- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, March 29, 2010

Breakfast MMP


Is there any reason why the anti-MMP lobby were able to take over Breakfast this morning? Why was that evil Peter Shirtcliffe and Rodney Hide (followed by John Key no less) able to attack MMP in three consecutive interviews without anyone speaking up for MMP? Is this the sort of 'fair and balanced' from TVNZ we saw them use when they were defending the million dollar free party political broadcast on TVNZ7(remember TVNZ arguing they didn't have to be fair and balanced outside the 6 week election campaign?), well it looks like we are seeing it again on Breakfast with the MMP debate.

Look I love the irony of having an electoral system that fights against the elites of society by putting power back into the hands of NZers being attacked by those elites who want to see the system changed but can someone remind TVNZ they are still the public broadcaster even though National have had them write the public broadcaster out of their brief?

14 Comments:

At 29/3/10 8:00 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Ironically, you could argue that with the population having no direct say over the list, MMP has an element of elitism about it (we vote the list that they pick!)

Anybody who frames this as being about FPP is a moron. I dont know anyone who wants to go back to FPP. I will be voting for STV because I actually think its more democractic (not only do I get to vote for who I want, I can block who I dont want).

Vote someone out under MMP? Never mind peasant, we know better, we will bring them back on this list!

 
At 29/3/10 8:48 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Ironically, you could argue that with the population having no direct say over the list, MMP has an element of elitism about it (we vote the list that they pick!)
More pro elite statements from Scott, do we or do we not vote for the party list?

Anybody who frames this as being about FPP is a moron. I dont know anyone who wants to go back to FPP.
So you didn't see your poster boy Peter this morning then Scott?

I will be voting for STV because I actually think its more democractic (not only do I get to vote for who I want, I can block who I dont want).
I love the irony that someone as ultra right as you would support the electoral system Australian back room Unions have used for ever to manipulate the voting public and sell it as more democratic.

 
At 29/3/10 9:09 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're an employer Sdm?

Now where are the fucking jobs?
There are unemployed people out there wanting to work, and you useless entrepreneurs can't even give them work.

Horse before the cart Scott.
Provide work, and then we can put people in employment.

We're waiting.

 
At 29/3/10 10:08 am, Anonymous sdm said...

I am employing, paying above average wages, whats the problem.....

And since when am I ultra right?

 
At 29/3/10 11:22 am, Anonymous kerry said...

who cares....FPP aint coming back so rodders and his mates should just retire and grow pumpkins!

I worry about Paul Henry......he obviously has "issues" and should be sectioned...hes just not rational!

 
At 29/3/10 1:45 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

Paul Henry should definitely be sectioned and I wish there was a way to make Rodders grow pumpkins but as much as I totally support a representative system, and am actively opposed to FPP, it's worth remembering that MMP in it's current guise dealt Rodney a pretty disproportionate hand. Unfortunately as you point out Bomber, the mainstream media is likely to muddy rather than clarify the debate, debate which should allow us to further refine our system rather than allow a few manipulative people to push it to their advantage.

 
At 29/3/10 1:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We're waiting."

That's right people with no initiative or talent are waiting those with these attribute to pay for them because they can't do it themselves.

Thank god Nationals in power.

 
At 29/3/10 5:58 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

"That's right people with no initiative or talent are waiting those with these attribute to pay for them because they can't do it themselves."

Save us! Yeah, it's initiative that defines the job market. Greedy banks decimating the global economy, and a corporate culture that's seen 25 years of static wages and downsizing redundancies don't have anything to do with it. Look at the statistics, under National benefit claims have gone up dramatically, because there are fewer jobs! Unemployment was very low under Labour, does Anon want to grant this to Labour's superior management of the economy or is he/she going to acknowledge that perhaps the thinking has to delve slightly deeper than - people with 'initiative' will always have employment. Look at a few of those historic pictures of people in the bread line during the depression for a historical example of the flaw in your thinking. Seems that given the rise in beneficiaries, National is costing us much more to provide welfare than Labour did.
I know, we could just gas those lazy no initiative losers...

 
At 29/3/10 7:32 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am employing, paying above average wages, whats the problem....

So hire more then.
People can't work if you don't create jobs Scotty, you big entrepreneur you.

And since when am I ultra right?

When you think people should be punished for not taking non-existent jobs.

That's right people with no initiative or talent are waiting those with these attribute to pay for them because they can't do it themselves.

Yeah, we know the finance industry does jack shit but leach of the taxpayer.

Now where are the fucking jobs?

 
At 29/3/10 10:55 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

Well maybe if we cut a little of the bureaucratic bullshit I'd employ more people....

And no you moron, obviously if they cant find work, they shouldnt be punished. They just have to try. Look for work.

Maybe you feel taxpayers should just keep giving money without question, I dont. Some people cant work, and they deserve MORE from the state, but those who make a choice not to, well, they need a nudge in the right direction.

 
At 30/3/10 9:13 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well maybe if we cut a little of the bureaucratic bullshit I'd employ more people....

Heh.
Blaming the system because you can't grow your business.
Why is it that NZ entrepreneurs are incapable of building their businesses. The rest of the world can, why can't you?

And no you moron, obviously if they cant find work, they shouldnt be punished. They just have to try. Look for work.

Well Scotty, what do you think they have been doing???

but those who make a choice not to, well, they need a nudge in the right direction.

You mean mobsters with full face tats who are in and out of prison?
Or people with mental health issues?
Well, Scotty, put your money where your mouth is and go hire long-term unemployed then.
Otherwise stfu.

 
At 30/3/10 11:39 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Look at the statistics, under National benefit claims have gone up dramatically, because there are fewer jobs! Unemployment was very low under Labour, does Anon want to grant this to Labour's superior management of the economy"

Labour simply rode the artificial global growth caused by low interest rates imposed by the US fed which fed into additional demand for our primary produce. Explain how Labour 'superiour management' was responsible for this?

It's easy to like like a genius in an environment like this but when the tide goes out then the true charlentans are revealed just like what's happening the the UK Labour party.

 
At 30/3/10 4:13 pm, Anonymous Kerry said...

Apparently all bad things that happend while labour were in power were labours fault...and all positive things (which were many) were caused by the rest of the world!! You would have to be a fuken idiot to believe that!

 
At 30/3/10 8:26 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

'Unemployment was very low under Labour, DOES ANON WANT TO GRANT THIS to Labour's superior management of the economy or is he/she going to acknowledge that perhaps the thinking has to delve slightly deeper than - people with 'initiative' will always have employment'

I think you'll find that if you read my statement a little more carefully it didn't suggest that Labour had superior management but that assuming Anon wasn't going to concede that point we might need to look a little deeper. Yes, Labour had a very advantageous economic environment fueled by fake US money, money created under the ideology of the Washington Consensus. An ideology which has also stagnated wages for 25years, led to downsizing and has taken profits out of New Zealand. All of which contribute not only to unemployment but also to all of the other repercussions of poverty. I think you'll find the charlatans exist on both side of the so called centre. I have no specific partisan preference, other than an obvious distrust of policy which is advantageous only to a few. I'm simply pointing out that easy generalizations aren't very helpful. Initiative is a very useful attribute in life but it is not more powerful than the strata of class or the corporatocracy we live within.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home