Posts by Russell Brown
-
Oh heck. Too much awesome. I think I'm going to have to put this one to a vote too ...
-
Hard News: Word of the Year 2011 -- The Vote!, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Ooooh. STV :)
Heh.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
Because everyone knows it’s never just petting with you Ben, no matter what you promise. And no-one is buying the “I just want to cuddle” line either.
Known Kiwi groomer. Sayin'.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
Yeah, but at the same time I think some people like to act deliberately obtuse rather than accept what is meant. When I get to that bit in a PAS thread where I find myself having to qualify every sub-clause of every sentence so as to avoid what seems like wilful misinterpretation, well I just give up. And some might say that’s no great loss.
Agreed. That doesn't happen that often, but tends to squeeze the usefulness out of the discussion and make everyone feel pissed off, or disinclined to contribute.
-
Hard News: Word of the Year 2011 -- The Vote!, in reply to Ben McNicoll,
Russell, could you list the nominees in the post?
Good call. Doing that now.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
But when we’re talking about NZ parliamentary politics, it’s a fairly useful shorthand to describe those parties or potential colaitions on either side of the line, and unless one seeks to be deliberately obtuse or contrary, everyone knows what you’re on about.
I've also been thinking that the two maiden speeches I've looked up this week -- Grant Robertson's and Craig Foss's provide a good example to illustrate that shorthand.
Part of the reason I often find the Green’s message attractive (and that’s why I have voted for them, rather than because I voted for them) is precisely because their solutions don’t always fit on that left-right spectrum of less intervention/more regulation.
I think it's become a key part of their brand, as Nandor Tanczos proposed that it should several years ago. How much their overall policy answers to the brand is perhaps a matter for analysis.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to giovanni tiso,
And in the face of that humiliation, which some of us experience on a more or less daily basis, being chided by the moderator of this site for having said “hey, you’re middle class, you’ll be okay” strikes me as bordering on the obscene.
I really am done here, but feel free to discuss in absentia, I really don’t care all that much.
Gio, I can only do my best to keep discussions here productive, and telling someone who's attempting in good faith to have a discussion with you that “hey, you’re middle class, you’ll be okay” didn't seem productive.
I didn't edit or delete the comment, I didn't threaten to ban you or abuse you, I just said I didn't think the response was warranted. You clearly didn't agree, but if you're going to describe that as "humiliation" and "bordering on the obscene" you may need to check your sense of perspective.
Anyway, I have editorial meeting to get to, but could you please at least consider the possibility that the dreaded "liberal sensibilities" may not actually have been the problem in this thread.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
And I vote Green, FFS
Commie.
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to merc,
I think I do OK, thanks, I follow usual conventions and I hate using tags
It does make replies *way* easier to parse.
-
Having read Fran O'Sullivan's, ahem, admiring column on Steven Joyce's new status as a super minister -- across economic development, science and innovation, tertiary education, skills and employment -- I'm even more strongly of the belief that Labour needs to deploy Cunliffee across a similarly broad and influential policy span and make him the Opposition to Joyce. (Especially given John Armstrong's claim that Parker will still get finance.)
It's not just a good idea for Labour, it's a good idea for the bloody country.