Vote early, vote often
With the buy-election papers going out in a week, and voting closing in less than a month ... and slivers of information beginning to filter through about the candidates, it's probably time for another LawsWatch poll.
Two in fact, since some people were confused by our last poll which listed possible contenders and asked who readers thought had the best chance of winning (not necessarily the person they'd vote for).
So this time we'll ask, first, who you're going to vote for. But then a second poll asks you to predict the winner. That might be two different candidates or it might not.
As always, we've applied what level of security we can to prevent multiple voting, but it's by no means foolproof. As a result these polls don't claim scientific validity. As always, you can view the ongoing results at any time, and they'll be displayed after you've voted.
Who will you be voting for in the buy-election?
Now, regardless of who you voted for above, who do you think will win the buy-election?
Comments on this post are now closed. The poll remains open, and is also available at the LawsWatch Polls blog.
12 comments:
How can Vision not win? They have the council spin machine behind them.
Good letter from Rob today in the Chron, we must also thank Bob Waker, his letter's are always so horrible and nasty he turns people off the Vision Party.
With the Diva putting 3000 of this own money into each Vision members last election campaign, it's no wonder they all won so easily. So I wonder how much of this own money he's putting into the buy-election? Should the newspaper be asking P B-H?
How can Vision not win? They have the council spin machine behind them.
___________________________________
Legal opinion has it that WDC's overt support for a particular candidate is OK, since they've obeyed the letter of the law, despite the fact that their actions are subversive to democracy. That a public body should behave so deceitfully is of course to be expected with Michael Laws in charge.
Perhaps this gross betrayal of the community's trust will be counterproductive, who knows?
Nice letter from Vinson, straight up to the point and honest.
Hope you had a nice holiday Bob, Mate, you really do need some help with your letter writing skills
Looks like Bobbie's brought his alter ego, the many-headed many-named letter writer, back from holiday with him.
E Herman isn't in the white pages and he isn't in the electoral roll - in fact there is NO Herman in Wangas full stop.
In fact he looks like another figment of the combined imaginations of Bobbie and Johnnie (we don't have time to check out letter writers' bona fides)Maslin.
What's the matter Bog? Run out of smart-arse Maori names for your fake letters. Why don't you piss off back overseas and take Mickey and your vision mates with you.
Wangas has been a better place with you away.
Yet another letter campaign from Vision, sadly they have to make half their names up ... why aren't they 'popular' anymore?
It's interesting, after watching Mr Laws ducking and diving over the code of conduct to see him now so worried about this blog.
His reputation was in tatters long before LawsWatch started and he isn't going to do anything to redeem himself by his latest ridiculous crusade.
It's a pity he is again dragging the council into his personal vendettas though by getting staff there to publish his tawdry columns and articles on the official website.
Surely he knows that by attacking visible targets like this blog he is missing the huge groundswell of public disgust with the way he and his mates like Walker and the deputy mayor behave.
I sometimes read this blog for entertainment purposes and I was very interested also in the article in the Chronicle this morning.
I will not comment upon the merits or otherwise of the parties but, as a lawyer who has taken the occasional defamation case, I thought you may appreciate some counsel in that area.
Whoever sues who - and it is rarely a course I advise to my clients given the costs and litigation risk - the Chronicle has (unwittingly or deliberately) made itself a future target.
By directing readers to the alleged defamatory articles, whether here or Mr Laws website, it is "distributing" or "publishing" as the definition of the Defamation Act makes clear, and recent case law. Therefore it would be an automatic second defendant party and at risk from both sides should they choose to pursue legal action.
I'm not aware of the articles of which Mr Laws complains but Mr Widerstrom has a problem with NZ jurisdictions which offer "honest opinion" as a defence and that means even if the mayor doesn't get all the detail right, if he gets the substantive detail (charges, extradition to Australia, 14 year old girl, charges later dropped) then he is protected. Honest opinion only works is malice is absent, but a respondent would need to prove malice and the bar is very high.
Anyway thanks for conributing to my Saturday morning entertainment.
On Friday, this blog reported that the Chronicle wouldn't rep[ort the mayors "defamatory dribble" on the authors of LawsWatch. Then I read my Saturday Chronicle and they print it all right but as fact. Sometimes I think this blog's real aim should be at Taupo Quay, not Guyton Street. Your thoughts Watchers?
Yes, there was nothing defamatory in what the mayor said - it was all just the facts from what I could see. This blog is becoming boring. Nothing wrong at council so they attack the mayor personally. We've heard it all before on here. Ho hum.
This blog seems to have died a death. Is it not being added to now that the creators have been (supposedly) outed?
Post a Comment