Daily review 16/10/2020

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

35 comments on “Daily review 16/10/2020”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    Posted this on OM but will put it here too:

    A last minute attempt at Dirty Politics?

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/10/nz-election-2020-jacinda-ardern-addresses-nasty-nanny-rumours-like-a-pro.html\ (my bold)

    Headline still on site as having been put there an hour ago. Page missing, so text been pulled. Sounds to me like the filthy yarn has been doing the rounds again. Also the accompanying photo of Jacinda looks suspicious. Think its been tampered with or it isn’t Jacinda.

    1. 1.1

      Heh, I clicked the link and got an error page with an image of beatifically smiling Jacinda, looking down from on high.

      That's sneaky, Anne but I have already voted. wink

      1. 1.1.1

        That's quite funny. It's a paid ad from Labour.

        The picture of Jacinda I'm referring to is the one on the news address page. Google “newshub”.

    2. 1.2

      The item that was supposedly there more likely had some sort of legal action taken to take it down.

      Newshub TV3 should be disgusted with themselves even trying this shit on the eve of election!!! A nasty person as far back as May claiming to be JA's friend. Repulsive.

    3. 1.3

      Posted this on OM but will put it here too

      Once was more than enough. And if media removes something like that, we may be exposing this site to liability by discussing it here.

    4. 1.4

      The story was just another from the party with integrity with supporters who are quick to demand integrity.

      Funnily enough with Saint Judith as leader.

      1. 1.4.1

        I believe Peter, it refers to a really malicious rumour that started back earlier this year. But why on election eve the link with a smear type subtext, pops up here( linked to newshub ) after all these months? The timing points to intended potential harm.

    1. 3.1

      Which, of course, also means we can expect the Labour & Green % to end higher than the provisional Election Night result (& the Nats to fall a little further). Hopefully pundits of all stripes will bear that in mind tomorrow night.

  4. 4

    Act at 8% would be forecast to get the following in to Parliament:

    – David Seymour

    – Brooke van Velden. Pretty solid and has worked in Parliament with Seymour for a while

    – Nicole McKee. Gun nut.

    – Chris Baillie. Retired Police Office. Pro Charter schools.

    – Simon Court. Bogan engineer who wants to eradicate environmental regulation.

    – James McDougall. Classic small-government liberal. Owns a pistol.

    – Karen Chhour. Doesn't stand for anything in particular.

    – Mark Cameron. Wants to restore pride to dairy farmers.

    – Toni Severin. Doesn't stand for anything in particular.

    – Damien Smith. From Northern Ireland. Believes in East Auckland.

    This is going to be more fun than watching the whipping of the end of the Alliance list.

    2. 4.2

      yes, watching the various incompatible weirdos that act attracts will be a highlight of the next parliamentary session. expect plenty of hilarious moments as they struggle with having to multi task.

    3. 4.3

      Was it just me, or is the move by the gun lobby in NZ to appoint Nicole McKee, a Maori woman as their spokeperson after the CHC massacre a deliberate move to dispel the whole 'only fat white middle aged men are worried about loosing their guns' thing?

    1. 7.1

      It will be explained by Lprent to protect the site and commenters 😉

      In a nutshell:

      From midnight on 16 October until 7pm on 17 October, you can’t post or share any content that’s likely to – or is intended to – influence someone’s candidate vote, party vote or referendum vote.

      I’ll leave it to Lprent to tell everyone the dos and don’ts.

        1. 7.1.1.1

          Nah – you can comment about anything except:-

          1. How to vote in tomorrows election in NZ on the 4 votes.
          2. Why someone should vote a particular way in that election.
          3. That anyone should or should not vote in that election (voting is a choice in NZ).

          If you want to talk about those, either do it before midnight or after 7pm tomorrow.

    1. 10.1

      Nah, Simon and Todd didn’t give them the code to unlock the safe in the Leader’s office and even JC’s eyebrows couldn’t punch a hole in it. The collateral damage is the many fiscal holes in National’s plans because JC’s attempts just kept bouncing back off the treasure chest. The campaign was internally sabotaged from the outset. That’ll teach them to accept only cash donations in small currency.

  11. 11

    Farrar watch:

    David is trying to spin the rejection of a wealth tax as a glorious victory for himself. He's got chutzpah, I'll give him that.

    In perhaps his biggest admission of defeat so far (and there have been a few) he says:

    Anyway politics is not just about elections, but also about changing the “Overton Window”.

    Read that again. David Farrar is now saying elections are only as important as trying to influence from opposition…

    …good times.

  12. 12

    Help me out. I only have two of four votes decided. Jenny Salesa, and no to euthanasia.

    Are the Greens safe? Or should I thank JA and give her another crack at progressing instead of placating?

    Should I help normalise weed like alcohol? Or is it different and should it remain difficult to get?

    1. 12.1

      We'll know if the Green party has made it back into parliament some time after voting ends. Hope they're safe because they’re advocating for solutions to the ‘too big‘ problems – one more Green party vote certainly couldn't hurt.

      Was undecided and leaning towards a NO for the referendum on legalising cannabis, mainly because I was anxious about the consequences of making another mind-altering substance legal and easier to access (although to be fair by all accounts it's pretty easy to get already.) After talking with friends (who I'm certain have, like me, never deliberately partaken of cannabis in any form), I voted YES last Saturday – they were quite persuasive. Still doubt it will get over the line, unfortunately.

      It's time to take control of cannabis
      https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/policy-and-advocacy/vote-yes/

    2. 12.2

      Either greens or labour – take your pick. It was so evenly balanced that a idiotic green commenting here was enough to tip me to party vote Labour. Take a coin.

      With the weed, I couldn’t see anything like the poison harm as the guy I saw wheeled out of his apartment dead from alcohol cirrhosis last week. If people are stupid, then they will use either or both to excess. They may go more neurotic with either. But I haven’t seen nearly as many dying from weed as I have from boozing, smoking, pills or needles.

      Gives the idiots time to grow out of it. I voted for – despite never using it. Cheaper for my taxes. Less upsetting than seeing people dying from being stupid.

Comments are closed.