Open mike 31/10/2011

98 comments on “Open mike 31/10/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   31 October 2011 at 6:16 am

   I see that if John Key is returned to power he intends to ring fence the power company share proceeds into a special fund that will be used to obtain productive infrastructure.

   I have just the investment for him to consider.  This investment is in an area that is strategically vital to the country.  Its value will only increase as the price of oil continues its irreversible path higher.  The investment will save overseas funds, and local control will benefit local industry as well as Kiwis personally.

   The return on this investment is very good and within nine years it will pay for itself.  From then on all income will be pure profit.  And there is no purchase cost, no risk and miraculously the cost of privatizing the power companies will disappear.

   The investment is to retain the power companies in public ownership.  This should be a very easy decision to make.
   • William Joyce 1.1

     31 October 2011 at 7:27 am

     I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning…..
      
     If he is so keen to have an infrastructure fund then why not ring fence the revenue from the assets now?
     The problem he has is that he has taken out of the revenue $2 billion in tax cuts for the rich and he has failed to energise the economy in such a way that he could use the revenue to pay for standard budget items.
     Throw in the fact that he is trapped by promising sales to the RWNJs in National, who want wholesale asset sales, and you find  he is supporting an unpopular policy.
   • Puddleglum 1.2

     31 October 2011 at 10:04 am

     I see that the ‘ring fencing’ is in areas that National hopes to introduce greater private sector involvement.

     Apparently, there will be $400m for internet network between schools. I wonder who will get the contract to put that in and ‘maintain’ the system (perhaps with a rent).

     Key needs to be pushed on how this ring fenced money will actually result in publicly owned and operated assets, rather than just public money being put into projects for private companies to make a profit.

     If he wants to assuage concerns that there will be an overall loss of public ownership of assets then, presumably, he’d be happy to give assurances that none of this saved money will end up in private pockets?
   • Draco T Bastard 1.3

     31 October 2011 at 1:05 pm

     The PM’s admission of failure

     Sending kids to school seems like a good idea to me. Having hospitals where sick people might be made better – that seems like a reasonable service in a modern economy too.

     Turns out the prime minister thinks services like schools and hospitals are optional extras. Families will only get education and health care if we go along with his plans to flog the power companies and Air New Zealand.

     Perhaps Mr Key could tell us what previous governments had to sell to pay for them? He might find that back in the old days before we began “modernising and transforming”, whatever that means, we didn’t sell our assets to pay our grocery bills.

     How does the prime minister propose to pay for schools and hospitals once the money from asset sales runs out?

     Remember, people on the prime minister’s income have received tax cuts worth a thousand dollars a week since he took office, and now on his own admission we don’t have enough money.

     That seems to sum it up well enough.
   • Vicky32 1.4

     31 October 2011 at 8:36 pm

     Brilliant MS! Too simple for Key, but…
2. Carol 2

   31 October 2011 at 8:11 am

   Ha! Ha! Jonkey is afraid to debate with Phil Goff on RadioNZ Morning Report this morning…. he needs “more time to prepare”…. He’s had 3 years?!!! So Shonkey will just do an interview next week. SHAME… is this the most inadequate PM NZ has ever had?
   • William Joyce 2.1

     31 October 2011 at 8:44 am

     Bok bok bok…..
     It’s one thing not to have your picture on a billboard but a whole other thing to run from facing up in debates.
     What is he afraid of? Slurring his words? Not shaking Goff’s hand properly? People might say bad things about him and not give him the validation he craves?
     This is definitely a harm minimisation approach.
      
