Farrar, TV3, coat tails and MMP

Written By: - Date published: 8:53 pm, June 4th, 2014 - 196 comments
Categories: blogs, David Farrar, election 2014, labour, national, same old national - Tags: ,

Earlier today David Farrar breathlessly announced that Labour had decided to remove the electoral coat tail rule.  He declared this as being unconstitutional and said this:

This is absolutely appalling. A Government that will ram through major electoral law changes under , probably with no select committee hearings, and without consensus, is dangerous. Labour have form for this.

It doesn’t matter that I agree that the one seat threshold should go (and submitted that way). That is not the point.

The Electoral Act is not the ultimate winner take all prize for the Government of the day.

The only problem with Farrar’s assertion is that David Cunliffe did not actually say what Farrar claims he said.  He promised to introduce a Government bill that would remove the coat tail rule and then no doubt the Parliament would finally decide on what would happen, as it always does.  Undoubtedly select committee hearings would occur.

Farrar then updated his post by saying “[f]urther reports do not make it clear whether Labour is pledging to pass the law within 100 days, or introduce it within 100 days”.  He could have watched the video.  Then he would have heard David use the word “introduce”.  Must try harder David. 

Then tonight Brooke Sabin on TV3 continued the attack and said that Cunliffe would only get rid of the rule after using it to attain power through the IMP.  Reality calling Brooke Sabin, Labour does not actually have the power to change the law, National does and has refused to change the law.  Hear that?  National wants the coat tail rule in place because it helps National’s quest for power.

I am still scratching my head about Sabin’s claim.  He should criticise Labour for things that it actually does or says, rather than drawing the most extraordinary conclusions relying on events that actually have not happened.  And he could criticise National for refusing to scrap the rule because is considers that it is in National’s advantage to allow ACT, United Future and the Conservatives to coat tail MPs into Parliament.

There obviously needs to be a debate about the current electoral rules.  There actually has been a recent debate.  The Electoral Commission recommended a reduction in the threshold to 4% and removal of the coat tail provision but National shelved the report on the basis that there was not unanimity.  Allowing ACT and United Future a veto over electoral law is ludicrous.  Labour has a Private Member’s bill that has been drawn that implements the Commission’s recommendations.

And there clearly needs to be a debate particularly about where the threshold should be set.  For me I certainly think it should be reduced to 4% and I am open to a greater reduction.

But media when you are reporting on electoral law reform please get your facts right.  Our democracy is far too precious a thing to be damaged by breathless assertions not based in reality.

196 comments on “Farrar, TV3, coat tails and MMP ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. James 1
    4 June 2014 at 9:16 pm

    Can the threshold not be set (or removed) so that if a party gets enough votes for a seat they get a seat?

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      4 June 2014 at 9:59 pm

      Yes, it could be.

      The argument doing this is, and remains, that it would allow small extremist groups an easy ride into Parliament. The Conservatives got 2.65% party vote on the back of $1.88M in campaign spending, 2nd after National and ahead of Labour.

      Now obviously what IMP are doing here isn’t all that dissimilar – a big bank-roll of $3M from an individual, for a party that many would say is extremist (although IP don’t have a fully-formed policy platform yet, Mana certainly do). But that’s why Labour is saying they want to get rid of coat-tailing and suggest dropping the threshold to 4% rather than 1% or other low figure.

      In and of themselves, small extremist or single-issue parties probably aren’t that big a problem. But it starts to become a problem when you end up with 8-10 single MP “parties” that each draw a party leader salary and who are likely to have very different policy agendas, potentially making it difficult to form a stable government. Exactly how influential has Brendan Horan been in parliament, for example?

      In Australia there’s concern that their upcoming senate makeup as a result of the recent elections may be ungovernable and require a new election to resolve – a big waste of time and money.

      • Mike S 1.1.1
        4 June 2014 at 11:39 pm

        I agree with James. Why can’t we just have 100 list seats and if you get 1% of the vote you get 1 seat and so on? That seems the most fair in terms of ‘democracy’. If a small extremist group has over 1% of the population voting for it then do those voters not have a right to be represented by whom they vote for?

        In saying that, I can see the problems you’ve mentioned. Couldn’t a rule be made that you get a seat for 1% but only parties that get 4% plus are allowed to enter into a coalition government or something along those lines? That way the small single issue parties still get a voice in parliament, albeit a small one, without being able to destabilize a potential government.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 9:06 am

          If small parties had no chance of being in government then there really is very little reason to vote for them. Might as well just have a threshold to prevent them being elected and wasting space.

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 8:15 pm

            That isn’t really how Parliament is supposed to work. You don’t need to be in government to change the results of bills, (see all of those times under Labour that cross-bench parties supported bills that coalition partners would not) nor even to have a political impact. Part of the point of small parties is that it gives different communities a voice in Parliament that wouldn’t have on otherwise, even if it doesn’t change the result of votes at all.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 8:23 pm

              A minimum and workably productive 3MP caucus = 2.5% threshold, easy

      • bad12 1.1.2
        4 June 2014 at 11:57 pm

        How influential has Brendon Who been in the current Parliament, Lolz i think you will have to do better than that as an analogy as to why single desk selling MP’s are anathema to the democratic process…

        • weka 1.1.2.1
          5 June 2014 at 12:10 am

          Agreed. Try Peter Dunne then.

          • bad12 1.1.2.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 12:15 am

            Dunne tho won His electorate seat and hasn’t in the current Parliament coat-tailed anyone else into the joint along with Him…

            • Tracey 1.1.2.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 6:57 am

              is there a rule against winning your seat and then gluing yournose to john key’s arsehole?

              • srylands …
                5 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

                Charming. Do you know how disgusting that makes you? What kind of upbringing did you have?

            • weka 1.1.2.1.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 2:09 pm

              I suppose the the thing I was thinking was that even if you get rid of the coattail thing, one MP can have a huge influence on how NZ gets governed. I don’t think the coattail as it currently stands is such an issue, and good on IMP for making it work. If it gets removed I’d like to see something else that doesn’t just futher entrench power in the hands of NACT and Labour.

      • Bearded Git 1.1.3
        5 June 2014 at 10:52 am

        I heard on the ABC that Australia is going to change the way the Senate is elected so that this year’s shambles can’t happen again.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.3.1
          5 June 2014 at 11:44 am

          Yeah, in their case it seems to be a bunch of tiny parties get together and deliberately do deals amongst themselves to game the voting system, which is preferential vote based on a list of candidates. So if your top ranked person doesn’t get enough votes to win, your vote is cycled down to your second ranked person, and so on until one candidate gets enough to win outright. I’m not quite sure how the small parties get people to vote for their particular pre-selected list in the first place, but they deliberately design the lists to dramatically increase the chances that one of their number would be elected, if not explicitly getting to choose whom.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.3.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 12:18 pm

            The Senate voting paper is the size of a small tablecoth.

            Since you must put a preference number in ALL candidates ( normally 25 -50) the voting paper normally has a top of the page ‘above the line’ area where you vote for particular parties. These parties have pre- registered lists of candidates in order and this is where the micro parties come in. They do deals with the other parties to get on the list in higher spots.
            Labour would have its 6 candidates in the first 6 spots and the Liberals in the last 6 and all others in between.

  2. wtl 2
    4 June 2014 at 9:20 pm

    This whole issue is a no-brainer. The government should introduce a bill to enact the recommendations of the MMP review. All MPs should vote to support it. The key point is that the review was independent and not under control of the MPs themselves, as it should be. If the current government will not do this, then the next one should.

