Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have been nagging Auckland City Council for years to run fibre through the sewer system
Seriously dude, you're not connecting my toilet the the interweb. Major privacy issues involved!
-
But not instead of a treaty settlement...
Well no, but I don't believe that Aborigines have given up on making progress on that.
But I don't get any impression that an apology is an 'empty' gesture for Aborigines. It might have no practical implications, and it might do very little for all the issues that Aboriginal people face there, but it's also as I understand it, important to them. Hell, if I should be teaching my kid to say sorry for things, I don't see why states should be exempt.
-
Who needs real policy when you're got the empty politics of gesture and moral self-congratulation? Perhaps Mr. Rudd might want to forget the photo op, and show Aboriginals that his Government actually takes their desperate social deficits seriously.
I can't speak for the native people of Australia, but I've always thought that an apology is actually rather important to them. I know that a lot of Maori felt it was important enough to them to have it included as part of the their treaty settlements. And it was big for a lot of NZ Chinese to have that apology a few years ago.
I'm just not sure that 'we' should go telling Aborigines what's important for them. Particularly since it costs nothing to do so.
-
I'm not sure the Dom Post did cherry pick perfectly. They got most of the worst stuff, but not all - there's a couple of bits in there that I would have put on the front page but they didn't.
The elephant just got bigger for me. Things that I thought would be 'crazy Lockett' weren't, and people who have been in the media denying stuff... blah.
It's not exactly Tom Clancy stuff though. The police are pretty thorough and detailed, but god it needs a rewrite before Harrison Ford will ever sign up for it.
-
kyle... you think of firing the broad-side?
"Not me!" said the... y'know. Thing.
-
There is apparently one page missing. About Lockett ...
Ah. "Selective leaking", "things out of context", "don't know the full story", "probably not a true picture at all"!
Sorry, don't know where that came from. Must have read it somewhere.
-
The document that's online has clearly been leaked by someone on the defence side.
That's what I took from it too. Very interested in material to do with Lockett.
Do you know if this the same document that the Dom used? Or did they have a different version?
It would put a lot of claims about "Police leaking like a sieve to try and cover their butts" in the light of day.
-
who would want to put their career on the line by taking over a party as it begins its nosedive before an election?
er....
Oh well indeed.
But, I meant "with a sane view on their future career as a possible PM for more than a lunar cycle". I dunno who Mike Moore got his career advice from that day, but I hope he didn't pay them.
And 5 honorary doctorates? Universities are starting to give these things away like Sanitarium gave away All Black cards in weetbix packets.
-
A spokeswoman for Mr Carter said the question was the minister's standard response to messages against the Electoral Finance Bill.
"He was making a point about people trying to buy elections. He's trying to make the point that the Exclusive Brethren tried to influence the 2005 election secretly."
I dunno about the naughty step Craig, if we start instituting that then half of parliament will be sitting on it.... wait. Yeah I like that idea. Instead of kicking them out of the house the Speaker could make them sit quietly on a step in the corner for half an hour.
But not a very well thought out message at all.
I presume it's the same Simeon Brown who posted here against the S59 bill.
-
If you take out the word 'soon' I'd say your answer was Phil Goff. Trouble is he's followed the Peter Costello route inasmuch as he's 'playing nice', biding his time, not challenging the leader.
I can't say he does it for me (actually, I can't hear his name without thinking "F*** off Goff!", and I wasn't even a student back then) but it'll be interesting to see.
I always get the impression that parties are stuck between a rock and a hard place replacing longer term leaders who have won several elections in a row.
It seems the option is, as your party is fading, no longer fresh, and coming up to that 'change is good simply for change' period of electoral cycles, you roll the existing leader who has been PM for 7, 8, 10 years. But who would want to put their career on the line by taking over a party as it begins its nosedive before an election? What are the chances of pulling that up? And if you don't, have you had your dash and considered tainted?
Alternatively, you roll the leader before the decline starts. Well if they're at the peak of their popularity and the party is still going OK, who's going to roll their PM?
Seems to me that it always, almost inevitably leads towards "XXXX will lose this election while I am loyal and wait in the wings, resign, and I can come in and build it up against in opposition".