|
ClubmanGT posted:Someone who isn't seen as symptomatic of Labour's inability to select credible candidates and there purely by virtue of the union vote? This is a major opportunity for the left to stamp its brand on something straight out of the blocks with a new leader and both Len Brown and David Shearer have shifted uncomfortably and looked away. A blog post on Red Alert isn't enough. Skipping around the issue isn't enough. Labour: pro-worker, but only when it suits. I think it was NRT who wrote it best: 'I hate National but at least they believe in something" (paraphrase)
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
I left New Zealand last year because I started in a graduate wage just before the recession hit and then couldn't get a payrise for three years despite my responsibilities increasing dramatically, and working 70 hours a week (public sector). Now I earn twice as much in the hand, pay very little tax and don't have to pay tax/Kiwisaver/student loans - even though I have sub $2k left so that'll be gone soon. All I did was change countries, I still work in the same industry in a similar role. In New Zealand I would regularly be down to my last $5 before payday or borrowing money off my parents. In your late 20s with a professional degree and a public service job, that's no way to live. Anyone who's lived in Wellington will tell you cost of living is astronomical there now. If you're just starting out like I was a few years ago, you *really* got the sharp end of the stick as cost of living soared in Wellington. I miss New Zealand and my friends/family but there's just no way I could go back without taking a massive paycut. Financial stability is important to me and I just couldn't have it in NZ. Edit: also it's not a nice time to work public sector and have zero nest egg in case of restructuring etc, I would have been completely hosed if I'd been made redunduant miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:It's not really a nice time to work anywhere. A lot of the grads in firms are just leaving once their ticket is clipped. The five or so friends I know who have gone into financial services are basically taking bets on who will be made redundant first. No one wants to start a family or buy a house or risk money on fun stuff because they'll still have student loans to service if they do land another job. New Zealand has a real problem with graduates and professionals leaving, but also because the only ones that seem to be staying these days are ones that aren't. It's hard to create a top flight economy when a huge number of your skilled professionals are leaving for good, and the ones that are coming up are only hireable for manual labour jobs or are dependent on state support. It's just a different kind of economy now from the one I grew up in where blue collar jobs were still the backbone of the economy. New Zealand is finding itself unequipped for making it in a modern economy. 10-15 years from now, NZ is really going to be up poo poo creek. I look around my social circle - pretty much everyone who made it to university is gone. The only people I know who are staying are the ones who dropped out early and started having kids the state now pays for. And that's not even counting the death of the regions who have very few tertiary sectors and ever declining blue collar jobs (bar mining or meat processing really).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
New guy, just like the old guy...? Seems pretty stupid to go so softly softly when profile and leadership brand is going to be by far your biggest problem starting completely from scratch with a hostile caucus, and you're going against a very popular Prime Minister. Time will tell I guess. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10780064
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
I actually think the Government largely did a good job with the response to Christchurch, there was once chance to get it right and I'm glad they did a thorough job. That said, I think the rebuild has probably been slowed by the insurance situation. The seismic activity hasn't slowed down nearly enough for many investors to feel safe rebuilding, particularly with the insurance situation as dicey as it is. Edit: beaten by seconds, I completely agree
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Varkk posted:So, what is happening in Japan in terms of aftershocks and insurance? I'm not sure Phil Goff was ever serious about that more than trying to get some facetime in Chch on earthquake issues where the government was simply so dominant. Which raises a point: how does Labour establish a point of difference from the government on quake issues where the Opposition is powerless and thus in this instance, irrelevant? It's not like arguing about WFF changes or whatever where there is a policy debate. In ChCh, the urgency for action has always outweighed the luxury of political to-ing and fro-ing. I know Shearer has been down in ChCh saying "this is bigger than politics" but I just can't see a way in which Labour can make itself relevant on a policy scale, particularly when people don't really want change as much as they need consistency. Edit: obviously this is going to be a massive, dominant issue this year and one Labour needs to get a foothold on miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Jan 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Could it be that Close Up is doing real journalism Could it be?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
JR ANTI SEX LEAGUE posted:This is so embarrassing. Anyone who's spent more than a few minutes online already knows that there are creeps on the internet, it's the opposite of cutting edge journalism. At least internet creeps is something to be legitimately angry about, rather than manufacturing faux outrage and scandal at every opportunity as Close Up usually does.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:Having it as your big story for your 2012 return is hardly a cause celebre when you've got legit issues like the Ports of Auckland strike or the Megaupload case or South Carolina or I'm just being naive to think that CloseUp would even deign to discuss hardhitting news aren't I. Not sure that the New Zealand public at large really gives a poo poo about South Carolina or could even point to it on a map. I'm sure if both parties in the POA dispute would agree to have it out live on CloseUp at 7pm, they would be all over it but the chances of that happening are equal to a snowball's in hell. As much as I would like it to happen, David Shearer won't be fronting up either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
Yeah buying the regions is a whole different kettle of fish to buying in Auckland or Wellington.... I could buy a rental house in Invercargill if I wanted to, but yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Yet another well thought out blog post on Red Alert with correct grammar and salient poin.... oh http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/01/22/destroy-dangerous-dogs/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Yeeeaaaahhhhh http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/01/24/red/ Labour MPs really aren't doing a great job is demonstrating why Red Alert should stay (which is, of course, why it will stay).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Also, The ACT candidate for Dunedin south while actually a really nice person (and also a debater) can only be described as basically classically young libertarian i.e. pretty drat crazy. She is about 22, lives a polyamorous lifestyle with a 'primary' partner/slept with lots of people, formerly worked as a dancer at Dunedins strip club Stilleto's and hates fatties. Sorry, but what does their sex life have to do with their being - in your lofty opinion - 'damaged goods', or their political views? What a bunch of sluts, right? Bitches be trippin', right? I hate ACT as much as anyone but there's no need for that sexist, moralistic bullshit. If you disagree with someone's political persuasion, fine, but don't be the guy who pontificates from on high and paints someone as a "damaged goods" because she has a lot of sex and you happen to disagree with her political views. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:You are correct in that sentence alone there are no issues but I have elaborated it a little more in other posts. See's sexual encounters as conquests, horrendously judgmental about appearances, hates 'fatties', deceives the way into the sack, thinks women need more personal responsibility to avoid rapes. You do realise you that calling a woman "horrendously judgmental" while unapologetically running her down with slut-shaming that you are, in fact, a massive hypocrite and a disgusting, unabashed misogynist? Congrats on having the most hosed up, sociopathic views toward women I've ever heard. Sounds like you might be bitter because you're the only one she won't gently caress, but you might want to go to Student Health and talk to someone about your serious misogynism issues. As someone who knows people at Otago debating and with close relatives in Otago law (I'm guessing that's the faculty camp you went to), your attitude toward women who you don't deem to be "pure" scares the poo poo out of me. Get therapy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
News: Teapot tape allegedly leaked online, though I haven't heard it. Views: While it will get the media in a lather, someone is a massive dumbass given this is before the courts and has to have come from someone at one of the media organisations being investigated or Ambrose himself in which case he is the biggest dumbass on the planet. Interesting times. Edit: what I mean is its clearly been done to spruik the PM's big speech which is smart I guess but also political motivated so I'm willing to bet this person will probably have not been especially careful, and an interesting timing choice given the Cabinet will likely approve the Crafar farms sale today which is a massive long term piece for the left narrative and a huge story which the Cabinet can now bury. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
I just don't know why someone would release this today when there are two major anti-government stories that will run at the top of the bulletin: the decidedly lukewarm economy numbers and the Crafar farms, both of which could produce significant anti-National traction and better play into an anti-government sentiment. Labour will of course play the teapot tape and not the actual issues which could help them more long term (bizarro alliance between Shearer and known economic patriot Michael Fay aside). Surely you would wait for clear air and try to land 3 anti-government hits instead of 1 (and burying the two)? If you had it, why wouldn't you wait until it was a bit quiet or until it made more strategic sense? Either way, Bradley Ambrose clearly didn't delete the tape which is surely in contempt of his court remarks? What are the legal ramifications for him out of this release, legal eagles? Edit: other big stories today: hysteria as people arrested at Occupy Auckland, coup in PNG which has regional ramifications etc. Seems like an odd day to try and go big. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
....aaaaaaand the tape is pretty much about nothing just as they said. Well played leaker! You really got them! Meanwhile David Shearer is backing Michael Fay's bid for Crafar WTF I don't even.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Honestly, this says far more about the integrity of our news outlets than anything else. The only thing that should come of this is a spate of political editor's resignations and an apology for rail-roading the media's own election coverage to be about them, and not the actual election. Yeah, the unintended consequence of leaking the tape is that is basically what exactly the the Prime Minister basically said it was - not a huge conspiracy that will take down the government and paint everyone with unelectable character flaws like the media made it out to be. The media might consume itself with manufactured outrage about the Winston comments and his circus, but they were certainly true at the time and I think the wider public will agree. Given the tape backs up what he said, and potentially puts Bradley Ambrose even deeper in the legal doo-doo, who's really the winner here? I'm not sure the leaker really thought this through. Torka: David Garrett stole a dead baby's identity which is arguably worse than both?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Angry Moo Cow posted:
I really can't believe there are conspiracy theorists thinking Key secretly released the tape. Some people are just unbelievably dumb. If there was nothing on the tape of note (gamechanging, my rear end) then maybe Key really did file the lawsuit on the basis of the illegality of recording secret conversations, to set a mark on principle. Maybe the reason he did it is actually the reason he said he did. Clearly the fact the evil John Key might have actually done something on principle is too much for some people to handle, and now he released the tape? Why on earth would he do that after everything? On another issue, what the hell do Occupy Auckland think they're achieving now? I think Breakfast's live coverage of the 'raid' was a new low, but I'm not sure WTF is even going on with those people anymore. Penny Bright does far more damage than good to any cause she associates herself with. She called me a sell-out corporate whore once.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
hairypanis posted:It fell flat on it's face; the public view them as dirty hippies hippies and homeless poors, compounded by the lovely Fairfax journalism which did absolutely nothing to try and bring any semblance of balance to the issue. It's not the media's fault they got a bad rap when they couldn't even tell you themselves why they are occupying Aotea Square or what they hoped to achieve.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Yes, this certainly was the media narrative. Where were the serious economic policy proposals from these disenfranchised unemployed people, asks the comfortable tv1 reporter with their taxpayer subsidised wage. What are they even protesting, who can tell??? It's already been addressed, but when you're pitching a tent in a public area in solidarity with a movement with very real economic issues (in America, at least), when a reporter sticks a mic in front of your face and it's you big opportunity to make a statement, you should... you know.... have a point. I'm not sure OWS New Zealand has made a point about economic inequality, given pretty much everyone just rolls their eyes whenever they are on the news and they have really just alienated the very people they are seeking to influence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Give me a second, my eyes rolled back in my head so far all I can see right now is the underside of my brain. "We're occupying Aotea Square because we firmly believe that New Zealand is suffering from systemic division where the rich are becoming richer and the poorer are becoming poorer, and that it simply can't continue. New Zealand is an amazing country, but lower and income families simply can't access the opportunities that more wealthy New Zealanders take for granted. We're here to stand up for those people suffering. " There you go. It doesn't need to be a thesis on Marx or academic tomes on social inequality. It just needs to be a message and a point that's not Penny Bright screaming on TV again about poisoned water. It's not a media conspiracy when they turn up wanting a point of view and some lunatic undermines the movement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:My point wasn't that they don't have a point and couldn't make one, my point was that the media wouldn't show that, because the dirty idiot hippy both fits the narrative better and is far more sensational. Is there a group of well spoken, totally sane occupiers who are sitting on the sidelines of the tent site going 'alas! these crazies are hijacking our agenda and we just can't get airtime!' The media isn't choosing to cover the bits that best fit their capitalist agenda, this is literally what the Occupy NZ movement is presenting to the public and that's the problem if the movement wants to move outside the diehard protestors that turn up to every drat thing. The public wants to know why they are occupying, but Occupy doesn't seem to be able to say why, despite having a million opportunities to do. If Occupy want to be taken seriously, it needs to start presenting itself in a serious way. If no one takes you seriously, what's the point? Edit: Yeah, Wellington isn't so bad but Wellington based activists tend to be more organised
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:It sounds like you can afford not to pay attention. I was inferring to the fact that all New Zealanders have access to public healthcare, an extremely generous social welfare system when they need it, a robust public education system from kindergarten, no-fault accident compensation, etc, which is considered an unaffordable luxury in the United States and is a big part of their '99%' message. Lots of the American Occupy demands simply aren't relevant here because New Zealand government provides those services which we take for granted. But thanks for making big-rear end assumptions about my financial situation anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 13:29
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:If you're Pakeha or Asian and can afford a top level private school such as Kings, Kristen or St. Kents or live in the zone of a high decile state school like EGGS, ASHS or TGS, then sure. I don't really think you have to go to a top end Auckland private school to get a good education and everything else is a write off. Yes, there are problems in some schools and it's an incredibly complex issue around achievement, but I don't think you can write off the many many hundreds of mid-decile public schools to who do a good job for their students with teachers who are passionate about teaching a solid curriculum. I've lived in both NZ and the US for lengths of time, and in comparison to what the Americans have (or don't have, being more apt), New Zealanders are extremely fortunate to have that safety net. When I lived in the US, I worked with people going bankrupt because they got cancer and couldn't afford thousands per month in healthcare insurance. In the state I was, they couldn't even build a high school in a town of 40,000 because there was no public money. The closest school was private, so kids either paid tens of thousands in fees, or commuted 30km to the nearest school. No state housing. In NZ, if you get seriously ill, a hospital will look after you for free. Breaking your leg or even giving birth in a hospital doesn't mean bankruptcy. Some states in the US are even arguing whether the unemployment benefit should exist. The recession tanked all their superannuation savings. Entire families are forced on the streets. For many, if you get knocked down, there is no one to help you get back up again. New Zealand has its social problems, absolutely, but a large part of what the 99% is arguing in the US is that what should be a basic right of a citizen is the domain of only the very rich. Edit: yeah, the rent situation in large cities like Auckland and Wellington is really getting tough particularly with incomes relatively stagnant and public transport prices on the rise - where it even exists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:So what about that Bob Parker eh? What a dick. I think the odds of them all being out on their rear end by the end of March is high.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:There are also other issues - there's no incentive for people to make the switch to teaching since they're taking a significant pay cut when considering the actual hours worked, which can often end up as 12-hour days. You then get treated like poo poo by a minister who probably doesn't even know what the gently caress a curriculum is, the Teachers Council which doesn't even have a single teacher on it that seems to be designed to gouge money out of you on a regular basis and those ERO cunts that show up once in a while to breathe down your neck. That's not to mention the parents who get mad at you because their fucktard brat got a N/A for not doing any of their homework and handing in a piece of poo poo internal assessment they had 3 weeks to work on that they clearly threw together 10 minutes before it was due to be handed in and the people who don't know what they're talking about, who clearly reckon they're educational experts because they walked by a school once. You really think ERO shouldn't exist? Being a teacher is a lot more difficult than people give credit for, and there's lots of bits that are tough, but I'm not sure I'd call an ERO review 'mistreatment'. I know a whole bunch of teachers who really enjoy their jobs. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Jan 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Tell me where I said ERO is unnecessary. Apologies, I infered from... Vagabundo posted:There are also other issues - there's no incentive for people to make the switch to teaching since they're taking a significant pay cut when considering the actual hours worked, which can often end up as 12-hour days. You then get treated like poo poo by a minister who probably doesn't even know what the gently caress a curriculum is, the Teachers Council which doesn't even have a single teacher on it that seems to be designed to gouge money out of you on a regular basis and those ERO cunts that show up once in a while to breathe down your neck. ... that you thought ERO was a bad thing since they are cunts breathing down the neck of teachers. Apologies for inferring you may think a better option exists. Edit: argh tags
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
Does having a minister who is a former teacher really make much of a difference? A lot has been said about Anne Tolley, but Trevor Mallard was a former teacher and he was universally despised as well. Seems like a millstone around the neck of anyone who gets it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
An great piece from Jane Clifton in The Listener, the most interesting piece of which is this.... http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/politics/talking-about-a-resolution/ Jane Clifton posted:Never think the expression “There is nothing so ex as an ex-politician” does not apply to you: This is not just a truism for the obvious tragically unrisen soufflé, Don Brash. Helen Clark, not content with running a slice of the universe from New York, acted as adviser to Cunliffe during the recent leadership auction. Was this public? I had no idea. There had always been the whole "Helen Clark sticking her break in from NY" from the right wing memesphere but I didn't expect it to actually be true. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
Not sure why the Maori Party would posture about leaving the government when they don't have to vote with the government on asset sales, and leaving confidence and supply doesn't actually affect anything as the government still has the numbers. So, just posturing. It doesn't really affect anything. I'm pretty sure they've threatened to do this before as well. They'll stay because a) they couldn't really care less when Ngai Tahu sells Maori assets to foreigners and b) the alternative is hanging with Hone and Winston.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Speaking of Key being a oval office, I agree with Nicky Hagar in that we're probably already well passed the high watermark for Key's popularity and we're probably starting to see the cracks. Has there been any preferred PM polling since the election to back this up? I'm not in NZ anymore so a bit out of the loop, but Shearer has come out of the gates strong in directly contradicting his own finance spokesperson by saying James Cameron shouldn't be allowed to buy land and move here with his family - which is frankly just embarrassing - and as long as John Key is still up 50% in preferred PM I can't see anything changing in the short term. Sharples knew about the TPK restructuring, he is after all the Minister and TPK answers to him. That said, I'm not sure your average Maori voter gets too wound up about 50 job losses in a government department, in affluent Wellington. I guess I'm saying that a TPK restructure won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the Maori Party. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 12:15
|
|
|
The election is also three years away, and the Roy Morgan bounces around so much a 1% change in a month is statistical noise, really.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:True, but at the same time, there is a noticeable downward trend in National's RM poll numbers since shortly after the Rugby World Cup - not that I'm suggesting his awkward 3-way handshake cost him votes or anything. I was more highlighting the overall trend that emerges from a long-term view at the RM polls. That's true, but it's polling 2 months after the government was re-elected. So it's all pretty much meaningless and just a way to fill the papers during the summer holiday.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 09:26
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:But then again, there's already been quite a bit of activity during the last month and the polls were taken during that period, from National potentially alienating their biggest coalition partner when in the long term, they can't actually afford to do so and any fall-out from the Waitangi protests, where John Key bravely ran away, bravely ran away away. On the contrary, I think the Waitangi events will actually see Key pick up votes rather than lose them. Those protestors will have zero support in the wider public. Some may agree with their sentiments, but basically nobody agrees with their tactics. Key came out of that looking like the bigger person which is never a bad thing. Not to mention the racial slurs were absolutely disgusting so the protestors aren't exactly winning people over to their cause like that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 12:10
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:I don't think this year's round of protests are really the same as previous ones. This time round, there are some fresh grievances against the government with the (mis)handling of Article 9, including the gaffe that gave away they plan on getting rid of that part of the legislation anyway. Unlike the Aotea Square tent city people, the protest hasn't had the time to become hijacked and turned into something about the protesters, rather than their cause either. I disagree. That protest was all about the protestors trying to get on TV and trampling on Maori protocol for a attention, with a healthy dose of racial slurs. Maybe different issues, but it's the same old bullshit every year at Waitangi from the same group of people. Those protests will have zero effect on John Key's polling - if anything it will go up. If you want to influence the debate, there's better ways to do it than trying to physically attack someone and casually tossing around that kind language.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
dusty posted:Flavell is the only one with any real skin in game - which is why he's suddenly interested in appealling to the electorate. Reading between the lines I'd pick Pita is the only one wanting to support National - hence the good cop routine. There was talk of Flavell wanting to roll him earlier this year iirc, so clearly all is not copacetic below the surface of the party. I'm not sure so about that. Tariana Turia deeply despises the Labour Party from a personal perspective and that's pretty much the only reason the Maori Party keep sticking it to them. I definitely get the impression that Tariana calls the shots, for better for worse. I also think that John Key realises exactly what she's trying to do, and he's a much better politician than she is. He very rarely comes out of anything like this without the upper hand. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Feb 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
dusty posted:Turia is fueled on nothing but bile and spite; her hatred for Labour is something else. And fair enough too in a way: Labour proper-hosed the foreshore (with opposition coming from everyone: rednecks, greens, Maori, academia; infact anyone who wasn't a Labour MP at the time. What's the last substantive push Labour made for Maori - the 4th Labour Gvt canned their headline social policy Closing the Gaps, so in my estimation you'd have to go back to historical claims in 1985. Sharples is supposed to retire this term so that's the the Flavell stuff comes about. I don't think it's animosity. On an unrelated point about public opinion on assets sales, I'm starting to wonder if the public opposition to asset sales is more 'well I don't really have an opinion, but since you're asking me in this poll and I don't want to see unpatriotic, I'm going to say I'm against it when really I don't really care". It just hasn't picked up steam in the mainstream. Key flagged it well in advance and despite a heavy campaign by Labour, it didn't really go anywhere. It would certainly explain why the polls say the public is against asset sales, but on the whole no one is really motivated to change their vote or take action against it. There's just no heat in the issue. It kind of showed how little political judgment Labor had when they went to war over it based on focus groups and polling but couldn't get any traction. Sort of a Bill Bradley effect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
NITOS FLAME KEEPER posted:It's more that we can't do poo poo. He announced that it was policy at the start of last year, it was one of the major policy issues of the election and it was constantly on the TV and the papers. There was a lot of public debate. If the New Zealand public didn't want asset sales, they had an election where they could have gotten rid of the government. They knew what they were getting, and voted for it. This wasn't exactly a last minute surprise going to the polls. Something like 70%? of people were against it, but it made very little difference to the polls. Seems like a pretty big enthusiasm gap to me. Voter were well aware of what Key's policy was, and they may not want them sold, but who owns the minority stake in an SOE doesn't really concern them as much as the Christchurch rebuild or mortgage interest rates. I saw today was the first Question Time, how did Shearer go?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
ledge posted:The PM having an hour long show on talk back radio in the run up to an election is political after all. Who would have thunk it. Interesting that RadioLive got it legalled by the Electoral Commission who said it was okay only for the Electoral Commission to refer it to the police afterward. From what I recall, Labour only started chasing the law angle when Phil Goff didn't get an hour as well. I definitely got the impression it was totally okay to break the law so long as they got to as well. From the story in the Herald, Robertson said "well had we had the offer we would have considered the legal bit" - like hell, they would have been all over it and done the exact same thing. Will be interesting to see where it goes - probably nowhere, just like the other complaints. Like Grant Robertson said, the horse has already bolted. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 00:36
|
|