Posts by Insolent Prick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Herald digipoll today shows National on 47.3% support, seven percent ahead of Labour.
Is it really any wonder that the Labour Party would collude with Nicky Hager in this preposterous beat-up? Yet more shrieks of "EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN!", rehashed claims that Americans were writing National Party policy, and that people anonymously and legitimately made donations to the National Party last election, just as Labour has received large anonymous and corporate donations for the last seven years.
There is nothing new here; we still are stuck with a desperate Labour Party willing to resort to a scumbag pseudo-investigative journalist like Nicky Hager using stolen personal correspondence to come up with absurd conspiracy theories on nothing new.
Bring it on. Labour is still toast.
-
Ian,
I cannot stand Rod Oram, but he does make some excellent points.
With one particular flaw. Most government spending on non-capital works items has nil economic benefit. Labour has basically doubled health spending in the last seven years, with no additional health outcomes. Labour has ballooned the size of central government to unprecedented levels of public spending. For zero return.
Sure, there are many better things that the Government COULD spend the stadium money on. Even better, the Government could perform some major surgery on itself, and hand the money back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. But Labour isn't going to do that.
One way or another, Labour will blow the surplus by the next election. At least with a waterfront stadium we get a world class facility for it.
-
Tom,
The port isn't currently pedestrian-friendly. I agree that the waterfront option could be done very well.
The alternative for the waterfront stadium is not to create some new open-space design; the stadium is the only means to wrestle the land off the port. Additional community infrastructure can be built around that, but there's no way that if the port area is not used for the stadium, that some grand plan to turn it into a seaside village will ever come off.
-
Tom:
A bloody port isn't easy to integrate with "urbanity". A stadium is even harder to integrate with "suburbanity", as Eden Park is, than with "urbanity".
Pseudo-intellectual nonsense aside, a great stadium is a great stadium. Eden Park will never come up to scratch. Stick it on the waterfront, replace that bloody eyesore of a port with a big, hulking monolith of a stadium, annoy a few local residents, but enjoy the facility for the next fifty years.
And starve the socialists of $500 million to spend on stupid, mindless liberal causes.
-
You bloody socialists won't be satisfied until you have spent every dollar of the surplus on wasteful projects with no economic return as a justification for not giving us tax cuts.
The waterfront stadium is a colossal waste of money. On the other hand, so too is the other option of throwing $350 million at Eden Park; the latter example still won't produce a world class stadium.
However, if Mallard can get it right, and can contain costs, at least we will have a world class stadium facility on the waterfront. Still a waste of money, but a much better waste of money than a gazillion other mindless things that you pinkos will inevitably buy with our money. And it will have a much longer-lasting benefit.