Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Audrey. Great, thanks. That really makes a huge difference to the quality of the story and subsequent discussion.
Sorry, Russell, perhaps I should play nice in this apparent moment of media conversion but frankly I thought the story was essentially trivial and Audrey's elaboration/clarification does nothing to convince me otherwise...
Meanwhile, ABC's Four Corners details a series of examples of apparent corruption within the NSW Labor government in a classic example of real investigative journalism.
-
AS said:
All in all, we probably have the checks and balances about right
That's about my sense of it, albeit several years removed.
The thing that troubled me about NZ's policy-making process was the risk of a small, and potentially transient, consensus running unchecked - pick whichever example you wish.
I don't think that's much of a risk in an MMP environment, particularly one where the major parties are forced into "agreements" with parliamentary partners - however attenuated. But that's the parliamentary side of things. The other side is the public sector and, importantly, lobby groups.
Again, my somewhat distanced perspective, is that the public sector is pretty professional, thorough and independent. Sure there's instances of sub-optimal policy examination or overly timid criticism but generally the public servants I've worked with (and occasionally for) have been clear about their role, well informed and impartial. The Setchell (sp) instance earlier this year is still remarkable in a NZ context, it sure as hell wouldn't be in Australia where we are approaching a variation of the US model (in some but not all states).
Where I think NZ policy making is deficient is the lack of research-led lobby groups. The bigger groups do pretty good work, sometimes, but many others are under-funded and/or rely on historical and/or industrial muscle. Though I don't always agree with them, the New Zealand Institute is a positive development because, compared with the NZBR, it produces analyses in support of its positions rather than rhetoric.
-
Maybe we need to bite the bullet and have a temporary civil service of a few hundred people on 3-year contracts, to *complement* the permanent staff?
You mean like in the US? A risk is a significant diminution of institutional memory and entrenchment of hackey. Besides, CEs are largely sackable already.
-
<blockquote>Personally, I think some folks really need to make up their mind: Is National's problem that there's some horrible far-right secret agenda in the offing, or that it's just 'Labour lite' and not extremist enough? </blockquote>
On what basis should we do this though Craig? Unless they're forced into stating a position, National have given very few indications of their intentions beyond a handful of issues. The speculation, that they've got a far-right secret agenda, is only possible because of the vacuum. Perhaps Key assesses that this is, however, less of a risk than the alternative?
-
The public service is supposed to be apolitical, so that it can fulfil its purpose of faithfully serving whatever government the public elects, without the need for doing wasteful and counterproductive things like sacking the top tier of the public service after every election and replacing them with a new batch of political appointees.
I'm far from convinced that the NZ public service is particularly political. I agree there's been a few stupid mistakes and interventions, however overall I see no evidence of public sector independence being structurally compromised.
I agree with the earlier comments about National's clever avoidance of policy itself. Labour will campaign on WFF, Kiwibank/saver etc but I've still got no idea what National will do beyond cut taxes (in line with Labour too)!
-
David, my experience is not dissimilar from yours - a child that doesn't sleep and is particular about music.
A couple of surprises included: Juice Newton's Queen of Hearts (it just came to me one day, god knows why) and the Dixie Chicks Landslide... YouTube's a great diversion... almost all the Muppets duets are pretty well regarded too, particularly Rita Moreno's Fever. In my/her defence however, she also loves John Clarke's Hide and Seeky Bird, Salmonella Dub (someone else earlier reported this success also) and Lyle Lovett.
-
__however Key's approach was typically confused.__
Paul, I've been on this go round over at Kiwiblog and aren't really interrested in doing it all over again, but could you share with us all WTF Key could have said that would have made you happy?
Craig, in all seriousness, why bother with kiwiblog? You're unlikely to get listened too regardless of what you say.
Key would have made me happy, for what that's worth, if he'd simply said "I support this FTA, it'll be good for NZ business and I think any party opposing it is making a mistake". Had he said this, he'd have still had to answer the inevitable question as to what arrangements he'd tolerate with Peters but then at least he'd not be guilty of hypocrisy.
I'm not at all enamored with Peters or NZF but none of us can ignore their endurance and although he indulges in the worst form of dog-whistle politics, he's generally a responsible Minister. A unique character.
-
Oh and thanks for providing links to the show for offshore viewers.
-
For sure. I just think it would have been more prudent to concede that National might have to talk with a range of parties, but simply decline to speculate on anything to do with the foreign affairs job.
Precisely. Winston's position is awkward but not unmanageable for the government and Phil's probably thinking about his medium-term prospects (even if he's not, it surely suits Helen to have someone in Labour expressed annoyance with him) however Key's approach was typically confused. He should surely have known he'd be asked what he'll do with Winston and prepared a better answer. That said, National haven't ever managed Winston well - first as a Minister and then as a coalition partner.
What irks me is that too much of the discussion is now about Winston and the secondary politics of the deal and not the deal itself.
-
moody bugger that ralston is he does have a solid background in journalism and deserves due credit for it, and respect for his comments on the nature of said field.
With respect robbery, no he doesn't. He doesn't in entirely the same way that no other lazy albeit experienced professional should be taken more seriously than their current work justifies. It's no good trading on name recognition to pass off shoddy work and, I presume, your journalistic profession would do well to avoid defending their standing based on Ralston's radio outburst (there may well be other more worthy opportunities however).
Though the debate's moved on, I remain of the view that good blogging, and I think PAS is the benchmark in NZ, plays an increasingly important role in issue identification, elaboration and dissemination and will continue to challenge MSM which, again IMO, is in the advanced stages of decline. All that said, a very different perspective was recently put by News Ltd CEO, John Hartigan, at the annual Andrew Olle lecture