She was responding to the New Conservatives' deputy leader. Her description is hardly inaccurate.
Take some time to read their online output, which at the time of that tweet included people like David Moffett (he has since moved on). Bigotry is exactly what they embody, or worse, pander to.
Swarbrick is out of line? Well, the leader of the National Party calls the Greens communist. And he wants to be Prime Minister.
Every vote for Peter Dunne, over 4 or 5 successive elections, was a non-binding referendum on whether Labour or National would be in government.
I'd rather take my chances with the 95% probability of this referendum result being honoured by Labour and the Greens, than throw darts blindfold at Dunne's dartboard.
Well, now we know National’s official line. It’s “Gummy Bears”. The new “Slushies”.
Simon said “gummy” 4 times in his short stand-up this morning. He wanted to make sure we all got the message. His deputy has been repeating it too. Honestly, where do they get their ideas from? Old Simpsons episodes?
That's true. But National's quandary is that Labour and the Greens can simply say "We will accept the result of the referendum". They want a Yes, but will accept a No - however unhappily. Status quo remains.
Whereas National will want a No, but dare not say that they will ignore a Yes. Imagine going into an election campaign saying "Vote for us to be the government, and we promise to ignore the majority vote".
It's a shame the law won't be passed before the election, so they'd better make sure the question is watertight.
Still, National are now screwed (assuming they don't join the party, which would still be their best option politically). National have to oppose the referendum happening at all, or campaign for a 'No' vote, because simply saying "let's talk about issues XYZ instead" won't wash. The media will keep asking.
Cracking post. Thanks.
A lot to discuss there, but let me just take one, because it's so true and it bugs me so much:
Most of the people I’ve mentioned are gifted communicators who could do so much better if they tried, or if the incentives supported them to.
If you can hit a golf ball, or play the violin, or install a kitchen, you have to do it the very best you can, or you won't make any money. Nobody wants to pay for slapdash work that is so much less than you're capable of.
Whereas people who churn out the reckons are effectively discouraged from doing better. Why pick up a good book and educate yourself before spouting? You will only add nuance and depth and fresh perspectives, and you're not getting paid for that. It is deeply ironic that the Hosking-types will often proclaim that our society/economy should reward hard work and excellence, while demonstrating neither.
The critics (and I'm one, every day) are also at fault here. We shout "Bias!" when that isn't really the point. Nothing wrong with a conservative columnist who makes me think, who challenges me in my cosy liberal comfort zone. I just can't think of any in NZ who do. Who even bother to marshall evidence and write well. Because they have no incentive to do so.
Yesterday and today the Al Noor Mosque had two very different visitors: Destiny "Church" and Prince William. What a contrast.
The latter gave a speech that was moving, heartfelt, personal. And - considering his position - remarkably direct. I'm no royalist, or celeb chaser, but I was seriously impressed. He went a lot further than "thoughts and prayers". It's worth reading/hearing the whole thing:
Whereas Brian's boys can manage prayers, but seem incapable of thoughts.
Currently lead story on Herald/NZME website: Katie Hopkins being typically obnoxious about the massacres in Sri Lanka, with swipes at Ardern and various others.
Not included in story: any reference to the same Katie Hopkins being a commentator on Newstalk ZB, AKA the Herald/NZME.
First poll on new gun laws: 80% in favour (61% + 19% more who say "should go further").
You'd have trouble getting 80% of voters to agree that the moon landings really happened. So that's pretty conclusive.
As mentioned on another thread, I don't think polling in the immediate aftermath of 15/3 is justifiable, but today's TVNZ poll was conducted 3 weeks later. In fact, it was during Peak Seymour, and (to their credit) when National were supporting the new gun laws going through Parliament.
Point being, if there were some political backlash, a real mood of protest bubbling under, you would expect at least some movement to ACT, or New Cons, the two current vehicles for disaffected ex-Nats or ex-NZF voters. The grandstanding was there for all to see.
Reality? Nothing. Not even one extra voter in a hundred.
So let's not pretend that the Tipples and Loders really represent a sizeable slice of the electorate. There's not the slightest evidence that they do.