Fair comment - please allow me to downgrade my 'terrible' to 'unfortunate'.
Why? Because people miss out on some free booze and a backslapping opportunity?
Assume you just mean this set of awards, or do you mean the concept of awards in general?
Well, putting myself into the shoes of Canon, as a corporate sponsor I think they were quite right in their initial insistence on sticking to the separation of sponsor from judge - after all, who would want to be a part of an awards process where sponsors had an influence on the judging?
The way the situation is evolving though puts them in a more difficult situation. Ahead of any possible criminal charges or proven misrepresentation of an award entry (which must surely be very close to being the case), do they form a view that sponsors should take a moral position on award participants?, if so, who and why?.
Almost certainly there will have been discussions about the representation of the award entry, and I assume that they will have been discussing a stronger line on distancing themselves from it. I imagine they will also be thinking about whether or not next years sponsorship is worth it - which would be a terrible industry outcome.
Am a wee bit surprised that Herald didnt go bigger. They are no friend of Slater.
Agree with much of the sentiment being expressed here. Anyone who doesnt believe that political leaking goes on across the spectrum is being wilfully naive.
But some of the claims being made in this book do appear to be a step or three well beyond your bog-standard 'leaking' in all its sordid glory. And therefore worthy of greater scrutiny, not only in these specific instances but as to whether or not these practices are now a common part of the arsenal of political warfare.
Sadly, I am - in the absence of any proof otherwise - sceptical that this is uncommon.
Agree with you Tom, but I would also ask the counter-factual, is it bad for National? -I suspect that they also benefit from the more conservative undecideds.
While it was all a bit unedifying and more suited to the institutionalised chaos of 'robust Parliamentary debate', I think its also fair to say Lisa Owen has been guilty of employing an overly aggressive interviewing style herself in the past. While it very occasionally makes for entertaining TV, it also means that interview subjects often prepare accordingly.
Whyte aside, I'm also interested in the PA community view on the way in which Susan Devoy is handling her new role.
I seem to recall quite a few vociferous opinions being espoused about her qualifications or lack thereof, before she had even started. Wondering if anyone has changed their views at all.
Transport is transport and it should be regarded as a public good along with all other infrastructure
Well, thats one perspective, but given the state of transport infrastructure in NZ that is funded publicly, and transport infrastructure under private ownership (e.g. the airport) - is that a realistic wish? I'd love for all public good infrastructure to be there, is it?
The council has a fair swag invested in about 22% of the airport which already operates (very successfully) as a private company. An option?
Totally agree Bart
As it transpired, we left, a little bit chastened, and went and spent a bunch of hard-earned at the ever-delightful Mo's bar and swapped entertaining stories of epic customer service fails on the back of our Masu experience.
So we all had a great night - and the outfit that should have let us out the door eager to tell our friends didnt quite hit the target they intended.