Stop Asset Sales!

[Ab]

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

[Saladin]

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!

[GM]

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.

[Ab]

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.

[GM]

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

[Pimp-X]

[xor]

*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

[StN]

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

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by Ab

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.

that is fucking embarassing

[Jodi]

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

[Deadmeat]

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.

[Ab]

Lol.

New Zealand Transport Agency spokesman Andy Knackstedt said based on the photo, "on the face of it they are in contravention of the rules".

Land Transport Rules on Traffic Control Devices state that a person must not install on a road, or in or on a place visible from a road, a sign, device or object that is not a traffic control device; but that may be mistaken for a traffic control device.

Labour leader Phil Goff, who launched the campaign last week, said he didn't know who within his party had put the signs up, "but if the council has a problem of course they can talk to whoever might have put them out".

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

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Ab

Lol.


Way to look like a leader, Phil.

ahahaha thats classic shit.

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

[aR Que]

Traffic control devices manual:
Part 3
Advertising Signs.

3.4.2 Electoral Advertising

In specific:

Such advertisements must not be installed on any road or in any place visible from a road if they are:
• similar to or the same as any traffic sign in its shape and colour, and
• liable to be mistaken for a traffic sign

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!

[CCS]

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.

[adonis]

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

[Saladin]

Mallard as PM, are you serious?

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Saladin

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.

[Nich]

holy lol

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

This situation is pretty infuriating. On the one hand, National have performed abysmally

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.

Originally Posted by adonis

Mallard... needs to take over ASAP

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

[adonis]

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.

[CCS]

billions of dollars on gifts for their rich mates

Standard horseshit left wing criticism of National.

[crocos]

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

(And yep, I voted National)

[CCS]

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

[adonis]

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?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

So the 2 billion dollars in tax cuts to the top 10% of income earners isn't "billions" to you?

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

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?

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.

[madmaxii]

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

I really think you should stick to the gardening.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

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

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.

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.

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

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

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.

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

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

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.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

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

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!

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

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

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.

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.

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.

[Ab]

This morning:

"This is just the National Party highly embarrassed by the fact that most New Zealanders don't want asset sales and the Labour Party is standing alongside New Zealanders in that view," said Goff.

"We'll keep using those signs. If the council's got a problem we'll listen to them of course, but nobody thinks they're going to be a traffic hazard, that's just nonsense."

This afternoon:

A number of Labour Party campaign signs have been removed from a Hutt Valley street after being found to be in breach of road requirements.

The signs, which emulate road stop signs in shape and colour, but contain the message "Stop asset sales vote Labour", had been erected along the median strip of a road in Petone.

The Hutt City Council, which is the road controlling authority for the area, said this afternoon that the signs had been taken down.

"The signs did not meet any road signage requirements and following a complaint from the public they were removed," the council said in a statement.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

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!

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.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

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.

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.

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.

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.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

This morning:


This afternoon:[quotes]

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

[zeekiorage]

[doppelgänger of someone]

Originally Posted by xor

*goff clap*

Fixed that for you.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

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.

Learn to read.

Originally Posted by adonis

it'll be necessary to make other progressive alterations as well otherwise the tax intake will obviously go down.

I love this "You're biased and I'm not!"

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.

you're a slavish devotee of the left wing

Yep, hilarious.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

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.

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.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by adonis

I vote Green

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?