Discussion:
War on Auckland
(too old to reply)
Rich80105
2013-05-30 00:28:57 UTC
Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!

All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-05-30 02:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all,
National _know_ that they know better than the people
Aucklanders elected to be in charge of Auckland . . .
Thanks for the comedy, rich-bot.
Pooh
2013-05-30 04:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all,
National _know_ that they know better than the people
Aucklanders elected to be in charge of Auckland . . .
Thanks for the comedy, rich-bot.
The funnier one was "David Shearer - Putting People First".

Pooh
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-05-30 04:45:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 16:39:49 UTC+12, Pooh wrote:
[snip]
Post by Pooh
The funnier one was "David Shearer - Putting People First".
Whats funny (and once rich-bot reports this back to his handlers, we'll see how long that video stays up) is that "Putting People First" was the tagline for TelecomNZ's first wave of corporateising efforts back in the mid-eighties as part of the Rogernomic reforms.

People would go on these "Putting People First" seminars, and some would come back to find they'd lost their job. Much like a natural consequence of Labour policies nowadays!

And whats funnier is that Labour-droids are so out of touch with the populace (and the thousands who went on these courses), that they did not know this! Party of the working people? Not Labour!
EMB
2013-05-30 02:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
Loony Len hasn't done the things he campaigned on, and has done things
he wasn't elected to do. He's also pandered towards the minority from
the same background as he is. Therefore he no longer represents those
who elected him, and it is quite right that he be disempowered.

The majority of Aucklanders do not want nor need Len's tunnel, Len's
high rise buildings, Len's free swimming pools, Len's rates rises that
he campaigned against or any other of Len's loony ideas that he keeps
coming up with.

Additionally, the Auckland Council is in internal disarray[1] and Len
has done nothing to resolve it. As the founding mayor that should have
been his first priority and he has utterly failed to make any progress
whatsoever in this regard.

[1] I have enough professional interaction with the council to see just
how broken it is. I expect that a lot of dirty laundry will come out in
the press between now and the next local body elections.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-05-30 04:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
Loony Len hasn't done the things he campaigned on, and has done things
he wasn't elected to do. He's also pandered towards the minority from
the same background as he is. Therefore he no longer represents those
who elected him, and it is quite right that he be disempowered.
Further, we have a Wellington-based Labour Party propaganda mouthpiece in the form of Rich-bot, bleating on about 'what Aucklanders want and need', and getting all upset when his special interest groups plans get challenged in the public domain, by the public of Auckland!
Pooh
2013-05-30 23:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
Loony Len hasn't done the things he campaigned on, and has done things
he wasn't elected to do. He's also pandered towards the minority from
the same background as he is. Therefore he no longer represents those
who elected him, and it is quite right that he be disempowered.
Further, we have a Wellington-based Labour Party propaganda mouthpiece in
the form of Rich-bot, bleating on about 'what Aucklanders want and need',
and getting all upset when his special interest groups plans get challenged
in the public domain, by the public of Auckland!

*********************************************************************
Even funnier is the rejection in the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa of the
formation of a greater Wellington. Seems we're not prepared to pick up
Wellingtons mountainous debt or give them power over us. Hell Fran Wilde
doesn't even want to attend meetings to do with the regioanl council that
are held in Upper Hutt. So typical of marxist muppets like Dickhead and his
ilk.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-05-30 05:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
Loony Len hasn't done the things he campaigned on, and has done things
he wasn't elected to do. He's also pandered towards the minority from
the same background as he is. Therefore he no longer represents those
who elected him, and it is quite right that he be disempowered.
Sounds just like John Key at a National level - I hadn;t realise Brown
was so bad EMB.
Post by EMB
The majority of Aucklanders do not want nor need Len's tunnel, Len's
high rise buildings, Len's free swimming pools, Len's rates rises that
he campaigned against or any other of Len's loony ideas that he keeps
coming up with.
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
Post by EMB
Additionally, the Auckland Council is in internal disarray[1] and Len
has done nothing to resolve it. As the founding mayor that should have
been his first priority and he has utterly failed to make any progress
whatsoever in this regard.
Compared with parliament, the Auckland Council seems remarkably
harmonious - with National having systematically set about reducing
the attraction of support parties, they are even starting to mutter
about support from Winston First - and the cracks are starting to show
with Key making up policy on the hoof to try and compete with itself
about how mean they can be to low paid families . . .

So overall, we are heading in the right direction - towards booting
John Key and National out at the next election.
Post by EMB
[1] I have enough professional interaction with the council to see just
how broken it is. I expect that a lot of dirty laundry will come out in
the press between now and the next local body elections.
I haven't seen surveys for Auckland, but I suspect there is no
credible alternative to the left on the Auckland Council - I agree
with you that Granny Herald will be trying to put the boot in before
the next local body elections - but questions are being asked about
why teh NatAct government is showing that they are not prepared to let
Aucklanders have what they want . . .
EMB
2013-05-30 08:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
Rich80105
2013-05-30 10:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary

Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
EMB
2013-05-30 12:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
Nice selective picking of a poll Rich. Every other poll begs to differ,
but spin and warping reality is your stock in trade so I guess we should
have expected that.
Rich80105
2013-05-30 20:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
Nice selective picking of a poll Rich. Every other poll begs to differ,
but spin and warping reality is your stock in trade so I guess we should
have expected that.
I expect you avidly follow Curia polls, or Stuff on line polls.
Reality does get past spin sometimes, EMB.
JohnO
2013-05-30 22:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Here's the latest weighted average - almost identical to the last election night result.

So what's your point, Dickbot?
Rich80105
2013-05-31 00:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Here's the latest weighted average - almost identical to the last election night result.
Where is "Here" ? w
Post by JohnO
So what's your point, Dickbot?
Whatever it was you have snipped it - I presume you were trying to
avoid something.
Pooh
2013-05-30 23:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
Nice selective picking of a poll Rich. Every other poll begs to differ,
but spin and warping reality is your stock in trade so I guess we should
have expected that.
I expect you avidly follow Curia polls, or Stuff on line polls.
Reality does get past spin sometimes, EMB.
Pity your to dumb to realsie this Dickhead. Otherwise you'd stop bitching
about what the majority of New Zealanders (in ALL polls) are happy with.

Pooh
Pooh
2013-05-30 23:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party Dickhead. A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-05-31 00:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party Dickhead. A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.
Pooh
As National has moved from centre-right to far right, they was
swallowed up ACT (deliberate sabotage by National and classic
corruption and hypocrisy by the extreme right ACT didn;t help of
course). So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right. If they cannot gain a majority in coalition they will be
in opposition. Who would want to work with National?
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-05-31 01:11:14 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, 31 May 2013 12:43:59 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.

Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties promising to print money, promising to effectively nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.

Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party with support form half the country to be the extreme one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
Rich80105
2013-05-31 04:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those? Your
selective snipping may have been designed to try and imply that, but
all I was pointing out is tht in its move away from the centre to the
right, National has destroyed some supporting parties. Being the
largest party gives them no right to anything - it is a majority in
the house that counts. National may well look to a coalition with NZ
First if they get any seats, but a centre-left coalition of Labour and
the Greens is unlikely to need any other party to achieve a majority
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties promising to print money, promising to effectively nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party with support form half the country to be the extreme one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country. National's move to the
right has been proggresive, but has increased particularly this year.
They are losing support as a result.
Pooh
2013-05-31 05:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you ever
held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a racist like
Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a bauble-chaser like Winston
Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those? Your
selective snipping may have been designed to try and imply that, but
all I was pointing out is tht in its move away from the centre to the
right, National has destroyed some supporting parties. Being the
largest party gives them no right to anything - it is a majority in
the house that counts. National may well look to a coalition with NZ
First if they get any seats, but a centre-left coalition of Labour and
the Greens is unlikely to need any other party to achieve a majority
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties promising to print
money, promising to effectively nationalise companies, to
tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with an ideology of intervention in almost every
facet of an individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party with support form
half the country to be the extreme one (which by definition is a logical
fallacy)
No party has support from half the country. National's move to the
right has been proggresive, but has increased particularly this year.
They are losing support as a result.
Go get dried out Dickhead. You're obviously overdoing the meds, alcholol,
class A drugs if not all three. You're mistaking your pipe dreams for
reality you silly marxist muppet.

Pooh
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-06-04 00:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers) facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
Rich80105
2013-06-04 02:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Cite?
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers) facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/updated-poll-chart-and-the-dark-backward-and-abysm-of-time/

Hint: 42% is not half . . .
Pooh
2013-06-04 13:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Cite?
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to
engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers)
facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/updated-poll-chart-and-the-dark-backward-and-abysm-of-time/
Hint: 42% is not half . . .
But it beats the shit out of 32% Dickie!

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-06-04 19:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Cite?
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to
engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers)
facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/updated-poll-chart-and-the-dark-backward-and-abysm-of-time/
Hint: 42% is not half . . .
But it beats the shit out of 32% Dickie!
Pooh
But not of 43.6%, Poo!

National has eaten its 'partners' - UF has gone, ACT terminal, and the
Maori Party less popular than before they got in bed with National.

The chart does show why Key is sidling up to NZ First though . . .
george152
2013-06-04 20:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
The chart does show why Key is sidling up to NZ First though . . .
Obviously you've forgotten what Key said about whining Winnie
Pooh
2013-06-05 07:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Cite?
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to
engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers)
facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/updated-poll-chart-and-the-dark-backward-and-abysm-of-time/
Hint: 42% is not half . . .
But it beats the shit out of 32% Dickie!
Pooh
But not of 43.6%, Poo!
Still beating the shit out of 32% Dickie.
Post by Rich80105
National has eaten its 'partners' - UF has gone, ACT terminal, and the
Maori Party less popular than before they got in bed with National.
United Future hasn't gone irrispective of what Shearer is hoping for.
Interesting that Labour is now insulting an ex-Labour MP. Funny how they're
turning on all those who left thwe party because it'd gone off it's rocker
Dickie.
Post by Rich80105
The chart does show why Key is sidling up to NZ First though . . .
The chart is about as much use as The Strandard or the Political Compass
Dickie. Doesn't surprise me that you think it's a holy grail.

Pooh
Pooh
Rich80105
2013-06-05 11:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Cite?
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to
engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers)
facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/updated-poll-chart-and-the-dark-backward-and-abysm-of-time/
Hint: 42% is not half . . .
But it beats the shit out of 32% Dickie!
Pooh
But not of 43.6%, Poo!
Still beating the shit out of 32% Dickie.
Post by Rich80105
National has eaten its 'partners' - UF has gone, ACT terminal, and the
Maori Party less popular than before they got in bed with National.
United Future hasn't gone irrispective of what Shearer is hoping for.
It is no longer a registered political party poo. It is not a party in
Parliament. Dunne will no longer get his party leader allowance -
although do not be surprised if National decide to buy his vote by
keeping paying extra . . .
Post by Pooh
Interesting that Labour is now insulting an ex-Labour MP. Funny how they're
turning on all those who left thwe party because it'd gone off it's rocker
Dickie.
Post by Rich80105
The chart does show why Key is sidling up to NZ First though . . .
The chart is about as much use as The Strandard or the Political Compass
Dickie. Doesn't surprise me that you think it's a holy grail.
Pooh
Pooh
Pooh
2013-06-06 00:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right.
Your lust for power, and willingness to compromise any value you
ever held, is patently clear as you consider a coalition with a
racist like Hariwera or, to reenter a coalition with a
bauble-chaser like Winston Peters.
Whatever makes you think I want a coalition with either of those?
Your long-running defense of both Peters and Hariwera, rich-bot.
Cite?
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Your delusion is patently clear as you consider parties
promising to print money, promising to effectively
nationalise companies, to tax-n-borrow-n-spend, and with
an ideology of intervention in almost every facet of an
individuals life as 'centrist' or 'center-right'.
Your idiocy is patently clear as you consider a party
with support form half the country to be the extreme
one (which by definition is a logical fallacy)
No party has support from half the country.
Well, you demonstrate your innumeracy regularly, so you your refusal to
engage with some simple (and uncomfortable, for you and your handlers)
facts comes as no surprise, rich-bot.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/updated-poll-chart-and-the-dark-backward-and-abysm-of-time/
Hint: 42% is not half . . .
But it beats the shit out of 32% Dickie!
Pooh
But not of 43.6%, Poo!
Still beating the shit out of 32% Dickie.
Post by Rich80105
National has eaten its 'partners' - UF has gone, ACT terminal, and the
Maori Party less popular than before they got in bed with National.
United Future hasn't gone irrispective of what Shearer is hoping for.
It is no longer a registered political party poo. It is not a party in
Parliament. Dunne will no longer get his party leader allowance -
although do not be surprised if National decide to buy his vote by
keeping paying extra . . .
It didn't have enough verified members to qualify as a party Dickhead and as
soon as they have 500 listed they'll be back (I know several people who've
recently signed up for the party just to piss Winnie off. At $5 membership
it's good value entertainment). It IS a party in parliament Dickie. Dunne
will have lost his party leader allowance. National won't be responsable for
paying the allowance if Dunne keeps getting it. That's the responsability of
Parliamentary Services (if memory serves me right).
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Interesting that Labour is now insulting an ex-Labour MP. Funny how they're
turning on all those who left thwe party because it'd gone off it's rocker
Dickie.
Post by Rich80105
The chart does show why Key is sidling up to NZ First though . . .
The chart is about as much use as The Strandard or the Political Compass
Dickie. Doesn't surprise me that you think it's a holy grail.
Pooh
So you agree it's Labour attacking those who abandoned the corrupted
stinking ship in protest at Labours treatment of New Zealanders Dickie. Keep
it up. We'll make a socialist of you yet.

Pooh
Pooh
2013-05-31 05:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party Dickhead. A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.
Pooh
As National has moved from centre-right to far right, they was
swallowed up ACT (deliberate sabotage by National and classic
corruption and hypocrisy by the extreme right ACT didn;t help of
course). So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right. If they cannot gain a majority in coalition they will be
in opposition. Who would want to work with National?
National far right? Your out of whay passes for your tiny mind Dickhead! At
best National is centre right. Anything further right and WFF would be
history and the latest food for schools initiative wouldn't have happened.
Your not just stupid Dickhead your idioticly stupid. So typical of marxist
muppet morons like you and your Labour/Green heroines.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-05-31 09:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party Dickhead. A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.
Pooh
As National has moved from centre-right to far right, they was
swallowed up ACT (deliberate sabotage by National and classic
corruption and hypocrisy by the extreme right ACT didn;t help of
course). So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right. If they cannot gain a majority in coalition they will be
in opposition. Who would want to work with National?
National far right? Your out of whay passes for your tiny mind Dickhead! At
best National is centre right. Anything further right and WFF would be
history and the latest food for schools initiative wouldn't have happened.
Your not just stupid Dickhead your idioticly stupid. So typical of marxist
muppet morons like you and your Labour/Green heroines.
Pooh
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
This was back in 2011 -since then I am sure you would agree that
National has indulged in even more oppressive authoritarian
anti-democratic policies, and embarked on asset stripping for the
benefit of a small number of New Zealanders (plus a large number of
foreigners), all for far right ideological reasons.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011

Back in 2011 National were assessed as +7.5, +4. By next year I
suspect they will be around +9, +7 - do you agree Pooh?
EMB
2013-05-31 12:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being discredited
every time you roll it out, you continue to do so at regular intervals.
It's no longer even trying to point out the complete lack of
credibility that site has - you continually bluster, lie and ignore when
it is made clear to you. Come up with some new material and you may get
some attention, until then the same tune will get the same nil attention.
Rich80105
2013-06-01 03:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being discredited
every time you roll it out, you continue to do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited. It has been clear that some on the
far right do not like where it puts National, but then many Labour
people would like to see Labour as being more towards the centre as
well.

