Easy come, easy go

Written By: - Date published: 6:51 am, December 17th, 2011 - 143 comments
Categories: election 2011 - Tags: , ,

The judicial recount has given Waitakere back to Bennett. By 9 votes. Could swing back on a high court petition. Who knows who really has more support out west. Sepuloni and Bennett are essentially as popular as each other. Just shows the stupidity of winner take all electoral systems.

But Sepuloni would have been smarter to be more gracious after the specials came in. Don’t add fodder for the Right’s ‘nasty party’ meme. We all know they’re the nasty buggers in truth. But they’re really good at it. So good they don’t get pulled up.

143 comments on “Easy come, easy go ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    17 December 2011 at 7:14 am

    Zetetic, maybe you would have been smarter to have avoided the nastiness meme. Labelling a whole political grouping or party as ‘nasty’ sounds, well, a bit nasty. You could have used your own advice to Sepuloni, but I guess it depends on how you want to represent what you support.

    The bitterness of defeat will subside. I hope this political nastiness will subside too, it’s a sad waste of emotion.

  2. tsmithfield 2
    17 December 2011 at 7:34 am

    Zet, I know the left is a little lacking in fond feelings towards Bennett. But at least she knows how to win graciously.

    From the article, Bennett said:

    “Actually I know what a loss feels like because that’s what I felt last Saturday so I actually feel some sympathy for her because it hurts.”

    If someone can’t be gracious even when they win, then it surely has to be their true colours on display. So, I think National has actually done Labour a big favour with this result, by keeping someone out of parliament who seems likely to reinforce the “nasty” image that is being painted of the Labour party..

    I know there is the tantalising possibility of an electoral position with the possibility of unseating Bennett from parliament from what appears to be the case under electoral law. But I seriously doubt that Labour will bother, although nothing would surprise me.

    Firstly, Sepuloni herself has said this is highly unlikely.

    Secondly, it is an expensive course of action with the balance of probability against success.

    Thirdly, even if they do succeed, National will still have a majority and will be able to govern.

    Fourthly, this action would be highly unsettling and unfair on Huo, who has already been through his share of ups and downs with this election.

    Finally, Labour might well consider they will be better served by having Huo on the team anyway.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1
      17 December 2011 at 8:50 am

      National has a majority ????

      They have 59 seats, a majority is 61.

      If the court decides in favour of Sepuloni, Bennett is out of parliament AND nationals seat tally falls to 58.

      Thats right the rest of the MPs are ‘in’ and Bennett doesnt come back on the list ( and push the tailender off)

      This means to pass any legislation National needs Banks AND Dunne AND the Maori Party. Good luck with that for 3 years.

      • tsmithfield 2.1.1
        17 December 2011 at 8:56 am

        Thanks for picking me up on my error. I should have said the National coalition still has a majority.

        • Jim Nald 2.1.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 10:53 am

          A colleague who is a staunch Nat voter said she is a bit concerned with a couple of National MPs who could turn out to be Richard Worths and Pansy Wongs.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.2
        17 December 2011 at 8:58 am

        If this actually happens it’ll underline the fact that Phil Goff left the leaders position far too early.

      • The Voice of Reason 2.1.3
        17 December 2011 at 9:16 am

        Ghost, the seat tally for National does not change. It’s based on the party vote, so if they win Waitakere, a list member drops off. The same for Labour. Bennett is an MP, win or lose. She was a list MP for the last few days, now she’s an electorate MP.
         
        Labour probably won’t challenge the result, as this count was meticulously done and scrutinised by both parties. It’s not going to change now.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.3.1
          17 December 2011 at 12:27 pm

          Yes, this is my take on it too VoR.

          After the election is all finalised, then the party vote ceases to matter, eg, if they lose a by-election the new winner takes that seat in parliament.

          But this Waitakere seat is part of the general election process, so ultimately if Sepuloni won on a court challenge Bennett would still be there.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.3.2
          17 December 2011 at 8:44 pm

          No. That is not correct. Once the writs in are thats it for the party talleys for proportionality

          As this is an electorate seat, if Bennett is unseated than she is gone from parliament till next election.

          No backdoor through the list as she was an electorate MP when the the writs were returned and doesnt qualify for the list in the life of this parliament

      • sthnjeff 2.1.4
        19 December 2011 at 9:41 am

        Deluded with no idea how MMP works. Ghost

        Bennett would have returned as a list MP anyway and the number of MPS would be unaffected as this is an electoral vote only.

    • seeker 2.2
      17 December 2011 at 4:21 pm

      tsmithfield

      “at least she knows how to win graciously”

      Oh pleeeeeease……….. remember this:-
      Feeling aggrieved at criticism from Labour over cancelling the TIA, Bennett outs private information about the mothers who dared to query the cancellation in the first place, as some form of retaliation or ‘punishment’ for upsetting her. Paula Bennett said that she just wanted the criticism to stop. Oh well that’s OK then.

      Paula Bennett gracious ts? I don’t think so.
      Do anything, like abuse her position as a minister of the crown, IMO, and potentially break the law to get her own back or punish, is more ‘dangerous bully’ or ‘spoilt brat’ than ‘gracious’.

      And what’s more this horrible happening is still not resolved, thanks to a long,long process of justice.

  3. *_* 3
    17 December 2011 at 7:53 am

    At least Huo is not given to toxic bitter outbursts and despite his lack of achievements is clearly a better choice and a valuable link to the ethnic chinese community despite Labour love affair with racist xenophobes.

    To the dole queue with Carmel then or maybe even a real job (if she’s even capable of that)

  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    17 December 2011 at 8:14 am

    There are “togs, undies” lines all over Waitakere that reveal the socio economic shifts as clearly as the St Heliers/Glenn Innes boundary. The best solution would be a higher voter turnout, but that chance is long gone for 2011. So the courts are the remaining battle field.

    There seems something suspicious here, redolent of Hunua all those years ago that is worthy of investigation. Bennett plays dirty (beneficiary breach of privacy case, residents leant on by Nat team to remove Labour hoardings) and should be put to the highest legal test.

    Electorates such as Christchurch central, let the result now stand, some voters just moved away. Ditto Auckland central. But this one, given that a number of local people are subject to the tender mercies of Bennett’s punative WINZ due to her tory governments under performance is of significance.

  5. weka 5
    17 December 2011 at 9:12 am

    BENNETT, Paula NAT 13,457

    BRADFORD, Sue MANA 320

    LYE, Jeff ALCP 330

    MOUNTAIN, Danny CNSP 609

    OSBORNE, Peter LIB 55

    SEPULONI, Carmel LAB 13,468

    TOLLESTRUP, Steve GP 1,846

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/electorate-57.html

    (they obviously haven’t updated their website yet).

