Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That really is quite a leap of logic, and not one which reflects my view, or the view of the site, in any way. Srsly.
Thanks Russell. Random murder accusations are a weird thing to be saying, even in jest. And I have no idea whether that is a statement in jest. If it's serious, then that's just wrong.
Said as someone who has walked past Wellington Trades Hall and felt a twinge of sadness on seeing the plaque on many occasion.
-
There are things I've done in this lifetime that I'm not proud of. I'm not going to be making huge public stands against forgiveness and redemption, however.
-
Got to give credit where credit's due -- that was pretty good. But every time I feel like this about The Standard, someone - whether in the comments or a post - comes along with the stupid stick and goes nuts.
It feels right to see Russel Norman's weak excuse on Frogblog "hidden due to low comment rating". Given that the site is normally filled with the sympathetic, that's a rare thing indeed.
Sue Bradford is scathing on this, and the votes of Green and Labour MPs to support the Manukau recriminalisation-of-prostitution-bill.
-
Bloody hell. I switched on to One about five minutes into the bulletin and assumed I'd missed it.
Sorry, it didn't fill the tits, arse, celebrity, crime, sport, or animal quotients. If Garrett had been caught naked together with Richie McCaw and humping a pig carcass, it would have been half the bulletin.
-
And yet somehow I'm not moved by their plight.
Me neither. A (for the most part) breathtakingly bad media environment is part of the landscape. There's nothing to be done about it, it's just something you work around and against.
If that means you think they'll pillory you for this, you trust that the good people of Canterbury will be smart enough to know that you simply wanted good legislation, not something paved with good intentions.
-
Did any politician vote against this bill? Any at all ?
No.
-
I'd like to know which professions confer political immunity.
* Oil-rigger - Clearly.
* Sawmiller? - Possibly.
* Truck driver? - Owner-operators probably qualify as upstanding independent capitalists. Contractors, maybe not.
* Railworker - Too union affiliated.
* Meatworker? Too many Maori and Pacific. -
I suppose Labour deserves some small credit for, apparently, requiring the term of the legislation to be reduced from a barely credible five years to two -- but, otherwise: loyal Opposition? Hardly.
It's worse than that. Labour actually voted against most ammendments that could have introduced a semblance of democracy or process to this legislation.
And then the Greens went and voted for it anyway. * Headdesk*.
-
So, in the end, they'd tried everything they could, and were still facing a fait acompli. Since it is clear where they stood on the risks associated with the bill, I can see why they would want to adopt a stance of symbolically supporting the people of Canterbury.
And they still voted to abolish the RMA (to name one thing the Greens have been fighting to save. there are many others). The whole point of a fait accompli is that it is accomplished, so you might as well take the principled position. It would have taken a lot more sugar to make this rotten medicine go down. All I have now is a bitter taste in my mouth.
Symbolism doesn't do much for me. I'm interested in concrete action. Voting for bad legislation to make victims feel supported is something that the ACT-SST Party does. I expect better from the Greens. As I said above, I don't think the people of Canterbury are that stupid that they'd think the Greens voting against this means they're being let down, but evidently Russel Norman does.
I don't think Nandor would have ever voted for this.
-
They really do believe you vote for a bill "to send a clear message of support to people trying to rebuild in Canterbury". Do the Greens really think that the people of Canterbury won't forgive them for voting against bad legislation? In short, do they think people are stupid?