- Date published:
9:12 am, May 17th, 2019 - 251 comments
Categories: democracy under attack, journalism, national, newspapers, Politics, same old national, Simon Bridges - Tags: alfred ngaro
Looks like National has conceded that the nascent Blue Green party is a no goer.
The Herald has reported that National is considering allowing Alfred Ngaro to form another break away party this time with a definite christian conservative bent and also to take over the Botany electorate.
From Barry Soper at the Herald:
The coalition lifeline that National will need if it’s to have a chance at the next election looks set to come in the form of a Christian party led by one of its own, former Cabinet Minister Alfred Ngaro.
Talk within the party’s been rife for weeks now with Ngaro’s plan being well received and with the possibility of National standing aside, possibly in the Botany seat, where it has the strongest party vote by far.
The seat’s currently held by rebel independent MP Jami-Lee Ross who himself can’t take credit for the party vote. It was entrenched when the electorate came on to the political map in 2008 when it was won by Pansy Wong who, like the ignominious departure of Ross, also left in a blaze of publicity in 2011 over the misuse of Parliamentary travel expenses.
There’s a lot of Christian money in the electorate. It has a good number of Pacific Island churches in Otara to the west, a sizeable, conservative, Christian South African community and a significant number of Koreans and Taiwanese Christians.
There is also a strong Catholic presence with schools like Our Lady Star of the Sea School and Sancta Maria College.
Family First’s Bob McCoskrie was mentioned.
If this does occur it will show how National is prepared to engage in extremely cynically manipulative game playing of our democratic system for political gain.
Hopefully the electorate will see through it.
So National want support from imaginary friends. From a party based on the belief in an imaginary friend .
For Christ sake
Indeed..For Christ's Sake. Amen.
But possibly no more deluded than a dedicated belief in the imaginary benefits to the average voter of the Free Market, Austerity, and
Trickle DownIncremental change.
Just like the Muslims imaginary friend
Best comment ever !
"Is National thinking?"
Natz are thinking alright …. Power, money, ego, and a bit more money.
Maybe its time Labour gave a couple of electorate MP's jobs as leaders of the New Labour and Workers Party.
Yeah, now that is a great idea, I could easily see the ;Labour and Workers Party.' out performing the Labour Party after just a couple of election cycles…I'm in, where do I sign up?
I personally think there should be room for a conservative political party in Parliament as there is a section of society that is not well represented currently. I also think the Parliament is the poorer for not having a party like Mana in it for that reason. The Greens were meant to represent the people that Mana champions for but that has been shown to be a bit of a hollow joke.
"there should be room for a conservative political party in Parliament"
There will be room, if a credible conservative party emerges that can get 5% of the vote consistently. That's the democratic process. Manufacturing such 'room' by Epsomising the Botany electorate would be a corrupt and anti-democratic way of achieving the same end.
The 5% threshold is an artificial barrier created to solve a problem that existed for another country. It has little relavance to the NZ context. Regardless the one seat rule is ALSO part of the democratic model and is as legitimate as the 5% threshold.
Yes – the 5% threshold could be lowered or raised and that lowering or raising in themselves would be consistent with the principles of MMP. No problem with that.
Not sure what you mean by the "one seat rule". Is there such a rule? It seems an odd way of describing the creation and maintenance of a client party, that is not in any meaningful sense independent of the large party that created it, but boosts the voting power of the large party by 1, and thus distorts proportionality. There is no 'rule' that allows this – rather there is (sadly) no rule that prevents it.
I now see that by "one seat rule" you mean the rule that one electorate seat over-rides the need to reach the threshold. More commonly referred to as 'coat tailing'. This rule is part of the system but it definitely needs changing as it encourages the creation of non-independent client parties.
In your opinion…
…which no doubt changes based on the gerrymandered result AB desires.
no, its fact. when you have goldsmith filmed, pulling down his OWN political hoardings, that is gerrymandering, manipulating the system …CHEATING . not opinion. fact. make that FACT!!! morals, hah, right wingers have EVERYTHING for sale, truth, morals, principles, parliamentry seats, citizenship, workers rights, etc etc. the late great robin williams had a brilliant idea. all politicians to have there backers, sponsors, owners ,etc, to be emblazened on the suits like racing drivers….. come in mr pennzoil, aka, simon bridges, come down mrs won tan, sth chinese bank, welcome mr grumman northrop, mark mitchell, lets meet miss henderson auto wreckers, paula bennett.
Yep win a seat and that is all you get.
Win the threshold.and the party vote rules apply.
Noone has managed to convince me that the seat conferring a nation wide acceptance of a political part is anything apart from rort designed to do what National uses it for – to try to create subservient "parties" as coalition partners with less than 2% country wide vote.
That sounds pretty nasty and disgusting, “Epsomising”. Surely, that’s something that only consenting adults would do, right?
"Hopefully the electorate will see through it"
Maybe, though I wouldn't bet on it. But even if the electorate does see through it, and the 5% threshold is not reached, National will still have 'Epsomised' Botany. This means they effectively get themselves one extra MP over and above what their Party Vote percentage actually entitles them to. There's nothing in theory to stop them from doing the same with their safest 5-10 electorate seats. If they do Epsomise Botany, then I think it has to be regarded as a systematic and deliberate attack on the integrity of the electoral system, and calls for a response to shut such activity down.
Nothing in theory to stop them, but in practice … electoral stupidity.
All of the single electorate deals had different origins, and were defensible (Anderton had fought against Labour, Dunne suported Clark for 2 terms, even Hide had to win Epsom against Worth who wanted to hold it). None were brazen creations from the start, whatever they became later.
Why is the 5% threshold legitimate but not the electorate seat rule?
It ceased to be legitimate when Jim Anderton finally gave up the ghost. Until then it was a wonderful thing because old Jim was on the side of the left. It gave Clark 2 extra seats in 2002 and 1 in 2005.
Yes, I seem to remember that the possibility of winning Coromandal or Auckland Central allowing a smaller party to get greater representation was touted by many on the left as a great thing for democracy.
Allowing an existing party … yes. Creating a fake party … no.
The difference is obvious. All previous examples (ACT, Alliance/Prog, Greens, NZF, United) were independent parties. All of then fought against Lab/Nat at various times, even bitterly.
Who are you to claim this is a "Fake" party? This would be entirely independent of National and would likely be pursuing policies that National would not agree with (such as a more conservative approach to social issues). Given the fact that the current Conservative or New Conservative parties are not currently doing the job of attracting people who like these policies then I see no problem if one is spun off from National. It is practically no different to the Greens coming out of the Alliance.
The Greens existed before the Alliance, which was a 5-party vehicle to overcome FPP. Once MMP was achieved the Greens could campaign (successfully) as an independent party.
The Ngaro party will be fake if it is created with one purpose – to get National into government. And if National stand no candidate in their safe Botany seat. That's as blatant as it gets.
To be clear, I have no issue with the tactic from a legal standpoint. It is the voters who will decide what they think of it.
" It is the voters who will decide what they think of it. "
That's the rub observer, I think the voters will be chuffed to have a leader of a political party as their MP.
Perhaps as SPC says it's time for Labour to do a similar thing.
"entirely independent of national" yeah riiight. nat m.p. go's to bed one night, wakes up a poodle,sorry "conservative with different(eye roll) policies". hey gosman, Ive got some cheap beachfront land to sell you, viewing at low tide…..
All the parties you name, with the exception of the original Greens were off-shoots on either National, Labour or both.
None of them had any existence which was independent of a leader who had been in one of the main parties. Even the Green can be considered as an off-shoot of the Alliance. And they did not, as you claim just below here, break from the Alliance as soon as MMP was achieved. They fought the first MMP election as part of the Alliance and only split away the following year.
Nope. Greens joined the Alliance (because it was an alliance of parties). Greens left the Alliance. The only "offshoot" was the jim anderton party, which was a patsy for Labour as ACT is now.
The Greens stayed with the Alliance until they had a few MPs in Parliament. Then they chose to leave the Organisation that got them there. I think they were well aware that if they had stood alone in 1996 they wouldn't have got any MPs at all.
It is very hard for a Party without a sitting MP to campaign in New Zealand. They would need an enormous amount of money, like Morgan had, as they have to pay for all their own travel and accommodation while doing so. If they have a seat in Parliament they are entitled to unlimited domestic travel and accommodation paid by the taxpayer. That is why the Greens wanted Nandor to step down when Shaw was elected leader. If Shaw wasn't in Parliament the party would have to have paid for all his costs themselves. It really wasn't because he could speak in Parliament you know.
NZ1 managed it, without the cash.
Yes, it's difficult. But the trick seems to be more about actual work and engaging with the people's mood, rather than being down to cash. The Greens have always had a damned good ground team around the country, and you can't buy that.
Did labour actively try to get its voters to vote for anderton .
Any opposition, at least after Clark became the Labour leader was of a purely token nature. Don't you remember her talking so kindly about Uncle Jim?
Just like National vs ACT in fact.
Would it have made a difference?
War is a right wing cause, not a left wing cause.
By this measure, in the final analysis, Jim Anderton could hardly be considered left.
Where the Beatles sang 'Give peace a chance'.
'Give war a chance' was was Jim's lyric of choice
So keen was Jim Anderton in supporting sending New Zealander troops to Afghanistan, that he was willing to destroy his own party.
Without Jim Anderson's support for war, New Zealanders would never have carried out Operation Burn 'em.
Without Jim Anderson's support for war, 10 New Zealanders wouldn't have lost their lives for no useful purpose.
"War is a right wing cause, not a left wing cause."
You can't be serious. Have you never heard of the August Uprising (1924), the Tatarbunary Uprising (1924), the Sino-Soviet Conflict (1929), or any of the other 25 wars involving the Soviet Union alone? War is not a left or right wing 'cause'; it is a function of far more complex human dynamics.
"None were brazen creations from the start"
Quite. If we see this sort of low-level gaming of the system, the time may come where some sort of "independence test" is needed for these one seat wonders. If they are deemed not to be independent, then they are included in the proportional seat allocation of the party that created them. Ideally it won't come to that because it would be ugly.
I would kinda prefer the holders of overhang seats to be ineligible to participate in confidence and supply votes. Someone may be very effective as an MP representing their electorate issues, yet have negligible support for their general positioning and views on issues affecting the country as a whole (eg the hairdo from Ohariu).
If gifting a seat to someone like the Epsom hologram or the hairdo would only result in an extra vote in parliament towards forming the government if enough nationwide support was siphoned off to the sockpuppet's party, then it would really reduce the incentive for that kind of rorting.
"None were brazen creations from the start, whatever they became later."
Jim Anderton's Progressive Party qualifies.
In 2002 it received 1.7% of the votes, and had 2 seats. In 2005 it received 1.16%, and 1 seat. In 2008 it received only 0.91% of the votes, and yet still retained 1 seat.
If the left want to have a moan about the way the right are using MMP, they should first have a good look in their own backyard.
Yeah, Jim Anderton was parachuted in, nobody had ever heard of him in Christchurch, he hadn't served them for decades, just like Ngaro in Botany … [/sarc]
Parties formed by angry splits in another party are the polar opposite of parties formed only to serve another party. But you know this, of course.
As I said, if National think this will work, they are welcome to try it. But they will have to own it – with all the baggage. And that's where it will hurt.
Your first paragraph seeks to define 'brazen creation', then explain why Jim Anderton's Progressives didn't fit your own definition. I'll call you on that.
JA'sP was a vehicle for Jim Anderton's own political ambitions, after he fell out with the Alliance. To some degree he rorted the Waka Jumping Law he had championed. After resigning from the Alliance, he refused to resign from Parliament, coat-tailing on the Alliance by remaining in their parliamentary wing, even though he had left the Alliance Party itself. After the 2002 election, JS'sP became Labours new junior coalition party.
As I said, the left need to look in their own backyard.
the nats are only in parliament because they coat-tailed in on the country party vote way back in the thirties, but hey, who's looking backward eh, shaddie?
Just like the Labour Party who coat tailed on various socialist parties. But I'm not 'looing back' as such, just calling hypocrisy on the left.
Oh, "the left" made their feelings about Anderton rubber-stamping Labour's war deployment pretty clear.
But much as he might have lost a lot of goodwill around the country, he never had to have a cup of tea with Helen to keep his local support in Wigram. The reason Labour candidates never did any good there was because of his personal support in his electorate, not because Labour candidates tore down placards supporting their own candidacy.
The left on this blog are criticising the Nats for possibly doing something the left have themselves done in the past. I'm just reminding them. BTW you nicely sidestepped what I actually criticised Anderton for, which was rorting a law he helped enact.
"The left" is more than just Jim Anderton. He was confused about that, too.
The 'left' I was referring to were those on this blog criticising National for doing something some on their own side of politics have also done. Jim Anderton is no more 'the left' than Alfred Ngaro is 'the right'.
Your allegation of hypocrisy is based on the assumption that those same people didn't rip shit out of Anderton at the time, in other media (because TS didn't exist then).
So just more shadders BS, I guess.
"Your allegation of hypocrisy is based on the assumption that those same people didn't rip shit out of Anderton at the time…"
Not at all. It is based on the abject failure of many on the left to even pretend to be objective.
So now the allegation of hypocrisy is an extrapolation based on your perception that "many on the left" should try to be "objective".
Whereas "many on the left" did indeed, as you put it, "look in their own backyard" when Anderton rubberstamped an invasion (contrary to party policy) and so on. There was a bit of a brew-ha-ha about it at the time. Very few on the left (even without a re-evaluation of his remaining supporters' status as "left") continued to support him, many spoke out against him. This was documented with glee by the media at the time.
Just another futile attempt by you to pretend that "the left" are as hypocritical and corrupt as National.
"So now the allegation of hypocrisy is an extrapolation based on your perception that "many on the left" should try to be "objective"."
Not an extrapolation. People on the left are frequently hypocritical, because they accuse others of doing what they themselves do or support. It’s similar to the type of stupidity we witness when someone from the left tries to deplatform speech they disagree with in the name of ‘tolerance’.
BTW you are (I think deliberately) avoiding addressing what I actually criticised Anderton for. It wasn't about any 'invasion' as such, it was about his hanging around drawing a parliamentary salary on the pretence of being part of the parliamentary wing of a party he had left to set up an alternative, rather than having the courage to actually resign and face a byelection. He rorted legislation he had previously supported – that was my point.
You made a specific allegation that "many on the left" are being hypocritical regarding coat-tailing because Jim Anderton did it.
If you're criticising Anderton only for that, you're well behind the 8-ball. That was just a nice little bit of shit-cherry on the shit-icing of the shit-cake Anderton baked when he decided that the parliamentary caucus leadership overruled the membership, the policies, and the constitution of the Alliance party. And "many on the left" were profoundly fucked off about the entire thing, shit-cherry included.
You made shit up.
"You made a specific allegation that "many on the left" are being hypocritical regarding coat-tailing because Jim Anderton did it."
No, I gave Jim Anderton as one example. You allege some on the left didn't like what Anderton did. So what? He still did it. And he was from the left.
To be hypocrites based on your example, the left on this blog would have to consist of Jim Anderton. I hesitate to speculate on the identities of individual commenters, but I'm reasonably sure that the left wing commenters on this site aren't all Jim's sock puppets. I know for a fact that some of them spoke out against him, loudly and repeatedly.
So, yeah, nah, try to sow your cynicism another way.
"To be hypocrites based on your example, the left on this blog would have to consist of Jim Anderton."
No, Jim Anderton would just have to be part of 'the left'.
…on this blog.
He is not demonstrably on this blog.
Therefore “the left on this blog” are not hypocrites just because he is.
"…on this blog."
No, at all. Anywhere.
So the left on this blog are hypocrites because someone on the left was once a hypocrite, even if they are not on this blog.
"So the left on this blog are hypocrites because someone on the left was once a hypocrite, even if they are not on this blog."
No. The commentators on this blog from the left, who criticise the right for doing exactly what the left do, are hypocrites.
To quote from my original comment:
“If the left want to have a moan about the way the right are using MMP, they should first have a good look in their own backyard.”
Not if they also criticised "the left" when "the left" did it.
"Not if they also criticised "the left" when "the left" did it."
In this case, you'll have to do a lot of digging.
You're the one calling left wing commenters here "hypocrites". You do the digging to back it up.
"You're the one calling left wing commenters here "hypocrites". You do the digging to back it up."
The 'digging' was in reference to YOUR claim "Not if they also criticised "the left" when "the left" did it." Trying to get me to support your own claims now eh? That's a new one even for you.
So unless I prove to you that commenters on this blog opposed to nact coattailing also opposed Anderton's actions, you will call them hypocrites?
"So unless I prove to you that commenters on this blog opposed to nact coattailing also opposed Anderton's actions, you will call them hypocrites?"
You're the one who introduced the idea that if commentators here opposed Anderton's actions then those same commentators are somehow immune from criticism. That's up to you to substantiate. Don't come crying to me if you can't.
You specifically called commenters here hypocrites. If that criticism is warranted, please provide your evidence that all left-wing commenters on this site criticised nact coat-tailing but not Anderton's little efforts.
Start with me, I'm sort of left wing.
Otherwise you're just making shit up. Again.
"You specifically called commenters here hypocrites. If that criticism is warranted, please provide your evidence that all left-wing commenters on this site criticised nact coat-tailing but not Anderton's little efforts."
That was YOUR criteria, so YOU back it up. Don't make a claim and then expect me to help you out. Start (or should I say 'keep') digging.
You called it hypocrisy.
You said the people who were being hypocritical were those on thos blog commenting about the nats but not Anderton.
Name these hypocrites. It would be good to reveal them to us. Demonstrate their hypocrisy.
But you're just making shit up.
"You said the people who were being hypocritical were those on thos blog commenting about the nats but not Anderton."
No, I didn't. My first comment referred to people looking in their back yard. I said it is hypocritical to call out the right when the left engage in the same behaviour. Anderton being one example.
"Name these hypocrites."
Left wing posters here who have called out the right for something left wing politicians have also done.
You see it was YOU who introduced the criteria about whether those same commentators also criticised the left. And then you asked me to help you out! You really are a muppet.
I'm not sure you know what "hypocritical" means.
If Anderton said the nats were shit for coat-tailing in MPs, then he'd be a hypocrite.
If a commenter here said the nats were shit for coat-tailing in MPs but said Anderton was ok to do it, then that would merely be inconsistent, but at least it's close to hypocrisy.
But if a commenter here said the nats were shit for coat-tailing in MPs and had also said Anderton was shit for doing it, that would be neither inconsistent not hypocritical.
So name these hypocritical commenters. Don't describe the, list them. Or are you making shit up?
"If a commenter here said the nats were shit for coat-tailing in MPs but said Anderton was ok to do it, then that would merely be inconsistent, but at least it's close to hypocrisy."
1. A reminder – YOU have set the criteria around commentators here having also criticised Anderton. Not me.
2. Anderton was just one example.
3. Hypocrisy has many meanings. Calling out the right for something the left also does fits the bill.
Oh, we're at the stage where you pretend to not be able to read what you wrote upthread but still remain literate enough to parse different definitions of the same word, are we?
Good-oh. Have fun with that.
"Oh, we're at the stage where you pretend to not be able to read what you wrote upthread but still remain literate enough to parse different definitions of the same word, are we?"
1. I have stood by that post all along. BTW – That post didn't even mention the word 'hypocrisy'.
2. A reminder – YOU have set the criteria around commentators here having also criticised Anderton. Not me. It's up to you to support your own claim. When you can't, don't moan to me.
You brought up Anderton.
You agreed that you were talking about hypocrisy.
You later said "The commentators on this blog from the left, who criticise the right for doing exactly what the left do, are hypocrites."
So exactly who are "the commentators on this blog from the left, who criticise the right for doing exactly what the left do", and how are they hypocrites?
“You brought up Anderton.”
As an example. Yes.
“So exactly who are "the commentators on this blog from the left, who criticise the right for doing exactly what the left do", and how are they hypocrites?”
In this thread alone here are some examples. But do your own work, McFlock.
lol you claim there are examples, yet refuse to link to them.
Read the thread. I assume you have the intelligence to refer to the earlier posts I responded to? And no, I'm not doing your work for you.
It's not my job to find what you think are examples of what you think is hypocrisy.
"It's not my job to find what you think are examples of what you think is hypocrisy."
It is your job to have read a thread you decide to start commenting on. Do your homework.
So, no examples then.
At least 3. But you'll have to find them for yourself.
Hide & seek now?
The Stuff quiz is more interesting than your inventions.
Hardly hidden. They are in this thread!
So you assert.
So you could discover if you bothered to.
And so the circle is complete.
I'll leave you to your evidence-free assertions.
Yep, back to the beginning. https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1617900
Off you go.
Why are you linking to that comment?
Well the fact that you need to ask sums up your contribution.
Here, I’ll take you back even further.
If we keep going…
Ah. Just more timewasting on your part. I thought you might have considered your own comment an example of hypocrisy.
"Just more timewasting on your part. "
I'm generously pointing you in the right direction, on the remote chance you actually want to find the answer.
Funny. From here it just looks like you called three comments in the thread examples of left wing hypocrisy, without any intention of backing up your evidence-free assertion.
"Funny. From here it just looks like you called three comments in the thread examples of left wing hypocrisy, without any intention of backing up your evidence-free assertion."
Funny. From here it looks like you stumbled your way through a range of posts trying to get me to justify something you said, and finally came around to discussing what I actually did say.
Follow the links. They will take you to at least one example. That's as far as I'm prepared to go to indulge your laziness.
I'm not reading the entire post and thread again. It wasn't there the first time, and I don't believe you anyway.
"I'm not reading the entire post and thread again. It wasn't there the first time, and I don't believe you anyway"
You haven't read it at all! I even gave you the biggest hint possible in my links. You've got a great sidestep.
Keep pretending that you have provided a hint as to what you think might have constituted what you believe hypocrisy to be.
Someone might believe that you're hiding your light under a bushel. I don't. I think that if you had anything, you'd be crowing it far and wide.
"Someone might believe that you're hiding your light under a bushel. I don't. "
Yes, you do. You aren't that stupid that you can't read back through the thread, particularly when I gave you links to my posts addressing at least one of the examples.
Now you're telling me what I believe?
You're going to so much effort to avoid simply proving your point.
"You're going to so much effort to avoid simply proving your point."
A fair few comments were trying to explain to you it was YOUR point.
I made my point clear to anyone who had read the thread from it's beginning.
So to recap: even though you think it was my point, you still hinted at comments in this thread you believe demonstrated it, but refuse to actually show which comments demonstrate it and say how they demonstrate it.
Good for you.
"So to recap: even though you think it was my point…"
Your point was to try (more than once) to impose your own interpretation of hypocrisy.
"…you still hinted at comments in this thread you believe demonstrated it…"
No, I actually linked to my comments that directly responded to one such comment. There are at least 2 others. You're just too lazy to do your own homework.
Traditionally, a direct response to a comment involves actually addressing the points raised in the comment being responded to.
All your comment to observer demonstrated was that you have no idea what "coat-tail" means in the contect of MMP.
How does observer's comment constitute hypocrisy?
You're still being lazy. The comments by Observer include https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1617758 and https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1617793.
Gosman called him out on it. The background to the creation of the Progressives, and the 2005 incarnation – "Jim Anderton's Progressive Party", was a creation so "brazen" and "fake" that it even had to adopted JA's name to extend it's life. Thankfully it ceased to exist.
lol so the first comment you linked to as an example of the hypocrisy of some commenters here was actually to your "response" to a comment that wasn't actually an example of hypocrisy?
As for the comments that Gosman replied to, none of those replies were about hypocrisy, merely debating the descriptions and distinctions.
So how were any of those comments by Observer an example of hypocrisy?
"lol so the first comment you linked to as an example of the hypocrisy of some commenters here was actually to your "response" to a comment that wasn't actually an example of hypocrisy?"
No, the commentS I linked to helped you be a little less lazy and actually took you back to some of the specific comments I was referring to. You got there in the end.
And just in case you need any further explanation, criticising the actions of a political side you oppose, when those same actions have been undertaken by a political side you support, is hypocritical.
Well, not quite, but that's not Observer did anyway. Observer simply pointed out differences between the nacts practises and what Anderton, Dunne and even Hide did. Or as Observer put it:
Seems to be a clear point of difference. No wonder you tried to keep your light under a bushel – it was a pretty damp squib.
“Observer simply pointed out differences between the nacts practises and what Anderton, Dunne and even Hide did.”
No, he went well beyond that.
“All of the single electorate deals had different origins, and were defensible”
Those ‘deals’ involving JAPP were no more ‘defensible’ than would be a party set up to espouse Christian principles.
“None were brazen creations from the start”
Again, hypocrisy. The Progressive Party was a ‘brazen creation, that even had to take on JA’s name to temporarily suspend it’s eventual and inevitable demise.
“Creating a fake party … no.”
Gosman addressed that, but Observer was very quiet about JA’s own ‘fake’ party.
“The difference is obvious. All previous examples (ACT, Alliance/Prog, Greens, NZF, United) were independent parties. All of then fought against Lab/Nat at various times even bitterly"
Rubbish. JA’sP fought against the Alliance, not against Labour.
You see, if you had actually read the thread with some comprehension, you would have saved me some time.
love how you fucked up the link to make the full comment more difficult to find.
So it's not criticising the Right for the sake of criticising the Right, because if Observer defends Anderton then they also defend Hide.
As opposed to criticising a list nobody with no local support being gifted an electorate.
That's the difference: Anderton fought off Labour's Mora, Hide fought off Worth, Dunne fought off whomever. They earned the right to sit at a negotiating table and say "You can keep fighting me on my home turf, but then I might not want to be friends."
What's a Ngaro party going to say to get the same deal? "Please sir, give me an electorate and I'll do my very bestest with it, I promise".
“love how you fucked up the link to make the full comment more difficult to find.”
I didn’t. You really are lazy.
“So it's not criticising the Right for the sake of criticising the Right”
I didn’t say it was. I said the left need to look in their own back yard.
“As opposed to criticising a list nobody with no local support being gifted an electorate.”
Which is what Labour did for Anderton.
“That's the difference: Anderton fought off Labour's Mora”
Ah, Labour people actively lobbied for voters to support Anderton as their local MP.
“They earned the right to sit at a negotiating table and say "You can keep fighting me on my home turf, but then I might not want to be friends."”
Anderton ‘earned’ the right by doing exactly what Ngaro may do. Support the party that nods his way.
Keep telling yourself that. If Labour were trying to lose Wigram in 2002, Mora wouldn't have increased his vote by 2000. Cups of tea and all that.
The left know more about their backyard than you think you do.
"If Labour were trying to lose Wigram in 2002, Mora wouldn't have increased his vote by 2000. "
2002? After splitting from Labour, Anderton stood in 7 elections representing 3 different parties, 4 if you include the rebranding of the progressives. In 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigram_(New_Zealand_electorate)#2005_election), Mora got 6408 votes to Anderton's 15,961, yet Labour received 16,271 of the Party votes, the Progressives only 2,191. I know exactly what goes on the left's back yard, and it smells just as much as does the right's.
Don't slide. The issue isn't 2005.
The issue is whether a deal struck with someone who is a sitting electorate MP who fought for that position (let alone someone who held that electorate for 20 years, like Anderton did) is the same as creating a new party, assigning a list MP to lead it, and then parachuting that list MP into an electorate and hobbling or pulling your own candidate to give the parachutist a chance of winning (tl,dr: "brazen creation from the start").
Observer's position was that those are fundamentally different situations.
Whether you agree with Observer or not, in their comments "the left" have thoroughly examined their own back yard.
To recap: you pulled back from talking about "hypocrisy", and your position that the left have not looked in their own back yard is demonstrated false.
And you don't know what "coat-tailing" means.
“The issue isn't 2005.”
There is no time bar to hypocrisy. You’re just sore because you got shown up by the 2005 numbers.
“The issue is whether a deal struck with someone who is a sitting electorate MP who fought for that position (let alone someone who held that electorate for 20 years, like Anderton did) is the same as creating a new party, assigning a list MP to lead it, and then parachuting that list MP into an electorate and hobbling or pulling your own candidate to give the parachutist a chance of winning (tl,dr: "brazen creation from the start").”
JA created a new party (more than one actually!). In one case he actually (rather than resigning) held on to the parliamentary privileges of one party while establishing another! He was then helped by Labour providing a nod and a wink to it’s supporters to give him their electorate vote, without which he would have most likely lost his seat in 2005. You did see the switch in numbers in 2005?
“Observer's position was that those are fundamentally different situations.”
Well clearly they aren't. Anderton's tenure as an MP only lasted because labour encouraged their voters to vote for him. And of course the quid pro quo was Anderton supported Labour. Sounds remarkably similar.
“you pulled back from talking about “hypocrisy”,”
Nope. It was hypocrisy.
“…and your position that the left have not looked in their own back yard is demonstrated false.”
Nope…as per the above. 2005 McFlock. 2005.
It's hypocrisy again, is it? Make up your mind.
"whatever they became later. " Now you're ignoring that bit.
Yeah, I reckon we're done here.
"It's hypocrisy again, is it?"
Well yeah, that's what I've been saying.
2005 McFlock. 2005.
I've repeated my claim of hypocrisy many times. Just not in the one you claimed! Keep trying.
Yes, all consistent with my statement that I have mentioned hypocrisy many times. And I've called out a comment you quoted when I didn't. And I have also said that the left should look in their own back yard. Keep digging.
All except the last bit, which suggests the middle bit (backyard) wasn't actually a reference to hypocrisy.
We all can see you've mentioned hypocrisy many times, when it was convenient. You've also backtracked on it.
"All except the last bit, which suggests the middle bit (backyard) wasn't actually a reference to hypocrisy."
The last bit just highlighted that a post you referred to didn't actually mention the word ‘hypocrisy’.
"We all can see you've mentioned hypocrisy many times, when it was convenient."
'Convenient'? I mentioned it many times because I was making the point about hypocrisy.
"You've also backtracked on it."
Nope, never. I also mentioned that the left should look in their own backyard before criticising the right. My message has been consistent throughout. Yours, however, is looking increasingly desperate. 2005 McFlock. 2005.
Make up your mind. Was the comment "the left need to look in their own backyard" an implicit accusation of "hypocrisy" or not?
You said I backtracked my claim of hypocrisy. Considering I have repeated that claim several times, I can understand why you are now running.
"Was the comment "the left need to look in their own backyard" an implicit accusation of "hypocrisy" or not?"
Ah, so you now admit I didn't use the word 'hypocrisy'.
But that wasn’t the comment you had previously referred, was it.
Your comment https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1618937 linked to this comment https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1618937, which didn’t mention the word hypocrisy.
So did you make a mistake, or are you being dishonest?
Was the backyard reference an allegation of hypocrisy, or not?
Did you make a mistake, or are you being dishonest?
lol smart enough to see you're avoiding a straight answer. Again.
Why did you link to the wrong post? Was it a mistake, or a deliberate deception?
You made two comments about the left looking in their own backyard, then said you were calling out hyupocrisy, then said the word hypocrisy wasn't in the first two comments.
So, simple question for you to keep avoiding: Was the backyard reference an allegation of hypocrisy, or not?
“You made two comments about the left looking in their own backyard, then said you were calling out hyupocrisy…”
Yes. And then your comments here https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1620391 and here https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1620454 suggested that I had 'backtracked. You’re all over the place McFlock.
“then said the word hypocrisy wasn't in the first two comments.”
Because it wasn’t.
You accused me of backtracking https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1620783 on my claim of hypocrisy. You were wrong.
You linked to the wrong post. You were wrong. Or dishonest. Which was it?
Yep, you're all over the place.
that's a pretty simple question you keep avoiding.
It's pretty obvious you either made a mistake or were dishonest. Which is it?
Whether I'm either of those, or simply correct, depends in no small part on the simple question you refuse to answer.
Why would you evade the question if it would show me to be either mistaken or dishonest?
It wouldn't show either. And it is irrelevant to the discussion. I repeatedly spoke of the hypocrisy of the left. You wrongly suggested I backtracked.
And yet you still evade such a harmless question.
And yet you won't admit whether or not you just got the link wrong, or were dishonest.
Looks like I might have been on the ball, the way you dodge such a simple question. I'm cool with that.
Are you cool with being dishonest?
If it happens, I'll let you know.
various socialist parties??? go on ,name them…
"The New Zealand Labour Party was formed in 1916 by various socialist parties and trade unions."
Follow the link from the words ‘socialist parties’ and you get a history of the formation of the Labour Party, including the involvement of the Socialist Party, and the Social Democratic Party.
That's not coattailing shadders. Double yewtieff you talkinbout?
It was sarcasm aimed at https://thestandard.org.nz/is-national-thinking-of-a-conservative-puppet-party/#comment-1617914.
There’s a lot of Christian money in the electorate. It has a good number of Pacific Island churches in Otara to the west, a sizeable, conservative, Christian South African community and a significant number of Koreans and Taiwanese Christians.
There is also a strong Catholic presence…
This is no different, and just as analytically weak, as saying "We've got a Korean person on the ballot, therefore we will win all the Asian votes."
This new party is fucked.
Yes. It's the same patronising punditry we've heard before.
In 2005, after civil unions, Tamaki's "enough is enough" march, prostitution reform and other "PC liberal" stuff, the pundit wisdom said that South Auckland voters would be turning away from Labour.
On election night, those same voters saved Helen Clark.
Tamaki held some protest against gay law reform, it was an incredible thing to behold…
I was walking into the comedy club for a day meeting through the park that hooks K-road to Greys Ave… and lo and behold, there were 12 000 (media reports) very angry (righteous anger they say) large and mostly leather clad folks intimidating the buildings that line the gulley.
Then, near the base of the park, where Tamaki stood on a podium spouting odious hatred (Family values) half a dozen scrawny vegan looking protesters turned up and faced off this 12 000 strong crowd.
"We're here, we're queer, we're not going anywhere"
Bravest bastards I've ever seen.
" a muff is enough " 🙂
Or perhaps as weak as a rule requiring 50% of MP's should be women…
Yes Phil the new party is fucked and so are national horray !
*shrug* – that's just a logical conclusion of identity politics, where your individualism is just subsumed into the demographic boxes you tick.
Hallelujah. Brian Tamaki will be deputy leader, the Orange Dotard will give his endorsement and the NRA will send lotza money.
The religious nutters and white supremacists will finally have someone to vote for.
Judith C "said "rumour and speculation" four times during the brief segment, and "interesting" another four times." She's trying to out-bland Labour. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/112793412/reports-national-list-mp-to-form-christian-party-speculation-collins-says
"If Te Atatu-based Ngaro won the seat and a Christian party got 2 per cent of the party vote the party could get three MPs and that could be enough for National to lead a government." The fundies reached 4% last time so Stuff needs to think bigger.
They solicited opinion from a political scientist: "Many moral social issues were exercising the minds of Christians at the moment. They included euthanasia, abortion, cannabis reform. "And all those issues National doesn't really have a strong sort of litmus test … position on," Edwards said. "And so there's a lot of voters that are looking around for a socially conservative voice on this."
Significant potential for the fundies to reduce the size of the Nat vote considerably! Since divide & rule always works in politics, this initiative could help prolong rule by the coalition – if it ups the achievement rate.
Christians are agin cannabis? It's in Genesis, " Then God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;"
Good one. Send it to Chloe via the govt email link here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament/swarbrick-chloe/
Or if you prefer the party option, try your luck with [email protected]
Constipation warning applies re logjam: depends how many staff they can afford vs jobs to be done at head office!
Oh, and it would help to append the biblical source reference. When talking to fundies, what works is you act as the channel for God. So always use verse & book id so they can look it up & verify that you are in fact doing so.
Heh, I think what bought my attention to the scripture was a sample from a Cypress Hill album.
Yes, at the 35 second mark.
Those guys got the message. In 1970 got it from the yaqui sorcerer, Don Juan – as taught to his apprentice, Carlos Castaneda. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Teachings_of_Don_Juan
Reality check: "Journalists discovered that Castaneda was a habitual teller of tall tales who, among other things, falsified his family background and his place and date of birth." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2398/did-carlos-castaneda-hallucinate-that-stuff-in-the-don-juan-books-or-make-it-up/
She was trying so hard to play it down as being the fanciful imaginings of conspiracy theorists. "Heh, what a jolly interesting idea! Total speculation, however. Utterly based on rumour. Probably won't happen. Heh. Yes… interesting though." The desperation was almost palpable. It's like what she really wanted to say was, "Shut up, Duncan! The timing is completely wrong! You'll scupper the whole business before its begun!"
This is National all over. We'll crap out some manufactured minor party to prop us up for the next election, and thus game the system. They already have Arnold Rimmer gifting the nation his pearls of wisdom. Given their penchant for lying, kicking the poor and feathering their own nests, National are about as Christian as the late Aleister Crowley. Any Christian who votes for this abomination should probably read their bible a little more thoroughly.
They probably won't though.
W-dale Seems correct in everything you say. I think you have seen through any fog that hovers.
The plus point for Ngaro is that he is more appealing than Craig, Capill, Tamaki, Moffett and the rest. But that's a very low bar to get over.
The unavoidable minus is always the same: you're either independent, or you belong to National/Labour. And if you belong to one or the other, you don't add votes. Worst case scenario, you waste them.
Best case scenario (from their perspective), it adds a sockpuppet overhang MP. Like the hairdo from Ohariu was 2014-2017. Or the Epsom hologram really should be, since his nationwide vote is less than 0.83%, but isn't due to the oddities of the Sainte-Lague method of allocating seats that we use.
Yes, but we can only analyse votes cast. It's harder to get data on votes missed.
I would guess that Dunne did not scare off potential National voters. A party of the religious Right would mean Bridges (or successor) constantly being asked about deals, etc. Adding an overhang seat, or even 2%, is not worth losing 3% in the centre.
Do National want to go into a campaign being committed against any law changes on drug reform, euthanasia, abortion, marriage equality etc? Or even allowing these issues to be "on the table" in coalition talks? No.
I think a lot of us are not up with the Sainte Lague method of allocating seats. So onto what you have thought might be a better way. Have you an idea of improvement we could make? We could do with some fine tuning of MMP I think.
With our current system of having a 4% or 5% threshold and overhang MPs being exactly the same as other MPs, the difference between Sainte-Lague and the other methods is really unlikely to matter much.
Under Sainte-Lague, ACT with 0.5% of the vote still got allocated a regular seat under Sainte-Lague. Under "modified Sainte-Lague" and d'Hondt, ACT would not have been allocated a seat and the Epsom hologram would have been an overhang MP. Off the top of my head, dunno which other party would have got that 120th allocated seat and CBF looking it up or working it out.
In practical terms, Sainte-Lague is more likely to give the last seat in the house to a small party, d'Hondt is more likely to give that last seat to a large party.
The difference would only become significant if we eliminated the threshold completely. Then the difference could become very significant to a lot of tiny parties as to whether they got one MP or two or none.
Imagine a 100 seat parliament and 10,000 voters. So each MP nominally represents about 100 voters. Among the minnow parties, A got 40 votes, B got 50 votes, C got 60 votes, D got 90 votes and E got 99 votes, F got 150, G got 180.
Sainte-Lague would allocate one seat to B,C,D,E and two seats each to E and F. A misses out because it didn't get enough votes to get allocated a seat.
Modified Sainte-Lague would allocate one seat to D,E,F and 2 seats to G. A,B,C miss out.
d'Hondt would allocate one seat to E,F,G. A,B,C,D miss out. Note that even under d'Hondt, E got less than one seat's worth of votes, but still got a seat due to the wasted votes for A,B,C,D.
Looking back at past elections, if we had used no threshold Sainte-Lague, IIRC there were several elections where Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis would have won a seat, along with other minnows. Hell, even McGillicuddy Serious would have come close.
However, when it comes to fine-tuning MMP, the practical reality is we went through the whole rigmarole of having the Commission investigate and recommend some (pretty timid) changes. Then Jhthulhu just circular filed the lot and nothing happened.
Andre Thank you so much. I am going to study that – have jobs outside while the sun is out at present. My concern is that an electorate seat won by a tiny party carries what seems a disproportionately large band of brothers and sisters into parliament.
They can get too much power for what is a pilot party being given a go at being part of the polity. I remember back in the 70s one hard-nosed conservative I think in their second House, holding back the work and desires of the other Parties with his one vote. P erhaps altering the voting system beyond the 51/49 so one vote is not so much the deciding factor. 53/47? That indicates a less fragile majority.
Well, proof is in the next election, but I think this lot have figured out how to do a coalition like grownups.
The problem for the nats isn't just that they have no friends, it's that anyone likely to want to be their friend will take votes away from them rather than contributing new voters.
Do we really think the McCroskie crowd don't vote nat already? Any new party will have to coat-tail an MP or two to be any use, and that's not going to get the nats another 7% or whatever to govern.
but if the nats can get rid of the kiddie bashers, they can at least pretend to be caring.
ooooo fair point, that…
That refers to pretence in politics and the idea that it is still relevant to all – pretending to be caring.
But the Alabama and other states action against any abortion, after their past vile history of uncaring and viciousness, is pretty heartbreaking against even that pretence.
I saw this comment about politicians of the older type, pretending that they care only for their favoured supporters.
In the Nelson Mail Quote of the week.
Can't wait till these old people die out with their outdated ideas and the world can progress. Kiwi MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fighter Israel Adesanya, commenting after the US state o Alabama passed a controversial law banning abortion.
As an older person working to hold onto the good from the past, and retain a system that has respect for the needs of everyone in the community that it is responsible for, I find it sad to read this.
One direction of the progress that is happening among the young shows up in the unfettered nastiness on Facebook, and even though an article in today's Nelson Mail points out that it is a minority that perpetrate the nastiness, it only takes small drops of poison in a well to affect everybody's drinking water.
Having trust that others will behave reasonably is so important. And knowing when to draw the line. The argument about getting terse with flamers here, and those who interrupt searching discussion with queries about syntax, are examples of how hard it is to move from old thinking and look closely to see whether there is support rife for the trend to fascism and authoritarianism.
The old will die sometime, after the businesses supplying aids and residential homes have sold to the full, but will the young people have any idea of how to fashion a society that honours their needs. Will it end up, back to the power-hungry and self-centred achievers at top and others below shut out from their own reasonable aspirations. And in other groups, the males melding in dominance kissing the Bishop's ring, or Rod of Power, and the females back to a lower level from where in past decades already, many have never essayed forth?
Speaking of conservatism, it would be good if the govt. partys had two hours divided up between their share of govt. responsibilities on television every Thursday night to produce themselves, and parliamentary opposition one hour likewise on Wednesday nights.
NZ is a society that aligns with dynamic citizen demand and supply overall to be guided by our collective values, and whether it be state or corporate, shill socialistic supply chains are often poor by comparison and with not small aspects of big media, a huge waste of resources and economy seeking to expand.
there is a germ of a very positive game changing measure in this
allowing public perception of government to be filtered by the current crop of shills and corporate interests is antidemocratic.
they may lie to us but at least it would be direct, not lies on top of other lies.
on the other hand we (the people) could just possibly get a different perspective on the process and outcomes of our government
sure the devil is in the detail but I still believe direct government media is worth persueing
What if government buy two hours to produce their own informative shows? They are just another entity in a commercial environment.
They might have to pay highly for those hours when the mass of people are watching but they spend huge amounts on PR, just give some of the glossy people the push. The devil will be in the adverts placed around the government which will often be malicious, or mocking, or attacking. If they could get their own solid two hours, one for government, and one for opposition which should present policy and discussion from the two main sides, that would be effective. We might get to know more, there would be ab audience and the tickets applied for, only two allocated at a time to avoid simple blocs of the obsessed.
The real problem National have is twofold;
First, they are conservatives themselves but fail to recognise such.
Second, society has moved on and left National behind, also as always happens to conservatives, being the followers that they are.
All of this simple stuff is quite beyond them.
The trouble with National at the moment is that it is too broad based a party. It has sucked up almost all the support on the right without truly representing any particular groups interest fully. It needs to refocus it's aim towards the middle allowing the right to be represented by other parties.
Thinking? Dreaming – like Feefi dreamt of nikau jam.
no the trouble with national is they are a bunch of self serving cunts
Is this the level that we have come to?
Yes. And that is why you have chosen your pseudo no doubt. Good on you – stop the rot and let's get back to a democracy with integrity, kindness and humour, it would be more practical in the long run.
Michelle – your hateful views are best kept to yourself- and mods (when you see this) is this really necessary?
Michelle's view doesn't seem "hateful". One word has upset you, James, and true to form, you repeated it. As any conversation develops, you'll no doubt, as you usually do, repeat it again and again. Just sayin'.
James repeated the word 'rape' almost 20 times over a two day period a while back.
If is not hateful, what is it?
What other interpretation can you give to describing a group of people as cunts?
It depends how they behave.
Given the Gnats' behavior, Michelle understated the case.
I am bit confused with why you call them Gnats, but anyway, I'm sure there is a hilarious story behind it.
So that I'm clear in my head, its acceptable to use hate speech if a group of people behave differently to the way we do, or have different political views to our own?
They are called Gnats because they are trivial irritating parasites. The title ‘National’ isn’t really appropriate to a party that flogs off anything with capital value overseas every chance they get.
They had ample opportunity to win my support – nearly a decade in power and no qualms about using a simple majority to claim a mandate. They didn't make an even remotely credible job of it.
In left groups you'll frequently find them candidly described as traitors – that's how far short they fell of expectations of good government – and in a democracy they get to shut up and hear the views of the people they failed.
i don’t like some of the things Jacinda is doing.
Would you be ok with me saying Jacinda is a cunt?
Im guessing not – and apart from using it in this example – I would not say it because It is hateful and vile.
Or or can you only use it against people YOU don’t like?
Btw – I don’t like how Jacinda running of a lot of things – but do not believe she is deserving of a term like that.
Actually James, you are and always have been fos. I'm sure you do call Jacinda a cunt, in the company of your fellows. Hateful and vile is how you roll, and you're not fooling anybody.
It’s not a matter of “don’t like” either. The previous government lied. They stole. They were corrupt – so corrupt that Southern Response is facing a massive class action. So corrupt that this government is obliged to compensate people evicted from their housing by false P tests. They were an objectively despicable government, and cheerfully made these dishonest and prejudicial decisions because they were cunts. And you loved it. Because you’re one too.
You are funny wee, sad man.
Stuart is correct.
Key used Dirty Politics in association with Cameron Slater and harassed a woman in her work place. Joyce ripped off the music of a rap artist for political gain. Collins threatened the head of the SFO and also associated with Cameron Slater. Bennett doxxed beneficiaries also for political gain. The list goes on.
They are horrible people. Jacinda Ardern is not, and that is where your corollary fails.
But not as pathetic a specimen as you – I choose to express myself in a forum with broadly similarly views.
You have the arrogance and thoroughly bad taste to try to impose your views on a community that despises you.
Unlike you – I don’t have to hide in a forum that is an echo chamber of my own views.
Nice that hat you can speak for the entire community here. I missed the election that voted you as the spokesperson- they could have done so much better.
You seem to be particularly uppity this evening. Bad day huh?
Cheer up sunshine.
Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance James.
"uppity" am I? You wretched snob – you might have money but you lack the class to sustain that pretention, barbecue boy.
All I have done is defend Michelle's comment from the hordes of concern trolling oiks. If that inconveniences you so much the better.
ok uppity and bitter would be a better description for you
You do know that I’m laughing at you right?
Gosh why don't you try to patronize me some more James?
That will really convince people, of something.
It's not as if you have an argument to make or observations to share.
You're only here to troll, which is not a protected activity.
You kinda missed the observation that calling a collective group of people cunts.
Too busy getting your panties in a knot huh?
You've just missed the point as usual.
Your grammar seems to have abandoned you along with your wits, but you left something out:
"that calling a collective group of people cunts"
that calling a collective group of despicable people cunts
Get it, barbecue boy?
Here's James @13.2 getting his "panties in a knot" – oh, the irony.
Current penalty count: Michelle 1; James 3.
Luv ya, James
Yes, James' (broken) record speaks for itself. We just tot up the score!
I don't like that sensitive female-oriented body part being used as a pejorative myself. I understand Michelle's feelings. But shits might be a better word, turds too, being universal, non-sexist and understood by all. Even able to be used as an analogy as some Nats, with some effort and rehabilitation could become useful for faecal implants, providing strength to the weakened National immune system. There is good in some of that shit if looked for.
Here is West Side Story Gee Officer Krupke. (Chorus – Deep down inside us there is good There is good, there is untapped good etc.) Imagine the Nats singing out their deepest truths about their lack of a childhood with caring and moral input concerning fairness and respect for all. Poor Nats, bent from childhood to be liars and cheats, to get to the top and whip the cream for themselves by any means they can think of. What a turnaround if they could adopt better ways and become better shits. (After that is Mein Herr, which fits the theme too.)
Sometimes the truth is painful to accept.
What other interpretation can you give to describing a group of people as cunts?
I may be drawing a long bow here, but I believe it means she doesn't like them. Otherwise, she would have called them "good cunts."
Yep – and when we are in the middle of a national debate over what is hate speech, where does this sit?
Using a term which is extremely offensive (to many people) to describe people you don't like is inciting hatred.
What would we say of some Kwibloggers said:
I'm a regular on Kiwiblog and phrases like that are routine there (or were, until the moderators turned up).
Those are hate speech terms that express bigotry against a group. I know that cunt is used in the USA as a hate speech term for women (and boy does that tell you something creepy about US male culture), but this isn't the USA. In this country, cunts is just a general term for people you don't like. (Unless they're good cunts, in which case it's a general term for people you do like. English swearing is very flexible.)
Yes you are a regular Troll…lol
It's the last word in each sentence that's the bad bit.
"cunts"? Has that been used to marginalise and dehumanise people for hundreds of years? Or is its only negative connotation the fact that people use it to be negative (personally, I like it used more as a positive, but each to their own)?
Hate speech is more than just expressing disapproval or anger.
Nats have a long tradition of being self-serving. That's the bit we should be angry about.
@Enough is Enough
As I see it, National has the capability to not be a ‘bunch of cunts’.
This is important to your counter argument: the terms you used in your hypothetical are slurs to denigrate people based on things they don't have the ability to change. This is why I don't these terms are equivalent.
One should probably ask Green Party XX leader Marama Davidson.
She seemed to be very proud of the label and for a while seemed to use it in just about every sentence. They seem to have shut her up more recently. Perhaps XY leader Shaw put his foot down.
given it’s the most offensive word in the English language and almost every woman I know (outside a couple) find it very offensive I’d hesitate to suggest it isn’t thrown around on a public blog
i really don't see why you get so offended James.
Cunts are good, they are warm, have depth, bring joy and birth life – non of these things can be attributed to any member of the No mates Party.
If anything the word is totally misplaced in regards to the No mates party. I would rather call them a bunch of useless wankers, housing welfare frauds, sexual predators, beneficiary bashers, and family silver peddlers.
me thinks you doth protest much.
Just look in the mirror with comments like that! what a fuckhead you are! oh thats right reclaim the word!
We always knew they were cheats happy to game the system to win.
Maybe time to launch a campaign to support Jami-Lee
The Government needs to move decisively on this – amend electoral law to require any party which wins 1 seat to also reach the NZ wide 5% threshold in the Party vote in order to bring other MP's into Parliament. Why lower the 5% threshold, just because you've won 1 seat?
If the so called Christian loonies are more than just a single issue bunch of morons, let them demonstrate their wide spread support by reaching the 5 % threshold, NZ wide
The government doesn't need to amend electoral law. Certainly not for the next election. Sledgehammer, nut.
National would love them to do it (or try to). A propaganda gift to the opposition.
The Right wing have been rorting an electoral loop hole for years, (Epsom seat). Time to close the loop hole & keep the pricks honest
That's worthy idea Dean at 15 about threshhold etc.
What do others think?
Shit stirring for your kicks is not useful for you james or anyone else.
I can see it now, Simon making his first speech as PM saying what got him there – the Hand of God!
I like it. More distraction for the right and their limpets. Meanwhile the left and the Government get on with making this country better.
By better you mean
kiwi build, 1b trees, thousands of jobs from provincial growth fund, 1800 new police in 2 years, reduction in child poverty, Free student fees to the wealthy, Subsidised electricity to the wealthy Entering Pike River mine beyond a few 100m (even that has yet still to be achieved) All policy fails, hardly transformational government and nirvana we where promised “ let’s do this” exactly what, fk knows
You forgot the gun laws.
Should a Christian Party led by Alfred Ngaro win the Botany seat, then it will have to be renamed the Alabama electorate of east Auckland … ("good Christian" folk banning abortion, while at the same time supporting the sickening process of execution)!
If Natz picks up this party as a support partner in an attempt to get itself over the line next election, then it's clearly demonstrating it's in desperation mode.
Just to challenge your logic
“ ("good Christian" folk banning abortion, while at the same time supporting the sickening process of execution)! “
The inverse “ ( “good progressive lefties supporting sickening process of late term abortion baby killing while at the same time banning execution)!”
nope it would be this
An 11-year-old Ohio girl who was impregnated by her rapist would be unable to receive an abortion under a bill recently passed in the state that bans the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.
The young girl had reportedly been raped repeatedly by a 26-year-old man, CBS News reported, citing local police records. But under a new bill signed by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) last month that bans women from obtaining an abortion once a fetus’ heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks in some cases, the young girl and others in similar cases would be unable to receive an abortion.
Though the young girl in this particular case will reportedly not be subjected to the state’s new abortion law while it remains pending, the case has brought light to future women and girls in similar circumstances that would forced to carry their rapist’s baby should the "heartbeat bill" take effect."
The bill was signed and unless it is struck down chances are she will have to carry this pregnancy to term, cause fuck it, she is nothing more then an incubator.
"I become pregnant from this rape, but I will not know until it is much too late. …….
I walk and speak and smile, but a part of me is convinced that I died that night in the kitchen, and my world is no longer real. I am paralyzed the moment reality tries to assert itself. I have the constant, repeated compulsion to climb atop a building, to step off and let the ground rise up to meet me. This is my first thought when the pregnancy test comes back positive. The doctor tells me that the baby is eight months along, and I am climbing to the top of a skyscraper.
She diagnoses my unborn daughter with hydranencephaly, explaining how her cerebrum failed to divide into two separate hemispheres, and instead filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The only reason she continues to experience some degree of development is because the cerebellum and brainstem are ensuring the most rudimentary of functions to sustain her precarious life. If she is born, she will suffer and die so very, very young ― and I step off the ledge.
The doctor tells me that in spite of this, I cannot receive an abortion that will prevent this pain ― both hers and my own. Alabama does not make exceptions for these cases at this stage of pregnancy, and going out of state is beyond my family’s means ― and I fall down and down and down."
and she birthed her child, loved it and buried it, cause fuck it, the rapist has more rights then she ever will have.
so please maybe just think before you sprout late term abortion nonsense that has very little to do with anything remotely do to with facts.
Women, little girls are humans. they are not incubators for the semen some men deposed in them with little regards to their health, their wellbeing, their ability to birth the child, or the ability of the resulting child to live. What happened in the US in the last few days has very little to do with sanctity of life, or being pro live but has all to do with essentially rendering women slave to their reproductive organs.
When a women or a girl receives a larger sentence for the abortion of their 'uncle / aunty ' cause rape by grandpa, or their 'brother/sister' cause rape by daddy, or 'cuzzie' cause rape by a uncle then the rapist receives for raping her then it has very little to do with justice, god, or sanctity of life.
I don't know if your comment is based on your believe system or if it was sarcastic, i honestly don't, but good grief, think about it. And i would also like to point out that we have incest laws to prevent harm, yet a girl raped by a family member in Alabama/Ohio and other states is now forced to carry this pregnancy to term, with all the negative issues that can come for children conceived by incest.
Just please think and ask yourself if you are really that morally superior, or if you are just really not that bothered that women will again be chattel and their children too. Or maybe that is the point of it all?
Men, and the few women, who interfere for personal satisfaction with young girls may not rape them, but still deeply hurt their inner being, their sense of self. And we must not forget sexual abuse of boys also. When a person is vulnerable and is used as a sex toy, it shows that the world has no respect for them, that their person and their minds and lives are not truly their own, and their wishes and any dreams they have can be destroyed at someone else's whim. Better to not have any and just keep your head down and not be noticed. Don't trust anybody if you can help it, you will only get hurt.
And there is hurt also in being denied respect even when there is no sex involved. But if the young one can escape, their inner strength remains and they can make their own way if they are determined.
you miss my point,
only girls and women can be forced to give birth, over and over again when their right to reproductive choice is systematically eradicated.
We are currently not talking about rape – but abortion being denied to pregnant human beings who had been raped.
When boys and men can be forcefully impregnated against their will and thus forced to carry a pregnancy to term – even if the fetus is not viable or conceived in incest, even if it will harm the 'mother' for live, then i will raise the issue about boys.
As for rape, i have made it very clear of the few years that i have been on this board that i don't stand for it, don't find excuses for it, want the perpetrator locked up for long long times, irrespective of who the rapee is cause we all know that everyone can be raped at any given moment.
I also don't need rape explained to me as the only difference between the 11 year old girl and me is the fact that i was not kidnapped and did not get pregnant. It happened at home and it was my stepfather, who for laughs and the likes also liked to beat the life out of my brother.
But again, only women / girls will fall pregnant and need this one particular health service.
Using extreme cases either way is not a good arguement I guess it comes down to your view on when you have discretion over another life and when you believe that life starts There are many holes or contradictions in the pro abortion stance, that is what I was high lighting without taking a stance either way
these are not extreme cases.
these are the expemptions that have been removed.
no more exemption in the case of rape, incest and only in the case that the mother risks death.
these are standard cases.
NZ – https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11332633 a mother at 13 – as she can't consent she was raped.
she was 11 and gave birth by cesarian – surely we can agree that an 11 year old can not consent to sex and thus was raped?
in fact that youngest girl to have been given birth was barely 6 years old.
No my view is that it should be between the women/girl/family doctor. My view is that one should not force an 11 year old who was kidnapped and repeatedly raped to force to give birth her physical health, her mental health, her future opention re schooling, and even giving birth again at a later time be damned and then maybe even be forced to co-parent with the rapist.
As i said, i can not see what you think and i don't want to put anything towards you, but there is a common sense of decency that i think we can agree on, and abortion at least in the cases of incest, rape, and health issues should be left over to the one who is most affected by it and not by us or by some men in suits who will never ever be put in that position in the first place.
But extreme these cases are not, sadly they are shockingly normal. and now in certain States of the US they are now forced to carry the pregnancy to term, and please explain to me how an 11 – 12 year old is able to care for a child, provide for a child, go to school, get a job, live a life?
see here https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
Victims of sexual violence who are incarcerated are most likely to be assaulted by jail or prison staff.
it is illegal for prison staff to have sex with inmates btw, so again this would not be considered a 'consensual' relationship due to the power imbalance. Btw, she choose to carry her child to term, which is not 'pro – life' but 'pro – choice'. Her choice.
Not yours, not mine.
Who will be bank rolling this Christian Party, National Party Inc ?
Tamaki, the brethren etc.
AHH ha sabine have you exposed what this is really about ?. are we actually looking at a clandistine coalition between national and Brian Tamaki.??
just as an aside this comments box breaks my tablet (cant get focus in it) and also my linux box (right click hijacked away from spellcheck) ..a poor excuse for my bad spelling but there ya go
oh second aside i appear to have changed my username for this post at the same time , sorry not deliberate xanthe
My cursor goes to the required name line in the address box and the message will start there by the name which shows up as a different name than usual. Annoying if I don't remember to shift cursor. I thought it was just on my computer but apparently not.
ahh yes thats what happened to me so hopefully this will reset me to xanthe
cant post at all on my tablet cannot get focus in the comments box at all
I guess in a democracy theres no reason fundamentalist religious individuals shouldnt seek representation in Parliament….perhaps Brian Tamaki should consider it
Brian Tamaki did consider it. He couldn't stand being rejected I guess and pulled the pin. Or was afraid of the hard work. And being one of the minions doing the work and having to care rather than being Boss Bishop.
It would've been hard case seeing him in Parliament making grand speeches about how the Christchurch earthquakes were cause d by homosexuality.
"In four years Destiny church will rule New Zealand, according to its charismatic founder pastor Brian Tamaki."
"In 2003 several members of the Destiny Church started the Destiny New Zealand political party, led by Richard Lewis. The party ran candidates in most electorates in the 2005 general election, but garnered less than 1 percent of the vote – well short of the 5 percent threshold required to enter Parliament without winning an electorate seat."
It's a natural fit, fundamentally good christian people with all those good human traits and…. the nats.
To replace the hologram party? or instead
This is clever stuff from National.
Anything that takes the attention away from Simon will improve National's image.
The ghosts that i have called i can not rid myself of anymore. Goethe
National would do very well to ask themselves if they would not loose a large segment of their voters to the socalled christian party and rather then canibalising the left they might just find that those with extreme religious believes might just vote for the ones that would advance these extreme religious believes.
why vote for milk toast simon when you can have someone like tamaki/ngaro/israel dude if you are in that believe group.
look at the states and realise that the republican party is now home to the tea party, and that the old fashioned conservative is either kissing up or resigning.
oh the fun that will be had in the upcoming shitshow that is gonna be the election.
I'm by no means a conservative, but I think the New Zealand political landscape would benefit from a party that is socially conservative and Christian. At the moment we lack one. NZ First focuses on immigration, but not much else. For example, they did nothing, as far as I am aware, to oppose the removal of references to Jesus Christ in the parliamentary prayer, one of the first things the new coalition government did.
If they handle things right, I think an overtly Christian party would appeal to many migrants, from South Africans and Koreans living in the North Shore, Filipino Catholics, to many mainland Chinese, who take to Christianity like ducks to water.
Many in Labour/Greens know how to wreck things, but do fucken nothing when it comes to the hard stuff like building houses and CGT, and handling of trade relations, almost stuffing up the China relation.
We use to have real leaders like Muldoon, Lange, Clarke even. But now politics has descended into a dog and pony show with ‘I’m such a kind person, and even gave birth while not married!’ so therefore I’m the greatest leader in the whole western world! A friend of mind said, the West seems to have lost what once was its great strength – common sense. We need a party rooted in family values and common sense sitting in parliament, because right now we don’t have one.
If this does go ahead, I wish Alfred Ngaro all the best in this new venture.
Why do you despise a PM who demonstrates Christian values in her own leadership? What exactly is your problem with kindness? What is your version of the gospels – more division, more hate? Ardern's basic decency is based on her own upbringing. That's where she learned her family values – real ones.
We had the dog and pony (tail) show until 2007. Not missed.
15th May 2017
"Associate Minister of Social Housing Alfred Ngaro told the National Party's Auckland Conference on the weekend there could be financial consequences for the Manukau Urban Māori Authority if Mr Jackson bagged the government on the campaign trail."
Mr English told Morning Report Mr Ngaro's comments were off the cuff.
Yeah Ngaro is the perfect choice too head a puppet christian party to prop up a future National led government.
Fundy religious / morals based political entities always seem to come a gutsa on moral or belief grounds. Colin Craig and Graeme Capill being two recent examples. It’s a part of society where deeply unpleasant individuals rise to prominence at odds to their professed beliefs.
The public scrutiny the political process brings to bear alway tips them out.
Could be entertaining and couldn’t happen to more deserving people.