Poor policies add up to recession

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce shows how poor policies add up to recession:

It’s important to remember that in 2008 New Zealand was already in recession, thanks to the Labour-led government’s mismanagement.

It left office forecasting a decade of deficits before most of the rest of the world went into recession.

National has turned that around in spite of the natural and economic disasters it’s had to deal with.

82 Responses to Poor policies add up to recession

  1. Dave Kennedy says:

    I think there is some exaggeration going on here regarding National saving the economy. Labour had little Government debt but there was a high level of private debt and while I agree that Labour could have managed things better ACC is in good heart and Kiwi Saver has provided a strong investment fund despite being cut by this Government. The global recession can’t be blamed on Labour and our recovery is in good part as a result of another buoyant property market and the Christchurch rebuild, neither of which are sustainable.

    The government’s largest investments and economic focus is currently on building motorways ($12 billion), supporting oil drilling and coal mining and expanding the dairy industry by investing in irrigation schemes. The motorways will provide dubious economic benefit according to robust analysis (much of the economic benefits come from the expenditure in building them) Australia’s coal industry is struggling and it will be at least ten years before any substantial oil and gas discovery ends up in viable production (not counting the huge potential costs we would have to shoulder if an accident were to occur). Fonterra is doing well but I share the concerns of even those in the dairy industry itself that we are too reliant on this sector and we need to make meat and fibre operate more efficiently and improve marketing and there is much more we can do with horticulture and forestry.

    What worries me is that politicking may shut down reasoned discussions and a focus on long term economic strategies will not happen. We still under invest in R&D and are not giving enough support to smaller companies and businesses with potential.

  2. Andrei says:

    ….and it will be at least ten years before any substantial oil and gas discovery ends up in viable production

    The sooner we start looking the better then

  3. Dave Kennedy says:

    Even then it won’t be a golden egg. All of our current oil and gas production from Taranaki and elsewhere doesn’t even amount to 1% of our GDP and we gain fewer jobs (compared to the income earned) from this sector than most others. One medium accident would wipe any profit away immediately.

  4. TraceyS says:

    So true Andrei. All good things take time.

  5. TraceyS says:

    “One medium accident would wipe any profit away immediately.”

    How can you possiby know that? An accident hasn’t happened yet and you already know the cost of it.

  6. robertguyton says:

    He said ‘could’.
    Look at the cost of the Gulf of Mexico spill.
    Imagine something comparable here.
    It could (easily) wipe out huge gobs of profit.
    Dave’s correct.
    You are quibbling.

  7. TraceyS says:

    He said “would”.

    Every day people get out of bed and go to work in their own businesses knowing that they “could” lose profits through a whole variety of reasons. In fact their business could be wiped out completely. But does that stop them from getting out of bed?

    Thankfully, it does not.

    Sitting here eating crisps with dip, I am aware that I could accidentally bite my finger and die three days later in hospital from an antibiotic-resistant infection. But that doesn’t stop me from eating the crisps.

    It is the anti-brigade that is doing the quibbling, Robert. Quibbling over the size of a very small risk. There are important issues here, but they are the issues which sit on the periphery of the main argument. That argument is easy to win. You will see it being won later this year.

  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey is right Robert, I did say “would” wipe away any profits, and my certainty around the cost of any accident is because of Anadarko and Shell’s own response plans and the level of responsibility that will fall onto Maritime New Zealand. The costs of managing an accident are fairly certain based on past experience.

    The likelihood of an accident is the uncertain part, except that the risks increase with the depth of water drilled and at 1300 metres and beyond we are talking very deep compared to 100 metres off Taranaki. It just depends if one is comfortable drilling with a 1:35 chance of a substantial leak. The chances of an accident are actually greater with exploratory drills and even worse when you consider our southern waters are notoriously difficult (as Hunt Petroleum discovered earlier).

    Shell claims that they have a 1:30 chance of finding gas (probably mixed with some oil), there is a 1:35 chance of an accident and the majority of the costs will be Maritime New Zealand’s.

    When we consider the level of risk this Government feels comfortable with we only need look at the protections and oversight given to Pike River and Novopay, and note the continuous security breaches government departments. Stephen Joyce is called ‘Mr Fixit’ because he is always having to tidy up messes caused by other Ministers and Simon Bridges hardly fills me with a feeling of security that he is doing due diligence to his responsibilities.

  9. TraceyS says:

    Can you please provide references for the claims you refer to.

  10. Dave Kennedy says:

    I had several links that I have tried to put up, but after several attempts it would work so I will try doing them one or two at a time: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/230840/report-confirms-oil-spill-likely-to-reach-beaches

  11. Paranormal says:

    But back onto topic – DK your understanding of what drives an economy and government’s role in that speak volumes, sadly.

    By reducing personal income tax and increasing GST National incentivised work and disincentivised spending. That act alone significantly improved economic prospects.

    The Nats focus on quality educational outcomes can only stand the country in good stead in the future (as opposed to your (as in the lefts) demands for one size fits all union centric education that has failed 40% of school leavers for years). Getting people off welfare dependency will significantly benefit the individuals as well as the country. And the list goes on.

    These are all small steps, but contrary to what the Liarbour/Greens/Mana parties think, they are all small steps in the right direction. No wonder the nation has a boost in confidence. The left will find it very hard to make traction against the improving economy at the next election, in spite of the faults in the current incumbents.

    Carry on with your “the Gummint must do it all” approach, and if you ever get your hands on the levers of power we’ll see another recession like the one Liarbour led us into.

    Just to point out – reckless, poor quality spending along with their poor policy prescription and mismanagement, Liabour caused New Zealand to go into recession 9 months before the rest of the world. And that was off the back of the best terms of trade for a generation at that time. But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of your ideology.

  12. Paranormal says:

    Did you actually read this article Dave? The estimated cost of 4.8bn pounds is purely the business cost to the oil company.

  13. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal you are just repeating Government spin because what I described the Government doing is exactly what you claim they shouldn’t do. There are huge amounts of spending involved in roads, irrigation and subsidising oil exploration. I was merely suggesting the focus would be better elsewhere.

  14. TraceyS says:

    Dave, you wrote:

    “Shell claims that they have a 1:30 chance of finding gas (probably mixed with some oil), there is a 1:35 chance of an accident and the majority of the costs will be Maritime New Zealand’s.”

    With the reference to Maritime NZ, presumably the accidents referred to above are oil spills as opposed to injuries to workers or damage to plant and equipment.

    After only a cursory look, none of your references backed up the above quote. If it is there somewhere, could you please point me directly to it?

  15. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear it was hard to know what you were really referring to and I tried to cover all bases. If you google Shell or any article about their chances of finding something, it is common knowledge that they themselves think there is a 1:30 chance of finding anything and it is most likely to be gas. I linked to a number of sites that explained the greater risks involved with deep sea drilling and gareth Morgan revealed how the government have downplayed the risks. The 1:35 chance of an accident came from: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1311/S00452/elevated-spill-risks-associated-with-ultra-deep-sea-drilling.htm
    and uses official environmental data from the US. In actual fact the risk is slightly higher for drilling at 1300 metres because it is getting close to 1500 metres when the risk jumps to 1:19

    You also need to refer to the recent accident Shell had with their rig off Alaska and read about the difficulties that Hunt had with their rigs in the 80s in the Great South Basin.

    My suggestion is to do your own research with an open mind and you will find a lot of evidence supporting the risks of deep sea drilling and I challenge you to find Maritime’s response plans for a minor oil leak. They aren’t that hot and their main method is to use corexit: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11126950

  16. Paranormal says:

    So are you suggesting the government shouldn’t invest in public transport roads etc and it should be left to the private sector?

  17. Dave Kennedy says:

    No, I’m suggesting that not all of the motorways are a good investment and will never provide an economic return. The Government has already committed us to a PPP for Transmission Gully that doesn’t stack up. It will cost us several million more by going private and the Government has ignore the Treasury’s advice regarding the value of PPPs.

  18. TraceyS says:

    What the article you referenced appears to say is that over the period from 1964 to 2012, one in every nineteen ultra-deep sea oil wells had leak. That is equal to only a 5.26% chance over roughly the life of a well, so (based on say 40 years) a risk of just 0.13% per annum.

    I guess that is what Gareth Morgan means when he wrote “the chance of a spill is small”.

    Earlier you wrote “Shell claims that they have a 1:30 chance of finding gas (probably mixed with some oil), there is a 1:35 chance of an accident…” But the 1:35 chance wasn’t Shell’s claim was it? It came from a Green Party Press release.

  19. Dave Kennedy says:

    That may be true in that case, but I was only using it in reference to the costs of a gas leak-which is, according to Shell, the most likely accident scenario in the Great South Basin. New Zealand has much softer expectations of oil companies liabilities in New Zealand to try and attract them down here. You would have also noticed the cost of the Rena disaster was largely shouldered by us.

    If I was to be very generous I could say that Maritime New Zealand and the Government would have to cover 1/4 of the costs of a similar accident here. Remember also that we don’t have the infrastructure to deal with anything like that and it will take over a month to import it. We are talking about $2-3 billion dollars worth that we may have to cover ourselves.

    Any question that has been asked of Ministers regarding the responsibility of managing an accident and the answer is always Maritime New Zealand, followed by a statement regarding the low risk (which has been shown to be very debatable).

  20. Dave Kennedy says:

    It wasn’t meant to be a quote from Shell, hence the comma, I was just listing facts.

  21. TraceyS says:

    Dave can you please now explain how you came to be certain that all profits from oil drilling WILL be wiped out the cost of cleaning up an oil spill?

    Or do you accept Robert’s correction that you perhaps meant “could” in what seems like a fairly remote possibility of a spill.

  22. TraceyS says:

    In future, maybe it would be clearer if you used a full-stop and then started the next sentence “The Green Party claims…”

    The source of information is important for people who want to go off with an open mind to check on is accuracy. If you list the source of one fact, then you should list the source of the next and the next. We don’t all accept Green Party press releases as absolute fact you know Dave.

  23. Paranormal says:

    Your example doesn’t stack yup. The costs all refer to the cost to the shareholders of loss in shareholder value and the relatively minor cost of drilling a relief well. There is nothing in that article that even remotely implies there are any other costs. You’re busted.

  24. Paranormal says:

    Again a faulty analysis based on your POV. The ‘Holiday Highway’ as I’m sure you refer to it is desperately needed and will pay off for Northland big time. If you lived in or tried to get in or out of Wellington you would know Transmission Gully is about 60 years overdue.

  25. Paranormal says:

    You have a higher opinion of Green Party propaganda than most people – facts are quite different things.

  26. robertguyton says:

    Dave meant, ‘could’. Dave! True, I was wrong. The opposition to deep-sea drilling isn’t quibbling, Tracey, especially it isn’t quibbling over the size of the risk. They are mainly saying that the event of a serious spill is not covered by the oil companies, nor our present Government – they are both relying on nothing bad happening. If something does, there will be no effective way of stopping it, judging by what the oil companies or this present Government has told us. Drill and hope.
    Tracey, your ‘might bite my finger’ scenario is ridiculous in the extreme and an insult to any intelligent person, but I guess here it will suffice to garner support for your argument.

  27. TraceyS says:

    Another way to put things would be to say that over the life of an oil rig there is a 94.74% that it will not have a spill.

    Why don’t you put it like that Dave?

  28. TraceyS says:

    94.74% *chance*

  29. TraceyS says:

    “Tracey, your ‘might bite my finger’ scenario is ridiculous…”

    Have you no sense of humour, Robert?

    Seriously though, I know of a guy who died from a nasty bacterial infection after cutting his finger shearing sheep. These events are less uncommon than we realise. More people will die or be maimed from such causes than from an oil spill.

  30. TraceyS says:

    Will your solution be to ban sheep?

  31. Dave Kennedy says:

    Believe the spin 🙂

  32. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey if I was quoting I would use quotation marks 🙂

  33. Dave Kennedy says:

    You will note only one of my links was to a Green Party one and even that had a link to official information elsewhere. Nice try 🙂

  34. Dave Kennedy says:

    Please see all my links that give example of costs from the Rena (very very minor relatively speaking) to the gas leak in the North Sea.

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    I have provided a variety of links that support my arguments, whether you accept them or not. I would like to see links that would reassure the public regarding our level of liability should even a small spill or leak occur and what level of liability cover are the oil companies expected to have? I heard it was only $10 million, but I hope you can prove otherwise. Also what resources does Maritime New Zealand have (in NZ) at its disposal to deal with any leak

  36. TraceyS says:

    All you demonstrate is that it would be expensive. We know that already. That does not mean all profits would be wiped out.

  37. TraceyS says:

    Why not just reference the official link so we don’t have to pass through the propaganda first?

  38. Dave Kennedy says:

    If we look at the Rena disaster as a reference point and then transpose the responsibilities to a major gas rig disaster we would be looking at the possible importation of a capping stack or relief rig. The process of employing those with expertise to do the job (we have none in NZ) and to monitor the site. The cost of environmental clean ups which would vary depending on what was released with the gas. The legal fees in determining the extent of liability. The effect on our country’s greenhouse emissions, which would become substantial. The loss of jobs and royalties, the checks on other rigs that will probably result and the cost of legislating more protections (which generally happen after accidents). In fact I may have under-estimated!

  39. Dave Kennedy says:

    I know Jack from way back and we have mutual climbing friends. Jack has strong opinions but in this case he is quite wrong 🙂

    I happened to see another letter in the Southland Times expressing very similar concerns about the Greens agriculture policy that you voiced here, any relation? 😉

  40. Gravedodger says:

    I understand the oil and gas so far discovered in and around NZ is from low pressure fields and the Gulf blowout was in a much higher pressure field. In the current Andarko search in the Great South Basin Gas is the target and the risk to the environment is no greater than passing whales passing wind.

    The Rena was not a “DISASTER”, it was a freakin ship wreck due to a Captains failings. One of hundreds in our waters and hundreds of thousands throughout the world
    The only disaster was in the failure for the wailings of the illinformed to present any real traction and today there is preciuos little remaining evidence apart from the hardware still on and around the Astrolabe Reef.
    Even Phil Goff’s nice shoes, shovel and suit survived unmarked.

    How much oil was spilt in the worlds oceans, in particular the North Atlantic, the North Sea and the Arctic, plus the Pacific Theater in WW2.
    Dave, while you are seeking all those links to prove the unprovable see if you can find some relevant figures for those Disasters. Sheesh Langsdorf scuttled the Graf Spee in the mouth of the River Plate. He didnt have much ammo left but I bet there was a hell of a lot more Oil than the freakin Rena was carrying, The Spee had enough fuel to make a fast passage to the French ports, the problem being he couldn’t make enough speed to outrun the Allied ships waiting.

    The only Raison d’etre for the charade of the melons protesting any oil and gas search, is that every find destroys a little more of the total charade of “peak Oil’.
    If Energy concerns really were the main topic, modern nuclear energy would be embraced by every melon with a minimum IQ above 45.

  41. Dave Kennedy says:

    GD, the Rena was a relatively small spill, as you say, and yet it cost us $50 million to clean it up.

    Peak oil was always related to what was thought to be the easily recovered stuff and now with no care of the consequences oil companies are digging up Canada’s tar sands, fracking just about everywhere and trying to drill in the Arctic and in the Great South basin. The 97% of scientists who believe that we are destroying our own atmosphere understand that if we actually use all the known sources of fossil fuel it will be a one way ticket to oblivion.

    Ask Japan why they are shutting down their nuclear power plants.

  42. TraceyS says:

    “The 97% of scientists who believe that we are destroying our own atmosphere understand that if we actually use all the known sources of fossil fuel it will be a one way ticket to oblivion. ”

    Come now Dave, the study didn’t actually say all that did it?

    To use your own analogy (Robert says such analogies are ridiculous), but I’ll use it anyway – if 97% of scientists agreed that I had cancer, would this mean that I would certainly die from the disease?

  43. inventory2 says:

    Goodness Dave; you quote Gareth Morgan as a serious source?

    Lock up your cats folks; Mad Gareth is trapping them!

  44. inventory2 says:

    The risk of what Dave? The 1 in 35 adverse events scenario includes everything from a spill to the cook cutting his finger 😀

  45. Dave Kennedy says:

    Gareth Morgan is generally right more often than wrong. I wouldn’t stick a mad label on him so readily, he is opinionated but no fool.

  46. Dave Kennedy says:

    Wrong it actually refers to actual spills.

  47. Paranormal says:

    No, i prefer to understand the real situation. Unlike you I have lived in Wellington and had to use the roads in and out as well as regularly using the Northland ‘holiday highway’ for business.

    Highways such as these are important lifelines (in both the literal and figurative sense http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Emergencies–Hazards/Emergency-Planning/12-11-13-WeLG-report-to-CDEM-Joint-Committee-restoration-times-FINAL.pdf) and need to be treated as such, as much as that hurts your jaundiced political outlook.

  48. Paranormal says:

    interesting that all those with a different opinion from you are ‘quite wrong’. have you noticed there is an overwhelming number of people who would appear to be ‘quite wrong’. Have you ever stopped to think that – maybe it isn’t all the other people that are ‘quite wrong’.

  49. Paranormal says:

    Bullshit Dave. The link to the North Sea gas leak shows nothing of the sort. It only opines on the potential affect on the oil company’s share price.

  50. Jordan Wyatt says:

    You lot are a piece of work, hiding behind fake names and made up claims! 😛

    Take a zip through the comments. Robert and Dave give examples, the mob talks of “climate change” and “oil running out” as made up, while saying we should go nuclear! And what to do about the waste eh? Bury it in glass, dump it in the sea? (“Think of all the waste dumped in the oceans during Dubya Dubya Two! Nothin’ BAD happened!”). Throw it down a bottomless pit? Laughable!

    As for “liabour” and other such silliness, lucky we’ve got a couple schoolteachers here to set the record straight! 🙂

    Use your real names, use real facts and join us in the sun :-). Each of us would welcome you into our homes, for gardening, green-ing or gorging! Come to the next Invercargill Vegan Society potluck 🙂


  51. Paranormal says:

    Peak oil was a paper originally submitted to support the building of nuclear power stations. it was then taken on by the melons as a stick to beat the oil companies with. The fact it has been shown to be completely bogus does not seem to worry the myopic socialists with an agenda.

    As for Japan and Germany shutting down their Nuclear power stations – you shouldn’t take a political short term knee jerk reaction to be anything meaningful. The fact remains the Fukushima plant survived the quake and subsequent tsunami. it’s unfortunate the planners didn’t build the support utilities to the same standard.

    So how are you feeling about Germany replacing their nuclear power plants with coal burners?

  52. Paranormal says:

    Jordan – time you caught up to the modern era. Nuclear waste is now reprocessed and reused.

    And god save us from well intentioned but foolish school teachers with no experience in or knowledge of the real world.

    These would be the same school teachers involved with the NZEI that have been failing our children for decades? They’re happy to experiment with our childrens futures on such pc gone wrong as NCEA but are politically opposed to Charter Schools – not because they will help those underachievers these same teachers have been failing, no. It’s because they don’t like the possibility they will have to enter the sunlight and be shown up for their failings. As well there is also the minor matter of losing their political power.

  53. Mr E says:

    Jack is wrong when he says?;
    “They are entitled to say they don’t like it”
    “The world is definitely warming, perhaps. It has been hotter in history. ”

    Ok Dave – You said it. I don’t think I entirely agree with you but if you want to fall on your own sword be my guest.

    Regarding letters to the editor – Is it possible that others have formed a similar opinion as me? Bin the organic policy Dave.

  54. Mr E says:

    Because the glass is all but empty.

  55. Mr E says:

    Pseudonyms are common in blogs Jordan. Don’t let it get you down.
    Names provide a endless source of would-be propaganda spreaders with a contact list for needless spewing of material (think of the trees).
    Both Dave and Robert claim to have blocked readers, and I’d presume many, because of spam threats.

    So don’t take it personal. Its common for people to restrict their identity. On the other hand it is also common for propaganda spreaders to present their names.

    Which are you Jordan Wyatt?

  56. Dave Kennedy says:

    I was referring to his planetary physics nonsense (Colin Craig stuff) and using the Rena as an example of the potential costs being invalid.

    We have discussed the organic policy in depth before and agreed that this aspirational statement would cause obvious concern. What I keep trying to tell people is that the Greens have a different approach to establishing policy than National.

    When National Standards were introduced they were rushed into law and forced onto schools without a trial or supporting research. Those who voiced concern were bullied into submission and it is still failing to provide useful data. This is not how to implement change.

    If you can’t progress a policy with proper support and an effective strategy that will bring everyone on board you may as well not start. People have to believe that what they are doing works before they engage.

    The Greens want to phase out coal mining but we were against the Solid Energy closing the coal mines on the West Coast because they had no supporting transition for the miners who lost their jobs. The current practice of associating the Taliban with the Greens is silly scaremongering, National currently operate more like them than the Greens ever would.

  57. Jordan Wyatt says:

    What a load! 😀

    People with integrity sign their names, and we invite you lot into our homes. No hiding behind “Mr E” for Dave, Robert or myself!

    Slinging untruths and claiming others are doing the same, bah! Use your real name 🙂

  58. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I would invite you to spend a week in a low decile school classroom and you would soon see that teaching is heavily related to the real world and teachers on the whole work bloody hard. NCEA isn’t perfect but it is a darn sight fairer and better than the system I endured. Both of my kids have just passed through it and on the whole they came out with a better education than me and my school was one of the best for the time. My son is studying Industrial Design and his practical skills are impressive.

    What I would say, however, is that we need a greater emphasis on trades and agriculture as we need more capable kids taking on these careers (they shouldn’t be treated as less regarded options). University qualifications are not the be all and end all.

  59. Mr E says:

    “If you can’t progress a policy with proper support and an effective strategy that will bring everyone on board you may as well not start. People have to believe that what they are doing works before they engage.”

    I’m not convinced you truly believe this statement. Evidence would suggest otherwise:


  60. Mr E says:

    You mustn’t know which you are then – Jordan Wyatt?

    Why is a bloggers identity so important to you Jordan Wyatt? Do you like to stalk people or is it some other strange rational?

    What makes you think my name isn’t Mr E? Do you want my middle name, birth date, username and password too?

  61. Dave Kennedy says:

    This issue related to new dairy conversions and change of land use. Being able to show a management plan regarding the operations of the new business and the environmental considerations is hardly unreasonable. I would have thought this would have to be done anyway.

  62. TraceyS says:

    Oh that made me laugh on a day that has otherwise not been very funny. I think your name is really Mr E…

  63. Paranormal says:

    You have proved my point Dave. Teachers spend their time in the classroom and have very little understanding of how the world works outside their sphere. But they have opinions on how it ‘should work’ ™. (You can also drop the ‘work bloody hard’ union propaganda. That wasn’t an issue I raised).

    As for a ‘fair’ system. The world isn’t fair. What we have in NCEA is a system that fails to inspire or incentivise students. I never said the old system was good – simply that what the NCEA is turning out is seriously affecting our future. Don’t believe me – why don’t you ask your colleagues at University for a start.

    I do agree with your last paragraph, but I’m sure we have different prescriptions. We need to bring back apprenticeships for a start. We lost a great deal when the Nats scrapped them.

  64. robertguyton says:

    “Do you like to stalk people”?
    Well, Jordan, it’s been implied that the reason you ask for the use of real names on blogs is because you like to stalk people.
    What kind of person, do you think, would imply such a thing? An admirable person? A person with high ethical standards? Adding to the suspect nature of the insinuation is the fact that he doesn’t use his real name here. He steadfastly remains anonymous and when challenged to put his name to his many comments, refuses, then insinuates that anyone asking him to do so, is somehow suspect.
    Quite the fine fellow, our Mr E.

  65. TraceyS says:

    Have you never blogged anonymously Robert?

    If you have, could you please describe why you chose to in those circumstances?

    Do you think that was justifiable in the situation?

    Would you say that it is fair for people use their own judgement based on their personal and/or professional situation?

    Do you believe in free speech?

  66. Mr E says:

    No implication made Robert. I asked a question, even gave Jordon Wyatt options. Implication, that does not make (Yoda speak).

    Why are all of Dave, Robert and Jordan all seeking my identity beyond my pseudonym I wonder. It is a little flattering, I have to say.

    Perhaps that is a strange rational for seeking identities – Flattery.

  67. Mr E says:

    ‘If you can’t progress a policy with proper support …… you may as well not start’

    Yet you support the rule change that has little support?

    Very curious Dave.

    “I keep trying to tell people is that the Greens have a different approach”

    Sadly Dave if you can’t walk the walk people I doubt people will listen to the talk. Ask Robert all about it. Him and Fonterra – Mates.

  68. robertguyton says:

    “No implication made Robert. I asked a question…”
    Let’s test that reasoning, shall we?
    Do you like to tell lies, Mr E?
    Not implying anything, of course.

  69. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Teachers spend their time in the classroom and have very little understanding of how the world works outside their sphere.”
    What nonsense, the children they teach and the communities they have to engage with are very much part of the real world. By your reckoning working on an isolated farm is not in the real world and politicians who spend their time in the ivory towers of Governance would also be disconnected. I know many teachers who have shifted into the private sector with skills and understandings that enable them to be very successful.

  70. Dave Kennedy says:

    Nothing sinister on my part, Mr E, if you remember, we had a lengthy and largely productive conversation and developed a level of mutual respect. When I discovered that you lived near me I suggested that we continue the discussion in person. you declined the invitation because you preferred to remain anonymous. You surely must be aware that as soon as someone behaves secretly it naturally creates intrigue and greater interest.

  71. Mr E says:

    I didn’t “imply” sinister either Dave.

  72. Mr E says:

    That seems a dim view of the world to me.

  73. Paranormal says:

    “I know many teachers who have shifted into the private sector ” and therein lies the problem. The good ones that can’t stand the collectivist rubbish get out and leave the dross.

    The real problem lies in teachers lack of understanding on how the world works. In that respect workers on isolated farms have a much greater understanding. They know they have to be efficient and provide either services or products that others want to purchase. Teachers on the other hand, due to the protected nature of their employment, are under no such stricture. You would be a glowing example of a teachers lack of understanding of how the world works, expecting something for nothing and gummint to solve all the problems – ultimately governing by dictat.

  74. robertguyton says:

    Cute in toddlers, not so much in an adult.

  75. Mr E says:

    So nice to have you back Robert. You always seem so kind to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: