Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You wrote:
This morning's Stuff carries the expression "Christchurch state house boy made good" in a story about Key.They're not the only ones running this line, and I can't say I care for what it seems to imply; namely that those who grow up in such homes might be expected to be of diminished worth and capability, and also that those who lead a successful life after such a beginning are some sort of aberration.
I'm well aware of the dismal stories about multiple generations of state dependancy,but that's not the whole picture. I'm not often given to quoting George W Bush with approval, but this does smack of the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
Just off the top of my head I can think of a few of our readers who grew up in a Christchurch state house and who are leading lives of impressive accomplishment. Anyone who fits this description would be very welcome to offer their thoughts by hitting the Discuss button.
Well, I wasn't born and raised in a state house but certainly wasn't born with a canteen of silver cutlery in my mouth. Personally, I'm a damn slight less offended by a lame 'working class boy made good' headline than Michael Cullen calling John Key a "working class scab". FFS, Mike, have you looked at the CV's of your own caucus recently - or considered that a Christ's College old boy should be very careful about bitching anyone else as a class traitor?
-
I would vote for a down to earth Bill English any day...
Well, I keep hearing that, but then you hit the hard wall of reality that is the 2002 general election.
-
Gary:
With all due respect, I'm waiting for a 'social liberal' to explain to me what's so liberal about denying people like my (male) partner and I genuine, unconditional equality before the law by allowing us the option of entering into a civil marriage if we choose to do so. It's all very well for Helen Clark to say she'd have become a CUP-cake if she'd had that option back in the day, and more power to her. The simple fact remians she and Peter can dissolve their marriage and get civil unionised tomorrow if they so wish; their close friends Chris Carter and Peter Kaiser don't have the option of doing the reverse.
I don't know about you, Gary, but on any issue I prefer an honest enemy to a fairweather friend.
-
Paul Rowe wrote:
The National Party will have more success if it has a viable coalition partner on its right.Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if ACT got it's shit together and started acting like the 'party of personal responsibility' instead of blaming National for (gasp!) learning from experience in Wellington in '96 and '99, and not cluster-fucking its own candidate in Epsom in pursuit ofan entirely misguided 'electoral accomodation'. Kudos to Rodney for winning Epsom by the usual means of getting more votes than the other candidates. That's how it should be done, not backroom deals that voters have shown they don;t react well to.
I want to see ACT in the next Parliament as a strong, long-term partner in a center-right National-lead Government. The way that's going to happen is by dealing with its own internal divisions, rebuilding the membership and donor base, running a strong nationwide campaign based on good policy, and (dare I say it) not getting into ugly public pissing matches with your most likely coalition partner. (And to be fair, I think National's got to lift its game on the last point as well. Both National and ACT have to be clear on their points of difference, and well as what they are compatible on. You know, folks, like Labour and the Greens managed after the toxic waste sniping back in '02. That could have been hugely damaging to both parties if National was in any position to take advantage.)
-
Imagine if National had had to rely on Christian Heritage as a coalition partner!
Yes, Tom, and imagine if Helen Clark appinted as Foreign Affairs Minister a man she'd spent fifteen years codemning as an unprincipled and loathesome bigot who wasn't fit to be in Parliament, let alone a Minister of the Crown... Oh, that's right, you don't have to imagine. (She also seems to have quelled her loathing for the 'haters and wreckers' in the Maori Party and the 'extremist' Greens.)
And I don't think Christian Heritage are going to be in coalition with anyone, as I believe the party no longer exists.
The simple truth is, Tom, Helen Clark can count how many votes she requires for confidence and supply, while everything else is up for negotiation. The minor parties have to think very carefully how to maximise their influence, without over-playing their hand - something I think the Maori Party and Greens have done fairly well, while NZ First, ACT and United Future have made a bit of a hash of it. I don't see why it should be any different if National is the largest party in the next Parliament - I expect some hard negotiating to go on on all sides. And that's probably not a bad thing.
-
The recent polarisation of NZ politics is against the trend of the last 15 years -
Paul, to be quite honest I thought most of the hand-wringing about how 'polarised' the electorate had become at the last election was real put-rubber-sheets-on-the-bed stuff, which said more about the media than the electorate. FFS, we had a free, fair and peaceful election where the results where finely balanced between the center-left and the center-right. Enraged boozed Tories didn't torch the Wellington CBD, we determined our legislature at the ballot box not through the courts, and we weren't wondering which way the armed forces were going to jump.
We also have an MMP electoral system. I thought it was meant to deliver this kind of result as opposed to the 'elected dictatorship' of FPP where there was an effective Labour/National duopoly on power, and it was possible to effectively ram though your agenda on the most spurious of mandates, and with no real restraint.
-
I think so. But I also hope he can craft a National Party I can live with.
I don't know, Russell, because I think Labour will have looked at the ALP, the Republicans and the British Tories and realised this: centerist/swing voters are very reluctant to reward parties tagged (fairly or not) as dominated by in-fighting and disloyalty. While I'm no fan of Helen Clark, you've got to give her credit for dragging back together a badly divided party and imposing a pretty ferocious level of discipline that put it in a position to exploit an increasingly messy Government.
It's not a big ticket policy issue like Health or Education or Law & Order, but as our politics become more and more 'presidential' it is relevant. And if Labour are smart,they'll want to stick the next Nat leader (whoever he is) with the 'if Don couldn't trust him, why should you' tag hard and fast. And nobody is going to get a honeymoon from either the media, the party or the electorate at large if he (or she, let's not be sexist) doesn't build on National's current polling PDQ.
-
Bad news for Labour?
Actually, no. If the John Key Fan Club thinks his honeymoon with the media didn't end the moment Brash resigned, they're delusional - just ask Bill English. :) If Labour are smart, the crocodile tears for poor Don, stabbed in the arras by his own caucus, will be flowing thick and fast; the stadium mess doesn't turn into an even bigger farce than it already is; there's no more embarrasing stories about Maxine Field; and the Christmas silly season rolls around ASAP.
-
Well, that's a fair POV and one we can agree to disagree on. In the end, the only people who know for sure what decisions were behind the composition of yesterday's Waikato Times 'aint us. :)
But editorial news judgement is a funny thing. To take one example. I hope The Herald's coverage of local body elections next year is dramatically improved, in breadth and depth, over the last round which was... well, I'd say 'piss poor' but that's a grotesque libel on urine.
-
anjum wrote:
ok, how's this for media bias. last night's waikato times had not one word on nicky hagar, the effect of the injunction etc. NOT ONE WORD!! given this was their first edition after hagar's press conference, and given it was a very major news item, how do they justify that one?The Waikato Times cell of the VRWC have been discnnected from the Collective but I'll tell you as soon as I know.
I don't take the WT, but I can think of any number of reasons off the top of my head that don't involve a conspiracy theory.
1) The news editor disagreed with you that it was so 'very major'. The Waikato Times - and the other provincial and metropolitan dailies - haven't given the stadium controversy the same saturation coverage over the last two weeks as The Herald. 'Media bias'? Or a news judgement that exhaustive coverage of the issue isn't as relevant or interesting to readers in the Waikato as folks in Auckland.
2) Perhaps they're holding off on coverage, and planning to run (say) more extensive coverage when the book is finally available.
3) There was just other national news the editor decided was more relevant and/or interesting to a Waikato readership?
4) And, correct me if I'm wrong, but both the Herald and the DomPost - which both ran extensive coverage and commentary on Hagar's presser - are available in Hamilton? A good editor should have a 'news sense' about what the competitors are going to run. Unless you could put a local angle on it - or it's a slow news day and no front page worthy local stories are in the pipe - it's entirely legitimate (if debatable) news judgement to run with other stories.
For better or for worse, the Waikato Post is a provincial paper that is parochial in the best sense. Hard as it may be to believe, newspaper editors have to serve a readership that isn't entirely made up of political junkies like you and I.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 … 1235 Older→ First