Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
How did politicians ever do anything before the rise of pollsters and focus gropes? (ETA: That a typo to keep.) Jus’ asking.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Hilary Stace,
and which actually gives constituents a nice range of people to turn to for help if they need it
A fair point, as far as it goes. But I don’t think that’s entirely fair to most MPs, who actually take their constituency duties pretty seriously and view them in an aboslutely non-partisan manner. As I’ve said here before, I didn’t have much time for Steve Maharey. But when I was acting as support for a friend with some serious (and really sensitive) issues, I couldn’t fault Maharey and his electorate agent. They were beyond awesome.
Of course, there are also lazy oxygen thieves who are about as much use as tits on a bull, but the electoral system isn’t going to do a damn thing about that. :)
I’d like to know who is doing the PR for the supposedly grassroots “Vote for Change”, what their PR budget is and who is funding it.
The campaign manager is Simon Lusk, of Hollow Men ‘fame’.Well, that works both ways Rob. But while YMMV, I’d rather stay focused on the issue – one that’s fundamental to our democracy – rather than a popularity contest. Much as I hate to admit it, people I wouldn’t let on my lawn without arming the mine field sometimes have a fair point. The converse is that people I like don’t have a monopoly on insight or wisdom.
Repeatedly referring to electoral MPs ‘sneaking back into parliament on the list’ when they’d been legally elected in fair, very public elections was a cheap concerted attempt to smear MMP.
Also happens to be factually true, if you removed a loaded and emotive poo phrase like "sneaking back". Ironically enough, both National and Labour have had incumbents throwing public tantrums because of their list placings so I guess you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course, if you really think Party X. is (ab)using their list as an insurance scheme for useless incumbents the solution isn't to change the electoral system. In the short term, don't support them with your party vote. In the mid- and long-term, get off your fraking arse and get involved in the party's candidate selection and list ranking process.
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’ll see your Ugh and raise you an Eww… Methinks it’s time for Messers Key and Goff to start hearing from some families (and registered electors) that Bob most definitely does not speak for – and I think we’re both in that distinguished company. :)
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Politically, do we think it matters who does it? Should it be a straight, married, National Party female?
YMMV, but I'm not insensible to the fact that the straight, married women (one National, one Labour) who had their names on the Homosexual Law Reform and Human Rights Amendment Bills have been pretty good friends to teh gayz. But in the case of the New York Marriage Equality Bill, it was pretty hard to run the "oh, there the homosexuals and their agenda" when you had straight people on the front line.
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Lea Barker,
You have a good idea there, Chris. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriages will be legal.
Well, yes – up to a point. But you know something, it’s never going to happen until someone shows a grain of Fran Wilde’s ovarian fortitude and says “the time is now ”. I’ve (kind of politely) suggested to Nikki and Jacinda on Twitter that after the election there’s nothing preventing one (or both - don't care who) putting a marriage equality bill in the members’ bill ballot. I’m even pretty sure Idiot/Savant has one he prepared earlier. :)
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Russell Brown,
But my immediate thought on hearing of the New York vote was that it was time for us here to just finish the job. It’s past time for marriage equality.
Quite - and what really pissed me off about that Herald column is that Nikki and Jacinda are decent people. They know there's no reasonable or rational argument against real marriage equality but still keep trying to have a bob each way. And I'm cynical enough to think it's about political cowardice. As I've said on this topic before: You can't win the fight if you're not even going to get off your knees. And, dare I say it, could it be possible that politicians are actually underestimating the great unwashed electorate?
-
Muse: V.S. Naipaul and the Gentle Art of…, in reply to Timothy Maby,
Editor of Granta, John Freeman wondered why so many ageing male writers turn curmudgeon.
Honestly, I don't know if that's an affliction you can pin on the literary XY chromosome. Germaine Greer, anyone? Fay Weldon?
-
Hard News: That's Entertainment!, in reply to Russell Brown,
I should have followed John Drinnan's advice and stayed well clear of those blog things.
Jeebus, bitch needs to harden the fuck up. Isn't amazing how all those potty-mouth interwebz weirdoze have crushed the dissent of the media reporter of New Zealand's largest newspaper? Poor darling...
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I thought the point about how the media would always pick up on the prurient angle was reasonably well made.
Up to a point. I’d have been more impressed, though, if she’d unequivocally put ownership for that where it belongs – which isn’t on anyone wearing a bustier tomorrow. To be a little cynical, I guess you don’t shit where you eat .
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Tracey Barnett in the Herald. She’s going, dressed as a radish.
Do hope she'll leave that waggling "false consciousness, bitches" finger at home. Sorry, I know I checked out a while back but it needed to be said.
Here's now I see it, Trace, perhaps it's not the women who have police their "messages" but... well, the very editors (all male, AFAIK) who gave your column a nice slut-shaming headline.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 283 284 285 286 287 … 1235 Older→ First