Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
One of my favourite columnists, EJ Dionne, wrote this piece about the US Culture Wars recently. A touch optimistic perhaps, but the rise of more moderate US Christian leaders and the miserable failure that is George W. Bush may yet combine to realign US politics towards the social justice left.
Í´m sure the secularist wing of the party is having to bite its tongue, but it is good to see the Democrats try to break down the strangehold conservatives have had on US religious/political discourse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702847.html
And someone at the Guardian wrote this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/13/budget.economy -
So even if Labour's overall economic record is strong, I suspect that the belt tightening in households all over the country will be making people worried. And that may undermine support for Labour.
Good point. Obviously there is only so much that governments can do to control things that are determined by international markets (the price of dairy products, international credit crises, rising price of oil etc), but I suppose that is cold comfort for people struggling to make their mortgage repayments, buy their groceries and pay their utility and petrol bills.
I do not see the slowing of the housing market as a bad thing, but perhaps that bubble should never have been allowed to develop as it did.
-
In the end, my point is that can we just stop pretending that Colin Espiner [deleted] are exactly disinterested observers here?
I don't think its in Colin Espiner's professional interest to make unsupportable assertions about the Herald's political biases. Whatever his interests may be, he was right in this case.
I agree with Simon Grigg's point - it is unusual that Labour is faring so poorly given their generally strong (especially economic) record.
My own view on this is that the anti-smacking Act precipitated a major change in public opinion from which Labour has never recovered. I know the Act is supported by many PA readers, but seldom has National's message about 'arrogant' Government interference and 'political correctness' resonated so strongly with the public and Joe Average. I still wonder how did the party's strategists did not see this one coming.
I still think the Herald could stand to improve its political coverage (not all of it is bad).
-
If The Herald does have a bias, it doesn't seem to be political in nature
If I am understanding him correctly, Colin Espiner asserted that the paper has both a conservative tilt and a conservative agenda (ie, it is actively promoting the election of a National Government). I share that assesment. Espiner's response to DPF's Herald's statistics was the right one IMO.
I would add that the Herald's editorials are of an embarrassingly low standard. I'm sure there is a coherent conservative critique to be made of Government policy, but the Herald's confused leader writers seldom make it.
There are good conservative writers out there, but they are not writing for the Herald.
-
Great post. I suppose that degree of difficulty does not, on its own, make something "better", even if it is more skilfully produced. (Unless the degree of difficulty allows the audience to enjoy the music more than it otherwise could. But enjoyment is pretty subjective.)
I used to hate broccoli and red wine but now I think both are pretty good. I couldnt say whether liking brocolli is more sophisticated and mature than not liking broccoli, but I find it really offputting when people use wine to assert their social and cultural superiority in conversation. I wonder why Kiri felt the need to say what she said, it wasnt very nice and it doesn't make her seem especially magnanimous.
I remember when the Smashing Pumpkins got bored of the repeated encores so treated the crowd to some of their "experimental" music. I remember the crowd filing out of the stadium on a low note. Still, I cant help but think of that scene from the Shawshank Redemption...
-
As GWB showed, the President is merely a figurehead, a symbol, around which the Executive branch is organised.
If you´ll excuse my exaggeration.
-
And then
The very real threat of the Democratic nominee losing to McCain is IMO more important that the differences between Obama and Clinton.
As a couple of others have alluded to, the US legislative system incorporates a number of checks and balances. Legislation has to passed by both the Congress and the Senate, and in reality it is negotiated between a number of powerbrokers, and subject to the influences of interest groups. A Republican President would wield signifiance influence on the national agenda and retain the ability to veto and discredit Democratic legislative initiatives.
The task of the next President is going to be difficult. The US economy is facing recession, real wages are falling, the federal government is spending more money than it collects in taxes and has spending commitments up the wazoo, it is facing a number of very significant foreign policy difficulties, and the President will have to negotiate an intractable and bitter ideological divide that is aggressively fanned by well financed partisans on both sides. No meaningful change will go unopposed, and it is likely that a Democratic President will be subjected to a sustained and well coordinated hate campaign of the type deployed against Clinton.
So yeah, Obama speaks really well and with Clinton you get the devil you know. Neither is the devil and neither is the messiah. As GWB showed, the President is merely a figurehead, a symbol, around which the Executive branch is organised.
-
the biggest single reason for the govt's fiscal 'surprises on the upside' is the economy is performing better than anyone - not just Treasury but private sector economists - expected... As for why that is, quite a bit of credit has to be given to the reforms of the 80s and 90s.
The obvious alternative explanation - the argument Cullen is making in his speech - is that centre-left economic policies result in greater (and more fairly distributed) economic prosperity than centre-right economic policies. The idea that the ´reforms`of the 80s and 90s´explain our current economic performance, but that Cullen´s policies have nothing to do with it, is, IMO, kinda flawed.
Incomes in New Zealand aren´t great, and I can understand why everyone wants more money in their pocket by way of a tax cut. The regressive features of tax cuts can be mitigated by good design, so as long as we aren´t sacrificing our long term interests (improving education, electrical and telecommunications infrastructure and Aucklandtown) for short term gain (which I suspect we are) then how can I reasonably object.
-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10491097
Cullen´s speech touched on many of the points you raised.
-
Despite the artificial conflict being generated by the competition for the Democratic nomination, Hillary and Obama are generally on the on same side of the issues that matter, and basically want the same sorts of things. It is easy to lose sight of the eventual goal, which is the comprehensive defeat of the Republican candidates for Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency. I don`t really mind which of the frontrunners takes the nomination, I just want to see the Republicans thrown out of the White House. I figure its best not to get too embittered about what happens in the primaries.
Ultimately the race for the Presidency seems likely to reduce to the 10 - 20 swing states. John McCain´s cross over appeal and the enduring nature of the pre-existing red/blue demographics is going to make this a close contest. The Bill Clinton/George Bush comparison is an useful way of demonstrating the abject failure of American conservatism, so its sad to see his legacy demonised before the main event has even begun.