A Treasonous “Convention”
There is now clear evidence that TVNZ has entered the 2008 General Election campaign on the side of the National Party.
This is an extraordinary and unprecedented development in New Zealand politics. Never before has the largest and most influential public broadcaster aligned itself so openly behind a single political party.
It is, however, incontrovertible that Guyon Espiner, TVNZ’s Political Editor, commissioned the Colmar Brunton polling agency to ask the question: “Should the party that gets the most votes get to lead the government?”
As UNITEC communications lecturer, Peter Thompson, put it in a letter of protest to Anthony Flannery, TVNZ’s Head of News & Current Affairs:
“TVNZ’s commissioned poll concerning whether the public considers that the party that wins the most votes should get to lead the government entails a question framed in such a way that it is difficult to respond negatively without sounding unreasonable: The question is framed in a manner that fails to differentiate between a party with an outright majority and a party with the largest number of party votes which nevertheless remains in a minority position. Had the question been phrased ‘Do you think that a party with the largest number of party votes, but which the majority of NZ voters did not support should automatically get to lead the government?’ you would likely get a very different response in the poll. ”
But that was not the response Espiner was seeking. What he wanted was what he got - a thumping great endorsement of a proposition capable of conferring a spurious mandate on this election’s current front-runner, the National Party.
And this is no mere inference on my part, because Espiner went on to say this: “The latest ONE News Colmar Brunton poll suggests there will be a backlash if Labour comes a distant second to National but still forms a multi-party coalition.”
And that’s the kicker - proof positive that what we’re witnessing in Espiner’s item is not the reporting, but the creation of “news”. The Colmar Brunton question, and Espiner’s highly contentious interpretation of it, all point to the careful crafting of a political “reality” which will enable National to cry foul if, after the election, it finds itself unable to attract sufficient support on the floor of the House of Representatives to form a government.
John Key lost no time in seizing the opportunity TVNZ had given him - claiming that the party with the largest number of votes possessed a “moral mandate” to govern.
But as Philip Temple, long-time advocate of proportional representation, and an expert on the MMP system told Radio NZ, this is the thinking of someone still mired in the FPP mindset. As he points out, general elections are held to elect parliaments, not governments: we elect MPs - not prime-ministers.
This is Constitutional Law 101 - as confirmed by Elizabeth McLeay of Victoria University, and even by TVNZ’s own political scientist, Therese Arsneau - but the sanctity of our constitution is no impediment to the sort of people who are pouring everything into a National Party victory on 8 November.
Just how reckless these people have become is evidenced in an extraordinary posting on “The Hive” web-log. According to a ”Mr Anonymous”:
By far the most interesting result from last night’s Leaders Debate featuring the minor parties was the immediate visceral reaction of New Zealanders - 75% voted for ending MMP. This is not a scientific poll but should be regarded as a leading indicator of the darkening public mood. If you put this 75% figure together with the recent poll result that showed 80% of New Zealanders think the convention should be respected whereby the largest single party lead an MMP Government and you can see that the minnority Clark-led Hydra Govt will mark the beginning of the end of MMP.
Clark is technically right in saying that under MMP all that matters is a minority of one vote on supply and confidence and that her Hydra Govt, particularly if Maori make a critical strategic error and allow it to happen, can rule NZ. But on a deeper level, she is profoundly wrong.
Any constitutional arrangement depends not only on its precise technical terms, but on convention. If she flouts (or is allowed to flout by reckless third parties) the convention that the largest Party must lead an MMP Govt, she will bring MMP down with her. Yes - it is a young constitutional convention that 80% of kiwis believe in - but sso too is MMP is a young constitution. The Hydra Govt will tear MMP out of its shallow and young roots.All constitutional arrangments finally depend on legitimacy. The public decides legitimacy - not on the basis of fine academic arguments penned by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and left wing academics, but the realities of the political and economic market place. A Clark minority Hydra govt, going into a recession which may be deep, and with every Party having a say in running the country except the Party that most kiwis voted for would utterly destroy the legitimacy of MMP in the public mind.
Note carefully what is happening here. The anonymous author of this posting is attempting to paint the idea that the party with a simple plurality of the Party Vote has a moral right to govern the country. He calls it a “young constitutional convention”.
Of course, it is no such thing. This so-called “convention” was the 1993 creation of Jim Anderton (which means it predates MMP by three years).
Without the slightest constitutional justification, Anderton promised to give his support to the largest party in what was very close to being a hung Parliament - an absurd commitment which, but for the fact that the counting of special votes relieved him of the choice, would have placed him in the absurd position of having to persuade the left-wing Alliance to allow him to vote alongside the National Party of Ruth Richardson, Bill Birch and Jenny Shipley.
In 1996, Winston Peters threw in his lot with Jim Bolger after the electorate severely punished the two major left-wing parties - Labour and the Alliance - for their refusal to make common cause against the New Right. But his failure to make NZ First’s seats available to a left-leaning coalition government was, in turn, severely punished by the voters three years later.
