Open mike 12/05/2010

15 comments on “Open mike 12/05/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   12 May 2010 at 7:36 am

   Innovation and study not directly linked to increasing shareholder profit, is the big loser in Key’s science budget.

   With scientists being laid off and vital areas of study such as climate change being starved of funds.

   The government’s much heralded increase in the science budget stands exposed as just another example of corporate welfare.

   Science budget goes commercial
   • gingercrush 1.1

     12 May 2010 at 9:34 am

     Your position and the position taken on that stuff article is stupid. We’ve had for the past year ongoing articles, news reports etc that constantly say, New Zealand is good at research we’re just not at taking the next step and turning that into commercial enterprise. Hence, why National’s research and development funding is focused on commercial activities.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       12 May 2010 at 10:10 am

       That would be fine if every business doing research was to be as well subsidised but they won’t be. The majority of the spending is going to large businesses which probably don’t require the subsidy.

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644348

       The largest portion of the new plan is $189.5 million over four years in new grants targeted at “medium to large, research-intensive firms, which can show that their activities result in wider benefits to New Zealand”.

       Labours R&D tax credit was a better system for two reasons
       1.) Didn’t require any more bureaucrats
       2.) Applied evenly to any business that undertook research.

       This is, quite simply, NACT picking winners.
       • Tigger 1.1.1.1

         12 May 2010 at 10:21 am

         Or NACT giving money to its mates…
     • freedom 1.1.2

       12 May 2010 at 2:35 pm

       here is one example of an international leader that would not have made it out of the garage under Nat’s new plan

       i know little about them and i am in no way associated with the company, just the first example that sprung to mind, i am sure you all have others to share.

       The following infromation is from the above public resource link
       ‘Revenue has grown from zero in 2000 to NZ$20 million at the end of March 2008. 4RF was the 14th fastest growing company in New Zealand on the Deloitte Fast 50 list in 2006, Wellington Exporter of the Year in 2007 and recipient of a Wellington Gold Award for information technology leadership in 2008.
       Two years after start up, the company produced the first model in its Aprisa range. With investment of $217,000 from TechNZ the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology’s business investment programme 4RF quickly followed its initial invention with a faster, smarter and more powerful product, which has become the driver behind the company’s exceptional growth.’
       (also posted under Nats partially…)
   • Lew 1.2

     12 May 2010 at 9:39 am

     Interesting in the context of John Kay’s arguments about obliquity — that people who take a blinkered view of commercial success tend not to achieve it, or tend to achieve it with unacceptable costs or in an unsustainable fashion. This weekend past on NatRad.

     L
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   12 May 2010 at 10:50 am

   Contribute post not working?

   [No sorry – email it to us as per the address are Contacts in the banner — r0b]
   
   [lprent: Been short of the required hours to put in something that is a bit more permanent and robust than what was there. It fell apart every time that the server changed. ]
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   12 May 2010 at 11:06 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644327&pnum=0

   Owners of a 32-unit Auckland leaky apartment block are considering demolishing the complex because it is so riddled with defects.

   The five-year-old complex at 4045 Great North Rd is no longer considered fit for habitation.

   5 years old and it’s already falling apart. Obviously, even though we had been aware of leaky buildings everywhere from the 1990s, the 5th Labour government didn’t get around to ensuring that buildings get built to adequate standards.

   And I’m going to have to disagree with Phil Twyford, If Housing NZ didn’t have anything to do with building or owning the complex then them washing their hands of it seems quite reasonable.
   • Herodotus 3.1

     12 May 2010 at 7:07 pm

     To qualify for a (ppp) that is what the housing NZ scheme is. HNZ stipulates the materials and other requirements before they will take it up on their list. Remember that in the last few years Kiln dried timber was pushed by both Lan and the Greens this has been forgotte. From memory (Without the small print) that HNZ was to reinstate the property at the end of its lease. Now if the building was Ok initially when signed up then HNZ should deliver.
     For me this issue like retirement, obesity etc are too large for small minded politicians to solve, they can and do create many of the problems. And we have about 110 small minded politicos. I would say 122 but there maybe a few gems in Wellington to display their colours.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       13 May 2010 at 1:02 am

       Is it a PPP though?

       “Housing NZ … used a kind of public-private partnership and it’s unacceptable for them to wash their hands of it,” Mr Twyford said

       Housing NZ has stepped away from any involvement with Pepperwood Mews. Late last year, its general manager of assets, Kevin Mara, said Housing NZ did not accept liability for the structural or weathertightness problems.

       “We don’t own the building, we don’t own the land, we didn’t design or build the building. Our involvement has been to lease 32 units in the complex from private owners.”

       Just how much input did HNZ have into the building of the complex? According to the Kevin Mara quote, none. It’s only Twyford that’s putting forward the implication that they did and even then his language isn’t the strongest – in fact it’s rather ambivalent.
4. Killinginthenameof 4

   12 May 2010 at 11:35 am

   Did any one else catch general debate on kiwiblog yesterday, they seemed to be making serious preparations for some kind of race war.

   I wonder if it has got something to do with the anonymity of blogs, and their ability to aggregate widely geographically spread extremists, that people like them (and the Tea Klux Party over in the USA), that rage filled cowards like them selves can sit safety at home, polishing their rifles, posturing and just generally involving them selves in building elaborate conspiracies that has seen this change of behavior.
5. BLiP 5

   12 May 2010 at 12:19 pm

   The sale of Auckland City is proceeding along as per ACT’s plans – the time to at least temper some of the more rapacious aspects of this corporatisation process is drawing near. Catch up with the details here and have your say here.

   Please, pass these on through your networks.
6. uke 6

   12 May 2010 at 6:48 pm

   What seems to me an interesting aspect of the Tuhoe settlement debacle has not risen to the surface.

   Yes, Tuhoe, with some justification it seems, are outraged about the cancellation of a plan to hand back the Urewera National Park.

   But is it not interesting that the government was even considering doing this? And what was the nature of the deal? (ie. was it going to be largely symbolic or more in the nature of outright title, like the Mount Tarawera handback).

   If the national park was going to be handed over completely into Tuhoe ownership, I could see quite a few other people getting fairly outraged over that. It would set a precedent with many implications. Were govt really ever going to be half so bold?
   • felix 6.1

     13 May 2010 at 1:23 am

     No. The govt was never really considering it.
7. Tigger 7

   12 May 2010 at 11:02 pm

   Quote of the year:
   “Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia criticised Mr Key’s action. She said she was tired of the “politics of race being brought into the equation”.
   The politics of race underscores everything the MP stand for. It should be in every equation they are considering. But if that’s not supposed to be part of the equation then what do they stand for? Oh, that’s right – $.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS