I went away for the weekend, returned to find this thread was top of the recents list and thought damn, how did I miss it. Relieved to discover it's last year's thread.
Rob is clearly trying to get an unfair advantage for this year's competition.
I was 5, living in Edinburgh, and JFK was shot. I remember reading the front page of the newspaper - my parents never bought the newspaper but they did that day.
The Nats might be a more effective opposition than they were a government. Let's hope they have time to get used to it.
He must be skirting close to treason at the moment.
Depends whether your disloyalty is to the Constitution or the President.
I don't think it's ignorance. It's spin doctoring. It's trying to put another column on record for the idea that National still has a moral authority to be the government.
if it were to mean that many people's first election was when they were still in a school environment
got to eliminate the charter schools first then!
The parties really have no case for objecting to a version of MMP which returns one MP for a party based on a no-threshold party vote, because right up until the 2017 election they have shown themselves perfectly happy to make accommodations that produce one electorate MP for a party that fails the party vote test.
Patronising claptrap from somebody called Stacey who has apparently earned an opinion column in Stuff: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97367387/stacey-kirk-honour-above-the-environment-greens-hold-a-deck-of-aces-theyre-refusing-to-play
While the Greens remain stubbornly ignorant of what they could gain from National, a deal won't work.
I don't know why she couldn't write "While the Greens are aware of what they could gain from National, they also recognise that a deal won't work and so are not offering one." Except that wouldn't make the Greens look stupid or stubborn, which is the impression I think she wants to put across...