http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problem
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute
names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is
much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ
about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this
information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the
popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not
usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no
problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes
gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once
the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick
Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of
water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for
them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problemIs it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute
names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is
much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ
about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this
information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the
popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not
usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no
problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes
gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once
the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick
Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of
water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for
them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the
wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problemIs it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >>tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute
names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is
much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ
about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this >>information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the >>popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not >>usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >>everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no >>problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes >>gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >>irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once
the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >>fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >>concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick >>Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of
water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >>patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for
them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
meaning words like gnats.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problemIs it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless,
tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute
names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is
much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ
about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this
information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the
popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not
usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though
everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no
problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes
gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed
irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once
the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes
fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting
concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick
Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of
water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and
patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for
them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
meaning words like gnats.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:41 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here>I do not necessarily agree that it is a failure of this government but
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the
wrote:
Is it not what you have complained of before - using nasty doublehttp://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problem
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >>>tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute >>>names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is >>>much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ >>>about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this >>>information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the >>>popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not >>>usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >>>everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no >>>problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes >>>gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >>>irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once >>>the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >>>fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >>>concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick >>>Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of >>>water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >>>patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for >>>them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
meaning words like gnats.
first quote from the Dominion editorial. I do not consistently
mis-name other posters or abuse them - but in a small way you are
correct. The substance of the story is however that English is doing
nothing and deferring meangingful action while our water dimishes in
both quantity and quality - do you have a voew on that failure of
government?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:33:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:41 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here>I do not necessarily agree that it is a failure of this government but
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the >>first quote from the Dominion editorial. I do not consistently
Is it not what you have complained of before - using nasty doublehttp://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problem
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the >>>>limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >>>>tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute >>>>names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of >>>>plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is >>>>much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ >>>>about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that >>>>Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this >>>>information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the >>>>exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the >>>>popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not >>>>usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old >>>>government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >>>>everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals >>>>like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with >>>>high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no >>>>problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes >>>>gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >>>>irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once >>>>the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >>>>fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >>>>concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick >>>>Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to >>>>"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically >>>>answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of >>>>water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >>>>patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for >>>>them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the >>>>election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
meaning words like gnats.
mis-name other posters or abuse them - but in a small way you are
correct. The substance of the story is however that English is doing >>nothing and deferring meangingful action while our water dimishes in
both quantity and quality - do you have a voew on that failure of >>government?
I do have a view on water. It is an old problem and all governments
for years have not been able to fix it. It will fix itself in time.
On 3/25/2017 4:49 PM, Sam wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Just cant wait for the inquiries into Daesh murdering (beheading) local >people because they may be of a different religious or political persuasion. >No doubt liebor are preparing the way for that to happen
wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problemIs it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless,
tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute
names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is
much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ
about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this
information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the
popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not
usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though
everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no
problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes
gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed
irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once
the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes
fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting
concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick
Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of
water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and
patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for
them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
meaning words like gnats.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:19:33 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here>Why are you being rude. I was not rude to you. I am not fatalistic. I
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:33:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:41 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>wrote:I do not necessarily agree that it is a failure of this government but
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the >>>first quote from the Dominion editorial. I do not consistently
Is it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double >>>>meaning words like gnats.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problem
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the >>>>>limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >>>>>tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute >>>>>names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of >>>>>the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of >>>>>plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime >>>>>Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is >>>>>much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ >>>>>about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that >>>>>Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this >>>>>information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the >>>>>exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the >>>>>popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not >>>>>usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old >>>>>government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas. >>>>>The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >>>>>everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything >>>>>being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals >>>>>like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with >>>>>high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no >>>>>problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes >>>>>gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >>>>>irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once >>>>>the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >>>>>fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed. >>>>>
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >>>>>concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick >>>>>Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to >>>>>"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy, >>>>>partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically >>>>>answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of >>>>>water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >>>>>patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for >>>>>them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the >>>>>problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the >>>>>election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
mis-name other posters or abuse them - but in a small way you are >>>correct. The substance of the story is however that English is doing >>>nothing and deferring meangingful action while our water dimishes in >>>both quantity and quality - do you have a voew on that failure of >>>government?
I do have a view on water. It is an old problem and all governments
for years have not been able to fix it. It will fix itself in time.
How will water do that, Sam? By disappearing from our rivers (e.g.
Selwyn River), by becoming polluted?(many rivers and lakes) By
becoming toxic? (e.g. Tukituki)
Your fatalist "leave it alone for long enough" fits well with the
government stance - unless enough people care to vote for politicians
that will not leave problems until after they have retired . . .
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:13:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:19:33 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here>Why are you being rude. I was not rude to you. I am not fatalistic. I
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:33:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:41 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>wrote:I do not necessarily agree that it is a failure of this government but
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the >>>>first quote from the Dominion editorial. I do not consistently
Is it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double >>>>>meaning words like gnats.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problem
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the >>>>>>limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >>>>>>tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute >>>>>>names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of >>>>>>the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of >>>>>>plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime >>>>>>Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is >>>>>>much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ >>>>>>about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that >>>>>>Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this >>>>>>information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the >>>>>>exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the >>>>>>popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not >>>>>>usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old >>>>>>government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas. >>>>>>The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >>>>>>everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything >>>>>>being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals >>>>>>like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with >>>>>>high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no >>>>>>problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes >>>>>>gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >>>>>>irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once >>>>>>the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >>>>>>fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed. >>>>>>
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >>>>>>concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick >>>>>>Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to >>>>>>"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy, >>>>>>partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically >>>>>>answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of >>>>>>water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >>>>>>patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for >>>>>>them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the >>>>>>problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the >>>>>>election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
mis-name other posters or abuse them - but in a small way you are >>>>correct. The substance of the story is however that English is doing >>>>nothing and deferring meangingful action while our water dimishes in >>>>both quantity and quality - do you have a voew on that failure of >>>>government?
I do have a view on water. It is an old problem and all governments
for years have not been able to fix it. It will fix itself in time.
How will water do that, Sam? By disappearing from our rivers (e.g.
Selwyn River), by becoming polluted?(many rivers and lakes) By
becoming toxic? (e.g. Tukituki)
Your fatalist "leave it alone for long enough" fits well with the >>government stance - unless enough people care to vote for politicians
that will not leave problems until after they have retired . . .
believe people will do right as they are all over NZ. Farmers are
being more careful. Councils are doing better. It is not only a
government thing.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:07:42 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:13:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:19:33 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>wrote:Why are you being rude. I was not rude to you. I am not fatalistic. I >>believe people will do right as they are all over NZ. Farmers are
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:33:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:41 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here> >>>>>wrote:I do not necessarily agree that it is a failure of this government but >>>>I do have a view on water. It is an old problem and all governments
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the >>>>>first quote from the Dominion editorial. I do not consistently >>>>>mis-name other posters or abuse them - but in a small way you are >>>>>correct. The substance of the story is however that English is doing >>>>>nothing and deferring meangingful action while our water dimishes in >>>>>both quantity and quality - do you have a voew on that failure of >>>>>government?
Is it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double >>>>>>meaning words like gnats.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problem
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the >>>>>>>limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless, >>>>>>>tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute >>>>>>>names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of >>>>>>>the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of >>>>>>>plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. >>>>>>>
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime >>>>>>>Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is >>>>>>>much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ >>>>>>>about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that >>>>>>>Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this >>>>>>>information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the >>>>>>>exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the >>>>>>>popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not >>>>>>>usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old >>>>>>>government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas. >>>>>>>The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though >>>>>>>everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything >>>>>>>being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals >>>>>>>like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with >>>>>>>high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no >>>>>>>problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes >>>>>>>gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed >>>>>>>irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once >>>>>>>the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes >>>>>>>fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed. >>>>>>>
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting >>>>>>>concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick >>>>>>>Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to >>>>>>>"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy, >>>>>>>partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically >>>>>>>answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of >>>>>>>water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and >>>>>>>patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published: >>>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for >>>>>>>them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the >>>>>>>problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the >>>>>>>election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
for years have not been able to fix it. It will fix itself in time.
How will water do that, Sam? By disappearing from our rivers (e.g.
Selwyn River), by becoming polluted?(many rivers and lakes) By
becoming toxic? (e.g. Tukituki)
Your fatalist "leave it alone for long enough" fits well with the >>>government stance - unless enough people care to vote for politicians >>>that will not leave problems until after they have retired . . .
being more careful. Councils are doing better. It is not only a
government thing.
Calling your views fatalist is not being rude - it is a legitimate
view point, which I pointed out you share with the government. It goes
with leave the market alone and it will fix problems. It can be
explained as being optimistic about the actions of individuals, and a
belief that the sum of individual aspirations will achieve community >aspirations. Like any single simplistic view, it does not however take
ito account human nature, whch at its extremes may not act in the
interest of the whole community. I have seen a river I swam in as a
child now too taxic to allow cattle or dogs to drink from it. We have
seen the effect of modern irrigation taking so much water that rivers
become dry, and downstream water processing for doestic consumption
requires more expensive processing - and insufficient water for some
farmers further from the river source. The balance is filled by
government - both national and local. I do not blame the NAtional
Government for the mess made of water treatment in HAvelock NOrth -
that was the local council. Similarly some of the developments in
Auckland that will ease water problems for that city have been
initiated by local councils - but the overall legislative structure
for a scarce resourse should be considered by our NZ government. That
they are happy to leave problems to get worse instead of entering
discussions on ways to resolve resource conflicts is reprehensible -
it is the dark side of that laudable optimism about individuals and
companies 'doing the right thing'- and at times it becomes
suspiciously like favouritism and profit gouging (why is farming
exempt from emmission controls?; why can Oravida sell virtually
untreated swamp Kauri overseas; why are bottlers given huge
allocations that impact on suply to New Zealand industries and
residences?). There is a time for even a National Party government to
step up. They are failing us.
