Rodney Hide in control of Key Government policy

62 comments on “Rodney Hide in control of Key Government policy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   27 August 2010 at 10:11 am

   Why can Heather Roy stand up to Rodney Hide, but John Key can’t?

   Because perhaps Key is actually in alignment with the paymasters of National and ACT, the denizens of “big” business in NZ and their overseas paymasters? i suspect that the agenda does not come from Wodders on Shonkey, they are just parrots.

   Heather and Wodga are another type of beast altogether, they are ideologues who will comply with the paymasters only as long as it fits their ideology, sort of like a political QANGO.
2. mickysavage 2

   27 August 2010 at 10:15 am

   It would be one thing if there was analysis and a couple of options put up including the one subsequently selected.

   But nothing of the sort happened here. It seems to be a faith based decision, the faith being that free market is good, trade unions are bad, and more and more power is best for the employer.

   It is a shame really. If they actually looked at what was happening in Australia and America they would realise that Trade Unions increase wages and that a pure market approach is a recipe for social dislocation, poverty and hardship.

   Kate WIlkinson has been well and truly neutered by this disclosure.
3. Tigger 3

   27 August 2010 at 10:22 am

   Why would Nanny McKey stand up to Hide? Key, like Don Brash before him, is an ACT MP in National drag…
4. Anne 4

   27 August 2010 at 10:36 am

   “Why would Nanny McKey stand up to Hide? Key, like Don Brash before him, is an ACT MP in National drag ”

   Add to that… Key is as beholden to the big business pay(read donation) masters as ACT. Perhaps even more so. In other words, if you don’t go along with our agenda then your treasure chest will dry up.
5. BLiP 5

   27 August 2010 at 10:40 am

   This “release” of information smacks of an attempt to rally the ACT troops, to show that the party has had considerable clout and will continue to do so. Its damage control and takes some of the responsibility for the emotional rather than rational formulation of policy away from National Ltdâ„¢ who put it up and passed it. It reinforces Calamity Kate’s position as the “fall guy” for the inevitable pre-election Cabinet shuffle and keeps the King John The Clueless Of Charmalot brand intact.
   • Pascal's bookie 5.1

     27 August 2010 at 10:56 am

     nah BLip.

     The Herald OIA’d it, and it makes King John look like a tool. Which is not good for ACT in the scheme of things.

     Their partisans might get a warm tickly feeling about how their boy is the power behind the throne, but that’s only because they are idiots. ACT is the personal property of John Key’s National party. It’s their job to make him look centrist, not weak. If they fuck that up, he’ll get rid of them quicker than he found something else to do on Melissa Lee’s big day.
6. Rosy 6

   27 August 2010 at 10:45 am

   Nact hasn’t changed then, ol’ rodders must be laughing at Key beng so ‘relaxed’.. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3032415/Key-doesn-t-do-anything-Rodney-Hide

   He told the table guests before his formal speech that a person could get a “s…load” done in government as long as “you set the agenda” and have a clear direction.

   He had been amazed at how much he was able to achieve in the Cabinet because “you turn up with your papers” and “they are too busy with their own stuff; they’re not bothered”.
7. Lindsay 7

   27 August 2010 at 10:45 am

   BLiP, The papers were released under an OIA request from the NZ Herald. I agree the timing is good for ACT but it is not of their making.
8. kerry 8

   27 August 2010 at 10:50 am

   Well i suppose someone had to be in control….cause it certainly aint donkey….SMILE…WAVE….SMILE ….WAVE!

   Thats the tories all over again…all style and NO substance!
9. Tammy Gordon 9

   27 August 2010 at 11:12 am

   I say ‘game on’ for the union movement. We already know that the sick note for one day’s absence is likely to be pulled back, now there’s another target in the 90 days fire at will. I’m not sure that National MPs will be too thrilled with the tail wagging the dog here. And it looks like the Herald has just declared open season on Rodney.
10. David Lloyd 10

    27 August 2010 at 11:15 am

    Good grief you’ve just worked this out. Act have been steering the ship since National took office. DonKey is an Act supporter in a blue disguise as are many of his cabinet. And the good news is Act influence will increase… there’ll be plenty of Act inspired surprises during National’s second term. Mark my works, you read it here.
11. Cnr Joe 11

    27 August 2010 at 11:40 am

    bit of a laff – NoRightTurn lasts all of six minutes between signing off for the weekend and posting.

    This is another outrageous TurnOfEvents – this reveal of ACTs supreme arrogance – ‘if it works for 50 it’ll work for 50 million….’, coupled with (pin-the-policy-on-the) Jonkeys bunch of ..of..what are these people? Ministers? Puppets? Crosby Textor-scripted, seat (of pants)filling, fire-at-will-from-the-hip, horrible, conservative right-wing-for-no-good-reason parliamentarians. Why do they do it?

    nice weather for ducks
    • Jim Nald 11.1

      27 August 2010 at 9:58 pm

      I never thought much of Minister Kate Wilkinson and this is another piece confirming she is a puppet.
      Can someone remind me of her puppet role to Gerry Brownlee’s stupid mining ambitions?
12. Fisiani 12

    27 August 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Why should a voluntary great work choice option policy only be given to those who apply for work in a firm of less than 50 workers? That would not be fair on those work seekers knocking on the doors of big firms. Fairness in the workplace is the aim of the government. Very sensible to take a bold step than a merely a timid incremental one. There would no difference in the venomous mistruths and misplaced fears as expressed by the blinkered Left. The 90 day right to prove yourself is not compulsory for anyone. Employers can choose to take the potentially horrendously expensive current risk of not using it and employees can choose not to sign it same as they dont have to sign for any other contract clause. Great example of a collegial government in action to restore the damage of an economy run onto the rocks by a distracted crew with their eyes off the destination.
    • felix 12.1

      27 August 2010 at 12:27 pm

      Catchup. In parliament yesterday Bennett showed that 90 day trials are effectively compulsory for people referred by work and income.

      You’re always a bit behind with your lines though Fizzy. Where are you getting them?
      • Fisiani 12.1.1

        27 August 2010 at 1:17 pm

        90 day trials are not compulsory. No company has to include it as a condition of employment. It is however manifestly unreasonable for an unemployed person to refuse an otherwise acceptable job offer simply because the contract stipulates that their is a 90 day trial period. No one of course is physically compelled to take such a job but why should we have to fully support such a shirker or deluded tool of the extreme left.
        • Armchair Critic 12.1.1.1

          27 August 2010 at 1:55 pm

          who are these shirkers, Fisiani? Are they the thousands of people that queued to apply for a few hundred jobs in Manukau, in January? Or the thousands of people that queued for a few hundred jobs in Auckland a month or so back? Most of the unemployed want to work. Labelling them shirkers is rubbish.
          What is the govenment doing to help create jobs for these people? Before you tell me that the 90-day amendment will create more jobs, show me a link to some reliable evidence.
          Hint – I predict you won’t, or can’t. This is because there is no evidence, and there is no evidence because the 90-day trial period does not create more jobs.
          • Fisiani 12.1.1.1.1

            27 August 2010 at 2:11 pm

            I have never labelled the unemployed genuinely seeking work as shirkers. How ridiculous. Try reading. You did. You labelled these Kiwi battlers as shirkers. Shame on you. I bet not one of those people stridently demanded that there be no 90 day trial in their contract. There wasn’t one anyway as the firms involved employed more than 20 workers
            • Armchair Critic 12.1.1.1.1.1

              27 August 2010 at 3:53 pm

              You labelled these Kiwi battlers as shirkers
              Bollocks, I did completely the opposite. You are wilfully and deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote in my comment above.
              I see you proved me right, because can’t provide any links to show the 90-day period created even one single job.
        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.2

          27 August 2010 at 3:36 pm

          Yes, actually, they are “physically compelled to take such a job”. You even say so yourself.

          It is however manifestly unreasonable for an unemployed person to refuse an otherwise acceptable job offer simply because the contract stipulates that their is a 90 day trial period.

          The issue is if signing away your rights is an acceptable offer and, quite frankly, it isn’t. you, being the psychopath that you are, are quite happy for people to forcibly have their rights taken away from them.
      • Vicky32 12.1.2

        27 August 2010 at 5:42 pm

        I suppose I am lucky that WINZ have been too incompetent and lazy to refer me anywhere as yet then?
        (I am looking for myself of course… and I can choose what I apply for – provided I don’t tell them my criteria, tee hee…)
        Deb
    • Lanthanide 12.2

      27 August 2010 at 12:54 pm

      If you were in a position of needing a job, and you were aware of other applicants for a job you were applying for that had a 90 day clause, are you really going to say “take the clause out or I won’t sign”? They’ll just pass over you and choose someone else. This isn’t something like asking for more money, or extra leave entitlement, or changed working hours etc. Asking for the 90 day provision to be removed immediately makes the prospective employer think that you’re out to scam them or join their company just to stuff around for 6 months before they can get rid of you.

      So no, there is no real “choice” over whether you sign a contract including it or not.
      • Fisiani 12.2.1

        27 August 2010 at 1:32 pm

        Sigh! You are correct. Not signing such a basic fair and reasonable contract does indeed mark you out as a unreasonable loser. Why would any employer with a brain choose that unrealistic person out of the others who are prepared to prove their worth. No compulsion because if you do CHOOSE not to sign then you can always apply somewhere else. 90 day trials are work opportunities. Stop standing in the way of workers rights to get a job.
        • mcflock 12.2.1.1

          27 August 2010 at 1:46 pm

          since when is a license to unfairly dismiss someone without cause or warning and for whatever reason you choose (as long as you don’t mention the reason if it contravenes the Bill of Rights act) part of a “fair and reasonable” contract?
          • Fisiani 12.2.1.1.1

            27 August 2010 at 1:53 pm

            Your assumption that an employer would dismiss a worker without good cause or reason is ludicrous insulting and without any proven grounds.
            • mcflock 12.2.1.1.1.1

              27 August 2010 at 2:25 pm

              Your faith in the benevolence and competence of every single manager in New Zealand is quaintly naive and contrary to the experience of the Employment Court.
              • Lanthanide …

                27 August 2010 at 3:31 pm

                Yes, you really can’t argue here, Fisiani. If employers were all reasonable, as you like to propose, the employment court would not need to exist (and would not frequently find in favour of the employee). It does, therefore they aren’t.
            • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.1.1.2

              27 August 2010 at 3:42 pm

              Except that it’s being proven on a day to day basis.
            • Vicky32 12.2.1.1.1.3

              27 August 2010 at 5:47 pm

              I take it you’re an employer Fisiani, or maybe a student? If you’d ever been employed, you’d know different…

              I’ve been ‘dismissed’ for all sorts of bizarre reasons over the last 30 years – including providing a job opening for the boss’s girlfriend! True.
              Deb
            • Mac1 12.2.1.1.1.4

              27 August 2010 at 6:21 pm

              @ Fisiani 1.53 p.m.
              And that’s why the employer does not need to provide a reason? Why be ashamed to provide a reasonable cause for dismissal? There are reasonable causes for dismissal, and there are systems already in place for such dismissals.

              A person in a court must be confronted by their accuser. It’s natural justice. Similarly, a person being dismissed should be given reason for this dismissal. These are people being treated arbitrarily- people, people, people. Does a libertarian not understand that?

              It defies logic that an employer deciding to employ for reasons that are dictated by business needs, will not employ because of difficulties of dismissal and thereby deprive the business of needed workers.

              Anti-spam word “excluded”, as in this debate are often logic and humanity excluded.
        • Lanthanide 12.2.1.2

          27 August 2010 at 3:30 pm

          Except if the exact same job had been offered prior to the 90 day bill, the 90 day clause would not have been in the contract. So what once was a solid job offer, is now in your own works, a “work opportunity”, not a job offer.

          If you were arguing “new jobs created by the 90 day bill can include the 90 day clause, and jobs that would have existed anyway regardless of the bill should not include the 90 day clause” I would agree with you. But that’s not what you’re saying.
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    27 August 2010 at 12:49 pm

    National is a far right party that only got voted in by painting themselves as a centre-right. Whatever made you think that the didn’t, in the majority, support this anyway?

    IMO, National are just pointing at Act to shift blame.
14. The Voice of Reason 14

    27 August 2010 at 1:44 pm

    National: lifting employment one sacking at a time.

    Fisiani: battling logic one braincell at a time.
    • Fisiani 14.1

      27 August 2010 at 2:01 pm

      90 day right to prove yourself is already demonstrably lowering unemployment one hiring at a time. Lots of workers are eager for the extension of their job seeking rights to medium and large firms. Good times are a coming.

      QT 26/8/10
      Tim Macindoe: How many new vacancies were listed with Work and Income in July 2010, compared with July 2008?

      Hon PAULA BENNETT: In July 2008 there were just 2,496 new vacancies. In July 2009 that figure nearly doubled to 4,000, but in July 2010 a total of 5,116 new jobs came into Work and Income.

      Resorting to ad hominem. Priceless.
      • The Voice of Reason 14.1.1

        27 August 2010 at 2:46 pm

        “90 day right to prove yourself is already demonstrably lowering unemployment one hiring at a time.”

        OK, demonstrate away. Show us the evidence, Fisiani.

        “Lots of workers are eager for the extension of their job seeking rights to medium and large firms.”

        Name them. Go on, prove you’re not just making shit up as usual.

        “Good times are a coming.”

        Next election, I’m picking.
15. Jim Nald 15

    27 August 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Donkey is playing the good Nat cop routine opposite Rortney’s ACT.
    They think you’re all mostly quite stupid.
16. Disengaged 16

    27 August 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Isn’t this just MMP in action? I don’t recall there being cries of “Dunne in control of Clark policy” when he got the Families Commission put in place, and nor were there cries of “Greens in charge of Labour” when the home insulation policy and even s59 review were adopted by Labour.
    • mickysavage 16.1

      27 August 2010 at 3:13 pm

      But they were good sensible policies backed by analysis and recommendations.

      These policies are entirely different. No analysis, no justification, and no benefit to anyone except the coldest hearted of employers.
      • Disengaged 16.1.1

        27 August 2010 at 3:35 pm

        So if ACT had used the same tactics to promote a policy you agree with, then that would be fine because the end justifies the means? To me it seems that ACT is using its influence to push forward a policy that its supporters would agree with. No different to what other small parties have done in the past.
        • felix 16.1.1.1

          27 August 2010 at 4:26 pm

          No, if you bothered to read Mickey’s comment at all you’d notice that the distinction he made wasn’t whether he agreed or not.

          Try again.
        • Puddleglum 16.1.1.2

          27 August 2010 at 8:33 pm

          Disengaged, one of the main points of the post was that a National Minister’s recommendation was rolled after ‘negotiations’ with ACT. The Minister, apparently, did not provide, as one of her options, the extension of the 90 day fire at will provision to all employers.

          The Families Commission – I’m vague on this – either came as part of the UF-Labour support agreement and/or was brought to cabinet by Dunne (though possibly not the latter as he was only the Revenue Minister). It was NOT a case of a Labour Minister coming with a firm and singular recommendation and then having it overturned by Dunne (or by ‘negotiations’ with UF).

          That ACT can successfully over-ride a National Cabinet Minister is, at the very least, an interesting – even unique – situation.
    • prism 16.2

      27 August 2010 at 3:17 pm

      The Families Commission and home insulation were additions to the services and benefits that were offered by the state. If ACT is bounding through a weak National defence that’s bad tactics in the government’s playing plan, as everything that ACT does diminishes the services that the state provides just as ACT wants to diminish its legitimacy. It’s interesting that there was so much hate for communism but when its mad mirror image shows up in the shape of ACT, well that’s quite acceptable.

      As for accepting ACT’s policy push being a result of MMP, IMO if only one electorate seat is won and the votes are less than 5 percent, it should carry only one list MP with it (to enable a more effective representation than a single independent member). But it should not automatically give the party a proportional piece of the pie. And that requires redrafting part of the MMP legislation but not revising the system.
      • Disengaged 16.2.1

        27 August 2010 at 3:52 pm

        I would imagine that ACT supporters would see that the policy concessions that ACT is pushing for are adding benefits to society. Whether you or I agree with their policies is irrelevant in this regard as ACT is simply working within the MMP system as it stands at the moment.

        Could MMP be improved? Sure, but I certainly prefer it to FPP as it has given smaller parties like the Greens and the Maori Party more of a say in parliament. Unfortunately it also allows ego driven parties like United Future, Jim’s Progressives and NZ First to wield far more influence than they should really have IMO.
        • felix 16.2.1.1

          27 August 2010 at 4:29 pm

          Na, it’s not that “the MMP system” allows it, it’s that National allow it.

          They can say “no” to ACT’s demands, can’t they?

          If not, why not?
          • Disengaged 16.2.1.1.1

            27 August 2010 at 4:41 pm

            Of course National could say no. I’m not saying that they are being forced into making policy against their will because of MMP. It’s no secret that National is pro-business and so this policy would be unlikely to cause upset amongst their supporters. Therefore, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for National to agree to ACTs proposal if it meant that it kept their coalition partner happy, in much the same way that the Greens managed to win policy concessions from an ideologically similar, but more centrist, Labour party.
            • Pascal's bookie 16.2.1.1.1.1

              27 August 2010 at 4:57 pm

              When were the greens in coalition with Labour again?

              What is different about this case is that it’s neither a part of the coalition deal, nor a private members bill. There is nothing wrong with it, and no one is saying there is, But it is what it is. National overruling the Minister of Labour, a Nat, in favour of an unworked up idea from ACT who are outside cabinet. They then claim the policy as their own. It’s pretty much ACT swinging the govt, and again there is nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is, and it’s good that it gets publicity.

              Afterall, there are plenty of National voters that think ACT are a bunch of lunatics.
              • Disengaged …

                27 August 2010 at 5:09 pm

                Don’t be obtuse. I didn’t say that the Greens were in coalition with Labour, I was saying that they won concessions from an ideologically sympathetic Labour. Arguably the Greens’ successes are a more extreme example because they weren’t a coalition partner.

                It’s also a bit unfair to dismiss it as ACT pushing “an unworked up idea” as it is an extension of National’s policy which was already in place (and was part of National’s election campaign) and hadn’t caused the world to explode.

                I just don’t get why this small parties wagging the dog (to murder a metaphor) is so shocking. It’s an example of MMP enabling a more diverse range of views to be pushed, which has been happening since day one.

                As to your final point, I imagine that there are plenty of Labour voters who aren’t so fond of the Greens (head down to the West Coast of the South Island and you’ll meet a few). That didn’t stop Labour from building a constructive relationship with them.
                • felix …

                  27 August 2010 at 5:18 pm

                  “It’s also a bit unfair to dismiss it as ACT pushing “an unworked up idea’ as it is an extension of National’s policy which was already in place and hadn’t caused the world to explode.”

                  Apparently you missed the point of the post then. The Nats say they didn’t want to extend this beyond businesses with 50 or less workers.

                  You said they had to, ‘cos of MMP and that.

                  I say you and the Nats are full o’ shit. If they didn’t want to do it they could have said no, and what would ACT have done about it exactly?

                  I call bullshit.
                  • Disengaged …

                    27 August 2010 at 5:35 pm

                    You really are an angry angry man aren’t you?

                    Where did I say that “they had to ‘cos of MMP and that”? What I’m saying is that ACT used their influence to get National to implement a policy (well really, go further than they would have initially gone) that they wouldn’t have. Which is part of the MMP process.

                    As the original posts says:

                    “The National Party came to us for support and wanted to extend it to 50, and we said, ‘If it’s good for businesses with 50, it will be good for business with 51 and 101 and 1001.’

                    “We persuaded the National Party to go the whole nine yards. It wasn’t an arm-wrestle.’

                    So ACT persuaded National to further than they initially would have.

                    The same as the Greens persuaded Labour (and ultimately National) to go further than they would have with s59.

                    Small parties have been throwing their weight around since the start of MMP.
                    • felix …

                      27 August 2010 at 6:00 pm

                      There you go again, blaming MMP for National’s decision.

                      National says that they didn’t want this to happen.

                      So either you believe:

                      a) ACT made them do it, or

                      b) National really wanted this all along.

                      This wasn’t part of their coalitin agreement with ACT. This isn’t something they have to do to ensure ACT’s support.

                      Either they wanted the law or they didn’t. Looks like they did.

                      And na I’m not angry, I just don’t suffer fools or those pretending to be fools very well.
                • Pascal's bookie …

                  27 August 2010 at 7:41 pm

                  You didn’t say the Greens were in a coalition with labour, but you are saying that this is no different. ‘cept it is different.

                  The point is; The whole point that is: Is that this is ACT policy that goes against what the National Minister was recommending, and against what National were saying before the election but was introduced as National party policy.
                  The are hiding the fact that this was an ACT deal. This is news.

                  With the green/labour party policies, voters knew where the policies were from. They knew how much influence the Greens were having.

                  And it’s not just the 90 days stuff. There is the union access stuff that employers didn’t ask for and the ministry said there was no case for. That’s why I’m calling the ideas unworked up. They are ideology based, pure and simple. Look at how the rationale changed for the ninety days. Initially it was about the HR resources of small firms. That was the policy they were elected on. They also promised pre election that union access rules would not be changed. But ACT changed their mind on that. Perfectly legitimate, but not very centrist.

                  Which is, again, all fine and legitimate, but voters have a right to know where it’s coming from. If voters wanted an ACT led government they would have voted for one.

                  For the government to slowly adopt ACT policy, all the while pretending that they are not and selling themselves as simple pragmatic centrists who think ACT are far too extreme, is a tactic. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed, or anything like that. I’m saying they are being dishonest and that it’s perfectly legitimate to point out what is happening.
        • Draco T Bastard 16.2.1.2

          27 August 2010 at 5:18 pm

          I would imagine that ACT supporters would see that the policy concessions that ACT is pushing for are adding benefits to society.

          I’m sure they do even though all the evidence is against them.
17. Disengaged 17

    27 August 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Felix, I believe that ACT persuaded the National Party to do it.

    It seems pretty clear that National wanted to expand the programme and went to ACT for their support, in turn ACT used their influence to persuade National to expand it further than what was initially proposed. Hardly scandalous.

    National had already campaigned on, and implemented the 90 day policy. Expanding it beyond firms with 20 or fewer employees seemed a likely outcome. So agreeing to ACT’s request/pressure/demand to increase it further wouldn’t have been a painful decision for National as it was directionally correct with their originally intention, even if it meant going further or faster than they initially intended..

    So I guess I’m saying that I believe it to be a bit from option ‘A’ and little from option ‘B’.
    • felix 17.1

      27 August 2010 at 11:00 pm

      Bullshit. You’re trying to confuse the “less than 20” National campaigned on with the “less than 50” which was as far as Kate says National wanted to go.

      ACT have to vote for what National put up or vote against it. And if National put up “less than 50” ACT ain’t gonna vote against it. If that was as far as they wanted to go, that would’ve been it.

      National (and you) said they didn’t want to go this far but ACT made/persuaded them. And that’s a lie.
18. Carol 18

    27 August 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Felix, from what key has said on Nat Rad today, yur option b) is the correct one.

    An audio clip of Key has been played regularly on the Nat Rad news today in which he said:
    he asked Wilkinson initially to look at the 90 Day trial for businesses with up to 50 people.
    and that,
    he thought that eventually the 90 day rule would have been extended to all businesses anyway.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/55331/act-behind-extension-of-90-day-job-trial

    Prime Minister John Key says the Cabinet decided to extend the 90-day trial period for new workers to cover all businesses following negotiations with the ACT party.
    …
    The Prime Minister says ultimately, he believes the trial period would have been made available to all companies, regardless of size, and Ms Wilkinson did not resist the move.

    PS: Must check if that was Key’s exact words: ie that it would eventually be available to all companies and not to all employees

    Shows who the law is really for.
19. Darien 19

    27 August 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Check out http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/08/27/have-your-say-at-select-committee-just-kidding/
20. ak 20

    28 August 2010 at 12:34 am

    Yet another calculated, cold-blooded fist in the faces of Tariana and Pita.

    So crass that Hone is quiet.

    Too quiet.

    As Winnie’s tots-up the sub-radar baubles.

    The same ones Tari must tout.

    It’s a bomb.

    Astride an economic meltdown.

    Anomie times.

    Decision time for Phil:

    Underdog or poll shill?

    Labour legate or Boot Hill?

    Talk now to Tari and Win

    Or forever hold your wee piece.
21. doctorjeep 21

    28 August 2010 at 8:55 am

    Storm meet tea cup…

    “Bullshit. You’re trying to confuse the “less than 20″ National campaigned on with the “less than 50″ which was as far as Kate says National wanted to go.”

    No you’re confusing a Ministerial recommendation to Cabinet with a whole of Cabinet or National view. Cabinet can agree or not to a Ministerial recommendation at any point in the process – and do. Since none of us have seen the Cabinet paper much of this is just third, fourth hand speculation.

    Based on what we know, the Ministerial recommendation was only to extend to businesses with 50 or less employees because larger firms have in place processes that mitigate the risk of taking on employees not fit for the job. From what I’ve read we haven’t seen anything from “National” where it states there is a risk of extending it to those firms with 50 or more employees for the potential employees themselves. If they don’t think there are it really makes no difference if it is extended or not.
    • felix 21.1

      28 August 2010 at 2:00 pm

      So you think I can’t take National’s pre-election policies, promises, and assurances as representing the “National view”?

      It seems we’re in agreement if that’s the case.
22. john gilmartin 22

    28 August 2010 at 6:34 pm

    When I see Wodney holding that cup it stirs my Fascist complex. Is Wodney a fascist because he arouses feelings like that?Do we want a corporate government fascist state? I think yes because most of us are too lazy to do otherwise!
23. Tiger Mountain 23

    28 August 2010 at 11:23 pm

    Hideney, Rortney, El Duce junior, Wodney, etc. really is one of the most personally repulsive political entities since RD Muldoon. Proven gay basher, misogynist, racist, bully and corporatist. And then there is the ACT party line, which the Natz just love to say no, no, no,-yes! to.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 26 August 2010 at 9:41 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS