Hard News: We interrupt this broadcast ...
372 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
they just didn't have the numbers, not enough people voted for an effective opposition and Maori turned their back on Labour for spiteful reasons.
That's just laughably tribal. Previous oppositions have done better and everyone can see that. And as for any spite, it's a two-way street - "haters and wreckers" sound familiar? And ask the Greens about dealing with Labour.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Instead of complaining that Labour is not strong enough to be an effective opposition try actually voting for them
I did it they didn't work out on several occasions - I can't be bothered with them at present - they are troubled and not representative of much.
It is not a matter of strength - it is just that they present as being collectively witless.
Both National and Labour Govts RAM shit through under urgency. It is not unique to either of them. Except when Nats “do it” it is evil and when Labour “do it” it is for a greater good.
The left leaners need to stop seeing the political landscape as Labour GOOD - National BAD.
Labour and its died in the wool supporters are blind to addressing real issues or forming credible policy to such a degree they bypass budgeting for them - this translates to the electorate as bullshit.
You can’t be serious - accusing Maori of being spiteful – In a nut shell Maori interests in Labour were patient and when Helen would not accommodate “them” and made it clear their “rights at law” were being extinguished for electoral expediency they parted company. Gosh that plan worked well.
The Keyholes thing is petty and dum. - First Citizen John Key the First is happy smiling guy, when Goff say he is liar he just laugh at him. No problem for you, no problem for me, no problem for First Citizen – he so great every people everywhere much love him – happy people everywhere marching around in his honour - end of story
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Previous oppositions have done better and everyone can see that.
Like who?
You can't have it both ways Sacha, haters and wreckers sounds all too familiar, you only have to look at the right's frothing about Labour at the moment. If the Labour Party was such a lousy opposition then why the hate from the right.
As for your apparent position, you seem to have just given up on any hope for an alternative to National, Labour is that only, real, hope and you seem hell bent on opposing them. -
linger, in reply to
Both National and Labour Govts RAM shit through under urgency. It is not unique to either of them. Except when Nats “do it” it is evil and when Labour “do it” it is for a greater good.
You can’t reasonably do a “plague on both your houses” on this.
Urgency is not always a bad thing in itself – if used responsibly, for legislation that actually needs to be put into effect quickly, and for which public submissions are unnecessary. (I would prefer that it is used with the agreement of opposition parties; but fat chance of that I guess.)What’s the worst example you can think of from Labour? Harry’s Law? Politically expedient, sure, but not something that affected NZers’ lives.
However, National demonstrably over-used urgency, for bills that were not in any way “urgent” but which did have the potential to impact on citizens' rights; and they used it in a way that deliberately reduced chances for other parties to introduce bills (e.g., using Member’s Days).
They didn’t just “use” urgency: they abused it, to an extent not seen in any previous NZ government. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The left leaners need to stop seeing the political landscape as Labour GOOD – National BAD.
How else can you see it?
Under Labour the country was fairer and productivity was good. The balance of payments was good and the surplus was there for hard time ahead.
Under National that surplus was squandered on those that already had wealth and left us in a hole when the hard times came and all National want to do his squeeze the poor some more.
You tell me which is good and which is bad?.It is not a matter of strength – it is just that they present as being collectively witless.
I think if you rephrase that "it is just that they are presented by a biased media as being collectively witless." you would be closer to the truth.
No problem for you, no problem for me, no problem for First Citizen – he so great every people everywhere much love him – happy people everywhere marching around in his honour –
Careful, I feel you are beginning to believe that.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
They didn’t just “use” urgency: they abused it, to an extent not seen in any previous NZ government.
Too true and it was this tactic that made Labour look ineffective as an opposition, what the hell could Labour do in such circumstances? It would have been up to the Speaker to refuse the use of urgency but, well, Lockwood Smith... what more is there to say?.
-
Sacha, in reply to
As for your apparent position, you seem to have just given up on any hope for an alternative to National, Labour is that only, real, hope and you seem hell bent on opposing them.
That statement tells us more about you than me.
-
Sacha, in reply to
How else can you see it?
There are more than two parties running for election.
-
So very sorry - I slipped and bumped me head - how else could I not see Labour's goodness and destiny to be the govern-forever-ment by default.
All politics is now a foggy blur - I can see no evil or good in anybody or anything.
As I don't want to seem misguided or unbalanced my solution is to pick my favourite colours and my favourite song, "blue n green".
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
That statement tells us more about you than me.
Childish.
There are more than two parties running for election.
No SHIT, Sherlock
-
linger, in reply to
BTW: you may reasonably infer I will not be voting National, but nothing I have posted should lead you to believe I'd vote Labour.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Who ?? Say What?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
They didn’t just “use” urgency: they abused it, to an extent not seen in any previous NZ government.
-
Sacha, in reply to
one of us is making assumptions
-
merc, in reply to
Needs to be known and remembered, as does their track record on, ah fuggit, the NZ negation principle says they will win and destroy...why has no journalist again asked what Key intends to do after the election!
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
why has no journalist again asked what Key intends to do after the election!
Because anybody who lived through that last time they got a second term already knows?.
It bothers me that so many young people and recent immigrants are backing National in ignorance of history and that the media driven fear of Labour is eating away at democracy.
Nobody is saying that Labour are perfect, nothing in life is, but to throw away the gains made under 9 years of good and stable Government for the enrichment of the few just seems like total stupidity to me. -
DexterX, in reply to
that the media driven fear of Labour is eating away at democracy.
They is just telling it how it is.
If you show a talent for being a slacker you become a journalist - you are not scared of anything - nothing drives you and you don't drive anything - IMHO.
-
I would prefer that it is used with the agreement of opposition parties; but fat chance of that I guess
In many countries, that’s a requirement (the US senate doesn’t even curtail debate at all without a 60% supermajority - hence that many votes are needed to pass any contentious measure).
I wouldn’t go that far, but I’d suggest that to avoid the full select committee process, a supermajority should be required.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
They is just telling it how it is.
As did Goebbels?
A lot of my friends are journalists, none of which are slackers.
Journalism has little to to with editorial policy. -
DexterX, in reply to
A lot of my friends are journalists, none of which are slackers.
Journalism has little to to with editorial policy.Then you should have little trouble getting them lot, as friends, to reverse the eating away of democracy that is to Labour's detriment. They would have to go on a diet as far as truth is concerned.
When you say
Because anybody who lived through that last time they got a second term already knows?.
you are making refernce to the 1984 asset sales Labour Govt who got a second term and Goff?
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
And ask the Greens about dealing with Labour.
At the risk of raising matters best left in the past, my sources tell me that the Green/Labour relationship often worked well and that not all the difficulties were because of Labour.
Linger said:
What’s the worst example you can think of from Labour? Harry’s Law? Politically expedient, sure, but not something that affected NZers’ lives.
Well there's always the State Services Act 1988, introduced immediately prior to Christmas 1987. Legend has it that Caucus were told about the Bill on the morning of its introduction and that it was described as a "minor technical amendment". Still that was the Fourth Labour government, not Clark's and I can't think of anything they did under urgency...
-
Sacha, in reply to
my sources tell me that the Green/Labour relationship often worked well
What period were they talking? The ideological composition of the Greens has certainly changed this year - but that hasn't stopped any of the snideness from some Labour MPs.
-
you are making refernce to the 1984 asset sales Labour Govt who got a second term and Goff?
No.
-
One "Keyhole" which alarmed me was a remark he made in the first (TVNZ) debate. He pooh-poohed (can't believe that was in the spell-checker) the Occupy movement, saying, "Oh well, John Minto is in it. Rent a protester!"
Shallow.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
What’s the worst example you can think of from Labour? Harry’s Law? Politically expedient, sure, but not something that affected NZers’ lives.
You know something, Linger, I think this is not a good time to be all “whatevers” about the Electoral Act being fucked around with under extreme urgency simply because Labour and National didn’t want a by-election. That’s not a pressing and extreme constitutional or public interest matter requiring abrogation of due Parliamentary process.
And, yes, I will say “a plague on all your houses” because I’d have liked to see National and the Greens grow a fucking pair, walk out of the House and publicly refuse to have any part of it.
Still, I guess it's easy to be complacent in a country that doesn't have a history of corrupt legislators passing election laws to disenfranchise opposition, electoral fraud and election outcomes with no credibility whatsoever. Just don't you dare tell me again the credibility and integrity of our electoral law doesn't affect people's lives. It affects every one of us every damn day.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.