Fears for the future

53 comments on “Fears for the future ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   8 November 2011 at 10:12 am

   Look behind you, its that cunt Goff, dont let him take away my inheritance.
   • r0b 1.1

     8 November 2011 at 10:27 am

     What inheritance? Labour want to build one.
     • Blighty 1.1.1

       8 November 2011 at 10:41 am

       Brett Dale is talking about capital gains tax. He hasn’t read the policy, of course.
       • Craig Glen Eden 1.1.1.1

         8 November 2011 at 10:50 am

         Brett Dale you are a gutter mouth and deserved to be banned, do you have no self respect?
         • Brett Dale 1.1.1.1.1

           8 November 2011 at 11:10 am

           Its the first time I have used the C word here, in about t a thousand posts, others here have wished death on national supporters. This site one day will get to the point of no return.
           • Bored 1.1.1.1.1.1

             8 November 2011 at 11:36 am

             I have always thought the aforementioned “C” a wonderful human treasure worth cherishing. Consequently I don’t use the term alongside such facile useless items as Nact and Jonkey.
2. tekapodreaming 2

   8 November 2011 at 10:19 am

   Key is fair game, members of the public and their children are not, using the photo in this way without their express permission is bad taste.
   • Blighty 2.1

     8 November 2011 at 10:32 am

     If it’s in the newspaper, what’s the problem?
     • tekapodreaming 2.1.1

       8 November 2011 at 10:49 am

       If it’s in the paper – it’s likely they paper either had the express permission to publish the photo or that the member of the public and her child were fully aware that the photo would be published in the paper.

       Using the photo in this way on a blogsite without their express permission is bad taste.

       [so, logically, your position is that blogs shouldn’t reproduce, edited or unedited, any pubicly available picture of anyone unless they’re a politician. Yeah, right. I’m sick of the Right’s crocodile tears. If you care about kids, you would back Labour’s children’s policy, not whine about a satirical picture off Facebook. Eddie]
       • Tom Gould 2.1.1.1

         8 November 2011 at 10:59 am

         Settle down Tories. Or are people starting to see through your lies and spin? You sound a bit panicked?
       • Brett Dale 2.1.1.2

         8 November 2011 at 11:12 am

         So Eddie, if there was a public photo of you and your kids that was used on whale oil to make Goff look bad, you would have no problem.

         I also think if this site came back to the centre more, you would be able your guys in the election.

         [lprent: There is a reason why I don’t allow any photo’s of myself to escape on to the net – it is because there is no protection*. The only person who has any real control over them is a copyright holder, which in this case would probably be TVNZ news (I seem to remember Lyn pointing out the image last night). Which means that this image has been placed in hundreds of thousands of living rooms yesterday. And you think that putting it on a blog is a problem? Get real…

         * and Slater wouldn’t hesitate for an instant.. After all this was the arsehole who attempted to blackmail my ex-employers because I was acting as secondary DNS for them. ]
         • Daveo 2.1.1.2.1

           8 November 2011 at 11:21 am

           I also think if this site came back to the centre more, you would be able your guys in the election

           I think if you weren’t such a far right fool you might manage to get a girlfriend /concerntrolling
         • fmacskasy 2.1.1.2.2

           8 November 2011 at 12:37 pm

           “I also think if this site came back to the centre more, you would be able your guys in the election.”

           Translation:

           “I also think if this site became a clone of National, you would be able your guys in the election.”

           You’re welcome.

           Though I think it’s a bit curious that you feel the need to wish for hope that all dissenting views be quashed, in favour of a single, monolithic Party Line?

           Hmmmm, now what does that remind us of…?

           [lprent: removed the broken link ]
       • tekapodreaming 2.1.1.3

         8 November 2011 at 12:34 pm

         Hi Eddie

         I don’t believe it’s reasonable to accuse me of a case of crocodile tears, I took exception to this photo and this photo only of all the photos on The Standard’s landing page as it was of a member of the public and her child and was used in a way that she may be uncomfortable with for political purposes.

         If it was a the same picture but with Phil Goff or Helen Clark published on Kiwiblog I would’ve made the same comment.
         • fmacskasy 2.1.1.3.1

           8 November 2011 at 12:39 pm

           Tekapodreaming…

           Oh, you mean like this; http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/

           I look forward to you posting precisely the same criticisms on her Blog.

           Would you like me to look for more? I have a few spare hours before my next client…
           • tekapodreaming 2.1.1.3.1.1

             8 November 2011 at 2:23 pm

             Hi Frank

             Yes I agree that photo’s such as those shouldn’t be used for political purposes, It is not a site I am familiar with but I saw the same photo at gotcha and posted the comment as below.

             http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/11/not-even-babies-know-what-labour-is-talking-about/#disqus_thread
         • fmacskasy 2.1.1.3.2

           8 November 2011 at 12:47 pm

           Oh look, here’s another one, under the heading; “Anti Capitalist Protest Fail” Clint even posts an admission, “(stolen from Twitter)”: http://clintheine.blogspot.com/

           Ok, podnah, saddle-up! It’s posse time!
         • fmacskasy 2.1.1.3.3

           8 November 2011 at 1:04 pm

           And will you be complaining to “Vote For Change” for appropriating this image of Winston Peters: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TJ5zTtQ58-I/TrA6P5kc2kI/AAAAAAAAAKc/XscsMH1G0RE/s1600/5880213.jpg ?
         • lprent 2.1.1.3.4

           8 November 2011 at 1:56 pm

           It has already been used for political purposes. I saw it on either the TV news or a newspaper in the last day. It is a baby kissing photo-op by a politician.

           Of course we are happy to remove it or pay for it, if the person concerned or the copyright holder approaches us, can establish their claim, and considers that we are using it inappropiately.

           In the meantime it is a baby kissing photo-op that John Key would probably not prefer to have on the net…
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.3.4.1

             8 November 2011 at 2:03 pm

             That little girl has a great future as a specialist “fear and contempt” model.
   • Brett Dale 2.2

     8 November 2011 at 11:10 am

     I agree.
3. hobbit 3

   8 November 2011 at 11:32 am

   Sorry Kid, Labour already pawned away your future years ago.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     8 November 2011 at 12:30 pm

     Yep, they sure did, by paying down debt and buying back essential assets like Kiwirail…

     Oh, wait…
     • *_* 3.1.1

       8 November 2011 at 1:27 pm

       And what an awesome play that was…

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10762258
     • hobbit 3.1.2

       8 November 2011 at 2:01 pm

       You dumb prick, we already owned the important part : the rail network.

       The buyback of the rolling stock and operations made no sense, we don’t own every
       single vehicle that runs on the roads, do we? Of course not, that’s a private matter.

       The purchase of KiwiRail was no more than a desperate attempt to load
       the incoming government with more debt. And it worked.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1

         8 November 2011 at 3:39 pm

         The buyback of the rolling stock and operations made no sense,

         Well, it was either that or continue subsidising a private firms profits which is what we were doing. In the long run, it would have cost us far more in subsidies and we do need a viable rail network including the rolling stock.

         we don’t own every single vehicle that runs on the roads, do we? Of course not, that’s a private matter.

         Not even close to being comparable as rail is a monopoly whereas road isn’t. You can only put one train on a the rail at one time. As this is the case state ownership is the best, most efficient option.
         • hobbit 3.1.2.1.1

           8 November 2011 at 7:25 pm

           “Well, it was either that or continue subsidising a private firms profits which is what we were doing. In the long run, it would have cost us far more in subsidies and we do need a viable rail network including the rolling stock.”

           We only ever gave the private operator (Toll) subsidies for local commuter services, just like how we pay bus companies to run services. This is standard practice all over the world.

           Toll never got a cent for their freight operations, which made up the bulk of their business.

           “You can only put one train on a the rail at one time.”

           More nonsense – See Australia : State owned track, many private operators, making for a highly competitive market.
           • NickS 3.1.2.1.1.1

             8 November 2011 at 7:44 pm

             We gave them subsidies in other ways, such as significant work on the rail network after Toll had neglected it that they didn’t have to fully pay for.

             You’re also ignoring the fact the Australia’s geographical size (and population) allows for a much larger market that can support multiple companies without falling into a monopoly. Which is also because the government owns the tracks, otherwise you’d see state level monopolies emerging rapidly.

             And yeah, you can have many trains on the tracks at one time, but only if you have control systems and the track spurs to prevent “fun” from oc
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1.2

             8 November 2011 at 8:51 pm

             We only ever gave the private operator (Toll) subsidies for local commuter services…

             Wrong, Toll got a multimillion dollar subsidy every year due to the fact that they weren’t paying the rent and actually refused to do so. Despite owning the tracks the government couldn’t actually force them to either because Toll owned the rolling stock and nobody else seemed to be interested in buying trains.

             …just like how we pay bus companies to run services.

             And we shouldn’t be doing that either. The councils running the buses would be able to do so cheaper and more efficiently. Again, it’s another natural monopoly where “competition”* merely increases costs and has some privateers clipping the ticket to the tune of hundreds of millions every year.

             See Australia : State owned track, many private operators, making for a highly competitive market.

             And except to increase costs, and thus prices, what would be the point in that? It’s still all going to be coordinated through one, separate, institution – the government owner. The “competition”* is just duplicating some of that administration and clipping the ticket for no real benefit.

             * Really, there wouldn’t be any real competition. The nature of the tracks prevent two trains running on the same one at the same time so all you could get there is different times.

             Buses are similar to networks – you can have next to each other but there’s no point and it pushes costs up while lowering returns so that there’s no profit. This has been known for over 150 years. Have a look in Auckland – there’s three bus companies at least but they don’t run in the same geographical areas. You get some overlap in the inner city but that’s it.
             • hobbit …

               8 November 2011 at 9:14 pm

               “Toll got a multimillion dollar subsidy every year”

               Kinda, in the form of access to the tracks. But no money changed hands, which was my point.

               “they weren’t paying the rent and actually refused to do so”

               You read about KiwiRail reducing the book valve of the rail network lately? When the government brought back the tracks in 2004 they formed a state business to own & maintain them, Ontrack. Soon after it revalued the network, and surprise, surprise, over valued the network by a couple of billion, so the government could force unreasonably high track access charges on Toll.

               Toll was damn right not to pay the over priced charges Ontrack was forcing on them.

               IMO If Labour had any brains they would have brought Tranz Rail back in 2003 before Toll started its buy out….rather than waiting a few more years only to pay hundreds of millions more…

               “And we shouldn’t be doing that either. The councils running the buses would be able to do so cheaper and more efficiently. Again, it’s another natural monopoly where “competition”* merely increases costs and has some privateers clipping the ticket to the tune of hundreds of millions every year.”

               I’d actually have no problem with that, provided it was done on grounds of cost. It’ make the private operators lift their game.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 9 November 2011 at 12:41 am

                 …so the government could force unreasonably high track access charges on Toll.

                 They signed the contract to pay that amount so it obviously wasn’t unreasonable.

                 It’ make the private operators lift their game.

                 No it wouldn’t – we wouldn’t have any private operators left as there’s no way they could compete. Government run organisations tend to be more efficient that privately run ones – unless the CEOs of said organisations are purposefully fucking it up.
                 • hobbit …

                   9 November 2011 at 8:03 am

                   “They signed the contract to pay that amount so it obviously wasn’t unreasonable.”

                   I’m unaware of that. Can you provide a link? I knew when Toll sold the network to the government, both parties committed to investing in the railway, the government by improving the tracks and Toll by investing in rolling stock.

                   At the time, when Ontrack overvalued, it was very suspect. The board was very political. Makes you wonder if it was deliberate, to provide a reason to buy Toll at a later date.

                   “No it wouldn’t – we wouldn’t have any private operators left as there’s no way they could compete. Government run organisations tend to be more efficient that privately run ones”

                   Our local council tossed up if they should bring grounds, garden maintenance etc in house. IIRC the private contractors were much cheaper by a long shot.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     9 November 2011 at 6:59 pm

                     I’m unaware of that. Can you provide a link?

                     Ok, seems I was wrong there. It seems that they agreed at one point (at the buy back of the rail track) and then spent four years disputing any increases in the fees which resulted in the indirect subsidy that they were getting.

                     At the time, when Ontrack overvalued, it was very suspect.

                     Got a link for the over-valuation that you keep going on about? That article I link to says:

                     The latest set of accounts recorded $48 million of rail access fees, which is believed to be well below what it costs to maintain the network or the figure an independently agreed process came to.

                     Which goes completely against what you’re saying.

                     Our local council tossed up if they should bring grounds, garden maintenance etc in house. IIRC the private contractors were much cheaper by a long shot.

                     It’s physically impossible for them to be cheaper so the question needs to be asked: At what costs to the taxpayer?

                     The only way private contractors can be cheaper is if a) they’re cutting corners and/or b) they’re getting indirect subsidies through things like WfF.
                   • hobbit …

                     9 November 2011 at 8:09 pm

                     “Got a link for the over-valuation that you keep going on about?”

                     I don’t, sorry. If you want you can work it out, find out what Tranz Rail valued the rail network at, then find it what Ontracks valuation was etc.
4. fender 4

   8 November 2011 at 12:02 pm

   Kids are very good at smelling a rat. The children Key targets on his roadshow about nothing look very suspiciously at him. He looks very creepy to me, and in one encounter where he was shown doing a strange arm rubbing thing on a kid I nearly vomited at the sight of it. We know Key wants to fuck our country but if he thinks hes gunna get away with fucking our kids lives hes mistaken. No amount of protection from security will save him from the gesture he likes to use being used on him.
   • Hami Shearlie 4.1

     8 November 2011 at 3:26 pm

     I still maintain John Key is an alien. Why else would those eyes be so zombie-like! Kids know creepy when they see it! Adults in Remmers and Parnell, not so much!
5. Brett Dale 5

   8 November 2011 at 12:16 pm

   Fender?

   Why would key want to fuck up our country for?
   • framu 5.1

     8 November 2011 at 12:23 pm

     jeez bret. its like you live in a world where the neo-liberal economic model never happened, friedman wasnt born and pinochet is a nice chilean wine.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     8 November 2011 at 12:32 pm

     Because he gets well rewarded for doing so. It is, after all, how he got started on the millions he has.
   • fender 5.3

     8 November 2011 at 12:34 pm

     Thats a question I hope every voter will ask themselves before they vote. I dont know why he wants to send the country backwards but I know he wont get my vote.
   • Blighty 5.4

     8 November 2011 at 12:42 pm

     i believe Key wants what’s in the best interests of the elite he belongs to. That’s not the interests of you or me, Brett. Unless you have a slave mentality that what is good for the master is good for you.
   • uke 5.5

     8 November 2011 at 12:50 pm

     Make better returns on his investments after he moves back to his gated compound in Hawaii.
6. fmacskasy 6

   8 November 2011 at 12:51 pm

   Brett and Tekapodreaming – perhaps you’d be taken more seriously if you were actually concerned about matters that concerned the country. Y’know; trivial sh*t like unemployment, stagnant economy, $18.4 billion borrowed by National (half of which to fund tax cuts), growing poverty and Third World diseases, increasing gap between Haves and Have Nots…

   Trying get all Moral because of a lampooned pic is pathetic.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     8 November 2011 at 1:18 pm

     That $18.4B borrowed by National is only on the last one year

     If you had it all up its $37B since they took office.
     • Herodotus 6.1.1

       9 November 2011 at 7:41 pm

       From RBNZ our govt overseas debt at June 11 was $40.8b Dec 08 it was $18.8b. So we have “only” borrowed offshore a paultry $22b
       http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/extfin/e3/download.html
       Yet total govt debt =$71.6b but $5b of this is “sitting” in some bank account so the figures are not as bad as they appear !!!!!
       And according a bank expert” But Westpac senior economist Dominick Stephens said borrowing in advance was wise as interest rates were low.” The same bank I note that has the govt banking business. So be thankful that we have wise men in govt running this country 😎
       http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5106876/Government-debt-rises-to-71-6-billion
   • tekapodreaming 6.2

     8 November 2011 at 2:25 pm

     Hi Frank

     I am concerned about all of things you’ve mentioned that is why I am voting Green and wouldn’t go near Labour or National with a barge poll.
   • Brett Dale 6.3

     8 November 2011 at 4:09 pm

     Fmacskasy

     How do you know what I care or dont care about?
     • felix 6.3.1

       8 November 2011 at 5:05 pm

       I can’t speak for frank, but I usually just read what people write and figure it out that way. How do you do it, Brett?
7. thejackal 7

   8 November 2011 at 3:18 pm

   “Want a debt laden future little girl,” John Key slurred. “Tell the lizard man to go away please mummy,” said the little girl.
8. Hami Shearlie 8

   8 November 2011 at 3:33 pm

   Lizards don’t deserve to be compared with JK. But then again, when their tail drops off, they simply grow another one, and they do have forked tongues – Wow, I can suddenly see the similarity!
9. Rodel 9

   8 November 2011 at 6:59 pm

   Don’t worry about assets.JK is starting to back off his policy of selling them Something about….
   ‘we don’t have a set timetable’ ….and ‘it depends on the global economic situation akshilly’.
   They’re realising that Kiwis aren’t the mum and dad suckers they had assumed.
   Watch for the flip flop!
10. randal 10

    8 November 2011 at 7:54 pm

    hey bret dale. dont you like women? do you still beat your wife?
11. johnm 11

    9 November 2011 at 6:45 pm

    “Please Mummy I’m frightened! I feel like Red Riding Hood who returned to her Granny-but it only looked liked Granny-it was really the WOLF! dressed as Granny” (Horror) What happened to Granny Mummy? BUURRP! BUURRP! said the WOLF !

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS