Poll on Brash
A snap poll by One News found very little support for Brash resigning. 84% of National supporters do not want him to resign, as well as 66% of Labour supporters.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: PollsPoll on Brash
92 Responses to “Poll on Brash”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Anyone think to poll about Trev resigning?
September 15th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Heh. Of course they don’t! If Brashers goes, Brownlee gets in and nobody’ll vote for him.
Labour voters don’t want him to go either because he’ll ensure that National loses the next election.
September 15th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I must agree with the previous contributor. John Key is your answer to David Cameron. Brash is a lame duck. Put him out of his misery, and don’t let inertia act as an excuse…
Craig Y.
September 15th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
There is no will in National to choose a new leader before the 2006/2007 recess.
Even if Brash decides not to run in 2008, they will want him to stay on as leader into next year. And even if this is the case, they will not want a long changeover period, so this will not be a public matter. All would be required to remain loyal to the leader until any official leadership contest began (a period a bit like sports players ready to move on, but being unable to negotiate new contracts until the off-season).
September 15th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
did anyone else see ‘campbell..?..
dead-man walking..eh..?
start a sweep..eh..?…one week to one month..
and key/rich are youe winning team..
(so..i don’t want them to get it..)
i’m rooting for the anorexic one to take over..
(david farrar…the smell of your spinning on this one has reached auckland..
(oh no..hang on..you’re here…that must be it..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Ten days at most, which is a shame cos I quite like him
September 15th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Had a smile at the Clark interview on one news this evening.
Someone tell her to stop trying to do sincere, she just can’t pull it off.
September 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
My god you believe what you see on three phil?
Between that and the drugs it’s no wonder you come across so mentally challenged.
How long exacatly have three been quacking dead man walking anyway? It’s getting really old. Even if he doesn’t retire for another ten years they’ll still do the told you so dance.
Sad sad bunch of little tossers trying to tell the country what to think.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
So Key / Rich the dream team will get in, lovely people I’m sure, but so polically inexperienced that Clarke and Cullen will eat them for dinner.
So that leaves Brownlee or English
Brownlee is just plain objectionable.
Probably the best option therefore is English with his mate Smith as deputy(if he can last longer then a week)
But thinking about it, when the Green enter a coalition agreement with the Maori party, its all over rover.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
So Key / Rich the dream team will get in, lovely people I’m sure, but so polically inexperienced that Clarke and Cullen will eat them for dinner.
So that leaves Brownlee or English
Brownlee is just plain objectionable.
Probably the best option therefore is English with his mate Smith as deputy(if he can last longer then a week)
But thinking about it, when the Green enter a coalition agreement with the Maori party, its all over rover.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Jeez I dunno about any of the Nats really.. maybe Judith Collins.. or maybe I should just fuck off to Oz..
September 15th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
froth on all you like murray..
you are like canute ordering back the sea..
and you have me all wrong..i want brash and the anorexic one to lead national into the next election..as that is the best bet for a centre-left victory..
and when brash is gone..i want anorexic to lead national..for the same reason..
whatever you do..don’t elect the key/rich combination eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Yes Redbaiter. Fuck off to Oz. You do the centre-right no favours here.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Why should anyone one do the “centre right” any favours? Bunch of weak arsed compromisers.. like that guy Cunis, neither one thing or the other… no principles, no strategy, no guts, lose lose lose, all they’re damn well good at…
September 15th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Team, these polls are largely irrelevant. The reality is that Brash cannot now stay on and be effective.
The guy simply has to go. And if he doesn’t have the integrity and/or commonsense to see that, someone will have to tell him.
If he goes of his own accord, National will probably gain some support as a result.
National have a three week Parliamentary recess to sort this mess out. They need to come back with a new leader and deputy, and go for the jugular. They need to hammer the Ministers of Police and Foreign Affairs about the activities of our consular officials in Los Angeles – without mentioning any names – and thereby give the media no excuse but to start digging.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
phil u.:
If it was anything like the display on One, I really have to ask who looked (and sounded) foolish. I guess it beats working for a living…
September 15th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I am saddened by Mr. D. Farrar’s, and others’ blind support for Mr Brash as leader of our NZ National Party.
You heard it from me almost 2 years ago (and arrogantly ignored it) – Mr. Brash is fatally sub-optimal, and dangerous for NZ democracy. He is a weak individual. A poor political performer. Incompetent. Irrelevant. From the get-go. Fatally weak. But some in NZ ‘sustain’ his undemocratic incumbency. Why? (no-one here has the cahones to frankly reply)
By your continued unexamined support for this appointed weak ‘protestant’ sham, you weaken democracy in my country. I enjoy winning. Professionally, I am very used to it. Very.
Politically I put it to you all that my political compass has always been superior to your Brash-Lackey fortune-stick.
‘Mercy-kill’ this leader. I am tired of this apolitical farce.
All the political books in your considerable library cannot save you, Mr. Farrar, from hard kiwi political fact – Mr. Brash can never become PM of our country. I can almost guarantee it.
Character is everything, Mr Farrar. Character.
Do your math, quickly…or risk being on the wrong side of our country’s political history.
What wanting deal have you and the hapless trouserless protestant Mr. Brash struck?
In mid-2006, you, Mr. Farrar -and your amateur Brash-toadies, now begin to appear suspect. Non-winners. Peripheral pundits. ‘Kind of second rate’.
Certainly, I am closer to the NZ political truth than you can ever know.
Try to keep up.
Your Mr. Brash is almost finished. Almost.
I am enjoying seeing you all ‘eat crow’. Choke on it. Mr. Brash is almost done.
Best wishes.
James
Representing a Winning NZ National Party.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
oh yeah..journos in a pack and on the move definitely look foolish..
(but hey craig..they are just the messangers..eh..?..they aren’t ‘the swordsman’…doing the sword ‘thang’..and all over the business roundtable too..eh..?..)
but there were those loong excrucisting silences as he pretended they weren’t asking him any of those embarrasing questions…
i half expected brash to put his hands over his ears..and go “i’m not listening..i’m not listening..!..”
(he was close.!.)
there are some stunning ‘in-denial’ comments over at humphreys..
along the lines of..”..well..brash has got labour on the ropes now..”..sort of delusional crap..
(oh.!.and redbaiter has finally found humphreys..
lucyna welcomed him with little cries of delight..
they are wallowing/bathing in moans about ‘all the commies’ over at farrars’..
(cue mass nods of assent..)
feckin’ certifiable..and oh so bloody boring..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
You’re all nuts. When was the last time a South Islander was elected PM…. 60′s, 50′s?. Not in the last 30 years anyway. Brownlee and English have no show. And don’t you guys recall how ineffective English was as leader? He had us wallowing in the polls under 20%. He’s a hard worker and will make a good minister, but he’s not a good leader. Nothing’s changed there.
Key is the only intelligent choice. Broad appeal. Women like him more. And his performance in last years campaign was outstanding for a Rookie. A Key v Helen Clark contest will really focus the mind.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Preston:
Sorry, I have no intention of voting for Key, English, Power or anyone else if they’re leading a party that crumpled like wet toilet paper before the politics of sleaze.
And I was waiting for ‘james’ to pop up again – and he hasn’t lost any of his egomanical tendency to speak of himself in the third person plural, the spite and personal vindictiveness, the amorality where ‘winning’ is the end that jutifies any means, and his determination that a broad-base political party be made over into a cult where heresy (i.e. any disagreement with ‘james’) must be purged.
I’m just confirmed in my conviction that any National Party made over to meet james’s approves would be a disaster both for the party and the country. I just hope he’s not going to offering any leadership endorsements – that would be cruel.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Key is at least, Clark’s intellectual equivalent (if not superior). What he might lack in political experience, well (dare I say it), he is…atleast, a ‘family man’ As Preston says, ‘women like him’ and since women make around 85% of the purchasing decisions in this country, Im with Preston.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Preston
Try Mr. B. Rowling, then look up Mrs. J. Shipley.
You were uninformed. Now you are no longer.
So now you have no excuse. Unless you are ill.
Sincere best wishes,
James
September 15th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
James, it is you who is uninformed. Neither Rowling nor Shipley were elected PM (that is, won an election as leader of their party). They got there by replacing the person who did win the election. In Rowling’s case, because Kirk died. In shipley’s case, because she got the numbers over Bolger. But neither won an election in their own right as leader.
An apology from you, perhaps?
September 15th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Zutroy, Exactly right.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
I think Kirk was last the south islander elected PM
I would add that Moore was also a south island PM – but im not sure 8 weeks counts??
September 15th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
And James, if you’re going to be so anal about getting the grammar right, you could try getting people’s names right…
Dr. Brash
Mr. W. Rowling
September 15th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
ORB,
Moore was a south island PM, but again, he was never elected PM.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Craig, I doubt you’ll have to. Brash will fall on his sword, just to get your vote back. He’s got a good excuse, hardly crumpling like wet toilet paper, although I’m sure he’ll excuse the analogy since it was made in the heat of the moment.
James, you got served, in a way that someone who enjoys winning professionally shouldn’t have.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Ben:
Sorry, I think your point got snowed under in the snark. I don’t think Don Brash is going to be consulting me too closely about his future; but I wonder how many other current or potential National voters are going to react to a leadership coup being driven by sleaze – and unproven sleaze at that?
Doesn’t exactly inspire my confidence, and I don’t think we’ve entirely sub-contracted our elections to pollsters and the Press Gallery yet.
Still, let’s see how things play out – and whether the next few polling cycles (and ultimately the next general election) support your theory or mine.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:28 am
After the summer, Brash will ask his caucus for support “as 2008 leader” and should not get it. However, if he contested the following leadership vote, he might well still win. The point is, Brash is leader until National falls behind and stays behind in the polls and is gone by lunchtime as soon as they do.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:54 am
For Brash to leave now or be given the push from his caucus will be a huge set back for the National Party.
What this will represent is victory for gutter politics and the disgusting tactics of Mallard and Hodgson
September 16th, 2006 at 3:11 am
So as far as I can see, the Herald editorial has backed up the DomPost and the press in calling for Helen to resign
Rather than calling of the mud-slinging, now is the time for National to show real courage!
surely there must be some website outside NZ
that can carry all the Labour stories
if the NZ press or websites won’t take ‘em?
September 16th, 2006 at 7:04 am
I don’t think it is possible to pretend that his standing in the public eye will remain unaffected or that he can somehow escape the taint that this has brought about. Simply refusing to comment will not enable him to escape from this scrutiny.
The opposition parties will hound and mock him in Parliament, and compromise his ability still further. It brings serious questions about his honesty which is supposed to be a selling point.
So I hope that the caucus factions manage to get into one group. Power no way, Key is it.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Just to add to this, I cannot emphasise it enough. Brash has to go, because National can no longer call Labour corrupt, it will be turned back into questions about Brash’s own integrity. That is what will happen as soon as Parliament opens next week.
Which is it to be? Holding Labour to account or keeping Brash as leader?
September 16th, 2006 at 7:17 am
I’d rather have ten Redbaiters any day to 100 of what supposedly passes for informed comment a lot of the time.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:25 am
“They need to hammer the Ministers of Police and Foreign Affairs about the activities of our consular officials in Los Angeles – without mentioning any names – and thereby give the media no excuse but to start digging.”
Once you step over that line there’s no going back and it breaks a convention. It can get very messy very quickly. Not a wise choice at all.
Someone with a level head just needs to keep to the topic at hand, the pledge card spending. Labour already have enough sleaze, but if you go on the attack against Clark with this business there will be no stone unturned against you politically Labour is like a wild animal already just over the Pledge card.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:37 am
“Character is everything, Mr Farrar. Character. ”
Thanks for that comment.
Let us remember that for all the brickbats that Mr Connell is currently receiving from some of his colleagues, the whitewash attempts will not work with people who are of a similar mind to Mr Connell in their views.
National is fatally compromised by the urban liberals whom the party has chosen to go after to win votes in more recent years.
One can only go so far down that path without alienating the rump conservative moral voters, including those who switched at the last election from United Future. Mr Connell may be unpopular in his caucus but I defend his right to represent that part of National’s supporters.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Simply refusing to comment will not enable him to escape from this scrutiny.
A cop interviewing a suspect is no more impressed by a “refusal to comment” than a lying denial.
Politicians are often economical with the truth in a general sense, but this is a specific matter with specific and highly relevant political implications. In this context, Brash’s “passive lying” will soon amount to “misleading the NZ public”.
The affair itself is of NO public importance, of no more relevance than Clinton’s cigar smoking habits… what IS important are all the other implications that flow from it. If that comes out and it prove far more damaging.
Still you may just get away with it, so far the media who know all this perfectly well, have been protecting National all the way. These salaried hacks still want their tax cuts so very much and are quite happy to be doing their owner’s bidding. (Who among other things may still be negotiating with Cullen over $100m’s of tax rebates.) That’s ok with me by the way, a vulnerable and compromised Brash is just fine thanks.
And please keep on trying to deflect ALL the blame onto Mallard, eventually it will become obvious that you are making him a whipping boy for simply hinting at what everybody in the room already knew.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:51 am
“surely there must be some website outside NZ
that can carry all the Labour stories
if the NZ press or websites won’t take ‘em? ”
That is Indymedia – supposedly a darling of the left. I’d love to see someone from the right take them on.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Logix,
Clark refusing to comment on the motorcade seemed to work a treat……….
September 16th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Clark refusing to comment on the motorcade seemed to work a treat
1. She was NOT driving, nor responsible for command of the calvalcade. Why should she comment? And even if she should have:
2. The PM cannot comment on matters under Police investigation or Court process.
As I said, this “refusal to comment” is an age old politician’s trick used by many, but it is not a magical armulet that renders it wearer immune to all scrutiny.
September 16th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Logix wrote:
A cop interviewing a suspect is no more impressed by a “refusal to comment” than a lying denial.
Yes, Logix, and if a Police prosecutor stood up before a court and tried to argue that your assertion of a right to silence was a confession they would be told to o get serious.
Still, I guess if the two of us don’t respond to every personal attack around here – for whatever reason – we’re as good as admitted it’s right?
September 16th, 2006 at 8:53 am
And does anyone else find it rather ironic that most of the people chanting “”Character is everything” etc., are quite happy to do so while hiding behind pseudonyms?
Perhaps we should ask what that says about the character and integrity of the self-appointed moral arbiters of the blogisphere.
September 16th, 2006 at 9:05 am
From National’s perspective, Brash staying is a big mistake, on the basis of past behaviour being the best predictor of future performance: if he could break commitments to two wives to (ahem) pursue his own self-interest, then his already low levels of trustworthiness take a fatal dive. He is utterly unelectable, and nothing will fix this. Go do some informal polling along the lines of “do you trust Dr Brash?” – irrespective of broad political alignment, almost all people I’ve surveyed find him untrustworthy.
Better to take the minor pain of pushing him now, let Brownlee continue the pledge card assault to save face (which is getting boring anyway – the public has a short attention span, and National mis-timed and mis-executed the attack anyway), and implement the succession plan. You do have one, right?
Note also I’m not saying he did or did not have an affair with Diane Foreman – that’s none of my business or interest. But the general public will/does assume he did.
September 16th, 2006 at 9:38 am
What’s the matter with politicians from rakaia? O’connell’s a twit, but even he’s a genius compared to his nemesis… labour lickspittle Tony Milne. I guess we should be a little bit glad that Brian won over that clown.
September 16th, 2006 at 9:39 am
K1:
Perhaps you could restrict you comments to your perspective rather than making spurious appeals to authority. I think the ‘general public’ are quite capable of making up their own minds, and the people I know seem less obsessed with panty-sniffing than the anonymous busybodies around here. Then again, I always put more store in people who will talk to my face over anonymous moralists penning blog comments.
I guess time will tell.
September 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Craig, I don’t think Brash will want to make a coup necessary. He can save National a lot of face with honorable political seppuku. And I think if he doesn’t see that, his own crowd will tell him soon enough.
But that’s just on the assumption that Brash has National’s interests at heart, something that this crazy affair has very much called into question.
There’s a lot more at stake than Brash’s marriage and right to privacy and philandering. However much they like/worship/feel sorry for the man, they are still in the business of winning elections and I just can’t see the whole lot of them rallying behind one man to protect his right to not-even-particularly-secret adultery with key financial backers, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of votes, and ultimately all those tax cuts people said they wanted.
I do think it’s kind of sad, and if National really want to take the risk that their base won’t be seriously eroded, good on them for their courage. But this isn’t the kind of courage I think the punters will reward.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I think we’ll have to wait and see a general poll for this to mean anything. If the 25% of voters who think Brash should resign translates to even half that kind of movement in the polls then it’s a disaster for the National Party. If their feelings about Brash don’t influence their party vote then the Nats can rest easy.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Why don’t you boring pretentious commies take your never ending tedious advice on what a party you have no affinity for should do and shove it..
September 16th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Nats should take a leaf from the greens book and and have a leader outside parliament; then choose Tim Barclay, at least then there will be no chance of sexual dalliances geeting in the way.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:33 am
If I may, the real point of this whole affair is that National, when faced with a bit of pressure, fell apart.
You are right to say that the Labour government has been on the defensive for the last couple of months, but they have held it together.
National could not do it, they imploded. Brash is history (imagine what Clark will do to him in a debate when family values are raised) yet you have no clear alternative.
Looks like, barring accidents of course, that Clark’s next term is in the bag.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:50 am
DPF: your timid posts and your ‘walking on eggshells’ comments on the Brash issue demonstrate that your loyal toadiness to him has had a neutering effect on your previously respected voice. You plainly don’t know how to handle the issue. Hopefully I am wrong, but it would suprise me nought (judging from your comments) if Brash has been patting your back and effectively procuring you as his internet PR guy. It is one thing to be a Nat supporter, but to be Brashes finger puppet is another thing altogether. Quite unbecoming of someone as smart as you. Looking for an election year contract one might guess.
In past weeks you have been ceaselessly trumpeting points scored aginst labour overspending to the exclusion of some of the more topical current events that make your blog interesting. At least the Brash issue has effectively shut you up on the political front and seen a slight return to less political (but more interesting) matters.
As they say, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a stooge, than to open it and remove all doubt.
If todays NZHerald report about reporters asking Clark for comment on rumours about her husband are true, then I see little chance of you escaping this matter without wearing the same hypocrite tag as Brash.
PS- I also don’t see how you can credibly claim not to have known about Brash’s affair when it was reported in Sydney 12 months ago. Although the article itself was not demonstrative, if Brash had not been ‘in bed with the Round Table’ he would undoubtedly have launched defamation action in Oz aginst such a malicious rumour. Their was no bona fide reason for him not to, indeed it would have been to his benefit.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:51 am
It seems more from the left are calling for Don to get his gold watch, for the good of the party of course. Now why would anyone from the left give a rats toss it Don went, I wonder……….
September 16th, 2006 at 11:59 am
The National Party will take a long hard look now but I think there will be a change in leadership, I do not know when, but it will not be dictated by the Labour Party. There will be discrete soundings, a polite formula will be exprssed like “I support you but your personal life is distracting from the message we want to present to the public”. And then a change will be made.
September 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
“Now why would anyone from the left give a rats toss it Don went, I wonder……….”
Cos we are so scared of his election winning abilities perhaps?
(Great post Jodie)
September 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Sonic, I wouldn’t go so far as to say Labour will do well out of this, even if National is likely to do poorly. The kind of people who get outraged about family values aren’t going to flock to Labour because of Brash’s foolishness. They’ll go third party. But that is a little to Labour’s advantage in terms of bargaining power.
September 16th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Thanks sonic
Sad but true. I take no pleasure in saying what I said.
RIP the old and respected DPF.
September 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
The latest Roy Morgan released today shows Labour up 2.5% to 41%, National down 6% to 38%.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4086/
Bye Bye Dr Brash….. (imho)
September 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Logix
Not sure if you were pulled up on this one “The PM cannot comment on matters under Police investigation or Court process.”
She has managed to slag of Darton in spite of your “rule” – seems to be pretty flexible when it suits her purposes.
September 16th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
So months ago I posted venturing an opinion that the National party would certainly win the next election. They will win, with or without Dr Brash as leader, but if he goes then they stand an excellent chance of forming a government without the need of a any minor party help
September 16th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Craig, aren’t you being a bit sensitive here? As far as I can see, everything I say is my “perspective”, not an appeal to authority. If you’re being critical of my wording in the last sentence being too absolute then you’ve missed my point. The “general public” are indeed capable of, and will make up their own minds here. My point was that judging by an informal watercooler survey (and a bit of talk radio) the contention doesn’t seem to be over whether the alleged affair occured, but whether he is trustworthy. No panty-sniffing involved. I’m not moralising either: whatever activities one or more consenting adults get up to sexually is only of my concern if I’m one of those adults. Perhaps Don and Je Lan have a completely flexible relationship, perhaps not, I don’t care – but I think it’s fair to say “mainstream NZ” will assume that he’s been less than honest with her, which goes to my point of reducing his trustworthiness.
As to the anonymity issue, perhaps you’re not getting how this whole blog thing works? It isn’t the same as f2f conversation. If we met f2f for a political discussion anonymity would be ludicrous. Given the Internet has a whole bunch of new risks and gotchas, some of us prefer to be anonymous. Knowing my name does not change the validity of my views – if we met f2f I wouldn’t say anything different to what I’m saying here.
September 16th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I have to agree with K1 on the anonymity thing. In the interests of derailing this thread, the institution of public debate was founded on anonymity. Following the arrival of the printing press in England, and the loss of government censorship shortly before the Civil War, a massive explosion of pamphleteering took place, allowing public debate seperate from, and thus critical of, the state. The vast majority of these pamphlets were published anonymausly, and the tradition continued well into the 20th Century. If you look at newspapers throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, you’ll usually see letters to the editor written under pseudonyms. Attaching names to letters seems to be a recent invention, perhaps concurrent with universal suffrage (but that’s just speculation).
In many ways, the internet seems to be a technological revolution on par with the printing press, especially in its capacity for the regeneration of the public sphere. Once again, citizens are able to discuss ideas in more or less open forums, and (hopefully) rational debate can take place. If some people want to do that anonymausly, I don’t see that there’s any real issue.
Indeed, it seems to me that you, Craig, are making an appeal to authority of your own — or at least an appeal that the lack of identity of the authorial voice somehow devalues the argument. An argument is either valid, or its not. It’s either sound, or it’s not. The connection between the author and the argument should not be relevant, and so accusations of anonymity seem fallacious to me. Indeed, I’ve seen the argument that the identity of the author doesn’t devalue the argument made here many times, especially when some lefties accuse the right of personal interest in issues such as tax cuts.
That said, I agree entirely that the argument you were disagreeing with was an appeal to authority, and one based on the particularly bad kind at that. But there’s no need to go trotting out your own bad arguments in order to defeat the bad arguments of others.
September 16th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
IF, and it is a big IF, Brash goes, the obvious choice for intelligence, presentation and popularity has to be John Key.
But herein lies the dilemma. He would no doubt be popular among the ladies. We all know Helen likes women ( and I have heard the feeling is mutual – heard it from Peter Davis, it may be a rumour ) so who will get the female vote? Any ideas?
September 16th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Candida said: “But herein lies the dilemma. . . so who will get the female vote? Any ideas?”
*If* Brash has been cheating on his wife. It wont be him. That is what is certain.
Helen is seen as a strong woman, but not family friendly (she has none herself, and is pro state funded nursary care removing the need for mothers in society (something my own mum doesnt like!)). Also who is the next in line after Clark as ‘stong woman vote catcher’? I cant think of anyone???
I think it very much depends on the woman and what sort of feminist values she has (assuming all women are feminists of some persuasion). The conservative-family oriented women will not be so keen on Clarks brand of feminism, and will more likely vote Key/Rich, and may have voted UF in the past.
The women who are less oriented towards family (perhaps younger women, more left-wing in persuasion, who view the governments role as that of a nanny state), will continue to vote Clark. But may shift Green/ Maori if Clark goes.
There is also a third ‘group’ that is strongly emergent – the professional career woman (currently not family oriented, but may wish to be some time in the future), less nanny state friendly -they want to see that their tax money is being spent wisely! Will likely vote Key/Rich as their politics shifts more right with age.
all this is speculation on my part. Feel free to disagree
September 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I really do hope that Brash stays, as leader or not, it doesn’t matter, he is just such a decent guy and clearly a smart man.
Mallard you worthless sack of shit, I have a special Heinekin bottle especially broken for you, and I won’t be lubing it up.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Oh yeah, pay it back Helen!
September 16th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Pay it back thieving bitch.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Mallard you worthless sack of shit, I have a special Heinekin bottle especially broken for you, and I won’t be lubing it up.
Swallowed all the spin, and now you’re trying to vomit it back up eh?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:58 am
mavxp,
I can’t see how Clark’s childlessness has anything at all to do with not being family friendly. That’s like saying she’s anti asian because she’s not asian, or that Brash is anti gay because he’s not gay. Which is not to say that a lot of people don’t think like you do, I’m just saying it’s dumb thinking.
As for the state funding nursery care, I’m completely at a loss as to how that ‘removes the need for mothers’. It just makes a lot of mothers’ lives easier, and I can you tell from personal experience right now, that mothers appreciate that, it being quite hard work.
Certainly conservative women will be against Clark, probably because their parents and husband are.
And your ‘third group’ could go either way, depending on how likely it is they will want children and thus be highly dependent for the time that takes. Most women seem to want them at some stage.
Which probably explains why Labour gets the lion’s share of the female vote now, and I don’t think a leader being busted for an affair is going to win any.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:26 am
I’ve missed most of the story as I am in Europe, but I guess if Labour wants to let loose on the personal stuff, then I would be worried if I was Mr Mallard.
Some of the shit that went down with one of his children made it’s way to the Nats in Hutt South before the election but we chose not to use it as it was too personal.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:28 am
maxvp,
Care to speculate which way the Asian female vote might react?
Michael,
The Emperor had no clothes. Mallard simply said what everyone knew. Look to your own caucas for the events that forced the Press Gallery’s hand.
And if you cannot tell the difference between the Brash affair (which has intensely public and political implications) and what one of Mallard’s family members might have gotten up (or down) to, your judgement is being clouded by the events of the last week, and an emotional desire to strike back at any cost.
Now even Brash knows that…how about taking your own leader’s advice in this respect?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Cretean wrote:
And if you cannot tell the difference between the Brash affair (which has intensely public and political implications) and what one of Mallard’s family members might have gotten up (or down) to, your judgement is being clouded by the events of the last week, and an emotional desire to strike back at any cost.
LOL… Funny how the same people who are running that tortuous self-justification, weren’t buying it for a second when Naomi Lange’s on the record venting to a newspaper editor was used as a justification to ‘out’ her huband’s affair with a member of his staff. At the time, people were justified in asking why it wasn’t reported much eariler if there such serious “public and political implications”. There wasn’t a very good answer then, and there’s not one now – especially when the current allegations aren’t even confirmed by any of the parties involved. Then again, we’ve seen more than enough people who apparently think refusing to comment is the same as a confession. So much for people accused of a crime having the right to silence!
September 17th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Then again, we’ve seen more than enough people who apparently think refusing to comment is the same as a confession. So much for people accused of a crime having the right to silence!
Not too many applied that principle to Philip Feild did they? I note that DPF failed to quote this Michael Laws column:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,3784937a6619,00.html
>>> The decision to investigate Field does not pass scrutiny. There is no suggestion of criminal wrongdoing anywhere in the Ingram Report. Or in the consequent and petty “exposures” by the New Zealand Herald or TVNZ.
The Mangere MP may have accepted money from grateful constituents for work done. There is sufficient evidence to suggest some Samoans see gift-giving as part of their cultural milieu. It explains their crazy practice of church tithing. But none of these things are remotely criminal. There is no allegation of bribery, no information that posits graft.
It is difficult to fathom how the criminal law concept of “mens rea” (a guilty mind) can be overcome if any subsequent charge is laid.
Clearly, Field’s actions are unconventional. Certainly they are irregular in terms of the way parliamentarians run their constituency offices. But it is a significant leap to suggest criminality when no complaint has been laid nor clear evidence advanced.
The real reason for Field’s predicament is that the press think him guilty. It is yet another example of the media deciding that someone has not passed their code of public ethics, and then accumulated a mess of irrelevancies to convict him. <
By contrast the Press Gallery protected Brash for a year or more, when in truth the affair is not the real problem is it?
September 17th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Preston, Zutroy and Ben:
Correction: no one got served here, yet.
Bill Rowling (a Prime Minister from the South Island), Jenny Shipley (also a Prime Minister from the South Island), and, yes, even Mike Moore (yet another Prime Minister from the South Island) were each, de facto, elected to the highest office in NZ. No argument. Caucuses first elected them to the leadership. They subsequently became Prime Ministers. Beg to differ?
I am of the opinion that there will be several Prime Ministers from the South Island in the next 10 – 15 years. I could name three.
Preston offers no reasons for his claim. His conclusion is simply untrue. An interesting question is why he makes the claim. Preston is incorrect and so is Zutroy by supporting his incorrectness. Ben is unhelpful. The three of you have been well served at once, or rather, a more apt expression might be ‘you have shot yourselves in the feet’.
Now, back to the hapless Mr. Brash: he is finished politically, actually. It is almost done. Nor does it matter where he came from. By contrast, where the hapless Mr. Brash is headed is hilarious. He is looking buffoonish now.
Hapless, ‘Nixonian’, incompetent…and apparently a bit of a hard dog to keep on the porch. Whoof!
Character is everything, gentleman. Character, character, character.
Best,
James,
Representing a Winning NZ National Party
September 17th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Preston, Zutroy and Ben:
Correction: no one got served here, yet.
Bill Rowling (a Prime Minister from the South Island), Jenny Shipley (also a Prime Minister from the South Island), and, yes, even Mike Moore (yet another Prime Minister from the South Island) were each, de facto, elected to the highest office in NZ. No argument. Caucuses first elected them to the leadership. They subsequently became Prime Ministers. Beg to differ?
I am of the opinion that there will be several Prime Ministers from the South Island in the next 10 – 15 years. I could name three.
Preston offers no reasons for his claim. His conclusion is simply untrue. An interesting question is why he makes the claim. Preston is incorrect and so is Zutroy by supporting his incorrectness. Ben is unhelpful. The three of you have been well served at once, or rather, a more apt expression might be ‘you have shot yourselves in the feet’.
Now, back to the hapless Mr. Brash: he is finished politically, actually. It is almost done. Nor does it matter where he came from. By contrast, where the hapless Mr. Brash is headed is hilarious. He is looking buffoonish now.
Hapless, ‘Nixonian’, incompetent…and apparently a bit of a hard dog to keep on the porch. Whoof!
Character is everything, gentleman. Character, character, character.
Best,
James,
Representing a Winning NZ National Party
September 17th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Ceretean:
Field’s “problem” is his conduct as a Member of Parliament, not that he allegedly had an extra-marital affair. Nor do I think accurate reporting of the Ingrahm Report, or further investigation into his conduct as a Member of Parliament and his dealings with the NZIS and the Minister’s Office, is some kind of witch hunt.
Sorry, you keep tripping yourself up in a web of ‘but it’s different when I do it’ special pleading, and it’s just not flying.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am
“I can’t see how Clark’s childlessness has anything at all to do with not being family friendly”.
Ben, that maybe true, but Id suggest the proposition that she might be more empathetic to those who have children, if she had conceived a child herself and become a mother. Hormonal changes not only affect the body, but the one way one thinks. Its called genetics.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:07 am
And here I was thinking genetics was the study of genes.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Paul Marsden wrote:
Ben, that maybe true, but Id suggest the proposition that she might be more empathetic to those who have children, if she had conceived a child herself and become a mother. Hormonal changes not only affect the body, but the one way one thinks. Its called genetics.
I reply:
Balls. I think you’d want to be very careful before going there with people like my foster brother and his wife – who have just adopted, after more than a decade of trying to conceive ‘naturally’. They’re both ex-Police officers – who spent long periods in the Youth Aid section – and after PERFing out on health grounds, re-trained as teachers. If they’re not ‘empathetic’ and ‘family-friendly’ enough for you, I doubt anyone could measure up.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Go to the top of the class, Daryl.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:13 am
James, you’re quite right. What you say is no argument. It’s a weak attempt at word twisting. The phrase ‘elected Prime Minister’ is widely understood to mean ‘by the people’ not ‘by the caucus’. That’s why the phrase is used, to distinguish between the two kinds of Prime Ministers, those who were elected by the people in general election and those who got the job from a leadership change. Your usage makes the adjective ‘elected’ redundant.
Naturally everyone else got that, but I figure you need to be told. And if you refuse to accept the point, it just means you want to use your own private definition. If so, it’s usually polite to tell people beforehand to stop these stupid quibbles.
Doesn’t mean I disagree with you about Brash’s future, just that I think your style suffers from a god complex that adds nothing to the debate.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Oh, and here’s something else to think about: Have you ever considered the possibility that Helen Clark’s uterus is not public property, or a fit subject for vulgar and impertinent commentary, just because she is a public figure.
We have a secret ballot in this country, and if the reproductive systems of our political leaders are a defining issue for folks out there that’s fine – if dumb and creepy, IMO. None of my to do, but neither is the most intimate decision any woman has to determine for herself. I’m a little more concerned about what Helen Clark’s up to in Parliament. Not her bedroom, or whether there’s contraceptive pills in her medicine cabinet, or what is discussed in her gynacologist’s office. Parliament.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Craig, you go to the bottom of the class. You miss my point. Conceiving or, bringing up and been around kids ‘changes’ you (for the better Id hope!). Im sure you would agree.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:31 am
DaNyl, nice one. I think the word Paul was looking for was eugenics.
Paul, can I take it from your argument that you are not family friendly? Or is your hormonal change argument from personal experience?
September 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Paul:
Please leave the class, and if you’re not off school property in five minutes I’ll call the Police.
I don’t agree, and I’ll give you a few reasons. Chris and Cru Kahui. Olympia Jetson and Soleil Aplin. James Whakaruru. Delicia Witika. All children whose mothers failed their most basic duty of empathy and care to their own flesh and blood, and I can keep reading off the roll of shame until the rose-tinted glasses come off.
Whatever political issues I have with Helen Clark, there are some pretty complex scientific and social policy questions that shouldn’t be trivialised for the sake of a cheap shot at a childless woman.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Craig, I take it then that you dont agree with me? That being responsible for the upbringing of kids usually makes one a more ’rounded’ and perhaps a better ‘balanced’ person? (save for the odd-rat bag parents who are in the minority) Priorities change. Im sure your foster brother and wife would agree with me. I put foward a hypothetical proposition that HC might think a little differently if she had been a mother. Politics has got nothing to do with my point. Everyone’s life changes (hopefully for the better) when kids infiltrate it.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Pauls trying to talk about endocrinology. Unhappily for him he doesn’t know what that is, so he picked another scientific sounding word – seemingly at random – and popped it in.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I apologise if it appears i was making a cheap shot at Helen Clarks not-having-kids decision (or otherwise). It was not intended that way.
I was merely speculating at “perceptions” of what she may be to some women -be they conservative or left wing. I can only _speculate_ of course!! But I have heard people mention these things. They may defy logic to you, but obviously these perceptions people have affect the way they will vote.
That is all I was trying to convey.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I apologise if it appears i was making a cheap shot at Helen Clarks not-having-kids decision (or otherwise). It was not intended that way.
I was merely speculating at “perceptions” of what she may be to some women -be they conservative or left wing. I can only _speculate_ of course!! But I have heard people mention these things. They may defy logic to you, but obviously these perceptions people have affect the way they will vote.
That is all I was trying to convey.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
BTW Craig. There’s nothing complicated about politics. People either vote for the hand that feeds them, protects them or, provides them with the freedoms they desire. (or all 3)
September 17th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Ben:
Each PM (Rowling, Shipley & Moore etc) was picked out, chosen or selected as Prime Minister – meaning ‘elected’ actually. Under MMP and FPP, the winning formula assures the ‘elected’ leader of that party of the Prime Minister’s Office. Technically, one is correct to say that Mr Rowling, Ms Shipley and Mr Moore were each elected PM. To say ‘elected Prime Minister’in this context is still to be within the bounds of accepted meaning of the term; it still captures common usage. People everywhere understand this common usage. No-one, for instance, says that they were ‘appointed’ or ‘hired in’ as or ‘recruited’ as PM; ‘elected’ does nicely thank you. You are being pedantic with lexical definitions.
I recognise Preston’s attempt at argument, its just that he did not offer any cogent premises. It makes persuasion that much more difficult when he doesn’t.
If I seem complex to you, I apologise. Further, attacking me is not argument, either.
With your choice of definition, you go on to create a misleading categorisation (2 kinds only: elected and presumbably non-elected)of the Prime Ministership. The actual choice of PM-categories as you set it up is not as simple as this. It does not make sense, in fact – not under a Westminster tradition.
Serving you,
James
Representing a Winning NZ National Party
September 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
James, you’re ‘technically correct’ only under your own technical definition. No one else uses it. And Preston wasn’t using it that way when it asked the question, as he himself said.
I’m not ‘creating a misleading categorization’. I’m just using an adjective. There *are* 2 kinds of Prime Ministership, elected and non-elected, which is why the phrase is useful. And there are other ways of dividing them, like National or Labour, 20th and 21st century. By using an adjective I don’t mislead anyone except people like you who refuse to understand how it was meant by the people using it.
I’m not going to go into a spinlock with you on this. If you want to use words in your own special way, fine. Just acknowledge it.
You don’t seem ‘complex’ to me, you just seem either confused and/or stubborn.
If you feel ‘attacked’, consider your own words and how they make people feel. I’m sorry if you feel you should have my support because we have at least one conclusion in common. But you are simply gloating in an unbecoming way, and I don’t like it.