Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You might find I'm the dissenter on a lot of things on this forum. My ideas are challenged, my facts are challenged, I'm good with that.
If you can't stand being told that expressing surprise at how the National party has acted in government is not quite as admirable a trait as owning up to the fact they did exactly what people who paid attention said they would, I'm not sure what to tell you. Do you want us to feel sorry for you that they made you vote Tory, so that you won't go on a walkabout sulk? Perhaps if you were one of the people on the receiving ends of those spending cuts I would be prepared to consider it. Otherwise, suck it up.
[ETA: mmmmh... okay. I was obviously responding to a different comment, since edited twice. I'm going to leave this one as is, eh?]
-
Well, what did you think that "cutting social spending" would mean? You thought they'd just hit the undeserving poor, somehow?
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
But if you’re still not sure what I meant, go ask Ian.
You know, I really, honestly would like to ask him. But let's not digress.
So, was I entitled to be surprised by the policy to remove funding for victims of sexual violence of not?
Sure, even though it seems a little hair-splittey. If that's the kind of thing you are basing your disappointment with National on, surely you would have known in advance of the election which party would be more likely to enact such legislation? The reason why National had to solemnly swear not to touch state assets or ACC was that... everybody naturally assumed that they would.
You can see how expressing surprise that a Tory party has reduced taxes to the rich and cut social spending is going to leave people a touch puzzled, yes?
(ETA: Sacha, snap! This is like some serious hivemind shit.)
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
not sure I want to become the second victim in two weeks of the circling wagons in any case
Tory sensibility hurt in aisle four. Quick, the violins!
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
But the actions, and I’m talking about in Social Welfare and Law Reform, were not consistent or entirely predictable, IMhO
Not sure about Law, but I am when it comes to Social Welfare. Not going to have my blog linked twice in two pages, but I researched this at the time of Bennett's Dream is Over speech and the policy was entirely consistent with everything that John Key had said since at least 2004.
-
I'm boarding up the windows, just to be on the safe side.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
A centrist voter will be, by definition, a pluralist voter who believes that both left-wing and right-wing parties have appropriate solutions to various social and economic problems, so it makes perfect sense to alternate them.
No, that's conservatism: alternating regularly between two parties as the way to ensure that there is no long term change - which is both comforting and protects your privilege.
A principled centrist on the other hand would have certain ideas about the balance between free market enterprise and social safety nets, and at different elections the policies of either party may be closer to that view, and they'll vote accordingly. So yes, they may switch parties (and change their mind a bit on what the best model is), but not on the grounds of "giving the other guys a crack".
(ETA: Matthew, snap.)
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
That's rather charitably put.
Welcome to my New Year's Resolution.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
Isn't that a completely reasonable thing for a centrist voter to do after one party has been in power for nine years?
Not really, seeing as Parliament isn't a school playground. It's reasonable only if the centrist thinks that the other party happens to have better policies. Otherwise it's just conservatism, which is not the same thing as centrism.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to George Darroch,
Giovanni has a fascinating examination of the relationship between ourselves and our objects, and the mediation of advertising. Slightly off topic
Hey - my writings are never off topic, dammit!
(Also: thank you.)