    What I want to know is why so many Green Party voters wanted Bennett rather than Sepuloni as their electorate MP. Ditto the small number of Mana party voters.

    • Tigger 5.1
      17 December 2011 at 9:20 am

      I want to slap left voters who weren’t as savvy as the right voters – imagine Key’s problem if Epsom and Ohariu delivered a different result. 

    • The Voice of Reason 5.2
      17 December 2011 at 9:21 am

      It’s even worse in AK Central, weka. The Greens there have overwhelmingly supported Nikki Kaye to be their MP, by idiotically wasting their electorate vote on Denise Roche.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.1
        17 December 2011 at 10:18 am

        Facepalms all round Auckland, so-called lefties. Co-ordinate and talk in 2014 ***please***.

        • Jackal 5.2.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 11:44 am

          There’s been a bit of discussion on frogblog about this. Personally I think the fact that there are so many left parties while really only one on the right is again going to be a huge problem in 2014.

          Some decisive action needs to be undertaken by left party leaders to firstly educate people about VOTING STRATEGICALLY and secondly ONLY CAMPAIGNING FOR THE PARTY VOTE. This should even go so far as to NOT STAND IN CERTAIN ELECTORATES.

          Unless the left can put their egos aside and find common ground, the divided we fall dynamic will continue to be problematic.

          • Tangled up in blue 5.2.1.1.1
            17 December 2011 at 6:18 pm

            This should even go so far as to NOT STAND IN CERTAIN ELECTORATES.

            Yes

          • Ari 5.2.1.1.2
            17 December 2011 at 6:39 pm

            Standing electorate candidates influences the party vote. I’d rather the Greens inadvertently convinced people to vote for their electorate candidates than that they lost party votes. The Greens told people this election quite explicitly that they don’t want their electorate votes, so any votes they do get are already from people who either:
            1) Wouldn’t be easy to reach with any appeal not to “spoil” their electorate vote,
            2) Don’t care about the Labour candidate winning and would never vote for them even if there wasn’t a Green candidate.

            Now, if Labour genuinely wants to do team campaigning, I think not standing candidates in certain electorates and instead giving a “We want you to party vote for us, and electorate vote for her!” message together with the Greens, I think that’s great. But that doesn’t happen unless there’s support and team work from both sides.

            • felix 5.2.1.1.2.1
              18 December 2011 at 12:59 am

              Yep Labour need to come to the party (sorry 😉 ) here and make it worthwhile for the Greens.

              Also, to your 1) and 2) I’d add 3) Don’t understand mmp at all. I meet Green voters at every election who genuinely think that voting for the candidate is helping the Greens win seats.

              Does my tiny little head in I tells ya.

            • Vicky32 5.2.1.1.2.2
              18 December 2011 at 3:55 pm

              Don’t care about the Labour candidate winning and would never vote for them even if there wasn’t a Green candidate.

              Are these the Blue-Greens, then? They’re a worry.

    • Bill 5.3
      17 December 2011 at 9:27 am

      Don’t know if I’m correct in saying this. My understanding is that it costs money to stand an electoral candidate. But if a certain %age of the electoral vote is gained, then deposits are returned. Therefore, it can make sense to vote for a ‘no chance’ candidate.

      That said, it’s bloody stupid to cast a vote on that basis (assuming it’s a correct understanding of how shit works) in a close run electorate.

      Why not have candidates publicly announce their preferred alternative representative in the case where they themselves are unsuccessful and have their vote tally assigned accordingly?

      Bearing in mind that, if (stupidly) Bradford had announced the Greens candidate as a preference and Tollestup had announced Bradford as a preference, then the same result would eventuate.

      • weka 5.3.1
        17 December 2011 at 9:53 am

        Well without having to change the electoral system, here’s what could happen.

        The left could embrace and support tactical voting. This would mean the parties on the left talking to each other and negotiating concessions. Someone commented elsewhere that the GP couldn’t afford to not stand in the electorates as they needed all the publicity they could get. The GP was going after both votes. I think that needs to change in the next three years but the GP is only going to do that if there is some degree of collaboration on the left between the other parties. I still don’t understand why the left is so agin this idea.

        The left could educate voters on tactical voting. In this election there were two issues – the electoral vote (examples above) and the party vote for Mana (I know people who wanted to vote Mana but didn’t seem to understand that if Mana got enough electoral seats their party vote was wasted). There are still too many voters who don’t understand how the voting system works and how it plays out the day after the election.

        • Bill 5.3.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 10:08 am

          Well, when you’ve got (finally did) Ph Goff, announcing on TV that people in Epsom should vote for who they consider to be the best candidate…

          Yup. Beyond me.

          Maybe there are too many people of the left whose feelings of smugness and superiority at being ‘morally correct’ in voting ‘honestly’ blind them to the stupidity of their actions?

          • newsense 5.3.1.1.1
            17 December 2011 at 10:38 am

            Cos Sue has delivered in parliament? And not everyone likes Labour or could bring themselves to vote for their candidate?

          • Ari 5.3.1.1.2
            17 December 2011 at 6:48 pm

            Expressive voting where voting honestly tends to be the best long-term strategy has long been a goal of the left. I don’t think we should see it as a weakness so much as an aspiration for a system where you can’t “waste” any part of your vote.

        • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.2
          17 December 2011 at 10:12 am

          +1

          The left have to get over themselves and start playing the rules of the game smarter. If we don’t, we are more likely to end up with Tory governments who fuck our futures up.

          • Ant 5.3.1.2.1
            17 December 2011 at 11:52 am

            Just need STV/MMP hybrid, but until that happens the left need to communicate and organize.

            • AndrewK 5.3.1.2.1.1
              18 December 2011 at 11:20 am

              When I look at the results in a large number of electorates I am left wondering why the Labour Party isn’t pushing hard for introducing STV into the electorate vote. Paula Bennett is a long way from a majority if the Green votes alone are added to the Labour votes (even with the Conservative and Libertarianz votes added to the National Party tally [interestingly, it does not appear ACT ran a candidate in Waitakere].)

    • Blue 5.4
      17 December 2011 at 11:46 am

      They have updated them now.

      Interesting to see that the other candidates have also had their votes recounted and their totals have changed too.

      Sue Bradford gains 2, the ACLP candidate up one, Conservative candidate up 2, and the Green candidate gains 9.

      Just how much inaccuracy is there with counting votes? It seems horribly unreliable.

      Are these spoiled ballots or is it just that the people counting the votes on election night are terrible at arithmetic?

    • Sam 5.5
      17 December 2011 at 4:15 pm

      A lot of people who voted Green are disgruntled labourites.
      It is thus not not in the Green Party’s interest to be nice to Labour, that won’t gain them anything.
      The Greens don’t need labour, it is now the other way round, Labour needs th eGreens.
      That is why Shearer has already sucked up to the Greens with his “Clean, Green and Clever” slogan.
      He knows he needs to become a Green-lite party to ensure Labour’s survival in the short term.
      Labour used to be the party of the working man not any more, it is now the party of 3rd rate lawyers, failed teachers/university lecturers and beneficiaries. With Damian O’Connor’s “gaggle of gays” thrown in for good measure.
      So the long term goal for Shearer needs to be to re-connect with the working population, who they have lost to NZFirst and the Greens at this elelction.

      • Ari 5.5.1
        17 December 2011 at 6:52 pm

        I don’t like the labour party, but it has some very positive constituents, including more centrist or right-wing queers, public servants, educators of all sorts, progressive economists, (yes, they exist…) internationalists, and so on. It simply needs to broaden its coalition with a group more defined than “middle new zealand”, which is a code word for undecided centrists without any bloody principles at all.

  6. bob 6
    17 December 2011 at 9:14 am

    Sorry to disappoint but if Paula lost the seat on a judicial petition national would still have 59 seats. Paula would simply become a list mp. This is how mmp works.

    • Pete George 6.1
      17 December 2011 at 9:30 am

      There seems to be uncertainty over this.

      Electoral law specialist Graeme Edgeler believes that is the only way to interpret the Electoral Act which says a seat shall become vacant if on an electoral petition the High Court or Court of Appeal declares his or her election void.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10773715

      But if as VoR suggests this count was done meticulously and thoroughly scrutinised taking this to a petition may moot and could be an expensive distraction – and probably futile.

      More on it from Graeme:

      Why is this? Well, a policy decision was taken that finality was more important than proportionality, and the possibility that an election petition (or by-election) could change multiple seats (e.g. by removing a party from Parliament because it no longer passed the one seat threshold) months after an election was thought to be the greater evil

      http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/paulas-peril-or-the-uncertain-scenario/

      • mickysavage 6.1.1
        17 December 2011 at 6:55 pm

        Um no, a Judicial Recount is exactly that.  An electoral petition gives the court considerable powers to investigate all sorts of things, such as whether voters were actually qualified and how much the candidate spent on the campaign.

        The recount is precisely that, a recount, although the Judge has the powers to review decisions to disallow votes.

  7. Olwyn 7
    17 December 2011 at 10:25 am

    The right’s “nasty party meme” follows the form of the interaction between the bully and the bullied, at a school yard level. A group of teenage girls goad another girl; “How come you’re so fat?” “Is that your mother’s dress you’re wearing?” or similar, until she lashes out and cries “Just F off!” to which they say, “See, now she’s being nasty.”

    At least some of the people who support Carmel Sepuloni have had their insecurity compounded under Bennett’s rule, and a bit of straight talking when the hope of seeing the back of her comes up ought to be expected.

    Note that the right wingers who employ that meme do not count it as nastiness when the blowtorch is turned on the poor and dispossessed: then it is not nasty, it is just stating the obvious.

    “Not nasty, angry!” should be the reply, not “Well I’ll try to be nice then.”

    • millsy 7.1
      17 December 2011 at 11:00 am

      Exactly. The right have dished it out in spade for years, and then when they get a reaction its all high and mighty. Somehow the left is expected to be all nice and respectful.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        17 December 2011 at 11:36 am

        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-14122011/#comment-417440

        Riots during the Great Depression. This is the ‘nastiness’ which has been coming to town all across Europe.

        And Time Magazine’s just announced person of the year? The Protestor.

        • Treetop 7.1.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 12:30 pm

          Off the thread topic a bit, but yesterday on TV 3 midday news, foreclosure on 4 million homes in the US, (not sure of the time period for this). People cannot afford to even live in caravan parks so they are now living in tents on the desert fringe.

          On Stuff.co.nz today more on housing unaffordability in NZ.

          The protestor is the voice for many against capitalistic greed.

      • chris73 7.1.2
        17 December 2011 at 12:30 pm

        Not quite but just to clarfy for the lefties, its not that the right don’t like it when its dished out its that we (and middle NZ) don’t like it when the left try to position themselves as being “nice” when in fact they’re quite nasty (as nasty as the right in fact)

        Just stop trying to portray yourself as being “nice” and no one will have any problems with the left doing what the left does so well ie being sneaky, snarky and underhand (which is all good in politics)

  8. nadis 8
    17 December 2011 at 10:45 am

    Just shows the stupidity of winner take all electoral systems.

    Don’t you mean “Just shows the stupidity of the Labour Party list rankings.”

  9. james 111 9
    17 December 2011 at 11:10 am

    Yes agree with your comments about Sepuloni hardly statesman like, maybe better out of Parliament until she develops some social skills. I dont believe Labour wants another Clare Curran in the team. What is interesting is all the disallowed votes for the Left our West was there a bit of vote rigging going on?

  10. gingercrush 10
    17 December 2011 at 11:28 am

    A lot of Green voters clearly did vote Ardern and in Waitakere a number of green voters voted Sepuloni. And if you actually look at Epsom and Ohariu you’ll actually see that a lot of right-wing voters aren’t that savvy as Goldsmith and Shanks still received a substantial amount of electorate votes from National voters.

    The problem with electorates is basically the contest is set up where it actually is a disincentive to stand a candidate (for it risks you getting votes in a contest you essentially can’t win) But if you don’t stand a candidate there is a huge risk that you won’t get as many party votes as you could get. Hence, why an additional vote (simply because its more simplistic than either PV or STV and would be more immune to invalid voting) scenario would be helpful. As if you were given two votes in electorates. One vote for your preferred and another for the alternative. I can imagine the vast number of Green voters would have ticked the Labour candidate and in Ohariu and Epsom at least, John Banks and Peter Dunne would have received most of the alternative vote.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      17 December 2011 at 11:32 am

      Don’t mistake National supporters voting for Goldsmith as a ‘lack of savvy’. Many of them voted that way because John Banks makes them ill.

    • weka 10.2
      17 December 2011 at 11:46 am

      “But if you don’t stand a candidate there is a huge risk that you won’t get as many party votes as you could get.”

      Can you please explain that, ginger?

      But even if the GP needed to stand someone in Waitakere to increase their party vote there, that doesn’t explain why the people who voted GP for the electorate vote did so. Did they not care who their electorate MP would be, or did they not realise the implications of their vote?

      • alwyn 10.2.1
        17 December 2011 at 1:39 pm

        Most of the campaigning done by everyone, except the Party leader, is either at meetings of the candidates, letters into letter boxes or by hoardings at the roadside. I live in Wellington Central and we did not get a single visit from a candidate or party rep from any of the parties.
        If a party doesn’t have a candidate standing in the electorate there will be no-one at candidates meetings to present the party case. Out of sight, out of mind really does apply so your party vote tends to fall.
        A candidate is also allowed to spend (I think it is) $20,000 dollars on their electorate campaign. This is over and above the amount a party is allowed to spend nationally. If you don’t have a candidate you don’t get to put up the hoardings or send out any pamphlets, so again you don’t get the chance to put your case.
        If you want to take part, therefore, in most campaign activities you have to run electorate candidates.

  11. Treetop 11
    17 December 2011 at 11:55 am

    The election may have been won by the right but the left are going to fight with all their might to try and stop energy asset sales. I am somewhat confused about, how those on the right, who are against asset sales, voted for asset sales.

    Bennett can have her seat (which is controversial) if National STOP asset sales.

  12. Fotran 12
    17 December 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Labour do not have $100,000 – $200,000 to have an Election Petition. Should Sepuloni lose, which is equally possible, what a waste of money. Huo is a Labour money getter, so he is probably a better substitute. There is no change to the number of MPs.
    Electoral Petitions open up a multitude of possibilities, which are carefully reviewed, starting at voting eligibility, and this alone can bring up serious anomolies.
    Better left alone.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      17 December 2011 at 1:16 pm

      More advice from the right wing for Labour. Scared of losing a majority in the House mate?

    • Lanthanide 12.2
      17 December 2011 at 2:30 pm

      $100-200k seems like a small price to pay to protect our assets.

      • *_* 12.2.1
        17 December 2011 at 6:28 pm

        Ante up then from your own pocket.

        Oh I forgot, as a socialist you expect someone else to pay.

        • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 7:33 pm

          Bullshit

          The socialisation of private sector losses on to Joe Public is the specialty of crony capitalism.

          • *_* 12.2.1.1.1
            17 December 2011 at 10:02 pm

            I actually agree with you on this.

            But the costs should be made transparent for the public to debate and ultimately decide at the ballot box.

            As I recall it was the Labour govnt who decided to institute a bank guarantee in 2008.

            • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2011 at 11:36 pm

              As I recall it was the Labour govnt who decided to institute a bank guarantee in 2008.

              Yep it was a mechanism that National used to sign and resign finance companies which weren’t eligible and would have fallen outside Labour’s guarantee.

              Ultimately, English used it to backstop hundreds of millions of SCF speculation which should have been severely haircut.

        • Lanthanide 12.2.1.2
          18 December 2011 at 10:07 am

          If I had a sufficiently large fortune so that $100-200k was just a small fraction of it, then I probably would.

  13. drongo 13
    17 December 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Shows how dumb the general NZ voter is. Polls show up to 80% oppose asset sales but we put the ones who’re going to do it right back there so that they can. Same with Bennett, i suspect. all that tart cart claptrap combined with a bit of pseudo-caring Christine Rankin-speak bullshit and people give her the vote without really knowing why. We get what we deserve, a bunch of Banskey money-grubbing dirt bags who’ll sell us further down the river we’ve ever been before. I hope they sell the lot because we’re so hopeless and deserve to be severely punished for what we’ve done. There’s no other way we’re ever going to learn, so bring it on, Mr Key, get rid of everything as quickly as you can – just get it over with – we need to be punished now for being so stupid as to put you and your greedy mates back in charge.

    • Mehere 13.1
      18 December 2011 at 12:00 am

      nah, this shows how realistic and not idealistic the NZ electorate is. Voters are smart enough to tell the difference between wholesale asset sales and the mixed ownership model the National were proposing. 

      They’re also pragmatic enough to realise that these are extraordinary times that require some extraordinary solutions and a part privastisation of national assets is probably a good compromise when compared to a 100% sell off.

      You might patronisingly think the electorate are “dumb” but I think they smartly weighed up the options and voted for the most pragmatic solution.

      By campaigning on the “No Asset Sales” mantra, Labour misinterpreted the voting intentions of the electorate.

      Fucking idiots. Just like you.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        18 December 2011 at 12:10 am

        Mixed ownership model is just a start, National will fully privatise all those SOEs if it gets a third term.

        They’re also pragmatic enough to realise that these are extraordinary times that require some extraordinary solutions and a part privastisation of national assets is probably a good compromise when compared to a 100% sell off.

        BS. The correct solution would be to generate an extra $750M pa in taxes from the top 5% wealth holders in this country. Over a decade that would raise far more than these asset sales.

        Further the loss of income stream from those assets starts hurting NZ around year 9. The loss of 100% control over the assets starts hurting us from day 1.

        • Ant 13.1.1.1
          18 December 2011 at 12:22 am

          LOL you’d have to be a fucking idiot to sell any interest in an asset that is a necessity of life for it’s customers, is in a near monopoly position, and is efficient and making a good return. It’s a dumb move by any standard.

      • Jum 13.1.2
        18 December 2011 at 1:07 am

        No Mehere.

        The only thing Labour misinterpreted or more importantly overestimated was the voters’ ability to interpret the weasel-speak of Key and do their own homework on the various parties.

        The media admired Key’s cunning of having the election so soon after the RWC – another proof that Key knew the New Zealand voter had ‘more important things’ on their minds than doing a bit of intelligent political analysis.

        I wonder if the ‘smart’ public know how little control they will ever have again over any percentage of the assets once a part of them is sold. TPPA will see to that.

        Your cunning Mr Key has ensured the sell-off of the most valuable parts of our $220billion of New Zealand owned assets first because even he knows that the ‘smart’ ‘realistic’ voters will eventually wake up – but, and I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear this, too late for the damage to be stopped.

        Seriously, Mehere, does Key give you copy pills to take so you can regurgitate his buzz words. ‘Pragmatic’, ‘mixed ownership model’ so on ad nauseum.

      • drongo 13.1.3
        18 December 2011 at 1:10 am

        Mehere – Key could tell you anything and you’d believe him. That’s the trouble, people are too stupid to see through his facade. They will begin to soon, though, although that doesn’t include you) because the cracks are beginning to get too obvious (although not obvious enough for you). The question is whether it’ll be too late and everything’s gone (although you won’t notice and think there’s only been a “partial sell-off” because “John Key said so”). Get a grip, man.

    • Mehere 13.2
      18 December 2011 at 11:17 pm

      You guys need to get a reality check and realise how the average kiwi thinks. 

      In the mind of the voter when it came to asset sales, the two arguments were this:

      Labour: Hey, I know there are tough economic times ahead but no matter what, never ever will we sell any stake whatsoever in our valuable state owned assets. Nosiree! How about we increase the government’s income by introducing a bunch of new taxes instead?

      National:  Hey, I know there are tough economic times ahead but we need to be a bit realistic here. I know you don’t want to sell off our state assets but how about we sell a minority share of them but the government keeps the controlling share, freeing up the money to spend in other areas.

      Boiled down, those were the two arguments. The election results speak for themselves. The electorate overwhelmingly voted for the pragmatic National  approach over Labour’s ideological approach.

      You guys can blah blah blah until the cows come home on The Standard but it won’t change the fact that the electorate voted smartly and National won the mandate to enact their election pledges.

      Calling the electorate dumb, ignorant or whatever because they didn’t vote the way you wanted them to is not going to win you many more votes in 2014. Get smarter people!

      By the way, I’m not a dyed in the wool Tory. I’m one of those unpredictable swing voters who will vote for the party that’s proposing the best future direction for New Zealand, a country I’m very fond of.

      This year I voted for National. Suck it up Drongo, you fuckwit.

      • Colonial Viper 13.2.1
        18 December 2011 at 11:48 pm

        Shame you don’t understand that selling off our best money making assets worsens New Zealand’s long term fiscal position, it doesn’t improve it.

        Further, increasing taxes on the wealthiest in NZ by a very affordable $650M to $750M pa brings in the same money within 4-5 years as selling off our assets…but we get to keep them and their income streams for the next generation as well!

        Grow a brain RWNJ

        • Mehere 13.2.1.1
          19 December 2011 at 12:13 am

          yeah, yeah, whatever, label me as a RWNJ if that makes you feel better.

          Do you do that to everyone who holds a different opinion to you, CV? In that case you’ve written off over half the electorate as RWNJ’s.

          Remind me, how is your pointless demonising of ordinary voters helping Labour to reconnect with the mainstream electorate again?

          It’s an interesting strategy that you have there.

          • Jum 13.2.1.1.1
            19 December 2011 at 12:54 am

            Mehere,

            Some questions:

            You say you are a swinging voter. When did you decide to swing to Key and National?

            What did you swing for?

            I’m interested because when you speak, as you are saying you are doing, for the ‘average’ voter, I noted that you have picked up Key-speak. Does that mean that everything he said he would do is fine by you because you are influenced enough to use his words?

            I have a problem with every voter being fine with everything Key said, but because e.g. he called asset sales by a different name, as you have, and not sold them off completely so far (hiding the fact that sovereign control of an asset disappears when any part of it is sold) somehow makes the sell-off less of a sell-off.

            When you agreed with his sell-off, did you understand at that time that the continued billions of dollars still being handed over in tax cuts could have been used instead of the sell-offs meaning we kept the assets and more importantly the continuing dividends? We also would have saved a heap of interest on the huge borrowings Key made to cover the tax cuts, which did not give ‘the average voter’ much of an increase. In fact so many of them are now out of work they get no tax cuts at all.

            Did you also know that Key was borrowing a million dollars more each week than he needed to, which doesn’t seem to be mentioned anymore, but which has ratcheted up the interest costs somewhat?

            • Mehere 13.2.1.1.1.1
              19 December 2011 at 1:38 am

              Hey Jum, it’s a bit late to answer all your questions. I might have a look at them tomorrow.

              But, for what it’s worth, I’m quite happy to share with you my voting history to prove my credentials as a swinging voter.

              I’m sure that CV and many others here will find this abhorrent as it’s not a vote by rote for Labour year after year after year, but here goes…

              1990 LABOUR (my first election, for Lianne Dalziel in CHCH Central)

              1993 LABOUR (for Jim Sutton, voting in Timaru)

              1996 PV: ACT, EV: LABOUR (First MMP election, still voting in Timaru)

              1999: PV: NATIONAL, EV: NATIONAL (I wasn’t keen at all on Helen Clark, voting in Hutt South)

              2002: PV: LABOUR, EV: LABOUR (I’d warmed to Helen Clark at this point and was quite happy to give Labour another go, voting in Rongatai)

              2005: PV: MAORI, EV: LABOUR (I was quite keen on seeing Pita and Turiana both getting in that year, I thought a party vote might help, voting in Rongatai and Annette King for local MP)

              2008: PV: NATIONAL, EV: LABOUR (Voting in Rongatai, voted for National for government and Annette King for local MP)

              2011: PV: NATIONAL, EV/; NATIONAL (Voting in Wellington Central)

              Well, that was quite an exercise, a bit of a blast from the past for me!

              Hopefully that gives you an insight into how some of us non-partisan folks vote. Yeah, we could just pick the red or the blue team and vote for them every year no matter what, but I value my vote more than that.

      • drongo 13.2.2
        19 December 2011 at 1:17 am

        “Boiled down, those were the two arguments.”
        No, you’re wrong, because you’re assuming Key’s telling the truth. Just watch how easily “partial” sales turn into a full blown sell-off.

        “The election results speak for themselves.”
        How do you explain how up to 80% of people, if you can believe the polls, say they don’t want asset sales?

        “The electorate overwhelmingly voted for the pragmatic National approach over Labour’s ideological approach.”
        No, again because of the overwhelmingly large number of people who’ve said they don’t want assets sold. You can’t explain this away by saying that people don’t agree in principle with asset sales but voted for them “because it’s the pragmatic thing to do” because the question people were asked is whether they support asset sales, i.e. whether they want the government to sell assets. This suggests that the electorate are stupid and will above all else vote for a cardboard cut-out that seems “nice” and comes across, less and less nowadays I might add, as “plausible”. That’s pure stupidity in anyone’s book (except yours).

        • Mehere 13.2.2.1
          19 December 2011 at 2:15 am

          yes, you’re absolutely right drongo, the electorate are “stupid” and they will “above all else vote for a cardboard cut-out that seems nice … and comes across, less and less nowadays as plausible”

          This is what is wrong with you Labour zealots, you think that the National voting electorate are stupid. Spoiler alert, we’re not. But anyway, keep on thinking that, because I don’t really care.
           
          Despite the public opinion and the overwhelming election results against you, you somehow delude yourself into thinking you capture the hearts and minds of ordinary, mainstream New Zealanders.

          Get a dose of reality, fool.

          • fender 13.2.2.1.1
            19 December 2011 at 2:25 am

            It’s not all that bad though, they were conned by a well oiled bunch of con-artists, so don’t be too harsh on easily led fickle voters.

            • Mehere 13.2.2.1.1.1
              19 December 2011 at 3:20 am

              Cool, don’t bother thinking about your vote and giving it the due consideration it deserves, just go on voting red like a dysfuctional robot if that’s all you know how to do.

              • Mehere …
                19 December 2011 at 3:35 am

                Hey fender, just vote for the party you voted for last time and the time before that and the time before that and the time before that and the time before that and the time before that and the… just like a broken record. It’s the easiest voting strategy for simpletons like yourself.

                • felix …
                  19 December 2011 at 8:41 am

                  Pull your fucking head in, Mehere.

                  People commenting and posting here vote for a range of parties and candidates that they feel represent their interests.

                  There’s nothing in your voting record that shows any special insights into democracy, so if you’re here for a discussion then drop the patronising bullshit.

                  • Mehere …
                    21 December 2011 at 1:16 am

                    Score! The king of lefty condescension described me as ‘patronising’… I’ll chalk that up as a win!

                    Have a great Christmas and New Year Felix. I’m looking forward to being a more argumentative and patronising prick with you folk over the next three years of this dreadful government 🙂

                    But for now fuck it, it’s Christmas. Time to put politics aside and just enjoy the company of family and friends and the great kiwi summer.

                    Have a good one Felix. I hope to rattle your dags again next year! 

                • fender …
                  19 December 2011 at 12:26 pm

                  Rather than employ your voting “strategy” I’ll make a decision on who to support based on their policies and plans for the whole country. Progressive policies that futher everybodys lives not just those at the top of the heap, but thanks for your “advice” and insight into a typical Nact voters thought process.

          • felix 13.2.2.1.2
            19 December 2011 at 8:34 am

            “Despite the public opinion and the overwhelming election results against you, you somehow delude yourself into thinking you capture the hearts and minds of ordinary, mainstream New Zealanders.”

            No, only about half of them. Same as you, Mehere.

  14. Pundit X 14
    17 December 2011 at 3:54 pm

    I think we’ve been here before.. As Steve Tollestrup’s Campaign Manager I can say we did everything we possibly could to make it clear the Greens were only seeking the party vote. Unfortunately for some Green voters it would appear Labour is a toxic brand. and they simply won’t vote Labour under any circumstances particularly when the polls are showing National as a shoe in and there is no incentive to vote Labour.

    I foresaw there might be a problem and wrote to Goff in February suggesting Labour get together with the Greens at national level to look at ways we might overcome the issue of Labour’s electorate vote going to Green candidates. Goff never replied.. Is it likely Shearer will take a different view? Unfortunately I doubt it.

    • AlphaKiwi 14.1
      17 December 2011 at 4:05 pm

      Best way is for the Greens and Labour to agree not to stand in the same electorates. Maybe a third could have only Green candidates standing and two thirds have only Labour candidates standing.

      • Sam 14.1.1
        17 December 2011 at 4:21 pm

        Why would the Greens do that.
        It is Labour that needs the Greens, they are doing nicely already.
        The Greens would probably say – we stand in 2/3 of the electorates and you, Labour, stand in the other 1/3.

        • AlphaKiwi 14.1.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 5:03 pm

          That would be fine by me, too.

        • Pete George 14.1.1.2
          17 December 2011 at 5:19 pm

          Maybe parties need to think of different ways of trying to achieve what they want. The can’t just expect to stand candidates in electorates and expect all voters inclined towards their party to vote the same way. Voters have man reasons for choosing how to vote, and even those who vote strategically will think different strategies.

          The only way of ensuring no one will vote for a party’s candidate is not to stand one.

    • mickysavage 14.2
      17 December 2011 at 7:34 pm

      Oh Pundit, Steve said publicly he was endorsing Carmel and then it was shut down.  All the greens had to do was let him keep saying this.  It did not take a letter to Goff to achieve this.

      And meanwhile we have three more years of Bennett being a pseudo westie and driving a car that looks like a leopard.

      Westies deserve better. 

      • tc 14.2.1
        17 December 2011 at 9:22 pm

        NZ desrved better…apathy was the winner so bend over my felow country folk here it comes.

      • Pundit X 14.2.2
        17 December 2011 at 9:30 pm

        Au contraire Mickey the Greens went more than extra mile for Carmel for which there was no reciprocation on Labour’s part. You and Carmel met with Steve in August and offered him a deal which he was not in a position to accept without consulting the party nationally which I did. I then wrote to you and Carmel saying:
        “I understand you and Carmel have had an informal discussion with Steve last Friday regarding a joint campaign strategy in the Waitakere electorate. The Greens are always open to korero. If the Labour Party want to discuss some form of potential deal in Waitakere the Party should in the first instance contact our party co convener Roland Sapsford to discuss. Roland’s contact details are: roland.sapsford@greens.org.nz mobile 021 651 105.”

        Carmel wrote back saying:
        “I’m not looking to strike any formal deals, however I do hope to have a collegial relationship with Steve and any other like minded parties whilst out on the hustings.” The relationship was collegial.

        13,457 voted for Bennett. Amongst those voters were voters who had previously voted for Labour. Instead of white anting the Greens a good start might be an attempt to win back some of those voters. You only need a dozen..

        • chris73 14.2.2.1
          17 December 2011 at 11:20 pm

          Ouch

          Thats gotta hurt

        • Mehere 14.2.2.2
          17 December 2011 at 11:40 pm

          This is great entertainment, I should have got more popcorn in… carry on!

          • Chris Oden 14.2.2.2.1
            19 December 2011 at 11:43 am

            Waiting to hear your answer to Jums questions. Do it while you’re having your popcorn.

        • Ant 14.2.2.3
          18 December 2011 at 12:32 am

          How about Labour and the Greens both use their fucking smarts, you need a formal deal between leaders to exercise some common sense?

          • Pete George 14.2.2.3.1
            18 December 2011 at 7:45 am

            They got themselves in a bind on this, they heavily criticised National, Act and United Future for doing deals in the open so they had to try and fumble undercover. Inevitably they couldn’t keep all collusion hidden, this was apparent in Auckland Central, and Gareth Hughes ran a two faced campaign in Ohariu claiming in one sentence it was all up to the voters to decide while he blatantly promoted Chauvel in the next dozen.

          • Jum 14.2.2.3.2
            26 December 2011 at 5:04 pm

            Ant

            It’s what I have always thought about Islam. People always laud the pure form of Islam. Yet it is always usurped by the greedy, the selfish, the misogynistic and the just plain Hitlerish.

            With people in charge of anything we always end up with the tainted and the tarnished rather than the pure and the polished. Greed and power really are evil.

            Instead of each party voting on the purity of bills they deal in power. Pete George is a clear example of greed and the need to excuse his hero Key for the garbage this government is trotting out – i.e. shitting on the people of New Zealand. Kiwis will wake up to that far too late. Key knows that.

        • mickysavage 14.2.2.4
          18 December 2011 at 8:12 am

          Um PX I get the feeling that this debate is going nowhere but you just proved my point. Steve publicly endorsed Carmel but the Greens then shut it down. There was no need for a “deal” all that had to happen was for Steve to be allowed to speak his mind. I thought the greens were all in favour of that sort of thing.

          • higherstandard 14.2.2.4.1
            18 December 2011 at 8:31 am

            Quite right Greg – how dare the Greens have their own strategy, candidates and policies don’t they know their job is to be subservient to Labour’s whims and to take instructions from Labour activists.

            • Colonial Viper 14.2.2.4.1.1
              18 December 2011 at 9:48 am

              That’s right. The Green’s need to take some lessons from how ACT kowtows to National for instance. At least ACT know how to grovel like proper functionaries.

              • Higherstandard …
                18 December 2011 at 9:59 am

                Act knew its only hope was to kowtow to National – they are an irrelevant party inhabited by has been oddities, the greens are a serious political party with a significant following and future.

                • Jum …
                  26 December 2011 at 5:11 pm

                  higherstandard – change your name – you don’t deserve it.

                  Banks was always National. He now gets his place back around the cabinet table ready to do Key’s bidding and taking the blame for Key’s agenda whereupon they both end up with knighthoods throwing a once worthy royal bestowing into disrepute – shame on you and them.

                  The mere fact that you pretend to them being separate political parties deserves the utmost contempt.

                • Jum …
                  26 December 2011 at 5:23 pm

                  higherstandard – Banks and Key will be in bad company with Douglas and Fay, etc. The royal knighthoods of Queen Elizabeth II are really just payoffs.

                  I respect the Queen immensely but people like you and your masters have brought Her quality and majesty to a new low.

                  Unless I was wrong about Her self-respect as well… I listened to the Queen’s message yesterday – what a shame if that was just hype.

                  She might mean it but when She’s having to spread the message of people like you then Her time of relevance is nearing its end.

          • Pundit X 14.2.2.4.2
            18 December 2011 at 11:21 am

            Mickey you seem to want to rewrite history for the benefit of your fellow Labour members on this thread. There was no formal endorsement of Carmel just an off the cuff remark in front of eight people mostly her campaign team… There was no shut down. Carmel told the Herald that Steve endorsed her candacy. We let that stand rather than qualify it. White anting the Greens for the loss of a seat that was directly attributable to a poor campaign by Lynne Pillay’s team in 2008 isn’t going to encourage the Greens to further dialogue in 2014. Get your house in order mate. As David Cunliffe said, you’ve just been shellacked for the second time..

            • The Voice of Reason 14.2.2.4.2.1
              18 December 2011 at 11:30 am

              So did you encourage, however subtly, Green voters to electorate vote Carmel? Or did you, instead, enable Bennett by default?

              • Pundit X …
                18 December 2011 at 12:40 pm

                You have the facts VoR. Don’t try and put words in my mouth. One thing that seems to have eluded everyone thus far in this korero is the vainglorious run by Sue Bradford. Any accurate assessment of her candidacy would have to conclude she brought nothing fresh to the table but took 320 votes that almost certainly did NOT come from National voters.

                • Ant …
                  18 December 2011 at 12:53 pm

                  LOL did you just call out Sue Bradford?

                  I really hope you never get anywhere serious up the Green hierarchy.

                  She’s not there to be fresh, she’s there for the people who have always existed and constantly been ignored or swept under the rug.

                  What a cock.

                  • Pundit X …
                    18 December 2011 at 1:06 pm

                    You obviously didn’t read what I wrote Ant. For the less politically sophisticated amongst us I will spell it out and try and use words of one syllable.. Bradford offered no policy gains for the poor or disenfranchised that wasn’t being put forward by the Greens or Labour. Moreover had she won she would have had no way of implementing any of the policies she espoused. Sorry about the syllables Ant you’ll just have to use a dictionary..

                    • Ant …
                      18 December 2011 at 1:35 pm

                      So how do the Greens implement policy then? Is it some magic way that is different to everyone else in parliament?

                      Or does it rely on exactly the same mechanism that Mana is seeking to use?

                      What Bradford via Mana offered, was a bottom line that neither the Greens or Labour have because they are parties that rely on a broad base of support. Love it or hate it the Greens are a mainstream political party now.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  18 December 2011 at 12:53 pm

                  How can I put words in your mouth by asking a question, pundit X? And would you care to answer the question?
                   
                  The reason I asked is that two Green candidates around my way specifically endorsed the Labour candidate and made it very clear they were only standing to lift the party vote. It was very mature and most encouraging for me as a fan of pre-election voting blocs and seat by seat arrangements.
                   
                  Agree about Mana, though, had the same problem in the two electorates I was working in. One plonker in particular seemed to think taking votes off the Labour candidate was why he was standing.

                  • Pundit X …
                    18 December 2011 at 1:35 pm

                    VoR It may only be of historical interest but the Greens hoped to attract party votes from National by campaigning as an independent party and not committing to Labour a a coalition partner. Key recognised belatedly that it was a good strategy by saying any deal with the Greens was off the table as they were firmly in the Labour camp. It was a strategy that worked for the Greens. one third of the party votes from the specials that gave Bennett their electorate vote was for the Greens. In that situation it simply isn’t possible for Green candidates to openly endorse Labour electorate candidates. Steve voted for Carmel and told anyone who brought up the subject that he intended to. Within the constraints of our campaign nationally we went the extra mile for Carmel. Next time Labour needs muzzle belligerents like Mickey and come to the table with a serious proposal if we don’t want a repeat of this and other results nationally.

  15. billE 15
    17 December 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Bennett’s career took off when she was given a great position for three years by a Murray McCully, she then spent two years in the very absurd business that is modern day REkRUITMANT, IT’S an iterrogation business that is built on dismissing 95% of job applicants according to your genuis business radar.

    She has not worked in real business. She was paid a high living allowance by the National Party, shame on the Waitakere burrough.

  17. john 17
    18 December 2011 at 8:55 am

    Maybe a high court petition should be made as we are looking at changes to MMP and there may well be important lessons from the situation in Waitakere.

    If not due to the cost of a petition then

    How have people been able to vote twice?

    How have people been able to vote if their names don’t appear on the roll?

    Not just 3 or 4 but it appears to be hundreds

    A defeated MP can get back to parliament on the list when the voting public have made a choice and voted he or she out out?

    • joe bloggs 17.1
      18 December 2011 at 9:17 am

      Evidence of dodgy voting has emerged in the battle for Waitakere. A judge has found nine people voted twice and 393 people voted despite not being on the electoral roll.

      Begs the question of how voting papers could be isssued if voters are not on the electoral role.

      I see that Iron Mike scrutinised the recount and doesn’t favour an electoral petition as he thinks it unlikely Sepuloni would win. Looks like game over for Carmel…

      [you can be issued a special vote if you aren’t on the printed roll but say that you enrolled after the cut-off date for the printed roll and live in the electorate. Obviously, some people are going to turn out not to be enrolled at all. It doesn’t mean anything malicious. Eddie]

      • chris73 17.1.1
        18 December 2011 at 10:14 am

        Hey Eddie, That sounds like a Tui Ad

        [sounds like you’re ignorant. About 8% of special votes are disallowed for various reasons. Most of them because it turns out they’re not enrolled anywhere. 17,000 were disallowed for that reason in 2008 – there is nothing special about what happened in Waitakere this time, it was basically the same number as 08. Check out the analysis of disallowed special votes. http://electionresults.org.nz/electionresults_2008/e9/html/e9_part10_3.html Eddie]

  18. prism 18
    18 December 2011 at 9:43 am

    Eddie Thanks for the explanation. I presume that they have to produce some proof of identity like driving licence and some bill to them showing address in that electorate.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 18.1
      18 December 2011 at 10:25 am

      One well known person enrolled in an electorate despite never having lived there.

      Yes thats right John Key has never lived in his Helensville electorate, not that you have to to become the MP.

      But it is a requirement to live at the address you give for at least the previous month when you enroll.

      Key of course cant vote for himself as he is enrolled in Epsom for his address in St Stephens Ave Parnell.

      He did it to curry favour with the party hacks who decided who would be the National candidate at the time- and throw out a sitting National MP which was very unusual. This was a bit dodgy process as well as some of the outsiders got lost and would have not had their vote count.

      So Key started out his political career by an illegal act relating to the electoral process. Pity an electoral petition wasnt done at the time. It certainly would have convicted him of corrupt practice if what is known now had come to light.

  19. henry olongo 19
    18 December 2011 at 10:39 am

    Hey Chris 73- this ‘we’ buzz is pretty funny!
    You & your doppelganger or what champ?

    • chris73 19.1
      18 December 2011 at 10:49 am

      Me and the rest of the population that decided National should be in power and that Labour shouldn’t be I guess (I will admit it was a close run thing thanks to the dodgy, private dealings that Labour tried to get the Greens to go along with ;))

      • ghostwhowalksnz 19.1.1
        18 December 2011 at 11:38 am

        If it was dodgy, then why did National do the same deals with ACT in New Plymouth and in Ohariu. Dont you think it was highly unusual for ACT not to stand against Dunne ? ( it was the only Wellington seat they didnT

        Best of all Nationals lifeline for the next election is NZ First- revenge is a dish best served cold

        • chris73 19.1.1.1
          18 December 2011 at 1:50 pm

          “If it was dodgy, then why did National do the same deals with ACT in New Plymouth and in Ohariu. Dont you think it was highly unusual for ACT not to stand against Dunne ? ( it was the only Wellington seat they didnT”

          – Because every party wants to be in charege and the ends justifies the means but as far as I’m concerned all deals done whether they’re in public or private are dodgy no matter the political party.

          Yes its naive of me but I’d like to think that everyone should vote for the MP and Party they support

          “Best of all Nationals lifeline for the next election is NZ First- revenge is a dish best served cold”

          – Annoying yes but it won’t stop National doing what they want because they”re still in charge and come next election Winstonfirsts support will drift away somewhere else

  20. Jum 20
    20 December 2011 at 9:48 pm

    Mehere …said
    19 December 2011 at 1:38 am

    ‘Hey Jum, it’s a bit late to answer all your questions. I might have a look at them tomorrow.’

    I haven’t had a reply from you on my questions. I’ll repeat them:
    ‘Jum 13.2.1.1.1
    19 December 2011 at 12:54 am

    Mehere,

    Some questions:

    You say you are a swinging voter. When did you decide to swing to Key and National?

    What did you swing for?

    I’m interested because when you speak, as you are saying you are doing, for the ‘average’ voter, I noted that you have picked up Key-speak. Does that mean that everything he said he would do is fine by you because you are influenced enough to use his words?

    I have a problem with every voter being fine with everything Key said, but because e.g. he called asset sales by a different name, as you have, and not sold them off completely so far (hiding the fact that sovereign control of an asset disappears when any part of it is sold) somehow makes the sell-off less of a sell-off.

    When you agreed with his sell-off, did you understand at that time that the continued billions of dollars still being handed over in tax cuts could have been used instead of the sell-offs meaning we kept the assets and more importantly the continuing dividends? We also would have saved a heap of interest on the huge borrowings Key made to cover the tax cuts, which did not give ‘the average voter’ much of an increase. In fact so many of them are now out of work they get no tax cuts at all.

    Did you also know that Key was borrowing a million dollars more each week than he needed to, which doesn’t seem to be mentioned anymore, but which has ratcheted up the interest costs somewhat?’

    Thanks,
    Jum

    • Mehere 20.1
      21 December 2011 at 12:56 am

      Hey Jum. I started writing a detailed reply to your questions and halfway through I thought fuck it, it’s Christmas.

      Fuck off and go and enjoy yourself with your family and friends.

      I think we can agree on one thing, New Zealand is pretty bloody awesome in the summertime. 

      Have a great Christmas and new year. I look forward to engaging you in debate over the next three years of this ‘tyrannical’ government 🙂
       

      • fender 20.1.1
        21 December 2011 at 1:12 am

        Have yourself that simpleton minded xmas you there Mehere

        Yes I objected to your abuse, scroll up if you forgot.

        • Mehere 20.1.1.1
          21 December 2011 at 1:27 am

          ha ha, you too Fender. I’m just being a prick, don’t take me seriously. This is the internet and we’re all fuckwits on the internet.

          Enjoy your Christmas and New Year and the enjoyment of being with your family and friends instead of us internet fuckwits! 🙂

  21. Jum 21
    21 December 2011 at 1:03 am

    Have a good Christmas and New Year yourself.

    PS Do your homework before you debate with me. Politics isn’t a game. Generations after you and I will suffer when people use political power for selfish ends.