Hard News: He even has his Baldrick
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Graeme. I would be interested to know, what is the difference between a welfare state desired by Social Democrats and a nanny state desired of, um I don't quite know who? Is Field now more honourable in his appearance to you than those nanny statists he left behind?
-
Or his principle is that the Government shouldn't interfere in NZer's family lives. And he doesn't want to be a member of a political party that doesn't hold to that principle.
heh. If he doesn't want to interfere in people's lives, he shouldn't be a politician!
-
CAS1310-73-2 Said :
Is that figure still 80%? will it be in 6 months? will be interesting
Was it ever really 80% - how much confidence do we have in these polls to be true representations of the NZ public? Personally I always take those types of polls with a very large grain of salt.
But you raise a very good question - once it becomes clear exactly what the implications of the changes are how will this affect peoples acceptance of the changes.
-
Or his principle is that the Government shouldn't interfere in NZer's family lives.
Copeland? Really? Guess it depends on your definition of 'family'.
-
Or his principle is that the Government shouldn't interfere in NZer's family lives. And he doesn't want to be a member of a political party that doesn't hold to that principle.
If that were true then he should resign from politics altogether. All parties want to (and do) interfere in NZer's family lives, just not in the same way.
His 'principle' in this case is that family lives should only be interfered with in ways that he supports.
-
Is that figure still 80%? will it be in 6 months? will be interesting
Will probably go the way of the prostitution reform and Civil Union bills. Eg eveyone forgets about them and moves on to the next slight on "family" values.
-
Hmph. I don't think Copeland's decision has all that much to do with the Bradford bill - given that he's been seriously ruminating on this move since January (a VERY long time in politics!). I think he's conscious that UF has been bleeding support because it's not clearly distinguishing itself from the major parties (as was the case with the Alliance/ Progressives/ whatever they ended up being called), and he's betting that he's not going to end up representing UF in Parliament after next year anyway - so if he wants to establish any kind of platform & profile for a new party before the next election, he'd better make the break now.
Copeland's position of the Bradford bill is a useful justification for his move as it's better to make the break because of a point of difference (as opposed to just being fed up generally), and it's guaranteed to get some media coverage and the germ of a support base from people who are conservative Christians but want a less rabid alternative than Brian Tamaki. I don't consider his move to be a cynical one, rather I believe it's a fair political strategy - but that's my explanation for why the rationale he's offered doesn't bear close scrutiny.
-
Don - in base terms, a welfare state is one that gives you money to raise your children, a Nanny state is one that tells you how to raise your children. I'd note that my use of the terms was largely rhetorical to get across the point that the Conservative vote Field might take wouldn't be to National's detriment.
More honourable than those he left behind - no. But I probably think more of him in some sense than I otherwise would have. Much in the same way I started to admire Milosevic in his final years...
Paul - I've no problem with the existence of politicians who vote against everything. I don't think I'd vote for them, but ACT (particularly of late) seems to be setting itself apart as a party that opposes state intervention. The alternative of "well, I oppose the unbundling of the local loop, for example, so I'll make it so only those who support it are in Parliament" would be a little odd :-)
-
a welfare state is one that gives you money to raise your children, a Nanny state is one that tells you how to raise your children
So New Zealand became a Nanny State in 1877 with the passing of the Education Act, making children's education compulsory.
-
3410,
Time to start the discussion on the abolition of the undemocratic threshold? Certainly not my cup of tea, but Destiny New Zealand scored enough votes at the last election to get Richard Lewis into Parliament. What right in a democracy have the rest of us to tell them to stuff off unless they earn enough votes for 6 MPs?
Graeme,
Any party need only have one electorate MP elected in order to gain representation for their party. Indeed, United Future is in parliament, not for reaching the threshold - which if memory serves, it didn't - but by virtue of Dunne's Ohariu-Belmont win.
Also note that, contrary to your implication, it is now easier than ever for small parties to win parliamentary representation. Recall 1981, where Social Credit scored more than a fifth of the popular vote, though attained seats only for Beetham and Knapp, out of the then 60.
Personally, I'm getting pretty sick of these oppurtunistic "centrist", "common sense" parties (NZF, UF) hijacking the middle 5% of parliament. If anything, the threshold should be raised.
-
For the record, Copeland's press conference yesterday, audio on Scoop:
Each of us in United Future have had the privilege, unlike those in the Labour party and, after the compromise, in the National party, of actually being able to follow our conscience.
So naturally he left.
(He might have said many wise and wonderful things thereafter, but listening to 5 minutes of a Copeland press conference was enough for one day, sorry. Scoop has it in full, if you're even sadder than I am).
-
Ironically most right leaning Christian libertarians oppose state interferance into peoples lives but accept attampts by their Church interfearance in people's lives.
-
Sorry I really need to learn how to spell , third time lucky "Interference"
-
Heading off on a tangent (again), Copeland’s defection presents the following opportunity for Election 2008….
The First United Future of New Zealand Party
Or
The Future for New Zealand United party
Or
The United New Zealand First partyor <fill it in yourself>
Co- leaders of course (just like the greens)
lazy $5 bucks anyone
-
Alliance/ Progressives/ whatever they ended up being called
FWIW, the Alliance is still called the Alliance, and the Progressive party is still called Jim.
-
I just find it hilarious Copeland was late for the actual vote.
Oh, and this: Salon: Tinky Winky says bye-bye to Jerry Falwell
-
And while "alliance" is moot, "united" is close to deceptive advertising.
-
the progressives have a candidate running for christchurch mayorilty on a platform of pro-economic development and pro-free education insurance policy, (now that gaz has got 87 directorships) that ll please jim.
also re chronicle of higher education article on iraqi professors being shot up reminds me of hitler burning books, china rewriting histories and the us business party exploiting global system to dominate energy supply and manipulate soverign states. marvellous
-
And while "alliance" is moot, "united" is close to deceptive advertising
For that matter, so is "future."
-
Or his principle is that the Government shouldn't interfere in NZer's family lives.
I assume he'll be campaigning to repeal compulsory school attendance so kids can be put out to support the family at 12, like my grandad.
After all, it's interefering in family lives to force me to keep my kids in school.
-
If that's his principle.
I don't believe he's said it is, I was merely formulating a soundbite-friendly response to someone's suggestion that there couldn't be a principle behind Copeland's move.
The principle of non-interference with family life, to which no-one may in fact adhere, is a principle upon which someone might withdraw from a political party. There are obviously others to which one could nail one's colours, and Copeland is welcome to do that.
-
NaOH said:
marvellous
Are you really John Campbell?
-
Silence!
-
oh and also 15 minutes to the budget.
marvellous -
As part of the Vanity Fair interview with Hitchens the interviewer as part of a question says -
Lawrence Wright says in his one-man show, "My Trip to al-Qaeda," that getting along with women is a large part of what civilization is about.
Quite an interesting observation.
The Times has podcasts of Dawkins and Hitchens, not surprisingly, arguing for the affirmative in - Are we better off without religion?.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.