Death cab for Banksie

Written By: - Date published: 9:43 pm, October 20th, 2011 - 170 comments
Categories: act, brand key, election 2011, john key - Tags: ,

Another Epsom poll has ACT’ stuffed.

Goldsmith: 37%

Banks: 24%

Parker: 17%.

However, it also says the blue-rinsers will obediently tick Banks if Key explicitly tells them to. But will he?

Will the chance of saving 2% ACT be worth the nationwide loss of votes from linking Key’s brand to that mess of a party? His equivocating suggests the Nats haven’t decided.

Every day they hesitate firms up the Epsom vote and is another nail in ACT’s coffin.

And this latest poll – showing that 11% of National’s 2008 supporters intend to change their vote just over the handling over the Rena and another 13.8% of Nat voters unsure if it will affect their vote – will make Key even less inclined to risk getting into bed with ACT.

170 comments on “Death cab for Banksie ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. McFlock 1
    20 October 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Lol.
    and they’re the ones with phones 🙂
     

  2. Lanthanide 2
    20 October 2011 at 9:52 pm

    Hopefully if Key tells Nats to vote Banks, the Labour and Green voters will wisen up and vote Goldsmith.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      20 October 2011 at 10:01 pm

      It is really hard Lanth.  I tried to persuade two sisters to vote for Worth in 2005 rather than Stuart Nash in the hope it would keep Hide out.

      They both said they went in the polling booth, picked up the pencil and … couldn’t do it.  They voted for Nash.

      Even with the best will in the world … 

      • Rodel 2.1.1
        20 October 2011 at 10:22 pm

        Hear! hear! Tell them .. have a couple of gins first. steel themselves and vote strategically in the knowledge that their sacrifice will lead to a decent Goff led government.

        Nat voters seem to be slowly understanding that they’re being toyed with and manipulated by the Key- Brash-Banks duplicity.
        Gawd..I’m almost missing Rodney! At least what you saw was what you got…well nearly.

      • Lanthanide 2.1.2
        20 October 2011 at 11:26 pm

        Actually what would be really fun, is if Parker actually withdrew his name from the ballot in protest of what National had done, and told all their supports to vote in Goldsmith.

        What the hell would the right-wing spin response be to that?

        • Pete 2.1.2.1
          20 October 2011 at 11:33 pm

          I doubt that would happen. A party that claims to be the leading bloc of a government in waiting needs to field candidates in every electorate. Just for the look of the thing and even if only to secure what party votes they can.

        • felix 2.1.2.2
          20 October 2011 at 11:43 pm

          They’d scream blue murder Lanth, and it’d be awesome.

          My own response would involve a fair bit of floor-oriented mirth and probably the loss of my buttocks.

        • Chris 2.1.2.3
          21 October 2011 at 9:59 am

          That would be a great idea to make the race more interesting

          But to be honest I could see it backfiring in a couple of ways. Firstly it would look a bit ridiculous with some of the calls about how National is screwing with the voting process would make a bit of bad pubilicity.

          Although to be fair probably not that much as National are screwing with the voting process as Labour has pointed out – just wouldn’t be the best look.

          The second and most important thing is as soon as that happens John Key would come out and tell everyone explicitly to vote for Banks. Although I suspect even if he didn’t the National supporters would see that Labour want Goldsmith to win and would vote Banks anyway.

          Obviously predicting hypothetically I could be wrong but that is how I see it.

      • mik e 2.1.3
        20 October 2011 at 11:28 pm

        Yeah Labour doesn’t understand strategic voting Lan

      • Pete 2.1.4
        20 October 2011 at 11:30 pm

        I am pro-MMP and encourage everyone to vote for it in the referendum, but these kinds of shenanigans demonstrate that it is clearly in need of reform.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.4.1
          20 October 2011 at 11:35 pm

          The one reform that’s most essential is the removal of the 5% threshold but I know of no party that supports doing so.

          • Chris 2.1.4.1.1
            21 October 2011 at 10:03 am

            Removal of the threshold altogether or just the lowering of it?

            I’m more for the lowering of it to 3% or so rather than the lowering of it. Don’t really have a reason for that other than below that I’d be worried you could potentially get too many parties that most of NZ doesn’t really want in there wielding power.

            Although you already get that with United Future so does confuse it a bit.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.4.1.1.1
              21 October 2011 at 10:11 am

              2.5% or 3.0% seem like solid suggestions. It means that parties like Mana and the Democrats for Social Credit have a real chance of getting over the line, regardless of winning an electorate. And that even small sections of the political-economic community can get representation.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.4.1.1.2
              21 October 2011 at 11:54 am

              Don’t really have a reason for that other than below that I’d be worried you could potentially get too many parties that most of NZ doesn’t really want in there wielding power.

              So, the only reason you want a threshold is to disenfranchise people who don’t vote the way you want them to?

              Removal of the threshold but the party would still have to get 1/120th of the vote to get a seat which is more than required for an electorate win.

              • Chris …
                21 October 2011 at 12:18 pm

                No I have no problem with people who vote for something they actually believe in, but a threshold would stop parties like the Bill and Ben Party who without a threshold would have only needed 6,000 more votes to get in.

                Given that without a threshold there would have been a real chance they could get in I would bet they would have got more votes.

                In case you were wondering number 1 on their list was Jamie Linehan – would have been interesting if he was in parliament.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  21 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

                  Nah, the fact there was a threshold was what meant they got so many votes. It’s safe to vote for ajoke when it you know it won’t count.

                  But in any case, if they get the votes, on what grounds do you decide they don’t deserve a seat?

                  • Chris …
                    21 October 2011 at 1:24 pm

                    Why’s that the people who voted for them obviously didn’t particularly care and would have thought it was hilarious if they had actually got in. That was my experience of the people I talked to who voted for them (I was at uni at the time so there were quite a few).

                    With regards to your second question you decide they don’t deserve a seat when they can’t get over a certain threshold that’s what we are talking about.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 October 2011 at 1:40 pm

                      But isn’t your argument for having a threshold something along the lines of; ‘we need it to keep out people like B&B’ ?

                      If that is the argument, then we need some sort of reason to want to exclude people like B&B. It’s not really good enough just saying that they are obviously nuts. So is ACT, Mana, the Greens, NZF or whoever depending on who is doing the deciding.

                      For me it comes down to the pretty basic point of democracy.

                      Part and parcel of that is that people have the right to be what I consider to be wrong, and stupid.

                      If 1% of the people are so fed up with the system that they want to be represented by B&B, then who am I to tell them they can’t be?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      21 October 2011 at 1:48 pm

                      One argument, PB, is that B&B may simply take a “bums on seats” approach to governance and do nothing but act like clowns, while being paid $125k/year + benefits or whatever the going rate is these days.

                      Whether or not you agree with Mana or UF, you have to agree that they are taking their jobs seriously.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      21 October 2011 at 3:07 pm

                      …and would have thought it was hilarious if they had actually got in.

                      And I think it would have done the country good if they had.

                      But what you’re saying is that you don’t want some people to be represented by their choice in parliament because you don’t like that choice which is disenfranchisement.

                      One argument, PB, is that B&B may simply take a “bums on seats” approach to governance and do nothing but act like clowns, while being paid $125k/year + benefits or whatever the going rate is these days.

                      To be honest, I don’t think they would have. Sure, the party was set up as a joke but once in parliament I think the candidates would have taken it seriously.

                    • Chris …
                      21 October 2011 at 4:14 pm

                      Ok I’m well aware we are never going to agree but if your main problem is disenfranchisement of voters. Why should it be limited to 120 MP’s? Isn’t capping the MP’s just another form of a threshold?

                      To continue with the the Bill and Ben party at the last election without a threshold they got 13,000 votes which would not be represented in the government.

                      The only way to stop disenfranchisement is to take whoever comes last in the election and take that number of votes as 1 seat and then work out the other parties from that.

                      In the 2008 election that would result in over 7,500 MP’s. I mean obviously there would be a lot less given no party would have anywhere near enough on their list (National would need over 3,300 and Labour over 2,500).

                      At some point you need to have threshold to stop cases like the above. I just personally feel it should be higher than 0.8% of the population in order to try and ensure that the government represents the wishes of the majority of NZ and still avoids having too many tiny parties which don’t represent the wishes of NZ.

                      On a side note how come all these comments have no reply option? Is that what that WYSIWYG option means?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      21 October 2011 at 5:38 pm

                      Chris: No, the reason the reply option has vanished is because the maximum nesting depth has been reached, so you need to reply to the parent post (as I’m doing now) to make it appear underneath the reply you’re actually addressing.

                      The WYSIWYG option stands for “what you see is what you get”, it means it turns the standard comment editor into a slightly more advanced one where it has buttons for Bolding your text and such. I find it inconsistently buggy and so use the standard comment editor, myself.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 October 2011 at 7:17 pm

                      For all the idealogical purists here I have no wish for a 0.9% racist red neck homophobic party getting into Parliament with their own MP.

                      Get over it and accept that a ~2.5% limit would work very well and give decent parties like ACT, Alliance and Democrats for Social Credit a good chance.

                    • Chris …
                      21 October 2011 at 8:36 pm

                      Yep Colonial pretty much spot on.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      22 October 2011 at 2:09 am

                      Why should it be limited to 120 MP’s?

                      Economics, it’s expensive having more. Although, I think we should have more as I think that the number of list seats should equal the number of electorate seats.

                      I just personally feel it should be higher than 0.8% of the population in order to try and ensure that the government represents the wishes of the majority of NZ and still avoids having too many tiny parties which don’t represent the wishes of NZ.

                      /faceplam
                      We’ve always had the possibility of having independent seats in parliament.

                      The government represents the majority of NZers by having more than 50% of the seats. It doesn’t make any difference if those seats are held by a party with one seat (UF, Progressives) or many. There is, quite simply, no reason to exclude people just because they hold a minority view and that is what you want to do. The point you’re missing is that if a party gets a seat (0.8% of the vote) then it obviously represents some of NZ.

                    • Chris …
                      22 October 2011 at 8:14 am

                      Holding 2.5% of the vote is still very much a minority view and I think they should be included.

                      There is also a huge difference in stability if the government is made up of many small parties or one party with all the seats. Which is the point of having the threshold – under a system such as MMP you end up in a situation where the small parties get an inordinate amount of power to set the new government (such as in Israel or what happened with NZ First).

        • fatty 2.1.4.2
          21 October 2011 at 12:59 am

          I see it differently, if nats said vote Banks and then Parker pulls out and says vote Goldsmith, then automatically the Labour voters in Epsom possess a useful vote.
          Isn’t that the point of democracy, that we all have a voice in who represents us?…I don’t care who you vote for or the reasons behind it….the point is that each person’s vote effects the outcome in the way they desire.
          I will be voting Labour for Chch central, not that I like really like Brendon Burns and Labour, but more because I have a deep rooted hatred for National and Wagner.
          MMP gives more people a voice….these ‘shenanigans’ are not the downside of MMP, they are the upside!

  3. thejackal 3
    20 October 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Weirdest election ever.

  4. Ianupnorth 4
    20 October 2011 at 10:15 pm

    Seriously parties should have to put up candidates in a large proportion of electorates to be considered for taking their list seats. E.G. how many seats are Act contesting? Why don’t the National party put their beloved Hekia Parata up for a Maori seat?

    It becomes a bit of a joke when tactical voting in one electorate can severely affect the balance of power. 

  5. queenstfarmer 5
    20 October 2011 at 10:18 pm

    I’d say it’s more a case of deathcab for Act(ie). Dr Don has stuffed Act – quite an achievement when you consider it was already pretty well stuffed.

    Of course, if Banks fails then Act dies too. But there is still a reasonable-to-good chance that Banks will make it. In which case he should, and I’m sure will, put Don out to pasture one way or another.

    • mik e 5.1
      20 October 2011 at 10:23 pm

      if Parker asks his supporters to back goldsmith ACT will be gone by lunchtime

      • queenstfarmer 5.1.1
        20 October 2011 at 10:37 pm

        Not if Goldsmith asked his supporters to vote for Banks. Goldsmith will in all likelihood make it to Parliament on the party vote alone.

        • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1.1
          20 October 2011 at 10:47 pm

          Goldsmith already has asked his supporters to do that. He is explicitly asking only for the party vote.

          • queenstfarmer 5.1.1.1.1
            21 October 2011 at 12:46 am

            I don’t think National has explicitly asked its supporters “do not vote for Goldsmith, vote for Banks”.

            That is obviously the implication, so it will be interesting to see whether they come right out and say it.

            • felix 5.1.1.1.1.1
              21 October 2011 at 1:02 am

              I don’t think

              Correct.

              “National has explicitly asked its supporters “do not vote for Goldsmith, vote for Banks””

              Also correct.

              Last question in this clip: http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/epsom-candidates-debate-video-4466654

              Holmes- “But you don’t want them to vote for you?”

              Goldsmith- “No, I want the party vote, that’s the main thing.”

              How explicit do you need it?

              • queenstfarmer …
                21 October 2011 at 9:32 am

                Unsurprisingly your comment adds nothing. Goldsmith has been saying all along that he does not want electorate votes. And while you may or may not be able to comprehend it, saying “don’t vote for me” is not the same as expressly telling voters “vote for person X instead of me”.

                The point I raised, which I will rephrase as a question, is: has National explicitly asked its supporters “do not vote for Goldsmith, vote for Banks”? I do not know the answer to that, but am not aware of it happening.

                • Zaphod Beeblebrox …
                  21 October 2011 at 9:47 am

                  How bizarre.

                  Surely if that were the case National should have not bothered endorsing anybody. Banks would win easily if Goldsmith wasn’t there.

                  So either, 1.they don’t trust ACT to deliver the seat or 2. They want to retain the shaft ACT at the last minute option.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  21 October 2011 at 12:16 pm

                  You must be one of the few voters in the country too stupid to understand what National is asking.

                  Epsom voter are we?

                  • queenstfarmer …
                    21 October 2011 at 12:59 pm

                    Are you going to answer the question or not: has National explicitly asked its supporters “do not vote for Goldsmith, vote for Banks”?

                    It is a genuine question.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 October 2011 at 1:18 pm

                      Using that exact phrasing? Don’t know, don’t care. Who knows what gets said on doorsteps? It would be hilarious if they have though.

                      But anyone aware that words carry subtexts can see exactly what they have been asking voters to do.

                    • queenstfarmer …
                      21 October 2011 at 3:59 pm

                      The implication has never really been in doubt, but yes it would be hilarious / cringeworthy / unseemly / embarrasing / tragic (take your pick) to see them expressly ask (in public) to vote for the other guy.

                      The news that Key has stated he won’t be voting for Banks makes it more so.

                    • mickysavage …
                      21 October 2011 at 8:28 pm

                      has National explicitly asked its supporters “do not vote for Goldsmith, vote for Banks”?

                      No not explicitly.  They have blown hard on the dog whistle and expect the voters of Epsom to follow.  They also have the ability to change their mind and wave bye bye to ACT.

                      And ACT will not mind.  They are after all a puppet party that has been bought out by National Party interests.  Their only reason for being is to preserve power for the right, not add to the democratic process.

                      If any activist remains in ACT they should hang their head in shame. 

                    • seeker …
                      22 October 2011 at 12:51 am

                      Queenstfarmer

                      When asked by Patrick Gower Key said on TV3 on Tues. or Wed this past week that he had not asked anyone to do this YET.
                      Patrick Gower ended his report by making a comment about Key’s main worry being that the voters of Epsom could go “feral” in the booths!!!!

                      Feral Epsomians – the mind boggles!!!!! Visual anyone?? Perhaps not.

                    • felix …
                      23 October 2011 at 9:25 am

                      “has National explicitly asked its supporters “do not vote for Goldsmith, vote for Banks”?”

                      Yes actually. The National Party’s John Banks says this all the time. 😀

        • McFlock 5.1.1.2
          20 October 2011 at 10:53 pm

          Well, either Goldsmith does it or Key does, a la Bolger in Wellington Central. THAT was a good look.
           
          But either way it commits a cardinal sin for National – admitting the possibility of a less than certain victory. My point being that the Nats are campaigning on brand Key and success – as soon as they acknowledge the possibility of defeat a bit more of the sheen rubs off.
          Farrar etc are arguing that victory is largely assured, so Nats are winners. As soon as they’re battlers needing 1 or 2 seats to govern then they’re saying Labour is in with a chance and the horse-race voters have another choice.

          • Zetetic 5.1.1.2.1
            20 October 2011 at 10:57 pm

            the danger is that Epsom voters are now making up their minds to vote Goldsmith because they hate ACT and National seems like a shoe-in without them. If/when that changes, it could be too late for those voters to get their new orders. Falling between two stools.

            • McFlock 5.1.1.2.1.1
              20 October 2011 at 11:17 pm

              But that’s where Key imitating Bolger – was it in 1996? – by publicly shafting his own candidate a few days out from the election comes in. The trouble is that this time it might nuke more votes than it gains in token seats.
               
              My impression is that Nats are having difficulty choosing between “all or nothing” and “3 seats might make the difference”. Victory disease. Which means they might end up dropping both balls they’re juggling in the bush rather than keeping one in the hand.
               

        • Zetetic 5.1.1.3
          20 October 2011 at 10:54 pm

          Goldsmith will definitely be in on the list. So, it’s all the more interesting to see the reticence of Epsom voters to do as they’re told and vote Banks and their determination to vote Goldsmith, only indicating a chance of changing their mind if Key explicitly tells them to our it’s clear that ACT is needed for a National-led govt.

        • lprent 5.1.1.4
          21 October 2011 at 7:02 am

          I don’t think that Goldsmith has very many supporters for him. They are supporting National. They are also getting pissed off with National trying to tell them what to do. I suspect that the only way Banks could win is for Goldsmith to withdraw entirely (and the political fallout from that would be intense), and voters deciding not to electorate vote.

          But we are talking about conservatives here – who always vote. A good proportion will protest vote.

          • mickysavage 5.1.1.4.1
            21 October 2011 at 8:34 pm

            Goldsmith was the loser patsy who was meant to make sure that Banks would win.  Why else would you select him?  

            National’s problem is that he could be in Parliament for decades and he is the sort of toff nosed out of touch tory that gives the Nats such a bad name. 

            They have a similar problem in Tamaki.

            In these sorts of seats you want to have someone really dynamic and able to build up the organization and line up the donations.

            They are going to be disappointed … 

        • mik e 5.1.1.5
          21 October 2011 at 5:13 pm

          goldsmith is already asking

    • Zetetic 5.2
      20 October 2011 at 10:24 pm

      yeah. considered ACTie but Banksie had more of a ring.

  6. Puddleglum 6
    20 October 2011 at 10:37 pm

    These sorts of polls are lose-lose for ACT and National.

    Banks is behind but he’s not completely out of the race. This is where the fickleness of voter psychology kicks in.

    If Banks eventually gets in, there’s a good chance ACT will now get a lower party vote than they otherwise would have because some voters will think they’re stuffed (because the polls don’t look good for them). Therefore, fewer ACT MPs than if it was a certainty.

    If Banks doesn’t get in, whoever continued to vote ACT – while potentially being someone who would have voted National on the party vote if they had thought ACT had no chance – will have wasted their vote, hence squandered a percentage of National’s vote. 

    David Farrar needs to produce a poll that shows that Banks is either clearly ‘in’ or clearly ‘out’ (watch this space).

    • Zetetic 6.1
      20 October 2011 at 10:50 pm

      farrar’s famous for giving the results that people want to hear.

      He’s also famous for shonkey methodology – like that last poll with it’s silly scenarios where people are asked two months out how they would react given certain poll results just before the election.

      That’s what makes the leaking of his Epsom poll very interesting.

  7. Maynard J 7
    20 October 2011 at 11:02 pm

    I could look this up in no time – but why is Parker running there? He’s a recognised MP, and is one that’s likely to get swing voters.

    Every vote for Carter is a vote against Labour. The message is that simple!

    So why isn’t some hard-left candidate running there to minimuse Labour’s vote in a Blue seat? Put bloody Paul Watson in there or someone to get the centre-right running for National. but not someone sensible like Parker!

    • Zetetic 7.1
      20 October 2011 at 11:30 pm

      yeah, it’s kind of odd. I think the logic is to Epsom’s going to be a big platform and Parker can use it to a) promote Labour policy to get more votes nationwide than he would losing in Otago or running List-only and b) beat he can beat up on Banks driving more votes away from him.

      Plus, I think there’s personal reasons why he’s relocated to the big smoke.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        20 October 2011 at 11:58 pm

        Plus, I think there’s personal reasons why he’s relocated to the big smoke.

        Yeah but one can relocate and stay list only.

  8. Ari 8
    21 October 2011 at 12:08 am

    I think it’s a pretty bitter “victory” that some on the left are salivating at the prospect of disenfranchising 2% of the country just because John Banks is a ridiculous idiot and a bigot, and couldn’t get the people of Epsom to vote him out of a paper bag.

    ACT may now be largely a pack of regressive idiots and National Party rejects, but they shouldn’t need a lifeboat electorate. Any party that can win even 1% of the vote has earned a seat in Parliament, even if we hate their guts.

    • felix 8.1
      21 October 2011 at 12:14 am

      I don’t think that’s what the salivating is about.

    • The Voice of Reason 8.2
      21 October 2011 at 5:58 am

      I’m optimistically hoping to disenfranchise 4.99% of the population, Ari, specifically those pricks who want to take rights away from the vast majority of us. That’s the scenario that makes me happiest of all; ACT fall just short in both Epsom and in the party vote. Of course, that would require ACT to triple their current support and that ain’t likely under dopey Don’s leadership.

      • Ari 8.2.1
        21 October 2011 at 11:56 am

        If I think we shouldn’t disenfranchise anti-immigrant racists like NZ first, I don’t see why we should make an exception for ACT. Hell, if a neo-nazi or survivalist party got enough votes, they should ALSO be seated in Parliament. It’s much more effective to ignore them from within the system, where they’re likely to become less extreme, than to ignore them from outside the system, where they’re most dangerous.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 8.3
      21 October 2011 at 7:51 am

      Dont you mean disenfranchising a handful of mega donors- including one who lives in Spain

      • Ari 8.3.1
        21 October 2011 at 11:59 am

        No, I’m fine with disenfranchising large-money donations. It’s the thousands of voters not counting due to a rule designed to benefit Labour and National that I object to, and those objections don’t change just because they’re wingnuts, or even if they were to use corrupt electoral practices or let donors buy policy.

