Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Bart Janssen,
But for the worst part of it is that we don’t need the shorthand, particularly here.
Yeah, but at the same time I think some people like to act deliberately obtuse rather than accept what is meant. When I get to that bit in a PAS thread where I find myself having to qualify every sub-clause of every sentence so as to avoid what seems like wilful misinterpretation, well I just give up. And some might say that's no great loss.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Part of the reason I often find the Green’s message attractive ...is precisely because their solutions don’t always fit on that left-right spectrum
Neither does NZF, but you openly despise them.
Yeah. That's why I said part of the reason. You gotta like what they're selling too, and you handily (and quite wittily) summed up any number of reasons why I don't when it comes to NZF.
And yes, Green's, Greens', Greens's. I wondered about it myself, and should have exerted the extra effort to say The Green Party's.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
If Left and Right aren’t productive terms for discussing politics, I think it’s equally problematic to go to the opposite extreme and insist on extreme rigour.
I agree Isaac, with most of what you've been saying in this thread. Yes, in a broader sense, "left" and "right" hardly do it - and even the classic double axis (social/economic/liberal/conservative) doesn't really cut it. But when we're talking about NZ parliamentary politics, it's a fairly useful shorthand to describe those parties or potential colaitions on either side of the line, and unless one seeks to be deliberately obtuse or contrary, everyone knows what you're on about.
Part of the reason I often find the Green's message attractive (and that's why I have voted for them, rather than because I voted for them) is precisely because their solutions don't always fit on that left-right spectrum of less intervention/more regulation.
-
So Labour is a wicked party because it is full of professional Bowen triangle types obsessed with issues marginal to the day to day life of most New Zealanders and who are following a careerist path from the politics department and student activity to parliamentary researcher to parachuting into parliament as an MP with no real world experience.
I can only assume that as this is a reply to me, this is some kind of sarcastic paraphrasing of something I've said? In which case, WTF? Those are an awful lot of words you've put in my mouth, and based on how accurately you've managed to convey my thoughts, I wouldn't be applying for a job on Sensing Murder anytime soon.
I hold many, if not most Labour MPs in high regard - I've met all of them and consider a few of them good friends. My comment was precisely limited to NZ First MPs, and that much I'll stand by.
Do I rate Holly Walker? Yes. Is it because I voted Green that I rate her? No, I'd tend to think it was the other way around, weird as that might seem to some people.
Just when things were calming down a little...
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
Please do suggest which other significant political movements/actors you believe we’re overlooking. The thread was pretty clearly focused on political parties...
What Sacha said. And this is my frustration. I joined this conversation to talk about David Shearer vs David Cunliffe, because that was what the conversation was about, before being made to feel like a class traitor because the entire fucking Labour paradigm is just so middle class, man.
If, as Ben points out it's possible to do, you want to have a discussion about how left it's possible for people to go before it becomes philosophically unrecognisable from right, or self, or id or ego or whatever, then let's do that. But that wasn't what Keith wrote about. And it wasn't what I was talking about. There's got to be a point where we can discuss the minutiae of something in the paper without being called to account on first principles, which is where I think this is ultimately heading, isn't there?
-
It wasn't that comment per se Merc, but rather the way the thread was going, and the roles various people play in that. It's happened before here, and as I say, it reminds me why I often don't enjoy it. Especially as for the most part, we all must be within a couple of standard deviations of each other (other than Craig of course, he's well deviated </joking>) when it comes to our values, politics, etc, I can't understand how things can get so snarky.
Personally I blame the Internet. I happily have these sorts of debates at the Backbencher after the show all the time, and never feel the kind of despair I felt yesterday, even when banging my head against Young Act.
-
There's the quote, open for interpretation. Giovanni is welcome to jump back in here and define what he meant exactly if he wants, but all I'm saying is that things were a bit grumpy yesterday, and I don't particularly want to get back into that conversation again. I didn't really want to be having it yesterday.
-
GIO: if you identify the left with Labour, then, sure.
DC: In NZ, yes I do, so good then.
GIO: And as a middle class professional you'll be served quite well by both parties. The classic win-win.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to merc,
Discuss with Gio here would be pretty cool.
As I say, it was yesterday's discussion if someone wants to go back through the thread, they can make their own mind up what was meant. I have no desire to wake the grumpy sleeping giant.
-
But he made a valid point - to claim that there is no difference betwixt the two GOPs is something that ignores the existence of people at the fringe of both groups
I think actually that was the opposite of the point he made, wasn't it - he said the difference between the two was so miniscule as not to matter - they're both in the centre (i.e. therefore Labour is not Left) - and therefore I'd be sweet either way.
Anyway, I'm not here to fight yesterday's battle. And yes, I understand all those points, I can do the math etc. I think the problem stems from a failure to define terms, which leads to a lot of cross-purpose discussion. I understand that there are people to the left of Labour and the Greens, and I understand what that does in terms of dragging them in that direction (as United and Act does for National, on either side apparently), but given they represent such a small minority (Mana for instance, with a 1% party vote, and no doubt smaller groups to the left of them), when we're discussing NZ politics, at least in the sense of who's going to win seats, form Governments and the like - which is where we started talking, then Labour is Left. Not as Left as people to the Left of them would like, I get it.