General Debate 24 January 2013

January 24th, 2013 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

102 Responses to “General Debate 24 January 2013”

  1. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    How incredible – the darky party set themselves up thinking that Sharples and Turia would lead the party forever – because they never planned for new leadership.

    What do they think they are – immortal…..!!!!

    wankers – they have never learned to plan for the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. duggledog (1,102 comments) says:

    Heard the new radio promo for Campbell Live yet?

    The one that has phoney soundbites from ordinary people (interns in the newsroom):

    ‘Where are the jobs?’
    ‘Why are we selling assets?’
    (Etc)
    JC: ‘You’ve got questions, we’ve got answers’

    All the ‘questions’ are clearly loaded. It’s clearly anti-government. Which is fine I guess, we all know the cut of that cloth, but why the Fuck would the Nats give Mediaworks a free pass with deferring their frequency rentals? Why would you give your enemies ammunition?

    Maybe John Key’s spot on the Edge, Radio Live etc makes up for it. Someone explain

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sofia (778 comments) says:

    Evangelist Paul, besides a personal aversion to marriage, did comment on it, one view being that if you can’t keep it in your toga, better to marry.

    But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
    – 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

    This shallowness of motive probably saw inevitable divorce and the birth of unplanned and unwanted children, possibly with the mother’s next partner, not being the biological father, eventually bashing the nuisance child to death as so often happens now.

    With one third of UK and USA children being cared for by only one parent and in New Zealand one quarter of children being in single parent ‘families’, the traditional family unit, which according to some is what marriage is all about, is already fucked up enough that the Pope is utterly hypocritical to suggest gay marriage threatens the very essence of what makes us human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    David Shearer and ‘Voice of Reason’ rule out any leadership challenge getting beyond the Labour caucus. Such is caucus dictated democracy. The troops will remain very unhappy.

    http://yournz.org/2013/01/24/shearervoice-of-reason-rule-out-labour-leadership-challenge/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Such is caucus dictated democracy

    Little chance of a leadership challenge in United Future either, then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Viking2 (10,701 comments) says:

    Rodders (1,628) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Such is caucus dictated democracy

    Little chance of a leadership challenge in United Future either, then.

    There, fixed that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Manolo (12,617 comments) says:

    The law of intended consequences: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/california-residents-businesses-consider-bailing-on-golden-state-over-taxes/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    Is Hone Harawira trying to be funny when he proposes a merger between the Maori Party and Mana? His arrogance is such that he will NEVER be able to work successfully with another party that claims to represent Maori interests; for as far as Hone is concerned, HE is the only person who truly represents Maori. And if anybody else has a differing viewpoint – even if they are Maori, funnily enough – then they’re wrong. Period. Hone is right, everyone else is wrong.

    With that arrogance, how would he ever bring himself to work constructively with the Maori Party? I just can’t see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kleva Kiwi (267 comments) says:

    So the NZ nanny state marches on strong as ever. NZ has banned neodymium magnets from being imported and distributed in NZ despite there only ever being 1 death involving them, which was more down to neglect then the magnets. So all the legitimate uses of the products are brushed aside once again…

    http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=102226

    Fun fact. The leading toy causing child death is balloons, yet these are unrestricted in sales

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (12,617 comments) says:

    Apparently the racist Sharples has a mortgage to pay and does not want to lose his fat salary and the baubles of office.

    An unashamed trougher in all his glory.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    graham – Tariana Turia said yesterday that Harawira doesn’t understand how leadership works on the Maori Party, where the people are involve din the process of deciding.

    It was Harawira’s opening grandstand for the year, he will have known it wouldn’t get him anywhere but in the news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Viking2 (10,701 comments) says:

    So the ruthless changing of the people in the titanic has rocked the boat then. dickwit Smith has already said he doesn’t know how to fix house prices.( see the Nelson Mail yesterday. Well who would be surprised. ( Our Kaiwai version of the Dickwit Smith)

    But it seems he is ready to boss the Prime Minister about, telling him what to do with Smith.
    So, will Ryall, Smith and English and Collins make English the PM?

    That was the plan way back. Like the Murri’s they have a longterm plan.
    Someone yesterday reckoned Key wouldn’t make it to the next election.
    Wonder when ipredict will open the book?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Gareth Morgan has labelled the very people he is imploring to turn up and support the Wellington Phoenix as “pathetic” and unsophisticated” for wanting to see short-term results from his professional football team.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/8216985/Gareth-Morgan-slams-fans-for-lack-of-patience

    It would seem that the man has never been a salesperson…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    The greens are trying to show Labour up in how to develop housing policy. It will be interesting to have detailed look at it but they could have some good ideas, and it seems a lot better thought through and presented than Labour’s half-cocked launch.

    http://www.greens.org.nz/housing
    http://www.interest.co.nz/property/62838/greens-propose-government-built-homes-life-occupants-can-progressively-buy-back-also-

    This puts even more pressure in Shearer with his big speech on Sunday. He already had the challenge of being more on to reinvigorating his caucus after Key’s cabinet ramp up.

    Now one of Labour’s biggest policies is being challenged by the party they need to get into power.

    Smart play by the Greens, we will now see if Shearer can improve on Labour’s current lacklustre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lance (2,309 comments) says:

    @Kleva Kiwi

    This sort of bullshit is bloody overwhelming sometimes. Those magnets are bloody useful for sensing devices, motors etc.

    The regulations and standards a product must conform to is continually becoming more extreme for NZ manufacturers. Yet Chinese imports are completely bloody ignored. The compliance labels on these cheap shit devices are clearly made up, the screaming blatancy of the non compliance is obvious to anybody with knowledge of the associated technology but any complaint to an appropriate NZ agency is ignored (“not our area of concern”)

    Level playing field… I call bullshit on that.

    We have MUCH higher wages to pay, ACC etc, pay thousands of dollars annually for standards updates, spend countless hours on compliance verification.

    I have traced the source of this endless bureaucracy to Britain, it appears to be a font of endless regulation change and theft by government agency. And of course NZ mindlessly trails along.

    If we have high high compliance then so be it, but the hypocrisy of the lack of accountability of the imports is a joke.

    I am happy either way, everyone must meet the same standards and conditions or everyone can just do as they please. Alas is doesn’t work like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/661212189-greens-propose-controls-on-rent

    “Controls on rent increases are on the Green Party’s shopping list.

    The proposal is part of a housing policy announcement being made by party co-leader Metiria Turei at Ratana today.

    It would restrict rent increases to once a year and they’d be subject to a formula set in a tenancy agreement.

    Ms Turei doesn’t think inflationary pressures on housing prices and mortgage repayments by rental property owners would create huge fluctuations on rental rates.

    “This is one of the difficulties for anybody who invests in property, that there are these fluctuations that they have to cope with.

    “The question is, should tenants be the ones who are fully responsible for that?”"

    Erm…why should landlords be responsible for that?

    Perhaps government could control inflation, Turei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Australia finds 20 trillion dollars worth of oil.

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/trillion-shale-oil-find-surrounding-coober-pedy-can-fuel-australia/story-e6frea83-1226560401043

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Sofia (778 comments) says:

    duggledog – Heard the new radio promo for Campbell Live yet?

    I understand from earlier comments that the trailers on TV3 itself uses actual Labour Party owned footage.
    What does that tell you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Keeping Stock (9,788 comments) says:

    There’s an orchestrated campaign underway to get Pharmac to fund a drug at up to $500k per patient per year. Interestingly though, the “support group” set up to run the campaign is being funded by the drug company that will benefit by $4million per year if the drug is approved.

    I have the utmost sympathy for those who suffer from PNH. I have a haematological condition myself which will eventually kill me. But given the involvement of the drug company in backing what is a multi-media PR campaign, are we getting told the whole story about Soliris, and is Pharmac right to have sought independent evidence of its benefits so as to make an informed decision?

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/lets-hear-both-sides-of-story.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    From PG’s interest.co.nz link:

    The Greens said the plan would not increase the government’s net debt because the extra borrowing to build the homes would be offset by a similar valued asset.

    Labour tried this trick during the 2011 election campaign – the rules around government finances and reporting, require that the borrowing be reported as additional debt (as was evidenced in budget documents from the previous Labour government.)

    The ‘net debt’ claim does not stack up.

    What is more, the additional debt they would rack up would be long term debt, taking some 25 years to be paid off by the rent-to-own tenants. They also fail to account for what social services they will ‘switch off’ in order to reallocate government spending to minimise the additional borrowing. They do suggest using future surpluses on these houses, rather than paying off existing government debt (such as that for the rebuild of Christchurch.) That amounts to the same thing as additional borrowing to build the houses.

    These people are dangerous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    PG, if it was just Hone mouthing off (like normal), then maybe you could discount it. But on One News last night, he seemed to be quite serious. Hone Harawira said, regarding a Maori political alliance, “I would expect to be party to discussions … I would think Maori people would want me to be the leader”

    His arrogance knows no bounds, although I guess the sycophants he has surrounded himself with would be saying that.

    Now, more of a worry is that Pita Sharples seems to have forgotten just how many problems Harawira has caused. Pita said “There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be talking … it’s a bit silly to have two Maori kind-of parties.”

    Luckily Tariana obviously has a better memory, stating “It was a horrendous experience, and not one that I personally would want to repeat.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    Peter @ 8.51

    I’m very dubious about the practical application of the Green proposals on rental properties and rent controls. They seem to be based on:
    - tenants have a right of tenancy renewal (tenant for life?)
    - landlords are all rich enough to comply with all the tenant’s quality requirements and requests

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Peter (1,468 comments) says:

    Pete – since when have the Greens been practical? This is Maxism 101 – “landlords are evil”.

    It won’t work, of course. Tenancies are fixed term and if the tenant doesn’t want to pay the going rate, simply let the tenancy end and re-advertise for new tenants at the higher price.

    Laws of unintended consequences etc….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Sam you can do much better than this tosser….

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/8215675/Zac-Guildford-no-monster-says-girlfriend

    I thought she was with Opie Bosson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    duggledog (136) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:12 am
    Heard the new radio promo for Campbell Live yet?

    The one that has phoney soundbites from ordinary people (interns in the newsroom):

    ‘Where are the jobs?’
    ‘Why are we selling assets?’
    (Etc)
    JC: ‘You’ve got questions, we’ve got answers’

    All the ‘questions’ are clearly loaded.

    A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption

    Just how is “why are we selling assets?” a loaded question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    @Pete George at 8:37 am:

    Actually, you even posted about this a couple of days ago!

    http://yournz.org/2013/01/22/maori-mana-merge/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Elaycee (4,063 comments) says:

    And so another convicted killer seeks parole:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8217591/Karla-Cardnos-killer-seeks-release

    Paul Joseph Dally is reason #1,285 why NZ should have retained the Remington option for such heinous crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    graham – yeah, ahead of the pack.

    Re Campbell Live, targeting people happy with Labour-Green seems to be a struggle to compete for audience. Yesterday’s ratings (7:00pm – 7:30pm):

    TV1 Border Patrol: 446,580
    TV2 Shortland Street: 510,430
    TV3 Campbell Live: 186,830

    3 News (6:00pm – 7:00pm): 258,820 so they lose over a quarter of their audience after the ‘news’.

    I can understand Shortie fanatics, but Border Patrol versus cutting edge social current affairs?

    I rarely watch anything in that time slot, TV at home switches to Shortie and I avoid that, for me it’s cringe. About once every two or three months I make a point of watching Campbell if there’s something specific I want to watch. I’m very interested in current affairs. Just not the TV show type.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    This on Twitter:

    Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz
    David Cunliffe says he will vote for Shearer in the February vote #ratana

    Well that would seem to settle things for the time being. Cunliffe unable to get enough caucus support to force a contest.

    So Labour continue with the leader who has failed to captivate the electorate. It’s almost like a rerun of 2011 with Phil Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    Urgh – Campbell? I’d rather gargle a bucket of diarrhoea …

    Never watched Shortland Street, even though my wife occasionally acts in it. No, wait, we did watch it once when she was on screen for more than a few seconds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    bhudson – almost. At caucus level it’s a rerun. Out in the electorates it’s different.

    Except that last time with an experienced but lacklustre and unconvincing Goff the Labour base hoped he could still pull it off, even up to the campaign where they thought Goff would show Key up (the Clark delusion repeated).

    This time with an inexperienced and lacklustre and unconvincing Shearer many of the base are writing him off big time already, and they dread him being exposed in a debate where he has to think as he goes.

    The Labour caucus write off any influence of social media, I don’t know if that is through ignorance or trying to convince others the blogosphere is irrelevant. But it could turn out to be a festering boil on the party’s bum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Manolo (8,836) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:31 am

    The law of intended consequences: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/california-residents-businesses-consider-bailing-on-golden-state-over-taxes/


    “It never stops,” a wealthy San Diego retiree told Fox News. “Pay a little more this year. Pay a little more pay here. Pay another business tax here. There is no end…

    “There is no end”… yet somehow he is still wealthy. So maybe there is an end and this is more about balancing the budget rather than taxing him into poverty.


    While most of the evidence of an exodus so far is anecdotal…

    …it would never dissuade Faux News from running their usual propaganda.

    There will be wins and losses for the state. Some will leave, some might find ways around the law, but ultimately it just isn’t that easy for most people to up and leave a place. Whether it’s family or a particular market or other factors, it just isn’t always that easy to relocate. It is however very easy to have a whinge to Fox News.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    The cat ban thing has even made it’s way onto mashable –

    http://mashable.com/2013/01/23/new-zealand-cat-ban/

    Oh, how embarrassing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,246) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:49 am

    And so another convicted killer seeks parole:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8217591/Karla-Cardnos-killer-seeks-release

    Paul Joseph Dally is reason #1,285 why NZ should have retained the Remington option for such heinous crimes.

    …or life without parole. Should be the default option for murder without significant extenuating circumstances imho.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,520) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    There’s an orchestrated campaign underway to get Pharmac to fund a drug at up to $500k per patient per year. Interestingly though, the “support group” set up to run the campaign is being funded by the drug company that will benefit by $4million per year if the drug is approved.

    I have the utmost sympathy for those who suffer from PNH. I have a haematological condition myself which will eventually kill me. But given the involvement of the drug company in backing what is a multi-media PR campaign, are we getting told the whole story about Soliris, and is Pharmac right to have sought independent evidence of its benefits so as to make an informed decision?

    I agree in principle, but given that Wikipedia states:

    Eculizumab was discovered and developed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals and is manufactured by Alexion. It was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on March 16, 2007 for the treatment of PNH, and on September 23, 2011 for the treatment of aHUS. It was approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PNH on June 20, 2007, and on November 24, 2011 for the treatment of aHUS. Eculizumab is currently being investigated as a potential treatment for other severe, ultra-rare disorders.

    Significantly, data from three independent clinical studies — a Phase II pilot study,[4] the Phase III TRIUMPH study,[1] and the Phase III SHEPHERD study[5]– demonstrated a greater than 90% reduction in thromboembolic events, the most serious complication of PNH and a major cause of death in this disease. All PNH patients in clinical trials derived a benefit from eculizumab therapy; many benefits occurred rapidly, while others showed improvement over time.

    If it was approved 5-6 years ago in US and Europe, why are we still wondering about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Limited funds available dictate we allocate on cost benefit ratios.
    Allowing the capture of the funding process by lobby groups intent on their own needs distorts the benefit we all receive from our health dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    “Urgh – Campbell? I’d rather gargle a bucket of diarrhoea …”

    Id pay to see that..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Good riddance Serena. I see she is up to her usual tricks and blaming everyone but herself.

    http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2013-01-23/201301231358923255467.html

    I haven’t heard this many lame excuses rolled out since the allegedly ‘invincible’ All Blacks got thrashed by England…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    More from the weird and whacky world of conservonutter land.

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/obama-urged-to-resign-over-beyonc-scandal.html

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).

    “If Beyoncé lip-synched the national anthem, how do we know President Obama didn’t lip-sync his oath of office?” he said. “If that’s the case, he’s not legally President. But just to be on the safe side, he should resign anyway.”

    Sack the president because modern pop is made by computer and fame is reliant on staged performance not on vocal ability.
    Some times you have to wounder at the reality levels of those that elected such Luddite nutters.
    Next thing the USA will have creation taught in schools. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Paul Rand was right though it giving it to Hillary, re: Benghazi, and saying that she should have been fired over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bc (1,251 comments) says:

    Soime rather blunt comments from Catcus Kate regarding Key’s cabinet reshuffle (especially why Hekia “top communicator” Parata stays while others go) but she is right on the money.

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19786816&postID=2557798384578471527

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Griff (4,035) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Limited funds available dictate we allocate on cost benefit ratios.
    Allowing the capture of the funding process by lobby groups intent on their own needs distorts the benefit we all receive from our health dollars.

    Good point. Personally I think that 4 million a year could be taken from elsewhere in the budget but ultimately there are always going to be limited funds available and some will inevitably miss out.

    I agree with the distortion created by campaigns motivated by personal financial gain. Instead of knowing that 4 million would be 0.5% of Pharmac’s budget, it would be good to know, if the same applied to all drugs in similar circumstances, what would be the required increase in the budget, or what cuts would have to be made elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10861118

    As of yesterday, Mega.co.nz’s traffic ranking (according to Alexa) had it sitting in the top 150 websites globally. Considering Mega launched less than a week ago, this is a very impressive feat indeed.

    lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Campaigns that seek to use emotion not fact to distort funding divisions should be ignored.
    Unfortunately politicos can not do so, public perceptions count far more than cold hard reality.

    This latest media attention around specific medication is another in a long list of attempts for pr driven special interest capture of funding.
    These attempts reflect a failure to support their cost benefit model in the appropriate forum resulting in emotive pleas to obtain political manipulation of funding decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,786 comments) says:

    Hillary Clinton, not fit for office.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Kleva kiwi. Banned for personal sale not school, uni or industrial use. Calm the hysterical outrage
    Ballons? really that’s interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. cha (3,527 comments) says:

    Wow Fletch, Jim Hoft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (6,690 comments) says:

    Sofia is clearly anti Christian with her attack on the Roman Pope and Saint Paul.

    Don’t blame them babe,blame the welfare state ,feminism,human rights and ‘equality’ for the collapse of western family values.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    eszett @ 10:12 – “A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption. Just how is “why are we selling assets?” a loaded question?”

    1. Because it deliberately distorts a well-known fact. The nominated “assets” themselves (e.g. power generators) are not being sold. Sales of shares in the ownership companies will occur, limited to a maximum of 49% of all the shares on issue.

    2. Because is has become a misleading catch-cry of the lefties (sometimes accompanied by completely untrue expressions like “Key selling our assets to his rich mates…”) that deliberately mask the counter-factual benefits, i.e. the use of capital derived from the 49% sell-downs to purchase other needed assets, or to reduce expensive and ultimately strangling public debt.

    3. Because the benefits of the sell-downs are significant and (I would be among those who contend) necessary economically. Debt is the curse of governments in today’s faltering global economy. When public debt is increasing – as NZ’s is to pay for excessive public welfare schemes and ever-demanded services – the costs of servicing that debt increase inexorably, both in gross dollar terms and on a unit-cost basis. Ultimately that reflects adversely on the nation’s international credit rating, and debt-servicing costs spiral higher while availability of capital reduces.

    4. Because as international lenders become increasingly wary of NZ’s declining credit-worthiness, the country gradually and increasingly loses its national sovereignty – namely the right to govern itself as it chooses democratically to do. In other words, the (overseas) piper gets to call the NZ tune.

    5. Because NZ needs to have more – not less – investment of capital in an expanded base of assets, many of which will be publicly-owned (roads and other means of transportation, water, minerals extraction, health, data transmission, education, research & development, and so on). To the extent that NZ fails to invest adequately in productive capital assets, so will its economy and international competitiveness contract in relative terms.

    6. Because most NZers do not want to live in a country that goes down this kind of disastrous economic and (as a result) social track – following Greece, Italy, Spain and other indebted nations that are learning at first hand the harsh realities described. Hence, in 2011 the NZ electorate accepted Key’s “middle-way” solution of a partial sell-down of nominated state-owned operating companies to free up an amount of capital for alternative investments. That process is now being implemented.

