Vote for Change’s heart of darkness

52 comments on “Vote for Change’s heart of darkness ”

• Comments are now closed

1. KINTO 1

   4 July 2011 at 12:29 pm

   Similar age and cicles to myself, name and face just clicked in a big way…
2. Colonial Viper 2

   4 July 2011 at 12:30 pm

   Pasifika and Maori have higher birth rates than middle and upper class whites. And that, along with Asian immigration, is changing the face of this country.

   Statistics NZ projections show that the colour of NZ is going to be vastly different 15 or 20 years from now.

   And that’s why white supremacists and racists are anti-proportional representation and will be against MMP every step of the way.
   • pollywog 2.1

     4 July 2011 at 2:07 pm

     …why it matters that New Zealand get its bicultural identity sorted – why it is in the Pakeha self-interest as much as the Maori.

     The natural response of any majority is to ask “why should we change?” Regardless of past rights or wrongs, what counts is the weight of numbers right now. That defines the norm and so should determine a nation’s future course.

     But Solomon says that Pakeha (and Solomon’s mother was Pakeha) need to check their demographic facts because New Zealand’s future is increasingly brown.

     Maori have gone from 7 per cent of the population in 1951 to 14.5 per cent in 2006 and will be 17 per cent by 2026. Add in Pacifica and Asian, and the complexion of New Zealand will be even more changed.

     “By 2026, according to the Department of Statistics, Maori, Pacific Island and Asian will make up 42 per cent of the population. And if you do the extrapolation, by 2050, it’ll be 50 per cent, if not slightly more.”

     Solomon points out that there is also a big age tilt in the data. Most Pakeha will be pensioners by then.

     “By 2050, around 50 per cent of all Pakeha people in this country will be aged 65 or older. So whether this nation likes it or not, in 2050, the bulk of the tax-paying work force will be Maori, Pacific Island and Asian.”

     That is the reality that New Zealand has to be working towards, Solomon says. And now think about these figures.

     The way the country operates at the moment, he says, some 54 per cent of Maori boys and 58 per cent of Pacifica are leaving school without a qualification. Absolutely none. And these are the youth who will somehow need to be earning the money that pays the rest of the country’s health care and superannuation in future years.

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5223148/Ngai-Tahus-legacy-set-to-grow

     Statistics NZ projections show that the colour of NZ is going to be vastly different 15 or 20 years from now.

     Yeah dunno ’bout colour, going by the pasty faced Maori Ngai Tahu represent 🙂

     …but attitude and identity will be closer to Pasifikan culture than eurocentric. Take this wee lass for instance. She’s everything that’s good about mixed blood and cross cultural polynization.

     http://pollywannacracka.blogspot.com/2011/07/not-cold-at-alljust-warming-up.html

     yeah i know it’s wrong to pimp my daughter but i’m just righteously putting her profile out there a bit. It’s not like i’ve locked her in a basement and am breeding with her.

     Pasifikans don’t do that. That’s more your neo nazi style of keeping the bloodlines pure type of eugenics shit Fogerty might be into…

     no shame in my game

     🙂
     • SHG 2.1.1

       5 July 2011 at 12:02 am

       dunno ’bout colour, going by the pasty faced Maori Ngai Tahu represent

       Just… whoa. WTF?
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.2

       5 July 2011 at 12:36 am

       Thanks a lot for your reply mate, and the link to that Stuff/Press article

       yeah i know it’s wrong to pimp my daughter but i’m just righteously putting her profile out there a bit. It’s not like i’ve locked her in a basement and am breeding with her.

       😀 Really there is nothing which can be said in reply to that!
3. Portion Control 3

   4 July 2011 at 12:40 pm

   What a beatup. So is the pro-MMP lobby responsible for convicted axe thrower Tim Selwyn’s historic beliefs? By supporting MMP are you also supporting actions of violence against the Prime Minister?

   You can’t hold an entire movement accountable for the extreme views of one or two of its members. Or all of its members historical actions. Strange bedfellows indeed. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3673406765_b57d1c2d64.jpg

   [lprent: He was not convicted of throwing an axe. One week ban to remind you to check your facts about others before asserting that they are facts (ie provide a link to a credible source). ]
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     4 July 2011 at 12:46 pm

     Getting rid of proportional reprentation is good for white supremacists.
     • Portion Control 3.1.1

       4 July 2011 at 12:56 pm

       Not true Colonial Viper. Racist parties can still get in under MMP. Remember Winston getting through? Surely you haven’t forgotten that Labour went into government with him and made him foreign minister while he railed against Asians?
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

         4 July 2011 at 1:51 pm

         Of course its true. Coloureds are about to outnumber whities and a proportional voting system scares the pants off the white supremacists.
         • Andrew Geddis 3.1.1.1.1

           4 July 2011 at 2:03 pm

           “Of course its true. Coloureds are about to outnumber whities and a proportional voting system scares the pants off the white supremacists.”

           Well, if that is true, then PR won’t save the whites. In point of fact, whites should want PR to protect themselves as an incipient minority. I think, rather, that the changing ethnic patterns of NZ mean Europeans will be a less dominant majority in 20 years time, which is why a racist may fear PR …
         • Portion Control 3.1.1.1.2

           4 July 2011 at 2:24 pm

           What a racist world you live in colonial viper where you divide people up into “coloureds” and “whites”. This is not south africa 20 years ago.

           And your analysis is wrong. If New Zealand were divided as “coloureds” and “whites” then 51% of “coloureds” would have a permanent majority under FPP and the “whites” would never get a look in.
           • Gosman 3.1.1.1.2.1

             4 July 2011 at 3:10 pm

             Coloureds???

             Is New Zealand getting a huge influx of South African’s of a mixed race background in the next few years?
           • Hanswurst 3.1.1.1.2.2

             4 July 2011 at 8:32 pm

             There is nothing racist about CV´s post. It is using the categories favoured by white supremacists to explain their own views. Can you reason, or do you just read and think in buzzwords?

             Also, in the second half of your comment, you seem to be getting FPP mixed up with MMP. If Europeans were no longer an absolute majority of the population, but still the largest single ethinc group, then FPP would favour them disproportionately, because they would be the dominant group in most electorates. MMP, on the other hand, which you appear to be referring to, would give a parliament reflecting the demographics of the nation as a whole, thus providing a clear majority to none and the possibility of all sorts of combinations supporting different legislation. Think about it, Einstein.
   • mickysavage 3.2

     4 July 2011 at 1:05 pm

     You can’t hold an entire movement accountable for the extreme views of one or two of its members.
      
     As far as I can tell they are all white and most of them are wealthy and very right wing.  Poor old Bob Harvey is the exception and I hope he is considering his membership right now.  He would normally rather die than be associated with a group with members who do not believe that those of us with black skins deserve equal treatment with those of us with white skins.
      
     But you can tell a lot about an organisation by the quality of its members.  And if it refuses to commit publicly to support one system over another then speculation is inevitable.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
     • Portion Control 3.2.1

       4 July 2011 at 2:27 pm

       If you can base an opinion of an organisation on its members Micky then Labour is doomed. Chris Carter comes to mind. So does Sonny Thomas.
     • ianupnorth 3.2.2

       4 July 2011 at 5:44 pm

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10736268
       Bob’s left!
   • Draco T Bastard 3.3

     4 July 2011 at 1:18 pm

     You mean convicted for sedition which was a charge subsequently removed from the law books?

     Now, what connection does he have to the pro-MMP lobby? Seems to me that he’s looking more for a version of SM.
   • felix 3.4

     4 July 2011 at 1:41 pm

     Contortion Pole.
     • The Voice of Reason 3.4.1

       4 July 2011 at 3:36 pm

       Colon Intro Port?
       • pollywog 3.4.1.1

         4 July 2011 at 4:13 pm

         optionl rort cont…
4. bomber 4

   4 July 2011 at 1:48 pm

   Did National know about supremacist links? – http://tiny.cc/n0t8n
5. randal 5

   4 July 2011 at 1:54 pm

   this whole thing is a red herring dreamed up by roger mutt and the rest of his braindead cronies to take the heat off the government in this election.
   Just as well john key skeedaddled off to India last week or the government would have been sunk there and then. in the meantime we have to put up with this nonsense.
   where is their policy.
   we know what it is but they dare not espouse it openly because the whole country would rebel immediately.
   as it is the nats will be gone in novemeber and the country can return to sanity without a whole bunch of crooks trying to steal all the publics assets.
6. Gosman 6

   4 July 2011 at 2:25 pm

   What a sad pathetic ad hominen attack.

   The case for MMP is much, much stronger than this lame and intellectually lazy approach taken by the likes of you and Mr Bradbury.
7. Craig 7

   4 July 2011 at 2:28 pm

   Reminds me of what happened during the early nineties. Back home in Christchurch, raving right ZAP conspiracy theorist Trevor Loudon was involved with the anti-MMP Campaign for Better Government down there. Apparently, that explained why its local co-ordination was shot to hell according to one disgruntled otherwise liberal Nat accquaintance of mine during the same period. The anti-MMP campaign of that period seems to have attracted its fair share of raving right fellow travellers and ambulatory fruitcakes. One wonders if this time will be any different…???
   • grumpy 7.1

     4 July 2011 at 3:42 pm

     Forgot about that wanker and ZAP (Zenith Applied Philosophy). Of course it’s other high profile founder was David Henderson…………………….
8. mickysavage 8

   4 July 2011 at 3:01 pm

   And Bob Harvey has now resigned from VFC.
    
   • ianmac 8.1

     4 July 2011 at 3:12 pm

     It reads as though Bob really should be voting for MMP but then like everyone else, deciding on the modifications that follow.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     4 July 2011 at 3:17 pm

     Yeah, but he’s still acting as the misinformed idiot:

     Mr Harvey said he still had serious concerns about MMP, which he claimed had provided a vehicle for “failed politicians” to stay in parliament through the party list.

     Which, of course, doesn’t actually happen. Failed politicians tend not to be in parties lists.
     • Gosman 8.2.1

       4 July 2011 at 3:33 pm

       Apart from someone like Judith Tizard that is 😉
       • Blighty 8.2.1.1

         4 July 2011 at 3:54 pm

         Judith Tizard was only ever an electorate MP.

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Tizard

         she never came into parliament as a List MP after losing an electorate.

         You great idiot.
         • Gosman 8.2.1.1.1

           4 July 2011 at 3:57 pm

           She actually never came back into Parliament because of the shabby way the Labour Party treated her. She was more than entitled to even after losing her electorate seat at the last election.
           • Rich 8.2.1.1.1.1

             4 July 2011 at 4:54 pm

             That concept that an MP’s unworthy because they lose in an electorate is rubbish anyway.

             Judith Tizard lost by ~ 1500 votes in AK Central.

             To take a few randoms who also came 2nd:

             Jordan Carter (Lab) by ~16000 in Hunua
             Tim Grocer (Nat) by ~4000 in New Lynn
             Charles Chauvel (Lab) by ~1000 in Öhariu
             Kate Wilkinson (Nat) by 390 in Waimakariri

             Who of these are worthy? Who are not? The reason they got those votes comes down in large part to the demographics of the place they chose to run.

             Ok, so there are certain people who are so poisonous that they could never manage a plurality in any electorate in New Zealand. The answer to them is not to vote for the party that puts them on the list.
             • Puddleglum …

               4 July 2011 at 8:05 pm

               A very good point. Winning an electorate means very little so far as ‘worthiness’, ‘ability’ or even ‘accountability’ goes. In a safe seat you can do just about anything – or nothing – and still expect to get returned if you’re standing for the ‘right’ party.
           • mickysavage 8.2.1.1.1.2

             4 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

             So what is it Gosman?  Is Judith a failed politician or was she treated shabbily and more than entitled to her seat even after losing?

             Spot the contradiction?
             • higherstandard …

               4 July 2011 at 7:42 pm

               Amongst a plethora of useless politicians suffering from chronic self-intitleitis and clinical narcissism she stands out as beacon of mediocrity and vacuous self importance
9. Andrew Geddis 9

   4 July 2011 at 3:11 pm

   “Furthermore, we’re yet to hear a debate playing the game, rather than the man, from pro-MMP supporters. While Fogerty is the extreme exception – but how about the pro-MMP campaign actually start debating the issues, rather than mud-slinging.”

   While I agree there’s not all that much value in pointing out the individual character flaws of those opposing MMP (apart from enjoying seeing your enemies squirm, of course), it is a bit rich demanding that pro-MMP people “start debating the issues” when you won’t nominate an alternative to compare and contrast with. In other words, framing the debate as “MMP is bad – now rebut that” is fundamentally dishonest because all voting systems have their flaws. The question is, are those flaws worse than the benefits, and how do these stack up against (also flawed) alternatives?

   So – SBW/Gosman. Let’s take you at your word. Let’s talk issues. What voting system do you want to compare and contrast MMP with?
   • Gosman 9.1

     4 July 2011 at 3:19 pm

     Okay then how about the actual alternatives touted for New Zealand then?

     I understand SM is one of them and so is STV. How about discussing why MMP is better than these two systems?

     Also are there any ways MMP could be made better. I would like to see the threshold percentage for a party to gain seats to be reduced to around 3 percent. The only reason we have a 5 percent is because Germany has one. The main reason they had this limit set is for uniquely German reasons. We could reduce our threshold easily without a problem in my view.

     I would also like to see an extension of the electoral term to 4 years from the current 3. However that is admittedly a separate, (although related), issue.
     • mickysavage 9.1.1

       4 July 2011 at 3:33 pm

       Gosman
        
       This debate has been issued continuously.  The argument for has been refined down to this, if you prefer a system where all elector’s votes count for the same, where a party’s support will be closest to the proportion of the vote it receives, where the chances of women and minority representation will be maximised then it is MMP.
        
       I agree with you about reduction of the threshold and am willing to debate the increase in the term.  To achieve these make sure you vote for MMP at the forthcoming referendum and then take part in the review process.  To repeat, with your views you should support MMP at the forthcoming referendum.
        
        
        
        
       • Gosman 9.1.1.1

         4 July 2011 at 4:00 pm

         That is correct. I am more than likely to support MMP in the upcomming referendum. I do so based on the merits of the system not because I have been swayed by some silly and pointless personal attack on a supporter of a movement that opposes MMP.
     • lprent 9.1.2

       4 July 2011 at 4:31 pm

       I understand SM is one of them and so is STV. How about discussing why MMP is better than these two systems?

       MMP is the existing system. I have yet to hear any argument from the other side about why either of these two would be an better alternative. It has been quite noticeable that the crazies in “Vote for Change” have not argued for either alternative. I guess that they think both alternatives are shit – in which case why should we bother to disagree with them.

       Also are there any ways MMP could be made better.

       Yes – but it is pointless arguing that this year. Those can be examined in the referendum scheduled for 2014 if and only if MMP wins in the referendum this year.

       I would also like to see an extension of the electoral term to 4 years from the current 3.

       So would I – but some clueless dipshit (John Key) put two electoral referendums in place before that. Neither are particularly needed as one was based on a mythical ‘promised’ referendum. And the other would be better handled by the body that did the detail of the MMP electoral law in the first place (parliament).

       I guess John Key didn’t think that the term was worth discussing for 9 years – otherwise why would have he scheduled two irrelevant referendums first.
   • SBW 9.2

     4 July 2011 at 5:56 pm

     I favour MMP, but tweaked for the issues regarding the electorate seat rule where parties get under 5% of the vote, potentially lowering entry level to 4% and the dumped electorate MP getting back in on the list.

     However, I am still disheartened by the some, but not all, of prominent pro-MMP supporters playing personalities rather than policy.
     • mickysavage 9.2.1

       4 July 2011 at 6:15 pm

       I have noticed SBW and a number of others running the line that lefties have been playing personalities rather than debating the merits of this issue.  This really grates because IMHO lefties are usually very good at debating merits rather than personalities and only move on to playing personalities out of exasperation.

       Then I discovered the 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans.

       These include:

       “3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It’s often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.”

       Cameron and co are experts at personality attacks, they thrive on it.  It is interesting to see now that they are losing the debate on the merits on MMP because of the inherent contradictions in their front organisation they are trying to flip the debate by saying the left are the ones playing personalities.

       I felt much better after reading the article, it explains a lot.
       • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1

         4 July 2011 at 6:42 pm

         Right Wingers frequently understand the tactics of Left Wingers (who tend to wear their hearts exposed on their sleeve all the time) a lot more than vice versa.
       • Vicky32 9.2.1.2

         5 July 2011 at 7:08 pm

         That’s a great article! I discovered it the other day…
     • lprent 9.2.2

       4 July 2011 at 6:28 pm

       SBW: The personalities are the only important thing about this referendum for many of us so far. The advocates of alternate systems have not shown me a single advantage to changing yet. They have been too busy fighting the referendum for 2014 on how to improve MMP.

       MMP is the current electoral system. I haven’t seen any argument for alternative systems in the referendum (SM or STV as I understand it) apart from some fatuous and fact free exposition about being able to determine the government on election night (which is bullshit even in NZ FPP history). My presumption is that the supporters of these systems don’t have a valid argument to change the status quo.

       The advocates of MMP have already made their case with multiple elections that have worked reasonably well. They convinced me of the basic stability and fairness of MMP – and I supported FPP last time.

       THe advocates of alternate systems have been doing the type of idiot attack on features of MMP (that can be fixed in 2014) without saying how SM or STV would be better. That isn’t arguing – that is simply pathetic. As is your argument. If you want to advocate a change – sell the advantages. If you want to be ineffective wankers, then jerk off about MMP.

       What else is there to talk about apart from the useless twerps (like yourself) who are costing the country a bomb running us through an unrequired referendum?
     • Pascal's bookie 9.2.3

       4 July 2011 at 6:47 pm

       I favour MMP, but tweaked for the issues regarding the electorate seat rule where parties get under 5% of the vote, potentially lowering entry level to 4% and the dumped electorate MP getting back in on the list.
       

       Cool. Let’s discuss that then.

       What principled reason is there that 4% of the voting population should not get representation? I agree that there is a problem around the ‘win an electorate, ignore the threshold’ rule, but I think the problem is with the threshold. Do away it so that if a party gets enough votes to earn a seat, then they get that seat. This will also eliminate the incentive for shoddy little deals like we see in Epsom, allowing the voters there to elect the electorate mp they want without having to take the overall list vote into account.

       Dumped electorate mps who get elected off the list, are elected off the list. What principled reason is there to give an electorate a veto over the people who elect an mp into the house off the list? Why should the tories of Tauranga, for example, get to throw Peters out of parliament in an election where NZFirst clears the 5% barrier?
       • Pascal's bookie 9.2.3.1

         4 July 2011 at 9:57 pm

         So what happened to all them righties that have been demanding to debate the issues? Gone all thin on the ground, again.
         • lprent 9.2.3.1.1

           4 July 2011 at 11:05 pm

           They tend to want to avoid the ridicule that usually happens after they attempt to “debate the issues” and all they can offer if crap that we all covered years ago. You get the impression that they have never actually examined the electoral system. In fact you get the impression that they just wanted to run spin lines.

           Plus I dumped a whole thread of diversion comments into OpenMike…
10. Colonial Viper 10

    4 July 2011 at 4:45 pm

    They have nothing but the best interests of ALL NZers at heart eh ?.. especially the mums and dads.

    Particularly the Mums and Dads who hang around the likes of Auckland Grammar and also Dio.
11. Deadly_NZ 11

    4 July 2011 at 5:38 pm

    But based on some of the names on that list, Alex Fogerty may be a”xenophobic white supremacist”. But we know what he is, and compared to some of the names on that list he may well be a moderate voice.

    And, quite active in the ‘mainstream’ Right as well. He’s a member of the Young Nats”

    But thats a moot point now they dumped his ass.
12. adriank 12

    4 July 2011 at 7:27 pm

    As a slight aside, is anyone else as amused as I am that one of VfC’s profiled supporters lists John Pilger’s The War On Democracy as one of her favourite films?
    (http://www.blogger.com/profile/16792567404315628070).
13. Alice 13

    4 July 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Hi Ian

    Did you pass me on the street today? if it was you, you look different.

    Don’t be stupid white people, or white males are not endangered in the future, never.

    You’re a bit grumpy today why?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS