Is John a spineless pussy or what? [Archive]

tri boy

3rd January 2011, 17:37

I think he is just laying it on the line like any quality chief exec would.
ie, if my performance isn't up to the boards expectations then he is willing to fall on his sword. Quite refreshing actually. (seriously doubt that he would be pushed, his polling sees to that).
Herr Helen fucked up constantly, but dodged and weaved her way through issues, ocassionally throwing a few "expendables" to the lions.
JK is ok by me. MHO

In the private sector Mr Key was head hunted globally because of his high performance.
He is the only leader with the skill and nous NZ will need in the next few years.

Number One

3rd January 2011, 17:38

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 17:47

As for smiling assassin...when's he gonna start showing some cahoneys?

thats it he never will look at his nickname, he'll smile to your face then stab u in the back "smiling assassin".

tri boy

3rd January 2011, 18:09

thats it he never will look at his nickname, he'll smile to your face then stab u in the back "smiling assassin".
and you have personal experiences to make that claim?
Didn't think so.
Got a better candiate for PM, or do you just want to put a kick in?
Thought so:yes:

puddytat

3rd January 2011, 18:15

I find it hard not to think he really is a spineless simpering pussy...any other thoughts?

I thought he was one of those "hollow men" ?

Number One

3rd January 2011, 18:20

I thought he was one of those "hollow men" ?

That was that book wasn't it? Was that related to Don Brash sexploits and how it all got out in the press/ What was his role in that?

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 18:20

and you have personal experiences to make that claim?
Didn't think so.
Got a better candiate for PM, or do you just want to put a kick in?
Thought so:yes:

umm look at the nickname that is what a smiling assassin is.
you seem real defensive of him. Sorry if I'm offending you but like I said as far as I'm concerned all party leaders are as useful as shit on a brick, & Key is as true as a "used car salesman".

FJRider

3rd January 2011, 18:33

On one level I can buy that 'businessman first stuff' however he IS the Leader of our country so given that I'm not very convinced.

As for smiling assassin...when's he gonna start showing some cahoneys?

The whole "I only wanna play if I'm in charge" seems weak to me show some fricken teeth already John

Soooo ... you have never played that game ... ??? :whocares:

There are choices YOU can make at the next election .... :yes:

Will it be any different to the LAST election .... ??? :corn:

If this statement of his makes a few voters think ... it can't be a bad thing ... surely ... !!! :gob:

Bass

3rd January 2011, 18:34

Helen chucked her toys out of the cot and quit when she couldn't be the boss any more, so I guess J.K's following a proud tradition.
I believe he donates his salary to charity. I'm sure that he can afford to but that doesn't make it any the less worthwhile IMHO.

It's politics.......we will never get agreement and Billy Conolly was probably right when he said that the desire to be a politician should forever preclude a person from becoming one.

puddytat

3rd January 2011, 18:42

That was that book wasn't it? Was that related to Don Brash sexploits and how it all got out in the press/ What was his role in that?

To be completely honest I dont know what his role in that was.....I hadnt heard that they were engaged in "role playing":shifty::laugh:

Im sure they both know the the bosses in New York on a 1st name basis though
:grouphug::psst::shutup:

Mully

3rd January 2011, 19:00

So he doesn't want to be a sponge on the taxpayer for (say) three years in Opposition and that's throwing his toys?

$10 says that if he said he would stay on, the knives would be out for him doing nothing and drawing Opposition perks (charitable salary donation not withstanding; flights, chauffered cars, etc)

It's almost refreshing to have someone say "If the populace doesn't want me, I'll go" - unlike all the others who desperately cling to whatever shread of "power" they have left come hell or high water. *cough* Phil Goff, Chris Carter, etc *cough*

God knows if I had $50 million dollars, I wouldn't be sticking around NZ running for office - I'd be long gone.

But then when has logic ever got in the way of a good KB rant?

trustme

3rd January 2011, 19:07

He is not a career politician. He's there because he thinks he can make a difference. In opposition he has no control & can't make a difference . Why would he stay & become irrelevant. Most PMs on being booted out bugger off , he's up front enough to admit it, nowt wrong with that

onearmedbandit

3rd January 2011, 19:10

So he doesn't want to be a sponge on the taxpayer for (say) three years in Opposition and that's throwing his toys?

$10 says .......<snip>..........be long gone.

But then when has logic ever got in the way of a good KB rant?

I'm with him.

oldrider

3rd January 2011, 19:33

He's only a front man and as far as that goes who is there that is better suited to front for us?

I think he is very good at that job but we don't actually vote him in do we!

MMP is a lucky dip government decided among the politicians that the electorate "think" that they voted for! :sick:

MMP governments are only loyal to those that they form allegiances with and ultimately they decide what is best for the country by doing whatever is best for them! :facepalm:

Vote STV and get some accountability back to the electorate (you and me) for a change! :yes:

trustme

3rd January 2011, 19:49

Woodman

3rd January 2011, 19:57

well I like him. Seems to be a straight up sorta guy to me.
At least hes honest enough to say he won't stick around. Big up in my book.

Number One

3rd January 2011, 19:57

Some good responses in there - thanks for the other take on things.

I agree don't suck up taxpayers wages on salary if you've been dumped from Parliament but I would think if you REALLY want to make a difference then you'd be in it for the long haul.

Thanks it's been fun - clearly pthers care far more about hating/loving him than I do.

Back to that hollowman thing - what was the story there? I wouldn't bother reading the book so you can spoil it for me all you like

Mully

3rd January 2011, 20:04

Back to that hollowman thing - what was the story there? I wouldn't bother reading the book so you can spoil it for me all you like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men_%28book%29

Ocean1

3rd January 2011, 20:04

Back to that hollowman thing - what was the story there?

The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.

Not that.

tri boy

3rd January 2011, 20:23

So #1 starts a thread on a particular subject, gets bored/has had her fill of attention, then trys to shut it down:scratch:
And some people think John Key is weak at following through:shifty:

Big Dave

3rd January 2011, 20:25

Don't vote! It only encourages them.

Smifffy

3rd January 2011, 20:38

Number One

3rd January 2011, 20:39

So #1 starts a thread on a particular subject, gets bored/has had her fill of attention, then trys to shut it down:scratch:
And some people think John Key is weak at following through:shifty:

You bored tonight and looking for a rumble?

FWIW I didn't try to shut the thread down - I said 'thankyou for your comments and have been off feeding kids and reading up on some of this stuff.

But actually second thoughts as I type this I am bored but....only with some people on KB :sunny:

Have a nice evening.

tri boy

3rd January 2011, 21:50

You bored tonight and looking for a rumble?

Kanny's in Towrunga with friends so, "when the cats away......."
:innocent:

rwh

3rd January 2011, 22:54

MMP is a lucky dip government decided among the politicians that the electorate "think" that they voted for! :sick:

I think I voted for the politicians near the top of the list of the party I voted for. They got in. Seems fair, apart from the 5% threshold/bring your mates system that means Act has MPs and NZFirst doesn't despite the vote being decidedly the reverse of that.

MMP governments are only loyal to those that they form allegiances with and ultimately they decide what is best for the country by doing whatever is best for them! :facepalm:

That, if I understand you correctly (and I probably don't), I think is probably more true of the larger older parties that have diehard traditional supporters regardless of what they do.

Vote STV and get some accountability back to the electorate (you and me) for a change! :yes:

STV for parties that don't meet the 5% threshold would make a lot of sense, I think - ie if I vote 1)Green, 2)Labour then at least my vote for 'leftish' counts for something even if the Greens don't make it past 5%. As it is, Green has hovered around that mark, so people may prefer to 'safely' vote Labour instead of what they really want.

Richard

Brian d marge

4th January 2011, 02:01

I don't think he & the nats have done too bad a job, considering what they had to work with.

I do feel let down by their lack of follow through on their "get tough on crime" election promises though. That and the ACC thing.

Those two issues are likely to cost them my vote at the next election.

I would agree,

but , look at what they said they would do back in the 90 s

and they are doing it

and , is it doing you any good ?????

Im ok

plenty of money here , don't have to work too hard

no speeding tax or any tax so to speak ,

When will you realize how good it can be and what crap you are putting up with , all because the funding is from overseas

I heard it said that there isn't enough local money to support the governments borrowing so they source overseas

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery

get those unemployed , dig me a broadband and dig me more trees , I will pay for that ( my taxes )
I wont pay for underpants and a gay trips to Thailand

Just stop using credit and buy local

Stephen

and yes Jk is a good polly , but he isn't what worries me

Pixie

4th January 2011, 08:45

As for smiling assassin...when's he gonna start showing some cahoneys?

Are they anything like cojones?

MSTRS

4th January 2011, 08:45

STV for parties that don't meet the 5% threshold would make a lot of sense, I think - ie if I vote 1)Green, 2)Labour then at least my vote for 'leftish' counts for something even if the Greens don't make it past 5%. As it is, Green has hovered around that mark, so people may prefer to 'safely' vote Labour instead of what they really want.

Richard

STV is a system of voting for your local candidate/s in order of preference...not necessarily for a party. Think of it as MMP with the party vote removed...
It really does seem the only way to get a truly representative government, by ensuring that those who get in were actually voted for.
How many of us have voted for a candidate, yet the party they front for is the last one we'd want in power? Don't we want to see a return to MP's that will 'cross the floor' on issues being debated? I think we're becoming tired of the system that 'rewards' loyalty to a party, rather than the constituents. Who the fuck do these MPs actually represent? Hmmm?

oldrider

4th January 2011, 09:13

Mudfart

4th January 2011, 10:56

shit! no wonder the natzi party got in last time. you guys are showing your short memories.
Someone mentioned clarke stepping aside when she lost the last election.
*NEWS FLASH* they ALL get the boot if they lose the election, from their own party members, (or very soon after becoming the opposition).
And even if they were already the opposition trying to win, and still don't, they still usually have a "changing of the guard", and their own party will vote for a new leader of the opposition.
Also, another "rule" seems to be, that if you were leader of a party, and lost leadership, you don't get it back again. However I watch with interest Mr English.
The funny thing is, Clarke still had my support as an opposition leader, as I knew the general feeling was Labour had to go, because they had "held power for too long".

Mudfart

4th January 2011, 11:09

How many of us went to the polls expecting to get the coalition that we have now ..... or any other previous MMP coalition before them? :confused:

And .... how many of us within the electorate are happy with the performance of those coalitions?

Our votes only give the politicians permission to do what they like with the results of the election, to suit their own needs and benefits rather than that of the electorate!

They are then first loyal to their coalition partners and anyone who has contributed to their being there!

The voters are the last people to ever be considered! :facepalm:

Are you really happy with that? :mellow:

Im not happy with the MAIN party, but you need to consider that the sucker fish parties, (currently the Maori Party) under MMP actually stop the Natzi party from running away with all their fucked up ideas for generating revenue.
Do you really want to go back to a system of one party says all and does all?
The Greens put the stops on some fucked up ideas the Labours also had.
Technically, if you want to be a bitch about politics, then under a true "democracy" we should all have the option to vote for a senate system of rule, ala Roman empire and good ole USofA.
But your kinda back to square one with that, because to get something voted in, the senator rallies his mates to back his vote, pays them off, bribes, kickbacks etc..
the fun part is when they murder eachother though....:bye:

trustme

4th January 2011, 11:14

I seem to recall Clark losing elections & staying on as leader , so did Rowling. Had Clark elected to stay I think she would still be leader of the opposition , they still don't have a worthy replacement

I did not vote for MMP. We were assured it would lead to more open & transparent govt. I always felt it meant we would get a govt that was compromised from the very start by the behind closed doors horse trading needed to form any stable govt. Transparency, integrity & honesty with the electorate was always going to come a distant second to the desire to secure the treasury benches.

Maha

4th January 2011, 11:25

In less than 12 months time he will sitting at home licking his over-righteous balls wondering where it all went wrong. Bring on the Winstonator.

mashman

4th January 2011, 12:07

Oh no, what if I lose the election... No worries John, cheers for fucking things up even further, I'm sure the next lot will do a much better job :blink:. If the media are to believed, :shifty:, then we've gone from borrowing $250 mill per week, to $300 mill per week under this govt (i'm sure labour would have been equally as bad), and you'd like these guys to stay :facepalm:... so much for the cutting of services and upping ACC levies making a difference to the quality of healthcare ($1+ billion per year in the bank :blink:, to be ripped off at a later date.)... so much for the trade deal with China, where supposedly (media again) we lose approx $2 billion per year, as we import more than we export :blink:... the SCF debacle smelled to high heaven, but they got their money back plus interest :blink:... The tax cuts for the rich and the upping of GST, go on, i dare you to call it anything other than making the rich richer and be able to justify it in economic terms, more in the private pocket, less for the govt, and by default the people... we're encouraged to save whilst OUR assets are sold off to overseas buyers and any resultant profit leaves the country, yet we're glad because they have created jobs :blink:... the whining about the length of time it takes to change laws, yet the yanks say they're taking a movie away from NZ and the tax laws get changed in days to keep it :blink: and all of those other things that we never got to hear about...

I must be living on a completely different planet to the rest of you, if you think National have done a good job.

trustme

4th January 2011, 12:13

I hope that one day they start to talk sense on your planet.

mashman

4th January 2011, 12:16

I hope that one day they start to talk sense on your planet.

Sorry, can;t really hear ya there http://arsiv.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/climate1.jpg

Number One

4th January 2011, 12:22

Are they anything like cojones?

LOL yes but I expect they are more hairy! ;p

Thought that didn't quite look right

rwh

4th January 2011, 15:06

STV is a system of voting for your local candidate/s in order of preference...not necessarily for a party. Think of it as MMP with the party vote removed...

STV is a system of voting for something in order of preference, such that your vote gets transferred to your second choice if the first can't make it.

The system proposed as an alternative to MMP is as you described; my suggestion is a different application of STV.

It really does seem the only way to get a truly representative government, by ensuring that those who get in were actually voted for.

I guess it's representative in that a Green vote can get changed to a Labour vote rather than being effectively a null vote, but it still tends to split every vote into left and right, at least until the minor parties get much stronger. There would still be no Green or NZFirst MPs in parliament. STV for the local candidate in an MMP system would be a good move though, as well as for the party vote.

How many of us have voted for a candidate, yet the party they front for is the last one we'd want in power?

Hasn't happened to me, I don't think. The opposite has happened - the Greens campaigned on the assumption they'd be supporting Labour, then Labour ignored them when they could make up the numbers elsewhere. The Greens still did good work in parliament, though.
Got an example of this problem?

Don't we want to see a return to MP's that will 'cross the floor' on issues being debated? I think we're becoming tired of the system that 'rewards' loyalty to a party, rather than the constituents. Who the fuck do these MPs actually represent? Hmmm?

That is a bit of a problem; MMP is very party-oriented. I'm not convinced that we could get rid of party dominance under any system, though - unless perhaps by banning parties outright, in which case yes, STV would be the way to go.

Richard

MSTRS

4th January 2011, 15:19

SPman

4th January 2011, 15:35

$10 says that if he said he would stay on, the knives would be out for him doing nothing and drawing Opposition perks (charitable salary donation not withstanding; flights, chauffeured cars, etc) But....by doing nothing....he's let loose the dogs of ACT and the SST to pass the execrable legislation they have,...plus....he's let Parliament run amok with bad laws passed under urgency, so no one actually knows what they are voting for, because the laws are still being (badly) written, as they vote....so, actually, he could be said to be being effective by doing nothing...in a slimy sort of way.

Eddie, from the Standard (boo suck left wing rag, etc)
I’m trying to think of a PM or even Opposition Leader who has quit Parliament after losing an election.
Clark resigned the leadership but stayed on as an MP until offered another political role, which is arguably even more powerful than being PM of NZ. Brash remained National leader after losing in 2005 and only quit after Key rolled him. English stayed on. Shipley stayed on, resigning in 2002. Bolger threw in the towel because he felt betrayed by his party, and that was after 26 years in Parliament. Moore stayed on for nine years after being PM. Palmer quit before he could lose, but only after 11 years as an MP. Lange stayed until 1996. Muldoon until 1991. Rowling retired only after FPP stole the ’78 and ’81 elections from him and he was replaced as leader by Lange in 1983. And so on.
These people didn’t quit when they lost an election because they had ideals they believed in (that's pushing it a bit) and it was furthering ideals that had bought them to Parliament and leadership. They didn’t want the job for its own sake but for what they could do with it for what they believed in.(or couldn't be arsed leaving and liked the lifestyle???)
Key just wants to be PM for its own sake. He just wants the attention and public admiration that he gets by virtue of being PM.
This ultimately explains why he is the do nothing PM: why he has smiled and waved while the country has fallen back into the second dip of recession, while he has done nothing to lift the standard of living of New Zealanders, why he has let his ministers get away with corruption and passing legislation that undermines our democracy and human rights.
Because he doesn’t give a crap about any of that. Being PM isn’t an opportunity to make positive change for Key, it’s an opportunity to get his picture taken and feel good about himself.

rwh

4th January 2011, 15:54

The thing about STV is that there is no party vote. You can choose to look at it as a party vote if you wish, but really it is a candidate vote. MMP has led to party-loyalty-driven politics, and with so many MPs with no electorate loyalty, government has become far-removed from the people that put them there. In some ways, it is worse than FFP.

Ok, I just googled STV, and confess I've been getting my terms muddled. Preferential Voting (a component of STV), or Instant Runoff voting, is what I've been talking about, and would like to see applied to both the local candidate vote and the party vote (as long as the 5% threshold remains)

I'm also having trouble finding info on exactly what was proposed under the label of 'STV' at the time of the referendum; the wikipedia description doesn't quite match with my memory, and the method used for coucils (eg Wellington City) doesn't seem like it would fit well for central government - it works for multi-winner elections, whereas I think for the central govt system we were still to be voting for one person per electorate?

For STV to work as a true proportional system, it seems to me it would have to let us rank all the candidates (if the average party thought they could manage at most 50%, with 5 parties that would be around 250 candidates for 100 seats) in one big list, which is probably a little more effort than most voters would be willing to contribute.

Can you remind me (or suggest a link) how this was supposed to work?

Perhaps PM; this is getting a little off topic :(

Richard

MSTRS

4th January 2011, 16:00

rwh

4th January 2011, 16:14

How many candidates total isn't an issue. All that matters is the ones in your electorate...one from each party that decides to run there.
I don't claim to know all the ins and outs either. But I do know that we were sold a white elephant with MMP...

If you're only voting for your own electorate, and you only get one seat per electorate (unlike WCC wards), then it's pretty much the Instant Runoff system, as far as I can see, and will not really give a proportional result at the parliament level. Signifiacantly better than FPP, but not enough IMHO.

How's this for a new suggestion:

One seat per electorate, elected by Instant Runoff.
Then allocate proxy votes, as opposed to actual seats with paid people in them, to parties in line with the party vote (run as it is now).

This would give a roughly similar result to what we have now, but with hopefully better winners in the electorates (and therefore members in the house), fewer salaries, and nobody sitting there who arguably hasn't been voted in.

Votes would have to be submitted by the party, though, since there could well be parties that have a significant bunch of proxies but nobody sitting in the house (eg Green, NZ first, many smaller parties).

Unfortunately it would reduce the members to being mere debaters, so I think this one needs more work ...

Richard

trustme

4th January 2011, 16:17

But I do know that we were sold a white elephant with MMP...

You can't say you weren't warned, but of course Peter Shirtcliffe was one of those nasty successful business men, even worse I think he was a member of the business round table. He was derided to detract attention from what he was actually saying.

Don't ever snivel that we were promised another referendum. We were not .

We don't elect govts, we vote govts out.
we didn't vote for MMP as much as we voted FPP out , naively believing what we were told, that MMP was the best alternative.

trustme

4th January 2011, 16:22

For STV to work as a true proportional system, it seems to me it would have to let us rank all the candidates (if the average party thought they could manage at most 50%, with 5 parties that would be around 250 candidates for 100 seats) in one big list, which is probably a little more effort than most voters would be willing to contribute.

Can you remind me (or suggest a link) how this was supposed to work?

Perhaps PM; this is getting a little off topic :(

Richard

I thought you still voted for your electorate , rating the candidates within your electorate in terms of preference

Indiana_Jones

4th January 2011, 16:28

So he doesn't wanna stay on if he's not PM, big deal.

I didn't see comrade clark admiting she just wasn't grooming herself (while shitting on the public) for a UN job while she was PM :facepalm:

-Indy

MSTRS

5th January 2011, 09:19

We don't elect govts, we vote govts out.
we didn't vote for MMP as much as we voted FPP out , naively believing what we were told, that MMP was the best alternative.

And we still vote govts out. Except under MMP, they are never as out as they were under FPP. With the trough that is MMP, being given the opportunity to vote it out is not looking like an option anytime soon.

oldrider

5th January 2011, 10:28

I certainly do not want FPP back but the electorate tossed our local Liabour candidate out good and properly! :bash:

Under MMP he simply waltzes back in through the party vote back door! :brick:

You wouldn't want an MMP politician on your arse as a wart, you would never be able to get rid of it! :facepalm:

vifferman

5th January 2011, 10:32

I doubt that Key not staying on if National don't win the next election is a case of falling on his sword. As others have said, he's not a career politician, and was invited to be PM by the Nats. So it's more a case of he's only in it to be their figurehead. He said himself he had three ambitions in life: to be a millionaire (done); to be PM (done); to get a knighthood (apparently he's on his way there).

It answers the question of why he pops up here, there, and everywhere. It's what a figurehead does, innit? He'd rather be out'n'about, taking every photo op possible, than sitting in the House playing silly arguing games with the other pollies.

Pascal

5th January 2011, 10:46

I find it hard not to think he really is a spineless simpering pussy...any other thoughts?

Yeah, he is not a career politician. He is somebody who has come from a State home to be a very successful business man and our most popular Prime Minister in recent years.

His policies are still very much centrist - as it has to be to get traction with a decade of the state dependancy and lack of personal responsiblity that Labour infected New Zealand with. However, despite the absolutely fucked up legacy he has to deal with, he's managed to at least steer the good ship NZ back into the right direction.

It's not going to be an overnight fix - not with a decade of tax and frivolous spending behind us. But it'll come in time, I believe.

Other than that, he appears to be a genuine human being to me. More than I can say for almost any other politician except Lockwood.

mashman

5th January 2011, 11:48

Yeah, he is not a career politician. He is somebody who has come from a State home to be a very successful business man and our most popular Prime Minister in recent years.

Every Politician should be a career politician... if they're not, then I question why they took the job in the first place... He's a greedy cunt, just like the rest of them and will probably leave office because his standard of living will have dropped in line with his loss of public purse earnings... and he wants a knighthood :facepalm:... I hope she lops he fucking head off!

Fatt Max

5th January 2011, 12:01

Still reckon Helen Clarke and Jenny Shipley could have both sucked the chrome off a tow ball in their day.

Imagine looking down and seeing Helen's 'doe' eyes staring back at you, or seeing Jenny all strapped up in benders and a basque, both of them playing a good old tune on yer custard chucker....

admenk

5th January 2011, 13:14

Imagine looking down and seeing Helen's 'doe' eyes staring back at you, or seeing Jenny all strapped up in benders and a basque, both of them playing a good old tune on yer custard chucker....

I'd rather not thanks :sick:

Swoop

5th January 2011, 14:44

Good on him for stating that he would not stay on and parasite off of the state. Those career morons like Heilen Klerke should take note.

as I knew the general feeling was Labour had to go, because they had "held power for too long".
No. They were just a bunch of lying retards. Fucking up the country on a large scale and screwing us into poverty with the idiot green lunatics.

He'd rather be out'n'about, taking every photo op possible, than sitting in the House playing silly arguing games with the other pollies.
Well, arguing against Phill-in Goff would be a challenge... Not!

Number One

5th January 2011, 15:01

Every Politician should be a career politician... if they're not, then I question why they took the job in the first place...

Summed up my thoughts in one with that!!!!

Pixie

5th January 2011, 18:00

Not Pussy - I mean John KEY.

A spineless pussy - that would most likely make him a cephalopod mollusc of the order Octopoda as the three other common pussies: the common cat,the platypus and the vagina are all in some way part of the vertibrata subphylum.

Ocean1

5th January 2011, 18:14

Summed up my thoughts in one with that!!!!

I know exactly where he's comming from. There's a difference between actually doing the shit you're hired to do and simply bleating from the sidelines that you'd do it better.

I do the bleaty thing superbly, and I do it free!

JimO

5th January 2011, 18:49

The whole "I only wanna play if I'm in charge" seems weak to me show some fricken teeth already John

comrade helen didnt hang around to lead the opposition

Number One

5th January 2011, 19:18

I know exactly where he's comming from. There's a difference between actually doing the shit you're hired to do and simply bleating from the sidelines that you'd do it better.

I do the bleaty thing superbly, and I do it free!

ME TOO and here here! ;P isn't the higher purpose of the bleating meant to be about preventing shit that shouldn't from going down?

comrade helen didnt hang around to lead the opposition

She had a better job opp to go to in the end there...anyway she sure as shit was around a lot longer than Key has been and will be if he heads off after the next election.

rwh

5th January 2011, 19:22

A spineless pussy - that would most likely make him a cephalopod mollusc of the order Octopoda as the three other common pussies: the common cat,the platypus and the vagina are all in some way part of the vertibrata subphylum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_willow

Richard

Ocean1

5th January 2011, 19:55

ME TOO and here here! ;P isn't the higher purpose of the bleating meant to be about preventing shit that shouldn't from going down?

Higher purpose?

Let's not give oueselves airs and graces, here, they're politicians.

And unless he does something very silly he'll be around for a while yet.

Mully

5th January 2011, 19:58

Skyryder was much more interesting with these threads.

What happened to Skyryder?

Number One

5th January 2011, 20:18

Higher purpose?

Let's not give oueselves airs and graces, here, they're politicians.

And unless he does something very silly he'll be around for a while yet.

:lol: I don't propose that that's how things actually play out in practise. Question time is a disgrace. I don't trust or believe any of them. I wonder what the alternative to it all is...actually meh, I'm bored by it all really.

Mully I agree I never really meant to debate or hear about the ins and outs of the system etc I just think JK is a pussy and I find him smarmy.

On another note - bonza night in Welly for a ride, twas great to feel the wind in my hair again today :sunny:

Ocean1

5th January 2011, 20:24

I just think JK is a pussy and I find him smarmy.

Yeahbut nobody asked you to screw him. And some smarmy gits are actually good for other shit, y'know?

On another note - bonza night in Welly for a ride, twas great to feel the wind in my hair again today :sunny:

Wasn't bad last night either, coped it something fierce when I eventually got home...

Number One

5th January 2011, 20:26

Yeahbut nobody asked you to screw him. And some smarmy gits are actually good for other shit, y'know?...

BULSHIT?! No way...I don't believe ya! Hahahahaha yeah I do.....

BUT that doesn't proclude me (or anyone else for that matter) from finding them irritating and saying so does it

Wasn't bad last night either, coped it something fierce when I eventually got home...

naughty naughty naughty :laugh: actually I was a bit later than was aniticipated tonight myself :shutup: :innocent:

mashman

5th January 2011, 20:54

Oddly enough I do like a good bleat :shifty:... but I could do it better :rofl:

ME TOO and here here! ;P isn't the higher purpose of the bleating meant to be about preventing shit that shouldn't from going down?

That's what your vote is for, and JK seems to be personable :blink:, he must be a diamond geeza...

JimO

5th January 2011, 21:17

Skyryder was much more interesting with these threads.

What happened to Skyryder?

he was comrade clarks butler so has gone to buttle for her at the UN

Pascal

6th January 2011, 07:42

Every Politician should be a career politician... if they're not, then I question why they took the job in the first place...

I'd be tempted to say "Plugging the holes in the Dyke", but given this is Kiwibiker it might be misconstrued.

My intended meaning was:

He has come onboard, at request, during a time when his approach to governing was required. Once he is no longer required he will move on, instead of desperately clinging to power, bribing the electorate and generally behaving like our previous Prime Minister.

So not a career politician, but somebody who has come in to fix a problem and who will bugger off once it's fixed.

mashman

6th January 2011, 08:37

I'd be tempted to say "Plugging the holes in the Dyke", but given this is Kiwibiker it might be misconstrued.

My intended meaning was:

He has come onboard, at request, during a time when his approach to governing was required. Once he is no longer required he will move on, instead of desperately clinging to power, bribing the electorate and generally behaving like our previous Prime Minister.

So not a career politician, but somebody who has come in to fix a problem and who will bugger off once it's fixed.

You shoulda gone with the dyke thing :yes:... the reason we have a dyke with holes in it, is because of politicians that aren't there to sort everything, yes everything, that's their job for the NZ'er (hell they fine us for everything)! Coming in to fix "a" problem with your own agenda is just another way of ignoring the rest of the holy dyke...

These guys are glorified accountants. They live and die by the numbers that are produced and punish and reward on that basis :blink:. They run NZ like a bank with benefits... not a Country full of individuals with social problems that could really do with being addressed.

He's just another cunt that's done nothing for the Country other than drive in the financial wedge even further...

I see nothing positive from this or any other government.

oldrider

10th January 2011, 08:00

You shoulda gone with the dyke thing :yes:... the reason we have a dyke with holes in it, is because of politicians that aren't there to sort everything, yes everything, that's their job for the NZ'er (hell they fine us for everything)! Coming in to fix "a" problem with your own agenda is just another way of ignoring the rest of the holy dyke...

These guys are glorified accountants. They live and die by the numbers that are produced and punish and reward on that basis :blink:. They run NZ like a bank with benefits... not a Country full of individuals with social problems that could really do with being addressed.

He's just another cunt that's done nothing for the Country other than drive in the financial wedge even further...

I see nothing positive from this or any other government.

Governments don't actually govern, they are just there to appease and distract the peasants while the real governing is done by unseen shadowy characters in the deep deep background! :shifty:

Democracy? ...... yeah right! :oi-grr:

avgas

10th January 2011, 08:46

228483..............

mashman

10th January 2011, 09:35

Governments don't actually govern, they are just there to appease and distract the peasants while the real governing is done by unseen shadowy characters in the deep deep background! :shifty:

Democracy? ...... yeah right! :oi-grr:

Fair enough...

I haven't read all of it yet... but this (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1) was the opinion of Citibank 5 years ago. The US, UK, Oz etc... are Plutonomies according to the bank...

"HOW TO PLAY PLUTONOMY

So, Plutonomies exist, and explain much of the world’s imbalances. There is no such thing as “The U.S. Consumer” or “UK Consumer”, but rich and poor consumers in these countries, with different savings habits and different prospects. The rich are getting richer; they dominate spending. Their trend of getting richer looks unlikely to end anytime soon.

How do we make money from this theme? We see two ways. The first is simple. If you believe, like us, that the Plutonomy exists, and explains why global imbalances have built up (for example the savings rate differentials), and you believe there is no imminent threat to plutonomy, you must in turn believe that the current“end of the world is nigh” risk premium on equities, due to current account deficits, is too high.

Conclusion: buy equities." :killingme and from those who control the purse strings :blink:

shrub

10th January 2011, 12:10

but my appraisal of the lovely John Key is that he is basically a dumb blonde. He made a shit load of money gambling on the money markets and worked incredibly hard to become rich. He's not particularly bright and is generally ooked down on by the international political and business community and considered to be a notch up from George Dubbyerbush but not in the same league as most national leaders.

He won the last election mostly because NZ was sick of Labour and Helen Clark, and partly because he had a lovely smile - I suspect a Labrador dog could have won.

The global economic crisis seemed to take him by surprise (it shouldn't have, even I was predicting it in 07 and I know zip), and his response was a jobs summit that achieved little substantive and a cycle way. Since then he and his party have reminded me of a scared rabbit staring into the headlights of a car. They have been devoid of ideas beyond meaningless tax cuts and vague and empty rhetoric about cutting expenditure. 2 years into their first term I would question whether we actually have a government.

And no, they won't lose the next election. Labour don't have any new ideas either and Phil Goff is a slightly less pretty version of John Key, so John will have another 3 years to wander around with his slightly puzzled expression as he smiles for the camera. Then we will be sick of him and his party, NZ will have continued to slide slowly backwards and the business community will have finally got sick of timid government with no new ideas. So we'll vote in an equally stupid government for another 6 - 9 years, only this time they'll be Labour.

MSTRS

10th January 2011, 12:15

Oh God...aren't you the little joy germ.

oneofsix

10th January 2011, 12:18

Oh God...aren't you the little joy germ.

The bitch of it is he is probably correct. Oh and when they get their next 3 years they will take that as a mandate to privatize ACC and sell off Kiwi bank.

avgas

10th January 2011, 12:21

I suspect a Labrador dog could have won.
And would have been the smartest elected member of parliament.
Plus when he falls asleep on the job - everyone won't feel so bad.

avgas

10th January 2011, 12:24

The bitch of it is he is probably correct. Oh and when they get their next 3 years they will take that as a mandate to privatize ACC and sell off Kiwi bank.
Are you kidding? those 2 things are currently the best money makers in the govt portfolio.
And seeing as mining is going to be impossible to do now, and shopping is down, and the govt can't touch any of the Kiwisaver stuff.....ACC and Kiwibank are sounding more like flotation devices than SOE's.

shrub

10th January 2011, 12:45

The bitch of it is he is probably correct. Oh and when they get their next 3 years they will take that as a mandate to privatize ACC and sell off Kiwi bank.

And given that ACC are technically insolvent (according to the lovely Slippery Nick) they will have to accept a fire sale price for it. Any clues for guessing how much it will cost to insure ourselves against a crash? My guess is enough money to make motorcycling the domain of the rich or those who pray they never have an off.

mashman

10th January 2011, 13:19

The bitch of it is he is probably correct. Oh and when they get their next 3 years they will take that as a mandate to privatize ACC and sell off Kiwi bank.

There was a yahoo poll on who would win the next election the other day... yes yes internet poll... and one of the options was National to win without question, or something to that effect. There were about 13 - 14000 votes, with the above option receiving 10000+... we're dooooooooooooooomed :rofl:

mashman

10th January 2011, 13:29

Are you kidding? those 2 things are currently the best money makers in the govt portfolio.
And seeing as mining is going to be impossible to do now, and shopping is down, and the govt can't touch any of the Kiwisaver stuff.....ACC and Kiwibank are sounding more like flotation devices than SOE's.

Aye, great flotation devices until you open them up to competition... once the cumulative pot is spread across the industry, ACC will become more of a lead weight, sold off/canned with the current 12 bill in assets and the working population of NZ will then only be able to buy the cover that they can afford... The Worker account is the profitable one according to the Nats... so why open it up to competition? At least we have a year to drool over the prospect...

Toaster

10th January 2011, 13:34

We need some politicians with balls....

Helen Clark had balls ... but they were always swinging to her own agenda of social engineering rather than important things like preparing for a future recession.

LBD

10th January 2011, 13:40

now he's admitted that if he doesn't win the next election he will step aside as he doesn't want to be leader of the opposition.

I find it hard not to think he really is a spineless simpering pussy...any other thoughts?

My thoughts when I read that as well....

However, as far as the best person to be a PM, I do tend to favor an experienced manager/business person over a career poly for the simple reason that they are there to manage rather than (Generally) there for their own political ambitions...

MisterD

10th January 2011, 14:46

Well here's an alternative interpretation from the underrated Monkey with Typewriter (http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2011/01/ill-quit-if-i-lose-keys-smiling.html)

How this works is that it invites the media to field the same questions to Phil Goff. 'And Mr Goff, would you quit were you to lose?' Phil Goff will be obliged to answer. And what implications for a rollover from within his own party attend whichever reponse he makes? He also invites the pulic to visualise Goff as 'negative' - dogwhistle that to 'pathetic'.

If the Labour party continue to believe that JK is some bumbling clown and they just have to wait for teh electorate to come crawling back to them and beg to socially engineered a bit more, then they're looking at at least another two election losses. I reckon JK is probably the sharpest, quickest studying politician I'm likely to see in my lifetime, even if he is far too bloody soft and left wing.

mashman

10th January 2011, 16:24

My thoughts when I read that as well....

However, as far as the best person to be a PM, I do tend to favor an experienced manager/business person over a career poly for the simple reason that they are there to manage rather than (Generally) there for their own political ambitions...

I'd prefer a govt of the people, by the people, for the people...

I'd rather have a Career Politician, than a babysitting Manager. The Career Politician will only ever gain knowledge. A Manager is what we currently have :), but dats just mho.

How hard can it be to "run" a government? Easy!

slofox

10th January 2011, 17:03

oldrider

10th January 2011, 19:54

Well here's an alternative interpretation from the underrated Monkey with Typewriter (http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2011/01/ill-quit-if-i-lose-keys-smiling.html)

If the Labour party continue to believe that JK is some bumbling clown and they just have to wait for teh electorate to come crawling back to them and beg to socially engineered a bit more, then they're looking at at least another two election losses. I reckon JK is probably the sharpest, quickest studying politician I'm likely to see in my lifetime, even if he is far too bloody soft and left wing.

That just about sums it up except to say that he has about as much political direction as a ship without a rudder! :confused:

shrub

10th January 2011, 21:27

I reckon JK is probably the sharpest, quickest studying politician I'm likely to see in my lifetime, even if he is far too bloody soft and left wing.

What exactly is 'left wing"? And I'm guessing you were born a couple of years ago and plan to shuffle off this mortal coil in about 4 years?

i know people who work with him, and he is widely considered to be a bit of a bimbo.

pete376403

10th January 2011, 22:51

.

His policies are still very much centrist - as it has to be to get traction with a decade of the state dependancy and lack of personal responsiblity that Labour infected New Zealand with. However, despite the absolutely fucked up legacy he has to deal with, he's managed to at least steer the good ship NZ back into the right direction. .

S'funny - Since 1949 to date National has held the government benches for about 42 years, Labour been the government about half that. Yet anything wrong in NZ is blamed on labour. Can they have been that effective at getting things done (even bad things) while National is so ineffective that even with twice as much time in power they can't fx it?

Anyway, back to the topic, JonKey - smarmy prick who doesn't really care which way the country goes as he has enough personal wealth to ride out any crisis anywhere he wants.

oldrider

11th January 2011, 07:38

S'funny - Since 1949 to date National has held the government benches for about 42 years, Labour been the government about half that. Yet anything wrong in NZ is blamed on labour. Can they have been that effective at getting things done (even bad things) while National is so ineffective that even with twice as much time in power they can't fx it?

Anyway, back to the topic, JonKey - smarmy prick who doesn't really care which way the country goes as he has enough personal wealth to ride out any crisis anywhere he wants.

Having been here and witnessed that period, what you say is relatively true!

Labour have made "most" of the significant changes but as to the value of those changes .... well ... depends on your persuasion!

National are generally more conservative and their changes have been in the main beneficial to the country, when compared to Labours!

There is not much difference between them really and the overall results are no different than if National and Labour were in "official" coalition with each other!

Then again the "electorate" is mainly socialist in New Zealand so they (politicians) cut their cloth accordingly!

The crappy left of centre governments that we get are what the people demand!

Pascal

11th January 2011, 07:47

Swoop

11th January 2011, 08:18

I'd rather have a Career Politician, than a babysitting Manager. The Career Politician will only ever gain knowledge.
The "career" politico's we have had, have emerged from university and headed straight into politics. They should have gained some real-life knowledge before getting anywhere near Wellington's circular wind-tunnel.

Even the police do not recruit straight from school. They want people with a bit of life experience to make decisions on.

shrub

11th January 2011, 10:20

Which government presided over the largest economic boom in recent history and then deliberately left the purse empty for the following government?

Yeah.

I blame a lot that goes wrong in NZ on Labour and some of it on the rest.

Ah, you've been reading the national party press releases. National and Labour have almost identical economic policies and are as bad as each other. Almost all of our financial problems as a nation come from running a balance of payments deficit for decades, in other words we have been spending more than we earn. We are in a similar position to Ireland or Greece, the difference being they had sovereign debt whereas our debt was private.

NZ is mostly in the shit because we have gone and spend gazillians of cash on cars, TVs, houses and (sorry) flash motorbikes that we can't afford. We're kind of like the couple who keep drawing down on the equity in their house to pay for trips, cars and toys, then wonder why the nasty old bank starts saying bad things about raising their interest rates and stopping their credit.

Their are solutions, but they have escaped the financial masterminds in either party because they're hard work and won't win elections.

Pascal

11th January 2011, 10:40

Ah, you've been reading the national party press releases. National and Labour have almost identical economic policies and are as bad as each other. Almost all of our financial problems as a nation come from running a balance of payments deficit for decades, in other words we have been spending more than we earn. We are in a similar position to Ireland or Greece, the difference being they had sovereign debt whereas our debt was private.

I do not disagree that they're both freaking terribad. However, we both know that government expenditure over the last 9 years climbed astronomically and that the government ran massive surpluses. Whilst raking in revenue through taxation. There was not a thought for putting a bit away for a rainy day. Or even reducing the size of government.

Should get rid of the whole freaking lot.

As to personal debt, agreed. It's terrible. I made the mistake when I was a young fella and I wanted a TV, etc. Took me a damn awful time to pay off. Now, with the exception of our house, I buy everything cash. If we can't afford it, we can't afford it.

MisterD

11th January 2011, 12:05

We are in a similar position to Ireland or Greece, the difference being they had sovereign debt whereas our debt was private.

...and crucially we have our own currency for which the Reserve Bank can set appropriate interest rates.

shrub

11th January 2011, 14:38

...and crucially we have our own currency for which the Reserve Bank can set appropriate interest rates.

Which is a problem and the cause of many of our ills. The mechanism of driving up interest rates to slow growth/consumption works in theory but what has ended up happening is when the RB pushes up the OCR it attracts hot money from (primarily) Asian savers, which the banks then have to get rid of in the form of loans. As a result we have banks and non-bank lenders hustling for mortgages, which in turn has driven the property market into madness (aided by idiotic tax breaks) and has made consumer finance extremely easy to get which has pushed up consumption of imported consumer goods - mostly made in (yep), Asia.

The introduction of the core funding ratio was a good move, but it's being bypassed by clever bankers and therefore it's effectiveness is limited, so it needs to be tightened. In addition we need to curb population growth - 1% population growth = 3% GDP growth - if you're broke you don't have more kids even if your DPB increases.

Reducing inward migration by approx 40,000 pa would Largely close the current account gap, put a lid on the property market, reduce the attractiveness of rental properties, reduce consumption and reduce need for new infrastructure. We do need skills, so that's a challenge, and the legacy of a couple of decades of short sighted thinking by government and business.

We also need to lose fixed rate mortgages so the OCR has an immediate impact instead of the current lag and therefore it would help property become more realistically valued.

We need to stop our currency from being so attractive to traders by removing the floating exchange rate - we are too small for that, and Singapore have adopted a very effective system which makes their currency ugly and dirty for traders and speculators (like our man John). Our exporters struggle because they never know what their margins are going to be. I'd look at pegging our currency to our most traded currencies.

We need to invest in productive sectors, specifically equities in export oriented companies. FFS, the biggest company on the NZX is a bloody telecommunications company - how much money do they make us? We need to invest in companies that are earning money for NZ, not just moving money around.

We need to reduce our reliance on dairy. It is extremely risky to have so much of our income coming from one source, especially one that is as vulnerable as dairy. In a climate change environment, all we need are a couple of years of severe drought and/or flooding (like Australia), and dairy will stagger, and with it the NZ economy.

I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but these kinds of ideas would work better than tax cuts, cycle ways or even making Auckland into a super city. Pity they'll never happen.

phill-k

11th January 2011, 14:45

terbang

11th January 2011, 14:51

National are generally more conservative and their changes have been in the main beneficial to the country, when compared to Labours!

Muldoon's think big was conservative?

phill-k

11th January 2011, 15:02

Which is a problem and the cause of many of our ills. The mechanism of driving up interest rates to slow growth/consumption works in theory but what has ended up happening is when the RB pushes up the OCR it attracts hot money from (primarily) Asian savers, which the banks then have to get rid of in the form of loans. As a result we have banks and non-bank lenders hustling for mortgages, which in turn has driven the property market into madness (aided by idiotic tax breaks) and has made consumer finance extremely easy to get which has pushed up consumption of imported consumer goods - mostly made in (yep), Asia.

The introduction of the core funding ratio was a good move, but it's being bypassed by clever bankers and therefore it's effectiveness is limited, so it needs to be tightened. In addition we need to curb population growth - 1% population growth = 3% GDP growth - if you're broke you don't have more kids even if your DPB increases.

Reducing inward migration by approx 40,000 pa would Largely close the current account gap, put a lid on the property market, reduce the attractiveness of rental properties, reduce consumption and reduce need for new infrastructure. We do need skills, so that's a challenge, and the legacy of a couple of decades of short sighted thinking by government and business.

We also need to lose fixed rate mortgages so the OCR has an immediate impact instead of the current lag and therefore it would help property become more realistically valued.

We need to stop our currency from being so attractive to traders by removing the floating exchange rate - we are too small for that, and Singapore have adopted a very effective system which makes their currency ugly and dirty for traders and speculators (like our man John). Our exporters struggle because they never know what their margins are going to be. I'd look at pegging our currency to our most traded currencies.

We need to invest in productive sectors, specifically equities in export oriented companies. FFS, the biggest company on the NZX is a bloody telecommunications company - how much money do they make us? We need to invest in companies that are earning money for NZ, not just moving money around.

We need to reduce our reliance on dairy. It is extremely risky to have so much of our income coming from one source, especially one that is as vulnerable as dairy. In a climate change environment, all we need are a couple of years of severe drought and/or flooding (like Australia), and dairy will stagger, and with it the NZ economy.

I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but these kinds of ideas would work better than tax cuts, cycle ways or even making Auckland into a super city. Pity they'll never happen.

I like your reasoning, I think we should give you a go:niceone:

Indiana_Jones

11th January 2011, 15:03

We need to reduce our reliance on dairy. It is extremely risky to have so much of our income coming from one source, especially one that is as vulnerable as dairy. In a climate change environment, all we need are a couple of years of severe drought and/or flooding (like Australia), and dairy will stagger, and with it the NZ economy.

This I do agree with, we can not put all our eggs in one basket as such. We're a young nation in the grand scheme of thing and we need private investment in other industries, of course we need incentives to do so. Would it be so crazy to suggest anyone setting up a new company with a certain capital gets a very reduced tax rate for the next 5-10 years?

Would be nice to see our nation grow, producing world class goods for the world. Would be awesome to own a NZ designed and produced car :D lol

But then again I'm just a working punter.... lol

-Indy

mashman

11th January 2011, 16:59

I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but these kinds of ideas would work better than tax cuts, cycle ways or even making Auckland into a super city. Pity they'll never happen.

Wealth distribution and the way it's taxed eh... I'm not having a pop at the wealthy, i'm sure they've worked their asses off for it.

I finally read the document I posted in post 77, and it makes for some very interesting reading and opened my eyes to certain economic "facts" that i'd completely ignored or not previously given a shit about. Boiled down:

The rich do not save, they have net worth and generally only buy expensive toys (from abroad?) or invest (in NZ?).
The poor, well they're poor and have very little "disposable" income to save.

What's the distribution ratio of wealth in NZ?

Anyhoo, best explained by the bank researcher...

"There is proof that high income earners, who saw their share of income go up in the U.S. in the nineties, and enjoyed the equity boom, reduced their savings rate as in our example. Indeed, in the real world, it went negative! Since that reduced savings rate was applied to their new enlarged chunk of income, sure enough the total savings rate fell sharply." hence we're not saving enough :yes:

"To summarize so far, plutonomies see the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy, their decision to lower their savings rate, often corresponding to the asset booms that often accompany plutonomy, has a massive negative impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc." the things that the govt measure us against :yes: They blame the masses for problems that the riches saving habits cause :yes:

And we're asked to save :facepalm:... the rich skew the figures and the rest pay for it :killingme

Which ever party lowers personal tax, as well as corporate taxes rates, is the winner in the, which political is economically strangling NZ, competition.

That being the case, National are fucking NZ's economy worse than Labour were before it... it's just a case of whether JK and chums know it... Either way, they're still fuckwits.

The "career" politico's we have had, have emerged from university and headed straight into politics. They should have gained some real-life knowledge before getting anywhere near Wellington's circular wind-tunnel.

Even the police do not recruit straight from school. They want people with a bit of life experience to make decisions on.

Fair enough... what does real life have to do with Politics?

shrub

11th January 2011, 17:41

Which ever party lowers personal tax, as well as corporate taxes rates, is the winner in the, which political is economically strangling NZ, competition.

That being the case, National are fucking NZ's economy worse than Labour were before it... it's just a case of whether JK and chums know it... Either way, they're still fuckwits.

Actually, the real fuckwits are the people who vote in the party that gives the best tax cuts and who think tax cuts are the answer to every economic woe.

rustic101

11th January 2011, 17:50

"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other."

Oscar AMERINGER

Number One

11th January 2011, 18:01

Here's a question.

Does ANY government in the world seem to have it right?

mashman

11th January 2011, 18:09

Actually, the real fuckwits are the people who vote in the party that gives the best tax cuts and who think tax cuts are the answer to every economic woe.

But, that would mean absolutely nothing is going to change :shit: :shifty:

Here's a question.

Does ANY government in the world seem to have it right?

I doubt it very much. They all seem to be too busy fucking around with the economy to think about how their changes will affect "the people"

shrub

11th January 2011, 18:48

Here's a question.

Does ANY government in the world seem to have it right?

A few: Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark spring to mind.

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 19:05

ME TOO and here here! ;P isn't the higher purpose of the bleating meant to be about preventing shit that shouldn't from going down?

She had a better job opp to go to in the end there...anyway she sure as shit was around a lot longer than Key has been and will be if he heads off after the next election.

Yeah, and it was a better job overseas! because she and her cronies fucked this country up and then sat in parliament denying that the country's best and brightest were leaving in droves, while the numbers on welfare blossomed.

At least those of us left behind were able to fund the new barista courses at the polytech, along with Hip-hop tours and twilight golf.

Number One

11th January 2011, 19:15

At least those of us left behind were able to fund the new barista courses at the polytech, along with Hip-hop tours and twilight golf.

woot woot! yeah baby! :rolleyes: sad innit

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 19:17

woot woot! yeah baby! :rolleyes: sad innit

Sad, yes, but also true. :crybaby:

rwh

11th January 2011, 19:22

phill-k

11th January 2011, 19:27

A few: Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark spring to mind.

Interesting they all have high paye but also very good social services, what does that tell you.

Number One

11th January 2011, 19:32

Interesting they all have high paye but also very good social services, what does that tell you.

important question for us girls (and some guys) - who has the hottest guys?!

mwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Wine o'clock - night yal

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 19:36

Interesting they all have high paye but also very good social services, what does that tell you.

They have a populace that would rather work than sit on welfare?

Edit: Perhaps they have governments that would rather pay people to work within their infrastructure and social services than stay at home?

mashman

11th January 2011, 19:53

Interesting they all have high paye but also very good social services, what does that tell you.

that they're socialist scum and are foolishly putting the needs of their people ahead of commerce... bloody idiots...

They have a populace that would rather work than sit on welfare?

According to wikiwotsit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate)that's not it... (Norway 2.7% November 2010 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=NZD), cool site with lots of info too)

Perhaps the people realise that a "decent" society requires everyone in the country to be "looked after"...

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 19:58

Brian d marge

11th January 2011, 20:00

pete376403

11th January 2011, 20:04

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 20:04

that they're socialist scum and are foolishly putting the needs of their people ahead of commerce... bloody idiots...

According to wikiwotsit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate)that's not it... (Norway 2.7% November 2010 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=NZD), cool site with lots of info too)

Perhaps the people realise that a "decent" society requires everyone in the country to be "looked after"...

I agree, and it may just come down to what one considers to be the definition of "looked after".

I'm not exactly sure why would want to look after a foreign national, who has been granted permanent residency, on the basis of emplyment he no longer holds, although he does now hold a criminal record for two drug related convictions and has been drawing a sickness benefit for the last 18 months or so.

Nor do I see why we need to buy tyres for chryslers, or a fence for a swimming pool at "one of a beneficiary's properties"

Some people need to be "looked after" using Vito Corleone's definition.... :msn-wink:

Brian d marge

11th January 2011, 20:12

mashman

11th January 2011, 20:12

I agree, and it may just come down to what one considers to be the definition of "looked after".

I'm not exactly sure why would want to look after a foreign national, who has been granted permanent residency, on the basis of emplyment he no longer holds, although he does now hold a criminal record for two drug related convictions and has been drawing a sickness benefit for the last 18 months or so.

Nor do I see why we need to buy tyres for chryslers, or a fence for a swimming pool at "one of a beneficiary's properties"

Some people need to be "looked after" using Vito Corleone's definition.... :msn-wink:

:niceone:... I guess they take it in their stride. Useless fuckwits, better being useless fuckwits at minimum cost i guess... Perhaps we should ask the govt for some funding and we can go find out :)

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 20:13

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

If you want the bond rate to stay the same, put in place laws and rules that make NZ look attractive

But don't complain when you pay for school fees , get a speeding ticket or pay for a check up ....Acc ..WOF Rego .....( wonder how many services we use on a daily basil that are affected by user pays?)

the only people that will suffer are the poor , ( think that you are ok , ??? one wee cock up can make us poor as quick as look at ya ,, 350 000 worth of house , been paying for 10 years all good,,,,, then fall off bike, cant work , on the sickness benifit , Washing machine packs a sad given money , comes out of sickness benefit ...)

the way I see thing , don't use bank (cheap) credit , use family first.

buy local, avoid the middle man

vote for anything that has half a social concern

avoid people who think economic theory will be the key, ( still waiting for some

think to trickle down ? I am!!)

say no to money making laws, such as tougher speed limits ( 4kmph limits etc )

Work hard, tighten the belt . Save the money ( then spend it on a bike)

Stephen

User pays is ok, as long as all users pay equally. I object when I pay and don't get to use, or pay twice, use once, and the next guy doesn't pay at all, or worse I pay for him too.

If I hurt my hand at work, all of us in the workforce, and our employers pay. Sweet.

If I hurt my hand doing something silly on my motorcycle, or in my cage, then I and all of the other registered vehicle owners pay. Sweet.

If I hurt my hand while playing rugby, or at karate, or while gardening or fishing, then all of the workforce, their employers and registered vehicle owners pay. Not so sweet for them.

If someone using an unregistered vehicle hurts their hand, then all of us registered vehicle owners pay. Not so sweet for us there either.

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 20:21

:niceone:... I guess they take it in their stride. Useless fuckwits, better being useless fuckwits at minimum cost i guess... Perhaps we should ask the govt for some funding and we can go find out :)

IMO the foreign national with the convictions and the long term illness precluding him from work (whom I know personally) should have his residency revoked and be on the next plane back to the former republic.

I'd be happy for TPTB to give him a time frame to find himself some employment and have his benefit topped up to a live-able value once found

Brian d marge

11th January 2011, 20:24

User pays is ok, as long as all users pay equally. I object when I pay and don't get to use, or pay twice, use once, and the next guy doesn't pay at all, or worse I pay for him too.

If I hurt my hand at work, all of us in the workforce, and our employers pay. Sweet.

If I hurt my hand doing something silly on my motorcycle, or in my cage, then I and all of the other registered vehicle owners pay. Sweet.

If I hurt my hand while playing rugby, or at karate, or while gardening or fishing, then all of the workforce, their employers and registered vehicle owners pay. Not so sweet for them.

If someone using an unregistered vehicle hurts their hand, then all of us registered vehicle owners pay. Not so sweet for us there either.

Sorry cant see what you are saying , I prefer a community approach such as ACC , never have been a fan of user pays because as a community we grow , as individuals , its hard work

and most people obey the rules , probably that 80/20 figure again!

Stephen

Ocean1

11th January 2011, 20:28

Which ever party lowers personal tax, as well as corporate taxes rates, is the winner in the, which political is economically strangling NZ, competition.

You're missing an important point.

These taxes you're trying to decide the size of... Who's fucking money is it?

shrub

11th January 2011, 20:47

That presumably means reducing our reliance on agriculture in general, since all types are likely to suffer from drought or flooding at the same time. Except perhaps, I guess, longer term crops like forestry, which are probably a bit more robust.

Richard

We need to diversify into a wide range of sectors, and technology is the logical field. We have a well educated population, good tertiary institutions and sound infrastructure, so are ideally suited to moving into the high-tech field. Or we can continue to sell cheap milk powder to China and have jet lagged tourists carted around in tour buses.

mashman

11th January 2011, 21:11

You're missing an important point.

These taxes you're trying to decide the size of... Who's fucking money is it?

As i'm missing the point, you best tell me :)

oldrider

11th January 2011, 21:12

Muldoon's think big was conservative?

"What"! Look back now and it hardly registers a ripple, worst socialist prime minister this country ever had!

David Langey was another great comedian / orator but useless socialist prime minister!

IMHO they were both bloody useless! :facepalm:

Ocean1

11th January 2011, 21:17

As i'm missing the point, you best tell me :)

Mostly mine as it happens.

And seein' as how you asked real nice, no you fucking can't have any more.

Bunch of grasping pricks.

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 21:17

Sorry cant see what you are saying , I prefer a community approach such as ACC , never have been a fan of user pays because as a community we grow , as individuals , its hard work

and most people obey the rules , probably that 80/20 figure again!

Stephen

I agree, and ACC is neither a community approach, nor user pays really. That's my point. I think the split is greater than 80/20, and the ones who don't obey the rules think that's just fine, and it appears that TPTB agree with them.

How about this for a start:

If you are in an unregistered vehicle and have an accident, you are not expected to pay for your own treatment, as that would be patently unfair.

However you should be expected to pay the usual fine for no rego, and you should also be expected to pay the cost of registering the vehicle from the time it was last registered to the the time of the accident.

Even this would not come close to providing the same contribution as those who have paid all the way through (unless maybe you tacked on interest & inflation too - but I wouldn't I'm not that much of a baby-eating ogre), but somehow it would also be seen as unfair to the driver of the unregoed vehicle I'm sure.

Anybody know what the ACC levy is for jetskis btw?

mashman

11th January 2011, 21:21

IMO the foreign national with the convictions and the long term illness precluding him from work (whom I know personally) should have his residency revoked and be on the next plane back to the former republic.

I'd be happy for TPTB to give him a time frame to find himself some employment and have his benefit topped up to a live-able value once found

If the foreign national is legally here then he has a "right" to the same deal as anyone else in the same position. Not ideal I grant you, but the alternative goes against my view of society I guess... there will be people who can't earn, there will be those that "bludge"... the flip side is more abhorrent to me, because there are those with money who will happily "dodge" the tax responsibilities, just because they can... The tax dodgers do more damage to society than your foreign national friend.

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 21:23

Muldoon's think big was conservative?

How would y'all be powering your AC units and latte machines now, if it weren't for them?

It's not like anybody else ever since has invested anything into the infrastructure required to build an economy.

The most valuable projects prior to that was the pine plantations of the great depression, the benefits of which the country is still reaping, albeit at a much reduced rate.

mashman

11th January 2011, 21:23

Mostly mine as it happens.

And seein' as how you asked real nice, no you fucking can't have any more.

Bunch of grasping pricks.

heartless bastard... i could do with a decent top-up

Ocean1

11th January 2011, 21:27

heartless bastard... i could do with a decent top-up

Get a haircut.

*Fucking youf nowadays*

puddytat

11th January 2011, 21:27

Here's a question.

Does ANY government in the world seem to have it right?

Nah ...as some have said the Scandanavians come closest i reckon & they do have a strong "Social" content in thier policies.But the real reason no Govt in the world seems to get it right is that they're always treating the symptons, rather than treating the cause...in other words , shortsighted short term Govts, with no policies remaining unchanged from one Govt to the next.:wacko::weird:

Dunno why people get a hangup with the Greens.....Youll vote for the fuckwits you moan about time after time who are both responsible for some of the biggest ripoffs us taxpayers have for generations payed for & will still be paying for in the future.....:doh:
Yet half of ya's will never even consider or READ the Green policies all because of an anti smacking law that shouldve really been called "Dont beat your child to death 'cause we're gonna be onto you way sooner" law:doh::doh:

mashman

11th January 2011, 21:29

Get a haircut.

*Fucking youf nowadays*

you cnut, you know i'm seriously balding dontcha... :crybaby:, i mean, lend me 50 bucks, i'll get a perm...

old bastards... talkin down to da youf since ages ago

Smifffy

11th January 2011, 21:38

If the foreign national is legally here then he has a "right" to the same deal as anyone else in the same position. Not ideal I grant you, but the alternative goes against the my view of society I guess... there will be people who can't earn, there will be those that "bludge"... the flip side is more abhorrent to me, because there are those with money who will happily "dodge" the tax responsibilities, just because they can... The tax dodgers do more damage to society than your foreign national friend.

Some of the dodgers probably also pay more in tax dollars than you, I and he earn in a year, not that that makes it right, and I agree that tax dodgers should also be punished.

I see them as two separate issues, and both should be addressed. Both are effectively a breach of an agreement.

One was granted residency on the grounds that he was here to work, and had skills that weren't available locally. (I could rant on that too, but won't for now). He isn't fulfilling his side of the deal.

The tax dodger is allowed to live and operate in NZ with all of the protections and benefits that entails (as well as the burden of compliance) in return for paying a percentage of his income into the 'fund for greater good' TM. He isn't fulfilling his side of the deal.

I don't know which tax dodger you have in mind, and so I have a clear idea in my head as to which of these two examples contribute less to NZ society. If I were forced to choose between them as to which one I would prefer to see removed to somewhere else, I wouldn't pause.

If it's not about comparing the two and removing one, then I don't understand why the tax dodger entered the equation.

mashman

11th January 2011, 22:36

Some of the dodgers probably also pay more in tax dollars than you, I and he earn in a year, not that that makes it right, and I agree that tax dodgers should also be punished.

I know of at least 2 that do. They claim working for families and earn quite a bit more than me, but offset this and that against that and this and generally claim everything that they can, when they have more than enough money to survive... for the record, I don't structure my tax affairs to be eligible for working for families or any other "credit"... i see it as being dishonest... more fool me maybe...

I see them as two separate issues, and both should be addressed. Both are effectively a breach of an agreement.

I agree, but addressing either will not get you elected :bleh:

One was granted residency on the grounds that he was here to work, and had skills that weren't available locally. (I could rant on that too, but won't for now). He isn't fulfilling his side of the deal.

The tax dodger is allowed to live and operate in NZ with all of the protections and benefits that entails (as well as the burden of compliance) in return for paying a percentage of his income into the 'fund for greater good' TM. He isn't fulfilling his side of the deal.

I don't know which tax dodger you have in mind, and so I have a clear idea in my head as to which of these two examples contribute less to NZ society. If I were forced to choose between them as to which one I would prefer to see removed to somewhere else, I wouldn't pause.

If it's not about comparing the two and removing one, then I don't understand why the tax dodger entered the equation.

The way i see it, most likely wrongly so, but the wealthy tax dodger could likely fund the bludger many times over, and indeed already does...

Meh, be it the tithead sitting on a couch doing noone any harm, but needing to be "looked after" (double tap optional) or the rich prick ripping hundreds/thousands/millions of people off for profit and then not paying the full tax on their income or the theiving "bludger" that'll rob 10's of people before being jailed or the Politician with jobs for the boys... there's damage being done everywhere, but i'll still go for the rich prick causing the most damage... if only because the top 5% (or what ever the number is) have 90% (or whatever that numbers is) of the country's wealth. That being the case, and money being required to "look after" society, it is clear in my mind that it is the tax dodger (i.e. actively goes out of their way to NOT pay the full tax that they are due) causes the most damage to NZ society.

puddytat

11th January 2011, 23:25

for the record, I don't structure my tax affairs to be eligible for working for families or any other "credit"... i see it as being dishonest... more fool me maybe...

Nah,shows you have moral & ethical fortitude...

That being the case, and money being required to "look after" society, it is clear in my mind that it is the tax dodger (i.e. actively goes out of their way to NOT pay the full tax that they are due) causes the most damage to NZ society.

In my case being self employed I could rip the system way more but I too stuggle with simple fact that its not fair to slag it if youre not atleast contributing to a point of self imposed fairness, & many will argue about where that moral point of right or wrong is.
Im often shocked at what people claim as Business expenses & I think many small businesses are really only set up to absorb costs & claim tax rebates.
Robbing Pete to pay Paul.
:weird:

Swoop

12th January 2011, 08:49

Anybody know what the ACC levy is for jetskis btw?
Whatever the % of the trailer registration is.

MSTRS

12th January 2011, 09:10

Trailer reg doesn't carry ACC...

mashman

12th January 2011, 09:11

Interesting stories about John Key, Elders Finance, and Andrew Krieger and the NZ dollar.

On the Standard website, so without a doubt, leftwing gutter press.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-road-t...street-part-1/ (you need to read the whole thing, including the comments)

Circumstantial, but people have been hanged on less evidence...

Most likely where he earned the Smiling Assassin nickname... These things don't just happen, they're planned to maximise revenue, and if JK was that high up hmmmmmmmmm, and potentially twice too :rofl: what was it Bush said, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, er, er, er, the point is you can't get fooled again :facepalm:

In my case being self employed I could rip the system way more but I too stuggle with simple fact that its not fair to slag it if youre not atleast contributing to a point of self imposed fairness, & many will argue about where that moral point of right or wrong is.
Im often shocked at what people claim as Business expenses & I think many small businesses are really only set up to absorb costs & claim tax rebates.
Robbing Pete to pay Paul.

Aye that's the kicker ain't it... We want a "decent" society, yet will pay as little as legally possible towards it... Unfortunately those who want to pay as little as possible get in to power and fuck around to make as much money as possible for those who already have, and society as wet as Queensland... and by default rape this shit out of the country with the blessing of the other short sighted morons... then they blame it on the unemployed and the masses for bringing down the economy because they don't try to improve their own lot :killingme...

Ocean1

12th January 2011, 09:18

The tax dodger is allowed to live and operate in NZ with all of the protections and benefits that entails (as well as the burden of compliance) in return for paying a percentage of his income into the 'fund for greater good' TM. He isn't fulfilling his side of the deal.

Again, who's fucking money is it?

Did this dodger dude, (and I reckon he's the figment of some rabid socialist's imagination) sign an agreement with anyone regarding the disposition of his income?

shrub

12th January 2011, 12:03

Nah ...as some have said the Scandanavians come closest i reckon & they do have a strong "Social" content in thier policies.But the real reason no Govt in the world seems to get it right is that they're always treating the symptons, rather than treating the cause...in other words , shortsighted short term Govts, with no policies remaining unchanged from one Govt to the next.:wacko::weird:

Dunno why people get a hangup with the Greens.....Youll vote for the fuckwits you moan about time after time who are both responsible for some of the biggest ripoffs us taxpayers have for generations payed for & will still be paying for in the future.....:doh:
Yet half of ya's will never even consider or READ the Green policies all because of an anti smacking law that shouldve really been called "Dont beat your child to death 'cause we're gonna be onto you way sooner" law:doh::doh:

It is interesting how poorly informed people are about the Greens, and the rabid fear people have of the party that is probably the most committed to the wellbeing of New Zealanders out of all of them. I am politically reasonably well informed (my first degree was a political science degree), and I vote Green because they make sense.

There are basically 2 groups that have a particular fear of the Greens: the religious right, who are surprisingly influential and business lobby have worked hard to discredit the Greens out of fear of having to engage in environmentally responsible business practices. In other words, not trashing the environment in the pursuit of money. They are both very well funded and have run extremely clever PR campaigns over the last few years that have managed to convince Joe and his mates at the pub that the Greens are a bunch of interfering softcocks who want to impose extra taxes and take away their freedom. So Joe et al vote National, who have just raised ACC levies and GST, and are always looking for new laws to pass while taking away constraints on government behaviour.

pete376403

12th January 2011, 12:14

Most likely where he earned the Smiling Assassin nickname...
That was from his days at Merrill Lynch, apparently he was the really nice guy wo told people they no longer had a job there.
And thats fine, thats part of business.
The bit that interests me is his association with Andrew Krieger, who among other things did serious damage to the NZ economy with massive currency trades. The suspicion (unproven but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence support,) is that John key was his "agent" at M/L who put the trades through. I.E. quite prepared to shaft his own country for profit.

(conspiracy rant over)

Brian d marge

12th January 2011, 14:26

That was from his days at Merrill Lynch, apparently he was the really nice guy wo told people they no longer had a job there.
And thats fine, thats part of business.
The bit that interests me is his association with Andrew Krieger, who among other things did serious damage to the NZ economy with massive currency trades. The suspicion (unproven but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence support,) is that John key was his "agent" at M/L who put the trades through. I.E. quite prepared to shaft his own country for profit.

(conspiracy rant over)I mean I can prove all of my work,I paid tax , etc

how come we cant account for JK when those massive trades went through

and why hasnt the media latched on to this like a bulldog

oh I remember the media made a promise to national

Stephen

Pixie

13th January 2011, 08:38

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_willow

Richard

Ok so he might be a tree too.

Brian d marge

13th January 2011, 14:07

I agree, and ACC is neither a community approach, nor user pays really. That's my point. I think the split is greater than 80/20, and the ones who don't obey the rules think that's just fine, and it appears that TPTB agree with them.

How about this for a start:

If you are in an unregistered vehicle and have an accident, you are not expected to pay for your own treatment, as that would be patently unfair.

However you should be expected to pay the usual fine for no rego, and you should also be expected to pay the cost of registering the vehicle from the time it was last registered to the the time of the accident.

Even this would not come close to providing the same contribution as those who have paid all the way through (unless maybe you tacked on interest & inflation too - but I wouldn't I'm not that much of a baby-eating ogre), but somehow it would also be seen as unfair to the driver of the unregoed vehicle I'm sure.

Anybody know what the ACC levy is for jetskis btw?
agree here , though I personally would look at the cause of why the person has no WOF /Rego ..

to expensive? I think most people , even the dropkicks would have a legal vehicle if they could

Also i never understood fines , if you have no money , there is no point in asking for more .. ( heres a shovel go dig me some broad band , ya skuzzy !)

I often feel like people get pissed off when they see others taking advantage , or being percieved to , and they themselves are having to work all hours just to remain afloat .

Just imagine if everyone was well cared for and had enough money , suddenly poeple wouldnt worry about the dropkick so much

We have built a consumerist , accusitory non sustainable society .IMHO which can be changed

Instead of pinging someone for 104km/h then handing out a 20 fine , give em demerits , ten demerits , you get comunity work

not an organisational night mare as some comunity work need to be done constantly , such as recycling ( the sorting of the plastics ) or a Government farm , raising food for ,,hospitals

And for that we need a Leader of men ,,,,John.......... John Bull

228718

Stephen

Ocean1

13th January 2011, 15:09

you get comunity work

Make me. :motu:

MSTRS

13th January 2011, 15:19

...you get community work

That i s a sensible option.

Make me.

Then you get a week inside. But not in lieu...CW still stands and must be completed.

Ocean1

13th January 2011, 16:15

Then you get a week inside. But not in lieu...CW still stands and must be completed.

Have you had anything to do with CW schemes?

They don’t work like that, they’re a sort of achievement black hole, you get bonus points for failing to turn up. They’re far from being anything resembling work, the cost is hideous and any changes accidentally made in the work area are always to the detriment of the supposed task in hand.

If they can’t make it work for apprentice criminals they won’t make it work for someone who simply refuses to pay a usurious and arbitrary tax. Especially for those that are paying for the same alleged service several times over.

Fuckem.

pete376403

13th January 2011, 18:56

I mean I can prove all of my work,I paid tax , etc

how come we cant account for JK when those massive trades went through

and why hasnt the media latched on to this like a bulldog

oh I remember the media made a promise to national

Stephen

You, or your employer can provide work records if they want to, or if they have to (court order, IRD, something like that), but I doubt if they would hand over business records to a journalist making enquiries. It's probably not in M/Ls interests to volunteer this info, and there's no way the NZ government, or its agencies will be asking. And would a foreign company pay any attention to the NZ govt anyway?

Smifffy

13th January 2011, 19:10

Have you had anything to do with CW schemes?

They don’t work like that, they’re a sort of achievement black hole, you get bonus points for failing to turn up. They’re far from being anything resembling work, the cost is hideous and any changes accidentally made in the work area are always to the detriment of the supposed task in hand.

If they can’t make it work for apprentice criminals they won’t make it work for someone who simply refuses to pay a usurious and arbitrary tax. Especially for those that are paying for the same alleged service several times over.

Fuckem.

The moll did a lot of work with various SPCA's around the country, and from time to time they would get CW peeps along, particularly if they had a refurb underway or something.

It usually went like this:

Dudes turn up - late
Dudes have a smoke, and talk about what's for lunch
smoko
1 dude puts on a boil up - needs a couple of other dudes to help peel & clean etc.
Rest of the dudes txt their mates, ogle/harass the volunteers, complain to their supervisor about the lack of tools etc
Argument then punch up
Boil up is served, voluptuous or blonde volunteers invited to join
Everyone helps with dishes and agrees it was a good feed
Smoko
Pack all the gear back in the van
Leave - early

The next week half of them don't turn up cos they can't be arsed.

True story Bro.

Ocean1

13th January 2011, 19:26

True story Bro.

You missed the bit where they biff a few brand new scrub cutters in the river.

MSTRS

14th January 2011, 08:06

...

Dudes turn up - late
Dudes have a smoke, and talk about what's for lunch
smoko
1 dude puts on a boil up - needs a couple of other dudes to help peel & clean etc.
Rest of the dudes txt their mates, ogle/harass the volunteers, complain to their supervisor about the lack of tools etc
Argument then punch up
Boil up is served, voluptuous or blonde volunteers invited to join
Everyone helps with dishes and agrees it was a good feed
Smoko
Pack all the gear back in the van
Leave - early

The next week half of them don't turn up cos they can't be arsed.

...

Fucken'ell.
PD sure isn't what it used to be.
Seriously, where's the deterrent and who is running the show?

oldrider

14th January 2011, 08:29

The moll did a lot of work with various SPCA's around the country, and from time to time they would get CW peeps along, particularly if they had a refurb underway or something.

It usually went like this:

Dudes turn up - late
Dudes have a smoke, and talk about what's for lunch
smoko
1 dude puts on a boil up - needs a couple of other dudes to help peel & clean etc.
Rest of the dudes txt their mates, ogle/harass the volunteers, complain to their supervisor about the lack of tools etc
Argument then punch up
Boil up is served, voluptuous or blonde volunteers invited to join
Everyone helps with dishes and agrees it was a good feed
Smoko
Pack all the gear back in the van
Leave - early

The next week half of them don't turn up cos they can't be arsed.

True story Bro.

Par for the course down here too! (may be with out the punch ups perhaps)

Just a nice ride in the van to take up most of the day!

Crime pays, only in New Zealand. (IMHO) :facepalm:

MisterD

14th January 2011, 09:07

It is interesting how poorly informed people are about the Greens, and the rabid fear people have of the party that is probably the most committed to the wellbeing of New Zealanders out of all of them. I am politically reasonably well informed (my first degree was a political science degree), and I vote Green because they make sense.

There are basically 2 groups that have a particular fear of the Greens: the religious right, who are surprisingly influential and business lobby have worked hard to discredit the Greens out of fear of having to engage in environmentally responsible business practices. In other words, not trashing the environment in the pursuit of money. They are both very well funded and have run extremely clever PR campaigns over the last few years that have managed to convince Joe and his mates at the pub that the Greens are a bunch of interfering softcocks who want to impose extra taxes and take away their freedom. So Joe et al vote National, who have just raised ACC levies and GST, and are always looking for new laws to pass while taking away constraints on government behaviour.

Oh come on, they Greens are a bunch of idiot far-left control freaks getting elected on the strength of the international Green brand. I reckon that they'll struggle to get 5% without the authentic Green presence of Jeanette.

As an example of how intelligent their policies are lets take their stance on cellphone towers and the dangers of radiation.

Here's Wussel having his arse handed to him (http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/12/14/cellphone-towers-health-and-democracy/) on that subject.

shrub

14th January 2011, 09:33

Oh come on, they Greens are a bunch of idiot far-left control freaks getting elected on the strength of the international Green brand. I reckon that they'll struggle to get 5% without the authentic Green presence of Jeanette.

As an example of how intelligent their policies are lets take their stance on cellphone towers and the dangers of radiation.

Here's Wussel having his arse handed to him (http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/12/14/cellphone-towers-health-and-democracy/) on that subject.

What is "far left", and what is it about them that makes you feel they are either idiots or corntrol freaks? In many ways they are actually more interested in individual freedom and autonomy than any of the other parties. They expect the business sector to take responsibility for their actions, and Sue Bradford wanted to do something about child abuse by drawing a line in the sand though, and the propaganda machine has convinced Joe and his mates at the pub that this means the Greens want to take away all freedom.

Interesting that the Greens are the most supportive of motorcycling of all the parties, and "get" that bikes are not just another way to travel.

MisterD

14th January 2011, 10:33

What is "far left", and what is it about them that makes you feel they are either idiots or corntrol freaks?

Idiots? Pretty much everything that comes out of Keith Locke or Catherine Delahunty's mouths...Russel tries so hard to appear sensible and rational but then you read something like his science understanding-free blog post on cellphone towers and despair.

That's just the stuff that they'll say in the open, never mind the times when their real thoughts about culling the dairy herd, limiting peoples ability to have children or having half the seats in parliament controlled by 15% of the population sneak out.

In many ways they are actually more interested in individual freedom and autonomy than any of the other parties. They expect the business sector to take responsibility for their actions, and Sue Bradford wanted to do something about child abuse by drawing a line in the sand though, and the propaganda machine has convinced Joe and his mates at the pub that this means the Greens want to take away all freedom.

Sue Bradford wanted to push her social engineering agenda past the front door of peoples homes...it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would have no effect on actual child abuse and that's exactly what we've seen come to pass.

That's why people see them as control freaks because they push laws that impinge up on the freedoms of normal law-abiding people and have no effect on the people that ignore current legislation. Exactly the same as microchipping dogs and the current campaign to lower the BAC limit to 0.05.

It's a shame really, because this country could use a proper, rational, actual Green party that would work with any government to be a moderating influence (as they do in the home of MMP, Germany).

Ocean1

14th January 2011, 11:02

Sue Bradford...

Couldn't bring myself to read further, was momentarily indisposed.

Was talking to a very senior paediatric clinician at dinner t’other day, possibly the countries’ leading early childhood learning specialist. I was attempting to wind her up about that hideous troll’s legacy by suggesting I manage a particularly recalcitrant 2 year old of my acquaintance by way of a good old fashioned spanking. “Good idea she said, I do”.

Made my day.

shrub

14th January 2011, 11:45

Couldn't bring myself to read further, was momentarily indisposed.

Was talking to a very senior paediatric clinician at dinner t’other day

No, of course you didn't read any further - why get all the info when you have enough to support your misconceptions.

I was having a beer with a (moderately) senior police officer just before Xmas, and he said the repeal of section 51 was brilliant because it gave him and his colleagues another tool to deal with potential problems rather than getting frustrated with the reasonable force defence, knowing that it was only a matter of time before they had a seriously damaged child on their hands. He also said that there wasn't a cop on the beat that would prosecute good parents for a gentle smack.

MSTRS

14th January 2011, 11:52

...He also said that there wasn't a cop on the beat that would prosecute good parents for a gentle smack.

A gentle smack, eh? That's what one gives to a mate/child/pet to display affection. It's normally called a pat.
A smack, on the other hand, for punishment/correction purposes should not be 'gentle' - otherwise why would you bother?

MisterD

14th January 2011, 12:22

Smifffy

14th January 2011, 12:23

I was having a beer with a (moderately) senior police officer just before Xmas, and he said the repeal of section 51 was brilliant because it gave him and his colleagues another tool to deal with potential problems rather than getting frustrated with the reasonable force defence, knowing that it was only a matter of time before they had a seriously damaged child on their hands. He also said that there wasn't a cop on the beat that would prosecute good parents for a gentle smack.

Just piss talk was all that was

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10489370

They would prosecute again in a heartbeat, if only to "test" what the judiciary will allow.

Interesting that the nark in the linked trial was an "off-duty police officer"

Or perhaps it's another case of propaganda and weasel words, so that indeed there literally isn't "a cop on the beat that would prosecute good parents for a gentle smack"

Perhaps it's more likely to be a non-beat cop, perhaps the cops believe that there is no such thing as a good parent, just as there is no such thing as a good motorcyclist.

On the other hand if a gentle smack is anything like the cops dish out to the mentally ill in this country, the kids would be dead.

I'd love to see a news report, where a member of the public has approached a police officer and complained of someone giving a kid a gentle smack, whereby the officer responds "I saw what happened as well, and it was acceptable correction."

The do-gooder would run off to the media, and the "evidence would be reviewed" as it was in the mason case, and a prosecution would follow.

Meanwhile, kids that could have done with a good smack instead of being ignored or getting frequent beatings are roaming the streets with machetes, stealing cars and trying to kill cops.

shrub

14th January 2011, 12:26

Idiots? Pretty much everything that comes out of Keith Locke or Catherine Delahunty's mouths...Russel tries so hard to appear sensible and rational but then you read something like his science understanding-free blog post on cellphone towers and despair.

That's just the stuff that they'll say in the open, never mind the times when their real thoughts about culling the dairy herd, limiting peoples ability to have children or having half the seats in parliament controlled by 15% of the population sneak out.

Sue Bradford wanted to push her social engineering agenda past the front door of peoples homes...it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would have no effect on actual child abuse and that's exactly what we've seen come to pass.

That's why people see them as control freaks because they push laws that impinge up on the freedoms of normal law-abiding people and have no effect on the people that ignore current legislation. Exactly the same as microchipping dogs and the current campaign to lower the BAC limit to 0.05.

It's a shame really, because this country could use a proper, rational, actual Green party that would work with any government to be a moderating influence (as they do in the home of MMP, Germany).

Pretty much everything? Can you put forward specifics? Or is it just that you don’t like them or what they stand for? And what has Russel Norman said about cellphone towers you don’t like? If you're going to call the Greens idiots, try and have some specific instances of idiotic behaviour to support your claim - you're not down at the pub with your mates who agree with everything you say.

I think you’ll find that the Greens are pretty honest and open, and what they say is what they mean – a little unusual in politics, so I can understand you not believing it. As for culling the dairy herd – I haven’t heard that, but it would be a bloody good idea. Our dependence on dairy is making us very, very vulnerable and is going to cause major environmental problems that will make dairy unsustainable at even a fraction of the current levels while impacting negatively on other forms of agriculture and tourism.

And how are half the seats in parliament controlled by 15% of the population?

I’m not going to waste my time over the repeal of section 51. It has been debated more than any other piece of legislation ever, so there is no point. Maybe we should just cancel all laws because the people who break laws never pay much attention to them? Save a lot of money on prisons.

shrub

14th January 2011, 12:38

Just piss talk was all that was

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10489370
Meanwhile, kids that could have done with a good smack instead of being ignored or getting frequent beatings are roaming the streets with machetes, stealing cars and trying to kill cops.

I know the guy who "flicked" his son's ear personally. He's an idiot and a real flake on a good day. As for the kids running wild on the streets with machetes stealing cars etc, I think you will find they grew up in an environment where smacking was pretty much the default punishment. Statistically people convicted of violent crimes are overwhelmingly more likely to have been subject to physical punishment as children.

But hey, correlation isn't necessarily cause, and that's the last I will say on the subject. Sue Bradford is no longer in the Green party and the repeal of section 51 was a private members bill and not Green policy.

Smifffy

14th January 2011, 12:40

Pretty much everything? Can you put forward specifics? Or is it just that you don’t like them or what they stand for? And what has Russel Norman said about cellphone towers you don’t like? If you're going to call the Greens idiots, try and have some specific instances of idiotic behaviour to support your claim - you're not down at the pub with your mates who agree with everything you say.

I think you’ll find that the Greens are pretty honest and open, and what they say is what they mean – a little unusual in politics, so I can understand you not believing it. As for culling the dairy herd – I haven’t heard that, but it would be a bloody good idea. Our dependence on dairy is making us very, very vulnerable and is going to cause major environmental problems that will make dairy unsustainable at even a fraction of the current levels while impacting negatively on other forms of agriculture and tourism.

And how are half the seats in parliament controlled by 15% of the population?

I’m not going to waste my time over the repeal of section 51. It has been debated more than any other piece of legislation ever, so there is no point. Maybe we should just cancel all laws because the people who break laws never pay much attention to them? Save a lot of money on prisons.

Interesting, I just hit up the Green's website, because I am genuinely looking for an alternative to the 2 main parties, since I feel both have let me down.

Their policy statements seem to full of words like "investigating" "redesign" "review" "developing solutions" "support" "require" "Introducing charges"

That last one is the only tangible action amongst it.

MSTRS

14th January 2011, 12:47

Statistically people convicted of violent crimes are overwhelmingly more likely to have been subject to physical punishment as children.

The kind that any (caring) parent would have deemed 'child abuse', even in the old money.

MisterD

14th January 2011, 12:52

And what has Russel Norman said about cellphone towers you don’t like? If you're going to call the Greens idiots, try and have some specific instances of idiotic behaviour to support your claim

Clue: when words turn a pretty blue colour they're a link to somewhere else.

Russel seems to think that cellphone towers are a huge risk to everyones' health, despite the fact that the radiation levels due to them are way lower than TV & radion transmitters, the actual cellphone you're using, wifi, cordless phones....it appears he wouldn't know an inverse square relationship if it (lightly) smacked him in the mouth.

When Metiria was pulled up as a member of a FB group called "Maori 60" which believes that due to that whole "Treaty Partnership" bollocks maori should control 60 of the 120 seats in parliament, her reponse was typical politican-speak about Green party policy and "treaty principles" but failing to actually say she disagreed with 50/50 split.

BMWST?

14th January 2011, 12:55

STV is a system of voting for your local candidate/s in order of preference...not necessarily for a party. Think of it as MMP with the party vote removed...
It really does seem the only way to get a truly representative government, by ensuring that those who get in were actually voted for.
How many of us have voted for a candidate, yet the party they front for is the last one we'd want in power? Don't we want to see a return to MP's that will 'cross the floor' on issues being debated? I think we're becoming tired of the system that 'rewards' loyalty to a party, rather than the constituents. Who the fuck do these MPs actually represent? Hmmm?

well thats easy,you vote for the candidate you want locally but you vote for the party you actually want to run the country.MMP gives you exactly the proportion of that party..I cant see how STV is proportional party wise.I can see how it would work electing a coucil but not a whole parliament.I think to do that you would have to rank at least half of the seats in NZ.And a counting system so involved only a computer can do it???No suspect results there then!

Ocean1

14th January 2011, 13:00

No, of course you didn't read any further - why get all the info when you have enough to support your misconceptions.

My conceptions are all come by honestly, either 1st hand or from people who's expert opinion I trust. Unless your qualifications and experience match then I'll continue to get my info from places a tad more... grounded.

MisterD

14th January 2011, 13:12

MMP gives you exactly the proportion of that party..

I think party proportionality is overrated. What we need is 100% of MP's owing their place at the trough to their consituents and not the party, any system that has unaccountable list MP's is, IMO, bollocks.

I'd rather see an electorate-only system with open primaries so that even if a seat is safe for a given party, it isn't for the particular MP.

MSTRS

14th January 2011, 13:13

well thats easy,you vote for the candidate you want locally but you vote for the party you actually want to run the country.MMP gives you exactly the proportion of that party..I cant see how STV is proportional party wise.I can see how it would work electing a coucil but not a whole parliament.I think to do that you would have to rank at least half of the seats in NZ.And a counting system so involved only a computer can do it???No suspect results there then!

Did I not say 'the party vote is removed'?
Why would I want a system to all intents the same as MMP, when I'd like to see MMP gone?
I want a system where there is no backdoor entry into parliament. If a candidate isn't voted for by name, then they're not there. But FPP is a little too rigid for me.

shrub

14th January 2011, 13:28

Clue: when words turn a pretty blue colour they're a link to somewhere else.

Russel seems to think that cellphone towers are a huge risk to everyones' health, despite the fact that the radiation levels due to them are way lower than TV & radion transmitters, the actual cellphone you're using, wifi, cordless phones....it appears he wouldn't know an inverse square relationship if it (lightly) smacked him in the mouth.

When Metiria was pulled up as a member of a FB group called "Maori 60" which believes that due to that whole "Treaty Partnership" bollocks maori should control 60 of the 120 seats in parliament, her reponse was typical politican-speak about Green party policy and "treaty principles" but failing to actually say she disagreed with 50/50 split.

Nope, no links that I could find on post #162 where you claimed the Greens were all idiots. I found your link to Norman's Blog here (http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/12/14/cellphone-towers-health-and-democracy/) on a later post and I think if you read his blog and not the responses, you will find he's challenging the fact that Telcos have all the influence over placement of cellphone towers and suggests that there is international evidence that there are some health risks. just because someone disagrees doesn't mean he "had his arse handed to him" - hell, I've handed your arse to you several times in that case, and vise versa. Yes, people challenged him and he let their challenges stay - i challenged Rodney hide on his Blog and my post was removed within minutes even though I was courteous and polite. BTW I have met him several times, and I assure you he would know all about inverse square relationships.

And I am still waiting to find out where the Green Party want half the seats in parliament controlled by 15% of the population. Can you provide a link? Or would that not support your position?

BTW, I am still waiting for you to define what "far left" is and how you can apply that definition to the Greens, and I am very interested to know what makes you think almost everything Keith Locke and Catherine Delahunty says is idiotic. Is it too much to ask you to support your position? Does your argument actually have any basis, or is it simply your prejudice based on the repeal of Section 51?

Brian d marge

14th January 2011, 13:43

The moll did a lot of work with various SPCA's around the country, and from time to time they would get CW peeps along, particularly if they had a refurb underway or something.

It usually went like this:

Dudes turn up - late
Dudes have a smoke, and talk about what's for lunch
smoko
1 dude puts on a boil up - needs a couple of other dudes to help peel & clean etc.
Rest of the dudes txt their mates, ogle/harass the volunteers, complain to their supervisor about the lack of tools etc
Argument then punch up
Boil up is served, voluptuous or blonde volunteers invited to join
Everyone helps with dishes and agrees it was a good feed
Smoko
Pack all the gear back in the van
Leave - early

The next week half of them don't turn up cos they can't be arsed.

True story Bro.

Can vouch for this

Next time you go through little river near Christchurch , the railway station was painted by PD workers

Took 4 or 5 weekends

Stephen

There are ways around this though

Brian d marge

14th January 2011, 13:48

You, or your employer can provide work records if they want to, or if they have to (court order, IRD, something like that), but I doubt if they would hand over business records to a journalist making enquiries. It's probably not in M/Ls interests to volunteer this info, and there's no way the NZ government, or its agencies will be asking. And would a foreign company pay any attention to the NZ govt anyway?

If I was in say the labour party ..I would be digging real deep , That trade screwed NZ and if you had clear evidence that it was the current prime minister ,,,

those 80 dollar underpants or a cock-sucking weekend in Patia would be insignificant

I KNOW he did the trade I can feel it in me bones ,,,,,,,, Just have no evidence ,,,,

Stephen

Brian d marge

14th January 2011, 14:00

oh by the way this is called Party churn,( or sumink like that )

When the country is controlled through the cost of borrowing and advised from afar ,

People get sick of the austerity measures and vote the current government out , new one in , Same old shyte , as you would expect , 1 or 2 terms later , same deal .....

mean while bond rate through prudent fiscal management stays the same ( nz has been good at this ) , and everyone suffers , leaving a whole lot of have nots

Carry on ,,,

Vote for a parliament that has a social conscience , thats all you can hope for ,,, ( unless you actively seek change??? )

Stephen

Swoop

14th January 2011, 14:32

It usually went like this:

Dudes turn up - late
Leave - early

The next week half of them don't turn up cos they can't be arsed.
True story Bro.
You forget:
DIC disqualified drivers drive to the PD, but park around the corner.

You missed the bit where they biff a few brand new scrub cutters in the river.
Surely they would nick it then flog it off on TardeMe?

Their policy statements seem to full of words like "investigating" "redesign" "review" "developing solutions" "support" "require" "Introducing charges"
Far too much bullshit requiring "consultants" to sort out the meanings of those flowery words... at the expense of the taxpayer of course.

Clue: when words turn a pretty blue colour they're a link to somewhere else.
That is far too inflamatory!!! Turning words BLUE is just wrong. Turning them red or green would be so much more PC...:devil2:

puddytat

15th January 2011, 15:20

Idiots? Pretty much everything that comes out of Keith Locke or Catherine Delahunty's mouths...Russel tries so hard to appear sensible and rational but then you read something like his science understanding-free blog post on cellphone towers and despair.

That's just the stuff that they'll say in the open, never mind the times when their real thoughts about culling the dairy herd, limiting peoples ability to have children or having half the seats in parliament controlled by 15% of the population sneak out.

Sue Bradford wanted to push her social engineering agenda past the front door of peoples homes...it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would have no effect on actual child abuse and that's exactly what we've seen come to pass.

That's why people see them as control freaks because they push laws that impinge up on the freedoms of normal law-abiding people and have no effect on the people that ignore current legislation. Exactly the same as microchipping dogs and the current campaign to lower the BAC limit to 0.05.

It's a shame really, because this country could use a proper, rational, actual Green party that would work with any government to be a moderating influence (as they do in the home of MMP, Germany).

Having lived in Germany for 5 years I cant really see much differance between thier Greens & ours.....Just that the German populace is made up of a better educated peoples, that have learnt from history & also have a way more opened mind towards the World & its problems than Joe Ignorant Kiwi who hasnt got a fucking clue, & so consequently they will always feature higher in the polls because they are just way more on to it there.
As for them all being idiots, are they really any worse than the ones weve got or had? And if you ask me they are the only moderating group in politics