Hard News: The Letter
443 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
nzlemming, in reply to
-
NZers get to vote from overseas if they've been here at any point in the last three years (even transiting the airport counts, I guess). Permanent residents, it has to be in the last year.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
“It’s too risky to vote for you, because your government is going to include the Greens and you won’t tell us about how you’ll handle this major policy of a key partner.”
Contrast and Compare with:
No one told us explicitly that National/ACT came with a Charter Schools done-deal before the last election...What to do?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
No one told us explicitly that National/ACT came with a Charter Schools done-deal before the last election
No one mentioned charter schools at all during the election campaign. It was Act policy, which people who'd paid attention to their policy knew, but that was it.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
NZers get to vote from overseas if they’ve been here at any point in the last three years (even transiting the airport counts, I guess). Permanent residents, it has to be in the last year.
Exactly. I was last in NZ in 2010.
Ben, by 'expat' I mean any NZer who is living outside NZ. As nzlemming's link says:
you are eligible to enrol and vote from overseas if you:
are 18 years of age or older,
have lived in New Zealand for more than one year continuously at some time in your life,
and are either:a New Zealand citizen who has been in New Zealand at any point in the past three years,or
a New Zealand permanent resident who has been in New Zealand at any point in the past 12 months.So, we do lose the right to vote.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Not overly, no. The way they’re treating the Greens is abominable. Not because they’re being nasty but because they’re behaving like there’s a potential future government that includes Labour and doesn’t include the Greens. Their “We’ll talk about that after the election” reaction to the Greens’ ETS/carbon tax policy, for example, is begging for voters to say “It’s too risky to vote for you, because your government is going to include the Greens and you won’t tell us about how you’ll handle this major policy of a key partner.”
What have the Greens said about how they'll deal with Labour's ETS policy, out of interest? And why is it incumbent on Labour to immediately re-assess its own policy because a coalition partner has a different one? Seriously, people were yelling at Labour to respond literally within minutes of the Greens announcing their carbon tax. The same with Labour declining, for perfectly good reasons, to submerge its identity into a campaign coalition with the Greens, before the voters have even made their choices. It does become wearying.
-
Moz, in reply to
a New Zealand citizen who has been in New Zealand at any point in the past three years
Yes, and I have just got my new passport so I will be spending a weekend in Christchurch shortly, specifically so I can legitimately vote. It's something of a PITA and I'd rather not, but I am quite keen on voting.
-
Moz, in reply to
why is it incumbent on Labour to immediately re-assess its own policy because a coalition partner has a different one?
When the only prospect they have of forming government is in a coalition with The Greens it seems like a sensible question to ask. Labour is looking at only being able to pass anything with eithe The Greens or National supporting them, and I can't see a centre-right coalition between Labour and National working too well.
It's at least vaguely plausible for National to say "we'll probably only need a couple of seats to give us a majority and it looks as though we can get from either NZFirst or ACT, so their detailed positions will only matter when it comes to the actual issue. Our policy is X, we'll stay as close to that as we can".
The Greens, on the other hand, are quite clear that they will drag a Labour/Green government towards the green/left corner of the spectrum. It's quite clear that they expect a coalition with Labour and I'm don't think I've seen anyone say they'd reject one. So every single Labour policy comes with the caveat "subject to negotiations with The Greens". Why refuse to even discuss the possibility of those discussions being needed?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
The way they’re treating the Greens is abominable. Not because they’re being nasty but because they’re behaving like there’s a potential future government that includes Labour and doesn’t include the Greens. Their “We’ll talk about that after the election” reaction to the Greens’ ETS/carbon tax policy, for example, is begging for voters to say “It’s too risky to vote for you, because your government is going to include the Greens and you won’t tell us about how you’ll handle this major policy of a key partner.”
Bullshit. Now you're insulting me. That has no bearing on my vote and I am positive on my friends votes either.
There is more than one Party available that can work with Labour and the Greens are one of them beside NZF, beside InternetMana. So when the time comes, there will be a marriage of some sorts.The Greens are the only ones to expect Labour to do a deal ahead of any others. Why should they get preference? The NZ public should get a say by themselves without any Party telling us how to behave. -
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Why refuse to even discuss the possibility of those discussions being needed?
Not sure detailed policy negotiation pre-election is a good idea at all. Instead, I reckon they need a symbolic public appearance of unity. Helen and Jeanette did something like this in '05, IIRC.
It doesn't matter to substance or campaigning- it's about publicly signalling 'these are our mates, we want to work with them to kick this govt out, and we're very happy at the prospect of governing with them after the election.'
I reckon it'd help both parties cement votes. (The details of how policy differences would be worked out later won't matter if people trust both sides to work well together.) -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
The Greens are the only ones to expect Labour to do a deal ahead of any others. Why should they get preference?
Because the others, combined, are polling somewhere around half of where the Greens are polling. Anyone, apparently including the Labour caucus, who thinks that the Greens won't be the number-two party in a Labour-lead government is fucking delusional. Without the Greens, there is no Labour-lead government. Without the others, there may or may not be depending on the precise calculus of votes cast on the day.
You wanted to know. That's why.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
If rather than registering in advance you flew in on election day and headed for a polling booth, would you be able to get a special vote?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
So, we do lose the right to vote.
Good to know, like you said. I must have never met a citizen who had not returned home once in any 3 year period that actually wanted to vote before :-).
Presumably the embassy doesn't count as NZ soil for these purposes :-)
-
I do hope we don't have the problem we had at the last election, Green supporters attacking Labour over imagined sleights. Not only was it petty it helped National win by giving the impression that the left were squabbling brats.
Can we have a little more maturity this time, there is too much at stake for this kind of non productive behavior. -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Claire Curran's been responsible for a few to many mistakes for my liking. Shane Jones too, but he's a least gone.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I can’t see a centre-right coalition between Labour and National working too well.
I can see it working fine, but I don't think it will happen.
FWIW, I can fully see why Labour don't do an official deal with the Greens. There are pros and cons to such an arrangement. The cup of tea that National used to show unity with ACT did them severe damage, even though everyone knew they will always be in bed so long as ACT exists at all.
Essentially, the reason not to is because there is no need to. What other choice do the Greens have anyway?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Yeah right.
It seems fair to note that the MP responsible for that brainfart, Clare Curran, seems to have been demoted so far down the 2014 Labour list that she withdrew from the list altogether. There’s not much more the party can do to register disapproval.
The Greens don't have the complication of recalcitrant MPs who have safe electorate seats.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It seems fair to note that the MP responsible for that brainfart, Clare Curran, seems to have been demoted so far down the 2014 Labour list that she withdrew from the list altogether. There’s not much more the party can do to register disapproval.
The Greens don't have the complication of recalcitrant MPs who have safe electorate seats.
When George Hawkins was in Parliament, Helen Clark gave him a few subtle hints that he was past his use-by date, given he refused to go quietly, and only retired from Parliament when he went into AKL super city politics.
And just before NZ's 1st MMP election, Jack Elder (not the one on Public Address) - a Mike Moore loyalist during the Clark coup - was passed over for an electorate seat and demoted to an unwinnable list ranking, to the point where he jumped ship to Winston First. Any idea what he's up to these days? Last I heard he went back to teaching.
If there's only one factor behind Labour's current malaise, it's the fact there are still too many seat-warmers in the current Labour caucus. But it's no easy feat to tell the seat-warmers to know when to quit. To do a Michelle Boag on them would probably risk a rerun of Lange vs Douglas and distract the party even further from the policy debate, but it may be the least worst solution. In a way, Helen Clark was the party's equivalent of Josip Broz Tito.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
If there’s only one factor behind Labour’s current malaise, it’s the fact there are still too many seat-warmers in the current Labour caucus.
There's some pretty suckful characters in the Nat crowd too. I think Labour's trouble is much deeper than any lack of talent. I think it's just an old, worn out idea. It doesn't speak to young people.
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
If there’s only one factor behind Labour’s current malaise, it’s the fact there are still too many seat-warmers in the current Labour caucus. But it’s no easy feat to tell the seat-warmers to know when to quit.
True and it shows, and also the disunity is obvious: in the theatrics of fronting the media, in the blandness of policy. But is this a product of the new rules for electing the leader? DC was thrust on an unwilling caucus.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
DC was thrust on an unwilling caucus.
Yes, poor caucus. I feel similarly sorry for them as I do for John Key. No one ever told them that their job for life at a massive salary might start looking a bit iffy to the people they claim to represent.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Labour’s trouble is much deeper than any lack of talent. I think it’s just an old, worn out idea.
You might have to expand on that one a bit.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You might have to expand on that one a bit.
Another time, another thread.
-
Labour’s trouble is much deeper than any lack of talent. I think it’s just an old, worn out idea
Then how to explain Tamati Coffey and the youth revival thing he is doing in Rotorua?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.