For me the real story is Ashcroft using his money to try and pervert politics...What is his influence outside the UK? And other than "a senior job", what demands does he make in return for that largesse?
Or we won’t sign up.
Really? Can we hear that from the leader or foreign affairs spokesperson?
Also, the style of negotiation you describe [BATNA] is shit. Whilst I don't disagree that unions have delivered some good outcomes most people now accept that successful negation for sustainable outcomes is a collaborative effort from all sides.
And just for the record, your local IT sector has been onto this for a wee while:
Not just a bunch of checked shirted UX fanatics :-)
So, can Labour comment? Does this scenario leave "Pharmac intact"? It does seem like a get out of gaol free scenario for Labour.
My understanding is that trade agreements don't have to be ratified by Parliament. So talk of votes and how they stack up is moot.
I think Labour’s apparent failure to present a positive alternative to the electorate does need to be seen in the context of a press that overwhelmingly targeted it for negative coverage.
This is being totally ignored by the "New Labour" crowd. There was hardly any policy being put in front of the UK electorate. The mass mobilisation of the media and establishment against Labour mirrored that which swayed the Scottish electorate during the independence referendum. These were massive and vicious campaigns.
Interesting that it suited the same crowd to support the SNP during the GE...
Labour also needs to recognise that for the last 20 years it has effectively abandoned the poorer working classes who defected to UKIP.
But it is the media that it needs to work out or work around before it starts trying to sort out what kind of party it is. Supporting electoral reform would be a start, but Labour blew that one as well 5 years ago so I'm not holding my breath.
Are a lot of LibDem voters gone to Labour and Labour voters going to UKIP?
If it was, probably way beyond the comprehension of most Sun readers.
But the ploy of constantly showing public figures in "ugly" photos is deliberate. I even read about the tactic in Dirty Politics.
I was brought on on a narrative of WW1 as a war of sickening slaughter, terribly lead and fought for no good reason. The almost inevitable result of jingoism out of control.
*Personally* I don't think this defines NZ. My own views about that include:
The indigenous Māori population - very influential despite the abuses.
Treaty of Waitangi
Votes for Women
40 hour working week
The horror of WW1
The All Blacks
UK joining the European Union
Being a Pacific Island
Immigrants from across the globe
Historic links to the UK
I hope the above is not contentious or offensive. I just think it more to define a nation than participation in war.
I read that Atlantic article before seeing the New Yorker response. I thought the former was awful for many of the reasons the New Yorker pointed out.
I didn't read the latter in the same light. It talked about self fulfilling prophesies, poor reasoning and a narrative that puts "the West" at war with Islam...not shutting up in case you upset people.