Posts by Christopher Nimmo
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So I just heard Shane Jones on the radio describing the Greens as a "virus" and saying that they needed to get back people from the Greens and NZ First before trying to get back National voters... then describing the Greens as "mad"!
And this is the guy who was supposedly being so upfront about why they lost the election?
Unbelievable.
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to BenWilson,
But Labour could easily install a far more compliant group to their left, possibly even via a bunch of independent breakaways like Anderton. They just have get with all the secret handshakes and stage managed tea parties and they’re there.
I don't see quite how? At least at this stage... They would need to be a hugely popular electorate MP, probably with most of the local party in tow, and they would need to be standing on an actual principle at stake in leaving - Labour would probably have to be in government. And if there's a principle at stake in their leaving they probably aren't going to be very compliant, are they? I suspect this is possibly what Labour thought the Maori party would be - and look how that turned out. Maybe Taito could have been it if he'd left because of social conservatism rather than criminality...
-
I don't suppose it would be appropriate to link to Caritas' site about inequality in the participating countries?
Wasn't really looking forward to the world cup a month or two ago, but I'll be watching the first game with a great bunch of international students. Should be fun!
-
Hard News: An open thread while I'm down…, in reply to Paul Williams,
Sure, but a very significant minority do and I entirely miss what his appeal is?
So do I, but the media always talk about how good he is with the electorate, how he turns up to everything, etc. To an extent it's true, except that Chauvel and Shanks are the only ones who actually make contact with the electorate about anything important. It just doesn't fit the narrative that list MPs could be anything other than worthless slobs.
-
Hard News: An open thread while I'm down…, in reply to Paul Williams,
WTF do Ohariu Belmont voters think they’re getting from this twit!
Most don't vote for him.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Bart Janssen,
It is because it is their money . They entered into a contract with their government. They voted pretty explicitly for a government that established and then reestablished superannuation. It is not their fault that some governments in between forgot that and spent the money on other things “it’s OK we’ll pay it back later”.
Pardon? When exactly did we temporarily lapse into a dictatorship? They voted in all those other governments as well.
-
How about... the government appropriates the land from property developers and exchanges like for like with Red Zoners?
-
Hard News: Meanwhile in Epsom ..., in reply to DexterX,
Don Brash as minister of SOEs.
What SOEs?
-
Wow. One word for your friendly insurance executives:
Looters!
(unfair to looters, none of whom will have stolen anything anywhere close to $200,000, certainly not from one property)
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If 4/5 parties can get enough party votes to earn a single seat when there is a threshold, how many single MP parties would there be when people knew that their votes wouldn’t be wasted by voting for them? etc
There are other ways of dealing with that though - you could raise the membership requirement for one.
My preference would be to keep the threshold but allow people to rank parties a la STV to reduce wastage.