Posts by James Littlewood*
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I attended as a lay internet user curious about what these giants of the form might teach me about it.
No question that Snowden was the highlight from that POV. 2 things I learned:
1. How easy it is for an operative like he was to see whatever they like on whoever they like.
2. That meta-data are not only very revealing (even I knew that), but that from an intel analyst’s POV, _even more_ useful than content. Why? As he said “for one thing, meta data doesn’t lie.”
He said in fact that other things being equal, he'd always go for meta data _over_ content.
-
perating government as if it’s a business whose sole purpose is to get done what it decides needs doing, instead of a government which is meant to do those things on behalf of the people it represents – not just those who voted for it
As I said, not since ever has one government given so much to so few at the expense of so many.
-
DM
The what now?
Yeh, good ol fashioned direct postal mail.
I can no longer see, read or hear of John Key without feeling that the analysts of Crosby Textor are there in the room/car/office with me.
-
Oh, and for the record, that's why I don't like him as PM.
That, and the DM I got from him yesterday, telling me that my preferred choice of government will lead the country to "economic chaos" without giving me any coherent argument.
I suspect it's all Crosby Textor (Key's real dealer). Polarisation as leadership.
-
My apologies for arriving a little late to this. Not sure if it's still alive.
But: never in my life time (1st vote 1984 ... that went well, not) have I seen any government give so much to its own voters, at the expense of all the rest.
I suspect, if you were to measure this historically, the next contender would be the Savage Labour government through it's welfare and housing schemes.
The difference of course is that those benefits might be argued to have extended to Labour's opponents, as well as their voters. Even John Key was entitled to the benefits of that regime.
Similarly, the most recent Labour govt. established 3 massive bits of economic infrastructure: Kiwisaver, Kiwibank, and the superannuation fund. Again, something there for everybody.
Obviously, National governments tend to favour the rich. But I don't think we've ever seen one so single mindedly dedicated to that cause as the current lot. First up, tax cuts for the rich. Next stop: asset sales for anyone with a minimum of $2k kicking around. Farmers, get in behind, you'll be sweet.
-
One year on (and I suspect in another 20) these continue to move.
Is it true that we have nothing to crow about besides an oblique and threatening reference to an advertorial in the Press? The world waits ...
-
Thanks to all for good information on this thread.
Has anyone else noticed that as time rolls on, and the back-room players start retreating, leaving front man Key alone and blinking in the lime-light, that he's sort of making less and less sense? (I mean, even less than usual) Phrases like:
"It's a bit soul destroying people don't believe me ..."
"When I lose a poll like that ..." (on a question about whether you believe him or not)
These words just don't sound engaged, informed or remotely germane to the issues he's fronting.
-
It looks on the shallow end like a subsidy for established business’s
What about the numerous passages devoted to encouraging start ups?
-
Really? I see it as neither freaky or National friendly.
More direct subsidy, more RD tax subsidy, more integrated business environment, more graduates in innovation disciplines. Wrapped up in context that innovation is the business of adding value.
I'd like to know more about sharing equity with the government funder. Seems fair enough but also disadvantages the perfectly legit strategy to develop and sell by reducing the market for such a company to NZ only.
Which is about as far from National as you could get, I'd have thought.
-
Hard News: Decidedly Undecided, in reply to Russell Brown,
As the actress said to the bishop.
Roflnui.