Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Deborah,
So what’s with the prevailing meme of blaming David Cunliffe for Goff not being able to come up with them during the debate? It looks very much like a bit of niggle designed to undermine Cunliffe’s bid for the leadership.
On one level I guess it is hideously unfair, because you can’t exactly expect the finance spokesman to be standing on the edge of the stage with cue cards. But you’d really think that when you’re campaign is hinging on painting the incumbents as, at best, grossly incompetent or flat out pathological liars you’ve really got to do better than “wait until Friday” when your own costings are questioned. Sorry to say this, but you’d never have seen Clark and Cullen score an own goal like that.
Oh, and when they were finally released what did Labour's finance spokesman decide to do -- achieve the apparently impossible and go on Paul Henry's radio show and be an even bigger sexist tosspot than the host.
Yeah, I really do find the idea that Cunliffe is Labour's Great Communicator ever so slightly bemusing.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
I agree that a relative should not be involved in the hiring decision, as that is unfair on other candidates.
And in the context of the Earthquake Commission, they are subject to the State Services Commissioner’s Standards of Integrity and Conduct:
It is important we do not give preferential treatment to people we are connected with, either socially, personally, through work or in any other way. Our organisations must have processes that preclude our being involved in deciding matters relating to friends or family, and we must not take part in employment selection processes, or have supervisory responsibilities, that involve another family member.
FFS, when my David was still working for what was then Toll, I applied for a job in the same section. Even though he has nothing to do with the selection process he was reminded (politely) to avoid doing or saying anything that could even be perceived as an attempt to exert influence.
-
Isaac, I begin to think you are a fuckwit, with an agenda for the right-
Rather ironic coming from someone who’s sounding an awful lot like Cameron Slater – the incredibly serious allegations made with no real evidence, but who gives a damn because “the enemy” must be guilty! Right?
Yeah, I totally agree with Russell that EQC really does need to answer serious questions about pay rates for staff assessors that look seriously out of kilter – even if Isaac is right and they’re trying to hire a lot of people quickly by flashing the chequebook around. (Which is not exactly an outrageously uncommon recruitment technique.) And since the allegations of nepotism are out there, EQC better be able to show there are robust Conflict of Interest management processes in place that are being followed to the last punctuation mark.
But damn, Islander, remarkably efficient of you to slap on the black cap without bothering to be judge and jury first. Who needs to bother asking questions when you've already got all the answers?
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Russell Brown,
But MPs’ pay and superannuation is basically a derail from the subject of Keith’s post.
Fine, Russell. Since PAS is a troll-free zone, please delete the comment at my request and I'll be more careful about staying on-topic in future.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to BenWilson,
Dude, just tell us what the process actually is. You're being slippery.
What I'm "being" is otherwise occupied with paid work and a hard deadline that was moved up to close of business today at very short notice, and a second I've got to clear before I go out of town for four days on Friday morning.
You know what, Ben - if you actually want try being civil I'll have an ask around because I'm not just going to transcribe great swathes of the National Party constitution because you're visiting from High Dudgeon.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to BenWilson,
A "Candidates Club" (yes, they do actually call it that) is formed, from which people can be arbitrarily excluded. These people are then trained into their candidacy, and the most promising ones selected by a small board formed from the current party leadership. The names of the people in the Candidates Club were kept secret.
Oh, for God's sake Ben... keep reading.
However, the Board’s selection control is by no means perfect and National’s electorate candidate selection remains more decentralised than Labour’s selection process which has substantial central representation on the selectorate.
Sorry to fuck with the meme here, but the candidate selection process in National doesn't exist to rubber stamp the Board's annointed. Really. And after the unholy fucking mess that was the 2002 campaign, National saw an urgent need to revert to some kind of Electioneering 101 (you know, like being able to turn up at a cottage meeting and not say "Sorry, I don't know what our policy on X. is" - true story) for potential candidates? No shit, Sherlock.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to BenWilson,
What is the process, Craig?
Well, I've never had a phone call from Party HQ telling me how to vote in any selection I've been party to. You're going to have to take my word on that, because I'm not going to decide to break confidentiality I agreed to respect at the time.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Steve Withers,
Their party HQ gets t pull 5 people out of it' arse and put them wherever they like on the list. This is how Don Brash got into Parliament. No one in the National party actually voted for him to be there.
Steve: Considering I'm probably the only person around here who's actually been involved in National candidate selections, I think I can say this with modest authority: Foofy tosh.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to merc,
Pay rise of round 7k just before the election (with lost travel rort compensated), not their fault mind
No, of course it isn’t – it’s not as if the Renumeration Authority is controlled by legislation or crazy shit like that. In the great scheme of things, I know it’s chump change but I can get why it’s galling across the ditch to see Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot pocketing an extra $90 & $74 grand respectively (or a 20% hike) when a lot of other people will count themselves lucky to see 3% – or a few hundred bucks after tax.
It might be symbolic, but amending the Renumeration Authority Act to link MPs pay to some combo of inflation, the CPI and/or average pay increases across the public sector (including schools, hospitals and Police) would send a message that charity isn't the only thing that begins at home - or in The House. :)
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Islander,
And frankly, I’d support asset-testing (yeah, I know of the ideological fish-hooks…)
You know what, I don't wish to sound like I'm kicking Phil Goff but Key's a rather banal object of scorn. The outgoing leader of the Opposition has spent 27 of the last thirty years being well-compensated for his public service. (I think current teaching and nursing graduates would love to have the same entry-level salary as a backbench MP. Currently a hair under $135K, IIRC.)
If it's "ideological" to suggest Phil (and John) shouldn't suffer from having their pension means-tested (and abated), I plead guilty. They're certainly in a much better position to save and invest in a retirement savings account than the people who clean their offices. For that matter, I'll be buggered if I can see why the Prime Minister should be drawing superannuation at all.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 206 207 208 209 210 … 1235 Older→ First