|
20th June 2011, 18:50 | #641 |
Objection!
|
And Phil Goff is a fundamentally dishonest jerk. NZ is not a direct, representative democraZy where constitutionally our MPs are obligated to just parrot whatever the fuck the mob wants. Don't go around changing the rules just because you got kicked out of power, Goffey.
Moreover, even if mob rule is our way (and it's not YET), it's funny how the mob didn't matter when LABOUR first proposed the laws to disconnect pirates off the internet and there was a whole lot of outrage. It's also funny how it wasn't that interested in all the widespread opposition to the extremes of the Electoral Finances Act. And a parliamentarian ought to know that NZ -- for better or worse -- has no entrenched consitution and operates on a model of legislative supremacy, i.e. Parliament's laws are supreme and every parliament has the right to change the law as it sees fit. There is no constitutional and legal mandate for Labour to attempt to bind another parliament using a mere statute. More importantly, any subsequent parliament can/will just abrogate this law even if it were enacted if a majority so desired. If Phil Goff cares so much about the "rules" and the will of the people, there's actually a process under our system to get legislations entrenched. Why doesn't he have the guts to do that? More importantly, will Phil Goff accept another government endevouring to bind his hands as to policy-making via an ordinary statute? Doubt it. Fucking contemptible hypocrite. |
20th June 2011, 18:53 | #642 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
20th June 2011, 19:32 | #643 | |||
|
OMG Someone disagrees with me . . . I must insult them!?!. Derp. Yawn. Derp
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Asset sale arguments on wobbly ground (from the Herald's “extreme left” Economics Editor) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10705195 Geoff Simmons: Little substance to the asset sales reasoning (Economist at Morgan Foundation) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10704747
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|||
20th June 2011, 19:52 | #644 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
But facts don't matter to you, do they? |
|
20th June 2011, 19:53 | #645 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
You know how National has been criticised for doing so much under urgency? That's because during this session Labour is stubbornly filibustering every. single. bill. in order to try and disrupt passage of the VSM legislation. That means there is no chance whatsoever of this private members bill appearing before the house before the election. Phil Goff is putting this forward as a private members bill specifically because that means it will never appear before Parliament. If it was put forward as an official Labour policy that would mean that Labour would have to debate it and argue in favour of it and defend it from criticism. But doing it this way means that they'll never have to do any of that - so this is all being done for appearances' sake. It's just another "AXE THE TAX*" bit of posturing. It's pathetic. * disclaimer: tax may not in fact be axed. Conditions apply. Vote Labour! |
|
20th June 2011, 19:56 | #646 |
Objection!
|
OMG HANG THAT FUCKING NACT APOLOGIST AB ALREADY!
|
20th June 2011, 20:31 | #647 | |||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|||
20th June 2011, 20:34 | #648 | |
|
Quote:
Do you think that not selling assets isn't Labour policy or something?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
20th June 2011, 20:41 | #649 | |
|
Also
The bogus benefits of PPPs Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
20th June 2011, 20:42 | #650 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
Last edited by cyc : 20th June 2011 at 20:45. |
|
20th June 2011, 20:46 | #651 |
Objection!
|
BTW, selling shares on the sharemarket isn't the same thing as a PPP, you dumb fuck.
|
20th June 2011, 20:48 | #652 | |
|
I didn't say it concludes the issue.
But it does show up your emotive BS - ie Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
20th June 2011, 20:51 | #653 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
REALLY... cuz fixed_truth said so! |
|
20th June 2011, 21:00 | #654 | |
Objection!
|
Let's look at what the Green Party retards (for example) really think about asset sales.
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/25768#poassets Quote:
|
|
20th June 2011, 21:33 | #655 |
|
^^ increasingly shrill and self-deluded.
step away from the mint-julips, freak.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
20th June 2011, 21:59 | #656 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
Get some originality. |
|
20th June 2011, 22:48 | #657 | |
|
Quote:
Also the Greens aren't opposed to the private sector being involved with the public sector. Just not in a way that's shown (contact) to result in half the profits going overseas and further selling off as the company struggles to operate in a competitive market. http://auckland.scoop.co.nz/2011/06/...my-that-works/
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
20th June 2011, 23:01 | #658 |
Objection!
|
So where's the evidence that selling 49% of the shares will inevitably lead to full privatisation? Stop dodging the question, dishonest leftie.
|
21st June 2011, 00:02 | #659 | |
|
Quote:
The fact is there is no evidence or reasoning that these asset sales would be beneficial to the NZ taxpayer. People invest in shares to make money. With a majority share hold remaining with the government there will be no operational changes that you would not expect see if the government retained full ownership. Bill English says that 'market pressure' will make them more efficient, but this view is completely idiotic. 'Mum&Dad Investors' already get the benefit of these assets as NZ taxpayers. All this is, is a land-grab for overseas interests. In the long term all these asset sales will create is higher taxes or more public service cuts. |
|
21st June 2011, 00:14 | #660 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
Again, needing/desiring to make profits does not by itself guarantee price rises. Increased profits can be achieved through efficiency gains, rationalisation, changes of operation, alternate investments etc etc. No ideology-based objections? Yeah right. |
|
21st June 2011, 02:47 | #661 | |
|
Quote:
Do you agree that any changes in operational efficiency have to offset the fact that profits will go off-shore? Or at least be diverted away from the government? |
|
21st June 2011, 04:17 | #662 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
21st June 2011, 06:52 | #663 |
|
what about the claims you've made,nimrod.
you do realise that just saying something is a fact,dosent make it so?
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
21st June 2011, 08:47 | #664 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
||
21st June 2011, 09:01 | #665 |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... |
21st June 2011, 11:20 | #666 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
21st June 2011, 11:44 | #667 | ||
Objection!
|
Quote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10733430 Quote:
Last edited by cyc : 21st June 2011 at 11:46. |
||
21st June 2011, 11:47 | #668 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
|
21st June 2011, 12:02 | #669 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
21st June 2011, 12:26 | #670 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
21st June 2011, 14:27 | #671 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
21st June 2011, 16:29 | #672 | |
|
Quote:
A market is not always the most efficient way of organising an industry. Competition costs resources, companies have to pay money for a market share. As an industry develops the resources required to keep this market share increases, it becomes a constant state of one-up-manship with rival companies, which makes it more difficult for new players to enter the market. The benefits of a market have to outweigh the cost of competition. In industries that have to cater to ever changing consumer demands, a market works well, since it can adapt better than a centrally planned industry. If an industry is driven by innovation, a market can perform well since it provides a platform to test those innovations. However, many industries that have been introduced to competition recently do not benefit enough from competition to overtake the costs of it. Take power for example, there is some degree of innovation there, but the power that comes out of your socket is the same regardless of what power company you buy it from. Competition in the power sector has driven prices up. The benefits of a market have not been enough to overtake the costs of competition, a monopoly would be more efficient. |
|
21st June 2011, 16:31 | #673 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
21st June 2011, 18:45 | #674 | |
|
Quote:
Admittedly it was a nastily phrased question from Goff, but I reckon Key did not handle that one well.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 21st June 2011 at 18:46. |
|
21st June 2011, 20:55 | #675 |
Love, Actuary
|
I hope Hone wins. I can't stand his politics or approach but I can see he's probably the best option in terms of representing that electorate. If only his mother would retire.
His view that land-line polls don't work for measuring the mood of this demographic I think is entirely valid too. Poor people are going to have a prepay cellphone and not a land-line. Of course if it's raining on the day poor people will stay home rather than getting wet walking to the voting booth. And, if it's sunny they'll go and do something more interesting. So, there's undoubtedly a chance that labour will win on the day. |
22nd June 2011, 09:51 | #676 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd June 2011, 10:05 | #677 |
|
Hone and Winston could easily end up a lifeline for Goffle. A token win for Davis would be more ideal.
|
22nd June 2011, 10:35 | #678 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
22nd June 2011, 10:41 | #679 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd June 2011, 12:47 | #680 | |
I have detailed files
|
Quote:
|
|