Posts by Rob Salmond
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Ian. Yes, NewsHub was there.
-
Polity: Budget 2016: Dull on top, hollow…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
@Rob Stowell: I certainly do not "see human misery as data." I do, however, believe that it is possible to collect data, aka information, about human misery. It's a good idea to do that if, like me, you want to have less misery tomorrow.
-
By the by, I should say that when Mike Hosking moderated the TV election debate in 2014, I thought he was actually pretty fair, despite predictions to the contrary.
So when Hosking gets his game face on, he can be even-handed. Time for more game face, Mike!
-
Thanks all for your nice, supportive comments. Glad to know Dad's message resonates.
-
Polity: Father of the Bride, in reply to Scott Ferguson,
whom was your fancy employer (in a general sense), that was understanding enough to grant 6-8 hours of leave to you each day that allowed you to care for your daughter?
I was working at the University of Michigan in the US. I juggled my care responsibilities around my teaching duties, and juggled research work around being at the hospital to care. Sometimes when Sophie was sleeping I could do work at the hospital. Sometimes I worked in the evening after days in the ward.
-
Polity: Let the big lies flow, in reply to Nick Russell,
Re the UBI - I'm sorry, but exactly what did you expect? It's not National's job to help Labour develop good policy, or to provide constructive feedback.
Fair question. Certainly I agree It's National's job to put up arguments against the idea if they disagree. But it's the media's job as well as Labour's to call out arguments that are poorly conceived, as the $38billion / 82% tax rate clearly was. It doesn't take much journalistic nous to ask "how'd you get that figure?" before deciding whether it's newsworthy or not.
My assessment is that people like David Farrar have been emboldened to make ever more absurd claims about Labour policies, because they've had pretty good success at having their previous absurd claims treated as fact. It's the "death panels" technique coming to New Zealand.
To be clear, I also think it's the media's job to probe and question numbers when Labour produces them, too. I think they do that already. But ask yourself this: when was the last time you saw multiple media outlets reprint a Labour estimate that some National idea would cost many billions of dollars, and do the reprints without asking how the figure came about or seeking balancing comment from National? Interested to see what people come up with...
-
Polity: Home-spun non-truths, in reply to bob daktari,
I've seen nothing more specific that "looking into it" at this stage. As you note, it's an enormously large and complex possible policy change. Much better to do it right than do it immediately.
I'm sure there will be broad co-operation with the Greens on this type of issue, but confident Labour's policy at the election will be a "Labour" proposal rather than a "Labour and Green" proposal.
-
@Bob: If you read the rest of that same paragraph, you'll find I don't think the same argument holds for everything.
-
@Bob: You may have seen Labour has a substantial new policy on post-school education (three years' fee-free training), which is part of its response to the challenges of the rapidly changing workplace. There will be much more policy coming in this area. Labour has also taken a strong stand in favour of melanoma patients currently dying while the government dithers. We're stronger advocates than the government for New Zealanders living in Australia, whether they're living in offshore detention centres without good reason or living in cities and suburbs without proper rights. We're the only party with meaningful solutions (ie. build some homes!) to the rampant house price inflation, especially in Auckland. And there's plenty more to come.
I will admit I enjoy a little point-scoring against Matthew and others of his ilk from time to time. But the core of our work is to make this country a better place for all who live in it.
-
Yes, bob, we can talk policy. On the assumption you mean policy around the flag, I voted for the current flag because I think that increases the chance we have a really great, new flag in the next 20 years. In my opinion, the Lockwood design is not a "really great, new flag."