Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mmmh... you mean like Todd Bertuzzi?
Well he did get picked up by a US-based team (mine actually!) first!
and the retribution was swift:
You realise that the Stars who were so up in arms about it are based in Dallas right?
-
Sorry to be cynical, but a proper communication strategy should have been prepared for a debate that would not be fair.
I think the point is well made that Labour, and everyone else, can bitch as much as they want about the bum job the media is doing.
If they want to win an election any time soon they have to do a better job at presenting themselves and their policies, and attacking the government.
Seriously, we're nearly two years into National's term and Labour just a couple of months ago was still getting slammed for things it did while it was in govt. It's media management has been pretty bad for quite some time now.
"Hey that's not fair!" ain't going to put them in power.
-
Dyan, as a counter, I give you Sean Avery, born in Ontario.
-
And where exactly did the "$50bn welfare bill" figure come from, since the media don't seem to be telling us the whole story?
Where's Keith Ng when you need him? I'm sure he'll be able to rip that figure to shreds in about three paragraphs and half a graph.
-
The section 59 amendment closed a loophole that allowed a couple of assault cases a year to be dismissed. Worth doing? Sure. But equivalent to homosexual law reform? Worth losing power over and having Paula Bennett and Judith Collins as government Ministers?
I think that (actually like nuclear free legislation) in practical terms it doesn't mean particularly much. Like nuclear free legislation, it's true impacts are in what it passing means. Nuclear Free legislation didn't take us out of anzus, passing nuclear free legislation did. Nuclear free legislation didn't actually make us a clean green, peaceful haven in the south pacific, but it made us feel that way about ourselves.
Section 59 amendment in practical terms won't change many lives. In much the same way that for many homosexuals, law reform suddenly didn't mean they all went out and lost their virginity. But it made an important statement about people's rights. I think changes to section 59 will be seen as more important (not massively important, but more) than they are now because it was a significant step in recognising children's rights within the family.
And prostitution law reform, civil unions I think will be recognised in the future as significant pieces of legislation which will become part of our national identity, though like many I'd have preferred same sex marriage to be legalised in full.
It isn't arrogant, it a statement of fact.
It's really not. The local MP for whatever Auckland electorate, or the city council member for Auckland etc, has no more influence over the nation than any other politician anywhere in the country. Having one third of the population entitles Auckland to one third of the votes in parliament, which seems about right to everyone else.
-
Labour and their supporters can either go on relitigating these debates, almost certainly lose them all again, and definitely get a lot of potential voters pissed off at them again - or they can draw a line under them and say 'we're just not going to go there anymore. People didn't like it. We listened. So our focus will be on the economy'.
I'd go the other way - governments should accept that they're going to do unpopular things, and that they're not likely to get elected four terms in a row.
I'd much rather they make a bit of a difference in the world rather than sit on their hands to be national-lite so they can get elected.
These will be the changes that we will look back on 20 years later with great pride - much like nuclear free nz, legalisation of homosexuality etc etc are looked back on now.
-
The local is national in this town.
Were you wanting to sound that arrogant, or did it just come out wrong?
-
Though I've got to admit I feel a little sorry for Chris Wallace -- he was trying to take down the Terminator with a water pistol.
Good that he acknowledged that he'd had his ass handed to him at the end.
-
I suspect I probably don't mind a sitting MP also being a city councillor for a short period of time - a year basically. Councillor is a part time position and lots of people do it while also doing another job.
Longer term I'd have an issue with it as I think there's conflicts between local and central government that you shouldn't be sitting on both sides of.
A sitting MP also being a mayor of a major city though? That's a joke, who thinks they can put themselves forward to do two full time (plus more if they do it properly) jobs?
-
Ditto. I regard this as a really unfair advantage on other people's part.
If I'm explaining to someone who Russell Brown is (normally in relation to Media 7 I guess), it's "guy that I kinda know, does a TV show and web site".
Which you'll stay until I meet you in person when I'll think of something to upgrade you to (the "kinda" might get cut).