Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Labour is a big tent that represents a number of different interests, so what follows is obviously just my perspective.
Labour should cede its left flank to the Greens and move its message to the centre in order to maximise the two parties' combined share of the vote. Labour should be re-establishing it's connection with the working and middle classes by focusing on issues of common concern (health, education, employment, crime, foreign affairs, and the economy).
The second part of the strategy would involve the left as a whole. We need a determined guerilla marketing campaign that is capable of resetting public opinion on the issues that matter most to us. This has worked well where commited minorities have worked hard to change public attitudes (race, sexual orientation and reproductive rights) but not worked well where there are determined countervailing efforts by other interested groups and the media (the effectiveness of public spending, the fairness of progressive marginal tax rates, and the overall efficiency of having a sound regulatory structure).
People aren't going to change their attitudes within the course of a three year election cycle. It's not really productive to be so critical of individual personalities. In contrast to Craig, I think voters can make bad decisions if they don't get good information. People only know what they are told. The case for the left is there to be made. It just needs a committed and savvy group of people to make it terms that are interesting, easily understood and capable of viral distribution.
-
I'm watching Stoke play Blackburn in London, feeling a bit nostalgic for Helen and Michael Cullen, and hoping the special votes might change the preliminary results.
I may come at this from a different perspective, and I don't know the man personally, but I don't think Winston is really so bad. I think of him as being to the left of the National caucus, particularly Williamson and McCully. He made a genuinely serious mistake in using immigration as a wedge issue, which has permanently alienated him from a lot of good people, but he's done some good things. I remember him for the Winebox, his effort to change the Reserve Bank's inflation target, the proposal for compulsory personal superannuation accounts, and his Asian Tiger inspired economic and export policy. He's not the man he might have been, but he's not in the same category as ACT, whose policies are simply objectionable.
I support Labour, and watched the debates where I could. It's sad to see Key's hollow charisma win people over like this. I hope you guys can stop the Government from selling everything while I'm away.
-
I don't see how free speech cannot come with the corollary of freedom to criticise that speech; freedom of expression and freedom to criticise that expression are just two sides of the same coin.
I think that's right, but not every response we're permitted to make to offensive speech is equally worthwhile. If we're trying to promote positive kinds of public discussion, we need ideas about how people should conduct themselves in public, and how people who participate in those discussions should be treated. I don't think that undermining the principles that we say we're trying to protect really helps, unless we're prepared to have everything sound just a bit like talkback.
I'd accept that's pretty humourless, and I suppose it's more complicated when we're making assesments of personality and credibility. Social feedback is probably important in maintaining group norms, and I guess Henry has got plenty of that recently.
-
Sorry Russell - could you remove these duplicates - my script blocking software has gone crazy.
-
I don't see how free speech cannot come with the corollary of freedom to criticise that speech; freedom of expression and freedom to criticise that expression are just two sides of the same coin.
I think that's right, but I wouldn't say that every response we could legally make to offensive speech would be equally worthwhile. If we're trying to promote positive discussion, we need ideas about how people should conduct themselves, and how people should be treated. I think the case for Henry's resignation can be made on that basis. I'm not sure that debasing public discussion really helps to promote the kinds of public discussion we say we want.
-
I don't see how free speech cannot come with the corollary of freedom to criticise that speech; freedom of expression and freedom to criticise that expression are just two sides of the same coin.
I think that's right, but wouldn't want to say that every possible response we could make to Paul Henry would be equally worthwhile.
I'm just think we should respond to people like Paul Henry in ways that are consistent with our ideas about how public discussion should be carried out, and how people should be treated. For me, that means abuse and vilification should generally be refined into something more constructive. I think that applies to discussions about credibility.
I think it's why Jon Stewart is quick to emphasise that he runs a comedy show rather than a news show. It leaves his free to make the kind of criticisms he made about Crossfire.
I think the resignation was warranted. Whether Paul is also a c*nt is neither here nor there.
-
I think it's good that Paul Henry resigned. I hope he would have been asked to resign had he called the Governor-General a c*nt on air as well.
I think the point Keith raises about the freedom of speech and the right of others to respond to speech is an interesting one. One the one hand, there are some ideas that you feel you just have to oppose. On the other, the idea of consequences for speech can be made to justify outcomes we might not want to support, such as certain kinds of ostracism. Short version, I don't think the idea of consequences for speech implies carte blanche.
For me, it's a question of how we want people to conduct themselves in our public spaces. It means avoiding and discouraging behaviour we wouldn't want others to display.
I think that focussing on the ironic use of swearing basically misses the point. It's much less funny when it's is used as it mostly is: to insult, threaten, diminish and degrade. (Maybe I am exaggerating.) Calling someone a c*nt is lazy shorthand for a point of view that may well be justified, but it's not the kind of thing that should we should let pass as worthwhile public discussion.**
** I may in fact be a c*nt.
-
a friend put me on to this recently. the sample is unusual but quite catchy
-
there was this one act on x factor recently...
-
I agree, WH - all sides are complex, and the organised campaign does not represent all the people or motivations involved. Thanks for pulling me up on it.
With you being so reasonable I feel uncomfortable about having said anything at all, and I hope I didn't suggest I'm in a position to pull you up on anything.
I must admit the straw man thing has become a bit of an obsession of mine recently. I tend to think that all conversation, whether between individuals or in the media, is enhanced when the best arguments for meet the best arguments against.