Hard News: The perils of political confidence
632 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 26 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
To be regularly drug testing hundreds of thousands of people, and then imposing on them punishment that goes well beyond what the employed get if they are caught in possession, is a major violation of human rights, a form of social profiling I find incredibly objectionable.
Could it be struck down as unconstitutional with, say, a Chen Palmer case?
-
James Butler, in reply to
I wouldn't be surprised to find out this was a deliberate ploy, if it was then it was very clever.
I'd like to hear how it's "clever". It looked phenomenally stupid to me.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Do you really think that Green members on the whole are more likely to be OK with a "teal" coalition than Green supporters?
Yes, I do, and here's why...
A member of a party is on a track, however small, to one day be in a position of power. It would be in the "interests" of a member to further the power of that party, in what ever way possible, power corrupts...
A grass roots supporter has none of this, they just want the party that represents them to have power, not get into bed with a party that represents the opposite of their wishes. -
Sacha, in reply to
it was very clever
the results would suggest otherwise, surely.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
ETA2: I can't think of a policy more likely to cause an instant spike in crime than to put people who not only haven't got a job, but now are even more unlikely to get one, and who have a drug habit to support, to have no means to support themselves.
+2
-
Sacha, in reply to
A member of a party is on a track, however small, to one day be in a position of power.
I doubt most local volunteers quietly expect to be cabinet ministers one day.
-
James Butler, in reply to
A member of a party is on a track, however small, to one day be in a position of power. It would be in the “interests” of a member to further the power of that party, in what ever way possible, power corrupts…
... and very little power corrupts very little. This doesn't square with my observations of other members at all.
-
Differing desires between party and supporters is a presumption in Paul Buchanan's marxist analysis of the Greens' positioning.
The Green march to the centre leaves those who believe in the essence of class conflict in capitalism (and its cousin, class compromise) devoid of electoral alternatives. Specifically, there is no longer a competitive Left option that challenges the fundamental logics of the contemporary New Zealand socio-economic system. Instead, there are only accommodationists of various centrist stripes, the Greens now being one of them. They may challenge along the margins of the dominant project, but they do not question the fundamentals. Despite the presence of Leftists and anti-imperialist/corporate rhetoric in the Mana Party, it appears to be more personality-driven and ideologically incoherent than a proper class-based party. That means that there is no genuine, politically viable alternative to the Left-centrist logic.
In effect, what is good for the Green Party leadership and organization is not good for those at the grassroots who want a legitimate Left parliamentary alternative that is electorally viable and committed to questioning the status quo. In order for the Greens to have remained as such they would have had to eschew the temptation of centrism and accept their role as a minor party on the ideological margins that speaks truth to power rather than be a contender for power as given. That would have meant keeping to a more “militant,” or “activist” line that did not deviate from the foundational principles of the Party.
I'd say he's overstating how many grassroots supporters believe in the same things as he does. Or Sue Bradford would be a Greens leader rather than complaining from outside about the party "dobbing in" billboard activists.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I’d like to hear how it’s “clever”. It looked phenomenally stupid to me.
You, Sir, are not the average voter. As we know, the average voter is rather selfish and pretty gullible. If this was not so then we would not have a National Government at all.
It's clever because, had Norman not been so over the top in his apology, it would have made the Greens look principled open and honest, without affecting their grass roots support, unlike the "it is highly unlikely we would go with national" line they have been trotting out for the past week or so which just made me think WTF?.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the average voter is rather selfish and pretty gullible
that line is a regular feature at The Standard and is frankly beneath you, sir.
-
Sacha, in reply to
without affecting their grass roots support
Again, I'm not convinced these are the people you seem to believe they are.
-
merc,
The perils of political non confidence, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10766363
Very very bad move for Mr Key. -
BenWilson, in reply to
Which was the whole bloody point of MMP, right? Right?
It was one of the points. Greens would be a powerful advocate for environmental issues under either National or Labour. Indeed they are a more powerful advocate if they sit between those poles, and I'd say they'd pick up as many votes as they'd lose. The real danger is actually to Labour, who might actually lose votes left to a party more representative of the poor, if they find themselves without the padding of the Greens whose environmentalism might have cost quite a lot of working class votes (who have more pressing concerns). I see Mana moving into the vacuum that the Greens will leave, if they slip into bed with National.
Which, I have to say, does actually make more sense to me. It's people voting more directly for representation on the minors, rather than working in unholy alliances that bleed off in every direction. If environmentalism is your thing (and it's actually not my thing, at least not the main thing), then vote for environmentalism.
I'd love to see the Greens kick out Dunne's comfy little nest as the party of choice for centrists. I'd love to see Labour actually fight for the Labouring classes. I'd love to see social liberals who are voting National suddenly realize they can still have right wing economics if they really must. I'd love to see Green economics become centrist economics. I'd love to see the Maori Party actually fighting for those Maori whose tribal affiliations are far less pressing than their miserable poverty. And I would really love to see the look on all the really conservative National voters faces when they hear that they're in bed with the Greens. I'd love to see the Greens seriously confront how they can make an economy that is primarily industrially agrarian work, and actually court rural voters.
This move by the Greens makes a lot of sense. I probably won't vote for them myself, because in this election it's all about the economy for me, and Labour is more convincing to me. I think they have the ideas that will prevent real hardship for NZ over the next 10 years, and set up an equitable future.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
that line is a regular feature at The Standard and is frankly beneath you, sir.
Sorry Sacha, I shall rephrase...
The average voter is pretty simple and rather gullible.
How's that?.
Come on, Mr wave and smile, popular, You DA MAN John Key!!!
Gimmee a break, if that ain't gullible and simple what is? -
Key’s not usually as angry as this. And as Russell said upthread, the first port of call would have been the Press Council rather than the police, so whatever you think of the Tea Tapes affair, it does insinuate that there's something to hide.
As for the Greens ex-member who tampered with the billboards, I think it’s just electoral thrill seeking rather than any calculated sabotage plot.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Very very bad move for Mr Key.
Not if the whole thing is successfully being played to his talkback base as being "principled".
10.55am: Following Michael Laws’ lead yesterday, the talk-radio hosts are lining up behind National on the teapot tapes again today.
From Mike Hosking’s editorial for Newstalk ZB this morning:
The Prime Minister’s example is a good one. Two high profile New Zealanders discussing their child’s suicidal behaviour. The thing is taped and published and the child then kills themselves. Then what? It’s a dramatic example but perfectly plausible. If Key didn’t hand this to the police, the precedent would have been set and then it would have been a free for all …
Damage to National? Not a chance. Key took the moral high ground and did the right thing. In doing that, you rarely lose.
And Sean Plunket has been gymnastically fending off caller after caller on Newstalk ZB Wellington for the last hour.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The average voter is pretty simple and rather gullible.
How's that?why would you expect people to agree with, or vote for, anyone who is insulting them?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Not if the whole thing is successfully being played to his talkback base as being “principled”.
Translation: La la la la la , I can’t hear you…
10.55am: Following Michael Laws’ lead yesterday, the talk-radio hosts are lining up behind National on the teapot tapes again today.
Umm... Pot, kettle, black, much?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Key’s not usually as angry as this.
There were some interesting passages in The Hollow Men about Brash being advised to use feigned anger as a media tactic when the pressure came on over his, Joyce and Key's sneaky dealings with the Brethren in 2005. Nothing new here.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Not if the whole thing is successfully being played to his talkback base as being “principled”.
I think there's a lot of professional bitchiness going on around this.
How hard is to to grasp that the contents of the recording could fall short of damn-the-torpedoes public interest and still be a bloody good story?
The idea that it's binary -- if it's not "overwhelmingly public interest" is must therefore be "nothing" -- is really silly.
Also: fuck knows what Hosking's on. But I don't want any.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the high-pitched spinning is both fascinating and disturbing to behold.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
Come on, Mr wave and smile, popular, You DA MAN John Key!!!
Gimmee a break, if that ain't gullible and simple what is?Suggesting that all voters who do not agree with you are stupid is just tedious.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
ETA2: I can’t think of a policy more likely to cause an instant spike in crime than to put people who not only haven’t got a job, but now are even more unlikely to get one, and who have a drug habit to support, to have no means to support themselves.
+2
And me -- with the proviso that it's not really new policy because people who fail to get to job interviews because they're off their faces are already marked down as failing to attend interviews.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Pot, kettle, black, much?
That was my reading of the Rudman article linked to upthread.
Trotting off to the police on Monday full of injured innocence about a nasty cameraman recording his open invitation, "secret" meeting with Epsom Act candidate John Banks is all very well. But isn't this the same John Key who shoved through retrospective legislation last month legalising widespread covert and unlawful videotaping by police.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Not if the whole thing is successfully being played to his talkback base as being "principled".
I don't think refusing to answer questions in an interview is ever a good look. Good on them for persisting. He could have just answered very briefly, perhaps taking one question and a follow up, and then switched to talking about the economy (on which any number of harsh questions could be asked since he's presided over an absolutely disastrous economy).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.