Hard News: Citizens
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
From here on in, if any party wants to increase spending they better have a clear and bullshit-free explanation about how it's going to be paid for. AFAIC, both National and Labour are getting an F, and don't have a lot a time left to improve their grade.
National hasn't even turned up to class. Labour's already made it abundantly clear that any new spending beyond what's already been announced will be paid for through deficit expenditure. After nine years of being "National", they're finally reverting to being "Labour" for fiscal purposes. National's got a tough act to follow, because Labour's got a solid history to point to. They've paid down national debt, and run budget surpluses for the last few years. The global economy going down the shitter isn't Labour's fault, no matter how much one hates C&C, and whilst I'm not entirely convinced that there's no "Fuck you, incoming National government, have some scorched earth" on Cullen's part, he also knows from the last election that soaring leads in the polls can translate into a wafer-thin majority when the poll that matters is counted. Why risk thoroughly bogging-down the next governing party when there's still a chance that it could be you that has to steer the wagon out of it?
-
Labour's already made it abundantly clear that any new spending beyond what's already been announced will be paid for through deficit expenditure.
Care to give me a source for that, Matthew? Fifty million fell out of the sky this morning into David Cunliffe's lap, and apparently that came out of unspecified "reallocation" in the health budget, which might be perfectly legitimate but could also be a wee bit of Enron accounting. Who knows? You can only lightly poach the books for so long.
But, hey, if you're right nice to see that borrowing to fund tax cuts (which are only inflationary and fiscally irresponsible when the other bastard does it) isn't so bad after all. Ay, Matthew? And we're not going to see any big ticket "October Surprises" in two weeks or so from Labour -- which has, as yet, released precisely zero policy -- are we?
This election might well be all about trust after all. And as things stand, I wouldn't trust Labour or National to watch the cash box at a Kindy cake stall. Four weeks and three days to convince me otherwise, folks.
The global economy going down the shitter isn't Labour's fault
And thankfully I've never said anything that fucking stupid.
Why risk thoroughly bogging-down the next governing party when there's still a chance that it could be you that has to steer the wagon out of it?
I'd recommend, not for the first time, finding a copy of Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam, which explores why states act against their own interests, despite there being viable alternatives to hand. Keeps the world interesting -- even if it also plays merry hell with the blood pressure.
-
I was contrasting it in that sense with the page one story based on the reaction of some of the commentors in stuff's comments section. I feel the latter is dangerously close to the media saying something's now a public discussion because they say it's a public discussion.
Absolutely. I guess I was just a little miffed when I saw that DomPost article held up as good journalism ... I guess I'm of the view that neither was.
Okay. I’m happy with both were sloppy, but for different reasons.
-
__A news article based on the reaction to National's policy of the sort of people canvassed in that story is... well, it's news .__
For a less than glorious moment in media history, Britney Spears' twat -- and the utter train wreck it was attached to was the biggest quote unquote "news" story on Earth.
Are you comparing the reaction of some relevant individuals to National’s policy to the “news” story about Britney's twat? Or are you meaning the death penalty story?
Or, are you comparing National’s policy with Britney’s twat? -
No, Steve, I'm comparing low quality non-news with low quality non-news. I guess the difference between Brt's map of Tassie and an actual election policy is that the latter matters.
-
Though the former has been a more significant source of income for paparazzi. :)
-
because we're Not Bloody Merkins.
I don't see the connection. Merkins?
-
No, Steve, I'm comparing low quality non-news with low quality non-news. I guess the difference between Brt's map of Tassie and an actual election policy is that the latter matters.
Is that the connection?
Sooo confused now. -
Is that anything like a Malkin?
"alteration of obsolete malkin, lower-class woman, mop, from Middle English; from Malkin, diminutive of the personal name Matilda."[citation needed]
-
I don't see the connection. Merkins?
Wrong page - last option
-
Labour -- which has, as yet, released precisely zero policy
I think in some respects a complete Budget counts as fairly detailed policy, especially when the opposition is proposing to change it.
And offhand I think there are some other plan-to-do-going-forward that have built up.
Actual 'election policy' is a bit short though, yes.
-
I think in some respects a complete Budget counts as fairly detailed policy
No it doesn't.
-
Well, I didn't say in the relevant respects.
-
No it doesn't.
Oooooh yes it does (ad infinitum).
But Labour really have lost that whole "National party aren't willing to tell us what their policy is" thing that they were running with a couple of months ago, by not having any out themselves.
Labour has released more National Party policy this election cycle, than they've released their own policy.
-
Oooooh yes it does (ad infinitum).
Heh... I just though Rich didn't need -- and, quite rightly, wouldn't have welcomed -- the 'Budget for Dummies' slideshows. :)
Labour has released more National Party policy this election cycle, than they've released their own policy.
And that's rather silly hyperbole, Kyle. I do get that PAS isn't a National Party branch, but just because you don't like the policy (or the media doesn't really think it's worth reporting, despite the sniffing about not having it for months beforehand) doesn't mean its not been released.
-
Oh, shit. Please ignore my last par, but bring it up every so often as a case study in how to miss the point. Now what the emoticon for "slapping self in head until something shakes loose". :)
-
Need any help? :-)
</innocent>
-
Oh, shit. Please ignore my last par
I was just thinking... umm, no you've missed my point there Craig. [Click for page 8] Ah :)
-
Need any help? :-)
</innocent>
Thanks for the offer, but I prefer to do both the S and the M. That's about the only multi-tasking I should try and do on the way out the door. :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.