Except you are wrong, I am not fatalistic. I have explained that I
think that good work is now being done by farmers, councils and
others. There are hundreds of private voluntary groups that are
working on the problem.That was not true some years ago and that is
why I think it will slowly come right. This government is at least as
good in water things as any have been. You were rude because you did
not read what I wrote and changed it to a political view which I was
not interested in. This problem started in the sixties or earlier.
Also you state opinion as if it is fact. It is not fact.
On 3/26/2017 1:10 PM, Sam wrote:Yes thre has - the Sunday programme on TV last night showed some of
Except you are wrong, I am not fatalistic. I have explained that I
think that good work is now being done by farmers, councils and
others. There are hundreds of private voluntary groups that are
working on the problem.That was not true some years ago and that is
why I think it will slowly come right. This government is at least as
good in water things as any have been. You were rude because you did
not read what I wrote and changed it to a political view which I was
not interested in. This problem started in the sixties or earlier.
Also you state opinion as if it is fact. It is not fact.
There has always been good works carried out on rivers, streams and such.
The rivers they point to that have low flow rates and are full of weedThat may be the case for a few, but certainly not for those whown on
have always been like that drying out during the summer..
Dealing with any one of the riches is a losing exercise.Not all the farmers are wealthy, but I believe they can be dealt with honourably - some are certainly coming to understand that some current
If its a problem then the Nats caused it or are causing it.I think that is too sweeping, but there are major problems that have
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:41 +1300, Sam <open-minded@fairness.here>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The use of the word in the Subject of the thread is a reference to the
wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90635687/editorial-apples-tax-deficit-shows-up-englishs-political-problemIs it not what you have complained of before - using nasty double
This starts off with the news that Apple are paying no tax, and the
limp response from English
"This won't do. Apple's trendy and elegant image hides its ruthless,
tax-avoiding nature, like so many other hi-tech companies with cute
names. These companies now present a challenge to the exchequers of
the world. The New Zealand Government recently outlined a number of
plans aimed at making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
It remains to be seen whether this will work, but in the meantime
Prime Minister Bill English is providing mounting evidence that he is
much worse at political management than John Key was. Tackled on RNZ
about Apple, English quibbles that he personally doesn't know that
Apple pays little tax, because politicians are not privy to this
information.
This is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and it is the
exact opposite of Key's approach. At his best, Key could tap into the
popular feeling that made the issue politically difficult; he did not
usually make the mistake of irrelevant quibbling.
This was part of the reason that even though he led a very old
government he did not usually seem to be tired or lacking in ideas.
The English Government, by contrast, is beginning to sound as though
everything is just too difficult."
The editorial then goes on to give another example of "everything
being just too difficult" for English - water:
"On the issue of providing fresh water free to giant multinationals
like Coca-Cola, for instance, English tries to blind the voters with
high principle. Nobody owns water, he says, and therefore there is no
problem about giving it free to Coke. The fact that Coke then makes
gigantic sums out of access to a free New Zealand resource is deemed
irrelevant.
To ignore this fact really is politically inept. It might be that once
the principle of non-ownership is conceded, charging for water becomes
fraught. But principles which lead to nonsense in practice are flawed.
A similar set of problems arises with water quality. There is mounting
concern about our polluted rivers and streams, and this prompted Nick
Smith's switch from a standard based on "wadeability" to
"swimmability". But Smith was simply unable to sell this policy,
partly because of intractable definitional problems.
Smith is a classic brainy-but-tone-deaf politician. He typically
answered the concern about Coke's free water by saying the amount of
water involved was relatively tiny. But that ignores the emotion and
patronises those who feel it.
Politicians need to be better than that."
Indeed - and Labour/Green can provide that leadership.
But to go back to water, nearly a year ago this was published:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79202413/duncan-garner-were-a-bunch-of-drips-for-giving-away-our-water
National are clearly not listening
Their polling must be telling them that this is becoming a problem for
them - but even yesterday English pushed the classic "bury the
problem" by calling for an enquiry and promising that before the
election they will . . . . (wait for it) . . . . "Do Nothing!"
meaning words like gnats.
first quote from the Dominion editorial. I do not consistently
mis-name other posters or abuse them - but in a small way you are
correct. The substance of the story is however that English is doing
nothing and deferring meangingful action while our water dimishes in
both quantity and quality - do you have a voew on that failure of
government?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:01:24 |
| Calls: | 2,081 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,658 |