Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Best wishes Cassandra, though not a serious consideration but in illustrating the size of the part of problem.
The cost blow to rebuild the IT system from the ground up can be funded by a mix of further privatisation, rates increases or reverting to form bus lane fines of which they presently issue around 28,000 a year, give or take.
This year’s shortfall is an extra 288.000 tickets,
the next year it will be an extra 576,667 tickets, and
the following year will be an extra 518,667 tickets.Perhaps he masters of puppets alluded to earlier in the thread are banking on John Banks to win Epsom and as Minster for Auckland and Local Govt to come in over Len Brown.
If Auckland “needs” to embark on privatisation will Rodney will have a role to play if he has left National politics.
The IT blow out is only the beginning.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to andin,
It was Nat in 1975 and Lab in 2005 - typo - sorry.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to Bart Janssen,
While they do less with more.
-
Going back to the subject of the political lie - they loom large in election years and once swallowed can undermine NZ’s economically.
I make reference to the 1975 dismantling of the compulsory super scheme that secured National a win in 2005 and the over reach of WFF that secured the Labour win in the 2005 election. They were significant election bribes that undermine the economy and its ability to provide for us.
These aspects have to de dealt with carefully particularly when WFF has perhaps unduly suppressed wage growth through workers without dependants funding the living cost of workers with dependants.
Nzers have taken a lot more out of the economy than we are prepared to put into it and we vote for governments that provide for us on this basis. I am interested in whether or how this wide issue is addressed this election cycle.
What lies will we be looking to swallow Election 2011?
As a self anointed gnomic economist – as opposed to a “rogergnomic gnome” - selling stuff off so you can spend more is not an answer - I see fostering a recovery by engaging with the rest of the world whilst smartening up every phase of the chain of business/production is what needs doing.
Don’t bake the same old pie with ingredients borrowed from ones neighbour and chop it up into smaller pieces take the gnomic approach and bake a new and bigger pie and share that around.
If I was green I would be a eco gnomic economist, but I ain’t, however I am writing a gnomic self help book - it will be brief.
-
The sitting of the house I last watched was Hughes last sitting - he was good, outstanding even.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
If you want to see why personal attacks on Key won’t work you need only look at the Labour 2008 campaign it was negative largely on the basis that you can’t trust Key.
In the first Leaders debate Clark dropped rather haughtily what I thought was a rehearsed line, something along the lines of, “You can shout people down at home, but you’re not going to shout me down”.
The next day when Clark appeared wiggy and irrational when she tried to explain herself saying that Key was out of control and having a tantrum and she had to say what she said to pull him into line to stop him telling fibs, and she went on about how stressed Key was this being his first time and all and then later that day she went on Radio live and said she was surprised he didn’t have a stress attack and burst out crying in response to her shouting down comments.
In 2008 Labour polling may have told them of the voter backlash particularly by women against Clark’s “shouting people down” comment. At that point the evening of the first debate and the day after voters perceptions of Clark and Labour began to change.
By the time the third leaders debate came around it was almost as if Clark wanted to hug Key, gosh they were getting on so well (policy wise there wasn’t much difference between them), and Clark ended telling Key he was a decent guy. It was almost as she was endorsing him for PM.
IMHO nasty personal attacks on Key won’t work.
But what would I know I am just one gnomic voter amongst many, by all means get nasty if you wish but it won't do the business.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
It is a flaw as a political stratgey upon which to win an election.
The personal attacks on Key detract from the issue and saves Key from having to address any issue - he merely has to rise above the personal attack and leave matters there.
Oh, I forget Labour are set on coming a distant second and then feeling outraged.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to Robert Harvey,
Good point - That is the thing and if it goes unchecked it is a rapid spiral to state of perpetual dishonesty – which is why the “thang” needs to be challenged vigorously.
The Singh/Papatoetoe vote factory will be interesting when it goes to court.
Labour’s personal attacks on Key’s integrity/ honesty are flawed me thinks.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to Alex Coleman,
Yep say whatever, do whatever - Just get the vote and then say and do something else.
I love the Michael Cullen line/position that was something along the lines of, "we are only concerend with what the voter/public thinks is at election time".
That is honesty.
-
Hard News: The Political Lie, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Yes, precisely ashes to ashes and dust to dust - destroy the evidence and moving right along.