Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Seriatim,
I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely.
http://pundit.co.nz/content/worst-result-ever
As I happily acknowledge upfront, much of it is personal disappointment that a close friend didn't get the job I think he's made for. But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.
Now, maybe he'll go on to do great things. Maybe he really is the better guy for the job. None of us really knows. Alls I's sayin' is that in terms of all the possible process outcomes that the election could throw up, I think this one is the worst.
And that is what I think. Sorry if it is inconvenient, but sometimes these damn thoughts just have a mind of their own.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Ianmac,
Funny that Russell, Andrew and others are so quick to voice the Key lines?
You're right. Sorry. I now see that 2 + 2 = 5, for the good of the Party.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Luke Williamson,
The people who actually vote a party in (unions, communities) have said no to Grant Robertson and yes to Andrew Little.
Huh?
You do realise that the affiliate vote is effectively determined by the executives of most unions, not the actual members who cast ballots at election time. So, yes … Little got the institutional support of the leaders of the organisations that provide Labour with cash and some foot soldiers. But it's a stretch to say that affiliated union members wanted Little over Robertson, much less that the members of unions not affiliated with Labour wanted this (they vote at elections too, you know!)
As for the claim that "communities" said "no" to Robertson - this is meaningless waffle.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Mr Mark,
And I’m concerned that the more you or Chris Trotter or Andrew Geddis throw around words like “disaster” and “tragedy” the more it plays into the hands of the Nats and their MSM acolytes.
You can be concerned if you like. But I hope you are not suggesting I (and others) don't say what I think just because it might be bad for Labour?
Or, at the least, if is what you are suggesting, can I at least be paid some money for my silence? I'll happily go down the you-know-who path of having/not having opinions for cash!!!
-
Guarding an ammunition dump enhances the ability of ISIS to carry out terrorist acts.
But was that the PURPOSE that the NZer had when carrying out the action? Because section 13 isn't entirely clear:
(1) Is it an objective test (if you participate with the purpose of doing anything that in practice results in ISIS (or similar) being better able to carry out terrorist acts, then guilty)?
(2) Or is it subjective (you must not only do something that in practice results in ISIS (or similar) being better able to carry out terrorist acts, but you must be doing so for the reason that you want to help in that way)?
And if there is a lack of clarity, then the benefit goes to the defendant, right? Or, at least, I'm sure that's what you'd be arguing if you were defending our putative Kiwi fighter on his return!
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Keith Ng,
I don’t see it as an issue of agency or responsibility in a philosophical sense. Even if it’s voters who refused to be persuaded, I think the media still ought to worry that they were powerless to persuade; and if they don’t have that power, then they have no leverage to hold those in power accountable – and we ought to worry about that.
But this assumes we should want the media "to persuade" their audience about news stories. I don't know how comfortable I am with that idea. And (some in) the media did hold those in power "to account" ... see Felix's comment above. It's just that those to whom they must account - the people of New Zealand - didn't follow through on their end of the bargain.
But nobody is saying that dirty politics is anything but dirty. It’s nearly universally decried as unethical behaviour – the only response has been “that’s the way politics is”. That’s a fundamentally toxic and corrosive idea which we ought to fight – even if the election proved it’s a popularly held opinion.
I agree! But you're not simple saying "we should keep on at the bastards and not let them get away with it". You're saying (or, I take you to be saying) "we need to reinvent the entire enterprise of journalism". And I'd like a bit more guidance of what it'll become instead before I sign up to that vision ... because how do I know that the campaigning, crusading, judgmental institution you're wanting to unleash is only going to do things that I like?
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Sacha,
Good luck claiming ours has been doing its job.
Of course, when you define "its job" in terms of "produced the particular outcome I would like to see happen", then it hasn't. But is that the correct definition?
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Sacha,
The first two would be basic expectations in a functioning democracy (which journalists are meant to be part of).
So ... are we not in a functioning democracy? Seriously?
Because, if so, what on earth are we doing arguing on a blogsite ... we should be building a fire on main street and shooting it full of holes!!!
You go ahead and get started. I've a couple of things to finish up before I join you later.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Bart Janssen,
So what purpose is the MSM using the 50% figure for?
They're using it as shorthand for "the electoral system that allowed those who wanted to use their easily accessible vote to choose their representatives produced an outcome where National has a majority in the legislature, thereby permitting it to govern on its own."
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Lilith __,
You imply that democracy consists of putting ticks in boxes every 3 years. It doesn’t.
No. I'm saying that if you don't put a tick in a box every 3 years, then all the other democracy stuff you do is pretty much pointless.*
*Caveat - if you do democracy stuff that affects how other people put ticks in boxes, then it still has a point. But trying to get other people to change how they vote is still less effective than being part of a heavily voting cohort that garners politicians' attention for that reason alone.