National still evasive over KiwiSaver plans

17 comments on “National still evasive over KiwiSaver plans ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   19 March 2008 at 9:55 am

   He was talking about Australian KiwiSaver…
2. dave 2

   19 March 2008 at 11:57 am

   Helen Clark effectively tells the media to piss off and stop asking difficult questions on a regular basis. So why dont you comment on that – could that be that the spinter in someone elses is bigger than the log in your own eye…
3. Matthew Pilott 3

   19 March 2008 at 12:04 pm

   Dave, what’s a good example of Clark has doing that over a major policy issue that financially affects almost 500,000 New Zealanders directly, and will potentially affect every New Zealander, as an example… I honestly can’t think of one off the top of my head. Don’t think your log is much of a log at all..
4. Robinsod 4

   19 March 2008 at 12:05 pm

   “dont”? “spinter”??? Are you a retard, Dave? ‘Cos I just had a look at your site and it’s certainly looking that way.
5. dave 5

   19 March 2008 at 12:57 pm

   As Brian Connell would say, Piss off Robinsod you immature jerk.
6. dave 6

   19 March 2008 at 1:11 pm

   Matthew, what’s a good example of Key doing that over a major policy issue that financially affects almost 500,000 New Zealanders directly?
   And by ” financially affects, you don`t men this, do you.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=335&objectid=10498958
7. Robinsod 7

   19 March 2008 at 1:18 pm

   Hey Dave – just because you have issues doesn’t mean you have to be nasty (although I’m interested to see you quote another political retard – do you have some kind of a club or something?).

   I’d suggest you changes the name of your blog to bigspews because bro, all it is is a series of uniformed ideological vomiting. You should really try some antacids for that…
8. Matthew Pilott 8

   19 March 2008 at 1:23 pm

   Nice diversion Dave. Reminicent of trolls such as Santi, TDS and Big Bruv. And yes that’s the one. It’s not working perfectly – write a letter to IRD if you’re really upset about it, wee fella, or just suck it up like a big boy.

   Key’s comments over the Airport Sale were pretty much the same – evasive and slippery, to the point where he was saying not to bother asking him anymore.

   Now, back to your comment – give me an example, or troll elsewhere.
9. Murray 9

   19 March 2008 at 1:52 pm

   Does anyone here think Annette Kings up shit street ?
10. dave 10

    19 March 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Robinsod, I hardly think this is “uninformed”- it explains why Labour will lose the election. Bang on, really, actually. More informed than anything you`ve written here…

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-labour-will-lose-2008-election-this.html
11. Robinsod 11

    19 March 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Ah, so I gave you a chance to pimp your link. More fool me. Your argument in that piece (god help me, I read it) is not dissimilar in its logic to numerology. Bigspews indeed…
12. gobsmacked 12

    19 March 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Dave says: “Helen Clark effectively tells the media to piss off and stop asking difficult questions on a regular basis.”

    In fact, Helen Clark holds a lengthy post-Cabinet media conference every week, in which the press gallery have ample time and opportunity to grill her on the issues of the day. And they do.

    When was the last time Key or English held a press conference, where they couldn’t run away – as opposed to a photo opportunity?

    (There was one last year, when Key launched – and bungled – National’s health policy. So, yeah, you can see why they stopped doing it).
13. gobsmacked 13

    19 March 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Dave, your prediction of an MMP election is based on the history of FPP elections. Meaningless data = pointless conclusion.

    Start again.
14. Robinsod 14

    19 March 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Start again.

    Oh God No! Please, I don’t think I could endure anymore of Dave’s sophism – it burns! it burns!
15. Steve Pierson 15

    19 March 2008 at 2:57 pm

    dave. that is like numerology, and it only stacks up for a few PMs, it doesn’t for most.

    furthermore, your theory is based on PMs changing in elelction year, but that’s not going to happen this year. and you’ve got Clark’s year of entry into parliament wrong.

    But most seriously, this is a load of shit that totally ignores that people don’t make decisions based on when leaders came into power.

    totally worthless as a predictive theory. you wouldn’t even pass in Pols 101 with this, and there are illiterate hunter-gatherers who pass that class.
16. Pablo 16

    19 March 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Dave

    Your analysis isn’t particularly enlightening Dave, you seem to be confusing patterns with causes and you even get a couple of dates wrong. Clark became an MP in 1981, the same year as Cullen.

    The closest parallel between past elections I can think of is 1969 – Labour should have won, but fucked it up somehow. Kirk was an experienced politician, but Holyoake clearly had his measure.

    To paraphrase Brian Easton, the drover’s dog could have won elections in 1984, 90 and 99, as long as it represented the opposition. It should happen this year too, but with the incompetent in charge at the moment, they appear to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
17. randal 17

    20 March 2008 at 5:30 pm

    pension funds are the biggest investors in the U.S. several banks have had go’s at them there with derivative scams and changing the rules etc etc so it is quite clear that National has a policy that involves ripping it off but doesn’t want to share it just yet till their shills are all in place for looting the fund…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS