NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Tehui wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Tehui wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Tehui wrote:
My main worry about legalising cannabis is that capitalism & profit-seeking takes over the product. You only need to look at the history of the tobacco industry to see how much capitalism cares about public harm.
My first reaction is to agree with you, but where are we at now with it? Overall, I think we're better off going down the road of regulating the product... even talking about that is a quantum leap from a couple of years back when mere decriminalisation was a step too far for public discourse.
Maybe. I'll need to see some evidence-based studies on other international jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis.
Announced this morning... a key that may address your concerns Tehui, is the ban on advertising proposed.
I'll likely vote for change.
Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
User avatar
Mr Mike
Posts: 10978
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Texas

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Mr Mike »

Dark wrote:
Tehui wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Tehui wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
My first reaction is to agree with you, but where are we at now with it? Overall, I think we're better off going down the road of regulating the product... even talking about that is a quantum leap from a couple of years back when mere decriminalisation was a step too far for public discourse.
Maybe. I'll need to see some evidence-based studies on other international jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis.
Announced this morning... a key that may address your concerns Tehui, is the ban on advertising proposed.
I'll likely vote for change.
Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.
Appropriately.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Mr Mike wrote:
Dark wrote:
Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.
Appropriately.
WINNER!
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16319
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a conscience vote?
Reckon it would have to be conscience if the Nat's are in.

If the existing coalition are in they have agreed to it so they will all just vote yes for whatever it has turned into, depending on whether Winston forces conservative changes

Either way it will probably happen

This all depends on the referendum actually being yes obvously
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

Jeepers our debating chamber has been an embarrassment recently. At least it's heartening that our youngest MP is all likelihood our smartest and most mature. Kinda scary stuff the same time actually.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Kahu wrote:Jeepers our debating chamber has been an embarrassment recently. At least it's heartening that our youngest MP is all likelihood our smartest and most mature. Kinda scary stuff the same time actually.
Chloe Swarbrick?

Would have said innocently naive and unprepared for inevitable failure from her party
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Dark wrote:
Kahu wrote:Jeepers our debating chamber has been an embarrassment recently. At least it's heartening that our youngest MP is all likelihood our smartest and most mature. Kinda scary stuff the same time actually.
Chloe Swarbrick?

Would have said innocently naive and unprepared for inevitable failure from her party

Well, given that you are always wrong, I look forward to a larger and more politically powerful Green party in the next Government.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

So, National will be painted into a corner and have to change their policy to be in favour of the new law or miss out on a truckload of votes. Even the Parnell elite will want their toke with their coffee and will support a law change.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Enzedder wrote:So, National will be painted into a corner and have to change their policy to be in favour of the new law or miss out on a truckload of votes. Even the Parnell elite will want their toke with their coffee and will support a law change.
Interesting take. How does that fit in with Smokefree NZ by 2025?
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

So we're desperately trying to outlaw smoking in public places, especially bars, cafes and restaurants etc but it will be just fine to light up with your flat white as long as it's cannabis you're smoking, not tobacco. :lol:
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

You really didn't just out yourself as Simeon Brown did you Booji Boy :lol: Smokefree means Smokefree. When ordering an Irish coffee you might also ask for some Skunk#1 in your caramel slice as well.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Kahu wrote:You really didn't just out yourself as Simeon Brown did you Booji Boy :lol: Smokefree means Smokefree. When ordering an Irish coffee you might also ask for some Skunk#1 in your caramel slice as well.
:lol: Fair enough.
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
yes if the reeferendum is to be successful it will require some parties to toke on the peace pipe
Harden up!!!
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Kirikiriroa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Harden up!!! »

Kahu wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
yes if the reeferendum is to be successful it will require some parties to toke on the peace pipe
Im sure Mary-Jane Tomasi will be eager to share that on the morning news.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16319
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

Kahu wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
yes if the reeferendum is to be successful it will require some parties to toke on the peace pipe
You have high expectations.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

I suppose a referendum about weed is a good way to distract the public about Labour's other failings such as the utter clusterf*ck that Kiwibuild has turned into
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Tehui wrote:
Kahu wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
yes if the reeferendum is to be successful it will require some parties to toke on the peace pipe
You have high expectations.
Will the result of the referendum be set in stone(d)?
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JB1981 »

What if it's a spliff decision?
User avatar
RuggaBugga
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by RuggaBugga »

Kahu wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
yes if the reeferendum is to be successful it will require some parties to toke on the peace pipe
Na, the knives will be out as per.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

JB1981 wrote:What if it's a spliff decision?
See that's why we're taking the referendum easy
We're taking it slow
We're taking the referendum easy
Got to take it slow,
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

booji boy wrote:So we're desperately trying to outlaw smoking in public places, especially bars, cafes and restaurants etc but it will be just fine to light up with your flat white as long as it's cannabis you're smoking, not tobacco. :lol:
Ridiculous isn't it? Actually, I reckon it will be only allowed in enclosed spaces this time so how the hell do they look after staff health?

I'll just vote against it.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Enzedder wrote:
booji boy wrote:So we're desperately trying to outlaw smoking in public places, especially bars, cafes and restaurants etc but it will be just fine to light up with your flat white as long as it's cannabis you're smoking, not tobacco. :lol:
Ridiculous isn't it? Actually, I reckon it will be only allowed in enclosed spaces this time so how the hell do they look after staff health?

I'll just vote against it.
Who knows. I'm assuming the laws will be consistent with (future) smoking laws. Home use only?
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Will it be legal to smoke around kids?

If you keep it in the home, how do you ensure your teenagers aren't smoking it?
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

I was in Canada in January. I didn't realise they had legalised pot in October 2018 but I was noticing everywhere I went that I was getting whiffs of the stuff. In downtown Vancouver you just assume it's the homeless guy hunkered down in the shop entrance or the subway. But on a bus to Whistler I thought someone was lighting up beside me. Turns out some young bird was just rolling up a joint from her stash ready for when we arrived at Whistler i.e. not actually lighting up which would be illegal on a bus.

Felt like I was passive smoking the entire trip. :lol:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32994
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

booji boy wrote:I was in Canada in January. I didn't realise they had legalised pot in October 2018 but I was noticing everywhere I went that I was getting whiffs of the stuff. In downtown Vancouver you just assume it's the homeless guy hunkered down in the shop entrance or the subway. But on a bus to Whistler I thought someone was lighting up beside me. Turns out some young bird was just rolling up a joint from her stash ready for when we arrived at Whistler i.e. not actually lighting up which would be illegal on a bus.

Felt like I was passive smoking the entire trip. :lol:
But she didn't light up...
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13089
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by UncleFB »

deadduck wrote:Will it be legal to smoke around kids?

If you keep it in the home, how do you ensure your teenagers aren't smoking it?
The same way you ensure your teenagers aren't illegally smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol I'd presume?
booji boy wrote:I was in Canada in January. I didn't realise they had legalised pot in October 2018 but I was noticing everywhere I went that I was getting whiffs of the stuff. In downtown Vancouver you just assume it's the homeless guy hunkered down in the shop entrance or the subway. But on a bus to Whistler I thought someone was lighting up beside me. Turns out some young bird was just rolling up a joint from her stash ready for when we arrived at Whistler i.e. not actually lighting up which would be illegal on a bus.

Felt like I was passive smoking the entire trip. :lol:
Same with tobacco rollers TBF. Even having to sit on a bus (any crowded place) near a tobacco smoker is disgusting, don't they realise they constantly stink?
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote:I was in Canada in January. I didn't realise they had legalised pot in October 2018 but I was noticing everywhere I went that I was getting whiffs of the stuff. In downtown Vancouver you just assume it's the homeless guy hunkered down in the shop entrance or the subway. But on a bus to Whistler I thought someone was lighting up beside me. Turns out some young bird was just rolling up a joint from her stash ready for when we arrived at Whistler i.e. not actually lighting up which would be illegal on a bus.

Felt like I was passive smoking the entire trip. :lol:
But she didn't light up...
... on the bus.

EDIT: I meant the entire 3 week trip to Canada, not the 2 hour bus trip to Whistler.
User avatar
Maniototo Man
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Well South

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Maniototo Man »

RuggaBugga wrote:
Kahu wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Dark wrote: Same, but they haven't half made a hash job of it yet again.

It ain't binding, no matter how much Ardern tries to portray it.

If the current coalition get in again the legislation might be completely transformed from what is outlined in the referendum everyone is voting on depending how powerful Winston is and if National get in it will probably either be cancelled or completely different
Would they vote down Party lines, or will it be a pot luck conscience vote?
Surely they will need to come to a joint agreement?
yes if the reeferendum is to be successful it will require some parties to toke on the peace pipe
Na, the knives will be out as per.
Do you think the Government could be rolled?
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

If they are rolled it will be tight and difficult for the losers to suck on.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Horizon Poll says 74% of kiwis want the Euthanasia Bill to be passed.


https://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/543/ ... 8D3AA222B0
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Gee, the other 26% are making a huuuuuuge noise then. Everything I am reading is anti.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 21133
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

That's fairly common regardless of the issue tbf.
User avatar
Auckman
Posts: 9212
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Sydney Town

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Auckman »

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/natio ... ORnJwa-diU

This is a big policy win for Kelvin Davis to steer this through cabinet. This is one of the things he really wanted to do long before became corrections minister.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Auckman wrote:https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/natio ... ORnJwa-diU

This is a big policy win for Kelvin Davis to steer this through cabinet. This is one of the things he really wanted to do long before became corrections minister.

They spend so much effort shielding and hiding him, I forgot he was Corrections Minister.
User avatar
RuggaBugga
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by RuggaBugga »

Enzedder wrote:Gee, the other 26% are making a huuuuuuge noise then. Everything I am reading is anti.
Really? I genuinely don't know anyone against it.

frankly I struggle to comprehend how it is even an issue provided the correct checks and balances are in place.
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

A media campaign is being funded against legal Euthanasia by the same rich prick opposing legal cannabis. Bob f**king McCoskrie and Family first.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Kahu wrote:A media campaign is being funded against legal Euthanasia by the same rich prick opposing legal cannabis. Bob f**king McCoskrie and Family first.
Is he really rich?

His brother was my geography teacher back in 5th form. Both Christian bible bangers.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 32994
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Memo to the National Party: you’re not actually the government any more
On Monday evening, Q+A host Jack Tame announced on air that National drug reform spokesperson Paula Bennett had refused an invitation to debate Greens drug reform spokesperson Chlöe Swarbrick. In a tweet he said Bennett would only agree to being interviewed individually.

Paula Bennett has refused to appear on @NZQandA tonight to debate Chloe Swarbrick on the cannabis referendum.
She’ll appear independently but tells us she won’t appear with Swarbrick at this time. I’ll put some of the criticisms of the cannabis legislation to Chloe Swarbrick.

— Jack Tame (@jacktame) May 13, 2019

This is something Bennett would have got used to in her nine years in cabinet between 2008 and 2017: the policy of the John Key National government was that ministers did not debate the opposition on TV or radio.

The thinking was straightforward (if never articulated in quite these words): ministers are important and make decisions and announcements that affect New Zealand; opposition MPs aren’t and cannot. Ministers are news – opposition MPs are just commentators. Meeting the opposition as equals in a debate elevates the opposition, and diminishes the government.

Since the media’s priority was having the minister on (for the aforementioned reasons), they usually had little choice but to ignominiously bump the opposition MP from the schedule.

After nine years as a minister, people get used to deference, every bit as much as the cars and the staff. There’s a saying that to the Queen the whole world smells like fresh paint. There’s a suspicion some in National may have inhaled too many fumes over the past decade to get a clear read on their current situation: not dictating terms to media, but out of power and 18 points behind the ruling troika on current polling.

In this context, an opposition MP boycotting televised debate with their government counterpart is like an incel proposing a sex strike – not just pointless, but also such a ludicrous idea that there should never be an occasion for committing it to the written word.

Bennett appears to be applying government logic to opposition (this impression is reinforced by her refusal to join Swarbrick’s cross-parliamentary working group on cannabis reform): that she is too important, as deputy leader of National and a former deputy prime minister, to appear alongside Swarbrick.

Bennett has had a great political career. After being a surprise pick for cabinet, she performed exceptionally well as social development minister and later ascended to deputy prime minister. She’s worked hard and she’s enjoyed success because of it. But the harsh reality of opposition is that none of that means she is too good to debate a 24-year-old first-term MP.

It’s not just a failure of etiquette, although it’s that, too: government has rigid hierarchies, opposition does not. More importantly, it’s a failure to argue for her party.

Q+A was the second time Bennett has refused a debate on her portfolio in as many weeks (she also declined to appear on The Project opposite Swarbrick). In total, that’s an audience of around 180,000 potential voters that National’s spokesperson and deputy leader failed to turn up for.

Bennett didn’t come out on top in her last on-air brush with Swarbrick, and the Twitter gallery suggested that could be a reason for dodging the programme. But that’s beside the point. The government always has something to lose, and the opposition always has something to gain, by sharing a stage.

Bennett’s failure to front is only the most obvious example of the cognitive dissonance some of National’s MPs have about where they lie in the political landscape post-2017. There was dissatisfaction in some quarters at Simon Bridges’ early performance as leader. A prime minister, with unlimited powers of patronage and resources, runs their party like an autocrat. The opposition leader, one vote among 57 in caucus, can at best hope to be respected as a first-among-equals.

Bridges, on some accounts, failed to make the necessary efforts early on to bring his huge caucus into the fold (this improved after the Jami-Lee Ross affair, but shows the dangers of confusing which side of the speaker’s chair you’re sitting on).

These are settling-in issues. It was fine for former ministers to grouse about being reduced to a single staff member after years of professional retinues for the first month or so following the election. Opposition, despite the name, is not the opposite of government: they don’t run an anti-matter Upside Down country that co-exists with the real world. Their role is to hold the government to account.

Luckily for National, there are ample opportunities to do so. A year and a half in, the government’s failures of delivery from houses, to trees, to teacher pay, to health are becoming more glaring by the day. It will be hard for the government to match the hyped up feelgood rhetoric of its inaugural Wellbeing Budget with spending under its self imposed fiscal rules. There is a way back from purgatory, back to the baubles of office.

But, as Paula Bennett should bear in mind, the journey back to government doesn’t start with a single step – it starts by showing up.
Post Reply