Big news in New Zealand right now that has Labour voters and the unions up in arms is the legislation the Government has introduced which no longer makes it mandatory for employers to give staff breaks. Newstalk ZB breakfast host and Seven Sharp co anchor Mike Hosking has written a column in today's edition of the New Zealand Herald about the legislation. The premise of Mike Hosking's blog is that if you're a hard worker and enjoy what you do you will not need to worry.
Let's be realistic too please. Only a real rogue employer without any decency about them is going to stop you from getting a coffee, going to the toilet or something else during the work day. The majority of employers aren't going to care if you take a short break so long as you get the work done and do not slack off. Plus we have to take into consideration un allocated breaks. You may have an hour's worth of official breaks during an eight hour day, but in reality there will be unallocated breaks too - going to the bathroom, getting a cup of coffee or water if you work in an office. Some people would do this at a random time during the day and some people could do this before work. The point is that people take heaps of undesignated breaks and employers who deny you basic rights to get water, coffee or go to the bathroom would be denying you your human rights.
if you don't trust your employer to give you your basic rights then maybe you have a bad employer and should look around elsewhere.
Another point to take into consideration is that hard workers and some people in general don't want to take their breaks. This could be the case for office workers or retail and media workers. Because there is a lot of downtime and the work is relatively simple you don't really need breaks. The last job I had in Auckland before I moved back to Sydney was excellent. I hated when I was forced to take breaks by one of the managers because I was so into the work and figured that because I was enjoying it I didn't need a break. Then there is the other aspect that some people like to delay their break to the make the afternoon go shorter but eventually it becomes so late in the afternoon/evening or shift in general that there's no point in taking your break.
Hosking raised the very good point that if you enjoy what you do you don't want to take breaks and if you live for your breaks then there is something wrong.
And shouldn't the market be trusted to be reasonable? A rogue employer who would deny you a break during your shift without legislation is probably the type of employer who wouldn't give you your break anyway or who would expect you to work overtime without pay (which is acceptable if you're on a salary, but not if you're on a wage - you should be paid for time worked). Just as those who work independently without supervision should be trusted to do the ri
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
How recruiters and managers are being rude to applicants and why it needs to change
If you've ever been employed or changed jobs chances are that you've had to go through the recruitment process. The process involves scouring the job sites like Seek and others, and then writing a cover letter, updating your CV and sending it to prospective employers in the hope that they will get you in for an interview and eventually hire you. Of course sometimes the process is easy and painless. Other times you are left wondering, "how are these people even in positions of management?" and "do they even read CVs?" Then there are the managers who are so rude you mentally blacklist the company and talk to your friends about it.
So, let's talk about the ads first of all. Ads are becoming more and more aggressive with BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS saying who should and shouldn't apply and basically treating the potential applicant as stupid. In some cases the ads will be designed to "scare people away" so that they don't apply for the job. It's all very well and good to have an idea of the type of employee you want but what happens if you're cutting off your nose to spite your face? What if you're missing out on someone who would be perfectly capable all because you don't want to invest resources and train them? And what happens when today's current employees resign if there is nobody left to fill their positions when they retire? Do those positions suddenly become redundant? It depends on the industry of course so it's not a simple question to answer.
Then there are the employers who will receive a CV and not only will they reply to reject you, they'll do it in a rude and hostile manner. When did it become okay for employers to treat their staff and applicants in such a way? Why are employers not being friendly anymore? If you're short staffed and stressed out then isn't that a sign you don't have enough staff in the first place? And yet for some reason we have an alleged unemployment problem with graduates unable to get jobs in their fields or having to do unpaid experience. It's not okay to abuse a potential job applicant and any manager who does this should be embarrassed at their poor communication skills and recruitment practices.
Of course, let's not forget the recruiters who do not even read someone's CV, how can you call someone unqualified if you haven't even read their CV? It's one thing to be in a hurry but should you be in such a rush that you close yourself off to other opportunities? Should you be so narrow minded and have such a fixed criteria that you don't consider someone who doesn't fit into your narrow criteria of what's acceptable? What happened to being willing to train people? Despite what employers believe, people actually can be trained and some people do learn fast. For some people it's just a case of needing to be given the opportunity but when they are given the opportunity they'll thrive and prosper.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is, people need to take a little more time to actually read CVs rather than treating applicants as if they are stupid; and if you are going to send a rude email back to an applicant then proofread it first so they can't (rightly) accuse you of not paying attention either. Treat applicants how you would want to be treated, remember, you too were once an applicant.
What gets on your nerves in the recruitment process?
So, let's talk about the ads first of all. Ads are becoming more and more aggressive with BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS saying who should and shouldn't apply and basically treating the potential applicant as stupid. In some cases the ads will be designed to "scare people away" so that they don't apply for the job. It's all very well and good to have an idea of the type of employee you want but what happens if you're cutting off your nose to spite your face? What if you're missing out on someone who would be perfectly capable all because you don't want to invest resources and train them? And what happens when today's current employees resign if there is nobody left to fill their positions when they retire? Do those positions suddenly become redundant? It depends on the industry of course so it's not a simple question to answer.
Then there are the employers who will receive a CV and not only will they reply to reject you, they'll do it in a rude and hostile manner. When did it become okay for employers to treat their staff and applicants in such a way? Why are employers not being friendly anymore? If you're short staffed and stressed out then isn't that a sign you don't have enough staff in the first place? And yet for some reason we have an alleged unemployment problem with graduates unable to get jobs in their fields or having to do unpaid experience. It's not okay to abuse a potential job applicant and any manager who does this should be embarrassed at their poor communication skills and recruitment practices.
Of course, let's not forget the recruiters who do not even read someone's CV, how can you call someone unqualified if you haven't even read their CV? It's one thing to be in a hurry but should you be in such a rush that you close yourself off to other opportunities? Should you be so narrow minded and have such a fixed criteria that you don't consider someone who doesn't fit into your narrow criteria of what's acceptable? What happened to being willing to train people? Despite what employers believe, people actually can be trained and some people do learn fast. For some people it's just a case of needing to be given the opportunity but when they are given the opportunity they'll thrive and prosper.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is, people need to take a little more time to actually read CVs rather than treating applicants as if they are stupid; and if you are going to send a rude email back to an applicant then proofread it first so they can't (rightly) accuse you of not paying attention either. Treat applicants how you would want to be treated, remember, you too were once an applicant.
What gets on your nerves in the recruitment process?
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Why Kiwis returning from Australia is not actuallly a good thing and how the full picture is not being shown.
Today the New Zealand Herald reported that more and more Kiwis are moving back from Australia to New Zealand. Apparently this is because the Australian job market is softening and there are more opportunities in New Zealand. On the surface this looks like good news, but it's actually not. When you consider the work available in New Zealand it actually paints a bleak picture. The work is primarily in construction and engineering. Now I'm not saying these aren't good opportunities for those who want them but lets look further into the issue rather than just taking it on the surface as being good news.
The types of people who are returning formerly worked in Australia's mining sector and are moving into construction or engineering in NZ. There are blue collar jobs. There's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs but questions need to be asked about what opportunities there are for those who are educated and attended university.
Recently a study showed that the majority of jobs on job site Seek in Auckland were based in call centres. The way this story was presented was as if it was good news, but when you have thousands of people graduating from universities with degrees you have to ask yourself why NZ is only offering customer service based jobs and why there aren't other opportunities. The average salary for someone starting out in a call centre in Auckland is approximately $40,000 which is low compared to wages overseas. But not only that, the major issue is that people with degrees are being forced to do jobs they could do without degrees, which kind of defeats the purpose of going to university in the first place.
Not only that, those who truly want to make a go of things in Australia who can offer a variety of skills and qualifications will have no trouble finding work here. It's only those who are close to the bottom of the scrap heap who will have issues and who will feel insecure. This is another thing that needs to be mentioned. According to Kacia Kissick jobs in Melbourne proved scarce which is why she and her husband moved back to NZ after seven years of living in Melbourne.
Questions need to be asked.
If you lived in Melbourne for seven years and people can get permanent residency after two years (subject to meeting criteria) and citizenship after a further two years, why didn't they take up citizenship? I can only assume they didn't qualify for citizenship, in which case it's actually not a loss to Australia and New Zealand shouldn't be happy that uneducated people are returning. Instead the NZ Government should be looking at a demographic breakdown of who is returning and asking what can be done to attract the educated back, because the reality is, those who are educated and can offer employment skills will not return for low wages and a lack of career progression opportunities.
The types of people who are returning formerly worked in Australia's mining sector and are moving into construction or engineering in NZ. There are blue collar jobs. There's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs but questions need to be asked about what opportunities there are for those who are educated and attended university.
Recently a study showed that the majority of jobs on job site Seek in Auckland were based in call centres. The way this story was presented was as if it was good news, but when you have thousands of people graduating from universities with degrees you have to ask yourself why NZ is only offering customer service based jobs and why there aren't other opportunities. The average salary for someone starting out in a call centre in Auckland is approximately $40,000 which is low compared to wages overseas. But not only that, the major issue is that people with degrees are being forced to do jobs they could do without degrees, which kind of defeats the purpose of going to university in the first place.
Not only that, those who truly want to make a go of things in Australia who can offer a variety of skills and qualifications will have no trouble finding work here. It's only those who are close to the bottom of the scrap heap who will have issues and who will feel insecure. This is another thing that needs to be mentioned. According to Kacia Kissick jobs in Melbourne proved scarce which is why she and her husband moved back to NZ after seven years of living in Melbourne.
Questions need to be asked.
If you lived in Melbourne for seven years and people can get permanent residency after two years (subject to meeting criteria) and citizenship after a further two years, why didn't they take up citizenship? I can only assume they didn't qualify for citizenship, in which case it's actually not a loss to Australia and New Zealand shouldn't be happy that uneducated people are returning. Instead the NZ Government should be looking at a demographic breakdown of who is returning and asking what can be done to attract the educated back, because the reality is, those who are educated and can offer employment skills will not return for low wages and a lack of career progression opportunities.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Music Review: Taylor Swift's 1989 (Deluxe Version)
Taylor Swift's latest album, 1989 was released today and being a Swift fan I purchased the album immediately upon discovering it had been released earlier than the expected time of midnight on the 28th of October.
The first single from the album, Shake it Off is similar to Speak Now's Mean, in that it is about dealing with bullies and 'shaking off" their comments. There have been rumours that it was about her feud with Katy Perry, which she hasn't confirmed or denied. It's the first single she's released that's a major departure from her traditional country pop sound and is up tempo. The track was highly successful going to number one in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The second single, Out of the Woods is a typical Swift song. It's about a break up she went through. The relationship was going through a period of turbulence and she was wondering "are we out of the woods?". That's the general premise of the song. The mainstream media has reported this song is about One Direction's Harry Styles. Taylor hasn't confirmed or denied this only saying that she thinks questions about her love life are sexist.
My favourite song on this album, Welcome to New York is very upbeat and about Swift's move to New York. Like most songs about New York she sings about how it's a place of opportunity with people having opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. It has a very catchy beat and Swift is singing about her experiences upon moving to New York. She sings that New York has been waiting for people. Despite not being officially released as a single, it went to number 6 on the New Zealand charts and 23 on the Aussie charts. It reminds me a bit of Red's The Lucky One which was about fame and success. This is a song for anyone who wants to move forward in their life and reach success. It is the first track on the album and really sets the tone of being upbeat.
New Romantics, track 16 on the deluxe version is a reflective song where Taylor sings about how we're constantly learning in life but trying to show off and appear to be cooler than everyone else. She describes everyday as a battle. The lyrics on this track are actually quite dark, but because of the structure of the song in that it's upbeat and uses warm notes it doesn't appear that way. It has elements of hope.
There are three voice memos at the end of the album where Swift goes into details about the song writing process on a few of the songs which feature on this album. They give you some insight into how Swift works with her producers and song writing crew.
It's an odd comparison but Wildest Dreams reminds me of tracks from Lana Del Rey's album Ultraviolence. The only differences between Swift and Del Rey are that Swift tends to sing at a higher pitch and slightly more upbeat than Del Rey, but there are certainly echos of her.
My only criticism of this album, is that although it is very polished it is too polished and it looks like Swift has sold out from her original style. Her voice is more edited than it has been on other albums. This said, as someone posted on Twitter last week - she sold out, but we still purchase the music despite this.
Overall I think this is a really great effort from Taylor and it will be on high rotate on my iPhone. I give it a 4.5/5 stars.
The first single from the album, Shake it Off is similar to Speak Now's Mean, in that it is about dealing with bullies and 'shaking off" their comments. There have been rumours that it was about her feud with Katy Perry, which she hasn't confirmed or denied. It's the first single she's released that's a major departure from her traditional country pop sound and is up tempo. The track was highly successful going to number one in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The second single, Out of the Woods is a typical Swift song. It's about a break up she went through. The relationship was going through a period of turbulence and she was wondering "are we out of the woods?". That's the general premise of the song. The mainstream media has reported this song is about One Direction's Harry Styles. Taylor hasn't confirmed or denied this only saying that she thinks questions about her love life are sexist.
My favourite song on this album, Welcome to New York is very upbeat and about Swift's move to New York. Like most songs about New York she sings about how it's a place of opportunity with people having opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. It has a very catchy beat and Swift is singing about her experiences upon moving to New York. She sings that New York has been waiting for people. Despite not being officially released as a single, it went to number 6 on the New Zealand charts and 23 on the Aussie charts. It reminds me a bit of Red's The Lucky One which was about fame and success. This is a song for anyone who wants to move forward in their life and reach success. It is the first track on the album and really sets the tone of being upbeat.
New Romantics, track 16 on the deluxe version is a reflective song where Taylor sings about how we're constantly learning in life but trying to show off and appear to be cooler than everyone else. She describes everyday as a battle. The lyrics on this track are actually quite dark, but because of the structure of the song in that it's upbeat and uses warm notes it doesn't appear that way. It has elements of hope.
There are three voice memos at the end of the album where Swift goes into details about the song writing process on a few of the songs which feature on this album. They give you some insight into how Swift works with her producers and song writing crew.
It's an odd comparison but Wildest Dreams reminds me of tracks from Lana Del Rey's album Ultraviolence. The only differences between Swift and Del Rey are that Swift tends to sing at a higher pitch and slightly more upbeat than Del Rey, but there are certainly echos of her.
My only criticism of this album, is that although it is very polished it is too polished and it looks like Swift has sold out from her original style. Her voice is more edited than it has been on other albums. This said, as someone posted on Twitter last week - she sold out, but we still purchase the music despite this.
Overall I think this is a really great effort from Taylor and it will be on high rotate on my iPhone. I give it a 4.5/5 stars.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
What computing device is right for you?
You could be forgiven for thinking technology is moving along faster than you can keep up - iPhones, iPads, lap tops, desk tops, tablets, phablets. Sometimes it can be hard to know what you should own and it can be hard to know what device is right for you. In this blog my intention is to offer you some advice and opinions on what device is right for you.
Desktop
A desktop computer is probably most suitable for those of you who don't need to take your computer out and who don't need portability. Despite lap tops and tablets or iPads selling higher quantities than desktops which have steadily declined in the last few years dew to the availability of new technology. Figures are hard to find but data and research shows that PC sales are down more than 10%.
However, just because PC sales are down doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. It depends on your needs. If you work in an office environment then a desktop could be right for you because they offer more storage and functionality than lap tops or iPads and other tablets. The biggest tablet only had 128GB worth of data and costs approximately the same as a desktop computer. If you write a lot of documents or use design suites like Adobe Photoshop and Final Cut Pro then a desktop may be best for you.
Lap top
A lap top is highly portable and Apple's new MacBook Air and MacBook Pros are lighter than other other lap tops on the market. This makes portability much easier. The only downside to the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro is that they do not come with a pre-installed DVD drive but you can purchase one of these for $99AUD from the Apple store. Apple removed the DVD drive as people move away from disks to digital data and presumably to cut down on weight and make the device lighter. A lap top is good for those who don't have a fixed office location and for those who want to take their lap top with them on trips or to meetings. The lap top is good if you write a lot. Writing is possible on tablets and iPads however it becomes tough after a while and these devices have limited functionality.
A lap top is also suitable for someone who does a lot of web browsing and requires more storage than what tablets and iPads do, and unlike iPads you can upgrade your data storage from the "off the rack" pre determined about by paying approximately $200AUD in the case of Apple. You may not need to upgrade your storage though because of the Apple and Windows clouds which you can pay an annual subscription to use. In many ways this is better than if you were to store files on your computer because when you upgrade you don't have to worry about losing the data and transferring it over is much simpler.
iPad/Other tablets
It appears as if everyone has been sucked into the hype surrounding tablets and believes they need one, The reality is much different. As I've previously mentioned, tablets have limited functionality and while you can type for a short amount of time, its not practical to type for extended periods and this is where a PC/Mac Desktop or lap top will always win out.
Tablets are good for editing photos and movies and can be good for browsing the internet on a short term basis however anything longer and you're best to get a lap top. The other advantage of a tablet is that they are significantly more portable than a lap top and lighter so easier to carry. Tablets have longer lasting batteries but they have limited storage as previously highlighted.
Smartphone/iPhone
The latest iPhone 6 and 6 Plus is more of a cross between a phone and a tablet, a phablet, due to its bigger screen and increased data storage capabilities. The lastest iPhone is very easy to use and has excellent battery life. I'm a high user and it's so nice to only need to charge it once or twice a day or an hour if I'm out and about and cant charge it for longer than that
The new iPhone has been designed to rival tablets and computers. It's been designed in such a way that watching videos, recording videos and taking photographs, doing your banking, email and other tasks is much more enjoyable. If you have a new iPhone it actually removes the need for a tablet because the functions are similar however you have the added bonus of being able to make phone calls, which you can't do on an iPad unless you use FaceTime, but that is only compatible with other Apple iPhone users.
The bottom line is, there are so many technological options and it can be hard to know which is right for you. If you are out and about and have an iPhone then chances are you don't actually need an iPad. Given the performance and functionality of lap tops and desktops, if you have a smartphone you're best sticking with the older technology rather than having an additional device. It doesn't make sense to have a traditional Mac or PC computer, a tablet and a smart phone. If you want portability and own a smartphone then a lap top is your best option.
As a random aside, IBM actually invested the first touch screen smartphone, but that was back in 1994. It was called the IBM Simon and was effectively the first version of what we know as a smartphone today, however due to poor internet and low market adoption it was only on the market for six months before being discontinued after 50,000 sales. It was black and white and a brick compared to the phones and tablets we see today.
Desktop
A desktop computer is probably most suitable for those of you who don't need to take your computer out and who don't need portability. Despite lap tops and tablets or iPads selling higher quantities than desktops which have steadily declined in the last few years dew to the availability of new technology. Figures are hard to find but data and research shows that PC sales are down more than 10%.
However, just because PC sales are down doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. It depends on your needs. If you work in an office environment then a desktop could be right for you because they offer more storage and functionality than lap tops or iPads and other tablets. The biggest tablet only had 128GB worth of data and costs approximately the same as a desktop computer. If you write a lot of documents or use design suites like Adobe Photoshop and Final Cut Pro then a desktop may be best for you.
Lap top
A lap top is highly portable and Apple's new MacBook Air and MacBook Pros are lighter than other other lap tops on the market. This makes portability much easier. The only downside to the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro is that they do not come with a pre-installed DVD drive but you can purchase one of these for $99AUD from the Apple store. Apple removed the DVD drive as people move away from disks to digital data and presumably to cut down on weight and make the device lighter. A lap top is good for those who don't have a fixed office location and for those who want to take their lap top with them on trips or to meetings. The lap top is good if you write a lot. Writing is possible on tablets and iPads however it becomes tough after a while and these devices have limited functionality.
A lap top is also suitable for someone who does a lot of web browsing and requires more storage than what tablets and iPads do, and unlike iPads you can upgrade your data storage from the "off the rack" pre determined about by paying approximately $200AUD in the case of Apple. You may not need to upgrade your storage though because of the Apple and Windows clouds which you can pay an annual subscription to use. In many ways this is better than if you were to store files on your computer because when you upgrade you don't have to worry about losing the data and transferring it over is much simpler.
iPad/Other tablets
It appears as if everyone has been sucked into the hype surrounding tablets and believes they need one, The reality is much different. As I've previously mentioned, tablets have limited functionality and while you can type for a short amount of time, its not practical to type for extended periods and this is where a PC/Mac Desktop or lap top will always win out.
Tablets are good for editing photos and movies and can be good for browsing the internet on a short term basis however anything longer and you're best to get a lap top. The other advantage of a tablet is that they are significantly more portable than a lap top and lighter so easier to carry. Tablets have longer lasting batteries but they have limited storage as previously highlighted.
Smartphone/iPhone
The latest iPhone 6 and 6 Plus is more of a cross between a phone and a tablet, a phablet, due to its bigger screen and increased data storage capabilities. The lastest iPhone is very easy to use and has excellent battery life. I'm a high user and it's so nice to only need to charge it once or twice a day or an hour if I'm out and about and cant charge it for longer than that
The new iPhone has been designed to rival tablets and computers. It's been designed in such a way that watching videos, recording videos and taking photographs, doing your banking, email and other tasks is much more enjoyable. If you have a new iPhone it actually removes the need for a tablet because the functions are similar however you have the added bonus of being able to make phone calls, which you can't do on an iPad unless you use FaceTime, but that is only compatible with other Apple iPhone users.
The bottom line is, there are so many technological options and it can be hard to know which is right for you. If you are out and about and have an iPhone then chances are you don't actually need an iPad. Given the performance and functionality of lap tops and desktops, if you have a smartphone you're best sticking with the older technology rather than having an additional device. It doesn't make sense to have a traditional Mac or PC computer, a tablet and a smart phone. If you want portability and own a smartphone then a lap top is your best option.
As a random aside, IBM actually invested the first touch screen smartphone, but that was back in 1994. It was called the IBM Simon and was effectively the first version of what we know as a smartphone today, however due to poor internet and low market adoption it was only on the market for six months before being discontinued after 50,000 sales. It was black and white and a brick compared to the phones and tablets we see today.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Why university & following your passions is important
Now earlier in the week I wrote about the injustice of the New Zealand student loan scheme. NZ news site www.stuff.co.nz has been inviting people, through their Stuff Nation platform, to submit stories on whether or not they think an education in New Zealand was worthwhile. The overwhelming response was that education is a waste of time unless you're going to become a doctor or a lawyer. The purpose of today's post is to refute that.
As some readers will know, I have a Post Graduate Diploma in Communications, Bachelor of Arts and a Diploma in Broadcasting. A lesser known fact is that I hold half a Diploma in Advertisinh & have taken marketing papers at university.
There are people who say you should only attend university to get a job but the problem with that is it could lead to people studying things they despise or that they do not have a natural aptitude for. This in turn would cost the taxpayer more money because of the cost involved in paying for people's unfinished qualifications.
Often following university one of three things will happen:
1 - You'll get a job in your field easily.
2 - You'll give up either for financial reasons or you just don't care enough about your chosen field.
3 - You'll be so passionate about your field that you'll make sacrifices.
If you fall into category one then you are very lucky however some industries like media and manufacturing are going through changes which means only the truly committed will get a job.
Category two disappoints me because nobody should ever give up on their dreams and passions if that's what gets you up in the morning however it should be acknowledged that dreams can change over time.
Then of course there are the people who try to balance money with their passion. These are the people who will only work to cover their bills while pursuing their calling. They're the people who work part time and in their free time they're working on their goals. You see, they're driven but realistic at the same time. They know they need to survive but they also don't want to wake up one day wishing they'd followed their dreams.
It's all very well and good for people to say that people should only study at university to get a job but no two degrees are equal because people take different electives outside of the compulsory papers and they approach the job hunt differently. There are those who make excuses as to why they aren't getting ahead and there are those who are so driven that they'll do whatever it takes to succeed. These are the people who will use small gains to propel them forward. These are the ones who are willing to work for free following completion of their study to gain experience.
Some people don't care about what they do as long as they're generating an income but there are others who can't do jobs they hate. While I was at university, until my last job at a news agency which I loved until being forced to resign because of upcoming redundancies, I had jobs I hated. Often if you hate a job you won't perform as well as if you're in a job you live and enjoy going to.
Those receiving welfare don't contribute to society but students through student loans and taxes they pay while working do contribute. It would be wrong to deny people an education based on what someone deems useful or useless. What if by doing so someone's exceptional talent doesn't have the chance to be developed and recognised.
People have missed the point of an education. It is to open up doors and opportunities but like anything it is up to the individual what they do with them.
Key failings of NSW Transport
Earlier this year I raved about how awesome Sydney's public transport network is but that is not true. In some parts of the city it's great, the inner suburbs are fine and the buses and trains to Bondi are generally pretty good too but try getting an enjoyable trip on the North Western routes - that's Penrith to Hornsby and its a nightmare.
Aside from not having enough trains, during peak hours they're always crowded and you're lucky to get a seat and if you're standing then you'll be packed in like sardines with absolutely zero personal space. This is made worse by the fact half of Aussies are overweight or obese so even if you do get a seat and you're little, you're likely to be squashed to the wall.
The NSW Transpory Minister Gladys Berejiklian seems to think that light rail and one level trains will alleviate the problem but it won't. When you see photos of her have you noticed that she's always at stations during non peak hours and that she probably doesn't have to endure crowded trains so doesn't get a true picture of what it's like to use public transport for long commutes of at least an hour, some purple have to commute for two hours. And that's just one way.
The NSW Transport Department and NSW Trains need to start talking to people who use public transport on a regular basis. For the most part it's good and better than other cities like Auckland but there are key areas where it's failing. That is ignoring the matter of Opal, which will eventually be forced upon us.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Why someone may vote in a country even after physically leaving.
I live in Australia as I have done for what will be the last ten months tomorrow. Although, if you include previous times I've lived here then it's actually on and off since 2008, a total of six years. I voted in this year's New Zealand General Election. This is something that people do not understand. They can't comprehend why you would vote in a country that you do not live in. The common view is that if you do not live in a country the policies do not affect you and that you have no right to have a say.
Well my friends, that is what I want to discuss today.
I am a New Zealand Citizen. And it is my legal right to vote, as any and all citizens should do. The ANZACs back in the first world war and the second world war didn't fight for our freedoms so we could throw out our right to vote. They fought so we could enjoy civil liberties such as voting. When only 77.6% of the voting public exercise their right to determine who leads the Government it's absolutely essential that those who are interested do vote. Just to emphasise that again, it's our legal right and there are people in the world living in dictatorships who can't vote. If you look at the fact women haven't always had the right to vote then you'd understand how important it is we take an interest in democracy.
Just because you aren't in a country doesn't mean you aren't affected by Government policies. I hold a New Zealand passport and that means when I travel overseas I am doing so as a New Zealand citizen. That is what I am in the eyes of the law. This means New Zealand's foreign policy can affect people outside of the country. Then there is education and tax policy. If you hold a student loan then you're still tied to NZ, which means that Government decisions in these areas will have an influence on your life so why shouldn't you have a say on the matters which affect you.
Another thing is, if you hold bank accounts or an investment property, or even if you plan to purchase an investment property down the line then tax policy will affect you. If you're being affected by tax policy and have connections with a country then you should absolutely have the right to vote and should exercise that right.
Another reason you should vote is that you may not hold the right to vote in another country. Until I'm an Australian citizen, 3 years, 2 months and 1 day away (plus processing time) New Zealand is the only country I'm able to vote in and given I studied politics at university it is vitally important to me that I exercise my right to vote. If I wasn't to vote in NZ then in essence I would have no democratic voice. And if that was the case then are we really any better than countries in the East that we look down upon for their treatment of citizens.
The main point of this blog post is to highlight the fact that just because you are not physically in a country doesn't mean you no longer have ties with the country. Quite often you would still have financial or social ties to a country even after you've left. These social ties could include friends and family members still in the country of origin. So as long as I legally can I will continue to vote in NZ, that may change down the line when I am an Australian citizen and can vote here, but until then, I have a New Zealand passport so legislation introduced there affects me.
Well my friends, that is what I want to discuss today.
I am a New Zealand Citizen. And it is my legal right to vote, as any and all citizens should do. The ANZACs back in the first world war and the second world war didn't fight for our freedoms so we could throw out our right to vote. They fought so we could enjoy civil liberties such as voting. When only 77.6% of the voting public exercise their right to determine who leads the Government it's absolutely essential that those who are interested do vote. Just to emphasise that again, it's our legal right and there are people in the world living in dictatorships who can't vote. If you look at the fact women haven't always had the right to vote then you'd understand how important it is we take an interest in democracy.
Just because you aren't in a country doesn't mean you aren't affected by Government policies. I hold a New Zealand passport and that means when I travel overseas I am doing so as a New Zealand citizen. That is what I am in the eyes of the law. This means New Zealand's foreign policy can affect people outside of the country. Then there is education and tax policy. If you hold a student loan then you're still tied to NZ, which means that Government decisions in these areas will have an influence on your life so why shouldn't you have a say on the matters which affect you.
Another thing is, if you hold bank accounts or an investment property, or even if you plan to purchase an investment property down the line then tax policy will affect you. If you're being affected by tax policy and have connections with a country then you should absolutely have the right to vote and should exercise that right.
Another reason you should vote is that you may not hold the right to vote in another country. Until I'm an Australian citizen, 3 years, 2 months and 1 day away (plus processing time) New Zealand is the only country I'm able to vote in and given I studied politics at university it is vitally important to me that I exercise my right to vote. If I wasn't to vote in NZ then in essence I would have no democratic voice. And if that was the case then are we really any better than countries in the East that we look down upon for their treatment of citizens.
The main point of this blog post is to highlight the fact that just because you are not physically in a country doesn't mean you no longer have ties with the country. Quite often you would still have financial or social ties to a country even after you've left. These social ties could include friends and family members still in the country of origin. So as long as I legally can I will continue to vote in NZ, that may change down the line when I am an Australian citizen and can vote here, but until then, I have a New Zealand passport so legislation introduced there affects me.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
It appears as if Lambie is the self elected whipping girl in this Australian partiamentary term.
There's always one politician in one country that cops a lot of flak. Prior to this year's New Zealand election it was NZ First MP Asenati Lole Taylor who faced a torrent of abuse. Then it was former Labour leader David Shearer for being inarticulate and too weak. Then it was former Labour leader David Cunliffe for being too arrogant. In Australia former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd received flak for being difficult to work with, Gillard for allegedly lying. Going back to the 90s, Pauline Hanson copped a lot of grief for her views on race relations. Well, it seems the girl everybody hates is Tasmanian Senator for the Palmer United Party Jacqui Lambie.
A while ago she copped it for saying she wants a man who is well endowed. Then she copped it for saying she's worried about the Chinese invading and today, sure to form in the media, and Twitter, she's copped it for asking a question of the Senate, "is it possible for ebola to be used by suicide bombers?"
On the surface we think, "what an idiot" and that it's not possible, but lets look at things another way. Say we go back to September 11 2001, did you think it would be possible for aircraft to be flown into a building. We didn't think a subway bombing in London would be possible, or that the Bali bombers would attack a night club. If you remember then back in 2001 Anthrax was a threat. That was biological terrorism. So what's to say Lambie's hypothetical situation of ebola being used couldn't happen? There's no doubt that there are plans in place and maybe that's actually what she was asking, and wanting detail on. Remember, we wouldn't have thought someone born in Australia with Aussie citizenship would want to kill the Prime Minister of the country.
Do I think it's likely that ebola is a threat? No, do I think it's possible though? Yes, given recent history which shows the impossible can be possible and that the unexpected can happen, I do think we need to be prepared but I have faith that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will already have this contingency plan in place should such an event ever arise.
When it comes to Lambie, she may be bad at expressing herself and come across as a bogan, but she's doing more for Australia than you or I, so even if we don't agree with her, we need to give her a break because she's actually trying to make a difference and because she cares more about the future of the country than others.
It seems as if she's become the whipping girl this year now that Rudd and Gillard are gone.
A while ago she copped it for saying she wants a man who is well endowed. Then she copped it for saying she's worried about the Chinese invading and today, sure to form in the media, and Twitter, she's copped it for asking a question of the Senate, "is it possible for ebola to be used by suicide bombers?"
On the surface we think, "what an idiot" and that it's not possible, but lets look at things another way. Say we go back to September 11 2001, did you think it would be possible for aircraft to be flown into a building. We didn't think a subway bombing in London would be possible, or that the Bali bombers would attack a night club. If you remember then back in 2001 Anthrax was a threat. That was biological terrorism. So what's to say Lambie's hypothetical situation of ebola being used couldn't happen? There's no doubt that there are plans in place and maybe that's actually what she was asking, and wanting detail on. Remember, we wouldn't have thought someone born in Australia with Aussie citizenship would want to kill the Prime Minister of the country.
Do I think it's likely that ebola is a threat? No, do I think it's possible though? Yes, given recent history which shows the impossible can be possible and that the unexpected can happen, I do think we need to be prepared but I have faith that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will already have this contingency plan in place should such an event ever arise.
When it comes to Lambie, she may be bad at expressing herself and come across as a bogan, but she's doing more for Australia than you or I, so even if we don't agree with her, we need to give her a break because she's actually trying to make a difference and because she cares more about the future of the country than others.
It seems as if she's become the whipping girl this year now that Rudd and Gillard are gone.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Arresting people and chucking them in prison preventing them working won't recover student loan money, working with overseas tax offices will
Fairfax's New Zealand news site published a story this weekend where they reported that an Auckland accounting firm Andersen Accountants was offering advice to graduates living overseas to declare bankruptcy due to the crippling interest on student loans. The crippling interest can make a student loan unaffordable for even the most honest person who wants to do the right thing.
As you can imagine because students are supposedly evil, the majority of reader comments on the article criticised students as being bludgers, saying that they never paid taxes, that they basically stole from the taxpayer and that they should be arrested at the border.
Lets consider a few facts though, and this is coming from someone with a student loan who cannot make the minimum repayments. Before I go into what I think I will explain my situation.
I have been working since I was 16 years old, so the last 12 years. Most of that was in NZ but I left NZ for Australia in 2008 for the first time so interest was added to my loan, then I left another couple of times so more interest was added, and I left in December last year so at least $4000 worth of interest has been added in six months. So why didn't I work in NZ? The company I was working for in New Zealand announced upcoming redundancies so my plan to move back to Sydney was put into motion and made active. If I'd stayed in NZ then more than likely I would have stayed with the media company I was with and been made redundant in May of this year, and then sat on a benefit for God knows how long, or ended up in a call centre. You see, today, the NZ Herald reported that call centre jobs are the growth area in Auckland. You do not attend university to work in a call centre or sit on a benefit and why should people be punished for deciding to create a better life for themselves?
Next up, consider the financial positions of former students living overseas. They may have debt. I know I have private debt and because that impacts things, little things, like even being able to rent an apartment it has to come first or I have to keep living in backpackers or hostels when I'm reliable with my rent and always have been. People may genuinely not be able to afford the minimum payments which are basically based on 10% of your student loan, not on what you can actually afford. So to give you an example - let's say you have a loan of $50,000 (and some, like me owe more) then your minimum payment is $5000 a year. Let's consider you have to pay $10,000 in rent a year (based on a modest $200 a week in a modest suburb in Sydney's inner west) but let's figure this, you still have to eat, you still have to cover your other debts, you still have to buy clothes and shoes for work, and you may have unstable work, so you also have to save for when you have no work, because casuals in Australia don't get holiday or sick pay. So even if your income was low and you genuinely couldn't afford the repayments, you my friend, well you would be arrested at NZ Customs trying to enter or trying to leave.
Okay, so you then get a stable job, so you have to service your private debt first, now what if you made stupid decisions with money when you were younger? Then chances are you may have a very high amount of private debt where you should be paying at least $100 - $200 a week on that. As that debt is going down and affecting your everyday life in your new country you're going to prioritise it.
So the simple question remains, how is arresting people at the border when, like all bad financial situations, they may just need more time? How is stopping them leaving going to help when they have jobs overseas and commitments overseas? Will imprisoning someone while they're sorting out their finances really help the Government recover the money?
The problem, and the main reason why people overseas don't pay their loans is because they simply cannot afford to and if the interest was removed then they would probably make more of an effort, but why would you pay a debt that doesn't affect your everyday life when there are private debts that do? And why would you pay an ever growing debt when you could pay the decreasing debts that affect your day to day living? Why would you pay a debt that is primarily made up of interest?
The NZ Government needs to work with overseas tax offices and base repayments on actual income. If you are in NZ then 12% of what you actually earn will go onto your loan, while if you are overseas at present, the NZ IRD doesn't work with the Australian Tax Office for example, why not? Why haven't they looked at this? This would stop people defaulting on their loans. And why not remove the ridiculous minimums? Why should someone like me, face being arrested because of our financial position? This also affects our voting rights because given we could be arrested at the border and stranded in NZ do you really think we'd be dumb enough to re-enter the country? We have to once every three years to maintain our voting rights if we're an NZ citizen. Are we supposed to just forgo our right to vote when we're good citizens? What right does the NZ Government have to take away our right to vote when the policy affects us?
Also, what IS a serious defaulter? I make payments on my loan where I can but certainly not the minimum because I simply cannot afford it. I only hold citizenship in ONE country at present and that means if something goes wrong I'm on my own. Are we so stupid that we want to protect our new lives? If the NZ IRD worked with the ATO at least then people wouldn't default because short of defrauding the Australian Government, defaulting simply would not be possible.
It astounded me to read half the comments on the Stuff.co.nz article. Former students/graduates of NZ universities may in fact have paid their student loan while they were in the country, paid taxes and generally contributed to the economy, yet those commentators made it out like former students never paid taxes and that is untrue.
The legislation needs reviewing, but anyone who does want to consider bankruptcy really needs to know it is not the easy way out and I can't see it becoming a legitimate option for people because it prohibits your opportunities to travel, you can't have more than $500 in savings, you can't control your finances etc. Sometimes NEARLY going bankrupt is actually the push you need to get your finances in order, but legislation around student loans needs reviewing otherwise people will continue to default and NEVER return to NZ because of the prospect of being arrested.
As you can imagine because students are supposedly evil, the majority of reader comments on the article criticised students as being bludgers, saying that they never paid taxes, that they basically stole from the taxpayer and that they should be arrested at the border.
Lets consider a few facts though, and this is coming from someone with a student loan who cannot make the minimum repayments. Before I go into what I think I will explain my situation.
I have been working since I was 16 years old, so the last 12 years. Most of that was in NZ but I left NZ for Australia in 2008 for the first time so interest was added to my loan, then I left another couple of times so more interest was added, and I left in December last year so at least $4000 worth of interest has been added in six months. So why didn't I work in NZ? The company I was working for in New Zealand announced upcoming redundancies so my plan to move back to Sydney was put into motion and made active. If I'd stayed in NZ then more than likely I would have stayed with the media company I was with and been made redundant in May of this year, and then sat on a benefit for God knows how long, or ended up in a call centre. You see, today, the NZ Herald reported that call centre jobs are the growth area in Auckland. You do not attend university to work in a call centre or sit on a benefit and why should people be punished for deciding to create a better life for themselves?
Next up, consider the financial positions of former students living overseas. They may have debt. I know I have private debt and because that impacts things, little things, like even being able to rent an apartment it has to come first or I have to keep living in backpackers or hostels when I'm reliable with my rent and always have been. People may genuinely not be able to afford the minimum payments which are basically based on 10% of your student loan, not on what you can actually afford. So to give you an example - let's say you have a loan of $50,000 (and some, like me owe more) then your minimum payment is $5000 a year. Let's consider you have to pay $10,000 in rent a year (based on a modest $200 a week in a modest suburb in Sydney's inner west) but let's figure this, you still have to eat, you still have to cover your other debts, you still have to buy clothes and shoes for work, and you may have unstable work, so you also have to save for when you have no work, because casuals in Australia don't get holiday or sick pay. So even if your income was low and you genuinely couldn't afford the repayments, you my friend, well you would be arrested at NZ Customs trying to enter or trying to leave.
Okay, so you then get a stable job, so you have to service your private debt first, now what if you made stupid decisions with money when you were younger? Then chances are you may have a very high amount of private debt where you should be paying at least $100 - $200 a week on that. As that debt is going down and affecting your everyday life in your new country you're going to prioritise it.
So the simple question remains, how is arresting people at the border when, like all bad financial situations, they may just need more time? How is stopping them leaving going to help when they have jobs overseas and commitments overseas? Will imprisoning someone while they're sorting out their finances really help the Government recover the money?
The problem, and the main reason why people overseas don't pay their loans is because they simply cannot afford to and if the interest was removed then they would probably make more of an effort, but why would you pay a debt that doesn't affect your everyday life when there are private debts that do? And why would you pay an ever growing debt when you could pay the decreasing debts that affect your day to day living? Why would you pay a debt that is primarily made up of interest?
The NZ Government needs to work with overseas tax offices and base repayments on actual income. If you are in NZ then 12% of what you actually earn will go onto your loan, while if you are overseas at present, the NZ IRD doesn't work with the Australian Tax Office for example, why not? Why haven't they looked at this? This would stop people defaulting on their loans. And why not remove the ridiculous minimums? Why should someone like me, face being arrested because of our financial position? This also affects our voting rights because given we could be arrested at the border and stranded in NZ do you really think we'd be dumb enough to re-enter the country? We have to once every three years to maintain our voting rights if we're an NZ citizen. Are we supposed to just forgo our right to vote when we're good citizens? What right does the NZ Government have to take away our right to vote when the policy affects us?
Also, what IS a serious defaulter? I make payments on my loan where I can but certainly not the minimum because I simply cannot afford it. I only hold citizenship in ONE country at present and that means if something goes wrong I'm on my own. Are we so stupid that we want to protect our new lives? If the NZ IRD worked with the ATO at least then people wouldn't default because short of defrauding the Australian Government, defaulting simply would not be possible.
It astounded me to read half the comments on the Stuff.co.nz article. Former students/graduates of NZ universities may in fact have paid their student loan while they were in the country, paid taxes and generally contributed to the economy, yet those commentators made it out like former students never paid taxes and that is untrue.
The legislation needs reviewing, but anyone who does want to consider bankruptcy really needs to know it is not the easy way out and I can't see it becoming a legitimate option for people because it prohibits your opportunities to travel, you can't have more than $500 in savings, you can't control your finances etc. Sometimes NEARLY going bankrupt is actually the push you need to get your finances in order, but legislation around student loans needs reviewing otherwise people will continue to default and NEVER return to NZ because of the prospect of being arrested.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Why the decision to merge Radiolive's breakfast show with TV3's breakfast show is a bad idea and does the public a disservice in terms of news content
Apparently New Zealand broadcaster Paul Henry is popular, so popular in fact that he's likely to become a breakfast show host again by the beginning of next year. Mediaworks has signalled plans for a new show which will be broadcast across both TV3 and RadioLive.
That will put several media personalities like Hilary Barry, Marcus Lush, Sacha McNeil and others out of work. Marcus has been in breakfast radio for several years and it's not secret that his ratings have been bad. Hilary Barry is almost past her use by date on TV as I've said in previous blogs.
Sacha NcNeil still has a bit to offer though as do the other media hots affected by the changes.
That isn't my concern though. It's one thing to network stations as both The Radio Network (Now NZME) and Mediaworks did in the 90s, but it's another to have the same content streaming across both TV and radio and it sits really uncomfortably with me.
I'm glad Paul Henry is returning to breakfast TV because out of a bad bunch of presenters in NZ he's one of the better ones, but to syndicate his show across TV and radio is a bad idea. It means people not only get less news, they get less opinions and less diversity. That's not a good thing.
Take the Australian media for example.
Mamamia founded by former magazine editor Mia Freedman is a left wing site aimed at 18+ women.
Crikey is aimed at more intelligent left wingers.
The ABC and SBS are primarily aimed at left wingers and are more in depth.
2UE owned by Fairfax is balanced or it attempts to be.
Kiis FM is a mainstream pop FM station however with Kyle Sandilands they are somewhat controversial.
2GB is conservative, hard hitting and the number one station in Sydney because it has a conservative and opinionated audience.
Then you have the newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald which is left wing and the Daily Telegraph which favours the Liberal Party. The Daily Mail is more about salacious gossip and light news stories.
Unless you live in Sydney this probably means nothing to you but the main point of what I'm trying to say is, people need choice and they need to hear different news and views, by syndicating a show across both TV and radio, you're giving people less choice and there will be even fewer people in the NZ media and it is already small enough without being smaller and having less information and views. Radio and TV are two different mediums and the two shouldn't merge, although radio can cross over with the internet as can TV, but radio and TV crossing over, bad idea.
That will put several media personalities like Hilary Barry, Marcus Lush, Sacha McNeil and others out of work. Marcus has been in breakfast radio for several years and it's not secret that his ratings have been bad. Hilary Barry is almost past her use by date on TV as I've said in previous blogs.
Sacha NcNeil still has a bit to offer though as do the other media hots affected by the changes.
That isn't my concern though. It's one thing to network stations as both The Radio Network (Now NZME) and Mediaworks did in the 90s, but it's another to have the same content streaming across both TV and radio and it sits really uncomfortably with me.
I'm glad Paul Henry is returning to breakfast TV because out of a bad bunch of presenters in NZ he's one of the better ones, but to syndicate his show across TV and radio is a bad idea. It means people not only get less news, they get less opinions and less diversity. That's not a good thing.
Take the Australian media for example.
Mamamia founded by former magazine editor Mia Freedman is a left wing site aimed at 18+ women.
Crikey is aimed at more intelligent left wingers.
The ABC and SBS are primarily aimed at left wingers and are more in depth.
2UE owned by Fairfax is balanced or it attempts to be.
Kiis FM is a mainstream pop FM station however with Kyle Sandilands they are somewhat controversial.
2GB is conservative, hard hitting and the number one station in Sydney because it has a conservative and opinionated audience.
Then you have the newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald which is left wing and the Daily Telegraph which favours the Liberal Party. The Daily Mail is more about salacious gossip and light news stories.
Unless you live in Sydney this probably means nothing to you but the main point of what I'm trying to say is, people need choice and they need to hear different news and views, by syndicating a show across both TV and radio, you're giving people less choice and there will be even fewer people in the NZ media and it is already small enough without being smaller and having less information and views. Radio and TV are two different mediums and the two shouldn't merge, although radio can cross over with the internet as can TV, but radio and TV crossing over, bad idea.
Monday, October 13, 2014
The ANZACs didn't fight for suppression of free speech, yet Woolworths wants to take free speech away from us
This is another of those short and to the point blog posts.
Woolworths has come under fire for selling a T Shirt with the Australian flag and a message saying, "if you don't like it, leave". God forbid someone be pro Australia. How dare they?!
A few months ago, Woolworths ran a campaign saying "Happy Ramadan" and a few extremists in Leichhardt were annoyed with it, but Woolworths stood by it.
This time the supermarket giant has bowed to public pressure and removed the t shirts. Apparently they're causing offense.
Let me tell you something, race isn't mentioned, the T Shirts are just telling people if they don't want to live in Australia to leave. What's wrong with that? I'm white and before I left NZ a number of people said to me, "if you don't like it leave" and well, guess what?! I eventually did. I was only waiting for the right time to.
So why are "fuck Tony Abbott" t shirts acceptable, yet "if you don't like it, leave" t shirts which promote patriotism aren't allowed?
Why are Australia's civil liberties being compromised because of a minority? Nobody forces people to live in Australia and in Australia we're supposed to have free speech. It's hardly free speech or an open market if you can't sell a T Shirt expressing love for the country. What happened to saying what you think? Saying what you think is an Australian value. The neighbours across the ditch will tell you that Aussies are more up front.
Personally I find the hijab and the Ramadan campaign offensive but I accept it because that's what Australia is about. It's about respecting views which are different than yours, but removing a t shirt that promotes love for this country shouldn't be deemed offensive, especially when race isn't even mentioned.
I think it's time we stood up to companies who want to appease a minority and forget what Aussie values are. One Aussie value is the right to offend as Senator George Brandis said a while back, and it's your right to be offended but it's not your right to stop others expressing themselves, which is what this is, by removing the t shirt, Woolworths has totally compromised on our open speech values.
I think a lot of people forget that living in Australia is a privilege and they need to stop abusing it and actually realise just how lucky they are.
Woolworths has come under fire for selling a T Shirt with the Australian flag and a message saying, "if you don't like it, leave". God forbid someone be pro Australia. How dare they?!
A few months ago, Woolworths ran a campaign saying "Happy Ramadan" and a few extremists in Leichhardt were annoyed with it, but Woolworths stood by it.
This time the supermarket giant has bowed to public pressure and removed the t shirts. Apparently they're causing offense.
Let me tell you something, race isn't mentioned, the T Shirts are just telling people if they don't want to live in Australia to leave. What's wrong with that? I'm white and before I left NZ a number of people said to me, "if you don't like it leave" and well, guess what?! I eventually did. I was only waiting for the right time to.
So why are "fuck Tony Abbott" t shirts acceptable, yet "if you don't like it, leave" t shirts which promote patriotism aren't allowed?
Why are Australia's civil liberties being compromised because of a minority? Nobody forces people to live in Australia and in Australia we're supposed to have free speech. It's hardly free speech or an open market if you can't sell a T Shirt expressing love for the country. What happened to saying what you think? Saying what you think is an Australian value. The neighbours across the ditch will tell you that Aussies are more up front.
Personally I find the hijab and the Ramadan campaign offensive but I accept it because that's what Australia is about. It's about respecting views which are different than yours, but removing a t shirt that promotes love for this country shouldn't be deemed offensive, especially when race isn't even mentioned.
I think it's time we stood up to companies who want to appease a minority and forget what Aussie values are. One Aussie value is the right to offend as Senator George Brandis said a while back, and it's your right to be offended but it's not your right to stop others expressing themselves, which is what this is, by removing the t shirt, Woolworths has totally compromised on our open speech values.
I think a lot of people forget that living in Australia is a privilege and they need to stop abusing it and actually realise just how lucky they are.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
New iPhone 6 and 6 Plus so popular the telcos are not taking any new orders.
The new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus was released in a number of countries including Australia on the 19th of September this year. On the 26th of September it was released in second wave countries including NZ.
The device due to its significant changes and modifications from the iPhone 5 and 5s/5c has been selling like hot cakes, with 10 million sales in three days.
The phone is not yet available in stores and can only be bought on plans unless you buy direct from Apple, in which case the device will set you back $1249 in Australia for the premium 128GB model and in NZ you're looking at $1449.
The iPhone 6 however will set you back $999 in New Zealand and $869 in Australia.
Since the phones have been released, there have been some complaints about the phone, with people complaining that they bend. It should be noted this is a problem affecting only nine phones, that's 9 in total, so one in one million approximately. Another issue people have whinged about is that hair gets caught in them. Phones have been doing this for years and this is not a problem exclusive to Apple iPhones.
In New Zealand Vodafone and Spark (formerly known as Telecom) have stopped selling the devices due to excessive demand. 2 Degrees, according to their website is only selling the 16GB basic iPhone 6.
Vodafone Australia is no longer taking new orders. Optus is selling the 16GB iPhone 6 model and encouraging people to check back for regular updates on other models. Telstra is not taking any new orders either with people having to register their interest for the 6 Plus. The iPhone 6 can be purchased from their website however. Virgin is not taking any new orders either.
As with popular items there are always people who will take advantage of demand exceeding supply and on EBay Australia iPhone 6s start from $1469 and on Trade Me NZ $1900 for the iPhone 6 Plus 128GB and $1299 for the 16GB iPhone 6.
There is no word yet on when the telcos will recommence selling the iPhones. Die hard iPhone fans can purchase direct from Apple's website and have the phone within 7-10 days.
Anyone who has one of these gadgets should feel very privileged indeed as there is a worldwide shortage and a waitlist.
The device due to its significant changes and modifications from the iPhone 5 and 5s/5c has been selling like hot cakes, with 10 million sales in three days.
The phone is not yet available in stores and can only be bought on plans unless you buy direct from Apple, in which case the device will set you back $1249 in Australia for the premium 128GB model and in NZ you're looking at $1449.
The iPhone 6 however will set you back $999 in New Zealand and $869 in Australia.
Since the phones have been released, there have been some complaints about the phone, with people complaining that they bend. It should be noted this is a problem affecting only nine phones, that's 9 in total, so one in one million approximately. Another issue people have whinged about is that hair gets caught in them. Phones have been doing this for years and this is not a problem exclusive to Apple iPhones.
In New Zealand Vodafone and Spark (formerly known as Telecom) have stopped selling the devices due to excessive demand. 2 Degrees, according to their website is only selling the 16GB basic iPhone 6.
Vodafone Australia is no longer taking new orders. Optus is selling the 16GB iPhone 6 model and encouraging people to check back for regular updates on other models. Telstra is not taking any new orders either with people having to register their interest for the 6 Plus. The iPhone 6 can be purchased from their website however. Virgin is not taking any new orders either.
As with popular items there are always people who will take advantage of demand exceeding supply and on EBay Australia iPhone 6s start from $1469 and on Trade Me NZ $1900 for the iPhone 6 Plus 128GB and $1299 for the 16GB iPhone 6.
There is no word yet on when the telcos will recommence selling the iPhones. Die hard iPhone fans can purchase direct from Apple's website and have the phone within 7-10 days.
Anyone who has one of these gadgets should feel very privileged indeed as there is a worldwide shortage and a waitlist.
Voice for the voiceless, The Refugee Action Coalition, the Greens and Labour join together in protest to support asylum seekers
The Refugee Action Coalition, along with the Greens and Labour
organised a protest outside the Sydney Town Hall today on George Street
at 2pm. There were numerous speakers including the Refugee Action Coaltion's Ian Rintoul, the Sisters of St Joseph's Susan Connelly (who is featured in the first video) and the Greens candidate Jenny Leong (in the second video).
The protest was very peaceful with 30 people
at the start and a few stands with more information on the causes. The
causes being fought for at the protest were the rights of asylum
seekers, anti Islamophobia, pro refugees and pro peace.
Protester Mia Sanders said that the protesters were standing up for the rights of those who can't stand up for themselves, typically the asylum seekers being held in detention camps. She felt as if the Abbott Government was inhumane in the detention of asylum seekers and mentioned that there is a website tracking the deaths. Her concern was that some of the people having decisions made about them aren't citizens and are essentially voiceless.
Sanders says "we're totally let down and it's a real shame to Australia. Given we're a wealthy country we can sustain these lives" and that the Abbott Government has blood on their hands.
During the protest there were several speakers, including Greens candidate for the new seat of Newtown, Jenny Leong who said that the only good to come out of the former Howard Government's immigraton and refugee policy was motivating her to get involved in politics. Leong delivered a speech in which she said that the Government was spreading a message of hate. She also said that the only ones who should decide who coms to Australia are the Aboriginals, and made specific reference to the Gadigal people.
This sentiment was shared by Sr Susan Connelly of the Sisters of St Joseph who said that talkback hosts and the mainstream media were promoting messages of discrimination and that it was just a "theatre of politics". Connelly was heartened to see the public backlash towards the banning of the Burqa. She wants people to speak to refugees and hold senators accountable but "not to victimise the victimisers" and that "upholding dignity is important". Connelly says we need to take all asylum seekers, regardless of how we get here rather than "bribing struggling nations like Cambodia to take our refugees".
By the time Leong had delivered her speech there were a few hundred peaceful protesters and a minor police presence. According to Facebook however, 1300 people attended the protest.
Protester Mia Sanders said that the protesters were standing up for the rights of those who can't stand up for themselves, typically the asylum seekers being held in detention camps. She felt as if the Abbott Government was inhumane in the detention of asylum seekers and mentioned that there is a website tracking the deaths. Her concern was that some of the people having decisions made about them aren't citizens and are essentially voiceless.
Sanders says "we're totally let down and it's a real shame to Australia. Given we're a wealthy country we can sustain these lives" and that the Abbott Government has blood on their hands.
During the protest there were several speakers, including Greens candidate for the new seat of Newtown, Jenny Leong who said that the only good to come out of the former Howard Government's immigraton and refugee policy was motivating her to get involved in politics. Leong delivered a speech in which she said that the Government was spreading a message of hate. She also said that the only ones who should decide who coms to Australia are the Aboriginals, and made specific reference to the Gadigal people.
This sentiment was shared by Sr Susan Connelly of the Sisters of St Joseph who said that talkback hosts and the mainstream media were promoting messages of discrimination and that it was just a "theatre of politics". Connelly was heartened to see the public backlash towards the banning of the Burqa. She wants people to speak to refugees and hold senators accountable but "not to victimise the victimisers" and that "upholding dignity is important". Connelly says we need to take all asylum seekers, regardless of how we get here rather than "bribing struggling nations like Cambodia to take our refugees".
By the time Leong had delivered her speech there were a few hundred peaceful protesters and a minor police presence. According to Facebook however, 1300 people attended the protest.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Review of the 6 Plus phablet
You may recall that a few weeks ago my iPhone 5 died and I had to go back to my 4s which was a nightmare. The screen was small and I lost half the screen due to the keyboard. My iPhone 5 couldn't be brought back to life and sadly it died. Fortunately I still had my 4s which I hadn't thrown out but was very close to chucking. I was going to try to hold off on upgrading but couldn't so I ordered the iPhone 6 Plus and it arrived today from New Zealand.
You've probably read countless articles about the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus. The reviews are mostly negative and given I now have it in my hands I can comment on it. Before I rave about how great it is I now wonder if the bad reviews were designed so that customers would be even happier with the phone than if there had only been good reviews.
Given I'd switched back to my 4s the larger screen on the 6 Plus is an absolute joy to use. It's so easy to blog and it's truly like having a pocket computer.
New features include a dictionary with predictive text and emoticons. That's a dream. No more 'ducking' replacing a swear word.
The phone is so light compared to previous models and if you have a case it will still fit in your pocket. I briefly went up to the post office earlier and kept my phone in my skirt pocket and it has not bent.
The screen resolution is much better and websites are more pleasant to use because you can see more and therefore it's actually more useful.
The only thing I don't like about it is I now have to use both hands when I'm blogging or texting etc.
I imagine this will replace my lap top in due course (or be my main device) and that's why I went with the 6 Plus. It's a multi functional device, more so than previous Apple iPhones.
9/10 for this dream phone.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
There is no way that Blake Garvey is completely to blame for the bust up with Sam Frost
So there's been a lot of news about The Bachelor lately. This follows Blake Garvey and Sam Frost's break up. The mainstream media has implied that Blake broke Sam's heart and that she had absolutely no say in the matter.
Both have given media interviews but from what I've seen there are so many questions being asked and I can't help but wonder if the media is pulling the Damsel in Distress routine and that Frost is lapping it up trying to get the sympathy card.
But in this day and age, is it not possible that Sam and Blake just didn't get along in real life? Is it not possible that Sam had some say in the relationship ending. Is there not the chance that Sam ended the relationship? I've ended things in the past and it's never easy. It doesn't mean you suddenly stop caring about the person.
I just think that there is too much flak being directed at Blake and it may not be as it seems, that a lot of things would have happened behind the scenes that people are not being told and it's wrong to assume that Sam is faultless.
I never watched The Bachelor but there is more to the story and it takes two to make a relationship and two to break up a relationship. Let's not forget that. Let's take into consideration the other possibilities that Blake possibly wasn't ready for marriage after all or that being from opposite sides of the country had it's issues? Let's also take into consideration that the break up may truly be a case of just wanting different things?
It's not right to blame either Sam or Blake. Both of them went through a break up and both are equally responsible so quit with this 1950s Damsel in Distress routine. I don't know about you but when I've been through relationship break ups both of us are always responsible.
Both have given media interviews but from what I've seen there are so many questions being asked and I can't help but wonder if the media is pulling the Damsel in Distress routine and that Frost is lapping it up trying to get the sympathy card.
But in this day and age, is it not possible that Sam and Blake just didn't get along in real life? Is it not possible that Sam had some say in the relationship ending. Is there not the chance that Sam ended the relationship? I've ended things in the past and it's never easy. It doesn't mean you suddenly stop caring about the person.
I just think that there is too much flak being directed at Blake and it may not be as it seems, that a lot of things would have happened behind the scenes that people are not being told and it's wrong to assume that Sam is faultless.
I never watched The Bachelor but there is more to the story and it takes two to make a relationship and two to break up a relationship. Let's not forget that. Let's take into consideration the other possibilities that Blake possibly wasn't ready for marriage after all or that being from opposite sides of the country had it's issues? Let's also take into consideration that the break up may truly be a case of just wanting different things?
It's not right to blame either Sam or Blake. Both of them went through a break up and both are equally responsible so quit with this 1950s Damsel in Distress routine. I don't know about you but when I've been through relationship break ups both of us are always responsible.
Moving Aussie casuals to perm part or full time contracts
I saw a tweet by Sunrise about whether or not casual employees should be made permanent part time or full time employees.
The answer is yes.
People can't live on not knowing if they have work or not. People have bills every week not just the week the employer wants to give us work.
It's a tricky situation and a position I'm in at the moment. I'm working casually until I'm paid in media or find a more stable job that works with my media work which takes first priority.
See, if you have a commitment like I do then knowing only one day prior if you have work is impossible and it causes so much stress for employees not knowing if they have work. That's no exaggeration by the way, the casual work can be that unstable
As a casual employee working on long term goals I need flexibility but I also need certainty. I have goals that are hard to achieve with that level of casualness.
Casual employees should definitely have access to sick or holiday pay, especially considering some businesses close over Christmas. NZ does it based on hours worked and Australia needs to follow NZ's lead and remove the casual loading in favour if money put away in a kitty.
People need certainty or they can't do simple things like rent an apartment. There needs to be more give and take between employers and employees.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Street to join talkback, has the NZ media lost their mind?
The last few days I feel like I've been neglecting my Australian audience and for that I apologise but as with the mainstream media there are always choices to make. I can't possibly write about everything. I simply do not have the time. I'm watching the political situation in Australia though over ISIL and the gender and sexism debates. Once NZ news becomes boring I will stop posting about it, well now there's a phrase I never thought I'd say.
Now, tonight I read that TV1's Seven Sharp co host Toni Street is filling in on The Hits (formerly known as Classic Hits) while Polly and Grant are away. The NZ Herald reports that NZME (formerly known as The Radio Network and APN) will be trying Street out on different formats including talkback.
I'm really horrified at this. No, I'm not an announcer but I am doing an internship in talkback radio (just to lay my cards on the table) behind the scenes and talkback is so much different in real life. You have to juggle so much and have a real eye for news stories, and be willing to make judgement calls. There is no doubt that Toni is a warm personality but she doesn't have that edge that you need in talkback.
Rachel Smalley has it. Duncan Garner has it. And as much as he annoys me, Paddy Gower will have it in the future and could easily make the transition from TV presenting to talkback radio down the line.
You have to be political to be in talkback and connect with the audience on so many different levels, not just report news. You have to really engage and you have to be willing to be controversial. The fact of the matter is, that's not Street. She's more of a Melissa Doyle character, the mumsy type figure whereas Rachel likes to mix things up and get in there and say their opinion.
I know this post will annoy Toni fans but as someone who has known talkback since I was a kid (about 13 and planned to get into it at 20 when I was at radio school in Wellington) I can honestly say Toni is not right for that format and I can't believe she's even being considered for it.
There is so much more to talkback than just getting along with the audience - it's knowing the big stories, it's taking risks and it's having a balanced show, and the fact of the matter is, Toni is too light for that. Yes, she has the journalism training but she's just not opinionated enough for it. She won't engage the audience.
If you want to know more, just listen to Aussie talkback and you'll see that you have to have an edge to do it and be willing to take risks. You can't be a talkback host if you're effectively boring and don't understand the subject matter or will only take a shallow look at it.
But, by all means feel free to prove me wrong.....and I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. Look at the election coverage, all Toni did was nod along, how can a talkback host be successful when they don't stir emotions and controversy?! She'll lose ratings.
Now, tonight I read that TV1's Seven Sharp co host Toni Street is filling in on The Hits (formerly known as Classic Hits) while Polly and Grant are away. The NZ Herald reports that NZME (formerly known as The Radio Network and APN) will be trying Street out on different formats including talkback.
I'm really horrified at this. No, I'm not an announcer but I am doing an internship in talkback radio (just to lay my cards on the table) behind the scenes and talkback is so much different in real life. You have to juggle so much and have a real eye for news stories, and be willing to make judgement calls. There is no doubt that Toni is a warm personality but she doesn't have that edge that you need in talkback.
Rachel Smalley has it. Duncan Garner has it. And as much as he annoys me, Paddy Gower will have it in the future and could easily make the transition from TV presenting to talkback radio down the line.
You have to be political to be in talkback and connect with the audience on so many different levels, not just report news. You have to really engage and you have to be willing to be controversial. The fact of the matter is, that's not Street. She's more of a Melissa Doyle character, the mumsy type figure whereas Rachel likes to mix things up and get in there and say their opinion.
I know this post will annoy Toni fans but as someone who has known talkback since I was a kid (about 13 and planned to get into it at 20 when I was at radio school in Wellington) I can honestly say Toni is not right for that format and I can't believe she's even being considered for it.
There is so much more to talkback than just getting along with the audience - it's knowing the big stories, it's taking risks and it's having a balanced show, and the fact of the matter is, Toni is too light for that. Yes, she has the journalism training but she's just not opinionated enough for it. She won't engage the audience.
If you want to know more, just listen to Aussie talkback and you'll see that you have to have an edge to do it and be willing to take risks. You can't be a talkback host if you're effectively boring and don't understand the subject matter or will only take a shallow look at it.
But, by all means feel free to prove me wrong.....and I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. Look at the election coverage, all Toni did was nod along, how can a talkback host be successful when they don't stir emotions and controversy?! She'll lose ratings.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Labour cannot afford another leadership vote, the party needs to unify.
First thing's first. I said it 3 years ago after former Prime Minister Helen Clark resigned from her leadership after the defeat in 2008 and I'll say it again. Andrew Little should be the leader of the Labour Party. I actually have nothing against Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe. I think either would be fine leaders of the party BUT I think if one of them became the leader it would create too much division.
The good thing about Andrew Little is he's been quietly in the background but because of his union background he could take Labour back to their grassroots which is what National had to do after Bill English's defeat, which saw National plummet on election night 2002 to 20.79%. When you look at that fact, National have actually been down lower than Labour.
My big point I'm trying to make is that although Labour is a mess right now, they need to pick a leader who can unify the party, but if Cunliffe or Robertson become the leader then there will be a #teamcunliffe and a #teamrobertson and that is the last thing that Labour needs.
Little isn't tarnished and he has a strong Labour and union background which could easily appeal to voters.
So why is Labour insisting on having this leadership vote. They can't afford any more division. They need to unify and get behind ONE leader to rebuild the party.
The good thing about Andrew Little is he's been quietly in the background but because of his union background he could take Labour back to their grassroots which is what National had to do after Bill English's defeat, which saw National plummet on election night 2002 to 20.79%. When you look at that fact, National have actually been down lower than Labour.
My big point I'm trying to make is that although Labour is a mess right now, they need to pick a leader who can unify the party, but if Cunliffe or Robertson become the leader then there will be a #teamcunliffe and a #teamrobertson and that is the last thing that Labour needs.
Little isn't tarnished and he has a strong Labour and union background which could easily appeal to voters.
So why is Labour insisting on having this leadership vote. They can't afford any more division. They need to unify and get behind ONE leader to rebuild the party.
BREAKING NEWS: Sex and the City 3 may be happening
This is not a drill, Jennifer Hudson who starred in the first instalment has said there may be a third movie.
Now if only Jennifer Aniston would agree to a Friends movie...
Friday, October 3, 2014
You wouldn't go into someone's and disrespect their rules and aren't we beyond sexism?
This is a bit of a follow up to the previous blog about the NZ Labour Party, David Cunliffe and his wife's posts.
Now the New Zealand media is carrying on as if David is responsible for his wife's tweets. I'm not going to talk about whether or not what she said was right, or if she should have tweeted because people have been tweeting things they shouldn't for a number of years and they'll continue to do so. People often use Twitter in the heat of the moment and don't consider their actions.
Instead what I'll be writing about is the way the media is treating Karen Cunliffe. They haven't been too bad in their overall treatment, but what I do take issue with is the way the NZ media is acting like David can control his wife's tweets. That is such a sexist view to hold. I wasn't aware that this was 1955 and women weren't allowed to think freely or talk without a man's permission. Whether or not what Karen said was appropriate or not is immaterial, the fact is the media shouldn't act like a husband, even if he is a politician has the power in this day and age to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do.
A similar conversation is going on in Australia, but in Australia it's on a much bigger scale. There has been a significant debate about the burqa and other Muslim attire. The nation is divided with people calling it an attack on civil liberties while that same argument is being used against the wearing of the burqa in Australia. Given that Muslim men are allowed to show their faces and don't have to completely cover up it is a major double standard.
Taking gender out of the equation though, it's also disrespectful to Australian culture. If we were to go over to the Middle East we would have to cover up and respect their culture, so why is it so unreasonable to expect them to do the same?
Now the New Zealand media is carrying on as if David is responsible for his wife's tweets. I'm not going to talk about whether or not what she said was right, or if she should have tweeted because people have been tweeting things they shouldn't for a number of years and they'll continue to do so. People often use Twitter in the heat of the moment and don't consider their actions.
Instead what I'll be writing about is the way the media is treating Karen Cunliffe. They haven't been too bad in their overall treatment, but what I do take issue with is the way the NZ media is acting like David can control his wife's tweets. That is such a sexist view to hold. I wasn't aware that this was 1955 and women weren't allowed to think freely or talk without a man's permission. Whether or not what Karen said was appropriate or not is immaterial, the fact is the media shouldn't act like a husband, even if he is a politician has the power in this day and age to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do.
A similar conversation is going on in Australia, but in Australia it's on a much bigger scale. There has been a significant debate about the burqa and other Muslim attire. The nation is divided with people calling it an attack on civil liberties while that same argument is being used against the wearing of the burqa in Australia. Given that Muslim men are allowed to show their faces and don't have to completely cover up it is a major double standard.
Taking gender out of the equation though, it's also disrespectful to Australian culture. If we were to go over to the Middle East we would have to cover up and respect their culture, so why is it so unreasonable to expect them to do the same?
Thursday, October 2, 2014
The NZ Labour Party and the NZ media are a bunch of children who need to get off Twitter and grow up.
It is no secret that I think the NZ media lacks credibility and it is no secret that I think that the black and white cat sitting in front of me would do a better job of reporting on news than those employed by the NZ media. Don't ask me how a cat could report because I actually don't know, but I'm sure a cat would be more truthful and write with more integrity and credibility than the NZ journalists.
Since the NZ election was held on the 20th of September, so only 11 days ago there has been so much flak directed at the NZ Labour Party. I'm a right wing voter having voted Act at this year's election, so anything I say about Labour is written objectively and not with my personal views in mind.
It's not just been the NZ Labour Party receiving flak. In particular the former leader David Cunliffe who led the party to the election defeat has been. The mainstream media has been very negative towards him, blaming him for the loss. It would appear as if the journalists have not done their research and it is unreasonable to lump all the responsibility on one person. Back in 2002 Finance Minister Bill English was leader of the National Party and he led them to their worst defeat scoring only 21% of the vote. This was four years after NZ's first ever female Prime Minister Jenny Shipley had ousted Jim Bolger while he was overseas. After that National lost their way and former Prime Minister Helen Clark was at the height of her popularity having led the party to a successful win in 1999.
The main point of going back to this era is that it shows that parties sometimes lose their way and under Bill English, following the Shipley coup, National had lost their way. That wasn't a reflection on Bill English. It was a reflection on where the party was at that particular moment in time. The party had moved further to the centre under English and it wasn't until Don Brash's (he was leader for a time between 2002 and 2006) famous Orewa speech that National was able to find their way and connect with their core constituents again. Since then National has been pretty untouchable having just won a third term under Prime Minister John Key's leadership. Several commentators attribute National's success to John Key but really it was the fact the party went back to their core values that they were able to connect, and that's what Labour needs to do. At the moment there is much of a muchness between the two major parties.
This said though, Labour's campaign was flawed and President Moira Coatesworth and Campaign Director Matt McCarten need to take some of the responsibility for the shocking defeat. If the party was to go back to their core values and introduce a ground breaking policy like "interest free student loans for ALL graduates", or if they were to use a celebrity endorsement like Angela Bloomfield (Shortland Street's Rachel McKenna) they may gain some ground. These are two things the party could do to reconnect, but they're getting it wrong by shifting the blame. When National was down in the dumps they looked at the party as a whole. Even Act is going through this right now, but the one thing that is for sure is this, a party cannot, and will not, succeed unless the party unifies, and blaming Cunliffe and talking about his wife's Twitter behaviour is not the way to go. It's just plain childish
When the mainstream media carries on like a pack of wallies, is it any wonder people don't want to vote?
Since the NZ election was held on the 20th of September, so only 11 days ago there has been so much flak directed at the NZ Labour Party. I'm a right wing voter having voted Act at this year's election, so anything I say about Labour is written objectively and not with my personal views in mind.
It's not just been the NZ Labour Party receiving flak. In particular the former leader David Cunliffe who led the party to the election defeat has been. The mainstream media has been very negative towards him, blaming him for the loss. It would appear as if the journalists have not done their research and it is unreasonable to lump all the responsibility on one person. Back in 2002 Finance Minister Bill English was leader of the National Party and he led them to their worst defeat scoring only 21% of the vote. This was four years after NZ's first ever female Prime Minister Jenny Shipley had ousted Jim Bolger while he was overseas. After that National lost their way and former Prime Minister Helen Clark was at the height of her popularity having led the party to a successful win in 1999.
The main point of going back to this era is that it shows that parties sometimes lose their way and under Bill English, following the Shipley coup, National had lost their way. That wasn't a reflection on Bill English. It was a reflection on where the party was at that particular moment in time. The party had moved further to the centre under English and it wasn't until Don Brash's (he was leader for a time between 2002 and 2006) famous Orewa speech that National was able to find their way and connect with their core constituents again. Since then National has been pretty untouchable having just won a third term under Prime Minister John Key's leadership. Several commentators attribute National's success to John Key but really it was the fact the party went back to their core values that they were able to connect, and that's what Labour needs to do. At the moment there is much of a muchness between the two major parties.
This said though, Labour's campaign was flawed and President Moira Coatesworth and Campaign Director Matt McCarten need to take some of the responsibility for the shocking defeat. If the party was to go back to their core values and introduce a ground breaking policy like "interest free student loans for ALL graduates", or if they were to use a celebrity endorsement like Angela Bloomfield (Shortland Street's Rachel McKenna) they may gain some ground. These are two things the party could do to reconnect, but they're getting it wrong by shifting the blame. When National was down in the dumps they looked at the party as a whole. Even Act is going through this right now, but the one thing that is for sure is this, a party cannot, and will not, succeed unless the party unifies, and blaming Cunliffe and talking about his wife's Twitter behaviour is not the way to go. It's just plain childish
When the mainstream media carries on like a pack of wallies, is it any wonder people don't want to vote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)