Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe
610 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
James if Cunliffe wins again, your choice. If you love Labour, you could still help.
Word Sofie.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The ability to effectively engage with opposition, criticism and just general bullshit is a mandatory requirement for a successful MP and most definitely a quote/unquote would be Prime Minister.
And a mandatory requirement for successful "engagement" on the internet is you get out what you put in. Seriously, if someone is convinced you're a liar with a secret agenda what exactly do you engage with? I've learned the hard way that getting on that crazy-go-round ends up nowhere worthwhile for anyone.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
if someone is convinced you’re a liar with a secret agenda what exactly do you engage with?
This same issue rears its head in almost any televised Parliament debate. The object is not to do the impossible and change the enemy’s mind. it’s about swinging the undecided, strengthening arguments, listening to and addressing possible weaknesses and most importantly gaining experience and developing, I think you rather overstate the hostility with regards to PublicAddress. If James were to front up here, I’d have nothing but respect for the guy. We for the most part are left leaning. Just as yourself, Russell, Deborah, Stephen were there, guns at the ready to jump to James’s aid I would hope and I’m sure that you would offer him the same level of support were the confrontation more direct. I don’t think I’m suggesting anything particularly radical here in that respect. Just perceptions of accessibility that I feel could be improved/ enhanced in this internet age.
-
Deborah, in reply to
As far as I can tell, Mark, you edited your post after I had replied to it.
-
Well something divides the PAS.
This is not like the Clark years though, very obviously. The leader has been selected by the party and the caucus, so previous precendents are a little shakey.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I don’t know how or why James should “engage” with anyone,
Well he could though, which only helps his case. The position he was campaigning for with Cunliffe in the front compared to what he thinks now, is exactly what I'd expect of an MP if he was in Labour. So if he wants the job he applied for, he needs to easily communicate.The fact he stated he wants to go if he is not getting a leader he wants says, albeit quietly, that he has no faith in the Party to sort it out. If he thought otherwise I assumed he'd jump in along with all of us but ,he hasn't so once again people surmise and will question. I understand Taslov is now saying 9 pages. I think he should be able to ask and I think James could defend himself. To suggest otherwise is suppression innit?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
As far as I can tell, Mark, you edited your post after I had replied to it.
That’s correct, seeing that your answer was not addressing my question, I added the second paragraph to make it clear that this answer didn’t address what I was asking. I hoped maybe you would see that quickly enough to edit your answer accordingly.
I wasn’t trying to be tricky, I hoped I could then again delete that second paragraph. However since you offered I am very serious about getting an actual answer to that question Deborah, I’m clear enough about the specifics of the policy now, what I’m interested in is the underlying rationale and possible change in philosophy; for me a flat tax that increases the potential burden on the ‘lowest’ members of society doesn’t align with the values I believed Labour represented. My question has remained unchanged since the getgo. There’s no rush on this, so feel free to answer in your own time. I won’t edit this.
-
Sacha, in reply to
to call the behaviour into question
Sounds like you have already decided the guest poster is deliberately avoiding the ensuing discusson. How do you know he's not tied up with something else? Or lying in a hospital bed, for that matter.
-
If someone is well enough off to own a second house, it’s a little hard to see why they are regarded as being one of the ‘lowest’ members of society (your words, not mine). Can you refine your example?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Well there’s also the fact that about three-quarters of his caucus, including his own deputy, don’t want to work with him. I don’t really see a way around that, even if Cunliffe is returned by his party with a thumping mandate (which I don’t think he will be).
He won't be, but to lump the outgoing leader together with people like Mallard, Goff and King as someone who self-evidently needs to go is frankly a bit disturbing.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Sounds like you have already decided the guest poster is deliberately avoiding the ensuing discusson. How do you know he’s not tied up with something else? Or lying in a hospital bed, for that matter.
Well Taslov hasn't suggested that. He said he would like some answers. Nothing wrong with that and frankly why attack him for suggesting it's not forthcoming. I actually hoped James would say something, but he hasn't and I respect that but it wont convince others if he wants to make a point. He could be tied up or whatever but he has a voice that started this discussion. Can we not question authenticity now? Yes RB just said he knows him. We didn't know that for 9 pages.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Well Taslov hasn't suggested that.
Sigh, Yes, yes he has.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Again "well enough off" is open to relative interpretation Deborah, if you need an example;
Say someone in their early 50s who worked a good 20 years to buy a $40,000 house in Invercargill, but has been injured and is now on an invalids benefit, say when their last parent dies they inherit the $40,000 family home in Tamaranui. They put this on the market immediately but they cannot sell it, because Tamaranui, Finally ten years later they find a buyer, in that time its value of the house has gone up to $50,000 and when they sell it the Labour Government takes 15% of that gain. why does the Labour Government prefer to take that $1500 rather than allow the beneficiary with an income $257.75 to keep that money in order to help make ends meet?
