Daily Review 05/05/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, May 5th, 2016 - 38 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Peter Dutton Hannibal lecter

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other

38 comments on “Daily Review 05/05/2016”

  1. Gangnam Style 2

    “Panama Papers a cyber warning” – PM http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/303111/panama-papers-a-cyber-security-warning-pm

    & this gem “You might be a doctor that’s dealt with sexually transmitted diseases, and that information is confidential to that person, then all of a sudden, that information is in the public domain.” He’s a strange man…

    • McFlock 2.1

      well, tax dodgers are comparable to the clap.

      • Muttonbird 2.1.1

        Indeed it is a perfect analogy – one which is lost on the prime minister even though he’s the author of it.

      • NZJester 2.1.2

        How dare you!
        A bunch of people with the clap are far more valuable to an economy than a bunch of tax dodgers!
        At least all the medical treatment they require creates jobs!

    • seeker 2.2

      The largest cyber attack at the moment seems to be from Billiam English and his ‘social investment’ program where our personal info is not confidential and private but is there to be “shared”., even with government workers on their smartphones
      As Bill has said they have the data , why not use it?
      What could be more reasonable? (my words) “Cyber attacks are as nothing to our ‘relaxed’ government, when they are in the attack chair.


    • Draco T Bastard 2.3

      The Panama Papers leak is a warning to New Zealand businesses to protect themselves from cyber hacking, Prime Minister John Key says.

      Yeah, I’d say that he’s more concerned with the financial details of the rich and the fact that most of them are outright thieves getting out than anything else.

      He said the massive information leak from the Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, which revealed global tax avoidance practices, is proof no company was safe from hacking.

      I think I prefer to think of it as thieves can and will be found out.

  2. weka 3


    Great, it looks like Southland and Otago people won’t be allowed a say at the local body elections this year in who runs our public health services.

    Greens and NZF only parties opposing the bill.

  3. Paul 5

    Serco up to their usual tricks, mismanaging a prison, this time it’s Wiri.
    Our taxes pay for these clowns.

  4. Paul 7

    ….Vietnam, Thailand, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Micronesia, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and the U.S.

    The planet’s climate is stuffed.
    Wonder when the msm in NZ attributes all these weather patterns to climate change rather than talking about hos nice it is to have a warm May in NZ?

    • Wensleydale 8.1

      I don’t know why they even bother interviewing Key anymore. Not only is he as slippery as a greased whippet, he routinely mangles the English language in such a way you need a fucking interpreter to understand the disingenuous shit.

      • Once was Tim 8.1.1

        As I’ve said elsewhere, many of his former colleagues couldn’t even understand the cnut – until they got their marching orders.
        It’s interesting too, how whenever he’s lying blatantly his speech becomes rather (stereotypically) effeminate or drunken. Sssssssssslippery ssssssucking ssssssssshithead

    • AmaKiwi 8.2

      Excellent link.

      I hope this becomes a story on The Standard. It’s another scandal brewing.

      Congratulations to Labour MP Damien O’Connor. Nice work.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.3

      “Well I didn’t see it in that way, and I don’t think anyone who travelled along with me would have seen it that way at all – I didn’t make any sales calls or anything like that.”

      People high up in a bureaucracy and being supportive of a company is selling that company.

      “It’s quite possible that an individual company that gives a donation is also the sort of situation where an MP goes and has some involvement, does something in a business or looks at something because of the varied nature of the varied trips that they do.

      “But it doesn’t stop someone, you don’t have a conflict of interest by nature because of that.”

      Yes it does as that would be the very definition of Conflict of Interest.

      • seeker 8.3.1

        “Yes it does as that would be the very definition of conflict of interest.”

        Exactly Draco. The previous sentence from key did my head in.
        I could only think,” another potty statement from key’s corrupt little mind.”
        It’s the ‘nature’ of his being, unfortunate’y for New Zealand.
        Sad,very sad.

  5. Muttonbird 9

    Has there been a lot of pre-budget releases by this government?

    Seems that the money for “cyber-crime”, the suddenly found money for Melanoma drugs, and the 64,000 electric cars were all pre-budget dumps in order to take the heat off dear leader and his lawyer.

    I imagine even John Key is happy at the success of the healthy homes bill. It too took some of the heat off him this week.

  6. Tautoko Mangō Mata 10

    “Protest never changes anything? Look at how TTIP has been derailed”


    • AmaKiwi 10.1

      Excellent news that the Europeans are unlikely to sign up to a version of TPPA.

  7. Sirenia 11

    That photo at the top is seriously creepy of a man with some bad karma

  8. joe90 12

    The rent is still too damn high.

    The results

    So what did we learn?

    First, spending inequality – what we should really care about – is far smaller than wealth inequality. This is true no matter the age cohort you consider.

    Take 40-49-year-olds. Those in the top 1 percent of our resource distribution have 18.9 of net wealth but account for only 9.2 percent of the spending. In contrast, the 20 percent at the bottom (the lowest quintile) have only 2.1 percent of all wealth but 6.9 percent of total spending. This means that the poorest are able to spend far more than their wealth would imply – though still miles away from the 20 percent they would spend were spending fully equalized.


    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      Those in the top 1 percent of our resource distribution have 18.9 of net wealth but account for only 9.2 percent of the spending. In contrast, the 20 percent at the bottom (the lowest quintile) have only 2.1 percent of all wealth but 6.9 percent of total spending.

      Yeah, money flows from the bottom to the top. It’s the poor paying for the rich to be rich.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts