Posts by David Slack
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
IP, I'm not saying she doesn't. I'm just asking in what context he does. It would be instructive to know whether the ambit of that context is broader than usual for a politician.
-
It's reasonable to question the veracity of Hager's material but it would be a mistake to lose sight of the valid questions he appears to raise.
In particular, there is this: in just what circumstances does Don Brash believe it is acceptable to withhold information - or further - actively dissemble?
We should recall he has said this in a 1998 speech in London:
Then I asked them whether they were suggesting that the Labour Party had had a moral obligation to lie. They did not like that conclusion, and neither did I, but I am reminded of the conversation whenever it is suggested that Governments should not undertake reforms until a majority of the population support those reforms.
The question it leaves us in this context is: in what other contexts, if any, does he take the view, for high, low, paternal, or other motives, that what he tells the public need not square with what he actually knows?
-
To the North Shore!
To Juha's place. He needs cheering up.
-
In light of Dobyns disclosure about the Queen aproving of the music, Mr McCully must have egg somewhere on that face of his? ?
What's more, who says Republicanism (if indeed that's his preference) is the preserve of the Left?
When I think about it, though, Dobbyn is clearly trouble.
Anti Police (Queen St)
Anti Met-Office ("Outlook for Thursday, your guess is good as mine")
Anti-Green ( "but i'm whaling - manning my harpoon")
Anti-NZ business ("i carry my cynicism like a tourist with a camera")
And secretly wants to be a terrorist ("i can't change my name")Send him back!
-
I've updated the post with a few more items from last night's discussion, plus one suggestion for an honest-to-God Volcadium. City of Cones!
Rich, just to be clear, that ratio was for the over-run.
-
If by "resolution" you mean "agree to it", then that's probably not too difficult. If you mean "come up with the money", there's no chance. The NZRFU will probably lose money on the World Cup, and the IRB traditionally grasps every cent it can get. The trust board will squeal about spending that much on a temporary improvement, but could possibly have its collective arm forced up its back.
Ambiguity is the price I pay for writing in haste. What I meant was that I see them tossing it largely back to the promoters, who in the absence of civic largesse might reaquaint themselves with the temporary seating option. I take your point about IRB stinginess and their determination to replicate the profit of - from memory - US$150 million from the last tournament. But I just wonder, if the cost should be 30 to 80 million for temporary seating, (source: Rudman and Cayford respectively) whether the Trust, Union and Government might not find the dough with or without help from the IRB.
But "in due course" means 10-20 years for the land uses to change, and longer for cleaning up. There would be a lot of work in picking up enough space on the Western Reclamation, and even more residential building there by the time you do it.
That's exactly what I think you'll get, and what Cayford seems to foresee, and arguably what best serves the democratic process.
I'm going round to Tessa Duder's to drink gin and cry.
Interestingly, there were only a couple of speakers at last night's meeting adopting her line.
Don, no snide sneer at Wellington intended. what I was getting at was that in this case it's being called a National Stadium, which implies it will be treated, funding-wise, in the way places like Te Papa have been, where central govt largely picks up the tab. As various speakers explained, that will not be the case for the waterfront stadium.
-
I'll stand corrected on the supply-sider question. My somewhat woolly justification is that you're to some extent judged by the company you keep, which was more or less what I was implying in the Thribb piece.
And I think that it still a tribute / which recognises the bitter sweet nature of real world politics.
Thanks, Jason. There was no malice intended.
I understand I've been criticised elsewhere as a smart-arse lefty. Unfortunately Abraham Lincoln was right: at 40, you generally have the face you deserve.
-
Thank you Wendy. Consider yourself granted full and unfettered rights to deal with it as you wish.
My favourite tribute so far is from Harry Hutton
-
Spare Room offers an inspired solution to Nickelback's creativity slump here.
I have seen the future of schlock and roll and its name is Hurra Torpedo.
Andre, if you have any more horrifying stories like that, you would be most welcome to do a guest post on Island Life in the weekly Discouraging Revelations feature.
-
Ha, David, this is the first time I can recall us strongly disagreeing about anything ...
That's probably because I play only a careful selection of the country section of my iPod when you come to visit.
You're right, there are significant distinctions to be made. If Bob Clarkson's right, though, and it's more like 2 billion, then it might be interesting to see how the numbers look long term.
Just as an aside about Stadium Australia - and I presume I'm talking about the right one, we were there for a Bledisloe Cup match a couple of years ago, and got crap seats right up in the roof on half way. It was so high and so distant from the action, it was even hard to see the big screens. It was so bloody steep you wondered if you needed crampons, and the video ref wouldn't have been as well placed as us to call offside.