Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to bmk,
But lemons were quickly dropped when it was obvious the people didn’t like them.
You’ve heard of Bill Rowling? He managed to lose not one, not two, but three consecutive elections!
ETA: Oh, and don't forget Mike Moore, 2 time loser.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to bmk,
Not as in the past, the leader that would most likely appeal to the populace and in particular the potential Labour voting portion of the populace.
That's spinning how it used to work to the max. It's not like they've never once chosen a lemon before the members were allowed to vote. They've lost more than half of the elections since they first won one.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
but each to their own.
Indeed. I find the idea of extinguishing a person's rights against their will in their country of birth, where quite possibly most of their family are, quite probably a lot of their assets, their inheritances, their social taonga, their memories, their long term dreams, equally bizarre. There's plenty enough people who can't even be stuffed to vote when they're abroad, without needing to legislate to make it so.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to bmk,
The thing is Phil Goff did the honourable thing and resigned
The soft bugger never did actually commit seppuku though. Instead, he hung on to become the most popular Labour seat holder with National party voters, ever.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You used that word, not James.
Yes, I know, and I stand by the word. If you wish to have a semantic debate (I personally don't), have at it, go look it up. I already did.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to giovanni tiso,
The theory that Cunliffe is solely responsible for Labour’s defeat or even its main cause seems outlandish to me.
Yup, he seems more of a symptom than a cause to me.
If you people choose candidate X, I’m leaving, is really not a ringing endorsement of the party membership that James wishes in the future to represent.
Sure, but it is one of the few genuinely honest statements of position I've heard. At least we know where James stands. That's worth something.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Lilith __,
It would be an ultimatum if he actually had power over Cunliffe. Let’s not be too silly.
You might want to look the word up. And Bart too. I don't want to play dictionary monitor today.
I should add that my surprise to see James' words does not mean I disapprove of them, or even of him saying them. I'm just saying that there's no country on Earth you can chuck down that kind of gauntlet and not get a fight. I'm surprised because this debate seemed likely to become highly confrontational. It was last time, and led to some pretty large rifts within the community.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Hilary Stace,
It would have been much more pleasant and cleaner if David Cunliffe had stood down after the election and a new leadership team quickly put in place.
Wow. I think it's been all of 11 days now and still we don't have an entirely new government in waiting? What kind of snail pace do these people move at.
James Dann has been the target of some nasty stuff for writing this post – which is so unfair.
It would be pretty unrealistic to think that wouldn't happen. He's not just some guy with an opinion, he's the candidate for a major political party, and he openly attacked it's leadership, issuing an ultimatum. I was pretty surprised to read it here. About as surprised as I was when Keith Ng pretty much threw down against Cunliffe last time this happened, straight after 2011. You have to expect pretty frikken robust opposition to anyone making ultimatums about who the potential next leader of the entire country should be.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to izogi,
If it actually worked, do you think the two groups would ever agree on who’d get to supply the Prime Minister? :)
So far, there has never been a problem with that. Tradition is that PM comes from the biggest party, but it's only a tradition.
It’s not exactly something that’d go down well with me for the same reason I dislike coat-tailing and intentional overhang (which this is) and everything else that actively seeks to skew proportional representation.
I wouldn't vote for them, definitely. But I don't anyway. I'm just thinking it would be a strategy that would probably work, and doesn't involve them chasing the right wing vote. It is, after all, what National uses, but the "Old National" is just called Peter Dunne or John Banks. My point is that if you can't beat this strategy, then one alternative to endlessly railing about MMP's problems is simply to use the system. If they do that, then finally there is a real incentive on the part of both major parties to call this coat-tailing shit quits.
All this tactic would do beyond short term is reduce the public’s trust in the electoral system to produce a fair and representative outcome.
Yes, it would reduce all the public's trust, rather than just the trust of people on the left.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to CJM,
How about having one party where everyone involved believes in the same aims and supports those elected to lead it?
Yes, how is that working out?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 211 212 213 214 215 … 1066 Older→ First