A nice little earner

60 comments on “A nice little earner ”

• Comments are now closed

1. illuminatedtiger 1

   13 October 2007 at 1:49 pm

   Class! National will privatize health, education and even the fire service if they can. God help us if those nutjobs come even an inch near government.
2. Lee C 2

   13 October 2007 at 1:53 pm

   You call them kids ugly?

   Lightweights
3. Shane 3

   13 October 2007 at 1:54 pm

   And that’s what is above the radar. I hate to think what is below it.
4. The Sprout 4

   13 October 2007 at 1:59 pm

   and for a more general approach to marketing Key:
   http://thesproutandthebean.wordpress.com/
5. burt 5

   13 October 2007 at 2:27 pm

   Good one Tane, you have come a long way in the last few weeks. From nothing more than “National bad – Labour good” now you can even stick silly captions on pictures. You are a winner !
6. Lee C 6

   13 October 2007 at 2:32 pm

   This is tantamount to saying that National voters have better looking children thatn Labour voters. Fascists.
7. burt 7

   13 October 2007 at 2:34 pm

   Tane

   Back on a serious not, which part of National’s ideas about public/private partnerships in Health & Education is so offensive to the third way Labour Govt?

   Is it just me or are you guys suffering a bad case of foot-in-mouth slinging mud at National for suggesting policies that are 100% third way policies and are in keeping with the stated political direction of the Labour party?
8. Tane 8

   13 October 2007 at 2:41 pm

   LeeC: wtf???

   Burt: What the hell are you on about? I and others on this blog have stated it clearly: Privatisation in the school system is a bad idea. In fact, so has the Labour Party as I recall. Are you going to make a proper point, or argue all day with strawmen?
9. Robinson 9

   13 October 2007 at 2:44 pm

   Burt you fool – I’m pretty certain Tane isn’t a Labour supporter but anyway Labour isn’t a “third way” government they’re centre-right. PPP’s are under the radar privatisations (if you look at the way they are implemented nearly anywhere in the world they work as corporate welfarism in which business makes the money and we, the taxpayers, assume the risk) – that makes them far right. The political spectrum in this country is just fucked and has been since the rightward discursive shift in the eighties. Oh and “third way” is a marketing term – not a political stance but then I wouldn’t expect you to understand that given your far from nuanced understanding of politics…
10. burt 10

    13 October 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Tane

    Do you have children in a state school ?

    I do at the moment but won’t have next year. We are fed up with the size of the classrooms and the lack of extension that is offered to kids that are doing well. We have friends who’s kids are struggling and they are fed up with the lack of resources available to help their kids keep up. The middle however is being well catered for, teachers in classes the size of your normal state school class room have no choice but to teach to the middle.

    My wife is also an x-teacher, so before you start shooting me down for not knowing what I’m talking about you may want to get past the “national will privatise and that’s bad” position.

    The issue is quality of education and under the state system we have now it’s pretty lame.
11. Lee C 11

    13 October 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Yeah Tane,

    are you seriously trying to link voting patterns to handsomeness? What next – race, disability, sexuality?

    This is the thin end of the wedge…
12. burt 12

    13 October 2007 at 3:00 pm

    Tane

    There is a predicted primary school teacher shortage of 700 to 1,000 teachers next year. So between now and the election in 2008, what do Labour plan to do about that?
13. Robinson 13

    13 October 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Burt – one of the biggest issues in education is the lack of skilled teachers. That’s why you’ve got class size issues and an inability to nurture “special” children, part of the problem is the fact that teaching is not well paid another part of it is that it is not well respected. Privatising schools will not lead to higher pay or to greater respect – you only have to listen to the filth national supporters throw out at teachers and their “commie” union over at that other blog to see where National’s core supporters sit on the value of the people that teach our children. Once again the argument is that is ain’t that good under labour but it’d be a lot worse under national. If you want to try to make things better through the parliamentary process (I’m not sure you can) I’d suggest voting green .
14. burt 14

    13 October 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Roninson

    OK, so you say that teachers earning more under a private system is a bad thing? – If that is what you are saying it’s an interesting approach to take while defending unionisation of teachers ???

    Yet you defend the state education system for having large class rooms and scant resources for both gifted and challenged kids because of a lack of skilled teachers… well yes, that’s obvious – but why.

    Oh the reason why is because privatising schools.. yada yada yada.

    The reason is because there hasn’t been enough incentive for teachers to stay in the job or train for it. Labour have had the reigns of the training and the employment for 8 years.

    Do you have kids in a state school Robinson?
15. burt 15

    13 October 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Robinson & Tane

    Are you interested to extend this same debate to the health system?

    Perhaps you could do a post on each to stop this ‘humour’ thread from getting off track.
16. Robinson 16

    13 October 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Burt – I’m not defending the status quo. Far from it. What I am saying is privatising schools will not fix the problem, it will only make it worse. Privatisation does not increase the money available to schools (without substantial fees being charged to parants) and that means teachers will not be paid any better it just means some has to come out as profit (pushing wages down and cutting resources is often a good way to find this profit). The answer is to increase teachers wages and conditions and fund schools better and that’s what Labour should be doing because god knows national never will – they introduced bulk funding and if you really are connected to the educational system you’ll remember what happened then.

    As a rule I do not discuss my family online.

    Have you considered getting on the board of trustees for you kids’ school Burt? If you are so sure our schools can be run better you should take the opportunity that trustee system offers you to make sure they are.
17. burt 17

    13 October 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Robinson

    Rex Widerstrom makes a very interesting comment here about being on a school board.

    See: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/privately_built_schools_in_australia.html#comment-351162

    You still haven’t provided anything other than opinion that any amount of privatising schools will make it worse…

    Yes Labour should fund schools better, but to give you the measure of the party, very recently an increase was approved for Post-Primary teachers to get 12% over 3 years. Also recently Parliament authorised a 12% increase for party expenses. It’s easy to see where the spending priorities are isn’t it. 12% over three years to address a teacher shortage and 12% immediately to face an election.
18. Robinson 18

    13 October 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Ok Burt – it’s not 12% over three years. It’s three rises of 4% and a one off cash payment in lieu of backdating – that compounds to an increase of more than 12% (I can’t be arsed doing the maths but it’s probably around the 13% mark) while this is not enough it is more than the average increase offered by National to teachers in the nineties (I think that was around 2% per year but I may be wrong – does anyone have these figures?).

    Once again I will point out that any privatisation of schools means a profit has to be derived from them. That means the school must lose some part of its funding as profit, more public funding needs to go in to provide profit, higher user pays fees must be charged or the school is run more efficiently and savings are made. Or a combination of the four. Now this means the only way we can expect more from our schools (in terms of education outcomes) through privatisation is through increased efficiency. There is simply not enough waste in the system for any kind of meaningful profit to be made. If you joined a board of trustees meeting you’d see that. Rex obviously didn’t consider the lack of stability that comes with leasing school property for example – what happens when lease renewal is approaching and the owner realises there is better money to be made developing apartments on the site? Cos that’s the problem bro – business is about making money schools are not.

    As for your comment about party spending increases? My power bill was 12% lower this month than last. And I hear that Tane has increased his alcohol intake by 12% since starting this blog, oh and by the way 12% 12% 12%… I’m beginning to sense a conspiracy. Honestly bro, arguing with you is akin to smashing one’s head against a brick wall but once again I’ll say if you want to see more funding in schools vote Green.
19. the bean 19

    13 October 2007 at 5:48 pm

    ooo Tane you know you have made it when people dedicate themselves to being mean to you! soon they might set up the standardblogblog 🙂
20. burt 20

    13 October 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Robinson

    Once again I will point out that any privatisation of schools means a profit has to be derived from them. That means the school must lose some part of its funding as profit, more public funding needs to go in to provide profit, higher user pays fees must be charged or the school is run more efficiently and savings are made. Or a combination of the four.

    You have already acknowledged that Labour should increase funding, class room sizes are too big, teachers would be likely to earn more in private schools and there is a shortage of teachers.

    So are you saying you would rather have less private profit and that the consequences (crowded classrooms, under paid teachers, mediocre education standards, teacher shortage) are acceptable as long as Labour are in charge?

    Labour have 8 years against a promise to fix health and education, next year’s primary school teacher shortage is a record shortage and this is acceptable?

    You are either completely unconcerned about education or you can’t see past “Labour policy good – or will be good” and “National party policy bad – private profit is to high a price for quality education” – which way is it?

    BTW: I’m not saying for one moment that if the price of education rises it might require more targeted assistance or tax cuts to enable parents to pay the difference between a poorly run state system and a ‘better’ run commercial model. All parents with kids at private school are already paying twice for their childrens education. They are in fact paying for classroom capacity that is not being provided. Imagine if all the kids in private school turned up at their local “in-zone” school and demanded a seat in a class as they are entitled to do. There would be complete chaos.
21. burt 21

    13 October 2007 at 5:59 pm

    I can’t see why public funding via a subsidy for GP’s is deemed to be a good policy when public funding via a subsidy for private schools is not?

    Perhaps because we have one and not the other you seek to defend the status quo, I’d rather debate the reason why not. Over to you.
22. Robinson 22

    13 October 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Burt stop telling me what my argument is you inevitably get it wrong and I’m sick of correcting you. You win – chalk one up to obtuseness. Well done Burt.
23. Daveo 23

    13 October 2007 at 6:44 pm

    burt, i’ve come into this a bit late but you’re acting like a prat and don’t seem to listen to what robinson has been telling you. you’re also darting all over the place. why don’t we have our schools privately provided with a subsidy like we do with gps? because we haven’t made gps state employees like we should. they do it in other countries and it works very well. have you seen sicko?

    robinson also didn’t seem to be slamming labour. he was simply saying that yes there are problems in the education system as there always will be, and that labour should put more funding into education (instead of cutting taxes perhaps?). that doesn’t mean the private sector will do a better job. as he points out, the private sector has to make a profit so will tend to drive costs (like teacher salaries and education quality) down while charging more.

    i’d hoped the standard would have a better tone than kiwiblog, and largely it has, but you’re dragging it that way very quickly burt.
24. Robinson 24

    13 October 2007 at 7:00 pm

    Did I just get trolled?!
25. burt 25

    13 October 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Yep I get it. Don’t compare a 12% funding increase for political parties with a 4% 4% 4% increase for teachers. Don’t compare one example of state subsidies for a private provider vs a state monopoly. Don’t compare anything unless you compare it to how Labour want us to think it is VS how Labour want us to think National would have it.

    I’ll wait for the posts about the state of the health & education after 8 years of Labour Govt. Perhaps some statistics like average class size under the failed policies of the past vs today, average waiting list time under the failed policies of the past vs today.

    But good on you guys trying to run a good news blog for the cause of the Labour party, it’s a hard job and you really should expect to be have your ‘we know what’s best’ approach challenged from time to time.
26. burt 26

    13 October 2007 at 7:49 pm

    Did I just get trolled?!

    No, you had your views challenged. It’s called a blog, people post something and other people comment about it. Debate is the civil discourse of the ideas behind the “thing” that was posted.

    If you don’t like this idea then you need to question why you have a blog and/or why you allow comments.
27. Robinson 27

    13 October 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Um Burt you didn’t challenge my ideas – you took my arguments, misrepresented them and told me they were wrong. The fact that you did so so consistently implies you were using obtuseness as a troll tactic. It’s not “debate” unless both sides participate in good faith. I don’t believe you have.

    Oh and Burt – I don’t have a blog. I’m just commenting here.
28. burt 28

    13 October 2007 at 8:16 pm

    Robinson

    I think you just can’t face the issues. Sure you think education costs would increase under National – I haven’t tried to argue that once, yet we both seem to want better education. I’m open minded about it, perhaps it’s because I have kids falling through the cracks in the state system, have friends with kids falling through the cracks for different reasons than mine and have the benefit of a trained disgruntled teacher to draw on. That’s a lot of knowledge and experience for you to rite me off as a fool.

    Misrepresented your arguments… you mean didn’t do the good socialist thing and nod – yes Robinson you are so right – National would make schools only accessible to the elite – just like GP’s are under Labour.
29. Robinsod 29

    13 October 2007 at 8:24 pm

    yes Robinson you are so right – National would make schools only accessible to the elite

    I’m glad to see you are finally getting it. Perhaps one day you’ll also be able to string a cogent argument together too. And as for your kids falling through the cracks dude? Have you considered it might just be ‘cos they’re a chip off the ol’ block?

    Fuck it’s good to be back as Robinsod.
30. burt 30

    13 October 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Yep Robinson, they are a chip off the old block.

    You have just proven that you didn’t really read my comments earlier, if you did you would realise that you are giving me praise by calling them a chip off the old block. Something your tone would certainly imply was not your intention.
31. Inventory2 31

    13 October 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Geez, you guys must be REALLY worried about the prospect of a change of government next year if you’re putting this kind of bullshit about. I thought unions were the last bastions of fairness and honesty!

    I might have to review my membership of the EPMU!
32. Trent 32

    14 October 2007 at 12:24 am

    You guys must be really worried to make up shit like this “Fuck you and your ugly kids”. Is that the best you have to put out to the electorate. Finsec and the Green Party will love to be associated with that Tane. Do you hate voters and their children that much?
33. Trent 33

    14 October 2007 at 12:29 am

    As a failed candidate for the Green ticket in the Northern Ward of Wellington City, will you now kindly fuck off and leave the rest of us alone.
34. ak 34

    14 October 2007 at 12:47 am

    Annnnnnnd……. the Jack Russell award for supreme persistence to the point of personal harm in obtuse otioseness goes to burt for:

    “Perhaps because we have one and not the other you seek to defend the status quo, I’d rather debate the reason why not.”

