Now, now, I'm sure the Minister, for it is he, is the kind of progressive chap who would give all due acknowledgement to the Ladies' Rugby Auxiliary, even if they're not currently winning.
I thought we had a Minister of Sport? Surely that's the same thing? You're not implying there are other sports? *clutches Best Bets*
"Fact. End of." And ring-kissing. Gold.
I am not saying that government ministers and officials set out to craft a bad deal
I think that's a very generous interpretation, but I agree that it's just as likely to be a case for Hanlon's Razor.
I don't know which is worse: outright corruption, or outright stupidity (despite the propaganda of their being "good at business).
Also, it's funny how we don't get cries of "pork-barrelling" when it's private companies involved. From my POV, there's no discernable difference - it's just what you consider your "constituents" to be.
Mmm, iTunes isn't really the best, even at that. Media Monkey has features that crap all over it, including a very powerful autotag and album download feature.
The problem is, some of those cool features and the best UI skins are components you have to download, install, and configure. While Media Monkey isn't open source, it's evidently based on something like that, and has the drawbacks of a crappy default UI and a bunch of fiddly moving parts. If they came up with a "packaged" version that looks good off the bat, and with a well-curated set of default plug-ins, I'm sure they'd do better.
Add me too to the bunch of people who finds the Spotify UI annoying as hell. And I work in IT.
While I applaud the intention of this effort, nothing much is going to change until the homophobia underlying the doctrinal beliefs of this and other churches is addressed.
Similar to how marriage laws didn't change until laws against homosexuality were repealed, and discrimination against homosexuals (and other sexualities) was outlawed... except for churches.
Also, I strongly feel that churches should get out of the business of marriage altogether, in a legal sense.
But thank you for making some effort towards getting a dialogue going.
Yes, I was sad too about Ladi6 not getting a nod. She's been trucking along fabulously for years, and this album is her best solo effort to date.
It's definitely been Lorde's year, but at least one gong for Ladi6 would have been nice (and well-deserved).
Why some [unions] get to be the deciding vote in choosing a future Prime Minister however I have no idea.
Oh, please. See above for remarks on the Labour Party constitution and its links to unions. If you don't like how the Labour Party does it, then vote elsewhere or work to change the constitution.
As for future prime ministers, I believe that's up to the voting public and which party ends up on top.
Where is this meme coming from - all-bloody-ready - that Little's election was just because of the unions. It patently wasn't, although of course it's a large part of his support.
Look, I'm queer, I'm Gen-X, I live as close to the central city as I can. According to people like Semmens or Trotter, I must be natural enemy to the Little and his mates. The trouble is, I'm a life-long union member, going back to the days of Jagpro, before it was amalgamated into the Printers' and then - surprise - the EPMU.
It is the Labour party. Its constitution, which still stands as I recall, provides for the unions to have voting rights. With all the bitching about the low voter turnout at the election - I bitched too - you'd think we would be grateful that those who aren't naturally political party members have some say in the process. To say it should just have been the Labour caucus selecting a leader is frankly abhorrent. The party membership is broader than the relatively well-off people who tend to get elected as MPs.
I am glad that we're not in the bad old days where most of the cases before the employment courts were about unions suing each other for jurisdiction over workers/industries (I've read a fair chunk of the cases from the early 80s - it's true). Little is very much the epitome of a modern union leader, not about lining his own pockets or stirring up for the hell of it, but getting workers fairly represented and fairly employed.
Some of the comments here seem to represent an attitude conflating unions now (yes, there are not-so-good ones, still) with the more unnecessarily-aggro or feather-bedding attitudes in the late 70s.
I personally am more comfortable with unions that give their members a direct voice in how their affiliation is to be voted. Here in Australia, I've made the specific choice to not have my vote represented as part of the Labor affiliation of my union. (Not that I can vote anyway, but I think the Labor party in Oz is truly dire.) For those who have problems with the process used to decide on representation, there is the ability to work on changing it within the union. And of course different unions have different rules.
And so too with the Labour party itself. If it chooses to rewrite its constitution to de-emphasise or remove the union affiliations, then it can do so.
So before we run around gaily throwing Mr Little under the bus because of (frankly unwarranted) suspicion about unions, let's see how he performs. I too have concerns about the CGT - I think it simply needs to be better formulated and packaged. No-one is proposing that the family home gets clobbered with tax. But if it's not completely out of the question for him - I understand it isn't - then fine. Otherwise, nothing else I've heard of his statements/beliefs/proposed policies gives me any understanding of why there is this level of catastrophising about his election. He isn't an old-school bloke who is going to throw women or queers under the bus - I know that for a fact. Someone who can smack down the purported fence between "Waitakere man" and "urban liberals" in a positive forward-thinking way can only be helpful to the prospects of the party.