Hard News: No Bills
119 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
And let's not forget this is the woman who wanted to ban DHMO, dihydrogen monoxide. She's a well-meaning fool.
Hehehe - I still get the odd person calling me at work wanting to know why we haven't banned this terrible substance - they're usually all up in arms and are ready to take it to the highest level of government (cause we're covering up it's use!).
Most people who call about it have visited this site...
http://www.dhmo.org/Once they've simmered down a bit it's the fun part of explaining to them exactly what they're complaining about - some people don't believe you, some are sheepish, some just hang up straight away when they realise they've been had. Always provides me with a bit of a laugh...
Sorry nothing to do with the conversation really!
-
BTW and royally off-topic, I've just added to the podcast our interview with James Griffin about the third season of Outrageous Fortune, which begins tonight. Swipe some of the boss's bandwidth and have a listen ...
-
Has anyone heard a broadcast journalist put that contradiction to Sue Kedgley?
NO, and this is what I've found most irritating with regard to media coverage on this issue (with yourself a notable exception, Russell) - plenty of airtime has been given to the opponents of the bill (and I guess rightly so) but in a fairly uncritical way, I think... ie they've been given lots of opportunity to rail against the bill, more or less unchallenged - even when they talk bollocks like "the majority of New Zealanders oppose this legislation" (don't you hate that??).
Only now that it's been 'parked' do we get any kind of cool-headed analysis of what the bill was actually trying to achieve, and the disadvantages of not going with it. It seems to me that this approach is intended to prolong the debate (and the newsworthiness of the story) rather than illuminate the issues.
Wrt Bart's comments on the Greens - yep I'm similarly disappointed. Mostly, I support and admire their political stance, and I think they've got some great brains... but then they have these episodes of going all wild and woolly on particular issues (GE was a classic) and refusing to engage in rational debate, at which point I just give up on them again. Not so different from other political parties I guess, but they do aim to be "the thinking person's political party" so it galls me all the more when they insult my intelligence.
-
Yeah, but if the polls are driven by the news media's compliant reporting of Kedgley and Rankin's conspiracy theories, don't we have a problem here?
Perhaps. That's a big IF though. If polls had real direct power, people might be more careful what they said to them.
-
__Has anyone heard a broadcast journalist put that contradiction to Sue Kedgley?__
NO, and this is what I've found most irritating with regard to media coverage on this issue (with yourself a notable exception, Russell)
Actually, I remembered that I did put that question to Jeanette Fitzsimons way back when the consultation on the bill first started -- overlapping with the GE furore, believe it or not -- and, as I recall, she didn't have a good answer.
-
Danyl - No, what I am saying is the main T.V. media outlets in particular like to run their political stories with an underlying theme - "tired third term government" or "Brash's constant gaffes'" or - most relevant here - "John Key, the next big thing." I am not saying they create these thematic myths, but once they are in place its very difficult to shift the political narrative.
I think there is a developing theme that Key will U turn at the whiff of a bad focus group.
-
Sigh, Sue - 'first they came to micro-chip my dogs' - Kedgely; I think the Greens just lost my vote.
-
I see Cullen is emphatically claiming that Key and Tim Groser came to Labour looking for a compromise because of their concern about the impact on relations with Australia if the bill tanked -- but Ryall sank it.
LOL... Well, to get all Mandy Rice Davies for a moment, he would, wouldn't he? :) In his position, I'd be 'emphatically' trying to kill any further speculation that I'm just not on top of my game as effortlessly as I used to be. I guess it remains to be seen whether Cullen is going to be tabling any supporting documentation in the House, or whether this is just the usual sledging that's routine but not really to be taken seriously.
-
I think there is a developing theme that Key will U turn at the whiff of a bad focus group.
That might be one of the good things about him. It's only something to sledge National for because they *pretend otherwise*. They like to project the idea of strong decisive leadership. In the past that has usually meant doing things most people really don't want them to. It could be the biggest triumph of MMP that strong leadership is actually interpreted as having the courage to do what the people really want, regardless of the influence groups and party machines.
Or he could be a liar, and will be a strong leader in the older, more fuxored sense. That's why I figure *bugger representatives* let's just cut to the polls.
-
I think what you really mean is that Key and his party are seen as a joke by people who are never ever going to vote for them anyway - probably not something their strategy advisers lose much sleep over.
Certainly not. Just as I don't think Helen Clark has had any sleepless nights over the last quarter century or so, due to the folks who think she's the coven leader of the Scumunist Dykeocracy. In the end, I think any politician who wants to keep a shred of sanity just has to come to terms with the idea that you're never, ever going to be universally adored.
-
Apropos the Greens: they're a coalition of disparate interests just like the other parties. Unfortunately, the romantic and irrational anti-science constituency is one of the more powerful interests in that coalition.
I'm afraid the Green's commitment to science and technology is only utilitarian when it comes to argument -- they claim its authority if it suits them. That's all.
My Dad contemplated the Greens at one point when Labour had really ticked him off, but as a chemistry PhD he just couldn't make himself do it.
In other words: what Tom Beard and Sarah Flynn said. I feel the same way. It is this kind of thing that makes me despair of party politics, when what I really want to vote for is a little of this and a smidgen of that and a mixed assortment of those things.
-
Yes - but there is a difference with being seen as being on the side of the people and being seen as an vacillating big ball of nothing, which is what Key is in danger of being seen with all his U-turns. A classic example of this is the headline in the Herald yesterday:
"Key promises local body change, but won't say what"
You can't tell me that headline wasn't chosen deliberately.
-
It is this kind of thing that makes me despair of party politics, when what I really want to vote for is a little of this and a smidgen of that and a mixed assortment of those things.
I think representative democracy is more to blame, and parties are just a symptom of that. If you periodically abdicate responsibility for choices to other people, those people will coalesce into large power factions, and you'll get the Clayton's choices that we are faced with today.
Yes - but there is a difference with being seen as being on the side of the people and being seen as an vacillating big ball of nothing, which is what Key is in danger of being seen with all his U-turns.
Labour would like to paint that picture, and possibly the media have latched onto that as their favorite controversy. That Clark has been doing it for years, the Foreshore and Seabed being a prime example, is something that is not faced honestly by Labour or big media.
I'm personally more concerned that Key does have an agenda, he just won't say what it is. If he doesn't, and is happy to leave it to watching the polls, great.
-
You can't tell me that headline wasn't chosen deliberately.
Certainly not, Tom. Then again, your mileage may vary on whether the editorial board of the New Zealand Herald are people you'd trust to organise a gang-bang at a sex-addicts convention. Got to say this morning's editorial on the one city chestnut was, to be charitable, deeply superficial. And, yes, I do think both Clark and Key would so us all a favour if they think it all the way through before leaping on the MegaAuckland bandwagon.
-
Thanks for the lecture on MMP Craig. I consider myself reasonably acquainted with the system and its implications.
Now, back to the Greens. Aside from the rash of contradictions in their various stances, those with not such short memories will recall that during the last election they were polling below 5% and that until HC gave them a helpful nudge it looked as though there would be no Green MPs at all in the house.
It was hardly Labour's fault that the Greens could not supply the numbers to get a place in Government nor that they were politically unacceptable to other coalition partners (something to consider when doling out MMP lessons to others).
Despite this, their agreement with Labour does give them an influential role, hence the political capital Labour spent on the "anti-smacking" legislation amongst other things.
Having political clout is one thing, but throwing it around like confetti is quite something else, especially for a party whose defining feature is that it is "Green". I know social policy, economics and so on are part of that picture but if voters were more keen on that then Anderton's lot would be polling far higher then 0.00001% or whatever it is they get. I think I/S is wrong in his assessment that they are delivering to their supporters, and more importantly to their potential supporters. If they were they would not be polling so badly despite their recent two "triumphs".
My belief is folks are voting Green essentially for Greenness, not for the sideshow agenda's that Kedgley and co. seem so keen on chucking out.
I don't think the Greens should STFU and "toe the line". I do think they have an opportunity to have a profound influence an agenda being set out by the major parties that could have radical implications on our environment, energy use and economic future. Right now they are blowing that opportunity, IMHO.
-
The new Parliamentary webcast is up and running here:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Visiting/LiveBroadcast/
The QuickTime stream comes through in the wrong aspect ratio and the audio is very quiet.
Viewed with the Flip4Mac Windows Media components the Windows Media stream looks gorgeous. The audio drifted out of sync but pausing then restarting the stream fixed it.
High-bandwidth streams look to be about 400Kbit/s
Bonus: I can capture the lot by saving the WM stream as a QuickTime movie. Handy!
Key's questions are all targeted at Annette King about the conflict of interest inquiry.
-
Now, back to the Greens. Aside from the rash of contradictions in their various stances, those with not such short memories will recall that during the last election they were polling below 5% and that until HC gave them a helpful nudge it looked as though there would be no Green MPs at all in the house.
Sorry, Don, I'm going to call you on that because it's just not true - someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Clark made precisely one public appearance with Fitzsimmons, and at a time when the polls where all over the place but the Greens were still averaging over the 5% threshold. I'd argue it was as much in Labour's interests as much as the Greens, after the nasty sniping during the '02 campaign.
I don't recall Labour doing anything to discourage the perception (and a mistaken one IMO) that Green-supporters needed to 'vote strategically' to keep National out. Nor should they have, from a purely strategic POV, but lets not pretend Helen Clark or the Labour campaign had the slightest interest in doing the Greens any favours. Nor do I think Clark would have shed a single crocodile tear if the price of victory had been electoral extinction for the Greens.
-
I guess I count myself as an "urban techno-greenie" . . .
Sounds like what's known in Australia as a plastic wombat.
-
Craig, I never said what Labour did wasn't in its own interest.
I am not sure what your points are actually as you haven't addressed any mine. All you seem to want to say is that politicians are equally snide, snippy and hypocritical.
Er, so what?
-
All you seem to want to say is that politicians are equally snide, snippy and hypocritical.
Um, no - because I'm not really interested in being that glibly cynical. And if you're right, and the Green Party leadership are that far out of touch with their own membership and support, I guess they have their own organisational structures - and a general election next year - to be accountable too.
In the end, I just think if anything is going to bring down 'this government' it's going to be suicide with no assistance from the Greens. With 20/20 hindisight, Clark might have been wiser to tell Dunne to STFU and negotiate a formal coalition agreement with the Greens. She didn't, they've voted against a piece of legislation on grounds I consider fundamentally wrong-headed which they're perfectly entitled to do. Sad, yes. Frustrating, certainly. But it's not the end of the world.
-
Okay - Heres one for the paranoia crew. Unregulated supplements are amongst the things most likely to get a Kiwi athlete busted in drugs testing.
-
Then again, your mileage may vary on whether the editorial board of the New Zealand Herald are people you'd trust to organise a gang-bang at a sex-addicts convention.
Actually I think that was Steve Crow's plans, for the official launch of his Mayoral campaign at Erotica
-
I'm personally more concerned that Key does have an agenda, he just won't say what it is. If he doesn't, and is happy to leave it to watching the polls, great.
Hear hear, Ben. If there's one thing I learned from Nicky Hagar's book (other than the risks of broad CC:ing) it's that there's a big pro-America pro-nuke pro-taxcuts anti-welfare anti-education anti-centralization agenda lurking beneath the surface in National's rich supporters. It'll take a strong politician to deny them their quid pro quo for financial support, and it's yet to be demonstrated that John Keys is that strong politician.
-
And if you're right, and the Green Party leadership are that far out of touch with their own membership and support...
I suspect there's truth in what Don's saying. I'm of Tom Beard's ilk, & I'm a card-carrying member of the Greens. I'm gradually getting pretty pissed off with both Sues' latest soapboxes. My original intention had been to get involved in policy development, but these days I don't have any time.
& I think that may be one problem the Greens have - the hippie element have more time & resources to invest in party politics, or at least are more willing to make it a priority. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a silent (perhaps narrow) majority in the party's support that believe in green ideals, but don't have any time to inject some rationality into more specialised platforms. As a result, we end up taking a stance dictated by Sue Kedgley's jerking left knee.
-
I would be interested to hear people's opinions on the bill itself. I think it was flawed and I am pleased it didn't go through.
A regulatory overhaul would be good but I don't think this was it.
Maybe I am missing something.......
I am really interested in what people think about this.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.