Comments on: Nats’ policy top 10, what’s missing?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:50 +0000

And we are all aware where the “rich’ point is for the rich-prick haters. $60,000 per annum – the level that the 39% envy tax was nailed back at day dot.

I don’t remember an envy tax, think it was more a ‘we need more money to pay for the damage National did to the ‘X’ system, and increase numbers of teachers/doctors/nurses’ etc..

Anyhoo ‘rich’ is 80,000 as of October…

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:43:15 +0000

djp. It was on Morning Report July 23rd but is no longer online… I referenced it in this http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2567 piece but when I wrote that piece it wasn’t online yet and they only keep things online for 7 days.

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:33:35 +0000

read his speech. On mornng report a few weeks ago (I wrote a piece on it, can’t find it just now), Key said they would reform the EFA and said he didn’t think anonymous donations and secret trusts are an issue. In fact, repeatedly asked about them he refused to say he would keep the current restrictions in place.

So, we’ve got two contradictory statements from Key within a couple of weeks. Which should I take as authoritive? Moreover, why should I have to choose, since when was it too much to ask for some basic consistency?

By: read his speech

read his speech — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:07:41 +0000

SP – on the EFA read the speech properly. Key says that he will retain current measures around transparency for donors. See

“Let me also say, National will retain the measures in the current Act which provide greater transparency in political donations.”

http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=28318

Will you be editing your post and comments to reflect this? I somewhat doubt it because of the ‘hit and run’ tactics you guys normally apply

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:40:55 +0000

djp: the Electoral Commission’s summary is pretty good:

http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/ec-media-electfinbill-191107.html

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:38:21 +0000

I do think the EFA isn’t perfect and does need some work, but I really like the intentions of it and it will become much better once people involved in politics actually start understanding it (I’ve spoken to both National and Labour supporters in the last week or so who have both had a flimsy grasp on the detail of it).

So how does Mr Keys’ Top 10 help the “underclass”?

Or should we just ask Bill, he seems to be running the show anyway…

By: r0b

r0b — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:28:21 +0000

not sure if anyone else is getting this

ditto (last night).

By: djp

djp — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:28:09 +0000

vto. secret trusts are banned under the EFA as are large anonymous donations. Key said he thinks restoring them would be ok.

have you got a source on that steve? maybe he just thinks that doing what you (apparently) did on sunday was ok

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:49:29 +0000

vto. secret trusts are banned under the EFA as are large anonymous donations. Key said he thinks restoring them would be ok.

By: vto

vto — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:48:08 +0000

Noted Mr Pilott. My points have tended that way recently. Partly due to the ridiculous partisan nature of blog posts, partly due to other factors. Sometimes the partisanship is so heavy that to me it appears that nothing more than a snide angry dig is deserved. Will try to keep me brain cogs turning smoothly..

By: Matthew Pilott

Matthew Pilott — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:44:26 +0000

Lynn: not sure if anyone else is getting this but the comment editing function seems to have gone, or is very erratic (usually fails to load comment, or if so, fails to save it).

By: vto

vto — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:41:32 +0000

Putting aside my cynicism and snide remarks, I have to agree with MP re the potential for serious problems with proposed chages to the RMA. This is one area where I will be seriously interested in the detail. What ‘special projects’ are etc … hmmm

By: sdm

sdm — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:41:25 +0000

The RMA needs work. As does the Local Government Act. Try building a house on a piece of land that you own, in which everything complies with height ot boundary and site coverage etc, and yet the conent process takes 8 months without justification (noting that they advertise 20 working days). But don’t worry, after these tremendous holdimng costs, you must pay a development Levy! Bastards.

Remember Labours definition of a rich person is someone who earns a mere 60K!. But with no income splitting, that can be a households income – rich prick!.

Raise standards in education – maybe introduce standards, because they dont seem to currently exist.

MMP referendum – a welcome departure from the Labour mantra of not caring what the public think. God forbid we actually have a say! God forbid Helen not be the decision maker for us all!

By: Matthew Pilott

Matthew Pilott — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:41:23 +0000

Jeez vto, you’re looking a bit angry there. You came here to try and test your ideas, and maybe learn a bit. Seems you’re just becoming bitter and cynical. Maybe take a few weeks oiff or you’ll be unbearable closer to the election.

I’m not sure who al theez Rich-Prik Hayterz r but 60-k getz a gud deal wif Labrz tax kutz. Al luv theyr, vee-to, peece

By: Matthew Pilott

Matthew Pilott — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:36:59 +0000

Yeah, what happened to helping out with this underclass, fixing it so we never have another power crisis, stopping tagging and all that?

Makes you think that they were just saying those things for effect or something…

I like the idea of allowing ‘special projects’ in the RMA – why not create an instrument that’s as vulnerable to corruption as possible, allowing some minister’s mates to get their project through without the pesky ‘punters’ having their say…