National’s dead cat strategy

Written By: - Date published: 7:41 am, December 6th, 2018 - 56 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, articles, making shit up, national, Politics, same old national, Simon Bridges, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Yesterday was shaping up to be a particularly bad day for National.

The leaks were continuing with suggestions that the recent Colmar Brunton poll result for them was overly optimistic and the anonymous caucus texter or another anonymous caucus texter had resumed contact with the media.

From Chris Bramwell at Radio New Zealand:

The anonymous texter, who leaked details of National’s internal polling last week, has hit back at the party’s leader who said the leak did not come from within his caucus.

After last week’s National Party caucus meeting RNZ received a text message outlining details of internal polling, claiming there was a lot of disappointment among caucus members.

Simon Bridges yesterday said the leak did not come from within his caucus, and would not discuss the polling numbers which were not as flattering as a recent public poll.

“I’m not going to talk about internal polls, what we know is we’ve got a poll there that’s public, that’s 46 percent, that shows we’ve got momentum, you can understand there’ll be speculation and rumours.”

He was asked about the internal polling, putting his party 4 points lower at 41 percent.

“I don’t talk about internal polls, it’s a Labour Party trick.”

And Maggie Barry’s problems intensified with one of the complainants being interviewed on Radio New Zealand and a complaint that Barry had been misusing Parliamentary Services resources for National’s benefit being made to the Auditor General.  From Kirsty Johnston at the Herald:

A former staffer who accused MP Maggie Barry of bullying – including allegations she expected staff to do political work on taxpayer time – has laid a complaint with the Auditor General about misuse of public money.

The Herald understands evidence provided includes examples of National Party work completed by state-funded staff while working for Barry, which is prohibited, and would be unlawful.

The Auditor General’s office confirmed today it had received the information, and would assess it.

So what does National do?  Engage in as cynical example of dead catting that you can imagine by creating a big stink in Parliament and then accusing Mallard of bias when he responded in the only way he could.

The strategy has been described in these terms by none other than Boris Johnson:

There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.

As Lprent has stated Mallard’s decision yesterday to throw Bridges out was perfectly appropriate. Mallard was on his feet and Bridges then basically accused him of bias. Of course Bridges had to go.

The subsequent “walk out” was cynical in the extreme with MPs being coaxed out of the house one by one.

And National must know that when cheerleaders like Audrey Young and Barry Soper say that Mallard was justified Bridges has well and truly overstepped the mark.

The strategy is a short term one.  It has created a bit of a stink and National’s problems have been relegated in the media, at least for now.

But the trouble with the strategy is that if the news that you are trying to hide is that bad then you have to keep lobbing dead cats onto the kitchen table.  Until the media works out what is happening.  Then your credibility takes a big hit.

National may be at that stage now.  But don’t discount the possibility of more dead cats appearing as National grapples with the multitude of problems that it is currently facing.

56 comments on “National’s dead cat strategy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Incognito 1
    6 December 2018 at 7:50 am

    We have a Schrödinger Opposition: it’s simultaneously both dead and alive until put to the test. Yesterday, we saw the result of the test: it was MIA.

    • marty mars 1.1
      6 December 2018 at 7:57 am

      “Schrödinger Opposition”

      I love it.

      The gnats are really a rabble – without a leader they are leaderless. There lifeline of a poll result shows how tenuous their hold on reality is. The fact that simon is their very best – their pick to lead them, voted on and supported and he is an absolute disaster – is really sad for them – they must be so down coming to the festive season.

      • Michelle 1.1.1
        6 December 2018 at 10:42 am

        Thats good they are down Marty cause so are thousands of Kiwis they have kicked in the guts for the last nine years with their rat shit policies.

      • veutoviper 1.1.2
        6 December 2018 at 11:55 am

        Re poll results you may be interested in a chat Dennis Frank and I have had further down at 4.3, with great input from the wonderful Swordfish who popped in here briefly last night with a link to a quick poll assessment on their Twitter account. As I say down there, I really rate Swordfish for his/her poll assessments and miss them posting posting here more often.

        NOTE – no offence to you, Matthew Whitehead. You two have two different approaches, both worthwhile.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    6 December 2018 at 8:07 am

    Collin’s will get to be leader, and she is such a low cunning shithouse rat who will try to be Donella Trump, thrashing law and order, immigration and commie bashing with the politics of division and hate.

    In other words, the far right muppets of the National party in Auckland will be in charge.

    She will appeal to the sensible sentencing trust crowd and the sort of people who confiscate children’s toys that land on their lawn.

    They’ll be wiped out in the next election.

    • Alan 2.1
      6 December 2018 at 11:06 am

      She will put a stop to any proposed new taxation and will ensure that we control our own borders. She will also ensure that charter schools can continue their excellent work. She will win with an outright majority.

  3. veutoviper 3
    6 December 2018 at 8:22 am

    mickysavage, a suggested name correction in your post.

    In para four you refer to “From Kirsty Johnstone at the Herald” with a link to her article under the reference.

    Her correct name is Kirsty Johnston – no ‘e’.

    A trap I have also fallen into in the past, because RNZ also has music producer named “Kirsten Johnstone”

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/presenters/kirsten-johnstone

    [lprent: Fixed. ]

  4. veutoviper 4
    6 December 2018 at 8:55 am

    Having got my pedantry fix for the day, I was interested to see that Barry Soper has filed two articles on the Herald/Newstalk ZB on the eviction of Bridges from the House yesterday.

    The first, yesterday afternoon on both Mediaworks outlets, supported the Speaker’s grounds for removing Bridges.

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/larry-williams-drive/audio/barry-soper-speaker-had-grounds-to-remove-bridges/

    Soper’s latest on the Herald this morning is particularly interesting as it implies that, as well as RNZ, other media eg Newshub etc, may have also received the new text leak from someone purporting to be a National Caucus member.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12171953

    Yesterday when I posted here on TS the breaking news that RNZ had received a new text from this person, there was discussion on why RNZ had not released details of the actual contents of the text including details of the previous day’s Caucus meeting apparently included in the text. MS and I also remarked that the MO of the latest texter seemed to repeat the MO used for the earlier texts from a leaker in the Nat Caucus.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/memo-from-crosby-textor-nationals-leak-problem/#comment-1558581

    Barry Soper’s latest Herald piece this morning provides these details. After comparing the current situation to the Muldoon/McLay period, Soper goes on to the current leaks and the contents of the latest text, ie

    The same fate looks likely to befall the hapless Simon Bridges – only he’s unlikely to remain in the job for as long as McLay did.

    The rumblings in the party are now becoming audible.

    They started out with the leak of the internal polling which rained on the Colmar Brunton poll, giving it 46 per cent support while in reality it was at just 41.

    An MP, either acting alone or with the knowledge of others, is undermining Bridges by using a burner phone, not taking any chances with the internal phone records of MPs inspected during the Jami-Lee Ross probe.

    The number can’t be traced and since the texting started the number’s changed.

    But the internal poll figures have checked out and so too have other claims made – which could only have come from a caucus member.

    They talked of an email sent by the leadership to MPs the night before this week’s caucus, telling them how to respond to media inquiries about bullying emphasising the “strong culture” in National and that “people like coming to work” for the party and that Parliament’s a robust place.

    The next morning Paula Bennett talked to reporters before her leader, which she’s taken to doing of late, and had the phrases off pat.

    A short time later Bridges sounded like a cracked record repeating them ad nauseam.

    The MP feeding the information’s going to a lot of trouble, texting with a third burner number, giving an insight into what went on in this week’s caucus.

    How Maggie Barry, who’s being besieged with bullying accusations, stood up and thanked her colleagues for their support, greeted by a stunned silence.

    Her colleagues remember her outburst in October, castigating Jami-Lee Ross for his behaviour towards his staff.

    The texter said they were bracing for more accusations against Barry, and they came.

    It’s unlikely this texter’s acting alone.

    It’s clearly a campaign to undermine National’s leadership team and the strain is beginning to show.

    When Parliament rises for the Christmas break in two weeks’ time there’ll be keen interest in who’s invited to what barbeque but one thing is for sure, early next year they’ll be burning Bridges.” END

    It will be interesting to see what happens in the House today, although neither Ardern or Bridges are likely to be there being a Thursday.

    As I mentioned elsewhere on TS last night, Parliament was originally meant to rise next Thursday, 13 December, but a few weeks ago it was agreed that this sitting session would be extended by two days with the House now due to rise on Wednesday, 19 December.

    So presumably that is now three or four more Question Times where Bridges will still be present as Leader of the Opposition …

    • mickysavage 4.1
      6 December 2018 at 9:02 am

      Looks like they are using the leak report as a textbook on what to do so they are not caught …

      • veutoviper 4.1.1
        6 December 2018 at 9:26 am

        LOL!

        Memories of Rawshark and their techniques have also popped back into my mind this time around …

        • Anne 4.1.1.1
          6 December 2018 at 10:04 am

          Yes, I thought of Rawshark too. I hope he/she is enjoying the current pantomime a la the National Party caucus.

    • the other pat 4.2
      6 December 2018 at 9:27 am

      ….Paula tried to help me find a job
      A while ago
      When I finally got it I didn’t want to go
      The party Judith gave for me
      When I just walked away
      Now there’s nothing left for me to say……..oh paleeze sighmon stop talking…

    • Dennis Frank 4.3
      6 December 2018 at 9:32 am

      This bit from Soper seems significant: “the Colmar Brunton poll, giving it 46 per cent support while in reality it was at just 41.” His implication that Nat internal polling produces reality seems bizarre. Doesn’t everyone know polls are merely samples of public support for a party? Is a momentary inclination reality? Not for long. He seems to be marking out a minority-of-one stance.

      However he’s also implying that the Nats view their internal poll as more realistic than Colmar Brunton’s, isn’t he? If so, they have more confidence in Curia methodology. And conversely, they believe CB consistently over-rates National support. I doubt that they are on solid ground with this evaluation.

      • veutoviper 4.3.1
        6 December 2018 at 10:28 am

        And the internal Labour Party UMR polling about the same time that apparently had National at 37%?

        The level of 41% for the internal National party polling – also reported by other sources in addition to Soper – is roughly halfway between the lower UMR level of 37% and the Colmar Brunton high of 46%.

        NZ political public polls are now very few and far between, compared to political party internal polls which apparently are done much more frequently. So it would seem logical that they would put more weight on the internal polls.

        IIRC Colmar Brunton has also been experimenting with different mixes of landline/mobile polling, and I think with some internet polling thrown in. This could also affect their results.

        The wonderful Swordfish has not posted here lately until just last night. IMHO Swordfish is the doyen of political poll analysis and I miss those posts.

        Here is the link to last night’s comment which then links to a series of tweets by Swordfish on the UMR and Curia internal polling but its actually really short, ie:

        “Labour / National Internal Polls
        (piecing together a timeline from various sources)

        https://twitter.com/swordfish7774/status/1070191711991750657 “

        https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-05-12-2018/#comment-1558832

        For those who can’t or don’t want to go to the Twitter link, here are the tweets in order:

        “Not being directly privy to the UMR & Curia (Major Party Internal) Polls – but keeping my ear close to the ground – the following looks pretty likely to me: Mid October: as Jami-Lee Ross saga begins to emerge, UMR find the Nats have fallen 3 points.
        9:42 PM – 4 Dec 2018

        Early November: as Jami-Lee Ross saga begins to bite, UMR Lab 46, Nat 37, Green 7, NZF 7 Two sources suggest Curia also had National at 37 in Early November

        Mid-late November (Fieldwork about a week or so before the latest Colmar Brunton): Curia: Lab 44 / Nat 41 UMR: Taken roughly same time as Curia reportedly has Nats in same ball-park (presumably in the region of 40-42)

        Compare with April 2018 Curia which according to two independent sources had Nats around the 50 mark.

        So the Nats take a substantial hit in the immediate wake of Jami-Lee Ross implosion … then a mild / partial bounce-back, but still below their previous norm (UMR, for instance, had the Major Parties neck and neck throughout much of the year)” END

        TO MODERATORS
        My apologies – I have gone well off the subject of this post. More than happy for this and why it originated to be moved to OM if you wish to do so.

        • Dennis Frank 4.3.1.1
          6 December 2018 at 11:23 am

          Yes, when Labour & National internal polling produces a consistent result, it does suggest CB is an outlier. Not yet a rule folks agree on tho…

          • veutoviper 4.3.1.1.1
            6 December 2018 at 11:49 am

            On past experience etc, I value Swordfish’s assessments and trust the information he/she provides. Great timing … And I have just enjoyed some time out looking through some interesting posts on their Twitter account. IIRC Swordfish also set up a blog focusing on polling but no mention of it on the Twitter account.

            • Incognito 4.3.1.1.1.1
              6 December 2018 at 8:07 pm

              Last blog that I could find from Swordfish was July 2018.

              • veutoviper …
                7 December 2018 at 9:30 am

                I take it you have not read my 4.3.1 above?

                Swordfish commented here on TS on Wednesday night, 5 Dec, linking to a thread on his/her Twitter account with some analysis of Labour and National’s internal polling (UMR and Curia) in relation to the CB polls.

                I provided links to both the comment here on TS and the Tweets but also quoted Swordfish’s Tweets in full.

              • veutoviper …
                7 December 2018 at 9:49 am

                Sorry, Incognito, my sincere apologies for my earlier reply.

                I now realise that I miss-read your comment as meaning posting or commenting on here, rather than relating to Swordfish’s own blog.

                Can you remind me the name of Swordfish’s blog as I have forgotten it and don’t seem to have it bookmarked. Thanks.

        • swordfish 4.3.1.2
          11 December 2018 at 12:42 am

          veutoviper

          “The wonderful Swordfish …”

          Now you’re speaking my language !!! We’re clearly singing from the same songsheet here. Those three little words … they pass my lips every time I look in the bathroom mirror.

          May be another upcoming blog post demolishing the widespread media consensus that:
          (1) National’s mid-40s poll support is absolutely unprecedented …

          Or – to quote the excitable media hyperbole generated by National’s poll ratings this year, It’s:

          “remarkable” (Jane Clifton), “astonishing” (Chris Trotter), “astounding” (HDPA), “staggering” (Tracy Watkins), “near miraculous” (Matthew Hooton), “outstanding shape” (Hooton), “such high polling” (Hooton), “remarkably consistent” (Kathryn Ryan), “strong ratings” (Stephen Mills), “remarkable” (David Farrar), “astonishing” (Farrar), “frankly incredible” (Farrar), “excellent” (Farrar), “a great result for National” (Farrar), “a minor miracle” (Toby Manhire), “National’s continual strength” (Tim Watkin), “quite an achievement” (Watkin), “a worryingly large number of voters” (Trotter), “a big group of voters” (HDPA), “an alarmingly large number of New Zealanders” (Trotter), “a formidable unitary force” (Trotter), “steadfast opposition” (Trotter), “the most popular party” (Mike Hosking), “the biggest Opposition in history” (Hosking), “they’re doing fine” (Hosking), “They’re riding high and well” (Hosking), “largest party by a mile” (Hosking), “number one by some margin” (Hosking), “45% is a very, very good number by anyone’s standards” (Hosking), “The numbers tell you all you need to know about who’s got the upper hand right now” (Hosking), “there is much for National to be pleased about and a lot for Labour to be concerned about – namely the party vote” (Audrey Young), “brand National is stronger than they thought” (Young), “National’s high polling numbers” (Tracy Watkins), “National’s heroically high standing in the Polls” (Jane Clifton), “barnacle-like support” (Watkins), “probably unprecedented for a first-term Opposition” (Clifton), “still the more popular Party” (Watkins), “the only way is down” (Watkins), “National continues to ride high in the polls and that should be a huge wake-up call for Labour … Labour could lose” (Watkins).

          (2) National has uniquely defied historical precedent / political gravity by avoiding the rapid descent into chronic unpopularity allegedly suffered by virtually all previous newly-defeated Major Opposition Parties ?

          • swordfish 4.3.1.2.1
            11 December 2018 at 12:58 am

            As I’ll argue, both dimensions of the Media Orthodoxy are wrong.

            I do wish senior journalists would stop:

            (a) mindlessly regurgitating Farrar

            (b) cheerfully interviewing their own typewriters

      • shadrach 4.3.2
        6 December 2018 at 12:42 pm

        I just heard Soper on the radio talking about the internal polling v’s the CB. Soper was clear that the timing of two polls was important. The internal polling was taken at a time when the JLR saga had done it’s worst to national. The CB was taken later, when National were getting hits on the government over the Sroubeck debacle. Soper’s point was actually that the CB was likely to reflect a more up to date picture than the internal polling (which he had access to BTW), and had actually taken the pressure off Bridges. It was an interesting take.

        • Dennis Frank 4.3.2.1
          6 December 2018 at 1:00 pm

          Now that’s interesting, thanks! If he’s right about the timing differential, then it does suggest the Sroubeck thing has equalised the JLR thing, returning National to where it had been prior to both (within the margin of error).

          In which case I’m inclined to agree that it eases pressure on Bridges over the holiday break. Makes the floating centrists seem rather fickle, but aversion to flakiness – whether of the left or right – makes sense too.

          • veutoviper 4.3.2.1.1
            6 December 2018 at 3:19 pm

            It doesn’t ease any pressure on Bridges when you look at his lack of popularity as Preferred PM with Collins now only 1% behind his low 7% ranking.

            And the remarks made by Soper of a slight swing back in overall polling results between the UMR, Curia and CB polls is exactly in line with what Swordfish said in their tweets. Read them again closely and SF’s summing up, ie

            “So the Nats take a substantial hit in the immediate wake of Jami-Lee Ross implosion … then a mild / partial bounce-back, but still below their previous norm (UMR, for instance, had the Major Parties neck and neck throughout much of the year).”

    • ianmac 4.4
      6 December 2018 at 12:16 pm

      “How Maggie Barry, who’s being besieged with bullying accusations, stood up and thanked her colleagues for their support, greeted by a stunned silence.”

      I think that is probably true. The more fairminded NAt MPs might think that Barrie is a pain who is further blackening their names.

  5. gsays 5
    6 December 2018 at 9:32 am

    Initially I agreed with Lprent, and ban bridges for a month.

    With a little thought I figure this would play into (one lane) bridge’s/nats hands, poor me, vindictive, bias etc.

    Instead show the grace and maturity that the Labour party has shown lately and ignore the poor behaviour.

    I was impressed with minister Twyford the other day on RNZ.
    When talking about compensating ‘P tenants’, Guyon Espinor gave him several opportunities to diss the nats, and he let them all go through to the keeper.

    This kindness lark might catch on…

    • Anne 5.1
      6 December 2018 at 10:11 am

      This kindness lark might catch on….

      I think it has become the order of the day for Labour. There are times when they should fight fire with fire so hope they don’t take this kindness caper too far. 😈

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      6 December 2018 at 11:32 am

      Instead show the grace and maturity that the Labour party has shown lately and ignore the poor behaviour.

      In this case ignoring the poor behaviour will only result in more poor behaviour.

      When talking about compensating ‘P tenants’, Guyon Espinor gave him several opportunities to diss the nats, and he let them all go through to the keeper.

      In that situation that is the correct strategy.

      • gsays 5.2.1
        6 December 2018 at 2:20 pm

        “In this case ignoring the poor behaviour will only result in more poor behaviour”

        I disagree, especially children and animals. My son ran off in the supermarket as a three year old.
        I carried on shopping. One relieved toddler 4minutes later.

        Ok perhaps the theory will not transfer to dead man walking pollies….

    • shadrach 5.3
      6 December 2018 at 12:45 pm

      I’m also wondering if there has ever been an MP banned from the NZ Parliament for a week, let alone a month.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    6 December 2018 at 11:30 am

    The strategy is a short term one. It has created a bit of a stink and National’s problems have been relegated in the media, at least for now.

    I don’t think this one bounced.

  7. A 7
    6 December 2018 at 12:37 pm

    Meanwhile constituents struggle with actual problems.
    A ban would leave a nice media gap : )

    (And the cat photo was horrible. I know it’s already dead but MUST you?)

  8. McFlock 8
    6 December 2018 at 1:18 pm

    Ah, good point.

    The other drawback the dead cat strategy is that after a while you just become the dude who keeps slapping dead cats onto the table. Folks might begin to think you’re a weirdo…

  9. CHCOff 9
    6 December 2018 at 2:59 pm

    New Zealand is still, at heart in many respects, the most backwards (in a good way) first world British commonwealth state on the planet in who we are.

    The commonwealth value system approach to societal organisation & economics, which is the best type in my view, is what will emerge as a federation of trading, if the Brexit moves advocated by the likes of Boris Johnson is the path that Britain shifts to lead on.

    In many respects, New Zealand could serve as a development model ideal to that with other nations in such an approach.

    One of the great things about that, would then probably be a improved, better, changed National party.

    NZ1st!

  10. Dennis Frank 10
    6 December 2018 at 6:02 pm

    Looks like the dead cat strategy is just a ruse, because Simon is also running a live kiwi strategy. According to Andrew Geddes, he “told TVNZ: “Why not have the courage of your convictions, let’s throw this out there, why not [reduce the MMP threshold to] two or three per cent? Actually let’s be genuinely democratic.”

    I doubt he’d ever be able to persuade his caucus to be genuinely democratic, but at least he’s thinking laterally! This was in response to the musing of the justice minister that the upcoming referendum could be a triple header. Perhaps intended to invoke Cerberus in the minds of voters? Scare them off?
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-12-2018/its-raining-referendums-hallelujah/

    In 2012 “the Electoral Commission recommended lowering the party vote threshold from five to four per cent (while also getting rid of the Seymour Lifeboat rule)”. More democracy than that could be dangerous?

    Andrew is feeling gung-ho: “Why not, as a people, affirm that a threshold of 2.5% – the figure recommended by some exceptionally intelligent individuals – is a better fit for the sort of open and responsive political process we would like to see? Because I agree with Simon Bridges on this matter: let’s be genuinely democratic.”

    • ianmac 10.1
      6 December 2018 at 7:10 pm

      There was an intense discussion about threshold on Public Address a few years ago when the pros and cons were explored with the help of those electoral legal experts.
      Some advocated zero threshold with the belief if a group could muster the 50-60,000 votes they should get a voice.

      eg 2008 Legal Beagle “The New Zealand House of Representatives, if there was no threshold:

      New Zealand National Party – 55 seats
      New Zealand Labour Party – 41 seats
      The Greens – 8 seats
      New Zealand First Party – 5 seats
      Māori Party – 5 seats
      Act New Zealand – 4 seats
      Jim Anderton’s Progressive – 1 seat
      United Future New Zealand – 1 seat
      The Kiwi Party – 1 seat
      The Bill and Ben Party – 1 seat

      2017 Legal Beagle:
      As I now do each election (2014, 2011, 2008), below, the results of the 2017 general election if there was no threshold:
      National – 54
      ACT – 1
      New Zealand First – 9
      TOP – 3
      Māori Party – 1
      Labour – 44
      The Greens – 8

      (total 120 MPs)

      Obviously, voters would behave differently if there was no threshold, but these numbers show that even with the strong disincentive that the threshold gives to people considering voting for minor parties, there are four MPs worth of voters who have been told that their views and interests are unworthy of being represented in Parliament.

      My links to Public Address:
      https://publicaddress.net/search.do?q=threshold

      • Dennis Frank 10.1.1
        6 December 2018 at 8:26 pm

        Yeah, what’s wrong with diversity? The Greens prioritise biodiversity. Multiculturalism seems to have cross-party support. Why not support Bridges being radical for a change? I realise he’s probably doing this to help TOP or any new prospective coalition partner for the Nats, of course.

        • mac1 10.1.1.1
          6 December 2018 at 9:36 pm

          The “no-mates at 5% threshold” National party has become the “please be my mate at any %” party as they see that you do need coalition mates in MMP, since 50% is too high a bar for one single party to rule by itself, so far. (National fancied their chances in 2017 and paid the price for their hubris).

          Remember, the threshold, though too high at 5% in my opinion, was placed there to avoid a plethora of minor parties, and as Israel found out, very difficult in terms of formation of governments and then maintaining stability, as well as a bit of tail wagging the dog.

          Wikipedia has a good article with pertinent paragraphs under the headings of Fairness and Election of Minor Parties here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

      • Pete 10.1.2
        6 December 2018 at 9:26 pm

        What would the 2017 result have looked like had the recommendations of the MMP Review had not been torpedoed by J Collins?

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2
      7 December 2018 at 10:56 am

      According to Andrew Geddes, he “told TVNZ: “Why not have the courage of your convictions, let’s throw this out there, why not [reduce the MMP threshold to] two or three per cent? Actually let’s be genuinely democratic.”

      So, he’s campaigning for Participatory Democracy now?

      No, of course not. He still thinks that having a government owned by the corporations is what we need despite the fact that it’s obviously failing.

      I doubt that he wants proof that we could do better running the country than the MPs.

      In 2012 “the Electoral Commission recommended lowering the party vote threshold from five to four per cent (while also getting rid of the Seymour Lifeboat rule)”. More democracy than that could be dangerous?

      Apparently so.

      Andrew is feeling gung-ho: “Why not, as a people, affirm that a threshold of 2.5% – the figure recommended by some exceptionally intelligent individuals – is a better fit for the sort of open and responsive political process we would like to see? Because I agree with Simon Bridges on this matter: let’s be genuinely democratic.”

      As much as I agree with dropping the threshold down the real problem is that Representative Democracy really isn’t democratic. We should be voting on the policies that we want the MPs/government departments to implement.

      In other words, more referenda.

      And hence the need for online voting.

  11. Bewildered 11
    6 December 2018 at 8:26 pm

    Maggie Barry yawn, snow flake upset, National leaks, yawn who cares who is leader of Nats if you can be on 46pc on party vote and 7pc preferred pm any change is only upside for national voters But you keep your eagle eye on national Mickey while labour and coalotion look more and more incompetent as days go by

  12. JustMe 12
    8 December 2018 at 12:40 pm

    When he was Speaker of the House David Carter would often smirk like the perpetual village idiot to his colleagues when he ordered Opposition MPs out of the House. I am sure he allowed more grace and favour to John Key’s behavioural problems than he allowed the Opposition MPs. And so thankgoodness David Carter is no longer positioning himself as Speaker of the House when he quite obviously had his Pets(aka the NZ National Party).

    Perhaps there is the possibility that dis-satisfaction within the NZ National Party has existed for more years than they(National)would ever care to admit. Who knows but perhaps that internal within the National Party ranks dis-satisfaction could well be the reason why Sir Lies-alot(aka John Key)resigned as prime minister of New Zealand.

    The recent polling of the NZ National Party has placed it slightly above Labour. But then we should realise the mainstream NZ media have conducted an excellent manipulation of data from the poll. They(the NZ Media(many of whom are in the National Party pocket))have put more emphasis on the preferred party rather than the preferred Prime Minister. Jacinda is preferred Prime Mnister by double digits compared to Bridges single digit rating. But the media have conveniently ignored all that. The single digit rating of Bridges reflects badly against National.

    Maggie Barry has done yet another wonderful job in that she has helped demean the NZ National Party further and further. She comes across as another arrogant person. Arrogance, as I have said before about National, appears to be something they(and I will quote John Key here)are comfortable with.

    Workplace bullying should not be in any work environment albeit in the public service or the private service. It should not be tolerated in any form whatsoever. If anyone feels or knows they are being bullied then my advice is record every bit of it in a journal. Keep every piece of examples of workplace bullying. Bullying MUST AND NEVER be a part of any person’s life. Bullying demeans a person’s/and persons sense of self-esteem. I should know because it’s something I have to contend with in my workplace on a daily basis.

    In regards to the recent walk-out by Bridges and co. Well I get the impression it, the walk-out, had all been pre-planned. Bridges had gone over all this, the act, many hours before and hence perhaps reason why the mainstream NZ media just so happened to be in the right place at the right time to record ‘everything’. One cannot say all this was a ‘coincidence’. And so lets call the recent walk-out as an orchestrated litany of drama queens i.e Bridges and co; seeking photo opportunities.