Speaker: Remembering the Chartists
269 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
That's part of the non-corporate "other stuff". However, our understanding of governance comes from both government and corporate examples.
-
Those are just street collectors, Steven. That's the charitable Non-Government Organisation model.
The real "corporate" stuff comes with the area of sponsorship, which some other NGOs use and Greenpeace notably doesn't. Not saying other aspects of their management aren't corporatised.
-
This is why I now NEVER support Greenpeace -
-
Word, steven...
-
Word, steven...
Aye.always thought ugliness reveals itself. In Nz ,it seems so easy to be good, no need for ugliness so it can and should be called on always.Keep up the good work and they can go shovel their own again.National is National is, we don't need no stinkin' .....
-
Ministers are supposed to provide democratic accountability and to work with the appropriate specialists, trained to couch advice in terms a non-specialist can understand.
There's actually a reasonable correlation between a Minister having (often limited) specialist expertise and being a disaster as a result of second guessing the professionals. See Major Winston Churchill's career as First Lord of the Admiralty, for instance.
Of course, it's also a problem when the Minister is too much of a moron to take or indeed understand professional advice, like certain current Cabinet members.
-
Guess Key heard someone. Seems to be modus operandi now.
-
Guess Key heard someone. Seems to be modus operandi now.
It was either that or take on the Number Three I guess. And we all know what fanatics the Three's are.
-
It was either that or take on the Number Three I guess. And we all know what fanatics the Three's are.
Needed his photo in the Herald? (as ya do):)
-
Craig, enough with the apologist attitude already. Castle-Hughes wasn't standing up in a public meeting and shouting at Key, she made a measured comment in the media, attempting to engage the political process as is the absolute right of every citizen, and got a response that sums up as "Shut up and go away." Viewed less charitably, it could even have been taken as "Go away, little girl, and leave the grown-ups to their conversation."
The only time it's marginally acceptable for a politician to say such a thing is when they have someone literally screaming in their face. It's very distinctly unacceptable, and unpalatable, when it comes from the head of the democratic system and is aimed at someone who's making quiet, if uncomfortable, noises about the actions and attitudes of the government.
-
There's a media adviser somewhere who either wasn't listened to or didn't do a very good job. A response along the lines of "We're happy to hear from all New Zealanders about such an important issue, including Keisha..." would have pushed it away.
In actual fact the government seems to have made their decision weeks ago, but good on Greenpeace for trying to push them along.
-
Kong,
The only time it's marginally acceptable for a politician to say such a thing is when they have someone literally screaming in their face. It's very distinctly unacceptable, and unpalatable, when it comes from the head of the democratic system and is aimed at someone who's making quiet, if uncomfortable, noises about the actions and attitudes of the government.
Now there's a dog whistle that only barely crosses my spectrum. Politicians say crap like that 100 times a day. The only thing that's unusual about this time is the person he said it to is a young girl who is a cherished darling of NZ culture. Possibly not with his core constituency though.
But unfortunately for her, she decided to wax political, and can expect this kind of thing more frequently.
But Key could have shown more class. Helen Clark would have got some attack dog minister to do it for her. He is still a bit green.
-
Politicians say crap like that 100 times a day.
Not quite so blatantly and publicly they don't. And whether or not they do is irrelevant as to its acceptability. Any politician who thinks that "Shut up and go away" is a reasonable response to a reasonably-stated position needs a healthy dose of clue-by-four.
-
Kong,
I'm sure they all need it then.
He did not say "Shut up and go away". He said she should stick to acting. Which is probably true, if she can't take that politics is rough. But I doubt Keisha is anywhere near as hurt as everyone else is on her behalf. If so then she really should stick to acting. Personally I give her more credit.
-
You need to look at the timeline a little better. His "stick to your acting" comment was the response to her questioning National's climate change stance. Which is exactly the same as "Shut up and go away". It wasn't said in response to her suggesting that he hadn't treated her very nicely, in which case it would've been a rather more appropriate response.
Yes politics is an unpleasant business, but that doesn't mean the PM has carte blanche to tell citizens that they shouldn't try and engage with the process.
-
Kong,
Which is exactly the same as "Shut up and go away".
If that's what you hear, then there's no discussion to be had here. I don't hear it that way. I hear a reasonably fair call that Keisha has no particular credentials to be demanding the time of the Prime Minister, or fronting a highly technical debate. I would expect the same response to just about any layperson asking a public question of the Prime Minister. And I have heard the exact same sentiment hundreds of times here directed AT the Prime Minister, that his background represents no special credentials to lead NZ. It's a standard tactic in debate, attack the person and their credentials. In fact, so far as I can tell, it seems to be the number one tactic in just about all debate. I don't personally like to use it much, but I also don't win many debates.
-
I would expect the same response to just about any layperson asking a public question of the Prime Minister.
I have a problem with that. As a citizen I always reserve the right to question my PM publicly.
-
Kong,
The right to question is not the same as the right to be heard.
-
That the best thing Key could do was challenge her for even speaking tells you all you need to know about the weakness of the argument he was avoiding.
-
The right to question is not the same as the right to be heard.
I don't mind if Key says he thinks she's talking rubbish, or even if he chooses not to respond.
The PM telling people they shouldn't express their opinions, that's not good.
-
Kong,
I don't mind if Key says he thinks she's talking rubbish, or even if he chooses not to respond.
Seems to me that's pretty much what he thinks and he did. Not in so many words. He underestimated the power of celebrity, though. In that way he was foolish, like I said, he would have been better to have got a flunky to talk to her in some forgotten back room, and responded with the much more acceptable "Thanks for your input, it will be given heavy consideration in our policy discussions". Which, if I can equivocate like many others here, is the canny politicians way of saying "Fuck off, and don't come back". I actually like the slightly more honest dismissal.
-
Seems to me that's pretty much what he thinks and he did. Not in so many words.
No he didn't. He responded by telling her not to get involved in politics. I'm not sure why he thought it was OK to tell a citizen they shouldn't get involved.
-
Kong,
He responded by telling her not to get involved in politics.
Which is a polite way of saying "I think you're talking crap and I don't want to respond". It's not like he said that he was going to use his position as head of Intelligence to make sure she never worked in politics again.
It's rather like telling a crap karaoke performer not to give up their day job. It doesn't mean anything more sinister than "Your singing is crap".
-
From a recent column of Jim Hopkins
So three cheers for First Class Chris - the smarter Carter. Good on ya, Phil Heatley - more plumb landlord than slum landlord. And hats off to Blinglish, the Dipton dipper. You've shown us the way. You're putting us on the realpolitik map.
You're proving again what years of Treaty settlements and last month's DPB row should have already made abundantly clear. Given the chance to pocket some dosh, everyone responds in an entirely rational manner. They find a way to trouser it.
Think that he has missed the element that MP's define to some extent their own rules and can increase the opportunities of adding to their allowances, not many other groups can.
A review of MP allowances will probably result in them saying its all okay, plus review due anyway - the salary and allowances determination expired on 30 June 2009.
Perhaps they could follow the principles in the current rules (from link posted by DPF in another thread). The Speaker defines which address is the primary residence and whips can say to the MP that claims are getting excessive.
-
if she can't take that politics is rough.
Hey kong, get stuffed mate. If citizens want to express a reasoned opinion on something that does not suddenly turn them into a politician to be bullied and denigrated by our elected representatives.
You seem to forget, MPs and PMs have been elected to represent *all* of us, not simply those agree with them.
We deserve and should get respect from the PM down (and to be fair, we usually do get that).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.