Cracker: Cup of Tea and a new Electoral System
105 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
the comments were way better than I expected.
Must admit I got thru page 6 without feeling angry, but still miffed that that piece was quite powerful in explaining the intense relationship that Tuhoe have and some with comments such as dont be greedy. Wtf?
-
It's a different worldview and some people are just not willing or ready to put aside the one they're more used to, even for a few minutes. Scared folk resist change.
-
I once tried to explain why I couldnt live out of the south.
The listeners were intelligent folk who'd lived in several other places in our world.
I mentioned the way the sea sounded, the land felt, how the birds sounded in my bones, present & past, & how I knew what would bloom where (except when it surprises!) and what would swim where & when-
and when I started to sing a very old song I saw they were - glazed.
OK. Everyone reacts differently. But I know I cannot effectively live away from the South for any length of time. And whanau & self, we still have some of the places (one way or another) that our olds held.I can, distantly, knowing what Kai Tahu had & lost & has somewhat regained, appreciate the very deep sorrow & anger that Tuhoe might feel about Te Urewera-
-
It takes little further thinking to connect their casual racism with the speaker, government and party that is behind them.
I thought the John Key/Cannibalism thing was a media beat up. If there was any racial angle to it, I thought that came from the media who jumped straight to 'cannibalism' because the target of the comments were Maori.
The idea that "having someone for dinner" literally means that is pretty weak.
-
Oh, cmon. I would have been dinner. The words were obvious to most observers, and so was the context. Why try and defend it?
-
jb,
...get themselves into a flap these past few days..
Not really.
Finding enough overlap between fairly disparate election platforms, forming a government and setting out a working timetable within 3 days is pretty good going, given that Germany, the Poster Boys and Girls of MMP, took weeks to get agreement between the CDU and FDP (both having declared each other their preferred partner prior to the election) and 6 months on, they're still feuding and not governing the bloody country..
Impressive stuff from Cameron and Clegg
-
Finding enough overlap between fairly disparate election platforms, forming a government and setting out a working timetable within 3 days is pretty good going,
Better than pretty good -- I don't know about you, but William Hague is looking to me like he'd rather be in bed than Washington right now. Rather doubt he got a lot of sleep over the last week. :)
-
The idea that "having someone for dinner" literally means that is pretty weak.
And if he'd said "having someone for dinner" you might have a point. What he said was:
'The good news was that I was having dinner with Ngati Porou as opposed to their neighbouring iwi, which is Tuhoe, in which case I would have been the dinner.'
-
Thinking about this some more, don't you think people who want to dump MMP end up not liking politicians or some specific policy more than anything else? Which strikes me as being akin to deciding that polygamy is going to be the magic bullet that magically changes your husband from a bone-idle, sexually frustrating adulterous lout. It won't, and there's no rational reason to think it ever would.
-
I do agree the 'cannibalism' thing was a media beat up. Still, two words immediately came to mind: Prince Philip.
-
cannibalism' thing was a media beat up
I suggest Key et al have an unsophisticated (ie intelligent :)
weak, pointless sense of humour which, is powerful because, a gaffe is a gaffe and newsworthy. Shit, look at the papers today and a large majority are spouting crap. Key always exposes himself to be right there for a photo, Maybe now we want some sense of consideration and understanding. What Key et al did (i'm sure he read his speech before he sent the insult, even if he didn't write it) was heartless, inconsiderate and outright rude. For what? Pointless. I always thought he was out of touch. -
I do agree the 'cannibalism' thing was a media beat up.
Stupid thing to say though.
Half expected this to serve Key's head on a platter to the opposition. They should be having him for breakfast, but they seem intend on eating public sentiment. Personally I'd take him with a grain of salt, but others just eat him up. Well, eat your heart out Mr Key, you're the meat in the sandwich on this one.
Ok, so maybe less wine, and more crackers...
-
maybe less wine, and more crackers...
Mine was enough to fit in a spaghetti dish with the red wine etc so now, dinner. :)
-
The head on a platter? O my: we dont eat heads (parts of 'em, yeah, but not for a long long time)but braaaiinzzz, yesss, my pretties, brainnz - o bugger. Withered ones, all congested with bad figures and haddit ideas of status-
-
the sovereign integrity of New Zealand is something worth a civil insurrection to protect
Huh?
People have rights, not nations. If Tuhoe wanted to set up their own nation in their rohe, then why not? NZ used to rule Samoa, but stopped.
There's plenty of scope for Maori to take on more control over their affairs, if they want to. (Come to that, there's more scope for other New Zealanders to do the same thing. Why do we need one-size-fits-all government?)
-
Support for MMP varies depending on where you live. If you live in electorates where the National party always wins then you'l tend to find a fair bit of hostility toward MMP. Geographically, this covers most of New Zealand outside the cities and some of the wealthier pockets in the cities themselves.
But all major polls I'm aware of have shown over and over for the past several years - and for most of time since 1996 - that more kiwis support MMP than oppose it.
There has been no major call for a referendum. That policy is purely and entirely a creature of the National Party and in particular its wealthiest backers. No petition was ever raised to trigger an informal poll. Any attempts failed dismally. I've observed for many years that business people tend to favour dictatorship. No one takes a vote on the CEO's orders and setting the company plans. They are accustomed to dictating actions to ensure outcomes.
While its history is full of honourable actions, one has to say the National Party today has an unbashed, overt hostility to democracy. The evidence is everwhere.
1. The sacking of Environment Canterbury and the appointment of unelected commissioners to that body. Scheduled elections have been blocked. The new head of ECAN is the same man who lead the push for the Hurunui irrigation scheme. We have had a water coup in Canterbury and the intentin is entirely to frustrate democracy in favour of the interests of the farmers who want that water.
2. The new Super City could have been a shining example of the National party's claimed commitment to democracy. Instead, we have 20 councilors for 1.4 million people who won't even have control over the grossly mis-named "Council Controlled Corporations" (CCO's). They will actually be run by unelected appointees put in place by National and ACT. Even worse, National have resurrected the rotton boroughs of yore...with the 869 reidents of Great Barrier island getting a Super City Councillor while the voters of the North Shore must number 120,000 to get a Councillor. In fact, the North Shore will have 4 MPs and only two Auckland City Councillors. So much for "local" government.
3. The MMP referendum. National wants desparately to return to a system where the largets minority gets to rule absolutely over everyone else. To aid this outcome, there are NO SPENDING LIMITS on the referendum...or on any organisation that wants to campaign for...whatever. The way is clear for Peter Shirtcliffe and his deep-pocket mates to try to frighten the bejesus out of everyone - again.
I could go on, but it should be more than clear by now that if you're a kiwi who values democracy, there is no rational basis on which you can justify voting either for the National or against MMP.
The National Party of today (to distinguish it from more honourable times gone by) is clearly the most significant threat to democracy New Zealand has faced for decades.
If you don't live in Auckland, this still matters. It may not be long before the Nat business cronies eye up your local resources and use the National party to legislate to hand them over, lock, stock and barrel, for their personal and several enrichment.....and our expense.
Note that I am not promoting any other party. Vote for anyone you like......but if you value democracy in NZ...then National should not receive your support.
-
Rich of Observationz- we set up OFR * nearly 27 years ago! We have our own flags and anthems and everything!
Okarito Free Repubblic - you do have to live here, or be an intimate partner, or, best, be whanau ki whanau, before you are a member (tho' there are other civil/technical rules to actually being part of the place...)o, appropos my penultimate post: there's no way we would eat that kind of sawdust ersatz esrtwhile brain-
-
there's no way we would eat that kind of sawdust ersatz esrtwhile brain-
Bad brains, riddled with nasty little prions.
-
Yo Joe Wylie - got it in one-
-
3. The MMP referendum. National wants desparately to return to a system where the largets minority gets to rule absolutely over everyone else. To aid this outcome, there are NO SPENDING LIMITS on the referendum...or on any organisation that wants to campaign for...whatever. The way is clear for Peter Shirtcliffe and his deep-pocket mates to try to frighten the bejesus out of everyone - again.
There have never been spending limits in any government referendum in New Zealand ever. Keith Locke proposed a binding referendum on a republic that had no spending limits, and far less transparency than National's MMP referendum.
There are spending limits on organisations campaigning for things. The limit on National campaigning for election is $2.4m. The limit on the Exclusive Brethren campaigning for a National election victory is $0.
-
the 869 residents of Great Barrier island getting a Super City Councillor while the voters of the North Shore must number 120,000 to get a Councillor
I believe you're confusing Councillors with Local Board members - and those numbers don't seem right in any case. The situation is bad enough without any exaggeration.
-
The limit on the Exclusive Brethren campaigning for a National election victory is $0.
However, slagging the Greens - priceless
-
Warning, if you don' wanna rock out, then don' click da link ;-)
-
two words immediately came to mind: Prince Philip.
Exactly what I thought.
-
Plenty of older National members have long campaigned internally for a review of MMP, I imagine their long efforts were in part responsible for the review and referendum, not just so called rich elites.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.