Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mediawatch (Radio NZ) have just had a very revealing interview with Clare Harvey, ex-Herald journo. (It's broadcast again at 10 pm today, and presumably on their website).
She openly acknowledged that many in the political media want a change of government, not because they are right-wing, not because they hate Clark, not because they are in love with Key, but - get this - just because they are bored.
Perhaps they should make their lives more interesting by getting another job.
-
For the record, here's the Tauranga result from 1999:
BALDOCK, Larry Future New Zealand 1456 4.31%
BERRY-EVANS, Vivienne NMP 24 0.07%
GROVER, Frank Christian Heritage Party 738 2.18%
HEPBURN, John Independent 73 0.22%
O'REGAN, Katherine National Party 10162 30.08%
PETERS, Winston New Zealand First Party 10225 30.27%
SUMMERHAYS, Karen Green Party 1131 3.35%
WICKS, Tekarehana Alliance 453 1.34%
WILSON, Margaret Labour Party 9519 28.18%So Wilson is no more guilty of vote-splitting than O'Regan. You could just as well argue that in 1999 people were voting against National, and if Wilson had not stood, half her votes would have gone to Peters. Who knows? Maybe it's all Larry Baldock's fault.
But for real (and endless) arguments about vote-splitting, and who let who in, see "first past the post" elections, a system we're well rid of.
-
You're saying there was a world before blogs? Can you prove that with a link?
-
Oh sir, sir, can I add one?
Does this come from: a) No Right Turn b) Kiwiblog c) NZ Herald?
"After years of being taken for granted, fibbed to and generally mucked about, the New Zealand electorate put its collective foot down this year. Ignoring an expensive, scare-mongering, largely business-funded campaign, it voted in MMP. And it denied any party an effective mandate in a result which is a voter's dream, a politician's nightmare ... [Politicians] were being taught respect, not for each other but for the long-suffering public."
(emphasis added, for irony overload)
-
Very good, David. Particularly the last one. (And then there was Kate Sheppard and her feminazi PC social engineering ... "jury still out" - Garth George).
-
David Farrar has wasted no time putting that Hero photo up on his blog.
Stand by for the usual well-rehearsed outrage when he gets called on it. ("What, me ref?").
-
If we must compare John Key to an American pollie, let's get it right. Obama? JFK? Nah.
He's Dan Quayle.
"We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward."
-
Instead of saying "the average worker" he should have said "a lot of workers". Or even better "the average worker in this room".
Actually, it's "hard-working taxpayers".
It's not clear how they stop the lazy ones getting the same deal.
-
The parties with a chance of leading a government, and therefore of getting their legislative programmes through, should be subject to exactly this sort of scrutiny -- do the numbers add up?
And the numbers are being thrown around freely.
Key's approach is to talk up "investment" to local media, while promising to control "spending" in Wellington - and hope that the two don't talk to each other. Here's an example:
That's a feel-good not-quite-promise (note: "have a look at") that gets the desired response. It's not clear where the hundreds of millions of dollars will come from. I know nothing about Whangarei, and this project may well be a good idea. But like everything else, it costs.
He did this throughout his DVD tour, in the "heartland". He's just a guy who can't say No ...
-
John Key's every word is not being scrutinised. The opposite is true.
You don't need disputed transcripts from Kerikeri. You can just read his speeches in Parliament. And then ask the obvious - screamingly, blindingly obvious - questions. I don't know if the media are doing the first, but they're certainly not doing the second.
Below is John Key's response to the Prime Minister's statement, in the opening debate of the year, a couple of weeks ago.
In the first part of the speech he attacks the government. Fair enough - that's his job, no different from any other opposition leader. Get stuck in, score a few hits, rally the troops.
But then he goes on to say what National will do, when the "horse race" has been won.
He makes a series of "we will" promises - I counted more than 20. Most of them involve spending more money (that's, er, your taxes). If I had the time, I would itemise each one and "fisk" the whole damn speech, but I'd rather this was done by somebody who's actually paid to do this. None of them has. Not even close.
Given the recent polls, you would think the media might show some interest in what he has to say, when it's right there, under their noses in Parliament. Something along the lines of: What? How? When? How much? Pretty simple stuff.
If they have, I've missed it. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Preferably before the election.