Stop Asset Sales!
 

Jesus, is there anything - ANYTHING - that Labour can do without fucking up?

Hmm, nothing on Dim-Post so I don't know what you're talking about.. Please don't make me go to Kiwiblog or the Standard!

Some could go IMO, why does the taxpayer own Orcon for instance?

Korida, its parent lost $18million this year: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kordia-...hover-ck-87137

I would find it hard to imagine the Orcon makes enough profit to prop Kordia up - perhaps if we sold it we could use the proceeds to help balance the Kordia loss and get an awesome IPTV infrastructure as a result.

I'm referring to the fact that Labour's latest PR campaign seems to involve sticking up signs saying "Stop Asset Sales" next to public roads. Unfortunately the signs they're sticking up next to public roads are designed to look like actual Stop signs, which is both fucking stupid and illegal.

Edit - I see that even The Standard has called the campaign "amateur hour". Ouch.

Oh ok... ummm I know! we should sell Labour and get another party.

*golf clap*

I've listened to some of the debates about selling state assets and Key just has too much ammo against Goff. Sweet zombie jesus make it stop

Was that what prompted Mallards quip about Whale Oil yesterday? He seems to have lined a median strip with his allocation.

that is fucking embarassing

LOL. National doesn't have to do anything to get re-elected, they just need Labour to continue with the stupid. Ugh.

A poll the other day said 50% of voters don't want goff to step down. I couldn't help but wonder how many of those people were nat supporters.

Lol.
Way to look like a leader, Phil. I'm sure all those Labour volunteers really appreciate you redirecting legal action to them.

ahahaha thats classic shit.

"Wasn't me" ... way to take ownership

Traffic control devices manual:
Part 3
Advertising Signs.

3.4.2 Electoral Advertising

In specific: link to a pdf:
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation...sing-signs.pdf

Also check the Electoral Act 1993, it says the same thing.

Lets vote for monkeys to write laws which they don't follow!

Hmm... Goff's statement didn't sound much like "We certainly would not want to break any laws, this was an unintentional error and I apologise to drivers everywhere and of course we'll take the signs down." In fact, it sounded more like "You got a problem? Say it to the face of the person in charge of those signs and maybe if you're nice they'll do something about it. DO IT FAGGOT I dare ya!"

C'mon Goff, you're the boss now. Take charge of the situation and close it down now. This shit will be in the press until you act decisively.

This situation is pretty infuriating. On the one hand, National have performed abysmally and next term will only be worse if they follow through with asset sales.

On the other hand, WTF Goff, just gtfo, please, for the love of god. You're GIFTING these incompetent economically illiterate fuckwits the election.

Mallard, or this guy http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...g-families.asx needs to take over ASAP

Mallard as PM, are you serious?

Crazy I know, but he'd have a better shot than Goff atm.

A. There'd be no accusing him of being "PC"
B. He's damn good in a debate.
C. He's quite well liked by both the social liberals and the unions.
D. Whoever took the reigns now would most likely lose anyway, so why not give the guy a punt? Considering more realistic candidates will most likely wait until after the election to roll goff, saving themselves a defeat as leader on their record.

Downside is he might not hack the pressure, but it's possible he's learned something since he assaulted Tau.

holy lol

Just the sort of exaggeration I expect from you. Are they less than stellar? Yes. Abysmal? Fuck off. They're treading water economically and are slightly above mediocre all round. But hardly abysmal.


Oh come off it. A Mallard led govt would be almost as abysmal as a Goff lead govt.

Hardly an exaggeration when they've wasted billions of dollars on gifts for their rich mates while cutting social services in a time of recession. Abysmal is EXACTLY the word I would use to describe their performance.

Standard horseshit left wing criticism of National.

Well, probably in the low hundred-million range. 35 mill to rich-guy yachties here... probably other stuff there...

(And yep, I voted National)

I think you'll find it was Labour that gave that money to rich guy yachties.

So the 2 billion dollars in tax cuts to the top 10% of income earners isn't "billions" to you? Or the 1.2 billion dollar bailout of SCF after National renewed their deposit guarantee, all while Key is receiving regular reports on how bad it was doing?

I believe that there were tax cuts all round for every income bracket. But hey, spin it how you will - it's still exaggeration.


Are you seriously trying to portray that as a... what was it you said... gift for their rich mates? You're saying that the bailout of SCF was a gift for rich mates? Genious.

God you'r thick Adonis. Found this mention of you on Wiki - thought it suited.

"Women sit by the gate weeping for Tammuz, or they offer incense to Baal on roof-tops and plant pleasant plants. These are the very features of the Adonis cult: a cult confined to women which is celebrated on flat roof-tops on which sherds sown with quickly germinating green salading are placed, Adonis gardens... the climax is loud lamentation for the dead god."

And Baal is part of the story :confused:

I really think you should stick to the gardening.

Yes, close to 5billion all up, 42% of which went to 10% of the population. Followed by an increase in GST which ate up the tax break for the people at the bottom end of the income spectrum.

"Gift" or not renewing the scheme was idiotic and completely avoidable.

OTOH you'd be all for Labour making the first $5000 of income tax free, right?

Listen, I don't agree with Key bailing out SCF either, but to characterise it as a gift to rich mates is not only an exageration, but moronic as well.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I've described how displeased with National I am but this coming from a Labour supporter is too much.

HEY GST FREE VEGES IS OUR ECONOMIC POLICY!

I was against National making regressive changes to the tax system. This suggestion of Labour's is a progressive change, though it'll be necessary to make other progressive alterations as well otherwise the tax intake will obviously go down.

The current government has had a tendancy to favour the rich over the poor, for no apparent reason other than the fact that they're rich. They may not be aware of their obvious bias, but it's certainly there. Not that I would expect someone with the political leanings you have to admit to, or even notice it.

National HAVE given billions to people at the top end of the income spectrum, and ARE cutting social services ("nice to haves") to pay for these changes. This isn't really up for debate, it's shows how desperate you are to avoid confronting this reality when you resort to this kind of semantic argument.

This morning:
This afternoon:

Not that I would expect this to change the thrust of your post, but I don't vote Labour. I vote Green.

PS GST free fruit/veges isn't a policy I would support, but it's small fries compared to asset sales, regressive taxation policies, tax bailouts for bad investments, and cutting social services (social costs don't just disappear because you move them off the government books).

I'm really sick of hearing that National are good at handling the economy, it's a statement that I've never seen anyone back up with actual empirical evidence. They're still stuck in the neoliberal mindset, despite how much damage that school of economics has caused the world recently. The only time Labour has done a worse job was during the Lange administration, but then, Roger Douglas was setting their economic policy then, it was basically like having ACT in charge for 6 years. Key's only holding back because he knows that the public won't accept another NZ government being hijacked by the corporate elite.

Want to know why we're so far behind aus? 25 years of hard right wing governments. Muldoon set us up for bankruptcy us, Douglas used that as an excuse to hold a fire-sale on assets, many of which we really needed to hang onto, then Ruth Richardson came along and put the boot into all the families that were suffering because of the actions of these econmically illiterate wankers.

Nonetheless, it will still cost the country a lot of money and given how you stated that you're against wasting billions of dollars in tax cuts I'd have thought you'd be against this 'first 500 free' deal.


I love this "You're biased and I'm not!" thing you've got going on. You've come up with some exaggerated shit about what you think my political leanings are and completely ignored the fact that you're a slavish devotee of the left wing. You're an utter moron.

Pretty amusing. I was hoping to souvenir one but they're probably all gone now.

STOP Gofftime!
 

Fixed that for you.

Learn to read.

Hilarious (not really, tired and boring more like), pretty much every rebuttal you've ever made either starts out or ends up with you attacking a left winger for being left wing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out your political leanings. Cry me a fucking river.

Yep, hilarious.

I have been saying for a long time now the goff is the best leader labour have had for a very long time.

If need be I'll become a financial supporter of him if a little extra cash would help him keep hold of the reins.

Yes we know - your communist ideals are evident in almost every post.

Let nobody be under any illusion otherwise - the greens are an extremist party far left of alliance of old.

And of course those with communist hopes don't want asset sales - the state is supposed to own everything isn't it?