Found the article in Granny. Oil and Gas coming to Auckland next week
TPPA – US gets to write our law(apologies if it’s been linked to earlier)
Yep, that's why it's so dangerous. Team Key are going to cement that which they have been lining up in the past 6 years.
After all, weeks – literally weeks – of Dirty Politics coverage didn’t move the polls at all.
Because "the media" (with damn few exceptions) didn't cover Dirty Politics as much as National's dismissal of Dirty Politics.
I'm in touch with Action Station and we worked together on their democracy campaign before the election and we are in touch about this initiative but it's at a preliminary stage yet and I wanted to test the water on this to see whether it was an attractive idea. Similarly with ECO. ECO members were involved in the recent conference as organisers and speakers.
Thanks for your helpful thoughts on this.
Sure, I'm not doing anything more interesting right now anyway...
A Government that hasn’t given a toss before. We’ll see, I hope you are the correct one here.
I'm not sure what I'd be correct about, but I'm concerned.
I've no doubt we'll be getting more land placed under higher protection, simply because that's the most useful thing to do with most Stewardship Land, it should have been done from the start, and it won't be controversial. It'll also be largely budget neutral except for the overheads to get it done, because most of this land is already being managed according to the value DOC's known that it has for the last 27 years---it just hasn't had the legal protection to go with it. I've also no doubt that the government will point to all this higher protection it's applying, and claim brownie points for caring, even if most land being protected is land that would never have been controversial beforehand.
The devil will be in the detail of what's left out, and the detail will probably be strongly influenced by the government of the day and whichever commercial lobbyists have been out on the golf courses.
At least, under the circumstances, Nick Smith is a million times better as a Conservation Minister than Kate Wilkinson ever was. I don't always agree with his decisions or his party, but he actually takes an interest instead of simply seeing it as his duty to automatically rubber stamp everything Joyce and Bridges tell him to. He's obviously had low points in his career, but in the current Cabinet (or what it's likely to be) I see him as one of the better ones.
Thanks Rob. I'll add this into the mix.
I'm unsure whether this could be a conventional research project. Wouldn't the polling methods, advisory organisations and spending be a closely guarded secret for all parties?
Hi @tussock. Yes I've no argument about the unprecedented way in which this government has stomped on all the precedents and process. I've complained about that in other recent PA threads and it also needs to be addressed, but as well as this I think outright ignoring of the law should be absolutely unacceptable. If there's no effective way to stop that from happening, the whole population of New Zealand loses.
I've found other governments depressing, but I guess I just find this one disgusting by comparison with how it runs things, ignores all the processes and precedents which have been put there for good reason, and which until now were normally treated seriously by those to whom they applied. :( In the 1980s we were apparently "not ready" for a binding constitution. It'd be nice to do something about that, even if it's just to give proper teeth to the Bill of Rights.
suggest adding how journalistic ethics are being acted out, reflected on and maintained in newsrooms.
Thanks. Good idea. There is some interesting information in the Transparency International 2013 report chapter on the media related to the lack of ethics training, a lack of clarity about codes of conduct, and the routine lack of disclosure of payments and in kind benefits by most journalists.
The recommendations state:
Industry self-regulatory and regulatory bodies need to be more proactive in reviewing and promoting adherence to their integrity frameworks. The capacity for investigative journalism is lacking, and diversity is limited in terms of media
industry ownership and content
Sell TVNZ , Sell National Radio and start public broadcasting again. They are too tainted for recovery.
Context - Hardly an attack on Snowden - just pointing out some hypocrisy.
"Bizarrely, it is somehow seen as perfectly all right for Dotcom and his associates to use stolen National Security Agency files to try to prove the Prime Minister a liar on how his Government has administered national security, but not for Key to declassify New Zealand's own files to prove he isn't a liar."
Snowden and Greenwald released *American* files. Key released *New Zealand* files. New Zealand has laws about what things can be classified and subsequently declassified and Key broke those laws in releasing the previously classified files. Context yes, but you're falsely making equivalent two different sets of information, one set leaked by a whistle-blower, the other declassified for no other reason than it was politically convenient to provide a "squirrel!" moment for the media.
Moment of truth. Fran O S was a cheerleader for Sara Palin. S.P was like a political litmus test. The people who vetted her , hard core Republicans, have now apologised to the American people for their idiocy.
Fran lives on planet Fran, and she is dirty. Cathy O dirty.
Wouldn’t the polling methods, advisory organisations and spending be a closely guarded secret for all parties?
Probably :) I suppose that's why I want to know. It's a good part of Hollow Men and Dirty Politics. Hager writing about it in 2008
Perhaps. But I think that no one has picked up on what seems to me to be a very important distinction re: the information both parties (S&G v Key) released.
Which is actually a major problem I have with the media in this country. Not picking up on false equivalences, and subsequently falling for misdirection. Pisses me the fuck off every time.
Wonder how John Key's all important Flag Poll will go?
and if anyone will chop it down?
Not perhaps. Did she ever talk to wail and co, did she talk to them? She needs to come clean, stop the trickiness.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant, perhaps, as in perhaps that's relevant to her false equivalences, perhaps it's not. I know she's a right wing mouth piece and all.
Dirty politics is a story of journalism gone fucked.
I think it's much more than that.
Politics historically : an arena of much manipulation.
Media: The peoples journal.
I think you're right, Andrew.
Which is why I've always taken a very Reithian view of the media's role as being to "inform, educate and entertain". Unfortunately, to suggest that the public need educating is seen as elitist / snobbish / "beltway" (where did that come from, anyway? It's being bandied about now as if it provides irrefutable evidence of the fact that the manufacturing of sausages doesn't matter, only how good they taste and what they look like in the butcher's window).
Whether our politicians are misusing the immense weight of state power to crush individuals is something everyone should be concerned about, because it's been shown that all one needs to do to warrant it is to question whether one's receiving the correct benefit entitlement, or being treated fairly by ACC, or even simply doing the job of a public servant. Those are circumstances in which thousands of people find themselves every day, and so are potentially victims.
It's probably not a popular view, but I think the Gallery's major failing was in giving it's audience too much credit. "It can't happen to me / my family / anyone I care a fig about" is the first hurdle I encounter when trying to change minds on justice policy and redressing wrongful accusations or convictions.
Often, pointing out it happened to me is enough to prompt a rethink. At other times I have to join the dots. "Do you have a son? Does he go out on the town with his mates? Well what if..."
The Gallery did an excellent job of covering the facts, a good job of communicating the outrage of educated observers, but a poor job in driving home how that might affect the voter, or someone close to them. As I said, I don't think they saw that as their job, and for very good reason. But it can be done, apolitically, even by referring back to the blots on the record of the "other lot" if necessary. And it needs to be done.
We can't cede the realm of decency and integrity in political life simply because too many of our fellow citizens have lost sight of why it matters.
""And please can people stop saying half of New Zealand voted for National … sigh.""
"Can we say half of them didn’t?
I think, statisticaly, that is more accurate."
No it isn't. Roughly a million voted for National and another million didn't vote at all. The remainder voted for someone else.
“beltway” (where did that come from, anyway?
Washington DC (wiki)
You know, for the last twenty years or so we’ve had outraged puritans, from, I don’t know, Kim Hill to John Banks, reviling this “postmodernism” thing that’s been taught in the universities
It’s more like twenty years since anyone’s prattled about the horrors of ‘postmodernism’. The real assault on academic privilege, or perhaps more importantly the vital role of qualified academic public opinion, has long since been ramped up into something vastly more dangerous.
“beltway” (where did that come from, anyway?
New Zealand’s capital, Wellington , is of course Sansabelt
There, I believe the ‘sphere of influence’ is known as The Thorndon Bubble!
(despite NBR's push for the American descriptor ahead of The Thorndon Bubble, and 'Bowen Triangle' - which just sounds like Sherwood's Merry Men forming a small percussion section...)
…perhaps it's to do with the active Film making industry in the region?
or the soft soaping we get from those inside it?