Yawn - NZ Election 08 - The Fever thread

118 replies · 1,290 views

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Has he ever been to a game?

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

rodfarva wrote:

[

what i like about john key is he is a businessman (and a successful one) first and a politician second. helen is just a petty politician, albeit a very good one.

Businessman? John Key is not. He's never run a business. He made money as a forex dealer. That's a very well paid functionary role in banking. It doesn't make him a businessman.

Profile pic. Should you be interested. Lakhsen, on the right, lost touch with him.
Mohammed, on the left, I'm still in touch with. He's now living in Agadez, Niger. More focused on his animals now as tourism has dried up. Is active with a co-op promoting local goods, leather work and bijouterie, into Europe.
20/5/20

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Whatever happened to the days of candidates door knocking and actually walking around their possible electorate seeking votes? A couple of ad boards on the side of the road, a photo in your local paper anf thats pretty much it. I heard there was a candidate meeting at the Upper hutt Cossie Club recently. Not very well advertised.

Messsage for candidates - get out and about and meet the voters, if you make it to the ivory tower known as parliament you will lose all touch with reallity whilst towing the party line instead of what reasons people voted you in for.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Look around. They are out and about. To what degree I'm not sure. The Green Party candidate, for Hutt South, was at the Hutt 's Riverbank market last Saturday doing the smiles and handshakes thing. Seemed to me that she was getting a lot of questions asked of her.

Did you get down to that candidate meeting? Anything to report back?

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hard News wrote:

I'm staying out of this. For good.

unfortunately I have to aswell

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

So National wants to take your super fund to the poker table by insisting its used on internal investment , how bizarre , free market philosophy is chucked out the window in favour quasi state intervention , very socialist and dare i say it Green.
Its all becoming a bit surreal with banks being nationalized in the all but name in Europe and the States.
For me the international situation is rapidly eclipsing any real interest i have in the NZ election with all its petty bickering ,surely Clark/ Cullen and Key/English will have to play an even more bi partisan role than they have up until now regards the worsening global economy after all we are all in the same boat and its a very small very vulnerable vessel indeed (arse fell out wall st again this morning)
Anyway just be glad you don't support a football team that depends on property development or banking or such like for its future development ,,,,,,,,Doh!!

For those interested the final Obama -McCain debate is live on telly this afternoon

Kiwi Jambo2008-10-16 12:22:27

The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Lonegunmen wrote:

I have seen Stephen Franks out and about Wellington quite a bit, think i have seen the guy Robertson as well though not to sure what he looks like. From stories back home the candidates have been out in force in Rotorua, the guy McClay has door knocked about every house by now i think. Certainly in the battleground seats you will see the candidates out a lot more.

I realise the distinction is pretty slim and relatively pointless really but from my understanding by the time Key left Merril Lynch he was all but running the Forex program? So you could make a pretty good argument he was a businessman but again pointless.

Still noone has been able to tell me why I or anyone should care what Keys position on the Tour was? We surely are a couple of generations past that rather nasty issue!

And this is a serious question for someone who is slightly more left leaning than I and I will probably disagree with your answer, but what is the problem with privatisation? I am only 22 so have grown up knowing not much different really. Although I understand the political situation on the 80's that drove privatisation I dont really understand why it is this big bad thing that is so tabboo?

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

bopman wrote:

I realise the distinction is pretty slim and relatively pointless really but from my understanding by the time Key left Merril Lynch he was all but running the Forex program? So you could make a pretty good argument he was a businessman but again pointless.

Pointless? Not so, The point is that despite all of the PR, John Key is not a business man. Don't let anyone kid you he is.

(Sorry, it just irks me to hear him described that way.)

dairyflat2008-10-16 12:42:34

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

No im saying you could make an argument that he was a businessman, if hes running the department he was a businessman

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Global Head of Foreign Exchange at Merrill Lynch is a pretty substantial post.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

bopman wrote:

Pointless? Not so, The point is that despite all of the PR, John Key is not a business man. Don't let anyone kid you he is.

(Sorry, it just irks me to hear him described that way.)

it is a pointless discussion but what is your definition of a business man? he was an auditor, project manager and then foreign exchange dealer wasn't he? that's what i was going on when i said it.

helen clark was a lecturer or something then straight into parliament.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

Global Head of Foreign Exchange at Merrill Lynch is a pretty substantial post.

And this is my point, maybe that is not a straight up and down businessman as we would understand it but it is running a pretty big business dealing with big issues.
But then Dr Cullen did say because he was there and it has sinced collapsed he has no credibility so I guess that must be so

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

No it's not... can't be.. tell me it's not....

