I find it very easy to imagine a reasonable person voting National because they like National’s economic policies, and more importantly because even assuming the allegations in Dirty Politics are true, that a National led government would still be a better government than Labour led government, given Labour’s apparent internal divisions.
Firstly, Nationals economic policy’s are not reasonable. And, the information in dirty politics are not allegation. Get real, they would be featured in defamation court proceedings by now if not. I think that people who voted for national are ether ignorant, or have fuck all empathy.
Internal divisions at the Labour Party? I thought the big freak out was that Labour would have to go into a coalition with demons, like the Greens.
After upgrading my iPad 2 to 8.0.2. My public address commenting has become much, much more difficult. And that’s not only becouse my active page freezes up every other time I try to post something. Damb those Silicon Valley apple tosh nerds and there medical marihuana :(
I need to vent. Every time I buy my alcohol free beer, at the supermarket, I need to go thru the age authentication process.
The law is clear. If the beverage contains less than 1.15% alcohol, then even ten year olds can buy it.
If the retailers don't understand the law, it's hard to understand how they got there licenses to sell actual alcoholic beverages.
What pisses me of, is that the ignorance spreads to the entire hospitality industry. I can't buy none alcoholic beer at restaurants and bars, but if I try to bring my own, things can get all what the fuck - you can't do that, we can't computer that! Why don't you want to stand there with a children's shugar drink? Security!
That problem dosn't happen in Australia or America, and I would be suprized if it's a problem in Europe. But I might be wrong, we where trying to be europeon style drinking. Because they can handle there piss.
Y'know all this angrie resentment is enough to drive a man to drink:)
What's wrong with New Zealand licensing law?
Scratch that, why is the princable of the law not understood?
Of course, he was referring to the factional discord, orchestrated and exploited by the destructively ambitious Cunliffe.
I was trying to respond to that sentence , but my iPad froze up.
There is, and has been for a long time, a very simple stratagem for Labour to deal with all of this, which is to split into 2 parties, one that contests electorates, formed probably from old guard, and one which contests directly and pretty much only for the party vote. They could openly support each other. Even if only a small breakaway group did this, it would help a lot. Following the tradition set up by Anderton, they could call themselves “Old Labour”. People would be encouraged in any electorate with an Old Labour candidate to split their vote between Old Labour and Labour. Then they could actually benefit from strongly contesting both votes. Currently, all they achieved was shrinking the political left, giving the Nats their outright majority.
It’s a thought, anyway.
And a split might also help with that wee problem about the conservative homophobic working class / liberal academic middle class not seeing eye to eye on all things party leadership.
Which makes me think that figor head leaders that just do charisma, are kind of cool after all.
And it disturbs me, because Cunliffe was chosen by the most democratic process the party has ever had.
It's like when the Allblacks lose the big match, someone get metaphorically exist used by dismemberment.
But no, it's a totally different thing parliamentary elections are not a game. Which needs to be said, becouse you would never know by watching the 6 o'clock news.
I wonder, if we had a different national sport, mabe something a little less about gladiators battling it out on a paddock - would politics follow? Or is it commercial TV and radio thats leading people by the nose. Ether way, can we please leave feudal society back in the middle ages, and get on with allowing 21st century intelligence an opportunity speak.
I thought MMP was going help minority groups get better representation. Instead, we have the the dominant opposition partly trying to figor out which presidential style candidate will deliver the biggest majority in parliament. Rather than who will be most capable of forming coalition agreements. I might be wrong, but thats how it looks from the outside. And if winning absolute majority as the National party have just done - continues to be the Labour Partys main objective, then I don't think that getting a better TV personality is going to work. If total control is what the Labour Party wants, they are going to have to fight dirty.
It’s not going to all be sorted out by us over the next few days.
Hunting flatfish, only becouse the boat drifted into shallow water.
This “landslide” has delivered a small majority to National, and they now have a whole basket of fails that will only continue to stack up over the next three years.
I haven’t thought its a big landslide. It’s more that it’s suprising they did so well, considering how dirty politics everyone knows they are. However, now that the price of milk is going to hit the farmers in the wallet. And we already sold of half the electricity generation. So who knows where the government going to get the farm subidys from. There could end up being a large number of farmers who can’t get enough – minimum wage workers, on a three mounth trail period – to keep from going under. So the television might instruct its audience to vote against the government next time, (between advertisement breaks).
I’m in the compulsory vote camp, with a no confidence option. And I think the no confidence option should have options within that. IE: (a) Religious non partisan. (b) They are all a bunch of wankers’, or ‘I am a wanker who’s better than them’. (c) I do not agree with MMP, and this is my protest.
This would be an extension to the New Zealand census.
Context – Hardly an attack on Snowden – just pointing out some hypocrisy.
“Bizarrely, it is somehow seen as perfectly all right for Dotcom and his associates to use stolen National Security Agency files to try to prove the Prime Minister a liar on how his Government has administered national security, but not for Key to declassify New Zealand’s own files to prove he isn’t a liar.”
I can’t make head nor tail of this comment. Is it an in house joke?