Posts by Christopher Dempsey
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Matthew Poole,
However, in 2005 you were absolutely correct. If Labour and the Greens had had their voters in Epsom all vote for Worthless Dick, Rodders would've been gone-burger. His margin ahead of Worth was less than the votes cast for either Locke or the Labour candidate.
Ahhh, yes, that was the other strategy. I actually did that last election, while giving my party vote to the Greens.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Lovely, thanks. I stand corrected.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Che Tibby,
I’m sure Dunne every morning gets on his knees and thanks the Greens for his position.
i’m not quite sure how to read that.
With a straight upright mind Che. Nothing more.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Tim Hannah,
ACT got 2,389, National 24,030, Green 2,662, Labour 7,711.
Not saying you’re wrong, but you’d be a better spitter than most.
ETA – That’s Party votes in 2008 Epsom.
Ahhh, thanks! But what of the individual votes?
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Che Tibby,
And John Banks ran.
Actually, he walked around the neighbourhood feeding the stray cats. But seasoned politician he was he never had much beyond a cup of tea at any meeting I saw him at.
I like me a good sweeping, unwarranted statement.
I'm afraid I'm very guilty of this, and thought about it last night after my comment about the 1% paying 15% of the tax take. I should probably go look up StatsNZ to back up my argument I thought... so I probably will at some point.
[But the serious answer is that architecture = intensive graphics work. Which you knew.]
Yes. All those FB pages, movies d/loaded from somewhere legal, pop music videos and general Youtube trawling... the architecture is somewhat intensive. There's always one or two stations with big notes imploring "please don't touch!!!! Rendering!!!!" at terms end...
Last election saw Dunne return almost solely due to Green votes splitting the Labour candidate. If the Greens resurge, your next point), there’s every chance every chance he could be back representing me.
I'm sure Dunne every morning gets on his knees and thanks the Greens for his position.
I suspect that Hide also does the same thing, and is especially nice to Keith Locke. In Epsom the Green + Labour vote is I think within spitting distance of the National + Act vote, and all it would take is a few disaffected blue rinse National matrons to sniff decidedly and vote Labour.
I've explained my theory to Green members but they have explained that they have run the numbers and my theory doesn't bear out. I'm not wholly convinced that I have got it wrong.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
Mm. Get a Mac.
Hmmm, yes. I note that Campus IT are selling ex-lease Macs, most of which I suspect come from the Architecture school across the road where I work. Given the amount of abuse they get I'm not so sure...
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Dude, if I’ve got to explain the sexism of using a woman’s appearance and/or weight to denegrate, then you’re just not going to get it.
I agree here. It is quite sexist to use a woman's appearance and/or weight to denegrate.
But in defence of Steve I will say that weight gain in politicians is a hazard, and marks out newbie politicians from the more experienced. The mark of a first term newbie is weight gain; there is alot of food on offer at all the meetings, workshops, briefings, working lunches, dinners with CEOs, conference lunches etc. Alot. And not all of it healthy either.
The obvious solution is to stay away from the food, but it can be difficult for those who like food. It helps to have a sport you can do, which is why Trevor Mallard rides a bike competitively, and Helen went climbing in mountains.
Sorry for the threadjack - as you were.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Nick Kearney,
Yes, which is why I commented (sarcastically) on the absurd suggestion David paid for his list position.
Fair enough. Things must be pretty pretty awful in ACT to get Garrett up to no. 5 then.
BTW: I have a windows machine and I don't see any 'edit' thingy when you hover next to the reply button.
-
Or the reason Garrett appeared at number 5 on Act’s list. We still don’t know what quid pro quo happened there.
I understand he paid for that spot. In six figures apparently.
-
My 2c.
Oddly enough, for someone who is actually a politician and therefore should be vitally interested in this, I'm not.
What it all proves is that politicans are human (to wit, Michael Lhaws, Darren Hughes), not superhuman beings that act perfectly, 100% of the time. Well, maybe 99% of the time...
And what I am most irked about it is that Goff won't go hard left. Or anywhere near left. As a politician I get to listen to all sorts of interesting people, right across the spectrum. Many of whom would prefer Goff/Labour to come out with something very left. Partly because it makes sense most of the time depending on the policy idea, and partly because it becomes something to judge the National party against.
I'm not at all hard left, just centre left, but stack some of my thoughts up against Goff's and I'm virtually right centre. Gimme someone who can say, yes, we'll nationalise the electricity system because frankly this faux free market is just a joke. Yes, we'll support 12 months parental leave because we know that spending time with your newborn is vital. Yes we'll create programs that target solo mums and their children and the 20% of children that live in poverty because the cost of gaoling them as adults is too expensive.
Sorry, I'm just ranting here... I shall stop. And get another G&T.