Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to George Darroch,
Labour’s leftness seems to be one of those working assumptions. It’s easy to find evidence that they are. Yet it’s also easy to find evidence against,
Just look at one of the more 'Left' policies they came out with in their fairly desperate race to get some electoral traction prior to the election: Capital Gains Tax. A 15% CGT is squarely centrist.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
You happened to pick that moment when the subject was also a very topical matter.
Yes, that’s usually the time I try to pick.
That's the spirit!
I’m curious what you think is brave about my writing? Is it brave because I take personal risks that are just foolish on the internet, or because I fight quite hard against peer pressure and write about controversial things, risking to seem a fool in this forum? Or something else?
The second, more or less. You seem relaxed about stating your opinion even when it will obviously go against the grain somewhat.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to rjal,
Steve, I think you’re being a bit unfair to Damian there. My take on that comment was that it was about the Left and Right in the parliamentary and electoral context, as framed by the blog post and following discussion. It’s possible to have a discussion about media bias within that context without question begging,
The conversation around media bias grew out of the discussion following the blog post, sure. But Gio specifically noted the bias as the favouring of “the right-wing approach to politics”, not just favouring the National Party. And he explained it as a wider systemic issue, rather than the collection of individual journo’s biases. The person who brought up the issue of media bias, Andrew E, agreed. So there’s that context as well. One of Damian’s counters was that Labour had been reasonably treated by the same media. In that context, it’s not goal-post shifting to raise the issue of how left Labour really is, because that’s obviously relevant to the matter of whether the media (yes, here in NZ) are favourably disposed to the right-wing approach to politics. If you respond to that point by claiming that Labour are 'left' in an NZ context, it becomes question begging. You’re defending against the accusation that media are biased against the left by defining them as having favourably covered a ‘left’ party.
I think Russell was refering to Giovanni’s comments to Damian later on in the disscussion when referring to baiting.
Possibly. A number of similar comments were made. I think I was getting the term ‘fight baiting’ from the ‘fight chasing arsehole’ comment Emma Hart made.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Danyl coming in and being dickish by PAS standards, on the subject of, IIRC, the value of an Arts degree.
I missed that one, but I have thought on other occasions Danyl could be a bit “dickish” or seem to be deliberately trying to go against the grain in a somewhat contrived way.
I think moderating on the basis of arguing in good faith is a better aim than avoiding dickishness in general. There may still be borderline calls, but it’s a more specific criteria. But it wouldn't always be easy. What do you do with the person who usually comments in good faith, but occasionally lets their contrariness get the better of them? Russell and co here seem to be pretty generous, in that they rarely resort to baning or deleting. Moderating this type of forum as to allow for maximum freedom of expression, even of very controversial ideas, while making sure that it doesn't become like Kiwiblog, must be quite the balancing act.
I'd invite people to reflect upon times that they have felt unable to say something on PAS that seemed quite reasonable to them, and what that felt like. For myself, the worst case was around the time of the referendum about smacking, in which I suggested that it was a very bad idea to ignore something felt so strongly by the population, even if the population is actually wrong. Essentially, I was placing democracy over my personal morality (which is that smacking is the wrong thing to do). But I felt vilified for saying this, conflated with saying smacking was OK, and generally made to feel like an arsehole.
I remember that a little, and was one of those arguing against you. I didn't realise you actually left the forum for a while because of that. The way I look at it is that there may be occasions where one says something that happens to be disagreed with by the vast majority of those who regularly post here. You happened to pick that moment when the subject was also a very topical matter. The likes of DCB Cauchi post some pretty unorthodox views sometimes, but they tend to be somewhat digressive, so it doesn't get picked up on in the same way by the majority of the more regular contributors.
I find you to be one of the bravest posters here - do you still self-censor?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to giovanni tiso,
That said, I'm sorry if I was needlessly difficult. And if I didn't get my point across, which is a problem I've had on PAS for at least a year, to my constant regret and occasional puzzlement.
Having just caught up with this whole thread, I tend to agree with George Darroch, and I am a bit surprised at some of the harsher criticism directed your way (such as that comment from Emma Hart). If you have a fault, in general, when arguing about politics, it might be that you can seem a bit grouchy (for lack of a better word). I understand what you say about the need to be difficult sometimes, to challenge the boundries etc, but the downside is that it can make the people you're arguing with defensive. Usually, as Russell says, that is unproductive, and may contribute to not getting your point across. That said, you've done nothing here to warrant 'fight baiting', that I can see. To me, 'fight baiting' would better apply to some of Tom Semmens recent comments.
I also note that the salient example of Gio's supposed dickishness is his comment to Damian about being middle class. Yet Damian indicated more than once that that wasn't what bothered him; it was the tone in the lead-up. I can’t see anything wrong with the tone or content of the lead-up.
The context of this exchange between the two was about the matter of putative media bias towards the Right. Giovanni, perfectly civilly, explained to Damian that it wasn’t some nefarious newsroom conspiracy, but a structural issue within society (a la Chomsky) that favoured the Right. Rich chimed in with a comment basically supporting Gio’s view.
Damian responded to that with a comment that included...
I’m not trying to be glib, but it is worth pointing out that Labour ran the country for 9 years until quite recently, and that the media hasn’t changed a lot in that time. So it’s not that stacked against the left.
... clearly still referring to the issue of media and bias. Gio pointed out that Damian is relying on an assumption that Labour are squarely “Left”. Therefore the media are not biased against the Left, because Labour have got a fair deal from them over time. This assumption is crucial to the effectiveness of Damian’s counterargument about media bias, so it’s perfectly reasonable and relevant to point it out.
The alternative theory is that Labour aren’t really all that Left, so it’s no surprise that they get fair coverage from the media, regardless of the bias. It’s not shifting the goal-posts or fight-baiting to suggest this point. (And in light of that, to respond that you just meant Labour are Left in a New Zealand context compared to National is begging the question.)
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Tom Semmens,
...the Greens could easily find themselves frantically scratching around for 5% again in 2014.
I don’t see why Labour would want that, though. You don’t seriously think Labour have any chance of governing in three years without the Greens, do you? Surely the last thing Labour want is for the Greens to get 4.9%.
Labour would be insane to openly concede a chunk of it’s vote to the Greens on the back of one average result for the Greens.
I’m not sure “openly concede” was what anyone was meaning. But certainly getting back votes from the Greens should be a very low priority. As Ben said, it’s coalition neutral. In practice, a vote for Greens is a vote for a Labour led government.
The sort of angst ridden delusional thinking of Green supporters “it’s not fair, Labour are such meanies and bullies to us wah wah wah” – cry me a river – comes across as coming from a party made of whinging middle class soft cocks who have grown up expecting everything to be done for them. All the resentful whining in the world about being owed a living by Labour ...
Yikes. This sounds dreadful. Could you point me to all this angst ridden delusional whinging by resentful Green-supporting middle class soft cocks?
I guess I missed it.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
As I said earlier, Labour don’t have to do anything in particular to get back most of the vote they lost to NZ First; it will just come back naturally if Labour improve their overall performance as opposition.
And I’ll keep saying any political party that thinks voters are just going to wake up and come to Jesus deserve whatever electoral oblivion they get. :)
I'm not suggesting complacency. Being an effective opposition requires hard work, and is an important role (as you have said yourself). If Labour do perform this function much better this term, then most of the votes they lost to NZ First this election will go back to Labour.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Kracklite,
I don't much disagree with what you said there, Kracklite. My point is more that Labour's strategy for getting whatever votes it did lose to NZF back is a simple one: be a better opposition party.
Labour's priority should be to focus on those who, in principle, broadly supported many of their policies, but didn't vote for them anyway. That's the salient problem. Second is to get those 'centrist' voters who should support their policies, but don't, to see why they should change their position.
Getting left voters to change from Greens to Labour is not that important, because if Labour are to govern in three years it will in coalition with the Greens anyway. That is, Labour shouldn't prioritise focusing on the distribution of left-party votes, so much as on getting more votes to the left.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Christopher Nimmo,
So I just heard Shane Jones on the radio describing the Greens as a “virus” and saying that they needed to get back people from the Greens and NZ First before trying to get back National voters…
Yeah, and lobing insults at the Greens is the way to get those who voted Green back to Labour!
As I said earlier, Labour don’t have to do anything in particular to get back most of the vote they lost to NZ First; it will just come back naturally if Labour improve their overall performance as opposition.
As for targeting Greens as a priority over getting back centrist voters who went National? Bizarre. Mind you, this is the same MP who thought it was a good idea to accept an invite to Destiny Church, so his judgment is questionable.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to HenryB,
I think Bart was referring to 3 News' Firstline programme.