What's the reasoning, the rationale, the philosophy?
-
WH,
I’m clear enough about the specifics of the policy now, what I’m interested in is the underlying rationale and possible change in philosophy; for me a flat tax that increases the potential burden on the ‘lowest’ members of society doesn’t align with the values I believed Labour represented
This is an unfortunate diversion, but the answer to your question is that capital gains taxes are intrinsically progressive because of the way in which capital gains are distributed throughout society.
In the absence of a capital gains tax, the burden of the tax system falls more heavily on salary and wage earners (i.e., ordinary workers) than it should. The outright manipulation of the tax system by certain kinds of people is fairly well known. We can argue about the electoral effect of a CGT policy, but the arguments in principle are pretty compelling.
Let's put it this way: lowering taxes on capital gains and estates and other forms of investment income was one of the first things George W. Bush did on taking office.
Let's talk about policy on another thread.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Sounds like you have already decided the guest poster is deliberately avoiding the ensuing discusson. How do you know he’s not tied up with something else? Or lying in a hospital bed, for that matter.
I don't know Twitter? I realise New Zealand has a culture whereby people won't allow something as trivial as being hospitalised interfere with their Rugby. but come on Sacha.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Well, I get the impression, that he wants James to engage because he wants to see his POV. I send emails when I want POV from Labour. I'm glad they mostly reply. (Sio is an exception) .It would be good if James could respond just because he made a huge decision to write quite a sad letter. I know it's just one man but it's one Labour man who earnt a right to have a say. We need a labour man to start convincing others that the drivel in the MSM is unfounded. Convince Taslov and we are on the way.
-
NSA, in reply to
We conduct mass surveillance.
-
Sue,
I have to interrupt this transmission to have a excellent laugh at the idea of Stephen Judd being a puppet Master. Because if he did the Puppet would sound like Shooby Taylor with the chef skills of Eric Ripert.
But in truth
If Stephen was going to Puppet Master something, he'd do it do so well you'd never know, except he'd feel guilty about deceiving people and tell everyone it was him. Stephen is an outstandingly honest person. -
NSA, in reply to
surveilled
-
mark taslov, in reply to
I really had no desire to discuss the policy at all, I simply pointed out that it would best be explained by the horse’s mouth rather than talking heads. Deborah volunteered to answer the question. Personally I find the option of any new taxes that might affect the lowest income earners unattractive, regardless of whether its designed to catch tuna, dolphins are still going to end up in that net. Dolphins are poor.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
I have to interrupt this transmission to have a excellent laugh at the idea of Stephen Judd being a puppet Master
Yes, with a bit of read, you may even find that Stephen Judd has not been referred to as a puppet master but as the ‘help’. I did use the term ‘puppet master politics’ in relation to this modern style whereby the talking head may swing about a bit on ropes, but I did take great care to ensure that at no point had I specifically accused Stephen or Keir of having any kind of mastery of this dark art.
However your character reference does put him back in my list of possibles.
-
WH,
I really had no desire to discuss the policy at all
I think this is a difficult moment for everyone who wants Labour to do well. Ultimately there are more similarities between us than differences.
dolphins are still going to end up in that net. Dolphins are poor
At the end of the day, all it means is that income is subject to income tax (a CGT in this case). In practice, though, capital gains and investment income are generally the domain of upper income earners.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
with a bit of read
Googling would have provided ‘a bit of a read’ on James Dann’s not inconsiderable activism from well before he was a candidate. Certainly more than enough to lay the cheap shots you’ve sadly lowered yourself to.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Ultimately there are more similarities between us than differences.
Yes, last night. I was searching for videos of Norman Kirk but stumbled on this The Grim Face of Power doco about Rob Muldoon and I was glued, I was especially interested by his ‘Meet the People’ meetings.
lay the cheap shots you’ve sadly lowered yourself to.
Come on Joe, arguing that someone could at least deign to join the conversation beneath the blog posts they’ve contributed at Publicaddress isn’t a cheap shot. it’s pretty much exactly what happens all the time.
-
Sue, in reply to
Replying to a post by mark taslov
Why not be realistic and use as an example someone who has worked out property investment is the best way to make money tax free, those are smart people. If I had the money I'd do it because it's tax free. Making money Tax free it's awesome because NO TAX, but is it fair?
If everyone else has to pay tax on their income why don't property speculators?
In a fair and equal society everyone pays taxes on the money they gain, through work or through luck - lotto winnings, those are taxed. In our country beneficiaries pay tax on their benefits. So why do one group of people get to play the no tax here card?And the beneficiary example, you haven't taken into account how WINZ will deal to them regardless of CGT.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.