Who is the Internet Party’s secret MP?

Written By: - Date published: 5:00 pm, March 29th, 2014 - 148 comments
Categories: election 2014, uncategorized - Tags: ,

Maybe this is one of those open political secrets – if you’re in the know, you already know, and it seems obvious. If you’re not, it’s a total mystery.

Just who is the MP Kim Dotcom has ready and waiting to jump waka in 2014?

I’ve got no idea, but I approach these things like logic puzzles. Surely there are some basic assumptions which can narrow down the likely options.

First, the MP should be a current electorate MP. It’s only sensible. They’ve already got profile and support. Interestingly, this instantly rules out all of the Greens or NZ First, who (respectively) have the tech savvy and wilful randomness to be plausible options.

Further, we know (at least) 13 electorate MPs aren’t running in 2014: Auchinvole, Banks, Hayes, Heatley, Hutchison, C King, R Robertson, Roy, Ryall, Sharples, Tremain, Turia, Wilkinson. And Bill English is only running on the list.

Maurice Williamson and Clare Curran have both ruled out being the one.

So that’s 54 left. I rule out Hone Harawira, because it would be silly to be talking about some kind of alliance with the IP if there were also a secret plan to switch parties in the works. I can’t see Flavell or Dunne doing it either.

So we’re down to 51, all from Labour or National. Do we rule out all Cabinet Ministers, or people high on the Labour list? Party leaders and deputies, certainly. Then I think we have to get down to basics: who has sufficient personal cred to make it on their own.

So take out anyone whose electorate party vote was higher than or within 10% of their personal vote. We can see where their voters’ loyalties lie.

That eliminates everyone from National except for Nick Smith (the party vote in Nelson is 87% of his personal vote, so … close enough, really) and Paula Bennett, who barely scraped past Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni and is expected to contest the new Upper Harbour seat – unless the polls get so bad National have no other choice than to offer it to Colin Craig.

So that leaves us with Labour MPs. Specifically:

Nanaia Mahuta (party vote 84% of personal vote); Phil Twyford (party vote 75%); Trevor Mallard (party vote 74%); Chris Hipkins (party vote 66%); Phil Goff (party vote 78%); Annette King (party vote 69%); Damien O’Connor (party vote 58%); David Clark (party vote 78%); Ruth Dyson (party vote 58%); Kris Faafoi (party vote 79%); Iain Lees-Galloway (party vote 68%); Megan Woods (party vote 70%).

That does tell a story. But it’s not a story about Kim Dotcom, or even any of those MPs specifically: it’s a story about the 2011 election, which was abysmal for the Labour Party. Eight of those electorates went to National in the party vote.

I can’t see National-leaning voters going to the Internet Party in huge numbers (more than I think others expect, but not that much.) So we’re down to:

  • Nanaia Mahuta
  • Phil Goff
  • Annette King
  • David Clark

Nanaia, Phil and Annette all have stonkingly big majorities and a huge amount of personal mana, it’s true. But do we see the Internet Party going into Parliament through a Māori seat? Do we see either of the most senior, longest-serving Labour veterans making such a radical move?

winston445

The idea of Paula Bennett defecting to the Internet Party sounds positively credible in comparison. At least she could use the Coatesville mansion as a campaign base.

The disappointing conclusion to this thought experiment is that if Kim Dotcom does have a current MP lined up to front his campaign, it’s someone with a vastly inflated sense of their own political popularity or the wisdom of such a move.

It’s fitting, but it just reinforces the idea that the Internet Party is a sideshow. And after six years of National shredding our country to bits, we deserve a better election year debate than that.

148 comments on “Who is the Internet Party’s secret MP? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    29 March 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Still think it’d be funny if it were Banks.

    Also if the IP really does have this MP, and they think they’re going to win a seat, why would they bother making an alliance with Mana?

    Also why would Mana bother making an alliance with the IP? If the alliance won 2 electorate seats, it would mean they’d have to get 2.5% of the party vote in order to get 3 MPs.

    Mana have a shot at getting 1 electorate + 1 maybe 2 list MPs through, but if they’re sharing their list with the IP, and two electorate seats are won, Mana end up having fewer MPs in parliament than they might have if they’d just stayed out of the alliance.

    • newsense 1.1
      29 March 2014 at 7:17 pm

      If such a notion were played apon the stage you would dismiss it as a ludicrous fantasy.

      Love it to be Banks. OMG that would be simply brilliant. A tearful reunion- I’m so sorry Kim, I let you rot in jail with your bad back, but now I believe…etc etc…

    • Tracey 1.2
      31 March 2014 at 8:10 am

      It also must be someone who can fit within a mana alliance.

  2. bad12 2
    29 March 2014 at 5:45 pm

    The ‘secret MP’, my immediate thought when i heard that one ‘again’ the other day was that DotCom is attempting to bargain with Hone through the media,

    Previously media have reported DotCom as saying he has MP’s in the plural, as things now stand, Mana holding one electorate with more than a big chance of Annette Sykes ripping the Waiariki electorate outta the grasp of the fast fading Maori party it is Mana that have the hand full of aces at this point in the negotiation with DotComs’s Internet Party,

    Hence my belief that DotCom has put up this ‘phantom MP’ as a bargaining chip in an attempt to convince Hone Harawira that they are on an equal footing, important for the Internet Party should such a negotiation continue toward a full on alliance of the two,

    Lanth in the comment above makes the point of why would the Internet Party have started a negotiation with Mana if they already had at least 1 current MP signed up to the party, besides the two obvious points, that they havn’t got that MP, and, its simply a bargaining tactic, the only possible other reason i can think that such an MP is still in the shadows as a ‘shrinking violet’ while DotCom/Internet conduct negotiations with Mana is to take the heat of speculation of Him or Her,

    If i were to pick a head to fit the Internet Party mantle over other than Hone, i would suggest it might be ‘the Hairdo’ from Ohariu Peter Dunne who i would suggest is a bit more than just a little desperate to secure another term…

    • phillip ure 2.1
      29 March 2014 at 6:43 pm

      harawira/mana wd have to demand to know who this mp is..

      ..b4 any deal cd b inked..

      • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1.1
        29 March 2014 at 7:23 pm

        That’s a good point – there’s no point getting an agreement from Dotcom to not deal with National if he’s already firmly entwined with one of the more hard-right Nats.

  3. Clemgeopin 3
    29 March 2014 at 6:29 pm

    But Dunne now being is a discredited old fool will not be a plus for the IP, will it?
    He will probably drive more people away from the IP rather than get attracted to it.

    • bad12 3.1
      29 March 2014 at 7:30 pm

      Clemgeopin, ‘the Hairdo’ is the shape shifter of New Zealand politics, we on the left despise ‘Mr sensible” who can stand for nothing and everything at the same time and Dunne’s success with the ‘worm’ in conjunction with the ability to pepper every sentence with what appeared to have been that word,(sensible), interspersing every other is still largely not understood,

      To me he represents the ‘black hole in space’ of the New Zealand political scene, many politicians and political movements,(ala the hunters and fishers), have joined Dunne over the years only to disappear without trace,

      Having poked my sharp pointy stick His way i do tho see a likelihood of ‘the Hairdo’ retaining the seat again this time round, especially now that He is back in Slippery the Prime Minister’s good books and Charles Chauval is no longer there for Labour,

      What may unseat Him is Labour running a light campaign ,(i do not think the little known Labour candidate can topple Him this year), in the electorate which may leave it to a battle between Dunne and National, hopefully the Labour vote being the difference,

      Dunne virtually ‘party-less’ wont have a hell of an advertising budget this time round, so i would see it a relationship based purely on the money DotCom might push His way if Dunne were to be the secret squirrel MP DotCom alludes to, and, the internet Party, like ‘Pirate Parties’ in Europe might surprise us all by taking 3+% of the vote in election 2014,

      If this MP were to be Dunne i should imagine He won’t ‘out’ Himself until after the Parliament is dissolved for the election, should He do so befor-hand Slippery the Prime Minister is likely to take from Him the pay packet recently bestowed again after the last betrayal and He would lose the ‘nod’ for National Party voters to vote for Him in the Ohariu electorate,

      Heres a couple of links to the success so far of Pirate Parties in Europe, standing on much the same issues as the Internet Party here, with the codicil that the ‘visionaries’ involved in the Pirate Movement in Europe are not seeking political patronage regarding extradition matters…

      http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate Parties international

      http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate Party

      • phillip ure 3.1.1
        29 March 2014 at 7:49 pm

        i don’t think it’s dunne..

        ..he only survives thru nationals’ good-grace..

        ..he is owned by key..

        ..he knows which side his bread is buttered on..

        ..if he turned on them..

        ..national would take it personally..

        ..and they wd turn on him like a pack of rabid wolves..(heh..!..i had a typo of ‘wives’ where wolves was meant..both funny..and similar..)

        ..they’d tear him limb from limb..

        …if this person/mp is real..

        ..i’d be looking at safe-seat mp’s who have been overlooked by their party hierachy..

        ..who feel they have much more to offer..

        ..than is on offer to them where they are..

        ..or..this cd b a negotiating-tactic from dotcom..and b all bullshit..

        ..but if it is all bullshit..

        ..that will eventually blow up in his face..

        ..and i think he is smart enough to know that..

        ..it wd b disturbing if he wasn’t..

        • bad12 3.1.1.1
          29 March 2014 at 8:00 pm

          Phillip, at least name one, an electorate MP with enough Mana in their electorate to get re-elected having ditched either Labour or National once the Parliament is dissolved for the 2014 election,

          The number of MP’s from either Party that spring into my mind is exactly zero, who would risk not being elected under the DotCom umbrella from what would be essentially a safe seat not based upon the MP but based upon it being safe for either Labour or National…

          • phillip ure 3.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2014 at 8:29 pm

            i can’t think of one..

            ..’cos if even in a safe seat..waka-jumping wd mean mother-party wd stand against them..

            ..hence no longer ‘safe’ seat mp..

            ..i think dotcom is bullshitting on this one..

            ..or he is being sucked in by the ‘i cd win!’ bullshit claims..from some deluded/self-serving mp..

            ..nah..!..harawira/mana is his only safe option..

            ..(and i am sure mana know that..)

            ..and what will be crucial now will be what poverty-busting/social-policies the internet party comes up with ….

            ..and i guess if they were smart..they wd echo gareth morgan..

            ..and have a universal basic income policy..

            ..that wd be a gordian-knot cutter..

            ..and able to be argued on the economic grounds of being able to do away with most of work and income..

            ..(how sweet wd that be..?..)

            ..and as they have the best buildings in most provincial-centres..

            ..they cd be turned into community/tech/digital-divide-busting centres of excellence..

            ..how is that for some lateral-thinking policy..?

            ..a u.b.i policy wd make mana happy/warm…

            ..(should i invoice dotcom for that one..?..)

            • bad12 3.1.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2014 at 9:43 pm

              Dunne tho is of interest in that he fits the profile, what would be in it for Him, i would suggest that ‘the Hairdo’ might see the Internet Party as a vehicle by which in His last throw of the dice he would hold the balance of power in the Parliament,

              It must be lonely sitting there all alone as only one of Nationals kennel of lapdogs, He knows He has no real leverage as Slippery the Prime Minister has other votes he can buy with the tossing of a few baubles,

              For a view of what Dunne believes in you only have to subject yourself to the trail of ‘Rock-Snot’ that Pete George has again taken to spraying in the pages of the Standard so there is no policy clash of any sort between the Internet Party and Dunne simply because from all appearances Dunne, in my opinion, being a willing seller to any buyer traded off any principles he might have had in some dark forgotten past,

              i still tho am off the opinion that DotCom is (a), doing a little negotiating with Mana through the media, trying to persuade Mana He does have ‘another MP’ in an effort to give the Internet Party a stronger bargaining position in any future negotiation,or (b), it may be that DotCom seeing the Mana Party slipping away is simply throwing the ‘other MP’ out there so as to instill a little faith in those that might vote for that Party that the vote will count toward further MP’s…

      • Clemgeopin 3.1.2
        30 March 2014 at 12:38 am

        My intuition is that at least 6 people in every 100 will give their party vote to IP.

        (Personally, I am too committed to Labour. If there were two party votes allowed, one of mine would have definitely been for the IP!)

  4. captain hook 4
    29 March 2014 at 6:32 pm

    stephen joyce.

  5. Aww 5
    29 March 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Peter Dunne. The Internet Party is a good fit for him.

  6. Steve (North Shore) 6
    29 March 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Trevor, and everyone knows

    • phillip ure 6.1
      29 March 2014 at 7:53 pm

      does mallard ‘own’ his electorate-seat..?

      ..answer:..won with 4,068 margin49%..

      ..natty behind him on 34%…

      ..if labour stood a candidate against him..national wd win the seat..

      ..so that ain’t gonna happen..it ain’t him..

      ..steve is full of it..

      ..’everyone’ is him and his mirror..

      • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.1
        29 March 2014 at 9:00 pm

        As I noted in the post, Hutt South is also an electorate where the party vote was won by National. I don’t think people’s personal loyalty to Trevor Mallard would swing so radically away from their party learnings.

        • swordfish 6.1.1.1
          29 March 2014 at 9:55 pm

          Hutt South is also an electorate where the party vote was won by National. I don’t think people’s personal loyalty to Trevor Mallard would swing so radically away from their party leanings

          Yes, but the Nats only took the party-vote because of a split Left vote. Lab+Green+Mana = 48 %, Nat = 41 %.

          50 % of Greens and at least 1800 Nats Candidate-voted Mallard.

          Having said that, I very much doubt he’s the MP concerned.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.1.1.1
            30 March 2014 at 9:44 am

            Yes, but the Labour+National party vote was 76%. That says to me that sure, there’s a solid left-of-centre vote in Hutt South, but there’s a far bigger middle-of-the-road voter base who aren’t going to easily swing behind an Internet Party MP.

  7. karol 7
    29 March 2014 at 8:20 pm

    I have a couple of questions.

    Could the (alleged) sitting MP, be one that has already declared they will not stand in this coming election – ie the assumption being they’ve stood down as a candidate for their current party?

    At what point would a sitting MP need to declare they will stand for the IP at the election – ie when does a sitting MP get selected as a candidate for their current party for the election?

    A thought:

    David Shearer.

    • phillip ure 7.1
      29 March 2014 at 8:42 pm

      well..q 1 is a possibility..i s’pose..but where is their value to internet party..?

      ..hutcheson..?..(shudder..!..)

      ..if it is a tory..the mana deal wd b dead in the water..

      ..so it has to be from labour..

      ..shearer certainly fits the ‘i don’t get no respect around here!’-profile..

      ..but the other no-reasons also apply to him..

      ..i’m still thinking bullshit/or dotcom sucked in by a conman mp..

    • Stephanie Rodgers 7.2
      29 March 2014 at 9:02 pm

      It could be someone who’s stepping down – but of the announced retirees so far, there’s (to be blunt) not a huge amount of talent or profile there to spin into an Internet Party vanguard.

      Shearer’s an interesting one! But I seriously doubt Mt Albert would follow him.

      • Pasupial 7.2.1
        30 March 2014 at 12:15 am

        A puzzle:

        Could be:
        “Nanaia Mahuta
        Phil Goff
        Annette King
        David Clark”
        But isn’t; “Nanaia, Phil or Annette…”

        Clark it is then.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 7.2.1.1
          30 March 2014 at 9:46 am

          I think it’s pretty obvious that when I mention the three who have huge majorities, it means the one left over doesn’t. Clark has a 3,000-odd vote majority and is a first-term MP. I don’t mean to be cruel, but I didn’t mention him further on because I thought it wasn’t an idea worth pursuing – and the post was long enough already!

        • Once was Tim 7.2.1.2
          30 March 2014 at 4:30 pm

          Christ! What a lovely little ‘beltway’ sideshow all this pontification, pulling numbers from here and there is.
          Jesus H Christ! And the left sit there wondering why they’re having to constantly push shit uphill.
          Many posters seem to have bought into all this kaka.

          I think I’ll go have another lay down

          • Tracey 7.2.1.2.1
            31 March 2014 at 2:11 pm

            let us know what you would like us to write about or pull up the thread where it has been traversed previously.

      • Tracey 7.2.2
        31 March 2014 at 2:09 pm

        perhaps simon power has had enough of westpac… and collins and joyce have fucked up some of his better initiatives.

    • alwyn 7.3
      30 March 2014 at 11:22 am

      A candidate doesn’t have to declare that they are standing until 20 to 27 days (nomination day) before the election. It wouldn’t matter whether they had already been chosen as a candidate for another party and there are certainly cases where a person has withdrawn after being chosen as a party’s candidate.

      If you really think that there is a possible MP willing to stand for the IP one might look at any MPs who are standing down unwillingly. Then see if any of them are particularly greedy for money. If a sitting MP loses his seat he (or she) gets paid for another three months I believe. Someone might, and I only say might, be tempted by the money, particularly if KDC was willing to pay all their expenses.

      I personally don’t really think that any such MP exists. The most likely prospect would have been Curran. If, as I seem to remember, it looked like the Labour Party were trying to get rid of her, she might have been tempted, even if only from a feeling of utu. After all the Labour Party postponed the deadline for nominations in her electorate and the only reason for that would appear to be that some part of the party were trying to line up an alternative. Once she did get the nomination she would have thought better of the idea. I don’t think even Clare has an ego big enough to think she could win against an official Labour candidate.
      As far as her denying it the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies apply. “Well she would say that, wouldn’t she?”

      • Clare Curran 7.3.1
        30 March 2014 at 1:04 pm

        Alwyn
        A couple of corrections.
        The Labour Party was not trying to get rid of me.
        The Labour Party did not postpone the deadline for selection in my electorate. They changed the deadline for all Labour-held electorates. Dunedin South did the right thing and re-advertised.
        And you are under no obligation to believe me. But I do object to the inference I am lying.

        • alwyn 7.3.1.1
          30 March 2014 at 2:11 pm

          Thank you for replying.
          I am not a member of the party and can only go on what I read from various sources, reliable and unreliable. Some papers interpreted a drop in your ranking, from 20 under Mr Shearer to 29 today I believe, according to the list on the party website, to be a mark of disfavour.

          I was not aware that the change of deadline was general to all electorates. That negates of course the interpretation I have put on it. I thought it was only Dunedin South.

          I’m sorry that you take the last comment as an accusation of lying. I am cynical enough to think that the sentiment it expresses applies to almost all politicians, and old enough to remember Mandy Rice-Davies saying it. I have never been able to resist applying it to almost every comment by a politician. She had a way with words that young lady.

      • Delia 7.3.2
        31 March 2014 at 9:54 am

        For heavens sakes, Clare is Labour through and through.

        • alwyn 7.3.2.1
          31 March 2014 at 11:22 am

          “Clare is Labour through and through”

          And so was Roger Douglas
          and Richard Prebble
          and Jim Anderton
          and if you go back so was John A Lee.

          On the other hand Winston Peters was a staunch National man until he started to feel the winds of change.

          All politicians are “through and through” party supporters until they feel that they are being pushed out.
          Based on my interpretation of Clare’s demotion in the party ranking as being a sign of disfavour and what I believed to be a unique re-opening of nominations in her electorate (but which she tells us was a general approach in all the Labour-held electorates), I interpreted it to indicate that she might be being pushed. Few politicians want to be martyrs and most politicians can change their loyalty in those circumstances.

  8. Andrew Geddis 8
    29 March 2014 at 8:39 pm

    The disappointing conclusion to this thought experiment is that if Kim Dotcom does have a current MP lined up to front his campaign …

    Why on earth would anyone think he actually does have this? The options are:

    (1) There’s some MP with an electorate seat in the House prepared to throw away that security to head up a political vehicle with no hope whatsoever of success, dependent on the financial good graces (and thus under the thumb) of a guy who faces an almost certain forced trip to the US to face a lengthy criminal process; or,

    (2) Dotcom has made the whole thing up (or, at least, turned general interest in what he proposes doing into a firm commitment to join him) in order to create a media splash, make people talk about him and lend credibility to the future fortunes of a political project that sorely lacks any.

    From what we know of Dotcom and how he operates, I repeat … why on earth would anyone think (1) is more likely than (2)?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 8.1
      29 March 2014 at 8:54 pm

      It’s a very bold claim to make if there’s no substance in it. That doesn’t put it outside the realms of possibility, of course. But I think it’s a lot more fun to consider the possible options – and there aren’t many, and they aren’t very strong ones – than just say ‘oh Kim Dotcom lies about everything, good night.’

      • phillip ure 8.1.1
        29 March 2014 at 9:19 pm

        @ geddis..that’s an even bolder claim that the internet party will see no success..

        ..(esp. if a deal is able to be done with mana..)

        ..and you are also falling into the trap of assuming the internet party cd not continue even if dotcom is extradited..

        ..there is still much to be settlesd in the way of policies/candidates/nailing down that deal with mana..

        ..but yr cavalier dismissal wd seem at odds with the possibilities..

        ..and you are discounting the appetite out here for change/something new..

        ..are you not aware of the successes of other such parties in europe..?

        ..if there..why not here..?

      • Andrew Geddis 8.1.2
        30 March 2014 at 8:54 am

        It’s a very bold claim to make if there’s no substance in it.

        Why? You think our media will hold him to it? That 3-4 months from now, anyone will be asking about it? It’s achieved him the splash he wants – look at this post as an example – and where’s the downside?

        But I think it’s a lot more fun to consider the possible options … than just say ‘oh Kim Dotcom lies about everything, good night.’

        I don’t think Dotcom lies about everything. But he certainly lies about some things. Remember how he had that “evidence” that Key knew about the GCSB’s role in spying on him? (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10894565)

        So, again … of the two options – that a sitting electorate MP is going to throw away their seat by linking with Dotcom, or he’s invented/puffed up the story for the publicity – which are you going to believe?

        • Lanthanide 8.1.2.1
          30 March 2014 at 9:08 am

          “I don’t think Dotcom lies about everything. But he certainly lies about some things. Remember how he had that “evidence” that Key knew about the GCSB’s role in spying on him? (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10894565)”

          The evidence which he said he will bring out in his extradition hearing. Which still hasn’t happened yet.

          Too early to be calling him a liar.

          • Andrew Geddis 8.1.2.1.1
            30 March 2014 at 9:18 am

            @Lanthanide,

            Why would he wait for the extradition hearing, where the GCSB’s involvement is completely irrelevant to the District Court proceedings and so the court most likely won’t even agree to hear it? When, if he really had that evidence, he could have pretty much destroyed Key (maybe even forced him to resign) by releasing it when Key categorically denied it in the House last year.

            Instead, he kicks the issue down the road to the never-never of his extradition hearing. So, at the risk of having to eat humble pie down the road, I’m calling Kim Dotcom a liar on this point (as well as saying that there is no sitting electorate MP that has agreed to join the Internet Party).

            • Lanthanide 8.1.2.1.1.1
              30 March 2014 at 10:14 am

              I have no idea, I’m just saying that calling him a liar is premature because he hasn’t yet passed his self-imposed deadline for revealing the information.

              Perhaps the evidence he has is that Key spoke to Hollywood bigwigs and made a deal with them re: KDC, thus making the whole extradition case politically motivated and grounds to throw it out of court?

              • Andrew Geddis …
                30 March 2014 at 10:48 am

                Perhaps the evidence he has is that Key spoke to Hollywood bigwigs and made a deal with them re: KDC, thus making the whole extradition case politically motivated and grounds to throw it out of court?

                Maybe. But, of course, that has nothing to do with Key having knowledge of the GCSB’s unlawful activities when monitoring Dotcom. Which is what Dotcom claims to have “proof” of … which he won’t show to anyone … be he will! Really, he will!! Sometime in the future, so just trust him!!!

                Now – let’s try a wee thought experiment. John Key claims to have proof that David Cunliffe personally directed Kim Dotcom to pay money into the trust set up to fund his leadership challenge – proof that he will release “at some future date”. Who here believes that this evidence exists, or at least that we should suspend judgment as to whether Key is telling the truth until that “future date” arrives? Anyone? Anyone??

                Why, then, are we not looking at Dotcom with the same raised eyebrow?

                • weka …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:00 am

                  I have my eyebrow raised, but like Lanth think it is premature to draw conclusions. I don’t trust KDC so much as think he has undue influence and that that influence might work in the favour of the left. Might not too.

                  I think it’s also premature to write off the IP. And foolish. He might pull one out of the bag between now and the election, and then there is the fact that the NZ voting public are a pretty weird lot (ref The Worm). Who knows what will happen?

                  Much of the negative views expressed on ts about KDC take the line that he is a convicted criminal. I doubt that many people who might vote for him care about that given what he was convicted for or what he is supposed to have done to earn the ire of the US currently. There is also a strata of NZ society that think people deserve a second chance. And then there are the ones that like celebrity, and the ones that respect people with lots of money. He’s a wild card.

                  • Andrew Geddis …
                    30 March 2014 at 11:34 am

                    I think it’s also premature to write off the IP. And foolish.

                    Quite possibly. But then again, I am a fool.

                    I just look at what they want to do, and considering that the strongest argument in favour of them being able to do it is “weird stuff has happened before”, don’t think it is very likely to be accomplished. I mean, the reason black swan events are so surprising is that they are very rare.

                • Lanthanide …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:42 am

                  “Maybe. But, of course, that has nothing to do with Key having knowledge of the GCSB’s unlawful activities when monitoring Dotcom. Which is what Dotcom claims to have “proof” of … which he won’t show to anyone … be he will! Really, he will!! Sometime in the future, so just trust him!!!”

                  Er, it easily could.

                  John Key has a meeting with Hollywood bigwigs where the decision is made to use the GCSB to monitor him.

                  Black mark against Key, it is directly relevant to the extradition case, and fulfills exactly KDC’s claim of evidence.

                  • Andrew Geddis …
                    30 March 2014 at 11:47 am

                    John Key has a meeting with Hollywood bigwigs where the decision is made to use the GCSB to monitor him.

                    If this happened, then John Key will have to resign as PM and quite probably will go to jail. If there was any evidence of it in Dotcom’s possession, we would have seen it long before now.

                    So I will bet anything you want that it did not happen. Seriously. Anything at all.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      30 March 2014 at 11:52 am

                      Yeah, I have to agree that if KDM had evidence of that caliber he would already have released it.

                      So probably he’s got something that’s flimsy or can be construed in his favour, but isn’t a black and white knock-it-out-of-the-park smoking gun.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      30 March 2014 at 4:44 pm

                      “If there was any evidence of it in Dotcom’s possession, we would have seen it long before now.”

                      Why?

                      If Dotcom’s primary aim is to avoid extradition then, surely, there are at least a couple of ways in which delaying announcing any evidence that Key knew Dotcom existed prior to the day before the raid until the trial would help achieve that aim.

                      First, it could be a kind of ‘Mexican Stand-off’ tactic – ‘it’s going to hurt you as much as me’. Since Russel Norman seems to think that it’s possible to intervene in the extradition process then presumably it is within Key’s power to affect that process too (but you’ll know far more about this than me). A ‘MAD’ approach from Dotcom may at least have some chance of scaring Key’s horses – and some chance is probably better than none.

                      Second, delaying releasing any such evidence till the trial presumably provides minimal opportunity for counter-evidence or argument to be constructed and provided (either inside or outside the court). I’m not sure how Key’s knowledge of Dotcom (if there was evidence for it) plays into any defence Dotcom’s lawyers are preparing, but presumably it does (and lawyers, I’ve heard, are quite clever at this sort of thing).

                      Put another way, how does releasing any such evidence now improve Dotcom’s chances of avoiding extradition? Sure, it might bring Key down (if it existed) but isn’t Dotcom far more likely to be concerned about avoiding extradition than taking Key down?

                      Personally, I have little interest in the IP or Dotcom (though I have heard of him :-)). But I am interested in the logic of this argument.

                    • Pete George …
                      30 March 2014 at 5:12 pm

                      It’s not up to Key at all, it’s the courts and then the Minister of Justice.

                      Dotcom said on Firstline on Thursday:

                      I believe in the New Zealand judicial system and I wouldn’t accept any Minister of Justice to overrule what the courts are deciding after a long time evaluating all these legal challenges so I think that would be wrong.

                      I presume he knows the final say is with the Minister of Justice.

                      Judith Collins has said:

                      Once the court has determined an individual is eligible for surrender, the matter is referred to me, as Minister of Justice, for the final decision on the surrender. As Minister I decide whether to issue a surrender order, taking into account humanitarian considerations and other factors contained in the Extradition Act.

                      http://yournz.org/2014/03/29/dotcom-says-minister-would-be-wrong-to-overrule-courts-on-his-extradition/

                      And Labour Justice spokesperson:

                      The Labour Party doesn’t have any position or policy on the extradition proceedings concerning Kim Dotcom.

                      It would be premature and constitutionally improper for any political party to express a view on how a ministerial discretion might be exercised in this regard before the courts have determined eligibility as to do so may give the appearance of trying to influence the court contrary to the principle of independence of the judiciary.

                      If the court decides Mr Dotcom is eligible for extradition then the incumbent Minister of Justice must exercise a statutory discretion under the Extradition Act 1999 and the exercise of that discretion must conform to the longstanding requirements for ministerial discretion which include that it must take into account relevant considerations and discount irrelevant considerations and otherwise be rational.

                      I do not think that the political requirements of assembling a new government constitute a relevant consideration in determining whether a person should be extradited.

                      Mr Dotcom’s extradition, regardless of the status of the court proceedings at the time, will not be part of any negotiations on Labour’s part.

                      http://yournz.org/2014/03/29/labour-will-not-negotiate-on-dotcoms-extradition/

                      I don’t see how Greens could influence it although all this aside if a change of government could aid Dotcom in avoiding extradition then either precipitating and early election or delaying proceedings until after the election would presumably be his aim. But that seems to be a moot point.

                    • Tracey …
                      31 March 2014 at 2:15 pm

                      could some of this stuff, so called evidence from such a meeting in holloywood, be why dotcom is trying so harder to get broader documentation from the fbi?

                • Puddleglum …
                  30 March 2014 at 4:00 pm

                  Hi Andrew,

                  In the interview John Key gave on Campbell Live some time after the raid, John Key volunteered the assertion (and, if I remember correctly, repeated it) that he had never even heard of Dotcom prior to the day before the raid when he was briefed about him.

                  At the time I thought it odd that Key seemed so keen to have this fact on the record since no-one would have thought it remotely incriminating that Key had heard of Dotcom prior to the raid, given Dotcom’s residence in Key’s electorate, communications with Key’s electorate office, etc..

                  While this may not have been the claim Key made in parliament (i.e., simply of having not heard of Dotcom previously), it seems that this would be enough to damage Key politically, possibly beyond repair, since it would amount to a quite determined (and, as I said, possibly repeated) lie to the New Zealand public, should there be any evidence forthcoming about Key’s knowledge of Dotcom prior to that day before the raid.

                  Such knowledge could, of course, come from Dotcom providing evidence that he was discussed at meetings Key had with Hollywood executives, irrespective of any discussion of getting the GCSB on the case. But that is only one possibility.

                  So, I don’t think that the issue is whether Key had ‘knowledge of the GCSB’s activities in relation to Dotcom’, but a far lower hurdle – knowing of the existence of Dotcom prior to the day before the raids.

                  Also, note that in the article you linked to, Dotcom’s claim is that “Mr Dotcom also told the committee he knew that Mr Key knew about him and his activities before a January 19, 2012 briefing which Mr Key says was the first he knew of the MegaUpload founder and alleged internet pirate.”

                  It’s anyone’s guess why Key wished to assert this particular claim.

                  • Pete George …
                    30 March 2014 at 5:18 pm

                    What if Key knew of Dotcom prior to the raid but on another matter and is bound to keep his knowledge secret? It’s possible Dotcom was under surveillance for another reason before the US got involved with extradition.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 March 2014 at 5:26 pm

                      Then it has every chance of turning into a PR disaster for him, on account of his lying to the New Zealand public about it.

                      Politicians aren’t spies Pete, Spies lie like trees grow leaves. Politicians who get caught lying suffer the consequences, especially when it becomes a story. If it became a story, Blip’s list would be a sub plot. Lying liar tells lies.

                      This is why smart politicians don’t ask for too much information from spies.

                      “PS: “Yes I’d heard of him, but only in passing.” Plenty of ways to tell the truth, it was one hundred thousand shares. Akshully I’m pretty embarrassed about it. I think I probably did have a conflict of interest, which is why I’ve called this press conference. I made a mistake. I’m sorry. it won’t happen again.

                      See?

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      30 March 2014 at 5:29 pm

                      Yeah? If that were to be a fact, then is it ok for Key to LIE and say that he hadn’t heard of DotCom before the raid?

                    • Tracey …
                      31 March 2014 at 8:23 am

                      Like what

            • PapaMike 8.1.2.1.1.2
              30 March 2014 at 2:10 pm

              Quite right the only thing the Judge has to decide in the extradition case is whether in his/her consideration there is a case to answer or not.
              Full Stop
              – nothing else is relevant in any way. Too many red herrings floating about.

            • Tracey 8.1.2.1.1.3
              31 March 2014 at 8:21 am

              To do the most political damage to key close to the election. Had he shown it last year crosby texter wld have it long spun to oblivion by now.

              Key said the second most important issue to nzers is

              Law and order

              Not THAT is setting an agenda

        • phillip ure 8.1.2.2
          30 March 2014 at 9:09 am

          geddis..just doing pete georges’ job here..

          ..and factchecking you..

          ..dotcom has clarified that that evidence is part of his court case..

          ..and will be released then..

          ..but you assume he is lying..

          • Pete George 8.1.2.2.1
            30 March 2014 at 9:58 am

            There’s no facts to check.

            I wouldn’t call either the claim of damaging evidenced against Key or the claim of having an electorate MP willing to jump to his party lies, but there’s no evidence of them being true. I’m very skeptical.

            But talking about lies, if there is an MP who has agreed to jump parties in June then effectively they are living and working and representing a lie until then. They would be lying by omission to their party and to their electorate.

            if there is such an MP they should be dealt with by their electorate in the election. There chances of success would be very slim.

            • Tracey 8.1.2.2.1.1
              31 March 2014 at 9:08 am

              Lol

              The electorate doesnt mind duplicity and lies if the polls are anything to go by.

              Essentially withdrawing oppositions is a duplicity kind of

        • Stephanie Rodgers 8.1.2.3
          30 March 2014 at 9:51 am

          Andrew, it’s a bit of fun. And yes, I thoroughly expect that our political journalists, who love Kim Dotcom stories, have all stuck a note in their diaries for June saying ‘follow up Dotcom on who his secret MP is’.

          As much as I’m flattered by you including this little post of mine as part of the ‘splash’ Dotcom is after, your incredulity is a little exaggerated, don’t you think? It’s just a fun post which comes to pretty much the exact conclusion you did! When Dotcom is leading the television news and getting on the front pages of our major newspapers, I don’t think you really need to be acting gobsmacked at the notion that people who don’t have your high political nous are talking about it on a leftwing blog.

          • Andrew Geddis 8.1.2.3.1
            30 March 2014 at 10:41 am

            It’s just a fun post which comes to pretty much the exact conclusion you did!

            Sure – nothing against fun, and I’m the last person who can throw stones for speculating on teh interweb. All I’m saying is:

            (1) There’s a quicker route to the conclusion you reached; and,
            (2) Not all of the commentators on the post seem to be treating the Dotcom thing with the same lighthearted scepticism you are.

        • Clemgeopin 8.1.2.4
          30 March 2014 at 10:34 am

          A. Geddis, I have lost respect for you, because you are guessing and stating that DotCom is lying. You DON’T know that. I had thought that you were a more balanced, more intelligent, fair and honest commentator. You are here trying to defame the man and trying to make news instead ! Shame on you.

          • Andrew Geddis 8.1.2.4.1
            30 March 2014 at 10:43 am

            A. Geddis, I have lost respect for you, because you are guessing and stating that DotCom is lying.

            Sorry to hear that – but I’m applying a sceptical eye to his claims and concluding that they are more likely than not to be false. In the same way as I would to a “prophet” who confidently tells me that he has proof positive that Jesus Christ is the son of God … which he will reveal on the day that Christ returns to Earth to lead the last judgment.

            • Clemgeopin 8.1.2.4.1.1
              30 March 2014 at 11:34 am

              In the same way as I would to a “prophet” who confidently tells me that he has proof positive that Jesus Christ is the son of God … which he will reveal on the day that Christ returns to Earth to lead the last judgment.

              You may not believe the prophet, but you can not definitely say that he is a liar as that day hasn’t yet happened.

              • Andrew Geddis …
                30 March 2014 at 11:38 am

                Clemgeopin,

                I have a very, very attractive investment opportunity for you, returning 50% annually, which requires you to send me $15,000 straight away. I will tell you just what the opportunity is at a later date, and you’ll also get your money back (plus profit) at that later date.

                All you need to do is trust me that I’m telling the truth. Which I’m sure you will. Because you can’t definitely say I’m lying to you, right?

                Right??

                • Lanthanide …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:45 am

                  The point, Andrew, is that you can call someone out for being misleading, stirring up trouble, whatever you want, without specifically calling them a liar.

                  It’s like Blip’s long list of “lies” John Key has told. I’ve skimmed through it a couple of times and the vast majority of the contents are not “lies” using the dictionary definition of the word. IMO it makes anyone who trumpets Blip’s list look foolish.

                  • Andrew Geddis …
                    30 March 2014 at 12:02 pm

                    The point, Andrew, is that you can call someone out for being misleading, stirring up trouble, whatever you want, without specifically calling them a liar.

                    Well, you can.

                    But Dotcom has made some pretty specific claims (“I have evidence that Key knew in advance of the GCSB’s spying”; “There is an electorate MP that is going to join my Party”) that I just do not believe to be true. So why shouldn’t I call him a liar?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      30 March 2014 at 12:09 pm

                      Well you can call him a liar. And we can rightfully say that you don’t know for sure that he’s lying and that therefore calling him a liar is inappropriate. Which is exactly what’s happened.

                      It’s not like he’s making claims about things that can be independently verified, like the sky is green or coca cola has cocaine in it.

                    • phillip ure …
                      30 March 2014 at 2:48 pm

                      geddis..!

                      ..and you a professor…eh..?

                      ..(..but obviously not majoring in logic..eh..?..)

                      ..fookin’ hell..!

                    • Puddleglum …
                      30 March 2014 at 4:09 pm

                      Andrew,

                      Where is your link to Dotcom’s supposed claim that “I have evidence that Key knew in advance of the GCSB’s spying”? There was no such claim, that I could see, in the article you linked to.

                    • phillip ure …
                      30 March 2014 at 5:22 pm

                      can his professor-ship be stripped from him..?

                      ..the evidence for cancellation is strong..

                      ..and the hubris runs deep and strong in this one..

                • Tamati …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:55 am

                  Maybe Andrew you should be more crude in your labeling of Dotcom?

                  Perhaps Bullshiting is more appropriate than lying.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  30 March 2014 at 12:35 pm

                  Oh dear! Apples and oranges. You are now coming across as bit of a disjointed illogical simpleton rather than an astute fair political commentator.

                  • phillip ure …
                    30 March 2014 at 5:27 pm

                    the s.s. geddis hove into view..

                    ..and was sunk by shore-fire..

                    ..the professor went down with his ship..

                    ..his last reported words:..’curse you..!..logic..!..’

    • bad12 8.2
      29 March 2014 at 9:56 pm

      That’s an interesting crystal ball you have there Andrew Geddis, can you tell me where i may get one from,

      Anything can happen in a New Zealand election, last time round we had NZFirst, written off by everyone as a wasted vote, cruised back into the Parliament with a healthy number of MP’s,(although there may be concerns about a couple of their MP’s health in a fitness to serve type of question),

      Befor that we had Dunne, in the guise of Mr Sensible, like a cracked record seemingly unable to desist from use of the word, along with ‘the worm’ this man of a table full of empty platitudes, Mr Sensible managed to drag quite a motley crew into the Parliament with Him,

      Considering the Europeans have taken to internet parties in the guise of Pirate Parties in quite a big way, and not having as yet checked if all their success in such a short unheralded space of time have been under the auspices of MMP electoral systems, there is NO reason what-so-ever to suggest that with a big budget for advertizing the New Zealand version of that movement could not scrape 3-5% of the party vote out of the electorates,

      Of course being able to secure a deal with a Party or MP that already holds an electoral seat would make the Internet Party in the eyes of many an even better voting proposition…

      • srylands 8.2.1
        29 March 2014 at 10:05 pm

        The difference between the Internet Party and their European brethren is that Rickard Falkvinge as the founder of the Pirate Party in Sweden was highly articulate and influential.

        KDC is a convicted criminal, not a NZ citizen, obese, and is likely to spend the decade after 2016 in a Federal prison. It is his fear of that outcome that is, in my view, motivating his political activity.

        So there is that.

        • bad12 8.2.1.1
          29 March 2014 at 10:34 pm

          SSLands, hell i have waited a long time for you to say something with at least a modicum of sense involved, what’s happened has tonight’s whiskey binge unclogged your mind from the usual drivel which is your normal currency of discourse,

          Your forgetting something tho, the voters, it takes people to understand the message, agreeing with that message to want to cast a vote for the Party with that message, in that DotCom and the Internet Party are pretty much aligned with the Pirate Party Movement,

          i would suggest to you that DotCom’s appeal is as broad as the left/right divide in New Zealand,just as many seeing DotCom to have been offended against by the State as those who would see Him as the offender,

          You assign fear to DotCom which is fair enough an opinion, i wont disagree with that but instead point to the fear of a different sort that has provoked the leaking of information as an attack against Him,

          Do i see the current offences as claimed by the FBI as legitimate, NO, i see DotCom running a business not remarkably different from any storage facility you could hire to store furniture in, if the proprietor of such a storage facility knew you were storing stolen goods she/he would be criminal if she/he did not report this,

          But, i digress, you see this ‘fear’ as some form of negative to use as an accusation, i would suggest you if in DotCom’s position would behave in much the same manner, and should DotCom find common ground with the Mana Party, especially if they adopt the social policy of the latter i will be considering right up to election day a vote for the alliance that is formed from the two…

          • Clemgeopin 8.2.1.1.1
            30 March 2014 at 12:04 am

            I agree!
            Your views, so amusingly worded, are very realistic and very wise.
            I do enjoy reading most of your posts. Cheers!

      • phillip ure 8.2.2
        30 March 2014 at 8:22 am

        i see geddis is a seagull..

        ..comes and craps..and then flies away..

        ..not deigning to reply to the dismantling of his bullshit..

        ..meh..!

      • Andrew Geddis 8.2.3
        30 March 2014 at 9:10 am

        there is NO reason what-so-ever to suggest that with a big budget for advertizing the New Zealand version of that movement could not scrape 3-5% of the party vote out of the electorates

        There is every reason to doubt this.
        (1): No Pirate Party in Europe – where they have been operating for near-on a decade – has gotten anything like this level of support in a national election;
        (2) You have a party being set up only a little over 6 months out from the election, with no general policy platform, no recognised candidates, no access to the party leader debates, and only the most minimal amount of TV advertising time;
        (3) It is entering a political market where other parties – Labour and the Greens, primarily – will be offering digital freedom policies that mirror those of the Internet Party;
        (4) Money may help in a campaign, but it doesn’t buy success – in 2011, Colin Craig spent over $1 million (on top of the money he spent in previous mayoral elections, raising his profile) and got just a bit over 2.6% of the vote;
        (5) The “visionary” of the Internet Party is a guy facing multiple criminal charges in the US (which, beat up or not, could see him shipped off-shore) and with a personality that attracts as much critical attention as it does positive.

        So, no, I don’t have a crystal ball. But I am able to apply some critical thinking and go beyond my starting position of “gosh, I’d love to see National voted out at this election” and recognise that the Internet Party simply is not going to work.

        • bad12 8.2.3.1
          30 March 2014 at 9:54 am

          Andrew Geddis, please do not do us the dis-service of labeling your opinion as critical thought, it is simply your opinion so trying to ‘tart’ such opinion up as some form of higher power by labeling it ‘critical thought’ is in my opinion more then a little facile,

          Iceland Andrew, ever heard of Iceland, i presume, applying critical thought to the name Iceland would have us believing there is a substantial amount of Ice somewhere in that land,

          Ice Mr Geddis, when melted turns so my critical thinking tells me to water, cold water at that, which is really where my critical thinking is taking this conversation as i want to pour a little of that, cold water that is, on your Opinion that no Pirate Party in Europe has ”got that level of support in a National election”,

          My opinion Andrew is that you should engage in far more research than you do the meditation that leads to your ‘critical thinking’, you might then (a), make more sense,(that of course is a subjective statement as many would define this as impossible), and (b), you would not trot out statements which i am sure you will hotly debate in the vein of dancing upon the head of a pin, but, in my opinion have been by accident or design inserted in your comment either through your inability to carry out simple research or as a dishonest attempt to uphold the point you are trying to make,

          While i fully understand the meaning of your point about National elections vis a vis the Pirate Parties i must point out that elections for MP’s in the European Parliament are in fact National elections and in the case of Sweden that Nation has elected 2 MP’s to the European parliament,(down to 1 at this point in time i believe),

          Add another dash of cold water to your ‘critical thought’ and i find that in Iceland the Pirate Party gathered 5.1% of the popular vote in a National election, and, one other country Tunisia??? just off the top of my mind also elected a Pirate Party member to its Parliament,

          Feel free Andrew to now dance upon the head of your pin to deny that these countries are European, i care not what countries have elected Pirate Party members,myself not being Euro-centric, but, electoral success of a range i have suggested above has already occurred with regards the Pirate Party,

          There Andrew goes point (1) of your ‘critical thinking’, i suggest you do some ‘critical research’ befor attempting to engage your brain and come back with a re-write…

          • Disraeli Gladstone 8.2.3.1.1
            30 March 2014 at 10:05 am

            This is the most ridiculous comment I’ve ever seen.

            Well done.

            Also, as a European who’s been in different countries during different European elections. No. They’re not really “national elections”. They are wholly different with a far smaller sample size.

            For instance, Sweden’s national election had a turnout of 84%. The Internet Party got 0.55%.

            The European Elections had a only 45% turnout. That’s only just half. It’s not the same as a “national election”.

            • bad12 8.2.3.1.1.1
              30 March 2014 at 10:15 am

              GallStone, has Andrew Geddis employed you as His hair splitter, that’s the sum total of its contents, pathetic puerile rubbish in other words…

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                30 March 2014 at 10:45 am

                I make a point, backed up with statistics pointing out an error in your original post.

                You reply with an ad hominem.

                This is what you do. It doesn’t make you clever, just sad.

                • bad12 …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:00 am

                  Gallstone…Ha…ha…ha, you split hairs and prevaricate in an effort to point score…

          • Andrew Geddis 8.2.3.1.2
            30 March 2014 at 10:34 am

            First, elections for the European Parliament are very much not “national” elections – they may take place on a nationwide basis, but voters make choices very different to that which they make when electing MPs to run their country. Which is why, for instance, the UK sends members of the UKIP and Green Parties to Brussels, whilst not electing them to Westminster.

            Second, I’ll give you Iceland, where the 9,647 votes the Pirate Party got were enough in that micro-society for 3 MPs … and accept that if the NZ economy melts down because of a complete collapse of our banking system, the Internet Party might be able to make 5% here in NZ, too.

            Anyway – there’s a simple test for this. You’ve made a prediction, that the Internet Party will “scrape 3-5% of the party vote out of the electorates”. I call bullshit. We’ll bookmark this discussion and revisit it when one of us is proved right … but until then, you’re speculating, so am I, so whatever.

            • bad12 8.2.3.1.2.1
              30 March 2014 at 11:20 am

              Ah is the head of the pin you dance upon well worn Andrew, a national election is a nation-wide election, the one for the EU Parliament is admittedly different from say a Swedish GENERAL election which i suggest is in fact the word you should have used,and, i would further suggest that the ‘running of a country’ with regards to EU membership is a shared duty between Brussels and the Capital’s of the EU member States,

              The codicil to that being that the share of this ‘running of a country’ would divide probably 98% in favor of the individual countries elected Governments,

              A gross New Zealand Government debt of some 80 billion dollars would to me more than suggest that the New Zealand economy ‘melted down’ because of the collapse of a number of other countries banking systems so the point you make isn’t really relevant,except to suggest that because of the reason above that 5% begins to look entirely achievable,

              i am amused that your use of highlighting of the 9000+ votes the Pirate Party with such DARK numbering is a simple ‘trick’ in an attempt to devalue the fact that this was 5.1% of the popular vote which you directly stated, having ‘critically thought’ about it, had not occurred,

              Now to split a hair or two myself, on it’s own my strong opinion is that the internet Party will score around the 3% mark of the popular vote, an alliance tho with the Mana Party i would suggest will give this Alliance between 3 and 5% of the Party Vote…

              • Andrew Geddis …
                30 March 2014 at 11:29 am

                Whatever, Bad12. You aren’t a person really worth talking to.

                • bad12 …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:37 am

                  Translation = Geddis after being proven wrong throws a little toy tossing, and, entirely laughable, Hissy Fit,(flouncing off with petticoats all a fly),

                  Sad, Ha-Ha-Ha…

                  • Lanthanide …
                    30 March 2014 at 11:47 am

                    Andrew’s right, you aren’t worth talking to.

                    • bad12 …
                      30 March 2014 at 12:04 pm

                      Yes exactly Lanth, Geddis was happy to ‘talk’ with me when he was talking down to me from what he believed was His lofty height,

                      Proven wrong tho, Andrew does a classic toy toss, the fact that you wish to continue with the toy toss by supporting Him in his silly little insult just proves that you have on a previous occasion had your little ego dented by my comments and now see the need to join forces in an attempt to get back at me,

                      My advice to you, Don’t, the online silent treatment just adds even more humor to my day…

                    • bad12 …
                      30 March 2014 at 12:10 pm

                      Gosh, so why did you then??? aw thats right wee Lanthy is still stinging from something i said months ago,

                      Poor wee child,there just about needs be a ‘cot corner’ as a Post for all you lot to sit and cry in…

            • Ron 8.2.3.1.2.2
              30 March 2014 at 6:31 pm

              Seems to me as someone was willing to bet on the veracity of your comments that a quick trip over to I-predict site and put $10K or so on the bet against KDC or any of the other things you accuse him of lying about. Only way to back up silly claims is to put your money where your mouth is.

        • Lanthanide 8.2.3.2
          30 March 2014 at 10:18 am

          “(2) You have a party being set up only a little over 6 months out from the election, with no general policy platform, no recognised candidates, no access to the party leader debates, and only the most minimal amount of TV advertising time;”

          You might want to go back and check just how ‘minimal’ the TV advertising time that the IP has received over the last several weeks. Years if you count anything to do with KDC.

          Sure, they don’t get to call the shots about that advertising they’re getting, but then Mana doesn’t generally get to call the shots for it’s TV coverage either.

          • Andrew Geddis 8.2.3.2.1
            30 March 2014 at 10:36 am

            You might want to go back and check just how ‘minimal’ the TV advertising time that the IP has received over the last several weeks.

            Sure – which is why Dotcom trots out highly unlikely stories like “there is a sitting electorate MP who is going to join us,” But we’ll see how much of that continues once the real campaign kicks in, and the media have some more meaty stories to chew on.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.3.2.1.1
              30 March 2014 at 5:54 pm

              Pretty much. If the sitting electorate MP were to declare their allegiance, that would be a story.

              Question: which sitting electorate MP could pull this off?

              Into the realm of fantasy rode the six hundred.

        • Clemgeopin 8.2.3.3
          30 March 2014 at 10:47 am

          If your you are proved wrong, will you

          (a) admit it,
          (b) apologise,
          (c) stop commenting on political matters?

          • Andrew Geddis 8.2.3.3.1
            30 March 2014 at 10:52 am

            If:

            (1) Dotcom releases proof positive that John Key knew in advance of the GCSB’s spying on Dotcom; or,
            (2) A currently sitting MP joins the Internet Party before the election; or,
            (3) The Internet Party gets 3-5% at this election;

            I will admit I was completely and utterly wrong about these matters and openly invite everyone to ridicule me and judge my future claims against this background of error. But stop commenting on political matters? Don’t be silly … why should I? It’s not like I’m hurting anyone by getting things wrong!!!!

            • bad12 8.2.3.3.1.1
              30 March 2014 at 11:33 am

              Lolz, ”its not like i am hurting anybody by getting things wrong”, Lolz and Lolz again, ever heard of ‘personal credibility’,

              SSLands springs to mind as one that enters the debate here on the intellectual basis of a knee-jerk, consistently proven either plain wrong or deliberately lying over a longish period SSLands is now 99% of the time treated with either derision or outright abuse,(most of us here do not believe that we are running a research institute for the benefit and/or education of wing-nuts),

              It does in my opinion pay to apply a little ‘critical thinking’ to one’s ‘personal credibility’…

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                30 March 2014 at 5:57 pm

                Credibility springs from more than mistakes.

                • newsense …
                  30 March 2014 at 11:09 pm

                  Like the ability to make well reasoned suppositions, and then be able to admit freely that they didn’t turn out.

                  Also taking great cute photos of animals, children, vegetables etc.

            • Tracey 8.2.3.3.1.2
              31 March 2014 at 2:26 pm

              out of interest what is the difference between proof and proof positive.

              wayne mapp was extoli
              ling the virtue of heatsay as evidnce but with low weight provision.

    • Psycho Milt 8.3
      30 March 2014 at 8:07 am

      Why on earth would anyone think he actually does have this?

      Yes, on this one I have to agree with DPF – closer to the election, we’ll hear that this mystery MP has changed their mind and won’t be joining Dotcom’s party after all.

      • Tracey 8.3.1
        31 March 2014 at 2:29 pm

        hes definitely a politician then, if he can tell lies and they drfit away, hell he might be pm if he gets citizenship

  9. Murray Olsen 9
    30 March 2014 at 12:06 am

    I hope it’s Goff and Mallard, and that guy who wants to raise the pension age. Let Dotcom have all of them. I wouldn’t miss them.

  10. MrSmith 10
    30 March 2014 at 8:54 am

    “It’s fitting, but it just reinforces the idea that the Internet Party is a sideshow.”

    Stephanie that’s probably what they said about Bob Jones and his New Zealand party yet he single handedly brought down the Muldoon Government and isn’t that the Goal now, bringing down a corrupt Government any way we can, we can sort out the details once the dealing is done.

    • Pasupial 10.1
      30 March 2014 at 9:44 am

      Bob Jones did not “single handedly br[ing] down the Muldoon Government”. Yes; if everyone who had voted NZP had voted National in 1984 then Muldoon would have had a majority. But that’s completely ignoring the efforts of Labour and Social Credit who actually won electorate seats under the FPP system.

      However Jones and his NZP did certainly prepare the ground for the rogernomic perversion of the Labour party. The point is not just ridding ourselves of Key, it is the forging of a better Aotearoa for its inhabitants.

      • alwyn 10.1.1
        30 March 2014 at 11:50 am

        I fear you are dreaming when you say Social Credit had anything to do with bringing down the Muldoon Government. At a cursory look the NZP (Jones) appears to have got most of its votes from the Social Credit ranks.

        Between the 1981 and 1984 elections the changes in party votes (percentages) were
        National from 38.77 to 35.89
        Labour from 39.01 to 42.77
        Social Cr from 20.65 to 7.63
        NZ Party from zero to 12.25.

        The Jones party took 60% of the protest vote away from Social Credit while there was a relatively small (3%) swing from National to Labour. The idea that Jones demolished Muldoon is a myth.

        Incidentally the New Zealand Party got a greater percentage of the votes than any minor (ie other than National or Labour) in any MMP election except the New Zealand First vote in 1996. They were more popular than the Greens or the Alliance have ever been. Only Winnies’ 13.35% in 1996 exceeded the NZP 12.25% in 1984.

        • MrSmith 10.1.1.1
          30 March 2014 at 1:20 pm

          “The idea that Jones demolished Muldoon is a myth.”

          I never Jones demolished Muldoon alwyn your trying to put words in my mouth and rewrite history son.

          Take a look at what really happened.

          “It failed to win any seats in Parliament, but is sometimes credited with causing the defeat of Robert Muldoon’s National Party government in the 1984 election by splitting the vote (i.e. as a spoiler).”

          “Jones attracted considerable attention with his comments, and although he had not originally considered it, a number of people encouraged him to start a new political party. Jones himself believed that a new party could conceivably split the National Party’s vote, bringing the government down. Jones appears to have hoped that losing an election would help to purge the National Party of “Muldoonism”. Along with some of the people who had contacted him about the matter, Jones began to lay the foundations for a new organization. The party’s name and motto were chosen, and its primary policies were set out.
          When Muldoon heard of Jones’s plans, he initially dismissed them as a hoax, saying that the rumours were a publicity stunt by Jones. These comments galvanized Jones and his supporters into action, and it was decided to officially launch the new party on 22 August. The launch, which coincided with the release of the party’s manifesto, was well covered by the media, and the New Zealand Party gained considerable public recognition. Not long after it was founded, some polls showed the party with nearly twenty percent of the vote.”

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

          • alwyn 10.1.1.1.1
            30 March 2014 at 2:00 pm

            Well MrSmith, I fear it is you putting words into my mouth.

            Firstly I was replying to Parsupial, not to you. I never put any words into you mouth at all.
            Parsupial was, seemingly, attributing some of the credit for defeating the Muldoon Government to the SC party. If they were responsible for the defeat of Muldoon one would have expected their party vote to have risen, not suffered a major drop.

            Secondly I never attributed the words “demolished Muldoon” to anyone in particular. I never said that Parsupial said it. I never said you said it. If I had I would have put it in quotation marks and written something like “MrSmith claims that “Jones demolished Muldoon”” or something like that.
            Well I didn’t. I merely said the “The idea that Jones demolished Muldoon is a myth”. That is a completely general statement and doesn’t it attribute the belief to Parsupial, much less to you.
            Jones may believe he brought down Muldoon, and may still believe it. That doesn’t mean he did though and the evidence is that he merely mopped up a lot of the general protest votes that had been previously going to Social Credit.

            • Pasupial 10.1.1.1.1.1
              30 March 2014 at 6:02 pm

              Alwyn

              Mentioning SC probably distracted from my point that the NZP never won any seats (despite getting thrice their vote)s. This, plus the swing of less than 4% of the vote to Labour resulting in nearly a quarter more seats (43 in 1981 to 56 in 1984), neatly illustrate the flaws of the FPP system.

              Mr Smith’s link was interesting:

              Jones, his primary objective of ending the Muldoon government having been accomplished, and disappointed by the Party’s electoral performance in the 1985 Timaru by-election, unilaterally made a decision to put the Party into recess. He later said that with the “Rogernomics” reforms being undertaken by the new administration, he considered his party to be redundant… Not surprisingly, many in the Party’s ranks considered Jones’ move to put the party into recess without reference to Party Members to be undemocratic and, despite Jones’ opposition, proceeded to hold the scheduled annual conference in July 1985… In 1986, with its policy platform largely implemented by a reforming Labour Government, beset by funding problems and falling support, the New Zealand Party opted to “merge” into the National Party

              1986 being the year that Bolger took over from McClay.

      • MrSmith 10.1.2
        30 March 2014 at 1:34 pm

        Pasupial:

        Whether Jones brought don’t the Muldoon Government can never be confirmed one way or the other, but I think you miss my point, and that is Kim.com could clearly have a huge influence on this election, as Jones did, people are falling for the Nationals spin again and writing him off, yet they should have a look at the history around what Jones did with the New Zealand Party and that would tell you he is in with a fighting change.

        • Pasupial 10.1.2.1
          30 March 2014 at 4:56 pm

          MrSmith

          For me, Bob Jones’ main contribution to NZ politics was in changing the balance of the discourse. In much the same way as ACT allow National to claim to be centrist by only being far-right compared to ultra-. Or how nowadays Mana curb the DevilBeast smears on the Greens by demonstrating what far-left really looks like.

          I fully expect Dotcom/ IP to have a “huge influence on this election” as well. I wouldn’t predict the nature or extent of that influence yet though.

          • MrSmith 10.1.2.1.1
            30 March 2014 at 5:58 pm

            Yes Pasupial, but I still think you miss my point, Jones clearly set out to unseat Muldoon and so History now repeats, Kim has clearly set out to unseat Key.

  11. Bearded Git 11
    30 March 2014 at 9:06 am

    In reply to M.O. above-you mean David Parker, who is actually a really good guy. His idea to raise the pension age is entirely sensible. The problem is that it is not good politics.

    Labour should change its policy to follow the Social Democrats model for retirement in Germany, now adopted there by the grand coalition.

    • MrSmith 11.1
      30 March 2014 at 9:34 am

      Entirely sensible policy for the white middle/upper class you mean.

      • Bearded Git 11.1.1
        30 March 2014 at 10:56 am

        The German retirement system permits retirement at 63 and varying ages upwards.

        • alwyn 11.1.1.1
          30 March 2014 at 11:53 am

          If that is the main thing determining your vote you will have to vote for United Future then. The German approach appears to be similar to what Peter Dunne is proposing.

    • Murray Olsen 11.2
      30 March 2014 at 3:42 pm

      I’m afraid I don’t have much time for really good guys in Labour that come up with good reasons for people to keep voting for Key. I want a government, not a friend.

  12. ianmac 12
    30 March 2014 at 9:08 am

    No one seems to have mentioned the Independent exNZ First chap Horan?
    At least up to election night would a sitting member help IP tip over the threshold?

  13. phillip ure 13
    30 March 2014 at 9:55 am

    shearer has just jumped to the top of the list..

    ..as a former labour leader..he wd have the mana to run the internet party..

    ..(and he’s going nowhere in labour..and he is an ambitious man..he doesn’t see his political life at an end..)

    ..and hone said he wd b relaxed about working with shearer in an alliance-lite..

    ..in fact..the more i think about it..

    ..the more it makes sense..

    ..shearer..for all his human tics..was/is futurist/modern in a lot of his thinking..

    ..it wd be quite a good fit..actually..

    ..off ya go dave..!

    ..go well..!

  14. phillip ure 14
    30 March 2014 at 10:18 am

    and shearer is the only one who it wouldn’t matter him giving up his seat..

    ..he is the only one with the profile etc..

    ..for the transition from safe seat to leading the internet party..

    ..being of no/little matter..

    ,,so..all this leads me to the conclusion..

    ..that if this mp exists..

    (and the blowback on dotcom if lying rules that out for me..he/those around him are smart enough to know they wd never be forgiven for bullshitting/outright-lying/manipulation of the media/public to that degree..)

    ..shearer is the only one who ticks all the boxes..

    ..eh..?

    ..and i guess the june-timeline fits with some electoral-dictum..?

    (..those more knowledgable than me on this will know..)

    ..but i can’t see it being kept secret until then..

    ..and hone is clear he must know before inking any deal with the internet party..

    ..he is adamant there will be no ‘surprises’..in candidates/leaders..

    ..(the name of dunne was evoked..to a body-shudder/waving of hands from harawira..)

    • veutoviper 14.1
      30 March 2014 at 10:43 am

      I haven’t yet watched Q & A (or The Nation), but Michael Parkin, TVNZ Q & A, tweeted an hour ago that Shearer had told him that he’s not the MP off to the Internet Party.

      https://twitter.com/Michael_Parkin

      Presumably this is related to Parkin’s tweet immediately below in the thread that KDC told him that Shearer is the MP whom he most admires as a ‘statesman’.

      Further down Parkin’s Twitter thread, Parkin also says that KDC told him that he had met 12 MPs.

    • Psycho Milt 14.2
      30 March 2014 at 7:00 pm

      I guess Shearer would be plausible, as long as we assume Shearer is so self-important and so stupid that he could picture himself hanging onto his seat if Labour stood a candidate against him, while at the same time being so humble and self-effacing that he’d reject the prospect of a cabinet position in a Labour government in favour of becoming a backbencher and spending the rest of his political career acting as mouthpiece for a rich megalomaniac.

      You’re making those assumptions, Phil?

      • phillip ure 14.2.1
        30 March 2014 at 9:28 pm

        i don’t see him necessarily contesting his seat..

        ..i see him as one of the few with the credibility to be able to walk away from his seat..(hence the heralded june date..and still be able to give labour enough time to select another candidate..)

        ..n.b..dotcom did not say the mp would be bringing his electorate seat with him..

        ..he just said it was an electorate mp..(meaning not some horan..or equal waste of space..)

        ..there is a difference..

        ..and shearer can muddle on as a rejected labour leader..having peaked..and a time-serving future ahead of him..
        .
        ..or he could lead a party that could be an agent of the change he wants..

        ..possibly holding a balance of power..

        ..in successive elections..

        ..i know which i wd prefer..

        ..and yes..i am making those assumptions..

        • millsy 14.2.1.1
          31 March 2014 at 11:07 pm

          I feel so sorry about Shearer who his likely to muddle along as Minister of Foreign Affairs using his contacts at the UN to provide a platform for NZ to punch above its weight in international affairs.

  15. Philj 15
    30 March 2014 at 11:33 am

    Xox
    Surely to goodness, just ask our head Spymaster, JK, who this partner for KDC is? Haha. This is all so funny and kind of pathetic.I like the seagull reference. Academics can be like that. Credit to Andrew Geddes for flying over us all.

  16. Ron 16
    30 March 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Great fun this guessing game. If I had to pick anyone as a bedmate for KDC I would pick Damien O’Connor who seems pretty unhappy with some Labour policies. One other possible choice could be John Tamihere yes I realise he is not an MP but he was. Would depend on how KDC actually stated message. Tamihere would do anything I imagine that one upped the Labour Party who did not select him for any seat.

  17. Tautoko Viper 17
    30 March 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Maggie Barry if Colin Craig is handed her electorate? I am joking, but whoever gets the nudge off the perch could be inclined to exact revenge.

  18. nadis 18
    31 March 2014 at 9:18 am

    Dot Com has no-one relevant. No politician with any brains will go and work for dotcom. The way the IP is structured means everyone asssociated with is a minion of Kim Dot Com. Can anyone seriously imagine with the integrity Shearer going to do the beck and call of Dot Com? The IP is bogus – it should be called the “Save Kim from extradition” party.

  19. Sean 19
    31 March 2014 at 11:29 pm

    Of course it will be a complete nonentity , an MP who defects generally is. I still think despite everything its a 2 horse race between Shane Jones and Brendan Horam……what a line up !

  20. The Pink Postman 20
    1 April 2014 at 3:32 pm

    Thousands of kids living in poverty ,The gap between rich and poor widening and the country’s assets being flogged off to rich capitalists, and all you lot can discuss is a statement by a very dubious business man.
    Come on Standard writers we have a very far Right government to get rid off if we are to return Aotearoa to the decent pleasant place it was a few years ago,