Labour troffers - underpants, golf clubs, wine and private planes - all on our money. [Archive]

Tank

10th June 2010, 08:36

Credit card spending gets announced today.

Interesting some are coming out first for damage limitation. I think this is going to be really interesting reading.

For the lefties - lets keep this on subject and only cover the troffing expenses that get announced.

So what do we have so far - confirmed outside spending and having to pay back:

Shane Jones $6000:
Hiring a plane
movie rentals (Porn??)
Personal Magazines
expensive wine for personal use

Another Labour Minister has been asked to pay back the cost of a massage on the credit card

At least two former ministers are understood to have bought new wardrobes while overseas, including a suit, shirts and boxer shorts in one case.

Mita Ririnui confirmed he bought a $600 set of golf clubs while in Australia on his ministerial credit card. (edit - he did pay back when he got back to NZ - but we shouldnt be paying for it in the first place)

Its going to be a fun couple of days with this stuff coming out. I find it terrible that they only offer to pay back once it makes the media. What kind of ship were those fuckers running?

Mudfart

10th June 2010, 09:27

a very loose ship that requires sinking, lets torp the fucker, and put those corrupt, ripoff no-goods to rest.
Once again I call for legislation that states if you disgrace your ministerial position you get the fuck out of politics. Not swap portfolios.
And the public stone you to death, incase I forgot that part.

Tank

10th June 2010, 09:29

First Nat - Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser racked up a $641 minibar bill in the space of one week during the Copenhagen climate change conference.

In the meantime. Carter (Labour) buys flowers for his husbands birthday and watches a $25 pay per view movie on the taxpayer. Im guessing that wasnt a pixar film at that amount of money.

Mully

10th June 2010, 09:32

What's "troffing"? - D'ya mean "troughing"? As in "pigs at the trough"?

I think you'll find when Phil Heatley (sp?) was sacked, I predicted that Labour wouldn't make a fuss because they knew they were just as at fault, and it would bite them in the arse.

It's pretty naive to think they aren't all the same, given the chance. Anyone remember Tuku Morgan buying $90-odd undies with public funds?

I think all of them - Ministers, MPs and thei staff - should have these records available for perusal at any time. It'd certainly tighten up the "Oh, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to buy that - I'll pay it back" thing.

Tank

10th June 2010, 09:34

spelling - yeah ok.

Yep - you did predict that !

Still - what are the odds of any of the labour pigs (trough - geddit) offering themselves yup to the AG and being stood down like National did?

BoristheBiter

10th June 2010, 09:36

they should have it like everyone else.
Pay for it first then get reinbursed, this would stop it.

rainman

10th June 2010, 09:37

Its going to be a fun couple of days with this stuff coming out. I find it terrible that they only offer to pay back once it makes the media.

Have to disagree, it will be the usual boring circlejerk that passes for political analysis around here.

Rorting, whether expenses or allowances or kickback or conflicts of interest, is bad, whoever does it. Does anyone actually disagree with this? Even the guys doing the rorting?
That there is almost no-one in parliament that is not vulnerable to this sort of criticism says something.

Once again I call for legislation that states if you disgrace your ministerial position you get the fuck out of politics. Not swap portfolios.

Works for me - but the problem is you would quickly run out of pollies, and there would be few willing to put their hands up to follow in behind those departing. I would never stand for political office in NZ - I'm a fairly principled and well-behaved lad but I'm certain there are enough skeletons in my cupboard that some bugger would crucify me over. Not worth it.

Of course, I would have to say that the one party that has had less controversy than the others would be the Greens. Not perfect by any means, but better than Nat/Lab/Act/NZ1 and to a lesser degree Prog/UF/... So there's a solution for you :)

imdying

10th June 2010, 09:53

They will all steal from their fellow New Zealanders if given half a chance. They only bother having different parties to keep you idiots arguing amongst yourselves.

JimO

10th June 2010, 11:49

wysper

10th June 2010, 12:22

They only bother having different parties to keep you idiots arguing amongst yourselves.

I happen to like arguing! :innocent:

mashman

10th June 2010, 12:48

They will all steal from their fellow New Zealanders if given half a chance. They only bother having different parties to keep you idiots arguing amongst yourselves.

Says it all really... t'would be nice if we could jail a few...

rainman

10th June 2010, 13:10

thats a surprise your a fuckin greenie

Well yeah duh. For good reason, as you can see. They're not perfect but are the most principled of a bad lot.

imdying

10th June 2010, 13:15

Says it all really... t'would be nice if we could jail a few...Psssh, you might as well lockup most of the country then, they'd all do it too given half a chance.

imdying

10th June 2010, 13:16

They're not perfect but are the most principled of a bad lot.Whatever.... even Graham Capil had principles.... they'll get caught selling out (again) soon enough.

SPman

10th June 2010, 13:31

Whatever.... even Graham Capil had principles.... they'll get caught selling out (again) soon enough.I like a man who has principles.....and I'm prepared to pay for them!

mashman

10th June 2010, 13:34

Psssh, you might as well lockup most of the country then, they'd all do it too given half a chance.

Of course they would and do... but for some reason those with "status" seem to avoid the clink (great example to set for future generations)... and very wrongly so imho... it's theft, jail 'em...

imdying

10th June 2010, 13:50

Of course they would and do... but for some reason those with "status" seem to avoid the clink (great example to set for future generations)... and very wrongly so imho... it's theft, jail 'em...Go and sit in on the district courts for a week or two, you'll see people of every race and social standing getting away with all sorts of things and avoiding the clink. It is definitely not just those with status.

Tank

10th June 2010, 14:34

Have to disagree, it will be the usual boring circlejerk that passes for political analysis around here.

Speaking of jerking - Does Shane Jones expect us to believe that he wasnt whacking out when watching all the pornos he charged to the g'ment?

I can see the election posters now.

mashman

10th June 2010, 14:34

Go and sit in on the district courts for a week or two, you'll see people of every race and social standing getting away with all sorts of things and avoiding the clink. It is definitely not just those with status.

dunno if my sanity, or what's left of it, could handle the injustice... but i take your point...

oldrider

10th June 2010, 14:42

I would never stand for political office in NZ - I'm a fairly principled and well-behaved lad but I'm certain there are enough skeletons in my cupboard that some bugger would crucify me over. Not worth it.

Cut to the chase, never mind the boring pollie BS, tell us your all, then we can decide to forgive you and you can enter politics fresh on the KB ticket if you like! How's that for a deal? :lol:

rainman

10th June 2010, 14:51

Speaking of jerking - Does Shane Jones expect us to believe that he wasnt whacking out when watching all the pornos he charged to the g'ment?

I can see the election posters now.

Don't let John Ansell near that one! Not Iwi/Kiwi, it would have to be Banker/Wanker... :)

Have to say being a good social liberal I couldn't care less what adults watch - sex is not intrinsically scandalous (other than where the participants are unable/too young to consent, or are exploited/compelled), so this falls into the category of "not a good look". When I have travelled on business the companies I worked for would have no concern for what I watched, porn or disney movies, as long as it was not on my credit card or expense claim. Ditto if I got pissed out of my head in my own time and with my own money - if I could turn up to work and do the job the next day, none of their business.

We own the outcome delivered by the politicans (and must hold them accountable for that), not their every waking moment.

rainman

10th June 2010, 14:57

Cut to the chase, never mind the boring pollie BS, tell us your all, then we can decide to forgive you and you can enter politics fresh on the KB ticket if you like! How's that for a deal? :lol:

Ha! Nice try... but no ceegar.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe". (Or should that be "done"?)

Tank

10th June 2010, 15:09

, not their every waking moment.

You forgot the "n"

Swoop

10th June 2010, 15:18

Surely Shane Jones could have just popped down to the censor's office and "borrowed" a few movies to view? It would have been cheaper for the taxpayers...

Tank

10th June 2010, 16:30

http://file.stuff.co.nz/stuff/mpexpenses/carter-massages.jpg

For that much money you can get a full service - if you know what I mean.

Tank

10th June 2010, 16:58

Shanes Jones wanking face: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10650946&gallery_id=111860#6952584

slofox

10th June 2010, 17:09

Shanes Jones wanking face: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10650946&gallery_id=111860#6952584

That's very good...:rofl:

Muppet

10th June 2010, 17:14

Parekura Horomia
- June 2004 - $500 on a meal ($250 paid back) (see receipt)
- July 2004 - $704 on official portfolio dinners (see receipt)
- June 2005 - $1613.54 on restaurant meals
- November 2009 - $750 on a Chinese meal
- December 2009 - $463 mostly on meals ($195.50 paid back)

Typical how that fat slob spends his, sorry our money on chow!!!

HenryDorsetCase

10th June 2010, 17:20

Isn't this just an easy media beat-up (wait for it, beat-off): arent these records of funds that have ALREADY been reimbursed?

My question: How do we know its the pr0n that Shane-o was watching? the bill just says "Movie Sky City Grand" { http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/shanejones-misc.jpg } so how does anyone know its porn-tastic?

Tank

10th June 2010, 17:28

phill-k

10th June 2010, 17:52

many of the expenses have been reimbursed, don't have a problem with that, but check out Murray mccully's alcohol expenditure, that boy does serious drinking on us when overseas, check his dates as well its usually either daily or every second day. Obviously works at 110% not

SS90

10th June 2010, 20:47

red mermaid

10th June 2010, 21:21

This little furore is interesting. I'm sure if I did the same as this lot of Honourable Members with my Government supplied credit card I would be down the road that fast I would leave skid marks at the exit door, but them....

rustic101

10th June 2010, 21:27

Take Carter (not literally:sick:) O but I paid it back when I realised....

Hang on - If I stole a box of chocolates from New World, then a few days later realised I fucked up and took them back, would I still be charged with theft?? Yip!!!

What Carter has done is misappropriation of Public Funds, whether that is one cent or a thousand cents, its still theft as a Servant...

He should hand him self in and say I'm a dirty thieving bastard and so is my man bitch...

rustic101

10th June 2010, 21:30

Wonder how Shane cleaned up afterwards????
Was he sitting or laying down when he shot his load????
What type of porn was it????
Can we request a copy of the DVD under OIA?

So many questions

slofox

11th June 2010, 09:12

I wonder how the total cost to taxpayers of these revelations compares with the cost to the taxpayers of Nick's Myth's settlement and court costs over the defamation suit he has "settled out of court?"

I also wonder which movies Mr Jones would recommend..?

Mudfart

11th June 2010, 09:19

Have to disagree, it will be the usual boring circlejerk that passes for political analysis around here.

Rorting, whether expenses or allowances or kickback or conflicts of interest, is bad, whoever does it. Does anyone actually disagree with this? Even the guys doing the rorting?
That there is almost no-one in parliament that is not vulnerable to this sort of criticism says something.

Works for me - but the problem is you would quickly run out of pollies, and there would be few willing to put their hands up to follow in behind those departing. I would never stand for political office in NZ - I'm a fairly principled and well-behaved lad but I'm certain there are enough skeletons in my cupboard that some bugger would crucify me over. Not worth it.

Of course, I would have to say that the one party that has had less controversy than the others would be the Greens. Not perfect by any means, but better than Nat/Lab/Act/NZ1 and to a lesser degree Prog/UF/... So there's a solution for you :)

yep, i think greens is the best vote in NZ. I would hope that kicking all the retards out of politics would force us to use our wisest, most intelligent people who live in NZ. Politics seems to be all about jostling for position, backstabbing and the such. I would have thought that we, as the people whom they represent, and for whom their prestegious titles of "Honourable" hold such valour, would demand a little more maturity from these fucktards. They are fucking around worse than little kids, on taxpayer money. Lets concentrate on making decisions that better our communities and way of life, (which we hold so dear in NZ).

Mudfart

11th June 2010, 09:21

Wonder how Shane cleaned up afterwards????
Was he sitting or laying down when he shot his load????
What type of porn was it????
Can we request a copy of the DVD under OIA?

So many questions

Yeah, if he uses taxpayer money to buy the movie, then surely every taxpayer has a right to view the movie? And we can all wear tuku's undies?

Tank

11th June 2010, 10:03

yep, i think greens is the best vote in NZ.

How do you work that out? a Vote for the greens is a vote for labour (they have said as such) - and they are pretty much a mindless single issue (focus) party. So you still end up with the twats that are labour and a group of tree huggers having waaaay to much power over them because they need the votes to get a majority.

The sooner they fall under 5% the better for NZ.

Tank

11th June 2010, 10:07

oh - Mudfart - lets not forget how the greens know better than you or I - and need to treat us with kid mittens - thus to save us from ourselves they must ban everything.

Here is a list of items that they HAVE STATED that they will ban if they had the power to do so:

Ban fizzy drinks from schools
Ban Plasma TV's
Ban fuel inefficient vehicles
Ban all gaming machines in pubs
Ban the GCSB
Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick
Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials
Ban field testing on production of GE food
Ban import of GE food
Ban Urban Sprawl
Ban non citizens/residents from owning land
Ban further corporate farming
Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year
Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
Ban crates for sows
Ban battery cages for hens
Ban factory farming of animals
Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain
Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
Ban cloning of animals
Ban use of animals in GE
Ban GE animal food
Ban docking of dogs tails
Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
Ban smacking
Ban advertising during children’s programmes
Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
Ban coal mining
Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips
Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons
Ban the establishment of mustelid farms
Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site
Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.
Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy
Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals
Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
Ban any additional use of coal for energy
Ban fixed electricity charges
Ban further large hydro plants
Ban nuclear power
Ban further thermal generation
Ban private water management
Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)
Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink
Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
Ban food irradiation within NZ
Ban irradiated food imports
Ban growth hormones for animals
Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco
Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining
Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements)
Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries
Ban new casinos
Allow existing casinos to be banned
Ban promotion of Internet gambling
Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children
Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
Ban new prisons
Ban semi-automatic weapons
Ban genetic mixing between specieis
Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products
Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes
Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling
Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Ban new urban highways or motorways
Ban private toll roads
Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards
Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling
Ban landfills
Ban new houses without water saving measures
Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

Bald Eagle

11th June 2010, 10:18

You missed the most important one

Ban thinking for yourself.

Swoop

11th June 2010, 10:50

Phill-in Goff has ducked for cover. Annette King is running away and hiding.

A "verbal bollocking" has been given to Jones from Phill-in. Wouldn't that be similar to being savaged by a small kitten??:scratch:

rainman

11th June 2010, 11:32

a Vote for the greens is a vote for labour (they have said as such) - and they are pretty much a mindless single issue (focus) party.

And Tank as usual comes along to trot out the same old baloney. The Greens said last election (before the election) that they would not enter into a formal coalition with National as the differences between the two parties is too great. Yet they have managed to work with the government to get some useful things implemented (much as they did with Labour, despite not being in coalition then either). This is called integrity and is therefore hard to understand by those used to normal political behaviour.

Sure they have more in common with Labour than National (they are a sensible party after all) but if you actualy watched the reality of what the party has been doing lately rather than just repeat spin you would see they are a lot more free-standing.

oh - Mudfart - lets not forget how the greens know better than you or I - and need to treat us with kid mittens - thus to save us from ourselves they must ban everything.

Here is a list of items that they HAVE STATED that they will ban if they had the power to do so:

...

I've seen this list of "bans" before and it's largely crap. Half of it is justcommon sense - either good risk management or good science (GE, pesticides, coal, mustelids, etc), or cases where the costs of the apparent "good" outweigh the benefits (fizzy drinks, unhealthy food, fuel inefficiency, water saving etc), but the rest is largely made up.

Although some things should be banned (and I'm sure several Green people would agree with many of these faux policies) almost all of this is exaggerated. Tel me where the Greens said they would BAN urban sprawl? How does that even make sense? It's already there... (and a fucking stupid idea, as it happens). I searched their policy page for "urban sprawl" and found some comments opposed (like I said, it's a fucking stupid idea) but no policy of banning it. So, Tank, are you guilty of copy-pasting lies with an agenda, or do you actually think for yourself?

When National BANNED the sale of flu pills that work, did you write to your MP saying he was infringing on your liberty? Did you post complaints all over the web about the nanny state? Or are you a hypocrite too?

Ban thinking for yourself.

Yeah, 'cos we do that really well and always make good decisions.

If it were not for the rudimentary regulations that we currently enjoy, we would have probably gone extinct by now.

mashman

11th June 2010, 11:37

oh - Mudfart - lets not forget how the greens know better than you or I - and need to treat us with kid mittens - thus to save us from ourselves they must ban everything.

yeah right! it's just the greens that treat us with kid mittens and save us from ourselves... at least they're up front about what they'd do...

oldrider

11th June 2010, 11:52

I have no problem with the dude watching porn, none whatsoever, and, let's face it who hasn't?

It's far better than him renting a prostitute or some such thing.

The issue is that he was (clearly) warned, in written form that it was not legal, and, he must pay it back.

He did not (until this became available t the public)

That is the problem I have.

The legality of the whole thing.... he was hoping he wouldn't be caught (for the sake of a few hundred $'s as far as the porn is concerned), and the other items are not really that much in the big scheme of things.

He was warned, several times, by an office specifically set up to avoid such problems (I have no problems with them charging personal items to their credit cards, it is common when you have a business card to charge personal items to it, you just have to reconcile your personal expenditure at the end of the month.)

In this case, despite repeated warnings (his own admission), he failed to do so.

Sack him, cancel his pension, and give him 200 hours community service.

Absolutely correct, good post. IMHO.

Got it in a nut shell, it's not the what, it is the how!

Not suitable to hold the position at that "base level", then they are not suitable candidates for the position they "hold"! (OUT THEY MUST GO!)

It's easy to get confused "once" but after having been corrected and warned, they should be held accountable for their actions and dismissed!

It goes to show just how slack the (once rigidly enforced) parlimentary monitoring system has become, probably due to lack of action at the top, like our justice system et al!

Mudfart

11th June 2010, 12:25

wow if the list of what the greens would ban is true, then they def get my vote. my family is afflicted with problem gambling and it ripped us apart. pokies are BS. and the other things are all common sense issues. I think if you had the list of national party bans, it would be a bit scarier, and look something like this:
Sell as much land as possible to foreign investors
Sell Kiwibank
Ban Kiwisaver and take the money (5bn sofar)
Give Maori party anything they want, as long as we get their support
Steal more from the taxpayers to fund our private lives
Sell most SOE
Make ourselves look good to guarantee a second term, when we intend to do the most damage.
Nope, unfortunately Tank, your list only serves to remind me to vote green.

puddytat

11th June 2010, 13:02

Have to disagree, it will be the usual boring circlejerk that passes for political analysis around here.

Of course, I would have to say that the one party that has had less controversy than the others would be the Greens. Not perfect by any means, but better than Nat/Lab/Act/NZ1 and to a lesser degree Prog/UF/... So there's a solution for you :)

Im with my comrade on this one....;)

Tank

11th June 2010, 15:38

my family is afflicted with problem gambling and it ripped us apart. pokies are BS.

Sorry you have the issues in your family - but seriously just because someone in your family has an issue - is that a good reason to ban it for all others who simply use them as a bit of fun? What about all the money they raise that goes to sports etc etc .

Do we ban the tote also - to stop them betting on horses? What about the GG industry?

Lotto - millions raised for good causes - thats gambling - do we ban that as well.

Why the fuck should I have my choices limited just because some in society are too weak / dumb or have an illness - fix the people because they are not fixing a problem by banning shit.

mashman

11th June 2010, 15:56

Why the fuck should I have my choices limited just because some in society are too weak / dumb or have an illness - fix the people because they are not fixing a problem by banning shit.

t'would be quite easy if the pollies hadn't been wanking off with the money that could be used to keep the services available for those who need "help"... :)

Mudfart

11th June 2010, 16:19

lol true. I have approached all the so-called help services, noone has ever replied to emails or phone calls.
The issue with pokies, is it started with the monster in law, and she has got a large chunk of her family playing them, spending every cent they can muster. this includes scavenging food from the sea, drains, other peoples fruit trees etc, to save money on the food bill to have more for the pokies.
I dont think gg's or lotto has had such a negative draw to it for gamblers as the pokies have.
Incidentally, over 3million a day is spent on gambling in NZ, and over 30billion a year, apparently.
Yeah, the majority goes back to the community, yeah right! (tui ad).
Have you ever tried to secure a lotteries grant for something?. First you must set yourself on fire, then jump through 20,000 hoops.

JimO

11th June 2010, 17:23

Speaking of jerking - Does Shane Jones expect us to believe that he wasnt whacking out when watching all the pornos he charged to the g'ment?

I can see the election posters now.

erm he charged it to the taxpayer

schrodingers cat

11th June 2010, 18:30

oldrider

11th June 2010, 22:50

Woodman

11th June 2010, 23:29

Is it OK if I don't give a flying fuck?

Spending on “social security and welfare” makes up a significant part of total Government expenditure.
Social security and welfare” cost $12.9 billion over the 1999/2000 fiscal year, which is equivalent to 36% of total Government expenditure and 12.3% of GDP.
(http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/022C2B15-1522-4140-999C-49CF45B43F46/512/0013Benefits1.pdf)

So that was 248 million PER week ten years ago.

How much is is this witch-hunt saving?

Can we get back to real issues and ignore all this purile horseshit?

Yep....I get sick of the politicians slinging mud at each other, its fcukin bollocks. You think spending a bit of dosh on pron and shouting the odd drink costs a lot of taxpayers money? then think about the resources used up in digging up shit about the opposition. Must cost a fortune.

Why don't the fcukers just get on with running the country.

As for the greens, yeah they have a place and are a good powerful lobby group, but they are way too pc and socialist and anti personal responsibility to ever run a country.

schrodingers cat

12th June 2010, 08:25

Did it ever occur to you that "you" are on the wrong thread, this one "is" about the purile horseshit, it's not about real issues!

But who would you have to chip at then?
I've offloaded and served a higher purpose.
I expect my nomination for Queens honours is in the mail

mashman

12th June 2010, 08:32

Why don't the fcukers just get on with ruining the country.

Fixed that for ya

JimO

12th June 2010, 09:07

Well yeah duh. For good reason, as you can see. They're not perfect but are the most principled of a bad lot.

tui anyone.....

rainman

12th June 2010, 09:42

tui anyone.....

I know you don't like them at some reptilian level, but what exactly are you arguing here? That they are the leas scandal-ridden of the parties ever to have seen parliament (other than one-horse ponies) is pretty much beyond dispute. (To be fair though, that isn't exactly difficult).

Maybe surprisingly, I sorta agree with Woodman in his comment about them running the country (although I think PC is a meaningless label pushed by the Brash campaign team that some obviously bought hook line and sinker; and I don't think socialist is a bad thing). I'd like to see the Greens comfortably above 15%, with a strong role in government, some seats in cabinet - but a Green-led government? Not in their current form. Won't happen here anyway.

BoristheBiter

12th June 2010, 09:57

I know you don't like them at some reptilian level, but what exactly are you arguing here? That they are the leas scandal-ridden of the parties ever to have seen parliament (other than one-horse ponies) is pretty much beyond dispute. (To be fair though, that isn't exactly difficult).

Maybe surprisingly, I sorta agree with Woodman in his comment about them running the country (although I think PC is a meaningless label pushed by the Brash campaign team that some obviously bought hook line and sinker; and I don't think socialist is a bad thing). I'd like to see the Greens comfortably above 15%, with a strong role in government, some seats in cabinet - but a Green-led government? Not in their current form. Won't happen here anyway.

What make you think the greens would be any better, the only reason they havn't don't anything really wrong, anti-smacking bill aside, is because they have had no power to do shit. the only reason they were tolarated was so labour could get back into power.
at the end of the day they are all out to feather their own nest.

rainman

12th June 2010, 11:16

What make you think the greens would be any better, the only reason they havn't don't anything really wrong, anti-smacking bill aside, is because they have had no power to do shit. the only reason they were tolarated was so labour could get back into power.
at the end of the day they are all out to feather their own nest.

Well, they don't seem to have too many credit-card-rort-type issues - which is kinda the point of this thread.
They have achieved a lot for a party that hasn't had any real power - including the repeal of S59, which was a good thing, although it's been debated to death on KB before to no end so I won't be going back to that now.
Labour has indeed screwed them over quite a bit, but National would have been worse - heard of the expression "lesser of two evils"? Also, the party and the political environment has changed quite a bit - I would not expect the same degree of naivete next time around.

oldrider

12th June 2010, 13:05

Well, they don't seem to have too many credit-card-rort-type issues - which is kinda the point of this thread.
They have achieved a lot for a party that hasn't had any real power - including the repeal of S59, which was a good thing, although it's been debated to death on KB before to no end so I won't be going back to that now.
Labour has indeed screwed them over quite a bit, but National would have been worse - heard of the expression "lesser of two evils"? Also, the party and the political environment has changed quite a bit - I would not expect the same degree of naivete next time around.

Short memories guy's, can't remember the details but they had big trough type problems earlier on! Look it up if you don't believe me!

Pussy

12th June 2010, 14:18

Ahhh... the green party.
They reckon they care so much about the planet.... and they're hardly ever on it!

schrodingers cat

12th June 2010, 16:03

I don't think socialist is a bad thing)

Pure socialism doesn't work.
Neither does pure capitalism.
Too much socialism without suficient capiltalist savvy is a scary mix.
This country needs to focus on assisting people to create wealth and encourage them to reward those who assist them in their endevours.
Whilst our wealth is draining away offshore all this handwringing about overspending and funding for minorities and whatever other headline we'll endure next week is just polishing a turd

BoristheBiter

12th June 2010, 18:49

Well, they don't seem to have too many credit-card-rort-type issues - which is kinda the point of this thread.
They have achieved a lot for a party that hasn't had any real power - including the repeal of S59, which was a good thing, although it's been debated to death on KB before to no end so I won't be going back to that now.
Labour has indeed screwed them over quite a bit, but National would have been worse - heard of the expression "lesser of two evils"? Also, the party and the political environment has changed quite a bit - I would not expect the same degree of naivete next time around.

but how can a party, when 95% of the country didn't vote for them (goes for all small parties) have any say at all.
The whole system is shit and no one wants to change it as if they would be out of a job.
LIke i said the are all the same.

Shadows

13th June 2010, 00:03

Speaking of jerking - Does Shane Jones expect us to believe that he wasnt whacking out when watching all the pornos he charged to the g'ment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NWLJZjA2Ek

SS90

13th June 2010, 04:03

Speaking of jerking - Does Shane Jones expect us to believe that he wasnt whacking out when watching all the pornos he charged to the g'ment?

I can see the election posters now.

But, so what if he was?

For all we know, his wife may be Menapuasal, and, quite simply not feel up to "it"
It's not an isolated thing as far as this dude is concerened, he has done it several times (the charging it to the taxpayer I don't like), so it could be fair to assume that he may well not be getting "some lovin" from his spouse.

So far, I hear no accusations of infidelity, just a little porn watching.

You do realise it is not a crime, right?

Charging it to the taxpayer, however, is.

Perhaps it is the only way he can hide this from his wife (perhaps she inspects all the personal credit card purchases), is to charge it to the "work" card, and he simply got caught in a pattern he could not get out of.

Actually, the porn is really only a couple of hundy........ He could have got a nice prostitute for that. (oh, that's legal too!)
For the porn, my understanding, for the stealing....... Pit of death (although I am just now starting to think the total humiliation this dude has suffered to far outweigh the few thousand dollars we are dealing with)

BoristheBiter

13th June 2010, 09:03

he will forever known as the minister of porn.
now there is a title a lot of people would want.
As for the making us pay of it, it's classed as "thieft", the intent was there. why is he still in a job?

avgas

13th June 2010, 09:50

Yep....I get sick of the politicians slinging mud at each other, its fcukin bollocks.
They have to do something with their day. I mean if it just came down to making decisions about the country wouldn't we then only require 1 person?

avgas

13th June 2010, 09:56

oh - Mudfart - lets not forget how the greens know better than you or I - and need to treat us with kid mittens - thus to save us from ourselves they must ban everything.

Here is a list of items that they HAVE STATED that they will ban if they had the power to do so:

Ban,Ban,Ban...........
Tank that doesn't sound too bad? Because you missed the very valid point here.
How can they ban anything if they sack the cops? hahaha

ynot slow

13th June 2010, 10:06

My thoughts are 1)they get paid enough to pay for their goods personally,then they get reimbursed IF the goods are required for the job,and lets have an idependant person or two to say yay or nay if a legit expense.Actually do that for all people in office be it local or central government.

I am happy to pay for goods required for work and being reimbursed if needed,i.e travel out of town with little notice and vehicle needs fuel as an example and the servo in wop wops isn't Shell,so I pay for gas,keep receipt which may show fuel,and food,so I want the money for gas.

Mudfart

13th June 2010, 10:16

shanes wife can now take a pill to make her get in the mood, and shane was probably watching porn to get the horn on, to go out and pick up a couple of prozzies, to bring back to his room. whilst raiding the minibar (on the taxpayer) for some dutch courage.
The point is these guys treat taxpayer funds like their own pleasure funds.
All forms of power and administration have their weaknesses and strengths, Im just really surprised there hasn't been a committee set up to develop the best one yet.
There's a fucken committee for everything else on the planet. There's a local committee for pooper scooping.

davereid

13th June 2010, 10:38

The issue is not the porn, its the improper use of the credit card.

The porn is relevant though, as its the porn that will make it stick in voter minds.

Long after voters have forgotten the other politician who purchased a $500 bottle of Bollinger on his / her card (See I have already forgotten who it was), we will remember the Porn King.

oldrider

13th June 2010, 11:33

Pure socialism doesn't work.
Neither does pure capitalism.
Too much socialism without suficient capiltalist savvy is a scary mix.
This country needs to focus on assisting people to create wealth and encourage them to reward those who assist them in their endevours.
Whilst our wealth is draining away offshore all this handwringing about overspending and funding for minorities and whatever other headline we'll endure next week is just polishing a turd

MMP takes the emphasis off reality and puts the focus on turd polishing and even worse, mutual turd polishing! (you scratch my back I will scratch your's)

Real issues of governing take a back seat to political survival. (there will be a "binding" referendum on MMP at the next election, are we all ready for it?) :shifty:

FJRider

13th June 2010, 11:41

Considering the salary they are paid, and the extra hassle putting/having an extra credit card (their OWN one) in their wallet, what excuse is really plausable when they "trough" on the "Company card" .... ???

Pixie

13th June 2010, 11:47

Short memories guy's, can't remember the details but they had big trough type problems earlier on! Look it up if you don't believe me!

Yeah, just a little thing like collecting two lots of rent paid by the taxpayer for single residences and giving a cut to the party from the proceedings

schrodingers cat

13th June 2010, 12:22

MMP takes the emphasis off reality and puts the focus on turd polishing and even worse, mutual turd polishing! (you scratch my back I will scratch your's)

Real issues of governing take a back seat to political survival. (there will be a "binding" referendum on MMP at the next election, are we all ready for it?) :shifty:

I remember the last time they tinkered with the political system. My belief as the time was that constituants wanted more accountability from MP's.
A list of options was drawn up at it was supposed to be clear which was the best (i.e. the one the pollies preferred) Kinda backfired when we got MMP. On us. On them.

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

BoristheBiter

14th June 2010, 08:38

Mully

14th June 2010, 09:13

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

Totally agree. Can't bling you for any of your posts in this thread, but I agree with most of them. Why we need several levels (Local, Regional and Central) of the scum-sucking leeching bastards is anyone's guess.

You may remember with hilarity (or red misted rage) the referendum we had, which called for a reduction in the number of MPs - which let to a commitee (made up of MPs *ahem*) - whic decided that we didn't want fewer MPs after all.

THEY ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME. THEY ARE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR "WHANAUS" AND THEIR MATES. REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY.

I actually agree with some of the Green policies - some of them make sense and could have positive benefits for the country - but until they stop being so fucking weird, they will never be a significant force in politics. The whole "We must have co-leaders and they must be one male and one female" is pathetic.

Rod Donald was the best thing to happen to the Greens - it's unfortunate he popped his clogs, cos the rest of them come across as lunatics.

shrub

14th June 2010, 11:29

I remember the last time they tinkered with the political system. My belief as the time was that constituants wanted more accountability from MP's.
A list of options was drawn up at it was supposed to be clear which was the best (i.e. the one the pollies preferred) Kinda backfired when we got MMP. On us. On them.

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

I can understand your point of view, and sadly a small number of pollies ruin things for everyone. We need at least 100 politicians representing us in the house of representatives because although we have a small population, we are geographically quite big for our population, and if we look at some countries with similar populations:
Croatia has 100 - 160 politicians, 1/4 the land area and Georgia has 150 politicians with 1/3 the land area. Ireland has a similar population and 1/4 the land area and a bicameral political system (upper and lower houses) with 160 members in the house of representatives. Norway is 1/3 bigger with a similar population and a proportional representative system with 150 members. (They also have a top tax rate of 48% and around double our per capita GDP). I could go on, but per capita and given our land area, if anything we're a little under represented.

As for losing MMP - that would be a disaster. I can't think of one country that has gone from a proportional representative system to a plurality voting system, but most countries have either taken up p.r. or are looking closely at it. Certainly amongst unicameral parliaments we'd stand out, and the trend is towards p.r. because it is better. Sure, Sue Bradford pissed a lot of people off, but then so did Rob Muldoon. It really would be a retrograde step, and if we do go back to fpp I'll be expecting a return to the 6 O Clock swill and one black and white TV channel.

STV is a better system than MMP, but it's harder to grasp and the National party have only just figured out how MMP works (National should have won in 2005) and Joe Public is unlikely to be much better versed in making it work.

If you want to have honest politicians who play by the rules, vote with their conscience and not their wallet, don't play the bad mouthing and slander game and who don't rort the system, you'll need to vote for the evil Greens. Sad to say it, but when was the last time you heard about a Green taking their partner on a lavish holiday (as demonstrated by Rodney "perkbuster' Hide), buying anything dodgy, claiming on two houses (as per Bill "I don't really live in this house" English) or helping themselves to cash from charities as done by Donna "Tummy Tuck" Huata?

And the worst part about them is they actually make a lot of sense. They're evil and Sue Bradford is ugly, but they still make a lot of sense.

shrub

14th June 2010, 11:40

I actually agree with some of the Green policies - some of them make sense and could have positive benefits for the country - but until they stop being so fucking weird, they will never be a significant force in politics. The whole "We must have co-leaders and they must be one male and one female" is pathetic.

Rod Donald was the best thing to happen to the Greens - it's unfortunate he popped his clogs, cos the rest of them come across as lunatics.

Actually they're pretty ordinary people. One owns a VTR1000 and rides it as much as he can, one is a slightly nerdy PhD who wears a suit, one is a former high ranking diplomat who has been an Oxford professor, one is a lesbian lawyer (that's about as weird as they get) and a couple are ex schoolteachers. I've met a few of them and been impressed with their brains and professionalism.

And I personally don't have a problem with co-leaders. I'm not sure it's a better way, but I certainly doubt it's a worse way.

BoristheBiter

14th June 2010, 12:16

Actually they're pretty ordinary people. One owns a VTR1000 and rides it as much as he can, .

Well theres an oxymoron.

Number One

14th June 2010, 12:38

Now that I am no longer employed as a public servant I would just like to say...

Dirty greedy pigs They are getting rid of public servants left right and effing centre to create 'value for money' eh hellow - I wonder how many salaries those arseholes are frittering away with their entitlement complexes.

The rules for sensitive and discretionary spending are fucking simple and they are drummed into you regularly and that's even when you don't have a damn credit card full of taxpayer dollars...AND most of those tossers have private secretaries and PAs too....all there to wipe their arrogant little bums for them so they don't have to think too hard about it themselves. You bet your arse those people know the rules. "I only had the one credit card on me"....are YOU that stupid? INTENT to misuse taxpayers funds already ya greedy arses. The whole system is flawed and many of the wankers in it are too.

Actually thanks that does feel a little better.

ooo one last thing...FUCK YOU ROBOT WOMAN

...yes much betterer

Thank you and good day

Mully

14th June 2010, 13:02

Actually they're pretty ordinary people.

I don't doubt that they're ordinary people.
And I don't doubt that they're passionate about what they believe in.
I once had a chat with Helen Clark - she seemed nice enough in person, but on TV she appeared as an arrogant dictator.
What I'm saying is that they come across as single issue lunatics. To hell with the world, as long as the trees are saved. Regardless of whether they think that or not, that's the public image they have.

Not made any better when they are asked for a camera quote and they start spouting irrelevent bollocks. They are, in a sense, their own worst enemy.

Swoop

14th June 2010, 13:11

As for losing MMP - that would be a disaster. I can't think of one country that has gone from a proportional representative system to a plurality voting system, but most countries have either taken up p.r. or are looking closely at it. It really would be a retrograde step, and if we do go back to fpp I'll be expecting a return to the 6 O Clock swill and one black and white TV channel.
Some kiwis are stupid enough to want to go back to FPP.

shrub

14th June 2010, 13:49

What I'm saying is that they come across as single issue lunatics. To hell with the world, as long as the trees are saved. Regardless of whether they think that or not, that's the public image they have.

Not made any better when they are asked for a camera quote and they start spouting irrelevent bollocks. They are, in a sense, their own worst enemy.

Interesting perspective - I don't see that, and I believe that generally speaking the Greens come across as reasonable and rational people, albeit people who believe very strongly in what's important to them. I wonder if they have done any research on what their public perception is? I would say so, so I'm curious as to what they're doing to counter that perception.

Actually I'll go one step further - you come across as reasonable and intelligent, so what has struck you as being what you'd expect from "single issue lunatics'
and "irrelevant bollocks"?

avgas

14th June 2010, 14:37

Some kiwis are stupid enough to want to go back to FPP.
Would be a good idea, so long as it was a proper race. Get the fuckers running. Get rid of the fat ones.

........what do you mean first past the poll isn't done on a footy field?

SPman

14th June 2010, 14:56

Give Maori party anything they want, as long as we get their support
Wrong - promise to give the Maori party what they want, publicly, but actually give them 5/8ths of fuck all! The Nats don't need the Maori party to govern - unless ACT disappears up it's own arse!

Would be a good idea, so long as it was a proper race. Get the fuckers running. Get rid of the fat ones.
Make it a naked race......after watching a pack of fat, grotesque would be politicians grunting and heaving for the finish line, could you look at any of them with a straight face after.....?

BoristheBiter

14th June 2010, 15:13

Interesting perspective - I don't see that, and I believe that generally speaking the Greens come across as reasonable and rational people, albeit people who believe very strongly in what's important to them. I wonder if they have done any research on what their public perception is? I would say so, so I'm curious as to what they're doing to counter that perception.

I will go along with Mully on this. In my circle of friends they all have the same thought, some good policies but too many fucked up ones.
And before you say anything, we didn't all vote for the same party, some even voted labour but we don't talk to them much.

The main problem is the face of the greens is very left tree hugging hippies, real of not. As said before with out rob they have done nothing to dispel this myth.

Mully

14th June 2010, 15:34

Actually I'll go one step further - you come across as reasonable and intelligent, so what has struck you as being what you'd expect from "single issue lunatics'
and "irrelevant bollocks"?

At the risk of dragging this further off topic.

Sorry, I didn't see you'd added to your post.

I come across as reasonable and intelligent?? Time for my meds, I think.....

I'm not sure what your question is - there was something on the news a couple of weeks ago that National had (I think) proposed - I don't even recall what the issue was, but it was nothing major.

TV3 must have asked Russell Norman for his opinion (as they do) and he spouted some rubbish that was only marginally related to the issue, but ranted about the environment. I'm sorry I don't recall specifically what the issue was. I was watching the news with Mrs Mully and ended up gobsmacked that this guy made himself look like a clown.

I've taken the time to read the Green's website. I would estimate I would either partially or completely agree with ~75% of their published policies. (For example, I agree with the food labelling one, but disagree about the "no advertising food before 8pm or whatever it is)

If they were more moderate and reasonable, I suspect they'd get a lot more support. I would certainly consider giving them my Party Vote.

NZ should jump on the opportunity to get ahead of the curve on "green" issues - i.e. IMHO, we should be going nuts researching biofuel crops. However, I think we probably need GE involvement in our research and the idea of GE gets screamed down. I also think we should be researching energy alternatives, which the Greens are big on. National (and Labour) don't seem too worried, but if govt funded researchers can patent new wind turbine technology (for example) then there is huge potential for foreign sales (and revenue)

Much like the debate (which doesn't happen) about a nuclear power station. Nuclear may not work for NZ (low baseload, spread out population, seismic activity), but the way it is, we can't even have the debate out in the open.

The greens are almost certainly the most "principled" party in Parliament. But then, that's like being the least bad STD.....

shrub

14th June 2010, 16:12

I agree with a lot of what you say - the Greens need to be a little more pragmatic and get involved in some myth-dispelling. I am in the middle of a research project looking at the green consumer, and the literature is clear - there is no such thing as a green consumer and the core principles of green ideology sit well with 90% of the population - or at least the thinking population.

I'm a card carrying greenie, have been for years (I was an Act supporter before that and was a foundation member back in 93), but I think GE is a good thing. Treated carefully and managed so we avoid the disasters of doomsday genes and patenting potatoes etc, it has the solution to a lot of the world's environmental problems including carbon emissions. I also like nuclear power (in principle), just not in NZ thanks, and not until they have dealt with what to do with the waste.

Tank

14th June 2010, 16:42

avgas

14th June 2010, 16:54

... but I think GE is a good thing........I also like nuclear power (in principle), just not in NZ thanks, and not until they have dealt with what to do with the waste.
I think you have the solution right there. We need a GE bug that eats irradiated stuff.

avgas

14th June 2010, 16:58

In NZ the 'Green' party are way more red than green. Heck - they even call themselves "Watermelons"

Thus - whilst Im (secretly) all for greenie stuff for the betterment of earth - I just cannot stand the green party.
Seconded, voted for them twice......never again.
But then again I will not vote again until something is done about the glutinous political system we have here anyway.
Not an Anarchist, just a realist. With a country population smaller than a suburb in the average international city......why do we have so much national, regional and local politicians? Too many chiefs not enough Indians.

mashman

14th June 2010, 17:19

I think you have the solution right there. We need a GE bug that eats irradiated stuff.

or some form of nuclear waste (self) powered heat seaking rocket that guides itself towards the sun for incinaration?

mashman

14th June 2010, 17:28

We have more than enough really good technology to do some really simple stuff (keepin the workplace clean)... but we're spending too much time (money) on consumer (and war) goods (and their associated economies), instead of focussing on the much Larger and Current picture... there are generations of us (consumers) to come, take a look around you (David Essex :rofl:) at what's happened in the last 50 years (superb technology, Africa)... We kinda need to stop what we're doing and have a good and proper think about things no?

shrub

14th June 2010, 18:55

In NZ the 'Green' party are way more red than green. Heck - they even call themselves "Watermelons"

Thus - whilst Im (secretly) all for greenie stuff for the betterment of earth - I just cannot stand the green party.

Actually, we don't. And the old left/right continuum is pretty well redundant these days, but why let reality get in the way of a good prejudice, hey?

Woodman

14th June 2010, 21:16

In NZ the 'Green' party are way more red than green. Heck - they even call themselves "Watermelons"

Thus - whilst Im (secretly) all for greenie stuff for the betterment of earth - I just cannot stand the green party.

Agree with you there Tank, the green party themselves is mightily mis-managed PR-wise.

Are you really a greenie???

shrub

15th June 2010, 03:45

Agree with you there Tank, the green party themselves is mightily mis-managed PR-wise.

Are you really a greenie???

I think you're right, I get very frustrated with the Greens because they're too paranoid about putting a foot wrong and offending anyone, and tend to allow the great unwashed to think what they want to think. That would be fine, but the great unwashed generally think what they're told to think by various PR companies and are still operating in the reds under the bed paranoia over communists or socialists (which are interchangeable in their limited mindset) taking over and forcing them to sell their SUVs and work in a salt mine somewhere.

The fact that communism doesn't really exist any more in it's true sense (there are a few totalitarian regimes who call themselves communist), and that while some Green policies fit within the parameters of socialist thought (as do some National policies), they fail just about every test of a socialist political party and would be disowned by dear old Uncle Karl. Claiming that the Greens are "red" is like saying the Nats are fundamentalist Christians.

And most people support the core Green principles of sustainability, democracy, social justice and environmental responsibility because to not do so is like riding a bike without maintaining it - great in the short term, but....

avgas

15th June 2010, 08:30

or some form of nuclear waste (self) powered heat seaking rocket that guides itself towards the sun for incinaration?
named Icarus

Woodman

15th June 2010, 18:54

The poor old Greens have a real conundrum whereas they think that the great unwashed can make their own decisions, but secretly know that they need someone like the Greens to make those decisions for them. It must really tear them apart.

They need to leave all their idealistic social policies behind and realise that the only way to fix the planets environmental problems is by using rightwing policies.

what was this thread about???

mashman

15th June 2010, 20:24

named Icarus

or Phoenix

Swoop

15th June 2010, 20:56

Interesting on the news tonight about the clover. Greenies are instantly negative since it is "genetically modified" and Greenpeace seems happy with it since it's for "the greater good"...
They really need to get their shit in the same sock.

rainman

16th June 2010, 00:13

The poor old Greens have a real conundrum whereas they think that the great unwashed can make their own decisions, but secretly know that they need someone like the Greens to make those decisions for them.

Well, perhaps we should start making clever decisions on our own, then.

They need to leave all their idealistic social policies behind and realise that the only way to fix the planets environmental problems is by using rightwing policies.

By "rightwing policies" I assume you mean the neolib crap that has got us in the mess we're in today? If so, please feel free to explain a) why this would work, and b) why it hasn't so far.

They really need to get their shit in the same sock.

Why? Can't people disagree on things? Diversity is the primary good.

shrub

16th June 2010, 08:12

;1129784614By "rightwing policies" I assume you mean the neolib crap that has got us in the mess we're in today? If so, please feel free to explain a) why this would work, and b) why it hasn't so far.

Why? Can't people disagree on things? Diversity is the primary good.

I don't know, right wing policies have worked spectacularly well for a few people, who were then able to afford the best PR and marketing money could buy to convince everyone else that right wing policies were the answer despite evidence to the contrary. Cognitive dissonance is easy to overcome with the right pitch. And of course all green and environmental groups should agree on everything - it makes life much easier to understand if everything is a binary: green/not green, red/blue, right/left, with GW Bush/against freedomm. Hell, freedom of thought and independent choice in ideology is bad and leads to confusion and distress.

Mully

16th June 2010, 10:22

Where's Skyryder, while all this is going on?

I would have thought he would have been here to blame John Key for making Labour ministers spend all this money on their credit cards.....

avgas

16th June 2010, 11:03

They really need to get their shit in the same sock.
Wal Footroots?
hehehe I just had a mental image. I miss Footrot Flats

Swoop

16th June 2010, 11:27

Wal Footroots?
hehehe I just had a mental image. I miss Footrot Flats
Horse (the cat) cracked me up. Nobody fucked with that cat!

pete376403

16th June 2010, 17:47

Amid all the wailing about Labour MP spending, haven't heard much about either Murray McCully - "Across two days in Tokyo last year, Mr McCully charged $509.90 at hotel bars and on the minibar.
In Tokyo, on May 20 last year, McCully charged $187 at the Highlander Bar in the Okura Hotel. A further $271.50 was charged at the Orchid Bar the following day and $51.40 came out of the minibar. It is not clear what was purchased in each case "- or Tim Groser - "Trade Minister Tim Groser has charged at least $1469 against tax-payer funded credit cards for alcohol purchases since becoming a Minister in November 2008.
The total amount includes a $466 mini-bar bill racked up in the space of one week during the Copenhagen climate change conference.
Groser is also the Minister for Climate Change Negotiations."

Maybe being a pisshead on the taxpayer tit in the National party is acceptable behaviour.

shrub

16th June 2010, 20:29

Maybe being a pisshead on the taxpayer tit in the National party is acceptable behaviour.

No, we expect them to fleece us, but Labour are supposed to be the party of the people.

Elysium

16th June 2010, 21:14

Only one man can get away with spending out money and we still like the guy, Winston Peters.....

Woodman

16th June 2010, 21:30

I don't have a problem with alcohol/restaurant purchases if it is a normal part of doing business. if you have to take someone out on the piss to get a trade deal or whatever then that is a legitimate business expense and I as a taxpayer am happy to pay for it.

Woodman

16th June 2010, 22:35

By "rightwing policies" I assume you mean the neolib crap that has got us in the mess we're in today? If so, please feel free to explain a) why this would work, and b) why it hasn't so far.
.

By Rightwing policies, I mean extreme right wing policies, eg a very powerful dictatorship or something that will force change. I truly believe it has come to that. various summits around the world are useless and just an excuse for pollys to rack up cc bills. (phew on topic)

SS90

17th June 2010, 01:30

Some kiwis are stupid enough to want to go back to FPP.

Well, the thing is, human nature has (most) humans seeing change (any change) as good, as evident by Barrack Obama's campaign "for change"

the whole nation got behind it.

When we where offered "a change" we got "MMP, or FFP", we had FFP, we wanted a change, so MMP came in.

I was only young (perhaps 14), but my Social Studies Teacher was good at his job and he explained it too us.

From one eye, you can say "Ohhhh, look at the shit that has come about from MMP", more polititions, more problems, coilition governments (don't get me started), and a dramatic increase in Political fraud, back handers and so on.

It could be said that MMP was the cause of all this "new corruption"........

But, the sad thing is that when it was FFP, it was such an "old boys network", that any such antics (that have been happening since the dawn of time) where never allowed to see the light of day (one hand washes the other so to speak), but, now, with having so many greedy snouts in the trough, there is not enough "food" to go round, so, they have to sell each other out (almost daily), to get one trotter closer to the trough.

rainman

17th June 2010, 09:19

By Rightwing policies, I mean extreme right wing policies, eg a very powerful dictatorship or something that will force change.

I know you mean extreme right wing policies. I just want you to sell them to me, rather than assume as an article of faith that they will work (when they haven't here, or elsewhere, in the past).

I love change, but NZ doesn't do it right (understatement!). Labour undoes the mess National left, National undoes the mess Labour left, and both fritter around with things aligned to their ideologies. No-one has the balls to look at the real situation (hint: it's changed since the late 70's), come up with a workable way forward, sell it it the electorate, and then implement it effectively and accountably.

And the reason they don't is because we don't make them do so.

For this wonderful place not to end up some impoverished backwater we have to do some very smart things very soon. A good start would be understanding that there's more to change than just ticking a different coloured box on the voting paper.

Well, the thing is, human nature has (most) humans seeing change (any change) as good, as evident by Barrack Obama's campaign "for change"

I think you'll find most humans are actually terrified of change, but anyway. We don't like what we have been given before, but instead of demanding real change we allow the media to lead us around the fripperies of the day (expenses, since we're staying on topic). Far more comfortable than actually thinking about what is needed to fix things, and discussing it with and open-mind.

Flip.
Flop.
Flip.
Flop.

Swoop

17th June 2010, 09:32

But, the sad thing is that when it was FFP, it was such an "old boys network"
Plus the see-saw between two choices. MMP is not the best, but it does introduce the concept of having to work together with another party. With FPP it is a case of "elect us so we can shaft you with ALL of our policies and ideas"...
Muldoon certainly did that.

mashman

17th June 2010, 10:22

(hint: it's changed since the late 70's)

imho, the loss of the unions has had a MASSIVE effect on the power that the people have over their governments... The Right killed off the unions as they had the power to sway the workforce, strike, vote in a particular way (usually for the Left oddly enough)... No unions, no power, no voice, just govt telling us the best ways to earn money (aaa ha ha haaaaaa) to pay for the taxation required to pay for dinner and services that they just don't provide to their fullest capability... fuckin pathetic... but that's the way I see it...

It doesn't matter how we vote any more, no system works

oldrider

17th June 2010, 10:59

imho, the loss of the unions has had a MASSIVE effect on the power that the people have over their governments... The Right killed off the unions as they had the power to sway the workforce, strike, vote in a particular way (usually for the Left oddly enough)... No unions, no power, no voice, just govt telling us the best ways to earn money (aaa ha ha haaaaaa) to pay for the taxation required to pay for dinner and services that they just don't provide to their fullest capability... fuckin pathetic... but that's the way I see it...

It doesn't matter how we vote any more, no system works

The unions destroyed themselves, the only thing that kept them going was the fact that they were made compulsary by law! (just another form of taxation, supporting Labour)

Those unions that did what they were supposed to do, "look after their members interests" are still there and still active! (freedom of choice and competeition)

mashman

17th June 2010, 11:15

The unions destroyed themselves, the only thing that kept them going was the fact that they were made compulsary by law! (just another form of taxation, supporting Labour)

Those unions that did what they were supposed to do, "look after their members interests" are still there and still active! (freedom of choice and competeition)

That's not the way I see it... I understand what you mean about Unions destroying themselves, as in they kept asking for, what began to be seen as, tiresome demands... but that was the perception put forwards by the media... oh look they're moaning again (sound familiar)... BUT, what really killed them were the employers... loss of control, loss of productivity etc... and primarily because the employer didn't want to give in to the demands of their employees... the blue politicians agreed and started to dismantle the unions from the top... imho that's what's happened... death by business case.

lol, they may still be there, but they have the morals of politicians and don't seem to back any other union in their cause, even when sharing a common goal... that isn't a union to me, that's a social club.

Bald Eagle

17th June 2010, 11:24

The trouble is we've got in excess of a hundred 'managers' (Members of Parliament ) running an enterprise (NZ) that just needs a decent CEO and a couple of line managers, one for each island.

rainman

17th June 2010, 12:06

The trouble is we've got in excess of a hundred 'managers' (Members of Parliament ) running an enterprise (NZ) that just needs a decent CEO and a couple of line managers, one for each island.

Problem with the "corporate model" is that it does not lend itself to anything but optimising for economic growth, and excludes all of the other important factors required to run a society. Money ain't everything. A company is a simple abstraction compared to a country - conflating these is a dangerous game indeed. Read "Prosperity without Growth" by Prof Tim Jackson for some current thinking in this area, it's a good book.

Also, what you're proposing would lead to a superstar-style personality election. Something like the US, but without the good bits.

BoristheBiter

17th June 2010, 12:40

That's not the way I see it... I understand what you mean about Unions destroying themselves, as in they kept asking for, what began to be seen as, tiresome demands... but that was the perception put forwards by the media... oh look they're moaning again (sound familiar)... BUT, what really killed them were the employers... loss of control, loss of productivity etc... and primarily because the employer didn't want to give in to the demands of their employees... the blue politicians agreed and started to dismantle the unions from the top... imho that's what's happened... death by business case.

lol, they may still be there, but they have the morals of politicians and don't seem to back any other union in their cause, even when sharing a common goal... that isn't a union to me, that's a social club.

The unions you speak of dissapared in the 70's. As so when unions started paying union reps it became about protecting there jobs.
I'm not talking about the reps in a business but the stirrers that would come round every month just to so there face and pick up new members.
I watched as my family, and lots of others missed out on heaps of stuff due to being on strike. and watching the union reps pull up in there big flash cars and say shit like "keep it up " we have them where we want them" . they couldn't give a fuck about the working man/women.

Yes when they were needed they were good, as in when there was no emmployment act, but now like FPP they should just fuck off and die.

MisterD

17th June 2010, 12:44

Plus the see-saw between two choices. MMP is not the best, but it does introduce the concept of having to work together with another party. With FPP it is a case of "elect us so we can shaft you with ALL of our policies and ideas"...
Muldoon certainly did that.

At least with FPP you get the policies of a government decided before you actually vote for them. With MMP the parties shove a random bunch of stuff down on paper and then the politicians decide amongst themselves what they're going to do after the election...

Bald Eagle

17th June 2010, 12:45

Always makes me laugh when union leaders talk about members striking, it's not them that won't be able to pay the bills 'cos they still get paid - ironically by the people who aren't getting paid because they are on strike. :rofl:

Woodman

17th June 2010, 13:44

I know you mean extreme right wing policies. I just want you to sell them to me, rather than assume as an article of faith that they will work (when they haven't here, or elsewhere, in the past).

I love change, but NZ doesn't do it right (understatement!). Labour undoes the mess National left, National undoes the mess Labour left, and both fritter around with things aligned to their ideologies. No-one has the balls to look at the real situation (hint: it's changed since the late 70's), come up with a workable way forward, sell it it the electorate, and then implement it effectively and accountably.

And the reason they don't is because we don't make them do so.

For this wonderful place not to end up some impoverished backwater we have to do some very smart things very soon. A good start would be understanding that there's more to change than just ticking a different coloured box on the voting paper.

I think you'll find most humans are actually terrified of change, but anyway. We don't like what we have been given before, but instead of demanding real change we allow the media to lead us around the fripperies of the day (expenses, since we're staying on topic). Far more comfortable than actually thinking about what is needed to fix things, and discussing it with and open-mind.

Flip.
Flop.
Flip.
Flop.

someone needs to start blowing shit up.

Swoop

17th June 2010, 13:52

At least with FPP you get the policies of a government decided before you actually vote for them.
Hmmm. Debateable.
No party has really stuck to what they promised, under either system.

*waits & listens for the sound of line screaming off of the reel...*

mashman

17th June 2010, 13:56

The unions you speak of dissapared in the 70's. As so when unions started paying union reps it became about protecting there jobs.
I'm not talking about the reps in a business but the stirrers that would come round every month just to so there face and pick up new members.
I watched as my family, and lots of others missed out on heaps of stuff due to being on strike. and watching the union reps pull up in there big flash cars and say shit like "keep it up " we have them where we want them" . they couldn't give a fuck about the working man/women.

Yes when they were needed they were good, as in when there was no emmployment act, but now like FPP they should just fuck off and die.

The unions you speak of dissapared in the 70's. As so when unions started paying union reps it became about protecting there jobs.
I'm not talking about the reps in a business but the stirrers that would come round every month just to so there face and pick up new members.
I watched as my family, and lots of others missed out on heaps of stuff due to being on strike. and watching the union reps pull up in there big flash cars and say shit like "keep it up " we have them where we want them" . they couldn't give a fuck about the working man/women.

Yes when they were needed they were good, as in when there was no emmployment act, but now like FPP they should just fuck off and die.

Ahhhh the good old days when reps were elected because they gave a shit... I agree to a certain extent... there were still plenty of reps that were doing things that the members required of them (my Mum, 80's)... Those good guys got legislated out, perhaps not completely destroyed, but with the introduction of compulsory strike ballots, it slowed the whole striking process... pickets became illegal... and compulsory union membership was also outlawed... hardly surprising that gave rise to these "new" reps... having to be legally savvy, not communicating with their members other than at AGM's, negotiating behind closed doors, keeping the workforce happy? (more like a business round table liason officer) I think not... beating them into submission more like, take it or get out... WRONG...

When people went out on strike, there was a reason for it... you don't just cut the income to your household for no reason... people felt strongly about the way businesses and employers were treating the workforce... at least in the 70's your neighbour could be trusted and most likely would help you out food wise etc... but as time went on and "rights" eroded away, cost of living shooting through the roof, mass unemployment etc... unions lost their bite because noone could afford to fight for their rights... and all because employers wanted to stop employees from complaining about work conditions, treatment, equality etc... we can't argue with our employers any more, because they tell you to fuck off, the law protects business from the individual... Once upon a time you had backing, the financial burdon of taking your employer to court was covered, you had professional help that came as part of your membership... now!!!! fuck all. STFU or get yourself another job... aye, brilliant for staff retention, excellent way to dienfrnachise the workforce, or get them to focus on them getting theirs... it destroyed a way of life and our parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends, everyone that did and could around that time, stood up for their rights... most of which we don't have today...

The Government killed the unions on behalf of the Employer. I'll never see it any other way. My family and their generation fought for theirs and our rights and got the royal FUCK OFF... What's changed since then? smaller unions are completely toothless, large unions are bound by laws and procedures to protect the livelyhood of the shareholders, employees are indeed numbers, nothing more than a perishable asset... And to top it all off, the rules that they make are flouted by just about every single MP that we have elected... and they get to keep the perks for LIFE waaaaaaha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... that's what the unions were fighting for... and that's what we'll never see again! but that's just the way i've seen it...

BoristheBiter

17th June 2010, 14:21

Ahhhh the good old days when reps were elected because they gave a shit... I agree to a certain extent... there were still plenty of reps that were doing things that the members required of them (my Mum, 80's)... but that's just the way i've seen it...

The main problem was the fact that they wanted the employee to have everything whether the company could afford it or not. That was what happened to the mines in the UK, just became too costly to remove the coal.
Like I said with the new employment act basic conditions are met and cannot be changed.
When I started work I was in a union, then as an apprentice I was covered by the apprentice act, then after I was with a company that had its own collective contract. This was run by the work force in that company alone. We had better work conditions, wages and time off then any union could have got us. Yes this was a very good employer and everyone was happy to be there and if worked harder than the rest you got a bonus. In the end in my case I have seen the unions as money hungry labour lackeys that only care about themselves and nothing anyone can say will change that.

mashman

17th June 2010, 15:25

The main problem was the fact that they wanted the employee to have everything whether the company could afford it or not. That was what happened to the mines in the UK, just became too costly to remove the coal.
Like I said with the new employment act basic conditions are met and cannot be changed.
When I started work I was in a union, then as an apprentice I was covered by the apprentice act, then after I was with a company that had its own collective contract. This was run by the work force in that company alone. We had better work conditions, wages and time off then any union could have got us. Yes this was a very good employer and everyone was happy to be there and if worked harder than the rest you got a bonus. In the end in my case I have seen the unions as money hungry labour lackeys that only care about themselves and nothing anyone can say will change that.

Not in my eyes... the main problem was that the employers would not cut their profit margins to allow their workers to have what they deserved/required in regards to their job (usually more money, i don't blame em, they do the work)... fair pay, fair conditions etc... safety suffered, people got injured, jobs went left right and centre (3 million+ at one point) and the destruction of a lifestyle that will most likely never be seen again... families went without money to protect that "lifestyle" and to protect their futures and got nothing but the "shaft" from the government... Coal was plentiful, we had stockpiles of the stuff (shame really or life may have stayed that way for a while longer), nuclear power was already on the scene and the kinks were starting to be ironed out (cost tens of millions to build, which would keep how many miners in a job?) and which would run with minimal maintenance overhead (aye that'll be shinin brite)... the problem with our coal was that it cost too much to export (cheaper to ship it from South America/Russia... something very VERY wrong there), the government coal/steel/transport etc... chiefs were getting paid far too much for doing an attrociously bad job with the industries of the country and the people let them know about it... only to be told to FUCK OFF because the govt had nothing constructive to counter with... pathetic.

Any Act is a waste of paper (especially the employment act as it doesn't deal with what is truly fair, only what is lawful)... there's always someone who tries (and succeeds) to work their way around it for their own purposes (it was a legitimate business expense, aha)... and it's never usually in the favour of the little guy (because it costs too much for that kind of advice)... Unions protected the little guy from this sort of bullying... hardly surprising business wanted them gone.

But i completely agree as to what the unions have become... there probably was a smattering of that back in the 70's/80's too... but i'd say that they were/are more right than left as they're protecting their jobs and not serving their people :) (even though they're as bad as each other, at least one pretends to care lol)

BoristheBiter

17th June 2010, 16:06

Any Act is a waste of paper (especially the employment act as it doesn't deal with what is truly fair, only what is lawful)... there's always someone who tries (and succeeds) to work their way around it for their own purposes (it was a legitimate business expense, aha)... and it's never usually in the favour of the little guy (because it costs too much for that kind of advice)... Unions protected the little guy from this sort of bullying... hardly surprising business wanted them gone.

But i completely agree as to what the unions have become... there probably was a smattering of that back in the 70's/80's too... but i'd say that they were/are more right than left as they're protecting their jobs and not serving their people :) (even though they're as bad as each other, at least one pretends to care lol)

You expalin to me why four weeks holiday a year is fair.
and if you think the act is a wate of paper, try getting rid of some worker that is shit at their job.

Everything else we aggree.

rainman

17th June 2010, 17:04

if you think the act is a wate of paper, try getting rid of some worker that is shit at their job.

Not difficult if you follow the process fairly. I have done this before, no problems. I have also rehabilitated several under-performing team members. The trick is not to assume at the beginning that you're going to fire the person, but rather to solve the problem that exists. Don't say "they're shit at their job", say "can I fix their performance problems, and if so, how?" It's much harder work but that's a manager's job - a point often forgotten by our lazy captains of industry.

It's all about respect and justice.

The case that resulted in dismissal I see as a failure on my part - I hired him, I managed him, I dealt with his performance issues, and I fired him. Had I done those better it would not have ended as it did.

JimO

17th June 2010, 17:37

perhaps its you who is shit at their job then

BoristheBiter

17th June 2010, 17:45

Not difficult if you follow the process fairly. I have done this before, no problems. I have also rehabilitated several under-performing team members. The trick is not to assume at the beginning that you're going to fire the person, but rather to solve the problem that exists. Don't say "they're shit at their job", say "can I fix their performance problems, and if so, how?" It's much harder work but that's a manager's job - a point often forgotten by our lazy captains of industry.

It's all about respect and justice.

The case that resulted in dismissal I see as a failure on my part - I hired him, I managed him, I dealt with his performance issues, and I fired him. Had I done those better it would not have ended as it did.

WTF has justice got to do with it. your paid to do a job. if you do it well you get paid more, if not you get your arse kicked. if a company doesn't see the good work you do you fuck off and get another job.
I don't need someone telling me what i should be paying my employes.

rainman

17th June 2010, 18:14

WTF has justice got to do with it. your paid to do a job. if you do it well you get paid more, if not you get your arse kicked. if a company doesn't see the good work you do you fuck off and get another job.

Justice in the sense of treating fellow humans fairly, rather than as labour units/semi-slaves in a neo-feudal system. And "if you do it well you get paid more"? Bwhahahahahahahaha! Mostly to get more cash you have to move to a different role at a different company. (And I suspect to get non-monetary recognition you have to move to a different country).

I don't need someone telling me what i should be paying my employes.

Yeah, you should have the right to pay $1 per day if you want! Wait a sec, you can, if you outsource to the third world.

If you are typical of the caliber of NZ managers no wonder you struggle with basic employment law.

Woodman

17th June 2010, 20:03

When people went out on strike, there was a reason for it... you don't just cut the income to your household for no reason... people felt strongly about the way businesses and employers were treating the workforce.....

Not in all cases, a lot of workers went on strike through fear. Fear of being blacklisted was the least of their worries. There were many cases of violence being threatened and used against non strikers, and non members. unions became a law unto themselves and deserved to be depowered. The current employment laws are all we need now. The process is fairly simple and fair.

oldrider

17th June 2010, 21:47

Politics....New Zealand style!

In the "left" corner, Heinz 57 varieties of socialism. In the "right" corner, Heinz 57 varieties of capitalism.

Spot the difference! :confused:

At least our children have clear choices now! :yes:

BoristheBiter

18th June 2010, 07:46

mashman

18th June 2010, 08:54

You expalin to me why four weeks holiday a year is fair.
and if you think the act is a wate of paper, try getting rid of some worker that is shit at their job.

Everything else we aggree.

lol, 4 weeks isn't fair... put my "theory" into action and you'd probaby get about 12, if not more... I can only assume giving the workers an extra weeks holiday was cheaper than giving them payrises...
Erk... that SHOULD be the easiest thing to do, but I get what you're saying... but you shouldn't need a piece of paper to tell you how you HAVE to run your business in regards to YOUR staff... if someone is shite, then they're in the wrong career/place and should be expecing to lose their job. There must ahve been some really bad employees out ther to warrant a whole Act :)

mashman

18th June 2010, 09:01

Not in all cases, a lot of workers went on strike through fear. Fear of being blacklisted was the least of their worries. There were many cases of violence being threatened and used against non strikers, and non members. unions became a law unto themselves and deserved to be depowered. The current employment laws are all we need now. The process is fairly simple and fair.

Very true... it was a shitty time where the people were being ignored and stands were taken... it was a shame that some the "protestors" didn't view their actions as being for those who they were "violating"... The process was always fairly simple and fair from what I knew... the unions still fought for their workers though, something you rarely see today... is that because everything is ok now because we have a piece of paper that tells us how to do things? is that all that was needed? is that all they fought over? anyhoo... sorry for OT.

Troughers know fine well what they're doing, they know what the rules are and fully realise that all they have to do is apologise to keep their perks etc... should be kicked out of the job.

BoristheBiter

18th June 2010, 09:03

lol, 4 weeks isn't fair... put my "theory" into action and you'd probaby get about 12, if not more... I can only assume giving the workers an extra weeks holiday was cheaper than giving them payrises...
Erk... that SHOULD be the easiest thing to do, but I get what you're saying... but you shouldn't need a piece of paper to tell you how you HAVE to run your business in regards to YOUR staff... if someone is shite, then they're in the wrong career/place and should be expecing to lose their job. There must ahve been some really bad employees out ther to warrant a whole Act :)

The 4 weeks leave was a labour bribe to win an election, they didn't do it for anything else than that, same as the intrest free studant loans.

mashman

18th June 2010, 10:08

The 4 weeks leave was a labour bribe to win an election, they didn't do it for anything else than that, same as the intrest free studant loans.

So nothing to do with the workforce being rewarded for their effort (i wholly agree with no interest on student loans) :)... teachers get more than average joe... probably find the troughers get more holiday entitlement than average joe etc... where will the madness end lol... I take it the bribe worked... and also shows how fickle people are... offer something nice, to win votes, and then complain afterwards when you feel that you're getting shafted... ahhhh politics...

avgas

18th June 2010, 10:09

Justice in the sense of treating fellow humans fairly, rather than as labour units/semi-slaves in a neo-feudal system. And "if you do it well you get paid more"? Bwhahahahahahahaha! Mostly to get more cash you have to move to a different role at a different company. (And I suspect to get non-monetary recognition you have to move to a different country).
Yeah, you should have the right to pay $1 per day if you want! Wait a sec, you can, if you outsource to the third world.
If you are typical of the caliber of NZ managers no wonder you struggle with basic employment law.
I have to admit that its very bold to believe that the "minimum wage" promotes a better working environment.
Not on the dole are you?
Fact for the matter - is that it is the individuals that define what happens. Not the wage they are paid. This is why we currently have chinese students studying english in NZ. Many of them have families back in China working in what you would call sweat shops. But they have very simple goal of getting a heads up with each generation.
Minimum wage simply shifts the goal post - and allows them to "keep up with the Jones's".
You may want to read the news - more specifically about a company in china that broke the trend and had a "minimum wage".
FOXCONN have now had a dozen suicides. So clearly minimum wage is not the issue.......

BoristheBiter

18th June 2010, 10:16

So nothing to do with the workforce being rewarded for their effort (i wholly agree with no interest on student loans) :)... teachers get more than average joe... probably find the troughers get more holiday entitlement than average joe etc... where will the madness end lol... I take it the bribe worked... and also shows how fickle people are... offer something nice, to win votes, and then complain afterwards when you feel that you're getting shafted... ahhhh politics...

We used to have long service leave but becuse of the four weeks thing it no longer exsits.
A lot of business owners felt shafted, then employees felt shafted and because of goverment trying to win votes and not do what is right for the country we are now fucked.

mashman

18th June 2010, 10:52

We used to have long service leave but becuse of the four weeks thing it no longer exsits.
A lot of business owners felt shafted, then employees felt shafted and because of goverment trying to win votes and not do what is right for the country we are now fucked.

I think we still have long service leave (we do where i work)... it's just not a legal requirement... didn't realise it ever was... employer and employees alike get the shaft everytime the govt changes the rules... Yet they can't even live by their own rules... I, as a member of the NZ public and employer of the government, would like to request that troughers be dismissed from their employment should they be found guilty of troughing... lifetime perks (gotta be one of the most stupid ideas in the history of stupid ideas and the public accept it???) revoked and any other remedies anyone cares to mention (P.O.D) implemented to protect the public from their government rorting...

Let me have my financialless NZ and i'll show you a completely different country...