Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've been struggling to identify a clear signal about migration since this debate all started. I've migrated but my reasons bear no relation to the hyperventilation from National. I wanted a change of scene and figured a few years in Australia would be good for my CV. Only problem with my logic was that I (re)started my family and bought a house... all of a sudden it's six years later and hard to return.
I would love to return to NZ, even under a National government - it's home fr'crissakes but it's just not that simple. And so it seriously shits-me-off when Key/Lockwood pretend their immigration policy will have any impact on emigration. I doubt it will and I suspect they know it.
Talk to me about childcare, about the number and quality of parks, about maternity/paternity leave, costs of health insurance, housing affordability and public transport and I'm listening; wank on about just wages and I figure you haven't a clue what really motivates people in the medium-term (I accept the lure of higher wages is attractive, until you start thinking about buying a house and starting a family... all of a sudden the prospect of living an hour out of Sydney or London starts looking a bit boring frankly).
-
I'm sure Key's position on Peters is a contrivance, but then it's possibly the only substantive and unequivocal statement National have made in the lead-up to the election!
I'm equally sure his failure to disclose his true shareholding was deliberate - you don't need to be a student of body language to see it in his response to Mould's questioning. His instinct was to mislead, obsfucate and then to pretend it was an innocent mistake. Yeah right.
He is denuded of his moral high-ground, but Labour's still compromised by their position on the Privileges Committee - I don't doubt there was prejudice on the part of the National members, but it wasn't just them that had a predetermined view.
-
__I really hope you're not still talking about Grant here Craig.__
Well, I don't know whether I should or not -- might be a useful question for an intrepid PAS Welligtonista to ask at the next cottage meeting, don't you think? Just remember to have the recording device clearly visible, folks.
Craig it was your response above to Kyle's question that led me to wonder if you weren't connecting dots that weren't there however I accept your word.
__But all that aside, Franks is the twit at the centre of this piece and Grant's not.__
*sigh* OK, but I didn't know it was out of order to expand the discussion.
I'd happily continue to mine his idiocy, there's more than enough material.
-
Well, I don't know whether I should or not -- might be a useful question for an intrepid PAS Welligtonista to ask at the next cottage meeting, don't you think? Just remember to have the recording device clearly visible, folks.
Craig, you appear to be suggesting Grant's responsible for Franks situation, you must know he's not? You also seem to be suggesting he's vague on CU, he's not.
Do you object to the use of cameras etc at cottage meetings, I think I probably do and the questioning of Kedgely was stupid (though I'm no fan of hers at all). But all that aside, Franks is the twit at the centre of this piece and Grant's not.
-
A man who can sincerely write "could we please have new names for the most exciting places with the dullest names on the globe, the North and South Islands" knows nothing about this country worth knowing.
I don't pay much attention to Roberts, but I've always thought the North and South Islands names lacked a little imagination - the Maori names however totally work particularly for my three year old who loves the story of Maui's fishing exploits.
-
Craig said:
Would be nice to see Grant come down off that fence, on the record.
Fence, what fence? I don't think there's any confusion about Grant's position on civil unions, nor the Labour party's for that matter.
I know there are a lot of people out there who'd rather eat broken glass than just say "I was wrong", but it's a little hard to swallow form people who do like holding others to account.
Precisely.
-
Smith's popularity totally escapes me ... I'm not going to stray into dubious territory here, but he's so clearly past his best and yet the good people of Nelson keep electing him while also giving their party vote to Labour. I don't get it? Is he a great local MP? There's nothing wrong with that, so is Ross Robertson, but he's not on the front bench.
-
Whatever one might be able to say about what Stephen said, I was disputing the implication that he said it in a cowardly way by saying it only to those who agreed with him.
I don't for a moment think that Stephen's cowardly; his inability to simply apologise for the obvious offence suggests other character flaws however.
-
Sorry, I meant:
"That's a really spirit__ed__ defence Graeme".
-
And to be fair to Stephen, his post strongly suggests he made the comment in the select committee to people speaking in favour of allowing civil unions (e.g. you've said that love is all you need - what do you say to people who would say that they love their Grandmother, but it's right you can't marry them). And one day, instead of saying sister, or son, or grandmother, as examples of places where love isn't enough, he said dog.
That's a really spirit defence Craig.