The 2017 Election Thread [Archive] - Page 13

husaberg

6th October 2018, 16:43

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.

I did ntice the mount in the background.
Price hikes to be fair are neither here nor their for me personally where i live we already have the highest prices in the country anyway.
To be fair though i dont pay for my own fuel as i have full private use in my contract.
But the price hikes of fuel were outlined pre-elction, so i dont see it as taking the piss.
what i dont like to what the fuel companies did by saying all the rest will still subsidise Aucklands price though.
shit should have got real over that but nothing seemed to happen.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/103490246/read-the-bp-pricing-strategy-email-in-full
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/05/all-of-nz-will-pay-for-auckland-s-fuel-tax-vehicle-lobby.html
i believe Auckland needs the regional fuel tax to fund the infastructure they need but i dont aggree with the gst double bump.

On the serious side how long do you give Simon before he gets crushed.
He might be a decent bloke but he just comes off smary he certainly needs a fair bit of coaching on when to shut his gob at times.
When they picked him i honestly thought he would do well, but it hasnt happened. Time to the next election is ticking.
But to be fair i dont think most people find Crusher that engaging nor do they trust Paula Benett.
Who else do they have Jerry is about as popular as a turd in a goldfish bowl in the south Island.
Maybe they are in the same situation post key as Labour was post clarke where anyone any good was already sidlined as a psosible threat thus when Clarke left labour was rudderless for years.<strike></strike>

jasonu

6th October 2018, 17:21

I did ntice the mount in the background.
Price hikes to be fair are neither here nor their for me personally where i live we already have the highest prices in the country anyway.
To be fair though i dont pay for my own fuel as i have full private use in my contract.
But the price hikes of fuel were outlined pre-elction, so i dont see it as taking the piss.
what i dont like to what the fuel companies did by saying all the rest will still subsidise Aucklands price though.
shit should have got real over that but nothing seemed to happen.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/103490246/read-the-bp-pricing-strategy-email-in-full
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/05/all-of-nz-will-pay-for-auckland-s-fuel-tax-vehicle-lobby.html
i believe Auckland needs the regional fuel tax to fund the infastructure they need but i dont aggree with the gst double bump.

On the serious side how long do you give Simon before he gets crushed.
He might be a decent bloke but he just comes off smary he certainly needs a fair bit of coaching on when to shut his gob at times.
When they picked him i honestly thought he would do well, but it hasnt happened. Time to the next election is ticking.
But to be fair i dont think most people find Crusher that engaging nor do they trust Paula Benett.
Who else do they have Jerry is about as popular as a turd in a goldfish bowl in the south Island.
Maybe they are in the same situation post key as Labour was post clarke where anyone any good was already sidlined as a psosible threat thus when Clarke left labour was rudderless for years.<strike></strike>

Labour is still rudderless.

Funny you should use the word smarmy to describe Simon. Just a couple of hours ago I was looking at Pritch's news source of choice that had a pic of him and smarmy immediately came to mind.

husaberg

6th October 2018, 18:00

Labour is still rudderless.

Funny you should use the word smarmy to describe Simon. Just a couple of hours ago I was looking at Pritch's news source of choice that had a pic of him and smarmy immediately came to mind.

I wouldn’t say rudderless they have climbed out of the wilderness quite remarkably
Can you name the last four labour leaders prior to Jacinda?
I can only name 2.
both were limp noodles.
She managed to turn that around in a few months without resorting to any negaitive politics
I don’t know what it is with Bridges some of it is his suits which always looks wrong the rest is the smug look.
I honestly think he just doesn’t have that charisma a leader needs.
He reminds me of the perenial bosses son whose been promoted out of his depth. He doesnt seem to command his parties respect.

jasonu

6th October 2018, 18:56

I wouldn’t say rudderless they have climbed out of the wilderness quite remarkably
Can you name the last four labour leaders prior to Jacinda?
I can only name 2.
both were limp noodles.
She managed to turn that around in a few months without resorting to any negaitive politics
I don’t know what it is with Bridges some of it is his suits which always looks wrong the rest is the smug look.
I honestly think he just doesn’t have that charisma a leader needs.
He reminds me of the perenial bosses son whose been promoted out of his depth. He doesnt seem to command his parties respect.

Squeaky Bill, Lange, forgettable Geoff Palmer and Black eyes Moore.
Agree with most of what you say. But she promised a lot of unobtainable things.

husaberg

6th October 2018, 19:13

Squeaky Bill, Lange, forgettable Geoff Palmer and Black eyes Moore.
Agree with most of what you say. But she promised a lot of unobtainable things.
Er…. I was meaning after Clarke. the last four immediately preceding Jacinda.<strike></strike>

But out of those four you mentioned only Moore and Lange had charisma.
Palmer was a very smart man, but bland as buggery.
<strike></strike>

jasonu

6th October 2018, 20:47

Er…. I was meaning after Clarke. the last four immediately preceding Jacinda.<strike></strike>

But out of those four you mentioned only Moore and Lange had charisma.
Palmer was a very smart man, but bland as buggery.
<strike></strike>

Guess Fuck Phil Goff, cuntlips, Shearer, Little, ???

I spose I could google it.

Bridges is a turd that won't last long.

husaberg

6th October 2018, 20:49

Guess Fuck Phil Goff, cuntlips, Shearer, Little, ???

I spose I could google it.

Bridges is a turd that won't last long.

I had forgot goff and cuniffe sow what a positive impression they created:bleh:

sidecar bob

6th October 2018, 20:55

Bring back Steven Joyce. He was leader material & took a dildo to the face like a champ.

Swoop

8th October 2018, 12:56

Thats not an answer to why so desperately the rest of NZ needs Auckland to survive.
Yup, the regions supply basic commodity which gets turned into "stuff". This could be done in the regions but, as mentioned previously, the regions don't like hanging on to their factories so they move to Auckland. This adds to our traffic issues, so please stop it. Auckland then "exports" it bac around the country or overseas.
Simple. The country needs Auckland and without it we are all fucked.

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.
Remember that they are in cahoots with the Lunatic Fringe mob who want you out of your vehicles and into something powered by vegan, ecomentalist fart-powered device that can reach 7km/h downhill with a tailwind.

Prior to the election I predicted that petrol would be at $2.50 ltr by the end of this year. This bunch of loonies seem to have really fucked things up and are going to be heading towards $2.75 ltr now.

jasonu

8th October 2018, 13:35

Prior to the election I predicted that petrol would be at $2.50 ltr by the end of this year. This bunch of loonies seem to have really fucked things up and are going to be heading towards $2.75 ltr now.

And some around these parts are moaning about $3 a gallon...

husaberg

8th October 2018, 13:56

Yup, the regions supply basic commodity which gets turned into "stuff". This could be done in the regions but, as mentioned previously, the regions don't like hanging on to their factories so they move to Auckland. This adds to our traffic issues, so please stop it. Auckland then "exports" it bac around the country or overseas.
Simple. The country needs Auckland and without it we are all fucked.

That doesn't at all sound at all like the rest of the country desperately needs Auckland but more like Auckland desperately needs the rest of the country.
So what is this stuff that is only made in Auckland is not made elsewhere either in NZ or overseas.
Only twice as many people are employed in manufacturing in Auckland as in Canterbury. Yet Canterbury has 1/5 of the population
if you look over the whole country you will see more goods and more people are employed a manufacturing goods elsewhere in NZ than in Auckland.
339157
Pretty soon that manufactured stuff you think the rest of the country so desperately need but cant name will be shipped off overseas for further economies of scale then what will happen to Auckland.:whistle:

Voltaire

8th October 2018, 14:16

And some around these parts are moaning about $3 a gallon...

Are they the ones who are on $15 an hour, or work at Amazon Fulfillment Centres, or driving miles to get to work in Silicon Valley as they can't afford the rent there? :rolleyes:

sidecar bob

8th October 2018, 17:32

Why did our Prime Minister say on national news tonight that only 7 cents per litre on fuel was tax?
Is she a bare faced liar? Does she think the majority of voters are stupid?
Opinions please.

Graystone

8th October 2018, 17:38

buggerit

8th October 2018, 18:01

Bring back Steven Joyce. He was leader material & took a dildo to the face like a champ.

obviously mistaken for a cunt:eek5:

husaberg

8th October 2018, 18:16

Why did our Prime Minister say on national news tonight that only 7 cents per litre on fuel was tax?
Is she a bare faced liar? Does she think the majority of voters are stupid?
Opinions please.
AA says............

The fuel excise portion includes:

63.024 cents - National Land Transport Fund
6 cents - ACC Motor Vehicle Account
0.66 cents - Local Authorities Fuel Tax
0.3 cents - Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy

In addition, GST is collected on the overall price of fuel including excise.
Fuel excise (petrol)

In Auckland, an additional 10 cent per litre Regional Fuel Tax is levied on all petrol and diesel sold in the Auckland region (from 1 July 2018).

the bulk is a levy like ACC it can only be spend on what its accrued from ie ACC or transport funding.

One the same subject here is 433 of John Keys lies
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-big-list-of-john-keys-big-fat-lies-updated/

jasonu

9th October 2018, 02:17

Are they the ones who are on $15 an hour, or work at Amazon Fulfillment Centres, or driving miles to get to work in Silicon Valley as they can't afford the rent there? :rolleyes:

Na just your usual whingers that don't know when they already have it good.

jasonu

9th October 2018, 02:18

Ocean1

9th October 2018, 07:37

Why did our Prime Minister say on national news tonight that only 7 cents per litre on fuel was tax?
Is she a bare faced liar? Does she think the majority of voters are stupid?
Opinions please.

No idea. If that's what she said she's obviously wrong, though I suspect it might have been one of those misdirections easily explained if called out but convincing for the bulk of the audience in the meantime.

I wonder why it's not more widely reported how hypocritical it is to be calling out oil companies for abusing a monopoly position by increasing petrol prices with little correlation to fair market rates when, as the ultimate monopoly you've just increased the price of petrol through taxes even more without a passing thought about fair market rates.

If I wanted to break a monopoly I'd be organising some competition, starting with finding some suitable sites for Gull wherever they're not currently active, starting to re-construct a "NZ Petroleum Ltd" shelf company and maybe buying up some of the industrial land abandoned by oil companies around ports nationwide, just to have sitting there in case the existing outfits didn't get the hint. You can imagine what the green tinged part of the govt might say about that though.

mashman

9th October 2018, 11:11

Ocean1

9th October 2018, 16:34

sidecar bob

9th October 2018, 17:41

It's looking grim boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/105249934/how-your-rising-fuel-taxes-will-be-spent

"Phil Twyford (sic) has two more annual increases in petrol taxes and road user charges in the pipeline, and said the increased fuel taxes would fund $5 billion of investment over the next decade.

During the same period, the Government is planning to spend $4b from the NLTF on busway and light rail infrastructure."

My scooter just looks better and better every day. plus, I'm helping to reduce congestion, and I'm not taking any life out of the roads I travel on, particularly compared to the empty half hourly bus that travels my suburb, which is virtually solely responsible for knackering the two roundabouts it goes around.
When will the govt make LAMS bikes tax exempt & cheap rego to encourage personal frugality.

Ocean1

9th October 2018, 18:34

My scooter just looks better and better every day. plus, I'm helping to reduce congestion, and I'm not taking any life out of the roads I travel on, particularly compared to the empty half hourly bus that travels my suburb, which is virtually solely responsible for knackering the two roundabouts it goes around.
When will the govt make LAMS bikes tax exempt & cheap rego to encourage personal frugality.

I agree, make owning a LAMS bike free. The LAMS threshold is already there, and they represent a currently available solution that demonstrably works right now, as opposed to the hopelessly misanthropic shit the greens insist will work if only we poke enough money at it. Kick the fucking bicyclists off their wee free green roads and give 'em to the scooters while you're at it.

Don't even start on the empty buses. There's half empty trains going past my place even at peak traffic times, they're just too fucking expensive. And not particularly environmentally beneficial when they're full. Fucking clowns.

Voltaire

9th October 2018, 19:16

I'd ride an E bike if they had separate lanes that kept cars well away from me.

I like the idea of no cars in the CBD.

sidecar bob

9th October 2018, 19:38

I agree, make owning a LAMS bike free. The LAMS threshold is already there, and they represent a currently available solution that demonstrably works right now, as opposed to the hopelessly misanthropic shit the greens insist will work if only we poke enough money at it. Kick the fucking bicyclists off their wee free green roads and give 'em to the scooters while you're at it.

Don't even start on the empty buses. There's half empty trains going past my place even at peak traffic times, they're just too fucking expensive. And not particularly environmentally beneficial when they're full. Fucking clowns.

In Amsterdam, scooters with a certain colour number plate which are limited to 30kmh may use the cycle ways.
Beautiful smooth running city full of windswept interesting people mingling all sorts of economical personal transport with trams.
These Axiam microcars are plentiful too.

Ocean1

9th October 2018, 19:41

I'd ride an E bike if they had separate lanes that kept cars well away from me.

I like the idea of no cars in the CBD.

Me too. If they made them to carry big fuckoff lumps of equipment. And tools an' shit.

And if they didn't burn more coal per mile charging the fuckers than a traction engine.

And if disposing of the batteries safely didn't involve science we don't have.

But yep, no cars is a great idea. Would shake a couple of better solutions loose in no time. That, or we'd all starve to death in half a year.

Ocean1

9th October 2018, 19:50

husaberg

9th October 2018, 20:19

If I wanted to break a monopoly I'd be organising some competition, starting with finding some suitable sites for Gull wherever they're not currently active, starting to re-construct a "NZ Petroleum Ltd" shelf company and maybe buying up some of the industrial land abandoned by oil companies around ports nationwide, just to have sitting there in case the existing outfits didn't get the hint. You can imagine what the green tinged part of the govt might say about that though.
Sounds like you want to set up a state run petrol company comrade.
almost like a petrol version of kiwibank
It kind of goes against free market ideals though
Didnt late 70 or early 80's national freeze prices

jasonu

10th October 2018, 02:19

Didnt late 70 or early 80's national freeze prices

Are you thinking of carless days?

husaberg

10th October 2018, 04:30

Are you thinking of carless days?
A bit later i thought they freezed everything inc wages? I was only a nipper

Voltaire

10th October 2018, 06:15

In Amsterdam, scooters with a certain colour number plate which are limited to 30kmh may use the cycle ways.
Beautiful smooth running city full of windswept interesting people mingling all sorts of economical personal transport with trams.
These Axiam microcars are plentiful too.

My recall of Amsterdam was being hassled a lot by people trying to sell me drugs, drug cafes, and the interesting red light area...oh and really crap beer.

Still as an old fella you probably did not notice any of that ;)

It was mainly bicycles then, the locals must be getting lazy like everywhere else

sidecar bob

10th October 2018, 07:02

Yep. Fuck the transport tell us more about the windswept interesting people... :laugh:

You pretty much summed it up in a nutshell with your pic.
I'd say it's the number one destination if you're on a milf hunt. Fortunately I took my own.:msn-wink:

sidecar bob

10th October 2018, 07:09

My recall of Amsterdam was being hassled a lot by people trying to sell me drugs, drug cafes, and the interesting red light area...oh and really crap beer.

Still as an old fella you probably did not notice any of that ;)

It was mainly bicycles then, the locals must be getting lazy like everywhere else

I had my own personal Dutch tour guide, Kees Indabowl;) as you can see by his machine, he offers drugs advice.
Lovely chap that knew all the nice spots, including Heineken Expierence museum, where we expierenced Heineken.
You too can meet him at the Suzuki series this year, riding the Tracey Bryan owned pink sidecar again.

jasonu

10th October 2018, 07:21

You pretty much summed it up in a nutshell with your pic.
I'd say it's the number one destination if you're on a milf hunt. Fortunately I took my own.:msn-wink:

That’s like taking your own beer to a bar.

Ocean1

10th October 2018, 07:39

Sounds like you want to set up a state run petrol company comrade.
almost like a petrol version of kiwibank
It kind of goes against free market ideals though
Didnt late 70 or early 80's national freeze prices

Yep, that's what I'd do. Set up a state owned entity competing with an unfair advantage, charging just enough to break even to force an existing monopoly to reduce it's prices to somewhere near the cost to supply, plus a reasonable profit.

Kiwibank shows exactly what the result is when you get any normal political party doing that: a state owned entity with an unfair advantage charging exactly what the existing market already does, providing poorer service in the process. No government can resist the temptation to simply take the cash and divert it to their pet projects. In the long term that behaviour not only fails to eliminate a monopoly, it actually reinforces it.

Spot the difference? A free market remains the only one that maintains fair prices, you just have to eliminate barriers to competition, in other words keep the market free. Somehow the commerce commission seems to actively prevent competition by supporting monopolies and penalising so called dumping. I'd be sacking their arses too.

sidecar bob

10th October 2018, 07:56

That’s like taking your own beer to a bar.

But if you really like that particular beer then it's not such a problem.:innocent:

jasonu

10th October 2018, 13:34

But if you really like that particular beer then it's not such a problem.:innocent:

Fair point old chap.:niceone:

husaberg

10th October 2018, 20:02

Yep, that's what I'd do. Set up a state owned entity competing with an unfair advantage, charging just enough to break even to force an existing monopoly to reduce it's prices to somewhere near the cost to supply, plus a reasonable profit.

Kiwibank shows exactly what the result is when you get any normal political party doing that: a state owned entity with an unfair advantage charging exactly what the existing market already does, providing poorer service in the process. No government can resist the temptation to simply take the cash and divert it to their pet projects. In the long term that behaviour not only fails to eliminate a monopoly, it actually reinforces it.

Spot the difference? A free market remains the only one that maintains fair prices, you just have to eliminate barriers to competition, in other words keep the market free. Somehow the commerce commission seems to actively prevent competition by supporting monopolies and penalising so called dumping. I'd be sacking their arses too.

No sorry i dont notice the deference only you appear not to be being subjective in your reasoning.
Because 1 Kiwibank tops the polls in customer satisfaction.
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7522-kiwibank-tops-customer-satisfaction-ratings-201803010113
2 Kiwibanks presence although they are not always the highest or lowest rates respectively burt they are normally the top 1-3 for savings or borrowing rates suggests their influence keeps the others more competitive.
Free markets dont always maintain the fair prices the fuel industry is an example you used as to why this is not true.
I do however aggree as i believe the Commerce commission is not really effective.

Swoop

10th October 2018, 20:46

That doesn't at all sound at all like the rest of the country desperately needs Auckland...
You'd be surprised.
The population wouldn't know where to get Lion Red from.

Sounds like you want to set up a state run petrol company comrade.
almost like a petrol version of kiwibank
So, using the Kiwiwank blueprint this new "petrol company" would set up shop in another business' property and begin pumping their product at the inconvenience of the property owner and its customers.
Fucking Kiwiwank can piss off and open their own bloody shops and stop leeching off of the Postshop locations.

husaberg

10th October 2018, 21:03

You'd be surprised.
The population wouldn't know where to get Lion Red from.
the population would not care where lion red was made but might prefer to have a real beer instead.
ps there is nothing to stop the japanese owners moving that production to japan or china

So, using the Kiwiwank blueprint this new "petrol company" would set up shop in another business' property and begin pumping their product at the inconvenience of the property owner and its customers.
Fucking Kiwiwank can piss off and open their own bloody shops and stop leeching off of the Postshop locations.
I remember when it was postbank those post office locations.
the new petrol company was Oceans idea.

Voltaire

11th October 2018, 06:14

And Gib Board.:laugh:

Ocean1

11th October 2018, 07:22

No sorry i dont notice the deference only you appear not to be being subjective in your reasoning.
Because 1 Kiwibank tops the polls in customer satisfaction.
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7522-kiwibank-tops-customer-satisfaction-ratings-201803010113
2 Kiwibanks presence although they are not always the highest or lowest rates respectively burt they are normally the top 1-3 for savings or borrowing rates suggests their influence keeps the others more competitive.
Free markets dont always maintain the fair prices the fuel industry is an example you used as to why this is not true.
I do however aggree as i believe the Commerce commission is not really effective.

And if I could be bothered looking I'm pretty sure I could find surveys showing they were shit. I moved my business accounts to from ANZ to Kiwibank about 6 years ago, by that small sample their service is fucking appaling. Also, given that the govt pulls every string in that market they should be able to charge less, but as you noted: they don't. Which just proves my observation: given the choice of regulating the market by offering a competitively priced alternative or simply matching the existing market they just took the cash.

A free market is the absolute definition of fair. It involves nothing more complicated than both buyer and seller agreeing to respectively purchase and supply at a mutually agreed price, without outside influence or collusion. If you think the fuel industry represents anything close to a free market then you need to revise your definition. The natural barriers to market entry there are massive, but even then Gull, by far the smallest vendor, using in part their competitor's logistics and in theory least able to leverage economies of scale (in an industry where a third of the retail price is logistics) are the cheapest. That alone proves the others are either actively colluding on retail prices or are all exactly equally inept in managing their businesses. I'll just leave Occam's razor lying right here.

husaberg

11th October 2018, 12:14

And if I could be bothered looking I'm pretty sure I could find surveys showing they were shit. I moved my business accounts to from ANZ to Kiwibank about 6 years ago, by that small sample their service is fucking appaling. Also, given that the govt pulls every string in that market they should be able to charge less, but as you noted: they don't. Which just proves my observation: given the choice of regulating the market by offering a competitively priced alternative or simply matching the existing market they just took the cash.

A free market is the absolute definition of fair. It involves nothing more complicated than both buyer and seller agreeing to respectively purchase and supply at a mutually agreed price, without outside influence or collusion. If you think the fuel industry represents anything close to a free market then you need to revise your definition. The natural barriers to market entry there are massive, but even then Gull, by far the smallest vendor, using in part their competitor's logistics and in theory least able to leverage economies of scale (in an industry where a third of the retail price is logistics) are the cheapest. That alone proves the others are either actively colluding on retail prices or are all exactly equally inept in managing their businesses. I'll just leave Occam's razor lying right here.

Only you haven't but still state you are right, i went back over the last 4 years and kiwibank is consistently at of the top ranked banks or within the top couple
ANZ is consistently ranked the worst or close to the Worst
So you assessment that kiwibank is a poor operater is not borne out by facts only by your limited opinion and experience.
Goverments dont pull everything string in the market to support Kiwibank I would suggest that certainly the previous 3 goverments never did as they didnt agree with the formation of Kiwibank.
If the governments were somehow pulling strings to support Kiwibank all the GOV departments and CRI and SOE's's etc would be told to use kiwibank.
This is not the case at all as i know for a fact 3 SOE's dont use kiwibank.

The fuel industry is proof the free market is not always the best solution for a captive market. It's clear there is collusion with the fuel companies yet its deemed a free market.
its also proof that people are lazy when it comes to saving money same as when it comes to electricity prices.

What i find interesting is the reserve bank is attempting to tell the government what to do.
Funny when they are the ones that should be lowering interest rates rather then telling the government to lower an individual tax.

Ocean1

11th October 2018, 15:38

Only you haven't but still state you are right,

https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/90371/banking-ombudsman-cases-involving-kiwibank-and-heartland-bank-surge-cases

Goverments dont pull everything string in the market to support Kiwibank I would suggest that certainly the previous 3 goverments never did as they didnt agree with the formation of Kiwibank.
If the governments were somehow pulling strings to support Kiwibank all the GOV departments and CRI and SOE's's etc would be told to use kiwibank.
This is not the case at all as i know for a fact 3 SOE's dont use kiwibank.

So having a ready made outlet in NZ post shops isn't an advantage? As for the rest, it was my contention that if they wanted to regulate the market then they have plenty of ways they could use Kiwibank and undercut the Aussie monopoly, and like I also pointed out, and you confirm: they don't, they'd rather just stand in line at the trough.

The fuel industry is proof the free market is not always the best solution for a captive market. It's clear there is collusion with the fuel companies yet its deemed a free market.
its also proof that people are lazy when it comes to saving money same as when it comes to electricity prices.

Mate, a market where there's clear collusion is not a free market, that'd be a complete oxymoron.
Conversely, if it's a free market then it's openly competitive, there isn't any collusion. Your proof... isn't.

What i find interesting is the reserve bank is attempting to tell the government what to do.
Funny when they are the ones that should be lowering interest rates rather then telling the government to lower an individual tax.

Well that's their job. Just as it was their job to advise national what effect their policies would likely have.
And it's pretty obvious that, firstly labour desperately need that advice, secondly that they don't appreciate any advice where it conflicts with their stated policy objectives, and thirdly that therefore they don't give a fuck what the consequences of their policies are. They're fucking socialists ffs, their world view is completely blind to the root causes that create money, they's far more concerned about spending other people's.

husaberg

11th October 2018, 17:55

https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/90371/banking-ombudsman-cases-involving-kiwibank-and-heartland-bank-surge-cases
you claimed they werre the worst performed bank i posted information that showed they were by far not the worst performed bank.
then you posted a story that shows an increase in compalints in one year
The number of complaints is still lower than the other banks Did you not know that or understand that?
339172

So having a ready made outlet in NZ post shops isn't an advantage? As for the rest, it was my contention that if they wanted to regulate the market then they have plenty of ways they could use Kiwibank and undercut the Aussie monopoly, and like I also pointed out, and you confirm: they don't, they'd rather just stand in line at the trough. So do You mean to say that just because burger king has an outlets at Shell gives them a advantage?
No you said they have an unfair advantage this is not the case.
It is not the goverments job to interfer with the "free market.".
Kiwi bank has incresed the competition.If they put in more regulation you would be moaning that the commies were being comunists interfering in a free market.:weird:

Mate, a market where there's clear collusion is not a free market, that'd be a complete oxymoron.
Conversely, if it's a free market then it's openly competitive, there isn't any collusion. Your proof... isn't.The fuel industry operates in a free market, you by uyour own admission aggree that it isn't working despite it operating in a free market.
the fuel companies are profiteering as its a captive market and they are operating in an enviroment where they colude to improve profits.

Well that's their job. Just as it was their job to advise national what effect their policies would likely have.
And it's pretty obvious that, firstly labour desperately need that advice, secondly that they don't appreciate any advice where it conflicts with their stated policy objectives, and thirdly that therefore they don't give a fuck what the consequences of their policies are. They're fucking socialists ffs, their world view is completely blind to the root causes that create money, they's far more concerned about spending other people's.
they were not giving advice they were telling them what to do. That is not the reserve banks job description.
As for needing advice why is it that they have a surplus despite all the crap national tried to say how the budget never balanced?
why have we just had the biggested quartely GDP risse in years?
which was actually twice what the reverve bank predicted?

Annual GDP growth for the year ended June 2018 was 2.7%.
The size of the economy in current prices was $289 billion.
Growth was broad-based, with 15 of 16 industries recording higher production. Mining was the only industry to decline, reflecting one-off factors.
“Once again service industries led growth. Goods-producing and primary industries also saw rises this quarter,” Stats NZ's national accounts senior manager Susan Hollows said.
The largest contribution to growth came from agriculture, up 4.2%.
Growth of 1.0% in the service industries was broad-based, with all industries recording a lift.

The ball is also firmly in the court of the RBNZ to re-examine rather closely their economic forecasting model as their GDP growth forecast for the June quarter (+0.50%) was precisely half the actual outcome!
A continuing positive for the Kiwi dollar from the stronger than expected GDP growth result will be a revision upwards in the RBNZ’s inflation forecasts for the next 18 months.
It will be interesting to see if Governor Adrian Orr changes his wording or inferences in this week’s OCR review statement. It is positive for the Kiwi dollar if the RBNZ are forced by the stronger economic data to increase their inflation forecasts and bring forward the timing of the first OCR increase (having just pushed it out further a month ago).
The Reserve Bank of Australia are stating that their next OCR move will be upwards. In contrast, the RBNZ appears to be giving equal waiting to a move up and a move down.
Given the the positive momentum in the rural economy right now (forestry, fishing, dairy, beef, sheepmeat, horticulture, wine and Aucklanders selling up their houses and shifting south), there is a real risk that the RBNZ have made a misjudgement on the economy and inflation. Therefore, sometime before the end of 2018 they will be forced to change their tune.
It is not unreasonable to expect to see the Kiwi dollar appreciating another two cents just on the back of this potential RBNZ flip-flop alone.

Ocean1

11th October 2018, 19:00

you claimed they werre the worst performed bank

Wrong. I said that in my experience their service was shit.

So do You mean to say that just because burger king has an outlets at Shell gives them a advantage?

Wrong again.

But are you implying that giving existing shell outlets a monopoly mail business wouldn't represent an advantage?

No you said they have an unfair advantage this is not the case.

It is the case, no other bank has an owner with the ability to impose regulations that favour only themselves, do they?

It is not the goverments job to interfer with the "free market.".
Kiwi bank has incresed the competition.If they put in more regulation you would be moaning that the commies were being comunists interfering in a free market.:weird:

No, it's their job to regulate markets in order to prevent anti-competitive behavior. By your own observation they're not doing that. As I said, I'd be using Kiwibank to keep the others honest, but that's just me. I'm fine with you not agreeing with that idea, but stop pretending that's what I said the govt IS doing.

The fuel industry operates in a free market, you by uyour own admission aggree that it isn't working despite it operating in a free market.
the fuel companies are profiteering as its a captive market and they are operating in an enviroment where they colude to improve profits.

a market where there's clear collusion is not a free market, that'd be a complete oxymoron.
Conversely, if it's a free market then it's openly competitive, there isn't any collusion.

they were not giving advice they were telling them what to do. That is not the reserve banks job description.
As for needing advice why is it that they have a surplus despite all the crap national tried to say how the budget never balanced?
why have we just had the biggested quartely GDP risse in years?
which was actually twice what the reverve bank predicted?

Well it's certainly got fuck all to do with anything the govt did. It rarely does, it's got far more to do with how productive the "productive sector" currently is and how their customers are doing.

Speaking of consumer confidence, how's that going?

Business confidence?

Govt policy designed to encourage above?

Govt policy to manage predatory monopolies that damage all of the above?

husaberg

11th October 2018, 19:11

Wrong. I said that in my experience their service was shit.

Kiwibank shows exactly what the result is when you get any normal political party doing that: a state owned entity with an unfair advantage charging exactly what the existing market already does, providing poorer service in the process. No government can resist the temptation to simply take the cash and divert it to their pet projects. In the long term that behaviour not only fails to eliminate a monopoly, it actually reinforces it.
Which is not borne out by the results i posted or what you posted either thus your assertion is false.

Kiwibank is Bank of the Year for First Home Buyers 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2015, 2016, 2017
Best Value Term Deposit Award 2015, 2014, 2016

No.its the same set up. thus your ascertion is wrong
Not to mention its based in a lot of places at NZ post shops as its a 53% subsidiary of NZ post

It is the case, no other bank has the ability to impose regulations that favour only themselves, do they?
Kiwibank is run by a board that has no imput into the rules to which banks operate.
So you are wrong again.
not to mention the chairman being an EX National PM

No, it's their job to regulate markets, to prevent anti-competitive behavior. By your own observation they're not doing that. As I said, I'd be using Kiwibank to keep the others honest. I'm fine with you not agreeing with that idea, but stop pretending that's what I said the govt IS doing.It is not the governments job to regulate markets. thats the commerce commissions job and the reserve banks as well
If you wish to assert that kiwibank is not competing in a market or the market is not more competitive as a result of the formation of kiwibank provide some proof.

Well it's certainly got nothing to do with anything the govt did. It rarely is, it's got far more to do with how productive the "productive sector" currently is and how well off their customers are feeling.It clearly is if it was lower you would certainly blame the government.

Speaking of consumer confidence, how's that going?

Business confidence?
gdp is up despite business confidence being down which is a better judge of economic performance.
GDP growth is twice reserve bank projections.
Go back to the last 6 governments the ones with the lower business confidence produced higher GDP growth.
339173339174
<script>!function(e,t,n,s){var i="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName(t)[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(s)&&(s=d+s),window[i]&&window[i].initialized)window[i].process&&window[i].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var a=e.createElement(t);a.async=1,a.id=n,a.src=s,o.pa rentNode.insertBefore(a,o)}}(document,"script","infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");</script>
<script>!function(e,t,n,s){var i="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName(t)[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(s)&&(s=d+s),window[i]&&window[i].initialized)window[i].process&&window[i].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var a=e.createElement(t);a.async=1,a.id=n,a.src=s,o.pa rentNode.insertBefore(a,o)}}(document,"script","infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");</script>
this government can also balance the budget by billions while paying off the last governments borrowing.

Ocean1

11th October 2018, 19:45

Which is not borne out by the results i posted or what you posted either thus your assertion is false.

its the same set up. thus your ascertion is wrong
Not to mention its based in a lot of places at NZ post shops as its a 53% subsidiary of NZ post

Kiwibank is run by a board that has no imput into the rules to which banks operate.
So you are wrong again.
not to mention the chairman being an EX National PM

It is not the governments job to regulate markets. thats the commerce commissions job and the reserve banks as well
If you wish to assert that kiwibank is not competing in a market or the market is not more competitive as a result of the formation of kiwibank provide some proof.

It clearly is if it was lower you would certainly blame the government.

gdp is up despite business confidence being down which is a better judge of economic performance.
GDP growth is twice reserve bank projections.
Go back to the last 6 governments the ones with the lower business confidence produced higher GDPs.

<script>!function(e,t,n,s){var i="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName(t)[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(s)&&(s=d+s),window[i]&&window[i].initialized)window[i].process&&window[i].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var a=e.createElement(t);a.async=1,a.id=n,a.src=s,o.pa rentNode.insertBefore(a,o)}}(document,"script","infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");</script><div class="infogram-embed" data-id="c8159c13-adb5-43dc-9a85-ca70e94b362f" data-type="interactive" data-title="Business Confidence and the actual economy"></div><script>!function(e,t,n,s){var i="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName(t)[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(s)&&(s=d+s),window[i]&&window[i].initialized)window[i].process&&window[i].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var a=e.createElement(t);a.async=1,a.id=n,a.src=s,o.pa rentNode.insertBefore(a,o)}}(document,"script","infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");</script>
this government can also balance the budget by billions while paying off the last governments borrowing.

You continue to argue against yourself. You're beyond rational discourse, either terminally indoctrinated or simply deranged.

husaberg

11th October 2018, 19:55

You continue to argue against yourself. You're beyond rational discourse, either terminally indoctrinated or simply deranged.
Got any stats to back that up;)
Or is it like the rest of your statement high on rhetoric and your own biased opinion but low on facts.
You cant argue that Business confidence vs GDP growth only has a correlation of .2 This is a fact.
Thats is only one in five or a coin flip is 2 1/2 times more accurate.:laugh:
but business confidence vs National or Lab has about .95 correlation

Former Reserve Bank economist Rodney Dickens of Strategic Risks Analysis believes the survey has a major political bias. Basically business leaders are likely National Party supporters and this view biases them against the new Government more than any actual concrete business risk.

Ocean1

12th October 2018, 06:43

Got any stats to back that up;)

I suppose I could round up the number of times you've assembled some obviously anemic straw man to argue against rather than address the issue, but it's patently obvious that it's your go-to modus operandi, so why bother.

sidecar bob

12th October 2018, 08:02

Things always work out better when they're rushed.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107682661/government-will-rush-through-legislation-to-look-into-petrol-price-margins
But the real pink elephant here is that it's only a small step from this, to telling a tradesman how much he can charge for services or products.
Really glad I'm not in business anymore, especially one that had six courtesy cars that everybody got upset at the thought of putting petrol in. (Including me)

husaberg

12th October 2018, 08:15

I suppose I could round up the number of times you've assembled some obviously anemic straw man to argue against rather than address the issue, but it's patently obvious that it's your go-to modus operandi, so why bother.
Really here is how a discussion goes with you
You make highly biased claims not backed by any evidence, that you pluck from thin air.
When someone asks you to substantiate them
As you clearly can't cant, you then project that onto someone else than claim the other is biased or unreasonable.
You then say you cant be bothered and just insult the other person.
Its basically Katmans MO without the homosexual undertones.

jasonu

12th October 2018, 11:52

sidecar bob

12th October 2018, 16:35

Pretty soon they will be telling property owners how much rent they can charge.
The place is starting to look a bit communist.

Yup, there will be a man from the govt come around & asess it as to the maximum rent that can be charged for the property & that will be that.

Grumph

12th October 2018, 18:27

Yup, there will be a man from the govt come around & asses it as to the maximum rent that can be charged for the property & that will be that.

At least that might shift invesment from property to something that could benefit the country.

Did you ever hear about the French tax assessment system from I think the 50's ? You were taxed on your assets, houses, cars, the wife's jewellery etc...
But property assessments were done from the street. Led to some pretty shoddy appearing property as a tax dodge.

sidecar bob

12th October 2018, 19:12

At least that might shift invesment from property to something that could benefit the country.
.

But housing benefits the country. Who will house all the poor people if landlords leave the market?;)

husaberg

12th October 2018, 20:16

But housing benefits the country. Who will house all the poor people if landlords leave the market?;)
If we let them eat cake they can live rent free in gingerbread houses

husaberg

15th October 2018, 18:36

https://youtu.be/wswFjuJPbxg
339203-15%
339204
https://www.radiolive.co.nz/home/on-demand/the-am-show/2018/10/-it-s-not-the-truth----simon-bridges-denies-new-leaks.html
5.27 is where he nearly cried
Then you have this.

<iframe width="998" height="561" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vlrn1kiPKxY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
After he rejects the allegation of unlawful wrongdoing on his part Paula turns and looks at him. then looks away........
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/64aBxtCOSNnLSs5Za2" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>via GIPHY (https://giphy.com/gifs/simon-burning-bridges-64aBxtCOSNnLSs5Za2)

339205

jasonu

16th October 2018, 02:18

husaberg

16th October 2018, 06:54

Yep he's definitely a plonker.
Stupid, I think is if he had not gone on a witch hunt it would have blown over his transport overspending was a non issue.

Katman

16th October 2018, 07:36

Stupid think is if he had not gone on a witch hunt it would have blown over he transport oversending was a non issue.

Speaking of stupid.....

sidecar bob

16th October 2018, 16:56

Sorry, but any male called Jami-Lee was a cock smoking faggott long before he bit the hand that feeds him & renderd himself unemployable any time in the foreseeable future.
What a fucking amateur.

merv

16th October 2018, 17:34

But housing benefits the country. Who will house all the poor people if landlords leave the market?;)

Absolutely, housing is an essential commodity just like water, food, electricity etc, but you don't hear those other providers being picked at so badly as landlords.

oldrider

16th October 2018, 17:36

Pretty soon they will be telling property owners how much rent they can charge.
The place is starting to look a bit communist.

It's supposed to look communist - the whole fucking world is supposed to look communist - anything else is simply political trivia and theatre. :wait:

Swoop

16th October 2018, 19:37

It's supposed to look communist - the whole fucking world is supposed to look communist - anything else is simply political trivia and theatre. :wait:

The world is not supposed to look or "be" communist.
The glaring examples of why not are East & West Germany. Which one failed?
North & South Korea. Which one failed?

Communism is only a nice idea, but ALWAYS gets hijacked by people who have capitalistic ideals - examples: Soviet Union, China, Russia.
Communism is dead everywhere apart from Academia.

husaberg

16th October 2018, 19:38

Sorry, but any male called Jami-Lee was a cock smoking faggott long before he bit the hand that feeds him & renderd himself unemployable any time in the foreseeable future.
What a fucking amateur.
Probably true especially as he was until today a high ranking national cabinet minister.:innocent:

pritch

16th October 2018, 20:01

Berries

16th October 2018, 20:10

Sorry, but any male called Jami-Lee was a cock smoking faggott long before he bit the hand that feeds him & renderd himself unemployable any time in the foreseeable future.
What a fucking amateur.
A Fish Called Wanda was a particular high point.

Have got to say, he looks ok in his gym gear.

pete376403

16th October 2018, 20:54

The world is not supposed to look or "be" communist.
The glaring examples of why not are East & West Germany. Which one failed?
North & South Korea. Which one failed?

Communism is only a nice idea, but ALWAYS gets hijacked by people who have capitalistic ideals - examples: Soviet Union, China, Russia.
Communism is dead everywhere apart from Academia.

East Germany and North Korea are "communist" in name only. By any other measure they were (GDR) and are (NK) dictatorships, run for the benefit of a limited few.

husaberg

16th October 2018, 21:33

For some time I've been marvelling at the astounding range of idiocy, incompetence, or corruption exhibited by political leaders in the UK and the USA. As depressing as it has been of late, I've consoled myself with the thought that at least our local politicians were behaving themselves.

Until now.

Suddenly it's full moon at the funny farm. Ah well :drinkup:

Even Cameron Slater the National party lapdog is saying Simons time is likely up as National leader.
Which is about as damning indictment as you will ever get from him.
https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/10/career-over-for-jami-lee-ross-probably-for-simon-bridges-too/
The big question is is national that out of touch with reality they don't realise how much people actually hate Crusher.
339220339221

jasonu

17th October 2018, 02:26

Sorry, but any male called Jami-Lee was a cock smoking faggott long before he bit the hand that feeds him & renderd himself unemployable any time in the foreseeable future.
What a fucking amateur.

Careful you don't offend the delicate flowers around here with your homophobic slurs...

Grumph

17th October 2018, 08:08

I had to laugh at Paula Bennett claiming "entrapment" of Bridges by Ross on TV this morning.

Looks like Bridges has told some of his mob at least some of what is in the recorded phone conversation.
We'll be able to judge for ourselves when the recording is released by Ross.

Let's see if National try and get a gag order on the recording. I have no problem believing Ross as to what Bridges told him to do with the donation.
Historically, National have been greedy when it comes to donations and have not cared where they came from. One that size would have been a temptation too large to resist.

Ocean1

17th October 2018, 08:42

sidecar bob

17th October 2018, 09:00

I'd be more than happy to ditch donations all together, including union contributions, they're only ever going to be seen as vote buying.

And if that's OK then let's take it a step further: $1000 per vote, let's see how committed voters are. eh?

As many votes as you can afford. That would sway the vote in favour of the biggest taxpayers, as opposed to the most obese taxpayers, which surely is what the country needs.

Katman

17th October 2018, 09:11

I'm going to assume that the previous two comments were said very much tongue in cheek.

But it doesn't surprise me who they came from.

Ocean1

17th October 2018, 09:40

As many votes as you can afford. That would sway the vote in favour of the biggest taxpayers, as opposed to the most obese taxpayers, which surely is what the country needs.

There's a name for the effect whereby control inputs, (fiscal policy) result in outcomes, (economic prosperity) that require more input, which results in more untenable outcomes, which require.........

It's called a positive feedback loop. And asking people who contribute fuck all who's money should be spent on services they'll personally benefit from falls into exactly that category. Look at the news source of your choice, it's wall to wall "need more money over here" and never the slightest hint of where that money comes from, or if that's where it would be best spent to effect a sustainable return.

When you find the arse coming around a bit much mid corner as the result being a bit heavy handed then giving it a bit more results in the opportunity for a valuable lesson. Which works for most individuals, they learn. As a society, though we never seem to learn what happens if you ignore the effort/return thing by allowing greedy socialist concepts to influence policy. There's been lots of crashes caused by socialism, usually well after it's obvious it's losing the race, but a then a few years later some fuckwit's at it again: Oh look, he's got far more than me, that's not fair, i reckon we should share that out!

If there's a problem with buying votes using you're own money then how much more of a problem is it when you're using someone else's?

Banditbandit

17th October 2018, 11:33

Winston Peters has a wicked sense of humour

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/here-comes-punchline-winston-peters-plays-song-burning-bridges-media

Taxythingy

17th October 2018, 11:41

Winston Peters has a wicked sense of humour

I like Winston. Sometimes his politics and policies irritate the hell out of me and I won't vote for him, but I still like having him in parliament. This is one of the good bits.

I mean, he's got a beehive and a decent stick. Let's poke it... :Pokey:

Taxythingy

17th October 2018, 11:55

As for Paula's comments this morning - that has "improper donation I know nothing about" waggling its eyebrows. And she gets to fit a character assassination attempt into the same statement.

Scubbo

17th October 2018, 12:02

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/s/7/q/g/x/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x350. 1s8qm2.png/1539732692411.jpg

can tell she can't wait for the police to get involved or to run their own investigation, she wants the job and by default is the easiest way

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT5LMwsUArdUhqkeic/giphy.gif

Taxythingy

17th October 2018, 12:50

can tell she can't wait for the police to get involved or to run their own investigation, she wants the job and by default is the easiest way

I don't think I've ever seen that totally glazed look on a "supportive" deputy leader before. Did she actually make eye contact with anyone in that room? She glanced at Simon when he started answering most questions, but quickly zoned back out when the answer headed toward the agreed PR statement. A couple of who-asked-that style looks to the press. Otherwise nothing.

Grumph

17th October 2018, 14:02

I don't think I've ever seen that totally glazed look on a "supportive" deputy leader before. Did she actually make eye contact with anyone in that room? She glanced at Simon when he started answering most questions, but quickly zoned back out when the answer headed toward the agreed PR statement. A couple of who-asked-that style looks to the press. Otherwise nothing.

Yes, either mentally doing her shopping list or there under duress.

Vote buying has it's current iteration in the US. Corporations recognised as having the rights of individuals, it's only a matter of time before they want the vote outright rather than buying candidates as at present.

A ceiling on party spending is a better idea. If donations can't be accepted, it'll be interesting to see what comes next as an influence buying tool....

husaberg

17th October 2018, 14:49

As many votes as you can afford. That would sway the vote in favour of the biggest taxpayers, as opposed to the most obese taxpayers, which surely is what the country needs.

We both know Big business in NZ pay bugger all tax. the biggest tax payers in NZ are the av plebs.
Nats get far more donations than any other party. Probably 3x as much.
They should limit the funding of the parties. either that or just live with the fact that people buy votes with donations.
last time i looked there were some pretty big donations to national from Aucklands largest real estate company and one of the biggest motel chains year in year out
But what is new is that under National it now only costs 100K to buy yourself an MP. plus you get a free diner but its BYO wine.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/listen-jami-lee-ross-releases-audio-of-simon-bridges-conversation.html

carbonhed

17th October 2018, 19:08

But what is new is that under National it now only costs 100K to buy yourself an MP. plus you get a free diner but its BYO wine.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/listen-jami-lee-ross-releases-audio-of-simon-bridges-conversation.html

$100k wouldn't buy you shit let alone an MP.

Where in the transcript did it say that?

husaberg

17th October 2018, 19:12

$100k wouldn't buy you shit let alone an MP.

Where in the transcript did it say that?
Near the end.
before he went on to say one of his MPs were F-ing useless
Along with 5 others
the 100K donation was for another Chinese MP.
Amonst other things its a pretty good investment a back bencher earns 150K /year even if they are f-ing useless.
the younger of those was going to nat candidate college. ( no strings of course)
They had to be Chinese as they are more valuable than a Indian.

carbonhed

17th October 2018, 20:35

Near the end.
before he went on to say one of his MPs were F-ing useless
Along with 5 others
the 100K donation was for another Chinese MP.
Amonst other things its a pretty good investment a back bencher earns 150K /year even if they are f-ing useless.
the younger of those was going to nat candidate college. ( no strings of course)
They had to be Chinese as they are more valuable than a Indian.

Horseshit.

husaberg

17th October 2018, 21:11

Only if horseshit is Chinese herbal medicine

Ross: Hey you know at Paul Goldsmith's function you saw those two Chinese guys, Zhang Yikun and Colin? You had dinner at their home?
Bridges: Yes.
Ross: They talked to you about a $100,000 donation…
Bridges: Yep.
Ross: That is now in.
Bridges: Fantastic.
Ross: What would you like done with it? It's currently sitting in a Botany electorate account.
Bridges: Yeah that's good, I'd need to… I'd say, by the way, on that, just before we get to that. I promised them that we would have dinner at my place, that you should come. I mean, we might as well make a bit of fun of it. The only thing that would be good is if they brought the wine because they've got better wine… When I move into my new house so that's probably…we've got to sell ours. It could be earlier but it's probably around September so we should make good on that because otherwise I've lied to them, because I've said it a couple of times now. We should definitely do that.
Look, I just think we want it for... the advertisements and the like... we want it for the things that we're going to need to do over the next year or so, sort of outside of the- not outside of the party but...
………………………….
Ross: Yeah they're good people. Now there's no catch or anything to it. You may recall at the dinner they did discuss candidacy, and another Chinese candidate.
Bridges: Two MPs, yeah.
Ross: Colin Zhang? The younger one, he's put his name in for Candidates' College and so I assume he'll get through and we'll make some decisions as a Party further down the track as to what we want to do with candidates.
Bridges: I mean, it's like all these things, it's bloody hard. You've only got so much space. Depends where we're polling, you know? All that sort of thing… two Chinese would be nice, but would it be one Chinese or one Filipino? What do we do?

The conversation was around how it would be to have the two Chinese people that Bridges dined with - Yikun Zhang and Colin Zheng - on the National Party list. Ross says the donation came from Yikun Zhang, but there was no suggestion that the Chinese businessman had done anything wrong.
Colin Zheng is the manager of KCC Construction, a company owned by Zhang Yikun.
Bridges said having two Chinese MPs would be "nice", but putting them on the list and keeping everyone happy would be "bloody hard".
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144135

Voltaire

18th October 2018, 05:54

Whats the difference between a say 100K donation and a bribe?

Maybe instead of doing the hard yards to become an MP seats could be set up along similar lines to some of the other seats....

If people recorded all work conversations no one would have a job.

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 07:13

Whats the difference between a say 100K donation and a bribe?

Anything extorted by the conniving Tory pricks from the ill-gotten gains of a greedy commercial arsehole is a bribe.

Hard earned contributions from the founding union fathers, doughty warriors agin' the capitalist scum and protectors of the Bolshevist faith is a donation.

All clear?

Grumph

18th October 2018, 08:14

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 08:22

Couldn't have put it better myself. Welcome to the light brother....

Must be difficult though, watching the nats self-destruct.

I don't actually hold politicians of any flavour to a standard of behaviour over and above that of yer average punter, and the latest prime TV reality show is pretty much par for the course for any large organisation.

All I really expect is that they do what they say the'll do when asking for your vote. If that don't actually produce the goods then that's down to the voters.

husaberg

18th October 2018, 08:50

Anything extorted by the conniving Tory pricks from the ill-gotten gains of a greedy commercial arsehole is a bribe.

Hard earned contributions from the founding union fathers, doughty warriors again' the capitalist scum and protectors of the Bolshevist faith is a donation.

All clear?

The National Party received almost $4.6 million in donations in the lead up to the last election – three times more money than it was allowed to spend in the campaign.
The party's donations outstripped Labour's donations, which came in at $1.6m, and Gareth Morgan's Opportunities Party, which received $2.3m – almost all of it from Morgan himself

Labours donations from all the unions are not even a penitence of what single donors gave the national party
The unions represent a signification proportion of NZ workers ie 100,000's workers

Labour Party NZ Dairy Workers Union $70,000
labour Party Maritime Union of New Zealand $40,500
Labour Party NZ Rail and Maritime Transport Union $30,000

on the other hand lets look at the Nats
here is two of the larger ones
National Party Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry $150,000
National Party Alpha Laboratories (nz) Limited $100,000

The inner mongola riders horse industry has 3 NZ employees.

The company, founded by fast food mogul Lang Lin, has sent 1200 New Zealand racehorses to China to race and breed, including New Zealand horse of the year and derby winner Mongolian Khan.
Or Alpha Labs owned by Gao Wei
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/79125034/alpha-laboratories-boss-refuses-to-let-employee-take-time-off-to-visit-dying-mum

husaberg

18th October 2018, 08:55

I don't actually hold politicians of any flavour to a standard of behaviour over and above that of yer average punter, and the latest prime TV reality show is pretty much par for the course for any large organisation.

All I really expect is that they do what they say the'll do when asking for your vote. If that don't actually produce the goods then that's down to the voters.

What is happening to national is not average dynamics of a large organisation
The National party are imploding Jami Lee Ross was not some back bench MP he was their Chief Whip
You have a series of allegations of gross misconduct being played out in the media.
The National party leadership are now going after his family in a way that is unprecedented in NZ politics.

jasonu

18th October 2018, 10:13

What is happening to national is not average dynamics of a large organisation
The National party are imploding Jami Lee Ross was not some back bench MP he was their Chief Whip
You have a series of allegations of gross misconduct being played out in the media.
The National party leadership are now going after his family in a way that is unprecedented in NZ politics.

Rob Muldoon would be rolling in his grave. None of these cunts would have gotten away with any of this shit under his leadership.

Grumph

18th October 2018, 10:46

Rob Muldoon would be rolling in his grave. None of these cunts would have gotten away with any of this shit under his leadership.

In todays world with much more intense scrutiny of public figures, Muldoon would inevitably have shot himself in the foot at some point - probably while drunk.
The level of scrutiny from the media was much less - and journalists simply didn't report a lot of what went on.
It's a different world now. Crusher Collins would like to be another Muldoon - but NZ won't stand for that type again.

Katman

18th October 2018, 12:16

I recall a story that Norm Kirk had his Cabinet Ministers sign some form of resignation letter right from the get go - to be pulled out and used if needed.

I was only 10 when he died so I'm not entirely sure of the veracity of the story.

pritch

18th October 2018, 12:28

$100k wouldn't buy you shit let alone an MP.

Try and keep up. It has been on the news that'll get you a mention in the New Years Honours and a chance to nominate a mate to be an MP.

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 12:36

Labours donations from all the unions are not even a penitence of what single donors gave the national party
The unions represent a signification proportion of NZ workers ie 100,000's workers

on the other hand lets look at the Nats
here is two of the larger ones
National Party Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry $150,000
National Party Alpha Laboratories (nz) Limited $100,000

The inner mongola riders horse industry has 3 NZ employees.

Or Alpha Labs owned by Gao Wei
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/79125034/alpha-laboratories-boss-refuses-to-let-employee-take-time-off-to-visit-dying-mum

The unions own labour outright, why would they bother paying them for anything, it's not as if paying for anything is any part of their ideology.

As for the rest, yeah maybe companies shouldn't be able to influence policy like that. Maybe they should be able to do that by voting.

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 12:39

What is happening to national is not average dynamics of a large organisation
The National party are imploding Jami Lee Ross was not some back bench MP he was their Chief Whip
You have a series of allegations of gross misconduct being played out in the media.
The National party leadership are now going after his family in a way that is unprecedented in NZ politics.

Unprecedented? Oh I don't think it comes anywhere near close to imploding 4 leaders deep inside a single year yet, does it? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

husaberg

18th October 2018, 13:04

Unprecedented? Oh I don't think it comes anywhere near close to imploding 4 leaders deep inside a single year yet, does it? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Yes unprecedented for a Government to break news of an affair of one of their MP's to ridicule their mental health and to threaten other families.
SImon Bridges has been caught out having a donation presented at less than it worth and presented in return for favours.
Who ever has had 4 leaders in a year Labour hasn't. But it looks like Nation will have at least 3 in 12 months:psst:
Where as Nationals former chief whip is on a rampage with many more leaks to follow, if you think Simon Bridges leadership can survive this you need your head read.
Whats even more funny is Simon's brought it all on himself.

The unions own labour outright, why would they bother paying them for anything, it's not as if paying for anything is any part of their ideology.

As for the rest, yeah maybe companies shouldn't be able to influence policy like that. Maybe they should be able to do that by voting.

Par of the course for yo,u big on rhetoric zero suppported by facts.
National sells off list MP to the highest bidder.
Plus keeps on F-ing useless MP's.
Simon will be replaced by Crusher who like simon has her on past with Chinese favours
https://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/timeline-judith-collins-and-oravida-2014050512

Just like Nats other Simon

Mr Williamson, who resigned as a minister last week over contacting police on behalf of a Chinese businessman facing domestic assault allegations.

pritch

18th October 2018, 13:08

Offered without comment.

husaberg

18th October 2018, 13:11

In todays world with much more intense scrutiny of public figures, Muldoon would inevitably have shot himself in the foot at some point - probably while drunk.
The level of scrutiny from the media was much less - and journalists simply didn't report a lot of what went on.
It's a different world now. Crusher Collins would like to be another Muldoon - but NZ won't stand for that type again.

The rule back then was the journalist could drink and soclise with the MPs but anything said off the record meant just that. that trust is long long gone now.
Also anything to do with personal lives at all was totally off limits.
I think that changed arround the time they started making noise about Lange having an affair.

jasonu

18th October 2018, 13:32

$100k wouldn't buy you shit let alone an MP.

Where in the transcript did it say that?

It might buy you a shit mp...

husaberg

18th October 2018, 13:46

It might buy you a shit mp...

Two Chinese ones as long as Nats are polling okay and it doesn't upset the Indians.

Ross: Hey you know at Paul Goldsmith's function you saw those two Chinese guys, Zhang Yikun and Colin? You had dinner at their home?
Bridges: Yes.
Ross: They talked to you about a $100,000 donation…
Bridges: Yep.
Ross: That is now in.
Bridges: Fantastic.
Ross: What would you like done with it? It's currently sitting in a Botany electorate account.
Bridges: Yeah that's good, I'd need to… I'd say, by the way, on that, just before we get to that. I promised them that we would have dinner at my place, that you should come. I mean, we might as well make a bit of fun of it. The only thing that would be good is if they brought the wine because they've got better wine… When I move into my new house so that's probably…we've got to sell ours. It could be earlier but it's probably around September so we should make good on that because otherwise I've lied to them, because I've said it a couple of times now. We should definitely do that.
Look, I just think we want it for... the advertisements and the like... we want it for the things that we're going to need to do over the next year or so, sort of outside of the- not outside of the party but...
………………………….
Ross: Yeah they're good people. Now there's no catch or anything to it. You may recall at the dinner they did discuss candidacy, and another Chinese candidate.
Bridges: Two MPs, yeah.
Ross: Colin Zhang? The younger one, he's put his name in for Candidates' College and so I assume he'll get through and we'll make some decisions as a Party further down the track as to what we want to do with candidates.
Bridges: I mean, it's like all these things, it's bloody hard. You've only got so much space. Depends where we're polling, you know? All that sort of thing… two Chinese would be nice, but would it be one Chinese or one Filipino? What do we do?
The conversation was around how it would be to have the two Chinese people that Bridges dined with - Yikun Zhang and Colin Zheng - on the National Party list. Ross says the donation came from Yikun Zhang, but there was no suggestion that the Chinese businessman had done anything wrong.
Colin Zheng is the manager of KCC Construction, a company owned by Zhang Yikun.
Bridges said having two Chinese MPs would be "nice", but putting them on the list and keeping everyone happy would be "bloody hard".
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12144135

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 14:05

Yes unprecedented for a Government to break news of an affair of one of their MP's to ridicule their mental health and to threaten other families.
SImon Bridges has been caught out having a donation presented at less than it worth and presented in return for favours.
Who ever has had 4 leaders in a year Labour hasn't. But it looks like Nation will have at least 3 in 12 months:psst:
Where as Nationals former chief whip is on a rampage with many more leaks to follow, if you think Simon Bridges leadership can survive this you need your head read.
Whats even more funny is Simon's brought it all on himself.

Par of the course for yo,u big on rhetoric zero suppported by facts.
National sells off list MP to the highest bidder.
Plus keeps on F-ing useless MP's.
Simon will be replaced by Crusher who like simon has here on past with Chinese favours

But it's OK for labour's union owners to demand favours, eh?

OK, was three leaders then was it? In maybe 18 months? Can't be fucked looking to be honest, it just amuses me that it's all so desperately important for you that you spend so much time cobbling up "facts" and rotating the fuck out of them. :laugh:

Banditbandit

18th October 2018, 14:09

The unions own labour outright, why would they bother paying them for anything, it's not as if paying for anything is any part of their ideology.

As for the rest, yeah maybe companies shouldn't be able to influence policy like that. Maybe they should be able to do that by voting.

Only six unions are still affiliated with Labour ..

E tū – created through the merger of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service & Food Workers Union in 2015.
Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ)
New Zealand Dairy Workers Union (DWU)
New Zealand Meat & Related Trades Workers Union (MWU)
Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU)
Central Amalgamated Workers' Union (CAWU)

The rest all jumped years ago ..

Banditbandit

18th October 2018, 14:13

Jami-Lee is a piece of work alright ..

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/17/281200/jami-lee-ross-four-women-speak-out

Typical Born-to-Rule mentality ..

jasonu

18th October 2018, 15:25

Jami-Lee is a piece of work alright ..

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/17/281200/jami-lee-ross-four-women-speak-out

Typical Born-to-Rule mentality ..

Just because these 4 have somehow chosen right now to spill the beans doesn't necessarily make it true.
It all stinks to me.

husaberg

18th October 2018, 15:29

But it's OK for labour's union owners to demand favours, eh?
Unions represent 100,000 of thousands of separate people not two guys who want preferential treatment to become list MP's and influence policies.
All of the Unions gave bugger all money to the Labour party less than one individual National donor gave national in fact. They were not even Labours biggest donor FFS.

OK, was three leaders then was it? In maybe 18 months? Can't be fucked looking to be honest, it just amuses me that it's all so desperately important for you that you spend so much time cobbling up "facts" and rotating the fuck out of them. :laugh:
So it clearly wasn't four in twelve months as you initially stated then was it, But National is on the cards for 3 in 12 months.
339242339243339244

Even Whale oil is saying its time for Bridges to bail out of his sinking ship

The Leadership of the Parliamentary wing of the party is also hugely at fault. That they also allowed Mr. Ross the ability to continue to behave in the manner he did is mystifying – to put it politely. Both Bridges and Bennett must go. If the board want to even slightly redeem themselves they should ensure this happens. Bridges, by his actions, has now ensured this fiasco will go on for weeks, probably months. There has been too much evidence in recent times of the party acting in its own interests and not in the interests of the membership and others who support them. This is totally unacceptable.

Where to now? The only way out of this utter shambles is for National to elect a strong experienced person as their leader. If the party is listening to its grassroots they will ensure that person is Judith Collins. Forget all the talk about her being polarising and the nonsense of past baggage. The party needs to be well beyond worrying about that if they are serious about the 2020 election. The other MPs, like it or not, need to get behind her and not only show but also ensure there is a united front.https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/10/political-train-wreck-not-surprising/

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 15:31

Only six unions are still affiliated with Labour ..

E tū – created through the merger of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service & Food Workers Union in 2015.
Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ)
New Zealand Dairy Workers Union (DWU)
New Zealand Meat & Related Trades Workers Union (MWU)
Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU)
Central Amalgamated Workers' Union (CAWU)

The rest all jumped years ago ..

So, you're saying that the number that actually own labour, lock stock and barrel are dramatically less than they were back before it became obvious that socialism was a dead end, and now amount to sweet fuck all?

And that their influence in shaping policy is well out of proportion with their actual numbers?

I'm stunned.

husaberg

18th October 2018, 15:32

Just because these 4 have somehow chosen right now to spill the beans doesn't necessarily make it true.
It all stinks to me.

Funny enough two by their own admission were in a completely consensual sexual relationship with him.
the other ones have not supplied any details and have not been named but still get to throw accusations doesnt at all seem fair really.
He gets named they don't.

Katman

18th October 2018, 15:51

So it clearly wasn't four in twelve months as you initially stated then was it, But National is on the cards for 3 in 12 months.

Your figures aren't any better.

John Key stepped down in Dec 2016 and Simon Bridges became the leader in Feb 2018.

How does that equal 3 in 12 months?

Katman

18th October 2018, 15:58

because Bill English replace John Key you dipshit and English was replaced by Bridges less than a year ago.
When bridges goes in the next few weeks it will be threee in less than a year.

So your figures only work if you ignore the fact that Bill English was leader for over 12 months.

jasonu

18th October 2018, 15:58

Even Whale oil is saying its time for Bridges to bail out of his sinking ship

Don't tell me you listen to that fat wanker.

Katman

18th October 2018, 15:58

Don't tell me you listen to that fat wanker.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were one in the same.

husaberg

18th October 2018, 16:08

Don't tell me you listen to that fat wanker.
Not normally but when even the fattest staunchest Nat supporter says its time for Bridges to be burnt its pretty damning............:msn-wink:

husaberg

18th October 2018, 16:10

So your figures only work if you ignore the fact that Bill English was leader for over 12 months.
You really are an egg you ignored English

Your figures aren't any better.

John Key stepped down in Dec 2016 and Simon Bridges became the leader in Feb 2018.

How does that equal 3 in 12 months?

English
Bridges
New leader will likely = less than 12 months

Bill English 26th February 2018
Simon Bridges 27 February 2018
New Leader TBC October 2018

So it clearly wasn't four in twelve months as you initially stated then was it, But National is on the cards for 3 in 12 months.
339242339243

ps thanks for the red rep it goes to prove what a narcissistic plonker you really are

husaberg

18th October 2018, 16:38

How do you figure that out?

I said John Key stepped down in Dec 2016 and Simon Bridges became leader in Feb 2018.

I would have thought it obvious (even to a fucking idiot like you) that meant that Bill English filled the 14 months in between.
This is too funny
So how is it that National assuming they replace Bridges in the next few months wont have have three leaders in 12 month then (By Stevo Maths)

I dont know how much more simpler i can explain it to you than i already have.
I look forward to you still not understanding.

So it clearly wasn't four in twelve months as you initially stated then was it, But National is on the cards for 3 in 12 months.

because Bill English replaced John Key you dipshit and English was replaced by Bridges less than a year ago.
When bridges goes in the next few weeks it will be three in less than a year.

You really are an idiot you ignored English

English
Bridges
New leader will likely = less than 12 months

Bill English 26th February 2018
Simon Bridges 27 February 2018
New Leader TBC October 2018

Katman

18th October 2018, 16:45

ps thanks for the red rep

You're welcome.

There's plenty more where that came from.

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 19:07

Unions represent 100,000 of thousands of separate people not two guys who want preferential treatment to become list MP's and influence policies.
All of the Unions gave bugger all money to the Labour party less than one individual National donor gave national in fact. They were not even Labours biggest donor FFS.

So it clearly wasn't four in twelve months as you initially stated then was it, But National is on the cards for 3 in 12 months.
339242339243339244

Even Whale oil is saying its time for Bridges to bail out of his sinking ship

Oh that's OK then, 100,00 of thousands demanding preferential treatment via their very own party is MUCH better than two. :niceone:

Here's an idea, how about we arsehole the lot, nobody gets to own or buy politicians?

husaberg

18th October 2018, 19:14

Oh that's OK then, 100,00 of thousands demanding preferential treatment via their very own party is MUCH better than two. :niceone:

Here's an idea, how about we arsehole the lot, nobody gets to own or buy politicians?

Whose of those 100,000 of people demanding preferential treatments?
You are confusing the unions with those giving National huge individual donations that National gets split up so don't have to declare them.:killingme

I think the amount of political money needs to be capped along with the spending, With lengthy Jail time for those caught cheating.
So whats your thoughts on How long Simon will last?

Ocean1

18th October 2018, 19:38

Whose of those 100,000 of people demanding preferential treatments?
You are confusing the unions with those giving National huge individual donations that National gets split up so don't have to declare them.:killingme

I think the amount of political money needs to be capped along with the spending, With lengthy Jail time for those caught cheating.
So whats your thoughts on How long Simon will last?

Why would they need their own party if they had no wish to influence policy in their favour beyond what ordinary voters can?

There's been graft as long as there's been politicians. Longer. And if you think that's more prevalent at the other end of the political spectrum from the one you live in then you're fucked in the head. That's not the problem in a modern democracy, the problem is institutional graft, where political influence beyond the usual democratic process is allowed.

And as I said, arsehole all contributions, saves all the angst about what they're used for and who's buying what.

Don't care, in spite of your assertions this latest drama isn't the end of the world. I don't like him, personally, and though that's not necessarily any reason to want him gone I'd be happy to see someone with less socially conservative ideals instead.

Katman

18th October 2018, 19:47

.....then you're fucked in the head.

Well durrr.

husaberg

18th October 2018, 20:25

Why would they need their own party if they had no wish to influence policy in their favour beyond what ordinary voters can?

There's been graft as long as there's been politicians. Longer. And if you think that's more prevalent at the other end of the political spectrum from the one you live in then you're fucked in the head. That's not the problem in a modern democracy, the problem is institutional graft, where political influence beyond the usual democratic institution is allowed.

And as I said, arsehole all contributions, saves all the angst about what they're used for and who's buying what.

Don't care, in spite of your assertions this latest drama isn't the end of the world. I don't like him, personally, and though that's not necessarily any reason to want him gone I'd be happy to see someone with less socially conservative ideals instead.
What own party are you referring to?
All parties are a collection of individuals with similar common goals or ideals
If you areshole all contributions how do you expect to have any political party?

pritch

18th October 2018, 20:58

And as I said, arsehole all contributions, saves all the angst about what they're used for and who's buying what.

This has been suggested before but previously it seemed over the top. We don't want what the Yanks have now though, where some politicians won't even speak to anybody who hasn't donated to them, and most of them are working for the various lobbyists rather than the people who elected them.

It would seem that we already have people buying influence so perhaps it's time to consider that each party should receive election funds from the government purse. No other funding permitted. Of course working out the formula as to who gets what would likely be a rare shit fight.

There might be considerable potential for entertainment?

Katman

18th October 2018, 21:07

There might be considerable potential for entertainment?

More than this?

Swoop

18th October 2018, 21:23

Katman

18th October 2018, 22:09

Much the same way they operate in other countries, attempting to sway favour with bribes, then really go in for the full penetration arse fucking of the entire country.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

mada

19th October 2018, 00:04

The biggest concern is the chinese bribing their way into parliament.

Much the same way they operate in other countries, attempting to sway favour with bribes, then really go in for the full penetration arse fucking of the entire country.

Yep same here. Been rattling on about this for the past 10 years... cbf any more though. I especially find it ironic when blue men go on about "socialists" going to ruin the country but are all good with taking cash and backhanders from true totalitarian commie pricks. You then see them at ANZAC day parades espousing vitriol about fighting for democracy against evil.... if it was the 1930s, most of our current pollies would be sucking up to the Nazis and their stolen gold just as much in the name of "trade". :tugger::tugger:

Left and right balls deep in it.

jasonu

19th October 2018, 02:23

The biggest concern is the chinese bribing their way into parliament.
.

They are like cockroaches. NZ should have been way more hardline (like the Aussies) iimmigration wise in the mid to late 1990"s.

Ocean1

19th October 2018, 06:54

What own party are you referring to?
All parties are a collection of individuals with similar common goals or ideals
If you areshole all contributions how do you expect to have any political party?

The labour party. Is owned. By the unions. They built it, directed it's internal structure and continue to hold voting rights over caucus appointments.

Which is why they're always so cohesive, with never a cross word or disagreement....

I'm open to suggestions. But, I'll point out that you get to have political parties who represent whoever pays them the most, or ones that represent their constituents. You get to choose, but you can't have it both ways.

Ocean1

19th October 2018, 07:23

This has been suggested before but previously it seemed over the top. We don't want what the Yanks have now though, where some politicians won't even speak to anybody who hasn't donated to them, and most of them are working for the various lobbyists rather than the people who elected them.

It would seem that we already have people buying influence so perhaps it's time to consider that each party should receive election funds from the government purse. No other funding permitted. Of course working out the formula as to who gets what would likely be a rare shit fight.

There might be considerable potential for entertainment?

America was a sort of prototype democracy, don't underestimate what they did, there, for the individual it represented a huge improvement over governments their parents had in the old country, but it's nothing like ours. Ours is a later version, although mostly
copied from the British, without the two houses. That was shaped by several hundred years of internal bickering between the crown and the minor houses, mostly about limiting the crowns power to tax the landed gentry. The shape of both is affected by it's roots, some bits no longer fulfill their original purpose but affect areas they weren't designed to.

The thing I dislike about both is the lack of integrity in straight up mechanical policy design. Who the fuck thought that funding state police directly from the profits of crime was a good idea? Makes for great public buy-in, but it results in cops finding crime in the most profitable activities, confiscating cars, boats, pretty much anything they say was involved in a crime, and keeping the loot.

And if that sounds counterproductive then we're generally too far the other way, penalising the most productive and rewarding the least productive is absolutely guaranteed to damage productivity across the board.

husaberg

19th October 2018, 08:20

The labour party. Is owned. By the unions. They built it, directed it's internal structure and continue to hold voting rights over caucus appointments.

Which is why they're always so cohesive, with never a cross word or disagreement....

I'm open to suggestions. But, I'll point out that you get to have political parties who represent whoever pays them the most, or ones that represent their constituents. You get to choose, but you can't have it both ways.

1 the labour party is owned by its member whether they be in a union or not most members are not in a union.
2 The Labour party voting rights is based on a majority vote of its members/Afiliiates.

I could just as easily say the National party is now partially owned by its Chinese donors. 50K per party vote list MP seat it seems is their going rate.

You made the suggestion to get rid of party donors its up to you to decide how they will be funded.
National recieve 3-4 times the money yet still are not in government so it seems the level of funding labour has should be the bench mark.

Banditbandit

19th October 2018, 08:54

What own party are you referring to?
All parties are a collection of individuals with similar common goals or ideals
If you areshole all contributions how do you expect to have any political party?

No - I'm sorry - the Labour Party was originally set up by what became the federation of Labour - it was a union-established party.

National was created by combining the Reform Party (conservative) and the United Party (Liberal). Before Labour these two parties were opponents .. Both United and reform had strong links to the farmers organisations - such as the contemporary Federated Farmers .. even though they do not have the formal links like Labour-Unions.

sidecar bob

19th October 2018, 09:01

Ocean1

19th October 2018, 09:35

1 the labour party is owned by its member whether they be in a union or not most members are not in a union.
2 The Labour party voting rights is based on a majority vote of its members/Afiliiates.

It's owned by those who get a vote as to party construction and personnel, and that's split between party members, (union members or otherwise) AND union AND affiliated votes. Some of the individuals involved can be voting several times, with different hats on, and then AGAIN in accepting/rejecting senior party personnel appointments.

Spin it however you like; labour IS the unions.

I could just as easily say the National party is now partially owned by its Chinese donors. 50K per party vote list MP seat it seems is their going rate.

You could say that. But not with the same certainty that you can demonstrate that labour is owned by the unions, to anywhere near the same extent, or with anything like the same absolute control over policy.

You made the suggestion to get rid of party donors its up to you to decide how they will be funded.

No it's not, you're the one claiming your party is all above board with how they spend donations, but the other lot isn't.

I'm simply pointing out that the only way anyone can be sure donations aren't influencing policy is to ban 'em. Again, take your pick, you can't logically have both.

National recieve 3-4 times the money yet still are not in government so it seems the level of funding labour has should be the bench mark.

Apart from the complete lack of logic and obvious jealousy involved with that statement, doesn't the disparity of funding simply confirm the poll data that more people support national policies than do labour?

Ocean1

19th October 2018, 09:52

Hear Hear! No new taxes if you vote for the silly hat party!
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/191474-new-gst-rules-to-level-playing-field-labour.html
Just bigger existing ones & new & interesting ways of collecting others.

Is that going as well in Aus as it started out?

Or have the bulk of international suppliers still simply closed the door on their Aus customers?

husaberg

19th October 2018, 10:16

It's owned by those who get a vote as to party construction and personnel, and that's split between party members, (union members or otherwise) AND union AND affiliated votes. Some of the individuals involved can be voting several times, with different hats on, and then AGAIN in accepting/rejecting senior party personnel appointments.
NO its not, Affiliate members only have the same voting rights one vote for each member. the few unions affiliated with Labour vote on an individual basis to be part of a Union affiliated with Labour or not.

Spin it however you like; labour IS the unions.
If that statement was remotely true then all unions would be part of labour
I could just as easily same freemasons own the national party or the BRT own National or Chinese own NATIONAL.

You could say that. But not with the same certainty that you can demonstrate that labour is owned by the unions, to anywhere near the same extent, or with anything like the same absolute control over policy.
as ABOVE

No it's not, you're the one claiming your party is all above board with how they spend donations, but the other lot isn't.
Only i never made that claim, nor do i have a party.
I'm simply pointing out that the only way anyone can be sure donations aren't influencing policy is to ban 'em. Again, take your pick, you can't logically have both.

Apart from the complete lack of logic and obvious jealousy involved with that statement, doesn't the disparity of funding simply confirm the poll data that more people support national policies than do labour?
What jealousy? its facts National raised many more times the money than they could spend in the election money that they are now spending on smear campaigns to discredit the current government and still don't end up in power, Did you miss its MMP.
National actually raised far more money than they were legally allowed to spend in an election. Thats without the current round of being caught out manipulating the amounts to keep the donors from being under official legal scrutiny
The disparity in funding raised suggests the complete opposite of what you claim as it came for individual donors of a mere few percent of the population.
Using your logic makes Gareth Morgans party huge player in NZ politics based on the money he threw at it.
It seems you want National to have a greater level of funding than any other party based on one result. Where they spent more money. Yeah thats logical.

As for you continued assertion Labour is somehow my party.
I dont belong to a union or the labour party nor have i ever. belonged to either, Nor do i always vote for them. Can you say the same about you and National.
I voted based on policies and based on my views of the person standing.

pritch

19th October 2018, 10:33

Sounds like a conspiracy.

To some people everything sounds like a conspiracy.

Large parts of the world run on corruption, people buy jobs for what they can make "on the side". It used to be like that in Britain until they decided that civil servants should be paid enough so that they didn't need to take bribes. If there is significant immigration from those parts of the world where corruption is still the norm, the immigrants will bring their customs with them. Since they are likely to be waving large sums of money there will be temptation for people here to play along.

New Zealand is rated, possibly optimistically, as one of the least corrupt countries. Care need to be taken or we could lose that reputation.

husaberg

19th October 2018, 10:43

No - I'm sorry - the Labour Party was originally set up by what became the federation of Labour - it was a union-established party.

National was created by combining the Reform Party (conservative) and the United Party (Liberal). Before Labour these two parties were opponents .. Both United and reform had strong links to the farmers organisations - such as the contemporary Federated Farmers .. even though they do not have the formal links like Labour-Unions.

Thats history not a refection of how it is now which was the point Ocean was attemting to make.
Both National and Labour occupy similar parts of the majority voting base now, one is slightly left of center one slightly right of center.
Well i m sure Ocean likes to live in the past i prefer current day the future.

To some people everything sounds like a conspiracy.

Large parts of the world run on corruption, people buy jobs for what they can make "on the side". It used to be like that in Britain until they decided that civil servants should be paid enough so that they didn't need to take bribes. If there is significant immigration from those parts of the world where corruption is still the norm, the immigrants will bring their customs with them. Since they are likely to be waving large sums of money there will be temptation for people here to play along.

New Zealand is rated, possibly optimistically, as one of the least corrupt countries. Care need to be taken or we could lose that reputation.
I think you will find Katman tends to confuse Conspiracy with "conspiracy theory" he it appears cant tell the difference

Ocean1

19th October 2018, 13:43

NO its not, Affiliate members only have the same voting rights one vote for each member. the few unions affiliated with Labour vote on an individual basis to be part of a Union affiliated with Labour or not.

If that statement was remotely true then all unions would be part of labour
I could just as easily same freemasons own the national party or the BRT own National or Chinese own NATIONAL.

as ABOVE

What jealousy? its facts National raised many more times the money than they could spend in the election money that they are now spending on smear campaigns to discredit the current government and still don't end up in power, Did you miss its MMP.
National actually raised far more money than they were legally allowed to spend in an election. Thats without the current round of being caught out manipulating the amounts to keep the donors from being under official legal scrutiny
The disparity in funding raised suggests the complete opposite of what you claim as it came for individual donors of a mere few percent of the population.
Using your logic makes Gareth Morgans party huge player in NZ politics based on the money he threw at it.
It seems you want National to have a greater level of funding than any other party based on one result. Where they spent more money. Yeah thats logical.

As for you continued assertion Labour is somehow my party.
I dont belong to a union or the labour party nor have i ever. belonged to either, Nor do i always vote for them. Can you say the same about you and National.
I voted based on policies and based on my views of the person standing.

Right, so without the list of names for each of those categories of vote to establish that eligibility for one removes eligability from the others, and basing union influence solely on the 20% votes specifically allocated to actual unions, and ignoring the fact that the labour party's constitution was written by the unions: that somehow compares favorably with guaranteed influence over policy for specific groups within every other party exactly how?

OK, labour is owned by fewer unions than originally invented it. Better?
And you go right ahead, show me where freemasons et al actually designed national policy and are guaranteed exclusive voting rights at caucus. 'Caus I think you're full of shit.

More spin and straw.

Yes. But I base my vote on party policy, the person standing for my electorate has a far smaller impact on outcomes.

Specifically, I vote for parties are cognizant of the fact that the owner of the benefits of an individual's labour belong to the person that created them. As a close second I vote against parties that represent socialist ideologies, in spite of the 100% failure of anything closely resembling socialism since it's inception.

And no, that hasn't always been national.

jasonu

19th October 2018, 13:48

National recieve 3-4 times the money yet still are not in government so it seems the level of funding labour has should be the bench mark.

They also received more votes than Labour...

jasonu

19th October 2018, 13:50

Hear Hear! No new taxes if you vote for the silly hat party!
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/191474-new-gst-rules-to-level-playing-field-labour.html
Just bigger existing ones & new & interesting ways of collecting others.

If it gets too difficult or annoying overseas retailers might just stop selling to NZ.

husaberg

19th October 2018, 14:09

They also received more votes than Labour...

So are you sugesting that because one election result should decide the level of funding a party recieves for all further elections in perpetuity in order to make elections fair is reasonable

husaberg

19th October 2018, 14:17

Right, so without the list of names for each of those categories of vote to establish that eligibility for one removes eligability from the others, and basing union influence solely on the 20% votes specifically allocated to actual unions, and ignoring the fact that the labour party's constitution was written by the unions: that somehow compares favorably with guaranteed influence over policy for specific groups within every other party exactly how?

OK, labour is owned by fewer unions than originally invented it. Better?
And you go right ahead, show me where freemasons et al actually designed national policy and are guaranteed exclusive voting rights at caucus. 'Caus I think you're full of shit.

More spin and straw.

Yes. But I base my vote on party policy, the person standing for my electorate has a far smaller impact on outcomes.

Specifically, I vote for parties are cognizant of the fact that the owner of the benefits of an individual's labour belong to the person that created them. As a close second I vote against parties that represent socialist ideologies, in spite of the 100% failure of anything closely resembling socialism since it's inception.

And no, that hasn't always been national.
You might want to read the parties constitution before spouting a heap of twaddle.
Labour is not owned by any union any more than the free masons own National or the Chinese own National or the Business round Table own National.
I have explained how the affiliates votes work you chose to not listen.
You do realise you have two votes rather than one one is for a party the other is for a candidate. It seems you will vote the party line no mater who the candidate is which is great for those that buy and sell MP'S positions.
Like National were.

Grumph

19th October 2018, 14:35

They also received more votes than Labour...

And I repeat - Then couldn't find a friend to get them into power. Why do you think that happened, Jason ?

jasonu

19th October 2018, 14:44

And I repeat - Then couldn't find a friend to get them into power. Why do you think that happened, Jason ?

Simple. They fucked Winston up the bum and he got a bit of utu on them.

jasonu

19th October 2018, 14:46

So are you sugesting that because one election result should decide the level of funding a party recieves for all further elections in perpetuity in order to make elections fair is reasonable

It was an observation with no hidden suggestions.

pritch

19th October 2018, 15:30

They also received more votes than Labour...

That doesn't always mean as much as it might. Hillary got more votes than Trump. Al Gore got more than Dubbya. National got more than Labour.

It used to be back when we had FPP that Labour almost always got more votes than National, but farm votes being bigger than town votes we usually had a National government.

These anomalies generally don't stop politicians talking "mandate" though. If Gill Scott Heron was still around he'd likely say,
"Mandate my ass".

mada

19th October 2018, 17:13

They also received more votes than Labour...

They certainly received a lot more Chinese votes than Labour.

Ocean1

19th October 2018, 19:22

You might want to read the parties constitution before spouting a heap of twaddle.
Labour is not owned by any union any more than the free masons own National or the Chinese own National or the Business round Table own National.
I have explained how the affiliates votes work you chose to not listen.
You do realise you have two votes rather than one one is for a party the other is for a candidate. It seems you will vote the party line no mater who the candidate is which is great for those that buy and sell MP'S positions.
Like National were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party

"The party was created by, and has always been influenced by, the trade unions"

"Caucus and parliamentary leadership"

"The elected members representing the Labour Party in the House of Representatives meet as the Parliamentary Labour Party, generally known as the Caucus. The current parliamentary leader is Jacinda Ardern. A leadership election is triggered upon the vacancy of the position of leader or a motion of no confidence. Candidates are nominated from within the Caucus. Under Labour Party rules, party members have 40% of the votes, MPs have another 40% of the votes, and affiliated unions have 20% of the votes.[81] Some observers have criticised the influence of the unions in leadership elections.[87]"

Like I said, you're full of shit.

See if you can redeem your credibility by showing me where freemasons, the BRT or Chinese designed, constructed, or are guaranteed exclusive voting rights withing the national caucus. Or anywhere else for that matter.

husaberg

19th October 2018, 22:18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party

"The party was created by, and has always been influenced by, the trade unions"

"Caucus and parliamentary leadership"

"The elected members representing the Labour Party in the House of Representatives meet as the Parliamentary Labour Party, generally known as the Caucus. The current parliamentary leader is Jacinda Ardern. A leadership election is triggered upon the vacancy of the position of leader or a motion of no confidence. Candidates are nominated from within the Caucus. Under Labour Party rules, party members have 40% of the votes, MPs have another 40% of the votes, and affiliated unions have 20% of the votes.[81] Some observers have criticised the influence of the unions in leadership elections.[87]"

Like I said, you're full of shit.

See if you can redeem your credibility by showing me where freemasons, the BRT or Chinese designed, constructed, or are guaranteed exclusive voting rights withing the national caucus. Or anywhere else for that matter.

As i have said the affiliated unions represent the same percentage of the Party members. SO it is you that is atempting to misrepresent what it is
Where does it say OWNED by the UNION
Lets see if you can redeem you credibility by showing proof of that

Voltaire

20th October 2018, 07:23

I remember unions, firstly in NZ with the Electrical Workers Union and then in Sydney.
The NZ one was useless, the Sydney one actually made sure you got what you were promised.
Was not so keen on being forced to join and the intimidation tactics to get your subs paid.
Since then I have usually voted ...with my feet.

I could never grasp the concept of me working harder/smarter that someone else and getting paid the same comrade.

I went to the Soviet Union in 1989, it was like visiting the 1950's, same for East Germany and the rest of the Soviet Bloc.

Spent a couple of years in the UK at the end of the Thatcher era and as the phrase said I made "loads of money" for a while.

I do find the idea of Labour and National a bit dated these days, 50 MP's sitting around for 3 years saying " no....they should resign"

seems a bit strange, be like having someone at work watching you for 3 years then you swap over.

I would like there to be a Govt who thought a bit more about spending other peoples money on useful things rather than Stadiums.

Great comment on the Teev, " Public Partnerships are great, when they work out the Private sector takes the money, when it doesn't the

Public pays"

Grumph

20th October 2018, 12:08

Simple. They fucked Winston up the bum and he got a bit of utu on them.

Well done. Now why do you think the current National lot are still deliberately getting offside with NZ First ?

I'll help - is it because (a) They're too thick to realise they will never get in again on a simple majority.
or (b) They're too arrogant to want to work with another party with significant numbers in the house.

Grumph

20th October 2018, 12:15

I would like there to be a Govt who thought a bit more about spending other peoples money on useful things rather than Stadiums.

Next time you're down here talk to ChCh residents as to the post quake building priorities...National decided to rebuild the central city - where no-one wants to live - at the expense of fixing housing.
Working out of an old League ground with substandard facilities doesn't seem to have hurt the ChCh based teams....

jasonu

20th October 2018, 14:02

Well done. Now why do you think the current National lot are still deliberately getting offside with NZ First ?

I'll help - is it because (a) They're too thick to realise they will never get in again on a simple majority.
or (b) They're too arrogant to want to work with another party with significant numbers in the house.

That's a trick question.
The answer is A and B.

As I said before, Rob Muldoon would be rolling in his grave if he could see what the National Party has become.

mada

20th October 2018, 15:14

^^^^

I reckon most the founders of National, Labour would be rolling in their graves if they could see how much both parties suck up to the Chinese Commies (or Totalitarian Capitalists)...

The only party so far to actually have any balls has been the Greens (though they've been meek on other great allies like Iran).

I get all the we need to trade, but does it mean if we were back in the 30s we'd be all good with NSDAP members coming down here setting up shop, putting their tentacles into the local German population and our politicians back pockets (think Argentina post-war).

Do we truly value the ability to point fun and criticise each others views? Make the most of it, because China certainly doesnt and will help us all by setting up "education camps" (read up on the Uighurs).

Swoop

20th October 2018, 18:20

Yep same here. Been rattling on about this for the past 10 years... I especially find it ironic when blue men go on about "socialists" going to ruin the country but are all good with taking cash and backhanders from true totalitarian commie pricks.

Labour are guilty of the same influences & ALL politicians need to be aware of the creeping infiltration.
Look at what has happened to other countries around the world and particularly in the Pacific.

husaberg

20th October 2018, 18:34

They also received more votes than Labour...

I had a look and the figures are thus

<tbody>
National Party

1,152,075

Labour Party

956,184

New Zealand First Party

186,706

Green Party

162,443

ACT New Zealand

13,075

</tbody>

So Labour with NZF about the same votes s National and ACT
Labour With Greens about the same votes as National and ACT
Labour with NZF and Greens =Many more votes than National And ACT.

Grumph

20th October 2018, 18:35

Labour are guilty of the same influences & ALL politicians need to be aware of the creeping infiltration.
Look at what has happened to other countries around the world and particularly in the Pacific.

Influences, yes, selling a seat, no. Due to the highly involved internal structures and policies the labour party has to follow - as recently chronicled by Mr Ocean - it's for all purposes impossible to buy a Labour seat. Yes, they're actively seeking diversity, but candidates are heavily scrutinised.
And, yes, the occasional union official goes up the pecking order, no question. But they've served for years before that happens - and are well known.

mada

20th October 2018, 20:16

Labour are guilty of the same influences & ALL politicians need to be aware of the creeping infiltration.
Look at what has happened to other countries around the world and particularly in the Pacific.

Yes indeed. It started under Clark.

According to the researchers we are the testing ground for the CCP in terms of manipulating Western Democracies / Liberal Democracy etc.

The only party so far that has not had any connection = Greens.

mada

20th October 2018, 20:21

Influences, yes, selling a seat, no. Due to the highly involved internal structures and policies the labour party has to follow - as recently chronicled by Mr Ocean - it's for all purposes impossible to buy a Labour seat. Yes, they're actively seeking diversity, but candidates are heavily scrutinised.
And, yes, the occasional union official goes up the pecking order, no question. But they've served for years before that happens - and are well known.

Labour have been just as keen to get their hands on Chinese cash.

Raymond Huo made it through and appears quite pro CCP.

Remember Labour's experience with Steven Ching also.

husaberg

20th October 2018, 20:53

Looks through all the Labour MPs
I could only find 6 that worked work a Union (one unpaid)
I was surprised by the number that were Lawyer and minister far more than ever worked for a Union.

pete376403

20th October 2018, 22:14

Yes indeed. It started under Clark.

According to the researchers we are the testing ground for the CCP in terms of manipulating Western Democracies / Liberal Democracy etc.

The only party so far that has not had any connection = Greens.

Can you provide a reference for these "researchers"? not Mike Hoskings is it?

mada

20th October 2018, 22:21

Can you provide a reference for these "researchers"? not Mike Hoskings is it?

Professor Anne-Marie Brady from University of Canterbury.

sidecar bob

21st October 2018, 09:20

husaberg

21st October 2018, 12:42

LOL.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107995476/personal-and-professional-pain-widening-repercussions-for-mp-jamilee-ross

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107927550/toxic-relationships-with-jamilee-ross-reported?rm=a

The story arround the traps is that the MP not named is this one.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wM1pqaExWPY/maxresdefault.jpg

sidecar bob

21st October 2018, 15:23

The story arround the traps is that the MP not named is this one.

She's a solid bastard.
Oral questions LOL

jasonu

21st October 2018, 17:14

LOL.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107995476/personal-and-professional-pain-widening-repercussions-for-mp-jamilee-ross

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107927550/toxic-relationships-with-jamilee-ross-reported?rm=a

Great big felcher.

For youse who dont know
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=felcher

sidecar bob

21st October 2018, 17:35

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/jami-lee-ross-taken-to-mental-health-care-facility-by-police.html
Thats what happens when you have opinions beyond your station.

Grumph

21st October 2018, 18:33

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/jami-lee-ross-taken-to-mental-health-care-facility-by-police.html
Thats what happens when you have opinions beyond your station.

As a mate found out when his wife arranged an ambush...It only takes one doctor's signature to put you in - but it takes two to get you out.
And when the first doc had been fed a parcel of lies...

However, we don't know enough about this yet to judge.

husaberg

21st October 2018, 18:55

She's a solid bastard.
Oral questions LOL
TBF She had a couple of sprogs not long before that pic
I must say she does have a rather nice pussy though.
https://scontent.fchc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/38485837_901187213412031_5998818390402138112_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fchc2-1.fna&oh=f52ab21775fcd911d5934b2172a05ae1&oe=5C88BEBE

husaberg

21st October 2018, 19:44

Read the tag line lower left.
https://scontent.fchc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/12898325_473323699531720_8844110128459065684_o.jpg ?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fchc2-1.fna&oh=2e24493bdb5dcd07167c3204b29557df&oe=5C3EA069

mada

21st October 2018, 19:51

As a mate found out when his wife arranged an ambush...It only takes one doctor's signature to put you in - but it takes two to get you out.
And when the first doc had been fed a parcel of lies...

However, we don't know enough about this yet to judge.

The initial detention is for assessment. It will be interesting whether he asked for help or someone else called police - or if he was making threats to himself / others.

Unless he is assessed as being psychotic, an acute risk of harming himself or others, or currently impaired by drugs/alcohol I reckon he will be out by the morning.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/court-ordered-treatment/mental-health-treatment/

Mental health services are very stretched and it's pretty hard to detain people if they can demonstrate they are actually with it - plus they have rights to legal representation to fight compulsory treatment if they disagree.

I feel for the psych reg and consultant who will be dealing with this tonight.

jasonu

22nd October 2018, 03:18

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/jami-lee-ross-taken-to-mental-health-care-facility-by-police.html
Thats what happens when you have opinions beyond your station.

This is more entertaining than Trumps shenanigans!!!

Even Simon's mum is on his case...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12145958

Voltaire

22nd October 2018, 07:39

This is more entertaining than Trumps shenanigans!!!

Even Simon's mum is on his case...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12145958

" He's not the Leader of National, he's just a very naughty boy" Simons Mum

By: Carolyne Meng-Yee
Investigative reporter, NZ Herald :lol:

The New Zealand Herald should be renamed, NZ Tatler or NZ Enquirer

Grumph

22nd October 2018, 07:51

" He's not the Leader of National, he's just a very naughty boy" Simons Mum

By: Carolyne Meng-Yee
Investigative reporter, NZ Herald :lol:

The New Zealand Herald should be renamed, NZ Tatler or NZ Enquirer

Does that group still own the old "Truth" title ? Many a quiet hour at work spent reading the court columns of the old Truth...And it was work related too,LOL, quite a lot of our customers got a mention.

sidecar bob

22nd October 2018, 08:14

" He's not the Leader of National, he's just a very naughty boy" Simons Mum

Fuckin state of it.
I can't imagine Steven Joyce's mother telling him off.
They're a bunch of apprentices & the country's fucked unless they get their shit together & get some of the old guard back.

Grumph

22nd October 2018, 08:18

Fuckin state of it.
I can't imagine Steven Joyce's mother telling him off.
They're a bunch of apprentices & the country's fucked unless they get their shit together & get some of the old guard back.

Any time you want Brownlie to stand in Tauranga, I'll happily go and door knock to deliver the message. He's past his use-by date down here.

Voltaire

22nd October 2018, 08:27

oldrider

22nd October 2018, 11:52

Any time you want Brownlie to stand in Tauranga, I'll happily go and door knock to deliver the message. He's past his use-by date down here.

Take a good look at all these cunts - at what they say and do (or not do) - they just survive in the political cesspool - it's all simply theatre! (bullshit)

Unless they "really" control the issue and cancellation of credit (money) they control nothing! - (like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic) :mellow:

husaberg

22nd October 2018, 14:11

Fuckin state of it.
I can't imagine Steven Joyce's mother telling him off.
They're a bunch of apprentices & the country's fucked unless they get their shit together & get some of the old guard back.

Old Guard Jim Bolgers 83
Jenny Shiley's 66 and under investigation for serious Fraud https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107843444/mainzeal-director-dame-jenny-shipley-combative-under-daylong-cross-examination
Don Brash is 78 with a well know history of cheating on his wife.
Bill English is 56 but has already lost to Labour twice is as boring as bitshit
That only leaves Key at 57 and we all know he left rather suddenly quoiting "family reasons"
Stephen Joyce who left after taking it on the chin only received 4 votes when he attempted to run for national party leader.

jasonu

23rd October 2018, 02:22

Old Guard Jim Bolgers 83
Jenny Shiley's 66 and under investigation for serious Fraud https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107843444/mainzeal-director-dame-jenny-shipley-combative-under-daylong-cross-examination
Don Brash is 78 with a well know history of cheating on his wife.
Bill English is 56 but has already lost to Labour twice is as boring as bitshit
That only leaves Key at 57 and we all know he left rather suddenly quoiting "family reasons"
Stephen Joyce who left after taking it on the chin only received 4 votes when he attempted to run for national party leader.

God not Jim Bludger. He was as weak as water.

pete376403

23rd October 2018, 06:32

Collins will be there with total support for Bridges right up to the second before she knifes him in the back. The bitch fight between her and Bennett will be awesome.

Voltaire

23rd October 2018, 07:40

Collins will be there with total support for Bridges right up to the second before she knifes him in the back. The bitch fight between her and Bennett will be awesome.

They will need to practice the concerned head tilt, flashing teeth and maybe adopt a baby.

The PM landscape has changed, would anyone want either as PM?

Swoop

23rd October 2018, 15:47

...flashing teeth and maybe adopt a baby.

Far too quick.
They need to drag it out for 9 months so that the gullible are truly deluded.

pete376403

23rd October 2018, 17:43

sidecar bob

23rd October 2018, 17:56

Is this the same "female MP who is believed to have been in a relationship with Jami-Lee Ross sent him a highly abusive text message in August insulting his appearance and personality and telling him 'you deserve to die'.

Bullying much or is it only males who can do that?

Fuck me, imagine the hoo ha if that had been the other way around.
A woman scorned & all.
He should have leaked that shit instead.

mada

23rd October 2018, 18:48

Told ya he'd be out after not long.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147444

jasonu

24th October 2018, 02:24

pete376403

24th October 2018, 06:33

Told ya he'd be out after not long.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147444
It would be interesting to know who applied to have him sectioned. Having political opponents put in mental institutions is something Solzhenitsyn wrote about in '"Gulag Archipelago"

That Ross is out now isn't important, the damage has been done and anything he says now will be the ranting of a lunatic. I dont particularly like or support him but dislike even more how he has been treated.

sidecar bob

24th October 2018, 06:59

It would be interesting to know who applied to have him sectioned. Having political opponents put in mental institutions is something Solzhenitsyn wrote about in '"Gulag Archipelago"

That Ross is out now isn't important, the damage has been done and anything he says now will be the ranting of a lunatic. I dont particularly like or support him but dislike even more how he has been treated.
Whereas I think he got his comeuppance for shit we already know about.

HenryDorsetCase

25th October 2018, 13:31

Whereas I think he got his comeuppance for shit we already know about.

I like the fact that the natzis are eating their young because I hate them.

I am also absolutely sure in my own mind that the natzi hierarchy put out the hit on JLR and had him sectioned. Whether that is ever proven remains to be seen.

Mr 7% can go fuck himself. I hope that the heavy hitters in the natzi sphere (yes cameron slug et al) get what they want: a JuCol led natzi party because that shit is not electable.

oldrider

25th October 2018, 14:19

Told ya he'd be out after not long.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147444

What a lot of trivial useless shit but the media needs something to feed on I guess! :rolleyes:

husaberg

26th October 2018, 20:17

If Bennett can out Ross for "“inappropriate behaviour that is unacceptable from a married Member of Parliament” why does she not name the female respondent? Is she not also indulging in "inappropriate behaviour that is unacceptable from a married Member of Parliament.”?

Is this the same "female MP who is believed to have been in a relationship with Jami-Lee Ross sent him a highly abusive text message in August insulting his appearance and personality and telling him 'you deserve to die'.

Bullying much or is it only males who can do that?

I watched the Radio-live interview where they bleeped out her name.
it occurred to me afterwards that the women who had affairs with him get to speak about him and yet remain anonymous but he gets named from day dot seems a bit unfair.
None of the claims about him add up to much other than he liked rough selfish sex and was a bastard which is about 50% of the population anyway.
Don't get me wrong hes a dick clearly but it seems there is huge double standards here.
Bennett and Bridges seemed to have deliberately used words to such as "embarrassing" and "married man" to shame him into silence.

Swoop

29th October 2018, 18:20

husaberg

29th October 2018, 18:38

People are actually surprised by the labour lie of "affordable homes"?

A bit dim of them to think land prices, development costs and the meddling of retards in council would result in lower costs and eventually lower house pricing.

Then there is the absurdity of the selection process to get one of these "bargains". Phil Twatford, you are an idiot of the first order.

Criticism over new KiwiBuild buyers' suitability, housing minister says homes not for low-income families.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12150921
The National approach of pretending it wasnt a problem and selling off thousands of state houses must have been far better. well it was if you werent a tax payer or you were Aucklands largest private real estate companyreal estate or owned a motel chain and just happened to be big national campaign donors.

Large donations to National came from rich-listers including venture capitalist and founder of vodka company 42 Below Grant Baker, property investors and developers Adrian Burr, Garth Barfoot and Mark Wyborn, members of the wealthy Huljich family, founder of the National Business Review Barry Colman, Mainfreight founder Bruce Plested, Chinese businessman Zhao Wu Shen and hotelier Earl Hagaman.

Hagaman bought two Chinese National MPs worth for the 100k.:laugh:

TheDemonLord

29th October 2018, 23:34

Voltaire

30th October 2018, 05:55

Ocean1

30th October 2018, 07:05

It's almost like the salary threshold is targeted at the 25-35 Middle class bracket, who are now the die-hard Socialists that make up Labour voters. Because lets not worry about the actual poor...

... or the whole concept of actually paying for your own shit.

Ocean1

30th October 2018, 11:31

So, what is the ethical basis on which tax, in general is levied?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/108205013/nz-experts-cautious-about-following-uk-with-new-tax-on-digital-giants

Only, the tax working group (TM), like every government "advisory" group before it have said fuck all about the ethical right to demand tax of any given entity. Nor, apparently is that their brief.

To be fair I don't think the govt has offered any guidelines for their consideration regarding that either. They're to consider only who, and how much more they should pay. Never "Why".

Swoop

30th October 2018, 12:40

The National approach of ... selling off thousands of state houses must have been far better.
Done wisely it is a far better approach to sell off unproductive assets and replace them with productive ones. Having a small state house on a large section of land (not uncommon) that gets sold off and then replaced with 2/3/4 houses on the equivalent area of land makes a lot of sense, especially if a genuine approach to "housing people" is taken.

If working for the Council/Govt is anything like working for a Multinational there must be a lot of people at the top there only because the good ones have buggered off ...
Absolutely.
You are familiar with the "septic tank theory" I presume?

Never "Why".
"To fund their elaborate social-engineering scheme"...:msn-wink:

husaberg

30th October 2018, 16:48

Done wisely it is a far better approach to sell off unproductive assets and replace them with productive ones. Having a small state house on a large section of land (not uncommon) that gets sold off and then replaced with 2/3/4 houses on the equivalent area of land makes a lot of sense, especially if a genuine approach to "housing people" is taken.

Only they never did that, they sold off plenty but built far less.
93-99 it shrunk by 10,000 dwellings National
99-2008 it grew by 8,000 Labour
2008-2017-Srunk by 8,500 under National

They Then spent the money renting out motels. plus doing extensive decontamination that were never required on others
Kind of odd maths.
But it worked out great if you owned real estate companies or Motel Chains like National parties big donors.
Sep 2017

Housing NZ's latest quarterly report reveals the agency's portfolio of 63,276 houses had shrunk by 3922 since 2015, including by 1132 properties in the past year.
As the number of Housing NZ properties decreases, social housing waiting lists continue to grow, with 1476 more applications in 2017 than the previous year.
A Housing NZ spokesman said, despite having fewer homes, the agency had replaced outdated properties with new houses.
"During 2016/17 Housing NZ delivered a total of 1524 homes, including 1421 social, emergency and transitional homes, and 103 market and affordable homes."
The number of empty state houses had decreased, with 1592 vacant nationally in June, compared with 2486 a year earlier.
We've also committed $354 million for emergency housing the first time permanent funding has been committed, which will provided 8600 emergency places each year."

sidecar bob

31st October 2018, 07:32

Only they never did that, they sold off plenty but built far less.
93-99 it shrunk by 10,000 dwellings National
99-2008 it grew by 8,000 Labour
2008-2017-Srunk by 8,500 under National

But as a result of being sold, these houses continued to exist, bought by the private sector & often rented out to the same people, while private landlords shoulders all the costs for upkeep, insurance & rates, while the govt pocketed the cash for the property's.
Surely the govt came out the winner?
How do I qualify for a state house? It would free up a pile of cash.

husaberg

31st October 2018, 07:47

But as a result of being sold, these houses continued to exist, bought by the private sector & often rented out to the same people, while private landlords shoulders all the costs for upkeep, insurance & rates, while the govt pocketed the cash for the property's.
Surely the govt came out the winner?
How do I qualify for a state house? It would free up a pile of cash.

Only that wasnt what i was replying to
I was repling to the post that attempted to say National sold some higher priced off Houses to build more houses .
This never occured. they old off houses and built far less.
The population growth was higher than the rate at which anyone built houses.
If the the state house stock had been kept the same or incresed to match the high rate of net immigration there would not be a housing crisis.
The govt spent the money from the state house sales on decontamination that was not needed plus hundreds of millions on emergencey housing in motels this is not a winner unless you own barfeoot and thompson or scenic circle motels.

As for you last flippant response you could just like Bill English did.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2910957/Bill-English-buckles-over-housing-allowance

Mr English has come under fire over allowances he claimed for living in his $1.2 million Karori house, but has failed to shut down the controversy since it was revealed by The Dominion Post in July.
He said yesterday he had paid back $32,000 and pledged not to claim any more taxpayer cash for housing.
At the time, ministers who owned their own homes in Wellington (rather than renting) were restricted to the MPs' allowance of $24,000 a year - but English had declared he had no financial interest in the house because he was not a beneficiary of the family trust that owned it.
Under the rules of the time, that meant Ministerial Services rented the house from his family trust at market rates of about $900 a week. English could also claim for other costs, such as a cleaner.
The allowance was claimed on the grounds his "primary residence" was his Dipton home, although his family had long been based in Wellington and returned to Dipton largely for holidays or constituency reasons as Clutha-Southland MP.

Banditbandit

31st October 2018, 09:17

So, what is the ethical basis on which tax, in general is levied?

It's not hard to build the argument ...

Nothing is free. In out societies someone needs to be paid for what they produce.

If you participate on society then you are relying on the labor of others to provide things like:

Police
Armed forces
Roads
Water supply
Sewage

Education and Health are debatable - in our society significant portion of the costs are paid by the state.

You are therefore ethically obliged to contribute to the costs of these things that you use.

One mechanism by which your contribution is collected is by taxes.

There are other mechanisms. The cost of collecting through these other mechanisms is higher than the cost of collecting taxes. Therefore, on a cost basis, taxes are the most ethical way to collect your contribution to society.

Now you can ask about taxes as wealth redistribution and argue the ethics of that. There are some ethical systems, such as Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness that would not support taxes as wealth redistribution - the reality is that Rand died in poverty, dependent on the state she railed against all her life. She did not have the intestinal fortitude to live by her ethics ... I have no respect for her or her ethics.

Bu generally, this is largely where the debate about taxes really lies - in the wealth redistribution system.

The ethical approach that supports this is one of equity and fairness, of looking after each other.

Not everyone buys into that ethics ..

jasonu

31st October 2018, 10:13

How do I qualify for a state house? It would free up a pile of cash.

Being on a benefit and or being brown helps.

Viking01

31st October 2018, 13:27

At least some news organisations are not totally focused just on the Royal visit

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1810/S00292/cptpp-underway-tariff-cuts-for-exporters-on-december-30.htm

sidecar bob

31st October 2018, 17:23

Only that wasnt what i was replying to
I was repling to the post that attempted to say National sold some higher priced off Houses to build more houses .
This never occured. they old off houses and built far less.
The population growth was higher than the rate at which anyone built houses.
If the the state house stock had been kept the same or incresed to match the high rate of net immigration there would not be a housing crisis.
The govt spent the money from the state house sales on decontamination that was not needed plus hundreds of millions on emergencey housing in motels this is not a winner unless you own barfeoot and thompson or scenic circle motels.

As for you last flippant response you could just like Bill English did.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2910957/Bill-English-buckles-over-housing-allowance
Well why don't these losers just save up & buy a house like normal people?

husaberg

31st October 2018, 17:35

Well why don't these losers just save up & buy a house like normal people?

They i would suggest either try to or are losers.
But remember its pretty hard to save up to buy a house when you are a single parent or are not clever or educated enough to get a decent job or when due to a housing shortage house prices go up far faster than wages.
Are the rents you charge lower than the morgage rates based on 30 year mortgage at current valuations.
Or how long would it take you to save a 10% deposit on an Auckland house on the min wage.
Not everyone is lucky to be born smart to decent parents who encourage education and savings or work ethics.

Ocean1

31st October 2018, 17:45

Well why don't these losers just save up & buy a house like normal people?

This paying for you own house shtick of yours is a bit fucking rough innit?

They wouldn't have anything to blame National for.

Actually scratch that, they'd think of something....

Ocean1

31st October 2018, 17:57

It's not hard to build the argument ...

Nothing is free. In out societies someone needs to be paid for what they produce.

If you participate on society then you are relying on the labor of others to provide things like:

Police
Armed forces
Roads
Water supply
Sewage

Education and Health are debatable - in our society significant portion of the costs are paid by the state.

You are therefore ethically obliged to contribute to the costs of these things that you use.

One mechanism by which your contribution is collected is by taxes.

There are other mechanisms. The cost of collecting through these other mechanisms is higher than the cost of collecting taxes. Therefore, on a cost basis, taxes are the most ethical way to collect your contribution to society.

Now you can ask about taxes as wealth redistribution and argue the ethics of that. There are some ethical systems, such as Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness that would not support taxes as wealth redistribution - the reality is that Rand died in poverty, dependent on the state she railed against all her life. She did not have the intestinal fortitude to live by her ethics ... I have no respect for her or her ethics.

Bu generally, this is largely where the debate about taxes really lies - in the wealth redistribution system.

The ethical approach that supports this is one of equity and fairness, of looking after each other.

Not everyone buys into that ethics ..

Codswallop. There's fuck all fair or equitable about taxing the harder working more than the less productive, a fair and equitable system is one where contributions match benefits.

Also, there's a historically accepted ethical argument that equates taxation to parliamentary representation. So why are we taxing business?

sidecar bob

31st October 2018, 18:14

They i would suggest either try to or are losers.
But remember its pretty hard to save up to buy a house when you are a single parent or are not clever or educated enough to get a decent job or when due to a housing shortage house prices go up far faster than wages.
Are the rents you charge lower than the morgage rates based on 30 year mortgage at current valuations.
Or how long would it take you to save a 10% deposit on an Auckland house on the min wage.
Not everyone is lucky to be born smart to decent parents who encourage education and savings or work ethics.

Yeah, see I thought about this one good & early & got a skill set & qualification & kept my cock in my pants until I had my ducks in a row.
Having kids early & not training in anything are choices.
Not thinking stuff through, doing dumb shit & then crying "woe is me" doesn't wash with me.

husaberg

31st October 2018, 19:29

Yeah, see I thought about this one good & early & got a skill set & qualification & kept my cock in my pants until I had my ducks in a row.
Having kids early & not training in anything are choices.
Not thinking stuff through, doing dumb shit & then crying "woe is me" doesn't wash with me.

So you were raised in abject poverty by ill-equipped parents who were no hopers in a drug alcoholic crime ridden culture?
Or are you the product of a loving family from a good parent/s with good work ethics who taught you by example.
Remember some people, like donkey's single mom on the DPB were pretty lucky to be helped out with free schooling health care and a state house.
A society is judged by how they treat the less fortunate, the young the old and sick the handicapped and the less equipped in regards to intelligence , Children are a product of this society.
Don't get me wrong I can see where your opinion is coming from but can you also see how some children can't escape their current situation.

Voltaire

31st October 2018, 19:47

jasonu

1st November 2018, 02:22

Well why don't these losers just save up & buy a house like normal people?

Because the country owes them!!!!!

sidecar bob

1st November 2018, 08:25

So you were raised in abject poverty by ill-equipped parents who were no hopers in a drug alcoholic crime ridden culture?
Or are you the product of a loving family from a good parent/s with good work ethics who taught you by example.
Remember some people, like donkey's single mom on the DPB were pretty lucky to be helped out with free schooling health care and a state house.
A society is judged by how they treat the less fortunate, the young the old and sick the handicapped and the less equipped in regards to intelligence , Children are a product of this society.
Don't get me wrong I can see where your opinion is coming from but can you also see how some children can't escape their current situation.

No, unfortunately "parents" would have been a luxury. My mother died a long cruel death from cancer when I was eight.
Surely I should cry foul & be owed something for my hardship.
Fortunately a good friend lent me a Robert Kiyosaki book in my early 20's which forever changed my relationship with money, as a result I don't require any to be given to me by harder working people in exchange for doing nothing in order to survive.
These same books are still freely available to anyone with $20 & desire to alter financial outcomes regardless of upbringing.

Ocean1

1st November 2018, 12:04

No, unfortunately "parents" would have been a luxury. My mother died a long cruel death from cancer when I was eight.
Surely I should cry foul & be owed something for my hardship.
Fortunately a good friend lent me a Robert Kiyosaki book in my early 20's which forever changed my relationship with money, as a result I don't require any to be given to me by harder working people in exchange for doing nothing in order to survive.
These same books are still freely available to anyone with $20 & desire to alter financial outcomes regardless of upbringing.

Probably a good source of advice too, back then, given NZ's history with the local share market and real estate prices at the time...

However, if you paid $20 for a book you can get from teh library for $1:50 then I've got some even cheaper advice for you.

Swoop

1st November 2018, 18:06

... they sold off plenty...

Tonight's news presented the fact that Liarbour is demolishing 2000 state houses in Porirua.
Strange how the professionally offended are not out there protesting this "heinous action".

husaberg

1st November 2018, 18:26

Tonight's news presented the fact that Liarbour is demolishing 2000 state houses in Porirua.
Strange how the professionally offended are not out there protesting this "heinous action".
So what is the story?
Are they renewing state houses to build far more newer ones or just destroying houses?
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113676
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113685
As i said despite your protestations that national sold off houses to build more, Only the selling off ever occurred. there was a net loss of tens of thousands of houses.
Thats why you never replied to my post.

sidecar bob

1st November 2018, 19:50

So what is the story?
Are they renewing state houses to build far more newer ones or just destroying houses?
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113676
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113685
As i said despite your protestations that national sold off houses to build more, Only the selling off ever occurred. there was a net loss of tens of thousands of houses.
Thats why you never relied to my post.

So basically houses for Maoris as best I can tell.
I'll die of shock if they ever do anything that favours successful white males.

husaberg

1st November 2018, 20:27

So basically houses for Maoris as best I can tell.
I'll die of shock if they ever do anything that favours successful white males.
I dont think so it seams like a net gain of 3000 houses with more state houses than previuouly and more 100o? kiwi build for any kiwi and some by a maori trust thst are paying for it themselves.

Ocean1

1st November 2018, 20:46

So basically houses for Maoris as best I can tell.
I'll die of shock if they ever do anything that favours successful white males.

Local iwi are managing that lot, but I'm sure they'd build you a house if you asked real nice.

jasonu

2nd November 2018, 03:24

I'll die of shock if they ever do anything that favours successful white males.

You are totally safe with that one.

sidecar bob

2nd November 2018, 07:24

husaberg

2nd November 2018, 08:35

Fuckin really?
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/192428-letting-fees-to-be-banned-from-next-month.html
From who's pocket is the 47 million going to come?
They have basically said that an entire industry can't charge the end user for their services.
The only way for landlords to cover the expense is through higher rent.
Rent caps to follow for sure.
Okay Bob do you charge a letting fee?
If you do what is it for, What service is it that the charge is providing to the tenant?
Its not your bond The bond is (4 weeks rent in advance)
Plus its not for your 2 weeks rent in advance you charge before a tenant moves in?
What exactly does a letting fee cover that is a service you provide?

Ocean1

2nd November 2018, 08:56

sidecar bob

2nd November 2018, 10:06

What do you expect? They're socialists, they have zero interest in how money is made, only how it's spent.

"The change will put 47 million in to the pockets of kiwi families every year" .
No, what it will do is take 47 million from one group of families & give it to another group of families.
I cant decide if Twyford is stupid or thinks voters are stupid.
Hes talking like hes a champion thats plucked 47m out of his arse.

sidecar bob

2nd November 2018, 14:56

Okay Bob do you charge a letting fee?
If you do what is it for, What service is it that the charge is providing to the tenant?
Its not your bond The bond is (4 weeks rent in advance)
Plus its not for your 2 weeks rent in advance you charge before a tenant moves in?
What exactly does a letting fee cover that is a service you provide?

Would it be any of your business wether I charge one or not?
The service it is providing to the tenant is a house to live in, couldn't you work that one out?
Costs to a landlord may include, travel, in my case one property would be 730km return, which in a twin turbo Bentley could be as much as $450 in fuel alone. (I don't have one, but if I chose to, that's about what it would cost) time away from paid employment, advertising, to name but a few. Is it unreasonable to recover ones genuine expenses incurred?
I guess the landlord should just suck it up, oh well he has to now anyway.
What about all the companies that are hired by landlords that are either too busy or remote, that do this sort of thing for a job? They are no longer allowed to charge for what is their primary reason for being in business.
Is that really ok with you?
And apparently this is just a first step in improving the lot for renters. Watch this space.

husaberg

2nd November 2018, 17:57

Would it be any of your business wether I charge one or not?
The service it is providing to the tenant is a house to live in, couldn't you work that one out?
Costs to a landlord may include, travel, in my case one property would be 730km return, which in a twin turbo Bentley could be as much as $450 in fuel alone. (I don't have one, but if I chose to, that's about what it would cost) time away from paid employment, advertising, to name but a few. Is it unreasonable to recover ones genuine expenses incurred?
I guess the landlord should just suck it up, oh well he has to now anyway.
What about all the companies that are hired by landlords that are either too busy or remote, that do this sort of thing for a job? They are no longer allowed to charge for what is their primary reason for being in business.
Is that really ok with you?
And apparently this is just a first step in improving the lot for renters. Watch this space.
Woo Bob its not a attack on you personally, The reason i ask is the majority of landlords don't charge a tenancy fee of one weeks rent. No need to get defensive. it's a legitimate question, as you said it was for a service that you said was provided.

A group representing property investors says renters like letting fees, because paying them gives them an advantage over other potential tenants.
Andrew King, head of the Property Investors Federation, told The AM Show getting rid of them - as the Government is expected to do - will make rents go up about $10 a week.
"A lot of tenants ironically actually like the letting fee. At the moment around about 50 or 60 percent of properties available for rent don't have a letting fee. You don't have to pay a letting fee if you don't want to.
"But if you are a tenant and you want access to 100 percent of all the properties available and you're willing or able to pay a letting fee, you can get that access.

It seems its a cost that is being pushed not by landlords but by letting companies to cover their costs of providing a service that is not required that they use as a finders fee.

Ocean1

2nd November 2018, 18:22

Woo Bob its not a attack on you personally, The reason i ask is the majority of landlords don't charge a tenancy fee of one weeks rent. No need to get defensive. it's a legitimate question, as you said it was for a service that you said was provided.

It seems its a cost that is being pushed not by landlords but by letting companies to cover their costs of providing a service that is not required that they use as a finders fee.

Tyford's full of shit, he knows full well tenants won't be any better off, it's a legitimate cost of supplying the rental and they'll be paying that cost one way or another.

And if you think the service isn't required you're as deluded as he is.

husaberg

2nd November 2018, 19:31

Tyford's full of shit, he knows full well tenants won't be any better off, it's a legitimate cost of supplying the rental and they'll be paying that cost one way or another.

And if you think the service isn't required you're as deluded as he is.
That comment came not from tyford but from the landlord body.

group representing property investors says renters like letting fees, because paying them gives them an advantage over other potential tenants.
Andrew King, head of the Property Investors Federation, told The AM Show getting rid of them - as the Government is expected to do - will make rents go up about $10 a week.
"A lot of tenants ironically actually like the letting fee. At the moment around about 50 or 60 percent of properties available for rent don't have a letting fee. You don't have to pay a letting fee if you don't want to.
"But if you are a tenant and you want access to 100 percent of all the properties available and you're willing or able to pay a letting fee, you can get that access.

You are confusing your opinion with Tyfords Knowledge.
If the letting fee If its so required why is it not used by over 1/2 the landlords then?

Every other business has to evolve when goverments and local bodies change rules and impose regulation on their business, Farmers face this everyday yet cant change the price they can't charge for their products they just have to evolve and become more efficient. Landlords need to stop moaning about it as it will get them know where and concentrate their efforts on stuff they can change thus do the same as every other business does.

Lets be serious here What really concerns Bob and other landlords is the government is making changes to lessen the housing crisis (Which national ignored existed)which will erode both his potential capital gains and annual profit both of which need a housing shortage to maximise the landlords gain. Landlords are a small demographic not a huge voter base.
What is a double concern for Bob and other landlords is if other landlords decide to get out of rented property it will lead to a further drop in house prices as more properties are put up for sale.

Ocean1

2nd November 2018, 20:46

That comment came not from tyford but from the landlord body.

https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/192428-letting-fees-to-be-banned-from-next-month.html

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford says this will come into effect next month.

“Around half of all Kiwis now live in rented homes. This change could put up to $47 million into the pockets of Kiwi families each year.

You are confusing your opinion with Tyfords Knowledge.

But I'm confused? :laugh:

If the letting fee If its so required why is it not used by over 1/2 the landlords then?

Tampons are not used by 50% of the whole country! Ban the supermarkets from selling those fuckers!

Every other business has to evolve when goverments and local bodies change rules and impose regulation on their business, Farmers face this everyday yet cant change the price they can't charge for their products they just have to evolve and become more efficient. Landlords need to stop moaning about it as it will get them know where and concentrate their efforts on stuff they can change thus do the same as every other business does.

Only a fuckwit would claim that it's businesses responsibility to adapt to obnoxious, predatory government cash grabs. Only a fuckwit would claim the solution is for those businesses to work harder to make up for govt legislating against their ability to charge for their product.

Here's an idea: How about the government stop trying to buy votes with other people's money. How about they stop interfering in perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.

Lets be serious here What really concerns Bob and other landlords is the government is making changes to lessen the housing crisis (Which national ignored existed)which will erode both his potential capital gains and annual profit both of which need a housing shortage to maximise the landlords gain. Landlords are a small demographic not a huge voter base.
What is a double concern for Bob and other landlords is if other landlords decide to get out of rented property it will lead to a further drop in house prices as more properties are put up for sale.

I'll leave you to tell us all about what concerns Bob, he's obviously got no idea. I will tell you that with regards to the housing market you should just stick to blindly blaming national, because beyond that you haven't got a fucking clue.

husaberg

2nd November 2018, 21:50

https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/192428-letting-fees-to-be-banned-from-next-month.html

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford says this will come into effect next month.

“Around half of all Kiwis now live in rented homes. This change could put up to $47 million into the pockets of Kiwi families each year.

But I'm confused? :laugh:

Tampons are not used by 50% of the whole country! Ban the supermarkets from selling those fuckers!

Only a fuckwit would claim that it's businesses responsibility to adapt to obnoxious, predatory government cash grabs. Only a fuckwit would claim the solution is for those businesses to work harder to make up for govt legislating against their ability to charge for their product.

Here's an idea: How about the government stop trying to buy votes with other people's money. How about they stop interfering in perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.

I'll leave you to tell us all about what concern's Bob, he's obviously got no idea. I will tell you that with regards to the housing market you should just stick to blindly blaming national, because beyond that you haven't got a fucking clue.
You replied to my quote then you seek to claim otherwise. I never quoted twford.
You can go on claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you "is a fuckwit" all you like.It just makes it funnier to point out later how hypocritical your opinion is when you will later claim the complete opposite when its the natzsi that change rules.

What do you expect? They're socialists, they have zero interest in how money is made, only how it's spent.
the rules have changed wine elsewhere where someone might care about how hard done by you feel about the government blah blah.
National when they find a new leader will start campaigning with the promise of tax cuts for the top 40% of earners to buy votes for the next election
What they wont say is they will pay for by selling off assets and borrowing more money same as every nat gov since years ago have.

Net govt debt
June 2008: $10 billion, 5.6 per cent of GDP
June 2011 (projected): $42 billion, 21 per cent of GDP

Main Stats
Average GDP, 1990 to 1999: 2.4%
Average GDP, 2000 to 2008: 3.5%
Average GDP, 2009 to 2013*: 1.2%

* 2013 figure averaged over three Quarters only.
(Calcution based on RBNZ raw data spread sheet (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/graphdata.xls))

339323339325339324339326339328339327
https://infogram.com/net-debt-labour-1gv02gx5vrygp1x
https://infogram.com/net-debt-labour-1gv02gx5vrygp1x
as for labour buying votes, they do whats best for their majority voter base thats politics.
National was just caught selling mps thats new, natszi politics. National will physically sell of NZ to grasp power.
when i cried fowl over the natzsi laying off thousands of hard working kiwi jobs and at the same time bailing out private business you insisted it was kosha market forces because those jobs were not part of the gov plan and market force rahrah

sidecar bob

3rd November 2018, 06:51

Here's an idea: How about the government stop trying to buy votes with other people's money. How about they stop interfering in perfectly legitimate commercial transactions.

I'll leave you to tell us all about what concern's Bob, he's obviously got no idea. I will tell you that with regards to the housing market you should just stick to blindly blaming national, because beyond that you haven't got a fucking clue.
When I could be arsed having a business, Helen Clarke gave all my staff one more week's holiday, thus reducing my company's productivity for the same wage bill.
I call this shit, "having a lolly scramble using someone else's lollys"
It cots my business neighbour, NZ's largest manufacturer of coaches & buses 113 weeks extra wages for no return.
This latest crap with the letting fee has pretty much no effect on me personally, due to the stability of great tenants I chose myself, one being my current employer, but in the larger scheme of things it's nothing short of communism.

husaberg

3rd November 2018, 07:15

When I could be arsed having a business, Helen Clarke gave all my staff one more week's holiday, thus reducing my company's productivity for the same wage bill.
I call this shit, "having a lolly scramble using someone else's lollys"
It cots my business neighbour, NZ's largest manufacturer of coaches & buses 113 weeks extra wages for no return.
This latest crap with the letting fee has pretty much no effect on me personally, due to the stability of great tenants I chose myself, one being my current employer, but in the larger scheme of things it's nothing short of communism.
Where as increasing GST was pure capitalism at it finest.
You never did answer my questions Bob?

sidecar bob

3rd November 2018, 07:23

Where as increasing GST was pure capitalism at it finest.
You never did answer my questions Bob?

sorry, what was the question?

sidecar bob

3rd November 2018, 07:28

as for labour buying votes, they do whats best for their majority voter base thats politics.

Majority? LOL.
Yes, sadly that amounts to 36% or less of the actual voting population.

husaberg

3rd November 2018, 08:33

Majority? LOL.
Yes, sadly that amounts to 36% or less of the actual voting population.
Their Bob Their....
Labour formed a coalition government just as National has had to since the introduction of MMP

The latest poll show Labour surging ahead of National.
Worrying for your team is there are currently more voters in nz that are called Wesley that are gay and live with both parents called nancy and Tom with a ginger cat called fluffy with yellow letter box than would currently vote to have nationals leader as a PM of NZ.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/369430/the-case-for-and-against-judith-collins-leading-national
339329339330

sorry, what was the question?

Okay Bob do you charge a letting fee?
If you do what is it for, What service is it that the charge is providing to the tenant?
Its not your bond The bond is (4 weeks rent in advance)
Plus its not for your 2 weeks rent in advance you charge before a tenant moves in?
What exactly does a letting fee cover that is a service you provide?

Would it be any of your business wether I charge one or not?
The service it is providing to the tenant is a house to live in, couldn't you work that one out?
Costs to a landlord may include, travel, in my case one property would be 730km return, which in a twin turbo Bentley could be as much as $450 in fuel alone. (I don't have one, but if I chose to, that's about what it would cost) time away from paid employment, advertising, to name but a few. Is it unreasonable to recover ones genuine expenses incurred?
I guess the landlord should just suck it up, oh well he has to now anyway.
What about all the companies that are hired by landlords that are either too busy or remote, that do this sort of thing for a job? They are no longer allowed to charge for what is their primary reason for being in business.
Is that really ok with you?
And apparently this is just a first step in improving the lot for renters. Watch this space.

Woo Bob its not a attack on you personally, The reason i ask is the majority of landlords don't charge a tenancy fee of one weeks rent. No need to get defensive. it's a legitimate question, as you said it was for a service that you said was provided.

It seems its a cost that is being pushed not by landlords but by letting companies to cover their costs of providing a service that is not required that they use as a finders fee.

Swoop

3rd November 2018, 14:59

Thats why you never relied to my post.
???
Your posts are so convoluted, large and divergent there is not much chance of me recognizing a request for an answer. I also attempt to keep my replies breif so as not to confuse the issue/s raised.

I cant decide if Twyford is stupid or thinks voters are stupid.
The correct answer is "both".

It looks like the deluded cunt is being shown for what he (& they) really are...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12154010

husaberg

3rd November 2018, 15:24

???
Your posts are so convoluted, large and divergent there is not much chance of me recognizing a request for an answer. I also attempt to keep my replies breif so as not to confuse the issue/s raised.

I could see why you would be confused considering what you posted is not a reflection of reality.

Done wisely it is a far better approach to sell off unproductive assets and replace them with productive ones. Having a small state house on a large section of land (not uncommon) that gets sold off and then replaced with 2/3/4 houses on the equivalent area of land makes a lot of sense, especially if a genuine approach to "housing people" is taken.

Only they never did that, they sold off plenty but built far less.
93-99 it shrunk by 10,000 dwellings National
99-2008 it grew by 8,000 Labour
2008-2017-Srunk by 8,500 under National

They then spent the money renting out motels. plus doing extensive decontamination that were never required on others
Kind of odd maths?
But it worked out great if you owned real estate companies or Motel Chains like National parties big donors.
Sep 2017

Tonight's news presented the fact that Liarbour is demolishing 2000 state houses in Porirua.
Strange how the professionally offended are not out there protesting this "heinous action".

So what is the story?
Are they renewing state houses to build far more newer ones or just destroying houses?
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113676
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113685
As i said despite your protestations that national sold off houses to build more, Only the selling off ever occurred. there was a net loss of tens of thousands of houses.
Thats why you never replied to my post.

Here is a hint what you suggested National did and was a great idea they never did at all they only sold off houses
But Labour are doing what you suggested was a great idea building far more on the same footprint only you are moaning about it now being a bad thing.

Ocean1

3rd November 2018, 16:42

???
Your posts are so convoluted, large and divergent there is not much chance of me recognizing a request for an answer. I also attempt to keep my replies breif so as not to confuse the issue/s raised.

The correct answer is "both".

It looks like the deluded cunt is being shown for what he (& they) really are...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12154010

My old boss had a name for the endless reviews and changes in direction of his various proclamations, he called them "living documents", a concept Husa has obviously well and truly taken to heart.

Also, well duhh. Faced with the prospect of meeting their promises of cheap housing for the poor and the laughably unlikely prospect of anyone else actually agreeing to pay for them they're stuck with whatever slight-of-hand bullshit might paper over the yawning gulf between their ideological foot stamping about the "housing crisis" and the real world.

But it keeps them off the streets I guess, which means they're just that much less likely to be paying too much attention to the business of how to convert my savings into govt revenue.

husaberg

3rd November 2018, 17:41

My old boss had a name for the endless reviews and changes in direction of his various proclamations, he called them "living documents", a concept Husa has obviously well and truly taken to heart.

Also, well duhh. Faced with the prospect of meeting their promises of cheap housing for the poor and the laughably unlikely prospect of anyone else actually agreeing to pay for them they're stuck with whatever slight-of-hand bullshit might paper over the yawning gulf between their ideological foot stamping about the "housing crisis" and the real world.
But it keeps them off the streets I guess, which means they're just that much less likely to be paying too much attention to the business of how to convert my savings into govt revenue.
Poor is now defined in the Auckland house market as those earning less than twice the average take home income of a Auckland couple.:facepalm:

To buy a first home in Auckland First home buyers would need a deposit of about $120,000 to $130,000 and a joint income above $160,000.
Auckland workers have a median personal income of $29,600, and a median household income of $76,500, according to the latest Census (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/84539478/Where-are-incomes-highest-and-lowest-in-NZ).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94396974/can-first-home-buyers-afford-a-million-dollar-house
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/91389/we-ask-what-income-do-you-need-house-affordably-range-surprisingly%C2%A0wide-depending-where
339339339341339343339342339340
Not that Auckland has a housing crisis of course National left a rock star economy.:laugh:

Ocean1

3rd November 2018, 18:25

Poor is now defined in the Auckland house market as those earning less than twice the average take home income of a Auckland couple.:facepalm:

Aye, the proliferation of people not prepared to work hard enough to pay for their shit is disgusting. :violin:

And they expect everyone else to work harder instead! :laugh:

husaberg

3rd November 2018, 18:47

Aye, the proliferation of people not prepared to work hard enough to pay for their shit is disgusting. :violin:

And they expect everyone else to work harder instead! :laugh:
Yeah those lazy bottom 80 percentile who pay 99.9% of the tax.

Ocean1

4th November 2018, 07:53

Yeah those lazy bottom 80 percentile who pay 99.9% of the tax.

You really don't live on this planet, do you? :laugh:

https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-expenditure/revenue-effects-tax-changes/who-pays-income-tax

That lazy bottom 80% are contributing just 30% of the total tax take.

The poor bastards earning over $100k are paying half of the total.

And those rich pricks earning over $150k are paying 25% of it.

God knows what your despised most productive 1% are contributing but interpolating from the above their contributions are worth the equivalent of thousands of your average kiwis.

Last time I looked if your household income was under $65k you are a negative net contributor, you cost more to support than you pay in tax. About half of NZ households are beneficiaries, dependent on the other half working harder to support them. And that doesn't include pensioners.

No mater how many rev's you put on it, that's a welfare state on steroids. Runaway socialism. Unsustainable.

husaberg

4th November 2018, 08:18

You really don't live on this planet, do you? :laugh:

https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-expenditure/revenue-effects-tax-changes/who-pays-income-tax

That lazy bottom 80% are contributing just 30% of the total tax take.

The poor bastards earning over $100k are paying half of the total.

And those rich pricks earning over $150k are paying 25% of it.

God knows what your despised most productive 1% are contributing but interpolating from the above their contributions are worth the equivalent of thousands of your average kiwis.

Last time I looked if your household income was under $65k you are a negative net contributor, you cost more to support than you pay in tax. About half of NZ households are beneficiaries, dependent on the other half working harder to support them. And that doesn't include pensioners.

No mater how many rev's you put on it, that's a welfare state on steroids. Runaway socialism. Unsustainable.
I dont despise any group of people it is you who seem to despise the poor.
Remember in my example the uckland poor were those under 150K using your figures my point still works. So cheers for the figures.

Your assertions do not however make sense as NZ has numerous tax systems other than income alone. GST FBT etc
NZ's tax system works on a sliding scale the more you earn the higher percentage you pay. Thats the system deal with it.
When you factor in GST you will see the tax take you produced is not that equitable as you claim.
The poor pay the GST the poor also dont increase their equity tax fee by using it to pay off a house either.
339344
None of these figures you produce, of course, includes capital gains (income made from selling assets such as houses and shares), because we don’t for the most part either tax or record those capital gains.
If we did, since those capital gains will go largely to the richest tenth, the truth about tax in New Zealand is that the rich almost certainly pay less of their income in tax than the poor do.
339356339354339355
Overall the lower and middle classes pay more than they should and a higher share than they ever have before.
Thats why in NZ the equality of Rich to poor is growing every day and is higher than ever. 10% have 60% of NZ wealth.
339358

Under national the home ownership rate dropped by almost 10%.
So instead of that money being invested in personal equity of families its being lost to rent.
According to Stats NZ Nationals policies drove it down to the lowest its been in 66 years

As for your claims about benefits in NZ
Your figures about benefits dont seem to be supported by real data.
339345
For instance the benefits you claim dont add up with the population, even if every house hold had kids it still wouldn't add up.
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2018/quarterly-benefits-sept-18-a3-final.pdf
Note the biggest increases under national were unemployment and emergency housing. All these rose because of Nationals mismanagement.
National had nine years and they did nothing other than sell off assets raise GST and borrow money to fund tax decreases.