     I think today, every time John Key is mentioned I will let loose a “bok bok bok”.
     (Yes, my life is that sad but I will make me feel good – until the sun goes over the yardarm).
     • Tigger 2.1.1

       31 October 2011 at 10:15 am

       I’m liking this bok bok bok thing…
       • Jim Nald 2.1.1.1

         31 October 2011 at 10:20 am

         bok bok bok ?
         like …

         http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bok
         • Kty 2.1.1.1.1

           31 October 2011 at 10:45 am

           Bok.Bok.Bok.
           Why hasnt sombody come up with that definition before, suits Key down to the ground.
           • vto 2.1.1.1.1.1

             31 October 2011 at 10:56 am

             Hey, I did it the other day … but mine was like this …

             book book

             But that may be a bit too intellectual for Key, our most chicken PM ever.
         • travellerev 2.1.1.1.2

           31 October 2011 at 11:01 am

           Check the number four of meanings of the word. Maybe he’s expected to do that to his masters. ROFL!
   • Vicky32 2.2

     31 October 2011 at 8:44 pm

     I was made up with Phil Goff, he was awesome… despite the hostility of the 3 interviewers…
3. ianmac 3

   31 October 2011 at 8:34 am

   Very hard to understand Key’s reluctance to front – unless he knows that to front is to expose his shallowness.
   I wonder if TV1 tonight will prevent shouting over the top of other speakers is controlled by switching off microphones, as they do in the House?
   • Tigger 3.1

     31 October 2011 at 10:16 am

     More likely Key can be wired with an earpiece for TV. I know he couldn’t for radio, or at least that’s my limited tech understanding, happy to be corrected.
     • just saying 3.1.1

       31 October 2011 at 10:50 am

       If that’s the case, Goff could win a point by mentioning that unlike Key, he can run his own lines.
   • Jenny 3.2

     31 October 2011 at 10:54 am

     Key’s reluctance to front may be part of National Party elections strategy.

     If you’re too frightened to speak because people might think you’re an idiot, best to keep quiet rather than confirm it.

     MANA MEDIA RELEASE

     31 October 2011

     PAULA BENNETT ON THE RUN?

     Mana’s Waitakere candidate Sue Bradford says Paula Bennett appears to be running away from public debates with her.

     “I know of several organisations now who have tried to organise public debates between the local candidates, including Paula Bennett, but she keeps backing out of them.

     “Waitakere residents want to hear what Paula has to say, particularly on issues like welfare where she is pushing a very controversial agenda.

     Ms Bradford says the TV7 programme ‘Back Benches’ wanted to do a special programme with Labour candidate Carmel Sepuloni, herself and Paula Bennett last week.

     “However, it had to be cancelled because Bennett would not front,” she says

     Then last week the Minister of Social Development – and local member for Waitakere – pulled out of an NZEI West Auckland Election Forum due to be held 7.00pm this Tuesday 1 November, despite having told organisers that she would certainly attend.

     As soon as advertisements for the meeting appeared in local paper the Western Leader, Ms Bennett pulled out.

     ‘Nor have I seen Paula Bennett on the platform at other West Auckland candidate meetings – so far,’ says Ms Bradford.

     “The people of Waitakere deserve better. Paula will be implementing a big chunk of National’s War on the Poor if National returns to power.

     “If she is reelected as MP for Waitakere, the rest of the country are going to hold local voters here responsible for her actions.

     “It’s just not fair to them that she refuses to front in these circumstances.’

     Sue Bradford

     Mana candidate for Waitakere
     • vto 3.2.1

       31 October 2011 at 10:58 am

       Saisbury complaained of the same last week on closeup.

       Someone should maintain a register of each of his chickenshit no-shows. And publish it.

       book book book bok
     • Ianupnorth 3.2.2

       31 October 2011 at 12:06 pm

       Had an appointment with Jenny Craig
4. AAMC 4

   31 October 2011 at 8:51 am

   A brilliant look at the Anthropologist who was instrumental in the start of and the horizontal style of OWS…

   http://thebrowser.com/articles/david-graeber-anti-leader-occupy-wall-street

   And an interesting development, @occupymarines teaching tactics to protestors when faced with riot police..

   http://occupymarines.org/occupyomc-occupy-america/occupied-riot-resistance-orr/occupied-riot-resistance-1/
   • uke 4.1

     31 October 2011 at 9:21 am

     Thanks for the David Graeber article link – I will be looking out for his book “Debt: The first 5,000 years”.
5. Colonial Viper 5

   31 October 2011 at 8:58 am

   The Decade Wall St Went Insane Pt 1

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVUEcqiyoB0

   And this is why the financial world is in the shit, and why worker pension funds are now under funded by hundreds of billions.

   These ‘traders’ decided to go to Las Vegas with other peoples’ money. This is John Key’s background.
   • travellerev 5.1

     31 October 2011 at 11:12 am

     In fact he was in that world right up until March 2001 and left after having helped Merrill Lynch set up their derivatives department and well after the repeal of the Glass Steagall and the housing bubble well on its way act mentioned in the second part of this nice little mini doco.
6. just saying 6

   31 October 2011 at 9:39 am

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ham6vFy8v2I

   Sound track for a New Labour party ad featuring Phil, Trevor, the two Davids, Grant and Damien, full leathers, Harleys, high speed, an empty country road, and a town in the distance. Phil’s bike just out ahead and those pants are tiigght! Cut to shot of Key mincing in an all black Jersey……
7. Kty 7

   31 October 2011 at 10:05 am

   The debate tonight at 7.00 on TV1 Should be good. Shonkey will not be able to hide behind his favourate game of blame shifting, and will have to be accountable, if he uses his normal method of debating, like he does in parlimentry question time he will only confirm that he and his mates are well and truly in the mire, and will have pressed the self destruct button.
8. thejackal 8

   31 October 2011 at 10:30 am

   No Reason for Partial Privatization

   The National party would have us believe that without partial privatization of our power companies, we will not be able to fund new schools…
   • Kty 8.1

     31 October 2011 at 10:52 am

     Why? hasnt national just closed a few of our schools, or was that just so he could give a reason to sell some of our other assets.
     • thejackal 8.1.1

       31 October 2011 at 12:19 pm

       National has even closed the school where they shot John Keys 2008 election campaign video… you know the one where all those kids are singing about a brighter future.
9. Dv 9

   31 October 2011 at 10:46 am

   I like imperator fish take.
   Sell assets to pay for the schools leaky buildings. Who was it that changed the regs to allow leaky buildings?
10. Pete George 10

    31 October 2011 at 10:51 am

    John Cleese had a problem. I have a similar sort of problem 🙂

    It”s just a fact of political life, the fruitier the loop the greater the media harvest.
    • Galeandra 10.1

      31 October 2011 at 11:39 am

      Not normal, PG, just stuffy. Face it, we’re part of yesterday’s generation. However, you do show occasional signs of fruitloopery, maybe because you’re tone deaf when it comes to yoof and their dis-ease with the sensible elderly types who’ve survived very nicely, thanks, on trying to keep the golden showers flowing. Only fruitloops jive to the band on the Titanic.
11. Willie Maley 11

    31 October 2011 at 11:40 am

    Hooten just said on Nine to Noon that Key was mobbed in ChCh on Saturday, with people queuing for hours to have thier photo taken with him.
    Any truth in this? Or more deflecting BS from Hooten?
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      31 October 2011 at 11:53 am

      Mobbed with people? Its not like the DPS to slack off.

      Therefore sounds like BS.

      But I hope Hooten keeps this up.
    • Kty 11.2

      31 October 2011 at 11:55 am

      Delusoons of Grandeur from some one.
12. joe90 12

    31 October 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Peter Sinclair’s newest video looks at the fallout from UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller’s research.
13. thejackal 13

    31 October 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Nationals Propaganda on Rena

    The NZ Herald has become a function of the current National government, providing spin to promote a regime of disinformation…
14. Campbell Larsen 14

    31 October 2011 at 12:41 pm

    The Sunday star times is running a 2011 elections banner across the top of political pages in National party blue complete with National party stars in the background.
    I think a complaint to the electoral commission is in order – the impartial colour for referencing the elections is the orange employed by the electoral commission itself.
    • Chris 14.1

      31 October 2011 at 5:05 pm

      I haven’t seen the actual paper but going on your description and what they have as the banner on the stuff website isn’t that the NZ flag?
      • Campbell Larsen 14.1.1

        31 October 2011 at 9:39 pm

        Same stars as the NZ flag, but no union jack – looks like a national party banner flapping in the wind with the ‘N’ obscured to me.
        Either way the dominant presence of a colour block and stylistic features that match the branding of one of our political parties creates an impression of dominance or authority and this in turn influences opinion.
        This is why we have election orange for the electoral commission – because their voice must not endorse a particular political party. The Sunday Star Times is supposed to adhere to similar principles and not resort to cheap psych tricks to big up their buddies.
15. joe90 15

    31 October 2011 at 1:25 pm

    This makes me angry, pricks.

    U.S. had advance warning of abuse at Afghan prisons.

    KABUL — Across the street from U.S. military headquarters in Kabul, shrouded from view by concrete walls, the Afghan intelligence agency runs a detention facility for up to 40 terrorism suspects that is known as Department 124. So much torture took place inside, one detainee told the United Nations, that it has earned another name: “People call it Hell.”

    But long before the world body publicly revealed “systematic torture” in Afghan intelligence agency detention centers, top officials from the State Department, CIA and U.S. military received multiple warnings about abuses at Department 124 and other Afghan facilities, according to Afghan and Western officials with knowledge of the situation.

    Despite the warnings, the United States continued to transfer detainees to Afghan intelligence service custody, the officials said. Even as other countries stopped handing over detainees to problematic facilities, the U.S. government did not.

    U.S. Special Operations troops delivered detainees to Department 124. CIA officials regularly visited the facility, which was rebuilt last year with American money, to interrogate high-level Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects, according to Afghan and Western officials familiar with the site. Afghan intelligence officials said Americans never participated in the torture but should have known about it.

    When the United Nations brought allegations of widespread detainee abuse on Aug. 30 to Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. military commander here, he took swift action ahead of the public release of the findings. Coalition troops stopped transferring detainees to Department 124 and 15 other police and intelligence agency prisons. They also hastily began a program to monitor those facilities and conduct human rights classes for interrogators.
16. Pete George 16

    31 October 2011 at 1:27 pm

    A remodeled parable:

    A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be leftish/socialist, and she was very much in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs – in other words, the redistribution of wealth.

    She was ashamed that her father was a business owner, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured a selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

    One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

    The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.

    Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.

    Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend doing?” She replied, “She is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

    Her father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, and certainly that would be fair and equal.”
    The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

    The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “welcome to socialist reality.”
    • Campbell Larsen 16.1

      31 October 2011 at 1:52 pm

      You should stick with bland non committal sanctimonious pronouncements Pete – they really are your forte.
      • Pete George 16.1.1

        31 October 2011 at 2:03 pm

        I’m not surprised you don’t want to get it. You know what? Troll attacks don’t bother me.
        • Campbell Larsen 16.1.1.1

          31 October 2011 at 2:08 pm

          What is United Futures position on retaining interest free student loans Pete?
          • Pete George 16.1.1.1.1

            31 October 2011 at 3:28 pm

            No policy so intent is to leave interest as is – and to have zero fees and abolish student allowances to stop taking and giving money-go-round and abuse by business people.

            Student loans still for living expenses, but they will be substantially reduced.

            http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/tertiary-education-1/
            • Campbell Larsen 16.1.1.1.1.1

              31 October 2011 at 9:54 pm

              No policy = UF will not oppose interest on student loans – and not only that wants to remove student allowances as well.

              Some friend to students you are – first saddling them with debt and then bleeding them dry with interest.
              • felix …

                4 November 2011 at 10:43 pm

                Exactly Campbell, “no policy” means “go along with whatever National wants”.
        • mickysavage 16.1.1.2

          31 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

          Pete do you always substitute parable for serious thought?
           
          And why post something you borrowed off the sewer?
           
          Wouldn’t you rather talk about policies or the ills of the world or what we should do to make the world a better place?
    • Uturn 16.2

      31 October 2011 at 2:01 pm

      Would you say the attitude displayed by your fictional student could be found in any political group or any group at all? What would it’s name be and what are its causes?

      Have you demonstrated your character to be a Socialist as you say, or have you discovered that your evidence points elsewhere.

      Are you suggesting that educated people cannot be socialists?

      Are you saying that older people in business cannot be socialists? Where is the cut off age?

      What makes a socialist, Pete? Where’s the specific turning point?

      What indicators are there that she was ashamed of her Father?

      If the Father was already intending to trick his daughter, was he really listening to her ideas?

      What is a good definition of listening, Pete?

      Why was the daughter “taken aback” at her Father asking about her grades? Did he not usually speak to her?

      Are you suggesting that the only route open to humans is to “selfishly take” what one thinks to be their own?

      Evolutionary Altruism, Pete. Discuss and offer alternatives.
      • Pete George 16.2.1

        31 October 2011 at 2:27 pm

        Socialist idealism usually falls over in the face of real life.

        Apart from the common peril of power socialism never works due to inherent incentive lacking large scale laziness. Capitalism’s biggest problem is greed but that can be controlled if there is enough will.
        • Uturn 16.2.1.1

          31 October 2011 at 2:36 pm

          Pete, please define:

          Socialism
          Real life
          Laziness
          modes of incentive
          will

          Please expand on your claim that greed can be effectively controlled. What methods exactly?
        • just saying 16.2.1.2

          31 October 2011 at 2:37 pm

          So you’d be spending your twilight years staying in bed until noon and watching tele, were it not for the “incentive’ of a big fat politicians pay cheque for all this industrious campaigning, Pete? Not so much about a passionate desire to reeallllly represent people after all, Pete?

          I’m shocked, shocked!
        • KJT 16.2.1.3

          31 October 2011 at 2:39 pm

          Capitalisms biggest failure is it has to be heavily socialistically regulated to work in real life.

          There. Fixed it for you! Again!
        • Ianupnorth 16.2.1.4

          31 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

          Pete, many of us work very had for a wage that is far lower than we could command for less thrilling work in the private sector; your childish story is quite simply that, childish.
           
          Some of us actually do stuff that benefits others, not shareholders.
        • Puddleglum 16.2.1.5

          31 October 2011 at 2:48 pm

          Here’s a ‘Epilogue’ to your morality tale, Pete George.

          “And then she remembered. Her friend had just had her parents divorce after a long five years when her father was made redundant twice and her mother had been diagnosed with depression. On top of that the friend had had to take out a large student loan because her home was no longer a safe place for her.

          She turned to her father and said, “You’re just being heartless and taking no account of the circumstances that ordinary people have to deal with. That’s what makes you say such simplistic rubbish. Personally, I’d be happy to have my student fees go up if I knew that the University would provide more affordable, live-in accommodation, free health checks and the other supports to nurture those qualities that I see in my friend … and the reason I call her ‘friend’!

          You could learn a thing or two about reality, Dad. There’s still hope for you!!” 
        • KJT 16.2.1.6

          31 October 2011 at 2:49 pm

          How does your laziness theory, explain that when the work was available, at a time when benefits were relatively a lot higher than now, the Prime Minister could say he knew every one of the unemployed by name.
    • joe90 16.3

      31 October 2011 at 2:17 pm

      From that bastion of intelligent debate, conservapedia.

      Moron.
      • Uturn 16.3.1

        31 October 2011 at 2:30 pm

        I like this one:

        “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

        So now reading something makes you the thing described and understanding makes you anti? This could prove hilariously problematic.
    • KJT 16.4

      31 October 2011 at 2:29 pm

      Like most right wing propaganda you forget the real story.

      At university it was the rich kids who were partying, infesting the ski-fields and having gap years.
      While investing their student allowance/loan. Their marks are generally not that good. But it doesn’t matter because they went to Kings with the right people.

      The kids with working class parents couldn’t afford to bag off and are in lectures every day after working a 10 hour shift at the supermarket.

      On average hard working business owners do not earn much more than wage earners.
      Dominance by big corporates of finance and markets ensures that.

      Most wealthy are people who do no work whatsoever while the accumulate more money, from pre-existing wealth, than they can ever spend in their lifetimes.
      Or business managers/directors who, in NZ anyway, have proved so incapable of actually running or starting a business they want to steal ours.
      • Ianupnorth 16.4.1

        31 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

        You forgot to add that the rich kid then got the better job post-degree than the poor kid, as the bosses of the business sent their kids to the same fee paying school. The system sucks, time to change it.
        • KJT 16.4.1.1

          31 October 2011 at 2:51 pm

          Thought I did mention Kings.
          • Ianupnorth 16.4.1.1.1

            31 October 2011 at 4:35 pm

            Sorry, meant the original poster 🙂 (The wonderful PG!)
             
            • KJT 16.4.1.1.1.1

              31 October 2011 at 9:51 pm

              🙂
    • wtl 16.5

      31 October 2011 at 2:43 pm

      So I take it from this ‘parable’ that you are against all forms of income redistribution?
      • Pete George 16.5.1

        31 October 2011 at 2:51 pm

        Not at all, that’s a starnge conclusion.

        With money/tax/benefits ome redistribution is essential, it’s a matter of getting the right balance – and making everyone “equal” is not the right balance.

        Many people would work fine within socialism (I’m not particularly money driven), as many people work fine within capitalism. But significant numbers don’t.

        The commune experiments in the 70s often failed because a few hardworking idealists found couldn’t support (and eventually didn’t want to support) the number of freeloaders wanting an easy life for little input.
        • KJT 16.5.1.1

          31 October 2011 at 2:54 pm

          Capitalism is failing now because we hard workers cannot support the financial system that is freeloading off our work.

          The system, that in the USA, now owes more money than US real productivity can repay in 1000 years.

          Actually, Anglo Saxon capitalism’s biggest mistake, IMHO, is that we let accountants off the stools in the back office and let them foster the delusion they can run anything.

          “Accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing”.

          Anyway. Who is arguing for making everyone’s income equal. I am not.

          However. There is no justification for someone earning 100’s of times more than someone else. No one works that much harder.
        • KJT 16.5.1.2

          31 October 2011 at 3:03 pm

          Pete. If you are not money driven, why do you give so much support to those that are!
          • Pete George 16.5.1.2.1

            31 October 2011 at 3:09 pm

            How much support do I give who KJT?

            Do you not support anyone who is driven to earn more?
            • KJT 16.5.1.2.1.1

              31 October 2011 at 9:57 pm

              I applaud people who earn more from their own efforts and contribution to society.

              Unlike you, I do not support those who gain an income from society, out of all proportion to their contribution, simply because they have money capital. Or find ever more useless ways of increasing their share.
        • wtl 16.5.1.3

          31 October 2011 at 3:16 pm

          It’s not a strange conclusion. The comment above suggests income redistribution can never work because it will merely be providing money to those who are lazy and not working hard enough. It doesn’t go into the complexities of the real life situation at all. Thus, it seems to me that you think that redistribution is a load of crock and can never work.

          If you post simplistic comments, expect simplistic conclusions.
          • Pete George 16.5.1.3.1

            31 October 2011 at 3:19 pm

            I didn’t say anything like that.
            • Draco T Bastard 16.5.1.3.1.1

              31 October 2011 at 3:31 pm

              Yes you did, right here. Or are you now going to deny that you posted that simplistic clap trap?
            • vto 16.5.1.3.1.2

              31 October 2011 at 3:36 pm

              Pete George your parable is a pile of shit with virutally zero features that are comparable with what you are trying to compare it to.

              I had some time for your relatively shallow musings before but this has really taken that esteem down a peg or three. All those cliches about the quality of our politicians srping to mind again thanks to this shit.

              Good luck in the election – I suspect that even with all the luck in the world it wont be enough …

              simple is as simple does
        • Colonial Viper 16.5.1.4

          31 October 2011 at 3:48 pm

          91% income tax rate over 25x the median wage.

          Land taxes and estate taxes on net property over $2M.

          FTT @ 0.1%.

          And a universal income for all NZ citizens.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.6

      31 October 2011 at 3:20 pm

      Except that’s not socialist but normal RWNJ stupidity.
    • Redbaron77 16.7

      31 October 2011 at 7:28 pm

      This story says much about your lack of understanding about Socialism and it’s not particularly original either. If you wish to run a critique on Socialism by all means go ahead, but please do some basic research first before commiting keyboard to screen.
    • Vicky32 16.8

      31 October 2011 at 8:58 pm

      The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “welcome to socialist reality.”

      Sigh, I first read a version of that in the Libertarian rag that briefly existed in 1984! The old-fashioned language is a dead giveaway…
17. aerobubble 17

    31 October 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Fish evolve immunity to toxic sludge, or rather they woke up a dominent
    more costly gene put to sleep. So what would Brash had done? Well
    fish were hurting and so Brash would have thrown them a life line,
    kept fish from toxic sludge and so left them better able to survive
    in clean seas. Well that doesn’t sound like free market theory, that
    sounds more like national socialism, protectionism, Australian,
    British companies directly competing with NZ companies pay
    CGT, have to pay more to attract those who can deal with the
    complexity, and they also don’t have to pay workers as much
    because workers get the first 5,000 off excempt of tax, and
    workers don’t pay tax on fresh food. But Brash can’t understand
    it, or can MSM, how could food being less than sugary drinks
    actually help the economy avoid costs like diabeties, poverty,
    obsecity.

    Whehn the MSM give these reckless right wing idiots too much
    time, they manufacture consent for inane seat warmers of the
    right, they do our economy a deep disservice. I have a really
    dim view of Victoria University, their economic department
    cannot serious condone what Brash says in any shape or form.
18. randal 18

    31 October 2011 at 2:36 pm

    red herring pete geroge. all societys except eastern despotisms and out and out tyranny’s are a mixture of socilaism/ capitalism. they are not mirro images or each other and neither are they an either or proposition. the major problem with capitalism is that it alloows the accumulators of capital to keep increasing their wealth without actually doing anything. then the f*ckers begin to think they did it all themselves. worst of all are the accountants who just want everything because they are like that. i.e. too much is not enough.
19. Ianupnorth 19

    31 October 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Admins – please do a Big Bruv on pete!!
    • Pete George 19.1

      31 October 2011 at 2:55 pm

      Don’t you like anyone encouraging discussion? Or do you want just want restricted discussionto suot your preferences.

      Plenty of jumping to conclusion about my intent, you don’t even know what I think about the parable. Attack first, don’t think later seems to be a common theme here.
      • KJT 19.1.1

        31 October 2011 at 3:05 pm

        I like discussion. Just prefer the RWNJ’s would come up with some original thought for us to get our teeth into.
      • Draco T Bastard 19.1.2

        31 October 2011 at 3:35 pm

        You don’t encourage discussion – you seem to do your damnedest to undermine it with you puerile non answers and assertions.
      • Ianupnorth 19.1.3

        31 October 2011 at 4:36 pm

        Pete, you just talk shit mate!
      • Uturn 19.1.4

        31 October 2011 at 4:51 pm

        Instead of saying what you think about the parable, you take 7 posts to tell us we don’t know what you think? You’re a troll and have entered my ignore list.
      • marty mars 19.1.5

        31 October 2011 at 5:07 pm

        snot your preferences pete you give the average troll a bad name
      • Uturn 19.1.6

        1 November 2011 at 9:37 am

        Reading through a Kiwiblog thread on tax cuts for the rich offered by Labour, today, and I find this:

        Pete George (11,634) Says:
        October 31st, 2011 at 1:16 pm
        Mark’s parable is very good, but it doesn’t just apply to staunch right versus left, most of the centre would probably also acknowledge the message in that.

        A comment in reply to the same parable you posted here 10 mins afterwards. So that’s what’s you think of it. It’s “very good” and since you identify with the centre on yours and UF blog, you agree with it’s message. You’re a troll. You come here to troll.
      • Vicky32 19.1.7

        4 November 2011 at 9:08 pm

        Please do not jump to the conclusion that I agree with you in any way but this Pete George – but it’s sadly true that people here are very good at attacking first, and not asking questions later…
20. Ianupnorth 20

    31 October 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Hot off the Herald website
    Govt does not convince business
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10762942

    … it also found that while 98.4 per cent of respondents believed it was important for the Government to have a co-ordinated plan of action that raised New Zealand’s economic performance, only 34.5 per cent thought it had one.
    Deloitte chief executive Murray Jack said it was “disturbing” that the No.1 issue emerging from the survey was the lack of a “clear, well understood economic plan”.

    also

    The survey also showed only 19 per cent of respondents thought the Government’s current infrastructure spending plans would deliver the best economic outcomes for New Zealand against 23.6 per cent who thought they wouldn’t. But significantly, more than half – 57.4 per cent – were unsure.
     

    and (saving the best till last)

    Labour deserved credit for “grasping the nettle” by saying it would raise the eligibility for NZ Super and Mr Jack said he was encouraged there was now more debate on the issue.
    However, he said Labour’s policy was flawed, partly as the changes did not take effect until the baby-boomer generation had retired.
    Labour at least recognised the link between KiwiSaver and NZ Superannuation, he said.

    So, the business community is getting word about the Nats!
21. vto 21

    31 October 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Solid rumour around the traps down these parts is that Brownlee is threatening the Christchurch City Council with an Ecan-style sacking post-election.

    He needs to be called on it. Pre-election. Perhaps during the debate tonight with Key.

    If he does go through with this threat I predict all hell will break loose and it will leave the protests around the Ecan sacking looking like a picnic in the park in comparison.
22. outofbed 22

    31 October 2011 at 5:37 pm

    I haven’t decided who to vote for yet Mana or the Greens
    depends if hone looks like getting in, amongst other things
    Order at Moment
    Greens
    Mana
    Labour
    • Carol 22.1

      31 October 2011 at 5:40 pm

      Latest digipoll reported on RNZ this evening has Hone ahead.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2011/89692/poll-puts-hone-harawira-in-lead-in-te-tai-tokerau
23. thejackal 23

    31 October 2011 at 5:57 pm

    2011 Election Debate Fail

    Despite John Key refusing to be a part of the actual debate, I thought the Native Affairs election kick off on Maori television was very good. Overall it was well produced and insightful, making me hopeful that this years campaigning would be worth watching…
24. William Joyce 24

    31 October 2011 at 6:15 pm

    3News tonight, (Patrick Gower’s article for those who want to see the vision), Key and Goff shake hands. Goff is genuine and makes eye contact. Key ducks and dives and scurries away.
     
    Hhmmm…..telling.
    • Deadly_NZ 24.1

      1 November 2011 at 12:59 am

      And did you see Brash’s comment to Gower where he called him a “deceitful bastard”

      Ah the wheels are starting to fall off when you start abusing the media 4 weeks out from an election. Smart, real Smart, there Don.

      http://www.3news.co.nz/Brash-rattled-by-retirement-question/tabid/419/articleID/231294/Default.aspx

      Oh and John Banks out in the Leathers today, No sign of the Harley. It’s sickening the stunts they will pull when they are desperate.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10762767
25. William Joyce 25

    31 October 2011 at 6:31 pm

    On TV3 website Top 10 oddest John Key moments
     
26. millsy 26

    31 October 2011 at 10:15 pm

    Ooooooooohhhhh crrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaapppppppppp

    John Key’s announcing the welfare changes tomorrow.

    The ones that will probably see mothers and their babies out on the street.
27. Draco T Bastard 27

    31 October 2011 at 10:59 pm

    Recession – tick
    Wages decreasing in real terms – tick
    Profits sky rocketing – tick

    There’s something seriously wrong with this picture.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS