Open mike 08/05/2012

194 comments on “Open mike 08/05/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   8 May 2012 at 6:38 am

   The failure to investigate 9/11 has bankrupted America financially and morally, and has allowed us to stand idly by while our liberty has been destroyed.
   • McFlock 1.1

     8 May 2012 at 1:16 pm

     lol
   • Armchair Critic 1.2

     8 May 2012 at 2:59 pm

     there’s a serious deficiency in the assignment of effect and cause in your comment.
2. Pete George 2

   8 May 2012 at 6:43 am

   I’m compiling a list of reasons not to sell assets. Some so far:
   – like eating your last egg-laying hen
   – selling coffee machine to pay mortgage on cafe
   – like selling your kidneys to get a blood transfusion
   – akin to selling the roof to pay to fix a leak

   Any more?
   • Jenny 2.1

     8 May 2012 at 6:59 am

     Selling your policies to get into parliament
   • tc 2.2

     8 May 2012 at 7:18 am

     Get to stay another term or 2 as its clearly reckless, irresponsible and financially the wrong thing to do.

     Maybe even help a fellow party member win a second seat with this stand the electorate will reward you for.
   • millsy 2.3

     8 May 2012 at 9:03 am

     Selling the family home, then renting it back, because home ownership is not a family’s ‘core business’.
3. mickysavage 3

   8 May 2012 at 7:00 am

   Oops wrong place. damn iPad …
   • ad 3.1

     8 May 2012 at 8:46 am

     That will teach you for having too many screens, and too many devices, operating at once Mickey! Maybe you need to hire a half-time staffer to deal with your activist work!
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       8 May 2012 at 9:03 am

       Haha Ad if only I could make political activism profitable …
       • Armchair Critic 3.1.1.1

         8 May 2012 at 9:14 am

         To make money that way you would be better off in the National party, or ACT.
         • vto 3.1.1.1.1

           8 May 2012 at 9:29 am

           But National and ACT don’t do politics, they do deals.

           Politics to Shipley, Key, Smith, et al is business pure and simple.
4. muzza 4

   8 May 2012 at 7:28 am

   The “great” thing about policies such as free birth control for beneficiaries, is that its so nasty in its core, but yet most people will see it as a bloody good idea!
   • mickysavage 4.1

     8 May 2012 at 7:40 am

     The ultimate in Nanny State but it deals with beneficiaries so who cares …
     • muzza 4.1.1

       8 May 2012 at 8:01 am

       MS there is much more to it than that…Anyone who thinks this is simply a National policy being put into place in silo, needs to understand the intent that drives these people!
     • Pete George 4.1.2

       8 May 2012 at 8:40 am

       It’s optional assistance so it can hardly be called nanny state.

       Isn’t family planing assistance a good idea? Especially for young women and girls who have no stable relationship, poor education, insufficient quailifications and little or no work experience.
       • mikesh 4.1.2.1

         8 May 2012 at 8:52 am

         But will there be consequences to not accepting the offer – like refusal of support if the beneficiary has another child.
       • millsy 4.1.2.2

         8 May 2012 at 8:56 am

         It should be available for everyone, not just for those in the welfare system.

         I think the government a few years back (I think Jenny Shipley) tried to widen the avaliblilty of contraception including having condoms available in schools and having *the pill* sold over the counter, but the god-botherers threw a tantrum, so that was that.
       • mickysavage 4.1.2.3

         8 May 2012 at 9:13 am

         The birth control provision is also a distraction.  It is worth a million a year.  By these reforms the Government expects to cut social welfare payments and associated costs by $500 million over four years.
          
         It is doomed to fail though.  If the jobs are not there it does not matter how well you manage things, people will still rely on benefits.
          
         The Q&A is very optimistic.  It reckons that over the past two and a half years 67,000 jobs have been created.  This needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  The time period is cherry picked and it includes part time jobs.
         • Jim Nald 4.1.2.3.1

           8 May 2012 at 11:57 am

           “Distraction” – indeed.

           It would be nice to hear the progressive parliamentarians in the House broaden the discussion. Generating pportunities in terms of jobs, education, community projects, etc would be better use of public money and a more rounded societal approach.
   • freedom 4.2

     8 May 2012 at 8:34 am

     “Long-term reversible contraception would eventually be fully funded for female beneficiaries and their 16 to 19-year-old daughters.”
     sounds like tube tying operations are in the works, yet the story is sold with an innocuous picture of contraceptive pills with absolutely no attempt from the journalist to convey any detail, if any details were released of course. One more sound bite policy from this dangerous government that too many in the public will roll over to support, and if the Stuff poll is any indication, NZ already has.

     As with most National policy, some details would be a nice to have.
     • Jim Nald 4.2.1

       8 May 2012 at 11:59 am

       How about vasectomies for men?
       • Lanthanide 4.2.1.1

         8 May 2012 at 12:44 pm

         Far cheaper than tubal ligation, much shorter recovery times and reversible. Can be done in an out-patients under local and you’re good to go the next day.

         In the states, a lot of health insurance covers tubal ligation but not vasectomies, because TL counts as ‘major surgery’ and so is covered. Yet another example of why the US spends so much on healthcare: perverse incentives are rife in their system.
         • Reagan Cline 4.2.1.1.1

           8 May 2012 at 5:02 pm

           Reversible but high fail rate and requires more expert surgery than the vasectomy.

           An option for those who can afford it is to store sperm prior to vasectomy.

           Never know, in the future a woman might agree to IVF with the stored sperm, also expensive.
     • Lanthanide 4.2.2

       8 May 2012 at 12:42 pm

       I wonder if IUDs count as “long term” or not, because that might be what they mean. IIRC some of them are good for 10 years: that’s a very significant chunk of a women’s reproductive years.
       • Reagan Cline 4.2.2.1

         8 May 2012 at 5:12 pm

         IUDs and implants have side effects.

         Uncommon, but severe like abnormal uterine bleeding due to chronic endometritis (the lining of the uterus gets inflamed and the inflammation can directly or indirectly cause bleeding), Pelvic Actinomycosis is a less common but more severe condition and can be very expensive to treat successfully.

         Implants leak a hormone into the blood stream that hampers pregnancy, but can also affect mood, leading to depression.

         An option for controlling fertility that I have not seen discussed much in NZ is abortifacients, like the “morning after pill” I have not researched this option lately – there could be good medical reasons for discarding it.
5. Hilary 5

   8 May 2012 at 8:02 am

   It’s eugenic in that it targets one group of people for whom reproduction is deemed ‘undesirable’. Such ideas (of restricting the breeding of certain groups) were gaining popularity in New Zealand 100 years ago, and led to various policy manifestations including segregated residential confinement, and forced sterilisations of institutionalised people. There is a dark eugenic undertone in much NZ public policy and among certain groups of politicians that has never gone away.
   • Pete George 5.1

     8 May 2012 at 8:42 am

     It’s not necessarily “restricting the breeding of certain groups”, it’s helping to plan for the best time to have a family – best for resulting the children anyway.
     • weka 5.1.1

       8 May 2012 at 10:02 am

       It *is* selective groups, otherwise they would be making all kinds of contraception available to all women. Or even to all low income women. Contraceptive choice should be something a woman has autonomy over, and if necessary can be discussed with her GP (and partner where that’s appropriate). The state should *not* be dictating what kinds of contraception are made freely available. They should also be providing free health care for women who have side effects from state funded contraception.
       • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1

         8 May 2012 at 12:46 pm

         “Or even to all low income women.”

         I would be heavily in favour of this. For the record, I am in favour of making it available to beneficiaries, but do worry about the potential for a slippery slope. Simply making it available for low income women (tied to community services card?) is better yet.
   • muzza 5.2

     8 May 2012 at 9:42 am

     Hilary, well done for picking up what is in fact plainly obvious, na dhas alwasy been so!

     PG – Always looking at things from the most fancical angle. Its for the kiddies, yes lets make sure that certain sectors of society are not able to breed, or at least assisted in constraining the their breeding.

     Let’s see how long until benefits are held back until young girls have had the the contraception injection shall we!
     • Olwyn 5.2.1

       8 May 2012 at 10:06 am

       It is true that once the free contraception is established as voluntary, conditions can be incrementally introduced to make it more or less compulsory. However, right from the outset it reinforces the economic apartheid that we already have. And we know from history that once that perspective takes hold, those one the “nice” side of the divide come to see a lesser standard of citizenship as applying to those other people. Its very introduction bears the utter presumption of treating one’s fellow humans like noxious pests on a farm.
     • Vicky32 5.2.2

       8 May 2012 at 5:16 pm

       Let’s see how long until benefits are held back until young girls have had the the contraception injection shall we!

       That is scarily likely…
       • felix 5.2.2.1

         8 May 2012 at 5:39 pm

         I’d go one further and say it’s inevitable if we follow this course.
         • muzza 5.2.2.1.1

           8 May 2012 at 9:15 pm

           Yes it would be a certainty…

           Amazing that people still can’t or don’t want to see the conditioning involved!
   • Uturn 5.3

     8 May 2012 at 10:10 am

     Not only eugenic, but undemocratic.

     Instead of the people deciding who represents them, we now have the representatives deciding who the people will be.
6. Stephen Doyle 6

   8 May 2012 at 8:31 am

   Very thoughtful piece by Tapu Misa in yesterdays Herald.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10803915

   Love the way she quotes Sandel, especially this one
   “According to Sandel, the most fateful change of the past three decades was not the growth of greed but the reach of markets and market values into every aspect of our lives.

   Which is fine if we’re happy to live in the moral-free zone of the market.”

   Which is exactly where the current government seems to live.
   • Carol 6.1

     8 May 2012 at 8:46 am

     Not just the current government. Other parties are tainted by this infiltration of market values into politics. How is it that even the Labour Party leader doesn’t see anything wrong with the cronyist netowrk of powerful business interests:

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804137

     Sky TV chief executive John Fellet was also present at a private dinner party attended by Opposition leader David Shearer at the home of Sky lobbyist Tony O’Brien, the pay-TV company has confirmed.
     [..]
     Acknowledging he and his wife attended the dinner, Shearer did not discuss whether Fellet was present. He insisted there was no discussion of Labour’s broadcasting policy.

     “I regularly attend dinners, lunches, breakfasts and meetings with chief executives of companies and many other organisations,” he said yesterday.

     Social media commentators argue that politicians should meet with business people socially, to get a rounded view of issues. Sky TV is 44 per cent owned by News Limited, which is chaired by Rupert Murdoch.

     How is it that the wealthy and powerful corporates get their power supported and extended by regular meetings with key politicians, while the poor, unemployed and powerless people are left to deal with the fallout of the self-serving policies and actions that eventuate?

     And yet, I don’t see politicians lining up for dinners with beneficiaries, union bosses, anti-poverty activists, environmentalist groups etc.

     How is it that politicians across the spectrum have lost touch with some basic ethics of democracy in general, and haven’t a clue about participatory democracy?
     • Stephen Doyle 6.1.1

       8 May 2012 at 9:25 am

       Can’t agree Carol. Party leaders of all persuasions have to schmooze accross the spectrum. My guess is that Shearer is also chatting to the unions, Susan St John etc as well. It’s just not news.
       • s y d 6.1.1.1

         8 May 2012 at 9:47 am

         Look, Shearer has thrown mango peelings to the poor, what more do you want?
         • Uturn 6.1.1.1.1

           8 May 2012 at 10:05 am

           lol, good spotting. When most on the Left heard that speech, they interpreted that image as a comment on the inequalities and desperation of people. It now seems that Shearer’s moment was actually in realising he could rule over desperate people by throwing a few scraps.
       • just saying 6.1.1.2

         8 May 2012 at 9:51 am

         My guess is that Shearer’s “schmoozing” with the poor and disadvantaged and their representatives, along with ordinary people works out at being about one hour to a hundred hours schmoozing with the wealthy and powerful.

         It’s a problem.

         Great article btw
     • Johnm 6.1.2

       8 May 2012 at 11:50 am

       Carol you’re 100% correct.
   • Vicky32 6.2

     8 May 2012 at 5:20 pm

     Very thoughtful piece by Tapu Misa in yesterdays Herald.

     Yes, she was excellent as always..
7. Monique Watson 7

   8 May 2012 at 8:44 am

   I totally agree that it’s a disgusting measure to target beneficiaries with the birth control measures. It is fully eugenics. I’ve blogged on it. It’s disgusting for the message it puts out about all women not just the invasion of personal liberty.

   http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/05/go-back-to-work-uterus-i-mean-woman.html
   • millsy 7.1

     8 May 2012 at 8:59 am

     I thought you were all anti-welfare and all, MW….
     • felix 7.1.1

       8 May 2012 at 9:05 am

       It’s possible she could be pro-“leaving women’s bodies the hell alone” too though.
       • s y d 7.1.1.1

         8 May 2012 at 10:00 am

         MW, I just read your post, complete with the ‘long cold socialist winter’ and how those national party MP’s are quite lovely people…Hilarious, surely you are jesting….if these guys think they can get away with something they will try it….I’m thinking we’re about to bask in the gentle warmth of the national socialist autumn. I don’t see any Marilyn Warings in this National Party.
8. Rosie 8

   8 May 2012 at 9:22 am

   Free contraception on offer for one group in society looks very much like discriminating against that one group, (we don’t want your sort breeding) so why not free contraception on offer for anyone regardless of income?

   And why is the responsibility dumped on to the Women? Introducing birth control hormones into the body can really muck up the bodys’ natural order and there are medical risks associated with homonal birth control. Wheres the condoms for the blokes? Everyone should have free access to the contraception of their choice, regardless of who they are.
   • KJT 8.1

     8 May 2012 at 9:46 am

     I agree. Contraception should be free.

     The choice to use it, should also be free.
     • Jackal 8.1.1

       8 May 2012 at 12:11 pm

       The reasoning behind National’s contraception for the poor is ill advised. Mainly because there’s no requirement for New Zealand to currently limit its population growth and the money saved from having less dependent children on welfare will be negligible.

       There’s also a growing body of evidence that shows depo provera causes cancer, so personally I don’t want the government to fund such contraception.

       The problem is that money isn’t a good indicator of suitability for parenthood and rich people are not more deserving of having children. This is because the financial system is corrupted. Putting more emphasis on financial attraction instead of physical attraction is ultimately detrimental to the species.

       Creating inequality through enforceable contraception for the poor will cause further problems that National has not considered. It’s also incorrect that poor people are having huge families… when most are not having families at all.
       • Jim Nald 8.1.1.1

         8 May 2012 at 12:22 pm

         John Key can take it further and he should be spoilt for policy choice to deal to his former colleagues – either female hormone shots for his banking mates and speculators to cool them down, or a dose of testosterone to “focus more clearly and exude confidence on the job”:

         http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68015bb2-51b8-11e1-a99d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1uEUSgWNX

         “… the financial crisis hit Wall Street and a strange thing happened: a stream of financial executives and traders began coming to him in the hope of being turned into alpha males….”
       • Vicky32 8.1.1.2

         8 May 2012 at 5:23 pm

         There’s also a growing body of evidence that shows depo provera causes cancer, so personally I don’t want the government to fund such contraception.

         Absolutely! Not to mention the deleterious effect it has on a woman’s future fertility.
          
     • Reagan Cline 8.1.2

       8 May 2012 at 5:44 pm

       The methods of contraception suggested for the beneficiaries are costly.

       The companies that produce them will sell them at a cost that covers production, profit margin, risk of sueing due to side effects, funding future research. I am not an economist or business person so correct this if necessary.

       So the suggested methods are NOT FREE.

       Borrowed money and taxes from income earners and people who buy stuff are to be used to fund a programme to reduce the fertility of a section of the community the present Government wants to behave differently.

       Some people will vote for candidates for membership of the NZ House of Representatives who will support this.
9. grassroots 9

   8 May 2012 at 9:28 am

   It looks like Chris Trotter has now changed allegiance from David Shearer to David Cunliffe.
    
   http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/quiet-sunday-afternoon-in-blockhouse.html
   • Pete George 9.1

     8 May 2012 at 12:43 pm

     Is he uncertain or wanting to create uncertainty? The Shearer leadership thing had been settling down.
10. DH 10

    8 May 2012 at 9:37 am

    Rodney Hide can’t stay away from the limelight, seems to have earned himself a spot in the Herald commentaries;

    “Rodney Hide: God defend our citizens – the Government won’t”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10803744

    He’s making a complete arse of himself fawning over Dotcom, as are his fan club. Surely people aren’t that gullible or naive.
11. muzza 11

    8 May 2012 at 9:42 am

    Really going on the narrative offensive now with these fantastical articles

    “The AP learned about the thwarted plot last week but agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way”

    What a load of complete nonsense!

    Cant recall there being much coverage of the court case in the USA about the orignal underwear bomber case, which was carried out right in front of attorney Kurt Haskell, who was on the flight.
    • joe90 11.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:26 am

      Always possible that it’s another terrorist plot hatched by the F.B.I.
      • muzza 11.1.1

        8 May 2012 at 11:39 am

        J90 – Yeah I would expect that it is yet another “made up plot”. Ive seen that article before, but your link seems to want a user details etc. Do you still have that full text anywhere?
    • joe90 11.2

      8 May 2012 at 12:43 pm

      The authors own site.

      http://shiplerreport.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/terrorist-plots-hatched-by-fbi.html
    • Vicky32 11.3

      8 May 2012 at 5:26 pm

      “The AP learned about the thwarted plot last week but agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way”
      What a load of complete nonsense!

      Too right! I fair pissed myself laughing when I heard the story on RNZ this morning. They expect people to believe this story?
      • muzza 11.3.1

        8 May 2012 at 9:24 pm

        Nah they dont give a shit, what are people actually going to do about it anyway. People have shown they will do approximately nothing but roll over in the hope that it might not land on their head…referring to the western world nations…

        The system just keeps pumping out articles, and the global media networks relay the signal…see the follow up article below, which was put online only hours after my original link, actually about 5 hours, so the articles are already written , and ready for a controlled release…

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10804338

        The real disgrace is that people not getting very concerned about such carry on, and visibly showing it, are walking into who knows what , and consigning their offspring to who knows what in future!
        • Vicky32 11.3.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 4:26 pm

          The real disgrace is that people not getting very concerned about such carry on, and visibly showing it, are walking into who knows what , and consigning their offspring to who knows what in future!

          Exactly. It makes me sad that the average Joe and Joanne don’t give a toss…
          The next installment on the BBC is that the new ‘underwear bomber’ was a brave, heroic super cool double agent, who spent time amongst the ‘enemy’, found out their plans, and then went to his CIA handlers with it all, and is now ‘safe’ in Saudi Arabia. Unbelievable!
12. Jackal 12

    8 May 2012 at 10:52 am

    Free to air channels cut by 33%

    It’s not only the loss of TVNZ7… free to air has lost SBS one, SBS two, Stratos Television, Australia Network Pacific and BBC World News. That means there has been a reduction of free to air broadcasting by a third since the start of National’s second term in power.
    • Reagan Cline 12.1

      8 May 2012 at 6:08 pm

      The state will have to be more powerful than the power to post on this site and others.

      It will do this by defining the issues discussed and monitoring contributors (look up Carnet B).

      I’m pissed as usual – so anyone reading this please make allowancs.
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 12.2

      8 May 2012 at 6:14 pm

      I wouldn’t worry about it, Jackal. You were the only person who watched those channels.
      • Reality Bytes 12.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 10:10 pm

        Yes only* person.

        http://www.3news.co.nz/TVNZ7-replaced-with-delayed-TV1-feed/tabid/1607/articleID/252955/Default.aspx

        * with a margin of error of 1,399,999 individuals right?
13. Pete George 13

    8 May 2012 at 10:54 am

    A discussion began yesterday about the three strikes law. It was claimed:

    It was a cop out. It does not kick in for about 10 years or so. Then after that the Californian “stole a piece of pizza and then gets life imprisonment” cases start to kick in.

    Apart from the absurdity of the pizza claim (theft is not included in three strikes applicable offences) the time frame of “kicking in” is also erroneous.

    To date over 1200 offenders have had their first warning so will be aware of the risks of further violent offending.

    There are already three “second strikers” serving their full sentence without parole.

    It has already “kicked in” and may be going some way towards preventing some people from having their heads kicked in by recidivist thugs.
    • fatty 13.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:04 am

      “It has already “kicked in” and may be going some way towards preventing some people from having their heads kicked in by recidivist thugs.”

      Yawn.
      Why do focus so much attention on physical violence, but then reward the perpetrators of economic violence? I would be happy to have my head kicked in every now and then if I was also allowed to educate myself without becoming economically crippled.
      Tighten up the economic loopholes, then add tax avoidance, fraud and money laundering to the three strikes. If we targeted economic thugs, then physical thuggery would become less of an issue.
    • mickysavage 13.2

      8 May 2012 at 11:07 am

      And now you are really into troll mode Petey.  

      The reference to the Californian case which was mine was a reference to how three strikes type laws can result in minor offenses attracting very heavy sentences.  It was not suggesting the NZ law applies to thefts.

      This was pointed out to you yesterday.  But still you insist on perpetrating a myth.  Why is that?

      Three second strikers being without parole is hardly the legislation kicking in.  They would be in jail anyway.  There is no practical effect being felt as yet.

      I would be happy to debate this in more detail with you but:

      a.  You would continue to misrepresent the situation
      b.  You would not understand
      c.  You are not interested in having a debate. 
      • Pete George 13.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 12:58 pm

        It was not suggesting the NZ law applies to thefts.

        You said Then after that the Californian “stole a piece of pizza and then gets life imprisonment” cases start to kick in.

        “Stole” does suggest “theft” to me, an offence totally excluded from our three strikes law, so you’re the one who seems to have been “perpetrating a myth”.

        a. You appear to be the one trying to misrepresent the New Zealand situation.
        b. You either don’t understand or you are doing a.
        c. You can’t debate so think of every excuse you can to avoid it.

        There is no practical effect being felt as yet.

        That’s highly debatable. Can you show that the giving of three strikes warnings to 1200 offenders is having no effect?

        If 1200 have had their first warning and only three progressed to stage 2 that suggests several possibilities, inluding:
        – 1997 of the first strikers are still in prison from their first offence (unlikely)
        – something could be effecting the recidivism rate
14. ianmac 14

    8 May 2012 at 11:14 am

    Several candidates opposed to austerity measures were making a strong showing in early projections from Italy’s local elections – the first nationwide test for Premier Mario Monti since he was named to save Italy from its debt crisis.

    Well. There’s a surprise. Keynes would be yet hopeful. Austerity makes things worse.
15. Reagan Cline 15

    8 May 2012 at 11:16 am

    Berkshire Hathaway at least is debt averse – Buffett said he expected to bequeath his successor a company committed to staying so conservatively funded that it would not go broke even “if the Federal Reserve were hit by a nuclear bomb”

    He is reputed to put low emphasis on tax efficient investment too.

    Sounds to me like good old fashioned capitalist thinking and squarely at odds with the philosophy behind Liam Dunn’s claim that “Western democracies can’t keep living indefinitely on credit – at least if they expect to maintain the kind of freedoms and standard of living to which they are acccustomed”
    • vto 15.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:59 am

      “Western democracies can’t keep living indefinitely on credit ”

      Whenever that half-arsed line is trotted out it maketh me scream. It should describe the full situation ….

      “No society can live indefinitely under a privately owned fractional reserve banking ponzi scheme system”

      That is the problem. Nothing else. And this was known from the very beginning. We are now at its end-game.
16. ianmac 16

    8 May 2012 at 11:20 am

    Prime Minister John Key has disagreed with claims that providing free long-acting contraception to beneficiaries was interfering in their reproductive lives, saying it was “pragmatic and common sense.”

    -Herald.
    Just as well that such a good idea wasn’t around way back then – or the nice Mr Key would never have been born!
    • fatty 16.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:35 am

      “Just as well that such a good idea wasn’t around way back then – or the nice Mr Key would never have been born!”

      That thought just gave me a boner, don’t worry, my girlfriend is employed
17. james 111 17

    8 May 2012 at 11:28 am

    Uh ooh trouble for the Socialists in France already

    France’s new President is being given a very strong message from Europe.

    German chancellor Angela Merkel says the fiscal package already agreed on by the region’s leaders, is not negotiable.

    UK correspondent Gavin Grey says Socialist Francois Hollande was elected on the basis of policies that back away from that agreement.
    • vto 17.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:36 am

      Good. No negotiation necessary.

      Some silly fools lent money to people who are now unable to repay. They knew that risk existed and it has come to pass. Suck it up moneylenders – don’t you understand the risk in lending money?

      And don’t lend anymore if you don’t want to.

      Germany should stop crying like a sook
    • Draco T Bastard 17.2

      8 May 2012 at 11:36 am

      Uh ooh trouble for the Socialists in France already

      Or that could be trouble for the Euro.

      German chancellor Angela Merkel says the fiscal package already agreed on by the region’s leaders, is not negotiable.

      Of course it’s negotiable. Germany could become wise and drop the debt or France could drop out of the Euro and so could all the other countries that Germany is telling to pay up to the banksters who took the risk.
      • Bored 17.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 12:06 pm

        Well spotted. Poor old Jimmy and all the other RWNJ apologists have not stopped to ask a basic question: who is at risk with the debt?

        In France, Greece, Spain and Ireland the people are coming to a conclusion very quickly: debt to banks is not sacrosanct. Their liberty, their social systems and their future are not negotiable as a trade against bank debt. They are stating that the risk taken with the loan belongs as much to the bank as to those loaned to. And the people are saying with their democratic votes that enough austerity is enough.

        The experience these countries have faced is more money being created by the banks to be loaned to the country “owing” the money to pay the interest on the money “owed”. The newly created cash never goes near the country, it goes directly to the bank as credit against “debt” “owed” by that country, creating more “debt”. It is a digital transaction.

        In effect debt is being inflated because there is no ability to pay and the banks don’t want to admit that the debt not repayable. If the banks admitted this did they would have to declare the debt a liability and admit that they are insolvent.

        Coming back to Hollande and Merkel this is the scenario: Hollande can threaten to withdraw from the Euro / withhold payment / create Eurobonds etc all of which expose the emperors clothes worn by Merkel. The crisis could then go ballistic as banks fail, markets lose all confidence, economies stop. This is deemed to be a bad thing by those who “own” the debt of others, the very same people who control the money markets, media, corporations etc. It is a threat to their “sovereignty” as opposed to the “sovereignty ” of the people. The people are already in deep proverbial, they might see it very differently.

        Should Hollande not act the people will renege for him and the above scenario will play out of its own volition. The old paradigms are bankrupt, real ideas and leadership are needed.
        • james 111 17.2.1.1

          8 May 2012 at 1:33 pm

          Well Bored here is the real problem for France and the Socialists where are they going to borrow money from for all of their big spending plans?
          What happens when all the people they intend to tax at 75% decide either to lower their income or leave the country? Thus causing the tax take to plummet dramatically. This is the issue for Socialism you can only wastefully spend other people money for so long, you can only tax so much for so long, but sooner or later you have to generate income in this area they don’t have a clue.
          Watch this space the Socialist will go on a money printing spree ,and drive up inflation accordingly. Will be a very short-term government as there are no silver bullets, and wastefully spending your way out of a recession is not a good choice
          • Draco T Bastard 17.2.1.1.1

            8 May 2012 at 1:39 pm

            What happens when all the people they intend to tax at 75% decide either to lower their income or leave the country?

            France will be better off due to not having to cater to a bunch of egomaniacs.
            • james 111 17.2.1.1.1.1

              8 May 2012 at 1:46 pm

              Oh Really wealthy people contribute nothing to a society only those on welfare are real people in you opinion!
              Where will the money come from Draco you havent answered?
              • McFlock …

                8 May 2012 at 1:51 pm

                You are assuming that everyone in higher income brackets love the top bit of their money more than they love their homes, families, friends and country.
                     
                Not everyone is as big a tool as you, jimmie the turd..
                • felix …

                  8 May 2012 at 2:11 pm

                  I don’t think Jimmy knows how the brackets work.
                • james 111 …

                  8 May 2012 at 2:16 pm

                  Mcflogger
                  I think that only receiving 25 cents in the Dollar for every dollar earned is not a good pay back for a hardworking business person who has done well in life. You will find that everyone in France suddenly earns 999,000 then they wont pay the envy tax. But where will the money come from to fund their spending because Germany wont be lending it to them. Who is going to pay for their extra 60,000 teachers? another case of over promising ,and under delivering Mcflogger
                  • McFlock …

                    8 May 2012 at 2:29 pm

                    lol
                         
                    yes, that’s what they’ll do. They’d be so upset at masking 1.25mil in a single year, rather than 2mil, that they won’t even bother “earning” the additional quarter million. /sarc
                           
                    Talk about cutting off your income to spite your tax bracket… 
              • Draco T Bastard …

                8 May 2012 at 3:53 pm

                It’ll come from where it’s always come from – the printers it’s just that the printers should be government owned rather than privately controlled by the banksters.

                And, yes, most rich people contribute nothing to society – they take from it. They’re what causes the poverty that we see.
              • Reagan Cline …

                8 May 2012 at 4:09 pm

                Wealthy people are as real as those on benefits and both contribute to society.

                When crisis looms, like before the Battle of the Marne, the wealthy could pay drivers to get them out of Paris, the poor could not.

                Socialists aim for a society where the risk of harm is more evenly borne and where well-being is more evenly shared.

                You probably believe it is up to each individual to cope as best they can.

                What you might not have picked up on yet is that individual well-being ultimately depends on the well-being of other individuals.

                I believe that the wider group of individuals includes more than just my peers.
            • TheContrarian 17.2.1.1.1.2

              8 May 2012 at 1:51 pm

              Casting an extremely wide net there. Not all rich people are egomanics/selfish bastards.
              • felix …

                8 May 2012 at 2:10 pm

                No, but it’s probably fair to say the ones who would up and leave their home country if they had to pay more tax on the tip of their income to help pay for the society that enabled them to earn such a fabulous income in the first place might be a wee bit inclined toward selfishness.
                • TheContrarian …

                  8 May 2012 at 2:16 pm

                  I am a high income earner and I wouldn’t mind paying a little more tax. But I would leave if I had to pay 75% not because I am selfish but because I work damned hard and want to see the reflected in my salary.
                  • james 111 …

                    8 May 2012 at 2:22 pm

                    Contrain
                    So true but those on The Standard want you to lay down and be raped a little more for the good of man kind or wealth redistrbution as they like to call it
                    • McFlock …

                      8 May 2012 at 2:32 pm

                      “raped”?
                           
                      Idiot. 
                    • vto …

                      8 May 2012 at 2:51 pm

                      “…wealth redistrbution as they like to call it”

                      Wtf do you think the current settings which allow wealth to accumulate as it does, courtesy of existing laws and regs, is, if not wealth redistribution itself you egg?

                      Employment laws, banking system, tax arrangements, provision of infrastructure, mothers giving birth to new workforce, all these things allow the current wealth distribution patterns. All it means is that the existing distribution is replaced with an amended distribution.

                      think jimmy think.
                    • NickS …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:18 pm

                      be raped a little more

                      Fuck off and die.

                      Or better yet, go read up on the accounts of rape victims, then try and comprehend why your use of rape here is so utterly pathetic and downright indefensible. Though since you’ve shown you’re an idiot who can’t think critically to save their life, and have less empathy than an ASD person, it might very well be rather beyond your means.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:23 pm

                      FYI
                      Rape can refer to: an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation;violation: the rape of the countryside. the act of seizing and carrying off by force. 

                      So it is completely correct to use it in the way James did
                       
                    • NickS …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:29 pm

                      @TheContrarian

                      Still doesn’t make it right, especially in the context of what he’s arguing.

                      Especially from a feminist perspective.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:30 pm

                      Contrarian – do you really think that James111 has shown such skills in vocabulary that it’s a fair assumption he’d be familiar with shall we say “more classical” uses of the word?
                              
                      Even as an allusion to plunder his usage was somewhat … shrill.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:31 pm

                      It is a completely correct word to use in this context. He was using it in the right way.

                      Not to mention I have seen it used on TheStandard to describe Key’s policies in the past
                    • McFlock …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:37 pm

                      Even viewed charitably, no it’s not a “completely correct use of the word”.  And given the fact that his complete phrasing was ” want you to lay down and be raped a little more”, coupled with his previous demonstrations of idiocy, I think you’re trying to spin the truth in favour of an ugly, stupid little scrote.
                         

                         
                      Next you’ll be saying he was referring to “…Any of the six administrative districts into which Sussex was formerly divided…”.

                       
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:39 pm

                      Well, whatever. I don’t know James at all and have no beef with him so am not going to automatically assume the worst of him for no reason whatsoever.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:44 pm

                      Ah well – that’s because you haven’t been around him much yet. And the mods here are pretty quick at deleting his more piquant musings.
                    • NickS …

                      8 May 2012 at 5:50 pm

                      It is a completely correct word to use in this context. He was using it in the right way.

                      So paying taxes is like being forcibly sexually assaulted? Because that is the analogy james is making and it’s fairly obvious.

                      Oh and remember that argument you had with lprent over rational arguments? Welcome to the joys of judgement value clashes, where one persons association of the word rape with rather fucking horrible violation of another persons body doesn’t fucking jell with using it to describe paying taxes. And all this happens because you don’t hold rape to be used to describe solely the above*

                      Not to mention I have seen it used on TheStandard to describe Key’s policies in the past

                      And I don’t scan the comments constantly to cluebat this shit, which if I do sight, I do cluebat, as with any other bigoted bullshit or anti-feminist crap.

                      That’s if I have enough teaspoons to deal with it, which thanks to depression, some days I don’t.
                      ______________________
                      *note- Nick is tired due to trying to wrestle crap sleep patterns, so I may be a mite jumbled here, but the general gist of the argument should be clear enough. Hopefully.
                    • NickS …

                      8 May 2012 at 5:56 pm

                      Well, whatever. I don’t know James at all and have no beef with him so am not going to automatically assume the worst of him for no reason whatsoever.

                      /sigh

                      It should fairly obvious from even the short time you’ve been commenting here that james is more than a bit stupid, the climate change threads are a particularly rich display of wanton wilful ignorance and their inability to sanity-check their own arguments for contradictions and down-right impossibilities. Which since we’re talking about science, are rather easy to notice and rather difficult to disagree rationally over, as long as you accept teh science and/or understand it.

                      __________________
                      And with this, I’m off to blob and not get side tracked
                    • QoT …

                      8 May 2012 at 7:10 pm

                      You know, I’ve always felt it says a hell of a lot about a person when they demonstrate they will twist anything in order to defend the use of the word “rape”.

                      A scary, creepy, don’t-be-alone-with-this-person lot.
                  • Te Reo Putake …

                    8 May 2012 at 2:30 pm

                    Don’t let our illiterate and innumerate mate Jimmy fool you, Contrarian. It’s income above $1m that’s taxed at that rate. I imagine that won’t cause you any difficulty at all, because it applies to a tiny percentage of earners.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 2:36 pm

                      If I were earning 1 million per annum here in NZ I wouldn’t mind paying more than the currnet top tax rate but I would leave if I had to pay 75% not because I am selfish but because I work damned hard and want to see the reflected in my salary.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 May 2012 at 2:42 pm

                      Really? 
                      If you earned $3million in one year, did you work a hundred times harder than someone who earned $30k?
                      Doubt it.
                                 
                      It isn’t the effort that’s rewarded, it’s the ability to persuade someone that having you in the job is worth that much, or good luck with investments, or good luck at making contacts.
                             
                      That’s why there’s no relationship between the quality of manager and the size of the paycheck.
                         
                      Maybe you did work hard. You’d still have a million or so to play with. And other people have it a lot more hard than you – that’s where the money goes.
                    • Te Reo Putake …

                      8 May 2012 at 2:52 pm

                      Its $1.6 million in our money. Per year. And its a club so small, we know most of them by name.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 2:52 pm

                      ‘If you earned $3million in one year, did you work a hundred times harder than someone who earned $30k?”

                      Never suggested that, don’t believe it anyway.
                      Fact is I work damned now in order to secure my future. And if all my work at this stage in my life is to be taken off me later I would leave.
                    • felix …

                      8 May 2012 at 3:09 pm

                      Off you go then.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 3:12 pm

                      There is no need for me to leave, I am happy with my tax rate and would still be happy if Key’s cuts were reversed.
                    • rosy …

                      8 May 2012 at 7:02 pm

                      I would leave if I had to pay 75% not because I am selfish but because I work damned hard and want to see the reflected in my salary

                      75 cents tax on euros earned above 1,000,000… So if you earn 1,100,000 you’ll pay an extra 30 cents per euro on 100,000 and that’s too much for you.

                      btw – quick question – will you be refusing NZ Superannuation when you hit retirement age seeing as low tax rates are helping you secure your future?
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 7:16 pm

                      “will you be refusing NZ Superannuation when you hit retirement age seeing as low tax rates are helping you secure your future?”

                      I don’t want to have to rely on it so yes I would. If I can afford to live without it then why not? I don’t accept a student loan and when I did (in the past) I didn’t take the allowance or other things I qualified for because I didn’t need it.
                    • rosy …

                      8 May 2012 at 8:37 pm

                      @TheContrarian
                      I don’t want to have to rely on it so yes I would

                      Good to know, despite the mingling of different entitlements – you don’t accept a student loan – you apply for it as you do for student allowances, nor are allowances universal whereas super is – so there is a bit of difference in decision-making processes.

                      Now it would be interesting if you’ve had a little tot-up of how many of your fellow high income earners would do exactly the opposite to what you suggest you would do i.e. take loans, allowances and super, and also check out how much tax they are ‘minimising’ under the current system.

                      Maybe you might understand why a lot of people have no sympathy at all for people who are doing this and then screaming unfairness when there is talk of increasing tax for the highest (by a long shot) income-earners. Especially when low-income earners total tax burden was increased under the ‘tax switch’.
                  • Draco T Bastard …

                    8 May 2012 at 3:55 pm

                    And I’d be happy to see you go. You’re not that important.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:24 pm

                      Right back at ya
                  • Reagan Cline …

                    8 May 2012 at 4:23 pm

                    Contrarian, why do you work so damned hard ?
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:26 pm

                      Because I like my job, because I am in a fast paced industry, because I am setting myself up so I don’t have to work so hard in the future. Hard work now for long term benefit. Because I want to be a leader in what I do.
                       
                    • Reagan Cline …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:31 pm

                      You already answered my question – you work damned hard now to secure your future.

                      Me too.

                      This is the kind of society we have to live in.

                      I don’t see a realistic choice.

                      I boils down to “I am afraid of the future”.

                      I live in fear and I am not the only one.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 4:34 pm

                      I don’t live in fear of the future at all. I work hard mainly because I am motivated and I enjoy my job. When I get home I work even harder on my uni studies and it has nothing to do with fear – I like what I do.
                    • TheContrarian …

                      8 May 2012 at 7:22 pm

                      “Working hard for yourself to secure your future, TheContagion? That’s meant to be admirable?”

                      Working hard in your youth to make sure you, your family and your loved ones can life a happy life is not a good thing anymore? Paying all your taxes and living a good life wherein you treat others with respect and kindness (at least attempt to where possible, at all times) is suddenly not admirable because you assume I am selfish and am working purely out of personal interest?

                      You’re an awful person (this is directed at Carol below – buggered up somehow).
                  • NickS …

                    8 May 2012 at 4:41 pm

                    I am a high income earner and I wouldn’t mind paying a little more tax. But I would leave if I had to pay 75% not because I am selfish but because I work damned hard and want to see the reflected in my salary.

                    Can we clone the parts of your brain that grok that pay taxes is a good thing?

                    Anyhow, the 75% bracket will likely not end up being implemented, though France could very well get away with a 40% tax bracket for very high incomes, and crack down on the usual loop-holes certain corporations like exploiting to avoid paying their taxes.
                    • Carol …

                      8 May 2012 at 7:15 pm

                      Working hard for yourself to secure your future, TheContagion? That’s meant to be admirable?

                      Many people work hard for long hours to try to secure the future of many others, and for the society they live in….. usually doesn’t earn a lot. Sometimes it involves a lot of unpaid work.

                      But then, as said elsewhere on this site today, the contagion of self-serving, money-focuses, neoliberal non-ethics has permeated our society. And look where it’s brought us? It’s time to encourage the more community-spirited in their aims.

                      Ask not what you can do just for yourself, but what we all can do for the society we live in (and need in order to thrive)?
            • Te Reo Putake 17.2.1.1.1.3

              8 May 2012 at 2:27 pm

              Hmmmm, some number crunching:
               
              Citizens of France? 65 million.
               
              Citizens affected by the tax change? 10,000.
               
              Income before the new tax rate kicks in? 1 million Euro’s.
               
              That’s 1, followed by 6 zeros. If the average French millionaire can’t rub along on that, well, they aren’t the economic geniuses they’d have us believe.
              • james 111 …

                8 May 2012 at 2:59 pm

                Contrain
                Your arent meant to think that way the Socialists just want you to work hard and hand you money over. By the way notice they only mention working harder nothing about working smarter wonder why that could be?
          • Bored 17.2.1.1.2

            8 May 2012 at 1:52 pm

            Jimmy, the real problem is not as you describe: read my diagnosis above and you will realise that terms such as capitalist / socialist or whatever no longer have relevance. The debt crisis is actually that: “debt” can no longer be owed nor owned for the benefit of either party.

            The bankers are technically insolvent, their only hope is if debt can be repayed by any method (hence derivatives, austerity etc etc, any mechanism to keep the reckoning at bay until “growth” saves their bacon). The people and the debtor economies cant generate any money to repay…Catch 22.

            Taxing the rich wont help, austerity solutions will only make people go to extreme measures. There will be no growth sufficient to pay debt or for future investment, that game is over.This is a true klusterfuck and nobody has any real solution hence my comment re new ideas.

            For the record the only “socialism” I have seen is the banks socialising the losses( and privatising the gains): Frances electorate just signaled an end to that.
          • vto 17.2.1.1.3

            8 May 2012 at 2:16 pm

            “Well Bored here is the real problem for France and the Socialists where are they going to borrow money from for all of their big spending plans?”

            Same place as currently – the printing presses. Only difference is that maybe instead of the printing presses being owned by private enterprise they will be owned by state enterprise.

            “What happens when all the people they intend to tax at 75% decide either to lower their income” If they lower their income then that money will go elswhere obviously.

            ” or leave the country?”
            Really? Where will al these wealthy go? Not any other country with high taxes. Maybe they can all squeeze into the Isle of Wight and put all of their capital to good use on that island. If they can get their capital out in the first place – ha ha ha.

            ” This is the issue for Socialism you can only wastefully spend other people money for so long”, but its not other peoples money it is printing press money. And most of the spending has been done by capitalists, such as here in NZ where the public debt has spiralled since Key came in.

            “Watch this space the Socialist will go on a money printing spree ,and drive up inflation accordingly”
            But that is exactly what the capitalists have been doing silly jimmy. And it hasn’t worked. You have not been paying attention.

            “Will be a very short-term government as there are no silver bullets”
            You show your ignorance again because there is one bullet the shade of gold and that is the money printing system we live under. It needs a bomb under it. Right fucking now.

            wake up jimmy – ignorarses like you stop mankind progressing.
            • james 111 17.2.1.1.3.1

              8 May 2012 at 2:20 pm

              VTO says

              Same place as currently – the printing presses. Only difference is that maybe instead of the printing presses being owned by private enterprise they will be owned by state enterprise.

              Uhh no as Germany has already signaled it wont lend to them they have been lending to France until now, next cab of the rank then? Where will the money come from?
              • vto …

                8 May 2012 at 2:24 pm

                Your sentences make no sense, surprisingly.
    • muzza 17.3

      8 May 2012 at 12:14 pm

      So James, what happened to the 1Trillion Euros that the ECB dished out in two half trillion euro tranches?

      Oh yeah, it went to the banks who are using it to cover the losses, they “dont have” on their balance sheets, while using the “funds” to destroy nations in bond attacks etc!

      Austerity is genocide, are you in favour of Genocide?
18. Draco T Bastard 18

    8 May 2012 at 11:44 am

    Yep, NACT have the economy going really well and Treasury is proving just how accurate their economic theory is.

    The government took in $1.57 billion less tax than expected in the first nine months of the fiscal year, reflecting a tepid economy, Treasury figures show – reflecting what the Finance Minister says has been a ‘difficult year’.

    Gee, wasn’t there some people around who predicted that this BS would happen? Like, you know, the people who are neither in government nor the governments sycophants?
    • Ant 18.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:56 am

      Don’t worry, even though Treasury forecasting has been proven wrong yet again, they’ve forecast a 400 million boost that will make it less bad.
    • Georgecom 18.2

      8 May 2012 at 12:16 pm

      Rumpel English perfects the art of spinning gold into hay.

      Meanwhile, mad alchemist wizard Bill ‘Gargamel’ English continues his quest to find enough Smurfs to turn gold into lead.
19. muzza 19

    8 May 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Oh look, we are being merged with Australia. Its for the earth though that we will lose our sovereignty for, so thats ok!.

    Wonder what else we could have taken away under the the guise of “Climate Change”
    Wonder if carbon credits might be used as the global currency sometime…or if they will try to be used!

    Note: This I am not debating CC one way or another, this is an observation on how NZ and other countries will be taken, using the CFC/CC combo!
20. ianmac 20

    8 May 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Question 11 today in the House from Trevor Mallard re Banks, could be interesting. It is one of the fullest primary question I have seen. Relates to the detail of Bank’s responses and connection or otherwise with Cabinet Manual and a PM’s action..
    • Pete George 20.1

      8 May 2012 at 1:23 pm

      Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Does he believe Hon John Banks when he said on Friday, 27 April 2012 that he could not remember a helicopter trip to the Dotcom mansion, and if not, was Mr Banks’ comment consistent with clause 2.53 of the Cabinet Office Manual which states “… at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. Ultimately Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”?

      Concentrating on the important things again I see. Is Hon TREVOR MALLARD the Labour expert on “highest ethical standards”?
      • BLiP 20.1.1

        8 May 2012 at 1:37 pm

        Ad hom – FLUNK.

        You must be on the glass pipe, Pete. Or OCD. Or, maybe, you’re on a piece-work income formular. Something’s odd, anyway.
    • Anne 20.2

      8 May 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Hi ianmac:
      Assuming you have been watching Question Time… that was an odd supplementary question from Trevor Mallard to John Key:

      To the Prime Minister:

      When he spoke to John Banks, did he tell him that speaking with Simon Lusk was not desirable?

      It would seem Mallard is leading up to something. Do you agree?
      • james 111 20.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 3:04 pm

        Mallard
        Should be kept in a dark hole and fed scraps. He should be hidden from all media, and is the greatest reason why people will continue to vote for the Right
        • felix 20.2.1.1

          8 May 2012 at 3:20 pm

          Wouldn’t say much for the right’s policies, candidates, or philosophies if that were case.
        • Anne 20.2.1.2

          8 May 2012 at 4:33 pm

          Shove off brat. I wasn’t asking you.

          Edit: talking to the mindless fool j3. Is he kiwiteen123 under another handle?

          [lprent: Nope. Kt123 was never that dogmatic and from what i can see is less so now that he is getting to be less of a teen. ]
          • felix 20.2.1.2.1

            8 May 2012 at 5:46 pm

            I think kt123 was a bit more eloquent, although just as obtuse.
      • felix 20.2.2

        8 May 2012 at 3:13 pm

        Certainly seems so.
      • Pete George 20.2.3

        8 May 2012 at 4:09 pm

        Mallard seems to be either convinced that Simon Lusk is the centre of all skulduggery, or he has some sort of vendetta against him. Lusk is a friend of Slater so maybe he’s trying to attack Whale through Lusk.

        That Mallard tried to attack Banks not through some great political misdeed but fudging over the chopper ride suggests to me that Mallard is flailing around for anything he thinks will taint Banks further.

        Who would know? Doesn’t sound like Mallard’s working hard for the good of the country though. How much parliamentary funded resources go towards petty political squabbling I wonder.

        More political patheticism.
        • felix 20.2.3.1

          8 May 2012 at 5:36 pm

          Do you think Banks has been honest and upfront and behaving like a Minister of the Crown ought to?

          Is his behaviour – not just the stuff before the police, but the very obvious lying and obfuscating afterward and continuing – the sort of thing you imagine as helpful to your “new way of doing politics”?

          If you answered no to either of those, do you think the voting public have a right to see this behaviour exposed? Is it “for the good of the country” that the country is now much better informed about the disgraceful behaviour and character of a Minister of the Crown? And if not, why not?

          If you answered yes to the above, are you glad that someone has done that work and ensured that the public are informed, even if you personally dislike the person responsible?
          • Colonial Viper 20.2.3.1.1

            8 May 2012 at 5:39 pm

            Did PG just make a claim about “political patheticism”? At least that is something he is a bona fide expert on.
            • McFlock 20.2.3.1.1.1

              8 May 2012 at 6:04 pm

              the evil of banality…
        • grassroots 20.2.3.2

          8 May 2012 at 6:00 pm

          Yeah Petey you are so in the loop.  There is absolutely nothing in the Simon Lusk story.  It is all a bunch of unplaced rumours with absolutely no substance.  There are no leaks of any sort.
           
          Go on Petey, say you are right.
      • ianmac 20.2.4

        8 May 2012 at 5:32 pm

        Yes agreed Anne. Trevor usually has a reason for such things. Mr Key looked puzzled. We might see something interesting out of that -tomorrow?
      • ianmac 20.2.5

        8 May 2012 at 6:19 pm

        Anne: TV3 News 6pm did a piece on what did John Key know of National concerns about Simon Lusk’s big influence on Nat MPs. Mr Key denied any concerns. He knew nothing about it. But after more questions by Media and Minutes from a March Meeting perhaps he admitted that he did know about concerns which suggests that he lied to earlier questions.

        So that is what Trevor was after. Tomorrow it will crop up again. It also suggests that Mr Key may have mislead the House today in his answer or non answer to Trevor’s last question.
21. captain hook 21

    8 May 2012 at 1:36 pm

    gotta go away and cultivate my gun-nut sideburns…
    seeyalater.
22. Pete George 22

    8 May 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Caption contest: Little-Mana

    (If you’re easily offended by political juxtapositions don’t click)
    • Te Reo Putake 22.1

      8 May 2012 at 3:06 pm

      And you’d be wasting your time, folks. So, no change there, then.
    • felix 22.2

      8 May 2012 at 3:07 pm

      I don’t get it.
      • Te Reo Putake 22.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 3:14 pm

        Not your prob, felix. Pete hasn’t quite grasped the concept of a caption contest having humorous outcomes. He thinks he’s Making A Point.
        • felix 22.2.1.1

          8 May 2012 at 3:23 pm

          But I wonder what point that is? I reckon if you were to ask Pete he’d probably say he didn’t have one in mind.
          • ianmac 22.2.1.1.1

            8 May 2012 at 3:27 pm

            I think the point is that some protesters wear red shirts and sing songs. Perhaps?
23. ianmac 23

    8 May 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Charter Schools. Native Affairs did 30 minutes on this last night. They played the Hawaii Charter Schools, then discussion with Lauras Parks NZEI, and Catherine Issacs who is heading the Charter School plan for ACT. Repeats 10:30 Wednesday.
    Interesting to see/hear Catherine Isaacs who must have a hell of a job sorting the make-up of the NZ version given that there are hundreds of types to choose from. We will see!
    http://www.maoritelevision.com/default.aspx?tabid=636&pid=212
24. james 111 24

    8 May 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Trust all of you watched close up and the Talley Family last night showed how they arrived in Motueaka ,and built their empire up from nothing but hard work. Was really great to see the people of Motueaka interviewed ,and supporting them to the hilt saying how much they give back to the community. Great to have business owners like that.
    Was also very interested to see the bongs and drug utensils that Talleys had found at their freezing works as well as tinnies. Talleys of course want to bring in Drug testing ,and the union is dead against it (to many may get caught out i guess) I would have thought that the union would have supported this move as people on drugs have impaired reaction times ,and this creates a OSH problem in the works.
    • Reagan Cline 24.1

      8 May 2012 at 4:38 pm

      What about the booze and nibbles and maybe fags and cigars for the Board Meetings ?
    • Colonial Viper 24.2

      8 May 2012 at 6:22 pm

      and built their empire up from nothing but hard work.

      The hard work of OTHER people. And now this $300M family continue to take take take from their workers.
      • Half Crown Millionare 24.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 6:59 pm

        “and built their empire up from nothing but hard work”.

        And all the socialistic tax breaks, subsidies and handouts like export incentives handed out prior to 80’s and no doubt continued with further tax avoidance schemes through trusts etc.
25. Pascal's bookie 25

    8 May 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Lol.

    So the National Party board talked about what a dick Lusk is, and how they’d be wise to stay clear of said dick, and that he’s running a school for future National party dicks, and John Key is a member of the National Party Board, but he was away that day and no one told him about it.

    No one tells John Key anything.
26. Pete George 26

    8 May 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Take this with a grain of salt, online poll and all that, but on Stuff:

    Do you want a borrow-and-spend budget, or a frugal budget?

    Borrow and spend 1727 votes, 17.4%
    Frugal 8189 votes, 82.6%
    Total 9916 votes

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6871609/Key-Europe-shows-zero-Budget-wisdom
    • Pascal's bookie 26.1

      8 May 2012 at 5:12 pm

      Pretty stupid question, but doesn’t look good for a government that recklessly cut taxes does it?
    • Pascal's bookie 26.2

      8 May 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Would you describe this government’s tax policy as frugal, or borrow and spend?
      • Vicky32 26.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 6:02 pm

        Would you describe this government’s tax policy as frugal, or borrow and spend?

        I found it an unanswerable question! Very stupid and badly worded…
        • Pascal's bookie 26.2.1.1

          8 May 2012 at 6:17 pm

          Yeah, it’s awful.

          Really, really, bad.
          • Colonial Viper 26.2.1.1.1

            8 May 2012 at 7:27 pm

            Of course, being “frugal” has positive moralistic overtones to it, while “borrowing” has negative moralistic overtones to it.
            • OneTrack 26.2.1.1.1.1

              8 May 2012 at 10:18 pm

              What’s negative about borrowing? Greece have done a bit of it and are going to be doing a bit more by the look of it, and they aren’t having any problems.
              • Colonial Viper …

                8 May 2012 at 10:28 pm

                So you agree about the moralistic undertones there?
    • lprent 26.3

      8 May 2012 at 11:19 pm

      That is a “when did you last think about killing your mother” question. Of course everyone will say frugal – even when most would spend more, and a few would cut to the bone to get a flat rate tax base and they would all describe it as being frugal.

      Pointless trigger word laden statements are useless as polls unless you put some figures on it (and then you are likely to get opposite results).

      For instance if you asked “should we cut education spending to secondary schools by 5% to get a frugal budget” you will get the opposite answers.

      And that is what I am picking the effective cut will be as they aren’t raising the budget as much as either inflation or the population bulge in the numbers of secondary school kids requires.
27. Pete George 27

    8 May 2012 at 5:20 pm

    There’s been a bit of discussion around about a comment made by Andrew Little on Facebook.
    I asked him to clarify and promised to post it across a range of blogs, this is what he said:

    No, I wasn’t referring to all employers. It was a reference to those employers who do so exploit. There are plenty who don’t but there are those who do. Unlike the proprietors of Kiwiblog and Whaleoil I have worked with literally hundreds of employers and their workforces, and I’ve seen great employers (a couple of weeks ago, one of those employers reminded me of how I had spoken publicly of their qualities as an employer; I had described them as one of the best in NZ) and I’ve seen the truly appalling employers. The latter are disrespectful of workers and their rights, and of their representatives.

    David Farrar is up to his increasingly more common mischief. He has previously commented on my ability to forge good quality relationships with employers, so any conclusion he draws that I am hostile to employers takes an extraordinary leap on his part.

    Details and links.
    • lprent 27.1

      8 May 2012 at 11:10 pm

      I’d have to agree with Andrew Little – he describes it rather well.

      I come from a management family. I worked as several different types of manager for a decade, and even picked up a MBA from down your way when I was still interested in it as a vocation. Eventuslly I discovered PC’s and programming and largely abandoned the joys of being a servant to my employees as soon as I could wangle my way into hardcore programming.

      On the way through I have been around and observing from the inside of a lot of companies, especially when I was doing business computing support, consulting or contract work. It won’t be as many as Andrew Little, but it would be more than most people ever see. I know how to hook IT to businesses informal systems and a lot of that requires quite a lot of discussion finding out what the actual systems (rather than the theoretical formal) are.

      While the overall quality of kiwi employers isn’t that high, most are well meaning and take pride in how they deal with their employees – something that gets usually gets reciprocated. But there are some quite distinct splits between the usual run of employers and some who could only be described as evil arseholes. There are also some that are just hopelessly incompetent and shouldn’t have people working directly for them. And there are the usual new broomers who simply screw things up from a blithe optimism about everything working perfectly.

      The latter groups are why there are formal procedures in company policies, legal structures, and why unions are required. While it’d be nice if the employers would run the fools, ideologues, and arseholes out of the profession, I don’t think it will happen any time soon.
28. Pascal's bookie 28

    8 May 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Here’s that story about that (other) thing that no-one told the PM about:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/105374/concern-over-national-supporter,-documents-show

    Leaked documents show National Party board members have raised concerns about party supporter Simon Lusk.

    Earlier this year, the Labour Party tried to link Mr Lusk to the controversy over leaks at the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

    During a board meeting in March, National’s whip Michael Woodhouse raised concerns about an alternative school Mr Lusk is running for potential National Party candidates, which is unsanctioned by the party.

    Mr Lusk has held official party roles in the past, including on local electorate campaigns.

    The board was told Mr Lusk has a negative agenda, which poses a serious risk to National.

    Prime Minister John Key has a place on the board, but was absent from the meeting in March.

    Mr Key says he is unaware of any criticism of Mr Lusk at board level, although he says people hold a range of views.

    “I’m sure there are one or two people who might have concerns, but I don’t have any great concerns.”

    Copyright © 2012, Radio New Zealand

    Leaks everywhere. Leaky leaky leak leak leaked. Right out of the top levels of the National Party.
    • Carol 28.1

      8 May 2012 at 6:14 pm

      And now on TV3 news… with questions to Key being dinimic.
      • Pascal's bookie 28.1.1

        8 May 2012 at 6:21 pm

        I like how Key didn’t know anything about him, then did.

        And how when asked about Lusk’s plans, (which v.senior Nat figures describe as ‘negative’), said that some people like Lusk’s ideas and some don’t. He doesn’t have a problem with Lusk himself though.

        And fuck he looked shifty.
      • ianmac 28.1.2

        8 May 2012 at 6:23 pm

        Oops. Wrote about this before seeing Pascal’s Post. Mine @20.4.5
        • Pascal's bookie 28.1.2.1

          8 May 2012 at 6:24 pm

          Sweet as 🙂
    • ianmac 28.2

      8 May 2012 at 6:25 pm

      Key caught out on TV3 @ 6pm.
      • Anne 28.2.1

        8 May 2012 at 7:29 pm

        http://www.3news.co.nz/Secret-minutes-reveal-split-in-Nationals-ranks/tabid/370/articleID/253481/Default.aspx

        Note near the beginning… Key sticks his tongue out and licks his lip…. just as he answers two questions about Lusk. My understanding is that is a well known sign the person is lying!
        • vto 28.2.1.1

          8 May 2012 at 8:08 pm

          He was completely and utterly lying. It occurred a couple of times. Clear as a bell – ding dong.

          Betcha plenty of all sorts of people were noticing his snakeiness…

          watch it and start-pause through his answers …. seething also visible ….
          • Pascal's bookie 28.2.1.1.1

            8 May 2012 at 8:24 pm

            No need to start pause.

            Anyone who’s had, or been, a teenager knows the score with that effort.

            ‘Right, you’re grounded, and no, I don’t know exactly why, but you bloody do.’
        • felix 28.2.1.2

          8 May 2012 at 9:42 pm

          Ahahahaha my favourite bit was when his instincts threw him straight into a whopping lie “I don’t know him actually” and then caught himself as he was saying it, realised it was a road to pain and added “terribly well”.

          Which isn’t really a sentence, is it? “I don’t know him actually terribly well”.

          It’s funny how many stories about Key – ever since he entered politics – start out with “he says he doesn’t know anything about this and that and what-not” and then it turns out that he kind of really does know.
29. Pascal's bookie 29

    8 May 2012 at 6:53 pm

    That sound you can hear is various clockwork brains in the national party recalculating the chances that Mallard has a believable source in the National party that knows a thing or two about Lusk.
30. captain hook 30

    8 May 2012 at 7:32 pm

    neologisms ‘r us.
    from felix, : “pedoing”.
    apparently its what nutbar rightwing fundamentalist christians with gun-nut sideburns do.
    If it it wasn’t so awful it would be bloody funny.
    lets innovate and call it torpedoing and get it made an olympic sport!
    • felix 30.1

      8 May 2012 at 9:53 pm

      As far as I know it’s a Mitchell & Webb neologism, from Peep Show I think.
31. Reagan Cline 31

    8 May 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Financial Times London – Iran is accepting renminbi as payment for its oil and spending the proceeds on goods and services from China.

    Those goods and the oil could go by sea, but a long vulnerable route.

    By land:

    China – China Afghanistan border – Afgahanistan Iran border – Iran – Indian ocean (then that vulnerable sea route back to China).
32. joe90 32

    8 May 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Conniptions ahoy!.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/new-communism-resurrecting-utopian-delusion
33. Chris 33

    8 May 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Key on Len Brown regarding Casino deal.”I’ve seen him numerous times and I’m confident we’ll get him over the line” What does that mean?
    • fender 33.1

      8 May 2012 at 10:10 pm

      Means: We have noticed what a weak push-over Len is, hell he loves the humiliation and even slaps himself around for kicks.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS