As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams
is my pick for future P.M.
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams
is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
As long as they don't have a shit fight over the top position. Key did so >well because everyone backed him up. Their coherence and stability is >something they possess that Labour do not. I hope they don't stuff that up.
JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
As long as they don't have a shit fight over the top position. Key did so well because everyone backed him up. Their coherence and stability is something they possess that Labour do not. I hope they don't stuff that up.
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams
is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill. >>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:41:51 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
As long as they don't have a shit fight over the top position. Key did so >well because everyone backed him up. Their coherence and stability is >something they possess that Labour do not. I hope they don't stuff that up.
Crusher has strong support from Cameron Slater and Don Brash. Al three
models of coherence and stabiity. Coleman has not created much
stability in his portfolios and is not known for coherence. I guess
that leaves the establishment figure of Bill English . . .
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill. >>
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs another 29 National MPs support.
On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:41:51 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy
Adams is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be
Bill.
As long as they don't have a shit fight over the top position. Key did so >>well because everyone backed him up. Their coherence and stability is >>something they possess that Labour do not. I hope they don't stuff that
up.
Crusher has strong support from Cameron Slater and Don Brash.
Al three
models of coherence and stabiity. Coleman has not created much
stability in his portfolios and is not known for coherence. I guess
that leaves the establishment figure of Bill English . . .
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >> >>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >> >>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs
another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three candidates by the caucus of 59.
At least whoever it is will be selected by the caucus and not forced on themagainst their wishes by the unions as Angry Andy was.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:41:51 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>>>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy
Adams is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be
Bill.
As long as they don't have a shit fight over the top position. Key did so >>> well because everyone backed him up. Their coherence and stability is
something they possess that Labour do not. I hope they don't stuff that
up.
Crusher has strong support from Cameron Slater and Don Brash.
Why would they be relevant to who National select?
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:04:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>>>>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>>>>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs
another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three candidates by the caucus of 59.
I don't think the number of candidates is a measure of how democratic
the selection is - and we know that there are many different versions
of "democracy". For New Zealand political parties, the Green Party is probably the most "democratic", closely followed by Labour (who have different categories partly reflecting the more complicated membership structure, but also giving MPs a greater say than other members), and
then the National Party the least democratic of those three. I don't
know how Winston selects himself, but I suspect it is similar to the selection of Peter Dunne or David Seymour.
Essentially the Green Party and Labour are collegial in relation to
internal matters and broad policy - with detailed policy during a
term largely set by MPs. National tends to be much more authoritarian
in all respects - members are expected to pay their money and do what
they are told - any opinikons are to be expressed in private to those
at thetop who make most decisions - and in government even
backbenchers will not be consulted on very much. How "democratic" that
is is a moot point.
On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:41:51 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:As long as they don't have a shit fight over the top position. Key did so
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill. >>
well because everyone backed him up. Their coherence and stability is
something they possess that Labour do not. I hope they don't stuff that up.
Crusher has strong support from Cameron Slater and Don Brash. Al three
models of coherence and stabiity. Coleman has not created much
stability in his portfolios and is not known for coherence. I guess
that leaves the establishment figure of Bill English . . .
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:04:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit,
but great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay.
Amy Adams is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be
Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs
another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC >>delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three >>candidates by the caucus of 59.
I don't think the number of candidates is a measure of how democratic
the selection is - and we know that there are many different versions
of "democracy". For New Zealand political parties, the Green Party is probably the most "democratic",
closely followed by Labour
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:04:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>>>>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams >>>>>> is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs
another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three candidates by the caucus of 59.
I don't think the number of candidates is a measure of how democratic
the selection is - and we know that there are many different versions
of "democracy". For New Zealand political parties, the Green Party is probably the most "democratic", closely followed by Labour (who have different categories partly reflecting the more complicated membership structure, but also giving MPs a greater say than other members), and
then the National Party the least democratic of those three. I don't
know how Winston selects himself, but I suspect it is similar to the selection of Peter Dunne or David Seymour.
Essentially the Green Party and Labour are collegial in relation to
internal matters and broad policy - with detailed policy during a
term largely set by MPs. National tends to be much more authoritarian
in all respects - members are expected to pay their money and do what
they are told - any opinikons are to be expressed in private to those
at thetop who make most decisions - and in government even
backbenchers will not be consulted on very much. How "democratic" that
is is a moot point.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:04:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>What absolute nonsense, where do you find your "logic".
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, but >>> >>> great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy Adams
is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be
Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs
another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC >>delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three >>candidates by the caucus of 59.
I don't think the number of candidates is a measure of how democratic
the selection is - and we know that there are many different versions
of "democracy". For New Zealand political parties, the Green Party is >probably the most "democratic", closely followed by Labour (who have >different categories partly reflecting the more complicated membership >structure, but also giving MPs a greater say than other members), and
then the National Party the least democratic of those three. I don't
know how Winston selects himself, but I suspect it is similar to the >selection of Peter Dunne or David Seymour.
Essentially the Green Party and Labour are collegial in relation to
internal matters and broad policy - with detailed policy during a
term largely set by MPs. National tends to be much more authoritarian
in all respects - members are expected to pay their money and do what
they are told - any opinikons are to be expressed in private to those
at thetop who make most decisions - and in government even
backbenchers will not be consulted on very much. How "democratic" that
is is a moot point.
On 12/6/2016 8:07 PM, JohnO wrote:
At least whoever it is will be selected by the caucus and not forced
on them against their wishes by the unions as Angry Andy was.
I'd like to see Judith take over.
And kick the fat kraut out of the country..
The pandering to Peters is worrying, he may be the best opposition
leader, why not leave him and his 'party' as just that, an opposition However, Brash has made himself look stupid (as if that was a hard thing
to do) by his remarks about Keys tenure as a SUCCESSFUL prime minister...
On 12/6/2016 8:07 PM, JohnO wrote:
At least whoever it is will be selected by the caucus and not forced
on them against their wishes by the unions as Angry Andy was.
I'd like to see Judith take over.
And kick the fat kraut out of the country..
The pandering to Peters is worrying, he may be the best opposition
leader, why not leave him and his 'party' as just that, an opposition However, Brash has made himself look stupid (as if that was a hard thing
to do) by his remarks about Keys tenure as a SUCCESSFUL prime minister...
If Crusher gets the job then they can kiss the treasury benches goodbye
next year. She is such a combative, petty, self-serving bitch, any less
ugly alternative would be better.
I, for one would not give National a party vote tick if she was leader.
And my electorate national mp is such a lightweight that a half decent candidate from another party could, at a pinch, see me changing my
voting choice.
greybeard. (old farts know the value of voting!)
I, for one would not give National a party vote tick if she was leader.
And my electorate national mp is such a lightweight that a half decent candidate from another party could, at a pinch, see me changing my
voting choice.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:but
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:04:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit,
Adamsgreat in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy
asNever Collins, I hope.is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be >>> >>Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs >>> another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC >>delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three >>candidates by the caucus of 59.
I don't think the number of candidates is a measure of how democraticWhat absolute nonsense, where do you find your "logic".
the selection is - and we know that there are many different versions
of "democracy". For New Zealand political parties, the Green Party is >probably the most "democratic", closely followed by Labour (who have >different categories partly reflecting the more complicated membership >structure, but also giving MPs a greater say than other members), and
then the National Party the least democratic of those three. I don't
The Green party have a policy of gender preference and Labour gave a veto to unions which should never have a say in politics other than in the same way
all other interest groups. The idea of a union or unions "assisting" in the governance of the country is anathema to any fair thinking person. Do not assume that I am against unions, I have a record that indicates quite the reverse but they have no business having a special place in our politocal system. Totally undemocratic.others
It seems to me that the National party is every bit as democratic as all
and more so than Labour and possible the Green party.
know how Winston selects himself, but I suspect it is similar to the >selection of Peter Dunne or David Seymour.
Essentially the Green Party and Labour are collegial in relation to >internal matters and broad policy - with detailed policy during a
term largely set by MPs. National tends to be much more authoritarian
in all respects - members are expected to pay their money and do what
they are told - any opinikons are to be expressed in private to those
at thetop who make most decisions - and in government even
backbenchers will not be consulted on very much. How "democratic" that
is is a moot point.
Tony
I have no idea of whom you are speaking! Every poster here is balanced and sees all sides of the argument.....don't they?On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:04:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>What absolute nonsense, where do you find your "logic".
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:30:27 UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-12-06, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2016 2:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 13:34:08 UTC+13, Fred wrote:Never Collins, I hope.
On 6/12/2016 1:17 PM, JohnO wrote:
As Jonathan Coleman not likely.
Exactly. I'd like to see a fresh face. Bill is boring as bat-shit, >> >>> >>>but
great in his role. Still - with no opposition he will be okay. Amy >> >>> >>>Adams
is my pick for future P.M.
I see Crusher Collins now has her hat in the ring. Still going to be >> >>> >>Bill.
That is what many said about Donald Trump.
It is only a numbers game, the one wishing to get to be PM, only needs >> >>> another 29 National MPs support.
It's a bit different - Trump was selected from 16 candidates by the RNC
delegates - highly diluted. The next NZ PM will be selected from three
candidates by the caucus of 59.
I don't think the number of candidates is a measure of how democratic
the selection is - and we know that there are many different versions
of "democracy". For New Zealand political parties, the Green Party is
probably the most "democratic", closely followed by Labour (who have
different categories partly reflecting the more complicated membership
structure, but also giving MPs a greater say than other members), and
then the National Party the least democratic of those three. I don't
The Green party have a policy of gender preference and Labour gave a veto to >> unions which should never have a say in politics other than in the same way >>as
The unions "assisting" Labour in choosing their leader would be akin to the NZ >Initiative (formerly Business Round Table) dictating who leads the Nats. Can >you imagine the howling from you-know-who if that ever happened? You wouldn't >be able to hear a jet taking off over it.
all other interest groups. The idea of a union or unions "assisting" in the >> governance of the country is anathema to any fair thinking person. Do not
assume that I am against unions, I have a record that indicates quite the
reverse but they have no business having a special place in our politocal
system. Totally undemocratic.
It seems to me that the National party is every bit as democratic as all >>others
and more so than Labour and possible the Green party.
know how Winston selects himself, but I suspect it is similar to the
selection of Peter Dunne or David Seymour.
Essentially the Green Party and Labour are collegial in relation to
internal matters and broad policy - with detailed policy during a
term largely set by MPs. National tends to be much more authoritarian
in all respects - members are expected to pay their money and do what
they are told - any opinikons are to be expressed in private to those
at thetop who make most decisions - and in government even
backbenchers will not be consulted on very much. How "democratic" that
is is a moot point.
Tony
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 17:28:34 |
| Calls: | 2,095 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,462 |