Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So you missed the "/tongue in cheek" bit at the end there huh Craig.
I'll toddle off then. -
why is Key using an Aussie strategist
Actually, this explains the "look at how much better Aussie is than NZ" line he keeps spouting...
It's probably a joke the Aussies chucked in the script just to see if he'd read it.../tongue in cheek
-
Have only read the SST article and have avoided the undoubtedly hysterical radio interviews that come from it, but that article seemed pretty good at walking a reasonable, factual line.
1. Key has employed Crosby Textor
2. They've historically claimed they haven't
3. C/T have done some pretty nasty stuff offshore.That was about all it said - so everyone claiming a "beatup" will need to pull apart one of those points and I fail to see how they can.
Now I, for one, hope and (almost) trust that Key won't stoop to the lows we've seen from C/T elsewhere, but it does give a useful possible context to the tightly messaged negative approach we've seen from him.
Unfortunately given the state of political debate in this country at the moment (present virtual company largely excluded) this will now spiral down to a base slanging match with both sides avoiding the interesting grey points. Shame really, would be an interesting dissection of political messaging. -
In addition to Kyle's above:
- Peter Maire or similar saying: "With the pool of savings we'll shortly have from the SuperFund and KiwiSaver, companies like Navman wouldn't have to have been sold off to a US company that then dropped it. We could have made a big international player right out of little ol NZ".
- (Little risky but) another business-looking man talking about how the corporate tax cut has left them more money internally to grow, and the corresponding R&D cuts have seen them put more money into some "exciting new products for the global market" -
Gareth what a stupid thing to say
Given the question posed and the answer you gave, it may be a little brave of you to wave the stupid epithet around.
If you've read the thread you'll understand my position on this...I/S - It's interesting the Act presumes a preference for holding CIR's specifically around election time. If it's actually preffered to be held on the general election ballot then I feel like this one should be (regardless of my view that it's not the greatest idea).
-
The date, for democratic reasons. Parliament is able to respond how it chooses irrespective of the date or result of that referendum.
I'm afraid I don't follow how a referendum conducted in October and blighthly ignored by Parliament is MORE democratic than one conducted in March with ensuing policy action?
-
we must conclude that Labour have really stuffed this country up in the last 9 years by appointing more incompetent people than we imagined.
"As soon as the Referendum is officially approved by the Clerk of the House I will be calling on the hundreds of thousands who signed the petition and the remaining 1.5 million Kiwis who wanted to have their say in a referendum at this election, to join me in protesting the anti-democratic dictatorial behavior of the Prime Minister and this government by taking to the streets", said the Kiwi Party leader.
Blam. The whole thing has partisan politics written all over it now - reinforcing my view that it shouldn't be muddling up a general election ballot paper.
-
First, perhaps there are always multiple issues on which the Government of the day (whatever colour rosette its wearing) should be embarrassed over.
Absolutely, I have no issue with the referendum being called, or timing it around an election year, politically charged as that may be (although am fairly certain of my vote on it).
But my unease around single, very specific policy points (particularly where there is any taint of partisanship or politicking) being included on a general election ballot remains, regardless of whether that policy statement could be read as pro or anti any particular party. THAT'S my argument for not bundling it in - of course some may say it's not a strong enough argument to spend a few milion dollars extra on, and fair enough. -
Why is spending $10m on a referendum that could easily be run for a few hundred thousand a good idea (other than you disagree with the position of those asking for it)?
I'm not super fussed by where it sits but my answer to your question would be to maintain political "cleanliness" of the general election.
I do feel a little uneasy having an election which is about selecting local representatives and national parties based on a widespread general view of their policy platform mixed up with a very very specific policy issue on the ballot, particularly when such a policy issue has been partly tainted with partisanship (perhaps not from Parliament where the passing of the law was fairly bipartisan, but from the initiators of the referendum itself)
-
Well Mr McCaw, I've been hugely impressed by Green Cabs here in the last week.
After booking one to head out to an hour long meeting, when I called again for the return they opened the conversation with "Hi Gareth, are you still at XXXX? We can come get you. Oh and do you want to go back to YYYY where we got you before? Great. Done"
And then the different cab driver had my taxi charge card numbers already applied from my account to his little computer-thingy so just printed a slip of paper for me to sign.
They've got more than just the cars advanced technologically.Although it is rather eery to have them silently slip away when they drop you off. Turned around and it was gone. Keiza Sose (sp?) Cabs perhaps..