Word of the day

November 24, 2011

Thanksgiving –  the act of giving thanks; a prayer of gratitude; a public acknowledement or celebration of divine goodness; a celebration in Canada and the United States, generally observed as an expression of gratitude on the fourth Thursday of November in the U.S. and in Canada on the second Monday of October.


Sideshows dominate media

November 24, 2011

If you think the media had spent more time on sideshows than policy in the last couple of weeks a University of Canterbury study of election coverage proves you right.

The results to 22 November of an ongoing University of Canterbury study into media coverage of the election show that coverage of policy is being sidelined by continuing media interest in the tea tape scandal involving Prime Minister John Key and the ACT Party’s candidate in the Epsom electorate, John Banks.

“Media references to policy issues (41% of coverage of issues) were outnumbered by references to non-policy issues (59% of coverage of issues),” said University of Canterbury researcher Katherine Roff. “This is in contrast to the first week of the election when the majority of the media coverage focused on policy issues.

For the first four weeks of the campaign the economy got 16.6% of the coverage of issues;  social and public services  got 15% and state-owned assets got 12.2%. In the last couple of weeks the side show has had more prominence than policy.

Of the coverage devoted to parties at the four-week point of the campaign, National led Labour by attracting 37.6 % of coverage compared to Labour’s 28.4% of coverage. However, National had 25.4% more negative coverage than positive while Labour had 10.4% more negative coverage than positive coverage.

The Green Party received the largest net amount of positive coverage at 21.2%.

Prime Minister John Key attracted the majority of media coverage amongst party leaders at 52.6%, followed by Labour leader Phil Goff on 24.1%. However the Prime Minister received 28.9% more negative coverage than positive coverage whereas Mr Goff attracted 8.9% more negative coverage than positive coverage.

A now former Green Party member was behind the vandalism of National’s billboards. Russel Norman denied any knowledge of the campaign but no-one’s bothered to ask other MPs and office holders whether they knew anything.

This reinforces Liberty Scott’s post Why do the Greens get an easy ride. Part two: 50 questions that should have been asked of the Greens.

 

 


Twelve little lies plus one

November 24, 2011

National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce has a little list.

It has 12 lies Phil Goff has told during the campaign:

  • 12.      Labour left the economy in good shape. WRONG – The economy had been in recession all year in 2008, floating mortgage rates were at 10.9 per cent, government spending was up 50 per cent in five years, and Treasury      was forecasting debt to rise out of control forever.
  • 11.      National has cut hundreds of millions from early childhood  education.  WRONG – ECE funding has risen 40 per cent over the past three years.
  • 10.      ‘We will get back into surplus the same time as National.’  WRONG –      Under any straightforward scrutiny of Labour’s revenue and expenditure  numbers over the next four years.
  • 9.      ‘We will only borrow $2.6 billion more than National over the next three  years.’  WRONG – Latest calculation is $15.6 billion extra over four  years (excluding the Greens).
  • 8.      ‘Labour would forgo power company dividends and reduce prices.’       WRONG – Labour now says it will keep dividend income in government  accounts.
  • 7.      ‘National will sell Kiwibank’ – WRONG
  • 6.      ‘Borrowing money to buy assets in the Super Fund is not borrowing.’       YEAH RIGHT
  • 5.      Fruit and vegetable prices ‘continue to spiral upward’.  WRONG –      currently same price as November 2008.
  • 4.      Prices have risen four times faster than wages in past three years.      WRONG – After tax wages up 18 per cent in last three years, prices up 8      per cent.
  • 3. Mixed ownership means forgoing dividends of $6-700 million per year.  WRONG      – Actually, around $220 million per year, and save that amount at least in reduced interest.
  • 2. The  income gap withAustralia has widened.  WRONG – After tax incomes here have risen faster thanAustralia over the past three years.
  • 1. Police recruitment being cancelled for all of next year.  WRONG – One intake only postponed      two months because of increased staff retention.

“Labour said they would campaign on the issues, but in fact they’ve gone back to the old Labour way of making things up, and hoping if they make a false allegation often enough people would start to believe it.”

Lindsay Mitchell has another lie: “New Zealand has the highest youth unemployment rate in the developed world.” . . . .

The rate for 15-24 year-olds is currently 17.3%

This is lower than the US, the UK, France, Finland, Sweden, Chile, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium and a few others.

Kiwiblog has a link to Sean Plunket’s interview with Goff  this morning in which the latter refuses to admit he’s wrong about police recruitment.

And Whaleoil has the tweet of the day:

Did Phil Goff really not know his police numbers claims were a sack of excrement? Or was it a lie to scare people into voting Labour?

about 5 hours ago via HootSuiteReplyRetweetFavorite
@seanplunketzb

SeanPlunketMornings

Mixed Ownership model made simple

November 24, 2011

The debate on National’s plan to sell a minority share in a very few state-owned assets (just 3% of the $245 billion worth of assets it owns) has been characterised by misinformation and scare tactics.

Opponents who don’t want the facts to get in the way of their stories don’t explain the alternative to selling a minority share of a very few assets is having to take on a lot more debt.

The debate has also shown a high level of financial and business ignorance from opponents who don’t understand what’s being suggested and why.

Credo Quia Absurdum Est has come to the rescue with a simple explanation:

Say you own a business.  You have invested a lot of your capital into it (this is where it may get hard for pinkos to understand, as they have probably never experienced this) and growth is stable.

You need to expand, but you are wary of taking on debt to fund your expansion.  You’ve also had your production manager come and tell you that you are going to need to reinvest in new technology and replace machinery to keep up with the play and ensure you remain competitive.  There’s also the small matter of your factory needing a new roof.

You know there are a few people keen on your business, but you don’t want to lose control of it after working so hard.  So you approach them and say “hey, for X dollars, you can buy up to 10% of my company.”  You ensure you retain 51% ownership, and sell two lots of 10% shareholdings and a lot of smaller shareholdings up to the 49% level. . .

You can read the rest here.


Thursday’s quiz

November 24, 2011

1. It’s choisir in French, in scegliere  Italian,  elegir in Spanish and whiriwhiri in Maori, what is it in English?

2. Who said: “An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.”?

3. How many members should (as distinct from does) a party need to be registered?

4. Will you vote on Saturday (or before by special vote)?

5. Have you decided how you’ll vote?


Who’d work with whom?

November 24, 2011

John Key has proved he can work with some unlikely coalition partners.

He’s managed to provide a strong and stable government with Act to the right or him and the Maori and United Parties to the left.

How would you rate Phil Goff’s chances of keeping together the stack of colation partners he’d have to appease?

They’re not even in negotiation yet and already the Maori Party is unenthusiastic about one of the other parties  which would be in the stack. Deborah Coddington left this comment:

What newsrooms should really be asking the Greens is whether they can work with the Maori Party. I interviewed Tariana Turia today and asked her if she can work with the Greens and her response was astounding. I asked her if she trusted the Greens to return the conservation estate to tangata whenua and her response was an unequivocal, “I don’t believe they would”.

I asked her about the Greens’ policy to put a price on water for irrigation, and the tangata whenua’s very strong relationship with waters and rivers, and what she thought about who that money should be going to, under principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Her reply: “I’ve always been a bit suspicious of him [Russel Norman]…I don’t think they’re as honest as they make out to be.”

Someone, she said, should be putting these questions to the Greens before Saturday.

Someone should, but will they? See why do the Greens get such an easy ride? Part One for the answer.


Look who’s telling you not to

November 24, 2011

Camapigners for MMP who reckon we should support that system because of the people who’re telling us not to, might want to think again.

Look who’s telling us not to vote for change – the Right Wing Resistance:

Don’t make the mistake to vote for anything but MMP, the tricky slimy government have tried to confuse people by chucking in other options, MMP ain’t perfect but its better then the one party system these anti democratic people want to go back to.

What do they stand for?

Mission We are an organized unified resistance movement against mass immigration, the Dilution of our European Culture and Pride, and the current multicultural agenda created by the current government networks designed to destroy our colonial rights and identity. We stand with an active structure that rewards those who work hard for the movement. Function Our primary purpose is to recruit like minded individuals and groups into an organization of active men and women.

They also support New Zealand First, or they did yesterday when the website said:

 If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.

Today that line has been changed to:

In this country we must vote for the smaller parties.

There’s only one of the wee parties they could possibly mean.

If these people are telling us to support MMP that’s a very good reason to vote for change.

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock


%d bloggers like this: