Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 37

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2112831 23-Oct-2018 17:29

You suggested something to this effect before but I don't see the comparison you are making. The Labour Party grew out of the union movement. Its purpose was and is to achieve better conditions for working people. No secret has ever been made of this association. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Contrast that to the Exclusive Brethren (and undoubted others) providing secret support to Don Brash and who knows who else? I don't see the equivalence at all.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#2112838 23-Oct-2018 18:11

There is only one NDA I'm aware of and that person is now talking about it. Peter Goodfellow the party president says that was the only allegation of harrasment (and it is non-sexual) that was brought to him in relation to Ross, and that is the one under NDA.

Personally looks to me like a fail that there were so many issues and there was no promoted process to raise those.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2112842 23-Oct-2018 18:24

6FIEND:

elpenguino:

We also know donors contribute large amounts to the party and then 'wink wink' a relative attends candidate school. Who knows, they just might get on the list.

Is that democracy at work ? Do you want a parliament full of the relatives of wealthy people ?

I can guess whose interests they'll be working for.

Compare and contrast:

We also know Unions contribute large amounts to the party and then 'wink wink' a representative attends candidate school. Who knows, they just might get on the list.

Is that democracy at work ? Do you want a parliament full of Union representatives?

I can guess whose interests they'll be working for.

Errrr ordinary working people , like me? Sounds good !!

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2113128 24-Oct-2018 09:58

Rikkitic:

You suggested something to this effect before but I don't see the comparison you are making. The Labour Party grew out of the union movement. Its purpose was and is to achieve better conditions for working people. No secret has ever been made of this association. There is nothing nefarious about it.

It's still a vested interest. Whether it's nefarious depends on your view of the behaviour of unions and whether the fact they have so much influence is good or bad for the country.

While I know the unions support the labour party I don't actually know how much or what unwritten back room deals may go with that financial support and public endorsement.

I do know that ministries with labour minsters are negotiating with unions over salaries and wages. I also know that former high profile union people end up as candidates/MPs/Ministers.

As an aside I think the union movement are misguided in nailing their colours permanently to just one political party. Every National government knows the more wages/salaries are paid to union members, the more money/resource Labour has available to contest elections and the more legislation favour unions, the larger their membership is.

As a result unions and their members struggle under every National government and always will, and Labour has to play catch-up every time it is in government.

IMO unions would be better to remain politically neutral and work constructively with whoever is in government .

Mike

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2113141 24-Oct-2018 10:29

elpenguino:
6FIEND:

elpenguino:

We also know donors contribute large amounts to the party and then 'wink wink' a relative attends candidate school. Who knows, they just might get on the list.

Is that democracy at work ? Do you want a parliament full of the relatives of wealthy people ?

I can guess whose interests they'll be working for.

Compare and contrast:

We also know Unions contribute large amounts to the party and then 'wink wink' a representative attends candidate school. Who knows, they just might get on the list.

Is that democracy at work ? Do you want a parliament full of Union representatives?

I can guess whose interests they'll be working for.

Errrr ordinary working people , like me? Sounds good !!

If unions are so representative then why has membership plunged?

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#2113148 24-Oct-2018 10:44

Don't the Unions actually decide on Labour Party leader if its outside of an election timeframe? I seem to recall the Unions deciding on Andrew little as leader. It seemed very wrong to me at the time and outdated.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2113154 24-Oct-2018 10:58

We are drifting off topic, recent posts are probably better placed in the coalition thread.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2113158 24-Oct-2018 11:13

It's false equivalence / "whataboutism". The association between the union movement and the Labour Party is long-standing, overt - and suggestions that there's skullduggery involved by some people who don't like the political ideology - or are critical of the behaviour of unions - is a disingenuous argument in my opinion - and off-topic.

The criticism of Bridges/National - following the release of the phone conversation - was that there clearly seemed to be a covert process at play, where list seats could be allocated on grounds of race, as a reward for donations where the donor wasn't identified (in retrospective fact - though clearly a names was disclosed in the conversation, then denied by the alleged donor). This by a party who've been consistently opposed to any suggestion of using a "quota system" to influence parliamentary representation - to reflect the racial/ethnic or gender balance of the community. The argument based on the concept that candidates should be selected on merit - and yet here we are - apparent hypocrisy staring us in the face, and distracted by partisan attack politics.

There was also another very clear bias discussed - against certain races mentioned. That was truly outrageous.

And this while from a more global/geopolitical viewpoint, there's much more attention being given to alleged attempts by the Chinese Communist Party to exert their influence. Of course they do - but so does "NZ", pay lobbyists to promote NZ's position on trade in the US for example. And how can there be an "open" discussion without risk of opening a massive can of worms? (inciting widespread xenophobia, risking trade relationships etc). I don't know if there's anything to be concerned about, perhaps we're at risk of being swept up in the present US regime's information war / trade war, perhaps that's based on pure BS.

Ardern's also not fond of the concept of tightening up campaign finance laws / political donations, IIRC to paraphrase her "we'd have to get all the details of everybody buying a hotdog at fundraising events". I don't imagine that trying to prevent foreign political donation would be a simple task, nor if it was decided to ban donations and fund campaigns by government, who gets to decide how the pot of campaign money is divided up between candidates/parties? What's to stop someone overseas targeting NZ voters via social media campaigns, over which NZ has no real control except to ask people like Zuckerberg to please be nice.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2113161 24-Oct-2018 11:19

Fred99:

It's false equivalence / "whataboutism". The association between the union movement and the Labour Party is long-standing, overt - and suggestions that there's skullduggery involved by some people who don't like the political ideology - or are critical of the behaviour of unions - is a disingenuous argument in my opinion - and off-topic.

Also, people do have a voice. If they don't like the union influence on Labour, they vote for someone else. If they vote for Labour, clearly they aren't bothered by it (unlike some).

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2113178 24-Oct-2018 11:53

Fred99:
It's false equivalence / "whataboutism". The association between the union movement and the Labour Party is long-standing, overt - and suggestions that there's skullduggery involved by some people who don't like the political ideology - or are critical of the behaviour of unions - is a disingenuous argument in my opinion - and off-topic.

I'm critical because Labour chose to exempt unions from the EFA when it brought it in - a partisan change to electoral law for its own benefit. Skullduggery? Yes. Off topic? Also yes. 😂

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2113183 24-Oct-2018 12:06

No peace for Simon Bridges with the latest opinion poll.....

Preferred Prime Minister:

Jacinda Ardern – 42% (up 2%)
Simon Bridges – 7% (down 3%)
Judith Collins – 5% (up 3%)
Winston Peters – 4% (down 1%)

Party Support:

Labour Party – 45% (up 3%)
National Party – 43% (down 2%)
Green Party – 7% (up 1%)
New Zealand First – 5% (steady)
Maori Party – 1% (steady)

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2113185 24-Oct-2018 12:37

Pretty good considering the week. Notable that we did not have any polls during Labour's various episodes recently.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2113191 24-Oct-2018 13:04

Bluntj:

Don't the Unions actually decide on Labour Party leader if its outside of an election timeframe? I seem to recall the Unions deciding on Andrew little as leader. It seemed very wrong to me at the time and outdated.

Effectively yes because the unions delegates vote as a block, so they effectively decide who gets to be leader. Interestingly their candidates never thrive.

Labour looked like losing the last election under union-selected former union leader Andrew Little. Ardern was selected by caucus and has proven a good choice for Labour.

Suggests to me that the unions don't really reflect the preferences of potential labour voters.

Mike

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2113236 24-Oct-2018 14:27

MikeB4:

No peace for Simon Bridges with the latest opinion poll.....

Preferred Prime Minister:

Jacinda Ardern – 42% (up 2%)
Simon Bridges – 7% (down 3%)
Judith Collins – 5% (up 3%)
Winston Peters – 4% (down 1%)

Party Support:

Labour Party – 45% (up 3%)
National Party – 43% (down 2%)
Green Party – 7% (up 1%)
New Zealand First – 5% (steady)
Maori Party – 1% (steady)

7 % !!! Wow there's still people who would vote for him !!

Last october Bill English said he was determined to lead a "strong, stable" government but since there there's been one (so far) leadership change and a huge rift with leaks , donor 'irregularities' and cash for candidates.

One good thing from all this is national's marketing department will stop trotting out that lazy trite phrase.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#2113263 24-Oct-2018 16:02

MikeB4:

No peace for Simon Bridges with the latest opinion poll.....

Preferred Prime Minister:

Jacinda Ardern – 42% (up 2%)
Simon Bridges – 7% (down 3%)
Judith Collins – 5% (up 3%)
Winston Peters – 4% (down 1%)

Party Support:

Labour Party – 45% (up 3%)
National Party – 43% (down 2%)
Green Party – 7% (up 1%)
New Zealand First – 5% (steady)
Maori Party – 1% (steady)

I've never really got the "preferred Prime Minister" poll?

You vote for the party, not the Prime Minister (unless you're in the electorate seat)

The numbers above only add up to 58%

So 42% don't know or can't be bothered or all other candidates only score 3% or less and aren't shown, which doesn't matter anyway.

So what's the point of the poll when you compare it to what people actually vote for (the party they want in Government) on the day?

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 37