Not quite, upthread I thought I read from Stephen at least (possibly Felix too) that Carmel Sepuloni and Andrew Little acknowledged the obvious.
Phil Goff, David Parker, Damien O'Connor, Jacinda Ardern, Kris Faafoi, and Ian Lees Galloway also referenced it publicly as well. I've had on the record quotes from all of them
I'd have to say there was some chaos around the remits on the leadership selection. There was a distinct period on Saturday afternoon where few people appeared completely aware of exactly what was being voted on and how it affected votes previously taken.
There was at least one occasion where someone stood up and asked ';what are we voting for?" There was another where two people, who were both arguing for exactly the same point (albeit in different ways) actually voted against each other.
I sought clarification from three separate senior party members on the implications of the amendments passed - just to be sure my understanding was correct. I got three different, and contradictory, answers.
There was certainly a groundswell from members for more say, and this did add to the passion of the debate. (That's to be expected as they've pretty much been kept at arms length in the recent past.) However to think this wasn't affected by factional politics within the party is (IMHO) a little naive. The passing of the remit for the 40% trigger was significant, and so too were some of the people that spoke in support of it and against it. In a sense it outlined what's been going on in caucus for some time.
And it was more than just democratic debate. I think Carmel Sepuloni's statement that she thought some MPs made the wrong decision in the leadership vote last year showed the discussion went beyond constitutional reform and directly into leadership views.
Andrew Little also directly referenced the leadership issue in the remit debate, albeit with a different view to that of Carmel Sepuloni.
As for the focus on Cunliffe. There are only so many interpretations that can be put on his recent actions. He could easily have shut down the leadership issue at any time over the weekend. He chose not to.
I know some in the Labour Party are upset the media focussed on the leadership issue over the other reforms. However the issue was started by those in the party, not us. A leadership spill has to be reporter and we weren't the ones that timed it so that it coincided with the party conference. Responsibility for that lies elsewhere.
For the record I did write (and tweet) about other events at the conference. Though I'm not sure anyone paid them much attention.
this is lifted from the q & a section of the Minister’s press release released on Monday. It may, or may not, assist the discussion.
As at the end of August this year there were around 319,000 people or 11.6 per cent of working-age New Zealanders on benefits. More than 161,000 people have received a benefit for at least half of the last 10 years and 139,000 have spent more than a decade on benefit since 1993.
edit – oops, I should have read the complete thread as I see this has already been posted. Apologies.
As I said earlier I’m all for fair use and linking. Dissemination and sharing of news is a good thing. I have nothing against that. Ripping off the work of others is just a bit damn cheeky as far as I’m concerned. Bloggers, quite rightly, hate it when reporters rip off their material without attribution. Reporters feel the same way when it happens to them.
I guess it all comes down to who you think drives the agenda in the stronger way. Do political bloggers use news sources to fuel their work? Do reporters rely on blogs in the same way? Admittedly I might be biased here but I think things are more weighted towards the former rather than to the latter.
As far as the cease and desist approach is concerned I’m not convinced that it would work. The costs involved would probably be prohibitive. I believe though that the Herald did raise the issue a few years back. As I recall it created somewhat of a stir in the blogging community.
As for my use of Twitter, well there are a couple of drivers behind it.It humanises the reporter, it makes you more than just a byline and delivers a form of accountability to your audience.
It’s a good way to keep a running brief on political happenings. There are a lot of political animals out there and if I can give them info of interest then Twitter’s a good avenue to provide that. After all not all the stories I write make it into the bulletins or onto the website. The other reason that I use it is because it’s a good way to interact with people who read my stories/read my tweets. It’s a great medium to provide answers to questions people may have on stories I’m covering. As a rule of thumb I avoid the rabid partisan approaches, but I do try to give answers to genuine questions if I can.
Actually Alistair I was trying to draw a distinction between what I regard as genuine blogging; opinion and news gathering involving individual research vs blatant plagiarism dressed up as opinion/news.
Forgive me if I get a little pissed off at people who help themselves to my work and that of my colleagues, slap it up on their site without so much as a "please" or a "do you mind". Journalism costs. You want to take our work? How about asking first? How about making a contribution even?
I don't mind quotes and links. Fair use is fine. But lifting whole articles is taking the piss.
Meanwhile what no doubt incensed Armstrong so much was the “indirect” insult about interviewing typewriters which we can see from Russell’s quote wasn’t actually directed at John in any event. Fran and now Felix Marwick have now elected to focus on this part of Armstrong’s critique probably thinking it is the bit that holds the most water.
Actually not so much.
My view is that John is perfectly entitled to make criticisms of those who make criticisms of him. People can draw their own conclusions about the merits of the arguments used.
I did think it was a little unfair to say there’d been scant work done on analysis of the TPP. I’d seen a lot done in most of the main media outlets about it in the build up to APEC. Admittedly the analysis might not have sat well with some, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done.
For the record I read both Bryce’s and Gordon’s work on a regular basis and respect their abilities. I certainly don’t regard Gordon as a blogger either.
As I said on KJA, as a rule of thumb I don’t get drawn into publicly criticising bloggers for much the same reason as I don’t wade into the work of my journalist colleagues. It just encourages ill-feeling and doesn’t achieve a lot. Having said that if bloggers criticise journo’s, it seems only fair if journo’s should be allowed to return the favour if they choose to.
BTW I’m not anti-blogger. there are quite a few blogs that I read on a daily basis. But its fair to say some do create some frustration. My personal bugbear would be with those who decry the “lamestream media”, yet happily use huge tracts of reporter’s work on their blogs, chuck in one line of comment, and pass it off as insight.
Russell, regarding your earlier point about being surprised that journalists don’t read transcripts. In my case if I have a recording and full notes of an event then there’s little need to get a transcript. The occasions when they are used is where there is ambiguity, poor audio, strong accents, and the potential to misinterpret comments. Generally this doesn’t happen that often.
When you’re on deadline and you have clean audio and accurate notes transcripts are a secondary concern. They’re damn handy for referencing further down the track (eg 6 months later). If we’re trained properly (and most of us are) our professional abilities should be enough to provide an accurate and balanced version of events. If we can’t keep accurate notes, or competent recordings, then we have no business being a journalist.
Having said that your get did actually make for an interesting story in and of itself. I’m guessing the State Department’s made some changes as a result.
Sorry, but there were a fair few gallery journwith the PM on that trip. If he'd actually said it they would've reported it. It's not a comment that would have been overlooked or missed.
The BIMs will be released in January. Generally there is a 4 – 6 week window for their release. They’re coming out later this time largely because the election was later when compared to 2008.
As regards the Judge’s written decision on the Waitakere judicial recount, It was the most fun to read legal document I’ve seen in ages.
Well I recall that the Herald and ZB covered it. I see Fairfax also followed it, as did RNZ, Radio Live, and AAP.
Hell, I even tweeted about it just to make doubly sure it got out there.
Trevor Mallard seems to be enjoying the media response in a way that suggests the 'leak' was carefully stage managed.