Anti-MMP group white supremacist link

60 comments on “Anti-MMP group white supremacist link ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   4 July 2011 at 8:58 am

   I cannot think of a less suitable person being a founding member of an organisation dedicated to advocating for change of our democratic system than a white supremacist.
    
   Just saying.
2. KJT 2

   4 July 2011 at 9:02 am

   MS. Totally appropriate considering who the other members are.
3. kriswgtn 3

   4 July 2011 at 9:17 am

   haha Kerry Prenderghastly-Act no surprise

   Isnt she working for Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)-appointed by whom? I wonder
   • Blighty 3.1

     4 July 2011 at 12:08 pm

     hey, she’s a public servant isn’t she? She can’t be publicly representing of a political organisation like this.
4. Peter 4

   4 July 2011 at 9:26 am

   “There are many things wrong with this. SM, the group’s real favourite, would be grossly unfair to the voters. Under it, 90 electorate seats would be chosen by FPP, and 30 list seats by PR. This means that the winning party gets a huge and unfair advantage, which is why SM – such an unfortunate acronym! – is known as a “winner’s bonus” system.

   At the last election, for instance, National would have won 57% of the seats with only 45% of the votes. The Greens, on the other hand, would have won only 1.6% of the seats although they got 6.7% of the votes. Under MMP, on the other hand, the usual pattern is for a party’s share of the seats to reflects its share of the votes. ”

   Quote from the SST which explains what these guys are really after, an unfair proportion of the seats allowing them to rule without regard for anything apart from their own interests.
   • Jim Nald 4.1

     4 July 2011 at 9:45 am

     So SM is disproportionate & unfair.
     And MMP is proportionate & fair.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       4 July 2011 at 12:22 pm

       If the Greens and Mana want to survive they better turn out for MMP. And Labour needs to be completely unequivocal about pushing MMP every day. (Unlike Labour in the UK who were totally half hearted about their recent piddly attempt at improving proportionality).
5. Colonial Viper 5

   4 July 2011 at 9:44 am

   I reckon Bomber could possibly have waited another month before blowing the lid. All in the timing for maximum effect 🙂
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     4 July 2011 at 10:12 am

     Yeah, he should have sat on it. Waited until this group had a bigger media profile, so that when the lid was blown off it would end up on the 6 o’clock news, instead of just being blog material like it is now.

     I would see nothing wrong with that approach whatsoever – this group would be going out to get a large media profile, and the fact that they didn’t bother to background check their own members (founding members even!) would be their own fault.
     • jackal 5.1.1

       4 July 2011 at 11:27 am

       I disagree. I think Bomber plucking out the weed before it had a chance to grow bigger was the best thing to do. He would be playing a cat and mouse game otherwise with a chance that the mouse hides the cheese, if you know what I mean.

       The story is mainstream media news worthy. The fact that they have not picked up on it says more about media bias than it does about the story being big enough. There will be more dirt to dig on these idiots who oppose MMP, therefore a metered and sustained campaign is required.

       Bomber’s precision marksmanship is going to be hard to match.
6. joe90 6

   4 July 2011 at 9:49 am

   Looks to me like most of the founding members would fit right in here.
7. bomber 7

   4 July 2011 at 10:04 am

   Grin @ Colonial
8. grumpy 8

   4 July 2011 at 10:31 am

   Yep, read the link. Just sounds like a white Hone, I thought you guys approved of that……….?

   [lprent: Don’t be stupid. Writing broad brush statements like that means that you even include yourself (you’re around here about as much as I am :twisted:). I hardly think that you approve of Hone. Actually, coming to think of it, it is really hard to think of anyone you do approve of….. Apart from yourself of course. ]
   • KJT 8.1

     4 July 2011 at 10:37 am

     No. Don’t think Hone is really racist.The mouth overtakes the brain sometimes.
     I don’t think Hone is really a brown supremacist either, though Titiwhai may be.
     • Gosman 8.1.1

       4 July 2011 at 11:34 am

       Yes Hone isn’t really racist. He just makes racist statements for political effect. Nothing wrong with that is there?
       • grumpy 8.1.1.1

         4 July 2011 at 11:56 am

         …Oh,….I see,….,that’s OK then……..
   • The Voice of Reason 8.2

     4 July 2011 at 12:57 pm

     Bullshit, grumpy. You’ve been around here long enough to know that Hone’s racism has been rejected by many commenters at The Standard, myself included. I appreciate it’s a monumental task for the dull witted to understand that there are many strands of thought on the left and that there is no one overiding political philisophy, but I would have thought you could have at least slipped your brain out of neutral before making such a stupid comment.
     • grumpy 8.2.1

       4 July 2011 at 1:36 pm

       Sorry, VoR, but you were not uppermost in my mind when I wrote the comment. Of course I remember your principled views on this issue……now for the other 13 of you……
   • Gosman 8.3

     4 July 2011 at 2:34 pm

     What is the definition of irony again?

     I’m pretty sure that lprent criticising someone for making broad generalisations about a group of people when the whole point of the attack on the anti-MMP crowd in this article is pretty much doing just that.

     You guy’s do provide a mine of comedy material.
   • grumpy 8.4

     4 July 2011 at 3:09 pm

     lprent, actually there are heaps of people I approve of, some of who you probably do too.

     At the moment I am nursing a deep and abiding hatred for those who rip off the elderly in the “Resthome” industry. – We might have that in common too?
9. PeteG 9

   4 July 2011 at 11:00 am

   Why the surprise? Hasn’t most organised anti-MMP campaigning been with minority white supremacist motives?

   Labour Party candidate for Dunedin North, David Clark, asks “Please explain”…

   Can David explain all the associations with 455 “likes” on his own Facebook?
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     4 July 2011 at 12:11 pm

     Can David explain all the associations with 455 “likes” on his own Facebook?

     Apart from the fact your comment is a derail, I’m pretty sure they are almost all Labour supporters. Also pretty sure that as such they support Labour’s ‘broad church’ approach to encouraging diversity, participation and equality in NZ.
     • McFlock 9.1.1

       4 July 2011 at 12:37 pm

       The other point being that there’s a difference between somebody liking what you do versus letting a white supremacist be a founding member of your richboy club.
   • bbfloyd 9.2

     4 July 2011 at 12:18 pm

     that’s just silly pete… i’m starting to wonder if you have any principles at all.. defending the dregs of society just so that you can wave the party flag at all costs… really pathetic…

     so you’d best keep that up… people need reminding why they need to remove any trace of nationals influence from the political landscape.. the fact that they are supported by such dross is ample evidence of their unfitness to govern.
10. Whistleblower 10

    4 July 2011 at 11:03 am

    The fact that he is facebook friends with a National MP is barely worth a mention.

    However, the fact that he is on the National Party Ohariu Electorate executive, and that he used to be employed as out of parliament staff by Katrina Shanks may require some explaining..
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      4 July 2011 at 12:12 pm

      😈 this deserves following up
      • joe90 10.1.1

        4 July 2011 at 12:20 pm

        A young nat and I notice he’s been un-friended by Finlayson too.
11. Gosman 11

    4 July 2011 at 11:08 am

    I like MMP. I think it is great. However I dislike the tactics being used by many members of the pro-MMP lobby in this debate.

    Why can’t you just debate the merits of MMP versus the alternatives rather than enagaging in gutter personality politicking as if that makes a difference to the overall debate?
    • Blighty 11.1

      4 July 2011 at 12:11 pm

      the merits of the system have been debated to death.

      there have been numerous posts here and elsewhere on that.

      But, if you want to raise the merits of an alternative system over MMP, go ahead and make that argument I’ll happily debate you.

      Right now, the anti-MMP group isn’t even making a serious case against MMP, let alone arguing one of the alternatives would be better.
    • Colonial Viper 11.2

      4 July 2011 at 12:13 pm

      However I dislike the tactics being used by many members of the pro-MMP lobby in this debate.

      We learnt from the Right. Get used to it.
      • lprent 11.2.1

        4 July 2011 at 2:58 pm

        Exactly. I even wrote a post just after the election about how we’d have to use the tactics of the right if only to rub their noses in how disgusting and stupid those tactics are. We’d just have to do them better.

        Not to mention the tactics used by Shirtcliffe and co in the 90’s which resulted in us having this stupid referendum based on a fictitious ‘promise’ to have another referendum. Quite frankly identifying that the anti-MMP idiots crap on their own feet is simply identifying why they like FPP – they are too stupid to squat when the situation demands it.
    • KJT 11.3

      4 July 2011 at 1:39 pm

      Because we already thrashed out the pros and cons ad infinitum when it was first voted in.

      I think we have already established that it is more democratic.

      As someone said “one of the best arguments for MMP is the quality of the people who oppose it”.
      • Gosman 11.3.1

        4 July 2011 at 2:30 pm

        Ummmmm… I think the term is Bovine Scatology.

        Whether you like it or not we are having a vote on the Electoral system. Just ecause we had a vot on the electoral system around 15 years ago doesn’t mean that we should now be able to dismiss having a rational debate about the merits of the current and other systems.

        Put forward the case for MMP or find fault with the alternatives. Don’t be lazy simpleton’s by engaging in the purile witch hunting nonsense.
12. randal 12

    4 July 2011 at 11:20 am

    why indeed?
    mmp speaks for itself but the anti group needs to be exposed for their motivation.
    • Gosman 12.1

      4 July 2011 at 11:32 am

      Why does the anti-MMP group need to be exposed for their motivation?

      And how do you know what this guy’s motivation is anyway? It isn’t clear just from his background activities.

      For example, as stated I support MMP. If I joined a pro-MMP group does my background make a difference to the merits of MMP? Does it mean that MMP is more likely to be supported by right leaning people? Of course it doesn’t make a blind bit of diffence.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        4 July 2011 at 12:18 pm

        In a proportional electoral system, cheeky darkie DPB mums, the Maori and Pasifika with huge families and the Asians who are turning up in droves are going to take over the NZ Government don’t you know.

        Pure blood whites are an endangered minority in the future, and in a proportional electoral system they have less and less power.

        That’s why white white supremacists want to get rid of MMP.
        • Gosman 12.1.1.1

          4 July 2011 at 2:32 pm

          Ummmm… no that is just your paranoid conspiracy theory over why YOU think white supremacists want to get rid of MMP.
        • Vicky32 12.1.1.2

          4 July 2011 at 7:44 pm

          Pure blood whites are an endangered minority in the future,

          I would add “males” to that…
      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2

        4 July 2011 at 12:27 pm

        Why does the anti-MMP group need to be exposed for their motivation?

        Well, considering the fact that they don’t actually have an argument against MMP then we need to check their motivation for getting rid of it. Asking the question Are these guys after democracy or power? will give a better understanding of why they want to get rid of a proportional, more accountable system for an elected dictatorship system that allows a specific minority to govern with no checks or balances. In fact, I think you’d want to do that even if they did have an argument. Same goes for the pro-MMP lobby groups as well.

        Nothing happens in a vacuum and often it’s the motive that will show you the true reason for why something happened.
13. Craig 13

    4 July 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Note how hard the anti-MMP lobby is not really campaigning for SM. Why do I suspect it really wants to get FPP back due to the donkey vote factor of nostalgic conservatives? Whereupon, they’ll shrug, dust off their shoulders and campaign for the restoration of FPP as they originally intended.
14. Andrew K 14

    4 July 2011 at 2:49 pm

    I just checked out some of Alex Fogerty’s other friends: David Bennett (Nat.), David Farrar, Celia Wade-Brown (:P), Garth McVicar (Nut), Hekia Parata (Nat.), Judith Tizard (Lab.), Melissa Lee (Nat.), Nikki Kaye (Nat.), Paula Bennett (Nat.), Stephen Franks (Nat.).
    I probably missed some, but I imagine they will not be ‘friends’ for much longer,
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      4 July 2011 at 2:53 pm

      Ah, FaceBook friends, the most loyal kind
      • Rich 14.1.1

        5 July 2011 at 12:48 pm

        That’s why Google+ adds the circle concept as in:
        – Friends
        – Acquaintances
        – Who the fuck are they?
        – Nazi scum
15. twgmbd 15

    4 July 2011 at 3:42 pm

    One a side note, whoever made that poster on Tumeke is a dipshit – http://bit.ly/lVokWW – the poster says that if you want MMP that the current system needs to be changed. In fact if you want MMP, the current system needs to be retained. Big difference. Was that poster created by the the FPP lobby to create further confusion? Joe Bloggs doesn’t know how many MPs are currently in our parliament. He just knows there are a lot and they get paid too much.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      4 July 2011 at 3:51 pm

      +1

      C.T. is going to be playing the ‘change’ meme a lot this year, neglecting to mention that ‘change’ can be for the better OR for the worse.
    • Pascal's bookie 15.2

      4 July 2011 at 7:05 pm

      twgmbd, that poster was one of the main ones from the referendum which got us mmp. Bomber is just showing his age, and assuming everyone will recognise it I think.
16. BR 16

    4 July 2011 at 6:39 pm

    “Well, considering the fact that they don’t actually have an argument against MMP then we need to check their motivation for getting rid of it.”

    The worst aspect of MMP is the fact that political parties are able to determine who gets into parliament based on their list rankings. List MPs therefore put the interests of the party before those of their constituents. This is an appalling situation. It could be easily fixed by having FPP type elections, with proportionality being made up out of constituents who lost their seats, starting with those who lost by the smallest margin. MMP in it’s current form allows people into parliament with no public mandate at all.

    Bill.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      4 July 2011 at 6:43 pm

      List MPs therefore put the interests of the party before those of their constituents.

      Bollocks

      If a list MP pisses off the electorate then the electorate (the entire friggen country) can make enough noise so that the party will remove them. As we found out with Philip Fields though, it’s actually impossible for an electorate to remove an electorate MP.

      As it stands, List MPs are more accountable than electorate MPs.
    • Pascal's bookie 16.2

      4 July 2011 at 6:50 pm

      Parties determine who electorate mps are as well though BR. The size of the margin in seats is also fairly predictable, so parties would just make sure that the candidates they really want in parliament will be in either safe or close seats.
    • lprent 16.3

      4 July 2011 at 7:01 pm

      BR: Except that any election based around just geographical seats is also highly susceptible to gerrymandering, and has been gerrymandered throughout our history. It really doesn’t matter if lots of people in the electorate dislike a MP, so long as enough do, and the seat can be twisted like a pretzel to ensure that those wanting a change are rendered ineffective. Almost every electorate MP is voted in by a minority of their electorate.

      Besides, the candidates are still picked by the parties. It is pointless doing what you are advocating unless there are no parties. The politics of selection largely happen inside the party simply because there are relatively few people interested enough in politics to be bothered.

      Is pretty easy to get rid of list MP’s. They serve at the displeasure of the party. If you want to get rid of one, then be a member to exert significiant pressure inside the party, or exert less pressure on that party from outside.

      But it is really really hard to get rid of electorate MP’s.

      I guess that you simply know bugger all about politics from your comment.
      • Draco T Bastard 16.3.1

        4 July 2011 at 9:00 pm

        Almost every electorate MP is voted in by a minority of their electorate.

        Which is why electorate voting needs to be changed to STV.

        I guess that you simply know bugger all about politics from your comment.

        From reading BR’s comment I figure he only knows what he’s been told over at places like Kiwiblog etc. Hasn’t actually studied or thought about the electoral system and how it works.
        • lprent 16.3.1.1

          4 July 2011 at 10:55 pm

          From reading BR’s comment I figure he only knows what he’s been told over at places like Kiwiblog etc. Hasn’t actually studied or thought about the electoral system and how it works.

          Yep. That would also tie in with his inability to deal with such complex notions as the Reply button and threaded comments. He replied here. I really can’t be bothered pointing out how superbly stupid his idea is.

          Suffice to say that I’d prefer giving MP’s with safe seats unattainable list rankings as an incentive to win the frigging seat. If they can’t and they’re not in the top tier in cabinet then they should be out of parliament. The people I want to see in the attainable listings are people who I’d want in parliament to try out. If they don’t work out then as a party member, then I’d like to drop them down next time.

          What I don’t want to see is dead wood coming in on the list. We’re slowly getting rid of that idea in Labour. We don’t want some VfC-wits coming up with an idea last used for weaning FPP MP’s to MMP from the 1990’s and trying to say it’d be a good idea.
    • The Voice of Reason 16.4

      4 July 2011 at 7:28 pm

      List MP’s don’t have constituents, but they do have a public mandate. That mandate is earned by being ranked by party members to fill the positions on the list. The public then choose to endorse those candidates or some other party’s candidates. There are two democratic votes held before a list candidate becomes an MP. Party, then public.
       
      It’s a pretty good system and delivered some excellent MP’s who wouldn’t otherwise be in the house. Ok, it’s also given us David Garrett and Richard Worth, but every system has its flaws.
17. Draco T Bastard 17

    4 July 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Couldn’t happen to nicer people
18. felix 18

    4 July 2011 at 9:37 pm

    Ever notice how in the upside-down world of Cameron Slater, David Farrar and their mates, everyone is a racist except for white supremacists?
    • Pascal's bookie 18.1

      4 July 2011 at 9:53 pm

      Silly felix. Racist is bad, and whites are supreme. It just doesn’t work!

      And anyway, this poor Foggitty chap was quoted OUT OF CONTEXT when he congratulated Australian groups for the increasing attacks on Jews, and when he said that “I’d love to get rid of all Jews, blacks, gypsies, retards and social degenerates, I would love to have genetic cleansing.”

      Out of context see.

      And what’s more, he only thinks that some of the Nazis’ ideas were good.

      “Some” geddit? What’s wrong with that? Of course some of their ideas were good. Who doesn’t think that?

      Racists, that’s who!

      What a beat up.

      http://www.fightdemback.org/2005/09/07/nz-press-investigates-dos-attack/
19. BR 19

    4 July 2011 at 9:55 pm

    “Parties determine who electorate mps are as well though BR. The size of the margin in seats is also fairly predictable, so parties would just make sure that the candidates they really want in parliament will be in either safe or close seats.”

    Perhaps, but constituent MPs are accountable to their constituents. A high ranking list MP in either major party risks being thrown onto the opposition benches, a constituent MP risks being thrown out of parliament.

    “But it is really really hard to get rid of electorate MP’s.”

    It is hard for the party to get rid of electorate MPs. It is harder for the voters to get rid of list MPs.

    Some MPs can be both, and this makes MMP even more absurd. Who can forget Chris Carter, who as a high ranking opposition list MP and also a constituent MP, went on a spending spree courtesy of the NZ taxpayer. When this was discovered, he hid from the press for four days. When he was finally flushed out from his spider hole, the only thing he had to say in his own defence was that he was a loyal Labour MP. It seems that Carter was more preoccupied with not annoying the party hierarchy than keeping his constituents happy. He obviously placed a higher value on his list placing than his electorate majority.

    Like I said earlier, and this is not an original idea, it would be better to go back to FPP and correct any lack of proportionality by allowing a few constituent MPS who lost their electorate votes a seat in parliament, starting with the ones who came closest to winning. That way the party could not directly appoint it’s own MPs. The current system is not compatible with a representative democracy. List MPs represent only their parties, and that is where their loyalties lie.

    Bill.
    • Pascal's bookie 19.1

      4 July 2011 at 10:02 pm

      People vote for parties br. true fact. You know that saying about how a dog could win that seat for party x? Versions of that saying are found in all democracies for a reason. People vote for parties. So those list mps that are representing the party, are therefore representing the people that vote for that party. This is not difficult.

      And anyway, your fix is even more absurd than your problem. If your problem is real, then why should mps that have been chucked out get back in? Isn’t that the problem you are trying to fix?
    • Draco T Bastard 19.2

      5 July 2011 at 12:40 am

      It is harder for the voters to get rid of list MPs.

      No you friggen moron. It’s easier to get rid of list MPs as we can kick them out during the term and they won’t be coming back next election because no party is stupid enough (except possibly Act) to put them back on the list or put them in an electorate seat to try and win. Can’t do that reliably with an electorate MP.

      Like I said earlier, and this is not an original idea,

      No it’s not – you’re too stupid to come up with an original idea. What you’re describing is, of course, SM or, as it’s been described as, FPP in drag.

Links to post

1. Vote for Change’s heart of darkness « The Standard: posted on 4 July 2011 at 1:42 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS