Hard News: Relieving Ambiguity
58 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Maybe National should change its slogan to "vote for change! Elect the status quo!" ?
-
National's recent "policy" releases have not included any costings, but in essence they can be summarised as follows:
1. Keep what the government has done.
2. In some areas, do more.
This translates as:
1. Spend the same
2. ... and some more.
The absence of dollar numbers means, of course, that the Herald can leave these promises out of its "Porkometer". So we'll be getting all we have now, but for free.
(Finance spokesman Bill English was not available for comment).
-
"vote for change! Elect the status quo!"
Shades of the House Republicans' "rebranding" slogan, as revealed on the Daily Show recently: "The Change You Deserve". Erm, what?
-
The absence of dollar numbers means, of course, that the Herald can leave these promises out of its "Porkometer". So we'll be getting all we have now, but for free.
(Finance spokesman Bill English was not available for comment).
I'm excited already!
-
Maybe National should change its slogan to "vote for change! Elect the status quo!" ?
In light of the gnashing of teeth and anti-National discourse that flies around here, I find this opinion du jour very amusing.
Not such an issue if they get in is it?
Christ when did I start chanelling Craig?
-
Maybe National should change its slogan to "vote for change! Elect the status quo!" ?
Well it worked for Labor in Australia. It was Howard or Rudd but little significant difference in policies.
But seriously, National does seem to want to minimise the differences between itself and Labour and why not? Aside from all the ridiculously hyperbolic statements from the Nats, they'd do next to nothing significantly different other than ... well, I was going to say cut taxes but Cullen's done that too.
-
-- but it does not say it would do so at current levels. In the absence of such an assurance, a suspicious person might fear budget cuts.
I asked Coleman if he'd like to add the words "at current levels" and he agreed that he would.
Ah, just to be pedantic... agreeing you'd like to add those words is not the same as adding those words, or being allowed to add those words
So that's settled, then.
Unless John Key decides either his shadow minister was misquoted or doesnt know the actual policy? :)
-
Just to set the scene Kiwiblog are bagging the Judge for letting the bright kid go & work for the Police , while calling for a guy who broke a womens back to be left alone.
-
Finlayson has definitely been making encouraging noises. Those with plenty of free time should read his inaugural arts speech from last year:
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=10935
Of special interest: a kind of mea culpa about National failing to do enough for the arts in the 90s, and a concession that too much of the arts infrastructure goes towards supporting Auckland and Wellington and that the provinces are, by comparison, missing out. I imagine there's quite a few in Wellington feeling a little nervous.
One also gets the feeling, based on this speech, that he wouldn't have allowed NZ's contribution to the 2005 Venice Biennale to be handled as badly as it was -- that was a spectacular failure of nerve on the part of a supposedly arts-loving govt.
-
I asked Coleman if he'd like to add the words "at current levels" and he agreed that he would.
Sorry to reintroduce ambiguity but does that mean the current level is all Nat Rad (or TV) will be getting next year - and the year after - and the year after that? I mean costs go up, probably even faster than a CPI adjustment, so are we looking at a cut in real terms? Because that matters in broadcasting, and it matters even more in health.
-
Just to set the scene Kiwiblog are bagging the Judge for letting the bright kid go & work for the Police , while calling for a guy who broke a womens back to be left alone.
I noticed that. Some of the comments about Walker are sick too. That's an autistic 18 year-old you're talking about.
But that's the kind of site DPF chooses to run. Let him wallow in it.
-
Chris Finlayson ... is keeping everything: even the often-pilloried (but in reality, tightly-accounted and effective) PACE scheme.
I'm really glad to hear this. I was on the dole in 2002 - 2003 and spent the first year on the regular dole, which included compulsory attendance on the spirit-crushing, soul-destroying WorkTrack programme. It worked well getting the forklift operators a job, but didn't seem to know what to do with me.
In the second year, I moved to PACE and did a part-time, year-long course called New Space. Less about CV writing and more about geting over those personal obstacles. It helped me kick my own arse and led me to getting a job that I loved, which then led to getting another job that I love. Thanks, Work & Income!
And my fellow course attendees weren't waster/hippy/bludger types. They were all intelligent, talented people who knew they wanted to make a living from their art, but weren't quite sure how to go about it. The ones I've heard from have gone on to good things too.
I would even consider PACE to be a harder than going on the regular dole. I get the feeling that people on PACE might be on there for a while, but once they get off, they stay off. I'm glad National has recognised PACE's value.
-
And finally, I'm glad the judge presiding over Owen Walker's case -- and, indeed, the local police -- focused on demonstrable harm,
I'm very glad to see this. This young man is undoubtedly hugely talented and his abilities need to be used in a constructive way.
-
But that's the kind of site DPF chooses to run. Let him wallow in it.
I don't know about that, he simply shrugs his sholders and pretends he's got no responsibility for the comments... I reckon you are personally responsible for the company you keep (and more so for the company you encourage).
-
DPF,
Shep's comments are somewhat misleading. I certainly disagree with Russell that a discharge without conviction was appropriate. This should be used for extremely minor offences and I think the sad message sent by the Judge is cyber crime isn't real crime.
However on Tony Veitch, I have never ever called for Veitch to be left alone. In fact quite the opposite - I called from the beginning for the Police to be involved. I think what he did is horrific and that he can't work in broadcasting again.
As with all issues on Kiwiblog, commenters have a variety of views on the issue. But I would say it is a small minority who say Veitch should be left alone.
It would be useful if people differentiate between what Kiwiblog says (which most would take as a reference to what I say) and what Kiwiblog commenters say.
-
As with all issues on Kiwiblog, commenters have a variety of views on the issue.
"Helen Clark should be shot!"
"Impaled!"
"Boiled in oil!"
"All three!"
"No, just voted out of office ..."
"You bloody lefty!!"
-
Just to set the scene Kiwiblog are bagging the Judge for letting the bright kid go & work for the Police , while calling for a guy who broke a womens back to be left alone.
To be fair, only a few are calling for Veitch to be left alone, the majority of the commenters have been just as vehement as here in their condemnation.
-
To be fair, only a few are calling for Veitch to be left alone, the majority of the commenters have been just as vehement as here in their condemnation.
True, but as Shep pointed out, some of the people who made fairly obscene comments about Veitch (or, more precisely, his victim) are the same ones piling in on the autistic 18 year-old. There's some fucked-up shit there.
-
A National-led government would not have an opinion on the matter.
So basically, it would be up to the management to decide how they want to run things. For me that's the problem with the SOE model, at its worst. TVNZ isn't owned by its managers. It's owned by the taxpayer and a responsible government *has* to take a view on how it's run.
If they sold it to Murdoch or O'Reilly, at least the taxpayer would get some money. Just dropping it is like gifting a billion dollar (guess) company to the people who happen to have been hired to run it. Nice work if you can get it, eh!
-
the same ones piling in on the autistic 18 year-old.
I guess for many of these people (DPF's commentors) a computer is their only friend in the world - so they get pretty upset about one being "violated".
-
DPF,
Simon G: :-)
-
DPF's mob have built the disbanding of the Serious Fraud Office into their standard paranoia model of political interpretation -
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/07/dissenting_views.html -
So I am REALLY looking forward how they digest this...
-
It would be useful if people differentiate between what Kiwiblog says (which most would take as a reference to what I say) and what Kiwiblog commenters say.
David, generally you take a predictably moderate position on many issues but, somehow, many of your commenters are extreme, abusive and intolerant (left and right). I wonder how you've ended up in this odd position, do you have a view? You've certainly got lots of traffic, so you can't read/edit everything, but do you not worry that many of your threads degenerate at a remarkable rate?
-
DPF's mob have built the disbanding of the Serious Fraud Office into their standard paranoia model of political interpretation -
So I am REALLY looking forward how they digest this...
Oh come one. That is really unfair The former member of the DHB is a friend of the former minister. What is the point of having friends if it doesn't work for you when you need it..
-
I certainly disagree with Russell that a discharge without conviction was appropriate. This should be used for extremely minor offences and I think the sad message sent by the Judge is cyber crime isn't real crime.
Is $10k worth of damage "real crime"? I'd be amazed if there aren't people out there who have done rather more and still been handed a DWC. He has to pay for the damage, and he has to pay costs with a minimum repayment rate. It's not like he "got away with it" in any sense of the phrase, because he's being punished financially. He'll also be a "person of interest" to the Police for a long time to come.
Assuming he stays on the straight-and-narrow, which I'd say is likely, he'll probably turn into a very valuable IT security asset. A conviction would make working for the Police an impossibility, and in any kind of national security role very, very difficult (though there's a bit more leeway to grant security clearances than the Police have to ignore convictions). He'd be unable to travel to security conferences, instead being pretty much limited to never leaving NZ. How does that benefit anyone? Sure it sends a message, but at what detriment to future IT security?
The judge had to make a call on balancing the message sent by a DWC against the potential for great loss to IT security. Punishments handed down by the courts for relatively insignificant crimes aren't meant to turn into a lifetime sentence that has detrimental effects on wider society, but that's what you appear to be demanding.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.