  9. Sookie 9
    21 October 2011 at 7:28 am

    I will feel less like drinking 3 bottles of wine and breaking some shit on election night if we can get rid of those contemptible ACT pricks. I am not hopeful enough that it will result in a Lab-Greens government, but it’s better than nothing. Labour and Greens voters should definitely vote strategically in this one. I’m sick to death of Epsom foisting these idiots on the rest of the country.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      21 October 2011 at 7:39 am

      ACT dying an overdue death would be great. And we better not get a National-Greens government.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 7:55 am

        Watch National ‘move left’ in the next month to occupy the space left by labours move even further left.

        We have seen a hint with the Kiwisaver policy. Unfortunately its one of those ‘whenever’ type policies so far in the future that will never happen. BUt they are concerned enough to try it.

        • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1
          21 October 2011 at 11:35 am

          Yeah, Labour has definitely gone leftwards.

          With act going into meltdown and more financial troubles, National might creak a little to the left too.

      • Ianupnorth 9.1.2
        21 October 2011 at 10:51 am

        If they do join forces with the Nats I’d expect to see a split in their ranks, and they would go down the credibility gurgler faster than the maori Party

        • Lanthanide 9.1.2.1
          21 October 2011 at 1:58 pm

          I’m not so sure.

          We may be in the case where we a forced to have a National + Green coalition, or force a new election. That’s a lose-lose situation, because it would give parties like Act a second chance to get back in (because they’d almost certainly be out if a Nat + Green coalition were required) and parties like NZ First would probably get an even lower share of the votes if they hadn’t made it in either.

          A pragmatic and risky confidence and supply agreement between the Greens and National could look like this: we will vote for you in confidence and supply providing that we voted along side you for 66% of the 3rd reading of all government bills up until the point where the confidence and supply vote was required.

          That gives National the latitude to put things through that the Greens are against. It would become a true tit-for-tat (unlike most coalition agreements) where National would be forced to come to compromises over many bills and therefore they could pick and choose which bills to compromise on.

      • mik e 9.1.3
        21 October 2011 at 7:44 pm

        I put it dowm to Global warming they way the Dinosaurs went

      • outofbed 9.1.4
        21 October 2011 at 9:18 pm

        And we better not get a National-Greens government.

        no fucking chance

  10. Craig Glen Eden 10
    21 October 2011 at 7:47 am

    The other thing is if Act die National will have no body they can blame their right wing polices on.

    Just who the chickens belong to would be pretty clear.

  11. Zaphod Beeblebrox 11
    21 October 2011 at 8:32 am

    Parker should go for the win IMO.

    He’s not far behind Banks and who knows how many Goldsmith voters in the poll are Labour.
    He’s guarnateed to out-campaign both of those twits and he is sure to pull in a lot of disinchanted tories, who BTW will still vote Nat on the list. If Key insults them telling them how to vote, he will do even better.

    He is actually the perfect candidate for a seat like this. I say go for it.

    • Tom Gould 11.1
      21 October 2011 at 8:52 am

      If Key is hearing the same unsavoury rumours about Banksie circulating in Epsom, he is right to hold off on an endorsement. He ignored the Worth rumours and look what happened.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 11.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 9:03 am

        Lets see if he starts sucking up to the Greens. That will be the signal he has given up on ACT.

  12. the sprout 12
    21 October 2011 at 9:54 am

    looking like a dead darleck, and that’s before Banks’ major skeleton of this election has been let out of the closet.

  13. alex 13
    21 October 2011 at 10:25 am

    I love it that Key will need to put his reputation on the line by backing ACT. I really hope he personally makes that announcement, as it is therefore his problem. Any journos out there should get onto getting a straight answer out of Key about Epsom, you would most definitely get a story out of it.

  14. gobsmacked 14
    21 October 2011 at 11:28 am

    The essential lesson here is … never do your voter-manipulating and general shenanigans in an electorate that is a short walk from the TV newsrooms.

    Journos can pop into Newmarket, pick up their sushi, get out the camera for a bit of vox pop knife-twisting on ACT, grab a coffee and have the story done in ten minutes. The obligatory live cross is no more than a pit stop, on their way home.

    ACT and National should have done a deal with Don Nicolson in gumboot country, miles from the nearest panini. No chance of the telly himbos and bimbos chasing a story down among the cowpats.

    • Lanthanide 14.1
      21 October 2011 at 11:31 am

      I kinda feel sorry for Don. He’s at #3, but given that Banks is at #5, he’s incredibly unlikely to make it back into parliament on Act’s current polling. All that work for nothing.

  15. Lanthanide 15
    21 October 2011 at 11:29 am

    If Act implodes at this election, we might see the Conservative party take their place at the next:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1110/S00294/new-citizens-party-exit-election-race.htm

  16. Kty 16
    21 October 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Just looked at 3news web site Key will not vote for Banks in Epsom

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-will-not-vote-for-Banks-in-Epsom/tabid/419/articleID/230336/Default.aspx

    sorry dont know how to post web address yet.

    • The Voice of Reason 16.1
      21 October 2011 at 1:00 pm

      Well, that might just be the death knell for Banks. I wonder if Key knows the same stuff the Sprout knows and is desperately trying to put distance between himself and Banks before the word gets out? The odd bit is Banks being so certain Key was going to vote for him. Could it be that the PM is breaking yet another promise?

      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 7:45 pm

        Keys a currency trader. Bank’s currency is about to plunge, which means that Key is going to short the fuck out of it.

        So if ACT goes into a deathspiral, wait for Key bag the shit out of Brash and Banks in order to get the ACT votes back to NAT.

  17. Kty 17
    21 October 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Just looked at 3news web site Key will not vote for Banks in Epsom

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-will-not-vote-for-Banks-in-Epsom/tabid/419/articleID/230336/Default.aspx

    sorry dont know how to post web address yet.

    • Pascal's bookie 17.1
      21 October 2011 at 1:14 pm

      They’re having a wee cry about it in the NBR, all but begging Key to be even more explicit, and stop being so ‘fuzzy’, so that the intelligent voters of Epsom might finally get the fucking hint.

      • Mac1 17.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 1:35 pm

        “Yet Key made it perfectly clear where his votes will be going.
        “I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National,” he said.”

        Cripes, NBR don’t think this is explicit? I wonder what their porn movies are like…….

    • queenstfarmer 17.2
      21 October 2011 at 4:01 pm

      I wonder if Key is sending other signals here. Regardless, it’s getting to the point where he should just put Act out of it’s (and National’s) misery. With friends like Act….

  18. Pete George 18
    21 October 2011 at 1:09 pm

    If Epsom voters do the right thing and electorate vote on merit then David Parker should win Epsom.

    • Lanthanide 18.1
      21 October 2011 at 2:15 pm

      So Pete, John Key doesn’t have any qualms telling us who he’ll vote for.

      Still above doing so yourself though, right?

      • Pete George 18.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 2:30 pm

        I’ll be asking everyone in Dunedin North to seriously consider voting for me and for UF, and I’ll be doing everything I can to prove I’m worthy of consideration.

        I won’t be asking anyone to tell me who they are going to vote for.

        • Lanthanide 18.1.1.1
          21 October 2011 at 2:39 pm

          Always avoiding the question.

          • Tom Gould 18.1.1.1.1
            21 October 2011 at 3:46 pm

            Banksie is dog tucker, now Key has had all the rumours checked and verified. I understand the advice to Key was ‘run for your life’ from this political train wreck or it will dent you too. Time for Banks to hang up his spurs and retire gracefully from public life?

          • felix 18.1.1.1.2
            21 October 2011 at 4:31 pm

            I know it’s fun poking him with a stick, but really why does Pete have to tell anyone who he’s voting for?

            Don’t candidates have the same right as anyone to vote however they want? There could be a perfectly good strategic reason for Pete to vote for someone else.

            Doesn’t the principle of secret ballots apply to candidates too?

            • Lanthanide 18.1.1.1.2.1
              21 October 2011 at 5:42 pm

              Sure, he doesn’t have to answer us. But when the topic first came up he made a series of somewhat evasive and prevaricating replies on the issue and has on more than a couple of occasions said it’s “obvious who [he] will vote for” but still refuses to say who that is.

              Another point is I think you’ll find that if you ask most candidates who they’d vote for, they’d say themselves, of course. Pete isn’t willing to say that, and it raises questions as to why. Maybe he actually isn’t planning on voting for himself? Why should anyone else vote for him if he won’t? He’s also said that he’ll decide closer to the day, or on the day itself – again what sort of candidate is hesitant to back their own party? Maybe he just wants privacy, as you’re suggesting, in which case that should have been his answer the whole time, but it wasn’t.

              • Pete George …
                21 October 2011 at 7:12 pm

                I have previously made it clear that my practice is to decide how to vote on election day. I don’t know what’s going to happen over the next five weeks.

                I have previously made it clear it is a secret ballot and my private business how I vote.

                I have previously made it clear it is obvious how I’ll probably vote.

                I have previously made it clear there are circumstances where a candidate may not vote for themselves, for example Paul Goldsmith.

                Despite all this commenters here have claimed I will vote a particular way, and that it is somehow some terrible thing to not state how I will vote. This whole subject is a bizarre pointless sideshow.

                • adriank …
                  21 October 2011 at 10:41 pm

                  I’m as against UF as the next person round here and, come 26/11, I will be hopefully involved in electing a candidate in Charles Chauvel who won’t embarrass Ohariu like the current joke but I must say I have a lot of respect for how Pete George is not afraid to mix it with dissenting voices on this board and make himself and his views public.

                  Harassing him about how he’s intending to vote is tactless and disrespectful, IMO.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    21 October 2011 at 10:44 pm

                    Pete George is a cynical joke of a wanna be MP, as insincere as a used vacuum cleaner salesman and just as trustworthy.

                    • adriank …
                      21 October 2011 at 10:51 pm

                      And yet we don’t see any National, ACT or Maori Party MPs in here willing to exchange views with their staunch opposition. If PG is that bad, what does that make all of them?

                      Credit where credit is due, CV… what would Adama think of your attitude?!?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 October 2011 at 10:59 pm

                      Adama would say “sometimes, you’ve got to roll the hard six”.

                      And as for what he thought of Pete George? Pete George as an insincere and manipulative asshole can get left on Ragnar Anchorage for the good of humanity.

                      And yet we don’t see any National, ACT or Maori Party MPs in here

                      PG isn’t an MP. And there aren’t any United Future MPs here willing to confront their staunch opposition either.

        • mik e 18.1.1.2
          21 October 2011 at 7:47 pm

          UF should do a deal with ACT And join forces then they will have 2.3% support we could all it ACTUFF

  19. randal 19
    21 October 2011 at 2:05 pm

    john banks is a loud mouthed little misanthrope and msyogynist too.
    the same thing is going to happen to him as the last time he stood for office.
    a big fat zero.

  20. fmacskasy 20
    21 October 2011 at 3:45 pm

    As Kty said above, Key has sounded the death knell for ACT;

    “Key won’t back Banks in Epsom ”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5829963/Key-won-t-back-Banks-in-Epsom

    The final nail in ACT’s coffin.

    So much for critics of MMP who maintain that proportional representation gives too much power to small parties. Yeah, right. That should be on the tombstones of The Alliance, NZ DFirst, and now ACT.

    United Future died a long time ago as well – but like a good zombie movie, it just refuses to acknowledge it’s death.

    • Pete George 20.1
      21 October 2011 at 3:59 pm

      UnitedFuture hasn’t died, continued stable leadership and at the very least UF will almost certainly hang in there, and there’s plenty of opportunity to grow this election.

      It’s quite feasible people willl see the sense in maybe half a dozen seats for United Future to maintain stable government with National with or without Maori – and without Act who must be history.

      The alternative is looking less attractive by the week, Greens with a sliding 1970s version Labour, the Mana/Unite/Occupy Party and Winston Peters (who won’t take the piss) and Maori Party.

      • marty mars 20.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 4:17 pm

        ‘the Mana/Unite/Occupy Party’ – as usual your attempted insult is a compliment and that’s because you and your shitty hairstyle party are irrelevant. UF is like a rotting dead sloth in a tree, holding on by a thread, just about to fall forever and decompose on the forest floor.

      • fmacskasy 20.1.2
        21 October 2011 at 7:13 pm

        “UnitedFuture hasn’t died, continued stable leadership and at the very least UF will almost certainly hang in there, and there’s plenty of opportunity to grow this election.

        It’s quite feasible people willl see the sense in maybe half a dozen seats for United Future to maintain stable government with National with or without Maori – and without Act who must be history.”

        Um… yeah… ok… *shrugs*

        The alternative is looking less attractive by the week, Greens with a sliding 1970s version Labour, the Mana/Unite/Occupy Party…

        Well considering that the Greens and Mana Party oppose asset sales; oppose the neo-liberal agenda; support workers’ rights… So, what part of all that do you disagree with?

        Considering that Friedmanite, neo-liberal voo-doo economic ideology has plunged the global economy into crisis, then recession, and back into crisis again – you’ll excuse me if I view UF with anything but with grave suspicion.

        Criticising the Greens and Mana Party, when they were nowhere near Wall St, USA, is like, pointless.

        I keep pointing out; how richly ironic it is that the New Right bang on about Personal Responsibility. Except when they cause a mess, of course. Then it’s someone else’s fault.

        Let’s see… collapse of Lehmann Bros – bloody solo-mums!! Collapse of Eurozone – bloody Maori and their “grievance industry”! Near default of US and it’s US$14 trillion debt – bloody dole-bludgers!

        Oh gosh, what fun that is when the inmates rule the asylum…

        As you were, Pete.

  21. jaymam 21
    21 October 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I’m glad to see that Labour is covering up the David Parker billboards in Epsom. I think it is the correct strategy for everyone to vote Goldsmith, unless Parker suddenly goes very high in the polls, which isn’t going to happen.
    National have removed their Goldsmith billboards.
    Will Labour put up some Vote Goldsmith signs?

    • McFlock 21.1
      21 October 2011 at 4:25 pm

      One farcical possibility is that the only party campaigning for its electorate MP becomes ACT – National put up ACT billboards while Labour and the Greens put up National billboards.

    • felix 21.2
      21 October 2011 at 4:38 pm

      How are they covering them, jaymam?

      • jaymam 21.2.1
        21 October 2011 at 5:04 pm

        There’s a picture of Shane Jones, for Tamaki Makaurau, covering up what was a picture of David Parker. Another Labour billboard in Epsom simply has a comment about asset sales and no mention of David Parker. Which of course is an excellent strategy for Labour.

      • Colonial Viper 21.2.2
        21 October 2011 at 7:14 pm

        Maybe someone can drive down Manakau Rd and tell us what is going on down there.

      • jaymam 21.3.1
        21 October 2011 at 7:27 pm

        What? Is there something you don’t understand about voting for Goldsmith? Anyone who votes for anyone else in Epsom is clearly stupid.

        • fmacskasy 21.3.1.1
          21 October 2011 at 10:52 pm

          No. What I don’t get is this;

          “I’m glad to see that Labour is covering up the David Parker billboards in Epsom. I think it is the correct strategy for everyone to vote Goldsmith, unless Parker suddenly goes very high in the polls, which isn’t going to happen.
          National have removed their Goldsmith billboards.
          Will Labour put up some Vote Goldsmith signs?”

          That’s a fairly bizarre post to make.

  22. Puddleglum 22
    21 October 2011 at 5:54 pm

    For the first time, ipredict have ACT out of the game. (as of 5:53pm, 21 Oct)

    • the sprout 23.1
      21 October 2011 at 9:21 pm

      pretty biting piece from Gower…

      Epsom has always been a disgusting dirty deal, but to my mind it will get even filthier if John Key uses his substantial political capital to save ACT

      • outofbed 23.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 10:00 pm

        Gower seems to be growing some balls

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1
          21 October 2011 at 10:48 pm

          The most interesting thing is that this ball growing must have some level of approval from his “boss” Garner.

          • the sprout 23.1.1.1.1
            22 October 2011 at 12:26 pm

            Gower is said to be replacing Garner after the election.
            Garner is leaving TV3 before it goes bankrupt (financially that is, its editorial integrity went broke some time ago)

    • fmacskasy 23.2
      21 October 2011 at 11:01 pm

      Thanks for that, Puddlegum. Gower certainly calls it like it is, with one exception.

      If ACT comes back with two MPs, and gives Key a one-person majority, that indeed gives him a second term in government…

      …until the first by-election.

      But that is way of in the future.

      The rest of Gower’s piece is spot on.

  24. randal 24
    21 October 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Just heard john banks on the radio. he says act have 60 people on the ground in Epsom.
    I hope Labour organises a similar cohort to go there too and get the message out that if New Zealand is to have fair government and considered policies as opposed to keyjerk flubbing the right decison is to vote for Labour.
    Appropos of nothing how do you tell the difference between a weasel and a stoat. A weasel is weasily distinguished but a stoat is stotallly different.
    so who is the stoat and who is the weasel?

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      21 October 2011 at 7:47 pm

      Rodney Hide must be laughing his ass off.

      • fmacskasy 24.1.1
        21 October 2011 at 11:04 pm

        F**k yeah!! I’d say he’d be reading the daily papers and listening to the News with rapturous attention.

        What’s that old Klingon proverb? Oh yes, “revenge is a dish best served cold”. I’d say ACT’s corpse will be very, very cold the day after 26 November.

        Problem is; where will the ACToids end up? National? Not exactly a very comforting prospect…

      • Lanthanide 24.1.2
        22 October 2011 at 1:57 pm

        I don’t think Rodney would take much pleasure seeing his party destroyed.

        • Colonial Viper 24.1.2.1
          25 October 2011 at 12:18 am

          The pleasure is in seeing those who backstabbed him (the ACT board, Key, Brash, Banks) get stuffed.

  25. tc 25
    22 October 2011 at 10:26 am

    Maybe NZFirst can be bought up and re enacted, the pockets sure are deep enough.

    Banks was always a dodgy call, f’d up the mayoral election twice and has the persona of a born to rule inbreed twat with the snout always in a trough……like to see him and Brash be pitched some questions about Hulich to reinforce the dodgy factor.

  26. Penny Bright 26
    22 October 2011 at 10:31 am

    OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY FROM INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WATCHDOG CANDIDATE FOR EPSOM – PENNY BRIGHT.

    21 October 2011

    ”Dear Prime Minister John Key,

    [Please link to extended statements in future rather than copying and pasting]

    • Penny Bright 26.1
      22 October 2011 at 10:52 am

      Sorry about that – but I know a lot of people are unfamiliar with John Key’s former Wall Street ‘bank$ter’ background.
      My posting of the same ‘extended statements’ appears to have helped to encourage debate on Kiwiblog – FYI.
      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/general_debate_22_october_2011.html#comment-892315

      Penny Bright

      • just saying 26.1.1
        22 October 2011 at 1:10 pm

        Yes. I’ve been thinking Key’s (publicly known and undisputed) past should be an election issue, and should have been last time. The timing might be better now MSM is being forced to give at least some coverage to the issues behind OWS.

        In the interests of being well-informed in my bad-mouthing him in the run-up to the election: I remember hearing about his involvement in betting against the NZ dollar and costing this country millions (quite legally) in a previous life. True?, partly true?, false?

        • Penny Bright 26.1.1.1
          22 October 2011 at 1:30 pm

          Ev has done a lot of research on that issue.
          I haven’t.
          (YET).

          I suggest that folk perhaps now start paying a lot more attention to the information that Ev has spent years researching and collating?

          Cheers!
          Penny Bright

  27. millsy 27
    22 October 2011 at 11:33 am

    I really hope Banks get beaten. I really fear for the future of this nation with him and Brash at the cabinet table.

  28. randal 28
    22 October 2011 at 2:14 pm

    The nats and act have the instincts of a vacuum cleaner and the training of cost accountants.
    They have no finer feelings or respect for anyhting except how much they can amass and keep the score within their grasping peer group.
    Its all kep hidden behind a seemingly rational ideology (supplied by right wing think tanks) but when it is exposed to the sunlight its just greed and avarice pure and simple.

  29. Craig 29
    23 October 2011 at 3:24 pm

    I must say, I think it’s unusual that David Parker is in third place. Have there been no candidate debates in Epsom? Banks’ mayoral past experience notwithstanding, I imagine that as a former Cabinet Minister, David would probably clean the floor with both of them. If I were him, I’d pressure the other two to hold one, and see what happens…

  30. fmacskasy 30
    25 October 2011 at 12:01 am

    It beggars belief that a Party leader could ask voters in a given electorate to vote for the candidate of another Party – whilst he himself supports his own Party’s candidate. John Key has stated categorically,

    “‘I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National. ”

    One wonders how National supporters in Epsom must be feeling.

    The leader of their Party hints that they should vote for ACT’s John Banks, whilst Key himself votes for the National candidate, Paul Goldsmith?

    And if Paul Goldsmith is the “sacificial lamb” – why is he standing as an electorate candidate anyway? National could just as easily – and more honestly – simply not stand a candidate and mount a publicity campaign for the Party Vote only?

    In effect, National’s electorate candidate is not really campaigning to win. And if he doesn’t want to win, why is he standing? To give Epsom National supporters a “wink and a nod” to Electorate Vote ACT and Party Vote National?

    And if such is the case – what possible legitimacy does that give ACT when they can’t attract electorate support on their own merits?

    So much for ACT being a Party that encourages success through merit. Especially when they apply the merit-based principle to Maori: http://www.act.org.nz/posts/maori-must-earn-auckland-seats-on-merit-%E2%80%93-by-guest-author-denise-cameron

    As the ACT statement sez; “Let our bright boys and girls EARN their seats.“