Last day of talks

26 comments on “Last day of talks ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roy cartland 1

   12 October 2017 at 8:49 am

   “we’ll soon see I guess”
   That’s the spirit.
2. cleangreen 2

   12 October 2017 at 9:03 am

   Four public meetings I have attended where Winston has presented NZF policies and his preferences for our future and in all four meetings we all have been left with graphic vivid messages that Winston has rammed it home ‘that only a change of government will alllow the changes to be made whic will reverse the declining economies all over NZ to be improved again.

   Always Winston has mentioned changes to the “Reseve bank Act” must be made and also a lowering of the NZ dolllar must also be enacted to assist our exporters.

   Rail reconstructiion must occur so all regions are given all land transport options and allow all modes of transport be it road,rail, port or airport activities muust be allowed to work together as overseas countries we trade with do.

   These are central tentants to his speech along with trade agreeemnets which winston says we should follow the iceland/ Irish/Norwegan/Singapore/Danish and others successful polices and ditch the current large corporate hegemony policies that are destroying our economic base now.

   Winston is now our most experienced polititian we have today and must be used to restore our country before it is to late.

   “lets do this”
   • cleangreen 2.1

     12 October 2017 at 9:31 am

     National are throwing everything at us now with scare tactics.

     They must be hiding so much inside those shoddy Treasury figures that they wont be able to cover up all their coruption when Winston and jacinda get to review the treasury books to see what National/ACT have actuallly sold NZ & us out down to the lowest denomination now!!!

     And find a $11.7 Billion dollar hole there.

     Jacinda/Winston/james “lets do this”
   • red-blooded 2.2

     12 October 2017 at 10:54 am

     Yeah, but cleangreen, Winston said pretty much the same thing about changing the government in 1996. He then tried to argue that adding NZF to the mix had changed the Bolger-led government. He might be experienced, but that doesn’t make him trustworthy.

     I really hope your optimism and hope are rewarded, but if you truly wanted to “do this” and change the government, then voting NZF was an odd choice.

     Fingers crossed…
     • WILD KATIPO 2.2.1

       12 October 2017 at 2:02 pm

       Winston ,… is an old time Keynes advocate by and large.

       Keynesianism is the missing ingredient so often left out when we talk about a ‘ social democracy ‘ New Zealand style. When people talk about yearning for a return to a New Zealand pre 1984 , – they are really meaning a return to Keynesian New Zealand pre 1984.

       One of the big reasons there was friction between Ruth Richardson and Winston Peters was because Ruth Richardson is a neo liberal.

       In fact , along with Roger Douglas , Ruth Richardson was a Board of Directors member of the Mont Pelerin Society – which has as its local NZ branch the NZ Initiative.

       The Mont Pelerin Society of London , – the very originators of neo liberalism itself. A short history of them and their influence in NZ here :

       New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
       http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html

       This is why fellow neo liberal traveler Jenny Shipley sacked Peters .

       CLEANGREEN is quite right in this statement : ‘ Winston says we should follow the Iceland / Irish / Norwegian / Singapore / Danish and others successful polices and ditch the current large corporate hegemony policies that are destroying our economic base now.

       All of these country’s practice a variant and degree of KEYNESIANISM. And particually so ,- Norway and Denmark , to a lesser extent Ireland ,- and we can see the damaging effects that neo liberalism had on Ireland when it did operate exclusively under that monetarist ideology.

       THAT is the common denominator.

       And Keynesianism is in direct opposition ( so to speak) with the principles of neo liberalism. And this is also why there is so much opposition to a return to Keynesianism in the western economy’s .

       Because THIS is what Jeremy Corbyn basically advocates , – and contained within that return to Keynesianism , – is where Corbyn gets the mandate for policy’s that ‘ benefit the many , not the few’ .

       And this is essentially what Winston Peters and NZ First policy’s are based around . Keynesian economic principles.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1

         12 October 2017 at 2:50 pm

         And Keynesianism is in direct opposition ( so to speak) with the principles of neo liberalism. And this is also why there is so much opposition to a return to Keynesianism in the western economy’s .

         True but:
         Paul Krugman, Steve Keen and the mysticism of Keynesian economics

         So what are the issues at debate? Well, after perusing thousands of thousand of words from participants in the debate, I think there are three issues. The first is whether, in a modern capitalist economy, money is created endogenously i.e. demand for money drives its supply, rather than exogenously, namely by the printing or absorption of money by a central bank. The second is whether the expansion of debt, particularly private credit, adds to demand in an economy, such that it can get way out of sync with the expansion of the production of things and services; and whether this is key to the capitalist crisis. And third, whether it is the inherent instability of the financial system that is the kernel of crisis and not just the lack of ‘effective demand’ as orthodox Keynesians argue.

         Old Style Keynesian itself has problems which seem to have been due to a misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. It was twisted to suit the beliefs of the rich at the time and so governments ended up having to borrow money to spend rather than simply creating it and the private banks ended up creating most of the money pushing is into financial collapse.
         • WILD KATIPO 2.2.1.1.1

           12 October 2017 at 3:06 pm

           Yes Keynesianism certainly isn’t the total answer and does have its flaws, but on a micro level at least , as witnessed by the west in coming out of the Great Depression it certainly did the trick , also ,… ( despite the economic benefits of borrowing and employment for the rebuild after WW2 ) it did tend to usher in the greatest period of prosperity ( at least in the west , again) we have had – particularly regards to lower end income earners.

           It is interesting that the only time the USA was ever truly debt free was in the 19th century , – when under Andrew Jackson they printed their own currency . After the Federal Reserve Bank Act 1917 ( ?) and creation of the ( Rothschilds owned – as well as several other European interests ) Federal Reserve the USA has been in debt servitude ever since , – paying interest on every dollar borrowed.

           It has been argued that ‘Keynesiainism’ was a response by the elites need for a rapid ‘correction ‘ – to ensure the more virulent strains of capitalism could resume, – therefore was only meant as an interim ‘ fix’.

           However , the culmination of monetarist theorys under guys such as Freidrich Hayek ,.. and the formulation of the Mont Pelerin Society and others like it for instance , – show us their deliberate intentions of how they really would want the world to operate – flawed as it is . Strangely however , – it took an economic depression of their own making to demonstrate other alternatives. IE : Keynesianism.

           I would presume that no theory is always necessarily ever going to be truly complete , – but that it can be adapted and modified as conditions warrant. And compared to neo liberalism , which is quite rigid , Keynesianism – or an adapted form – would still seem the best option for ‘the many , not the few ‘.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.1.1

             12 October 2017 at 3:25 pm

             +1

             If we address the problem of the private banks creating money and make it so that only the Reserve Bank can do so, that it charges no interest to the government and that only government spending can introduce money into the economy then Keynesianism could work.
           • Nic the NZer 2.2.1.1.1.2

             13 October 2017 at 2:10 pm

             Jacksons repayment of the US national debt also caused a massive depression.

             When the government includes (or gets all the profits from) the central bank (as happens in NZ) then interest payments on loans between the central bank and government are simply an irrelevant detail. Its how much spending occurs overall and how much towards public goods, which is actually of importance here.
   • Skinny 2.3

     12 October 2017 at 5:21 pm

     Someone shared this one Peters was pretty good as was the other lot apart from the National puppet who was woeful.

     https://youtu.be/LwAddS9snas
3. cleangreen 3

   12 October 2017 at 9:33 am

   Our government is made up of highly publlically paid “public servants”

   So Public servants must work in the best intersets of the public who pays them to do this right?

   National = do not do anything for us public = national = only work for vested interests not the public.

   National = your’e fired!!!!!!
4. Enough is Enough 4

   12 October 2017 at 12:08 pm

   You are still inferring that Winston was campaigning on changing the government.

   Yet I can’t find a single time that he said anything along those lines. He has been consistent in avoiding even hinting at what side he would favour.

   He campaigned for NZ First against the government. He never said he would throw them from government though.
   • WILD KATIPO 4.1

     12 October 2017 at 2:13 pm

     ‘Changing the way this country has been run both economically and socially.’

     The economy dictates everything.

     You change the underlying economic ideology ?, – and the effects are far ranging.

     Just look what happened to NZ once Roger Douglas brought in his destructive neo liberalism by stealth and lies.
5. tracey 5

   12 October 2017 at 1:12 pm

   The Nats heads must be exploding with all this talk of consensus and agreement. I mean,, who do Bill and Steve have to ask? The mirror?
   • KJT 5.1

     12 October 2017 at 5:51 pm

     National’s bribers, sorry, funders!
6. tomorrow&tomorrow 6

   12 October 2017 at 2:16 pm

   Winston Peters will go to National – for all his bluster, he is a psychologically and
   emotionally insecure and needy character – he will always side with the political party he perceives to be the most powerful.
   • Ed 6.1

     12 October 2017 at 2:20 pm

     Then New Zealand First will die.
7. ianmac 7

   12 October 2017 at 4:52 pm

   The political commentators are really getting stuck into Winston because he will wait for consultation with his Board for a decision. How dare he? Maybe Friday or Saturday.
   Why are we waiting? He is a minor party and minors don’t count.
   So the decision will be in the hands of unelected people. How dare they?
   National will decide within a small group of elite. That is good. Consult with the other elected MPs? Hell no. Consult with President of National Party an unelected person? Ummm er not at the moment.
   • WILD KATIPO 7.1

     12 October 2017 at 5:00 pm

     ‘They don’t like it up ‘ em , – they don’t like it up ‘ em , Sir !!! ‘….

     ‘Yes , Corporal Jones , yes indeed, …. now would you please get back in line ‘ ….
   • Ed 7.2

     12 October 2017 at 5:03 pm

     The msm is the propaganda wing of the National Party.
     Bit like Pravda operated in Russia.
     • rod 7.2.1

       12 October 2017 at 5:41 pm

       @ ed, you are quite right, but have you only just come this conclusion? it’s been going on for years and years, but how can it be changed, thats the question.
       • Ed 7.2.1.1

         12 October 2017 at 5:44 pm

         No I have thought this for a long time and I feel it important to remind people in case for one second they are being fed anything other than propaganda.

         Easy to fix.
         Take back control of the airwaves, which are part of the commons.
         Hand over to grassroots organisations, local authorities and a genuine national broadcaster.
       • Ed 7.2.1.2

         12 October 2017 at 5:56 pm

         “There’s nothing natural or inevitable about corporate control of media,” says FAIR’s Janine Jackson. “In fact, it’s a cornerstone of our democracy that the American people own the airwaves; they’re loaned to corporations on the condition that they be used to serve the public interest. Media corporations have clearly violated that trust, and people have had enough.”

         http://fair.org/press-release/activists-take-to-the-streets-to-take-back-the-airwaves/
8. Philj 8

   12 October 2017 at 10:16 pm

   Just give me one quality TV channel Broadcasting Minister Marianne Hobbes, “Just one”. I pleaded with her. That was when the TV was utter trash, about 20 years ago! We now have more trash and the same issues! I have given up on MSM in NZ. I want to be informed, not mislead with lies, trivia and trash. Australia have a far better public broadcaster, and call out the Pollies far more.
   • WILD KATIPO 8.1

     13 October 2017 at 1:12 am

     Oh yes , well ,… nhrrrh ribtiturrh snorktheht ,… yes she was wearing dangly pearls laced with dried fish heads… abithruh ntacswtachen duff … but I must say , … I was very , … very drunk,…

     Rowley Birkin QC Dream – YouTube
     Video for rowley birkin cairo▶ 0:55
     
9. sam green 9

   12 October 2017 at 11:14 pm

   Over on Kiwiblob GD – Farrar seems to be supporting a breach of privacy of health information. He’s been told – still there. Who polices that? BSA? Sean Plunkitt?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS