his precious $

41 comments on “his precious $ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   22 March 2014 at 10:00 am

   So…on my sometimes habit of noting when politicians blink – that first link is revealing. (For anyone not aware, involuntary, slightly marked blinks are signs that the speaker does not believe what they are saying).

   Big blink at ‘precious’. Blinks all over the qualifying ‘don’t’ and ‘certainly’ in the following sentence.

   Was waiting for the curl of pant’s fire smoke to show over the fcker’s shoulder 😉
   • geoff 1.1

     22 March 2014 at 10:30 am

     Ah! I hadn’t noticed that.

     I did notice near the end when Gower was asking him whether the ‘charity’ was actually the National party and Key did that hooded-eye, voice breaking thing he does when he’s been rumbled.
     • Bill 1.1.1

       22 March 2014 at 11:21 am

       In my book, the guys more akin to some creature than anything that might pass for humanity.
   • emergency mike 1.2

     22 March 2014 at 4:21 pm

     I quite liked “I honestly don’t know the answer to that.” As in, sure I’m lying about the other stuff, but blow me down, this time I’m telling the truth, weird eh?

     It’s really true this time, honestly.
2. bad12 2

   22 March 2014 at 11:45 am

   An ”Excellent” healthy homes bill, really??? if children are living in poverty there is little hope that their parents are going to be able to buy the fuel necessary to run these economic means of heating that this ‘healthy homes bill’ will require landlords to install,

   Phill Twyford in the Post He himself wrote would seem to agree with me on that point, so in my mind it looks more like a ”lets pretend we are doing something about child poverty bill”,

   The healthy homes bill is as clueless as Labour MPs standing in the House giving impassioned speeches against Nationals latest piece of ”kick a bene a day Legislation” and then voting for it,

   My view is Labour are all lost in Neo-Liberal heaven and where the Hell is Matt McCarten got to, still stuck in front of that bloody mirror???…
   • geoff 2.1

     22 March 2014 at 11:52 am

     As I’ve said on Phil’s post, there is no single magic-bullet policy to solve poverty, but Phil’s one is a step in the right direction.
     I think it’s important at this stage in the election cycle for the Left to stand together rather than point the finger at each other.

     The other important thing to remember is that the membership has a say in policy through the remit system so even if particular policies are as ideal as we would like we can address those issues once we have a Left government.

     Do you think children in poverty would rather have 3 more years of Nationl or a leftwing coalition?
     • bad12 2.1.1

       22 March 2014 at 12:16 pm

       Yeah right!!! the last time i gave my full support to Labour based upon blind faith, even getting off my arse and stuffing 1000’s of letter-boxes, i got for my troubles Sir(spit)roger Douglas,

       You might Geoff, see my criticism as finger pointing but if a policy is founded upon a lack of basic common sense then Labour should be informed of this and informed of this loudly,

       You answer my wholly logical criticism with a call for ‘unity’ in the vein of ”please shut up” which until i see that dark black writing at the bottom of one of my comments signaling that i have gone a step too far i will refuse to do,

       Unity of the left will occur at the ballot box in September of this year and i see no reason to curtail robust discussion of ALL the policy put forward especially to inform those who come here just to read and not to comment,

       My honest answer to your last little query Geoff, i don’t think they will see an iota of material difference, that’s children living in poverty, as far as Labour goes NOTHING they have so far proposed is going to make one bit of material difference to their lives and threatening 3 more years of National considering what has been the previous actions of Labour is to say the least spurious,

       i can only hope to get a 15% Green Party into the Parliament, that might make a material difference, but, as to the difference between just Labour and National as far as the kids in this hood goes, its the difference between getting shafted hard and getting shafted softly,

       No difference at all…
       • geoff 2.1.1.1

         22 March 2014 at 12:48 pm

         I don’t see your criticism as wholly logical though, your argument is that the healthy homes bill won’t solve child poverty but how could any single policy do that??

         Something as big an issue as poverty can only be tackled with a whole bunch of integrated policies that reinforce each other. If anything I see that as the biggest failing of the Left to this point, the lack of an articulated overarching narrative that knits it all together.

         Something like that will only work with cross-party support though.

         I prefer a lot of Green policies over Labour ones, the Labour ones often reek of 3rd-way PPP bollocks, eg kiwi build doesn’t sound nearly as good as the Green’s housing policy does.

         But I’m realistic that all of those types of policies are going to be negotiated by all parties involved so I’m happy to support all of the parties that are pitching in similar areas.

         I also believe Labour is changing significantly for the better internally and equating them to National is simply not true. But maybe that’s because I’m privy to info that you are not.
         • bad12 2.1.1.1.1

           22 March 2014 at 8:09 pm

           Geoff, bullshit, i don’t argue that this ‘healthy homes bill’ wont solve poverty that’s just you using the stunt the wing-nuts usually use of putting words in my mouth i have never used nor intended by any other words used,

           i have argued that this particular policy you tout as something great will not make a material difference to the lives of the children of the poor, and, in the private rental sector is just as likely to put those kids and their parents in a worse financial position than they are now,

           To save repeating comments, have a read of my reasoning in my answer to Chooky below,

           Right, i have spent hours commenting on Labours proposed Kiwibuild, ugly middle class welfare at its worst, and not a word from Labour on the fate of the workijng poor who are now being forced out of State Housing, the last 5000 of them the first to go in the current Nick Smith lead purge,

           Even a fifty/fifty split of that KiwiBuild program with half going to Labour’s precious middle class as for sale, and, the other half being directed at the working poor based upon need, ie those in the worst rental position with the worst wage returns are those most in need,i am talking families here, with the Green Housing policy of rent to buy applied to this fifty percent of the Kiwibuild would be acceptable,

           But, that’s just wishful thinking…
           • srylands 2.1.1.1.1.1

             22 March 2014 at 8:30 pm

             I think the Healthy Homes Bill is worth supporting. New Zealanders and their cold damp homes really get to me. This spans all income ranges. It is some cultural preference for being cold. I keep all rooms in my home – even the bathroom – at 20 degrees all Winter 24/7.

             It is a Bill that should be unnecessary, but sadly there is a case for “forcing” New Zealanders to enjoy warmer homes because if we don’t it just backfires in higher healthy costs.

             Of course it will come at a cost. The incidence will fall between landlords and tenants, but (of course) it will increase the costs of hosing so rents will go up. Landlords will want all the costs passed on. Tenants will want none. In most rental markets it will be somewhere in between.

             So overall, one of Labour’s more sensible policies. Bad12 – I think you should support the Bill. Show some unity.

             Disclosure: I own a rental property. It is well insulated, but has no heat pump.
             • bad12 …

               22 March 2014 at 8:35 pm

               Oh look its the lying coward back again, i suggest you F off…
               • srylands …

                 22 March 2014 at 8:55 pm

                 How rude are you? I NEVER lie. I have evidence of you lying. And smoking which disqualifies you from thinking.

                 You are the rudest person I have ever had discourse with. In any country.
                 • McFlock …

                   22 March 2014 at 9:00 pm

                   So your untruths are due to incompetence rather than intent?

                   Big surprise, you stupid shit.
                 • bad12 …

                   22 March 2014 at 9:07 pm

                   Oh good, my rudeness might just give you a hint to use the exit, go and read the Phill Twyford post again SSLands it’s all the proof you need and all the proof you are getting…
                 • gnomic …

                   22 March 2014 at 11:52 pm

                   Are you by any chance a nitwit?
                 • framu …

                   24 March 2014 at 8:02 am

                   is rudeness measured by the words used or the intent of the message?

                   ive seen you be pretty disgustingly rude to others srylands – but using oh so polite language to do it.

                   Im not trying to cover bad12s use of words here – they are quite capable of that – but this,
                   “im soooo polite (yet sneeringly rude), but im going to complain when someone swears a little bit at me”,
                   routine is quite common. Your not the first to use it you know

                   glass houses, stones and all that

                   whats your view of people who use public transport again? – thats right, their “icky”
                   • Tracey …

                     24 March 2014 at 8:35 am

                     He doesnt think accusing people of being drunks is rude. He contradicts himself because he has created a ficticious personna here. Lies are harder to recall than the truth unless you are pathalogical.
   • Chooky 2.2

     22 March 2014 at 12:28 pm

     @ bad 12…you are talking about a separate issue …give Twyford credit for what he is doing …….Labour and the Greens are standing on bringing down and controlling electricity prices

     it is much easier to heat and dry the atmosphere in a healthy well insulated home than in a damp poorly insulated one..(.i know from personal experience …. my first home was a non -insulated 1950s bungalow up against a bank …no matter how much we heated the place it was still damp, the windows steamed up and i had chronic bronchitis…once it was insulated and drains laid between the back wall and the bank behind it … the dampness disappeared and so did my bronchitis

     ….what would you suggest Labour do ?
     • bad12 2.2.1

       22 March 2014 at 7:43 pm

       Yup the kids in the hood round here are all going to be totally rapt with having a heat pump to look at, i can well imagine the warm feeling this viewing will give them all,

       If you are suggesting that the ‘plan’ to control electricity prices is going to result in the saving of enough monies from impoverished families electricity costs so as to enable them to heat their homes with a heat pump or two for the whole of the winter months i think you are in dream land,

       God knows how much the retailers will have cranked up the price per unit by the time a Labour/Green Government have put together the single desk wholesaler, and, at present i see no plans to hold the retailers to a specific profit regime, nor a plan for Labour/Green to establish a Government owned nationwide retailer,

       So guess what, i see prices at 35 cents a unit at the least by the time a Labour/Green Government could put together such a single wholesaler which ‘might’ force retail prices down to around their current prices which precludes poor families now from paying for home heating,

       Meanwhile, forced to put in these heatpumps and insulation if the rental house has none, landlords are going to crank up the rent to cover the cost, again Phill Twyford agrees with me on this,with the codicil that He does not know how many of them will do this or by how much,

       So, save a buck or 10 on the power bill, lose a buck or ten on the rent going up, for the poor whom Mr Twyford says He is helping??? no change that i can see,

       Whats my answer Chooky, simple Labour should have a miraculous transformation back to the Party it used to be, drop the plan to build 100,000 houses that will only be able to be afforded by the children of the middle class, and instead, build those 100,000 homes as State Houses for the working poor and their families while designing a pathway to home ownership of these houses just like previous Labour Governments like that of Norm Kirk did…
       • geoff 2.2.1.1

         22 March 2014 at 8:17 pm

         bad12, so what about the idea that if DC did go full state solution, ie drop the pandering to the middle class, third way bollocks, would the corporate media then annihilate him as a radical and he’d never get in?
         • bad12 2.2.1.1.1

           22 March 2014 at 8:32 pm

           You just dont get it do you Geoff, there’s no need to be building homes for the children of the middle class who’s parents played a huge part in the current mess of unaffordabilty, the private sector is quite capable of doing that,

           The problem now, they cannot afford the deposit, here’s the simple and i believe correct Government solution for the middle class, like any banker check their incomes to see if they can afford to pay the mortgage, how much have they saved for a deposit, if they fit the criteria provide them with a supensory loan to make up the deposit needed, Problem solved???,

           Said suspensory loan can be written into the title as a claim on the property and recovered the first time the property is sold,

           How much did Labour go up in the polls on the announcement of KiwiBuild, zilch they basically flatlined,

           As far as your little theory of not being elected, damned if you do and damned if you dont then ae Geoff, might as well get elected on a platform of a few crumbs to the poor at some poinjt in time and then ignore them right,

           Which simply brings us full circle to the difference between National and Labour as far as the poor are concerned, National screws them hard, Labour does their screwing a bit more softly, for the poor it still means getting screwed…
           • geoff 2.2.1.1.1.1

             22 March 2014 at 9:25 pm

             Bad, I really do get that. I was simply asking if you think that theory holds any water.

             I think you and I are on a pretty similar wavelength politically. Perhaps I am being naive about the Labour party but I actually do still believe they could be the party that you and I wish they were.

             So maybe I am giving them a bit of a free pass because of that and also because their current policy suite is still mostly a hangover from before Cunliffe.
             And also because the remit system means the members and affiliates have more of a say now. (right??)

             I really want National gone.
             • bad12 …

               22 March 2014 at 9:51 pm

               We agree totally on the last bit Geoff, but, from where i sit, in the poor seats among the impoverished families who incidently just get on with making the best of a bad hand of cards never complaining and never really asking for more i am less than convinced with the policy i have so far heard that a David Cunliffe lead Labour is going to deliver anything markedly different for the demographic that i live amongst and have been a part of all my life,

               My wish is to be proven totally wrong on the above,

               Lolz, sorry i wouldn’t have a clue about the inner workings of today’s Labour Party, my membership lapsed long long ago and i havn’t since seen a reason to renew it…
           • Murray Olsen 2.2.1.1.1.2

             22 March 2014 at 10:03 pm

             Bad12, as far as I can see at the moment, the difference between being screwed by National and being screwed by Labour is that Labour promise to use lubricant if and when economic conditions allow.

             I had hoped against hope to see some glimmer of hope, but Jacinda Ardern’s latest stupid speech about the Relationship Fraud Bill, which Labour is supporting, was the last straw for me. Now all I hope is that Labour get enough seats to enable Mana and Greens to be in government. From Labour I expect nothing good. I haven’t seen anything from them that would interest anyone earning less than $60k/year. Do they remember that those people even exist?
             • geoff …

               22 March 2014 at 10:19 pm

               Murray, not that I disagree with everything in your comment, but the ‘Best Start’ policy targets people under $60k.

               https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/best_start_payment_factsheet_v3.pdf

               $60/wk for 1st year of child’s life for families earning under $150k, 2nd and 3rd year has a reduction in payment for families earning over $50k.
               • Murray Olsen …

                 23 March 2014 at 12:09 am

                 Thanks geoff, but given the lack of movement on state houses and gst on food, I can see $60/wk getting gobbled up pretty quickly. I don’t think it will allow the $50k families to have any real disposable income and, in my view, people deserve the feeling that they are working to do more than pay the bills each month. I agree it’s better than nothing, but again hardly an inspirational policy.

                 I believe a broad state housing policy, along with something to dent the Fletchers/Carter Holt duopoly, and a rebuilt forest service where workers were safe, would really get people onside. It would hit housing, employment and sustainable resources all at the same time. Importantly, it would do this without any overtones of being charity for the “deserving poor.” Of course the RWNJs and Rogernomes would hate it, but they shouldn’t be such sensitive wee sausages.
             • bad12 …

               22 March 2014 at 10:21 pm

               Murray O, unfortunately i cannot do anything but agree with what you have written, across the board, :Labour to give them the benefit of the doubt, might have good intentions when it comes to poor families,but, i cannot, except for the inclusion of beneficiaries in the BestStart program, see anything that would make me believe they have a clue how to deliver on any best intentions they might harbor,

               i can only hope otherwise…
               • geoff …

                 22 March 2014 at 10:30 pm

                 Did you notice that the only policy you liked is the one that has been announced since DC took over?
                 Good things take a little time ;P
     • srylands 2.2.2

       22 March 2014 at 8:32 pm

       “Labour and the Greens are standing on bringing down and controlling electricity prices”

       The Bill is a good move, but this last bit aint happening.
   • BevanJS 2.3

     22 March 2014 at 7:02 pm

     Yup – the odds of landlords not passing on the costs through the rent? Similar to a law change stating that you can’t use ” blah-blah” as a defence against beating children to death being effective again psychos…….

     Might make to person submitting the change feel like they’re doing something but….they’re deluded.
3. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3

   22 March 2014 at 12:14 pm

   I am enjoying your articles, Geoff, please keep up the good work.

   The biggest problems in NZ currently are quite simple; Key’s National are more concerned about their own profits and getting us all to be their ‘paying customers’ than addressing the interests of the greatest number of New Zealanders. People need to ask themselves how is that going to affect our future and the future of the following generations?

   It was interesting to hear Mr Mallard’s comments in the Superannuation bill a few days ago re how Key had reneged on 10 billion dollars worth of investment (missing out on a 27% return) while giving himself a 1 million dollars worth of tax cut via his own policies.

   “John Key does not deny it and on $57 million worth of assets, any reasonable return. And Sam Lotu-Iiga knows that John Key got $1 million a year tax cut. Yes, he is nodding. He knows. Sam knows that that is what John Key got in tax cuts and what they would rather have done is to do that short-term approach of giving even bigger tax cuts to their mates, of getting bigger tax cuts for the richest people in New Zealand, rather than investing in the Superannuation Fund, which has already saved $14 billion of taxpayer liability in the future. They say they are economic wizards. I say they are economic failures.

   Draft Transcript for Wednesday 19 March 2014
   • geoff 3.1

     22 March 2014 at 1:01 pm

     Cheers, BL.

     It feels like the beginnings of this big picture view of National’s corrupt activities may actually be coming through the MSM if Patrick Gower’s pieces are anything to go by.

     I’m probably being madly optimistic though.
4. emergency mike 4

   22 March 2014 at 4:18 pm

   Classic Key, he thinks he can technically claim he ‘did it for charity’ when the money is “probably” going to the National party.

   “Full Definition of CHARITY

   1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

   2 a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need

   b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor

   c: public provision for the relief of the needy

   3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes

   b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift

   4: lenient judgment of others”

   I don’t think so John. I hope he’s not trying to slide in on ‘an institution engaged in relief of the poor.’ Spare me.

   Come on NZ, what do you think of someone who says the money is going to charity when it’s in fact going to themselves?
5. Akldnut 5

   22 March 2014 at 7:37 pm

   Esprcially if they’re his own or anyone well off.
   • geoff 5.1

     22 March 2014 at 8:27 pm

     that’s post worthy
6. felix 6

   22 March 2014 at 8:07 pm

   Milk powder? Nah, Key cares about the ones buying the $23 per litre fresh stuff from his mates and backers.
   • geoff 6.1

     22 March 2014 at 8:22 pm

     I’ve heard there is no such thing as the fresh stuff anymore unless you buy it directly from the farm gate, it’s all powdered. I could well be wrong though.
     • Murray Olsen 6.1.1

       23 March 2014 at 12:46 am

       That would really surprise me. I know it’s almost impossible to buy raw, untreated milk. Are you sure someone isn’t getting mixed up with that and pasteurised milk?
7. tricledrown 7

   23 March 2014 at 10:46 am

   Spylands.
   Your a lying BUllshitter you keep your house in the sydney suburbs at 20 degrees that would be easy and cheap as the temps is Aus are relatively warm compared to NZ.
   Your rental likewise will be in sydney as well.
   You say you don’t lie , but and that’s a very big butt.
   You don’t tell the truth.
   You leave vast swaythes of yourstory out. Like where you live.
   You have lied many times on this site and have been caught out and made a fool of many times when you are caught out you seem to disapear for a while then come back with more of your polished BS.
   5 eyed f/wit.
8. Tracey 8

   23 March 2014 at 3:55 pm

   what about the one on the kapiti coast?
9. fambo 9

   23 March 2014 at 10:49 pm

   Re real milk – i’ve tried to find out what the story is regarding whether the milk we buy is original or reconstituted milk powder to no avail. My suspicion is that it is all turned into milk powder and then reconstituted back into the varying types of milk. I personally buy milk powder from Bin Inn where i live because it is much cheaper at $1.70 a litre (100 grams per litre of water.) I make yoghurt with it too at around $2.30 a litre (150 grams per litre of water).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS