Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: We interrupt this broadcast ..., in reply to John Farrell,
National has the option of governing as a minority. It will undoubtably be the largest party in parliament, but I doubt it will get 50% of the vote; a minority government would be an option if ACT doesn't score.
I'd be reasonably happy with that outcome. They'd have to actually seek consensus on a case-by-case basis. I'd prefer it to be another party, but actually if it's a choice between a huge left coalition which excludes the big party, or a big party that must actually respect the democratic process, there's not much in it - I think the first option could undermine all the other parties, whereas the second option would be a moderate government that would force National to show democratic leadership. If they stepped up, things could go well for them. If they can't or won't, it is likely to harm them.
And frankly, I still think and will always think, that a grand coalition should always be on the table. These are actually pretty desperate times, and bipartisan leadership would be of tremendous value.
-
Legal Beagle: Election Fact Check #8:…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
"If there's a Labour Government, we'll take that rort out the system. You'll have to get five percent to get more seats than simply the electorate seat that you win - that stops the rort."
I'm not surprised that Labour would take this line, but it's a nail in their coffin for me. The high threshold already delivers a significant wasted vote, and could be argued to discourage a further significant percentage from voting at all because of lack of effective choice. I've never been the least bit convinced that it does any good at all to democracy in this country. If thresholds were eliminated, tactical voting would be virtually eliminated in this country. People would party vote for whomever they wanted, knowing that their vote counted for neither less, nor more than anyone else. Then the only wasted vote would be with the electorates which are still FPP style and waste huge proportions of the vote even still. If the way the electorate members were selected could be reformed to a more representative system (ie practically any other system than what we have) then the Labour/Nat stranglehold on those might melt away too.
Of course that is the exact opposite of what Labour and National want. Both of them have always desperately struggled to keep their built-in advantages, and improvements that we have achieved have been very hard won.
-
For leaning left, I still can't see past the minor Parties doing it without Labour IF one wants the Left to govern.
No, but governing isn't the only effective thing you can do if the race is close enough. A resurgent left, diminishing the right's majority, could temper everything that they do with all of the more popular ideas on the left. I very much doubt National wants to find itself on the far right of the political spectrum.
I am interested in what are these "critical outcomes", critical outcomes of or from what?
There are some minor party races that are quite crucial to the way things go in this election. The most obvious is ACT. If they disappear, National is indeed the rightmost party economically, and I don't think that's going to be a very good position if the international economy continues to implode, as seems likely.
Peter Dunne and Hone Harawira must win their seats for their parties, too.
And the biggest wild card of all is Winston, who stands an outside chance of making the 5% threshold. National ruled out dealing with him. That could rob National of vital right wing votes. Or they could go back on that, and work with him, at the cost of their only idea, to sell assets.
Conservative could take an unknown number of votes away from National.
-
If you don't want Labour or Greens because they're too middle class, there is another option on the left that is highly unlikely to be a wasted vote - Mana. Hone will almost certainly win his seat, and they are certainly touting as a working class, underclass and disaffected voter option. If anyone you know is just too bitter on Labour and Greens, and feels out of options on the Left, Mana should be a serious consideration. I was actually very tempted myself, I must say. It's quite a powerful idea to set up a party that is ostensibly Maori, but open to all comers, and contains a high profile underclass demagogue in Minto, and very progressive and effective candidate in Bradford, as well as a very powerful electorate candidate in Harawira.
Harawira surprised me quite a lot on iPredict on Stratos (which Bomber has been doing a great job of hosting every night), pitted against Hooton. He came across as quietly confident, reasonable, and unflappable, while Hooton actually ranted at him. The antipathy was palpable. I sensed genuine dismay on Hooton's part, because he's a bloody smart guy and he knows this election isn't going to be the cakewalk for National that telephone polls are suggesting. There's real danger to National in the next few weeks, if all the people that just didn't bother to show up at the last election suddenly change their minds and realize that basically every party but National has a surprising level of agreement on policy, and that those policies are popular with the majority of people who spend more than a minute thinking about them, and that National has only one idea, to sell assets, and that it's a very, very bad idea.
This election is still very open. There are some critical outcomes that could swing things quite a lot.
-
Speaker: The Public Broadcasting Imperative, in reply to Ross Mason,
The timing of these gladiatorial brutal boxing/wrestling/kicking "entertainment events" inside the octagon ring is waaaay inside kids programming time.
If you're talking about MMA it's worth noting that it's considerably less dangerous than boxing. Since 1998 70 people have died in professional boxing matches. From MMA there has been one. The perception that it is more dangerous comes from the bloodsport nature of it, that the fight is not stopped for cuts, and opponents who are knocked down are not given a chance to recover to continue fighting
Both of these are actually less dangerous. I'm yet to hear of anyone dying from facial cuts sustained in a fight, the deaths are almost always from brain damage. And boxing is all about brain damage. After being knocked down, they are allowed to recover, to continue taking blow after blow to the head. In MMA, when they go down, the other fighter jumps on top to take advantage, and always, if the downed fighter is not resisting the referee drags the other fighter off immediately, interposing their own body to prevent any further blows. Also, in MMA "knockouts" include tapouts, which are often from submission techniques, like arm bars and chokes. The damage sustained from jointlocks is usually nothing at all, if the trapped fighter taps out, and if they do sustain damage, they tap out quick smart then. From chokes, people who don't tap, perhaps because they went out "hard and fast", recover within a minute and typically unaware that anything even happened. The deaths have been when the fighters chose to duke it out standing like boxers.
The ferocious looking "ground and pound" seldom results in a complete knockout, because fighters on the ground simply can't generate anywhere near the force, and are hampered by the danger of breaking their hands on the floor. Most of the tapouts come from too much pain, and no chance of a reversal due to exhaustion. Indeed, very often a ground and pound sets up a submission move, which leads to a damage-free "knockout".
Contrast that with a boxer who has sustained dozens of blows to the head from guys who train to do nothing else, groggy and dazed, is knocked down, given a standing eight count, and then promptly knocked unconscious standing, bounces off the ropes for another blow, and then falls head first onto the floor. That's why boxers die. It's only more "civilized" because they don't allow blood. A big part of the reason there is less blood is because they wear padded gloves, which mean, ironically, that the fighters can punch a lot harder, because the danger of damaging their hands is much less. That is why boxing gloves were brought in - crowds found technical knockouts caused by boxers breaking their hands less satisfying than seeing people beaten unconscious over the course of an hour.
A quick look at motorbike racing deaths in Wikipedia gives over 70 too. Over 50 of those are from the Isle of Mann TT. There also 5 deaths of course officials, bystanders and spectators. But you don't see these people bleed, so it's not seen as "gladiatorial".
I'm not saying I don't consider MMA savage and dangerous. But the arguments that it's gladiatorial combat aren't really backed up by the numbers. It's bloodsport, and certainly should not be seen by children.
-
Old Cro Magnon to Young: In my day, we had to catch deer using our hands. You kids have no idea how easy it is with your clubs. That's why you have to give me and your uncle and auntie some of the meat. I gave meat to my mum right up until she died of old age at 27. I would have given Dad some, but he and uncle died fighting the Ungpuns over the hill. You know you're going to get this cave when you're 26, right? For now, you can use it, if you give me some of those roots your woman has been collecting all day.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Yup, she knows him. It's a pretty small community. Apparently he mostly does film of dance now?
My sister's multi-talented too. In this day and age it can actually be something of a curse, because it means you have so much choice that you often find it hard to specialize.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
"I have this scholarship/job/opportunity because I am naturally talented and hard-working" attitude can kick in.
The worst part is that there's of course some truth to it. Some people are more naturally talented and possibly more naturally hard working. But it's by no means the whole story to their success, and to land natural talent is pure luck.
I spent a looooot of time at college in debating tournaments largely populated by kids from private or upper-decile schools. Mostly boys' schools. I know whereof I speak.
ACT wasn't invented when I was at school :-) But upper class arrogance has been alive and well since class was invented (probably pre-historic).
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
And that’s how you get ACT voters, basically; people who are so unable to see how the playing field was slanted their way by luck or birth that they assume that everyone else must have just not tried hard enough.
That's how you get the old ones. The young ones, as I was once, are more of a mystery.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
I imagine it cost my parents a lot more to mostly support me through uni than it did yours, though.
I'm not sure if you mistake me. I mean my parents went through University with kids. I didn't, no way. I paid fees, got a loan and no allowance. My entire weekend spent working earned me $60. My folks covered 3 years of the fees, and let me stay with them. There wasn't any way I could have had kids, even if I'd wanted to. But yes, you're in your 20s, right? I expect you're right that it cost your folks more than it cost mine. I seem to remember that the subsidized percentage was higher in the first year(s?) of the scheme.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 486 487 488 489 490 … 1066 Older→ First