    Have a wee spell burt; rock gently and keep on repeating “retrospective validation” and “Labour good – National bad” until help arrives.
35. Robinsod 35

    14 October 2007 at 7:57 am

    I thought unions were the last bastions of fairness and honesty!

    No you didn’t.
36. burt 36

    14 October 2007 at 10:31 am

    ak

    So you can’t defend the Govt policies of existing public/private partnerships and defend Labour saying “National Bad” for suggesting more public/private partnerships to solve health and education failure either.

    It’s OK I don’t mind being denigrated when you guys are having trouble defending the indefensible.

    Perhaps you would like to explain to me why it’s OK to subsidise private business like GP’s and how thats for the benefit of health care yet it’s all wrong for anything else. Or you could just denigrate me further – I know which one I’m expecting.
37. Benodic 37

    14 October 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Wow, the right really aren’t taking this challenge to their dominance on the blogosphere very well are they? You guys have no idea how scared and overly agressive you sound.

    The whole conspiracy thing’s getting tiring too. Oh, it’s the unions, it’s the Labour party, it’s a conspiracy of the fucking Green Party wgtn city northern ward local body branch. Yawn. Let’s just face it guys, a bigger better kid than that bore David Farrar has come along and you no longer have the sandpit to yourself. Get over it.

    And as for PPPs, you’ve made no convincing case that the private sector could do a better job or could reduce costs without reducing quality. Come up with some evidence and I might start taking you seriously.

    Oh, and the flyer with the kids – it’s a joke playing off the National party’s tax cuts flyers from the last election. I found it hilarious. If you don’t get it (like LeeC) or are offended (like Inventory2 and others) then honestly guys, get a life.
38. Robinsod 38

    14 October 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Burt! Ritalin!
39. Trent 39

    14 October 2007 at 8:49 pm

    Actually no, Benodic, just pointing out the stupid. And the fact you found it “hilarious” says more more about you than than anything else.

    Got to love the Local Govt results though … and tonight’s One News poll. There is a message in all of that, 49% of us don’t like being taxed hard by morons we wouldn’t personally employ.
40. Trent 40

    14 October 2007 at 8:53 pm

    “it’s a conspiracy of the fucking Green Party wgtn city northern ward local body branch.’

    And I’m sure the candidate will announce the results in due course.
41. Robinsod 41

    14 October 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Trent – it’s local body politics. Nobody gives a fuck. And what does “more more” mean? Do you h-h-have l-l-like a stutter or something? Did the kids at your school take the piss? Did you grow up bitter and feeling unloved until you realised the only w-w-way you could exact revenge on the world was by posting dumb-arse comments like There is a message in all of that, 49% of us don’t like being taxed hard by morons we wouldn’t personally employ on random left wing website?

    Well don’t worry Trent (by the way is that your real name or did you actually pick it as a handle – ‘cos bro the former ain’t your fault but…) we’ve got plenty of love even for the likes of you here – it’s ‘cos we’re socialists and we believe even the weakest (and your posts are weak bro) should be looked after. Welcome back friend.
42. Sam Dixon 42

    14 October 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Trent

    why are you telling someone to fuck off on their own blog? May I suggest that if you don’t want to here what Tane has to say you, yourself, fuck off?

    So, that’s the latest theory is it? Tane is from the Greens and The Standard is a Green Party 5th column (why they didn’t just revamp Frogblog eh?)? And I’m a former soviet spy?
43. Robinsod 43

    14 October 2007 at 9:09 pm

    And I’m Bill English pretending to be John Key pretending to be Robinsod and eventually I’ll (as John Key) be disclosed as living a lie (as Robinsod) and have to step aside for me (as Bill English) to retake the leadership. Ha!
44. Trent 44

    14 October 2007 at 9:23 pm

    Man, you guys take yourselves far too serriously. Robinson, I think I know my name – what is your point?

    And there is a message in those polls, but you miss it. Which is good.

    Sam, so what? Oh, and in Robinson’s tradition – “here” is actually “hear” or more correctly “read”. You are fine product of our education system.
45. Robinsod 45

    14 October 2007 at 9:27 pm

    Trent – I think you mean “seriously”. But at least “Robinson’s” had a possessive apostrophe. And my point about your name is that it’s a little naff – I doubt it helped with the bullying.
46. Trent 46

    14 October 2007 at 9:48 pm

    No it didn’t help with the bullying, was it intended to? I’ll let the folks know that you think that my grandfather who died in Changi after who I was named had a “naff” name. Thanks for providing an illustration of your (unwanted) “love”:

    “we’ve got plenty of love even for the likes of you here – it’s ‘cos we’re socialists and we believe even the weakest”

    My grandfather was far more nobel in his belief of protecting the weakest, he was captured by Japanese because he stayed behind to look after injured in Indonesia, he escaped Changi twice, was tourtured upon capture each time and was shot on his third escape.

    Now, I don’t tread-jack as a matter of courtesy to the host, but you took the piss out of my name. I felt the need to give you its history. My name gives me a sense of pride. If you think its “naff” then that is just fine.
47. Robinsod 47

    14 October 2007 at 10:00 pm

    Your Granddad sounds like a pretty top bloke. What the hell happened to you?
48. Trent 48

    14 October 2007 at 10:07 pm

    Nothing “happened” to me. He was fighting socialism at the time, Germany didn’t work out (East Germany in particular post WW2) and the Japanese plan never made it to New Zealand – thankfully. So I guess I hate socialism just as much as he did, instead of getting a bullet to the back of the head like him all I have to suffer is denegration on-line.
49. Robinsod 49

    14 October 2007 at 10:14 pm

    Yeah that’s right Trent – I’ve gotta be nice to you because of your pop. D’ya think he’d like you using him to try and weasel some victim points on a friggin blog? Oh and my history might not be that flash but I think your pops might have been fighting Fascism. It’s just a guess is all…
50. Trent 50

    14 October 2007 at 10:59 pm

    You are just sad.
51. Robinsod 51

    14 October 2007 at 11:02 pm

    And you are busted – what kind of a creep invokes his dead grandfather to try to gain the moral high ground on a political blog? Frankly, I’m sickened by your lack of respect for the dead Trent and I’m not so sure I want to be your friend anymore.
52. Trent 52

    14 October 2007 at 11:12 pm

    This place is pure poison. All I did was tell you about how I came to be named. Now you accuse me of involking the meory of my gradfather for some kind of polictical purpose or sympathy vote?? I did no such thing.
53. Trent 53

    14 October 2007 at 11:14 pm

    WANKER!
54. Robinsod 54

    14 October 2007 at 11:17 pm

    So I guess I hate socialism just as much as he did, instead of getting a bullet to the back of the head like him all I have to suffer is denegration on-line

    See Trent, in this comment you’re creating a parallel trope in which you invoke the suffering of your grandfather and align it with your own. It’s a classic rhetorical tactic to invoke the moral high ground and you were well aware of what you were doing. That to my mind is using your pop’s (undoubted) heroicism to give yourself a get out of jail free card. It’s called spin Trent and your’s is a particularly nasty example of it.
55. Benodic 55

    14 October 2007 at 11:18 pm

    Trent, you’re arguing with Robinsod. That’s how the guy behaves. Do you think it’s any better over at Kiwiblog?

    And if you don’t want your dead grandfather brought into the argument don’t bloody well bring him into the argument. You’ve only got yourself to blame.

    Hell, you came on here as a troll accusing a writer from this site of being a Green Party candidate for wgtn city council and attacking the blog over why it hadn’t covered the local election results. Why do you expect to be treated with *any* respect?
56. Robinsod 56

    14 October 2007 at 11:21 pm

    I like it when trolls scream…
57. Trent 57

    14 October 2007 at 11:29 pm

    He took the piss out of my name – and got an explantion as to how I came to be named so, do you have a problem with it too??.

    And no I’m not a troll. Disagreeing with an ideology is not trolling. Gee, and posing a question about an important local government election result deserves this sort of crap, you guys must be worried about something.

    You guys seriously are fuckwits.
58. Tane 58

    14 October 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Trent you walked in here throwing punches and got given a bloody nose. Don’t act so surprised.

    And no I’m not a troll. Disagreeing with an ideology is not trolling.

    Look, I just came to this thread from a day or so away, and I have to say you’re acting like a troll. You haven’t made a single constructive point on this entire thread. All you’ve done is abuse me and complain that we’re not covering the stories you’d like to see. You’re welcome to post here, but could you try to be a bit more constructive in future?
59. Nih 59

    15 October 2007 at 12:10 am

    WANKER!

    Often, too!

    It’s good to be young and all in one piece.
60. Trent 60

    16 October 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Whatever. You are irrelevant.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS