Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have been fairly confident that the tangle of Dirty Politics and the more recent, alarming evidence that the official information process is being corrupted would have to be examined in public over the next year. Now, I’m not so sure.
This is the stuff that goes beyond policy, and right into the integrity of government, especially the alleged direct violations of law and the Cabinet Manual. I'm hoping that National Party members will still take serious notice of all this stuff, now that the election's out of everyone's face, and demand improvement.
I'm not hoping very optimistically, though. Does anyone have a gauge on whether NP internals are treating it seriously? Or is it just being seen as a giant pre-election conspiracy?
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I’m also surprised how slim Peter Dunne’s margin is. Only 930. It was my impression he was a reasonably popular local MP
My impression of Ohariu (currently renting here) is that although it’s very in favour of National, it’s also very polarised for and against Dunne.
It shows when a guy who did everything but clearly instruct everyone to vote for Peter Dunne, and was virtually guaranteed a place via National’s list, still managed to pick up 5000 votes against Dunne’s 12000. If National hadn’t given people a candidate to neutralise all their supporters who despise him, they very possibly would have gone to Virginia Anderson. Chauvel nearly knocked Dunne over in the previous two elections for the same reason.
I might be mis-reading it, though. Maybe it’s just a case of many National supporters (well, voters in general) not getting the strategic voting thing or not wanting to do it, or not paying attention to anything beyond the logo next to their tick on the ballot paper.
-
Looking at Ohariu right now, and last election, I get curious about what goes through the GP’s mind for strategy when they decide to run a candidate there, if they want to push out Peter Dunne. Maybe the GP just made a decision not to get involved in that kind of strategy?
This election Tane Woodley did everything he could to say he was only campaigning for the Party Vote. Last election I think Gareth Hughes did the same, yet on both occasions they seem to be picking up more votes than Peter Dunne’s winning margin. Not to suggest that everyone who’s voted for Woodley would have voted for Virginia Anderson (Lab) instead, but of 8 candidates it’s only Dunne and herself actually campaigning for electorate votes.
Brett Hudson (Nat) is also pulling votes after not asking for them, but I can at least see some strategic logic in him being there, with the electorate being so polarised for and against Dunne.
-
Speaker: Things I have learned running RockEnrol, in reply to Sacha,
That is so wrong. Their rules need upgrading.
It’s also interesting because the Electoral Commission’s own I Vote NZ facebook page on Wednesday posted a link to a TVNZ clip which ended with some statement about “A winner will be found” over the top of John Key.
Several commenters have argued that this is not polititally neutral. The most the EC has done is to state that someone in the office saw it, they thought it was a cool clip (for other reason) and they can’t control the presentation of TVNZ’s content.
It’s not quite the same as a blatant political message, but the Electoral Commission already seems to be in murky waters when they try to draw lines around this stuff. There's also no shortage of people posting obviously politicised comments in those discussions, which haven't been deleted.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
Yikes. That’s a serious accusation.
I’d expect it’ll be written off as ‘politically motivated’ by half of the currently-polarised electorate, given the timing.
-
Hard News: Interview: Glenn Greenwald, in reply to Rob Stowell,
I tried to find this in the mp3s- any idea when it happened? Or have they just possibly cut it out?!
It was leading up to when I posted my comment yesterday, which PA tells me was 4.48pm Wednesday 17th Sep. (Franks was on about 4.48’ish this evening, Thursday 18th Sep.)
-
Hard News: Interview: Glenn Greenwald, in reply to CJM,
David Slack’s righteous indignation about Farrar, Williams and Franks appearing on The Panel was quite breathtaking.
Franks is being given a right-of-reply to David Slack on The Panel in a moment (currently 4.48pm).
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Isogi gives a coherent argument in looking past Cunliffe in order to justify voting for Labour but I contend that the leader’s strengths or otherwise are a critical factor.
In relation to this, I’d contend that John Key isn’t leading National at all, at least in a traditional way. Sure, he’s the party leader and the PM, but his main criteria for selection has been as a marketing figurehead to sit in front.
He avoids genuine confrontation (consider all that length of time he refused to show up on Radio NZ until he's had to), he flip-flops his positions and statements according to what pollsters tell him will be most popular at any one time, and whenever he’s genuinely challenged he falls to bits and starts lashing out in random directions with immature insults instead of actually addressing points.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to BenWilson,
It feels to me a lot like 1981.
Yeah it could be. I was 2 years old for most of 1981 so didn't really appreciate what was happening at the time and couldn't comment. :)
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Given the amount [or is that the thread] of Key-knocking, Key-criticism, Key-reviling, Key-patronising, Key-negativity, Key-accusations etc that permeate nearly each and every post on this site, either directly or indirectly, could somebody please tell me what would make a man who currently leads a party that rates at about 25% in most polls, a man who had approximately half the Labour caucus disapproving of his choice as leader, fit to lead this country?
I’m not sure how many people I speak for, but I think that even for those who don’t put blind faith in David Cunliffe, they’re more than happy to look beyond him to the composition of the governrment and the people in it. A government, what it does and how it acts, goes far beyond the Prime Minister. For me, right now, I have much more trust in a Labour-led government, including the partners it’s likely to work with (even where I disagree with them) to actually pay attention to the rules when it governs.
The National Party has chosen to brand itself almost entirely on John Key. It wants people to only speak about Key and how likeable he is or isn’t, because that simplifies the entire campaign into either ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. Virtually everything about it, and discussion about it, is him, when he’s really only the figurehead. People complain about missing out policy debate, but I can’t imagine the National Party really wants to talk about policy – most of its campaign barely goes beyond a broadcast of “trust us, we’re great economic managers and we know what we’re doing”.
Really, though, can I ask you which particular part of the National Party you support?
Do you support the old guard, with the likes of Bill English and Nick Smith? Maybe they’ve had the odd controversy over their careers, dealt with it and been embarassed by it, but generally they’re good followers of rules like the Cabinet manual and the laws which require integrity in how they do stuff.
Do you support the Crusher Collins faction? Barging through red tape. Who needs processes and laws when you’re at the top? Just get it done!
Do you support the faction where Simon Lusk and friends decided that banking on a separate extreme-right party (like ACT) is hopeless because people never vote for it, so instead they’re sliding their own hand-picked far-right candidates onto the National List and into safe seats? eg. Probably Todd Barclay and Chris Bishop, both tobacco lobbyists being virtually guaranteed places in the next parliament.
Or do you support John Key? Not a faction, just a single “trustworthy” guy at the top, supposedly holding it all together (or keeping it apart), and with plans to retire to his holiday home in Hawaii some day soon?
Really though, this election has become hugely polarised, compared with nearly anything in living memory, and people wonder why.If you ignore the factions within National which are all fighting to do it their own way, a major reason New Zealand’s population has become so divided over the past six years is that this government has been ultra-exclusive of everyone who doesn’t agree with it.
This government has made record use of Urgency and Supplementary Order Papers for completely inappropraite reasons, to step around expert input, community involvement, and overall avoiding good and robust lawmaking in the name of “getting things done”.
It’s also ignored repeated warnings from the Attorney General about breaches of the Bill of Rights in pending legislation, and passed those laws anyway. This is a horrible thing: The BORA is meant to define the most fundamental rights which government should never revoke from people of NZ, yet the current government has ignored it as an inconvenience.
Tread on people like this instead of including them and they’ll do more than just disagree with you. They’ll start to hate you. National's making sure that everything National is actually about John Key. And people who somehow haven’t been affected can’t understand why others “hate John Key” so much.