Daily Review 21/04/2016

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 40 comments
Categories: Daily review

image

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

40 comments on “Daily Review 21/04/2016”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    It’s an impressive return on $100,000 investment. How wealthy do you need to be to qualify for ‘aid money’ from the NZ tax-payer?

    1. 1.1

      You are aware that Hagaman’s company operates the hotel. He doesn’t own it and he didn’t have the aid money passed to him. That went to the owners to carry out the expansion.
      But of course you know that. You just ignore it because you are following your little leader Andy in his smear campaign.

      1. 1.1.1

        Was the multi million dollar refurbishment publicly known when the contract was signed?

        If not, could it possibly have been discussed at a Cabinet Club meeting, thereby giving a certain hotel chain an opportunity to adjust their tender to be more competitive?

      2. 1.1.2

        So do you know the details of the funding or how much the company is paid to manage the resort. Please tell.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          “how much the company is paid to manage the resort”
          I haven’t the faintest idea. Why should I?
          Sabine posted a great long spiel on the subject where she kept repeating that it was $7.5 million. When I asked the source of this number, which she had repeated 4 times she never gave me a sensible reply.
          Perhaps she will tell you whether there is any truth in that figure or whether she just made it up. I suspect the latter.
          Here is what she had to say. It is followed by my request for a link and then a very long reply by Sabine which had nothing to do with the question.
          http://thestandard.org.nz/gould-on-nats-sleaze-and-corruption/#comment-1162946

      1. 2.1.1

        Lol, is that some kind of bot? I love how it just comes out of nowhere. If that isn’t a flaming troll line I don’t know what is 🙄

    2. 2.2

      “…the left underestimate Key to its peril” & if Little gets under your skin he must be doing something right!

          1. 2.2.1.1.1

            Very exercised over this matter aren’t they. They remind me of when I was a kid… caught out doing something I wasn’t allowed to do. The screams of denial could be heard far and wide.

          2. 2.2.1.1.2

            Yeah the reaction to Little’s call for the AG to take a look at a story that broke on RadioNZ seems way out of proportion. What’s going on?

            1. 2.2.1.1.2.1

              Obviously a sensitive subject. It has happened for a while. The right clearly believe that the best form of defence is attack.

        2. 2.2.1.2

          If Little is the melanoma that puts paid to NZ’s political Right, then there is something very, very right about him

        3. 2.2.1.3

          The prognosis for melanoma is actually really good when detected and treated early before it has spread to other tissues or organs. When ignoring the signs the prognosis rapidly drops off to a near-death sentence. Need I say more?

  4. 4

    That’s a great graph. It should be disseminated far and wide!!!

    Gosh, even the Nat.rwnj simpletons will be able to understand it.

    1. 4.1

      Not so sure Anne – unless Andrew Little is very sure he has evidence of some wrongdoing he’s buying into a very public legal fight with Earl Hagaman for defamation.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          The blue visual above… if it was my name and I’d done nothing wrong I’d be none too pleased with the inference.

          2. 4.1.1.1.2

            Read the headline of the graphic. Little is clearly commenting on National. The inference is that National will give contracts to its donors.

        2. 4.1.1.2

          The Nat machine has no problems with calling out any beneficiary who happens to stray / get dragged into into the political arena and cause them the slightest embarrassment. For example the two women that Bennet named and Selwyn Clarke.

          But they take a different view when it’s one of their star donors getting the same scrutiny.

          Mr Hagaman should step back for a moment and consider the societal and political environment that his donations are facilitating.

      2. 4.1.2

        No that’s your spin line to deflect away from the issue, he referred to the govt….come on you can do better than that.

      1. 4.2.1

        Yes. There was a bit of sarcasm for their benefit in my comment.

        I’m reminded of the screaming and howling by the right wing over Dirty Politics. Methinks they’re trying the same trick on again but not sure it will work this time because its all about money. And $7.5 million of it is OUR money!!

  6. 6

    Anybody else having trouble accessing certain posts? Tonight when I clicked on the Oravida post, a red flag popped up on the tab and the page was blank. This has been happening to the Open Mic post too. As an avid reader of The Standard I hate to miss anything!
    Cheers.

Comments are closed.