Open mike 26/01/2011

90 comments on “Open mike 26/01/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. IrishBill 1

   26 January 2011 at 7:08 am

   I see Watkins and Kay have moved to identify the big issues in the wake of Goff’s tax announcement:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4580676/Phil-Goffs-job-to-dye-for
   • Marty G 1.1

     26 January 2011 at 7:12 am

     seen the herald yet? there’s no article on goff’s speech itself. But there’s one about the man having a dye-job.

     Looks like we’ve got a few political journos applying for jobs as Women’s Weekly.
     • IrishBill 1.1.1

       26 January 2011 at 7:22 am

       Jesus, Watkins being a hack didn’t surprise me but I thought better of Claire than that. Looking at the carefully prepared quotes from Key it looks like they’ve been fed a line.
     • M 1.1.2

       26 January 2011 at 8:46 am

       ‘Looks like we’ve got a few political journos applying for jobs as Women’s Weekly.’

       Nice one Marty.

       Anti-spam: reads
     • Carol 1.1.3

       26 January 2011 at 10:15 am

       There’s an op ed on Goff’s speech by Martin Kay in the Herald online now, and 2 righties have already jumped in with (erroneous) anti-Labour or anti-Goff comments.

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/martin-kay-on-politics/4582125/Goff-pitches-for-the-centre

       eg saying Goff is hypocritical because he’s exploiting a tax loophole with his Wellington house.
   • millsy 1.2

     26 January 2011 at 7:54 am

     From complaining about Helen’s dress sense and (lack of) femininity, to Phil Goff’s hair colour, the NZ press seems to have it in for Labour politicians appearences.
2. orange whip? 2

   26 January 2011 at 8:10 am

   Not that it should matter, but the correct answer to “have you dyed your hair?” is “yep, now about this unemployment…”

   Does Goff has ANYONE advising him?

   How the hell am I supposed to vote for him if he can’t give a straight answer to THAT?
   • Blighty 2.1

     26 January 2011 at 8:17 am

     yeah it was disappointing that he just didn’t say what you suggest.
   • luva 2.2

     26 January 2011 at 8:22 am

     I agree, why try spinning something that doesn’t need to be spun.

     So rather than comparing policies today the media will be comparing before and after shots of Goff.
   • big bruv 2.3

     26 January 2011 at 8:27 am

     Yes he does, he has a fearless and independent ex journalist called Fran advising him.

     Well…Fran is Micky’s idea of independent anyway.
3. mickysavage 3

   26 January 2011 at 8:16 am

   Key and Blinglish were on morning report this morning decrying labour’s tax plans on the basis they were unaffordable. I was waiting for the killer question from the interviewers but it never came.

   The killer question would be along the lines of “but your tax cuts were not affordable either. They were underfunded by a billion dollars for the first year and they relied on heroic growth predictions to be revenue neutral going on into the future”.

   The next point should have been that Labour are prepared to borrow for tax cuts for the poor and National to give tax cuts for the rich.

   Oh for a left wing version of Sean Plunkett …
   • big bruv 3.1

     26 January 2011 at 8:26 am

     So you want the entire NZ media to have a screaming left wing bias Micky?

     I take it that if you have the chance you will pass a law that makes speaking out against Labour a crime…..oh hang on, think you might have already tried that.

     Seriously, does it not highlight the insane situation of the government owning any media organisation?

     The media should be free to take any angle they want, the government (or the tax payer) has no place being in business.
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       26 January 2011 at 8:38 am

       So you want the entire NZ media to have a screaming left wing bias Micky?

       Actually a bit of balance would be good. The media should be independent and ask the hard questions of all sides.

       I was at Goff’s meeting yesterday. The hall was jam packed and his speech was exceptionally well received. I am finding it difficult to reconcile what happened with what the media are saying. All the media seem to be doing is buying into the lines they are being fed by Key.

       And Blinglish lied this morning when he talked about tax increases for the middle class. This was definately excluded and the middle class will be getting a tax cut. He was not brought to task on this.

       All I am asking BB is for the tough questions to be asked and ALL of our politicians being brought to task.
       • luva 3.1.1.1

         26 January 2011 at 8:43 am

         Questions like, “how are we going to pay for this $10 dollar a week tax cut”, would be a good start
       • Olwyn 3.1.1.2

         26 January 2011 at 8:51 am

         I saw this right wing bias go up a notch or two in 2008, and it has not changed since. Sean Plunkett was the exception – whatever his political leanings, he did seem to remember that his job was in journalism, not PR. This morning’s headlines suggest a continued resolve to deprive Labour of oxygen and retain control of the narrative. How I long for the day that this kind of journalism loses all credibility, and is left bleating excitedly into an empty room.
         • mickysavage 3.1.1.2.1

           26 January 2011 at 9:44 am

           And Rob Salmond at Pundit comments on the Dominion Post showing its true colours.

           From the post:

           [T]oday’s Dominion Post article is one of the clearer instances of anti-Labour bias in news reporting in recent memory. Vernon Small and Tracy Watkins, who are usually fine journalists, should be pretty ashamed this morning.

           The full post is at http://pundit.co.nz/content/dompost-tries-to-kneecap-labours-tax-policy
     • south paw 3.1.2

       26 January 2011 at 8:56 am

       The media play a central part in a democracy, it should not be dominated by business. Right now we live in a Murdochracy = trashy tabloid ‘news’, with HOT gossip!

       Julian Assange is an illustrative example of what happens if you have some real news to report.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3

       26 January 2011 at 11:41 am

       Well, I for one, want the MSM to report reality rather than the RWNJ delusion.
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.1

         26 January 2011 at 11:47 am

         Does anyone here have first hand (or second hand) information on whether or not the GAG machine QLD is said to have requested back has been removed from the mine? Or is it still there and operational?
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     26 January 2011 at 11:40 am

     As it’s the RWNJ capitalists that own the MSM you won’t get one. The information coming from there is biased in favour of the right to keep people misinformed.
     • mickysavage 3.2.1

       26 January 2011 at 1:10 pm

       Compare the Herald’s treatment of Goff’s and Key’s speeches.

       Goff
       – article on speech
       – two critiques of tax plan by right wing commentators
       – issue raised about whether or not he dyes his hair
       – headlines “First $5k tax free under Labour”, “Goff goes for broke with no-tax proposal” and “Goff goes over to the dark side”

       Key
       – video of Key’s criticism of Goff’s speech
       – speech reported in full
       – headline “Key set to boost nation’s savings” and “Key slams Labour’s tax plans”

       Can anyone see a slightly unbalanced treatment of the two speeches?
   • Vicky32 3.3

     27 January 2011 at 12:16 am

     Although encouragingly, I did see John Campbell asking those sort of questions on Campbell Live tonight… Amazing and what a pleasure!
     Deb
4. big bruv 4

   26 January 2011 at 8:28 am

   Ha ha….Watkins hits the nail on the head, Labour and Goff have become totally irrelevant to the people of NZ.
   • orange whip? 4.1

     26 January 2011 at 8:44 am

     Well they’re certainly relevant to you big bruv, you spend most of your days writing about them.

     Why do you hate lesbians?
     • Daveo 4.1.1

       26 January 2011 at 9:11 am

       His wife left him for one. True story.
       • NickS 4.1.1.1

         26 January 2011 at 3:46 pm

         Could just be that there “transgressing” of male gender roles just scares the shit of him too…
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     26 January 2011 at 11:48 am

     No BB, Labour have actually managed to become more relevant but the MSM have failed to report that. Instead they’re reporting what you want to hear rather than the facts.
5. Bored 5

   26 January 2011 at 8:30 am

   From todays Herald on the Botany national selection…..

   Right-leaning political commentator Matthew Hooton this week said he believedit was a two-horse race between Ms Barry, 51, and Mr Ross, 25.

   Hooton said on Radio NZ that Mr Ross had the advantage of being young and could bring voters to National who may not have voted for them before.

   The triumph of image over substance?
6. Hilary 6

   26 January 2011 at 8:45 am

   There have been a lot of rich white men putting down this policy in the media (and a right wing PR woman having a go at Phil Goff’s hair on the front page of the Dompost). But where are those voices from the NZ majority earning under $30,000, and that numerous group in the $12,000 to $15,000 bracket (such as superannuitants)? Haven’t heard them yet.
   • prism 6.1

     26 January 2011 at 12:03 pm

     Ag Concern has this to say about superannuation –
     New Zealand Superannuation has increased by $4.80 – $6.60 per person per week. This gives an income of around $13,000 – $17,000 per person (after tax) annually.
     For some older people, this isn’t enough to cover even a basic standard of living.

     Present superannuation rates (note that there is a single rate for one half of a married couple that is lower than others).
     Annual
     Single (living alone) $333.75 $17,355
     Single (sharing) $307.67 $15,999
     Married, civil union or de facto couple
     (both partners qualify) $511.06 $26,575
     ($13,288 each)
     Married, civil union or de facto couple
     (one partner qualifies)* $485.70 $25,256
     ($12,628 each)
     sorted websit4e
7. M 7

   26 January 2011 at 8:54 am

   I don’t know if anyone has seen the History Channel programme ‘Prophets of Doom’ with JHK, MCR, Nate Hagens, John Cronin, Professor Hugo De Garis and Robert Gleason but it’s worth a look.

   John Cronin is the water guy and almost dominated the discussion and of course his views are important but if there is no energy to pump water or it’s dirty, as Robert Gleason the nuke guy pointed out, then if there’s thermo nuclear war it won’t be worth worrying about. Hugo de Garis is the artificial intelligence guy and talked about how robots might be able to overcome humanity but I couldn’t really buy that theory because if there’s no industrial economy to manufacture the circuitry then it’s unlikely and JHK was similarly sceptical.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSpLUpiMkj0

   Hagen’s comment about the FF windfall being so powerful that for all human intents and purposes it’s indistinguishable from magic was one of the best I’ve heard about our incredible luck.
   • Bored 7.1

     26 January 2011 at 11:18 am

     Just watched it, and read the comments. Couple of things stood out:
     1. The whole thing was US centric, the language was that of lament for empire (i.e. it was not only about the collapse of USA as a country but about its role in the world, very few other places got mentioned).
     2. The comments are genuinely concerning, there is a degree of ignorance and denial that would do the usual RWNJs on this site proud.

     All up, whats the most important issue of those mentioned? None specifically, really its the ability of humans to refuse to see the approaching cliff edge whilst worrying about a few more dollars and who should have them.
     • M 7.1.1

       26 January 2011 at 11:49 pm

       Granted it was US centric but as the population consumes 25% of energy supplies, and have an extroadinary amount of fat in the system that could be culled, it’s a useful tool to spell things out.

       The views expressed would be a good starting point to rev people up from their sleepwalking and as Ruppert said to get people to decide what future they want. His comment about not everyone being able to be saved and him wanting to help as many as possible may cause many to feel uneasy and take steps to prepare even if only mentally for a very uncertain future
8. jcuknz 8

   26 January 2011 at 8:56 am

   I think the thread by Bunji starts with something drastically wrong … $100/week …TV3 last night suggested it was around $10/week. My math without knowing actual figures 5000×15%/52 comes to about $14 a week. Or even at my tax rate of I think 17.5% comes to only $17 a week. Useful to buy four loaves of bread … but? $100/week works out at over 100% tax rate?
   • Olwyn 8.1

     26 January 2011 at 9:13 am

     Bunji’s calculation was based on the amount of untaxed income you get a week. This is approximately $100. What you actually gain is whatever tax you would have paid on that $100. Some one who earned $5,000 per year working part time would pay no tax at all.
   • Blighty 8.2

     26 January 2011 at 9:15 am

     It’s $100 a week of income tax-free (actually $5000/52.14 = $95.90 a week), which equates to $10 a week less tax because you’re currently paying the 10.5% tax rate on your first $5,000 of income ($96*0.105 = $10.06.

