Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Swan,
Indeed, for Canada - a win for political protectionism;
And what was 'given away' will be reimbursed by way of government subsidy for those farmers.
It's another planet, for sure.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Don Christie,
This is an interesting perspective;
We've been told repeatedly that the increase in the cost of medicines won't be dramatic. Quite right - the extra costs from prolonging monopoly rights will be like watching a tree grow; it's slow but gets bigger all the time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11524614
Does anyone else get the feeling that National don't just ignore, but actually despise future generations?
-
Can't help but think of ..
.
-
Speaker: 11 ways the Opposition has…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
And of course not forgetting that CPW likely wouldn't have got off the ground were it not for the cancellation of democracy at ECan (how many terms is it now?). Another reason why I just couldn't understand why Cantabrians largely voted to re-elect this Government.
-
Speaker: 11 ways the Opposition has…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Well yes, more internal politics - but perhaps now folks can see that denying the Party Vote because of these issues played beautifully into National's hand. In other words, the PV National sent National a message it could shout from the highest mountain: "this confirms we're doing a good job in Christchurch" .. and that's how the rest of NZ read it.
-
Speaker: 11 ways the Opposition has…, in reply to Hebe,
Brownlee and Wagner certainly look after their electorate’s parish work, as do Williams, Dyson, Woods.
I see you subsequently added Williams, Dyson and Woods. When I made the comment about nepotism, I was referring to the unedited version which mentioned only Brownlee and Wagner.
-
By the way, on the hazard issue, I think CHCH residents have again been shafted – another Machiavellian-like move by National. To have removed these hazard determinations from the proposed District Plan consultation process (but not from LIMs), National have effectively denied the affected parties the ability to argue the T&T science behind those hazard lines. Hence, there may be no development restrictions under the RMA, but under the Building Act the areas will still be identified as being subject to a hazard (I assume, given the information remains on a LIM). That means that whenever a person seeks building consent under the Building Act – sections 71-74 will apply. What that means is that the property title will have a caveat (a notation) put on it – and it is that s 74 notification on the title that triggers all the insurance premium etc. issues.
So, effectively the insurance companies again get their way. They are free to refuse insurance, and/or charge excessive premiums – the banks too may put punitive measures in place with respect to lending etc.
Really, the people are worse off – because the T&T report stands unchallenged given the RMA process/scrutiny has been taken away.
Very Machiavellian, but that’s National for you.
-
Speaker: 11 ways the Opposition has…, in reply to Hebe,
@Katharine Moody: Your comments illustrate perfectly why Chch voters settled for “the Devil you know” when it came to the party vote.
Exactly – nepotism rules for those folks - but overall, in doing so with the Party Vote, unfortunately, as the old adage goes, they got the government they deserved. As an outsider, I was aghast given the obvious mis-management and down right dirty dealings that were inflicted on the people post-EQ.
-
Speaker: 11 ways the Opposition has…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Examples?
Those I've seen reported on are Ruth Dyson, Poto Williams, Megan Woods - .. just recently, for example, Williams set up a special event for coastal communities on that hazard issue and Denis O'Rourke too was lobbying hard on that score - I know of Parliamentary questions he was researching/submitting. And of course, before them there were Dalziel and Anderton - excellent constituent MPs from what I could see.
-
Speaker: 11 ways the Opposition has…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Scarily, it's just possible the opposition would do worse :(
Well therein lie the problem.
Of course they (the Opposition) would not/could not do worse. Surely the article above proves that. How could anyone suggest anyone could do worse?
Only a vindictive, scheming, Machiavellian entity could do this much harm - so blatantly and so purposefully - to its own people.
To criticise the Opposition is not an honourable argument to my mind - especially when so many local Labour MPs have worked tirelessly as advocates (from what I've heard). The article seems to me a bit like victim blaming; twisting the issue to create a diversion from the real ill (the National Executive) .. a hallmark of the National government's approach to so many issues.