Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: On the upland road

78 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,

    Although the bundle has not dropped close enough to Georgina Beyer. Not much chance of Dotcom keeping her reined in methinks.

    Wasn't Beyer brought into the fold a month ago by her friend Pam Corkery? Jeez.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Carol Stewart, in reply to Michael Savidge,

    his spelling

    Oh, if only his spelling was the worst of his faults.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 825 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to FletcherB,

    I fear his ego is bigger than his strategic smarts

    .I fear this too, and I think saving your big reveal until only five days before the election is a sign you dont have those strategic smarts….

    His timing may be distinctly relevant to the Election and to smartly show Key up for what he is (A bigger lying arse leader)
    His ego has been needed to expose a lot of what this Government has been up to and he may well realise that, like comments earlier, people seem to get bored rather quickly and get tired of hearing about it. Dotcom may or may not have had any idea about the book and if he didn't then 5 days out from an Election might be right to have the biggest impact especially on swing voters and aren't they the ones that are double plus good. The first 5 days of the books release shocked those who got it then the media started analysing and now thanks to rawshark we are seeing just how rotten it all is because it's not over.That feels like lots of 5 day groups to me. Plus who knows what he's got? The date may be very important.
    Dotcom 's motives are to put a stop to what happened to him . He could afford to do this the smartest way he could. Try make change in Parliament and fund that attempt. Ego?Maybe. Smart? Maybe. John Key ,ego? smart (arse)? David Cunliffe, ego? smart? Winston,ego?smart? Dunne, ego.....get the point?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Pharmachick,

    Mr Hagar is not a novelist, he is a cartoon character.
    It is rather tedious when your heroes turn out to be villains, it is embarrassing that people will know that you admired and honoured them and tar you with the same brush maybe. So you trivialise their wrongdoings and denegrate those that exposed the vile truth, you feel dirty, you feel guilt, you fear the reproach of those you fear most. An uglyness grows from you head to your toes and you dreams become nightmares like in school with no clothes.
    Denial is not a river.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to FletcherB,

    I doubt that's available?

    Oh, have you learnt nothing?
    Everything is available!

    :- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Carrick Graham is not a member of Prinz and is not subject to its code of ethics.
    That makes t all fine then. Nothing to see here, move along now.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Pharmachick, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    Yeah, I feel pretty bleak too. Thanks for that. Its like NZ suddenly became Texas or something, just for an election.

    As far as I'm concerned, there's a LOT of manipulating (or faux-manipulating or attempted manipulation) of the political process in this election. Neither Hager nor Slater nor Cunliffe nor Key nor Winston (of course) nor Dotcom are blameless.

    But this is a very new low.

    Since Apr 2009 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Pharmachick,

    Again, stating such a list implies equivalence. Such an implication needs to be backed up with specific examples of what you’re claiming each of these people has done regarding “manipulation of the political process”.

    Please note that, for example,
    choosing the timing of a message
    is NOT in any way morally equivalent to
    altering/fabricating the content of a message
    nor, in turn, is that morally equivalent to
    using a message to persecute individuals for political or financial gain.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1923 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Pharmachick,

    But this is a very new low.

    Eh? So what has Winston and Cunliffe done? Actually what has Hager done? What has Dotcom done?
    If someone gives you information, it is entirely up to yourself what you do with it.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Pharmachick, in reply to linger,

    Hager … either "defender of the people" or "opportunist" - as I said earlier, I'm conflicted, but I actually have a bob each way on that one, leaning towards $1.50 on the latter, 0.50 on the former.

    Slater … stated and self confessed agitator. 'Nuff said

    Cunliffe … refuses to answer questions about whether staffers or friends talk to Slater and/or journalists and/or post on The Standard (gasp … a BLOG) or other blogs. Actually, has problems answering questions full stop (sorry guys, I know you'll be angry about the latter, but its true. He obfuscates waaay too much, a simple "yes", "no", "maybe" or "IDK" won,d often times be better)

    Key … got caught short on the talking to bloggers and journalists. Probably ought to have fired Judith sooner. Still helping the ship acceptably well (ish) from an economy POV, but lots of other [potential] leadership questions.

    Winston … blatant dog whistling about immigration (FOR SHAME!) and giving lollies to retired people that the middle income taxpayer (who will be taxed for it) cannot afford.

    Dotcom … not a Kiwi, but a resident so absolutely has a right to vote. But, I'd rather he didn't try to subvert our democratic process because of his [stated] dislike of the incumbents (although I agree he's been treated shabbily). Instead, go ahead and try to build something, if you really intend to be/saty here. The IMP seems to me to be more destructive than building.

    Okay all, not to pop off in the middle or anything, but I have things to do now.

    Thanks for the discussions.

    Since Apr 2009 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Pharmachick,

    Neither Hager nor Slater nor Cunliffe nor Key nor Winston (of course) nor Dotcom are blameless.

    We can be fairly sure two of this list conspired to bring down their political opponents with orchestrated campaigns of blatant lies and personal attacks, utilising, where possible, the machinery of government.
    It goes beyond 'not being blameless'. If you or anyone else has information- hacked, stolen, traduced, whatever- showing any of the others have been this nasty or manipulative, please, please bring it into the light.
    If you don't, you really really need to stop saying 'everyone does it'. That's a nasty smear itself.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2108 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Pharmachick,

    I’d rather he didn’t try to subvert our democratic process

    Oh I see, anybody that says anything that might show National, or especially John Key, in a bad light is subverting the democratic process. Anyone that disagrees with Team Key are subverting the democratic process.
    So, anyone that does that to Labour, are they subverting the democratic process?
    Anybody that digs up an 11 year old document pertaining to a mistake that David Cunliffe may have made is subverting the democratic process?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    What an interesting approach on Campbell Live to actually get to hear the leaders of all the minor parties in spite of there being 8 to speak. Refreshing after the shout-fest. 7- 8pm

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Pharmachick,

    Dotcom … not a Kiwi, but a resident so absolutely has a right to vote. [--snip--] Instead, go ahead and try to build something, if you really intend to be/saty here. The IMP seems to me to be more destructive than building.

    Sure, Kim DotCom has his interest, yet it's actual New Zealand voters who give the IMP whatever influence it achieves, is it not?

    I don't follow. Should the IMP not exist because some voters might agree with it?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Ianmac,

    What an interesting approach on Campbell Live to actually get to hear the leaders of all the minor parties

    Yes, very much so.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac, in reply to Ianmac,

    Shifting to online 7:30 to 8

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Allan Moyle,

    Potentially more deeply disconcerting WO and Ministerial collusion in Education sector, if true this is vile and reprehensible behaviour.
    The Ministry of Education and WhaleOil - an Introduction

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to izogi,

    What an interesting approach on Campbell Live to actually get to hear the leaders of all the minor parties

    It was actually worth watching and I was sufficiently motivated to go to the online continuation. I've stopped bothering with talk over sessions, they are too frustrating, just make me cross. Hope Campbell realises this is a good way to go, a lot of people don't like the talk over sessions.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to Allan Moyle,

    Potentially more deeply disconcerting WO and Ministerial collusion in Education sector, if true this is vile and reprehensible behaviour.

    Rotten behaviour, if true. Full, wide ranging enquiry needed.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    "That’s right, the framers of the OIA thought that information should be made increasingly available to people, and tied this to good governance and enhancing the respect for the law. Seems we have the opposite going on right now."

    I've made a few OIA requests this year, attempting to find out about Funded Family Care. I've learned that requests are not answered any sooner than the 20 days legally allowed, and sometimes later. I've learned that officials use language such as "no document could be found" in their responses to OIA requests.

    I've learned that the Ministry of Health asserts that its contracted agencies are not subject to the OIA (e.g. NASCs). This latter is now the subject of an investigation by the Ombudsman. The matter helps show the extent to which the OIA is being abused, and if steps are taken to strengthen the OIA, one of them needs to be clarification that all non-classified government activities are subject.

    There must be a lot of agencies contracted to various ministries to carry out policy, I wonder if policy is implemented in this way partly to avoid scrutiny?

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Angela Hart,

    I occasionally ask the Department of Conservation for information about various things. Not usually controversial. One thing I’ve found, disappointingly, is that I’ll often get a much more helpful response if I simply go through regular channels (like sending an email) and ask the question. Legally that’s still an OIA, but it often means they’ll just flick it towards someone less formally and we can have a back and forth conversation about what I’m trying to find out. If I don’t hear back in a few days, I’ll send a followup and they poke the person they forwarded it to.

    If I submit a question explicitly as an OIA, it’s more likely to go into the official tracking system with ticks and signatures and 3 levels of approval from managers panicing about what information’s being released and whether the Minister will care, and sitting on the desks of people who are already overworked and choosing to put it off until they’ve been able to make time in their schedule to read it, 3 weeks from now. It might easily come back after 4+ weeks with a response like “that information doesn’t exist” because I hadn’t know exactly which question to ask.

    To be clear, though, the OIA doesn’t say 20 working days is okay. It says that 20 working days is the maximum allowable time which can be taken without an extension, but also that it has to be answered “as soon as reasonably practicable. The way in which government is badly resourced and badly prioritised around OIA adherence is the reason why 20 working days has become the de facto standard for when to expect a response. Unless you’re good friends with Judith Collins or John Key, at least.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to izogi,

    Thanks Izogi, that may work for me in the future, but not for the particular information I want now, which is NASC generated.
    My point is that implementation of policy is currently concealed by the assertion that NASCs are not subject to the OIA. It's an abuse of the OIA as the Act states that contractors are included.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Angela Hart,

    There's a subtle difference between contractors and agencies that they're exploiting. I reckon Ombudsman will find in your favour - eventually. Or we could change the govt to one who will be more open about such details.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19706 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    Or as part of the general clean-up which must happen if the thinking populace is to have confidence in its government, sort out the OIA so that it operates in the way it was intended to do. Any government can do what this one has been doing unless things are tightened up.
    Unfortunately you can't legislate for honesty and integrity, that's where our system fails. We don't have the checks and balances to arrest improper behaviour. Look at the PM refusing to do what is right (this time with an enquiry). He is a law unto himself. There can be a hue and cry but unless he chooses to act (usually because the polls show him he needs to) no-one can make him. Democracy or dictatorship?

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac, in reply to Allan Moyle,

    Thanks Allan. Passed Kelvin Smythe's column on to others.
    Kelvin's opening quote:

    ‘Other minister’s offices began feeding information to Slater, such as Gillon Carruthers, press secretary for Education Minister Anne Tolley. ”I got those stats out of Tolley’s office, seems Gillon has worked out that feeding the whale might help,” wrote Slater in early 2011. “Yes, they should have all worked it out now, “Lusk replied.’

    How far and how low do the dirty tricks go? Setting out to destroy schools and Principal's and thus the kids just stinks.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.