Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A cross-post there, obviously!
-
Perhaps if they all wore something yellow, so the rest of us can know who "they" are. Not racist, just, you know, to be on the safe side. You can't be too careful nowadays.
-
Congrats to Russell and the team.
The Herald website's report on Simon Collins' protest was so priceless I had to save it and share:
Media protest at Qantas Awards
May 19, 2007
By Simon CollinsJournalists protesting about contracting-out plans at newspapers and magazines owned by APN took to the stage at the Qantas Media Awards in Wellington last night.
Union delegate Simon Collins, winner of the investigative reporting award, was joined by four colleagues, unfurling a banner and calling for the Herald publisher to halt its outsourcing of subediting jobs to Australian company PageMasters.
The byline has now been changed to NZPA. I don't know if the original attribution was an error, but I just love the idea of a one-man reporter, protester and award-winner all included in a two sentence story!
-
For the record, Copeland's press conference yesterday, audio on Scoop:
Each of us in United Future have had the privilege, unlike those in the Labour party and, after the compromise, in the National party, of actually being able to follow our conscience.
So naturally he left.
(He might have said many wise and wonderful things thereafter, but listening to 5 minutes of a Copeland press conference was enough for one day, sorry. Scoop has it in full, if you're even sadder than I am).
-
Graeme
True. Neither position is absurd, alone. But together they are.
Copeland's stated reason for leaving UF is this "principle".
He is forming a new (old) party, joining Baldock, the referendum campaigner, who works with the likes of Family First. Here's their position (just one example of many):
Media Release: 03-05-07 Family First Calls for Clark and Key to Allow Conscience Vote on Bill
If Copeland wants to fight the bill, that's fine. But to say that he is resigning on PRINCIPLE is false.
Alternatively, his principle is the precise opposite of his new supporters and/or party members.
-
So Copeland is arguing AGAINST a conscience vote.
But the opponents of the bill have been arguing FOR a conscience vote, in the belief (probably correct) that it would not have had the numbers, pre-Key/Clark compromise.
Copeland's position is absurd.
-
Before Copeland slides from 'obscurity to oblivion' (credit John Armstrong, Herald) it's worth noting why he actually left his party. This has been largely lost in the media coverage, which has focused on the government's numbers in the House. But according to Martin Kay in today's Dom-Post:
"Mr Copeland said he had been uneasy for six months about United Future's decision to allow a conscience vote on the [Bradford] bill ..."
(emphasis added)
Being uneasy about being whipped (Duynhoven et al) is one thing. Being uneasy about NOT being whipped is quite another.
A politician quitting a party because he was allowed to do as he wished. A first?
-
By accident or design, Wishart also had perfect timing. The ideal is to have maximum publicity for the mud, but much less for the response, as other stories crowd it out.
This week's official news diary:
Monday: Bestiality
Tuesday: Bain
Wednesday: Bradford
Thursday: BudgetIdour could have written a signed confession yesterday and it still would have had less publicity than "Cullen roots chickens!" or whatever it was.
-
Wayne Idour gave an 'exclusive' interview to One News tonight. Video here:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/1122028
Not a very convincing performance.
-
From Idour's statement defending himself, released today:
"It is just too long ago to recall specific detail and I am not prepared to speculate." (Stuff.co.nz)
Funny how the memory fades when that finger you're pointing is turned back on you.