Posts by Rob Hosking
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hundreds of different factors go into anybody's political views - religion is simply one of them - and they are certainly not listed ad nauseum on Wikipedia.
Hear, hear!
Nice bit of commonsense.
-
Emma,
He sort of has, back when he was leader, at the time Labour had a recognising Maori spirituality clause in the Local Govt Bill [they later took it out]. Talked about how he had spiritual values but how it was wrong, as well as impractical, to give them the force of law.
As for him voting conservatively on the issues mentioned: would he vote that way for other reasons? He represents a socially conservative electorate. Regardless of religion, if he'd voted to - say - legalise prostitution he'd have had voters back home on the warpath.
At least one (other) National electorate MP in recent times has copped flak over this sort of thing.
On the specific issue of family: I tend to tread very carefully around MPs' families. They already cop a lot of crap, they are entitled to a life of their own and unless there's a damn good reason to drag them into the public eye I think they should be allowed that life.
-
C'mon, if it wasn't for all that crucifixion art we wouldn't have heavy metal.
Or 'Always Look On the Bright Side of Life'.
-
So less people are driving now seat belts are compulsory?
<pedant> If they were, it would be fewer people. </pedant>
Yeah, I like feeling the wind in my, um, scalp, when I cycle too. And I sweat like a horse.
But I'll take the helmet, every time. When I was 10 I saw an 8 year old kid knocked off his bike by a car at a country crossroads. The kid wasn't going very fast at all but I can still hear the sound his head made when it hit the concrete curb. Ever been to a coconut shy at a gala day? A bit like that, only mushier.
-
Damn you Sarah Silverman (NSFW)
Dear oh dear oh dear. Still wiping a tear away about the 'close but no cigar' bit....
-
And just to play devil's advocate for a moment, could Obama's real problem be that he's way too 'black' -- and like it or not, so much African-American rhetoric and culture comes straight from the pulpit and the choir loft.
Yeah, but most preachers manage to get some specifics in from, say, the 10 commandments, into their sermons.
Obama doesn't seem to.
Joe Klein had a pithy comment last week: the Obama campaign is now about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. Which, if true, suggests to me it could all implode very quickly. Say in about October.
I know this is the cynical journo in me, [although one or two cynical journos seem quite captivated ] but when it comes to charismatic politicos the default setting on my bullshit detector is well into the danger zone.
-
Is it as bleedin' obvious [and Key makes an unlikely Sybil Fawlty, btw] when Clark, Cullen or Mallard say much the same thing?
Because they do, often.
And its a long running issue for NZ. Couple of weeks ago I was looking at a Treasury paper from 1957 which lamented NZ's poor per capita productivity.
-
Re Oppositions and policy: I can well recall in 1999 trying to get Labour to spell our policy far more.
Monetary policy? They didn't like the way National was managing it. Labour didn't have a position themselves, you understand, but they promised to hold a review on it.
Telecommunications policy? They didn't like the way National was managing it. Labour didn't have a position themselves, you understand, but they promised to hold a review on it. And they would have a look at changing the wording of the Commerce Act about use of a dominant position. This wasn't their policy, please understand, nothing so firm, but they thought it was wworth a look.
Financial market regulation? They didn't like the way National was managing it. Labour didn't have a position themselves, you understand, apart from the constantly repeated "wild west" soundbite, but they promised to hold a review on it.
And so on. Just to spell it out: this is what Oppositions do.
And yes, those of us in the media, even - especially? - journos whose leanings might be more on the blue than the red side of the spectrum, such as myself, are obliged to try to get them to be more specific.
I'd love to see them say more, especially on tax and superannuation. (I asked a few MPs about the latter just before Christmas. Say 'superannuation' to a National MP and they react like a vampire to a garlic crucifix).
They've been specific in some areas: RMA being perhaps the most so. Yes, a lot more is needed.
But the idea that National is about to do a re-run of 1990-93 is ludicrous, for a whole lot of reasons.
Firstly, there isn't the crisis of that year. We had a fraudulent final Budget from Labour; then a whole heap of unauthorised and technically illegal spending by outgoing Labour ministers running into the several hundred million: some holes in the tax base rorted to the tune of about $1 billion (the Mother of All Budgets patched up those holes, but public attention was elswhere); a worse recession than anticipated; and of course the BNZ bailout.
Secondly, even if there were an appetite within the Nats for a re-run of 1990, it would not work. MMP and all that.
Thirdly, National has returned largely to type. As I've pointed out many times to people I know in Act who have bemoan National's lack of sufficient ideological fervour, this is conservative party. They don't like radical change.
-
Daleaway,
You forgot slaughter of the firstborn, fire falling form the sky, and a great beast arising out the ocean.
-
I'd start to think about where I'd gone wrong over the past 15 years of being a parent. Children don't learn that behaviour in utero after all.
Perhaps they don't 'learn it in utero' but I query the assumption that if a kid wigs out and gets violent it is all down to the parenting.
We're all born with character strengths and character flaws. Yeah, parenting can make them better or worse - and can add some new ones as well.
But none of us are born perfect. If we were we wouldn't be human.