Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
9:54 am, December 8th, 2011 - 28 comments
Categories: act, dpf, national, national/act government -
Tags: imperator fish
Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here
—————————————————————————–
David Farrar applies some wonky logic in order to blame everything bad the Nats do on the left.
If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.
What’s wrong with this analysis?
If any group of voters is to blame for the National/ACT deal, it’s those voters who gave National their party vote and/or John Banks their electorate vote.
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
It’s amazing how many idiots think Banks had any negotiating power at all during post-election talks with National.
FFS, he campaigned on ‘a vote for me is a vote for a John Key-led government.’
He would never, ever, in a million years deny National the vote it needed to govern.
If anything, the coalition talks between National and Act would have been Key pressing Banks to come up with every far-right idea he’s ever had and saying ‘okay, let’s do that!’
“He would never, ever, in a million years deny National the vote it needed to govern.”
Exactly.
Key had all the power and Banks had none. Banks’ political future depends entirely on National. If he failed to join a John Key-led National government the Epsom voters would abandon him immediately (and feel ‘cheated’ that their ‘tactical voting’ didn’t work).
And … Farrar appears to have abandoned all pretense that he has the ability to think through political events.
Either that or his post is just transparently inadequate spin to provide cover for a Clayton’s negotiation.
More likely that Key said this is what I what done in the Act’s name.
Imperator Fish’s argument is a bit longwinded.
Best to say – Key is a weak negotiator who, after all is said and done, has no problem with the privatisation of the NZ school system.
The only problem with your scenario CV is that you’re assuming a negotiation between Key and the man who said ‘a vote for me is a vote for a John Key-led government.’
That’s kinda the point, rosy.
Key says he had to negotiate with BANCTS and we’re entitled to take him at his word (‘cos he’s meant to be telling the truth and all that).
So we don’t really need to make the argument as Key’s own argument (that BANCTS made him do it) only allows for two possible scenarios.
Either he is telling the truth, in which case he’s a shite negotiator.
Or he’s lying, in which case he’s just a shite.
And if he’s not, then he’s just a shite.
I’m going for this ^ one – x2 for Banks.
Or maybe Key said something really bad over a cup of tea and banks said he would foreclose
It’s not as if ACT campaigned on charter schools,
Brash did campaign on it, it just didn’t get much coverage
Linky?
He mentioned it in a speech once. Just like he mentioned decriminalise marijuana in a speech once, too. And lots of other things to be sure, none of which ended up in the C&S agreement.
Mentioning it in a speech once != campaigning.
It was in Brash’s campaign speech on education.
A More Equal and Innovative Education System
http://www.act.org.nz/posts/a-more-equal-and-innovative-education-system
That was on 17 November – about the same time as a certain cup of tea.
A speech is not enough – it needs to be in their advertised policies so that those people who don’t hear the speech can look it up. And it’s not really there either.
A short conversation with a psychopath (as related by David Farrar).
John Key: I beat you because you won’t fight back.
Key’s victim: You’re right, I deserve your evil, beat me some more.
What’s the problem? Sounds like a perfectly happy relationship.
Nothing wrong per se. Perspective depends on which side of couch – or in your case, the guillotine – you are.
Indeed Uturn, that’s exactly the noted typical response when psychopaths are asked if they feel sorry for their victims: “If they were so weak and stupid to be fooled by me, then they deserved what they got.”
I read of one imprisoned serial killer when asked the same question responded, (I’m paraphrasing from memory here), “Oh sure, definitely. But it’s like, you know when you squash a bug, for a second you think ‘poor bug’. But then it’s over. It’s like that.”
The typical response to the above conversation for someone with a secondary psychopath tendency would be, “What’s wrong with that?”.*
*CV is clearly outside the parameters of adhoc tests and can be excluded from our methods.
“ACT made me do it.”
“This is MMPs fault.”
“Lefties who voted for Winston are to blame.”
FFS Key, are we to believe that the John Banks Party is holding the John Key Party to ransom here? So Banks is dictating policy to you now? Please. You said yes to charter schools, nobody else, take some responsibility. If you didn’t like it you could have said no and given them something else. One seat doesn’t mean they get everything they want. Or are you just full of shit? I think you’re just full of shit. (Who am I talking to… like he’s reading this…)
At least the good news is that there is surely only so many times he can use the ‘ACT made me do it’ line before enough people become offended by the insult to intelligence.
And if you really want someone to blame for Winston’s presence, John, look the mirror. Before the teapot debacle, which was a John Key production, he had nothing. No poll love, no media love, no tactical leftie support.
In a way I’m glad Winston is there. Because right now he will be stockpiling ammunition on Key to gleefully blast him with for 3 years. And there’s so much ammo… Don’t hold back Winnie!
P.S. “The victim made me do it / this is your own fault” is a classic turn-the-blame-around tactic used by psychopaths. It’s a deceptively powerful ploy using cognitive dissonance – “Maybe I am to blame, I’m sure he didn’t really want to do that bad thing to me, because he isn’t a bad person.” Just sayin’
The best thing about making Banks a ( Associate) Minister of Education is that he will do to ACT what Hide did when he was made Minister of Local Government. Just consider it for a while. A dogmatic petrol head who made his money in bars and restaurants, whos previous role was Minister of Police. Aint. going. to .work.
The other wacky idea mentioned by Brash in his speech ( but in the policy as well) was the increased subsidies for the rich sending their kids to private schools. Somehow they put about the idea that they ‘pay twice’. No mention of those people with no children or those with 5 kids . Or those who children dont go onto tertiary education.
The other side of this argument is that going to private schools ( not integrated ) ‘saves’ the taxpayers money. Of course they want out of government rules for their schools but in return they get the money as well.
Somehow their choice becomes our burden
Let’s remember the nat.s have already run this argument and increased state funding to private schools. It was the first thing they did when they got their hands on the steering wheel. (I seem to remember the sum of $30 mill per year.) This at a time of unrelenting cut-backs in the Ministry of Education, funding of Special Education, Alternative Education, pre-school…etc. And the gravy train hasn’t exactly been overflowing in your average state school, believe me!
I know no lefties who voted NZF. It’s not a left wing party ffs.
I know a lot of lefties who voted NZF at the last minute. Also several more who were tempted. They just wanted to make sure Winston was back in parliament. They assumed he will be anti-government and give Key etc a hard time. But you can’t assume anything with Winston.
Why – anti government – Greens
– hard time — Labour
– more seats in Parliament – Mana
So many better choices for leftys than Winston, who would back a lot of Nationals everyday policies. ( on say benefits)
Much better to look at polls.
National poll numbers were consistency over 50% before Winstons rise
Labours were hovering at the 28-29% mark , about 1% above final result
The party that lost support as NZF rose was National!
Voters dont zig zig all over the place, they move a little here or there.
As ACT didnt rise but NZF did, the numbers had to be Nationals to lose
You can assume that he will take every opportunity he can get to take Key apart because
Key has made an enemy for life!
I was tempted to vote NZF, because
a) I want someone in Parliament to stick it to Shonky John
b) Off chance NZF would hold balance of power and prevent asset sales
What’s the likelihood of Peter Dunne voting against asset sales? Pretty sure that he promised to oppose. But he’ll just roll over and wriggle for a pat on the head from NACT.
Good point. With the new numbers (61/60) Dunny Boy could actually kill this policy, if he was a man of principle. Not much chance that he will, though…