I think The Spin Off's policy comparison tool is pretty cool:
Easy way of comparing policy apples & oranges (or lack of).
The Spin Off has Nandor's take on this whole saga:
This whole shemozzle may be a blessing in disguise: TOP might now pick up just enough extra votes (than it otherwise would have) to get to that all important 5%, and save TOP votes from being wasted votes. My biggest worry about this election is that a whole lot of TOP votes will probably just get flushed down the toilet - which would advantage the incumbents more than the line up for change? Although just like NZF, TOP could swing either way? Complicated!
Gullible old me didn't pick up on the irony - but not surprising given some of the hysterical and spiteful nonsense being spouted about!
Enemies of the people? That's bullshit.
Just because a whole lot of well-to-do types are putting the boot into MT over her "criminality" doesn't mean that the consequences at the polling booth won't be positive for the Greens. Heck, there was an immediate boost in support after her initial revelations. So the spiteful nonsense that's been hurled in her general direction lately might actually rake up even more support from sympathetic quarters.
Can somebody please explain to me why in NZ we tolerate monopolistic business practices by television broadcasters (e.g. exclusive sports rights), yet in almost every other sector of commerce we have rules and tools to prevent businesses from obtaining a monopolistic advantage?
Does the ComComm not have enough teeth to do something about this, or are there special laws protecting the TV/sports sectors?
Seems to me like another example of free trade being a noble objective when it benefits large corporates, but to be prevented as much as possible when it might benefit individual consumers.
Contender for PA word of the year: warrenball!?
See also Brian Rudman's opinion piece in the Herald related to this yesterday:
One assertion he makes I believe is accurate: that limiting TV sports coverage to pay-to-view results in a smaller audience than if it were free. When Sky doesn't even offer one-off streaming options for major events (e.g. test matches) lots of us who might have watched test matches find other pastimes.
I also think this has got to be having an impact at kids level. If you grow up in a family without Sky, what opportunity do you have to witness rugby test matches? Delayed coverage on Prime is either after kids' bedtime or sometime the next day (not quite the same excitement). Certainly not as accessible as live at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon.
When I was a nipper rugby was way more popular than other Saturday morning team sports. Having recently taken our own kids to Saturday morning rugby & soccer, it is obvious that soccer is now way more popular than rugby for youngsters. This bodes well for the future of soccer in NZ.
Found it: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201839295/mps-asked-to-take-over-medicinal-cannabis-fight
At about 3.07, figure quoted $130M per year.