Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, charming "entertainments" at the same site...
Godwin's Law #3: Reductio ad bin Ladenum.
Rolfenui!
-
Gio said:
Sure, but Kyoto is a palliative at best. The changes we need are radical and require a radical rethinking of the notions of development and growth, as well as of human and environmental capital. From that broader perspective the difference between Labour and National is negligible. (And I'm a Labour voter, mind.)
I'd commend I/S's post on the Australia federal government's change of plans. It's here.
I'd be very surprised if a hell of a lot of Labor voters didn't feel completely let down. If Turnbull can manage the Liberal internal politics to develop an alternative position, it'll save his leadership and make this a major election issue next year.
-
Would it be nice if the left avoided the Monty Python redux?
Lee doesn't seem the strongest of candidates but that's hardly surprising given the history of the seat. I'm sure there'll be a few more awkward moments for Shearer but I'm impressed that of the three candidates, he's had the least to input into all the silliness.
-
So the Labour process is that:
- the head office choose a candidate, with overridable input from the local party
- the elected candidates (who become MPs) choose the leader
- the leader appoints the head officeThat right?
I've never had too much of a problem with the votes from the party even though I have to say several of head office's selections have been complete failures (John Tamihere anyone). The point is that the process is known and stable and Labour's haven't recently resulted in court cases. Incidentally, the process here in NSW, both Labor and Liberal, is a frankly corrupt.
-
Just as I rather doubt The Standard's National Party "sources" are anything more than a dollop of shit-stirring. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I remember the good old days when you'd actually STFU about floor votes at selection meetings.
Well, not to be ageist about it but (a) I'm a little older than you and (b) the others are sooo much older than both of us... but yeah!
-
Meanwhile, Whaleoil is all over it, claiming his "Labour spies" have told him Shearer lost the floor vote (but only after he's read it in the comment at The Standard that contradicted Tane's post).
The only Labour "spies" to be talking to Whaleoil will be either imaginery or stupid.
-
Thanks for that link Russell. Espiner's piece is very good, I/S's piece is superb.
-
OK... so the story actually seems to be Nat MP seems to be a pretty decent landlord.
Ah, but you have to read the story to find that out ...
No, I get it; a National MP who does not exploit sex workers by over-charging rent in hovel really is news. :->'
-
Still, enough of attacking Norman for his place of birth. He's a citizen, so just as much a New Zealander as any other.
George, you make a fair point, however I feel Dr Norman's drawn attention to his claim to be candidate when challenging Shearer's. But I've made my point, I'll move on.
-
The most I can make of this is to guess that Shearer lost the floor vote at the selection meeting, but still had the central party and LEC votes, and was thus elected. Which is how the selection process works. Anyone know any more?
Personally, I don't care but I understand the news angle. Labour's selection process is often commented on but it's been what it is for ages and has yet to result in the kind of screw-up National endured in Selwyn.
I'm sorry that the Greens are positioning themselves as holier-than-though in this by-election but I'm persauded by comments earlier in this thread about the nature of the electorate (now compared with when Clark first won it) which suggests Shearer's precisely the right candidate.
It also occurs to me that although he's talked of as the Leader's candidate, Phil's Leader and also the MP for Mt Roskill (at least 27 years as a Jafa) and might just have a few insights into Auckland matters that the Queenslander doesnt?