Posts by DaveC
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As I said the rate of growth in this measure is the second highest in the OECD, so it is possible that Prebble was referring to this and was misquoted, or misspoke. Either way it is emphatically not the second lowest in the OECD, and saying he is "raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ..." on that basis strikes me as a little unfair.
-
Bingo! And Prebble is not just wrong, he's raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ...
"New Zealand has [the ] second-lowest government spending in OECD"
Based on figures from 2004? Try 2008 Annex Table 25.
Not only has NZ government spending as a percentage of GDP gone from second lowest to above OECD average, the rate of growth in spending as percent of GDP is the second highest in the OECD, an increase of 3.72% from 2004 to 2009 (projected). So perhaps Prebble was referring to the rate of growth and was misquoted. Either way I think you owe him an apology.
-
It is a misquote. Key did not say 2010 was the "earliest date for tax cuts", nor did he say "the earliest a National-led government could deliver tax cuts would be April 2010.". He said "It could be that sort of distance away,** notwithstanding any changes we might make**. We have always argued about phased-in tax cuts, not a big-bang approach. Assuming it was in Budget 2009, then generally speaking the start would be in April 2010."
With the economy threatening to tank and the public crying out for some relief it makes sense to bring the cuts forward in a mini-budget.
-
Last year, long-overdue legislation was tabled to allow these sentences to extend to six months. National supports this extension and in Government we will, as a matter of priority, pass the legislation to make it happen.
Saying that you'll implement an extension of youth sentences (along with a lot of other changes) when you're in government doesn't mean you'll support legislation that you regard as flawed overall when you're in opposition.
-
It would be more common to tag unsourced material with ["citation needed"]. There are citations available for the assertions on English's position, at least in so far as his voting record and Parliamentary speeches go. So it's not exactly libellous.
No Russell, read WP:BLP. The material doesn't need to be outright libellous to be contentious (adj: likely to cause argument or quarrelling). If citations are available then add them, otherwise it has to go.
-
At the very least they should surely have citations? As in an article or policy statement whereby Bill English has specifically stated his positions and how they are influenced by his belief?
Yes Gareth, it's Wikipedia policy to encourage deleting anything unsourced and potentially contentious from articles about living people. A good Wikipedia biography (for example George W. Bush) has citations for just about everything.
-
202.22.18.241 is right to remove the material. As unsourced and potentially contentious information about a living person it violates Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy and should be removed immediately. Even if it was properly sourced the stuff about his wife isn't particularly relevant.
-
As Cactus Kate points out, Glenn is rarely in Monaco so he's rather unsuited for the position of "local on the ground".
-
But every media organisation ran the "spin doctor" line whole
Which "spin doctor" line was that? Those words don't appear in the press release. It does call Labour "the 'most spun' Government in history", which seems fair enough.
In a sense, you and I funded the writing of the stories.
I for one am happy to help criticise this greedy incompetent government.
-
I think you're having an Alanis Morissette moment here Russell. No, it is not ironic that an opposition party has used Parliamentary communication resources to put out a release criticising the government. That's their job.