It sometimes seems that Labour’s foul destiny is to eternally operate as a blank sheet for everyone else to project onto. They should move to the centre! They should return to their left-wing roots! Be inclusive! Renounce identity politics! Dump the leader! Keep the leader! Be more cynical! Be more principled! Panic! Not panic!
I guess this is because so many people see Labour as the most likely vehicle, or obstacle, around getting rid of the government, for whichever reason they want to get rid of the government, even if they're not even members.
What does the Labour Party want for itself? Is it aiming to get rid of a National government? Is it aiming to represent a specific group of people? Is it aiming to see certain policy implemented? Does it just want power? Would Labour be willing to sacrifice popularity in exchange for its principles yet possibly still form part of a future government? Does Labour even know what it wants, or is it too infested with opportunists driving it?
This binary should be irrelavant.Campbell is on the left blah blah. Why can’t you just critisise, hold govt. to account for telling lies, bullying, acting immorally just cos thats a shit way to act? Whether you normally vote Act, Greens, Labour etc….should be irrelavant
I agree. It should also be irrelevant as to whether this is "the way it's always worked so who cares", which (even if actually right) is the standard apologist line I've heard over and over again. If we don't expect high standards then it's hardly a wonder we don't get them.
I think there is a plan for a more sophisticated system where companies will report payroll to IRD in realtime and be issued adjustments. (There is also a privacy issue where you might not want one employer to know about your side job and how much they pay you).
This could also be good, but is it possible to do and still keep someone's income reasonably consistent for each paycheck if likely total income for the tax year isn't known in advance?
For example, for someone who's bad at budgeting, it could be confusing if a short spontaneous salaried employment term at the end of a tax year results in less cash-in-hand than when they did exactly the same thing at the start of tax year before hitting a higher tax bracket. Or is there some way to handle this?
I’ve tended to watch TV1 news more than TV3 news, but in honesty that’s probably because I have a better stomach for digesting the final minutes of Millionaire Hot Seat than things like Home & Away, Survivor and Biggest Loser that TV3 serves up as a lead-in.
I guess I rate TV3’s news more highly than TV1, but both channels seem to serve up productions masquerading as news which focus more on empty entertainment value, using clues about often quite serious news to incentivise viewers instead of actually imparting it in a useful way, and joking around.
I really appreciate JC’s style, even if he’s sometimes over the top for my liking, but I went off watching him for a while because I often didn’t find much interesting on TV (either main channel) between about 6.10pm and 7pm. He and his team manage to produce some great stuff, but I can appreciate how he no longer fits into the general crap-fest which modern prime-time television media is working to turn itself into. I wish him well for the future. Hopefully he has an opportunity to recharge with some time off, and I hope we don’t lose him and his skills for long.
I can't be bothered reading details. Does anyone have pointers to any nice, colourful visualisations?
I definitely don’t contribute by ever telling people they should use the MSM to get their opinions
On that, where are the best places for most people to get their opinions when not the MSM, or at the very least reliable analysis towards helping them to form them?
It was mildly amusing in that it made both leaders look like plonkers.
From watching that report I thought she made Andrew Little look like much more of a plonker than John Key. Right back to the introduction which set the stage by saying "it hasn't necessarily worked in his favour", then focusing on tengential detail and trying to make him explain, then repeatedly broadcasting the exact soundbite line the PM wanted broadcast, over and over again.
We have people in government who do not believe in evidence or science in general, that it’s all just someone’s opinion, that’s a matter of public record.
This may be true sometimes, but I’m guessing that for as much of the time it’s not a case of not believing in evidence or science. I think it can also be ideological differences about desired outcomes, which politicians and other elites don’t necessarily want to admit too noisily.
For example, maybe they think it’s stupid to be spending tens of millions of dollars a year on protecting endangered flora and fauna–the problem could be solved by ignoring it and letting everything die out so that it no longer needs protecting. Maybe they think it’s acceptable for x% of people to be living and dying malnourished on the streets, as long another group of people excel in comparison.
But outright stating these types of things as goals won’t usually make for great political popularity amongst much of the populace who vote. That’s a problem if it’s what you actually want because it makes it very difficult to get elected. Instead it’s necessary to pretend you care about stuff that it’s traditional to care about, but try to discredit research aimed towards those outcomes, and argue that some replacement strategy will do it better, even if someone who digs below the surface of that strategy might easily discover it’s unlikely or impossible.
its creators live in an infernal eternal “now”,
trapped in an ever-more rabidly, rapidly, spinning howling maw
demanding more and more quantity,
and delivering less and less quality.
If only we could vote one the journalists off every week.
Actually, to be honest, if we could then I'm not sure I'd appreciate the evental result.
Road safety is an objective science
Public policy isn’t though.
Water quality could be a better example.
"He’s one academic, and like lawyers, I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview.", and all that. And anyone who wants to agree with that line of reasoning has plenty of apologists they can easily look up and hang out with, in this day and age.