Is John Key the man to lead NZ? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is John Key the man to lead NZ?

Pages : [1] 2

shrub

18th November 2011, 07:50

He’s a cracker bloke with a hot missus, a great smile and he made a shitload of money as a currency trader (those people we used to call yuppies). And best of all, he drinks beer from the bottle, so he’s almost the perfect Prime Minister. Almost.

Then came Cuppagate. He wanted to let John Banks show him how much he loves him (but only in a very manly and heterosexual way) and to tell the good people of Epsom that it’s OK for them to vote for good old Banksy, so a cuppa tea was set up. They invited EVERYONE in the media along to watch, and made sure they were sitting by the window so people could see how close they were (again, in a very manly way).

And that’s where clever stopped.

They had a big media audience, and the media are well known for looking for vulnerabilities, so they should have made sure they said NOTHING that could be taken out of context. They should have discussed the weather, the RWC and how important it is to have National back in government, that way if (inevitably) some scurrilous journo had taped the chat, a lip reader by the window had written down what they said or a cafe staff member had listened; nobody would care.

Then the word came out that a tape had been made. If they had chatted about the weather and how good National are, Key could have said “go ahead, publish it. I’m all about honesty and transparency” and that would have been it. But he hasn’t. He has tried to shut it up and make it go away by painting it as a News of the World paparazzi stunt that will lead to no privacy for anyone. He has tried changing the subject, walking out on a press conference and even calling in the cops - in Winston speak, he has lost his his rag. That suggests to a cynical old fuck such as myself that he can’t afford to let anyone know what he and Banksy said.

Aside from the morality of taping conversations, which I don’t have a problem with given it was a media stunt with a highly public setting, he has shown a massive lack of judgement in what he said and how he handled it. He has lost control of the situation and now the media are focussing on him ducking and diving, not on his policies. He is coming across as arrogant and even a bully, not as the strong, decisive and intelligent leader with a vision for the future that NZ needs right now. And he has attacked the media and their freedom to operate, and as Mark Twain once said, "never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel" because they can make his next 3 years hard for him.

NZ is facing an increasingly difficult period, so can we afford a PM who may be slick and smart, but lacks judgement and the ability to handle a crisis under pressure?

MSTRS

18th November 2011, 07:54

But who else is there?
Oooo - I know - Hone....

White trash

18th November 2011, 07:55

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 08:01

Im pissed off this shit has become an election issue.

Im ignoring it, I don't give a shit whats on the tape.

bogan

18th November 2011, 08:01

Fucking sensationalist media, either publish the tape, or focus on the policies. Seems to me Kiwis should vote on those rather than who has the straightest teeth.

Lets hope the leaders debate is a better effort, cos if it continues to just be piss and wind, I won't be voting.

imdying

18th November 2011, 08:14

What a complete and utter load of shite.

This is how this stupid little shit hole of a county decides who runs it?

We should have left the place to the niggers if we're only going to waste it.

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 08:16

What a complete and utter load of shite.

This is how this stupid little shit hole of a county decides who runs it?

We should have left the place to the niggers if we're only going to waste it.

What fucking niggers? Niggers is derived from Spanish for blacks, there weren't no blacks here just a few rather brown bush dwellers.

Sable

18th November 2011, 08:17

This year it ain't politics, it's a fucktarded popularity contest between a greasy Jewish yuppie and your weird uncle.

Scuba_Steve

18th November 2011, 08:20

Despite what the media would have you believe, there are other parties than National, Labour, Act, Maori, & Greens. I say choose a small party & run with them it's about time we kicked da "big boys" out!!!

willytheekid

18th November 2011, 08:24

The fastest thing to pass through a NZ Government vote....is always there own pay rise!(look it up!..sadly its true)...This to me says it all really (There in it for themselves...oh...and there finacial supporting mates of course)
Hence....
http://freakyts.com/images/Haven%27t%20you%20realized%20yet%20I%20don%27t%20g ive%20a%20shit.jpg

shrub

18th November 2011, 08:29

Im pissed off this shit has become an election issue.

Im ignoring it, I don't give a shit whats on the tape.

What is an election issue is how Key has handled the whole thing. I want the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be someone who is smart, honest and copes under pressure. I don't want a PM who says stupid shit in public, tries to bully the media into shutting up (after all, their job is to keep politicians under the spotlight) and throws tantrums.

And I do give a shit what is on the tape - if John Key and John Banks don't want the public to hear what they said, that worries be because we're about to give those guys the job of running the country and making decisions that impact on our lives. I want to know what they are planning to do and what they are trying to hide.

SMOKEU

18th November 2011, 08:29

slofox

18th November 2011, 08:35

It has been said that the police involvement in this farce is "good use of police time".

Yeah. Right.

Fuck the unsolved (and unattended) burglaries, the family violence etc etc etc ad nauseam, get the cops out to cover up some irrelevant bullshit conversation. VERY important. Revelation could endanger the very fabric of the universe.

Makes me wonder just exactly what he DID say. Musta been pretty interesting, eh? :innocent:

Scuba_Steve

18th November 2011, 08:46

ellipsis

18th November 2011, 08:48

......no......

oldrider

18th November 2011, 08:55

When all is revealed it will prove to be "nothing of importance" just a major distraction by the media! :shifty:

Sigh: What's behind the green door syndrome! :sick: :corn:

BoristheBiter

18th November 2011, 08:57

Latte

18th November 2011, 09:06

Read the "elections" part on this site:

http://rwrnz.blogspot.com/

People like John Key are race traitors, and it's because of people like him that the white race is slowly dying off day by day. NZ is becoming infested by immigrants, and state assets are being sold off more and more often. NZ is going to be a third world slum in a few decades if JK has his way. Never vote for a Jewish PM.

You're a wanker :D

I can't tell if this subversive right wing stuff from you is trolling or serious. So many times I go to bite then think, hang on...

... and JK is a wanker too (just to keep it on topic).

SMOKEU

18th November 2011, 09:10

I can't tell if this subversive right wing stuff from you is trolling or serious. So many times I go to bite then think, hang on...

I am actually serious, not just trolling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU

imdying

18th November 2011, 09:11

Read the "elections" part on this site:

http://rwrnz.blogspot.com/

People like John Key are race traitors, and it's because of people like him that the white race is slowly dying off day by day. NZ is becoming infested by immigrants, and state assets are being sold off more and more often. NZ is going to be a third world slum in a few decades if JK has his way. Never vote for a Jewish PM.

Bad news buddy, the white race gave us clowns like John Key and that other red faggot.

iYRe

18th November 2011, 09:18

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 09:24

Key might have handled this badly.. but he hasnt really handled anything else badly.. He has been PM in some fairly bad times, and done fairly well, so 1 little odd thing in 3 years is really not so bad. He is a bit of a dork..

Isn't that a bit like saying John Mitchell was a good All Blacks coach?

iYRe

18th November 2011, 09:27

Isn't that a bit like saying John Mitchell was a good All Blacks coach?

Nah, Mitchell was not a good All Blacks coach :P :Punk:

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 09:33

Nah, Mitchell was not a good All Blacks coach :P :Punk:

He took over a good team and won more games than most other coaches. Remember when Auntie Helen reigned and money man, Cullen was it, refused the Nats demands to spend the surplus. This is what smilely John's government has been surviving on as the other John won games on the previous coaches work with the All Blacks. Both surviving on the work of those that went before but leading the team on a downward slide.

SMOKEU

18th November 2011, 09:36

Bad news buddy, the white race gave us clowns like John Key and that other red faggot.

He doesn't count because he's a Jew.

iYRe

18th November 2011, 09:39

He took over a good team and won more games than most other coaches. Remember when Auntie Helen reigned and money man, Cullen was it, refused the Nats demands to spend the surplus. This is what smilely John's government has been surviving on as the other John won games on the previous coaches work with the All Blacks. Both surviving on the work of those that went before but leading the team on a downward slide.

bah... I wont be voting for either of em.. but then, defintely wont be voting left ever again either..

MSTRS

18th November 2011, 09:39

Surely the media and Winnie must think we're dumb if they think we are going to get sucked into making us focus on this instead of the big picture?

Out of the mouths of babes...

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 09:40

bah... I wont be voting for either of em.. but then, defintely wont be voting left ever again either..

So you wont be voting Greens, Blues or Reds :msn-wink:

iYRe

18th November 2011, 09:43

So you wont be voting Greens, Blues or Reds :msn-wink:

I dont have the voting paper in my hand so I dont know yet lol..

imdying

18th November 2011, 09:52

He doesn't count because he's a Jew.I don't understand the deal with hating on Jews. Other than killing Jesus, what exactly is it that they're supposed to have done?

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 10:05

I don't understand the deal with hating on Jews. Other than killing Jesus, what exactly is it that they're supposed to have done?

Boy this could get off topic quick. Old history but jews were the money lenders or bankers of old. Check out Merchant of Venus by Shakespeare for a light read on the subject :laugh: Being the money guys meant that whilst a lord or king could be all powerful he was still 'owned' by the Jew he owed money to. Like all generalisations not all jews were money lenders but most money lender were jews until the Knights Templer learnt a trick or two from them. But then the destruction of said knights gave us black Friday so guess in the end they weren't loved either.

Paul in NZ

18th November 2011, 10:07

When the media can't find the vunerabilities they are looking for (not looking hard enough?) then they rather insist on creating them.

This whole thing is an idiotic waste of time. OF COURSE they said some dipshit stuff ffs, much the same as you would say to a guy you meet at a bike rally etc. The media is keeping this going ONLY because they really don't like it when someone won't dance their tune and frankly I'm getting a bit tired of their shallow attitudes. Fuck them - they don't run the bloody country and frankly need to have a good hard look at themselves (across the whole media spectrum). Personally - the Police should prosecute the prick. If two pollies can't have a frank discussion without everyone going ooooohhhhh.... we are all buggered.

imdying

18th November 2011, 10:27

Boy this could get off topic quick. Old history but jews were the money lenders or bankers of old. Check out Merchant of Venus by Shakespeare for a light read on the subject :laugh: Being the money guys meant that whilst a lord or king could be all powerful he was still 'owned' by the Jew he owed money to. Like all generalisations not all jews were money lenders but most money lender were jews until the Knights Templer learnt a trick or two from them. But then the destruction of said knights gave us black Friday so guess in the end they weren't loved either.So it's cause they're good with money? Pretty sure I've read that one, Shylock wasn't it?

Key must be laughing his arse off... he has distracted the red team which has trashed their focus, and the media is all him him him and National this and National that. When was the last time you heard anything constructive about what the Labour Party is gonna do? I'm not sure why they're all dancing to his tune, surely they're smarter than that.

slofox

18th November 2011, 10:39

Remember he justified it by saying "police have spare time on their hands as crime is down 7.9%" :facepalm:

I reckon his first name's really "Don"...:whistle:

Swoop

18th November 2011, 11:19

shrub

18th November 2011, 11:49

The really bad news is that the country doesn't have a decent alternative. Labour "leading us" through a major recession? The greens? Mana party?:rolleyes.

If you read the Greens and Labour economic policies, they actually make sense. Obviously the Greens have no expectations of ever being the government, so their policies are not comprehensive in the same way National and Labour's are, but they have some very good ideas. I'm not an economist, but I do have some expertise in business and a working understanding of macro and micro economics, and when I look at what National have done and what they are planning to do it worries me. On the outside it seems as though they are too tied to an ideological position to recognise that what they propose is very unlikely to work.

Where Labour has failed dismally over the last 3 years is to provide a robust challenge to National's economic policies and keep them honest in the debating chamber and through the media. There are some ridiculous holes in the asset sales plan, but they're largely being ignored in favour of taking the "don't sell the family silver" approach, and has anyone (other than Russel Norman) raised the issue that National are planning to spend $400m of asset money on subsidising irrigation? How many people know that they are selling a high yield and productivity asset to subsidise a low productivity industry?

Has anyone discussed that selling $5bn of power companies is ridiculous when you consider that the NZSX has a total capitalisation of $55bn, so when you add the existing listed power companies, they will make up around 15% of market capitalisation? One industry sector making up 15% of our stock market is STUPID.

And Labour have sat back and allowed the national spin doctors to create the myth that Clark/Cullen left the economy in a bad way. Despite the contrary being true (if you look at the raw data and ignore the press releases), the majority of people are unaware just how much better our economy was in 08 than in 99 and nobody has looked at how much fiscally worse off we are now, even allowing for the GFC.

Labour have been a very poor opposition, and that is reflected by the fact that we have an inept and weak government about to get re-elected despite poor policies and a dismal track record.

shrub

18th November 2011, 12:00

and makes me feel a little ashamed I put this thread up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6bx8j4d-Y

eelracing

18th November 2011, 12:18

and makes me feel a little ashamed I put this thread up

Haha is she Jewish? cos she could go far in Hollywood.

But isnt it ironic thet Key has gone all spastic over the tea n bikkies taping yet he and his cronies tried to rush through the search and surveillance bill this year.

Now that it has been deferred to the next parliament to sort out will it have any bearing on how he see's the bill and it's ramifications? Because we all know it was just a innocent get together afterall.

The strains starting to show Johnboy...how does it feel???

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MQwWp98IuGE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

imdying

18th November 2011, 12:57

If you read the Greens and Labour economic policies, they actually make sense.Except of course, they don't.

Where Labour has failed dismally over the last 3 yearsShit, who cares, they pale in comparison to their failures over the previous 9.

And Labour have sat back and allowed the national spin doctors to create the myth that Clark/Cullen left the economy in a bad way.Hard to refute fact, and apparently they're not smart enough to try.

steve_t

18th November 2011, 13:06

I love how Helen Clark is still 4th most preferred Prime Minister on 3% :laugh::laugh:

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 13:17

I love how Helen Clark is still 4th most preferred Prime Minister on 3% :laugh::laugh:

Love the survey. WTF do we care. The PM is only the face of the party, well with the Nats and current crop any how, with Helen she might have been more a task master. It's what the government will do that matters not how good one person is at licking boots. The PM can't govern alone.

lakedaemonian

18th November 2011, 13:20

I reckon John Key/National are the least bad option......but I would prefer keeping state majority owned assets...I'd hate to see privatization led by massive price increases(in utilities for example) like what appears to be happening in the UK.

What I would like to see is the Mana Party, specifically Hone, Sue Bradford, and John Minto be exiled to the Chathams.

I'd gladly pay an extra couple of % in tax for that last part.

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 13:22

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 13:26

What is an election issue is how Key has handled the whole thing.

I don't want a prime minister chosen based on this non-issue, and wonder at the credibility of anyone who wants to blow it out of proportion.

Its obvious that the agenda being followed isn't about the tape, its about making noise.

If the non-issue tape contained anything issue-worthy then the media would have released it to make money and been happy to get penalised, this is all just pathetic huff-n-puff, and not worthy of being a topic of discussion leading up to the election, never mind being a high profile issue.

Weak.

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 13:30

I don't want a prime minister chosen based on this non-issue, and wonder at the credibility of anyone who wants to blow it out of proportion.

Its obvious that the agenda being followed isn't about the tape, its about making noise.

If the non-issue tape contained anything issue-worthy then the media would have released it to make money and been happy to get penalised, this is all just pathetic huff-n-puff, and not worthy of being a topic of discussion leading up to the election, never mind being a high profile issue.

Weak.

Seems to me that in a perverse way you and shrub agree. The thing about the tape side show is this is the guy and party that most of NZ expected to be re-elected and this is now they behave, what the fuss is over is slightly irrelevant. Judge them not by what they say (their promises) but instead judge them by what they do (enter the tape issue with all its hissy fits)

BTW if Brash thinks Keys should release it, yet it only takes one of the two at the table to say OK, then why isn't Brash as leader of ACT telling Banks to OK its release.

lakedaemonian

18th November 2011, 13:34

How can they be the least bad option if there major plank is the one thing you don't want and one of the few things being talked about that will be near impossible to reverse.

As a small business owner I see Labour as overly pro-worker, anti-business.

I think the 90 day trial is an excellent idea...and personally makes me more willing to take a chance and additional staff due to the difficulty in removing toxic employees.

Labour wishes to rescind the 90 day trial.....if they believe in doing so they are idiots(especially in a time of rising unemployment and low business confidence)......if they are pandering for votes then they are even worse.

That's but one example.......

Labour had plenty of time to fill the larder and set good long term policy when they had power during the best economic period in recent decades....and I believe they failed...and it's the same crew in charge...no thank you.

Personally, I'd like to see the Green Party consider a partnership with National.....I'm a fan of Green Party initiatives like the solar water heating and insulation efforts of recent years......focused efforts to improve quality of life, improve energy efficiency, and employ Kiwis.....unfortunately Green Party foreign policy and some of their economic policy is out of left field...hopefully if/when they shift more to the Centre they will become more of a king maker or spoiler.

oneofsix

18th November 2011, 13:46

As a small business owner I see Labour as overly pro-worker, anti-business.

I think the 90 day trial is an excellent idea...and personally makes me more willing to take a chance and additional staff due to the difficulty in removing toxic employees.

Labour wishes to rescind the 90 day trial.....if they believe in doing so they are idiots(especially in a time of rising unemployment and low business confidence)......if they are pandering for votes then they are even worse.

That's but one example.......

Labour had plenty of time to fill the larder and set good long term policy when they had power during the best economic period in recent decades....and I believe they failed...and it's the same crew in charge...no thank you.

Personally, I'd like to see the Green Party consider a partnership with National.....I'm a fan of Green Party initiatives like the solar water heating and insulation efforts of recent years......focused efforts to improve quality of life, improve energy efficiency, and employ Kiwis.....unfortunately Green Party foreign policy and some of their economic policy is out of left field...hopefully if/when they shift more to the Centre they will become more of a king maker or spoiler.

The 90 day trail thing is an example of something that is reversible, unlike the sell off. But perhaps it is time to consider the even smaller parties to make the bigger ones take notice. Have you looked at the conservatives, etc?
BTW IMO ACT and Nats don't really care about small business, its all about BIG BIG and bigger business for them.

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 13:48

Seems to me that in a perverse way you and shrub agree. The thing about the tape side show is this is the guy and party that most of NZ expected to be re-elected and this is now they behave, what the fuss is over is slightly irrelevant. Judge them not by what they say (their promises) but instead judge them by what they do (enter the tape issue with all its hissy fits)

.

Well no, In no perverse way do we agree, I have not and would not comment on John keys behaviour, My one and only issue is with the huff and puff generated to try and make it an issue, and that isn't the work of John Key.

If anything my opinion of a segment of the NZ population and the media has been lowered.

My opinion of Labour cant get any lower.

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 13:51

I think the 90 day trial is an excellent idea...and personally makes me more willing to take a chance and additional staff due to the difficulty in removing toxic employees.

Labour wishes to rescind the 90 day trial.....if they believe in doing so they are idiots(especially in a time of rising unemployment and low business confidence)......if they are pandering for votes then they are even worse.

Definitely, I can nominate at least 10 instances where people have been given a go purely due to the 90 day trial, that was the deciding factor.

And on the same token it has allowed in 2 cases known to me where unsuitable people were able to be moved on.

It is a huge bonus for the working class of NZ.

Labour are a pack of deluded fools.

Now if we could just get a party that didn't want to sell off our assets and was opposed to the racist separatist policies that are ruining our country.

Im thinking we get all the wanna-be politicians and put them in a cage fight.

lakedaemonian

18th November 2011, 13:52

The 90 day trail thing is an example of something that is reversible, unlike the sell off. But perhaps it is time to consider the even smaller parties to make the bigger ones take notice. Have you looked at the conservatives, etc?
BTW IMO ACT and Nats don't really care about small business, its all about BIG BIG and bigger business for them.

I've seen the conservative billboards up...and admittedly had no time to look into them......but ASSume they will not make it over the post?

For me, I'm willing to throw support behind the party/candidate that's willing to do the most for small business, not just because I'm a small business owner, but because small business is where the majority of Kiwis are employed...and it's also where future medium to large business success stories employing more and creating equity come from.

SPman

18th November 2011, 13:55

the problem is we're bereft of choices...

Key might have handled this badly.. but he hasnt really handled anything else badly.. He has been PM in some fairly bad times, and done fairly well, so 1 little odd thing in 3 years is really not so bad. He is a bit of a dork..

If the PM was Goff, or Peters, or one of the others, there'd probably be a lot more carp we'd be dealing with rather than one badly done promotional politicy thing.

Surely the media and Winnie must think we're dumb if they think we are going to get sucked into making us focus on this instead of the big picture?

You really don't look at politics very hard, do you.
Either that, or you're being willfully ignorant.
If you believe JK has been doing well and this is his only perceived gaffe.
If only people did focus on the big picture - because John Key doesn't - unless it's his face in the papers.
He has to be the most disingenuous, vindictive lying son of a botch job Prime Minister we’ve had in a long while....

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 13:58

pete376403

18th November 2011, 14:02

Well no, In no perverse way do we agree, I have not and would not comment on John keys behaviour, My one and only issue is with the huff and puff generated to try and make it an issue, and that isn't the work of John Key..

Not the work of john Key? Then who involved the Police? If key really wanted it to go away all he had to do is say "yeah, go for your life" to The Harold and it would be all over.

Unless there is stuff on the tape that would be embarassing to one or the other, but surely both Key and Banks are smart enough to understand talking serious political shit in a public place with half NZs media looking on is not very clever.

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 14:07

Not the work of john Key? Then who involved the Police? If key really wanted it to go away all he had to do is say "yeah, go for your life" to The Harold and it would be all over.

Unless there is stuff on the tape that would be embarassing to one or the other, but surely both Key and Banks are smart enough to understand talking serious political shit in a public place with half NZs media looking on is not very clever.

sorry, I'm not going to contribute to the huff-n-puff.

Deano

18th November 2011, 14:12

I'm not entirely up with the play on this but, can someone please explain to me how placing a hidden recorder in a black bag on the table is "inadvertently" recording the conversation ?

HenryDorsetCase

18th November 2011, 14:17

My thoughts? not so much

the resemblance to Dobbie the house elf is uncanny

lakedaemonian

18th November 2011, 14:20

In light of the global recession, the disasters, the world cup, and the legacy from Labour I consider that National have done a stunning job.

Damned if I would have wanted to tackle the issues they have had to manage.

I'd agree...but I think we will have to keep their feet to the fire and still not cut them much slack.

It would be interesting to get a poll of National supporters and get their opinion on asset sales...I suspect National might be sweating a bit on that one.

I'm OK as long as clear majority ownership is maintained.....if we see high inflation and utility costs increases...with government owned utilities it's a bit harder to push thru bigger price increases...helps out the retired and poor folks on tight budgets.

Continued tough times ahead...I reckon better National than Labour running the show.

What I worry about is in 3 years time......if facing a continuing and very challenging global economic climate(likely).....which opposition and/or minority party muppet will be willing to sell their soul and promise everything......appealing to the darker sides of populism.

It's the NEXT election that I'm worried about.

SMOKEU

18th November 2011, 14:21

I don't understand the deal with hating on Jews. Other than killing Jesus, what exactly is it that they're supposed to have done?

Jews can't be trusted. They're the enemy from within. They run Wall Street, and they are the typical PC fuckwits who can't make good decisions and are ruining this country day by day. National has introduced stupid policies, and people should be ashamed for voting for that race traitor.

HenryDorsetCase

18th November 2011, 14:44

Jews can't be trusted. They're the enemy from within. They run Wall Street, and they are the typical PC fuckwits who can't make good decisions and are ruining this country day by day. National has introduced stupid policies, and people should be ashamed for voting for that race traitor.

you are a hateful little fucker.

imdying

18th November 2011, 15:22

Jews can't be trusted. They're the enemy from within. They run Wall Street, Given what Wall Street is all about, can you honestly tell me that any group running it wouldn't be a corrupt bunch of self serving arseholes within a decade?

SMOKEU

18th November 2011, 15:31

you are a hateful little fucker.

Thanks for the compliment.

Given what Wall Street is all about, can you honestly tell me that any group running it wouldn't be a corrupt bunch of self serving arseholes within a decade?

You've got a point there...

jasonu

18th November 2011, 15:34

he’s a cracker bloke with a hot missus,

Nz is facing an increasingly difficult period, so can we afford a pm who may be slick and smart, but lacks judgement and the ability to handle a crisis under pressure?

who else is there?????
If anyone thinks Phil Goff and his monkeys can do the job they are dreaming!

Swoop

18th November 2011, 16:08

...the most disingenuous, vindictive lying son of a botch job Prime Minister we’ve had in a long while....
It hasn't been very long. Heilen Klerke was lower than bottom-feeding scum and her retarded finance minister really needed to back to playschool to entertain people of like-minded mentality.

Getting liarbour involved in anything financial, is a crisis waiting to happen.

Flip

18th November 2011, 16:12

Sounds to me like our wee Johnny is a bit of a control freak!

Smokeu, you are a moron.

Headbanger

18th November 2011, 16:17

Given what Wall Street is all about, can you honestly tell me that any group running it wouldn't be a corrupt bunch of self serving arseholes within a decade?

A decade?

They have to be that way to get a start, its part of the job criteria...

lakedaemonian

18th November 2011, 17:20

No matter how bad we perceive it is or could get here.......in the US it's just simply out of control.

You should have a look at the latest 60 Minutes(US version).

Insider trader is illegal for everyone......except if you are a member of the US Congress...where it's perfectly legal to trade/profit from things like....I don't know....shorting the Lehman Brothers and market collapse a few years a go for millions maybe? Yup...legal for Congress....but if you're Joe Bloggs and do it you go to jail.

And then there's John Corzine...former head of JP Morgan.....then US Democrat Senator, then Governor of the State of New Jersey.....then head of failed trading firm that "lost"(Stole) about a billion $Kiwi$ and I doubt he will even be arrested let alone spend time in jail.

That's just in the past WEEK.

NO matter how flawed our democratic process is in NZ........it could be worse...much worse.

Just wanted to chuck that in there for some perspective.

And the whole throwing jews in the oven because "it's all their fault" thing is getting a bit weird and spooky.

But I guess it's about that time for some far right wing mirror opposites of the Baader Meinhoff Gang and Red Army Faction to start trouble in Europe again.

The next couple of years are going to be "exciting"

Oblivion

18th November 2011, 17:28

John Key has one hell of a poker face. Personally, I think that he is a complete asshole, not the man of integrity that we think that he is. The whole teacup saga should be over by now, Hell it shouldn't have even started. All he needed to do was to say, " I am deeply sorry for what I said" (Or something simiar) And boom shitstorm over. The more he denies it the bigger this will become. For now, I'm staying well away from the polling booth until someone worthy steps up to the plate.

Like hell someone like that will appear anytime soon. <_<

Good use of :Police: time my ass.

Berries

18th November 2011, 18:31

He's a complete twat for saying anything controversial in a public place when there were invited media around. What did he expect? Who here would have a conversation when there is some strange object on the table within arms reach? You'd check it out. Some dude who just left the table may have forgotten his sunnies, his wallet stuffed full of cash, a bag of P or his dictaphone. The whole thing has been a set up from the beginning.

But then, if you're happy with the way the country has been going vote for him. If you're not, don't. Seems fairly simple to me, can't see what all the fuss is about.

Subike

18th November 2011, 18:53

Usarka

18th November 2011, 19:12

Fuck this personality politics.

But....

Funny how a currency trader multi-millionare doesn't know the old adage of buy low sell high.

Bye bye assets at bargain basement prices :niceone:

Winston001

18th November 2011, 20:12

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if the point has been made previously.

The facts - and the law, are simple.

Key and Banks met. Photos etc were taken. Then the media/public event ended. Banks and Key could then have arranged to go to a strip club, it would still be a private conversation.

There is nothing in law or civil behaviour which says journalists and cameramen have unlimited rights at all times and places to record other people without consent. Being a politician does not remove rights which we all have.

However if a recording was made, or a lipreader employed, or somebody simply eavesdropped, ethically and morally its still a private conversation. Not for passing on to anyone else. Repeating the conversation is the problem. That's the breach of privacy.

There is no public interest to be served. An interesting story for journalists - yes. But nothing of great public moment.

Winston001

18th November 2011, 20:20

Incidentally I'm happy to be proven wrong by the High Court but it'll be a surprise.

Anyway, in this day and age privacy is a big deal. Each of us should be aware of that and jealous of protecting ourselves. There are surveillance cameras everywhere, microphones are tiny and available from Dick Smith. Have you never had a moment when you said something you regretted - or could be taken out of context? How'd you feel if a motorist pic'd you while speeding? It can be done. You are on a bike...you asked for it.

pete376403

18th November 2011, 20:41

If you really think key is good for new zealand, you should research Andy Krieger, who his broker was at Bankers Trust, and what he (Krieger) did to the NZ currency

Correction not Merril Lynch, Bankers Trust.
Full story here (warning: lots of words, no pictures)
http://voter08.wordpress.com/john-key-andy-krieger-a-timeline-debate-true-or-false/

Spearfish

18th November 2011, 20:48

Fuck this personality politics.

But....

Funny how a currency trader multi-millionare doesn't know the old adage of buy low sell high.

Bye bye assets at bargain basement prices :niceone:

He sorta has, NZ govt bonds are selling because we are considered safer than most other currency (not surprisingly) to the tune of 8 billion reissued so far. Its driving down the amount of interest NZ has to pay on its loans. Piss around to much with flaky policy buying votes and it will swing back the other way, into the red we could say?

oldrider

18th November 2011, 21:22

I need to remember he is the leader of the government that gave the ACC port folio to...

that wanker Smith.

And now after shit loads of bullshit, false statistics, etc, we are paying through the nose to ride our bikes

You recommend voting for the fuckers that shafted us?

Na Key and his Bunnies can fuck off

Who Will replace them?

Im fucked if I know ,

But national is not getting my vote, they ignored us after Bike-oi.......Least we forget who emptied our wallets

I feel the same as you about the ACC bullshit, I'm not a National voter by tradition, just voted for the local candidate last time and gave ACT the party vote because of their stand on crime.

I thought The Brash leadership coup thingy was badly done but as Rodney was never really an ACT leader I thought maybe Brash could be a slight improvement because of his political understanding of ACT policies, so I was waiting to see!

Then the silly fuckers put Banks up for Rodney's seat, well IMHO Banks is a fucking idiot who doesn't know his left from his right and is just another political opportunist in the same cut as Winston Peters FFS!

So that settled it for me .... no vote for ACT .... but who the hell is there to vote for?

I will be voting for change from MMP to STV but that might be all .... maybe I will give "Democrats for Social Credit" a couple of vote's at least they are outspoken against the stinking monetary system which IMHO is the cause of most of our problems anyway!

Call it a protest vote, it's better than joining up with the occupy (where ever?) twits and breading flies in central city! :mellow:

mashman

18th November 2011, 22:12

ha ha ha haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ellipsis

18th November 2011, 22:41

ha ha ha haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

...thats about how i feel this time round, but with a twist of sadness at having to try and figure out what 3rd to 4th rate (they delve deeper than that though, but have to finish their time before they can play again) politician is worth a punt at...the biggest mouths in the parliamentary race all seem to have an avaricious eye on their meal ticket and not a lot of regard for the silly pricks who put some time and effort in...into what tho...but its still a lot harder out in the big traffic...still a paradise, the edges are eroding badly though....s'pose thats 'life in the fast lane'...lucky we only have a Bambina as the national vehicle... should be safe...:eek:

shrub

18th November 2011, 23:51

who else is there?????
If anyone thinks Phil Goff and his monkeys can do the job they are dreaming!

Oh? Can you support that position, or is that just something you believe without needing evidence?

Brian d marge

19th November 2011, 00:15

ha ha ha haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

my thoughts exactly

The only intelligent thing Ive heard was from the Maori party, ( I know!!!) but Turia said something like We are here to look after our own kind first ....well said

anyone who follows policy that calls pizza a vegetable needs their head read

and NO amount of justification can be entered into

Key
Labour ... all pressured by the IMF / America

that leaves the minor parties , all who have principle , but no chance .......

One thing is for sure , and most likely will happen , if you put National back in they will go to town ,,,, and How much are you paying for ACC,,,if that is to be kept

I might make a new Movie , " Once was a beautiful country"

Stephen

Brian d marge

19th November 2011, 00:42

Indiana_Jones

19th November 2011, 08:24

wtf is with it in this country/media and having to add bloody "gate" on the end of "scandals" :lol:

-Indy

Usarka

19th November 2011, 08:32

wtf is with it in this country/media and having to add bloody "gate" on the end of "scandals" :lol:

Lack of brainz morans. FFS Watergate was the name of the bloody hotel. I wish the hotel was called the Waterbag, it would make this tea "scandal" so much funnier.....

Indiana_Jones

19th November 2011, 08:40

Lack of brainz morans. FFS Watergate was the name of the bloody hotel. I wish the hotel was called the Waterbag, it would make this tea "scandal" so much funnier.....

I'm sure most people are aware of the fact that was the name of the hotel, not a licence to slap 'gate' on fucking everything after it :brick: lol

-Indy

mashman

19th November 2011, 08:58

As for the storm in a tea cup... if you sit down for a cup of tea in a caf and there's something that isn't yours on the table, don't you usually hand it to a member of staff in case the owner comes looking for it? conspiracy bandwagon here I come...

...thats about how i feel this time round, but with a twist of sadness at having to try and figure out what 3rd to 4th rate (they delve deeper than that though, but have to finish their time before they can play again) politician is worth a punt at...the biggest mouths in the parliamentary race all seem to have an avaricious eye on their meal ticket and not a lot of regard for the silly pricks who put some time and effort in...into what tho...but its still a lot harder out in the big traffic...still a paradise, the edges are eroding badly though....s'pose thats 'life in the fast lane'...lucky we only have a Bambina as the national vehicle... should be safe..

It's that or tears man. I'd suggest that you don't waste your time going to the poling booth if you're just gonna throw your vote away for no other reason than you have the right to vote... but each to their own :)

The only intelligent thing Ive heard was from the Maori party, ( I know!!!) but Turia said something like We are here to look after our own kind first ....well said

and NO amount of justification can be entered into

Key
Labour ... all pressured by the IMF / America

One thing is for sure , and most likely will happen , if you put National back in they will go to town ,,,, and How much are you paying for ACC,,,if that is to be kept

The only intelligent thing I've heard is from the Mana party with their ditching GST in favour of a financial transaction "levy"... if the numbers work that is... but as we pay for everything it could be an interesting catch all without the ability to write it off further down the line.

They've already been voted in, why would they need to justify their position any further? isn't that the "logic"?... I feel a chortle coming on... noooo, it could turn into full scale laughter.

Austrity measures by any other name eh :)

I can't wait. I hope they hammer us hard, we must deserve it if that's their position!

I'll still not be voting though.

Brian d marge

19th November 2011, 12:11

As for the storm in a tea cup... if you sit down for a cup of tea in a caf and there's something that isn't yours on the table, don't you usually hand it to a member of staff in case the owner comes looking for it? conspiracy bandwagon here I come...

It's that or tears man. I'd suggest that you don't waste your time going to the poling booth if you're just gonna throw your vote away for no other reason than you have the right to vote... but each to their own :)

The only intelligent thing I've heard is from the Mana party with their ditching GST in favour of a financial transaction "levy"... if the numbers work that is... but as we pay for everything it could be an interesting catch all without the ability to write it off further down the line.

They've already been voted in, why would they need to justify their position any further? isn't that the "logic"?... I feel a chortle coming on... noooo, it could turn into full scale laughter.

Austrity measures by any other name eh :)

I can't wait. I hope they hammer us hard, we must deserve it if that's their position!

I'll still not be voting though.

I know , I tried to find the comment again ..It surprised me , well said it was ....something along the likes of NZ first .,,,,,,,,,,,,,or get our own house in order first ...

Stephen

Usarka

19th November 2011, 12:52

I'll still not be voting though.

If I'm still undecided on the day I'm going to turn up but cross everything out.

Headbanger

19th November 2011, 15:36

I'm going to get drunk and start a fight.

Voting skills, Kiwi style.

Headbanger

19th November 2011, 15:38

I know , I tried to find the comment again ..It surprised me , well said it was ....something along the likes of NZ first .,,,,,,,,,,,,,or get our own house in order first ...

Stephen

yeah, they could start by stopping with the bashing of babies to death.

Then perhaps there bid to control (and receive commission on) every aspect of New Zealand would have some credibility.

Ok , perhaps not.

SMOKEU

19th November 2011, 15:42

I'm going to get drunk and start a fight.

That's okay, you'll just get a small fine. Don't get caught doing a burnout though, because you'll get your ride impounded for 28 days, and you'll end up getting disqualified from driving for 6 months, + a fine. Thanks John Key!

eelracing

19th November 2011, 15:59

I'm going to get drunk and start a fight.Kiwi style.

Your ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

KB fight club...yeeha.:drinkup:

Hinny

19th November 2011, 16:48

Headbanger

19th November 2011, 18:08

Your ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

KB fight club...yeeha.:drinkup:

It hurts because its true.:wacko:

Hinny

19th November 2011, 18:19

I am opposed to the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism.

I am opposed to the Presidential style adopted by Jonkey, surrounded by obsequious sycophants and the National Party with their veteran role models:

Murky campaign finances,
Revolving doors between Govt and Private Enterprise
Endemic corruption,
Nepotism,
Cronyism,
Self censoring media,
Socially, economically and politically excluded minorities. and so on.

I can almost see why he thinks he needs all those bodyguards.

Swoop

19th November 2011, 18:20

and How much are you paying for ACC,,,
*gets out calculator*
Total + gst + increases for political perks, LESS devaluation LESS not giving a rat's arse...
*scratches head*
Grand total = $0.00!!!!!

Thanks to National's position on ACC I am saving an absolute fortune. Prior to them getting in, I was paying the tax happily, but Nicky boy has changed the rules in my favour. Even my insurer insists that I do NOT pay this!:yes:
Cheers!

Headbanger

19th November 2011, 18:24

I can almost see why he thinks he needs all those bodyguards.

I'm thinking it was the threats of death.

Fatt Max

19th November 2011, 18:42

And fucking Peters and Goff are loving every second of it.

I really don't get too involved in politics, they're all as bad as each other I reckon. I really think the only damage this will do for Key is expose him as the typical two faced politician that a lot of NZ had convinced themselves he wasn't, but certainly no worse than any others.

Pefect illustration of the unfortunate choices we have to make in this upcoming farce. Still, you cant moan if you dont vote so its a case of who will sell the least amount of porky pies.........mmmmm, pies.....

Robert Taylor

19th November 2011, 19:04

And fucking Peters and Goff are loving every second of it.

I really don't get too involved in politics, they're all as bad as each other I reckon. I really think the only damage this will do for Key is expose him as the typical two faced politician that a lot of NZ had convinced themselves he wasn't, but certainly no worse than any others.

Well Goffs got a Bonneville and I see its still got the very dire standard suspension on it. If he cannot pick up on fundamentals like that then theres no way he can run a country!

MIXONE

19th November 2011, 19:11

Well Goffs got a Bonneville and I see its still got the very dire standard suspension on it. If he cannot pick up on fundamentals like that then theres no way he can run a country!

And Banks has got a Harley!What does that tell you?

avgas

19th November 2011, 19:58

Well Goffs got a Bonneville and I see its still got the very dire standard suspension on it. If he cannot pick up on fundamentals like that then theres no way he can run a country!
While I hate Labour/Goff........I believe you have the ego for politics.
You also have the bizarre belief that you think everyone MUST spend $$$ on items they don't need.

You'd fit right in.

avgas

19th November 2011, 20:05

And Banks has got a Harley!What does that tell you?
both own oil stocks?

Berries

19th November 2011, 20:26

Still, you cant moan if you dont vote.
Why not?

It is the national pastime after all.

mashman

19th November 2011, 20:35

Pefect illustration of the unfortunate choices we have to make in this upcoming farce. Still, you cant moan if you dont vote so its a case of who will sell the least amount of porky pies.........mmmmm, pies.....

I can and will continue to "moan" and most definately will not be voting. Why would I vote for something/anything I don't agree with. Choosing the perceived lesser of the evils :rofl:, erm, no i'll pass ta... i'm off to get the pork pies outta the fridge god damn you FM, damn you!!!! but my stomach thanks you

Winston001

19th November 2011, 21:06

\

I am opposed to the Presidential style adopted by Jonkey, surrounded by obsequious sycophants and the National Party with their veteran role models:

Murky campaign finances,
Revolving doors between Govt and Private Enterprise
Endemic corruption,
Nepotism,
Cronyism,
Self censoring media,
Socially, economically and politically excluded minorities. and so on.

Agreed about the Presidential style campaign but every country uses it these days. I don't like it either and the Labour campaign rates higher IMHO. But probably not with the voters: it is much easier to look and listen to one person. In the last three elections Helen Clark ran a Presidential campaign, and good on her. It worked.

Anyway, these murky finances, corruption etc, can you give specific details please Hinny?

Robert Taylor

19th November 2011, 21:24

While I hate Labour/Goff........I believe you have the ego for politics.
You also have the bizarre belief that you think everyone MUST spend $$$ on items they don't need.

You'd fit right in.

No you just think you dont need it. Why spend money on roads when you can have better suspension to absorb the bumps on the roads we already have.

Hinny

19th November 2011, 21:34

I'm thinking it was the threats of death.

If he had death threats then that makes their failure even worse.

Hinny

19th November 2011, 21:41

Agreed about the Presidential style campaign but every country uses it these days.
I don't believe that is true.

I don't like it either and the Labour campaign rates higher IMHO.
This seems a strange comment to me.
Perceptions eh?
I can't see that at all.

But probably not with the voters: it is much easier to look and listen to one person. In the last three elections Helen Clark ran a Presidential campaign, and good on her. It worked.
Always having the answer may have resonated with voters as well.

Anyway, these murky finances, corruption etc, can you give specific details please Hinny?
Not interested in falling into the argumentative trap.

Hinny

19th November 2011, 22:00

And Banks has got a Harley!What does that tell you?

We could start a thread on that theme.
What sort of bike would John Key ride?
Piaggio?

Subike

19th November 2011, 22:09

We could start a thread on that theme.
What sort of bike would John Key ride?
Piaggio?

A Yamaha of course
He presses all the right keys to make people react
Keys is his name
Yamahas are often called key boards

Headbanger

19th November 2011, 22:14

If he had death threats then that makes their failure even worse.

yep

Much more of this and I'm just going to revert to my state of fuck em all.

ellipsis

19th November 2011, 22:28

....i reiterate my previous post....no.....

Winston001

19th November 2011, 22:33

Not interested in falling into the argumentative trap.

Mmmm...understood but its easy to cast serious aspersions on the internet which other people might be influenced by.

Saying that the present government which includes the Maori Party is complicit in corruption, excluding minorities, nepotism etc is strong stuff. Very easy to say but you need to back it up. With respect, why say it if you cannot draw specific and consistent examples?

Brian d marge

20th November 2011, 02:49

yeah, they could start by stopping with the bashing of babies to death.

Then perhaps there bid to control (and receive commission on) every aspect of New Zealand would have some credibility.

Ok , perhaps not.

you have no idea of what your talking about.........

marginalized societies often form their own rules , ... and they may not be white and/or middle class.....

go on,,, please challenge what I have said , as the explanation will show , the mess NZ is in due to the apathy and sheer stupidity of white mite class puritans

Stephen
btw the reply will be Monday as I am in meetings all day tomorrow ( Sunday)

Brian d marge

20th November 2011, 02:53

No you just think you dont need it. Why spend money on roads when you can have better suspension to absorb the bumps on the roads we already have.

nice reply , .......Thank god my hemorrhoids are under control and I wont be needing your services for a few more years, also ....I do hope you don't carry a grudge and charge a now old age pensioner for services rendered ,........:innocent:

Headbanger

20th November 2011, 08:25

you have no idea of what your talking about.........

marginalized societies often form their own rules , ... and they may not be white and/or middle class.....

go on,,, please challenge what I have said , as the explanation will show , the mess NZ is in due to the apathy and sheer stupidity of white mite class puritans

Stephen
btw the reply will be Monday as I am in meetings all day tomorrow ( Sunday)

Whats to challenge, you haven't said anything....

We know that a portion of our society choose not to live by our accepted standards, its in the paper on a constant basis.

Its why we have jails.

I can see your reply coming from miles away, sure, there is a validity in ignoring the action and looking at the conditions that contributed to in order to try and stop it happening again but its an evil to society to remove a persons responsibility for their actions and the actions of their parents.

To fix a problem you need to take ownership of it, ownership of the act and the consequences. This is the very place that Maori leadership should stand up as the proud people they claim to be and lead ffs.

Anyone blaming the rest of society is contributing to the problem, even if there is much that can be (and should be) down in the extended community.

I'm thinking a dip in an acid tank for every piece of scum that beats a child.

And now I await your pompous convoluted conceited reply. I of course will have no idea if you have any idea of what you are talking about, you generally speak from so deep within your own anus its impossible to tell.

=cJ=

20th November 2011, 09:35

No you just think you dont need it. Why spend money on roads when you can have better suspension to absorb the bumps on the roads we already have.

Robert Taylor for P.M!

Could you imagine the WOF inspections under his regime "sorry sir, your rebound damping is way off, thats a fail..."

In all seriousness though, this whole MMP thing is pretty much a joke if dealing etc decides the balance of power.

rainman

20th November 2011, 09:52

Key's much vaunted increase in diplomatic protection was obviously a waste of money.
His astuteness at not noticing the recorder several cms from his hand is immeasurable. Could have been a bomb.
The Aussie handlers are doing a great job focusing on this storm in a tea cup. Divert all media attention to this.
Labour policies don't get a look in.
Then the counter intuitive attention focus.
Say they want to "focus on the economy". They don't really though. Why would they? They really have fucked up. . . as predicted.
Those that belittle the job that Michael Cullen did before are ignoring statistics and are out of tune with Bill English who conceded that "he did a pretty good job".
The same cannot be said of the current holder of the purse strings.

If the Nats wanted to focus on the economy maybe they would have turned up for a few more radio interviews and answer some of the media questions about policy:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767255
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767255)

And Banks has got a Harley!What does that tell you?

I believe the correct term is "had". It was nicked, I understand.

Hinny

20th November 2011, 10:27

Mmmm...understood but its easy to cast serious aspersions on the internet which other people might be influenced by.

Saying that the present government which includes the Maori Party is complicit in corruption, excluding minorities, nepotism etc is strong stuff. Very easy to say but you need to back it up. With respect, why say it if you cannot draw specific and consistent examples?

As I indicated, these are 'veteran role models'.
I feel confident that for as long as you have been interested in politics you would have been aware of the plethora of examples in the popular press, both historical and current.

The prospective sale of irreplaceable state owned assets, and the given reasons for such a sale, could easily be considered an example.
Previous sales have become cash cows for the new owners and, if historical energy costs were used as a forecaster of future pricing, they have not delivered the cost savings so wildly trumpeted. Their dividends have become part of the 15Billion dollars a year flooding out of this country.
Security of energy supply, security of food and water supply are paramount objectives for any govt. committed to making the people of their country better off.
Security of natural assets is also hugely important. If you take the examples of Chile and Jamaica one can see what happens to countries who lose control of their assets.
In Chile Kennacot Copper controlled the copper production. Allende came to power pledging to make the wealth of the country for the people of the country. The Yanks ousted him and put Gen. Pinochet in power. Good move?
Much like the Australian example where Goff Whitlam said " the wealth of Australia should be for Australians". They got rid of him too.
In Jamaica the wealth of the country and most of the land has been 'acquired' by multi-national corporations.
Despite the abundance of natural wealth the Jamaican people are desperately poor.
In NZ, 30 years ago, 4/5ths of the Taranaki province was owned by foreigners. Arguably the greatest dairying area in NZ. The industry that provides the majority of our income. This is an example of a slide down the greasy path which the current talk of misappropriation of NZ assets is now poised upon.
An indicator that this is a con job must surely be the constant changing of reasons and excuses for the sales.
These assets are our heritage and should be our legacy.

davereid

20th November 2011, 12:46

We could start a thread on that theme.
What sort of bike would John Key ride?
Piaggio?

He has a full class 6 licence for what its worth.
Here is a copy of John Keys driver licence details that the NZTA sold me.

Hinny

20th November 2011, 13:03

He has a full class 6 licence for what its worth.

Hard to imagine him riding a bike.

How did you get this info? :Police: :msn-wink:
What sort of bike would he ride?

MIXONE

20th November 2011, 13:13

Hard to imagine him riding a bike.

How did you get this info? :Police: :msn-wink:
What sort of bike would he ride?

It would have to be a cafe racer so he wouldn't be late for his next meeting with Banksy.

Hinny

20th November 2011, 13:14

I think this article sums up John Key.

Strong Men and Political Theatres - The "Being There" Syndrome
Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book "Being There". It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The "Being There Syndrome" is now manifest throughout the world.

Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to "strong men", leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but "guarantee" a change of course for the better.
These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.
Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.
The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-plusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.

Indiana_Jones

20th November 2011, 13:14

What sort of bike would he ride?
[/LIST]

I'm picking a Harley :Police:

-Indy

Hinny

20th November 2011, 13:16

I'm picking a Harley :Police:

-Indy

Low seat height.

Robert Taylor

20th November 2011, 15:03

Robert Taylor

20th November 2011, 15:10

What is an election issue is how Key has handled the whole thing. I want the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be someone who is smart, honest and copes under pressure. I don't want a PM who says stupid shit in public, tries to bully the media into shutting up (after all, their job is to keep politicians under the spotlight) and throws tantrums.

And I do give a shit what is on the tape - if John Key and John Banks don't want the public to hear what they said, that worries be because we're about to give those guys the job of running the country and making decisions that impact on our lives. I want to know what they are planning to do and what they are trying to hide.

First, John Key made a decision and has stuck to it, that in itself is strong leadership

Second, that cameraman knew jolly well that he had left that recorder on the table and that it was recording

Third, that cameraman could have done the decent thing and wiped the recording immediately, consistent with his reasoning that it was accidental. But no it wasnt accidental and he is lieing through his teeth. Which are probably left wing teeth. I hope he gets nailed in court, big time.

Fourth, why is there no more noise about the defacing of National party billboards by a Green party activist? With the numbers that were involved please convince me otherwise that he didnt have the help of a load of other Green party activists? This is worthy of a police investigation and laying of charges in itself.

Good luck to Banksy next Saturday.

Robert Taylor

20th November 2011, 15:14

the problem is we're bereft of choices...

Key might have handled this badly.. but he hasnt really handled anything else badly.. He has been PM in some fairly bad times, and done fairly well, so 1 little odd thing in 3 years is really not so bad. He is a bit of a dork..

If the PM was Goff, or Peters, or one of the others, there'd probably be a lot more carp we'd be dealing with rather than one badly done promotional politicy thing.

Surely the media and Winnie must think we're dumb if they think we are going to get sucked into making us focus on this instead of the big picture?

Actually that all makes a lot of sense. But the reality is a lot of people will get bitter and twisted about this storm in a teacup, when there are rather more important things to be concerned about.

Robert Taylor

20th November 2011, 15:20

The typical bullshit that gets thrown around at election time.

Sadly the average brain-dead kiwi voter cannot remember anything long term. Invent some crap about a private discussion to divert the attention of the media nd the voters.

The really bad news is that the country doesn't have a decent alternative. Labour "leading us" through a major recession? The greens? Mana party?:rolleyes:
After the election: Shane Jones leading labour? I guess the MP's will at least get free porn to jerk off over.

Rent a Mobs John Minto is number 3 on Manas party list. If those racist idiots get into Parliament we will have Minto in Parliament. That HUGELY sucks.

I had to laugh at Haraweras light hearted comment MMP stands for ''More maoris in Parliament''. That was genuinely funny. But the sad reality is that if we get the likes of Minto it will mean ''More Meatheads in Parliament''

Robert Taylor

20th November 2011, 15:33

Winston001

20th November 2011, 15:59

.

The prospective sale of irreplaceable state owned assets, and the given reasons for such a sale, could easily be considered an example.
Previous sales have become cash cows for the new owners and, if historical energy costs were used as a forecaster of future pricing, they have not delivered the cost savings so wildly trumpeted. Their dividends have become part of the 15Billion dollars a year flooding out of this country.
Security of energy supply, security of food and water supply are paramount objectives for any govt. committed to making the people of their country better off.
Security of natural assets is also hugely important. If you take the examples of Chile and Jamaica one can see what happens to countries who lose control of their assets.
In Chile Kennacot Copper controlled the copper production. Allende came to power pledging to make the wealth of the country for the people of the country. The Yanks ousted him and put Gen. Pinochet in power. Good move?
Much like the Australian example where Goff Whitlam said " the wealth of Australia should be for Australians". They got rid of him too.
In Jamaica the wealth of the country and most of the land has been 'acquired' by multi-national corporations.
Despite the abundance of natural wealth the Jamaican people are desperately poor.

In NZ, 30 years ago, 4/5ths of the Taranaki province was owned by foreigners.

Arguably the greatest dairying area in NZ. The industry that provides the majority of our income. This is an example of a slide down the greasy path which the current talk of misappropriation of NZ assets is now poised upon.
An indicator that this is a con job must surely be the constant changing of reasons and excuses for the sales.
These assets are our heritage and should be our legacy.

Good post and you have my respect.

Couple of points: the common belief that SOEs once sold can never be recovered is trumped by two examples of exactly that occurring - NZ Rail and Air New Zealand.

Contact Energy is a previous SOE. Sold to the public at $3.15 in 1996. The price for this "cash cow" 15 years later...$5.60. A very poor investment which I hoped would pay my children's university fees.

Finally, are you saying that 80% of Taranaki farmland was owned by foreigners back in 1980?? Thats extraordinary.

I think this article sums up John Key.

Strong Men and Political Theatres - The "Being There" Syndrome
Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book "Being There". It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The "Being There Syndrome" is now manifest throughout the world.

Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to "strong men", leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but "guarantee" a change of course for the better.
These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.
Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.
The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-plusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.

Clever stuff. Maybe too clever. The description fits almost every political leader since the 1960s. No more Churchills, Roosevelts, Castros, De Gaulles, Brandts etc. Does the author provide any useful wisdom with his thesis?

Paul in NZ

20th November 2011, 16:00

And its a damned shame Enoch Powell ended up cast as a raging racist loony by the media due to his 'rivers of blood' speech.... Sadly a lot of his comments have become history...

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

Shorter story of the man - I have to say I didnt agree with everything he stood for but....

Winston001

20th November 2011, 16:06

The prospective sale of irreplaceable state owned assets, and the given reasons for such a sale, could easily be considered an example.

Previous sales have become cash cows for the new owners and, if historical energy costs were used as a forecaster of future pricing, they have not delivered the cost savings so wildly trumpeted. Their dividends have become part of the 15Billion dollars a year flooding out of this country.

Security of energy supply, security of food and water supply are paramount objectives for any govt. committed to making the people of their country better off.

Security of natural assets is also hugely important. If you take the examples of Chile and Jamaica one can see what happens to countries who lose control of their assets.
In Chile Kennacot Copper controlled the copper production. Allende came to power pledging to make the wealth of the country for the people of the country. The Yanks ousted him and put Gen. Pinochet in power. Good move?
Much like the Australian example where Goff Whitlam said " the wealth of Australia should be for Australians". They got rid of him too.
In Jamaica the wealth of the country and most of the land has been 'acquired' by multi-national corporations.
Despite the abundance of natural wealth the Jamaican people are desperately poor.

In NZ, 30 years ago, 4/5ths of the Taranaki province was owned by foreigners.

Arguably the greatest dairying area in NZ. The industry that provides the majority of our income. This is an example of a slide down the greasy path which the current talk of misappropriation of NZ assets is now poised upon.
An indicator that this is a con job must surely be the constant changing of reasons and excuses for the sales.
These assets are our heritage and should be our legacy.

Good post, I lost my reply so...

State assets can be recovered by govt at any time. Two examples: Air NZ and NZ Rail.

Contact Energy was an SOE, sold to the public in 1996 at $3.15 per share. The price of this cash cow 15 years later...$5.60. Its been a dog of an investment.

Are you saying that 80% of Taranaki was owned by foreigners by 1980?? Thats astonishing. Source?

davereid

20th November 2011, 16:17

oldrider

20th November 2011, 16:34

It works like this.

When a business is being run by the state and making a profit, it is clearly able to be managed better by private owners, and can be sold.

Then, if it is mismanaged, the taxpayer gets to bail it out, as it is "too important to fail".

So we all have to bail out that railway, airline, bank, or finance company with our tax dollars.

Which once it is financially secure can throw off the shackles of poor public management, and go back to private ownership.

With care, this cycle can be repeated over and over. All that is required is regular changes of name to ensure that the public never remembers that it has already rescued this company several times in the past, and paid inflated fees all the rest of the time.

Meanwhile instead of selling the asset (or liability) completely, allow a minor share (less than 50%) to be sold to investors from where ever, in order to free up some tax payer finance to either prop up the asset or be freed up to help some other struggling public asset/liability!

Left wingers on the other hand want the Taxpayer to continue to monopolise the pain of public ownership whether positive or negative, no matter what the cost burden that goes with it .... ie ACC, health, railways, airways, etc etc etc! :facepalm:

davereid

20th November 2011, 17:48

Meanwhile instead of selling the asset (or liability) completely, allow a minor share (less than 50%) to be sold to investors from where ever, in order to free up some tax payer finance to either prop up the asset or be freed up to help some other struggling public asset/liability!

Left wingers on the other hand want the Taxpayer to continue to monopolise the pain of public ownership whether positive or negative, no matter what the cost burden that goes with it .... ie ACC, health, railways, airways, etc etc etc! :facepalm:

If it is a liability, by definition, you wont be able to sell it. Investors buy when they smell a profit.

So, you are quite right when you point out that the dogs always remain in public ownership, as the canny investor simply wont buy them.

But if its an asset, selling 49% allows you to (just) dominate the board. But the profits are lost at the exact ratio you sold.

Im no lefty.

But when I was a kid, we had chooks. They laid a few eggs and we got to eat a few, but we were never happy. We always wanted more. Our Ozzie neighbour had more chooks than us, and we were always jealous.

One day, Uncle Bill came to stay. He sold our chooks to the neighbour. He spent the money wisely, and came home with bacon, eggs and a pack of beer. plus he retained ownership in the rooster, it was our share.

He was wildly popular.

A bit later we had no chooks, no bacon, no beer, and got woken up at 5am every day by the rooster.

Luckily our neighbour was still happy to sell us eggs.

You keep assets, thats why they are assets. You dump liabilities if you can.

And you invest in a way that allows you to control MORE assets. Thats how wealth is made. The accumulation of profit making assets is the key to wealth.

Anyone who advises you to sell quality assets, is undoubtedly working for the man that you will sell them to.

Hinny

20th November 2011, 17:59

Good post, I lost my reply so...

State assets can be recovered by govt at any time. Two examples: Air NZ and NZ Rail.

Contact Energy was an SOE, sold to the public in 1996 at $3.15 per share. The price of this cash cow 15 years later...$5.60. Its been a dog of an investment.

Can be recovered when they go broke or have been run down to the point where they need massive capital input.
Contact Energy share price.
Return on investment: year One = 38.7%
I would say that was pretty good. Better than those Aussie banks will give you.
You should have sold out before the effects of a National govt. hit home. Share price fell from close to $10 at the end of the 'Golden Weather'. i.e. the end of the period when we had a Labour govt.
Source: Yahoo finance. CEN.NZ.

Admittedly this was a $1 / share blip 6 months after the Global economic crisis hit but as predicted the Nat. govt. led recession saw a reasonably steady fall since then.

On current earnings it looks like the return on investment in the new assets lined up for disposal would be double the interest rate that 'Debt ridden Italy' pays for its money; given that Nill English is saying they don't think they will realise as much as they first thought. . . . but they have kept the higher figures on their web site and in their literature.
On Bill's scenario it looks as though with 100% debt financing you could realise a profit in excess of the interest you would gain by investing that in a bank. Not bad when it is money you don't actually have. Wish I could borrow enough for a 15% stake. Dividend return alone looks like a net profit of $40,500,000.00 per year. Add tax free capital gain on top and life is looking pretty rosy. :niceone:

Hinny

20th November 2011, 18:09

I think I would probably give up work if I could pick up $40million a year for no effort nor expense.

Buy a new bike ...:msn-wink:
$40m could come in handy I reckon.
Probably get a directorship as well - another $100,000p.a.

Would I say "all you proles could kiss my arse, you could have done the same if you had got off your fat lazy arses"?
No, I wouldn't. I'm not like that.<_<

Hinny

20th November 2011, 18:27

So, you are quite right when you point out that the dogs always remain in public ownership, as the canny investor simply wont buy them.

The dogs don't always stay in public ownership.

Urea plant in Taranaki. One of National's 'Think Big' projects. Never had a positive IRR from its inception. Became worse as the project proceeded.

The Govt. paid Fletchers to take it off their hands.

rainman

20th November 2011, 18:58

First, John Key made a decision and has stuck to it, that in itself is strong leadership

Depends on the decision, usually it's a greater sign of strength when someone admits they cocked up. "Loose lips" Key hopefully at least apologised to his party.

Second, that cameraman knew jolly well that he had left that recorder on the table and that it was recording

Conjecture - unless you're keen for a defamation suit I'm recommend you think before you boldly leap to conclusions.

Third, that cameraman could have done the decent thing and wiped the recording immediately, consistent with his reasoning that it was accidental.

Why? Fuckin hell, a tape of Key and Banksy trash talking Brash and assorted other persons is gold, accidental recording or no. He'd be a muppet if he didn't try to get more than a few bucks for it.

Couple of points: the common belief that SOEs once sold can never be recovered is trumped by two examples of exactly that occurring - NZ Rail and Air New Zealand.

At what price and by whom? I've been (as have we all) paying significant amounts of taxes to acquire this sort of infrastructure and I regard myself as a public stakeholder. I don't appreciate having my investments stolen and flogged off to Johnny's overseas mates (49% or no) thank you very much. Tell you what, he can flog off the assets if he gives them an equal share of the debt that we have. No? Let me guess, I get to keep that. Bloody thieves and hypocrites, that's what they are. Bet you they still talk about the sanctity of property rights.

Meanwhile instead of selling the asset (or liability) completely, allow a minor share (less than 50%) to be sold to investors from where ever, in order to free up some tax payer finance to either prop up the asset or be freed up to help some other struggling public asset/liability!

For an old guy, you're pretty gullible.

Im no lefty.

But when I was a kid, we had chooks. They laid a few eggs and we got to eat a few, but we were never happy. We always wanted more. Our Ozzie neighbour had more chooks than us, and we were always jealous.

One day, Uncle Bill came to stay. He sold our chooks to the neighbour. He spent the money wisely, and came home with bacon, eggs and a pack of beer. plus he retained ownership in the rooster, it was our share.

He was wildly popular.

A bit later we had no chooks, no bacon, no beer, and got woken up at 5am every day by the rooster.

Luckily our neighbour was still happy to sell us eggs.

You keep assets, thats why they are assets. You dump liabilities if you can.

And you invest in a way that allows you to control MORE assets. Thats how wealth is made. The accumulation of profit making assets is the key to wealth.

Anyone who advises you to sell quality assets, is undoubtedly working for the man that you will sell them to.

Fucking A. I have no problem rebalancing our asset portfolio, and there are no sacred cows - but selling energy assets to buy irrigation and build schools is just idiotic. We need to come out of whatever transactions we do owning more and better shit, not selling the good stuff to satisfy ideological demands.

Indiana_Jones

20th November 2011, 19:16

The Conservative party has an excellent manifesto

Just been on their site today, and they seem pretty good.

-Indy

avgas

20th November 2011, 21:06

No you just think you dont need it. Why spend money on roads when you can have better suspension to absorb the bumps on the roads we already have.
I ride a bike with bald tyres, cable tied indicators/lights, old brakes, rusty chain, 3/4 frame bolts, forks preloaded with $3 in change and a fully dialed up rear shock of 80's origin.

And I have no problem with NZ roads.

Must be your riding.

oldrider

20th November 2011, 23:14

For an old guy, you're pretty gullible.

And you sir are a loser ..... what's more, next Saturday, it will be confirmed! :nya:

SPman

20th November 2011, 23:25

And you sir are a loser ..... what's more, next Saturday, it will be confirmed! :nya: Aaaaah - a loser - as will be most people in NZ........

Hinny

21st November 2011, 01:24

And you sir are a loser ..... what's more, next Saturday, it will be confirmed! :nya:

Agree with SPman - If the polls are right we will all be losers.
I can envisage a return to Springbok tour type revolt.
- the NZ Spring.

oldrider

21st November 2011, 09:00

Aaaaah - a loser - as will be most people in NZ........

Agree with SPman - If the polls are right we will all be losers.
I can envisage a return to Springbok tour type revolt.
- the NZ Spring.

:Oops: Hoist with my own petard! :dodge: Rainman 1 oldrider 0 ...... :lol:

Edbear

21st November 2011, 09:06

Aaaaah - a loser - as will be most people in NZ........

As is most of the world's population...

Has a change in Government ever lead to a better life for its citizens? A few things change for the better a few things change for the worse, but overall the quality of life and our personal security, both health and financial, has been diminishing for a very long time.

If you really want to know the future for NZ, just carefully examine the rest of the world. For a long time both NZ and Aus have been to a large extent insulated from the rest of the world, not suffering the extremes that other "Westernised" countries are suffering, but sure as eggs, to use another poster's analogy, it's coming to a town or city near you and there's precious little we can do about it.

NZ and Aus are not big enough to stand aside from the woes of the world for much longer. When National got in the economy was booming and suddenly the WFC struck. Not National's or any other party's fault but neither could they do anything about it. Doesn't matter who gets in now, the situation will not change, prices will not come down, jobs will not magically appear and all anyone can do is reshuffle the deck chairs on the global Titanic.

When the world's powerhouses are bankrupt and unable to recover, when they have rioting in the streets, when whole economies are failing among our key trading partners, what is any NZ Govt. able to do? China is in trouble, the EU is on verge of collapse, the US can't raise interest rates, that means they still have 0% and are in danger of defaulting again.

We're alright, Jack. We can play tiddlywinks here and simply wait for it to happen...

Hinny

21st November 2011, 09:25

Has a change in Government ever lead to a better life for its citizens? A few things change for the better a few things change for the worse, but overall the quality of life and our personal security, both health and financial, has been diminishing for a very long time.

For a long time both NZ and Aus have been to a large extent insulated from the rest of the world, not suffering the extremes that other "Westernised" countries are suffering.
When National got in the economy was booming and suddenly the WFC struck.

Conveniently ignoring history.
Left wing economics that with a change of govt. brought us out of the great depression.
The adoption of policies from the Fascist Manifesto .... by which party? ... has led to a better life for our citizens.
For example:
The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto) (a.k.a. the Fascist Manifesto).presented on June 6, 1919

The Manifesto supported:

the creation of universal suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage) for both men and women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage)
proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)
the creation of an eight-hour work day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)
a minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage)
worker representation in industrial management
revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance
reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55,
a strong progressive tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax)
revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] profits.
a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.

Are you really prepared to say our society would be worse off without these policies.

The global economic crisis was largely over by the time the Nats got in. As John Key said "then we had the NZ. recession of 2009, 2010 and 2011".

With the GEC, Argentina defaulted on its debt. A change of govt., adoption of trickle up theory and the economy bounced back. 20% growth last year as opposed to NZ 0.5% ... in a time when we are getting record returns for our primary export earner.

To say that a change of govt. will not make a change is disingenuous bullshit.

avgas

21st November 2011, 09:25

Aaaaah - a loser - as will be most people in NZ........
If any of the big 4 get in. NZ loses.
Come to think about I don't know a single person in politics which is in it to fix the country.

If there was, they would work for free.

Edbear

21st November 2011, 09:40

Conveniently ignoring history.
Left wing economics that with a change of govt. brought us out of the great depression.
The adoption of policies from the Fascist Manifesto .... by which party? ... has led to a better life for our citizens.
For example:
The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto) (a.k.a. the Fascist Manifesto).presented on June 6, 1919

The Manifesto supported:

the creation of universal suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage) for both men and women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage)
proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)
the creation of an eight-hour work day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)
a minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage)
worker representation in industrial management
revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance
reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55,
a strong progressive tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax)
revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] profits.
a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.

Are you really prepared to say our society would be worse off without these policies.

The global economic crisis was largely over by the time the Nats got in. As John Key said "then we had the NZ. recession of 2009, 2010 and 2011".

With the GEC, Argentina defaulted on its debt. A change of govt., adoption of trickle up theory and the economy bounced back. 20% growth last year as opposed to NZ 0.5% ... in a time when we are getting record returns for our primary export earner.

To say that a change of govt. will not make a change is disingenuous bullshit.

An expected reply. Keep on thinking that way and please don't whatever you do, spend some time in researching what has been happening in recent years and looking around the world right now. Hate to spoil your illusions...

mashman

21st November 2011, 09:53

An expected reply. Keep on thinking that way and please don't whatever you do, spend some time in researching what has been happening in recent years and looking around the world right now. Hate to spoil your illusions...

+1 "cannot spread etc...". For all of our wonderous advancements we have gone backwards socially. I don't see that as a positive at all, not in any way shape or form.

avgas

21st November 2011, 10:45

Conveniently ignoring history.
Left wing economics that with a change of govt. brought us out of the great depression.
Really.
I thought the war fixed it.

History books must be wrong then. It was clearly change in leadership that put more food in fields and more money in pockets.
But clearly by making a campaign about "happy days" made the whole world change. That Roosevelt is like a modern version of Jesus too :weird:

Oscar

21st November 2011, 11:00

+1 "cannot spread etc...". For all of our wonderous advancements we have gone backwards socially. I don't see that as a positive at all, not in any way shape or form.

Backwards?
How so?

mashman

21st November 2011, 11:12

Backwards?
How so?

We close and lock our doors to protect what's ours where we never used to for one. It all boils down to the lack of trust there is these days. That wasn't always the case, even in the city... and that trust is abused at all levels of society.

Hinny

21st November 2011, 13:21

We close and lock our doors to protect what's ours where we never used to for one. It all boils down to the lack of trust there is these days. That wasn't always the case, even in the city... and that trust is abused at all levels of society.

More disingenuous bullshit.
If you are seriously suggesting that the social policies advanced by previous Labour Govts., like those I outlined in my prior post, then, I would suggest, most people would regard you as being delusional.

I think the break down in trust and disregard for the law stemmed from the Springbok tour.
The regard for the law and law enforcement was dealt a severe blow from which, it seems, we have not recovered. We are now the second most incarcerated society on earth.

mashman

21st November 2011, 14:52

More disingenuous bullshit.
If you are seriously suggesting that the social policies advanced by previous Labour Govts., like those I outlined in my prior post, then, I would suggest, most people would regard you as being delusional.

I think the break down in trust and disregard for the law stemmed from the Springbok tour.
The regard for the law and law enforcement was dealt a severe blow from which, it seems, we have not recovered. We are now the second most incarcerated society on earth.

Settle pettle... Not sure I follow you there, almost looks like you forgot to finish your sentence? What am I supposed to have been seriously suggesting, given there was no mention of any political party and/or social policy? In the short time I've been on this rock I'm yet to see a social policy.

Disregard for the law stemmed from the Springbok tour??? Nono toucho with bargo polo

The Everlasting

21st November 2011, 15:44

No he's not. but there isn't anyone else,sadly.

Robert Taylor

21st November 2011, 17:32

I ride a bike with bald tyres, cable tied indicators/lights, old brakes, rusty chain, 3/4 frame bolts, forks preloaded with $3 in change and a fully dialed up rear shock of 80's origin.

And I have no problem with NZ roads.

Must be your riding.

The best youve ridden is the best you know.......

Let me know what roads you ride on and when so I can make sure Im not near the danger!!!!!

rainman

21st November 2011, 18:38

And you sir are a loser ..... what's more, next Saturday, it will be confirmed! :nya:

I suppose I asked for that with being a little cheeky and all, fair play.

But tell me this: Can you, hand on heart and totally devoid of any tribal voting allegiance, look me in the eye and tell me that selling our strategic and well-performing energy assets is the right thing to do for us, our kids and our nation?

Bonus points for thinking about the property rights aspect of this, and making sure that it is consistent with the rest of the views you hold. And a gold star for a straight answer..

Brian d marge

21st November 2011, 19:11

The best you've ridden is the best you know.......

The wifes sister ...but feel free to point me in the right direction of something better

Stephen

oldrider

21st November 2011, 20:41

I suppose I asked for that with being a little cheeky and all, fair play.

But tell me this: Can you, hand on heart and totally devoid of any tribal voting allegiance, look me in the eye and tell me that selling our strategic and well-performing energy assets is the right thing to do for us, our kids and our nation?

Bonus points for thinking about the property rights aspect of this, and making sure that it is consistent with the rest of the views you hold. And a gold star for a straight answer..

I was being facetious rainman I.E. I read it in the paper so it must be true!

To be perfectly honest though I will be glad when this election is done and dusted, the result will be more of the same regardless!

Every election that I can remember has had the same result for me personally .... % loss of freedom, % lower purchasing power % devaluation of savings, % (overall) higher taxation, % increase in government interference / influence in my personal life!

Now hand on heart:

I do not believe that the government should be involved in any business activities of any kind unless it is to introduce and establish it for the nation!

Ownership of any such asset is of no consequence, what is important to consumers is the goods and services that they provide!

Once established such a business should be sold off and the money received from the transaction should be returned to the government coffers for use in core government activities or reduction of government debt!

The size of government should be constantly monitored and reduced to the absolute minimum required for the governance of core activities.

Core activities:

Defence.
Police.
Justice.
Internal and international representation.
Introduction and cancellation of new or old currency according to the requirements of balancing the wealth of the nation.
Provide a monitoring service for international balance of payments for exportation or importation of wealth.

To enable this, Government should be minimised with maximum transparency, accountability and consequence! (positive and negative)

Politicians and political parties all have "aspects" of this on offer but all of them fashion their intentions and policies to their own requirements for personal and political advantage, rather than for those of the nation and it's inhabitants that they represent! :mellow:

blue rider

21st November 2011, 21:12

Core activities:

Defence.
Police.
Justice.
Internal and international representation.
Introduction and cancellation of new or old currency according to the requirements of balancing the wealth of the nation.
Provide a monitoring service for international balance of payments for exportation or importation of wealth.

To enable this, Government should be minimised with maximum transparency, accountability and consequence! (positive and negative)

Politicians and political parties all have "aspects" of this on offer but all of them fashion their intentions and policies to their own requirements for personal and political advantage, rather than for those of the nation and it's inhabitants that they represent! :mellow:

what about

Health Care
Education
Infrastructure

and if Government is not responsible for these, who should be and should they be in any way regulated so as to allow access to all citizens?

Robert Taylor

21st November 2011, 22:18

I was being facetious rainman I.E. I read it in the paper so it must be true!

To be perfectly honest though I will be glad when this election is done and dusted, the result will be more of the same regardless!

Every election that I can remember has had the same result for me personally .... % loss of freedom, % lower purchasing power % devaluation of savings, % (overall) higher taxation, % increase in government interference / influence in my personal life!

Now hand on heart:

I do not believe that the government should be involved in any business activities of any kind unless it is to introduce and establish it for the nation!

Ownership of any such asset is of no consequence, what is important to consumers is the goods and services that they provide!

Once established such a business should be sold off and the money received from the transaction should be returned to the government coffers for use in core government activities or reduction of government debt!

The size of government should be constantly monitored and reduced to the absolute minimum required for the governance of core activities.

Core activities:

Defence.
Police.
Justice.
Internal and international representation.
Introduction and cancellation of new or old currency according to the requirements of balancing the wealth of the nation.
Provide a monitoring service for international balance of payments for exportation or importation of wealth.

To enable this, Government should be minimised with maximum transparency, accountability and consequence! (positive and negative)

Politicians and political parties all have "aspects" of this on offer but all of them fashion their intentions and policies to their own requirements for personal and political advantage, rather than for those of the nation and it's inhabitants that they represent! :mellow:

Good post and you have in effect highlighted something that all parties are abysmal at, we dont have a credible defence force in lacking an Air Strike capability, plus we are effectively freeloading off the Australians. Helen Clarks callous disbandment of the Air Strike Force was an act of treason.

Robert Taylor

21st November 2011, 22:21

The wifes sister ...but feel free to point me in the right direction of something better

Stephen

I guess I asked for that!

avgas

22nd November 2011, 07:37

The best youve ridden is the best you know.......

Let me know what roads you ride on and when so I can make sure Im not near the danger!!!!!
I ridden/owned better. But right now the current bike is enough to keep me happy, the finances happy (= wife happy).

As for what roads. The NZ ones. And occasion off the NZ ones.
But if you want to stay away from the danger might be best to start driving. Something tells me no matter what happens you still won't acknowledge the fact that you could cause a crash all on your own.
(its ok to blame me for it, I won't laugh.....much)

shrub

22nd November 2011, 08:02

Good post and you have in effect highlighted something that all parties are abysmal at, we dont have a credible defence force in lacking an Air Strike capability, plus we are effectively freeloading off the Australians. Helen Clarks callous disbandment of the Air Strike Force was an act of treason.

I did a stretch on 75 Squadron a long time ago, so I loved the Squawks with a passion, but they were nothing more than a bloody expensive PR tool. In modern warfare, especially anything we are likely to encounter, a cold war strike force is about as useful as a battleship. We need kick arse helicopters, upgraded tactical transport - the CJ27 Spartan is a good option, and maybe a few C160s.

If we really want air strike capability we need a carrier borne fleet, not a dozen Koren war vintage jets in the middle of nowhere.

avgas

22nd November 2011, 08:28

I did a stretch on 75 Squadron a long time ago, so I loved the Squawks with a passion, but they were nothing more than a bloody expensive PR tool. In modern warfare, especially anything we are likely to encounter, a cold war strike force is about as useful as a battleship. We need kick arse helicopters, upgraded tactical transport - the CJ27 Spartan is a good option, and maybe a few C160s.

If we really want air strike capability we need a carrier borne fleet, not a dozen Koren war vintage jets in the middle of nowhere.
I would love for use to get a couple of predator drones. Surprisingly cheap.
Kick arse choppers are slowly getting there. Me ol' school mate is now flying the new stuff we just ordered.

Do we have any guns on those JCB's yet? Also why did we not order LAV-AD's? Its pretty unlikely that we will be attacked by something like a tank. More likely something airbourne.

While the squawks were a PR tool, I have to admit when I saw them go I saw more young guys give up on the Airforce.....and stay on the benefit.
It was the same for me when the scorps disappeared. I basically signed my release form that week and became a full time student.
We need PR toys to get people in. Shit I imagine stuff like the blackbirds didn't really pay their dues......but they got recruits through the doors.

Swoop

22nd November 2011, 08:37

I would love for use to get a couple of predator drones. Surprisingly cheap.

Shit I imagine stuff like the blackbirds didn't really pay their dues......but they got recruits through the doors.
The Blackbird (really the YF-12) has earned its keep over the years, several times over.
NZ would be better suited to Harriers. The stupid Brit's have prematurely retired theirs, but the USMC appears to be purchasing all of them now.
A smaller transport than the Herc would be sensible and much more viable for duties that our Air Farce are leasing aircraft for. Should have run the Andover fleet into the ground. Then again, 9hrs to Sydney on an Andover wasn't exactly fun...

Robert Taylor

22nd November 2011, 08:55

I ridden/owned better. But right now the current bike is enough to keep me happy, the finances happy (= wife happy).

As for what roads. The NZ ones. And occasion off the NZ ones.
But if you want to stay away from the danger might be best to start driving. Something tells me no matter what happens you still won't acknowledge the fact that you could cause a crash all on your own.
(its ok to blame me for it, I won't laugh.....much)

No, better suspension allows you to crash at a higher speed!!!!

mashman

22nd November 2011, 09:31

In modern warfare, especially anything we are likely to encounter, a cold war strike force is about as useful as a battleship.

In modern warfare any airbourne strike force that NZ had would be wiped out before they got off the ground.

avgas

22nd November 2011, 11:01

The Blackbird (really the YF-12) has earned its keep over the years, several times over.
NZ would be better suited to Harriers. The stupid Brit's have prematurely retired theirs, but the USMC appears to be purchasing all of them now.
A smaller transport than the Herc would be sensible and much more viable for duties that our Air Farce are leasing aircraft for. Should have run the Andover fleet into the ground. Then again, 9hrs to Sydney on an Andover wasn't exactly fun...
Perhaps your right re: blackbird (was thinking more the SR-71 which has reasonable combat time)
Yeah but I can't imagine many people lining up to fly Andovers.

Where as if we get a couple of Sukoi Pakfa :) Who cares if they rarely fly - IMAGINE THE PROMOTIONAL POSTERS!
We need something that makes us look less like Aussies bitch.

avgas

22nd November 2011, 11:11

No, better suspension allows you to crash at a higher speed!!!!
I dunno. I am not dying to prove you wrong.

ducatilover

22nd November 2011, 11:33

No, better suspension allows you to crash at a higher speed!!!!

I better get some of that then!!! <_<

avgas

22nd November 2011, 12:45

I better get some of that then!!! <_<
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles/flyer.jpg
Yes indeed.

ducatilover

22nd November 2011, 12:58

That looks ideal.
Will I fall off that too?

ellipsis

22nd November 2011, 13:17

.....what we need is a Death Star and jonkey could get a job on it...in catering...he has just the right smile for the job...he probably wouldn't get on well with Geoff Vader...but he has all the training as a cock-sucker, oops sorry politician so things could work out. He may even be able to rise to Mr Stevens rank...

ducatilover

22nd November 2011, 13:31

avgas

22nd November 2011, 14:43

That looks ideal.
Will I fall off that too?
Oh no sir.
Our latest valveless technology means that you will always maintain complete road control 100% of the time. The compression rate can be altered by out patent pending "CableTie Securefast system".
We can also adjust ride height - on the fly.

But send not money now. Simply send a self addressed envelope to:

WitePowerlins Suspension
14 lumpy lane
Dunwerkin

And check out out latest catalog.

ducatilover

22nd November 2011, 15:39

Oh no sir.
Our latest valveless technology means that you will always maintain complete road control 100% of the time. The compression rate can be altered by out patent pending "CableTie Securefast system".
We can also adjust ride height - on the fly.

But send not money now. Simply send a self addressed envelope to:

WitePowerlins Suspension
14 lumpy lane
Dunwerkin

And check out out latest catalog.

Thanks mate, you're a legend.

Repped.

shrub

22nd November 2011, 16:04

In modern warfare any airbourne strike force that NZ had would be wiped out before they got off the ground.

You got it. Like I said, I loved the old Squawks, but as a 21st century strike aircraft they were not a lot better than a squadron of Spitfires.

But fast jets are 3rd generation warfare, and we're well into 4GW. A couple more SAS squadrons would have been cheaper and more effective than the Squawks, but binning them was a good excuse for a bunch of civvies who had no interest in the services to rant about what a bitch Helen Clark was, so it's all good.:2thumbsup

imdying

22nd November 2011, 16:06

I would love for use to get a couple of predator drones.This. A manned air strike wing is a waste of time.

mashman

22nd November 2011, 16:23

You got it. Like I said, I loved the old Squawks, but as a 21st century strike aircraft they were not a lot better than a squadron of Spitfires.

But fast jets are 3rd generation warfare, and we're well into 4GW. A couple more SAS squadrons would have been cheaper and more effective than the Squawks, but binning them was a good excuse for a bunch of civvies who had no interest in the services to rant about what a bitch Helen Clark was, so it's all good.:2thumbsup

imho a few land mounted rail guns would probably be the go, after all if an invasion force lands here we're fooked, more SAS or not. Politics, getting in the way of practical solutions since ages ago eh.

Robert Taylor

22nd November 2011, 17:31

You got it. Like I said, I loved the old Squawks, but as a 21st century strike aircraft they were not a lot better than a squadron of Spitfires.

But fast jets are 3rd generation warfare, and we're well into 4GW. A couple more SAS squadrons would have been cheaper and more effective than the Squawks, but binning them was a good excuse for a bunch of civvies who had no interest in the services to rant about what a bitch Helen Clark was, so it's all good.:2thumbsup

At least it showed we had the intent to pay our way to help defend ourselves. Had a Nat Govt been returned in 99 we would have had a continuation of having a woman priminister and also a bunch of F16s.

davereid

22nd November 2011, 17:49

Now hand on heart:
I do not believe that the government should be involved in any business activities of any kind unless it is to introduce and establish it for the nation!
Ownership of any such asset is of no consequence, what is important to consumers is the goods and services that they provide!
Once established such a business should be sold off and the money received from the transaction should be returned to the government coffers for use in core government activities or reduction of government debt!

I would argue that.. if government has to introduce and establish something for the nation, that the nation should benefit from that investment. After all it was the nation that made the investment.

Ownership of assets is at the very heart of the reason they exist. For the owner collects the profits.

Why should I as a taxpayer, fund the development of power stations, then allow then to be sold, then be told I have to pay enough to ensure the americans who bought my power station get a 10% return on investment ?

Those american investors are free to build their own new power stations if they wish, they simply smell a cheap deal.

And lets not forget the laws of supply and demand. If you own a power station, and can sell every unit of electricity you produce at $0.25, why would you build a new power station ? You will have spent money doing it, and is there is more supply, you will only get $0.15c a unit.

The idea that assets should be sold and used to retire debt, is appealing, but simplistic.

A debt will accrue interest. Say 10%.

Your asset will provide income, say 10%.

Asset worth $1000, returns $100.
Loan worth $1000, costs $100.

Sell asset, repay the loan, net position no change, except you don't have the asset.

If you have assets that you will always need in the future you have just screwed yourself. The loan had a finite term and would have been paid off. The asset would have paid you dividends forever. That of course is why the man you sold it to bought it.

This of course assumes that you get a good price for your asset when you sell it. John Key says we will get $5b for our network of power stations.

They cost more than that to build.

How much would they cost to build again, assuming you could find enough rivers to dam and valleys to flood ? I bet you could NEVER build them again.

ducatilover

22nd November 2011, 18:51

I would argue that.. if government has to introduce and establish something for the nation, that the nation should benefit from that investment. After all it was the nation that made the investment.

Ownership of assets is at the very heart of the reason they exist. For the owner collects the profits.

Why should I as a taxpayer, fund the development of power stations, then allow then to be sold, then be told I have to pay enough to ensure the americans who bought my power station get a 10% return on investment ?

Those american investors are free to build their own new power stations if they wish, they simply smell a cheap deal.

And lets not forget the laws of supply and demand. If you own a power station, and can sell every unit of electricity you produce at $0.25, why would you build a new power station ? You will have spent money doing it, and is there is more supply, you will only get $0.15c a unit.

The idea that assets should be sold and used to retire debt, is appealing, but simplistic.

A debt will accrue interest. Say 10%.

Your asset will provide income, say 10%.

Asset worth $1000, returns $100.
Loan worth $1000, costs $100.

Sell asset, repay the loan, net position no change, except you don't have the asset.

If you have assets that you will always need in the future you have just screwed yourself. The loan had a finite term and would have been paid off. The asset would have paid you dividends forever. That of course is why the man you sold it to bought it.

This of course assumes that you get a good price for your asset when you sell it. John Key says we will get $5b for our network of power stations.

They cost more than that to build.

How much would they cost to build again, assuming you could find enough rivers to dam and valleys to flood ? I bet you could NEVER build them again.

To my (limited) knowledge, if you sell an asset, it only makes sense that we have a smaller income from said asset.
So, when it's earning less, we are not quite so well off.
I suppose it'd end up somewhat like the American health, power and water systems with all their privatisation.
Not what I want as a poor person.

shrub

22nd November 2011, 19:10

At least it showed we had the intent to pay our way to help defend ourselves. Had a Nat Govt been returned in 99 we would have had a continuation of having a woman priminister and also a bunch of F16s.

Defend ourselves against who? The only countries that have invaded others in my lifetime have been Iraq and the USA. Iraq is pretty well fucked and the US can't afford to invade anyone else for a long, long time. Besides, the only places that is close enough to be a threat and has any motive is the Chatham Islands, and they'd need to get us to give them a lift across.

And why would anyone invade us anyway? For our pineapple lumps? Daniel Carter? The design patents of the Trekka? Mate, if any foreign state wants anything we have all they have to do is buy it off us, usually at a discount rate. For example, the price of the royalties on our petroleum deposits is probably about what it would cost to send a C130 and a couple of Humvees from Texas. China definitely wants our water and ability to produce food, especially our dairy produce, but already we sell it to them. And if (when) China wants NZ to bend over and assume the position, all they have to do is say "you know that money we lent you, well we'd like a higher rate please", and we'd be fucked. Especially if they said "we've decided not to pay you your asking price for milk. If you don't like it we'll sell you a plastic whistle."

Remember how fucked up we were when Britain changed suppliers in the 70s? Don't you just love how history repeats itself, only this time we're not dealing with the Old Country who want to help us out, this time we're dealing with China, and those boys play hard ball.

If we had a clever government they'd be looking to diversify our exports and markets. But we don't and won't come Saturday.

Robert Taylor

22nd November 2011, 19:26

Defend ourselves against who? The only countries that have invaded others in my lifetime have been Iraq and the USA. Iraq is pretty well fucked and the US can't afford to invade anyone else for a long, long time. Besides, the only places that is close enough to be a threat and has any motive is the Chatham Islands, and they'd need to get us to give them a lift across.

And why would anyone invade us anyway? For our pineapple lumps? Daniel Carter? The design patents of the Trekka? Mate, if any foreign state wants anything we have all they have to do is buy it off us, usually at a discount rate. For example, the price of the royalties on our petroleum deposits is probably about what it would cost to send a C130 and a couple of Humvees from Texas. China definitely wants our water and ability to produce food, especially our dairy produce, but already we sell it to them. And if (when) China wants NZ to bend over and assume the position, all they have to do is say "you know that money we lent you, well we'd like a higher rate please", and we'd be fucked. Especially if they said "we've decided not to pay you your asking price for milk. If you don't like it we'll sell you a plastic whistle."

Remember how fucked up we were when Britain changed suppliers in the 70s? Don't you just love how history repeats itself, only this time we're not dealing with the Old Country who want to help us out, this time we're dealing with China, and those boys play hard ball.

If we had a clever government they'd be looking to diversify our exports and markets. But we don't and won't come Saturday.

Are you not aware that Oz has a huge military presence because there are hundreds of millions of Indonesians just up the road?

Are you also not aware that had a few naval battles not gone in favour of the US we would have had the murderous presence of a few Japanese tourists here in NZ?

THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT ITS MISTAKES

We have got a huge fishery and coastal reserve, theres probably lots of oil and ironsand out there ( which we should be mining ) We are one of the worlds foodbowls, we have abundant fresh water. To think that we wont be threatened in the future is naive.

SPman

22nd November 2011, 19:30

To my (limited) knowledge, if you sell an asset, it only makes sense that we have a smaller income from said asset.
So, when it's earning less, we are not quite so well off.
I suppose it'd end up somewhat like the American health, power and water systems with all their privatisation.
Not what I want as a poor person.
Supposedly, these sales will produce around $5bn-$7bn -- but nobody's quite sure exactly how much.
Let's assume $5bn.
Now if that were used to retire $5bn worth of borrowing then I would expect we'd save ourselves about 4% of that amount annually -- the interest paid on that borrowing.
This is $200m.
Presently, we're seeing a dividend of over $800m being returned from just some of those assets which will be on the block. Selling down to 51% means that the government will be losing almost $400m in dividends -- in return for a savings of $200m on interest otherwise payable.
That doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
And let's not forget we have over $100m to pay out to the Australian bank that will be handling the sale.
But, that assumes the whole amount realised from the sale would go to paying off debt -- and National has told us that this won't be the case at all. A good chunk of that money will be spent supposedly on education and boosting our science industries.
So, if we end up paying down just $2bn of debt then we're going to be swapping $400m per annum of dividends for $80m per annum of interest savings plus a one-off cash injection that will doubtless have a fair percentage swallowed up by the bureaucracy of government.

Now, have I got a deal for you on some vintage F16's..........

pete376403

22nd November 2011, 19:41

Ocean1

22nd November 2011, 19:42

imho a few land mounted rail guns would probably be the go, after all if an invasion force lands here we're fooked, more SAS or not. Politics, getting in the way of practical solutions since ages ago eh.

Any such asset would be the first casualty in any invasion. Right idea, just need to make 'em mobile.

And any invasion of NZ would need to involve a massively expensive occupying force, there's few worse terrains in the world to attempt to hold against simple guerrilla tactics.

Brian d marge

22nd November 2011, 20:04

Are you not aware that Oz has a huge miliatry presence because there are hundreds of millions of Indonesians just up the road?

Are you also not aware that had a few naval battles not gone in favour of the US we would have had the murderous presence of a few Japanese tourists here in NZ?

THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT ITS MISTAKES

We have got a huge fishery and coastal reserve, theres probably lots of oil and ironsand out there ( which we should be mining ) We are one of the worlds foodbowls, we have abundant fresh water. To think that we wont be threatened in the future is naive.
oh wars are just passer, ( sp) , See crafer farm for how its done these days,
boredy boredy bored with war , its not where the action is

lets see , iron sand ( lots of gay people on beaches ) lets say u can make Iron , out of it , ...buy a Smelter , lobby government with a proposal promising 1/4 to 1/2 back in taxes , if the government stumps up the investment ...( i mean if it goes pear shaped , u don't want to be holding any risk )

then just mine away , send all money back to the mother ship , then pay taxes owed , if any

meh , bored with war, ..not since they made all motorcycles diesel

Stephen

oldrider

22nd November 2011, 20:22

I would argue that.. if government has to introduce and establish something for the nation, that the nation should benefit from that investment. After all it was the nation that made the investment.

Agreed and the sale should reflect that in the price.

Ownership of assets is at the very heart of the reason they exist. For the owner collects the profits.

The asset produces a product for consumption, the price of the product consumed should reflect the level of profit.

Why should I as a taxpayer, fund the development of power stations, then allow then to be sold, then be told I have to pay enough to ensure the americans who bought my power station get a 10% return on investment ?

Why must you presume the buyer's will be American?

Those american investors are free to build their own new power stations if they wish, they simply smell a cheap deal.

Why do you presume the deal will be cheap?

And lets not forget the laws of supply and demand. If you own a power station, and can sell every unit of electricity you produce at $0.25, why would you build a new power station ? You will have spent money doing it, and is there is more supply, you will only get $0.15c a unit.

New power stations are only built to meet forecast increase in demand.

The idea that assets should be sold and used to retire debt, is appealing, but simplistic.

True! One would expect that sales were done following thorough planning and due diligence by the involved parties.

A debt will accrue interest. Say 10%.

Your asset will provide income, say 10%.

Asset worth $1000, returns $100.
Loan worth $1000, costs $100.

Sell asset, repay the loan, net position no change, except you don't have the asset.

The new owner will still (or now) be paying tax on those profits to the government.

If you have assets that you will always need in the future you have just screwed yourself. The loan had a finite term and would have been paid off. The asset would have paid you dividends forever. That of course is why the man you sold it to bought it.

True but the business will still be here in the country and no longer a distracting political football.

This of course assumes that you get a good price for your asset when you sell it. John Key says we will get $5b for our network of power stations.

True, one would expect that the government would maximise the effects of the transaction and not sell for the sake of selling.

They cost more than that to build.

True! That fact should be taken into consideration in the terms of the sale.

How much would they cost to build again, assuming you could find enough rivers to dam and valleys to flood ? I bet you could NEVER build them again.

True, not unless there were some very big adjustments made to the resource management act, nothing will ever get done ever again.

Then there are some assets that have become liabilities and are no longer profitable and are dysfunctional without taxpayer's unnecessarily propping them up.

Railways was one of these but the Labour government got rid of it at fire sale price and then bought it back at an astronomical cost/loss to the Taxpayer!

Air NZ was only bought into to save the politicians perks for life, they (politicians) needed ANZ more than the taxpayers did.

The Taxpayer could just use the opposition airlines at the same price or less but the politicians had nowhere else to go but ANZ!

There is nothing wrong with asset sales or purchase, what is wrong is the motivation and reasons for doing it!

Can our politicians really be trusted with such an important politically impartial "business" decision? ..... That's the real question IMHO! :confused:

They should not be involved in business and should be focussing on their core activities and even then can they be trusted to get it right? :facepalm:

rainman

22nd November 2011, 21:06

Supposedly, these sales will produce around $5bn-$7bn -- but nobody's quite sure exactly how much.
Let's assume $5bn.
Now if that were used to retire $5bn worth of borrowing then I would expect we'd save ourselves about 4% of that amount annually -- the interest paid on that borrowing.
This is $200m.
Presently, we're seeing a dividend of over $800m being returned from just some of those assets which will be on the block. Selling down to 51% means that the government will be losing almost $400m in dividends -- in return for a savings of $200m on interest otherwise payable.
That doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
And let's not forget we have over $100m to pay out to the Australian bank that will be handling the sale.
But, that assumes the whole amount realised from the sale would go to paying off debt -- and National has told us that this won't be the case at all. A good chunk of that money will be spent supposedly on education and boosting our science industries.
So, if we end up paying down just $2bn of debt then we're going to be swapping $400m per annum of dividends for $80m per annum of interest savings plus a one-off cash injection that will doubtless have a fair percentage swallowed up by the bureaucracy of government.

Now, have I got a deal for you on some vintage F16's..........

Brilliant comment. And yet the sheeple here will still vote for "the successful Mr Key". Like lambs to the slaughter.

And any invasion of NZ would need to involve a massively expensive occupying force, there's few worse terrains in the world to attempt to hold against simple guerrilla tactics.

There's no need to invade, we're so easily bought.

Then there are some assets that have become liabilities and are no longer profitable and are dysfunctional without taxpayer's unnecessarily propping them up.

Not energy assets and national airlines, though.

Railways was one of these but the Labour government got rid of it at fire sale price and then bought it back at an astronomical cost/loss to the Taxpayer!

I agree Labour overpaid for the buyback but it was a sensible strategic purchase.

Air NZ was only bought into to save the politicians perks for life, they (politicians) needed ANZ more than the taxpayers did.

Sorry, but that's horseshit. Tourism is a hugely important part of our economy. Having a national carrier is critical.

There is nothing wrong with asset sales or purchase, what is wrong is the motivation and reasons for doing it!

You mean like mindless ideology rather than good business sense (see SPMan's comment)? Some assets should indeed not be owned by government - but energy assets are strategic and don't fall into hat category. Dumping them all at (relatively) the same time, selling only 49%, selling the good performers, selling the entire sector, spending the money on irrigation and schools - these are all entirely the wrong way to go about managing an asset portfolio. We will end up poorer for this, not wealthier. Key is not acting in NZ' best interests.

What I want to know is, how can you and others like you who defend this move, stomach the assault on property rights that this so clearly is? We the people of NZ own these assets, and Key and his bunch of wide boys are going to thieve them and redistribute the proceeds to pay election bribes and sustain unsustainable tax cuts that reward the wealthy; all the while slashing social spending. The rest of us will just get stuck with the debt, the higher prices, and have to bail the new owners out when they inevitably come crawling back to the government tit.

This should be anathema to any right thinking libertarian, but only davereid has the balls to tell it how it is. There is a moral dimension to this that transcends tribal politics, and the unwillingness of much of the right to speak out on this is telling.

shrub

22nd November 2011, 21:13

Are you not aware that Oz has a huge miliatry presence because there are hundreds of millions of Indonesians just up the road?

Are you also not aware that had a few naval battles not gone in favour of the US we would have had the murderous presence of a few Japanese tourists here in NZ?

THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT ITS MISTAKES

We have got a huge fishery and coastal reserve, theres probably lots of oil and ironsand out there ( which we should be mining ) We are one of the worlds foodbowls, we have abundant fresh water. To think that we wont be threatened in the future is naive.

Do you seriously think China, Indonesia etc will spend a fortune invading us militarily when all they have to do is get us so deeply in debt to them that we have to sell them our food, water, coal and electricity generation for a few billion to pay that debt back?

shrub

22nd November 2011, 21:16

Absolutely correct. So when the millions of Indonesians or Chinese decide they want our stuff, you really think a few antique Skyhawks would make them think again?

It's well known fact that if Iraq had had a dozen or so Squawks there is no way Bush would have invaded. The reason the US wouldn't let us sell our old ones was because they knew any military that got their hands on them would be invincible.

mashman

22nd November 2011, 21:30

Any such asset would be the first casualty in any invasion. Right idea, just need to make 'em mobile.

And any invasion of NZ would need to involve a massively expensive occupying force, there's few worse terrains in the world to attempt to hold against simple guerrilla tactics.

Absolutely. Perhaps land based translated as fixed point... like ya say, they need to be mobile.

Very true. We're too narrow and once the high ground has been taken it'd be game over. Still, rail guns would give us a shot, for want of a better expression.

Robert Taylor

22nd November 2011, 21:51

Absolutely correct. So when the millions of Indonesians or Chinese decide they want our stuff, you really think a few antique Skyhawks would make them think again?

Of course not, but what really sucks is we show absolutely no intent to defend ourselves. What also sucks is we effectively freeload off the Australians.

ellipsis

22nd November 2011, 21:53

...pointy sticks'd be far better and probably more fun...

Robert Taylor

22nd November 2011, 21:54

It's well known fact that if Iraq had had a dozen or so Squawks there is no way Bush would have invaded. The reason the US wouldn't let us sell our old ones was because they knew any military that got their hands on them would be invincible.

I think its also payback for that horrible piece of work we had as a priminister for 9 long years. There is no place having a pacifist as a priminister.

caspernz

22nd November 2011, 22:09

OK, so is there anyone who resembles a better leader than John Key? By nature I favour Labour, but as much as we may have questioned Helens' sex at birth, I have similar doubts about Phil....

Anyway, democracy is it's own worst enemy. Think about it, in order to make the hard decisions to run the country you need to remain in government, yet to remain in government you need to stay popular.

Also, I would venture that not even half of all eligible voters would pass a basic 'are you qualified to vote' exam based on some simple questions....so an election is just a glorified popularity contest.

Hinny

22nd November 2011, 22:13

Of course not, but what really sucks is we show absolutely no intent to defend ourselves. What also sucks is we effectively freeload off the Australians.

The Australians free-loaded off us when we took the US to the world court to protect our trade by enforcing trade deals.

I think it should be obvious that it is a lot more important to protect our trade than help support US business.
Their business - war.
They like war.
They are a war-like people.
And why do they like war?
Because it is good business.

What party works to protect and develop our trade interests.
What party engages in illegal wars and criticises the other party for not doing the same.

ellipsis

22nd November 2011, 22:22

...I'd like to see jonkeys style, with a pointy stick...wonder what form the smile would emerge as...he's a very adaptable man...he would handle it, I'm sure...in a word, to the question...no...he's just a tool to his bizzo mates...then again the other one's just a tool...shit:facepalm:

mashman

22nd November 2011, 22:33

so an election is just a glorified popularity contest.

Aye... and the best part about it, is that it doesn't matter how strong the PM is, contrary to popular belief, they still have a set of policies and a WHOLE team behind them. Why the need for strength? It's nothing more than the perspective that the guy/gal at the top knows what he's doing (I chuckled a little). Fine way to justify ticking a box.

All I've gleaned from the political threads is that JK seems to be a stronger character than PG. Whoopdeefuckindoo.

In response to the question in the OP: Why do we need a strong leader? Surely who the "backroom" team are should matter more?

Hinny

22nd November 2011, 22:45

It's well known fact that if Iraq had had a dozen or so Squawks there is no way Bush would have invaded. The reason the US wouldn't let us sell our old ones was because they knew any military that got their hands on them would be invincible.

Interesting comment.
I thought Saddam Hussein spent a lot of money on his air force. It had Soviet and French jet fighters and all the necessary infrastructure to keep them combat-ready.

ellipsis

22nd November 2011, 22:58

....there's being ready, and then there's, being ready...

rainman

22nd November 2011, 23:22

OK, so is there anyone who resembles a better leader than John Key? By nature I favour Labour, but as much as we may have questioned Helens' sex at birth, I have similar doubts about Phil....

Good question (well, apart from the bit about gender - I'd happily have a green-skinned mutant transgender islamo-pastafarian cross-dresser as PM if they were any good at the job). So let's drill into that a bit, shall we? What are the uncontroversial attributes of leadership?

1. Vision - not seeing a lot of this from Key other than vapid "aspirational for NZ" nonsense, and not as much of that lately, even.
2. Passion - yeah, nah, he's akshullly totally relaxed about things. Charismatic though, but that isn't that useful.
3. Integrity - not by a long chalk. Slipperier than a slippery thing. Would you buy a used electricity company from this man?
4. Accountability - totally relaxed, no goals to measure him against, dodges when caught out (e.g. fiscally neutral tax cuts, excuse for going back on raising GST...), no accountability for terrible child health stats, exodus to Aussie, etc.
5. Prepared to take the tough decisions - No, rather kick the can down the road - except for asset sales (which is a dumb idea). Compare to Phil with CGT and raising the retirement age - not popular but the right thing to do.
6. Disciplined - "Loose lips" Key? Not so much.
7. Instil hope in your followers - not working for the 100,000 that have gone off to Aussie.
8. Deliver a better outcome for your followers - poor economic growth, asset sales vandalism, increased borrowing. So that would be a no.

Now Goff has some weaknesses too, lest you think I'm a little one-eyed. (I'm not even a Labour supporter, and have grave misgivings about some of their approaches to things, but politics is pragmatism, and Phil is the least worst PM option this time).
1. Vision - check. Extra points if in coalition with the Greens, who also want to lift wages and create better jobs than just dairying.
2. Passion - a bit quiet, not so showy, but can build up a good head of steam. If you include charisma here , Phil's a bit weaker, but flash ain't everything.
3. Integrity - not perfect but pretty good for a polly. Straight up country dude, even.
4. Accountability - also not perfect, but has fronted up re historical asset sales for example.
5. Tough calls - CGT, retirement age
6. Disciplined - some lapses in keeping the party within electoral advertising guidelines and the like. Reasonably effective response to internal discipline issues - Chris Carter etc.
7. Hope - I'd rather own strategic assets and work towards lifting the country out of the poverty it's slipping into rather than the alternative on offer thanks. And I'm relatively well-off - the poor would see no hope from National, and at least some from Labour.
8. Better outcomes - Proof is always in the pudding, but left governments tend to deliver better economic growth and better social outcomes, so based on past experience he's a safer bet...

I'm confused why people hate Goff so much. Sure he's a bit staid and not as "dennamic" as Key, and has less money (dunno about the obligatory grouse ute and the hot missus), but he's a competent, experienced, safe pair of hands compared to JK. Plus he's from the right of the party so won't be pushed along by the lefty lunatic fringe, and will take care of things like trade, crime, health, education etc. He's proposing further tax cuts (first $5000 tax-free), and I wouldn't be surprised to find him sorting out some welfare reform too, although not in the Key/Brash slash-burn-and-punish style. He doesn't follow a failed ideology (neoliberalism/free trade/austerity doesn't work other than in very constrained circumstances, none of which apply here).

He's got the makings of an OK team: Cunliffe is well-read and smart and would be a great FM, Shearer is good too, Nash is great, Parker, Robertson and Ardern are OK, and there are a few others - although also some deadwood. And they have a better choice of coalition partners, notably the Greens who I'd pick over Act any day purely on grounds of having a bit of a clue when it comes to science. Both parties need a bit of a refresh, but that's next election's job.

I'm struggling to see any talent in the National bench though - English? Puhleeze. Smith? (Lockwood's OK, Nick less so), Gerry? Murray? Collins? Tolley? Bennett? Pfft, they've all failed to deliver. Ryall - not terrible but neither wonderful. Finlayson had promise but he's been a disappointment. Power was OK but he's gone. Joyce? Naah, I trust him less than Key.

Where is the skill we need to actively run the place in these trying times?

oldrider

22nd November 2011, 23:27

Brilliant comment. And yet the sheeple here will still vote for "the successful Mr Key". Like lambs to the slaughter.

There's no need to invade, we're so easily bought.

What I want to know is, how can you and others like you who defend this move, stomach the assault on property rights that this so clearly is? We the people of NZ own these assets, and Key and his bunch of wide boys are going to thieve them and redistribute the proceeds to pay election bribes and sustain unsustainable tax cuts that reward the wealthy; all the while slashing social spending. The rest of us will just get stuck with the debt, the higher prices, and have to bail the new owners out when they inevitably come crawling back to the government tit.

This should be anathema to any right thinking libertarian, but only davereid has the balls to tell it how it is. There is a moral dimension to this that transcends tribal politics, and the unwillingness of much of the right to speak out on this is telling.

Wipe your chin rainman, I was supporting asset sales (done properly), at no time did I say I supported John Key or any other current political wannabe carrying it out!

The NZ electorate let them assume too much authority and allow them too much freedom to act with an open mandate on our behalf, FFS!

They need their collective little wings clipped in my opinion!

rainman

23rd November 2011, 00:06

Wipe your chin rainman, I was supporting asset sales (done properly), at no time did I say I supported John Key or any other current political wannabe carrying it out!

The NZ electorate let them assume too much authority and allow them too much freedom to act with an open mandate on our behalf, FFS!

They need their collective little wings clipped in my opinion!

So you support some theoretical ideal of the asset sale concept, but not the one that you'll actually get if you vote National? Be fascinating to know how you would vote then - not that it's any of my business of course - but I'd suggest that if you don't support their approach to asset sales it would be hard to vote for them in good conscience, knowing you'd get exactly that approach if they win. Act just echoes their policy on asset sales, UF stands for nothing, and I don't see you voting left - but feel free to surprise me!

It's pretty binary:
- vote Nat/Act = sell assets badly, can't be easily undone;
- vote Lab/Green/NZF/Mana (go on you know you wanna... :) ) - keep assets, can be easily undone.
(And vote other minor parties with no chance of getting in = waste/protest vote).

What other means do you have to "clip their wings" other than vote them out on Saturday?

Brian d marge

23rd November 2011, 01:54

boredy boredy bordy , shit load of fat old 40 + , wanking themselves into a lather

solution , v simple .

pop head over next door fence and talk to them

thats it ....................... oh my god , hes a coon and beats hes baby , I just cant talk to heem ...............

get off your individualistic puritan high horse and just talk ( which also means listen, as in listen, ,,,,,not what you want to hear.................. but what they actually saying )

then act , ( this the easy part , ...here have some extra bread I just baked ......

leave the actual money earn t , for the essentials such as th BIG SCREEN TV AND MOBIKES

idiots

Stephen

shrub

23rd November 2011, 05:42

I think its also payback for that horrible piece of work we had as a priminister for 9 long years. There is no place having a pacifist as a priminister.

Or one with brains and balls - thank God we have moved on and now have John Key.

On the subject of pacifists, my father was a pacifist. He served in WW2 and was awarded the Military Medal at El Alamein, was wounded twice in action and mentioned in dispatches. After the war he lived in Kenya and Tanzania until 1970 and established a coffee plantation and a pyretherum farm. We had to walk off our farm in Africa with what we could pack in suitcases, and at the age of 53 he started from scratch and had a freehold orchard within 10 years. You may very well look down on him for being a pacifist, but he was one of the toughest, most intelligent and wisest people I have ever met.

George W Bush wasn't a pacifist leader and damn near bankrupted the USA in 8 years as well as starting 2 wars that have achieved nothing and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. He's out of work - would you like him in charge?

MisterD

23rd November 2011, 05:46

Presently, we're seeing a dividend of over $800m being returned from just some of those assets which will be on the block. Selling down to 51% means that the government will be losing almost $400m in dividends -- in return for a savings of $200m on interest otherwise payable.
That doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

There's a huge assumption there, that these utilities are being well run at present (and their prices seem to be higher than some listed competitors...) and that there is no opportunity to grow as businesses.

On the first point, we will at least be able to find out if they are being well run under stock market discipline and on the second, I'd rather they raise funding for (say) overseas investment on the stock market, than ask the government for taxpayers money. There's an opportunity here for the goverment to end up with 51% of a bigger entity.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7pYIbuCa4eI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Robert Taylor

23rd November 2011, 06:32

The Australians free-loaded off us when we took the US to the world court to protect our trade by enforcing trade deals.

I think it should be obvious that it is a lot more important to protect our trade than help support US business.
Their business - war.
They like war.
They are a war-like people.
And why do they like war?
Because it is good business.

What party works to protect and develop our trade interests.
What party engages in illegal wars and criticises the other party for not doing the same.

Maybe so and they aint perfect. Generally I dont much care for Americans myself and its not a favoured destination. But we owe people like Nimitz and a whole heap of dead marines for saving us from Japanese invasion.

Maha

23rd November 2011, 06:37

Usarka

23rd November 2011, 06:45

A couple of banjo's and a few hallelujahs and this thread will be complete.

Robert Taylor

23rd November 2011, 07:04

Try walking down (or up) Queen st sometime, you'll soon start thinking you are not in NZ.

Yes thats a sad irony isnt it!

oneofsix

23rd November 2011, 07:11

Try walking down (or up) Queen st sometime, you'll soon start thinking you are not in NZ.

You are not. You are in corporate USA. Even our own Government departments say so.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6016492/Small-library-fights-US-corporation-over-software-patent

shrub

23rd November 2011, 07:23

OK, so is there anyone who resembles a better leader than John Key?

Depends on what you want in a PM. Personally I want a PM who can hold his own with any world leader on the international stage, who has a strong understanding of the political processes and international law, has the respect of people from all sides of the political spectrum (even if he or she isn't liked) and can make a hard decision. In the current lineup from all parties, I like Kennedy Graham of the Greens. He has taught international politics and international law at the School of Law, Canterbury and Victoria University and at the College of Europe in Bruges. He has worked for NGOs in New York, the UN in Europe and the Middle East, and as a NZ diplomat in Asia, Europe and North America. He was involved in negotiating the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone, defending the policy before the UN in Geneva and New York. He was also Director of a UN academy in Jordan.

Ken holds a B.Com from Auckland University, a BA Hons in Political Science from Victoria; an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Boston (Fulbright); and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Victoria University. He was also a Fellow at Cambridge University, studying in the Global Security Programme. He has gravitas and is respected by everyone in parliament.

Anyway, democracy is it's own worst enemy. Think about it, in order to make the hard decisions to run the country you need to remain in government, yet to remain in government you need to stay popular.

Also, I would venture that not even half of all eligible voters would pass a basic 'are you qualified to vote' exam based on some simple questions....so an election is just a glorified popularity contest.

Which is why we have a phenomenally popular PM who has achieved little and is not all that bright. It's also why I like MMP and the concept of list MPs. A person can be elected as the candidate simply because they win the people over - remember Bob Clarkson in Tauranga? Or even worse they get elected simply because they wear the right button on election day, and so we end up with buffoons like Jerry Brownlee in Ilam. Talking to people who have worked with him, he is incompetent, a bully and cunning rather than intelligent, but on Saturday he will return to parliament and government simply because the vast majority of people in Ilam vote National by default.

avgas

23rd November 2011, 08:33

Absolutely correct. So when the millions of Indonesians or Chinese decide they want our stuff, you really think a few antique Skyhawks would make them think again?
Skyhawks no
F16, Tomohawks, LAV-AD's, proper frigates, Predator drones, MP5's and a strong volunteer service. Yes.

Right now all we can throw at them is some tugs, a couple of cargo aircraft, South Canterbury Finance and some benefit bludgers.

Even our LAV's only suited to land combat are doing tours on overseas turf.
Not saying we stand a chance against anyone good. Just a simple localized regime that wants our stuff.

The best weapon you can have is one that is often seen and never used. But I don't really think of the forces like that. I think of them more as a hand replacement of Ministry of Works. Get young people trained and motivated to work.

imdying

23rd November 2011, 10:25

Skyhawks no
F16, Tomohawks, LAV-AD's, proper frigates, Predator drones, MP5's and a strong volunteer service. Yes.Hahahah, you're joking right?

avgas

23rd November 2011, 10:58

Hahahah, you're joking right?
No I usually start a joke like this
"Three beneficiaries walk into a pub, the all buy a beer and one says to the other "You know what I did today?"........"

or
"Pouring money into a failed financial markets always offer sweet returns....."

or
on the odd occasion I make farting noises. Gets a few giggles.

imdying

23rd November 2011, 11:32

NoOk, so how is that tiny assortment going to put off or defend against the PRC, an outfit of some 2 million troops?

superman

23rd November 2011, 11:57

Compulsory military training with the option for "no I don't believe in guns" to go and do Civil Emergency training... guess the women could do that too.

Expensive... but would be good I reckon.

shrub

23rd November 2011, 12:52

Compulsory military training with the option for "no I don't believe in guns" to go and do Civil Emergency training... guess the women could do that too.

Expensive... but would be good I reckon.

OK, so you think CMT is a good idea - are you in the services, or have you been in the services? if so, why did you 717? If not, I assume you are planning to join, which service? Will you do a trade or go in as a grunt?

avgas

23rd November 2011, 13:03

Ok, so how is that tiny assortment going to put off or defend against the PRC, an outfit of some 2 million troops?
Not too badly.
Of course this entirely depends on timing. They are getting closer to building a air-craft carrier and decent combat wing. So say they brought that along we'd be fucked.

But against 2 mil troops with AK's we do ok.

Its all kind of irrelevant as they would just hit us with long range rockets, or break our banks if the PRC wanted us.

But I am more concerned with the likes of PNG, Fiji, indochina etc. If they spend money on something to get us they could do some damage. We need a force to keep them at bay. Even if its just preventative.

But as mentioned earlier. I still believe the forces are required in NZ.......even as a place where young folk can get some work skills.
The "toys" are required to get them in the door.

The alternative is compulsory service, which isn't a bad thing as a whole. <_< But I suspect you would be against compulsory service, even if it was the salvation army.

avgas

23rd November 2011, 13:06

Compulsory military training with the option for "no I don't believe in guns" to go and do Civil Emergency training... guess the women could do that too.

Expensive... but would be good I reckon.
Would be good if we have more CD trained people in the general public. Disasters seems to be happenin alot late.

Winston001

23rd November 2011, 13:10

Defend ourselves against who? The only countries that have invaded others in my lifetime have been Iraq and the USA.

Simply for the sake of accuracy and from memory, armed conflicts/war over the past 40 years:

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands
Angola
Nicaragua
Russia invaded Afghanistan
China invaded Tibet
Serbia invaded Croatia + Montenego etc etc
Russia invaded Chechnya

There are plenty more especially in Africa. The point is, the USA is not quite the war-warmongering nation the popular press makes it out to be. More a case of being the worlds policeman and a thankless task it is. For example the European armies could not and did not halt the Serb-Croat genocides and that 10 year conflict only ended when the USA lost patience watching and acted decisively.

Then there are the American soldiers who died trying to keep the peace in those choice spots known as Lebanon, Kenya, and Somalia.

Americans are good people and its a crying shame they were led into the current wars by GW Bush.

shrub

23rd November 2011, 13:22

Winston001

23rd November 2011, 13:26

As for National's plans to part sell assets - I'm opposed.

However leave aside my personal views and consider the rationale:

The five SOEs are easy to identify, value, and attractive for investors.

The true dividend returns are 2-3%, not 8-22% as claimed by some critics. The Crown electricity companies went through a restructuring recently which created accounting profits but no actual money. So the most recent returns are artificial.

When a business trades on the stockmarket it's strategies and decisions are wide open to examination and criticism. By contrast an SOE only has to worry about Cabinet which tends to be easily distracted by day to day politics. Trustpower has said they cannot understand why Meridian has developed a very difficult and expensive wind farm.

New shareholders can add expertise and knowledge because it is in their interests to do so.

And despite common belief, there is nothing to prevent a future government buying back the shares. If Contact Energy is any guide, they might even get them at a reduced price. As I've said before, Contact is a precise example of how a good energy company can still perform like a dog. It used to be an SOE.

oldrider

23rd November 2011, 16:45

*As for National's plans to part sell assets - I'm opposed.

However leave aside my personal views and consider the rationale:

The five SOEs are easy to identify, value, and attractive for investors.

The true dividend returns are 2-3%, not 8-22% as claimed by some critics. The Crown electricity companies went through a restructuring recently which created accounting profits but no actual money. So the most recent returns are artificial.

When a business trades on the stockmarket it's strategies and decisions are wide open to examination and criticism. By contrast an SOE only has to worry about Cabinet which tends to be easily distracted by day to day politics. Trustpower has said they cannot understand why Meridian has developed a very difficult and expensive wind farm.

New shareholders can add expertise and knowledge because it is in their interests to do so.

And despite common belief, there is nothing to prevent a future government buying back the shares. If Contact Energy is any guide, they might even get them at a reduced price. As I've said before, Contact is a precise example of how a good energy company can still perform like a dog. It used to be an SOE.

Quote: *As for National's plans to part sell assets - I'm opposed. .... Why FFS?

You would do it your self if your personal circumstances were heading toward insolvency!

Every government since I can remember has bought and sold assets as required, nothing unusual about this ... until now!

Faced with extreme financial hardship everybody on KB would have to reconsider the value or liability of their "bike" in that equation!

The claimed high percentage of voters against sale of assets is really just a vote of no confidence in any of our political wannabe's to manage any such transactions honestly and competently!

Well I agree with the electorate on that!

So what we are really afraid of is the expansionist behaviour of our so called elected governments, they just get bigger and bigger and more and more expensive to operate!

For the electorate it is similar to riding a motorcycle from the pillion seat with an insane person operating the controls up front ... not a good look eh!

IMHO We need less government not more! (core government activities)

Politicians always try to keep as many balls in the air as they can in order to distract and confuse the electorate so that it is more and more difficult to hold them accountable for their failures!

I am searching for someone or something positive to vote for but it looks like I will vote as a typical New Zealander, voting for A to keep B C or D out!

How fucking pathetic is that! :sick:

Robert Taylor

23rd November 2011, 17:09

Well I am ex military and proud of it. I am all for compulsory military training for all school leavers.

Robert Taylor

23rd November 2011, 17:11

Depends on what you want in a PM. Personally I want a PM who can hold his own with any world leader on the international stage, who has a strong understanding of the political processes and international law, has the respect of people from all sides of the political spectrum (even if he or she isn't liked) and can make a hard decision. In the current lineup from all parties, I like Kennedy Graham of the Greens. He has taught international politics and international law at the School of Law, Canterbury and Victoria University and at the College of Europe in Bruges. He has worked for NGOs in New York, the UN in Europe and the Middle East, and as a NZ diplomat in Asia, Europe and North America. He was involved in negotiating the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone, defending the policy before the UN in Geneva and New York. He was also Director of a UN academy in Jordan.

Ken holds a B.Com from Auckland University, a BA Hons in Political Science from Victoria; an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Boston (Fulbright); and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Victoria University. He was also a Fellow at Cambridge University, studying in the Global Security Programme. He has gravitas and is respected by everyone in parliament.

Which is why we have a phenomenally popular PM who has achieved little and is not all that bright. It's also why I like MMP and the concept of list MPs. A person can be elected as the candidate simply because they win the people over - remember Bob Clarkson in Tauranga? Or even worse they get elected simply because they wear the right button on election day, and so we end up with buffoons like Jerry Brownlee in Ilam. Talking to people who have worked with him, he is incompetent, a bully and cunning rather than intelligent, but on Saturday he will return to parliament and government simply because the vast majority of people in Ilam vote National by default.

MMP aka ''mickey mouse politics'' bought the likes of Sue Bradford into Parliament ( a crime against humanity ) This time it could bring that a...wipe John Minto into parliament. No 3 on the Moron party list of displaced communists.

davereid

23rd November 2011, 18:02

Simply for the sake of accuracy and from memory, armed conflicts/war over the past 40 years:

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands
Angola
Nicaragua
Russia invaded Afghanistan
China invaded Tibet
Serbia invaded Croatia + Montenego etc etc
Russia invaded Chechnya

There are plenty more especially in Africa. The point is, the USA is not quite the war-warmongering nation the popular press makes it out to be. More a case of being the worlds policeman and a thankless task it is. For example the European armies could not and did not halt the Serb-Croat genocides and that 10 year conflict only ended when the USA lost patience watching and acted decisively.

Then there are the American soldiers who died trying to keep the peace in those choice spots known as Lebanon, Kenya, and Somalia.

Americans are good people and its a crying shame they were led into the current wars by GW Bush.

Don't forget governments that turn on their own people.

The warnimg signs are governments that ignore democracy - like National has done with over 100 laws passed without consultation or full democratic process.

The tools the corrupt state uses are
Identity cards and systems, (National IGOVT)
The power of the state to search and seize virtually at will, (Various laws, even extendint to liquor bans)
Limited rights to a trial, and to be judged by your peers (Passed by National)
Limited right to remain silent (proposed by National)
Limited presumption of innocence.(various vehicle laws, NAIT, fisheries etc etc)

We sometimes are asked to provide these tools to government for very good reasons, to help us with welfare, to ensure we pay taxes, to crack down on crime and terrorism. Before you allow government to put that chain around your neck to “help you”, be sure you know who will be on the other end of it, and how hard he is allowed to pull. As there are always those who will use the tools the wrong way, and we should remain wary of those who tell us “we have nothing to fear unless we are criminals”, while asking us for the tools of enslavement.

After all, simply opposing any of the following leaders made you a criminal.

The last 100 years roll of honour.

Africa
Idris of Libya Emirate of Cyrenaica, Kingdom of Libya 1949-1969
Kwame Nkrumah Ghana (commonwealth realm), Ghana 1957 elected 1966 by military coup
Gamal Abdel Nasser United Arab Republic 1958- 1970
Ahmed Sékou Touré Guinea 1958- 1984
Kigeli V of Rwanda Kingdom of Rwanda 1959 -1962
Modibo Keïta Mali Federation, Mali 1959- 1968 by military coup
Muhammad Haji Ibrahim Egal State of Somaliland 1960
Albert Kalonji South Kasai 1960- 1961
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa Federation of Nigeria (commonwealth realm) 1960- 1963
Moise Tshombe State of Katanga 1960 1963
Joseph Kasa-Vubu Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) 1960 1965
David Dacko Central African Republic 1960, 1979 by military coup 1966, 1981
N’Garta Tombalbaye Chad 1960 1975
Moktar Ould Daddah Mauritania 1960 elected 1978 by military coup
Félix Houphouët-Boigny Côte d’Ivoire 1960 elected 1993
Richard Turnbull (colonial governor) Tanganyika 1961 1962
Walter Coutts Uganda (commonwealth realm) 1962 1963
Milton Obote Uganda (commonwealth realm), Uganda 1962 elected, 1980 1972, 1985
Hastings Kamuzu Banda Malawi 1963 1994 lost election
Abeid Karume People’s Republic of Zanzibar and Pemba 1964 1964
Glyn Smallwood Jones Malawi (commonwealth realm) 1964 1966
Hastings Banda Malawi (commonwealth realm) 1964 1966
Kenneth Kaunda Northern Rhodesia, Zambia 1964 elected 1991 lost election
Dawda Jawara The Gambia (commonwealth realm) 1965 1970
Houari Boumediene Algeria 1965 bloodless coup 1978 death
Ian Smith Rhodesia 1965 1979
Mobutu Sese Seko Zaire 1965 coup 1997 civil war
Jean-Bédel Bokassa Central African Empire 1966 coup 1979
Albert Okonkwo Republic of Benin (1967) 1967 1967
C. Odumegwu Ojukwu Biafra 1967 1970
Gnassingbé Eyadéma Togo 1967 coup 2005 death
Omar Bongo Gabon 1967 from Vice-President 2009 death
Francisco Macías Nguema Equatorial Guinea 1968 elected 1979
Moussa Traoré Mali 1968 1991
Hasan as-Senussi Kingdom of Libya 1969 1969
Gaafar Nimeiry Sudan 1969 by military coup 1985
Siad Barre Somali Democratic Republic 1969 by military coup 1991
Muammar Gaddafi History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi 1969 by military coup 2011 popular uprising
Anwar Sadat Egypt 1970 1981 assassinated
Idi Amin Uganda 1971 1979 deposed
Mengistu Haile Mariam People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 1974 1991
Kenneth Mopeli QwaQwa 1974 1994
Mathieu Kérékou People’s Republic of Benin 1975 1991
Olusegun Obasanjo Nigeria 1976 by military coup 1979
Jean-Baptiste Bagaza Burundi 1976 1987
Lucas Mangope Bophuthatswana 1977 1994
France-Albert René Seychelles 1977 2004
Daniel arap Moi Kenya 1978 2002
Abel Muzorewa Zimbabwe Rhodesia 1979 1979
Josiah Zion Gumede Zimbabwe Rhodesia 1979 1979
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo Equatorial Guinea 1979 by coup present
José Eduardo dos Santos Angola 1979 present
João Bernardo Vieira Guinea-Bissau 1980 by coup, 2005 1984, 2009
Samuel K. Doe Liberia 1980 by military coup 1990
Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe 1980 elected present.
Jerry Rawlings Ghana 1981 by military coup 1992 resigned
André Kolingba Central African Republic 1981 by military coup 1993 lost elections
Hosni Mubarak[citation needed] Egypt 1981 2011 popular uprising
Paul Biya Cameroon 1982 from Prime Minister present
Hissène Habré Chad 1982 by military coup 1990
Thomas Sankara Burkina Faso 1983 by military coup 1987 by military coup
Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya Mauritania 1984 by military coup 2005 by bloodless coup
Ibrahim Babangida Nigeria 1985 1993
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali Tunisia 1987 2011 popular uprising
Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir Sudan 1989 by military coup present
Idriss Déby Chad 1990 by military coup present
Meles Zenawi Ethiopia 1991 by military coup present
Sani Abacha Nigeria 1993 by military coup 1998
Yahya Jammeh The Gambia 1994 by military coup present
Laurent-Désiré Kabila Congo-Kinshasa 1997 by military coup 2001
Charles G. Taylor Liberia 1997 elected 2003
François Bozizé Central African Republic 2003 by military coup present
Ely Ould Mohamed Vall Mauritania 2005 by military coup 2007 relinquished power

North America
Porfirio Díaz Mexico 1879 1910
Victoriano Huerta Mexico 1913 1914
Grantley Herbert Adams West Indies Federation 1958 1962
Patrick Buchan-Hepburn, 1st Baron Hailes West Indies Federation 1958 1962
Hudson Austin People’s Revolutionary Government (Grenada) 1983 1983

Central America
José Santos Zelaya Nicaragua 1893 1909 resigned
Manuel Estrada Cabrera Guatemala 1898 1920
Maximiliano Hernández Martínez El Salvador 1931, 1935 1934, 1944
Jorge Ubico Guatemala 1931 1944
Tiburcio Carías Andino Honduras 1933 1949
Anastasio Somoza García Nicaragua 1937 by military coup 1956
Carlos Castillo Armas Guatemala 1954 by coup 1957
Oswaldo López Arellano Honduras 1963, 1972 1971, 1975
Anastasio Somoza Debayle Nicaragua 1967 succession 1979
Omar Torrijos Panama 1968 by coup 1981
Kjell Laugerud García Guatemala 1974 by coup 1978
Efraín Ríos Montt Guatemala 1982 by military coup 1983
Manuel Noriega Panama 1983 1989
Roberto Micheletti Honduras 2009 by coup 2010
Porfirio Lobo Sosa Honduras 2009 dubious election present

South America

Cipriano Castro Venezuela 1899 1909
Rafael Reyes Colombia 1904 1909
Juan Vicente Gómez Venezuela 1909, 1922, 1931 1914, 1929, 1935
Óscar Benavides Peru 1914 by coup, 1933 1915, 1939
Augusto B. Leguía y Salcedo Peru 1919 by coup 1930
Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Chile 1927 1931
Getúlio Vargas Brazil 1930 1945
Gabriel Terra Uruguay 1931 1938
Higinio Morínigo Paraguay 1940 1948
Manuel A. Odría Peru 1948 by coup 1956
Marcos Pérez Jiménez Venezuela 1948 1958
Gustavo Rojas Pinilla Colombia 1953 by coup 1957
Alfredo Stroessner Paraguay 1954 by military coup 1989
René Barrientos Bolivia 1964 by military coup 1969
Forbes Burnham Guyana (commonwealth realm) 1966 1985
Hugo Banzer Bolivia 1971 by coup 1978
Juan María Bordaberry Uruguay 1972 1976
Augusto Pinochet Chile 1973 by military coup 1990
Luis García Meza Tejada Bolivia 1980 by coup 1981
Dési Bouterse Suriname 1980 by military coup 1988
Gregorio Conrado Álvarez Uruguay 1981 1985
Leopoldo Galtieri Occupation of the Falkland Islands 1982 1982
Alberto Fujimori Peru 1990 2000

Caribbean
Gerardo Machado Cuba 1925 1933
Rafael Trujillo Dominican Republic 1930 1961
Paul Magloire Haiti 1950 by coup 1956
Fulgencio Batista Cuba 1952 by coup 1959
François Duvalier Haiti 1957 elected 1971
Jean-Claude Duvalier Haiti 1971 succeeded father 1986
Eric Gairy Grenada 1974 1979
Raoul Cédras Haiti 1991 by coup (de facto) 1994

Western Asia
Faisal II of Iraq Arab Federation 1958 1958
Abdul Karim Qassem Iraq 1958 by coup 1963
Abdullah as-Sallal North Yemen 1962 by civil war 1967
Abdul Salam Arif Iraq 1963 by coup 1966
Qahtan Muhammad al-Shaabi South Yemen 1967 1969 by coup
Abdul Rahman al-Iryani North Yemen 1967 1974 by coup
Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr Iraq 1968 by coup 1979
Salim Rubai Ali South Yemen 1969 by coup 1978
Hafez al-Assad Syria 1970 2000
Ibrahim al-Hamdi North Yemen 1974 by coup 1977 assassinated
Ahmad al-Ghashmi North Yemen 1977 1978 assassinated
Ali Nasir Muhammad South Yemen 1978, 1980 1978 by coup
Abdul Fattah Ismail South Yemen 1978 by coup 1980
Ali Abdullah Saleh North Yemen, Yemen 1978 present
Mehdi Bazargan Interim Government of Iran (1979) 1979 1979
Saddam Hussein Iraq 1979 2003
Ali Salim al-Beidh South Yemen, Democratic Republic of Yemen 1986, 1994 1990, 1994
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Iran 1989 present
Alaa Hussein Ali Republic of Kuwait 1990 1990
Haidar Abu Bakr al-Attas Democratic Republic of Yemen 1994 1994
Bashar al-Assad Syria 2000 present
Central Asia
Mohammed Daoud Khan Republic of Afghanistan 1973 by coup 1978 by coup
Nur Muhammad Taraki Afghanistan 1978 by coup 1979 murdered
Hafizullah Amin Afghanistan 1979 president murdered 1979 country invaded
Askar Akayev Kyrgyzstan 1990 2005 by popular uprising
Islam Karimov Uzbekistan 1990 present
Nursultan Nazarbayev Kazakhstan 1990 present
Saparmurat Niyazov Turkmenistan 1991 2006 death
Wekîl Mustafayev Lachin Kurdish Republic 1992 1992
Sibghatullah Mojaddedi Islamic State of Afghanistan 1992 2001
Burhanuddin Rabbani Northern Alliance 1992 2001
Emomali Rahmon Tajikistan 1992 present
Alikram Hummatov Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic 1993 1993
Heydar Aliyev Azerbaijan 1993 by coup 2003
Mohammed Omar Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 1996 2001
Ilham Aliyev Azerbaijan 2003 present
Hamid Karzai Afghanistan 2004 present As dictator
Kurmanbek Bakiyev Kyrgyzstan 2005 2010 by popular uprising
Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow Turkmenistan 2006 present
South Asia
Don Stephen Senanayake British Ceylon 1947 1948
Ayub Khan Pakistan 1958 by coup 1969
Abdullah Afeef United Suvadive Republic 1959 1963
Yahya Khan Pakistan 1969 1971
Tajuddin Ahmad Provisional Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1971 1972
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Pakistan 1978 1988
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom Maldives 1978 2008
Hossain Mohammad Ershad Bangladesh 1982 by coup 1990
Pervez Musharraf Pakistan 1999 by coup 2008
Eastern Asia
Yuan Shikai Republic of China 1912 1916
Roman von Ungern-Sternberg Mongolia 1921 1921
Chiang Kai-shek Republic of China 1927 1975
Khorloogiyn Choybalsan Mongolia 1936 1952
Ehmetjan Qasim Second East Turkestan Republic 1944 1946
Ho Chi Minh North Vietnam 1954 1969
Edward Gent Malayan Union 1946 1948
Kim Tu-bong Provisional People’s Committee for North Korea 1946 1949
Kim Il-sung Provisional People’s Committee for North Korea, North Korea 1946 1994
Syngman Rhee First Republic of South Korea 1948 1960 revolution
Mohammad Hatta Republic of the United States of Indonesia 1949 1950
Bao Dai State of Vietnam 1949 1955
Sukarno Indonesia 1949 1968 overthrown
Mao Zedong People’s Republic of China 1949 1976
Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal Mongolia 1952 1984
Ngô Ðình Diệm South Vietnam 1955 1963
Tunku Abdul Rahman Federation of Malaya 1957 1963
Yun Bo-seon Second Republic of South Korea 1960 1961
Norodom Sihanouk Kingdom of Cambodia (1953–1970) 1960 1970
Le Duan North Vietnam 1960 1986
Park Chung Hee South Korea 1961 by coup 1979
Ne Win Burma 1962 by coup 1988
Thanom Kittikachorn Thailand 1963 1973
Duong Van Minh South Vietnam 1963 by coup 1975 by invasion
Ferdinand Marcos Philippines 1965 1986 by revolution
Suharto Indonesia 1967 1998
Nguyen Huu Tho Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam 1969 1976
Lon Nol Cambodia 1972 by coup 1975
Huynh Tan Phat Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam 1975 1976
Pol Pot Cambodia 1975 1979
Chun Doo Hwan South Korea 1980 by coup 1988
Valery Chaptynov Gorno-Altai Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic 1990 1991
Yasushi Akashi United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia 1992 1993
Than Shwe Myanmar 1992 by coup 2011 [95][96]
Khieu Samphan Provisional Government of National Union and National Salvation of Cambodia 1994 1998
Kim Jong-il North Korea 1994 inherited present
Sonthi Boonyaratglin Thailand 2006 2006

Europe
Benito Mussolini Italy 1922 1943
Aleksandar Tsankov Bulgaria 1923 by coup 1926
Miguel Primo de Rivera Spain 1923 1930
Joseph Stalin USSR 1924 1953
Ahmet Bej Zogu Albania 1925 elected 1939 country occupied
António Óscar Carmona Portugal 1926 1928
Józef Piłsudski Poland 1926 by coup 1935
Antanas Smetona Lithuania 1926 military coup 1940
António de Oliveira Salazar Portugal 1928 1968
Alexander I Yugoslavia 1929 1934
Engelbert Dollfuss Austria 1933 1934
Konstantin Päts Estonia 1933 by coup 1940
Adolf Hitler Nazi Germany 1933 1945
Kimon Georgiev Bulgaria 1934 by coup 1934 overthrown
Kurt Schuschnigg Austria 1934 1938
Boris III Bulgaria 1934 1943
Kārlis Ulmanis Latvia 1934 by coup 1940
Ioannis Metaxas Greece 1936 1941
Francisco Franco Francoist Spain 1936 1975
Jozef Tiso Slovakia 1939 1945
Ion Antonescu Romania 1940 1944
Vidkun Quisling Norway 1940 1945
Ante Pavelić Independent State of Croatia 1941 installed 1945
Josip Broz Tito Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1943 1980
Ferenc Szálasi Hungary 1944 installed 1945
Enver Hoxha Albania 1944 1985
Antoine Béthouart Allied-occupied Austria 1945 1945
Ivan Konev Allied-occupied Austria 1945 1945
Mark W. Clark Allied-occupied Austria 1945 1945
Richard McCreery Allied-occupied Austria 1945 1945
Georgy Zhukov Allied-occupied Germany 1945 1945
Jean de Lattre de Tassigny Allied-occupied Germany 1945 1945
Rodoljub Čolaković Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1945 1945
Milovan Đilas Socialist Republic of Montenegro 1945 1945
Marie Pierre Kœnig Allied-occupied Germany 1945 1949
Bolesław Bierut Poland 1945 1952
Reinhold Maier Württemberg-Baden 1945 1952
Fadil Hoxha Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo 1945 1953
Blažo Jovanović Socialist Republic of Montenegro 1945 1953
Mátyás Rákosi Hungary 1949 1953
André François-Poncet Allied-occupied Germany 1949 1955
Walter Ulbricht East Germany 1950 1971
Nikita Khrushchev USSR 1953 1964
Todor Zhivkov Bulgaria 1956 1989
Leonid Brezhnev USSR 1964 1982
Nicolae Ceauşescu Romania 1965 1989
George Papadopoulos Greece 1967 1973
Marcelo Caetano Portugal 1968 1974 by popular uprising
Erich Honecker East Germany 1971 1989
Phaedon Gizikis Greece 1973 by coup 1974
Wojciech Jaruzelski Poland 1981 1990
Kenan Evren Turkey 1982 1989
Arnold Rüütel Republic of Estonia 1990–1991 1990 1991
Edgar Savisaar Republic of Estonia 1990–1991 1990 1991
Leonid Kravchuk Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic 1990 1991
Kiro Gligorov Socialist Republic of Macedonia 1991 1991
Mate Boban Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia 1991 1994
Ibrahim Rugova Republic of Kosova 1992 2000
Slobodan Milošević Serbia and Montenegro 1992 2000
Fikret Abdić Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia 1993 1995
Alexander Lukashenko Belarus 1994 present
Igor Smirnov Transnistria 1990 present

Oceania
Sitiveni Rabuka Fiji 1987 1992
Frank Bainimarama Fiji 2006 by coup present

Winston001

23rd November 2011, 19:20

trustme

23rd November 2011, 19:48

Sheesh David, I was just operating off the top of my head, no need for you to crush with facts damnit. :D

Interesting though.

Anyway, John Key. I've always viewed him as benign, neither strong nor weak, personable and capable but really...kind of surprising as Prime Minister. I much preferred David Lange.

But I'm watching the TV1 debate between Key and Goff and have to recognise Key is sharp as a tack. He'd rival Helen Clark for attention to detail. Bling to him (I like Goff too, just not as much).

He is not nick named ' the smiling assassin ' for nothing. If he was weak he would have rolled over on ' a cup of tea ', politically he should have but he took the moral high ground.

Lange was a light weight , when the going got tough he called for a ' cup of tea ' . He did not have the strength of conviction to follow through with what he knew was required.

' Benign, neither strong or weak ' . I think you seriously underestimate him .

We seem to favour the politician who is combative, aggressive.

I suspect Key talks quietly but has the strength of his convictions which is something lacking in most of our politicians.

Goff would lie with the devil [ Winston ] to form a govt . Key would rather walk.

I respect that

98tls

23rd November 2011, 20:56

There all full of shit but lets narrow down the volume of it and ffs get rid of MMP.:niceone:

oldrider

23rd November 2011, 21:00

There all full of shit but lets narrow down the volume of it and ffs get rid of MMP.:niceone:

True and yes! :niceone:

Hinny

23rd November 2011, 21:37

Well I am ex military and proud of it.

This reminds me of a radio interview with John Banks. Outlining his history he stated that he used to box as a young man.
A listener rang after Mr. Banks got off.
He asked "Did I hear John Banks say he used to box when he was younger"?
When answered in the affirmative he replied" Well that explains it then".

Your history clearly explains your outlook on life and society.
We don't need Crypto-fascist brain-washing in our society.
Your adulation of war criminals like Margaret Thatcher and Jenny Shipley are illustrative of that brain-washing.

F16's FFS.
It may be noted that they were F16's bought and paid for by the Pakistan govt. but not delivered...and then they tried to sell them to us. Shysters. And you condemn the Govt for having principles and rejecting the offer. It was akin to buying stolen gear at the pub.

rainman

23rd November 2011, 22:02

I like Kennedy Graham of the Greens.

Indeed. I'm fond of slagging off politicians but Ken is quality for all of the reasons you list.

You would do it your self if your personal circumstances were heading toward insolvency!

Depends on the asset. Luxuries, yes. Strategic assets,no. Either way I'd rather start by living within my means, and spending less.

avgas

23rd November 2011, 22:03

It was akin to buying gear at the pub.
Is it any good?

avgas

23rd November 2011, 22:08

You would do it your self if your personal circumstances were heading toward insolvency

http://www.giftrepublic.com/images/ProductInfo/Electric-Company-Notebook-main.jpg
See if I could get the rail, water works and the electric company and sell the big expensive blue streets.
Its not as high income but it lets you pull through

Hinny

23rd November 2011, 22:09

Maybe so and they aint perfect. Generally I dont much care for Americans myself and its not a favoured destination. But we owe people like Nimitz and a whole heap of dead marines for saving us from Japanese invasion.

How many of the men who fought to save us from the Japanese invasion would be happy to see the 'Asian Invasion' of these times.
New Plymouth seems OK but you try and find a face in Queen Street or Broadway that you could think 'OK, he or his parents were born here. 1 or 2 ... now and again.
We don't need F16s.to repel these 'invaders'. These people come in on commercial flights.
And we welcome (most of) them. (PS. We don't need any more 'painters'.)

I do believe, however, there is a major over-stayer problem that needs sorting out.

Hinny

23rd November 2011, 22:11

Is it any good?

I can send you a sample in plain wrapping.

Robert Taylor

23rd November 2011, 22:20

This reminds me of a radio interview with John Banks. Outlining his history he stated that he used to box as a young man.
A listener rang after Mr. Banks got off.
He asked "Did I hear John Banks say he used to box when he was younger"?
When answered in the affirmative he replied" Well that explains it then".

Your history clearly explains your outlook on life and society.
We don't need Crypto-fascist brain-washing in our society.
Your adulation of war criminals like Margaret Thatcher and Jenny Shipley are illustrative of that brain-washing.

F16's FFS.
It may be noted that they were F16's bought and paid for by the Pakistan govt. but not delivered...and then they tried to sell them to us. Shysters. And you condemn the Govt for having principles and rejecting the offer. It was akin to buying stolen gear at the pub.

Maggie a war criminal? Get off the grass. She was protecting the soverignty of largely British citizens on the Falklands and in doing so writing a very proud moment in British history. Lesser men than her would have acceded and humiliated Britain even further after having been sold out by the Yanks in 56. The ultimate form of diplomacy is war and the only thing that Galtieri understood. It was great the Argies were sent packing.

Robert Taylor

23rd November 2011, 22:25

This reminds me of a radio interview with John Banks. Outlining his history he stated that he used to box as a young man.
A listener rang after Mr. Banks got off.
He asked "Did I hear John Banks say he used to box when he was younger"?
When answered in the affirmative he replied" Well that explains it then".

Your history clearly explains your outlook on life and society.
We don't need Crypto-fascist brain-washing in our society.
Your adulation of war criminals like Margaret Thatcher and Jenny Shipley are illustrative of that brain-washing.

F16's FFS.
It may be noted that they were F16's bought and paid for by the Pakistan govt. but not delivered...and then they tried to sell them to us. Shysters. And you condemn the Govt for having principles and rejecting the offer. It was akin to buying stolen gear at the pub.

The F16s were cancelled AND the air combat wing callously disbanded because of that butch lesbo pacifist bitch that became priminister. I sincerely hope she( it ) rots in hell.

Hinny

23rd November 2011, 23:38

It was great the Argies were sent packing.

Tui moment.

It was good, I suppose, that they found out how useless their ships were and how fantastic Exocet missiles were.

Thatcher was a war criminal for authorising the attack on the General Balgrano - in International waters[/URL] with the loss of 323 lives.
The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Bela%C3%BAnde_Terry"] (http://toolserver.org/%7Egeohack/geohack.php?pagename=ARA_General_Belgrano&params=55_24_S_61_32_W_)proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity.
Who was her rellie who had a farm on the Malvinas?

Shipley is a War criminal for sending troops into a covert illegal war in Iraq.

Hinny

23rd November 2011, 23:49

The F16s were cancelled AND the air combat wing callously disbanded because of that butch lesbo pacifist bitch that became priminister. I sincerely hope she( it ) rots in hell.

Perhaps you should take a pill and calm down,

The air combat wing was disbanded on the advice of a former Nat, cabinet minister.
A Nat. cabinet minister who was right for a change. :bleh:

superman

24th November 2011, 00:24

OK, so you think CMT is a good idea - are you in the services, or have you been in the services? if so, why did you 717? If not, I assume you are planning to join, which service? Will you do a trade or go in as a grunt?

Neither. :laugh:

I'd do it happily if it were compulsory, but out of sheer choice... I think I'm good thanks. Especially given the NZ defences current funding or lack thereof.

MisterD

24th November 2011, 05:47

Thatcher was a war criminal for authorising the attack on the General Balgrano - in International waters

Whoop! Whoop! Red herring alert!

Under international law, the type of exclusion zone declared by the UK only applies to non-belligerent vessels. The warship of a belligerent vessel gets no protection under international law.

Hinny

24th November 2011, 06:02

Whoop! Whoop! Red herring alert!

Under international law, the type of exclusion zone declared by the UK only applies to non-belligerent vessels. The warship of a belligerent vessel gets no protection under international law.

So any US vessel, being representatives of the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, could be considered fair targets?

MisterD

24th November 2011, 06:50

So any US vessel, being representatives of the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, could be considered fair targets?

Now you're just being silly.

shrub

24th November 2011, 07:22

Neither. :laugh:

I'd do it happily if it were compulsory, but out of sheer choice... I think I'm good thanks.

yeah, from personal experience basic is bloody tough, so I don't blame you for not wanting to do it, but it would do you the world of good and you might find hidden depths - I did. My son joined the army a couple of years ago as a vehicle mechanic and he went away a boy and came back a man. He has also developed a mental toughness that is rare - I rang him last weekend and when asked how he was "a little sore, we were pulled out of class and made to do a half marathon yesterday. Did it just over 2 hours though". How many 21 year old apprentices do you know that could physically do a half marathon without warning? And how many would have the mental strength? Having run long distance, most of being able to do it is mental toughness. Everything hurts, you feel like you have no energy left and there are still lots of ks in front of you, but you keep on running one step after another after another.

Especially given the NZ defences current funding or lack thereof.

You might be surprised - my son is getting the absolute best training there is with good instructors and a really well set up training environment, his toolkit is all top quality and he is earning significantly more money than any of his civvy mates. The vehicles are excellent (despite the limitations of the LAVs) and all late model, their weapons, clothing, accommodation, food, dental, medical etc are all as good as there is, and best of all, the piss is cheap.

If you think it's a good idea for other people, you should do it yourself.

avgas

24th November 2011, 08:02

yeah, from personal experience basic is bloody tough, so I don't blame you for not wanting to do it, but it would do you the world of good and you might find hidden depths - I did. My son joined the army a couple of years ago as a vehicle mechanic and he went away a boy and came back a man. He has also developed a mental toughness that is rare - I rang him last weekend and when asked how he was "a little sore, we were pulled out of class and made to do a half marathon yesterday. Did it just over 2 hours though". How many 21 year old apprentices do you know that could physically do a half marathon without warning? And how many would have the mental strength? Having run long distance, most of being able to do it is mental toughness. Everything hurts, you feel like you have no energy left and there are still lots of ks in front of you, but you keep on running one step after another after another.

You might be surprised - my son is getting the absolute best training there is with good instructors and a really well set up training environment, his toolkit is all top quality and he is earning significantly more money than any of his civvy mates. The vehicles are excellent (despite the limitations of the LAVs) and all late model, their weapons, clothing, accommodation, food, dental, medical etc are all as good as there is, and best of all, the piss is cheap.

If you think it's a good idea for other people, you should do it yourself.
What he said.
It has improved a lot in the last 10 years. I even hear they have at least 1 gun per soldier now :)
Which is why I think we need to use it more, and put more money effort into forces. To many bludgers could be learning real skills and growing up.