Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and the other faux-scandals spread by National party on-line smear specialists like Cameron Slater and David Farrar.
The odiousness of Slater is unbelievable. David almost certainly has cleaner hands than him, but I still find it remarkable that he continues to have any association with him.
-
And Labour can certainly blame itself for not even trying to look renewed until it was too late.
I agree. When Key replaced Brash, that was the time to thoroughly reorganise the front bench and beyond. Putting safe hands into the political sensitive areas was a necessary move, sadly a few of them have not performed as well as they should have, but National's bait-and-switch campaign has also defused this advantage. Still, I think Key's not going to know what's hit him come election time; he's not good under pressure, has little political memory and tends to make-up stuff as he goes along.
-
Simon, I think you've clearly articulated a lot of what I feel, albeit from the safe distance of three hour's flying-time. But, that's democracy hey?
It seems almost certain that, following Griffin's insights and your own, Key and National will say as little as they can throughout the election in hope of maintaining some ownership of whatever electoral-expectation is currently un-met. That might be modern politics, however it is also a reversal of the pledge-card approach developed by Uk Labour and emulated locally.
-
I do miss Richard Griffin's insight (as reported by the SST):
I think Key's personality will probably win them the election, and they'd be foolish to go past that
By this analysis, Jude Dobson should be PM having succeed Judy Bailey. Of course he's got a point but surely there's an end in sight to the endless "ambitions" and the beginings of some coherent alternative plans?
-
Gimelstob, hands-down. Cowan's idiocy is pretty much self-directed; Gimelstob was repulsively misogynistic, and all the worse because he expected to get away with it.
Yup, that pretty much sums it up for me.
Perhaps we can have a repeat of the Battle of the Sexes: Serena for Billie Jean King and Gimelstob for Riggs.
-
This interview is hilarious.
Jimmy, no drinking mate; not a drop. Now, could you just go over there and put on your steiny tracksuit and join the boys for the Lion Nathan-sponsored corporate event to launch Steinlager-classic?
But to be fair... The ABs management seemed to be taking all the right steps even if they do appear a little, ahem, compromised.
-
3410 said:
Yes, I do. Your point is basically correct, on average, but only relevant to working people. I'm sorry, I don't quite know what you mean by "improved housing".
Fair enough, I was thinking about all low-income people however I see now that you were talking about people out of work.
I'm telling ya, overall, it's certainly harder now. I'm not here to apportion blame or credit; just trying to get the frame right.
I'd thought benefit levels had improved overall a little more than this but I'm not across the data and, ultimately, it's people's experience that matters. The balance has to be between creating an incentive for people to find meaningful work and not condemning them to some form of subsistence existence. Getting it wrong risks creating not relieving disadvantage.
-
My point is that schools teach to the exam (measurable) portion of the syllabus.
You may well be right on this, however we can't ignore measures in this discussion can we? Kerry feels schools are failing, perhaps s/he is focused on factors currently not measured, I can't comment on this.
Somewhat sadly, we've arrived a point where apparently endless measurement is needed to assess the impact increased funding etc. I don't particularly like it, neither do teachers, but consumers generally do (or at least politicians around the world believe they do).
I understand it's a deisre for even more accountability that's behind ACT ill-conceived and under-developed proposal for a voucher scheme (imported direct without any sensible analysis from Sweden including, remarkably, no answer to how they'll improve educational outcomes).
-
Just a reminder that benefit levels are currently (in dollar terms) still lower than they were before Richardson's 1991 budget; by my reckoning about 15%. In real terms, of course, it's much more than that.
Also, not really keeping up with (relevant) inflation, so in fact still going down.
3410, aren't you ignoring Working for Families in this analysis? Do you mean unemployment, disability etc? I understood that, as a result of increased employment and wages, improved housing and WfF, income levels for low- to middle-income individuals and families were better?
-
I wasn't. I nonetheless do appreciate that you have a different perspective to me, not dramatically however, and also some insights into the inner-workings of the party.