Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 61731	2005-09-14 23:07:00	Not sure if this will influence your decision ?	KiwiTT_NZ (233)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
388496	2005-09-14 23:07:00	New Zealand is the best place to do business. World Bank Says so (www.doingbusiness.org). See details (www.doingbusiness.org) While I support National, I must say that Labour hasn't being doing a bad job either.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
388497	2005-09-14 23:52:00	New Zealand is the best place to do business. World Bank Says so (www.doingbusiness.org). See details (www.doingbusiness.org) While I support National, I must say that Labour hasn't being doing a bad job either. Thanks for this info, KiwiTT. It sure changes my perception - I thought we were one of the most difficult places for starting / running a business.	Strommer (42)
388498	2005-09-15 00:58:00	Good one KiwiTT_NZ. This is the result of years and years of suffering through the free market reforms started by the Labour government under Lange. Following governments moaned and blamed and berated these painful changes, but religiously stuck to them. Now all we need is an entrepreneurial class to take advantage of this. Entrepreneurship and small business management should be taught at high school and offered widely in night-classes and further education institutions. Alternatively, NZ could keep importing Asians, Indians, Europeans, South Africans etc to run the businesses and have native NZs work on the shop floor... So which party is addressing these issues?	vinref (6194)
388499	2005-09-15 01:26:00	Good one KiwiTT_NZ. This is the result of years and years of suffering through the free market reforms started by the Labour government under Lange. Following governments moaned and blamed and berated these painful changes, but religiously stuck to them. Now all we need is an entrepreneurial class to take advantage of this. Entrepreneurship and small business management should be taught at high school and offered widely in night-classes and further education institutions. Alternatively, NZ could keep importing Asians, Indians, Europeans, South Africans etc to run the businesses and have native NZs work on the shop floor... So which party is addressing these issues? Fazakerley! :) Which just goes to reinforce what I've said several times, to those who keep repeating the fallacy that this Labour Government is Socialist. You have to go back to National under Muldoon to see what socialism was all about. :) A country more controlled and regulated than any, other than the Communist bloc. Memory tells me that I paid income tax at 63% or thereabouts under National. This government is more than happy to live with the reforms and privatiseations, and user pays etc etc.	Terry Porritt (14)
388500	2005-09-15 03:22:00	I was watchig the Oz parliment yesterday on TV and Costello was bragging that Oz were fifth on the list of most friendly business countries. He went on to name the countries above Oz in the list but nearly chocked when he had to read out New Zealand.	Dally (6292)
388501	2005-09-15 11:58:00	Fazakerley! :) Which just goes to reinforce what I've said several times, to those who keep repeating the fallacy that this Labour Government is Socialist. I know Terry and I agree with you. Nevertheless, Labour have embarked on social engineering without any strong public support. I'm not particularly upset about civil unions or prostitutes. But underlying this is an ethos that marriage is old-fashioned, women shouldn't chose to be in their homes raising children, and that a "family" consists of practically anyone who passes through your home. Moral judgements are frowned upon, the concept of "ethics" is unknown, and sadly we must not question anything involving Maori. Interestingly I had to pause before deciding that I could even say that. But mostly Labour have done a good job. Helen Clark has an outstanding mind and is a good Prime Minister. I simply think they have become arrogant and it is healthy for NZ to have a change in Parliament.	Winston001 (3612)
388502	2005-09-15 21:24:00	That may be so, but I don't think Brash should be that change	Greven (91)
388503	2005-09-15 23:45:00	But mostly Labour have done a good job. Helen Clark has an outstanding mind and is a good Prime Minister. I simply think they have become arrogant and it is healthy for NZ to have a change in Parliament. I am strictly apolitical in public, believing that personal political beliefs are the absolute and private right of the individual in a healthy democratic society. For that reason I have stayed out of the "Who you gonna vote for" thread, but I don't agree with you that this is the time for that healthy change Winston. A healthy change requires a credible alternative with a strong and competent leader. Despite his undoubted intellect and economic skills, Brash is an innocent at large with sub-zero political acumen. Before you can have a healthy political change, you have to have a healthy political alternative and putting a Brash-led government into power at present would be like putting the old lags of the Warriors onto the field led by their latest development-squad recruit from College League. All skills and no experience leading old lags with no new ideas. The current opposition is moribund at present and needs more time to build a new team. We are at the shake-down time for MMP with (in my opinion) the end in sight for ACT & NZ First plus a few of the minnows. Only the Maori party and perhaps Jim Anderton & the Greens are likely to survive the crucible of the ballot box. Experience and competence can often look like arrogance, just as excessive consultation can look like indecision or weakness. Whatever their flavour, politicians and governments can't please all of the people all of the time, so they just can't win. Better to be decisive and weather the fall-out like the Lange government did. Even though it hurt, the outcomes were mostly beneficial. Of course, I could be wrong! You, the voters, will decide. Cheers Billy 8-{) :2cents:	Billy T (70)
388504	2005-09-16 00:46:00	I know Terry and I agree with you . Nevertheless, Labour have embarked on social engineering without any strong public support . I'm not particularly upset about civil unions or prostitutes . But underlying this is an ethos that marriage is old-fashioned, women shouldn't chose to be in their homes raising children, and that a "family" consists of practically anyone who passes through your home . . . . . . . . . . . . There are some aspects of social engineering that leave me uncomfortable, such as lesbian/homosexual couples wanting to have and raise children, and I agree that most social engineering change comes from the left, whereas the right would like the hoi-polloi to continue to touch their forelocks in the presence of their betters in the age old manner . (And quite rightly so) However most of these law changes tend to reflect changes already happening in society, but which by their very nature tend to be controversial, and most violently opposed by especially the die-hard entrenched right and the religious right as exemplified the Destiny Church and the Exclusive Bretheren types . In all cases though AFAIK, these social engineering laws are passed on conscience votes in Parliament, and so could be taken to represent the will of the majority of the population . For example The Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986, which caused such a furore was supported by 62 . 3% of the population as measured by a Heylen poll on 15 september 1985, and was passed in Parliament by 49-44 votes . (At a time when Rogernomics New Right government, somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn was in full swing :) ) In the final analysis, it doesn't really matter which party gets elected, there wouldn't be that much difference at the end of the day . I just tend to be suspicious of National springing surprises, and/or doing a Ruth Richardson/Jenny Shipley and reverting to type by bashing the sick, pensioners, and elderly . We haven't seen the really important issues debated much at all . 'Defence of the Country' has hardly been mentioned . The Labour cripling of the air force is scandalous . But then, the use of Skyhawks or other fighter aircraft does not make much sense for a remote island country like NZ, whereas Harrier 'jump jets', combined with multipurpose 'commando carriers' with aircraft platforms, should have been an obvious choice, as would making a unified defence force rather than 3 separate competing arms . A mere handful ( how many is it it, one or two ? )of underarmed undefendable frigates does not make much sense either .	Terry Porritt (14)
388505	2005-09-16 02:40:00	'Defence of the Country' has hardly been mentioned . The Labour cripling of the air force is scandalous . But then, the use of Skyhawks or other fighter aircraft does not make much sense for a remote island country like NZ, whereas Harrier 'jump jets', combined with multipurpose 'commando carriers' with aircraft platforms, should have been an obvious choice, as would making a unified defence force rather than 3 separate competing arms . A mere handful ( how many is it it, one or two ? )of underarmed undefendable frigates does not make much sense either . You can't support a combat aircaft off a small "commando carrier" platform, and to even try to do so in a serious conflict would see the aircraft, commandos, ship and its crew disappear in one incandescent flash that only a patriot missile battery could avoid . We don't need a combat air arm, in fact if we felt threatened at all we would be better off with mobile batteries of AA missile launchers that would cost far less to purchase and maintain . We were just kidding ourselves running obsolete sub-sonic fighters . If things went wrong it would be like wetting your pants: you get a nice warm feeling for a few moments, followed by a sudden chill in the nether regions and a horrible squishy feeling when you try to run and hide . Our frigates are not entirely defenceless either, I was on board one while they were taking an inventory of its armoury before heading for the Persian gulf and there was a lot of hardware on view, not to mention the "wall of lead" radar-aimed gatling gun that could probably hose down anything short of a smart bomb . It should take out a cruise missile without any problems . We need a combat airforce about as much as we need submarines, aircraft carriers, or a nuclear strike capability . In the event that a serious conflict spread this far south, the technology we would be fighting would be way beyond our economic capability to arm and train for . Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
1 2