Open mike 25/06/2011

56 comments on “Open mike 25/06/2011”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   25 June 2011 at 7:33 am

   Wow Cactus Kate is seeking to stand for the ACT party.  She would actually bring something to the party, the ability to argue coherently.

   It would be a shame though if she replaced Hillary Calvert.  That particular combination of blind prejudice, sense of superiority and lack of empathy would be difficult to recreate.

   • Carol 1.1

     25 June 2011 at 7:43 am

     Heather Roy IS standing down.

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5191845/Roy-to-quit-on-her-own-terms

     • prism 1.1.1

       25 June 2011 at 10:22 am

       Perhaps Heather Roy feels that Don Brash has more chauvinistic attitudes to women than the previous leader, Alasdair Thompson’s recent sweeping generalisation being a final warning.

     • logie97 1.1.2

       25 June 2011 at 1:08 pm

       Now let’s see, why was 9 years such a wonderful cut-off point? That’s it, she will qualify for all the travel perks but even better whe will get that gilt edged pension while the rest of us will see our GSF and similar schemes tampered with and reduced. Makes you sick.

       (Now how can the rest of us get our noses into that trough?)

   • just saying 1.2

     25 June 2011 at 8:04 am

     All we need is the Queen of Thorns standing for Mana, and Imperator fish for Labour, for some brilliant debates and a much more interesting election campaign this year.

     disclaimer
     Not claiming QoT actually supports Mana.

   • Pascal's bookie 1.3

     25 June 2011 at 11:35 am

     >Brash should then seek three top drawer candidates for ACT to make a strong team of six first rate potential MP’s.

     Here is where I will differ from I suspect his viewpoint and state this does NOT under ANY circumstances include John Banks. Brash needs three list candidates without the baggage Banks brings. Banks is just awful. He makes you want to consider voting Len Brown. Two time losing Mayoral candidate Banks is political desperation at its finest. He’s horrible and awkward, moreso around women. I am extremely tolerant of male idiosyncrasy and even I find Banks the pits. His political philosophy isn’t even close to ACT’s. He’s toyed once with ACT and didn’t have the metal. Banks would be a Shakespearian re-run of the return of Douglas.

     http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/04/act-sequel.html

     Plenty more in there, like how the list needs to avoid giving loud mouthed political shit stirrers high placings just because they fill some gender or ethnic demographic niche.

     • KJT 1.3.1

       25 June 2011 at 1:36 pm

       Bit of a problem there. No sane or honest person can work with Brash or his policies..

2. prism 2

   25 June 2011 at 9:11 am

   Global finance and tax haven huge use by UK and USA. Look for book called ‘Treasure Island’ from Nicholas Shaxson. On Radionz on Replay Sat 25/6 bit after 8am in dense and probing discussion with Kim.

   Says Ireland has been and still is a tax haven and that caused the conditions resulting in the name of Celtic Tiger for them, which have now spiralled into them being one of the PIGS group. He says that tax havens have led the move to compete by states to have lower company taxes.
   Confirms with details what thinking and worried people on this blog realise and argue about.

   Our own financiers Fay and Richwhite and others tried out the Cook Islands as a tax haven. I remember that a Cook Island politicians meeting was said to have been paused while some document connected with the foreign financiers was signed. Joky Hen has suggested some such role for us. I am sure that his financial background would fit him to introduce this.

   Shaxson says that the havens are servile entities to the tax avoiders/evaders so allowing them to virtually write enabling legislation. At home these would meet democratic procedures, some debate, so better to go where the entity is Free to do what they like. ‘Freedom is another word, for nothing left to lose’? (Me and Bobby McGee)

   An emailer to the radio pointed out that in the 90’s here the government decided to drop taxation for overseas companies, but not nz ones. Others would know how this works and the arguments for it. Probably one is that we need investment cash. But what do we get from that cash? A number of poorly paid jobs for the locals in the main?

   The next speaker is Irishman Philip Lane on economic vulnerability – so listen on for another facet to this hard flawed diamond of world financial practice.
   Oh oh I put gummint and got into moderation – have corrected but hope this comes out before the radio interview with Lane is over.

   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     25 June 2011 at 1:44 pm

     Others would know how this works and the arguments for it. Probably one is that we need investment cash. But what do we get from that cash? A number of poorly paid jobs for the locals in the main?

     Actually, we don’t even get poorly paid jobs – foreign investment usually results in employment going down as the foreign rentiers seek more profit.

3. millsy 3

   25 June 2011 at 9:32 am

   I find this article about Housing NZ very disturbing

   Things are going to be very ugly when this happens. All I can see coming from this policy is more homelessness, and more mothers and babies crammed into seedy boarding houses. One of the reasons why the ’35-’49 Labour government introduced state housing was because of the state of the slums in Auckland. Now a National government with no memory of what life was like pre 1935 is hell bent on bringing the back.

   And Vicky32 – start worrying,

   • prism 3.1

     25 June 2011 at 11:04 am

     Housing NZ has been a landlord with variable concern for its tenants for some time. The government has been unwilling to invest in more state housing but opened the rental market for low income prospective tenants by providing accommodation allowances which provide a reliable subsidy to the property owner, and that has helped fuel the housing bubble. The government providing state housing at an affordable rate for a beneficiary at a top of one/third of
     the benefit would have acted as a price floor for private owners, but government brought its own rentals up to market levels some years back.

     If housing start accounts were set up whereby government meets in some proportion, the amount that savers put in, and then gives an extended, say ten year, period of set affordable interest rates say 5% on a low-price house or apartment mortgage to those savers, there would be less people wasting overseas exchange by buying imported consumer stuff, but putting that money into things for their house and their own betterment.

     The inability to get rid of tenants who create a noisy, unsafe or negative environment is probably fuel to Housing NZ changes. The women with Mongrel Mob connections have cost the country considerable money because Housing NZ wants them out because they are not good tenants with their circle of friends and family presumably making the neighbourhood unpleasant and unsafe. Perhaps the Mongrel Mob can get community money to put up its own houses to cater for its polygamous-like culture.

   • Anne 3.2

     25 June 2011 at 6:01 pm

     Very interesting millsy.

     I live in an old part of Auckland that could be described as up-market. In amongst the privately owned homes are pockets of state housing that were probably built between the 1950s and 70s in the main. I have noticed in the past 12 months that many of them have been sitting empty for a long time now. They are in good condition and seem to have been freshly painted but no sign of any tenants. I’ve come to the conclusion the NAct govt. is planning to sell them after the election.

     First they take away peoples’ jobs, and now they plan to take away the chance of a decent roof over their heads.

     • millsy 3.2.1

       25 June 2011 at 7:31 pm

       Your conclusion is correct Anne.

       Come the 28th of November, we are going to see the biggest mass evictions in this country’s history.

       • Jim Nald 3.2.1.1

         25 June 2011 at 7:45 pm

         Re the NACT government’s lack of investments and support to generate a more diverse economy for jobs:
         – this also means that the government is pushing out our friends, newly made redundant work mates, siblings to Australia and overseas countries.

         Our children will be pushed out next.

         At this rate with this government, don’t even think of having your next two generations in this country.

   • Treetop 3.3

     25 June 2011 at 6:54 pm

     I think that the govenment need to be very clear on what they are proposing to do with the accommodation supplement before the election. If anything the amount needs to be increased, there is no way that a person on a low income can afford a mortgage.

     • millsy 3.3.1

       25 June 2011 at 7:34 pm

       Ironically it was the previous National Gov. that replaced the 4% housing corp mortgages (one of which Paula Bennett got) with the accomodation supplement. It effectively replaced a programme which was designed to be a genuine hand up to help people to independence (and which was successful at it to boot), and replaced it with a state handout.

       • Treetop 3.3.1.1

         25 June 2011 at 7:38 pm

         What you say is important and people need to know this.

   • Deadly_NZ 3.4

     25 June 2011 at 8:11 pm

     Oh look they are doing to the housing lists that they did for surgical waiting lists. You not urgent or dying then your off the list.

     • Draco T Bastard 3.4.1

       25 June 2011 at 8:27 pm

       Actually, it was Labour that did that to the surgical waiting lists. National complained about it at the time.

4. Jenny 4

   25 June 2011 at 9:45 am

   .
   —NASTY—

   Kathleen Mcbride · Little Silver, New Jersey
   THIS IS SOME REALLY SCARY STUFF….
   · Reply · June 20 at 10:29pm

   Sheri Arbit Harris
   I do not like the looks of that!
   · Reply · Tuesday at 12:08pm

   Michelle Lipman Jeskie
   Me neither.
   · Reply · Tuesday at 6:29pm

   Paige Harris Klein · Administrative Assistant at Paladin Academy
   Not good…
   · Reply · Wednesday at 5:35pm

5. uke 5

   25 June 2011 at 10:05 am

   Concise critique of the rhetorical phrase “politics of envy” from the blog of the UK protest group Art Uncut:
   

   Why is the phrase ‘politics of envy’ deemed acceptable?
   14th March
   Quick blog to register hatred of the regressive phrase ‘politics of envy’. If an individual realises that those in the socio-economic group they were born into die a decade younger on average, or that their children’s life chances are significantly less than the children of those who can afford private education, or that the wages of those in ‘higher’ socio-economic groups have risen many, many times faster in the last thirty years than the wages of those in their own, and as a result of this realisation gets a bit angry, I think that we should call this ‘legitimate grievance’ rather than ‘petty jealousy’. The phrase ‘politics of envy’ is very ugly indeed. I hope in the future this phrase is deemed unacceptable in the way that racist or homophobic terms are now deemed unacceptable.
6. William Joyce 6

   25 June 2011 at 10:30 am

   Like lawyers, you can always find a scientist who will disagree with you, and here’s one…….

   • ianmac 6.1

     25 June 2011 at 10:50 am

     And William, don’t you love the last sentence:
     “The prime minister does not share the view of Mike Joy, and has no further comment to make.”

     • freedom 6.1.1

       25 June 2011 at 1:58 pm

       images of John in the office, fingers waggling above his head going nyah nyah nanaanyah

7. ZeeBop 7

   25 June 2011 at 11:31 am

   Sick? Then you don’t need food? How about you dance for your food?
   Welcome to NZ. Future Focus policy means the sick will be threaten
   with the reduction and cessation of money to by food, health care, pay
   rents. Zeit Heil.

   Doctors may if patients don’t take their medicine stop feeding
   them hospital food, if they are too poor to have relatives bring
   them food, how is that the Doctors problem?

8. ianmac 8

   25 June 2011 at 12:00 pm

   What happens if a country defaults on its financial obligations? Iceland though having only 330,000 population did so and fed up with the mainstream parties elected some Bob and Ben likeness instead.
   What would happen if Greece or Portugal or Ireland took the same stand? What would happen if Bill English dealt with NZ needs rather than that of the Credit Agencies.
   Iceland bears watching. (And they promised a polar bear in their zoo.)
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10734332

   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     25 June 2011 at 2:28 pm

     the main threat is that NZ would no longer be able to access borrowed hard foreign currency for which to pay for critical overseas imports incl. fuel, drugs, machine parts, information technology.

     Travel overseas would become near on impossible as the value of the NZ dollar collapses. A simple Big Mac in Sydney would end up costing NZ$30 or NZ$40, if you could get anyone to change your NZD to begin with.

     In this capitalist international game it is always better to be a net lender rather than a net borrower.

     As long as you don’t lend to basket case countries of course. French and Germany banks who were lending ginourmous sums of money into Greece would have known looking at Greece’s national income, that those loans could not be paid back in any kind of commercially acceptable timeframe.

     • Herodotus 8.1.1

       25 June 2011 at 2:53 pm

       There was a country that tried this policy of Autarky and look what happened to Albania, they regressed more so than any other East European country. Turkey may yet have to follow this policy just to keep the $$ flowing.
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky
       As some have commented regarding petro-chemicals – for this group of products the policy could become a reality by default. Hate to see all our earnings being spent on debt servicing and oil !!

       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         25 June 2011 at 3:09 pm

         Iceland unilaterally told their creditors where to go and for the moment, it seems to be working better as an approach than what Spain and Greece have done.

         • Herodotus 8.1.1.1.1

           25 June 2011 at 3:40 pm

           Iceland did display boldness that has ben lacking elsewhere. But when you live in a country that has everything now going its way (Once Global Warming really takes off, and we see a replay of the early 2nd millenium) and that it has eyjafjallajokull that can stop Europe in its tracks whenever it so desires !!
           I cannot see how Greece can solve its financial issues, like America all that happens is a build up of pressure until it finally blows up (with a few growing excedingly wealthy at the expense of the masses). That is the problem with what Greece gave us, democracy. We the voter will not vote for pain (Turkeys and Christmas) and the pollys have no idea or fortitude re the (painful) cure.
           On a side issue Icelands demise resulted in my team relagated to the 1st division, so there was some paid experienced 🙂

           • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1.1

             25 June 2011 at 3:46 pm

             Question is, is the pain proposed being evenly shared?

             How is it for instance that in the case of Greece, none of the bondholders/big investment banks are being asked to share the pain, say by taking 25% haircuts?

             It seems that it’s only ordinary Greek citizens and Greek workers being asked to suffer.

             • Herodotus …

               25 June 2011 at 4:01 pm

               This to me seems like a replay of Muldoonism or a poorly semi managed Economy. Where our living stds are propped up by borrowings, we (in this case Greece) has been very generous to its citizens given what it was able to earn. We, as most 1st world countries are in various forms are in the same boat, one day we will come to reality and have to accept dramatic decrease in living stds. Just as well as the filthy rich (many faceless individuals and families that the popularis has no idea who they are ) have their nest egg to “Go Private” when the crap hits the spinning thingy.
               This also displays the weakness of the EU in that here are the rules e.g deficits, current accs and who followed them and who policed them? Now we have G.B. being asked to assist in the bailout and they are not even part of the Eurozone.
               http://www.businessinsider.com/greece-uk-bail-out-2011-6

               • Colonial Viper …

                 25 June 2011 at 6:03 pm

                 Greece has had a massive problem with tax evasion and corruption for years. No doubt about that.

                 Question remains, are ordinary Greeks and Greek workers going to be the only ones who suffer for the foolishness of their elites consorting with the investment banking and international finance types.

                 one day we will come to reality and have to accept dramatic decrease in living stds.

                 And to repeat the question again in a different way: who is this “WE” you are talking about who is going to have to “accept dramatic decreases in living standards”?

                 Is it just the ordinary workers and people again? How about the richest 2% of NZ society, are they going to accept dramatic decreases in THEIR living standards?

                 Or are they, as the pattern is emerging, just going to use the rest of us as a buffer to keep the status quo for themselves.

                 Note that National did not cut MP’s own super schemes when they cut KiwiSaver. Another example of the pain not being evenly shared.

                 • Herodotus …

                   25 June 2011 at 9:17 pm

                   My referring to “We” are all those who do not have enough to not care less because most 90%+ require the benefit of the collective not to live off our”success”.
                   And re Greece there was from my reading a wide acceptance of tax evasion, yet again we see who benefits from all this speculation and not paying their social contributions for all. AND WE STILL BAIL THEM OUT !!!
                   http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/20/greece-promises-crack-down-on-tax-evasion
                   Yes re Nat agreed yet Lab were the same in power remember the 2-4% pay rises we all got (most years behind inflation and further behind the real cost of living increases) and the PM and MPs being in double digit pay rises and blaming the detached, impartial system (that they set up)?And they increased their tax free allowances to over $13k no basis for it just another (elephant in the room )perk. At least in old NZ it was far more egalitarian when blue/white/Mp’s/City councilors and the chiefs of industry did intermingle at baches, sports and schools. Now (technically NZ is not a class society yet by acedamic definition) we are progressing into a well divided society, with all the infighting and positioning from those groups who are all losing out and going backwards, bar the top 2-5% of the pop. and very few can see it.

                   • logie97 …

                     25 June 2011 at 11:13 pm

                     ianmac and c.v.
                     I just wonder if those big producer economies would actually let New Zealand become a basket case. They would also have too much to lose. We are a good and reliable market. New Zealand has always been a first world country. I cannot believe that forces within the producer industries would let their governments let NZ go down the plug. They might force austerity measures on us, but the minions might also demand a re-dividing of the cake. I think the likes of the absentee investors in our economy are the ones who have the most to lose. We are an energy rich nation, and we would be able to take back ownership of our resources… begins to sound better all the time… yep let’s default and take our nation back.

9. Morrissey 9

   25 June 2011 at 2:35 pm

   http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/10/20/39350-ccu-spokesperson-helen-kelly-peter-jackson-is-a-spoilt-brat/

   Blithering old Alisdair Thompson is not the only powerful bully confronted by Helen Kelly in the last twelve months. Please enjoy this blast from the recent past…

   Helen Kelly: “Peter Jackson is a spoilt brat.”

   October 20th, 2010 by Altaira

   Ataahua, one of our Kiwi connections, just posted on our Hobbit discussion board that Helen Kelly, president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU) has just been interviewed on Newstalk ZB. Highlights:

   The move offshore is financially-driven, not actor-driven
   “The issue is that countries are offering double the tax breaks (of New Zealand). Warners are in the process of doing as much damage as they can (to the NZ film industry) to get what they want. “New Zealand can compete on films if the tax system is right. We have to have the right financial conditions to compete.” She said New Zealand competes on talent and skills and we shouldn’t have to accept lower overseas conditions to be competitive.

   A resolution was close
   “We’re working with SPADA. Warners is fully aware that we’re within an inch of resolving this but they’re deciding to go this way. “The union is the way to unionise the film industry, and what is the problem with this? We have manufacturing and call centres going offshore, and are you suggesting that our actors shouldn’t be unionised?”

   PJ’s role in the dispute
   “Peter Jackson is a spoilt brat, and saying that in this country I know is sacriligious. He organised a meeting last night through Weta Workshop and wound those technicians up with false information. They were played like a fiddle and took the bait. He shared information that we’re forbidden from sharing and said it’s the performers’ request to meet that has hurt The Hobbit. It is the fault of Three Foot Seven to move the movie to film The Hobbit.”

   http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/10/20/39350-ccu-spokesperson-helen-kelly-peter-jackson-is-a-spoilt-brat/

   • Murray 9.1

     25 June 2011 at 4:37 pm

     Didn’t she get her arse kicked over that.

     • RedLogix 9.1.1

       25 June 2011 at 6:15 pm

       Well now you come to mention it Murray, I have to say that I recall Alisdair’s behavior towards Helen Kelly during one TV interview as especially sneering and demeaning to her as a woman. It stuck in my memory as an interesting moment, revealing the man’s inner convictions in all their retro-ugliness.

       So yes Murray.. it’s transpired an arse got kicked alright.. and it hasn’t been Helen Kelly’s.

     • Morrissey 9.1.2

       25 June 2011 at 9:11 pm

       It was Peter Jackson that looked and sounded utterly out of his depth through that fiasco. He usually sat glumly and pathetically, while his terrifying minder and spokeswoman Philippa Boyens did all the talking.

       In stark and telling contrast to Jackson, Helen Kelly was articulate and strong throughout that unpleasant confrontation.

10. weka 10

    25 June 2011 at 4:09 pm

    I see the TTT byelection thread has disappeared. Hopefully it will be back after 7pm.

11. mikesh 11

    25 June 2011 at 5:23 pm

    “the main threat is that NZ would no longer be able to access borrowed hard foreign currency for which to pay for critical overseas imports incl. fuel, drugs, machine parts, information technology.

    Travel overseas would become near on impossible as the value of the NZ dollar collapses. A simple Big Mac in Sydney would end up costing NZ$30 or NZ$40, if you could get anyone to change your NZD to begin with.”

    This assumes of course that other countries will no longer wish to buy our products. This seems unlikely given that food shortages seem to be looming. In fact a slight drop in the dollar would probably be beneficial. And, let’s face it, default on our part would probably lead to a large reduction in payments for “invisibles”.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      25 June 2011 at 6:24 pm

      – Yes we will still sell a lot overseas, but when you look at the balance of payments you can see that we will be shortages of hard foreign currency fairly fast.

      – A slight drop in the dollar to say 70c would be hugely beneficial for NZ industry. I was really talking of say a 90% (or larger) drop, which would occur after a loan default.

      None of this is unmanageable of course, Iceland and Argentina are still around, and those are only a few recent examples.

      • KJT 11.1.1

        25 June 2011 at 6:55 pm

        Mostly our real tradeables sector is in credit.

        It is invisibles, mostly interest and profit repatriation which keep us in deficit.

        A drop in the value of the dollar would help of course.

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1

          25 June 2011 at 6:59 pm

          Thanks for the pointer. Nationalisation of a few banks might be handy too.

        • RedLogix 11.1.1.2

          25 June 2011 at 7:09 pm

          Yes KJT… it’s astounding how many folk have no idea about this fundamental structural imbalance in our economy. The root cause is simple:

          Far too much of the NZ economy has been sold to overseas owners

          Now there is nothing wrong with some direct foreign investment as long as it meets two conditions:

          1. It actually creates new wealth and opportunity, as distinct to merely capturing existing assets to rent back to us.

          2. It is balanced by a similar level of FDI by New Zealand overseas; in other words the investment flows in and out of the country roughly balance each other over the medium term.

          NZ has categorially failed on both counts. As a result something in the order of 7-9% of our GDP dissapears offshore EVERY year. This is one of the most important reasons why NZ has failed to meet it’s potential in the last 30 years or so, and why the extreme neo-liberal, free market experiment inflicted on this country was completely wrong.

          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.2.1

            25 June 2011 at 7:38 pm

            +1

            Try and tell the politicians that though.

          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.2.2

            25 June 2011 at 10:01 pm

            RL, I’d add a third condition which is really making part of 1. that you have already listed more explicit.

            3. It brings new scientific, technological or process capabilities to New Zealand which add value to our economy and which we did not have before.

12. Bunji 12

    25 June 2011 at 6:41 pm

    The public service is feeling the pain of all Bill’s cuts…
    Ministry of fear and insecurity as state servants wait for axe

    • marsman 12.1

      25 June 2011 at 6:52 pm

      Fear and insecurity for state servants, fear and insecurity for solo mums, fear and insecurity for earthquake victims. The National Party do fear and insecurity very well, choose a group within society and pick on that group. Provides distractions for their real business which goes on in back-rooms and involves shady deals.

      • rosy 12.1.1

        25 June 2011 at 7:13 pm

        And at the same time there is work to be done. With staff gone, the jobs go to the friends of NAct . More money for those who already have plenty.

        A private consultant awarded a $54,135 contract for two months’ work says he was given the job because of “staffing gaps” at the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry.

13. Jum 13

    25 June 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Found this in the on-line comments of NZH and a follow-up reply from Josh – thank you Josh.

    Just Me (North Shore City)
    09:05 AM Friday, 27 May 2011
    No, no change in my vote.
    At least National will make some money off the sales, unlike Labour who sold Tranz Rail to Toll for $1. Yes, not a typo, One Dollar. And then they bought it back for $665 million minus the profitable road transport division.
    35 likes

    Josh (New Zealand)
    10:31 AM Friday, 27 May 2011

    Uhh, actually Toll sold the tracks to the Government for a dollar. New Zealand Rail Ltd was sold in 1993 to Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation and two other investment groups who proceeded to strip it of valuable assets in order to pay down debt and lease costs that were unaffordable. TheGovernment then purchased the company back in 2008 for $665 million dollars to avoid the complete destruction of NZ’s railway system, and to prevent the continued degradation of services.
    31 Likes

    Just more Crosby and Textor John Key clones peddling their lies on national media. Surely the Herald picked up on it. If they did and left it in the comments then that makes liars of them and their foreign owners too. We had enough nasty lying against Labour in the 2008 election. This year NActMU will do whatever it takes. Labour, Progressive, Greens don’t turn your backs on anyone remotely like a NActMU MP or party follower. They are patently dangerous to New Zealanders wanting to retain what is left of an egalitarian society.

14. Robert M 14

    25 June 2011 at 10:09 pm

    What a joke, toll were even less constructive than Tranz Rail. David Richwhite gave rail a Chance, they tried and tested whether the freight system was any use, invested in a lot of new track and fast wagons in 1993-8, ran the freight trains at maximum speed, even tried to make the long distance passenger trains which labour under Kirk, Freer, Douglas and Prebble would never spend any real money or new investment on, work. Clark and Ron Donald just scrapped them. Eay Richwhite brought the second hand Brit rail carriages and the Perth units that gave passenger rail a chance in this country.
    The toll trains cruised around this counry in Australain national war bonnet colors. They were basically Australain corporate mafia who never invested a cent of real money in NZ. Jum get back to Sth London and Cameron and Borris will treat slum dwellers like you in the appropriate manner

    • Jum 14.1

      26 June 2011 at 1:01 am

      Robert M.

      Robert M said “Jum get back to Sth London and Cameron and Borris will treat slum dwellers like you in the appropriate manner”

      And why would you think I would be needing to go back to South London? I’d much rather stay here and highlight your idiocy, you nasty little creature.

      Public transport is a public good for the use of New Zealanders who need to get from A to B without a car. You bxstards are so selfish and greedy that you have no empathy for those people.

      The issue is never about making a profit; your idiot Key/Joyce government is deliberately under-resourcing rail in favour of road. Fay/Richwhite were two of the criminal class that ripped all New Zealanders off; Bolger’s government sold Rail in 93 and we lost a useful apprenticeship scheme.

      The best result that occurred was Cullen buying it back; it made no difference in the end what we paid for it because whatever money was left was given by your idiot Key/English government to rich pricks.

15. Morrissey 15

    25 June 2011 at 10:09 pm

    
    Lowkey: Our Taxes Are in the Bullets Being Fired at People

    This guy is an entertainer with a heart, a conscience and a brain. Respect!

16. Jim Nald 16

    25 June 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Men struation or Men cold:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/5192746/Its-true-Mens-colds-are-worse

    Something to flu mmox Alasdair Tamponson

17. Penny Bright 17

    26 June 2011 at 1:16 am

    FYI folks – forwarded on behalf of Sue Henry (who doesn’t have a computer)

    25 June 2011

    PRESS RELEASE: Response from Sue Henry Spokesperson Housing Lobby:
    “STOP PRIVATISATION OF STATE HOUSING ASSETS!”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10734409

    “Thousands to come off housing list” By Simon Collins Saturday Jun 25, 2011
    ________________________________________________________________

    “With the continuation of Auckland’s serious housing crisis and families still languishing in sheds, garages and overcrowded and sub-standard accommodation, including those left homeless in Christchurch – the last thing any decent Government should be doing is privatising the state housing stock, using charities such as the Salvation Army and ‘trusts’ in a mixed economy to do it,” says Sue Henry, Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.

    “It is totally unacceptable to have Government policies in the 21st century that create instability, transience and homelessness.

    There are several other aspects that are very concerning:

    The ‘housing crisis’ will not be fixed by taking people off the waiting list.

    Prime Minister John Key promised that there would be no asset sales in this first term of government. This is what John Key promised on 14 April 2008:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00195.htm

    “Transcript: Agenda IV’s John Key
    Monday, 14 April 2008, 10:57 am
    Article: Agenda

    GUYON Alright you rightly point out it was sold by the National government in 1998 now that brings us to this position. What is your position now as a National Party on state asset sales?

    JOHN Well National’s had some time to reflect on that and the position that we’ve decided to have is the following one. That in the first term of the National government there will be no state assets that will be sold either partially or fully.

    GUYON So no state assets, you’re completely firm on that?

    JOHN That’s right.”
    ________________________________________________________________

    “But Housing Minister Phil Heatley has said ‘some iwi groups wanted to take over managing state houses rather than buying them, but the Government wanted to sell them.’

    Prime Minister John Key is breaking this promise.

    The proposed sale of any state housing stock must cease forthwith.”

    Housing Lobby Spokesperson Sue Henry drew attention to what Prime Minister John Key had stated on 12 March 2007 – that he didn’t ‘ favour a move back to market-related rents.’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10428292

    Before the 2008 election, National’s stated policy on housing, as declared by Phil Heatley on 22 July 2008, included the following:

    National Party promised to keep at least the existing number of state houses if it wins this year’s election.

    National would not sell state houses to outside investors, as it did in the 1990s, and would use the proceeds of sales to tenants to buy or lease new state houses.

    “We won’t be running down the state housing stock. We acknowledge that we need it.”

    Mr Heatley said the party would now keep Labour’s policy of fixing state house rents at only 25 per cent of the tenants’ incomes except for tenants on high incomes.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10522930

    “This will be yet another broken promise,” says Ms Henry.

    “Why then would the ‘social housing unit’ (which should also be scrapped forthwith because it has no public mandate), be asked to ‘propose a new system of subsidising housing costs to replace the income-related rent subsidy for state houses?,” she continued.

    [He [Housing Minister Phil Heatley] told the Weekend Herald that the new social housing unit, due to start in the Department of Building and Housing on July 1, would be asked to propose a new system of subsidising housing costs to replace the current income-related rents for state houses and accommodation supplement for the private sector within the next six to 12 months.’]

    “This is ludicrous.

    The Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) works extremely well for tenants trying to manage on a low income.

    The system is not broken.

    It doesn’t need to be tampered with by vested interests,” concluded Ms Henry.

    Sue Henry
    Spokesperson
    Housing Lobby

    Ph (09) 575 6344
    __________________________________________________________________________

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS