Sky City is reviewing the design of the International Convention Centre in Auckland and won’t be asking taxpayers to contribute to it.
Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce today announced that the Government and SkyCity have reached agreement on the next stages of the International Convention Centre (NZICC) project.
SkyCity has agreed not to pursue a financial contribution from the Government and instead will amend its design to ensure the facility can be completed without financial input from the Crown.
“I welcome SkyCity’s agreement with the Government’s approach,” Mr Joyce says. “This clears the path for the project to continue.
“I have repeatedly stated since December that our least preferred option is for the Government to contribute funding for the project. I am pleased to confirm that will be the case.”
SkyCity submitted a Preliminary Design for the NZICC in October 2014 for approval by the Crown. However the total construction cost exceeded those costs as set out in the NZICC Agreement.
“The Crown has also indicated today that it may be prepared to accept a slightly smaller NZICC, if that is required to meet the agreed total construction cost,” Mr Joyce says.
“SkyCity will now work on a revised Preliminary Design in the coming weeks and will submit it on a date that will be agreed by both parties.
“The Government is pleased to be moving forward with this project which will create 800 permanent new jobs, an increase in GDP of $49 million, and an important public facility for Auckland.”
Public reaction to the suggestion that taxpayers contribute to the centre was almost unanimously negative.
Most people accept the need for continuing fiscal restraint. Most accept that health, education and supporting earthquake recovery in Canterbury are priorities. Few, if any would accept any contribution to the convention centre as either necessary or desirable.
The 800 permanent new jobs and an increase in GDP of $49 million are significant but those benefits would count for little or nothing in the eyes of taxpayers if they were expected to contribute to the building.
The original deal was sold as not requiring contributions from either taxpayers or ratepayers and, thankfully, yesterday’s announcement means that is still the case.
Homepaddock 
Well that is hardly surprising – that the idea that the taxpayer might bail out a casino even saw the light of day is a sure sign that John Key is losing his touch.
LikeLike
However I still don’t like the fact that they are allowed more gambling tables and gaming machines, that they have a business protection and compensation clause for 35 years, that their record for host responsibility is poor (and no pressure to improve), that the Problem Gambling Foundation is potentially having its funding cut, That a business that derives a good amount of its income from exploiting vulnerable people gets so much Government support. Appalling!
LikeLike
Key was a dupe to even entertain the idea and the public quickly told him so. Key claimed it would be an “eyesore” – why did he agree to the construction of an eyesore? Now it’s to be littler than promised, but Sky City still gets all of the concessions from the deal – who did best out of that deal? The gambling kings, that’s who. New Zealanders lost out, because we had Key representing us and he blew t – taken for a ride, he was, as were we.
LikeLike
Hooten’s lashing Key over this – Hooten!
Hide’s piled in too. King-sized cock-up for Key.
LikeLike
When they make attendance at a casino compulsory, and a business should not be expecting any return from an investment of $400M then you might start making sense Dave Kennedy. And it may be that the PGF has its funding cut, but that same funding will go to an organisation with a better performance than they have achieved – an obscene amount in anyone’s terms when it is measured against their effectiveness. They have been repeatedly warned about their profligate waste of taxpayers money, but have chosen to continue their ride on the gravy train. I have no sympathy for them.
LikeLike
Key gave preferential treatment to an Sky City that immediately turned and demanded further millions from the Government. Good judge of character there, John. What a wheeler-dealer.
LikeLike
“The Skysore”
Oh dear!
LikeLike
Labour’s onto it.
“Little on tv3 this morning said that if sky city build a less than promised convention center a government he leads would review there gambling concessions”
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16022015/#comments
LikeLike
Political posturing Robert – a bandwagon to jump upon.
It was of course his party, Labour that introduced the Legislation that allowed casinos to operate in New Zealand in the first place
Can we say hypocrisy?
LikeLike
Say what you like about Labour, Andrei, I don’t care. Little’s onto to this debacle though and will whip Key in the House. Poor John, running from Sue Bradford yesterday and now looking forward to a towelling from Andrew Little tomorrow!
Key’s created a rod and his back will feel it many times before this debacle fades from the public’s memory. Then there’s Sabin…
Sacha says:
“The initial framing of Joyce’s announcement that Sky City will not seek further financial contribution by the Government to the Sky City convention centre is all wrong. What is happening is that SkyCity is now allowed to build something cheaper in consideration of which it will receive the same significantly valuable legislative changes.”
Sasha’s right.
http://thestandard.org.nz/the-house-always-wins/
LikeLike
“The politics are interesting. National essentially had three options:
Pay the further money and face the wrath of the public.
Allow the cost and the size of the centre to be reduced.
Toughen up and say no.
None of the options were good ones. The possibility of option one was causing huge public ructions even from those usually supportive of National. Option three risked the prospect of the project being cancelled with huge amounts of political egg on face. Option two was realistically the only choice Key and Joyce had but the dawning realisation amongst the public that SkyCity has again won will cause increasing political damage to National.”
This summation is spot-on. This is messy and damaging stuff for Key. Sometimes when you gamble, you lose. Shame he was gambling with our money (and laws).
LikeLike
Marc you have no idea about the performance of the PGF, they are internationally regarded and have had huge success in reducing pokie numbers and problem gambling around the country.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/problem-gambling-foundation-too.html
Host responsibility is expected with alcohol but the level of oversight of gambling institutions is much less.
How can you possibly support a 35 year compensation clause when the business concerned is heavily based on exploiting vulnerable people? The investment of $400 million in the conference centre is in exchange for increased gambling capacity. If SkyCity can return a profit of $66 million in six months and this will increase substantially with more gaming machines and the investment in the conference centre and hotel will quickly quickly be covered. I would imagine the hotel and conference centre will soon return a tidy profit too.
SkyCity is growing a little empire with a level of government support few businesses would ever even dream of.
LikeLike
DK telling a reasoned commenter they have ‘no idea’. Now that’s chutzpah.
It seems however DK you are merely peddling political spin yet again. For proof look no further than: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9853344/Problem-Gambling-Foundation-loses-Govt-funding – Interesting you’re only repeating Liarbour spin DK. can’t the Greens give you their own spin to repeat?
Fact of the matter – funding for prevention of gambling harm has not been cut by National. Full Stop. Repeat as much of your left slanted, anti National, KDS, spin as you want, it doesn’t change the facts. The funding has been spread across different social agencies, one of whom has a massive history and international acclaim for treatment of addictions – that would be the Salvation Army. You may have heard of them perhaps. Is it that the Sallies don’t fit into your ideological box that you’re so agin them being involved in addiction prevention and treatment?
Sky City’s business is not “based on exploiting vulnerable people”. But then again your outlook is so red you may be incapable of seeing any business other than being “an exploiter of the masses/workers/the vulnerable” tm. How about seeing SkyCity for what it is, an entertainment business. As Marc points out people are not forced to go to the casino. The fact a sad few do go there to change their lives should be managed and not be used as a club to stop everyday people using it for what it is intended to be – entertainment.
LikeLike
Paranormal, what an extraordinary response. You obviously didn’t read my link to establish where my information about the PGF came from and I would love to have an example of the spin I have used (good grief!). You also seem to be ignorant of the concerns around the decision: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10524808/Gambling-body-fights-for-funding
“Sky City’s business is not “based on exploiting vulnerable people””
Click to access impact-gambling-asian-communities-summary.pdf
You do realize that most cities, including Auckland, have a sinking lid policy on gambling machines because of the negative social impacts they cause. No one is forced to smoke tobacco either, I guess you’re a strong supporter of that industry too?
Paranormal if you want to have an argument with me, please address what I actually say (not the fabricated nonsense you assume I am claiming), your style of debate is totally disingenuous.
LikeLike
Speaking of disingenuous debate.
Dave,
Would you care to write one paragraph, listing some of the positives that the International Convention Centre will bring, for the City, Community, and the Tax payer.
LikeLike
No DK, not ignorant at all.
But just pointing out your inbuilt bias against business in general and Sky city in particular is clouding your judgment. The manin reason you and your lot are running these lines is you scent political blood. You’re just continuing your political game, no matter what the consequences.
How does an individual social entity having it’s funding cut – as an unrelated normal operation of government – have anything to do with Skycity and the Convention Centre deal. You seem to imply they are related and somehow part of some sort of a conspiracy. Here is the facts of the situation from behind the spin:
“The ministry can confirm that it has informed the Problem Gambling Foundation that it does not intend to renew its national contract to prevent and reduce gambling harm,” he said.
“The process to re-tender the contracts for these services was an open contestable tender process.
“The evaluation panel deciding on the tender comprised six members – three internal ministry staff and three external evaluators from the Department of Internal Affairs, the Health Promotion Agency and a Pacific health consultant.
“The ministry also asked Pricewaterhouse to independently review the procurement process and this confirmed the ministry’s processes followed accepted good practice.”
And no I don’t generally bother wasting my time following your links. You have considerable form for putting up unrelated links that, if they have some correlation with what you are pushing, generally don’t back your opinion.
Yes I do know that there is a sinking lid. My question is – is it justified. Just like smoking, either make it illegal or let them get on with their business.
What you in all your ignorance don’t understand is that it is directly because of you and your lot that there is the 35 year protection clause. Any business wanting a return on their investment, where there is a risk of political interference, will seek for a period of time when they can make a return on the capital they have to invest.
This is exactly why you should never be allowed in government, if you would like another example of your commercial stupidity, just look at how you gifted private shareholders value that was denied the government over the power company sales.
LikeLike
Mr E, even the NBR has questioned the viability of conference centres in general. However, I have nothing against a conference centre per se but any commercial deal needs a rigorous cost benefit analysis and what the Government has given away to SkyCity is extraordinary. If you want to get a broad overview of where both business experts and the wider public sit then I suggest you read Bryce Edwards’ overview and links:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11401591
Your loyalty to this Government is beyond reason now Mr E and your moral compass may need to be recalibrated.
LikeLike
It is exactly as I expected. You can’t and won’t recognise any positives as part of a balanced approach. Paranormal has accused you of peddling politics, and I can understand why he has said that.
Your “loyalty to this Government is beyond reason” suggestion is wrong. You are pretending to know peoples views, and I doubt that behaviour will help your career as a public figure.
LikeLike
Mr E, you make a good point about my accusation that you are supporting this Government’s stand and process around the SkyCity convention centre (was influenced by previous debates with you), so I apologise and withdraw until you actually state your position. I hope this will be forthcoming 😉
Paranormal, I am not biased against businesses but I am biased against any individual business where social harm is a consequence of their trade, and so should you.
The funding cut to the PFG was clearly influenced by lobbying from the gambling industry and SkyCity had the most to gain through that lobbying. Obviously this would be hard to prove but it is logical and there is plenty of evidence to point to this.
Mai Chen obviously has evidence to question the flaws in the procurement process:
“High-flying Wellington lawyer Mai Chen will argue at the three-day hearing in Auckland before Judge Peter Woodhouse that the ministry’s tender process was fatally flawed. It has been suggested that PGF’s political stance as a vocal critic of the gaming industry, pokie rorts and the SkyCity convention centre deal had cost them the contract rather than their performance record.”
I also suggest that you also try to argue with the NBR and Matthew Hooton and all the others who are saying similar things to myself about the SkyCity debacle and the related consequences. Numerous business commentators are claiming that the Government were out of their depth when negotiating this deal and an American architect who has designed a number of casinos finds it hard to believe that there can be a 25% cost overrun in this project as that would indicate a high level of ineptitude at that level. It is clear that SkyCity has the Government over a barrel and is playing them as hard as they can.
Recently released documents from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment revealed that as soon as the Government stopped the tender process SkyCity had the upper-hand. This is really bad business practice to remove the levering that the tendering process provides at such an early stage.
LikeLike
DK you are yet again showing your lack of commercial sense.
Conference centres have a checkered history when it comes to financial viability. True and fairly obvious.
Any opportunity to gain a conference centre without carrying the commercial risk is beneficial for any government and taxpayers/ratepayers.
Clearly you can’t see that. Is that your ideology getting in the way again?
LikeLike
Thanks Dave,
Kindly delivered, kindly accepted. 🙂
My position:
Relatively uninformed – and generally a fence sitter on the issue.
I’ve been to a conference in Hotel associated with a casino. I see the advantage of well run convention centres with entertainment nearby.
I also have family with gambling problems, and have been the indirect victim of such behaviours.
If my hand was forced in choosing, lacking the detail as I do, I would say, I support the establishment of a Convention Centre, but not if the cost is a likelihood of a significant increase in gambling victims.
LikeLike
“You are pretending to know peoples views”
Mr E skewers himself with the claim that epitomises his own debating style. Over and over, Mr E pretends to know people’s views and shares those imagined views on Homepaddock. To charge Dave with the same behaviour – priceless!
LikeLike
The cost most certainly is a likelihood of a significant increase in gambling victims.
At last, we’re getting somewhere. Dave’ll supply the reports.
LikeLike
230 machines and some tables, Im not convinced the numbers of victims are significant or the addiction behaviours cant be offset with changes.
Should we not build roads because of accidents
Should we remove all intersections and build overbridges because intersections are hazards
People can drown in lakes, do we ban swimming, fishing, boating.
People die, addicted to mountain climbing – should see take away their ice axes and cramp ons?
Life has risks, dangers an additions. We can’t remove all risk and some societal gains have societal costs.
There is a balance that I am yet to understand in regards to the Conference Centre.
LikeLike
Does restricting one-arm bandits equate with banning swimming, fishing and boating, in your book, Mr E?
A casino is not a lake. In any case, this
lakecasino is getting bigger, through human intervention. Humans must surely take account of the harm that might come from their actions.Lakes, not so much.
LikeLike
“some societal gains have societal costs”
What are those “societal gains” that will flow from the Casino, Mr E?
LikeLike
Mr E said: “Im not convinced the numbers of victims are significant or the addiction behaviours cant be offset with changes.”
He also said: “My position: Relatively uninformed”
It’s little wonder you are “not convinced” about the issue, Mr E. You say yourself that yopu are “relatively uninformed”.
Perhaps some homework would help? If you aren’t willing to educate yourself on the issue, why are you arguing with Dave, who seems very well schooled 🙂
LikeLike
Paranormal, as you must be aware a 35 year protection clause is unbelievably generous no matter what the future viability of the conference centre. Your attempts to disparage my understanding of good business is failing because of your obvious ignorance of the facts and refusal to read the evidence. Sadly we will never know what could have been offered by others that were wanting to tender for this centre. A more modest proposal with less government risk and social damage may have been a much better deal. Remember SkyCity have thrown in a hotel that will be profitable to itself regardless of the viability of the convention cantre.
Mr E:
Up to 60,000 New Zealanders are problem gamblers (1.8% of the population) and 78% use pokie machines as their primary mode of gambling. A 2012 New Zealand health survey found that almost 90,000 people were negatively affected by other people’s gambling. Around 25% of gambling expenditure comes from problem gamblers. Between 2004 and 2005 there were 593 self exclusions from casinos and only 188 were instigated by the casinos themselves.
According to problem gambling research around .8 of a problem gambler is created by each additional pokie machine so that means around 185 problem gamblers will be created through this deal. Using the figures above, around 430 people will have their lives seriously impacted by this deal while 800 permanent jobs will be created (these predictions tend to be overly positive). When to take away the destroyed lives from the probable jobs the deal looks less attractive. Often the fraud that is caused through supporting gambling addictions can destroy small businesses too. I’m not sure this level of collateral damage is acceptable.
LikeLike
Please remove the ‘which as you have identified’ from above so that it makes sense. Multi tasking isn’t a good idea 😦
LikeLike
Dave said “Mr E, you make a good point about my accusation that you are supporting this Government’s stand.”
Right, Dave, now you are saying that Mr E, generally supportive of this Government, can’t be assumed to be supporting of this particular stance (unless he says he does). And he gets a deserving apology.
Yet I remain labelled as a supporter of worker exploitation, by you, for having been open regarding my support for this Government.
Why can I not also have an apology from you?
I think that you urgently need to check your own “moral compass”.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with mine. It was wrong of you to say there was.
Waiting.
LikeLike
Tracey, you really need to move on as I have given a rational explanation for my accusation. The best you will get from me is that you don’t intentionally exploit workers from supporting National but that is the end result of their governance. I will with draw my comment if you actively challenge the anti worker policies that encourage zero hour contracts, minimum wages for experienced workers, the possibility of removing meal breaks, the increasing casualisation of the workforce, escape clause from good faith bargaining of collective agreements…Until then you will just have to swallow the dead rat of worker exploitation as a National Government supporter.
LikeLike
Dave Kennedy, I will swallow no such “dead rat” and you have no right to ask me to.
You wrote:
“I will with draw (sic) my comment if you actively challenge…”
From a politician to an ordinary business person it is appalling for you to try and force me to act as you wish by making an accusation and saying you won’t remove it until I act as you want me to.
I do actively challenge anything that looks like exploitation of workers in the fields that I am active in. That might be broader than you realise Dave.
I do not intentionally, nor do I unintentionally, exploit workers through my political opinion, or choices, or my support for any cause. There is no rationale for you to say otherwise.
The sooner you realise that the better.
LikeLike
You’re right about one thing, Dave, multi-tasking is not a good idea for those who can’t handle it.
In attempting too many things at once you’ve missed the fact that your moral compass has a big crack in it.
LikeLike
DK said “and so should you”. Why ‘should’ I follow the opinion of a clearly uninformed individual driven by a failed ideology? Here’s a challenge for you – remove ‘should’ from your vocabulary. I imagine it will be near impossible for you, but will carry significant benefits for you if you can.
Whilst we’re talking about protecting individuals from harm, why do we need to stop all members of society from enjoying their chosen amusement because of a small minority that are adversely affected? There is a deep philosophical question there that the left on their sanctimonious moral high horses fail to address. In respect to the casino operations it could actually be beneficial to have a public venue where addiction can be addressed, rather than having individuals frequent backstreet venues or online where assistance is not so readily available.
DK also said “Sadly we will never know what could have been offered by others that were wanting to tender for this centre” – so you’d be happy for the social harm and spraying taxpayers money around as long as the convention centre came form a different provider? Go figure.
Sorry DK your ignorance is showing yet again. Why do you think a 35 year clause was agreed? Could that possibly be the sort of time frame investors might see a return on their significant investment? Seems reasonable to me for a bricks & mortar investment with an expected low rate of return. “But I guess we’ll never know” with your ideology that hinders your ability to understand how the commercial world works.
LikeLike
Oh dear, Paranormal, you refuse to read any other arguments that could sway your own and have an incredible level of trust that this Government will always have good reason to agree to the terms that they did. If you did understand the commercial world, as you claim you do, you would understand that sometimes the weaker partner (ie. this Government) have no choice but agree to less than ideal terms. You obviously haven’t read my reply to Mr E where I demonstrated that the jobs provided by the centre barely cover those that they destroy.
Again you haven’t addressed the fact that these are not my opinions alone they are shared by a good many people from the business sector with much greater understanding than my own.
Matthew Hooton: http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/skycity-debacle-offers-morbid-fascination
The Dom Post: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/66126898/pokies-paradise-a-folly-nats-should-let-go
The NBR: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-refuses-rule-out-convention-centre-taxpayer-top-ng-168452
You are a brave man (I assume that is your gender) to stand so strongly against so many who share my views. It does appear that you are just extremely and naively loyal to your National Party. This is especially so when I know that you will ignore all the above links because you don’t want the facts to stand in the way of your convictions 😉
LikeLike
Oh dear DK you are yet again guilty of assuming too much. I have merely been pointing out the flaws in your arguments and approach. I repeat I am not a National supporter and cannot recall ever having voted for them. I suggest you read what I have said above, rather than what you think I have said.
What I have pulled you up on are your comments, in particular around harm to individuals and PGF, along with your desire to play politics.
Shall we now address your flawed logic on the number of ‘lives destroyed’. More gaming machines does not automatically correlate with more lives destroyed. I’m sure TraceyS could provide you with some background on the flawed assumptions this attempt at statistics is based on. But your underlying premise is flawed where you are comparing ‘jobs created’ with ‘lives destroyed’. The comparison is the 1.8% estimate, and remember it is just an estimate. The real measure then is 1.8% of visitors to the casino may be affected.
As an aside have you ever been into the Casino? I have on a busy Saturday night just to see if there could be any basis of fact in what you are claiming. What I saw was indeed row upon row of gaming machines, but only a small proportion of them were being used. the majority of people were having a good time although there were some who looked as if they were intent on changing their lives, and again that is only my assumption. They might always look grim anyway.
As for the measure of lives enriched by the casino you have completely underestimated that. Your sedentary approach assumes the ‘800 jobs’ as being static. You don’t consider the high turnover in casino staff and the fact they come in from the lower employment levels and gain knowledge and move on to potentially better things. An example is my brother who worked there for years. They took an unemployed bum (yes my brother was on the dole) and trained him to be a croupier. Whilst they were a rubbish employer he put himself through university whilst working nights and now lectures globally on sustainability. (No accounting for taste huh?). The point is Skycity, whilst being a crappy employer, are actually providing opportunities for individuals to get ahead. Individuals who might not have had that opportunity otherwise. Something you are obviously dead set against.
Then we get into philosophical arguments that I pointed out above regarding harm to individuals. That you clearly don’t want to engage in from your moral high ground is indicative of something.
LikeLike
Dave Kennedy says: “Tracey, you really need to move on” and proves himself a polite fellow.
Had he said, “Get over yourself, Tracey!”, he’d have been playing my part. I’m BC to his GC, ‘patently.
Paranormal calls Dave, “an uninformed individual” which is laughable! Of all our commenters here, Dave’s head and shoulders above, in terms of the research he presents. Para, you sound like a goose with your claim.
LikeLike
The Sky City deal was and is a grubby one and those leaping to defend it themselves get grubby with it.
LikeLike
RG, DK has proven himself uninformed on many a thread here.
Good on you for feeling you need to stand up for your bro, whilst admirable, I don’t really think it’s helping his cause.
LikeLike
Your claiming Dave is uninformed is…quaint, Paranormal. Any and every reader here would acknowledge his attention to detailed research. Even the extent of his extensive linking to supportive documents has been criticised. If you’ve visited Dave Kennedy’s blog you’ll know he researches exhaustively. Your painting him “uninformed” is laughable. Ha ha.
LikeLike
An informed person would not produce such long-winded, whining, and boring posts that few people have time to read and even fewer the interest to comment on.
LikeLike
Robert, get over your bugbear with pseudonyms. Going on and on about a silly little issue like that! Move on…
LikeLike
Robert Guyton says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:59 am
0 1 Rate This
Say what you like about Labour, Andrei, I don’t care. Little’s onto to this debacle though and will whip Key in the House. Poor John, running from Sue Bradford yesterday and now looking forward to a towelling from Andrew Little tomorrow!
Well, today Andrew Little was onto it alright but it wasn’t about Sky City, it was about putting bOb’s former party in it’s place.
LikeLike
“An informed person would not produce such long-winded, whining, and boring posts that few people have time to read and even fewer the interest to comment on.”
Tracey if that refers to myself then you are very welcome to your opinion, expressed in a very direct way 😉 I am not sure what Ele’s readership is but my blog has a reasonable following and is linked to by a number of much more significant ones. My most popular post has had almost 50,000 visits and the most views a post has had this month is 1,400. My blog views in total per month ranges between 15,000 and 35,000, which I am quite comfortable with considering I don’t post that often. You are right that there aren’t many comments after my blogs, but there are often more involved discussions on what I write on Facebook. Some who comment here do comment on my posts but they don’t appear to be able to dispute my research.
Over the last week the most common source for those visiting my blog was the New Zealand Herald. There are some who obviously don’t think that i am long winded or boring 😉
LikeLike
“Up to 60,000 New Zealanders”
Zero is on the way “up to 60,000”
“Using the figures above”
What zero?
LikeLike
Mr E, ?
LikeLike
“Snide Mr E”, to use his full title.
LikeLike
OK, I will reframe that. An informed person would prefer discussion over passivity.
LikeLike
Sorry Tracey, you have lost me again, what you mean by that i have no idea 😛
LikeLike
There is no doubt that gambling is a scourge on society. I agree with Robert Guyton and David Kennedy on this aspect. I’m surprised their good Green credentials haven’t allowed them to offer some better advice on lessening this significant social issue.
Their agricultural spokesperson, one Stephan Browning, might have advocated homeopathics. Just imagine grinding up a gambling National supporter and spreading minute amounts of the resulting product over all gambling institutions, including Lotto outlets, nationwide. I’m envisaging them using a solar powered drone as being the most environmentally responsible method.
LikeLike
Could we get Paula Bennett to help with the preparations? She’s already grinding up beneficiaries.
LikeLike
Robert Guyton,
“Snide Mr E”, to use his full title.”
Back to name calling? Here I was thinking you were on your last moderation chance.
Dave,
Any statistic that has “up to” makes me suspicious. As I said, zero is on the way “up to” 60,000. Then you use what I call a suspicious statistic to further extrapolate conclusions.
Perhaps qualifying the 60,000 would help.
LikeLike
Mr E when it comes to things like gambling addiction and alcoholism there are no accurate figures as many who are addicts probably don’t recognise their problem. You can Google 60,000 problem gamblers in NZ and get a number of links supporting this estimate. http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/eastern-courier/7578885/Gambling-with-lives
I did understand your point, but the expression is common when estimates are used and an upper limit identified.
Back Paddock, the solution already exists and that is why the Problem Gambling Foundation had their funding cut. Around 75% of problem gamblers use pokies and the Foundation was working with local authorities to have a sinking lid policy on the machines and it has had considerable success. Obviously those that profit from the machines are influential and intensive lobbying saw the Foundation attacked. The Salvation Army takes more of an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach which is preferred by those who don’t care about the social consequences of their industry.
LikeLike
Lets put some perspective into the discussion shall we.
In December 2003 nationally there were 25200 gaming machines
That has fallen consistently year in year our to 16700 in Dec 2014
That is a fall of 8500 machines over 11 years = 772 machines reduced per annum.
Click to access LineGraph_31%20December%202014.pdf
Using your statistic from a national perspective there are 620 less problem gamblers less a year.
Auckland has 6.74% of the gaming machines and if their machine reduction is in line with the rest of the country, 50 odd machines are reduced each year. Essentially these extra machines set Auckland back 4.5 years in machine reduction.
However because these extra machines are part of an International convention centre, I think we need to look at the issue on national scale and perhaps even internationally. These extra machines only slow the national rate of decline by 30% in the year that they are established, assuming the typical decline occurs.
I do think that gaining more machines is less than ideal, but we need to also weigh up the positives of having an International Convention Centre, and we also need to keep the 230 machines in perspective.
The more I consider these statistics the more I consider getting off the fence and supporting the Convention Centre. I do thank you Dave for bringing the issue to my attention.
LikeLike
Mr E, then you have to factor in the demise of the PGF, who were instrumental in achieving the decline of pokies, and the current Government’s encouragement of the gambling sector. There has been no analysis around the negative social impacts of the deal as there should have been.
I guess for me the unethical nature of this deal is the most alarming aspect and that is where the real division between our views occurs. One side believes that economic factors are the most important and the collateral damage to around 400-500 people is acceptable. I believe that more acceptable alternatives may have been possible but the Government did not allow those to be explored through cutting short the tendering process.
It has been clear for some time that SKyCity has considerable influence over this Government, past Ministers (John Banks), some Labour MPs and the Auckland Mayor. Money talks and even money derived from the exploitation of the vulnerable. I am not anti-gambling but I am against the exploitative nature of pokies and the way they are generally managed.
LikeLike
Mr E – pimping gambling for Key. And now, advocate for the shrunken “Skysore” convention centre.
What a good little flunky.
LikeLike
I don’t see the Sky City deal and the PGF as linked. I also understand that the funding for PGF has been distributed to others, and some say equally as cable.
“I believe that more acceptable alternatives may have been possible but the Government did not allow those to be explored through cutting short the tendering process. ”
That is the past Dave. You now have to look to the Future. Weigh up the positives with the negatives.
Money is not everything but it is many things to many people. Regardless of whether you are rich poor, comfortable or in need. Consider the taxes that will come out of $400M investment and where those taxes could be used. Imagine where they could be spent – that is part of the future that needs to be weighed up.
Also think about the international events that will be attracted with such a facility, conferences, arts, etc for which NZers will benefit from socially. These things need to be weighed against the less than desirable extra machines.
LikeLike
Convention centres are a con. Gambling is a pox on society. Key is drawn to both.
LikeLike
“So the Nats spent $250,000 working out that an Auckland convention center needed 3500 seats to break even, and are now about to be delivered a center wtih 3000 seats.”
Doesn’t compute, does it, Mr E.
LikeLike
Robert,
“What a good little flunky.”
More of that name calling habit of yours.
I also noted you added nothing constructive to the discussion.
I am wondering how long this sort of behaviour will be tolerated on this blog. Ele has indicated you are on your last chance. I wonder how big that chance is? What do you reckon Robert? Are you risking your blog permissions by calling me names?
LikeLike
“Doesn’t compute, does it, Mr E.”
Perhaps you should ask Dave who seems to think:
“It has been clear for some time that SKyCity has considerable influence over this Government, past Ministers (John Banks), some Labour MPs and the Auckland Mayor. Money talks and even money derived from the exploitation of the vulnerable. I am not anti-gambling but I am against the exploitative nature of pokies and the way they are generally managed”
Now Robert you are suggesting there will be no money? They’ll go broke. You disagree that money is the driver. What is the driver then?
LikeLike
“Hall monitor! Hall monitor! Robert’s being naughty!!
LikeLike
““Hall monitor! Hall monitor! Robert’s being naughty!!”
At least you admit your liability. Now it is up to Ele to judge I guess.
LikeLike
SkyCity are smart operators, hence their $66 million 6 month profit. They would never have entered into the deal unless there was economic advantage to them. A private gaming business has scored a dream deal that is out of proportion to the benefits that the country will gain. The deal has been widely slated by the likes of Matthew Hooton and the NBR and even the Government’s own departmental advisors have voiced concerns. Joyce and Key were out of their depth and have signed off on a deal that will be marginally successful when you weigh up the costs with any benefits as many more skilled than I have identified.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/skycity-debacle-offers-morbid-fascination
I’m sure Steven Joyce will be pleased that you have given him your seal of approval, MR E, because you are one of the few who have. I’m sure your loyalty will be noted 😉
LikeLike
Snitch.
LikeLike
Dave,
So you disagree with Robert, that they won’t break even?
66Million over 6 months. Imagine what can be done with the tax from that. I’d also imagine much of the profit has come from enjoyment spending. Meals, resting, relaxing. Think of all those social benefits.
Robert.
Are you calling me a snitch? It appears so. No repentance? More of your derogatory name calling?
I wonder how long that will last? Do you have any predictions?
LikeLike
Mr E, just read the link to Matthew Hooton’s opinion. He is normally an apologist for the National Government but even he thought the deal was a step too far.
LikeLike
“Imagine what can be done with the tax from that”
A pro-tax righty?
Lordy!
LikeLike
“Pro-tax righty”, see that, Mr E?
LikeLike
Key, Sky City, TPPA – all in one delicious cartoon!
LikeLike
Robert,
I have no problems with the current rate of business tax. I’ve not heard people from the right complaining about it.
I gotta get outside, beaut day in Riverton today, 24 degrees but overcast.
Perhaps when I come back, Dave, you might have presented the positives of the sky city deal so that I can properly weigh up the opportunity. Get off the fence after weighing it all up. I am sure you agree we have thoroughly considered your view of the negatives.
LikeLike
Mr E Bryce Edwards generally does an impartial job of trawling the internet and wider commentary on any issue. His page devoted to the SkyCity deal found the vast majority of commentators from the right and the left have found mainly negatives. The only ones he found talking up the deal were Mike Hosking and an ex-executive of SkyCity. The deal is on a hiding to nothing I’m afraid, if you support it you are in the minority.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11401591
LikeLike
DK what colour is the sky in your world? “Bryce Edwards generally does an impartial job” – only to someone as hard left as you DK could that be anywhere close to a realistic comment.
I see you’re still relying on your dud statistics and slander about the demise of PGF without any proof, other than your own KDS.
LikeLike
Paranormal, by disregarding Edwards and not looking at the link you are successfully protecting your narrow beliefs. I would love you to find three recent links, anywhere on the internet, that claims that the Government has done well with this deal and let us apply the same scrutiny that you have on mine (Matthew Hooton and NBR are obviously too left for you). This is a wee challenge that I bet you will avoid at all costs 😉
LikeLike
Ele has tried to cobble one together, Dave, so Paranormal could start there (here).
LikeLike
“Auckland Council has released new research into the city’s homeless population, which has more than doubled in the city centre in the space of a year.”
I know! let’s alleviate this problem, by supporting a… casino!!!
LikeLike
DK – let me repeat my post above for you, now try reading it s l o w l y for comprehension. “Oh dear DK you are yet again guilty of assuming too much. I have merely been pointing out the flaws in your arguments and approach.” You have taken my criticism of your arguments and made an assumption.
My comment above was pointing out that Edwards is not apolitical, regardless of his protestations.
I have pointed the 35 year part of the deal as clearly it’s in there because you and your political mates can’t be trusted.
I have also pointed out that you have nothing that relates reallocating the PGF contract to another very well known international social services provider has not been linked to this deal, unless you take the wailing and gnashing of teeth from you and your mates seriously. Your phrasing makes it sound as if the government is wanting to harm citizens by reducing funding for assisting those with a gambling addiction. That is patently a lie.
Further your use of statistics is suspect at best. You want to deny the majority because, to use your dodgy stats, a staggering 1.8% of the population may suffer harm. As I said there is a deeper philosophical discussion there you don’t wish to engage with.
As for the deal itself, like Mr E, your carry-on persuades me that it must be better than expected. If it can proceed without taxpayers funding, as previously mooted, then fine otherwise it’s a no go.
LikeLike
Paranormal, just as I thought you couldn’t find one link that supports your opinion. Just repeating nonsense doesn’t make it right.
Nothing you say makes sense:
-Bryce Edwards has a column in both the Herald and the NBR and is clearly not Green friendly, he evenly presents all sides in his coverage of politics and he appears to have more links to the right than the left. If you have evidence otherwise then let’s hear it.
-35 years is extremely generous for business protection, please find evidence of something similar provided by any previous government.
-The PGF has been the most significant provider of problem gambling support in NZ and is internationally recognised, the Salvation Army did not tender for the whole service. The decision was bizarre. Where is your evidence of poor performance?
-You question my statistics (from a range of recognised sources) but present nothing to counter them, your challenge is empty.
Again, you can find nothing to support your empty rants, all opinion and no substance 😉
LikeLike
“because you and your political mates can’t be trusted.”
Paranormal’s arguments always come down to this – he loathes the Left. Details of any particular issue don’t matter – he loathes the Left.
End of Para’s story.
LikeLike
Actually, Robert, He can loath me as much as he likes but unless he has evidence and can support his bizarre opinions he cannot expect anyone to take him seriously. Perhaps his name is a hint to where he gets his information 😉
LikeLike
Dave,
I requested some measured positives. You provided and opinion about Edward’s opinion of Hooton’s opinion.
That’s clearly not what I was after. You must have contemplated the positives. Isn’t that what good politicians do? Balance, weigh, measure opportunities?
LikeLike
Dave, Mr E REQUESTED some measured positives!
Hop to it, lad! Don’t keep the Guv’ner waiting, spit, spot!
LikeLike
Mr E, your request is quite bizarre, I do not have the knowledge or the information to judge the worth and potential value of a conference centre in Auckland. I rely on various sources who have more inside information and knowledge that mine. It is clear there are huge concerns about the naivety of Joyce and Key in hammering out this deal and SkyCity have wrung their advantage for all their worth.
The only way we will really know if the centre will really provide value is after it is completed and in full operation. Research has found that its future success is far from certain:
“Based on findings and research on the international conference industry, and the potential for uncertainty around government support and development required, it is suggested Auckland would struggle on the international conference market scene. The
long established US, UK and European markets would be more than a match to compete with and the relative distance between New Zealand and these markets place more obstacles than solutions in terms of competition.”
http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/1390/FanMS.pdf?sequence=5
LikeLike
More constructive name calling.
Great.
LikeLike
Just replicating what is being generally expressed, Mr E, and based on some pretty convincing arguments 😉
LikeLike
Dave,
My above comment was not directed at you.
“However, although Auckland would likely struggle if competing in a truly international market, it does have the resources and infrastructure to compete in a more local market. The Australian and broader Asia-Pacific region are prime markets for Auckland to develop further and compete in, particularly China with its seemingly continual growth.”
Sounds positive yes? And that report was written 2011 recognising changes in infrastructure would only improve the potential.
LikeLike
Oh dear, Mr E, I do believe if your glass was quarter full you would claim it was brimming 😉
LikeLike
Skysore – broken by design
“The capacity of the proposed International Convention Centre falls under the limits the founding study on the project said was needed to make it viable for a return to the economy.
“To improve economic growth New Zealand needs a centre that can accommodate an average of 3500 delegates in a plenary session,” the report for Auckland Council and the Ministry for Tourism found in 2009.
Resource application documents filed with Auckland Council show the “Plenary Hall” has a maximum capacity of 3000 people – well short of an “average” 3500 delegates – and could drop further with talks of 10 per cent cuts to the centre. …
Further evidence of the economic “genius” of Key and Joyce.”
http://thestandard.org.nz/skysore-broken-by-design/
LikeLike
Dave,
You don’t seem to get it at all. We (you and I) have measured the negatives now I am trying to get an assessment of the positives.
I’ve made no ‘brimming’ claims, as you suggest, and certainly I have explained, I am a fence sitter until I understand the issue better.
You have suggested that me asking a Green party member for a fair assessment of the positives of the Sky City Deal is “bizarre”. I am sure that other readers will be supporting you on that claim. But frankly I like to support politicians that can make fair assessments of the issues, to speak the truth, speak their mind, not support some populist mentality, band waggon issue whilst ignoring the facts.
I believe people want fair politicians, not those who are ‘blinkered’ and ‘one eyed’ whose actions and words are predictable and transparent as opposition at all costs.
I know you are not one of those, so I continue to seek a fair assessment – and your opinion of the positives.
LikeLike
Good-o Mr G and Dk, Completely unable (or is that unwilling) to discuss the merits of an argument other than to dump on an individual. But then that goes to the heart of the matter. As I originally pointed out on this thread – you prefer to play politics than actually address the issues. Ideology rules for you over any substance.
Statistics are clearly not your forte DK, I pointed out above where you have taken disparate (and arguably dodgy) statistics and combined them in a manner that is just not sound. Try to comprehend – it is your misuse of stats in this thread I am pointing out. Mind you you probably believe the kind of bullshit stats put together around how many people die per annum from smoking. If you took the time to work through the methodology, as I have, you would see it is all based on smoke and mirrors with little to no real hard data to base their statistics on.
Anyone who has listened to Bryce Edwards on the weekend political show would see his inbuilt leftist tendencies. Yes I acknowledge he gathers political sources from across the spectrum, but that is a data collection role he has taken on and does not indicate his personal preferences. The fact he may point out the Greens strategic stupidity does not mean he has anti left/Green tendencies. Here’s a link to a mutli award winning highly read blog so what I say must be true (by your lack of standards):
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/independent-political-commentator-bryce-edwards-has-no-clue/#more-174426
As for the nature of the 35 year deal, there are plenty of other long term examples. You are pretty naive or uninformed if you are unaware of one in your own back yard. The original deal with Consolidated Zinc (that later became Comalco) involved a 99 year contract. I pointed out above how business, and in fact new Zealanders, can’t trust the left on commercial matters. As recent as last year you proved your worth – in denying New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars that now rest with private investors. For large capital intensive investments where returns are marginal, especially in the short term, it is entirely reasonable to build in some security.
You continue to slander the democratic government processes in New Zealand without a shred of evidence when you talk of PGF. I am comfortable that the checks and balances in government will work well. Interesting that when it suits your ideology you are all of a sudden railing against the sort of bureaucracy you normally champion.
LikeLike
Robert –
Daves link – the AUT report cites International Congress and Convention Association (ICCA) statistics 2009 – In 2008 meetings with over 3000 members made up only 2% of all International Association Meetings.
LikeLike
Paranormal,
Dave is suggestin Hooton is a National apologist, who is writing an article against the Government.
And Edward’s is “generally impartial”
That typifies the extent of his balance and fairness in this thread.
LikeLike
Mr E claims that Dave is not one-eyed,
“I believe people want fair politicians, not those who are ‘blinkered’ and ‘one eyed’ whose actions and words are predictable and transparent as opposition at all costs.
I know you are not one of those”
Then states that he is:
“That typifies the extent of his balance and fairness in this thread.”
A very confused commenter, our “Mr E”.
LikeLike
Mr E, it is you who doesn’t get it. I have been reading as much as I can about the SkyCity Casino and I struggle to find anything more positive than the convention centre MAY be successful. It may indeed bring in new people to Auckland and useful income (mainly to SkyCity who will be supplying the accommodation and entertainment). Therefore it is mainly the jobs that are potential positives. It is claimed that there will be around 800 new jobs after the construction is finished but many feel that is an exaggeration and it will more likely be around 500. When it is estimated that around 430 people will be negatively impacted by the increase in pokies and gaming tables, this means a total positive of around 70 improved lives (hardly huge). This is still reliant on the popularity of the convention centre, which will be competing in an international market where such centres are common. Invercargill has great convention facilities at Ascot Park (for smaller domestic conventions) but it is under-utilized because of the cost of traveling to get here, the Auckland convention centre will have the same issues in an international environment.
My dear Paranormal, one of the most important aspects in any debate such as this is evidence, and I have presented heaps. It is your job to counter my views with evidence of your own. It is very easy to arrogantly and condescendingly dismiss my views just because I am a Green and must therefore be wrong (this seems to be the substance of your argument).
I Linked to Bryce Edwards not because of his personal views but because he generally does a good job at gathering various points of view. I often disagree with his own conclusions but find the evidence and views he pulls together is useful.
You openly claim that you refuse to read any links I provide and also refuse to provide any evidence that counters mine. You use of the “Why I’ll Be Fucked” (English Translation) website as a credible source explains a lot about your level of intellectual rigour.
The only semi-credible information that you have produced to support your argument that the 35 year business compensation clause is a common arrangement, is the Comalco deal. But again your comprehension let you down as it was a deal around access to a resource (water rights), which is something completely different.
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
As for the PGF issue, the panel that made the funding decision have not shared the criteria they used, nor why they favoured the Salvation Army. The legal challenge to that decision will probably reveal the pressures and influences applied to them but, as I have shown, the evidence available to the public waves numerous red flags.
If you want a serious debate with me, Paranormal, collect your evidence (and make it available), put together a logical argument and attack the ideas not the person. You have seriously failed in all three, no evidence, no logical argument and heaps of personal attacks. Go back to commenting on Slater’s Blog, it seems to be your natural home when you read the standard of debate there.
LikeLike
” I struggle to find anything more positive than the convention centre MAY be successful”
I don’t believe you Dave, and the simple reason is you have cited the AUT report. The AUT is loaded with positive aspects of a possible Auck Conference Centre. But you seem to have read straight past them, refuse to acknowledge them and it is exposing how unbalanced you are being on this thread. I cant support this behaviour. It is against much I what I stand for. Fairness and a balanced approach.
I recognise that you represent the Green Party. I recognise that they consider themselves as opposition to the Government. And I also recognise that many say, ‘all politics is dirty’. If your presentation of views on this issue, is in anyway reflective of how the Green Party choses to do politics, you won’t be winning my support on this issue, or any other for that matter.
LikeLike
Robert,
How confused are you.
You even cited my words ” in this thread”
Uh Duuuuuh!
LikeLike
“And I also recognise that many say, ‘all politics is dirty’.”
I also recognise that many say that John Key is the most deceitful Prime Minister we’ve ever had.
“Many say”, is the feeblest of all arguments, Mr E.
You quote the “many” often, with no backing whatsoever, in order to give credibility to weak arguments. Whatever nonsense you want to present, you preface with, “many say”.
Do you believe that “all politics is dirty”, Mr E?
Let’s hear what you believe, not what the fabled “many” might or might not think.
LikeLike
Mr E, you may be right, there may indeed be more positives to outweigh the huge list of concerns. Since I have clearly failed to enthusiastically focus on the positives why don’t you produce the list yourself, I would be interested in what you come up with 😉
You are damn right the Greens would have operated differently if we were in Government. We believe the main priorities for Auckland are transport and housing. It makes no sense to create up to 800 new jobs when the workers will have nowhere to live and getting to work will be problematic.
LikeLike
Do you believe that “all politics is dirty”, Mr E?
Nope. If you put my quote into context I think you will realise I believe there is another way. If you read any of my other comments you will realise that I trying to encourage fairness. There are other options than dirty, unbalanced, one eyed-ness.
Do you understand Robert?
LikeLike
You don’t believe “all politics is dirty”???
But…many say!!!
“I recognise that you represent the Green Party. I recognise that they consider themselves as opposition to the Government. And I also recognise that many say, ‘all politics is dirty’.”
So you made three observations. The first two you believe, the third you don’t accept, yet there it is, packaged up with your other observations about the Greens.
Curious.
Co-incidental.
“I just don’t know how it got there, honest Guv!”
Classic passive/aggressive.
LikeLike
“Since I have clearly failed to enthusiastically focus on the positives”
Forget about enthusiasm. Think recognition. I think that is where you have failed.
LikeLike
Funny hypocritical statement:
““I just don’t know how it got there, honest Guv!”
Classic passive/aggressive.”
LikeLike
Dave’s agrument is strong and backed by so many commentators from all sides of the political field. Yours, Mr E, sounds unsupported and lonesome.
The Skysore deal is a dog, the political players have been out-played and the whole thing smells.
LikeLike
Mr E, I think if you go through my comments I have indeed recognised the potential positives (jobs and attracting more visitors into Auckland). You are falling back into Paranormal’s position of passing judgement while effectively standing outside the debate and contributing nothing yourself other than personal views. If you think I have missed something, then just present it yourself, otherwise your criticisms are empty.
Also you obviously don’t understand the role of opposition in Parliament. We are supposed to act as Devil’s Advocates to test the validity and robustness of the Government’s actions. I have done this here with the expectation that there will be some defense of the Governments decisions regarding SkyCity and have not been surprised at the weakness of the response. Rather than counter the points I have made I have been personally challenged instead and that is generally a sign that I am on solid ground with my arguments.
As I have said before, I comment here to test the strength of my conclusions and have an expectation that there will be robust debate. Mr E, you can question my impartiality as much as you wish but if you cannot identify yourself the positives I have missed then I have won and it is you who have failed. 😉
LikeLike
Seems a fair assessment, Dave.
LikeLike
My dear condescending Green DK.
Failure to read and understand what I’m presenting would give you a “Not achieved” in your vernacular.
You asked for evidence of long term agreements – I gave you one of many that just happened to be in your own back yard and yet you still fail to see it. Is not the 35 year agreement about securing rights?
As for evidence of your failure at statistics – that should be fairly obvious as i explained above. You cannot just willy-nilly cobble together disparate statistics and expect to be taken seriously. Sadly you think it is ok for you. Here’s a link that may prove a helpful starter for you: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/statistics-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html
Your so-called ‘red flag evidence’ is innuendo and assumption when it comes to PGF. A tad hypocritical there when talking about evidence.
Sadly you fail to see the correlation in my linking to Whaleoil and your own ‘quality’ links.
As for the serious debate, I have offered one on the underlying issue here – that is the ‘harm’ issue but you’re so wrapped up in your own sanctimony. Certainty you wouldn’t entertain an alternative view.
LikeLike
“We are supposed to act as Devil’s Advocates to test the validity and robustness of the Government’s actions.”
A segment from Wikipedia:
“a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with ”
Dave, you may as well be a National supporter if you don’t agree with your own arguement.
“then I have won and it is you who have failed. ”
There is no winners or losers Dave. There is only the truth, something you seem determined to ignore. And as long as the Green promote this behaviour, you won’t be winning my vote and I doubt you will win many others.
LikeLike
Paranormal, read your own comments and note how condescension drips from every line you write and yet you accuse me of the same 😉
It’s amazing how much evidence and how many links I stack up to support my points and you produce not one thing of value. Your nonsense about statistics mean nothing unless you can produce some of your own that proves me wrong. I would be quite happy to consider an alternative argument if you could actually produce one.
“Sadly you fail to see the correlation in my linking to Whaleoil and your own ‘quality’ links.”
Oh dear, this make no sense at all, how does my link to the NBR or the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment relate to “Why I’ll Be Fucked”?
Mr E, good point about the Devil’s Advocate comment, but we could actually say that some opposition parties do take the opposing view just because they can’t bear supporting the Government if they are right (I think the Greens are generally fairly principled in this regard). However my actual point is still relevant, and sometimes even being a Devil’s Advocate is an important role. It is the opposition’s job to hold the Government to account and challenge the validity of their arguments and policies.
LikeLike
“As long as the Green (sic) promote this behaviour, you won’t be winning my vote”
Good-O, E – we don’t want it.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Good-O, E – we don’t want it.”
Who is “we”. Hasn’t your Green membership lapsed? Who are you trying to confidently representing now? I doubt it is Dave. He is trying hard to convince me, Green is the way.
Dave,
I’ll try and be as polite as I can about this, because I genuinely think you’re a reasonable guy. I can imagine Robert rolling his eyes right now, perceiving some evil plot that I am trying to divide and concur or some other weirdness, but it is not true. I do think you are a reasonable chap from some of the things you have said. I still live in hope that you will make peace with Tracey and right any wrongs even if you don’t understand he hurt your words can cause.
To get to the point, I don’t agree with this ‘Devils advocate’ attitude. I look for representatives that will promote the truth. However hard it may be. I don’t want representatives that are opposed to things, simply because they think it is their role.
I’ve really tried to put this in my kindest words. I’ve deleted phrases – paragraphs, that might irritate some in an attempt to appeal to your sensibility. Please try and understand, politics does not have to be a fight, or a game, it should be about what is right.
LikeLike
Mr E, you haven’t read what i have said and my explanation of the oppositions role, I totally agree with you that opposing for opposing’s sake is not constructive and that being a devil’s advocate is not always appropriate (but sometimes is). However, in the case of SkyCity there is so much that is badly wrong about the whole deal and the way the Government is being played, it deserves all this attention. The Government needs to get the message that offering dodgy deals to mates behind closed doors, with little documentation isn’t on and should never happen again.
“politics does not have to be a fight, or a game, it should be about what is right.”
I couldn’t agree more, perhaps you need to have a chat to Paranormal and others and explain to them that expressing a different point of view and supporting it with evidence is not aggressive and dangerous behaviour, it is merely debate. Cameron Slater picks fights and uses personal attacks to take down critics and yet his opinion seems to be valued by Key and some here. Possibly the best examples of commentators of the left and the right would be Gordon Campbell and David Farrar, we could use them as examples of polite discourse that we could try and emulate here.
I thank you for your kind words as I think I am a reasonable man and will pull back and apologise if I think I have overstepped the mark. In regards to Tracey, my comments were never about her personal intentions but the consequences of her decisions from my political perspective and i have explained this at length. If you read through past comments you will see Tracey’s condescending manner towards me and constant misrepresentation of what I say and i generally make light of it and ignore the most bizarre comments. She will not get an apology from me although I am concerned about her misrepresentation of what i said and the angst it causes her.
LikeLike
Apologising to Tracey’s the Game of the Day, it seems!
How curious.
Perhaps everyone should just apologise to Tracey today, for slights past, present, future and imagined, then we’d all be clear to debate, like reasonable chaps.
Mr E, when I say we, I’m not referring to the Green Party. I’m not their spokesperson. That said, take it from me, we do not want your vote. In any case, your vote seems firmly assigned to the Right and that’s your natural home. Trying to prise you away from the Toryside would be a futile exercise. When you pretend that if only Dave/the Greens would a,b or c, I laugh, knowing that it’s not true, you are glued to John Key’s undercarriage.
LikeLike
I agree with E. Devil’s Advocate is a dishonest position to take. When I challenge Tory behaviour, I tell it how it is.
LikeLike
If apologising helps us to debate issues, I’ll start the ball rolling, I’d like to apologise to TraceyS and all other commenters for slights past, present and future (imagined not included- those ones are your own problem). I’ll continue to use strong language at times, I won’t always be nice and ladylike, and accept that others will come back at me in the same vein. I’m staying anonymous, so I can speak my mind. I assume ‘you lot’, ‘right wingers’ whatever, to be basically good people and that if we met in person we’d agree about many things, including how lucky we are to live somewhere where we can safely disagree about issues (Andrei reminds us that not everyone on the planet is so lucky)
Then maybe TraceyS could apologise to those she has misrepresented. Last week on the Tale of two conferences thread, there is a classic example. The discussion was about GM/GE, I questioned the rigour of testing for GE organisms and she came back with “Why is it that RBG et al. are so keen to leave out natural variation” Excuse me- totally not true and nothing I had written could be construed to mean that. What was gobsmackingly hypocritical was that the comment (11.28 Feb 12) started with “I never suggested what you have written.” I’d like an apology from TraceyS for making up stuff about me. For the record I am not ‘so keen to leave out natural variation’.
LikeLike
“Mr E, when I say we, I’m not referring to the Green Party. I’m not their spokesperson. That said, take it from me, we do not want your vote”
Robert,
Who is “we”? If it is not the Green Party, whose vote am I supposed to be contemplating? You obviously think you can speak on behalf of someone, or some group. Who is it?
LikeLike
So DK pointing out the basis of your stats is just plain wrong, as you have tried to correlate disparate stats, doesn’t wash with you? Thank god you are not destroying more young lives with a quality approach to maths like that.
It’s little wonder you have earned so much derision.
LikeLike
Paranormal, to have any credibility you need to produce stats of your own. All I have done is put up stats presented by others and linked to the source. You need to actually produce data from another linked source that supports a different view, otherwise all that exists are mine and just saying they are wrong without evidence is an empty attack.
Tracey questioned my stats on another thread and initially put forward some good counter arguments, supported by her own research. It was up to me to then defend my conclusions with more detail, which I did. You just turn on a little smoke machine of wild accusations and it is impossible to argue with if I don’t know the sources you use and what alternative data it is based on.
As for your sweeping accusations and putdowns… “It’s little wonder you have earned so much derision.”
What on earth is the basis for that? Are you referring to the 5-6 commentors here who disagree with my views expressed on a right wing blog? How on earth do you quantify such a comment? I can count about 8 people who regularly comment on this blog (other than myself) and I would say that only 3 deride most of what I say, another three discuss and question my views (and sometimes agree with different points I make) and two others would mostly support me.
On my own blog over the last few weeks I have had almost 20 different people comment and most appear to support what I say. You make an appearance occasionally to sling mud (and rarely debate) and so do a few who used to support Keeping Stock but I am not aware of a high level of derision.
Your suggestion that I could destroy young lives with my maths is so patently ridiculous and nasty that I’m surprised Tracey isn’t pulling you up. In reality I got a distinction pass in a recent post graduate paper in Maths and students of mine have won provincial competitions. You need to be very careful what you say and if you are going to make such emotive, damning statements you need to be able to support them with evidence.
LikeLike
DK I don’t think you get what I am saying. I am not arguing your stats, I am calling you on the way you’ve used them.
However the sweeping statements as you call them are related to my view of you. I have no responsibility for other commenters either here or at your own echo chamber. You talked of condescension above, what I should have written was you are confusing that with derision.
I have regularly called you on your rubbish links that don’t relate to your argument (and in quite a few cases actually run counter to it) and poor commercial understanding & use of maths (e.g. the Ryman Health posts). I have also called you on your preference for blinkered political ideology when addressing an issue. That is how I started my comments on this post and have pointed out all the way through.
I have also called you and the system you support with your union buddies for destroying young ives and depriving them of opportunities to succeed. I hope at some level that has registered and makes a difference to students in the future. Although you are clearly so ideologically driven I wonder sometimes.
LikeLike
Mr E – I don’t care whose vote you are contemplating. I don’t care who you vote for. I don’t care whether you vote or abstain. I don’t want your vote. I don’t want you to vote Green. I never for one moment believe you would or would consider voting Green. We have not one smidgeon of interest in your vote. I certainly can and do speak for “someone or some group” and don’t care if you don’t know who they are. I feel your pain though.
LikeLike
Dave – Paranormal doesn’t “need to be very careful what you say and if you are going to make such emotive, damning statements you need to be able to support them with evidence.” – he’s a hide-behind-a-fake-name commenter and therefore is devoid of responsibility for what he says and he knows it. His disgraceful comments of the past evidence his disdain for personal responsibility. You’ll have noted that he still alludes to the ugly claims he made earlier, statements even Mr E, himself a hide-behind, baulked at. That’s not admirable behaviour, in my humble, ever so humble, opinion.
LikeLike
“I don’t think you get what I am saying. I am not arguing your stats, I am calling you on the way you’ve used them.”
Paranormal, it is you who isn’t listening to me, you can criticise the way I have used my stats for all your worth, but it is meaningless unless you can provide meaningful stats of your own.
When you refer to my “rubbish links” you again make these sweeping nonsensical statements. Which in particular were you referring to? my Ministry links? the NBR? Matthew Hooton? Your claim that “While I’ll Be Fucked” has as much value as the NBR was bizarre in the extreme.
I think your questioning of my understanding of profit regarding Ryman Health was the only time that you actually had some sound basis to argue from, but in that case you were quibbling on a minor aspect of my wider argument which was around the level of net profit and the net margin of the company and how much should be diverted into dividends for shareholders and how much should go to increasing minimal wages.
LikeLike
Clearly you have missed stats 101 communication that Tracey has previously tried to help you with. Let see if i can expand for you.
You said: “430 people will have their lives seriously impacted by this deal while 800 permanent jobs will be created”
This is clearly a political statement and not statistically correct. You have stated the stats are based on taking national gross statistics and then decanting down to provide a national harm per machine figure of 0.8. You have taken this national figure, without any perspective (i.e. confidence levels or margin of error) and used the 430 figure and compared it against the only positive you see of 800 jobs.
The statisticians would have reviewed this national figure when used in conjunction with the conference centre deal to allow for such issues as;
– margins of error (as the 0.8 figure is built from a larger statistical background) , as well as addressing other statistical issues such as;
– caution where they are dealing with very small numbers and as you should know when dealing with small numbers there can be wide variances
– current saturation of machines (i.e. this is not a ‘virgin’ area, is the harm per machine in Auckland region already at it’s peak because potential problem gamblers already have access to a machine?)
– possible benefits from aggregating machines (under the sinking lid policy a concentration of machines in the CBD could be beneficial as it allows easier monitoring host responsibilities are conscientiously followed through).
If you had said “between x and 430 … compared to 800” I wouldn’t have had a problem as it would have been a little more accurate (I say a little more accurate because the benefits are just not limited to those employed). What you have done is tried to imply a harm to benefit ratio of over 50% which is purely a political statement that from someone wither alleged mathematics background is disingenuous.
This is exactly the same as your “2014 is the hottest year ever” statement which was found to be not what the scientists were saying, but also outrageously far from the truth.
LikeLike
You forgot to say, “Liarbour”, Para.
You okay?
LikeLike
Good grief, Paranormal, I have never claimed that my statistics are perfect and can only use what is publicly available and these are only rough estimates. No matter what the accuracy of the statistics they provide a general idea and still support my argument.
In actual fact the SkyCity casino probably traps more than the national average into addiction as their environment is more conducive to attracting and holding people. A more accurate representation would probably to suggest that around 400 to 600 people are likely to be negatively effected by the increasing in gaming machines. Most businesses wanting consents tend to grossly exaggerate the level of employment their business will bring to win support, and using the most optimum level and then some. There are many examples of this down south and generally less than half of what has been projected results. This means the staffing of the hotel and conference centre is more likely to be about 200-300 jobs and perhaps 50-100 more jobs generated outside to provide supporting services.
Providing a range like I have, based on available evidence, is probably more realistic. This would mean that the deal will actually have a net negative impact on the Auckland Community and I didn’t even factor in the view that the conference centre may not be that competitive globally.
Now the ball is in your court to produce data sets from your own sources and provide your own supporting arguments. You can only judge the accuracy of my figures if you can produce something different yourself.
Interestingly when Steven Joyce was asked whether he factored in the social harm caused by the deal he admitted that he couldn’t quantify it. Surely that is an important aspect or do we just think…stuff them, those losers don’t matter 😉
LikeLike