Wobbler wrote:

Conners wrote:

happybaboon wrote:I find people who just don't indicate at all are a worse problem. Most of those who bother to indicate seem to do so correctly. Aside from a few who fail to indicate when exiting.

I've wasted several years of my life waiting for people who are entering roundabouts 180°opposite me, indicating right, but going straight through.... Motyherfuckers don't generally switch to indicate their intention to exit either. That IMO was the worst communication of a "law change" ever - THE RULE NEVER BLOODY CHANGED!!!!! (all that changed was that you can now be TICKETED for doing it wrong - grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

Anyhoo, back to politiks. I'm sure the "law" was changed under a Labour government.

We need roundabout cameras like the red light ones and then fine/execute people depending on their actions

Sharks with fricken lasers.

jo wrote:

way_downsouth wrote:For the record (which is back a few pages on Solid), I was keen on the Government holding Solid Energy because I believe it could give us a better return than it could in private hands. I am undecided on the others because I haven't spent the time analysing the values that we would recover, but see an argument either way. I haven't seen anyone promote numbers that support or don't support it either.

I seem to recall that Solid are particularly keen to be floated.

I think the government is correct in saying they're not particularly good owners of such assets. The government likes to get special dividends back when they're short of cash and thats hardly ideal for the companies themselves.

Im of the opinion that the sale will be good for the companies, and crap for the country (after the cash gets spoken for, and the reduced revenues into the future are counted). But the voters have spoken.

The float will be good for the company. In government hands it has consistently produced a very, very poor return on investment and management are stale. I suspect it will actually produce higher gross returns for government even if they only hold 51% than it does currently with them owning 100%. Also the market will value assets using different criteria to that currently used by the government, which will eventually work in their favour

j2hyde wrote:

jo wrote:

way_downsouth wrote:For the record (which is back a few pages on Solid), I was keen on the Government holding Solid Energy because I believe it could give us a better return than it could in private hands. I am undecided on the others because I haven't spent the time analysing the values that we would recover, but see an argument either way. I haven't seen anyone promote numbers that support or don't support it either.

I seem to recall that Solid are particularly keen to be floated.

I think the government is correct in saying they're not particularly good owners of such assets. The government likes to get special dividends back when they're short of cash and thats hardly ideal for the companies themselves.

Im of the opinion that the sale will be good for the companies, and crap for the country (after the cash gets spoken for, and the reduced revenues into the future are counted). But the voters have spoken.

The float will be good for the company. In government hands it has consistently produced a very, very poor return on investment and management are stale. I suspect it will actually produce higher gross returns for government even if they only hold 51% than it does currently with them owning 100%. Also the market will value assets using different criteria to that currently used by the government, which will eventually work in their favour

I'm with ya man in - principle...but OTOH solid energy seems to run their operation without doing things such as exploding their mine..can't say that about certain private mining companies, who seem to have not had a frikkin clue from what I've been hearing this week.

My bets on MRP going on the block first.

Do I win a choccy fish if I'm right?

nostromo wrote:I'm with ya man in - principle...but OTOH solid energy seems to run their operation without doing things such as exploding their mine..can't say that about certain private mining companies, who seem to have not had a frikkin clue from what I've been hearing this week.

Senz are shithouse at running operations. After years of failing to achieve internal targets they eventually figured this out which is why their operations are now run in some form of partnership with various contractors (mostly Australian companies). Also bear in mind that before they were called solid energy the company was called coalcorp, and they had a few very nasty accidents. There is a real lack of experience and technical expertise in the NZ mining industry, which was also a big part of PRC's problem.

But anyway, I have no idea what will go on sale first. Energy security is pretty tenuous, generation and transmission infrastructure urgently needs investment, so maybe that will be good incentive to put electricity companies on the block first?

i call bullshit on the above proposed $50k limit for Govt employees... basically all that would do is leave you with a completely useless public service. any talent would seek work elsewhere (especially in australia...) and if you want good effective government you've got to have some talent working in it.

didnt you see the poster doing the rounds prior to the election.
"Dont worry, skilled public service workers will be re-employed where they're most wanted"
with a picture of Australia.

maybe it wouldnt save quite as much, but capping what the upper eschelons of the public sector can earn would be effective, eg, fucking Politicians, CEO's etc. Do they really need to earn as much as they do? how can they get such massive pay increases when the rest of the public sector dont even get CPI

You have to be an Australian citizen to work in the australian public service. So good luck with that

But a pay freeze for most of the paper pushing public servants makes a lot of sense. Pay rises need to be linked to increases in productivity. And what exactly is productive about pumping more money into this country's bloated nanny state bureaucracy?

bloated nanny state bureaucracy? yeah, good one. that's a laugh a minute.

the public sector hasn't been this small since the 1930s. the population of new zealand is 4 times what it was then.
how is that 'bloated', exactly?

and its not exactly hard to become an australian citizen either. not like they set the bar very high.

swtchbckr wrote:bloated nanny state bureaucracy? yeah, good one. that's a laugh a minute.

the public sector hasn't been this small since the 1930s. the population of new zealand is 4 times what it was then.
how is that 'bloated', exactly?

and its not exactly hard to become an australian citizen either. not like they set the bar very high.

Computers have replaced fountain pens since the 1930's

yeah, but the public sector has a hell of a lot more people to deal with, so it probably all evens out in the wash.

mark my words. the pub sect cuts of the last 3 years coupled with what's to come in the next 3 years will result in a massive loss of service to the people of nz and will likely end up with more of the likes of Pike Rivers and Cave Creeks and Renas and what ever other govt fuck up you can think of.

When will you people finally realise that mister key isnt such a nice chap and that his cronies dont have the people of NZ's best interests at heart, but only the lining of their own greedy fucking pockets.

i mean, playing nice with John Banks!? and ACT for that matter. what a fucking joke.

{{yawn}} save it for 2014, Electioneering is over.

Is it possibly to block a thread from showing in mini vorb?

The best way to block a thread is to not open it up.

Oli wrote:The best way to block a thread is to not open it up.

Yes agreed, but I have OCD with mini vorb.

Me too! I have to make sure every thread has been opened, even if I'm not remotely interested in it at all...

sorry guys. I'll shut up now.

be sure'n check out "1 on it", over on the LOL thread...