If National wins ...

[elZorro]

He probably will beat Dunne though. I think last election Dunne just got in by a whisker and his majority has been in decline such that I think it will be in negative come September. Mallard is gone and if Labour get 25-27% it will be interesting to see who on the list misses out...

I don't think Labour will be down below 30% though, not this time.

National are going to be without John Key, although that proposition was looking increasingly poisoned. Bill English remade for the hoardings - that'll be interesting. iPredict is gone, and the control National had over its output. And now some of their campaign funds could be getting used to pay for their copyright breach last election with the Eminem song. Every second election they try it on - using sound tracks that they would have never been granted, even if they'd paid over a million dollars. This could be a substantial fine coming up, nowhere for the Nats to hide on this one.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...RenNS0LyFDTcEA

[blackcap]

I don't think Labour will be down below 30% though, not this time.

National are going to be without John Key, although that proposition was looking increasingly poisoned. Bill English remade for the hoardings - that'll be interesting. iPredict is gone, and the control National had over its output. And now some of their campaign funds could be getting used to pay for their copyright breach last election with the Eminem song. Every second election they try it on - using sound tracks that they would have never been granted, even if they'd paid over a million dollars. This could be a substantial fine coming up, nowhere for the Nats to hide on this one.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...RenNS0LyFDTcEA

Not too sure Labour are going to get over 30% myself. They are still at $4.50 with the bookies (and this is for Labour to have the next PM) so that means $4.50 to have a coalition large enough to govern. Seems unlikely they will even get this so my hypothesis is that Labour will get around 27% of the vote this time around. Hearing more and more ppl (anecdotally I know) say that Labour are a joke and how could you vote for them. Little is not really helping as he has the charisma of a bull in a china shop. Blinglish not as good as Key but better than Little.

[iceman]

I don't think Labour will be down below 30% though, not this time.

Unlikely they get to that level if they have MPs like Poto Williams coming out with crazy suggestions like she has now about men accused of rape being regarded by police as "guilty until proven innocent" and do away with "innocent until proven guilty". Does Labour really think that madness will fly with the electorate ?

[fungus pudding]

Unlikely they get to that level if they have MPs like Poto Williams coming out with crazy suggestions like she has now about men accused of rape being regarded by police as "guilty until proven innocent" and do away with "innocent until proven guilty". Does Labour really think that madness will fly with the electorate ?

Probably.
.

[dobby41]

Does Labour really think that madness will fly with the electorate ?

I really doubt they do.
But that is one persons view rather than party policy.
One thing about Labour is that their people are allowed to have views - all on their own.
Maybe people prefer to be ruled by a party rather than real people?

[BlackPeter]

I really doubt they do.
But that is one persons view rather than party policy.
One thing about Labour is that their people are allowed to have views - all on their own.
Maybe people prefer to be ruled by a party rather than real people?

Allowing and encouraging individual views is one thing.

Putting somebody who's views which are quite inconsistent with the values of our free, just and democratic society on the list is another thing. Proposing to treat accused people as guilty unless proven innocent might fly in some third world dictatorship, but it is absolutely unacceptable in any free society. If that's what Labour stands for, than they belong onto the garbage heap of history.

Shame on her and shame on Labour for not immediately distancing themselves from this nutcase.

[dobby41]

Allowing and encouraging individual views is one thing.

Putting somebody who's views which are quite inconsistent with the values of our free, just and democratic society on the list is another thing. Proposing to treat accused people as guilty unless proven innocent might fly in some third world dictatorship, but it is absolutely unacceptable in any free society. If that's what Labour stands for, than they belong onto the garbage heap of history.

Shame on her and shame on Labour for not immediately distancing themselves from this nutcase.

I suppose free speech isn't allowed anymore?

[fungus pudding]

I really doubt they do.
But that is one persons view rather than party policy.
One thing about Labour is that their people are allowed to have views - all on their own.

Of course all parties have members with differing views. Constant debate is part of keeping a party relevant. However it's important to keep a lot of debate and dissenting views behind closed doors as much as possible to avoid the inevitable claims of disunity.

[dobby41]

Of course all parties have members with differing views. Constant debate is part of keeping a party relevant. However it's important to keep a lot of debate and dissenting views behind closed doors as much as possible to avoid the inevitable claims of disunity.

Ah yes - couldn't have any party shown to be open and transparent.
Discussions like these are not easy on a forum - I'll stop poking.

[BlackPeter]

I suppose free speech isn't allowed anymore?

It depends ... look at it from a different perspective:

I think we all agree that rape is an abhorrent crime and its (proven) perpetrators need to be treated with the full force of the law. However - locking up somebody falsely accused (i.e. innocent people) because they are not able to prove their innocence is in my books not better than raping people.

Poto Williams proposed to treat rape accused as guilty until proven innocent. So she says it is o.k. to lock up innocent people, just because a liar accused them.

She is not better than people proposing that committing crime is o.k. Is this covered by freedom of speech? I don't know, but it clearly shows that she either didn't thought through her stupid remarks, or alternatively that she is a quite vicious and partisan person who does not care about innocent people suffering and about the most basic legal principles in a democratic society.

I don't know which it is, but do you really think either option qualifies her for parliament? Labour demonstrates very bad judgement by standing behind her. I hope the voters show her the red card. About time.