    I myself do not agree with the recommended threshold of 4% (I think it should be lower), but I support the process by which the recommendation was made. Therefore, I support the changes as proposed by the Electoral Commission – it would be very egocentric of me to think that my view is necessarily the ‘correct’ view.

  3. Mike the Savage One 3
    4 June 2014 at 9:21 pm

    So what is the bloody problem then? Brooke Sabin just put it into simple terms, as I heard it, saying, Cunliffe would not rule out talking with IMP to form a government, but at the same time after the election wants to pass a law that rules out the coat tailing.

    Of course he could do both, and yes, Sabin may jump to conclusions that perhaps “talking” with IMP may mean that they will be part of the next government. It is all just speculation, that, and it is less speculation that Cunliffe and a Labour led government will do away with the coat tailing, and bring in a straight 4 per cent threshold, and otherwise only have one member represent a seat for one party, if those percentages are not reached.

    Who gives a damn what Farrar is on about, he is there to run the Nat’s election campaign online, so he jumps at any opportunity to hit out at Cunliffe and Labour. He himself may be leaning against coat tailing, but as this election may well depend on the Nats getting their “little allies” in, he will be over apologetic and accepting that coat tailing is right when the Nats get in that way.

    Just more bloody electioneering and debate about trivial bits.

    Cunliffe is right by adopting the Commission’s position, and on that Labour will get support in the wider public. IMP will be a once off event anyway, whether some here support them or not. The agenda is to join forces this election, and oust Key.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      4 June 2014 at 9:30 pm

      So what is the bloody problem then? Brooke Sabin just put it into simple terms, as I heard it, saying, Cunliffe would not rule out talking with IMP to form a government, but at the same time after the election wants to pass a law that rules out the coat tailing.

      The problem is that Labour’s post election behaviour is all speculation but Sabin chose to present it in a way that suggested that Cunliffe was being disingenuous. Did you not hear the dog whistle?

      Labour’s position is clear. Let the result come in and then they will negotiate. The people can actually exercise their choice and then Labour will respect the decision. And the problem with this is?

      Agreed entirely about Farrar …

      • Mike the Savage One 3.1.1
        4 June 2014 at 9:37 pm

        Yes, Sabin sounds like a hint of “dog whistle” at times, but he is rather harmless compared to that sometimes very nasty “Gower man”. Actually I think Sabin is at times fairly good and onto it, he even seems a bit sympathetic to the “green cause”.

        As for his father (just to mention as a side matter), whom we all know, I think there is a typical father – son kind of generational difference, and it may be unwise by some, to suspect he tows the line of his MP dad.

        I still dislike most journalists, but over recent months I feel some have “humbly improved” a bit.

      • Rodel 3.1.2
        4 June 2014 at 10:43 pm

        ms
        “Labour’s position is clear. Let the result come in and then they will negotiate. The people can actually exercise their choice and then Labour will respect the decision. And the problem with this is?”
        The problem is, it’s called democracy.. respecting the decision of the voters….a concept the right wingers don’t understand or subscribe to. They prefer dodgy pre-deals.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      4 June 2014 at 9:40 pm

      IMP will be a once off event anyway, whether some here support them or not.

      I don’t think so. I think their use of Loomio may just have pushed them into a permanent and increasing part of our political environment as it means that the party is listening to the members.

      • Mike the Savage One 3.2.1
        4 June 2014 at 9:44 pm

        Maybe that is true for IP, as my impression is that IMP is an alliance only for this election, and that afterwards Mana and IP will go separate ways, maybe not on all, but on many policies and whatever they want to achieve.

        I am sure that Dotcom will try and keep the Internet Party alive, but given his own rather “capitalist” and “libertarian” views, I cannot see him continue to pump support and money into Mana for years to come.

        This is a strategic effort by him, to unseat Key and the Nats, that is clearly his prime goal, and he is so keen on it, he is bank rolling it “big”.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1
          4 June 2014 at 10:39 pm

          I don’t think Dotcom does anything this big with only short term objectives in mind.

          • Mike the Savage One 3.2.1.1.1
            4 June 2014 at 10:59 pm

            His mind is on advancing the interests of the Internet Party, the alliance with Mana is only a temporary vehicle, I am absolutely sure, to take advantage of skilled politicians, of momentum and simply to beat Key, apart from that Dotcom is NOT a “leftist”, for sure.

            Long term for the IP part of it, not Mana!

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 12:44 am

              I have doubts about your interpretation; I think Dotcom is after strategic political partnerships and will be keen to make it work with Mana.

              • Tracey …
                5 June 2014 at 8:26 am

                my sense he has two immediate priorities

                Key out of pow er
                Gcsb power restricted

                Cant argue with either

              • infused …
                5 June 2014 at 8:56 am

                Kick Key out
                Stop himself being extradited

                Then he won’t give a shit about IP or IMP.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  5 June 2014 at 9:19 am

                  How does that work? The Minister of Justice does what Laila tells them to?

                  Can you spell it out for me so I can laugh at your conspiracist gibberish? Please?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 9:25 am

                Yeah. I suspect his upbringing may have left him more in common with Mana than we think. Union representation on company boards, a parliamentary green tradition going back to the 1980s; Germany’s capitalists came face to face with the three headed beast forty years ago.

                Süß wie.

      • nadis 3.2.2
        5 June 2014 at 10:19 am

        You should read the IP constitution and see where the power to make ALL decisions actually lies constitutionally.

  4. Naki man 4
    4 June 2014 at 10:21 pm

    I don’t think Slim dot con is going to be funding the internet party when he’s locked up and broke, if Banks is found not guilty tomorrow the fat Germans credibility will be zero and IMP will look even more corrupt.

    • Mike the Savage One 4.1
      4 June 2014 at 11:03 pm

      Banksie may indeed get off, on a technicality, and nothing else. It is this stubborn insistence that he did “not know” what he signed, that no details about the donations and accounts were communicated to him, that my decide the case. But everybody knows, that Banks will be discredited for the rest of his life, as he is splitting hairs, he knew full well that behind the amounts and donations were Dotcom and Sky City, and he is playing “Mr Innocent” while being a total hypocrite, none else.

      Banksie did not say he will not stand again for no reason. He knew he is stuffed. Even if he gets “off”, most will not believe the decision is the truth. We have so many in the white collar and other categories “get off”, it is just a sick joke.

      Dotcom won’t gain out of that, but he will also not lose.

    • Tracey 4.2
      5 June 2014 at 10:50 am

      will you also consider the ceo of sky citys credibility shot too, if banks is found not guilty. You conveniently forget who began this prosecution and it wasnt kdc

  5. philj 5
    4 June 2014 at 10:42 pm

    xox
    I really wonder about the standard of the journalists in our MSM. Too many to mention. RNZ quality has slipped since Geof and Simon left.

    • Kiwiri 5.1
      5 June 2014 at 9:30 am

      Starting up independent national media broadcast can be KDC’s next big project!

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    4 June 2014 at 10:48 pm

    2.5% threshold = a 3 MP caucus which is very workable, a leader and 2 minion MPs, plenty of work can be done and collegial frameworks built on, at that scale they’d certainly get more done than ACT, Mana, UF, etc.

    • aerobubble 6.1
      5 June 2014 at 10:28 am

      A hard working electorate MP without a party machine, or a list party needs to work harder for their reward. I disagree with the removal or lowering the threshold to far. 4% seems about right.
      I think its all too clear that white liars like Farrar can too easily stoke up a enough votes for a single MP, and so would destabilize politics too much without a threshold in play. The problem with coat tailing, is the reward is far too great, ACT beat out NZF and ACT would not exist if it weren’t for coat-tailing.

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:58 am

        I have no problem at all with coat tailing being eliminated.

        What annoys me is that under current proposals, at 3.5% of the vote (which is enough mathematically for a sizeable caucus of 5 MPs) a party like IMP will get nothing.

        But at 4% of the vote they suddenly go from nothing, straight to 6 MPs.

        It’s unproportional, and significantly unfair on newer parties, to the advantage of the established players.

  7. weka 7
    4 June 2014 at 10:51 pm

    “Then tonight Brooke Sabin on TV3 continued the attack and said that Cunliffe would only get rid of the rule after using it to attain power through the IMP. Reality calling Brooke Sabin, Labour does not actually have the power to change the law, National does and has refused to change the law. Hear that? National wants the coat tail rule in place because it helps National’s quest for power.”

    That doesn’t make sense micky. I haven’t listened to the TV3 piece, but on the basis of your description, Sabin is saying that Labour will get rid of the rule AFTER the election. That’s when they will have power not NACT.

    Is that not what Labour are intending to do?

  8. georpecom 8
    4 June 2014 at 11:10 pm

    TV3 were remarkably dense about it.

    There is an election that permits coat tailing. People will vote according to that and other rules of MMP as they presently stand. Parliament will be determined according to those rules. The political parties will try to form a government according to those rules.

    If Labour forms a government it will look to change the laws for the NEXT election that follows. People will vote under those revised rules. A government will be formed under those revised rules.

    It does not seem THAT difficult to work out. TV3 must be having a bad news day.

    • bad12 8.1
      5 June 2014 at 11:09 am

      georpecom, and where do ”the people” fit into your neat little scenario, is democracy to you simply a vote once every 3 years and whoever has the upper hand can rig the electoral system for the following contest in any way they see fit,

      my view is 1% must be one seat in the House, having said that i am not suffering an over-enlarged ego so do not for a moment entertain any notion that i am in the majority with such a view,

      However DEMOCRACY would say, nay demand, that any changes to our electoral system be approved by all the people not just a handful of submitters to the Electoral Commission, an effective dictatorship of those best placed to make such submissions,

      A true democracy would decide the pros and cons of such proposals by referendum…

  9. JonoN 9
    4 June 2014 at 11:21 pm

    My issue is that Cunliffe stated that legislation would be introduced within 100 days to amend our Electoral Act. That says to me that if Labour can get a bare majority, they’ll amend, regardless of whether there’s cross-party consensus (note, I’m not saying unanimity).

    Personally, I agree that the coat-tailing rule should be ditched and our threshold lowered, but I don’t like a major party essentially stating that they’ll mess with our democracy without consensus.

    Just because National hasn’t made the changes that were recommended following the consultation process (largely because they thought the status quo was for their electoral benefit), it doesn’t give Labour the right to try and force electoral changes through with whatever majority they can cobble together. Our electoral law is to precious to be fucked with like that, based on whichever political ideology is in power at the time.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      5 June 2014 at 7:10 am

      Our electoral system is being fucked with right now by this government. Since when are the Royal Commission’s recommendations “ideology”?

      Why are you so attracted to hypocrisy?

    • karol 9.2
      5 June 2014 at 7:10 am

      How does “introducing” the Bill within 100 days mean they will amend the law without consensus?

      • Tracey 9.2.1
        5 June 2014 at 7:16 am

        or that they will have the numbers to pass it.

        This is right wing beat up at its worst. And the unthinking mindlessly repeating it. Conveniently forgetting all about the independent mmp review

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2
        5 June 2014 at 7:23 am

        JonoN introduces an impossible hurdle – “consensus” with ACT and the hairpiece isn’t going to happen – to go along with the groundless bullshit about ideology.

        Labour wants to implement the Royal Commission’s recommendations. It seems even Left wing pundits are having trouble cutting through the Tory froth.

        The only good reason not to ram the bill through under urgency is that the next election will be three years away.

        • Tracey 9.2.2.1
          5 June 2014 at 7:31 am

          john key ignores the independent recommendations, does deals to gift seats to other parties, but cunliffe is a hypocrite. God it’s like living in Through the Looking Glass

          • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 7:37 am

            Doubleplusgood.

            Cunliffe is a hypocrite because IMP will support Labour so scrapping the law that let them into parliament hurts Labour. Sticking to a principle is a double standard.

            Brook Sabin is a brilliant journalist.

        • JonoN 9.2.2.2
          5 June 2014 at 9:39 am

          You’ll note I said consensus, not unanimity. I’m not worried if ACT, with it’s 0.6% support, or Peter Dunne, with his 0.1% support, don’t give a thumbs up to getting rid of “coat-tailing”. I do have a problem with pushing through significant electoral law change with a bare majority.

          • aerobubble 9.2.2.2.1
            5 June 2014 at 10:36 am

            That’s the way all laws are legislated. Are you arguing for super majorities, or is your message just designed to negate any progressive politics, since it can be applied quite neo-liberally to anything parliament does. That’s a bare majority, its evil, why is parliament so evil, says you all the time.
            We presently consider electoral law just like any other, that the reality, argue for super majorities around electoral law before you argue its wrong. Its just poor thinking on your part, since anyone can argue that say its not the death penalty, so its just bare punishment and undermine our justice system. In general, any discourse you can find an outlier that has an emotional button and just make such a comparison.

            So which is it, are you arguing for the radical change of super majorities, or are you arguing that all parliament bare majorities are unfair? Are you a revolutionary fanatic who doesn’t agree with the status quo of bare majorities, or a nutter anarchist who believes all government is corrupt?

          • Tracey 9.2.2.2.2
            5 June 2014 at 10:52 am

            what bare majority

            • You_Fool 9.2.2.2.2.1
              6 June 2014 at 12:16 pm

              The one that ignores the will of the people. Labour pushing this through, even under urgency, is not abusing our democracy, it is making parliament catch up with the will of the people. These changes should already be law.

  10. bad12 10
    5 June 2014 at 12:11 am

    Let the people decide by referendum at what % of the Party Vote the electoral thresh-hold should be set, that’s what democracy is,

    Not the few with the liberty to know how to partake in the submission process to the Electoral Commission, i doubt if the average labourer or cleaner in this little berg even knew that submissions were called for let alone they had the ability to participate,

    The elite few doing all the talking to the Electoral Commission simply makes that bodies recommendations the dictatorship of the elite,

    i see little democracy at play here, more like a jack up on behalf of the present parties that have enough support to gain seats making damn sure that in the future they maintain that privilege while denying the entry of any new comers to their little fiefdom…

    • You_Fool 10.1
      6 June 2014 at 12:17 pm

      Do you know how many submissions there were? Maybe look that up before going on about the “elite minority” dictating to the “unwashed masses”

  11. srylands 11
    5 June 2014 at 12:36 am

    “He promised to introduce a Government bill that would remove the coat tail rule..”

    Yes exactly. And he should not.

    You seem to have an obsession with Farrar.

    Leave the electoral system alone. I have no sympathy. Stupid people wanted MMP. Stupid people got what they wanted.

    Changing any aspects of a country’s electoral system is a big deal. It should only be done following a referendum. Cunliffe is playing fast and loose – which is the guts of Farrar’s (correct) post.

    BTW I suggest you ditch that ridiculous photo of him. Using ancient photos to ridicule people is a foolish game. You are aware he looks nothing like that.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      5 June 2014 at 12:42 am

      Leave the electoral system alone. I have no sympathy. Stupid people wanted MMP. Stupid people got what they wanted.

      57.8% of voting NZers chose to keep MMP last time around.

    • Tracey 11.2
      5 June 2014 at 6:55 am

      you seem to have an obsession with standing up for farrar, and what he looks like.

    • Tracey 11.3
      5 June 2014 at 7:00 am

      you and your idol conveniently leave out pesky things like independent reviews and stuff like that. Fundamentally Offensive slylands

      • Gosman 11.3.1
        5 June 2014 at 8:38 am

        The electoral system should only ever be changed if there is broad support amongst all of the key political parties. If a government decides to ignore the view of a party representing well over 40% of the electorate then that is getting in to dangerous territory.

        • framu 11.3.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 8:43 am

          The electoral system should only ever be changed if there is broad support amongst the voters

          and guess what – there already is

          they work for us remember?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.2
          5 June 2014 at 8:49 am

          So if a party, let’s call them The National Party had in this parliamentary term introduced changes to the electoral act that ignored public submissions as well dividing the house, you’d say what?

        • KJT 11.3.1.3
          5 June 2014 at 10:29 am

          The electoral system should only be changed as a result of a binding referendum of the electorate. Fixed it for you.

          Which we already had, and National ignored.

          The public submissions overwhelmingly favoured no coat tails, and a much lower threshold.

          Which was ignored, as National/Act wanted to continue gaming the vote.

          • weka 11.3.1.3.1
            5 June 2014 at 4:05 pm

            We haven’t had a referendum on this issue.

            I’d like to see an analysis of the public submissions. I’m guessing they were mostly made by people in the industry or people/groups affected. They may not reflect the general public’s view. I didn’t follow that process at all so someone can correct me if that’s not true. The submissions are still useful, but need to be understood for what they are.

    • felix 11.4
      5 June 2014 at 7:36 am

      “You are aware he looks nothing like that.”

      Yeah he looks more like Gollum these days. It’s sad when someone spends so much money on their appearance and ends up looking worse than they did before.

      • Gosman 11.4.1
        5 June 2014 at 8:39 am

        And people here call Kiwiblog the sewer. I should bookmark your coment as a rebuttal to that.

        • felix 11.4.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 6:12 pm

          Oh no, someone said something mean about David-The-Worst-Person-In-New-Zealand-Farrar.

          🙄

          A comment as mild as mine wouldn’t even be noticed amidst the racism, sexism, homophobia and religious extremism posted daily on that fuckwit’s blog.

          • srylands 11.4.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 6:50 pm

            I think Kiwiblog is an oasis of rationality.

            • framu 11.4.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2014 at 7:50 am

              see how you didnt make a case for why felix was wrong and just said your cool with kiwiblog?

              does this mean your totes down with “racism, sexism, homophobia and religious extremism”?

              i would watch how much you fling the word “fool” about if i was you

    • framu 11.5
      5 June 2014 at 10:33 am

      ““He promised to introduce a Government bill…Yes exactly. And he should not.”

      you do realise thats how laws are made in NZ dont you?

      • srylands 11.5.1
        5 June 2014 at 12:38 pm

        Fool

        • Tracey 11.5.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 1:40 pm

          Idiot

        • framu 11.5.1.2
          5 June 2014 at 3:25 pm

          why exactly?

          im not the one saying that MPs shouldnt introduce bills to parliament. Do you prefer some other method of law making? – some sort of legislative spin the bottle? or maybe toad licking or something? Shooting icky people who use public transport perhaps? Dingo fights? What exactly? Do things happen differently in australia?

          your not making much of a case for you intelligence

        • You_Fool 11.5.1.3
          6 June 2014 at 12:20 pm

          Yes?

  12. Tracey 12
    5 June 2014 at 6:52 am

    Some major knee jerking going on.

    Does anyone imagine for a minute that some parties find ways around electoral laws, just like amateur sports people used to find ways around the pro rules?

    This is about money more than it is about representation, imo. Colin craig spends shitloads compared to some.

    So lets go back to the efa, the one the right found so abhorrent. Given key has singled out money as being what he finds dirty about dotcom, money to bu influence he says is dirty.

    Of course farrar found that anti democratic. One person one vote meant equal influence, so who knows what version he and key have in mind when they describe democracy.

    Slylands just proved that stupid people vote national.

  13. One Anonymous Bloke 13
    5 June 2014 at 7:15 am

    If Labour is in a position to do away with a rule that enabled it to form a government, and does so, that is called having principles. I suspect the whining from right wing scum may not be quite so loud by then.

    • Tracey 13.1
      5 June 2014 at 7:18 am

      labour are in la la land if they think they can form a government while crapping on their allies

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 7:27 am

        Oh get real. If they can’t stand on their own two feet (not to mention a big pile of cash) they’re not allies they’re excess luggage.

        • Tracey 13.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 7:34 am

          you are a fpp fan?forget imp, labour publically allied themselves to nzf before the greens.

          And in case you havent noticed labour is barely standing at all.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 7:53 am

            I’m an MMP fan. The coat-tail rule distorts the proportionality of Parliament.

            I’m a Green voter.

            Between them Labour and the Greens have a solid base of at least 40% of the electorate. Minor improvement on that will see them form a government. I’d like to see IMP get over 5% and Te Tai Tokerau, and I hope at the very least Hone can win the seat, but have ACT benefited from being the National Party’s dumping ground? Dependency is a poor look.

            • Tracey 13.1.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 7:57 am

              but why have labour publically spoken of dealing with winston while distanving themselves from greens, and in some cases attacking them.

              I do know the coat tailing thing is labour policy so tge hysteria is a beat up.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 8:10 am

                As I recall the main source of those attacks has left the party to become John Key’s compromised-waste-of-space-to-be-put-aside-at-the-earliest-opportunity.

                Unless you mean the attacks according to Jonolism.

                • Tracey …
                  5 June 2014 at 8:24 am

                  he wasnt thrown out oab, he left.

                  And why publically court winston but distance themselves from greens

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 8:33 am

                    Which is why I described him as having left.

                    Every time I hear some Jonolist tell Cunliffe he’s offside with the Greens he says ‘we work closely with them on a range of issues but we don’t agree on everything’ or similar. I can’t recall anyone accusing him of being offside with Winston but there’s always a first time I guess.

                    • Tracey …
                      5 June 2014 at 8:46 am

                      so had national not given him baubles he would still be labour and taking swipes at the greens.

                      Publically saying you will deal with winston is not the same as not saying that you wont deal with the greens.

                      I believe potential coalitinpartners should be moot before people vote. Winston is playing fast and loose with voters but labour will deal with him.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 9:00 am

                      Publically saying you will deal with winston is not the same as not saying that you wont deal with the greens.

                      Working closely with them on a range of issues sounds like dealing with to me, whatever that string of double-negatives unfolds into.

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 8:32 am

              but have ACT benefited from being the National Party’s dumping ground?Dependency is a poor look.

              Oh fucking hell that is totally an FPP mindset. This is MMP. It means that the large parties are always going to be “dependent” on small parties in order to govern, or from a proportional perspective, large parties need minor party “friends”.

              Again OAB yours is a completely arrogant anti-voter attitude.
              Your comment that “dependency is a poor look” is merely one from the perspective of the Big Parties Club.

              The electorate actually LIKES the major parties not having outright majorities. That’s why ONE QUARTER of the electorate voted for someone other than Labour or National last time around.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 8:40 am

                What part of strong allies don’t you understand?

                Do they look like John Banks and Don Brash to you?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2014 at 8:44 am

                  Wow, you must think that these “strong allies” will simply materialise out of thin air fully formed and ready to run on day 1, “strong”, without needing nurturing and support on the way.

                  Plus your attempt to put Harawira and the Mana Movement plus Laila Harre and IP in the same category as Banks and Brash and ACT, is quite revealing of an arrogant, anti-voter choice mindset.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 8:56 am

                    Fuck off. I said unlike Banks etc. they are capable of standing on their own feet. I also said I hope they do. Your feeble insults just make you look like a bit of a Hipkins.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 9:46 am

                    PS: the comparison was between strong allies and Banks/Brash, suggesting that far from being strong allies, Banks and Brash are/were poodles. Please try and keep up.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 9:50 am

                      Even strong allies don’t need their big Labour brother setting the bar higher and higher for them.

                    • Tracey …
                      5 June 2014 at 11:28 am

                      i confess i was confused about what you have been saying on this. I thought you were suggesting labour should do whatever it wants cos it doesnt need greens, imp or whoever.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 3:48 pm

                      Hey, little Hipkins, the party you are a member of, far from setting the bar higher, has a bill in front of Parliament to lower it. Still, why let facts get in your way when you still might be able to salvage a shred of credibility.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 3:52 pm

                      Nah, Tracey, I’m saying Labour (and the Greens for that matter) needs allies with their own electoral support.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 4:22 pm

                      Hey, little Hipkins, the party you are a member of, far from setting the bar higher, has a bill in front of Parliament to lower it. Still, why let facts get in your way when you still might be able to salvage a shred of credibility.

                      You’re playing at being dumb right? But you don’t think that we’re this dumb right?

                      The key here is the coat tailing provision of course. It’s like a genie which grants the lucky minor party which wins an electorate seat full proportionality. So a minor party which wins 2.5% of the vote will likely come into Parliament with 3 MPs. Their electorate winning MP and 2 list MPs.

                      The problem is that all other minor parties are denied this full proportionality unless they get over 4% (Labour’s plan) or 5% (currently).

                      As I’ve said before, I think that a 3MP caucus is a workable and reasonable one, and if a political party wins enough votes to get 3MPs = ~2.5% of the vote it should be represented in Parliament as such.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 4:37 pm

                      Nah, Tracey, I’m saying Labour (and the Greens for that matter) needs allies with their own electoral support.

                      2.5% of the party vote is equivalent to roughly 3MPs. That’s not enough “electoral support” to count in your books?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 4:55 pm

                      If that 2.5% would otherwise have voted Labour (otherwise why would they vote as instructed?) there’s no net gain to the left, in fact it’s a net loss because of resource duplication – although IMP’s millions render that moot.

                      If you’re talking about the changes to MMP I think that’s a separate issue. This is about whether there’s any wisdom in KD stepping aside for HH.

                      I can see some positives if he did, but I can see more if Hone wins regardless, and even more from IMP getting 5% under their own steam (a long shot for September but clearly do-able by 2017).

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 5:54 pm

                      If that 2.5% would otherwise have voted Labour (otherwise why would they vote as instructed?) there’s no net gain to the left,

                      Firstly, Labour is a strictly centrist party, with a mix of mildly Left and mildly Right policy inclinations. So a vote for Labour is hardly a vote for the Left.

                      Secondly – and as the Roy Morgan shows – people aren’t voting Labour they are going elsewhere.

            • bad12 13.1.1.1.1.3
              5 June 2014 at 9:14 am

              Bullshit OAB, the coat-tail rule actually enhances the proportionality of the Parliament, it means that voters who cast a vote for a party that gets under 5% of the Party Vote are less likely to have that vote ”wasted” if like the Internet/Mana alliance an electoral seat is likely to be won…

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 9:30 am

                Um, 2008, ACT, NZ1st, compare and contrast electoral outcomes. Proportionality enhanced much?

                • bad12 …
                  5 June 2014 at 9:38 am

                  Thats just a DUMB comment OAB, clearly state what you are trying to impart instead of spitting invective as a diversion…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 9:50 am

                    Invective? You’re the one yelling.

                    Just compare and contrast the outcome of the 2008 election for the two parties named and notice that proportionality was not enhanced.

                    As Lanth wisely noted, that has more to do with the 5% threshold than the coat-tailing provision, but together they delivered a perverse result.

                    • aerobubble …
                      5 June 2014 at 10:46 am

                      Coat-tailing is wrong since people in Epson take advantage of the rule, and so its not about politics, its about gaming the system. Anyone for coat-tailing, to be credible would also be for removal of the threshold. So why do we have a treashold, so its not too easy to stoke up a rabble and get some nutter politician wasting parliamentary time. Hecklers cost all meeting time, the threshold is there to keep hecklers in check. So apply it uniformly, to electorate MPs. And one side effect would be the nonsense that a party of one MP has a need for a leadership office. That potentially could mean 100+ leadership offices if all Mps go independent. A party is for mean any group that gets over the threshold, 5%.
                      The joke of Dunne and Banks is they are gaming the system, getting seats on the intelligence committee, leadership offices, etc. Its just expensive nonsense for Key to keep these benefits around. It undermines the electoral system.
                      People are fed up with these one MP parties, and no surprise the left is now Anderson is gone. All praise to Mana for exposing the ridiculousness of the rule and rubbishing it by over use.

                    • bad12 …
                      5 June 2014 at 11:16 am

                      Ans what is being proposed by Cunliffe, the Electoral Commission and various other self servers doesn’t distort the will of the people OAB,???

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 11:22 am

                      People are fed up with these one MP parties, and no surprise the left is now Anderson is gone. All praise to Mana for exposing the ridiculousness of the rule and rubbishing it by over use.

                      I take your point about one MP parties drawing a Leaders salary and office.

                      Which is why I am pushing for a minimum 3 MP caucus in Parliament, which corresponds to a 2.5% threshold.

                      A minimum ~6 MP threshold at 4% is too high, and too unproportional.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 5:42 pm

                      No, Bad12, it doesn’t, because Labour are proposing that Parliament implements the Royal Commission’s recommendations, and they’re going to need support to make it so.

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  5 June 2014 at 1:08 pm

                  But the “coat-tailing” rule didn’t distort the proportionality in the case of NZ First, the threshold did. The “coat-tailing” (god I hate that term) actually allowed NZ First voters – and there were over 95,000 of them – to get the representation they deserved in Parliament.

                  • Tracey …
                    5 June 2014 at 1:42 pm

                    coat-tailing, brighter future, step change, it is all just smoke and mirrors

                  • aerobubble …
                    7 June 2014 at 11:39 am

                    No. The rules combine to incentivize the potential, like any advertiser would know.
                    Get a bargain, run rough shot over the plebs, vote ACT feel invincible. Its a bargain, National voters get to win extra seats on top, while NZF loses even more votes. How can you say that the wine wasn’t flowing wildly that night.

            • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1.1.4
              5 June 2014 at 9:15 am

              Er, no, the coat-tail rule improves the proportionality of Parliament.

              If there were 18 parties that won 4.99% of the party vote and 0 electorates, and 1 party that won all of the electorates and 10.18% of the party vote, that final party would have 100% of all seats in parliament.

              If just one of those other 18 parties had won a single electorate, parliament would automatically be more representative of the outcome than this case.

              Obviously this is an extreme case but it makes it clear – coat-tailing improves proportionality.

              What distorts proportionality is the 5% threshold: it means that a party that doesn’t meet the threshold gets 0 seats, even if they would otherwise be entitled to some.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 9:31 am

                And combined they deliver truly perverse outcomes.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2014 at 11:09 am

                  Uh, they are more proportional outcomes – that is what Lanth is explaining. Removing coat tailing harms proportionality – which is why the threshold must be significantly reduced and 4% is not low enough.

              • bad12 …
                5 June 2014 at 9:36 am

                And worse, the 5% rule distorts every Party Vote cast for a minor party that has neither a seat to coat-tail off of or fails to reach that 5% thresh-hold,

                Colon Craig,(no matter what my hard left bias thinks of that particular flake of electoral flavor) in my opinion deserves His parties 2 point whatever % of the vote represented in the Parliament,

                Back to the distortion inherent in the ”wasted vote” provisions, as it now stands electoral law allows 1,2,3, even 4% of what voters intended to be cast aside giving votes to both right and left indiscrimanently despite voter intentions…

                • KJT …
                  5 June 2014 at 11:06 am

                  Fully agree.

                  Voters are not as stupid as politicians think.

                  The fact that less and less people are bothering to vote shows that they know full well voting makes little difference, in our particular brand of rotating dictatorship. Which is why we will not have a referendum on BCIR, any-time soon.

                  The fact, that which flavour of policies we get, and who gets to be the next set of unrestrained Dictators, may depend on which side of the bed Winston gets out on, after the election shows the system is broken. We need a BCIR, and recalls to ensure democracy..

                  I am comfortable with a threshold set to whatever it gets for full proportionality. I think it is 0.6%.

                  We have seen what happens when idiots get into Parliament and show their true colours.
                  “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
                  United future got in with the effects of the worm, and the protest against Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Their vote collapsed when it became obvious how truly useless they were. Similarly ACT’s vote collapsed when they showed themselves for the pack of nutters, they really are.

                  National will lose, if not this election, the next, when it becomes obvious how much of their appeal is “smoke and mirrors”.

                  Unfortunately we may never recover from their time in Parliament. Just as we have never recovered from Rogernomics, as the stuff article misleadingly headlined, “Small business does worse under Labour”, shows.

                  One day Labour will get the message, that there is so much room for large parties on their left, because they are so close to being National lite. Or they will collapse into irrelevance also.
                  Why vote Labour when you can vote National and get the real thing?

                  I think that party conferences are lacking working people, including small businesspeople, with sense, because these days they have neither the time or the money to get to conferences and meetings.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    5 June 2014 at 11:16 am

                    Or they will collapse into irrelevance also. (1)
                    Why vote Labour when you can vote National and get the real thing? (2)

                    I think that party conferences are lacking working people, including small businesspeople, with sense, because these days they have neither the time or the money to get to conferences and meetings. (3)

                    1) A slow collapse is indeed happening as people realise that Labour has forgotten its historical purpose. Consider this – as the economy has increasingly worsened under the direction of the 1% Labour popularity should be soaring. Instead, it has gone from over 40% in 2005 to sitting around just 31% now.

                    2) Yep, the US example is the “blue dog democrats.” As useless and pointless as sugar free, caffeine free Coke.

                    3) That and they find that people enured in the Thorndon Bubble always think they know better.

                • bad12 …
                  5 June 2014 at 11:28 am

                  KJT, it wouldn’t matter if the majority of the voters could be proven IQ wise to be completely and utterly dumb,

                  Democracy belongs to the people, dumb, brilliant, or shades of in between, the bottom line to allow any change to the MMP system must be by permission of a referendum, otherwise what is proposed is simply a dictatorship of those with the means to be able to submit their views to the Electoral Commission,

                  Two simple questions put to ”the people”, (1) should the coat-tail rule be abolished yes/no, and (2), what should the % of Party Vote to gain seats in the Parliament be 1%,2%,3%, or 4%,

                  How many people made submissions to the electoral commission, 1%???, IF we as ”the people” allow for Democracy to be altered at the whim of those who ‘think’ they would benefit from such alterations we are in effect inviting a Dictatorship of that 1%…

                  • KJT …
                    5 June 2014 at 1:51 pm

                    In a democracy it is our decision to make, even if it is wrong.

                    Though I certainly do not think that about 20 people in cabinet, have the right to dictate to 4 million. Just because they were the ones most successful in gaming the voting system. That is not a democracy.

                    Who was the person who said that “if voting changed anything it would be banned”?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 2:27 pm

                      “…it would be illegal.” Emma Goldman, apparently. But oft quoted (and misquoted).

              • Puddleglum …
                5 June 2014 at 7:08 pm

                True, but the proportionality so given is ‘idiosyncratic’ – in particular, it is ‘gamed’ proportionality for the very reason that a party receiving more votes can get less representation than one that got fewer just because it hasn’t won an electorate seat.

                That may be ‘more proportional’ in terms of the parliament but, as I said, it is an erratic achievement of ‘more proportionality’ and is not based on any principle of proportionality.

                Instead, it is based on the distinctly FPP virtue of having won an electorate seat. That may be a principle but it is not a proportionality principle.

                • Puddleglum …
                  5 June 2014 at 7:23 pm

                  Just to clarify my point, here’s an example of another ‘idiosyncratic’ way to increase proportionality in Parliament: parties that don’t achieve the 5% threshold but have more than 75% of women comprising their list can get as many MPs as their sub-5% share of the vote allows.

                  In fact, any property of the list could be used to increase proportionality (the most with Irish surnames, all surnames beginning with F or T, etc.).

                  And there are other ways related to the characteristics of the vote a party attracts – e.g., the party that gains the greatest proportion of its vote made up of new migrants or more than 70% of its vote from those aged under 30, etc.. Laudable arguments could even be made for the latter (encouraging the young to vote).

                  The problem with the coat-tailing rule is that it is arbitrary in relation to the goal of proportionality. It simply reflects a sentiment associated with FPP elections and so for some reason has special status which lifts it above my suggestions and many other suggestions that are easy to come up with and all of which would improve the proportionality of Parliament simply by virtue of leveraging more of the sub-5% party vote into the reckoning.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.2
          5 June 2014 at 8:24 am

          Oh get real. If they can’t stand on their own two feet (not to mention a big pile of cash) they’re not allies they’re excess luggage.

          Shakes head

          This is just a fucking arrogant, unreal, anti-voter attitude, which I believe also reflects a certain significant strain of thought within the Labour Thorndon Bubble.

          If Labour is in a position to do away with a rule that enabled it to form a government, and does so, that is called having principles.

          Nah it’s dumb politics, it’s self serving to the two big centrist parties and voters I predict will hate it because it will mean that supporters of new minor parties face a significant and targetted wasting of their votes.

          Labour always suggests things like this, and like raising the retirement age, as being “principled.”

          If only it would stand “principled” on things like a full employment policy, reintroduction of penal rates, no more mining on conservation land, removing the highly regressive GST they introduced, apologising for the Rogernomics years, putting $30/week back on base benefits so they are vaguely livable etc.

          Ah but no, in all those matters, Labour chooses that other “p” word instead, to be “pragmatic”.

          What a horsecrock of hypocrisy.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.2.1
            5 June 2014 at 8:38 am

            That’s a nice horse. Twenty five hands at least.

            Do you know what an ally is, fool?

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.2.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 8:46 am

              Does Labour? But I guess, someone like yourself doesn’t view small parties as potential “allies” chosen by voters whose choice you respect, more like – to use your term “luggage” – chosen by voters whose votes you would prefer to waste.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 9:08 am

                No, you benighted dimwit.

                Of course small parties can be valuable allies, which is why I brought it up. I want Hone Harawira in Parliament, I want him to get there by either winning a seat or as part of a movement with a solid base. Same goes for Laila Harré.

                I don’t want them there at the whim of any party you’re a member of.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2014 at 9:13 am

                  Simply put, any party which wins enough % of votes for a sizeable 3 or 4 MP caucus should get those MPs.

                  They should not be blocked by a too high 4% threshold.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 9:42 am

                    I suggested 3%. That said, if 4% is too high your grass roots movement may get better traction as a vocal lobby group than a political party.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 9:46 am

                      Good that we agree that 4% is too high a threshold.

                      Not so good that you are willing to write off the future votes of up to 100,000 people and suggest that their preferred political party would be better off leaving Parliament to the big boys.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 9:55 am

                      Not so good that your pathetic misrepresentation of my every comment reveals your bias and incompetence, especially after explaining it to you in so many ways even a poodle would have got it by now.

            • Tracey 13.1.1.2.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 8:50 am

              you consider not saying you will work with the greens, having a prominent mp attack them, and having other mps attack imp is allies?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 June 2014 at 9:11 am

                I’m saying that all over the world, and Epsom, we see what happens to small parties that exist on the say-so of big parties.

                Labour doesn’t need a poodle.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2014 at 9:31 am

                  And here you are, likening Hone Harawira and Laila Harre to “poodles”. The arrogance and disrespect for voters is incredible.

                  If IMP get enough votes form the electorate for 3 or 4 or even 5 MPs why should they not have them? It is completely anti-democratic for you to say those votes should be wasted, just as it serves the larger parties.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 9:33 am

                    And here I am, saying that’s the last thing they should be seen as, and here you are, jerking off like a prize asshole.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 9:43 am

                      I’m sure Hone Harawira and Laila Harre are very gratified at your concern for their media image and your not wanting them to come across as poodles.

                      But if they win enough votes from the electorate to get a working caucus of 3 or 4 MPs, that’s what they should receive, and Labour should not act to block the will of voters.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 5:35 pm

                      I’m sure…

                      I doubt that, although you seem practically on end over it.

                      …a working caucus of 3 or 4…

                      No CV, under the rules at this election they need to win 5% or an electorate seat and I hope they do both. Labour has a bill in front of parliament that would implement the RC’s recommendations. You belong to Labour don’t you? Sort your own shit out before bagging me over it.

                • bad12 …
                  5 June 2014 at 9:47 am

                  You are applying ”blinkered” vision and thinking OAB, ACT have been around a lot longer than the previous couple of elections,

                  Labour certainly doesn’t need a poodle, my opinion would say it needs a rottweiler to drive it back to its roots…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 June 2014 at 10:02 am

                    ACT have been around a lot longer than that, yes, and their electoral support has diminished during that time. Thank you for helping illustrate my point.

                    Labour needs strong allies. Ones with electoral support, not Labour Party favours.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 10:32 am

                      So, if IMP get 3-4 MPs on say 80,000 votes (say 3%), Labour is then doing them a “favour” by respecting those votes and letting them enter Parliament?

                      Seriously? What;s the alternative, binning all those votes as wasted?

                      Re: the ACT canard. How is anything to do with the total arsefuckery that has been the ACT leadership either relevant or parallel to Hone Harawira and Laila Harre.

                    • bad12 …
                      5 June 2014 at 10:59 am

                      CV, don’t the ”wasted votes” then get allocated to the successful parties based upon some riffmatic the Electoral Commission is in control of,

                      That’s my understanding of the process which if true simply has the ability to steal votes from the hard left and redistribute those votes to the right or vice verca…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 5:07 pm

                      CV, you dense irritating miniature beast of burden, I’m saying that Labour doing for IMP what National does for ACT would be a step towards ACThood for IMP, and therefore a bad thing, despite the short term risk/opportunity inherent in making them take an electorate seat on their own.

                      Yes, it risks a wasted vote if Mana don’t win a seat. So they need to win a seat.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 6:57 pm

                      Oh fuck it OAB, it’s already pretty clear that the rest of the Left can’t depend on Labour to help win the day, you don’t have to keep spelling it out.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 6:59 pm

                      CV, don’t the ”wasted votes” then get allocated to the successful parties based upon some riffmatic the Electoral Commission is in control of,

                      Yes. So ironically if IMP don’t get in this time most IMP votes will be shared out between National and Labour. Which is of course not what IMP voters ever intended.

                  • Kiwiri …
                    5 June 2014 at 10:04 am

                    “Labour certainly doesn’t need a poodle, my opinion would say it needs a rottweiler to drive it back to its roots…”

                    +1

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 5:11 pm

                      Neither rotties nor poodles: strong articulate left wing politicians who owe nothing to the Labour Party.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2014 at 7:00 pm

                      Making a virtue out of Tough Lefty Love eh? Whatever mate, your attitude explains very well the behaviour and the performances we’re seeing out of Labour currently.

                      Mind you it’s good of you as a Green voter to spend all this time defending Labour.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 June 2014 at 7:26 pm

                      If I were defending them it would be from you, and your sub-Pagani credibility, and I’m not.

  14. Adrian 14
    5 June 2014 at 9:18 am

    KDC’s 3 million ( if it eventuates ), is not a lot of money if, as it appears, a lot of it is going to pay for what all other parties get for free, i.e volunteers including non-MP candidates.
    3 million is by rough calcs less than Colin Craig has spent on politics already.
    Funny nobody ever mentions this.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      5 June 2014 at 10:08 am

      Funny how people who do mention it sometimes demonstrate ignorance of electoral law (they won’t be able to legally spend anything close to $3M this time around) and Laila Harré’s public statements about volunteers.

  15. Ant 15
    5 June 2014 at 9:27 am

    Along with your doofus colleagues reenforcing the negative framing of coat-tailing, this is what you get for taking a unequivocal position when there is no bloody need to do so — you get spanked again. Key would have said we’ll start a working group to look into it i.e. stall, appear to be doing something about it, insulate yourself by deferring the problem to someone else.

    Walked into a classic rule in or rule out trap that the media love.

    There is literally no positive for Labour taking this position against IMP over a more ambiguous positions.

  16. dimebag russell 16
    5 June 2014 at 9:32 am

    is this Sabin joker any relation to the national party mp?

  17. dimebag russell 17
    5 June 2014 at 9:48 am

    that explains the rabid lack of objectivity then!

    • Tracey 17.1
      5 June 2014 at 10:57 am

      doesnt explain his getting under collins skin though, does it?

      • Ant 17.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 11:29 am

        That probably depends on which faction Mike Sabin belongs.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 5:27 pm

          One mistake (Sabin’s closing remarks) doesn’t demonstrate bias; it would be interesting to learn how he thinks Labour will be able to change the law on their own but.

  18. Travellerev 18
    5 June 2014 at 10:18 am

    Here is my 5 cents on the coat tailing issue

  19. bad12 19
    5 June 2014 at 11:37 am

    Labour taking the ”moral high-ground” and acting with ”principles” over the proposed altering of the MMP system without puttng such changes to ”the people” via a referendum to seek permission is simply snake-oil Bullshit,

    The proponents of such changes decry ‘coat-tailing’ as in some way shape or form morally offensive, such people would not sully themselves engaging in the faintest whiff of doing electoral deals,

    Too right, but based upon the ”thoughts” of 1% or less of the population who made submissions to the Electoral Commission such proponents will fall all over themselves to rush Legislation into the House should they control the Treasury Benches,

    Thats ”a deal” struck between the 1% right there, stealing from ”the people” an amount of democracy and replacing it with far less…

  20. dimebag russell 20
    5 June 2014 at 11:42 am

    what a lot of tripe from uneducated manques.
    whoever is PM is not an eastern potentate ruling by ukase or decree.
    Thats what we have parliaments for but when you read some of the garbage from people who are supposed to be informed commentators one has to wonder at the selection process and the criteria used to promote dweebs to jobs that they are so obviously unqualified for.

  21. ghostwhowalksnz 21
    5 June 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Wasnt it National party policy a few years back to abolish the Maori seats

    Where was the cry of ‘consensus’ before any changes are made from Farrarogblog then ?

    • srylands 21.1
      5 June 2014 at 12:35 pm

      Don’t let facts get in the way of your obsession with Farrar will you? This is what he said on Maori seats:

      “I do not advocate scrapping the Maori seats unilaterally. Why? Because I respect that for many Maori, even the majority of Maori, they have become something highly valued and prized. That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations. So I, and many others, do not advocate an abolition in the interests of a harmonious New Zealand. I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.”

      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/09/so_much_for_that_hui.html

      • bad12 21.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 12:59 pm

        i suppose it had to happen at some time SSLands, for once in your miserable commenting history here at the Standard you have posted a comment that smacks of some intelligence having been used to arrive at its conclusion,

        Pity its none of your obviously seriously diminished intelligence that was used to reach such a conclusion,

        i doubt you have the faintest idea of Rangatiratanga SSLands, but, the Maori electorate seats are seen by many of us as the physical manifestation of that Rangatiratanga as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi,

        As Farrar rightly says, it is not the property rights of anyone but Maori and such seats should remain in existence until such time as Maori as part of a referendum give their full consent to abolish them,

        That consent i would suggest will never be given…

        • Tracey 21.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 1:45 pm

          Its a lottery for slylands given his sources.

          • srylands 21.1.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 5:32 pm

            Piss off. Unlike you I don’t lie around drunk all day drooling over my laptop writing idiocy at The Standard. You are an extremely rude person, and it cannot be justified by the booze.

            • McFlock 21.1.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 5:55 pm

              Sspylands, you’re a walking obscenity.

              The only thing your good for is the amusement caused by your complete lack of self-awareness, such as your first two sentences compared with the first six words of your third sentence.

              Your ego writes cheques that your solitary braincell can’t cash.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1.1.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 6:56 pm

              S Rylands, how do you maintain the pretence that you are anything other than a partisan lobbyist grubbing for money?

              If Tracey were drunk she’d still have more ethics in her little finger than you, maggot.

        • srylands 21.1.1.2
          5 June 2014 at 5:35 pm

          Right I have seriously diminished intelligence and you are a smoker, unemployed, living in a State house in a crappy Wellington suburb.

          • bad12 21.1.1.2.1
            5 June 2014 at 5:48 pm

            Seriously diminished intelligence SSLands, that would suggest you had any to start with which i doubt,

            Were your parents by chance customers of old Archie Banks, one of those He got hold of by the cranium with the pliers who was a tad too slippery to remove,

            Other than that i can only imagine you’re in the advanced stages of syphillis and it’s starting to dine out on the unused pile of neurons in your head…

          • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1.2.2
            5 June 2014 at 6:59 pm

            S Rylands, what you have is ignorance and bias, which we all share, and you also have arrogance and vanity, which blind you to your position.

            Just saying.

          • Tracey 21.1.1.2.3
            5 June 2014 at 7:17 pm

            but farrar says. but farrar says. but the market says and farrar said.

            slylands ad nahseum

            • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1.2.3.1
              5 June 2014 at 7:30 pm

              Either S Rylands cannot see his chains, or he wears them willingly. He’s a walking pity committee.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 21.1.2
        5 June 2014 at 4:00 pm

        Thats not what he said in 2008.

        By 2012 when National had ditched the policy to suit the Maori party he needed some justification.

        Up to then he was all for it

        “I have no doubt the vast majority of National MPs think that the Maori Seats should be abolished. As do I for that matter”

        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/national_on_the_maori_seats.html

        No ifs or buts back then. Farrar is a compulsive liar over many many years.

        • srylands 21.1.2.1
          5 June 2014 at 5:30 pm

          Don’t be so obtuse.

          I think the Maori seats should be abolished. However they should not be abolished unless a majority of registered Maori voters agree in a referendum to do so. We should not play fast and loose with the electoral system.

          So I suggest that you stop perversely twisting what Farrar says. He is usually extremely clear in his his writing.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.2.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 7:04 pm

            Andrew Geddis is serving spit-roast Penguin if you’re interested in eating your gods.

  22. dimebag russell 22
    5 June 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Well one of farrars aliases, namely feeder on trade me was totally anti maori so he doesn’t really care about them. he probably doesn’t even think they are real people.

    • srylands 22.1
      5 June 2014 at 12:36 pm

      “he probably doesn’t even think they are real people”

      Do you have any evidence for that? It seems totally at odds with what I have seen of his views. Would you like to repeat it?

    • bad12 22.2
      5 June 2014 at 1:03 pm

      Lolz, was that Farrar’s alias, how do you know, i regularly wound up whoever that prick ‘feeder’ was for ages over there until i copped the inevitable life-time ban…

    • Gosman 22.3
      5 June 2014 at 1:18 pm

      One of his aliases??? You have evidence of this do you?

      • dimebag russell 22.3.1
        5 June 2014 at 1:28 pm

        whats it to you?

        • Gosman 22.3.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 2:13 pm

          I take that to mean you are unlikely to have any evidence.

          As for what it is to me. I care about people making unsubstantiated alegations about others. Hence when I see someone making such an outlandish claim as yours I challenge them. Then generally all respond in a similar way that you have i.e. try and avoid answering the question.

          • dimebag russell 22.3.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 5:28 pm

            as Tana would say; this aint tiddlywinks mate. when it suits you to play the moral superior you are just as bad as fatboy farrar.
            get a life and stop trying to defend the indefensible.

          • Tracey 22.3.1.1.2
            5 June 2014 at 7:09 pm

            your last sentence has been applied to you many times.

            you are rarely if ever found challenging on right wing blogs

    • Tracey 22.4
      5 June 2014 at 1:48 pm

      he definitely doesnt think beneficiaries are worthy people.

  23. dimebag russell 23
    5 June 2014 at 12:47 pm

    he probably doesn’t even think they are real people.

  24. geoff 24
    5 June 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Good article by Andrew Geddis about this on Pundit.

    http://pundit.co.nz/content/history-never-repeats

    David Farrar thinks that Labour is bad for not doing what National has not done as a result of the Electoral Commission’s report into MMP, and Labour should not do what David thinks National should have done as a result of their election victory in 2008.

    Geddis clearly shows how this is Farrar being a hypocrite who changed his tune to suit whatever is in National’s best interests.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 24.1
      5 June 2014 at 5:51 pm

      Penguin on a spike; well worth a read.

    • Tracey 24.2
      5 June 2014 at 7:10 pm

      of course he is a hypocrite… just read his current liar in chief from 2007

      Field defiant, Clark exposed as weakTuesday, 13 February 2007, 7:59 pm
      Press Release: New Zealand National Party

      Field defiant, Clark exposed as weak

      Helen Clark’s leadership has been exposed as weak over Taito Phillip Field, says National Party Leader John Key.

      “Helen Clark’s move tonight to start the process to expel him from the Labour Party only happened after Mr Field told the media today he was jumping ship.

      “This is a Prime Minister who was prepared to cynically cling to power by continuing to exercise Mr Field’s vote, no matter what. She would have used any excuse to not act against him to maintain her slim one-vote majority.

      “Mr Field, by talking to the media on Helen Clark’s big day, forced her hand.

      “This is not a Prime Minister in control, but a Prime Minister in damage control.

      “Helen Clark has shown no leadership. She concocted an expensive, toothless inquiry that she knew would never get to the bottom of the allegations against Mr Field.

      “Then she sat on her hands when Mr Field said he would decline to co-operate with the police inquiry.

      “Today, Mr Field has forced her hand by open defiance in the media.

      “With a motion of no confidence in the Labour Government being voted on this Thursday, Helen Clark should immediately say whether Labour will continue to exercise Mr Field’s vote.”

  25. aerobubble 25
    7 June 2014 at 11:43 am

    National failing the economy. The economy has no spare housing capacity. Its harming our ability to grow.