Key and crabs

52 comments on “Key and crabs ”

• Comments are now closed

1. andy 1

   16 January 2008 at 9:59 am

   YES!!

   I commented on the other thread as they used the stock photo.

   As i said strange times when Jim sounds sensible and business friendly and John wants to restrict property rights so he can have a swim…

   between the flags i hope too!

   I think Johns media minders were at the cafe when he answered that particular call from the journo! Once again he opens his mouth to change feet. This is the party of business and they want my vote.

   C- for that effort, must try harder!
2. Camryn 2

   16 January 2008 at 10:23 am

   He seems to have been acting on concerns from the public, including several with greater than average knowledge (a lifeguard, an underwater photographer) and that’s part of a politician’s job.

   However, I agree that he was stupid to make a call for a ban that scientific evidence doesn’t support. It would’ve been smarter to call for a ban to be investigated or considered. Jim Anderton was similarly unwise from a political point-of-view to dismiss considering one.

   My main point is that I think it’s a little unfair that you’ve made it seem that he only wanted them banned at Omaha. The article says that he suggested a ban for all busy beaches. So, it seems he was driven more by a desire to improve public safety than NIMBYism.

   If you want to actually convince anybody to join you in disliking John Key, you’ll have to make convincing arguments on the basis of a reasonable and neutral interpretation of the facts. If you have to take a slanted or unreasonable view to make the story into ‘dirt’ then it convinces no-one.
3. James Kearney 3

   16 January 2008 at 10:32 am

   Read the article, it’s pretty clearly about Omaha with only an afterthought that it may happen in other places:

   “Mr Key, who has a holiday home at Omaha”

   “His call follows an attack this week by a shark on an inflatable boat carrying two lifeguards who were trying to herd it out to sea at Omaha.”

   “They feared this would act as an invitation for feeding sharks to come to Omaha and had noticed an increase in shark reportings during the past two summers when crab pots were set.”

   “It is an accident waiting to happen and my guess is it’s not unique to Omaha. It must happen at other places.”
4. andy 4

   16 January 2008 at 10:37 am

   Camryn:

   The train wakes me up every morning and is dangerous, can we ban that while I am on holiday too…That is the level of his argument.

   Pity no one asked the crab guy what he thought, I bet it would have started with an expletive and ended with “OFF”.

   My point is that john should STFU until he has something substantive to say cause every time he opens his yap, I like him less. Dude wants to stop another guy doing his job, in his peak season (I presume). Smells like regulation of business to me. Wrap it up in yesterdays herald and put more salt on it, but it is still what it is. a dumb thing to say from the party of Business.

   BTW I am getting splinters from this fence sitting.
5. mike 5

   16 January 2008 at 10:43 am

   This is pretty desperate stuff guys. Why are you people so bitter about our next PM having a bach and a bit money?
6. Sam Dixon 6

   16 January 2008 at 10:53 am

   Not surprising Key is not a fan of fishermen. As a currency speculator, he is one of the bottomfeeders of international trade.

   mike – it’s not that he has a bach or even that he got millions by expoliting currency differentials (ever wonder who lost wealth when he aquired it from playing the money markets?)… the first post from from someone who is into architecture critiquing the style of the bach, this one is showing him up as a hypocrite who looks out for himself.
7. Kimble 7

   16 January 2008 at 10:57 am

   “Mr Key said residents approached him late last month concerned…”

   He was approached by the people living at Omaha with a concern. Of course when he is talking about it he will be refering to the original complaint. He said he wouldnt be surprised if this was also an issue elsewhere which is why it would be a national concern.

   Precisely what part of “You shouldnt throw blood into the water of beaches where people are swimming because it might attract sharks” do you have a problem with?

   He wasnt speaking out about someone earning their living, he was speaking out about real life and death concerns of worried people.

   Why are you so bigoted against anyone with money? Just look at the sneering manner in which you say, “and fellow moneyed residents”.
8. Daveo 8

   16 January 2008 at 11:02 am

   Sam, here’s your answer:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNwA78Xftek
9. dancer 9

   16 January 2008 at 11:06 am

   i can understand why those defending Mr Key would rather this story was portrayed as envy based, but my question is on whether recreation outvotes income generation. i don’t spend much time up on the northern beaches (ok – none) but every time you enter the water there are dangers.
10. all_your_base 10

    16 January 2008 at 11:08 am

    Not John’s first attack of NIMBYism either.

    This is the same John Key who opposed an affordable housing development in Helensville last year.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0708/S00126.htm
11. andy 11

    16 January 2008 at 11:09 am

    Kimble said:

    ‘He wasnt speaking out about someone earning their living, he was speaking out about real life and death concerns of worried people.’

    john key said:

    ‘National leader John Key has called for limits on commercial crab pots at popular beaches over the summer’

    greg muir said:
    ‘”I fully understand the guy has got to earn a living and has invested in his boat and his pots, but he could make his living in less popular swimming places and at other times.”

    its not the money of the residents, its a property rights issue, can 2-3 week per year residents deny the rights of a 50 week per year business? Would you be happy if it was your crab fishing fleet?

    Come on this is the stuff I criticise Labour about! Is the argument about the EFB and speech similar, one group wants to restrict the rights of another.
12. Kimble 12

    16 January 2008 at 11:23 am

    andy, the residents are concerned with someone throwing blood into the water of a beach where a lot of people are swimming.

    It isn’t a property issue as nobody owns the property. It is about the use of public property. If you want to look at precedence then the putting down of 40 pots sounds like a more recent thing. People have been swimming at Omaha for years.

    You guys should be cheering this. You claim Key is all about business and money. Remember that is YOUR claim. So when he does anything you try to frame it in a property rights, business freedom light, just so you can call him hypocritical.

    The truth is, it’s your original assumption that is wrong. Key ISNT all about unfettered business power and capitalism. What he has done here has proven it.

    What we have here is Key saying the crabber may have a right to earn a living, but he shouldnt be able to do it at the expense of other members of society.

    Not only is he not automatically taking the side of the businessman, he is proposing that Government do something about it!

    What you are doing is exactly the same as if I was to call you lot a fan of hockey. You deny it saying that you dont like hockey. Then I call you a hypocrit for not being true to your own beleifs.
13. Jum 13

    16 January 2008 at 11:27 am

    all_your_base

    A relative of mine in a state house was moved into one of the privately/publicly owned housing developments. She was picked for several reasons in that:

    – she is a pensioner
    – the previous house was a family house and too big for her now
    – she was an excellent tenant, who always paid her rent and kept her place neat
    – she and her husband had never been able to afford to buy a house
    – she’d always paid her taxes
    – ie all round good person who did not deserve to be thrown out of her state house and expected to find private accommodation

    They moved her into a quiet cul de sac of lovely houses and she thinks she is in heaven.

    It’s a perfect idea to have housing developments with some wealthier housing, some affordable housing and some state house tenants who have also done their bit for society and aren’t likely to turn the place into the slum John Key was intimating would happen.

    Obviously, he didn’t look at his bach plan before it got built.
14. gobsmacked 14

    16 January 2008 at 11:44 am

    Key sees a problem, and wants the government to act, by imposing a new ban.

    Is this a) sensible, or b) Nanny State?

    Clearly the answer is a) if it’s nice National, and b) if it’s nasty Labour.
15. Matthew Pilott 15

    16 January 2008 at 11:48 am

    “It’s a perfect idea to have housing developments with some wealthier housing, some affordable housing and some state house tenants who have also done their bit for society and aren’t likely to turn the place into the slum John Key was intimating would happen. ”

    Well Jum, according to Key, building public housing on nice land is economic vandalism.

    Kimble, I’ll respect your argument when Key tries to stop a major business/commercial development from adversely affecting people in a very low decile area.
16. andy 16

    16 January 2008 at 11:49 am

    kimble:

    Good point, but I disagree. There are property rights here, a fishing quota or license is a property right (that they must pay for in some fashion). There are competing interests, the clash of the commons if you will. The division of costs to residents is none vs crab guy (could be huge) and all the benefits go to the residents.

    That is why I think JK should have at least get some facts (about shark habits 🙂 ) and not shoot from the hip. He is prone to it and it is his weakness at present. hence the c-.

    Omaha is named because the americans practised ther beach landing for D-Day on Omaha, so it has a complicated history. I was there for new year!

    I never claimed that Key was for ‘unfettered business’, The Nats position themselves as the party of business and claim that labour/greens are anti business. that is obvious.
17. Kimble 17

    16 January 2008 at 11:59 am

    andy, if they have to pay for a license then they don’t own the resources they are exploiting. As such they dont have unfettered rights to do as they please with them.

    Key is calling for the body that issues the license to be able to restrict the actions of the people that purcahse the license if it endangers other people. Seems like a fair call to me.

    He is not being anti-business. He is being pro-community.

    “The Nats position themselves as the party of business and claim that labour/greens are anti business.”

    No, the Nats are positioned as the party of business by those who think it is a bad thing.

    The Labour party was founded by the labour movement and as such has, at its heart, an us [workers] vs them [owners] attitude. The Green party is even further to the left with many communists who are admittedly anti-business.

    National is a political party for all New Zealanders. They realise that business isnt a seperate segment of society. Business describes the actions of people.

    Thats what people here dont seem to understand. Business is people.
18. Kimble 18

    16 January 2008 at 12:01 pm

    “Key sees a problem, and wants the government to act, by imposing a new ban.”

    At least get it right rtard. He wants the ministry to be able to set conditions around where and when people lay crabs pots to protect other people swimming in that area.
19. andy 19

    16 January 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Kimble said:

    ‘He is not being anti-business. He is being pro-community.’

    um but isn’t he being pro community by being anti crab guy?

    “if they have to pay for a license then they don’t own the resources they are exploiting. As such they dont have unfettered rights to do as they please with them.”

    um, he owns the right to exploit the resources commercially, how can you reconcile that with oil,gas and mineral extraction…
20. Kimble 20

    16 January 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Thats the thing about you labourites; you look at a person and you only see their level of wealth. You think that based on that little piece of information, you know everything you need to know about them.
21. dad4justice 21

    16 January 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Once again another Ministry (who are on excessive salaries – $100k plus ) have lost the plot, on what is, clearly a health and safety issue .

    John Key is correct to point the finger out to the endangered public .
22. Kimble 22

    16 January 2008 at 12:10 pm

    “but isn’t he being pro community by being anti crab guy?”

    No.

    “he owns the right to exploit the resources commercially, how can you reconcile that with oil,gas and mineral extraction.”

    Organisations that extract oil, gas and minerals have a multitude of restrictions upon their activities.
23. andy 23

    16 January 2008 at 12:22 pm

    kimble said:

    ‘Organisations that extract oil, gas and minerals have a multitude of restrictions upon their activities.’

    Yes correct, but my round about way of making a point is that Key is advocating a change in the rules about how crab guy does business. He has an existing agreement in regards his area/quota/license thingy, by changing that crab guy will suffer all the costs and consequences without much facts to prove he is a cause.

    If you restrict prior to making a contract and you accept the terms good luck, by changing the nature of that contract crab guy gets his property rights limited.
24. Kimble 24

    16 January 2008 at 12:34 pm

    You need to consider the costs of him carrying on as he has been.
25. andy 25

    16 January 2008 at 12:40 pm

    and what have they been?

    nothing, that we can prove!
26. Tamaki Resident 26

    16 January 2008 at 1:35 pm

    other “experts” are saying that the warm, calm seas are the reason for the sharks (which is probably good weather for setting crab nets as well).
27. chris 27

    16 January 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Just home after the early at fences in south Taranaki and a couple of sightings were made, not close enough to chase anyone out of the water but no doubts about the fact that there’s lots of the “blokes in the gray suits” around.
28. Craig Ranapia 28

    16 January 2008 at 2:20 pm

    *sigh* Last time I looked Omaha Beach wasn’t a private ‘resort’ and sharks don’t run credit checks before maiming and killing people.

    Sorry, Dancer, I thought it was a silly season non-story and The Standard is naturally going to reach for any stick it can find to (figuratively) beat John Key over the head with. But really… so lame it should be taken out behind the stables and shot.
29. Kimble 29

    16 January 2008 at 2:20 pm

    “and what have they been? nothing, that we can prove!”

    Cost dont have to be realised to exist. Risk is the potential of something happening. Burying a land mine in a playground will not have any cost PROVEN until some kid stands on it, but the risk, of course is still real before that happens.

    Common sense is a term that has been grossly misused of late. But surely throwing blood into the water at public beaches should be considered to add to the risk of shark attacks.
30. andy 30

    16 January 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Kimble:

    ‘throwing blood into the water at public beaches should be considered to add to the risk of shark attacks.’

    Omaha is a shallow cresent about 1.5km long, the swimming area (between the one set of flags) is at best 50m wide. I think that may be misleading at best! Its a massive space, I think the residents should get together and get a shark net!

    they should show some initiative and not try to rely on the blunt force of the state or move if they don’t like it. They are like those people who live next to eden park and complain about the rugby and cricket.

    Craig: I agree thats why I have said that john needs to keep his trap shut at times, he shot from the hip and looks slightly foolish as a result. Wouldn’t the local MP be better at this type of issue!
31. andy 31

    16 January 2008 at 3:04 pm

    captcha: inhabitants screen
32. Matthew Pilott 32

    16 January 2008 at 3:07 pm

    “But really. so lame it should be taken out behind the stables and shot.”

    Look Craig, I don’t like John Key either but you can’t go around wishing death and violence upon everyone you oppose.

    Seriously though, this seems to be one of the few, if only, times that JK has said something not pre-planned and scripted, so it’s interesting to see the reaction he gets, don’t you think? Not to mention worth judging the comment on its merits, or lack thereof.

    Anderton, of course, reacted like a bit of a plonker.
33. J 33

    16 January 2008 at 3:26 pm

    National is a political party for all New Zealanders.- Kimble

    Oh yeh, their track record is just so inclusive.I remember last time when ruthy richardson made the whole nation sandwiches and cakes.

    Key is allowed to be concerned but his kneejerk banning statement
    really should have been followed by a just a little bit of science .
    That’s a poor way to handle an issue for a guy who wants to lead this nation into what will be an increasingly complex future.
34. Kimble 34

    16 January 2008 at 3:27 pm

    “I think the residents should get together and get a shark net!”

    Thats a good idea. But if this is a problem at other beaches, say, in poorer areas, would you suggest the same?
35. Kimble 35

    16 January 2008 at 3:37 pm

    “Key is allowed to be concerned but his kneejerk banning statement really should have been followed by a just a little bit of science.”

    First of all, he never called for the banning of anything.

    Secondly, exactly what science do you need to figure out that sharks are attracted by blood, sharks have been known to attack people, so spreading blood where people swim may lead to an increase in the risk of a shark attack?

    Which part of this logic do you want to attack with science?
36. andy 36

    16 January 2008 at 3:37 pm

    sorry Kimble, never suggested there was a problem. Accept for crab guys property rights…

    I surf, I have seen heaps of sharks, I am very wary of them and treat them with the respect they deserve. we all should. Not try to ban some dude catching crabs for 2-3 weeks of the year like the residents want.

    The problem came from the lifeguards getting to close, the boat got bit! they need to learn a lesson from that. Not blame it on crab guy…

    I am still firmly undecided as to elction 2008!
37. Kimble 37

    16 January 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Look the efforts of one person to make money shouldnt override the safety of hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.

    In essence, this is the principle behind what Key is saying. As I said, this is something you should be applauding.

    andy, would you let a farmer move 40 beehives on the fenceline next to a primary school?
38. andy 38

    16 January 2008 at 3:53 pm

    ‘would you let a farmer move 40 beehives on the fenceline next to a primary school?’

    poor analogy! what predator eats bees and is dangerous to humans pooh bear? We have not conclusively determined that crab guy is bringing in the sharks. There may be a relationship.

    ‘Look the efforts of one person to make money shouldnt override the safety of hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.’

    so you hate capatilism?? People do it every day, just by driving to work. there is nothing to stop me running that red light except me!

    No I don’t applaud stopping crab guy from doing his job on the gut instinct of john Key and the others involved. There are sharks all around look at the herald another photo of sharks and no crab guy in sight.

    Sorry kimble agree to disagree!
39. J 39

    16 January 2008 at 4:17 pm

    “Mr Key said Ministry of Fisheries officials should be able to issue “cease and desist” orders to commercial crab pots on popular beaches as a precaution against attracting sharks. -‘

    “cease and desist” not banning according to kimbo.

    “Secondly, exactly what science do you need to figure out that sharks are attracted by blood, sharks have been known to attack people, so spreading blood where people swim “may lead” to an increase in the risk of a shark attack.”

    So science is based around what joh key and the pumkin patch guy think may happen. This is fundamental to all your “sound rightwing” assertions Kimble,
    an inability to approach any subject with intellectual rigour and depth.
40. Craig Ranapia 40

    16 January 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Not to mention worth judging the comment on its merits, or lack thereof.

    Certainly, Andy. I really thought Helen Clark’s comment about her neighbourhood coming to resemble downtown Kandahar around Guy Fawlkes was (to put it mildly) rather silly, and verging on the downright tasteless. (There might be a few Afghans who’d be royally chuffed if neighbourhood was anything like the rather pleasant corner of Mount Albert Miss Clark lives in, but that’s a whole other discussion.)

    But was that proof that Clark — and anyone else in the neighbourhood who has similar concerns — is a rich bitch NIMBY? Think that might be a rather OTT response.

    As I said, I’d be rather surprised if The Standard ever had anything complimentary to say about John Key. About the same odds as various partisan right blogs doing the same for Helen Clark.

    But really: Junping on a rather lightweight ‘silly season’ story in the New Zealand Herald for a weak attack blog post. Give me a break.
41. Robinsod [moderator] 41

    16 January 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Ah, Craig Ranapia – the blogosphere’s expert on everything. You might like to tally how many complimentary things the standard has had to say about Helen. Yes bro, the standard does some lighter posts but I’m interested you always seem to turn up to comment on how “lame” they are while avoiding the posts with more muscle. Perhaps dear Craig, you prefer not to have your intellectual pose taxed by having to address issues that may see you shown up as a fool?
42. Matthew Pilott 42

    16 January 2008 at 5:10 pm

    And for all that, Craig wrongly attributed that quote to andy.

    Craig, in an auditory sense, her neighbourhood may have resembled downtown Kandahar but no, it wasn’t the best comment.

    Contrast it with, say, JK saying that ‘frankly, the war in Iraq is over’ seeing as you are on the topic of leaders’ quotes on foreign conflicts.

    Every time he’s not scripted he cocks it up.

    I don’t recall Helen then lying to try and deflect attention of her comment, do you?
43. andy 43

    16 January 2008 at 9:36 pm

    1st try was lost…

    Craig: He he, Helen is my Local MP, it was Kandahar over my back fence! Some little bastard burnt the Plunket rooms down that night.
44. Craig Ranapia 44

    16 January 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Robinsod:

    Dear me, someone’s a little touchy at what I thought was some entirely civil and good natured criticism. I thought it was Farrar and the other tools of the right who got all catty at the merest hint of disagreement?

    As for the ‘posts with more muscle’, one of my new year’s resolutions was to try staying out of on-line pissing matches between bores of the loony left and the rabid right. They tend to be neither illuminating or entertaining, and as useful as trying to discuss theology with a fundie.

    Sorry if the truth offends, but I don’t intend to waste time or energy on faux outraged blog posts fuming that Helen Clark and Peter Davis (gasp!) own a rather more expensive house and (shock! horror!) take more overseas holidays than I do. Fair enough?

