Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to Keir Leslie,
we’re doing marriage equality right now and it’s pretty fucking awesome.
Yes it is awesome. Louisa Wall has been awesome. But you can't have it both ways.
You say "We're doing marriage equality", but if "we" means "Labour", then the party leader has been a follower. Listen to his wishy-washy distancing here ..
http://www.95bfm.co.nz/default,206877,labour-leader-david-shearer.sm
It's been the same in many other media appearances, ever since Obama kicked it off. You can almost hear the advisers whispering "Don't sound too strong on this one! Waitakere Swing!", and the effect is thoroughly uninspiring. Is it so hard to say "I'm voting for equality, and I'm proud to do so"? Every time he downplays it, my heart sinks.
I acknowledge the Labour leader for allowing the private members' bill to be put in the ballot, and for voting for it (along with most government Ministers). He followed Obama and tied with Key. That deserves a pass mark. But it has been a missed opportunity for Shearer, and I suspect it's been missed for the wrong reasons. Saying you believe in something doesn't have to cost votes. Waffling usually does.
-
I'll start listening to any Labour people who complain that teh rainbowz "distract us from our main message", just as soon as they work out what the hell that message is supposed to be. And how to communicate it. (So far the Labour message appears to be - "We don't want David Cunliffe").
Until then, Louisa Wall's bill is only a "distraction" from the cricket. Which is fine by me.
-
Very good news.
I listened to about six speeches on the radio. John Hayes was the worst (ramble, ramble, "Labour's social reform agenda", ramble some more). The others were pretty reasonable, including Paul Hutchison, in favour.
-
But the bigots are only part of the problem.
It's now clear that MPs are pushing at an open door. Public opinion was either already there, or at least willing to be persuaded.
But for years (and still) we've heard so many politicians find every possible reason not to engage. Not to oppose, just - not to talk about it (as Emma's previous post skewered so well). That's about more than just one issue - you get the same kind of waffle across a whole range (e.g. a republic is "inevitable", said Clark and Key, while refusing to do anything about it).
I'm not going to doff my cap and be 'umbly grateful to MPs who constantly tell us that doing something simple (which they also think is right) is "not our focus" or "something I'm not uncomfortable with' or "not something we're putting out there" (the last was David Shearer's). Is it so hard to say "I think we should do X because Y"? Not least because - to speak the language they understand - maybe it would impress the voters?
Memo to our MPs: Martin Luther King's speech is remembered, and it's not because he said "I am at this time not opposed to having a conversation about the issues around a dream". Would you like us to remember you?
-
Good news: this story in the Herald.
Bad news: sacked Herald sub-editors read the headline, the story, and weep.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10829817
-
No. Until Graeme's post, I thought I was in a minority of one.
I bring no qualifications to the discussion, except a rough and ready sense of fairness. Which tells me ...
1) A National-Labour agreement, opposed by minor parties, would be wrong. It might get 75% in Parliament, so it looks OK on paper, but it's still wrong.
2) A small change to the thresholds, approved by the whole of Parliament - perhaps bar one or two MPs - might be OK.
3) Any substantive change should not be introduced until after the election. Do we need another referendum? Arguably not, if parties take a clear position into the election. But that "sense of fairness" says, at least, don't change the rules during the game. Change them for the next game.
Why is 4% good and 3% not? Who decides? How? It shouldn't be left only to MPs, who have a pretty poor track record on such matters, when it comes to equating self-interest and the public good.
So no, I'm not fine with this.
-
You can tell you're getting old when the same conversations (and media column-fillers) return every four years ...
"Why haven't we got more medals?" "Because you haven't bothered looking at the schedule".
Whatever acronym SPARC has morphed into should ban all funding for sailing and rowing and anything else that doesn't have Olympic finals by Wednesday of week one.
Gymnastics, judo and team archery. That's the future (I would add swimming but that's just being silly).
-
OK, next question ... which select committee would the bill go to, and who is on it?
-
"Sir Ian McKellen on the phone, Prime Minister."
"Ooh, Celeb City! And a knight! Put him through, Cabinet can wait!"
*picks up phone*
"Your highness, this is an honour!"
"Ah, hello there, Hel- oh hang on, you're the new one, aren't you? Well, Prime Minister, I just wanted a quick word about this gay marriage business ..."
"Yes, Sir Gandalf!"
"I am so looking forward to the Hobbit premiere ..."
"The first of three, Sir! Maybe five, if we get a third term!"
"Oh God, really? Anyway, I would hate to miss - or, as the media would so cruelly say, boycott the Premiere. I do love Wellington. Any reason I might have to ... stay away? In protest?"
"None at all, Sir! I will personally welcome you with open arms ... er, not that I'm ... but some of my best friends ... and in the All Blacks' dressing room I did get a bit excited ... but, anyway, um, where was I? Oh, yes. Marriage? Gay, straight, elves, hobbits, whatever. Totally down with that."
"Thank you, Prime Minister. Regards to Helen."
-
Somebody tell me if this is too simple:
1) You're an MP, in a party vote system. So you don't get to make many individual voting decisions.
2) There is a ballot for private members' bills. Most are uncontroversial, or dull ... they are not likely to attract media questions.
3) You know which ones might attract such questions. It's obvious. You know when the ballot is held. So you understand when and why you might be asked about the result of the ballot.
4) Therefore ... you might have some idea of your answer? Like, beforehand?
Never mind their "principles", it's the basic intelligence of our MPs that astounds.