More New Zealanders will be injured and experience worse health, and some employers will have more money than they would otherwise.
What would you do differently? How would Waitakere Man / Waikanae Woman be convinced that this is an issue worthy of their emotional energy, and then that this emotional energy should be directed against the Government and for a particular opposition party?
This is where I perennially struggle. Why can't people be nerdy like me and look at the evidence and conclude it's a terrible idea?
Mind you, I write about evidence-based drug policy. I'm basically choosing to be perennially disappointed.
your #3 does not apply to the Greens, right?
You're saying Steffan Browning made his list ranking on merit?
That’s the challenge: how to put large and serious issues in which the government is failing or underperforming – on any objective measure – to the public in such a way that they are presented not as petty politicking but as issues of general concern. And then bring that attention back to the political parties that presented the issue in the first place.
And also finding ways to critique it – pointing out the clawbacks and abatements in the alleged $25 a week benefit increase – without looking negative and petty.
Sure – and if you want to frame it as “negative campaigning” then that fair enough too, but it also strikes me as a perfectly legitimate campaign to run even if you don’t like the people putting it forward.
That’s actually how Lynton Crosby framed it.
The problem was there was nothing even slightly mysterious about the policies Labour had been presenting consistently for the best part of a year from Clark and Cullen all the way down.
Absolutely. I like your italics.
I agree in 2002, Labour's message was "look at those clowns". But in 2005, it was more "look at that threat". They tried that again in 2008 against Smile and Wave and it fell flat.
It's still a version of "don't risk it", though. Also: Don Brash trying to get into a stock car.
How far do we bend social norms to fit personal drives and vice versa?
In this case, it's a "personal drive" I can relate to. I do understand the appeal of having control over that final act, of being able to make the choice about when is enough.
and there’s John Key’s smiling face prominently displayed in the prime position on the webpage.
So I am assuming he supports the right to die/GP assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia campaign.
No, the page gives no indication that's the case and indeed says that "no elected representatives have taken responsibility for reviewing right to die laws". The picture is there because the campaign is inviting people to write to party leaders.
Morales at Society & Nook and and Robert Owens at Cassette last night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many old folks out clubbing. Fab, late evening. Morales was by far the better DJ (Owens can't mix at all!) and his set was disco heaven, but Owens sang 'Tears' and 'Can U feel It' and looked like the coolest dude in town.
In a thread related topic- how expensive would a solely web based show funded by someone like NetFlix or some such be for Mr Campbell?
On a technical level it could be produced fairly cheaply. But you wouldn't be able to employ 22 people on proper salaries to make it, so you'd need to get a bit creative about how you went about things.
Trying to blame John Campbell for senior female presenters leaving is beyond cheek. Her ‘source’ at TV3 sure is a piece of work.
I imagine Mihi Forbes will be bloody livid at being used as a Glucina/Christie attack line. And the idea that Rebecca Wright decamped because there was no scope for her to be the new Toni Street is pretty silly. Never mind that she didn't leave Campbell Live for One News, she left the failed Paul Henry late news show.
Another thing Glucina curiously left out is that Campbell Live has (I think) only ever been produced by women: Carol Hirschfeld and Pip Keane.