Posts by izogi

  • Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    ...and I notice that the Herald's new site annoyingly now has autoplay on videos, thanks for nothing NZME.

    If you're using Chrome then I highly recommend AutoMute. (It's possible to white-list sites you visit lots and trust.) There are probably similar add-ins for other browsers.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to andin,

    That's why when it comes to governing others, we came up with them pesky checks and balances

    Absolutely. What I'd really like to hear, but also really wanted to hear in 2014, is Labour's view on the current checks and balances, how they're failing (assuming it thinks they are) and what it intends to do to fix them.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Barclay and arrogance,

    At the risk of bringing up a tired question (sorry!), how do people think Labour is doing with its response to this, given it's the primary opposition party and the election's approaching?

    I've just listened to Andrew Little's stint on Morning Report (from 6m30s), where he was given a good 5 minutes to talk about it. He made plenty of clear points about how bad this is for the government, said the usual stuff like how Todd Barclay should be resigning, and then told people they needed to seriously consider how much they could trust Bill English.... and by the way he didn't trust Bill English.

    IMHO he's getting better at interviews, but what I didn't hear him talk about was how Labour would provide a better alternative. That seems significant to me because, especially after 2014, I don't really see how scandals like this have much effect in changing the government --- at least unless people can see a credible alternative. Check out how people are reacting in Gore -- they're just excusing the whole thing as typical of all politicians, and that it's okay because the Police decided they weren't interested. Everyone wants to excuse the behaviour so they can continue to vote for a National candidate with a clear conscience.

    If they want to change the government, shouldn't opposition parties, Labour in particular, be out there telling people, both in that electorate and everywhere else, that they can provide Clutha-Southland with a much better candidate than Todd Barclay? In all of this coverage, I've seen zero mention of Cherie Chapman, let alone messages about how she has more integrity as an alternative to Todd Barclay. Shouldn't parties be explaining to voters how they're going to make it so their MPs and Ministers can't get away with the kind of stuff that Barclay's being accused of? What's the benefit of focusing so much on "government = bad" if you're not going to tell people how you're better?

    Guyon Espiner even gave Andrew Little an opening, at the end, to comment on common views that all polticians are untrustworthy. I don't think Little really capitalised on it at all as an opportunity to spread a positive message about how Labour would ensure its own MPs and Ministers were held to a high standard. It's almost like he only expected to be talking about National, and wasn't expecting nor prepared to talk positively about the integrity of his own party.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Access: Being Inconvenient, in reply to Sacha,

    Yes. But surely nearly everyone I listed has access to a highly skilled PR team, and these non-apologies must have been authored by more than just themselves, often after days or more to reflect and consider. It's hard to believe people and companies in these positions, sometimes the PR departments themselves, wouldn't be being guided by PR experts, yet it still results on non-apologies.

    Especially in the political cases, it's like there's an innate fear of absolutely acknowledging having really done something wrong. As well as everything else, we really need a societal shift to acknowledge that mistakes sometimes happen, and to make it acceptable to apologise for things.

    Sorry to detract even further from the original topic.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Access: Being Inconvenient,

    Thanks for a good summary.

    Then came Nicky Wagner’s half arsed “apology”

    This frustrates me to no end. With a speedy search, Countdown's done it. The NZ Herald's done it. Farmers has done it. Nuk Korako's done it. The Board Chair of Fenwick School has done it. The list goes on and on and on. Google. Stephen Fry. And on. And on.

    Is there a terrible PR consultant out there who actively advises clients that even when there's obvious offence, they should act as if they still can't see it for certain? Is this a real strategy that "works" for someone's ulterior motive, or is it just PR blindness and incompetence?

    Perhaps I'm preaching to the converted in this forum, but what's so hard about acknowledging that something actually did cause offence, and honestly saying sorry to those people who were offended? I guess that's why it's called a non-apology.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Rugby Now,

    Like others here it’s been the pay TV model that killed it for me. I’ve never played the game but used to enjoy following the All Blacks matches, Super 12 and NPC. That habit died overnight when I shifted out of the parents’ house and had no desire to pay for television.

    It almost seems like an anomaly that there’s so much free media coverage of the game that I now ignore because it means so little when there’s no practical avenue to actually watch it. For comparison I see my nephews growing up religiously around rugby: they have ubiquitous access to Sky TV thanks to living so close to the grandparents.

    These days when I glimpse it I haven’t a clue what’s going on in the format of the Super Whatever league. If I see parts of the occasional game at any level then I might still loosely enjoy bits, but typically have no idea who the players are or what the stakes are in the same way as I used to. I no longer bother considering going to the occasional game as I did in the past. Usually the only indication I have that they’re even happening locally is the public transport alerts, on the day, about timetable changes.

    Not that I mind. I have more time for other things and that’s probably for the best, but my introspective impression is that rugby culture in NZ, and perhaps its base, seriously changed from the moment it turned its premium matches into a privileged experience which people had to either pay for, or otherwise at least make an effort to leave their homes for.

    Through some reminiscence I'm trying to be enthusiastic about the Lions tour which free media keeps telling me about, but realistically I just don't care.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: How StuffMe looked from the regions,

    The only gripe I would have with RNZ is that while the likes of The Panel do at least feature opinions stretching the length and breadth of New Zealand

    It that what The Panel is meant to be for? I thought it was just a space for Jim Mora's friends to express opinions on topics they often know nothing about.

    Granted they've made some changes, like the One Quick Question bit, where someone who can actually explain something is often called in.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Britain: the crisis isn't…, in reply to martinb,

    But it seems also intransigent and unable to provide such an ‘elegant solution’ as creating a left party outside Labour that could express its own personality, yet work so closely with it when required.

    It causes me to think plenty about how the likes of Douglas and Prebble infiltrated NZ Labour in the 80s, despite having polar opposite ideologies from typical Labour policies. They weren't exactly going to get anywhere under Muldoon, and joining Labour was the only realistic option for getting into parliament at all. Never say never, I suppose, but under MMP things seem to have completely changed. It's no longer a two party system and so it's feasible to get into parliament without joining the only other party that has any hope whatsoever of replacing the government.

    Does the UK have any realistic appetite for reviewing its electoral system? Or is it highly content with what it has?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: For Your Own Safety,

    It’s an odd thing to do because it takes more work. You have to estimate how many women are going to attend, in order to work out how many pink (not even kidding) loos you’re going to need.

    I guess it's a diversion, but this clip from Upstart Crow made me laugh (from 10m:59s). :)

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Mt Albert: Cooperating,…, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    Do you think he helps Labour get elected, though? Unless Labour's actually forming a government, having someone who'd be an excellent Speaker doesn't seem like a priority to me. Voters seem to care about who might be PM, or in charge of the Finance portfolio, but as far as I can tell from the last few years, they don't seem to care much about the person who's controlling the House. There must be a plan for him not being available unexpectedly anyway, and in a room full of politicians is there really nobody who'd make a good substitute?

    Also what's the advantage in being elected himself in order to mentor other new MPs? The Labour Party could presumably still keep him on a payroll somehow if that were needed, couldn't it?

    I was really just meaning to use him as an example, and perhaps his continued candidacy is well worthwhile, but I'm struggling to see what the benefit is of keeping him on the list if it's going to deny the ability of someone else to establish themselves, and who'd be far more likely to be part of Labour's long term future.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 995 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 100 Older→ First