Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That the country veered wildly off to the right last September is a matter of record
Without wishing to labour the point, no it didn’t.
Read the stats.The Nat vote was actually slightly down. Labour was down 2.35%. The party with significant upswing was NZF, up 2.06%, Winston Peters as ever the wildcard.
Mana gambled on allying with Kim Dotcom and it didn’t work out. Because Harawira (narrowly) lost his electorate seat, the 1.42% of votes for Mana were wasted.
One of the quirks of our MMP system is the exception to the 5% threshold if an electorate seat is won. United Future has an MP although they won only 0.22% of the popular vote.
-
Envirologue: Choose Wisely, Grasshopper:…, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Yes, their vote collapsed yet again last election night. They shed more than 36,500 votes – a 14.8 per cent drop on 2011 – and one MP.
Anyone want to fact check this? It’s really wrong.
247000 in 2011. 257000 in 2014. That’s not shedding any votes.
+1 to everything Tim Hannah says.
Dave I find your column bizarre. Not only wrong on facts but missing any discussion of co-leader Metiria, the other Green MPs, or their actual policy.
I understand you don't like James Shaw, but comparing his election to the bombing of Yugoslavia is just plain odd.
-
Thanks for writing this, John. It's all so horrifying.
-
Mike Hosking’s inane editorialising peaked this week in this incredible 48-second Mike’s View entitled I want to see news about how happy we all are.
When I saw that mentioned the other day I assumed it was parody. You mean this actually happened?
-
Hard News: Great New Zealand Argument: A…, in reply to Geoff Fischer,
Divided loyalties will not disappear of their own. They can only be expunged by an act of will which transcends ethnic loyalties and material ambitions: a genuine commitment to the well-being of all tangata and whenua.
Amen to that. Thanks for your thoughts, Geoff.
-
Speaker: Sex, monsters and outrage, in reply to Steve Curtis,
There is no discrimination period. Some people have no idea of the meaning of words.
Spreading wacko views about unmarried woman isnt hate speech , it isnt discrimination either.
Since we must go down this route, Hate Speech:
Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group
[Wikipedia]
and Discrimination:
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.[1] This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, “in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated”.[2]
[also Wikipedia]
Welcome to the these words.
-
Speaker: Sex, monsters and outrage, in reply to Joshua Drummond,
Smith is going in to bat for his school and his staff under media pressure
What a pity the school, parents and teachers can’t be allowed to sort it out between themselves. RL should not be confused with reality television, where we all have the right to see, hear, and judge everybody.
-
So many people have gotten beside themselves with rage and yet nobody in the story has actually done anything wrong. The most that's happened is a misunderstanding.
Yes, the pamphlet sucks. It's bordering on hate speech. As others have said, it's probably better to meet this sort of hatred in a safe environment and be able to discuss and dismiss it, than to meet it suddenly on the street or in your letterbox.
-
OnPoint: Beyond 'a bad look', in reply to Grant Taylor,
You don’t like them, I don’t like them, I didn’t vote for them – but a decisive segment of the population did. And I don’t see how the journalism we got, flawed though it was, could have been the decisive factor in either the election result or the behaviour patterns of the current government.
Remember that almost as many people didn't vote as voted for the Nats. Don't tell me that the constant "foregone conclusion" touted in the media didn't put people off voting.
-
Does anyone else actually remember Helen Clark’s years as PM? Yes she made herself available for comment on all sorts of issues. But she made damn sure she was briefed by officials first, so she could speak knowledgeably and answer questions meaningfully.
Remember Corngate? Clark was so angry because she wasn’t expecting the question and hadn’t been briefed on the issue.
Her government used the public servants to work things out and keep the ministers informed. Key’s government uses public servants to produce advice which is ignored, and to take the blame when the minister messes up.