    Matthew Pilot:

    Well, in the spirit of civil blogging, I apologise to both you and Andy for the misattribution. As for the rest of you comment, it reminds me that socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw one wrote that newspapers seemed unable to distinguish between a bicycle accident and the end of civilization civilization. I doubt he’d have taken a materially different view of the political blogisphere.
45. Robinsod 45

    16 January 2008 at 10:59 pm

    Craig – I’ve gotta say mate it’s not so much what you say as the smarmy way you say it that pisses me off. I guess I’m kinda like all those folk who fucked off from Public Address after getting a whiff of your snide idiocy. Sorry mate, I know you don’t say anything really bad but there’s something about your naff mediocrity coupled with your “faux” erudition that makes my skin crawl. It’s not your fault bro, it’s me.
46. Robinsod 46

    16 January 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Oh and craig, your second and third pars constitute a non sequitur. That means that one does not logically follow the other. Sorry if the truth offends, dear.
47. Matthew Pilott 47

    17 January 2008 at 9:45 am

    “Well, in the spirit of civil blogging, I apologise to both you and Andy for the misattribution. As for the rest of you comment, it reminds me that socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw one wrote that newspapers seemed unable to distinguish between a bicycle accident and the end of civilization civilization. I doubt he’d have taken a materially different view of the political blogisphere.”

    No biggie,wasn’t sure if you were actually talking to me or andy with the subsequent comment.

    I know what you mean though, something like the EFA comes along and suddenly we’re back to Zimbabwe/Stalinist USSR/The Third Reich!
48. Phil 48

    17 January 2008 at 11:11 am

    Matthew, I see that you’re still on about the “War in Iraq is over” comment.

    Putting aside the fact that Clark and Goff have both made similar statements previously (also “unscriped cock-ups” perhaps?) I think you’ll find that, in millitary lexicon, the “War” in Iraq is indeed over – and has been for some time – while the “occupation” of Iraq is ongoing.

    Let me give you another example; If we judge WWII by the same standards as you judge Jonkey’s comment, then technically that war did not end until the last Russian troops left Berlin (in great pomp and ceremony) only a few years ago
49. Matthew Pilott 49

    17 January 2008 at 11:48 am

    Phil, I was comparing it to a comment Helen Clark made – the most interesting thing about it is that Key lied about the context afterwards, as I mentioned.

    What you raise about military lexicon is interesting though. Given the overwhelming imbalance in forces in Iraq, the ‘war’ as you mention, was a steamrolling of regular forces, most of whom did not actually fight. The ‘occupation’ is seeing the same conflict intensity as the ‘war’, minus the Tomahawks, as there’s no major fixed targets for the US to annihilate.

    To most people, the ‘occupation’ was merely an extension of the ‘war’ and the two are indistinguishable. That might explain to you the reaction to Key’s comment.

    Do you think his minders would have let him say that, however, if they were there to protect him from himself?
50. Matthew Pilott 50

    17 January 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Hey Phil, the other day we were discussing how much time DPF spends blogging – the argument was whether he was paid to blog (I disagreed, but thought he spent a whole lot of time on it, and wondered how he could be doing any other work).

    You suggested that he set up blogs on a time release so they don’t come out all at the same time, but he’s just said “I have to suddenly fly up to Hamilton in an hour or so to help fix an IT problem. Back on last flight tonight. Doubt I will be online during that time much, so prob no more posts today.”

    Wonder how he fits in his Curia contract for National 😉
51. Phil 51

    17 January 2008 at 3:59 pm

    I’m going to assume your closing question on Jonkeys “minders” is rhetorical
    =)

    In terms of war vs occupation, simply because “most” people find the two indistinguishable doesnt mean that they actually are… perhaps their understanding of the situation is the naive part, and not Jonkey’s thinking out loud. The lying about it afterward (and a general lack of straight answers) is something he’s going to have to work on; John Key is no Wintson Peters.

    As for DPF, I was only going by a comment I recall him posting some time ago… but, how much polling gets done in January anyway?

Links to post

1. Cullen puts tax cuts in context at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 7 February 2008 at 2:39 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS