Bowron on a tired government

Written By: - Date published: 2:53 pm, April 18th, 2016 - 349 comments
Categories: accountability, bill english, election 2017, john key, national - Tags: , , , ,

Jane Bowron writes in the Dominion Post:

‘Hopeless’ comment a sign of a tired Government

Two things happened this week that could signal the beginning of the end of John Key and his government.

Firstly, Finance Minister Bill English made the reckless comment at a Federated Farmers meeting that there was a cohort of Kiwis who couldn’t get a licence “because they are illiterate and don’t look to be employable” and added insult to injury and bad grammar by saying that the unemployed were “pretty damned hopeless” and couldn’t read or write properly.

After eight years in the saddle, to have English admit that under National’s watch the Government was turning out people who were illiterate and had trouble reading and writing, was an admission that the Government’s education policy has failed the country. Believing he was speaking to the party faithful (the Feds) whom he imagined might like to feel less guilty about employing immigrants over Kiwis to do poorly paid work and put up with lousy work conditions, English sounded like a 17th century absentee English landowner slinging off at his Irish tenants.

The gap between rich and poor is now so wide that the Government feels comfortable writing off the unemployed and washing their hands of any part in their increasing demise. This cavalier marginalisation of the unemployed will not go down well with parents across every demographic who anguish over their children struggling to find employment – with or without an education, and to the thousands of workers who have been made redundant and are busting their guts to find any sort of work.

The second factor has been well covered recently:

Secondly, the leader of the smug third term Government got very defensive about revelations that little old New Zealand has become ‘that country’, a place where rich foreigners can feel free to stash their loot to escape paying taxes back home.

And the conclusion?

Here the untouchables are the wealthy and their friends in high places helping them out with tax avoidance. Let’s kick them out.

Good idea.

349 comments on “Bowron on a tired government ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. McFlock 1
    18 April 2016 at 3:17 pm

    The trouble is, as any of the tory swine like to point out, that we’ve been on the cusp of a nactoid collapse for seven years or so now.

    Now, nothing lasts forever, and key is reaching the longer end of the distribution of governments by longevity, but they’ve jumped so many sharks I’m beginning to think it’s a reality TV show about shark-jumping.

    So I’ll wait and see before grasping at another thin tendril of hope – although the accidental emergence of tory honesty is refreshing.

    • NZJester 1.1
      18 April 2016 at 3:30 pm

      Without the good credit rating from Labour paying off our overseas debt during their time in office and National borrowing us back into record debt this country would have financially collapsed before the end of their second term in office, if not the first due to their heavy cutting of tax to the rich and giving them easy ways to avoid what small amounts of tax they should have paid.
      National Party governments have always borrowed to support the rich, while Labour has always managed to have surplussed and pay back those debts. The National governments biggest lie has always been that they are the better financial managers of New Zealand.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        18 April 2016 at 7:40 pm

        National thanks Labour for not investing in Kiwis, and instead choosing to keep taxes high on NZ workers in order to pay off National’s credit card in time for the NATs current spending spree

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          18 April 2016 at 7:47 pm

          +1

        • Leftie 1.1.1.2
          18 April 2016 at 8:44 pm

          National’s spending spree? On what? Themselves and their crony mates here and offshore?

          Its not National’s credit card, it’s the country’s. Would have thought paying off National’s large govt debt that they had left was investing in Kiwis and this country. You would have only torn Labour apart if they hadn’t of paid off National’s debt anyway. To some on here, Labour are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

    • Timbo 1.2
      18 April 2016 at 4:21 pm

      Genius, McFlock. Made me laugh. Shame it’s a serious subject…

    • billmurray 1.3
      18 April 2016 at 5:13 pm

      Mcflock: there will not be a change of government, Labour are simply not good enough, nor with this present lot will they ever be, ‘aint them the facts’ ?.

      • McFlock 1.3.1
        18 April 2016 at 5:18 pm

        If the nat’s drop a hair’s squeak shy of the margin for error, they lose the next election.

        But it’s been that way for the last couple of elections.

        • Magisterium 1.3.1.1
          18 April 2016 at 5:25 pm

          At this point in the last election cycle – April 2013 – Labour was polling at 36%, and went on to get thrashed.

          Labour is presently polling at 28%.

          • McFlock 1.3.1.1.1
            18 April 2016 at 5:30 pm

            who gives a fuck?
            Labour has friends.
            National has a few rotten boroughs.

            • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1.1.1
              18 April 2016 at 7:42 pm

              Labour has friends? Whom are you thinking of? The Greens? Winston? Some about to be fired DomPost writer?

              • McFlock …
                18 April 2016 at 11:24 pm

                among others.
                Not you, of course.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 April 2016 at 12:14 am

                  So who are these friends of Labour? A handful of affiliated unions covering maybe 100K to 150K workers. Who else?

                  • Chris …
                    19 April 2016 at 12:48 am

                    Yes, the unions, giving us the tired old lines about the importance of the collective voice of an ever diminishing workforce. That’ll learn ’em!

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 April 2016 at 12:54 am

                      My point was that Labour has cultivated very few political allies of substance and scale.

                  • McFlock …
                    19 April 2016 at 12:49 pm

                    wow, you’re doing really well answering your own questions.

                    Labour seems to have lots of political friends and allies, according to you. That adds spice to my day.

                    How are your political plans coming along – are we on the cusp of a popular revolution yet?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 April 2016 at 12:57 pm

                      No idea whose thoughts you are representing here. The most probable outcome in my view is a steep decline of civilisation as we know it over the next 30-40 years as climate change and energy depletion becomes severe.

                      And the Roman Senate will continue to declare to the masses that a renaissance of the empire is just around the corner even as the barbarians are storming the gates.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 April 2016 at 1:28 pm

                      But haven’t we all died from ebola’s exponential infection rate already?

            • Leftie 1.3.1.1.1.2
              18 April 2016 at 9:04 pm

              Too true McFlock, and National has to bribe its friends with tax payer money and “favours” in return.

          • Leftie 1.3.1.1.2
            18 April 2016 at 9:00 pm

            So Magisterium ? Who says dodgy polling is true? and wasn’t it designed as some form of counter to the exposure of Key’s involvement in creating a tax haven in NZ, so right wingers could say see nothing can touch Key and his govt? Besides being so far out from the next election, its meaningless.

            • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1.2.1
              19 April 2016 at 1:01 am

              About 16 months to the next election I reckon. National should be at its lowest ebb now, half way through its third term, and before it has started handing out all the carrots it has planned in the works.

              • Leftie …
                19 April 2016 at 11:38 am

                What is happening in NZ under John key is unprecedented spin of monumental proportions, the likes of which has never been seen before. We have an exceedingly amoral, dishonest and dirty msm and pollsters whose only purpose in life is to prop up key’s corrupt regime.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 April 2016 at 12:27 pm

                  Don’t know who you hang out with, but the Kiwis I hang out with aren’t stupid and they aren’t dupes for the MSM. A friend of mine who hadn’t bought a Sunday Herald for years did so in the weekend and was disgusted that it was such bland trivial garbage sandwiched inbetween huge ads.

                  Don’t blame the media and the spinmeisters, blame the Opposition.

                  • Leftie …
                    19 April 2016 at 2:51 pm

                    You are in willful denial, the spin doctors and the complicit media do indeed deserve a lot of blame.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 April 2016 at 4:06 pm

                      I’ll tell you what willful denial is mate, it is continuing to blame an MSM which has been pro-National for decades and decades now, since the Waterfront Lockout and before.

                      And after that, blaming your fellow Kiwis for being stupid, ignorant, self centred, selfish, short sighted, apathetic.

                      TL/DR if the Left is no longer of the people and by the people, then what the hell is it?

    • Raff 1.4
      18 April 2016 at 9:57 pm

      And anyway, maybe good to wait until we’ve got something halfway decent to replace them with or they’ll just shoot straight back in, bright eyed and bushy tailed, and full of new ideas of what to sell off.

    • Observer (Tokoroa) 1.5
      19 April 2016 at 10:32 am

      .
      The Billy English – Melt Down

      The sickening outburst of a career politician damning Kiwi workers – is probably the standard approach of a man who failed to reach his own potential.

      Bill English failed as a Leader of the Opposition. National fell below 20% support in 2002 and beyond. Well below Labour and well below Cunliffe, and Little.

      However he is rightly thought by National Caucus to be a decent enough bloke – if you overlook his obscene raking of supplementary monies for his own houses and interests.

      It’s dirty when a worker raids the till while purporting to be a Leader.

      His failure is highlighted by the huge talent of Clarke and Cullen, who restored New Zealand to solvency after the incompetence of Shipley et al. He apparently went along with the rubbishing of Helen Clarke.

      Merciless failure for Bill English. Despite hisd high easily earned parliamentary income. Not just incompetent, but a “no hoper NZ worker”.

      The past seven years he has had to Knuckle under the ruthless shallow John.Key. English in a modest way rather likes fair play. But not if the Prime Minister rules decency out. So Bill gave his Farmer friends who had dabbled unwisely in financial investment a $Billion or so bail out. Not exactly even-stevens for the rest of the population.

      At the same time he shoved up GST to increase the poverty of (in his mind) mongrel New Zealand workers

      As Treasurer he also gave billions to the wealthy citizens by way of a very helpful reduction in Taxes. This was in the early days of a Global recession.

      So whereas Clarke and Cullen saved money and paid off National Party debt, Bill English has so far run up $120 BILLION debt ! A complete failure compared with the intelligent and hard working Clarke and Cullen.

      This huge necklace of debt that Bill has hung around the necks of Kiwis will serve as an everlasting reminder what a slaggy old slovenly worker he is.

      No wonder, he is spewing his venom on under educated, under paid, under supported New Zealand workers. Their failure is not as great as his.

      Is it ?

  2. NZJester 2
    18 April 2016 at 3:20 pm

    They are not only avoiding tax it seams but funneling some of that cash anonymously into the National Party coffers to keep the system going.
    National has one of the highest anonymous donations amount of any party in New Zealand. Why are the donors so worried about admitting they have donated to the party? Could it be because it looks in a lot of cases to be that there is a big conflict of interest with laws changed in the favor of or contracts awarded soon after to big donors?

  3. Lanthanide 3
    18 April 2016 at 3:26 pm

    Seems like the whole Panama Papers thing has died down a bit and the press have moved on.

    • TC 3.1
      18 April 2016 at 3:53 pm

      You mean nacts msm shills have gone all quiet about it, my my how surprising

      • Magisterium 3.1.1
        18 April 2016 at 5:27 pm

        The NACT shills in the Labour Leader’s office have gone all quiet about it too. Didn’t take long for that issue to get swept under the carpet as soon as someone mentioned “Matt McCarten”.

    • Bob 3.2
      18 April 2016 at 5:26 pm

      Mainly because NZ was such an insignificant player in the whole thing, we don’t even get a mention on a global scale: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/panama-papers-tax-havens-world/477042/

      Hopefully a half decent NZ journo (are there any still around?) gets hold of the documents and can actually land a blow on at least a couple of high profile NZ businesses/individuals to send a message to the rest.

    • Raff 3.3
      18 April 2016 at 9:59 pm

      No way. This is just the calm before the real storm. And when all 11million documents are released to the public (in May) who knows what shit will hit the fan.

  4. Kevin 4
    18 April 2016 at 3:31 pm

    As long as the new millionaire set in Auckland (and now Wellington) have rising house valuations. The government will not change.

    • BM 4.1
      18 April 2016 at 3:42 pm

      You’re saying, if property prices start to fall, National will get booted out.

      Is the new left government going to drive property prices back up?.

      • AmaKiwi 4.1.1
        18 April 2016 at 8:38 pm

        “Is the new left government going to drive property prices back up?”

        They won’t be able to. Once a bubble bursts it’s a tsunami which NO government can stop.

        The housing bubble is global, not local.

        • maui 4.1.1.1
          18 April 2016 at 10:34 pm

          You really have to hope you’re not in government when that happens because your government will be right royally screwed.

      • righty right 4.1.2
        18 April 2016 at 10:13 pm

        your house holds are so indebted there screwed whom ever is the government .
        new zealanders have screwed themselves house prices are vapor wealth here today gone tomorrow but the debt doesn’t go away. your countries economy is a ponzi scheme that can only sustain itself with ever increasing debt. what a stupid nation houses and milk powder beyond belief wow thats really going to allow you to pay off your debt haaahahahahahahahahahahahah debt slaves for life

  5. International Rescue 5
    18 April 2016 at 3:45 pm

    This article is a perfect example of all that is wrong with the left in NZ.

    First there are lies.
    “Firstly, Finance Minister Bill English made the reckless comment at a Federated Farmers meeting that there was a cohort of Kiwis who couldn’t get a licence “because they are illiterate and don’t look to be employable” ”
    That isn’t what English said, and you know it. What’s more, you also know that Labour doctored the recording. Despicable dirty politics.

    Secondly there is the delusion.
    The idea that a Govt enjoying record public support could be ‘tired’ is so out of touch with reality it is almost comical.

    Get with the program. Labour’s policies are crap, their leader is crap and their party organisation is crap. And this is a party I once voted for.

    • McFlock 5.1
      18 April 2016 at 3:55 pm

      goddamn left wing dompost. Commies one and all /sarc

    • GregJ 5.2
      18 April 2016 at 4:16 pm

      And this is a party I once voted for.

      Which elections and why did you vote for Labour?

      Why did you stop?

    • Leftie 5.3
      18 April 2016 at 9:09 pm

      You are full of crap IR, you are such a puppet, and if Labour’s policies are crap, why does National steal them, water them down, and then try to pass them off as their own?

      • International Rescue 5.3.1
        19 April 2016 at 12:01 pm

        Labour is below 30% in the polls and dropping. Their policies are crap, including CGT, free tertiary education, Kiwi Power, etc etc.

        • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1
          19 April 2016 at 12:07 pm

          Pffft, the Labour Party already discarded two out of those three you mentioned. Inconvenient and unpopular to those who have power and influence. Or something.

          • International Rescue 5.3.1.1.1
            19 April 2016 at 1:19 pm

            They sure did, when they realised they were dead rats. Kiwi Power was simply a way of sabotaging the partial share sale of power companies, something for which Labour have never been appropriately punished. The CGT was so poorly conceived and even more poorly explained it had to be dropped. It’s a shame they haven’t learned.

            • KJT 5.3.1.1.1.1
              19 April 2016 at 7:45 pm

              The sale of power companies showed Nationals complete lack of business sense. Countries, like individuals, stay rich by owning income producing assets.
              Not to mention there total contempt for Democracy.

              • International Rescue …
                19 April 2016 at 8:24 pm

                Surely you jest? National went to an election with that as policy. And the Gvt didn’t sell power companies, it sold a minority stake. It now receives a higher dividend with less investment. I’d call that good business. What the Lab/Grens did was economic sabotage, and they got rightly punished for it by the electorate.

                • framu …
                  20 April 2016 at 7:58 am

                  what? your saying people bought shares in a partial privitisation of an SOE and thought that there would be no politics involved?

                  thats pretty stupid

                  cry me a fricken river – there is nothing wrong and everything right with clear political signalling well ahead of time.

                  just because you got the opportunity to by some shares doesnt mean you get to side step the political implications – from the point of sale onwards

                  and you ignoring two major factors 1) the govt did more to damage the sale than anybody else, 2) in the face of long standing, strong public opposition to privitisations

                  • International Rescue …
                    20 April 2016 at 2:42 pm

                    “thats pretty stupid”

                    Actually, it’s not. Commercial activities should be able to free of the sort of treason labour committed.

                    “there is nothing wrong and everything right with clear political signalling well ahead of time.”

                    Thank you for agreeing with me about national going to the polls wth this policy.

                    “1) the govt did more to damage the sale than anybody else, ”
                    No. The only damage was done by Labour and the Greens. The electorate spanked them for it.

                    “2) in the face of long standing, strong public opposition to privitisations”
                    No. National went to the 2014 election with this policy and won in a landslide.

    • Whateva next? 5.4
      18 April 2016 at 10:58 pm

      “And this is a party I once voted for..” Until I got greedy and pulled up the ladder behind me, having benefitted from Labour social policies.
      You are on the wrong blog mate, try the one beginning with W

      • International Rescue 5.4.1
        19 April 2016 at 11:59 am

        Until that party deserted it’s core principles and sound economic policy.

  6. International Rescue 6
    18 April 2016 at 4:25 pm

    1981 through 1999 (I think I remember correctly). I may have voted for Labour in 2002, but I can’t remember. By 2005 I was definitely voting centre right. In my opinion Labour lost the plot totally under Clark and Cullen. The electoral bribe that was the student interest free loans was despicable, as was the refusal to reduce tax and social spending during the boom in our terms of trade. The costs of the welfare generation we have today will always be at the feet of Clark and her nanny statism.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1
      18 April 2016 at 4:30 pm

      🙄

      The stupid, it burns.

    • GregJ 6.2
      18 April 2016 at 5:03 pm

      Fascinating. So:

      1981 (Rowling Labour)

      1984 (Lange Labour)

      1987 (Douglas Labour – because by then the full extent of Rogernomics was clear)

      1990 (Moore/Clarke Labour)

      1993 (Moore/Clark Labour)

      1996 (Clark/Cullen Labour)

      1999 (Clark/Cullen Labour)

      2002 (Clark/Cullen Labour)

      You didn’t really say why you voted for Labour in those times though I notice.

      To have voted for a 1981 Rowling Labour (& probably a 1984 Lange Labour) would have put you (at a minimum) a Centre-Left Social Democrat (which is Left in today’s terms). So I’m assuming there was some change during the 4th Labour Government when you embraced aspects of neo-liberalism?

      Despite that you still voted for a Clark/Cullen Labour 3 times? So presumably you were a fan of “Third-Way”(Blairite) politics? Neo-Liberalism with a kind face? However you presumably supported the higher tax rate for the well off (a key policy plank in 1999), repealing the Employment Contracts Act, increasing the minimum wage (average of 5% over the 5th Labour Govt – well above inflation), and the “Closing the gaps” policy for Maori.

      The Student Loan policy was something that came fairly late in the 2005 Election Campaign so presumably you had already changed your mind well before that. Did the Brash Orewa speech play apart in that I wonder? Your comments here don’t seem to really reflect a very social democratic view of the world though (and certainly not a socialist one) so I’m a bit surprised you continue to vote for Labour as long as you did.

      Thanks for replying though. Judging from the elections you listed we are about the same age so I was particularly interested in your political evolution.

      • Johan 6.2.1
        18 April 2016 at 6:45 pm

        Amen.
        Nice to see Tory Trolls leave abruptly, tail between legs etc..

      • International Rescue 6.2.2
        18 April 2016 at 7:17 pm

        You’ve summed it up reasonably well. I’m 55, for the record. I wasn’t a fan of the Bolger era, and yes I was at least a tentative supporter of Blair’s ‘Third Way’. I am a supporter of frequent (modest) top ups to the minimum wage, something that National have continued with. I disagreed with Labour’s repeal of the ECA, but had considerable sympathy at least the intent behind ‘closing the gaps’.

        If I remember rightly, I began to get disillusioned with Labour in the mid 90’s, and probably stuck with them longer than I should have. I’m stretching the grey cells now, but I seem to remember admiring Clark for her smack down of the Greens over their GE stance, which probably accounts for my 2002 vote.

        There are many different factors in why we vote the way we do. I come from a strongly traditional Labour family, working class to the core. But their gradual drift into irrelevance has cut me and many like me off, most likely for good.

    • Matthew Whitehead 6.3
      18 April 2016 at 5:09 pm

      You really don’t understand economics if you thought that the Clark government should have done tax cuts during an overheated economy when they were still paying off government debt. Even Bill English admitted they managed the economy well when he took over the reins, as they had been prudent in saving for a rainy economic day. (although I doubt he actually meant to do so, hence his change of tune later on)

      The fact is, when you analyse how markets respond to left-wing and right-wing economics, regardless of who’s the actual manager of the economy or how competent they are, left-wing economics do consistently better, with higher economic indicators and lower levels of debt. There is no room to criticise the Clark government for being bad economic managers like you are trying to do in claiming they overtaxed and overspent.

      Arguably Clark’s government was involved in some small level of nanny-statism. (if you consider regulating energy efficiency, preventing child abuse, or allowing sexual minorities their fundamental rights being a “nanny state”) If that’s the case, the Key government has been an even worse type of parent- the combo absentee-and-abusive-dad-state. They don’t act until it’s way too late, and even then, half the time it just makes the problem worse.

      Besides, if you’re worried about overspending on state services, Key’s spending has been far less effective than Clark’s, even if he’s cut budgets, because he’s ended up cutting permanent employees he actually needed for government projects, then having to bring them back in as independent contractors paid a whole lot more than they were before. Which is complete lunacy.

      • Magisterium 6.3.1
        18 April 2016 at 5:32 pm

        Arguably Clark’s government was involved in some small level of nanny-statism.

        Two words: Electoral Finance Act

        • Hanswurst 6.3.1.1
          18 April 2016 at 5:47 pm

          One word: Dick

          (not least because “Electoral Finance Act” is three words)

        • red-blooded 6.3.1.2
          18 April 2016 at 5:54 pm

          You do realise that’s three words, don’t you?

          Just checking, as you seem to have trouble with numbers…

          Plus (while I wasn’t a fan of said Act), let’s remember that the ELA was a response to some very shady dealings by wealthy ‘anonymous’ donors (hello, Seventh Day Adventists) who also thought it was OK to spread about Labour via their pamphlet drops during the campaign, with the full knowledge of the NACTS. If the Right had been playing by the (very slack) rules, Clarke and co wouldn’t have come up with the ELA.

        • Matthew Whitehead 6.3.1.3
          20 April 2016 at 6:53 pm

          Disqualified for not counting. 🙂

          The EFA was more of a practical failure (in that the disclosure regimes and rules weren’t understandable) than an example of nanny statism.

      • International Rescue 6.3.2
        18 April 2016 at 7:21 pm

        “You really don’t understand economics if you thought that the Clark government should have done tax cuts during an overheated economy when they were still paying off government debt.”

        Actually I understand economics very well. The economy in 2007 was not overheated, in fact it was heading into recession. Labour’s failure to pass on bracket creep gave it money to fund poor quality and poorly targeted social spending.

        “Even Bill English admitted they managed the economy well when he took over the reins, as they had been prudent in saving for a rainy economic day.”

        No he didn’t say anything of the sort. His comments related to the debt levels only. Labour’s overall economic management was exposed as sadly lacking by subsequent events.

        • Matthew Whitehead 6.3.2.1
          20 April 2016 at 6:56 pm

          Except Labour has targeted its spending much better than National. I’m sure there’s room for improvement on some areas, but overall left-wing governments do better both on fiscal policy and social outcomes.

          What subsequent events? National never points to any alternative course of action that would actually have helped.

          • International Rescue 6.3.2.1.1
            21 April 2016 at 8:01 pm

            “Except Labour has targeted its spending much better than National. ”

            Rubbish.

            “What subsequent events?”

            ACC. Kiwi Rail. I could go on, but Cullens incompetence left a pandora’s box.

            • Pat 6.3.2.1.1.1
              21 April 2016 at 8:08 pm

              dear god…a psychologist would have a field day with your level of projection

              • International Rescue …
                21 April 2016 at 8:11 pm

                Possibly, but then they know nothing about economics.

                • Pat …
                  21 April 2016 at 8:12 pm

                  then you would be in like company judging by your comments

                  • International Rescue …
                    21 April 2016 at 8:20 pm

                    Well then I expect you to be able offer sound rebuttal. Oh wait, you went straight to ad-hominem.

                    • Pat …
                      21 April 2016 at 8:27 pm

                      lmao …i will happily respond the moment you actually post anything that resembles economic theory rather than baseless opinion of past events

                    • International Rescue …
                      21 April 2016 at 8:31 pm

                      This discussion is about an assessment of Labour’s (mis)management of the economy. I have posted some pretty clear material on that that you can choose to rebut if you wish. Shall we start with Cullen’s stupid decision to spend 1Bn on kiwirail?

                    • Pat …
                      21 April 2016 at 8:34 pm

                      ‘ Shall we start with Cullen’s stupid decision to spend 1Bn on kiwi rail?”

                      …am still waiting

                    • International Rescue …
                      21 April 2016 at 8:41 pm

                      Waiting for what? The value to return to somewhere near what the gvt paid for it and has to spend since?

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2553607/KiwiRail-only-worth-369-million

                      http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kiwirail-loses-land-wiping-67-billion-asset-base-wb-122170

                    • Pat …
                      21 April 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      ..and waiting..

                    • International Rescue …
                      22 April 2016 at 10:47 am

                      So you’re happy that Cullen wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers money? And exposed the Gvt of NZ to billions of $ of future investment? I rest my case.

                    • Macro …
                      26 April 2016 at 2:33 pm

                      🙄
                      There is actually more to governance than making a return on money spent you nincompoop!
                      What return does the government get on the money it spends on Health? Defence? Police? to name a few.
                      Public transport enables a society to function. In the future this country will be dependent more and more on rail to transport its heavy goods around. The Paris Agreement just signed and to be ratified very soon will require this country to make substantial reductions in its Transport emissions (which are rising even faster than our Agricultural emissions). And that does not mean driving more and more Trucks.

                    • International Rescue …
                      26 April 2016 at 4:08 pm

                      Macro that is a terribly poor excuse for a defence. I understand the value of rail, and there was an argument that could have been run to secure KiwiRails future. But Cullen paid far too much. It was utter incompetence.

                    • Macro …
                      26 April 2016 at 4:48 pm

                      When your hero Bill spends $1.6 Billion on a bail out of South Canterbury Finance and NZers got nothing, zip, nada I would say Cullen’s investment in the future of NZ was a Bargain!

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 10:37 am

                      Who got the KiwiRail money?

                      Who got the money from the SCF bail out?

                      Answer those questions and you’ll have your answer.

      • Colonial Viper 6.3.3
        19 April 2016 at 12:12 pm

        You really don’t understand economics if you thought that the Clark government should have done tax cuts during an overheated economy when they were still paying off government debt.

        Dude, seriously???

        The only reason the economy (particularly property asset prices) was “overheated” was because Clark and Cullen allowed runaway private sector mortgage debt to grow and grow and grow.

        Meanwhile, ordinary peoples wages were falling further and further behind even modest housing prices.

        In terms of paying off government debt – all high taxes do is take money from household incomes and savings, an then destroy that money out of the local economy by sending it overseas. Hopeless.

        No wonder the electorate got rid of them.

        • Matthew Whitehead 6.3.3.1
          20 April 2016 at 7:00 pm

          I don’t disagree with you. The tax cuts people were calling for were broad-based ones that would have been a giveaway to the wealthy.

          Targeted measures to subsidise wages totally would have made sense, but I wouldn’t normally call that a “tax cut”. I agree that Labour got dumped because they stuck to centrist policies rather than actually fighting for people. It’s always been their problem.

          • Colonial Viper 6.3.3.1.1
            20 April 2016 at 7:10 pm

            The tax cuts people were calling for were broad-based ones that would have been a giveaway to the wealthy.

            A politically astute operation would have realised that the vast bulk of income tax was paid for by low and middle wage earners, and taken those calls for broad based tax cuts to benefit the mass of low and middle wage earners.

            BUT Cullen wanted his surpluses and refused to consider such a move.

            Targeted measures to subsidise wages totally would have made sense, but I wouldn’t normally call that a “tax cut”.

            i.e. Working for Families.

            Where Labour deliberately and ridiculously excluded beneficiaries, older workers, singles and couples without children, youth workers etc.

    • millsy 6.4
      18 April 2016 at 7:25 pm

      OK. So how many hospitals would you close to keep taxes down?

      And how can you justify pricing people out of tertiary education?

      • International Rescue 6.4.1
        18 April 2016 at 7:36 pm

        1. None.
        2. People aren’t ‘priced out’ of tertiary education. Tertiary education is heavily funded by the Gvt. If students pick their study well, the resultant student loan is repayable well within the income generated, and is subsidised further by the taxpayer.

        • millsy 6.4.1.1
          18 April 2016 at 7:39 pm

          Hospitals are social spending, and you wish to cut it. That means hospitals will close, like what happened in the 1990’s.

          Quite frankly, if we start cutting social spending, we will get a lot of people on the street.

          I suppose you want unions banned as well.

          • International Rescue 6.4.1.1.1
            19 April 2016 at 11:51 am

            “Hospitals are social spending, and you wish to cut it. ”
            No, I don’t want to cut hospital spending. I want it targeted and well managed, something I believe is happening far better today than under Labour.

            “I suppose you want unions banned as well.”
            No. They’ve done an excellent job of making themselves irrelevant without my intervention.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.4.1.1.1.1
              21 April 2016 at 8:54 pm

              Apart from to their members, who enjoy better wages and conditions, which after all, is the real reason your owners hate them.

              • International Rescue …
                22 April 2016 at 10:49 am

                The better wages and conditions were secured decades ago. Unions have achieved virtually nothing in recent times, and are now irrelevant. And corrupt in some cases. How’s that membership drive going?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 April 2016 at 6:15 pm

                  I’ll explain it in tiny little words so that you have a chance of clutching feebly at the point.

                  Right now, union membership delivers higher wages and better conditions for the individual union member, over and above those who aren’t in unions.

                  That’s a fact. As for membership numbers, other than that the question exposes your malicious, hate-based politics of envy, I have no idea.

                  Why are you malicious trash?

                  • International Rescue …
                    24 April 2016 at 8:00 pm

                    “Right now, union membership delivers higher wages and better conditions for the individual union member, over and above those who aren’t in unions. That’s a fact.”

                    No, actually you have no idea, because Stats NZ don’t keep that data.

                    “As for membership numbers, other than that the question exposes your malicious, hate-based politics of envy, I have no idea.”

                    Then you’re lazy, so I’ll give some assistance.
                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9696643/Are-unions-a-good-deal-for-workers
                    “For the year ended March 2013 New Zealand had 138 unions with about 370,000 members representing 16.6 per cent of the total employed workforce, according to Companies Office records.

                    Aside from a blip in 2009 when membership rose 3.9 per cent union membership has been declining and a 2 per cent drop in 2012 saw it fall to its lowest level in five years.

                    Tellingly, 40 per cent of unions have fewer than 100 members; the median number of members is 136.

                    The ten largest unions have 79.3 per cent of total union memberships with public sector unions dominating the landscape.

                    Nurses, teachers, police and public servants in unions number more than 177,000. The “health and community services” industry has the most unionists, 100,357. The education sector is the next largest union group with 86,158.

                    Outside of the public sector only a few unions have more than a few thousand members at most.”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 April 2016 at 8:48 pm

                      Good for them, using strength in numbers to get a better deal for their members. Choke on it.

                    • International Rescue …
                      24 April 2016 at 9:01 pm

                      There is no strength in declining numbers. Unions are largely redundant today, with most workers rights enshrined in law. Union membership has been in steady decline, and part from the public sector is virtually non-existent. Get used to it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 April 2016 at 7:30 am

                      They must be getting higher wages and better conditions by some form of voodoo magic then. Nah, it’s strength in numbers. I note that you hate the freedoms of speech and association, but only when workers use them.

                    • International Rescue …
                      25 April 2016 at 2:22 pm

                      “I note that you hate the freedoms of speech and association, but only when workers use them.”

                      No, as I said, I support them. That’s what voluntary unionism is. And I don’t have a problem with workers using collective bargaining powers. I’m simply stating a fact, union membership is declining rapidly, a sign of increasing irrelevance.

                      “They must be getting higher wages and better conditions by some form of voodoo magic then.”

                      You still haven’t provided any evidence for this. But in the US, where data is kept, the most certainly don’t. http://economics21.org/html/workers-dont-do-better-unions-1451.html

                    • McFlock …
                      25 April 2016 at 2:56 pm

                      that’s not what your link says, dumbass. It takes Perez’ assertion, which is correct on a population aggregate basis, and argues that a number of confounding factors make that observation inapplicable in drawing any conclusion.

                      Its only argument is that Perez might not be correct, it does not demonstrate, let alone “most certainly”, any difference or similarity in working conditions that results from unionisation.

                    • International Rescue …
                      25 April 2016 at 6:26 pm

                      “it does not demonstrate, let alone “most certainly”, any difference or similarity in working conditions that results from unionisation.”

                      I didn’t claim it did. I made it very clear my link was in direct rebuttal to OAB’s claim that “union membership delivers higher wages and better conditions for the individual union member, over and above those who aren’t in unions.”

                      I have asked him for evidence. He hasn’t produced any.

                      BTW, form the article:

                      “The share of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined from 20% in 1983 to 11% in 2014. The percent of private-sector union members is even lower, at 6.6%.”

                      “When public-sector workers in Wisconsin were given the option of not joining a union, the number of members dropped dramatically. The three Wisconsin branches of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees had over 62,000 members in 2010 compared to fewer than 20,000 today, with an accompanying decline in revenues.”

                      “Another reason is that many plants become uncompetitive when they are unionized, and they go offshore. Rather than getting a raise, union members end up unemployed. ”

                      “A paper from the Minneapolis Fed by economist Lee Ohanian found that a “lack of competitive pressure” in labor markets due to powerful unions contributed greatly to the decline of the steel industry and accounted for two-thirds of the decline in the Rust Belt’s employment share. The author estimates that Rust Belt workers had a 12% wage premium over comparable workers in other sectors — but their jobs vanished.”

                      Unions are destructive and often corrupt. They have served their purpose.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 April 2016 at 6:41 pm

                      “it does not demonstrate, let alone “most certainly”, any difference or similarity in working conditions that results from unionisation.”
                      I didn’t claim it did. I made it very clear my link was in direct rebuttal to OAB’s claim that “union membership delivers higher wages and better conditions for the individual union member, over and above those who aren’t in unions.”

                      compare with:

                      But in the US, where data is kept, the most certainly don’t.

                      It’s pretty simple: in order to be a rebuttal, your source needs to back up the contrary statement. If your source has nothing to do with demonstrating some relationship between the incomes of unionised and non-unionised workers, why did you bring it up?

                      Union membership levels has nothing to do with unions gaining higher wages and better conditions. Blaming unions for the decline in US manufacturing ignores anti-worker trade agreements like NAFTA and poor management in the private sector, GM being a case in point, but still has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Focus, dipshit, and stop with the smoke and mirrors.

                    • Pat …
                      25 April 2016 at 7:42 pm

                      http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/u-s-steel-set-to-layoff-a-quarter-of-its-non-union-workforce/

                      you conveniently neglect to note that although only around 90% of the US workforce is not unionized it hasn’t saved the jobs of either group…and at US Steel at least the union members would appear to have a level of protection from job loss not afforded to non union members…a 12% premium on labour to union members has almost exactly zero impact on the competitiveness of the US steel industry as an economic guru like yourself must realise….the causes of the industry woes could only erroneously be attributed to union membership….but then that would destroy the narrative wouldn’t it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 April 2016 at 7:49 pm

                      OAB hasn’t produced any evidence, because an inattentive witless gimp linked to a Stuff story that provides some.

                      Unfortunately, said witless gimp was too busy jerking off to actually read the link. No wonder people keep presenting evidence that right wingers are cretins.

                    • International Rescue …
                      25 April 2016 at 10:21 pm

                      “But in the US, where data is kept, the most certainly don’t.”

                      Don’t … earn more. That’s what my source showed. That’s what I claimed.

                    • International Rescue …
                      25 April 2016 at 10:24 pm

                      Pat…

                      “Finally, consider steel. In 1982, as the United States entered a recession, the unemployment rate in steel-producing western Pennsylvania rose to 15%. The United Steelworkers Union rejected a contract offer from the steel companies, causing many steel plants in the region to shut down.”

                    • International Rescue …
                      25 April 2016 at 10:27 pm

                      “OAB hasn’t produced any evidence, because…”

                      you have none. Anecdotes from union officials aren’t evidence OAB. You made a claim you can’t back up.

                    • Pat …
                      25 April 2016 at 10:53 pm

                      “But if you’re comparing one man-hour per ton, it’s nothing- it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.”…somewhat like your argument.

                      Big Steel:Technology,Trade and Survival in a Global Market. Daniel Madar Page 120

                      He goes on to state…””While a number of developing nations should be able to achieve the minimum efficient scale of steel production, they should not expect to achieve any significant cost advantage from lower wage rates.”

                    • McFlock …
                      25 April 2016 at 11:57 pm

                      Don’t … earn more. That’s what my source showed. That’s what I claimed.

                      No, it doesn’t. To demonstrate that A isn’t more than B, you need to establish A, establish B, and show that A is less than or equal to B.

                      All you’ve done is make assertions about A and B with no evidence. Membership levels are irrelevant.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 April 2016 at 7:45 am

                      Anecdotes from union officials aren’t evidence OAB.

                      They most certainly are. Anecdotal evidence is a thing whether you like it or not. Let’s see, who’s in a position to know? You, or Robert Reid?

                      Um, um, um…

                    • International Rescue …
                      26 April 2016 at 1:50 pm

                      “They most certainly are. Anecdotal evidence is a thing whether you like it or not. Let’s see, who’s in a position to know? You, or Robert Reid?”

                      No, anecdotes are not evidence. They are here-say. The fact that you continue with this line, with an absence of any hard data, shows just how desperate you are. As to Robert’s claims, he is a union leader, desperately trying to stave off irrelevance. I take his comments with a large grain of salt.

                    • International Rescue …
                      26 April 2016 at 1:52 pm

                      Pat…”The United Steelworkers Union rejected a contract offer from the steel companies, causing many steel plants in the region to shut down.” Not sure which part of that you’re not understanding.

                    • International Rescue …
                      26 April 2016 at 1:59 pm

                      “All you’ve done is make assertions about A and B with no evidence. ”

                      “Apart from to their members, who enjoy better wages and conditions…”

                      “They must be getting higher wages and better conditions by some form of voodoo magic then.”

                      These are OAB’s assertion’s, not mine. My source refuted these, and even sets out the reason why. The continuing silence when pressed for hard evidence simply confirms my point.

                      Finally, think on this. If union members do receive higher wages and better conditions, yet union membership is rapidly declining, then unions must be really crap lol.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 April 2016 at 2:04 pm

                      Oh, indeed, we’re entitled to healthy skepticism as he’s not exactly an impartial observer. However, he makes some quite specific claims (aka “hard data”) about the comparison between unionised and non-unionised supermarket workers, easy enough to check, as are the points Hehir makes about legal fees.

                      Whining that they might be lying is what I’d expect from you, of course, because that’s what you’d do under similar circumstances.

                      In any event, the assertion being tested here is your feeble, bitter wishful thinking about relevance. To illustrate it you linked to union staff being interviewed by a major media outlet.

                      That this didn’t strike you as undermining your self-serving notions says something about you.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 April 2016 at 2:28 pm

                      These are OAB’s assertion’s, not mine. My source refuted these, and even sets out the reason why. The continuing silence when pressed for hard evidence simply confirms my point.

                      No it didn’t refute those. It confirmed that union members get more, then speculated upon why this might not apply to workers across the board without providing any evidence. Your own fucking source acknowledged that union members in the US get higher wages than non-union workers.

                      Finally, think on this. If union members do receive higher wages and better conditions, yet union membership is rapidly declining, then unions must be really crap lol.

                      Nah. Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years. See, it’s “joining a union and getting more money and better conditions” vs “risk of being fired by a prick employer if I try to join a union”. If it’s easier for pricks to fire workers for no reason, that affects the calculation. Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.

                      But I take solace in the thought that a self-proclaimed socialist is a serious contender for a US presidential nomination. when the fuck was the last time that happened. I wonder how far NZ’s political pendulum will swing next time.

                    • International Rescue …
                      26 April 2016 at 3:59 pm

                      “However, he makes some quite specific claims (aka “hard data”) about the comparison between unionised and non-unionised supermarket workers, easy enough to check, as are the points Hehir makes about legal fees.”

                      So check them. For me they are just cherry picked. They don;t represent anything other than anecdote.

                    • International Rescue …
                      26 April 2016 at 4:05 pm

                      “Your own fucking source acknowledged that union members in the US get higher wages than non-union workers.”

                      NO it didn’t. It argued very powerfully that once distortions are removed the opposite is true.

                      “Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years. See, it’s “joining a union and getting more money and better conditions” vs “risk of being fired by a prick employer if I try to join a union”. ”

                      That’s your opinion, but it’s all it is. Workers across NZ are voting with their feet. They recognise unions are achieving nothing for them, and are simply corrupt receptacles for unconverted communists.

                      “But I take solace in the thought that a self-proclaimed socialist is a serious contender for a US presidential nomination.”

                      Then soak it up. Sanders is getting spanked, and is now even blaming poor people not voting for his own electoral demise. (http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/24/bernie-sanders-blames-losses-on-poor-peo)

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 April 2016 at 4:10 pm

                      Unions. Instrumental in affecting government policy, whether by their links to Labour or their successes in the employment and other courts, defending New Zealanders against the National Party. Plus, by all available evidence, winning better wages and conditions for their members and by extension, all Kiwi workers.

                      Practical ways in which the freedoms of expression and association can level the playing field against the power of capital.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 April 2016 at 4:23 pm

                      “Your own fucking source acknowledged that union members in the US get higher wages than non-union workers.”

                      NO it didn’t. It argued very powerfully that once distortions are removed the opposite is true.

                      Lol no, it acknowledged that what perez said was true, and then speculated, with less evidence than OAB provided, that your “distortions” might create the situation that workers aren’t actually better off in unions. They illustrated their speculation with some case studies, but provided no evidence that these studies showed phenomena that could explain the alleged overall “distortion”.

                      Did it say that unionised workers are paid more on US averages? Yes.
                      Did it speculate how regional and demographic variations, or the impact of higher wages on profitability, might create this situation while still making unions worse off for workers overall?
                      Yes.
                      Did it provide any evidence that this speculation is actually anything more than a tory fuck’s wet dream? No. Funny, if reality supported the assertion I’d expect to see loads of robust research supporting it. It’d be a welcome relief to see the Koch bros finance something that wasn’t bullshit.

                      “Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years. See, it’s “joining a union and getting more money and better conditions” vs “risk of being fired by a prick employer if I try to join a union”. ”

                      That’s your opinion, but it’s all it is. Workers across NZ are voting with their feet. They recognise unions are achieving nothing for them, and are simply corrupt receptacles for unconverted communists.

                      That’s your opinion. You might want to look at, e.g. the employment court rulings against Talleys companies, particularly against union reps just before xmas. Or maybe use “Talleys”, “Employment court”, and “good faith” as google search terms.
                      So the war on unions is my opinion based on the opinions of the employment court. What are your opinions based on?

                      ps: loved the “unconverted communists” line. You’re such a fucking throwback to J Edgar Hoover.

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 10:26 am

                      “Unions. Instrumental in affecting government policy, whether by their links to Labour or their successes in the employment and other courts, defending New Zealanders against the National Party.”
                      Yep. 50 years ago.

                      “Plus, by all available evidence, winning better wages and conditions for their members and by extension, all Kiwi workers.”
                      What evidence?

                      “Practical ways in which the freedoms of expression and association can level the playing field against the power of capital.”
                      More 20th century bs.

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 10:33 am

                      “Did it say that unionised workers are paid more on US averages? ”

                      No. It said that when properly analysed the data shows they aren’t. Which is the point I was addressing.

                      “What are your opinions based on?”

                      Hard data. Union membership is dropping. Fact. Workers are saying no to tax dodging, fat and corrupt unions.

                    • Pat …
                      27 April 2016 at 10:56 am

                      oh FFS give it a rest……more Koch Bros funded BS….

                      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

                      “Finally, consider steel. In 1982, as the United States entered a recession, the unemployment rate in steel-producing western Pennsylvania rose to 15%. The United Steelworkers Union rejected a contract offer from the steel companies, causing many steel plants in the region to shut down.”

                      This is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, I could equally say the plants closed down due to shareholders being unwilling to accept reduced dividend…..the cause of the US steel industry woes (particularly through the 80s was aging plant and out of date uneconomic systems due to lack of investment in technology…reducing the cost of labour was never going to save them, and didn’t…..do some research and understand the proportionality of labour in the cost structure of modern systems

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 April 2016 at 11:04 am

                      50 years ago.

                      Yes, and more recently that that, too.

                      Yes, everyone knows you hate them. Why are you motivated by hate?

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      “oh FFS give it a rest……more Koch Bros funded BS….”

                      You really are obsessed with the Koch brs, aren’t you? Perhaps you could try rebutting the claims? No, too hard I guess.

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 12:49 pm

                      “Yes, and more recently that that, too.”
                      Equal pay? On one hand the left claims the gap is widening and on the other that unions are helping close it? Hilarious.

                      “Yes, everyone knows you hate them. Why are you motivated by hate?”
                      I’m ambivalent, to be honest. They are so irrelevant. They’re slide to extinction is similar to that of the Labour Party.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2016 at 1:11 pm

                      “Did it say that unionised workers are paid more on US averages? ”
                      No. It said that when properly analysed the data shows they aren’t. Which is the point I was addressing.

                      lol
                      No, it doesn’t say that at all. It claims that Perez’ comparison of medians, while accurate, is “misleading”. It suggests why the medians comparison might be misleading, but (and here’s the important bit) it never actually analyzes the data to control for the factors speculated about and thereby demonstrate that the medians comparison is actually misleading or not. It takes a true statistic, claims that statistic is misleading, and then does nothing to support that claim.

                      “What are your opinions based on?”

                      Hard data. Union membership is dropping. Fact. Workers are saying no to tax dodging, fat and corrupt unions.

                      Again, just for your benefit, you stupid fuck: union membership levels are not a comparison of union vs non-union wages. Is that simple enough for you? Until you actually present hard data, Perez’ statement is still true and more accurate than your wet dreams: median unionised wages in the US are higher than median non-unionised wages.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2016 at 4:03 pm

                      oh you jumped thread

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 4:08 pm

                      “There is no evidence presented that that is correct.”
                      You’re not listening are you? My source specifically stated that unionised wages were NOT higher.

                      “But no, you insist on talking about membership levels in a debate about membership benefits.”
                      You’re the only one making that link.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2016 at 4:17 pm

                      “There is no evidence presented that that is correct.”
                      You’re not listening are you? My source specifically stated that unionised wages were NOT higher.

                      After agreeing that median wages for union members are higher than median wages for non-members, your link came up with some excuses to try and mash reality into their tory worldview. But, and here’s the important bit, they provided no evidence to support their excuses.

                      Median wages for US union members are higher than for non-union workers. You’re welcome to provide actual evidence that this is not the case.

                      “But no, you insist on talking about membership levels in a debate about membership benefits.”
                      You’re the only one making that link.

                      Well, except for OAB. In fact, you’re the only one who keeps wanting to talk about membership levels as if they have any significance.

                    • International Rescue …
                      27 April 2016 at 6:59 pm

                      “But, and here’s the important bit, they provided no evidence to support their excuses.”
                      Have you read it? Seriously?

                      “In fact, you’re the only one who keeps wanting to talk about membership levels as if they have any significance.”
                      This debate has been wide ranging, and has included discussion about membership numbers. I haven’t made the link you claim. And you haven’t been able to support your contention that I have.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2016 at 11:21 pm

                      “But, and here’s the important bit, they provided no evidence to support their excuses.”
                      Have you read it? Seriously?

                      Yes. It says that regional variations or age variations might skew the overall trend. It did not do the obvious thing to support that argument, which is to use regional or age-standardised medians.
                      No evidence to test their claim about population medians.

                      “In fact, you’re the only one who keeps wanting to talk about membership levels as if they have any significance.”
                      This debate has been wide ranging, and has included discussion about membership numbers. I haven’t made the link you claim. And you haven’t been able to support your contention that I have.

                      A direct fucking quote from you, liar: “Finally, think on this. If union members do receive higher wages and better conditions, yet union membership is rapidly declining, then unions must be really crap lol.“

                    • Pat …
                      27 April 2016 at 11:26 pm

                      Whoosh

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 11:26 am

                      “It says that regional variations or age variations might skew the overall trend.”

                      Oh and a lot more. Meaning OAB’s claim is bs. Thank you.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 12:19 pm

                      “Might” refutes nothing, you stupid piece of shit. You “might” be troll1ng, or you “might” genuinely be that stupid. Se how saying “might” makes no assertion whatsoever?

                      But the fact that your link clearly demonstrated is that median unionised wages ARE higher than median non-unionised wages.
                      Thanks for that link. I didn’t know that US Labor statistics supported us until you decided to wank – I just figured reality’s left wing bias would continue in this case as usual. You proved it: unions get better pay for workers.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 4:23 pm

                      “But the fact that your link clearly demonstrated is that median unionised wages ARE higher than median non-unionised wages.”

                      No, they didn’t. The link demonstrated the distortions that lead people like you and OAB to publish your lies. Unions are hapless and irrelevant.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:31 pm

                      …and yet the union median is still higher than the non-union median, and the alleged “distortions” are mere speculation.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:48 pm

                      “…and yet the union median is still higher than the non-union median, and the alleged “distortions” are mere speculation.”

                      Read paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7. This is not speculation, it is evidence the findings of the raw data are misleading. Which undermines OAB’s original claim. You’re getting there slowly.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:05 pm

                      Read paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7. This is not speculation, it is evidence the findings of the raw data are misleading.

                      I think your paragraph count of the econ21 article is off.
                      Anyway…
                      paragraph 3: begins Perez compares median weekly:
                      well, this just says public/private sector distribution and suchlike hasn’t been adjusted for. It doesn’t provide evidence that adjustment will altar the union wage premium.

                      paragraph 5: begins Unionized workers are more heavily :
                      well, this just says regional distribution and suchlike hasn’t been adjusted for. It doesn’t provide evidence that adjustment will altar the union wage premium.

                      paragraph 6: begins Unionized workers tend to be older, :
                      well, this just says age distribution and suchlike hasn’t been adjusted for. It doesn’t provide evidence that adjustment will altar the union wage premium.

                      paragraph 7: begins In some industries, such as construction,:
                      well, this just says industry distribution and suchlike hasn’t been adjusted for. It doesn’t provide evidence that adjustment will altar the union wage premium.

                      That’s not evidence. Until the adjustment has been done, it’s pure speculation. Unlike the national medians, which are based on hard data.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:15 pm

                      “That’s not evidence. ”

                      It’s sound argumentation, which is evidence. For example the comment “This is misleading because union members are not equally distributed across occupations, industries and regions.” is then supported by “Union members are more concentrated in higher-paying government-sector jobs, including teachers and federal employees. Forty percent of union members are public-sector employees. ”

                      Each anomaly is likewise exposed.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:48 pm

                      “You do realise that the only way low waged workers can afford decent representation in court is to join a union – it’s right there in the link you so helpfully provided, after all.”

                      So you say. But you haven’t backed it up with anything.

                      And you’re examples are fascinating. One is from the forestry industry, where labour is increasingly being replaced with technology. The other is from TiWai, an uneconomic business that has no future beyond Gvt corporate welfare. And you’re struggling to understand why unions are irrelevant!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 9:28 pm

                      OAB: “I suppose you want unions banned as well.”

                      No, you inattentive dribbling cretin, Millsy made that statement. Paging Dr. Dunning-Kruger.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 9:31 pm

                      So you say. But you haven’t backed it up with anything.

                      Tiresome cretin, I don’t have to provide the evidence because you already have, in the Reid/Hehir article.

                      You are very very shit at arguing your Daddy’s case.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 9:34 pm

                      It’s sound argumentation, which is evidence.

                      Activity equals productivity?

                      For example the comment “This is misleading because union members are not equally distributed across occupations, industries and regions.” is then supported by “Union members are more concentrated in higher-paying government-sector jobs, including teachers and federal employees. Forty percent of union members are public-sector employees. ”

                      Each anomaly is likewise exposed.

                      But that “exposes” nothing. So higher-paying jobs (lol – teachers are higher-paid) have more union members. That doesn’t mean that unionised teachers are paid the same as or less than non-unionised teachers. Or that unionised New Yorkers are paid the same as or less than non-unionised New Yorkers. At one level of granularity union members are paid more. Your link argues that more precise granularity might show a different result, but doesn’t follow through with the evidence.

                      Each “distortion” is likewise speculated upon, and then left hanging with no conclusion demonstrated.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 9:54 am

                      “I don’t have to provide the evidence…”
                      Actually you do. Or I’ll call you out, which I am.

                      ” because you already have, in the Reid/Hehir article.”

                      Misrepresenting (or maybe you don’t understand) the arguments doesn’t hep your position.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 9:56 am

                      “But that “exposes” nothing.”

                      Yes, it does. It exposes the flaw in the data. Clearly. As do the other arguments. You won;t admit it because you’re vested. Keep running.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 April 2016 at 2:21 pm

                      Yes, it does. It exposes the flaw in the data. Clearly. As do the other arguments.

                      A “flaw in the data” would be if the data was incorrect (e.g. if non-union workers had been recorded as union members). The data is not incorrect, your article merely speculated why a statistic drawn from that data might be misleading. Semantics aside, speculating about possible shortcomings does not “expose flaws”. I might speculate that compensation for your extremely small penis would explain why your arrogance is so disproportionate to your intelligence, but that does not expose the fact that you have an extremely small penis. It merely speculates upon why two different measures would appear to have a counter-intuitive relationship.

                      You won;t admit it because you’re vested. Keep running.

                      I won’t admit it because I’m correct, bored, and like to watch you tie yourself in knots. You won’t admit your stupidity because of your extremely small penis, as I demonstrated above with sound argumentation, which is evidence. Do your fly up, your flaw has been exposed…

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 6:38 pm

                      “The data is not incorrect, your article merely speculated why a statistic drawn from that data might be misleading. ”

                      Actually I said the data had a ‘flaw’. The data does have a flaw, when used to draw the conclusion you wish to draw, because those conclusions are based on faulty use of the data…just as the author was pointing out.

                      What your obsession with size of a persons penis is, I’m really unsure.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 April 2016 at 7:52 pm

                      “The data is not incorrect, your article merely speculated why a statistic drawn from that data might be misleading. ”

                      Actually I said the data had a ‘flaw’. The data does have a flaw, when used to draw the conclusion you wish to draw, because those conclusions are based on faulty use of the data…just as the author was pointing out.

                      Then you’re arguing that the conclusions are faulty, not that the data has a flaw. The data is fine.

                      The fact that you are a broken unit does not mean that your mother had a flaw.

                      What your obsession with size of a persons penis is, I’m really unsure.

                      Not an obsession. I merely used your idiot methodology to demonstrate that you have a tiny dick. If you do really have a micropenis, that is purely coincidental. But by your standards I’ve demonstrated that you have a tiny dick, and now that your mother has flaws.

                    • International Rescue …
                      30 April 2016 at 5:34 pm

                      “Then you’re arguing that the conclusions are faulty, not that the data has a flaw. The data is fine.”

                      Not for the conclusions it was being used to support. Thus it was flawed. The left are very good at misinterpreting data for their own ends.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 April 2016 at 7:55 pm

                      “Then you’re arguing that the conclusions are faulty, not that the data has a flaw. The data is fine.”

                      Not for the conclusions it was being used to support. Thus it was flawed.

                      And yet if the exact same data was used to support conclusions you approved of, it suddenly would not be flawed.

                      But I’m beginning to be persuaded by your logic. Your mother must have had serious flaws for you to turn out like this.

                      The left are very good at misinterpreting data for their own ends.

                      And you’re fucking amazing at making shit up. You don’t even need to provide evidence of your conclusions on your planet.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:10 am

                      “And this happens over and over again.”

                      You’re answer was not an answer. It didn’t even address the question, and you’re continued obfuscation has moved from ignorance to downright dishonesty. You have presented no explanation for why union membership is declining in the face of claims that unions deliver better wages etc.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:24 am

                      You have presented no explanation for why union membership is declining in the face of claims that unions deliver better wages etc.

                      …apart from intimidation of workers by employers, e.g. suspending workers for even reading union material or firing union delegates on the slightest excuse.

                      You know, Talleys-style class war.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:30 am

                      “…apart from intimidation of workers by employers, e.g. suspending workers for even reading union material or firing union delegates on the slightest excuse.”

                      They aren’t reasons workers would LEAVE a union. If these actions were commonplace they would be leading to an increase in membership, surely? Answer the question.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:52 am

                      They aren’t reasons workers would LEAVE a union.

                      Actually, yes they are. But the main thing they do is, when the union folk are fired, intimidate new employees against joining.

                      If these actions were commonplace they would be leading to an increase in membership, surely?

                      For a tory, you display very little knowledge as to how intimidation works. The thing is, if you see members being fired or retaliated against and you have a family to support, that is a powerful incentive to keep your head down and not stand up.

                      Answer the question.

                      It has been answered, you moron. Repeatedly. In teeny tiny words.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:04 pm

                      “Actually, yes they are. But the main thing they do is, when the union folk are fired, intimidate new employees against joining.”
                      These actions would have workers flocking to unions if they felt they would get value for money.

                      “For a tory, you display very little knowledge as to how intimidation works. The thing is, if you see members being fired or retaliated against and you have a family to support, that is a powerful incentive to keep your head down and not stand up.”
                      No, it is a powerful incentive to either join the union, if you saw value, or change jobs.

                      ‘It has been answered, you moron. Repeatedly. In teeny tiny words.”
                      No it hasn’t. Your sole argument here seems to be around intimidation. Even if intimidation does exist (and that argument itself seems rich coming from a unionist) it would be extremely rare, and cannot possibly account for the decline in union membership. If anything it would drive membership up.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:43 pm

                      “Actually, yes they are. But the main thing they do is, when the union folk are fired, intimidate new employees against joining.”
                      These actions would have workers flocking to unions if they felt they would get value for money.

                      You do realise that even a decent-sized settlement still means that you have to find another job when the biggest employer in town has blacklisted you?

                      You try making that decision when you care about and have connections with people other than yourself.

                      “For a tory, you display very little knowledge as to how intimidation works. The thing is, if you see members being fired or retaliated against and you have a family to support, that is a powerful incentive to keep your head down and not stand up.”
                      No, it is a powerful incentive to either join the union, if you saw value, or change jobs.

                      “Change jobs”, he says.
                      For normal people, jobs don’t grow on trees.

                      ‘It has been answered, you moron. Repeatedly. In teeny tiny words.”
                      No it hasn’t. Your sole argument here seems to be around intimidation. Even if intimidation does exist (and that argument itself seems rich coming from a unionist) it would be extremely rare, and cannot possibly account for the decline in union membership. If anything it would drive membership up.

                      Yes, just like witness intimidation makes witnesses more likely to testify, extortionists are less like to get money from people they intimidate, and so on… /sarc

                      It takes guts and a willingness to risk dismissal to join a union when the employer hates unions. Not everyone has guts, and not everyone can risk their family’s income in the hope of better conditions. the same basic problem that I described for you several days ago:

                      it’s “joining a union and getting more money and better conditions” vs “risk of being fired by a prick employer if I try to join a union”. If it’s easier for pricks to fire workers for no reason, that affects the calculation. Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.

                      You asked for reasons why union membership is declining if they make their members better off. I provided a couple of possibilities, this is insufficient (or too difficult) for you to accept the point has been demonstrated.
                      You provided an article that suggested why the state that demonstrated union members were better off might be misleading, and you claimed this was sufficient to prove your point. You’re a hypocrite who holds yourself to one standard of “evidence” and “sound argumentation”, and expects a higher standard from people who disagree with you.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:56 pm

                      “You do realise that even a decent-sized settlement still means that you have to find another job when the biggest employer in town has blacklisted you?”
                      So you claim. Yet this employer still employs union members, yes?

                      “For normal people, jobs don’t grow on trees.”
                      There are plenty of jobs around NZ, and a shortage of workers in many industries.

                      “Yes, just like witness intimidation makes witnesses more likely to testify, extortionists are less like to get money from people they intimidate, and so on… /sarc”
                      You have this 19th century attitude to employers that is a perfect example of why unions are dying. The vast majority of employers don’t intimidate in the way you describe, it is is just a myth to suggest otherwise.

                      “You asked for reasons why union membership is declining if they make their members better off. I provided a couple of possibilities, ”
                      No, you provided one…intimidation. And I have said that that should encourage workers to JOIN a union, not leave one. I have also pointed out that such instances are extremely rare, and cannot account for the decline in membership.

                      Union membership is dropping year on year, yet the workforce numbers are rising! You’re attempted excuses are pathetic, and go a long way to explaining why unions are floundering, because they simply don’t understand the modern workplace.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      So, basically, people can up-stakes and leave a job and their homes with little to no risk or difficulty, and therefore the Talleys actions documented in the employment court cannot count as intimidation. Nobody fears for their job, or fears not being able to find another job, and everybody can move industries and regions without any fear for their mortgages, kids’ schooling, or family and community ties.

                      🙄

                      Meanwhile, in the real world, over the last thirty years much more power has been given to employers to intimidate their workers.

                      And propaganda from jerks counts as another reason.

                      And you can say how rare instances of intimidation are, and how they cannot explain a decline in membership, but that doesn’t mean shit, because you say all sorts of bullshit, and pretty much all of it’s wrong. “Intimidation” is just another word that you can’t comprehend, like “love” or “respect” or “community ties”. Intimidation stops people doing the things the intimidator wants to stop. That’s why abusers intimidate people. It gives the intimidators what they want.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 4:27 pm

                      “So, basically, people can up-stakes and leave a job and their homes with little to no risk or difficulty, and therefore the Talleys actions documented in the employment court cannot count as intimidation.”
                      Don’t know. That’s your interpretation, not mine. You’ve raved on ad-nauseum about one example you ‘claim’ about intimidation, and how that appears to have encouraged workers to leave their union. I say that’s bs. If I was being intimidated for being in a union I’d want that union to have more power, not less.

                      “Meanwhile, in the real world, over the last thirty years much more power has been given to employers to intimidate their workers.”
                      And if so workers would be flocking for representation, right? Yet…oooops. Shot yourself again.

                      “And you can say how rare instances of intimidation are, and how they cannot explain a decline in membership, but that doesn’t mean shit, because you say all sorts of bullshit, and pretty much all of it’s wrong.”

                      Wow, that’s an intelligent argument. Fact check – intimidation of workers IS rare. Not as rare as intimidation by unions used to be.

                      ““Intimidation” is just another word that you can’t comprehend…”
                      Oh no I understand intimidation well. I’ve seen it by unions from both sides, as a worker and as an employer. I’ve seen it all from ‘stand over’ tactics to the clockwork destruction of peoples holidays from striking.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:01 pm

                      yeah, I’m sure that you’re the hero in whatever scenario you imagine, gallantly standing on the picket line to strengthen your union.

                      In the real world, and I use Talleys as an example because it’s particularly well documented but ports of auckland had a significant dispute a few years back and I can name one or two others I’ve encountered, many workers would love the unions to be stronger, but they can’t risk their livelihoods. Couple that with the same sort of propaganda about union corruption and intimidation that you’re spreading here, and that’s a pretty good explanation as to why union membership is declining.

                      You reckon that you understand intimidation, but obviously only when it’s the workers standing up for themselves. You’ve probably never had to sit there and take shit from an incompetent manager simply because there are no other jobs you can do in town. You’ve probably never worried about how you’ll feed or house your family if you lose that job. Never been dragged down, stuck in a job you can’t stand but without any opportunity to move out of it. Because if you’d ever experienced any of that, you’d understand the power that fuckwit employers have over their staff sometimes. Good employers are fine. It’s the fuckwits we need unions against.

                      Fact check – intimidation of workers IS rare. Not as rare as intimidation by unions used to be.

                      Maybe on planet key. Meanwhile the employment court has been doing solid business. You might want to look up their caseload.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:21 pm

                      Actually the Employment Court is a good example of why workers don’t need unions. The system works. Workers can take employers there, if they have a perceived grievance, and get it resolved. You’re still banging on about one single example, and even that seems to be gilded with an awful lot of hyperbole. But let’s not forget the core issue. If unions were that useful (and, put another way, employers were that bad) workers would be flocking to join. Yet they’re leaving in droves. These can’t all be Talley’s employees!!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:27 pm

                      One single example. Talley’s, and PoAL. our two examples are PoAL, Talley’s and Bartlett. Our three examples: PoAL Talleys. Bartlett, forestry…

                      Why don’t you spew some more hatred, loser?

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:35 pm

                      “One single example. Talley’s, and PoAL. our two examples are PoAL, Talley’s and Bartlett. Our three examples: PoAL Talleys. Bartlett, forestry…”

                      There has been no information provided about the Ports of Auckland case…all I remember is the union lost, both the public verdict and the disute. Talley’s is a one off. Forestry is the work of Gvt. Kristine Bartlett didn’t need the union to fight her case. But here’s the challenge…with all this alleged good press…why are workers leaving the union movement? Are you, like McFlock, suggesting all workers are somehow afraid of joining?

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:38 pm

                      Actually the Employment Court is a good example of why workers don’t need unions. The system works. Workers can take employers there, if they have a perceived grievance, and get it resolved.

                      lol you’re a funny guy. Winning partial compensation less lawyers fees is totally worth losing your job. /sarc
                      Isn’t Talleys losing at a rate of something like 45:5 (check with the employment court)? Does that show the system working? Or are they just incorrigible offenders?

                      If unions were that useful (and, put another way, employers were that bad) workers would be flocking to join. Yet they’re leaving in droves. These can’t all be Talley’s employees!!

                      But you’re totally not linking membership benefits with membership levels…

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:41 pm

                      Are you, like McFlock, suggesting all workers are somehow afraid of joining?

                      You lying piece of shit. I never said “all”. From the first point I answered your question I also included propoganda spread by jerks like you. And that was just because you wanted a reason for decline in union membership other than membership benefits.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:49 pm

                      “Isn’t Talleys losing at a rate of something like 45:5 ”

                      Gee, if that’s the case they must have a lot of union members, which kind of makes a lie of your intimidation claims.

                      “But you’re totally not linking membership benefits with membership levels…”

                      I’m putting this to YOU. I’m not an apologist for the unions, you are. There are around 550,000 limited liability companies in NZ. You’ve named Talley’s as a bully, intimidating their staff into leaving the union. They sound horrible. That leaves 549,999 other companies who are increasingly de-unionising.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:53 pm

                      “And that was just because you wanted a reason for decline in union membership other than membership benefits.”

                      No, I am asking for a reason for the decline in union membership DESPITE what you CLAIM as the benefits of being a member.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:59 pm

                      “Isn’t Talleys losing at a rate of something like 45:5 ”

                      Gee, if that’s the case they must have a lot of union members, which kind of makes a lie of your intimidation claims.

                      Only if A) each case is a fresh one rather than relitigation on a case they’ve already lost, and B)you still have no idea how intimidation works.

                      “But you’re totally not linking membership benefits with membership levels…”

                      I’m putting this to YOU.

                      …while ignoring the fact that you’ve finally admitted conflating benefits with membership numbers…

                      There are around 550,000 limited liability companies in NZ. You’ve named Talley’s as a bully, intimidating their staff into leaving the union. The sound horrible. That leaves 549,999. Yet workers are leaving unions.

                      Because A)the Talleys are not the only fuckwit employers in NZ (which you’d know if you’d bothered looking at employment court decisions); and B)lying propagandists like yourself keep making shit up that some workers believe; and C)any other reason that someone who isn’t a lying tory piece of shit can come up with.

                      “And that was just because you wanted a reason for decline in union membership other than membership benefits.”

                      No, I am asking for a reason for the decline in union membership DESPITE what you CLAIM as the benefits of being a member.

                      ‘pin, meet international rescue’s big wooden clogs. Now maestro, start playing…’

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 6:17 pm

                      “Only if A) each case is a fresh one rather than relitigation on a case they’ve already lost, and B)you still have no idea how intimidation works.”

                      A) You don’t know. B) You don’t know.

                      “…while ignoring the fact that you’ve finally admitted conflating benefits with membership numbers…”

                      No, I’m merely asking a question…your answer has only strengthened the point behind the question.

                      “Because A)the Talleys are not the only fuckwit employers in NZ (which you’d know if you’d bothered looking at employment court decisions); and B)lying propagandists like yourself keep making shit up that some workers believe; and C)any other reason that someone who isn’t a lying tory piece of shit can come up with.”

                      A) Yet you have only named one. And still people keep leaving the unions! Wonder why?
                      B) Are you suggesting I have that much influence?
                      C) I’m still waiting.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2016 at 7:16 pm

                      “Only if A) each case is a fresh one rather than relitigation on a case they’ve already lost, and B)you still have no idea how intimidation works.”

                      A) You don’t know. B) You don’t know.

                      A) even with the maximum of 45, that still means 45 members (including the ones unjustifiably dismissed) out of the entire Talley’s group.
                      B) you’ve demonstrated it repeatedly – you think people respond to intimidation with contrary behaviour. That’s not what usually happens.

                      “…while ignoring the fact that you’ve finally admitted conflating benefits with membership numbers…”

                      No, I’m merely asking a question…your answer has only strengthened the point behind the question.

                      No, you’re refusing to see the answers given to your question.

                      “Because A)the Talleys are not the only fuckwit employers in NZ (which you’d know if you’d bothered looking at employment court decisions); and B)lying propagandists like yourself keep making shit up that some workers believe; and C)any other reason that someone who isn’t a lying tory piece of shit can come up with.”

                      A) Yet you have only named one. And still people keep leaving the unions! Wonder why?
                      B) Are you suggesting I have that much influence?
                      C) I’m still waiting.

                      A) one very illustrative case. Do you really want me to name every dickhead emplyer in the country out of the half million or so companies?
                      B) no, I’m suggesting you’re one of many leeches sucking blood from the workers. Individually not particuarly impressive, but collectively can be damaging.
                      C) and no matter how long you wait, reality will never agree with you.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 9:39 am

                      “A) even with the maximum of 45, that still means 45 members (including the ones unjustifiably dismissed) out of the entire Talley’s group.
                      B) you’ve demonstrated it repeatedly – you think people respond to intimidation with contrary behaviour. That’s not what usually happens.”
                      Here’s the problem with your argument. You say people will leave unions because of Talley’s intimidation, yet these same people are not afraid to take the company to court. This argument doesn’t stack up.

                      “No, you’re refusing to see the answers given to your question.”
                      No, there haven’t been any answers worthy of the name.

                      “A) one very illustrative case. Do you really want me to name every dickhead emplyer in the country out of the half million or so companies?”
                      Do you want me to list every dickhead union/unionist?

                      “B) no, I’m suggesting you’re one of many leeches sucking blood from the workers. Individually not particuarly impressive, but collectively can be damaging.”
                      Huh? I am an employee! I also run several businesses, all of whom rely on excellent employee relationships.

                      “C) and no matter how long you wait, reality will never agree with you.”
                      Reality is where I live. People are leaving unions. Fact. n a country with a growing labour force unions are shrinking. That’s the reality you can neither perceive or explain.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 May 2016 at 10:49 am

                      Here’s the problem with your argument. You say people will leave unions because of Talley’s intimidation, yet these same people are not afraid to take the company to court. This argument doesn’t stack up.

                      No, I’m not saying that the same people who don’t join or who do leave the union are the same people who take Talley’s to court.
                      I’m saying that out of any particular group of workers some will kowtow, some will join and fight, and some will fight by themselves. Assuming that they’re all the same person is your stupid assumption.

                      “No, you’re refusing to see the answers given to your question.”
                      No, there haven’t been any answers worthy of the name.

                      Oh, so now there may have been answers, but none that you deem worthy of being called “answers”. And yet we’re still discussing them.

                      “A) one very illustrative case. Do you really want me to name every dickhead emplyer in the country out of the half million or so companies?”
                      Do you want me to list every dickhead union/unionist?

                      No, but then I’m not suggesting that an example of a dickhead unionist you might have raised was the only dickhead unionist in the country.

                      And yet you seem to be arguing that Talleys are the only bad employers in the entire country, and want me to list others by name (because you still haven’t looked at the Employment Court case list).

                      “B) no, I’m suggesting you’re one of many leeches sucking blood from the workers. Individually not particuarly impressive, but collectively can be damaging.”
                      Huh? I am an employee! I also run several businesses, all of whom rely on excellent employee relationships.

                      So? Even if that were all true, you’re still being a damned liar here.

                      “C) and no matter how long you wait, reality will never agree with you.”
                      Reality is where I live. People are leaving unions. Fact. n a country with a growing labour force unions are shrinking. That’s the reality you can neither perceive or explain.

                      I admit having difficulties in explaining it to you – but that’s because you’re a fucking moron. See the start of this comment for evidence of that fact.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 11:34 am

                      “No, I’m not saying that the same people who don’t join or who do leave the union are the same people who take Talley’s to court.
                      I’m saying that out of any particular group of workers some will kowtow, some will join and fight, and some will fight by themselves. Assuming that they’re all the same person is your stupid assumption.”
                      Oh I’m not assuming that. I’m pointing out that your position is self contradictory. On one hand you claim intimidation leads people to leave unions while proclaiming the number of cases brought before the Employment court by these supposed cowering workers. It’s utter bs.

                      “Oh, so now there may have been answers, but none that you deem worthy of being called “answers”. And yet we’re still discussing them.”
                      Yes, and your point is?

                      “No, but then I’m not suggesting that an example of a dickhead unionist you might have raised was the only dickhead unionist in the country.”
                      Nor am I. But you’re claiming intimidation by one employer is causative in union numbers dropping without citing any other examples. You haven’t even provided evidence that union membership at talleys has dropped!

                      “So? Even if that were all true, you’re still being a damned liar here.”
                      Well not that you’ve been able to prove. You’re simply clutching at ad-hominem.

                      “I admit having difficulties in explaining it to you – but that’s because you’re a fucking moron. See the start of this comment for evidence of that fact.”

                      No, I’m actually very capable of explaining this to most people with a fully functioning brain. I suspect your problem, however, is stubborness in the cause of the indefensible.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 May 2016 at 12:00 pm

                      “I’m saying that out of any particular group of workers some will kowtow, some will join and fight, and some will fight by themselves. Assuming that they’re all the same person is your stupid assumption.”
                      Oh I’m not assuming that. I’m pointing out that your position is self contradictory. On one hand you claim intimidation leads people to leave unions while proclaiming the number of cases brought before the Employment court by these supposed cowering workers. It’s utter bs.

                      “by these supposed cowering workers”. Pretends to not have a particular assumption, repeats assumption in the following sentence. You’re a moron.

                      “Oh, so now there may have been answers, but none that you deem worthy of being called “answers”. And yet we’re still discussing them.”
                      Yes, and your point is?

                      My point is that your question has in fact been answered.

                      “No, but then I’m not suggesting that an example of a dickhead unionist you might have raised was the only dickhead unionist in the country.”
                      Nor am I. But you’re claiming intimidation by one employer is causative in union numbers dropping without citing any other examples.

                      Nope.

                      What I actually wrote was “Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years.[…] Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.”

                      I claimed that there is a war on workers by capital. Talleys were one example (Bunnings another). I never said that Talleys were the only reason for union numbers dropping. I included ECA/ERA, and a campaign of lies spread by leeches like you. You’re the one pretending that I’m making it solely about Talleys.

                      “So? Even if that were all true, you’re still being a damned liar here.”
                      Well not that you’ve been able to prove. You’re simply clutching at ad-hominem.

                      See the above paragraph. you’re a liar.

                      “I admit having difficulties in explaining it to you – but that’s because you’re a fucking moron. See the start of this comment for evidence of that fact.”

                      No, I’m actually very capable of explaining this to most people with a fully functioning brain. I suspect your problem, however, is stubborness in the cause of the indefensible.

                      But you’re not doing the explaining, dipshit. You’re the one demanding the explanations, even after they’ve been given. So trying to pull the old ‘I know you are, but what am I’ is a complete non-sequiter. You’ve just provided more evidence that you’re a fucking moron.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 1:31 pm

                      ““by these supposed cowering workers”. Pretends to not have a particular assumption, repeats assumption in the following sentence. You’re a moron.”
                      No, I’m repeating YOUR line. I don’t believe the workers are intimidated. That’s your argument, remember?

                      “My point is that your question has in fact been answered.”
                      When? Where? Not by reciting your line about Talleys. In fact you’ve shot your own feet out.

                      “What I actually wrote was “Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years.[…] Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.”
                      What claptrap. There is no ‘war on workers’. The last 30 years has shown the unions to be a handbrake on workers and on NZ in general. Voluntary unionism proved the unions worth by the choices workers are making to LEAVE.

                      “I claimed that there is a war on workers by capital. Talleys were one example (Bunnings another). I never said that Talleys were the only reason for union numbers dropping. I included ECA/ERA, and a campaign of lies spread by leeches like you. You’re the one pretending that I’m making it solely about Talleys.”
                      And yet for all this alleged ‘war’, workers are leaving the unions in droves.

                      “See the above paragraph. you’re a liar.”
                      What paragraph?

                      “But you’re not doing the explaining, dipshit. You’re the one demanding the explanations, even after they’ve been given.”
                      No, I’m explaining to you why your answers are bs. What are the talleys union numbers MCFlock?

                    • McFlock …
                      3 May 2016 at 4:02 pm

                      ““by these supposed cowering workers”. Pretends to not have a particular assumption, repeats assumption in the following sentence. You’re a moron.”
                      No, I’m repeating YOUR line. I don’t believe the workers are intimidated. That’s your argument, remember?

                      Your assumption was “by these“. I never made such a claim.

                      “My point is that your question has in fact been answered.”
                      When? Where?

                      All over this subthread, you moron.

                      “What I actually wrote was “Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years.[…] Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.”
                      What claptrap. There is no ‘war on workers’.

                      Just to clarify, are you claiming that there is no inherent conflict between an employer’s desire to minimise the costs they incur when work they need is done and the employee’s desire to maximise the remuneration and conditions they recieve for doing that work, or are you merely going to quibble about what level of conflict and workplace body count justifies use ofthe term “war”?

                      “I claimed that there is a war on workers by capital. Talleys were one example (Bunnings another). I never said that Talleys were the only reason for union numbers dropping. I included ECA/ERA, and a campaign of lies spread by leeches like you. You’re the one pretending that I’m making it solely about Talleys.”
                      And yet for all this alleged ‘war’, workers are leaving the unions in droves.

                      Yes. In any sort of conflict, one side often wins for a while against the other.

                      “See the above paragraph. you’re a liar.”
                      What paragraph?

                      The one I wrote above that one, dickhead. The one you had just cut and pasted and then replied to. How damaged is your memory? The one where I demonstrated, very clearly, that you had once again misrepresented my claims.

                      “But you’re not doing the explaining, dipshit. You’re the one demanding the explanations, even after they’ve been given.”
                      No, I’m explaining to you why your answers are bs. What are the talleys union numbers MCFlock?

                      Ah, no. An “explanation” is when you provide information in order to aid another person’s understanding about an issue. What you keep doing is making an unsupported statement (“I’m explaining to you why your answers are bs”) and then asking unrelated questions (“What are the talleys union numbers MCFlock?”). A “question” is an interrogative statement designed to elicit information. An explanation provides information, you try to elicit information. See the difference? Yet again you make a claim when reality is literally the exact opposite of your claim.

                      What are the talleys union numbers MCFlock?

                      Given that I raised Talley’s (and Bunnings) as examples of the conflict and not as examples of the success of those tactics in particular instances, they are irrelevant. But if you want to demonstrate that Talleys have a higher unionisation rate than the rest of the country, feel free.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 4:33 pm

                      “Your assumption was “by these“. I never made such a claim.”
                      Oh but you did. You’ve been banging on about the worker intimidation by Talleys.
                      re?

                      “All over this subthread, you moron.”
                      You mean by trying to tell me because you claim Talleys bully their staff people leave unions? You aren’t even close.

                      “Just to clarify, are you claiming that there is no inherent conflict between an employer’s desire to minimise the costs they incur when work they need is done and the employee’s desire to maximise the remuneration and conditions they recieve for doing that work, or are you merely going to quibble about what level of conflict and workplace body count justifies use ofthe term “war”?”
                      The term ‘war’ is emotive claptrap, but I’ll ignore it. There is no inherent conflict in a healthy workplace. There are crap employers (few) and crap workers (also few), but most workplaces get along just fine. And most workers don’t see the need for a union.

                      “The one I wrote above that one, dickhead. The one you had just cut and pasted and then replied to. How damaged is your memory? The one where I demonstrated, very clearly, that you had once again misrepresented my claims.”
                      You’re dreaming. Or you’re getting as bad as OAB with comprehension.

                      “Given that I raised Talley’s (and Bunnings) as examples of the conflict and not as examples of the success of those tactics in particular instances, they are irrelevant. But if you want to demonstrate that Talleys have a higher unionisation rate than the rest of the country, feel free.”
                      Oh I’m asking you because it is YOUR claim that Talley’s alleged behaviour scares people away from joining unions. You haven’t been able to provide any evidence for that claim, but then it is to some degree anecdotal. I would point out though that you appear to have made that claim without any knowledge of Talley’s actual situation, let alone the wider workplaces. That is extraordinarily presumptive.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 May 2016 at 4:59 pm

                      “Your assumption was “by these“. I never made such a claim.”
                      Oh but you did. You’ve been banging on about the worker intimidation by Talleys.

                      You’ll be able to point out the comment where I said that the exact same individuals who were intimidated away from joining the union were also the exact same individuals who took on Talleys in the employment court, then.

                      If Talleys use intimidation tactics against workers, that doesn’t mean all workers were intimidated, or that those who were unfairly dismissed as a lesson to the others would not take action in the employment court.

                      “Just to clarify, are you claiming that there is no inherent conflict between an employer’s desire to minimise the costs they incur when work they need is done and the employee’s desire to maximise the remuneration and conditions they recieve for doing that work, or are you merely going to quibble about what level of conflict and workplace body count justifies use ofthe term “war”?”
                      The term ‘war’ is emotive claptrap, but I’ll ignore it. There is no inherent conflict in a healthy workplace.

                      That’s not what I asked. To make it super-simple for you, is there a conflict between how much an employer wants to pay and how much an employee wants to be paid?

                      “The one I wrote above that one, dickhead. The one you had just cut and pasted and then replied to. How damaged is your memory? The one where I demonstrated, very clearly, that you had once again misrepresented my claims.”
                      You’re dreaming. Or you’re getting as bad as OAB with comprehension. .

                      You wrote: Nor am I. But you’re claiming intimidation by one employer is causative in union numbers dropping without citing any other examples.

                      I replied:
                      What I actually wrote was “Talleys, Bunnings etc show the war on workers waged by the rich. And the policies of the last thirty years.[…] Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.”

                      I claimed that there is a war on workers by capital. Talleys were one example (Bunnings another). I never said that Talleys were the only reason for union numbers dropping. I included ECA/ERA, and a campaign of lies spread by leeches like you. You’re the one pretending that I’m making it solely about Talleys.

                      ^^^That was me demonstrating that you’re a fucking liar.

                      Oh I’m asking you because it is YOUR claim that Talley’s alleged behaviour scares people away from joining unions.

                      No, I said that behaviour such as has been confirmed by employment court decisions against Talleys intimidates workers away from joining unions. I also said that Bunnings attitude towards its workers is also part of the war on workers that can lower unionisation rates, and indeed propagandist liars such as yourself (but by no means only you) all discourage workers from joining unions. I never made any claims about Talley’s unionisation rates. Besides, it’s also irrelevant because it won’t affect your response either way.

                  • International Rescue …
                    27 April 2016 at 3:50 pm

                    “No, it doesn’t say that at all.”
                    Yes, it does.

                    “It claims that Perez’ comparison of medians, while accurate, is “misleading”.”
                    And that is correct. So if unionised wages are not higher, then OAB is wrong. I rest my case.

                    “union membership levels are not a comparison of union vs non-union wages.”
                    Where did I say it was? You’re getting confused in your desperate attempt to convince yourself unions actually achieve anything today.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 April 2016 at 4:05 pm

                      “It claims that Perez’ comparison of medians, while accurate, is “misleading”.”
                      And that is correct. So if unionised wages are not higher, then OAB is wrong. I rest my case.

                      There is no evidence presented that that is correct. All it says is that Perez was correct to say that the US median unionised wage is higher than the median non-union wage.

                      If you pricks could demonstrate that that true statement is misleading, you’d provide age- and region-standardised medians that would demonstrate the distortion in the national medians.

                      But no, you insist on talking about membership levels in a debate about membership benefits.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 7:34 am

                      You’ve had your face rubbed in the fact of contemporary union achievements. The Bartlett decision, victory after victory against the Talley trash, getting the (largely non-unionised) forestry industry to start taking worker safety seriously (after the unions won private prosecutions – the only way Tory scum ever take personal responsibility is by force).

                      Shall I rub your face in it some more?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 7:50 am

                      On one hand the left claims the gap is widening and on the other that unions are helping close it?

                      It’s clear that the Bartlett decision would help reverse or at least slow the trend. Apparently, you cannot imagine this. I think I see the problem: you’re a cretin.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 11:28 am

                      “You’ve had your face rubbed in the fact of contemporary union achievements. ”

                      Ah no. You have failed to support your claim of pay advantage, and I have decimated it. And here’s the question you studiously are avoiding…if union membership has so many benefits, why is union membership in decline?

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 11:30 am

                      “I think I see the problem”

                      No, you don’t, and never will. Unions are irrelevant. In the past they did good work, today they are corrupt bully boys. It is the law that protects workers today. Unions will continue to face extinction.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 12:26 pm

                      And here’s the question you studiously are avoiding…if union membership has so many benefits, why is union membership in decline?

                      So in one sentence you claim that a question I gave an answer to ages ago has been avoided and once again repeat a link that you claimed to never have made.

                      We need better fuckwits, this one’s tied himself in knots.

                    • lprent []
                      28 April 2016 at 1:21 pm

                      You have a point. It looks like this one is an ideological idiot parrot who has no ability or intellectual capacity to adapt. I could cut many of your arguments to scrap without straining, and that is without believing any of the arguments I would use.

                      This idiot seems to think that ignoring what they don”t want to hear and acting like a software bot with a repeat bleat function is a way to argue. I have run across sheep with better abilities to argue.

                      I will have a look at their comment history later and decide if they need to be pruned from the discussion for such blatant repetitive stupidity.

                      I find that the best way to get better trolls is via crude selection pressures.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 3:04 pm

                      Tiwai point final decision on lieu days today. Union action delivers $20 million worth of relevance for workers.

                      You presented the evidence of better wages and conditions, and when that was pointed out to you, your only answer is that Robert Reid and Gerard Hehir must be lying: your ‘argument’ is motivated and underpinned by nothing but hate.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 4:26 pm

                      “So in one sentence you claim that a question I gave an answer to ages ago has been avoided and once again repeat a link that you claimed to never have made.”

                      You haven’t answered it, so now you’re lying. And I haven’t made the link you claim until my question. Now answer it.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 4:31 pm

                      ” It looks like this one is an ideological idiot parrot who has no ability or intellectual capacity to adapt. ”

                      Let me summarise for you.

                      1. I have posted a link that demonstrates that data supporting OAB’s assertions about union benefits is flawed.
                      2. I have requested evidence to support OAB’s claims. None have been forthcoming.
                      3. McFlock claimed I linked union membership numbers to membership benefits, but can’t cite the post.
                      4. McFlock and OAB refuse to address my question about why workers are leaving unions.

                      An intellectual ability to adapt isn’t the issue here, it’s the evasion of two posters who simply can’t see the woods for the trees.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 4:37 pm

                      “You presented the evidence of better wages and conditions, and when that was pointed out to you, your only answer is that Robert Reid and Gerard Hehir must be lying: your ‘argument’ is motivated and underpinned by nothing but hate.”

                      No, you’re lying. I didn’t say Reid was lying, I implied he was unlikely to be impartial. Reid is a pimp for the unions, so he’s hardly likely to openly admit their failure, is he? That’s why all he has is anecdote.

                      And you didn’t read the full article. Here, I’ll make it easy for you:

                      “New Zealand Institute of Economic Research principal economist Shamubeel Eaqub baldly says unions’ diminishing size are a good indicator people do not think they are good value.”

                      Now, ready to answer my question?

                      If unions are so good, why are they in decline?

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 4:48 pm

                      LPrent…

                      I have just reviewed the posts in this thread again and I would ask you to read back to OAB’s post of 22 April 2016 at 6:15 pm which began this dialogue.

                      OAB’s first claim was

                      “Right now, union membership delivers higher wages and better conditions for the individual union member, over and above those who aren’t in unions.”

                      I challenged that, and have continued to do so, on the basis that NZ does not keep such data, and that IS evidence refutes it.

                      OAB also said:

                      “As for membership numbers, other than that the question exposes your malicious, hate-based politics of envy, I have no idea.”

                      That’s the comment I have been responding to re membership numbers.

                      McFlock has dishonestly claimed I made a link between union membership and union v non-union wages. The comment trail shows he is wrong.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 4:51 pm

                      “3. McFlock claimed I linked union membership numbers to membership benefits, but can’t cite the post.
                      compare with the immediately following post:

                      Now, ready to answer my question?
                      If unions are so good, why are they in decline?”

                      Refer to my post above to LPrent and to the OAB post cited.

                      Apology accepted.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:20 pm

                      lol whatever, dude.

                      I pasted a direct quote of you doing it.

                      Heck, I’ll do it again, with the wages and membership bits in bold:

                      Finally, think on this. If union members do receive higher wages and better conditions, yet union membership is rapidly declining, then unions must be really crap lol.

                      You wrote that two days ago.

                      And to avoid future social awkwardness, try not to confuse “suck my salty balls” with an apology.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:39 pm

                      “lol whatever, dude.”

                      Neither of those links support what you claim. You seem to do that a lot…don’t you think I’ll check?

                      But I’ve left the best for last.

                      On 27/4 at 4.17 you posted:

                      “Well, except for OAB. In fact, you’re the only one who keeps wanting to talk about membership levels as if they have any significance.”

                      Your “except for OAB” is critical to understanding this discussion, because it contained a link to OAB’s comment (22 April 2016 at 6:15 pm):

                      “As for membership numbers, other than that the question exposes your malicious, hate-based politics of envy, I have no idea.”

                      That’s where the dialogue began. You really are looking more and more like an F wit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:47 pm

                      My response to your flaccid assertion that unions are irrelevant? You’re claiming my response to your drivel is the subject?

                      Nah, hatey-boy, your assertion is the subject. You linked to an article wherein Robert Reid and Gerard Hehir gave evidence that supported my response.

                      Then, I cited a bunch of court decisions to further refute your derivative, tired, zombie gobshite.

                      And then I noted that your entire position is motivated by hate, and wondered why.

                      Perhaps you’re trash, arguing in bad faith and motivated by malice, and it’s probably just that you’re gullible, stupid, and ignorant.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:49 pm

                      […]that started this part of the dialogue[…]

                      Except for the comment immediately preceding it where you wrote:

                      22 April 2016 at 10:49 am

                      The better wages and conditions were secured decades ago. Unions have achieved virtually nothing in recent times, and are now irrelevant. And corrupt in some cases. How’s that membership drive going?

                      That last little question is the first allusion to union membership levels in the thread. It gets better, because you wrote that in response to OAB’s response to you calling unions irrelevant: “Apart from to their members, who enjoy better wages and conditions, which after all, is the real reason your owners hate them.”

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      Perhaps you’re trash, arguing in bad faith and motivated by malice, and it’s probably just that you’re gullible, stupid, and ignorant.

                      I honestly haven’t drawn a conclusion as to whether idiot rescusc is more a moron than a liar, or vice versa. Both are in there, I’m just not sure of the relative measures…

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      “You’re claiming my response to your drivel is the subject?”
                      Yep, that’s what started it.

                      “You linked to an article wherein Robert Reid and Gerard Hehir gave evidence that supported my response.”
                      Nope, it contained a single anecdote from comrade Reid, and other than that refuted your claim.

                      “Then, I cited a bunch of court decisions to further refute your derivative, tired, zombie gobshite.”
                      Court decisions? Do those court decisions determine non union workers will receive less than union members?

                      “And then I noted that your entire position is motivated by hate, and wondered why.”
                      Because you’re in denial about the condition of unions. I don’t hate unions, I see them as redundant, irrelevant to a 21st century workplace. Historically the unions have made significant progress for workers, progress which is now enshrined in law. Today, however, they are largely handbrakes on growth.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:00 pm

                      “How’s that membership drive going?”
                      Care to share how that is a link? And just to inject some honesty into your world, here are the preceding posts:

                      OAB:
                      “I suppose you want unions banned as well.”

                      IR:
                      No. They’ve done an excellent job of making themselves irrelevant without my intervention.

                      OAB:
                      Apart from to their members, who enjoy better wages and conditions, which after all, is the real reason your owners hate them.

                      OAB’s comment is the first one that actually drew a link between members benefits and member numbrs.

                      Keep digging.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:02 pm

                      Now, as to my claim, that union membership delivers better wages and conditions. Reid and Hehir support it, and they give details as to why.

                      Let’s imagine for a second that International Rescue isn’t a malicious dullard, and that Hehir and Reid are untrustworthy.

                      Recent union court victories deliver better wages and conditions for eg: health-care and forestry workers whether or not union officials are telling the truth.

                      Who funded the legal actions? Yes, that’s right: union members.

                      QED

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:06 pm

                      if you meant “membership”, why did you write “irrelevant”?

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:08 pm

                      I still can’t understand why you won’t answer the basic question.

                      If I ran a business that sold a service fewer and fewer people purchased I would understand that my service was no longer as relevant or attractive as it once was, and I’d want to know why. Yet you seem to either be unaware or utterly ambivalent! If unions were offering workers a good deal, workers would be joining.

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:12 pm

                      “Let’s imagine for a second that International Rescue isn’t a malicious dullard, and that Hehir and Reid are untrustworthy.”
                      I’ve met Reid, he’s a charming, intelligent man. But a single anecdote will only convince a fool.

                      “Recent union court victories deliver better wages and conditions for eg: health-care and forestry workers whether or not union officials are telling the truth. Who funded the legal actions? Yes, that’s right: union members.”
                      So? You’re claiming a win in a union having to spend members money in a court case? You do realise that non-unionised workers negotiate excellent arrangements with their employers all the time without making their lawyers wealthy?

                    • International Rescue …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:17 pm

                      “if you meant “membership”, why did you write “irrelevant”?”

                      Because I meant ‘irrelevant’.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 April 2016 at 6:24 pm

                      You do realise that the only way low waged workers can afford decent representation in court is to join a union – it’s right there in the link you so helpfully provided, after all.

                      No, wait, perhaps you don’t realise that 🙄

                      Perhaps I should rub your face in a $20M settlement again. Or the trend in forestry death statistics.

                      Do you hate forestry workers as well as unions?

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 9:10 pm

                      I still can’t understand why you won’t answer the basic question.

                      You’ve already had at least one answer two days ago. Athough you might have missed it, being a moron and all.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 April 2016 at 9:23 pm

                      OAB:
                      “I suppose you want unions banned as well.”

                      IR:
                      No. They’ve done an excellent job of making themselves irrelevant without my intervention.

                      OAB:
                      Apart from to their members, who enjoy better wages and conditions, which after all, is the real reason your owners hate them.

                      OAB’s comment is the first one that actually drew a link between members benefits and member numbrs.

                      Nope, OAB said unions are relevant to their members. He said nothing about numbers. He just said unions were relevant to someone.
                      You said, and claim to have meant, “irrelevant”. OAB countered with an example of relevance. Then you brought out membership numbers with your little backhander about membership drives.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 9:48 am

                      “You’ve already had at least one answer two days ago. Athough you might have missed it, being a moron and all.”

                      You’re deluded if you thank that’s an answer. You have given no reason for the decline in union membership. None.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 9:50 am

                      “Nope, OAB said unions are relevant to their members.”

                      My comment was about irrelevance of unions. OAB then said “tell that to the members”. Got it now?

                    • McFlock …
                      29 April 2016 at 2:10 pm

                      You’re deluded if you thank that’s an answer. You have given no reason for the decline in union membership. None.

                      … apart from the entire fucking paragraph that suggested the reason might be more complicated than just paycheques and benefits. Hightlight: “If it’s easier for pricks to fire workers for no reason, that affects the calculation. Couple in the bullshit propaganda from stupid jerks, and capital becomes a powerful enemy.”.

                      “Nope, OAB said unions are relevant to their members.”

                      My comment was about irrelevance of unions. OAB then said “tell that to the members”. Got it now?

                      Mentioning members isn’t the same as mentioning membership numbers.

                      If I call you a “stupid piece of shit with broken brain cells”, that’s a comment on the operational dysfunction of your brain cells, not whether you have an increasing or decreasing number of brain cells. Got it now?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 April 2016 at 5:17 pm

                      My comment was about irrelevance of unions. OAB then said “tell that to the members”

                      Too funny: you think that was an exhaustive list. If cognition were your strong point, you’d note the relevance of the Bartlett decision to pretty much 100% of the working population (not to mention their employers). Oh, and you’d realise that upward pressure on wages (as provided by unions) affect wage rates across the board.

                      Go on, spew some more of the hate that defines you.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 6:22 pm

                      “… apart from the entire fucking paragraph that suggested the reason might be more complicated than just paycheques and benefits. ”

                      That isn’t addressing the point at all. Claiming something is more complicated than an explanation isn’t an explanation. ANSWER THE QUESTION. FWit.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 6:40 pm

                      ” you think that was an exhaustive list.”

                      Oh well you still haven’t answered the question, have you? Can’t? Or won’t?

                      If unions are delivering better wages and conditions to their members, why are their membership numbers declining?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 April 2016 at 6:42 pm

                      “Answer the question”.

                      That isn’t how this works. No-one is obliged to explain shit to you. Your false assertion that unions are irrelevant is a manifestation of your bitterness and hatred. Everything else in this thread stems from that.

                      Please choke on it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 April 2016 at 6:57 pm

                      I can think of lots of reasons why union membership has declined in the last thirty years. Can you think of a single one that isn’t a manifestation of your bitterness and hatred?

                      I think you can. If you can (and you can manage not to choke on it), I’ll tell you one of mine.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 7:10 pm

                      “No-one is obliged to explain shit to you. ”

                      True. And so no-one is obliged to accept your unsubstantiated claims as anything other than bs.

                    • International Rescue …
                      29 April 2016 at 7:20 pm

                      “I can think of lots of reasons why union membership has declined in the last thirty years.”
                      And yet you name none.

                      “Can you think of a single one that isn’t a manifestation of your bitterness and hatred?”
                      I’ve given you one of them…they aren’t (seen as) relevant anymore.

                      I’ll give you another. Financial impropriety.

                      And another. Oh wait…it’s your turn.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 April 2016 at 7:36 pm

                      “Financial impropriety”. That looks suspiciously like bitterness and hatred speaking. The rules are that you have to avoid those, so, just to be sure they’re not at play, cite the court decision. Please note, opinion won’t do: was a case made?

                      For my part, I’d point to the nature of eg: the forestry industry: a fragmented workforce and multiple SME employers, and note the recent changes as a direct result of union involvement, just to rub your face in it again. I can think of more. can you think of a single one?

                      I think you can’t: all yours are derivative lies, motivated by hate.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 April 2016 at 7:37 pm

                      “… apart from the entire fucking paragraph that suggested the reason might be more complicated than just paycheques and benefits. ”

                      That isn’t addressing the point at all. Claiming something is more complicated than an explanation isn’t an explanation.

                      And yet that is literally what your position is regarding the union wage premium: that a comparison of union and non-union national medians is too simplistic.
                      But more to the point, we have Talley’s employment court history (also mentioned in that paragraph) as an example of employer intimidation practises that might affect union membership.

                      ANSWER THE QUESTION. FWit.

                      This is all getting rather postmodern – your question has been answered several times, but I’m getting bored of trying to find new ways to explain to you, in really small words, that you already have received the answers you seek.

                      You stupid incompetent arsehole fuckwit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2016 at 6:17 am

                      unsubstantiated claims

                      The English language isn’t your strong point. Hehir and Reid and the Bartlett decision and the Talley decisions and the results of union involvement in forestry substantiate my claims, and those are but a few examples.

                    • International Rescue …
                      30 April 2016 at 5:09 pm

                      ““Financial impropriety”. That looks suspiciously like bitterness and hatred speaking. The rules are that you have to avoid those, so, just to be sure they’re not at play, cite the court decision. Please note, opinion won’t do: was a case made?”

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4994627/Unite-still-paying-off-tax-debt

                    • International Rescue …
                      30 April 2016 at 5:12 pm

                      “And yet that is literally what your position is regarding the union wage premium: that a comparison of union and non-union national medians is too simplistic.”

                      When are you going to answer the question?

                    • International Rescue …
                      30 April 2016 at 5:47 pm

                      “This is all getting rather postmodern – your question has been answered several times, ”

                      This is a common tactic of the left. You come up against a question you cannot answer, claim to have answered it, and then abuse the questioner.

                      Should I repeat the question?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 April 2016 at 7:32 pm

                      Owing money is not “impropriety” – which if it had occurred would surely have resulted in prosecution. Your link disproves your malicious narrative.

                      Derivative bitterness and hatred, they’re all you’ve got.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 April 2016 at 7:46 pm

                      “And yet that is literally what your position is regarding the union wage premium: that a comparison of union and non-union national medians is too simplistic.”

                      When are you going to answer the question?

                      Yet another answer to that question was in the next sentence after the bit you cut&pasted.

                      This is a common tactic of the left. You come up against a question you cannot answer, claim to have answered it, and then abuse the questioner.

                      Option B: you ask a question, you receive and answer, you fail to understand that it is actually an answer, it is expllained to you, rephrased for you, simplified for you, put into smaller words for you analogies presented to help illustrate the answer for you, and you still pretend the question was never answered. So, patience exhausted, people abuse you. Because treating you as a normally intelligent human being is obviously giving you far too much credit. And this happens over and over again.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:02 am

                      “Owing money is not “impropriety” ”

                      Oh I love the euphemism. This is not simply ‘owing money’. It is withholding members PAYE deducted from them. It is financial impropriety, and disgraceful behaviour.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:18 am

                      🙄

                      When the IRD thinks there’s impropriety, they investigate and prosecute. What do they do on your planet?

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:27 am

                      “When the IRD thinks there’s impropriety, they investigate and prosecute. ”

                      Indeed they do. And if the debt is owed by a company they…put the company into liquidation, right? Now read this:

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10740987:
                      “Inland Revenue is chasing unionist Matt McCarten’s Unite Support Services Ltd. for $150,750 in unpaid taxes after the department forced the company into liquidation last month.

                      McCarten’s vehicle, which supplied administrative support services to the youth-orientated union Unite Inc., was put into liquidation by a High Court order last month after the tax department pursued it for “failure to provide for taxation,” according to the first liquidator’s report.

                      The Official Assignee rated the prospect of a dividend as “unlikely,” and is looking into the company’s possible interest in an Onehunga building lease, the report said.

                      The liquidator will contact McCarten to verify Unite Support Services’ interest in the building, which may have outstanding arrears owed on the lease.

                      IRD is seeking almost $4,000 costs, $97,000 in a preferential claim and a further $49,800 as an unsecured creditor with proof of debt.”

                      I wonder what happened to the possible outstanding arrears on the building?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:33 am

                      Yes, those are the steps they take when an organisation runs into tax difficulties – inability to pay, etc. Where there’s impropriety, otoh, criminal prosecutions ensue.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:38 am

                      “Where there’s impropriety, otoh, criminal prosecutions ensue.”

                      No, not necessarily. Not paying your bills is impropriety. Not passing on deductions from staff is impropriety. Not filing returns (another Unite offence) is impropriety. Perhaps you should look it up.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:43 am

                      Perhaps you should look it up, rather than inventing definitions to suit your malicious purpose.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 11:54 am

                      Ok…

                      from Dictionary.com
                      “the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness.”

                      from Merriam Webster
                      “rude or immoral behavior : improper behavior”

                      Well and truly describes the behaviour of not paying over employees tax deductions.

                    • adam …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:19 pm

                      International Rescue

                      Complete offence, the Bull against Matt is tired, and it has been argued here before. And at the end of the day – mistake made, and bill payed. So bugger off trying to litigate it again.

                      You are a boring, anti union authoritarian.

                      and worst of all you have a nasty habit of trying to get the last word in.

                      Hence why myself and other just give up responding to you, when you do nothing but espouse hate, and viciousness. It is tiresome when you don’t think you do.

                      Lying to yourself is the door in which we invite the deceiver.

                      God Bless.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:41 pm

                      “the Bull against Matt is tired, ”

                      At no stage have I made this personal. This entire discussion has been about unions. Why do you see the need to mention any one individual?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 May 2016 at 4:02 pm

                      Your one example is a stretch.

                      In summation, you have been provided with many many examples of union relevance, which show your initial false assertion to be what it is: motivated by hate.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 4:34 pm

                      “Your one example is a stretch.”

                      No, it fits the definition perfectly.

                      “In summation, you have been provided with many many examples of union relevance,”
                      No. I could keep claiming England are the best football team in the world because they won the world cup once in 1966. It wouldn’t be true, but I could keep claiming it.

                      Meanwhile, union numbers keep declining.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:23 pm

                      Did England beat the Talley’s in court just last month, or win the Bartlett case, or get the forestry industry to take H&S seriously?

                      You hate it when workers employ the freedoms of association and expression, and the power it gives them, and it shows.

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 5:30 pm

                      “Did England beat the Talley’s in court just last month, or win the Bartlett case, or get the forestry industry to take H&S seriously?”

                      No. The Forestry Industry is taking H&S seriously because of Gvt intervention. The Talley’s case is the ‘one off’ that should mean more workers join unions. Why aren’t they?

                      “You hate it when workers employ the freedoms of association and expression, and the power it gives them, and it shows.”
                      No, I am a supporter of freedom of association. That’s why I support voluntary unionism. As for the ‘power’, It’s not for me to determine that, it;s for the workers. And what are they saying OAB?

        • Raff 6.4.1.2
          18 April 2016 at 10:12 pm

          You’ve recited the theory well, but clearly have no idea of the reality. Hundreds of kids who borrowed to pay for tertiary believing the bumph about them being able to get a job to pay it back have NOT been able to get a decent enough job to do so (or a job at all) and will remain in serious debt for decades. Houses are already unaffordable, and with this debt as well they can’t even think about going into further debt to buy one. And today, kids are not getting tertiary education at all because they see the consequences of the debt, and know they can’t afford it.

          • Draco T Bastard 6.4.1.2.1
            18 April 2016 at 11:31 pm

            Hundreds of kids who borrowed to pay for tertiary believing the bumph about them being able to get a job to pay it back have NOT been able to get a decent enough job to do so (or a job at all) and will remain in serious debt for decades.

            Which is why this government just stopped student loans to older people – they know damn well that older people getting loans to get the required degrees to get a job haven’t got a hope in hell in paying them off in large part because there’s so few good paying jobs available.

          • International Rescue 6.4.1.2.2
            19 April 2016 at 11:53 am

            “Hundreds of kids who borrowed to pay for tertiary believing the bumph about them being able to get a job to pay it back have NOT been able to get a decent enough job to do so (or a job at all) and will remain in serious debt for decades.”

            Evidence?

            “Houses are already unaffordable, ”

            Houses are not ‘unaffordable’. Living where some people may wish might be, but then it always has been.

            • Matthew Whitehead 6.4.1.2.2.1
              20 April 2016 at 7:15 pm

              Houses are unaffordable (that doesn’t mean nobody can buy them, it means they’re out of reach for significant parts of the population) in places with large amounts of jobs. Houses are affordable in places with very few jobs. What exactly are you suggesting? Everyone try to go self-employed in the digital economy and move out into a rural area with good internet? That’s not going to work for everyone.

              There are measures we can take to move employment out to the regions from Wellington and Auckland, addressing both problems at once. But that would require significant effort from both government and private industry.

              • International Rescue …
                21 April 2016 at 8:05 pm

                “Houses are unaffordable (that doesn’t mean nobody can buy them, it means they’re out of reach for significant parts of the population) in places with large amounts of jobs.”

                Rubbish. There are many provincial towns where there are both jobs and affordable housing. New Plymouth is one example.

          • Colonial Viper 6.4.1.2.3
            19 April 2016 at 12:16 pm

            And the Labour Government played the game of pretend and extend by making student loans “interest free.”

            So people felt a bit better about taking out unmanageably big student loans, which can still never be paid back.

            • International Rescue 6.4.1.2.3.1
              22 April 2016 at 10:55 am

              The average student loan is not that high compared to the income a graduate can earn. Choose your degree wisely and it isn’t generally onerous.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 April 2016 at 11:02 am

                Ah yes, the turning of “education” into “future corporate lackey education”.

                • International Rescue …
                  22 April 2016 at 11:05 am

                  How so? Students have always paid for part of their education. The Gvt has always paid for most of it. Tertiary education should be about vocational training. The vast majority of NZ’ers don’t work for corporates, but I guess that line appeals to unthinking leftists.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.4.1.3
          18 April 2016 at 11:37 pm

          Of course people are priced out of tertiary education – that’s the whole point of having fees.

          Sheesh, these fucken idiot RWNJs who have NFI what the pricing mechanism is for in a market economy.

          • International Rescue 6.4.1.3.1
            19 April 2016 at 11:54 am

            There have always been ‘fees’. The difference is we had to borrow from a bank or save to fund our tertiary education costs.

            • Colonial Viper 6.4.1.3.1.1
              19 April 2016 at 12:20 pm

              Dude, being able to fund something purely from income, or having to fund it through unpayable debt, are completely different circumstances.

              The former is sustainable and sensible, the latter is putting a young generation into debt servitude and encumbering their entire adult lives.

              • International Rescue …
                19 April 2016 at 1:22 pm

                The loans are interest free. For most degrees the quantum of debt is not prohibitive.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 April 2016 at 1:32 pm

                  Nice fucking dodge mate, I guess billions and billions in student loan debt isn’t prohibitive to you, but to a tonne of young people it is an albatross.

                  • International Rescue …
                    19 April 2016 at 4:13 pm

                    Nice try at an emotive argument. No one individual owes ‘billions and billions’ of dollars. The average in 2014 was $24,405 (http://www.students.org.nz/student_loan_debt_continues_to_climb_and_students_fear_for_the_future_mounts_with_it). Given that is interest free, it is neither onerous nor prohibitive.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 April 2016 at 5:14 pm

                      Nice try at an emotive argument. No one individual owes ‘billions and billions’ of dollars. The average in 2014 was $24,405

                      LOL!

                      Who are you even trying to fool with your specious argument haha!

                      Outstanding student debt is now almost NZ$15B

                      Over 500 Kiwis per year holding student debt are going into bankruptcy

                      Not that a shit head like you would fucking care, but I thought I’d bring it to your attention.

                      http://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/76266/total-540-student-loans-worth-record-177m-written-one-year

                    • KJT []
                      19 April 2016 at 7:28 pm

                      CV. In the days before student loans the tax rates meant that deductions from incomes overall were much higher than paying tax and student loans, now. In fact I am still annoyed that my 60% top tax rate allowed the children of the rich to infest the ski fields in the university holidays.
                      I was happy to pay high taxes for health, housing and education for a functioning country however, unlike IR.

                    • International Rescue …
                      19 April 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      There you go again. The quantum of total debt is irrelevant to anyones individual circumstances, and it is individuals who pay the loans. And you have no evidence student loans were a factor in any of those bankruptcies. None. What you do have is a group of people who had a heavily subsidised education who then couldn’t manage their finances. On the face of it, no I don’t have a lot of sympathy, except for their creditors.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 April 2016 at 8:58 pm

                      CV. In the days before student loans the tax rates meant that deductions from incomes overall were much higher than paying tax and student loans, now. In fact I am still annoyed that my 60% top tax rate allowed the children of the rich to infest the ski fields in the university holidays.

                      It’s the old story, KJT. You can’t pick and choose what your taxes go to.

                      And if the well off pay the most taxes, why shouldn’t they get some of that benefit back for their kids.

                    • International Rescue …
                      20 April 2016 at 2:36 pm

                      “I was happy to pay high taxes for health, housing and education for a functioning country however, unlike IR.”

                      Actually I don’t remember being asked that question. I’m more than happy to pay taxes to cover those, but I do expect the systems that deliver them to be efficient and business like. But here’s the other thing that is most interesting….all of those social services have a history of private delivery, and a successful one. I don’t see any reason for Gvt ownership of any housing, for example, when the private sector will willingly fund the capital cost, with the Gvt providing rent relief for low income families.

                  • International Rescue …
                    19 April 2016 at 4:13 pm

                    Nice try at an emotive argument. No one individual owes ‘billions and billions’ of dollars. The average in 2014 was $24,405 (http://www.students.org.nz/student_loan_debt_continues_to_climb_and_students_fear_for_the_future_mounts_with_it). Given that is interest free, it is neither onerous nor prohibitive.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 April 2016 at 4:33 pm

                      And your own source says that the vast majority of borrowers, you know the ones who actually have the fucking loans, do find it onerous and prohibitive. To a life-changing extent.

                    • International Rescue …
                      19 April 2016 at 5:29 pm

                      Yeah, the Students Association would argue that. The reality of an interest free loan averaging $25k to fund your employment training is rather different.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 April 2016 at 8:03 pm

                      The reality? What would you know about it? Taxpayers funded your education (fat lot of good it did), and still you manage a thoroughly ungrateful response: kicking the ladder out from under your betters.

                      Every single education dogma the right imposes upon the country flies in the face of all international best practice. What is wrong with you? Is your cretinhood so seductive you want your children to endure it with you?

                    • International Rescue …
                      19 April 2016 at 8:29 pm

                      “Taxpayers funded your education ”
                      As they still do, for the most part, for students today.

                      “Every single education dogma the right imposes upon the country flies in the face of all international best practice. What is wrong with you?”
                      Rubbish. Student Loans are common internationally. Partnership Schools are international best practise, unless you’re Labour’s education spokesman and have never visited one!

                    • McFlock …
                      20 April 2016 at 2:46 pm

                      So your source is fine when it agrees with you, and you ignore it when it disagrees.

                      🙄

                    • International Rescue …
                      21 April 2016 at 7:53 pm

                      On the contrary, my source makes my point.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  20 April 2016 at 7:16 pm

                  Does that really matter when the principle is so unaffordably high?

                  • International Rescue …
                    21 April 2016 at 8:07 pm

                    Do you mean ‘principal’? Of course it matters. Individuals pay back their loans, not the collective morass.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.4.1.3.1.2
              19 April 2016 at 2:17 pm

              The difference is we had to borrow from a bank or save to fund our tertiary education costs.

              Outright lie.

              Previously anyone could get a tertiary education essentially for free. The cost to the government was covered by higher taxes on those people with the higher earnings who invariably had the higher education.

              But that got changed so that those with the higher incomes got a tax cut and taxes were raised on the lower incomes through the addition of GST and the implementation of course fees.

              Good for the rich, not so good for anyone else.

              • International Rescue …
                19 April 2016 at 4:17 pm

                “Previously anyone could get a tertiary education essentially for free.”

                Rubbish. There were fees and material costs.

                “The cost to the government was covered by higher taxes on those people with the higher earnings who invariably had the higher education.”

                Yep, and that’s still the way it works. The vast bulk of costs are born by the tax payer.

                • Puddleglum …
                  19 April 2016 at 4:43 pm

                  I went through university from 1978 to 1981.

                  Fees were entered on the enrolment and then ‘waived’/paid by the University/government. I got a bursary of a few hundred dollars a year, if I recall correctly.

                  Yes, you still had to buy textbooks though not everyone did. You paid for accommodation if you lived away from home or paid board to your parents.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    19 April 2016 at 5:16 pm

                    I got an A Bursary, it was worth $200 per year.

                    Of course, by the time I went through uni with the new student fees even back in the 90s, $200 per year was a sad joke.

                  • International Rescue …
                    19 April 2016 at 5:32 pm

                    Similar time to me, and I paid course fees and textbook costs. IMHO putting a cost on tertiary training is a good thing, because it focuses the mind on avoiding the sort of meaningless waffle people would study if it was completely free to the beneficiary.

                    It also has to be remembered that we pay a lower rate of tax today than in yesteryear, so students get more comparatively more money in the hand when they graduate. A fairer system all round.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 April 2016 at 6:44 pm

                      🙄

                      Vacuous, empty rhetoric.

                    • International Rescue …
                      19 April 2016 at 8:20 pm

                      No, just the facts

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 April 2016 at 9:54 pm

                      Your ungrateful lies are not facts, dipshit. Who is “we” in your comment, given the rise in GST shifted a greater tax burden onto the low-waged.

                      You know jack shit about the burden of student debt.

                      Putting a cost on tertiary training drivel drivel drivel: that’s why Germany just made all tertiary education free.

                      You speak for no-one but your Daddy.

                    • International Rescue …
                      20 April 2016 at 2:38 pm

                      If you think I have lied, then prove it.

                      “given the rise in GST shifted a greater tax burden onto the low-waged.”

                      More leftist bs.

                      “You know jack shit about the burden of student debt.”

                      I’m the only one quoting statistics here. You’re contribution is just derisive drivel.

                    • ropata …
                      20 April 2016 at 7:39 pm

                      Can’t have the lower classes getting educated can we?

                      When the public is not educated it’s easier for the ruling class to publish lies in the MSM, fuck up democracy, and keep wages nice and low.

                    • International Rescue …
                      21 April 2016 at 8:09 pm

                      “Can’t have the lower classes getting educated can we?”

                      Everyone has access to an education in NZ. At a tertiary level, education is heavily subsidised by the Gvt, and is accessible via interest free loans to fund the remainder. If students choose wisely, their subsequent career earnings will comfortably meet that commitment.

    • Mosa 6.5
      18 April 2016 at 11:02 pm

      I voted the first time in 1987 and every election scince and I am in no doubt who I voted for every time.

    • KJT 6.6
      19 April 2016 at 7:48 pm

      So. You voted for Labour when the were the beginning of the ACT party.
      Another delusional follower of the Neo-Liberal superstition.

      • International Rescue 6.6.1
        19 April 2016 at 8:26 pm

        Me? Absolutely. Labour’s economic reforms of the 1980’s were the only thing that saved tis country from ruin, and have led to 30 years of relative prosperity. Remarkable really, a reforming Labour Gvt using conventional economic management to fix the chaos left by a command economy run by a National Gvt.

        • dv 6.6.1.1
          21 April 2016 at 9:50 pm

          Appart from the share market crash in 1987.

          • International Rescue 6.6.1.1.1
            22 April 2016 at 10:50 am

            Which the new economy recovered from. Unlike the soviet union. Been to Venezuela lately?

            • Colonial Viper 6.6.1.1.1.1
              22 April 2016 at 10:54 am

              Venezuela has been the target of hybrid war by the western financial system etc. for many years now. As are members of the BRICS. And any other country which refuses to be subservient to the Anglo Empire.

            • dv 6.6.1.1.1.2
              22 April 2016 at 11:04 am

              So then IR
              Wot about the 2000 crash!!
              Then the 2008 crash::

              • International Rescue …
                22 April 2016 at 11:13 am

                What about them? All economic systems have problems. The better ones self correct. Unlike Socialism, which collapses.

                http://www.austriancenter.com/2015/09/07/inequality-poverty-the-free-market-and-capitalism-the-story-of-a-wonderful-success/

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 April 2016 at 11:20 am

                  Pfffft. Self correct using trillions of bailout money for the bankers and the 0.1%. While the ordinary citizens get driven to the wall.

                  Who exactly do you think you are fooling any more? Just yourself, I think.

                  And it is so sad when the lackeys end up believing their own lying corporate PR.

                  Certainly not fooled any more are the millions of Americans who are voting for anyone who is not an establishment candidate.

                  • International Rescue …
                    22 April 2016 at 12:33 pm

                    The bailout is one option. The economy would have self corrected with out it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 April 2016 at 4:04 pm

                      Yeah, OK so you’re one of those Religious Nutters who believes that the real world should somehow conform to the incorrect and clearly false economic theories of the neoclassical economists about markets and market behaviour and consumer behaviour around markets.

                      For everyone else: the banking system needed supplied with trillions in brand new printed money due to the absolute mismanagement of the financial oligarchic class.

                      Put another way – they decided that the richest people in the world should be bailed out with a mountain of free money, but fuck you and your family and your mortgage and your credit card debt.

                • dv …
                  22 April 2016 at 11:33 am

                  Absolutely. Labour’s economic reforms of the 1980’s were the only thing that saved tis country from ruin,

                  for a few years then

                  All economic systems have problems. The better ones self correct

                  Hows is chicago these days

                  • dv …
                    22 April 2016 at 11:52 am

                    Oh and wot about the 120 billion debt then IR?

                    • International Rescue …
                      22 April 2016 at 12:34 pm

                      What about it? Debt is a common tool used to buffer an economy through a global financial crisis. The NZ Gvt borrowed to rebuild Christchurch, maintain social services and stimulate the economy during that time. It worked.

                    • dv …
                      22 April 2016 at 12:48 pm

                      ‘Debt is a common tool used to buffer an economy through a global financial crisis.

                      So let me see if I have got it

                      Economic reforms in 1980 save the country from ruin
                      EXCEPT
                      A finical crisis every 8 or so years

                      The its OK to give tax cuts and borrow lots money in this economic reformed system

                    • Pat …
                      22 April 2016 at 12:57 pm

                      you are either stupid or willfully blind….Total proposed govt expenditure for rebuild less than 20 billion…actual to date around 2….what was that deficit number again?

                      “irst that headline $16.5b contribution figure has to halved because $8b of it is EQC insurance money. Take out the red zone and AMI bailout and that gives you the $6.7b core Crown spend. Then because cash is precious, there are the capitalisation tricks to park the costs and his figure of $2b for actual operating spending up to 2014, the last available audited year.

                      Dividing up the $2b, Preston says it amounts to $571m for sewers and drains, $293m for roads, $397m for Blueprint land, $393m for schools, hospitals, law courts and other Crown buildings, $220m for the business support package, plus a collection of sundry amounts like $28m for the AMI temporary rugby stadium.

                      So certainly not nothing, Preston concedes. But is it actually that generous in light of what the Government will have been earning in taxes on a largely insurance-fuelled rebuild? And has it been travelling with the handbrake on for the past few years because there has always been that election surplus goal hovering in the background?”

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/70084887/How-much-is-the-Government-really-spending-to-fix-Christchurch

                    • International Rescue …
                      22 April 2016 at 3:37 pm

                      “Economic reforms in 1980 save the country from ruin
                      EXCEPT A finical crisis every 8 or so yearsThe its OK to give tax cuts and borrow lots money in this economic reformed system”

                      The financial crises faced in the west are part of any economic systems cycles. The difference with capitalism is that it doesn’t collapse in a heap, unlike socialism, which does. NZ’s debt is quite small as a % of GDP, and what was the alternative? Not rebuild Christchurch? Slash social support? That is what rings so hollow about the lefts complaints about debt, because under Labour the debt would have been far higher.

                    • International Rescue …
                      22 April 2016 at 3:40 pm

                      Pat – it is actually very easy to ascertain how the debt arose, from deficits incurred during the GFC and recession. These deficits were used to stimulate the economy and maintain social spending. Your alternative? Are of course, tax the rich. Screw the economy. Oh wait….that’s what socialism always does.

                    • Pat …
                      22 April 2016 at 7:49 pm

                      you really must get your line of bullshit organized….which position are you currently maintaining?

                      is it….”The NZ Gvt borrowed to rebuild Christchurch, maintain social services and stimulate the economy during that time. It worked.’

                      or the later?.. “These deficits were used to stimulate the economy and maintain social spending”

                    • dv …
                      22 April 2016 at 6:25 pm

                      deficits were used to stimulate the economy and maintain social spending. Your alternative

                      No tax cuts
                      Dont bail out scf – 1 billion
                      For starts

                      Jus a thought what was the debt when the Nats took over from labour?

                    • International Rescue …
                      24 April 2016 at 8:04 pm

                      Tax cuts stimulate the economy. In fact they are one of the best ways of resuscitating a stalling economy. As to debt under Labour, Treasury’s forecasts for were for deficits over the subsequent decade at least, and for debt levels to exceed what they are today. National’s economic management has ensured debt is manageable while the economy and jobs have grown.

                    • framu …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:37 pm

                      “Treasury’s forecasts”

                      funny thing about forecasts – they are only predictions that are unable to take account of possible actions any one might take post forecast

                      its utterly dishonest or stupid to use that to claim the success of a different groups actions that also happened post forecast

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 12:45 pm

                      “its utterly dishonest or stupid to use that to claim the success of a different groups actions that also happened post forecast”

                      Well no, it isn’t. Those forecasts were based on Gvt policies of the day. Labour Gvt policies.

                    • framu …
                      2 May 2016 at 1:03 pm

                      if your in a car and you can predict your going to crash do you turn the wheel, slow down, or just keep on going?

                      you seem to argue that once the prediction is made the course is set, fixed and unchangeable

                      thats why fools using the treasury forecast from some years ago are being dishonest or thick – its just a prediciton made at a fixed point in time based upon what is known at that point
                      A point several years ago that cant say a thing about what changes might have been made starting the very next day, or how effective the other crews ideas were/are

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 4:14 pm

                      “you seem to argue that once the prediction is made the course is set, fixed and unchangeable”

                      Not so. Treasury made predictions based on Gvt policy at that time. It is possible (probable?) Labour would have changed policy settings from what they had been doing. It’s just comforting they weren’t given the chance.

                    • framu …
                      2 May 2016 at 4:31 pm

                      ” It is possible (probable?) Labour would have changed policy settings from what they had been doing.”

                      thats what i was saying

                      youve rendered your own argument obsolete – well done

                    • International Rescue …
                      2 May 2016 at 4:37 pm

                      “youve rendered your own argument obsolete – well done”

                      Not at all. The Treasury forecasts, as I have said, related to particular policy settings at the time. Those policy settings were to some degree responsible for the position NZ was faced with. Labour may have admitted that and changed, they may not have. We won’t know, because thankfully the good folk of NZ decided that they couldn’t be trusted to right the ship. National could, and have.

                    • joe90 …
                      2 May 2016 at 10:43 pm

                      Indeed.

                      not in Kansas, toto…

  7. rod 7
    18 April 2016 at 4:43 pm

    I R
    Your memory seems to be on a par with your darling John Key

  8. Ad 8
    18 April 2016 at 4:50 pm

    I want National to leave quickly as well.
    But the economy still delivers sufficient confidence to keep those polls up.

    There is still no sign of a proper correction in the housing market – on the contrary JAFFAs heading to Whangarei, Hamilton and Tauranga are providing property price increases and fresh investment.

    Dairy may well stay in a slump, but with inflation low and unemployment hanging around 5%, it appears that the construction, other-agrarian, high-tech, and tourism economies are now sufficiently diverse to handle it.

    I pity any Opposition trying to find angles into the following wind that this country is giving to National.

    • GregJ 8.1
      18 April 2016 at 5:34 pm

      Yes – I’d concur. The shift when it comes is usually quick and dramatic. I was looking back at the big shifts in the polls in 2003/2004 and 2006 – they almost seemed to come out of the blue and they were very quick. However National is going to have to drop a minimum of 5% fairly quickly for there to be any sea-change.

      There is discontent, rumblings and unease (especially after the flag fiasco) but it is not sufficient to move people away. Actually I think there is just “enough” unease to lead to a “doubling down” of support for National at the moment.

      • AmaKiwi 8.1.1
        18 April 2016 at 8:44 pm

        GregJ

        “Discontent, rumblings and unease” is an understatement. Look at what is happening overseas. It will be here soon enough.

        • GregJ 8.1.1.1
          18 April 2016 at 10:01 pm

          @AmaKiwi

          I guess my point was that although it is present in NZ it has reached any sort of tipping point.

          I live overseas so it seems to me that most NZers are a still somewhat complacent(?)/isolated(?)/unaware(?)/ignorant(?) of the economic and social forces that are in play. Perhaps that’s not surprising – NZ has always seen itself a little apart from these forces – perhaps I was even that way myself before I lived overseas for the first time.

          I’ve been away nearly 5 & half years (although I come back every year for about a month) – I’m baffled as to why there isn’t a change but I think Ad is essentially correct from an economic perspective. What worries me the most though is the change in attitude in NZ that Chris Trotter wrote about in the last week The New Blue is Black. – he summoned it up as an “ingrained lack of compassion” – that truly horrifies me.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2
          19 April 2016 at 12:23 pm

          It looks like a National 4th term and GR2020 to me.

          I agree with you that the discontent from overseas will be here soon enough.

          But examining that phenomena, that discontent may very well target all big establishment parties, not just the encumbent in power.

    • Bearded Git 8.2
      18 April 2016 at 9:44 pm

      45% and the Gnats are gone.

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        19 April 2016 at 12:35 pm

        Labour won’t be able to form a government unless they get to at least 32% or 33%.

    • Thom Pietersen 8.3
      18 April 2016 at 10:36 pm

      Construction diverse? Ahahahahahaha! I work in construction – it’s far from diverse, 12 to 24 months is the inside word…

      Drink the cool aid much?

      • Ad 8.3.1
        19 April 2016 at 3:19 am

        Not from the order books I’m aware of. Christchurch is cooling, but Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, and Queenstown-Wanaka have years ahead of them. Both commercial and domestic, and infrastructure.

        • Thom Pietersen 8.3.1.1
          19 April 2016 at 8:41 pm

          Book orders mean shit – I am still working on developments that have been restarted after being mothballed 2008 – same will happen again.

          Its a 10 year cycle – this one is bigger than the last so the stall will hurt more.

  9. byd0nz 9
    18 April 2016 at 6:44 pm

    The widening Gap

    The gap between the Haves most
    and the Haves least
    Is YAWNING
    Not yet wide enough though for a glow
    of the Revolution
    That is Dawning

  10. Gristle 10
    18 April 2016 at 7:34 pm

    Political commentators appear often have more opinion than experience, understanding and insights. The predilection to dismiss an opposition leader as not being supported by the public is misunderstanding human behaviour. People don’t want change until they want change, and as many historians and political scientist will point out systems where it is decidedly unhealthy to make out as the heir apparent until the time is right. And when the time is right it is suddenly blindingly obvious that “x” was the only alternative (well at least to many of the commentators.)
    * Unelectable Corbyn out polls Cameron
    * Sanders and Trump as contenders
    * The Pirate Party in Iceland

    A veritable tipping point occurs (or for the Climate deniers an Antarctic ice sheet collapse. )

    ‘Heaven’s mandate to rule’ will be withdrawn when the anointed one has stuffed things up enough times. In Argentina the Military Government was forced from power after it lost the war in Faulkland Islands. If you are military and you cannot win a war that you choose to start, then how can you expect to have popular support.

    Whilst it is common speculation that John Key will leave Parliament after winning his fourth term as PM on a wave of adulation in a chariot pulled by unicorns. If the plan is all laid out, who is the nominated successor? It seems like the factions inside National are just as vicious as in Labour and the pot is consistently close to boiling over.

    Listening to National Radio this morning I was surprised that 5 items on the 8am report covered corruption. To me this is another warning sign that the stability of the current NZ government is as strong as polls would have it. Seeing a stream of Newspaper editorials getting into the morality of Foriegn Owned Trusts is another sign.

    IMO Governments are a lot about delaying the day when the tipping point occurs. The more effort put into denigration, lying, obstification and manipulation, the bigger the bounce back that occurs. The Four Term Reich is going end in tears.

    • GregJ 10.1
      18 April 2016 at 10:10 pm

      I assume you meant “that the stability of the current NZ government isn’t as strong as polls would have it”?

      You are right that the “commentariat” sometimes just serves up an opinion rather than detailed analysis.

      • Gristle 10.1.1
        19 April 2016 at 5:36 am

        Thanks for the correction Greg. My only excuse is that trying to do a longish post on a phone makes spotting mistakes difficult.

    • Whateva next? 10.2
      18 April 2016 at 11:04 pm

      Not only about delaying, but plundering and looting before they take of with their bags of “swag”. Good bye and good luck to the greedy, slimy, crass twats.

  11. Colonial Viper 11
    18 April 2016 at 7:44 pm

    We really going to kick out of the country everyone earning over say $150K p.a.?

    Well thats all the MP’s gone.

    I reckon this measure will have considerable public support.

  12. Incognito 12
    18 April 2016 at 9:59 pm

    Nah, this Government is not tired; it has been asleep at the wheel for almost 8 years.

    However, I’ve been tired of them since National started their ‘election campaign’ even longer ago.

    National will lose the elections in 2017 if enough voters get tired enough of them; all the Opposition has to do is to present something that comes across as ‘fresh & new’.

    This is where the Opposition is still failing. Hopefully, one or two really clear & simple ideas and messages will do the trick and a few new faces might also help to give the impression of ‘rejuvenation’. Michael Wood might be one of those.

    At times I find NZ politics as predictably boring & frustrating as NZ television and I know this isn’t fair to the politicians, or is it?

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      19 April 2016 at 12:47 am

      Michael Wood has been involved in Labour Party policy formation for years and years. He has stood for Labour several times in elections. He is not new in the party and his ideas are not new in the party.

      • Incognito 12.1.1
        19 April 2016 at 9:03 am

        Fair comments but I was not referring to Wood’s ideas but rather to the Party’s ones.

        In any case, you replied from a very individual & personal perspective; not that many people would have known of or about Wood till only very recently.

        NB Not all comments here on TS are necessarily directed at just the (!) ‘usual suspects’ of hard-core posters & commenters; keep in mind the silent majority of TS readers who never comment let alone post here.

  13. weka 13
    19 April 2016 at 12:22 am

    Damn that’s a good opinion piece.

  14. UpandComer 14
    20 April 2016 at 9:55 pm

    Thread is dead.

    But of course patronising Labour think it’s landlordism to tell guys who can’t pass a drug test, show up 3 days in a row or fill out the form the reality of their ability and standing in the world.

    National pays these people the respect of giving them realistic feedback as to how it is. You know, treating people like adults instead of children. It then supports them by raising their benefits and giving them one on one help to overcome the challenges of work. Labour never raised these people’s benefits, or actually even knew who they were or where they were. You just took their vote for granted. That’s what I would call landlordism.

    Bill English has done more for the poor in this country without about one tenth of the money then Labour accomplished in their past couple of governments. That’s the real reason National is at 50%. The astonishing waste, laziness, patronising complacency, incompetence and ignorance that characterized how Labour served the needs of its erstwhile constituency still infuriates people who understand it.

  15. adam 15
    26 April 2016 at 4:47 pm

    McFlock – One Anonymous Bloke – Pat – Colonial Viper and others.

    Arguing with such a rigid ideologue as International Rescue is pointless. Just look at the link he put in. Loony right clap trap.

    He lies, continuously – and spins faster than a Hooton. Which is quite incredible really.

    My guess – a libtard of the highest order – one who has helped turned the national party away from conservatism, towards hard neo-liberalism.

    • McFlock 15.1
      26 April 2016 at 4:58 pm

      Hmmm. Acrophobic hasn’t been around for a while. International moron has a similar style lol.

      Still, I didn’t know even the US scy of labor had said unions get members higher wages. Useful to know 🙂