Hard News: Let's lynch the liberals!
455 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
And neither is the politics around what would be an appropriate (and electorally palatable) public policy response.
Craig, WTH does that mean? Doesn't follow from the sentence you quote. Or maybe I am just suffering after defending your caustic but ontopic contributions.
-
nothing in these emails that I have seen ... is out of the ordinary for private communications between serious and ethical scientists
Or, as Peter Watts puts it,
Science doesn’t work despite scientists being asses. Science works, to at least some extent, because scientists are asses. Bickering and backstabbing are essential elements of the process.
-
Science should not treated like a subset of ideology or a political strategy.
I wasn't saying it was?
By "things" I meant aspects of the natural world and global geochemical cycles, rather than the politics of the matter. There's some damn interesting debates to be had there, and some that are quite important for determining policy (e.g. whether we will see a "carbon fertilisation" effect on crops.) There needs to be room to have those debates without having to stop to explain every five minutes what is *not* in question.
-
Lucy, my point. Craig is usually cogent (if caustic). But tonight, WTH is he meaning?
-
I previously had a minor dilemma about whether I was more Green than Labour and whether I should actually get involved and join one of the parties and you know DO SOMETHING.
Ana, that's fairly clear. You seem to see life as an Either Or. But many of us see that more choices are present.
You don't want to join Labour. You could join the Greens. Or you could realise that citizens can choose to be active participants without belonging to parties.
My hope is that every NZer will be an active person involved in our democracy. But also I know that in 2009, perception is often the reality. So perhaps there can be the beginnings of a move towards active involvement.
-
To a first approximation it is the Big Tobacco people.
Interesting piece here by Jeff Masters on climate change contrarians and the manufactured doubt industry. He doesn't let environmentalists off the hook either.
-
Interesting piece here by Jeff Masters on climate change contrarians and the manufactured doubt industry. He doesn't let environmentalists off the hook either.
That's a great piece. I hadn't realised just how, um, manufactured the so-called "Oregon Petition" was. You can't be that deceitful by accident: you do it very deliberately.
-
@Phil Lyth
the Baroness is still alive.
Have you seen her recently? There are reasons why in his IF series Steve Bell draws her as a zombie.
BTW Craig your analysis of the UK election scene is deeply funny. The reasons the stellar Tory poll lead is failing is because they keep doing things to remind the electorate that contrary to Cameron's assertions they are still the same old nasty party. The alliance in Europe with far right anti semites is showing Cameron up as a major blunderer. His assertion that he will effect negotiation with a Europe who do not want to know and will play extremely hard ball for being forced to know means his term will be mired in pointless Euro feuding, which bores most people to tears. The Tories kicked their ultra Eurosceptic wing into UKIP a decade ago so why he feels the need to out sceptic them is unclear. But the big one is that his Shadow Chancellor has announced in effect that ordinary people will have to pay with their jobs and much poorer services for the sins of the rich bankers. There is incandescent anger on the streets here over this prospect.
Add in that Labour are as a result looking like a party of sanity and the economy is showing faint signs of life (which the Tory policies would strangle) and a hung parliament looks like a real prospect.
Note that Labour has won two recent bye elections here in Scotland on the trot. They have done it by campaigning as the opposition party, which here in Scotland they are as the SNP are in power in Edinburgh. In most of Scotland the fight is between Labour and SNP, the Tories are nowhere. The Tory vote in the North of England and the big urban conglomerates has not recovered much either.
So you are right in that the electoral distribution still favours Labour, but only because the Tories' have hugely safe seats in the shires which put up their share of the vote without giving them a majority of seats. But since the Tory party has been by far the biggest sceptics against PR in UK or indeed any elections it is hard to feel sorry for them.
Note that the Scottish Tories are still against PR despite them not only having any MSP's or many local councillors because of it. Turkeys voting for xmas come to mind.
-
I have a question. What does Labour actually stand for ?
I know that most of them consider themselves to stand for various things, but that simply isn't the same as standing for them. To take one example Helen Clark loved to mouth platitudes about sustainability while oil, coal, electricity, and agricultural emissions skyrocketed.
What, apart from hating on the National Party, what constructive things cause that fiery commitment in their guts? Things they think are worth fighting for ?
Perhaps if they knew that, they'd have a better chance of actually convincing the electorate that they stand for their hopes and dreams as well.
-
I do think the Maori Party has sold out poor urban Maori
As compared to what? The ETS national would have passed with ACT instead? You know, that lowered the minimum wage, put GST up to 20%, and gave a few more billion to the polluters, all paid for by selling the public health system.
They did, after all, get a some token funding for home insulation. I know it's shit, but it doesn't seem to hurt anyone in the short term (that largely being National's goal with the ETS, put the hurt off to some other government, even if it is ever so much larger by then (see also the govt. superannuation scheme)).
-
I have a question. What does Labour actually stand for ?
Seems to me either individually or collectively; red; blue; green; pink; very few of them ever stand for anything other than appearing to stand for something.
-
hence the term; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote
-
Seems to me either individually or collectively; red; blue; green; pink; very few of them ever stand for anything other than appearing to stand for something.
Thank you.
-
Really. George, the pleasure is all mine.
-
The ETS is a concept that won't work & really doesn't try to.
That said, how do we make the purse out of it?
Will it fund new ventures or is it a mere indulgence?
-
Will it fund new ventures or is it a mere indulgence?
Oh I think so,money go round.It really is, is it good ethics? Is it Bullshit?Is it greedy?
-
Asking what Labour stand for seems a bit daft -- it's for centre-left gradualist social democracy based on broad support like most other labour/socialist parties in the high-income nations. It stands for improving things one step at a time, which, in fact, the Clark government really did do.
I mean, I think Goff's fucked up here, and he's basically running a rather stupid campaign where he drags Labour to the right* and gives up correct positions for incorrect ones, but if you don't know what Labour are for in general terms you aren't paying attention.
And of course I don't think Goff is doing the right things by those values, but that only works because I think there are values Labour stand for.
* And I think Trotter et al are kidding themselves if they think Labour's going to swerve economically left at the same time, it's the sort of wishful thinking you always hear at this time.
-
Trotter has a suitably surreal rant on his site, where he talks about escaping the gulags that Maori set up to imprison working class battlers.
-
I have a question. What does Labour actually stand for ?
A fair question. As a 'swinging' voter I swung away from the Clark government in their last term because my perception was that they were increasingly standing for power more than principle.
Very little coming from the Goff team is convincing me this has changed (honourable exception: their shift on monetary policy) and this dog-whistling just confirms it. -
Craig, WTH does that mean? Doesn't follow from the sentence you quote. Or maybe I am just suffering after defending your caustic but ontopic contributions.
You can agree that the science is about as settled as its ever going to get (and from my layman's perspective I'm not seeing any grand hoax exposed), while still arguing about the political response. That easier to get?
BTW Craig your analysis of the UK election scene is deeply funny.
Um... I made a rather limited point that I'm glad you're amused by while granting that it's accurate. Not going to bother responding to the party political broadcast on behalf of the British Labour Party because life is short and I don't think anyone else would give a shit. But can't Labour afford some new poo lines -- nasty party? Shave the whiskers off that beast, it's hairier than Gordon's palms.
Trotter has a suitably surreal rant on his site, where he talks about escaping the gulags that Maori set up to imprison working class battlers.
Gee, it's usually Michael Laws who brings the "I should be offended, but this makes no sense at all" crazy to the party.
-
He's not a very good thinker outside quite a limited domain, is he? He doesn't seem to have much ability to step outside his own head and into a Maori activist's, and he's far too willing to use dodgy bourgeois concepts that really aren't very coherent by the rest of his standards. (Violence --- but what about the violence cough inherent in the system eh?) And ouch he does do mean things to historical materialism, if that is what it is. It looks painful.
(And by the way, the Tories can hardly complain if they get fucked over by the electoral system in the UK, given that the Tories have historically been really quite keen to keep things just the way they were in Grandpa's time.)
-
(And by the way, the Tories can hardly complain if they get fucked over by the electoral system in the UK, given that the Tories have historically been really quite keen to keep things just the way they were in Grandpa's time.)
They've got as much cause to complain as the Liberal Democrats, who secured 22.1% of the vote and only 9.6% of seats in the Commons at the last general election. Labour only won 3% more of the vote than the Tories, but have a 158 seat majority (24.5% of the House).
Don't see how that's any fairer -- or a less serious distortion of proportionality due to FPP -- because the Conservatives are just as lukewarm on electoral reform as Labour.
-
Er, not really, the Tories have never supported reform, unlike the Lib Dems.
(And, yes, it is unfair; the Tories weren't complaining when they were getting the rub of it, were they?)
-
Asking what Labour stand for seems a bit daft -- it's for centre-left gradualist social democracy based on broad support like most other labour/socialist parties in the high-income nations
Most of the time.
http://www.caslon.com.au/privatisationnote4.htm -
@Craig
And Thatcher had thumping majorities based on a majority of the vote did she? The election Major won was a wonder of thwarted democracy. So you can't throw the broken voting system for Westminster elections at the door of the Labour party just because they are current beneficiaries. You see I remember my history.
Labour at least has toyed with the idea of constitutional reform and brought in PR for devolved assembly and local elections. The Tories are and always have been dead set against any and all PR so the fact they are on the wrong end of FPTP is just funny. That they are simultaneously beneficiaries of PR in the devolved legislatures (they won no constituency seats at Holyrood) makes it even more delicious.
As I said before my heart fails to bleed for them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.