Hard News: Ups and Downs
128 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
The Rhino in the room during this bye election was Yellow. As the HOSs editorial suggested, Key would do well to get the little fat mushroom to pull his woolly head in or he will be looking at a single term in office. 3% of the national vote does not a mandate make. Unless conscessions are made my bet is that the Super City will be a huge political albatross for national come the next election.
-
DomPost does another Knox story. I wish they'd bother asking someone what is normal progress at this early stage to give some context.
-
As the campaign started... National might have made a close race of it...
Lee obviously made more than one or two fluffs on the hustings.... but did that kill her? We'll never know. It became un-winnable for National as soon as the Motorway extension plans were changed.
-
DomPost does another Knox story. I wish they'd bother asking someone what is normal progress at this early stage to give some context.
As I said, it's not my place to talk about Chris's condition, but I can give some context. A friend of mine had a severe stroke eight months ago.
At the stage Chris is at, he was paralysed down one side of his body and could not speak. Two weeks ago, he came out and had a few beers at a Media7 recording -- his first night out. That doesn't mean Chris is in the same place, but it does suggest that this isn't the right time to speculate in the papers.
-
Thanks, Russell. They don't seem to be checking even the more obvious sources of knowledge about strokes. As your friend's example shows, it's nothing short of sloppy journalism to pretend that Knox's current condition means much at all for his long-term prospects.
-
Key would do well to get the little fat mushroom to pull his woolly head in or he will be looking at a single term in office. 3% of the national vote does not a mandate make.
If Key runs around talking to Hide like that, I'd respectfully suggest he'd have more immediate problems -- starting with a broken nose, if I had anything to do with it.
And I still hold that the Herald stable really should get over their disdain for MMP (and those impertinent "minor" parties) and find a stronger angle to hang their criticism on unless they want to grace us with their tipping point where duly appointed Ministers of the Crown become credible in their eyes. Did Anderton and Dunne have no "mandate" in the last Parliament, as leaders of parties that received 2.67% and 1.16% of the vote respectively? How about the Greens and the Maori Party, who I'm sure the usual suspects would argue have influence well out of proportion to their share of the vote?
-
And that this would be any different in a first past the post govt ? I seem to recall that peace in Northern Ireland was probably delayed by a year or two as a result of the Tories having to court the unionists in order to get things done.
-
Craig, we're talking about mandate for very particular actions, not a generalised minsterial warrant or whatnot.
-
Craig, we're talking about mandate for very particular actions, not a generalised minsterial warrant or whatnot.
Sasha: Correct me if I'm wrong, but legislation still requires the assent of a majority of Parliament. Doesn't it?
-
Apologies in advance for stating the bleeding obvious at this late stage in proceedings, but why would anyone bother voting for Lee, Norman or Boscawen? They already are in Parliament. Of course they want to prove they are real MPs and not just list fodder, but the voters are insulted by the offer of a second-hand candidate, who has suddenly become passionate about the electorate.
-
It's also the way the process is being conducted that has drawn attention, as I noted on t'other thread.
If Hide has nothing to hide, then why exclude public input? - unless he's taking advice from blitzkreig Douglas about how to implement unpopular changes (Mont Pelerin speech 1989, PDF , 240KB).
-
Or even ambitious for the electorate, Paul. :)
-
Apologies in advance for stating the bleeding obvious at this late stage in proceedings, but why would anyone bother voting for Lee, Norman or Boscawen?
Are you saying that if Shearer had been a member of parliament and, say, Boscawen hadn't, you would have voted for Boscawen? I really don't think it's how byelections work.
-
Or even ambitious for the electorate, Paul. :)
Well, Shearer was doing so much "reconnecting" I wondered if he was self-funding the campaign moonlighting as an electrician.
-
Hah!
-
Nice
-
I think I agree with Craig (should I seek medical attention?).
Act may not have a 'mandate' but they are part of the National led gummint. Anything Rodney does he can only do with the support of National (or the majority or parliament).
One could be cynical and suggest that at the next election Key (or who-ever replaces him) will be saying "Act did all those terrible things, don't vote for them, vote for us, we're the nice ones".
Act, I think, is trying to get as much through in the next two years as they can, as they sure as hell wont be around after that. (Please, please, please.)
-
find a stronger angle to hang their criticism on unless they want to grace us with their tipping point where duly appointed Ministers of the Crown become credible
Key knew that the Auckland Super city would be an issue during this parliament but still chose a man with vary little political capital and who is ideologically wedded to reducing the scope of local democracy, to usher through huge political changes that wiil effect a third of the national electorate. Its looking more and more like a another bad call by Key with each passing week.
-
Apropos of nothing much, it is wierd to see that enormous photo of Russell and other Not OKers in the foyer of MSD in Wellington. I wonder if the Minister, as featured in the latest Listener, will put a stop to that.
-
I think I agree with Craig (should I seek medical attention?).
Nah... I've been doing it for years and you get used to it.
-
But if that meme had of continued
NOT to get too linguistically prescriptive on it (that being nearly oxymoronic in the liberal world of linguistics where how she is spoke is what is right) but as a card-carrying pedant I simply must point out that correct written English (at this stage, and holding on by its fingernails) would be "had have continued" or, even better, the simpler "had continued".
No doubt "had of" will soon be acceptable and you're (your) breaking new ground here I'm (Im) sure, as that's (thats) how it sounds (sound's - well hey, anyone else noticed how the apostrophe's not dying but multiplying? Only in all the wrong places)... but it just looks ugly right now.
-
I simply must point out that correct written English would be "had have continued"
Really?
-
Yep, English eh? That's why it's the spoken that rules... simplifies it really nice like. Maybe... oh heck it's such a bastard I feel dumb even trying to say it should be like this or that. Certainly a losing battle...
-
I pride myself on ofing excellent English.
-
Could you elaborate on "had have", since I've never heard it before and I'm all about the learning?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.