Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever you want to call it

134 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I get he’s not actually talking to anyone who doesn’t get a vote in the Labour leadership, but posturing to the base can very quickly become a liability in the campaign

    I've already seen other people lament that candidates will stress their left credentials in this process and then tack right once selected to prep for general election. So... meh.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Russell Brown,

    There may be a conversation for the Greens to have in that.

    Particularly since the thought of Norman as Minister of Finance will encourage some people to vote National just to avoid that happening.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    "Fuck you" is the correct answer. A parliament cannot bind it's successor - Key may have purported to do so by signing up for a 30 year contract, but statutes can always void contracts.

    I'm sure this will piss off the labour-voting Sky City shareholders - both of them.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Sofie, what I meant was that to me they all seemed very much interchangeable.

    I think as this proceeds we will spot the differences but we really already know them if one watches the Party. The fact is they all need to convince and win over the public, That is when the strengths will show up.
    I never watched this programme you speak of so I will go find it. Did RB link?? I wonder....

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Jon J.,

    Regarding the deputy prime ministership, and remembering our malleable constitution, why not get used to the idea of a co-deputy prime ministership? It would see a greening of our constitution and why not, other innovations have already served to indigenise NZ-styled MMP, such as Ministers outside Cabinet, and the world hasn't ended yet.

    Wellington • Since Aug 2013 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    “Fuck you” is the correct answer. A parliament cannot bind it’s successor – Key may have purported to do so by signing up for a 30 year contract, but statutes can always void contracts.I’m sure this will piss off the labour-voting Sky City shareholders – both of them.

    Well said :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    I never watched this programme you speak of so I will go find it. Did RB link??

    There was a link in the original post, and I think somebody embedded a vid upthread.

    And it's odd, but I think John Armstrong does a better job of showing the differences between the three candidates here, if only in matters of style rather than substance:

    Cunliffe's razzmatazz also stole a march on Robertson, who announced he was entering the race via press statement and Jones, who simply confirmed his intention to stand to a Herald reporter.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    “Fuck you” is the correct answer. A parliament cannot bind it’s successor – Key may have purported to do so by signing up for a 30 year contract, but statutes can always void contracts.

    Which is indeed the longhand version of what Cunliffe said. Key's attempt to bind every government for the next three decades was offensive. The unsavoury nature of the doing of the deal made it more so.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

  • Sam M,

    So far (though I guess to an admittedly casual observer and Cunliffe supporter), Cunliffe is the only one who seems able to emphatically answer hard questions.

    Will you raise taxes? Hell yeah
    Will you remain bound to the Sky City deal? Parliament is sovereign

    I don't sense the same from the other two yet.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 72 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    “Fuck you” is the correct answer. A parliament cannot bind it’s successor – Key may have purported to do so by signing up for a 30 year contract, but statutes can always void contracts.

    Gee, thank you for the massive Constitutional man-splain there Rich because nobody's ever amended or repealed legislation in the 23 years I've had the vote. The actual correct answer was the one Grant managed to give without the macho dick-waving.

    I’ve already seen other people lament that candidates will stress their left credentials in this process and then tack right once selected to prep for general election. So… meh.

    Yeah, I'm willing to accept that I'm probably a complete freak who likes to have things like my privacy and civil liberties not treated like a yacht race. Come on, stun me with some actual principles you can be held accountable for!

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Jon J.,

    why not get used to the idea of a co-deputy prime ministership?

    Oh my giddy aunt! That would require co-operation, true power-sharing and mutual respect in public.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2899 posts Report Reply

  • Sam M, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    So we have to buy our way out of it? How depressing.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 72 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    The actual correct answer was the one Grant managed to give without the macho dick-waving.

    We have constantly heard that no one takes on John Key . That Labour needs a pit bull etc etc. Mr Nice guy didn't work. David Shearer was pilloried. I think the macho dickwaving that JK and his co. display seems to please many no end, so tip toeing won't help, much the same as David Shearer experienced.Let's face it, JK has taught us that bullshit baffles brains (of all sorts) but doesn't have to change your popularity.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sam M, in reply to Hebe,

    Let's not get too carried away. This is politics we are talking about.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 72 posts Report Reply

  • "chris", in reply to Bart Janssen,

    it really is PR gold for Labour

    Right up until the 'wrong' guy wins, 2 platoons of favourite pickers retreat to the swing fence, as we saw in the last election. But I've got to hand it to y'all, if nothing else, democracy sure is romantic.

    location, location, locat… • Since Dec 2010 • 250 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen R, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Come on, stun me with some actual principles you can be held accountable for!

    I agree with this so much.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2009 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Hebe,

    That would require co-operation, true power-sharing and mutual respect in public.

    Point well made, we can hardly expect politicians to behave like adults it would be just asking too much. Small achievable goals, with a cookie after each.

    "Today minister, you will remember wipe your chin after you dribble."

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    Basically it comes down to this: do the people of NZ tell multinational companies what to do in our country, or do they tell us what to do? It would be nice to vote on that.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Met hasn't been the one talking about being Minister of Finance, which is traditionally given to the DPM.

    It has? Going back to to 1949, when we first had a DPM we have had:

    Holyoake (not Minister of Finance)
    Marshall (not)
    Skinner (not)
    Marshall again (not)
    Muldoon (both DPM and MoF for one year after being MoF and not DPM for five years)
    Watt (not)
    Tizard (both)
    Talboys (not)
    MacIntyre (not)
    McLay (not)
    Palmer (not)
    Clark (not)
    McKinnon (not)

    MMP starts

    Peters (both DPM and Treasurer)
    Creech (not)
    Anderton (not)
    Cullen (both)
    English (both)

    When talking about coalitions under MMP the smaller party has had the DPM twice. In one (Peters) they were in charge of the Treasury, in the other (Anderton) they weren't. So, yes, it sometimes happens, but it's pretty far short of a tradition.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3207 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Basically it comes down to this: do the people of NZ tell multinational companies what to do in our country, or do they tell us what to do? It would be nice to vote on that.

    We have: twice. John got in.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2899 posts Report Reply

  • "chris",

    location, location, locat… • Since Dec 2010 • 250 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Come on, stun me with some actual principles you can be held accountable for!

    If I didn't know which way you'd party-voted in 2011, I could say something really snarky right now.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Basically it comes down to this: do the people of NZ tell multinational companies what to do in our country, or do they tell us what to do? It would be nice to vote on that.

    But it is way more complicated than that. Multinationals have as much economic and political power as many countries. We don't expect our ambassadors to tell foreign countries to "fuck off", we work around the bad things to try and get as much good as we can, aka diplomacy. Same applies to the multinationals. We benefit from their trading activities and we have always done so.

    The issue is how much harm do we accept for that benefit and where does that harm occur and where does that benefit occur.

    This National govt has pretty much decided that most any harm is acceptable and makes no bones about saying the most benefit will occur in the hands of the wealthy ... and that will be good for NZ (according to National).

    Labour might draw the line in a different place and The Greens would draw a thrid line. But neither will actually tell the multinationals to "fuck off" because frankly that would do more harm to New Zealanders than anything else they could do.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Andre,

    It was nice to hear a Labour politician telling us that they understand that there is growing inequality in NZ (not just inequity), that our youth are being left with no options other than to leave the country, that socialism isn't a swear word and they intend to change course to even things out.
    At present Russell Norman is growing in favour as a result of Labour completely ignoring any concerns about the free market, globalisation, financial dependence on foreigners etc. The interesting thing about the fishing debate was most kiwis ignorance about the dumping of a third of all commercially-caught fish as by-catch. A situation that Labour under the Shane Jones' of the world were quite happy to continue with but the Greens would never sanction. Can you believe that the Maori are still allowed to employ Koreans to catch their fish instead of employing Maori youth for multiple years to come? Cunliffe seems to have drawn a mark in the sand at least. Shame it's taken thirty years to reach this point where Labour may represent the working classes again rather than the upper-middle-classes who seem to have been their primary focus over that time.

    New Zealand • Since May 2009 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Gee, thank you for the massive Constitutional man-splain there Rich because nobody’s ever amended or repealed legislation in the 23 years I’ve had the vote. The actual correct answer was the one Grant managed to give without the macho dick-waving.

    You can disagree on that, then. Rich’s answer wasn’t a “mansplain” or anything like it. He has precisely the same right as you to advance an opinion here. It wasn’t even addressed to you.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.