Polity: Nats’ sanctimony on tactical voting

34 comments on “Polity: Nats’ sanctimony on tactical voting ”

• Comments are now closed

1. srylands 1

   16 June 2014 at 6:11 pm

   I see the Farrar obsession continues.

   What do you man “National made the rules”? The “rules” of MMP were established 20 years ago. The Government with the greatest longevity during that period was a Labour one.

   The so called “coat tail” provisions are no accident or perversion. They are a deliberate part of the system. They should only be jettisoned with a wide consensus of Parliamentary support. I would advocate a referendum.

   That Labour is saying we will “fix the problems” without such widespread support is abhorent.

   The NZ electorate had the opportunity to move to a rational voting system. They didn’t. Stop whinging. But even worse, stop defending Labour’s threat of unilateral action.

   And lastly stop obsessing with Farrar. It is creepy, like to have a crush on him.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     16 June 2014 at 6:32 pm

     And I see that you still missed the point.

     I would advocate a referendum.

     We had one.

     That Labour is saying we will “fix the problems” without such widespread support is abhorent.

     They have widespread support. In fact, as far as I can make out, the only people who don’t support the advised changes are the National Party caucus.

     The NZ electorate had the opportunity to move to a rational voting system.

     We have a rational voting system. It needs a few tweaks, which we all agreed on, but other than that it’s fine.

     And lastly stop obsessing with Farrar.

     Well, if DPF is that upset about it perhaps he should stop being a lying hypocrite.
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

       16 June 2014 at 6:36 pm

       It seems like Shitlands is just as obsessed with Farrar as he says we are.
     • Anne 1.1.2

       16 June 2014 at 6:37 pm

       And that comment by DTB should be a post on its own!
   • dimebag russell 1.2

     16 June 2014 at 6:38 pm

     wtf srylands. this is politics and fatboy is an actor. he has to take everything that is coming to him.
     if he cant stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen and most of all he should stop lying.
     anyway. who the hell are you to go round telling people what to do?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1

       17 June 2014 at 9:11 am

       He’s S Rylands, and don’t you forget it.
   • Steve Reeves 1.3

     16 June 2014 at 6:40 pm

     This piece by srylands really shows very clearly his tactics.

     For example:

     the second paragraph—

     “They should only be jettisoned with a wide consensus of Parliamentary support. I would advocate a referendum.”

     What? Two sentences that have no logical connection, written as though forming an argument. The premise is acceptable to all I guess. But the conclusion???

     So, we have “logically” reached the point that a referendum is apparently required.

     Then the third paragraph—

     “That Labour is saying we will “fix the problems” without such widespread support is abhorrent.”

     So, having “successfully” argued that we need a referendum, we can stand furious that Labour would move without one!

     This is the usual tactic: start with a widely accepted premise. Use a bit of non-logic to arrive at the required conclusion. Use manufactured, and probably false, conclusion to attack Labour.

     We see this tactic used daily by John Key and fellow travellers, and of course Abbott and Cameron.

     Every paragraph of this short piece is constructed or follows in this way. Even the way the first links to the last, as a sort of final trumping of all disagreement:

     “I see the Farrar obsession continues.”–well yes, perhaps you do, who can say?

     “And lastly stop obsessing with Farrar. It is creepy, like to have a crush on him.”—ok, so now your belief has turned into a fact? I think we saw what you did there!

     And finally, of course, having sown the poisonous thoughts, srylands moves on.
     • Macro 1.3.1

       16 June 2014 at 7:01 pm

       A nice piece of logical analysis Steve.

       As you say – it is the modus operandi of the Right.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.3.2

       16 June 2014 at 7:13 pm

       +1111
     • Marksman33 1.3.3

       16 June 2014 at 7:37 pm

       Love this Steve, thanks.
     • Colonial Viper 1.3.4

       16 June 2014 at 7:54 pm

       😯
     • Tracey 1.3.5

       17 June 2014 at 8:28 am

       I think you may have just exploded slylands head. lets hope.
   • lprent 1.4

     16 June 2014 at 7:10 pm

     In case you hadn’t noticed the debate in NZ about it, there was a set of recommendations by the electoral commission in 2013 in their review of possible changes for MMP.

     There were several key recommendations. One was to eliminate coat tailing, another was to drop the threshold, and to eliminate overhangs. There were a number of others.

     http://www.mmpreview.org.nz/sites/default/files/pages/uploads/Final%20Report%202012%20Review%20of%20MMP.pdf

     Essentially Judith Collins dumped all of the ones that might cause National problems with making unholy deals with their coalition parties

     http://thestandard.org.nz/judith-collins-mmp-consensus-democracy/

     Fo no other real reason,as was widely commented on at the time, than to make it easier for National to stitch up a coalition after the forthcoming election

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong-on-politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502865&objectid=11198248

     Which does rather make their paid mouthpieces sanctimonious hypocrisy rather rank.

     Perhaps you should find out something about what you are talking about before sprouting such inane nonsense.
   • Tracey 1.5

     17 June 2014 at 8:30 am

     the minister for oravida put the changes in her bin. right next to her and the pms promise to dunne for voting with them on gcsb.
2. alwyn 2

   16 June 2014 at 6:39 pm

   You say

   “There’s only one political leader out there saying: “Tactical voting is a good idea for my supporters, and long may it continue, but it is a dreadful crime by others.” That leader is John Key.”

   Can you point me to a reference that shows John Key saying this?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     17 June 2014 at 9:15 am

     Well spotted, Rob Salmond used quotation marks when in fact he’s paraphrasing. Top marks for English go to Alwyn, who gets a gold star.

     Everyone shake hands with Alwyn and offer your congratulations.
     • alwyn 2.1.1

       17 June 2014 at 10:06 am

       Alright my clever little lad.
       Can you perhaps point me to any statement of Key’s for which this even approximately a paraphrase?
       Thought not.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

         17 June 2014 at 10:13 am

         What a fool you are, claiming victory. I suggest you argue the toss with John Armstrong.

         In getting the inevitable “no” from the Prime Minister, Cunliffe still stays on the right side of public opinion, while Key is very much on the wrong side.
         • alwyn 2.1.1.1.1

           17 June 2014 at 1:52 pm

           Wow! You, or more accurately Polity, really know how to make bricks without straw if this is your “evidence”.

           When we read the first link we find that it is Cunliffe, not Key who approves of coattails for his side but not for his opponents. There is, of course, absolutely nothing in the link that justifies the wild claims made about John Key. All we have is that Key is pointing out that Cunliffe is a hypocrite for the inconsistent, and undemocratic, views he is proposing.

           I asked for any evidence at all that Key, NOT Cunliffe, held such views. We all know that Cunliffe does and your link merely illustrates that. However Polity claimed that that was the way that John Key behaved and you certainly haven’t shown that by this ill-chosen link.

           The second link merely says that Key’s views, consistent though they are, may not be popular. So what? Do you really want to have politicians like David Cunliffe who appear to be unable to give any opinion at all on anything until it has been polled or referred to a focus group?

           Please try harder if you are really arguing in favour of Polity’s claim. Otherwise I suggest you give up. You are fighting a lost cause.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1

             17 June 2014 at 1:56 pm

             Post election negotiations with voter-mandated allies you’ve done your best to beat are the same as pre-election deals with no-hopers Colin Cray-Cray and Jamie Unclecousin?

             Is that what passes for logic in your amygdala?
             • alwyn …

               17 June 2014 at 2:37 pm

               I see.
               You mean the way that Labour did its very best to win Coromandel in 1999 when it look as if the Greens were going to need an electorate seat? Oh that’s right Labour didn’t try.
               Or the way they put up strong candidates against Anderton over the years? Oh that’s right, Labour didn’t.
               Or, as I suspect is going to happen, the way Kelvin Davis will go missing in action up north against Hone.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 17 June 2014 at 2:50 pm

                 You may well be right, and I note you failed to address the issue as it relates to the present day leadership. Nor did you acknowledge that post-election negotiations are not the same as pre-election deals.

                 Still, I guess everyone’s entitled to salvage a little scrap of pride from the wreckage of their failed argument.
3. dimebag russell 3

   16 June 2014 at 6:44 pm

   actions speak louder than words and key is so dysfunctional that he only says what somebody else writes out on a card.
4. Sacha 4

   16 June 2014 at 8:21 pm

   “But if National insists that those are the rules, then we reserve [the] right to play to the rules, too.”

   That’s not what Cunliffe said at all. He has promised black and white to ‘not do any deals’ – regardless of whether that means losing to other parties who are doing so. Points for piousness, none for nous.
5. dimebag russell 5

   16 June 2014 at 8:34 pm

   first paragraph true.
   second false.
   therefore you lie.
6. Ad 6

   17 June 2014 at 8:15 am

   There’s a great line from Gordon Campbell on Scoop that ‘it’s incredible that Act should preach personal self reliance when they have permanently owed their existence to National’s political social welfare.’
   • Tracey 6.1

     17 June 2014 at 8:34 am

     it is a great line.

     3 strikes and you are out

     awatere. fraud
     banks. electoral fraud
     garrett. stealing dead childs identity

     yup. loads of personal responsibility in that party
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       17 June 2014 at 9:14 am

       Well, to be succinct, it’s fraud-fraud-fraud for all three.
7. framu 7

   17 June 2014 at 8:24 am

   a big ‘mistake’ farrar is making here is that hes claiming tactical voting – which is done by voters, as being the same thing as making deals, which is done by parties

   they arent, he should know this and i bet he does

   and srylands – your hopelessly wrong, as usual. both in terms of reality and parliamentary process

   “They should only be jettisoned with a wide consensus of Parliamentary support. I would advocate a referendum.” – who votes in a referendum genius? – MPs?

   and when a paid campaigner and muck raker of the nats is running around saying things that mark him as either an idiot or a bullshitter why shouldnt we point it out?
8. Cancerman 8

   17 June 2014 at 8:28 am

   The coat tailing rule shouldn’t be jettisoned. MMP should be truly what we were promised and the 5% treshold should be removed. Threshold should be only the percentaged needed for a seat.
9. vto 9

   17 June 2014 at 8:38 am

   I agree 110% that, even though one may disagree with the rules of the game and want to change them, one must absolutely play by the rules of the game as they stand at any particular time.

   Good on Harre and Cunliffe for standing up to the right wing bullshit and stating exactly that.
   • Sacha 9.1

     17 June 2014 at 11:54 am

     “one must absolutely play by the rules of the game as they stand at any particular time”

     Only that’s not what Cunliffe has been saying. Quite the opposite.
10. Papa Tuanuku 10

    17 June 2014 at 1:44 pm

    I cringe when i think of the possibility of labour and or the greens helping to get act or dunne back in in ohariu and epsom. so they stand by their principles and stand in the seats, which looses the election for the left. Their principles will not be of any use to people on struggle street who need relief.

    There needs to be a message from green and labour that, as a left win this year is critical for all of us, they will stand down julie ann or gareth or the labour guy in ohariu and epsom. sort it out labour and greens, don’t lose the election for all of us.
11. Tracey 11

    17 June 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Touche

    Fraud is not really criminal in ACT. Its getting caught that causes the angst

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS