Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Is anyone suggesting a voting system that allows only your niece to select the next government?
Good point, 16 & 17 year olds wouldn't be the *only* voters.
We allow people whose brains have atrophied from old age to vote - mostly for NZ First.
-
I think that's probably good advice, Jamil.
730m of them are peasant farmers with an average income of NZ$800 per year
Who are not going to be taking up the slack on $4k flat screen tellys, though maybe the Warehouse's gumboot supplier could sell a few domestically.
-
That Iceland thing is interesting. I wonder if the deal with the Russians will be that Iceland gets bailed out in return for letting Russia base subs and aircraft there.
That should wind the Americans (and British) up.
-
They could call their team The Lions. After all:
1. Everyone else does.
2. They actually have some in South Africa. -
Nat 52, Lab 48, Greens 11, Maori 4-7, ACT 4, Progs and UF 1
Now if Hide loses Epsom that would put a further complexion on things:
Lab 48 / Green 11 / Prog 1 = 60 votes. -
Helen Clark is a pretty reasonable cross-country skier.
British Prime Minister Edward Heath captained his yacht Morning Cloud to win the Admiral's Cup in 1971. I think this might make him the only recent world leader to win a top class sporting event while in office. (The Admiral's Cup was pretty much the premier world sailing event at the time).
A range of politicians are competent at golf, but that isn't a sport.
-
can anyone imagine a more insulting and detestable moniker for the working class?
SPPs (=Scummy Poor People)
-
I often find myself calling people mate or bro because I have no idea of their name. Or introducing people with "you guys know each other?".
I've even forgotten what ACT stands for - ah, Association of C***ts and Tw***s - that's the one.
-
I've loaded the Winston Peters app. It throws out all the Asian components so the phone doesn't work. Does anyone think a cash bribe will fix it?
-
Something I'd point out is that even under the most radical past governments, spending wasn't much lower than today (in 1999 it was a mere 1% less than the forecast for next year).
That's because most core public spending is on essential services like health, welfare and education. Most public servants are frontline staff like nurses, teachers and policeman - Wellington based administrators are a small minority.
No government has any chance of releasing funds for radical tax cuts without seriously reducing services, e.g. abolishing free healthcare or education. (I'm assuming that a National government would never cut the budget of the "oppressive services"). So any reduction of tax has to come out of borrowing or redistribution. One difference between parties is whether they want to distribute from rich to poor or vice versa.