Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: A Big Idea, in reply to Rob Stowell,
No. It just isn’t a tax, by any definition of tax I can think of.
I agree with Ben on this. I'm not in KS but if I were it would feel like a tax. Money taken out of my pay before I see it which I maybe able to access in 30 years time or something. Is the ACC levy that gets deducted a tax in your book? Because it feels like it to me as well and I see KS as the same.
I find the idea of compulsory KS scary. I have a tightly balanced budget as it is - I can't afford to pay KS contributions too and especially if the rates are going to vary so I can't even budget for it. And people will say there are low-income exemptions but they won't help me - I have an income somewhere between the median and mean income.
A large chunk of my income is going into paying off interest-bearing debt and the interest on this debt is far higher than any returns on KS will be. I'd be really, really screwed with compulsory KS brought in unless there were a corresponding tax cut for the full-amount that would be deducted and I doubt that's going to happen.
I'm glad Labour have at least brought out an economic policy though and we are having this discussion. I could be in favour of it if KS were to remain voluntary. But in this form I'm sadly feeling like this might be the first election I don't vote in.
-
Hard News: Jones: The contender leaves, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
So Kelvin at 10 isn't that far down.Whoever you think of as "deadwood" has earnt their right to be there.
How have they earnt the right to be there? By being in the party for so long? I think Kelvin made more of an impression than many on the list above him, not saying they aren't good MPs but either they are less effective, less promising or have had their time and should have been below him in the list. For example these were MPs above him in on the list who easily could have been placed lower down:
Sue Moroney (10th) - vaguely heard of her but can't think of one really positive thing she's done.
Darien Fenton (18th) - heard of her but again can't think of much she's done.
Rajen Prasad (20th) - heard of but only in terms of his laziness, ineffectiveness and jokes about him being one of the worst MPs - yet he was higher than many worthy candidates.
Raymond Hao (21st) - vaguely heard of.
Carol Beaumont (22) - heard of but mainly only for losing the former Labour safe seat of Maungakiekie in 2008; a feat which rewards her a higher list placing in 2011.All of these could have been placed below Kelvin Davis. Maybe my perspective is skewed by him being a fellow Northlander - but if you've heard him speak he is very impressive and just the type of person Labour needs representing their party.
-
Hard News: Jones: The contender leaves, in reply to William Leander,
On the other hand, we have men (more than one) saying how they wives and other women won't be supporting Labour because of the way the new Labour leader dresses.
If you are referring to me - I wasn't saying that. My partner found the way he appeared smarmy and fake most off-putting and untrustworthy. She hasn't yet decided who to vote for and could well end up voting for Labour - this though would appear to be in spite of Cunliffe than because of it. The dress comment was made in passing rather than being the substantial thrust of her criticisms - which were more to do with both his mannerisms and what he said than what he was wearing.
As for Kelvin Davis I think it's great that he's back in - he's an incredibly impressive candidate. However, it's criminal that he wasn't in before - he should have had a much higher list placing last election.
-
Hard News: Jones: The contender leaves, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
How 'bout a bit of research instead of just expecting them to win the latest fashion parade .
She does her research close to the election. Not everyone is constantly engaged with the daily grind of politics. Closer to the time she pays close attention to policies. But with that type of attitude do you really expect people to want to vote for you? Blaming people for not liking you?
-
Just to follow up. I don't think the media are biased like a lot of people do. I think Labour's press is poor because a. they are doing poorly b. they have poor media comms. Rather than bleating about the media being biased they should hire some new staff, come up with a better media strategy and then implement it. Remember how Labour controlled the media narrative from '98 - '99?
-
Hard News: Jones: The contender leaves, in reply to BenWilson,
Seriously, how is it their fault that Morning Report would choose that particular clique?
I imagine as part of a good communication strategy you'd ensure that people who do a good job of representing your party are on such shows as part of balance. Instead the voice from the left is often someone who bashes the Labour party nearly as much as the commentator from the right. Though I do think this isn't all the media's fault; I think a big part of the problem is simply the Labour party. It's hard to get people to speak positively about them because they aren't doing much to speak positively. I often find the Green Party's spokespeople do a much better job of articulating a clear opposition policy on the radio. They seem to have learnt how to do media much better than Labour.
-
The most depressing this about this whole episode was only tangentially related. My partner only follows politics very casually until close to the election when she decides (last couple of times for Labour). Anyway as we don't normally watch much tv we were for once watching tv and she saw Cunliffe on late-night tv being interviewed about the Jones departure; she was highly unimpressed.
She asked me who this 'smarmy prick' was and why on earth they made him leader. She said he continually had a fake smile and sounded smug, fake and smarmy. She also commented on his dress (something I never really notice) - saying that he was probably trying for casual since it was late night tv but instead it came across as 70s sleaze. She says she still hates Key but couldn't vote for such a smarmy fake.
While this is simply one person's opinion I have heard similar from others. Particularly the smarmy and fake thing. My concern is that he makes this impression on those who only have a passing interest in politics. At the time the Labour leadership was being contested I supported Cunliffe; I now wish I hadn't. But I really don't know who would have done a better job - certainly not Jones.
I have heard Cunliffe talk intelligently before but I think he needs some good media training to drop the smarmy, fake look he projects. Possibly smile less and sounding less convinced of his own cleverness (even if he is that clever).
-
Speaker: The purpose of science and its limits, in reply to Sacha,
Official business stats series do not restrict their definition to what IRD (or Steven Joyce) considers to be R&D.
Official business stats would understate R & D conducted too though. I used to have to fill out the quarterly Statistic NZ form and it was so annoying to constantly have to do that you would fill it out as fast as possible and simply put down 0 for R & D rather than the actual number. The other numbers you'd fill out easily because you'd just take the numbers from your accounting software but R & D is hard to quantify so it's easier just to say 0.
I agree with Bart up thread that the core problem is actually with govt. spending on R & D and both Labour and National have both been really bad on that score (though National worse).
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
Sure. What's happened with the serious power usages in your life, though? Transportation and heating
There were huge fuel efficiency gains in cars for awhile; though they seem to have stalled lately. I recall when 10-12L per 100km was common for a mid-sized car whereas now the same car would likely be 6-8L per 100km. Unfortunately people have often simply used the inefficiencies to buy bigger cars.
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
1. If so, do you believe that the climate is currently changing in a way that is out of the ordinary for the planet?
The problem with this question is how do you define ordinary and what time frame. For example I believe the climate is changing and that humans are causing it. Yet I would still answer no to your question. Only because if you look over the history of the planet it would have had temperature changes like that before.