Winston. Kingmaker? Could Well Be.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Winston. Kingmaker? Could Well Be.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824800 18-Jul-2017 21:46

networkn:

SaltyNZ:

networkn:

Why would someone who has admitted to a crime, not now be punished for it, and that would make her ineligible for election anyway?

Statute of limitations?

Possibly, however, morally she should stand down.

Wait, sorry I just forgot for a second that she is a politician and has no morals.

That a bit unfair to say the least. if that was the case, no one should cast any votes. This is the reason that I would like Winston in. Shake up the barrel, and blow the dust away.

networkn

Networkn
32868 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15458

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824802 18-Jul-2017 21:49

tdgeek:

That a bit unfair to say the least. if that was the case, no one should cast any votes. This is the reason that I would like Winston in. Shake up the barrel, and blow the dust away.

Let's see. She did it in the first place, she hid it for 20 odd years, then she brings it out when she knows it's beyond any time frame she could get in serious trouble, and has the audacity to use it for policical collateral.

Seems morally bankrupt in every sense of the word.

My sense of right or wrong would categorically prevent me from behaving this way.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824808 18-Jul-2017 22:01

networkn:

tdgeek:

That a bit unfair to say the least. if that was the case, no one should cast any votes. This is the reason that I would like Winston in. Shake up the barrel, and blow the dust away.

Let's see. She did it in the first place, she hid it for 20 odd years, then she brings it out when she knows it's beyond any time frame she could get in serious trouble, and has the audacity to use it for policical collateral.

Seems morally bankrupt in every sense of the word.

My sense of right or wrong would categorically prevent me from behaving this way.

Maybe I misinterpreted. I took that she is a politician and has no morals to mean that as she is a politician she has no morals, but you mean she has no morals

My mistake.

E+OE

Refer my T+C's :-)

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1824844 18-Jul-2017 22:36

tdgeek:

JimmyH:

However the Greens don't fit that bill. They aren't really and environmental party, more of a watermelon party - green on the surface, but red all the way through. What I can't abide is their hard-left "social justice" clap trap, their apparent view that the State can and should solve every problem, mania for high taxes and big government, and their frankly infantile grasp of basic economic principles. Thinking that they can raise real wages for everyone with the stroke of a pen rather than by increasing productivity, stating that the Government should print money if it doesn't have enough, and an inability to distinguish an accounting balance from a cash-flow balance when reading a budget.

Can you give references to the 3 quotes?

I recall every year we got a wage adjustment. Others may chime in to say if that was statute or not

I'm keen to see the second bold, printing money.

Thats my skill, very keen to see where they mix and accounting balance (I dunno what that really means, EBITDA?) from cashflow

Sure

Printing money, for instance Here
Raise real wages by just legislating: increase the minimum wage to 66 of the average wage (not even the median wage) Here
Inability to understand the Crown's finances - saying that their package is affordable because is will cost $1.4 billion and that's less than the government's surplus of $1.8 billion Here (hint: the surplus isn't spare cash, it's the operating balance - after capital expenditure the government is still cash flow negative, running up net debt, and it doesn't have $1.8 billion in spare cash rolling in to spend)
And for a supposed environmental party, subsidising energy use looks a bit Odd
But not as odd as having an MP (indeed, one of their spokepeople with a health portfolio) advocating fighting Ebola with Homeopathy

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1824851 18-Jul-2017 23:03

I see Labour have now brought out a policy that they won't raise the superannuation entitlement age to 67. But isn't that somewhat irrelevant, because if National was to get back in in say 3 years, what is to stop them changing it back to 67? It is possibly quite a good move though by Labour, because a lot of people aren't happy with raising it, as many people in my age group will just be caught out by the change, and will have to save an extra significant amount of money to make up the shortfall. The devil though is in the detail with all these policies, and I imagine n the future some government will make it asset and/or means tested,

networkn

Networkn
32868 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15458

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824858 18-Jul-2017 23:29

I find Labours policy to stop the raising of the entitlement age to 67 makes it even less likely for me to vote for them (it's almost impossibly low beforehand). I fully support raising it.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824863 19-Jul-2017 01:12

SaltyNZ:
networkn:

Why would someone who has admitted to a crime, not now be punished for it, and that would make her ineligible for election anyway?

Statute of limitations?

Criminal Procedure Act 2011 is what you mean - we don't have a Statute of Limitations as such :-)

What's been committed is a 'category 3' offence. If she's obtained by deception to the tune of over $1000 then the maximum specified term of imprisonment is 7 years [CA 1961 ss240(1)(a) & 241(a)] so a charging document can be laid at any time [CPA 2011 s25(2)(a)] but if it's less than $1000 permission would need to be sought from the Solicitor-General.

I haven't been keeping in touch with this matter so am not aware if it's been made public how much she obtained. @Dejadeadnz may or may not wish to chime in and add further information (and correct me if I've missed the mark somewhere along the line) but it's getting fairly off topic.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1824889 19-Jul-2017 07:06

tdgeek:

This is the reason that I would like Winston in. Shake up the barrel, and blow the dust away.

Drain the swamp? Make NZ great again? Build a wall to keep the Chinese out?

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1824890 19-Jul-2017 07:09

networkn:

Let's see. She did it in the first place, she hid it for 20 odd years, then she brings it out when she knows it's beyond any time frame she could get in serious trouble, and has the audacity to use it for policical collateral.

Seems morally bankrupt in every sense of the word.

My sense of right or wrong would categorically prevent me from behaving this way.

You seem to be conflating "legal" with "moral". Couldn't it be that the law was immoral?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824929 19-Jul-2017 07:12

frankv:

tdgeek:

This is the reason that I would like Winston in. Shake up the barrel, and blow the dust away.

Drain the swamp? Make NZ great again? Build a wall to keep the Chinese out?

Dust being career politicians whose focus is only getting a vote

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1824930 19-Jul-2017 07:14

Winston is a career politician. IMHO he's more focussed on "getting a vote" than most of the rest.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824932 19-Jul-2017 07:19

frankv:

Winston is a career politician. IMHO he's more focussed on "getting a vote" than most of the rest.

In that case, if we are happy with the focus of our parties and politicians in running the country, lets forget about it, National should win, and lets discuss other topics. Lets not even bother with seeing what policies are on offer, just let them get on with it

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1824944 19-Jul-2017 08:15

tdgeek:

frankv:

Winston is a career politician. IMHO he's more focussed on "getting a vote" than most of the rest.

In that case, if we are happy with the focus of our parties and politicians in running the country, lets forget about it, National should win, and lets discuss other topics. Lets not even bother with seeing what policies are on offer, just let them get on with it

Just saying that your proposed solution (voting Winston) is not going to "blow the dust away" because he's a big lump of dust. And it will "shake up the barrel" in the same way that electing Trump shook up the American barrel; lots of noise and no real change.

Let's look for other solutions.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1824967 19-Jul-2017 09:07

SaltyNZ:

networkn:

Why would someone who has admitted to a crime, not now be punished for it, and that would make her ineligible for election anyway?

Statute of limitations?

Actually....

Because the admitted benefit fraud occurred in the 1990's, it would fall under the Limitation Act 1950, rather than the Limitation Act 2010. In section 28 (Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud or mistake) of the earlier Act it states: (...and I paraphrase)

in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—

(a) ... or

(b) the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid

(c) ...

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or the mistake, as the case may be, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

So - the period of limitation is likely to be judged to have begun this week.

Disclaimer: IANAL

networkn

Networkn
32868 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15458

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824972 19-Jul-2017 09:08

frankv:

networkn:

Let's see. She did it in the first place, she hid it for 20 odd years, then she brings it out when she knows it's beyond any time frame she could get in serious trouble, and has the audacity to use it for policical collateral.

Seems morally bankrupt in every sense of the word.

My sense of right or wrong would categorically prevent me from behaving this way.

You seem to be conflating "legal" with "moral". Couldn't it be that the law was immoral?

Well, the original matter was illegal was it not? Everything else is just scumbaggery.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11