My view of National as a party has been refined over many years (nay, decades…) of interaction at a local level with Bill and Mary English, whose many children overlap three of mine in ages, and have shared educational institutions with them from primary through to secondary.
I have heard Bill’s spiel about private schools getting a hard deal so many times I could practically give it myself, if I felt motivated. I do not.
It is essentially the selfish howl of an over-entitled man, pleading special interests to those who are similarly selfish and over-entitled, and as a former public servant in the Education field, I have always found that position to be repugnant.
It is essentially the selfish howl of an over-entitled man, pleading special interests to those who are similarly selfish and over-entitled, and as a former public servant in the Education field, I have always found that position to be repugnant.
John Key has further compounded the selfish policy ground of National by busily driving the country into the ground, slashing taxes for the rich, while cutting services to the poor, and throwing public servants on to the redundancy scrapheap.
This is such short-sighted policy that I am astounded, until I reflect on the behaviour exhibited by the Coates Government during the Great Depression* – they protected Farmer’s incomes, forced unemployed and starving men into work gangs, sleeping by night in the fields next to the roads they were ‘mending’. This is the Government that lost to Micky Savage’s first Labour Government in the election that led to the institution of the welfare legislation that gave us such a stable and prosperous period in the years immediately after the war – when the generation that are today’s Baby Boomer retirees were brought up.
National appears to have no clue that by giving tax breaks to the well-off, demonising those who can’t find work, sacking public service employees, and bailing out failed businesses who should have been allowed to fail instead of continuing to trade, they have merely repeated the worst of the excesses of the Coates Government.
This is such short-sighted policy that I am astounded, until I reflect on the behaviour exhibited by the Coates Government during the Great Depression* – they protected Farmer’s incomes, forced unemployed and starving men into work gangs, sleeping by night in the fields next to the roads they were ‘mending’. This is the Government that lost to Micky Savage’s first Labour Government in the election that led to the institution of the welfare legislation that gave us such a stable and prosperous period in the years immediately after the war – when the generation that are today’s Baby Boomer retirees were brought up.
National appears to have no clue that by giving tax breaks to the well-off, demonising those who can’t find work, sacking public service employees, and bailing out failed businesses who should have been allowed to fail instead of continuing to trade, they have merely repeated the worst of the excesses of the Coates Government.
Those who do not heed history are doomed to repeat it.
25 comments:
Oops, paranormal! My apologies, I created a rent in the Time/Space Continuum and your comment fell into it - not purposefully I hasten to add. Your thoughts seemed fair enough.
This guy sounds like a total drama queen.
I guess it is theoretically possible that we could end up in the situation he describes, but it won't be because of National, it will be because we have kit the resource "wall" and can no longer sustain our unsustainable living.
Somehow wharfies in Auckland complaining about earning 93 grand pa just doesn't sound all that terribly oppressive.
But sure, why not, Blinglish is a bit of a dick.
RG - there are times I wish I could slip into a gap in the space time continuum as well.
Paranormal
It can be done, paranormal.
But it's not easy!
There's a minor historical error in the post - Gordon Coates was the PM until late 1928 and the Great Depression did not start until after he left office. This doesn't detract much from the content of the post. Let's just substitute George Forbes in as PM for the period of time instead, and acknowledge that it is suggested that Coates was the power behind Forbes.
There's other similarities between the Forbes government and the Key government, in that they both had a major natural disaster in their first term (Napier EQ for Forbes, Christchurch EQs for Key), to which their government's response was initially quite "hands-off", and both governments were re-elected.
I understand that the Forbes government got their act together in Napier, after the 1931 election, and it was rebuilt in two years. If only Christchurch were so lucky.
For the average Auckland wharfie to earn 93 grand, he would have to do a lot of overtime and double shifts.
Perhaps they lift those containers with their bare hands?
That'd take it out of you.
he claim though, that the shipping company abandoned the port because of the industrial action, is not true.
So what was the reason?
RG - The shipping company have openly stated the industrial action (and consequently lower productivity) at Auckland Port was the reason for the shift to Tauranga.
And KjT, you talk rubbish:
· POAL has generous wage and benefit packages for staff under the Collective Agreement. For the year ended 30 June 2011:
Average wage for a full time stevedore at POAL was $91,480
Average wage for a part time stevedore at POAL was $65,518
53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000
28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000
Paranormal
Paranormal - you are wrong. Prove your claim by linking to the statement by the shipping company.
Curiouser - plans to move to Tauranga were signaled months ago in response to a number of factors that affect container shipping, as is standard in the industry. The claim that they up-stakes because of the industrial action is wrong.
Included in a larger article in the NZ Herald Dec 7 under this headline:
Row ignites as Maersk moves port
were these paragraphs:
Shipping giant Maersk yesterday announced it was switching its Southern Star container service from Auckland to Tauranga from Saturday.
It said industrial action at Auckland had played a part in the decision.
Maersk Line New Zealand trade and marketing manager Dave Gulik said industrial action was a significant factor but not the only factor.
"It said industrial action at Auckland had played a part in the decision."
Thank you curiouser.Your evidence proves paranormal's claim wrong:
"RG - The shipping company have openly stated the industrial action (and consequently lower productivity) at Auckland Port was the reason for the shift to Tauranga."
RG I can't link to it as I heard the man himself saying it in an interview on State Radio news.
Paranormal
Crikey, it is hard work refereeing here.
--------------
robertguyton@ 6:41
"he claim though, that the shipping company abandoned the port because of the industrial action, is not true."
Referee: the industrial action was a significant factor, but not the only factor.
--------------
Paranormal@ 8:33 AM
"RG - The shipping company have openly stated the industrial action (and consequently lower productivity) at Auckland Port was the reason for the shift to Tauranga."
Referee: a significant factor, but not the only factor.
-------------------------
robertguyton@10:18 AM
"The claim that they up-stakes because of the industrial action is wrong."
Referee: second infringement - the industrial action was a significant factor. - yellow card
------------------
curiouser@11.16 AM
Maersk Line New Zealand trade and marketing manager Dave Gulik said industrial action was a significant factor but not the only factor.
Referee: here is the "rulebook"
-------------------
robertguyton@ 11.59 AM
"Thank you curiouser.Your evidence proves paranormal's claim wrong:"
Referee: third infringement - red card.
Nice effort, curiouser and while I appreciate your involvement very much, I'd like to parse your refereeing, if I may. I'll comment in italics
" curiouser said...
Crikey, it is hard work refereeing here.
Yet it's great that you are willing, curiouser. I hope to find that you are correct, but at this point, I doubt it
--------------
robertguyton@ 6:41
"he claim though, that the shipping company abandoned the port because of the industrial action, is not true."
Referee: the industrial action was a significant factor, but not the only factor.
Agreed
--------------
Paranormal@ 8:33 AM
"RG - The shipping company have openly stated the industrial action (and consequently lower productivity) at Auckland Port was the reason for the shift to Tauranga."
Referee: a significant factor, but not the only factor.
Agreed
-------------------------
robertguyton@10:18 AM
"The claim that they up-stakes because of the industrial action is wrong."
Referee: second infringement - the industrial action was a significant factor. - yellow card
It was, but it was not the singular reason. The shipping company did not leave because of the industrial action, as paranormal contended. There were other long standing factors. The industrial action was only, as you describe, part of the reason. If that's the case, significant or otherwise, it has to be stated, rather than cited as THE reason
------------------
curiouser@11.16 AM
Maersk Line New Zealand trade and marketing manager Dave Gulik said industrial action was a significant factor but not the only factor.
Referee: here is the "rulebook"
I've no argument with that
-------------------
robertguyton@ 11.59 AM
"Thank you curiouser.Your evidence proves paranormal's claim wrong:"
Referee: third infringement - red card.
Paranormal's claim was that 'The shipping company have openly stated the industrial action (and consequently lower productivity) at Auckland Port was the reason for the shift to Tauranga." He says (now) that he heard it on the radio and cannot provide the evidence. Interestingly, para does not rely on, or cite, your evidence as proof of his claim. That's because it is far from conclusive, open to easy challenge and not sufficient to incur a red card. My argument centres around the use of the word 'the', as in, the reason (singular, rather than the truer, 'a' reason, or even, 'a significant' reason. I think you are off-side ref, but welcome further comment from you.
December 8, 2011 2:27 PM
Ok RG - here you go. Have a listen to http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2504225/ports-of-auckland-blames-striking-workers-for-loss-of-contract.asx
Paranormal
Thanks for treating my refereeing in the way you have.
I chose that option because we are otherwise dealing too seriously with semantics.
Paranormal's initial statement was "literally" indefensible if it was made on reading the Herald article that I did. We do not know that it was. But the article provided that the industrial action was "a significant factor" in Maersk's decision. This meant that your "literal" charge that his statement "is untrue" masked the the "truth" that the industrial action was a significant factor in Maersk's decision. I joined the discussion thinking it might help the game flow. I believe that no political party (or even policy)is either wholly right or wholly wrong, but if the known truths can be discussed in a civil way then at least it is possible that "a good game played in the right spirit is more important than the result."
In this case, the "truth" (apparent from the article I quoted) fell between "the only factor" and "not a factor".
Nicely put, curiouser and I accept your findings unconditionally. Furthermore, I can't ever recall having such a satisfying exchange before. Are you trained in this sort of intercourse?
I'm very inclined toward literal takes on statements made and consequently find myself forever arguing the toss, generally knowing (or believing I know) what the other party means, but feeling piqued that they apparenty cannot see/hear what I mean :-)
The shipping company clearly did cite the industrial action as a factor in their decision. I was keen that the attempts by certain parties to sheet the total blame to the wharfies and their union didn't pass un-challenged. By certain parties I don't mean paranormal, whose radio link I'm about to listen to.
ummmmmmm...paranormal, I did listen to the link you provided and I have to wonder if you have listened to it yourself. It contradicts your claim entirely!
Are you sure you sent the right one???
It's not like you to be so far off the mark. maybe you're toying with me. Might have to call curiouser in to adjudicate :-)
If we are arguing semantics then yes RG you are correct.
However I am reading the issues they are raising, not just the bland PR sentence. They want a more "reliable" service and avoid "instability" in their products. What is the difference between the two ports when it comes to "reliability" and avoiding "instability"? The answer to that question is the reason for the move.
When dealing with PR there is always a 'range' of factors mentioned for safety of a fallback position should there be an attack on the 'main' reason.
I also heard about this before it hit the wires from inside the port, and there was no doubt as to the reason.
Paranormal
Paranormal - yes, I'm keeping to the veracity of claims made through looking closely at the statements made. Call that pedantic if you will.
I do accept that you've heard a different story and have more 'inside' knowledge than I do. I was just arguing that what's said is what's said.
As to the story, aren't there unions involved in the Port of Tauranga as well? Surely the problems will follow the ships, unless it was the Port of Auckland people who were somehow to blame...
Not at all RG. The productivity of Tauranga is far higher than Auckland. This is laid squarely at the feet of the akl union.
I find it interesting that the union is protesting that non union members are able to negotiate terms 'as good as' union members. It seems the unions are pulling their workers out on strike for self preservation of the union rather than the workers best interests. If they were so good at negotiating and provided the mutual benefits to employers and workers, surely there should be no concerns?
I was talking to a unionist friend and suggested this was the last vestige of a previous century's structure slowly wilting on the vine. Very similar to the clergy.
With individuals now able to do for themselves there is no need for previous centuries structures.
I won't repeat his comments...
Paranormal
The clergy are wilting on the vine?
Yikes!
I see raisins.
Post a Comment