Hard News: News from home ...
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
Ron Davis, in reply to
True. I did mean Parker. As for CGT being on the back burner for now, what Little said twice on National Radio with Kathryn a few days ago was that CGT and Super67 "would not be on the policy statement" for the 2017 election. To me that was parallel to privatization not being on the policy statement during Lange's first election campaign as opposition leader. But guess where it was? In the bottom drawer ready for an airing once the treasury benches were won. I'm pragmatic enough not to pick fault with that. I hope that's not too two-faced of me.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
That’s exactly where my head went :)
I loved Flick as a child -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I hope that’s not too two-faced of me
Nah just good you can see that there is a bigger picture than just personality involved
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I loved Flick as a child
Him and Toot.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Him and Toot.
Always with the lil' guy . :)
-
Ron Davis, in reply to
So Nash parks legally, and like everyone else parking near a CBD, he denies a spot to some other motorist, who, if they had parked there would have denied a spot to someone else. I've no doubt this is, or could be made into a PR problem. But where's our sense of proportion? Oh, I forgot. We readily melt in the warmth of an "aw shucks" smile while ignoring the cold hard fact of a huge fiscal problem right ahead of us re Super entitlements.
-
Anthony Behrens, in reply to
Union structures and their hierarchy are virtually impregnable
What absolute bull faeces DexterX.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
I’ve no doubt this is, or could be made into a PR problem. But where’s our sense of proportion?
I suspect the PR problem has arisen because Stu seems to have little sense of proportion.
Goodness me…a fire engine as his promotional vehicle…what was he thinking???
(That…and him disingenuously letting the nation know that Cunliff had failed to congratulate him on his electoral win….)
Spare us all the egos of these people, and the silly games they play.
For what its worth…I say give Little a fair crack of the whip.
We seriously need a Labour leader with a strong workers’ rights background, we seriously need to halt this creeping acceptance that the only way to economic security is by exploiting workers….and the lowest paid workers the most.
-
I'm inclined to Dimpost's comment, in that I'm not interested if he's the sort I can have beer with (pace Andrew Geddis) but whether he can sort out the Party.
-
NSA, in reply to
Indeed Leopold. It’s such a ripe odd cliche:
"s/he’s a PM I could have a beer with"
What are the circumstances?
Does ‘could’ here denote my preference to do this or simply the likelihood of such an event occurring? Is ‘a beer’ a shared cup? Our own vessels? A keg? A colloquialism denoting a sequence of beers until we’re both three sheets to the wind? To me it feels like a vessel of beer each in which case who’s buying? Will I feel or be made to feel inadequate about my choice of beers? What’s the correct exit strategy once we’ve each finished our beers? What’s the etiquette for taking leave of the PM after a single or unfinished beer?
Will I need to be holding on out of concern that the PM might take a swig of my beer while I’m in the Gents? Does the PM have any communicable diseases that I should be watching out for? If the bar staff refuse to serve a sloshed PM should I similarly refuse my beer in a show of solidarity?
Then there’s this ‘with’; Are we at a pub? Do I invite the PM in mid-doorknocking? Perhaps we’re at the beach? Are we alone or in a group? How ‘with’ the PM do I need to be to claim I had a beer with? I could probably handle a beer with the PM at a noisy bar or the TAB where the focus was on something else, a karaoke joint might also work, but in a quiet high country pub with that guy and his verbal diarrhea I’d rather drown.
Although this may seem the obvious inference I also have to ask; will there be conversation accompanying the beer, or could we be Speights mates? What’s more crucial, the beer or the conversation? Must I finish my beer? Couldn’t I just sidle up to the PM and get Gary to take pic so it looks like I had a beer with? If I say ‘hi PM’ will the claim be more valid? What proximity qualifies?
What is the tone of the conversation? Must it be convivial or is jibing on the cards? Can I spend the beer tearing the PM a new flag hole? Can it end in a bit of biffo? If it ends in biffo should I accompany the PM to the ER or should I bolt? If the PM floors me should I nark? How much should I divulge? Should I just make a statement to the police or can I also talk to the media? Is it ethical to profit from this story in Woman’s Day? Should I ensure the PM doesn’t drink and drive? Can I take Key’s keys? Should I give the PM heads up that he appears to have spilt something on his crotch? If the PM asks for a dance, could I agree? Can I put Home Brew on the jukebox? If I can’t take his smarmy bullshit and ditch him mid pint does it still count?
If the chinwag rather that the beer is the emphasis, must my beer contain alcohol? Could the drink be substituted? Could I smoke a race horse/ blast a couple of rails/ drop acid/ shoot horse with the PM? Again who’s buying and who’s going to take the rap? Should we agree to terms in advance? Should I plant evidence on his person? I’m always amazed how many people can parse the subtext and answer the question:
"Is s/he someone you could have a beer with?"
with an unconditional and unqualified ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
As if it actually means something.
-
TracyMac, in reply to
Why some [unions] get to be the deciding vote in choosing a future Prime Minister however I have no idea.
Oh, please. See above for remarks on the Labour Party constitution and its links to unions. If you don't like how the Labour Party does it, then vote elsewhere or work to change the constitution.
As for future prime ministers, I believe that's up to the voting public and which party ends up on top.
-
Ron Davis, in reply to
I believe that many of us will be working hard to change the constitution. The last LED meeting of my own electorate seemed to be unanimous in believing it should be changed. It's up to Labour members not to waste energy bitching about the manner of Little's election but to stir up the right waves. I say this even while I'm beginning to believe that Little is looking more and more like an inspired choice. He, of all people has the mandate to take the unions to task and sounds like he won't be taking any of the old cloth-cap nonsense that so soured our movement in the general public's mind.
-
Seriatim, in reply to
"… Little is looking more and more like an inspired choice."
Especially after his interviews on Q&A and The Nation this weekend. His critics are looking sillier by the minute. -
Ron Davis, in reply to
"His (Little's) critics are looking sillier by the minute."
Maybe a little unjust. More likely his critics are altering their views by the minute as Little steps out in public as opposition leader. That's been my experience anyway. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Maybe a little unjust. More likely his critics are altering their views by the minute as Little steps out in public as opposition leader.
Equally unjust is to stab the Party in the back and delegate the Party to incompetence (due to it’s internal process) before the guy had a chance to step out as the Opposition Leader. Frankly I think that’s been pretty selfish, something I have not much time for.
-
Ian Pattison, in reply to
Rather than say one 'could' have a beer with him, perhaps it is better to say one 'would' have a beer with him. I certainly would.
-
NSA, in reply to
..have a beer with the PM, Little or Robertson? Do go on...who's buying? How many are you having? Where are you having it? What are you drinking? Would there be chatter? Anything in particular you'd like to discuss? Anything off limits? Why beer? Details please Ian!
-
Oh, please. See above for remarks on the Labour Party constitution and its links to unions. If you don’t like how the Labour Party does it, then vote elsewhere or work to change the constitution.
Well I've never party voted Labour, and I can't see myself doing so in the near future, and the only thing that would have ever made me likely to hold my nose and become a member was to vote for Grant, and I didn't do that either.
But the fact remains that Labour will be the major party in the next left wing government, and because they interact at the edge in the center of the bell curve, the one that we most rely on to take votes from the right side of the equation. So I'm as interested in how they choose my future PM, as any other party that I'm also not a member of.
-
Ian Pattison, in reply to
You're that lady from The Nation, aren't you?
-
NSA, in reply to
Lisa Owen? Nah Matey, I’m not. Prescriptivists…Give us another grammar lesson bud.
-
Ron Davis, in reply to
"Prescriptivists...Give us another grammar lesson."
Beware what you wish for. Those righteous grammar police with 6th form English under their belts do indeed tend to the prescriptive. But, English speakers, lacking a recognized language authority to officially prescribe usage for them (unlike the French), should recognize that what they call "rules" of grammar are not rules in the sense that laws of state are.
"Rules" of English grammar, were they derived from the language as it is used today, would often appear to differ markedly from the "rules" formulated in late 19th century Britain which dominate the thinking of today's language moralists. Back then you did not end a sentence with a preposition, now it's acceptable. Back then you did not split the infinitive, now you do. An example of that sits several lines back which I guarantee nobody so much as turned a hair (hare?) at. <Oops, and there's a pesky concluding preposition.
The sentence "s/he's a man I could have a beer with" also ends with a preposition, but didn't excite much debate on that count. The sentence made sense in every respect of the language because "context" is the final arbiter of meaning in any language - both for words as well as clauses.
So, the sentence was not, practically speaking, so much a grammar teaser as a poser for analytical philosophy. You done good, NSA. You don't need no grammar lessons.
-
Ron Davis, in reply to
Oh, and by the way. Anyone want to see great holes blown in the battlements of the self aggrandising grammar police? And a good chuckle as well? Borrow a copy of Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage".
-
NSA, in reply to
You don’t need no grammar lessons.
Well I don't know if I'd go that far, but y'know =). Modal verb usage enjoys a degree of deviation. In my work I'm often torn between my descriptivist upbringing and the pressure to ignore issues with/relay/affirm unkempt neologisms from around the world. If a student were to come out with something like "I could go a curry right about now" I'd be impressed, in no doubt as to the intended meaning and quite possibly salivating at the evocation. With 1.5 billion English speakers worldwide, adult native speakers who are compelled to correct one another for shit written on the internet are a delight. In a world where people are 'my badding' or claiming they 'could tap that' pedantry issues of the type Ian has exhibited quite often seem to go deeper than mere language usage. This may quite possibly be a reaction and a resistance to the state of flux, as you quite appropriately touched upon here:
More likely his critics are altering their views by the minute
In the case of Ian's correction, what struck me is that he imposed an agenda by posing a slightly different question. Taking for example:
"If you were fighting on the front lines would you kill someone?"
Compared to:
"If you were fighting on the front lines could you kill someone?"
For me the distinction is important enough, the first emphasising a sense of volition (would you be prepared to...), the second confers a greater reluctance, someone more resigned to the necessity (could you bring yourself to...). In both cases there is possibility, in both cases there is a choice to be made. When posing such a question with regards to our current PM, on a left leaning site like this, I'd presume in many instances that the action would be carried out with a degree of grudge, if someone could even go there.
But this thing, this focus on superfluities at the expense of bigger concerns, it's almost a defining feature of our age, there's been a fair few wallops of the technicality ass on this thread. A few pages back I had to rope in the help to physically restrain me from posing something similarly inane with regards to Andrew Geddis linking to his superlative piece 'Worst Result Ever'. For reasons I won't go into this piqued my curiosity to know what Mr Geddis' 'second worst result ever' would be. Then Russell replied to Andrew with
'I agree with everything you've written.'
Which sparked in me the same burning question for Russell (again restrained), if for no other reason than to ascertain if and where the consensus of opinion diverges. Fortunately I didn't. This kind of nit picking approach starkly contrasts with the kind of no bullshit attitude Andrew Little brings to the table (as Leopold was insinuating), and that's an approach we can hopefully acclimatise ourselves to in good time.
Thanks for that recommendation Ron, I'll put it on my list.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
How'd we get onto grammar? There's an old thread around here somewhere, or alternatively you guys could go get a room :-)
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
This kind of nit picking approach starkly contrasts with the kind of no bullshit attitude Andrew Little brings to the table (as Leopold was insinuating), and that’s an approach we can hopefully acclimatise ourselves to in good time.
A joy to read, NSA, but the above line really, really made me smile - acclimatise, such an appropriate word.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.