Posts by Hebe
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I’ll go with Red Peak, hypno second and not mention any of the ferns. If it’s not Red Peak, I’ll stick with what we have. I pick NZ will keep the same flag on the second vote.
-
Thank you Donna. Moving, informative and perceptive. Getting our priorities right is the key.
-
Submit submit submit: here's Gerard Smyth's video about why we need you all to pipe up and tell Cera to pipe down
https://www.facebook.com/rebuildchristchurch/videos/1038814989476910/?pnref=story
-
Free Christchurch: so many things to say, and it all comes down to this.
-
A little bit Paris
-
Lights of delight in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens tonight. Fountains, changing lights, rays, crowds and numb fingers in the frost starting to sparkle by 7.30pm made getting out the camera after a long break a wee bit challenging.
Wonderful to feel at home again.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to talkie_toaster,
Here the logic seems to be: because some racists like this analysis, we should ignore it.
The problem is that this analysis is fatally flawed, and not much better than anecdata. I wish, given the basic importance of the issue and the resources devoted to it, that it was reliable. The discussion should not be about race, but one of domicile and citizenship, and that's the black hole Labour has fallen into with a dreadful starting point for their research.
(I'm green, mostly.)
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Stephen Judd,
And from there my head started to throb.
My sympathies to you and all the 99% of Labour people I know who don't agree with the way this has been done.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to KathrynB,
KathrynB, About 22 hours ago
ScottA
"This really is spectacularly stupid politics from Labour."
I couldn't agree more, and I am astounded that Rob Salmond and Phil Twyford don't see it.
For what it is worth I do think there are a lot of non-resident investment in Auckland housing, but why frame it as a Chinese issue, and why use suspect data that inevitably will be seen as racist? Why not just say we need some accurate figures as there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that could fuel racism?I agree that this a real issue, for now and the future.
It is infuriating that Labour's cack-handed dump of totally refutable figures has given the National Government a leave pass to not address anything connected with non-domiciled residential property ownership, while howling "racist".
It is racist to look at one ethnic grouping who can be more easily identified than, say Australians or British. Good chance too that Koreans, Singaporeans, and other "Asians" have been slung in the "Chinese" pile. I am surprised Rob Salmond is trying to defend the indefensible. Sorry, or I overlooked the obvious problem with this, would be a great start.
Was the approach were a strategic decision for Labour? If it were a bright idea that ran away with itself, why did the strategists or cool heads not get to see it before the media splash? The latter would be a fail in basic political management, but not unusual in politics or irrecoverable for the party. The former is more unpalatable: that the senior MPs and party strategists have lost the plot.
-
What a neat idea. And grilled cats!
I must find something to play with. And hi Annie.
