Labour troffers - underpants, golf clubs, wine and private planes - all on our money.

[Mudfart]

wow if the list of what the greens would ban is true, then they def get my vote. my family is afflicted with problem gambling and it ripped us apart. pokies are BS. and the other things are all common sense issues. I think if you had the list of national party bans, it would be a bit scarier, and look something like this:
Sell as much land as possible to foreign investors
Sell Kiwibank
Ban Kiwisaver and take the money (5bn sofar)
Give Maori party anything they want, as long as we get their support
Steal more from the taxpayers to fund our private lives
Sell most SOE
Make ourselves look good to guarantee a second term, when we intend to do the most damage.
Nope, unfortunately Tank, your list only serves to remind me to vote green.

[puddytat]

Have to disagree, it will be the usual boring circlejerk that passes for political analysis around here.

Of course, I would have to say that the one party that has had less controversy than the others would be the Greens. Not perfect by any means, but better than Nat/Lab/Act/NZ1 and to a lesser degree Prog/UF/... So there's a solution for you

Im with my comrade on this one....

[Tank]

my family is afflicted with problem gambling and it ripped us apart. pokies are BS.

Sorry you have the issues in your family - but seriously just because someone in your family has an issue - is that a good reason to ban it for all others who simply use them as a bit of fun? What about all the money they raise that goes to sports etc etc .

Do we ban the tote also - to stop them betting on horses? What about the GG industry?

Lotto - millions raised for good causes - thats gambling - do we ban that as well.

Why the fuck should I have my choices limited just because some in society are too weak / dumb or have an illness - fix the people because they are not fixing a problem by banning shit.

[mashman]

Why the fuck should I have my choices limited just because some in society are too weak / dumb or have an illness - fix the people because they are not fixing a problem by banning shit.

t'would be quite easy if the pollies hadn't been wanking off with the money that could be used to keep the services available for those who need "help"...

[Mudfart]

lol true. I have approached all the so-called help services, noone has ever replied to emails or phone calls.
The issue with pokies, is it started with the monster in law, and she has got a large chunk of her family playing them, spending every cent they can muster. this includes scavenging food from the sea, drains, other peoples fruit trees etc, to save money on the food bill to have more for the pokies.
I dont think gg's or lotto has had such a negative draw to it for gamblers as the pokies have.
Incidentally, over 3million a day is spent on gambling in NZ, and over 30billion a year, apparently.
Yeah, the majority goes back to the community, yeah right! (tui ad).
Have you ever tried to secure a lotteries grant for something?. First you must set yourself on fire, then jump through 20,000 hoops.

[JimO]

Speaking of jerking - Does Shane Jones expect us to believe that he wasnt whacking out when watching all the pornos he charged to the g'ment?

I can see the election posters now.

erm he charged it to the taxpayer

[schrodingers cat]

Is it OK if I don't give a flying fuck?

Spending on “social security and welfare” makes up a significant part of total Government expenditure.
Social security and welfare” cost $12.9 billion over the 1999/2000 fiscal year, which is equivalent to 36% of total Government expenditure and 12.3% of GDP.
(http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyre...3Benefits1.pdf)

So that was 248 million PER week ten years ago.

How much is is this witch-hunt saving?

Can we get back to real issues and ignore all this purile horseshit?

[oldrider]

Is it OK if I don't give a flying fuck?

Spending on “social security and welfare” makes up a significant part of total Government expenditure.
Social security and welfare” cost $12.9 billion over the 1999/2000 fiscal year, which is equivalent to 36% of total Government expenditure and 12.3% of GDP.
(http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyre...3Benefits1.pdf)

So that was 248 million PER week ten years ago.

How much is is this witch-hunt saving?

Can we get back to real issues and ignore all this purile horseshit?

Did it ever occur to you that "you" are on the wrong thread, this one "is" about the purile horseshit, it's not about real issues!

[Woodman]

Is it OK if I don't give a flying fuck?

Spending on “social security and welfare” makes up a significant part of total Government expenditure.
Social security and welfare” cost $12.9 billion over the 1999/2000 fiscal year, which is equivalent to 36% of total Government expenditure and 12.3% of GDP.
(http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyre...3Benefits1.pdf)

So that was 248 million PER week ten years ago.

How much is is this witch-hunt saving?

Can we get back to real issues and ignore all this purile horseshit?

Yep....I get sick of the politicians slinging mud at each other, its fcukin bollocks. You think spending a bit of dosh on pron and shouting the odd drink costs a lot of taxpayers money? then think about the resources used up in digging up shit about the opposition. Must cost a fortune.

Why don't the fcukers just get on with running the country.

As for the greens, yeah they have a place and are a good powerful lobby group, but they are way too pc and socialist and anti personal responsibility to ever run a country.

[schrodingers cat]

Did it ever occur to you that "you" are on the wrong thread, this one "is" about the purile horseshit, it's not about real issues!

But who would you have to chip at then?
I've offloaded and served a higher purpose.
I expect my nomination for Queens honours is in the mail

[mashman]

Why don't the fcukers just get on with ruining the country.

Fixed that for ya

[JimO]

Well yeah duh. For good reason, as you can see. They're not perfect but are the most principled of a bad lot.

tui anyone.....

[rainman]

tui anyone.....

I know you don't like them at some reptilian level, but what exactly are you arguing here? That they are the leas scandal-ridden of the parties ever to have seen parliament (other than one-horse ponies) is pretty much beyond dispute. (To be fair though, that isn't exactly difficult).

Maybe surprisingly, I sorta agree with Woodman in his comment about them running the country (although I think PC is a meaningless label pushed by the Brash campaign team that some obviously bought hook line and sinker; and I don't think socialist is a bad thing). I'd like to see the Greens comfortably above 15%, with a strong role in government, some seats in cabinet - but a Green-led government? Not in their current form. Won't happen here anyway.

[BoristheBiter]

I know you don't like them at some reptilian level, but what exactly are you arguing here? That they are the leas scandal-ridden of the parties ever to have seen parliament (other than one-horse ponies) is pretty much beyond dispute. (To be fair though, that isn't exactly difficult).

Maybe surprisingly, I sorta agree with Woodman in his comment about them running the country (although I think PC is a meaningless label pushed by the Brash campaign team that some obviously bought hook line and sinker; and I don't think socialist is a bad thing). I'd like to see the Greens comfortably above 15%, with a strong role in government, some seats in cabinet - but a Green-led government? Not in their current form. Won't happen here anyway.

What make you think the greens would be any better, the only reason they havn't don't anything really wrong, anti-smacking bill aside, is because they have had no power to do shit. the only reason they were tolarated was so labour could get back into power.
at the end of the day they are all out to feather their own nest.

[rainman]

What make you think the greens would be any better, the only reason they havn't don't anything really wrong, anti-smacking bill aside, is because they have had no power to do shit. the only reason they were tolarated was so labour could get back into power.
at the end of the day they are all out to feather their own nest.

Well, they don't seem to have too many credit-card-rort-type issues - which is kinda the point of this thread.
They have achieved a lot for a party that hasn't had any real power - including the repeal of S59, which was a good thing, although it's been debated to death on KB before to no end so I won't be going back to that now.
Labour has indeed screwed them over quite a bit, but National would have been worse - heard of the expression "lesser of two evils"? Also, the party and the political environment has changed quite a bit - I would not expect the same degree of naivete next time around.