Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd rather see the killing -- it isn't murder yet because no one has been convicted -- as a crime.
Pardon? The person who allegedly killed the doctor may not have been convicted yet, but the doctor was still apparently murdered, from what we know.
I don't think Russell was using the term "murder" in the narrow legal sense.
-
With the culture wars in the US now being fought using guns and bombs, its no wonder this guy ran off to Mexico (swine flu be damned)
-
It always surprises me how those who proclaim the sanctity of human life are happy to celebrate when someone they don't like gets killed. Over at Kiwiblog (I won't link - find it yourselves) the nutters are positvely gleeful at the murder of the "babykiller".
-
Well done Paul. Congrats also.
-
George, I agree, and I wasn't suggesting all Nats support privatisation and the other things ACT stands for. The Nats are a fairly broad church at present. But many within its ranks probably do like ACT's economic policies. So to characterise NZ as a naturally left-wing country is an over-simplification.
Apologies for the threadjacking. Anyone want to talk about the Budget?
-
I/S, I agree there are many aspects about the system that can be identifed as "of the Left". You mention free education and free healthcare as examples.
But a large number of people (maybe even the majority) support tax cuts, harsher penalties for crims, freedom from the "nanny state" etc. It could be argued that those are all right-wing traits.
And nobody ever thinks the policies they support are unfair.
ACToids and Libs beg to differ, of course. But I think their combined 3.7% of the vote last election shows how popular their narrow view of fairness is.
Bear in mind though that a large percentage of the Nats probably support many of ACT's policies but stick with the Nats for other reasons.
-
Sure - but the concept of fairness broadly (but not exclusively) held in New Zealand is a left-wing one, focused on substance rather than mere process, and favouring the little guy over the Big Corporate.
Again, I'm going to take issue with your analysis. Fairness means different things to different people. For example, for those who consider themselves on the Right, it probably has something to do with being treated fairly by the state - i.e. being left alone and allowed to make their own decisions. Self responsibility and all that.
-
One matter that seems to have escaped notice (until now) is the cut to legal aid spending in the budget.
Legal aid has been chronically underfunded for years. Funding was increased in the last budget, but has been cut back again in this budget. This means hourly rates for legal aid lawyers will be reduced.
Legal aid lawyers are already the poor cousins when it comes to remuneration. One wonders why anyone would want to do the work when it pays so poorly. In the long run it may mean fewer lawyers doing legal aid, and so less access to justice.
The Law Society sent an email to its members today on the matter, so expect to hear more about this.
-
New Zealand is a naturally left-wing country. Our fundamental values - fairness and egaliatrianism - are values of the left. Our default policy setting since the 1890's has been to see government as a solution, rather than the problem to be ovecome. That may be born of pragmatism - we used government as a tool becuse there were no other tools available - but its still quite antiethical to right-wing ideology.
I/S, your analysis is overly simplistic. The dominance by National governments post-war is not merely a symptom of the FPP electoral system. It also possibly reflects other features of the Kiwi psyche, such as conservatism, a dislike of interfering governments, and a distrust of outsiders.
I simply don't believe we can make any reliable statement about where on the political spectrum NZers sit as a group. Other than somewhere between John Minto and Garth George.
-
On the R&D thing, I'm no fan of this government, but it's simply not true to state there was nothing in the budget for R&D.
1. CRIs are probably quite pleased with the 20% increase in funding to the CRI Capability Fund
2. The Marsden Fund received its biggest ever funding boost.
3. The Health Research Council got a 13% funding increase
4. A new Primary Growth Partnership has been established. I don't think we can dismiss this as "nonsense food industry funding" (to quote Matthew), given the importance of agriculture and horticulture to our economy. I'm not quite ready to write this sector off just yet. We lead the world in innovation in many parts of the primary sector, and it makes sense to invest in what we can do better than the rest of the world.
I'll acknowledge there were some losses too, but the net effect is a modest increase in funding across the board. Not quite the disaster some have suggested.