Written By: - Date published: 3:50 pm, May 30th, 2008 - 100 comments
Categories: activism, notices -
Tags: drinking liberally
Drinking Liberally’s Facebook group has just sent out the invitation to their second event.
I don’t know how they’ve swung it, but they’ve got Michael Cullen speaking. It’s not every day the Deputy Prime Minister agrees to talk to your drinking club/politics forum.
It will be on Wednesday again to fit Cullen’s schedule. So, details:
WHAT Drinking Liberally
WHEN From 5.30pm, Wednesday June 4th.
WHERE Southern Cross, Abel Smith Street
SPEAKER Michael Cullen, Deputy Prime Minister
CONTACT wellington@drinkingliberally.org
Cullen will be there from 6:00 to 6:40 but last time most people stayed around after Nandor had finished to get to know people who were there and chat about political ideas. Listening to the guest speaker is just a part of the night.
I had a great time last Wednesday and it was awesome to see so many people. The Facebook group has 63 members now and I’m told the mailing list is about 150, so there ought to be a good crowd next week too. If you’re interested in left-wing politics, I encourage you to come along even if you find yourself well to the left of Cullen. In fact, especially if that’s the case. Drinking Liberally is all about hearing diverse voices and community-building across the Left.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Julie, there will plenty of unemployed lefties in Auckland after the election.
The host at the next meeting could be the inimitable Ms. Tizard. Her wisdom and intelligence should draw a crowd of thousands…, well may be 25 or 30!
You’re a really distasteful person erikter – add something constructive or go back to kiwiblog .criticism is welcome, debate is the life of politics, being a dick is just being a dick.
Was that an attempt at wit, Erikter? ‘Cos if it was I’m thinking the antonym of “life of of the party” may well be “erikter”.
Julie. I understand there already is a bit of something along the same lines in Auckland, and they might be looking into becoming a Drinking Liberally chapter (DL has some organsiational software and stuff) – there’s a discussion about it on the first Drinking Liberally thread – here
captcha: antitrust rights – let’s not get into commerical law, captcha.
Julie – I’ve been corresponding with lprent and Jafapete about this. If you’re interested flick me an email – there’s a link on my blog.
And ditto anyone else who’s interested….cheers
Good luck aucklanders
After exams I might consider the trudge up to Wellington for one of these – represent NewZBlog, meet some of the movers and shakers.
Any sponsors?
Is cullen for or against liberal drinking laws?
Just thinking about the name of the event thats all
Also, are you suggesting that someone has to be left wing to be a liberal?
And on the other hand, are left wing conservatives encouraged at your drinks?
MikeE – Don’t be a bore mate. Nobody likes a bore.
I think MikeE makes a good point. Could there have been a bit lost in translation between DL’s american roots and its NZ incarnation? Still I guess it was worth it for the pun.
Thanks for the feedback about Auckland stuff, will be in touch Lyn.
Erikter – what have you done to stand up for your politics lately, other than write nasty comments under a pseudonym? Don’t mistake typing for activism sweetie.
[Tane: You're not Dylan Robinson. You're also banned.]
And on the other hand, are left wing conservatives encouraged at your drinks?
——
I’d assume so, but probably not the conservative faux-liberals you see these days.
Err I thought Green Drinks was on at that venue at that time. Are they the same crowd?
Dr Cullen will be Drinking Liberally to get over the shock of the Poll results.
I reckon, 26% behind – that’s gotta hurt. Backs up the Faifax poll which did appear a blow out but perhaps not.
How about poor old Helen at the mince meat factory for a photo op!. Cancel the Tux factory tour in October now H2.
Given tonights double poll disaster I would not be surprised to see Mr Cullen replaced at the last minute for Wednesday night.
Hope Dr Cullen doesn’t slip over on a sidewalk pizza outside the southern Cross.
Okay – for a start it’s called a “footpath” not a “sidewalk”. Secondly – are you 12? I mean a joke about Cullen slipping on vomit? That’s the best you can do? No wonder you righties can’t come out with policy – you’re all retarded.
Christ I hope the polls are wrong – I mean I’m as keen on equal opportunities as the next fella but I’m not sure I’m ready to be governed by folk who still walk on all fours (well, when they’re not slithering through the wet grass).
Labour have lost the plot. Going to watch Michael Cullen talk now is a bit like watching a car crash. It’s a pretty miserable sight ,but you know he’s the one steering the car and is responsible for the accident.
Doug, mike, BB, etc: “Dr Cullen will be Drinking Liberally to get over the shock of the Poll results.” (and similar cheerleading).
What it comes down to now is which polls you believe. When we’ve got a 10%+ gap between the Roy Morgan and Herald Digipoll at one end and the Fairfax, Colmar Brunton and 3 News TNS polls at the other, I’d be uncomfortable drawing strong conclusions from any of them.
That said, since there’s no poll thread yet, elementary analysis follows.
The TNS and CB polls both echo the last Fairfax poll, which gives the results some weight – though as discussed on this thread this is partly a methodological echo-chamber effect. I think it’s fair to conclude that was not a rogue poll. Colmar Brunton typically favours National to a small degree, and to an extent it does here as well, with the largest gap. The TNS poll typically favours Labour, and that fact that it’s grouped in with the CB and Fairfax polls here does not bode well for their fortunes. The fact that the Roy Morgan has been closest to final election results (2002 and 2005 from memory) doesn’t seem to count for much in this light. One factor mitigating in the government’s favour: these polls probably don’t contain much or any reaction to Kate Wilkinson’s misspeak and Key’s alleged coverup attempt in the media. All polls are still lowballing the minor parties but support is climbing, as is usual.
I expect this will embolden National to continue their current `all in, all alone’ strategy short on policy and long on rhetoric, and put Labour on the offensive. Labour, by this stage in the electoral cycle, should be squarely on the defensive, saying `that’s what we’ll do, what will you do?’. Given the split polling I think they will, as GWB said, stay the course rather than come out swinging too early.
I’m curious about how long this will continue. When will the electorate demand policy from National? Is `not Labour’ going to be enough to sustain them through until October? I’ve signed my name to `a couple of months’ until we see substantive National policy and with this result I see no reason to revise that.
The question has been asked before, and y’all have not really bothered to answer, but to all you National voters: are you happy being kept in the dark policywise? How long will `tax cuts funded by cleaning up bureaucratic excess’ rhetoric keep you going?
L
Well, lots of ex-polititions make a living doing corporate speaking stints. If the polls are accurate it might be quite good for Dr Cullen to get some practice in now. He most likely would be quite good at it.
darryl: Do you think that, in the interest of sounding halfway literate, you could learn to spell `politicians’?
Honestly. is it too much to ask?
L
Why would National listen to Labour and the shrieking choir’s demands for policy announcements. When labour announce the date we will no doubt see some policy. Remember the 20 hours free policy (which turned out to be another policy on the hoof that still is not working as promised)and the student loan bribe (which has of course cost hundreds of millions more than Cullen said it would). These policies were announced just days before the election. So it is maybe time to quit whining about policy and reflect on the way labour did it last time.
The irony of course is that rather than listening to mallard lying about American bagmen this time the public will be reminded how badly wrong labour got their last minute lolly scramble and we will all be encouraged to reflect on their previous lies and mistakes when considering whatever magic trick Helen and Cullen have in store this time.
Why would National listen to Labour and the shrieking choir’s demands for policy announcements.
So that the electorate could make an informed choice between the two sets of policy on offer?
I know I know, call me old fashioned, but there it is.
Please forgive me Lew if I have offended with my poor spelling. I’m more of a grammar man actually.
So I hope you don’t mind, but it’s “Honestly. Is it too much to ask?” with a capital ‘I’ at the start of the ‘Is’ in the new sentence. Not “Honestly. is it too much to ask?” with a small ‘i’ at the start of the sentence.
Sorry to be a bit precious about this, but you know, ‘interests of sounding halfway literate’ and all that.
It warms my heart to see you folk taking a real interest in spelling and grammar flamewars. I’m not so sure about your comma use in that last para though, Darryl as “but you know” is not really a sub-clause. If it had been me I would have left the conjunction do the work of the first comma and replaced the second with an n-dash (which should really be an m-dash but the m-dash seems to have become so rare as to not be available in comments boxes without the use of obscure html).
You are also muddling the use of British and US conventions for speech marks. The single inverted comma you’ve used to denote “Is” and “interests…” is the British manner but then you also use the double inverted comma for “Honestly…” I would suggest you pick one convention or the other (I like the British manner of denoting quotes but use the US one in the interests of clarity as it seems to have become the prevalent mode).
Oh and Darryl? Your politics still suck…
Barnsley Bill posted at 12:06AM. I am more than surprised it has not been censored by now… Queens Birthday Hols??
Line 3 ‘Sod – if you are abbreviating “paragraph”, ought not you indicate with a full-stop? I know that it is many, many years since I was taught English at school, but I believe that the rule is still the same. I just want to be helpful!
Robinsod – are there any particular style guides you recommend? I’m particularly trying to pick something good for the denotation of speech in fictional dialogue, but in general is fine..
Captcha: in Editorial
Labour 4eva – you’re forgetting that The Standard is the last bastion of free speech. Why should BB be “censored” for making a statement of fact?
Lyn,
I’ve yet to find a style guide that I am entirely comfortable with; and, really, it is about comfort, isn’t it? In any event, there are fewer absolutes when it comes to matters of style in punctuation than some would have you believe.
In respect of fiction, you may be better off looking at some of the books published by reputable publishers and adopting those elements of style that most appeal. But should you have something published then the editors should take care of matters of style, anyway.
Robinsod: I’m not sure about your suggesting the use of an m-dash. There’s an increasing tendency to substitute m-dashes for colons, new sentences, etc, IMHO.
BB: “Why would National listen to Labour and the shrieking choir’s demands for policy announcements.”
I agree, why would they? They’re doing fine right now. At issue is the question: when will National voters (particularly that sizeable chunk who seem to have switched from Labour) expect policy, and you’ve sort-of given an answer:
“When labour announce the date we will no doubt see some policy.”
Why then, as opposed to another arbitrary time? Again, to be clear – I’m not talking about the party’s motivations, I’m talking about the electorate’s needs. Why are National voters so content to go so long on rhetoric, without knowing what policies their party actually stands for?
In the absence of a straight answer the several times I’ve posed this question here and elsewhere, I’m drawing a tentative conclusion that loyal National voters (`tribal’, if you like) are just happy to be winning by whatever means, and are willing to take the party on faith until the election. I’m not sure the same could be said for the swing-voters who’ve come from Labour. What of them?
L
Lew, national were on course to win last time. Then with just a few days to go the labour party in a shameless attempt to retain power thrust the 20 hours free and the student loan deal into the mix.
This got them over the line.
National will be keeping their powder dry this time.
labour and it’s supporters have been screeching “but where’s the policy” for months.
This strategy is failing as the polls clearly demonstrate.
Constantly repeating that mantra has not worked yet, and probably won’t.
The unfortunate thing for Clark is that people are just over her. Nothing will change that sentiment, and national avoiding creating any major distinctions is actually working very well.
Personally I don’t see much difference between the parties. I do however see major differences between the leaders.
All we are likely to see under a National govt is the transfer of a couple of thousand grace and favour jobs from red friends to blue friends. Possibly a tune up of the RMA and a bit of fat cutting.
Oh and I see last nights polls have already been panned by the PM.
That strategy is still not working. Maybe she is worn out and out of ideas.