Hard News: The Mood
256 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
The Truckathon: Popular support because they expressed our disenchantment without us having to even leave the house or workplace. It doesn't mean everyone thinks trucks shouldn't pay their fair whack. it was the blind, bossy push to impose another tax right when everyone's feeling the pinch that ticked everyone off.
The Bradford Bill seemed like a hasty "must do something" response to the Kahui killings and all the other horrors that outraged the nation. Yet no-one's been convicted for the twins' historical abuse, let alone murder. Feels alot like everybody gets clobbered, while the real baddies just carry on regardless. That's what really gets on the national wick.
Speaking of National, i don't think they'll romp home at all. They won't necessarily get the disenchanted vote. We really don't know what anyone stands for anymore. The Greens should have totally owned the debate about energy and climate change, but that's not what voters associate them with now. National, with all their dilly dallying, stand for not much other than the suspicion that we might as well bend over now. As for Labour, i never liked W4F, tax cuts then would have worked much better. They couldn't just cough up with the money, they had to make political capital out of it and paint themselves as family-friendly. Funny, though, Cullen's surplus strategy looks rather sound in present circumstances.
Hilarious that the coldest part of the country is making the most power savings! They breed 'em tuff down there. -
National [...] stand for not much other than the suspicion that we might as well bend over now
...As I head in to the office each week, I ask myself just how badly things will go at work. My route takes me past a JOMO service station offering as if in answer the sign Lube Now...
-
' Dover Samuels notes that people in his electorate believe "if National gets in the price of petrol is going to drop down, the price of food is going to fall." '
This suggests that voters believe National controls business and that the prices currently on items like cheese will miraculously fall if they are in charge; that the present prices are deliberately jacked up higher than they should be to make the Government look bad.
-
Though it's fine with me if Clark doesn't -- another wild and easily busted dip into the dirt file in the final week of the campaign should do the trick.
WTF, not the "Labour dirt file" thing again. How many time have we heard that is on it's way and it never materialises? You really are an ugly bit of work aren't you Craig? You do recall which party was basically accusing DBP of being a child molester, don't you? Compare this to some rather legitimate questioning on conflict of interest. Even Key recognised there was a conflict, that's probably why he sold the shares in June 2003. I also suspect inexperience rather than anything else saw him holding them before that but it is hardly opening up a dirt file to point out he had them.
Nice way of trying to shut down debate though.
-
The Truckathon: Popular support because they expressed our disenchantment without us having to even leave the house or workplace. It doesn't mean everyone thinks trucks shouldn't pay their fair whack. it was the blind, bossy push to impose another tax right when everyone's feeling the pinch that ticked everyone off.
Sigh ... but it wasn't "another tax". It was the way that heavy trucks have been supposed to pay their way on the road for decades. The increase is less (half?) than that recommended by the Ministry of Transport.
Don't you think you might have been spun into the "blind, bossy" part by a very able PR campaign?
The Bradford Bill seemed like a hasty "must do something" response to the Kahui killings and all the other horrors that outraged the nation. Yet no-one's been convicted for the twins' historical abuse, let alone murder. Feels alot like everybody gets clobbered, while the real baddies just carry on regardless. That's what really gets on the national wick.
Where do I start?
The sole reason that the bill came before the House was that Sue Bradford's bill came up in the members' bill lottery in 2005. The government had to make a decision then, but it's completely wrong to depict it as something like the home invasion law that National bodged into law in 1999.
It was never intended as a direct response to the Kahui killings (which took place a year after the bill came out of the ballot). And how on earth is it the government's fault that a jury couldn't convict in one case? That doesn't make any sense.
Thanks for the insight, Kerry, but that all seems more irrational than ever to me.
As for Labour, i never liked W4F, tax cuts then would have worked much better. They couldn't just cough up with the money, they had to make political capital out of it and paint themselves as family-friendly.
Fair enough: I thought at the time of the 05 election they should simply have readjusted the top tax brackets and targeted WFF at the lower income end; although neither would have made a huge difference to our house. They blew tax policy at that time.
But consider, Kerry, the dramatic improvement in child poverty statistics in recent years. That was high employment and WFF, and it should be delivering social benefit for the rest of those kids' lives.
Funny, though, Cullen's surplus strategy looks rather sound in present circumstances.
In terms of the state of the government's books, absolutely.
-
WTF, not the "Labour dirt file" thing again. How many time have we heard that is on it's way and it never materialises? You really are an ugly bit of work aren't you Craig?
Sorry if the truth hurts, Don, but lashing out doesn't change reality. You may have found people like Clayton Cosgrove and Tariana Turia dog-whistling race riots if National won the last election perfectly acceptable. You're A-OK, with Mallard's little attacks of sleaze. It's always different when allegations are made against John Key of making false statutory declarations to the Companies and Electoral Offices, effective insider trading and so forth that just aren't true. And you've got the flaming nerve to say I'm a nasty piece of work?
And now the best you can come back with is that Key did recognise a potential conflict of interest, and divested his family trust of those shares? My God, Don, how pathetic and desperate do you have to be — now the great sign of John Key’s lack of ethics is, well, he behaved in an ethical manner? Of course, if Clark is really convinced that Key not only mislead the House but clearly committed a contempt of the House by failing to disclose a pecuniary interest, I look forward to a complaint in her name being laid with the Privileges Committee. Put up or shut up, Don?
Nice way of trying to shut down debate though.
Calling 110-proof bullshit on that, Don. Saying things YOU don't want to hear is not "shutting down debate", unless I've magically gained moderator status and started deleting comments I don’t approve of. I haven't. And neither have you — so you might want to dial down the self-appointed Commissar shtick, scolding over lines of discussion you deem inappropriate.
Still, nice attempt to claim a spurious moral authority by painting yourself as the victim of a nasty bastard trying to crush your speech. (Which, to add insult to injury, makes you sound a lot like the more rabid troglodyte homunculi over at DPF’s place.) As Doctor Cullen might say -- diddums. If you're going to get this shrill every time I say something you don’t approve of, a very unpleasant four months or so is ahead. For you. Thankfully, your stroke risk is not my problem.
-
now the great sign of John Key’s lack of ethics is, well, he behaved in an ethical manner?
Your words not mine. I never said JK behaved unethically, mostly because I don't believe he has. Another of your traits is to put words in folks' mouths that were never said/written. All I have said is that Labour's line of questioning is not the outrageous assault on humanity you make it out to be.
akes you sound a lot like the more rabid troglodyte homunculi over at DPF’s place.
Really? Not been there for a long while, I am guessing things must have improved a lot if that is the case.
If you're going to get this shrill
Er, right. You read your comment before hitting "Post Reply" did you?
your stroke risk is not my problem
and thanks for the death wish.
-
and thanks for the death wish.
Oh dear, Don... we're all going to shuffle off this mortal coil eventually, but you do seem determined to hurry yourself along. And how ironic that a few lines before you were complaining:
Another of your traits is to put words in folks' mouths that were never said/written.
Take it away Herr Doktor Freud, someone needs the psychoanalytical concepts of 'projection' and 'transference' explained. But seriously, Don, would you care to explain to the group exactly how I was 'shutting down debate', because it sure looks to me that you were just chucking a hissy because you didn't like what I was saying. You can respond a little more calmly, ignore it altogether, but please don't try and paint yourself as some kind of repressed victim. It's just embarrasing.
-
I see Peter Low has provoked some dissension in the ranks.
"From now on, I want to distance myself from the AAG, which is becoming no different to the criminals and gangs that we are lobbying to have stronger laws against," said Francis Chai, chairman of the group's recruitment committee.
"Our original intention was to help victims, educate the community and act as a pressure group, not to go out there and pick fights. It is all wrong."
[...]
Two other committee members, who did not want to be named, also said they were resigning because of the intended association with triads.
"It took me years to get my status as a chartered accountant," said one member, "and I do not want to risk getting struck off because of my association with this group."
-
Of course, if Clark is really convinced that Key not only mislead the House but clearly committed a contempt of the House by failing to disclose a pecuniary interest, I look forward to a complaint in her name being laid with the Privileges Committee. Put up or shut up, Don?
Not really. The allegations are of impropriety in 2002 or 2003 - during the term of the 47th Parliament. The Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction over matters arising in an earlier Parliament.
Calling 110-proof bullshit on that, Don.
110-proof is normally around 55%, right?
-
110-proof is normally around 55%, right?
I was thinking more "makes you blind and crazy very quickly", Graeme. :)
Not really. The allegations are of impropriety in 2002 or 2003 - during the term of the 47th Parliament. The Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction over matters arising in an earlier Parliament.
How about misleading the House last Wednesday about his actions in 2002 and 2003, is that within the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee?
-
Perceptive column by Colin james on the meaning of the truckies' strike and all:
Why did so many people back Muldoon-era minister Tony Friedlander's striking truck drivers even though it is better for them that truck companies pay a bigger share of the cost of roads? Because the truckers were giving the fingers to the Government.
Large numbers of people are now doing the same or would like to. They automatically blame the Government, regardless of whether the object of their grump is the Government's fault. How else could National get away with its gross exaggeration of the increase in education administrators and obtuseness over regulation of hairdressers?
The result is that where there is a call for strong leadership on hard choices, the Government can no longer provide it.
In part, this predicament is of the Government's own making: its cautious, often placatory style, its concentration in its early years, when it had great authority, on rebalancing the economic and social priorities and its consequential focus more on past battles than future prospects and so its failure convincingly to depict a future New Zealand.
But that alone could not account for public approval of the truckers' wrecking action. Much of the Government's predicament is not of its making. It is the sliding economy. Profligate with debt and besieged by crazy world fuel and food prices, householders want someone else to blame now the bill has to be paid.
The Government's loss of authority will be visited upon it at election time. But that will not remove the hard policy choices.
-
It depends, Graeme. In the US 110 proof is 55% alcohol by volume, but in the British system, it's 63%.
-
Give the respect
I'm always prepared to give you the respect you so readily extend to others, Craig.
smart-arse?
Pot, kettle, et al.
-
How about misleading the House last Wednesday about his actions in 2002 and 2003, is that within the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee?
Too late now.
A complaint of a contempt of Parliament must be raised at the first opportunity. That was Thursday.
-
How about misleading the House last Wednesday about his actions in 2002 and 2003, is that within the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee?
Craig, I didn't approve of what Clark did last week -- not least because she got at least part of it wrong.
But I'm more exercised, to be honest, by Key's cynical implication that someone in the Parliamentary Service is corrupt, to try and divert attention from the more obvious conclusion that someone in __his__organisation is leaking stuff to Nicky Hager.
And Key was, quite clearly, making shit up about Sparc. In both cases his targets weren't part of the political hurly-burly, but people for whom it is hard to defend themselves. So I don't see that he really has the moral high ground.
-
I talked to someone involved in an electorate campaign for Labour at the beginning of the year -- they mentioned strong signs of "mortgage belt poverty" coming up in polling in places like the North Shore. I guess it makes sense that the most over-extended people will feel the strongest sense of grievance in a credit crunch.
Hmm, the same North Shoreans who make weekly trips to the Westfield Mall at Albany, filling the carpark to capacity with late model BMWs and SUVs, before proceeding inside in an attempt to consume their way into the upper middle class?
And probably using their credit cards to do so?
-
Hmm, the same North Shoreans who ...
Yeah, those ones.
-
I'm always prepared to give you the respect you so readily extend to others, Craig.
Fine, Rod, the next time Russell asks me a question do I get a chance to answer it on my own behalf before you make the cheap -- and pretty off-beam -- crack about my being "evasive"? Sorry, folks, I'm just not buying into the borderline hysteria about Key anymore than I'm swallowing the Kiwiblog variety about Clark. (Call me a crank, but anyone still throwing around Mugabe comparisons at either Key or Clark is a cretin,)
In both cases his targets weren't part of the political hurly-burly, but people for whom it is hard to defend themselves. So I don't see that he really has the moral high ground.
I wouldn't particularly assert that he does, with the caveat that anyone in the public sector who doesn't like being put under public scrutiny (and, yes, that includes political criticism fair, unfair or a bit of both) might find the private sector more agreeable. I certainly believe that Kevin Brady came under vicious political attacks that crossed the line from disagreement with his conclusions into extremely serious claims that he was actively colluding with opposition parties to bring down the government. Allegations he was totally unable to respond to in kind. When his term as Auditor General ends, he's owed a lot of apologies -- but I suspect he's not silly enough to hold his breath waiting.
But -- if as Clark seems to be doing -- "integrity" is going to be all the way on the table in a presidential-style election campaign can we just acknowledge that the bullshit isn't all on one side? Just a little bit?
-
can we just acknowledge that the bullshit isn't all on one side? Just a little bit?
People have. Numerous times. Most have expressed disgust at Helen for the attacks she launched at Key.
However every time someone raises a criticism of National you come back with a defence of "but Labour is worse..."
That and it's a bit whistley to bring up the auditor general don't ya think?
"Remember the election fraud people! Remember!!!"
-
This is very late in the piece, but was there anyone else who, when trying to remember a quote which spoke to Bolger's alleged statesmanship, could only recall ... "Bugger the pollsters!"
Anything longer than a sentence he tended to mangle ... an ability he hasn't lost I noticed during the KiwiRail launch last week.
-
I'm equally annoyed by David Farrar towing the party line and backing the very silly suggestion by Key that the recent Hagar emails had been obtained by someone hacking into the Parliamentary Services email system. It's pretty obvious an insider is being very sneaky.
I think David knows full well how the system works
-
Hmm, the same North Shoreans who make weekly trips to the Westfield Mall at Albany, filling the carpark to capacity with late model BMWs and SUVs, before proceeding inside in an attempt to consume their way into the upper middle class?
dc_red: Damn, when does all this fabulousness go down? We're obviously taking the sub-compact up the motorway for a grocery shop (not much cheese and smoked salmon in the cart, bugger it), cheap and cheerful foodhall dinner and some window shopping in Farmers and JB Hi-Fi at the wrong time. When did one become so damn dowdy and lower middle-class?
Seriously, dc_red, we can trade social stereotypes until the sun goes cold (I'd be on pretty dodgy ground assuming Outrageous Fortune is an accurate depiction of everyday life in Waitakere City), but I have a funny feeling there are some seriously over-extended people out west. Or not too many steps away from the Brown-Rae household -- it's sure been a while since we've had a Sunday rag sob story about the unspeakable tragedy of living in a fashionable (and over-priced) suburb on two incomes, when you've got two kids and a self-inflicted debt monster to feed.
I absolutely agree with you, red, that when the party winds down, nobody is ever that keen when it comes time to put in to cover the tab. And it's hard to feel an excess of sympathy for people who (to be harsh) are the architects of their own discomfort. But you want to know the dirty little secret -- no politician is going to write out that reality check.
-
This morning on morning report Sean Plunket tried that bullshit about "its not all one-sided" when interviewing their political editor Brent Edwards, and it roused Mr. Edwards to a surprisingly vigorous defence of Clark, noting Key hasn't had to put up with whispering campaigns about his spouse, his sexuality, his children or lack thereoff, and the other faux-scandals spread by National party on-line smear specialists like Cameron Slater and David Farrar.
-
But I'm more exercised, to be honest, by Key's cynical implication that someone in the Parliamentary Service is corrupt, to try and divert attention from the more obvious conclusion that someone in his organisation is leaking stuff to Nicky Hager.
And Key was, quite clearly, making shit up about Sparc. In both cases his targets weren't part of the political hurly-burly, but people for whom it is hard to defend themselves. So I don't see that he really has the moral high ground.
Hear, hear!! I notice Sparc has replied in ...wait for it... today's Herald. But to continually insunuate there is a leak in Parliamentary Services after a supposedly thorough police investigation is particularly nasty.
I'm with you on this, but I still say a fresh set of faces on the Labour frontbench early in the third term would have made little difference to their current predicament.
In part, this predicament is of the Government's own making: its cautious, often placatory style, its concentration in its early years, when it had great authority, on rebalancing the economic and social priorities and its consequential focus more on past battles than future prospects and so its failure convincingly to depict a future New Zealand.
I though the public had enough of governments projecting a future NZ back in 1999 because there were too many disappointing efforts up till then. I would argue that rebalancing of economic and social priorities stands NZ in good stead for the future, and the science behind climate change has only become conclusive for most of the public in the last few years. As well, you certainly cannot accuse them of being lazy whilst in power, c.f. National between 1990-99.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.