• RaoulDuke@lemmy.nzOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never heard of that. But if they did it right, I guess we’d never know.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In theory it wouldn’t matter. There are only so many people you can have able to act as the leader. If you took out the 2IC and another took their place so you got them as well, etc. Then you’d likely disrupt the organisation even if you didn’t get the true leader - and one of the 2ICs might sell out the boss for a deal so you’d probably find out about them eventually.

      • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s probably worth a go given how ineffectual we’ve been…

        Certainly worth assessing or experimenting with the constraints/requirements to focus how it can be applied

        • Dave@lemmy.nzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, after having this conversation I’ve wondered why parties aren’t promising this.

          I think National want to be seen to be tough on crime. If they remove crime then they lose a voterbase.

          If Labour do this then it might be seen as a National-type hard on crime move, which could lose voters.