For me this is the issue. I don't expect the person behind the counter and the local council office to be 100% correct, it simply is OK for them to make mistakes, especially if when we work out a mistake has been made they apologise (see Emma's rules for being an adult).
But when you accept a job like say Mayor or PM and accept the salary and perks that come with that job - then you must accept that part of the salary is because you now have to perform at a higher standard. Perhaps not 100%, maybe say 95% (I'd hope for higher). And even more importantly, if you get it wrong you must absolutely acknowledge and apologise - like an adult.
And yet the public love him.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Road Code’s opinion on the matter. It doesn’t support your assertion.
I had one of "those" arguments* once with my partner about exactly that. Surprisingly being able to show her the road code did not seem to improve the argument :).
*you know the one where both of you argue about something inane because you are tired and grumpy about everything.
When it came time to retire the car we'd been driving for 13 years we looked at the various electric option and decided against them. They are expensive, but more important is their cost of manufacture makes the environmental equation very dubious.
At this stage I still think it's a better environmental choice to buy a two or three year old car and drive it for a long time.
Bart’s argument about a conflict of interest
Essentially one shareholder is inflating the value of the company shortly before planning to sell it.
My point is simply that if the govt were say one of the many finance companies we've seen in recent times and said finance company was doing what the govt just did then various parties including the fraud office would become very interested. It is more than shonky, it is very close to illegal. And the reason that sort of thing is illegal is that it is unfair to other shareholders and there are laws to protect shareholder from that sort of thing.
It might be possible to do it legally with very good lawyers and especially if most of the negotiations were secret. It would still be unfair on other shareholders but legally so.
Because it is the govt doing this, it is legal. But it is still a very dodgy deal on so many levels that it beggers belief.
such a large part of our national economy
Um really? Yes it's a big industry and it does employ a number of folk in southland which is very important. But Rio Tinto get very very cheap electricity as it is. And we don't get many export dollars for aluminium, note the same company sells the bauxite to the smelter, unsuprising they don't make much of their profit in NZ where it can be taxed by us. New Zealand doesn't profit much at all from the aluminium. Where we do get value is from the employment of local labour.
What I think (and this is just me) that this government (particularly a National govt) should have done, is allow the market negotiation to proceed without interference. By involving itself the govt has effectively cut the Meridian management out of the negotiation. It is hard to argue that the govt knows the business better than Meridian.
Alternatively the govt could say to hell with pretending Meridian is an actual business lets just make it a govt department again and manage it for the overall benefit of the country instead of playing at being a business.
Now you could argue that a govt should protect those jobs for the good of the country and I might agree with you. But then I would be asking you to argue in favour of de-privatising Telecom and saving the 1300 jobs about to be lost there as well, because frankly if you think a bit of aluminium is important then how important is the internet?
proof of the “in order to…” bit
Yup and that would keep lawyers busy for a while - meanwhile if Meridian was a "real" company it would either reside at the bottom of the shharemarket or be suspended fro the duration. It simply is a very dodgy piece of business and executed really badly.
The problem here is the govt is playing both sides of the game. Pretending it can't interfere because SOEs are real businesses then doingprecisely that when it suits them.
From an investor perspective I'd be very nervous if my 51% shareholding partner in the SOE demonstrated such woeful business behaviour.
but what exactly has the Government done wrong here?
The govt is the shareholder of record for Meridian. Said shareholder then created a subsidy to a major client of Meridian in order to increase the book value (or share value) of Meridian (which they plan to sell).
If this was a "real" company, with "real" shareholders such behaviour would almost certainly result in the company being delisted and a fraud investigation of the shareholder concerned.
Most investors would be thinking "well these plonkers are really bad at covering up this sort of shonky deal and hence I wouldn't want to invest in them", even if it turned out to not be illegal.
As it is, at the very least it is piss poor management. What is amusing (in the train wreak kind of way) is that the National government purports to believe in market forces being the best possible form of management, this is about as far from pure market forces as you can get.
IMO that is what the govt did wrong here.
With the above all in mind, about a month ago I was driving on a main road coming up to a pedestrian crossing ... I saw the kid on the skateboard on the footpath and guessed what he might do ... even having guessed that, I had to hit the brakes fully in order to not kill him when he turned from the footpath onto the crossing without pausing to even look.
Those funny diamonds on the road before the pedestrian crossings ... they are an indication that if the car is closer to the crossing than the diamond it probably can't stop in time ... our Mazda 6 has very good brakes!
Don’t make angry drivers angry … bull…shit!
So I’m not a small person, if I’m walking or (knees willing) running and I step on a small person or child I will hurt them …this is a bad thing … I don’t like hurting other people (who knew, I’m not a psychopath!).
This basic idea leads to the following principle
If you are bigger or faster do not allow your size or speed to hurt other people … even if they are doing something “wrong”.
If you are driving a tank, don’t run over cars (especially if they have people in them)
If you are driving an SUV don’t run over little cars
If you are driving a car don’t run over motorbikes
If you are riding a motorbike don’t run over bicycles
If you are riding a bicycle don’t run over pedestrians
If you are a large pedestrian try not to step on little pedestrians
None of this seems complicated to me. The onus should always be on the person in the larger more dangerous vehicle to protect the lives of those around them.
As so many have said, it really is safer sometimes for bikes to use pedestrian areas than to use the road which is just fine by me providing they slow down enough to ensure they don’t hurt the pedestrians. And sometimes it is safer for a cycle to go through a red light (especially a left turn) than share the intersection with the cars that can kill them.
If that as a driver makes you angry … grow up and get over it.
We will wait patiently. No rush just know that we do miss your contributions