Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Is there any other way to challenge the MSD decision? Public humiliation might help.
-
The comments under the Herald apoligitorial are quite remarkable. People are not buying it.
Also people don't seem to be buying this- but some of the comments are classic trademe. -
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Moz,
Why refuse to even discuss the possibility of those discussions being needed?
Not sure detailed policy negotiation pre-election is a good idea at all. Instead, I reckon they need a symbolic public appearance of unity. Helen and Jeanette did something like this in '05, IIRC.
It doesn't matter to substance or campaigning- it's about publicly signalling 'these are our mates, we want to work with them to kick this govt out, and we're very happy at the prospect of governing with them after the election.'
I reckon it'd help both parties cement votes. (The details of how policy differences would be worked out later won't matter if people trust both sides to work well together.) -
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I emphasise: the number one reason we’re leaving China next Chinese New Year.
Be careful.
Dear Education Leader Parata, insofar as any human has been able to decipher her pronouncements, wishes NZ to emulate the startling success of Shanghai's schools. -
Damage done, move the conversation on.
The PM is washing his hands of it: “That’s something for Labour and Liu to work out”. As if he and his party had no part in spreading the story when it looked bad for Labour.
The Herald and Liu are back-pedalling and covering their tracks without ever apologising or retracting.
One of the nastier bits of politicking I’ve seen in NZ.
And the Herald’s role in spreading false muck looks increasingly dodgy: probably not the instigator, but enabler and side-kick. I’d be feeling bloody ashamed if I was them. -
Wish this made me feel enthusiasm for what could be, rather than fear for the loss of what we have.
On the one hand, there's plenty of vacant space in the public broadcasting/news-covering sphere.
On the other, doing more with less is music to managers. But it can be a manic march to the funeral pyre for organisations. A frozen- hence sinking- budget is the stark reality.
That's how much the 'shareholder' values RNZ. -
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
Prime Minister John Key - who has known of Donghua Liu's claims of large donations to the Labour Party for some weeks - today said he was not aware of any suggestions Labour did not follow the rules with regard to any such payments.
Nudge nudge wink wink, 'Cunliffe's letter is the least of Labour's problems' [confidential grin]
Bit too cute.His comment comes as Labour readies big legal guns for its defence in the event evidence of improper donations from Liu emerges.
"In the event' seems a little coy?
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
Savage took up Whaleoil’s Len Brown story and pivoted the whole thing to point at the perpetrators.
Palino disappeared in a puff of denial – it’s like he was never there.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I hope this does burn Labour down to the ground
You'd want to qualify that, surely, with 'if they took dodgy money and/or didn't declare donations'
Because usually you do seem to feel the facts matter.
Worth remembering all the fuss and stink about the EFA, where Labour tried to clean up electoral finance and make parties more accountable. -
Just for contrast- here’s the Herald headline from the weekend. No quotation marks, or indications this is a claim, allegation, or slur. (Plus additional assertions about another $15000 and that Cunliffe had to fight to keep his job – based on no discernible evidence.)
And also some random Oravida reporting- where it’s made clear any wrong-doing is alleged, based on a claim or quote from Labour or NZ First.
(FWIW I don’t think it’s bias, apart from the pile-on effect when journos get the smell of political blood. I think it’s sloppy, but also the Herald got played. Of course Tim Murphy will ‘protect their source.’ But a/ they can’t be happy about being so manipulated, and b/ there’s now a genuine story: who obtained the signed letter; and in what capacity were they operating.)
