Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And when are we going to see the end to the organic fudge about who the Greens would and would not get into bed with after the election?
What organic fudge ? The position is that we'll make a decision based on our analysis of each party's policies. And we can't do that until National actually releases some (and no, I don't count half a page of bullet points as an actual policy document). We've committed to stating our position well before the election day.
As it happens, I have informally (i.e. over beers) raised the question of what our wishlist would be in a hypothetical support arrangement with National with some Green party members. No cries of "heresy !", but I did have some interesting discussions about what we could get done if we Green ministers held Transport, Housing, and Energy portfolios and some ring-fencing of areas we wanted to keep safe (key aspects of RMA, employment law etc).
Sure, there are some who loathe what National did in the 90s, but there are also those who could see an opportunity to advance Green solutions whilst protecting important gains made under the Labour government.
Anyway, Craig, you haven't answered my question: are you cool with National's smoke-and-mirrors act ? If so, why ?
-
Craig, are you actually comfortable with National doing "Whatever It Takes" to form a government, while at the same time harbouring intentions that they refuse to make public because it would "scare the horses" ?
One of the strengths of the Greens is that the MPs are bound by ratified policy (which is created by the members), unless they declare otherwise when submitting their candidacy.
Like David, I prefer WYSIWYG to smoke-and-mirrors any day.
-
We use to have a debt problem until labour solved it? Is this what he is implying?
Key expanded on this on Morning Report. He indicated that Muldoon created a debt problem (circa 83% of GDP, IIRC) and that now it was approx 17%, with Labour saying their upper limit is 20% and he reckons National will take that up to 22%.
So, no return to Think Big.
However, the things he's talking about doing are still very concerning. Building more roads when we are staring down the barrel of peak oil is an irrational waste of taxpayer's money (not to mention the opportunity to build public transport infrastructure before costs really start to get out of hand). Reshaping the RMA as a way to ram through large-scale projects in the face of public opposition is short-sighted and backward-looking.
I just don't get the impression Key-led government has many ideas or any use.
-
I went to Thailand in 2006, and what stuck me was that you actually get real coffee - so I didn't have to settle the ubiquitous Nescafé rubbish. It was a real change when I was there last, in 2001.
Reminds me, I need to roast another kilo or so of coffee beans this weekend. It's a pungent operation, but well worth it.
As for Starbucks closing down in Aussie, is it some kind of karma for the fact that they have four SBs in Guantanamo Bay ?
-
after thirty years about Kiwi bludgers whose only stop on the way to the beach is to sign up for welfare
Especially when there was that report that came out a couple of years ago that said the kiwis are the highest performing demographic in Australia, and that we totally outperform the Aussies.
Is it me, or do Australians have strong penchant for engaging in cognitive heuristics ? I always amazes me how simplistic (and racist) many Aussies are about the complex issues relevant to Aboriginal marginalisation. "They're just rock apes" is the depth of analysis I received on one occasion.
Lots of my kiwi mates who live in Oz say that they just can't discuss Aboriginal issues with their Aussie friends because of the torrent of racism that follows.
I suspect it's because that instead of having a national conversation about race relations, the Aussies have done their best to maintain Denial Mode.
-
Thinking of migrants as a threat is rooted deeply in irrational fear, so it is not susceptible to rational arguments.
Are you saying that the land confiscations of the 19th century are entirely unrelated to immigration ? Many Maori feel that immigration led directly to marginalisation, ergo, immigration puts Maori aspirations at risk.
It took circa 150 years to start addressing the historical wrongs. We have had a long conversation in this country about the relationship between Maori and Pakeha, and I can understand how some feel that endlessly importing people with no knowledge of the background to the conversation (or indeed, that it even exists - we have a rare thing going on here), is a risky proposition.
I'm with Craig, I don't like racism of any stripe. But I don't think fear of being marginalised by sheer numbers is the same as bigoted fears based around someone's race.
One thing we need to really start discussing is population growth. How many people is too many ? Is Auckland full ? IMO, a lot of the value of living here derives from the comparatively low population density. Uncrowded beaches and all that.
-
a box of crystallised fruit
If only Key had said "bag of jet planes"...
-
I listen National a lot, at home, work and in the car.
The first thing I'd change would be to make the broadcast stereo rather than mono. It's unfortunate that they broadcast in mono - which is purely a budgetary bang-for-coverage-buck issue - because they play great music at the correct speed. I find it really hard to listen to commercial stations because they speed up all the tracks, and this kills the timbre IMO.
I'm in general agreement with the comments with regard to Mora and Laidlaw. Give me Noelle any day.
I much prefer Katherine Ryan to Linda Clark. Didn't Plunket take his employers to task because they continually overlook him for the Nine To Noon role ?
-
On the Tui billboard, the negation ("Yeah, right") is always associated with the person or entity making the statement.
e.g. I dye my hair ginger for the ladies
(that was a Donald Trump quote).
So, from that perspective, "Heres 100 grand. Keep it quiet" means that the negation is of Tony Veitch, not his victim.
i.e. How the hell did he expect his outrageous violence, that resulted in a woman being confined to a wheelchair, to actually ever stay quiet?
I sincerely hope that was their sentiment, yet I acknowledge that I may be wrong.
-
In fact (hazy recollections and my Google foo isn't quite helping me right now) didn't the Dunedin Longitudinal Study show that women are about as likely to be physically violent toward their partner as men are?
Victims of a male perpetrator's violence are more likely to feel that their life is in danger than victims of female-perpetrated violence.
Does the "she started it" defence really wash if the male is ultimately more violent, and more life-threatening ?
I'm sure it's often difficult to determine the exact course of events in a domestic violence case. The people who work in this area indicate that domestic violence is overwhelmingly male-perpetrated, and I'm inclined to agree with them.