Why not have a go at changing the subject!
Printable View
Yeah, sure. National will just sail through with about 50% of the party vote in 2017. In your dreams, FP.
http://www.top.org.nz/about_top
I'm not so sure about that craic.
I think that there is a massive groundswell of dissatisfaction with the current social, economic, and cultural state of affairs in New Zealand. Add to that the traditional "three-in-a-row, time-to-go" nine year cycle of New Zealand politics, and I think you have the makings of a very disruptive election in 2017.
I think that Labour and the Greens have been unable to tap that groundswell and potential for disruption to build sufficient support to challenge National in any meaningful way. Which has, of course, led to them being seen as incompetent and ineffectual.
So a "sensible, evidence-based policy" grouping has massive potential to suck votes from both sides of the (outdated) political spectrum.
Mornin' fungus. . .
I think you're looking in the wrong direction. I think it's far more likely that he would suck more votes from National than from "the left". I think there are quite a few voters who would jump at the chance to stop swallowing the dead rats that seem part and parcel of voting National because they see no alternative.
It will be interesting to see how this all looks in a year or so's time.
ACT seemed to do OK for quite aa while with no visible signs of charisma. Principles and policy should not be under-rated as a path to electoral success.
And I will note, just in passing, that ACT's decline seemed quite well correlated to the amount of "charisma" on display.
That is my point. Act's original policies were brilliant and they had well known figures at the helm, from Labour and National backgrounds but as the original crew faded away out went the policies and the party has never recovered. Principal and policy is a hard sell without the right skipper. Morgan ain't the man to do it.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
ACT certainly had policy and principle to start with, but they were served up by a relatively non-charismatic crew. I mean Stephen Franks, charismatic? Roger Douglas?
The policies and principles attracted the voters, not the personalities.
Once ACT acquired charismatic leaders, (Messrs Hide and Brash) the party dwindled into irrelevance.
My point is that ACT was successful (possibly the most successful minor party that New Zealand has ever seen) without the need for "charismatic" leadership.
I suspect that ToP may be able to do the same thing - succeed on policy and principle, without the need for a "charismatic" leader.
We'll see in four years. . .
So you've looked in the mirror and finally and honestly decided that your politics are firmly left of centre. Now the good Lord decides to reward you with a choice. You can either have a Labour Government in NZ at the next election AND Donald Trump as president of the USA OR a National Government in NZ after the next election and Hillary Clinton in the White House - there are no other combinations available - Which would you choose?
Except it's not that simple, Craic. Labour/Green/NZFirst/TOP could all be in the mix. Outsiders can have the occasional win too, just as Ireland beat the All Blacks just now.
I'd much prefer a leftie coalition here, and Hillary in the White House. Would that be so bad?
Like the rapper's song, huh?
Watch this horrible video of Michelle Boag, political commentator of the right, "rapping" in front of a whole lot of National people during a fundraiser in Auckland.
"The right have the money, the right have the power" is one of their unashamed lines.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/vi...lery_id=167428
Bring back the Greens and their ukuleles, I say. I bet they are normally in tune, and not spouting utter crap.
Thanks for that, Jackie Hui, letting us see the inside of National Party fundraisers. Truly scary.
Acshully I'd like to hear what Craic thought of the video, he had a look but didn't say anything. National are being honest in this video, that's how they see it, unadulterated. In which case, they are all very deluded, or self-serving nutters.
Meanwhile Labour's leader is bringing out some new policy that I have a feeling will appeal to some of the leftie posters on here.
Quote:
78,000 unemployed youth policy:
Rather than pay young people the dole, we’ll set them up for six months with a job working in the conservation estate for DOC, or with a local charity or non-profit.We’ll put young people to work serving the community, getting the work experience they need.
Now these won’t be flashy jobs, but they will be a first step on the ladder.
And every young person will be paired with a mentor, someone who can help them learn new skills and get them ready for the job market.
I’ve seen for myself how programmes like these can work.
I’ve seen courses where they gave young people who have been out of work for a while a chance.
And its hands on stuff, they make sure they get to work, they make sure they bring a lunch, and they work in horticulture, they work on the land.
And by the end of the course, they’ve learned how to stick to a routine, how to pick themselves up when things get rough, they’ve learned habits that will last a life time.
They’ve got experience, they’ve got a reference, they’re providing for themselves.
They’re ready for work.
That’s the change we can make in the lives of thousands of people.
This is about saying to our young people: we’re not giving up on you. We see the potential in you, and here’s opportunity to make the most of yourself.
Delegates, we’re going to change the lives of thousands of our young people.
We’re going to restore opportunity.
We’re going to restore hope to people.
My post 10281? Now that's a mystery. I would like to know what it is and where it is? I've been on 1290 since before the earthquake - or was it the flood?
Craic still hasn't told us what he thought of National's lyrics and attempt at rapping, he seems to have studiously avoided doing so. Maybe it wasn't that bad, there must have been some redeeming features, although any thinking person wouldn't have found any.
Today I spoke with one of Gareth Morgan's first 200 TOP party members, a good family friend who is politically aware. They won't have any trouble getting to 500 members.
No need to apologise FP, we all know your views, no one apart from John Key and a bunch of cross party jumpers can match your charismatic requirements. Even Winston who has more charisma than most present day politicians can't meet your somewhat biased viewpoint. Good name for a show jumper though, which kinda fits JK –He’s a bit of a show pony.
westerly
A loaded question deserves a loaded answer. . .
After Mister Trump has a stroke in January 2017, President Pence will get on just fine with New Zealand's Labour Prime Minister English*. And negotiate a mutually beneficial free trade agreement.
*You will recall that Mister English resigned from the National party in protest after the revelations concerning the Malaysian 1MDB scandal, successfully stood as an independent, and was co-opted as Finance Minister by Prime Minister Little.
After a leadership coup by the "other" wing of the Labour party, Mister English was appointed Prime Minister as a compromise, faction-free, candidate on the understanding that he would not stand at the next election.
Now that Gareth Morgan's party has hit the boards, Labour and the Greens have decided, with Morgan, to form a new party for the next election. It will be called Three Bling Mice. to distinguish it from the other nursery tales that are the left wing.
It's been interesting to read through the commentary on Sharetrader on the arrival of ToP.
There seem to be quite different, but consistent, reactions from various parts of the (obsolete) political spectrum.
I think it's funny, the way that the National party evolved from various other parties as a coalition to "keep Labour out", and now "the left" is (slowly) evolving into a coalition to "keep National out".
That might be what's happening, there are a fair few of us who vote Labour partly as a more direct way of booting National out of power. And why not, when they do stuff with taxpayer money that is not in our best interests, just their own.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11743370
John Key backs out of trade trip.
Arrgh, I've been outed!
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/6...+November+2016
I keep hearing the manufactured term by the Nats "Rock Star economy". The only thing that this economy has in common with rock stars is excesses.
Lets face it without record immigration and the CHC re-build we would have negative growth. Hardly a sustainable economic plan.
The stresses that record immigration is putting on infrastructure and housing is unacceptable and has created not only a housing bubble in Auckland that will eventually crash but a wealth gap of the haves & have nots not seen in this country since the Great Depression and it took a Labour government to bring this country together back then. I am not a fan of Labour especially under Little, but something has to change.
The denial by the Nats that Morgan's party wont hurt them is perhaps a telling sign. Morgan is as right wing as they come with market forces being his solution to most things. However he also has a green tinge. Those right wingers that are fed up with National's lack of effort on protecting the environment or tackling climate change will be having a long look at what policies Morgan's party produces.
Hardly conjured, its not a new expression and at least Bill English gets something right.
