|
Turn it up to 11 - Hone is headlining the Newtown Community Centre this Tuesday night.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Vagabundo posted:National's declining support has seemingly steadied, but Labour are gaining. I guess, despite the criticisms of Shearer in here, there may be something about his leadership that's resonating with people, or the people driven away by National's are turning to him. The Greens and NZ First are generally holding steady, staying on the threshold in the case of NZF, or being well above it in the case of the Greens. United Future and Mana don't even rate, as their presence is by virtue of electorate seats and ACT might as well not even be there with 0.5% - that represents a 50% drop in their support from the last poll, by the way. The Maori Party continues to be the biggest coalition partner and their support is currently holding steady as well - although this may be a reflection of their constituency waiting to see how they move on the Article 9 issues. I think it's probably too early to say Shearer is "resonating" per se - he hasn't exactly done anything of note yet and has been noticably absent on the biggest political issue for the left - the POA dispute. And the Nats have gotten stuck straight into the heavy stuff that's likely to ruffle feathers. It will be interesting to see how the polls react to Shearer's proposals that he's hinting at in his big speech, which must be coming up about this week. Labour is probably benefiting from staying quiet for a while and letting National take the hits. I think a couple of months after the Budget we'll have a firmer idea of what polls will be. A lot will depend on how well Shearer responds to the Budget, and also how disciplined Labour is. Labour's tendency to go off the deep end and scream like a bunch of banshees for no apparent reason is a large part of why they struggled last year. Just when they are getting traction on major issues, someone goes completely off the deep end. As for farmers looking to vote elsewhere, I'm really not sure where else they would go. They always grumble but nothing really changes in the rural seats. I think Nats would be more worried about centrist women than the hardcore bedrock farmer vote. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
I don't think the farmers would vote for another party instead of National, however I could see the donations drop off and a few would stay home on election day as a result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:I think it's probably too early to say Shearer is "resonating" per se - he hasn't exactly done anything of note yet and has been noticably absent on the biggest political issue for the left - the POA dispute. The fact that there's been a considerable lift in Labour support suggests that there is something there. One possibility is that some of the soft-National voters and disillusioned farmers might well be attracted towards Labour's own rhetoric on the matter. We are still hearing "tenants in your own country" and so on from them after all. miss_chaos posted:And the Nats have gotten stuck straight into the heavy stuff that's likely to ruffle feathers. The issue is that he's been utterly ham-handed about it and it represents a departure from the previous three years, where controversial legislation was rammed through via urgency, with little actual debate over it. Now that the Crafar farm sales have hit a snag, it's also ended up tying into an issue that has been problematic for the Nats. Some of the feathers being ruffled also happen to belong to their biggest coalition partners, who also happen to have anything resembling a constituency outside of one electorate as well. Right now, they're doing a great job looking dysfunctional, with the largest coalition partner ready to walk and the other two basically being seen as the right-wing equivalent of the Progressive Coalition Party. miss_chaos posted:It will be interesting to see how the polls react to Shearer's proposals that he's hinting at in his big speech, which must be coming up about this week. Labour is probably benefiting from staying quiet for a while and letting National take the hits. I think a couple of months after the Budget we'll have a firmer idea of what polls will be. A lot will depend on how well Shearer responds to the Budget, and also how disciplined Labour is. Labour's tendency to go off the deep end and scream like a bunch of banshees for no apparent reason is a large part of why they struggled last year. Just when they are getting traction on major issues, someone goes completely off the deep end. There's probably an element of that in why they've picked up a solid chunk of support in the last few months. Remember, he's also worked well with his potential coalition partners, appearing on TV side-by-side with Peters and is also now participating in fund raising for leukaemia research with Russell Norman. When looking at the questions asked in Parliament, there's a lot of double and triple teaming going on by Labour, NZF and the Greens as well, creating the picture of a more united and cohesive opposition, while the government and its coalition partners appear to be tearing themselves apart. miss_chaos posted:As for farmers looking to vote elsewhere, I'm really not sure where else they would go. They always grumble but nothing really changes in the rural seats. I think Nats would be more worried about centrist women than the hardcore bedrock farmer vote. Like I said, in all likelihood, if they go through with their threats to not vote for National out of spite, the majority will probably be stay-at-home voters. Labour might get a few spite votes, but it's not likely they'll be getting a rural National electorate seat in 2014. Winston Peters might make a play for those votes that maybe could give him a percent or two towards the party vote but who knows. Varkk posted:I don't think the farmers would vote for another party instead of National, however I could see the donations drop off and a few would stay home on election day as a result. Absolutely. If there are any spite votes towards Labour, they will probably be absolutely minimal. If the prospect of foreign ownership does drive National voters away from them, they might respond well to Winston's dogwhistle politics, but the majority will probably be at home, scowling at the TV. It won't hurt the opposition to see National lose votes anyway, even if they don't gain them. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
NZFirst is actually doing a boss job of being opposition. Bringing the heat much more than Labour tbqh. Its all downhill here for National anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:NZFirst is actually doing a boss job of being opposition. It's what Winnie does best (be a dick to people and call them out on poo poo while being Teflon as poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
In immigration news...quote:Plan to favour wealthy immigrants http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10789882
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
I think there's a difference between only focusing on "rich people" like Fenton says and expecting migrants to have skills that will help them get a job here or evidence they can be supported by those sponsoring them. That's pretty much as per for most Westernised countries. The reality is, NZ simply doesn't have enough low skilled jobs to support large numbers of unskilled migrants anymore - particularly as it recovers from a recession where those jobs were hardest hit. I definitely don't agree with the dependent children part though, that seems unnecessarily harsh. I'm currently trying to get a UK work visa where they have a 2 Tier system, and have worked in the US and a couple of other countries where getting a visa is simply a nightmare even as a skilled worker. They basically want an absolute guarantee you won't need state support and even then it's really difficult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
SATURNS SON EATER posted:It's what Winnie does best (be a dick to people and call them out on poo poo while being Teflon as poo poo) You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one. It should be interesting to watch National argue against/deflect Winnie, and the Maori Party do the same with Hone it will keep them all on there toes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:I think there's a difference between only focusing on "rich people" like Fenton says and expecting migrants to have skills that will help them get a job here or evidence they can be supported by those sponsoring them. That's pretty much as per for most Westernised countries. The reality is, NZ simply doesn't have enough low skilled jobs to support large numbers of unskilled migrants anymore - particularly as it recovers from a recession where those jobs were hardest hit. I definitely don't agree with the dependent children part though, that seems unnecessarily harsh. Do you know what the status quo is? We already keep out the teeming hordes. quote:Skilled Migrant Category dusty fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Mar 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
I love it when the first line of an article uses a pejorative to describe the subject, thus setting a certain tone for the rest of the article http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6534323/Public-servants-plan-to-bite-back-against-cuts Stuff could be so much better if it didn't try that kind of folksy bullshit. Or maybe it's just me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
I think it's funny how I told a bunch of pro-state asset sales types that the government wouldn't give a gently caress who bought the shares and that most 'average' kiwis can't afford shares normally let alone in a recession. Oh hey, look what's going to happen. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:I think it's funny how I told a bunch of pro-state asset sales types that the government wouldn't give a gently caress who bought the shares and that most 'average' kiwis can't afford shares normally let alone in a recession. Govt should make a purely voluntary kiwisaver-esque thing where I can give them smaller amounts of money to invest because I can't afford Gareth Morgan's buy-in, and then they could use that money to "buy" me some SOE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Welp, we've probably seen what a lot of us saw coming from miles away - The Maori Party has pretty much hanged itself by more or less getting on board with the asset sales.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Speaking of hanging themselves. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6536688/Ports-of-Auckland-wharfies-made-redundant The 300 wharfies got made redundant. Will the Maritime Union recover from this? miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Mar 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
They didn't hang themselves, they got busted while Shearer and Brown sat on their hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:Speaking of hanging themselves. Unfortunately the Ports seem to have won the PR war. The Union and/or the media never really got the point across to the average Joe Bloggs that the Union wasnt being greedy, they simply did not want their work casualised (if I remember right, the Union were even willing to be paid LESS so long as work hours were guaranteed). NO working person in NZ would be happy having their guaranteed full time work turned into casual work, yet most of the NZ public seem to be pro-Ports of Auckland (see poll on nzherald front page).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
This was what I was talking about earlier - the ports did an amazing job of making the unionists look like a bunch of greedy fucks. It is close to loving criminal that the newspapers swallowed this bullshit without actually looking into what the real dispute was about - as has been said the wharfies would have accepted less money if it meant that they had a solid job. The media should be ashamed of themselves. Someone posted earlier mocking me for being surprised that the media took the side of the big business, but I stand by what I said - since when did the media just swallow the company line without even bothering to look into it, and why is this considered even remotely acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Im an Australian having a bit of an argument with a Kiwi who is banging on about how relations with the indigenous population are much more advanced over there. Is there a resource online where I can find out more about whats going on in New Zealand?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Im an Australian having a bit of an argument with a Kiwi who is banging on about how relations with the indigenous population are much more advanced over there. Is there a resource online where I can find out more about whats going on in New Zealand? That seems like a pretty subjective claim. I mean, we didn't bury infants up to the neck then play football with their heads but we're hardly a frictionless unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:That seems like a pretty subjective claim. I mean, we didn't bury infants up to the neck then play football with their heads but we're hardly a frictionless unit. I know. I just have no basis of knowledge to work from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I know. I just have no basis of knowledge to work from. Then why are you arguing with him? http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/ looks somewhat comprehensive, just start clicking through the various categories, Culture & Society, Politics & Government etc. Also your friend is more or less right, the history of indigenous relations in NZ is probably one of the best in the world. But that's also damning it with faint praise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
NZAmoeba posted:Then why are you arguing with him? Because the guy is a right wing cockhead that I want to take down a couple of pegs, and he is by no means my friend. I can usually show that he is full of poo poo on most issues, but I just dont have the knowledge on this one. Thanks for the link.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
If he thinks that indigenous relations are better in Australia than New Zealand then  cause has he been living under a rock/in a basement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
We all have alcoholism problems together!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
hairypanis posted:If he thinks that indigenous relations are better in Australia than New Zealand then No, he is arguing that they are better in NZ. I just had no way of knowing if he was full of it and arguing dishonestly or not. Edit : I suppose I should clarify that I dont think indigenous relations are good in Australia. I just wanted to know what they were like in NZ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
He's right, unless he's arguing that "therefore they have no reason to complain", then he's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Ugggggh the kind of person who would argue that 'our darkies were treated better than yours' is probably not worth anyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:This was what I was talking about earlier - the ports did an amazing job of making the unionists look like a bunch of greedy fucks. It is close to loving criminal that the newspapers swallowed this bullshit without actually looking into what the real dispute was about - as has been said the wharfies would have accepted less money if it meant that they had a solid job. The unions should have had much better public relations than they did for such an enormous dispute. They should have hired someone decent who could fight their arguments for them in the press. Grizzled wharfie union reps aren't public communications experts, they don't know what the media wants or needs. They should have focused on the negotiations and let someone who was experienced do the press work. The union completely failed to sell their factually reasonable position to the public. The newspapers reported what the Ports were saying because the Ports had communications people who knew their poo poo - they had fresh stories for the media every day, thus keeping their point of view in the news. They gave material to Whaleoil almost every day. They had fact sheets and legal opinions and god knows what else they were releasing daily. They fought hard to get the information out there to news organisations to came asking for it. The union had none of that. The wharfies were way too disorganised on the PR front to fight the Ports on PR, which is a problem with a number of the old school unions. They simply don't know how to bring the public around to their message because it seems so obvious to them, so it should be to the public. That's just not how it's done these days. PPTA is another example of people with a good cause being unable to get traction with the public because their own PR is so terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 11:23
|
|
|
Minor derail, but seeing both Australasia threads next to each other in the D&D forum listing -- did you guys agree together to use the American South (Confederate) thread icon? It just seems a little odd. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:That seems like a pretty subjective claim. I mean, we didn't bury infants up to the neck then play football with their heads but we're hardly a frictionless unit. That's the thing, we didn't do that but I'm pretty sure the Aussies did
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
NZAmoeba posted:He's right, unless he's arguing that "therefore they have no reason to complain", then he's an idiot. Oh he is an idiot, but not for this argument, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:they don't know what the media wants or needs. I guess I look at this the wrong way with today's media, but I feel the media's role should be to talk to them and do the investigation and find out what their grievances are and report on that, rather than basically parroting whatever they're told by a PR firm. What's that old saying? Oh yes... investigative journalism is dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:
It's easier to say "PoA representatives say..." and the like; no investigation required and no chance of being done for slander/libel because you're reporting someone's statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Not to mention the writers for NZ newspapers generally write terribly, and almost always inject their own personal feelings and opinions into stories where it's not appropriate at all. There was a good post on the Auckland Transport Blog where it was super-obvious how the writer of a Herald article felt about urban-density, and the editor was idiotic enough to let it run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:I guess I look at this the wrong way with today's media, but I feel the media's role should be to talk to them and do the investigation and find out what their grievances are and report on that, rather than basically parroting whatever they're told by a PR firm. Have you seen how a newspaper or other news organisation is run? The paper's size is based on the ads sold, not on how much newsworthy stuff has happened. Basically the news articles are just filler between the ads. As a result the journalists are run at a bare minimum with daily requirements for certain numbers of stories of a certain number of words. So if they can fill most of that quota just regurgitating a press release that came accross their desk then they will. Also proper investigative reporting might lead to a story which puts a major advertiser in a bad light so you can't do that. The only ones who would have any leeway to take the time to do a proper investigative story are the ones who have already established a name for themselves and are probably in a financial position that they can be a part time freelancer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
New Zealand must have plenty of investigative journalism, we are the least corrupt country in the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Varkk posted:So if they can fill most of that quota just regurgitating a press release that came accross their desk then they will. See: NZherald and stuff.co.nz
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:New Zealand must have plenty of investigative journalism, we are the least corrupt country in the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Midget Fist posted:I think we went down a few notches on press freedom after the whole teapot bullshit last year. Once the police got involved. Dropped 5 places to be exact, right out of the top 10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 23:05
|
|