Open mike 01/10/2013

178 comments on “Open mike 01/10/2013 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Puckish Rogue 1

   1 October 2013 at 9:09 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9226635/Labour-wants-home-loan-exemptions

   How heartless is this govt to stop a 23 yo from buying a half million dollar investment property, something must be done!
   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.1

     1 October 2013 at 9:18 am

     Quite right. At last, Labour is going to fix problems encountered by 23 year olds with $50 grand who cannot afford investment properties.
   • Zorr 1.2

     1 October 2013 at 9:20 am

     The kid already had his 10% deposit and was buying in Auckland, had the pre-approval and was looking for a place – something about this story seems out of kilter with your take on it. Oh… wait… that’s right, the kid wasn’t buying an investment property – it was his first home.

     lrn2trollbetter
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.2.1

       1 October 2013 at 9:36 am

       Can’t think how I got that so badly wrong. I must be really stupid. I mean, how could I have misunderstood this?:

       Mongia had spent the last 6 months hunting for an investment property in an already tough market and believes the Reserve Bank restrictions won’t help the situation in any way.
       • Puckish Rogue 1.2.1.1

         1 October 2013 at 9:58 am

         I like this quote:

         “Unfortunately they are taking it out on the hide of first home buyers like Kanik, and that’s not what we want. We want young people to be able to get into their homes and we don’t want young speculators driving prices through the roof,” Cunliffe said.
     • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 1.2.2

       1 October 2013 at 2:28 pm

       Mongia: “If it’s good enough I could live in it, otherwise it could be an investment property.”

       Wow, now there’s commitment. Yeah bro, if that half-million-dollar Auckland home is good enough you could live in it. You could scrape by.
   • Bill 1.3

     1 October 2013 at 10:13 am

     Another fine case of jonolistic integrity folks. See, in the piece there is this :-

     He (Cunliffe) met today with prospective first home buyer, Kanik Mongia, 23, an IT consultant, who had his ASB pre-approval on a 90 per cent loan for a $400,000 – 500,000 home cancelled by the bank because of the LVR changes.

     And then there is this:-

     Mongia had spent the last 6 months hunting for an investment property in an already tough market and believes the Reserve Bank restrictions won’t help the situation in any way.

     Now, both of these statements can’t be true unless somebody is viewing first homes as investments.

     And two commentators missed that glaring contradiction in the piece and banged on bullshit about Cunliffe in tandem instead of the obvious matter of crap reporting. What’s the world a-comin’ to?
   • Enough is Enough 1.4

     1 October 2013 at 10:14 am

     Does David C have the same media adviser as David S?

     This was a Shearer type fuck up.

     There are plenty of angles to attack this mis directed policy. Yet Cunners gets in front of a rich kid…sheesh
     • McFlock 1.4.1

       1 October 2013 at 11:38 am

       Damn, I’d hoped that the chicken littles would have been placated for a little longer. C’est la vie.
       • Colonial Viper 1.4.1.1

         1 October 2013 at 7:04 pm

         lol
   • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 1.5

     1 October 2013 at 2:24 pm

     What? a 23-year-old who’s been in the workforce for just over a year can’t get a loan to buy a half-million-dollar investment property in Auckland?

     PLEASE DAVID CUNLIFFE WON’T LABOUR THINK OF THE CHILDREN. This is just the sort of emergency situation where the laws governing the Reserve Bank must be changed.
2. just saying 2

   1 October 2013 at 9:18 am

   I love Tuesdays in the blogosphere.
   Two great posts from two of my fave bloggers.
   Giovani Tiso:
   http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/the-struggle-for-democracy.html
   And Burnt-out teacher:
   http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/01/the-boot-doesnt-fit-ugh-its-probably-on-the-wrong-foot/
3. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3

   1 October 2013 at 9:19 am

   Bob Jones:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11132495

   Discuss.
   • vto 3.1

     1 October 2013 at 9:25 am

     you discuss it
     • Mary 3.1.1

       1 October 2013 at 10:25 am

       …and not on here.
       • vto 3.1.1.1

         1 October 2013 at 5:51 pm

         Ok, I’ll discuss it

         This has always been a particularly conundrumish matter, this putting oneself in dangerous situations and then when the moment arrives discounting the criminal due to such putting.

         And I think it is as simple as that. Bob Jones is a dipshit but also nobody else ever seems able to unlock the conundrumality either. It is a mixing of two completely unrelated grown-up matters which in so mixing exposes various background understandings, perceptions, even prejudices. And then these highlights become the point at large instead.

         In reality people need to accept some responsibility when they walk the dark streets at night if they get set upon. Like walking in the lions dens no less. But that fact needs a careful scalpel cut away from the point-blank condemnation of any criminal act. The initial lesser responsibility must never be permitted to cut into the latter ultimate responsibility. This eternal mixed issue never receives the clean scalpel of clarity and is doomed for eternity…..
   • Pascal's bookie 3.2

     1 October 2013 at 10:33 am

     Not much to discuss really. Irrelevant dipshit shouts at clouds! Asks if everyone is shocked yet. *drops pants* “Still not shocked? Give me fucking break man, I’m relevant.” meh.

     Also:

     http://dianerevoluta.tumblr.com/post/62743387342/bob-jones-i-pity-you-you-fool
     • Sosoo 3.2.1

       1 October 2013 at 10:37 am

       This topic can’t be discussed sensibly in the media, because they don’t understand that there are different kinds of blame and responsibility.

       If I knowingly swim in shark infested waters, I can expect people to accuse me of imprudent behaviour, and they would be correct.

       If I burgle someone else’s house, I can expect people to accuse me of immoral behaviour, and they would be correct.

       The kinds of blame in these cases are different. You can tell this from the following. In the second case, if I were not caught and punished, people would think it right and proper for me to be caught and punished. On the other hand, if I managed to swim without being bitten, no sane person would insist that I be thrown back in until I was bitten.

       But if I park my car in an area known for break ins and do not lock it, that is a case of imprudent behaviour that puts me at risk of being the victim of other people’s immoral behaviour. People get confused about this, because they think that all blame is the same, and so that any blame attached to the victim necessarily diminishes blame attached to the perpetrator. That is not the case.

       This simple distinction in moral reasoning seems to have bypassed the news media entirely.

       In an ideal world, people should be able to walk the streets at night, but no matter what we do, we can’t make things perfectly safe. Hence, we should encourage people not to take unnecessary risks, and organise our society so that they can largely go about their business without doing so.

       I think Jones’ tone is off, but my guess is that he’s trolling.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1

         1 October 2013 at 11:15 am

         Rapists aren’t sharks SoSooo.

         People would be stupid to blame sharks for biting something that looks like a seal. Has anyone ever been found ‘not guilty’ of theft because a door wasn’t locked?
         • Sosoo 3.2.1.1.1

           1 October 2013 at 12:29 pm

           Read the post again. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote.
           • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1.1.1

             1 October 2013 at 12:51 pm

             I don’t think I did actually. You made an analogy to sharks, and theft, and talked about the diffrent types of blame.

             I talked about how those analogies don’t stack up compared to how we talk about rape.

             the point is, that in talking aboput the blame the victims ought to carry, people are excusing rapists. that’s just a fact. When a rapist hears someone talking about how some victim should have been more careful, or not dressed like she was asking for it, or whatever, he is hearing that what he is doing is excusable. that he is a force of nature (like a shark, out there in *his* environment) and that people have to take care because he is going to do what he is going to do, and it is up to his victims to not attract his attention.
             • Sosoo …

               1 October 2013 at 3:57 pm

               Nope. You’re completely off the mark.

               “When a rapist hears someone talking about how some victim should have been more careful, or not dressed like she was asking for it, or whatever, he is hearing that what he is doing is excusable.”

               Then he’s no more correct than the burglar who thinks burglary becomes more acceptable because people sometimes forget to lock their doors.

               Your view is absurd.

               From the victim’s point of view, a risk is a risk. It doesn’t matter qua my welfare whether the risk to my bodily health is from a natural source or from another agent. It doesn’t become any less risky or less injurious to my welfare just because another moral agent is on the end of it.

               Sorry, that’s just the way reality is.
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 1 October 2013 at 4:13 pm

                 So we’re back to my asking you if you have ever heard of someone being found ‘not guilty’ of theft because a door wasn’t locked.

                 the fact is, rape and sexual assault victims get told all the time by society that they are partly to blame; for going out, or wearing clothes, or talking to someone in the pub, or whatever else.

                 All of these things make rapists think that what they are doing is ok. that if she’s drunk, it’s ok. If she’s wearing certain clothes, it’s ok. If she’s walking alone in the park, it’s ok. These are all things that have got rapists off.

                 That’s why this bullshit discourse causes rapes. When you say, “We’ll obviously she shouldn’t have been wearing that” you are saying to rapists that victims wearing that, are better targets. You are part of a discourse that says that rapists are like sharks, with their own environment that women need to just stay the hell out of.

                 Fuck. that.

                 Women can wear whatever they hell they want, and have all the sam,e rights to go where they want as anyone else. There are no’ rape friendly zones’ that we should accept women should have to avoid to avoid being blamed for being raped. There are no rape provoking clothes that women must not wear because society will say, “well you had it coming”

                 They didn’t have it coming. A rapist, raped them. And that’s where the blame is. All of it.
                 • Rogue Trooper …

                   1 October 2013 at 6:44 pm

                   (had to turn light on to see notes) -todays press release 11% Rise in Sexual Offending ; somewhere, anywhere actually.

                   from Kim McGregor -“no trust” ; response from calling/ contacting the Police- “16-year old probably regretted sex, and therefore, no point in contacting Police Station”. Today, NZ, 1.10.2013. Yep! (move along, no males harmed in the making of this film).
                   • vto …

                     1 October 2013 at 6:53 pm

                     Wasn’t it 11% rise in sexual offending reporting instead? Which is a positive situation, assuming actual offending has remained constant. If you are correct then it is a negative situation.
                 • vto …

                   1 October 2013 at 6:52 pm

                   Yes that’s right p’s B but I there is another responsibility there which I have tried to explain here http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01102013/#comment-704255

                   The two responsibilities are completely unrelated in fact, but they are always mixed up incorrectly and lead to this difficulty of evaluation of the situation. That is why both sides of the argument resonate in seeming isolation.
       • McFlock 3.2.1.2

         1 October 2013 at 11:52 am

         Whether you lock your car or not, you are at risk of other people’s criminal behaviour.
         For many people, walking down a dark street is safer than living in their own home, lights on or off.
         For many people, walking alone down a dark street is safer than walking down it with someone they know.

         Wherever we go, whatever we do, we are taking a chance with people.

         There is only one key determinant in the “risk” of being raped. It’s not clothing, being drunk, being alone, being out at night, walking in a provocative way, acting “cheap”, kissing a man who you like, any of that. It’s exposure to rapists, and some of them are damned difficult to spot.
         • Sosoo 3.2.1.2.1

           1 October 2013 at 12:35 pm

           Your post is a tautology. It’s like saying that the only key determinant to being burgled is exposure to burglars.

           Of course, that is nonsense. Locking your house and having an alarm help immensely in putting burglars off.

           We can do a lot, both individually and as a society, to make things very difficult for rapists to accomplish their goals. But to do that, we have to acknowledge that some of these things will involve personal risk mitigation, although there is, of course, much more to do socially.

           The first thing we could do is get real about the people who are committing these crimes. A small number of men are responsible for the overwhelming number of rapes. It’s not men vs. women, but these predators vs. women. If you think about it, you probably already know who these people are. I don’t think they are that difficult to spot at all.
           • McFlock 3.2.1.2.1.1

             1 October 2013 at 1:20 pm

             Of course, that is nonsense. Locking your house and having an alarm help immensely in putting burglars off.

             No, at best it merely relocates the problem, or encourages burglars to adapt and develop their technique. Or simply wait for the person who through misfortune or a single lapse cannot “mitigate her personal risk” against that burglar’s/rapist’s personal modus operandi. Once.

             Addressing the issues that contribute to burglary from a societal perspective, on the other hand, will prevent burglars from robbong anyone.

             We can do a lot, both individually and as a society, to make things very difficult for rapists to accomplish their goals. But to do that, we have to acknowledge that some of these things will involve personal risk mitigation, although there is, of course, much more to do socially.

             Nah – that’s crumbs on the plate compared to the main meal.

             The main reason society has such a high level of sexual assaults is because the path from assault through complaint to guilty verdict is trod so lightly. ISTR from when I worked in public safety that the rate was in the low single digit percentages. One of the factors in that is a low reporting rate, because of (another factor) the treatment of assault survivors in court and the social stigma that is inflicted upon them. They have already been assaulted by someone who wanted to make them feel powerless and worthless. Adding pointless public recrimination into the mix along the lines of “could’ve would’ve should’ve done x y z” simply helps continue that state of affairs.

             The first thing we could do is get real about the people who are committing these crimes. A small number of men are responsible for the overwhelming number of rapes. It’s not men vs. women, but these predators vs. women. If you think about it, you probably already know who these people are. I don’t think they are that difficult to spot at all.

             If they weren’t difficult to spot, there would be no rapes because everyone would know to avoid those people. But the attack of the hairy knuckles in a dark alley is a tiny percentage compared to the friend of the family, the family member, the colleague, the classmate, the teacher, the community group leader, the employer, the bartender, the police officer, the meter reader, the plumber…

             You want to put a sledgehammer to the number of rapes in NZ? Help people like bob jones realise that the problem isn’t based around what women do, it’s based around what rapists do.
             • Sosoo …

               1 October 2013 at 4:06 pm

               You’re effectively saying that making burglary more difficult won’t reduce the rate of burglaries, as if burglars had some sort of quota of burglaries that they had to complete come what may.

               Sorry, that seems to me to be completely loony.
               • McFlock …

                 1 October 2013 at 4:33 pm

                 Well, no, I’m talking about rape, not burglary. The analogy only goes so far. Different methods and motives at work.

                 A burglar by definition has a limited behaviour set: breaking into homes.

                 A rapist has many, and many disguises. Let’s say no woman in the country hitch-hiked alone. Oh, sorry, these two jones blames were in a pair. Maybe one of them should have been a man to protect the other – oh, wait, the big protector man might rape them, and bad things happen to different-sex couples, anyway. Maybe they should have been in a larger group – well, that just increases the probability that the group contains a rapist. They’d need to avoid alcohol. Forever. International travel is right out. Being out after dark is right out. Even going out in daylight might increase their risks if they wear the wrong clothes. So they dress like nuns to go out, but then a rapist might have a nun fixation, so going out is bad for fear of rape. But then being confined to their homes simply means that, should the home contain a rapist, they’re increasing their risk. Hell, most rapists know the woman they abuse, so the safest option might well be to wander down dark streets alone.

                 Nah.
                 It’s easier to work on the rapists, rather than blaming the victims.
                 • Treetop …

                   1 October 2013 at 5:24 pm

                   “It’s easier to work on the rapists, rather than blaming the victims.”

                   Sexual predators try to justify their actions and people like Jones and the judge and the regional commander support these sick bastards. They to need to be worked on.
       • QoT 3.2.1.3

         1 October 2013 at 9:13 pm

         If I knowingly swim in shark infested waters, I can expect people to accuse me of imprudent behaviour, and they would be correct.

         Incorrect. The vast majority of sharks are no threat to humans, and the majority of those who do attack humans do so accidentally. It is incredibly, incredibly rare for a shark to specifically seek out and attack humans.

         Unlike rapists.

         What is true about your comment is that people are way more comfortable demonising a mythical, vicious other than acknowledging the reality of life – (a) that sharks aren’t mindless human-flesh-seeking killing machines, and (b) that rapists are actually responsible for their own actions.
         • vto 3.2.1.3.1

           1 October 2013 at 9:26 pm

           sharks do not attack humans accidentally or mistakenly think they are seals, this one of the world’s great silly myths (like one of the other great silly aotearoa myths punctured today that we only get small and rare tsunamis).

           think about it – sharks have been swimming around in the ocean with their eyes open (they don’t blink dontcha know and they also don’t close their eyes at night, that’s how good they are), identifying and chomping on creatures and cans and mermaids for longer than most all others, including us recent humans who can’t even see properly underwater.

           I mean, would you accidentally bite a seal?

           why o why do we always underestimate the animal kingdom

           but I derail an otherwise legitimate good fight…
         • karol 3.2.1.3.2

           1 October 2013 at 9:32 pm

           If I knowingly swim in shark infested waters, I can expect people to accuse me of imprudent behaviour, and they would be correct.

           By this logic, as a large proportion of rapes and sexual assaults happen within families or communities where the rapist is known to the victim, then I guess women should just stay well clear of families and people they know in their local communities.
   • Pascal's bookie 3.3

     1 October 2013 at 10:57 am

     Also, Jones was only out by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude in the number he pulled out of arse.

     http://www.statschat.org.nz/2013/10/01/making-up-numbers/

     And if you are tempted to say:

     “oh but tthat was an obviously made up number he was using to prove a point”

     then you might want to think about how badly the point would have been proved if he’d used a number that reflected reality.
   • Rogue Trooper 3.4

     1 October 2013 at 10:59 am

     ‘logging’ over that article got me horny my Monodon monocerous matey. 😀
     • Ennui 3.4.1

       1 October 2013 at 12:37 pm

       Just imagine one of those sticking it to you! Eeekk!!!!!
       • Rogue Trooper 3.4.1.1

         1 October 2013 at 12:44 pm

         this dog prefers the fresh water of a flowing river to the unpredictability of our coastlines. 😀
4. David H 4

   1 October 2013 at 9:24 am

   I watched the Shonkey one on Tv3 this morning, what a bullshit artist. Trying the scare mongering tactics that Labour want to put up interest rates. He needs to lay off the pre brekkie eye opener, and realise that he’s only 12 mths away from being an American, with NO chance of a Knighthood!!!.
5. Rogue Trooper 5

   1 October 2013 at 10:48 am

   US Senate rejects bill to avert Shutdown
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11132707
   (no requirement to discuss).
6. Pascal's bookie 6

   1 October 2013 at 11:44 am

   Must read post here for whichever fool it was who was saying the government has done a brilliant job in Christchurch:

   http://rebuildingchristchurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/part-one-the-politicisation-of-cera-and-the-planning-of-new-christchurch/
7. greywarbler 7

   1 October 2013 at 11:49 am

   lprent
   I don’t get automatically logged in as was once. I had to change my password because I couldn’t remember it. Did that. Ticked remember me to get it stuck in system. Now I am getting the message that I am locked out. Then I did get in but my details didn’t come up for window for commenting in. What is going on?

   I looked in FAQs but didn’t see any notes about LogIns and what might be done wrong and what to avoid. It already comes up with guide for making a strong password, but what else might I have done better. Perhaps I should use some strong language.

   Incidentally I included in my password – sick of pry spy plus some extra stuff. Is there a system that sorts words in passwords. What would happen if I used some search-sensitive keyword?
8. greywarbler 8

   1 October 2013 at 12:15 pm

   That’s a good read. And if one starts looking at action going in the wrong direction in Christchurch it starts from the beginning of the authorities denying all access to owners instead of instituting a controlled system of recovery by owners of as much valuable property as possible.

   This could have been done under short controlled monitored forays with judgments about risk and waivers by owners as to liability for damage, injury, or death. Yet demolition companies could be allowed in to steal property and sell it on. Insurance companies needed to come on board also to allow recovery of items from businesses and munted properties.

   So much waste, loss, and heartache has occurred instead and though it would have taken longer to carry out this process, the alternative method of just over-riding everyone’s interests and property in favour of a macro clearance has not been faster or produced a good outcome, quite the reverse.

   edit My comment is awaiting moderation.
9. Puckish Rogue 9

   1 October 2013 at 12:15 pm

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9229864/Crime-in-NZ-The-big-picture

   – Well done National
   • Pascal's bookie 9.1

     1 October 2013 at 12:21 pm

     Are you saying National cut back on doing crimes?

     PC gone mad.
     • McFlock 9.1.1

       1 October 2013 at 12:23 pm

       nah, they just stopped bothering recording them
   • bad12 9.2

     1 October 2013 at 2:38 pm

     Yes well done National for another dose of Propaganda brought to us via leaving the statistics for Family Violence out of the current crime stats…
     • Tracey 9.2.1

       1 October 2013 at 2:45 pm

       well, it’s only men hitting women and children (predominantly, nothing terribly important to NZ.
     • bad12 9.2.2

       1 October 2013 at 3:10 pm

       Aha, back to the future, first stop reporting family violence as a crime and then only ‘intervene’ ala the 1960’s when the violence required hospital treatment,

       ‘intervention tho as per the 60’s will be a stern talking to by the plod in charge on the day’…
       • Puckish Rogue 9.2.2.1

         1 October 2013 at 4:18 pm

         Yes but Joe Public will read the headlines and go “well thats good” and this along with business confidence increasing is more good news for National

         The elections a very long way away 🙂
10. Ugly Truth 10

    1 October 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Four Israeli mercenaries were arrested in Guinea last Wednesday on charges of planning a coup to overthrow Guinean President Alpha Condé, the French newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné reported.

    …

    According to the intelligence files dated September 13 and quoted by the French newspaper, the mercenaries aimed to provoke the Guinean police and armed forces to hurt citizens in order to incite political unrest in the West African republic ahead of the elections.

    http://www.blacklistednews.com/%E2%80%98Four_Israelis_mercs_held_in_Guinea_for_plotting_coup%E2%80%99/29258/0/38/38/Y/M.html
11. Rogue Trooper 11

    1 October 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Hmmm, Ex-State House with a 20K ‘Gift’ Anybody?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11132933
    • Pete 11.1

      1 October 2013 at 1:12 pm

      The privitisation of state houses. It’s an absolute outrage.
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 11.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 2:52 pm

        Yes. It is definitely not the role of the state to help the poor. And, Pete, don’t forget that every time the state pays a benefit to someone it is a tiny little privatisation. Clearly this should also be stopped.
    • Tracey 11.2

      1 October 2013 at 2:48 pm

      did you see how many there are for sale though?

      hardly a solution to any housing crisis, and not in CHCHCH or Auckland.
12. Treetop 12

    1 October 2013 at 2:32 pm

    HNZ homes are good enough to be sold, but not good enough to be leased to those on a low income. So there is no one on a waiting list in any of the mentioned areas. I suspect that more HNZ homes are being sold than being built, this is so warped as the priority needs to be supply and not reducing the housing stock.
    • bad12 12.1

      1 October 2013 at 3:02 pm

      Unfortunately the Opposition have all largely taken the vows of silence over the decimation of the HousingNZ estate,

      The only solace i can take from that is that as an election issue Labour and the Green Party have ‘it all over’ the Tory sell off merchants when it comes to issues of ‘affordable ownership’,

      Having said that tho, the current attitude leaves that huge demographic of low waged workers coping with variable hours of employment trapped as the mortgage payers for those who are creating the ‘real problem’ in the housing market, the ‘rental investor’,

      Labour’s ‘fix’ to this of course will,unless combined with strict rules on the amount of time a property must be held or sold back to the Government, continue to put people onto ‘the property ladder’ where like their parents befor them they will be able to leverage equity in one property into buying a second and third thus keeping the vicious circle of demand and unaffordibability spinning as it is now,

      i would like to see Labour announce a State House building program of the same numbers as their present Kiwibuild program, but i won’t be holding my breath waiting for them to do so and obviously won’t be voting for Labour at the next election…
      • Treetop 12.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 4:07 pm

        The strict criteria which HNZ introduced to be eligible to rent from them has impacted on demand and has played into the hand of rental investors.

        HNZ has to be pulled apart and put back together again.

        What would you change re HNZ?
        • bad12 12.1.1.1

          1 October 2013 at 5:26 pm

          What would i change with HousingNZ, simple i would set out to double the number of HousingNZ properties across the whole spectrum of single dwellings, medium density dwellings and high density high rise dwellings,

          Instead of the rationing involved in the current A and B lists of the National Government as new housing stock came on stream i would have an A list of the most in need beneficiaries based around the current income and health criteria and would gradually mix in a B list of those who have the most precarious employment, lowest wages and of course health conditions,

          The aim would be a 50/50 split between HousingNZ portfolio between benificiaries and low waged workers all paying as rent 25% of income,

          Currently the direct subsidy paid to HousingNZ every year from the taxpayer is 600-800 million dollars annually, low waged workers while still paying 25% of income as rent would in dollar terms pay more than beneficiaries, i would suggest double, thus a beneficiary pays an average $60 per week and having the same amount of low waged workers also housed by HousingNZ paying on average $120 per week would create a cross subsidy in the HousingNZ portfolio which would greatly lower the direct subsidy paid now by Government from taxation…
          • Rogue Trooper 12.1.1.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 6:51 pm

            enjoyed the last paragraph bad12
        • Molly 12.1.1.2

          1 October 2013 at 10:29 pm

          Create a different model than one that can systematically get destroyed every time National gets in.

          Utilise the current National Govt Policy and HNZ sales to:

          1. Buy adjacent state houses in blocks to create small co-housing developments.
          2. Existing tenants can either buy or be assured a state housing rental when development finished.
          3. Develop the land in the style of cohousing in Denmark – increasing the density, but reducing the cost of individual houses and making common areas/facilities
          4. Rent the same number of dwellings to HNZ, sell others to those who want to buy, and if possible set up a couple of dwellings in perpetual affordable housing.

          Benefits & added potential:
          1. Cohousing is similar to how healthy Maori and Pasifika communities live, and allow for shared use of facilities – ie. one commercial laundry room, one lawnmower, car sharing.
          2. Small strong community networks are formed – stress levels go down, and time and energy for local solutions to other problems can result.
          3. Tie in the building of these small developments with on-site training and apprenticeships and you have the basis for good, local upskilling.
          4. If this is run with the support of multi-partisan and Auckland Council support, development loans can be applied for at low interest rates from the Reserve Bank. Investors at planning stage will already have a good amount of equity in the property by the time it gets to personal mortgage stage.
          5. The ideal areas for this kind of development to take place are the low value areas in Auckland – they also have the community networks that will increase the chance of success.

          Been thinking about this for a while….
          • Rogue Trooper 12.1.1.2.1

            2 October 2013 at 2:02 pm

            😀
      • srylands 12.1.2

        1 October 2013 at 6:52 pm

        State houses have their place. They provide an excellent safety net for the poor. But New Zealand needs an exit strategy. We should be adopting economic policies that acheive growth and prosperity. If we can get income levels up there should be no need for anything like the existing numbers of State houses in coming decades. If we still have this many poor, uneducated welfare recipients and low wage earners living in State houses 40 years from now it will be a sign of failure.
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1

          1 October 2013 at 7:38 pm

          Shitlands, still selling the brighter future neoliberal guff of the 1970’s and 1980’s?
13. Tracey 13

    1 October 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Is Nick Smith going to now say ACC is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

    from2009

    “This $4.8 billion loss for the 2008/09 year comes on top of a $2.4 billion loss for the year before and shows the ACC scheme is financially unsustainable,” Dr Smith says….
    “Significant changes are going to be required to secure for New Zealand a financially sustainable 24/7, no-fault accident insurance scheme.”

    Today

    “The Accident Compensation Corporation has reported a massive surplus of $4.9 billion, which will give the Government’s books an extra $324 million boost.

    Speaking at release of its annual report, Chairwoman Paula Rebstock said the net surplus was $3.6 billion ahead of budget and would allow the corporation to reduce the deficit between its assets and the lifetime cost of every claim on its books from $7.2 billion to $2.3 billion.

    Ms Rebstock said the surplus was mainly due to three factors:

    * Better performance by its rehabilitation services returning claimants to fitness which reduced estimated future costs by $1.2 billion.

    * Rising interest rates which reduce the current value of future costs by $1.2 billion.

    * Investments generating $920 million more than predicted due to recoveries in local and overseas markets and the performance of its investment team.”

    Maybe the first one is a significant change by the govt but the last two have nothing to do with them…
    • Treetop 13.1

      1 October 2013 at 2:48 pm

      None of the surplus will go into improving any treatment or doing any research into improving any service.
      • Tracey 13.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 2:49 pm

        Of course not, it’s a business not a service per se.
    • yeshe 13.2

      1 October 2013 at 2:49 pm

      Tracey .. just came by to post the same story so here is the link :http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11132801

      It is shameful how far this has drifted from the perfect planning and creation of this brilliant legislation by Sir Owen Woodhouse.

      It is obscene they show ‘profit’ !! Subversion by avarice and selfishness, and so much suffering caused to Kiwis who must rely upon this greedy corporation in case of harm.
      • srylands 13.2.1

        1 October 2013 at 4:33 pm

        It is not obsene – the profit is used to fully fund the lifetime value of the claims. Yet another reason we are not like Greece. For now.
        • Tracey 13.2.1.1

          1 October 2013 at 4:58 pm

          I agree, it’s not obscene as such. You manage to miss the point however, namely that Smith pronounced it a dead duck. In fact it is thriving not because of what he did but because it continues to do what it did under labour. You’re a contradictory guy srylands, you normally bemoan anything being run and owned by the government. Just goes to show it can be done, and well. Mind you, PWC said that in early 2008, but Smith didnt like their conclusion.

          And it’s not a “profit”, it’s a surplus.
          • miravox 13.2.1.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 10:42 pm

            “And it’s not a “profit”, it’s a surplus.”

            It’s only surplus because of all the rehabilitation and ‘degenerative’ claims that ACC is refusing to fund, imo. Instead of funding these things, the govt is going to reduce levies, destroying the integrity of the system slowly rather than selling it off. People who can afford it are going to have extra incentive to take on private health insurance to cover these unfunded injury and rehabilitation costs. The poor? well… who are heath services waiting lists for?
        • Rogue Trooper 13.2.1.2

          1 October 2013 at 6:53 pm

          for now.
        • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.3

          1 October 2013 at 7:37 pm

          Yet another reason we are not like Greece. For now.

          Wow what an economically moronic statement.

          NZ will never be like Greece because NZ maintains currency sovereignty.

          But I wouldn’t expect you to understand such details.
        • Molly 13.2.1.4

          1 October 2013 at 10:32 pm

          Obviously, you don’t know anyone awaiting ACC claims or operations. I do, and the waiting time has been horrendous.

          As always, easy to make money if you collect it and don’t perform the service you collected it to do.
14. Stever 14

    1 October 2013 at 3:04 pm

    Yeah, having just been through recovery from an accident (hit by a car on my bike…) I can see that a lot of their profit (ugh!) probably came because of the $17.50 to be paid for each and every consultation at the clinic…the “co-payment”.

    Granted drugs are subsidised (i.e. also not free at the point of need) and the staff are brilliant…but they all also apologise and seem wistful for the days when ACC coverage for a patient meant free care at the point of use and need after an accident. Not any more.

    Not to mention the SINGLE part-time constable in Hamilton dealing with ALL road traffic accidents! Poor guy…lots of apologies and lots more wistful looks back the days when he had other people to work with…it’s now a lonely and frustrating job, it seems.
15. Tracey 15

    1 October 2013 at 3:07 pm

    This may already have been discussed but another key lie exposed

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11132381
    • bad12 15.1

      1 October 2013 at 3:20 pm

      Slippery is also said to have cancelled all His appointments for the day because of a ‘serious family illness’,

      Apparently not the kids or the missus which perks up my ears and interest, perhaps the ‘serious family illness’ is code for the Slippery one Himself obviously suffering from a blockage around His heart or brain having taken another turn for the worse….
      • karol 15.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 3:23 pm

        The NZ Herald says due to illness of a family member, but doesn’t say whose family.

        We are to assume it’s slippery’s, but who knows?
      • srylands 15.1.2

        1 October 2013 at 4:25 pm

        What is that bizarre capitalised “Him” about?
        • bad12 15.1.2.1

          1 October 2013 at 5:10 pm

          F off back to noddy lands you clown…
    • Draco T Bastard 15.2

      1 October 2013 at 8:06 pm

      Telecom (Now Chorus) is the incontrovertible proof of the dead-weight loss of profit.
16. McFlock 16

    1 October 2013 at 3:19 pm

    So it appears that the power companies’ backing off on power disconnections after a woman died has ended. 19,000 disconnections in the first half of this year, and (probably because of summer) the second half of the year seems to be cyclically higher.

    Sigh. So easy to write a summary of such hardship.
    • Rogue Trooper 16.1

      1 October 2013 at 6:58 pm

      I have some figures (TV3), pick a year, any year;
      Power Disconnections:
      12975
      followed by
      17622
      culminating in
      19245
      🙂 always at your service, carry on.
17. Paul 17

    1 October 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Is this New Zealand’s worst government ever?
    There is just so much damage being done by it.

    Asset sales
    TPPA
    Degrading our environment
    Weakening our labour laws
    Kowtowing to foreign corporates
    Weakening our independent foreign policy
    Bailing out corporate debts
    Increasing our debt
    Weakening our democracy
    Promoting gambling
    Not tackling alcohol abuse
    Attacking the judiciary
    Undermining our education system

    I could go on

    They’re just the pits.
    I just don’t understand how anyone (except the super rich) would ever vote for this crew?
    • srylands 17.1

      1 October 2013 at 4:42 pm

      Maybe the prosperity, the recovering economy, getting public sector employment under control (albeit a very modest start), the better tax mix, rebuilding ChCh, maybe all those things could so it.

      But I suspect you have different priorities. Thats OK. I have no idea why anyone would vote for the watermelons.
      • Paul 17.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 4:48 pm

        “Maybe the prosperity”
        For whom…the wealthy are benefiting I concede.
        Who else?

        “the recovering economy,”
        We are even more in debt, so please explain.

        getting public sector employment under control (albeit a very modest start),
        What does ‘under control’ mean?
        ” the better tax mix,”
        You mean taxing the poor more and taxing the rich less.

        rebuilding ChCh,
        I think many people in East Christchurch would love to debate that with you.

        I clearly do have different priorities.

        ‘Watermelons’ Name calling again.
        Where did you gain your debating skills?
        But then I sense you only come on this site to annoy people.
        • srylands 17.1.1.1

          1 October 2013 at 7:56 pm

          “But then I sense you only come on this site to annoy people.”

          No I come here because I am amazed.
      • Tracey 17.1.2

        1 October 2013 at 5:00 pm

        the imagined prosperity you mean. Unless you deifne prosperity according to the smallest of percentages of folks experiencing it, which you do.
    • srylands 17.2

      1 October 2013 at 5:00 pm

      “I just don’t understand how anyone (except the super rich) would ever vote for this crew?”

      Are the “super rich” households those with an income over $100,000? You know the ones in Auckland struglling to make ends meet. Yes I guess compared to folk that rely on welfare checks they are super rich.

      Oh and maybe this has something to do with it:

      Firms happiest in 14 years

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11132487
      • Paul 17.2.1

        1 October 2013 at 5:02 pm

        You did not really answer the points I made, which confirms my thoughts that you are really only here to aggravate…as opposed to debate.
      • Paul 17.2.2

        1 October 2013 at 5:04 pm

        Do you ignore all people under $100,000? That’s clearly the majority of the population!
        • McFlock 17.2.2.1

          1 October 2013 at 5:12 pm

          Yes, sithlands does ignore all poor people when he talks a bout $100,000/yr households “struggling”. He wouldn’t know what “struggling” means.

          He doesn’t get that $100k is actually well-off for a household, if not “super rich”. Sithlands is a braying tory ass with no knowledge of new zealanders, the new zealand economy or even basic humanity.
          • Paul 17.2.2.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 5:16 pm

            What makes someone like that tick?
            I don’t get it…
            • McFlock 17.2.2.1.1.1

              1 October 2013 at 5:38 pm

              It is an alien concept to most humans, yes. Given sithlands has also claimed to actively be seeking the betterment of society, I gues it goes to show how far conceit and self-delusion will go.

              Hmmmm – bets on whether he pulls an “I know you are but what am I” gambit? 🙂
              • srylands …

                1 October 2013 at 6:22 pm

                “Given sithlands has also claimed to actively be seeking the betterment of society, I gues it goes to show how far conceit and self-delusion will go.”

                It is “srylands” – that is just more typical rudness from you.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  1 October 2013 at 7:03 pm

                  shitlands? What are you moaning about now? Come to NZ for a visit some time, we’d love to host you and show you around.
                  • srylands …

                    1 October 2013 at 7:35 pm

                    I don’t think we share the same tastes in tourist attractions. The Horse and Hound Tavern in Petone is not high on my list.

                    and BTW it is “srylands” – I don’t appreciate your rudeness.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      1 October 2013 at 7:43 pm

                      lol mate good use of google

                      I don’t appreciate your socioeconomic policy fails and your sucking up to the interests of the 0.1%. Ah well.
                    • McFlock …

                      1 October 2013 at 9:21 pm

                      Awww, you don’t appreciate our rudeness?

                      I, for one, don’t appreciate yours.
              • Rogue Trooper …

                1 October 2013 at 7:04 pm

                😀 Gambit ; Play On my uncanny friend. 😎
              • Rogue Trooper …

                1 October 2013 at 7:18 pm

                Das Unheimliche? Mein Herr? or Der Sandman ?
                (the ghost made me) 😉
            • Molly 17.2.2.1.1.2

              1 October 2013 at 10:37 pm

              As I suggested to Esquire on the Herald:
              … he’s been a victim of – a selfish kind of love….

              I think Srylands has the same affliction.
              • Rogue Trooper …

                2 October 2013 at 2:07 pm

                another 😀
          • Hayden 17.2.2.1.2

            1 October 2013 at 7:44 pm

            …no knowledge of new zealanders, the new zealand economy…

            Come on now, he knows the rate of GST. He looked it up and everything.
        • srylands 17.2.2.2

          1 October 2013 at 6:36 pm

          Yes it does, but many poor people (students for example) will end up on higher incomes.

          If we take Auckland, the AVERAGE household income in 2012 is $89,700 – that includes EVERYONE.

          My statement in an earlier post that you need at least $100,000 to adequately support kids in a decent Auckland suburb – preferably $150,000, is credible. (If you live in Greymouth I concede you don’t need $100,000, so lets just stick with Auckland for starters.)

          If the AVERAGE household income in Auckland is $89,700 (probably over $90,000 now) I predict that the average household income in Auckland for households with children is well over $100,000. I also stand by my statement that with a household income of less than $100,000 in Auckland with 2 kids you would really struggle. You would need $150,000 to have close to a decent life, and $200,000 to be comfortable.

          Source:

          http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7464#
          • Pascal's bookie 17.2.2.2.1

            1 October 2013 at 7:02 pm

            I predict that the average household income in Auckland for households with children is well over $100,000.

            Because wishes are moonbeams?

            What do you base this prediction on?
            • srylands 17.2.2.2.1.1

              1 October 2013 at 7:37 pm

              If the average income is $89,700 in 2012, are you seriously suggesting the average income for households with children is lower than the average?
              • srylands …

                1 October 2013 at 7:49 pm

                “I predict that the average household income in Auckland for households with children is well over $100,000.

                Because wishes are moonbeams?

                What do you base this prediction on?”

                No moonbeams are necessary. The average household income in Auckland for couples with children was $95,000 in 2009. BERL’s forecast is that average incomes for these houesholds will be $108,000 in calendar 2014.

                If you are a couple with kids in Auckland with less than $100K you are below average.

                http://tinyurl.com/ory9awh
                • Colonial Viper …

                  1 October 2013 at 7:52 pm

                  If you are a couple with kids in Auckland with less than $100K you are below average.

                  I love your winning political economic narrative. Please keep this up through 2014.
                • Pascal's bookie …

                  1 October 2013 at 8:19 pm

                  Interesting predictions. From 2008.

                  And you ignore single parent households, of course.
                  • McFlock …

                    1 October 2013 at 10:16 pm

                    sithlands is really good at seeing what income people have, as long as “people” only includes rich, cliched couples with 2.4 kids.
                • newsense …

                  1 October 2013 at 9:34 pm

                  median household income?
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    1 October 2013 at 10:11 pm

                    Shitlands using “average income” because it is a statistic significantly boosted by top end incomes, those earning over $100K pa.

                    Most Auckland jobs pay less than $50K pa of course which would be more in line with the median figure.
          • miravox 17.2.2.2.2

            1 October 2013 at 9:54 pm

            And yet and half the households in Auckland had an annual income of less than $73,372 in 2012, less than in 2011.

            Even a single parent nurse with 5 years experience, or a nurse and a policeman with 2 kids is struggling to have a decent life in Auckland, by your reckoning. NActs answer is to make wages drop. I’m Lovin’ it.

            Can’t see the said policeman and nurse voting for NAct much longer.

            p.s. – S/he who calls someone a vagina, has no right to complain about rudeness.
            • Rogue Trooper 17.2.2.2.2.1

              1 October 2013 at 10:10 pm

              I’m in love, again, sigh, rosy cheeks all round.
              • miravox …

                2 October 2013 at 6:28 am

                😉
      • Tracey 17.2.3

        1 October 2013 at 5:14 pm

        And we all know about how the happiness of firms trickles on down to higher wages and stuff dont we srylands, oh wait, that’s the myth you like to peddle.
        • srylands 17.2.3.1

          1 October 2013 at 6:22 pm

          No you need to regulate wages – we can just dial up prosperity by passing laws.
          • vto 17.2.3.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 6:28 pm

            It is about the current redistribution mechanism of the nation’s wealth. It doesn’t work.

            The redistribution mechanism needs changing.
          • bad12 17.2.3.1.2

            1 October 2013 at 6:29 pm

            Only for the poor right SSLands, if someone ‘regulated’ the wages you were able to gain from your minor position counting other peoples fortunes you would squeal like a pig so long and loud you would have to be put out of your misery,

            i do tho like the general concept of your regulated wages, seems a damn fine means of ensuring we are a more equal society, regulate wages at 80 grand per household and change the tax rates so as to redistribute the monies into the low waged economy…
            • srylands 17.2.3.1.2.1

              1 October 2013 at 7:24 pm

              Sounds like a real vote winner. I hope the Watermelons adopt it as policy.

              I guess if like you you live in a State house on welfare and smoke, you would be looking for any scam to get other peoples money. Keep dreaming.

              Why on earth don’t you do something with your life?

              You should be deeply embarrassed to be suggsting in a first world country that the Government should “regulate wages at 80 grand per household and change the tax rates so as to redistribute the monies into the low waged economy…”

              If that is what you want why arwe you even living in New Zealand? You should be ashamed of yourself on so many levels. (I am assuming you are serious, and not just taking the piss?)

              And BTW it is “srylands” not “SSLands”. Deliberately distorting handles is just shocking bad manners. Another reason for you to be ashamed of yourself. Fucking smokers.
              • Colonial Viper …

                1 October 2013 at 7:47 pm

                Oh shitlands, you should relax, it’s the blogosphere not Balmoral.
              • bad12 …

                1 October 2013 at 8:15 pm

                SSLands, your idea from above was to regulate wages, as i said the idea could really grow on me,

                Ha ha ha you must be really really proud of the National Party welfare policy which uses your money to buy beneficiaries brand new white ware,(and here was i thinking that National Ministers have no sense of humor),

                Funny how National are so free with you money right SSLands, yet you continually carry on about how great they are at managing the economy,

                Compared to the old Labour Government scheme of supplying beneficiaries with second hand appliances, National shows an absolute love of blowing your money,(on me hahaha)…
              • Rosie …

                1 October 2013 at 8:16 pm

                Ya know what srylands, complaining that people are displaying bad manners by calling you shitlands, SSlands is a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

                You are rude and disrespectful to several of the commenters here, and are not even embarrassed by your idiocy and arrogance. You depress me in a way that no other RWNJ has been able to in the couple of years that I’ve been popping in for a visit, to this site. I usually scroll past your “conversations” but I can’t go past your sense of outrage at being called names.I find it hilarious.

                To Bad12 and to CV I offer you both applause for your choice of pet names for srylands. Most apt. It’s always makes me smile.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  1 October 2013 at 8:21 pm

                  😀
                • greywarbler …

                  1 October 2013 at 10:20 pm

                  I think the people here want to keep srylands as a pet. It’s interesting to read his/her comments and almost as funny as watching a dog chase its tail.
              • North …

                2 October 2013 at 7:31 am

                You certainly are notable Slyrands – I feel a BLiP List coming on –

                Not the full quid like seriously

                Sociopathic

                Control freak

                Economist

                Employer

                Philanthropist

                Life-long formulator of welfare

                State house vitriol merchant

                Smoking Nazi

                Eugenics freak

                Sometimes bag-only Gold Coast traveller

                Been to the Moon

                Trapped on the dark side

                Manners manners fucking manners

                Exemplifies none

                Master of the Flying Universe Circus

                Embarrassment to the Right and all round.
                • greywarbler …

                  2 October 2013 at 9:53 am

                  Excellent CV – for a RW drooler.
              • Tracey …

                2 October 2013 at 2:27 pm

                “I guess if like you you live in a State house ” Oh you mean like John Key?
          • Draco T Bastard 17.2.3.1.3

            1 October 2013 at 10:12 pm

            Don’t see why not. We have, after all, dialed up poverty by passing laws.
            • Rogue Trooper 17.2.3.1.3.1

              1 October 2013 at 10:17 pm

              dialled? Good Lord Draco, are you letting the battalion down (two L’s)

              ps: I know that it is hard to get good help, but, really? 😀
              • Draco T Bastard …

                1 October 2013 at 10:26 pm

                Actually, both spellings are correct. It’s like colour and color. 😛
        • srylands 17.2.3.2

          1 October 2013 at 6:45 pm

          Business confidence benefits everyone. If the survey was showing crap business confidence I can assure you that Labout and Silent T would be lambasting the Government. Are you seriously suggesting that you don’t want high levels of business confidence? You need to sober up and get out of that bar in Hamilton and into the real world.
          • Colonial Viper 17.2.3.2.1

            1 October 2013 at 8:22 pm

            Business confidence is high when they think they can extract more money out of the community.

            Very positive eh.
            • infused 17.2.3.2.1.1

              1 October 2013 at 10:54 pm

              Actually, it’s no such thing. Stop talking shit.
              • Colonial Viper …

                1 October 2013 at 11:15 pm

                Business confidence also increases when employers think they can lower costs by squeezing workers even further.

                Very positive eh.
          • Tracey 17.2.3.2.2

            7 October 2013 at 2:25 pm

            business confidenc eis a belief in future events. Soothsaying of sorts. If, for example, you wanted to help with public perception and you have labour leanings you might say “my confidence is dropping since the last quarter.”

            And vice versa.

            It has no real grounding in reality, but like so many things people let their ideology transform a myth into a fact.
18. Puckish Rogue 18

    1 October 2013 at 3:33 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9230157/Government-unveils-state-house-sale-scheme

    – and so the bribery begins, I’m sure it won’t be the last offer
19. Puckish Rogue 19

    1 October 2013 at 4:08 pm

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/ctu-calls-minister-resign/5/169298

    – Go Judith Collins you good thing!
    • Chooky 19.1

      1 October 2013 at 9:21 pm

      @ Puckish Rogue…I note you don’t say “good woman”….

      Can you tell me what this “good thing” is ? …and “good” for whom?

      … is “good thing” one of those aliens or reptiles?

      ….do you and srylands know “good thing” well?
      • Puckish Rogue 19.1.1

        2 October 2013 at 4:08 pm

        I didn’t say good women because I didn’t think I needed to add it, shes a good thing and thats all that matters
        • Rogue Trooper 19.1.1.1

          2 October 2013 at 4:13 pm

          to you, in your wet dreams.
20. Paul 20

    1 October 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Why are all the panellists today ashamed of saying their ideas are socialist?
    Talk about weak people.
    Stand up for something!
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 20.1

      1 October 2013 at 5:18 pm

      But being a socialist is clearly something to be ashamed of.
      • McFlock 20.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 5:32 pm

        Nah, it’s like how some religious dogma is used to persuade people that their bodies were an abomination unto god (even though by their doctrine god was the one who made them). Something that people should be comfortable with, even proud of, became an embarrassment to be hidden and disguised with fluffy drapery (and only to be suffered to that extent because it couldn’t be prayed or willed out of existence).

        Sadly, though, the conflict between faith-based self-hatred and the basic facts of humanity tends to create a sort of conflicting duality within a person who would otherwise be sensible and rational.

        Actually, it’s almost an ideal analogy if one substitutes “human consideration” for “bodies”, “rationality” for “god”, and “bullshit vacuities” for “drapery”.
        • Rogue Trooper 20.1.1.1

          1 October 2013 at 7:22 pm

          Too far.
          • McFlock 20.1.1.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 9:37 pm

            really? i figured tories and fundies shared a lot of characteristics
            • Rogue Trooper 20.1.1.1.1.1

              1 October 2013 at 9:49 pm

              just my opinion Flockie, no disrespect; just thankful to be here, for now; we have moved on from Descartes!
              • McFlock …

                1 October 2013 at 10:07 pm

                lol

                none at you, either 🙂
      • Paul 20.1.2

        1 October 2013 at 5:38 pm

        Yes, because being selfish and not caring about the common good is the way to be.
        Right?
    • srylands 20.2

      1 October 2013 at 7:25 pm

      “Why are all the panellists today ashamed of saying their ideas are socialist?”

      Because it is shameful?
21. Treetop 21

    1 October 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Teens’ calls for help go unanswered

    “In the last year, the 0800 What’s Up helpline received 325,488 calls from across New Zealand, but staff were only able to answer 38 percent because of a lack of funding and resources.”

    “The organisation relies on the “generosity of individual donors and companies” to fund more than 95 percent of their annual $800,000 costs.”

    “Youths ringing the service were often struggling with depression, relationship issues, suicidal thoughts or bullying. Many were also at crisis point, ringing the helpline as a last resort.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9227680/Teens-calls-for-help-go-unanswered

    What is WRONG with the government when it comes to finding a couple of million for children and youth who may have taken days or weeks to ring to get some help for a problem?

    This helpline has to go and beg for funding, a NATIONAL disgrace.
    • srylands 21.1

      1 October 2013 at 7:28 pm

      If you donate $100, I’ll match it.

      The Government is not there to fund every NGO. There is nothing wrong with philanthropy.
      • Colonial Viper 21.1.1

        1 October 2013 at 7:34 pm

        Usual cold hearted bastard material from shitlands. Why don’t you salve your conscience by offering the poor a few drippings from your dinner table?

        Oh I see you did that.
      • Draco T Bastard 21.1.2

        1 October 2013 at 8:17 pm

        The Government is not there to fund every NGO.

        The government is there to ensure that people get the help and support that they need.

        There is nothing wrong with philanthropy.

        The big problem with philanthropy is that it doesn’t actually help:
        1.) It doesn’t cover the costs
        2.) It only goes to peoples pet charities

        Government does it so much better and, amazingly enough, cheaper and more efficiently as well.
      • McFlock 21.1.3

        1 October 2013 at 9:41 pm

        yes, there is. It is insufficient, poorly targeted, and petulant.

        The government is there to not only not fund NGOs, though – it’s there to do their work for the people who live in it.
      • Treetop 21.1.4

        2 October 2013 at 12:58 pm

        For four years I did 15 hours unpaid work on a parenting line, I had to cease this as my hearing declined severely in one ear.

        “There is nothing wrong with philanthropy.”

        I agree, however when it comes to a child/youth just because they do not have the oppertunity to vote they need a voice. For the government to not fund an essential service like the What’s Up helpline this restricts a child/youth from being listened to by a caring adult.

        Usually when children are comfortable talking to you they will tell you what their problems are if you take the time to check out why they are sad, angry or unwell.

        In the New Year I will donate $50 to What’s Up, (I can afford to put $5 away each week). Please donate to them as they need all the money they can get.
        • Rogue Trooper 21.1.4.1

          2 October 2013 at 2:13 pm

          similar budget to moi
22. feijoa 22

    1 October 2013 at 7:01 pm

    Back to ACC…
    If they are making an outstanding profit, then just wait for the Insurance companies and their body, the Insurance Council (Likely a very BIG donor to the National Party, according to the Hollow Men) to rub their hands with glee
    Wait for new plans to privatise ACC
    If National gets back in next year, it’s a certainty
    Paula Rebstock has done just what they wanted
    Wait to be told how the private insurers will do it more efficiently, blah, blah blah
23. Colonial Viper 23

    1 October 2013 at 7:12 pm

    Hive News – a new subscription news website from Bernard Hickey

    Best wishes for the new project Mr Hickey!!!

    https://www.hivenews.co.nz/articles/95-welcome-to-hive-news
    • Rogue Trooper 23.1

      1 October 2013 at 7:24 pm

      sooo much information, sooo little time.
    • The Al1en 23.2

      1 October 2013 at 8:06 pm

      Thirty bucks a month to read someone’s opinions of the news, I think not.
      And I bet they don’t even have premiership football and county cricket on there. 🙂
      • Rogue Trooper 23.2.1

        1 October 2013 at 8:37 pm

        have you soiled your pavilion seat?
        • The Al1en 23.2.1.1

          1 October 2013 at 9:06 pm

          Pavillion seat, hark at you. I’m cheaper than that, much cheaper.

          I have had grass stains on my knees, but that’s what happens when you bowl a maiden over down at cow corner.
          • Rogue Trooper 23.2.1.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 9:12 pm

            credit where it is due, that is very clever. Hat off to ya.
            • The Al1en 23.2.1.1.1.1

              1 October 2013 at 9:32 pm

              “where it’s due”

              Yeah, you’re welcome.
              • Rogue Trooper …

                1 October 2013 at 9:41 pm

                grievance? You plays your cards, you takes your chances. (yes, it is Chess with real, actual, some thinking people) ; not just a blog ; yet, you carry on. be prompt, i have a new ‘Phillips’ DVD player, let me tell you about the movie Psychosis Tomorrow.(or, I could pop round and we could boil a bunny together) 😀 wotteva!
                • The Al1en …

                  1 October 2013 at 9:52 pm

                  Don’t worry, I don’t do stew, but enjoy your film.
                  • Rogue Trooper …

                    1 October 2013 at 10:03 pm

                    I worry about Nothing (which is something to ashpire to ) :Believe, or Not.
                    • The Al1en …

                      1 October 2013 at 10:18 pm

                      Now that’s funny, ashpyre, believe, or not.
                    • Rogue Trooper …

                      1 October 2013 at 10:22 pm

                      True: night.
                    • The Al1en …

                      1 October 2013 at 10:24 pm

                      Loud and clear.
      • karol 23.2.2

        1 October 2013 at 8:41 pm

        You can read a certain amount of articles free each month.

        I just wondered about his thing about having holiday periods off – it just seems to echo the MSM,. Why does everyone have to have their holidays at the same time?
        • phillip ure 23.2.2.1

          1 October 2013 at 9:51 pm

          bloody hell..!..i just looked at the sample of his daily emailed newsletter..

          ..and there are about ten links on it..(none of them particularly riveting/earth-shattering..)

          ..i do 40-60 stories/links.each day..

          ..365 days a year..

          ..(with quite a few of them on any given day ‘riveting/earthshattering’..)

          ..and it’s free..

          ..eh..?

          $0.00 each and every month..

          ..phillip ure..
          • Rogue Trooper 23.2.2.1.1

            1 October 2013 at 10:05 pm

            Legend
24. tricldrown 24

    2 October 2013 at 12:10 am

    Serialiarandfraudster.
    Youth suicide amongst the highest rates in the OECD in NZ.
    Ever since we moved away from the scandinavian model of welfare state youth suicide has increased this is obscene in a first world country .
    Primal instincts are the real morals of sslands dog eat dog only winners count this is the dark underbelly of NZ.
    Thinking like yours srylands is just pure bullying.
25. Colonial Viper 25

    7 October 2013 at 1:55 pm

    spambot

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS