Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to James Butler,
For the last hundred years or so, capitalism has responded (partly unconsciously) with a very effective make-work scheme to fill the gaps.
Increasingly advanced technology could have created a better, more leisured life for everyone. Instead, we've created a whole bunch of jobs and even organisations that are essentially pointless. How many people spend their days creating attractive and complex tender proposals with associated powerpoints for what in 1970 would be covered by a few pages of typescript? Or work for companies like Powershop, who only exist because, instead of setting a fair price for electricity based on cost, the government has created an elaborate pseudo-market for a monopoly service.
A lot of our problems stem from the way the supply of resources that has enabled this is no longer limitless.
-
I posited a while ago that to be "traditional working class" you need to:
- have been brought up by parents that weren't middle class
- have a limited (non-degree) education
- if in work, work (for a employer or as a casual) in a manual jobIf any of these don't apply, you're middle class, at least as far as old Karl would recognise.
Now, there's a new less-affluent middle class in existence. This group might have middle class parents, might have a degree and might have a non-manual job. What they don't have is any appreciable net capital or any prospect of making any. They've got all the financial troubles of the working class but not the cultural underpinnings.
BTW, this is a debating point in good faith and isn't meant to diss anyone. If you are a PhD'd university lecturer with parents who were lawyers and assert yourself to be working class, then that's fine. We deal in broad strokes and you may be an outlier.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to ,
That isn't name calling.
Smellysocks pantie-poos
*That's* name calling
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
the Green's message attractive
That apostrophe causes me much worry: Greens? Green's? Greens'
I guess I should defer to Damien as a professional, but OTOH isn't "Greens" a plural that should take a trailing apostrophe to make the possessive?
-
If I’m not producing the goods then I would expect [to be rolled as leader], quite frankly. So I have to produce the goods.
I tend to detect platitudes using the "negation test". If Shearer had said the inverse:
I won't be rolled as leader if I don't produce the goods. So I won't bother
it would be ridiculous. Which makes the original phrase a platitude.
-
Capture: Flash Cars, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Used to live round the corner from there and walk by every day to work. Glad to see it hasn't changed.
-
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?(Berthold Brecht, 1953)
-
Alienating the obsessive activist rump..
Yeah, Labour should really be looking at getting rid of all those annoying activists. The corporate model for a party is far more effective – a party with wealthy enough backers can pay for advertising, polls and everything else it needs. You don’t want a load of smelly, interfering grassroots supporters.
Look how well it worked for ACT.
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Brent Jackson,
I'd agree with that.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
Treating politics as a sporting contest alongside rugby and cricket *does* favour the right, because it encourages people to disregard the issues and just vote for "their team" or the "smiley guy" (as if it was the RWC entertainment rounds and they pick Narnia cos they've got a cool flag).
If people actually thought about actual issues and how it impacted them, the NACT vote would be a lot smaller - the 1%, and those with a delusional aspiration to that status.