Daily Review 31/01/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, January 31st, 2019 - 37 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

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 …

37 comments on “Daily Review 31/01/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kat 1
    31 January 2019 at 5:51 pm

    National are floundering, at best they may catch a few jelly fish.

  2. alwyn 2
    31 January 2019 at 6:01 pm

    The ODT managed to get the headline correct on this story about Eugenie Sage but how they managed to come out with the first line of the story is beyond belief.
    https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/minister-defends-no-cycle-way-her-land
    She is, according to this story doing her very best to block a cycleway crossing her land.
    As a true Nimby she is willing to allow a cycleway to go ahead. Under no circumstances will she allow it to cross her land of course.
    Her land, which is sitting on mine tailings and is apparently largely scrub, is far too precious to allow commoners access to it.
    And this is the woman who seemed to think that anyone, at any time, should be allowed access to the Hunter Valley Station Road without even providing the runholder with any advice that they were going to be there.
    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/07/26/168238/inside-the-hunter-valley-station-access-wrangle
    Bloody Nimbies.

    • Robert Guyton 2.1
      31 January 2019 at 6:07 pm

      “Ms Sage said her land covered historic mine tailing and regenerating bush. The bulk of it was covered by a QE2 covenant.”
      My bold.

      • alwyn 2.1.1
        31 January 2019 at 6:37 pm

        That’s right. However of what relevance is that?

        I assume that you haven’t read the Q&A on the qeiinational trust website.
        Under “What Can I Do in a protected area” it says
        “you can usually build new walking and cycling tracks”. I’m sure that a cycling track could be arranged.
        After all, mine tailings are hardly unique and neither is regenerating bush. It isn’t Tane Mahuta is it?

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.1
          31 January 2019 at 7:03 pm

          I’m the chairman of a group that has developed a 6 hectare wetland reserve, covered by a QE11 covenant and know that it can be difficult to change the original conditions of the covenant. You however, as “sure” a cycling track could be arranged. Curious. Your opinion of the value of “regenerating bush” is your own. Mine’s very different, as I imaging is Eugenie’s. You mention Tane Mahuta and I’m guessing you are referring to the kauri tree of that name, a treasure under threat from organisms brought into it’s root zone by …tourists. Possibly not the best example you could have chosen.

          • alwyn 2.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2019 at 7:14 pm

            ” Possibly not the best example you could have chosen.”.
            It is the best possible example I could have chosen. It is unique and under threat. As such it deserves the very best care and protection we can manage.
            Mine tailings and a bit of regenerating bush aren’t anything special are they?
            Incidentally I wonder why, as reported in the article, only part of the land is under a covenant? She wouldn’t be planning to develop and build on it by any chance would she?

            • Paul Campbell 2.1.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2019 at 12:22 pm

              I don’t think that she’s trying to protect the mine tailings, it’s the regeneration of the bush that’s important here – though why the mine owners weren’t required to clean up their own mess I don’t know

    • Robert Guyton 2.2
      31 January 2019 at 6:09 pm

      Eugenie also said:
      “I understand alternative routes are available, including on a nearby unformed public legal road and on other local tracks.””

      • alwyn 2.2.1
        31 January 2019 at 6:39 pm

        As I said. In her opinion you can do it but not near me.
        Bloody Nimbies.

        • Robert Guyton 2.2.1.1
          31 January 2019 at 6:56 pm

          That’s not her opinion, that’s yours. Her reasons given are sound. Yours are lacking substance and seem to result from your dislike for Eugenie. You’ve not made a case, just a screeching noise.

          • alwyn 2.2.1.1.1
            31 January 2019 at 7:07 pm

            That’s all right Robert. I’m sorry you couldn’t answer my points and had to resort to abusing me. You’re usually better than that.
            Oh well, I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.
            As Shakespeare put it in Act III of The Winter’s Tale about your departure.
            “Exit left, pursued by a bear”

            • Psycho Milt 2.2.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2019 at 7:37 pm

              He did answer your points. Sage’s reasoning for declining the request is in the article: ” declined an early inquiry for the cycle trail to go across our land because of the clearance of indigenous vegetation this would have involved.”

              Given that her purpose in having a QEII covenant on the land is so that it can regenerate indigenous vegetation, that reasoning seems sound.

              You, on the other hand, haven’t offered any reasoning, just an ignorance-based assertion about Sage’s motivation. Why should anyone other than yourself care what your opinion is?

              • Wayne …
                31 January 2019 at 8:11 pm

                All good reasons if she was any private landowner. Not so good when you are the Minister.

                • Muttonbird …
                  31 January 2019 at 8:14 pm

                  What about when you are Associate Minister for the environment?

                  The problems with the Te Mata peak walking track highlights the importance of properly scrutinising proposals like this.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  31 January 2019 at 10:29 pm

                  Not good that a Minister of the Environment doesn’t want native vegetation cleared from land that has a QEII covenant on it for regenerating native vegetation? I’m not seeing it. Can you point to the conflict between Sage’s decision as landowner and her role as Minister in this case?

            • McFlock 2.2.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2019 at 8:30 pm

              I wouldn’t mind it if Alwyn believed their own shit. It’s A’s hypocrisy that really stinks.

  4. joe90 4
    31 January 2019 at 10:01 pm

    Rutger Bregman on rent seekers and parasites.

    This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection – cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state.

    These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have “made it”. By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance the whole world.

    […]

    So entrenched is this assumption that it’s even embedded in our language. When economists talk about “productivity”, what they really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like “welfare state”, “redistribution” and “solidarity”, we’re implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.

    In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we hail as “successful” and “innovative” are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about it. Even for politicians on the left, it’s a non-issue.

    To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our “human capital” in economic terms) to create something new, whether that’s a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.

    But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/wealth-banks-google-facebook-society-economy-parasites

  5. patricia bremner 5
    1 February 2019 at 4:08 am

    Joe90, That is very interesting.
    Rentiers= those who have passive income from owning assets of various kinds Leveraging from creation
    Workers= those who work to create or produce something new using human capital.
    Creating new wealth

    That makes sense even if quite radical.
    Think about
    ‘Any ideas plans or apps you produce during your employment belong to the employer.’ (because work is valuable’) the employer is the rentier who will leverage off the work. Thank you Rutger Bregman and Joe90. Some study ahead.

  6. georgecom 6
    3 February 2019 at 7:15 pm

    maybe the Nats should roll Bridges and get the cartoon Bridges in as leader. Can’t be any more wooden and cartoonish than the real Bridges.

    Mind, a got a bit confused when National released this “policy”. The news story kept switching between the cartoon bridges and the other Bridges. I found it hard to figure which was which. Once I had differentiated, the cartoon Bridges actually seemed more plausible and credible than the flesh Bridges.