    (Satisfied? No, I thought not. You won’t listen to any of this, or even give it the time of day, because you have a specific agenda. Your question at 10:12 was purely rhetorical.)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jinky (152 comments) says:

    National Govt preparing to break the law again? http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8215584/Welfare-drug-tests-may-break-privacy-law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Colville (1,768 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8219257/Boscawen-named-as-new-ACT-president

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Colville (1,768 comments) says:

    Jinky @ 3.57.

    If so we need a law change pronto.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. cha (3,527 comments) says:

    Fucking hypocrites.

    http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/23/catholic-leaders-call-on-pro-life-lawmakers-to-stand-up-to-the-nra/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jinky (152 comments) says:

    Yes Colville we need a law change becuae the unemployed, sickness and invalid beneficiaries shouldn’t be entitled to the same rights to privacy as the rest of us. Should they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Jinky- The professional bludgers and unwashed scum will be entitled to the same rights and respect as the rest of us once they start actually contributing to society (and by ‘contributing’ I don’t mean spitting out 9 feral children to different fathers,fleecing the taxpayer, and calling yourself a ‘professional mum’)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    The professional bludgers and unwashed scum will be entitled to the same rights and respect as the rest of us once they start actually contributing to society

    Seriously? Do you walk down the street and spit at people you don’t like, or punch them in the face? Or do you think “they’ve got a different life to me, hope they’re happy”

    It’s good political capital I guess, harnessing all that pent-up anger collectively and then unleashing it on those that can’t defend themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    calendar girl,

    Is that, then, classified as a “loaded answer” ?

    So I guess you’ll be purchasing under the schemes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    itstricky- Work in a WINZ office for a few months and then get back to me when you actually know what you are talking about…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Hillary Clinton, not fit for office.

    I agree. What with her “what difference does it make?” line.
    What a bitch. Of course it makes a difference.
    Clinton lied to the public about the video being the cause of the attack, as did Jay Carney, as did Helen Rice, as did Obama.
    All liars. And now she’s looking to be President in 2016?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. chiz (1,090 comments) says:

    Clinton didn’t lie. She and others spoke what they considered to be the truth at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Bullshit- The ‘Messiah’, Clinton, and the rest of the Democrats quickly fabricated the ‘offensive video’ story to cover their sorry arses before the election. It was pathetic, disrespectful, and should have cost them their jobs..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Longknives. Props to you. a life experience like that might be viewed in many ways but to summarise everyone that walked into your office as a lower life form than you with no rights of their own and deserved of being poked at will is a bit sad. That’s just me, maybe I need to harden up, a? Get with the play and insult someone. Maybe I’ll feel a bit better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. chiz (1,090 comments) says:

    The democrats didn’t fabricate the offensive video story. There were protests about the video elsewhere and their initial judgement was that Benghazi was another such protest. The fact that this turned out not to be the case doesn’t imply deceit, merely that initial judgement calls in confusing circumstances sometimes turn out to be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Reid (15,506 comments) says:

    Seriously? Do you walk down the street and spit at people you don’t like, or punch them in the face?

    No, but I’d secretly like to if eventually it wasn’t going to lead to my appearance in the court section of the local paper.

    Or do you think “they’ve got a different life to me, hope they’re happy”

    No. On the contrary I think: “why don’t these idiots think the same way I do” and then get all frustrated and angry that they clearly don’t.

    It’s good political capital I guess, harnessing all that pent-up anger collectively and then unleashing it on those that can’t defend themselves.

    Funny you should say that because I’ve been thinking a political party based on my philosophy would probably be screamingly popular and perhaps I should stand in the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. nasska (9,477 comments) says:

    Handy tip for the day:

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sc5wq32pu2etcnr/Religion%201.png

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    shit red will be rapt he will be able to get almost fifty likes on kb as well :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    itstricky- Why you think the taxpayer should generously fund people that choose not to work or contribute to society to grow and smoke drugs is beyond me… I guess that would infringe on their precious ‘civil liberties’??
    I guess if you had worked in a WINZ office, had a gangmember spit in your face when you declined him an ‘Emergency grant’ (after he blew all his benefit on booze and pokies) and then realized that the aformentioned gangmember was actually earning more than you on his ‘Bennie’ each week you might feel a little different?

    Welcome to the real world. The New Zealand taxpayer is being taken for a fucking ride…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    A thumbs down system can be used inadvertently by loose on the fly alliances to separate and vilify a poster which is only natural with human beings but in this environment it can lead to extreme harassment. Yes this blog is just a blog full of racist comments and innuendo and sexism and gender discrimination, so what! There’s no such thing as a utopian society anywhere on the planet and in many ways for some it’s a reset valve that has nothing to do with how they are in real life. Blogs attract surface level comments as well as flourishing issues that will bring debate as well as interest from others that have been ignorant.

    On one site i roam they removed the thumbs down and it stopped a lot of trollish behavior, it doesn’t matter if we are of the older gens, human will always follow human.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Colville (1,768 comments) says:

    Jinky (116) Says:

    January 24th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    Yes Colville we need a law change becuae the unemployed, sickness and invalid beneficiaries shouldn’t be entitled to the same rights to privacy as the rest of us. Should they?

    If someone is taking our tax dollars in the form of a benifit then yes I agree that they are open to scrutiny. If your on the dole you should be ready and willing to work, if your taking illegal drugs you have compromised your ability to be employed. No dole. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    Shit! I’ve been absent for a while. The thumbs are back!!!!!

    Do you get more if you take the piss a bit?

    Do smileys help :) :) :) ?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    Longknives (2,087) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    I know they have one hell of a intelligence system but even they can’t see everything at a click of the mouse. No one can see all the rain falling at once, not even in this day and age. To quote Ross Perot,Presidential Candidate 1988 “War has rules, Mud wrestling has rules but Politics has no rules”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Reid (15,506 comments) says:

    What I think about Hillary’s show this morning? All bullsh-t. Every single second of it. Want to know something the media isn’t telling you? That neither the Republicans, the White House, or Hillary’s people are telling you?

    EVERY F-CKING QUESTION WAS AGREED TO BEFOREHAND. Hillary had notes for every question. Watch her look down every time a question is asked. She sucks at hiding it. That’s the tell. They negotiated the terms of the questioning weeks ago. She was prepared. There is no real investigation by the Senate. There is no real search for justice here. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Complete bullsh-t.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/01/23/white-house-insider-hillary-clintons-benghazi-testimony-complete-bullsh-t/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (9,477 comments) says:

    After I got mugged in South Auckland the police officer asked if I could give a description of the assailant.

    “I can give a very accurate description,” I replied, as he opened his notebook. “He was a white youth aged between….”

    “That’s OK sir,” he said, closing his book. “We’re well acquainted with the lad in question.”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Viking2 (10,701 comments) says:

    http://screencast.com/t/KGMjxCDPXe

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. SPC (4,616 comments) says:

    While the host claims to be a republican he brings the thumbs back in a revealing salute to hooray Henry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    Hillary is prepared for everything.

    “”One of her top advisers told me that one of the reasons, if not the reason, that she fought the impeachment so hard and was such a chief strategist during that whole period is that she saw her own political aspirations go down the drain. She had been thinking about the presidency for a long time.”"

    http://www.topnews.in/hillary-clinton-reaction-bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-affair-oval-office-he-couldnt-be-insane-24602

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    I would have given a hundred for that one nasska but the system only allows one! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    Yay Karma is back!!!! Probably gets me 20 x Thumbs down for this comment

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    I take a thumbs down from the conservonutters as a compliment
    The bunch of sycophantic god bothering retards will be thumbs downing every post that makes fun of their sky pixie fetish.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    A great man once told me “It all comes down to self mastery” Fricken old coots still alive he he.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nasska (9,477 comments) says:

    Griff

    I reckon the revenge of the God Squad will be noticeable. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Hillary has a long history of being a liar. She was on the committee that investigated Watergate and apparently hid documents that showed precedent to a President having legal aid during the course of impeachment –

    The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

    Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

    Why?

    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

    http://www.caintv.com/watergate-era-judiciary-chief

    That’s not including Bosnia, the White water affair etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    “It all comes down to self mastery”

    I misread that comment once. I substituted “abuse” for “mastery”!

    Must work. I’m still alive! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    if it was’nt 4 nasska and Johnboy

    what would we be left with ?

    Fuck all.

    Even worse than fuck all, just Viking 2 or SPC.

    Then we would need to rely on Reid,
    How sad, how fukin sad.

    Hey, Kath and Kim is on soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    Griff (4,041) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Why would anyone do that Griff? It’s not as if what we type has any real world effect except when we indulge in passing data we think someone might be interested in but the rest has no physical impact bar possibly inciting a reaction.

    The God war is circular, two absolutes =?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. nasska (9,477 comments) says:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/v8b0i3qxy40lli2/Police%20Dog.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    You’re a devious old bastard Griff. I’ll play your game.

    I gave you an up for your 8:19 plea for a down! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,785) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Or she was a good girl and didn’t give them a ride or couldn’t keep a straight face at the size of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,785) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Bloody good article.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Longknives – I’m not advocating people like that get anything that what they deserve. Or that the tax pool pays for that behaviour.

    But I am advocating the ceasing of common beneficary bashing by angry people who’ve nothing better to do with their time. After all, it’s a long jump from your experience to all beneficaries being tarred with the drug taking scum brush that’s being applied. And that’s where liberty is being taken.

    I don’t think this law will help, seems to be some large gaps and just a honey trap to grab this anger against a labelled group and use it for political gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    @nasska 8.35 pm.
    Some say a police horse is the only animal with an arsehole halfway up it’s back, others say it’s the only animal with a cunt halfway up it’s back.

    I’m not nasty like them, but I do know the dick is meant to be underneath.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    itstricky @ 5:48 – “Is that, then, classified as a “loaded answer” ? So I guess you’ll be purchasing under the schemes?”

    To the first question: No. Just a few facts of economic life which, to our friend eszett, are a scarce commodity.

    To the second question: Maybe. Maybe not. I’m wary of share floats that are accompanied by a great deal of glamorous and emotive advertising aimed at the retail (i.e. amateur) investment sector. The earnings outlook and operating framework of the relevant industry should be the most powerful influences on investment decision-making. There are certainly better equity investments around, in my view, than the ones proposed. However, I might seek a modest holding in one of the power generating companies – but not more than one company.

    As a final comment from me, I do think that the partial share sell-downs will be a strategically sound move in our type of economy. They will encourage more individual investors to invest in shares for the first time. I hope that the floats are successful from an investment perspective, and that investors earn a solid gross return (dividends plus capital appreciation) over the critical first couple of years. The more that we have ordinary NZ investors seeking to invest their own money (not tax dollars) in NZ operational infrastructure, the better it will be for (a) our economy in general, (b) the personal self-sufficiency of individual investors, and (c) the ultimate strength of NZ’s national sovereignty.

    So, itstricky, can I ask if you too will be purchasing a few shares under the sell-down schemes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. big bruv (12,323 comments) says:

    Here we go, the sycophantic rugby media are at it again. When one of “the boys” is exposed as nothing more than a thug these type of stories appear.

    The sad thing about it is that so many stupid Kiwis will be taken in by it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/8220978/Guildford-lights-up-cancer-sufferer-s-life

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. thedavincimode (6,102 comments) says:

    The sad thing about it is that so many stupid Kiwis will be taken in by it.

    Do you mean like the little boy’s parents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Viking2 (10,701 comments) says:

    Sometyhing for our new Minister of Labour to do..
    Clean out the bullshit that wraps around employment Law.

    Employment Law that makes an employer subject extortion by lieing,scheming, dishonest employees who then use the system of hopless mediators to attack the business when it all turns to custard.

    Apprentice was nearly electrocuted by immigrant who faked work references
    In one of the incidents an apprentice asked Mr Gostmann if cables had been isolated when they had not. The cables short-circuited when the apprentice went to move them and he narrowly avoided electrocution.

    When asked if he misrepresented himself in the pre-employment stage or in fact had 15 years’ experience, he said: “It’s difficult for me to explain these things because I’m working in a different country and I see things differently. Lining up fridges, which is what I did in South Africa, is also a technician’s responsibilities.”

    When Mr Gostmann was interviewed for the senior position early last year, he told Mr Faber he was a refrigeration engineer with 15 years’ experience in South Africa.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861284

    There ya go Simon.

    Not that I expect any results other than the situation to get worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    Cg. A bif jump from ezzett’s question to your “well prepared” answer. I appreciate you are well versed in the financial world.

    No, I will not be investing as I just don’t have “a few thousand” to spare. Come to think of it, nobody I know – all of whom are the supposed target market – do.

    This is what I disagree with – al of those people are currently, indirectly, benefiting from 100% ownership of the SOE. That is being halved and that half handed to those that can afford. I suspect I would feel the same even if I could.afford it.

    Your answer regarding investment by ordinary folks seems to suggest you are in favour of Kiwisaver?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    Thanks for your response, itstricky. Yes, I’m in favour of people saving and investing via Kiwisaver, because longer-term it improves personal self-sufficiency, but like everything else (including investing in shares sold in the Government’s proposed sell-downs) the extent depends on an individual’s means.

    Your response criticising the sell-downs of shares in publicly owned companies is a popular theme in politics and the media, but it disregards an important fact that I have endeavoured to bring into the discussion. You intimate that your personal 100% ownership interest in, say, a power company is being halved. But the other side of that coin is that you will enjoy a corresponding benefit from the proceeds of sale, either:
    - through a reduction in “your share” of the national debt; or
    - through gaining “your share” in the alternative public assets created / acquired with the capital raised.

    I think that your perspective is a little selective if you believe you have an ownership share in SOEs but that you don’t have a shared obligation in the national debt or in the need for additional public infrastructure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    calendar girl (846) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    eszett @ 10:12 – “A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption. Just how is “why are we selling assets?” a loaded question?”

    1. Because it deliberately distorts a well-known fact. The nominated “assets” themselves (e.g. power generators) are not being sold. Sales of shares in the ownership companies will occur, limited to a maximum of 49% of all the shares on issue.

    2. Because is has become a misleading catch-cry of the lefties (sometimes accompanied by completely untrue expressions like “Key selling our assets to his rich mates…”) that deliberately mask the counter-factual benefits, i.e. the use of capital derived from the 49% sell-downs to purchase other needed assets, or to reduce expensive and ultimately strangling public debt.

    3. Because the benefits of the sell-downs are significant and (I would be among those who contend) necessary economically. Debt is the curse of governments in today’s faltering global economy. When public debt is increasing – as NZ’s is to pay for excessive public welfare schemes and ever-demanded services – the costs of servicing that debt increase inexorably, both in gross dollar terms and on a unit-cost basis. Ultimately that reflects adversely on the nation’s international credit rating, and debt-servicing costs spiral higher while availability of capital reduces.

    4. Because as international lenders become increasingly wary of NZ’s declining credit-worthiness, the country gradually and increasingly loses its national sovereignty – namely the right to govern itself as it chooses democratically to do. In other words, the (overseas) piper gets to call the NZ tune.

    5. Because NZ needs to have more – not less – investment of capital in an expanded base of assets, many of which will be publicly-owned (roads and other means of transportation, water, minerals extraction, health, data transmission, education, research & development, and so on). To the extent that NZ fails to invest adequately in productive capital assets, so will its economy and international competitiveness contract in relative terms.

    6. Because most NZers do not want to live in a country that goes down this kind of disastrous economic and (as a result) social track – following Greece, Italy, Spain and other indebted nations that are learning at first hand the harsh realities described. Hence, in 2011 the NZ electorate accepted Key’s “middle-way” solution of a partial sell-down of nominated state-owned operating companies to free up an amount of capital for alternative investments. That process is now being implemented.

    (Satisfied? No, I thought not. You won’t listen to any of this, or even give it the time of day, because you have a specific agenda. Your question at 10:12 was purely rhetorical.)

    CC, while elaborate, you seem to miss the mark.

    On Point 1) the shares themselves are considered assets and the that they are not selling all of them just 49% still makes it a sale of assets.

    On points 2-6 you are actually answering the question, not explaining why it is a loaded question.

    I don’t have an agenda and I am not particularly swayed one way or the other on this issue. However it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question “Why are we selling assets?” and it certainly isn’t a loaded question by any stretch of imagination.

    The only assumption in the question is that there is an intention to sell assets, which is not in dispute. It doesn’t preclude an answer in one direction or the other.

    In fact it is a question you would expect to be asked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    eszett:

    On point 1), I can agree with the bare facts that you postulate, but that’s not the whole point, is it? While shares themselves are “assets”, just as the entire operating business is an “asset”, there are those with an entirely partisan political agenda who are able to use that conjunction of meanings to mislead the wider public. Accordingly, “Why are we selling assets?” can readily be taken by those with limited understanding (and in my view is usually intended to be taken) as alluding to sales of entire SOEs rather than to sales of a maximum of 49% of their shares. Language has been carefully chosen by political opponents of the government, and used repeatedly for over a year, to create confusion and misconceptions about the government’s real intentions.

    You were the one yesterday morning who was intent on using a specific definition (“A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption”) to make a point. I trust therefore, that you yourself will always be particular in specifying the difference between the two distinctive asset groupings – a minority proportion of shares in an SOE and the operating SOE itself.

    On points 2) – 6), you are mistaken. Taking into consideration the points I’ve set out immediately above, my points 2-6 were directed to showing that the relevant question is indeed loaded. It is loaded because it ignores or wilfully camouflages important beneficial effects of the government’s policy. The loaded question feeds into a widespread and carefully-nurtured public perception that “asset sales” (ill-defined) are entirely to the detriment of individual NZers. My points 2) – 6) are designed to provide a more balanced picture. I happen to believe that people arrive at better personal conclusions when they have a broader understanding of issues, rather than a selective view consciously-orchestrated by political types.

    “I don’t have an agenda and I am not particularly swayed one way or the other on this issue.” Maybe that’s so, but it has been far from totally transparent in your contributions on this thread. Perhaps I made an “unjustified assumption” of my own in relation to your apparent political persuasions on this issue. Shame on me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    “Employment Law that makes an employer subject extortion by lieing,scheming, dishonest employees who then use the system of hopless mediators to attack the business when it all turns to custard.”

    Mediators don’t attack anyone. Mediators rarely make any comment on the merits of the case and definitely not in public. You are getting confused with the adjudicators process involving the Employment Relations Authority rather than the Mediation Service of the Department of Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. itstricky (1,139 comments) says:

    CG -:

    I agree with your views on Kiwisaver. Perhaps this is the way ordinary NZers can have a direct investment in the SOE sell-off without having to fork out lump sums for share parcels. This remains to be seen.

    Certainly, I also have “my share” of the national debt, but I never claimed otherwise so I think you’re probably skirting around the point and/or have misunderstood my definition of public ownership and *indirect* benefit.

    If my “my share” of the SOEs could be “measured”, as they are today, and put against the national debt, new public assets, education, health-care, whatever I would be (and I am) completely happy. This is what *indirectly* happens today.

    I was never implying that I would like financial benefits for “my share”. This is not my definition of ownership, or benefit.

    The question is of future profits. If the SOEs are profitable over many years, who’s to say that 50% of that profit disappearing into the hands of a few is not going to more than the injection of captial raised by those few? And that 50% profit could be of large benefit to *all* of NZ- not just those who could afford to put in at the time. When I say benefit in this sentence, again I am talking of indirect benefit – reducing national debt, raising health care and education etc.

    The only situation in which this would not be true is if the SOEs were going concerns and the capital was required to “keep them running”. Which I don’t believe they are, given, for example, rising electricity prices!

    If you were an investor in a profitable company, would you sell off 50% of your shares at a crux time? Would an investment advisor advise you to do the same? Probably not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Selling of 49% stops the lefty’s Tax by stealth by enforcing a higher profit on the SOE’s

    Is the present time that bad for share investment in infrastructure?

    I redirected some on my share portfolio into infrastructure after the gfc on the grounds that it is not a discretionary spend.
    This strategy has done me very well over the last 4 years The demand by ma and pa kiwis as well as the institutional investors will guarantee a successful float.

    Investment advisers are a bunch of losers
    Mostly of your money. How many have been scorched badly by investment advisers selling high risk rubbish to those that should know better yet where greedy for a few paltry points over the bank rates. Few managed fund pay better than passive when you add in the fees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.