Posts by Greg Dawson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Bart Janssen,
God I hope this is just a failure of tone and a lack of sarcasm tags
The latter, as I commented in the post just before you. My bad.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Less here, more in other forums and media, there is definitely the same Waitakere Man call coming through loud and clear. Tom isn’t the only one.
And I’m in complete agreement that it’s a false dilemma, which is why it makes me incredibly angry to see it being argued again. Don't think I made my sarcasm clear enough on the earlier post.
-
People wondering if Labour and the Greens should merge - please explain in what crazy ass world there is any reason for the Greens to destroy what they've built to save the broken Labour party from itself. You've got a Labour problem, not a Green problem.
I am thrilled to see the inevitable calls for Labour to throw the gays, the women, and the children under the bus in order to compete with National.
This campaign and election reminded me that when put to it, we're a nation that loves a bully, hates an intellectual, and always prefers the comfortable lie. A nation where we don't want to know about the abuse of the powerless, but will stand up tall when anyone threatens the mythology of the powerful. In short, a nation of cowards.
And no I don't need you to tell me that akshully we all mean well and it's not everyone and and and. As Pete says in a completely different context, ignore what they say, watch what they do.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to andin,
Thanks for posting this - I hadn't found video of the guy, just read the paper that came out a wee while ago. Was one of my "reassure myself that not all people are naturally awful" things during the campaign :)
Really interesting study/findings.
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to mark taslov,
And yes, definitely it is the big money people that should be targetted, but my reckoning is, the way to target big money people is to go after trusts almost exclusively.
Still not convinced we can achieve that in a country where the "money people" with trusts overlaps entirely with the set of "elected people".
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to mark taslov,
It’s not about the monetary figure, it’s simply about the principle. I’m not sure how many people own a bach or even access to one, it’s simply that it complicated the dreams and aspirations of too many people.
Its a comms problem, like most things. I bet you can outweigh bach owners with renters - who would love to see a slowdown in the massive rent increases of the last decade, but probably don't realise/believe that a CGT would help with that.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to BenWilson,
It seems to me that the problem this election is just the same as the last one – that basically the youth didn’t vote. I’d love to be corrected, but it looks like that problem only got worse this time.
But the clear message is that voting is just about how much money you can get for your house, and there is no way in hell anyone under 30 can afford a house.
It's an old peoples game, innit.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Keir Leslie,
People like Goff, Mallard, King, Dyson, but don’t like the Labour Party. So they’ll vote for those MPs, but not the Party.
Not necessarily true. I held my nose and voted for Mallard in Hutt South, despite being inclined to see the back of him, because there's no way I could vote for Tobacco Weasel.
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to mark taslov,
people are looking at about $300,000 for their baches, and if Labour had won last night, they’d have just lost $45.000 to the Government
15% of the gain right? I don't think they would have got the hypothetical holiday home for free.
-
Rightly or wrongly they perceived The Greens as dangerous to NZs economy. Somehow Labour has to sort out an environmental policy that stands alone independent of The Greens so that those voters can feel they can vote for the environment by voting Labour without the negative perceptions around The Greens.
So it's not the media, but people believe the Greens are economically irresponsible so it's their fault? That doesn't work out.
And Labour attacking the Greens hasn't yet worked for them, so I don't think doubling down on it is a great plan of action.