OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 30 31 32 33 34 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
On “Don’t be a dick about it”. I like your reframing of it, Russell, as “show good grace to each other”. The latter emphasises reciprocity, but the former doesn’t. The former is one group of people telling another group of people how to behave, and it comes from a position of power.
I've always though "Don't be a dick" is something you're supposed to tell yourself, with the implication that you're basically a decent person and can moderate your own speech. But "Show good grace" is a positive version.
Neither scales. The larger the group, the greater the chance you'll hit a situation where someone is deliberately trolling, is psychologically incapable of detecting that they're being a dick, or (as seems to have been the case here) came across as a dick to someone else by pure accident and with no ill intention. "Show good grace" is a good moral principle for everyone, but you can't legislate morality.
I suspect that thinking about the power to effect change, and the power to withstand government intervention, and the power to access government services (very broadly understood), might be a more useful way to analyse class structure in New Zealand
This seems to get to the heart of why "Left" is a controversial word. If it's defined by not having the power to effect change, then it would seem that the Labour Party can only be Left when they're in opposition. By definition, if they attain the power to effect change through legislation, they're no longer Left.
I'm not being facetious here (OK, not entirely) – I think for many people, the primary political instinct is only to subvert the dominant paradigm. It's all about power, and anyone who has power is automatically suspect. For others (and this is my own bias), power is politically neutral: it's what you do with it that matters.
I prefer the latter position: I think people are innocent until proven guilty, even if they have power. But I'll grant that this means I'll always be slower to recognise problems, and I can respect people who are more suspicious than I am.
I think that there is something that people here might turn their minds to over the next few weeks, and that is the extent to which PAS is a bit of a closed shop at times, and if you don’t hold the same views as the main grouping here, then it can be difficult.
I've been a frequent PA reader for many years. I went to a Great Blend once. I know a few people personally, and I'm not new to online forums. I've never been shy with my opinions, and as a thirty-something educated male hetero Pakeha I don't exactly struggle to have my views heard. Even so, I've seldom posted until the last couple of weeks, and might not have continued if someone hadn't foolishly told me my contribution was a good one (thanks Hebe).
My own reluctance to get involved didn't stem from a difference of political views, as mine aren't particularly unusual here. I think it was more that PAS seemed to have a bunch of people who are used to seeing politics from the inside, and I'm not there.
Eventually I twigged that I can contribute on matters of abstract principle. I can't tell you much of anything about how David Shearer differs from David Cunliffe, but I can opine about whether there's any such thing as Left or Right.That might not be everyone's way in. Perhaps there are other people out there who aren't so privileged and blindly confident as to barge into an existing thread, but would participate on more general questions like "what is Class?" or "are Greens Left?"
And yes, this comment has been self-censored. There’s a lot I’m not saying, because it won’t progress things at all, and it will only hurt people. However, one thing I must not self-censor is this: I do think that a fair amount of the opprobrium that was directed at Gio was unfair.
For my part, I haven't understood any of it. Perhaps it went past me, but I didn't notice anybody being particularly rude to anybody. I'd assumed there was some offline history I wasn't aware of, and which was probably none of my business.
-
So, everyone, I would regard it as a Really Fucking Big Christmas Favour if you could all just show good grace to each other.
Yeah, thanks Russell. Sincerely.
But you describing Damian as hiding “under the blankets” (like a big sook or something?) was just the last thing I needed to see after explaining I was feeling tired and stressed and asking everyone to show good grace. C’mon.
Quite. Don’t be a dick. Or extend good grace. Or something.
-
Dude, seriously, thanks.
What you provide with PA is of enormous value. And I disagree with a lot of what's been said here, but I'll let it go. But maybe it's worth remembering that people complain about the discussion because they value it so much?
And seriously, go have that coffee.
-
This seems to get to the heart of why “Left” is a controversial word. If it’s defined by not having the power to effect change, then it would seem that the Labour Party can only be Left when they’re in opposition.
Actually, I thought it was fairly clear, and not much disputed: seeking to reform the structures of society such that those who are disadvantaged are given a position much closer to equality. The degree to which a party or government aims at that equality (sometimes to the cost of other values) defines how left they are. Red Guards - absolutely left. Alliance, circa 1991 - fairly left. Labour, circa 2008-2011 - somewhat so.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And seriously, go have that coffee.
I'm actually struggling right at this moment with where to go having written 300 words of a column about coffee then realising I'd already written a whole column about coffee for the same magazine. It's the week's second last big piece of work. Noes!
But I've bridged it to climate change and stuff. No one's gonna know, right?
-
3410,
But I've bridged it to climate change and stuff. No one's gonna know, right?
Been reading Jim Hopkins again, huh?
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
I’ve been briskly informed in this thread about what’s incumbent on me – not that I have any idea how I might go about much of it.
It's easy to say "someone should do X" as a vague idealised notion and forget that it can come across as a demand to the person who would actually have to do X.
For my part, Russell, I would very much like it if you could provide us all with unicorns to ride around on. I think this is a very strong proposal, and I can't see any reason not to just go ahead with it. There really is no downside.
I will name my unicorn Princess Glitterbelle.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
But maybe it’s worth remembering that people complain about the discussion because they value it so much?
Yup – and speaking on my own account, sometimes your ego getting some bruising and the occasional fetching scar is not a bad thing if it leaves you a little more thoughtful, considered and downright non-rectal at the end of it.
On a recent post, I got a rather sharp (but civil) rap over the knuckles for carelessly using “tranny” in a way that was read as a slur on transgendered folks. I’d prepared a snarky riposte, but you know what… there was a fair point there and it lead to some damn useful reflection (and research) on that usage point. I’ve said before Emma and Deborah, Jackie and others have certainly made me more mindful of how I speak to, and about, women – which is a net win.
ETA: And for all the snarking, sniping and cussing Russell and I have done over the years, I'd like to think we've also learned a few things from each other.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
ETA: And for all the snarking, sniping and cussing Russell and I have done over the years, I’d like to think we’ve also learned a few things from each other.
For my part, heaps.
-
Edited by Deborah to add
Oops.
That helps. I was getting so confused and thought I was going a bit odd. :) -
Megan Wegan, in reply to
Well, they both involve, um, heat and pressure, right?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
On a recent post, I got a rather sharp (but civil) rap over the knuckles for carelessly using “tranny” in a way that was read as a slur on transgendered folks. I’d prepared a snarky riposte, but you know what… there was a fair point there and it lead to some damn useful reflection (and research) on that usage point.
I recall. And the person who rapped you has presented as an intractable conflict-seeker in various places around the local blogosphere. Your sincere and good-faith response avoided the apparently inevitable car crash. I saw it and saved that one up mentally.
-
I'd really hope that neither Damian nor Gio abandon PAS. By all means take a break, but what is said here is important. And your voices are important.
I know what it's like to become fed-up with an argument here and I know what it's like to read a comment and think "shit I really was out of line". Nothing disappoints me more than when I fail to live up to my standards.
I know the feeling of being hurt when someone I respect disagrees with me, even if, especially if, I still believe I'm right.
I know the sadness of seeing what I thought a brilliant observation ripped apart, or worse, ignored.
But all of those things are balanced by the conversations that we have here, the insights and experiences we share and the ideas we challenge together. This community informs my thinking about New Zealand and the world and it is worth it.
As for Russell ...
thanks for being the moderator you are, whatever criticisms I have should be held in the light of the wonderful community you have hosted over the years at times when many of us have been difficult to read. -
Megan Wegan, in reply to
Word. It's often the times I've been...robustly disagreeing with someone that I've learned the most. And I've been pretty close to flouncing on any number of occasions. But PAS always drags me back in.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I know the sadness of seeing what I thought a brilliant observation ripped apart, or worse, ignored.
And isn't it strange how loud being ignored can be? Sometimes Bart ,I think your extensive knowledge leaves people digesting info rather than ignoring you. but it would feel the same for you, I am sure. Sometimes nothing more needs to be said because you rounded up nicely. :)
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Sometimes Bart ,I think your extensive knowledge leaves people digesting info rather than ignoring you. but it would feel the same for you, I am sure.
I like to take time out occasionally to make sure Bart knows that, were it possible, I would climb inside his skull and lick his brain all over.
And the person who rapped you has presented as an intractable conflict-seeker in various places around the local blogosphere. Your sincere and good-faith response avoided the apparently inevitable car crash. I saw it and saved that one up mentally.
Word.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I like to take time out occasionally to make sure Bart knows that, were it possible, I would climb inside his skull and lick his brain all over.
ummm thank you ... might need some time to digest that image
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
might need some time to digest that image
Yes that does take you places huh?
-
Back on topic!
Jacinda Ardern vaults up to #4, one ahead of Cunliffe, who has Economic Development and Associate Finance, but not quite the broad brief I was urging.
-
And the allocation of portfolios (pdf). A huge lift for Adern (as Russell notes) and a big step for Sio.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Jacinda Ardern vaults up to #4, one ahead of Cunliffe, who has Economic Development and Associate Finance, but not quite the broad brief I was urging.
Definitely not the snub some news reports were implying he'd get, though - and it's very good to see Jacinda getting up there.
What interests me most is Shearer taking on Science and Innovation (and Megan Woods as associate; that makes me really happy.) It's a nice message, him being the leader and all, but I will be more interested in what actual policy comes out of it. I don't think I've ever seen a science policy from a New Zealand political party that really spoke to me either as a scientist or someone who is generally interested in the promotion of science; it would be extremely pleasing if Labour upped their game there.
-
And Parker gets Finance.
Quelle surprise.
-
And Street has health. Did she do anything in foreign affairs? Serious question, as someone who follows foreign affairs I’m not sure what she actually did.
She’s up against Ryall, who has so far proved very competent at pushing a quiet agenda without resistance. She’ll also have to save ACC [with Andrew Little], against a whole Government pushing for folding the work account into private insurers. I really hope she’s capable.
-
Getting back to the topic:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6158860/Shearer-to-chart-new-direction-for-
He looks tired and old at only 54 and he keeps saying "fresh". And the IMO brilliant Cunliffe is behind (?) the youngster, Jacinda.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Shearer taking on Science and Innovation (and Megan Woods as associate; that makes me really happy.)
Just a note Megan Woods was a business manager for our CRI. She doesn't come from a science background AFAIK but her time here should have given her some insight.
It is also significant that Shearer has taken on Science himself. Especially given much of the commentary from National implied they believed science and innovation needed a prominent role in cabinet which led to some musing that John Key might take on the portfolio.
I guess I was disappointed that it was handed to Joyce along with eleventy-seven other jobs, it would have been nice to see the government give science the prominence in their cabinet that they gave it in their rhetoric (don't mean rhetoric as a pejorative but it seems to come out that way).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.