” * Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.
o Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).”

…nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action – a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society…

and

…wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable…

and

…just more law – we don’t need more laws…

And then ACT dropped their principles, bent over and voted in favour.

You hooked up with the SST ’cause they had a mailing list and a fan base of disgruntled one issue voters that you could buy with a number 5 list spot. Shock horror, the embarrassment ends up in parliament. And here you are defending all this pants.

Yes there is a liberal argument for strong law enforcement. But not when there are lots of illiberal laws on the books. You”ve got to get rid of those first, otherwise you’re just an authoritarian. Now you’re banning clothing for fuck sake. How’s the drug decriminalisation looking?

I remember election before last getting a leaflet from Franks, that I wish I hadn’t binned, banging on about how ACT would defend my freedom of religion which he though was being oppressed by civil unions. There was something about gun rights as well. A big issue in Newtown I assure you. Can’t believe he got so badly spanked. Campaign might’ve worked better in Alabama. Just sayin’.

Of course , that was when ACT was trying to wheedle the hunting-shooting-fishing vote, and the Christians on the QT. They’ve been kicked to the curb now, and you’ve got all these lock’em up and starve ‘em peeps. Classy.

What are going to do in a few years, before anyone has got their third strike yet, and there is a shock horror crime from someone that the SST wants locked up forever?

Can you assure us that the criteria for a strike won’t be loosened? After all, there will always be a victim the SST can point to and say “They would have been spared if we weren’t so soft”.

Your SST mates aren’t going to go away mate, and you’ve got them thinking they’re winners. Thanks for that. “Classic Liberal”.

That’s the deal you’ve made, and what have the Liberals in ACT got out of it?

I don’t think you know what c & s means.

I know a dodgy doctor who can give you a real cheap lobotomy Ian.

mike – They still have Trevor Mallard. Who while a prick, certainly has great ability in the house. The only thing is Labour didn’t wish for him to return to the front bench. Indeed, one almost wonders why Mallard remains in the party.

I agree ginga – labour are in real trouble in the house when Cullen goes

IrishBill – Not really. Many of the left still believe that somehow National stole the election.

Do they actually believe that, or were they venting? And if so, how are you going to prove it? Take a poll?

I would have preferred Labour had a fourth term, but I don’t think anyone was robbed, and I don’t know anyone who does.

Its the type of relationship Helen Clark could never seem to do with her natural allies such as the Greens and the Alliance. Instead she spurned them and later the Maori party for fake relationships with United Future and New Zealand First.

Good luck making it last- National is increasingly looking like it believes that the centre ground is for getting into government, (and that it doesn’t matter once the coalition ink is dry) and seems to have no problem embarrassing the Maori Party by making them unnecessarily vote for its tax cuts that hurt the majority of Maori.

I’ve been one of those consistently saying that Labour wasn’t “entitled” to the support of the Maori Party, (And likewise for the Greens) but I still can’t see how you’d argue that National’s relationship with the Maori Party is anything to be envious about. Getting someone onside with your coalition is easy- it’s keeping them there after the election and not losing votes for “your side” in the next one that’s the hard part, where Labour actually has a track record to some decree and National does not.

The sad thing is. From 1999-2003 Labour did extraordinary while National did really badly. And yet the left itWhat its doself in many ways fell apart with the Alliance going and Labour for some reason refusing to work properly with the Greens. The left could have established themselves as the natural government. But Key has the opportunity and more importantly the ability to prevent that from happening. While, the left scorn the relationship between the Maori party and National. Its the type of relationship Helen Clark could never seem to do with her natural allies such as the Greens and the Alliance. Instead she spurned them and later the Maori party for fake relationships with United Future and New Zealand First.