Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
No. And confusingly, Liu says it was $100,000, not $150,000.
And Tim Barnett on MR said, while they'd obviously not had time to look deeply, they'd checked the lawyers behind those sums, and didn't think any of them were Donghua Liu's legal reps.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
I really suspect the Herald has over-egged this one.
Whipped up a cheesy weekend souffle? Delicious, but mostly hot air and prone to collapsing.
I haven't heard Labour 'denying' (or, as heard on RNZ this morning rather embarrasingly 'refuting') the claim. They just say: we can't find any record of it.
Usually this would put the onus on those making the claim to prove it. However again (as with 'Cunliffe lobbied for Donghua Liu) , I'm hearing this reported not as allegation, but as fact.
My ears are biased. I'm not sure I'm able to hear straight. I'd love to see a detailed study comparing the language used in reporting the allegations of lobbying and using her position to help Oravida made against Judith Collins, with the language used about the allegations against Cunliffe and Labour over the last week. (Anyone else get the feeling the careful use of 'alleged' 'he said/she said' has been far less common in media discourse about the latter case?) -
Cool! Good one Jai, Jimmy and Attitude
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Matthew Poole,
after reading that letter it's a big stretch to call it advocacy.
I keep thinking that, and then reading and hearing media again and again and again describe the letter as advocating for Liu.
Maybe I'm too partisan to read straight; maybe the media are so in love with a drama they can't. But one way or another, the strong clear message is that DC has done more-or-less the same thing Williamson did and Collins is alleged to have done.
It's rubbish. But it's damaging Labour. I guess it's a bit like kicking a guy when he's down; he's in a convenient position to be kicked, and kicking is more likely to inflict serious injury. -
Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb, in reply to BenWilson,
Ditto. It's not something most of us would choose. So how would I feel- what choice would we have made had it been a choice? I'm not sure. Knowingly choosing to have a disabled child seems different to playing the hand you're dealt. I wouldnt want to make that choice for anyone else. Nor have it made for us.
-
Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb, in reply to Sacha,
.
-
Trying to get my head around this – $25 per tonne is just 2.5c per kg. A litre of petrol contains about 650 gms of carbon, which is less than 2c per litre. But I *think* the price is per tonne of CO2 emitted, which is approx 2.3 kg per litre of petrol. That’d mean a price rise of 6-7c per litre.
Still doesn’t look likely to change behaviour much. Petrol prices already fluctuate far more than that. It also makes screams about how this will wreck our competitiveness/industries wholesale look pathetic. According to AA, we already payFuel excise
53.524 cents – National Land Transport Fund
9.90 cents – ACC Motor Vehicle Account
0.66 cents – Local Authorities Fuel Tax
0.045 cents – Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy
In addition, GST is collected on the overall price of fuel including excise. The GST on excise amounts to a 8 cents per litre “tax on taxes”.
There are no taxes on diesel other than GST. Instead, diesel vehicles pay Road User Charges. All fuels also pay an Emissions Trading Scheme charge (approximately 1 cent per litre).That is, we already pay more GST on the tax portion of a litre of petrol (a tax on a tax, like the GST on rates) than this (new, unaffordable, crazy) carbon tax would add.*
*Unless, as is highly likely, I’ve made some simple blunder :) -
Love the carbon tax policy. Really hope NZ gets to try it.
But am i just missing something obvious, or is there a sort of paradox at the heart of it? Eg- giving the money a tax would raise back to people (and companies, ahem) in the form of flat tax cuts, so carbon users pay more, and those who use little pay less, is all good. Sets clear incentives, etc.
But the books only balance financially if carbon consumption stays the same. And that would mean the scheme is a failure. If the tax works, we should use less carbon. If it's wildly successful, a lot less. And then govt only gets a little back in carbon tax, so the tax cuts are not off-set, and need to be either adjusted, or the rate of carbon tax raised, or we pay for the tax cuts with other taxes.
It's a problem I'm sure the Greens would love to have, but it does make 'balancing the books' a juggling act. -
Hard News: The Digital Natives, in reply to BenWilson,
I guess we just see this differently. I think Labour would say no if such a deal were offered. It'd look too bad. And there'd be incredible scrutiny and a threat to relations with the US etc etc. At which point Hone and Harre allowing National back would be curtains for both.
Why is KDC throwing so much at this then? First I get the impression $3m isn't much to him. And he's likely to lose it anyway. Ego and grievance is probably part if it. He'd like to take down the government. Plus a sense of mischief. And maybe somewhere in there a desire to help others. It's not impossible :) -
Hard News: The Digital Natives, in reply to BenWilson,
Maybe I'm blind but you have to trust me it's not willful :)