Hard News: We interrupt this broadcast ...
372 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
and if they won’t, then the opposition should, especially since urgency has been so abused in this term.
The opposition did
Labour were accused of "wasting the public's money via filibustering ( being a final resort ) when the abuse of urgency was in full swing. Although some may say Lockwood smith was a fine Speaker, him and Lindsay Tisch were able to shut them down if they at all pleased throughout the last 3 years.
Charles Chauvel worked very hard to address the use of urgency with the Surveillence Bill and fought to make the best of this legislation for all of us.
Whilst I understand frustration with the many shoddy laws we now have, a majority government can do as they please. I am more pissed off with The Maori Party and Act for their complacency, National goes without saying for me . At least Labour tried to make the best of a bad situation for us when laws were being rammed through. jmo -
The parliamentary Opposition is more than Labour. Opposing has to be more than parliament or newsletters to the party faithful.
a majority government can do as they please
Not if they are competently opposed.
-
DexterX, in reply to
A least, in NZ, we live in democracy that we can participate in.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Not if they are competently opposed.
As did Charles Chauvel do his best in the 2 days they had with support of the Party, and the link was to highlight his persistence that made the best of the Surveillance Bill. There is proof of that and much to be found on te interweb. . As to how ,under urgency with notice of legislation handed to opposition often the morning of said Bill passing, I would love to know how you think the opposition could do better with this current Government?
-
Sacha, in reply to
You seem to be mistaking parliament for the whole of our civil democratic sphere. Political movements have competently opposed majority governments before - or nothing would ever change, would it?
The best recent NZ example is the government's backdown over mining national parks. How do you think that happened?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The best recent NZ example is the government’s backdown over mining national parks. How do you think that happened?
Now who’s being politically naive? That was a deliberate ploy. National never had any intention to mine in National Parks, they put the idea out there and then backed off, claiming to be listening to the people. National never let on what they are really up to.
Take the cycleway for instance, a claim to be creating jobs while they gave the money that could have completed that project the the wealthiest people in New Zealand.
These people are not dumb, they are dangerous. -
Sacha, in reply to
National never had any intention to mine in National Parks
You really believe that? It's a central part of their fairytale economic projections. Renewed concern from credible sources.
Forest & Bird is calling on the government to honour the promise it made last year to let all New Zealanders have a say about plans to mine public conservation land – a promise that could help protect the West Coast’s Denniston Plateau from an open-cast coal mine.
...“It’s an anomaly that mining is the only activity on conservation land that doesn’t require public notification, and the government promised to fix this last year. They should show good faith by keeping the promise made to the vast numbers of New Zealanders who last year said they wanted our most important conservation land protected from mining.”
-
Sacha, in reply to
These people are not dumb, they are dangerous
They are if they are not properly opposed, yes. That involves political parties and broader movements being smart, communicating effectively and rallying support for as long as it takes. The people who say that hasn't been happening aren't dumb either, and sadly the results speak all too well for themselves.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
They are if they are not properly opposed,
Then I suggest you vote Labour, or Green and by doing so, oppose them.
the results speak all too well for themselves.
The results will be there to be counted after you vote.
What is it with you about this defeatist shit. -
Sacha, in reply to
The political left has had several woeful years. I wish that didn't make a difference but it does - and "results" include the public opinion polling and political discourses highlighted by the current election campaigning. However, I'm not just talking about an election, and there's more to action than voting.
The Greens seem better placed now (though not without risks and tensions). Labour had a strong campaign start before their old strategic muppetry reared its head again. Some individuals are campaigning well but the long-standing lack of coherence and confidence will restrict translating that into short-term ability to make things change.
The occupy and environmental movements give some broader hope - providing deniers face up to what's actually going on and some stale fogies are made to walk the plank. That means less pollyanna all round.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The political left has had several woeful years. I wish that didn’t make a difference but it does – and “results” include the public opinion polling and political discourses highlighted by the current election campaigning. However, I’m not just talking about an election, and there’s more to action than voting.
Woeful years eh? now that, sounds like a line from National.
The "results" of your constant parroting of "Labour is bad, MmKay?" are not helping anyone but National.
Voting is the only thing that counts in an election.
Less Pollyanna and more polly parrot if you ask me. -
Sacha, in reply to
You're perfectly free to persist in tribal thinking. Just don't expect it to produce any form of meaningful change.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
You’re perfectly free to persist in tribal thinking.
Thanks for the insult, I shall treasure it like an old sock.
Voting is the only way to achieve political change, unless you are advocating revolution and I, for une, will be sticking to good ol' democracy and be ignoring the management speak gobbledygook of proselytising political pundits permanently polluting perceptions of people power. Pffft -
Readers will draw their own conclusions.
-
Useful fisking of National's proposed asset sales (acknowledging that fisking is not voting) by a financial advisor.
In terms of historical performance, the SOEs have been a good investment - Treasury reckons they have returned 17.5 per cent a year during the past five years. From a financial perspective, selling state assets is not a no-brainer. The real tragedy of these asset sales is that the average New Zealander will see his or her equity in these great assets reduced. At the moment, every New Zealander, rich or poor, young or old, has an equal shareholding in the assets proposed to be sold.
While many individuals will buy shares in the new companies either directly or via their Superannuation or KiwiSaver Fund, there will be a much larger number of less well-off New Zealanders and young New Zealanders who won't be able to participate in any way, shape or form.
This sad situation will probably be compounded by the new "private enterprise model and strategy" implemented by the new boards of directors of the privatised assets, which is frequently spin for putting up prices and restructuring the balance sheet to increase borrowings.
-
The asset sales proposed are simply another transfer of public to private wealth, and the benefits will go almost entirely to the wealthy. I presume that's the idea. It looks like most NZers realise this, and most don't like it. This will hurt Key's popularity in the long run. Just doesn't look like hurting it enough, now.
-
My take on an alternative to outright flogging off of assets.
Steve Barnes says:
November 8, 2011 at 5:49 pmIf it becomes necessary to sell any state assets, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, surely the better way would be to issue shares, to so called Mum and Dad shareholders, in the form of non-tradeable dividend bearing bonds, ie. if you want to sell them you can only sell them back to the SOE at market rate and you would reap dividends, the way that Vector shareholders do now. This would ensure the assets are retained by the country as a whole and any capital gain on trading those shares would attract CGT.
The Prime Ministers insistence on selling our assets by floating them on the NZ stock exchange will not boost the stock market as he and his cohorts imagine and will only lead to large overseas interests controlling the prices paid by business, industry, and consumers for power in New Zealand.
I do doubt the need to divest ourselves of strategic infrastructure, especially when we have to pull ourselves out of a recession.I would have thought that a no brainer.
-
Voting is the only way to achieve political change, unless you are advocating revolution and I, for une, will be sticking to good ol’ democracy and be ignoring the management speak gobbledygook of proselytising political pundits permanently polluting perceptions of people power.
Voting for the properly presented approved political parties is not the only way, and you’re using the argument of the excluded middle – “either X extreme or Y extreme” when in fact there are many options in between and even off the linear spectrum between those extremes. To suggest that someone who expresses disillusionment with an established party is a bomb-throwing, black-cloaked anarchist (Hell, let’s throw in domino-mask, black hat and moustache-twirling as well) is just silly hyperbole.
Oh, and a note: alliteration is not wit, even if its premier proponent, Winston Peters proposes so, since he’s particularly, persistently, even perennially prone to public pronouncements that present it in his practice of… shit, what’s a synonym of “rhetoric” that starts with “p”?
On a more conciliatory note, I think we agree on basic Political Principle more than you think. The difference lies, I think, on whether a Particular Political Party rePresented in Parliament Presents the only Proper Partisan… oh fuck it: PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP.
So there.
-
Then I suggest you vote Labour, or Green and by doing so, oppose them.
Not necessarily. The main effect, if not the intent – which it might be anyway – is that MMP requires governments be coalitions because parliament its given primacy over any single party.
That was a deliberate ploy. National never had any intention to mine in National Parks
Honestly, I don’t think that anyone ever ascribed that much intellectual sophistication to Gerry Creosote, I mean Brownlee.
(Sorry, a fat joke. Sorry, really really sorry about that... but can't resist. I'm bad, very bad.)
advocating revolution
I don’t think that the marches against mining national parks went so far as revolution, but they were nonetheless sincere and effective.
-
Sacha, in reply to
they were nonetheless sincere and effective
and well-organised as part of a coherent campaign
-
Sacha, in reply to
can't resist
wafer thin willpower
-
Islander, in reply to
Readers will draw their own conclusions
Voters will also draw their own conclusions...
-
Kracklite, in reply to
I have plenty of willpower - it's my won'tpower that's lacking.
-
If you don't want Labour or Greens because they're too middle class, there is another option on the left that is highly unlikely to be a wasted vote - Mana. Hone will almost certainly win his seat, and they are certainly touting as a working class, underclass and disaffected voter option. If anyone you know is just too bitter on Labour and Greens, and feels out of options on the Left, Mana should be a serious consideration. I was actually very tempted myself, I must say. It's quite a powerful idea to set up a party that is ostensibly Maori, but open to all comers, and contains a high profile underclass demagogue in Minto, and very progressive and effective candidate in Bradford, as well as a very powerful electorate candidate in Harawira.
Harawira surprised me quite a lot on iPredict on Stratos (which Bomber has been doing a great job of hosting every night), pitted against Hooton. He came across as quietly confident, reasonable, and unflappable, while Hooton actually ranted at him. The antipathy was palpable. I sensed genuine dismay on Hooton's part, because he's a bloody smart guy and he knows this election isn't going to be the cakewalk for National that telephone polls are suggesting. There's real danger to National in the next few weeks, if all the people that just didn't bother to show up at the last election suddenly change their minds and realize that basically every party but National has a surprising level of agreement on policy, and that those policies are popular with the majority of people who spend more than a minute thinking about them, and that National has only one idea, to sell assets, and that it's a very, very bad idea.
This election is still very open. There are some critical outcomes that could swing things quite a lot.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
This election is still very open. There are some critical outcomes that could swing things quite a lot.
For leaning left, I still can't see past the minor Parties doing it without Labour IF one wants the Left to govern. As a minor Party maybe getting a concession for good behaviour with the Right ?, sure, but I think Greens would get a strong disapproval if they were prepared to join the Right. Leopard spots etc. We still have no Green candidate in our area so party vote Green would be an only choice.
I think Mana does sound interesting too and I hope it grows because of it's diversity. They are young and pretty fresh and would keep each other in check or.... explode.
At the end of the 26th Nov, we will have a pretty good idea eh?
Save Our Assets! Majority of NZers say NOT for Sale!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.