Abeyance

Part II.

I don't blog here anymore. I pretty much only comment at a handful of blogs like PublicAddress, thehandmirror, inastrangeland, thestandard, kiwiblog... all the links are on the side.

I'll workout what to do with this at some point...

Credit when it's due

Lindsay Mitchell and I will likely not see eye to eye on many things but I understand that she's a conviction politican and so I understand her dismay at reading an ACT MP suggest the Bill of Rights be amended to accommodate his pet project; discredited, knee-jerk law-n-order crappola.

The three-strikes law's (and its variations) been around an age. As I've commented before, it's clap-trap disguised as giving voice to victims. I don't know Lindsay's views on this element of ACT policy but I do know that she's not afraid to call bullshit even on her own party - even if they turn on her for doing so.

Delusions of grandeur

Have you any idea who I think I am?

It's not the gratuitous spending history (who takes photos of receipts for crissakes), the name-checking of minor celebs, nor even the vague racism - foreign waiting staff, goodness - it's the ridiculous belief anyone gives a shit. Surely this is a parody?

Update: Kate accuses me of sexism on her blog. I've replied but it's not up and as Kate's previously censored replies I've written to her direct challenges I'll paraphrase here.

I take the charge of sexism more seriously than Kate's other responses. Gender's not an issue for me on this or many issues for that matter. I didn't introduce gender or genitalia into the discussion and don't really see how it applies? For the sake of clarity, it was the gratuitous vanity post that I challenged (plus the none-so-subtle appearance of racism). If Kate's allegation of sexism was, however, a way of invalidating my criticism, then it demeans her and not me. I'll not bother with the other comments, they're just distraction.

Wellingtonhive comes full circle

In a few of my more combative moments, I rebuked the Wellingtonhive for one or other indiscretions only to have them dismiss my criticisms as the irrelevant musings of a smalltime blogger (my words, not there's). Fair enough.

The irony now is that dearjohn, the Hive's apparent successor, has experienced a predictable decline in readership. Whereas once the Hive's author(s) tracked their ascent up Tumeke's ratings, now Charles Finny advises dearjohn is being "reviewed". I enjoyed Finny's postings on many issues. Clearly expert in trade and related matters, his observations were a good insight into the thinking of a senior and influential advocate for NZ businesses. I didn't enjoy the more shrill and partisan posts and I said as such.

There's an important space in the blogosphere for informed and independent comment. Ideally, it's separate from the inherent compromises of media ownership and perhaps also from membership. Perhaps Charles will continue to comment in the 'sphere even if dearjohn is discontinued?

Stephen Fry's podgram

I'm not sure who put me onto Stephen Fry's podgrams, someone during my visit to NZ for the election I think? Anyway, here's an extract from Fry's most recent podgram (any errors, will be my errors of transcription).

It's a cause of some upset to me, that more Anglophones don't enjoy language. Music, it seems, and dance and other athletic forms of movement, people seem to be able to find sensual and sensuous pleasure in almost anything but words. Words belong to other people. Anyone who expresses themselves with originality, delight and verbal freshness is more likely to be mocked, distrusted or disliked than welcomed. The free and happy use of words appears to be elitist or pretensious.

Sadly, desperately sadly, the only people who seem to be bothered with language today, bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other peoples' usage and in which they show off their superior knowledge of how language should be.

I hate that and I particularly hate that so many of these pedants assume that I'm on their side. When asked to join into a 'lets persuade this supermarket chain to get rid of their 'five items or less sign', I never join in. Yes, I am aware of the technical distinction between less and fewer, and between uninterested and disinterested and infer and imply, and all the rest of them but none of these are of importance to me. None of these are of importance, I said, you'll notice. The old pedantic me would have insisted on none of them is of importance to me. Well I'm glad to say I've outgrown that silly approach to language.

Oscar Wilde, and there have been no more greater and more complete lords of language in the past thousand years, once included in a manuscript he was delivering to his publisher, a compliments slip in which he'd scribbled the injunction, 'I'll leave you to tidy up the woulds and shoulds, wills and shalls, thats and whichs etc'.

There's all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynn Truss and John Humphries than to write poems, love letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs. Shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings.

But do they bubble and froth and slobber and careen with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk too? Do they? I doubt it, they're too farting busy sneering at a green grocer's less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to Hades. They think they're guardians of language; they're no more guardians of language than the kennel club is the guardians of dog-kind.

The worst of this sorry bunch of semi-educated losers are those who seem to glory in being irritated by nouns becoming verbs. How dense and deaf to language development do you have to be? If you don’t like nouns becoming verbs, then for heaven’s sake avoid Shakespeare, who made a ‘doing word’ out of a ‘thing word’ every chance he got. He ‘tabled’ the motion and ‘chaired’ the meeting in which nouns were made verbs. Pedants whinge that phrases such as 'He actioned it' are ugly. Well it’s only ugly ‘cos it’s new and you don’t like it. Ugly in the way Picasso, Stravinsky and Eliot were once thought ugly, and before them Baudelaire.

GetUp against stupid, populist censorship for the sake of pandering to the ill-informed and/or paranoid

Memey memey meme-meme

Bloody economists.

Seven totally trivial facts, in no particular order.

1. I did a Christian TV show when I was at school, Wavelength it was called. I was a regular. It made me real popular with the Novices and got me into all the best prayer-groups.


2. I really regret not going to see The The in 1989 'cause I thought I had a chance with a girl I can no longer recall.


3. In 1986, I was stoned for the first time ever on the very day that the nice people from the Government visited to audit my personal Census return - I'd mucked something up, I don't know that I was capable of unmucking it.


4. I once gave a presentation to a visiting Botswanan delegation that focused largely on training in the seafood industry (I've not travelled much).


5. Don McGlashan briefly taught me trumpet while I was at secondary school.


6. David Lange beat my grandfather for the Labour nomination in the 1977 Mangere by-election (he never made the most of it but).


7. The first gig I ever went to was the second-last Enz with a Bang gig at the Logan Campbell Centre in 1984.

Tagging poneke, jafapete, Trotter, ex-expat and the browncardigan crew.

Forever late to the party: Bronagh Key

I despise the Herald, the Herald on Sunday particularly. Sunday papers are almost always rubbish in New Zealand and in Australia. And so rather than explore any number of meaningful and interesting lines of analysis on the new PM, the HoS has instead examined Bronagh Key's dress sense. What this says about their editorial capacity or readership is up to you but I'm with NRT, the handmirror and even DPF in calling bullshit.

More self congratulatory clap-trap

The Hive's back, well only to indulge in a bit of frankly, wanky, self-congratulation.

Expect more of this kind of told-you-so stuff from elements of the blogosphere. These authors cling to historical grievances in a way that reminds me of petty teenage rivalries.

What's odd about this piece however, is that it's not about trade, a subject on which the Hive's principal author is clearly expert, but rather on political prognostications - a subject the Hive's principal author ought to know to avoid.

Missed the last Labour PM

By the time I got to Wellington, Labour PMs simply weren't about (and it's not like they were in short supply in the '90s). They'd in fact been gone a few years, some rather begrudgingly so, meaning I had to content myself with seeing them in Opposition only. Fortunately, and despite their defeat, some of senior members of the 4th Labour government remained remarkably effective.

I have a clear recollection of Lange interjecting on a question to the Minister for Police. The Minister was rattled but coped, several of his colleagues however, were clearly disturbed. It wasn't a portfolio-related fear. It was simply the prospect that, were it them taking a question, they knew no possible preparation could fully offset the risk of Lange coming in over the walls. Forgive me the machismo, but I think this is a part of Parliamentary discourse too much undervalued.

It's a dimension of politics that'll challenge Key. He's simply not a great performer in Parliament. He's far from hopeless, but his best performances are very much set pieces. This is fine when you're challenging a government (and can reherse your attack in advance), but the dynamic of being a government is an entirely different proposition. Thinking on your feet, reconciling the days events back to policy statements, knowing when a Minister is at risk and when to simply divert attention - these are skills only really learnt after many years in Parliament. The times ahead are tough and Phil Goff, one of the most experienced members in the House, will combine the necessary scrutiny of Key's government with the need to differentiate himself from elements of Clark's.

I watched Clark leaving Parliament and thought her send-off entirely appropriate. I note others thought it OTT. I simply disagree and I'd've been there if I was able (and can always be expected to spring the water-works). I quite like and respect Craig Ranapia, he's a fantastic writer. It's also good for the blogosphere that a clearly bright and considered commentator exists on the right of the political spectrum - there's not many - but Craig's got this one completely wrong. For all the fawning editorials of Key and the realisation of his boyhood ambitions, Clark just achieved what few NZ PMs have - a stable and successful government for nine years - that's entirely worthy of recognition.

Swam over

QueenBee has announced the demise of the Hive. Like others, I'm sorry it's gone. I enjoyed the insights on trade and related matters, presumably authored by the principal writer.

I'd previously criticised QueenBee, however, for a growing inconsistency evident in many of the posts. While claiming to be bipartisan, QueenBee was too often in the company of hacks like Hooton and Whaleoil to be credible. Moreover, QueenBee seemed deaf to her own admonitions of kiwiblogblog.

QueenBee claims the Hive was established in opposition to the Electoral Finance Act and signs off by saying:

In sum there has, we believe, been a fundamental shift in New Zealand politics. The Hive, we believe, played a roll in achieving this shift.

I wonder then, will QueenBee now reveal her identity or is her bold opposition to the Electoral Finance Act limited to anonymous criticisms?

Gratuitous blog-links

Three recent posts have caught my eye. Two, by Chis Trotter and NRT, deal with the prospect of an over-hang and the third is about special education.

Chris wrote this very critical piece concerning the prospect of a Maori-National coalition. Like Chris, I can't see it being sustainable because it appears to be inconsistent with Maori views (at least as they've been expressed in this survey). However, I don't agree with Chris that the prospect of a Maori-National coalition proves the fault of the Maori seats. I agree that Maori seats are somewhat incongruous in our MMP system but I don'think that means they ought not exist.

Though it's often be criticised as being naive, which it is not, the historical development of Maori seats and the link to the Treaty remains a sufficient justification for their existence IMO. The fact that our arrangements don't entirely cohere to an idealised standard doesn't mean they're defunct - certainly not while they work and there's no evidence to suggest they don't. That said, I tend to agree they may not be needed if we continue to see a genuine plurality in Parliament (plus there's a greater consensus around resolution of outstanding Treaty claims) but I'm not sure where there yet.

I'm intrigued by NRT's suggestion of list only MPs as a way of avoiding the distortionary effects of an overhang. My concern would be that there'd be something significant lost by discontinuing electorate MPs. Anyone who's worked in a public sector role will know just how effective and important electorate MPs can be; good electorate MPs earn their wage daily by helping navigate often hopelessly complex bureaucracy.

Finally to Grant Robertson's piece on Special Education. I share Robertson's focus on Special Education. If New Zealand is anything like Australia, then it's almost certain the demand for more and better support for kids with disabilities will increase (plus it's still not adequately funded).

I worked in Parliament in the early days of the National-NZFirst coalition which largely implemented Labour policy on funding for special education. The mix of funding for schools and for pupils seemed the right way to go to provide both mainstream and specialist facilities for an increasingly diverse range of kids. I was aghast to discover that an entirely arbitrary decision was taken to reduce funding available for individual kids - it was never explained and it quickly meant a log-jam of applications and a slowing of funding.

It was obvious to me that the then Associate Minister, the late Brian Donnelly, was being frustrated by his senior colleague, Wyatt Creech, who was simply to bloody mean to properly fund the otherwise good scheme. Forunately Chris Carter's investing the necessaries at last.

Queen Bee's mask slips

QueenBee's wellingtonhive is popular and prolific blog. The mix of politics, trade news and general commentary is interesting although the editorial line is a little didactic (particularly given the claimed independence). But this latest post is simply tawdry .

I posted earlier about the double standard right-wing bloggers seem to have; on the one hand insisting on unregulated markets, unfettered individualism and freedom from the deadening hand of government but, on the other hand, censoring all criticism.

QueenBee's comments rule clearly states:

Keep comments relevant to the post in question. No speculation about anyone's sexuality.

So much for that. I guess it's hard to maintain standards in a group blog?

UPDATE: QB assures me that I've misinterpreted the intent of this piece. I accept her word.

Genius

Parody and satire can be best response sometimes. 08wire's mash-up of Key is superb.

Deleted on lawyers advice

Bryan Spondre's keen to protect his talent. Matthew Hooton's been throwing out raw meat complete with wild and unsubstantiated accusations of corruption but any hint of criticism and Bryan deleterious hand descends to obliterate it.

His footprint is left however to tell you you've transgressed:

You’ve not c... Comment deleted because our lawyers told us too. Bryan Spondre Blog Producer.

I'm assuming my comment was considered prima facie defamatory, however it merely said that Matthew hadn't calmed down since Eye to Eye and that he shouldn't lend his considerable gravitas to the whirlygig of the right-wing blogosphere.

Ironic, sure. Sarcastic, yup. Insulting, not really. Defamatory, don't be ridiculous.

What's a little hard to understand is that Matthew's the tough-guy that stood-up to Winston and gave him an ear-full. Is he really so fragile that a gentle prod in the ribs requires editing?

Surprisingly, editing critical comments appears acceptable on the right. In response to a hopelessly ill-informed rant by Cactus Kate on, amongst other things, education comments I made about how well NZ was doing were not published (personal insults were fine but). In response to silly speculation by the wellingtonhive that government was restricting access to critical blogs, my clearly ironic piss-take was deleted also.

At kiwiblogblog, we accepted that our inflamatory posts would attract similarly inflammatory responses. We applied a tolerance in those, but not all, instances.

My advice for these bloggers is if don't want to be mocked; Calm down.

Meh, kinda walked into that

Bryan Spondre's given me just enough rope... just enough. As he says, it's just the interweb.

Pissing contest and wet feet; there's a certain inevitability.

Chastened but not chaste

QueenBee's site the Hive is a slightly toned down version of the run of the mill right-wing attack site. The language is more muted and the editorial line less didactic but the focus is no different.

Several posts show QueenBee is less and less able to quiet her prejudices. Here she's hyping the already over-the-top story that the Police are at the beck and call of the ninth floor. Here it's the paranoid speculation that right-wing blog sites are being blocked government departments. Plus there's more links to the reprehensible Slater than could be explained as inadvertent.

The Hive is more clipping service than blog. I'm guessing QueenBee's interest is in developing blog-channels back to the MSM, not in providing some new insights for the blogosphere.

QueenBee gave kiwiblogblog a verbal lashing for being not being constructive, I suggest that her own standards have declined inversely in relation to her ratings. It gets to us all after a while.

Update: QueenBee's reaction to my comment is here. QueenBee speculates that something she said about kiwiblogblog "got under my skin"; not really, however had criticism been genuine, it would have been at least heeded by its author. Queen's obsession with metrics is a bit of a giveaway for a new blogger. Controversy is easy and temporarily gratifying, but it's indulgent and only sustainable if you're prepared to plumb the depths Slater does. That is my experience at least.

Not decided but distracted

Endless colours, templates and gadgets - backin15 is a chameleon.

Blogger pathology

I have to stop picking fights. They're largely irrelevant and almost certainly patholical; an opportunity to vent my frustrations at not being in NZ.

Having discontinued my involvement in kiwiblogblog, I'd intended to leave the fray and simply enjoy the PublicAddress cluster of bloggers however, I've once again found myself poking sticks at right-wing bloggers. Most recently Matthew Hooton and Cactus Kate.

Matthew's a legitimate target to the extent that, having built his business by dealing with clients who're pissed off with Labour, he now seems intent on repositioning himself as a commentator when really, he's a cypher. I can't see the logic in his posts on the Police investigations of emails leaked from Brash's office though? If anything they serve only to remind the public that Key's the latest in a long line-up of largely ineffective and dispensiable leaders, plus it leads to speculation about Key's role in Brash's fall from grace. I'm guessing that it is intended as a distraction so we stop talking about Key's inept and/or corrupt dealings with Rail.

Kate though, I don't quite know why I bothered. I've read her blog on and off for a while and mostly I've concluded it's not meant for me - it's meant for younger, more mobile professionals who aspire to know where to simultaneously get a manicure and a cocktail. But her tendency to prattle on about how shit NZ is annoys me and god knows she'll tell you she's got lots of other more important things she could do. Do I know have to check if I've graduated into a class with Rachel Glucina?

Kinda, maybe, thinking about blogging again...

Deborah has started blogging the NZ General Election at Larvartus Prodeo which has made me rethink my blog-engagement.

This blog's been ignored since October last year when I joined the group behind kiwiblogblog (now deleted). Since we pulled pulled that pin, I've concentrated my efforts mainly at Public Address (which, IMO, remains the standard-setter in NZ) with some forays into kiwiblog and the Standard.

The impending NZ election is terribly distracting for me, it'll be the second I've missed having moved to Sydney just after the 2002 election. I respect the work of both Deborah and Idiot/Savant but perhaps there's a few things I might contribute to the debate here too...

Like starting with this largely irrelevant piece of faux-policy; National's immigration policy. Though it claims to be designed to "bring more kiwis" home, it contains almost no policies that appear likely or even intended to do so. In fact, the 'typo' in the title gives the game away - immigration is usually associated with the arrival of people into a country who are in fact citizens of another. And this policy may do that, but the mislabelling pretends it'll do something else: stop NZ citizens from leaving. It won't.

National's game-playing about migration is well established and analysed (including by the incredibly numerate Mr Pierson). Net Permanent and Long Term Departures (PLTs) are currently higher than they have been in a while and in an environment of skill and labour shortages, that's a problem. It's a problem because it may constrain the economy and could lead to wage-inflation. But it's often over-stated and the solutions are far from simple. David Farrar makes this very point in response to my question:

David, do you have a view about what element(s) of National’s immigration policy will impact on emigration? You’ll think I’m being very partisan, but I can’t see anything that is intended or likely to directly impact on PLT departures.

[DPF: An immigration policy tends to only affect immigration not emigration. You can’t stop people emigrating. The economic policy is more likely to impact on PLT departures and/or NZers returning.]

I tend to agree.

So first, can someone tell Lockwood his policy will not slow emigration and secondly can the National Party please tell us how they'll improve economic growth at a rate beyond what Labour's done these last 9 years?