Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: 2014: The Meth Election

234 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 10 Newer→ Last

  • Jake Starrow, in reply to CJM,

    So can we assume you are rich CJM but not a prick?

    Since Sep 2014 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • James George,

    This morning's Q&A was meant to have included an interview with lawyer Bob Amsterdam, who has been looking at the Intellectual Property and net neutrality issues surrounding the Megaupload bust.
    But the show filled up with politicians. Same same - some being handed lame Dorothy Dix questions and others unanswerable queries replete with an ad hominem sub text, so by the time the paid talent had their two bob's worth, there wasn't time to hear some really interesting commentary on the stark issues brought about by the current regime's policies interacting with tech changes.

    Woods told viewers that the Amsterdam stuff was available on the TVNZ site, but somehow it has been buried quite deep, especially if you go to where she suggested www.tvnz.co.nz/qanda.
    So in case anyone is interested in this stuff this is a link to the Amsterdam interview

    Since Sep 2007 • 95 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    No. Certainly not rich. Earning less than 20k. But I can be a prick, especially when dealing with John Key fan boys and their lame-ass assumptions.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to James George,

    An amazing interview. 7.12 "You're dealing with a government that has systemic issues of political corruption".
    Succinct.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to James George,

    So in case anyone is interested in this stuff this is a link to the Amsterdam interview

    Thanks for that. Smart man, and a point well made that lawyers would advise KDC to keep his head down.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Is it my imagination or have we seen an influx of bad faith fanbois derailing conversations on PAS since Dirty Politics was released? It's almost like there was a deliberate campaign...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    That said, Steve, I really don’t think anyone who was terribly keen to retrospectively amend under extreme urgency the Electoral Act to avoid a by-election nobody really wanted (or could afford to contest) could be characterized as “outsiders”.

    By "outsider" I just meant that Key was not a career politician and therefore may not have the same respect for the process that someone who has focused on how the government works for a longer period might have. I see the use of urgency as a symptom of that.

    Some of it was for election promises; they'd told us what they were going to do so there was some justification for just doing it, but the devil is often in the details and I believe following the process would have been wiser.

    Of course there are legitimate reasons to use urgency, and some of this government's use of it probably is justified. Personally I think the test should be "is there bipartisan support for this?" If the answer is no then there would need to be pretty extreme extenuating circumstances to justify urgency.

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to SteveH,

    That and his good looks do much for his popularity.

    Erm, which good looks would those be? I don't see it, but maybe he’s attractive to men. I mean, I’ve read that apparently he’s considered attractive to some voters, but I think they’ve confused familiarity with good looks, a common mistake.
    It’s not my political persuasion that makes Key not attractive. Simon Bridges, for example, is very good looking, despite being a National MP.
    And I wouldn’t even go so far as to say Key’s unattractive, he’s just… there. If he was in a room full of people, I wouldn’t notice him.
    ’Course, I haven’t met him. Maybe in person he has charisma. I met Bolger once and was quite shocked to discover he had charisma, because I wouldn’t have guessed it from his photos or appearances on television. But charisma’s a funny beast.
    Anyway, I think it’s the vanilla-ness of Key’s looks that work in his favour. People can project onto him whatever they want.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 580 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    With Key, what you see is mostly what you get….a Prime Minister whose narrative is as clear-minded and open as it was when he was a highly-successful businessman. His task is to get things done.

    Funny you should say that. One part of my view of John Key is that he’s leading a Cabinet which is more interested in operating government as if it’s a business whose sole purpose is to get done what it decides needs doing, instead of a government which is meant to do those things on behalf of the people it represents – not just those who voted for it. Only it’s not constrained by the inability to change rules and laws which typically govern corporations.

    Often when one of those inconvenient laws or processes gets in the way of what this Cabinet wants to do, we’re seeing Cabinet do everything practical to sweep that inconvenience out of the way, regardless of the reason those constriants were placed there to begin with.

    eg. Changing the law to let government do things it couldn’t previously do, like usurp democracy in Canterbury in the name of “getting stuff done”.

    eg. Pushing changes through Parliament under urgency because they can be pushed under urgency instead of because it’s really needed, even when it’s inappropriate and treads on all those protocols that let the public get involved, consult and provide feedback and discussion.

    eg. Separation of Cabinet responsibilities from political affiliations? Much of what Nicky Hager’s written about lately, and direct from Cameron Slater’s mailbox, demonstrates that several of our Ministers and their staff have little or no respect for that separation and responsibility, if it wasn’t already clearly evident. John Key is meant to be responsible for oversight of his Ministers, but it’s silly to believe he can be effective in this, without conflicts of interest, when his own office is tangled in the middle of the controversy and when his political future is tightly connected with the outcome of any real investigation.

    This is the type of control and lack of accountability that some of our less ethical company directors would dream of. There’s no effective accountability to the law and so no accountability to anyone. Being able to set the law to suit themselves, and being able to simply ignore it when the only realistic accountability is to themselves. To me it seems that this is the type of operation which John Key is in charge of right now.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    I think his biggest mistake was trusting too much, even naively. But that's no hanging offence.

    It *is* when you're the sole oversight mechanism for an extremely powerful and intrusive state agency. Doing your job is not too much to expect.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to izogi,

    Funny you should say that. One part of my view of John Key is that he’s leading a Cabinet which is more interested in operating government as if it’s a business whose sole purpose is to get done what it decides needs doing, instead of a government which is meant to do those things on behalf of the people it represents – not just those who voted for it. Only it’s not constrained by the inability to change rules and laws which typically govern corporations.

    Precisely this!

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to nzlemming,

    Is it my imagination or have we seen an influx of bad faith fanbois derailing conversations on PAS since Dirty Politics was released? It’s almost like there was a deliberate campaign…

    They were all over the Dimpost for a while there. They start out expecting to gorge on the imagined low-hanging fruit Slater's assured them was out there, before squealing foul and retiring in high victim mode. And yeah, they're all hes.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4591 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    Anyway, I think it’s the vanilla-ness of Key’s looks that work in his favour. People can project onto him whatever they want

    Key denies that, with extra refutingness.
    I wonder if he did, in fact, consult a doctor or vet, or is it just another of his "refutable "facts"

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    DM

    The what now?

    Yeh, good ol fashioned direct postal mail.

    I can no longer see, read or hear of John Key without feeling that the analysts of Crosby Textor are there in the room/car/office with me.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    perating government as if it’s a business whose sole purpose is to get done what it decides needs doing, instead of a government which is meant to do those things on behalf of the people it represents – not just those who voted for it

    As I said, not since ever has one government given so much to so few at the expense of so many.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to izogi,

    This is the type of control and lack of accountability that some of our less ethical company directors would dream of. There’s no effective accountability to the law and so no accountability to anyone.

    Hence the character of these Ministers and their staff becomes all the more important. A moral compass is not an optional extra.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    gets under your skins and drives you mad to the extent that resorting to vacuous abuse

    See thats a cheap shot, you are ascribing motives, thoughts and actions which you can know nothing about. It just suits you to see it that way. Getit!

    mull over a job well done and ring his mate Barrack

    Which job is that? screwing over a country?
    His mates in the barracks? OH MY...

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1881 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to James Littlewood*,

    Yeh, good ol fashioned direct postal mail.

    I get mail "from" John Key (he is, unfortunately, also my electorate MP since they redrew the boundaries of Helensville) while my husband, the lucky bugger, gets mail from the Green Party. Don't assume you can sway THIS middle-class mother with all your "family"-oriented keywords, John Key. I'm not as green as I am cabbage-looking.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Danielle,

    I’m not as green as I am cabbage-looking

    Watch out for boats, you don't want to bump into the banks...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Joe Wylie,

    They were all over the Dimpost for a while there. They start out expecting to gorge on the imagined low-hanging fruit Slater’s assured them was out there, before squealing foul and retiring in high victim mode. And yeah, they’re all hes.

    Russell, might be worth comparing IP addresses with Danyl.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Stewart, in reply to izogi,

    Nice post, sir.

    The one of yours above this one.

    One thousand recommends.

    Te Ika A Maui - Whakatane… • Since Oct 2008 • 577 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    Key denies that, with extra refutingness.

    la la la not listening ew! He talked about the length of his tongue! I can't unread that you know.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 580 posts Report Reply

  • Jake Starrow, in reply to izogi,

    Your counsel of perfection needs challenging somewhat Izogi. To postulate that a government must govern in the interests of all is based on a flawed perception. First and foremost, any government's primary responsibility is execute the promises it put forth and was elected upon.
    To try and also placate the wishes of those who were opposed to these promises is nigh on impossible.
    For example, If Key is re-elected and honours his pledge of no capital gains tax, he can't govern for all in that respect.
    Stating the obvious I know but this "governing for all" concept just ain't possible in so many aspects.

    Since Sep 2014 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • Trevor Nicholls, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    Stating the obvious I know but this "governing for all" concept just ain't possible in so many aspects.

    So you're a revolutionary now?

    Wellington, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    To postulate that a government must govern in the interests of all is based on a flawed perception.

    Bugger! There goes democracy as we'd hoped it might be.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1385 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.