Well, I have just returned home from a talk by Nicky Hager at the University of Waikato. Despite pathetic attempts by the university administration to limit publicity (dept secretaries were prohibited from distributing news about it), it attracted a crowd of 750 people (two linked lecture theatres). He gave a great speech, answered multiple questions, and got a standing ovation,
There are people listening!
I hope Nicky had a good break over the weekend. In Dunedin on Friday night he would pause before the second half of his answer to a question and say, "What was it again, I'm so tired, I've been doing this for two weeks..." Yet he was unfailingly courteous and clear in thought and speech.
The thing he said that stayed with me more than anything else is that political parties use negative campaigning when they know they can't win voters with their policies. That simple statement crystallized a few things for me.
My recollection is that nice Mr Key was saying that David Cunliffe couldn’t be trusted to run the country because he couldn’t remember a letter he wrote in support of Mr Liu 11 years ago, and was therefore shifty and unreliable.
Since Mr Key now appears to be unable to remember a briefing five years ago, does that make him twice as shifty and unreliable?
This is what I would rather the media would focus on, rather than the minuteae of who said what, when.
I also hope that David Cunliffe resists the temptation to drag this out in the leader's debates, by which time most people will be starting to flag. These debates really should be about policy, with a wee bit of trust and leadership on the side.
For heaven's sake, we don't all have to march in lockstep here!
Thank you, that's it. Another middle of the night thought that came to me is to wonder how many journalists and general media people are supporting the anti-Hager push because they are compromised in the same way that Slater, Lush and Carrick Graham enable.
Like others I find it distressing to read about such hatred, it always makes me think of ee cummings and "hate is why men breathe". That was in a poem in memory of his father, so here's a bit of it in memory of Jack Shallcrass, another good man.
then let men kill which cannot share,
let blood and flesh be mud and mire,
scheming imagine,passion willed,
freedom a drug that’s bought and sold
giving to steal and cruel kind,
a heart to fear,to doubt a mind,
to differ a disease of same,
conform the pinnacle of am
though dull were all we taste as bright,
bitter all utterly things sweet,
maggoty minus and dumb death
all we inherit,all bequeath
and nothing quite so least as truth
—i say though hate were why men breathe—
because my Father lived his soul
love is the whole and more than all
I'm looking for the Dirty Politics webpage, which I looked at on Wednesday, but it seems to be swamped by all the other stuff in google and I can't find it again. Can someone post a link for me?
I haven't finished my kindle copy yet - have to pace the outrage - but I hope they publish most of the chapter about Carrick Graham in a Sunday paper. Even an overseas one would be good. I think this story is bigger than our little corner.
Thanks Russell! Sometimes Twitter is just a bit too brief...
Meanwhile Nick Smith is criticizing the selfishness of rich lifestyle blockers who he says are stopping the subdivisions on the outskirts that could be homes for tragically deprived young families who apparently have access to unlimited petrol.
He doesn't have anything to say about Epsom.
This is heresy, and betrayal from me as a Green, but I'm starting to wonder if the best realistic outcome from this election might be for National to have to cobble up a flaky coalition with Winston. As Winston is an interventionist and does have the glimmerings of a social conscience this would put the brakes on the worst of National's excesses as it did in 1999.
It would also be wildly unpopular and would give Labour and Greens a space to get their acts together and their messages cutting through to voters as economics and environment worsen.
Interview plus transcription that gives some insights I hadn't thought of as to why even (or especially) flood victims dont make climate change attributions
And I join with everyone else with saluting Jolisa's wonderful post. But the arguments here are up against some countervailing slogans that seem to have resonated with parent's most anxious and competitive urges.
How can we turn the ideas in this essay into an "elevator pitch" that will bring home the reality of what these changes mean