Hard News: No Red Wedding
178 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Especially since National have not spent much political effort yet trying to minimise the bump Labour were always going to get.
I assumed that was what Hooton was doing on RNZ?
-
Danielle, in reply to
I’ll feel less guilty now.
Death to the on-topic police, is what I say.
-
Re Kevin Hague. He is also pretty good on disability policy. I knew of him before be became an MP because of his involvement with the National Health Committee which published the very significant 2003 To have an 'ordinary' life report. This report, based on some wonderful research by the Donald Beasley Institute in Dunedin, described what needed to happen for full community participation for adults with intellectual disability in a post institutionalisation era. Unfortunately, barely implemented yet. But I think the committee members, who commissioned the report, learnt a lot.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Does that really stack up, though? I thought Labour’s main problem last time was a whole bunch of their voters not bothering to turn out.
If they don’t go vote for you, you can’t count them as your voters any more, by definition.
IIRC, last time the Nats didn't increase their vote in raw numbers, only in proportion. I think it's fair to conclude that if voters on the left thought Labour could win, they'd turn out.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
re: anti-nuclear policy.
Three years later it had become something that the majority were proud to endorse.
My memory of that was that the reaction by the US Government trying to bully NZ into backing down was what sold it to the majority.
I’m not sure what could produce a similar indignant reaction to support green policies by people who are currently not supporters.
If people want adversarial situations, I can see lots of possibilities. Keeping our power companies state owned and out of the hands of rich investors. Keeping a tight rein on huge mining and petrochemical companies. Protecting our beautiful places from animal predators and from commercial exploitation.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Especially since National have not spent much political effort yet trying to minimise the bump Labour were always going to get.
Why would they? Before we get too carried away, it was a good poll but 1) after six weeks of favourable soft press for Labour and Cunliffe it would be a shocker if there wasn't some gains, and, 2) there's still a year to go before the only poll that actually counts. I do think that's worth repeating, because three years ago a fair few polls were saying National would be able to govern in its own right. How did that work out again?
-
Sacha, in reply to
barely implemented yet
Knock me down with a feather, etc.
-
Sacha, in reply to
how do you feel about iguanas?
-
Sacha, in reply to
For prevention of bowel cancer, oh how much better it would be to allocate more funding to stepping up routine colonoscopic screening
Current blockage (if you'll excuse the word in the circumstances) is our lack of colonoscopists. Being addressed, but several years away yet at least.
-
The ferocity with which the usual suspects are trying to attack Cunliffe personally has been pretty amazing.
Matthew Hooton basically lost the plot – and had to be brilliantly put in his place by Kathryn Ryan – on Nine to Noon last week, repeatedly accusing Cunliffe of lying about his background. He’s now been presented with documentary evidence and still won’t admit he was wrong, let alone apologise.
And Judith Collins’ office is supplying Whale Oil with tendentious claims in a similar vein, which she duly touts on Twitter.
I suspect it’ll go about as well as Labour’s endless attempts to do much the same to Key did.
-
andin, in reply to
Did you just call me the police,? first time I've been called that :))
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I suspect it’ll go about as well as Labour’s endless attempts to do much the same to Key did.
Bloody oath – and as I’ve said on Twitter, while Matthew really needs to get his Cunliffe Derangement Syndrome seen to by a professional, there’s a few parties that really need to dismount from the moral high horse. Seriously. You don't have to have any regard for Key to think allegations he was involved in massive fraud, or made multiple false statutory declaration, need to be made with extreme care.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
You don’t have to have any regard for Key to think allegations he was involved in massive fraud, or made multiple false statutory declaration, need to be made with extreme care.
Au contraire. I have a couple of Twitter followers who confidently tell me these things all the goddamn time.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Au contraire. I have a couple of Twitter followers who confidently tell me these things all the goddamn time.
You too? Perhaps I'm a naif, but if Key and Cunliffe were the pair of evil genii Twitter would have us believe their life goals are tragically low. At the very least, HBO should have signed them up for a fashionably nihilistic drama by now.
-
Rob Hosking, in reply to
You too? Perhaps I’m a naif, but if Key and Cunliffe were the pair of evil genii Twitter would have us believe their life goals are tragically low. At the very least, HBO should have signed them up for a fashionably nihilistic drama by now.
This place needs a 'like' button or perhaps something similar but less cliched.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
‘like’ button
an "O" button?
-
Stephen R, in reply to
Matthew Hooton basically lost the plot – and had to be brilliantly put in his place by Kathryn Ryan – on Nine to Noon last week, repeatedly accusing Cunliffe of lying about his background
RadioNZ published an apology this morning on 9 to noon.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2570658/statement-regarding-politics-segment -
ChrisW, in reply to
RadioNZ published an apology this morning
To make it clear, it was RadioNZ's apology for broadcasting Hooton's melt-down, not an apology from Hooton.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
To make it clear, it was RadioNZ’s apology for broadcasting Hooton’s melt-down, not an apology from Hooton.
I wonder if he will none the less retain his spot?
-
Stephen R, in reply to
I wonder if he will none the less retain his spot?
That's what I was thinking when I listened to it too.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
If Hooton doesn't include himself in the apology, will that affect any libel case that might eventuate?
-
Deborah, in reply to
I don't know, except that I'm not sure that it would be worthwhile pursuing a libel case anyway. Too much Streisand effect. Well, not so much a Streisand effect as simply giving Hooten et al far too much air time.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I wonder if he will none the less retain his spot?
Why not? I’d note Matthew Hooten and Lila Harre’s services were retained after a particularly toxic round of mouth-farting at the height of the furore over dodgy election spending where I was sincerely gob-smacked that Ryan didn't shut them both down as they launched into pretty heated (and IMO grossly defamatory) attacks on the political independence of the incumbent Police Commissioner and Auditor-General. I don’t recall Kevin Brady or Howard Broad receiving an on-air retraction, let alone an apology, for that.
-
Fair points Craig although, prima facie, Hooton defamed Cunliffe. That's a little more significant than being rude. Now it pains me to say that, as much as I frequently disagree with his commentary, I generally think his analysis is interesting.
Perhaps though, as both Williams and Hooton are boosters for their respective teams, it'd be worth getting more independent commentators or would this simple lead to a less insightful discussion?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Fair points Craig although, prima facie, Hooton defamed Cunliffe. That’s a little more significant than being rude.
While I bow to the superior legal expertise of others hereabouts, I would class wild and baseless allegations of party political bias on the part of the Police Commissioner and the Auditor-General (who happens to be an officer of Parliament) a long way above mere "rudeness" but moving right along.
What Hooten said about Cunliffe, with no basis in fact, was feckless in the extreme regardless of whether it's legally actionable. But I'd argue its not exactly without precedent, and a small part of me thinks you reap what you sow. Or, at the least, if you're going to let hyper-partisans loose without a hair-trigger kill switch don't be surprised at the entirely predictable results.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.