- Date published:
12:38 pm, November 25th, 2021 - 105 comments
Categories: act, David Farrar, Dirty Politics, Judith Collins, labour, national, politicans, Politics, same old national, Shane Reti - Tags:
At midday, it sounds like Judith Collins lost a vote of confidence after apparently angrily pulling the trigger for a preemptive shot using junk from someones dirty politics file.
I heard David Farrar on RNZ speculating on the movement of vote to Act. I very sure that has already happened – but really more?
I don’t think so – the rump must mostly be voters of the center . The right of National went to Act as did their large nutter fringe.
The latter was reflected in the ACT MPs selected last election. A bigger selection of nutbars would be hard to find.
So wouldn’t surprise me to see National’s remaining vote to go to parties in the centre or centre-left. There isn’t much choice here at present. NZ First or Labour or something else?
At the last election, a similar self-inflicted mutilation by National caused a large movement to Labour in the absence of a better alternative. I suspect it will happen again.
What do readers think?
Updated: Shane Reti is a interim leader.. That means at least one more destabilising leadership vote?
It is hard for this (usually) Labour voter to see Judith Collins to go. She has been the present that kept giving.
After this mornings events, voters stayed their pencils awaiting the fall out!!
It's my sense that NZ politics hasn't seen anything this destructive since the night Muldoon got on the turps and called a snap election. And that led to all manner of unintended consequences.
In short – probably too soon to tell.
Gordon Campbell makes some salient points.
Wish Campbell would exert just a little energy on copy-editing … a few too many typos … only takes a minute or two.
I know Gordon's problem all too well. I'm particularly prone to repeating words and mixing tenses.
No, votes will come back to National from Labour.
Labour will face serious head winds over the next 2 years and a large chunk of ex Nat voters who drifted to Labour last election will return.
Return…to what, exactly??
That depends on the new National leader, and the Labour Coalition tent that is currently being blown away by a storm of ineptitude.
Sounds like a pious but unlikely scenario. Wishful thinking.
Looking at the polls since the last election, I suspect that has already happened. After all there has been drop from the ~50% at the last election down to ~43% in recent polls.
The movement to Labour was partly about how they handled the pandemic, but probably more based on how much of a shambles National was last election.
Guess what National looks like again.
Two years is a long time and Labour will have many issues to deal with.
So far dealing with issues hasn’t noticeably diminished their core support from 2017. From 44.4% of party vote in 2017 election to ~43% just before National imploded this time.
National on the other-hand has gone from 36.9% down to 27% before this latest self-inflicted ricochet. They have wound up barely moving over the last 4 years, and now there is likely to be another downward trend for them.
Basically National have squandered their pool of experienced MPs because there are now so few left that they will probably put up a another liability like Mark Mitchell or a newbie politician who effortlessly trips over their own feet like Chris Luxton.
and in 6 months time the covid situation may well have settled down, we got through the messy spring of discontent and people look back and think Labour navigated us through it pretty well overall so no need to change the government
Some – but only if Judith can style herself as someone who stood up for women and was punished for doing so by a National Party full of unreconstructed blokey sexists. She's not above deliberately damaging her own party by playing that line.
The voters who voted Labour only at the last election will revert to the National Party if the following occurs in the election next Tuesday.
Luxon becomes the Leader. Reti is retained as the Deputy Leader. Bridges is given the Finance role and number 3 ranked.
There will be a huge swing back to National from the women who voted Labour in the last election because they had been conned into believing that Jacinda saved us from 80,000 Covid deaths. The first poll in the new year will have a swing from National to Labour and this will be at least 10% by March 1st. ACT will stay where it is.
If Bridges ever became Minister of Finance I'd look forward to someone 'leaking' his first Budget documents.
I agree with you. 🙂 This doesn’t happen too often.
But your comment reads as being as inconsistent and incoherent as National’s policies in the last few years.
They got a poll boost when Bridges was rolled. The Not-Bridges took them to 38%.
But after a few weeks being Not-Bridges was not enough. He became Todd Muller.
Luxon will get the same Not-Collins poll boost. Then he will become who he is … an ultra-conservative, or worse, somebody who pretends not to be and isn't convincing.
Seymour will eat the newbie's lunch.
Sure – but look at the timing and remember how fast the Muller, a near newbie MP lasted.
It is late November.
New leader in a week. Honeymoon over Xmas / New Year.
Alwyn specified a poll in March. After the house comes back and the back-biting restarts and a really newbie Luxton gets smeared.
For that reason I think that National would be nuts to go with Luxton. He has been a nobody in his shadow roles so far. Currently…
The main thing you could say is that he hasn't screwed up yet – basically because he is as silent and gagged as the newbie nutbar Act MPs.
Luxon has managed to make quite a lot our of the three waters proposal. Have a look at the various poll results on whether people are for or against the proposal.
Newshub. 48% opposed, 27% in favour.
Taxpayers 56% opposed, 19% in favour.
That is a pretty strong anti-Government vote and it is something Luxon has been pushing.
Of course there hasn't been that much out of Luxon in his spokesman's roles. They don't offer very much to develop which is why Collins, already seeing him as a major threat even as a newcomer gave them to him.
Out of curiosity can you remind me of anything at all that our current PM accomplished in her first year in Parliament? Or even in her first 6 years.
It is pretty clear that you don't know much about him.
His name is Luxon, not Luxton. When you say he hasn't been very noticeable I suspect you may be confusing him with another current MP named Luxton. At least I think she is still an MP but I can't remember anything she has done since her maiden speech. Is she really still there?
You are correct. I know very little about Chris Luxon. That really is the issue.
The main thing that I know about him is that he is a first term MP. When I say he hasn’t been particularly noticeable, I am talking about his shadow portfolios – in particular Research, Science and Manufacturing (for obvious professional reasons) which he picked up in August and the important Local Government portfolio that he has been carrying.
I really don’t give a damn about media puff pieces and profile loading. I tend to look at actions, policy and the parliamentary work of an MP.
I suspect he knows little about many of the tasks that a politician needs to know, and even less about managing a parliamentary caucus. But as a mostly Labour supporter, he would be my pick for leader of the national if Judith Collins isn’t available.
If I was a National supporter, I’d probably go for Simon Bridges or Shane Reti, their caucus and party organisation need a lot of work. Their party needs to decide what they are supporting and to close the ever widening factional breaches.
BTW: My persistent name typo actually comes from the long-serving National MP and DairyNZ Chairman who recently died John Luxton rather than Jo Luxton.
Also I know little about Jo Luxton for similar reasons to Chris Luxon. She is in her second term and works mainly in select committees which are less documented than the chamber, and they are also in areas that are out of my usual scope of attention.
1st Q to Deputy Reti: "Do you stand by your support for the previous leader?".
1st Q to Bridges: "Do you support the new leader?" A: "It is not my intention …"
1st Q to Luxon: "What should your predecessor do now?"
etc, etc. Papering over achieves nothing, only a clearout will do.
1st Q to Deputy Reti: 'Concerned frown and head tilt followed by "I absolutely refute that".
1st Q to Bridges: 'Concerned frown and head tilt followed by "I absolutely refute that".
1st Q to Luxon :'Concerned frown and head tilt followed by "I absolutely refute that".
One simple difference: Ardern believes what she says.
If she was answering the Q "Did you support Andrew Little when you were deputy?" then "I refute" would be false. Fortunately she could answer honestly.
I think it's even worse for the Nats (and NZ politics), they will continue to bleed votes to Act due to chronic incompetence and scandals. Act will gain parity with National in the polls, but they will both be stuck with mediocre minor party numbers.
I don't see a coherent opposition forming for a few years yet. National is still in denial of their culpability for the disastrous legacy of the FJK regime
Why not Reti?? Serious question.
Luxon is to new and unknown.
Bridges has mud allover him now .
Reti would be a good choice to get some swing votes off Labour, mainly because he's not an arsehole.
he is an amiable bloke for sure
he is however the leader you choose if you want your party to keep their head down and keep a low profile.
he is a low profile party leader
One begins to feel that a "None of the Above" vote would continue to grow!
7.9% of Other parties at the last election + spoilt votes (~0.7%) + registered people who didn't vote at all (~18%) + eligible people who weren't registered (??).
Something like 30% all up.
It is the first time under MMP that the two "centre" parties are out of Parliament (NZF, UF). So there's a gap in the market.
A new one could emerge, but both NZF and UF started with an electorate MP. Very tough otherwise (see TOP).
Sure – that is targeting the extremist conservative and nutbar voters.
Right now I think that under a new broom National may be able to take shallow soft vote back from Act with that.
If anyone was there in Labour like that, then I suspect that would have already departed after two female leaders.
I really don't care much about that vote – it is electorally insignificant because it isn't in the centre of kiwi voting public. There isn't a currently particularly viable centre party. So that vote splits between National and Labour and where it splits determines the next few elections.
I suspect that eventually we will get a centrist party – probably splitting out of National .
Or just being National, with the fruit-loops going to Act, and the utter fruit-loops currently in Act splitting off to form the Big Swinging Dividend party or whatever.
I think National's current support is their base and they can't go any lower. Only tribal Nats could support such a shambles over the past 2 years. If they haven't fled the ship before today, I don't think they ever will.
Collins was an unelectable train wreck. Her departure is a good thing for New Zealand and the National Party.
I think it will be a 5 year rebuilding job at the very least, but her ousting today will in my view see them pull back support from ACT (especially some of the sexist vote that would never vote for a woman).
The right as a whole won't benefit by that movement, so it will be the status quo come the election.
In what regard are the current ACT caucus a bunch of "nutbars"? What have they come out with since they were elected that suggests that are extreme in any way?
Scratch the surface and you'll find a bunch of pro-gun, pro-pollution, anti-vax libertarian death cult capitalist freaks
Yeah, nah. You have little in the way to support that view. Who in the current caucus has come out as being anti-vax, pro-pollution, or even pro-gun?
The leadership of the party has been firmly behind the efforts to vaccinate the population.
The caucus environment policy is firmly behind addressing such challenges as water quality, climate change, and dealing with waste in the best way possible.
The most the party has stated on gun control is that the starting point should have been our gun laws as they were pre the recent changes and you shouldn't demonise 100's of thousands of law abiding gun owners. That is not an extreme position to take
The most the party has stated on gun control is that the starting point should have been our gun laws as they were pre the recent changes
Nope, they want to scrap all gun control laws, prevent a gun register and create an independent licensing authority with full administrative control of gun legislation.
That is exactly what I stated.
Good camouflage, but sometimes the mask slips and we get a glimpse of the true intentions of the loony Actoid Randian misfits
back at you gosman. what have they come out with since they were elected suggests they arent extreme in any way? what have these nine m.p.s that we pay for actually done? are they actually working for the$$$. as a party who campaigns on gov waste ,I would suggest these nine are currentley the biggest drain on the hardworking new zealand taxpayer.
They need machine guns to kill wabbits .
David Seymour has been very successfully positioning ACT in a way to appeal to centrist voters not hard right. This is why he has been very careful not to just criticise the government for the sake of criticism. The party has alsp released a number of policy positions which is most unusual for an opposition political party this early in to a term of parliament. It is one of the reasons ACT is not just winning disgruntled National voters but also picking up former Labour supporters.
I guess that you’re talking about ‘former Labour supporters’ in the historical sense.
After all even Matthew Hooton was once a Labour voter. So was Rodger Douglas and all that generation of Act supporters.
Or even the disgruntled floater group who change parties every few elections based on what leaders look like on broadcast TV (incidently who in the hell watches those ad-laden channels these days).
However that really doesn’t count except for your usual rhetorical flourish. I haven’t seen any evidence that Labour is leaking current support to Act except for maybe a very few fashionistas – most of whom usually fail to vote.
No. I am meaning Labour party supporters from before and after the last election. I can assure you that the research indicates that about a third of the voters ACT is picking up are ex-Labour party voters. They might be soft Labour party supporters but they are still ex-Labour. You might not like it but that is what the internal research is showing.
Groan. Whose research? How was it done. Most of the un-sourced political ‘research’ Much of it is of the ‘I heard it from a mate at the bar’ and has about the solidity of toilet paper after it goes into the toilet bowl and the inspiration for the insight is used to pee on it.
Plus you’d need to look at the demographics of the polled to figure out if you can rely on whoever you’re polling.
It wouldn’t surprise me they are picking up soft fashionista polling. That is common at mid-term. It seldom lasts through to election time and even more seldom goes to the polling booth. Once you categorise it by age and effectively exclude the under-30 polled with their terrible voting record and look at the people who have kids and/or mortgages or solid records of actually voting – then you start getting something more like what will actually appear at the polling booth.
I get it that biases are likely to blind you to accepting that research might suggest something other than which you believe so I will ask you where the 8 % plus of the electorate that voted Labour at the last election has gone considering The Greens and National have barely moved in support and NZ First is still under 4 %?
What research? Simple question.
8% could have been a sampling error, or could have decided to not vote, or could have decided to jump over to ACT. Or they could have shunted to national and national voters shunted over to ACT.
You’re assuming a direct movement in a dynamic environment. That may happen with the protest polled or fashionistas. But as I pointed out, looking at those polled people to show up at election time and actually vote or to vote for those that the said they would vote for is invariably a waste of time. The Greens can tell you about that – election after election.
Straight jumps are unusual amongst people who do vote. It is more likely that Act has picked up NZF support (they traditionally have a group of protest voters) and soft National. The right-leaning fashionistas under 30s who a pretty good at being polled but pretty useless at voting who probably votes National last time if they voted. Protest voters from National aghast at the their politicians.
Meanwhile Labour has been shedding poll numbers to National – mostly from soft stability voters who voted Labour at the lat election because National were a basket case. While Judith Collins isn’t a draw card, National looked pretty stable this year compared to last year. So they give their traditional party to vote for a vote of confidence.
That is a dynamic transfer model. If you even look at things like the post election research like the stuff Jack Vowles did, then you see this happen over and over again in NZ politics. It is more likely hypothesis in the absence of hard information (that you appear to lack) than your ‘we get it from everywhere’ wishful thinking
As you say National’s poll numbers remained very stable, and Labour’s reduced by almost exactly the increase in their poll numbers after National went unstable last year. That transfer we saw fits a dynamic model nicely.
I haven't seen any analysis that appeared useful, but my observation is that Seymour has taken ACT from being just National extremist to differentiating from National by following Farrar libertarianism – see the political compass and compare charts for different NZ elections. Thus there is a real differentiation of ACT from other parties – he could be taking some support from the Greens. The tricky part is turning slogans into real policy – have ACT ever had to do that?
My suspicion would be that a number of National voters moved to vote Labour just once, and Gosman is now claiming then as long-term Labour voters moving to ACT. No, most of them are Nationals voters moving to ACT after they exceptionally voted Labour in the last election.
I know some traditional ACT voters who thought Labour snd zero CoVID was a good way to go last election.
Maybe they’re polling right now, but there is no zero Covid, no mask or restriction option in the near future.
Interesting you think there is such a thing as a "National voter" even if they vote Labour.
"that is what the internal research is showing"
Are you doing "research" by gleaning the gossip from the Kiwiblog comments section?
No I get mine from the Party hierarchy.
And they source it from…. (this is like pulling teeth).
The problem with polls being done internal to political parties is that it is always being spun. Including to party members as far as I can tell. If you’re in the National party, it appears to be frequently spun to the caucus as well.
That is why I tend to only rely on published public polling when I can get some idea of the methodology. Often with critical information about age groups, gender, as well as previous affiliations.
Even those I don’t treat as being hard facts to base decisions on. I’m interested in trends because it gets rid of significiant biases in polling techniques, fashion of the week, and PR pushing affecting transitory results.
Why would they want to spin the results of internal polling and focus groups to people involved in the running of the party? That seems to be a spectactular waste of money
hahahahahaha etc .party hierarchy hahahahah etc.does that mean you stand close to the phone in the booth?
No it means the information is passed on via the people running the party.
Ah – such immaculately orchestrated organisation. No wonder you are so well-informed. But surely you also rely on a certain amount of imagination?
I don't know to be honest. I think a bunch of centerist voters have gone to act, I think a bunch of hard right voters have gone to act and from memory there was a decent amount of right wing vote splitting between the loopy right wing parties like NC and alliance/nzpp that cost national a few seats, and along with act and those parties splitting electorate votes and centerist parties like nzf and top.
It was beautiful to see it happen to the right for a change.
I wouldn't call act far right because they really aren't they are neoliberals trying to be populist and will pander to anyone.
The people still with national are rural, landlords, dyed in the wool blue and yeah they've still got many centerists but the mp's themselves aren't all that centerist.
Labour owns the center. Labour got loads of rural and regional and centerist and conservative votes too.
If national had a Nikki Kay a centerist environmentalist who was the only nat to win Auckland central and beat cancer and Jacinda twice the battle for the center would be on.
Instead they've got Simon a guy thr country called a "fuckwit" on speech bubbles on the news last year, Luxton who canceled regional flights and regional banking when he was on company boards and two liberal list mp's from wellington who the rural membership will hate.
National still has an impressive electorate machine that act can't recreate over night. National may get less votes but could still get more seats than act via electorates, NOW THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING for us pol nerds
With the way that the electorate operates under MMP, electorate votes don’t count for much except for individual MPs and the tail-gating provision.
Act is certainly getting the protest polling from previous core National. But I suspect whatever centrist polling they are getting is pretty damn soft. But it is unlikely to come back to National until they think that National is stable. Plus centrist vote is very very loath to live next to the nutter fringe when it comes to elections.
Come closer to election time, they’re more likely to vote for political stability. In NZ this has been the most consistent political trend of my lifetime (b 1959).
The only instance I have seen of anything different was the still astonishing handover from Andrew Little to Jacinda Ardern in 2017.
Well, national are screwed for the next 6 months at least. The new leader needs to be selected and then confirmed as secure and stable with no further machinations – only then will national become a viable party for voters.
I'm not so sure there's a clear labour/national swinging voter at the moment. Back in '08 I knew people who felt it was "national's turn", still viewing it as a binary. I suspect people are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on.
Sure, labour goes down and national goes up, and vice versa. But I don't know if we actually have the polling infrastructure to assume it's the same people voting, as opposed to someone moving either in or out of voting, or moving between major and minor parties.
National have been helping ACT because juco was after the same extremist voting crowd. A swing back to the centre might not have the same effect at getting Labour's vote. BUT as national look more mainstream, some tories will go to national, while some centrist labourites will have less incentive to get out of bed on election day as the winner won't be too different from the status quo (from their perspective).
But that’s all just my reckons…
Nats are pretty much down to their core vote … I don't think there'll be much in the way of desertion … if anything, those that do defect are more likely to swing into "Don't Know" territory in the polls [thus boosting Labour & other parties … but in a somewhat artificial way].
But, more broadly, I think a new leader / new broom will probably prove mildly postive for Nat polling … albeit only mildly so … honeymoon period, as you've said.
In terms of the 2020 defection, we've witnessed some gross over-estimations of the number of Nats who swung to Labour at the last Election … a range of commentators appear to have been strongly influenced by Matthew Hooton's estimate that more than 400k core Nats swung to Labour … allegedly representing 20% of the electorate …
… Whereas – based on Jack Vowles 2020 Flow-of-the-Vote % stats from Vote Compass … I'd calculate the raw number to be closer to 270k … a long way short of "well over 400,000" … nowhere near 20% of the electorate … & by no means entrenched Nats …
… But, then again, still an absolutely unprecedented swing from one Major Party to another in a single election.
1999 … Nat-to-Lab = 80k voters
2008 … Lab-to-Nat = 94k voters
There will be some voters from the Nats who will have had enough and gone right to Act.
But so what. The polls were a 10% gap or so between Block Labour and Block National anyway before this mess.
Personally Collins should consider resignation. It might be simpler for her to move on.
If she doesn't then national should deselect her at the next election ,
None of my business and would not know about how the Nats would go about it.
Not up on the inner workings of politics myself, but gotta feeling that in the lead up to an election they could put some one else in to the safe seat of papakura
That's after 9 yrs National will get a rebound just ditching such a despised politician will bring back voters from ACT and some from Labour.
The next political poll will be interesting reading!
My bet of Act over 20% looks more and more likely.
Polling or voting? I suspect that they might get this in near-term polling depending on what happens next Tuesday.
Voting – well that seems very unlikely. At present there is a pretty strong widening in the political spectrum for a actual schism between the conservatives and the business sides of National. Something similar to how Act got formed from Labour or NZF formed from National.
The only thing that seems to be holding National together is their organisation and their bank account.
Can I feel sorry for National yet?
Mr Reti seems to have little idea that he is actually Māori! Which is interesting given his Northland location. As an example, in Whangārei he immediately took the side of white flight residents when a 37 house state build was announced by Kāinga Ora for the middle class Maunu suburb. He should have said “hey working class people need housing too”, but no. The Natzos could do worse than to keep him in the possie however.
Mr Mitchell will be easy meat with his “sell sword” mercenary history and dirty politics links, and Mr Luxon is to put it as politely as possible–a religious nutter–again an easy mark in 2021 or 2023.
But who cares, if the party of “Merv from Manurewa” and all the rest of the entitled old money types are not effective at the moment for their class–good job I say.
Mr Reti seems to have little idea that he is actually Māori!
Mr Reti does not have to conform to your racist tropes.
Neither did Winston. Cynically used his ethnicity to appeal to certain conservative, mostly Pakeha elements..
None so blind..
Well I can see the Uncle Tom slur you're trying to pin on Winston Peters … is that it?
Given that social housing now seems to be disproportionately allocated to violent anti-social elements that no sane landlord would rent to … I don't entirely blame long-term residents. Many of whom, incidentally, will be lower income (given the suburb’s roughly mid-way in Whangarei’s deprivation index).
Meanwhile, narcissistic old hippies like you indulge in all the ostentatious, absurdly self-righteous virtue-signalling to enhance your social prestige while suffering precisely zero of the profoundly negative consequences … having done your little rhetorical bit to dump intolerable situations on innocent people … you courageously ensure you're living as far away as possible from all the violence & social mayhem you've helped enable.
Personally, I'd frogmarch cowardly little fuckers like you directly into the nightmare situations you create … have a few armed guards to ensure your spineless little arse can't escape. It’s only when you experience prolonged sleep deprivation & extreme stress from violent intimidation & anti-social behaviour that you’ll finally learn genuine morality.
[lprent: That last paragraph was over the top. Advocating violence to others is not appropriate. This is your only warning. ]
Personally, I'd frogmarch cowardly little fuckers like you directly into the nightmare situations you create
In the period immediately before our move to Aus, we lived in a situation something like what your parents are going through – but nowhere near as bad. We always had the option of leaving if it got out of hand.
I won't retell the story here because it would make people's eyes bleed. We learned some hard lessons those few years and thinking back on it I'm convinced of one thing; that both the standard right wing trope 'it's all their fault for bad choices' and the left 'they're the victims of a racist society' are both completely wrong. Both are materialist explanations for what is essentially a spiritual problem.
Or to be more blunt both are bit players in a Karpman Drama Triangle, that's intended to perpetuate the problem rather than solve it.
Thinking along the same lines … I've described the highly Paternalistic Woke as essentially self-interested Rescuers in a couple of comments & tweets recently … and, of course, they so often get the genuine victims completely wrong … blinded as they are by their remarkably crude & arrogant predetermined identification of official victim-demographics (although, in a potentially dangerous relativism, Karpman would seem to question whether anyone really is a true victim).
Perhaps the nearest thing we get to true victims are children. Their essential vulnerability and innocence puts them into a special category beyond reproach.
Rescuers exploit this by perpetually infantalising their chosen Victim class – always innocent, always blameless and always beyond all reproach. The victims are told they have no agency and to blame the Oppressors for anything that goes wrong in their lives.
The value of the Karpman model is not so much in pointing fingers at who is playing what role at any given moment in time – but in having the insight to see the game itself and stop playing it.
Simultaneously sacralizing & infantalising.
Firstly Swordfish, perhaps take that text to your doctor and ask if you might have an anger management issue. I suspect if I addressed any poster on The Standard in the manner you have me, it would result in a long holiday from posting privileges.
Have lived in the Far North for many years, Karikari Peninsula, and heading back soon. For work purposes I have actually lived in Maunu for several years next street up from Puriri Park Rd where Kāinga Ora is well underway building houses and apartments on an old MoE site.
Maunu is nice in parts, wide streets, scatterings of nicely kept “mid century” homes, private lanes with big spreads, and a few units, aged care at Selywn, Idea Services in the community residential homes. And, the leafy crescents were purposely cut off years ago from direct road access to Whangārei’s poorer suburbs.
There were 248 submissions to WDC from memory with only 6 for–I was one of the 6. In the end an independent Commissioner found that residents concerns on property values did not out weigh the district plan and other Council responsibilities or legalities. 250 locals turned up to a meeting with Dr Reti, including myself, and a group later raised $60,000 to try and stop working class people from having a home like they do. That selfishness is part of what neo liberal individualism has done to our society. The creation of an underclass was another part–manufacturing gutted, anything else that moved sold off or contracted out–a generation discarded and never retrained or properly considered. Their descendants are truly the children of Roger and Ruth.
We usually give warnings, and we focus on repeated behaviour. It also depends on moderators seeing it. I haven't noticed swordfish going off half-cocked before, and he doesn't have warnings that I know about. So I warn.
But it is pretty much dependent on who is moderating.
I did not realise Swordfish had been under stress till I checked out some of their posts, as I do not read every poster’s efforts everyday on The Standard. Can happen to any of us and as you say repeated is a thing with getting ticked off with some one–apart from the expected differences of opinion of course.
Karikari is so beautiful it's just ridiculous.
I have plenty of relatives in the Houhora, Kaingaroa, Kaitaia area, as well as Otangaroa and Kaeo.
Yep, I call it home, been there since the 90s. Stood up on Puwheke one morning 15 years back with some Ngati Kahu friends at a dawn ceremony, looking out to sea realised that land will be there for a long time, sea levels not withstanding.
Fair comment TM. That was a nuclear response to a mild post… I wish I was able to live up in Paihia but I gotta work down here in dorkland 😛
See my note on 19.2
Fair enough … knew I'd probably crossed the line.
The ridiculousness of many world leaders at present has become some kind of rediculous entertainment for many whom seem to apathetically sleepwalk into the future. #pepperpigs safe streets (video above) Hilarious!!! We're no different here in NZ, we follow these muppet's/puppet's (apologies for the degrading metaphor) lead.
Never mind the polls, there will soon be by-elections to measure voter opinion.
National will do whatever it takes to get Collins out of the building. If she stays there for 2 years … it's zombie apocalypse.
And when they finally pick a leader combo, other electorate MPs will be considering their future prospects (lack of).
We all know that Mike Hosking loves getting everything wrong, but in case anyone's forgotten, this was his enthusiastic endorsement of Judith Collins in 2018.
"Polish, policy and confidence … she has the lot, in spades".
Yay! Thanks! I feel much less nostalgic about her now…
Mind you, Hosking should not be allowed to belittle spades in that manner.
He keeps digging a bigger hole for himself.
Making extraordinarily stupid equivalences then not standing beside them when they are wrong
National are stuck in the past and are failing to connect.
Unfortunately and incredibly, Hosking is still the top-rating talkback man. There are heaps of listeners out there who are also stuck in the past, and connect with one another, Maybe some of them are in Groinswell..
Pigswill, brought to you by the Taxpayers union, filled by people who both hate the right infringements of the vaccine mandate and want the government to hurry up and pass the workplace laws so they can bar unvaccinated people and workers from their premises and get the cash register s singing.
Collins however played most of her cards in caucus in the suit of clubs. She found that many men can resist diamonds and hearts was never her strong suit. So, in the big deal the cards were stacked against her.
The Joker's in ACT, the knaves in her own caucus, aces are wild and the dealer knows the bank always wins……
Hosking had Gladys and Judith. A woman in National who emerges from the pack will give him the chance of the trifecta.
Collins reminded me of a bomber who build a bomb to put in a persons car to assassinate them
and then has the bomb go off in her face
as for Bridges, I back him to be the next party leader. The quote from Todd Muller then becomes pertinent, "National can't win under Simon Bridges"
plus at some point we will have Jamie Lee Ross making various allegations about corruption involving Bridges and that issue will pop it’s head up again
There has been a disturbance in the force.
The National Party Deathstar has imploded without firing a shot.
A siesmic shift in the balance of forces is felt across the political galaxy.
Many of the empire's previous supporters have swapped sides.
The political centre of gravity has shifted,
The question needs to be asked:
Can General Leia Organa still lead the new republic against the neoliberal empire?
Will the calculation be made that the new republic no longer needs Organa to defend it, and that she should step asider for her replacement?
Will Organa be persuaded to step down for the sake of "unity"?
Will BAU triumph?
Can General Organa survive the shift in the force?
Or will the forces of neo-liberalism prove too great for her to overcome? Will she drift off into the political void?
They need machine guns to kill wabbits .