Nicky Hager

[MisterD]

If Warren Tucker released the info because he was "pissed off" then there are serious implications in terms of Political Neutrality and especially because this is the NZSIS our top spy agency.

I'm not following your reasoning here. Is a public servant supposed to drag his feet over release of documents that he must do under the law, because they'll back up his version of events? A public servant who is unable, by virtue of his job, unable to actually give his side of events in public.

IMO it's a much worse look for the Leader of the Opposition to go around calling senior public servants liars because they're trying to get a hit on the government.

Goff is unfit to be in parliament, but then that's been the case since he was spitting on Vietnam vets.

[dinosaur]

All Key has to do is leave it to the electoral process ... her electorate will decide whether she stays or goes ... simple as that, no big deal for him!

If they (National) are returned to power then Key can decide about cabinet positions again at that time.

The media and the left (one in the same) have nothing else to offer at this late hour other than this bullshit.

Vote NZ First?

[mada]

I'm not following your reasoning here. Is a public servant supposed to drag his feet over release of documents that he must do under the law, because they'll back up his version of events? A public servant who is unable, by virtue of his job, unable to actually give his side of events in public.

IMO it's a much worse look for the Leader of the Opposition to go around calling senior public servants liars because they're trying to get a hit on the government.

Goff is unfit to be in parliament, but then that's been the case since he was spitting on Vietnam vets.

Hey I certainly don't agree with what Goff did. But I don't agree with potential abuse of OIA to potentially give people preferential treatment.

The issue will not be dying down as today:

"Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security inquiry into release of NZSIS information

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS), Cheryl Gwyn, announced today that she would be instituting an inquiry concerning allegations that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) might have released official information to Mr Cameron Slater, regarding briefings provided to the then Leader of the Opposition, for political purposes.

The Inspector-General has decided to institute the inquiry under her own motion powers pursuant to sections 11(1)(a) and (ca) of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 rather than in response to a specific complaint."

http://www.igis.govt.nz/about/news-updates/


I suspect, many other bodies of Government will now begin "investigations" based on the allegations in Hagers book too.

[Ocean1]

In 1980 an analysis of 6 large firms in Britain found that chief executives were paid 13 to 44 times more than their average employee. The figure has
now increased to 143 times although in some companies it is a lot more.

Waikato Times today

So some execs are getting paid a shitload. Good for them, but that doesn't make anyone poorer.

Correct. I can hear mate mada winding up some imbecilic comment as we type about them not being worth that much. In fact the people paying them are obviously of the opinion that they are, and as it's their money they're spending it's not actually anyone else's business what they pay.

[MisterD]

Can't see how that's going anywhere.

Was the OIA request valid? Yep.
Was there any good reason why the information should not have been released? No.

Where's the problem? Oh right, the mainstream media scooped by a blogger nobody admits to liking.

[oldrider]

Vote NZ First?

Comedian, entertaining, flexible beyond compare and consumate politician, have actually met him a few times found him a very likeable little guy!

The big question: would I vote for him? ... no! (I do prefer him to a lot of others on offer from the left though!)

[mada]

Can't see how that's going anywhere.

Was the OIA request valid? Yep.
Was there any good reason why the information should not have been released? No.

Where's the problem? Oh right, the mainstream media scooped by a blogger nobody admits to liking.

I think if it was as clear cut as that she wouldn't be commencing an investigation as her background was as a Deputy Solicitor General for Crown Law, specifically focused on Constitutional areas of law.

[mada]

Correct. I can hear mate mada winding up some imbecilic comment as we type about them not being worth that much. In fact the people paying them are obviously of the opinion that they are, and as it's their money they're spending it's not actually anyone else's business what they pay.

....

I have no issues with shareholders deciding how much to pay their execs. I do have issues when it comes to taxpayer funded execs and the bullshit argument that a chief executive of govt. department or council should be on "market rates".

I'm sure you will be able to come up with imbecilic comment about how increasing the exec salaries by tens of thousands for all the power companies that we just sold shares in has somehow resulted in massive increases in productivity.

[SPman]

In fact the people paying them are obviously of the opinion that they are, and as it's their money they're spending it's not actually anyone else's business what they pay.

Like the major world banks that were bailed out to the tune of Billions of taxpayer dollars, and promptly used a large chunk of the money to pay themselves ever fatter bonuses and salaries, despite the fact they were responsible for the massive losses in the first place. In many cases, the wishes of the investors have nothing to do with setting salaries - most fund investors couldn't give a stuff what "managers" are paid...in fact...the more they are paid, the more others consider they are "worth",a self feeding cycle of greed and rapaciousness.........

I'm rather partial to this.........

Widespread Support for Sending Politicians to Prison for Ninety-Nine Years

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
18 August 14

ast week’s indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry has sparked widespread bipartisan support for the concept of sending politicians to prison for ninety-nine years.
While Americans are divided about the merits of the specific charges levelled against Perry, there is near-unanimous agreement that imprisoning politicians for ninety-nine years is an idea worth exploring further, a poll released on Monday indicates.
According to the poll, eighty-seven per cent of voters from both parties agreed that sending politicians to prison for such a lengthy period would “solve a lot of problems” and “make the country safer.”
Additionally, when asked to name one politician they would like to see incarcerated for ninety-nine years, voters easily rattled off a dozen or more such candidates, with some voters naming as many as fifty.
Finally, when informed that imprisoning politicians for ninety-nine years might lead to overcrowding that would require the construction of costly new prisons, eighty-three per cent agreed with the statement, “Money is no object.”

I'm sure we could do something similar here........

[oldrider]

I'm sure we could do something similar here........

Yes but the jails are all full, so they would only get "home detention"!

Perhaps if they gave current prisoners home detention at the politicians houses and put the politicians into the jails it might work OK here!

[Ocean1]

....

I have no issues with shareholders deciding how much to pay their execs. I do have issues when it comes to taxpayer funded execs and the bullshit argument that a chief executive of govt. department or council should be on "market rates".

It's your money, you have a right to a say in how it's spent.

But your preference to pay less than the job's worth is pretty fucking silly ain't it? I mean you bleat loud enough about the quality of the current crop, and you want to pay less?

Like the major world banks that were bailed out to the tune of Billions of taxpayer dollars, and promptly used a large chunk of the money to pay themselves ever fatter bonuses and salaries, despite the fact they were responsible for the massive losses in the first place. In many cases, the wishes of the investors have nothing to do with setting salaries - most fund investors couldn't give a stuff what "managers" are paid...in fact...the more they are paid, the more others consider they are "worth",a self feeding cycle of greed and rapaciousness........

I don't like my hard earned going to make good an investment decision I had nothing to do with either, rather see them fall on the merits of their own decisions.

However, it's far from clear that bank managers were the root cause of the failures. What is clear is that the US govt, in particular fucked with the market in ways that, in hindsight were unbelievably unwise, and if you feel the need to blame anyone for the GFC then I'd say it's probably more accurate to lay the blame at the feet of govts, rather than bank managers. Maybe we should simply require govts to stay the fuck out of businesses they don't understand and are quite likely to monumentally fuck up given half a chance.

As for whether bank managers are worth their wages? Who knows, but those paying them reckon they are, and it's about as OK for you to have some say in that as it is for me to dictate what you should pay for your motorcycle. If you really object to someone earning so much more than you can stomach then you have a bunch of ways you can influence them that are probably more likely to have some effect than bleating about it here. You can use a bank that pays it's managers less. In fact you can refrain from using any business the remuneration details of which you disapprove.

You could start your own business, and pay yourself and any managers fuck all. That's bound to make you feel better.

[blue rider]

funnies, everywhere there be funnies



from here

https://twitter.com/felixmarwick/sta...006144/photo/1

and a wee pdf dump for those that like these things.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/images/p...-21aug2014.pdf


ah to know or not to know or just to pretend to know but maybe he just simply can't recall?

[pritch]

Posted here in the interests of helping you reach an informed decision. (But slightly pessimistic about the required attention span?)
http://ruminator.co.nz/election-2014-policy-watch/

[MisterD]

funnies, everywhere there be funnies

I'm really unsure what the significance of that letter is, given that it states that the PM was informed that Goof had already been informed, therefore the decision had already been made and not by the PM?

I see, amidst all the hoo-hah and attempting to find John Key's finger prints on this, it's now been realised that he was still on holiday in Hawaii, following a visit to the US.

I really think the opposition et al should give up on this, they seemed to be getting somewhere with the Collins attacks but have resorted to Christchurch lawyery types complaining about a road being named after someone not from the Village of the Damned on that front. Opportunity to create HDC Way missed, what?

[oldrider]

TV is entertainment TV methods are to repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat until ... what was the question? ... Oh I don't remember now but repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat ... Oh now I remember, repeat repeat repeat ... it was what they said on TV repeat repeat repeat repeat ... and so a lie becomes the new truth repeat repeat