Barrier residents deserve real representation

25 comments on “Barrier residents deserve real representation ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Uroskin 1

   29 May 2010 at 10:05 am

   When Ms Boag finally sells her house on Waiheke Island, the new owners will have to go round with holy water to get the sulphurous smells out.
2. ianmac 2

   29 May 2010 at 10:14 am

   Engage in the discussion Nikki and be true to your beliefs.
   Oops . No. Don’t engage in the discussion Nikki and be true to your beliefs. Be staunch to the Gang National Party or you might lose your Patch right of re-election.
   “We in the National Party enjoy the freedom of having many opinions are the right of every MP to speak freely” said John Key smilingly.
3. Ed 3

   29 May 2010 at 10:41 am

   And in todays headlines reporters speak approvingly of National softening up the public for asset sales by using Kiwibank as a stalking horse . . . They are collaborating in National’s propaganda and praising National for the way they do it . . .
4. Jim Nald 4

   29 May 2010 at 11:10 am

   Puppet show
   Oh, that should be in the plural … puppets and shows
   Rotten political ploys. Rotten to the core
5. frustrated 5

   29 May 2010 at 11:58 am

   “Great Barrier residents her constituents deserve better.”

   Lets face it she might not be great but she’s a shite load better than the last MP for Auckland Central.
   • Ari 5.1

     29 May 2010 at 12:08 pm

     Sounds to me like she’s just as bad, actually. What is it with all of these junior MPs letting themselves get whipped around like they’ve been bad? Stand up for your constituents. That’s how you get re-elected, it’s how you make a name for yourself, and it’s how you uphold your own integrity.

     Nobody outside of cabinet should have to okay their public stance with the PM.
     • frustrated 5.1.1

       29 May 2010 at 12:34 pm

       “Sounds to me like she’s just as bad ”

       Do you remember the previous member ? She was a complete fucking gallah – even her own party are desperate to see the back of her.
6. Santi 6

   29 May 2010 at 12:39 pm

   Kaye is an airhead who shows neither intelligence nor character. Shame on Auckland Central for having such stupid person as its MP.
   • frustrated 6.1

     29 May 2010 at 12:49 pm

     Who was the last good MP for Auckland Central ?
     • Jim Nald 6.1.1

       29 May 2010 at 12:54 pm

       John Banks. Yay. Go Banksie!
       • Anita 6.1.1.1

         29 May 2010 at 12:56 pm

         Was MP for Whangarei.

         Tho I guess Whangarei is indistinguishable from Auckland Central if you stand a very long way back from a world map and squint.
         • Jim Nald 6.1.1.1.1

           29 May 2010 at 1:03 pm

           trying again, Christine Fletcher

           (Anita: you didn’t think I was really serious …..)
           • Anita 6.1.1.1.1.1

             29 May 2010 at 1:05 pm

             Epsom?

             I was hoping you weren’t 🙂 I do find it amusing, as I’m guessing you also do, that so many people talk about what a staunch and proud Aucklander he is given that he represented Whangarei for 18 years 🙂
     • Anita 6.1.2

       29 May 2010 at 12:54 pm

       Sandra Lee.
       • gingercrush 6.1.2.1

         29 May 2010 at 1:23 pm

         Still a pity she only held that seat for one terms. Alliance had some great MPs. Too bad Anderton was an egomaniac and had to destroy that party.
7. gingercrush 7

   29 May 2010 at 1:07 pm

   Well Kaye got elected primarily because the Labour MP wasn’t well regarded and many Green voters voted for their candidate. The seat in no way should be held by a National MP yet it is.

   Hence, why when New Zealanders agree to keep MMP (which they will) we should allow for both the party and electorate vote an additional vote. For instance, you’re a RAM voter and you tick RAM on your party vote and ticked the Green candidate on the electoral vote. You also gave a secondary vote to the Greens and a secondary vote to the Labour candidate on the electorate vote.

   RAM did not reach the 5% threshold and therefore that vote was invalidated and the secondary vote that went to the Greens was counted. The Green candidate ran third and could not reach the highest threshold to win that seat. Thus all initial votes for anyone other than the National candidate and Labour candidate (two people who topped the electorate vote) are put aside and secondary votes are counted. In this situation the RAM voter’s electorate vote goes to the Labour candidate.

   I say one additional vote only. Because I find the idea of listing all candidates from 1 to say 10 and the party vote 1 to 26 (which is possible under STV like votes) is frankly rather stupid. Sure there would still be some wasted votes under an additional vote scenario but it’d be far less than the system we currently have where RAM and Alliance Party votes go to parties who they wouldn’t support, namely National and Act. And under such a system we’ve have possible changes in about 10 electorates while in the case of NZ First party votes one imagines the majority would have gone to the Labour party.

   OK sorry for basically ignoring your post but I personally rather want change in this area.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     29 May 2010 at 7:35 pm

     An interesting idea…

     What you’re saying is a simplified STV using the two votes that everyone has already. The electorate vote is counted first with the second vote counting from the bottom up, i.e., those candidates with the least votes are dumped with their party vote then being counted as their electorate vote. Technically, it should produce a more preferred electoral MP than the present FPP election system.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       29 May 2010 at 8:43 pm

       Nope, I read you wrong. Your system was more complex than what I said but, yes, I agree that the present FPP election in the electorate needs to be changed and that it should be some type of STV.

       PS, I would suggest moving GC’s comment to it’s own post so that we can have a good discussion about this rather than having a threat hijack.
   • felix 7.2

     29 May 2010 at 8:23 pm

     I too am quite interested in your idea ginge.
8. Tigger 8

   29 May 2010 at 1:20 pm

   Kaye misled. Made it seem like she was fighting for her electorate when she wasn’t. Good to see this tripe outed.
9. jcuknz 9

   29 May 2010 at 1:25 pm

   I would have though there is a world of difference in working for ones constituents and speaking out as a junior member of the party on matters of national interest. Sure stand up for individual’s interests but check in with the boss on countrywide affairs. That’s common sense. I doubt if she was elected becuase of herself but becuase of the party she represents. There seems to be quite a bit of clutching at straws going on lately.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     29 May 2010 at 2:22 pm

     Have to agree with this. It’s only sensible that a member of their party, if publicly disagreeing with something the party is doing, would get advice on exactly what they should be saying.

     The alternative is to have things like Melissa Lee happen all over again.

     It can come across as a little dishonest though.
10. Anne 10

    29 May 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Okay, I’m a Labour supporter, but I urge any Standard readers who live in Auckland Central to go to one of Jacinda Ardern’s public meetings before the next election. You will be impressed. Brains, personality and a clear thinker. My prediction: she is going to go a long way in politics.
11. Tigger 11

    29 May 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Her stand was pure PR. Gives National the illusion of democracy when clearly it’s all managed.

    BTW does she oppose the sched 4 change or just mining in her electorate? Clearly the latter since that’s all she’s spoken about. Hypocritical much? Okay to mine the crap out of other protected land so long as it don’t cost her votes.
    • Pascal's bookie 11.1

      29 May 2010 at 8:36 pm

      I think she opposes the idea of having to defend mining on the campaign trail.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS