Question

20 comments on “Question ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Peter Martin 1

   28 October 2009 at 2:33 pm

   Indeed. Labour continues on its path of stripping us of our rights.
   They can put up the faux amendment, but the proof is in the voting.
   And they have a bloody long way to go before they have any claim over my vote.
   • snoozer 1.1

     28 October 2009 at 2:46 pm

     um. Peter, it’s a National Bill, so they’re worse than Labour by you eh?

     I take it you’ll be voting Green.
2. Peter Martin 2

   28 October 2009 at 3:30 pm

   Thanks snoozer,I am aware of which Party put the bill up. I am also aware of which Parties supported the bill. By the stage of mutual support, they are all as bad as each oher.

   NONE are even within cooee of my vote.

   *spit*
3. tc 3

   28 October 2009 at 3:31 pm

   Yes labor don’t seem to understand the game since election 2008 has changed and keep on playing by their own archaic rules of engagement with a parliamentary team about as fresh as the AB’s coaching staff and their 34 year old talisman lock-forward.
   I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think Labor have the DNA to do what it takes to wrest power back from the ‘Born to Rule’ big business backers of NACT that now run the country as like it or not they’ve effectively shutdown the mainstream mediums to any intelligent probing lines and enjoy a charmed life where you table legislation under urgency……then stay away from the house to avoid any unecessary attention…..Enjoy the junket Kate W.
4. Noko 4

   28 October 2009 at 3:36 pm

   It just reinforces MY conscience vote which is to never vote for Labour.

   Capatcha: forgotten [just like Labours social justice roots]
5. the sprout 5

   28 October 2009 at 3:38 pm

   agreed, Labour has hardly covered itself in glory when it comes to protecting civil liberties and resisting the urge to exploit the Imaginary War On Terror as an excuse to extend the state’s coercive powers.
6. tc 6

   28 October 2009 at 3:53 pm

   Like the AB”s, no alternate game plan, a leader who’s ‘next in line/acceptable to the party machine’ rather than the best choice to return to power by grabbing the swinging voters.
   Goff’s a nice guy but overeggs the pudding with too many words and has the spectre of Cullen/clark about him as most of the front opposition bench do.
   Mallard should have been left in the shed, effective though he is, he’s not well liked and made a ‘pigs ear’ of his chance when last at the frontline….look at what a smile and some goofiness does for JK and learn.
   21st century politics is about style over substance.
7. George D 7

   28 October 2009 at 5:01 pm

   If anything Labour has got worse in opposition. I didn’t think that was possible, but given that National is in power, the bills being tabled and voted for are indeed worse.

   If you don’t like it, email your Labour member of Parliament, and tell them that you don’t like it. If you’re a member, tell them that you won’t campaign for them or otherwise support them. That’s how pressure works – threatening their reelection is the most effective way.

   captcha: unfortunately
8. Craig Glen Eden 8

   28 October 2009 at 5:02 pm

   Sadly tc you are 100 percent correct.
9. tc 9

   28 October 2009 at 5:14 pm

   Hope I’m wrong but with the likes of Tolley/Collins/Smith/Wilkinson/Bennett having the political equivalent of giant targets on them with their naive/gaff ridden incompetance (not to mention integrity/honesty issues) it just shouldn’t be that hard.
   Having lived in Oz this lot would be in the dust even under Lathams ineffective leadership…..Keating/Rudd would’ve had them dealt with by lunch, then gone on leave whilst they self destructed.
   Labor needs some freshness, brevity, clarity and some severe doses of the mongrel….slowly slowly catchee monkey isn’t going to work in the world of the 15sec soundbite and 1 minute attention span.
10. Quoth the Raven 10

    28 October 2009 at 5:23 pm

    After nine years of Labour in power it should come as no surprise to anyone that they don’t give a fuck about our civil liberties.

    I find myself agreeing with George D. Labour appears to be worse in opposition, but it is just appearance. Labour’s the same it’s just that with National in power it becomes more obvious just how very similar the two parties are.
    • George D 10.1

      28 October 2009 at 5:29 pm

      I should say that there are some MPs who strongly oppose the fire-sale of human rights, but they don’t have the numbers round the table, and Labour’s strict party discipline means that if they speak up publicly (or even cross the floor) they’ll never be a minister.
11. Peter Martin 11

    28 October 2009 at 6:34 pm

    ‘if they speak up publicly (or even cross the floor) they’ll never be a minister.’

    Right.

    One must prioritise: ‘fire-sale of human rights’ or limo…
12. mike 12

    28 October 2009 at 7:44 pm

    they are just National lite…
13. Noko 13

    28 October 2009 at 8:19 pm

    http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/criminal_investigations_bodily_samples_2009

    Act voted for this bill? What happened to ‘ACT stands for individual freedom’?
    • DLow 13.1

      28 October 2009 at 9:44 pm

      ACT does stand for individual freedom… until they think you might be a criminal and then they throw away the key (unless it’s tax evasion, then you’re a hero).
14. r0b 14

    28 October 2009 at 11:37 pm

    I’ve asked Trevor over at Red Alert to explain Labour’s reasoning here, and he has said they will do a post on it. So stay tuned. I’m as interested as anyone to find out what they think they’re doing!
15. Abbie's Ghost 15

    29 October 2009 at 10:38 am

    Thinking about this, Chauvel’s proposed ammendment confirms my feeling that the caucus was not unanimous on this, but the faction that philosophically supports this bill is that which holds the power in the caucus room.

    George D is right, you have to actually voice your displeasure with the MP directly, not marraude on blogs. You think that MoveOn.org has just given up in the US just beacuse it’s a democrat in the White House?
16. Leopold 16

    29 October 2009 at 1:45 pm

    affair alret am apologia apparently awaiting be but cactus existence have his his hurry it kate moderated of out posted probably red should still taking time to touching trevs up up with would yeah

    [lprent: this seems to have noting to do with the post. Looks like trollish rumor mongering. I’m going to add a widget to shunt off-topic bullshit to Open Mike. In the meantime, just to encourage better behavior, I’ll demonstrate a bit of sorting (all the words are there…). ]
17. Leopold 17

    30 October 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Following Rob’s statement that Trev had promised a reply as to the extraordinary action of Labour voting along with NACT for DNA sampling measures, I was merely noting that nothing has turned up in Red Alert so far.
    Waiting for time to waft away all indignation?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS