Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
I meant in general, not about the leadership per se. And yes, it will be very academic by then, and very much a matter of working to support whoever is the leader.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Are you going to be at the conference in November, Keir? If so, it would be good to talk. Maybe over a glass of chardonnay, seeing as we're socialists.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
close enough to being a surrogate by that point I think.
Well... it's arguable, either way. I know that in conversation, DC has been very much opposed to raising any issue whatsoever to do with candidate's private lives.
I do think that Curran was trying to cause trouble,, given that the whole thing only surfaced a couple of weeks after the program aired. So it was a little more than being clumsy. Possibly even quite deliberate, or at a minimum, ill-thought through.
Anyway, I suspect that most people have cast their votes by now, and it's just a matter of waiting for the announcement on Sunday.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Rob Stowell,
There are Labour MPs who deserve a kick in the pants who support each one of the candidates. And there’ll be a time and place for that, too, no doubt …
And former MPs. I watched a couple of them after one of the hustings meetings, actively lobbying against one of the candidates, and putting real pressure on some of the younger people there. It left a very nasty taste in my mouth.
-
I've typed and deleted several comments in response to Steve's remarks above. In no particular order...
1. "Girls" is dismissive and infantalising. At best your use of it is careless, but it could be construed as being deliberately insulting.
2. I agree with Danielle. "Ladies be crazy" is a horrid, nasty trope, used in much the same way as "girls", to dismiss women and their concerns.
3. "Don't be a dick" is a house rule around here, and has been used routinely by both men and women to ask people not to be sexist, or ageist, or ablist, or racist, or to in any way marginalise other people here.
4. Almost certainly, Danielle's and Lucy's (and my) experience of actually being, y'know, women, and putting up with the 'ladies be crazy' trope for most of our lives, is at least as pertinent and relevant as your experience of interacting with women. I don't think there are any 'lived experience' trump cards available here.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Paul Campbell,
Yes. There's a reason for the big gender split in Jones' support.
-
Q and A poll results: David Cunliffe favourite to be new Labour leader
David Cunliffe was the clear favourite in a poll asking which of the Labour leadership candidates was most likely to win next year's election over John Key.
Mr Cunliffe came out ahead of his running mates, with 39% of the vote. Acting party leader Grant Robertson received just 15% of the vote and Shane Jones found favour with 18% of those surveyed.
There was only one question on which Shane Jones came out ahead - which candidate identifies best with the average NZ voter. Jones got 31%, and Cunliffe 29%. But there's a huge gender split in the responses: 39% of men think Jones identifies with the average NZ voter, but only 23% of women.
Lots of other interesting detail there, but amongst it all, it's very obvious that David Cunliffe is rated highest, and for the most part, Grant Roberson is coming third (with some variation according to the particular question being answered).
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Rob Stowell,
a really good speaker
I was at the Levin meeting. He was very droll, but he had no passion or conviction. He's a distant third for me.
I own a copy of The Female Eunuch and I read the Women's Weekly, albeit mostly in supermarket queues.
-
This is far too apposite: Tony Abbott creeps out Big Brother housemates
''Vote for me because my daughters are hot'' appears to be Tony Abbott's main political pitch to the Big Brother housemates.
His actual words, flanked by a visibly embarrassed Frances and Bridget, were: ''If you want to know who to vote for, I'm the guy with the not bad looking daughters . . .''
(Be careful: a video starts playing at that link.)
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Income earned through trusts can get taxed in the trustees' hands, or in the beneficiaries' hands. If the income is retained in the trust, then it gets taxed at 33%. If it gets distributed to beneficiaries, then it gets taxed in the beneficiaries' hands, at whatever rate is applicable for them.
I think that what you're suggesting is something along the lines of taxing income that is held by the trustees in proportion to the underlying beneficiaries rates. But that wouldn't really work, because beneficiaries don't actually own the trust, and usually trustees are free to give more income to some beneficiaries than others. So it's not clear what proportion of income which has been retained in the trust, can be attributed to each beneficiary. And that means that you can't establish overall tax rates fairly.
The current rates where the trustee rate (applied to income that is retained within the trust) happens to be the same as the top individual tax rate seems to have slowed down the amount of clever stuff going on through trusts, because there's no particular advantages to be gained now.