Posts by Andy Fraser
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Isn't this another example of Nanny Sate? and the irony that M Laws has pushed it so hard.
Personally I find suits intimidating... -
@ Matthew
I accept that there are some situations where most parents for many years to come will instinctively use a minor level of force: the stove top being the classic situation where batting the child's hand away is, technically, assault, but where there needs to be wriggle room in interpretation.
And so did Sue Bradford. There are specific clauses in the current bill when force for prevention is allowed, including self-harm. This would never be regarded as an assault.
-
@ Craig
Really, Andy? It's rather unfortunate to have to remind people that we have voluntary suffrage in the country (and CIRs are no different) -- but whether you like it or not, John Key -- like Phil Goff who said exactly the same thing -- is a duly elected member of our legislature. Might help not to conflate two utterly unrelated issues in search of something to beat the man over the head with.
If Goff supports change I'll feel duped too. Key said he wouldn't cast a vote for two reasons - the law was working, and he thought the question was convoluted. Nothing has happend since that he didn't know about.
Scott, there are very wide holes to drive legal buses through as the current law stands.
-
@ Ben Nicoll
John Key implied before the referendum that he wasn't going to act on the result because the law was working and the question confusing.
This enabled me to abstain from voting with a clear conscience as there was no way I could answer such a poorly worded question honestly, and I am happy with the status quo. Given the low turnout, I suspect a significant number of people who would come down in the yes camp did the same.
If the PM, having diminished the importance of a vote by saying he wasn't going to change anything, changes anything, I'm going to be pissed off.
Whats more, remember he said he wasn't going to vote. So if he changes anything you should feel even more duped, as I will.
-
If there is any backsliding, the only 'good' that will come of it is that Baldock et all will then 'own' any abuse cases that occur. Just run that picture of the man celebratng his obscene belief in his right to violence to children alongside any abuse story.
-
A great victory for propaganda.
I fear we'll see Chester Burrow's amendment resurrected. This will be spun as 'not a change to the law' and will make it a very difficult proposition to change back to the law as it is now.
I am heartened by the 'low' turnout. -
Brent,
If this is within the rules, then I think that Mr English, instead of taking advantage of the inadequate rules, should have modified the rules to make them work better.
This would appear to require the moral strength of...of......of..............? well, someone not in the upper echelons of government.
Lets not forget that Key would have been aware of the 'arrangements' but his enquiry is only coming about through an attempt to stop political damage - not through having the taxpayer in the forefront of his concerns.
-
We must make it possible for our brightest and best to represent us without having to take a too much of a cut to their personal lifestyle.
Huh? when ministers are earning $240k a year already? what sort of lifestyle are they going to cut down from? If their mortage costs took $60k a year, feeding and clothing the family another $40k cars and toys $40k that still leaves an amount of money for living a personal lifestyle that the average kiwi can only dream of.
English et al are part of a government that campaigned on tax tax cuts north of $50 for the average worker, then canceled them, while keeping the earlier cuts that clear them another $5k a year in the hand and leave most kiwi taxpayers with a few coins. The taxpayer face the cost of increased borrowing to fund those cuts.
They have spent 9 months preaching austerity and the need for kiwis to expect a lower standard of living, all the while maximising to the full the expenses thay can rort of the taxpayer. English can argue to he's blue in the face that altering his trust arrangements was not driven by money but I don't believe him. -
4.Times are tough where is money best spent, I know it is hard and I know it is tough but that what happens when the money tree ceases to work
Worked ok for the tax cuts, mostly for the rich.
Priorities again. -
Could some kind mathematical soul please calculate the % of the total tax tax that is apportioned to people on the DPB, including any other benefits those people are getting. Work it out then how many dollars/cents this costs each individual taxpayer.
We could let Hotten et al know exactly how much of a tax cut they would get, when their dream of cutting the DPB entirely comes true.