Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess its how you view conservative. ...but point taken. They're not neo-conservative for sure .
Conservative and Neo-Con seem to me to be very different things. No meaningful comparison from my perspective.
Maybe the dog ate National's policies?
Maybe if someone announces an election date, we might get some policies....
-
We've got that government...
Somehow, I suspect the majority of the current govt ministers would not agree that they are representatives of a conservative govt.
-
The national party need to do some homework on us as an electorate, we need new ideas, not 3 years of the same while you wait for us to see the light. we need good ideas now..
I would have thought that was the last thing they need to do to win. A fairly significant chunk of the populace is sick of almost constant change and government intervention, which the polls probably reflect.
All they really need to do is be clear that they are aiming to be an old school conservative govt (i.e. not instituting change for the sake of ideology, but instead reacting to circumstances as they have to), and to be clear that they won't be making too many changes.
If they stick to that approach, they'll probably win quite comfortably.
-
As I said elsewhere, I can't see any practical or genuine constitutional issues around fixing the election date unless the Government loses confidence and supply, in which case, the election must be held in six weeks. The strategic interests of the Government of the day -- and it's hard to argue that the snap elections of '51, '84 and 2002 were called for any other reason -- are out of the equation.
Well, fixing an election date, and having a set pre-election/campaign period would certainly be a much more democratic approach ....
I get the impression that National is just going to keep on saying "stolen emails" again and again, even though both Hager, and the police have said "not stolen", as that's the impression they want to lay over the top of the whole hollow men story, play, film etc.
In much the same way that the impression that they want to lay over these recorded conversations is "Labour activists", "immoral recording" etc.
Fight against the substance by ignoring it and pointing at the method.
Sounds remarkably similar to the "slippery john", "hidden agendas", "selling of state assets" spin that comes from labour.
Neither side looks good on that particular front.
-
You got it in one, John.
On a slight tangent, but related to the whole "secret agenda" spin, I'd really quite like an announcement to be made about when the election is going to be.
Enough of this policy vacuum to-and-fro rubbish, how about actually the PM making a call and NZ entering the actual electioneering period so we can get the policies from ALL parties on the table so we can decide for ourselves.
It seems a bit rich to criticise the nats for not announcing policy, or having secret agendas, when it seems to be a clear tactic by labour to not actually announce an election date (and the associated pre-election/campaign period to release policies into).
I don't want to be faced with a miniscule pre-election period that is devoted to spin by all sides, I'd rather have some time to think things through myself.
Perhaps some questions should be being asked of the incumbent administration on when we plebs might expect to be told about an election?
-
I presume that the amount of work on both sides in doing this would have been immense -
I would have thought for TM, it would have been the work of about five minutes once they knew the identities of the people they wanted to look at.
I'm going to be very interested to hear what the Privacy Commissioner has to say about this once it is all over.
Maybe the moral of this story is: don't tell the truth when signing up for anything online, unless of course you don't mind your personal info being handed around.
-
So what is political sin?
Getting caught, usually.
-
On Maori bailing to Oz:
The most interesting question from my perspective, and one that never really gets discussed is why have 20% of the total Maori population left for Oz?
The fairly recent publication on Maori in Australia had some extremely interesting findings around motivations for leaving NZ for Oz that were pretty much ignored in most discourse.
Funnily enough, it seemed from the research that a lot of people went to Oz to escape the pigeon holes they were stuck in here. Perhaps asking people why they feel freer in Oz than they do here should be the basis of a fairly important discussion?
-
I'm with Craig.
I don't think I'd call the analysis of the standard robust, particularly the post linked to above.
-
alternatively, you could say that the things that damage roads (heavy trucks) should pay for their upkeep.
At the end of the day, who pays? It isn't the truckies. Its the general public, as always, because any price increase gets passed on. They already pay once for it already, why would any rational person think it made sense to pay twice?
That seems to be how the public is looking at it, and that could well be why the truck protest got so much support.
At least when road taxes cause prices to go up, the prices are an indicator of the cost of road transport. Subsidies would have hidden that cost.
An indicator of the cost of road transport? How much of the RUC take actually goes to better roads, and how much goes to other things? My understanding is that transport tax stays in the transport area, but as far as I can tell it doesn't mean that it gets spent on roading.