A few questions

40 comments on “A few questions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Comedy 1

   28 August 2010 at 12:01 pm

   [lprent: From the policy on banning…

   Abusing the sysop or post writers on their own site. This is viewed as self-evident stupidity, and should be added as a category to the Darwin Awards.

   Take a two week ban for being an idiot. ]
2. Dean Reynolds 2

   28 August 2010 at 12:16 pm

   National’s ambivelent attitude to the liquor question is summed up by their contradictory actions – they demonise tobacco industry executives & give knighthoods to liquor industry executives like Doug Myers
   • Alwyn 2.1

     28 August 2010 at 2:54 pm

     Douglas Myers sold out of the liquor industry in 1998, that’s 12 years ago. It seems a little extreme to still describe him as a “liquor industry executive”.
     I don’t see why he should have received a knighthood and I certainly didn’t approve of the way he did carry out his selling of his shares but at least I would have to say that he did a great deal more for New Zealand than someone like Michael Fay did – sorry “Sir” Michael Fay
     • Dean Reynolds 2.1.1

       28 August 2010 at 5:40 pm

       What the hell did Myers ever do for NZ? He got his knighthood because he’s donated considerable sums to the National Party.
       He’s retired to a swanky part of London, financed by the millions he made through peddling booze & completly uncaring as to the social & economic devastation he & other brewers have created.
       Not content with that, he was the first chairman of the Business Roundtable, an organisation dedicated to creating in NZ, as much inequlity as possible.
       • marsman 2.1.1.1

         28 August 2010 at 5:55 pm

         Perfect summing up of the up-himself misanthropist.
3. Mark 3

   28 August 2010 at 1:55 pm

   Yeah true the reforms could have been more far-reaching, I mean look at the reforms Labour did whe in power for 9 years *cough*
4. Fisiani 4

   28 August 2010 at 7:08 pm

   Still trying desperately to smear John Key eh guys! Key is widely respected for his honesty and integrity. Words that apparently do not exist in the stranded vocabulary.
   • lprent 4.1

     28 August 2010 at 7:17 pm

     Respected by whom? You? But you’re a fool – IMO.

     What has been interesting over the last year is how skeptical the media commentators have been getting despite their obvious wish to believe. I suspect we’re looking at an emperors new clothes effect. As adult as the commentators have been, I suspect they’re listening to those who live without the preconceptions of their own expectations.

     Of course you have too much faith (or too much invested) to be a skeptic
   • marsman 4.2

     28 August 2010 at 7:19 pm

     What honesty?
   • marsman 4.3

     28 August 2010 at 7:20 pm

     What integrity?
   • Ron 4.4

     28 August 2010 at 7:22 pm

     ah, no. Key is widely reviled for his slimy dishonesty. You must be thinking of a different fella
   • Draco T Bastard 4.5

     28 August 2010 at 11:44 pm

     So how many rail shares was that? 50,000 or ah, er,mmmm, oh, 100,000, yeah, 100,000.

     Jonkey is an outright liar and he’s been lying to NZ ever since he entered politics.
   • Vicky32 4.6

     29 August 2010 at 4:39 pm

     “Key is widely respected for his honesty and integrity.”
     Er, Fisinani, in which universe is that true? 😀
     Deb
5. Shona 5

   28 August 2010 at 7:25 pm

   Oh yeah Fisani? Evidence please. I expect at least 20 examples. Key is our Prime Minister after all.Those who lead nations should have a wealth of broad experience .Key has a narrow life experience and a seriously limited skill set. Not holding my breath.
   • Fisiani 5.1

     28 August 2010 at 8:29 pm

     How about 20 months of keeping his promises and telling the truth.

     For example
     National wants to help businesses succeed. We were elected to put New Zealand on a path to higher economic growth, and that is what we are doing. We have a comprehensive economic plan with six drivers, and we have been very busy rolling out the policies in this plan.

     Our six drivers of economic growth are:

     * A growth enhancing tax system
     * Better, smarter public services
     * Lifting education and skills
     * Boosting productive infrastructure
     * Better business innovation and an ambitious trade agenda
     * Cutting red tape and regulations

     All absolutely true and on track. That’s why the Left are simply grinding teeth and making up this do nothing/do everything/ do all evil bogeyman. It does not wash with reality.

     Now for goodness sake stop simply repeating comments taken out of context as proof of lies. Stop pointing to redirection of funds from the ineffective to the frontline as proof. Stop the usual mushroom food. I wont hold my breath either.
     • Daveosaurus 5.1.1

       28 August 2010 at 8:37 pm

       So which promises did he keep, then?
       “North of $50” tax cuts?
       Not to raise GST?
       To close the income gap with Australia?
     • Armchair Critic 5.1.2

       28 August 2010 at 8:59 pm

       I wish they’d increase health funding so you could get some better meds; the ones they have you on are making you hallucinate.
     • felix 5.1.3

       28 August 2010 at 9:28 pm

       Hey Fizzy you fucking moron, when someone asks for evidence to back up your claims and all you do is restate them…

       …you lose.
       • Fisiani 5.1.3.1

         28 August 2010 at 11:44 pm

         Daveosorus There have or or are about to have been tax cuts of $50 for many taxpayers FACT
         Never any claim to not raise GST under any circumstances. FACT You cannot be serious. I warned you to not repeat comments out of context. Can you not read. Only ever a promise to not raise GST to fund a deficit. Promise kept. Get with the play.
         After tax income gap is closing and will be even closer after 1st Oct. FACT
         AC they have increased health funding FACT by I think $1,100,000
         Felix Mind your language. The evidence of his truth is the absence of any lies.
         The six drivers of growth are saving NZ from the scorched earth policies of the 9 wasted years.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3.1.1

           28 August 2010 at 11:59 pm

           The GST promise by Jonkey.

           Nothing there about not raising GST to fund a deficit so that would make the promise broken and you a proven liar.
           • Fisiani 5.1.3.1.1.1

             29 August 2010 at 9:18 am

             If you are choosing to post that link then you ought to LISTEN to it. Here’s a tip. Listen to the Question he answers. Let me help you. It’s the female voice at the very start. You are deliberately quoting out of context. I warned you not to but you just ignored.
             • Armchair Critic …

               29 August 2010 at 10:10 am

               Let’s be clear, Fisi, the female voice at the start of the video mentioned the idea of funding for deficits, not John Key.
               John Key said “National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes….”
               It’s heading for pretty dodgy ground to start including examples and preamble from questions to the PM in what the PM actually said.
               Funny thing is that even if one speculates that Mr Key might have intended to say “National is not going to be raising GST to fund the deficit.” (though let’s be clear, he didn’t say this; he was unequivocal about not raising GST), it’s all a bit of a sham anyway. According to you (here and here), we are running a deficit. And National have not taken any steps to prevent GST from being used to fund the deficit. They could have set it aside so they could demonstrate that they are fulfulling the promise you assume they made. As opposed to putting it into the consolidated fund. But they haven’t done so. In short – GST will be used to fund the deficit.
               The hypothetical promise to not raise GST is semantics, in any case. Do you recall when Australia started selling uranium to China? There was a big fuss about the Australian uranium being used in weapons, so it was made clear that the Australian uranium was for civilian use only and would not be used for weapons. Kind of like a fabled promise to not use GST to fund a deficit. Anyone with a modicum of sense had worked out that the uranium the Chinese sourced from outside Australia for civil use would be diverted to weapons manufacture, i.e. a substitution would be made. Just like anyone with a modicum of sense understands that GST is being used and will continue to be used to fund the deficit (which, btw, is not $250m/wk).
               I’m picking that it’s time for a back-down from you, either on the “borrowing $250m/wk” theory, or the “Mr Key didn’t say that” theory, or preferably both, because both are demonstrably untrue.
             • felix …

               29 August 2010 at 11:38 am

               Further to what Armchair Critic so eloquently said:

               Fizzy, never mind the start of the video, have you watched it right to the end?

               John Key:

               … He’s talking about having to raise GST and the top personal rat tax rate maybe in five years time; and what I’m saying is if we do a half decent job as a guvment at growing our economy, um I’m confident that won’t be happening and it’s not on our agenda.

               Didn’t think so.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.4

       28 August 2010 at 11:52 pm

       “A growth enhancing tax system” – giving all the wealth to the rich
       “Better, smarter public services” – by cutting them back so that they don’t work
       “Lifting education and skills” – again, cutting them back so that they don’t work and ensuring this by enforcing National Standards that have been proved around the world to damage education. Of course, they did give another few million dollars to private schools so another give-away of taxpayer money to their rich mates.
       “Boosting productive infrastructure” – by putting in more roads with a cost/benefit ratio of less than 1. Another words, losing money.
       “Better business innovation and an ambitious trade agenda” – They supported Labours FTA with China and have been kissing Americas arse in Afghanistan.
       “Cutting red tape and regulations” – Taking away workers rights so that employers can force wages down just Jonkey said he wanted.

       I know you don’t believe the spin you write as you know it’s outright lies designed to soften up the public for more wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
       • Armchair Critic 5.1.4.1

         29 August 2010 at 12:08 pm

         “… designed to soften up the public for more wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.”
         See, there’s the ambitious trade agenda, right there
6. Fisiani 6

   29 August 2010 at 12:37 pm

   “A growth enhancing tax system” – giving all the wealth to the rich
   Hint Try actually reading the Budget then you will know your comment is untrue.

   “Better, smarter public services” – by cutting them back so that they don’t work
   Hint Emergency dept throughput highest ever. Capping the bloated bureaucrats budget

   “Lifting education and skills” – again, cutting them back so that they don’t work and ensuring this by enforcing National Standards that have been proved around the world to damage education. Of course, they did give another few million dollars to private schools so another give-away of taxpayer money to their rich mates.

   Hint Higher number of tertiary students and weeding out those choosing to not work to their potential. NZ style National standards (not used overseas duh) will finally start giving parents information about their childrens progress and give parents useful tips as to how to help. 9 years of shameful class envy stripping subsidised funding from private schools have finally been stopped.

   “Boosting productive infrastructure” – by putting in more roads with a cost/benefit ratio of less than 1. Another words, losing money.

   You are obviously not a motorist or an economist.

   “Better business innovation and an ambitious trade agenda” – They supported Labours FTA with China and have been kissing Americas arse in Afghanistan.

   Tim Groser is working his butt off to bring huge benefits even to you.Oh ye of little faith.

   “Cutting red tape and regulations” – Taking away workers rights so that employers can force wages down just Jonkey said he wanted.

   90 days trial to prove yourself. Already effective and working well with not a single legitimate complaint. Great for boosting employment particularly with disadvantaged work seekers.
   Then a downright and completely discredited line. 3 lies in one line. Wow! You link to a Standard posting for goodness sake. It highlights the hilarious canard. Shock horror. The Devil incarnate. Keep your babies safe. Try reading the next paragraph from this bullshit article. I take it you believe everything that you read in newspapers.
   • Vicky32 6.1

     29 August 2010 at 4:57 pm

     “90 days trial to prove yourself. Already effective and working well with not a single legitimate complaint. Great for boosting employment particularly with disadvantaged work seekers.

     What a stubborn wee man you are Fisiani! 😀
     Simply by defining all complaints as “not legitimate” you get to continue to believe in your Beloved Leader… Tee hee… I believe you’re a student – wait until you graduate and get out into the real world – man, do you have shocks coming!
     Deb
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     29 August 2010 at 5:25 pm

     Already effective and working well with not a single legitimate complaint.

     Sacked worker wins first 90-day law case
     Lying again there I see Fisiani.
     • Fisiani 6.2.1

       29 August 2010 at 6:32 pm

       Mistaken headline. Useless media. The case was not in fact about the 90 day rule. Completely different legislation. Had it been the 90 day right to prove yourself there would have been no enquiry. Another own goal there DTB
       • Vicky32 6.2.1.1

         29 August 2010 at 6:44 pm

         “Had it been the 90 day right to prove yourself there would have been no enquiry.”
         Notice you’ve given the law a new name, Fisiani! 😀
         Deb
       • marsman 6.2.1.2

         29 August 2010 at 8:00 pm

         “90 day ‘right’ to prove yourself there would have been no enquiry”
         What a fucking joke. How totalitarian. Rodney Hide in jackboots.

         PS John Key is called Pinocchio because he’s a lying puppet.
       • Puddleglum 6.2.1.3

         29 August 2010 at 8:24 pm

         Yep, Fisiani, the employer was probably anticipating that other beacon of red tape and regulation cutting – you know, the ‘unlike everyone else, an employer doesn’t have to follow the law too closely’ provision?
       • Sylvia 6.2.1.4

         29 August 2010 at 11:03 pm

         No Fisiani, not a mistaken headline. The case does exactly relate to the 90 day trial period provision and the employer was shown to have acted in bad faith, by not telling the poor employee why she was being sacked. The court found that the 90 day trial period didn’t apply because the employee had been an employee,(for one day) before the agreement containing the trial period agreement came into force but it also said that even if the trial period had applied the employer was still bound by duties of good faith within that trial period which it clearly failed to honour.
       • Sylvia 6.2.1.5

         29 August 2010 at 11:05 pm

         No Fisiani, not a mistaken headline and no own goal, except for yours. The case does exactly relate to the 90 day trial period provision and the employer was shown to have acted in bad faith, by not telling the poor employee why she was being sacked. The court found that the 90 day trial period didn’t apply because the employee had been an employee,(for one day) before the agreement containing the trial period agreement came into force but it also said that even if the trial period had applied the employer was still bound by duties of good faith within that trial period, which it clearly failed to honour.
         • luva 6.2.1.5.1

           30 August 2010 at 12:33 am

           So the law protected the employee and not the employer in this case?

           How does that make this an example of the law change favouring employers. It quite evidently didn’t.
           • Loota 6.2.1.5.1.1

             30 August 2010 at 1:28 am

             Did you not bother to read? In this case, the employer sucked, full stop, and the court said so.

             And the 90 day law still works to remove workers’ protections against these kinds of employers, albeit ones who might be able to act a bit more competently.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 27 August 2010 at 9:54 pm
2. Curious Bee: posted on 27 August 2010 at 10:11 pm
3. economicsnz: posted on 27 August 2010 at 10:18 pm
4. Denise Stephens: posted on 27 August 2010 at 11:15 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS