Hard News: Some Lines for Labour
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Gout of here...
Kruschen salts
despite the good press
MgSO4 hip heptahydrate that it is,
is really a cosy nostrum
consisting mostly of that other ghastly
mineral - personified by that nuggety efflorescence, Rodney Hide - Epsomite!
Scarily its crystal symmetry is 222
- a third of the Anti-Christ!Interestingly, Magnesium sulfate is the primary substance that causes the absorption of sound in seawater. Absorption, in this case, means the conversion of acoustic energy to heat energy. The conversion is a strong function of frequency. Lower frequencies are less affected by the salt, so that the acoustic energy travels much farther in the ocean. Boric acid also contributes to absorption; but the most abundant salt in seawater, sodium chloride, has no known effect on sound absorption. (from Wikipedia)
Maybe that's why Epsom salts soothe...?
Not to be confused with Kruschev salts ...
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
What Labour could also do (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) is create a powerful visual message combining images of men holding signs looking for work, with images of empty buildings covered with For Lease signs.
The photos of supermarket job queues are a good start. It worked for the British Tories in 1979.
-
I did a draft of an anti-'Holiday Highway' poster a few months back. Second opinions welcome.
And there must be a way to link Prostetnic Vogon Joyce to the ongoing rail problems in Wellington.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Are they still commonly tested only on men?
No. But ... most older drugs were tested on men and mostly white middle class middle aged men. So a number of the older dugs have a well known (now) set of side effects on women and some ethnic groups. The most significant are the anesthetics which typically cause more nausea and have a longer recovery time for women than for men.
-
So for the greens the line for me would be to commit to evidence based policy. Stay true to green ideal but only support things for which evidence exists and only oppose things when evidence of harm exists. Anecdote and supposition should not be used for policy. However, I am fine if one part of the policy is a commitment to do research to confirm or deny anecdote or supposition.
For Labour it's a bit more difficult. I would argue the same should apply. But the difference is that the greens have a set of ideals to refer to when developing policy. Labour does not appear to have the same set of guidelines. I'm sure they do but for some reason it hasn't been made clear in the way that the greens have made their guiding principles clear.
One example has been the tactic of defining Labour by opposing things National does. It's simplistic to say Labour doesn't give tax cuts to the rich like National. But the real question should be about why tax cuts to the rich are bad. that's an economic argument and should be backed up with data and based on a set of principles.
For example
Tax cuts to the rich create a larger divide between rich and poor and worldwide there is a strong correlation between a large divide between rich and poor and crime. A more balanced tax regime reduces the divide between rich and poor and hence less crime. This fits with Labour principle of fairness (or whatever).At the moment the whining is just about why it's not fair. Rather than about the consequences of having an unfair system.
-
can someone deconstruct the reasons why people think Key is a good bloke, a nice man etc.
I know it does no good trying to convince people who think that way otherwise, but….
….I WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY THINK THAT WAY, ANYHOW!!!!!!!!
I hate things I don’t understand, and this is one of them. Please help!
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%28political_philosophy%29
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
How they should play it, I think, is by pointing out that the huge deficit has arisen from the tax cuts given.
Not actually true, but never mind...I guess we've all given up on the idea of treating the electorate like grown-ups who don't have ADHD. Of course, if you want to have a chat about Labour and National operating under the shared delusion you can cut government income, hike spending and it just doesn't matter...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
To be fair to Labour, they’re in a bloody difficult situation with their economic arguments at the moment. The more they slam the state of the economy, the more National will use that to justify spending cuts.
So, Labour's not presenting any coherent policy because the National-lead Government might go out and make a different case? Dude, that's piss-weak diluted by the contents of a swimming pool.
I know this is wading into the river denial and trying to save folks who don't want to be saved, but here's a crazy idea. The next time Labour wants to run an "Ax The Tax" bus tour, actually ax the fucking tax. M'kay?
-
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
I agree Craig, I just wonder whether Labour’s so terrified of National using the criticisms of how they’ve been handling the economy to justify further spending cuts. It’s pretty easy for National to simply say “yeah we know the deficit is massive, that’s why we need to cut x, y and z”.
Don Brash’s latest letter to John Key helps justify any bad news in the budget quite nicely (Key’s reply to the letter probably should be a big thank you).
I guess I'm not saying that Labour's approach is what they should be doing. But I can kind of see why they seem to be hesitant.
-
Here is John's reply to Don.
-
Danyl
I agree that Key probably is a pluralist, its just a shame he fronts a party with a large cohort of members who's version of pluralism excludes most Polynesians and is also directly proportional to an individual's credit rating.
-
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
Heh. That's brilliant.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I agree that Key probably is a pluralist, its just a shame he fronts a party with a large cohort of members who’s version of pluralism excludes most Polynesians and is also directly proportional to an individual’s credit rating.
Frankly, Robert, I just wanted to Hulk out and smash the Labour MPs who stoop up during the third reading of the Civil Unions Bill and told folks like me and Emma to STFU about marriage equality because, hey, we should be thankful we're allowed to sit at the back of the bus rather than being thrown under the wheels.
I'm disappointed (to put it mildly) that the current Government is continuing the Fifth Labour Government's shoddy record on eroding civil liberties and due process. (Which may explain why a party lead by 'Talk Tough" Goff is leaving all the heavy lifting to the Greens, and roundly abusing them for doing so.)
None of that means I buy into the wing-nut narratives about anyone in New Zealand's Parliament being out on the flaming fringes. Anyone who really thinks that needs to get out of the house more.
-
Robert Fox, in reply to
Frankly, Robert, I just wanted to Hulk out and smash the Labour MPs who stoop up during the third reading of the Civil Unions Bill and told folks like me and Emma to STFU about marriage equality because, hey, we should be thankful we're allowed to sit at the back of the bus rather than being thrown under the wheels
I understand and totally agree with your sentiments there Craig, and in 2005 I certainly didn't support a party headed by a man who's position on said bill mysteriously changed around the same time as agreeing indirect financial support from a fascist religious sect.
-
Thomas Johnson, in reply to
1) What was the revenue raised from income tax in the six months after October 2010 and how does that compare to the same six months after October 2009?
Wasn't there an big earthquake in there somewhere? The problem with such comparisons is that there are all sorts of effects embedded in the income tax and GST take.
-
Unthread Bart commented that Labour does not have obvious principles informing it’s policy relative to the greens. I don’t agree. I would argue it has a broader set that relate to improving social inclusion and and reducing inequity as well as developing the economy. Perhaps though, these principles are most clear when expressed as a single policy. The greens apparent coherence is a function, IMO, of them still being a narrowly defined party and not one that could lead a government. I have said that a little bluntly, it is not meant as a criticism, just an observation.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
its just a shame he fronts a party with a large cohort of members who's version of pluralism excludes most Polynesians and is also directly proportional to an individual's credit rating.
Or to put it succinctly, Model Minoritarianism.
-
andrew r, in reply to
'not at all. there needs to be:
a) a movement away from naturopathy
b) a reimagining of policy. 'Huh ? Or more simply, you don't support much of current green party policy ?,Or maybe you're alluding to the - woolly jumper,folky image. Think you'll find, particularly with Russell Norman on board that's long gone.
-
Isn't money that is invested in kiwi saver, available for investment? which is what the government needs at the moment.
We have yet to see details, but from what Key said the other day the overall investment isn't changing, just the government is putting less in, and expecting employers (and employees?) to pick up the difference. I'm not sure if there's less going into Kiwisaver, though obviously there may be some flow-on effects from the changes which lead to less/more people signing up.
Jan Logie I used to work with and hold in the higest regard
Was it Jan who used to drink about 2 litres of coca cola a day? The dodgy past of a green candidate!
-
bmk,
If employers are required to contribute more without receiving their contribution back as a tax credit an unintended consequence could be that employees who aren't in kiwisaver getting larger pay raises than those in kiwisaver, as the employer would think (quite justifiably imo) that the employees in kiwisaver have already gotten a pay rise through their increased employer contributions.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I predict (and I am sometimes right about the weather) that following the Budget next week Labour will launch a make or break campaign.
+1
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
every time I look at him or hear him speak I shudder. I need someone to deconstruct his likeability for me, because I. Don’t. Get. It.
How about we let Paul Henry do that?
There is a reason this man was called the "Smiling Assassin" although I see him more of a "Smirking Ass" in a suit.
The smile is the same smile that you see on a Hyena, the smile of a man who has been caught lying, smiling, relaxed, comfortable, a fake confidence. This man really does not have a clue, he is only the frontman, pull his string, he speaks... and smiles.
People like people that smile... -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I believe that if John Key ripped off his latex human mask to reveal the slavering raptor head underneath and ate a baby on live television, most people would chuckle and go “gosh, that cheeky bastard really knows how to eat a baby, eh?” and then carry on as normal.
Exactly.
+1 -
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
Wasn't there an big earthquake in there somewhere? The problem with such comparisons is that there are all sorts of effects embedded in the income tax and GST take.
Yes you're definitely correct there, as in fact there were two big earthquakes in there. Perhaps Canterbury could be excluded from the figures?
What it really requires is Labour doing some hard yard through written questions in getting all the numbers, plus a mass of OIA requests to Treasury so they can learn absolutely everything about the effect of the tax changes and really show what has been going on.
Not long ago we were borrowing $250 million a week, now that's $380 million all of a sudden. Earthquake aside, what happened?
-
Islander, in reply to
The discomforting thing for me about Key is - the smile doesnt match the eyes.
The mouth does one thing: the eyes do quite another.
But as you say, "People like people who smile." And a lot of people just see the smile. They dont look at the eyes...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.