Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to BenWilson,
A consequence of reneging on the 30 year part of deal would be that other parties in future might not believe the government if they attempted to negotiate such a deal again. It would set up a precedent that corporations couldn’t buy our laws, so we’d never be able to sell them again. I think I could not only live with that, but indeed would actually prefer that.
ETA: And the consequence of not undoing this deal is that there is now a precedent for making deals like this. It’s the thin end of a scary wedge, IMHO. If we are going to start eroding the supremacy of our own parliament, I’d rather we did it on things like human rights, rather than corporate rights.
I'm only replying so I can read this again :) Beautifully put, Ben.
-
Great photos. Definitely a film-makers dream-set. A little reminiscent of scenes from around Chernobyl. But so much closer to home.
I think we may have bought our car from a lovely English couple who lived in the right-hand of the brick semis at the end of the cul-de-sac photo. They were both health professionals, in their thirties, two friendly young kids. Loved the neighbourhood but could see the writing on the wall.
It was late June, 2013. They had a holiday in England booked already. After the June 13 quake, they cancelled the return leg.
It was a good car, good price, quick deal. They were leaving for good two days later. They did say the suspension had taken a hammering on rut, hole and bump-filled roads. It’s still pretty loose :) -
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
the careful shuffle to make it clear he meant he was keeping the CGT and wasn’t making any commitments beyond
Hm. I hope he'd like to go further, but is being cautious.
Mind you, CGT will be a great start. -
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
It is also very much the case that Grant’s not been in a position to take distinct political stances, because he’s been a loyal deputy and front-bencher for the past few years.
Yes, I get that.
Didn't know he was the chair of the policy council, but it's not surprising. He also used to comment here from time-to-time. I reckon he could be a good Labour leader. To be clear, I'm not hatin' on 'im. Getting to know them both a bit, and enjoying the notion either could be good. -
Mike Mulligan was my first hero. Or was it the steam shovel? Now I'm not sure. Such a biiiiiig hole.
Lovely stories. Workmates came over, suspicious. Nothing I could legitimately be doing would make me smile like that. Bravo.
And "rats ate my hair" will now be my excuse. Forever, I fear, as hair seems to be migrating from the upper slopes. -
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to BenWilson,
They asked us a bit about policy, but far, far less about that than more pressing kinds of questions like what kind of things we think he’d wear and what kind of house he’d live in.
Wow. Hope they have all lost their jobs. Stupid, stupid stuff.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Grant chaired the Policy Council that wrote the new Party Platform. I’m not super concerned about his policy chops.
Chops are one thing. It's the meat that's important. Nats are saying Cunliffe and Robertson would both be a 'step to the left'. Good- but they are hardly disinterested commentators, and it's far from clear what that means.
Cunliffe has already given some indication how he sees govt's role in the economy these speeches. Robertson will need to do something similar, if this is going to be an 'eye's wide open' selection process.
FWIW the selection/election process is generating a lot of interest, and that's good. The new process already looks far better than last time round. Looking forward to some serious debate- and hoping it will reveal strong candidates who can work together towards common goals, whoever wins. -
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to BenWilson,
Just enjoyed a blast from the past, looking back to when Shearer got selected.
This is a gem from the angry 39er :)
Another thing that gives me pause. iPredict, which has been extremely accurate so far, has been holding Shearer as the most likely candidate for a while. However, recently, it’s stopped predicting a Labour win in 2014. What do all those insider traders know?
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Shearer’s own political principles, ideology if you will, were never clear to me
This is what I can't get over. After 20 months, it's no clearer what David Shearer truly believed. What were his bottom lines, the principles he'd die in a ditch for? What, crucially, did he think of economics, and neo-liberalism?
The appalling speech that began with the man on the roof, and moved from beneficiary bashing through a vision of a tech/science-led economic revival, with a casual jab at teachers, more-or-less sealed it for me. If it was a strategic attempt to slide to the centre, leaving the riff-raff vote to other lefter parties, it was cynical. If he meant it, it seemed heartless and out-of-touch. Most crucially, there was nothing in it that couldn't have come from Stephen Joyce.
And after that, not much. Shearer's rhetoric on the GCSB sorely lacked any firm principle. At no time did he express uneasiness at the GCSB spying on New Zealanders. Or give a clear sense of what sort of oversight might be adequate. Plenty of chance to say: under Labour, the GCSB will not electronically snoop on Kiwis. Instead we were promised a nebulous inquiry.
Cunliffe isn't- can't be- just a more articulate face for the same old commodity. Refreshingly for the current Labour caucus, he's been forthrightly critical of neo-lib 'orthodoxy'. Whatever you think of him, he's saying the stuff that will excite the Labour base.
Robertson may also have interesting ideas about the economy, but he's not been anything like as outspoken. If anyone knows where he stands, it's not because he's touted it round town.
Bryan Bruce's doco 'Mind the Gap' on TV3 Thursday 7:30 aims to put economic debate squarely into the next election. Hope so. I reckon it's a debate we need to have. -
Speaker: Naked Inside the Off-Ramp, in reply to Pete George,
That’s a disputed opinion.
That’s the opinion of the courts, I believe. That’s the illegal spying John Key apologised to Kim Dotcom for.
As the political fallout began to toxify, the line changed: the illegality became a ‘disputed opinion.’ Then the legal experts started to be disparaged, and those who’d voted for the 2003 bill ignored, when they attempted to clarify that when they’d voted for a bill that saidNeither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person… who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
what they’d intended was that the GCSB NOT intercept the communications of NZers.