But is that 1, 2, 3 so simple? There seems much in the media of Jones as ‘Kingmaker’, but if that 1, 2, 3 is as simple as it seems, then surely the media could work out that Jones is anything but.
Maybe it’s that they’re so used to politicians cutting deals (it is their job after all). But there are no deals able to be cut. The voters decide. Even on deputy once the result is in, the caucus decides…
The most blatant and recent failure to comprehend this I’ve seen is from Andrea Vance:
Which brings us back to Jones – and where he directs his second preference votes once eliminated.
When he’s eliminated (assuming he is…) he doesn’t doesn’t get to “direct” second preferences, either directly or indirectly. The computer wipes his 1s out and those people’s 2s come into play. Job done, the result’s available a few microseconds after the first first preferences result.
Even if Jones were to make an announcement now as to who people should put as 2 behind him, it’s likely to be too late to have much impact. It’s not just me who’s already voted. Lots of ballots were cast on the night by the well over 3000 people who’ve attended meetings so far. Lots of postal ballots will have already winged their way back. Even if the MPs are a large bloc who vote late, Jones doesn’t appear to have many of them to direct one way or t’other, presuming they’d listen to him on a secret ballot.
Yes he’s made a good display as an orator, and someone who can get a section of voters moving, and yes he’s made some good friendly telly… but kingmaker? He has only as much sway as any other MP with 1.2% of the vote…
Impressive statistic: Labour’s increased their membership by 15% through this process. That’s a lot of extra activists for election year next year.
Second bugbear: Tim Watkin thinks Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe have missed a trick by not opening the door to their families in the way Shane Jones did. 3rd degree could have hosted BBQs of friendly tv in all of their houses, what did they have to hide (as Guyon & Duncan put it…)?
Well, yes they did miss a trick if they weren’t human beings, but merely TV commodities. But they are human beings.
I’m not sure what the suicide rate of NZ MPs’ kids is, but if it’s anything like it is in Britain I don’t think Tim should be demanding access to politicians’ families. The bullying that comes with being closely related to a politician is not something to be sniffed at – increasing that by exposing them on telly? Not wise.
And just because someone has fallen in love with a politician climbing the greasy pole to make a difference to their country, doesn’t mean that the politician’s partner is comfortable in the limelight. A politician’s job involves copping a lot of shit, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable that they’d want to protect their loved ones from that. Surely we can focus on the person who has decided to throw themselves into the limelight, not demand their family as hostages?