Hard News: Only what we would expect a child to do
222 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’ve not followed this story, so can someone tell me if the above is what M Dev said happened, or what the police/courts have said happened.
Fair point. It’s Devlin’s account.
1. I doubt Devlin would risk lying in the circumstances. Taking diversion basically means accepting the police account.
2. It tallies with eyewitness gossip that circulated on the internet. (Apart from the “blazing row” part reported by the HoS.)
3. The charge was disorderly behaviour, when anything more serious (eg: assault) would have attracted another charge.
-
I feel a pitch for a reality mockumentary coming on: When Sexed Up Non-Stories Go Bad. A bit clunky, but someone else has dibs on Almighty Johnsons.
-
I particularly enjoyed the Herald's "AirNZ's Rico is hated by staff because he's so inappropriate" article that finished with "want a Rico t-shirt? Email us!"
-
Where's Editing the Herald when we need it eh?
Given today's front page, I hope he's off planning the epic return of 'Shark Newz!' 'Now with extra added Croc and Lion!'.
Worst part of that story? Overhearing two different groups of peole animatedly discussing it at different times this morning. Bread and circuses.....
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Nah, if anything Goff and Cunliffe should be profoundly grateful that Idiot Savant’s fact-based, intellectually honest fisking of how Labour’s intends to pay for its tax policy is exceedingly unlikely to be repeated in the mainstream media.
Now if Labour were to follow up the return of a 39% rate with a CGT, they might get somewhere. When Craig Elliffe, Professor of Taxation Studies at UoA's business school and a man for whom I have enormous respect as a tax practitioner, puts his name to articles saying that a CGT is necessary, possible, practical, and probably quite lucrative, I'm prepared to think that it's worth considering.
A CGT and a higher top bracket would probably pay for Goff's threshold, even without further crackdowns on avoidance, and a CGT would have the added benefit of encouraging some degree of rebalancing of the economy away from property.The outraged tone of many of the comments on the article just reinforces my belief that he's on the right track. If it upsets rank-and-file readers of Granny, it's probably a worthwhile policy.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
The outraged tone of many of the comments on the article just reinforces my belief that he's on the right track. If it upsets rank-and-file readers of Granny, it's probably a worthwhile policy.
Sounds like the Common Agricultural - oops, Property - Policy cartel is starting to see the barbarians tearing down the McMansion gate.
-
Juha Saarinen, in reply to
Right John. You're clearly not notorious and newsworthy enough. I can fix that. We shall revel and quaff! and make the front page!
-
peterpeasant, in reply to
"artful"? that is stretching the meaning a bit. isn't it?
-
Does Yoda dye his ears?
-
I do love this sudden rush of political enthusiasm about Kiwi mums and dads.
Obviously after the last couple of years of scrimping and paying down debt, New Zealand families are now suddenly awash in cash, and will jump at the chance to buy chunks of power companies that they actually already own.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Obviously after the last couple of years of scrimping and paying down debt, New Zealand families are now suddenly awash in cash, and will jump at the chance to buy chunks of power companies that they actually already own.
Totally. Instead of, say, buying new cars, or TVs, they will instead get the "economic sanity" gospel and start behaving in a rational, long-term manner, investing and saving rather than indulging their consumerist urges.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yup. I like the way that NZers are feeling rich because of the property boom, too. No real NZer can't afford property and actually feels poorer because of it.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
The outraged tone of many of the comments on the article just reinforces my belief that he's on the right track. If it upsets rank-and-file readers of Granny, it's probably a worthwhile policy
Not so sure about that. Granny readers do NOT sound impressed about asset sales.
Now comes the real crunch. If it's unpopular and they do it anyway, we'll finally see the true spots of this National Government. To me, this is the final straw. Until yesterday, I didn't feel openly hostile to them, had more of a "wait and see" mentality. Now, I've waited, and I've seen.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
The outraged tone of many of the comments on the article just reinforces my belief that he's on the right track. If it upsets rank-and-file readers of Granny, it's probably a worthwhile policy
Not so sure about that. Granny readers do NOT sound impressed about asset sales.
The barometer is more useful for policy proposals through OpEd or editorials than for policy proposed by pollies proper, but I do see your point.
I've said consistently that "No asset sales in our first term" was just code for "We'll strip-mine the asset ledger in the second term", and Key has proved that I was correct.
Contrary to Granny's editorial position, it seems, Kiwis have not forgotten that we got the wrong end of a splintery broomstick the last time state assets were sold. Whether they'll attach that painful memory to Key is another matter entirely, but it's definitely unfortunate that Goff was a member of the Douglas Cabinet and is a barely-reformed adherent to the "scorch state-asset earth" school of economic management. -
pains in the assets...
I do love this sudden rush of political enthusiasm about Kiwi mums and dads.
I suspect the mums and dads they're thinking of
look a lot like Fay, Richwhite and their ilk...These strategic assets are part sold for 10 billion dollars (optimistically), which is what - 40 weeks worth of borrowing $250 million?
Then what do they (we) have to pay the rest of their borrowings (plus interest) back with?
Diminished returns from their half +1 share in these assets and taxation - looks like a backtrack on their hardening stance on land sales to foreigners will be on the agenda if National gets back in...It's a bit of a gift to Winston Peters' platform too...
interesting times....
on your marks
- hit the hustings! -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
These strategic assets are part sold for 10 billion dollars (optimistically)
Brian Fallow thinks that $7.8b would be in line with the valuations of the assets that’re potentially up for sale, maintaining 51% state ownership:
"Given the pledge that the Crown would retain majority stakes and assuming (unsafely) that the market would concur in those valuations, that suggests that, at most, $7.8 billion could be raised by a selldown." -
Emmerson cartoon in the Herald is a pretty good summary of the wisdom of asset sales. Electricity is a crucial underpinning of our increasingly digital economy for many years to come.
-
Bunji at the Standard fisks Key's trumpeting of NZ's total debt as if it's the same as basket cases overseas.
Everywhere he can, John Key is busy raising the canard of our economy being as indebted as the PIIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) that are in trouble in Europe. He’s talking about net foreign debt, and he’s suggesting lowering government debt (by hocking our inherited family silver off) is the solution.
But New Zealand’s debt problem is not a government debt problem like the bailed-out countries of Greece and Ireland. We do not face the risk of bail-out as JK deceitfully suggests, as we are a long way from the government being unable to pay its bills. While NZ’s net foreign debt position is 85% of GDP, net public debt is forecast to peak at 30% of GDP in 2015 (edit: currently 18.8%). Compare this to the current situation of Italy (115.2%), Portugal (76.9%), Greece (126.8%), Spain (53.2%), and Ireland (64.8%).
...
The problem is personal debt.
And I have yet to hear any convincing explanation of how cutting government spending reduces non-government debt. Magic beans, perhaps.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Contrary to Granny's editorial position, it seems, Kiwis have not forgotten that we got the wrong end of a splintery broomstick the last time state assets were sold.
Yes, it's not going to be popular, is my prediction. In fact, I think it could be unpopular enough to lose National the election. This is the issue Labour should be jumping on, right now, real hard, and keep hammering it.
Who will be buying these assets? What assets is the freed-up money going to be spent on, if any? Who owns those and stands to make a fucking fortune? If the money is just going to be spent to balance the books for tax cuts, how is this sustainable?
Also:
How is the government selling off assets encouraging kiwis to save? Surely it's the exact opposite, showing that even the Government can't afford to save. How is saving going to save NZ anyway, high levels of savings are exactly what fucked the Japanese economy.
Thinking even further:
What is inherently wrong with investing in property, other than the assumption that for some reason, people should never ever have to sell it? Isn't all that property that enriched a generation exactly the thing that should be funding retirements for those who have gigantic property portfolios? Or even just incredibly valuable homes? Can't they just move to a house that's half as valuable and live off the difference extremely comfortably for the rest of their lives? Or even, God forbid, sell off and rent, using the colossal tax-free capital difference to live as actual millionaires? I expect if something were done to force this issue, savings in this country would leap by tens of billions very rapidly. The amount of money tied up in property in this country dwarfs the stockmarket, dwarfs everything the government owns.
I also include rural property in this assessment. I still can't fathom why it is that people who own farms worth millions get a handout every time the weather turns bad. Any other business gets through downturns by either selling assets (and farms are easily dividable), or cutting costs, or borrowing money. Or they go bankrupt, forcing the loss off onto the bank, which is pretty much exactly who should lose money, having creamed huge profits from all the other loans.
-
Electricity is a crucial underpinning of our increasingly digital economy for many years to come.
The electricity supply is unlikely to stop if the companies are sold though is it ?
I suspect the mums and dads they're thinking of
look a lot like Fay, Richwhite and their ilk...They've been very explicit that there will be no *trade sales* this time around.
Personally I'm in two minds about this. At least it's out in the open and being debated.
-
Sam F, in reply to
Emmerson cartoon in the Herald is a pretty good summary of the wisdom of asset sales.
Makes it all the sadder to see the contrasting editorial, doesn't it?
-
The electricity supply is unlikely to stop if the companies are sold though is it ?
No, but making it more expensive doesn't help a business for which electricity is one of their main costs. Actually, it doesn't help any business, really, there's no avoiding electricity. To heavy industry, electricity prices are make or break.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And I have yet to hear any convincing explanation of how cutting government spending reduces non-government debt. Magic beans, perhaps.
Further to that, why do tax cuts for the bottom half cause deficits, but holiday highways and corporate welfare don't?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
This is the issue Labour should be jumping on, right now, real hard, and keep hammering it.
God knows that they’ll need the distraction if they keep putting out policies with costings that look like they’ve been done by Mark Hotchin during a long liquid lunch.
No, but making it more expensive doesn't help a business for which electricity is one of their main costs.
So, any party got a policy that they'll scale back the dividend demands from state-owned generation companies? Or is gouging consumers to plump your own bottom line only bad when dirty dirty foreigners and rich pricks do it?
-
The electricity supply is unlikely to stop if the companies are sold though is it ?
The experience in California implies that this statement requires a careful interpretation of 'stop' to mean 'stop forever ever'
Post your response…
This topic is closed.