Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
it's the change to bail laws that scares me
Another one I'm confused about. Is it just a repeal of Labour's change - which will apparently do little in terms of case law, or will the considerations they are suggesting will apply be written into it?
Lyndon, the fact that you are unsure only serves to hieghten my concern. National's use of urgency is gratuitous. They've won the Treasury benches with the least publicly available policy information of my lifetime and now intend enacting it pre-Christmas - as BenWilson's noted, some is entirely unrelated to the financial crisis, surely allowing ordinary parliamentary scrutiny is not too much to ask?
-
__I think journalists are a little mesmerised by him, and, by implication, their own power to anoint and un-anoint
That's very persuasive analysis, Caleb. Ta.__
Isn't it. It's an interesting - and very real - phenomenon. While I'm not suggesting any parallel with Key I remember an Alan Moir cartoon, from the mid-90s Sydney Morning Herald, showing the short-term Liberal leader Alexander Downer, crowned with laurel and borne aloft on a litter, about to be tipped over a precipice by the massed cheering hordes of the media, while John Howard lurks expectantly in the foreground.
Though you'd expect Key to have more insurance against a coup given he's delivered National what three previous leaders couldn't. Still, I do see Key as less a leader by force than by default and I think being PM will be too much for him. Everytime I see him, I hear Dimmer's You wanna believe your own scrapbook
The demonstrably gormless Downer never gave the sense of holding the initiative. Once he'd enjoyed his heady media-assisted rush to the top it's almost as if he looked to them to ask Now what? In that moment they smelt blood, and his decline into dog-tucker was as rapid as his rise.
I see the the parallels though I can a tell Joe's a kiwi by the use of the phrase "dog tucker" - draws blanks stares here.
-
Surely the politic thing to do would be to wait until unemployment increases a bit, as it is bound to do in the coming year. This 90 Day Trial can then be introduced as a solution and if it is timed right - in step with a bottoming out of the worldwide economy - unemployment will soon reduce and the Bill can be proclaimed a success.
I understood this meant to stimulate the demand for labour by reducing the risks. If so, I agree that its an approach and agree that it would seem less mercenary if deferred somewhat.
It's worth noting however, that similar provisions exist in many (most) OECD countries.
My problem is still that the policy shifts the risk of employment entirely on to the individual. This might be defensable in some instances, but all? All without review? I understand that SMEs are far less able to ride-out lean times and may need some assistance, but total relief in all circumstances?
-
But the Maori Party caucus are discussing their position this afternoon, so we might hear today.
I can't see why they should support either the bill or urgency. It doesn't affect their portfolios, and the gov't will still have the votes. They have no excuse to roll over on this one.
Point well made Simon. I think this is an unecessarily early test for the Maori Party, but it'll certainly reveal a lot about them and their prospects over the next three years.
Key's misjudged this IMHO. Of course I object to the policy given my politics, but the misjudgment I'm most surprised by is the tactical one. In the lead up to Christmas, when everyone's thinking about family and holidays and fun-filled-frolicks, Key's knobbling vulnerable workers.
-
John giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.
I don't remember the 90 days fire at will law ever being mentioned in the same sentence as the first 100 days. Not even yesterday when Key was talking about the pre-Christmas urgency agenda Cabinet had signed off.
A very poor start indeed. Just the sort of thing that gives the Opposition a good platform to criticise the Government. The omission from the 90 day statement and the speech from the throne is all the more distressing.
What's also frustrating about this is that these workers will get none of the protection offered to workers made redundent as a result of the financial crisis.
Where's the logic in this uneven treatment?
-
And we're off into the Twilight Zone... Who exactly has had their lips permanently wrapped around John Key's member? Audrey Young -- whose blog debut memorably called Key a liar for accusing her of fabricating quotes? John Armstrong? And how soon we forget when Fran O'Sullivan was calling him "Helen Key in drag" which I'm reasonably sure wasn't intended as a compliment.
I disagree though I accept that there's been some strong criticism of him from time to time.
The overwhelming direction of stories and editorial comment has been highly partisan, as partisan as I recall the Sunday Star (Times?) was in 1999 in the few months preceding Labour's win. I don't think it's healthy but I think it's close to established practice now. I won't claim to completely understand the new press business model but clearly it requires less critical and more sensationalist reporting and Key's good copy.
I respect Young but not O'Sullivan. I don't really know Armstrong's work well enough to comment. Regardless, my exclusively online digestion of the NZH has been high-calorie-Key for well over a year.
-
"The Peoples' Choice" favourite video to be announced May 2009 during NZ Music Month - get voting !!! http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/readytoroll/
Brilliant. Brilliant coincidence too as I'd just blogged on McGlashan (There is No Depression is doing well in the comp) myself 'cause he's playing in Sydney tonight with Crowded House.
-
As for your Sydney issues, Australians are all a bit odd anyway. Leave that den of inequity and return to your rightful home immediately.
I regularly contemplate coming home, I probably would've years back except my wife's got a killer job at the Sydney Opera House and my youngest's got great childcare. I like it enough here, but it's not home.
The existence of facts in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
Publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.
Highly offensive seems a pretty high threshold (counts out getting caught in your knickers grabbing the washing), I wonder as monitoring becomes more and more commonplace, if the courts mightn't lower this somewhat.
Most people (Police and security included, although not in this anecdote) have no idea about the legality of public photography . AFAIK, it is legal to take photographs of anything in a public place, unless there are specific signs forbidding it
The existence of a sign mightn't be enough, lots of 'authorities' make pronoucements that are likely outside their scope (I'll leave Mr Edgeler to opine on the doctrine of ultra vires).
Back to the Sydney beaches, I checked to see if, as I thought, there were photograpy bans at Sydney beaches; there's not. There's a lengthy discussion of the relevant laws here.
-
That’s the whole point. For decent back play you need combinations. That is exactly what caught us out.
Totally agree Legbreak. Though he's had a great season this season, I thought Sivivatu was the wrong player to have been selected in the quarter final mostly because he's not a good defender and can't kick - not nearly as well as Howlett. Sivi ran at defences several times in the game not because that was the best option and he had support, but because that's pretty much all he ever did (then) whereas Howlett could easily have kicked into touch where our lineout was performing well.
-
I think we've established that, if it's your front door/fence/visible from the street, it's not considered private anyway.
Mark, I don't mean to harp on, but the fact that the information itself is not private doesn't entirely resolve matters for me. As I said earlier, what if it was a live feed of your door - still public 'information', but it's use and access are factors also - for me at least.
That said, I think I've registered my concerns, modest though they are, so don't need to keep banging on...
The Hosking decision (Mike, not Rob) was pretty unambiguous about photos in a public place.
I don't recall the detail of this decision, but there's an increasing number of constraints on the use of cameras, including on beaches in Sydney and "public pools" (which of course often aren't strictly public).