So you just ruled out a capital gains tax. Smart.
The modern news media is an uncritical member of the ideological state apparatus dominated by and run by the winners of the neoliberal economy, and they hate CGT because a large number of them are property speculators.
Labour was caned by that media for it’s CGT and has abandoned it as politically impossible. What do you, realistically, suggest they do instead? Stick with a policy that the media uses as a stick to beat them with?
The media gave up reporting on unemployment a decade ago (the unemployed don’t consume) and it isn’t the issue it once was. The poor and the unemployed are now invisible and nowadays the news leads with sightings of Taylor Swift.
The only thing that would put jobs front and centre would be a gigantic riot by the unemployed in Queen Street, which would be followed by breathlessly astonished reporters and pundits claiming to have been taken by surprise and how the whole thing came like a bolt of lightning out of the blue
…and got smeared on Kiwiblog for his trouble….
By this stage, of course, Farrar almost certainly knew he was wrong, but right and wrong is not his concern. His only concern is a political agenda – protect and promote the National party, no matter what the truth is. Deceive and mislead the public, shut up opponents, bury the truth, twist the facts…
Sound like John Key’s governments MO summed up in a sentence… Didn’t John key make a point of thanking Farrar by name and saying he calls the guy every day?
The immorality of Farrar’s political canker is reaching deep into our civil society, it seems.
But what to do about it? The police, with the support of a crime obsessed media and “tough on crime” politicians, have been progressively freed of all checks and balances. This government has systematically starved the Ombudsman’s office in order to supporess the truth. The minister long ago became the minister for police rather than of police and the police association was radicalised under the extemist leadership of Greg O’Conner.
The only way ahead is to demand the proper funding of the ombudsmen, and seek a strengthening of the OIA in relation to research requests.
But oh yes… ISIS.
I genuinely believe he has no idea what is moral or not
Who needs a moral compass when you've got Curia?
You’re supporting democracy by not voting? Interesting tactic.
I’m never said i was supporting democracy, this isn’t an election. If it was, I'd say any one of the choices would make a better leader than John Key. Maybe we should tie him to the top of a fIagpole to see how he looks?
I said spoiling your ballot or not voting in this ridiculous referendum is a legitimate democratic choice.
Oh goody, Bernard Orsman is back to his click bating best.
The voters of Auckland want access to the foreshore, better PT and no asset sales but done with no higher rates and also seem to love John Key, whose government seem determined to keep a firm jackboot on the financial windpipe of the supercity. Aucklanders want intensification and cheaper housing, only they are also NIMBYs, NOTES and BANANAs lest it affect their property values. And we haven't even thought about controlling the CCOs. Goff can get away with being a bit foggy, because the voters are in a pea souper of wishful thinking.
As for National - they are so crippled by factionalism in Auckland that even picking what champagne to serve with the caviar at the next conference would degenerate into a fight between Boag and Collins.
Mine went straight into the bin; Spoiling your ballot is just a good. Both are valid forms of protest because ultimately a democracy cannot survive without the consent of the governed, and change like this needs the legtimacy of a strong turnout - at least two thirds, I would have thought.
A low actual vote de-legitimises the outcome whatever it is.
No flag that is selected on the basis of the votes of John Key’s fanboys will ever be regarded as anything other than as a constant reminder of division.
But why would they? Since Labour have now picked up that mantle...
God, are the permanently outraged on the behalf of others brigade ever going to stop banging that dubious drum?
I guess it comes back to whether or not NZ First has a natural constituency that extends beyond the oily charm of Winston Peters working a rest home audience. One of the biggest problems with working out NZ First’s support is that of all NZ political parties it is the one that has the “shy Tory” phenomena the most. None the less, I know some people who vote for NZ First and I’ve anecdotally come to the view that these days Peters is more a hindrance than a help in attracting new voters. The natural political constituency of NZ First is as a populist party appealing to anti-corporate, socially conservative, low to middle income little New Zealanders of the provinces AND socially conservative, lower income new migrants. In other words, the largely invisible people our political establishment no longer represent and who the media elites are not particularly interested in except as amusing caricatures. A Peter-less NZ First that can get a half decent leader (a big assumption) and ditches his tired and reflexive racism in favour of a more subtle rejection of bi-culturalism that embraces a “melting pot” vision would stay quite electorally appealing to a lot of people IMHO - possibly even more popular than the Greens.