Bad Boy Baron
This is quite funny.
Local independent Steve Baron has been plastering his billboards all over Pakuranga this week, and has gotten in some trouble for placing them on public land, which Manukau City Council bylaws forbid.
There are a couple of pearlers in here:
“The only reason the older parties haven’t put their signs up yet is they are not capable of thinking outside of the square,” he said. "I guess they will be waiting until next weekend which is technically two months before any election could happen.”
- Yes, we fuddy duddy "older parties" truly are so hide bound that we are obeying the law by not putting our billboards up in a "technically" illegal period.
“My signs are on private property. Everybody has been really happy with them,” he said. "There were a few issues to begin with because it was hard to tell the boundaries on some properties, but we sorted those out.”
- That's right, private property like attached to the Pakuranga/Panmure bridge, and on Stockade Hill, the biggest public reserve in Howick containing the local war memorial. Tough boundary issues obviously.
Hmmm....
10 comments:
No one in Pakuranga cares whether Steve Baron, Michael Wood or anyone else has their signs up...I bet if Maurice didn't put his signs he will still get more votes than everyone else put together.
Whaleoil, is there any intellectually respectable argument in your bones?
Sadly, you're so, so outgunned, spooks....
Anonymous...I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man/woman
Oliver: that was last election, bet this one is a bloodbath for Labour in Pakuranga...also calling me a half-wit see the comment for Anonymous.
Whaleoil gets shirty, reaches for the cleaver....
well spooks, as it is you (and your mate Whaleoil) that lowers the tone, that accusation is, well, bizarre.
the interesting result for the last election is actually the party vote:
Labour 10375
National 8470
Personally I think it is going to be very difficult for Wood to hold onto that kind of result this time - between the resurgence of the National vote and the fact that Williamson may actually campaign for the party vote this time. But winning it last time, with a first time candidate in a safe National seat, was pretty impressive imho.
"Massive Labour party vote, but equally massive personal dislike for Michael"
Spooks, how can this be? - there was less than a thousand votes between them!
10 375-9 450, and this, when you consider the massive advantages of incumbency a fifteen-year MP has in the personal contest, albeit a lazy and inconsequential one like Maurice Williamson, was an extremely good result.
It is time for you to leave this kitchen, so to speak?
Anon, I think you should leave the kitchen.
WILLIAMSON, Maurice NAT 14,010
WOOD, Michael LAB 9,450
Yes, Whaleoil that was the result -well done!
But my comment was in response to this piece of 'analysis' from spooks -
"Massive Labour party vote, but equally massive personal dislike for Michael" -
which was self-contradictory in the extreme.
For a candidate to get 92% of their party's party vote in a tough electorate is excellent going.
Act candidates, tawdry lot that they usually are, struggle to get 50%, if that. Mind you, this time that might level up, given that their party vote has plummeted on the strength of their party having no reason for being separate from National.
If my campaign was such an appallingly incompetent effort in 2002, then Maurice ought to be concerned.
In 2003 his majority declined to the lowest yet, and the Labour vote increased in Pakuranga by a larger proportion that it did nationally.
Post a Comment