The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
It's not often you write something that I agree with, even partially , but I do agree 100% with this .Seneca of the Night wrote:That's where you are wrong. The only crowd who have got their heads screwed on (with the semi-exception of one other group*) on the immigration thing are the NZ First crowd. The equation is simple for them, if you want to come, in small numbers, fine, but fit in or fck off no exceptions. Simple.eugenius wrote:It’s posturing for his somewhat confused but loyal base .
It’ll be more watered down than the Rheineck at an 80’s orientation.
The others:
1/ Greens - they want to be for open borders, which is part of their larger political ecological system, but the sheer overpowering awesomeness and uniqueness of New Zealand's nature and environment holds them back from advocating any sort of real population increase - see Golly's very lukewarm comments on this proposal. EDIT: point being Golly is in private almost certainly adamantly opposed to this kind of NZ First thing.
2/ Labour - like the Greens, they desperately want to open the borders to all and sundry to show how wonderfully virtuous they are, but they can't get their heads around the poor and the current housing crisis etc. And a few remaining union guys of the Corbyn sort do know the obvious relationship between immigration and wages.
3/ The Nats, oh boy are they confused. The only thing they don't want is for anyone to call them racist. So they just keep their heads down on it like the European conservatives. In the meantime it gives an excuse for the more grafting and grifting among them to indulge their hypocrisy and make money from immigration, even if they'd rather there wasn't too many of them. On this issue they are worse than useless; they are the offenders in chief.
So that leaves this small party able to dictate much of the debate. And this is a blessing from heaven for New Zealand of almost miraculous beneficence, given what I've seen has happened to north-west Europe, and how the American political system is essentially melting down over its inability to handle its immigration issues.
* the other key group is of course Maori, who are inherently quite conservative, and having started to stake out a pretty good situation in New Zealand are buggered if they're going to allow anyone to make the same mistake for them twice. Another gift from God in this issue that will save New Zealand from the globalists.
booji boy wrote:Australian politics has been one big clusterfuck since John Howard lost the election.
For all our petty differences we have been blessed with exremely stable govt since 1990. Jenny Shipley usurping Gentleman Jim has been the only minor hiccup along the way.
I had to correct my post so I have removed the word petty while i was at it.eugenius wrote:booji boy wrote:Australian politics has been one big clusterfuck since John Howard lost the election.
For all our petty differences we have been blessed with exremely stable govt since 1990. Jenny Shipley usurping Gentleman Jim has been the only minor hiccup along the way.
Im afraid the differences aren’t all that petty .
The barriers to real change however are extremely formidable .
https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/polit ... uckerberg/deadduck wrote:Wow, so the story gets even juicier
Turns out the advertising agency Labour paid with taxpayer funds is a previous donor to the Labour party and likely to donate again. That's heading into the area of unethical spending
deadduck wrote:Wow, so the story gets even juicier
Turns out the advertising agency Labour paid with taxpayer funds is a previous donor to the Labour party and likely to donate again. That's heading into the area of unethical spending
grouch wrote:https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/polit ... uckerberg/deadduck wrote:Wow, so the story gets even juicier
Turns out the advertising agency Labour paid with taxpayer funds is a previous donor to the Labour party and likely to donate again. That's heading into the area of unethical spending
To be fair, it's probably the first time in a long time that Jacinda's been open and transparent. Accidentally of course because it looks like she doesn't know the rules, but still, it's a step in the right direction.deadduck wrote:What's this got to do with Labour illegitimately appropriating taxpayer monies to give to their donors and then funneling it back into the Labour Party coffers?
Plenty , key's first act as PM was to hire 108 Journalists for his PM's dept.deadduck wrote:grouch wrote:https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/polit ... uckerberg/deadduck wrote:Wow, so the story gets even juicier
Turns out the advertising agency Labour paid with taxpayer funds is a previous donor to the Labour party and likely to donate again. That's heading into the area of unethical spending
What's this got to do with Labour illegitimately appropriating taxpayer monies to give to their donors and then funneling it back into the Labour Party coffers?
Sen reverting to typeSeneca of the Night wrote:Seems about the only thing they didn't take a photo of was the empty hall that she gave her speech in.
The trip increasingly reads like something out of a Sacha Baron Cohen comedy.
Any actual evidence of that? Other than Cindy's woeful media management being evidence of not spending much on media management?grouch wrote:Plenty , key's first act as PM was to hire 108 Journalists for his PM's dept.
What Cindy's spending is a very small fraction that Key & Gnat ltd spent on PR , spin and obfusication .
Jacinda on how she got her financial skills, if any.Mike Hosking GDP interview wrote: MH: The GDP numbers on Thursday, have you seen them or got a hint?
JA: Sorry the, sorry the
MH: GDP numbers, Thursday
JA: We’ll be putting out the audited final numbers soon
MH: So you have seen them?
JA: I had a hint, yes
MH: Are they good?
JA: I’m pretty pleased
MH: Because you need at least 0.8 or 0.9 to rectify the 0.5 don’t you
JA: Setting expectations already
MH: No because what we need is, you had 0.5 in the first quarter, and if you start annualising at 0.5 you’re running at two and anything at two is not acceptable you need to be in threes
JA: You’re going to understand why I’m going to leave that to the Minister of Finance to do that job
Economic backwoodsmanship at it's finest.Growing up, Ms Ardern says her mother had a "very regimented" attitude towards pocket money, and made her daughter buy her own food and clothing.
"She wanted to teach us how to budget quite early on and so our pocket money had to pay for everything. Birthday presents, school lunches," she told The AM Show on Tuesday.
"I think we got $10 a week from memory. We had to even buy our shampoo and our conditioner and clothes.
"So she would give us them in little $2 coins and we would have little bags and we would have to allocate them and save up to buy birthday presents and things like that."
Ms Ardern says the experience gave her the skills she now uses to run the country.
"Now I run the books, it's probably quite a helpful lesson... our budgets are in great shape,"she laughs.
Cuntstruck?guy smiley wrote:I don’t give a flying fat rat’s how much any of you think was spent where...
she’s got the world eating out of her hand right now.
Roll that around inside your cheeks and suck it.
The soft bigotry of low expectations, established by years in the Australian system.guy smiley wrote:I don’t give a flying fat rat’s how much any of you think was spent where...
she’s got the world eating out of her hand right now.
Roll that around inside your cheeks and suck it.
Like Trudeau and Macron? She's doing to The World what she did to NZ and they did to the world - centre left message of optimism and youth and so on. Yes please, I'll have a dozen. But that's nothing to do with running the country for years on end without f**king up.guy smiley wrote:I don’t give a flying fat rat’s how much any of you think was spent where...
she’s got the world eating out of her hand right now.
Roll that around inside your cheeks and suck it.
What is obvious is that she didn't have a clue.guy smiley wrote:Or she just didn’t want to give the simpering gimp the time of day.Wilderbeast wrote:Pretty obvious Jacinda thought Hosking was talking about the Crown accounts. Bit of an embarrassing moment but not something that will harm the government. Really just material for political squabbling between the parties and their respective acolytes
I'd like to see some evidence that Hosking's understanding of economics went beyond the street price of coke and bulk discounts for rent boys.BillW wrote:Poor Jacnda.
She's so dizzzy, confused and conflicted on the financial front.
She needs better help and advice rather than PR and photo ops.Mike Hosking GDP interview wrote:
Economic backwoodsmanship at it's finest.
If that is the case it's hardly behaviour fitting of a Prime Minister to bring such petty personal antagonism to the public sphere in her relations with the media.guy smiley wrote:Or she just didn’t want to give the simpering gimp the time of day.Wilderbeast wrote:Pretty obvious Jacinda thought Hosking was talking about the Crown accounts. Bit of an embarrassing moment but not something that will harm the government. Really just material for political squabbling between the parties and their respective acolytes
deadduck wrote:If that is the case it's hardly behaviour fitting of a Prime Minister to bring such petty personal antagonism to the public sphere in her relations with the media.guy smiley wrote:Or she just didn’t want to give the simpering gimp the time of day.Wilderbeast wrote:Pretty obvious Jacinda thought Hosking was talking about the Crown accounts. Bit of an embarrassing moment but not something that will harm the government. Really just material for political squabbling between the parties and their respective acolytes
It's the kind of thing Trump would do.
It's not hard.Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself.
Hopefully you can step through the electoral benefit to National of that for me. Hopefully.Wilderbeast wrote:It's not hard.Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself.
It's not fair...grouch wrote:I'd like to see some evidence that Hosking's understanding of economics went beyond the street price of coke and bulk discounts for rent boys.BillW wrote:Poor Jacnda.
She's so dizzzy, confused and conflicted on the financial front.
She needs better help and advice rather than PR and photo ops.Mike Hosking GDP interview wrote:
Economic backwoodsmanship at it's finest.
How do you know tgey traditionally vote for the opposition?Wilderbeast wrote:So, let's break it down. National removed the voting rights of a group of people who traditionally vote for the opposition. You could argue this wasn't their intent, but it was the result.
There isn't much to argue with here.
Oops, I forgotguy smiley wrote:Only National can reform the electoral process silly, otherwise it’s not fair.
Clearly National are the AB's of NZ politics. Never offside, never tackle high, never off their feet in the ruck. At least according to the opposition.guy smiley wrote:Only National can reform the electoral process silly, otherwise it’s not fair.
Good question. Based on an unrealistically positive scenario for Labour. If we introduce an age-weighted enrolment rate of 70% and then a national average turnout rate of 80% then we're getting down to about 4.5k votes. And that still assumes that they all vote for Labour. This is real election stealing stuff.Wilderbeast wrote:So, what I'm getting from this is, why did National bother with such blatant electoral reform to benefit itself for only 7k votes scattered throughout the country?
To be honest, I've been hoping to see this kind of reform for years, regardless of which side of the divide it benefits in the short term. Coat tailing needs to go, and the sooner the better. ACT does not deserve on vote proportion to be in Parliament and are only there on the off chance that they can deliver a disproportionate benefit.Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself. Namely to ensure the minor partners get back in on a reduced threshold requirement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12135073
You'd want it have bipartisan support wouldn't you?Gordon Bennett wrote:To be honest, I've been hoping to see this kind of reform for years, regardless of which side of the divide it benefits in the short term. Coat tailing needs to go, and the sooner the better. ACT does not deserve on vote proportion to be in Parliament and are only there on the off chance that they can deliver a disproportionate benefit.Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself. Namely to ensure the minor partners get back in on a reduced threshold requirement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12135073
Let us not forget either that the Electoral Commission proposed these reforms in the previous Government's term and it could equally be seen as the previous government rejecting an independent body's suggestions as those changes would not benefit them.
David Seymour can fudge off too. This comment: "It is completely in the Government's interests to drop the threshold to 4 per cent and have no coat-tailing because neither of the Coalition or confidence and supply partners are going to win a seat realistically and they are going to be in some danger of dropping below five per cent."
Of course NZ First or Greens can realistically win a seat if either cut a deal with Labour just like ACT. In fact, in pure political terms, Labour probably should have cut a deal with the Greens in Nelson.
Ideally, yes.Santa wrote:You'd want it have bipartisan support wouldn't you?Gordon Bennett wrote:To be honest, I've been hoping to see this kind of reform for years, regardless of which side of the divide it benefits in the short term. Coat tailing needs to go, and the sooner the better. ACT does not deserve on vote proportion to be in Parliament and are only there on the off chance that they can deliver a disproportionate benefit.Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself. Namely to ensure the minor partners get back in on a reduced threshold requirement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12135073
Let us not forget either that the Electoral Commission proposed these reforms in the previous Government's term and it could equally be seen as the previous government rejecting an independent body's suggestions as those changes would not benefit them.
David Seymour can fudge off too. This comment: "It is completely in the Government's interests to drop the threshold to 4 per cent and have no coat-tailing because neither of the Coalition or confidence and supply partners are going to win a seat realistically and they are going to be in some danger of dropping below five per cent."
Of course NZ First or Greens can realistically win a seat if either cut a deal with Labour just like ACT. In fact, in pure political terms, Labour probably should have cut a deal with the Greens in Nelson.