Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The answer of course, is that for most people in NZ, it wouldn't really matter if we had 50% or 60% debt/GDP. We'd have to pay a bit more tax and slightly higher interest rates, but that would be more than outweighed by stable and secure jobs.
You mean we would be able to get French (8.8%) or British (7.1%) or American (8.9%) levels of unemployment, as opposed to our current 5%.
-
Nonu/Smith combination was weak, their rushing two man chase ahead of the defensive line allowed the Sivivatu break and the winning try.
-
Perhaps now we can start talking about growth engines that actually work.
And don't cost anything.
-
This SupaCity will consist of the same area, with the same voters that elect the Auckland Regional Council. Is the ARC a right-wing business freindly rubber stamp on ever increasing sprawl?
-
Highlanders seem destined for 131st place?
-
"By not being bigots, you're being bigots"
Nice troll.
Idiot/Savant
I think to advance this progressive liberal/secular humanist legislation will require you and people like you to extoll the virtues of progressive liberalism to people who are bigots. Emma disagrees and assumes there is an historical inevitability by which same sex marriage will just happen if the progressive liberals in favour of it stridently call for it.
My point is that by introducing this legislation, Labour risks losing votes from people who are bigots. This is New Zealand (not America) intensely spiritual people with strong traditional family values (bigots) are not found on any particular side of the spectrum. Also we are a proportional representation country so every vote matters and alternative parties can easily form. Have you already forgotten s59 reform and more importantly do you think any Labour Party politicians have?
-
If the Act Party in a flash of libertarian inspired rashness declared come 2011 that they would not join any government unless same sex marriage was gauranteed to be made legal, how many here (apart from Craig) would vote for them? Would same sex marriage (and a large tax cut) be worth sacrificing a substantial part of the welfare state? Or is this argument internal to the left, sort of "put same sex marriage on the agenda or we'll vote for you anyways to keep out the Tories"?
-
Idiot/Savant
Progressiveness is a nice ideal, but to advance this progressive issue requires actually advancing it in the face of cultural prejudices against gay activity that exist in a large number of the world's communities. Multicultural credibility would be damaged by making a law that explicitly denies the cultural interpretations of marriage that are not progressive.
But politicians, being risk-averse, will assume they think the worst unless enough people tell them otherwise. Which is why its important to let those newer MPs know that you want gay marriage - to build the legislative majority for the future.
We can safely assume that the other side of the debate will be doing the same thing and have the ear of the same politicians. I don't think 2011 is even vaguely possible in the face of such opposition.
-
It's a question I'm going to ask and ask. I'm going to be the Little Yappy Dog of Gay Marriage until we get there. I'm going to do whatever I can to keep the issue on the table and in the right ears until we grow enough balls to do what's right.
We live in a democracy, when one side of an issue has so many votes and the other has so many votes there are no ears you can yap in loud enough to get them to listen, if the other side has more commited numbers. You don't have the numbers.
"Dear politician, please commit electoral suicide for my political cause" is not likely to garner wide political support.
You need to convince enough of the other side they are wrong or excite support amoung the apathetic majority to weight voting blocs in your favour. Right now neither big political party will touch this, because its a loser of an issue.
And actually, pretty much all I have to do is wait for old people to die. The skew in opinion on gay marriage by age is enormous.
So, about 2030?
-
Because marriage is not and never has been solely a religious construct. Please re-read my and Deborah's previous comments on this.
No matter what any mere religion might say about the matter? Most all religions view marriage as the sanctified union of a heterosexual couple. They believe they own the trademark on that concept.
Well, here's what I believe. There are a small group of people passionately opposed, and a small group passionately in favour, and like any issue, a huge mass in the middle who just don't give a crap one way or the other.
They outnumber you and the law is on their side. You stop justifying gay marriage and they will continue to outnumer you and the law will remain on their side. Heck, sit on your hands long enough and you might lose civil unions and perhaps even the right to practice a homosexual act.
If you want to have gay marriage you have to convince the religious people amoung NZers (Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu...) that their religion is wrong in how it views homosexuallity. Or convince them that the whole organised religion thing is overrated.