Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Vision and dumbassery

532 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 12 13 14 15 16 22 Newer→ Last

  • Dismal Soyanz, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    having our heads beaten by the cops all winter

    And that violence was something that further polarised opinions probably more toward the anti-tour movement. Even though I was too young to take part in the protests during the games, I did join the street marches and distinctly remember feeling very fearful of the police.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    Key convinced me last week that likely the best thing I can do for my country on Sat is vote for for IM, and I’ll likely vote for them or the Greens, either way that’s a vote against John and his continual eroding of my personal privacy

    I have similar reasoning. Between Greens and IM I'm undecided. In my feeling that I'd rather have Cunliffe than Key, I'm not at all undecided. I don't have to vote for Cunliffe to get Cunliffe though, courtesy of MMP. I get to signal more than that. For me, Cunliffe being the leader is the clear lesser of evils, even though I will not vote Labour (well, maybe I'll vote for Sepuloni...not sure, she seems pretty secure, and the Green candidate here happens to be an old friend).

    My dilemma is between choosing to go with good solid Greens or the more speculative IM. Greens are a party with a lot of policy, which could certainly work with Labour, is likely to be the third biggest party, but is also a party whose primary focus is not my own. I don't disagree with environmentalism, it's just not the most important thing to me at this time. I do agree with most of their secondary policy, that is why I voted for them in the past, but my worry is that in coalition negotiations the only lollies they'll get will be their true bottom line, the environment.

    IM, on the other hand, is a party whose apparent policy focus is much more like my own opinions on what the government should do. In the person of Hone Harawira, not so much, but as greater Mana, much more so. I get what Harawira is about, and even respect it, but he is still very much focused on how things affect Maori in the north. Which is righteous, but I'm not a northern Maori. The Internet Party is so new it's hard to tell what it's about for sure, particularly considering what its name implies, and how much that contrasted with its choice of leader. But such policy as they have come up with is stuff I generally agree with. I'm not particularly concerned that they probably couldn't work with Labour directly, because they could still represent without being in government, and they will probably vote with the Government on choices that I mostly agree with.

    However, I am very concerned that Harawira might not hold his seat. If he doesn't, it's likely the vote for them will be wasted. This seems like a big tactical blunder by Labour, to strongly contest him at a time when their majority is likely to be wafer thin. If they win there, they lose not only all of the IM vote, most of which will get redistributed to National, but they will also reduce the overhang too, and most of that redistribution will also go to National. This at a time when National is still suggesting that Epsom voters go for ACT and we could end up getting Whyte in on the coat-tails.

    I'll be closely watching any information coming in over the next few days to choose. If Hone looks like losing Te Tai Tokerau, I'll vote Green, otherwise, IM. In doing so, I feel that I'm voting for Labour too, and in case that's not clear, I'm SAYING it RIGHT HERE. Because our ability to signal is not limited to our vote.

    I support a left wing coalition, under Cunliffe, but I would like them to have a strong incentive to go through with the more "radical" elements of left wing policy that they have and so I vote to the left of them to signal this. I want my vote to stand counter to the NZ First voter who also wants a left wing coalition. I would accept working with them, but I want it clear that they're not the most important group in such a coalition.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Dean Wallis, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,

    And that violence was something that further polarised opinions probably more toward the anti-tour movement.

    People's moral compasses swung away from N and towards L

    Point Chevalier • Since Jan 2013 • 45 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    Oh no people were much angrier in ’81

    Yes, I remember, but I think the anger was much more specific. The anti-tour movement had a quite clear goal.

    I don't think that kind of thing will be seen here again. People had quite a different sense of tolerance towards violence and fighting then. Now even a whiff of it scares the hell out of people. It has to be a cause with a really clear and present threat to elicit such a strong reaction.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to BenWilson,

    I’m SAYING it RIGHT HERE. Because our ability to signal is not limited to our vote.

    Cool line Ben, It’s really difficult for me to gauge if a vote for IM would be well spent from here, I came into this election Green, I was a bit disappointed IM dropped decriminalisation, but saw that Te Ururoa is down with that, but that alone isn’t enough to hang a vote on. Mainly for me with the Greens it comes down to their science, but if I’m also able to vote in an electorate (checking today), based on polling and if there’s nothing too windy going on, I’ll vote Grant Robertson. But still, keeping my ear: to the ground right up to the clock.

    I’m damn excited (in case it isn’t obvious) about having the chance to vote in a democratic election again. It’s a truly special thing. I’ve never been half as engaged in an election as this one. I can’t even remember who or if I voted ’99

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to izogi,

    Excellent post. Clear and true!

    Really though, this election has become hugely polarised, compared with nearly anything in living memory, and people wonder why.

    If you ignore the factions within National which are all fighting to do it their own way, a major reason New Zealand’s population has become so divided over the past six years is that this government has been ultra-exclusive of everyone who doesn’t agree with it.

    This government has made record use of Urgency and Supplementary Order Papers for completely inappropraite reasons, to step around expert input, community involvement, and overall avoiding good and robust lawmaking in the name of “getting things done”.

    It’s also ignored repeated warnings from the Attorney General about breaches of the Bill of Rights in pending legislation, and passed those laws anyway. This is a horrible thing: The BORA is meant to define the most fundamental rights which government should never revoke from people of NZ, yet the current government has ignored it as an inconvenience.

    Tread on people like this instead of including them and they’ll do more than just disagree with you. They’ll start to hate you. National’s making sure that everything National is actually about John Key. And people who somehow haven’t been affected can’t understand why others “hate John Key” so much.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    In some sense it was a little bit of a golden age (at least in context) - it was only a few years before under National's Holyoake Radio NZ was forbidden from reporting on the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations passing by their studios

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2622 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    Ben: yes that exactly - I've long thought that to move the centre a little you need a long lever at the extremes, I don't mind being really radical even if my ultimate goals re more modest


    (Though I do really want to live in Ian's NZ, or maybe next door)

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2622 posts Report Reply

  • blindjackdog, in reply to BenWilson,

    Between Greens and IM I’m undecided.

    Pretty much with you on all that Ben.

    However, listening to Peters' hilarious encounter with that gormless twit Espiner this morning, it did occur to me that votes for IM are pretty much going to push WP towards the Nats when it comes to King-maker time; ie, he'd be much more likely to settle ultimately for something that only includes him, Labour and Green than with Hone et al thrown in as well.

    It's a bugger, because from the get-go the IM thing has entertained me greatly; I respect the two leaders, and the thrust of their policies; and I'd love to watch the absurd and inevitable disintegration as the realities of power set in.

    So I'm undecided like you. And the Greens just come across as such wet tossers these days, to be frank. Never recovered from "Give me my flag back" as far as I'm concerned.

    But something that was really weird: One of Laila's emails-to-the-faithful recently said something along the lines of, "Well, we're on 4% and we're really hoping to get as high as 4.5%, and we're just sure as heck that Hone's going to keep his seat." WTF? Way to drive away voters like you and me by telling us that not even the leaders expect to get 5%. Weird.

    (And yeah, Labour attitudes to potential partners has been and continues to be naive, arrogant, counter-productive and just plain stupid. One thing you can say for Key -- he understands the power of political expediency, and a little pragmatism in a leader isn't an all-bad quality.)

    Since Nov 2007 • 40 posts Report Reply

  • Jake Starrow, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I'd be surprised if anybody would dare challenge you as Supreme Village Idiot.
    How could they?

    Since Sep 2014 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    They’d just impersonate you.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    Are you going to answer the points he made?

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 499 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F, in reply to John Farrell,

    Are you going to answer the points he made?

    +1. Jake, aside from Ian’s inimitable way of posting (which others appreciate though you may not) he’s taken a good shot at fisking your “statement of position” post from the other thread. Will you respond to the substance, or simply cry foul at the style, again?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson, in reply to izogi,

    Tread on people like this instead of including them and they’ll do more than just disagree with you. They’ll start to hate you. National’s making sure that everything National is actually about John Key. And people who somehow haven’t been affected can’t understand why others “hate John Key” so much.

    Well put. Extremely well put.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 620 posts Report Reply

  • Jake Starrow, in reply to John Farrell,

    Given Ian has admitted to a grip on the Village Idiot role, it's not insulting to say I simply don't understand Village Idiot-speak. Otherwise, I'd reply.
    I note no real attempts to classify Cunliffe's strengths as a potential Prime Minister as yet. Surely, that's not a big ask.
    Isogi gives a coherent argument in looking past Cunliffe in order to justify voting for Labour but I contend that the leader's strengths or otherwise are a critical factor.

    Since Sep 2014 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • Dean Wallis, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    I note no real attempts to classify Cunliffe’s strengths as a potential Prime Minister as yet. Surely, that’s not a big ask.

    I would say that Cunliffe has undeniable strength as a potential Prime Minister, after all he is one.

    Point Chevalier • Since Jan 2013 • 45 posts Report Reply

  • Dismal Soyanz, in reply to Dean Wallis,

    Oh, now you are just using logic!

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    Interesting. This says it all, really.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 499 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    Given Ian has admitted to a grip on the Village Idiot role, it’s not insulting to say I simply don’t understand Village Idiot-speak. Otherwise, I’d reply.

    What a pity. Most of it is in a few short comments under your own original quotes. Most of us bears of little brain seem to have managed – are you’re sure you’re not putting it in the too hard basket, because it suits you better to be perpetually offended (and even more offensive in return), rather than engaging on substance and potentially getting shot down?

    I note no real attempts to classify Cunliffe’s strengths as a potential Prime Minister as yet. Surely, that’s not a big ask.

    There are responses upthread to the effect that this is not solely a matter of Key versus Cunliffe on personal likeability or credibility. But anyway, as shown above you don’t seem either able or interested to properly defend the claims you make about Key on those points, so why should everyone acquiesce to your desired diversion and rush to talk about Cunliffe instead?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    I'd like to note, Ian, that "cornish patsy" made me snort. Nice.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Jake Starrow, in reply to Sam F,

    let me repeat. I don't understand Ian's lingo. Is it commonly spoken where you come from?
    As I"ve repeated. I did dissect my praise for Key on Page 4 of the 2014 Methane Election topic which I suspect may have answered many of Ian's musings.
    Please refer and get back to me.

    Since Sep 2014 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • AndrewH, in reply to BenWilson,

    Thanks Ben, you nailed my thinking exactly. Which both saved me the effort of writing myself, and is quite reassuring.
    Despite a good analytical brain, I'm not emotionally immune from the rhetoric undermining IM - "too new, unproven, multi-headed bastard-child, personality-driven, doomed to failure, pwned by Dotcom.. etc".
    I've previously voted Green for both their integrity and policies, but that integrity has also frustrated me - I've felt they needed more mongrel to survive/achieve their potential. Now I see the opportunity in having a party which leaves the Greens free to be true to their values and at the same time injects the much-needed mogrel into the coalition. I don;t agree which a few things Hone says and does, but he has the scrapping gene, and unlike Winston it's not just to admire his own reflection as he flexes.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2008 • 33 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    "Sam, I hereby refer you to chapter three, subsection a, paragraph b of my self-published seventeen volume Key hagiography, entitled Gee, That John Key Fellow Sure Is Great."

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Jake Starrow, in reply to Danielle,

    You any serious ideas on why Cunliffe would be a competent PM? That would mean putting aside your cynicism for just a short while.
    Too much to ask?

    Since Sep 2014 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • Dean Wallis, in reply to Jake Starrow,

    let me repeat. I don’t understand Ian’s lingo. Is it commonly spoken where you come from?

    Planet Earth? It is quite common and that example is very, very clever.

    On Planet Key I am not sure what language is spoken, could it be Troll?

    Point Chevalier • Since Jan 2013 • 45 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 12 13 14 15 16 22 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.