General Debate 8 October 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment135

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (135)

Login to comment or vote

Redbaiter

You’re just a smug oily prog Narsekissa, and though you might find an audience among like meatheads here, I’d say anyone with a brain just sighs in resignation.
1 11
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:26pm
nasska

Great you’re here Baity. I was just going to post a link for Kea….it’s been a while since it was up & he may have missed it. 🙂

Ref: http://redbaitersbile.blogspot.co.nz/
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:31pm
Viking2

Nah
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:33pm
Steve (North Shore)

Fuck the berley works well in Tauranga, but just the same old, same old masturbaiter taxi man pulling a rickshaw from the big T to the big Mount.
There is a blowhole at the Mount, and it aint you Red. Just a blow arse
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:34pm
Viking2

A magician was working on a cruise ship in the Caribbean. The audience would be different each week, so the magician allowed himself to do the same tricks over and over again.

There was only one problem: The captain’s parrot saw the shows every week and began to understand what the magician did in every trick. Once he understood that, he started shouting in the middle of the show.

“Look, it’s not the same hat!” “Look, he’s hiding the flowers under the table!” “Hey, why are all the cards the Ace of Spades?”

The magician was furious but couldn’t do anything, it was the captain’s parrot after all.

One day the ship had an accident and sank. The magician found himself on a piece of wood, in the middle of the ocean, and of course the parrot was by his side.

They stared at each other with hate, but did not utter a word. This went on for several days.

After a week the parrot finally said, “Okay, I give up. What’d you do with the boat?”
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:36pm
Kea

nasska that is great thanks.

Here is something to help Red with his cultural awareness and general tolerance 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAvlimEYEpQ
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:37pm
Redbaiter

GD has been totally fucked by trolls and Narsekissa and Kea are the worst of them.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:37pm
mikenmild

And Reddy is feeding them by reacting rather than debating. It is, after all, a general debate thread on a political blog, etc, etc…
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:40pm
Kea

Red, thank you for paying such close attention and admiring our work.

What gave it away, was it the fact I included an actual on topic argument in my posts, rather that simply hurling abuse and chanting “troll” like a mantra ? 🙂
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:42pm
nasska

Never mind Baity…..you just hang in there friend.

Tomorrow’s another day. 🙂
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:45pm
Pete George

Dunedin voting returns as of tonight are looking abysmal, 22.82% compared to 36.33% at the corresponding time last election.

Trend: http://yourdunedin.org/2013/10/08/dunedin-voting-returns-to-october-8/
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 8:49pm
Steve (North Shore)

Sorry I can’t spend all day here with you Masterbaiter – some of us work.
I’ll check you out at 6.30pm tomorrow, until then – suffer
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 9:11pm
UglyTruth

LOL

http://cdn.list25.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fish1.gif
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 9:18pm
RightNow

Dennis, “We can expect more energy to be absorbed by the Earth with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, all else being equal.”
That’s The Theory. If, for argument’s sake, we accept it then… is the resulting warming good or bad for us?
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 9:22pm
Azeraph

Are we going to follow America, 30 years ago they were a market economy to a market society? Will we start paying kids to read books to try and give them some incentive?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 9:39pm
publicwatchdog

What’s your view on THIS one Kiwibloggers?

Is Rodney Councillor Penny Webster’s company’s contract with CCO Watercare a ‘conflict of interest’?

Does the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 URGENTLY need updating?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/is-rodney-councillor-penny-websters-companys-contract-with-cco-watercare-a-conflict-of-interest/

8 October 2013

Is Rodney Councillor Penny Webster’s company’s contract with Auckland Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) Watercare a ‘conflict of interest’?

Should Rodney Councillor Penny Webster be disqualified from standing again, under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, because she and her husband have entered into transactions with the Auckland Council Group, totalling $32,189 during 2012, for services provided by their jointly-owned private company, All Rural Fencing Limited ?

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/annual_report/Documents/annualreport20122013volume3.pdf (Pg 80 ) ]

___________________________________________________________

All Rural Fencing Limited (NZ Companies Office)
http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1512665/directors

___________________________________________________________

The relevant LAW is the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1968/0147/latest/DLM390003.html#DLM390021

Disqualifying contracts between local authorities and their members

(1) Except as provided in subsection (3), no person shall be capable of being elected as or appointed to be or of being a member of a local authority or of any committee of a local authority, if the total of all payments made or to be made by or on behalf of the local authority in respect of all contracts made by it in which that person is concerned or interested exceeds $25,000 in any financial year.
________________________________________________________

I made an inquiry to the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) – who have the sole responsibility for administering the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.

This is the reply from OAG Senior Solicitor Belinda Rynhart:

“The prohibition on contracting between local authorities and their members (section 3 of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968) does not apply to contracts with council-controlled organisations. ”

Belinda Rynhart
Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Dear Penny

I am writing in response to your phone query to us on Friday 4 October. You are concerned about Auckland Council councillor Penny Webster’s husband providing services to the Auckland Council.

This issue was first raised with us at the beginning of the election period. Our preliminary inquiries revealed that in the financial year 2012-2013 All Rural Fencing Limited (Penny’s husband’s company) did not contract with Auckland Council.

All Rural Fencing did however contract to deliver services to one of the Council’s subsidiaries -Watercare Services Limited.

The prohibition on contracting between local authorities and their members (section 3 of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968) does not apply to contracts with council-controlled organisations.

This means that All Rural Fencing’s contracts with Watercare Services do not cause Penny Webster to be disqualified from being a member of the Council. She did not need to seek the approval of the Auditor-General to be interested in the contracts, and no breach of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests’) Act has occurred.

Yours sincerely

Belinda Rynhart

Senior Solicitor

Office of the Auditor-General Te Mana Arotake

100 Molesworth Street, Thorndon

PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140

_______________________________________________________

In my considered opinion, it is absolutely unacceptable for elected members (or their families) to contract for any form of Council services, whether provided directly by Council, or ‘indirectly’ by Council-Controlled-Organisations (CCOs).

As an ‘anti-corruption /anti-privatisation’ Public Watchdog, I am ‘blowing the whistle’ long and hard on this issue, in order to help achieve a very long-overdue law change to this very outdated piece of legislation.

The Auckland Council ‘Code of Conduct’ states:

“5.3. Public Interest

Members have a duty to make decisions in the public interest. They must not act in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their families, friends or business interests. “

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/governingbody/codeofconductelectedmembers.pdf

OAG Senior Solicitor Belinda Rynhart told me that the OAG agreed that the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, was out-of-date, but getting a law change was the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

Given that the OAG, not the DIA has administrative responsibility for the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, I have sent the following ‘Open Letter / OIA request to the CEO of the DIA:

MAYORAL CAMPAIGN 2013 OPEN LETTER TO THE CEO OF THE DIA re OAG requested law changes to the Local Authorities Members Interests Act 1968

What is the public ’perception’, when an Auckland Councillor, Penny Webster (former Chair of the Auckland Council Strategy and Finance Committee), calls on citizens and ratepayers to provide a free service by mowing Auckland Council-owned grass berms, while she and her husband get paid for services provided by their privately-owned company – All Rural Fencing Services Ltd?

______________________________________________

“Rodney councillor Penny Webster says that at a time when household budgets are tight, the council cannot afford the $12 million to $15 million cost of mowing berms for the whole region.

“It’s not fair that one area gets berm mowing, while other areas mow their own,” said Mrs Webster, a former Act MP. “The council had to make things even without increasing rates even more.”

She was disappointed with local body election candidates from the AucklandCity area who were complaining about something the rest of the region did without fuss.

The council voted to save $3 million by not cutting grass berms in the old AucklandCity area from July.

Waitemata councillor Mike Lee said Mrs Webster’s comments were “exactly the outer suburban small-mindedness and parochialism” he had to deal with in his days at the Auckland Regional Council, and which the Super City was meant to stop. ….. ..”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11133160

How is this not blinding hypocrisy from Rodney Councillor Penny Webster?

In my considered opinion, as an ‘anti-corruption’ Public Watchdog, Rodney Councillor Penny Webster is NOT ‘fit for duty’, and if I were a Rodney voter, I most certainly would not be voting for her.

I look forward to the turning of this ’bad thing into a good thing,’ and the ensuing public ‘fuss’, over this Rodney Councillor Penny Webster ‘conflict of interest’, helping to achieve a prompt updating of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.

Penny Bright

2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate
0 10
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 9:55pm
axeman

‘The fact is the [C]AGW movement has fuck all to do with science.’ FIFY Kea 🙂

The IPCC Report in retrospect

The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238550/the-climate-alarmists-have-lost-the-debate-its-time-we-stopped-indulging-their-poisonous-fantasy/

IPCC has confused the public
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/05/swiss-journalist-predicts-climate-catastrophe-will-soon-be-forgotten-like-all-other-environmental-scare-stories/
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 10:18pm
KevinH

Perhaps it is time to seriously consider on line voting for the ipod generation, make it as easy as sending a text and perhaps more will engage. Postal voting can be still retained as an option for those not connected to the internet. The low turnout in these latest local body elections proves that alternatives have to be considered, so get on with it.
The unemployed can mow the berms, it is called work experience, one day a week working within walking distance from your home. Easy, problem solved, just do it.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 10:20pm
Dennis Horne

All_on_Red (560) Says: October 8th, 2013 at 7:31 pm
(Dennis) “We can expect more energy to be absorbed by the Earth with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, all else being equal. ”

Can we expect that though? Maybe that’s wrong.

So, are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

RightNow (5,803) Says: October 8th, 2013 at 9:22 pm
(Dennis) “We can expect more energy to be absorbed by the Earth with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, all else being equal.”

That’s The Theory. If, for argument’s sake, we accept it then… is the resulting warming good or bad for us?

No, that’s not The Theory I was referring to, which you wrote here:

RightNow (5,803) Says: October 8th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Dennis, the theory says that assuming we accept that the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is 1.2 deg C then (assuming zero net feedbacks) by the time we reach 560ppm (doubled from pre-industrial 280ppm) the climate would gain 1.2 deg from pre-industrial times, of which we’ve apparently already gained 0.8, so we’d gain a further 0.4 deg C above current climate.

I am not in any position to agree or disagree with what you have written. Nor do I know what adding energy to the Earth system will do.

If the temperature rises then the sea level might rise, which might not be good for some people. If water vapour is negating the effect of more CO2 I would expect that to change the weather, that might not be good for some people.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 10:57pm
axeman

What a shame for humanity that it will probably take another similar Little Ice Age to convince politicians/scientists that the human production of CO2 does not cause global warming.

The new IPCC report squandered the opportunity to produce scenarios that include the large impact of the sun, which we know always played a major role in the past. The IPCC limits the sun’s impact to the TSI only and they estimate it to be close to zero: -0.1 to +0.1°C.

However, the longer the chasm grows between climate models and reality, and the longer the projected warming fails to materialize, the more the world of science will have to acknowledge the questions of natural variability, especially UV radiation.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/07/current-sunspot-cycle-weakest-in-190-years-recent-model-temperature-deviation-due-to-solar-activity-experts-say/
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 8, 2013 11:41pm
Left Right and Centre

After swallowing a truth pill….

I’m a rude, bitter, sad, pathetic, nasty little bloke who desperately needs a hug or a pat on the shoulder or some meaningful form of interaction with a humanoid in real life. I do everything I accuse others of doing.

In the words of Men At Work – ‘Who can it be now?’. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 4:16am
Azeraph

Well something is changing the climate, this is self evident by 2 tornadoes within 10 kms of each other a year apart as well as 3 waterspouts virtually on the same spot within a 30 km area that has never ever had such activity before. The last true tornado was in Hamilton 1948 that killed a few people. I witnessed 2 of the waterspouts and have seen the path of destruction one of the tornadoes followed. Guess what we call that area now?
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 6:47am
Azeraph

Now here is going to get those who have taken up the climate war between the south and the north. It doesn’t matter what evidence is put in front of you whether it is for one side or the other why? It is because you have chosen your side and will consciously decide to ignore evidence or question the validity of said evidence, if you put a simple calculus problem in front of said people and ask them to run the numbers to find out a said value, both sides either questioned the result since didn’t align with their chosen side or dismissed it and will fully ignored it. Both sides.

Most of you won’t be alive in 30 years.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 7:34am
All_on_Red

Azeraph
Those water spouts are possibly good examples of man causing climate change or a weather event. But perhaps the change has come from man changing the shape of the environment through erecting structures which alter wind flow and not through emitting CO 2.

Dennis
We all acknowledge that when water vapour and CO2 mix that, as greenhouse gases, they generate heat. However the proponents of catastrophic AGW say that what happens next is that , the reaction of that mixing then causes a positive feedback which in turn generates radiative forcing which creates more heat . And that’s how the extra 6-8 degrees got forecast.
The evidence now shows that there probably is no positive feedback and that naturally through gg mixing we will see 1.2 degrees per century for every doubling of CO 2 . We have had .8 so .4 to come . Which is probably an amount which is beneficial to us all.
Do you get it now? There is no extra energy. Just the standard 1.2
Personally I think that water and the sun have more influence on our climate than CO 2. Water through clouds and ocean currents. The PDO really affects climate over a major portion of the globe but that should be no surprise given how big the Pacific Ocean is.
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 7:52am
Dennis Horne

… when water vapour and CO2 mix that, as greenhouse gases, they generate heat.

… the reaction of that mixing then causes a positive feedback…

I don’t think so.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 9:07am
All_on_Red

Here you go Dennis,
This might help you catch up.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/last-30-years-shows-climate-feedbacks-are-zero-at-best/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/satellites-show-a-warmer-earth-is-releasing-extra-energy-to-space/

Just a start.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 11:37am
Dennis Horne

All_on_Red (564) Says: October 9th, 2013 at 11:37 am. Here you go Dennis, This might help you catch up. Just a start.

Thanks. I wonder if we should start at the beginning so we actually understand the basic science? Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Compound, Contribution to greenhouse effect (%)
Water vapor, clouds, 36 – 72%
Carbon dioxide, 9 – 26%

Now, can you still say for certain that say doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to make no difference, all other things being equal?
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 2:58pm
All_on_Red

Ah Dennis, I have clearly said that doubling of CO 2 will create 1.2 degrees warming per century. We have had .8 of that with .4 to go.
Wikipedia is a poor reference and you should look elsewhere. Watts up with that is a good place but Jo Nova covers the basics we’ll.
I am also saying that because there is no positive feedbacks that CAGW will not occur as we are not going to see 2-6 degrees of warming.
Not sure what you don’t understand about that but it’s clear your knowledge is pretty basic. Try reading those links and you may start to learn something. Either that or stick to flirting with Judith.

Or maybe you could try answering why there has been no temp increase despite co 2 going up over the past 22 years?
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 3:34pm
All_on_Red

Btw CO 2 only makes up 3% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapour is 70%
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 3:35pm
All_on_Red

Ooh down ticks. Someone doesn’t like their bullshit end of the world meme destroyed by science. Lol
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 3:40pm
All_on_Red

Richard Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC Climate Assessment

Date: 08/10/13 Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT
Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. That is to say the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document, and as George Orwell noted, political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming; all models show greater tropical warming than has been observed since 1978; and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth. And yet, as the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever.

Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims.

With low sensitivity, economic analyses suggest that warming under 2C would likely be beneficial to the earth. Heat ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean would mean that current IPCC models fail to describe heat exchange between surface waters and the deep ocean. Such exchanges are essential features of natural climate variability, and all IPCC claims of attribution of warming to mans activities depend on the assumption that the models accurately portray this natural variability.

In attempting to convince the public to accept the need to for the environmental movement’s agenda, continual reference is made to consensus. This is dishonest not because of the absence of a consensus, but because the consensus concerning such things as the existence of irregular (and small compared to normal regional variability) net warming since about 1850, the existence of climate change (which has occurred over the earths entire existence), the fact that added greenhouse gases should have some impact (though small unless the climate system acts so as to greatly amplify this effect)over the past 60 years with little impact before then, and the fact that greenhouse gases have increased over the past 200 years or so, and that their greenhouse impact is already about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 are all perfectly consistent with there being no serious problem. Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.

Carbon restriction policies, to have any effect on climate, would require that the most extreme projections of dangerous climate actually be correct, and would require massive reductions in the use of energy to be universally adopted. There is little question that such reductions would have negative impacts on income, development, the environment, and food availability and cost – especially for the poor. This would clearly be immoral.

By contrast, the reasonable and moral policy would be to foster economic growth, poverty reduction and well being in order that societies be better able to deal with climate change regardless of its origin. Mitigation policies appear to have the opposite effect without significantly reducing the hypothetical risk of any changes in climate. While reducing vulnerability to climate change is a worthy goal, blind support for mitigation measures – regardless of the invalidity of the claims – constitutes what might be called bankrupt morality.

It is not sufficient for actions to artificially fulfill people’s need for transcendent aspirations in order for the actions to be considered moral. Needless to add, support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for science.

Richard S. Lindzen
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
October 5, 2013
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 3:50pm
All_on_Red

“Btw CO 2 only makes up 3% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapour is 70%”

Hahahaha getting down ticks for stating facts! Hilarious. Sorry but the old socialist method of shut up shut up shut up ain’t going to work. There are millions of us. And we will never stop.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 3:53pm
Dennis Horne

All_on_Red (567) Says: October 9th, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Not sure what you don’t understand about that but it’s clear your knowledge is pretty basic. Try reading those links and you may start to learn something.

CO 2 only makes up 3% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapour is 70%.

Maybe you could try answering why there has been no temp increase despite co 2 going up over the past 22 years?

Yes, I have basic knowledge. What science qualifications do you have?

You say CO2 is 3% and H2O 70% of greenhouse gases. What is the remaining 28%?

No, I don’t want to answer the question; I don’t have enough clear information.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 4:08pm
Dennis Horne

Bugger, mistyped 27%.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 4:12pm
Dennis Horne

All_on_Red (569) Says: October 9th, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Richard Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC Climate Assessment. Date: 08/10/13, MIT
… and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth.

But isn’t the overall trend less ice? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 9, 2013 8:35pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« An appointed commissioners option

The fiscal turn-around »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Has he only confirmed the suspicions?
No Minister
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
US v. Google: do complaints have to be internally consistent?
Utopia
Eruption of pro-Palestinian protests on American Campus evidence of a conscience – the difference between Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionism
The Daily Blog
Open mike 26/04/2024
The Standard
#ANZAC: "year after year, the numbers grow fewer, who remember what we're not forgetting"
Not PC
Maori Party (with “disgust”) draws attention to Chhour’s race after the High Court rules on Waitangi Tribunal’s summons
Point of Order
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
REEFTON – THE NEW PARIS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d