I assume that almost EVERYTHING that I hear or read in the MSM is a consequence of what someone is doing on someone else’s behalf. There are very few , if any honest brokers ; it is all just entertainment.
Have you read the book?
Someone I never heard of until he became a transitory media idol.
the whole episode was irrelevant
I've yet to meat anyone who habitually took any direct notice of Cameron Slater, but if you've had any exposure to media in NZ, chances are you've been very subject to the consequences of his involvement.
I get the idea of learning from how an opposition did well, but…
Did anyone notice that National was NOT promising tax cuts?
…did National promise anything besides some kind of non-specific thing about obviously being brilliant economic managers and taking the country in the "right" direction?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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).