I think that there would be a lot of left critiquing of Len, especially around things like PPP, the waterfront, the ice-cream contracts etc etc
except that the idea of an American style attempt at impeachment after an election aided by less than objective journalism really has got the goat of many here.
Len has got some questions to ask, and you almost feel that a more morally rigorous line of attack might have damaged him more. As it is, the way the opposition to Len is going on, it feels that in the main, those who didn't like him to begin with are just enjoying the opportunity to complain. Their complaints I've noticed, in particular Dick Quax, quickly turn away from anything that the mayor has actually done to the council policy in general which he opposes.
It's ironic really- I briefly attended a council meeting to support the Fukuoka Friendship garden with a few colleagues and didn't get a chance to show support for that because of the boorish behaviour of Penny Bright, Lisa Praeger and Steve Crow.
Now the Japanese consulate is dragged in to the row, on the basis of some incorrect reporting which the Herald doesn't seem to have corrected yet. (right?)
I think I saw the numbers somewhere else- Howick Tatoo 0 protestors, Japan Day 1 protestor, and Pride parade 0 protestors- about 100,000 out and about in Auckland with the mayor and 1 protestor. And I also heard from people that were there that he was well received.
Or they've seen John Key go full bat-shit attack 'dishonest!!' 'misleading New Zealanders!' over something which wasn't actually WMD's, but a clarification of policy which was going to benefit the people it was meant to benefit either way.
Some may also have compared the media reaction, and the strangeness of the Nats personal attacks and concluded that they looked desperate and that it wasn't really a fair-go.
Add that to the Nats having said they couldn't afford PPL leave, but now it is affordable, but they are only going to fill the cup up 3/4 because that's where the financially responsible person would.
A second adopted Labour policy and we're on our way to seeing a third adopted allegedly with the reaction to the baby bonus.
So, yeh, despite the media narrative, this seems like a gotcha that DPF will trumpet, but that may bemuse many voters.
@Bart and Craig
Not what I said- I said their political instincts were far-right. Really would expect better of Public Address. ( edit- actually I said they were far right, but having to temper their ambitions to what they thought would retain them power.)
In their own terms- they are having to swallow dead rats. Take asset sales for example- I’m sure many would be keen to sell off all the assets, not just 49%. Many in the party would be happy to be even more regressive on worker rights and on taxation. They believe that poverty is the fault of the poor and that their wealth is the result of their own endeavours solely.
We can’t compare NZ to Texas where a large percentage of the right believe it is their role to try and bring the End of Days faster and who perhaps still think back nostalgically about lynchings and ‘bombing ’em back to the stone age’.
Compared to past NZ their instincts are about as far right as Don Brash, Ruth Richardson, etc etc..just that they are better at swallowing their dead rats and moving incrementally.
As I said before a short while ago any asset sales would have been political suicide, and even now it is immensely unpopular with the older generation of New Zealanders, even some of those voting National, especially in the provincial and rural seats.
Now it has become the governments main economic policy and it still is the largest party in the opinion polls.
What is considered the political centre by the media has been dragged right and the views of many in the government is further right still from where they have been able to go so far. It’s just that they are able to present a cuddlier face than Brash, Richardson, Douglas, Prebble et al with less of a past to pop up at inconvenient times.
Disagree dude. They are far right (Key more than English perhaps) who take what they can get by stealth. If they thought they could get away with abolishing the welfare system they would.
They have been tacking to the right in lots of little small chunks, removing rights here and there in little pieces. For example the next thing they are aiming at is tea breaks and meal breaks and your right to have them. Death by 1000 cuts.
I guess that's what I meant.
They are business people. All of Epsom and no other electorate in the country!They are hallowed. They have amazing decision making abilities. They could even vote for Winston if necessary! These are not your weak-willed, morally hog-tied professionals, your doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen and other lily livered public servants!
"Business people are more accustomed to putting sentiment aside for important decisions."
This comes in part from an environment where some journalists print press releases or accept National’s framing without question.
It’d be interesting to ask those people a follow up question along the lines of what makes the Greens far left.
Another anecdote- I had a conversation with a young voter with conservative parents who felt obliged to vote the Nats, but the other party that interested him was the Greens.
Since a sentence ago, huh?
And there seem to be some of the great columnists I remember whose work occasionally pops up there too- recent issue having Braunias and the man with the name at the top as well.
I think it is the only magazine that can compare to the broad appeal of the Listener in terms of its risk taking, in that it has (a lot!) of Steve Braunias's work and writers of the Public Address ilk, as well as Matthew Hooton.
(What do you do with people whose name ends in 's'? Is it Braunias' work or Braunias's work?)
and they keep repeating the $39,000 bs over and over again