United Future

Posted at 2008-04-25 06:19:38.632. Permalink.

Peter,

Great post. You are right. Broadband is an essential investment for the security of our economy,communication and security of our education sector. (young people are expecting us to have the latest gadgets on hand).

I am in support of the bold inititive-how to get there is a very good question. I wonder if wirless broadband is the answer? Now I don't know enough about that kind of techspeak but If we can get Sky from the US what about broadband by wireless? Actually is there such technology? Why Fibre Optic cables???

Maybe I don't know what I am asking but if my laptop can take a datacard and I can go anywhere-then surely?

I would like to work with UF on such issues: Great challenges for the Strategic Thinker!! Any jobs available in your office?

Quentin

Posted at 2008-04-26 23:30:37.136. Permalink.

Either way, would it not be nice for once to see an end to the bickering, and a focus on getting the job done?

The historical machinery that exists for the two big boys to go at each other still stands strong and steadfast. National and Labour only have eyes for each other...and practical matters like "getting the job done" seem to fly out the door when there is a little bickering to be had. Is it too much to expect that we are now in an age of partnership which requires putting away the boxing gloves? Is that not what MMP is all about?

Posted at 2008-04-27 16:52:57.297. Permalink.

Telecom, you say

"Yes, Key's plan is potentially a massive subsidy to Telecom as the network operator. Yes, they have exploited their monopoly to the limit over the years"

I say
Telecom are one of the most disgraceful and despised corporations in NZ, thay have treated us with contempt,
and I would strip them bare and start again.

Posted at 2008-04-28 17:09:39.188. Permalink.

I wrote originally about small minded politicians. Let me now tell you the story of small minded journalists.

Wtiness the following exchange.I sent this email to the Dominion Post today:

"Dear Editor,

On 27 April I released a Government Discussion Paper on Income Splitting
for Tax Purposes for parents. The story was carried by major newspapers
such as the Sunday Star Times, the New Zealand Herald, the Press, the Otago
Daily Times, in addition to radio and television stations. However, it was
not reported in the Dominion Post. Why?

Yours sincerely,"

I have now received this reply from the chief reporter:
"Hi Peter.

The short answer to your question is that when you decide to hand a
detailed story to the Sunday Star-Times to publish first, which includes a
lot of information and even case studies, you diminish its news value to
other newspapers.

We respect your decision on who you choose to give stories to, but there is
a strong crossover between Sunday Star-Times and DomPost readers and our
position will often be that this is not news to our readers if it's been in
a competing newspaper first.

The only way we tend to get a fresh angle on a Sunday, with limited
staffing, is by seeking reaction. But as I'm sure you're aware Helen Clark
had already indicated this discussion paper was coming out and that Labour
would not support it.

As ever, you're welcome to approach with us with a story that we can report
first. The point of contact is political editor Tracy Watkins.

Have a great recess.

Oskar Alley
Chief Reporter"

It is funny the other media did not see it this
way! A case of an out of joint nose on the part of the Capital's newspaper, maybe?

Posted at 2008-04-28 17:50:55.623. Permalink.

Yes a newspaper can be picky and have their nose out of joint.

It is interesting that most releases also go through the PA (international) or NZPA or REUTERS first and newspapers choose from the feeds much the same way as blogs have RSS attached. News from New York and China or Afghanistan comes through souces like that as does domestic news.I hope I am right on that.

Dom Post is more likely to be quite pro a certain party line.

Posted at 2008-04-28 18:18:35.011. Permalink.

I'd say that National and Labour have had their day. they have nothing new and they are nothing new. So they act like cats (I have three) for territory they no longer have. Slow cruel death for olde party idiots, unfaithful to their constitutents and demented from mini strokes that leave creative imagination dead for breath, starved too long as well for credibility and awe, as if the sun shines out of you know where, for the voters to be crying for their apotheosis.

Ah the perils of death defying stunts of stupidty, misdirected of course towards what they thought would the heights of awe as Homer's gods did in Illiad, Oydessey, Aeneid and Troy- AHHH Greece's beloved Troy!! The Fall of the House of National-the Fall of the House of Labour!!!

Bring the House down, Bring on the minor parties- roar from the roof tops- the new have arrived- bring out the banners- declare victory- long live the minor parties!!! Hoo-rah!Hoo-rah!

Posted at 2008-04-28 21:39:12.341. Permalink.

It is quite frustrating when you write letter after letter about something that you feel strongly about, to receive the occasional reply that usually skips around the edges of what you're referring to,or in most instances,no reply at all

Posted at 2008-05-03 01:20:50.393. Permalink.

Carol,

to whom are you refering to? as per replies?

I take offence at your comment

Posted at 2008-05-03 01:30:33.614. Permalink.

don Quixote,
My beloved character,

I do believe you ar right. telecom died a death with me when they failed to help me get my account right with them, cutting me off and charging the hell out of me for it beyond my means. Greed is the equation of a perceived supremacy. Yeh well look what happens to Hubris. I am yet to celebrate a victory- I want to see a complete demise of monopoly now that unbundling is in high gear. Hallaluha! hallaluha! hallaluha! spelling please be excused but thats how I feel.

Posted at 2008-05-03 14:16:44.322. Permalink.

Hi there Quentin
I can't possibly have offended you when I havn't said a word to you.

Posted at 2008-05-03 18:46:06.523. Permalink.

Sorry Carol I misread your post. Though am not sure what you were trying to say.

Posted at 2008-05-06 20:38:26.473. Permalink.

I'm sorry to have confused you Quentin.
My post was about the politicians who are more difficult to understand than I am.

Posted at 2008-05-09 10:51:06.228. Permalink.

I wrote last week about the incredibly boorish attitude of the Dominion Post's chief reporter to the release of the income splitting discussion paper. There have been some developments. After that exchange, we offered the Dominion Post an opinion piece written by me on income splitting. They declined. Now, this morning they run a feature article by a research student at Massey University attacking income splitting. The article is simply ill infomred on many points, but presumably in the Dominion Post's mind is fair coverage because they have refused to publish any other views. If you feel outraged about this arrogant behaviour, write to the editor of the Dominion Post () and tell him so.

Posted at 2008-05-09 18:09:18.352. Permalink.

Hi Peter
Firstly I havn't read the Dominion Post's article.
Secondly according to your calculator,income splitting won't be putting any more food on most people's tables.
Unless they are earning politicians wages.
You did say that $92-000 is not a great salary these days.And on the other hand you say that $13-000 is a livable income.

Posted at 2008-05-11 18:19:24.962. Permalink.

What group of politicians could be more small minded than this lot...
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/a-community-notice
The average New Zealanders must be scratching their heads wondering what they have done so wrong to deserve them.

Posted at 2008-05-12 13:00:54.721. Permalink.

Carol,

Income splitting is one of a series of tax measures UnitedFuture advocates. We will be releasing the remainder of our tax in the next few weeks and that will address the situation of low income families, and those for whom income splitting is not relevant.

Posted at 2008-06-13 17:15:02.424. Permalink.

Hi Peter, I am very pleased to see your newly found enthusiasm for a tax regime that would go some way to improve New Zealand's position compared to Australia. During your time as a supporter of Labour's tenure via the Supply & Confidence agreement, how hard did you try to impress upon Michael Cullen the folly of an enduring high and punitive tax regime, and what was his response?

Posted at 2008-06-13 21:52:47.917. Permalink.

In response to the Broadband issue, Peter Dunne's comment is a full proof centre party's notion. If someone can;'t come up with a better idea than Key has then let's just get on & do it.

In regard to the Simple & Fair 1, 2, 3 tax package. I think Peter Dunne has handed on plate to National an argument that defeats any criticism that Dr Cullen could have of National posing extravagant, unaffordable tax cuts if National were to adopt the Dunne package. Why? Dunne is The Minister of Revenue & this package is "fully" costed & deliverable. Dr Cullen will want to figure out if he should adopt Dunne's package as it beats hands down anything else that's so far been put on the table & leads to a more effective economy due to its efficacy.

Well done Peter Dunne!! This is not just the work of an MMP Party leader looking for a better NZ, it is an example of a highly evolved Minister of the Crown doing an exemplary job in his area of responsibility & expertise!

Posted at 2008-06-16 18:00:07.204. Permalink.

Surprising that the Nats are favouring State control over consumer-choice via the market! Yes let's support Broadband. Yes there is an active leadership role for government. Good on the Nats for raising the issue. But let's not get overly prescriptive about how the project is to be delivered. Let's keep the means of delivery technology-neutral. We wouldn't want a $6billion Think Big-type Broadband white elephant stomping around the place would we?

Posted at 2008-07-06 16:38:36.693. Permalink.

You say that private enterprise aren't putting their hand up for broadband- well they have been for a long time - Whoosh, Slingshot, Clear etc have gone before and now smaller private operators like VillageNet are in the market trying with wireless technology to make a difference.They are stymied at every turn though by a sloping playing field where Telecom cuts them off as soon as they become a threat- this is not the sort of company we wnat controlling NZ- UF stands for the market approach first then Government only when it has to - all we wnat Govt tod is to make sure Kiwi innovation gets a real crack at this and Telecom is told to get out of this market.