With such a creative name as “Stuff” one can’t expect too much from a $1 enterprise. When they publish an “article” and mention at the end that it was paid for by NZ on Air, yet still put forth their tin cup for donations with a “no news is not good news” line, well, it’s just a bit cringe. “I got paid but I want more.”
This is an awfully good question chaps. Has someone a cogent answer? Why????????????????? Good grief. Is it really a grave misuse of power to entrench safeguards against the irreversible sale of key public assets? Hardly. If this country has learned anything over the past 40 years, it should be that New Zealand has suffered lasting economic and social damage from the previous sales of its key public assets. Why on earth would we want to risk doing it again? Why should we allow an ideologically-driven party with a simple majority in Parliament to sell off to a wealthy elite even more of the vital assets that previous generations bequeathed to us all?..
Surely, the irreversibility of the sale of a key asset (e.g. water) into the hands of a wealthy few Kiwi individuals – or a predatory foreign buyer – should require protections stronger than the simple majority [is it 60%?, not enough] required to change the laws on say, dog registration or the taxing of fringe benefits. Yet it looks as though a timid Labour government is – once again – preparing to buckle under pressure.
The SpinOff rates the politics of ice cream.
With such a creative name as “Stuff” one can’t expect too much from a $1 enterprise. When they publish an “article” and mention at the end that it was paid for by NZ on Air, yet still put forth their tin cup for donations with a “no news is not good news” line, well, it’s just a bit cringe. “I got paid but I want more.”
Been a bakers dozen. Aren’t they aware that the trumpets have transitioned to breads.
they’re 3rd rate at best…just like NZ politics
and I don’t care how popular or ‘traditional’ they are.
This is an awfully good question chaps. Has someone a cogent answer? Why?????????????????
Good grief. Is it really a grave misuse of power to entrench safeguards against the irreversible sale of key public assets? Hardly. If this country has learned anything over the past 40 years, it should be that New Zealand has suffered lasting economic and social damage from the previous sales of its key public assets. Why on earth would we want to risk doing it again? Why should we allow an ideologically-driven party with a simple majority in Parliament to sell off to a wealthy elite even more of the vital assets that previous generations bequeathed to us all?..
Surely, the irreversibility of the sale of a key asset (e.g. water) into the hands of a wealthy few Kiwi individuals – or a predatory foreign buyer – should require protections stronger than the simple majority [is it 60%?, not enough] required to change the laws on say, dog registration or the taxing of fringe benefits. Yet it looks as though a timid Labour government is – once again – preparing to buckle under pressure.
Gordon Campbell on Werewolf asks this in a beseeching way on behalf of those of us with thinking brains.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2211/S00053/on-entrenchment-and-being-soft-on-crime.htm
What about testing their timidity – kick them in the g…lies?
Wafer-thin base, soft inside, unhealthy in excess and nutty on top. Despite many flavours, NZ politics delivers only a temporary sugar high.
Let them eat trumpets