Posts by slarty
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sorry, can't bring myself to look at the other thread.
In that respect, you're more Pollyanna than me, I fear.
Indeed... I probably should have said " big evidential cock-ups involving white 'victims' who score some well connected support a few years later".. but it didn't seem to scan so well :)
And the perception of fairness is often more important than the substance... as Mr. (G) Brown would probably attest to at the moment... :p so I do try to look on the positive side.
Coppering is hugely better now than ten years ago. But, rather like the best place to get sick in NZ is Auckland, the same goes for being accused of something you didn't do... Mr Worth must be gutted his case has been transferred to Wellington (odd that - usually it remains near the alleged scene or the victim... surprised a few journo's haven't picked up on the implications of that one... )
[PS. Had to look up Pollyanna - too much time reading Heinlein when I was a kid] -
I respectfully suggest a Bain thread might be appropriate...FTR, I totally disagree with the jury's verdict.
I hope a thread is avoidable... hasn't it been done to death? If you'll pardon the expression?
And don't forget, Not Guilty is not the same as 'he didn't do it'.
I suspect the civil standard was met, but have to agree the defence raised enough reasonable doubt. It was a far less professional Police service that carried out the investigation... once Watson is released I would say that's the last of the 90's cock-ups to be sorted out.
-
That his office didn't request any further evidence from the first complainant and backed Dr Worth solely on his word is quite ridiculous, and shows an appalling political myopia and bad judgement
I think this is spot on - it strikes me as a man who is still struggling with the transition from private to public sector.
I have watched incidents such as the first allegation about Worth (I want clearly distinguish from the criminal one - it's a different ball game) pretty regularly thru my career. e.g. in the last year I've been the victim (not the first time) and had to discipline a staff member over a less serious matter.
IMHExperience, most of these things a dealt with in the private sector by a Stern Talking To. I don't want that to sound like it's a let-off - personally I take it very seriously, and unless I see grovelling contrition I walk the offender to the door, damn the employment court (yes, it does sometimes go that way).
I suspect Key didn't twig, and weighed making it a Big Deal against the risk of wider leaks. What he failed to take into account was the odd reaction of the alleged offender - to (apparently / allegedly... have I said that enough?) get pissed and do it again... only worse.
The second event smacks of that to which Mr Slack refers... a hesitation, a pause to see what others think. He's over the Hundred Day mark now, he needs to understand that he won't get any further slack... (!)
-
Gareth, I agree, I think this debate is being framed incorrectly.
Actually, the house analogy isn't that bad. I have a mortgage, but I also I pay into Kiwisaver, so effectively I'm borrowing to save. But the reason I'm doing it is to spread my risk - I don't want all my savings in the form of a house that may well be worth stuff all when I retire.
Have to say, the idea of popping $x,000 into Kiwisaver accounts could arguably have a similar effect, but it's going to weaken the position of NZ Super policy in the long term... and if there's ever a hint of means testing, my Kiwisaver fund will be straight off-shore, claw-back or not.
Raising the retirement age in, say, 20 years would have a similar effect of course - my fag packet reckons a shift to 68 would have the same effect as the NZSF. Giving 10 years notice that it's rising, and then doing it 1 year at a time... can't understand why people think it's so politically dodgy. But then I don't understand why a Capital Gains Tax is such a big deal.
Oh, and Matthew H? Lots of other countries run investment funds, but you're right, its for all sorts of other reasons...
-
Reason #1 is right there.
Damn that Post button eh? Just too easy to click sometimes (never been there myself...:)
Reason #2 is that I don't believe that the wealthy (and anyone who can afford private education on top of all the other costs of bringing up kids is wealthy, in my book) have the right to pass their privilege onto their children.
Not sure about "right", but I think there's a sound economic theory. This is going to sound deliberately inhuman...
Releasing productive potential is about making sure human capital is exploited. So it's simply about offering the maximum opportunity for the smartest people to get the best education.
Because it isn't the intelligence of the child that counts in selecting a school (broadly speaking - the tests aren't that hard.. especially if you're the "right" sort of candidate...), that means the children of the smartest parents get the best education in a highly liberal market education system - and because intelligence is only a bit hereditary (I'm sure someone here will find the references for me - I've just got off a 7 hour conference call, gimme a break) that means market failure.
You get a double whammy in a highly standardised education system (like the public systems in France and the USA) which appears to drive innovation out of schooling - lowest common denominator - so not only is the best education being wasted in many cases, the best pupils are being poorly served.
On top of all that, parents often think they can substitute a "good" school for a good upbringing. It was my Dad sitting down with me to help me understand long division and (later) electronic engineering that I am sure enabled me to do OK. I'm not saying the teachers aren't important, but their efforts fail without that support.
-
is not conducive to attempting any such thing on such a tight deadline
Couldn't agree more.
As a wise man once said, "http://www.lyricstime.com/charlie-drake-my-boomerang-wont-come-back-lyrics.html"
So where are all these recent infrastructure failures? That's right, there's sod all, but unfortunately mainly because people get shouted (or rather worn) down (whether officially or in the Court of public Opinion) before we even find out if it could have worked.
The reason we think we are crap is because we persist in thinking and behaving like we are crap. Many people were watching Greece building for the Olympics, almost hoping for them to fail. But they managed. If they'd based their bid on their track record, they wouldn't have bothered. But now they have some confidence. I bet what they learned more than anything else was what can be achieved if you stop asking every man and his dog for his opinion, and stop making excuses for your own inaction.
When New Zealanders go overseas and break all the local rules (because the don't know any better) then they often do remarkably well.
Our biggest problem is not that we're incapable, but we think it's clever to whine, criticise and pick holes in every idea. It's easier to just give up and not mention it in the first place.
So I agree, NZ is not conducive to big infrastructure projects, but the root cause is the attitude that assumes failure from the start, not any innate lack of ability.
-
Perhaps we should have ordered up that waterfront stadium after all.
No shit. It was always a good idea.
Except that NZ's chronic inability to build anything of significance on schedule
I loved the idea. Every morning I gaze from the ferry at two piers of run down sheds and used cars and think, "that'll make a wonderful office tower one day".
Imagine if we had done it - berths for 3 cruise liners in a modern, light atrium. Booths for immigration and customs that double as ticket entry. A surrounding walkway, cafes etc. feeling like the area around the Opera House - after all, that was only delivered 10 years late at 14 times the cost :) Concerts and stuff close to a transport hub (and parking) that can cope. All that infrastructure to support big crowds of people. <sigh>
But you're right Matthew, we shouldn't even attempt such things - better we just acknowledge our general crapness and accept our place in the world... that's what makes Auckland such a great city!
One way would have been to make the up-front purchase of the Mt Eden land (for residential development) part of the contract... but that it couldn't be sold until the new stadium was finished. I bet it would have been finished early.
-
I suspect the real agenda is "my mates at W**** and V**** wildly sunk millions into fibre and wireless and this gives us a chance to buy the toxic assets off them.
I've gotta get out of this job, I'm getting too cynical...
I had fibre past the home when I lived in Portsmouth in the early 90's. It was cool, and broke the BT monopoly. SO I admire the goal...
-
what benefits there might in a super-charged Auckland
Something like 50% of NZ's tax revenue comes from north of a line drawn across the Bombay Hills. The great fear is that an UberAuckland would want more control of that.
The best example is the petrol tax thing - as has been commented (but not above the fold I notice) Auckland generates over 40% of road tax revenue, but gets about 30% of the spend.
But the childish argument that Auckland is "paying" for West Coast (and Wellington!) roads is manipulated, reversed and apparently well received.
If I were really cynical I'd say that has nothing to do with the politicians, more the staff who surround them (based in...)
Places like Canberra, Ottawa and DC all ended up where they are because of the need for perceived neutrality of location. NZ doesn't have that need any more - putting the capital on a fault line just because that's where the trains all terminate is a tad obsolete...
I suspect losing control of the money might be seen as an issue to people who seem to lie awake at night in fear of those nasty Aucklanders taking control... :)
-
A really helpful contribution would be if they could adapt What Do They Know from the MySociety folks to New Zealand.
I'll second that. It's a fantastic idea which provides a good public resource both of stuff that's been dug up, and areas people are looking into.
Even more useful would be to use their apparent geospatial background to add geotagging to the requests and responses.I'll fourth or fifth that. It needs an intelligence ontology built around it - but that wouldn't be hard. At a simple level it's a question of adding some tags.
Anybody interested in having a go with me?