The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

What ever you say mate.
Err do you have different figures mine are off the net i linked them?
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

it tallies with this
https://www.staroilco.net/june-2018-fuel-price-update-for-oregon/

[carbonhed]

Guy Williams being described as a "comedian" is an overstatement. He's about as funny as a baby being run over by a steamroller.

My point exactly :-)

[jasonu]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12123047

This would have been a much better use of the RNZAF Boeing with all that budgeted fuel and crew rather than toting that big tooth bint to some pointless gathering on some coconut island.

[Katman]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12123047

This would have been a much better use of the RNZAF Boeing with all that budgeted fuel and crew rather than toting that big tooth bint to some pointless gathering on some coconut island.

Perhaps she should have been a little more truthful in her disclosure to her travel insurance company.

But hey, don't let me stand in the way of your irrational anti-Jacinda rant.

[nerrrd]

The poor lady was never stable enough to be moved apparently, so it’s a moot point.

Unless the RNZAF were going to fly some more doctors there.

[jasonu]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12125093

and people talk about Trump being Mickey Mouse.
What a joke.

[husaberg]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12125093

and people talk about Trump being Mickey Mouse.
What a joke.
Trump still wears the mouse ears
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/fired-donald-trump-has-sacked-has-resigned-time-president/
Trump has had thus far over a 43% staff turnover in what 18 months

Not to mention
Former Immigration CEO sentenced for CV fraud
26 March 2010

Mary-Anne Thompson

Read more: http://www.verify.co.nz/news-cvfraudnz.php#cvfraudnz20100326#ixzz5RLjeF1yV

[oldrider]

'most striking development' in 40 years of the US economy - (Really? FFS!) https://www.thisisinsider.com/income-inequality-us-economy-chart-thomas-piketty-2018-9 :corn: Gee whiz who'd a thought? :rolleyes:

[Swoop]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12125093

and people talk about Trump being Mickey Mouse.
What a joke.

Yup. A show of utter incompetence by Liarbour.
The guy was well fucked around by these idiots. I must add it to the list of screw-ups by them, adding of course tonight's admittance that they are going back on another pre-election promise to withdraw all troops from Afganistan. That isn't happening now (surprise, surprise).

I see that the media have cottoned on to their ploy of releasing bad news on Friday, hoping that it gets forgotten by the public over the weekend.

[carbonhed]

Yup. A show of utter incompetence by Liarbour.
The guy was well fucked around by these idiots. I must add it to the list of screw-ups by them, adding of course tonight's admittance that they are going back on another pre-election promise to withdraw all troops from Afganistan. That isn't happening now (surprise, surprise).

I see that the media have cottoned on to their ploy of releasing bad news on Friday, hoping that it gets forgotten by the public over the weekend.

Offered the job over a month ago. Three weeks ago Cindy says he's just on the shortlist and now he gets 100k... because he was on the shortlist :lol:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1808/S00129/ardern-sacks-curran-from-cabinet-over-second-diary-flip-flop.htm

Now she doesn't even know what GDP is! You couldn't make this shit up.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/09/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-corrects-interview-answer-about-gdp-figures.html

[sidecar bob]

Now she doesn't even know what GDP is! You couldn't make this shit up.



She wasn't elected because she was smart or the most voted for.
She was elected because people preferred how she looked & talked compared to her polling at fuck all predecessor who had the identical policies.
And the fact that she was prepared to jump into bed with a megalomaniac pensioner she has no control over.
Christ, I rent a site to a telco & need to know what GDP is & how it works.
I suspect English wasn't interested in playing bridesmaid to a low polling candidate.

[Swoop]

She wasn't elected because she was smart or the most voted for.
She was elected because people preferred how she looked & talked compared to her polling at fuck all predecessor who had the identical policies.

It's laughable that Key was derided because of his "horrible, false smile" yet the tooth monster has now got "horrible, false and inept" to hide behind all that ivory.

[husaberg]

Now she doesn't even know what GDP is! You couldn't make this shit up.

Funny considering Simon Bridges couldn't remember his deputies name a couple of weeks ago.
<iframe src="//players.brightcove.net/3921507366001/Syx4Zr1Keb_default/index.html?videoId=5815894896001" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Then again Paula benefit (nations current deputy leader)stating the increase in homeless people on her watch was a positive thing was petty inspirational

[carbonhed]

Even comrade Trotter wonders WTF is happening... "No Substance To Her Stardust: Has Jacinda Lost The Magic?"

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/09/18/no-substance-to-her-stardust-has-jacinda-lost-the-magic/

Even the true believers on The Daily Blog are in sackcloth and ashes :lol: Never mind at least the Greens are doing their best, launching a rescue mission to save the C word for husaberk.

It's not hard to imagine this death spiral driving The Greens and Winston First below 5% and then Cindy's back to the chippy!

[husaberg]

a rescue mission to save the C word for husaberg.


C word........... Dude the real letter is G.
G for who is in Government.

[jasonu]

And the fact that she was prepared to jump into bed with a megalomaniac pensioner she has no control over.
.

I'm quite enjoying old Winnies antics. She hasn't got a hope in hell of ever getting the better of him in any sort of faceoff.

[sidecar bob]

I'm quite enjoying old Winnies antics. She hasn't got a hope in hell of ever getting the better of him in any sort of faceoff.


And that's the sad thing, he should be helping & mentoring her, not trying to get the better of her.
Also. The Govt need to read the rule book before picking up hammer & nails lest they mess it up.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1809/S00237/shoebox-kiwibuild-studios-ultimate-fail.htm
$380,000 for 38sq mtr is $10,000 a sq mtr, plus $45,000 for a car park, Wtf, who is shafting who? I can put up a quality, durable, hi stud industrial building for just over $2000/sq mtr including land, wich with an inexpensive fit out could house ten families in a bigger area each with a 38sq mtr car park each, included.

[husaberg]

$380,000 for 38sq mtr is $10,000 a sq mtr, plus $45,000 for a car park, Wtff, who is shafting who? I can put up a quality, durable ,hi stud industrial building for just over $2000/sq mtr including land.
Only People want real apartments in Hobson point to buy, not hypothetical unfitted out industrial ones.
National never built much of anything only bridges with uncertified steel, Hopitials that are years behind schedule and other massive rourts by Fletchers

[sidecar bob]

Only People want real apartments in Hobson point to buy, not hypothetical unfitted out industrial ones.
National never built much of anything only bridges with uncertified steel, Hopitials that are years behind schedule and other massive rourts by Fletchers

But it's not hypothetical. I'm not talking about what I could if I wanted to.
Forgetting your red herrings of what the last govt may or may not have done, the real issue is what's up with the sq mtr rate & the total fuck up of the floor size, even after Twyford had flash luncheons with said banks?
Also, hopefully these developments have fantastic public transport, as it seems the car park is optional. Or is that just a ploy to make a $ 430,000 38 sq mtr dog box look a little less like some kind of govt rort.
I have just done a deal on selling a house in apparently one of NZ's most unaffordable citys that's ten times the size of those "converted garages" for under three times the price, complete with huge yard, garage & pool. This shit needs investigating.

[Ocean1]

And that's the sad thing, he should be helping & mentoring her, not trying to get the better of her.
Also. The Govt need to read the rule book before picking up hammer & nails lest they mess it up.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1809/S00237/shoebox-kiwibuild-studios-ultimate-fail.htm
$380,000 for 38sq mtr is $10,000 a sq mtr, plus $45,000 for a car park, Wtf, who is shafting who? I can put up a quality, durable, hi stud industrial building for just over $2000/sq mtr including land.

Yeah, it'd be half that too, if you could buy materials for something approaching a reasonable price. You still couldn't do it for that price in Orks though, the monopoly on land development remains.

The whole tiny house thing is a pathetic effort, really, but it's what happens when you attempt to prove that having taxpayers pay for other people's houses is a viable concept. Consistent, though, they believe the taxpayer should pay for everything else. But pretending this is some sort of solution to the "Housing Crisis"(tm) is just pathetic.

However, I'd rather Collins didn't play the Labour game in blaming Labour for exactly the same thing:


Kiwi families deserve a home, not a measly studio apartment only big enough for a single person and their car

Kiwi families deserve exactly what they earn, anything else is bullshit.

[pritch]

I see that the media have cottoned on to their ploy of releasing bad news on Friday, hoping that it gets forgotten by the public over the weekend.

The use of the word 'their' is not entirely appropriate. The late Friday news dump has long been a favourite ploy of politicians from all countries. Well, those countries that actually permit news.

[carbonhed]

Apparently Derek Handley had moved his entire family out here from New York for that job that Cindy reckoned he'd only made the short list for. No wonder she had to fork out 100K of our money to cover for her incompetence. She's a little fibber :laugh:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12126383

[husaberg]

But it's not hypothetical. I'm not talking about what I could if I wanted to.
Forgetting your red herrings of what the last govt may or may not have done, the real issue is what's up with the sq mtr rate & the total fuck up of the floor size, even after Twyford had flash luncheons with said banks?
Also, hopefully these developments have fantastic public transport, as it seems the car park is optional. Or is that just a ploy to make a $ 430,000 38 sq mtr dog box look a little less like some kind of govt rort.
I have just done a deal on selling a house in apparently one of NZ's most unaffordable citys that's ten times the size of those "converted garages" for under three times the price, complete with huge yard, garage & pool. This shit needs investigating.
It is hypothetical because none of your costing are for a fitted out home in Hobsonville point.
Your cost doesn't include the land nor the cost of building in that sesspit of the south Pacific.

[husaberg]

Yeah, it'd be half that too, if you could buy materials for something approaching a reasonable price. You still couldn't do it for that price in Orks though, the monopoly on land development remains.

The whole tiny house thing is a pathetic effort, really, but it's what happens when you attempt to prove that having taxpayers pay for other people's houses is a viable concept. Consistent, though, they believe the taxpayer should pay for everything else. But pretending this is some sort of solution to the "Housing Crisis"(tm) is just pathetic.
However, I'd rather Collins didn't play the Labour game in blaming Labour for exactly the same thing:
Kiwi families deserve exactly what they earn, anything else is bullshit.
There seems to be a bit of discrepancy in your posts.


Older people should be encouraged to continue doing whatever they fucking want with their own property/money.
Also: if they DID want to buy a small place, somewhere within scooter distance of town and built with modern materials then they'd find it fucking difficult finding anything. The best I could do was to downsize from 340sqM to 260sqM, there just haven't been any small places built in the last couple of decades, the council/developer rort simply doesn't allow for them.

Not that I'm old. Cunt.

[Ocean1]

There seems to be a bit of discrepancy in your posts.

Only inside your head.

[husaberg]

Only inside your head.
Really on the one hand you are saying people want small builds including yourself but the local government and developers stops them, and the other side you say its basically shit someone are building them.

[Ocean1]

Really on the one hand you are saying people want small builds including yourself but the local government and developers stops them, and the other side you say its basically shit someone are building them.

Whereabouts outside of your head does a house smaller than 340 sqM equate to a 38 sqM tin shed?

And if they came even slightly close to something fit for purpose they'd still have the distinction of being stunningly bad value for the completely unrealistic asking price to overcome. And that's with the govt actually trying to keep the price down!. It simply don't work if the taxpayer's footing the bill, of course, flagrantly unrestrained spending is absolutely the norm for any money from that source.

Which, of course is the main reason individuals need to take responsibility for their own shit, one's own dollars always stretch far further than someone else's. Communists excepted, of course, those dudes are exempt from the consequences of failing to carrying their own weight, poor dears.

[husaberg]

Whereabouts outside of your head does a house smaller than 340 sqM equate to a 38 sqM tin shed?

And if they came even slightly close to something fit for purpose they'd still have the distinction of being stunningly bad value for the completely unrealistic asking price to overcome. And that's with the govt actually trying to keep the price down!. It simply don't work if the taxpayer's footing the bill, of course, flagrantly unrestrained spending is absolutely the norm for any money from that source.

Which, of course is the main reason individuals need to take responsibility for their own shit, one's own dollars always stretch far further than someone else's. Communists excepted, of course, those dudes are exempt from the consequences of failing to carrying their own weight, poor dears.
You said you couldn't find anything smaller than 260m2 so do keep up.
Taxpayers wont be footing the bill they are basically spec houses built on a larger scale. you do realise they are being sold at market rates.


Older people should be encouraged to continue doing whatever they fucking want with their own property/money.
Also: if they DID want to buy a small place, somewhere within scooter distance of town and built with modern materials then they'd find it fucking difficult finding anything. The best I could do was to downsize from 340sqM to 260sqM, there just haven't been any small places built in the last couple of decades, the council/developer rort simply doesn't allow for them.
Not that I'm old. Cunt.

[sidecar bob]

Taxpayers wont be footing the bill they are basically spec houses built on a larger scale. you do realise they are being sold at market rates.

So based on that, the government is helping nobody but themselves. Bravo!
Kind of like another tax, but not really.

[sidecar bob]

It is hypothetical because none of your costing are for a fitted out home in Hobsonville point.
Your cost doesn't include the land nor the cost of building in that sesspit of the south Pacific.

My build includes land, not cheap land either.
Is there a rule that you have to live in Auckland & pay the government ridiculous market rates for trashy shoe boxes? There's plenty of other places the govt could improve employment opportunities where housing would be cheaper to provide & more liveable.
If the govt would like me to quote on building affordable housing, as a retired garage proprietor with only hobby type building expierence I'd wager I could kick their arses at it.
The first thing I'd do is make sure the buildings met the minimum requirement laid down by the banks, but I'd only have to make a couple of phn calls or Google for a minute. I really wonder how Twyford manage to fuck it up so royally.

[husaberg]

So based on that, the government is helping nobody but themselves. Bravo!
Kind of like another tax, but not really.
How are they helping themselves any profit goes back to the taxpayer
its just venture capital
You should be commending the approach of doing something as it turns out they are doing something, Because pretending there is no Auckland housing crisis wasn't solving the problem.

My build includes land, not cheap land either.
Is there a rule that you have to live in Auckland & pay the government ridiculous market rates for trashy shoe boxes? There's plenty of other places the govt could improve employment opportunities where housing would be cheaper to provide & more liveable.
If the govt would like me to quote on building affordable housing, as a retired garage proprietor with only hobby type building expierence I'd wager I could kick their arses at it.
The first thing I'd do is make sure the buildings met the minimum requirement laid down by the banks, but I'd only have to make a couple of phn calls or Google for a minute. I really wonder how Twyford manage to fuck it up so royally.
Well if you think you can do it better go do it then.
PS it was the min reg for first home loans and they have rejigged the floorplan to suit.

[sidecar bob]

How are they helping themselves any profit goes back to the taxpayer
its just venture capital


Well if you think you can do it better go do it then.
PS it was the min reg for first home loans and they have rejigged the floorplan to suit.
Cool, so I can expect my cut in the mail anytime soon then?
Well they sure as fuck aren't creating affordable first homes, they're maxing their profit. What was the purpose of the excercise again?
I am doing it better, I'm sure the govt will catch on how it's done eventually without my input.
First rule, check the rules of the game before engaging.
Re jigged the floor plan? If they had been paying the bills out of their own hard earned tax payed savings they may have noticed that before they kicked off, bunch of dopey shits.
Any word on how much money was wasted on that debacle alone?

[Ocean1]

You said you couldn't find anything smaller than 260m2 so do keep up.
Taxpayers wont be footing the bill they are basically spec houses built on a larger scale. you do realise they are being sold at market rates.

Yes, I can see how someone that equates "somewhere smaller than 340 sqM within scooter distance of town and built with modern materials" with a single car sized tin shed might defend an outfit that would pay an absolute fucking truckload of someone else's money for exactly that, scattered around the Outer Hebrides somewhere, designed in such a way that nobody will lend money to buy them or necessarily want to actually live in them and then claim it's all because yet another group of people who can't afford them nonetheless somehow deserve them.

I can assure you that nobody else does.

[sidecar bob]

Anyway, whatever incompetent attempt they're having at entry level property development for profit, they had better crack on. 500 more refugees a year now, none of who will be interested to explore any further south than Papatoetoe.

[husaberg]

Yes, I can see how someone that equates "somewhere smaller than 340 sqM within scooter distance of town and built with modern materials" with a single car sized tin shed might defend an outfit that would pay an absolute fucking truckload of someone else's money for exactly that, scattered around the Outer Hebrides somewhere, designed in such a way that nobody will lend money to buy them or necessarily want to actually live in them and then claim it's all because yet another group of people who can't afford them nonetheless somehow deserve them.

I can assure you that nobody else does.
You said the best you could find that was smaller was 240M2 but you wanr-ted smaller.
Maybe you should actually look at the hobson point subdivision a shit load of people seem to want small ass builds there.
If there was no demand for small builds why are so many being built by so many different companies and developers.


Anyway, whatever incompetent attempt they're having at entry level property development for profit, they had better crack on. 500 more refugees a year now, none of who will be interested to explore any further south than Papatoetoe.
500 refuges vs 100,0000 of thousand of migrants per year that national encouraged to move here........

[sidecar bob]

500 refuges vs 100,0000 of thousand of migrants per year that national encouraged to move here........
Umm, migrants bring piles of cash & skills, in fact it's a pre requisite, were you unaware of that?
Refugees bring fuck all but dependency.

No, it's ok, news just to hand, the gubbamint is going to spend 30 million on 150 homes for them. (I wonder if that's market value)
Now that's value for money! As the tooth fairy so eloquently put it, like some college girl in the year 12 speech finals, "because it's the right thing to do" fucking brilliant Mother Teresa!

[husaberg]

Umm, migrants bring piles of cash & skills, in fact it's a pre requisite, were you unaware of that?
Refugees bring fuck all but dependency.

No, it's ok, news just to hand, the gubbamint is going to spend 30 million on 150 homes for them. (I wonder if that's market value)
Now that's value for money! As the tooth fairy so eloquently put it, like some college girl in the year 12 speech finals, "because it's the right thing to do" fucking brilliant Mother Teresa!

Its a bit simplistic to say they have no skills. Why was nZ letting in what you call skilled imigrants that Australia and the UK and the USA were not.
I am not anti migration just we were not so picky as we could have been, most are not filling in skill shortages or going to areas where they are skill shortages the sheer numbers are driving the housing shortage.
while i am sure a surplus of potential labour is good for some business its not necessarily whats best for the country

[sidecar bob]

Its a bit simplistic to say they have no skills

Dude, simplistic. Can we get back to the bit where your fave govt is in the entry level property development business for profit that they can't even get right, and you're all about it.:msn-wink:

[husaberg]

Dude, simplistic. Can we get back to the bit where your fave govt is in the entry level property development business for profit that they can't even get right, and you're all about it.:msn-wink:
What part was not got right. as i said the floorplans were altered to suit so no issue.
Note your old pony tailed pulling mate J-don Key was actually a second generation refugee. Brought up in one of those state houses too by a mum on the DPB, Sure he turned out to be a crook but dont they all.......
Nicki hagger is a second Gen refugee as well.
ps the current gov is a bit green for my liking but whatever
https://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/trichophilia-definition-john-key-hair-fetish-top-10-awkward-john-key-moments-roger-sutton-cera-christchurch.pnghttps://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/11078079_10153284278389650_626233233604100161_n1.j pghttps://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/trichophilia-definition-john-key-hair-fetish-child-minister-for-women-slammed-for-ponytail-pulling-stance-tvnz-tv1-news.pnghttp://imgur.com/1oMUCkF.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/wT4XtDj.gif

[Swoop]

The use of the word 'their' is not entirely appropriate. The late Friday news dump has long been a favourite ploy of politicians from all countries. Well, those countries that actually permit news.
Correct, but the "little secret" was that you only use this ploy occasionally so that the great unwashed don't cotton on. So far it is almost a weekly event.

Umm, migrants bring piles of cash & skills, in fact it's a pre requisite, were you unaware of that?
Refugees bring fuck all but dependency.

No, it's ok, news just to hand, the gubbamint is going to spend 30 million on 150 homes for them.
The tooth monster is getting a wide-on over Kate Shepard's house that is on the market... How many refugees can be housed in that place?

[sidecar bob]

What part was not got right. as i said the floorplans were altered to suit so no issue.
Note your old pony tailed pulling mate J-don Key was actually a second generation refugee. Brought up in one of those state houses too by a mum on the DPB, Sure he turned out to be a crook but dont they all.......
Nicki hagger is a second Gen refugee as well.
ps the current gov is a bit green for my liking but whatever


Wow, you've managed to heard virtually a complete school of irrelevant & historic red herrings there in an attempt to take the heat off the real & current issues.
500 extra refugees, or a pony tail tug, I can't decide.

[husaberg]

Wow, you've managed to heard virtually a complete school of irrelevant & historic red herrings there in an attempt to take the heat off the real & current issues.
500 extra refugees, or a pony tail tug, I can't decide.Cool aye
But he was a second gen refugee.....so i dont see how its unrelated to refugees.
It may have escaped your notice but John key also agreed to upping the refugees.

not to mention



John Key signals refugee quota will be lifted from 1987 level
such as last September's (2015)decision to accept 750 Syrian refugees over three years. Of those, 600 were part of an emergency intake outside the quota. The extra intake was expected to cost an extra $49 million over three years in resettlement costs, on top of the $58 million spent on refugee resettlement annually.
Mr Key said it was also important New Zealand had the capacity to properly re-settle those refugees if the quota was lifted.
He pointed to the $21 million upgrade of the Mangere Resettlement Centre, expected to be completed by the end of the year which increases the capacity of the centre to 196 beds with the potential to house 300 in an emergency situation. Refugees spend their first six weeks in the centre where they are given health checks and taught some of the basics of New Zealand life.


John Key says NZ will take 150 refugees from Australia if required
28 Jun, 2016 2:02pm


Again in 2001, New Zealand accepted resettlement for 130 Afghan asylum seekers picked up by the freighter, MS Tampa, after their craft capsized in the Indian Ocean. In 2015 a special quota of 600 places, additional to the annual quota, was announced for an intake of Syrian refugees, with 100 arriving in 2015/16 and 250 per year for 2016/17 and 2017/18. This, effectively, raised the quota to 1000 places from July 2016 onwards.

Not a bopeep out of you then..........

[sidecar bob]

Cool aye
But he was a second gen refugee.....so i dont see how its unrelated to refugees.
It may have escaped your notice but John key also agreed to upping the refugees.

not to mention








Not a bopeep out of you then..........
Yep, more red herrings. Can we just concentrate on what a total fuck up the current govt is making of basic stuff, rather than a whole pile of historic what if's.
I appreciate you must have watched a lot of Helen Clarke answering questions by deflecting it back to something someone else did worse to take the heat off, & it is the Labour modus operandi, but dude, that was a decade ago.

[husaberg]

Yep, more red herrings. Can we just concentrate on what a total fuck up the current govt is making of basic stuff, rather than a whole pile of historic what if's.
I appreciate you must have watched a lot of Helen Clarke answering questions by deflecting it back to something someone else did worse to take the heat off, & it is the Labour modus operandi, but dude, that was a decade ago.
I just find it interesting that when Key upped the Refugees all was Rosie but if it happens now its a fuck up......... Intersting things these National party dynamics.

[jasonu]

you do realise they are being sold at market rates.

So where is the affordability for the young NZ'ers that can't afford to buy without assistance? (ie handouts on the tax payers backs)

[sidecar bob]

I just find it interesting that when Key upped the Refugees all was Rosie but if it happens now its a fuck up......... Intersting things these National party dynamics.
I find it interesting that you constantly look to the past to justify the present.
How about concentrating on a decent answer to Jason's last question & the market rates rip off for example, where the govt is essentially taking food off property developers tables for their own gain while providing no benifit to anyone but themselves?(I bet you don't)
I wasn't talking primarily about refugees, but go ahead, Key was far from perfect & we all know national would be having their fourth term if he hadn't jacked it in. You have seized on refugees while studiously ignoring the proper fuck up's. Typical Labour Party/supporter tactic.
Oh, where's the 30 million coming from to house them? Wouldn't want to work hard, save & pay stupid amounts of tax now would you? I think that entitles me to an opinion.

[husaberg]

I find it interesting that you constantly look to the past to justify the present.
How about concentrating on a decent answer to Jason's last question & the market rates rip off for example, where the govt is essentially taking food off property developers tables for their own gain while providing no benifit to anyone but themselves?(I bet you don't)
I wasn't talking primarily about refugees, but go ahead, Key was far from perfect & we all know national would be having their fourth term if he hadn't jacked it in. You have seized on refugees while studiously ignoring the proper fuck up's. Typical Labour Party/supporter tactic.
Oh, where's the 30 million coming from to house them? Wouldn't want to work hard, save & pay stupid amounts of tax now would you? I think that entitles me to an opinion.

I have to go back to previous events as National is no longer in power, At least i am not going back 30 years like Ocean tried to, to shift blame for the housing crisis.
30 million easy we are not holding any flag referendums.
Its fair to say key had lost his sparkle so a fourth term was a given.
It seems nationals party only plays negative politics when they are in opposition. Labour gained power through positive politics ie offering better solutions, maybe thats something Simon Bridges successor might learn from.


So where is the affordability for the young NZ'ers that can't afford to buy without assistance? (ie handouts on the tax payers backs)
They are affordable, thats the whole point. As for food off the table for devlopers Bob himself said they were over priced and you could do it far far cheaper so how is that taken food out of their poor familys table?

[Swoop]

I just find it interesting that when Key upped the Refugees all was Rosie but if it happens now its a fuck up......... Intersting things these National party dynamics.

After looking at what the refugee system was capable of handling, the number was increased.
What Liarbour and the lunatic-fringe party want is an open door policy (essentially to help their voter-base).
What NZ needs is skilled migrants, while we "do our moral part" of accepting a number of genuine refugees.

[Ocean1]

But, but this isn't the advice we wanted you to give us! :laugh:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107131315/capital-gains-tax-would-have-pros-and-cons-says-tax-working-group

[Ocean1]

At least i am not going back 30 years like Ocean tried to, to shift blame for the housing crisis.

I shifted fuck all, I simply showed you what caused Kiwis to stop investing in retirement funds, (and therefore NZ economic growth) and start investing in property.

https://www.interest.co.nz/property/87077/land-price-house-size-jumps-how-nz%E2%80%99s-1989-tax-experiment-ignored-potential-impacts

If you actually read it, rather than automatically leap into Marxism defense mode, even just the first few sentences, you'd understand that the net result of labours 1989 tax changes directly drove NZ's subsequent reduction in investments in the share market and contributed substantially to increased housing prices. It's not actually disputed by anyone except, apparently you.

Nor is the fact that they did it because they needed the tax immediately, for social welfare spending, not when pension funds matured decades down the track. They said as much at the time.

And fuck me, don't the last few months feel like groundhog day?

[carbonhed]

The Derek Handley omnishambles gets more omnishambolic...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12128164

To quote DPF "It is of course quite normal for someone applying for a $400,000 a year Government job to text the Prime Minister and tell them they have applied.

It is also quite normal to be appointed despite (reportedly) applying after the deadline for applications.

Also quite normal to have a secret meeting with the Minister in charge of making the appointment.

Nothing at all out of the normal here." :rofl:

[husaberg]

I shifted fuck all, I simply showed you what caused Kiwis to stop investing in retirement funds, (and therefore NZ economic growth) and start investing in property.

https://www.interest.co.nz/property/87077/land-price-house-size-jumps-how-nz%E2%80%99s-1989-tax-experiment-ignored-potential-impacts

If you actually read it, rather than automatically leap into Marxism defense mode, even just the first few sentences, you'd understand that the net result of labours 1989 tax changes directly drove NZ's subsequent reduction in investments in the share market and contributed substantially to increased housing prices. It's not actually disputed by anyone except, apparently you.

Nor is the fact that they did it because they needed the tax immediately, for social welfare spending, not when pension funds matured decades down the track. They said as much at the time.

And fuck me, don't the last few months feel like groundhog day?
................

Sure we can. The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.

So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").

They also changed the tax law re retirement savings, taxing them at source instead of on withdrawal, a move that was specifically designed to free up retirement scheme savings capital for housing investment.

So we can absolutely blame labour for implementing policy that drove the housing market in the direction it subsequently took.


Them, and crooked cunts like this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/106862107/Former-NZ-local-govt-CEOs-behaviour-deemed-corrupt-by-Australian-commission and their developer mates for the seriously dodgy practices that created the shortage that drove further price rises.


After looking at what the refugee system was capable of handling, the number was increased.
What Liarbour and the lunatic-fringe party want is an open door policy (essentially to help their voter-base).
What NZ needs is skilled migrants, while we "do our moral part" of accepting a number of genuine refugees.

Which is what happened under both governments Only National had a far easier imigration policy.
NZ doesnt need vast number of skilled immigrants it needs the people to be trained to fill vacancies and it needs the industries to actually train people to fill them and reconcile that this needs doing.

[husaberg]

The Derek Handley omnishambles gets more omnishambolic...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12128164

To quote DPF "It is of course quite normal for someone applying for a $400,000 a year Government job to text the Prime Minister and tell them they have applied.

It is also quite normal to be appointed despite (reportedly) applying after the deadline for applications.

Also quite normal to have a secret meeting with the Minister in charge of making the appointment.

Nothing at all out of the normal here." :rofl:

Not out of the norm if you compare it to Nationals handling on Todd Barclay situation
Only in that case they never removed Todd Barclay but did sack the person who did no wrong.
Bill english had a series of memory laspes, regarding the 450 texts he sent Dickson, Which labours leader hasn't fogotten anything
Then only after a lot of heat Did National admit that they made secret payments out of the PM budget so they wouldn't tell others of the situation and never made Todd speak to the police.
The only real difference is Clair Curren was demoted following her transgressions and everything was done in an open manner.
While Barclay got his legal expenses paid by the tax payer and was sent on a two month paid vacation to Europe.
https://assets.change.org/photos/2/lm/vw/KklmVWsYEbxbjDO-800x450-noPad.jpg?1509354028

[sidecar bob]

Jacinda grows a ball sack

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107248175/prime-minister-announces-decision-on-meka-whaitiri-inquiry
Oh, not quite, anger Managment is still an MP and co-chur, oops, co-chair, speaking of people that have been on paid vacation.

[carbonhed]

Jacinda grows a ball sack

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107248175/prime-minister-announces-decision-on-meka-whaitiri-inquiry
Oh, not quite, anger Managment is still an MP speaking people that have been on paid vacation.

:laugh: The Coalition of Losers is becoming more ludicrous by the day.

I'm really enjoying this government. Just when you think they couldn't get any more useless they surprise you!

[husaberg]

I guess we are not going to talk about the millions National wasted on stripping down and Cleaning up State houses that wasn't actually needed...................

[eldog]

Which is what happened under both governments Only National had a far easier imigration policy.
NZ doesnt need vast number of skilled immigrants it needs the people to be trained to fill vacancies and it needs the industries to actually train people to fill them and reconcile that this needs doing.

I would have to disagree, it needs a good number of skilled workers in specific industries.

we don’t need more latte makers

the skills we need are more hands on and design type not bean counters.
people who can make industry work.

FWIW
i don’t agree in bringing in refugees myself. At this time.

[Swoop]

But, but this isn't the advice we wanted you to give us! :laugh:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107131315/capital-gains-tax-would-have-pros-and-cons-says-tax-working-group
Getting advice from the Cullen, cunt who fucked the finances before being kicked out of parliament, is ludicrous.
After all the leftist chest beating over the housing/immigration/foreign investor issues and they still fuck things up by considering a tax on things which are already taxed.



I guess we are not going to talk about the millions National wasted on stripping down and Cleaning up State houses that wasn't actually needed...................
Just imagine the wailing and baying for blood IF the threat was serious. Taking the safest option available at the time was done (obviously). Shame it wasn't re-investigated sooner though.

[husaberg]

Getting advice from the Cullen, cunt who fucked the finances before being kicked out of parliament, is ludicrous.
After all the leftist chest beating over the housing/immigration/foreign investor issues and they still fuck things up by considering a tax on things which are already taxed..

While i dont like the dude, he did control the finances over a period in which we had considerable gains in paying off our Debt, while the subsequent nats Govt borrowed to the hilt.
http://www.rightreason.org/pics/debt-gdp.pnghttp://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/reserve-bank-of-nz-real-gross-domestic-product-1990_2013.jpg

Just imagine the wailing and baying for blood IF the threat was serious. Taking the safest option available at the time was done (obviously). Shame it wasn't re-investigated sooner though.

But it wasn't National screwed the pooch at the tax payers considerable expense someone made a heap of money, A bit like not tendering the CHCH rebuild, Fletchers track record is deplorable as is their subsidiaries.


I would have to disagree, it needs a good number of skilled workers in specific industries.

we don’t need more latte makers

the skills we need are more hands on and design type not bean counters.
people who can make industry work.

FWIW
i don’t agree in bringing in refugees myself. At this time.

We are an a nation of smart people, the skills that are brought in can be cultivated at home, or if more opportunuities exist her eless young kiwi talent will leave to go overseas, i dont buy into the fact we need more builders and laborers or middle management which makes up most of the immigrants.
I am not anti immigration but why is it that NZ is so easy to get into compared to the US or Aussie and a lot of other places why are we so less fussy.

[sidecar bob]

I guess we are not going to talk about the millions National wasted on stripping down and Cleaning up State houses that wasn't actually needed...................

Alternative headline, National do nothing about drug contaminated houses. Thousands suffer permanent retardation.

[husaberg]

Alternative headline, National do nothing about drug contaminated houses. Thousands suffer permanent retardation.

Only that's not what happened though, it was national screwed the pooch and wasting millions of dollars at the tax payers expense as they didnt do complete diligence.
If there was any consistency in your approach that should be worth a few more pages than 50k on a flight.:lol:

[Ocean1]

................



I assume you believe that proved I shifted the blame to labour.

Whereas in fact it belonged there from the beginning, and never went anywhere else.

But I could be wrong, you reinterpret everything anyone says, so whatever you believe doesn't actually have any validity, as I said, anywhere outside your head.

And to be honest it's just not worth putting any effort into trying to second guess your perpetual self-justifying bullshit.

[husaberg]

I assume you believe that proved I shifted the blame to labour.

Whereas in fact it belonged there from the beginning, and never went anywhere else.

But I could be wrong, you reinterpret everything anyone says, so whatever you believe doesn't actually have any validity, as I said, anywhere outside your head.

And to be honest it's just not worth putting any effort into trying to second guess your perpetual self-justifying bullshit.
Sure its not like Voltare goaded you into it.
Its was and still is pretty pathetic to use one persons opinion that almost noone agrees with of an event that occured 30 years and 10 governments earlier but you went there anyway.



S
I'm doubtful you can attribute the housing shortage to labour policies, it was not under their watch prices skyrocketed. That was more to do with the ready availablity of cheap money with interest rates not seen since the 60's.
With global debt at least 1.5 time higher than in 2007 and countries like Turkey, Argentina having financial issues, the US stock market at record levels assisted by Corporate tax breaks a reset cannot be far away.


Sure we can. The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.
So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").
They also changed the tax law re retirement savings, taxing them at source instead of on withdrawal, a move that was specifically designed to free up retirement scheme savings capital for housing investment.
So we can absolutely blame labour for implementing policy that drove the housing market in the direction it subsequently took.
Them, and crooked cunts like this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/106862107/Former-NZ-local-govt-CEOs-behaviour-deemed-corrupt-by-Australian-commission and their developer mates for the seriously dodgy practices that created the shortage that drove further price rises.

Odd that you are not going on about all that money that the previous government wasted on the p houses when all they needed was a bit of sugar soap.
but no accused you of consistency.

[Ocean1]

Sure its not like Voltare goaded you into it.
Its was and still is pretty pathetic to use one persons opinion that almost noone agrees with of an event that occured 30 years and 10 governments earlier but you went there anyway.






Odd that you are not going on about all that money that the previous government wasted on the p houses when all they needed was a bit of sugar soap.
but no accused you of consistency.

Yeah, there was an opinion or two in there, hiding among the core facts that labour changed the tax structure around retirement investment, diverting investments streams into housing and away from the stock market. Facts. And the only one I see disputing them is you, a presumed socialist that can't stop himself prancing around on his anti-tory soapbox every possible chance he gets. So the fact that you're diverting attention away from your party's fuckups yet again has all of the compelling argument of a six year old whining that it's someone else's fault his room's a fucking mess. Now that's consistency.

And your latest "whatabout" diversion about p houses has fuck all to do with the evel nat's wasting money, a skill labour has them beat all ends up on, it's about money wasted, in fact by the hand wringing social justice brigade that demanded tighter controls over those criminal landlords in the first place.

[husaberg]

Yeah, there was an opinion or two in there, hiding among the core facts that labour changed the tax structure around retirement investment, diverting investments streams into housing and away from the stock market. Facts. And the only one I see disputing them is you, a presumed socialist that can't stop himself prancing around on his anti-tory soapbox every possible chance he gets. So the fact that you're diverting attention away from your party's fuckups yet again has all of the compelling argument of a six year old whining that it's someone else's fault his room's a fucking mess. Now that's consistency.

And your latest "whatabout" diversion about p houses has fuck all to do with the evel nat's wasting money, a skill labour has them beat all end up on, it's about money wasted, in fact by the hand wringing social justice brigade that demanded tighter controls over those criminal landlords in the first place.
I am the only one deputing them really? where are all the opinions from economists that support that opoinion you posted itsa far fetched obscure puff piece .......
Its not a diversion about P houses its a cold hard fact that the last National government wasted a shit load of tax payer money a fact you will never acknowledge or hold them accountable as you are a being a hypocrite.
You and your ilk rant on for pages about 50K but dont say shit all about millions.
You all go on about your tax money being wasted on state houses and beneficiaries and refugees but fail to notice the only National PM that was elected in the last 20 years was raised in a state house by a single mum on a benefit one of whose parent was a refugee and whose University education was paid educated by the state.

[jasonu]

Jacinda grows a ball sack

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107248175/prime-minister-announces-decision-on-meka-whaitiri-inquiry
Oh, not quite, anger Managment is still an MP and co-chur, oops, co-chair, speaking of people that have been on paid vacation.

That's what you get when you put someone in a position of great responsibility because the person is a woman/brown/gay etc instead of picking a person who is the best qualified.

[jasonu]

50k on a flight.:lol:

It was $80k

All I see you doing is ragging on what National did in the past.
I have yet to see you say 'Labour are great because...' or 'Labour made a great decision about...'
In your defence, as shit as labour is and as shitty a job the lead bint is doing there isn't really anything to praise them for.

[sidecar bob]

That's what you get when you put someone in a position of great responsibility because the person is a woman/brown/gay etc instead of picking a person who is the best qualified.

Yes, but everyone should still get a turn, regardless of your prejudices. It's only the year three school play . . . :facepalm:

[sidecar bob]

I am the only one deputing them really? where are all the opinions from economists that support that opoinion you posted itsa far fetched obscure puff piece .......
Its not a diversion about P houses its a cold hard fact that the last National government wasted a shit load of tax payer money a fact you will never acknowledge or hold them accountable as you are a being a hypocrite.
You and your ilk rant on for pages about 50K but dont say shit all about millions.
You all go on about your tax money being wasted on state houses and beneficiaries and refugees but fail to notice the only National PM that was elected in the last 20 years was raised in a state house by a single mum on a benefit one of whose parent was a refugee and whose University education was paid educated by the state.

The ministers don't just set about to strip out contaminated houses of their own decisions.
The govt employ advisers at every level, somebody that still has a job & likely an ulterior motive has fucked this up big time.
Several years ago, a good mate of mine said, there's nothing harmful in meth fumes, these houses just need a scrub & some paint. they're wasting millions on them.
That was Nodrog off here & the bugger was spot on.

[Ocean1]

I am the only one deputing them really? where are all the opinions from economists that support that opoinion you posted itsa far fetched obscure puff piece .......
Its not a diversion about P houses its a cold hard fact that the last National government wasted a shit load of tax payer money a fact you will never acknowledge or hold them accountable as you are a being a hypocrite.
You and your ilk rant on for pages about 50K but dont say shit all about millions.
You all go on about your tax money being wasted on state houses and beneficiaries and refugees but fail to notice the only National PM that was elected in the last 20 years was raised in a state house by a single mum on a benefit one of whose parent was a refugee and whose University education was paid educated by the state.

It's history, dude, known and accepted, your assertions that it's "just opinion" don't change the historical fact that labour changed the tax structure around retirement investment, diverting investments streams into housing and away from the stock market, setting the scene for the "housing crisis" (TM) that they later, (like you) blamed national for. As is the fact that they did so in order to fund their social welfare related election promises. Which is so completely fucked up it's fucking hilarious.

And yes, immediately reaching for your "shit I can blame national for" folder is so obviously a diversion tactic it's ridiculous, like ponytail pulling and most of the rest of the shit in that folder it has absolutely fuck all to contribute to any discussion about labour's performance RIGHT NOW. It's also pretty much the only response you ever have in any political discussion, to anything whatsoever, it more or less defines you as a labour apologist, and will continue to do so until you learn to actually address the topic in hand.

So yes, me and my "ilk", (which I take to mean taxpayers) will absolutely identify the bit about John Key, (fuck, you can't even use his name) having benefited from the taxpayer as a child as yet another diversion, another reach into that "shit I can blame national for" folder and write it off completely as any sort of intelligent discussion. I notice, also that you're concern about Key's initial cost to the state, (read taxpayer) doesn't extend to any sort of analysis about how much tax he and his commercial activities subsequently contributed to the economy, or in fact how that compares to how much the average beneficiary subsequently contributes?

So it's just more of the same old low calorie left wing politics of envy shit you always trot out.

[Ocean1]

The ministers don't just set about to strip out contaminated houses of their own decisions.
The govt employ advisers at every level, somebody that still has a job & likely an ulterior motive has fucked this up big time.
Several years ago, a good mate of mine said, there's nothing harmful in meth fumes, these houses just need a scrub & some paint. they're wasting millions on them.
That was Nodrog off here & the bugger was spot on.

I think anyone with any experience in a chemical industry environment would have had the same opinion. It's certainly far less toxic than nicotine, (Dutch Chemical Industry Association: "Rinse mouth, give plenty of water to drink, then induce vomiting and transport immediately to hospital"). :laugh: It is one of the most toxic non weaponised chemicals in existence.

The trouble, as is increasingly the case, is that you can't argue with the safety Nazis, even when they're wrong, no matter who's paying them.

[husaberg]

The ministers don't just set about to strip out contaminated houses of their own decisions.
The govt employ advisers at every level, somebody that still has a job & likely an ulterior motive has fucked this up big time.
Several years ago, a good mate of mine said, there's nothing harmful in meth fumes, these houses just need a scrub & some paint. they're wasting millions on them.
That was Nodrog off here & the bugger was spot on.

The advice they were given was wrong is not an excuse, As the buck stops at the ministers who never questioned it.
The fact that its okay with you that they wasted likly hundres of millions of dollars is rather telling in that national can do no wrong.
Gordo clearly needs a job in the national cabinet.


It was $80k

All I see you doing is ragging on what National did in the past.
I have yet to see you say 'Labour are great because...' or 'Labour made a great decision about...'
In your defence, as shit as labour is and as shitty a job the lead bint is doing there isn't really anything to praise them for.
It was 50K as the plane had to fly off the island regardless and it was in the budget anyway they were already only 25% of what National had spent in the same period.
In answer to claims of what labour did in the past.
I dont say labour is great on a daily basis as i am not a labour pusher like Ocean was for National.
Plus due to nationals leader whole limo travel expenses hilarity we have not had the time to even talk about mush else
I would personally like labour to fix the shambles that the nats made of the HS&E acts that was the knee jerk reaction to Pike river, An event that occurred because the nats gave all the checks and balances to the companies like pike rather than the system that had worked with govt mines inspectors having the power.
The should also fix the situation where the company reps were able to get out of the court action for wrongful death with illegal payments.


It's history, dude, known and accepted, your assertions that it's "just opinion" don't change the historical fact that labour changed the tax structure around retirement investment, diverting investments streams into housing and away from the stock market, setting the scene for the "housing crisis" (TM) that they later, (like you) blamed national for. As is the fact that they did so in order to fund their social welfare related election promises. Which is so completely fucked up it's fucking hilarious.

And yes, immediately reaching for your "shit I can blame national for" folder is so obviously a diversion tactic it's ridiculous, like ponytail pulling and most of the rest of the shit in that folder it has absolutely fuck all to contribute to any discussion about labour's performance RIGHT NOW. It's also pretty much the only response you ever have in any political discussion, to anything whatsoever, it more or less defines you as a labour apologist, and will continue to do so until you learn to actually address the topic in hand.

So yes, me and my "ilk", (which I take to mean taxpayers) will absolutely identify the bit about John Key, (fuck, you can't even use his name) having benefited from the taxpayer as a child as yet another diversion, another reach into that "shit I can blame national for" folder and write it off completely as any sort of intelligent discussion. I notice, also that you're concern about Key's initial cost to the state, (read taxpayer) doesn't extend to any sort of analysis about how much tax he and his commercial activities subsequently contributed to the economy, or in fact how that compares to how much the average beneficiary subsequently contributes?

So it's just more of the same old low calorie left wing politics of envy shit you always trot out.
your claims about the cause of the Aucklnd housing crisis are not backed by the majority of experts you went back 30 years.
You are the one that immediately reaches for the blame labour card.
I am not at all concerned about Keys cost to the state as a child. i am not the one going on there is no need for state houses or benefits for the unfortunate.
I dont go along with the right wing let them eat cake philosophy.

[Katman]

Several years ago, a good mate of mine said, there's nothing harmful in meth fumes, these houses just need a scrub & some paint. they're wasting millions on them.
That was Nodrog off here & the bugger was spot on.

Thank goodness for Gordie.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/178825-463-state-houses-vacant-due-to-P-contamination?p=1130976172#post1130976172

[husaberg]

Thank goodness for Gordie.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/178825-463-state-houses-vacant-due-to-P-contamination?p=1130976172#post1130976172

AS a KB first as much as it pains me Katspam actually produced something relevant that i agree with.

[Ocean1]

AS a KB first as much as it pains me Katspam actually produced something relevant that i agree with.

Aye, as my old boss said, fools never differ.

[sidecar bob]

AS a KB first as much as it pains me Katspam actually produced something relevant that i agree with.

Conveniently ignoring what the news would be if meth contamination was making families sick, which many simpletons on the 6pm news believed was the reason for their illnesses not so long ago.
Imagine a govt that failed to act at the time.

[Katman]

....which many simpletons on the 6pm news believed was the reason for their illnesses not so long ago.


You should probably learn to be a bit more questioning of mainstream media then.

[husaberg]

Conveniently ignoring what the news would be if meth contamination was making families sick, which many simpletons on the 6pm news believed was the reason for their illnesses not so long ago.
Imagine a govt that failed to act at the time.
You mean like continually ignoring a housing crisis
or conveniently ignoring advice against asset sales.
Or advice from their own mines departments about mining regulations.


Aye, as my old boss said, fools never differ.

his fav should have been a fool and his money are soon parted.
He hired you you worked for him so no wonder you agreed with him, so fair enough, National needs more supporters like you.

[Swoop]

While i dont like the dude, he did control the finances over a period in which we had considerable gains in paying off our Debt, while the subsequent nats Govt borrowed to the hilt.
Correct, they were doing quite well... up to the point where they knew their 9yrs of terror were coming to an end and they petulantly "threw the fiscal toys out of the cot" and wasted all the good work on a broken trainset - which forced the incoming government to borrow.
Then the two bastards (klerke & Cullen) swindled cushy jobs in the idiot sector.

[husaberg]

Correct, they were doing quite well... up to the point where they knew their 9yrs of terror were coming to an end and they petulantly "threw the fiscal toys out of the cot" and wasted all the good work on a broken trainset - which forced the incoming government to borrow.
Then the two bastards (klerke & Cullen) swindled cushy jobs in the idiot sector.
At that stage the broken toyset was only $1
the money needed to fix it was another matter, granted, but the buying of the rolling stock i think was actually nationals idea?
The thing was if they didn't buy it and we lost the national rail network where would that leave NZ as or roads are not up to it.
It was a silly thing selling it off in the first place, that was Labour though (but the ones involved were all later ACT)
From memory the silver and the copper from the electric lines at the Otira tunnel paid for the purchase price.

The incoming nats government never had to borrow on account of the toyset though that was on account of the tax cuts ie bribes they had promised their voters.

Only thing was the tax cuts ended up being paid for by the voters while the only ones that got real tax cuts were big business.
National borrowed up big during their time in power which is not really what i would call being fiscally responsible
While the nats will cry GFC, What it was caused by was right wing silliness and bailouts and stupid lending policies.

i was at a seminar about a month ago where some reps of Kiwi rail gave a talk while it was about safety and staff engagement.
they mentioned one of their own recent highlights where the rail workshop at Hillside. Hillside had been decimated by changes in Kiwirails purchasing policies under National
They had asked the staff to come up with ways to lower the turn around time of the servicing. The staff being a bit suspicious, asked for a guarantee that this would be no further staff cuts as a result.
Guess what by engaging the staff and streamlining the process they identified as being the issues ,Kiwirail staff were able to lower turn around times by 25%.
Note this never happened under the previous government they just farmed buying stuff from China including would you believe concrete sleepers.
they even tried to farm out the repairs to chinese labour
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/81015458/kiwirail-use-of-chinese-workers-for-locomotive-repairs-challenged

As for chinese steel in bridges
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/06/nzta-knew-about-substandard-chinese-steel-emails-show.html
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/308464/huntly-bypass-steel-details-kept-secret
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/305400/steel-buyers-were-told-price-'too-low'

or these
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/103411365/first-sentence-handed-down-in-watchdogs-investigation-into-steel-mesh

[Ocean1]

At that stage the broken toyset was only $1

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread?p=1131105796#post1131105796

It's the same thread FFS.

[Ocean1]

i was at a seminar about a month ago where some reps of Kiwi rail gave a talk while it was about safety and staff engagement.
they mentioned one of their own recent highlights where the rail workshop at Hillside. Hillside had been decimated by changes in Kiwirails purchasing policies under National

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Just like clockwork.

I worked closely with Kiwirail for years, spending time at all of their workshops, including Hillside. The organisation at that level is deeply dysfunctional, has been since the 50's, and that's the single reason it was sold. Not in pursuit of some capitalist agenda, but because it was a financial millstone around any govt's neck, hemorrhaging taxpayer's money from every orifice. I can understand that for idealistic reasons you'd rather it wasn't sold, but generations of governments of different flavours failed to find a way to stem the bleeding, and in desperation the whole shebang was finally amputated as the gangrenous, festering liability it had become.

What happened subsequently was a lesson in why politicians with zero commercial experience should never, under any circumstances be given any commercial governance responsibility. A sequence of professional international asset management companies, belatedly recognising what they'd bought passed the hot potato on to the next patsy until one of them managed to flog it to the ultimate patsy: back where it came from. Since which it's continued to hemorrhage money. Taxpayer's money, again.

But let's blame the management. :laugh: Dude, 90% of the management are tradesmen from the floor, the rest are European immigrant senior tech and business managers stunned at the glacial pace of production and hamstrung by the dysfunctional culture. The single biggest reason the organisation fails at every opportunity is because the RMTU vetos pretty much any and all changes to processes and procedures that have proven to be untenable for generations. They've been directly responsible for the ongoing failure to produce anything remotely resembling a viable product by diligently blocked every proposed improvement since the war, and the rise of safety Nazism has handed them complete control of everything that happens inside those workshops on a plate.

Now, I'm sure you've got examples showing how it's all the evel capitalist bogyman's fault, but let's make one thing perfectly clear: The two things that differentiate Kiwirail from successful major infrastructure providers worldwide are it's militant union and it's unrelentingly chronic failure.

[Swoop]

It was a silly thing selling it off in the first place, that was Labour though (but the ones involved were all later ACT)

You remember when the saying was "if you want something crushed beyond recognition - send it by rail"? The place has always been a disaster, but you don't spend over half a billion on something that's worthless, you wait until the owner wants to pay YOU to take it off of their hands. Then you buy everything for $1-.
A business concept entirely lost on the inexperienced leftists'.

[husaberg]

You remember when the saying was "if you want something crushed beyond recognition - send it by rail"? The place has always been a disaster, but you don't spend over half a billion on something that's worthless, you wait until the owner wants to pay YOU to take it off of their hands. Then you buy everything for $1-.
A business concept entirely lost on the inexperienced leftists'.

My memory as it turns out was faulty
the *80s Labour government privatized it, but it was National under boulger that sold what was then tranzrail. Not to the highest bidder either.


The New Zealand Rail sale in 1993 was organised by Fay Richwhite who then proceeded to benefit from it hugely by taking a substantial shareholding – a conflict of interest fit for a post Soviet state. The main shareholders of the purchaser, TranzRail, were Fay Richwhite, Berkshire Fund and Wisconsin Central of the US, and Alex van Heeren. They bought a company which had been freed of debt by a $1.6 billion injection by the Government. The price was $328 million, of which they paid only $107 million and borrowed the rest. According to Brian Gaynor they “were responsible for stripping out $220.9 million of equity in 1993 and $100 million in 1995”(3). By the time they had sold out, they had made total profits of $370 million, mainly tax free because of the lack of capital gains tax, and darkened by accusations of insider trading(4). Under Wisconsin’s management the safety record was appalling (by 2000, fatal accidents for employees were eight times the national average) and reinvestment and maintenance were abysmal, leaving the operation in a crippled state. They sold out to Toll of Australia who similarly failed to maintain the system, and who then sold it back to the Government in two tranches for a total of over $700 million plus ongoing costs to the Government of several hundred million dollars to repair the rail network and replace the antiquated rolling stock. It is difficult to estimate the total costs to the country, but the total cost to the Government will be almost $4 billion(5), greatly magnified by the neglect of the private owners.
The previous Government has been accused of paying too much for the rail company, and they probably did, but that was just one element of the huge financial and opportunity losses to the people of New Zealand as a result of the privatisation that were evident well before the renationalisation. The story starkly illustrates the difficulty and cost in reversing privatisation once committed. The reason for this seminar is undoubtedly that there is concern that we will soon embark on the next wave of privatisation. In my contribution I will first cover what forms privatisation might take, and what distinguishes privatisation. Privatisation is not simply, or even mostly about better services or efficiency. I’ll cover a little of the background and how a bias towards privatisation is embedded in Government financial rules and accounting systems. Finally, is a strong lobby advocating for privatisation and I will briefly look at who benefits.


There are few more controversial events in the history of railways in this country than the 1993 sale of New Zealand Rail Ltd to a business consortium led by an American railway company and a local firm of investment advisers.
Wisconsin Central Transportation was a Chicago-based railway that formed a consortium with Berkshire Partners and New Zealand investment advisers Fay Richwhite & Company to buy the rail and ferry business for $328.2 million.
It subsequently became Tranz Rail Ltd and was listed on the New Zealand share-market as well as the NASDAQ in the United States.
Ten years later, as it teetered on the brink of receivership, the business was bought by Australian logistics company, Toll Holdings. In its turn, it found running a commercial railway a challenging proposition and in 2008 sold the rail freight and ferry business back to the Government.
Unlike the United States and during the first century of railways in Britain, railways in New Zealand had mostly been owned and operated by the Government. Twenty years after the 1993 sale, the private sector experiment continues to divide opinion and generate strong emotions.
Its strongest critics accuse private-sector owners with running the railway into the ground and walking away with the profits.
Former Treasury official John Wilson, in a 2010 paper on the privatization experience, takes a somewhat different view. “Two different but very aggressive commercial operators have tried to make money out of New Zealand rail freight and concluded it is not possible”, he wrote.
The 1993 Railways sale was a political reaction to mounting debt in the years that followed the deregulation of land transport. Trucking companies that had previously been unable to operate over long distances, could from the mid-1980s, compete with rail on equal terms.
Their share of the freight market grew steadily. Trucks had carried around 50 percent of land transport freight in 1972. By 1993, this had risen to 81 percent.
The international consultancy firm, Booz Allen Hamilton, engaged by Railways in the mid-1980s to make recommendations on improving the business’s efficiency, estimated deregulation would reduce rail revenues by as much as 25 percent.

Governments reacted by giving Railways a more commercial structure and greater freedom from political interference.
It’s a widely held view that as unemployment mounted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, The Government regarded Railways as a useful means of diverting jobless people into work.
Staff numbers of around 21,000 in the early 1980s had dropped to less than 5000 by the time the business was sold.
By the late 1980s, the Railways Corporation’s board and management were agreed that private sector ownership was the best way to make the business more successful. The 1990 decision to consolidate the land-holding function into the corporation and create a Government-owned, limited liability company, New Zealand Rail, to run the business, was widely interpreted as a precursor to sale.
National had replaced Labour in Government by late 1990. Its Cabinet needed some convincing that privatization would not come back to bite it, but by 1992, a process started which led to the investment banking firm Bankers Trust being appointed to manage a sale.
John Wilson says that the documents of the time reveal two views of what might be achieved by privatization. “There’s a view that privatization would make rail more efficient and therefore viable,” he says.
“There was an alternative view at the time that rail was in long term decline and that putting it into the private sector would make it less likely that rail could secure Government financial contributions to keep it alive.”
In his view, the privatisation experience suggested the second theory was the more accurate. As he puts it, “whatever efficiencies were secured by private ownership, they were not enough to make rail commercially viable.”
Privatisation was controversial from the beginning. Railways was one of a number of unpopular asset sales proposed in response to difficult financial times that are remembered best in the form of Finance Minister Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of all Budgets”.
When the Wisconsin-led consortium was named as the buyer of New Zealand Rail, the Labour Opposition questioned the process.

For many unhappy with the outcome of the sale, the role of Fay Richwhite in switching from adviser to buyer has become a popular target. That overlooks the fact that they had withdrawn from an advisory role with Railways within the necessary timeframes and took no part in the determination of the outcome – a job entrusted by the Government to a completely separate advisory firm, Bankers Trust.
So when Labour Leader Mike Moore rose in Parliament to question the Government the day after the sale had been announced, Fay Richwhite’s role was less in his sights than the fact that the Wisconsin-led consortium was not the highest bidder and there seemed to be no provision for a “Kiwi share”.
Ruth Richardson countered: “The bids (received) had qualifications, and if those qualifications would have had an adverse impact on the value, the bids were discounted. I can say that the bid that was accepted was top-dollar, it was clean, and it represented the best value for the Crown by a significant margin.”
On the “Kiwi share” issue, Ruth Richardson assured the House the Government had imposed constraints in the form of retaining rail land in Crown ownership as well as assurances from the consortium about a public share offering and the retention of passenger networks.
When it came to the reasons for the sale, Ruth Richardson’s answer suggests she was more inclined to John Wilson’s second theory, than his first. “The Opposition will know- because the Labour Government corporatised our railways in 1990- that the New Zealand taxpayer had to swallow $1 billion worth of debt.
“Since the time of corporatization, not $1 in dividends has gone to the Crown, and there has not been $1 in tax payments.
“We know that, for New Zealand Rail to play a successful part in a growing economy, it will require hundreds of millions of dollars just from now to the turn of the century, and will require the thick end of $1 billion as we head to the year 2010. The taxpayer is not well placed to make that investment.”
Tranz Rail’s dual share-market listing came in 1996 after the business had been rebranded. But by this time, the consortium had taken almost $100 million out of the business in the form of a capital repayment, considerably reducing their original equity investment.

In its early years, Tranz Rail began making the capital investment that Ruth Richardson had said was so badly needed. Despite growing debt levels, the company’s share price continued to rise, reaching $9.00 by 1997.
During the 1990s the business expanded into new markets, including movement of bulk milk to dairy processing plants and establishment of New Zealand's first inland port. at Wiri south of Auckland, a joint development with the Port of Tauranga.
Fay Richwhite reduced its shareholdng in 1988 and then in 2001, Wisconsin Central was taken over by Canadian National, a company described by John Wilson as having, “a more aggressive approach to investment”.
Founding Chairman, Wisconsin Central’s Ed Burkhart was replaced and a new management team, dubbed the “boat people” because of their previous experience in the shipping industry, took control.
Two parts of the business to suffer were the Auckland and Wellington suburban passenger networks. The Labour Government elected in 1999 stepped in and bought back the Auckland network and then Wellington Railway Station.
“Tranz Rail’s financial problems were now creating visible shortfalls in the capital asset replacement programme,” wrote John Wilson, “leading to pressure from major users and other stakeholders on the Government to intervene.”
This took the form of five of Tranz Rail’s biggest customers - accounting for more than half its freight business - forming a lobby group demanding that the rail company lose its monopoly track rights.
The struggling business also attracted the attention of influential share-broker and media commentator Brian Gaynor. In a 13 July 2002 column in the New Zealand Herald, he asked a number of questions:
“Does Tranz Rail have creative accounting policies? Did Wisconsin Central and Fay Richwhite sell investors a pup when they sold out this year? What are the company's long-term sustainable earnings and does it have a future?”
As Tranz Rail’s share price sank to a low of 30 cents, the Government made an offer to buy into the company and take back control of the network infrastructure.
While negotiations were in progress, Toll Holdings made a $1.10 a share bid for the company and the shareholders opted for the Australian company.
The Government and Toll then negotiated the sale of the infrastructure to the Crown for $1 and a National Rail Access Agreement giving the company long term exclusive access to the network. For its part, the Government agreed to contribute $200 million towards infrastructure upgrades.
Toll pledged $100 million in rolling stock investment and agreed to pay the full capital and operating costs associated with using the network.
In September 2004, ownership and management of the network and its assets was vested in the existing Railway Corporation, which adopted the trading name ONTRACK.
But Toll found it was not immune to the challenges that faced Tranz Rail. As John Wilson puts it: “the long term decline in the economics of New Zealand rail freight soon reasserted itself, and Toll concluded it was unable to pay the full costs of the track.”
A lengthy wrangle between Toll and ONTRACK followed which ended in stalemate and frustration. While Treasury investigated a number of variations on the existing ownership model, ONTRACK developed a proposal for the Government to buy Toll’s rail and ferry businesses.
The Government chose the purchase option and after protracted negotiations with Toll, bought the business in 2008 for $665 million.
John Wilson’s verdict on Tranz Rail provides a useful commentary on the whole private sector experiment.
“The decline in investment in the late Tranz Rail period was a commercial reaction to first of all, the fact that investment in rail was not a good commercial use of funds and subsequently to the fact that Tranz Rail was running out of cash,” he says.
“The shareholders’ withdrawal of equity in 1995 was also no doubt commercially rational to the then Tranz Rail shareholders but damaged the perception of private owners as reliable stewards of utilities.

“In the end, the public was not looking for such a hard-nosed commercial approach to rail investment. It would appear the public is prepared to subsidise rail freight if that is necessary to keep it operating.”
Tranz Rail’s founding Chairman Ed Burkhart had a different view, influenced perhaps by his side-lining. In a September 2001 email he said that Tranz Rail's then management had "no competency in running railways".
As a shareholder he said he was seeing progressively weaker financial returns while the New Zealand economy was quite robust. In his view, it was sad that privatisation would be blamed for problems with rail services, when the real problem was "poor management".
The early architect of the railway network, Sir Julius Vogel regarded railways as a nation builder rather than a business. His views were echoed some 50 years later in the 1925 New Zealand Government Year Book: “The railways in New Zealand have never been regarded, or run, as a profitmaking concern,” it said.
“Even if practicable, there is little doubt that such a policy would not meet with the approval of the public, nor would it bring about any material improvement in the condition of affairs as a whole.”
By the year 2000, Railways was a very different beast to the nation-builder of Vogel’s day or the universal carrier of 1925.
But the rail network remained an important supplement to other forms of transport and as the best means of moving particular goods and people. The large customers who had lobbied against Tranz Rail in 2002 and 2003, were to re-emerge as strong supporters of a return to public ownership in 2008.
Sources: A Short History of Privatisation in New Zealand, John Wilson, 2010; New Zealand Herald; New Zealand Parliamentary Hansard; New Zealand Official Year Book; New Zealand Railways, the First 125 Years, David Leitch and Bob Stott, 1988.



:laugh::laugh::laugh: Just like clockwork.

I worked closely with Kiwirail for years, spending time at all of their workshops, including Hillside. The organisation at that level is deeply dysfunctional, has been since the 50's, and that's the single reason it was sold. Not in pursuit of some capitalist agenda, but because it was a financial millstone around any govt's neck, hemorrhaging taxpayer's money from every orifice. I can understand that for idealistic reasons you'd rather it wasn't sold, but generations of governments of different flavours failed to find a way to stem the bleeding, and in desperation the whole shebang was finally amputated as the gangrenous, festering liability it had become.

What happened subsequently was a lesson in why politicians with zero commercial experience should never, under any circumstances be given any commercial governance responsibility. A sequence of professional international asset management companies, belatedly recognising what they'd bought passed the hot potato on to the next patsy until one of them managed to flog it to the ultimate patsy: back where it came from. Since which it's continued to hemorrhage money. Taxpayer's money, again.

But let's blame the management. :laugh: Dude, 90% of the management are tradesmen from the floor, the rest are European immigrant senior tech and business managers stunned at the glacial pace of production and hamstrung by the dysfunctional culture. The single biggest reason the organisation fails at every opportunity is because the RMTU vetos pretty much any and all changes to processes and procedures that have proven to be untenable for generations. They've been directly responsible for the ongoing failure to produce anything remotely resembling a viable product by diligently blocked every proposed improvement since the war, and the rise of safety Nazism has handed them complete control of everything that happens inside those workshops on a plate.

Now, I'm sure you've got examples showing how it's all the evel capitalist bogyman's fault, but let's make one thing perfectly clear: The two things that differentiate Kiwirail from successful major infrastructure providers worldwide are it's militant union and it's unrelentingly chronic failure.
It was the 80's labour goverment that got rid of 75% of the NZR employees that National under muldoon had used to control thr unemployment rate.
it was the asset stripping subsequent to Privitisation that resulted in the failure of Tranzrail it was nothing to do with Labour or leftest polices it all occurred under nationals noses using right wing ideals and management stuctures.
You only need to look at what happened to the south island roads after the Kiakoura earthquake to realise how important rail is.
Its of great national importance to have the freight carried off our piss poor designed and maintained roading infrastructure.

[Ocean1]

My memory as it turns out was faulty
the *80s Labour government privatized it, but it was National under boulger that sold what was then tranzrail. Not to the highest bidder either.





It was the 80's labour goverment that got rid of 75% of the NZR employees that National under muldoon had used to control thr unemployment rate.
it was the asset stripping subsequent to Privitisation that resulted in the failure of Tranzrail it was nothing to do with Labour or leftest polices it all occurred under nationals noses using right wing ideals and management stuctures.
You only need to look at what happened to the south island roads after the Kiakoura earthquake to realise how important rail is.
Its of great national importance to have the freight carried off our piss poor designed and maintained roading infrastructure.

:laugh::laugh: Classic spin.

You're talking shit, NZR was a liability before it was sold, it was a liability as a private venture and it was a liability when labour bought bit back. Still is.

[AllanB]

Did the powers that be ever declare the Cook Straight a state highway? Was talk of it way back (80's I think) when every friggen Christmas the rail workers would go on strike and F-up Christmas for the masses. Bastards should have been pushed off the docks in concrete shoes.

Politicians. Can't say in NZ over the decades I have been voting that I have noticed any measurable difference to my families life between parties or combos of parties. But then I'm ya average white dude with a wife and two kids on a reasonable (apparently) wage so we have missed every applicable government hand out over the decades - no paid maternity leave when we had kids, earned ten dollars too much to get family support etc etc and on it goes into my 50's. Now with a daughter at Uni I still earn too much.

Yet ......

One of her flat mates is of a NZ tribal background and gets hand out after handout even to the extend that in her chosen field of medicine their acceptable pass rate is lower than the equivalent 'white' New Zealander. How the F is that acceptable?

[husaberg]

:laugh::laugh: Classic spin.

You're talking shit, NZR was a liability before it was sold, it was a liability as a private venture and it was a liability when labour bought bit back. Still is.
Its not spin its actual events that occurred.
If its spin go ahead tell me exactly how it wasnt National that sold Tranzrail it wasnt Labour that reduced the workforce by 75% over what National had ran it out and that it wasnt asset stripped by the fay Richwhite consortium.
I seee you actually cant fathom how railways actually keep transport off our roads maybe you sould see what a few months worth of road traffic did to the south Islands roads.

[jasonu]

Yet ......

One of her flat mates is of a NZ tribal background and gets hand out after handout even to the extend that in her chosen field of medicine their acceptable pass rate is lower than the equivalent 'white' New Zealander. How the F is that acceptable?

You better be sure of who holds the knife when you go to the hospital for an ingrown toe nail eh bro...

[AllanB]

You better be sure of who holds the knife when you go to the hospital for an ingrown toe nail eh bro...

Probably be a Labour party refugee ...... at least they will have had field experience :eek5:

[Ocean1]

Probably be a Labour party refugee ...... at least they will have had field experience :eek5:

Nah, they're only working there to control the unemployed rate.

[Ocean1]

This housing crisis shit is harder than it looks. :facepalm:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107317565/housing-minister-phil-twyfords-reforms-likely-to-raise-rents-officials-warn

[husaberg]

Auckland occupies less than two per cent of New Zealand’s landmass, but 34 per cent of the population already live here. The region takes half of all migrants to New Zealand, and has accommodated a population the size of Wellington in just the past decade, 45,000 people in 2016 alone. Some 39 per cent of Aucklanders were born overseas.

Why Auckland should separate from the rest of New Zealand

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/auckland-issues/why-auckland-should-separate-from-the-rest-of-new-zealand/

[jasonu]

Auckland occupies less than two per cent of New Zealand’s landmass, but 34 per cent of the population already live here. The region takes half of all migrants to New Zealand, and has accommodated a population the size of Wellington in just the past decade, 45,000 people in 2016 alone. Some 39 per cent of Aucklanders were born overseas.

Why Auckland should separate from the rest of New Zealand

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/auckland-issues/why-auckland-should-separate-from-the-rest-of-new-zealand/

NZ tall poppy syndrome...
If Auckland went down the shitter it would take the rest of the country with it.

[Ocean1]

But, but this isn't the advice we wanted either!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107338723/government-to-change-law-to-avoid-legal-risk-from-oil-exploration-ban

[Voltaire]

Good photo of Shane Jones, he should keep it up.

[husaberg]

NZ tall poppy syndrome...
If Auckland went down the shitter it would take the rest of the country with it.
I just seen it, it was written as a satire, posted as the same.
Of course Auckland going under would take the rest of us with it, Afterall we launder all our money and resources through there.:2thumbsup

[jasonu]

I just seen it, it was written as a satire, posted as the same.
Of course Auckland going under would take the rest of us with it, Afterall we launder all our money and resources through there.:2thumbsup

Yes mate. Over the last 25 years Aucks has turned into a total shit hole. I'd never consider living there again.

[Voltaire]

Yes mate. Over the last 25 years Aucks has turned into a total shit hole. I'd never consider living there again.

Missing you :yawn:

[jasonu]

Missing you :yawn:

Wanna root???

[Voltaire]

Wanna root???

Show us the lollies ( candy) first .

[sidecar bob]

I have not spoken to Derek Handley for over a year. . . .
I don't do lazy & I don't do liars, fucking clown.

[carbonhed]

I have not spoken to Derek Handley for over a year. . . .
I don't do lazy & I don't do liars, fucking clown.

She must have taken lessons from the "Lizard of First" on how words can mean anything she wants them to mean.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was there more than one text from or to Derek Handley from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The text that I received, again, as I said, was in April. I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, were there any other texts between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.

Hon Simon Bridges: What other communications by any medium—Gmail, WhatsApp, and the like—were there between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as a consequence of the member’s question, I have had my office check. Mr Handley sent me an unsolicited email to my private email on 7 June, which I did not open and which I did not reply to. I’m advised by my staff that it informed me that he’d submitted an application for the role. But, again, it was not something I opened, saw, or replied to.

[husaberg]

I have not spoken to Derek Handley for over a year. . . .
I don't do lazy & I don't do liars, fucking clown.

thats not what was said
Asked whether there were any other text messages, Ardern said: "I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message."

If thats the best National can come up with its no wonder Simon bridges is so low in the polls and why hes going to be replaced by Crusher Collins

[sidecar bob]

thats not what was said
Asked whether there were any other text messages, Ardern said: "I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message."

If thats the best National can come up with its no wonder Simon bridges is so low in the polls and why hes going to be replaced by Crusher Collins
Yet the text messages were on the news tonight.
It's got nothing to do with Bridges.
You know what the truth is, I know what the truth is. I'm not about to argue about something we all know the kaupapa on.
Economical with the truth was what the press said.
But in short, she's full of shit & can't cover her arse.

[husaberg]

Yet the text messages were on the news tonight.
It's got nothing to do with Bridges.
You know what the truth is, I know what the truth is. I'm not about to argue about something we all know the kaupapa on.
Economical with the truth was what the press said.
But in short, she's full of shit & can't cover her arse.
Sorry what text messages i missed the news, what did the pm say in the text messages after he had applied for the job.........

I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message."
if you mean this there is nothing i can see in text messages after he responds that hes applying for a govt job?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/09/revealed-derek-handley-details-disappointing-cto-recruitment-process.html

Hon Simon Bridges: What did Derek Handley's text message to her say?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. But my recollection is that he mentioned that the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role had been mentioned to him. Again, as I said, I did not directly reply to that message, and it was received in April.
Hon Simon Bridges: Did she flat out ignore his text—not even an emoji?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I did not even send an emoji.
Hon Simon Bridges: Was there more than one text from or to Derek Handley from the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The text that I received, again, as I said, was in April. I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.
Hon Simon Bridges: Well, were there any other texts between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.
Hon Simon Bridges: What other communications by any medium—Gmail, WhatsApp, and the like—were there between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as a consequence of the member's question, I have had my office check. Mr Handley sent me an unsolicited email to my private email on 7 June, which I did not open and which I did not reply to. I'm advised by my staff that it informed me that he'd submitted an application for the role. But, again, it was not something I opened, saw, or replied to.
Hon Simon Bridges: When will the text, and that Gmail she's referred to, be released?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as I said in my primary answer, my office is currently working through the OIA that was received, and we will reply in accordance with the Official Information Act.

[Voltaire]

Yet the text messages were on the news tonight.
It's got nothing to do with Bridges.
You know what the truth is, I know what the truth is. I'm not about to argue about something we all know the kaupapa on.
Economical with the truth was what the press said.
But in short, she's full of shit & can't cover her arse.

Where she went wrong was using non verbal communication, I learnt that early working for a Corporate.
Simon Bridges just comes across as the class tattle tale.:laugh::laugh:

[sidecar bob]

Where she went wrong was using non verbal communication, I learnt that early working for a Corporate.
Simon Bridges just comes across as the class tattle tale.:laugh::laugh:
Non verbal is fine, in fact it's preferred. . . If you're not talking shit you can be called on.
Good on him. I've far more fun things to do with my day than call the PM out on her lies & God knows it's a full time job.
"Someone had to check for me, but It turns out I didn't open an email from an old mate to whom I had given my email address to in a Txt shortly before". Tui anyone?
Bless her, she's not a very good liar, which is commendable.

[Voltaire]

Non verbal is fine, in fact it's preferred. . . If you're not talking shit you can be called on.
Good on him. I've far more fun things to do with my day than call the PM out on her lies & God knows it's a full time job.
"Someone had to check for me, but It turns out I didn't open an email from an old mate to whom I had given my email address to in a Txt shortly before". Tui anyone?
Bless her, she's not a very good liar, which is commendable.

I had a client Project Manager who only did verbal but wanted updates in writing, months later when the verbal was forgotten the one sided emails could be interpreted more than one way.
He's gone far in that company :msn-wink:

We had a bit of fun at work the other day on how many lies you tell a day.....which explains why business people are probably better at Politics that School Teachers.
" I was just going to call you" -forgot
" Its nearly finished"- its not started
" the parts are on order" I forgot to order them
and so on... being ex motor trade you'd be awesome at it.

[Swoop]

Good photo of Shane Jones, he should keep it up.
What's he doing there?
Surely he should be traipsing around the provinces doing his "William Tell" impression (stealing from the rich and handing it out to the poor...).


It'll be lovely seeing their faces when the reality of the "exploration ban" fully bites them in the arse. You need to know what resources the country has available, to then be able to decide IF there is a need to extract them, save them for later, or leave them where they are.
Except if you are of the Lunatic Fringe variety, where every sort of exploration is Verboten!

[Voltaire]

What's he doing there?
Surely he should be traipsing around the provinces doing his "William Tell" impression (stealing from the rich and handing it out to the poor...).


It'll be lovely seeing their faces when the reality of the "exploration ban" fully bites them in the arse. You need to know what resources the country has available, to then be able to decide IF there is a need to extract them, save them for later, or leave them where they are.
Except if you are of the Lunatic Fringe variety, where every sort of exploration is Verboten!

I think William Tell was more pre occupied with shooting apples off heads, but hey who knows what else he got up to.:msn-wink:

When oil came along it was the end for horses, surely electric will have the same effect on oil and its time to move on?

The US can always liberate Venezuela's under some pretext if we start to have shortages.

[Ocean1]

I think William Tell was more pre occupied with shooting apples off heads, but hey who knows what else he got up to.:msn-wink:

When oil came along it was the end for horses, surely electric will have the same effect on oil and its time to move on?

The US can always liberate Venezuela's under some pretext if we start to have shortages.

Quite right, he obviously meant that other criminal, Robin Hood. Probably the very first socialist poster boy now that I think about it, I can just see all of those Sherwood teenyboppers swooning over his picture on every second tree.

Venezuela would be better served by a full scale invasion by a ravening, bloodthirsty hoard of Mongols than it's current socialist government. A mere armed assault with possibly the occasional bit of strategically conjured collateral damage by the US would be nothing short of a blessed relief by comparison.

[sidecar bob]

" I was just going to call you" -forgot
" Its nearly finished"- its not started
" the parts are on order" I forgot to order them
and so on... being ex motor trade you'd be awesome at it.

Na, I never bothered with that. I found people responded better when you were very good in your specialised field & told them the truth.
Do another survey, Mark down how many times a day you think you are being white lied too or dealing with incompetents, or both. People aren't stupid.

[Voltaire]

Na, I never bothered with that. I found people responded better when you were very good in your specialised field & told them the truth.
Do another survey, Mark down how many times a day you think you are being white lied too or dealing with incompetents, or both. People aren't stupid.

That would take up too much of my time, I already have enough to go into competition with Dilbert.

I find the Uni types are better at lying than the Tradies.:msn-wink:

[Swoop]

When oil came along it was the end for horses, surely electric will have the same effect on oil and its time to move on?
Not quite.
Even if humans decide to power transportation via electrickery, there is still the ravenous desire to make things out of plastic.

Quite right, he obviously meant that other criminal, Robin Hood.

Venezuela would be better served by a full scale invasion by a ravening, bloodthirsty hoard of Mongols than it's current socialist government.
Yup, that's the bugger. Ol'e Robin.

As for Venezuela, the Chinese are fully involved there, trying to get their "loaned finances" back...

[carbonhed]

A handy summation from DPF of Cindy's dance moves on the head of a pin.

"Hon Simon Bridges: Has she had any conversations, emails, or texts with Derek Handley since she’s been Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to answer with some accuracy, I would want to go back. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My best recollection is that I received, some months ago, a text from Mr Handley mentioning the Chief Technology Officer role, which I do not recall directly engaging with, as that would not have been appropriate.

The correct answer would be there have been 11 texts between Mr Handley and myself – seven from him, and four from me, plus an e-mail.

Hon Simon Bridges: Were the conversations, emails, or texts with Mr Handley about the role of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer, and if so, what was discussed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can rule out any direct verbal communication. I haven’t spoken with Mr Handley in at least a year, maybe two. As I say, my best recollection is I received a text message that I didn’t directly engage in. For all other platforms, I would want to go back and check, but I don’t recall directly communicating in regards to that role.

Actually she did engage. He said he was looking at the CTO role and asked for her e-mail address so he could send through his thoughts on the role, She responded with her e-mail address and he sent his thoughts through.

Then on 19 September, which is after she has had a chance to check all her communications:

Hon Simon Bridges: What did Derek Handley’s text message to her say?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: But I can off the back—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. This is a matter of some seriousness. It’s a matter which I’ve had a number of representations on and I’m told that the House takes it seriously. I want to be able to hear the answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. But my recollection is that he mentioned that the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role had been mentioned to him. Again, as I said, I did not directly reply to that message, and it was received in April.

But she did directly reply to that message. She replied with her e-mail address for him to send his thoughts on the role to.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she flat out ignore his text—not even an emoji?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I did not even send an emoji.

She didn’t ignore the text. She replied to it with her e-mail address.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was there more than one text from or to Derek Handley from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The text that I received, again, as I said, was in April. I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.

She avoids saying there were 11 texts in total. And she did reply to that text message on that day. He sent it on 25 April at 9.33 am and she replied with her e-mail address at 12.03 pm.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, were there any other texts between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.

Hon Simon Bridges: What other communications by any medium—Gmail, WhatsApp, and the like—were there between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as a consequence of the member’s question, I have had my office check. Mr Handley sent me an unsolicited email to my private email on 7 June, which I did not open and which I did not reply to. I’m advised by my staff that it informed me that he’d submitted an application for the role. But, again, it was not something I opened, saw, or replied to.

She says her office checked yet she fails to say there were 11 texts since April and the e-mail wasn’t unsolicited. He asked her for her e-mail address and said it was so he could send through starter thoughts on the CTO role, and she sent her address to him. That is hardly unsolicited.

So did the Prime Minister mislead the House? What do you think?

Audrey Young is unimpressed. She writes:

It is becoming a habit – for the second time in three weeks, National leader Simon Bridges has accused Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of misleading the public.

This time she has also been accused of misleading Parliament as well as the public and Bridges has demanded she correct her statements.

Ardern put up a strenuous defence on both counts that there was no need for corrections.

In both cases she was technically correct that she did not tell a lie but in both cases she omitted information that gave an impression that turned out to be wrong. It is becoming a habit.

Anyone listening to the House would have thought she had not engaged with Handley at all. To the contrary she was saying she would check with her staff to see if they could find a job for him, and supplied him her e-mail for him to send through his thoughts on the CTO role.

Until now, the fiasco, mainly over an undisclosed meeting, had reflected badly on Curran but the contagion has spread to Ardern and made the Government look amateurish.

Grant Robertson had to correct an answer in the House today he gave last week on Clare Curran’s emails to Handley and Woods had to retract a suggestion that the severance contract with Handley may have been subject to a confidentiality clause.

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters swore blind Ardern was blameless of anything and everything.

True, she will not have to correct any answers she has given to Parliament.

But that is almost irrelevant because even if she did, it would not undo the damage she has done to herself.

Yep."

[Katman]

Even if humans decide to power transportation via electrickery, there is still the ravenous desire to make things out of plastic.

http://hempwaterbottles.tripod.com/what-is-hemp-plastic.html

[sidecar bob]

Cool, a new fuel tax next week. That will put up the price of everything that gets transported. That's pretty much everything then.

[husaberg]

Cool, a new fuel tax next week. That will put up the price of everything that gets transported. That's pretty much everything then.
So not unlike the six petrol tax increases under the last government then.
Or is it more like the GST rise from 12.5 to 15%
Could it be also like the 18 separate times the last National government increased the taxes
Or was it like a new taxes on employer KiwiSaver contributions, a $22 border levy, tax on digital purchases and a $2 rise in prescription charges.;)

[sidecar bob]

So not unlike the six petrol tax increases under the last government then.
Or is it more like the GST rise from 12.5 to 15%
Could it be also like the 18 separate times the last National government increased the taxes
Or was it like a new taxes on employer KiwiSaver contributions, a $22 border levy, tax on digital purchases and a $2 rise in prescription charges.;)

Yep, well done, quite right, national did stuff so it's all ok.
Simplistic, I know.

And hi mystery non logged on guest that reads everything I post for the last year.

[husaberg]

Yep, well done, quite right, national did heaps more stuff i never actually said a word about at the time
I never complained then but.... now the new lot i never voted for are in power if they do a third as much, i reserve the right to shout and stamp my feet a lot.
It would not have happened under Margret Thatcher.
Edited slightly:rolleyes:

[Swoop]

http://hempwaterbottles.tripod.com/what-is-hemp-plastic.html
That would be a very nice start, but the sheer quantity required... Perhaps replacing palm oil plantations with hemp?

So not unlike the six petrol tax increases under the last government then.
So, 6 increases during 9yrs of National Vs 3 under this current lot already?
Just wait, liarbour LOVE taxes so there are plenty more to come.

[Katman]

That would be a very nice start, but the sheer quantity required... Perhaps replacing palm oil plantations with hemp?

Hemp could be produced in enormous quantities.

[jasonu]

Hemp could be produced in enormous quantities.

It is big business in my area.
The outfit I work for are producing hemp harvesting equipment that bolts onto full size combine harvesters.

[husaberg]

So, 6 increases during 9yrs of National Vs 3 under this current lot already?
Just wait, liarbour LOVE taxes so there are plenty more to come.

Three already?.......
So What dates did these three tax increases on petrol occur.


It is big business in my area.
The outfit I work for are producing hemp harvesting equipment that bolts onto full size combine harvesters.
They harvest the local crops here with helicopters.

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/4/3/y/c/j/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349. 143xrj.png/1426449868140.jpg

[Ocean1]

This housing crisis shit is harder than it looks. :facepalm:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107317565/housing-minister-phil-twyfords-reforms-likely-to-raise-rents-officials-warn

:facepalm:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/107342646/Twyford-acknowledges-problems-as-KiwiBuild-is-overwhelmed-by-proposals

[husaberg]

:facepalm:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/107342646/Twyford-acknowledges-problems-as-KiwiBuild-is-overwhelmed-by-proposals
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130306071857-rnc-video-story-top.jpg

[Ocean1]

fairy story

Oh I freely admit there's a problem.

The problem is fuckwits trying to "fix" the housing "crisis" by throwing taxpayer's money at it.

[husaberg]

Oh I freely admit there's a problem.

The problem is fuckwits trying to "fix" the housing "crisis" by throwing taxpayer's money at it.
That might make more sense if you Didnt once claim the problem was caused by tax payers not paying the tax that should have been on houses.
https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Key-housing-crisis-2007.jpg?x35462https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/john-key-housing-620x417.jpg?x35462https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxkSSeMVEAAZ2J1.jpghttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10346211_10152140933701452_6831018039433998661_n-300x224.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKzgltBUEAA6C6i.jpg

[Ocean1]

That might make more sense if you Didnt once claim the problem was caused by tax payers not paying the tax that should have been on houses.

Show me.....

[husaberg]

Show me.....
Why here..............

Sure we can. The whole thing started a couple of labour's ago, when they found there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for their election promises. Again.
So they slashed the state housing budget, sold off a bunch of state houses and set up tax breaks to encourage private investment in rental properties instead. (the very same mechanisms they're now calling "inequitable").

[sidecar bob]

That might make more sense if you Didnt once claim the problem was caused by tax payers not paying the tax that should have been on houses.
https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Key-housing-crisis-2007.jpg?x35462https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/john-key-housing-620x417.jpg?x35462https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxkSSeMVEAAZ2J1.jpghttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10346211_10152140933701452_6831018039433998661_n-300x224.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKzgltBUEAA6C6i.jpg

No, No, please. Can you just come up with some defence other than "well the National party did worse" in a kind of whiney voice.

[Ocean1]

Why here..............

Who said anything about them being "supposed" to pay tax? Your innate greed for other people's earnings is showing.

The key facts that you completely ignored, for the umpteenth time is that, firstly labour decided to pay state housing tenants a subsidy, rather than the traditional method of throwing away other people's money by simply undercharge them in rent, thereby opening up the market to private investment in "social" housing. Some have claimed that's just a subsidy benefiting only landlord's, but nobody not immediately recognisable as a whining, grasping Marxist prick. They did that simply because they wanted private investors to take over the roll of supplying houses for less than they cost to provide, so they could waste the subsequent savings on different social welfare experiments.

Secondly, they started taxing retirement savings schemes as income. Nobody else in the world does that. Actively discourage long term saving generally invested in industry to that extent simply so you can spend all that fresh tax immediately? Don't bother waiting for the inevitable consequences, just shoot yourself now.

You don't need 20/20 hindsight to work out what taxing the fuck out of one major investment option and subsidising another one would be, do you, class? :no:

You certainly wouldn't stoop to blaming another govt, having inherited the subsequent mess for your historic fuck up, now would you? :no:

Your propensity to mangle what you read into something that more or less supports your hugely distorted prejudices is a truly debilitating malady. May you one day find a cure.

[husaberg]

Who said anything about them being "supposed" to pay tax? Your innate greed for other people's earnings is showing.

The key facts that you completely ignored, for the umpteenth time is that, firstly labour decided to pay state housing tenants a subsidy, rather than the traditional method of throwing away other people's money by simply undercharge them in rent, thereby opening up the market to private investment in "social" housing. Some have claimed that's just a subsidy benefiting only landlord's, but nobody not immediately recognisable as a whining, grasping Marxist prick. They did that simply because they wanted private investors to take over the roll of supplying houses for less than they cost to provide, so they could waste the subsequent savings on different social welfare experiments.

Secondly, they started taxing retirement savings schemes as income. Nobody else in the world does that. Actively discourage long term saving generally invested in industry to that extent simply so you can spend all that fresh tax immediately? Don't bother waiting for the inevitable consequences, just shoot yourself now.

You don't need 20/20 hindsight to work out what taxing the fuck out of one major investment option and subsidising another one would be, do you, class? :no:

You certainly wouldn't stoop to blaming another govt, having inherited the subsequent mess for your historic fuck up, now would you? :no:

Your propensity to mangle what you read into something that more or less supports your hugely distorted prejudices is a truly debilitating malady. May you one day find a cure.
All i am hearing is you being hypocritical............

National couldn't give a rats arse about retirement schemes they voted against kiwisaver

they even tried to dismantle it.

New Zealand’s savings rate is far too low. KiwiSaver has seen a big improvement in that rate. Cutting it off at the knees makes no sense.

The seven cuts are:

Capping compulsory employer contributions at 2 percent in April 2009.
Cutting the member fee subsidy of $40 a year in April 2009.
Taking away the mortgage diversion option in April 2009.
Abolishing employer tax credit in April 2009.
Halving member tax credit from $1,042 to $521 a year in July 2011.
Taxing the employer contribution in April 2012.
Cutting the kickstart of $1,000 in May 2015.


they abolished what economists have called the best saving scheme in the world.

That was the day Robert Muldoon, the newly elected Prime Minister, announced the abolition of the 37-week-old compulsory New Zealand Superannuation Scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Government.
The scheme was innovative, remarkably similar to KiwiSaver and well ahead of its time. It would be worth more than $240 billion today and would have transformed the New Zealand economy into a world beater over the past 30 years.
The basis of the scheme was outlined in a white paper published in September 1973. The paper's recommendations were reflected in the Superannuation Act 1974, which was passed on August 26, 1974.
The main characteristics of the scheme were as follows:

* It was compulsory for all employees between 17 and retirement age.
* Money could only be taken out early when a contributor left the country on a permanent basis.
* Each contributor had their own individual account and these accounts were portable.
* After a short phase-in period contributions were 8 per cent of gross income, 4 per cent by employees and 4 per cent by employers.
* The scheme was not taxable except for stamp and cheque duties.


National had 5 goverments to correct what you now blame Labour on if it was the real issue they never mentioned it and they certainly never did.

[husaberg]

No, No, please. Can you just come up with some defence other than "well the National party did worse" in a kind of whiney voice.
Say what........ it wasn't a defense it was an attack on their lack of actions.
you cant defend actually National in regards of the housing crisis they did nothing, shit they said didn't even know there was one.

[Ocean1]

All i am hearing is you being hypocritical............

................


Your propensity to mangle what you read into something that more or less supports your hugely distorted prejudices is a truly debilitating malady. May you one day find a cure.

Edit: Ah yes, the ninja post post edit.


National couldn't give a rats arse about retirement schemes.

What possible relevance does national's opinion have to the deleterious effects of labour's tax policy?

FFS, you're beyond help, a self professed labour apologist that can't actually advocate for his own politics without pointing in every other direction for the blame for it's historic failures.

[sidecar bob]

Say what........ it wasn't a defense it was an attack on their lack of actions.
you cant defend actually National in regards of the housing crisis they did nothing, shit they said didn't even know there was one.

Well fuck knows. All I can tell you is that the Clarke labour govt had their hand in my pocket up to my nutsack & I trod water for near a decade. Under national I did great & actually got ahead.
Whatever the fuck they did worked for me, probably because a didn't have my hand out for some free shit.

Oh, and hi mystery not logged on stalker guest that reads all my posts.

[husaberg]

Well fuck knows. All I can tell you is that the Clarke labour govt had their hand in my pocket up to my nutsack & I trod water for near a decade. Under national I did great & actually got ahead.
Whatever the fuck they did worked for me, probably because a didn't have my hand out for some free shit.

Oh, and hi mystery not logged on stalker guest that reads all my posts.


Is Helen Clarke code for Tracey?
If you were trading water in one of NZ biggest economic growth periods i don't think its really the govt fault.
All i can say is John keys policies cost 2000 jobs here out of a 30,000 people.

[jasonu]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130306071857-rnc-video-story-top.jpg

Unprofessional at best.

[jasonu]

Oh, and hi mystery not logged on stalker guest that reads all my posts.

How do you know about this?

[sidecar bob]

Is Helen Clarke code for Tracey?
If you were trading water in one of NZ biggest economic growth periods i don't think its really the govt fault.
All i can say is John keys policies cost 2000 jobs here out of a 30,000 people.

Oh yeah, it was growth alright. And they paid for it by sticking their grubby fist into the coffers of small business.
It makes sense though, I meant the money is no use to them when I've worked for it & have saved it.
If that wasn't enough, they, with my money, gave all my staff another weeks holiday, bravo, everyone loved them, & it was a cheap way of getting drongos to vote you in for another term, but I was the one that paid. Fuck staff can be thick.
Lolly scrambles are cheap & easy to have when you're using someone else's lollies.
This pay hike thing for some public servants isint going to work out well. If you have three children & give two a dollar, it's not long before the third one finds out the other two got a dollar & lines up for his dollar, or goes on strike until he's treated equally.

[sidecar bob]

All i am hearing is you being hypocritical............

National couldn't give a rats arse about retirement schemes they voted against kiwisaver

they even tried to dismantle it

Perhaps because saving for your retirement, how much & wether to or not is a personal choice based on your future expectations.
I know of a number of older couples that when their KiwiSaver came due for withdrawal, bought brand new cars like they were lotto winners. I know this because each one told me directly. Some of them were people that I thought were far smarter.
All former wage earners & Labour supporters without doubt.
I could buy a brand new car too, but my 250 maxi scooter ticks all the boxes, particularly the one where I'm $600 a month up on fuel alone over driving a v8 BMW, thats $600 a month I can save for my retirement proper.
You can't fix stupid by making a law.

[husaberg]

Oh yeah, it was growth alright. And they paid for it by sticking their grubby fist into the coffers of small business.
It makes sense though, I meant the money is no use to them when I've worked for it & have saved it.
If that wasn't enough, they, with my money, gave all my staff another weeks holiday, bravo, everyone loved them, & it was a cheap way of getting drongos to vote you in for another term, but I was the one that paid. Fuck staff can be thick.
Lolly scrambles are cheap & easy to have when you're using someone else's lollies.
This pay hike thing for some public servants isint going to work out well. If you have three children & give two a dollar, it's not long before the third one finds out the other two got a dollar & lines up for his dollar, or goes on strike until he's treated equally.
Yet the key goverment got in on the promise of tax cuts for the voters that never happened
is promised Tax cuts for voters not a lolly scramble.
they did cut corporate tax and paid for that out of borrowing robbing peter to pay paul.
They then increased the gst which is a tax on everyone except those in business who can write off most as expenses.
Public servants want a wage rise as they have not had one in a decade. Unless you are a CEO or upper management in the public service they get amble ones yearly no matter how poorly they perform.
I was a bit pissed at the 4 weeks annual leave for everyone, but only because i always had it anyway.
In case you didnt notice all the compliance cost on small business increased under national.


Perhaps because saving for your retirement, how much & wether to or not is a personal choice based on your future expectations.
I know of a number of older couples that when their KiwiSaver came due for withdrawal, bought brand new cars like they were lotto winners. I know this because each one told me directly. Some of them were people that I thought were far smarter.
All former wage earners & Labour supporters without doubt.
I could buy a brand new car too, but my 250 maxi scooter ticks all the boxes, particularly the one where I'm $600 a month up on fuel alone over driving a v8 BMW, thats $600 a month I can save for my retirement proper.
You can't fix stupid by making a law.

Retirement savings is about person choice but as you point out a lot are not equipped to make good decisions. that's why having a scheme like kiwisaver is a better otion than nothing.
As i pointed out the 70's scheme Muldoon destroyed would have put kiwis on top of the world now rather than the bottom of the heap.
His reasoning was it was better for those to have a choice how they saved for retirement as they were adults. That hasnt really proven true has it.
Young kiwis are now at least saving something now. which is not something millennial's would do on their own is it.

[Ocean1]

Yet the key goverment

Aannnnd there it goes again. :laugh: "But national..." :yawn:


is promised Tax cuts for voters not a lolly scramble.

Not really, they're a way to wind massively disproportionate taxes back to where they were when they were introduced, before bracket creep put everyone's "contributions" up. Leave it long enough and everyone's paying the rate reserved for only rich pricks just a few years ago.


Retirement savings is about person choice but as you point out a lot are not equipped to make good decisions.

Back to front socialist drivel, it's sound decisions that equip you to save money, not the other way around.

[Voltaire]

Perhaps because saving for your retirement, how much & wether to or not is a personal choice based on your future expectations.
I know of a number of older couples that when their KiwiSaver came due for withdrawal, bought brand new cars like they were lotto winners. I know this because each one told me directly. Some of them were people that I thought were far smarter.
All former wage earners & Labour supporters without doubt.
I could buy a brand new car too, but my 250 maxi scooter ticks all the boxes, particularly the one where I'm $600 a month up on fuel alone over driving a v8 BMW, thats $600 a month I can save for my retirement proper.
You can't fix stupid by making a law.

I was working out how many flat whites I could have in retirement, but if I retired today and cashed up my KS this would do...

https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/855414622.jpg
Probably just end up driving my Kombi Pickup around.

( signed mystery lurker who can't be arsed logging in on his phone)

[oldrider]

I have one of those, I got it when I retired had it painted with invisible paint just to keep the inquisitive at bay.

Unfortunately my wife borrowed it and now we have no idea where it is and the :Police: are not interested.

Some things require a little more planning! :rolleyes:

[sidecar bob]

I was working out how many flat whites I could have in retirement, but if I retired today and cashed up my KS this would do...

https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/855414622.jpg
Probably just end up driving my Kombi Pickup around.

( signed mystery lurker who can't be arsed logging in on his phone)

How did you get a pic in my garage? . . . . Hang on, that's a Jag, not an Aston:cool:

[husaberg]

Aannnnd there it goes again. :laugh: "But national..." :yawn:



Not really, they're a way to wind massively disproportionate taxes back to where they were when they were introduced, before bracket creep put everyone's "contributions" up. Leave it long enough and everyone's paying the rate reserved for only rich pricks just a few years ago.



Back to front socialist drivel, it's sound decisions that equip you to save money, not the other way around.

Funny as all i hear out of you is but Labour.....
So lets see under Labour the top tax rate was reduced first from 66% to 33%
the next National government never changed it.
labour raised it to 39 in an attempt to fix the stuff the previous goverment never did and national are super heros for taking it down to the level Labour had it in 1985........Labour riased the top bracketup from 60,000 to 70,000
National did lower the higher rate plus the mid rate a fraction 33-30% after a few years
But they did this by raising GST 2.5% and borrowing heavy to pay for it sinking NZ into debt. they also halved the government kiwi saver contributions plus taxed the contributions.
Funny thing about your disproportionate tax angle is NZ is the second lowest in the OECD.
But even then the most of top earners dont pay their share of tax.

Inland Revenue monitors 200 New Zealanders worth more than $50 million each. Yet 46.5% of those multi-millionaires earn less than $70,000 a year, meaning they avoid paying the top income tax rate

But if you feel so strongly about these socialist things such as compulsory savings for retirement and really want low taxs
why dont we drop tax to 15% and get rid of those silly socialist pensions and free health care. Today would be a good time to start.

[sidecar bob]

Its not opportuniddys & digniddy you peasant.

[Ocean1]

Funny as all i hear out of you is but Labour.....

Yeah, we've already demonstrated that what you hear doesn't bear much resemblance to what's said.


So lets see under Labour the top tax rate was reduced first from 66% to 33%
the next National government never changed it.
labour raised it to 39 in an attempt to fix the stuff the previous goverment never did and national are super heros for taking it down to the level Labour had it in 1985........

So tax cuts are fine if they're made by labour, but if national reduce rates it's.....


But they did this by raising GST 2.5% and borrowing heavy to pay for it sinking NZ into debt. they also halved the government kiwi saver contributions plus taxed the contributions.

Are you not aware that your confirmation bias is waving in the breeze, that it's comically obvious that your every argument is driven my your blind prejudice? 'Cause it's fucking obvious to everyone else.


Funny thing about your disproportionate tax angle is NZ is the second lowest in the OECD.


Wrong again, (aren't you sick of that yet?) it's smack on the OECD average: https://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-other-bim-nz-tax-system.pdf

Which, for a small economy is particularly onerous. The fact that most of that tax is paid by the country's 10% most productive people and that it's deployment it's far more redistributive than most others makes it's application even less effective than usual.


But even then the most of top earners dont pay their share of tax.


Inland Revenue monitors 200 New Zealanders worth more than $50 million each. Yet 46.5% of those multi-millionaires earn less than $70,000 a year, meaning they avoid paying the top income tax rate

Yes we know you're insanely jealous of your betters, but for now nobody is taxed on their net worth, no matter how desperately you'd like to get your hands on their earnings. They're taxed like anyone else, on income. And if there was the slightest chance one of the advantaged, privileged elite were to be paying less than they legally should be then I have not the slightest doubt that greedy fucks like you would be the very first to point the police at them. And to hear you use terms like "fair" and "share" in describing any lack in grace on behalf of those who provide the vast bulk of the funds employed for what amounts to charity is, frankly hilariously inappropriate.

[Swoop]

Three already?.......
So What dates did these three tax increases on petrol occur.

The first was immediately after being elected - and breaking one of the election promises of "no new taxes". This was 9-12 c/lt.
11.5 c.lt for the Auckland region (affecting all of the country via goods produced) but it gets called an "Auckland tax".
Weeks after that there was the 3-4 c/lt excise tax increase. This will also happen each year for the next 3 years...
So, the taxation party are off to a bad start after only 1yr in office.

The National government raised the fuel tax by 3c, five times and 2c once during its nine years in office.
Glad the tooth-monster and the rest of the lunatics have their priorities in order, especially now that exploring for more oil will be cutting their own tax-based income stream.

[husaberg]

Yeah, we've already demonstrated that what you hear doesn't bear much resemblance to what's said.

Thats funny becuse you replied to a reply that was not even to you. Alzheimer's much


So tax cuts are fine if they're made by labour, but if national reduce rates it's.....

Tax cuts are fine who ever makes them, but not at the cost of lowering healthcare, schooling roading or infrastructure or at the cost of having to borrow money to pay for them which is what National did.





Wrong again, (aren't you sick of that yet?) it's smack on the OECD average: https://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-other-bim-nz-tax-system.pdf

Which, for a small economy is particularly onerous. The fact that most of that tax is paid by the country's 10% most productive people and that it's deployment it's far more redistributive than most others makes it's application even less effective than usual.


Really that not what this says

The OECD’s 2017 ‘Taxing Wages’ report shows New Zealand’s average tax wedge – a percentage of the total tax on wages paid by employees and employers minus family benefits – was 17.9 per cent last year
This is the second lowest of the 35 nations in the OECD and less than half the average “wedge” of 36 per cent. For comparison, at 28.6% Australia was the fifth lowest, while Belgium’s workers paid the biggest share at 54 per cent.
Those figures apply to individual earners with no children i.e. single Kiwis. For one-earner families with two children, that percentage drops to just 6.2%, the absolute lowest for this type of earner in the OECD.
https://www.mytax.co.nz/2017/07/do-kiwi-families-pay-the-lowest-tax-in-the-oecd/
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11836883


Yes we know you're insanely jealous of your betters, but for now nobody is taxed on their net worth, no matter how desperately you'd like to get your hands on their earnings. They're taxed like anyone else, on income. And if there was the slightest chance one of the advantaged, privileged elite were to be paying less than they legally should be then I have not the slightest doubt that greedy fucks like you would be the very first to point the police at them. And to hear you use terms like "fair" and "share" in describing any lack in grace on behalf of those who provide the vast bulk of the funds employed for what amounts to charity is, frankly hilariously inappropriate.
Only they are not taxed on income they are taxed on reported income, everyone tries to lower their tax granted but half of NZ most wealthy are not living on less than $70,000 they just have accountants that make it look as if they are.

I note you never answered about the idea to lower tax to below 20% by getting rid of those socialist Pensions and free health care.
I pay the top rate its fine by me, i know one day i will get a pension and need heath care.

[sidecar bob]

The first was immediately after being elected - and breaking one of the election promises of "no new taxes". This was 9-12 c/lt.
11.5 c.lt for the Auckland region (affecting all of the country via goods produced) but it gets called an "Auckland tax".
Weeks after that there was the 3-4 c/lt excise tax increase. This will also happen each year for the next 3 years...
So, the taxation party are off to a bad start after only 1yr in office.

The National government raised the fuel tax by 3c, five times and 2c once during its nine years in office.
Glad the tooth-monster and the rest of the lunatics have their priorities in order, especially now that exploring for more oil will be cutting their own tax-based income stream.

But wait, there's more. Their (Labour's) end game is to tax petrol vehicles to death to Subsidise electric car owners, making petrol cars obsolete.
So somehow we have to import 4 million electric cars & dispose of 4 million petrol cars in short order, and broken arse labour voting simpletons are expected to put these electric cars on tick & pay them off from their not inconsiderable minimum wage at the fast food outlet. Fucking genius!

[husaberg]

The first was immediately after being elected - and breaking one of the election promises of "no new taxes". This was 9-12 c/lt.
11.5 c.lt for the Auckland region (affecting all of the country via goods produced) but it gets called an "Auckland tax".
Weeks after that there was the 3-4 c/lt excise tax increase. This will also happen each year for the next 3 years...
So, the taxation party are off to a bad start after only 1yr in office.

The National government raised the fuel tax by 3c, five times and 2c once during its nine years in office.
Glad the tooth-monster and the rest of the lunatics have their priorities in order, especially now that exploring for more oil will be cutting their own tax-based income stream.

No one gives a shit about Auckland its not a tax its a regional fund to fix national roads rather than the rest of the country paying for them.
Goods are not produced in Auckland f-all is produced in Auckaland other than costs for the rest of the country.
I note your "third" one claimed hasn't even came into effect yet.
thus there has been one. not three. not far off National av.

[sidecar bob]

No one gives a shit about Auckland its not a tax its a regional fund to fix national roads rather than the rest of the country paying for them.
Goods are not produced in Auckland f-all is produced in Auckaland other than costs for the rest of the country.
I note your "third" one claimed hasn't even came into effect yet.
thus there has been one. not three. not far off National av.

Two serious questions, 1-do Labour pay you to be obtuse? 2-could Labour do anything at all, where you would say, hey, that's not on, like for example if they required all first born males to be sacrificed, or because it's them, would that be ok with you?

[husaberg]

Two serious questions, 1-do Labour pay you to be obtuse? 2-could Labour do anything at all, where you would say, hey, that's not on, like for example if they required all first born males to be sacrificed, or because it's them, would that be ok with you?
Do national pay you to do the same?
People don't need to be paid to call out the nats and their boosters on shit they say.
Labour do plenty of stuff i dont agree with.
Cullen would not even visit here after a few of the locals set his limo a rocking.
National do far more
Remember i mentioned the 2000 odd jobs we lost here, they were real jobs and real people. most were 100K plus jobs.
imagine if 10% of Aucklnaders lost there jobs what that would do to the economy up there.
Thats without the 29 people who were killed here as National thought they knew better about mine safety than miners did and let the owners take care of the safety rather than the mines inspectors.
those 29 people are still dead and no one was made accountable for it.
The owners wrote it off as a tax loss were secured creditors.
Nationals knee jeck health and safety measures shut the rest.
All the while they propped up companies not owned by NZ ie Rio TInto.

[sidecar bob]

Thats without the 29 people who were killed here as National thought they knew better about mine safety than miners did and let the owners take care of the safety rather than the mines inspectors.
those 29 people are still dead and no one was made accountable for it.


Oh, while we are on that one, one of Labours election promises was that they swore on a stack of bibles that they would enter the mine & recover the bodies.
Want to take a bet with me right now that it never happens?

[Ocean1]

Thats funny becuse you replied to a reply that was not even to you. Alzheimer's much


Tax cuts are fine who ever makes them, but not at the cost of lowering healthcare, schooling roading or infrastructure or at the cost of having to borrow money to pay for them which is what National did.



Really that not what this says

https://www.mytax.co.nz/2017/07/do-kiwi-families-pay-the-lowest-tax-in-the-oecd/
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11836883

Only they are not taxed on income they are taxed on reported income, everyone tries to lower their tax granted but half of NZ most wealthy are not living on less than $70,000 they just have accountants that make it look as if they are.

I note you never answered about the idea to lower tax to below 20% by getting rid of those socialist Pensions and free health care.
I pay the top rate its fine by me, i know one day i will get a pension and need heath care.

You know what? you're just not worth the effort. Not only do you willfully fabricate shit but you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place.

[husaberg]

Oh, while we are on that one, one of Labours election promises was that they swore on a stack of bibles that they would enter the mine & recover the bodies.
Want to take a bet with me right now that it never happens?
No, No ones entering the mine. They are entering the drift you cant enter the mine and its highly likely there is no bodies in the drift.
The drift is a rock tunnel that leads to the mine. its blocked by a rockfall. they might drill a few more bore holes to see if they can see what happened in the mine but its unlikely.
The company i used to work for at the request of its staff and families of the victims refused to seal the mine. As a result of this moral stand the company i worked for lost a lot of work (read milions of Dollars and this is a family owned business) elsewhere, somethings are more important than money. It beyond highly unlikely any further remains will be recovered. other than what has been allegedly recovered from the weir already.
I watched as John key promised to recover the bodies no mater what the cost, Which was stupid in the extreme. Labour knew enough not to make that sort of promise.

[Voltaire]

You know what? you're just not worth the effort. Not only do you willfully fabricate shit but you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place.

The world is running out of
quotes stop replying and save them.:lol:

[Ocean1]

Oh, while we are on that one, one of Labours election promises was that they swore on a stack of bibles that they would enter the mine & recover the bodies.
Want to take a bet with me right now that it never happens?

Dude, safety means different things to different people.

It wasn't safe for the miners to be in there.
It was safe for the company to send more people in there immediately after the incident.
It was safe for rescue workers to go in.
It's been safe for government appointed investigators to go in there ever since then.
It's not safe for THIS government's people to go in there.

It's got me fucked.

[husaberg]

You know what? you're just not worth the effort. Not only do you willfully fabricate shit but you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place.
Really, i must have done well to write those links years before, but if what you say is true. I would i have a great future as Simon Bridges replacement script writer then.


Dude, safety means different things to different people.

It wasn't safe for the miners to be in there.
It was safe for the company to send more people in there immediately after the incident.
It was safe for rescue workers to go in.
It's been safe for government appointed investigators to go in there ever since then.
It's not safe for THIS government's people to go in there.

It's got me fucked.
You really should know a bit about what happened before you open your gob.
The mine wasn't safe due to negligence by placing the safety out of the hands of the mines inspectors and on to the company.
the company put their share price and profits ahead of peoples lives.
No one entered the mine after the incident.
Mines rescue were refused entry after the incident by police. Even though mines rescue were the experts on what is safe.
This is tantamount to police refusing to let fire fighters fight fires on account of police knowing more about fires then they do.
Mines resuce were then prevented from sealing and stabilising the mines environment. Thats why it heated and caught fire.
The previous government refused to allow anyone to enter the drift.
The previous government then ordered the mine sealed
There is two temp seals just inside the portal no one goes been past those then or now. Other than the two that escaped the blast.
This government is at least trying to see what they can find out.

[sidecar bob]

There's a heap of material on it.
Here's just one.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/west-coast/95798732/crossparty-agreement-pledges-a-reentry-of-pike-river-mine

[husaberg]

There's a heap of material on it.
Here's just one.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/west-coast/95798732/crossparty-agreement-pledges-a-reentry-of-pike-river-mine

No mention of Andrew little swearing on a ple of bibles.
it only mentions entering the drift. Nor any promise to recover bodies

Pike River Recovery Agency is focused on developing a plan to safely re-enter the Pike River mine drift, to give the Pike River families closure, to promote accountability for this tragedy and to help prevent future mining tragedies.
https://www.pikeriverrecovery.govt.nz/


Planning
During the planning phase we will bring together existing information, appoint expert contractors, assess the risks and develop a plan to re-enter the mine and recover the drift.

The Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry will then make a decision on whether re-entry can safely go ahead.

For weekly technical updates about what's happening, visit our Documents page.

Recovery
If the Minister decides re-entry will go ahead, the recovery phase will begin. This will involve re-entry into and recovery of the mine drift to gather evidence and, if possible, recover any human remains.

Rehabilitation
After any recovery work is complete, the mine will be sealed (with a reversible seal) and the site will be rehabilitated. The site will then return to the Department of Conservation for ongoing stewardship and development of a memorial and information centre.

[Ocean1]

You really should know a bit about what happened before you open your gob.

I know enough about what happened to understand that your narrative is heavily spun in favour of a group ideologically motivated to blame a perceived bogeyman for absolutely everything. And usually then to demand compensation or redress from taxpayers.

Happy to acknowledge that I'm of the opinion that everyone should take responsibility for their own shit, but sick of the bullshit from both sides on every fucking topic of any contention at all, using them simply as a tool for "But National", "But Labour".....

When you can shake off your obvious ideological bias, address the issue instead of the man and learn some basic objectivity you may gain some credibility, but not until then.

[husaberg]

I know enough about what happened to understand that your narrative is heavily spun in favour of a group ideologically motivated to blame a perceived bogeyman for absolutely everything. And usually then to demand compensation or redress from taxpayers.

Happy to acknowledge that I'm of the opinion that everyone should take responsibility for their own shit, but sick of the bullshit from both sides on every fucking topic of any contention at all, using them simply as a tool for "But National", "But Labour".....

When you can shake off your obvious ideological bias, address the issue instead of the man and learn some basic objectivity you may gain some credibility, but not until then.

What you posted showed you lack any understanding of what occured so its best you shut your gob.
I was there when Key made the promise to the whole nation its on video, it happened, he later claimed he never said it.
No ones blaming national for causing the disaster only the rules that they changed that lead to it, despite advice for the experts that this would be the outcome.
What people do blame National for was refusing to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.
The families dont give a shit about compensation none requested it or were consulted about it.
Its not about money its about justice and making sure it doesnt happen again. plus giving the families closure.
https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/pike-river-supreme-court-ruling-confirms-justice-is-not-for-sale/


Just such a bargain was entered into in late 2013, when the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment accepted a proposal advanced by Whittall’s lawyer, Stuart Grieve QC, whereby $3.41 million would be paid by Pike River Coal’s directors’ and officers’ insurance to the victims, “conditional” on all charges against him being dropped.

New Zealanders should be collectively relieved that the highest court in the land has found that arrangement was illegal: if the deal had gone unchallenged, it would have raised the awful prospect of more such bargains being struck between over-worked prosecutors and well-heeled defendants.

The Supreme Court ruling is an important wake-up call for all law-enforcement agencies. Plea-bargaining has become a more common feature of modern legal practice but, as the court noted in a key passage of the decision, “The rule of law is undermined if accountability and punishment of public wrongs turns on the means of the defendant.”

[Ocean1]

What you posted showed you lack any understanding of what occured so its best you shut your gob.
I was there when Key made the promise to the whole nation its on video, it happened, he later claimed he never said it.
No ones blaming national for causing the disaster only the rules that they changed that lead to it, despite advice for the experts that this would be the outcome.
What people do blame National for was refusing to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.
The families dont give a shit about compensation none requested it or were consulted about it.
Its not about money its about justice and making sure it doesnt happen again. plus giving the families closure.
https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/pike-river-supreme-court-ruling-confirms-justice-is-not-for-sale/

But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...


When you can shake off your obvious ideological bias, address the issue instead of the man and learn some basic objectivity you may gain some credibility, but not until then.

[Viking01]

But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...

Good to see you working on the lyrics, but I think that it needs a catchy tune.
Especially if you're going to sell it before the next election .... :yes:

[oldrider]

Good to see you working on the lyrics, but I think that it needs a catchy tune.
Especially if you're going to sell it before the next election .... :yes:

MMP is not an election it is simply a deep breath and a reshuffle maybe not even a deep breath! :facepalm:

[Swoop]

Goods are not produced in Auckland...
Guess what, the rest of the country relies on what is produced in Auckland. Food on your table, especially.

Quite right, I forgot to add the next tax that ACC want to add onto fuel (2c p/Lt). I guess they don't want to be left out in the race to suckle on the taxpayer's tit.

[husaberg]

But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...


Why would you admit the reason it happened you dont have the guts let alone the intelligence.
The explosion that ripped through Pike River mine last year had its origin in changes to mining regulations in the 1990s, a former chief inspector of coal mines told the Royal Commission into the tragedy today.
The commission is inquiring into the disaster at the West Coast coal mine in November last year which left 29 miners and contractors dead.

Giving evidence this morning, former chief inspector of coal mines Robin Hughes, who has over 40 years of coal mining experience, criticised mine safety changes made by the National Government in the 1990s.
"The explosion at Pike River mine..had its origins in the repealing of the Coal Mining Act and regulations in 1993," Mr Hughes said.
"The unwillingness of government officials up to and including the Prime Minister of the day to act on advice offered by a number of individuals resulted in the loss of a robust coal mines inspectorate, staffed by the most experienced and skilled personnel available.
Mr Hughes said once mines' inspectors became part of the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) and the Department of Labour the "proactive" inspecting of coal mines greatly reduced.
"The OSH view was that workplace health and safety was primarily the responsibility of the mine's operators," he said.
Mr Hughes also questioned the qualifications of people employed as inspectors after the 1990s.
"The inspectorate changed from being a active and expert participant in coal mining safety to a reactive and substantially less well qualified organisation," he said.
"It became an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and not a fence at the top."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738223


In their submission on the report in 2008, Pike River Coal said check inspectors were "totally inappropriate and not required".But Peter Whittall, now Pike River Coal chief executive, warned the department that its underground mining regulations were inadequate, there were too few mines inspectors, and they had inadequate resources.

[husaberg]

Guess what, the rest of the country relies on what is produced in Auckland. Food on your table, especially.

Quite right, I forgot to add the next tax that ACC want to add onto fuel (2c p/Lt). I guess they don't want to be left out in the race to suckle on the taxpayer's tit.

I think you will find thats not the case.
Auckland cant even supply its own water or power or gas or coal or raw ingredients.
Manufacturing is just convenient in Auckland as its the largest consumer of goods.

[jasonu]

I think you will find thats not the case.
Auckland cant even supply its own water or power or gas or coal or raw ingredients.
Manufacturing is just convenient in Auckland as its the largest consumer of goods.

If Auckland went down it would take the rest of the country down with it.

[husaberg]

If Auckland went down it would take the rest of the country down with it.
Yeah Its a anchor all right:bye:

[sidecar bob]

No mention of Andrew little swearing on a ple of bibles.
it only mentions entering the drift. Nor any promise to recover bodies

You have selective memory loss. They ranted on it repeatedly when they're were competing for their pseudo pole position.
I can scarcely believe you can't remember.

[husaberg]

You have selective memory loss. They ranted on it repeatedly when they're were competing for their pseudo pole position.
I can scarcely believe you can't remember.
well find the quote then.
they were always pretty clear that they would only do what was possible.
Entering the mine itself is not really possible or plausible due to a number of factors. ie rockfall in drive, subsequent earthquakes, loss of integrity due to fires and lack of maintenance
lack of egress etc.


Labour promised only to do all possible to try and explore drift and recover bodies.
John key said they would recover the bodies no mater what the cost, I was there, its all on tape.
Don't confuse what some of the victims families have said. A couple of their expectations were highly unrealistic.
the chances of any bodies being in the drive portion that will be accessible is remote at best.

[Ocean1]

Why would you admit the reason it happened you dont have the guts let alone the intelligence.
The explosion that ripped through Pike River mine last year had its origin in changes to mining regulations in the 1990s, a former chief inspector of coal mines told the Royal Commission into the tragedy today.
The commission is inquiring into the disaster at the West Coast coal mine in November last year which left 29 miners and contractors dead.

Giving evidence this morning, former chief inspector of coal mines Robin Hughes, who has over 40 years of coal mining experience, criticised mine safety changes made by the National Government in the 1990s.
"The explosion at Pike River mine..had its origins in the repealing of the Coal Mining Act and regulations in 1993," Mr Hughes said.
"The unwillingness of government officials up to and including the Prime Minister of the day to act on advice offered by a number of individuals resulted in the loss of a robust coal mines inspectorate, staffed by the most experienced and skilled personnel available.
Mr Hughes said once mines' inspectors became part of the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) and the Department of Labour the "proactive" inspecting of coal mines greatly reduced.
"The OSH view was that workplace health and safety was primarily the responsibility of the mine's operators," he said.
Mr Hughes also questioned the qualifications of people employed as inspectors after the 1990s.
"The inspectorate changed from being a active and expert participant in coal mining safety to a reactive and substantially less well qualified organisation," he said.
"It became an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and not a fence at the top."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738223


But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National... But National...But National... But National... But National... But National...


Why would you admit the reason it happened you dont have the guts let alone the intelligence.

You mean admit you're right.

Because "the reasons" you present are all uniquely and heavily weighted with hyperbolic adjectives found only in anti-establishment literature. Which means they can' be treated as objective fact.

And because in fact whatever "the reasons" were, the incessant blamestorming helps nobody.

And because I value other opinion more: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107282771/let-it-rest-the-pike-river-and-ctv-families-who-want-to-move-on

[husaberg]

You mean admit you're right.

Because "the reasons" you present are all uniquely and heavily weighted with hyperbolic adjectives found only in anti-establishment literature. Which means they can' be treated as objective fact.

And because in fact whatever "the reasons" were, the incessant blamestorming helps nobody.

And because I value other opinion more: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107282771/let-it-rest-the-pike-river-and-ctv-families-who-want-to-move-on

I never presented them, they are object facts present to the Royal commission.
By a leading expect in mine safety who repeatedly pleaded for the rules not to be changed outinning what the effect would be.
You dont want to admit they are true as they show the cause and pike is the effect.
The enquirery concluded what robin hughes said was the major contributing factor.
I am not really surprised at you hypocrisy of saying your prefer other options and want to move on to another subject.

[Ocean1]

I never presented them, they are object facts present to the Royal commission.
By a leading expect in mine safety who repeatedly pleaded for the rules not to be changed outinning what the effect would be.
You dont want to admit they are true as they show the cause and pike is the effect.
The enquirer concluded what robin hughes said was the major contributing factor.
I am not really surprised at you hypocrisy of saying your prefer other options and want to move on to another subject.

It's not another subject. So now you don't even need to read a post in order to dismiss it, let alone attempt to understand it.

Just pathetic.

[husaberg]

It's not another subject. So now you don't even need to read a post in order to dismiss it, let alone attempt to understand it.

Just pathetic.

I note The families of the CTV building also never seen justice served by the engineers who designed the building appearing before the court.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/99445446/ctv-building-tragedy-timeline-how-a-prosecution-became-no-prosecution
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/ctv-engineer-suspended-and-fined-over-failure-to-disclose-6124593

Labour is was or has made changes to ensure that doesn't happen again
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/102347724/government-acts-to-change-one-year-one-day-law-that-stopped-ctv-building-engineers-being-charged

Maan Alkaisi​, widower of CTV victim Maysoon Abbas said he welcomed the law reform to help people facing similar situations in the future.
But he believed it was wrongly used to justify not proceeding with a prosecution against the CTV engineers.
"It's a very good step to prevent people like the solicitor general from using excuses like this.
"The problem is not with the law, the problem is with some people who want to use the law in the ways that they want."


Whats pathetic is your hypocrisy in not acknowledging Nationals considered changes to mines legislation ending up killing people.
What is further pathetic is your failure to understand the pike river families were prevented this by Nationals representatives agreeing to a cash payment instead of people facing charges.


The explosion that ripped through Pike River mine last year had its origin in changes to mining regulations in the 1990s, a former chief inspector of coal mines told the Royal Commission into the tragedy today.
The commission is inquiring into the disaster at the West Coast coal mine in November last year which left 29 miners and contractors dead.
Giving evidence this morning, former chief inspector of coal mines Robin Hughes, who has over 40 years of coal mining experience, criticised mine safety changes made by the National Government in the 1990s.
"The explosion at Pike River mine..had its origins in the repealing of the Coal Mining Act and regulations in 1993," Mr Hughes said.
"The unwillingness of government officials up to and including the Prime Minister of the day to act on advice offered by a number of individuals resulted in the loss of a robust coal mines inspectorate, staffed by the most experienced and skilled personnel available.
Mr Hughes said once mines' inspectors became part of the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) and the Department of Labour the "proactive" inspecting of coal mines greatly reduced.
National acknowledged this was the case when they chaneged the rules back after the disaster.



https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/50HansD_20131022_00000024/health-and-safety-pike-river-implementation-bill-second
Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — Second Reading
The committee heard a range of views from submitters on the issue of the scope of industry health and safety representatives, otherwise known as check inspectors. We agree with the committee that they are appointed only for the underground coalmining sector, as was recommended by the Pike River royal commission. Although all the mining operations that are proposed to be covered by the new regime have principal hazards, there is a substantial additional risk in the underground coal sector that relates to the presence of methane. The vast majority of multiple fatality incidents in the mining industry in the past 100 years has occurred in this sector. The Government considers that this is where the resource of industry health and safety representatives—the extra set of eyes and ears, the extra line of defence—that the royal commission spoke of is best targeted. The final part of the bill ensures that the legislation that supports the mine’s rescue service is fit for purpose, and minor amendments have been recommended by the committee.



They told the victims families no mater what the cost the victims bodies would be removed. and people would be brought to justice.
Then the representatives of the national government solicited illegal payments instead of holding people legally accountable.
they then tried to make sure the mine was sealed to prevent any proper investigation and make the problem go away.


This was agree with first by the royal commission that identified the change to legislation made by national as being the key factor.
Secondary by the supereme court ruling that the payments made to stop prosecution in the high court agreed to by the national government representatives were illegal in that they were conditional on prosecution not going ahead.
IE national sold off justice.

ELLEN FRANCE J Supreme Court Justice
I too would allow the appeal and make a declaration that the decision to offer no evidence to the charges against Mr Whittall was unlawful. I agree also with the approach of the Chief Justice as to costs. I would however express my reasoning in the manner set out below. [103] It was always advanced as an essential, non-negotiable, condition of the discussion that Mr Whittall would not be charged. Mr Stanaway (the Crown Solicitor advising WorkSafe New Zealand), in his letter of 20 August 2013 to Mr Grieve, referred to the payment of funds in return for no prosecution as the “central arrangement”.109 The centrality of this aspect is also apparent in Mr Stanaway’s rejection of other conditions Mr Grieve later sought to have imposed on payment.110 It was quite clear that if there was a prosecution, no payment would be made. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Mr Whittall’s proposal was “a conditional reparation undertaking: that in the event 109 See Elias CJ above at [44]. 110 See Elias CJ above at [62]–[63]. the prosecution terminated, the payment would be made” was accordingly sufficient in the circumstances to constitute an agreement

[103] The decisive feature of the present case is that it is simply not possible to put any distance between the way in which Mr Grieve QC for Mr Whittall put the basis for payment of the money by Mr Whittall and the decision to offer no evidence. It was always advanced as an essential, non-negotiable, condition of the discussion that Mr Whittall would not be charged. Mr Stanaway (the Crown Solicitor advising WorkSafe New Zealand), in his letter of 20 August 2013 to Mr Grieve, referred to the payment of funds in return for no prosecution as the “central arrangement”.109 The centrality of this aspect is also apparent in Mr Stanaway’s rejection of other conditions Mr Grieve later sought to have imposed on payment.110 It was quite clear that if there was a prosecution, no payment would be made. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Mr Whittall’s proposal was “a conditional reparation undertaking: that in the event 109 See Elias CJ above at [44]. 110 See Elias CJ above at [62]–[63]. the prosecution terminated, the payment would be made” was accordingly sufficient in the circumstances to constitute an agreement.

[104] Against this background the fact, relied on by the Court of Appeal, that Mr Stanaway was not the ultimate decision-maker, is immaterial.112 Mr Stanaway was not acting on his own account without instructions. (He confirmed in his email of 8 July 2013 he had “firm instructions” to attempt to resolve the case with a plea arrangement albeit he noted the need to obtain approval from WorkSafe.) Similarly, it was not relevant in this factual matrix that WorkSafe took other factors into account. That is because, in assessing the public interest factors, WorkSafe wrongly took into account the agreement to stifle the prosecution. Accordingly, I do not consider it is necessary to comment on the other factors taken into account by WorkSafe or on the amenability to judicial review of WorkSafe’s assessment of those matters.113 [105] Nor do I see a need to differentiate the nature of the concerns about these types of bargains in a public prosecution from those in a private prosecution. Private prosecutors will have an interest in the outcome. Further, the other concern underlying the prohibition on these types of bargain – namely, the risk of extortion – is not necessarily worse in relation to public prosecutions as opposed to private prosecutions.





You made a series of statements about the incident that showed how little you knew a page ago.


You know what? you're just not worth the effort. Not only do you willfully fabricate shit but you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place.
Really, i must have done well to write those links years before, but if what you say is true. I would i have a great future as Simon Bridges replacement script writer then.


Dude, safety means different things to different people.

It wasn't safe for the miners to be in there.
It was safe for the company to send more people in there immediately after the incident.
It was safe for rescue workers to go in.
It's been safe for government appointed investigators to go in there ever since then.
It's not safe for THIS government's people to go in there.

It's got me fucked.
You really should know a bit about what happened before you open your gob.
The mine wasn't safe due to negligence by placing the safety out of the hands of the mines inspectors and on to the company.
the company put their share price and profits ahead of peoples lives.
No one entered the mine after the incident.
Mines rescue were refused entry after the incident by police. Even though mines rescue were the experts on what is safe.
This is tantamount to police refusing to let fire fighters fight fires on account of police knowing more about fires then they do.
Mines resuce were then prevented from sealing and stabilising the mines environment. Thats why it heated and caught fire.
The previous government refused to allow anyone to enter the drift.
The previous government then ordered the mine sealed
There is two temp seals just inside the portal no one goes been past those then or now. Other than the two that escaped the blast.
This government is at least trying to see what they can find out.

[jasonu]

well find the quote then.
they were always pretty clear that they would only do what was possible.
Entering the mine itself is not really possible or plausible due to a number of factors. ie rockfall in drive, subsequent earthquakes, loss of integrity due to fires and lack of maintenance
lack of egress etc.


Labour promised only to do all possible to try and explore drift and recover bodies.
John key said they would recover the bodies no mater what the cost, I was there, its all on tape.
Don't confuse what some of the victims families have said. A couple of their expectations were highly unrealistic.
the chances of any bodies being in the drive portion that will be accessible is remote at best.

I remember it from all the way over here and I'm not going to bother looking for the quotes.

[Ocean1]

I remember it from all the way over here and I'm not going to bother looking for the quotes.

Probably for the best anyway, some quotes tend to change dramatically over time, often growing into impenetrable walls of obscure text garnered from hours and hours of frenzied "research".

[carbonhed]

Probably for the best anyway, some quotes tend to change dramatically over time, often growing into impenetrable walls of obscure text garnered from hours and hours of frenzied "research".

:laugh: As it get's more frenzied it gets more and more incoherent. it's kind of like watching a blowfly spinning around on it's back on a windowsill.

Do you think it imagines it's convincing anybody? While everybody is backing off thinking "Whoa. Look at that motherfucker go!" :lol:

[husaberg]

I remember it from all the way over here and I'm not going to bother looking for the quotes.
His exact statements are on video. 2.05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW5Kvum9Sx4


Oral Questions—Questions to Ministers

Pike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery Operation

9. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Pike River Mine that "What I did promise is that we could do everything we can to get those bodies out"?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Ron Mark: Is he aware that non-mining contractors and personnel have been working on the reversible seal without breathing apparatus, which contradicts the risk assessment conducted by Solid Energy claiming that it could not be done, and vindicates the expert advice to the families of the 29 victims, as witnessed by Minister Barry in her last visit to the mine?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. But what I am aware of is the advice that we have received from Solid Energy that the environment has not materially changed since the decision not to re-enter the drift was made in 2014.
Ron Mark: With recent testing results showing gas levels within the Pike River mine are safe enough for re-entry, will he now take steps to get the bodies out of the mine so that the families can have their men back and closure; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member will be aware, the decision to enter or not re-enter the mine is not one that I think a politician should make; nor have I ever claimed I could make. We have taken the best advice, or at least Solid Energy has, as the owner and occupier of the mine. As I have always said, one of the worst things we could do is now put at risk the lives of fellow New Zealanders, as a result of the tragedy.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Why will the Prime Minister not honour his commitment to the families and fund an independent expert to assess the situation at Pike River, not rely on the advice from Solid Energy, a company that the Government has, effectively, sold out?


Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe I have met all my commitments to the families.


23/6/2013
Yesterday, The Australian ran a news story that quoted John Key acknowledging that questions needed to be asked about mine safety standards in this country. He went on to say that a single-entry uphill mine, as Pike River was, would not have been legal in Australia. He stressed that he couldn't give a complete answer because of the royal commission that's under way, but added that no doubt changes would be recommended.
Key's statements weren't in error, nor were they out of kilter with public opinion. The problem is that they were hypocritical - the great political crime - and that they muddied the waters around the commission and looked too political. The newspaper itself reported it this way:
Mr Key's admissions mark a reversal of the staunch defence of New Zealand's mining regulations that he and Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee mounted immediately after the disaster.

After the explosion, The Australian reported claims by Australian mining experts saying the Pike River operation did not have safety equipment that would be standard issue in Australia.
"I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's," Mr Key said at the time.

Phil Goff pounced early yesterday afternoon, adding:
“This sudden change in his position is quite incredible given just a month ago he publicly condemned a union representative for questioning safety at the mine, accusing her of being “churlish and insensitive”.

He told the Herald that he wasn't saying that New Zealand had lower safety standards, merely that the countries standards were "different". He stood by his statements last year that to his knowledge New Zealand standards are on a par with Australia.
But that's nonsense. It's clear that New Zealand mining safety standards are
a) lower than Australia's and
b) not world's best practice.
That these men shouldn't have died, and that their deaths were in part due to a lack of standards was clear within three days of the second explosion. One of America's top mining experts, the boss of mine safety under Bill Clinton and the lead investigator into the eerily similar Upper Big Branch explosion in April last year, Davitt McAteer, said this on Q+A on November 28:

We should not have accidents of this magnitude, of this size in developed countries, or for that matter around the world, because we know how to mine safely, we know how to mine without explosions; we do it day in and day out. We know where the risks are and we know what precautions need to be taken, and we need to be applying those on a daily basis, and we need to make certain that we build into precautions redundant systems that can keep explosions from expanding and killing large numbers of people.
"We know how to mine safely". In other words, a deadly mine is simply one that isn't doing everything we know how to do. In the same programme New Zealand expert Dave Feickert said we ditched our mine inspectorate in the 1990s because it was "too expensive" and that he had doubts about Pike River's standards. This ain't new.

Key also claimed late yesterday that mine safety was indeed "a matter for the royal commission". But he wasn't talking about mine safety, he was talking about mine construction and design. And that's entirely different.
Except it isn't. The commission's terms of reference say it should look at any factor that might have caused the explosion and the deaths of the miners, including the mines "practices", "operations" and "management". There are no limitations to what the commission can investigate, so mine design could well be a factor for them to consider.
So his comments certainly tread on ground that the commission will cover, thereby putting the pressure of Prime Ministerial expectation on the judges.
Do his words amount to some kind of contempt of the commission? No. It's hardly damning stuff. But if the judges now focus on mine design rather than safety standards or any other factor, the questions will naturally arise whether they succumbed to political influence. It's, well, awkward.
The PM's latest gaffe came in Question Time today, when Annette King probed him on all this. She asked why it was "dangerous" for Helen Kelly to suggest Pike River was unsafe, but ok for him to say similar things. He agreed it would be hypocritical if he had been talking about mine safety, but he was talking about design differences, not safety.

Except that Key helpfully read out the transcript from the interview, clearly showing that the journalist's question was specifically about, er, mining safety and how New Zealand's record wasn't as good as Australia's. And Key quoted himself answering that, while he couldn't fully comment because of the commission, "we need to ask some questions whether mine safety standards are high enough".
Admittedly, he then said, "What is true..." and carried on to talk about the mine's construction. But this was clearly, by his own words, a discussion about mine safety. The context was mine safety. And clearly by the newspaper report, the journalist understood the conversation to be about, as he said in his intro, "mining safety regulations". As did other media.
I suspect Key is reading public opinion very well, as he typically does. At the time of the disaster, the genuine grief of Peter Whitall won sympathy for Pike River Ltd and the PM was happy to stand beside the man and the company. However, thanks to journalists – and, to be fair, unionists – a different picture has emerged and the mine and the company have become more suspect. If you haven't seen Sunday's most recent work on Pike River's safety standards, see this.
And the Pike River families have turned more critical in recent weeks, leading some of these safety concerns. Yet this time Key's famous attendee aren't enough. It's not about empathy, but consistency and statesmanship.


Prime Minister John Key says his hands are tied over the decision to drop charges against former Pike River boss Peter Whittall.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment yesterday dropped all 12 health and safety charges against Pike River Coal Ltd's former chief executive, admitting it had a poor chance of successfully prosecuting him.


Labour Minister Simon Bridges offered his sympathies to the Pike River families, but stressed the decision to drop charges against former Pike River boss Peter Whittall was not the result of a back-room deal.
Yesterday, Bridges refused to comment on the decision, but today told Fairfax Media he offered his sympathies to the families.
"Obviously I've got a huge amount of sympathy for them, and can understand where they're coming from," he said.
"But what I can give them is an assurance that there's been no politics involved in this, no deal of any kind.
"Instead, what it is, is a decision firmly based on legal principles."
Yesterday, opposition MPs along with Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said it was clear a back-room deal had been made.
yet the superme court says it was a back room deal.

[Katman]

it's kind of like watching a blowfly spinning around on it's back on a windowsill.

What have you got against blowflies?

[carbonhed]

What have you got against blowflies?

Usually a rolled up newspaper.

[jasonu]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12134578

Finally a good policy but I'll bet the tooth fairy doesn't like it.

[sidecar bob]

Nothing about just entering the drift. And he's fast running out of year.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/06/pike-river-re-entry-by-the-end-of-this-year-andrew-little.html
For someone that can find interesting snippets from the darkest corners of the Internet about rare & historic engines for the ese thread & odballs & prototypes thread better than anyone else, you're not doing a great job of convincing me you couldn't see that.
Google even finished my search description for me itself.
And I'm not going to say "ooh, and not a peep out of you about that" because it's entirely plausible that you may have secondary employment that doesn't involve being a Labour Party internet supervisor.

[Swoop]

I think you will find thats not the case.
Auckland cant even supply its own water or power or gas or coal or raw ingredients.
Manufacturing is just convenient in Auckland as its the largest consumer of goods.
Nope.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12134578

Finally a good policy but I'll bet the tooth fairy doesn't like it.
A similar policy to Canada, but the whiny arses here will obviously disagree with it.

Seems the patagonian toothfish wants to open the door to every type of "environmental refugee" as well.

[husaberg]

Nope.
Maybe you would like to share why the rest of the country wouldn't survive without Auckland.
it would be intersting to hear exactly how you figure that one out.

[carbonhed]

Maybe you would like to share why the rest of the country wouldn't survive without Auckland.
it would be intersting to hear exactly how you figure that one out.

If I could be sure you'd be on the West Coast I'd be prepared to authorise a nuclear strike just to see if we could do without you hillbilly assholes. Now where's my fucking banjo so I can serenade your incineration :motu:

[husaberg]

If I could be sure you'd be on the West Coast I'd be prepared to authorise a nuclear strike just to see if we could do without you hillbilly assholes. Now where's my fucking banjo so I can serenade your incineration :motu:
For the record the aproved term is "feral inbreeds"
Also what would those millions of tourists that vist NZ just to see our scenery look at in Auckland.
I see you have not come up with a reason the rest of the country couldn't cope without Auckland yet either.

[sidecar bob]

Maybe you would like to share why the rest of the country wouldn't survive without Auckland.
it would be intersting to hear exactly how you figure that one out.

Can we keep that one until after we have go to the bottom of Labour having the mine entered by Christmas?

[husaberg]

Can we keep that one until after we have go to the bottom of Labour having the mine entered by Christmas?

The Drive as i said the mine itself is pie in the sky.
I know at the moment they are having problems recuiting people with underground experience as all the miners went to Aussie. Same with Huntley.
Thats what happens when you lay off thousands of people.

[carbonhed]

For the record the aproved term is "feral inbeeds"
Also what would those millions of tourists that vist NZ just to see our scenery look at in Auckland.
I see you have not come up with a reason the rest of the country couldn't cope without Auckland yet either.

I googled feral in beads and it came back with this...

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/90/c1/4b/90c14bb8330967a6ca3ee34f6da6a744.jpg

but I suspect we're dealing with something more like this...

http://www.teamjimmyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Bad-Family-Photos-Toothless-Redneck.jpg

[sidecar bob]

The Drive as i said the mine itself is pie in the sky.
I know at the moment they are having problems recuiting people with underground experience as all the miners went to Aussie. Same with Huntley.
Thats what happens when you lay off thousands of people.

Yeah, so Nationals fault pretty much then?:facepalm:

[husaberg]

:innocent:
Yeah, so Nationals fault pretty much then?:facepalm:

Well they changed the mining safety rules that lead to the pike disaster, against expert advice to vea few hundred K a year.
They made SE pay a dividend they clearly couldn't afford.
They told SE to spend a heap of money on studies into lignite to diesel and lignite to urea.
They told SE they had to buy pike river. (for 23million)
After pike they knee jerked changed the mining rules that made it impossible to underground mine.
When SE couldn't use the high grade coal to balance out the low grade coal from the opencast mines their profits plumetted as well.
They then didnt bail them out when things turned to shit. But they did help out other companies not owned by the goverment ie Rio Tinto. At the cost of other SOE's.
Buts its all sweet Auusies own the coal reserves now. BHP saw millions of tons of coal were worth having for a pitence of their worth. locals brought the rest.

[sidecar bob]

:innocent:

Well they changed the mining safety rules that lead to the pike disaster, against expert advice to vea few hundred K a year.
They made SE pay a dividend they clearly couldn't afford.
They told SE to spend a heap of money on studies into lignite to diesel and lignite to urea.
They told SE they had to buy pike river. (for 23million)
After pike they knee jerked changed the mining rules that made it impossible to underground mine.
When SE couldn't use the high grade coal to balance out the low grade coal from the opencast mines their profits plumetted as well.
They then didnt bail them out when things turned to shit. But they did help out other companies not owned by the goverment ie Rio Tinto. At the cost of other SOE's.
Buts its all sweet Auusies own the coal reserves now. BHP saw millions of tons of coal were worth having for a pitence of their worth. locals brought the rest.

Phew, well I'm glad we got that sorted out then.;)

[husaberg]

Phew, well I'm glad we got that sorted out then.;)


You cant blame National thats just the shit they do.
Go in borrow up huge and increase NZ debt and sell off anything Kiwis own that they can get their greasey hands on.
Its not Nationals fault its the idiots that vote for them
Do you remember the Nats bailing out private companies and multinationals.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10670276
they diid this while screwing over SOE's
https://www.reuters.com/article/meridian-smelter/nzs-meridian-energy-says-unlikely-to-revise-smelter-power-deal-idUSL3N0CK0U420130328
https://www.reuters.com/article/newzealand-meridian-smelter-idUSL3N10B2CC20150802

[sidecar bob]

You cant blame National thats just the shit they do.
Go in borrow up huge and increase NZ debt and sell off anything Kiwis own that they can get their greasey hands on.
Its not Nationals fault its the idiots that vote for them
Do you remember the Nats bailing out private companies and multinationals.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10670276
they diid this while screwing over SOE's
https://www.reuters.com/article/meridian-smelter/nzs-meridian-energy-says-unlikely-to-revise-smelter-power-deal-idUSL3N0CK0U420130328
https://www.reuters.com/article/newzealand-meridian-smelter-idUSL3N10B2CC20150802

It's been a lucky break for some though. Imagine if you didn't have them to blame for everything.

[husaberg]

It's been a lucky break for some though. Imagine if you didn't have them to blame for everything.
I am only pointing out what they clearly did and its effects
But seeing the whole point of this threads about blaiming the current Goverment it seems a bit contrite to assume it should be one way traffic only.

[sidecar bob]

I am only pointing out what they clearly did and its effects
But seeing the whole point of this threads about blaiming the current Goverment it seems a bit contrite to assume it should be one way traffic only.

But can we still go 5 bucks & a bag of chips either way on wether they do or don't get into the mine by Christmas?
I mean it's easy to produce some file footage of trucks going up a country road.
Actually getting into the mine is another topic & 23 plus million well spent.

[husaberg]

But can we still go 5 bucks & a bag of chips either way on wether they do or don't get into the mine by Christmas?
I mean it's easy to produce some file footage of trucks going up a country road.
Actually getting into the mine is another topic & 23 plus million well spent.

as i keep sauying the aim is only to enter the Drive not the mine.
Dont you remember Key saying it wasnt about the money it would cost.:msn-wink:
Getting into the drive is easy you just open the seal moving in the drive and up it requires a lot of work all the roof bolts and shot crete has to be checked as you inch your way forrward creating temp barriers seals
If you had ever been up to Pike the road itself quite an eye opener nealy all one lane the road was put in arround trees. I can t remember the cost but it was huge.
there is blue Duck right on the stream there.
My farm was two farms downstream and accross big river.

[Voltaire]

Blackball has a good black pudding shop.

[sidecar bob]

as i keep sauying the aim is only to enter the Drive not the mine.
Dont you remember Key saying it wasnt about the money it would cost.:msn-wink:
Getting into the drive is easy you just open the seal moving in the drive and up it requires a lot of work all the roof bolts and shot crete has to be checked as you inch your way forrward creating temp barriers seals
If you had ever been up to Pike the road itself quite an eye opener nealy all one lane the road was put in arround trees. I can t remember the cost but it was huge.
there is blue Duck right on the stream there.
My farm was two farms downstream and accross big river.

Yeah, nah. Old mate definitely says "mine" if you read the first two lines.:facepalm:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/06/pike-river-re-entry-by-the-end-of-this-year-andrew-little.html

[husaberg]

Blackball has a good black pudding shop.

Phiil Russ.
He used to have a RD400 and a (Bonnie) i think.
He did the grid at Greymouth Street races for years. Always in White gumboots.

[husaberg]

Yeah, nah. Old mate definitely says "mine" if you read the first two lines.:facepalm:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/06/pike-river-re-entry-by-the-end-of-this-year-andrew-little.html
Yes the drive is part of the mine. But thats not where the coal or the miners were.
its the stone tunnel that leads to the coal seam.
it crosses a fault line thats where they think the rockfall is..
There is no way through this for pretty obvious reasons.

National deemed it far too unsafe to enter the drive
https://www.radionz.co.nz/assets/news/26234/eight_col_xlarge_Pike_River_exploration_diagram.jp g?1413492262
Any attempts to go further require signing off from worksafe there are plans but thats all they are.
the only promise made to the victims was to attempt to enter the drive not the pit.

[jasonu]

I am only pointing out what they clearly did and its effects
But seeing the whole point of this threads about blaiming the current Goverment it seems a bit contrite to assume it should be one way traffic only.

Not blaming the current government just pointing out all the incompetency, the fuck ups and the dumb shit they are currently (almost daily) doing and it seams there is a never ending supply of ammo to do so.

[Voltaire]

Not blaming the current government just pointing out all the incompetency, the fuck ups and the dumb shit they are currently (almost daily) doing and it seams there is a never ending supply of ammo to do so.

Double stitched or ore?
Your right about the current Govt ( where you live).:rolleyes:
SNL has some tough competition these days.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/416/269/e21.jpg

[Swoop]

Quote Originally Posted by husaberg View Post
I think you will find thats not the case.
Auckland cant even supply its own water or power or gas or coal or raw ingredients.
Manufacturing is just convenient in Auckland as its the largest consumer of goods.

Auckland quite happily supplies its own water (the sensible parts do this...). Power & gas we know come from elsewhere.
Now, as for manufacturing. It isn't the local consumer market that makes manufacturing "convenient" but the supply chain and labour force. Port access, infrastructure, subcontractors, expertise, etc, etc. All in one "hub".
Why did so many companies relocate here? CHCH earthquake meant lots of companies moved north, and not just because of the wobbly ground.

Quite frankly I'm against so much industry based in Auckland as it can be happily conducted in the regions, supplying work in those areas, while adding to the congestion of NZ's Capital city (Wellington is just the cith where the lunatics in the circular wind tunnel are kept).




Go in borrow up huge and increase NZ debt and sell off anything Kiwis own that they can get their greasey hands on.

they diid this while screwing over SOE's
SOE's are a liability since they pretend to be a real company, but get straddled with all the bad things that a government department bring with them, namely inefficiency, bureaucracy & ineptitude. The result is less than optimal.
If you look at the very worst examples you are looking at the Chinese SOE's which are a huge reason for their poor economic performance and a staggeringly huge liability.

[husaberg]

Not blaming the current government just pointing out all the incompetency, the fuck ups and the dumb shit they are currently (almost daily) doing and it seams there is a never ending supply of ammo to do so.
Okay neither am i then:killingme

[husaberg]

Quote Originally Posted by husaberg View Post
I think you will find thats not the case.
Auckland cant even supply its own water or power or gas or coal or raw ingredients.
Manufacturing is just convenient in Auckland as its the largest consumer of goods.
Auckland quite happily supplies its own water (the sensible parts do this...). Power & gas we know come from elsewhere.
Now, as for manufacturing. It isn't the local consumer market that makes manufacturing "convenient" but the supply chain and labour force. Port access, infrastructure, subcontractors, expertise, etc, etc. All in one "hub".
Why did so many companies relocate here? CHCH earthquake meant lots of companies moved north, and not just because of the wobbly ground.
Quite frankly I'm against so much industry based in Auckland as it can be happily conducted in the regions, supplying work in those areas, while adding to the congestion of NZ's Capital city (Wellington is just the cith where the lunatics in the circular wind tunnel are kept).
SOE's are a liability since they pretend to be a real company, but get straddled with all the bad things that a government department bring with them, namely inefficiency, bureaucracy & ineptitude. The result is less than optimal.
If you look at the very worst examples you are looking at the Chinese SOE's which are a huge reason for their poor economic performance and a staggeringly huge liability.

So if Auckland can suppy all its own water whats that pipeline to the Waikato river for.
Covience is not a reason the rest of NZ couldn't survive without Auckland which was the original point i believe you made.
SOE have extra burdens on them true, as its in the charter to behave responsably.
If other companies behaved responasbly there would be no need for the Health and safety rules nationed forced apon the nation as a knee jeck reaction to cover theie own incompetence as well as that of the Pike river company and board.

[Swoop]

So if Auckland can suppy all its own water whats that pipeline to the Waikato river for.
Covience is not a reason the rest of NZ couldn't survive without Auckland which was the original point i believe you made.
If other companies behaved responasbly there would be no need for the Health and safety rules nationed forced apon the nation as a knee jeck reaction to cover theie own incompetence as well as that of the Pike river company and board.
The water supply is self-sustaining in some areas, others (mainly central) rely on the festering Waikato swamp water to use in their latte... But a distraction from the point and will be ignored from now on.

I have no idea what "Covience" is, but guess you mean "convenience"?
The "economies of scale" are important for a business, as well as supply and location to transport networks. It would be much nicer to have companies out in the regions, but hey, Auckland has its superb appeal that none can resist.
Especially those from small towns who have to add "Vegas" into their nicknames to make them sound partially appealing.

As for the H&S rules "nationed forced apon the nation as a knee jeck reaction" you do know that H&S has been in existence far longer than the previous government's term? They changed the H&S regime away from the American model to something far more user-friendly and was based on the UK model.


It's nice to see the call for Liarbour to get "less hui & more do-ey" from business though. No wonder the lack of business confidence is in evidence and the inept liarbour leadership is showing the lies they told to get into power.

[husaberg]

The water supply is self-sustaining in some areas, others (mainly central) rely on the festering Waikato swamp water to use in their latte... But a distraction from the point and will be ignored from now on.

I have no idea what "Covience" is, but guess you mean "convenience"?
The "economies of scale" are important for a business, as well as supply and location to transport networks. It would be much nicer to have companies out in the regions, but hey, Auckland has its superb appeal that none can resist.
Especially those from small towns who have to add "Vegas" into their nicknames to make them sound partially appealing.

As for the H&S rules "nationed forced apon the nation as a knee jeck reaction" you do know that H&S has been in existence far longer than the previous government's term? They changed the H&S regime away from the American model to something far more user-friendly and was based on the UK model.


It's nice to see the call for Liarbour to get "less hui & more do-ey" from business though. No wonder the lack of business confidence is in evidence and the inept liarbour leadership is showing the lies they told to get into power.


As i have stated Auckland can not supply all their own water, trying to word it in such away as in some areas makes this pretty clear.

It was convienence.
No you will find the Mines rules were changed considerably post Pike as a knee jeck reaction by National.
Perhaps you should read what was posted.https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread/page195?p=1131111935#post1131111935
It was also national that changed the rules that resulted in the pike incident in the first place against considerable expert advice.
Also you still have not yet told us all why the rest of NZ could not survive without Auckland.

[Katman]

It was convienece.

:killingme

Try again.

[jasonu]

the inept liarbour leadership is showing the lies they told to get into power.

I don't think they out and out lied, more like they made a bunch of pie in the sky promises without first checking if they could actually follow through. The lies really began after the election.

[sidecar bob]

I don't think they out and out lied, more like they made a bunch of pie in the sky promises without first checking if they could actually follow through. The lies really began after the election.

Voters should be wary of big promises, because the incoming Govt has no idea how much they have to spend. Most people hear the hollow promise & rush off to the polling booths.
To be fair, in this particular case it wasn't the majority that believed them though.
Only 36 percent voted for these current idiots, which says more for the people's intelligence than the Govt's.

[Ocean1]

Voters should be wary of big promises, because the incoming Govt has no idea how much they have to spend. Most people hear the hollow promise & rush off to the polling booths.
To be fair, in this particular case it wasn't the majority that believed them though.
Only 36 percent voted for these current idiots, which says more for the people's intelligence than the Govt's.

What gets me is the fact that it's the people that most loudly demanded previous governments paid for shit that should be an individual's responsibility that are now defending pretty much the same outcomes from this govt.

I quite like Ardern, I really appreciated the "relentlessly positive" attitude. Unfortunately, she's only positive in pursuing the same old union driven expectation that "the system" (taxpayer) needs to be responsible for outcomes directly driven by individual decisions.

In the 60 seconds of her speech at the UN that I was exposed to she expressed the "must listen to those who are disillusioned with capitalism" mantra at least 3 different ways. I've listened a bunch, you hear little else from the press nowadays, and what I hear is: "Give me money someone else earned". I'd rather the reply was "this is how you earn your own" instead of demanding that those who already supply most of the tax produce even more, simply so other's don't have to.

[Swoop]

I don't think they out and out lied, more like they made a bunch of pie in the sky promises without first checking if they could actually follow through. The lies really began after the election.

I put:
"we are going to build 10,000 houses"
We are going to solve "child poverty"
We will end homelessness

straight into the blatant lie category, among others they spouted out to suck in stupid voters.


Also you still have not yet told us all why the rest of NZ could not survive without Auckland.
If you are unable to see what is produced in Auckland (from supplies obtained from the regions and elsewhere) then you must believe in self-sufficiency.
If Wellingtown was wiped out, we would lose out on bureaucracy, but if Auckland goes...

In the 60 seconds of her speech at the UN that I was exposed to she expressed the "must listen to those who are disillusioned with capitalism" mantra at least 3 different ways.
Thank fuck that older dopey cunt didn't get into the top job at the UN. Social engineering would have gone even higher on the weird agenda that the UN already has.

[husaberg]

I put:
If you are unable to see what is produced in Auckland (from supplies obtained from the regions and elsewhere) then you must believe in self-sufficiency.
If Wellingtown was wiped out, we would lose out on bureaucracy, but if Auckland goes...


Thats not an answer to why so desperately the rest of NZ needs Auckland to survive.

What is it that is so critical Auckland produces that the rest of the counties cant live without or import from Aussie, China, Taiwan. Korea anyway?

As you already admitted the supplies are not obtained from Auckland but the regions.
as is the power, water, gas so it seems you even acknowledge its not the rest of the country that needs Auckland but its actually Auckland that needs the rest of the country.
Especially considering most of what is produced in the regions as primary production is actually exported.

[Ocean1]

Thats not an answer to why so desperately the rest of NZ needs Auckland to survive.
What is it that is so critical Auckland produces that the rest of the counties cant live without or import from Aussie, China, Taiwan. Korea.

Looks to me like Orks gets less than their share of tax.

I notice too that the west coast gets more than southland, which is twice the size. Maybe they don't whine enough.

[husaberg]

Looks to me like Orks gets less than their share of tax.

I notice too that the west coast gets more than southland, which is twice the size. Maybe they don't whine enough.


thats only the latest est its not the last 10 years or 100 years.
The regions have been bled dry for donkeys years.
For instance every tn of coal through port Lyttelton was levied were never seen a cent other than wages the rest went to the crown same as the wood.
Then there is the fact we are 80% DOC owned. with state highways used by millions of tourists per year should we pay for that ourselves.
BTW 2g per person is 60G thats right te whole of the WC got an extra $60,000 . wow i wonder how much of that was for Cyclone damage.

[Ocean1]

thats only the latest est its not the last 10 years or 100 years.
The regions have been bled dry for donkeys years.
For instance every tn of coal through port Lyttelton was levied were never seen a cent other than wages the rest went to the crown same as the wood.
Then there is the fact we are 80% DOC owned. with state highways used by millions of tourists per year should we pay for that ourselves.


Yeah I can see it still upsets you.

Fact remains: Orks taxpayers provide more tax than is spent there.
And your neighbourhood benefits from more spending than their tax contributions provide for.
Which leaves you in no position to be pointing any bones, mate.

[husaberg]

Yeah I can see it still upsets you.

Fact remains: Orks taxpayers provide more tax than is spent there.
And your neighbourhood benefits from more spending than their tax contributions provide for.
Which leaves you in no position to be pointing any bones, mate.
I doesnt upset me at all. We have a tiny population that lost thousands of jobs most of which were high paying jobs 100K plus
Unfortunately what your figure dont include is the royalties for gold or coal to the crown.
Gold we mine $100 million worth a year here which is an extra 1 million in royalties.
Add in 2,000,000 tons of coal at $50 at ton that equals 100 million
so 51 million / 30,000 people equals $3366 per person. Tax thats not in your figures though.
So your facts dont stand up to serious scrutiny.

[Ocean1]

I doesnt upset me at all. We have a tiny population that lost thousands of jobs most of which were high paying jobs 100K plus
Unfortunately what your figure dont include is the royalties for gold or coal to the crown.
Gold we mine $100 million worth a year here which is an extra 1 million in royalties.
Add in 2,000,000 tons of coal at $50 at ton that equals 100 million
so 51 million / 30,000 people equals $3366 per person. Tax thats not in your figures though.
So your facts dont stand up to serious scrutiny.

Nor is the tax companies pay in Auckland, so the comparison remains valid: Auckland taxpayers earn more than they spend, West Coast taxpayers spend more than they earn.

But go ahead and add company tax to both and let me know how that works out, I'm genuinely curious.

And I still reckon Southlanders are fucking hard done by.

[husaberg]

Nor is the tax companies pay in Auckland, so the comparison remains valid: Auckland taxpayers earn more than they spend, West Coast taxpayers spend more than they earn.

But go ahead and add company tax to both and let me know how that works out, I'm genuinely curious.

And I still reckon Southlanders are fucking hard done by.

these are not company tax they are crown royalties cant you see the difference.
Auckland companies do not pay crown royalties unless their is some extraction industry their.
The provinces have had their resources mined by the crown for the crown since NZ was formed, this is the source of NZ's wealth.
Even if you did it on company tax ask yourself where the revenue was gathered (hint its not form Auckland)
Besides we both know ther big companies in NZ dont pay f-all tax.
Southland got to keep their smelter the whole of NZ paid for it, also not in your figures, av Kiwis have given the smelter basically free power for generations.
As soon as they were due to start paying market rates after 30-40 years of effectively paying nothing Rio tinto sad they were going to shut down National caved and we all paid.

[Ocean1]

these are not company tax they are crown royalties cant you see the difference.
Auckland companies do not pay crown royalties

Obviously a very important and special source of revenue, disproportionately far more significant and valuable than any revenue stream mere Auckland bourgeois corporates (thieving rich pricks, to a man) could hope to produce.


Right?

[husaberg]

Obviously a very important and special source of revenue, disproportionately far more significant and valuable than any revenue stream mere Auckland bourgeois corporates (thieving rich pricks, to a man) could hope to produce.


Right?
In another 30 years NZ will have little primary industries other than farming and horticulture plus tourism lets see how the cities survive on selling each other lattes and burgers then.
Why not reply to the whole post.
I guess you cant fathom the source of NZ wealth and GDP is not derived form the cities but from the provences. The cities live feeding on the scraps.

[Ocean1]

In another 30 yers NZ with have little primary industries other than farming and horticulture plus tourism lets see how the cities survive on selling each other lattes and burgers then.
Why not reply to the whole post.
I guess you cant fathom the source of NZ wealth and GDP is not derived form the cities but from the provences. The cities live feeding on the scraps.

30 years eh? You sure? I mean cities have been around longer than recorded history, 30 years seems a tad abrupt dunit? Still, whatever, you can't get much further from civilisation, so I'm sure that in 30 years you'll be fine.

I did reply to the whole post, you ninja edited it after the fact. Again.

However, now that you've done so, wealth, in fact is derived from just one source: it's the product of individuals generating shit other people are prepared to pay for. The correct term for the multitude of alternative methods of acquiring wealth is theft.

[husaberg]

30 years eh? You sure? I mean cities have been around longer than recorded history, 30 years seems a tad abrupt dunit? Still, whatever, you can't get much further from civilisation, so I'm sure that in 30 years you'll be fine.

I did reply to the whole post, you ninja edited it after the fact. Again.

However, now that you've done so, wealth, in fact is derived from just one source: it's the product of individuals generating shit other people are prepared to pay for. The correct term for the multitude of alternative methods of acquiring wealth is theft.

Yeah some have some have come and gone as the resources were plundered.
the 30 years refers to the removal of the primary industries from the rural areas other than farming and horticulture.
generating shit requires a resource to tap into, if you seriously thing the cities will survive on selling ideas alone you are mistaken.
Take a look around who is buying the breweries the dairy farms the wineries and the meat plants even the dairy companies.

[Ocean1]

Yeah some have some have come and gone as the resources were plundered.
the 30 years refers to the removal of the primary industries from the rural areas other than farming and horticulture.
generating shit requires a resource to tap into, if you seriously thing the cities will survive on selling ideas alone you are mistaken.
Take a look around who is buying the breweries the dairy farms the wineries and the meat plants even the dairy companies.

Plundered eh? Last time I looked plundering was mostly a rural pastime.
And this removing of industry, capitalist plot I take it?
Correct, but not all resources are dug up from a paddock, and I may be mistaken, but by far the most powerful growth industries over the last few decades have been based on ideas, not turnips.
People with money to invest. Which is bad, right?

[husaberg]

Plundered eh? Last time I looked plundering was mostly a rural pastime.
And this removing of industry, capitalist plot I take it?
Correct, but not all resources are dug up from a paddock, and I may be mistaken, but by far the most powerful growth industries over the last few decades have been based on ideas, not turnips.
People with money to invest. Which is bad, right?

See thats where you actually don't understand agriculture or the other primary industries, agriculture existence relies on its sustainability and efficiency improvements and technology.
Those powerful growth industries are really not benefiting NZ much though are they, plus any real success stories soon move overseas.
Plundering is not a rural pastime it never was. Modern Plundering of resources is an urban innovation. Whole entire empires were built on it.
Concrete towers are not sustainable. most pollution is from cities most waste is from cities
Investment is not a bad thing but when overseas interests own or control the whole supply chain it results in all profits heading overseas.

[jasonu]

Thats not an answer to why so desperately the rest of NZ needs Auckland to survive.

What is it that is so critical Auckland produces that the rest of the counties cant live without or import from Aussie, China, Taiwan. Korea anyway?

As you already admitted the supplies are not obtained from Auckland but the regions.
as is the power, water, gas so it seems you even acknowledge its not the rest of the country that needs Auckland but its actually Auckland that needs the rest of the country.
Especially considering most of what is produced in the regions as primary production is actually exported.

Do you think the whole country revolves around the likes of TeKuiti?

[Voltaire]

I go to Fonterra's head office once a week in Auckland.

They do a very nice cappuccino with cinnamon and the carrot cake with chocolate is very tasty and all for less than $15 !!!!:niceone:

I heard a rumour that the grass is made into milk via some sort of animal?????

What next, using lumps of stone dug out of the ground to heat your house :rolleyes:

Off for another day at the coal face ( should be updated to screen time) in the office.:msn-wink:

[Ocean1]

See thats where you actually don't understand agriculture or the other primary industries, agriculture existence relies on its sustainability and efficiency improvements and technology.
Those powerful growth industries are really not benefiting NZ much though are they, plus any real success stories soon move overseas.
Plundering is not a rural pastime it never was. Modern Plundering of resources is an urban innovation. Whole entire empires were built on it.
Concrete towers are not sustainable. most pollution is from cities most waste is from cities
Investment is not a bad thing but when overseas interests own or control the whole supply chain it results in all profits heading overseas.

Which differs from any other sort of productive industry how?
Yeah, in exchange for cash, which is sort of the point of the whole exercise.
Godit, city slicker bad, salt of the earth cocky good. Obvious now that you've pointed that out.
Which is really really weird, it's almost like most people live in cities. Bizarre.
Yeah, people should learn that simply purchasing assets doesn't mean they actually own them, or should expect expect any return from them at all. Capitalist pricks, eh?

[Ocean1]

I go to Fonterra's head office once a week in Auckland.

They do a very nice cappuccino with cinnamon and the carrot cake with chocolate is very tasty and all for less than $15 !!!!:niceone:

I hope you're having them invoice you for that coffee in accordance with your Standard Terms of Purchase of Goods and Services? So that you can process their (somewhat bizarre) request for payment appropriately, in the fullness of a time somewhat removed from this exact moment but not less than three calendar months from the (unfortunately) delayed receipt and (understandably) convoluted processing of such. Along with the standard pro-forma offer of a suitably secured loan to tide them over until that happy event might eventually transpire?

[Voltaire]

I hope you're having them invoice you for that coffee in accordance with your Standard Terms of Purchase of Goods and Services? So that you can process their (somewhat bizarre) request for payment appropriately, in the fullness of a time somewhat removed from this exact moment but not less than three calendar months from the (unfortunately) delayed receipt and (understandably) convoluted processing of such. Along with the standard pro-forma offer of a suitably secured loan to tide them over until that happy event might eventually transpire?

Sounds similar to the 10 step process I have to follow to spend money involving at least 5 different countries.....outsourcing....meh.

[husaberg]

Which differs from any other sort of productive industry how?
Yeah, in exchange for cash, which is sort of the point of the whole exercise.
Godit, city slicker bad, salt of the earth cocky good. Obvious now that you've pointed that out.
Which is really really weird, it's almost like most people live in cities. Bizarre.
Yeah, people should learn that simply purchasing assets doesn't mean they actually own them, or should expect expect any return from them at all. Capitalist pricks, eh?

It difers in in importance for earning NZs export income.
It differs in it total sustainability. ie since modern man became modern man we have been farming to feed ourselves.

You have a tiny % of NZ population earnign all the export revenue from rural areas.
As you state most live in the cities but the cities on balance are just consumers of good in NZ.
Yet you claim the cities are more important which is laughable at best.
Not on the list is tourism which now earns for foriegn income than dairy and guess what people dont come to NZ to see the cities either.



Dairy, eggs, honey: US$10.2 billion (27.6% of total exports)
Meat: $4.7 billion (12.7%)
Wood: $3.3 billion (9%)
Fruits, nuts: $1.9 billion (5.1%)
Beverages, spirits, vinegar: $1.4 billion (3.7%)
Fish: $1.1 billion (3.1%)
Cereal/milk preparations: $1.1 billion (2.9%)
Machinery including computers: $978.6 million (2.6%)
Modified starches, glues, enzymes: $884.6 million (2.4%)
Miscellaneous food preparations: $873.2 million (2.4%)


but dont worry just keep spouting on how much the rest of NZ needs cities and Auckland stupid idiots in cities like you will believe it.
Yet everythng from the food you eat to the electricity you use the water you drink to the air you breath is a product of rural areas.

[Grumph]

I hope you're having them invoice you for that coffee in accordance with your Standard Terms of Purchase of Goods and Services? So that you can process their (somewhat bizarre) request for payment appropriately, in the fullness of a time somewhat removed from this exact moment but not less than three calendar months from the (unfortunately) delayed receipt and (understandably) convoluted processing of such. Along with the standard pro-forma offer of a suitably secured loan to tide them over until that happy event might eventually transpire?

Oh dear, dealt with Fonterra before have you ? The experience would tend to reinforce the prejudices you evince.

[jasonu]

I go to Fonterra's head office once a week in Auckland.

They do a very nice cappuccino with cinnamon and the carrot cake with chocolate is very tasty and all for less than $15 !!!!:niceone:


Cripes $15 for a cuppa and a slice??? I assume that includes a reacharound.

[Ocean1]

Oh dear, dealt with Fonterra before have you ? The experience would tend to reinforce the prejudices you evince.

Right up until their failure to meet the terms and conditions regarding payment by the end of the month following the invoice date printed on the back of my invoice for some $11000.

90 days be fucked.

They did eventually get their equipment back, but not before incurring 11 days loss of production for plant normally earning $47k per day.

[Ocean1]

griculture existence relies on its sustainability and efficiency improvements and technology


Which differs from any other sort of productive industry how?


It difers in in importance for earning NZs export income.

The correct answer is "Not a fucking jot".

If you're going to attempt difficult, grown up conversation then learn to fucking read.

[husaberg]

The correct answer is "Not a fucking jot".

If you're going to attempt difficult, grown up conversation then learn to fucking read.
You cant have an adult conversation thats why you remove all the parts that dont suit your agenda. then post themin out of sequence.
All you do is moan on about labour this and labour that, like a broken record,, It like you seem to think your opinion is important when its clear not only is your opinion unimportant so was your tory vote.

[Ocean1]

You cant have an adult conversation thats why you remove all the parts that dont suit your agenda. then post themin out of sequence.
All you do is moan on about labour this and labour that, like a broken record,, It like you seem to think your opinion is important when its clear not only is your opinion unimportant so was your tory vote.

Says the dude who edits his posts repeatedly for fucking hours. :laugh::laugh: Maybe just let me know when you've finished editing your shit, so that I'll know exactly what it is I'm replying to, eh?

But to be fair I did leave out a bunch of shit from your last post. I thought I'd spare others further unnecessary exposure to the rancid stream of unfocused, festering, irrelevant resentment and put it out of it's misery.

There's a bunch of labour bullshit I don't comment on, just the idiotic, idealism driven crap with little chance of achieving it's stated objective. So socialist dogma, basically. And I've moaned about national's "progressive" bullshit too. Leave that shit out and I'll be positively glowing with ambivalence.

You, on the other hand just can't help yourself from blindly parroting a purely labour party ideological rhetoric. It's not rational behaviour, it's rationalistic behaviour. See if you can learn another trick, eh? try a different answer to the previous post. If you come up with something showing even a hint of addressing the topic I might even change my mind, which isn't something I expect you'll ever do.

[husaberg]

Says the dude who edits his posts repeatedly for fucking hours.
Maybe just let me know when you've finished editing your shit, so that I'll know exactly what it is I'm replying to, eh?

But to be fair I did leave out a bunch of shit from your last post. I thought I'd spare others further unnecessary exposure to the rancid stream of unfocused, festering, irrelevant resentment and put it out of it's misery.

There's a bunch of labour bullshit I don't comment on, just the idiotic, idealism driven crap with little chance of achieving it's stated objective. So socialist dogma, basically. And I've moaned about national's "progressive" bullshit too. Leave that shit out and I'll be positively glowing with ambivalence.

You, on the other hand just can't help yourself from blindly parroting a purely labour party ideological rhetoric. It's not rational behaviour, it's rationalistic behaviour. See if you can learn another trick, eh? try a different answer to the previous post. If you come up with something showing even a hint of addressing the topic I might even change my mind, which isn't something I expect you'll ever do.<strike></strike>

<strike></strike>
You are full of it ocean
Left out a bit you replied to nothing in the post beat your chest and pattted yourself on the back.
your last reply had nothing to do with my post at all it was from a post a page back FFS
I posted stats and home truths.
So where are all the Nat supporters now that were claiming to be outraged about the current goverments travel costs.
Especially now that it turns out they have spent 1/2 million less on travel costs then National did 12 months previously.
I guess its the same clowns that are ignoring Simon Bridges latest press conference stuff up
How embarrasing was that.;)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/The_silent_highwayman.jpg/300px-The_silent_highwayman.jpg
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/smell-of-death-following-simon-bridges-chris-trotter.html
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/107562466/Editorial-How-to-turn-an-opportunity-into-a-disaster?rm=m
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2017/11/Simon-Bridges-500w.jpg
Simons going to need that lifejacket, It appears he's taken on few leaks

[jasonu]

http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2017/11/Simon-Bridges-500w.jpg
Simons going to need that lifejacket, It appears he's taken on few leaks

He's a bell end alright.

[Voltaire]

He's a bell end alright.

Your adopted country could do with some bell ends, would be a massive upgrade.

[husaberg]

He's a bell end alright.
he found his leek though
https://www.newshub.co.nz/dam/form-uploaded-images/simon-bridges-countdown-checkout-with-leek-1120-jono-and-ben.jpg

[jasonu]

Your adopted country could do with some bell ends, would be a massive upgrade.

Hard to argue with that.

[husaberg]

Your adopted country could do with some bell ends, would be a massive upgrade.
To be fair not every self made men get to start out straight out of school with a small loan of 140 million dollars

“It has not been easy for me,” Trump, as a presidential candidate, said at a town hall in New Hampshire in October 2015. “I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back, and I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan and I started buying properties, and I did great.”
According to the Times’ reporting, Fred Trump loaned his son at least $140 million in today’s dollars. Most of it was never repaid.
“Rich men are less likely to like me, but the working man likes me because he knows I worked hard and didn’t inherit what I’ve built.”
“By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year,” the Times wrote.
In all, Trump is said to have received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-self-made-man-myth_us_5bb46528e4b028e1fe38ebaf

[sidecar bob]

<strike></strike>

<strike></strike>
You are full of it ocean
Left out a bit you replied to nothing in the post beat your chest and pattted yourself on the back.
your last reply had nothing to do with my post at all it was from a post a page back FFS
I posted stats and home truths.
So where are all the Nat supporters now that were claiming to be outraged about the current goverments travel costs.
Especially now that it turns out they have spent 1/2 million less on travel costs then National did 12 months previously.
I guess its the same clowns that are ignoring Simon Bridges latest press conference stuff up
How embarrasing was that.;)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/The_silent_highwayman.jpg/300px-The_silent_highwayman.jpg
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/smell-of-death-following-simon-bridges-chris-trotter.html
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/107562466/Editorial-How-to-turn-an-opportunity-into-a-disaster?rm=m
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2017/11/Simon-Bridges-500w.jpg
Simons going to need that lifejacket, It appears he's taken on few leaks
Yeah, he's a bellend & labour need to up their travel spend.
Dude, I had a count up of all the vehicles, trailers & bikes I'm responsible for the smooth running of, it scared me a bit. I not at leisure to come & argue mute points on here just willy nilly.
Lovely spot he's had his pic taken at though. Just down the road from my place.
What do you think of the continuing fuel price hikes? Awesome effort Liarbour, I'm loving my 4.8 litre X5 at the mo, might have to trade it for a 4.7 litre Aston Martin to save some dough on petrol.
Seriously though, they're a bit like destiny church, taking the absolute piss out of the very people that voted for them, broken ass mofo's that could barely afford the PAYE they were paying only for it to be given back to them the following week under the name of some kind of govt support or benefit.