Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Uh, I'm no economist but isn't there a difference between our local emissions target (as a net % of 1990 levels - which everyone conveniently leaves out when they want to make it seem really huge) and the price per unit in a global market?
Do all countries have the same target level? If not, then how does the target level in one country (or group of countries) affect the pricing in another?
-
Haven't followed the recent developments. Is it true that McD's managed to successfully claim that their site including drive through was only on the larger Balmoral Rd, not the quiet residential street parallel to it?
-
When it stops sucking.
-
Different funding, Steve.
-
Point well made
Drat, I thought he meant that mosquitos are allergic to carbon. :)
-
OK, I can add the core reason is that some "special needs" funding goes in bulk to the school no matter how many of its pupils actually require it. Schools are therefore incentivised to exclude as many students as possible to keep the per-student funding high - hence the types of behaviour Gio describes.
I look forward to hearing how Associate Education Minister Heather Roy and Ann Tolley intend to address that structural inequity.
-
Plenty of schools, public and private, turn away special needs kids, and I wish the reason was as (relatively) noble as the one you're suggesting.
Please do explain further for everyone, as I have to dash. It is highly relevant to the Minister claiming she's canning the school-targetted physical therapy grant out of fairness.
I wish John Campbell had let her explain about the relativity with the topup for struggling private schools. Could have been interesting.
Speaking of entitlement, got to applaud Tolley adding $50m of extra ORRS spots. However, I understand those are only for additional students and can not be used to make up for withdrawing the supplementary therapy funding from some of the existing students.
-
For the record, I'm with Craig on Field (and not embarrassed).
-
I see a report today that Labour had already exposed one of these women's income while they were in power
Uh, teh Herald says she did that voluntarily as part of publicising that Enterprise funding she used.
Certainly not the same as having a vindictive bully trumpeting (incorrect) income figures to undermine your lobbying. And then claim to be all surprised and horrified when talkback hordes descend on the bleeding meat.
I thought they were all vegetarians, yer honour.Ms Fuller's income had also been used by the Labour Party in 2007 as an example of the success of its policies. She said she had given permission for then social development minister David Benson-Pope to use the information after she set up a cleaning business with an enterprise allowance.
In his speech, Mr Benson-Pope lists her total support from the state as $180.50, including an accommodation supplement of $91, a family tax credit of $69.50, and another $20 a week from Working for Families.
Ms Fuller said it showed the enterprise allowance was successful at getting her off the DPB, although the business ended in January this year because of her health problems.
I suppose we should be grateful they haven't smeared her further by publicising what those health problems are - yet. I'm sure there's time for that if she doesn't learn her place.
-
I for one am not keen on surrendering drycleaning receipts and mechanic's bills and so will only be saying nice tings about our beloved leaders from now on.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 … 1971 Older→ First