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Labour by constantly hammering home that Key was a business man and therefore inherently untrustworthy and really scary is just a simple and somewhat old fashioned "sheep scaring" political tactic ,I find the ooh he made money so ooh hes a bad man mantra a bit tedious to hear after a while. Lets face it there is good bad and ugly on both sides if you look at it objectivly, i havent got a clue who I will vote for but my decision will not be based on having to listen to dogmatic slogans and repetition.

The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

rodfarva wrote:

but what is your definition of a business man? he was an auditor, project manager and then foreign exchange dealer wasn't he? that's what i was going on when i said it.

Owner of a business or someone with excutive power in a business.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

He was a financial proffessional. Does that suit everyone?

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

rodfarva wrote:

but what is your definition of a business man? he was an auditor, project manager and then foreign exchange dealer wasn't he? that's what i was going on when i said it.

Owner of a business or someone with excutive power in a business.

oh ok then well let me rephrase my classification. key is someone who worked in a business and the financial sector, whatever you call that type of person. thats what i like about him over helen.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

rodfarva wrote:

[

oh ok then well let me rephrase my classification. key is someone who worked in a business and the financial sector, whatever you call that type of person. thats what i like about him over helen.

[/QUOTE]

and CL's

[quote]He was a financial proffessional. Does that suit everyone?

OK...point taken. I'll shut up now. Was going on a bit.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

haha thanks CL thats what i should have said at the beginning

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Kiwi Jambo wrote:

ï¿½Labour by constantly hammering home that Key wasï¿½ a business man and therefore inherentlyï¿½ untrustworthy and really scary is just a simple and somewhat old fashionedï¿½ "sheep scaring" political tactic

I think you make more than a fair point Kiwi Jambo. Labour have spent three years talking about National and its Dog Whistle politics and its playbook straight out of Crosby Textor, seems to me like the first couple of weeks of Labours campaign have been straight out of the same playbook

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Can anyone remember when any election did not feature the Opposition saying it will put more police on the street, and the Govt saying it already has done that?

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

has been the catch phrase for all the major parties in the last decade! every election comes down to one or two of the big areas, crime, education and health......friom what I can see National are going to have to cut spending on one or more of these big areas to give us the big tax break and Labour seem to be riding on the bread line with their current tax cuts, but at least haven't had to cut spending - increases are unlikely to be possible.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4492

Seems that Foreign Policy thinks NZ's election is a non-yawn.

Marty Melville/Getty Images

New Zealand

General Election, November 2008

The offenders: Third-party New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and some clever hackers

How it will get ugly: After governing New Zealand since 1999, the Labour Party faces high odds in its attempt to win its fourth consecutive election victory. The center-right National Party has consistently posted double-digit leads in the polls. The prospect of a transfer of power has contributed to an uncharacteristically bitter campaign. Third-party politicians, whose support is usually required to form a governing coalition, have been responsible for much of the campaignï¿½s vitriol.

Winston Peters has attacked both sides, claiming that the Labour governmentï¿½s free trade agreement with China had gone ï¿½as sour as the milk in their baby-food productsï¿½ and referring to former investment banker and National Party leader John Key as a ï¿½greedy merchant banker.ï¿½ New Zealandï¿½s true innovation in mudslinging, however, has been electronic.

Worst of the worst: Thanks to a ï¿½Google bombingï¿½ campaign by Labour Party supporters, a Web search on google.co.nz for the word ï¿½cluelessï¿½ returns John Keyï¿½s Web site as the top result. National Party supporters retaliated, causing a search for ï¿½Labour-funded lackeysï¿½ to turn up a link to a pro-Labour newspaper.

dairyflat2008-10-16 16:20:15

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

bopman wrote:

And this is a serious question for someone who is slightly more left leaning than I and I will probably disagree with your answer, but what is the problem with privatisation? I am only 22 so have grown up knowing not much different really. Although I understand the political situation on the 80's that drove privatisation I dont really understand why it is this big bad thing that is so tabboo?

In a nutshell, I would suggest that allowing privatisation develops competition that is not necessarily beneficial for some services (education springs to mind): rather than raising the bar for all it increases the disparities between the haves and have nots.

That Key photo makes me want to

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

But surely there's always been private skools !

The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Lonegunmen wrote:

I wonder how many potential politicians will come to the next Nix game at the ROF vote chasing??

Grant Robertson (Labour's candidate for Wellington Central) is a season pass holder.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Kiwi Jambo wrote:

But surely there's always been private skools !

exactly - very expensive, so only for the elite.

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

HarryHotspur wrote:

That Key photo makes me want to

...and there is why I have spent the last two months trying to keep it suppressed.

He's never seen a game and it's a pretty cheap and tacky play... if he wins it's going to come back and bite his arse every time football gets shafted by government.

Hard News2008-10-16 19:43:43

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Cheers HN for being on the play with that one. I wasn't sure if it was for real or a photoshop effort.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Russel Norman won my party vote this morning with the Greens' policy on Paul Henry

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2207619 at 6.07

Also spoke a lot of sense on other matters too.

And might I add a very nice guy in person. Put up with talking to me for at least five minutes on his Sunday afternoon a few weeks back.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

bopman wrote:

One negative for me is...
In a smaller economy, like NZ's, privatisation of the larger assets just sees money going offshore.
In the larger economies where assets were privatised the majority of the shareholders tended to be of the home nation. In smaller economies the majority of the shareholders ended up being non-nationals and there was a flow of money (dividends and the like) off shore.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Anyone notice John Keys not wearing a seat belt in a moving car in their advert??

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

bopman wrote:

Does it pain you when a company like Fonterra brings profits back to NZ?
Arsenal2008-10-24 20:06:52

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Arsenal wrote:

Does it pain you when a company like Fonterra brings profits back to NZ?

No. Then again Fonterra is co-operative of 11,000 NZ farmers and is not a privatised business in the way Telecom is. The assets of the Dairy Board, included in Fonterra's birth, may have been in public hands but the rest of the business was co-operatives which to my mind were firmly the private sector. Fonterra doesn't have, say, XY Dairy of Upper Volta holding 30% of its equity.

After the Yellow Pages sale last year Telecom "returned" $1.1Billion to shareholders, how much of that went off shore?

dairyflat2008-10-24 20:52:02

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

Arsenal wrote:

Does it pain you when a company like Fonterra brings profits back to NZ?

So what about people in other countries that are seeing their 'profits' go overseas to Fonterra?

My point is that we live in an integrated global economy and that it is worthless worrying about whether 'profits' are staying within a nation state (which is of less and less relevance as time goes on - recall that nation states are a relatively recent development anyway).

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Arsenal wrote:

My point is that we live in an integrated global economy and that it is worthless worrying about whether 'profits' are staying within a nation state (which is of less and less relevance as time goes on - recall that nation states are a relatively recent development anyway).

That's fine and I pretty much agree with that. However it wasn't a question of where profits go but a question of the pros and cons of privatisation. In short one negative could be seen to be the movement of capital offshore.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

Arsenal wrote:

Does it pain you when a company like Fonterra brings profits back to NZ?

After the Yellow Pages sale last year Telecom "returned" $1.1Billion to shareholders, how much of that went off shore?

This is not the whole story, because you have to consider factors like customer service and dividends, but note that at today's price Telecom is worth marginally less than the $4.25bn the Govt sold it for 16 years ago. In short, the NZ Govt got a very good deal with that sale and the foreign and other private investors got dawked.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/election-quiz

Try this..

Pundit has joined with US company Glassbooth to create a groundbreaking quiz that will help voters get informed about the upcoming election. Choose which issues you most care about, respond to a series of statements, and find out which party is best for you and why.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Excuse my ignorance, but before the election coming up I probably should clear this up.

I've been unclear on this for a while, we get two votes right? If I give my party vote to National could I vote for (for the sake of argument) a Greens representative to lead my electorate? If so, doesn't that somewhat cancel out my original vote for National because it is the electorates that are represented in Parliament.

Cheers.

Permalink

over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

loyalgunner wrote:

Excuse my ignorance, but before the election coming up I probably should clear this up.I've been unclear on this for a while, we get two votes right?ï¿½ If I give my party vote to National could I vote for (for the sake of argument) a Greens representative to lead my electorate?ï¿½ If so, doesn't that somewhat cancel out my original vote for National because it is the electorates that are represented in Parliament.Cheers.

No, its a little tough to explain but it is your party vote which determines how many seats people get in parliament. Say National win a proportion of theparty vote which entitles them to 55 seats, they win 30 electorates so fill up the other 25 with List members.
Effectively your electorate vote does very little to effect the make up of the parliament (unless you are voting in a maori electorate and creating overhang) but that is a differen story.
So no, it doesn't cancel out your vote is the short answer

In other news, people see TV1 reveal Winny has been pushing for Glenn to get a job as Honorary Consul to Monaco since the middle of last year. He really is a twat, corrupt, liar and a twatbopman2008-10-28 18:15:09

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink