Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media Take: The selling of…, in reply to Glenn Jameson,
That would be the claim you made without mentioning your own connection to the subject and without providing any other source? ("TV3 says" is not a source: who did that analysis?). Lawyer Steven Price, who helped prepare the case against the campaign, has listed his points of disagreement very explicitly and was linked to in Russell's post; if you have detailed contrary evidence addressing those specific points, you're welcome to share it. But if you're just looking to exchange abuse, I'm not interested.
-
Hard News: Media Take: The selling of…, in reply to Glenn Jameson,
Pro-tip: when you end a claim to truth with a smiley (this is the third time in as many posts), don't be surprised if nobody believes you.
-
Speaker: The Government lost the election, in reply to Emma Hart,
The EasyVote card sounds more like a bug than a feature.
(And I've still never received one. I hope that just means they're not sent to overseas addresses at all.) -
It’s there in Rand’s own (en)title(ment): grabbing what you can for yourself is a “virtue”, and so handouts are apparently “immoral” only for the government to provide, not for you to take. Not hypocritical at all, oh no; merely fundamentally wrong about the relationship between society and individual.
-
Certainly GJ thinks misleading the public is funny.
Trolling for emotional reaction is basically the job description
— so let’s not do that. -
Hard News: Media Take: The selling of…, in reply to Glenn Jameson,
in fact,
no, as written, the National tax cut law expires automatically. National would have to act to extend it. Labour wouldn't have to do a thing to remove it.
-
Speaker: The Government lost the election, in reply to Neil,
I didn’t realise how many senior National and Labour MPs trust and respect Peters. They could have at least told us before the election.
That loud sucking noise must be the vacuum that message got lost in :-)
-
Speaker: The Government lost the election, in reply to Neil,
small parties tend to come out worse off when linked to larger parties
We’ve already gone through some of the larger-party behaviours contributing to that. National offer some cabinet positions, but generally don’t concede policy that they weren’t going to support anyway (and if it’s popular, they grab all the credit, while if it’s unpopular they gleefully blame it on the minor partner). The Maori Party lost their way by being associated with National — because National remained at best mildly antagonistic about even such basic things as the existence of the Maori seats, and National’s social policies had a disproportionately negative effect on Maori, outweighing any concessions the Maori Party was able to extract. Under this sort of attrition, UF and ACT dwindled to single-person representation (since that’s all a lifeboat ever guarantees you), and lost any wider recognisable identity as parties. Neither National nor Labour has been willing to “share the stage” — a problem not just in debates, but much more consistently, during the term, and in election campaigning. There’s been little if any effort to demonstrate shared commitment and enthusiasm on specific policies, by such basic means as having co-spokespeople presenting them to the public together. That’s got to change.
-
Do the Greens really need to care what National supporters think?
The only kind of deal the Greens could accept would be something that addresses everything National has failed to do on the environment or on social issues in the past 9 years. Not vague promises of studies for future implementation, but real action now. Ain't gonna happen. -
Yeh, nah. National might be desperate enough to offer a deal, but Shaw is very clearly minded to suggest they investigate the invigorating possibilities of a hilltop ramble.