Posts by HenryB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Calling the race before it's over, in reply to Barnard,
That seems to be driven far more by a desire to get it sorted once and for all,
But isn't that a sort of bullying?
I don't get it: Cunliffe has said Shearer will get his vote if there is vote on the issue of leadership in the next couple of weeks. Between his comments at the Conference and this morning he clearly must have done the math - as it said - and guaged his chances as low.
Quite rightly, when asked about next February's vote, Cunliffe says he doesn't know. I would have hoped all intelligent MPs would have said the same. If the February vote is to mean anything then it is a time for the leadership issue to be addressed again afresh.
For me, this hasn't been about Shearer versus Cunliffe. It has been about Shearer versus Key. And, until the Conference speech, Shearer had done nothing to convince me that he was winning the contest of getting a Labour view across in any context - let alone on the floor of debating chamber. The conference speech showed that in certain contexts he can and the speech was, for me, good to hear. But will this new found voice translate into more agonistic contexts?
Of course, Shearer could demote Cunliffe for not saying now how he'd vote next February. That's his privilege. But trying to discpline and not just demote a caucus member, something that Chris Hipkins seems to be implying, for exercising his rights would be really worrying.
As far as the media are concerned, it really has been a truly confusing picture that has emerged - and I share the regret of many that so much of substance has been ignored in pursuit of a horse race story.
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Jolisa,
And then when PA System came along, the discussions became broader and noisier and funnier and more controversial and social and different and exciting and always educational. So much discussion!
Noisy, funny, controversial, social, different, exciting, educational - says it all and says it for me. Congratulations RB and all.
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to Ross Mason,
The other element of the Parata zero sum equation should be taken with a grain of salt too. As Professor John O'Neill has pointed out in a very interesting letter to the Minister, Hattie himself says that "All the meta-analyses on the relation of the quality of teaching to learning come from student ratings of teachers by college and university students" (Visible learning pg. 115, my empases).
I would have to admit that, as a long time teacher of first year classes in a tertiary setting, whether there were 150 students or 120 in my class didn't make a huge difference to student achievement in those classes but I would never have thought anyone would think to extend the logic of that to teaching in primary and secondary schools.
-
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Fooman,
Inclusion of SOE’s
Does that mean that the SOEs have been making a significant contribution to the growth in NZ's GDP whilst core-govt expenditure has stayed static?
-
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I don't see how a `zero' budget with an increased GDP adds up to a government that is "the biggest it has ever been...as a share of the economy"
-
The $18,000 from 1978 becomes $122,500 in 2012 wages.
If we go use 1978 Q1 and compare with 2012 Q1 it comes out at $131,500
-
It is hard to imagine what it must be like to have this happen - especially at this time.
-
Re-reading Keith's post:
Let’s face it, if Cunliffe didn’t offer his supporters portfolios and positions, there wouldn’t even be a contest.
This is what I don't get. There IS no contest: from the point of view of somebody outside the beltway Cunliffe is a far better communicator of Labour's message than Shearer. And, frankly, Shearer doesn't communicate anything much at all.
Keith asks, rhetoricaly:
On election night, when Parker and Shearer quietly joined the grim gathering at Mt Albert, Cunliffe sent an advance fluffing party to the event. They loittered by the carpark, and when Cunliffe arrived, they – on cue – adoringly mobbed his car to create a set-piece for the gathered journalists.
There are a few questions that arise. The first and most salient is: Who the fuck *does* that? When Labour talks about re-engaging with New Zealand, is *this* what this mean? When Cunliffe’s supporters talk about him being a great communicator and a master of ”modern direct engagement methods”, is this what they mean?
Well, No. What they might mean - and I am not a `supporter' - is that he knows what he wants to say (what needs to be said) and says it. The only `fluffing' I have seen is Shearer's own efforts to try and articulate any kind of idea of what `Labour' actually means.
I suppose I will be told that it is early days. Well, I certainly hope so because it couldn't get much worse than it is.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to 3410,
vastly underwhelmed by Shearer’s communication ability so far.
Couldn't agree more. He has always struck me as a decent person but he just does not have any talent for communicating - and I am not even sure he has all that much to communicate. As you say, one would think that a thoughtful Christmas message would be within the grasp of most - but his was about as basic as it gets.
I watched the University of Otago `Vote Chats' of Shearer and Cunliffe for the first time last night. In spite of what Keith said in his post that set all this off, I don't get it: Cunliffe would have got my vote on this.
-
Dip
- to go with `Cracker'