-
@jegga said in NZ Politics:
Ardern has managed to give the impression that most of these people were toddlers when they went there , I doubt that very much .
Since we are on the subject of her pointless virtue signalling the Muslim community donโt want a memorial for March 15 . But Ardern is dying for another opportunity to put on a hijab and dish out hugs in front of a camera so they are getting a memorial service they donโt want .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12312378
.. Hard not be be cynical about that. Surely they'd respect the wishes of the Muslim community and let them remember in their own way while getting on with their lives.
Smacks of Pike River Mine type politics. Exploit the families for political gain.
-
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean So then it is fair to say the environment has helped shape some of them to the point of where they are currently (awaiting deportation)
No, it's not. The vast majority of people aren't failed by the system, so I don't accept it as a prima facie excuse for their behaviour.
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@Rembrandt think the point is, many of them have lived in Aus since the were toddlers (plus the issues with even getting citizenship) so it has been the Aussie system that has lead them to be where they are, but are turfed to NZ with no family or connections, so end up in gangs or prison...that said, I suspect a few of them would likely have followed the same path in NZ too.
It's not been the Aussie system, it's been their upbringing and their own choices. They don't have a right to stay here - they're guests and if they're shitbags they've outstayed their welcome.
If you buy a cute puppy then spend a decade turning it into a sheep-worrying, slavering ball of mean, when the ranger eventually catches it they donโt get to return it to the pet shop.
I donโt give a goddamn for these feralsโ rights. But if weโre talking culpability even if your systems are only 10% responsible for someone becoming a fluffybunny thatโs still 9% more than my systemsโ fault. So keep your shit in your own cesspit.
Classic begging the question fallacy. It's also a red herring. These people have no legal right to remain in the country. I don't give a fuck if they've been here for 80 years.
Sorry, I just looked at what I typed and can't see a circular argument anywhere. Just a common-or-garden analogy. But while we are busy having teaching moments, I pretty clearly said I don't give a goddamn about these people and their rights, which makes your point that they have no legal right to remain superfluous. I just don't want them here. Drown them, put them on Christmas Island, who gives a shit. But they don't belong here.
-
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean So then it is fair to say the environment has helped shape some of them to the point of where they are currently (awaiting deportation)
No, it's not. The vast majority of people aren't failed by the system, so I don't accept it as a prima facie excuse for their behaviour.
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@Rembrandt think the point is, many of them have lived in Aus since the were toddlers (plus the issues with even getting citizenship) so it has been the Aussie system that has lead them to be where they are, but are turfed to NZ with no family or connections, so end up in gangs or prison...that said, I suspect a few of them would likely have followed the same path in NZ too.
It's not been the Aussie system, it's been their upbringing and their own choices. They don't have a right to stay here - they're guests and if they're shitbags they've outstayed their welcome.
If you buy a cute puppy then spend a decade turning it into a sheep-worrying, slavering ball of mean, when the ranger eventually catches it they donโt get to return it to the pet shop.
I donโt give a goddamn for these feralsโ rights. But if weโre talking culpability even if your systems are only 10% responsible for someone becoming a fluffybunny thatโs still 9% more than my systemsโ fault. So keep your shit in your own cesspit.
Classic begging the question fallacy. It's also a red herring. These people have no legal right to remain in the country. I don't give a fuck if they've been here for 80 years.
Sorry, I just looked at what I typed and can't see a circular argument anywhere. Just a common-or-garden analogy. But while we are busy having teaching moments, I pretty clearly said I don't give a goddamn about these people and their rights, which makes your point that they have no legal right to remain superfluous. I just don't want them here. Drown them, put them on Christmas Island, who gives a shit. But they don't belong here.
I'll happily accept they don't belong in New Zealand, but they belong in Australia even less. For much the same reason I was so critical of Australia's attempt to make stateless citizens who went off to fight wars the government didn't approve of.
-
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean So then it is fair to say the environment has helped shape some of them to the point of where they are currently (awaiting deportation)
No, it's not. The vast majority of people aren't failed by the system, so I don't accept it as a prima facie excuse for their behaviour.
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@Rembrandt think the point is, many of them have lived in Aus since the were toddlers (plus the issues with even getting citizenship) so it has been the Aussie system that has lead them to be where they are, but are turfed to NZ with no family or connections, so end up in gangs or prison...that said, I suspect a few of them would likely have followed the same path in NZ too.
It's not been the Aussie system, it's been their upbringing and their own choices. They don't have a right to stay here - they're guests and if they're shitbags they've outstayed their welcome.
If you buy a cute puppy then spend a decade turning it into a sheep-worrying, slavering ball of mean, when the ranger eventually catches it they donโt get to return it to the pet shop.
I donโt give a goddamn for these feralsโ rights. But if weโre talking culpability even if your systems are only 10% responsible for someone becoming a fluffybunny thatโs still 9% more than my systemsโ fault. So keep your shit in your own cesspit.
Classic begging the question fallacy. It's also a red herring. These people have no legal right to remain in the country. I don't give a fuck if they've been here for 80 years.
Sorry, I just looked at what I typed and can't see a circular argument anywhere. Just a common-or-garden analogy. But while we are busy having teaching moments, I pretty clearly said I don't give a goddamn about these people and their rights, which makes your point that they have no legal right to remain superfluous. I just don't want them here. Drown them, put them on Christmas Island, who gives a shit. But they don't belong here.
I'll happily accept they don't belong in New Zealand, but they belong in Australia even less. For much the same reason I was so critical of Australia's attempt to make stateless citizens who went off to fight wars the government didn't approve of.
OK, so we seem to be spiralling towards the drowning option. You guys should take the lead there because youโve got sharks that can clean up the detritus.
-
I'll just put this here....
https://stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119832405/fishing-influence-trawls-deep-into-nz-firsts-past
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
I'll just put this here....
https://stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119832405/fishing-influence-trawls-deep-into-nz-firsts-past
I am shocked . Shocked I say .
-
A story that might have been even bigger news at another time:
-
Samoan chief guilty of all but one human-trafficking charge
"A man accused of human trafficking and slavery charges has been found guilty of all but one charge. Joseph Matamata, 65, was on trial before a jury in the High Court at Napier, facing 11 charges of trafficking people and 13 charges of dealing in slaves."
The man I most admire in rugby is Michael Jones - as the best I have seen on the field, as a serious, valuable and energetic leader and as a committed Christian. I regard Keven Mealamu highly for similar reasons.
Then you discover this honorable grub of a tribal chief, trading in people just as his counterparts in Africa had done for centuries, sitting haughtily in the big hut and selling the lower castes for profit. The morbidly obese little short asks beat and tortured his victims to boot. His defence counsel said the trial was about "an extended Samoan family and their relationships. I'll ask you to consider how the dynamics and family relationship applies". Yeah, hide behind "culture" - that'll probably work.
I had a brief education on Samoan public life during the Sevens here a decade ago. A Samoan team official turned out to be the minister of sport and the minister of jaunts to expensive places elsewhere in the world. His wife happened to be secretary of the tourist board. He didn't do much more than enjoy a grand breakfast at the Crowne Plaza and ride the team bus to the ground each day. His team official role was limited to appearing regal and to receiving visitors with gestures reminding them of his importance.
There was none of the gentle, lazy happiness and affection that I was accustomed to in our club rugby.
I remember having at look at his profile and discovering Samoa has 15 ministers, and 15 of them in the cabinet!! (additional salary I assume), and 15 departments and 15 corporations - administering Ports and Airports and such. Apia harbour must have a throughput approaching Rotterdam's and their airport has got to be up there with Dallas-Fort Worth. The pointless, self important posturing of these fat bar-stewards is underwritten by less than two hundred thousand Samoans and by charity from mugs in other countries.
Presumably the Samoan tribal mafia numbered 15 families and all of them were due an official territory.
I concluded Samoa might succeed in something but for the Samoans.
-
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
That's also democracy though. If racing is your life and you know Winston will do his best for the racing industry, you vote for Winston.
Yes, if that is your bag, you do, but no it's not democracy , which is supposed to be the will of the majority. Not many voted for Winston. They government was constructed by him and Labour, not the general will of the people.
That's an MMP democracy. Which I believe was voted in, by a democratic vote.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
That's an MMP democracy. Which I believe was voted in, by a democratic vote.
Yes, but was it the will of the people to have Winston there? Is the ideology of democracy being upheld?
-
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
That's an MMP democracy. Which I believe was voted in, by a democratic vote.
Yes, but was it the will of the people to have Winston there? Is the ideology of democracy being upheld?
Absolutely fair questions, which as a world leading philosopher, I cannot answer for you.
Are we coming to end of democracy? 17.4million people in the UK would suggest so.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
That's also democracy though. If racing is your life and you know Winston will do his best for the racing industry, you vote for Winston.
Yes, if that is your bag, you do, but no it's not democracy , which is supposed to be the will of the majority. Not many voted for Winston. They government was constructed by him and Labour, not the general will of the people.
That's an MMP democracy. Which I believe was voted in, by a democratic vote.
I think itโs stretching the bounds of credibility to suggest that a majority of the electorate voted with the expectation that a coalition with this composition would be the result. Or for that matter that many people who voted Labour were happy with a supposed left of centre government with Winston Peters. If Jacinda had secured enough votes for a majority with just the Greens then none of the Labourati would give Winston a second thought. Except to push hard for his prosecution for a lot of the electoral law breaches that have been suggested.
-
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
That's an MMP democracy. Which I believe was voted in, by a democratic vote.
Yes, but was it the will of the people to have Winston there? Is the ideology of democracy being upheld?
Everyone will have their opportunity to cast judgement on that later this year
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
That's also democracy though. If racing is your life and you know Winston will do his best for the racing industry, you vote for Winston.
Yes, if that is your bag, you do, but no it's not democracy , which is supposed to be the will of the majority. Not many voted for Winston. They government was constructed by him and Labour, not the general will of the people.
That's an MMP democracy. Which I believe was voted in, by a democratic vote.
I think itโs stretching the bounds of credibility to suggest that a majority of the electorate voted with the expectation that a coalition with this composition would be the result. Or for that matter that many people who voted Labour were happy with a supposed left of centre government with Winston Peters. If Jacinda had secured enough votes for a majority with just the Greens then none of the Labourati would give Winston a second thought. Except to push hard for his prosecution for a lot of the electoral law breaches that have been suggested.
If people now claim that wouldn't have voted for MMP as they didn't see this coming, they should be treated with the same contempt as those who voted Brexit then claimed they didn't know what they were voting for. It's a double standard to suggest anything else.
People voted for MMP. MMP mean that parties would need to get into bed together. This gave the smaller parties a significant higher amount of power, which means that coalitions like this one were always a chance. I still remember asking my teacher about this in 1992 (when I was 14) and her saying this was the potential downside. I wasn't in NZ for 2011 so perhaps this wasn't discussed then - not for me to know, but voters have a self responsibility to be aware what they are voting for.
I don't believe it's stretching the bounds of credibility either. National had such a stranglehold for years in NZ, that the only way to oust them was a tri-party gathering.
-
@MajorRage said in NZ Politics:
People voted for MMP. MMP mean that parties would need to get into bed together. This gave the smaller parties a significant higher amount of power, which means that coalitions like this one were always a chance.
MMP is party oriented, which empowers parties and conforming to parties - primarily through the List. Play the party game, or don't get a seat.
FPP has a strong party element, but you have smaller electorates that are often more independent, and a clear (and arguably more direct) relationship between the voters and the representative.
MMP seems designed to avoid the 80's and 90's, where a small part of cabinet drove cabinet, that drove the party caucus, that then drove government direction. Basically a few people making decisions with little to no check or balance outside their political party. MMP introduces the requirement to get other parties on board, and leads to many, smaller incremental changes. Helen Clark and John Key understood it, and were effective in it. Big changes, but made slowly and incrementally (rather than shock and awe like 80's Labour)
-
I'm in a minority here in that I have experienced NZ under both MMP and FPP
@NZZP is spot on MMP was introduced so we didn't have the extremes of Rogernomics and Ruth Richardson's Mother of All Budgets ever again and from that perspective it has been a resounding success.
Personally I think the reforms of the 80's and early 90's were absolutely necessary to prevent us becoming Argentina but while I see why people hate MMP so much I prefer it to FPP because of Muldoon.
FPP allowed a drunken oligarch to effectively become the Tsar of NZ (ironic given the dancing cossacks. Doubly ironic as the Cossacks fought against the Bolsheviks) Muldoon controlled every level of a cowed caucus and the constituency election process to put in his people. He did whatever he wanted on a whim and all because he knew best. Imagine Winston as PM (Winnies a big fan of Muldoon) That's what FPP delivered to NZ
As for the unfairness of MMP - Two elections in a row National won by a landslide with less than 50% of the vote. That's far less democratic than MMP.
Yeah, yeah. Winnie's the kingmaker. Quelle surprise. Anyone who didn't predict that shouldn't be allowed to vote. As for Labour voters not wanting to go with Winston. Some maybe, but most were overjoyed to have wrestled control against all the odds. They'd have dome a deal with the devil to get power. Winnie (the odd stupid remark aside) has actually behaved himself. It usually the last year of an election cycle he gets difficult as he tries to position NZF as different from the govt. COVID has sort of postponed that.
On top of which its not as if its not as if National under Brash didn't try and cobble together and even more outrageous coalition and at the time their supporters thought it was genius.
MMP is flawed but not as badly as FPP. Most of the issues could be fixed by making it easier for smaller parties to get into parliament so NZF wasn't so important.
NZ Politics