Luvly pictures all. Not a sign of that there politix busyness thank goodness.
Labour never seemed to have any factions 1999-2008
After sharing a table with Stu Nash at a Labour fundraiser during that period I can honestly say that’s not true.
They were too scared to pipe up. Labour factions were certainly warring in Christchurch at that time: stealthily and effectively.
The point is they should just get on and do their best to maximise their combined vote (which, particularly in Labour’s case must involve getting National voters to cross the line).
This is only way to get a centre-left government. To do so will require a change in thinking by Labour's keepers of the flame.
I've agreed with you twice today: PAS and Twitter: one of us is going soft. ;-)
FWIW you won't get Cosgrove to back the Greens: he was a Macraes Mining PR.
Shellacking: a perfect description. You win “word of the wrap”.
Number 5: Everything about Labour’s approach to the Greens was and still is wrong. I really wonder if they are able to comprehend or action real partnership. I hope so.
I have my own theories about Labour, but I won't chip in because I'm not a member and it is for them to sort out.
Elegant and mellifluous writing Jolisa. Democracy on toast. Now democracy roast, blackened at the edges but rescuable with a sharp knife, a steady hand and a soupcon of Mickey Savagery.
David Slack’s righteous indignation about Farrar, Williams and Franks appearing on The Panel was quite breathtaking. Amazing shit and I would wager he will not be invited back for such clarity and unashamed critique.
This. David Slack now on the Dirty Politics Roll of Honour.
The Snowdon-Greenwald-Assange link-up and the case they were putting forward was astounding. So many layers there to dissect.
The two topics of mass surveillance and Kim DotCom's case never hung together easily. They may have done so if a bridge could have been built between the two. I gained the impression from Greenwald's pre-interviews that he was still working on the reporting after arriving here: maybe he was trying to tie the packages into a coherent whole?
The presentation was flawed and full of holes. I had expected little apart from puffs of smoke and good times.
What I heard was a coherent explanation of how democracy in New Zealand has been systemically undermined by a world-wide intelligence network answerable to no-one but the intelligence and political elites and which abets global corporations in their quest for dominance.
I salute all of them: Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, Amsterdam and especially Kim Dotcom for bringing all this to national -- and international -- prominence.
If not them, who else would have? We owe Kim Dotcom -- in a good way -- for staging the reveal. Yeah he's excitable, and complex, and in some ways dodgy.
And yeah some journalists had a scrap with him at the presser. Get over yourselves, that's part of the job.
What is important is do you follow up all of the issues raised, or do you let Key and his cohort deflect you from helping pull out country out of the cesspit we have slid into?
BTW: Robert Amsterdam's comments about the protections afforded New Zealanders by being part of the Commonwealth (eg Harare) were intriguing. Key has over the last few years increasingly been softening up the electorate with asides about becoming a republic. I will re-examine my ideas on that.
It’s that kind of level of “but nobody really cares” blather that concerns me.
And that is the essence of Dirty Politics.
Yes, I think we’re talking about the wrong thing here. I’d be looking at the undeclared interests of one or two guests on The Panel, or Charles Finny “reviewing” Dirty Politics as a lobbyist clsely connected with the networks the book is about.
Agree: these things are not like the other. When the person pronouncing in public may be perceived as a disinterested commentator if their interest is not declared.
The shows are presented as journalistic examinations of issues. Viewers are entitled to know the participants' interests and leanings, and the effects those may have on the arguments presented. Basic ethical journalism practice.
Q&A should be doing the disclosing - and researching their participants.