Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
She resigned for lying about it, not for the disclosure itself.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Bennett gave two versions of the story yesterday: one to Parliament, and a different one to TV3.
-
Paula Bennett did not appear on Morning Report today. Is it because she was worried about being "Benson-Poped" by Sean Plunket?
Yesterday, John Campbell asked her about the advice on the Privacy Act that she took before releasing the women's details:
JC: "Where did you get that advice from? Did you get it before or after you released the information?"
PB: "I certainly took advice before I did it."
JC: "Who from?"
PB: "From my office. I've got people there to give me this sort of advice and I took that advice, and I certainly was told that it had been done before and I certainly saw the piece that came off the website."
Which is kind of interesting, because when questioned in the House earlier, she had made no mention at all of this advice.So, apart from looking at a website, what "big steps" (her words) did the Minister take? Who - apart from a computer - gave her advice?
(full interview on TV3/Campbell Live website: sorry, I'm an embedding novice, feel free to do so) -
Guyon Espiner's report on One News (Sunday 6 pm) was shameful.
Stupid and ignorant people being stupid and ignorant is annoying. But when smart people (and Espiner is no dummy) choose to pretend to be stupid, because they think the audience is ... that's really depressing.
Although I suppose, since I was stupid enough to be watching One News in the first place ...
-
The appeal of the Ashes? It's sport. It's about winning and losing. Or in Cardiff, thrillingly drawing. It's as simple as ... people really caring about the result.
It's not about growing the brand, enhancing the franchise, and optimising market share going forward. If you don't understand the Ashes, blame the All Blacks.
-
Congrats to the PR bod who came up with "eleven slices", now a compulsory part of the catechism, like plasma TVs in prison and hip-hop tours. Not ten. Not twelve. Too even, too round. Eleven it is, and ever shall be.
Thick slices? Thin slices? Baguette slices? Hamburger bun slices? Auntie's cucumber sandwich slices, with the crusts cut off? Who knows? Who cares? Reporters, repeat, repeat ...
-
There are no problems with language. There is no debate about language. In fact, there is nothing to, in or of language, any more.
Today, there are only "issues" around language.
One preposition to rule them. Replace them. Eradicate them.
It seems a 21st century Lincoln would say: Government around the people, around the people and around the people, shall not perish from the earth. It lacks a certain something, no?
To any politicians reading: at the next election I will base my choice solely on (sorry, around) your use of this noxious weed. If you've got a vocabulary, you get my vote. Thank you.
(Founder member of SOP - Save Our Prepositions)
-
Adrian Chang at Business Day (Fairfax) tries to get into Party Central, gets turned away:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/infrastructure/2517504/Queens-Wharf-development-a-mystery
Is it too late to let Japan host the thing?
-
Even if the referendum gets its No vote, Key has said he won't do anything, so the issue will be dead until after the next election. By then child-beating will have been illegal without ill effect for 4 years, and the whole thing will just cease to be an issue.
Rich, you have a lot of faith in politicians. Knock 10% off John Key's poll ratings and suddenly the issue might look a lot more attractive. He doesn't need to do anything obviously cynical. For example, there's an ACT member's bill in the ballot, which he might be persuaded to allow a 'free' vote on.
In short, please vote Yes. Anything else leaves the door open, and there are plenty willing to give it a push.
-
But looking back that was an astounding turnout, virtually double that for local bodiy elections. Probably because the question was so straightforward.
The question being: "Do you love Winston Peters?"
All the people that didn't love Winston Peters voted No, and all the people that had loved Winston Peters but felt betrayed, voted No. In 1997 there were plenty of both.
I suspect most of Cabinet voted against.
-
A reminder (and a large caveat - I couldn't find the original article on the Stuff website, so pinched this off Family First!)
The Press 16 May 2007
A bill outlawing physical punishment is set to be voted into law tonight, two years after it was forced onto the political agenda. Opponents of the bill are now resting their hopes on a petition which seeks to force a referendum against the bill. But a referendum would not be binding and would not stop the law coming into force a month from now. A $35,000 advertising campaign is being run in major daily newspapers today by the petition organisers, who say they already have 180,000 signatures. They need 300,000 signatures to force a referendum. But tonight's vote is expected to overwhelmingly back the Sue Bradford-sponsored bill, after a compromise was thrashed out between Prime Minister Helen Clark and National Party leader John Key.
(my emphasis)
Therefore, the majority of signatories wanted a referendum on their fears. Not on the law.