http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour a
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.No, they see it as a choice between helping elect Peter Dunne or Greg
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.Since you are comparing apples with pears, you are conformig well to
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.They are not even atempting to compete with your consumate hypocrisy,
Nobody.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding.""Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour, although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
I'm not sure that his statements on behalf of the Police Assocaition
can be regarded as necessarily the same as his personal opinions now
that he is no longer in that job. The most significant was the
Associations support for police being able to be more easily armed. In
a situation where there is no political will to reduce the number of
firearms in circulation, and consistent underfunding of police (Laura
Norder is merely an election strategy with the Nats), being armed may
be the only viable alternative that the Assocaition could
realistically expect - and they would also be aware that it wold also
appeal to the authoritarian freedom hating Nats . . .. I am sure he
will be asked his personal views during the election campaign.
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.No, they see it as a choice between helping elect Peter Dunne or Greg OConnor, and hence possibly a Labour-Green government. They realise
that they have no chance of a Green candidate being elected. Why so
you lie?
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour, although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
It is fundemantally different from National supporting their "poodle
parties" by running dead inteh electorate - although if they want
Peter Dunne to be re-elected they may not stand themselves in Ohariu.
The difference is that by getting "one of their own" elected through
another party, it doesn't affect their party vote which detrmines the
total number of seats they get - in effect it is worh (onaverage) half
a seat to National. Together with the same "nudge-nudge wink wink" arrangements to get ACT in Epsom, National are getting from 1 to 2
extra seats that their real support deserves.
Labour effectively had just that sort of boost with the Alliance Party
the last time Jim Anderton was elected - but in that case I think they
did run a candidate, and did not play with the electorate as National
does.
say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens
Since you are comparing apples with pears, you are conformig well to
the National spin machine - lies not just acceptable but expected . .
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
As pointed out above, that is exactly the same as the situation as in
Ohariu - and not what Labour and the Greens are doing at all.
They are not even atempting to compete with your consumate hypocrisy,
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
JohnO.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:in the electorate so Labour can get it. That is *the deal*.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
Of course they have 'cut a deal' you lying little shit. They're not standing
You disgust me with your pathetic lying.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
Of course they have 'cut a deal' you lying little shit. They're not standing in the electorate so Labour can get it. That is *the deal*.
You disgust me with your pathetic lying.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:11 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
Your only response to being caught lying is to dishonestly snip - you
really are living up to the "nasty gnat" moniker, aren't you JohnO!
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
in the electorate so Labour can get it. That is *the deal*.
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
Of course they have 'cut a deal' you lying little shit. They're not standing
You disgust me with your pathetic lying.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 14:55:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:None of this surprises me, given the utterly ignorant comments you have made in
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:11 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
Your only response to being caught lying is to dishonestly snip - you
really are living up to the "nasty gnat" moniker, aren't you JohnO!
The parts snipped were not parts I was replying to. They were not relevant so removed to clarify the post and reduce the size of the post. All standard USENET netquette and best practice. If you weren't so pig ignorant you'd be aware of all of this.
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:Johno I am disappointed that you cannot tell the difference between a deal and an 'accommodation" which is what Mr. Little called it today. Shame on you!
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
Of course they have 'cut a deal' you lying little shit. They're not standing >in the electorate so Labour can get it. That is *the deal*.
You disgust me with your pathetic lying.
Wow what a child you are!On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:11 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
Your only response to being caught lying is to dishonestly snip - you
really are living up to the "nasty gnat" moniker, aren't you JohnO!
The parts snipped were not parts I was replying to. They were not relevant so >removed to clarify the post and reduce the size of the post. All standard >USENET netquette and best practice. If you weren't so pig ignorant you'd be >aware of all of this. None of this surprises me, given the utterly ignorant >comments you have made in the past about top-posting.
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in >> >> >marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
Of course they have 'cut a deal' you lying little shit. They're not
standing in the electorate so Labour can get it. That is *the deal*.
You disgust me with your pathetic lying.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:08:02 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>so removed to clarify the post and reduce the size of the post. All standard USENET netquette and best practice. If you weren't so pig ignorant you'd be aware of all of this.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 14:55:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:11 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
Your only response to being caught lying is to dishonestly snip - you
really are living up to the "nasty gnat" moniker, aren't you JohnO!
The parts snipped were not parts I was replying to. They were not relevant
<snip lying JohnO-bot drivel>
in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals"
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour, >> >> although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour >> >> candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren >> >> Party their party vote.
<More lying JOhno-bot drivel snipped>
Happy now?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about theLabour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don'tapprove of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greenssay. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National'saccommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens
Zealand political history - and it is all about destroying Peter Dunne."
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/02/labour-greens-do-double-dirty-deal-in-ohariu.html
"Labour and the Greens have just done the dirtiest electorate deal in New
Quite.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:08:02 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>None of this surprises me, given the utterly ignorant comments you have made in
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 14:55:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:11 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
Your only response to being caught lying is to dishonestly snip - you
really are living up to the "nasty gnat" moniker, aren't you JohnO!
The parts snipped were not parts I was replying to. They were not relevant so removed to clarify the post and reduce the size of the post. All standard USENET netquette and best practice. If you weren't so pig ignorant you'd be aware of all of this.
<snip lying JohnO-bot drivel>
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party >>>>> has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour, >>>>> although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour >>>>> candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren >>>>> Party their party vote.
<More lying JOhno-bot drivel snipped>
Happy now?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:46:11 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 12:22:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:23:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip Dickbot lying drivel>
Your only response to being caught lying is to dishonestly snip - you
really are living up to the "nasty gnat" moniker, aren't you JohnO!
in the electorate so Labour can get it. That is *the deal*.
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
What is wrong with that? They have not "cut a deal"- the Green Party
has decided that they do not want to re-elect Peter Dunne as their
supporters did at the last two elections - nothing to do with Labour,
although they clearly think there is a high likelihood that the Labour
candidate can take the seat. Voters can of course still give the Gren
Party their party vote.
Of course they have 'cut a deal' you lying little shit. They're not standing
You disgust me with your pathetic lying.
Oh dear is appropriate.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour >>a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the >>Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't >>approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of
their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in >>marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens >>say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises >>then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's >>accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the >lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even >shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on >civil liberties, including intelligence oversight, Dunne is pretty good. >Certainly better than the average National MP). If I still lived in Ohariu, >he'd be getting my electorate vote. Because civil liberties are more important >than whether Andrew Little gets a bigger salary."
Oh dear!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about theLabour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don'tapprove of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greenssay. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National'saccommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens
including intelligence oversight, Dunne is pretty good. Certainly better than the average National MP). If I still lived in Ohariu, he'd be getting my electorate vote. Because civil liberties are more important than whether Andrew
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on civil liberties,
Oh dear!
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:24:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Labour a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give
Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the
don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or
accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's
lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on civil liberties,
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the
Oh dear!
A deal is between two parties - where is there a deal, JohnO?
How is this different from National deciding not to stand in the
forthcoming by-election -
they decided they had no hope of gaining the
seat so why spend the money? Do you think National did a deal with
Labour to give them the seat?
On Friday, 17 February 2017 14:30:05 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:including intelligence oversight, Dunne is pretty good. Certainly better than the average National MP). If I still lived in Ohariu, he'd be getting my electorate vote. Because civil liberties are more important than whether Andrew
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:24:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on civil liberties,
I can't imagine Labour objecting to the decision by the Green Party,
Oh dear!
A deal is between two parties - where is there a deal, JohnO?
The deal is between Labour and Green, *obviously*.
affect a "trick" result.How is this different from National deciding not to stand in the
forthcoming by-election -
For a start, it would make no difference if they stood. They are not trying to
But that is irrelevant. National have always done "dodgy" deals in Epsom. Thatis not the point. The *point* is that Labour and Green have always howled about
And the Greens were never going to win in Ohariu - all they have donethey decided they had no hope of gaining the
seat so why spend the money? Do you think National did a deal with
Labour to give them the seat?
Don't be daft. Labour were always going to win it anyway so not giving them anything.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens
lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on civil liberties,
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the
Oh dear!
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:24:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't
including intelligence oversight, Dunne is pretty good. Certainly better than the average National MP). If I still lived in Ohariu, he'd be getting my electorate vote. Because civil liberties are more important than whether Andrew
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on civil liberties,
Oh dear!
A deal is between two parties - where is there a deal, JohnO?
How is this different from National deciding not to stand in the
forthcoming by-election - they decided they had no hope of gaining the
seat so why spend the money? Do you think National did a deal with
Labour to give them the seat?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:08:01 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>including intelligence oversight, Dunne is pretty good. Certainly better than the average National MP). If I still lived in Ohariu, he'd be getting my electorate vote. Because civil liberties are more important than whether Andrew
wrote:
On Friday, 17 February 2017 14:30:05 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:24:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:23:49 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191 >>>>>
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
Even IdiotSavant at NRT is disgusted by the DEAL:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/cowardice-from-greens.html
"Cowardice from the Greens"
"If you're a Green voter in Ohariu, it looks very much as if Dunne is the lesser evil. At least he doesn't support the "right" of police to beat or even shoot you with utter impunity. At least he's not a rape apologist (in fact, on civil liberties,
I can't imagine Labour objecting to the decision by the Green Party,
Oh dear!
A deal is between two parties - where is there a deal, JohnO?
The deal is between Labour and Green, *obviously*.
or the decision by National not to stand in Mt Roskill, but that
doesn;t make either of them a "deal." The GReens have done it because
they would prefer Labours candidate than Peter Dunne - they didn't
need any deal to make that decision all by themselves.
What eveidence do you have of any 'deal" - and if you think there was
a deal, what have the twoor more parties to the deal got out of it or
given up for it?
Of course it would make a difference - National want to get partyHow is this different from National deciding not to stand in the
forthcoming by-election -
For a start, it would make no difference if they stood. They are not trying to affect a "trick" result.
votes at the election; not standing in the electorate will reduce
their visibility. Its just the same for the Greens in Ohariu.
There is no question of either Labour or the Greens getting an extra
But that is irrelevant. National have always done "dodgy" deals in Epsom. That is not the point. The *point* is that Labour and Green have always howled about the Nat-Act DEAL and that is pure hypocrisy.
MP above their party vote allocation out of the independent decision
by the Green Party. That is the difference.
And the Greens were never going to win in Ohariu - all they have done
they decided they had no hope of gaining the
seat so why spend the money? Do you think National did a deal with
Labour to give them the seat?
Don't be daft. Labour were always going to win it anyway so not giving them anything.
is make it more likely that Dunne will go - that is incentive enough;
no need for any deal.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give Labour
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about theLabour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don'tapprove of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or Greenssay. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National'saccommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
On 14/02/2017 9:23 AM, JohnO wrote:Labour a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give
Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about the
approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they don't
marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals" in
Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other election promises then? Credibility - nil.SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or
accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
I've always though O'Connor was the most dismal bastard in the whole
country, perhaps only equaled by the gloomy left wing economist,
pessimist Rod Orham.
On 14/02/2017 9:23 AM, JohnO wrote:O'Connor's both window dressing to demonstrate Labours lean to the
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11800191I've always though O'Connor was the most dismal bastard in the whole
"The Green Party has decided not to run a candidate in Ohariu to give
Labour a better chance at unseating United Future leader Peter Dunne.
That is despite the Green Party previously expressing concerns about
the Labour candidate Greg O'Connor's position on several issues."
So... they will hold their noses and eat a rat - helping someone they
don't approve of in their election attempt, and giving up on standing
a candidate of their own - who they presumably approve of.
But it gets better:
"Labour and Greens last month said they had agreed not to cut "deals"
in marginal seats as part of their Memorandum of Understanding."
SO there you have it - you just can't believe a word either Labour or
Greens say. Why on earth would anyone believe any of their other
election promises then? Credibility - nil.
And don't forget that Labour and Greens have criticised National's
accommodation of Act in Epsom for decades.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the Left.
Nobody.
country, perhaps only equaled by the gloomy left wing economist,
pessimist Rod Orham.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:56:58 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,677 |