Worth a thousand words

68 comments on “Worth a thousand words ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gaylord 1

   6 March 2009 at 7:07 am

   IrishBIll: you were banned some time ago. Go have sock puppet conversations with yourself elsewhere.
   • chfr 1.1

     6 March 2009 at 7:45 am

     My thoughts exactly…let the baying begin.
2. infused 2

   6 March 2009 at 8:07 am

   Soon you will see the ill effects of obamas way. Size does matter.
3. Kevin Welsh 3

   6 March 2009 at 8:17 am

   Good cartoon.

   While I agree stimulus packages are needed, what is being done about the root causes of what has gone wrong?

   Are the same bunch of corporate crooks still going to be running the show five years down the track?

   Are they just “waiting for the dust to settle” before its back to business as usual?
4. vinsin 4

   6 March 2009 at 8:25 am

   “Are the same bunch of corporate crooks still going to be running the show five years down the track?”

   Yep. Nothing is really going to change, no “democratic” government in the world has the stones to take complete control of the economy.
5. vinsin 5

   6 March 2009 at 8:54 am

   Hmm someone named Gaylord talking about a soft cock.
   I’m sure there’s a joke there somewhere but…nope, too easy, i’m sure there are better things to do with my time.
6. Monty 6

   6 March 2009 at 9:15 am

   I often wonder if the left are just so deliberately dim when it comes to economic matter – or if the left really are totally economically illiterate?

   The problem with any stimulas package is that it is done off the back of borrowing money. Money that does need to be paid back – with interest – a couple of months before the election Clark was harping on about the evils of borrowing more money. Thanks to the fical fool cullen that is exactly what has had to happen, but Bill English is sensibly doing the minimum in order to smooth the roughest edges of the recession – but NZ is but a cork bobbing on the ocean of the worldwide recession.

   The National Government is using this time to position NZ in the best possible position to benefit when recovery happens. Borrowing money for short term gain is not a good idea – and will do nothing but delay the turnaround as the borrowed money must be paid back.

   But then again if Labour was in Government (thank god they are not) the writers of the Standard would no doubt be applauding the fiscal fool Cullen no matter what he did.
   • IrishBill 6.1

     6 March 2009 at 9:24 am

     Monty, the government borrows to stimulate the economy in such a way that we are better prepared to make the most of the next upswing. The analogy isn’t exact but think of it as being like a business raising capital to upgrade plant and equipment. Sure the money needs to be paid back but the upgrade means that not only will the payments be easier to make but there will be profit on top.

     Of course we could do what we did in the 90’s and exercise fiscal restraint but what happened then is that restraint further contracted the economy and deepened and lengthened the recession.

     That meant we lost skilled workers to stronger economies and that infrastructure and productive capital were run down. That’s a good part of why we have lower wages than Aussie, why we had a massive skills shortage (and still do in some industries) and why we have low productivity.

     You’re arguing for a repeat of that fiasco. It makes me wonder if you are being deliberately dim.
7. Snail 7

   6 March 2009 at 9:53 am

   Great graphic!

   monty, I won’t berate you with “fical fool cullen” – gee I make enougfh typos myself – but you do deserve to know how the world today is not command-control anymore for, as they say in silicon valley, it is all about interconnectedness.

   Bill English and highly likely the government’s whole leadership – (PM on through all ministrys) is follow a leader C-C – and I would hope they transition quickly to being part of the total solution and not out on their own-ee-oh!!!

   You said Borrowing money for short term gain is not a good idea and how right that is, though only virtual collapse of the global banking sector (among which in enzed the government’s lead party would resource major support) has drawn this rather obvious conclusion. Personally I would call that the irresponsibility of follower-dom today.

   lprent, not criticising y’follow, but has the type here been set lower ( and changed to sans ) or do I need bigger magnification in my reading glasses..?.
8. vinsin 8

   6 March 2009 at 10:05 am

   The problem with National doing the bare minimum in terms of stimulating the economy is that it seems their plan is predicated on the idea that this particular economic downturn is only going to last another couple of months and at the most a year.
   Talk to anyone who went overseas over summer, like say someone who went to America, and they’ll tell you the recession has hit the country with real power. They’ll also tell you that while masses of people were being fired, laid off and made redundant over there, NZ was basically on holiday and now the reality of the situation is becoming all too clear: the job market has become incredibly competitive with jobs scarce and full-time work a luxury, many companies have put a freeze on pay raises if they’re not making people redundant.
   Taking the “sharpest edges” off the recession is not working and won’t work because it’s taking the edges off for people who already have money and high paying jobs, the tax cuts are going to have little or no effect as the cuts are – once again – targeted at the wrong income bracket, it’s kind of like giving a band aid to someone with a bruise while someone with a deep wound bleeds all over the floor.
   The Labour government steered the country well by paying down debt so we have the ability to borrow when we need to, around a month ago English almost applauded them for this and said, “This is the rainy day the government planned for,” and yet we have little or no real plans for spending – a cycleway here, a bridge here, a new (un-needed i might add) motorway there – what we have is talks of cuts to public spending like ACC privatization, dropping out of the cullen fund, while reducing workers’ rights and sending people to WINZ. As others have said we need to super-charge the economy with money so we can ride out the recession and be in a better position when the market rebounds, if a large part of our society is unemployed and probably sick because of no ACC or limited healthcare what will we do? Borrow money.
   Yes we have to pay back our loans with interest; however, isn’t better to borrow when you need the money to maintain jobs rather than wait until the storm is over and then figure out what needs to be done. National’s plans are going to do nothing but prolong the recession and then when the market gains confidence again it will waste time figuring out what to do and spoil a year or two of economic growth.
   • Ianmac 8.1

     6 March 2009 at 1:34 pm

     Vinsin. Great summary! I wish I could do that but my brain hurts at the vast conflicts of economic opinions.
9. TightyRighty 9

   6 March 2009 at 10:13 am

   whats the number of that apollo that blew up? i notice the cartoonist left that off the “stimulus” rocket. and what happens when you get blasted to space? what exactly has nasa achieved in space for all the trillions they have spent? have they found life on mars, well kind of almost. have they discovered other intelligent life forms out there? no. have they managed to make a return on all that money they pumped in? well, not even slightly. this cartoon is a terrible analogy. at least if the NZ rocket explodes we can pick up the pieces and try again. if the “stimulus” rocket explodes, well i dare say too much would have been invested to do anything but sell anything salvageable to the chinese. kind of like the wellington power system last year.
   • vinsin 9.1

     6 March 2009 at 10:19 am

     My god, i think the rocket went completely over your head Tighty. Fail!
   • Kevin Welsh 9.2

     6 March 2009 at 10:26 am

     I want some of what you are on. Thanks.
     • Felix 9.2.1

       6 March 2009 at 10:36 am

       Pretty sure it’s meth.
   • Felix 9.3

     6 March 2009 at 10:32 am

     Hahahahahaha!

     For a brief moment I thought Tighty had made an overnight transformation from a complete fuckwad into a brilliant satirist. But no, it’s all kinds of fail.

     Oh, and nice comment vinsin, spot on.
     • TightyRighty 9.3.1

       6 March 2009 at 10:49 am

       all kinds of fail? you know, what if im wrong, i’ll eat my words. thats an election promise i’ll keep, my pledge card if you will

       the obamamessiah has fucked it up. the economic arguments put forward by this website and other left commentators are one-sided and therefore flawed. to increase capacity you can borrow from the bank, but when revenue drops, you cut costs and look at ways to increase future revenue out of current income. only a very fucking stupid stupid bank lends to people/organisations that won’t be able to pay it back. so the “borrow to spend” argument is doubly fucked because, and apparently everyone agrees on this, it’s one of the major causes of why we are in the shit anyway. i wouldn’t expect anyone who supports this to get that though.

       of course governments just do what they want, but the long term effects will be the same.
       • Matthew Pilott 9.3.1.1

         6 March 2009 at 10:54 am

         “only a very … stupid stupid bank lends to people/organisations that won’t be able to pay it back”

         So if the Government is the only organisation able to ‘pay it back’ (heh, remonds me of something else) does it not make sense for the government to act and keep things moving? Unless you’re Iceland, the Governmet may be the only party able to do anything – is that not a good thing, then, if it acts?
         • TightyRighty 9.3.1.1.1

           6 March 2009 at 11:11 am

           if the borrowing bankrupts the economy, the any bank/organisation/that has lent will be very fucking stupid. well actually it won’t matter as everyone will be screwed six ways from sunday anyway.

           Felix, jealous you crack ho? need a hit? go hit manchester street and hang out with your pipe fiendish sister, she might take pity and shout you a blast.
         • Felix 9.3.1.1.2

           6 March 2009 at 11:30 am

           Good idea, I’ll do that as soon as I’ve finished with your Mum.

           [lprent: Felix – there is no call for that. Tone it down]
       • Felix 9.3.1.2

         6 March 2009 at 10:58 am

         Tighty,
         You can’t make “election promises” you fucking moron. You’re not contesting an election, you’re an idiot on a blog and you write like you’ve been up all night on the pipe. You should expect piss to be taken.
         • vinsin 9.3.1.2.1

           6 March 2009 at 11:05 am

           Perhaps a liver too, mines playing up.
         • TightyRighty 9.3.1.2.2

           6 March 2009 at 11:43 am

           ho ho ho, original, get that off the latest mtv bullshit you obviously subscribe too?

           do you know how i know your lying though? last time i was balls deep in your mums mudbutton she told me your still a virgin.

           [lprent: Have you been reading the ‘sod? For a second I thought… Read the policy and tone it down or go to a blog where that kind of comment is tolerated.]
         • Felix 9.3.1.2.3

           6 March 2009 at 12:05 pm

           The words are to, you’re and Mum’s. Moron.
   • Akldnut 9.4

     6 March 2009 at 10:41 am

     yep Obamas putting a Big Rocket = Big Bang into the US economy
     Jonkeys putting a sky rocket into our economy with the explosive power of a TOM THUMB (Now I’m showing my age)
   • Adders 9.5

     6 March 2009 at 1:34 pm

     Every one of NASA’s Saturn V rockets flew successfully, even in testing.

     P.S. CAPTCHA: organization women.

     (Today being http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/ pay equity faxathon day)
10. Tim 10

    6 March 2009 at 10:38 am

    that’s a mighty expensive rocket the USA have there, and they don’t have the money to pay for it so they’re going to consign themselves to decades more of debt. Short term gain, long term pain.
    I’m so glad we’re not following that lead and only have one decade of deficits to deal with. Anyone who is able to manage their own money knows it should be short term pain, long term gain.
11. vto 11

    6 March 2009 at 10:44 am

    That is a partial cartoon and misses a whole lot. I don’t rate it
    • Matthew Pilott 11.1

      6 March 2009 at 10:51 am

      Aww, did you want to see all of the big shiny rocket?

      (sorry vto, couldn’t resist)
      • vto 11.1.1

        6 March 2009 at 11:36 am

        ha ha, silly.

        What would make a better cartoon is something concerning Winston Peters NZF most recent election funding rort (no wonder he is loathed).

        And also something about Labour’s admission in its return that it cannot be sure of the definition of what is and isn’t an electoral expense, etc. That has to be the biggest joke of the lot. And it is like a smack to the chops imo for those who contend Clark is one the greatest NZers alive. ha ha ha ha ha ha…
        • Matthew Pilott 11.1.1.1

          6 March 2009 at 12:21 pm

          really, vto? The electoral return of a party that is no longer in parliament is more important that the global economy?

          I don’t think the criteria for Greatest Living New Zealander is “ability of the political party you previously led to interpret the EFA.” otherwise Hillary wouldn’t have been in the picture when he was alive. A bit trite, don’t you think?
          • vto 11.1.1.1.1

            6 March 2009 at 12:58 pm

            MP, you know exactly what I am saying you twister.

            Helen Clark and the Labour Party govt rammed through a law which Helen Clark and the Labour Party couldn’t even understand themselves. That is both pathetic and terrible.

            And if you think Winston Peters and NZF are more important than the world economy then that’s your prerogative.
          • Felix 11.1.1.1.2

            6 March 2009 at 1:24 pm

            vto,

            Why not a film about the 19th century missionaries? They must have had some fascinating experiences, travelling the world and interacting with different cultures.

            What great stories!
12. Matthew Pilott 12

    6 March 2009 at 10:50 am

    Yes Tim, let’s all think in the short term and look for quick fixes.

    What’s the old saying? “what got you into this mess will get you out of this mess”.

    oh wait – I just made that up and it’s absolute rubbish. Hmm… Maybe a different approach is needed.

    I love the talk of this ‘fiscal fool Cullen’ coupled with a stern lecture about how bad debt is. How does that work, Munty? Cullen doesn’t trash our economy, instead he spends surpluses on getting rid of debt. Now we have proportinally low levels of debt and are in a good spot, compared to other countries, because debt is bad, right? Yet Cullen is a fiscal fool – for doing what you’ve just said is good.

    Your monocular vision sure has played havoc with your peripheral vision, Monty.
    • Tim 12.1

      7 March 2009 at 11:27 am

      Matthew you appear to be (how to put this delicately)… stupid. Short term pain, long term gain is what I’m advocating. Instead of massive borrowing to try to stimulate the economy we’re better off with a smaller program that doesn’t raise our debt levels through the roof.

      Are you telling me you want massive debt?

      You’re welcome to think Cullen did something wonderful for us but all I see is squandering of surpluses and criminal covering up of projected deficits. Oh yeah, and being taken for a sucker by Toll.

      You’re trying to have it both ways Matthew, and it’s pretty transparent that you simply take an opposite view of whatever the National government does as your viewpoint. It must really piss you off that Key’s government is doing so well 🙂
      It makes me laugh, because you can’t help taking the opposite stance and it makes you look (how to put this delicately)… stupid.
      • lprent 12.1.1

        7 March 2009 at 11:34 am

        Tim, you’re not just stupid, you are really thick (bugger the delicate bit). Please go and learn how to read a balance sheet – comment when you know what in the hell you’re talking about…

        You are totally wrong. In essence there were no surpluses.

        That was a public perception formed by the Nat’s and Act lying through their teeth and selectively picking the accounts to show what they wanted to see – ie on a Profit & Loss level. If you took it out into the Balance sheet level and looked at longer-term liabilities, you get the specter of liability of the superannuation system that National gave us in 1975. That wasn’t fully funded and without the superannuation fund (that the robber baron Nats wish to raid) would look even worse.

        If you looked at that within the mix, then we have been effectively in deficit until some time after 2050. Taxes should have been raised rather than reduced to cover for that liability. The later it is left, then the higher the cost will be to the taxpayers in a few years.

        Usually at this point I hear the mantra of better productivity from the right – but that is a matter of faith rather than practice. A prudent government doesn’t cast dice on future generations. Similarly it shouldn’t write budgets with future possible gains being inked in to pay for future liabilities. If you haven’t already realized the gain then it doesn’t exist in prudent accounting.

        The fact remains that since 1975 we had rising debt to ridiculous levels. The Nats in the 1990’s managed to slow the rate of increase. Cullen managed to drop it down. This managed to massively increase the effective productivity of the state sector because we stopped paying 25% or so in our fiscal budget on interest repayments (which is what it got to at peak).

        Of course I suspect that what we’re going to get from these bozo’s in government now is a merchant bankers budget. Long on speculative hope based on faith, debt and high on risk. But that describes the NACT’s doesn’t it.
13. rave 13

    6 March 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Obama like Key is in the business of stimulating profits.
    Have a read of Michel Chossudovsky’s recent article
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    6 March 2009 at 1:07 pm

    vto – course I do – but the interpretation of that is exactly what I said.

    I can’t imagine the Peters’ think making a good cartoon though – how would you go about it? I suppose there could be a ‘no’ sign, it’s almost obligatory. Maybe something about him being asked whether he filed his return properly, before he dashes away in a helicopter…
    • vto 14.1

      6 March 2009 at 1:19 pm

      MP, do you not agree that a govt ramming through a law that it doesn’t understand itself and is incapable of interpretation is a joke?
      • Felix 14.1.1

        6 March 2009 at 1:26 pm

        Are you talking about the Wanganui gang insignia law? I fully agree.
        • vto 14.1.1.1

          6 March 2009 at 1:30 pm

          ha ha Felix, don’t know as I haven’t followed that. But if so same call of ‘terrible and pathetic’ applies. Bloody dipshits wasting all our hard-earned taxes on crap for selfish political purposes.

          But you imply that you agree that the EFA is/was a joke and terrible and pathetic. Excellent.

          edit: dont understand your 1.24 comment but sounds worthy
          • Felix 14.1.1.1.1

            6 March 2009 at 1:39 pm

            Was just being a smart arse really – don’t mind me.
      • lprent 14.1.2

        6 March 2009 at 1:35 pm

        Yeah the “fire at will” act really tops the cake for that approach.
        • vto 14.1.2.1

          6 March 2009 at 1:46 pm

          hang on hang on, you’re taking me off track. All parties engage in legislation for crap self-serving political purposes.

          The point, and difference, with the EFA is that the Labour govt couldn’t even understand the law itself. Really, why pass something that is incapable of interpretation? Bad governance in the extreme. That is the biggest joke.

          It is like a massive prang to the side of the Clark credibility jalopy.
          • Matthew Pilott 14.1.2.1.1

            6 March 2009 at 1:53 pm

            I haven’t seen the story about Labour not understanding it – but I still don’t think it would rank up there among Clark’s acts, good or bad, as you describe it. Of course it’s your 2c, as you say, and maybe you feel electoral funding really affects your life, somehow. That’s the problem with ‘Greatest’ anything – it is very subjective. I mean hell, people can’t even agree that the Amazon is the ‘Greatest’ river.
15. vto 15

    6 March 2009 at 2:10 pm

    MP, its in a statement from the labour party’s auditors in their electoral returns. It was in the media this morning.

    You really don’t think passing a law that you don’t understand doesn’t rank up there? I consider it mind-blowingly reckless, criminal, unconstitutional and extremely bad governance. It stinks to high heaven and just rides arrogantly over the people and all who came before Clark in setting up the current governing structure we live under. It aint just my 2c, it’s my $2billion.

    Of course nobody on here will admit such. Which weakens this site’s cred as well. But that’s par for the course.

    Anyway, its almost beer o’clock.
    • vto 15.1

      6 March 2009 at 2:23 pm

      Bit more MP.. You say “maybe you feel electoral funding really affects your life, somehow”. Classic case of MP distortion. It isn’t the electoral funding issue that affects my life, it is the bad governance. Riding roughshod like that is on the path to dictatorship. Recall how many have described and consider Clark? That H….r word that can’t be used on here?
    • Pascal's bookie 15.2

      6 March 2009 at 2:50 pm

      Of course nobody on here will admit such. Which weakens this site’s cred as well. But that’s par for the course.

      hah. If people don’t agree with your opinion, then that is damaging to their cred, and just goes to show their arrogance. Good one.

      I’ve had the day off, went and saw a band last night, stayed out well past beer o’clock, so I’ve missed this awesome admission from Labour.

      But I’m guessing it says something like that they couldn’t always be sure what was an election expense? That’s not an admission that they didn’t understand the law, it’s an admission that they were unsure about how relevant third parties would interpret the law. It’s sort of the opposite of arrogance isn’t it?

      I seem to remember that in the big to do about the Auditor General last time around, he was including things as election expenses that made all sorts of people’s eyebrows twitter. If an MP flew back to his electorate for a clinic, but had a campaign meeting on the same trip, the travel costs were counted as election expenses. That sort of thing.

      Are you confident that you could detail everything that someone else would consider an election expense?

      And politicians pass laws all the time that are interpreted by the enforcement agencies in ways the pollies didn’t anticipate. ‘unconstitutional’ nope.

      And the reason I won’t ‘admit’ such, is because I don’t think it’s true. So go drink your beer, and come back when you might want to explain your position, listen to others and accept that people can honestly have different opinions about things than you. You arrogant fuck.
      • vto 15.2.1

        6 March 2009 at 3:38 pm

        woooo… still hungover P’s b?

        go and check it yourself. It’s the fucking truth. Thats why the last lot got people’s blood boiling and they were turfed out of office.

        Its labour that were the arrogant fucks.

        They were hated by an awlful lot of NZ that previously had time for them. Clark lost it at the end. This was one of the prime reasons. You still don’t realise that.
        • Pascal's bookie 15.2.1.1

          7 March 2009 at 12:23 am

          “woooo still hungover P’s b?”

          Nah not hungover at all. Are you drunk enough to start making sense yet? 😉

          “go and check it yourself.”

          Learn how to post a link if you want people to know what it is you are talking about.

          It’s the fucking truth. Thats why the last lot got people’s blood boiling and they were turfed out of office.

          What’s the fucking truth? That no one here will ‘admit’ things you believe to be true but won’t explain, because it’s just your 2c or your too busy at the moment or whatever.

          When you first showed up here you were going to ‘educate’ us lefties as I recall. How is that not arrogant? Are you starting to understand that ‘Arrogance’ is a perception thing.

          We all get that you think Labour was arrogant. Good for you. So what? All politicians are arrogant. What could be more arrogant than putting yourself up for the job of running the country because you think you know how to it better than everyone else. When an electorate goes sour on politicians for any reason they start to see them as arrogant. It’s not the big causative deal that you seem to think it is. The fact that they were getting tagged as arrogant, is a symptom of their problem, and a magnifier of it, rather than the main cause.

          And how is telling me what I don’t realise not arrogant? I know full well that that is how Labour was seen. Big deal.

          What I’m wanting to know is why this particular thing that you are talking about today is arrogant, and unconstitutional and what have you. I note you didn’t bother responding to that part my of my comment. If I might be so arrogant, can I ask if I was close in my guess of what it was about?

          Yes, my comment was hot tempered, but read your comments today. What got my blood up was your insinuation that commenters here are being dishonest because we don’t say we agree with you.

          If you don’t care to apologise, that’s fine, perceptions can be changed to account.
          • vto 15.2.1.1.1

            7 March 2009 at 10:59 am

            sheesh you guys are sensitive sometimes. the threads posted on here are equally provocative etc at times. what’s the matter, can’t handle your own medicine? i think p’s b you have slanted off on one sentence of mine and gone all unstable.
          • Pascal's bookie 15.2.1.1.2

            7 March 2009 at 11:44 am

            I addressed as much of your comment as I could vto. Read both my comments and I think I explain my position fairly clearly.

            I’m still not quite sure what your point is though. I know you think that the Labour were all evil and arrogant. But you don’t seem to be able or willing to expand on that. And yet you call me a liar if a disagree with you, claiming that I know these things but won’t ‘admit’ it. Or you make big pronouncements about how I am not aware of things, just because I haven’t mentioed them.

            I can handle my medicine vto, but can you justify administering it?
16. m_c 16

    6 March 2009 at 8:22 pm

    I don’t really think the two packages are comparable. New Zealand’s entire population is the equivalent of a large SUBURB of a major US city, with a completely different political atmosphere (the Dems are probably to the right of National, to be honest) and completely different issues. They are really really in the shit over there, they are thinking of nationalizing the banks for goodness sake.

    Different stimulus packages represent the different scenarios countries are facing – and it still remains to be seen whether or not Obama’s will work. How much money is involved means jack when we’ve yet to see the results – more money does not nescessarily mean more stimulus. Especially when Americans don’t have a federal welfare system or federal healthcare entitlement which are things we take for granted here in New Zealand. Obama s cutting taxes for 95% of American workers – but that’s like putting a Band Aid on a gushing wound. Increased social spending won’t create jobs when they are losing nearly a million a month.

    I don’t think the two packages are really comparable because the situations are entirely different and therefore the packages are too.
17. Jum 17

    7 March 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Vto

    Who took a jet around NZ to show how rich he was? Key. Talk about Key’s arrogance, swanning around NZ when he has already been recorded as knowing the recession (depression) was coming over a year ago. (or did Ashcroft help by paying for the fuel?)

    Clark was accused of being arrogant because two bodyguards closed off a doorway for the safety of the PM and inadvertently stopped a disabled person from parking closer. Apart from the fact she had no say in it, do you finally get the drift of the worst case of arrogance.

    KEY?

    You’re right Vto.

    Go to the top of the class for finally getting the fact that arrogance is in the eye of the beholder but it is also about Kiwi fairness.
18. Jum 18

    7 March 2009 at 12:52 pm

    vinsin
    March 6, 2009 at 8:54 am

    said “Hmm someone named Gaylord talking about a soft cxxk.
    I’m sure there’s a joke there somewhere but nope, too easy, i’m sure there are better things to do with my time.”

    Who let vinsin loose with time travel?

    Captcha: 18th MADMAN
19. vto 19

    7 March 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Bloody idiots. I made one highly specific point re labour passing a law which it didn’t understand, and all that flowed from that, including bad governance in the extreme, arrogance, indicative of why they lost support, smashed cred., etc.

    It is pretty simple to understand what I was saying.

    You guys think you have addressed all the bits and bobs? You’re just all hooked up on the charge of arrogance.

    You clearly see no problem with a govt passing a law which it didn’t understand.

    The EFA and labours involvement in it was total bullshit.
    • vto 19.1

      7 March 2009 at 3:04 pm

      and jumskull, show where I referred to any arrogance or lack of of Key? I was talking about labour towards the end. Nothing else. Don’t imply things that I haven’t said.
      • Pascal's bookie 19.1.1

        7 March 2009 at 4:06 pm

        Now who can’t take his own medicine? You called everyone here a liar.

        I’ve explained in my first comment about the ‘not understanding the law’ business. Perhaps you missed it.

        But I’m guessing it says something like that they couldn’t always be sure what was an election expense? That’s not an admission that they didn’t understand the law, it’s an admission that they were unsure about how relevant third parties would interpret the law. It’s sort of the opposite of arrogance isn’t it?

        I seem to remember that in the big to do about the Auditor General last time around, he was including things as election expenses that made all sorts of people’s eyebrows twitter. If an MP flew back to his electorate for a clinic, but had a campaign meeting on the same trip, the travel costs were counted as election expenses. That sort of thing.

        Are you confident that you could detail everything that someone else would consider an election expense?

        Care to address it, or are you still just hung up on me calling your own arrogance out?
        • vto 19.1.1.1

          7 March 2009 at 4:39 pm

          oh bloody hell. I did read that but didn’t feel it covered my point so didn’t reply. Do you not recall Kings “law of common sense” call? That was because she could not be sure how the law would apply. You miss my point. The labour govt passed a law it did not understand. That was known at the time (King’s admission). The labour party has then again admitted such in its electoral return last week.

          If the govt did not understand the detail of how the law would apply then it should not have passed the law. That is my point. It is bad governance in the extreme. And that is where the charge of arrogance arises.
          Not understanding the detail of a law at the time of passing is quite different from a court or A-G making its own interpretation of a law subsequently. The difference is a subtle but major point.

          As for my own arrogance??? Ffs you took one sentence where I suggested nobody here would admit that labour conducted such reckless and shit governance and strung that out to …

          I absolutely did not call everyone on here a liar.

          First answer the question about whether or not such was in fact bad governance. If you decide it is then call the labour lot out on it. If you think it is fine law-making then that is fine but I disagree vehemently. Your answer to this main question, which you re-posted above does not address this subtle question, as I explained. And nobody else has tried to answer it.

          Is it bad law-making or not?
          • Pascal's bookie 19.1.1.1.1

            7 March 2009 at 8:33 pm

            No one says that the law was completely well done. Yes Labour bears blame for that, but there is a hell of a lot to go around. The highly partisan nature of the way things went down didn’t help, nor did the media with it’s retarded ‘democracy under attack’ horseshit.

            These sorts of laws are always complicated. Always. there will always be grey areas. this is what National seized on, grey areas, that would normally be left up to the enforcement agencies to rule on, in the spirit of the act, with commomn sense applying and what have you, and made out that every instance should be black and white.

            Ever bought a beer in a pub when you’re intoxicated? Or with the intent to become intoxicated? Did the bar lose it’s license and have to pay a big fine? No, even though that’s what the law says. See, grey areas, common sense. Bad governance? You make a perfect law.

            So, your ‘not understanding’ the law overplays it IMV. you obviously disagree.

            So, could have been better, but far from the appalling bad governance you make it out to be. Definitely an improvement on the old Act. It’ll be interesting to see how the Nat’s deal with it.

            You keep saying that this was the thing that brought Labour down, but there is no evidence for that. You obviously thought it was akin to H8LER, but that doesn’t mean most people did. There were polls before the election about what voters thought the most important issues were, and the EFA hardly even made the list.

            Re you calling folks here liars, which you now deny:

            Here is what you said:

            “Of course nobody on here will admit such. Which weakens this site’s cred as well. But that’s par for the course.”

            In my book that most definitely is calling everyone a liar. You may not have meant it, or just considered it a throwaway, but tough.

            Call me a liar, based only on the fact that I don’t agree with you, and I’m going to call you out on it. Yes it is arrogant. Actual arrogance based on a belief that your opinion is the obvious truth that no one could honestly question.
    • lprent 19.2

      7 March 2009 at 9:56 pm

      Yes that “fire at will” act, passed without select committee due process seems to have all of those problems. What are the implications for benefits? Will it cause people to avoid employers who offer it (I will) etc etc. NACT doesn’t understand the implications because they didn’t look at them prior to passing the pile of bollocks.

      I suppose that you approve of that act’s process right?
      • vto 19.2.1

        8 March 2009 at 8:16 am

        No I absolutely do not lprent. If any party or govt does that shit then I will call it shit, be it nats, labour, maori, act etc. They are mostly as bad as each other but Clark and the EFA was up with the worst of the worst in NZ history. Ps b, who cares what the old act said, in case you still haven’t got my point – it is the way in which the law was enacted that shit stinks, not the law itself, which is and has always been my point. (I think the law falls short as well, but that is another story)

        Reading your post above, imo you either don;t quite understand the detail of the system and how it should work, or you simply underestimate what went on re the EFA. For partisan reasons it would seem.

        Our system has major flaws which allow this obscene concentration of power in the hands of the few at the top. In the end Clark was taking advantage of those flaws. If Key does the same then he will be a smelly arse as well. Muldoon was one.

        (fuck this is a good ding dong – reckon we still be cyber friends in the end?)
20. Jum 20

    7 March 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Monty
    March 6, 2009 at 9:15 am

    I always thought economics was really easy.

    Anything Labour puts forward is positive and will help people help themselves = economic progress for all.

    Anything NAct puts forward is negative and helps only itself, at the expense of those who can least afford it = economic recession for all except those who were quick enough to stow their millions in safe tax havens.

    That applies to countries as well as people.
    • sweeetdisorder 20.1

      7 March 2009 at 7:24 pm

      Jum

      do you have a brain? can you think for yourself?

      Or is it simply a case of labour good, national bad with you?

      If ever there was an example of a sheep from Animal Farm its you.
      • Robinsod 20.1.1

        7 March 2009 at 7:30 pm

        Ha! You’re using lines from burt! And you’re calling people stupid? If I may quote we burty back at you – pot/kettle…

        Again, love this reply function – it lets me be very clear which rightard I am schooling…
        • sweeetdisorder 20.1.1.1

          7 March 2009 at 7:54 pm

          Robinsod

          who is this Burt and what lines am I using?

          I was replying to Jum, and I have not called anyone stupid. How are you schooling me?

          Suggest you need to read what is written a bit more carefully before you reply.
21. Jum 21

    7 March 2009 at 7:00 pm

    vto

    Have a cup of tea and a lie-down.
    • vto 21.1

      7 March 2009 at 7:48 pm

      ha ha, been trying but the steam coming from my ears has clouded the way to the kitchen. tell me – is jum a type of banana?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS