Posts by Don Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Roger Kerr has never cared about the transition cost of journeying to the small-government nirvana he preaches.
Damn straight. He is also pretty good at ignoring the cost to NZ of effective monopoly in telecommunications, going so far as to argue that it is a good thing.
I don't think the BRT gives much of a fig about businesses in NZ.
Pegging export prices in NZ$s is what we try to do as well but it is not always accepted. A few weeks ago we put in a proposal for some work in Australia, I had not made it clear which currency the pricing was using.
A phone call to clarify had me torn with doubt AU$ or NZ$. In the end I plumbed for AU$. "Great", came the reply "just what we hoped". Clients like certainty as well.
-
That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Correct. This is a governance issues. Essentially we are shareholders in NZ with 1 voting share each. Every three years we get to change the board.
We really don't have the time or knowledge to deal with the minutia of the day to day job of running the country, be we do get to asses the overall performance and base our decisions on that.
Where as I find the idea of a full participatory democracy to be what we should be aiming for.
This is a different thing from referendum lead "democracy" (which, historically has been the preferred tool of dictators to lend themselves legitimacy). The easier it is for citizens to take part directly in the consultative process the stronger our democracy. I am always very impressed when the likes of David Farrar and Idiot Savant demonstrate just how easy it is to participate and get your ideas a hearing, particularly if they are well thought out and presented.
With the way technology is going I expect that process to be even more accessible and valuable in the future.
-
This speech on vaccination she gave in 2004 gives me the creeps.
Yep, thanks Sue for helping.
-
Maybe that makes me politically naive but I can live with that.
It really depends on what you think the main agenda should be. If it is anti-smacking, the right to sell quack medicines, votes for 16 year olds, repeal of the foreshore legislation, anti-vaccination then you are certainly not being naive. You are bang on message and achieving heaps. Well done.
However, keep in mind that in 1992 the USA agreed to reduce its carbon emissions to 1990 levels. Gosh that seems so easy 15 bloody years later when we are still hearing those same commitments made.
It just so happens I feel there is a bigger picture out here, away from your transparent policy making circles and whatever next floats into Kedgley & co. minds. If they cannot get traction on these issues today, when the public has probably never been more focused on climate change, and get their vote well above 5% they might as well fold up and go home.
-
Watching some Labour luvvies get apoplectic over the fact that the Greens have got spine, principle and the numbers is really quite entertaining, but it's time to inject some facts into your jaded diatribes.
Didn't notice much apoplexy on the list. Disappointment in Green's political management maybe.
The fact is Kedgely did put out that press release which contains the following quote:
It is a humiliating defeat for the Minister, who has badly mishandled this contentious piece of legislation. Clearly, the Bill is dead in the water, and I wish the Government would take the only sensible step and remove it from Parliament's Order Paper altogether
You can't be pure as the driven snow and put out that sort of shit at the same time.
The point isn't that the Greens are wrong, the point is where they and their supporters and potential supporters want to spend political capital. That's not a bottomless bucket.
-
Craig, I never said what Labour did wasn't in its own interest.
I am not sure what your points are actually as you haven't addressed any mine. All you seem to want to say is that politicians are equally snide, snippy and hypocritical.
Er, so what?
-
Thanks for the lecture on MMP Craig. I consider myself reasonably acquainted with the system and its implications.
Now, back to the Greens. Aside from the rash of contradictions in their various stances, those with not such short memories will recall that during the last election they were polling below 5% and that until HC gave them a helpful nudge it looked as though there would be no Green MPs at all in the house.
It was hardly Labour's fault that the Greens could not supply the numbers to get a place in Government nor that they were politically unacceptable to other coalition partners (something to consider when doling out MMP lessons to others).
Despite this, their agreement with Labour does give them an influential role, hence the political capital Labour spent on the "anti-smacking" legislation amongst other things.
Having political clout is one thing, but throwing it around like confetti is quite something else, especially for a party whose defining feature is that it is "Green". I know social policy, economics and so on are part of that picture but if voters were more keen on that then Anderton's lot would be polling far higher then 0.00001% or whatever it is they get. I think I/S is wrong in his assessment that they are delivering to their supporters, and more importantly to their potential supporters. If they were they would not be polling so badly despite their recent two "triumphs".
My belief is folks are voting Green essentially for Greenness, not for the sideshow agenda's that Kedgley and co. seem so keen on chucking out.
I don't think the Greens should STFU and "toe the line". I do think they have an opportunity to have a profound influence an agenda being set out by the major parties that could have radical implications on our environment, energy use and economic future. Right now they are blowing that opportunity, IMHO.
-
Tony Ryall and Sue Kedgley
Now there's a duo whose four hands on the health portfolio would make you think.
Is it just me or does the Green's current goal seem to be to take down this Government in a sort of death by 1000 cuts approach?
-
Really! I have seen some peculiar unearthly 'star wars' type beasts lurking in some of the Mall's Food Halls, but I'm not that game to try them.
Oh, in that case, there is a Starbucks on Orange Road. I hear it does coffee in a mug and muffins.
-
Just to re-iterate Russell's comment regarding Singaporean food malls - find a tower block, in the basement will be a good cheap food mall.
They can't really get their heads around the concept of socialised health care to start with
The problem is with the use of the word "socialised". In America that is the equivalent of using the word "treason" (socialists == communists). "Treasonous Health Care" is how it will be heard.
Call it "Fair Health Care", "National Health Care" or even better "American Dream Health care" and I think most of the problem would disappear.