On Friday night, the Northcote LEC held a well attended celebrity debate, with the moot that “you don’t have to be crazy to be in politics, but it helps“.
There were hilarious contributions from David Shearer, Charles Chauvel, Penny Hulse for the affirmative and Len Brown, Cathy Casey and Julia Parfit for the negative. Bomber was a most able adjudicator.
I wondered what others think.
Do you have to be crazy to be in politics?
Who won?
The negative!
If the moot was a ‘negative’ that means you DO have to be crazy?
There’s plenty evidence of that on this blog
In the house, and occasionally the dancefloor 
@Richard, it means that those who were against the motion won. (in other words, you don’t have to be crazy and it doesn’t help!)
On a purely personal level of course you all have to be stark raving bonkers to be in politics.
Regardless of which side of the house you come from…
What sane person would choose to work the silly hours you do?
What sane person would allow practically every word they speak or write to be taken down and recorded to be potentially dragged out years down the track and thrown back in their face?
What sane person would risk being treated to a public dressing down if they were found to have put a few unjustified articles on their work credit card?
What sane person would risk putting themself in a position where their employment, and with it their ability to feed their family, rests on the whim of a fickle public who might just get rid of them on the grounds that “it’s time for a change”?
What sane person would do a job where they were supposed to be civil to virtually everyone they met, even if they found them obnoxious?
No – you’re all stark raving mad!
Well it certainly helps explain the behaviour of the left! And the more Left the more crazy.
oh mont.y – is that the best you can come up with? Crazy is not confined to just the left you know…
What’s crazy is the kind of political thought which believes that the purpose of the people is to serve financial capital.
The alternative viewpoint makes far more sense (to me): that the purpose of financial capital to serve the people.
Am I right in assuming you are a climate change denier too Monty? Interesting analysis on TVNZ7 tonight about serial deniers. They are either ultra conservative and/or fundamentalist christian types. Funny that, because I understood these people always vote for the political Right.
I hate to break it to you Anne, but I went from a believer into a sceptic after climate gate
So good to see you 
@George – I suspect politics attracts a lot of the power hungry.
Monty, two words for you Anne Tolley
Hi Paul
Good point Loota
Hi Spud
A British Government investigation into Climategate found that the (anonymous) claimants had fraudulently used the wording of the email texts to create an erroneous impression. In other words, it was a hoax aimed at discrediting the scientists. A mode of operation that is frequently used by the NACT government!
Sorry Darien a bit off topic but needs to be pointed out.
Anne : “Am I right in assuming you are a climate change denier“
I grew up in an area which at the time produced most of the hosiery in the UK. Isn’t denier the unit for measuring the density of the fibres in tights and stockings?
Yes you are right George and what’s more we wear them in the winter when the climate changes.
Now no more, else Trevor will start hitting delete. He’s very fond of that button.
@George and Anne LOL
Anne, I’ll think about what you said, but I can’t promise to be a believer.
Frontrower. Very witty but pretty nasty. Don’t think we can let that through. Clare
I think that the appropriate question to ask is:
You do have to be knowledgeable to be in politics – and it definitely helps?
This is important because if politicians are not knowledgeable, then they do the population over with policies based on misguided knowledge (not fact-based) rather than protecting their (populations’) rights.
I remembered when I was young, that the Tongan Parliament was known for certain members who used sleep most of the times during debates only to wake up to vote in support of certain issues, in which they themselves had no clue to what had been discussed. Even if they had not been asleep the whole time during debates, again their knowledge of issues was too complicated for them to comprehend. Now, we can see how a parliament full of members who are not knowledgeable (such as the Tongan Parliament) is like. Members don’t have to be knowledgeable as a priori to be a politicians, but they must be willing & put in efforts once they enter politics to update their knowledge or educate themselves on various issues so as to be effective in their role as politicians.
Trev/admin, why my comments are being moderated? I’ve been only given one warning for going off-topic AFAIK. I haven’t posted abusive stuff here? Am I being moderated for using/quoting fact-based knowledge in my arguments, which is basically hard for anyone in this blog to put forward a counter-argument to them? Just curious.
You are being moderated because you engage in trolling. Your comments are rarely interferred with, but we keep an eye on what you say. Clare
Clare, to help me in my posting here, can you point out to where have I been trolling on this blog? AFAIK I have never been trolled here. To the best of my knowledge, Don Chritie mentioned that I was trolling on the thread for excluding software patents, in which a RedAlert reader StephenR commented on that thread that Don was evading the debate with me, therefore he called me a troll. StephenR saw that I offered reason and Don evaded. That was the fact. Don evaded me and that’s what happens when one cannot put forward a counter-argument to a debate. One either evades or even ban/moderate and ad hominem. Coincidentally, you supported Don Christie’s position on not allowing software patent. One can see that I was arguing with reason on that thread and not trolling .Trolling on RedAlert is what Spud is doing. Is he/she being on moderation list too? I doubt it.
Can you point out to some threads on this blog that you think I have been trolling? If you can’t find one, then I think you’re being disingenuous. I suspect that you moderate me, since no one or hardly anyone can put forward a counter argument to my posts. You can ban me if you want, it is your private property (RedAlert blog) afterall, but please don’t label me as a troll poster, because I am not. I am a formidable debater and that’s fact. Don’t equate formidable debate to being trolling, because they’re not the same thing .There are troll posters here on RedAlert that you don’t moderate them at all.
You are in moderation precisely because of these sorts of comments. Your comments generally make it through. If you don’t like it go and comment somewhere else. Clare