|
Beartaco posted:My plan is to just not give a flying gently caress about Canadian politics while I'm there. I think it'll make life a lot easier.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
I am a dumby and I don't understand why its being reported that national have an absolute majority. Surely at 48% they have to have a coalition with at least one extra person? That isn't absolute - it might be nitpicking but I think its important to be accurate when reporting (or talking actually) about something so serious
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I am a dumby and I don't understand why its being reported that national have an absolute majority. Surely at 48% they have to have a coalition with at least one extra person? That isn't absolute - it might be nitpicking but I think its important to be accurate when reporting (or talking actually) about something so serious Because our media suck, don't know that some terms have specific meanings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Yeah, they do have to go into a coalition but that extra one could just be their pet party ACT which is accurately described as National2 due to how they get in and how little power that gives them in regard to overriding National's policies. Also why bother being accurate about politics now when they haven't before? Looking forward to people describing this as a popular mandate despite it being less than half the people who voted and a third of all the voters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I am a dumby and I don't understand why its being reported that national have an absolute majority. Surely at 48% they have to have a coalition with at least one extra person? That isn't absolute - it might be nitpicking but I think its important to be accurate when reporting (or talking actually) about something so serious 48% of the vote before you remove the party vote for the Conservatives, Internet Mana, Legalize Cannabis, Ban 1080 etc. They have 61 out of 121 MPs, its a majority unless the special votes change anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
So Jason Ede quit, basically proving everything in Dirty Politics is true. But we already knew that. It's just a shame those who support the party don't give a stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
I think part of the problem for Labour is that they tried to beat Key at his own game, effectively turning the Election into a Presidential style race. Cunliffe was never going to compare. A second problem was that the MPs themselves didn't really do much in the way of campaigning, as far as I could see, taking a "secure my electorate then sit back and watch things fall over" approach. The new leader selection process is good, but I think the caucus needs a final veto over who the leader is, otherwise they'll continue to have leaders voted in by the membership/unions and go through this again and again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:48% of the vote before you remove the party vote for the Conservatives, Internet Mana, Legalize Cannabis, Ban 1080 etc. They have 61 out of 121 MPs, its a majority unless the special votes change anything I think they had 62 MPs out of 121 last I checked. But I think Key will offer a symbolic deal to Act and United Future if only to provide cover for the really unpopular stuff they want to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
truther posted:So Jason Ede quit, basically proving everything in Dirty Politics is true. I hope key just went Get the gently caress out and booted his butt out the door
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:I think part of the problem for Labour is that they tried to beat Key at his own game, effectively turning the Election into a Presidential style race. Cunliffe was never going to compare. A second problem was that the MPs themselves didn't really do much in the way of campaigning, as far as I could see, taking a "secure my electorate then sit back and watch things fall over" approach. The new leader selection process is good, but I think the caucus needs a final veto over who the leader is, otherwise they'll continue to have leaders voted in by the membership/unions and go through this again and again. The problem with that is that there's a significant disconnect between what the caucus wants and what the party membership/unions want, with a significant portion of the caucus basically alienating the membership because of the behaviour you described, and by being far too long in the tooth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:I hope key just went Get the gently caress out and booted his butt out the door If by booted out you mean a handshake and "well done" then yeah, that's exactly what happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:The problem with that is that there's a significant disconnect between what the caucus wants and what the party membership/unions want, with a significant portion of the caucus basically alienating the membership because of the behaviour you described, and by being far too long in the tooth. The only way that can be fixed is for the caucus to be renewed with people who will better reflect what the membership wants. That won't happen easily, only a couple of the MPs are list only MPs and the electorates are up to the LECs to select a candidate and they obviously have a good support network in the local communities, that is how they became the candidate for that electorate in the first place. Then even if an electorate MP does stand down there will be a by-election which Labour is not currently in a financial position to fight effectively. Leading to the possibility of an embarrassing loss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Varkk posted:The only way that can be fixed is for the caucus to be renewed with people who will better reflect what the membership wants. That won't happen easily, only a couple of the MPs are list only MPs and the electorates are up to the LECs to select a candidate and they obviously have a good support network in the local communities, that is how they became the candidate for that electorate in the first place. Then even if an electorate MP does stand down there will be a by-election which Labour is not currently in a financial position to fight effectively. Leading to the possibility of an embarrassing loss. Yep, sounds about right. The entrenched MPs should also be doing a hell of a lot better as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
fong posted:National's coalition hasn't stopped them from making all the changes they wanted in education. They got charter schools, national standards, the 6-week teacher training course, and now this new executive principals thing. The only thing that's been holding them back are the unions, otherwise we'd probably have full-on performance pay based on student progress in the standards. I was sitting around a table full of teachers who were all quite chuffed that National got back in, and the very next thing they were talking about was how bad performance pay would be. I just can't comprehend it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Smithersnz posted:I was sitting around a table full of teachers who were all quite chuffed that National got back in, and the very next thing they were talking about was how bad performance pay would be. I just can't comprehend it. They're all secretly thinking "I work harder than anyone here so I'll probably get a pay rise, but I'll commiserate with these losers anyway".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Hamish Rutherford (Stuff) posted:ACT is said to be pushing for Seymour to become a minister, in part to give the party additional resources that come with ministerial funding. However, there is reluctance to grant the wish as it would immediately expose the fresh-faced MP to questions in the House. Not that Seymour answering questions isn't a great image, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Metaconcert posted:Come on, now. this is worse quote:Other MPs expected to see promotion to ministerial roles are likely to include Northland MP Mike Sabin, Botany [wrong electorate] MP and former gardening celebrity Maggie Barry and Paul Goldsmith. police minister for the guy who needs to follow along with his finger when he reads a patsy question? gently caress offff
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:police minister for the guy who needs to follow along with his finger when he reads a patsy question? gently caress offff Well, he's not really breaking any stereotypes for members of police unions, is he?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Hmmm...We need someone in Labour to give us some outrageous quotes for a click-bait article. I know just who to call! http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10529753/Labours-Steve-Gibson-takes-swing-at-Cunliffe
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Commiserations guys. I thought Wayne Mapp's post on Pundit had something reasonable about it. Feel free to disagree. Wayne Mapp posted:I think the term "tory" is really unhelpful in understanding New Zealand politics, and New Zealand generally. There is no coterie of Old Etonians in the National Party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Halfpast_Yellow posted:Wayne Mapp's post quote:Recognise that New Zealand politics is not riddled with corruption. HAHAHAHAHA
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Relatively, I guess. We're not the PRC or India in terms of widespread corruption. Even so, that's a pretty low bar to clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
actually wayne mapp is a stupid bitch nothing labour put forward was a ~sharp swing to the left~ and the greens had john armstrong praising their economics
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Lol the National Candidate for Westcoast-Tasman is in the paper having a whine about biased media coverage negatively impacting her campaign. She got destroyed by O'Connor in the Hokitika region, where she was mayor before stepping down at the last local body elections. She says it was because the paper reported on her term as Mayor led to Hokitika having the highest rate increases and taking on the most debt per ratepayer in the country. The paper left out the details that a lot of the money was spent on junkets for her and some of her friends. She is currently going to be a list MP so long as National doesn't drop any in the specials. So she will fit right in I guess. Also National scored highly in the party vote here. Mostly because people are convinced if Labour gets in the Greens will close the mines. But ignore the fact that mines closed by Green party is 0 mines closed by National is at least 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
quote:National took on board the lesson that New Zealand is a fundamentally moderate nation after the departure of Don Brash. What a crock of poo poo, National took on board the lesson that if they bash Maori 'privileges' hard enough, and push the talking point that Maori are all welfare bludgers descended from savages who need saving by the civilised European they would see a 20% rise in their polling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
quote:For Labour to succeed they have to stop going on about the failure of the "neo-liberal experiment". The reforms of the 1980's are now 30 years ago. The GFC did not fundamentally unsettle them. It is time to accept that New Zealand is not going to get back to a modernised form of the 1970's. how do you even go about unpacking a statement like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:how do you even go about unpacking a statement like that? It's true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Also National scored highly in the party vote here. Mostly because people are convinced if Labour gets in the Greens will close the mines. But ignore the fact that mines closed by Green party is 0 mines closed by National is at least 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:What a crock of poo poo, National took on board the lesson that if they bash Maori 'privileges' hard enough, and push the talking point that Maori are all welfare bludgers descended from savages who need saving by the civilised European they would see a 20% rise in their polling. On the flipside Labour completely hosed Maori over with actual legislation (F&S Act) leading to the creation of the MP. The act was repealed and replaced under the National led government in 2011 with support from the MP, with the new act designed to address the fundamental rights of Maori violated by the Labour legislation. Whether it addressed them to satisfaction is up for debate. So there is that. Halfpast_Yellow fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Halfpast_Yellow posted:On the flipside Labour completely hosed Maori over with actual legislation (F&S Act) leading to the creation of the MP. The act was repealed and replaced under the National led government in 2011 with support from the MP, with the new act designed to address the fundamental rights of Maori violated by the Labour legislation. Whether it addressed them to satisfaction is up for debate. I agree, however I don't recall an immense boost to Labour's polls on the back of the Foreshore and Seabed bill (contrasted with the more racially divisive Orewa speech), nor does Maoridom seem particularly happy with the replacement F&S Act from 2011. El Pollo Blanco fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Orewa is and was total bullshit, but they did ultimately lose the post speech election and turf out that leader. Are you saying the National party of 2014 is still closely defined by the Don Brash speech in 2004? 10 years is a long time in politics. In more current events the Conservatives seem to have taken up the mantle of 'gently caress Maaaari Bludgers' and they didn't cross the 5%. Halfpast_Yellow fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Halfpast_Yellow posted:Whether it addressed them to satisfaction is up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Halfpast_Yellow posted:Orewa is and was total bullshit, but they did ultimately lose the post speech election and turf out that leader. Are you saying the National party of 2014 is still closely defined by the Don Brash speech in 2004? 10 years is a long time in politics. No, National's leadership today being defined by Brash's speech was not my point, nor am I contending that. My point was that National saw an increase of 20% in the polls as a result of the most racially divisive speech we've seen as a country in many years, and they retained that share of the vote to propel them to victory in 2008. The success of National gaining and retaining that share of the vote on the back of Brash's speech does not strike me as an example of swing voters in NZ being 'fundamentally moderate', as Mapp claims they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:It's true. for a start there's no way you could reasonably describe the policy of anyone on the left as a modernised form of the 1970s
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:for a start there's no way you could reasonably describe the policy of anyone on the left as a modernised form of the 1970s If you read Hansard for the debate on the Employment Relations Act amendment, quite a few National MPs believe the policies of the left are actually a modernised form of the 1870s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:for a start there's no way you could reasonably describe the policy of anyone on the left as a modernised form of the 1970s "a modernised form of the 1970s" is his way of describing the left's goal of resetting the betrayal of the fourth Labour government Back to the Future style. In practice of course, including 9 years under Helen, it's been full steam ahead on the neo-liberal express for nearly 30 years. We are never going back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
But we can't keep going forward. Our current economy is unsustainable, our superannuation bill is gonna double over next decades. We're on track for 4° warming, and might just hit our stretch goal of 6°: can't farm cows on a planet that does not support any mammalian life. Neoliberalism in NZ has been a going out of business sale - the rich strip our assets, borrow against the future and then time it right to gently caress off before the decades of can-kicking stops. I still figure Key is good for 5 terms. This guy is good. Edit/ Leadership opinions please: should Cunliffe stay? Would Shearer or Robertson do better? My thinks is that Robertson might be the best raw talent of the 3, but the leader is the least of Labour's problems right now dusty fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:No, National's leadership today being defined by Brash's speech was not my point, nor am I contending that. My point was that National saw an increase of 20% in the polls as a result of the most racially divisive speech we've seen as a country in many years, and they retained that share of the vote to propel them to victory in 2008. The success of National gaining and retaining that share of the vote on the back of Brash's speech does not strike me as an example of swing voters in NZ being 'fundamentally moderate', as Mapp claims they are. It's interesting though because if we take that conclusion, both ACT and Cons tried Orewa style politics this election, and combined less than 5% of the vote. Why can't what effected a 20% poll swing back then not get a party over the 5% threshold mark now? Have swing voters moved from being fundamentally driven by racism? Racism exists in NZ but it's a pretty interesting question to ask whether less than %5, 10%, 20% or more of the country are effected by race based policy as a primary vote driver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
dusty posted:Leadership opinions please: should Cunliffe stay? Would Shearer or Robertson do better? Cunliffe has been disappointing with some problems of his making and others not. Out of the three though, I'd agree that Robertson is probably the most talented and most likely to be able to bring caucus in line and be an option the membership will be happy with. The important thing is for the Mallards, Goffs and Kings to be phased out, but as has been stated already, triggering a by-election isn't really an option for Labour. The best way about it would be to shoulder-tap them one by one and shuffle them out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 09:21
|
|