- Date published:
6:00 am, August 10th, 2022 - 129 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
The Thug is obviously out, but why do we have to pay for the new election, surely Uffindell, who must be able to afford it, or the National party should pay for it.
Uffindell had used some strange words about whether there was anything else he should have disclosed – something like "there is nothing else the public needs to know" – we now know of another incident. A future question may be if they choose another of the ''three clones'' that were photographed in National Party uniform before the selection – is does this candidate believe in the ""Me First"" ethos of the party that has seen so many fall by the wayside. At least ''equal opportunity'' made a pretence of caring for others.
The Uffindell enquiry:
UK unions leading the way….when (New) Labour and The Guardians man Keir Starmer show their real colours….
Oh that the “we’re just another Wellington lobby group”, “we welcome the Labour Caucus announcement today…” NZ Council of Trade Unions could run such a campaign.
NZ workers, paid and unpaid–(e.g. partners, carers, community volunteers), precariat, full time, interns, students, and others desperately need a fighting class left central organising focus. The dissolving of the Federation of Labour for the formation of the CTU in 1987 remains a significant class error of the late 20th century imo.
The CTU has always hid behind tripartism (workers/Govt/bosses holding hands)–spare us–the employers want nothing less than the destruction of organised labour! And being “affiliate driven”–so they do not call for or organise direct action because many affiliates are not calling for action–and lets face it why would some right wing state sector leaders call for action? Some executives are timid bunches, but with leadership workers will act as First, Unite and Etū Unions in particular have shown for years. The Teachers put up staunch campaigns on Charter Schools and National Standards too.
Mick Lynch is leading from the front in the UK, and so should any NZ Union Secretary/President worthy of the title “leader” along with site delegates and members.
Corporations, the one pecent, and their 9 percent of enablers, are running rampant profit harvests around the world and the only group that even slow them, let alone stop them is the ninety percent rest of us–the international working class.
@Tiger Mountain…Roger that +1
Great to see our Health and Fire Emergency unions doing their job here
Yes, and I should add the Maritime/Transport unions and a group of the transport businesses battling for 30 years to restore NZ operated coastal shipping, and yes the Firefighters. I admit to being a little churlish about health care workers as they seem bent on avoiding unity at all costs by siloing. Midwives and non registered nurses and carers can get the cold shoulder from NZNO.
But nonetheless I have stood on picket lines in the last several years with local nurses and even junior doctors when they took action. It was perhaps more the NZNO tops that seemed reluctant to take on the Govt. when National was in office.
On Morning Report this morning Corin Dann ran through the Thugs and Rogues gallery of discarded Nat MPs to a very uncomfortable Luxon, pretty much all of whom were recruited or elevated during the Key years. Ironic really seeing as how Luxon himself is the John Key anointed one.
This one ?
Must be, Ta.
Not Corin – Guyon
No link as yet
I will not be standing for National as when I was 13 years old at school, I put a drawing pin on the bloke's chair that sat in front of me. It was very funny at the time, but that bloke has probably been traumatised for the last few decades.
Once again, with wilful blindness, you've missed the point again!
This is not really about what a teenager did 22 years ago, serious as that was, but about the Natz selection/vetting processes NOW!
Those processes have failed once again – another in a long line of dodgy selections!
You are not
badgood enough for the National Party, but you’re good enough for us here on TS
Thanks much appreciated!
Weird comment. Are you comparing your jest with being beaten in the middle of the night by a gang of older teenage boys with wooden weapons?
It's the same device, it seems to me, that Uffindell used- minimisation
There is in particular a statement in this Wikipedia article that is applies to Jimmy's comment.
"School bullying is one form of victimisation or physical abuse which has sometimes been unofficially encouraged, ritualised or even minimised as a sort of prank by teachers or peers. The main difference between pranks and bullying is establishment of power inequity between the bully and the victim that lasts beyond the duration of the act."
Yep, along with the minimisation, his 'apology' was focussed on himself. How bad he has felt, how long he has felt that way… A total lack of self awareness.
His hinting at other events was a giveaway too.
Luxon's comment about the selection process depending on the candidate's honesty goes to the crux of the issue.
You could Jimmy. Be a bit more ambitious and get ahead. I respect you for front footing taking ownership and moving on from the drawing pin. I think you are a bloke who will deliver (and not only from the grammatical tyranny of transitive verbs). You have a big brain, it would be super-exciting to see you operate at scale. Contribute to solutions, be the solution through powering up your super-fast learning curve towards a focused vision. Best regards, Chris
"I will not be standing for national". the nats bar is obviously fairly low, so it will be a case of either slithering under, or crawling over it. no standing (or standards) required.
In my defence, if I remember rightly, the bloke had during PE, thrown mud in my face for no reason, so I guess I was exacting a bit of justified revenge in my mind.
The ruckus in the US about the search of Trump's home has reached the sort of absurd levels you'd expect.
Trump and Republican supporters have dived into totally batshit crazy waters.
