Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That was a terrible interview. Labour had already made prats of themselves supporting the SOP at all, but to then defend it so poorly.
If they want to run the "contract" line, I think Steve Curtis' point is very well made: the pre-1999 MPs aren't just expecting the fulfillment of their original contract, they're also expecting betterment, in that a Business Class fare now provides a much higher standard of travel than it did previously, and Air New Zealand "Premium Economy" would be a more comparable standard. That would make the travel rebate about $6,900, which is about double the cost of an Economy Saver fare. Which is about what the ratio of Business Class to Economy used to be, and therefore similarly appropriate.
There's a second issue which the whole "contract is a contract" argument (self-servingly) ignores, which is that one of the primary tenets of parliamentary democracy is that parliament can't bind future parliaments. A contract with parliament is no contract, it's just an agreement for now.
Or from an alternative point of view: I wasn't old enough to vote when that "contract" was made, so I am not a signatory to it, and therefore I am not bound by it, and therefore my representative is not bound by it either. -
ZOMG, I totally forgot Project Runway, which, yes, definitely watched (don't think it's been on here for a while?). And also "What Not to Wear", and the first couple of seasons of NZ Masterchef, and the Great British Bakeoff.
In the property/renovation space, my current poisons are "Location, Location, Location", "My Dream Home" with "the Property Brothers", and Sarah Beany's "Double your house for half the money", and any episode of Grand Designs which I haven't already seen twice.
The point of listing all these is twofold. First, when I add it all up, I'm astonished to find just how much of reality TV I have watched, considering how sniffy I am about it as a super-genre; and second because, looking for common themes for longevity, it's not just the content, but also so importantly the hosts which make the difference. I couldn't watch "What Not to Wear" after they replaced Trinny and Susannah, and I would refuse to watch Project Runway on principle if they ever lost Tim Gunn. Grand Designs is made by Kevin McLeod, as proven by the dullness of the Australian version - though the latter also suffers from not having figured out that a Grand Design is not just "some house built with a bottomless budget". And there's Phil & Kirsty (LLL), and Mary Berry and Sue Perkins (GBB).
So my question, for people who like the Idol/Talent/X Factor format, is whether the judges provide that same extra something as the hosts of those other shows do for me; i.e. they make it watchable or not? Because if so, that would underline the necessity of MediaWorks dumping two judges who were potentially going to make people disengage?
-
It's alright Danielle, we know you're neither a prole nor an idiot, so you're allowed to watch reality TV/talent shows (particularly if it means I don't have to...). I once had a weakness for the various "Next Top Model"s, though not for some years now. And I used to like the home renovation shows, before the ratio of interior design to useless "challenges" and product placement tipped too far. And when I think about it... I watched the first, NZ, Popstars. And probably the first Australian and UK versions too. But never Survivor, nor American Idol/Country X has Talent/The X-factor, nor Big Brother. So maybe it's a case of "pick your reality poison"?
-
Indeed. Another nice example of the line attributed to Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Good job Phil Lyth; Graeme Edgeler; all those who wrote to a politician to query their position on the matter (that's so I get to thank myself!); and the Greens.
-
No, you haven't misunderstood anything. That does appear to be exactly what she's claiming, which is why it's such total poppycock. I wonder if that's what they've told the Greens and NZ First when they were convincing them to vote for it?
-
The story’s been picked up by the Herald. Less than impressed to see my local MP (Annette King) backing it.
*wanders off to see just how long she’s been in parliament*
…and of course, as anticipated, she’s been there since before 1999, so of course she’s arguing for it.
Her claim that “"They benchmarked it to China Air or something, which was dearer than Air New Zealand, actually. If it had been benchmarked to Air New Zealand the allowance would have been cheaper” sounds like the usual load of poppycock one expects from self-interested politicians. -
OnPoint: Leviathan, in reply to Lawrence Serewicz,
My only comment, Lawrence, was that your first paragraph's segments referring to "Western Christendom" and what Christ would or wouldn't do, made me extremely dubious about where the rest of it was going to go.
For anyone else who might be tempted, as I was, to read no further, I will say that that's the only specifically religious reference in there, so if you find general discussion of dead philosophers interesting, read further without fear.
I am not one of those people, so I couldn't tell whether the rest of the piece was simplistic, or whether I was just prejudiced after the Christ bit, or whether I just found it dull because I find most of that sort of thing (though not Keith Ng's piece, fortunately) duller than gluten-free dairy-free pizza.
-
OnPoint: Leviathan, in reply to Idiot Savant,
I'll vote for any party which goes after our spies with a red-hot castration tool.
All the spies I know personally are women, so that shouldn't bother them in the slightest.
-
I do get your point on the fact we can't choose candidates' places on that list. I've been present for an election in Peru where people could write in the name of a preferred candidate to bump that candidate up the list; and seen other places where you get to rank the whole list if you like.
The difficulty with that approach is that when you cast your party vote you're not really sure what you're voting for. You might think you're voting for a Party party that has Tigger and Ernie from Sesame St, and other characters who really know how to party, only to discover that thanks for other Party party voters' preferences, you've ended up with Eeyore and Burt, who really don't know how to party at all. If you'd known you were going to get them, you wouldn't have voted for the Party party at all.
The solution for ensuring the list is how you want it is meant to be to involve yourself with the party of your choice before the election: join a party, contribute, and have your say (if the party allows it) in who should rank where on the list - or change the party's system if they don't allow it. That way you get input, and people get to know who they're voting for.
-
Hard News: Haphazardly to war, in reply to Bart Janssen,
That's a good point. Mind you, is the decision to go to war ever made quickly these days?