More redundancy protection

78 comments on “More redundancy protection ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Joe Blogger 1

   30 October 2008 at 4:18 pm

   Why limit it to just 13 weeks? If its good enough to tax a person without consideration of their spouses income it should be good enough to evaluate a persons eligibility for benefits using the same method.
2. milo 2

   30 October 2008 at 4:30 pm

   I thought the Prime Minister announced Labour wouldn’t make any more spending promises. What’s this then?
3. Scribe 3

   30 October 2008 at 4:40 pm

   Who determines if the redundancy is related to the current downturn?

   What if people are made redundant because a local company is outsourcing to a country where they can find cheaper labour, as is happening all over the place? Do they get 13 weeks’ pay as well?

   (I’m not opposed to that, just unsure based on the story linked to.)

   Oh, and who’s that lady in the link? She looks vaguely familiar 😉
4. burt 4

   30 October 2008 at 4:47 pm

   The best redundancy protection would be a growing economy. But I guess that is what National want so Labour need to do the opposite.
5. Sarah 5

   30 October 2008 at 4:48 pm

   This is simply a reaction to Key’s policy. It won’t have much impact at all.

   Best of all the H-Fee scandal should overshadow this well and truely tonight. Way to screw up what would have been a good policy.

   I think the momentum is with Key now. Who’s with me?
6. higherstandard 6

   30 October 2008 at 4:53 pm

   Scribe it’s a great picture and it’s the persona she should portray to the public more often, she can be great company over a drink and when not electioneering – I expect exactly the same is true for Key.
7. Robinsod 7

   30 October 2008 at 5:02 pm

   Sarah – nobody is with you – that’s why you have to spend your lonely lonely life pitifully trolling for reaction on a left wing blog…

   HS – agreed.

   Scribe – she’s hotter than you wife – which reminds me tell her I can’t see her this weekend – I’ve got a date with Burt’s mum…

   Joe Blogger – f*ck tax. If it’s good enough to underwrite banks why not underwrite all beneficiaries debt? Or is that moral hazard?

   [lprent: sometimes good, usually bad. ‘sod – how about not just attacking people. Face it you’re probably just missing d4j.]
8. higherstandard 8

   30 October 2008 at 5:06 pm

   Sod

   Have you told Billy and Lord Ashcroft ?

   Your continued philandering is an outrage !
9. Higherbeing 9

   30 October 2008 at 5:14 pm

   Yet again Labour imitate a National Policy after initially being critical. WHEN ARE LABOUR GOING TO ACTUALLY ANNOUNCE A POLICY???? Sorry, they cant, they have spent so much time researching John Key, that they forgot about formulating policy
10. Scribe 10

    30 October 2008 at 5:15 pm

    Scribe – she’s hotter than you wife – which reminds me tell her I can’t see her this weekend – I’ve got a date with Burt’s mum

    Ouch, my side
11. Rex Widerstrom 11

    30 October 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Robinsod suggests:

    If it’s good enough to underwrite banks why not underwrite all beneficiaries debt?

    Or neither, unless they’re mentally sub-normal or the victims of a con. How about people (and especially people on million dollar salaries and bonuses which seem to be paid even when they fail. Oh, and golden parachutes that cushion the fall even when they stuff up so badly they have to be sacked to appease the poor bloody shareholders) take responsibility for their actions?

    Didn’t really need all those sub-prime loans to push earnings from the multiple millions into the billions, did we? And probably didn’t need that Playstation 3, either.

    As for Labour’s policy: excellent work. Though I wish I could be so optimistic as to see someone unemployed in the midst of this mess finding a job in 3 months. But certainly better than nothing at all. Hopefully rather than just casting them on the ocean with a 13 week lifebelt there’ll be some plans forthcoming to shore up employment through other than government work schemes. I mean I realise that both parties are busy with an election and all…
12. outofbed 12

    30 October 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Off topic but interesting
    Nelson Mail Party vote poll
    LAB 43.3 (42.9 ) Nat 40.4 (37) Greens 10.1 (7.7)

    The votes have been taken off ACT UF and NZF

    I would have expected the Greens to be up more then this but I guess it a 30% increase in their own vote share
    Lab 1 %increase in their own vote share
    and Nat 8% increase in their own vote share
    sample size 500
    Probably widely inaccurate
    but heh
13. higherstandard 13

    30 October 2008 at 5:39 pm

    ” Labour will retain some hope of maintaining its record under MMP of never having lost the party vote in Nelson to National. Its edge is minimal but at the last election, it repelled a concerted National campaign for two ticks.”

    I’m surprised that in a reasonably staunch Labour electorate Nic Smith does so well in the electorate vote.
14. outofbed 14

    30 October 2008 at 5:44 pm

    yeah smith is 36 points ahead in the electorate for some strange reason
15. higherstandard 15

    30 October 2008 at 6:08 pm

    Tis odd – probably something to do with him being a familiar face and the sitting MP for some years I s’pose.
16. lprent 16

    30 October 2008 at 6:18 pm

    hs: I’ve just fixed your typo that was giving you a pretty pink ident-icon. You should fix the default that you’ve used.
17. Sarah 17

    30 October 2008 at 6:24 pm

    The 6pm news was very good for Key. The whole redundancy package was overshadowed by the H-Fee fiasco so much so that Duncan Garner has now called it a turning point of the campaign.

    [lprent: Sarah you are now banned for 2 weeks for lying about this site on this site. Check back in the messages to find out why – then read the Policy. I’d be extremely happy to increase it because I see that you have been persistently lying about the content of the posts today.]
18. Carol 18

    30 October 2008 at 6:42 pm

    I watched a bit of both TV3 and TV One news. TV3 guy said “possibly” a turning point, I think. But how will they know at this point? They have to wait and see the reaction.

    Meanwhile I was quite amazed that neither channel really showed Fitzsimmons putting to Key that he and his MPs were giving conflicting views to voters on Kyoto & environment policies. They showed Key and Fitzsimmons meeting up and TV One talked about it being an “ambush” but didn’t really explain why.

    Talk about slanted news.

    The H-Fee thing was all constructed last night by NZ Herald in such a way as to make Labour look bad. With the media so staunchly slanting things in Key/Nat’s way, how can they lose?
19. burt 19

    30 October 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Robinsod

    Thankyou, the old girl has been a bit grumpy lately, the harshly regressive impacts of high inflation while living on GRI is not helping her demeanor either. Treat her nice Sod and please don’t tell me anymore about it. Cheers.

    Oh, and what Sarah said back here.
20. burt 20

    30 October 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Carol

    The H-Fee thing was all constructed last night by NZ Herald in such a way as to make Labour look bad. With the media so staunchly slanting things in Key/Nat’s way, how can they lose?

    I don’t agree with that.l I think the media were reporting something significant that has been going on. Had Labour produced the smoking gun would you say the Herald is left wing for publishing the story?

    For goodness sake, Labour have put a lot of time and effort into this neutron bomb, I think the public have a right to know what the self serving bastards get up to in the pursuit of an election victory. Labour should have had this whole neutron bomb BS locked and loaded as either live and dangerous or disarmed months ago. They have been talking about it for months and just recently, during the election campaign, they sent campaigners off on a research junket. Ridiculous.
21. higherstandard 21

    30 October 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Sarah, Carol

    If you believed everything that the twats at TV1 and TV 3 spout regarding turning points we’d all have been spinning towards a large chunder by now.

    Burt – outstanding
    Lynn – mmmmmm pink
22. higherstandard 22

    30 October 2008 at 7:22 pm

    The thing I found odd Burt was that Helen came across as very credilble that this wasn’t going on on her orders which suggests that either there is some dissent in the Labour strategic camp or she’s a far better liar than her opponent.
23. TBA 23

    30 October 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Robinsod – f*ck tax. If it’s good enough to underwrite banks why not underwrite all beneficiaries debt? Or is that moral hazard?

    No not at all. I’m not sure if this has changed however when I was working for Work and Income this was pretty much already in place through the special benefit. Through this we were covering the mortgage, hire purchase payments etc for people who had been made redundant etc. The criteria was fairly loose which allowed for a lot of flexibility.

    If this has changed then I agree with you there should be a mechanism to allow such things to be covered.
24. Carol 24

    30 October 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Burt, so this was the neutron bomb that Labour have allegedly been planning to drop on Key/Nats late in the election? The one everyone is talking about being in the bag and waiting to g for some time? So how come this bit of evidence was actually something that Williams rushed off to Melbourne to check out in the last week?

    Labour didn’t go public with it, cos there was nothing much actually turned up in Melbourne. Then the Herald ( the Nat supporting paper, who had also sent a reporter off to Melbourne to check it out) goes public with it. They try to link it to Labour’s investigations, even tho it was from the Herald’s own research. They publish an article claiming there’s some evideence of wrong-doing by Key, yesterday afternoon. They claim that there’s some devastating evidence that they’re going to publish ‘tomorrow”. Normally a paper wouldn’t make such claims, unless they had solid evidence. Then the next day, they say, “Oh sorry, no evidence of wrong-doing, it was all an attempt at a smear by Labour.”

    Also, as far as I can gather, the Melbourne tip came from emails sent anonymously to various media, blogs and Labour fairly recently. Labour no doubt have been investigating Key, but the Nats have spent some time investigating Labour MPs to try to find some dirt.

    So, firstly, how could this be some h-bomb that Labour had up their sleeve for some time?

    Secondly, it looks like, in this instance, Labour was set up to be smeared (albeit, by making a big noise about Labour being the one trying to do the smearing).

    The news media (other than the Herald, who clearly are backing National), either also want a Nat government, or they don’t approach such stories critically enough.

    PS; the redundancy protection looks like a good deal, and I think a lot of voters will think so too.
25. higherstandard 25

    30 October 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Carol you seem to be living in sme kind of fantasy land.

    From Helen’s own mouth

    “The Prime Minister has confirmed she knew about Labour’s attempt to link John Key to the H-Fee fraud scandal of the late 1980s.

    Helen Clark says she was aware Labour Party president Mike Williams was working on the matter and travelled to Australia to look at court documents.

    She says Mr Williams paid for his trip out of his own pocket.

    Miss Clark says the party’s research unit may also have been involved, as it does work on the opposition.”

    How the feck does this amount to in your words “Labour was set up to be smeared”

    …when Key was on record as saying he was not involved when Labour was running this attack line previously and the head of the SFO had also commented that ……..

    “It should not need to be said that John Key was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For any politician to hint or suggest otherwise would be absolutely rubbish and pure mischief-making”.
26. Ianmac 26

    30 October 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Williams did appear briefly on the news and said “there are some serious questions that John Key should answer.” So still not quite a dead issue, though it may be other than the current dead duck.
    Carol: I agree with you. John, I think was well prepared to trot out the “Digging up Dirt ” line. The only person strangely enough that has flattened this line was Mark Sainsbury ?? when talking to Gerry the Pieman. “Surely all parties are doing this all the time Gerry?” Avoidance from Gerry . (Think attacks on Peters/Clark etc.)
    “Who would look at things 27 years or so ago!” etc etc.
    Anyway I think it might have been a cynical ploy by Herald: Hype up drop down, Labour take the blame. Conspiracy! Who knows.
27. Ianmac 27

    30 October 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Higherstandard: You are working on the assumption that the Bomb featured in the Herald was IT. So is everyone. It was however a Herald bomb, and I have a thought that it is not over yet and there is more from the Labour perspective, so watch this space. Well perhaps not my space as I am just an observer. It is good that you challenge respectfully as it gives others food for thought. Ta.
28. Carol 28

    30 October 2008 at 8:12 pm

    HS, think what you want….. whatever…. Did you read what I said? I said that I’m sure Labour has been investigating Key, but like Sainsbury suggested, the Nats have done the same to try to find dirt on Clark etc. So your argument does nothing to discredit mine. You haven’t responded to the improbability of this being the H-bomb has had up their sleeve for a while. Just keep on with your smear stuff, if it makes you happy. Seems to be a lot of right wingers that will use anything to confirm this view of Labour.

    I doubt also that this will be an election turning issue.

    lanmac, yes. I also think that many members of the public will think the same as Sainsbury. Meanwhile, it has put the idea in many people’s minds that Key was working amongst a few dodgy finance people. The story could work either way in the public’s mind. Probably depends on the views people already have.
29. Carol 29

    30 October 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Lanmac, apparently when Kathryn Ryan was interviewing Key on NatRad this morning, I think when Key was talking about it as a Labour smear, Ryan said in an aside that it was the Herald’s story (ie not Labour who had put it out).

    I think either Labour never did have a bomb to drop, or, if they do, this wasn’t it.

    Oh, and Bomber Bradbury, over on the Tumeke blog, has been predicting something would happen this week or next to give them something other than Peters to talk about. Some commenters have been jeering at him, saying Bomber’s predicted bomb was a fizzer. Bomber replied:

    Blogger Bomber said…

    How’s that “Neutron Bomb” going for ya there Bomber? The biggest fizzer in political history eh?

    I didn’t say this was the neutron bomb at all – I have been very clear in the past pointing out that I think it will be dropped next wednesday (or this weekend) – my guess is next wednesday – this finance thing is some added extra that was thrown in, it’s not what I’ve heard is the neutron bomb at all.

    30/10/08 2:50 PM
30. higherstandard 30

    30 October 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Carol – if this isn’t their N-bomb – have they got multitudinous hordes that are roving the world looking for dirt above and beyond Williams and their research unit ?

    The whole thing doesn’t make me happy it makes me ill that people can waste time and money on smeariing their opponent – make no mistake that’s the only reason for going down this track so close to the election.

    Frankly your assertion that it’s a double cross smear and the Labour are the poor misunderstood victims is beyond absurd.
31. Carol 31

    30 October 2008 at 8:32 pm

    HS well, I understand that someone, the Nats I think, had PI’s investigating Clark and her partner (Davis) trying to get some dirt on them. Then thre are stories about how much money was offered (to journos I think) to get dirt on Peters – there was a lot of effort by Hide 7 the Nats to get the dirt on him. it’s hardly just Labur who have been at it.

    It doesn’t seem, absurd to me. Seems quite logical, that Herald set them up yesterday. I don’t think Labour would have gone public with it, as it showed little against Key.
32. Bill 32

    30 October 2008 at 8:47 pm

    TBA made a good point up yonder.

    Special Benefit covered a lot of stuff. It had no cap and was discretionary. Benson-Pope was the minister who dumped it and had it replaced with Temporary Additional Support, which is capped and has no room for discretion.

    So the redundancy policy may well be nothing more than allowing a form of the Special Benefit to be paid to redundant workers for 13 weeks while leaving those with ongoing needs languishing on the inadequate Temporary Additional Support.

    Nice one. Put through the biggest benefit cut since the early 90s (removing Special benefit) and then reintroduce it under a different name as a ‘targeted benefit’ for a relatively few number of people and expect kudos and thanks for your largesse.

    On the other H bomb thang. What would Saddam be saying were he around?
33. Ianmac 33

    30 October 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Higherstandard:
    Williams investigated because of doubts given John’s shaky recall.
    The Herald investigated the same story in Melbourne.
    Williams had doubts about the allegations and backs off.
    Herald published on Wed heralding a major story.
    Thursday the Herald largely squashed its story- point at Labour.
    John well prepared “Digging Dirt!”
    (We will ignore the prolonged digging of Nat/Act of “dirt against Helen and Winston.)
    Labour quietly avoids frenzy but does suggest that their real bomb might yet come.
    Might be wrong. But conjecture is rife on all sides. Have a go.
34. RedLogix 34

    30 October 2008 at 8:54 pm

    Back on topic.

    Dr Cullen has made it very clear that he was not at all in favour of these deposit guarantee schemes. Talking to Kathryn Ryan yesterday morning he repeatedly stated that it only happened because everyone else in the world had done it and it left him with no choice. (If you want to blame someone, blame the Irish, they did it first.)

    Cullen’s exact words were ” that these schemes always have perverse effects at the margins”.
35. burt 35

    30 October 2008 at 8:58 pm

    Ianmac

    Williams investigated because of doubts given John’s shaky recall.

    That would be the same Williams that couldn’t remember a $100,000 (interest free) loan from Owen Glenn not even a year after it happened questioning the memory of Key over some dates from a decade ago. Ridiculous.

    Labour diverted precious campaign funds and time into a personal attack that back fired on them. If they were tricked then they are dumb suckers.
36. Carol 36

    30 October 2008 at 8:59 pm

    I heard Clark on the radio talking about this redundacy policy. As I recall, she said it was to help couples who’d got use to a certain level of income, made committments like mortgages etc, then one lost their job. This fund is to help them transition to a new lifestyle, or job.

    I always have had doubts about the H-Bomb thing. Why would you tell everybody that you’re going to do it before hand?
37. Robinsod 37

    30 October 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Labour diverted precious campaign funds and time into a personal attack that back fired on them.

    Burt you fool – all you ever do is bleat about corruption. If there was a chance Helen Clark was involved in one of the biggest frauds in NZ history you’d be first on the plane to Melbourne. Take your National good/Labour bad bullshit and stick it up your faux-sanctimonious arse…

    Oh and Burt? I notice you don’t comment on Whale’s blog anymore. Why is that?
38. John 38

    30 October 2008 at 9:10 pm

    Can you explain to me why Labour’s policy does not represent a moral hazard?
    Net result of today’s debacle is HC overseeing a total collapse in the Labour vote to the Greens. You can say goodbye to Damien O’Connor, Judith Tizard, Mark Burton, Mahara Okeroa, Martin Gallagher, David Hereora, Louisa Wall et al.
39. coge 39

    30 October 2008 at 9:10 pm

    The fact Mike Williams was in Melbourne at this critical time suggests Labour had given this research urgent priority. It was after all, Willliams who had/has the 24 odd kilos of papers, not the Herald.
40. randal 40

    30 October 2008 at 9:12 pm

    only pimple face economists think there willbe a recession anyway.
    New Zealand is very well placed to take advantage of world demand for high quality high-protein food whatever the conditions are
    keep on the sunnyside you turkeys!
41. Robinsod 41

    30 October 2008 at 9:15 pm

    coge – or it suggests Williams just does whatever the fuck he wants and nobody can rein him in. On previous form I’m inclined to lean toward the latter. The real mystery is why he’s still there…
42. bobo 42

    30 October 2008 at 9:18 pm

    I’m thinking of switching off mainstream media, the constant innuendo, political”commentators” are filtering the news so much there’s nothing left. Like Carol I was intrigued to see the exchange between Fitzsimmons and Key in the Mall about his views on the ETS scheme he looked awkward in the picture but no actual footage….. pathetic. Duncan Garner,Guyen Espiner and the old hack Barry Sopher is as good as it gets in this country for politics. Guyen was starting to be “nice” to Winston lately I noticed as he was cleared of the SFO charges after declaring Winstons demise. The Helen Clark tripping over footage will be used over and over again I’m sure, call me superstitious but its not a great sign..
43. coge 43

    30 October 2008 at 9:20 pm

    ‘Sod he’s not still there. He was shown on tonights news keeping his head down at home.
44. mike 44

    30 October 2008 at 9:22 pm

    “The real mystery is why he’s still there ”
    The same reason that lying dwarf peters is still there sod – they know too much about helens wicked ways.

    But don’t worry buddy come Nov 8th they’ll both be out of a job and we’ll get the good goss then.
45. Quoth the Raven 45

    30 October 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Watching the interview Winston Peters did with Oliver Driver I think the neutron bomb has something to do with National party funding.
    Only those on the right have cliamed this H fee stuff to be the neutron bomb. They will surely be hurting when the real neutron bomb is released.
46. mike 46

    30 October 2008 at 9:28 pm

    “They will surely be hurting when the real neutron bomb is released.”

    You clowns don’t know when to give up do you – and actually take something WP says seriously?
47. Billy 47

    30 October 2008 at 9:29 pm

    They will surely be hurting when the real neutron bomb is released.

    Maybe now is the time to release it. You know, instead of wasting all that time flying to other countries with the sole purpose of making yourselves look like a bunch of cocks.
48. Ianmac 48

    30 October 2008 at 9:31 pm

    Burt said: “That would be the same Williams that couldn’t remember a $100,000 (interest free) loan from Owen Glenn not even a year after it happened questioning the memory of Key over some dates from a decade ago. Ridiculous.”
    In case you hadn’t noticed, John Key is the one aspiring to be the PM. I would have thought you would want a leader who is alert, aware, and precise.
    Coge: Good try but if Williams was in Australia and so was the Herald reporter doing his own dig, well so what? The Herald had 23kg of papers but it wasn’t reported. Raises the question (unimportant) how would anyone know how much the papers weighed.
    Did John Key make a strategic error in hinting at a redundancy package since last Friday but was coy all week about the detail? Oops. Lunch is over.
49. Robinsod 49

    30 October 2008 at 9:34 pm

    coge – it’s “tonight’s” not “tonights” – why would I listen to someone who can’t even punctuate?

    mike – Williams will be out of a job because he’s not standing as pres again and Peters shouldn’t be there because he’s a racist shit but I think your team is guaranteeing him a martyrhood 5% – dumbest political move ever.

    QTR – the “neutron bomb” (what a stupid f*ckin term) is BS. Political campaigning is a war of attrition. This silver bullet shit is exactly the thinking that leads to cock-ups like Williams’
50. burt 50

    30 October 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Carol

    I heard Clark on the radio talking about this redundacy policy. As I recall, she said it was to help couples who’d got use to a certain level of income, made committments like mortgages etc, then one lost their job. This fund is to help them transition to a new lifestyle, or job.

    I think it’s a ridiculous election bribe but at least it’s not means tested. The question has already been raised above but it’s an obvious one, how do we defined caused by the downturn?

    randal goes on to say there is no downturn thereby contradicting the PM and the whole validity of this policy.

    I think there is a bit of election lolly scramble going on here, are we now planning to borrow to pay welfare? Ignoring randal for a moment, can we sustain borrowing for new welfare for over a decade?
51. burt 51

    30 October 2008 at 10:06 pm

    ianmac

    In case you hadn’t noticed, John Key is the one aspiring to be the PM. I would have thought you would want a leader who is alert, aware, and precise.

    One thing any smart (and sensible/reasonable) person would not do is enter politics if they had been undeniably involved in a serious fraud case or other significant mistrust illegal behaviour. Particularly if such a case existed in the context of your well publicised prior professional life.

    Labour must have thought they were onto a winner, they had uncovered a deep dark secret. Who are the alert and aware ones here ianmac?

    I’m not picking the ones who dived off down a most unlikely rabbit hole and buried themselves in crap right in the middle of a campaign that was already suffering from attack overload.

    In relation to this debacle, the timing about the ‘Two Johns’ add being misleading was priceless. Perhaps the broadcasting standards authority are in on National’s plot as well.
52. Robinsod 52

    30 October 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Perhaps the broadcasting standards authority are in on National’s plot as well.

    Burt you retard – it was the advertising standards authority not the BSA. If you’re gonna gloat at least get your facts right…

    Oh and I hear the complainant, one “S Davies-Colley”, is the child of a National party activist. Nice to know the Nat’s will hide behind kids to make their complaints. So much for personal responsibility…
53. Pat 53

    30 October 2008 at 10:20 pm

    If Mike Williams is going to be out of a job, will he qualify for the new benefit? And is 13 weeks enough time for him to find new employment? He might need 13 months or 13 years (unless Owen Glenn takes pity on him).
54. burt 54

    30 October 2008 at 10:28 pm

    QtR

    Watching the interview Winston Peters did with Oliver Driver I think the neutron bomb has something to do with National party funding.

    I once saw an interview with Winston about his own parties funding, turns out he lied about that as well. Like Billy said.

    “Maybe now is the time to release it. You know, instead of wasting all that time flying to other countries with the sole purpose of making yourselves look like a bunch of cocks.”
55. burt 55

    30 October 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Robinsod

    I stand corrected on the advertising standards authority. Thank you.
56. Robinsod 56

    30 October 2008 at 10:35 pm

    If you can put aside the obstacle of your ignorance I can correct you on a lot more than just that Burt – go on my old drunken mate. Let me enlighten you…

    edit – oh and Pat? Williams can look after himself – it’s the wee folk like you that are riding for a fall…
57. Coozer 57

    30 October 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Gee Dylan, you must be happy you can go on the taxpayer tit when you and irish Bill get the Spanish Archer post election, surely?
58. Robinsod 58

    30 October 2008 at 10:49 pm

    Hey coozer – I haven’t had a government contract since 2003…

    Oh and bro – coozer’s a funny old name you’ve picked for your sad self ‘cos back home that’s a word we use for something that’s only good for one thing…
59. milo 59

    31 October 2008 at 2:25 am

    Carol: Sorry, but Trevor Mallard introduced the H-Fee into parliamentary debate last year, so Labour’s fingerprints are all over it, indelibly. Claiming it is all an NZHerald sting has as much credibility as a Florida vote count.

    Quoth the Raven: Oh! Oh! Yes puleeeze! Bring on the “real” neutron bomb. As a right-leaning voter (this election), I’m dying for a repeat of the last two days.
60. Carol 60

    31 October 2008 at 7:07 am

    [sigh] How difficult is it to follow a straight-forward logical argument? Go back and read what I said. I agreed that Labour probably have been investigating Key’s financial background. But if they were going to drop an H-bomb on this issue, or any other, this wasn’t it.

    IMO it’s quite possible there is no H-Bomb. I’ll wait and see…. maybe there will be one & maybe there won’t. But if there is, it’ll be a more well-prepared one. It will be managed much better by Labour than this last story, which was initiated and managed by The Herald.

    It was probably just a bit of opportunism on the Herald (and National’s) part. Maybe they do fear an H-bomb, and decided to take the opportunity to get in a pre-emptive strike against Labour. So if there is a later H-Bomb, Key/theNats will say, “it’s just Labour trying to smear Key again.”

    Interesting that when NACT does some investigating to uncover some dirt on Labour and/or their allies, according to their opponents, Labour deserves to get smeared cos they’re corrupt, lying etc etc. But if Labour does the investigations into Key/National, the right dismiss whatever is uncovered as not being important because Labour are just corrupt, lying smear-merchants.

    Slippery logic……
61. travellerev 61

    31 October 2008 at 8:11 am

    While Labour battens down the hedges for the financial Armageddon heading our way and is preemtively taking measures to protect the workers of this country this is what happens if you bail out the investment bankers.

    And as for National’s trickle down tax policies the following: If something trickles on you it’s usually someone pissing on you from a very great hight.

    Not my own alas but a good picture it paints I thought. LOL
62. Scribe 62

    31 October 2008 at 8:28 am

    Robinsod,

    Nice to know the Nat’s will hide behind kids to make their complaints.

    To quote a regular contributor on this blog: “why would I listen to someone who can’t even punctuate?”

    Have a nice day.
63. Billy 63

    31 October 2008 at 9:35 am

    To quote a regular contributor on this blog: “why would I listen to someone who can’t even punctuate?’

    Where is the punctuation error in:

    Nice to know the Nat’s will hide behind kids to make their complaints.?
64. Carol 64

    31 October 2008 at 9:47 am

    Ambivalent punctuation: an [‘] can be used for possessive case or to indicate missing letters.

    Depends if you thinl Nat is a word in its own right or the abbreviation of National or National Party.
65. Carol 65

    31 October 2008 at 9:54 am

    PS: It does look more like an incorrect use of the possessive case tho.
66. Billy 66

    31 October 2008 at 9:55 am

    Carol,

    You mean “possessive case tho‘“.

    It was clearly a contraction.
67. Ianmac 67

    31 October 2008 at 10:01 am

    Carol said:”So if there is a later H-Bomb, Key/theNats will say, “it’s just Labour trying to smear Key again.'”
    Exactly Carol. All your posts have a ring if clarity and credibility. (Pity our would-be PM didn’t do likewise:))
    I was thinking about how to raise some Questions for John:
    John. Should there be intense investigations of suspected MP wrong-doers such as Peters?
    Um Yes. I expect much higher standards in any Government that I lead.
    Should there be intense investigations of suspected MP wrong-doers such as Helen Clark?
    Um Yes. And we will use every part of our Parliamentary Funds to do so because it is justified!
    Should there be intense investigations of suspected MP wrong-doers such as John Key or Lochwood, or Gerrypieman?
    No No! That is just typical of you people digging dirt on me. I am an honest successful businessman, and unlike Helen Clark…..
68. higherstandard 68

    31 October 2008 at 10:29 am

    Ian

    Of course MPs who are suspected of wrongdoing should be investigated.

    It should, however, be done by the appropriate authorities, not party hacks who have their own agendas.
69. Ianmac 69

    31 October 2008 at 11:18 am

    Higherstandard: You can’t have it both ways. Wrong if done by a Party Hack. Wrong if done by a research Team.
    Right if done by anyone if you are National/Act.
70. higherstandard 70

    31 October 2008 at 11:23 am

    What did you misunderstand about my comment.

    Of course MPs who are suspected of wrongdoing should be investigated.

    It should, however, be done by the appropriate authorities, not party hacks who have their own agendas.

    “Right if done by anyone if you are National/Act.”

    No, nor is it right if it’s done by National/Act.
71. Ianmac 71

    31 October 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Higherstandard. Now I understand your point, but who do you think are the proper authorities? Somehow Wodney Hide had to gather his allegations. (National Research Unit?) Then after a great deal of digging “dirt” he gave it to the proper authorities. I think that there are many crimes that are discovered by non-professioals which become cases later.
72. higherstandard 72

    31 October 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Agreed but the SFO had thoroughly investigated the Elders incident ages agao
73. Ianmac 73

    31 October 2008 at 1:28 pm

    hiherstandard: There was enough doubt to cause a rethink re Elders/Key and for the Herald to send their reporter to have a look and on Wed evening he and other papers believed there was evidence that the SFO missed. Remember John has misremembered a number of things and to some this causes a lingering doubt. Reading John’s body language I am sure that he felt totally safe in this case. But watch his Tranzrail eyes next time, and there will be next time. And remember it was Sturt SFO who decided to not prosecute Wine-box in spite of strong evidence that Fay/Ritchwhite were ripping the taxpayers for millions.
74. higherstandard 74

    31 October 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Ian

    No there wasn’t enough doubt – it was Labour digging dirt – get over it and more on.

    I can’t be bothered discussing a non-issue any more.
75. John 75

    31 October 2008 at 5:02 pm

    What an interesting choice we have for the centre-left!
    Vote Labour: Helen Clark.. Muldoonesque in lust for power
    Michael Cullen.. idealogical hatred of success
    Vote Green: Russel Norman.. intelligent and articulate proponent of sustainability
    Jeanette Fitzsimons.. integrity personified
    It seems a no brainer. After the debacle of the H Fee the Labour vote could collapse to the Greens as per the National vote to Act and NZ First in 2002. What Helen doesn’t want to believe is that “all political lives end in failure” .
76. Chris G 76

    31 October 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Does Cullen, therefore, hate his Own success John?

    ie. Holding a PhD, Lecturer, Minister of Finance etc.

    What a pickle that must be?

Links to post

1. Redundancy package « The visible hand in economics: posted on 31 October 2008 at 8:30 am
2. The Standard Week: 24-31 October at The Standard 2.02: posted on 31 October 2008 at 2:35 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS