Craig is exactly right. The hysterical rush to compare Hide to early 20th Century European dictators is not only ridiculous, but detrimental to public discussion. It means that the serious things you need or want to say get buried behind debates over trivialities. and makes you look like idiots.
The right took quite a few years before they started making comparisons to Mao and Mugabe in public, but it only took the Greens six months. It's hardly something to be proud of.
Tom, Quo, you are the two who need to stop your sanctimonious posturing while spouting ridiculous comparisons.
Phil, thanks for your enlightening replies. Just to clarify, does this mean that Melissa Lee is outside of government?
There really does seem to be something about local government reform that brings out need for people to godwin comments threads...
Oh, and slightly obscure question directed at no-one in particular - in NZ the government are the parties who have the confidence of the house, right? Or is government something different. I have someone telling in no uncertain terms that I'm wrong, and I'd like to know.
Dunedin North, that is.
The prospects of registering a bunch of Green students in any one electorate looks pretty dim tbh.
You could do it in Dunedin. But that's such a strong Labour seat that it wouldn't be worth it.
The point is though that students are a pretty heterogenous bunch, and vote all over the place. They slightly favour some parties, but not to the extent that trying to gerrymander electorates would be worth the effort. You'd invite a backlash too.
But it seems like they didn't know how. In one way, that makes sense -- MMP campaigns are national, and important electorate races like this are rare. But if they want the security of an electorate MP, they'll have to start some time.
It seems like they don't know, because they really don't. They're still organising volunteers at the moment, when Labour got that done in the first few weeks.
Even in places like Wellington Central, where they have both strong support and a strong membership base, they don't have the electorate organisation to match. This lack also hurts their party vote by at least a few percentage points.
Why haven't they addressed this until now? It's mainly a cultural thing, where they've stressed winning the party vote by going for demographics and ignoring electorates. Ultimately however, people live somewhere. Including Mt. Albert.
Second that thanks. I found his comments about how educated his supporters were a little self-aggrandising. The Greens often tend to stereotype their supporters in a way which is unhealthy.
I still don't think they're presenting themselves in such a way as to assure the public that they have policies on things other than clean rivers and carbon, but they're moving there.
Ironically, I think it is the at times frosty relationship they've had with Labour which might be moving them there. The realisation that they can be something more than merely a support party, and might have to stand on their own merits across all issues.
I wasn't able to listen to the Norman interview on PA Radio (unless there's a podcast?).
What change of tone has he engaged in? I presume he's stopped acting confrontationally towards Shearer. Otherwise, are they campaigning on anything apart from 'think of the children' and 'stop the motorway'?
Does anyone know what the point of the Barbarians is? I saw individual talent, and some standout moments from them, but as a team they appeared to me as I would expect; incoherent, and without a overriding style or strategy. Less than the sum of their parts.
Compare that to NZ Maori, for example, and the difference is stark.
In other words, if the evidence is potentially weak but could be explosive, it may be ruled inadmissible. I assume that was the case here.
Can you explain the reasoning behind that?