The search, the intrusion, apparently is the most serious in American history, a sign that democracy is under terrible threat.
Yes, there it is, for the Trumpers this is worse than the Jan 6 attack.
A legitimate legal process, verified and sanctioned by authorised agents is worse than a mob attacking the Capitol to stop the implemention of constitutional procedures?
Ah, but one of those was supported and encouraged by the (then) President of the United States, while the latter one seemingly was without the interference of the current President.
This government has been told a million times that the current ACC system is broken because only half of the recommendations of the Woodhouse Report were followed. Its response, when Lees-Galloway was the minister, was that there's 'no problem'.
It's great Warren Forster's written this report, but don't hold your breath if you're expecting change.
….but don't hold your breath if you're expecting change.
Peter and I gave up long ago. We always have a little chuckle when the latest advocate gets the attention of the media….speaking with informed and determined tones about how its time to reform the system.
Forster’s report states: “We can become world leaders again in the field of care and support for all of our people, or we perpetuate the fragmented, incomplete and broken system that history has shown does not work.”
An earlier article in this series, by journalist Olivia Shivas, has a pretty good go at comparing supports for those under the Ministry of Health with those with the same condition but supported by ACC.
This is an excellent piece of work and explores in depth the difference in supports between two women living with the same condition…cerebral palsy. One is under ACC…the other MOH. It holds no surprises for me, but others who are not familiar with the issues should take the opportunity to become better informed.
“There are also inequities between the level of support provided via ACC to people who become disabled as a result of injury, and the level of support provided through other parts of the system to other disabled people.”
Rehabilitation is provided to ACC claimants on an “entitlement basis”, whereas Ministry of Health-funded services for disabled people are “rationed”.
“And it shouldn't be the case that, you know, one group of people receive a greater level of support than another just because of the cause of the impairment.
Emphasized by the Disability Rights Commissioner …
“It’s inequitable and unfair that two people in what sounds like a very similar situation … are receiving very different levels of care, despite both needing a similar level of care. It’s not acceptable.”
(My partner Peter sustained a high spinal injury in 1970. C4/5. He is under MOH. Life for him, and myself as his full time (unpaid because of our fucking filth unvaccinated status) carer would be very, very different if MOH actually accepted that hands on advanced personal care is for him a must-have not an extravagance. )
A direct comparison between a C4/5 tetraplegic on ACC and Peter in terms of overall supports showed an approximate 6 fold difference in $$$ spent.
ACC is a law unto themselves. Not only do they spend millions defending stupid decisions to decline cover and entitlements, but they have this miraculous ability to assure government, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, that things are sweet and dandy, and that anyone who doesn't agree are rabble-rousing extremists.
"but they have this miraculous ability to assure government, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, that things are sweet and dandy, and that anyone who doesn't agree are rabble-rousing extremists."
Perhaps that's where Little learnt it from
Read this to see how sick ACC really is. Begs the question why our media have virtually had nothing to say about this report – nor have any heads rolled.
Here's a thought.
Extend the electric vehicle rebate to E-bikes
One of my friends who lives in the country says that narrow, windy, loose metal, rural roads are not suitable for e-bikes.
I mentioned to her that there are off-road mountain e-bikes.
She pointed out to me that mountain e-bikes are extremely expensive.
To make off road e-bikes more affordable to farmers and country folk is another reason why, in my opinion the government should extend the rebate for electric vehicle purchases to e-bikes.
There are even e-bikes for children. The morning school run rush would be lot less congested if children could ride e-bikes to school rather than their parents having to drop them off in their car. You only have to experience the big difference between rush hour congestion during the school term and school holidays to realise this.
Why can't parents, commuters and rural folk use the electric vehicle rebate for e-bikes?
I seems like a no brainer to me. Costing a lost less than the rebate for electric cars, making electric vehicles available to a greater number of people, many who couldn't afford an electric car even with the rebate.
What if the govt. did get behind this trend, with a rebate.
"What will the world look like in five, ten, twenty years…"
“more and more rebates”
Something for Lynne Prentice, who has complained in the past about the problem he has about lifting his eBike.
It seems that this is a issue for others as well.
The following youtube video covers this weighty topic. (and offers some solutions).
One of the nice things about ebikes is that they suit the kind of light manufacturing NZ can do rather well.
The kind of subsidies that support canceled vandalism of pre-Lotr Tolkien lore could provide a lot of transport – and a bit of industry too – improved resilience is only a funding decision away.
“One of the nice things about ebikes is that they suit the kind of light manufacturing NZ can do rather well….”Stuart Munro
We could build ebikes here, I 'spose. Afterall New Zealand did build the Trekker.
But our agricultural exporters would never allow the sort of import controls that made the Trekker possible, in case we attracted import controls on our agricultural exports.
What Te Ara Encyclopeidia don't tell you, is why the Masport Group which ceased manufacturing bicycles.
Despite the Lange/Douglas neoliberal economic reforms, and the dropping of almost all import controls., Morrison made bicycles were still a popular brand and were competing well with imported models,
I was working at the Masport factory in Mt Wellington when Masport bought out Morrison. It was explained to staff that the purpose of the buyout was to close down Morrison to get rid of a competitor in the crowded motor mower market.
It was common knowledge that the Morrison bicycle production was still viable, and no threat to Masport which mostly made motor mowers and other things like cast steel covers and grills, (street ware) in their Mt. Wellington foundry, and not bicycles. The view amongst staff was that the Masport management's decision to close down the bicycle production line as well as motor mower production was unnecessary and was an unpopular decision.
I can remember when a huge machine press taken from the Morrison assembly plant was brought by ship to Auckland and trucked to the Mt Wellington Masport factory. This machine was so huge that it was a major operation to get it from the Port to Mt Wellington requiring the closing of roads and the raising and disconnection of power lines along the route.
There were rumblings amongst the staff that the management should have brought the bicycle manufacturing machinery to Auckland as well.
Could New Zealand restart bicycle and in particular eBike manufacture?
With all the important models now on the market, It would be a risky decision and require major investment, from someone. (probably the government). If eBikes were being made in this country to supply the local market the cost per unit would be high compared to imported models. Cost per unit could be brought down by it becoming an export product, but I doubt NZ made bikes and eBikes could compete with all the sleek models already available in New Zealand, let alone the international market. Not without government subsidies anyway.
Rather than subsidise eBike manufacture, the simplest and easiest way to promote the uptake of eBikes would be to extend the electric vehicle rebate to eBikes.
Bicycles remain within the technological capacity of even third world countries – and, given the way larger manufacturers tend to outsource specific componentry these days, differences in labour costs cannot credibly be an insuperable barrier to local production.
Moreover, the all up cost of established brands is high enough to suggest a considerable excess margin exists. I can buy a reliable small Japanese car for less than a new ebike.
I had a Morrison Monarch back in the day – they were popular, robust, and not exorbitant.
While I'd love you to subsidize an e bike for me , I can gaurentee you it won't lower my emmisions , as I'd like to do more cycling on tracks in the weekend but can't be bothered on a non e bike , infact I reckon it might even increase my emmisions due to driving to a safe cycle track , as only a fucking fool would ride on most highways or rural roads to get there.
Well that is at least one vote for the electric vehicle rebate for eBikes
Whatever your reasons, Waghorn, Thank you. You’re a champ.
Todays the world has gone mad moment:
Woman, 80, banned from swimming pool after demanding a trans employee left the female locker rooms (gbnews.uk)
"when people vote for National they vote for ACT policies, not a centre-right package at all,"
No more so than when people Labour they vote for Green Party policies not a centre left package at all.
"their relationship has been a politically incestuous parasitically cannibalistic one and Seymour et al know it. "
Of course. That's the nature of political parties occupying overlapping space. The Greens and Labour are no different.
The glaring difference is that the act party would have long vanished if not for the national parties dodgy seat gifting deal , it's the biggest flaw in mmp and only a right-wing party could do this shit and still look the country in the eye.
Labour-Greens deny deal over Ohariu seat | RNZ News
Hadn't been aware of that ,not impressed, but it hardly kept labour from disappearing from sight, and it would actually be more alike if act decided not to stand in tauranga in the upcoming by-election to make sure the nats next socal climber got tye seat.
ACT received 7.6% of the party vote in 2020, and is currently polling at 11%, so there's no danger of them disappearing from sight any time soon.
Yup the spirit of Gordon Gecko is alive and well in NZ
the more greedy and selfish nat voters looking for a chance(r).
As opposed to Labour making most of the country's inhabitants welfare beneficiaries in the hope they'll vote for them.
Happy to give beneficiaries the benefit of the doubt – what might the bene bashing Nats give 'em?
It's the manufacturing of extra beneficiaries in the hope of reelection I'm referring to. I think we used to call it 'buying votes'.
The tax cut is an unsubtle vote-buying strategy – consistent Nats
Of course. Anything that attracts support could be construed as buying votes. Except if the intended recipients are dead, of course.
Who is our dead man walking?
Can you believe this – from that link – ""If he were to run again next week I'd vote for him again," Chris Rogers, owner of the town's Lunch Box restaurant, told the paper."
"Who is the dead man walking?"
There's a cartoon in today's Herald…sorry I don't know how to paste an image…it views even though it's supposed to be behind a paywall.
Daron Parton's cartoons: August 1 – 31 – NZ Herald
How disappointing I thought finally a right wingers hat might be worth talking to , but oh no either to thick ,( remember act would be long gone with out nats dirty deeds) or just another disingenuous fucking troll.
So you don't think either polling or actual electoral results mean anything?
I don't think that there is any equivalence between the two cases.
I'd say that was a clear cut decision by the Greens to improve their chances of being on the government benches. Just to make that clear you should read the statement by Shaw.
I also suspect that the reason for accepting it by both parties was to try to get Done with Dunne. He'd been a electoral irritant for both parties for a very long time.
Plus the whole thing was quite clear cut, transparent, and didn't involve juvenile nudge-nudge-wink-wink tactics of the type that National has been doing to make sure that Act had a lifeline in Epsom.
Try finding a clear-cut statement like Shaws' about National's tactics in Epsom. Instead we get cups of tea with National and Act leaders fiddling under the table. In the traditional right-wing hypocrisy fashion.
It is like their tough on crime – which curiously seems t that they like to ignore all white collar crime and violence by private school thugs.
"I'd say that was a clear cut decision by the Greens to improve their chances of being on the government benches."
Yep. which is well within the rules, but it's still (to quote bwaghorn's comment) a "dodgy seat gifting deal." Which just goes to show that it isn't "only a right-wing party could do this shit and still look the country in the eye."
So we're looking at the shifty saving of Act going on since ummm 2005. When all of a sudden the unspoken deal between National and Act made the flock of the Epsom National
voterssheep got sold on the whisper marketing of saving a minority party by the nascent leader of Act (who was running National at the time)..
And so on for the 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 elections.
Act has had so little actual support that they have only been able to get les than a thousand party votes over those elections from that electorate. But because of the whisper deal have massively won the electorate vote off National in a Act life support deal.
voterssheep in the electorate appear to be incapable of making up their own minds. They rely on inertia, a simple lack of thought, and a sheep-like stupidity mean they sty in a gormless flock doing the same thing for most of thh last two decades.
Now you're comparing it with a Labour-Green 'deal' where the actual facts are
Now I realise that National supporters are often a little slow when it comes to facts rather than idiotic myths (and Actoids are usually just outright as cracked as your Belle is).
However you'd might be able to argue that there was a 'deal' if the facts supported you – rather than some idiotic myth that you seem to lean on without checking actual results.
National and Act voters tend to be freedom talking (but not doing) sheep who flock because it is simpler than seeking the liberty and freedom of making up their own minds based on facts. They love stupidity and the myths that go with them
Labour and Green voters will almost invariably make up their own mind. This is pretty much a constant in the last century of political behaviour in NZ.
You're a pretty good example of the dumb-arse faction who are so concerned with freedom – that they consistently act like a farm animal.
Which just goes to show that it is “only a right-wing party could do this shit and still look the country in the eye.”
Labour and Green voters simply aren’t that gullible. You need to be a right-wing voter to be that gullible for so long.
"In 2017, and 2020 the Green candidate actually stood for the election."
"Stood" yes. "Campaigned" no. They dropped both in party and electorate votes. The decision to stand a candidate was pretty much a late change of mind by the Greens because, so they claim, they had wanted to unseat Peter Dunne. Yep, the facts support me.
Oh and looky here:
"The Labour-Greens marriage is looking rocky, with the Green Party announcing it's going to stand a candidate in Ōhāriu, after incumbent United Future leader Peter Dunne decided to retire from politics. It's a far cry from in February, when the Greens decided not to stand a candidate to give Labour's Greg O'Connor a better shot at beating Mr Dunne."
'Dirty deal' crumbling? Greens to stand candidate in Ōhāriu | Newshub
Compared to what? Can’t you read ?
In 2017 the Green candidate electorate vote went to 2522 from 2,764 in 2014. That was a drop of about 250 votes.
The Labour candidate vote rose to 16,033 from 12,859 in 2014. That was an increase of over 3000 votes.
Somehow I don’t think that the loss to the Greens was significant to Labour.
In 2020 the Green candidate electorate vote went to 2,221 – so down ~500 vote from 2014.
Meanwhile the Labour candidate increased to 22,937, So up by nearly 7000 votes since 2014.
The party votes aren’t relevant. But they went down in 2017 by about 1600, and in 2020 they were a few hundred above their 2014 level.
Ah – tell the truth. You just didn’t look. You had a brief fingering of your lower brain to coming up with the line of numeric bullshit… You really don’t have to be stupid to be a right wing nut job. But it certainly makes you fit into the flock.
Compared to your own link, which shows that in 2017 the Green electorate vote and party vote both dropped. Don't you read your own links?
And here’s the key:
‘The Greens had initially decided not to stand a candidate to boost O’Connor’s chances of unseating Dunne. ”
That’s a deal, so stop pretending it isn’t.
You manage to divert a whole sub-thread to allegations about Labour and the Greens. Well done.
"You manage to divert a whole sub-thread to allegations about Labour and the Green"
This thread (?) began with your comment, which I responded to. It's not diversion to agree with you and then point out your comments apply across the political spectrum.
A false equivalence is misleading and diverting and you know it. All you have offered is a they-did-it-too and Whataboutery. Others have already wasted much oxygen on pointing out that you’re wrong and where you’re wrong on quite a few counts. I was prescient enough to direct this to OM, I can say in hindsight – must be my gut instinct.
It looks like you seem to think that
~250 votes makes a difference in a ~3000 vote increase. In electoral terms for an electorate that has about 50,000 people eligible to vote, and where over 40,000 did vote – that is a movement of about 0.625 percent.
I realise that it was close to the 696 (1.78%) total of party vote that David Seymour pulled in for Act in the 2017 election in Epsom. But outside the delusions of Act supporters, neither are electorally significant.
Where as that the excessive 16,505 electoral vote David Seymour in Epsom is clearly a result of a National deal. There appears to have been no significiant effect of any such ‘deal’ in Ohuria in 2017.
I guess you failed arithmetic in both primary and secondary school.
That there was a 'deal' where the basis in your link was that Green candidate wouldn't stand, was not fulfilled when they did stand. No does there appear to have been any significant actual action by the Greens to try to dimish their vote in favour of Labour. You can’t point to the any instance of that relying instead on the faulty supposition in a couple of speculative news reports.
Clearly you don't understand what a 'deal' is. Probably you only education in the concept was reading Trump on the subject. All he ever seems to do with deals is to lose the money of other people in daft ventures.
Essentially you're delusional about politics, numbers, and the meaning of the laws of contract.
"Clearly you don't understand what a 'deal' is."
Perhaps it's you who doesn't.
Dunne: Labour-Greens hypocrisy behind their Ohariu deal | Scoop News
Editorial: Labour and the Greens run a risk with their deal in Ohariu | Stuff.co.nz
Sunday Star Times on deals in high places (horizonpoll.co.nz)
“There appears to have been no significiant effect of any such ‘deal’ in Ohuria in 2017.”
So? Not every deal works out, does it?
EDIT: here’s an interesting one.
I had to laugh when one comment spoke about this as ‘working strategically’. All that’s missing is the cup of tea.
The bell is tolling for this one. Half a day left, is my prediction.
You really are an stupid idiot. Who apparently doesn't read the links you provide.
Two of your articles were from 2011 and appear to be irrelevant to the 2017 election where you are lying about a deal that you are asserting could have affected the election.
The other was from Feburary 2017.
The Greens had terminated any nascent 'deal' by August 2017 with this comment.
By August Peter Dunne had decided to not stand and retire.
Just because I realise that you can't read and probably have an inability to keep track of people (you seem to be more interested in mythical masturbation instead).
Woodley was the Green candidate and O'Conner was the Labour candidate.
So what was the deal going into the election?
The greens were going to collect whatever vote they could in Ohuria? This sounds like normal party politics to me….
Unlike the rort that Act and National runs on the voters in Epsom.
BTW are you a really stupid parrot repeating the words of a troll? Two links to articles from 2011 for an incident in 2017. I associate that kind of stupidity to people who can’t think and just copy the stupid shit someone else throws around. Hardly the actions of a intelligent human.
"Two of your articles were from 2011 and appear to be irrelevant to the 2017 election where you are lying about a deal that you are asserting could have affected the election."
No, never asserted that. The 2011 links simply go to show this tidy little arrangement goes back beyond 2017. You can deny it all you like.
Can you show that there was actually a arrangement in 2011?
This is what your links show isn't an arrangement between the Green party and Labour. What they show is :-
ie a single green candidate saying what he was going to do in his campaigning. In all electorate campaigns, all candidates run their personal electorate campaigns which are limited by resources and objectives. Party organisations spend a quixotic amount of time trying to get electorate candidates to actually even to consider targeting party objectives. The reasons for this is pretty obvious. Locals are usually interested in local issues.
I won't even bother pointing out the numbers for this the results in 2011 over 2008 except to say that Gareth Hughes did a significant increase in Green party vote. If there was a transfer of electorate votes to the Labour candidate then it was insignificant in the election compared to the actual movement of National electorate votes to Peter Dunne. Presumably because the National candidate campaigned for electorate votes to go to Peter Dunne based on the actual numbers.
That article also has an opinion by a rather notorious columnist of the day, John Hartevelt, trying to equate two completely different kinds of campaign strategies.
Just to be clear, I've never rated JH as being more than a posturing hack fool who spent his time apologising for National and mindlessly bad mouthing anyone on the left (except for David Shearer for some weird reason). Basically someone who obviously felt more at home on Kiwiblog than actually analysing politics because he appeared to be a populist conservative in his personal opinions.
Your other link is a self-serving statement by Dunne badmouthing his opposition. Probably because, in my opinion, he is naturally orientated that way for both political and personal reasons. I've always considered him to be hypocrite with the moral backbone of a weasel.
Mind you, reading your answers – you obviously have more moral fibre than Peter Dunne. But this faint praise…
It is only because he has more actual intelligence and acuity in reading ability that you do. I suspect that you're simply too ill-equipped to understand the very simple subtleties of politics, deals, and paying attention to what you are reading to be able to develop a good conspiracy theory.
Hell you can't even parrot a John Hartevelt / Kiwiblog line credibly.
I was kind of wondering why I had such a strong dislike of John Hartevelt's writing
So I had a back look search in posts. Yeah – he wrote columns on National's fuckups. But somehow always managed to apologise for some of their worst behaviour in the era of Dirty Politics.
Had to restart the sphinx search engine first. So I'll have a look why why it keeps failing on restarts. sigh
You're wasting your time, Lprent. The 'belle' is tolling a long way down the rabbit hole with this one, and 'Liberty' is following the imaginary sound.
The stand-out example for me, on the Left has always been Anderton in Sydenham/Wigram. He claimed to be independent (New Labour, Alliance, Progressive) but effectively acted as a Labour MP, from 1989 onwards, while scoring parliamentary funding as a party leader.
Labour never stood an effective candidate against him (one with any chance of winning), and really only campaigned for the party vote (see the electorate results, where Anderton won the electoral vote, but Labour won the party vote).
When he retired, Megan Woods took over as the seat 'returned' to Labour.
Just as much a rort as the Epsom 'cup of tea' scenario.
Anderton was never going to lose his seat no matter who ran against him….he was an incredibly popular electorate MP.
Also the most widely-liked Party leader in the early-mid 90s (among NZ voters as a whole) according to the New Zealand Election Study (ie stood out from other leaders for being liked by voters across the political / ideological spectrum).
Yep….that was one seat you could mark off every election as held
Thanks, I'd forgotten about Anderton.
Did they actually signal through a stage managed charade that labour voters should vote for Anderton??
No, Anderton won because he was truly popular with his voters.
No valid comparison at all.
No. If you look at the electorate results for Sydenham and then Wigram electorates. Anderton came in with a pretty good performance as a Labour MP. Dropped back a bit when he changed to New Labour in 1993. Then proceeded to push back to near previous levels in 1993.
Did a massive vote in the first MMP election in 1996 in Wigram with a good but much smaller party vote. His electorate vote remained high as the party vote slowly declined to small amounts.
In 2011, after he retired, the Labour candidate Megan Woods won well at a slightly lower vote of about ~14k. However that combined Lab/Prog electorate vote was ~20k. Most of the 6k difference went to the National candidate. Which indicates that voters were voting for Anderton as a MP.
Megan Woods didn’t get close to previous electorate Anderton levels until 2017.
Whereas when you look at Epsom record, you get the distinct impression that the National voters there would vote for Actual idiot. Their flock has performed the same way for Hide (except for 2008), Banks,and Seymour (except for 2020) with virtually identical results – regardless of what they do.
What they seem to react to is having a female PM of the Labour persuasion. Misogyny central really.
That depends how you define a "stage managed charade". They stood candidates with absolutely no chance of winning and effectively handed the electorate to Anderton. There is a lot of huffing and puffing trying to make it sound different, but it isn't,
You obviously know not of what you speak…Labour tried for years to unseat Anderton….to no avail.
Within months of the 2008 election, Anderton did a deal with Labour "allowing his activists to stand as Labour candidates and a promise to campaign "party vote Labour" in 2011." Sure there was ill feeling for a time after Anderton quit Labour, but as time went on they might as well have been joined at the hip.
you do realise that Anderton quit the Labour party in 1989?….22 years before your campaign agreement…I think even they realised by then they couldnt beat him
You're missing the point. Labour weren't trying to unseat him.
You never had a point….Anderton was invincible as an electorate MP….the invincible dont need others permission.
Really? They stood candidates with zero profile and chance of winning.
Just what leads you to the conclusion that "Labour tried for years to unseat Anderton"
Labour were effectively only campaigning for the party vote – until Anderton retired.
Really, he was never a leader of a party. He was an independent, who managed to pull a few colleagues in on his coat-tails – entirely due to his national profile.
You could, indeed, make the same argument about ACT. Although they certainly seem to be carving a niche out for themselves in differentiation from National ATM.
It was my electorate (both Sydenham and Wigram) for many years and I well recall the campaigning that went on, including the Labour Party's attempts to discredit Anderton after he left the party (or as he said, they left him).
Before Labour even had the opportunity to campaign for the 'party' vote in 1996 there were 2 FPP elections where Anderton held his seat (as Leader of New Labour)…he was never an 'Independent'.
It may pay to do some research
Given that Anderton was the only ever member of New Labour to be elected, it's pretty hard to distinguish him from an Independent.
According to all of the above comments (including your own) people weren't voting for a 'party', they were voting for Anderton personally.
Your own comment "Anderton was invincible as an electorate MP"
The benefit, of course, of being a 'party leader', was substantially greater Parliamentary funding.
All of the party iterations for which Anderton was 'leader' were effectively one-man bands – where Anderton might get another member in on his coat-tails – but it was basically a vote for Anderton. (The Alliance seems to be the exception, but it was so internally fractured, it's difficult to see what or who voters were voting for)
The 'personal' nature of his vote is seen by the rapid demise of the Progressive Party, once Anderton retired. He didn't even attempt to anoint an internal successor, simply told his supporters to vote Labour (aka Megan Woods)
Not saying he's the only one.
Peters is another example of the personality cult style of 'political party' (although with, historically, much less gratitude and loyalty from those elevated on his coat tails).
And, there's a strong argument to be made that ACT (until recently) have been another (although, they've always had a strong policy platform – distinguishing them from National – you many not like it, but it's pretty unambiguous)
"the rapid demise of the Progressive Party, once Anderton retired.".
At the 2008 election, when Jim did run, the Progressive Party got 0.91% of the party votes. It didn't die when Anderton finally retired in 2011. It was already dead. I doubt if it could have kept going anyway. A party has to demonstrate that they have something like 500 members I believe and I really doubt that they had anything like that when he finally dropped out of the fray.
1) Anderton fell out with Labour during the Roger-gnome years.
2) He started a party "New Labour" and took those who opposed the free market reforms with him.
3) The Greens chose to coalesce with Anderton’s party and they called themselves the Alliance Party. There was a falling out… the Greens left the coalition and the Alliance Party was renamed the Progressive Party.
a) Roger Douglas fell out with Lange and Derek Quigley fell out with Muldoon. They decided to start a new party called "Association of Citizens and Tax payers" ACT for short.
b) They drew their membership from both National and Labour but mostly National.
c) They are still in existence in large part due to the "rich gang" who continue to finance them. Lots of money buys lost of ads and other campaign equipment and that ultimately attracts votes.
MMP was introduced in 1996
Under the new regime both major parties did deals which helped keep them on the Treasury Benches. Deal making is part of what MMP is all about.
Anderton and at least one other Alliance MP were given ministerial posts following the 1999 election.
National did a deal with the former Nat minister turned ACT leader, John Banks. They set up a tea party in a Remuera café as a signal encouraging their voters to give their electoral vote to Banks. They did so. Banks was given a ministerial post in 2011 (I think), and his successor Seymour was given an Under Secretary post in 2014.
That is the broad outline of what happened.
Labour did it out in the open for all to see. National tried to do it under-cover.
And that, my friend is the fundamental difference between the two parties.
Nat MPs and their backers/mates – can't trust 'em. Dirty to their DNA, imho.
Are you seriously suggesting that a cup of tea in a public place is not 'out in the open'?
"And that, my friend is the fundamental difference between the two parties."
Seriously? This government has a mastery in lack of transparency.
Is the author a mate of yours smartie pants? Note the item is six months old.
Are you agreeing with me, but think they've improved in the past 6 months?
Association of Consumers and Taxpayers
Oh yes. Thanks. It didn't sound right. 😉
Depends if you describe the political spectrum in purely relative terms (the parties' relationship to each other in the current moment) or in absolute terms (with reference to the historical positions of parties or the inherent nature of specific policy prescriptions).
Both approaches have their value. Taking the latter approach, I am very comfortable with calling the Greens centre left, Labour centre to centre right (a bit neoliberal), National right and ACT waaay right. That's because of the rightward skew to the political spectrum that started in 1984 and which we have not yet unwound.
I would suggest that National are barely centre, let alone right of centre. As a right leaning voter, I would best describe them as 'insipid'. Labour are no better, although under Ardern they have shifter to the left, albeit only slightly. Both major parties appear to me to have consigned their roots, their historic principles, to the dustbin of history.
"That's because of the rightward skew to the political spectrum that started in 1984 and which we have not yet unwound."
That's true of economic policy, certainly. What started in the 1980's was a recognition that a shift to a more market oriented economy was the only way we could actually make it in a world in which we no longer had guaranteed access to traditional markets. In social policy, NZ has shifted considerably to the left.
Disappointing that you again want to divert the convo pretending to be up for genuine debate here.
In response, it’s false equivalence because the political power dynamics between the Greens and Labour are fundamentally different from ACT and National. Secondly, National is quite happy to adopt ACT’s policies while Labour tends to be very unenthusiastic if not resistant to the Green Party policies.
I’m getting a little fed up with your diversions; you’re not a good faith commenter here, in my opinion.
Here's my full comment:
""their relationship has been a politically incestuous parasitically cannibalistic one and Seymour et al know it. "
Of course. That's the nature of political parties occupying overlapping space. The Greens and Labour are no different."
That's not a diversion, it's an observation.
In the latest Horizon Poll, 57% of Labour voters in 2020 intend voting Labour again. 10% intend switching to Labour, which leaves 33% of their 2020 voters who have switched to another party, the only logical conclusion being that most would switch to the Greens.
Likewise, 70% of 2020 national voters say they will remain loyal, 9% would switch to Act.
There's also historical electoral support for a link between the fall/rise of Labour's vote and the corresponding rise/fall of the Greens vote, specifically in 2008, 2011 and 2017 elections. Just as there is for National/Act.
Nope, not an observation, but your opinion that barely has a foundation of fact. Again, you diverted away from party dynamics & policies to voter behaviour. I can tell the difference and I assume you can too, so I conclude your diversion is deliberate and deceitful.
BTW, nice that you claim my words as part of “my full comment”!
"nice that you claim my words as part of “my full comment”!"
It was context.
"you diverted away from party dynamics & policies to voter behaviour. "
How can the relationship between party's be parasitically cannibalistic without being a function of voter behaviour?
Nice try – ACT and National are cannibalistic, the voters are the blood they suck from each other.
Don’t play dumb because I know you are not.
They cannibalise each others votes. Isn't that what you mean?
You can read, can’t you?
Well if they cannibalise each others votes, that is 'voter behaviour'.
Linguistically challenged, I see …
30 mins well spent
Seems pretty similar in plan to what Uffindell did: beat up on young kids and privatise the profits from having done so. Luxon’s party is the party of nasty punching down and victim blaming. Sneaky to include this outrageous welfare privatization and to make moral panic of the lazy youth and feckless undeserving poor.
From Gordon Campbell some context and simple logic.
I was going to make the same point Gordon Campbell has made.
So why have Jobseeker numbers increased among the young over the past few years? It appears to have escaped National’s attention that the pandemic has demolished a lot of jobs in sectors – hospitality, tourism – that have traditionally hired lots of 18-24 year olds, even if only on the minimum wage and/or in part-time jobs that offer no career prospects. Currently, the recovery in those sectors remains tentative at best.
But would further pose the question that I wonder how the employers who seem to be mainly complaining loudly e.g. horticulture seasonal workers and cafes/restaurants for casual staff feel about Luxon dis-incentivising young people to work for them by giving them a $1,000 payment if they stay in work for 12 months.
Seasonal work doesn't last anywhere near twelve months so why would you take it.
Still I did warn that we would see the same response from capitalists towards labour as after the Black Plague. Someone should ask Luxon if the post plague response he is promoting will work better than it did after the plague. National Party – still living in 1351.
RULERS RESIST WORKERS’ DEMANDS FOR HIGHER WAGES The plague had an important effect on the relationship between the lords who owned much of the land in Europe and the peasants who worked for the lords. As people died, it became harder and harder to fi nd people to plow fi elds, harvest crops, and produce other goods and services. Peasants began to demand higher wages. European rulers tried to keep wages from rising. An English law in 1349 tried to force workers to accept the same wages they received in 1346. A similar law, the Statute of Laborers,3 was issued in 1351. The statute said that every healthy unemployed person under 60 years old must work for anyone who wanted to hire him. Workers who violated the Statute of Laborers were fi ned and were put in stocks4 as punishment for disobeying the statute. In 1360, punishments became worse. Workers who demanded higher wages could be sent to prison and—if they escaped—branded with the letter “F” (possibly for Fugitive) on their foreheads.
The Statute of Laborers (1351) … Because a great part of the people … has now died … some, seeing the straights of the masters and the scarcity of servants, are not willing to serve unless they receive excessive wages, and others … prefer to beg in idleness: We have seen fi t to ordain: that every man and woman of our kingdom of England … who is able bodied and below the age of sixty years, not living from trade nor carrying on a fi xed craft … shall be bound to serve him who has seen fi t so to seek after him; and he shall take only the wages … which … were accustomed to be paid in  … and if any man or woman … will not do this … he shall be taken and sent to the next jail. …
Please include a link for Gordon Campbell’s quote!
Thought I had but obviously not.
Just watched Luxon in QT in the house.
Frankly, I find it obscene that a rich prick like him can go on and on about imposing sanctions on young people, as if punishment is all that's needed.
If this is his Christian outlook, then his bible is not the bible I know!
And, as usual, Jacinda made him sound like a complete political idiot!
The Party of Punishment – To show their 'superiority' and to put the 'untermensch' in their place
WTF? What message does this send to kids attending school?
Maths teacher found guilty of serious mis conduct for pulling ear phones off students who were listening to music and tapping out the beat in class.
This teacher is 72 years old and went to the District and High Court to clear his name and now owes money ? $45,000 trying to have thc charges over turned. What happened to this mis behaving teens?
NZ is in a lot of trouble with its youth and this is a symptom of it.
On the face of it it is absurd and as you say sends the wrong sort of messages in all directions….there may however be history unreported that would justify such an apparent overreaction….and then again perhaps not, the world is going mad in many ways.
It appears the world has indeed gone mad….
"Labour is trying to avoid the fallout from the so-called "H-bomb" it has dropped on John Key as it emerges taxpayer funds have been used in the attempt to find dirt on the National Party leader."
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
Your Whataboutery skills and diversion tactics are impressive but they also show your intentions quite clearly. You won’t want to draw the attention of Mods because they failed comedian training for lack of humour.
The freedom lady (?) is working very, very hard. I hope she (?) is being well compensated by her (?) superior.
We all get what is coming to us; it’s TS karma.
LibertyBelle is fast becoming a key commenter here on TS.
Yeah, a newbie commenter here who arrived out of the Blue on 4 August and has already made 60 comments like an old pro and regular here with obviously loads of time on their hands. Impressive for a newbie!
Out of the
blueyellow, I reckon.
I want to paint it black.
Moderation with a smile – I appreciate it and will try harder.