Speaker: Remembering the Chartists
269 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Tom:
You might want to sit down, but I kind of agree with you. :) But I'd note those 'filthy oligarchs' aren't exactly getting a lot of sympathy from shareholders -- or anyone else -- when they're generously renumerating themselves, while laying off workers, watching their shares corpse, and going begging for tax-payer 'stimulus' -- or as I like to call it, corporate welfare.
-
OK you don't often hear this from the left but it does get said
Oh yes you do, Raymond, and I think it's utter crap no matter where it comes from. As I've said before, the world is full of people who, for all kinds of reasons, change their careers and accept that a drop in income is one of the consequences. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to stand for Parliament -- at least, I hope not.
-
Meanwhile, just to lighten the mood a bit. Here's a chune for Bill and Darren Hughes, who opined that it's time to "move on' from Philip Field:
And I'll exercise my right of reply: -
Meanwhile, just to lighten the mood a bit. Here's a chune for Bill and Darren Hughes, who opined that it's time to "move on' from Philip Field:
Er... the man has been expelled by the party, not re-elected, found guilty. When were you planning to move on, out of interest?
-
Er... the man has been expelled by the party, not re-elected, found guilty. When were you planning to move on, out of interest?
Personally, I'll be ready to "move on" when someone bothers asking -- let alone answering -- some serious questions about how we're going to make sure this doesn't happen again. I admit the Field trial was short on murder-porn entertainment value, but it did matter. And I personally think it would be nice if Labour's chief whip actually stood up and said "we dropped the ball on this one" rather than saying "move along, nothing to see here."
Meanwhile, am I the only person who thinks this kind of misses the point to an almost farcical degree.
Also, it would be just spanky if English at least admitted to a serious error of judgment. My late Nana used to say two things that are relevant here: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And: 'An apology is all very nice [not that English even managed that], but its even better if you have nothing to apologize for in the first place.'
-
Personally, I'll be ready to "move on" when someone bothers asking -- let alone answering -- some serious questions about how we're going to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Er... by having laws? That are in place, and have been applied?
-
Well, I think Castle-Hughes sums up rather nicely just how The National Party handles most of our nations issues so far.
"To come out and say : 'Keisha, stick to acting' - it kind of, I feel as though it really contradicts.
"Okay, yes we really care what the New Zealand public think [and then] okay now we've done that part, be quiet please."I'll say "John, stick to to banking, see how it feels?" :)
-
Well, I think Castle-Hughes sums up rather nicely just how The National Party handles most of our nations issues so far.
"To come out and say : 'Keisha, stick to acting' - it kind of, I feel as though it really contradicts.
"Okay, yes we really care what the New Zealand public think [and then] okay now we've done that part, be quiet please."I'll say "John, stick to to banking, see how it feels?" :)
Sophie: Tosh. Castle-Hughes (and Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcom and Cliff Curtis) are perfectly entitled to opine to anyone who cares to listen on whatever subject takes their fancy. But just because I've got full sets of BSG and Outrageous Fortune in my DVD collection, doesn't oblige me - or anyone else -- to take them that seriously. Celebrity doesn't confer authority.
-
Celebrity doesn't confer authority.
Neither does being a reformed merchant banker, Craig. Key was well out of line with his comment, and you know it.
-
There's something basic to all posts in this discussion: that money is central to sense of worth.
I noticed it particularly in the discussions comparing those with medical qualifications to those who occupy positions in parliament. I'd probably be inclinded to regard those who act directly to save lives, or improve their quality, more highly than politicians in general. It may or may not be appropriate to recognise this with money.
It seems to me that beyond a certain point of relative comfort, the point of having more money is to show that you can urinate to a higher altitude than others.
I'm unable to find them at the moment, but I'm aware of studies that show people would rather have salary A when everybody else is earning less than higher salary B when everybody else is earning more.
The apparent axiom here is that if a person is "better" they should have more money. Each of us has our own idea about what "better" is.
So long as everyone's comfortably off (and I accept that this isn't the case) then the fact that someone has more money is only as relevant as you make it. Does someone with more money have more of your respect? if so, why?
I do understand that MPs are our employees, paid with our money. It's appropriate that they should be accountable to us, and paid what we (or our suitably appointed representatives) think their job is worth.
We all want to be comfortably off, and few of us would turn down the offer of lucre, but I no longer believe that those who have more of it are better people, or necessarily any happier. It increases neither my respect nor admiration for them; the things that they do, or the skills and abilities that they have will affect my impression of them much more.
-
Ever tried to get an appointment with the Prime Minister? I haven't, but I imagine it's not just a matter of rocking up and asking for one. Key's comment was rather more dismissive than it need be, but it's odd that Castle-Hughes through that she was entitled to get a meeting with him. Someone advised her poorly there.
(Just having a little head-in-hands moment here; I've defended both the PM and the Minister of Finance - over at Dim-Post - in the last two days.)
Regarding the English affair, I'm with whoever said that we need some sort of structure that defines a family home and a secondary residence, and fund the secondary residence whether it's in Wellington or the MP's electorate. They're our employees and as employers, we need to treat our employees fairly.
I'm not so keen on the line that says that they knew what the job was like when they went into it, so they should take it lumps and all. That sort of reasoning is used to keep teachers' and nurses' wages low, and to demand long, long hours from new graduates so they can prove their worth, and so on.
-
Marcus, that's very true. However, one of the reasons for paying people more is recognition of the value they bring to society. We pay doctors well because there is nothing more important to most people than the health of themselves and their loved-ones. Similarly corporate lawyers are well-paid as a recognition of how much money can be saved or wasted based on their competence and skill.
Politicians, though, are not uniquely skilled people, except maybe at being suckups who can tolerate endless hours of brown-nosing. They're paid at such high levels in this country because, supposedly, they're running a business. Only, they're not. What Adam Hunt failed to acknowledge is that the CEO administering a $70b annual budget has to first earn that $70b through trading activity. He can't just reach into the pockets of others and take it by legal force, to then be spent on other things. If money out is greater than money in for any significant period of time, a CEO who's getting paid what Key gets paid will be looking for a new job. Managers are paid based on the value proposition of their employment. What's the value proposition of employing a bunch of farmers and accountants to oversee social services, policing and healthcare?
-
Meanwhile, am I the only person who thinks this kind of misses the point to an almost farcical degree.
Hughes wasn't "missing the point", he was responding to a specific question on the issue on Morning Report. It was their angle, not his
I actually thought Hughes did well in his somewhat unusual encounter with Sean Plunket. Plunket, having virtually chanted "move along, nothing to see here" over ministerial accommodation expenses, first started crowing to Brent Edwards over Chris Carter's "profligate" travel expenses as a minister last year, luridly trailered the interview before the 8 o'clock news ...
And then emerged with ... bugger all, but still managed to use the word "profligate" again, even though it appears that all Carter's travel was official and had been signed off by Cabinet.
Plunket then challenged Hughes over a 21-day holiday after a WHO conference supposedly taken on the taxpayer dollar by Annette King and her husband, which appeared to be news to everyone, including Annette King. That was simply bizarre. I presume he'd heard it down the pub or something.
-
to take them that seriously. Celebrity doesn't confer authority.
But celebrity opinion does have effect. That's why they use them Craig and more concerned with say her opinion than yours.He came across as a bully to little sweet Keisha.Remember, perception,( was popular in the 80's).Now I must go have my lost filling refilled and other shitty stuff to my mouth. I will prewarn, should I get home and respond later in a bad mood. :)
-
I've just realised that Key's dismissing of Castle-Hughes' comments / request reminds me of Lange in 1987 (?) on the campaign trail, being very dismissive of a young teachers training college student. Lange had a point about what the young woman was saying, but he was needlessly rude in the way he brushed her off.
-
Key was well out of line with his comment, and you know it.
Matthew: Since you have privileged access to my mind, I'll leave you to conduct both side of this conversation.
-
Sophie: Tosh. Castle-Hughes (and Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcom and Cliff Curtis) are perfectly entitled to opine to anyone who cares to listen on whatever subject takes their fancy.
Indeed. And they don't need the Prime Minister telling them to shut up either.
-
Does someone with more money have more of your respect? if so, why?
In our fair land it is a substitute for class.
-
We pay doctors well because there is nothing more important to most people than the health of themselves and their loved-ones. Similarly corporate lawyers are well-paid as a recognition of how much money can be saved or wasted based on their competence and skill.
My point is that more money may not be the most appropriate way to recognise this. And it may not make them any better-off.
What's the value proposition...
I think that's a good question, and one worth everybody thinking about and discussing. I guess it comes down to those values that are shared by the majority, because every individual has a unique set of values.
-
Hughes wasn't "missing the point", he was responding to a specific question on the issue on Morning Report. It was their angle, not his
I was thinking more of "This guy was convicted of grotesque abuse of his position as an MP, and this is what the media is getting their outrage on over?' Sorry, Field is a douche but being able to claim discounted air tickets because he was elected to Parliament before 1999 is so far down the list of things he should be held in contempt for its not funny. And while your mileage may vary, I can think of other things more worthy of the Speaker's immediate attention.
-
Does someone with more money have more of your respect? if so, why?
In our fair land it is a substitute for class.
This doesn't seem to answer the question. It seems to indicate only what you think other people think.
-
they don't need the Prime Minister telling them to shut up
Can I tell them to shut up?. All this bollocks about global warming is getting on my proverbial man boobs. This whole IPPC thing is just a rort aimed at scuttling any chance of the third world escaping from under the corrupt and exploitive thumb of the West. This "you can pump out as much CO2 as you like as long as you buy our credits" is a kick in the balls for any nation building an industrial base.
Globally warm that!. -
Just for a brief diversion, prompted by mention of the Chartists: the Sunday after next is the 190th anniversary of Peterloo. The crowd that got charged by armed cavalry at St Peter's Fields had assembled to demand reforms to parliament, similar to what the Chartists would demand later on - including universal suffrage, ballot voting and annual parliaments.
The more you know, etc.
-
We pay doctors well because there is nothing more important to most people than the health of themselves and their loved-ones.
Doctors would also argue they should be well paid because they have to undergo very long stretches of training (and incur considerable costs in doing so), meet very high qualification standards, and constantly upskill to maintain professional standards. Don't think they're wrong either.
Does someone with more money have more of your respect? if so, why?
I'd say probably not -- nurses aren't as well-paid as doctors, but they're equally, if not more so, respected by the community if surverys are anything to go by.
-
I'd say probably not -- nurses aren't as well-paid as doctors, but they're equally, if not more so, respected by the community if surverys are anything to go by.
That's a good point. Public respect, at least as measured by those surveys, is not at all closely tied to income.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.