Posts by llew40
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Sacha,
Heh, yes that would be a good guide. But what does it mean to you?. Take, for example, the Lange/Douglas Government policies. Surely they were motivated by a genuine belief that long-term future well being of NZ would be best served by modernising the economy, knowing there would be a lot of pain on the way. Is that humane? Is the belief that something is humane enough, or does it need to pass another test for basic humanity? Say, an election? Or a Parliamentary bill?
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to BenWilson,
Well .., it would be a helluva precedent. You might not like this particular government deal with a corporate (for good reasons) and may well be ok with the idea of a new government reneging and telling them to go fuck themselves.
But who gets to decide what is a 'good' deal or not, and what would unintended consequences be on future corporate interest in investing in NZ when deals or regulations (e.g. auckland airport and OIO rules) might get reneged on or changed with the political wind?
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Mikaere Curtis,
Thanks Mikaere. In this particular case I was referring to the candidates responses cited by RB to the Sky City question. I do understand that there are some considered responses out there (I generally vote Green and have a passing acquantance with Scoop).
And really my bigger question was more about the effectiveness of tribalism in politics in terms of making a difference to the non-tribal. You see a lot of it on blogs of all political persuasions where reaction to political events quickly falls along tribal or partisan lines, regardless of the issue at hand. I get that for most of us we are political junkies, but I think we run the risk of being disappointed if we think that everyone will respond to the same signals.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Hmmm, I get that JK isn't your cup of tea (nor is he mine), but it seems to me to be a little bit too tribal to imply (and apologies if that was not your intention) that those who voted for him have been 'baffled by bullshit'. I would have thought it was very clear by now (two election victories in) that this is a Government that should not be underestimated.
Shouting your strident opposition to a policy in ever-increasing volumes is not, in my view, a political tactic that is likely to appeal to an electorate in sufficient numbers to win an election. But I'm no political strategist so I could be wrong.
But for that very reason I tend to agree with Craig. I'd be much more interested in an approach to an unpopular policy or piece of legislation that clearly communicated to lay-people the 'why it sucks', and 'how it can be improved', rather than the blunt instrument of (short-hand) of 'fuck-em' to big-business.
That sort of tactic might play well with the tribal base, but clearly (on the evidence of the last two elections) is not convincing enough people that this is a viable alternative Government.
-
Got my Neil Young ticket. And my Laneways ticket. Check. And with any luck, a Stone Roses ticket.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Islander,
hi Islander
I live near the Manukau coast. Havent had the fortune of visiting the West Coast for over 25 years, will be rectifying that with my children this January. Cannot speak with any authority at all on impact of tourism on the area. Can speak with some authority on tourism trends.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Islander,
Fair enough Islander, I have not seen the effects of tourism on the West Coast. But maybe that detrimental impact supports an argument that NZ should be targeting quality rather than quantity in terms of tourism?
-
The tourism data isn't telling a simple story. total number of visitors has grown. total spend of visitors has declined. we think that is predominantly because of the market shifts going on around the world (as Chris W points out China is now NZs second biggest tourism market) as global growth shifts from west to east, and because of the changing patterns of visitor stay (which are for a range of reasons including direct air-links or lack thereof, ease of independent travel, etc.
For what its worth (and I am the son of a coal-miner who votes Labour/Green) I think the PM has done a great job as tourism minister. But I also believe NZ will never be able to compete long-term with other tourism destinations like Thailand on a mass-market basis (as we will not be able to in agriculture), so our tourism future is more viable as a premium market, which infers higher value, and higher protection of what makes it premium.
The counter to that is, while tourism is responsible for 1 in 10 NZ jobs, for decades they have been (and are) seen as relatively low pay jobs, and in many quarters not seen as where NZ's future economic growth priorities should lie. That future is seen as high-tech agriculture and manufacturing amongst others.
So where does a famously effective (and too widely appropriated) tourism brand such as 100% Pure sit in that debate.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Ben Curran,
Lol - the best analogy for cultural cringe I've heard.
-
I've got no quarrel with Mike Joy, who is one of the messengers in an important debate that NZ has to have, but I do lament the way that the debate has been unfolding.
A couple of laments;
There is an element in our media culture (Gordon MacLaughlin may argue it is inherent in kiwi culture) that wants to scour the world looking for negative perceptions to highlight back to ourselves. Our rugby media is a great example.
Whatever the merits of those offshore perceptions, the reality is that they are usually centred on issues all countries are grappling with.
I also lament the way in which NZ tourism seems to have become a lightning rod for much of this debate. After all, while it is one of our (if not the) largest export industries, I would argue that tourism, per se, is not the major contributing industry to environmental standards.
The issue seems to be partly (largely?) about the '100% Pure' slogan. Conceived many years ago for solely tourism purposes, it’s been a particularly powerful tourism brand that other countries tourism organisations have openly admired and envied. It’s been a major reason for tourism growth in NZ, and for why NZ is frequently cited offshore as a desirable destination. But even at the time it was developed it was recognised that it should not be interpreted by other industries as a literal guarantee.
Over many years, the '100% Pure' has been co-opted by many other NZ industries and interests, for purposes far beyond its original conception. Yet tourism (in my view) unfairly seems to wear much of the flack of inevitable ire when environmental eality collides with brand promise.