Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
For the UK to have an early election, 2/3 of Parliament has to vote for it. Last time both Labour and the Tories did so, because both believed it was in their interests. Obviously they couldn't both be right, and May wasn't. I thought Corbyn was wrong to vote for the election, but I was the wrong one.
However, it is very hard to see why/how the Tories - whether under May or a successor - would vote for an early election again (Once bitten, etc). It is possible that they could lose a vote of confidence in Parliament, but even that won't automatically trigger an election. So I wouldn't expect one, any time soon.
-
Why are we wasting time finding out how people voted? Mike Hosking knows.
-
Hard News: Rugby Now, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
Good rugby is so more satisfying in terms of the stories it constructs--the final moments of the Lions vs Blues last night, for example,
Sorry, but that really is nonsense. Feel free to prefer one sport to another - none is "better" by any quantifiable standard, people might get their kicks from windsurfing or bowls. But to deny the "stories" of the world's most popular team sport is just a bit weird, as if the news of a century has somehow passed you by. And that theory isn't so much half-baked as not even a recipe. You might as well argue that "A bunch of bad things have happened in the world since the blues turned into the beat and then pop, ergo popular music is to blame." It's what millions of people do and like, and since people do a lot of stuff, that will include bad stuff.
There's a wealth of quality writing on football easily available online or on the page, I'd suggest reading some of it.
-
I used to go to Eden Park, and genuinely cared if Zinzan's team beat Waikato, North Harbour et al. Simply because the games had meaningful context. Super Rugby barely has any context at all.
The quality of play now can be outstanding (let's not get too nostalgic about a golden age of Foxy kicking penalties in the rain), but what's it all for? A competition which seems to change every year, in the belief that new hype can replace history. ("Which animals are we playing this week, the Hyenas or the Hippos?"). It's ironic that the Lions tour is being promoted with constant references to the past. Those links to history are a vital part of sport's appeal to the public ("first Wimbledon title since 1376", that kind of thing). They give it meaning.
The ABs tests still have that meaning, so I'll be tuning into those. Super Rugby is a success in that it produces top quality players for those tests, but I don't get engaged with the franchises any more than I would buy a Probables scarf and boo the Possibles in a trial.
-
Hard News: Every option has costs, every…, in reply to richard,
Yes, "Cornell" has been prominent on Queen St for years, and just illustrates the difference between a lovely budget spreadsheet in the Beehive and the sordid reality on the ground. To say this is a sound industry is like producing knock-off Louis Vuitton bags and claiming to be a centre of fashion and design.
I worked in the field for years, and I know many good people in it - and they're all sick of being tainted by association with the cheap n' nasties, and sick of a government that (until just recently) saw no difference ... only cash. Steven Joyce has a lot to answer for.
-
Hard News: Every option has costs, every…, in reply to BenWilson,
I remember my favourite Indian restaurant for ages had stunning quality at insanely cheap prices. Then they got busted for exploiting their staff badly
Living in Auckland's CBD I'm very happy to eat cheap takeaway food and drink cut-price alcohol, served by workers below the minimum wage. Occasionally the media ruin this feeling of contentment by reporting on the exploitation that makes this possible, but then my guilt is eased by the latest "statistics" which tell me that this isn't really happening much. Unless you read more closely, such as the accompanying footnote to a Stats NZ table on the declared occupations of new arrivals:
* About half of all arrivals either did not state an occupation or their response was outside the scope. Occupations are not necessarily indication of employment in New Zealand.
If you're an engineer, you say "Engineer". Nobody ticks the box marked "Kitchen Slave". So everything's fine on paper, it's only reality that sucks.
-
One of the problems with our immigration debate is the lazy comparison with developed nations in the Northern hemisphere, for no better reason than the easy copy'n'paste availability of international media coverage. A simple example: this opinion piece - perfectly valid in itself - is illustrated by Stuff with two imported images, unrelated to NZ. It feels as though every discussion of immigration here has to include a reference to Trump/Brexit.
But ... nobody is arriving in NZ by sea, or being plucked from it. Nobody is freezing to death in a truck moving across borders. Nobody is swimming a river or climbing a border fence. Nobody is rioting in a squalid camp. The great moral dilemma of the first world - how to help the poor, persecuted and desperate, while preserving both our humanity and security - has barely touched New Zealand.
The gov't had to be dragged kicking and screaming to increase the refugee quota from a pitiful level to slightly less pitiful. We do not say "Give me your huddled masses", but "Give me your educated and trained, so we don't have to educate and train ourselves". When a boat heads for our shores, even thousands of miles away, our (previous) PM wasted no time in insisting the door was closed. So much for the welcome mat.
Immigration policy in NZ is a cash cow. It's not "anti-racist" - it's a policy that ignores the poor and welcomes the prosperous. And the government and its business cheerleaders should not be given a free pass to when they cynically invoke a "diversity" that is highly selective. When they give a damn about the people at the bottom (often brown, BTW), then they can get their anti-racism badge.
-
To Tom/Nick
Of course they had a choice. The reaction would have been predictable: wild vilification, by the same people who vilify them already. Then the noise would fade with the next issue ("events, dear boy, events"). Saying they had no choice is absurd, a real abdication of leadership.
They made a strategic decision, which can be defended (but I wouldn't). However, saying the opposition has no choice but to vote with the government is the same mentality as "support our troops" - it's a cop-out, and it's wrong. Doing difficult things comes with the job.
-
Corbyn-Labour not only voted for Brexit, but also for an early election. Repeat: this is only happening because Labour voted for it to happen.
Worth bearing in mind when the fingers get pointed in June.
-
These house-buying stories are similar to another tiresome media staple: in order to "prove" that welfare recipients are to blame for their own circumstances, a healthy, prosperous person will choose to live on the benefit for a week or month, and not starve, so there. All other advantages existing prior to the "experiment" (education, professional network, family etc) will be ignored, at least in the headlines.