president, Boris Tadic and the Progressive Party (SNS) of Serbia Tomislav Nikolic, a former nationalist believes that with time has moved on more moderate positions. The presidential elections have been brought forward eight months and called after the resignation of Tadic last month, a move - analysts comment on the local - the intent of the outgoing president intended to give more chances to his party faced with an electorate disillusioned by the deterioration the economic situation and the concessions made to the former province of Kosovo.

"Dont' be like Europe"
Key: Europe shows zero Budget wisdom
Prime Minister John Key says elections in Europe show the National-led Government is right to hand down another zero Budget this year, despite rising unemployment. France's president Nicolas Sarkozy is out of office after one term following his defeat by socialist Francois Hollande. He is the latest European leader to be tossed out of government after voter anger at spending cuts. Austerity in Greece has led to riots on the streets and a vote there today is considered critical to pulling world markets out of financial crisis.

Key this morning said the result in France showed the Government here was taking the right action. "Which is deal with your problems up front and don't let them get too bad," he told TVNZ's Breakfast programme. "If you look at Greece where you have the really big push back against austerity, they have really lost control of their own country." People wanted governments to spend more but borrowing put more debt on future generations. "That's a really irresponsible thing to do."

Unemployment rose last week by 0.3 percentage points to 6.7 per cent, higher than the 6.3 per cent economists had forecast. The number of unemployed people increased 6.1 per cent to 160,000 but the labour force participation rate also rose, by 0.6 points to 68.8 per cent. Key said the unemployment rate was "a very weird one at the moment". About 9000 jobs had been created and the Government was on track to create 170,000 over four years, he said. "The number of people looking for work or in work is virtually a record in New Zealand, the second highest rate ever. What that shows you is that New Zealanders are more confident the economy is coming right and actually bothering to look for work. I know it sounds crazy."

Asked if the Government was doing enough to create jobs, Key said it couldn't affect monetary policy or interest rates as that was up to the Reserve Bank. "We can effect things like labour laws and if you look at the jobs creation that we have been promoting; the SkyCity convention centre, more mining and exploration, Australian companies coming back... they will create jobs." The Government was focused on getting New Zealand back into surplus and New Zealanders were "totally" supportive of is austerity measures, he said.

^^ Agree... financially Europe is fucked.

While it's easy to throw stones at John Key and make criticisms over various issues like asset sales etc, his thinking is quite on the mark... Better deal with a smaller financial problem today than a gargantuan sized one tomorrow. Europe is learning the hard way from that mistake.

^^ Agree... financially Europe is fucked.

While it's easy to throw stones at John Key and make criticisms over various issues like asset sales etc, his thinking is quite on the mark... Better deal with a smaller financial problem today than a gargantuan sized one tomorrow. Europe is learning the hard way from that mistake.

No, not all of Europe went completely crazy with loans and over-spending. The Nordics in particular have run budget surpluses and our economies are still AAA stable in all rating agencies (plus some of us are reducing our government debt, NZ surpassed Sweden in terms of the % of GDP). The Euro might be in difficulties, but not all of us surrendered our currencies and minds like them. The only annoying thing is that the rest of the world, and the fiscally responsible are dragged down by the PIIGS and no one is an exception to this as the "Euro crisis" affects us all whether we like it or not.

^^
In agreement with Svartmetall, the Nordic countries are particularly strong and stable and did not put at risk the AAA. Instead, all countries have been less stable in southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal) ... But we'll see "how" and "if" scenarios will change with Hollande, who make less than German-centric the Europe. It should be noted that something is changing color. And not only in France. Elections in Greece have launched a strong signal to anti-European and start talking again about a possible exit from the euro. The only two parties who are committed to continue in the wake of the reforms imposed by the EU, have obtained a low percentage compared to previous elections. Hard to think of an alliance with a third force as all the other parties are strongly opposed to continue the austerity measures imposed by the EU. Rather, they are evident and to be taken into account, the victories of the radical Left, the neo-Nazi and the Greeks Independents. Even in Germany was the resounding thud of the Demo-Christian Party of Angela Merkel. These elections are an important barometer of the country's political evolution, since next year there will be new elections in Germany. Similarly, in Italy the current elections are a test as a pre-election next year.

And to lighten the mood a bit...

Kim Dotcom releases John Banks song (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6871058/Kim-Dotcom-releases-John-Banks-song/)

Ouch. John Banks, you must now be regretting ever meeting Kim Dotcom let alone receiving $50,000 in political donations from him.

8CvRSZxqk_I

The German internet mogul and bete noir of American law enforcers, who is awaiting a deportation hearing on charges of internet piracy, has stirred up the donations imbroglio again by releasing a rap called the John Banks Song to YouTube.

The heavy-hitting track samples interviews with the ACT Party leader, including one where Paul Holmes says to Banks "you're dead meat aren't you?" before a chorus which pokes fun at another politican getting "amnesia".

Whether Banks shares Dotcom's keen sense of humour is questionable.

He has been under fire for nearly two weeks after Dotcom claimed Banks knew where his donations, which were registered as anonymous, came from.

Banks has refused to answer questions around claims suggesting he knew about the $50,000 in donations from Dotcom.

Police are investigating whether Banks knew the source of the two donations from Dotcom and a $15,000 donation from SkyCity towards his failed 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign, which were declared as anonymous.

Electoral rules state candidates must declare the source of donations if they know the source.

Banks has said he filed his electoral returns in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001 and welcomed the police probe.

Prime Minister John Key has said he will strip Banks of his ministerial warrants if he is found to be lying over Dotcom's donation.

^^ Agree... financially Europe is fucked.

While it's easy to throw stones at John Key and make criticisms over various issues like asset sales etc, his thinking is quite on the mark... Better deal with a smaller financial problem today than a gargantuan sized one tomorrow. Europe is learning the hard way from that mistake.

Most agree that Greece brought its predicament on itself, being so desperate to join the Euro currency and having the most corrupt tax system in the continent. On the other hand, Wall Street isn't much of a model to follow either, especially if you've seen Inside Job. And the Celtic Tiger - which was touted by fiscal cargo cultists not all that long ago - landed flat on its face.

NZ 'fourth best country to be a mother'

New Zealand is the fourth best country in the world to be a mother, new research suggests. A Save the Children study found West African nation Niger the worst place in the world to be a mother and Norway the best. The study compared conditions for mothers in 165 countries taking into account factors such as health, education and economic status, according to overseas reports. Iceland and Sweden were the other countries rated better than New Zealand. Australia was judged seventh best and the United Kingdom 10th. Afghanistan and Yemen were deemed second and third worst places for motherhood respectively.

No, not all of Europe went completely crazy with loans and over-spending. The Nordics in particular have run budget surpluses and our economies are still AAA stable in all rating agencies (plus some of us are reducing our government debt, NZ surpassed Sweden in terms of the % of GDP). The Euro might be in difficulties, but not all of us surrendered our currencies and minds like them. The only annoying thing is that the rest of the world, and the fiscally responsible are dragged down by the PIIGS and no one is an exception to this as the "Euro crisis" affects us all whether we like it or not.

^^ you're quite right Svartmetall... my comments weren't overly specific... I was referring to "mainland" europe excluding the Scandinavian peninsula, or probably more accurately, the Eurozone. The Nordic countries have held up mostly pretty well (apart from Iceland whose demise was for slightly different reasons).

And yes, the Euro crisis does in deed affect all of us one way or another.

Key 'not against' gay marriage
Prime Minister John Key has followed US President Barack Obama and said he is not opposed to gay marriage - an apparent change in his stance. He has previously refused to give a personal view on same-sex marriage. But yesterday, in a response to the AP news service after President Obama said gays should be allowed to wed, Mr Key said he was "not personally opposed to gay marriage" and it was possible Parliament would consider a member's bill at some stage. But he added that gay marriage was not on the Government's agenda. He did not mention President Obama.
The Prime Minister had previously said he did not believe there was a big demand for gay marriage in NZ and that civil unions were enough. In 2008, he told the Express gay newspaper that he saw no need to go further than civil unions. And at the Big Gay Out festival in Pt Chevalier in February, he told GayNZ.com that civil unions were a "big win", but it was unlikely there would be movement on gay marriage, although "the community" might argue there was no harm in it.

At a Family First forum just before last year's election, he refused to say he would support a bill to define marriage as between men and women. Mr Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill in 2004, but has said it was because of demand from his electorate rather than his own views.
Labour Party leader David Shearer said he fully supported marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving it formal support. Labour's justice spokesman, Charles Chauvel, was more direct in his support for same-sex marriage. "It was Labour policy in the last election to support the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Labour was looking at a private member's bill this term to make it legal for same-sex couples to marry. "I think the great thing about the President's announcement is that it helps to highlight the issue of equality and keep it on the agenda and more and more New Zealanders are saying it's a no-brainer, people should have these rights," Mr Chauvel said.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said she would support same-sex marriage, as individuals and whanau had the right to choose for themselves whether to marry.
Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said she was pleased President Obama had taken a stand on what was a very difficult moral issue in America. "The US is very morally conservative on issues like sexual reproductive health, gay and lesbian rights and it is about time that the President took a strong stand in favour of the community and their right to be treated equally."
She said the Green Party supported same-sex marriage in New Zealand and had argued for it when the Civil Union Bill was being passed. "Our policy is that same legal rights and responsibilities should apply to all couples regardless of whether that couple is gay, lesbian, transgender or heterosexual," she said.
United Future leader Peter Dunne declined to comment, Act leader John Banks did not respond to questions, and Mana Party leader Hone Harawira said he was undecided. A poll in the Herald in 2004 found 40 per cent of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriages and 54 per cent were against. A Research New Zealand poll last year found 60 per cent were in favour and 34 per cent against.

^^ I don't think the National Party will make it policy, though it will win Key some support for being seen as someone who doesn't discriminate (a good thing). If his view that he is "not opposed" to gay marriage actually translates into making it an election issue, I think it will become a bit more of an issue and I am sure that the ACT party and in particular, United Future (who are against gay marriage) will be annoyed by the change in policy. A number of the more conservative Kiwis could, therefore, in protest, shift their votes towards a party that more supports their moral choices (United Future or ACT).

Will be interesting to hear how this one plays out. I am pleased that the Greens, Labour and Maori party are in support of gay marriage though.

Most agree that Greece brought its predicament on itself, being so desperate to join the Euro currency and having the most corrupt tax system in the continent. On the other hand, Wall Street isn't much of a model to follow either, especially if you've seen Inside Job. And the Celtic Tiger - which was touted by fiscal cargo cultists not all that long ago - landed flat on its face.

The EU Treaty stipulates that a member country can freely leave the group. And as a consequence also the euro. But if Greece really take these decisions, would have consequences not predictable, based on past experiences. Greece would be starting from zero, with an economy to entirely rebuild, without aid or funds from outside. It would be out of the trade with the rest of the area. It may also be able to decide their on own money, the return and the devaluation of the drachma. Perhaps the improvement would be slower and more painful than the rescue plan imposed by the EU. The major risk is, out the Greece, you may find another "candidate" on which to focus action. Spain and Italy in particular, could be much involved in financial speculation. Risks also to Ireland and Portugal. But actually I do not think that Germany permits all this. These economies are important in the European context. It would mean admitting the failure of the European project :lol:

So is Banks still around.

Watching the death throws of ACT is quite fascinating but mostly very disturbing.

Giving Rodney Hide the unceremonious boot only to be replaced by been there done that Brash who did so much damage in his short tenure.

I cant fathom how anyone in Auckland though Banks was a viable option for mayor. Seriously unhinged individual. You gotta love dotcom as he puts the boot into his former friend.

So is Banks still around.

Watching the death throws of ACT is quite fascinating but mostly very disturbing.

Giving Rodney Hide the unceremonious boot only to be replaced by been there done that Brash who did so much damage in his short tenure.

I cant fathom how anyone in Auckland though Banks was a viable option for mayor. Seriously unhinged individual. You gotta love dotcom as he puts the boot into his former friend.

Only after Banks gave him the boot too. ;)

I agree with you 100% (and so do most on this forum). Banks was scary and a terrible mayor for Auckland. At least now there is a visionary mayor in place (if fettered by the national government).