Tories! Scared of Internet/Mana? I have the solution …

Written By: - Date published: 7:19 am, September 5th, 2014 - 64 comments
Categories: conservative party, election 2014, greens, internet mana party, labour, nz first, Politics - Tags:

I detect an interesting shift in the mindset of my Tory friends. There’s a growing acceptance that National are in trouble and a change of Government is now a real possibility. The bleating I hear more and more is that they can put up with Cunliffe, that Winston would probably be OK as a deputy PM and that the Greens even seem to be growing up a bit. The real fear is Internet/Mana.

I’ve lost count of the number of times in recent days I’ve had to tell my conservative friends and neighbours that Labour want to lead as simple a coalition as possible. 2 or 3 parties at most and certainly nothing like the 5 headed monster Key will need if he does scrape back in. I keep hearing questions about what Cabinet post Hone will demand and what if Laila Harre wants to be deputy PM? I smile and reassure them that Labour have already said that they don’t see Internet/Mana as a likely part of the next Government.

But there is a way Tories can guarantee IMP don’t make it to the cabinet table.

It’s simple really.

Vote Labour.

There is already a precedent for a Tory tactical vote. In 2002, when it became obvious that National could not win, a third of their party vote went elsewhere.

There were big gains for NZ First, United Future and Labour. A big worry for right leaning voters at the time was the possibility that the radical Greens would go into cabinet. Tory voters hedged their bets by party voting for alternative partners for Labour, who ultimately went with United Future as the major support party.

My belief is that we are going to see a similar phenomenon this election. When it becomes absolutely clear that Key isn’t going to make it back, I think that a significant number of votes will leak from National to NZF, Labour and the Conservatives. In the case of Colin Craig, probably not enough votes; he’s going to end up like Winston in 2008, close but no cigar.

NZ First are a conservative party, too. But most of their policies this election are aligned with the left. There’s hardly anything in their manifesto that couldn’t reasonably be agreed to by a Labour led Government. NZF Deputy Leader Tracey Martin is even openly talking of consulting with the Greens over climate change!

That makes a vote for Winston a risky proposition for thinking Tories.

No, it’s much simpler for National voters who don’t want to see Hone and Laila at the big table to party vote Labour. If Labour gets above the 30% mark, then they are able to form a relatively simple majority coalition with the Greens and NZF, or, as Helen Clark did in 2002, put together a minority Government with support on Confidence and Supply from other parties. That could mean either Labour+Greens or Labour+NZ First. I’m sure the latter arrangement would be preferable to the right, but either would be seen as as better alternative to having IMP anywhere near the levers of power.

Tories! Party Vote Labour for a slightly less awful future. You know it makes sense!

 

Te Reo Putake

64 comments on “Tories! Scared of Internet/Mana? I have the solution … ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gosman 1
    5 September 2014 at 7:34 am

    This growing acceptance doesn’t seem to be reflected in the polls for some reason…

    • lprent 1.1
      5 September 2014 at 7:53 am

      We are talking about our conservative friends. They neither make up their mind in a hurry and nor do they tell those pushy buggers on the phone what they are really thinking / starting to slowly ponder.

      I usually expect about 4-6 weeks after and event like Nicky Hager’s book for people to start saying that they are shifting their allegiances. The difference here is that the book got released just 5 weeks before they have to do their tick and has then dominated political debate since.

      My guess is that the polls are going to be markedly from reality of the actual vote this election because of the the timing

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 8:01 am

        IF ever there was reason to stop polling months before an election it has gained credence for me this year. SO many righties have substituted their moral compasses for the polls.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 8:08 am

          Considering that so many of them are still voting National after all the corruption was shown to them I’m sure that they don’t have any moral compasses.

          • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 8:12 am

            Close to 50% of the electorate it seems…

          • Tracey 1.1.1.1.2
            5 September 2014 at 8:56 am

            And they are sadly “comfortable” with that. Bearing in mind many are bringing up children, the future does not look bright afterall…

            I wonder how Doug Graham and Lady Graham are feeling these days?

        • Clemgeopin 1.1.1.2
          5 September 2014 at 8:54 am

          After the Dirty Politics expose, any ticks now for National are dirty ticks.

          • Tracey 1.1.1.2.1
            5 September 2014 at 8:58 am

            GOLD!!!!!

            Labour, Greens? Anyone? Pick this up as a meme

            “any ticks now for National are dirty ticks.”

      • Gosman 1.1.2
        5 September 2014 at 8:03 am

        Except that is not what happened last election in relation to the Teapot tapes. The impact of the story happened within a week. This I also the reason I suspect kim Dotcom has decided to release his ‘revelation’ the week before the election and not a couple of weeks back. What evidence do you base your view that these sorts of things take 4-6 weeks to influence people?

        • adam 1.1.2.1
          5 September 2014 at 9:00 am

          You know the right wing is in trouble when the only hope they have is the lying/fixed up polls. Thanks Gossy for the reassurance of your desperation.

          • The Real Matthew 1.1.2.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 4:18 pm

            What evidence do you have that polls, across a number of different organisations, are lying/fixed?

        • Lanthanide 1.1.2.2
          5 September 2014 at 9:02 am

          “What evidence do you base your view that these sorts of things take 4-6 weeks to influence people?”

          Lynn always makes this claim, but I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to back it up.

      • left for dead 1.1.3
        5 September 2014 at 12:27 pm

        lprent or in fact anyone out there.When will they stop polling,before the election.ta

        sorry for the bad gramma,i’m dyslectic.It takes me forever to compile a comment sometimes.

    • Tobias Tohill 1.2
      6 September 2014 at 10:06 am

      Try looking here:
      http://www.electionresults.co.nz/

      It’s a bit more accurate than the silly old load of clodswallop reported on a lot of the MSM website and then endlessly repeated by all the other media outlets as gospel.

      I would say Conservatives will get in and it will be a hung parliament, with Internet / Mana out of coalition to keep NZ First in coalition on the left, Conservatives out of coalition on the right because of their ‘binding referenda’ requirement and the Maori Party stuck on the fence, holding the balance of power.

  2. tricledrown 2
    5 September 2014 at 7:40 am

    Goosy you crawled out from under your rock slaters slipping around in WO to much for!
    Nactionals fair weather friend!

    [lprent: That was both unintelligible *and* clearly pointless abuse. Bad idea. Control thyself. ]

  3. crocodill 3
    5 September 2014 at 7:49 am

    A slightly less awful future. You mean for them, from their point of view?

    How about this:

    National more or less implodes and scatters – owing to Dirty Politics that just won’t stop giving – but no one sees the true horror of the mess until after the election loss. So National voters, in tears over the demise of their beaus, pre-emptively vote Labour to avoid crazy lefty nutters. Votes of course are somewhat private, even if they are traded within group consensus, and the full impact of how many National voters vote Labour isn’t known until election night. Some National voters, too weak from weeping, do not vote at all. They have the resources to survive anything political and don’t really care who wins in a material sense.

    However, old Labour voters, tired of waiting for Labour to rediscover Labour, finally snap and vote IMP, Greens or Whoever else. Now National is destroyed completely – apart from one or two seats, they cease to exist in parliament – and Labour steps into the National Party Role. But they don’t have enough to govern alone, or worse, they still have a third of their MPs with crazy lefty nutter sympathies.

    Now we’re in serious hot water (National voters, that is).

    Would it not be better for disaffected National voters to vote IMP? Because there’s no way that agreement will hold together after the five-six week post election arrangement they’ve made. Have you seen that bunch? God almighty, commies, natives, pinkoes and homos! It just isn’t family friendly and did we mention the German? A German for godsake – what’s he doing in NZ?

    (Thank you… thank you… that was my best National supporter impersonation)

    So I propose that the best way to save National is for national supporters to vote UNSTABLE Left. Voting Labour will kill National entirely. Voting Nutter-left will give them reason and time to regroup AND further damage to the perception of the left. You might not even have to wait three years for another election, an election that leads to the glorious rebirth of the one true party, The NZ National Party – ordained by god!

    • Gosman 3.1
      5 September 2014 at 8:07 am

      Why would National voters vote IMP when National looks like having almost enough to govern by themselves in the recent polls? Even if they were under threat surely they would be more inclined to vote NZ First, United Future or Act than any other party on the spectrum.

      • crocodill 3.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 8:17 am

        The context of this thread is “National will lose”.

        Act eliminates all the middle class interests.
        United Future, do they actually have any candidates? Who would fill the seats? Just one big seat?
        NZ First is far too “old national” i.e. protecting local manufacturers, or as Winston put it, “Nationalist”. He doesn’t much like the thinking of modern financiers.

        Vote for any of those and a huge chunk of National support is either left out entirely or has to eat some big dead rats. Vote IMP and they only have to sniff a dead rat tail for a few months.

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 8:37 am

          The good news is IPSOS on behalf of Fairfax has produced a poll to convince people that it’s a storm in a different teacup. PHEW! For a moment some people on the right were navigating by their moral compass, now they might feel they dont have to…

          OR will they think they can shift their vote and be “true” tot heir own ethics, while still getting national?

      • The Lone Haranguer 3.1.2
        5 September 2014 at 10:27 am

        I would suggest that any “moving” Nat vote will not be going anywhere near IMP. But they may head off to the Conservatives or to NZF. ACT is a dead man walking, so wont get the moving Nat vote either.

        There will be a significant bunch of traditional Nat voters who do not want to see unbridled power at the Beehive, so will back off the Nats if they poll on or near the 50% mark. Throw in the Dirty Trick/Slater deal and they recognise that absolute power is not a desirable thing for New Zealand.

        The Nats need a partner who can get over the 5% and theres isnt one out there at the moment. Maybe we will see a deal done with the Conservatives yet, if the Maori Party look to get decimated?

        Or maybe excising Ms Collins and Mr Slater from the Nat cabinet will convince the voters that the Nats can now be trusted again?

        We don need a government (Nat or Lab) that gets over 50% of the vote as its just not good for .

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    5 September 2014 at 7:49 am

    Obviously it’s not just National voters who are scared of IMP.

  5. Tracey 5
    5 September 2014 at 7:58 am

    TRP

    My brother, whom I refer to here from time to time, is a National/ACT supporter.

    He emailed me on the day Collins was resigned and told me his party vote is going to he Greens. He is an Epsom voter.

    He may change on the day and not be able to bring himself to do it.

    I cannot believe your anecdote and mine are NOT reflected in the polls… unless…

    All this “I dont want a german criminal with power” baloney is annoying me. Mr Liu clearly obtained some power, and he is now a criminal on two counts, property and women.

    ACT has a history of over 17% of their MPs being convicted of crimes of Deceit…

    • Te Reo Putake 5.1
      5 September 2014 at 8:44 am

      I concur, Tracey. I was at a candidates meeting last night in a small semi-rural town and the ACT candidate was either ignored or laughed at. The sitting National MP got a reasonable reception, but the only candidate to get applause every time she spoke was from Labour. The NZ First guy was also getting a fair bit of support.

      I guess the lesson is that the polls are only indicators and are constrained by things like sample size, landline calls only etc. and the natural inclination of people to say what they think people want to hear. By the latter, I mean people who haven’t yet made up their mind answering with what they think the majority are also saying. Certainly the APN and Fairfax polls are the worst in terms of accuracy in that they overestimate the leading party, minimise the major opposition and squash the minors.

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 8:49 am

        Kind of creating a FPP situation…

        APN (30% Rupert Murdoch)
        Fairfax majority sharehold Gina Reinhart…

        • karol 5.1.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 9:44 am

          Fairfax latest poll – undecideds static but higher than polls by other companies. fairfax undecideds = 13% – almost double the proportion of undecideds than the latest Herald digipoll.

          • Puddleglum 5.1.1.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 2:28 pm

            443 people in the latest IPSOS poll gave National as their preferred party.

            I think the total sample was 1009 and the ‘party vote base’ (those who declared a preference) was 823.

            I still don’t quite get how they calculate ‘undecideds’ at 13%. Thirteen percent of 1009 is 131. 1009 minus 131 is 882 yet the ‘base’ for party vote is 823.

            Perhaps the ‘refuse to give a preference’ people are in a third category – ‘decided’ but not included in the ‘base’ for the party vote?

            Overall, 443 people preferring National is 43.9% of their total sample.

            The number of people in their previous four polls (from most recent backwards) who chose National were 419, 443, 451, 439. The number supporting National therefore remains pretty static in Ipsos polls since mid-June.

            The biggest shift occurred between mid-May and mid-June (Donghua Liu, etc.) and that was in favour of National mainly because it held the number of people supporting it while Labour lost support.

            • wtl 5.1.1.1.1.1
              5 September 2014 at 2:40 pm

              I still don’t quite get how they calculate ‘undecideds’ at 13%. Thirteen percent of 1009 is 131. 1009 minus 131 is 882 yet the ‘base’ for party vote is 823.

              I think I’ve replied to you with a similar point before – my guess is that this discrepancy is likely to be due to the weightings applied. To try to obtain a ‘representative sample’, the proportions poll will be corrected by weighting various groups (age, gender socio-economic status etc.) which means that each individual response does not count equally. The sample size numbers quoted (823, 1009) presumably are actual (unweighted) numbers of individuals, while the undecided percentage is probably calculated with weightings applied.

        • alwyn 5.1.1.2
          5 September 2014 at 6:05 pm

          Do you have any evidence for either of these claims Tracey?
          I thought that Gina owned no more than 15% of Fairfax, and may have reduced that this year. That is certainly not a “majority” of the shares.
          I wasn’t aware that Rupert Murdoch had any shareholding at all in APN, much less 30%.
          Where does this number come from?

          • Tracey 5.1.1.2.1
            9 September 2014 at 3:11 pm

            she is the largest single shareholder Alwyn. I apologise for saying majority shareholder, but largest is what I meant.

            The other reference was an error and should have said

            “The Herald is now owned by APN News & Media, an Australian and New Zealand listed company whose largest shareholder is Ireland-based Independent News & Media at 30%.”

            http://thestandard.org.nz/tories-scared-of-internetmana-i-have-the-solution/#comment-880743

            I thought I had posted the APN information int hat thread Alwyn, which would have highlighted by error in associating Murdochs News Corp with News & Media, but I cannot find it for the life of me.

            I didnt make it up as such, I used wikipedia and used the wrong person (Murdoch) and the wrong term (majority instead of largest).

            Had I known earlier I would have conceded all the above to you.

    • Gareth 5.2
      5 September 2014 at 9:37 am

      I can back that up Tracey, my mother’s partner is a life long National party voter, but he’s become so disgusted by the dirty tricks over the last year or so that he decided that this election he was voting Green instead. I was stunned because he’s always been a strong advocate of National which leads to great arguments.

      He’s a small niche manufacturer/exporter and some of the stuff Russell Norman was saying earlier in the year about helping our manufacturing and export sector is quite attractive to him.

      He did get very excited by the Internet party initially because they were/are quite libertarian which appealed to him and he certainly wasn’t put off by Kim Dot Com, in fact he thought KDC had been treated appallingly with the whole raid etc and had sympathy for the guy.

      He cooled on the Internet Party when they went with Mana though, and so now he’s back to saying he’ll vote Green.

      I think it’s a bit of a coming of age for the Greens that their economic policy ideas are being looked at by business people and being taken seriously instead of just being seen as tree huggers.

      • Kevin Welsh 5.2.1
        5 September 2014 at 10:53 am

        Never fails to amaze me how many people that run manufacturing/exporting companies vote National. Kind of like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 12:14 pm

          +1

          National simply don’t benefit the manufacturing sector (or the small business sector or the social sector or…).

  6. Adrian 6
    5 September 2014 at 8:24 am

    Here’s an eye-roller. Neighbouring family all longterm Nat-Act voters all going United Future this time. God, give me strength.
    Watch that scenario for a surprise on the day.

    • anker 6.1
      5 September 2014 at 8:35 am

      Adrain @6……….at least they are changing their vote and of course it will be a completely wasted vote. I am still hoping Colin C gets 4.8%

    • Tracey 6.2
      5 September 2014 at 8:36 am

      presumably not on moral grounds given Dunne, without reading it, has dismissed the Book and the supporting evidence as muckraking.

      A Minister who doesn’t read something but has an opinion, that sounds familiar

  7. Tracey 7
    5 September 2014 at 8:35 am

    Difference between Stuff Ipsos poll and Reid TV3 poll is 8 points for national.

    Those who opened their eyes to read Hollow Men and Dirty Politics might want to consider this

    Fairfax Digital, a division of Fairfax New Zealand Ltd, a subsidiary of Australian company Fairfax Media

    The group’s chairman is Roger Corbett and the chief executive officer is Greg Hywood.[2] As of May 2008 Fairfax Media had a market capitalisation of over A$5 billion.[3] The number of printed edition readers has fallen since at least 2006 and the group’s stock price has declined by more than 60 percent since 2007, to less than A$2 billion by September 2011, and by 85 percent at June 2012.[4]

    The group’s largest shareholder, with a stake of approximately 14.9% is Gina Rinehart, the wealthiest person in Australia.

    In a 2012 article in the Australian Resources and Investment Magazine, Rinehart said that if people wanted to have more money they should “stop whingeing” and “Do something to make more money yourself − spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working”. She criticised what she saw as the “socialist” policies of the Australian Government of “high taxes” and “excessive regulation”. has sponsored the trips of prominent climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton to Australia

    Currently, there is a bitter relationship between Fairfax Media chairman and its largest shareholder Gina Rinehart. The relationship developed to the personal level once Fairfax Media’s incumbent board of directors declined Gina Rinehart’s request to offer her three seats on the board of directors.

    Wikipedia

    I am NOT saying there is a conspiracy per se. I am saying we need to look behind the curtain of all of our media and shine the light in. They are money making entities, that is their primary objective.

    WHO commissions the IPSOS poll? Their newspaper editor or is it done higher up the corporate chain, by CEO, Marketing or whatever.

    • adam 7.1
      5 September 2014 at 9:18 am

      There is a psychological desire to do what the leader wants. Studies of both Hitler and Stalin, both show people did things in those states under the assumption that is what their leader would want. A desire to do things within the party line, or prove themselves a good member of society. I assume, maybe rightly or wrongly that the same culture has formed within corporations.

    • tricledrown 7.2
      5 September 2014 at 11:43 am

      Gina Reinhart who’s father got massive govt corporate handouts to start his business blue asbestos mining In Whitenoom Gorge Western Australia.
      The miners breathed in pure asbestos fibre their children played on sand pits made of Blue asbestos the roads and racetrack were made of it!
      Reinhart and father got £2.5 million pounds to open the mine which never made a profit!
      Plus the WA govt built roads and houses for his workers!
      He sold the mine for a huge profit but not of the children or the workers has ever been compensated for getting asbestosis cancer of the lungs!
      An estimated 16,000 people were affected once again the taxpayer picked up the tab!
      Hancock and daughter Reinhart have profited obscenely out of corporate welfare!
      Now she has propagandized Fairfax!
      All Fairfax papers today have Polls Dog whistling National to win opposition party voters may as well stay at home!

  8. disturbed 8
    5 September 2014 at 9:17 am

    Oh Gosman is also Puckish Rogue, & other, Trickledrown,

    Its all smoke and mirrors.

    Have you noticed these hollow…… never actually say anything about their involvement in community stuff as many left folk have.

    They are “condo commanders” or political shit stirrers the Florida media called them.

    A wasted space on our left political discussion group, and they are the ones criticising we don’t talk about policy?

    Gossman,- PR and who ever else, go use your energy elsewhere, and allow our policy debate to continue.

    • Stuart Munro 8.1
      5 September 2014 at 9:47 am

      I don’t think so – PR is smarter than Gosman and has a sense of humour. But Gosman may be a multi – the role is not demanding.

    • lprent 8.2
      5 September 2014 at 12:46 pm

      I track multi’s. People who do it without a decent reason tend to find that they get severely restricted access.

  9. disturbed 9
    5 September 2014 at 9:30 am

    Tracey, & Adam.

    Firstly yes Hitler & Stalin used this “popularist” voting skewed policy, and evidence here suggests the same is happening here. (hope this is not Godwin again) hard to speak freely eh.

    It is widely recognised around the Globe polls that are privately operated by “self interest groups” can be manipulated and even hacked!.

    In the US alone there are countless cases of polls that have been found to be hacked and falsely constructed that they now are considering controls on polls.

    As we know the MSM is widely controlled by Murdock and other fronts for Corporate interests since NatZ set up a privatisation of MSM and scraped the TV7 public channel and most current affairs programming.

    Polls’ in this country are rigged no doubt as we were witness to being part of a recent one ourselves when herald called and asked 10 minutes of sensitive questions after finding our age bracket suited their criteria.

    The lady asked if her supervisor could listen into the conversation, we said yes but after ten minutes they said sorry we don’t need your input thanks and hung up.

    Don’t believe that these polls are accurate. They are selective only as US studies have found many are flawed because of this.

  10. weka 10
    5 September 2014 at 9:40 am

    “5 headed monster”

    God, I can’t wait until all you half-headed dinosaurs 😉 retire and we can get on with what MMP is supposed to be about. I appreciate you want Labour to be a really big party and have most of the power, because in the old days that’s what politics was about – who had the biggest stick. But that’s not representative democracy. More parties in parliament and more parties in govt is a GOOD thing. Thankfully we have some parties in NZ who are willing and have the skills to work co-operatively – the Greens, the Internet Party, MANA, and after seeing more of Tracey Martin recently I’m starting to be cautiously hopeful about NZF (is it just Peters that believes being in middle = the right to marginalise the margins?).

    Nice tactic for getting some right wing votes for Labour though.

    • ianmac 10.1
      5 September 2014 at 10:10 am

      This morning on Morning Report Steven Joyce had the gall to talk up Nationals will to have several parties in a coalition. “It is good to have the point of view of several parties. It makes for a good stable government.”
      The cheek of it! After Key constantly tries to scare voters with a Labour, Green, NZF, perhaps IMP support. National will need, Act, Conservative, Pete, and the Maori Party. Sigh.

    • Te Reo Putake 10.2
      5 September 2014 at 10:37 am

      The ‘5 headed monster’ is actually a John Key quote from 2008, weka. I think it was trotted out by the Tories in 2011 as well, but not so much this time round, given that the Nats may indeed need a snake headed gorgon style coalition to scrape through this time.

      Personally, I’m in favour of broad coalitions. In my younger days, I was rather taken by the writings of Georgi Dimitrov on the need for a united front. While he was writing in terms of a pre-revolutionary Europe and the struggle against fascism, the principles of maximising support and promoting good ideas wherever they come from remain valid.

      However, in managerial terms, a 2 or 3 party coalition is relatively easy. Particularly so when the other parties are stable and mature, which is the case with NZF and the Greens. Bearing in mind that mana and the IP are separate parties and only standing together for election purposes, they are relatively unstable and therefore not ideal for taking into Government.

      • weka 10.2.1
        5 September 2014 at 11:55 am

        I’m aware where the term comes from, but you quite clearly used it in a left wing context, stating that a left wing govt would be better with a small number of parties rather than a large number and did so in disparaging terms.

        I’ve lost count of the number of times in recent days I’ve had to tell my conservative friends and neighbours that Labour want to lead as simple a coalition as possible. 2 or 3 parties at most and certainly nothing like the 5 headed monster Key will need if he does scrape back in.

        “Bearing in mind that mana and the IP are separate parties and only standing together for election purposes, they are relatively unstable and therefore not ideal for taking into Government.”

        That’s not quite true. For one, they may go their separate ways after the election or they may not. And whether they do or don’t how are they ‘unstable’?

        Myself, I don’t think they should go into a formal coaltion with Labour/GP, because I think they will do more good outside, and they need to build strength over a couple of electoral cycles. I also think the whole old school rhetoric of tails wagging the dog makes building co-operative relationships harder, and I’d like to see Labour step up and prove itself in its first term that it’s interested in working with the broad left, not just hoarding power.

        • Te Reo Putake 10.2.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 12:04 pm

          Stability? With Hone gone, eh?

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10464344/Where-is-Hone-Harawira

          Even the fact that we don’t know whether the electoral arrangement will last post election makes both parties a bit of a risk. Labour’s experience with Laila Harre leading the Alliance was less than encouraging, so that’ll also have to be factored in to the calculation.

          • weka 10.2.1.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 12:44 pm

            oooh, baseless speculation and opinion from a MSM journo 🙄 Sorry TRP, but really?

            “Even the fact that we don’t know whether the electoral arrangement will last post election makes both parties a bit of a risk.”

            How so? Surely the important thing is how they engage in the process post-election. Do you know how they intend to do that?

  11. TheContrarian 11
    5 September 2014 at 10:16 am

    Internet/Mana can fuck right off.

    • crocodill 11.1
      5 September 2014 at 2:23 pm

      Such vehemence! There must be a good story behind it, do tell…

    • Clemgeopin 11.2
      9 September 2014 at 9:47 pm

      Why?
      I think they are here not to ‘fuck right off’, but to ‘fuck the right off’ and deservedly so figuratively speaking. Only fools, uncaring crooks and selfish buggers like the right anyway!

  12. unsol 12
    5 September 2014 at 3:23 pm

    I’ve already voted – 2 blue ticks all the way of course. Can’t see how I/M are anything to be worried about. And if I thought the Nats were in serious trouble I would love to have been able to split my party vote to the Greens & Act….between the two extremes I think they could strike a good balance!

    But to assume those of us who vote right have no moral compass due to the recent dirty politics stuff – you are being naive & incredibly presumptuous.

    The left wing doesnt have the monopoly on morality or caring about ones fellow citizens. For people like me I would argue it is grossly amoral to implement policies that do not encourage user pays and the adage ‘you get back what you put in’, policies that encourage hand outs rather than hand ups. I would also argue it is grossly amoral to campaign on things like ‘axe the tax’ when you have no intention of actually axing the tax. I would also argue that it is wrong for any MP to lie ever. Phil Goff knew he had been briefed, he is a smart guy & was a fantastic MFAT then MF Minister for years yet he suddenly couldn’t remember being briefed by the SIS? I would also say it is amoral to implement a policy on the pretext that it is good for our children & declare it was based on research – the introduction of 20 free hours was based on a study of 200 kids from very wealthy families in Wellington not on genuine academic research. I could go on – both major parties have a lot to answer for in terms of decades of poor policy, sneaking around & making back room deals. Never mind the fact that the 20 free hours was not actually free & further, benefited friends of some Labour MPs! And yes I can back that up too.

    We all want to live in a decent, open, transparent & humane society, we just have different views on how to get there.

    So no, morality doesn’t come into it – especially since genuine integrity often leaves the second ANY MP gets a portfolio. Everything comes down to political expediency & how best to hold onto that power & those perks. Perks which we know the Labour party loved to take advantage of, perks which have been cleaned up & are now transparent thanks to the Nat govt. Stealing off the taxpayer & misusing tax revenue is what makes me turn up to vote…centre right all the way. Collins, Benson-Pope, Carter, Fields etc etc etc – right up there when it comes to power hungry arrogance & greed.

    And it is debatable whether those who don’t have a portfolio have any to integrity to begin with. Just look at the twitter feeds & carry on in the house. Most appear to be a bunch of juveniles who need to grow the feck up. Of course some grace is allowed considering it is a job few of us would ever be able to do. I am far too idealistic & would get extremely irritated by how insidious ‘stupid’ is in this country!!!

    We could haggle all day about which party is the nastiest – excluding the new low Slater, Ede & Collins went to as this has yet to be proven as a Nat led thing – but it is largely irrelevant when it comes to voting.

    Nasty politics doesn’t personally affect us, policy does & it is policy I voted on.

    • Clemgeopin 12.1
      9 September 2014 at 9:51 pm

      “I’ve already voted – 2 blue ticks all the way of course.”

      What a waste of your life! Those are not blue ticks, they are dirty ticks. If you have a conscience and believe in God, you will have some explaining to do after you die! Brace yourself!

  13. Mike Bond 13
    5 September 2014 at 4:06 pm

    I want some of that stuff the author of this piece is on. How can he even dream up such garbage? Labour are so dead and buried it is not even funny. Time to go back to the basics and rebuild with a decent leader at the helm.

  14. The Real Matthew 14
    5 September 2014 at 4:33 pm

    I find this piece rather ironic.

    Rather than National voters changing their vote to soften the impact of Internet/Mana what is actually happening is Labour voters are deserting their party to soften the impact of National.

    What’s been happening in the polls is that Labour has been in steady decline whilst the Greens remain static. Those votes have been going to New Zealand First and the Conservatives, the two parties that could provide an alternate to a National, ACT, United Future coalition.

    As Labour continues their slide look for further votes to shift centre.

    At this stage it looks to me like Labour will poll around 24% with NZ First and Conservative coming to around 10.5-11%

  15. paul scott 15
    6 September 2014 at 2:59 am

    By the law of unintended consequences some people who would have voted Conservative or NZFirst will now fall back to NZ Nat.
    The monster in the centre right room is not.. Act and UF have no power .Maori always have power, but NZ First difficult at best. But not a monster. It is interesting that many people are now sure that Winston Peters would not work with IMP or Green. He will go where he has most power and that’s not Labour/Green
    IMP is the political Monster, and its for your people to work with it.
    I hope Hone is OK, because what is the use of Mana at all without Hone. Its very big news if Hone is unwell,