Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Matt Crawford,
Robertson’s problem however is that he has hitched his leadership ambition to the the dead wood of the ABC clique.
It may be the other way around of course?
For Robertson to unify the caucus, he must have more supporters than detractors surely? And although Mallard, Goff and King aren't hugely popular here, they win their electorates and generally win the Party vote too. Trevor's lost some ground in Hutt South, but that's partly boundary changes and his relative decline is still a lot better than many others I suspect.
I want to see change in the caucus like others here but can I say that personal preferences might need to be balanced against individual performances at the polls and on that count, the three you've mentioned aren't so poor (by contrast, Ross Robertson should have been excised in 2002).
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
.. if she wants it. The pressure is not fair if she isn’t ready, for the good of the Party. Think about it.
I've got no great read on Jacinda. She does do well in Akl Central but can't yet win it, that's risky?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sacha,
Exactly. And the complacent warriors of the soft left wonder why we’re concerned.
Ditto again.
-
Hard News: A call from Curia, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Treasure what you’ve got in NZ.
Agreed, the Australian electoral experience specifies how far boosters must stay away from polling booths, but they're free to hand out 'how to vote' cards outside that modest distance and frequently have to be asked to back off.
-
National will probably win a third term this month, but there is a huge taint in all this. There is simply too much here for it all to just melt away -- and it won't, if for no other reason than that we need to find ways for what has already been revealed to not happen again.
Isn't it a bit early to call the election? I see the polls this morning and appreciate why, but there's almost three weeks left in which a lot can happen. Regardless, post-election, I entirely agree with you that this shit has to be cleaned up as a matter or urgency. That said, I can't quite imagine what changes - rules and regulations in the Cabinet Manual presumably - could mitigate against this kind of maladministration when the PM can simply refuse to see it.
-
Yes, in the latest dump. An error of judgment indeed. If true. Which is something we need to keep in mind.
For mine, Ms Pagani's history was sufficient to not prefer her relative to many other longstanding members.. This just helps me rationalise my prejudice.
I think the Paganis may be regular hunting partners of the Lusk/Williams nexus. Also Nash. Obviously people can be mates with whomever but really
I can't generate that level of equanimity.
FWIW, I find Hooton a more credible in all this, 'cause I know what he believes... Then again, I was surprised by Mora's/RNZ's subtle bias so perhaps I'm up for the Pollyanna award?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Stephen Judd,
As side note, the claim that Josie Pagani had been hunting with Slater um… surprised me.
I'm not overly fond of Pagani's approach, but, yeah, that's a remarkable error of judgment. Presumably this is in the latest dump as I've not seen media mention of it yet?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to nzlemming,
She may have been dumped as a distraction, but she's toast now.
It's not Collins anymore, it's systemic favouritism and rort equating to maladministration. Key's management of his Cabinet appears to follow the Lange playbook.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to CJM,
I missed this - thanks. It does tend to confirm Tom's point of bias. Perhaps I was being naive.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Tom Semmens,
From failing to acknowledge John Bishop as a hard right activist it is a ethically lazy short step to using Farrar and Slater as a news source, and we now know that leads directly to collusion and collaboration with National's two tier PR agenda.
Tom, firstly, I don't listen to Mora often so can't argue the issue of his 'balance' or his approach specifically. I also agree that it's reasonable to conflate choices over panelists with the issue of sources more generally. I don't know of Bishop but know of the Taxpayers union and agree, they're shell-entity that should be avoided in preference for legit organisations (although that's a little fraught I suspect). All that said, I'd be interested to know the view of commenters here from the media as I suspect one of the problems is finding competent 'talent' without bias (and though I think little of the far right, excluding them isn't an option).