Interesting observations

Written By: - Date published: 4:02 pm, March 24th, 2010 - 14 comments
Categories: blogs, Media - Tags:

Interesting times – on both sides of the political divide currently. Over at the Pundit, Tim Watkin says:

…Labour hardly looks focused in Auckland, or refreshed with new talent. Phil Twyford the man who everyone likes but no-one wants has been allowed to stand (or almost stand) and lose in three electoral seats now. Is that how you treat a man of his talent? It’s appalling mismanagement. And to however many Aucklanders are paying attention, it looks shonky and undermines his efforts in the Super City debate, sending the message to Aucklanders that the man chosen to lead the party’s attack on the Super City isn’t worthy of a seat in it. Clumsy is the kind word for it.

Nevertheless, one thing that’s become evident in recent weeks is quite how fast and loose National is playing with Auckland. You’ve got to wonder if either major party has the discipline to lay claim to this electoral crown….

Maybe National has done the focus groups and decided that enough Coromandel bach owners are wealthy eastern suburbanites who will be won over by tax cuts and business talk. But it’s a hell of a punt…

The fact that even John Banks (who has Fletcher as an adviser) announced his opposition before Gerry Brownlee had spat out the words “Eden Park” and “postcard” tell you which way he thinks the wind in Auckland is blowing.

I think political observers from both the left and the right are watching National’s handling of mining with a sense of disbelief. Have they become so confident of being able to sway public opinion (or a lack of organised opposition) that they think they can get these proposals through?

14 comments on “Interesting observations ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    24 March 2010 at 4:15 pm

    The Twyford issue is not that simple, politics is a matter of timing and luck and being in the right place at the right time sometimes. The result should not be interpreted as a lack of confidence in him.

    Twyford will be back in Parliament on the list. I enjoy the prospect of him standing in Epsom against perk buster.

    • gweg pressland 1.1
      24 March 2010 at 8:57 pm

      Paint over the reality all you like, Phil’s been treated shoddily, pretty poor way to reward someone who’s put in more than his share of hard yards for the cause.

      [this handle and other one you’ve used are uncomfortably close to a real person’s name. It looks like you’re trying to pass for them or mock them. Please choose a different name. And also please settle one a single one, not seven. I like madnessinc myself 🙂 . Marty]

  2. andy (the other one) 2
    24 March 2010 at 6:04 pm

    The NAts are making a Frankenstein out of Auckland all on their own, I think that the Labour strategy is a good one. STFU. Eventually even the great student of glib management platitudes 101, Nikki Kaye will have to own the monster she helped created.

    You know you a screwed when contemporary NZ’s second greatest idiot, John Banks, has his foot to the floor in reverse backing away from the super city structure that you are in trouble.

    Paula Bennett and Nikki Kaye may have a majority but it won’t be worth much if you piss off your whole electorate to a person. The westies and the South siders are going to howl when they get the first super city water bill.

    Anecdotally my Nat supporter mates are NOT HAPPY AT ALL with the supercity and the way it is shaping up (all property owners in Auckland City), coming to you from the Mt Albert electorate.

  3. Zaphod Beeblebrox 3
    24 March 2010 at 7:57 pm

    Actually, you only had to look at what happened in the Mt Albert by-election last year to see that people are not happy with National in Auckland. Waterview, public transport (or lack of it) and the poor process of the Supercity were the issues everyone was talking about and Shearer walked right over Melissa Lee to take the seat. Of she was a terrible candidate but the issues she was forced to campaign on were what really caused her campaign to implode

    • Jared 3.1
      24 March 2010 at 9:02 pm

      Or the fact that it was a strong Labour seat regardless of the candidate. The same way Pakuranga is pretty much Maurice Williamsons and Nationals until they decide to lose it.

    • Cnr Joe 3.2
      24 March 2010 at 9:17 pm

      No really – she was a shit candidate – no debate surely?

      • gingercrush 3.2.1
        25 March 2010 at 9:18 pm

        Yes she was a shit candidate which obviously didn’t help National chances. Clearly Lee was the main problem National lost the by-election and lost it badly. While she did show problems early on (for instance her TV and radio appearances), her main problem came in questions towards Waterview and the near or blatant racism in her response at a debate. Waterview a local issue therefore allowed a narrative where Melissa Lee couldn’t fight back. Many of the Auckland electorates in 2011 are bound to have similar narrative problems for National. Super City will likely feature highly.

  4. freedom 4
    25 March 2010 at 10:11 am

    the standard is being censored

    [lprent: No it isn’t. You’re just too impatient about a comment that went into the spam queue.

    Remember this site is run on a voluntary basis by people giving it time when they have some. One of my tasks is to rescue or approve items caught in the spam queue. Yesterday I went to work without my iPhone, which meant that I couldn’t tether to the internet, which meant that my abilities to admin the site were quite restricted.

    However I’m now starting to get interested in banning you because you’re getting irritating and wasting too much of my precious time. ]

  5. freedom 5
    25 March 2010 at 10:32 am

    turns out the link i was trying to post is on the site’s spam filter’s list.
    Why is an internationally recognised academic site on a spam list?
    the link is now spaced so at least it can be seen
    a e 9 1 1 t r u t h . o r g
    the post is
    “no-one said it was going to be easy

    all we can do is point people to information, such as the fact that one of the most academic and heavily regulated information sites on 9/11 Truth last week presented a new legal challenge to the Official story and was signed by 1,000 members.

    A site that to be a member of, you must be a qualified Architect or an Engineer.
    read that again and let it soak in

    1,000 qualified Architects and Engineers challenging an Official declaration from their Government. A challenge based on questions of the physical events, nothing else. No Politics. No accusations, just the facts people, nothing but the facts. Why would they do that if the Truth was not in question?
    sight

    • The Baron 5.1
      25 March 2010 at 1:53 pm

      turns out that the link you were trying to post has got nothing, whatsoever, to do with this particular topic.

      may i also add that peddling 911 conspiracy theories pretty much marks you down as deranged.

      Is “missing the point of a conversation and instead using it to peddle batshit theories” one of the oh-so-employable skills you were touting to me the other day?

  6. Rich 6
    25 March 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Phil Twyford has run twice in North Shore. That’s as blue as they come. It hasn’t been Labour since 1949.

    So I don’t see why not winning it could be considered a failure on his part. And he decided not to contest Mt Albert, which he would have easily won.

    A list MP is just as elected as an electorate MP, anyway. It completely escapes me why having the votes of 13,000 people in an electorate is considered a stronger mandate then 60,000 votes to get elected as a list MP.

    • Rich 6.1
      26 March 2010 at 2:46 pm

      Edit that. About 25,000 votes for each list MP. Still twice what many winning electorate MPs got.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.