Posts by DPF
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I said "So while the announcement is a bold move in response to the credit crisis, it is one which causes me some concern."
Also "Ever since the Cullen Fund was established, I have had fears that as it grows larger, politicians would want to start directing where it is invested.
I doubt "the team" would see that as taking one for them. Yes I use mild language when criticising National, but I don't think many people would read my post as supportive.
-
I did not know, so please do not make statements along the lines of "I can't believe he didn't know".
Yes I could have taken the time to go to her Wikipedia page and check the edit history. But I didn't think to do that, and that really wasn't the issue. I have had malicious editing on my wikipedia page, but that doesn't mean I call for the Government to pass a law about it.
-
Simon G: :-)
-
Shep's comments are somewhat misleading. I certainly disagree with Russell that a discharge without conviction was appropriate. This should be used for extremely minor offences and I think the sad message sent by the Judge is cyber crime isn't real crime.
However on Tony Veitch, I have never ever called for Veitch to be left alone. In fact quite the opposite - I called from the beginning for the Police to be involved. I think what he did is horrific and that he can't work in broadcasting again.
As with all issues on Kiwiblog, commenters have a variety of views on the issue. But I would say it is a small minority who say Veitch should be left alone.
It would be useful if people differentiate between what Kiwiblog says (which most would take as a reference to what I say) and what Kiwiblog commenters say.
-
Russell - no it doesn't. It means it is probably an election advertisement but that does not mean it is automatically an election expense as there is an exemption for spending by MPs in their capacity as an MP.
And Clark's office have not said it will be declared - Audrey Young has blogged that she has asked five times for the cost and whether it will be included and they won't tell her.
Paul W - I am not aware that a decision has been made as to whether the modified song infringed or not. But regardless I agree that it was a bad call to use a modified song rather than a truly original one.
-
David: Your progress towards the dark side of the force pleases us. Without realising it, you are almost there. Take that final step and join us, my son!
Russell said "there is zero chance of the expenditure not being declared". Yeah not like the party has a history of telling the CEO in writing they will include taxpayer funded advertising as an election expense, and then changing their mind after the election. If there is "zero" chance of the expenditure not being declared why is Labour refusing to confirm that?
And as for the disaster that was Clocks. Well at least that was paid for by a party, not the taxpayer.
-
Okay Clarke is obviously from the school that if you walk on water he accuses you of being unable to swim. I won't waste my time in future.
Gareth - the model is not yet determined and Fibre Co is not in or out. I would make the point that at present the NZI Fibre Co model is the *only* one on the table, so if people do not like it, they need to come up with a better one.
Ross Brader - what Telecom is doing will get fibre to the node. That is vastly different from fibre to the home.
-
Clarke - no one is suggesting the $1.5 billion alone will pay for fibre to the home. NZI estimates total cost is $4 to $5 billion and Nats are saying $3 to $5 billion. So your criticisms of the costings are based on not having read the speech which makes this clear.
The NZI costings are based on fibre costing $150,000 a km, and 25,000 kms of fibre being needed. The cost per km is about right, but if one can get local govt to lay fibre when digging roads up anyway, then the cost can drop by as much as 80%.
Now not every road will be dug up in the next six years, and one still needs to get fibre from the letterbox to the house, but one can make a fair dent in the cost by utilising local govt better.
As I understand it though, the costings are not based on assuming reduced costs.
-
I did not use Salem Witch Trials in my first post on the issue. I just called it a big beatup.
It was in fact Colin Espiner, a non partisan Press Gallery journalist, who used that phrase in his blog post. I then blogged about his blog entry. But that fact doesn't help support the meme about so called defensiveness.
And the One News item would have been stronger if it had a single quote from so called (9th floor) sources about what Williamson and Smith are meant to have said.
It is one thing to ask an MP whether their comments reflect on their commitment to a policy or even clash with it. But to have a journalist demanding time after time "Do you believe in global warming" as if it is some sort of religion was ridicolous.
-
Good piece Graeme. I agree largely on the examples you give of where you might want the GG to intervene.
What you didn't cover though is that if the PM gets any hint the GG may refuse assent, they can get the GG sacked instantly. A GG involved in day to day NZ issues may decide to refuse assent. The Queen (or Charlie) could never ever refuse the advice of the NZ PM in regards to dismissing and appointing the GG. So the PM could have appointed someone who won't object.
Unlikely, but not more unlikely than Graeme's original scenarios. This is of course one reason why I support having a NZ Head of State - so that there are some protections against parliamentary supremacy.