Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Madness in Mt Albert

328 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 14 Newer→ Last

  • Robert Fox,

    Graeme, if I wasn't a bit busy, I'd try and come up with a more contemporary military analogy for "drawing a long bow" ...

    After reading Graeme and DPFs posts i was going to mention Agincourt but you kinda beat me to it Russell. Cant think of anything more contemporary than that i'm afraid

    Since Nov 2006 • 114 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Obama got one hell of a 100th day anniversary present

    Heh. Like this paragraph:

    The move was the latest blow to an already staggering GOP. Senate Republican leaders appeared ashen at a press conference this afternoon. "Obviously, we are not happy that Senator Specter has decided to become a Democrat," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

    Bet that's not what he was saying inside his head. Had way more swear words and things being thrown around the room.

    The vindictive side of me is happy to see the flow-on effects of the past 8 years. Be interesting to see if it has an affect on the GOP's direction.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    @Conrad:

    Actually Melissa Lee winning Mt. Albert would not see Cam Calder come back. The number of list MPs allocated to National falls since they now have an extra electorate MP.

    Are you sure? I was taking DPF's word on that one:

    If Lee was the candidate, and did win the seat, then her list spot would be taken up by Cam Calder, who was an MP for around two weeks after the election, before National lost a seat due to specials ...

    If National wins the seat it gains one extra MP, regardless of who the winning candidate is. If the winning candidate is not already an MP, then National gains an MP. If the winning candidate is a List MP they will resign as a List MP, and get replaced automatically due to a list vacancy

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Oh, and talking about selling a bill of goods...

    There's an obvious risk too: he won’t win, and if he does manage to cannibalise the vote to the extent that it helps National win Mt Albert and further extend its majority, there will be unease within his own party.

    First, Russell, unless you're half Time Lord and half Borg Queen I don't think you know the outcome any more than the rest of us.

    I get your point, but like Idiot/Savant I wish some commentators would get their heads around the idea that by-elections are just that. An election not a coronation, where the candidate who gets the most votes wins. I suspect it will probably be the eventual Labour candidate, but my political crystal ball isn't the most reliable.

    And while I don't pretend to have extensive contacts within the Greens, the ones I do know didn't know they were supporting a party whose function is to serve the electoral convenience of Labour.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • DPF,

    Conrad is wrong.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 78 posts Report Reply

  • DPF,

    But to be fair to Conrad it is a very common mistake. I have corrected dozens of people who have that belief. The bottom line is proportionality only applies on election night.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 78 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    Nobody with an ounce of awareness would equate NZ's domestic politics with responses to human catastrophes.

    Equate - no, apply common reasoning - yes. Everybody does.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    The whole point of Farrar's dredging up of an eleven year old academic paper from Shearer is to get a smear hit on the guy before he is even the accepted candidate.

    Having being widely credited with seeing off Phil Twyford with his picking up and running with the dog whistling misogynistic hate campaign against Tizard from Slater and the KBR commentators, he is now moving on to the most likely next candidate. And so far, he has got everyone talking about it - the fact DPF has even posted TWICE in this thread when he barely ever posts on this site shows you are all being played as suckers and singing to his agenda on this matter.

    Slater is the muck racker, DPF is the moderate commentator on the muck, his wingnut followers then frame the debate back in the terms Slater and the National Party filth unit want and all the journalists in town interview kiwiblog for their stories - voila - topic de jour? An eleven year old academic paper.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Conrad is wrong.

    I concur. Lee would resign as a member of Parliament between the initial results and the return of the writ, this would create a National list vacancy, which would be filled by Cam Calder (presuming he's still a party member, still a citizen, and wants the job); Lee would then be sworn in as an MP following the by-election.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    he won't win, and if he does manage to cannibalise the vote to the extent that it helps National win Mt Albert and further extend its majority, there will be unease within his own party

    Unease? Ha! That would be consistent with the Green response to the last 9 years of government.

    One more National MP makes no difference, and Russel is much loved. Whichever way you look at it, the Greens just can't lose this election.

    Green supporters are far more concerned for their party to act like a grown up and be independent. If that means giving some back to a Labour party that has consistently tried to marginalise them, perhaps Labour shold have thought about that a few years ago.

    Russel N presents Labour supporters with a once in a lifetime opportunity to up their game. Any government is improved with increased environmental influence.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Graeme, if I wasn't a bit busy, I'd try and come up with a more contemporary military analogy for "drawing a long bow" ...

    Needing an ICBM to get from premise to conclusion?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Duncan McKenzie,

    Have you forgotten that six months in 1999 when ACC was partially privatised?

    Yes - my company chose an outfit called HIH-Workable. I am pleased we were back to ACC by the time that outfit became HIH-Broken. Not really looking forward to choosing between the dubious offerings when we have to go through this again.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 53 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    I don't regard ACT as far right. Remember ACT came from Labour and Phil Goff and Annette King were very loyal lieutenants to Roger Douglas.

    That is not so much an argument as a slur.

    And it does beg the questions, if you agree with Shearer that the private sector can be used in armed conflicts (so long as it provides a better outcome than using the public sector), why would you not apply the same test to Corrections?

    No it does not. You really should find out what the phrase 'begging the question' means.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Yes - my company chose an outfit called HIH-Workable. I am pleased we were back to ACC by the time that outfit became HIH-Broken.

    I had exactly the same experience and was more than pissed off by the experience. I don't know how many other small business owners were frustrated through the transition (and back) but I'd guess lots. I'm aware of the arguments for an agin partial privatisation and competition, but now I'd have to say, living in Sydney where the inability to get insurance cover can and often does lock you out of contracting and stop some services altogether, I'm more clear than ever.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    James is right. This by-election is swimming in Green issues: Waterview Motorway, Auckland Super City, St Lukes Enlargement. The publicity we would be able to bring to bear on this issues, especially if we stand a Co-Leader, is a rare golden opportunity.

    Then there's the argument that the Greens, being the third largest party in parliament, should act like it and stand in all by-elections.

    Instead we get them crying about dirty tricks and smear campaigns. Weak.

    If Labour can't lift their game above this sorry level, then do they really deserve to win Mt Albert ?

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Slater is the muck racker, DPF is the moderate commentator on the muck, his wingnut followers then frame the debate back in the terms Slater and the National Party filth unit want and all the journalists in town interview kiwiblog for their stories - voila - topic de jour? An eleven year old academic paper.

    I think your comment's fair Tom, I tend to be a little pavlovian on some issues but as for "being played", I don't agree. I would agree Garner's choosen to run Farrar's comments but I doubt he' naive about it, it's an angle; it's a simple angle but that just means he can run a rebuttal story next.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Conrad Lake,

    OMG how sad. I've been believing that for weeks ever since we first knew there would be a Mt. Albert by-election.

    CHCH • Since Apr 2009 • 10 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I get your point, but like Idiot/Savant I wish some commentators would get their heads around the idea that by-elections are just that. An election not a coronation, where the candidate who gets the most votes wins.

    Of course, but it's evident to me that Russel Norman isn't standing to win, but to gain a national profile through participating in a high-profile by-election. Which is completely rational for him and for his party, but I don't think it's without political risk.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    If Labour can't lift their game above this sorry level, then do they really deserve to win Mt Albert ?

    Mikaere, I hope both the Greens and Labour resist the temptation to turn this byelection into a fight between themselves, until recently they had a constructive working relationship (constructive, but not ideal).

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    James is right. This by-election is swimming in Green issues: Waterview Motorway, Auckland Super City, St Lukes Enlargement.

    To be fair, those are precisely the Labour issues laid out by Lynn Prentice, who lives in the electorate and seems to be well up to speed on campaigning on them. I suspect he'd rather strongly object to them being claimed as "Green issues".

    The publicity we would be able to bring to bear on this issues, especially if we stand a Co-Leader, is a rare golden opportunity.

    Of course. And that's why it's rational to stand Russel Norman.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    In the past, the UN has tried to arrange peacekeeping forces by raising troops from national armies. New Zealand occassionally provides soldiers to these efforts. If instead of sending our army in the future we were to send cash which was used to purchase private military services, I'd have no problem with calling this privatisation.

    You'd be wrong. The correct term is "scutage".

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Mikaere, I hope both the Greens and Labour resist the temptation to turn this byelection into a fight between themselves, until recently they had a constructive working relationship (constructive, but not ideal).

    I would hope that the leadership of both parties makes it a priority to avoid any Labour-Green fight, even if the ranks get antsy. If they can't manage a working relationship, both parties are probably going to be out of government for a long time.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    I would hope that the leadership of both parties makes it a priority to avoid any Labour-Green fight, even if the ranks get antsy.

    Mmmhh... if priority one for the Greens is increasing the party vote, and ensuring their own sustainability in Parliament - and I think it probably is or should be - then fighting Labour might not be a bad strategy. Besides, they know what it's like to be out of government.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    I would agree Garner's choosen to run Farrar's comments but I doubt he's naive about it

    He's not naive, he just thinks we are (or doesn't care). Garner was less than forthcoming about his sources. From their website:

    3 News has obtained articles written by Mr Shearer

    Well, yes, but it wasn't exactly old school investigative legwork by the reporter.

    And as for the Green/Labour "split", it should be a non-issue. Separate parties act in their interests. Sadly, much of the media are still stuck on good old binary FPP. We have a proportional representation system, and the politicians are learning to work with it, but not yet the fourth estate.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1333 posts Report Reply

  • Gary Rawnsley,

    On a related issue: could Gallery reporters please stop blithely asserting that Mt Albert is a safe Labour seat ... and thus that National has nothing to lose?

    At last election, Mt Albert was ranked the 15th most marginal electorate (out of 75), if you go by the difference in party vote between the two major parties (as a percentage of the total cast). Put another way, of all the electorates in the country, Mt Albert was in the most marginal fifth.

    Mangere and Helensville are what you might call safe seats for Labour and National respectively (where a 45-point lead in the party vote was achieved in both cases). In Mt Albert, the gap was under seven percentage points. Add to that the fact that National is currently ahead of Labour in nationwide opinion polls by around twice the margin it achived on election night (roughly, 20 points vs 10 points), and you would be foolish to consider this anything but a toss-up by-election. Why shouldn't National have a decent shot at overturning a seven-point party vote deficit when its government, and its leader, continue to enjoy a quite spectacular honeymoon?

    I keep reading Gallery journalists asking how National could possibly be considered the loser of this by-election. Here's an idea: how about if they lose it?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 28 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 14 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.