What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banksover their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government should get involved with setting interest rates!
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist.arms up his arse making his lips move.
Maybe I shouldn't be so critical... after all he has the unions with their
On 16/03/2016 8:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm"
banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the
government should get involved with setting interest rates!
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist.
Maybe I shouldn't be so critical... after all he has the unions with
their arms up his arse making his lips move.
Hard to imagine anyone so keen to sign his own death warrant. He'll run
out of ink soon.
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government should get involved with setting interest rates!
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government should get involved with setting interest rates!
wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks
I don't think that is what he said
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that
probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little
hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to
look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of
the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to
the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist.
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:should get involved with setting interest rates!
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that
probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little
hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to
look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of
the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to
the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better at farming than politicians.
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist.
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>should get involved with setting interest rates!
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government
than politicians.
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that
probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little
hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to
look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of
the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to
the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better at farming
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist.
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
I find it interesting that with what Andrew Little has said assumes
that because the outlook for dairy prices is grim and the returns to
dairy farmers are poor, that the banks should be prevented from
forcing mortgagee sales as a means of debt recovery.
In everything that has been said there is no actual evidence of this >happening. From a banks perspective a mortgagee sale is costly andPerhaps it would be easier for all if you gave a cite as to what he
time consuming - meaning that this is most likely to be an option of
last resort. The bank is forcing the sale of an asset that it does
not own or run, probably without the owner co-operating.
So is Andrew Little articulating a solution to a problem that does not
exist on a scale that is of concern?
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:33:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>should get involved with setting interest rates!
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that
probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little
hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to
look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of
the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to >>>> the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better at farming than politicians.
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist. >>>>
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
I find it interesting that with what Andrew Little has said assumes
that because the outlook for dairy prices is grim and the returns to
dairy farmers are poor, that the banks should be prevented from
forcing mortgagee sales as a means of debt recovery.
I haven't seen any such statement - do you have a cite?
In everything that has been said there is no actual evidence of this >>happening. From a banks perspective a mortgagee sale is costly andPerhaps it would be easier for all if you gave a cite as to what he
time consuming - meaning that this is most likely to be an option of
last resort. The bank is forcing the sale of an asset that it does
not own or run, probably without the owner co-operating.
So is Andrew Little articulating a solution to a problem that does not >>exist on a scale that is of concern?
actually articulated.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:10:36 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>should get involved with setting interest rates!
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:33:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that
probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little
hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to
look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of >>>>> the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to >>>>> the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better at farming than politicians.
Yes - the one JohnO provided earlier from Stuff:
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist. >>>>>
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
I find it interesting that with what Andrew Little has said assumes
that because the outlook for dairy prices is grim and the returns to >>>dairy farmers are poor, that the banks should be prevented from
forcing mortgagee sales as a means of debt recovery.
I haven't seen any such statement - do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
I quote:
"Labour leader Andrew Little has called for banks to be "stiff armed"
into not forcing dairy farmers off their land, warning that could see
more farms fall into overseas ownership."
In everything that has been said there is no actual evidence of this >>>happening. From a banks perspective a mortgagee sale is costly andPerhaps it would be easier for all if you gave a cite as to what he >>actually articulated.
time consuming - meaning that this is most likely to be an option of
last resort. The bank is forcing the sale of an asset that it does
not own or run, probably without the owner co-operating.
So is Andrew Little articulating a solution to a problem that does not >>>exist on a scale that is of concern?
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I have
cited.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>should get involved with setting interest rates!
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:10:36 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:33:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should "strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
It is probably regretable that he used "key-speak" - (headline
grabbing words that actually don;t mean very much)
He went on to say more:
Little said the Government's approach was "cavalier". A summit should
be called and dairy cooperative Fonterra should be at the table.
Farmers needed to agree on a long term plan for the cooperative to
move its products up the value chain, even if that meant taking less
cash out once the immediate crisis was over, to allow Fonterra to
invest to generate better long term returns.
Government assistance should be provided to get farmers over the
crisis, in a similar way to the help offered during drought, but it
did not need to be any more than that.
"It is time for the Government to sit up and take notice and at the
very least play a facilitation role if not something more active," he
said.
"I'd be surprised if there are many MPs who aren't getting the message
from farmers or farming communities about the distress that at least
some farmers are under."
Most would agree with much of that, Crash.
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
Leaving the newspapers headline aside, what he actually said fromt hat article is given here:
Little said he would not rule out legislating to force them to pass on reduction, though if he did it would be "with great reluctance and a
heavy heart".
Not quite the same thing - but of course most people will get the
wrong impression, as you did, by relying ion the deceptive headline.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that >>>>>> probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little >>>>>> hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to >>>>>> look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of >>>>>> the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to >>>>>> the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better at farming than politicians.
And passively see great chunks of New Zealand sold off to overseas
investors as well?
Of course most of the problems in the short term, and any solutions,
are nothing to do with farming skills - they are financial and reade
related. Farmers don't even own all of Fonterra any more!
Yes - the one JohnO provided earlier from Stuff:
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning communist. >>>>>>
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
I find it interesting that with what Andrew Little has said assumes
that because the outlook for dairy prices is grim and the returns to
dairy farmers are poor, that the banks should be prevented from
forcing mortgagee sales as a means of debt recovery.
I haven't seen any such statement - do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
I quote:
"Labour leader Andrew Little has called for banks to be "stiff armed"
into not forcing dairy farmers off their land, warning that could see
more farms fall into overseas ownership."
In everything that has been said there is no actual evidence of thisPerhaps it would be easier for all if you gave a cite as to what he
happening. From a banks perspective a mortgagee sale is costly and
time consuming - meaning that this is most likely to be an option of
last resort. The bank is forcing the sale of an asset that it does
not own or run, probably without the owner co-operating.
So is Andrew Little articulating a solution to a problem that does not >>>> exist on a scale that is of concern?
actually articulated.
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I have
cited.
On 16/03/2016 6:14 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:"strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then suggesting that the government should get involved with setting interest rates!
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:10:36 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:33:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should
farming than politicians.
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
It is probably regretable that he used "key-speak" - (headline
grabbing words that actually don;t mean very much)
He went on to say more:
Little said the Government's approach was "cavalier". A summit should
be called and dairy cooperative Fonterra should be at the table.
Farmers needed to agree on a long term plan for the cooperative to
move its products up the value chain, even if that meant taking less
cash out once the immediate crisis was over, to allow Fonterra to
invest to generate better long term returns.
Government assistance should be provided to get farmers over the
crisis, in a similar way to the help offered during drought, but it
did not need to be any more than that.
"It is time for the Government to sit up and take notice and at the
very least play a facilitation role if not something more active," he
said.
"I'd be surprised if there are many MPs who aren't getting the message
from farmers or farming communities about the distress that at least
some farmers are under."
Most would agree with much of that, Crash.
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
Leaving the newspapers headline aside, what he actually said fromt hat article is given here:
Little said he would not rule out legislating to force them to pass on reduction, though if he did it would be "with great reluctance and a
heavy heart".
Not quite the same thing - but of course most people will get the
wrong impression, as you did, by relying ion the deceptive headline.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our >>>>>> banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but that >>>>>> probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved >>>>>> Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is little >>>>>> hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free" to >>>>>> look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages of >>>>>> the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent government, to >>>>>> the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New >>>>>> Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better at
And passively see great chunks of New Zealand sold off to overseas investors as well?
Of course most of the problems in the short term, and any solutions,
are nothing to do with farming skills - they are financial and reade related. Farmers don't even own all of Fonterra any more!
communist.
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning
Yes - the one JohnO provided earlier from Stuff:
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
I find it interesting that with what Andrew Little has said assumes
that because the outlook for dairy prices is grim and the returns to >>>> dairy farmers are poor, that the banks should be prevented from
forcing mortgagee sales as a means of debt recovery.
I haven't seen any such statement - do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
I quote:
"Labour leader Andrew Little has called for banks to be "stiff armed"
into not forcing dairy farmers off their land, warning that could see
more farms fall into overseas ownership."
In everything that has been said there is no actual evidence of this >>>> happening. From a banks perspective a mortgagee sale is costly andPerhaps it would be easier for all if you gave a cite as to what he
time consuming - meaning that this is most likely to be an option of >>>> last resort. The bank is forcing the sale of an asset that it does
not own or run, probably without the owner co-operating.
So is Andrew Little articulating a solution to a problem that does not >>>> exist on a scale that is of concern?
actually articulated.
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I have
cited.
It doesn't matter two stuffs what Andrew Little says. He will never get
the chance to implement it.
It doesn't matter two stuffs what Andrew Little says. He will never get
the chance to implement it.
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I have
cited.
On 3/17/2016 2:54 AM, Fred wrote:
It doesn't matter two stuffs what Andrew Little says. He will never get
the chance to implement it.
I remember the harm done to the Agriculture sector by Rogering Douglas. >Appears Liebor want to reinstate paying the inefficient by ripping off
the capable
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his
election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity.
However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills"
could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
--
Crash McBash
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 10:51:44 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his
election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity.
However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills"
could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the
economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
--
Crash McBash
Little seems to be continuing the Labour habit of making up policy on the hoof, and then blurting it out without thinking in through first.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his
election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity.
However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills"
could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the >economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:35:45 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:51:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left >>>wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his >>election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity. >>However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man >>for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills" >>could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the >>economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from >>locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
Look at what he actually said - yours is a very selectively biassed >interpretation - got it from the Farrar-go did you?
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_responds
Rich the article you cite does not address my comments about a lack of
hard data to support Little's comments about the state of the economy
and immigration. You seem a bit touchy with your comment about me and
DPF.
--
Crash McBash
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:51:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his >>election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity. >>However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills" >>could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the >>economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
Look at what he actually said - yours is a very selectively biassed >interpretation - got it from the Farrar-go did you?
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_responds
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left wing commentators claim he has
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:08:19 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 10:51:44 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his
election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity.
However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills"
could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the
economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
--
Crash McBash
Little seems to be continuing the Labour habit of making up policy on the >>hoof, and then blurting it out without thinking in through first.
The media does seem to have got the wrong end of the stick here -
remember that Labour negotiated the China FTA that does not allow us
to stop recruiting from China
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_responds
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:51:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his >>election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity. >>However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills" >>could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the >>economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
Look at what he actually said - yours is a very selectively biassed interpretation - got it from the Farrar-go did you?
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_responds
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 02:54:52 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 16/03/2016 6:14 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:10:36 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:33:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:04:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:34:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
What a loon - actually suggesting that the gummint should
"strong-arm" banks over their business with farmers, and then
suggesting that the government should get involved with setting
interest rates!
I don't think that is what he said
Sorry "stiff armed". Same meaning if a little more violent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
It is probably regretable that he used "key-speak" - (headline
grabbing words that actually don;t mean very much)
He went on to say more:
Little said the Government's approach was "cavalier". A summit should
be called and dairy cooperative Fonterra should be at the table.
Farmers needed to agree on a long term plan for the cooperative to
move its products up the value chain, even if that meant taking less
cash out once the immediate crisis was over, to allow Fonterra to
invest to generate better long term returns.
Government assistance should be provided to get farmers over the
crisis, in a similar way to the help offered during drought, but it
did not need to be any more than that.
"It is time for the Government to sit up and take notice and at the
very least play a facilitation role if not something more active," he
said.
"I'd be surprised if there are many MPs who aren't getting the message
from farmers or farming communities about the distress that at least
some farmers are under."
Most would agree with much of that, Crash.
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77905481/labour-leader-andrew-little-warns-banks-cut-rates-or-face-compulsion
So that is what he said despite your dissembling.
Leaving the newspapers headline aside, what he actually said fromt hat
article is given here:
Little said he would not rule out legislating to force them to pass on
reduction, though if he did it would be "with great reluctance and a
heavy heart".
Not quite the same thing - but of course most people will get the
wrong impression, as you did, by relying ion the deceptive headline.
- he just refused to rule out
intervention to ensure that we do have adequate results from our
banking sector - there already is of course a huge amount of
government intervention through reserve bank requirements, but
that
probably doesn;t count as intervention to the Nat-loons.
When we have an important sector that is not performing well,
something may need to be done. The current government has starved
Kiwibank of capital and looked only for profits, so there is
little
hope of competition from there, and the Aussier banks are "free"
to
look remareably like a cartel increased profits through all stages
of
the economic cycle as they run rings around an impotent
government, to
the benefit of the Aussie shareholders, and at the expense of New
Zealanders.
What would you do, JohnO?
I would let the sector sort it out itself. Farmers are much better
at farming than politicians.
And passively see great chunks of New Zealand sold off to overseas
investors as well?
Of course most of the problems in the short term, and any solutions,
are nothing to do with farming skills - they are financial and reade
related. Farmers don't even own all of Fonterra any more!
Yes - the one JohnO provided earlier from Stuff:
The fool can't decide if he's Muldoon or a central planning
communist.
He's neither - just a politician that would work for all New
Zealanders, not just shareholders.
Drivel.
I find it interesting that with what Andrew Little has said assumes
that because the outlook for dairy prices is grim and the returns to
dairy farmers are poor, that the banks should be prevented from
forcing mortgagee sales as a means of debt recovery.
I haven't seen any such statement - do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77830729/andrew-little-wants-banks-stiff-armed-into-not-forcing-dairy-farmers-off-land
I quote:
"Labour leader Andrew Little has called for banks to be "stiff armed"
into not forcing dairy farmers off their land, warning that could see
more farms fall into overseas ownership."
In everything that has been said there is no actual evidence of thisPerhaps it would be easier for all if you gave a cite as to what he
happening. From a banks perspective a mortgagee sale is costly and
time consuming - meaning that this is most likely to be an option of
last resort. The bank is forcing the sale of an asset that it does
not own or run, probably without the owner co-operating.
So is Andrew Little articulating a solution to a problem that does
not
exist on a scale that is of concern?
actually articulated.
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I have
cited.
It doesn't matter two stuffs what Andrew Little says. He will never get
the chance to implement it.
Well, it kinda matters what he says in as much as as long as he keeps
saying it, Labour will be kept off the treasury benches.
The latest face-palm from Andy yesterday... complaining about Asian chefs. The guy's an imbecile. Who is advising him? Oh yeah, Comrade Matt
McCarten. That guy must have presided over more electoral defeats than
anyone in NZ history.
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 13:49:32 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:35:45 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:51:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:02 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 5:45 PM, Crash wrote:
See above. I suggest you actually read the article JohnO and I haveAnd he doesn't think banning chefs of a certain race from
cited.
coming to work in NZ racist..
About time he changed his advisors and used that 'clever brain' left
wing commentators claim he has
Up to now I have been hoping that, despite the circumstances of his
election as the Labour Parliamentary leader, that Little might have
what it takes to mount a credible challenge to National's popularity.
However with his:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77949500/labour-wants-to-put-a-cap-on-immigration-and-look-locally-for-ethnic-skill-sets
I am coming to the conclusion that, like Cunliffe, this is not the man
for the job. Take this from the article:
[Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was
"positive for any country" but in times when "our economy is creaking,
we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit".]
and:
[A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with "particular cooking skills"
could actually be sourced locally and the country didn't need to rely
on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said]
Curiously Little quoted no statistics to support his assessment of the
economy or to quantify how immigrants were taking cooking jobs from
locals. So there is no backbone of fact to his assertions. Did
Little intend to parody Peters?
Look at what he actually said - yours is a very selectively biassed
interpretation - got it from the Farrar-go did you?
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_responds
Rich the article you cite does not address my comments about a lack of
hard data to support Little's comments about the state of the economy
and immigration. You seem a bit touchy with your comment about me and
DPF.
--
Crash McBash
Dickbot is reading off a teleprompter. No critical thought - just regurgitation.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:17:24 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 3/17/2016 2:54 AM, Fred wrote:
It doesn't matter two stuffs what Andrew Little says. He will never get
the chance to implement it.
I remember the harm done to the Agriculture sector by Rogering Douglas. >>Appears Liebor want to reinstate paying the inefficient by ripping off
the capable
The removal of subsidies was indeed a shock to Agriculture, but it was applauded by many at the time as necessary to get past National's
penchant for a 'command economy" - there are elements of that with
teh current government in their huge investment in low return roading projects, while allowing rail to whither away.
Are you arguing for a return of farming subsidies, george.
As far as what Andrew Little said, it seems quite fair and consistent
with policies of both Labour and Green parties for a very long time.
I can see why you were trying to change the subject, george - you
probably agree with Labour policy on this as well as on Agriculture .
. ..
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_responds
Andrew Little responds
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 25 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 162:20:09 |
| Calls: | 1,911 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,081 |
| Messages: | 935,419 |