Planet Rugby Forum

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

BillW wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

This intellectual stuff is becoming contagious.

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

Geez -pathetic comment

No It wouldn’t have changed my opinion on mmp

When voters don’t know which way their respective party is going to go post election /horse trading and that party is likely to hold the balance of power -then it’s seriously flawed

We currently have a party polling at 2.4% (7% on the night) wielding considerable power

Not withstanding the fact that party leaders become overly powerful in that they have massive influence over list rankings

There are pros and cons of all systems but I’m certainly not in favour of mmp - end of

RuggaBugga wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

Geez -pathetic comment

No It wouldn’t have changed my opinion on mmp

When voters don’t know which way their respective party is going to go post election /horse trading and that party is likely to hold the balance of power -then it’s seriously flawed

We currently have a party polling at 2.4% (7% on the night) wielding considerable power

Not withstanding the fact that party leaders become overly powerful in that they have massive influence over list rankings

There are pros and cons of all systems but I’m certainly not in favour of mmp - end of

Of course a system where one party gets 20% of the vote and two seats in parliament is obviously preferable.

I'll take a bit (being the operative word) of the tail wagging the dog over that any day thanks.

RuggaBugga wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

Geez -pathetic comment

No It wouldn’t have changed my opinion on mmp

When voters don’t know which way their respective party is going to go post election /horse trading and that party is likely to hold the balance of power -then it’s seriously flawed

We currently have a party polling at 2.4% (7% on the night) wielding considerable power

Not withstanding the fact that party leaders become overly powerful in that they have massive influence over list rankings

There are pros and cons of all systems but I’m certainly not in favour of mmp - end of

Of course a system where one party gets 20% of the vote and two seats in parliament is obviously preferable.

I'll take a bit (being the operative word) of the tail wagging the dog over that any day thanks.

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Enzedder wrote:We have got exactly what the voters voted for (apart from the 5% threshhold changes)

Do you think the voters knew what they were voting for? That’s the problem with referendums, it all depends on the question being asked and how it’s asked. Most recent examples being Brexit and closer to home the complete fuck up that was the flag referendum

The discussion around the electoral reform in 1992 was very informed. At least that was my impression at the time as student studying political science.

And as Enz said, we got exactly what was described. A system which promotes centralism, makes radical change less likely, protects the market reforms introduced during the 80s and early 90s and provides long term security for the beneficiaries of those changes.

I really don’t think that makes you a typical voter, I think you give us average folk too much credit for our engagement in politics, most look at proposals and their first thought would be “how does this affect/benefit me and mine”
We make a snap judgment and it that’s about it, once decided we don’t give it much more thought, it all depends on how it’s “sold”
Take the current CGT discussions going on around the place, the amount of misinformed opinions and comment is staggering.


I bet if someone had said in the lead up to the MMP vote “imagine a situation where someone as an unelected list MP of a party he leads, can then by virtue of the 6 seats he has in parliament, based on just 5% of the vote, determine who gets to run the country, have a huge say in policy. He also gets to protect the friends who helped him get to where he is (forestry and fisheries) even if it’s not for the benefit of the country. He can also change policy towards one of our biggest trading partners without even informing the PM, oh and to top it all he gets his deputy, also unelected, a 3 billion dollar bribe to do what he wants with...right who’s with me...” I wonder how the vote would have gone

Bla bla fucking bla

Were you even in the country at the time?

No? One would suggest you should either do some research or shut the fudge up then mate.

The MMP debate was all pervasive and most of our country are literate.

maxbox wrote:Would Winnie really care tho? He is having his moment in the sun right now which included a brief stint as PM.

Ardern's loss of form was Bridges' capital gain as the National leader and the Prime Minister went head to head over a comprehensive capital gains tax (CGT) proposal.

National's research unit had done their homework and found a quote of Ardern's from Mike Hosking's show last week in which she had pressed home what she sees as an empathetic advantage.

It was a variation on fish and chip shop theme, from the previous day in which slaving over a fat vat in an after- school job gave her insights into how small business owners would be feeling about having to pay 33 per cent tax when they sold up their business for retirement.

Ardern had disputed the NewstalkZB host's claim that none of the cabinet had experience running a small business.

She herself had run a small Non-Government Organisation (NGO), she had said.

"What was that NGO," Bridges asked in the House.

In her lengthy answer, an irritated Ardern failed to utter the answer, which was well known to everyone.

Bridges: "Is the NGO she spoke of the International Union of Socialist Youth?"

Ardern: "The member knows how to use Wikipedia – well done."

And the next ad-lib question almost earned Bridges a standing ovation from his own team: "Has talking to international comrades helped her with her small-business policy development in New Zealand."

She protested amid the happy uproar at Bridges' question that she knew what it was like to hire and fire people, perhaps more than Bridges had as a Crown prosecutor.

It was Bridges' moment but Mallard was having none of it. There are no rules for when applause is tolerated and when it is not. That is decided by the mood of the Speaker who clearly did not like National ganging up on her.

Mallard: "We're not going to have that sort of seal-like approach in this House."

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters sprang to Ardern's rescue.

"Ah the businessman," National's Gerry Brownlee said when Peters, the former lawyer, former teacher, former labourer and former miner got to his feet.

Mallard ordered a withdrawal and apology from Brownlee.

Apologies are meant to be simple affairs but Brownlee couldn't resist apologising for calling Peters a businessman, at which point Mallard threw Brownlee out of the chamber.

It is not often that the Shadow Leader of the House, who works closely with the Speaker, gets thrown out by the Speaker, but there no objections from the National side.

They were too full of self-satisfaction at having outdone the Prime Minister for once.

jambanja wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

jambanja wrote:
Do you think the voters knew what they were voting for? That’s the problem with referendums, it all depends on the question being asked and how it’s asked. Most recent examples being Brexit and closer to home the complete fuck up that was the flag referendum

The discussion around the electoral reform in 1992 was very informed. At least that was my impression at the time as student studying political science.

And as Enz said, we got exactly what was described. A system which promotes centralism, makes radical change less likely, protects the market reforms introduced during the 80s and early 90s and provides long term security for the beneficiaries of those changes.

I really don’t think that makes you a typical voter, I think you give us average folk too much credit for our engagement in politics, most look at proposals and their first thought would be “how does this affect/benefit me and mine”
We make a snap judgment and it that’s about it, once decided we don’t give it much more thought, it all depends on how it’s “sold”
Take the current CGT discussions going on around the place, the amount of misinformed opinions and comment is staggering.


I bet if someone had said in the lead up to the MMP vote “imagine a situation where someone as an unelected list MP of a party he leads, can then by virtue of the 6 seats he has in parliament, based on just 5% of the vote, determine who gets to run the country, have a huge say in policy. He also gets to protect the friends who helped him get to where he is (forestry and fisheries) even if it’s not for the benefit of the country. He can also change policy towards one of our biggest trading partners without even informing the PM, oh and to top it all he gets his deputy, also unelected, a 3 billion dollar bribe to do what he wants with...right who’s with me...” I wonder how the vote would have gone

Bla bla fucking bla

Were you even in the country at the time?

No? One would suggest you should either do some research or shut the fudge up then mate.

The MMP debate was all pervasive and most of our country are literate.

Now there’s some reasoned debate, we’re you in the country at the time... literate you rekcon, maybe, intelligent, well if you’re anything to go by...hmm (fun doing this rather than discussing things)

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:The discussion around the electoral reform in 1992 was very informed. At least that was my impression at the time as student studying political science.

And as Enz said, we got exactly what was described. A system which promotes centralism, makes radical change less likely, protects the market reforms introduced during the 80s and early 90s and provides long term security for the beneficiaries of those changes.

I really don’t think that makes you a typical voter, I think you give us average folk too much credit for our engagement in politics, most look at proposals and their first thought would be “how does this affect/benefit me and mine”
We make a snap judgment and it that’s about it, once decided we don’t give it much more thought, it all depends on how it’s “sold”
Take the current CGT discussions going on around the place, the amount of misinformed opinions and comment is staggering.


I bet if someone had said in the lead up to the MMP vote “imagine a situation where someone as an unelected list MP of a party he leads, can then by virtue of the 6 seats he has in parliament, based on just 5% of the vote, determine who gets to run the country, have a huge say in policy. He also gets to protect the friends who helped him get to where he is (forestry and fisheries) even if it’s not for the benefit of the country. He can also change policy towards one of our biggest trading partners without even informing the PM, oh and to top it all he gets his deputy, also unelected, a 3 billion dollar bribe to do what he wants with...right who’s with me...” I wonder how the vote would have gone

Bla bla fucking bla

Were you even in the country at the time?

No? One would suggest you should either do some research or shut the fudge up then mate.

The MMP debate was all pervasive and most of our country are literate.

Now there’s some reasoned debate, we’re you in the country at the time... literate you rekcon, maybe, intelligent, well if you’re anything to go by...hmm (fun doing this rather than discussing things)

You've been trying to imply people people weren't well informed about mmp even going so far as to compare the referendum to the brexit vote. The fact that you were still holed up in a tinpot dictatorship at the time and have no idea what you're talking about is perfectly relevant.

Of course there are issues with mmp (the tail wagging the dog and sweetheart deals in electoral seats right up there amongst them) as there are with all electoral systems however the majority of people were sick to death of their representitive democracy being anything but. The best bit is we get another go at it in three years if it isn't working eh?

guy smiley wrote:The last sentence of that article sums things up...

despite what you read in here it seems even the mainstream media think the PM is outperforming the opposition. I’ve been led to believe it’s a circus, a disaster unrolling.

Speaking of the circus, still no comment from the cheer squad about an ex PM from the conservative side of the fence being weapons grade destroyed over business dealings. Imagine a Labour figure had been involved in the Mainzeal fiasco. This place would be chock full of pidgeons strutting around shitting everywhere and looking at you sideways like they know things.

jambanja wrote:
So the people were sick to death of their representative democracy being anything but? Yet to all intents and purposes we seem to be heading straight back to a two party system, with the added bonus of a King maker who represents no one but himself, if that's what people wanted then fair dues to them.

As for the other parts of you post...nice deflection and misrepresentation of what I said.

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:
So the people were sick to death of their representative democracy being anything but? Yet to all intents and purposes we seem to be heading straight back to a two party system, with the added bonus of a King maker who represents no one but himself, if that's what people wanted then fair dues to them.

As for the other parts of you post...nice deflection and misrepresentation of what I said.

You haven't said anything have you, you've just wandered in firing off your hyperbole blunderbuss at Winston Peters shaped boogie men.

What's more you've managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence. What exactly are you crying about? Is it "...to all intents and purposes we seem to be heading straight back to a two party system" or that a coalition partner has managed to play both sides off against each other and extracted significant concessions from the government?

If it's the former how exactly is MMP to blame and what would be your alternative?

RuggaBugga wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:
Well no..spin it anyway you want but what we actually got was based on the decision/whim of one person based on primarily personal reasons

You would, of course, say that if he'd gone with the Nats... right?

Face it. You just can't deal with the loss.

Geez -pathetic comment

No It wouldn’t have changed my opinion on mmp

When voters don’t know which way their respective party is going to go post election /horse trading and that party is likely to hold the balance of power -then it’s seriously flawed

We currently have a party polling at 2.4% (7% on the night) wielding considerable power

Not withstanding the fact that party leaders become overly powerful in that they have massive influence over list rankings

There are pros and cons of all systems but I’m certainly not in favour of mmp - end of

Of course a system where one party gets 20% of the vote and two seats in parliament is obviously preferable.

I'll take a bit (being the operative word) of the tail wagging the dog over that any day thanks.

guy smiley wrote:Mid term polling means jackshit. It's become a market in itself, serving no-one but those who sell 'news'.

On election night, the votes that matter fell where they did. The population made it's decision. The Nats polled less than half. Those who didn't vote for them, more than half of us, got what they wanted.

jambanja wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:
So the people were sick to death of their representative democracy being anything but? Yet to all intents and purposes we seem to be heading straight back to a two party system, with the added bonus of a King maker who represents no one but himself, if that's what people wanted then fair dues to them.

As for the other parts of you post...nice deflection and misrepresentation of what I said.

You haven't said anything have you, you've just wandered in firing off your hyperbole blunderbuss at Winston Peters shaped boogie men.

What's more you've managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence. What exactly are you crying about? Is it "...to all intents and purposes we seem to be heading straight back to a two party system" or that a coalition partner has managed to play both sides off against each other and extracted significant concessions from the government?

If it's the former how exactly is MMP to blame and what would be your alternative?

Who’s crying about anything, as for hyperbole wow, get a mirror.

The only person who seems upset here is you, sorry I didn’t mean to offend you by suggesting that people may not have got exactly what they thought they were getting when they voted for MMP, which is all I asked Enz. You however have assured me that this is exactly what they wanted and knew that this was the sort of thing that was going to happen...sweet, no problem then.
You seem very defensive about this.

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Mid term polling means jackshit. It's become a market in itself, serving no-one but those who sell 'news'.

On election night, the votes that matter fell where they did. The population made it's decision. The Nats polled less than half. Those who didn't vote for them, more than half of us, got what they wanted.

Well that’s not true is it

At least (a vital) 7% didn’t know what they were going to get post election - I think somehow you think that every vote that wasn’t for national was against national - which is obviously incorrect

That's some mangled thinking there Brat...

if by 7% you mean NZ first voters, they've got a deputy PM and seats at the coalition table. They're in government. The Greens would probably have similar feelings, while Labour are all driving around wearing sunnies saying 'deal with it' to the only group complaining.

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Mid term polling means jackshit. It's become a market in itself, serving no-one but those who sell 'news'.

On election night, the votes that matter fell where they did. The population made it's decision. The Nats polled less than half. Those who didn't vote for them, more than half of us, got what they wanted.

Well that’s not true is it

At least (a vital) 7% didn’t know what they were going to get post election - I think somehow you think that every vote that wasn’t for national was against national - which is obviously incorrect

That's some mangled thinking there Brat...

if by 7% you mean NZ first voters, they've got a deputy PM and seats at the coalition table. They're in government. The Greens would probably have similar feelings, while Labour are all driving around wearing sunnies saying 'deal with it' to the only group complaining.

Enzedder wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Mid term polling means jackshit. It's become a market in itself, serving no-one but those who sell 'news'.

On election night, the votes that matter fell where they did. The population made it's decision. The Nats polled less than half. Those who didn't vote for them, more than half of us, got what they wanted.

Well that’s not true is it

At least (a vital) 7% didn’t know what they were going to get post election - I think somehow you think that every vote that wasn’t for national was against national - which is obviously incorrect

That's some mangled thinking there Brat...

if by 7% you mean NZ first voters, they've got a deputy PM and seats at the coalition table. They're in government. The Greens would probably have similar feelings, while Labour are all driving around wearing sunnies saying 'deal with it' to the only group complaining.

And of course, NZ First and the Greens both have a say on policy and are in fact, a speed bump for any poor legislation.

This is far better than what we had the previous 9 years with a load of arselickers rubber-stamping everything Key and co dreamed up

Dark wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

brat wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Mid term polling means jackshit. It's become a market in itself, serving no-one but those who sell 'news'.

On election night, the votes that matter fell where they did. The population made it's decision. The Nats polled less than half. Those who didn't vote for them, more than half of us, got what they wanted.

Well that’s not true is it

At least (a vital) 7% didn’t know what they were going to get post election - I think somehow you think that every vote that wasn’t for national was against national - which is obviously incorrect

That's some mangled thinking there Brat...

if by 7% you mean NZ first voters, they've got a deputy PM and seats at the coalition table. They're in government. The Greens would probably have similar feelings, while Labour are all driving around wearing sunnies saying 'deal with it' to the only group complaining.

And of course, NZ First and the Greens both have a say on policy and are in fact, a speed bump for any poor legislation.

This is far better than what we had the previous 9 years with a load of arselickers rubber-stamping everything Key and co dreamed up

a) Saying the Greens do is a joke

b) The Maori Party voted against the Nats a shed load more than for

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

That's some mangled thinking there Brat...

if by 7% you mean NZ first voters, they've got a deputy PM and seats at the coalition table. They're in government. The Greens would probably have similar feelings, while Labour are all driving around wearing sunnies saying 'deal with it' to the only group complaining.

And of course, NZ First and the Greens both have a say on policy and are in fact, a speed bump for any poor legislation.

This is far better than what we had the previous 9 years with a load of arselickers rubber-stamping everything Key and co dreamed up

a) Saying the Greens do is a joke

b) The Maori Party voted against the Nats a shed load more than for

Labour and NZ First don’t have a majority. The Greens definitely have a say.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:The last sentence of that article sums things up...

despite what you read in here it seems even the mainstream media think the PM is outperforming the opposition. I’ve been led to believe it’s a circus, a disaster unrolling.

Speaking of the circus, still no comment from the cheer squad about an ex PM from the conservative side of the fence being weapons grade destroyed over business dealings. Imagine a Labour figure had been involved in the Mainzeal fiasco. This place would be chock full of pidgeons strutting around shitting everywhere and looking at you sideways like they know things.

She left parliament in 2002...
It's a pretty long bow to draw linking her to the present day Nats - That's why no one is talking about it.

Also, she wasn't the main instigator of the dodgy dealing she was only complicit in it. Not an excuse by any means but it is different.

Thanks for replying

I agree, by the way. It’s too long. I reckon 10 years is long enough myself.

guy smiley wrote:

Dark wrote:
They don't seem to be doing much in showing it.

When did going against what you preach and your principles a lot show you have a say

Interesting sentiment. Remember when you tried to tell us you were politically neutral?

guy smiley wrote:I reckon he had a good point about what was best for NZ, though.

The Nats are a rabble.

guy smiley wrote:

Dark wrote:
They don't seem to be doing much in showing it.

When did going against what you preach and your principles a lot show you have a say

Interesting sentiment. Remember when you tried to tell us you were politically neutral?

guy smiley wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Dark wrote:
They don't seem to be doing much in showing it.

When did going against what you preach and your principles a lot show you have a say

Interesting sentiment. Remember when you tried to tell us you were politically neutral?

To be fair, I've been pretty disappointed by the Greens lack of policy gains over their C&S agreement with the government.

They've managed to get representatives from every party on board with the drug reform discussion group despite the Nats' strident refusal to be a part of it. That's a pretty good effort.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:I reckon he had a good point about what was best for NZ, though.

The Nats are a rabble.

Labour were a rabble up till about August 2017. They were polling in the 20s.

They were... but that hardly invalidates Winston's judgement post election.

Fat Old Git wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:I reckon he had a good point about what was best for NZ, though.

The Nats are a rabble.

Labour were a rabble up till about August 2017. They were polling in the 20s.

They were... but that hardly invalidates Winston's judgement post election.

I doubt very much that Winston's judgment was based on what was best for the country rather than what was best for Winston.

The mmp discussion has been interesting. You quite rightly pointed out that the majority voted against National. But that's also true of all the other parties. If Winnie had gone with the Nats then their voters would probably be making similar arguments now about how the country got what it voted for.

That's the nature of mmp. Which us a good thing because whichever way it's goes the government represents a majority of voters, while often including minorities that would have been excluded in the past.

The system still has plenty of flaws obviously, but it's better than anything else I've seen.

guy smiley wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:
I didn't say they've had zero policy gains, just that I'm disappointed. They just spent the last decade criticising the Nats' environmental policies - degradation of riverine environments, lack of advancement of conservation issues etc. and yet there's been little advancement on any of these issues. In fact, the Nats suggestion of a National Park in the Caitlins probably makes more waves than anything the Greens have managed to achieve thus far. Unless they start to make more ground on these topics, they are at risk of their vote becoming fractured by a "Blue-Green" alternative. They've still got a couple of years, but from my point of view, it's deathly quiet.

The Nats have the luxury of being able to make extravagant claims from opposition. They don't really have to worry about being accountable for thought bubbles. The Greens are stuck inside the government process and the real grunt work there is unsighted in the main, being committee work and the like. Facilitating policy isn't as simple as setting up some public strut, unless of course you're John Key striding around talking rock star economy while you unshackle environmental degradation in the name of profit without having any serious in house opposition to negotiate in the process of achieving consensus.

I get that headlines matter and it's a shame that many feel that way but there's some good work getting done... a measure of that is the simple spoiling tactics in the absence of real policy alternatives the opposition is spouting. All they're running on is fear campaigns.

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:
I didn't say they've had zero policy gains, just that I'm disappointed. They just spent the last decade criticising the Nats' environmental policies - degradation of riverine environments, lack of advancement of conservation issues etc. and yet there's been little advancement on any of these issues. In fact, the Nats suggestion of a National Park in the Caitlins probably makes more waves than anything the Greens have managed to achieve thus far. Unless they start to make more ground on these topics, they are at risk of their vote becoming fractured by a "Blue-Green" alternative. They've still got a couple of years, but from my point of view, it's deathly quiet.

The Nats have the luxury of being able to make extravagant claims from opposition. They don't really have to worry about being accountable for thought bubbles. The Greens are stuck inside the government process and the real grunt work there is unsighted in the main, being committee work and the like. Facilitating policy isn't as simple as setting up some public strut, unless of course you're John Key striding around talking rock star economy while you unshackle environmental degradation in the name of profit without having any serious in house opposition to negotiate in the process of achieving consensus.

I get that headlines matter and it's a shame that many feel that way but there's some good work getting done... a measure of that is the simple spoiling tactics in the absence of real policy alternatives the opposition is spouting. All they're running on is fear campaigns.

No party in opposition is going to reveal significant policy in the second year of an election cycle. Bridges was only able to do it with the tax policy because he knew it would paint Labour into a corner.

guy smiley wrote: I get that headlines matter and it's a shame that many feel that way but there's some good work getting done... a measure of that is the simple spoiling tactics in the absence of real policy alternatives the opposition is spouting. All they're running on is fear campaigns.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:The last sentence of that article sums things up...

despite what you read in here it seems even the mainstream media think the PM is outperforming the opposition. I’ve been led to believe it’s a circus, a disaster unrolling.

Speaking of the circus, still no comment from the cheer squad about an ex PM from the conservative side of the fence being weapons grade destroyed over business dealings. Imagine a Labour figure had been involved in the Mainzeal fiasco. This place would be chock full of pidgeons strutting around shitting everywhere and looking at you sideways like they know things.

She left parliament in 2002...
It's a pretty long bow to draw linking her to the present day Nats - That's why no one is talking about it.

Also, she wasn't the main instigator of the dodgy dealing she was only complicit in it. Not an excuse by any means but it is different.

Thanks for replying

I agree, by the way. It’s too long. I reckon 10 years is long enough myself.