Pity the rest of his cohorts didn't see it that way with Bennett with the crazed smile on her face and the ex woodwork teacher that has been inept at leading the CHC rebuild not being able to contain themselves. It will be that 2nd rate lawyer Simon Bridges turn next.
Interesting that despite all the disinformationfrom DayTr and EZ etc the NZ unemployment rate has gone below 5%, lowest for a long long time, and an International Monitoring group found that NZ is the most prosperous country in the world!
As for Morgan, he's a woofter and his party will go nowhere and rapidly disappear. After all about half the NZ population own cats and no cat owner would ever vote for Morgan!
The great advantage now is that if your aim is to keep Labour out, all you have to do is sit back and Labour will do all the work for you (like resurrectiong a work for the dole scheme that they themselves threw out) or promising things that they can't afford now but will in so many years. Or their favourite, looking frantically for a new leader while insisting that the incumbent is the greatest.
Hey EZ - there's hope yet if Labour are the the 'real deal' who can attract the masses
From Miller on Trump
@GeoffMillerNZ: Is this the end of modern politics? The end of data-driven, spin doctored, focus grouped, triangulated, ideology-light politics? #TrumpNZ
Hey EZ - we often talk about the Labour 'narrative' - i still don't get it, what is it that will make me consider them a serious contender
They should learn from Trump. Even with all the weird stories he told, all his speeches etc talked about making America great again and used the word great over and over again. Pretty simple message - the populous got it.
Even his victory speech had about 25 greats in it
What's Labour message?
EZ is feeling abashed to the point of invisibilty by this :-)
November 04 2016 Finding No. 7039 Topic: Federal Poll Public Opinion Country: New Zealand
During October support for National rose by 6.5% to 48% now clearly ahead of a potential Labour/ Greens alliance 38% (down 7.5%) after Prime Minister John Key travelled extensively overseas – including an address to a UN conference in late September. If a New Zealand Election was held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows National would be re-elected.
However, support for the National partners was down slightly with the Maori Party down 0.5% to 1.5% while Act NZ was 0.5% (down 0.5%) and United Future was 0% (unchanged).
Of the three Parliamentary Opposition parties - Labour’s support was at 26.5% (down 7%), Greens 11.5% (down 0.5%) and NZ First 10% (up 1.5%). Of the parties outside Parliament the Internet Party was 0.5% (up 0.5%), Conservative Party of NZ was 0% (down 0.5%), the Mana Party was 0% (unchanged) and support for Independent/ Other was 1.5% (up 0.5%).
In line with the jump in support for National the NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has risen to 126.5pts (up 9.5pts) in October with 55.5% (up 3.5%) of NZ electors saying NZ is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to only 29% (down 6%) that say NZ is ‘heading in the wrong direction’).
Don't believe in Polls
Gut feeling(I live in his constituency) tells me Winston is going to hold his seat and his nz first might take advantage of the trump effect
Interesting idea (the Trump effect). A wall around Whangarei?. All islanders who are not citizens deported? All abortions banned? No more Muslims? I think Winnie will try but he has a hard row to hoe here in that the country is doing very well by most standards and any radical ideas will be hard to find.
Patrick Smellie's opinion article says that a tectonic change is occurring. It's probably not a bad thing, because if climate change really does kick in, every continent will be on their own, trade greatly reduced.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...+November+2016
". . . if climate change really does kick in, every continent will be on their own, trade greatly reduced."
I'm curious. How do you come to that conclusion?
The scientists have been saying for a while that climate change scenarios are very scary, many of these same scientists have quietly purchased boltholes in cooler parts of the world, have already moved, or are preparing to move. The changes are on such a scale that global trade would be severely affected. Think about it - at the moment world trade relies on fossil fuel being pumped out of the ground, being refined, shipped round the world in supertankers, and everything hinges on that. Supermarkets, cheap goods from China, etc. Disrupt any part of that co-operative chain and the world will be a different place.
Self sufficiency is not a bad thing. You have a roof over your head. In my home village various individuals had their speciality and trading a few eggs for some cabbage or potatoes or whatever saw ever. We had no vehicles, supermarkets, cell phones or even electricity for years. Food was fairly basic and treats relied cooking skills. Sugar was severely rationed during the war. I don't remember being any less happy there than here and now. One huge difference was temperature. Then you froze in winter, huddled around fires and suffered the summer heat. Here everything is air conditioned and anyone exposed to less than 15 degrees Celsius is screaming hypothermia. I'm sure that a large part of the obesity problem relates to the fact that we are not allowed to use ingested energy to regulate body temperature. We had a series of exercises to "get warm" - anyone ever heard of them recently?
FP, if you have nothing better to do, and most people should be in that category, watch this short video, and by about 5 mins in you'll start to get the idea. Things could change very quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ
I would have hoped that after watching the video, you'd see that scientist looked scared for the whole planet, and that a big change could happen anytime now. A bit of googling and you'll start to see how some of them are going offline, moving, setting up boltholes.
... Yeah, like Al Gore's beach-front bolthole he bought in 2010.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.WC9Uz3dg3eQ
http://nation.foxnews.com/al-gore/20...lifornia-coast
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr...-gore-20100428
I found one of many articles for you, FP.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...ologists-0815/
Where is the relevance to the political thread? We should make sure that all our politicians have done their research on climate change scenarios. We'll need leadership, not denial.
If you're suggesting I use hyperbole, that might be partly right. At least I do some research first, before pronouncing on something. I can't reply to your open-ended questions, but the thrust of my argument is correct. Where are your articles? Did you bother to read what I posted first?
You're probably quite right there, Sgt Pepper. A Hamilton property guru that I know has apparently been consumed with everything Trump, especially since he got elected. But it's all part of the big picture that not too many are aware of - what are the changes ahead of us all when hundreds of millions of people can't stay where they are now, but most don't have any collateral to move anyway? At the moment the rentiers are doing well - those who can afford to move are doing so, mostly for work at the moment, and some of them are coming here.
We'll need flexible, thinking politicians, who are not scared to do some research, and who trust climate scientists and planners of all types.
Oh dear, you really are projecting the past straight into the future with not a lot of consideration for what’s happening in the present, El Zorro.
This will go on for a little. . .
First up, let’s look at your supertankers. Now, given that there are only two continents in the world, the only need for supertankers is to move oil to the American continent from the EuroAfricanAsian continent, or vice versa. Oh, and to New Zealand, of course. Better dredge Northport in Whangarei, so it can cope, hadn’t we!
Now, the American continent is self-sufficient in oil (Canada/Venezuela/USA). As is the EuroAfricanAsia continent (Russia/Nigeria/Arabia). So there’s no need for anything other than pipelines and tank-cars on a rail network.
Did someone say “rail”? Ah yes. 14 days by train from China to Germany, 20 days less than by sea. Given that Euro/Africa/Asia are contiguous, there’s a lot of scope for those “One Belt/One Road” initiatives to expand.
Second up, why oil anway?
At the moment, a lot of oil is burnt as transport fuel. Electric vehicles take that away. So we don’t need so many supertankers anyway, because there’s far less demand for the oil they transport.
And after all, solar doesn’t need fuel, nor does hydro, and both run 24/7, so there’s no shortage of transport fuel. Just flip the switch and recharge.
Third up, and last but not least, cheap goods from China. Yep, harder to come by in the Americas (and New Zealand, of course), but not in the Euro/African/Asian continent, with it’s rail network (electrified, of course).
So yes, we will see massive disruption, but it won’t come as you seem to anticipate. There won’t necessarily be less trade, in fact there will probably be more trade. But the patterns and the mechanisms will be quite different from what we see today. Intra-continental, rather than inter-continental.
Oh, a PS - as for your scientists cowering in their bolt-holes, well I rather think that those bolt-holes won’t be in some inaccessible place offshore from one of the two continents.
I'm all for a revolution - said it many times
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11749955
Won't happen 2017 but hopefully in 2020, if not before
EZ - Labour have lost the opportunity to be part of this. Election 2017 might be their last as a 'major' party (for want of a better word)
Points noted, GTM. But I'm not sure how electric aircraft would work, we'd still need a lot of transport fuel for those, and while we could grow our own fuel, it needs an ongoing amount of fertilisers, which are getting to be in short supply. Fusion or fission would seem to be the most likely future energy source on a large scale, and if that energy came cheap enough, we could fix a lot of our other issues.
Here in NZ, if we wanted to replace all motor vehicles with electric drive ones, we'd need to double the capacity in our electrical network.
I think Bryce is being a bit impractical with that article. Voters don't go too far out of their way to learn about NZ politics. If you have to reach them on TV, it costs money. Although I'd be surprised if Labour really gets $35mill a year from the taxpayer to spend within the party, they scrabble for every cent, so if must be part of the parliamentary budget.
I don't think you should be so brave as to write Labour off this far out from the 2017 election, for one it's Labour and the Greens, two we don't know what Winston is doing, three - no tax cuts next time unless National runs up a huge amount of borrowing again, four, what about the TOP party? You could just be more honest and state that you'd prefer more of the same, or you don't like the sound of some of Labour's policies because it might have a small negative effect on your personal equity, as part of a move towards less inequality. :)
Ah, you conservatives! Everything's a problem to be viewed through the distorting lens of the past.
With good rail, why do you need electric aeroplanes? Won't airships do? Why nuclear, when 24/7 solar is so much more economical?
Fertilizer in short supply? Which fertilize - or just the current sources?
Is having to upgrade the national grid such a bad thing? Such a big job?
You Conservative Cassandras seem determined to make sure that we don't address the issues. You may be fond of sackcloth and ashes, but they don't suit my complexion.
I guess that I should plead guilty to conservatism but solar power - for air transport - will have to move well beyond being able to support its own weight and that of its pilot before it becomes a practical solution. Or am I "viewing the problem through the distorting lens of the past" ?Quote:
With good rail, why do you need electric aeroplanes? Won't airships do? Why nuclear, when 24/7 solar is so much more economical?
Mornin' macduffy.
Nothing wrong with conservatism. If I may paraphrase Disraeli, conservatism means "conserving the good stuff". And I'm all in favour of conserving the good stuff.
So let's get out our distorting lens and have a look at the past. Cast your mind back to (say) 1880. Heavier-than-air travel and transport was impossible. The technology of the time was simply incapable of constructing an airframe capable of supporting the dominant power source of the time - the external combustion steam engine.
Orville and Wilbur wouldn't have gotten off the ground, with the Wright Flier loaded down with a couple of tons of coal. Cue the internal combustion engine. Cue the steam turbine. Once again, external combustion. Then "bingo", the internal combustion turbine, aka the jet engine.
Now let's snap forward to the present - as for electric-powered air travel, well you're probably right.
But if, as I suggest, most future trade is conducted within the two continents, then a decent electric rail system does away with a lot of the need for air travel. After all, how long does it take to get from Barcelona to Madrid by air, compared to by rail? And how often is that extra 40-45 minutes a critical (or even important) factor.
What I find odd is the willingness, indeed the determination, to chain ourselves to the past, and to let past limitations constrain our view of the possibilities inherent in the present.
The mindset that, when confronted by a carbon-free electric vehicle fleet, immediately responds "Oooooh! Can't do that, sorry, the transmission network won't cope!".
Proper conservatism is a good thing, it's the "radicals" with blinkers and handcuffs that you have to watch out for.
No argument there, GTM, but I thought you were making a case for solar-powered air transport. I'll go back and re-read post 11607.
(Not sure where all this fits into "If National wins...." ? )
Cheers
Afternoon mcduffy. . .
Well no, I'm not sure about how this fits with "if National wins. . . " either. but it's been an interesting detour, and much preferable to the usual "National slags Labour slags National, slags Labour and everybody slags United Future. . . . ad nauseam"
Cheers
GTM, I'm all for using solar/wind, but when it costs $17,000 to set up enough gear to run a small workshop, I draw the line at the moment. Even though heat engines like car motors are about 20% efficient in using the energy in fuels as motive power, it's still a vast amount of energy to replace. So you can't just put up an electric transport fleet idea, without doing the rest of the numbers.
Has the Kaikoura earthquake helped National's chances in a perverse way? maybe.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...nal-Government
I found one of the comments to this article very interesting. Here's John Key personally "tackling" Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook paying more taxes here. He's sniffed the wind, perhaps it's time to be doing something.
OK John, open up your books and let's see how much tax you've been paying. Simple. After that, you can hound everyone else.
The Greens and Labour leaders have supplied their personal income statements, John Key refused to. He also seems to know a lot about tax havens. If you invest $50mill, surely you'd expect an income of let's say $5mill a year, that's going to be taxable in the normal scheme of things. We're all expected to pay our share, after all.
I'm sure John Key wouldn't give Facebook some heavy advice about PR and paying a reasonable amount of tax! Without checking his own position first.
Unlike with Trump I think you are chasing a rainbow.
Oh Good Lord, El Zorro!
Here I am, peering into the future at a global, strategic level - almost a visionary you might say - painting the big picture, and you're complaining about a smudge in the top left hand corner of the frame!
Why, in a country so abundantly blessed with wind and hydro resources, anyone would consider solar power for anything other than passive water heating eludes me. Especially solar power at the individual workshop level for an industrial user.
At our global, strategic, (visionary?) level, the numbers don't actually matter - changes to energy generation are coming. They have to. The world can't keep powering itself by burning stuff - it's simply too expensive. And too dirty.
Stand back from the microscope, and try a squint through the macroscope.
GTM, I'm on your side when it comes to energy use - yes, solar tubes or passive heating arrays are much more efficient than PV, but you only get hot water, and my workshop doesn't need much of that. We're on flat ground and wind is patchy. What would be more useful is if the electricity retailers were forced by legislation to pay more for any PV energy fed back into the grid, up to a sensible limit per household or business. The power companies would lose some profits, but NZ would quickly change into a more self-sufficient operation as far as electricity needs. And it would create a lot of work for installers.
But I do mention the energy used by vehicles whenever a change to an electric fleet is proposed. In places like California, they are short on hydro, even reticulated power (or were) so a wholesale change to electric vehicles just couldn't happen at the moment. There is an enormous amount of energy in a car's fuel tank, it's a one-off resource that humans are squandering on a heat engine at 20% efficiency, sometimes just for a trip to relieve boredom.
As an aside, I'm not sure what anyone else does, but when I pull up into a "service station", get out and start to fill up my car, only to find that the pump is on prepay and the lone operator can't be bothered pressing a button to fire up the pump after a friendly wave - I just hang up the pump and go somewhere else. If they don't trust me enough to sell me petrol on tick for two minutes, they don't deserve my custom. It's bad enough I have to do all the work. More of us should just drive off, they'd get the message.
Oh dear! El Zorro, you really are a "glass half empty" type aren't you. The curse of conservatism, I suppose.
I will just note in passing that the lack of rails didn't do much to impede the onward march of progress in the form of the steam locomotive.
And that the inevitable march of progress in the form of electric personal transport will require an effort not unlike that required to gird the world in rails of steel.
The future's coming, ready or not. And keeping one's head in the sand leaves sensitive parts of one's anatomy dangerously exposed. . .
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to convert most vehicles to electric, of course that's sensible. But only if you have enough carbon-neutral energy to produce the extra electricity that would be required. And in some cases it's very hard, or might involve 20 years of new infrastructure work. It took about that long to build all the hydro stations on the Waikato River. You could swap the Bluff aluminium smelter power use for electric powered car energy, that might be a clever solution. But it has to be on that scale.
Manapouri? Manapouri? It's not on that scale El Zorro, it's much bigger than that.
To replace the world's current dependence on dirty burning things with clean electricity is much bigger than what you suggest. Much bigger.
Your conservative option of saying "Ooooooh! its a big big job" and "Ooooooh! It will take a long time." while wringing your hands just isn't an option.
I was only talking about our situation in NZ, to make the most of the hydro we already have. Maybe we shouldn't be making aluminium in a less efficient plant, when we could be running most of our vehicles on that energy, at say 80% efficiency. Worldwide, I think fission (and later fusion energy) will be what is needed to fill the gaps. Assuming economies continue to grow. What if they go backwards?
Warmest November day in NZ, since records began. Not a record I'm that happy about.
Key and co, trying to dig a sod for the symbolic start of the new undersea comms cable. Note the blue spades and ribbons. It's a National Party PR stint. Except they really do look like a bunch of muppets.
https://twitter.com/TheNBR/status/801274579603685377
Made my day that did!
Exactly. The left or Labour have not learned anything. If they keep trying to attack Key its a certain disaster for them come 2017. Almost feel sorry for ElZorro and his attempts to make Little more personable. Chris Trotter summed Little up quite nicely...
https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/...s-of-grey.html
mr little could always jump on a horse with no shirt on (like mr putin)
that should get some brownie points....... he seems fit.
jacinder could jump on a horse with no shirt on.....
that could win an election!!!
and her v pm ........
annette king with no shirt on.......... well.......
or winston........ maybe.... Marlborough man...grandad...
hone could do a real mean horse back photo shoot... musket and all....
greens co leaders.... on a double hump camel....... yup!
what about kim.com and hone together........ well.......... are there big horses in NZ?
too bad the conservative leader is out of the picture........ that would be a classic horsey photo.... c3po on a tamtam
would love to see a maori party horse back photo ..... i think??
think key might still pull it off with a blue spade.
dexter team still looks after key.
wonder what trumps horse would look like?
politics is fun
Yep, good enough for Robbie, its good enough for little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy4mXZN1Zzk
Blackcap, aren't the hits just starting to add up? Just a bit?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...+November+2016
He's a smart guy, Dr Ken Gledhill. Would I believe him, or bombastic Gerry Brownlee?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/nz-e...understandable
Just for craic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIckHmwZAeI
Another 'bogus poll' out
Colmar Brunton - Nats 50% Labour 28% Greens 11%
Next election a non-event sadly
W69, I've had a look through the latest poll, and watched John Key on TV taking the 50% party vote and writing down the effect of his lowered 'preferred PM' data. This poll straddled a big earthquake that many of us felt, so you'd expect some support for the current govt. Again, Colmar Brunton referred to new methods of communication that many use (i.e. cellphones) but then only polled people who had a landline.
Given all this, it's surprising the disengagement of the 1,000 eligible voters they eventually talked to. The party vote figures were for only about 800 of the 1,000 - the rest were unlikely to vote. But it looks like all 1,000 gave their opinion of sorts on the preferred PM. 34% of them suggested no-one, another 3% suggested someone not on the list at all, presumably the first person that popped into their head. Looking at John Key's preferred PM rating on a time scale, it peaked long ago and has a distinct downward trend, although it's levelling out.
The Labour-Green group have to mobilise this large tranche of non-voters, people who are hard to contact, but whom presumably watch TV. Imagine the money that will require. That's why being in power is a strong position, and National are taking plenty of Labour-looking initiatives like equal pay changes (around the fringes), to try and keep everyone on board.
But I think offering out small tax cuts at this stage, after they've plundered the Crown's book situation, and will need to do so again, is absurd.
FP, if that's what you got out of what I wrote, I think you missed a few points. Here's the poll data so you can double-check.
http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-co...2-13-21-23.pdf