Sam Uffindell

[sugilite:Me]

I'm sure the nats investigation would of been into if there is any inconvenient truth?, rather than if he actually was still the cretin he had been in his earlier days.

[neels]

They guy must have something they want, or knows people who have something they want, for example not at all dodgy campaign donations.

Seems to be a lot of bad press to absorb for the sake of a nobody candidate in a safe seat.

[JimO]

yeah like that situation down dipton with the secret illegal payoff and refusal to answer police questions about that payoff with money siphoned from a govt funded coffers followed by the forgetting of hundreds of text messages to circumvent employment law for someone that had served them for 20 years.....
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/summer-ne...and-the-payout

that was 5 years ago comrade, also national didnt campaign on being open and transparent

[husaberg]

that was 5 years ago comrade, also national didnt campaign on being open and transparent

Do you even math?

Luxton: We are the party of law and order–

Espiner: So you’re a party of law and order. Andrew Falloon sent a pornographic image to a 19-year-old.
Hamish Walker leaked sensitive medical information about Covid-19 patients.
Jake Bezzant… I don’t even really want to say what he did.
Aaron Gilmore – do you know who he is?

Luxon: (Pause) Yes.

Espiner: Jami-Lee Ross is before the court at the moment so we won’t go too far into that.
And Todd Barclay secretly recording his staffers’ phone conversations.
Are you the party of law and order?

---

Bill the liar english 2016
https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-an...-minister.html
This is the third Data Hui following events in September and December, and the Government has been a consistent advocate of increasing transparency through information sharing.

.....This level of transparency, just on our projects, not people, has helped to sharpen the focus of public servants and Cabinet
As a Government, we’ve found that being as honest and straightforward as we can with the public, and with ourselves, about that uncomfortable fact means the conversation can focus on real solutions for real people.

These are real achievements, but we’re only just beginning.

We’ve found that greater openness delivers a range of benefits.

[Grumph]

that was 5 years ago comrade, also national didnt campaign on being open and transparent

As a (very) old bugger, I can confirm that National have in my lifetime never been able to campaign on being open and transparent. And I'd doubt if they can or will for the forseeable future. The Nats have so many dubious donors and sources of finance generally that they simply can't be transparent.

Many years ago when I shook Mrs Holyoake's hand i was careful to count the fingers I got back.

[JimO]

.
Are you the party of law and order?

---

for a start im not a national voter actually used to be a labour voter but not any more

and anyone who thinks the current government are doing a good job is a fucken moron

[1/32 man]

My gutometer tells me Uffidownhill is a turd...maybe he can be polished but will always remain a turd.

On another national matter I caught a glimpse of Luxtins eyes as he was greeting pacific leaders....possum in the headlights if I may use a metaphor?
Something about his eyes made me think he was nervous.

[Dadpole]

On another national matter I caught a glimpse of Luxtins eyes as he was greeting pacific leaders....possum in the headlights if I may use a metaphor?
Something about his eyes made me think he was nervous.

I think Luxon is worried about a knife in the back from a caucus colleague these days. The public has failed to applaud him as the Key-annointed saviour he is supposed to be.

[TheDemonLord]

I think Luxon is worried about a knife in the back from a caucus colleague these days. The public has failed to applaud him as the Key-annointed saviour he is supposed to be.

That's cause he's failed to actually be conservative.

There is so much the current Government is giving the opposition to work with, yet National are failing at every stage to take them to task over it.

[sugilite:Me]

That's cause he's failed to actually be conservative.

There is so much the current Government is giving the opposition to work with, yet National are failing at every stage to take them to task over it.

With so few doing conservatism properly, it just cannot be that great.

[TheDemonLord]

With so few doing conservatism properly, it just cannot be that great.

Ironically, a bait aside - this is a topic that has been discussed at length as to why this is.

Often you'll hear that it's simpletons that are Conservative - the "We've always done it this way" types - and to be fair, there is a lot of truth to that. It is, in a sense, 'easy' to be that type of Conservative - it requires little thought and for the most part, we have a reasonably functioning society and so if we keep doing what we've always done (that is reasonably functioning) then it will continue to be so.

Then you've got the typical Left-Wing University educated person - now, putting aside the current Left-Wing indoctrination of University, this has been something that goes as far back as the likes of Orwell (Road to Wigan Pier). You have Intelligent people coming up with new ideas, some of which (on face value) seem to be clearly superior than the tried and true. Constantly chasing after a Utopian vision. It's not as easy to be this type of person as it is to be the aforementioned type of Conservative - because in order to do so it requires that you come up with new thinking - and that's hard. Hence why most Philosophers and public intellectuals come under this group

Then you've got the Conservative Philosopher - This is someone who first takes the time to understand what it is that we do and why it works the way it does. This is much, much, MUCH harder than it first appears. First and foremost is that because solutions became custom then custom became habit and then habit became so banal and uninteresting that no one gave it a second thought. To notice the detail in what is seemingly the banal and uninteresting takes a great deal of intelligence. The next is that the problem the original solution addressed is no longer apparent because of the habit of the society has masked it, but it is only one foolish social experiment away from manifesting again. And then finally - once you have understood what it is we do and the reason why we do it - then you have to think about how you could improve upon it and what the unintended consequences might be if we did it that way. There are so few Philosophers that have that depth of knowledge and wisdom.

It is not that Conservatism isn't great, it's just that to actually understand it is really difficult. People aren't excited by doing what everyone else is doing, people are excited by the New and Shiny.

[sugilite:Me]

A very good explanation. I suspect several other political ideologies would work well too, if only the polis could stick to the actual principles instead of focusing on how to game the system for themselves and mates.

[neels]

Ironically, a bait aside - this is a topic that has been discussed at length as to why this is.

Often you'll hear that it's simpletons that are Conservative - the "We've always done it this way" types - and to be fair, there is a lot of truth to that. It is, in a sense, 'easy' to be that type of Conservative - it requires little thought and for the most part, we have a reasonably functioning society and so if we keep doing what we've always done (that is reasonably functioning) then it will continue to be so.

Then you've got the typical Left-Wing University educated person - now, putting aside the current Left-Wing indoctrination of University, this has been something that goes as far back as the likes of Orwell (Road to Wigan Pier). You have Intelligent people coming up with new ideas, some of which (on face value) seem to be clearly superior than the tried and true. Constantly chasing after a Utopian vision. It's not as easy to be this type of person as it is to be the aforementioned type of Conservative - because in order to do so it requires that you come up with new thinking - and that's hard. Hence why most Philosophers and public intellectuals come under this group

Then you've got the Conservative Philosopher - This is someone who first takes the time to understand what it is that we do and why it works the way it does. This is much, much, MUCH harder than it first appears. First and foremost is that because solutions became custom then custom became habit and then habit became so banal and uninteresting that no one gave it a second thought. To notice the detail in what is seemingly the banal and uninteresting takes a great deal of intelligence. The next is that the problem the original solution addressed is no longer apparent because of the habit of the society has masked it, but it is only one foolish social experiment away from manifesting again. And then finally - once you have understood what it is we do and the reason why we do it - then you have to think about how you could improve upon it and what the unintended consequences might be if we did it that way. There are so few Philosophers that have that depth of knowledge and wisdom.

It is not that Conservatism isn't great, it's just that to actually understand it is really difficult. People aren't excited by doing what everyone else is doing, people are excited by the New and Shiny.

The usual problem with conservatives is that they are generally in a position of privilege and/or wealth, and their interest in maintaining 'the way things are' is that it also maintains their privilege and/or wealth.

Not saying it's entirely a bad thing.

Pouring endless money into the latest left wing pity cause is all very nice, but often it makes no discernible difference to the functioning of society. Meanwhile those in a position of privilege and/or power sit back and watch with amusement, because no government will be brave enough to actually dismantle any of the structures that allow them to remain.

And so it goes on....and I don't currently feel inclined to vote for any of them, particularly National's English Bull Terrier

[husaberg]

for a start im not a national voter actually used to be a labour voter but not any more

and anyone who thinks the current government are doing a good job is a fucken moron

Gish gallop away... it beats having to face up to the issues in all the other arguments you put forward

[TheDemonLord]

The usual problem with conservatives is that they are generally in a position of privilege and/or wealth, and their interest in maintaining 'the way things are' is that it also maintains their privilege and/or wealth.

Not saying it's entirely a bad thing.

Personally, I intensely dislike the 'Rich and Powerful' argument - not that there aren't people who game the system for their own benefit - there obviously are. It's that the accusation is applied very carelessly and all-too-often what is meant by the 'Privileged and/or wealthy' actually means 'Those more privileged and more wealthy than me' - perhaps the best example was Bernie Sanders who went after the 'Millionaires and Billionaires' - until it was revealed he was a Millionaire - then it just became the Billionaires.

I'm not saying that this is what you personally mean by that usage, I'm saying that this is what I have observed - it's an idea borne out of Jealousy and when you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion, everyone ends up with nothing (and usually dead).

Pouring endless money into the latest left wing pity cause is all very nice, but often it makes no discernible difference to the functioning of society.

Is it?

In relation to my previous post - there were a number of things I didn't bring up (such as individual rights and agency and also political presuppositions) - well, now it's a good time to bring up Presuppositions. Before I do, I feel it's only proper to say that all fields have some foundational Assumptions - for example in Science the 2 foundational assumptions are that the Universe is Real and Ordered and that we can learn about it.

And so in that case, both the Left and the Right make fundamental assumptions about the World. One, in particular, on the Left that is recurring is the idea that things would be better if XYZ had more money.

"Hospitals would be better if they had more money!"
"The Unemployed would be better if they had more money!"
etc. etc. I'm sure you can think of umpteen examples of this.

As you say - "Pouring endless money into the latest left wing pity cause" - like all assumptions, there is an element of truth to it - however there is a larger falsehood surrounding it. the National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) for example is responsible for the stat that 70% of Division 1 Lottery Winners go Bankrupt within a few years.

If an Individuals problem was simply a lack of Money, then it would stand to reason that winning the Lottery would solve their problems. However, contrary to that idea, the opposite is true - that getting access to large amounts of Money makes the individuals problems worse in the long run.

Therefore a big part of the fundamental assumption that underpins a number of Left Wing causes is partially or significantly false. Not only that, but you have the unintended consequences of such policy - Government spending causing inflation (as we are living through now).

The most troublesome of all though is this: Every Dollar that is spent on a Pity cause that has no actual impact, is a Dollar that could be better spent elsewhere on something that would have an impact.

This is one area where the Conservative routinely bungle it - because it's hard to explain and even harder to explain convincingly why spending that money on a pity cause (which makes people feel good) is both perpetuating the problem but also is stopping that money from being spent in a better project.

So when I ask Is It? I'm quite serious - Paying endless sums of cash into black holes that do not improve (and in some cases make things worse) means that other areas that could benefit tremendously don't get the funding they need.

Meanwhile those in a position of privilege and/or power sit back and watch with amusement, because no government will be brave enough to actually dismantle any of the structures that allow them to remain

A Few issues here - firstly 'Dismantling the Structures' - that's an inherently revolutionary statement. It used to be the thing that only Fringe radicals would say, but it has seeped into our culture such that more moderate people utter that phrase.

Secondly - and this is the big one - even with the most top-down tyrannical attempts to remove the structures that you speak of (Every attempt at Communism/Socialism) - There still ends up with the Haves and the Have-Nots. Hierarchy of competence is an inevitability of the Human Condition and it isn't a linear relationship, it's a Pareto curve - Most have none, a few have a little, even fewer have a bit more and a select few have almost everything. Doesn't matter if you are talking about Music listened to (the square root of a Musicians total output receives 50% of the play time), work in the office, Formula 1 results or size of trees in the forest - it's so ubiquitous as to be considered a law of Nature that we cannot overrule.

As such - when faced with this reality, the only moral thing to do is to ensure that those who ascend to the top of such a hierarchy do so on merit and competence and to make sure there are multiple different hierarchies on which to ascend so as to maximize the possibility that an individual will be able to achieve a degree of productiveness on at least one or more of them.