ngerukoretake.bsky.social
@ngerukoretake.bsky.social
As at MP level, we see trimming of democracy-enhancing elements (reading evidence, consulting). A small additional investment in ministerial staffing could have outsized benefits to public good, but I wonder about the, I expect, risks that could also easily eventuate from that investment.
October 23, 2025 at 9:36 PM
As at MP level, we see trimming of democracy-enhancing elements (reading evidence, consulting). A small additional investment in ministerial staffing could have outsized benefits to public good, but I wonder about the, I expect, risks that could also easily eventuate from that investment.
Thanks. I can’t say the same, but not for their lack of personal capabilities or care.
October 23, 2025 at 9:36 PM
Thanks. I can’t say the same, but not for their lack of personal capabilities or care.
Granted, lifting the number of MPs and their capabilities of improving public outcomes through effective committee and caucus work will also have direct benefits to scrutiny and therefore quality of work out of ministers’ offices.
October 23, 2025 at 9:10 PM
Granted, lifting the number of MPs and their capabilities of improving public outcomes through effective committee and caucus work will also have direct benefits to scrutiny and therefore quality of work out of ministers’ offices.
Thoroughly endorsed. Connected to that, do you have a view on any critical reform to the size and role of ministerial staff?
October 23, 2025 at 9:10 PM
Thoroughly endorsed. Connected to that, do you have a view on any critical reform to the size and role of ministerial staff?
Must add, final from me: Not in the business of assigning blame least of all to the union leaders in this case.
October 20, 2025 at 6:04 AM
Must add, final from me: Not in the business of assigning blame least of all to the union leaders in this case.
Fair. I can allow it’s arguably not a tactical error, but can you allow it still can be made to look so in eyes of plenty? I do understand the solidarity of workers with the oppressed worldwide, so I’m not too surprised that a union can jump to that for an agenda. But plenty don’t get that.
October 20, 2025 at 6:01 AM
Fair. I can allow it’s arguably not a tactical error, but can you allow it still can be made to look so in eyes of plenty? I do understand the solidarity of workers with the oppressed worldwide, so I’m not too surprised that a union can jump to that for an agenda. But plenty don’t get that.
We probably won’t be able to tell, but anyway the public discourse descends and we are all worse for it.
October 19, 2025 at 11:14 AM
We probably won’t be able to tell, but anyway the public discourse descends and we are all worse for it.
Not sure it equates. For voters: a union makes a tactical error, or can be made to look so, while it has heart in a good place, and a govt shows a clever tactical flourish, whether with an ugly sentiment or truly a desire to limit their fiscal risks. Maybe a near term reprieve for govt, if risky
October 19, 2025 at 11:13 AM
Not sure it equates. For voters: a union makes a tactical error, or can be made to look so, while it has heart in a good place, and a govt shows a clever tactical flourish, whether with an ugly sentiment or truly a desire to limit their fiscal risks. Maybe a near term reprieve for govt, if risky
Yes when I refer to those too wily, I have a certain minister in mind. I think though, in the end, this pathway goes badly for everyone. Escalation and polarisation. Well, maybe it suits some for some near term effects.
October 19, 2025 at 10:53 AM
Yes when I refer to those too wily, I have a certain minister in mind. I think though, in the end, this pathway goes badly for everyone. Escalation and polarisation. Well, maybe it suits some for some near term effects.
I’m not sure what legitimate means in this case. Within rules? Sure, or was certainly within their norms. To clarify: I’m not trying to challenge union decisions, rather I merely underlined that the situation created an opening that was exploited by the government, probably to detriment of all.
October 19, 2025 at 10:42 AM
I’m not sure what legitimate means in this case. Within rules? Sure, or was certainly within their norms. To clarify: I’m not trying to challenge union decisions, rather I merely underlined that the situation created an opening that was exploited by the government, probably to detriment of all.
You make a strong case. It’s a shame it seems the matter of putting Palestine at the top of an agenda is enough to give a minister of the public service an opening to hew a cheap blow, and it might actually make some political hay. Some people are too wily for their own good, or anyone else’s.
October 19, 2025 at 10:09 AM
You make a strong case. It’s a shame it seems the matter of putting Palestine at the top of an agenda is enough to give a minister of the public service an opening to hew a cheap blow, and it might actually make some political hay. Some people are too wily for their own good, or anyone else’s.
Thank you for setting out some thoughts on that. I’m left thinking we probably just treat it as having to live and learn - mainly because the influence of the deluge of new technologies on politics and protest is still (and definitely was in COVID) a cause of much uncertainty for decision-makers
October 8, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Thank you for setting out some thoughts on that. I’m left thinking we probably just treat it as having to live and learn - mainly because the influence of the deluge of new technologies on politics and protest is still (and definitely was in COVID) a cause of much uncertainty for decision-makers
I understand. No disagreement. My thoughts went towards something that probably follows that, to do with, if we can get a better handle on what’s directing the trajectory, can we do better at bringing more people out of a state of confusion/misinformation. Ie wondering if there’s cause of optimism.
October 8, 2025 at 1:25 AM
I understand. No disagreement. My thoughts went towards something that probably follows that, to do with, if we can get a better handle on what’s directing the trajectory, can we do better at bringing more people out of a state of confusion/misinformation. Ie wondering if there’s cause of optimism.
(Speaking as someone who was proximate to the events and also personally disrupted and threatened by many of the ugly messages/actions of the Parliament Occupation)
October 8, 2025 at 1:15 AM
(Speaking as someone who was proximate to the events and also personally disrupted and threatened by many of the ugly messages/actions of the Parliament Occupation)
If the question is, was WP motivated by naive/malicious intent, I think the question lacks sufficient justice. One of the MO of politicians like WP is always to gather authority by seeking pathways for outsiders to have a voice into the mainstream. Walking amongst dissidents must be done sometimes?
October 8, 2025 at 1:13 AM
If the question is, was WP motivated by naive/malicious intent, I think the question lacks sufficient justice. One of the MO of politicians like WP is always to gather authority by seeking pathways for outsiders to have a voice into the mainstream. Walking amongst dissidents must be done sometimes?
Ok what next?
October 1, 2025 at 6:32 AM
Ok what next?
If so, the question is how long can the status quo sustain, politically? And, once broken open, how does the change proceed, to what extent through increased tax or decreased operating cost? Let’s see what the next election throws up I guess…
October 1, 2025 at 1:08 AM
If so, the question is how long can the status quo sustain, politically? And, once broken open, how does the change proceed, to what extent through increased tax or decreased operating cost? Let’s see what the next election throws up I guess…
So true. Unelected officials abuse their position when they corner a minister with papers presenting ‘incontrovertible evidence’, seeking the decision that suits the officials, with the implied threat to the minister’s reputation and minister’s work programme.
September 29, 2025 at 8:19 PM
So true. Unelected officials abuse their position when they corner a minister with papers presenting ‘incontrovertible evidence’, seeking the decision that suits the officials, with the implied threat to the minister’s reputation and minister’s work programme.
I’m not familiar with the history there. I could probably guess a main lesson is beware the nameless officials?
September 29, 2025 at 8:03 PM
I’m not familiar with the history there. I could probably guess a main lesson is beware the nameless officials?
Well said. I like to think of the Cabinet room as the safe place to say bold things without fear of unjust consequences, to get to the bottom of what can be done
September 29, 2025 at 7:55 PM
Well said. I like to think of the Cabinet room as the safe place to say bold things without fear of unjust consequences, to get to the bottom of what can be done