Posts by Tim Hannah

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Russell Brown,

    There would be great symbolic value in a Labour MP reclaiming Auckland Central.

    Sure, but there would have been more symbolic value in Labour being able to form a government with support from the greens and all. And if that had happened Ardern would almost certainly have won Auckland Central.

    I'm not sure why the reaction to losing an election is focusing on the small things your friends arguably made mistakes about rather than you and your allies losing an election.

    (Full disclosure, yes I wish the left voters had acted differently in Ohariu, Epsom and even Auckland Central, but I wish more that a few National voters had acted differently.)

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    It is an equal sin, 50% of the seats are electorate seats.

    And 100% of them (generally, with exceptions at the margins) are proportional.

    If Kaye had lost to Ardern with no change in Party vote the number of seats National and Labour held in Parliament wouldn’t change.

    If you're going to dream about different outcomes, dream big.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    If I chose to be annoyed I'd rather be annoyed at people who party voted for parties I don't like. Those buggers gave National a second term, which is surely a greater sin than electing Nikki Kaye.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to thegirlstefan,

    The Wgtn Central party vote (provisional) still went to the Nats

    I see National taking the party vote by 40% to 50% Labour/Green. Which is who they were running against, according to me.

    But yeah, on an FPP party vote they would've won.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night,

    Feeling a little weird being in Wellington Central. We're different and kind of freaky. But I'd like to think it's in a good way.

    Conservatives didn't get into parliament. They got substantially more votes than four parties that made it. That's ludicrous.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to Russell Brown,

    David Clendon is the Green candidate for Mt Albert.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Transcription of new Rick Perry…, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    Although, pretty much by definition, the large majority of them are right, so that can't really be the problem.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education,

    hmm, Diane Taylor, what do you think would be a more open and honest byline? The fact that she's (possibly a former) social worker? Or the fact that she's the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Society of New Zealand Council.

    Nothing wrong with that - although the minutes could probably be clearer - but open and honest disclosure isn't a bad thing - in newspapers as well as bedrooms. You'd think christianity and postgrad ethics would teach someone that. Probably an honest mistake.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion,

    I’m saying this again as is my custom:

    Presently 10% of the top income earners pay 70% of personal taxes. and if Labour get in this will go up,
    We have 90% of all families in NZ paying no income tax when you take into account WFF.

    You can say it as often as you like, it's still not true. Even the statement you've paraphrased is only true in a numpty way. Did you know that according to that statement the top 10% of income earners pay nothing, nothing, towards benefits or WFF? Personally I think they could put a little bit towards maybe superannuation or something, seems selfish not to.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: How About Now?,

    But by just expanding the definition of “marriage” from “one man and one woman in an emotionally and sexually exclusive relationship for the rest of their life”...

    Wait, that's the definition of Marriage? Damn there's a lot of people who need to be reading the fine print.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 23 Older→ First