Botany & Titbits

28 comments on “Botany & Titbits ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jono 1

   14 January 2011 at 1:36 pm

   Re Goudie, don’t forget cutting down mangroves without a consent 😉

   A captcha twofer: “sticks”. Works for Botany and mangrove chopping 🙂
2. Phil Lyth 2

   14 January 2011 at 2:34 pm

   “more than half the population are migrants”, came originally from NCP and Shipley’s associates.

   Let’s look at facts:
   (all rounded)
   Botany total population at 2006 census was 57k
   4k born un UK, Ireland
   4k born in Pacific Islands
   9k born in N-E Asia – China Taiwan Hong Kong Korea Japan
   11k born elsewhere overseas unspecified

   27k total overseas born. 12k been in NZ for over 10 years, only 9k had arrived in last five years.

   So hardly the picture implied by the NCP backers.

   Info from
   • Carol 2.1

     14 January 2011 at 4:49 pm

     From this demographic breakdown, then, I don’t see the NCP as a serious contender for Botany. However, they may be aiming for party seats in the general election, and using the Botany by-election to raise their profile.
   • Phil Lyth 2.2

     14 January 2011 at 7:12 pm

     Well I didn’t get the link right.

     Info from the Parliamentary Library’s series of electorate profiles

     http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/Electorates/c/f/f/DBHOH_Lib_EP_Botany_TOC_1-Botany-Electorate-Profile.htm
3. Adrian 3

   14 January 2011 at 2:39 pm

   Anybody else pissed off about a party to contest a NZ election being set up and run from a foreign capital? If there were any doubts about Winnie getting past the 5, he’ll now be heading for 10+, and you can’t call it xenophobia or Asian bashing as if this had happened in London or Sydney or New York we should also be very, very concerned.
   • marco 3.1

     14 January 2011 at 3:13 pm

     Very good point actually. I’m all for interest groups setting up political wings, but questions do have to start being asked when those political parties are based overseas.

     Having said that, I wonder how much overseas funding is channelled into the existing political set-up.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     14 January 2011 at 4:10 pm

     That should be illegal. In fact, any connection (funding/support) with foreign powers/people should be illegal for a party contesting a NZ election.
     • Bunji 3.2.1

       14 January 2011 at 11:01 pm

       Britain has laws against any foreign funding whatsoever. That sounds good to me/ Cutting off Lord Ashcroft (from National) wouyld be a good start.
       • the pink postman 3.2.1.1

         15 January 2011 at 3:19 pm

         Bunji ;Your mention of Lord Ashcroft is worth looking in to.. Has he helped National with election funds.? I have no proof but my gut feeling says yes. Remember the covert meeting with Key just before the last election? He’s a crafty Right-Winger and has his fingers in many Right -Wing Political movements. He is a past Chairperson of the Pacific Democratic Union and is deeply involved in Trextor/Crosby. The National Party has membership of both these organizations.

         Ashcroft has interests and ownerships of many insurance companies so why not ACC.??
   • Rex Widerstrom 3.3

     14 January 2011 at 4:43 pm

     Set up in a foreign capital and run out of The Great Hall of the People. But of course China isn’t expansionist and wouldn’t dream of meddling in the internal politics of another nation. I must try popping over to China and forming a “Westerners for Democracy” party and seing how far I get.

     And yes, this’ll open the way for Winston… hell, there’s even a part of me that’s now hoping for a comeback of NZF in Botany, just so someone can tell this lot, in no uncertain terms, where to go.
   • Rich 3.4

     17 January 2011 at 12:59 pm

     People have a right to run for election and vote for who they like. Or not.

     It’s the voters who decide in the end, and that right shouldn’t be interfered with.
4. tc 4

   14 January 2011 at 3:32 pm

   yes Marco like where does SST get it’s dosh from as an example as it’s effectively a branch of ACT.
   • Rex Widerstrom 4.1

     14 January 2011 at 4:47 pm

     That’s absolutely untrue, tc.

     It’s completely obvious that Act has, in fact, become the political wing of the SST and not the other way round. Think of it as our local Hamas… a front for people who’re keen on chopping the hands off thieves, stoning adulterers* etc.

     * Special exemption for MPs, of course.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1.1

       14 January 2011 at 5:03 pm

       ACT has split into two factions , the Bolsheviks and Menshiviks, after itself being an offshoot of the Social Democratic Labour Party.
       The Bolsheviks later split into other factions , one known as the Otzovists…..
       • Rex Widerstrom 4.1.1.1

         14 January 2011 at 6:00 pm

         LOL

         But if they split any further, they’ll have to develop multiple personality disorder!

         Oh, wait…
5. Rharn 5

   14 January 2011 at 4:09 pm

   Any political party that is founded in another (China) country can not have our national interests at heart but then what can you expect when we have a free trade agreement with China at our expense.

   I think it’s called ‘outsourcing.’
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     14 January 2011 at 4:11 pm

     I thought it was called kissing arse.
     • Rharn 5.1.1

       14 January 2011 at 4:23 pm

       That too
6. ghostwhowalksnz 6

   14 January 2011 at 4:54 pm

   the NCP is just a way to raise money from Chinese businesses…. now that ‘Sampan’ has gone there is a niche left to be filled.
   It will probably end up in Nationals coffers anyway, via the usual methods as payoffs
7. Anne 7

   14 January 2011 at 7:53 pm

   You could be right about that gwwnz. However I agree with Adrian @ 2:39pm. That famous Winston Peters grin will be so wide at the moment, it will threaten to split into two!

   Hey Rex, Act have had MPDs since their inception. I know because I witnessed it first hand 😀

   Captcha: VOTE
   Jesus.
   • Rex Widerstrom 7.1

     15 January 2011 at 12:28 am

     I thought they did but they’d changed the process, Anne? Or was that just the “primary” concept? But then how do you explain Garrett? (How does anyone explain Garrett? A radioactive spider bite, only from a particularly venemous spider? 😀 )

     Actually (not doubting you, but because I’m interested) do you have a link to a document that sets out the process they do use? I’d like to give credit where it’s due.
     • Anne 7.1.1

       15 January 2011 at 9:49 pm

       Hi Rex. Picked up your message only this evening.
       As a relative newcomer to the internet, my expertise when it comes to linking etc. still has a way to go. Being of the ‘older school’ doesn’t help.

       Unfortunately I’ve tossed most of the Act stuff I accumulated over the 3 year period I was involved with the Party, but I did keep some discussion papers that relate to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Disarmament. They span a period between 1995 and 1997 and they make for very interesting reading. You’re welcome to hard copies if it can be arranged.

       In the first 2 to 3 years of Act’s existence, it was dominated by the ‘liberal’ faction. They were economically dry but socially quite liberal. They provided most of the intellectual grunt of course, and it was after they were ‘seen off the premises’ that Act’s fortunes started to slide. If they had been allowed to maintain their domination, Act would be a different party today and there would have been no David Garretts. But I can look back now and appreciate their wealthy financial backers were never going to allow that domination to continue. Their aim from the start was to provide an MMP partner for National and there was going to be none of this intellectual liberalism thank-you very much. I recall being told of a heated argument Alan Gibbs had with a senior official over Act’s original social policies. He claimed they were socialist in content (they were not) and had to be dropped. They were dropped and the authors disappeared from the scene not too long afterwards.

       Act went from being socially liberal, to becoming reactionary conservatives, and finally they regressed into neanderthalism all in the space of about ten years. 😀

       That’s what I meant by my comment “Act have had MPDs since their inception.”
       • Rich 7.1.1.1

         17 January 2011 at 1:01 pm

         What is an MPD?
         • Anne 7.1.1.1.1

           17 January 2011 at 10:29 pm

           Taken from Rex’s post at 6:00pm. Multiple Personality Disorder.
8. Irascible 8

   15 January 2011 at 12:16 am

   Botany will be interesting this by election as the media, and NCP, are punditing that it is a safe Nat seat based on the Wong majority only.
   The seat has not been through enough electoral cycles to demonstrate a consistent fundamental conservative bias and, as the by election was caused by the Wongs being caught abusing the taxpayer to benefit their own financial agendas, it is possible that the electorate could punish National for their support of corruption as well as swinging away from the policies espoused by Key as such policies would be seriously affecting many voters there whose socio-economic status would be being attacked by the NACT “appear to give but solidly take” policies.
   Ching’s activities in Botany would not be appreciated by the Asian community and should be condemned by the electorate in general as they would see the NCP as a suspicious entry in the NZ political scene.
   • the pink postman 8.1

     15 January 2011 at 3:25 pm

     It will be most interesting if Labour puts up a well known and popular candidate . The Chinese community have been shamed (through no fault of theirs ) but the backlash is going to be really worth watching.I bet Key is practising very hard at his wave and smile.
9. GNZ 9

   15 January 2011 at 6:30 pm

   I imagine labour doesn’t want to put a good candidate up for botany because they will probably loose anyway, better for the election to be low profile and low cost. Tht isnt that bad – you cant win every electorate.

   I suspect botany is pretty safe for national and as per Phil this party doesnt stand much of a chance – worse yet as per DPF they will not have much of a chance to get many ofthe recent imigrants due to the fact that you wont get many non mainland chinese to vote for a party that organizes in china. thy probably get 5% or somthing of the vote and dissapear with a whimper all the better for national I suppose if they can make the election look like a competition before they romp home in a landslide.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 14 January 2011 at 12:25 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS