Posts by Ben McNicoll
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to James Butler,
If you’re thinking that, don’t you also have to think about how much of the Greens’ soft support will also think about how much of Green’s soft support will think the same way, and thus vote Green? Or how much of the Greens’ soft support will also think about how much of the Greens’ soft support will also think about how much of Green’s soft support will think the same way, and thus vote Labour? (:
Yep. Recursive.
This is about the point I remind myself that one vote does far less than how many people you can convince to vote in a particular direction.
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Russell Brown,
But mostly … it’s the list. This term was the perfect time to clean out the time-servers and give Labour’s new talent three years to find its feet.
This is my dilemma.
I was planning to go Green, because ultimately I want the Greens to move far enough away from the 5% relegation zone to become a long-term safe vote party. I think they’re a good influence in parliament, and hard working in general.
Plus they seem, to me, to have a longer-term forward focus than the “major” parties who are intently focused on winning the next election (although I have been pleased with Labour campaigning on the long view this time).
However, I’m now confident the Greens will do better than previous years. And I don’t know much about the candidates in the “extra” list positions likely to get in for the first time, over and above their current MPs.
So I’m thinking about swinging back to Labour in an attempt to get some of their lower list back in… but it feels like rewarding some who should really have been thinking about stepping aside.
And though he’s performed better than I feared, it’s been too late, so I think keeping Phil Goff has been a tactical error.
But if I’m thinking about that, how much of Green’s soft support will think the same way?
I am pleased to be able to vote for Jacinda in AK central. I’m impressed with her as a candidate.
Not that I think Nikki Kaye is not similarly intelligent etc, but anyone who seems as smart as her, yet aligns herself with the National party must be suffering an empathy deficit, or some other character flaw. That may be my bias showing.
-
Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to Andrew Dalbeth,
Are Radio Live trying to become Radio National?
Trying to become?
-
We've been quietly thinking about how to creatively rebrand the "Building a brighter future" billboard that popped up round our way (Mountain View Rd in the Morningside/Western Springs 'hood).
Best idea so far: "Building a blighted future." Should be doable with some white duct tape.
But someone has already cut out our beloved leaders face within a few days of it going up.
-
Hard News: Is that it?, in reply to James Butler,
Something major up with Vodafone right now.... no international connectivity it seems. And probably glitchy everything else as they scramble to fix it.
Thank dog for wireless access point through android on 2degrees.
-
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1108/S00176/gordon-campbell-on-the-plans-to-americanise-welfare.htm
As usual Gordon Campbell articulates most of the thrust of what I was thinking better than I said it.
-
Hard News: Is that it?, in reply to Che Tibby,
I just find myself wondering if all of these announcements of seemingly ineffectual tinkering around the edges are just dog-whistling to the base, or do they add up to some signs of where they Nats would like to push things next term.
Or is it a win-win for them (or lose-lose, depending on your viewpoint)?
-
Hard News: Is that it?, in reply to Che Tibby,
Yeah, it seems to me like it doesn’t make sense to spend this much on setting up the systems if you’re not thinking about scaling it.
And then making people on the benefit reapply after a year, gives you a great opportunity to transition them to this new more restrictive system, without having the system crumble under the weight of trying to set it up for every beneficiary at once.
And if your goal was ultimately to introduce ‘choice’ by opening up the welfare system to ‘competition’ (nominally around outcomes and costs presumably) from private companies, this is also where you’d have the opportunity to transition beneficiaries to a 'holistic’ provider that might for example, provide those services that are being paid for directly.
Now this last bit is where I jump the genetically engineered super shark into conspiracy: Would the company town concept not make a profitable model for a service provider?
-
On a more practical level, and ignoring whether or not it is a good idea, could Gerry Brownlee step in and set region wide prices for items such as petrol and milk under the wide ranging powers he has?
[ducks]
-
Can I change my vote to "ambipudendral"?