Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's not an either/or, is it?
To quote Keith's post:
Hot money is a dangerous thing for a small, open, export-reliant economy. And a tax regime that favours non-productive activities like property speculation is crazy. These are real political issues that I feel strongly about.
As do I. As do many voters - polling suggests most.
So the question for the opposition is: how to make this point? And they've answered terribly. "Surnames"? FFS, it's like 2008, when the GFC was caused by capitalist greed (and we're cheering) and then somebody says: "Yeah, New York bankers - called Goldberg and something-Stein, know what I mean?" (and we're not cheering any more, we're leaving).
This isn't hard. Labour (and I've always had great respect for Phil Twyford, hitherto) only needed to ask: 'How will this play? And is it what we want?".
The answer to the first was obvious. The answer to the second, only they can tell us.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to ,
It's not a bad thing if the Herald has suddenly decided that "somebody is obnoxious on social media" is no longer automatic front page news.
But every other day, that's exactly what the Herald decides. So I don't think their decision here is based on a new commitment to higher editorial standards.
Happy to be proved wrong, so let's see what happens with the next sports jock or actor or ... any other "celeb" who is not employed by the Herald.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to ,
Alfie linked to a Stuff article because the Herald has ignored it.
It beggars belief that this person is paid by the Herald to write anything. If that organisation has any kind of ethical standards, this should be instant dismissal.
-
History doesn't help us much here. In 1996 voters were playing a new game of MMP and the rules were unfamiliar ("Party vote? Sure, I'll have one of those as well!"). The result can be interpreted any which way - an anti-National majority, a conservative majority, a plague on all houses protest, etc. It's hard to argue that people (specifically, swing voters) were giving Bolger a third term. Or giving anybody else anything, except a raspberry.
In 2005 Don Brash probably won it for Labour. So there's a possible lesson there: don't screw up. You'd think Labour had at least worked that one out by now.
More to the point, the history of third terms tells us nothing about politics in these strange, superficial times. Key and his cabinet can do more or less anything, and who's going to tell us? I don't know how we can judge political fortunes in a media world without interviews, debates, speeches, or anything deeper than dancing with cats.
With Helen Clark and Jim Bolger, "having a beer" with the PM seemed an unlikely thing, but an insignificant thing. Now it seems to be the only thing.
-
Should be subject to a simple test: name the team.
Anyone who says 'Canes' is refused admission. See also: 'Nix'.
This message brought to you by CAINS, the Campaign Against Idiotic Name Shortening.
-
The voice of the "moderate" (AKA "sensible", "mainstream", you all know the code) politician throughout the ages:
1) "I'm not going anywhere near that" (where "that" shall be issues pertaining to drugs, race, sexuality, euthanasia, you all know the list).
2) "Somebody else has made it happen? Well, I'm on board now - and always was, honestly!"
In New Zealand these voices belong to the Prime Minister, much of his party, and sadly, much of the official opposition party too. With a few honourable exceptions, leaders they are not.
Bill Clinton supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. It was election year. 17 years later, it wasn't any more - so he finally opposed the law he signed.
There are too many Clintons in our Parliament. If they do call for change and take a stand, it's usually in their valedictory speeches.
-
There is no way around the basic problem: perceptions of Labour MPs are longstanding, because the MPs are longstanding. Or sitting.
Nobody will ever think differently (better, or worse) about Goff, King, Mallard, Dyson, etc. All the reviews in the world won't change that. Goff's reinvention in 2011 didn't work, because whatever the (considerable) merits of the policy platform, voters didn't believe it, didn't buy it.
It's painful to watch all this from the outside, knowing that we are powerless until the MPs themselves make a move. I can't vote to change the caucus. We just wait for Father Time. Meanwhile, National grow more arrogant by the day. It's a bleak prospect.
-
If you want “satire” that doesn’t make you uncomfortable, you’re probably missing the point.
Nobody has said they do want this, so you're definitely missing the point. What does Slater's appearance on the show have to do with satire?
An enema might make us uncomfortable, that doesn't make it satire.
-
They may be sick, but as long as they're given a platform, we are all infected.
There's an epidemic of Panelitis in the NZ media: basically, anybody is acceptable, as long as they have opinions, and are free. Until that changes - in other words, until editors/producers grasp the difference between "freedom" and "invitation", understanding that one is necessary and the other is not - then the decline continues.
-
It also means it might be a while before you see shows like these on middle-market mainstream TV.
I think we know how those conversations would go:
TV Executive: "Yes, I like this, but could we just tweak it a bit? Let's put "Satire" subtitles up on screen first, and add a laugh track. Also, after the joke, how about a trombone, and a wink? Just to make sure everybody knows it's a gag, we can't be too careful, can we?"
Anyway, good luck to Brown Eye. One complaint though - last week they had Cameron Slater as a guest. They lost one viewer immediately.