Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Russell Brown,
Why not just, say, look up Robertson's maiden speech rather than continue to passively imply he's a hollow man or a blank slate?
That was a nice speech of incredible vagueness. Also, praising Clark and Cullen as champions of social justice is... well, a little hard to take really. As for his tenure as special needs spokesperson, he always came down on the fact that the sector needed more money (ironic, given the fact that Cullen never gave an inch, and National actually increased funding in some areas), but I don't recall him suggesting that it was in need of substantial reform - which it is. And there was an area where he could demonstrate his commitment to fairness voiced in that speech with a departure from his party's sorry record.
To be fair, Hilary has a rather higher opinion of Labour's disability policy than I do. And she reckons he had a big hand in writing it.
Also, in 2007 he was co-author of a Cricket World Cup blog for this very website. He's sound on cricket.
Can't fault him there.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
By the way, and I have been blogging about this, I don't think the solution is beyond reach. We need to look no further than Maori TV. Following the election through them was like being in a different country. And naturally the quality and extensiveness of their coverage is a function of the fact that the Maori electorate is much more informed than the general electorate, so an informed public breeds better media as well as the other way around. But that's no reason not to try to reform the media.
...and I assume you are aware of the chances of the Government deciding to fund it? :)
The government funds Maori TV, doesn't it? And looking at what's politically possible with the narrow focus of the next electoral cycle is really no help. This is not an issue that it should be hard to campaign about.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
The whole thread is not very long. It gets silly at the end.
That. Yes, I had seen that, but you didn't ask him a question about his politics, you asked him a process question. The media are fairly good at covering process, I have no major quarrels there.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking so, but isn't it possible that rather than favouring the right, 'inside baseball' simply favours whichever 'team' has the most charismatic leader, and that could vary from time to time to either side?
Yes, but it constrains political debate across the board, and I think it's a far greater constraint on the side that places a greater emphasis on the power of politics to transform society - which, I think we can probably agree, is the Left.
And by the way the degree in which I identify the Left with the New Zealand Labour Party is... small.
Although, free world, anyone should feel open to to set up a robust political periodical if they want.
I assume that you are fully aware of the irony of advocating a free-market solution to this problem
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Robertson had some much more promising suggestions
I'm glad you brought up Robertson, who is much liked around here. Can anybody tell me what he stands for? I've been following him for a bit - he's the MP of my neighbouring electorate, was special education spokesperson for some time - and I haven't been able to work it out at all.
(I'd love a link to his response to your question, I missed it.)
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
or maybe I've just never been invited to those meetings where everyone is told to start promoting the Torys in a subtle-yet-pervasive manner.
There are explicit editorial lines (read: endorsements, which are rare in New Zealand, possibly unheard of), editorial allegiances (less uncommon), the choice of columnists (crucial) and then there is the manner in which politics is covered. Seeing as the country lacks a robust political periodical, or even a weekly willing to go into the necessary depth (is Jane Clifton really the best we can do?), we're pretty much stuch with inside baseball 24/7. And inside baseball implicitly favours the right wing approach to politics, in that it glosses over serious, knotty political debates, completely overlooks the material conditions that underlie them (including the issue of class), makes governing less important than personalities,
Case in point: have you heard much in the last month about the actual political differences between Cunliffe and Shearer?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Bart Janssen,
But within that has been an acceptance of differences of opinion.
This is not about a difference of opinion.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Don Christie,
I was referring to the fact that Shearer's front bench seems pretty settled. How did that happen without him offering roles to people? Beats me :-)
I'm going to play this out in advance: if Parker doesn't get finance, I'll apologise to Keith. If Parker gets finance, I'll say he was played like a reasonably cheap fiddle. And he's a big boy so I'll spare him the smiley face.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Don Christie,
Well done Keith. Did you sniff that out?
Huh? Shearer has had the numbers from day one.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I have to say I find it odd that the leadership of a political party that just lost an election miserably has managed to raise such an unpleasant tone in a PAS thread.
Criticism of a PA blog post = unpleasant tone? Surely not.