Posts by Neil
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media Take: Scandals, selfies…, in reply to Sacha,
Go on believing whatever suits your worldview though.
There's no need to be rude. It's just my opinion that this sort of passive details check letter can be problematic. Easy to not check the details if you think the details haven't changed.
-
Hard News: Media Take: Scandals, selfies…, in reply to Sacha,
Nope. You will find a scanned copy of the standard letter here or on Kiwibog if you prefer.
The letter is of the type I thought - if things haven't changed then no need to do anything. Easy enough to read the first few sentences and since nothing has changed throw it away without looking further down at the details.
-
Hard News: Media Take: Scandals, selfies…, in reply to Kevin McCready,
And why apparently did Peters not get or respond to annual MSD letter to confirm eligibility details?
Most likely it was a matter of – have your details changed – to which one would say no they haven’t. And he would have had no reason to believe otherwise.
But he is a stickler for detail on issues such as immigration so maybe he’ll learn a lesson about fallibility. As if.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sacha,
Gee, who to believe? We know there does not actually need to be any truth in an accusation to shift some votes. It’s the vibe, your honour.
True of any issue. I’m not relying on quoting other people, I’m just presenting my view.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sacha,
I was meaning more - if there was evidence Peters had been dishonest then there would be motivation for leaking. That there wasn't suggests National didn't do it as there was no advantage.
Whoever leaked wanted this to be known publicly even though there was nothing untoward - they leaked after MSD had cleared Peters. Suggests something more to do with perceived double standards ie Turei.
-
The public servants who made the decision to inform the relevant ministers did so after extensive consideration. I'm not surprised they went down this road given the very recent events surrounding Turei that resulted in significant political upheaval. It may not have been a good decision but I can understand why they made it.
As yet there is no evidence of who leaked and why and indulging Peter's strategic self martyrdom complex on the basis of no evidence is just what he wants. The leak occurred after MSD had resolved the issue which is interesting timing. If it was National then they would have known that there was no real issue.
-
House prices in Auckland are dropping even though immigration remains high.
A higher population means more people to pay for and utilise public transport.
A higher population creates a larger local market in which to develop added value products that can be exported.
And yet Labour are sticking to cutting numbers. Or something, it doesn't seem particularly clear.
It's easy enough to promise trains for all, harder it seems to stand up to the rhetoric of Peters.
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Russell Brown,
under the bus or something
Light rail.
She's a bit stuck. A strongly worded statement now would stand in contrast with her silence at the time.
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think they’ve done it by basically not talking about it.
Perhaps, but more pertinently National haven’t blamed our problems on immigrants.
I’m not sure if Louisa Wall’s words were careless or measured but I’m not sure either is any better. It comes after quite a long series of statements from Labour in a similar vein. If they can be so consistently careless about such a sensitive issue that’s remarkable. But it’s more likely to have had a bit of thought behind it.
Even now, given the opportunity of new leadership, Ardern can’t bring herself to emphatically reject the Chinese sounding names episode and although still sticking to Little’s numbers on immigration reduction claims it’s not about numbers.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Dennis Frank,
The system deselects anyone with a track record of competence in solving complex problems. Thus social problems – and those that are widespread are the most complex – tend to persist.
I'm not sure, there's also an element of solutions being difficult.
A few weeks ago I was at a presentation by Housing First about how they attempt to provide housing for the homeless. It was quite enlightening as one would think that the solution is simple - provide somewhere for them to live. But not so.