Island Life: Let’s learn English, with John Key.
310 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
@Paul Williams - I think my reply to you the Key(nesian) thread may have been eaten by the interweb, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts on PPP's.
Thanks, I'm sorry the discussion didn't continue further - I'm anything but expert, I've just watched things here and seen the very mixed results. Hence, I'm still not sure why Key's saying PPPs will be beneficial to productivity. Any chance you could revive your views WH?
-
__"Buckley was a Goldwater republican if we must label him, and nothing could be further from a neo-con on that side of that particular pale.__
Correct. (And here’s a good blog on Goldwater, while I’m at it.)"I believe you'll find goldwater was a goldwater republican , (although which goldwater are we talking about? His views changed in later life as far as i can see.)
To clarify, Jeremy, my confirmation was aimed mostly at the point that Goldwater was not representive of a neo-con. (I was taking the first part, that Buckley was a Goldwater-style Republican, as read. I know little about Buckley.) Having said that, I don't know that I'd call someone a neo-con when they've stated that neo-cons over-estimate the power of the US abroard.
As for Goldwater changing his views in later life, he wouldn't be the only person to do that. Here's what the blog I linked to had to say on one change:
After retiring from the Senate, Goldwater came to regret his past belief that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the military, realizing that such a position was a hypocritical contradiction of his conservative beliefs. He wrote an op-ed piece entitled The Gay Ban: Just Plain Un-American, wherein he used quite familiar conservative rhetoric: "Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
That's one of the biggest problems I have with conservatives: They tend to like talking about how the government should be kept out of people's lives, but often then contradict this stance on certain "moral" issues. I wish a few more conservatives would change their minds as Goldwater did.
-
"That's one of the biggest problems I have with conservatives: They tend to like talking about how the government should be kept out of people's lives, but often then contradict this stance on certain "moral" issues. I wish a few more conservatives would change their minds as Goldwater did."
Sure , it almost makes tags of liberal and conservative meaningless. I
think we are well over due to move to an issues based political analysis and leave conservative and liberal to family first and the libertarians.Thanks for the article steve it was a good read. Buckley understood history and balance sheets although he was on record in saying he supported the war on cheneys false initial WOMD premise.
Sorry if I sounded overly combative......american political conservatism is just crazy given the political climate that that great country was set up in.
-
“a clear cut ethical problem”? You’ll be able to answer my question above then: Why is taping a conversation you’re involved in unethical? (And there's not much legal debate; it is, per se, perfectly legal..)
Oy... I don't covertly tape conversations with anyone -- and if I've got to explain why that's ethically problematic (as well as hellishly creepy), then you're never going to get it. Sorry.
And perhaps you've not spent any time in psychotherapy, but I have. Perhaps it would be fair game if I stood for Parliament, and secret tapes of my sessions ended up in Duncan Garner's in-box? What the difference -- it's just another conversation, and there's a public interest in knowing my mental state. Isn't there?
That's one of the biggest problems I have with conservatives: They tend to like talking about how the government should be kept out of people's lives, but often then contradict this stance on certain "moral" issues. I wish a few more conservatives would change their minds as Goldwater did.
And I find it amusing just how illiberal self-proclaimed liberals can be, when it comes to those who don't think look, think and behave like them. I guess it's very easy to be "tolerant" when you don't actually have to deal with people different from yourself.
-
Labour knew nothing about the s 59 repeal bill before the election.
Balderdash.
The Bill was a private members bill, introduced before the 2005 election. The crucial thing here is Labour had considered introducing its own anti-smacking legislation but got the jitters
At some point - we don't know when - Clark decided to make it a party vote issue for Labour.
Secret agenda??? Well, its a policy the party wanted to adopt, but wasn't prepared to say so up front.
There's better examples. The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council - a fairly significant consitutional change - wasn't signalled during the election campaign.
Nor was legalisation of prostitution, or the Civil Unions legislation.
Like the anti-smacking bill, those last two were private members bills which the Labour leadership decided to make a party issue.
In a slightly different category. paid parental leave wasn't Labour policy in 1999, either.
Neoconservative used to have another meaning, though: former liberal turned conservative;
I have problems with the whole term "neo-conservative". Conservatives shouldn't be 'neo' anything.
It's like a hip Young Nat. [and I say this as someone who is about as hip as the hokey cokey]
-
And perhaps you've not spent any time in psychotherapy, but I have. Perhaps it would be fair game if I stood for Parliament, and secret tapes of my sessions ended up in Duncan Garner's in-box?
Yes Craig. Politicians speaking to punters at their national party conference; you in a psychotherapy session. Same thing really.
-
Further to the US conservative movement discussion:
There's a very good piece in the Atlantic Monthly on McCain, and why he's more of a true conservative than those on the Levitican Wing of the Republican Party.
-
Nor was legalisation of prostitution, or the Civil Unions legislation.
Like the anti-smacking bill, those last two were private members bills which the Labour leadership decided to make a party issue.
Tim Barnett's prostitution private member's bill was a conscience vote, not a whipped vote, and passed only narrowly. It would not have done so had not several National MPs voted for it.
The civil unions legislation was not a private member's bill -- it was promoted as part of their ministerial responsibilities by Lianne Dalziel and David Benson Pope -- and it had been signalled in at least the last two Labour manifestos. Even Jenny Shipley effectively promised civil unions in a rash moment when she attended the Hero Parade as Prime Minister. The idea that the electorate was hoodwinked over it is nonsense. And the consistent polling support and subsequent failure of a petition to overturn the legislation equally suggests the public did not feel hoodwinked either.
-
Yes Craig. Politicians speaking to punters at their national party conference; you in a psychotherapy session. Same thing really.
Well, if you want to take Steve's rather bland statement at face value it is -- it's not called a "talking cure" for nothing. And surely if I stand for public office, my history of mental illness (which I've been fairly candid about) is fair game and any ethical/legal issues around a therapist leaking patient records would be trumped by the public interest?
In the end, guys, if you're happy living in a total surveillance society don't bitch when it ends up in places you don't like.
-
And surely if I stand for public office, my history of mental illness (which I've been fairly candid about) is fair game and any ethical/legal issues around a therapist leaking patient records would be trumped by the public interest?
I'm perfectly comfortable with politicians being recorded when they speak in public forums about what they intend to do with the country; I wouldn't be comfortable with Key's therapist divulging information about him. Some of us are still able, nay eager, to discriminate.
-
I'm perfectly comfortable with politicians being recorded when they speak in public forums about what they intend to do with the country;
And I'm perfectly uncomfortable with covert taping of anyone without their knowledge and consent. I can't find a link on Stuff, but I found it rather amusing to see Duncan Garner and Selwyn Manning quoted in the SST saying 1) Neither of them would covertly tape a politician themselves, but they're quite happy if others do it for them.
And this wasn't a public forum. No more than (since people keep bringing it up) Mike Williams being taped at a closed session at the Labour Party conference.
And here's a particularly creepy quote from Garner:
Can journalists have it both ways? Can they justify broadcasting secret tapes they would not have made themselves? "If I decided, 'No, this is unethical, I can't run this,' I'd find myself protecting Bill English, which is not my job, said Garner.
Well, I don't know about you but Garner seems to me to have opened an ethical can of worms himself. If Garner's ethics regarding covert taping of individuals without their knowledge and consent are entirely situational -- as opposed to mine, which I guess you could fairly call legalistic and absolute -- don't we have the right to know what they are, and who they do and don't apply to? If they don't "protect" Bill English, do they protect any other politician in any circumstance?
-
Oh, and would it be in the public interest to to take Garner out on the razzle and draw him out on his, shall we say, uninhibited views on his fellow hacks?
-
If Garner's ethics regarding covert taping of individuals without their knowledge and consent are entirely situational -- as opposed to mine, which I guess you could fairly call legalistic and absolute -- don't we have the right to know what they are, and who they do and don't apply to?
He's a political journalist, his job is to report the news. Is it newsworthy when the person who is most likely going to be our country's next treasurer states that his party is adopting the policies of its coiunterpart, on account of how popular they are and the fact that they work, but hopes to gradually move on to the ones it believes in once in power? You bet it is news. If he had spoken to Garner off the record about this, then Garner couldn't have reported it, but he didn't. Somebody passed it on to him. Any journalist in his position would have done the same. Think of Obama's 'clinging to guns and religion' comments of a few weeks back (uttered in another public forum), and you'll find that nobody on his side cried conspiracy or faulted the fact that there was a recording of what he said.
I'll go one step further: Don Brash's emails, part of a private conversation. Were they news? With bells on. How were they obtained? We don't know. Do I have a problem with a journalist using them? Nope, I'm bloody grateful in fact. The courts agreed that they were fair game and protected Hager's right not to divulge his sources.
-
He's a political journalist, his job is to report the news.
Giovanni: I find that rather ironic considering the amount of hot air expended around these parts decrying the media's idea of what constitutes "news".
-
As a man of principle, Craig, you'll recognise that the principled purpose of journalism has aways been "truth to power" - hence the media being considered part of democratic and civil arrangements.
One of the trade offs for seeking the power of government is an increased interest from media in your affairs. I agree that if the comments were made off record then they likely would never have been reported. I also think you can trust the ethics of therapists more than journalists.
Sure, our media are not performing that well right now, but that doesn't negate the principle, does it?
-
Giovanni: I find that rather ironic considering the amount of hot air expended around these parts decrying the media's idea of what constitutes "news".
So you're saying it ought to be Nicky Watson's tits and nothing else from now on?
I love how you always push the other side of whichever argument you're on to accept an all-or-nothing position, so that you're free to occupy the reasonable, nuanced middle. Except of course when it's your turn to bombast about the media's idea of what constitutes "news", or whatever your outrage du jour happens to be.
Personally, I see no contradiction between wishing that our broadcast and printed media made a better effort the keep out of the gutter, and patting them on the back when they happen to follow the job description.
-
In the end, guys, if you're happy living in a total surveillance society don't bitch when it ends up in places you don't like.
I suspect you will find that extremes on either side, left or right, would like to have as much surveillance as possible and would "calm" the populous with soothing phrases such as "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
So, it would seem to me that National have stuff to hide whereas Labour just floated some silly election method. I have no problem with either of them being recorded, secretly or otherwise.I think the public can only benefit from knowing what their politicians are saying whether it be publicly or privately. -
I found it rather amusing to see Duncan Garner and Selwyn Manning quoted in the SST saying 1) Neither of them would covertly tape a politician themselves, but they're quite happy if others do it for them.
Aha, so they outsourced it to some Syrian journalists then ...
-
And how come Hayden Jones now seems to be television's designated "tits" reporter after his scathing expose of the misunderstood Lisa Lewis the other night. The humanity.
-
What century do you guys live in?
Perhaps you should ask the LA police department what they think of a citizen recording an overzealous arrest in that citizen's community, or the Russian authority that bungled a terrorist confrontation in a Russian high school, or the US politician who spoke out of the side of his mouth in a television studio.Ask John Tamihere about the perils of talking to a journalist?
Please understand a reporter might be agreeable and in fact a friend at some level, to a politician, and they both should be capable of a relaxed conversation when they come across each other at airports, country halls or sporting functions. That does not mean he will turn a blind eye or deaf ear, or keep secrets from his editor, if relevant fact is presented.
In this case I do not see any law has been broken. It is not illegal, and in fact is common practice for both members of the public and party members to record conversations on policy with m.ps
It is increasingly commonplace for phone videos and recrders to catch snippets from speeches, announcements and answers to queries.
It is not against the law to record conversations, or take videos or photographs, and every politician should know he is seldom asked permission before members of the public press the button.
This should be self-evident, to generations raised since the Zapruder film of Kenedy's death entered the public record.
-
"It is not illegal, and in fact is common practice for both members of the public and party members to record conversations on policy with m.ps."
Yes, this isn't secret taping. That's right, we are talking about a politician talking politics...what is wrong with knowing how he answers political questions? why would that be a crime to tape?
Would a CEO of a company let a senior executive tell 2 different stories to him. He'd want clarity.
-
I wouldn't blog or publish anything he's said, because it's dishonest.
Agreed. If you have had a conversation with a person, politician or otherwise you should ask permission to publish the that conversation.
One of the good things about public figures in NZ is that they are generally very accessible and frank. It would be a shame if that were to change and that's why I don't like the way this information was obtained.
National's response, however, has been disgraceful. Their attempts to dress this up as "gutter politics" is a redefinition of that phrase. We should be very concerned at Wellington CC decision to hand over CCTV to a political party simply because someone has annoyed them.
Similarly, the request should never have been made, it comes across as bullying and authoritarian. Even to the extent of accusing Duncon Garnor and Guyon Espinar of lying about whether Key thought a Bill English coup was likely.
-
National's response, however, has been disgraceful. Their attempts to dress this up as "gutter politics" is a redefinition of that phrase.
Worked a treat on the Jane Clifton and the Listener editorial board, who rose as one.
-
This should be self-evident, to generations raised since the Zapruder film of Kenedy's death entered the public record.
Bruce: Abraham Zapruder handed the film over to the Secret Service investigation of Kennedy's assassination, and gave public testimony to the Warren Commission where he identified himself. He was one of around three dozen people who were phtographing or filming a motorcade in a public place. Don't really see the point of comparison here.
-
Would a CEO of a company let a senior executive tell 2 different stories to him. He'd want clarity
Jeremy: I'm seriously not trying to pick a fight here, but you'd really want to defend a employee covertly taping staff meetings? Really?
Yes, this isn't secret taping. That's right, we are talking about a politician talking politics...
And I'm going to keep calling bullshit on this. Of course what Debbie Does Dallas did was "secret taping", and while you obviously seem to think that's OK to pull on "politicians" -- but not for who? -- but you've not made the case.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.