Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Stephen R,
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.
Not on the grounds you set out there. Some "reasonsable" people may vote National because they are scared of change, some may vote National because the policies of other parties would hurt them financially. I didn't see any policy come out from the Nats that looked like an economic game changer. If anything the election result was about the devil you know. But of course until you and I poll the electorate to ask why they voted the way they did, it's pure speculation on our part.
Any form of collective entity is an amalgam of views and actions. The problem here is that National has refused to condemn the behaviour of which it is accused. Key has belittled those who are critical of National's behaviour. This is not "a few bad apples". This manifests within the PM's office and himself. It is endemic. Choosing to support this package is a tacit acceptance of dirty politics.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
From whom?
The likes of PA, Pundit etc one would hope. But if you are talking MSM then their track record is not good, I agree.
If there is no change in attitude toward this type of behaviour (whether it the reaction of the electorate or the way in which the media discerns the provenance of a story and the way in which it is reported), then perhaps we don't deserve better.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to izogi,
As long as he remains an outlet for his political links, he’s going to retain the attention he has.
I agree that he is singularly lacking in morals but surely the Nats would see him as too exposed now. Isn't the whole point of attack politics some attempt to distance the political machinery from the attack dog? Given that the link has been clearly made, National should be running a mile from him. Anyone who allows themselves to be tainted by association with Slater will face considerable derision and criticism, the Nats feeling bullet-proof now notwithstanding. And the MSM, are they going to want to associate with him anymore, especially after his attempt to sue a large part of it?
He's going to carry on his angry crusade against anything that doesn't gel with his warped view of the world, and that may well include smears against the partner of whoever is the next Labour leader. But will it have traction? You think he could ever get another look in for a Canon again (much as I doubt the standards applied previously, his toxicity would taint the award and the judge)?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’ve been thinking along the same lines, with the proviso that it’s a big ask for Robertson’s partner to have Slater et al sniffing around.
Would they really be that stupid, especially in the light of Dirty Politics? If people like Slater want influence, they will now have to prove some level of credibility. All he provides now is an echo chamber filled with the unpleasant sound of extremists self-pleasuring one another.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to BenWilson,
If nothing else, instead of coming across as “smarmy with something to hide” he’s “open, honest and professional”. That’s as well-liked a combination in this country as the other is disliked.
This.
I've never personally met Cunliffe but I have attended a few public functions/lectures where he has attended. His demeanour left a lot to be desired and I can see why some label him as "smarmy".
Robertson, OTOH, while certainly appearing confident has an image of someone willing to get stuck into electorate issues.
I accept my impressions of both are based on a small amount of interaction but if voters' perceptions influence which circles they tick then it's a propos.
And as for Robertson's sexual orientation, are there really that many social Neanderthals who consider this an issue?
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
Mind you, if the "Dear Leader" won anymore elections it would be remarkable if only for the fact that he has been dead for nearly 3 years.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Pharmachick,
If you want them to vote, then work harder to engage them and make them care, it’s lazy in the extreme to try and compel them [largely for your own ends].
North Korea also has compulsory voting and their “Dear Leader” tends to win by impossible landslides.
Equating compulsion to North Korea is silly and smacks of scaremongering.
By the same token, your logic should also mean taxation should not be compulsory.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to DaiKiwi,
Australia has about the same percentage of unenrolled as NZ. Turnout is for Federal elections is about 93%. Spoiled or invalid votes is about 6% (versus 0.89% in NZ 2011), and has been rising steadily since the 1980s.
On that basis, about 400,000 more valid votes would have been cast in the NZ 2011 election, bringing it up to about 85%.
Given that a "no vote" or "no confidence" voter would not bother to vote under our current system, the 0.89% represents mostly errors. So there might be case for saying that of the 6% of votes cast (i.e. turnout) are invalid votes in Australia, 1% could be real errors and 5% is the no vote/no confidence bloc.
85% of what? Enrolment? Can you explain how you get this number?
Are you assuming that the only choices on the ballot are candidates and that there is no "no vote" or "no confidence" option? -
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Katharine Moody,
Mine too.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to BenWilson,
+1