Open mike 29/02/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 29th, 2012 - 87 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

87 comments on “Open mike 29/02/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure.. 1
    29 February 2012 at 7:04 am

    http://whoar.co.nz/2012/commentwhoar-media-mindlessly-parrots-anti-marijuana-lie-and-the-fact-that-disproves-that-lie/

    ed:..you know the one..

    …how..to scare parents who no longer smoke..the current big-lie is that cannabis is now four times stronger than it used to be…when they smoked it..

    ..here it is..the lie..

    “..A study involving the police and Environmental Science and Research released last month found that levels of THC, the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis, was more than four times stronger than in 1996 when ESR last tested it.

    Police and ESR used sophisticated hydroponic equipment to complete three growing cycles, nursing six plants at a time to maturity. The study revealed the drug was more than four times as strong as in 1996…”

    (ed:..as you can tell from the information…

    ..esr-techs grew pot in the ultimate perfect-conditions….perfect-nutrition/temps/growing-conditions..

    ..and surprise surprise..they got a good result…

    ..so what has been done..to create the big/scary-lie.. ..is to claim that result they got..is the new thc-standard of pot grown in new zealand..

    ..which if you think about for a nano-second…

    ..is a farcical comparison..

    ..and the fact that disproves this big lie..?

    ..the irrefutable facts are found in court records both here and in america..

    ..where busted-dope has been tested for thc-content..as part of the court process..

    ..so the record of these tests cannot be questioned..

    ..and what they show is that the/any increases in thc-levels from the 1970′s until now in busted-pot..

    ..are minimal…

    ..and certainly nowhere near this big ‘four-times-stronger’lie now being mindlessly parroted by the media/pot-prohibitionists…

    ..as a result of this ‘ideal-grow’…

    ..don’t believe the lies..people..

    phil-at-whoar.

    • CnrJoe 1.1
      29 February 2012 at 8:17 am

      I’m sorry phil, I did read yr entry… but yr writing…style….. 

      • phillip ure.. 1.1.1
        29 February 2012 at 8:22 am

        no capital letters throw you does it..?

        you wouldn’t be a virgo by any chance would you..?

        phil-at-whoar.

        • Kevin Welsh 1.1.1.1
          29 February 2012 at 8:28 am

          Unfortunately Phil, star signs have nothing to do with it.

          You comments are a pain in the ass to figure out so I just flick past them. You may have valid points and useful commentary, but I’m not going cross-eyed trying to work out the sentence structure.

          • phillip ure.. 1.1.1.1.1
            29 February 2012 at 9:11 am

            ok..yr call..

            ..it’s just that over the years i have found many virgos to be anally-retentive to a very high degree…

            ..and liable to get over-engaged over the trivial..

            ..eh..?

            ..taurus..?..maybe..?

            ..(i hope you can read/comprehend this..eh..?..)

            phil-at-whoar.

            • Kevin Welsh 1.1.1.1.1.1
              29 February 2012 at 9:27 am

              Not even close. Your knowledge of star signs is as confusing as your typing.

              • phillip ure.. …
                29 February 2012 at 9:30 am

                whew..!..that’s a relief..!

                ..you managed to read/comprehend it..

                ..well done..!..eh..?

                see..it wasn’t so hard..was it..?

                phil-at-whoar.

                • Gosman …
                  29 February 2012 at 10:03 am

                  Why do you do it though? I mean I could understand if you were trying to save time by not capitalising. But then you use multiple full stops in every line and over use exclamation marks for no real purpose that I can see. So you can’t be doing it to make it easier for you to write and, as numerous people have pointed out, it doesn’t make it easier to read. Why do it then?

                  • phillip ure.. …
                    29 February 2012 at 11:09 am

                    i started to use it at whoar to differentiate between words i had written..

                    ..and others i was quoting..

                    ..and i grew to like it…

                    ..for a range of reasons..

                    ..including how easy it is on the eye..

                    ..basically..capital letters are bullshit/fake-honorifics..

                    (..and brutish/ugly to look at..)

                    ..and a residual of the english class-system..

                    ..and the need to cram as many words as possible onto an (expensive) piece of paper..

                    ..i bow to the dictate that each idea/sentence deserves its’ own line/space..

                    ..(the white stuff around the words is now free..eh..?..no trees were/get hurt.).

                    ..and whoar..!..you should have seen the hue/cry/screams of protest..

                    ..at the introduction of the paragraph..eh..?

                    ..just think of yr reaction as that..redux..mmkay..?

                    phil-at-whoar.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 February 2012 at 11:11 am

                      I can read your stuff but its like an overextended bad Haiku

                      Does give a different effect then block text though.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      29 February 2012 at 11:46 am

                      Rubbish. It’s not easy on the eye at all and makes your thoughts meaningless on the page. It just makes you look like an illiterate prat.

                    • Gosman …
                      29 February 2012 at 12:09 pm

                      Why don’t you just use quotes to distinguish between the words you write and the ones you quote. I mean that is what they were designed for after all.

                      It seems as though you wish to create your own punctuation system. This is fine if you do this in your own world. However to then attempt to use it with people who don’t and not expect to get pulled up on it it seems a little idiotic. It is kind of like going to a a place like Germany and yelling at them in English and then wondering why they find you a little strange.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      29 February 2012 at 12:33 pm

                      i started to use it at whoar to differentiate between words i had written..

                      ..and others i was quoting..

                      That’s why we use blockquote. Also, putting large amounts of white space between words fails to differentiate them enough to tell the difference between what you wrote and what you’re quoting.

                      ..including how easy it is on the eye..

                      Which it isn’t.
                      ˙ʇɐɯɹoɟ/ɹɐɯɯɐɹƃ ʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp ɐ ǝsn oɥʍ sɹǝɥʇo oʇ ǝʇɐɔıunɯɯoɔ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ʇ,uoʍ ʇı ʇnq ɹǝʇʇǝq pǝʞool ʇı ʇɥƃnoɥʇ I ɟı spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ǝʇıɹʍ plnoɔ I

                      ..i bow to the dictate that each idea/sentence deserves its’ own line/space..

                      We have paragraphs for a reason – they get across a point more accurately than a single sentence.

                  • phillip ure.. …
                    29 February 2012 at 11:14 am

                    “..and over use exclamation marks for no real purpose that I can see…”

                    um..!..that is my second exclamation mark in this thread..

                    your getting things wrong is really multi-faceted..isn’t it gosman..?

                    phil-at-whoar.

          • Jilly Bee 1.1.1.1.2
            29 February 2012 at 10:29 am

            Me too – I haven’t read your contributions for a while now Phil, unless they’re only one or two lines.

          • Ianupnorth 1.1.1.1.3
            29 February 2012 at 10:46 am

            Ditto mate, I have seen some good stuff from you, but in general I scoot past as it is all just too disconnected for my head to fathom out.

    • Mutante 1.2
      29 February 2012 at 11:38 pm

      Back in my teens they were saying 4 TIMES AS STRONG AS 1972 in big screaming capital letters, so it’s not the first time that’s been pulled out.

      • fender 1.2.1
        29 February 2012 at 11:59 pm

        Who cares if it’s 4 times stronger anyway? THC is the part that gets them high and if they only need to smoke 1/4 of a joint now then thats good isn’t it?

  2. mickysavage 2
    29 February 2012 at 7:16 am

    And in John Key’s New Zealand the trade union movement continues to be under attack.

    MUNZ is getting much better with its social media presence.  They have put out a well made high quality video that presents the case for the workers simply and effectively.  A link is here.

    Meanwhile AFFCO has locked out 750 workers.  The response in the media is somewhat muted.  It seems that if a trade union takes action then this marks the commencement of the sky falling in but if an employer does so then no one is meant to worry.

    AFFCO’s aim, the total casualisation of the workforce is terrifying.  Not only is it a barbaric way to treat workers with families, mortgages and living expenses but once installed such a system will destroy the trade union movement.  Who would dare be active in union matters, let alone a shop stewart or delegate, if the employer can then starve you of work?

    Serfdom in New Zealand is just around the corner.  It seems clear that Key did want to see wages drop.

  3. logie97 3
    29 February 2012 at 7:44 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6496132/Key-Mums-of-one-year-olds-better-working

    So is the prime mincer wanting to develop a generation of latch-key children? Anyone else remember the clarion call of the champions of industry telling us that the new technologies were going to give us greater leisure time. (Yeah – the bosses perhaps – sod the workers – their jobs will be replaced and they can go figure …) Ah you’ve got to love him.

    You have to wonder what his supporters in the various “congregations” around the country must feel about this direction and why they gave him another term.

    • phillip ure.. 3.1
      29 February 2012 at 9:19 am

      too many congregations are up for a bit of benny-bashing/kicking…

      ..it’s ‘cos they are usually ‘sinners’…those sole-parents…

      ..and so deserve all they get..(kinda like a pre-hell for them..)

      ..and the more extreme of these congregations advocate removing children from the underclass/sole-parents altogether/by force….

      ..and ‘giving’ them to good christian families..to raise..

      ..where to start..?..eh..?

      phil-at-whoar.

  4. Carol 4
    29 February 2012 at 7:59 am

    The headlines make it seem that Key is interested in the well-being of mothers and their children, but it’s actually all about the money:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6496132/Key-Mums-of-one-year-olds-better-working

    It was unfair to suggest parents who went to work were abandoning their children, Mr Key said.

    “A large proportion of New Zealand women with children do go to work, and they go to work and rely on the childcare facilities that are in place right across the country.

    “What they are doing is trying to support their home.”

    Mr Key said there were “plenty of jobs out there for people if they look really hard”.

    And of course, it’s something Key and Bronagh never had to worry about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#Personal_life

    Key met his wife Bronagh when they were both students at Burnside High School. They married in 1984. She also has a BCom degree, and worked as a personnel consultant before becoming a full-time mother. They have two children, Stephie and Max.[4]

    • Bored 4.1
      29 February 2012 at 8:07 am

      Of course Key has no interest in the welfare of mothers and children: if he did he might have questioned why mothers (or both parents) have to go to work?

      Key has merely continued to represent that paradigm foisted on families, the need for a dual income. Money men like Key only think in terms of depressing wages and forcing more profit form it for themselves. The corollary is that the concept of a single income family has gone west since the 70s where it was the norm. One income is no longer enough.

    • phillip ure.. 4.2
      29 February 2012 at 9:29 am

      i really wish we could bury this bullshit of key being a battler from struggle st…who thru his own good dint ..broke out/thru..

      ..reality/fact-check:..keys’ grandfather sucessfully bid for goebbels’ massive bedroom suite (think dotcom) at the end of the second world war..

      ..in an auction in london..

      ..not many ‘battlers’ at that auction..eh..?

      ..and not many ‘battlers’ with rooms large enough to hold such a suite..eh..?

      ..this lie about key is like the big one about hitler being a vegetarian..(used to sledge/demonise vegetarians ever since..)

      ..as with hitler…this is propaganda purely to enhance the subject..

      ..in the case of hitler it was to build the image of an ascetic-warrior….

      ..with key it is to somehow validate his kicking the crap out of the poorest..

      ..’cos ‘he’s been there’/is from there….

      ..a complete bag ‘o lies…

      phil-at-whoar.

      • muzza 4.2.1
        29 February 2012 at 11:42 am

        Hey Phil, you got a link or something to the grandfather info? Lot’s of available info around to show the Key manufactured background is balony, but ive not heard that before.

        The thing is, that being able to spot lies is a handy skill to have, and being able to tell them convincingly is also helpful, but Key has neither of these, and as such being able to see through them is simple as A, B , C …

        • phillip ure.. 4.2.1.1
          29 February 2012 at 1:58 pm

          i had a cursory look..will try again later..

          ..questiontime starts in one minute..and i do a commentary on it..

          ..that’s why the ‘later’..

          phil-at-whoar.

  5. RedBaron 5
    29 February 2012 at 8:05 am

    Could Key kindly tell us, of the 4000 babies born to a mother on a benefit, whether these mothers were on a benefit for the previous nine months? A fist in the face or gut whilst pregnant can be a pretty powerful incentive for becoming a single parent.

    • james 111 5.1
      29 February 2012 at 8:17 am

      Litlle bit emotional there Red Baron. What I would like to see is the figures of a young mother whos mother is also so on the benefit.
      Then I believe you will see how bad the benefit wrought is in New Zealand. The benefit is a trap it takes away people spirit ,and will to work. Some of them get very comfortable on the benefit.

      It was meant to be a Hand up ,but labour have turned it into an all encompassing net with a cuddly ,and pillow as well.

      Im not sure why Labour have such a fetish for keeping people on benefits can someone please tell me why? Is it a control thing ? in the hope that they will always vote Labour if they are on a Benefit?

      • mickysavage 5.1.1
        29 February 2012 at 8:20 am

        So let me understand this James 111 you do not know what the figures of mother and daughter both being on the benefit are but you believe that they will show widespread rorting (I think this is what you mean) of the system?

        Do you often have strongly held views on matters where you have no knowledge of the actual reality of the situation? 

        • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1.1
          29 February 2012 at 8:24 am

          “Do you often have strongly held views on matters where you have no knowledge of the actual reality of the situation?”
           
          Only on days ending in a y.

        • james 111 5.1.1.2
          29 February 2012 at 8:27 am

          Do you know Micky. I have heard various commentators say that Intergenerational welfare dependency is a problem. I have no reason to doubt them. What I would like to see is hard data the quest for knowledge rather than ideaology. If you know where it is unconrrupted of course would like to see it.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2.1
            29 February 2012 at 8:31 am

            Sure its a problem. It might affect 1% – 2% of people. And involve maybe $50M of Government benefits a year.

            Let’s focus on things which are more important – let’s say the overseas banking wealth pump taking $3B pa out of our economy. A lot of jobs could be created with that money, helping people to escape from intergenerational benefit dependency.

            BTW suggesting you are interested in facts is laughable.

          • muzza 5.1.1.2.2
            29 February 2012 at 9:01 am

            james you raise as fair point, but again it is unblanced…how close is the nearest beneficiary to you, and what qualifies you to comment on them? – Be sure you answer this time!

            Lets also see some figures for the corporate welfare thats been doled out over the past 30 years or so shall we, I am 100% certaint the difference would be staggering…note in corporate welfare I DO include the selling og public companies into private hands, shipping the profits offshore!

          • mickysavage 5.1.1.2.3
            29 February 2012 at 9:09 am

            But James 111 you said that not only did something that you had no proof  of exist, but you also said that it was all Labour’s fault and Labour has “a fetish for keeping people on benefits”.

            Now you are saying that you think it is a problem because some unidentified people say it is a problem but you want to see “hard data”.

            Why did you make such an outlandish comment?  And why did you say the cause was Labour’s desire to keep people on benefits?  All without the slightest shred of proof. 

          • phillip ure.. 5.1.1.2.4
            29 February 2012 at 9:36 am

            you think it is pretty aok to have our horrific (internationally-measured) child poverty rates..

            ..do you james..?

            ..care to justify that..?

            ..are you able to think past/beyond the slogans/name-calling..?

            ..and tell/explain how ..to your way of thinking..children raised in this misery is good for them or/and the country..?

            phil-at-whoar.

            • muzza 5.1.1.2.4.1
              29 February 2012 at 9:40 am

              I think the real problem is not people like james who play devils advocate to get a reaction on there, the real problem is the lack of public showings of disapproval by the sheeple. The lack of understanding or engagement is a differenent story, there are enough people who are aware, that I don’t really see doing much. I will be interested to see what happens at the Anti Asset Sale March , scheduled for April 28. This will be a very telling sign of the abilty for those who have given themselves “leader status”, to organise anything worthy by way of protest!

              Until people get off their arse, blathering all over the internet, is not going to make any difference what so ever!

      • CnrJoe 5.1.2
        29 February 2012 at 8:25 am

        ‘Im not sure why Labour have such a fetish for keeping people on benefits can someone please tell me why’
        you obviously don’t want to be told anything you don’t want to hear 111
        fetish? keeping people in benefits?
        you seem to be fine with your variation on things
        but have a nice day anyway

      • framu 5.1.3
        29 February 2012 at 8:32 am

        having figures that show someones parents were on a benefit as well only proves one thing – that their parents were on a benefit.

        yes inter-generational welfare dependency isnt a good thing – but just going “see, their parents were on a benefit too” does nothing to address why they are on a benefit now or then.

        you cant look at unemployment without also looking at the job market and policy settings at the same time.

        also – drop this “labour wants to keep people on benefits so they vote labour” BS. All you achieve with that is to make yourself look foolish.

      • rosy 5.1.4
        29 February 2012 at 10:50 pm

        “The benefit is a trap it takes away people spirit ,and will to work.”
        Dunno about that one James, but I do know when my parents split (domestic violence) my mother left home, and was employed full-time, split shifts. I was pregnant at 15 – maybe my parents working long hours had something to do with it… I was on a benefit for awhile, and my children have strong work ethics. Go figure.

    • Vicky32 5.2
      29 February 2012 at 6:59 pm

      Could Key kindly tell us, of the 4000 babies born to a mother on a benefit, whether these mothers were on a benefit for the previous nine months? A fist in the face or gut whilst pregnant can be a pretty powerful incentive for becoming a single parent.

      Seconded and thirded! That’s very much the issue. (Earlier I mentioned on another thread, another way women could give birth while “on the benefit” – if they were in an unmarried relationship (so not eligible for widow’s benefit) and the man has died! As far as I know, at least 2 Pike River women are in this position…

  6. Bored 6
    29 February 2012 at 8:16 am

    Yesterdays column on the latest bit of beneficiariy bashing left me remembering some of the shibboleths of the Thatcher years (and the Douglas years), that are now accepted and not questioned.

    Bennett saying how beneficiaries would be treated as individuals sounds great until you realise they are already, the shibboleth of individual responsibility is foisted on them at the same time as there is empirical evidence that there are no jobs. It reminded me of Thatcher there is no society, only individuals, who promptly after saying that released psych wards into community care.

    There are a lot of weasel words out there masquerading as nice soft cuddly concepts…when stated by this pack of NACT grifters suspect your pocket will suffer, your community or whats left of it will be diminshed more. Follow the money, its going their way.

  7. Jackal 7
    29 February 2012 at 8:31 am

    National’s nanny state

    Bennett needs to look at policy that will achieve real outcomes like creating jobs and providing proper incentives for training that actually meets market requirements. National’s beneficiary bashing will achieve nothing.

  8. james 111 8
    29 February 2012 at 8:35 am

    Need to read this article shows how Welfare ,and the over use of it wrecks a persons spirit to work. Pretty much what I was saying
    http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/e3b5e3549a1.pdf

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      29 February 2012 at 8:43 am

      Wow welfare decreases as employment increases, amazing! And most people who are not employed would like to work, if there was work available!

      Now explain to me James how slashing welfare and taking spending money out of communities is going to encourage small businesses to take on new staff.

      • aerobubble 8.1.1
        29 February 2012 at 12:48 pm

        Technically speaking that only works when the central banks are printing money because energy prices are projected to be cheaper for the next 30 years, started about the mid-70s. some lass called Thatcher got a free loader ride from being in the right place at the right time.

    • Bored 8.2
      29 February 2012 at 8:46 am

      Hey Jimmy Dipstick, what part of the statement “there are no jobs” fails to register in the vacuous troll like and very dark hole that is where your brain should be?

    • Jackal 8.3
      29 February 2012 at 10:25 am

      Welfare wrecks a persons spirit to work… could you link to where the study shows that? The research you’ve linked to james 111 is not all that credible. Firstly it sets out to answer a question but limits the scope of information to find a predetermined answer. Here is the guts of what they say, which is repeated throughout the document:

      Analyses of the links between ethnicity and welfare dependence, accounting for possible intervening pathways by which Mäori may be placed at greater risk of welfare benefit receipt, showed that the statistically significant associations between ethnicity and each class of welfare benefit were mediated by a series of factors related to: family instability and dysfunction; behaviour disorders and substance use disorders; and life circumstances related to early parenthood and educational outcomes.

      […]

      For example, the links between ethnicity and unemployment benefit receipt were mediated via alcohol abuse/dependence during the ages of 15–21, and conduct problems during ages 14–16. This is in general agreement with findings that suggest that personal adjustment and behaviour problems in adolescence are a risk factor for adult unemployment (Brook and Newcomb, 1995), in that longterm disruptive behaviour compromises the individual’s ability to participate effectively in the workforce.

      The studies authors completely ignore the fact that New Zealand has a long history of entrenched racism, which essentially leads to Maori being repressed. This is a major factor in Maori being overrepresented in social welfare dependency. It could be that racism leading to less Maori being employed is the main factor, and without study into that area the research is largely defunct.

      Personal responsibility is all well and good, but the sad fact of the matter is that many areas of New Zealand have less work opportunities available. These also happen to be areas mainly inhabited by Maori. The authors of the study cannot hope to answer the question without taking these factors into account.

      It should be noted that the findings reported are based on a particular birth cohort born in a specific place and at a particular time. The extent to which these findings can be generalised to other cohorts of New Zealanders is therefore open to debate and awaits further research. In addition, the research reported here is subject to the usual limitations of reporting and other errors in data provided by survey methods. Also, it should be noted that the assessment of ethnicity in the CHDS cohort differs from the measurement of ethnicity in administrative data sources such as that of Statistics New Zealand, which may raise issues in terms of the interpretation of the present finding.

      I’ve never seen such a thorough excuse being made in a research paper.

  9. james 111 9
    29 February 2012 at 8:46 am

    A couple of Stats that were around in 2000 to 2004 that are very interesting

    The Statistical Report released by the Ministry of Social Development shows welfare expenditure rose from $7.9 billion in 2000 to $8.5 billion to the year end June 2004.Or a $1million dollars an hour.

    The number of people receiving a benefit for more than four years has increased from 95,664 in 2000 to 108,604 in 2004

    It would appear that Labour had no idea how to get people off long term welfare dependency or no wish to do so even though economic conditions were much more positive in 2004. Why do you think this was?

    I guess when you look at that pragmatically when a government come in and try to make change because the country simply cant go on like this. Then all the trendy lefties will come out squealing even though they had no idea how to fix it

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      29 February 2012 at 8:53 am

      Those numbers reflect how unsurvivable benefit levels and criteria were at the start of the 4th Labour govt. Not that you give a shit.

      The number of people receiving a benefit for more than four years has increased from 95,664 in 2000 to 108,604 in 2004

      A 15% increase over 4 years – roughly half of that can be attributed to normal population increase, an aging population, and the long term societal damage from Ruthansia surfacing.

    • framu 9.2
      29 February 2012 at 8:57 am

      and if you look at the stats for the whole period labour were in power unemployment dropped to very low levels.

      which kinda shoots a huge hole in your latest argument.

      however we all look forward to your next hairbrained diversion in 3, 2, 1…

      • Bafacu 9.2.1
        29 February 2012 at 1:21 pm

        Unemplyment may have decreased but can anyone tell me the corresponding increase in civil servants during the same time that Labour were in power?

        • Te Reo Putake 9.2.1.1
          29 February 2012 at 1:26 pm

          SFW. The question isn’t where the jobs where, it was the fact that they existed. Which they don’t now, obviously, in either public or private sectors.

        • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.2
          29 February 2012 at 1:38 pm

          The public service does a lot of good for the country mate. Some of this country’s top experience and top talent work for the interests of NZ in the public sector. And thanks to the NATs running it down (as they are again now) it had to be strengthened, since the private sector is incapable (or unwilling) to do some of the things this country needs.

          If there is one criticism of the 5th Labour Govt it is the way they let private debt build up in uncontrolled ways, fuelling a housing price bubble.

          • Bafacu 9.2.1.2.1
            29 February 2012 at 4:06 pm

            I didn’t ask if the Public Service did good for NZ (as that’s a matter of opinion and we all have one of those – although not necessarily the same).

            I asked for the corresponding increase in civil servants during the same time that Labour were in power?

            Care to answer? 

            As an aside – how many of those roles that were created in that time were of the ilk that you describe (top experience and top talent) and how many were functionaries?

            • muzza 9.2.1.2.1.1
              29 February 2012 at 4:17 pm

              The question is really would you rather have people in jobs paying tax, and being able to spend money into the economy, or would you rather have people out of jobs, or being sacked, not being picked up by a shrinking private sector, going overseas, taking money from the economy, taking future generations with them, potentially collecting benefits if they hang around, not to mention the social costs that stem from higher unemployment…there are ripple effects right!

              You have no point to make!

              • Bafacu …
                29 February 2012 at 4:28 pm

                No that is your question – mine still hasn’t been answered!

                • muzza …
                  29 February 2012 at 4:32 pm

                  Its kind of s zero sum debate though. Perhaps you will get an answer, additional to the one I gave you already, which I should not have confused by using the word question!

                  didn’t mean to confuse you….

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  29 February 2012 at 4:34 pm

                  Have you tried google? It’s your question after all. I can give you the answer to the quality vs functionary one though. It’s 100% quality, as far as i can tell. It’s this current Government that has overloaded the public service with overpaid consultants while reducing frontline services.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 February 2012 at 4:38 pm

                  The point about the answer to your question that you will refuse to accept is that it doesn’t fucken matter. Having a strong public service is essential to the well-being of NZ (and every other country) and that’s a fact that you can’t, and won’t, accept.

                  The whole point of you asking is so that you can find someway to attack the increase in government service and no other reason.

            • Vicky32 9.2.1.2.1.2
              29 February 2012 at 7:09 pm

              and how many were functionaries?

              By you, a functionary is what? As my son, a cardiothoracic staff nurse at Welly Hospital, points out – when ‘functionary’ ward clerks are rationalised away, nursing staff have to do their jobs, on top of their clinical tasks! Instead of caring for patients, my son and his colleagues have spent hours trying to send faxes, make appointments and doing things the ‘functionaries’ used to do until the Nats got rid of them

              • rosy …
                29 February 2012 at 11:04 pm

                “my son and his colleagues have spent hours trying to send faxes, make appointments and doing things the ‘functionaries’ used to do”

                Ha. Awesome…not. Wait and see the non-attendance rates at out-patient clinics shoot-up. That’ll leave some very expensive medical staff idle. A good use of public health money, that one!

                One of the important tasks of the low-cost booking clerks is to provide appointment reminders. There is lots of good research showing massive improvements in attendance rates when patient are phoned 1-3 days before the appointment date. It takes hours to do this – not the right job for medical staff.

        • framu 9.2.1.3
          29 February 2012 at 5:12 pm

          you mean the increase from when we barely had enough resources to hold an election?

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.3
      29 February 2012 at 9:27 am

      Remind me what the unemployment figures were in 2007, someone. Lowest in NZ history or something wasn’t it? Yes, that’s right – I recall rubbing James111’s face in it not a few days ago.

      Here we are: a record low of 3.50 percent in December of 2007.

      The noise to signal ratio is high in this one.

    • phillip ure.. 9.4
      29 February 2012 at 9:40 am

      you are correct james..the country ‘cannot go on like this’..

      ..we need a more progressive tax rate on the rich..

      ..a capital gains tax..

      ..and a financial transactions tax on the banksters..

      ..problem solved..

      ..eh..?

      phil-at-whoar.

      • Ianupnorth 9.4.1
        29 February 2012 at 10:53 am

        James111 hasn’t seen the graph which clearly shows the budget deficit timeline, which has a clear and direct correlation to the reduce tax take following Jokey Hen’s freebies to the uber rich.

      • aerobubble 9.4.2
        29 February 2012 at 12:58 pm

        A CGT will only put us back to some form of tax fairness, many countries fell over with a CGT.

        The problem is people, people like to consume, or believe supporting the right they will aspire to the consumer lifestyle. Unfortuately they should have been born 50 years earlier, or a lot smart now.

        I blame the unions as much as the boardrooms, neither put any thought into risks. Meat workers should have a back of the van butcher co-op on the side to pick up the lost business of their meat worker factory. Its a shame that in a country with a dairy co-op that other sectors are incapable of working out their own co-ops.

        As for farmers, wtf, they are supporting fracking under their farms where they pump water up from!!! You have to wonder what the farmers are smoking.

  10. ak 10
    29 February 2012 at 9:00 am

    The Diary of Bill English

    Ripped the babies out of the arms of young mothers and forced them to work on the gut floor or starve – more abortions likely, then off to Mass with Mary. J still grumpy, all whites on tonight, should be good.

    • phillip ure.. 10.1
      29 February 2012 at 9:47 am

      this is the aspect of the conservative-christians who support kicking the crap out of the poor…

      ..yet oppose abortion..

      ..that proves a major disconnect for them..

      ..their small/prejudiced/poisoned-minds seem unable to comprehend the basic fact/consequence…

      ..that their policies/wishes for lives of unrelenting misery for sole-parents..

      ..and ..not least..their wholesale stigmatising of them..

      ..drives many women to abort..

      ..and yes..this is the fact that bill and mary english have to take to mass with them on sundays..

      phil-at-whoar.

  11. Jackal 11
    29 February 2012 at 9:17 am

    Speak to the machine

    National have announced that many Housing New Zealand personnel are going to be replaced by an answer machine. There’s one main reason for this, and that’s to lessen the amount of people applying for state houses. National are making the application process even harder, so that people are deterred and have to rent in the private sector.

  12. phillip ure.. 12
    29 February 2012 at 9:56 am

    and really..difficult for labour to get too finger-pointy over this attack on the poorest..eh..?

    seeing as that in nine long years they not only didn’t move an inch to repair the towelling richardson gave the poorest..

    ..they actually cut benefits/allowances further..

    ..and now shearer is going to cut that pre-election ‘rash-promise’…to include the poorest families in working for (some) families..

    ..by..wait for it..!..2018..(out here in poverty-land we were giddy with excitement at that promise..eh..?)

    ..what were they thinking..?..eh..?

    ..we’ll have none of that..eh..?

    ..in the new/brave labour..

    ..eh..?

    phil-at-whoar.

  13. vto 13
    29 February 2012 at 10:43 am

    ha ha ha ha the brainlessness of the current government continues…

    Not only can they not explain how having foreign landlords is of benefit to New Zealand…
    Not only do they have to put ACC costs up to make it more efficient…
    They also claim that having call centres provides better service ….. so, who thinks call centres provide better service? Not me. Just phoned IRD to be told that the wait is 1 hour and 15 minutes. ha ha ha ha how pathetic

  14. Ianupnorth 14
    29 February 2012 at 10:51 am

    For those that what to challenge Paula Bennett on welfare reforms
     
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10788789
     
    Web chat 11.30 today

    • mickysavage 14.1
      29 February 2012 at 12:25 pm

      I submitted the following question (in my real name). I asked “Paula you said recently that things are much different now compared to how they were when you received the benefit. Can you detail what difference in

  15. William Joyce 15
    29 February 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Angelina Jolie’s leggy pose at the Oscar’s has become an internet meme.
    Like planking, our dear leader (Key John Ill) has joined the craze – link

  16. ianmac 16
    29 February 2012 at 2:58 pm

    “Bryan Gould: Austerity proven as wrong answer to recession”
    What is interesting about Bryan’s column is that it shows that the Government’s Austerity plan was faulty and goes further with advice on how a recession should be handled.
    Interesting too that Bryan is a consultant to the Labour Party Review.
    Sounds great: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10788648

  17. prism 17
    29 February 2012 at 5:39 pm

    If I hear more about USA politics and Rick Santorem and Mick Romney I’ll throw up. There is more attention being paid on Radio New Zealand to the political machinations of that far away country than to any other important country.

    And USA politics are so farcical. The wealthy have found out how to make money out of the process and turned it into a sham that doesn’t serve democracy but only ..you know who. As a smug NACT type said the other day as if it was holy writ It’s the Golden Rule – He who has the gold makes the rules.

    • ianmac 17.1
      29 February 2012 at 5:53 pm

      Perhaps the USA model is one that should aspire to Prism? (Just kidding.)

      Somehow Mr Dot Com being able to keep his bail pleases me. Not sure why. Perhaps its a “tiny country defies big bully” or something?

    • CnrJoe 17.2
      29 February 2012 at 7:09 pm

      personally I can’t get enough of it – Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, so much good coverage – the Best Show in town – for a while

  18. prism 18
    29 February 2012 at 6:59 pm

    There was mention yesterday of a study of attitudes of wealthy compared to ordinary people’s attitudes to morality where they found that the wealthy were more likely to cheat etc.
    Part of the summary is that the wealthy see pursuit of self-interest and greed as a positive moral approach to life. Hence the more for me and lower taxes plaint being heard all around.

    And I feel that many poor people change to the same attitude if they have the opportunity to advance their income extremely. Perhaps an increasing rise in wealth has an affect on humans similar to climate changes on locusts except in reverse. Locusts change from solitary creatures to massing in huge swarms, humans become all individualistic and ‘I’m a self-made man or woman, worked hard, ran a successful business or whatever (maybe got rich from inheritance or property speculation – doesn’t matter it’s the money that counts).