     “Or even at my tax rate of I think 17.5% comes to only $17 a week”

     Um… you realise that your income is taxed at different levels, eh? Your first $14,000 is currently taxed at 10.5%. Your next $34,000 is then taxed at 17.5%. And so on. If your marginal tax rate is 17.5% you aren’t paying 17.5% on every dollar you earn.
   • Bunji 8.3

     26 January 2011 at 9:16 am

     $100/week tax free or ~$10/week reduction in tax. Currently first $5000 is taxed at 10.5%, so reducing that to 0 will give everyone earning $5000 and above a $525 tax cut. A big difference to those on median wage, but petty cash to Bill & John.
     • jcuknz 8.3.1

       26 January 2011 at 9:25 am

       Thank you all … maybe it was mental telepathy but it hit me as I sat off line … but to me it sounds like misleading advertising. Not that I think it is a bad idea because I would have thought $10 a week will help those on the bottom rung. Talking about $10 seems more honest to me.
       • Bright Red 8.3.1.1

         26 January 2011 at 9:31 am

         Does ‘$5,000 a year tax free’ mislead you?

         Of course not. It’s just what the policy is – 0% tax on the first $5,000 of income

         Then why would ‘$100 a week tax free’ be any different?

         It’s just simple division.
9. jcuknz 9

   26 January 2011 at 9:04 am

   As ex-media I find these accusations of bias rather amusing with the right complaining about the left wing media and the left crying about right wing bias … LOL 🙂
   John Key’s denial “No dye it is just falling out” was a great put down at a silly question.
   • Blighty 9.1

     26 January 2011 at 9:16 am

     yeah. that was how to handle it. really weird that goff wasn’t prepared. a simple ‘yep’ would have killed the story.
     • Bunji 9.1.1

       26 January 2011 at 9:20 am

       It wouldn’t have though. The story would then just have been: “Goff dyes hair” and would have gone into why he felt it necessary.

       And to be fair, answering those questions does encourage the media to ask more personal questions (look at the intrusive interviews of Helen Clark and Don Brash’s houses in 2005, asking about sex life etc). And the more personal questions they’re asking, the less they focus on policy. Oh but that they would actually think (& talk) about policy…
       • Janice 9.1.1.1

         26 January 2011 at 11:20 am

         At the risk of being trivial, Key says no dye, why then does his hair always get darker when he is overseas at some polly bash where there will be opportunities for photo ops with the big boys?
         • Olwyn 9.1.1.1.1

           26 January 2011 at 12:16 pm

           And no one in the media has picked up the toupee rumour that bubbles way beneath the radar, and run with it, so to speak.
10. joe90 10

    26 January 2011 at 9:12 am

    Industry exec slams “inept” plan to mine parks.

    “They cherry-picked what they thought were areas of interest … if they’d asked the industry they would’ve told them none of them were of interest.”
    • vto 10.1

      26 January 2011 at 10:31 am

      Yes joe, very interesting. Makes me think that often-times Ministers are not so much going around doing backroom deals as they are simply bumbling around trying to enjoy their short term in office and making bunged up decisions on the hoof. More incompetent than dastardly. But I aint convinced (except when it comes to Brownlee).
11. vto 11

    26 January 2011 at 9:24 am

    So it transpires that there are bodies intact in Pike River. And pallets and bags of cement and other stuff.

    Egg on face for all those claiming that there would be no bodies and the miners families should believe John Key and David Farrar and give up. And sticky smelly egg at that.

    Yet again, those in authority have got it wrong at Pike River. Key is such a dick, and as for Farrar what a waste of space.

    National will lose the West Coast.
    • The Voice of Reason 11.1

      26 January 2011 at 9:30 am

      No bodies, VTO. It was a bit of wishful thinking from one of the relatives, having seen footage of an area unaffected by the explosions and leaping to the conclusion that there might still be intact remains close by.
12. Joe Bloggs 12

    26 January 2011 at 10:04 am

    Just howled with laughter reviewing some of yesterday’s lame comments from the Leftists trying desperately to defend Phil Grecian2k’s financial shortcomings in the numbers.

    Let me see – typical defence of G2k: It’s a speech for fuck’s sake, the numbers are irrelevant.

    Yeah right!
    • orange whip? 12.1

      26 January 2011 at 10:22 am

      Artificial memes aren’t really funny. Too forced.

      You’ll probably get Slater on board and a couple of mongs from kiwiblog but it doesn’t rhyme, it has no rhythm, there’s no wordplay and it doesn’t roll off the tongue.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        26 January 2011 at 10:38 am

        Oh, let Bloggs have his fun, it’ll give us ours 😀

        LAB has to make sure that it keeps the broad strokes very clear to the public, values, principles, PHILosophy. We are still at the Big Picture phase. With just sufficient detail that people know that much more is in the pipeline being worked on and coming.
13. randal 13

    26 January 2011 at 11:32 am

    looks like labour is about to hit the lead.
    john key is not the only kwee wee to get a job in a US money firm and we dont really need his brand of expertise.
    new zealand needs policy’s that will allow people to go ahead knowing that the future is safe and not about to be mortgaged so certain people can buy houses in the south of france.
14. Colonial Viper 14

    26 January 2011 at 11:49 am

    UK Economy in Shock Contraction -0.5% in last Quarter

    Must be Tories ruling, they’ve blamed their economic mismanagement on the weather.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/25/uk-economy-shrunk-point-five-per-cent
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      26 January 2011 at 12:10 pm

      It’s not a shock contraction, a hell of a lot of people said it would happen because of the austerity measures that the Tory government were putting in place.
      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1

        26 January 2011 at 12:16 pm

        But…but…the private sector was supposed to be picking up the slack right about now.

        You know, the same private companies who used to provide IT services, building services, catering services, recruitment services to Government depts and councils who are not buying any more…whoops.
15. Draco T Bastard 15

    26 January 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Key: National plans state asset sales

    Prime Minister John Key has announced plans to sell-off state assets and cut back Government spending.

    Well, he did only promise not to sell them in his first term so it’s no surprise that he’s getting ready to sell them in the second term. This line from Jonkey has all the hallmarks of idiocy that’s characteristic of NACT:

    “The way for New Zealand to get ahead is to sell more to the rest of the world.”

    So, according to Jonkey we’d be better off if we didn’t own any assets.

    EDIT: Move to here please 🙂
16. ianmac 16

    26 January 2011 at 12:39 pm

    As an aside and since there was talk of “touch-up photos” how about Maggie’s (supplied) photo?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10702029
17. Fisiani 17

    26 January 2011 at 1:26 pm

    [Deleted…pure trolling]
18. big bruv 18

    26 January 2011 at 1:28 pm

    24 hours on and all the media are talking about is Goff’s new hair.

    I love it!….ha ha ha
    • Draco T Bastard 18.1

      26 January 2011 at 1:38 pm

      You think that being misinformed is funny? Well, considering that you are psychopath, that shouldn’t surprise me at all.
      • big bruv 18.1.1

        26 January 2011 at 1:41 pm

        Nah..just proves that Labour are dead under his leadership.
        • The Voice of Reason 18.1.1.1

          26 January 2011 at 1:53 pm

          Yeah, real dead, Bruv.The NZH poll on the 5% tax break is running 2 to 1 in favour of Labour’s position and the Stuff poll on privatisation is running 2 to 1 against National’s sell off.

          How are you going to like having Goff as PM, Bruv? Coz that’s whats going to happen if it’s a battle between tax cuts for working Kiwis and privatisation of their assets.
          • big bruv 18.1.1.1.1

            26 January 2011 at 2:14 pm

            Is that the same NZH poll that you were encouraging people to vote on yesterday?

            The real polls tell us that Labour dropped 6%, after Goff’s nightmare yesterday he will have dropped even more.

            The public are just not listening, and, they will continue to ignore Labour until Labour stop acting like arrogant sods, it is time that Goff and the rest acknowledged that 08 was a total rejection of Clark and Labour, they need to admit that and apologise.

            [lprent: He wasn’t “..encouraging people to vote on..” – all he did was say that there was an online poll. Perhaps you should fact-check before bullshitting. ]
            • The Voice of Reason 18.1.1.1.1.1

              26 January 2011 at 2:39 pm

              Yep, that’s the one, Bludge. I’m not a big fan of either online polls or narrowcasted phone polls, but the NZH and Stuff ones clearly show that privatisation vs tax cuts is a winner for Labour. So stop packing yourself and start preparing for a change of leadership. If this is an indication of the issues the only poll that matters is going to fought on, I’m picking Key is going to be gone by lunchtime the next day.
            • prism 18.1.1.1.1.2

              26 January 2011 at 2:44 pm

              bb Could you make a note of what Labour should apologise for ? A useful numbered checklist which would put a hard edge on the confused contentions so often under your pseudo.
            • big bruv 18.1.1.1.1.3

              26 January 2011 at 4:15 pm

              Bit touchy today Iprent?, it’s not as if this site is known for having it’s facts right.

              Guess it has been a tough couple of days for you guys.
              • lprent …

                26 January 2011 at 4:35 pm

                I noticed you being a bit noisy – but that hardly qualifies as anything of much interest. Your ability to waffle in a fact free way without links is about the notable thing about your commenting style – probably why no-one really bothers much about what you say.

                I’ve been busy writing charting code. But I’d happened to click into that link when I was moderating yesterday so I remembered what he’d actually said. It was worth pulling you up on it.

                BTW: Have you sent the money to wikileaks yet?
                • big bruv …

                  26 January 2011 at 4:51 pm

                  You really are a nasty, bitter and twisted little lefty Iprent.

                  As for the money, it was paid to the SPCA as per the bet, and as for Wikileaks…well I am amazed that a left wing site would be in support of an alleged rapist.
                  • mickysavage …

                    26 January 2011 at 5:13 pm

                    Big bruv

                    This argument has been rehashed a number of times and it is absolutely clear you had to pay the money to the winner’s choice.

                    Your continued attempted rewriting of history and refusal to accept you are wrong is typical of RWNJ behaviour and only reinforces the left’s collective impression that you are talking through the preverbial.

                    Pay up.
                    • big bruv …

                      26 January 2011 at 7:30 pm

                      Micky

                      You of all people should know that one needs to be specific, the moron I made the bet with accepted the bet on the basis that the loser would donate $100 to a CHARITY.

                      Wikileaks (the web site of an alleged rapist) is not a charity.

                      And Micky, the argument has not been “rehashed” at all, I made the bet, I know what happened.
                      The problem is that the moron who made the bet is now trying to rewrite history (a common Labour problem), the bet is well over, debt paid and I have moved on.

                      Perhaps the Dunce who I had the bet with should do the same.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      26 January 2011 at 7:41 pm

                      Bruv, we all know what happened.

                      BLiP nominated wikileaks at the time of the bet. That was his condition of accepting the bet.

                      Later, you wrongly thought you’d won the bet and sought to get BLiP to pay confirming that you accepted that the bet was legitimate.

                      When it turned out you had lost the bet, you decided, all of a sudden, that you didn’t want to accept BLiP’s choice of charity.

                      If you didn’t think wikileaks was a charity the time to speak up was when the bet was being agreed to.
                  • Lanthanide …

                    26 January 2011 at 6:18 pm

                    Provide a scanned or photo’d receipt of your donation and we might let it slide. For maximum authenticity it should have a date of sometime back in 2010, but if you want to make the donation this week, I think we’ll grudgingly accept that too – better late than never.

                    You did get a receipt, right? You know that you can deduct donations from your tax and get a refund, so you’d be missing out on some money from the government if you didn’t.

                    So if you don’t have a receipt, you’re either an idiot (which we know), or lying (which we know).
                    • big bruv …

                      26 January 2011 at 8:10 pm

                      Come on now Pascal, I know you struggle in the IQ department but even you know that is not what happened.

                      BliP (I could not remember who the moron was who took the bet) stuffed up, that’s OK, it happens sometimes but his problem (and one you lefties all share) is an inability to admit you are wrong.

                      The bet was clearly offered on the basis that the loser had to pay $100 to a charity of the winners choice, I know this because I am the one who offered the bet.

                      BLiP nominated Wikileaks which is not a charity, and I was NEVER going to pay money to an alleged rapist anyway.
                      The difference between me and you guys is that a real charity got the money, the SPCA were the recipients of my $100, we both know they will make far better use of the money than the alleged rapists website will.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      26 January 2011 at 8:28 pm

                      But you wanted him to pay up when you thought, being an idiot, that you had won the bet.

                      At that time, BLiP had already said that paying wikileaks, should you lose, was the condition of him accepting the bet. That was the bet that he agreed to.

                      You could argue that the bet itself was therefore invalid, and that no-one owes anyone anything, but you missed the chance to do that when you sought to get him to pay up.

                      Say someone comes into my shop and I offer her a service for $100, and she responds by saying $50 and we’ve got a deal. I then say nothing but provide the service. What was the contracted price?

                      I say it was $50, because I believe contracts should be honoured on the terms that were agreed, not on the terms the loser decides they would, in hindsight, prefer.

                      That’s just one of the differences between us.
                    • Lanthanide …

                      26 January 2011 at 11:55 pm

                      Fine, you gave the money to the SPCA. Where’s the receipt of your donation?

                      Surely you’ll want to provide this as proof.
                  • lprent …

                    26 January 2011 at 9:59 pm

                    An organisation – wikileaks – is an alleged rapist? I think you have your usual fact check problem surfacing yet again…

                    How exactly is a non-profit organisation meant to do the dirty deed? A person at the head of a organisation is not the organisation. They usually have other people involved.

                    There are no charges against Assange who I suspect you meant. What there is is a extremely dubious interpol warrant (only meant to be used for actual charges) to drag Assange to Sweden for questioning about possible charges – that have already been previously dropped through lack of evidence.

                    However that wasn’t even an issue when you lost and welched on the bet.
          • Pete 18.1.1.1.2

            26 January 2011 at 2:44 pm

            Except that the Stuff poll is worded nothing like Key’s proposals:
            Should the Government sell key state assets?

            They’d get a different response from:
            Should the Government sell key state assets to give you a bigger tax cut?
            or
            Should the Government sell key state assets to avoid going broke?

            Online polls are so generalised and unscientific they can’t be relied on for anything.
            • The Voice of Reason 18.1.1.1.2.1

              26 January 2011 at 3:17 pm

              Why would Stuff run questions like that, Pete? That’s not what is being proposed and the question is simplicity itself and the results seem to confirm what we’ve known for years anyway. Kiwi’s don’t want the rest of the family silver flogged off and if Key thinks otherwise, he’s going down in history as a bloke who blew a landslide lead.
        • Draco T Bastard 18.1.1.2

          26 January 2011 at 3:38 pm

          I’ve decided that I love it to as JK just got caught lying – again. This time about not using hair dye. Wonder of the MSM will do anything about that? Probably not – they’re so used to being lied to from him I suppose it’s just another day on the job.
    • Armchair Critic 18.2

      26 January 2011 at 1:47 pm

      It’s mostly an indictment on the quality of the media.
      Do you think Maggie Barry has been dying her hair, too? Either way, does it make her a better or worse candidate for National in Botany?
    • the pink postman 18.3

      26 January 2011 at 3:27 pm

      – It just goes to show what a lot of Right -Wing plonkers we have running the countries media. Even Morning Report is showing a ACT/NAT bias.
      Its quite anti – democratic and we should all be concerned whatever your political leanings. The only good in this situation is that the Tory Press is going broke. Granny Herald has become a rag and not worth reading , I wonder what how many people now subscribe. I do know that they keep,offering “bargains” a sure sign of falling membership.
      If this tax policy takes on ;as I think it will” well just watch the anti Labour headlines from the Tory press.
      • Vicky32 18.3.1

        27 January 2011 at 12:46 am

        “I do know that they keep,offering “bargains” a sure sign of falling membership.”
        And freebies in the street… I got one last Monday! What was so amusing was that the poor guy in the bright yellow DayGlo vest was having a terrible time trying to give it away.. He gave me a look of pure gratitude when I accepted my free Herald.
        Deb
19. Draco T Bastard 19

    26 January 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Top politics story at the NZ herald. It really just enforces the fact that the journalists aren’t there to inform the populace any more.
20. the pink postman 20

    26 January 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Now I wonder what the reaction to Key’s announcement regarding the selling of State Assets will be to the Maori Party. Are they going to agree to this?Will Turia smile, cosy up,to Keys and tell us what a good idea this is. If she agrees to this sell up it could be the final nail in the coffin for the Maori Party,
21. ianmac 21

    26 January 2011 at 3:43 pm

    This is a rather cunning column in the Herald quoting Peter Simpson NZPF: “NCEA needs to be reviewed”

    “According to Minister Anne Tolley, one of the strengths of national standards is that they are supposed to scaffold to the NCEA qualification. Her stated aim is to lift the number of students leaving school with NCEA qualifications.”

    This aim made little sense in a context of allowing NCEA to be an optional qualification and made even less sense that Ms Tolley would insist that national standards must be compulsory when they are designed to link up with a qualification that was not, he said.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702134
    • ianmac 21.1

      26 January 2011 at 7:34 pm

      And now a funny little piece from the Herald:

      “Prime Minister John Key says that while Auckland Grammar might be within the law over its approach to NCEA, it has to be mindful of what parents want.

      The school plans to encourage most students to take the private Cambridge exams.
      Mr Key said yesterday that for the most part, the secondary schools assessment system had “settled down” and for the bulk of children was delivering “good outcomes”.”

      And that was it. No more appeared????
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702005
22. ianmac 22

    26 January 2011 at 7:25 pm

    John Campbell interviewed John Key tonight. John Key used the phrase “Mum and Dad” as investors or owners umpteen times. Message therefore that it will be OK because good old Mum and Dad will own those Energy entities. Thank goodness then.
    There has been some great training going on there.
23. The Voice of Reason 23

    26 January 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Big Bruv at 8.10, in trying to weasel out of honouring a losing bet, claims that Wikilleaks is not a charity. He also acknowledges his contempt for the concept of innocent till proven guilty, but that’s so obviously a spurious reason to not pay up that it’s not worth wasting time on.

    “BLiP nominated Wikileaks which is not a charity, and I was NEVER going to pay money to an alleged rapist anyway.”

    Wikileak’s financial arm is indeed a charity and all donations to Wikileaks, by money transfer or via internet, quite literally go to charity. de Wau Holland Stifting to be precise, a registered and tax exempt German charity. So pay up, bludger, you’ve been done like a kipper, son. Again.

    http://www.wauland.de/english.html
    • BLiP 23.1

      27 January 2011 at 9:07 am

      Yep. Big Bludge took the bet with the intent of NEVER paying

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 25 January 2011 at 5:07 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS