Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OK, can I propose adding Berlusconi to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mugabe on the list of automatic failwhale comparisons to anyone in New Zealand politics?
No, I am quite happy to maintain that the fictive nature of Act is similar — although, not, of course, exactly the same — as Berlusconi’s disregard for honesty and integrity in electoral positioning (the use of decoy lists). Berlusconi uses parties as vehicles for himself; here Act are used as a vehicle for National.
The comparison to Pol Pot and Stalin analogies is both pathetic and offensive.
-
Hang on, it would be one thing if it was Banks and Isaacs discussing rolling Brash. It would be deeply unpleasant, and enough to give anyone pause about voting for that snakepit, but basically just part of the desperate world of sub-5% minor party politics.
What makes me angry is the fact that it looks suspiciously like Act's electoral independence is a complete and utter sham, a fiction made up to keep the voters happy. And that makes me very angry at Key; it is almost Berlusconesque in its mendacity. If Act are merely National's puppet, as I think it is hard to avoid concluding, that raises real questions about the purpose of their continued existence.
-
What I do not understand about the allegations of soap operatic-ism is that the alleged contents of the tea tapes are (a) a discussion of the future of the Act Party indicating they are a wholly owned subsidiary of National, and (b) a discussion of the electoral prospects of another party based on demographic trends. Sounds pretty much like important political news to me.
Then we follow up with the Prime Minister refusing to talk about it, and the police searching the premises of the leading national news organisations a week out from an election.
Those are real issues that matter to Kiwis.
-
Did three just put the knife in there, or was I dreaming?
-
Ha! You were there too Joe? If I'd known I would have said something. What was with the Winstonite? He seemed like an old lag at the rark-the-crowd-up thing?
Also, pretty impressed with the Alliance chap, and Kennedy Graham seemed good.
-
Like I say, I feel it would be counteracted by the vast majority not bothering to rank the list resulting in the party choices dominating..
In other words, this policy won't do anything, so what does it matter?
(I am not hugely fussed over the possibility of reranking lists; I dislike it because it replaces a thick model of politics with a thin one, but really, it isn't that bad. I also dislike it because it reeks of populism, and that annoys me.)
-
But take the Greens' choice to impose pretty strict gender balance on their list. How does that survive voter re-ordering of the list? What about the effect of the almost inevitable Auckland-centrism of nationally ranked lists on a party trying to use the list to maintain geographic diversity?
-
But it does also pose problems about freedom of association. The Party has a particular list that it endorses. It doesn't endorse other lists. Why should the Party have to campaign for a list it doesn't want?
(Also problems in terms of representation of minorities, and the fact that it becomes a nationwide-at-large vote, which will inevitably benefit the famous.)
-
In which case it would have been, “meh, the usual anarchist suspects with too much time on their hands at it again…”
But that is what happened, and unfortunately the Greens are now the usual suspects.
-
And the outbreak of foot-shooting would be deeply unamusing.
Oh, come on, those stickers were hilarious, until it turned out that it was being run out of the Green Party. Then it became awkward.