Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I figured it had to be something like that; otherwise the commute would have been something unbelievable. So you've got a sabbatical this year to do the research, Jen? or just the one term?
-
I/S: well, "you don't have to talk about" such things... only if nobody asks the relevant questions. What are the chances of interviewers waking up and performing that function some time before the election?
Your comment suggests to me that there may be a more worrying logic at work here:
"we don't have policy, so why would we need policy advice?" -
National: "government should do less,
therefore we should be the government"Would you willingly hire someone who made such a declaration about the job on offer?
-
does bureaucracy need a marketing campaign?
not just pushing paper: pushing envelopes
-
...nods somewhat despairingly at Julie's comment, especially:
National seems to believe that it is not the role of government to do the long term policy research and development necessary to uncover the causes of bad stuff and come up with solutions.
Exactly right, and I wish such fundamental points of difference were finding its way into the public discussion (e.g. on talkback radio!... well, I can dream, eh).
I do have to wonder, though, if Key really has such a low opinion of bureaucrats (rather than, say, merely taking a cynical position for public consumption), why would he want to be PM? I mean, what is that position if not uber-bureaucratic? -
they could just call it Fast Forwarding Science, FFS.
Craig: Key strikes me more as a Policy Salami. May not actually end up being bad for you, but no idea what's in there.
-
The only thing about a soaked feline that's liberal is the hissy fits.
Nah, can't quite see the parallel. -
an aerial park
heh, such an apt fate for the Coathanger!
-
@Kyle: yeh, point taken.
So, not "we aren't represented in this government" but rather
"this government doesn't represent our interests" (with maintaining control over land being one important part of those interests)
But I'm not convinced by your characterisation of the creation of Maori seats, though. If Maori weren't fighting partly for representation, then what perceived benefit/ appeasement would this token representation bring? and secondly, the Maori seats -- which pointedly avoided the land ownership criterion placed on Pakeha voters -- could not create any incentive to change from communal land ownership; quite the reverse. -
@ben: the Maori seats were possibly created in part with the intention of undercutting continued support for the Kingite movement (which, lest we forget, was in essence "we aren't represented in this pakeha parliament, so we need to form our own parallel leadership"). So it could be simultaneously a "sop" and a reaction to the wars.