Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Regarding Hipkins, I take a different view to HenryB who said:
That's his privilege. But trying to discpline and not just demote a caucus member, something that Chris Hipkins seems to be implying, for exercising his rights would be really worrying.
and Tristan who also said:
I hate what he said. less than 24 hours after the party has made clear its desire for a proper democratic process involving them on leadership issues Hipkins comes out and demands to know which way everyone will vote (because whats good enough for cunliffe is good enough for every MP right chris?)
Instead, I agree with Sacha's comment about ill-discipline. Hipkins was doing what the Whip should and must do. if the Leadership's focused on the Government, which it should be, I think it does fall to the Whip to insist on internal discipline.
I didn't see all the coverage and perhaps his words seem immoderate but FFS, surely enough is enough?
Chris Hipkins, the only person who we actually know is saying Cunliffe is dicking the party around, is 34 years old.
Not quite, upthread I thought I read from Stephen at least (possibly Felix too) that Carmel Sepuloni and Andrew Little acknowledged the obvious.
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Hebe,
I too really like that about PAS, which is good because my opinions are many and varied, often all at the same time.
Which is why, like many others I'm certain, I closely read not only the initial piece, but every comment. I'm less sure about commenting if I've not.
"Cyber-marae", thanks Islander, that's a notion I love and here I never feel like manuhiri (but then, I'm not sure anyone does/should).
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Che Tibby,
there was a time when public address was my no.1 tether to a much-missed turangawaewae. that’s something you don’t forget.
It’s still mine. Congrats.
I can’t come near to describing accurately what Public Address has brought into my life. Friends, laughter, not a few tears. Most importantly, it has been a community of people who I am immensely proud to be a part of.
That's it perfectly put. Thanks Jacki.
And my friend Paul Williams and I often get a kick out of the fact that he a kiwi in Australia and me an aussie in New Zealand both hang out here.
Indeed.
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Sacha,
Isn't just plain weird that, having failed, Henry's returning to NZ from Australia but Key's poster child is going the other way having been failed.
-
FWIW, the SMH are describing the failure of Henry's show largely as, my words, a production error saying of Henry:
…it was worryingly off-brand for Ten, a network which has always prided itself on being inventive, original and never faltering in its clear focus on its younger audience. In contrast, Breakfast was predictable, derivative and – with a cranky, 52-year-old front and centre – seemingly pitched at an older, conservative audience which was never, and is still not, part of Tens's heartland.
Full story here.
-
Hapless opinion pieces by silly old men are a price we pay for a free press, but there are times when it's not enough to ignore the fools.
I wondered which thread I should post a note that Paul Henry's Aussie gigs been cancelled, I'm pretty sure this is it? So, that's at least one Kiwi John Key can claim has returned.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
If Tea Party pin up Bachmann -- who also outspent her Democrat opponent twelve to one -- loses her seat, I'm going to break the internet with schadentweets. You've been warned.
I would've been happy to have experienced that.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Russell Brown,
The “Obama doctrine” still treasures the projection of force, still endorses American exceptionalism, but it’s not actually insane – it’s just American foreign policy.
When you say 'Obama doctrine', I'm not sure I know what it is?
I'm not well enough informed anymore, but I do think it worth noting that in the '08 primaries and election, slate magazine carried a number of pieces analysing Obama's emerging foreign policy position including that he'd engage with America's enemies, potentially without "pre-conditions". This piece in particular I thought was significant. It quotes Obama as saying:
I would [be willing to meet with those leaders], and the reason is this: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them—which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration—is ridiculous. … [Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy talked with Soviet leaders because] they understood that we may not trust them, and they may pose an extraordinary threat to us, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
Later, the same journalist, Fred Kaplan, also wrote a glowing piece about Obama's 2009 new beginings speech in Cairo.
Kaplan, also seems to put great significance on 2009 handshake with Hugo Charvez. Again, repeating the notion that Obama's point of difference was/is a willingness to engage.
If this is the "doctrine" you mean?
-
Hard News: The Watching World, in reply to Russell Brown,
New Jersey's Republican governor, who has attended 100+ Springsteen shows but has never been acknowledged by The Boss, on account of his politics, got to meet Bruce after Sunday night's fundraising concert -- and got a hug.
I'm loving this story, sure for partisan reasons, but mostly for human ones.
-
Hard News: The Watching World, in reply to David Hood,
I think most of the technical issues are solvable, the main issues to me are "the tyranny of the majority" issues (though it is argued how much a problem this would be under a direct democracy system).
Unlike the tyranny of the voters of Epsom?
I understand, but need to do more investigation, that some English counties and Scotish regions devoled arrangements allowing residents more direct input into resource allocations (relative to the House of Commons I mean). Certainly, getting sustained and informed participation is a challenge, and there'll be much more besides, I guess the interesting point of difference is the, as Carne says, taking back of 'agency'. Not electing a representative to govern, but to be directly engaged in governance (beyond petitions and submissions etc).
Anyway, this might be straying into a threadjack, it was the tech angle that distracted me.