Open mike 30/03/2012

69 comments on “Open mike 30/03/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   30 March 2012 at 6:46 am

   Had to laugh at the headlines with regard to Duoug Grahams conviction, calls for him to hand in his knighthood.
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/6663532/Lombard-fallout-Graham-urged-to-give-up-Sir

   Quite frankly it just shows what a crock of proverbial the honours system is.

   PS For all the RWNJs Jeffries did 3 terms in the right wing Douglas Labour government of the 80s, dont call him a leftie.
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     30 March 2012 at 7:39 am

     The Remuera 4.
   • tracey 1.2

     30 March 2012 at 8:35 am

     Convenient article about him claiming to “be better off dead” the day before the sentencing. No attempt to influence a Judge there, nosiree. I’ not sure how many people get access to the media the day before their sentencing.
     • TT 1.2.1

       30 March 2012 at 8:52 am

       Well he was right on that count. A complete waste of space on this earth. I can’t see the Tory old-boys club taking his knighthood though. It was the same old-boys club that has kept him out of prison.
       • tracey 1.2.1.1

         30 March 2012 at 10:38 am

         John Key has to go before National lose the government benches because if he waits, the current opposition, when government, will change the knighthood system again….
2. rosy 2

   30 March 2012 at 7:28 am

   Last December a study from the The New Economics Foundation called ‘A Bit Rich’ came out that priced in the social, environmental and economic impacts of six professions by looking at how each produces value for society, or destroys value. For each activity, the analysis measured the conventional economic returns, including job creation, but adds in, for example, attributable environmental degradation, and changes in well-being (positive or negative) to individuals and communities.

   The study reveals that for every £ earned:
   – EliteCity bankers (earning £1 million-plus bonuses) destroy £7
   – Hospital cleaners create over £10
   – Advertising executives destroy £11
   – Child care workers generate between £7 and £9.50.
   – Tax accountants destroy £47.
   – Waste recycling workers generate £12

   They suggest jobs should be rewarded based on the social value they create and prices include a measurable social and environmental values and maximum pay differentials among a series of measures to create more equitable pay.
   • LynW 2.1

     30 March 2012 at 8:13 am

     +100 If only!
   • tracey 2.2

     30 March 2012 at 8:36 am

     yup, which is why they never will be when you consider which careers rise tot he top of power and influence.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.3

     30 March 2012 at 11:51 am

     Yep, we’ve been getting our values seriously around the wrong way for a long time but I suspect that’s because the people in power have been the ones doing the valuing.
   • aerobubble 2.4

     30 March 2012 at 12:36 pm

     The present system ignores the anarchist notion that all property is theft. Locke is supposed to have said that property rights come from ‘work’. That a property right appears when effort is expended. Well if animals have rights, businesses are independent persons for legal purposes, then Gaia must have property rights too. And therein lies the mismatch between what many indigenous first peoples believe and what western fiscal cannibals hold true. Our elites all believe in a falsehood, that only they have property rights, and the planet has none. The SCOTUS decision to give businesses individual rights means the planet has rights. Welcome to the new world paradigm. Green Anarchism has come of age.
   • Vicky32 2.5

     30 March 2012 at 10:54 pm

     The study reveals that for every £ earned:
     – EliteCity bankers (earning £1 million-plus bonuses) destroy £7
     – Hospital cleaners create over £10
     – Advertising executives destroy £11
     – Child care workers generate between £7 and £9.50.
     – Tax accountants destroy £47.
     – Waste recycling workers generate £12

     Fascinating! Thanks, Rosy for the information…
3. Hilary 3

   30 March 2012 at 8:17 am

   Yesterday I heard a senior figure in a government agency say that NZ’s public debt had gone up from $8billion in 2008 to $80 billion now. I think those were the figures, and if they are right that is really scary. That is why there is so much cost cutting throughout the public service, and why the assets are being sold.

   If that is true where has all that money gone (can’t all be in tax cuts to the already well-off) and what value has NZ got from that borrowing? Can someone explain it to me?
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     30 March 2012 at 8:28 am

     Don’t give the NATs so many excuses Hilary. NZ is currently in a recession, the depth and length of which National has been worsening. In any recession, both company and personal income tax receipts to the Govt fall, while more people need assistance, hence the deficit increases.

     This always happens in a recession, however the Govt has been worsening matters by increasing unemployment and channeling capital to the already very rich (via tax cuts) instead of back into general communities.

     The free market ideology the NATs hold mean that doing anything to “intervene” in the market place – even to help rebuild Christchurch faster – is considered off the table.

     As for the asset sales – selling your assets now and losing those income streams forever will only worsen NZ’s medium to long term position.

     As for your question – where has all that money gone? It is being hoarded in small selected parts of the NZ economy, including an ongoing property bubble in Auckland. Also a billion dollars or so gone to well off investors in SCF. And a few billion a year in tax cuts to the top 10%.

     But the majority of the deficit is being caused by poor economic conditions and the Government’s bad handling of that.
   • KJT 3.2

     30 March 2012 at 8:28 am

     Tax cuts. 2 to 5 billion a year depending on who is massaging the statistics.

     Recession stimulus?

     Reduced tax take from the National induced continuing recession. Reducing social insurance and low incomes does not help local business have taxable income.

     14 billion a year from the previous ACT(1984) Government and Nationals asset sales.

     Huge increase in the invisibles deficit due to farming out jobs and profits to offshore.
     EG. Giving the whole of our coastal shipping to MSC and Mearsk.
     Including profits from now privatised, formerly State, enterprises, like rest homes.

     Nationals borrowing for election bribes to farmers, speculators and financiers.

     Just for a start!
     • Ed 3.2.1

       30 March 2012 at 9:19 am

       The Treasury figures indicates that the effect of the so called ‘fiscally neutral’ tax changes are costing 2.5% of GDP each year – about $5 billion a year. See earlier article on the Standard.
       • aerobubble 3.2.1.1

         30 March 2012 at 12:44 pm

         The tax cuts was interventionist, government intervened in the market to water down the economic stress to private borrowers in NZ who where heavily exposed in the global market collapse. Tax payers have bailed out the most indebted in NZ. a direct increase on those that saved, to benefit those that excelled at exposing NZ to debt implosion. Why did Winston get back in but for the retired realizing that a rise in GST was a tax on their savings from here on in.
         All to support the lack of a CGT that has produced such windfalls to the NZ economy as leaky homes, poor safety in mines, pollution of water ways, lapsed earthquake building regulations – all under the demand for capital gains produce by this hole in the NZ tax regime.

         Free markets to work need the government to stay out of the market and leave debtors to take their medicine. How can the market learn otherwise, all that is produced is more debt takers as they rush back in, knowing the government will again bail them out. And the reason they have not is because unlike government they know the growth paradigm based on growing cheaper energy has been swapped with a shrinking trending expensive energy economy.
4. tracey 4

   30 March 2012 at 8:39 am

   All economists agree that tax cuts to the top rate don’t stimulate the economy but tax cuts tot he bottom do. The top either save, pay down debt or travel (removing money from the economy), the lower income use the money to pay all the bills on time, buy “extra” clothes for the kids, all of which stimulates the NZ economy. This Govt flew in the face of that AND borrowed to do it.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     30 March 2012 at 10:09 am

     All economists agree that tax cuts to the top rate don’t stimulate the economy but tax cuts tot he bottom do.

     All economists except the neoliberal ones employed by Treasury, all the big banks, most university faculty, the credit ratings agencies and the right wing think tanks.

     So agree with you, all except for those ones.
     • tracey 4.1.1

       30 March 2012 at 10:36 am

       CV

       You’ll find the economists in those organisations all agree, but the CEO and Chair of the boards do not.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         30 March 2012 at 11:10 am

         You’ve just gotta be joking that all NZ Treasury economists think that way. Please name two.

         And you have an idea that all economists agree on your point about tax cuts for the rich vs tax cuts for the poor?

         Bottom line is that economics is a pseudoscience, and economists can hardly ever deliver on what they promise. They are faux experts in nice suits.
5. travellerev 5

   30 March 2012 at 9:04 am

   So why did the Osborne/Cameron (don’t they look like they have the same dressmaker as John Key) government cause an unnecessary petrol panic?

   Here are some pointers. Granny tax, Pie tax, tax cut, 25 million pounds

   Not that governments conspire against their own populations of course.
6. ianmac 6

   30 March 2012 at 9:13 am

   Since Auckland Wharfies get $90,000pa then a payout for a weeks work will be $1,730. Not bad. (They were getting $90,000 pa weren’t they?)
   • KJT 6.1

     30 March 2012 at 9:34 am

     I know a lot of the wharfies. Still looking for the one on 91k a year.

     Lumping in supervisors, planners and foremens pay as well does not give an accurate picture of wharfies pay.
7. Jackal 7

   30 March 2012 at 10:34 am

   Maori vote excluded

   Passing the Search and Surveillance Bill is therefore in breach of parliamentary process because the vote was incorrectly counted…
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     30 March 2012 at 12:53 pm

     Do you have any evidence there was a “miscount” as you claim? Seems to me you’re just asserting there was.

     I would have figured that if such a miscount existed, the MP, or any other opposition party, would already have gone to the media to talk about it. Yet we’ve heard nary a peep.
8. Northshoreguynz 8

   30 March 2012 at 10:38 am

   Why won’t someone think of the children?
   Given that there are no jobs out there, or policies to create them, just how does the govt plan on reducing the long tail in our education system. Stats show that the tail comes from those schools in the low decile areas, where unemployment and poverty hit the hardest. Therefore the obvious (to me)
   solution would be to give schools the finance to maintain class sizes of 15 for Years 1-6, or employ Reading Recovery teachers.
   • logie97 8.1

     30 March 2012 at 6:43 pm

     Bill English has thought about the kids – it’s the quality of the teaching – class sizes don’t make a difference. That view is held by many contributors to these pages. Truth is that they are probably not teachers or they are former practitioners who have tried to cater for every need and have burnt out. Don’t forget also that schools are funded on “smaller” class sizes but of course the 1:20 – 1:25 ratios are based on teaching staff and include the principal and can include “walking” APs and DPs.
9. mickysavage 9

   30 March 2012 at 11:08 am

   In breaking news Rob Campbell has resigned from the board of POAL. He was a CTU economist many years ago.  Perhaps he could no longer stomach the union bashing?
10. Pete George 10

    30 March 2012 at 11:23 am

    You know you’re in trouble when: The bookies open a contract on you

    You know that bookies sense when there is blood in the water and they’ll create contracts.

    I don’t think there’s too much to worry about, but…
    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=COLLINS.STANDARD
11. Pascal's bookie 11

    30 March 2012 at 11:39 am

    John Hartevelt points out that this guy ( http://t.co/mim3kjzC ) is only 2 resigning National mps away from being in parliament.
    • mickysavage 11.1

      30 March 2012 at 11:50 am

      Well if this is true it has been an appallingly bad couple of weeks for the National Party.
      • Jilly Bee 11.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 1:54 pm

        Who’d have thunk it!!!!!!! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795212
        • deuto 11.1.1.1

          30 March 2012 at 2:16 pm

          Later article with the name – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795555

          As noted by another commentator here an hour or so ago, it would only take two National Party MPs to go, for this person to get back into Parliament via the National Party list.
12. Te Reo Putake 12

    30 March 2012 at 11:47 am

    The first cracks appear in the POAL board. Ex-unionist Rob Campbell resigns.

    edit, I see I’ve been beaten to the punch by MS. My first thought was that he’s resigned not over the anti-union bias, but because they weren’t anti-union enough!
    • Te Reo Putake 12.1

      30 March 2012 at 11:54 am

      Whoops, MS has beaten me too it. Unlike Mickey, my feeling is that he’s probaly gone because the strategy wasn’t anti-union enough! Or, less sarcastically, because he knows that they are going to be done over in the court, and he doesn’t want to go down with the ship.
      • Tiger Mountain 12.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 1:45 pm

        “down with the ship” haha, who wants to be on the losing team. Campbell turncoated on unions years back after he had a brush with cancer and just went apeshit aquiring directorships and business and shares.
13. muzza 13

    30 March 2012 at 12:34 pm

    Why does Hyde still get airtime, even if the message make sense, hearing it from him makes me laugh!
14. aerobubble 14

    30 March 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Paywell. On TV7 there was a discussion of how writers should send copy to a paywell and get paid to give up their ability to persuade and have some fat white male sell their independence in how they choose what to publish and what not to publishing, to the highest bidder. The problem for paywells is the internet will always produce more content, more interesting content, more timely content, and more impartial. Paywells are all about being inside the belt way, the idea being that editors were gatekeepers of society nolonger holds. Information only has relevance if its distributed. Paywells are the last heave of the ultra neo-liberal thinking, when a conservatism agenda is see to die, it produces a even smaller clique of members who pay more and more to retain their established wisdom. It happens on the left too, all those communist pamplets. Neo-liberals is a cult, going that way.
15. Kotahi Tane Huna 15

    30 March 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Things not looking good at PoAL. Rob Campbell resigns.

    Edit: I’m way behind MS and TRP!

    Crafar Farms back in the news too.
    • Pascal's bookie 15.1

      30 March 2012 at 1:37 pm

      Another POAL story:

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1203/S01090/poal-lifts-lockout-notice.htm
      • Kotahi Tane Huna 15.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 1:41 pm

        That has every appearance of total defeat. Apart from heads on spikes that is…
      • mickysavage 15.1.2

        30 March 2012 at 1:47 pm

        Good stuff,  Complete and utter backtrack by POAL.
        • Tiger Mountain 15.1.2.1

          30 March 2012 at 1:53 pm

          must search out the Q&A vid of Pearson “it’s all over, we are at the implementation phase now…”
        • ianmac 15.1.2.2

          30 March 2012 at 1:56 pm

          POAL was going to produce evidence of threats to Health and Safety to the Court today.
          Any sign of that?
          • Te Reo Putake 15.1.2.2.1

            30 March 2012 at 2:02 pm

            I think you can take it from the lifting of the lockout that the ‘evidence’ was singularly lacking in legal weight, Ianmac. But if a report crosses my desk about what was raised, I’ll post it asap.

            Edit: I gather the hearing, or at least that part, did not go ahead. POAL dropped it on the courthouse steps.
    • Te Reo Putake 15.2

      30 March 2012 at 1:52 pm

      Well, it’s all falling apart now, isn’t it? This is the kind of bluster followed by abject failure I usually associate with the Black Caps batting lineup. Reading their press release is terrific fun. It’s one of those ‘tanks, what tanks?’ efforts that might have sounded plausable before they hit ‘send’ but doesn’t look so flash out in the real world.
       
      Still, I’m sure all the righties will be on to this ASAP to sugarcoat it as a generous employer doing the right thing by it’s staff and customers. Any minute now … Hello? Anyone out there? Hmmmm, don’t like associating with losers, I guess.
      • Kotahi Tane Huna 15.2.1

        30 March 2012 at 2:13 pm

        Hey! That’s not fair! If they can’t associate with losers who’s left for them to support after this week?
    • millsy 15.3

      30 March 2012 at 10:24 pm

      Early days yet, but if MUNZ pulls this off, neo-liberalism is dead in this country. Plain and simple.

      The PoA workers will go down in history as the men who finally stood up and said ‘no’ to privatisation, contracting out, and the erosion of wages and conditions.

      And inspired others to do the same.
16. MadeInZ 16

    30 March 2012 at 1:41 pm

    if it’s not OK for Pullar and Boag to try and blackmail ACC, then why is it OK for ACC, specifically the managers at meeting in question, to buy into and be party to Blackmail? According the the email from Boag to Collins, this is what occured. The POlice were only called in way after the fact, meanwhile ACC seems to ahve been willing party to blackmail using public monies. WTF?? am i missing something here??
17. deuto 17

    30 March 2012 at 2:00 pm

    I went to Steven Price’s blogsite to see whether he had commented on the Collins/ACC saga, particularly the defamation issues.

    He hasn’t, but his latest post entitled “Silliest statement by an Attorney-General ever?” may be of interest in terms of both the Collins/ACC saga and the apparent/perceived current modus operandi of trying to shut down discussion on contraversial issues.

    His post addresses the A-G’s “contempt of court” assertions in the House in relation to Annette King’s comments re the Urewera raids.

    Price’s view that the A-G’s final statement is tosh –

    “This is tosh. Of course we can talk about court cases. The only thing we can’t do is publish things that cause real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. That’s a pretty narrow category of things.

    This is the sort of tosh usually dished up by those who simply don’t want to talk about the issues arising out of particular cases.”

    Full post here – http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546

    Note to self – figure out how to change text to italics and indent quotes.
    • deuto 17.1

      30 March 2012 at 2:05 pm

      Was unable to edit the above (told me I did not have permission).

      Lead in to the quoted paras should read “Price’s view ‘is’ that the A-G’s final statement is tosh”.

      One little word can make a big difference to meaning!
    • just saying 17.2

      30 March 2012 at 2:06 pm

      To change text to italics; put immediately before the relevant text and immediately after. Don’t know how to indent I’m afraid.

      edit: that was an unexpected consequence.
      After ‘put’ above goes . After ‘text and..’ goes . May have to delete because I suspect…..
    • Draco T Bastard 17.3

      30 March 2012 at 2:57 pm

      Note to self – figure out how to change text to italics and indent quotes.

      Just read the FAQ
      • deuto 17.3.1

        30 March 2012 at 3:20 pm

        Many thanks!
18. The Chairman 18

    30 March 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Laila Harre signs up with the Greens

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6666257/Laila-Harre-signs-up-with-the-Greens
19. muzza 19

    30 March 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Hey Boss , I mean Prime Mincer, we got away with another heist
    • Draco T Bastard 19.1

      30 March 2012 at 3:00 pm

      Gee, why am I not surprised?
      • muzza 19.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 3:12 pm

        At what stage will the cops just come out and admit they are only there as a tool of government!

        And to collect revenue!

        They must be feeling like a bunch of muppets by now!
    • tc 19.2

      30 March 2012 at 4:57 pm

      Very predictable, the police appaer to have become an extension of the PM’s office serving their political will.

      Aren’t those opinions wonderful…..act breached, no worries matey opinion says. The long arm of the law gives the nats another cuddle, cuppa tea anyone ?
      • Descendant Of Smith 19.2.1

        30 March 2012 at 7:09 pm

        What no police warning to not do it again – I thought they thought they were the judiciary.
20. bad12 20

    30 March 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Can a mouse roar???,

    John Banks has been reported as saying he will oppose legislation that will regulate the amount that dairy Giant Fonterra pays to its dairy farmer suppliers,

    Anyone having read that and having an immediate vision of cheaper milk and cheese prices should forget that wee notion now,

    We have as yet not ascertained the true intent of such an ”interesting” piece of legislation,on the one hand it could be being advanced on behalf of the actual dairy farmers in an effort to make damn sure that Fonterra and the speculative capitalists circling like hungry sharks cannot strangle the farmers cash-flow and force them to their knees,

    On the other hand of course it could be legislation specifically befor the House designed to do just that,force the actual dairy farmers to their knees by restricting their cash flows to such an extent that they will in the end be forced to agree that Fonterra shares become a publicly listed trade on the Stock Exchange board,

    There,s plenty more to come on this little gem of interference in the free market by the free marketeers and we wonder if Bank,s has jumped outta the blocks this quick in opposition as an attempt to distract people from the Tories other internal ructions or is He just feeling neglected these days…
    • Tc 20.1

      30 March 2012 at 7:03 pm

      The price is rigged anyway so legislation would have little impact…..look what it’s done for power prices.
      • bad12 20.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 8:37 pm

        Oh if what we ”believe” is happening here in that it is just another attempt to force the Fonterra shareholders,(Fonterra,s dairy farmer suppliers),to have Fonterra publicly listed on the Stock Exchange and the shares publicly traded, if successful would see the price of dairy products again jump by as much as 30%,

        Fonterra laid the ”plan” to list on the Stock Exchange befor its share-holding suppliers a few years back and got told quite impolitely to ”go take a ffffing walk”,

        This wee agenda tho is being run by Speculative Capitalists,you know the type,they dont actually own a business but have managed to collect unto themselves a pile of coin which simply allows them to be ”share-holders” as their business,they per se dont actually produce anything, just leach off of the production of others all the while demanding ”more” as a return for them having bought into an already productive business,

        These Speculative Capitalists are a patient lot tho and we see here in this attempt at regulating what Fonterra pays its dairy farming shareholders and suppliers at the farm gate what could be a some-what strengthened plan to again push for the listing of Fonterra on the Stock Exchange,

        Obviously if we are in fact right,and the next couple of months will tell us this,Speculative Capital is back with a brand new plan to have Fonterra listed upon the Exchange and this time round if this Legislation turns out to be what we think it is then this time round Speculative Capital will use a little more force upon the Dairy Farmers to get them to agree to having Speculative Capitals grubby little paws into the pie….
        • Carol 20.1.1.1

          30 March 2012 at 8:57 pm

          bad, you post some interesting and thoughtful comments. Are there really 12 of you contributing to your comments?
21. Hateatea 21

    30 March 2012 at 6:55 pm

    John Key about to appear on Close Up re the Pullar affair. He must be getting worried to interrupt his golfing weekend 😉
    • logie97 21.1

      30 March 2012 at 6:59 pm

      Always good value to watch this when Key is under pressure on a subject of “knowing” the truth.
      
      • logie97 21.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 7:38 pm

        I have read and heard statements in the last two days from Boag and Key that he met Pullar once , their emphasis once. Tonight Key says a “few times”. Where are Duncan Garner and Fran Mould when they are needed …
22. Te Reo Putake 22

    30 March 2012 at 7:06 pm

    One are doing a patsy interview with Key about Pullar (on Closeup now). Accuses her of name dropping. Best line so far:
     
    ‘some people name drop when it benefits them’. No hint of irony.
    • Hateatea 22.1

      30 March 2012 at 7:09 pm

      ‘some people name drop when it benefits them’. No hint of irony.’
      I liked that too. As usual, it was all about him. Teflon, anyone?
      BTW, he doesn’t have HER number but surely he must have Michelle Boag’s?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS