Hard News: "Evil called: Can you make a meeting at 11?"
319 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
And it's a simple statement of fact that Lange had been in Parliament for a little under five years when he became leader of the Opposition, and was Prime Minister two years after that.
As I said up-thread, I think the comparison between Lange and Key is a reasonable one but not one that I think favours Key.
-
And the fact that you'll get a great deal of debate from people as to whether a law only affects one group of people, or whether other people are affected as well.
If the Scots decide they want to break away from the Union, is that a decision for them, or for all subjects of the UK? It most seriously impacts upon residents of Scotland, but it will have impacts for the rest as well.
ITA, discussion is the way forward and IMHO is what sets us apart from more troubled countries.
I guess this is what it all boils down to: National have indicated that their collective minds are made up and, come 2014 (and assuming they have the numbers), they'll delete the Maori seats. No parley. Craig seems fine with that, I'm not.
-
As I said up-thread, I think the comparison between Lange and Key is a reasonable one but not one that I think favours Key.
And as I think is blindingly obvious, playing the 'experience' card didn't do squat for Muldoon, John Howard and doesn't seem to be working for John McCain.
-
Although it's unfair to compare Howard to Clark (unfair to Clark that is) and Muldoon was widely despised (at least at my home he was) and well past his best, you have a point.
Oh Rudd's more experienced that Key also...
-
Craig seems fine with that, I'm not.
What I'm not fine with is hyperbolic scare-mongering. Meanwhile, Mikaere, the status quo remains where amendments to the Electoral Act will have to go through the usual legislative process, and pass only with the assent of a majority of MPs at the third reading. I'm certainly NOT OK with any Government abusing urgency to circumvent the select committee stage or curtail proper Parliamentary debate.
In short, make your argument but do try to remember that genuine dialogue doesn't happen through dishonesty and rank dog-whistling. I certainly hope this isn't the kind of campaign the Greens intend to run among Maori, or on constitutional issues in general.
-
genuine dialogue doesn't happen through dishonesty and rank dog-whistling.
Pointing out policy is not dog whistling.
-
how complicated would it really be to fix the election date... unless the Government lost confidence and supply
Well, the government could still always contrive an early election by firing Peters from his sinecure and putting a $5 toll on the Tauranga Harbour Bridge.
-
Pointing out policy is not dog whistling.
George: And, bugger me with a feather duster, a party actually trying to implement its policy through legislation! (With no guarantee of ultimate success, need I add.) Outrageous.
Sorry for getting snippy, but I'm a wee bit over repeating myself here. No matter how cute Mikaere tries to be, I find it very very difficult to believe he doesn't know exactly what kind of connotations casually throwing around words like "disenfranchisement" are meant to leave. And apocalyptic hyperbole aside, National CANNOT change a comma in the Electoral Act without passing a bill through a lengthy legislative process.
-
A S,
I guess this is what it all boils down to: National have indicated that their collective minds are made up and, come 2014 (and assuming they have the numbers), they'll delete the Maori seats. No parley.
Given the historic patterns of MMP representation in NZ, miraculously abolishing the Maori seats, is pretty unlikely, and almost sounds like scare-mongering.
Based on a realistic situation, National could only achieve this with the support of a number of other parties, the only parties likely to return members to parliament are Jim Andertons lot, the Maori party, and maybe UF via electorates. If the Greens holds up, then they're in. ACT are pretty unlikely, and NZF are polling abysmally. Who amongst those likely to get in would support getting rid of the Maori seats?
I think that particular National policy is idiotic, and it will quite probably preclude me voting for them, but lets not try to suggest that somehow only National have a track record of riding roughshod over the wishes of the people when it suits.
I believe someone elsewhere in this or a similar thread made mention of glasshouses and throwing stones, and I can think of a few recent significant changes and some proposed changes that couldn't really claim to have the widespread support of the people...
-
ACT are pretty unlikely
Oh how I hope. I will actually stoop to voting for my National electorate puppet in order to try and keep Rodders out, and I'm hoping that Labour and the minor parties will push their voters to do the same. Rodney's majority in Epsom in '05 was smaller than the number of votes cast for parties other than Act and National, so a swing could easily turf him out. Given that the alternative may involve Roger, it should be a pretty easy sell.
-
No matter how cute Mikaere tries to be, I find it very very difficult to believe he doesn't know exactly what kind of connotations casually throwing around words like "disenfranchisement" are meant to leave.
Dog whistling was not my intent. You can see how removing the Maori seats also removes the Maori Party from parliament? I feel privileged to be represented by an MP with the mana and capability of Pita Sharples and National seek to take that away. I do not feel that "disenfranchisement" is too strong a word to express my feelings about this, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.
Between now and the election campaign I'm sure I can come up with alternative terms to describe this ill-conceived policy with Craig-approved connotativeness ;-)
Given the historic patterns of MMP representation in NZ, miraculously abolishing the Maori seats, is pretty unlikely, and almost sounds like scare-mongering.
I freely admit that I was mistaken in believing that removing the Maori seats was going to be a priority for National should they become government. Given recent polls which have indicated that National could govern alone, I considered it a real prospect that they would have the numbers to do this. From my perspective they had both the motivation (eliminating 7 seats that they had given up the ghost on) and, crucially, the potential numbers in parliament to push this through three readings. Then again, one person's eye-opener is another's scaremongering.
-
Given the historic patterns of MMP representation in NZ, miraculously abolishing the Maori seats, is pretty unlikely, and almost sounds like scare-mongering.
Although with a large enough National majority this year, the 'right' media campaign, and a quick-and-dirty Referendum early enough in their term, MMP itself might not necessarily be on the safest ground.
-
NZers need to wake up and understand one thing - there's a lot of shit that will be on unsafe ground after these elections if Key's chaps get in.
-
A S,
NZers need to wake up and understand one thing - there's a lot of shit that will be on unsafe ground after these elections if Key's chaps get in.
I really struggle with these sorts of statements. The Nats and Labour are effectively carbon copies of each other. When the two major parties are reduced to trying to claim each others ideas as their own, things really aren't all that bad.
If I was the labour party I'd be hoping like hell that I lost this election, that way some other bunch of schmucks gets to try to manage through the impending recession/stagflation combo.
In three years, after someone else has copped all the flak in the ugly times, the opposition in a situation like that would stand a pretty good chance of winning, and not being tarred like the bunch that had to try and steer an impossible course through a recession they can't do much about.
-
NZers need to wake up and understand one thing - there's a lot of shit that will be on unsafe ground after these elections if Key's chaps get in.
Change one word (and wipe away the thick crust of spittle) and you've got a typical Kiwiblog screed from They Who Shall Not Be Named.
The Nats and Labour are effectively carbon copies of each other.
I wouldn't go quite that far, AS. But we're not seeing a death match between Helen Stalin and John Hitler for who get to kick off the apocalypse. That would at least be amusing, in a creepy kind of way.
From my perspective they had both the motivation (eliminating 7 seats that they had given up the ghost on)
But wait a mo', Mikaere why would Darth Key want all those left-wing "Maaris" in general seats where they could make things very tricky indeed?
-
You can see how removing the Maori seats also removes the Maori Party from parliament? I feel privileged to be represented by an MP with the mana and capability of Pita Sharples and National seek to take that away.
The funny thing is, I seem to have more faith in the viability of the Maori Party without the crutch of the Maori seats than you do. Last time I looked, anyone on the general roll can cast their party votes for them and I don't find it beyond imagination that they could pass the 5% threshold. Not only from Maori, but guilty white liberals who wanted to vote to the left of Labour. (A vote is a vote, people, and as long as we have a secret ballot you can't be terribly picky.) And I sure wouldn't take my eyes off Sharples and Derek Fox if they stood in Mangere and East Coast.
-
Jackie said:
NZers need to wake up and understand one thing - there's a lot of shit that will be on unsafe ground after these elections if Key's chaps get in.
There appears to be a rush to deny this but frankly, it is precisely the kind of predictable comment given the deafening silence from National. This is not a comment from kiwiblog; it's too calm and reasonable and is far too accurate to be posted at that forum.
How can anyone have any insight into National's policy on any issue of significance? Their approach seems to be to avoid taking a position lest it alienate voters.
I think Jackie's spot on this but I'd happily be proven wrong?
-
There appears to be a rush to deny this but frankly, it is precisely the kind of predictable comment given the deafening silence from National.
"Deafening silence"? Sorry, Paul -- but I'm just going to call 'theatre' and move on. Been fun, but this really is like Kiwiblog. Just because Jackie won't lower herself to an obscenity laced rant a la Mr 'Redbaiter', doesn't mean that over-amped bumper stickers are any more palatable.
-
I wouldn't go quite that far, AS. But we're not seeing a death match between Helen Stalin and John Hitler for who get to kick off the apocalypse. That would at least be amusing, in a creepy kind of way.
That brings to mind these hoary old chestnuts...
-
Been fun, but this really is like Kiwiblog
I hope you don't leave. Sincerely.
If PA System has become a punching bag for National it's intensified lately, and I'd rather this was a forum for "debate" (whatever that means) than an echo chamber.
That said, National has an ideological position. All parties do. If they form a Government, they get to enact that agenda. They've been fudging on issues since before the last election so legitimate doubt remains on what that agenda might be (what is their plan for ACC, I want to know). That's hardly shit-slinging.
-
I'ld be concerned about the selling of our birth right - water.
We can't go for transferable allowances, like fishing. Ownership & the right to use water needs to come & return to the community, National or Regional.
We need to wait 10-20 yrs for the "Free-Marketeers" to die off, but those concepts need to seen to be dead and then buried.
And I call Theatre on Phil Collins, please no more.
-
I hope you don't leave. Sincerely.
Stanley: I won't -- but I'm just working on realising when you're not adding value to a line of discussion and nobody is going to change their mind you walk away. But I don't want to come across as equating Jackie to the rather vile 'Redbaiter'. For a start, Jackie doesn't just shuffle the same dozen or so cliches/insults and coat it with a white froth of indeterminate origin. But when I read "NZers need to wake up and understand one thing - there's a lot of shit that will be on unsafe ground after these elections if [Insert Brand X]'s chaps get in" my heart sinks.
Don't know about you, George, but I have a horrible feeling there's going to be a lot of "unsafe ground" whoever wins the next election. That's what happens when you've written a lot of IOUs you can't cover.
-
Craig, please please never equate me with kiwibloggers. Never been there, never want to. Maybe I should have qualified my statement. Don't see why I should, however needs must if one is being equated to ranting spittle crusted loonies. So.... it seems to me that far too many people are far too complacent about a change of government. It alarms me that those on the "left" are so willing to see 9 years of relative prosperity and reasonably healthy social policy potentially just go down the toilet because........why? Because 9 years is a long time? Because it's time someone else had a go? Because people are sick of Helen Clark? I don't know how much things will change if a Key led government gets in, because I haven't heard anything about their policy intentions rather than "abolish maori seats" - well, I'm sorry, but that sort of indicates that they'll be chasing the populist vote. And another thing. I'm just distressed, frankly, at how much the MSM seems to drive elections. I may be entirely wrong, but I sense a nation of people giving up a wee bit. I just think that people need to think more about what NZ would look like with Key leading us. And I don't know that people are. I think there's a strong sense of - oh, well, they're all the same, anyway. We don't know that, though, for sure, do we?
-
But wait a mo', Mikaere why would Darth Key want all those left-wing "Maaris" in general seats where they could make things very tricky indeed?
Isn't it called divide and rule? Each Maori seat would be subsumed by ~9 general seats, and, thanks to the awesomeness of FPP, there would be no automatic effect, except in the most marginal of seats.
The funny thing is, I seem to have more faith in the viability of the Maori Party without the crutch of the Maori seats than you do.
Translation: Trust us, this won't hurt a bit...
How can anyone have any insight into National's policy on any issue of significance? Their approach seems to be to avoid taking a position lest it alienate voters.
Gordon Campbell has a pretty good go over at scoop.
Highlight: National seem very keen on Public Private Partnerships, not only in roads but health and education too. The problem is that they can be used to transfer risk to the public aspect, and profits to the private aspect. Pesky things like the actual details can be concealed behind a wall of "business confidential". George Monbiot has some good articles on the British experience.
Don't know about you, George, but I have a horrible feeling there's going to be a lot of "unsafe ground" whoever wins the next election.
The problem is that National aren't telling us what the deal will be, whereas we actually have Labour's record (in addition to things like Budget documents) to give us a steer. Makes me wonder if National are hiding some pretty unplaletable policy.
-
So.... it seems to me that far too many people are far too complacent about a change of government. It alarms me that those on the "left" are so willing to see 9 years of relative prosperity and reasonably healthy social policy potentially just go down the toilet because........why?
I've frequently expressed my disdain for people who confuse politics (and political discourse) with religion, and a particularly dogmatic and fundamentalist faith at that. I don't ever expect National and Labour to come together in a smooshy group hug, because there's no particular horror to my mind that our politics is dominated by two parties that are (by any reasonable measure) far from the flaming fringes of the political spectrum. Labour is a center-left party not the "Liarbore Dykeocracy". National certainly isn't objectively fascist.
I'd actually prefer that a majority of people be rather 'complacent" that a change of Government doesn't constitute the end of days, than any of the alternatives.
I am genuinely sorry if being compared "with kiwibloggers" offends you, but I guess it would be nice if this time there was more light than rhetorical heat from all sides around the campaign.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.