Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
BTW when it comes to 'shouting down' opposition in the House, could Madame Speaker try consistently enforcing the concept that interjections while a member is on their feet should be rare, reasonable and (if you're really lucky) witty? I know there are times when the Chamber would be emptied within minutes, but I'd not so sure I'm seeing the downside of that.
-
The cry from the right on the EFB has been, mainly, on the basis of the belief that the bill reduces the right of free speech but the tactics of the right, including the actions of National in the house is to shout down any opposition to their wants, the fascicle protest at parliament was a case in point.
Um, care to expand on that a little? Really about as unconvincing as the GOP dog-whistling (to use TomS's favourite phrase) that Democrats are being 'obscructive' on the rare occasions they actually get their spines out of hock and oppose something.
And how does a lawful protest - and please spare me the size queen ballocks - "shout down" opposition or in any way impede the legislative process? Sorry, but I think there are a few folks on both the left and the right who need to wrap their heads around the notions that reading or hearing or seeing something they disagree with isn't embryonic fascism or proof of a conspiracy.
-
Thats politics, isn't it?
Well, Tom, if that's just the way of the world what the frak are you whinging about? Oh, that's right... it's only bad when the other side do it.
-
FORMER Prime Minister, as opposed to CURRENT National Party activist. Anyway, it turns on the relevance and when you have the chief on-line dog whistler of the National Party being presented as an independent commentator that should bother most people.
Thanks for proving my point, Tom. Here's a wacky notion, but folks like you and The Standard (and your wing-nutty brethren on the rabid right) might be a little more effective if you lowered the volume, and weren't quite so apocalyptic all the freaking time.
-
hmmm, what does that tell us about the TVNZ newsroom -
That they also don't feel the need to remind people that Sir Geoffrey Palmer is a former Labour Party leader and Prime Minister every time he's interviewed or cited as a legal academic, president of the Law Commission or named partner in ChenPalmer?
Seriously, Tom, I guess it's kind of flattering to have an obsessive cyber-stalker or two who thinks you're Darth Rove's padiwan learner... or something. But I stand by my initial comment: DPF and Tane (in particular) really need to get a room, or a paddling pool filled with chocolate pudding and work out their issues. Because this constant blog-bitching is neither insightful, informative or even particularly entertaining.
-
The Standard. Pfft - at least David Farrar is a lickspittle for an opposition party and can thus reasonably be said to be performing some kind of public good in holding those in power to account. Is there anything more wretched and pathetic than being a sock-puppet and apologist for a sitting government?
Well, more to the point Danyl if you don't know who David Farrar is, where he's coming from politically and precisely what his party political affiliations and history are you're functionally illiterate. And ditto for explicitly Labour-affiliated bloggers like Jordan Carter and Tony Milne.
Anyone who wants to be a partisan hack is quite welcome to do so. You're not going to keep my attention for long, but I doubt you care. Just BE HONEST ABOUT IT - especially when you're prone to accusing other of being lying, hypocritical partisan sock puppets.
-
After all the shouting on both sides, Vernon Small's column on the EFB saga is a more sober read.
And I found this particularly interesting:
There is a high probability that a commission – but probably not a jury of the people – would call for comprehensive state funding of political parties to level the playing field between parties advocating for the wealthy and those advocating for the worst off.
That is ultimately what Labour and the Greens want. It was Labour's first intention when the bill was mooted.
Right... so the Hollow Men and Women of the Left don't want to have an open and honest argument about state funding of political parties? And they don't see to want to cut off their supply of anonymous cash either... because it sure seems to me that if you really believe anonymity is a corruption of democracy, then you can't turn around and seriously argue being a little bit corrupt is OK.
-
The Standard, inevitably, gets the needle on over the rather small size of the protest...
Gee, that's a wee bit Freudian Russell. :) Then again, I can't be the only one wondering if The Standard chaps and Mr Farrar should get a room, because the mutual obsession is getting a little freaky and clammy for my taste.
-
As do I. But I'm not holding my breath. National seems to have raised bad faith to an art form on this issue.
Yeah, like Labour's spectacluar 'bad faith' in the 90's regarding the Employment Contracts Act. AFAIK, it was a central plank of their industrial relations policy that the ECA was so fundamentally flawed and obnoxious that it couldn't be mitigated, but would be repealed and replaced with better law when it regained the Treasury benches.
I heard on the 5pm news on RNZ that the plan is to get all the parties' general secretaries together to talk about how the law is intended to be interpreted, so that everyone has the same understanding, and some input into that understanding. That sounds like a good idea to me, I hope particular parties won't boycott that process just to grandstand.
Actually, Margaret, I'd rather have some confidence that any such 'understanding' wouldn't go out the window as soon as parties figured out how to bend any legislation to breaking point. And I'm not sorry for being that pessimistic, because we're just got to look at the spectacular bad faith on display during the pledge card fiasco, as well as the total lack of accountability.
-
Like Steven we (the Greens - I'm a member) want to see the cap for anonymous donations brought down further - we reckon $1,000 is about right.
Serious question, Kath - if you're serious about the notion that anonymous donations are subversive of democracy, why allow them at alll?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 … 1235 Older→ First