PM’s Pinot has been around for a few years, so I don’t think that’s been much of a secret. But the blind trust is evidently only blind in one eye.
You are right: didn't look at the date: 101 not achieved. As you were.
Spinny green: luvly.
Dunno if I’m just getting over-wrought here – this on Key’s blind trust interests is gobs-smacking. That is, if gobs hadn’t already been repeatedly smacked in the past two weeks.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer says on NatRad that a Royal Commission is justified and that Key should consult Cunliffe as it is within the 90-day caretaker period. Cabinet Manual para 6.9.
He also says looking at the scope of the caretaker government conventions and rules is warranted. In Australia such a unilateral inquiry could not happen during the election period.
Hooton said similar earlier.
BTW, Key appeared to slip up on Morning Report and detail some of his dispute with the Dirty Politics book. But he hasn't read it, has he? (That core contempt for political difference being permissible has astounded me, especially that he has been allowed by journalists to continue that line.)
Yep. It's about the kind of country we all want to live in: whatever it takes as the motto, or one with communal vision and responsibility.
I would be appalled at any party, anywhere, using these tactics and supporting the use of them in any way.
Two impressions - not words - stood out in the debate. David Cunliffe physically took over, moving into Key's space, defining his own and looking centred and confident, without overbearing. That's a big change. He came across on screen for the first time as he does in person.
The other was how rattled, even diminished, John Key looked from the first glimpse. I conjecture that he watched, or was told of, Winston Peters' claims on TV3 at 6pm. He was reeling, like we have never seen before. He almost got back into stride a couple of times but curiously tailed off.
Could have watched with the sound off really.
National's party vote in Christchurch will collapse this time. Many people are very aware that our 8000 party votes in 2011 put National back in power.
It was never "Christchurch turning blue" as was spun: it was people looking for the most stable pair of hands while we were being assaulted by ongoing large earthquakes -- the Labour Party as a whole was not perceived as those hands in 2011. Even though the Labour electorate MPs are well-respected -- I know many Nats who vote for the likes of Megan Woods.
Also I really must work up that post on door knocking. It’s been an incredibly educational experience.
Do. We've been Labour-knocked in Port Hills despite the huge vote Green billboard out front: that's commitment.
Anyone voting about Port Hills should realise every electorate vote will count. Ruth Dyson for Labour and Nuk Korako for National are both strong candidates and quake displacement and boundary changes are complex.
Electorate votes for Ruth, party votes Green here. The two voters in the house have been grilled by the not-yet-voting teenagers, who are attempting to claim ownership over half our votes.
Pam Corkery looked like she genuinely went off. But I don't see that she or Kim Dotcom will be unhappy at the way it has played out.
A lot of reporting -- and news editing and sub-editing -- is still trying to fit an MMP election (and the most feral one we've ever had) in the old FPP boxes.