Stick a Fork in Him, He’s Dunne

140 comments on “Stick a Fork in Him, He’s Dunne ”

• Comments are now closed

1. DoublePlusGood 1

   1 June 2016 at 7:25 pm

   What’s your basis for assuming that Annette Sykes isn’t going to get 5000+ votes in Waiariki?
   • te reo putake 1.1

     1 June 2016 at 7:32 pm

     They’re gone, D+G. Doing that deal with Kim Dotcom ended them as an effective electoral party. Under MMP, only NZ First have returned to parliament after being turfed out and there’s no sign at all of any sort of resurgence for mana. Sykes may well stand, but there isn’t much reason to vote for her and I think the direct battle between Labour and Maori party for the seat will be the focus of local voters’ attention.

     The really sad thing would be if she stood and helped Flavell get elected. A vote for mana in that electorate might well be a vote for the return of a National government.
     • Chooky 1.1.1

       1 June 2016 at 9:10 pm

       no Labour and Davis ensured Hone lost TTT with the help of Lusk (coincidentally one would hope)

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201779410/dirty-politics-players-back-in-the-frame

       …nothing to do with Kim Dotcom….that is a common Labour Party hierarchy myth and doesnt fool anyone

       … a framing by jonkey nactional and the Hollywood corporates did Dotcom in…and shame on some in the Labour Party for supporting it
       • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1

         2 June 2016 at 9:18 am

         Please Hone lost because he only cared about far North, not the area from Auckland to Whangarei where most ofo seats voters are.

         The place to do a deal that would have worked even better ( thats if deals werent labours policy at the time) was Waiariki where the labour vote was 3rd. Getting Sykes in would have kept Hone as a list MP ( where he wanted to be) and turfed out MP with its two support votes for national.
         Its all hindsight of course.
       • leftie 1.1.1.2

         2 June 2016 at 2:32 pm

         No Chooky, you are wrong, Hone did it to himself, and it had a lot to do with Dotcom, even he recognized that he was politically toxic.
     • DoublePlusGood 1.1.2

       1 June 2016 at 10:13 pm

       You could well have said that of voting for Labour in Waiariki in the last two elections though, given an Annette Sykes win would have been +1 seat on the left (plus a list MP, in the last one). Her supporters haven’t necessarily vanished off to some other party, so she could well still grab a hefty swag of votes.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.3

       1 June 2016 at 10:26 pm

       “A vote for mana in that electorate might well be a vote for the return of a National government.”

       I think that’s a bit extreme, given that the Maori Party vote against National the majority of the time in Parliament, it’s only because of their C&S agreement, which tosses a few baubles the way of Whanau Ora, that they support National at all.

       If you’re seriously suggesting that if Maori Party are the kingmakers, they’ll choose to go with National instead of Labour/Greens + NZ First, well, I don’t know what to tell you.

       It’s also pretty difficult to come up with any sort of seating result where the Maori Party are truly the kingmakers, since NZFirst will always have more seats than them, and Act + UF aren’t enough to make up the difference.
       • Hanswurst 1.1.3.1

         2 June 2016 at 7:20 am

         Yup. This bashing of both Mana and the Maori Party by Labour stalwarts really should stop. It’s petty and it helps no-one.
         • Colonial Viper 1.1.3.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 10:55 am

           Labour don’t really understand MMP and the need to cultivate political partners.
           • Nessalt 1.1.3.1.1.1

             2 June 2016 at 11:09 am

             But why? they understood it so well in the clark government? they understood that you’ve got to be such a strong party that you don’t need political partners as much as they need you. She built a labour party that was geared to being that strong. then 4 men came along in succession and fucked it all up.
           • e-clectic 1.1.3.1.1.2

             2 June 2016 at 11:51 am

             Partners? In the case of ACT and UF I’d describe them as National adjunct parties – substantially the same but used as a device in MMP to finagle two more seats above National’s party vote percentage.
             Remember, at last election Nat/ACT/Maori/UF got total 49.27% party vote – and this turned into 64 seats in the House (52.9%) due to MMP rules. The loopholes of MMP have to be closed or change to a different system.
             • leftie …

               2 June 2016 at 2:36 pm

               That’s why National refused, point blank, to get rid of coat tailing, wasn’t it?
               • Mosa …

                 2 June 2016 at 10:22 pm

                 They ignored the referendum vote to retain MMP with changes including coat tailing ,Collins refused to act on the referendum changes that were voted for and recommended,they never intended to abide by the result, TOTAL ARROGANCE!
               • e-clectic …

                 3 June 2016 at 3:01 pm

                 leftie – this scam is subtly different from coat-tailing. Removing coat-tailing wouldn’t fix the Epsom/Ohariu scam.
                 Coat-tailing is about getting to the threshold for party votes to count by getting an electorate seat.
                 This scam is about getting an electorate seat without using up the party percentage. You add that “electorate seat” from your adjunct party on top of your party percentage allocation.
                 To prevent it requires is a further provision in MMP to require a minimum party percentage vote as a threshold for electorate seats, say, 0.8% of the party vote (i.e. 1/120 – the ratio of votes per seat).
                 If they won’t remove coat-tailing and lower threshold to 4%, what chance of them closing this loophole?

                 Just as a footnote – for people wondering if Labour pulled the same scam with Jim Anderton, they didn’t. His party always polled over 0.8% in the party vote.
           • leftie 1.1.3.1.1.3

             2 June 2016 at 2:34 pm

             rofl I think Labour just proved you wrong Colonial Viper.
   • Chooky 1.2

     1 June 2016 at 9:04 pm

     +100 DoublePlusGood …good question…Go Annette Sykes!…She is worth almost all of Labour caucus put together…
2. mauī 2

   1 June 2016 at 7:32 pm

   Makes sense to me, if you want to win the election it comes down to basic maths. I have a bad feeling about Ohariu though (where many comfortably well off kiwis live), I think the Nat votes could easily slide across to Dunne keeping him in there. But yes a couple of seats for the left using this method would be a god send and entirely possible.
   • Iceberg 2.1

     1 June 2016 at 8:04 pm

     “if you want to win the election it comes down to basic maths”

     The basic maths is that National got over 50% of the party vote in Ohariu.
     • mauī 2.1.1

       1 June 2016 at 8:30 pm

       That’s to be expected with mostly affluent suburbs in it like Khandallah, Korokoro, Ngaio, Maungaraki. From wiki:

       and the second highest number (in NZ) of families earning between $70,000 and $100,000 per year.

       Lucky they don’t represent the whole of NZ.
       • Iceberg 2.1.1.1

         1 June 2016 at 9:33 pm

         They seem to based on the percentage
       • Hayden 2.1.1.2

         2 June 2016 at 10:51 am

         Korokoro and Maungaraki are not in Ohariu, they are Hutt South.
         • mauī 2.1.1.2.1

           2 June 2016 at 11:53 am

           Ok, think you’re right, changed for 2014. There is still lots of info out there showing they’re still part of Ohariu, confusing.
       • Rosie 2.1.1.3

         2 June 2016 at 11:42 am

         Hi maui. Yes we do have affluent suburbs here in Ohariu, such as Khandallah, Wadestown and even Ngaio (it was once a state housing burb in the 40’s but has been gentrified) but there is a lot of poverty here too.

         Newlands has a soup kitchen and there are two charities that organise food parcels, clothing and appliances for the impoverished. The Johnsonville mall is like a ghost town with shutters down over shops that have gone out of business, businesses that have been there for decades. The WINZ centre is about the busiest place in town.

         It’s an electorate of contradictions but ultimately there is a strong streak of conservatism – eg, Ohariu was among one of the electorates with the highest number of votes to change the flag and one of the lowest number of votes for the keep our assets referendum. In fact there’s still a number of houses flying the Kyle Lockwood flag.

         Like TRP says, Ginny Andersen was only 700 votes behind Dunne in 2014. And Ginny was a first time campaigner. If the Greens don’t stand a candidate in 2017 I think we can pull off a win. Ginny is standing again I think and would be a real asset to the people of Ohariu. She could really shake up this town.
     • Lanthanide 2.1.2

       1 June 2016 at 10:30 pm

       Newsflash: Labour doesn’t have to win Ohariu in order for Dunne to lose his seat.

       I saw it written somewhere, perhaps Graeme Edgelar, that each rotten-borough electorate seat is worth, on average, 0.5 seats for National. With Act + Dunne together that’s a 1 seat advantage that they have over the opposition.

       So replacing Dunne with a National electorate MP reduces their voting power by 0.5 seats on average.

       Still not as good as a left-wing candidate winning it, but better than Dunne stinking up the place.
       • Iceberg 2.1.2.1

         2 June 2016 at 6:31 am

         Newsflash: writing posts about how to win electorate seats is, well, nonsensical.
         • e-clectic 2.1.2.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 12:21 pm

           Iceberg: winning electorate seats is not nonsensical if you can do it without it costing you party votes, as National is doing in Epsom & Ohariu.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2

         2 June 2016 at 10:57 am

         Good point Lanth
     • e-clectic 2.1.3

       2 June 2016 at 12:08 pm

       The significant point of what happened in Ohariu is this.

       In the Party Vote, United Future got 273 votes and National 18,810.

       National got an extra seat for the cost of 273 Party Votes allowing the 18,810 to be counted into their overall Party Vote percentage – that’s a complete rort.

       You can check the numbers here – http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-36.html
       • The Lone Haranguer 2.1.3.1

         2 June 2016 at 10:56 pm

         Actually, thats smart voting, and its only a rort when its the other guys doing it.
         • e-clectic 2.1.3.1.1

           3 June 2016 at 3:08 pm

           Bullshit – it’s a rort anyway you look at it. Effectively, Ohariu and Epsom Nat voters get two party votes because their electorate vote turns into a seat in the house. That’s not democratic – everyone else only gets one party vote. On the principle of one person one vote, this rort contravenes that. It is a loophole in MMP that needs fixing.
3. Cricklewood 3

   1 June 2016 at 7:56 pm

   Hypothetically speaking if the labour vote stays similar to what it was last election but they win more electorate seats like ohariu and auck central is there a chance that there will be no labour list mps?

   Would the Nats if push comes to shove tank a few electorates to causes issues and uncertainty if say Andrew Little was a list only candidate or will he stand in a safe seat?
   • te reo putake 3.1

     1 June 2016 at 8:07 pm

     I understand all Labour MP’s are being asked to stand in an electorate. I also understand there are a couple of long servers currently considering their options, which may open up a winnable seat for Little and maybe for someone entirely new. The party’s change process continues unabated!
     • Cricklewood 3.1.1

       1 June 2016 at 8:49 pm

       I hope that’s the case. I can see Gower stirring up a storm if Andrew is list only or standing in New Plymouth again and the polls are similar to they are now. The lead in will all about the math of party polling versus likely electorate seats and wether or not he would get into parliament. Be a right mess and would likely become a self fulfilling prophecy…
       • The Lone Haranguer 3.1.1.1

         2 June 2016 at 10:59 pm

         Surely Labour will gift Little a safe electorate seat for the 2017 election. Is Annette King doing another 3 years?
     • Michael 3.1.2

       1 June 2016 at 9:27 pm

       Not that I can see. Labour will go into the 2017 election with the same clapped out caucus it has now. The Greens may do a bit better on Party Vote than tey did last time, although they’ll have to be careful not to let Labour’s mud stick to them (like systematically cocking up benefit payments right through its last term of office). Winston should do very well, as voters who don’t like the Nats turn to him. People who don’t like Labour (and there are lot of them) will stay home.
     • Lanthanide 3.1.3

       1 June 2016 at 10:33 pm

       Would be kind of amusing if Labour caused an overhang from winning too many electorates.
       • dukeofurl 3.1.3.1

         2 June 2016 at 1:50 pm

         Thats my thought too. They would have to get another 10 or so seats so may be a hard hurdle to cross
         In 2012 they 34 seats up all with 27.5% of PV and 32 seats with 25% this time round.
         In 2008 they got 43 seats with 34%
         • Enough is Enough 3.1.3.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 1:53 pm

           There was no election in 2012
4. Ad 4

   1 June 2016 at 8:00 pm

   I’ve gotten all encouraged all of a sudden and re-joined Labour.
   • Gavin 4.1

     1 June 2016 at 8:05 pm

     I think that’s the clever thing about this MOU. We’ve all got a lot more hope for the next election. Good points about the electorates. Generally the party vote and the electorate vote are close to each other in numbers. Win the electorate – you’d generally help the party vote too.
   • Enough is Enough 4.2

     2 June 2016 at 11:27 am

     I will only be rejoining Labour when they make a firm commitment to repeal the Rogernomic reforms and denounce Neo Liberalism,
     • leftie 4.2.1

       2 June 2016 at 3:44 pm

       Meanwhile Enough, you will just bleat from the sidelines instead. Neoliberalism has been a dominating force around the world since the 70s, it takes time to change things. Would it be presumptuous to ask who you will vote for? as I don’t see other parties specifically saying they will “repeal the Rogernomic reforms of decades ago and denounce Neo Liberalism” either. What about repealing John key’s treasononmics and National’s self serving neoliberlaism, I hear all opposition parties including Labour wanting to right those wrongs of the last 8 years.
       • Enough is Enough 4.2.1.1

         3 June 2016 at 1:22 pm

         I an not on the side-lines. I am a member of the Green Party. You need to be engaged to change anything.

         Yes if it was a 2 horse race I would certainly give my support to Labour, but in reality Labour is just a softer shade of National.

         You are kidding yourself if you think the structural inequalities in our society will change under a Labour government.
   • leftie 4.3

     2 June 2016 at 2:39 pm

     Yay… good for you Ad!!!
5. Colonial Viper 5

   1 June 2016 at 8:24 pm

   I don’t get the title of this post. Dunne isn’t “done.”

   As mentioned, National will simply pull their candidate and the majority of those 6,000 blue votes are going to Dunne.

   If the Greens pull their candidate and give Labour a clear run, this scenario is guaranteed.

   Dunne will greatly increase his majority on 2014.

   And there will be no shame or tension in National doing this because Labour and Greens have, belatedly, given this electoral tactic their blessing.
   • Muttonbird 5.1

     1 June 2016 at 8:31 pm

     The thing about you fence sitters is you get splitters up your ass.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       1 June 2016 at 8:54 pm

       Huh? I’m not a fence sitter – I’m definitely not voting Labour 2017.
       • Paul 5.1.1.1

         1 June 2016 at 9:22 pm

         You voting ACT?
         • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1

           1 June 2016 at 9:28 pm

           Do you even read my comments?
           • te reo putake 5.1.1.1.1.1

             1 June 2016 at 9:42 pm

             I read your comments, CV and that’s my conclusion too. You’re not left wing, by your own admission. That doesn’t leave much alternative position but right. And given the thin line between love and hate, your bourgeois lifestyle and your misanthrope, ACT is clearly your next stop. And why not? It’s an honest choice.
             • Colonial Viper …

               1 June 2016 at 10:04 pm

               Hey TRP, two dimensional linear thinking like yours is destined for the dustbin. And to be explicit, I have very little politically in common with “left wing” parties like the Greens and like NZ Labour.
               • te reo putake …

                 1 June 2016 at 10:25 pm

                 C’mon, no backtracking now! The simple fact is that you are left wing or you are not. If you’re not, you are part of the problem. Clearly, you don’t really know exactly what you are, politically, CV. You can’t articulate any vision or coherent philosophy. All you’ve got is mithering about what you perceive to be the failings of others.

                 You write like someone who despises the working class, while denying class exists, rather like a good spawn of Thatcher would. You also appear to fit into the demographic that ACT pitch at and if you dropped the ‘deep state’ drivel, got a suit jacket and a koru club card, you could be standing for ACT in a matter of months.

                 What’s stopping you?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   1 June 2016 at 10:35 pm

                   Meh, so many words to prove that your politics are old and obsolete. And your careless ranting is dustbin material.
                   • te reo putake …

                     1 June 2016 at 10:51 pm

                     Any time you want to let us know the alternative, you have this forum at your disposal. I won’t hold my breath.

                     Anyhoo, this post is about the soon to be ex MP, Peter Dunne. How about we address that instead?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     1 June 2016 at 10:58 pm

                     Sure. Dunne in for another term, if he decides to stand. National will make it worthwhile for him to stand.
                   • infused …

                     1 June 2016 at 11:23 pm

                     I was tempted to respond, but TRP, and many others including that are still so delusional.

                     It’s just getting stupid now.
                 • WILD KATIPO …

                   1 June 2016 at 11:32 pm

                   Ooooo…Thatcher?… could just as easily been Key and his National party stooges like Dunne….
                 • WILD KATIPO …

                   1 June 2016 at 11:32 pm

                   Ooooo…Thatcher?… could just as easily been Key and his National party stooges like Dunne….
                   • leftie …

                     2 June 2016 at 3:49 pm

                     Lol Very good Wild Katipo +100
             • weka …

               1 June 2016 at 10:43 pm

               “I read your comments, CV and that’s my conclusion too. You’re not left wing, by your own admission. That doesn’t leave much alternative position but right. And given the thin line between love and hate, your bourgeois lifestyle and your misanthrope, ACT is clearly your next stop. And why not? It’s an honest choice.”

               Sorry trp, but that’s just fucking stupid. I’m pretty sure that CV has voted Mana in the past, and there is always NZF esp given that CV admires Peters. To suggest that CV would vote ACT just because he won’t vote Labour or no longer considers himself left wing in terms of traditional left/right spectrum is either daft or a wind up.

               Lots of people who don’t consider themselves left also don’t consider themselves right. FFS, there’s whole swathes of people in younger generations than you and I who just don’t see politics in that polarity. You must be aware of this.
               • Cricklewood …

                 1 June 2016 at 11:11 pm

                 That last paragraph is very true. Personally I find the tribalism evident with some commenters frustrating.
                 But each to their own….
               • te reo putake …

                 1 June 2016 at 11:23 pm

                 I’m aware of that problem, but it doesn’t change anything, weka Ignorance is not an excuse. And pretending that left/right has disappeared is a right wing trope.

                 “There is no such thing as society”. M Thatcher.
                 • weka …

                   1 June 2016 at 11:33 pm

                   People who don’t identify as left or right aren’t inherently ignorant nor pretending that the left/right has disappeared. Nor can their politics be written off as Thatcher-esque, that’s an incorrect understanding of what those politics are. It’s not even a problem.

                   There is also a strong theme within Green politics of being neither left nor right. This isn’t a denial that the spectrum exists, it’s an assertion that it’s not the only way of understanding politics. Poor understanding of this leads people to think that if the Greens aren’t left they must be right, and that’s simply not true.

                   I don’t think that CV is arguing the same positions as some of the Greens (although I find it ironic to hear him now renouncing the left), but it’s very weird to see you suggesting that because someone doesn’t vote Labour they must be going to vote Act.
                 • the pigman …

                   2 June 2016 at 12:06 am

                   I think you get carried away, TRP, and comparisons of your hounding comments to a Stalinist purge (esp. re: CV) aren’t entirely outlandish. There’s a deep bitterness to some of it and it does the NZLP no credit (insert Slater nasty-party-meme here).

                   Having said that, there was a chubby little chap with multiple piercings and dyed hair called Shawn Tan that was quite active on in the UoA Green Party when I was a student. 3-4 years after graduating, he showed up again as a reformed libertarian on the ACT party list for the 2011 election at some ludicrously high placing (still didn’t get in). I see deeper and deeper shades of him in CV these days.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 June 2016 at 12:16 am

                     So did this guy Tan take Global Warming and fossil fuel depletion as clear, present and immediate threats to modern civilisation?

                     In addition was he aware of the insidious growth of the security surveillance state and the power of elite bankster influence in every day government?

                     If not, then his politics are nothing like my politics, and his understanding of the world is nothing like my understanding of the world.

                     Does that help clarify things?

                     edit – TRP doesn’t understand any of these things either, not really. All he is interested in is seeing his side of the status quo establishment coin take power again, and carrying favour with that establishment so that he can take his rightful place within its hierarchy.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 1 June 2016 at 11:30 pm

                 Cheers weka. A good evening to you.
               • Bill …

                 1 June 2016 at 11:35 pm

                 Statists (for all their protestations to the contrary, and for all the good that some of a statist persuasion hold in their hearts) are not of the left, and the reification of their political ideology simply and always acts as a roadblock to the advancement of the left.

                 Not that that will ever be honestly acknowledged.
                 • te reo putake …

                   2 June 2016 at 7:00 am

                   Ironically, people who use the phrase statist are usually rightwingers, most often libertarians.
                   • weka …

                     2 June 2016 at 7:41 am

                     It’s probably more helpful if we don’t try and put people in boxes that suit our own world views. Because otherwise I’d have to say that trying to misframe someone else’s politics to suit our argument is rather authoritarian.
                   • Te Reo Putake …

                     2 June 2016 at 8:22 am

                     Cheers, weka. It’s not putting people in boxes, it’s making distinctions based on pretty orthodox political science. Well, in my case, I think Marxist analysis is orthodox! Given that it hasn’t been superseded by anything else, it remains the best guide for leftists.

                     While this sub thread has meandered way off the post topic, it has been useful. I’m going to put a post up in the next couple of days about class and why it’s still vital. In short, if you don’t recognise class, you’re seeing the world through blinkers. This is why we have commenters here who are clever, passionate and sort of aware of the problem, but who are utterly unable to articulate what the problem is, let alone what the solutions might be. And that’s the way capital wants us to be; flailing like the Man of La Mancha.

                     There was a saying a few years ago that ‘we are all middle class now’. I think the last few years have shown that, in fact, we are all working class now.
                   • weka …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:43 am

                     Cheers, weka. It’s not putting people in boxes, it’s making distinctions based on pretty orthodox political science. Well, in my case, I think Marxist analysis is orthodox! Given that it hasn’t been superseded by anything else, it remains the best guide for leftists.

                     Which is pretty much what I’d expect an authoritarian to reply 🙂 There are lots of ways of understanding politics outside the orthodoxy. Hell, if we had to rely on the orthodoxy I’d be in the kitchen making everyone a cup of tea at this point.

                     I still think you are misframing CV’s politics, and that that is a shame because it’s really not necessary. I disagree with some of CV’s views (and often with how he acts on them), but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent them.

                     While this sub thread has meandered way off the post topic, it has been useful. I’m going to put a post up in the next couple of days about class and why it’s still vital. In short, if you don’t recognise class, you’re seeing the world through blinkers. This is why we have commenters here who are clever, passionate and sort of aware of the problem, but who are utterly unable to articulate what the problem is, let alone what the solutions might be. And that’s the way capital wants us to be; flailing like the Man of La Mancha.

                     I’m pretty sure that the people in this sub thread all recognise class and have their own analyses. I agree it’s been a useful conversation (apart from the misreprenting stuff).

                     There was a saying a few years ago that ‘we are all middle class now’. I think the last few years have shown that, in fact, we are all working class now.

                     And then there is the underclass…
                 • weka …

                   2 June 2016 at 7:38 am

                   If you are using statism in a spectrum then I’ll have to disagree. Many of those people are on the left, although I agree that they block much of the advancement of the left as well. I guess then we’d have to have a debate about who gets to define the word left. I’d probably make an argument that people who’ve been voting for Labour (NZ) their whole lives are left wing even if they still support the state managing things.

                   By this stage in the conversation what we really need to be doing is getting off the single axis and looking at politics in a more complex way. Trp seems to be saying that there is only left or right and everything else is misperception and problematic. Some of the rest of us would argue that there is at least one other axis which is the libertarian/authoritarian one (not sure if the statist analyis fits on there or is on another axis again).

                   One problem with all that is the people who still care and think about issues but don’t define themselves as being on those axes.

                   Which reminds me of a link I dropped the other day about autism, and how the autism spectrum isn’t a line it’s a colour wheel. The problem with the line model is that it leads non-autistic people to try and position autistic people somewhere between very autistic and not autistic at all and that’s not actually how it works. Different people with autism function from different parts of the wheel and it’s not possible to line them up so that one person is more autistic or less autistic than the person next too them. Much better and real understanding comes from seeing them as functioning from a wheel of possibilities that includes 5 broad areas of functioning (which takes us out of the left/right, up/down axes as well).

                   http://themighty.com/2016/05/rebecca-burgess-comic-redesigns-the-autism-spectrum/

                   I’ll have a think about how to use that model for politics, but I think it’s especially important for the left because so many people who in the past would have identified as left, now are identifying as not even on that scale at all. This doesn’t mean they don’t have libertarian/authoritarian aspects to their politics, it just means we can’t neatly understand their politics in conventional models a la

                   http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
                   • Bill …

                     2 June 2016 at 11:30 am

                     Statism sits on an authoritarian/ non-authoritarian continuum.

                     Parliamentary parties are statist. Much self identified left ideology or cultism is incredibly authoritarian. The blind spot would appear to be an inability on the part of social democratic statists and authoritarian cultists to recognise that there is nothing intrinsically ‘left’ about the politics they ascribe to.

                     In short, ‘left’ is when society provides to its own needs without the political or economic overbearance of a state or markets. Read any socialist literature (rather than literature promoting the various 20th C cults of Leninism, Stalinism. Maosim etc) and that simple basic premise permeates all the writings.

                     When the Bolsheviks hijacked the Russian revolution, and among other things, seized control of market mechanisms, they didn’t build hospitals and provide healthcare or housing because they were good guys, but simply because they’d decreed that the market would not be allowed to provide such stuff and that they, through the mechanism of the state, would. Predictably, to do that, they had to crush the innate potential of society to provide and manage itself. And socialists the world over at the time condemned them for what they were doing.

                     It’s worth noting that at the time of the thwarted Russian revolution, the term fascism hadn’t yet been coined. And when the reality of Mussolini’s Italy (Mussolini being the man who developed the concept of fascism), is compared to Bolshevik Russia, it’s striking how similar the two are from the perspective of society.

                     It’s not unreasonable to suggest that all Mussolini did was essentially tease the Bolshevik example apart a bit – meaning that instead of ‘the Party’ being the unquestionable authority and expression of everything, some authority was delegated. So, religious authority was ceded to the church and production was placed in the hands of competing corporate bodies that, importantly, had to serve the state first and foremost.

                     Meanwhile, the Italian state, in common with all other authoritarian regimes of the time, provided some measure of social welfare (eg – maternity benefits, old age benefits, accident insurance, unemployment benefit…). And also in common with all other authoritarian regimes of the time, it actively crushed any and all expressions of socialism.
               • left for dead …

                 2 June 2016 at 9:58 am

                 Here here weka….but hey its the trp, gets a bit blinded by fear an loathing.
                 CV is many things but not an act supporter. 👿
                 TRP we all know your position, “play the ball not the person”
               • Reddlusion …

                 2 June 2016 at 1:41 pm

                 Excellent points
           • Reddlusion 5.1.1.1.1.2

             2 June 2016 at 1:38 pm

             “Do you read my comments”

             No Paul does not, he is to busy reviewing his doom and gloom RSS feeds to be first in re his moronic morning Neo liberal blah blah postings Thus he reads nothing, nor engages his brain that is in a perpetual loop 😃
         • The Lone Haranguer 5.1.1.1.2

           2 June 2016 at 11:10 pm

           Or mores the point, where are the Act and Conservative voters going to go given that both those parties are stuffed.

           I would pick the 4% conservatives to go to NZF and the 1% Act ones to go to the Nats, but that may be a bit of a guess.

           Regardless, I see Winston being the winner from it all, and him trying to shaft the Greens again after the election.

           Will Labour – given the choice – sacrifice the MoU to get to the treasury benches with Winston or will they remain in opposition?
       • Muttonbird 5.1.1.2

         1 June 2016 at 9:38 pm

         Not voting Labour/Green you mean.

         I read a handful of your comments (that’s all it takes) and can only assume you’ll be voting for no party at all. Out of spite.
       • leftie 5.1.1.3

         2 June 2016 at 2:41 pm

         Well that’s such a surprise… NOT Colonial Viper.
   • Chooky 5.2

     1 June 2016 at 9:01 pm

     good analysis CV
     • Colonial Viper 5.2.1

       1 June 2016 at 9:09 pm

       Thanks Chooky. The Left needs to keep it real.

       Thinking that Green voters are going to gift all their votes to Labour, and that National are going to just sit around and watch their patsy Dunne go down taking their fourth term with them, ain’t going to happen.

       It just ain’t realistic thinking.
   • te reo putake 5.3

     1 June 2016 at 9:10 pm

     I think I covered why it would be significant if National are forced to react that way in the post. What I might have also included is that I think that represents a shift; the Tories forced on the defensive for a change. It would also mark all three parties adapting to MMP’s possibilities in ways they hadn’t tried before. It shows that MMP has really bedded in now.
     • Colonial Viper 5.3.1

       1 June 2016 at 9:26 pm

       Fair enough. My concern is National responding to the Labour/Greens tactic by pulling their own candidate.

       Dunne’s majority will go up from 700 to 7,000. Then we’ll never get rid of him. The dynamics may definitely shift but that shift is not a winning one, IMO.
       • AB 5.3.1.1

         1 June 2016 at 10:16 pm

         That could happen – but at least National would have to openly declare its hand. Then everyone could see that UF and ACT are pseudo-parties within the ambit of National, are in Parliament only through the grace and favour of National, and are deliberately used to subvert the principle of proportionality that MMP is founded on. Dunne and Seymour don’t currently pull in anyone on their coat-tails, but they still distort proportionality by being National party satellites that are not counted when National is allocated its percentage of seats..

         It would be much better of course if the MMP rules had a way to counter this behaviour, rather than Lab/Green having to resort to what TRP has suggested. Removing coat-tailing is a must, but as I said, this alone won’t solve the rorts in Ohariu and Epsom

         Drafting such rules would be tricky – e.g. if party X pulls out of an electorate race or gives the electoral commission sufficient grounds to reasonably believe they have endorsed some other party, what should happen then? Should an elected member of the tacitly endorsed party be counted in Party X’s allocation of seats?
         • Lanthanide 5.3.1.1.1

           1 June 2016 at 10:38 pm

           I don’t think you want to go down the path of the electoral commission deciding if parties have endorsed other parties and meting out punishments if they have.
           • AB 5.3.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2016 at 10:03 am

             No – I don’t think so either. But does that mean there is no solution?
         • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1.2

           1 June 2016 at 11:34 pm

           That could happen – but at least National would have to openly declare its hand. Then everyone could see that UF and ACT are pseudo-parties within the ambit of National,

           Geezus mate most everyone in the country figured this out a decade ago. An the rest of them figured it out by the time of the Tea Pot Tapes. And I have no idea why you think any of this will make a difference to anything.
           • AB 5.3.1.1.2.1

             2 June 2016 at 10:15 am

             “everyone in the country figured this out a decade ago”
             Don’t really agree CV – most of the people I know don’t realise how this distorts proportionality. And if they don’t understand that, they don’t get the motivation behind it.
             Agree it won’t make much difference and is likely to produce a “plague on all your houses” response among the public.
             It would be better if support for the left was running at levels where we didn’t have to worry about the finer points of the electoral system.
             • Colonial Viper …

               2 June 2016 at 11:01 am

               OK so most people won’t get the thing about distorting electoral system proportionality.

               But NZers voters have long understood that National helps ACT and UF out because it helps National form governments.

               And basically, they don’t care.
       • Rosie 5.3.1.2

         2 June 2016 at 12:05 pm

         You know what CV, I do wonder if Dunne will even stand next time. By 2017, he will have held the seat for 33 years. How much life does a zero polling one man party/political personality have left? He definitely got the smugness knocked out of him on election night 2014. His ego is too great to face a defeat. I’m not sure if he wants to put himself through that.
         Through our campaigning with People’s Power Ohariu we discovered he really has lost the level of popularity and support he once had, even from die hard Dunne fans.

         The nat candidate in 2014, Brett Hudson, who is a real doofus, campaigned really hard for the nat party vote. He got in as a list MP and has an office in the electorate. He makes himself known, gets himself in the local paper all the time etc. (He’s been there less since I complained to the paper about their obvious political bias). I reckon he has his claws into the electorate. I’m wondering if it’s possible that it will be a Labour vs Nat vote in 2017.

         But even if Dunne backs out Lanthanides point at 2.1.2 is relevant.
         • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.2.1

           2 June 2016 at 12:18 pm

           Thanks for the update from on the ground Rosie. TBH I have to agree, I have no idea why any one would choose to do 30 years in Parliament.

           On another note, Labour made a big mistake driving away Charles Chauvel. He would have taken that seat from Dunne last time around, I reckon.
           • Rosie 5.3.1.2.1.1

             2 June 2016 at 2:11 pm

             I think at this stage he’s there for the $$$ and perks only, which wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. His work in the electorate is a doddle. He gets to open the odd playground and generally handle easy issues that should be directed to the ward’s councilors instead. It’s easy money as long as he is safe………

             As for Charles Chauvel, he was bright and sharp. I have a feeling he wasn’t happy during Shearers time as leadership. I wrote to him asking “is this it?” I got a cryptic sort of coded non committal reply which made me think this was not the direction he wanted to Labour go in. He left the party shortly after.

             However Ginny Andersen closed on in his votes and out did him. The glitches with having Chauvel representing Labour in a deeply conservative, read homophobic, community was that he wasn’t trusted by locals due to their own prejudices. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an element of racism too.

             Ginny is also very smart. She is very quick in a debate, unflappable clever and has a sense of humour. She’s an approachable person that people can easily warm too. She has a lot of appeal. It will be a battle but I do think she can win the electorate in 2017.
             • Colonial Viper …

               2 June 2016 at 2:30 pm

               I’m wondering then if the answer isn’t for the Greens to find a smart way to identify those staunch Green candidate voters and appeal to them to hold their nose and vote for for the Labour candidate instead.

               That would give National very little wiggle room to pull out their man from the campaign.
               • Rosie …

                 2 June 2016 at 3:21 pm

                 “I’m wondering then if the answer isn’t for the Greens to find a smart way to identify those staunch Green candidate voters and appeal to them to hold their nose and vote for for the Labour candidate instead.”

                 Yep, thats exactly what needs to happen. I hope Andrew Little got my email to him about this situation after they announced the Labour/Green MOU (well they did ask for feedback!). I’m sure lots of other people will be pushing for that too. It should have happened last time around really.

                 I think there is a problem, after all these years of MMP with voters sometimes not understanding strategic voting. I spoke to someone just the other day (as well as several during the campaign time) who didn’t realise a vote for Ginny Andersen was a vote to remove Dunne and weaken National. I sincerely think, that to a certain degree, this has happened with the Green voters, in this specific electorate. They will need to understand it’s in their interests to electorate vote Labour and party vote Green.
                 • left for dead …

                   3 June 2016 at 9:22 am

                   Yes Rosie….that was informative thanks
             • leftie …

               2 June 2016 at 3:53 pm

               Thanks Rose for that information, good to learn, I enjoyed reading your posts.
               • Rosie …

                 2 June 2016 at 3:58 pm

                 You’re welcome leftie. Keep Left!
         • weka 5.3.1.2.2

           2 June 2016 at 1:57 pm

           I’m appreciating the background in your comments too Rosie, thanks.
           • Rosie 5.3.1.2.2.1

             2 June 2016 at 3:25 pm

             Cheers weka.
   • e-clectic 5.4

     2 June 2016 at 12:23 pm

     CV: yes, exactly, Nats will pull their candidate and the oleaginous one remains.
6. Muttonbird 6

   1 June 2016 at 8:30 pm

   Maori Tories

   I laughed.

   It’s like the land wars and the Maori Party are siding with the British against their own people.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     1 June 2016 at 8:53 pm

     Uh, that did happen.
   • leftie 6.2

     2 June 2016 at 4:05 pm

     True that Muttonbird.
7. DS 7

   1 June 2016 at 9:06 pm

   The difficulty with the Nats not running a candidate is twofold –

   (1) They don’t have anyone who can push the “National’ message at the local level. This is why Labour stood a candidate in the Northland by-election while tacitly backing Winston. In a general election, it’s even worse, since it hurts the National party vote.

   (2) It’s not out of the question that even if Dunne gets back in, he could (for the right price) support a Labour-led Government. The Nats can’t trust him either.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     1 June 2016 at 9:21 pm

     Dunne ain’t ever supporting a Labour coalition government again. Not after the vitriol Labour has poured on Dunne for years now.
     • weka 7.1.1

       1 June 2016 at 10:52 pm

       He’s unlikely to support a L/G coalition either.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

         1 June 2016 at 11:38 pm

         Indeed.
         • Roflcopter 7.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 9:20 am

           If all that stood between forming a Government and sitting on the opposition benches again was Peter Dunne, you can be 100% guaranteed of two things happening…

           1) Labour/Greens will talk to Dunne and offer him something.

           2) He’ll take it.

           Dunne, rightly or wrongly, considers himself as the consummate centrist… the reality is he’s just a trougher.

           This same scenario applies 100% to the Māori Party as well.

           The Māori Party have always said they would much prefer to be working with the left (dunno why, they always get shafted by them), but have always taken up the offer from National as it’s easier to ask and receive (at least something) while you’re in the fold than just sit there whining from across the chamber.
           • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2016 at 12:20 pm

             Now that Turia is basically out of the picture I can conceive of the MP working with Labour again, yes. Before, not so much.
       • Rosie 7.1.1.2

         2 June 2016 at 4:05 pm

         I think he loathes the Greens even more than Labour. Remember his reference to the Green Party as “The Green Taleban”?

         Kind of ironic as he courted the fish and game crowd when the numbers of UF members fell below the number that can sustain a registered political party. Did he not realise the outdoor groups are reliant on environmental protection policies in order to continue their recreational pursuits? It’s not a one way street.

         I think he would rather walk away if we get a Green/Labour/NZ First? coalition. He would dislike that outcome more, in greater amounts than his love of power and position.
     • Hanswurst 7.1.2

       2 June 2016 at 7:40 am

       I’m not sure which would be better, seeing Dunne gone, or the satisfaction of knowing that he was a forlorn, impotent one-man band on the cross-benches for what little was left of his career.
       • miravox 7.1.2.1

         2 June 2016 at 7:56 am

         Seeing him gone. Then at least he can’t pretend he was in parliament with any purpose.
     • dukeofurl 7.1.3

       2 June 2016 at 9:23 am

       If National needs NZF, Peters isnt going to allow any deals with Dunne, Seymour or MP.
       Dunne probably had more haters when he was a member of the labour caucus then now that hes outside it.
       You are confusing politics in Wellington with your experience at the LEC level. The less at stake the nastier it gets.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.3.1

         2 June 2016 at 9:44 am

         How senior a role does Peters want in Cabinet? Does he want a good diplomatic posting after he finishes in Cabinet? Does he want a deal which will lock in the role of NZ First for more than one term?

         You paint Peters negotiating position with National as black or white. I don’t think it will be.
         • dukeofurl 7.1.3.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 1:39 pm

           Thats all speculation anyway, they have to decide to want a deal first. Based on Peters slamming the door in Greens face last time, he would only want him and national without hangers on. ( dependent on his numbers he brings of course)

           Even when you get a deal to form a government there is endless deal making to follow for the 3 years. Thats when Peters retirement plans would be worked out.
           When you are going to quit will never be on the table for the main deal.
8. save nz 8

   1 June 2016 at 9:06 pm

   Dunne to the dunny
   no maori Tories

   Yay!
   • Chooky 8.1

     2 June 2016 at 8:52 am

     yes that would be a good start…jonkey nact annihilated would be best…but for this they need Winston NZF….and Mana/Int…Annette Sykes needs a clear Left field to run and to win …as did Hone in TTT
     • leftie 8.1.1

       2 June 2016 at 3:04 pm

       Is Internet Mana running in the 2017 election?
       • Chooky 8.1.1.1

         2 June 2016 at 3:07 pm

         don’t know
   • leftie 8.2

     2 June 2016 at 3:02 pm

     Agreed Save NZ. I want to see Dunne and the Nats Maori party gone, never to return.
9. Michael 9

   1 June 2016 at 9:22 pm

   If the collaboration deal between Labour and the Greens only results in us getting rid of Dunne, it will have been worth it.
10. weka 10

    1 June 2016 at 10:51 pm

    A few things missing from your analysis trp.

    The Greens campaign in the electorates because it increases their party vote.

    Harawira could make good with his electorate and stand again and win.

    If Labour really wants to change the govt, it would put Kelvin Davis up the list and run a quiet campaign in Te Tai Tokerau. What I’m hearing from you is the idea that the Greens should grant Labour concessions, but not a lot of rationale for why other than for the good of the electorate. But if that costs the Greens party vote?
    • Te Reo Putake 10.1

      2 June 2016 at 8:10 am

      Fair call, weka. The Greens are a party vote party and standing on electorates helps maximise the party vote. So it’s a compromise not to stand. It may even mean the difference between x number of MP’s next Parliament and x plus 1. But being in government is clearly worth the risk of a slightly lower PV.

      That’s the real game changer here. The Greens clearly recognise that being in opposition is mostly ineffective. So they have to take a gamble. Labour are also gambling; they may shed some PV to the Greens. But to re-establish themselves on the ground in the electorates and potentially to lead the next government makes it a risk worth taking.

      My feelings about the value of electorates are separate from that discussion. It’s important to remember that local MP’s have a job to do in their communities and if you want an empathetic hearing in your local electorate office, that’ll only come from a Labour MP. Or, if you live in the north, from your NZF MP, who I’m told has revitalised the electorate offices up there.
      • dukeofurl 10.1.1

        2 June 2016 at 9:47 am

        Standing in electorates is mainly to allow a higher spending limit for party
        Each electorate is worth about $21k on top of the $1.1 mill base spend.

        As we know the Greens have plenty of money from their wealthy supporters. But of course the top leadership gets 1/2 to 1/3 of the Green party vote as candidate votes even in strong Greens electorates.
        The rest of the candidates get a fraction of PV.
        • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1

          2 June 2016 at 9:59 am

          Just some more detail of maximum spending from Elections NZ

          “The expense limit for the 2014 general election for a party contesting the party vote was $1,091,000 (including GST) plus $25,700 (including GST) per electorate contested by the party.”

          Spending by Greens and limit
          Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand (Green Party) 18/02/2015 5/03/2015 Yes Yes 57 $2,555,900.00 $1,261,668.49 $35,941.09 $0.00

          So they ran in 57 electorates
          Spending limit was $2.5Mill based on those 57 electorates
          Actual spend was $1.2 mill so they were $169k over the min.

          So they only need to stand in 6-7 seats to justify that. You could say that standing in around 50 of those seats was wasted effort.
          There was only $36k of ‘shared spending’ between cnadidate and party so the idea that they are campaigning for party vote doesnt stack up
          Labour had $225k of shared spending with candidates and party
      • save nz 10.1.2

        2 June 2016 at 9:48 am

        Both Labour and Greens need to take some measured risks. Labour trying to stay safe and be the ‘broadchurch’ NatLite has lost them a lot of votes and Greens just need to get some radical push behind them – not necessary on policy but just as individuals be more visible in the community – not just Wellington.

        It is pretty clear from the alliance that they have gone centre left which gives the signal that many supporters were waiting for (TPP, surveillance etc), without detailing policy that gives rise to dissent.

        They just need to work together with the main goal to change the government and keep the messages simple and not complicated jumbles of rules.
      • weka 10.1.3

        2 June 2016 at 11:17 am

        Fair call, weka. The Greens are a party vote party and standing on electorates helps maximise the party vote. So it’s a compromise not to stand. It may even mean the difference between x number of MP’s next Parliament and x plus 1. But being in government is clearly worth the risk of a slightly lower PV.

        That’s the real game changer here. The Greens clearly recognise that being in opposition is mostly ineffective. So they have to take a gamble. Labour are also gambling; they may shed some PV to the Greens. But to re-establish themselves on the ground in the electorates and potentially to lead the next government makes it a risk worth taking.

        I’m still not clear what you mean. The Greens standing aside in certain electorates doesn’t increase the chances of Labour forming govt via the vote/seat allocation. There may be some advantage in terms of communicating certain things to the electorate and thus increasing the vote, but you’d have to make the case for that. At the moment all you seem to be saying is that the Greens should sacrifice something so that Labour will do a coalition deal with them. It’s hardly a position of partnership.

        My feelings about the value of electorates are separate from that discussion. It’s important to remember that local MP’s have a job to do in their communities and if you want an empathetic hearing in your local electorate office, that’ll only come from a Labour MP. Or, if you live in the north, from your NZF MP, who I’m told has revitalised the electorate offices up there.

        Sure, but you appear still to be saying that the Greens should sacrifice for the greater good but not Labour (eg TTT). Again, it’s not really in the spirit of coalitions or even MMP.
        • dukeofurl 10.1.3.1

          2 June 2016 at 12:00 pm

          The money trail shows the Greens arent really working to increase the party vote by standing in electorates.

          The local candidates just dont spend enough locally and they arent pushing the party vote otherwise that would show up in the shared expenses for election advertising.

          So why are the Greens putting around 50 candidates up for seats out of the 57 who they did stand. As these serve no financial or vote getting purpose
          • weka 10.1.3.1.1

            2 June 2016 at 12:05 pm

            Unless you can back that theory up in some meaningful way I think I’ll trust the GP’s expertise in how to manage their campaigns over yours.
            • dukeofurl 10.1.3.1.1.1

              2 June 2016 at 12:23 pm

              Politics is a lot of claim but little reality so thats not a good foundation

              Ill explain. If a billboard goes up that solely says PARTY Vote Greens, thats a national green expense.
              A billboard that has both local candidate and asks for party vote has to be split between the two.
              So how come the recorded split expense for Greens is only $26k vs labour $225K when they both had very similar national campaign spending.

              Thats where the logic of greens claiming candidates promote party vote is exposed as a fallacy. Greens candidates only promoting themselves would be a heresy, so they arent doing that either.

              Of course if the central hive says one thing, you are expected to obey without hesitation.
11. Enough is Enough 11

    2 June 2016 at 11:34 am

    We all called Epsom a dirty deal, because it was.

    If Labour and the Greens start playing the same game, National will up the ante. There will be no National candidate challenging Dunne, Seymour and maybe even Craig.

    That gives those three parties a free ride into parliament, while the Labour and the Greens won’t achieve anything as they will already make the 5% threshold.

    These deals are only a clever move if you are helping a shit party into Parliament.
    • dukeofurl 11.1

      2 June 2016 at 12:02 pm

      Here , Ill get get a hanky to dry your eyes.
      • Enough is Enough 11.1.1

        2 June 2016 at 1:05 pm

        To dry my eyes as the politically incompetent Labour party fucks up another election for us….thanks I will need it
        • dukeofurl 11.1.1.1

          2 June 2016 at 1:33 pm

          You have the political insight of a stuffed bunny, so no one would care about your tears or tribulations
          • Enough is Enough 11.1.1.1.1

            2 June 2016 at 1:37 pm

            Clever and funny. Well done keyboard warrior
12. Paul Campbell 12

    2 June 2016 at 5:11 pm

    I think that if Dunne were smart he’d join the L-G almost-coalition today …. stick it to Key and preserve his seat
13. Colonial Viper 13

    2 June 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Heres an interesting fact someone passed to me: Labour voters in Ohariu who vote for the Hairdo are responsible for Dunne’s victory in the electorate!!!

    There are almost 800 of them.
    • te reo putake 13.1

      2 June 2016 at 9:36 pm

      That’s probably correct in a sense, CV. But then, MMP encourages divided voting and if your local MP is regarded as likeable or a hard worker, people will support them despite their PV going in another direction. For example, next door to Ohariu, there are Tory voters who vote for the Labour party MP in Hutt South. Same scenario in the West Coast electorate. And Palmy. Used to happen in New Plymouth too. And Tauranga when Winston was the MP there and Northland now that he’s the MP there.
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        2 June 2016 at 9:46 pm

        And another 500 Green Party voters split for Dunne too.
        • te reo putake 13.1.1.1

          2 June 2016 at 9:56 pm

          Yep. I hope the GP/LP alliance will give those voters a reason to consider voting for whichever candidate those two parties endorse. And the same in the seats I mentioned in the post. No longer just ‘two ticks’, please, but two ticks that make a difference, please.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS