A little 2007 history, as the post-87 stock market controls basically worked, the crooks all fled to the private finance industry.
Labour (26%) also loses support
I'm bloody close to (returning to) voting Labour. The one thing that sticks in my craw? Labour's pledge to get rid of the 'coat-tailing' provision.
I know it's unpopular. I'd prefer a much lower (2% or less) threshold - swap 'coat-tailing' for that, any day. I know it's unlikely to get passed by a Labour-led coalition.
But it's still a promise to (try to) give us a less democratic government, made for shallow populism. I can't vote for that.
I am, however; sincerely unsure that Mr Hager has the moral high ground in receiving hacked/stolen e-mails etc. I just don’t like the idea of criminal acts precipitating debate
I feel the public good argument is clear enough. But it tends not to work on people who say 'I won't listen to this, because it comes from hacked emails' - and thus can't make an informed judgement.
I haven't heard it seriously contended that not reporting the emails would have been the best course of action. Is that the argument you're making? Ironically, it would mean no one knowing about a range of other hacking and stealing (and possibly illegally leaking) information for narrow political purposes. Eyes wide shut.
So while you're condemning Hager, you might spare a few words on how you regard the methods and motives of Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, and John Key. Just for the record.
I also disagree about Hager's motives and the timing of this book. He's worked as an investigative journalist for decades, and written quite a few books. More often than not, they get more-or-less ignored. I guess if you're inclined to think badly of people's motives, you will. It's character-judgement, and some of it comes from the gut. But it should involve looking at evidence too.
Completely agree on the 'pub-talk' nature of much of the bragging. I felt this even more strongly with the (leaked) transcripts of the 'Urewera 17'. People talk all sorts of sh*t in private.
I don't think we can take much Slater wrote at face value. That's where Hager's judgement comes in. He's pretty careful to look for corroboration, and not to make claims that exceed the evidence he has. (Also- at leaving out details that invade personal privacy to make a political point. Which alone makes his work diametrically opposed to that of Slater et al. Nasty personal attacks were a speciality.)
Interested in your response, and not laughing at all. Feeling pretty bleak.
they could also be saying that they’re resigned to it.
Or they just don't believe it.
If you trust Key, and he keeps saying 'yes we talk to bloggers' as if that's all it amounts to, and 'left-wing smear campaign' - maybe that's all it takes. Seems to be the end of the story for many.
The other refrain is 'I'm tired of it'. That's harder for me to fathom, because it's a half- acknowledgement there's 'something to see here'. But let's not talk about it because it's- nasty? boring? difficult? clashes with my other beliefs?
I find myself looking sideways at these people.
Let’s disagree with each other rather than make accusations.
Sorry Pharmachick. Not an accusation, just a stupid attempt at humour.
Seriously, you come across as a stooge.
BigPharmaChick - Carrick Graham in a chicken suit?
The cacophony of noise experienced last night
There were times when Key’s mic was almost as distorted as his ‘arguments’.
Anyone know who produced it?
I am getting a really nauseous feeling from knowing that the PM and senior Minister of the country are standing up and lying to my face. I’m not so naive that I don’t expect partisan politicking, but this is just awful.
Me too. Is there a stage when you move past anger to sadness?
My party vote – well that’s for me to decide
Thanks Craig. This line of questioning makes me queasy. I'm likely as anyone to call you on fact, interpretation or opinion. But the idea anyone's voting choice needs to be 'outed' (why? to 'validate' or 'invalidate' their opinions and ideas? think about how that plays!) is ghastly.
Was the one gaffe in the context of the whole debate really worth the prominence it has been given in the Herald this am?
I looked at the online Herald. Almost nothing on the debate- the first two election stories were 'Hacker hits back at Collins' denial' and some 'Nick Smith pilloried at housing debate' -neither what National would have wanted.
I guess the print version led with 'Another Gaffe from Tricky Dave'?