Do you have any solid / valid arguments why it is not credible?
Post by EMB
It's no longer even trying to point out the complete lack of
credibility that site has - you continually bluster, lie and ignore when
it is made clear to you. Come up with some new material and you may get
some attention, until then the same tune will get the same nil attention.
No material has ever been given (including your post above) giving a
cogent argument why the Political Compass is not worth taking note of
- perhaps you could oblige, EMB. Sorry :I don;t like it" is not good
enough.
Pooh
2013-06-01 06:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being discredited
every time you roll it out, you continue to do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited. It has been clear that some on the
far right do not like where it puts National, but then many Labour
people would like to see Labour as being more towards the centre as
well.
LIAR!
Post by Rich80105
Do you have any solid / valid arguments why it is not credible?
You've had them all so often I'd think even a loon like you with permanent
brain fade would know them by heart by now.
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
It's no longer even trying to point out the complete lack of
credibility that site has - you continually bluster, lie and ignore when
it is made clear to you. Come up with some new material and you may get
some attention, until then the same tune will get the same nil attention.
No material has ever been given (including your post above) giving a
cogent argument why the Political Compass is not worth taking note of
- perhaps you could oblige, EMB. Sorry :I don;t like it" is not good
enough.
For one your total belief in it proves it's nothing but a load of bullshit
set up to impress ignorent pricks like you Dickhead.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-06-01 08:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being discredited
every time you roll it out, you continue to do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited. It has been clear that some on the
far right do not like where it puts National, but then many Labour
people would like to see Labour as being more towards the centre as
well.
LIAR!
Empty bluster - that's all you ever offer.
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Do you have any solid / valid arguments why it is not credible?
You've had them all so often I'd think even a loon like you with permanent
brain fade would know them by heart by now.
More empty bluster, this time with unnecessary abuse. Are you sure yu
are not JohnB?
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
It's no longer even trying to point out the complete lack of
credibility that site has - you continually bluster, lie and ignore when
it is made clear to you. Come up with some new material and you may get
some attention, until then the same tune will get the same nil attention.
No material has ever been given (including your post above) giving a
cogent argument why the Political Compass is not worth taking note of
- perhaps you could oblige, EMB. Sorry :I don;t like it" is not good
enough.
For one your total belief in it proves it's nothing but a load of bullshit
set up to impress ignorent pricks like you Dickhead.
Pooh
Well the only thinkg left in your panic arsenal is threats of violence
poo - well done on resisting it this time . . .
Pooh
2013-06-01 12:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being discredited
every time you roll it out, you continue to do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited. It has been clear that some on the
far right do not like where it puts National, but then many Labour
people would like to see Labour as being more towards the centre as
well.
LIAR!
Empty bluster - that's all you ever offer.
LIAR! Your the empty bluster is all you're good for Dickhead.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Do you have any solid / valid arguments why it is not credible?
You've had them all so often I'd think even a loon like you with permanent
brain fade would know them by heart by now.
More empty bluster, this time with unnecessary abuse. Are you sure yu
are not JohnB?
Unnecessary abuse? If you didn't hide behind your constant brain farts I'd
have nothing to abuse you about Dickhead. If you don't like abuse don't use
it yourself you marxist moron!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
It's no longer even trying to point out the complete lack of
credibility that site has - you continually bluster, lie and ignore when
it is made clear to you. Come up with some new material and you may get
some attention, until then the same tune will get the same nil attention.
No material has ever been given (including your post above) giving a
cogent argument why the Political Compass is not worth taking note of
- perhaps you could oblige, EMB. Sorry :I don;t like it" is not good
enough.
For one your total belief in it proves it's nothing but a load of bullshit
set up to impress ignorent pricks like you Dickhead.
Pooh
Well the only thinkg left in your panic arsenal is threats of violence
poo - well done on resisting it this time . . .
What threat of violence you stupid prick? Not only a lack of comprehension
but when your stupoidity is pointed out making up stuff will only lead to
you getting more of the abuse you and your loopy lefty mates deserve.

Pooh
EMB
2013-06-01 11:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
No material has ever been given (including your post above) giving a
cogent argument why the Political Compass is not worth taking note of
- perhaps you could oblige, EMB. Sorry :I don;t like it" is not good
enough.
A huge amount of information, fact and analysis has been given to you in
the past Rich. I'm disinclined to repeat all that again, expecially as
much of it wasn't supplied by me. But just to give you a starting
point, have a read of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_Compass
Rich80105
2013-06-01 19:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
No material has ever been given (including your post above) giving a
cogent argument why the Political Compass is not worth taking note of
- perhaps you could oblige, EMB. Sorry :I don;t like it" is not good
enough.
A huge amount of information, fact and analysis has been given to you in
the past Rich. I'm disinclined to repeat all that again, expecially as
much of it wasn't supplied by me. But just to give you a starting
point, have a read of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_Compass
Thank you EMB, I had seen the Wikipedia entry for the test, but not
the RationalWiki page. In general, that page gives a complaint that
the chart gives a bias towards the right - this is disputed, and the
assessment is that the concern for rationalwiki is low. The comment is
made that it is signficantly better than the simplistic test put out
by the "Libertarians"

Even if there was a bias towards results being too far to the right,
it is at least consistent, and relative positions will still be
reflected. that conclusionis however disputed even in that wiki - and
a few years ago a number of posters to nz.general gave their scores,
which showed results fairly consistent with those that would otherwise
be expected.

Yours is the first attempt to seriously give a rational discussion on
the political compass, congratulations. I have not seen any other
informatin, facts and analysis given by anyone that was not
effectively "I don't like it".

On any rational ground, the Labour Party has moved slightly to the
right of centre in recent years - that is where the consensus of
public opinion now lies. If you look back to the pre-Holyoake
governments, the difference between the parties was less, and I
believe the consensus would have been for a more cooperative, caring
society - more where the political compass puts the center. those who
settled New Zealand were, bye and large, looking for a society that
did not preserve the class system of England which preserved historic
inequalities of status and wealth; they were looking for a society
which gave all equal opportunities, where a worker was entitled to his
dignity, and where his children would have an equal chance for a good
life as the children of the boss. they looked for equality of justice,
and fairness in the application of law. How far we have come from that
ideal when we see government favouring private schools - trumpeting
the need for simplistic 'standards' but exempting 'for profit' schools
from it; when the government sacks elected officials, and now rules
out judicial scrutiny of political decisions in one area. Those were
not the actions of a party anywhere near the political centre.
EMB
2013-06-01 21:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On any rational ground, the Labour Party has moved slightly to the
right of centre in recent years - that is where the consensus of
public opinion now lies.
Keep spinning Rich. Labour is somewhat to the right of the Green Party,
which Labour use to make it appear that they have moved rightwards.
However they cannot in any way be defined as "right of centre".
Pooh
2013-06-02 06:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
On any rational ground, the Labour Party has moved slightly to the
right of centre in recent years - that is where the consensus of
public opinion now lies.
Keep spinning Rich. Labour is somewhat to the right of the Green Party,
which Labour use to make it appear that they have moved rightwards.
However they cannot in any way be defined as "right of centre".
Labours only ever been to the right of such rightwingers as Stalin, Genghis
Kan and Hitler......

Pooh
-Newsman-
2013-06-02 06:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
On any rational ground, the Labour Party has moved slightly to the
right of centre in recent years - that is where the consensus of
public opinion now lies.
Keep spinning Rich. Labour is somewhat to the right of the Green Party,
which Labour use to make it appear that they have moved rightwards.
However they cannot in any way be defined as "right of centre".
Pointless, unproductive debate so far.

(Hint: First, define 'Centre' in 2013 terms.)
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-06-04 01:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being
discredited every time you roll it out, you continue to
do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited.
Rich-bot, you dont think the polictical compass has been discresited because you dont undertsaand the gutting it has received, from the likes of others and myself.

Its been pointed out to you, innumerable times, the flaws in 2x2 matrix models, the nature of axis, the constriction of polar positions, the subjectivity, the ...

But you just ignore these points and blather on.

I still giglle when i remeber your claim that this politcal copmpass has academic support, and when I called you on that you pointed out the commenst section. which had one law tutor that found it useful as a point to pspark discussion in tutorial sessions.

Your a sad joke, rich-bot, and this compass you keep trotting out (was it your MPolSci thesis contribution?) is laughable.

And you are too dim to see this.
Rich80105
2013-06-04 02:24:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being
discredited every time you roll it out, you continue to
do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited.
Rich-bot, you dont think the polictical compass has been discresited because you dont undertsaand the gutting it has received, from the likes of others and myself.
Its been pointed out to you, innumerable times, the flaws in 2x2 matrix models, the nature of axis, the constriction of polar positions, the subjectivity, the ...
But you just ignore these points and blather on.
I still giglle when i remeber your claim that this politcal copmpass has academic support, and when I called you on that you pointed out the commenst section. which had one law tutor that found it useful as a point to pspark discussion in tutorial sessions.
Your a sad joke, rich-bot, and this compass you keep trotting out (was it your MPolSci thesis contribution?) is laughable.
And you are too dim to see this.
You cannot show any better analysis, so can only bluster
The following may help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left

The current government is probably to the right of the description of
Right wing above, while Labour is fairly centred on Centre-left.
Pooh
2013-06-04 14:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT), misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
You really are a fuckwit Rich - despite this source being
discredited every time you roll it out, you continue to
do so at regular intervals.
No, it has never been discredited.
Rich-bot, you dont think the polictical compass has been discresited
because you dont undertsaand the gutting it has received, from the likes
of others and myself.
Its been pointed out to you, innumerable times, the flaws in 2x2 matrix
models, the nature of axis, the constriction of polar positions, the
subjectivity, the ...
But you just ignore these points and blather on.
I still giglle when i remeber your claim that this politcal copmpass has
academic support, and when I called you on that you pointed out the
commenst section. which had one law tutor that found it useful as a point
to pspark discussion in tutorial sessions.
Your a sad joke, rich-bot, and this compass you keep trotting out (was it
your MPolSci thesis contribution?) is laughable.
And you are too dim to see this.
You cannot show any better analysis, so can only bluster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left
The current government is probably to the right of the description of
Right wing above, while Labour is fairly centred on Centre-left.
Labours so far away from centerist they couldn't see it with the Hubble
telescope Dickie. That's why they're hovering around the 30% mark in the
polls.

Pooh
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-06-06 23:47:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 14:24:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
You cannot show any better analysis, so can only bluster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
I've done it all before, rich-bot. In deatil. You wimpered, went quiet for a bit, before starting up again like a true-beleiver
Pooh
2013-06-07 03:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
You cannot show any better analysis, so can only bluster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
I've done it all before, rich-bot. In deatil. You wimpered, went quiet
for a bit, before starting up again like a true-beleiver
It's poor wee Dickies brain fades M-C. The poor wee chaps been suffering
from them since he started posting here and it only got worse when his
helpers started joining in on the ng. We should feel sorry for him not
castigate the fool.

Pooh
Pooh
2013-06-01 06:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party
Dickhead.
A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.
Pooh
As National has moved from centre-right to far right, they was
swallowed up ACT (deliberate sabotage by National and classic
corruption and hypocrisy by the extreme right ACT didn;t help of
course). So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right. If they cannot gain a majority in coalition they will be
in opposition. Who would want to work with National?
National far right? Your out of whay passes for your tiny mind Dickhead! At
best National is centre right. Anything further right and WFF would be
history and the latest food for schools initiative wouldn't have happened.
Your not just stupid Dickhead your idioticly stupid. So typical of marxist
muppet morons like you and your Labour/Green heroines.
Pooh
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
This was back in 2011 -since then I am sure you would agree that
National has indulged in even more oppressive authoritarian
anti-democratic policies, and embarked on asset stripping for the
benefit of a small number of New Zealanders (plus a large number of
foreigners), all for far right ideological reasons.
Dickhead if you're going to persist in pushing this piece of bullshit you're
just displaying exactly what a stupid bloody prick you are. Just go back and
look at what your glorious Labour party foisted on the unsuspecting public
and put things into a perspective for once in your misogenic life.
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
Back in 2011 National were assessed as +7.5, +4. By next year I
suspect they will be around +9, +7 - do you agree Pooh?
I agree this site is a load of bullshit. Much like your persistence of
dragging it out when ever the shit you're throwing lands back on your face
Dickhead.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-06-01 08:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party
Dickhead.
A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.
Pooh
As National has moved from centre-right to far right, they was
swallowed up ACT (deliberate sabotage by National and classic
corruption and hypocrisy by the extreme right ACT didn;t help of
course). So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right. If they cannot gain a majority in coalition they will be
in opposition. Who would want to work with National?
National far right? Your out of whay passes for your tiny mind Dickhead! At
best National is centre right. Anything further right and WFF would be
history and the latest food for schools initiative wouldn't have happened.
Your not just stupid Dickhead your idioticly stupid. So typical of marxist
muppet morons like you and your Labour/Green heroines.
Pooh
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
This was back in 2011 -since then I am sure you would agree that
National has indulged in even more oppressive authoritarian
anti-democratic policies, and embarked on asset stripping for the
benefit of a small number of New Zealanders (plus a large number of
foreigners), all for far right ideological reasons.
Dickhead if you're going to persist in pushing this piece of bullshit you're
just displaying exactly what a stupid bloody prick you are. Just go back and
look at what your glorious Labour party foisted on the unsuspecting public
and put things into a perspective for once in your misogenic life.
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
Back in 2011 National were assessed as +7.5, +4. By next year I
suspect they will be around +9, +7 - do you agree Pooh?
I agree this site is a load of bullshit. Much like your persistence of
dragging it out when ever the shit you're throwing lands back on your face
Dickhead.
Pooh
It is not a popularity poll for usenet, poo. Think about it a bit and
you will see that it reflects reality - even if that does not agree
with your preferences. I note that you are unable to offer any
reasons for your irrational rejection of this excellent analysis of a
political compass.
Pooh
2013-06-01 12:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Rich80105
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
The majority of New Zealanders don't want asset sales, National's GST
increase, National's increase to ACC levies, National's reductions in
state school budgets (or their increased spending on private schools).
Increasingly people are not trusting National statements as they find
they have been lied to. By comparison, Len is doing a fairly good job
in comparison . . .
The polls beg to differ Rich. You can spin all you want, but you'll
only get dizzy and the electorate will continue to lean towards National.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary
Add Labour plus Green and compare with National, and look at the
trend.
You miss the fact more people want National than any other party
Dickhead.
A
coalition party does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Just the wishes
of several minorities. The party that polls highest in an election should
form the government. It shouldn't be made up of the two highest scoring
losers.
Pooh
As National has moved from centre-right to far right, they was
swallowed up ACT (deliberate sabotage by National and classic
corruption and hypocrisy by the extreme right ACT didn;t help of
course). So they are a larger minority than other centre parties like
Labour and the Greens and Mana, and than NZ First which is
centre-right. If they cannot gain a majority in coalition they will be
in opposition. Who would want to work with National?
National far right? Your out of whay passes for your tiny mind Dickhead! At
best National is centre right. Anything further right and WFF would be
history and the latest food for schools initiative wouldn't have happened.
Your not just stupid Dickhead your idioticly stupid. So typical of marxist
muppet morons like you and your Labour/Green heroines.
Pooh
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
This was back in 2011 -since then I am sure you would agree that
National has indulged in even more oppressive authoritarian
anti-democratic policies, and embarked on asset stripping for the
benefit of a small number of New Zealanders (plus a large number of
foreigners), all for far right ideological reasons.
Dickhead if you're going to persist in pushing this piece of bullshit you're
just displaying exactly what a stupid bloody prick you are. Just go back and
look at what your glorious Labour party foisted on the unsuspecting public
and put things into a perspective for once in your misogenic life.
Post by Rich80105
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
Back in 2011 National were assessed as +7.5, +4. By next year I
suspect they will be around +9, +7 - do you agree Pooh?
I agree this site is a load of bullshit. Much like your persistence of
dragging it out when ever the shit you're throwing lands back on your face
Dickhead.
Pooh
It is not a popularity poll for usenet, poo. Think about it a bit and
you will see that it reflects reality - even if that does not agree
with your preferences. I note that you are unable to offer any
reasons for your irrational rejection of this excellent analysis of a
political compass.
Think. Something your incapable of Dickhead! Your link has been so
thouroughly discredited so many times in the past I'd think the information
had penetrated your miniscule brain.

Here a link EMB postedd for you but one you're either avoiding or to stupid
to understand. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_Compass Personaly I
believe you're to stupid to be able to activate the link let alone
understand anything on the site.

Pooh
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2013-06-04 01:04:17 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, 31 May 2013 17:34:03 UTC+12, Pooh wrote:
[snip]
Post by Pooh
National far right?
Rich-bot thinks that half the people in this country are 'extreme', and him and his ilk (which by definition are in the minority) are normal.

That pretty much sums up rich-bot's delusional life.
Pooh
2013-06-04 02:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
Post by Pooh
National far right?
Rich-bot thinks that half the people in this country are 'extreme', and
him and his ilk (which by definition are in the minority) are normal.
That pretty much sums up rich-bot's delusional life.
Sounds like the Labour/Green shadow cabinet. As to Dickie being 'normal'
that a stretch that would have Stalin/Hitler/Genghis Khan described as kind
and generous.

Pooh
a***@anon.com
2013-05-30 04:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
As I've said before and now say again, your contempt for the intelligence of
those who might read you is breathtaking. But then, I guess, your defence
is that you are only following the lead of the folk who produced this
appallingly juvenile propaganda in the first place.
geopelia
2013-05-30 22:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I25CFCtyrn4#!
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
I wonder how many people bothered to vote in the Local Body election.
Katipo
2013-06-02 23:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
In this case central government does know better.

Loon Brown's plan to pack another one million people into Auckland's
existing city limits is totally crazy.
geopelia
2013-06-03 12:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
Post by Rich80105
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
In this case central government does know better.
Loon Brown's plan to pack another one million people into Auckland's
existing city limits is totally crazy.
What was Brown's majority over the next candidate?
And how many people failed to vote at all?

Let's hope for a 100% turnout to vote next election. Will it be a postal
one?
Probably more people will bestir themselves this time. There is a lot more
at stake.

But I wouldn't bet on it.
Pooh
2013-06-04 02:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
Post by Rich80105
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
In this case central government does know better.
Loon Brown's plan to pack another one million people into Auckland's
existing city limits is totally crazy.
Aucklands got about 800,000 more people than it can handle now. It was
suffering overcrowding in 1978 when I left.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-06-04 04:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
Post by Katipo
Post by Rich80105
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
In this case central government does know better.
Loon Brown's plan to pack another one million people into Auckland's
existing city limits is totally crazy.
Aucklands got about 800,000 more people than it can handle now. It was
suffering overcrowding in 1978 when I left.
Pooh
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world - clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.

Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
JohnO
2013-06-04 08:27:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 16:36:57 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Post by Rich80105
Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
Whereas yours are just obvious lies.
a***@anon.com
2013-06-04 08:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Post by Rich80105
Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
Whereas yours are just obvious lies.
Awww, c'mon. Give him a break. "At variance with the facts" covers it well
enough ...........
EMB
2013-06-04 10:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@anon.com
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Post by Rich80105
Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
Whereas yours are just obvious lies.
Awww, c'mon. Give him a break. "At variance with the facts" covers it well
enough ...........
Too harsh... "Differently correct" is the lefty-acceptable, overly-PC
description of Rich's utterances.
geopelia
2013-06-04 12:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by a***@anon.com
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Post by Rich80105
Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
Whereas yours are just obvious lies.
Awww, c'mon. Give him a break. "At variance with the facts" covers it well
enough ...........
Too harsh... "Differently correct" is the lefty-acceptable, overly-PC
description of Rich's utterances.
Wasn't it Churchill who talked about a terminological inexactitude?
victor
2013-06-04 09:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Better get on with building a useful public transport system then.
EMB
2013-06-04 10:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by victor
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Better get on with building a useful public transport system then.
Really? Sydney's "adandonware" rail link to the airport? Melbourne's
lack of public transport to the airport? Makes Auckland look wise in
their choice of road based regular transport to its airport. Beyond
that, Sydney's public transport is no better than Auckland's, and trams
aside (which service a very small area of a city without hills) nor is
Melbourne's.
Rich80105
2013-06-04 10:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.

Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
Whereas yours are just obvious lies.
EMB
2013-06-04 10:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
How about you exercise your "advanced technical skills" and try using
google for a change Rich. It's not exactly rocket science to find
simple statistics like that, but I guess you're too scared that you'll
uncover a lot more facts which blow all your wet dreams out of the water.

My quick google suggests that you can add Brisbane and Perth to the
above list too.
JohnO
2013-06-04 11:14:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 22:47:48 UTC+12, EMB wrote:
<snip>
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
How about you exercise your "advanced technical skills" and try using
google for a change Rich. It's not exactly rocket science to find
simple statistics like that, but I guess you're too scared that you'll
uncover a lot more facts which blow all your wet dreams out of the water.
My quick google suggests that you can add Brisbane and Perth to the
above list too.
Yep. Los Angeles has the same population density as Auckland. World cities with lower population densities include:
Helsink, Montreal, San Francisco, Ottawa, San Diego, Denver, Portland...

Auckland needs to be less densely populated, not more, as Loony Len would like for the proletariat. But not for Len. His house is magically outside the urban intensification planned areas.
-Newsman-
2013-06-05 02:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
How about you exercise your "advanced technical skills" and try using
google for a change Rich. It's not exactly rocket science to find
simple statistics like that, but I guess you're too scared that you'll
uncover a lot more facts which blow all your wet dreams out of the water.
My quick google suggests that you can add Brisbane and Perth to the
above list too.
Helsink, Montreal, San Francisco, Ottawa, San Diego, Denver, Portland...
None of them proletarian. Without exception all are exemplars of the
thrusting, the up-to-date and the aspirational.
Post by JohnO
Auckland needs to be less densely populated, not more, as Loony Len would like for the proletariat.
Since Auckland is 100% proletarian - Seven Sharp being the iconic
identifier - Len's obviously getting it right.
Post by JohnO
But not for Len. His house is magically outside the urban intensification planned areas.
That's his reward for being thrusting, up-to-date, shrewd and
aspirational. That's also why he made it all the way up to the
mayoralty.

As could you were it - oh dearie me - not for your.....
Pooh
2013-06-04 14:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
How about you exercise your "advanced technical skills" and try using
google for a change Rich. It's not exactly rocket science to find simple
statistics like that, but I guess you're too scared that you'll uncover a
lot more facts which blow all your wet dreams out of the water.
My quick google suggests that you can add Brisbane and Perth to the above
list too.
Dickie doesn't like using google because apart from being incapable he knows
it'll only expose his "terminological inexactitude"* to himself and destroy
any faith he has in his commissars and himself.

Pooh

*Thank you for this Geo. Fits Dickie perfectly :)
JohnO
2013-06-04 11:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.
You probably find a lot of things 'surprising', Dickbot.

http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/07/21/aucklands-population-density-killing-off-the-myths/

Loony Len Brown loves to talk up Vancouver as a model for Auckland's intensification, but Auckland is already more "intense" as it is.
Post by Rich80105
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
Well Dickbot, unlike you, I didn't just 'make shit up'.
Pooh
2013-06-04 14:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.
You probably find a lot of things 'surprising', Dickbot.
http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/07/21/aucklands-population-density-killing-off-the-myths/
Loony Len Brown loves to talk up Vancouver as a model for Auckland's
intensification, but Auckland is already more "intense" as it is.
Post by Rich80105
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
Well Dickbot, unlike you, I didn't just 'make shit up'.
Now if only Dickie had the guts to admit where he got his information if he
didn't just make it up.

Pooh
Rich80105
2013-06-04 19:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.
You probably find a lot of things 'surprising', Dickbot.
http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/07/21/aucklands-population-density-killing-off-the-myths/
Loony Len Brown loves to talk up Vancouver as a model for Auckland's intensification, but Auckland is already more "intense" as it is.
Post by Rich80105
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
Well Dickbot, unlike you, I didn't just 'make shit up'.
Thanks for that JohnO - yes I am legitimately surprised and corrected!

Certainly NZ cities do not have the dense cores of many other cities,
and earthquake risk may explain some of that. Having been in Perth
recently I suspect its lower density arises from much more public open
space (parks etc) than we tend to have in NZ - I didn't notice suburbs
being particualrly less dense.

The article does make a good point about the desirability of better
public transport.

Thanks again
Pooh
2013-06-05 07:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world
- clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver.
Cite? I find your statement 'surprising' in relation to Sydney and
Melbourne, I am not familiar with Vancouver.
You probably find a lot of things 'surprising', Dickbot.
http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/07/21/aucklands-population-density-killing-off-the-myths/
Loony Len Brown loves to talk up Vancouver as a model for Auckland's
intensification, but Auckland is already more "intense" as it is.
Post by Rich80105
Where did you get your information from, JohnO?
Well Dickbot, unlike you, I didn't just 'make shit up'.
Thanks for that JohnO - yes I am legitimately surprised and corrected!
Certainly NZ cities do not have the dense cores of many other cities,
and earthquake risk may explain some of that. Having been in Perth
recently I suspect its lower density arises from much more public open
space (parks etc) than we tend to have in NZ - I didn't notice suburbs
being particualrly less dense.
The article does make a good point about the desirability of better
public transport.
Thanks again
An admitance that you just made it up. Well done Dickie. Maybe there's hope
for you yet.

Pooh
EMB
2013-06-05 08:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Certainly NZ cities do not have the dense cores of many other cities,
and earthquake risk may explain some of that. Having been in Perth
recently I suspect its lower density arises from much more public open
space (parks etc) than we tend to have in NZ - I didn't notice suburbs
being particualrly less dense.
Any suburb you are in is pretty dense Rich. See my reply elsewhere for
an explanation of why public transport doesn't work in Auckland. Also
factor in topography - the significantly undulating terrain of Auckland
makes widespread rail and tram systems unaffordable (eg Loony Len's two
billion dollar white elephant which would be totally unnecessary in
Perth, Melbourne or Vancouver).
geopelia
2013-06-05 12:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Certainly NZ cities do not have the dense cores of many other cities,
and earthquake risk may explain some of that. Having been in Perth
recently I suspect its lower density arises from much more public open
space (parks etc) than we tend to have in NZ - I didn't notice suburbs
being particualrly less dense.
Any suburb you are in is pretty dense Rich. See my reply elsewhere for an
explanation of why public transport doesn't work in Auckland. Also factor
in topography - the significantly undulating terrain of Auckland makes
widespread rail and tram systems unaffordable (eg Loony Len's two billion
dollar white elephant which would be totally unnecessary in Perth,
Melbourne or Vancouver).
What happened to the trolley buses? They were good.
Crash
2013-06-08 04:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by geopelia
Post by Rich80105
Certainly NZ cities do not have the dense cores of many other cities,
and earthquake risk may explain some of that. Having been in Perth
recently I suspect its lower density arises from much more public open
space (parks etc) than we tend to have in NZ - I didn't notice suburbs
being particualrly less dense.
Any suburb you are in is pretty dense Rich. See my reply elsewhere for an
explanation of why public transport doesn't work in Auckland. Also factor
in topography - the significantly undulating terrain of Auckland makes
widespread rail and tram systems unaffordable (eg Loony Len's two billion
dollar white elephant which would be totally unnecessary in Perth,
Melbourne or Vancouver).
What happened to the trolley buses? They were good.
Thieving buggers from Welly came up and stole them 8-)
--
Crash McBash

Pooh
2013-06-04 14:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Pooh
Post by Katipo
Post by Rich80105
All decisions must come from the centre - after all, National _know_
that they know better than the people Aucklanders elected to be in
charge of Auckland . . .
In this case central government does know better.
Loon Brown's plan to pack another one million people into Auckland's
existing city limits is totally crazy.
Aucklands got about 800,000 more people than it can handle now. It was
suffering overcrowding in 1978 when I left.
Pooh
Auckland is one of the least dense cities for its population in the
world - clearly you have not lived in a major city overseas, Pooh.
In case you hadn't noticed Dickie. We wern't talking about overseas cities
Dickhead. We were talking about a city of a million crammed into a narrow
spit of land that can only spread in two dirrections.
Post by Rich80105
Are you having a health problem, poo? - all your responses this
afternoon appear to be rushed with little thought.
Healths fine. Don't even have any indications of slipping into mental
instability like many of your recent posts indicate you're suffering from
Dickhead.

Pooh
EMB
2013-06-05 08:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh
In case you hadn't noticed Dickie. We wern't talking about overseas cities
Dickhead. We were talking about a city of a million crammed into a narrow
spit of land that can only spread in two dirrections.
And that of course is the crux of the matter.
Suburban Melbourne has a similar population density to Auckland in a
symmetrical area about 40km in diameter. Auckland's area isn't
symmetrical, it is an ellipse with a 1:4 ratio (20x80km). Hence all of
Melbourne's populace is within 20km of its centre, yet ponly 25% of
Auckland's population is within that distance of the centre. Of course
the same rules and economies of scale don't apply. Auckland cannot be
readily compared to other cities which are statistically similar, and
systems that work for them are unlikely to be economically practical in
Auckland.

Note also that today's news reports that Auckland has the lowest car
ownership figures in NZ - it's probable that workable public transport
penetration has been reached and that any improvement is likely to be
either very expensive (in which case roading makes sense) or impossible
(in which case roading is the only realistic answer). A third possible
answer is a carefully planned urban expansion, rather than an urban
intensification - there is no longer any real estate available to
increase existing public transport corridors within the existing boundaries.
Pooh
2013-06-06 00:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by EMB
Post by Pooh
In case you hadn't noticed Dickie. We wern't talking about overseas cities
Dickhead. We were talking about a city of a million crammed into a narrow
spit of land that can only spread in two dirrections.
And that of course is the crux of the matter.
Suburban Melbourne has a similar population density to Auckland in a
symmetrical area about 40km in diameter. Auckland's area isn't
symmetrical, it is an ellipse with a 1:4 ratio (20x80km). Hence all of
Melbourne's populace is within 20km of its centre, yet ponly 25% of
Auckland's population is within that distance of the centre. Of course
the same rules and economies of scale don't apply. Auckland cannot be
readily compared to other cities which are statistically similar, and
systems that work for them are unlikely to be economically practical in
Auckland.
Note also that today's news reports that Auckland has the lowest car
ownership figures in NZ - it's probable that workable public transport
penetration has been reached and that any improvement is likely to be
either very expensive (in which case roading makes sense) or impossible
(in which case roading is the only realistic answer). A third possible
answer is a carefully planned urban expansion, rather than an urban
intensification - there is no longer any real estate available to increase
existing public transport corridors within the existing boundaries.
You'd better pray Len doesn't see this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2335785/Floating-311mph-Japanese-Maglev-bullet-train-undergoes-successful-test-run.html?ITO=socialnet-facebook-dailymail .
But if he's desperate for a trainset I've got one I'd be happy to flick off
to him for a cheap $million or so and he can run the loop almost anywhere in
the CBD without any disruptions to the locals.

Pooh
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...