It is worth noting that in both the 1999 and 2002 elections this “young convention” barely rated a mention, because the Centre-Left was so obviously politically dominant.
It was only the prospect of a desperately close electoral race in 2005 that prompted the Right to resurrect Anderton’s claim that, even if there is a clear majority of opposing parties on the floor of the House, a simple plurality of votes somehow confers upon a party the moral right to govern. Though they were both aware of its specious nature, the argument served as a convenient excuse for Peter Dunne and Winston Peters - absolving them of the duty to inform the electorate of their preferred coalition partners before voting commenced.
And so it is that we are again assailed with this utterly baseless claim that minor parties have no right to join with the second largest party in Parliament to build a working government majority. National’s supporters (among which we must now count TVNZ) are terrified at the prospect that the Maori Party might opt to back a Labour-led coalition, and are mobilising all their resources to try and frighten it into supporting a party that neither a majority of the Maori Party’s MPs, nor its members, nor the electors who gave it and the Labour Party their Electorate and/or Party Votes would want a bar of.
The only conventions that carry any constitutional weight are those which are enumerated in the Cabinet Manual - and the notion that a simple plurality constitutes a mandate to govern is not among them.
If media outlets sympathetic to National’s cause attempt to cast as illegitimate the formation of any coalition government which leaves National sitting on the Opposition Benches, they will be guilty of engaging in activity subversive not only of the New Zealand constitution, the rule of law, and our democratic Westminster heritage, but also of creating a political climate likely to result in the outbreak of serious - perhaps fatal - public disorder.
In short, they will be guilty of treason.
Related Posts
Tags: Guyon Espiner, Jim Bolger, MMP, Natiional Party, TVNZ, Winston Peters
October 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
What a load of hysterical tripe. Not up to your usual standard.
I could write a book on how TVNZ is in the tank for Labour. In fact I have. Go and have a look at No Minister.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I always would “mute” Guyon Espiner’s presentations because they were so left-leaning.
Perhaps he is finally starting to get a little more balanced, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Perhaps he was so excited tonight because he had the ’scoop’ on Winston.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
It is undeniable that all that matters is that the formation of an alliance that represents more than 50% of the seats in the House is all that matters.
However this contribution really is over the top.
There are just as many examples of behaviour that could much more clearly be seen as treason but which are excused. Tame Iti’s shooting of the nations flag for one.
In some countries you can be executed for that.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I have been saying over previous threads that the TV1 Colmar Brunton polling is questionable.
Haven’t questions been asked about their polling methods in the 1993 election.
Check it out.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Diane, how far right must you be to see Guyon as left leaning? I think the example Chris gives above is correctly identified as a very slanted attempt to manipulate public opinion in favour of the right.
I’m not sure about the treasonous claim, but it does seem to me to be highly undemocratic to frame a very significant political debate based on such a poorly designed poll. It was terribly slanted, as explained by the quote from Peter Thompson. There has been too much of unreliable polls by news media to make spurious news claims.
The use of phone in polls around the election debate is also very very dubious, and also can manipulate public opinion.
I could write a book about how slanted TV NZ news has been to the right over various issues eg the so-called “anti-smacking bill”. On TV this morning, a woman’s response to last night’s minority debate was that she was pleased that Turia and Fitzsimmons explained the law/issue. Well, duh!!! How come the media wasn’t able to convey their position before? Because the whole debate was slanted against the bill, in favour of the right, by the media, including TVNZ.
There was also some other research, reported in Nat Rad’s media watch by another academic. He kept a record of media coverage on calls for a tax cut, a while back. It clearly showed how much the right’s position was put on that.
I really do think it is time news media was held to account.
On the issue of a plurality of parties, I am glad there is some public debate on it in response to Guyon’s piece. I hope this means that it will get fair hearing in the manistream media, and not cintinue to be pre-judged in the way Guyon’s piece was.
Chris, how did you get hold of Peter Thompson’s protest letter? You don’t provide a link or reference for it?
October 28th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Mr. Spondre: Please feel free to put me on the banned list, but Chris hasn’t only jumped the shark but nuked it on the way past. While I found Mr. A. Nonymous’ arguments strained to say the least — and Guyon Espiner and I will never form a mutual admiration society — Chris should brush up on his law himself, especially the laws around defamation.
And I think someone who has compared critics of Winston Peters to gang rapists and lynching Klansmen, and has been known to issue dire warnings of race riots and civil unrest of the evil Tories ever win power, should send the moral high horse to the glue factory.
Craig, you will need to spend time hanging out with redbaiter,d4j and Dylan Robinson aka robinsod if you want to get banned
October 28th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I agree with rouppe that the formation of an alliance that is more than 50% is really what democracy is about. FPP had the convention that the party with the most votes wins. I would expect Labour with their anti MMP “Two ticks Labour” (everywhere) mentality to want this facet of FPP but I guess in this election it works against them. Still I guess if they drive the FPP convention from our electoral mindset this election then it’s gone. Good riddance to it.
However the formation of a workable and accountable alliance is what is needed to run the country. How it’s achieved is not really the issue, but it must be workable and accountable.
I think one of the signs of maturity in govt about MMP (perhaps all proportional representation systems) is the ability to announce a coalition is not working, plug an election date in and get over it. Labour failed that test this term, Labour should have called Winston at his “NO” debacle, gone into an early election on a platform of trustworthiness. But no. FPP mindset - Can’t eject us so piss off, it’s still my turn!
October 29th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Burt, don’t both the Nats & the MP ask their voters to give both their votes to them? Are you saying that th Nats suggest people vote for another party? Some of the smaller parties can’t expect success in both votes.
In fact, coalitions between parties that individually don’t have the most votes, can also happen under FPP. As Idiot/Savant points out, it did once happen in NZ:
http://www.norightturn.blogspot.com/
<blockquote.in the 1928 election, United (as the rump of the Liberals were calling themselves then) won 30,000 fewer votes (5% of the total) than Reform, but was able to form a government with the support of the Labour Party.
Actually, I think Labour has adjusted to MMP better than the Nats, in being more successful in managing coalitions. If National fails in this election, it will be because it has been operating on the assumption it would win an outright majority and didn’t need too many “friends” to work with.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Get a grip
If TVNZ was so right wing, then why was the second item on the 6PM news all about Gerry Brownlee having shares in Contact Energy Ltd ? This is despite much the entire country having received or bought a handful of shares in Contact Energy Ltd after the shares were offered to Mum and Dad investors.
Carol,
I agre that National is attempting to win an outright majority. However, I believe this is for different reasons to yours… if this strategy does succeed,
a) National only has to maintain internal party unity, and does not have to deal with people it can’t discipline (i.e. a workable government)
b) it does not have to negotiate away it’s policies, which, BTW, would have been supported by more people than those of the minority parties((i.e. an accountable government).
October 29th, 2008 at 6:59 am
BTW, Chris, did you know anyone who thought it might have been perfectly legal but “illegitimate” that under FPP National could win the Treasury benches, even though Labour got more votes? I guess that’s treason too.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:22 am
TVNZ does present some stories from a right and left perspective, but on balance it leans more to the right. Partly the bias has to do with how stories are framed, the language used, who is doing the reporting, the position in the bulletin, the the length of time that a partiular story is pursued. I don’t think TVNZ has quite the consistent, calculated bias that is evident in the Herald. Nor do I think Espiner’s story on MMP is equivalent to Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot, though I can see some superficial similarity in the anti-democratic tactics.
The tendency to bias on TVNZ is partly due to the many of the people responsible not being aware of their own biases IMO. It is also influenced by the commercial pressure for ratings, and the amount of time they have to put stories together. Some reporters lean more to the others than others, and Guyon, though attempting rather superficially to be objective and balanced, is more often blatant in his support of the Nats/right.
However, I notice that Brownlee story was not the main news. It has some dramatic audience-getting potential. But, I don’t think they’ll pursue it for any time, unlike the way they grab onto any whiff of wrong-doing by Peters and pursue it relentlessly. Also one way of dealing with such criticisms (if it looks like it has some potential to get public attention away from TVNZ thru other outlets), is to present the story, give the impression its been dealt with, allow the accused to issue a denial, then let it die very quickly.
But Guyon’s poll and subsequent story are way beyond the bounds of acceptability of political journalism especially at the time of an election campaign. The use of dubious, highly biased polling, and the stirring up of public opinion in such a way undermines democracy. It is not done as a one-off story that is intended to die quickly, but as the framing of the debate in a particular way so as to affect the long-term outcome.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Finally one for the RIGHT! I’m loving it
October 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Carol:
If you’re really that pissed off, why don’t you and Chris and Peter Thompson follow the statutory complaints process detailed on the Broadcasting Standards Authority website? Or is the BSA a tool of the vast right-wing media conspiracy too?
I’m sincerely sorry to say this, but Chris’ utterly hysterical and despicable rant just proves to me that that left-wingnuts are just as contemptible as their rabid right soul brothers. It sure seems to me that folks like you and Chris are “crafting [...] a political ‘reality’ ” of your own. If the Government does (shock horror!) change in a couple of weeks, then the new narrative frame on the left-blogosphere will be that any National-lead government is illegitimate because the VRWMC “stole” the election.
Treason!
October 29th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Sorry Chris - you are really way off the mark here.
In any organisation the largest block - even though it isnt a majority - has the largest lump of ‘power’ and the largest lump of influence. Look at boards of directors, school boards of trustees, charitable trust governing boards, etc, etc.
There is a moral arguement as well in favour of the largest block - it has after all the largest block of support.
It is also paramountly obvious that a group of small parties - who have different support platforms - do not have a uniform support basis. They have come together for convenience only - but they retain their individual and small support platforms. If formed they are a majority of votes, but they are not a majority of agreed programmes. If they were then they would be one group from the start.
Putting all that aside Chris, you know as well as anyone how influencial a large group is - even though its not a total majority, and I think you know it has the moral right to grab power.
Maybe thats the real reason behind your outburst - your fear that the largest group just might get hold of the reins of power. Its called democracy Chris.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I can only assume that Chris has decided to put a stick in the beehive (metaphorically) and shake it about. I like to think that is what Matthew does also. The alternative is to believe that both men sincerely believe every word they write, rather than finding a method to get their underlying message through?
I recall a meeting over a decade ago with a high ranking woman in organised sport in Canada. She said the shaved head radical lesbian fringe was a useful tool for her in her advocacy for more funding for women and girls sport.
They might chain themselves to the meeting table screaming and pontificating. She would then seem conservative by comparrison. She would get funding for what. without that element, would be seen as itself radical.
I really hope that Matthew and Chris essentially cast themselves in the radical table thumping lesbian category, or devils advocate. Any other option is worthy of a medical assessment.
Remember that when we were being asked if we wanted MMP we were also told we would get more MPs if we voted for it. I believe that both Labour and National, who didnt like power sharing, thought our dislike for politicians would send us reeling at the thought of more of them, so we would vote it down. We didn’t.
The battle to axe MMP was always going to gain traction the longer National was out of Power in my opinion. No one likes to be in Opposition, especially with a long history of being in power. Better to blame MMP, try to get it changed, than to adapt to the new system and change. Helen Clark, to her credit, despite being openly against MMP has adapted, as Carol says, quicker/better (?) than the Nats.
For a party that espouses a brighter future and change, the nat dislike of MMP and their solution, to go back to FPP belies their quest for change.
I am SICK of the media whatever leaning they have, treating us, the electorate as though we are idiots. Assuming that their world view is accurate and they know what “we” want. Imo the political media have spent so much time with politicians and their PR/sppin doctors THAT is the world they believe is real for all of us.
It’s not, it is narrow, closeted and largely manipulative and small minded. On that at least they share something in common.
Referendums are fine BUT the question must be reframed by Parliament.
I recall some referendum asking us about tougher crimes or victims. My memory is hazy but the way the question was framed rather predisposed a 90% “in favour” response.
If people were asked “Should it be legal to assault a child?” I wonder if 85% would say “YES!”
Yes Minister has a GREAT scene with Bernard and Humphrey, with Humphrey explaining surveys.
As legitimate as the methodology may be, it all boils down to the framing of the question.
I repeat my plea: Eliminate all polls from publication from 2 months out from an election or the date of announcement. Polls are a lazy way for journalists to “report” on election issues” and an easy way for politicians and their strategists to manipulate us.
end rant
October 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Barry
I disagree with your analogy in sofaras;
A board of directors, a charitable Trust works exactly as MMP does. You have to gain a certain number of votes, get across a certain line/threshold to get “your” decision through. That threshold is written down and known, either in the Companies Act, a constitution or a Deed.
MMP, by definition determines that the single party or group/s of parties which can form the largest block to get over a particular threshold, form a Government.
In many boardrooms 51% is needed to pass a resolution, in some cases a higher percentage, on special issues. IF a single shareholder has 51% game over. Otherwise the collaboration of “blocks” is the same as under MMP.
If Origin Energy holds, say 41% of votes, in order to get its Directors a fee rise they MUST find an extra 10% from somewhere. Equally if ALL the remaining 59% vote together and again, the motion fails.
That is my understanding. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant?
If I vote electorate Labour, and Pty vote Green, am I not mandating both?
If I voted Hide in Epsom and National as my party vote, am I not mandating both, morally or otherwise?? Therefore my moral choice is vindicated by them joining together and some compromise each way? I think it is treating the electorate as vacuuous to think they dont expect national’s policies will dominate with some ACT influence.
There is also no proof, despite the fear mongering, that coaltions mean the minor party gets EVERYTHING THEY WANT.
That simply has not been borne out by the reality of MMP here in NZ so far.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I don’t disagree with you Tracey, but you want to know something? I genuinely respect a free press, even when it insults my intelligence with monotonous regularity. My choice, of course, as a free citizen is to choose not to partake. My partner and I are going to let the Herald subscription lapse when it expires in a couple of months, and come six o’clock we’re more likely than not to leave the radio on than turn on the TV.
I just don’t want politicians regulating political discourse during election campaigns, because I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. When you start down that road, are you really sure it’s not going to end up somewhere rather unpleasant. The best way to avoid abuses of power is to make damn sure politicians never get it in the first place.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Craig: but Chris’ utterly hysterical and despicable rant just proves to me that that left-wingnuts are just as contemptible as their rabid right soul brothers.
heh heh….oh yes, Craig, Chris’s writing is exactly on a par with that of your wee cobbers at kiwiblog - keep pushing that line, reinforces your credibility no end…..
and barry: you know as well as anyone how influencial a large group is - even though its not a total majority, and I think you know it has the moral right to grab power.
Good summation of tory “morality” there bazza - might is right. Ye gods. Towards a brighter stone age.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Hmmmm. I hadn’t thought of the BSA approach. I’m considering it. I have no particular views on them before today. I had a look at their website. It looks to me like they try to be objective and follow set regulations. Partly decisions seem to be reliant on the views of the panel who make the judgement. I notice there’s one decision where a complaint is not upheld, but a minority view by Tapu Misa disagrees with the majority decision.
My one concern is that the complaints are considered with respect to one programme in isolation, so any cumulative effect of a particular perspective across a range of programmes is not considered.
Complaints should be lodged within 20 days of broadcast & should state the name of the programme, the station it was on, and the time and date you saw or heard it. So I would need to be clear on such details & need to give exact details from the programme. But, on first view, the Espiner report on Monday night, may have violated sone of the following standards.
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/codesstandards-freetv.php
Standard 6 Fairness, looks to be more related to treatment of individuals rather than political issues.
I am thinking the Colmar Brunton poll could be challenged on reliability and objectivity, along the lines of Peter Thompson’s criticism of the question Espiner framed.
I think it would take a separate complaint to challenge the use of phone-in polls as after the leaders’ debate on Monday night. Hmmm. Which programme was that reported in? I didn’t watch it, so can’t really make a complaint about it. But I would like to see how the BSA deals with such a complaint. If upheld, it would set a precedent not to use such polls in relation to election information.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I have thought for months now that the real issue of this election is the future of democracy, and the need for the left to keep National out of power so the Nats can’t dismantle proportional representation. With the right now having almost total control of the media, the battle to keep proportional representation is going to be an epic struggle. I expect the Nats will look very moderate until MMP is gone. After the stupid, ignorant turkeys of New Zealand have voted themselves an early Christmas and given away democracy New Zealand will rapidly return to the hell-hole conditions of the 1990’s. People will regret it but it will be too *%@# late by then.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
*sigh* Don’t you have a bridge you’re supposed to hiding under? Try seriously engaging with what I’ve said, and you will get a serious response. And as for my alleged “cobbers”, I’m quite happy to be on all the best shit-lists in that quarter. Including the time I suggested to various rabid righties three years back that they needed to chill the fuck out and just accept the results of a free and fair election.
Back on this planet, treason isn’t a word I throw around lightly. Perhaps Mr Trotter should try doing the same.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am
There is something quite frightening about the mindset of people who think that being in control of the largest single group, in a neighbourhood made up of a multiplicity of groups, gives them the right to say and do as they please.
What it betrays, I think, is just how superficial the veneer of civilised behaviour has become in relation to who should - and who should not - wield political power.
The FPP system served the interests of the Right extremely well for many, many years in New Zealand. (Ever since 1954, in fact, when the participation of the Social Credit Political League in national elections, allowed the National Party to govern from a minority position for most of the next thirty years.) MMP, on the other hand, has empowered the hitherto disadvantaged and marginalised parties of the Centre and the Left.
In 2008, after nine years of MMP-assisted Centre-Left rule, the patience of the Right is just about exhausted. That is why we are hearing these cries for the party winning a simple plurality of the Party Vote to be given the Treasury Benches.
Never mind that such a call flies in the face of all hitherto accepted constitutional norms. Never mind that it is a demand that every vote cast for Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party, NZ First and the Progressives be discounted. National, with unprecedented help from a nakedly partisan news media, has muscled its way to the front of the public opinion polls - and that is enough.
Democracy is a very fragile thing, and the only way we can hope to keep using the ballot - rather than the bullet - to decide who holds political power in New Zealand is if we all agree upon the rules of the game.
TVNZ and other media outlets appear to be trying to re-write the rules of the game in the middle of an election campaign. Given the intense feelings aroused by general elections, this is not only an exceedingly undemocratic project, but also an extremely dangerous one.
If right-wing media figures (inspired by the actions of the right-wing media in Venezuela perhaps?) are foolish enough to try and shout down the outcome of the election (i.e. if Labour is able to build a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives) and the various contributors to a popular victory are forced to defend their Centre-Left government on the streets, then those reactionaries would be extremely foolish to think that they will be able to walk away from their actions unscathed.
Freedom of the Press does not extend to formenting sedition and treason, nor to incitement to riot. If that is the game the Right decides to play in the days and weeks ahead - there will be a reckoning.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Chris Trotter
And when we can’t keep to the rules of the game we simply retrospectively validate our actions, say the ref made a bad call and tell all the outraged spectators to move on. If it’s in the best interest of a Labour-led govt it’s OK.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
What a load of pap.
And when on the next day there is what is perceived as a “pro-left” piece in the media or on the news I’ll await to see all those including Chris flip flop on their opinion.
And Chris your last comment above -
“Freedom of the Press does not extend to formenting sedition and treason, nor to incitement to riot. If that is the game the Right decides to play in the days and weeks ahead - there will be a reckoning.”
- is I’m sure designed to incite debate and is not your real opinion - however it is still so far from reality in NZ as to be laughable.
As an aside the solution to the conundrum would be rather effectively handled by changing MMP to a system whereby a second choice party also got taken into account - I have my suspicions that of the 85% or so of voters that will vote for either National or Labour that their second choice would be Labour or National in preference to most of the other options……… hmm now that would be an interesting question for one of the polling companies to ask.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Certainly not, Chris, and you’re had to set up a straw man to knock down because nobody here has been arguing otherwise. But in what rational universe does criticising the Government of the day (or how it was, or even might be, assembled) constitute sedition, treason or incitement to riot?
As I said up-thread (and which you’ve failed to answer, BTW) I knew plenty of MMP advocates who criticised in the strongest terms — even hyperbolic and rather intemperate language — the state of affairs under FPP where National could lose the popular vote but still hold the Treasury benches. You could argue they were wrong, but treasonous? Get real.
To be honest, I think the only danger here is the dangerously low oxygen level in the hermetically sealed bubble of self-importance various sections of the commentariat live in. Go for a nice long walk and talk to a few people who don’t see October 8 as the final battle between Good and Evil.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Carol wrote: “Diane, how far right must you be to see Guyon as left leaning? I think the example Chris gives above is correctly identified as a very slanted attempt to manipulate public opinion in favour of the right.”
Interesting.
What my brief message should have conveyed is - Guyon seems to ‘relish’ the negative activities of National and Winston, but seems to report only the positive about Labour and the Left parties. Now that is my observation, if that’s OK with you.
I happen to believe that no party has all the answers and no party has none of the answers to any issue.
My hope for MMP had been that the major groupings would manage the country with regard to the economy, infrastructure etc and the whole parliament would have it’s voice listened to with regard to social engineering, with a conscience vote on all issues that affected the personal freedoms of the individual and family.
In essence what seems to have happened is that FFP still applies, because once a block of parties is set up the largest party in the group acts like they’ve got the mandate over the whole country and the minor parties are expected to toe the line.
I would have loved to see some good ‘crossing the floor’ on a lot of the bills passed this last Parliamentary session.
The adversarial system still seems well and truly entrenched, where to acknowledge another party has a good idea,[and heaven forbid actually support it] is seen as being a ‘traitor’ to the ’cause’.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I think this report/rant over TVNZ is a little OTT, however I do agree that the wording of the question was poor to say the least and clearly has been used to further an agenda of part of the population that wants its party to Govern as the biggest single minority as opposed to the majority. People should understand that with MMP parties in a way dont matter what matters is policy and direction, so a group of parties getting together with a common direction and forming a majority is far more democratic, but then its a sad fact that many dont seem to care about democracy, only getting their way no matter what the cost.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am
It is interesting, to me, to note that there seems to be one thing those on the left and right and in between can agree;
Demmocracy is in danger
Sadly the ones wh DO care are not in politics, media or PR. Our world as I said above is being determined by those in those three groups who think their reality IS reality.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I don’t believe it for a bit Chris… but if it was true… I’d say DIDDUMS and mean every bit of it.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Dousing yourself in kerosene then deciding you really need a smoke will not have a happy ending?
Someone should think about the children and ban dihydrogen monoxide, now?
Something else?
October 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Chris, I agree with some of your thrust, disagree with some, and I think your style and hyperbole do a disservice.
I agree that this was a stupid poll question, poorly worded and poorly thought through. And that those who bleat on about the largest party being able to form a government don’t really understand the concept of a representative democracy. My view is that if:
- 75% of the people said the largest party should form a government, and
- we get into a situation where some other party(s) form a government, then
- logically at least 26% of those people who thought the largest party should form a government, will now have the party they voted for in government
- I very much doubt that those 26% of people will be complaining
As for your hyperbole - the fact that our media are shallow and put up questions or information that are, frankly, silly, isn’t news. It doesn’t make this a right wing conspiracy (vast or otherwise). There are plenty of times that I have been yelling at the TV for some piece of stupid or shallow reporting that disadvantaged right wing parties. But this is all rub of the green stuff - the media are pretty lightweight in general, that impacts all parties. If you don’t present your policies and perspective in a way that the media can pick up, then you’ll get nowhere. And occasionally the media do stupid things like this. It isn’t TVNZ coming out in favour of National (or, for that matter, nor are the Herald supporting National), it is just a bad piece of reporting.
And, finally, your suggestion that somehow, expressing the opinion (silly though I think that opinion is) that the largest party should get a chance to form a government is tantemount to threatening rioting in the streets - that seems to be overstating it a bit. Or, as Craig would say, a strawman. Or jumping the shark, as others say.
I wonder whether toning back the rhetoric, and sticking to the basics of the matter, would help you in getting your message across to people other than the loyal troops. Or, perhaps, are your columns designed to rally the troops, rather than to bring in new voters?
October 29th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Chris
Over on my blog, you can see the description of the relevant constitutional conventions expressed by the public actor responsible for supervising the government formation process, namely the Governor-General:
LAWS179: “The ‘right’ to form government”
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2008/10/right-to-form-government.html
There are some conventions that are authoritative that are not contained in the Manual. But clearly the one being spoken up elsewhere on the blogs and media is not one of them.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Dean:
Perhaps you could do a ‘Treason, Sedition and Incitement for Dummies” post for out host’s benefit?
October 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
For all our benefit I’d suggest.
I’ve long ago given up on the media to do more than entertain and/or enrage. There used to be a time where the media actually sought expert opinion and I’d've thought Dean was clearly establishing himself as ideal academic-talent.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Poor ole Chris is having a tantie Obviously been privy to the socialists internal polling the one that says its all over rover good night nurse dont come Monday.
The old style pollsters really stuff up the results especially when they call landlines in Sth Auckland on week days
the real Nat/socilaist gap is 20 points plus but dont tell anyone
October 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Craig, I am finding myself enjoying your postinmg more and more. My partner can’t wait for the election to be over…
October 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
If I can be a source of harmless merriment to a complete stranger without taking my pants off in a public place, my work is done.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Tracey - theory and practice are often so far apart. You will have heard no doubt a common comment on cross cultural associations - a marriage is the common subject here. It is commonly stated that one often gets the WORST of both cultures coming to the syrface when the pressure comes on. And thats the problem with - as Key called it - the five headed monster. Those five parties have a lot in common, but its what keeps them apart that is the worrying bit, and thats the ‘Worst of both cultures” part.
When a political deal needs to be done for, say Labour to get Greens support, then we get the greens insisting on one of their way-out ideas that they want imposed (I say impossed because at most only a very few people in society want that ‘thing’. eg: repeal of section 59 or the insualtion grant - which has had nil uptake, etc) in return for supporting one of labours ideas that the greens dont really want either, but in order to get one, the other comes with it. The result is that we get a Labour law - which was supported by say 35% of the population, and some Green law, that was supported by 7% of the population. Neither are in anyway majority supported ‘changes’.
One would have to say that something that comes from a 45% support base has more moral suppport and moral status than a 35% or a 7% suppport base.
The idea that a coaliton has removed all their different original ideas and have replaced them with a fully agreed set of ideas is totally wrong. The coalition remains a group with different ideas that have their respectively small support base.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hitler had about 85% support, was it by your definition moral? And no I am not comparing any NZ party leader to Hitler. Making a point about how subjective “moral” is.
You do not favour compromise Barry? In real life compromise goes a long way to resolving disputes and ensuring more people take a positive view toward working together and moving forward. I know it must sound awful to some folks.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The old dilemma of drawing attention to issues has been both articulated here and actively demonstrated: between hyperbole that angers, and presenting your case in a manner that will encourage agreement. Often I’m torn on the relative values of these, as I can see a case for both (though I’m not keen on conflict myself, and just try to state what I think - amongst the views of many others).
But both strategies seem to have been in operation here. The initial post has attracted a bit of attention, a variety of views have been aired, and Dean Knight dropped in to give us the benefit of his very useful knowledge and understanding.
IMO, whether people think the mainstream news has a left or right bias, or is just too superficial, I think democracy would benefit if said media raised it’s game a bit. Though, I’m a bit uncertain how much influence the MSM and it’s strange polls will have on the outcome of the election. I do think the media have slanted public opinion to the right on a couple of crucial issues over the last couple of years.
I am hoping more people will give up on the MSM and turn to more critical and substantial alternatives away from primetime and the popular media news, though it . OTOH, it’s not so much the bias in news coverage that’s the problem, but the focus on making it entertaining, means many people don’t look at the news critically. The problems that go with making news media entertaining, can lead to a support of some authoritarian agendas (eg Walter Benjamin’s notion of the aestheticisation of politics and its role in facism).
But, at least online various positions are aired, often with people engaging critically - tho not always.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Actually, on the repeal of section 59, Turia said the MP supported it, and Labour supported it, and so did some Nats. that was one issue that I have felt the MSM, strongly influenced many people against.
The Greens generally get a bad press everywhere, but their support seems to be rising.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“There is something quite frightening about the mindset of people who think that being in control of the largest single group, in a neighbourhood made up of a multiplicity of groups, gives them the right to say and do as they please”
Chris - where do you get the idea that anyone thinks that the largest group can “do as it pleases”.
If its greater than 50%, then thats absolutely right, but if its under 50% then its the largest group with the largest lump of moral persuasion, and the closer they are to 50% the more likely it is that they will get what they want - but only if the other 50+% work together.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Well Tracey - thats how democracy works. And the Germans paid for it - in many cases with their lives.
But Hitlers Germany didnt have democracy as we know it. All votes were traceable - and they were traced - and that formed the base load of the first concentration camps. Then they started on those that didnt vote……….
One could just as well say that Mugabe has 99.999999% support in Zimbabwe. Id vote for him too if I knew that if I didnt: They’d beat the crap out of me, beat up the rest of the family, charge me with treason and probably shot me if the weather was bad.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Democracy takes a few different forms barry, MMP is one. FPP is another.
Your Mugabe example is a good example of “morality” being subjective.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
My sincere thanks to Dean Knight from the VUW Law School for making crystal clear the constitutional position on this matter.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Attribute not to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Unfortunately, Mr Belt, some of the world’s most malicious people are also among its stupidest - just think of George W. Bush.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I can’t vote for people who can’t count. Apparently national supporters think that getting 45% of the vote should allow to hold sway over the 55% who didn’t vote for them.
That about 80% of Kiwis don’t know much about a lot is borne out in poll after poll…..and TVNZ (under every past government and the present one) is one of the guilty of presiding over the dumbing down of the public.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Steve
The real agenda of National is try and get rid of MMP. That is No 1 above everything else.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
It’s very strange that both this Unitec idiot and the Greens make the same meanlingless claim “Do you think that a party with the largest number of party votes, but which the majority of NZ voters did not support should automatically get to lead the government?’”
What a load of rubbish, they are both implying that no party should form a government unless they get over 50% of the votes.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Steve Withers,
“Apparently national supporters think that getting 45% of the vote should allow to hold sway over the 55% who didn’t vote for them.”
Can someone explain to ne today why all the lefties are going around claiming that 55% who didn’t vote for National, voted against National?
When you go to the ballot box to cast your vote, you vote FOR a party/candidate. You do not vote AGAINST a party/candidate.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“The question is framed in a manner that fails to differentiate between a party with an outright majority and a party with the largest number of party votes which nevertheless remains in a minority position.”
More nonsense. Under MMP this scenario is not possible. The party which has an outright majority IS the party with the largest number of party votes.
Either that or this is an attempt to whitewash the undemocratic electoral overhang.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
And Labour’s real agenda is to try and force us all to be Marxist-Lesbianists. That is No. 1 above all else… God, this is fun.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Thank goodness for Swampy & Craig on this blog!
Deleted, Bryan Spondre
October 30th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Swampy
You mean everyone who votes for Bridges is not voting to get rid of Winston??
October 30th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Folks - For those that did not manage to make it over to my blog to read the GG’s description of the government formation conventions, the point was that Chris T was entirely correct in debunking the purported convention of the largest party having the right to govern. (I was quibbling only with Chris’ statement that conventions don’t exist outside the Cabinet Manual, not his commentary on the particular non-existant convention.)
October 30th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Dean:
I’ll ask again, would a media outlet criticising the formation of the government consitute treason, sedition (RIP) or incitement to riot in any reality-based sense?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am
No Craig, imo, it wouldn’t but imagine how rabid you would be on this topic if the accusation were agaisnt Nats, Act or Key.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Tracey:
Que? I doubt Chris would welcome it, but I’d be saying the same thing if this nonsense was under Matthrew’s by-line and directed at him. There is a sober and rational critique of that One News story — I know so, because others have made it.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“Apparently national supporters think that getting 45% of the vote should allow to hold sway over the 55% who didn’t vote for them.”
Can someone explain to ne today why all the lefties are going around claiming that 55% who didn’t vote for National, voted against National?
Hi Swampy
I will try my best to explain it–you could say that a vote for the Greens is a vote against National because the Greens have declared they would not work with National
Likewise a vote for New Zealand First is a vote against National because National have declared they would not work with New Zealand First.
The Maori Party is a bit harder because they may hold the balance of power they have the right to go with Labour –they equally have the right the go with National –only they and their voters can decide–not you or me or TV One
It will be tough either way for the losing side.
You need to view MMP as blocks of votes –dont get stuck in a FPP mindset
October 30th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Craig R:
Probably not I would guess. However, it’s clear, I think, that Chris was using those terms as hyperbole?
October 30th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Further to my post above -id say it again –the TV One Colmar Brunton polls are laughable
October 31st, 2008 at 8:51 am
I did get it, Dean, but I assume as a legal scholar “treason”, “sedition” and “incitement” actually mean something to you. Like “gang rape” and “lynching” — some other terms Chris is quite fond of throwing around for hyperbolic effect.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:53 am
The one thing that seems to be forgotten in the FPP and MMP rhetoric bouncing back and forth here and elsewhere is that under MMP, people, remember them?, no matter what party dominates their electorate feel that their vote (party) COUNTS. It matters, they dont feel disenfranchised by default as many do when they live in an electorate with an MP with a majority of 15,000 for a party they don’t want. That breeds apathy and a sense of “who cares” in our electoral system.
Democracy is, afterall, about the people, isn’t it?
October 31st, 2008 at 9:01 am
Craig: Yes they do. But when they’re obviously packaged as hyperbole, I can live with that. But, unlike on the other channel, when they’re not obviously hyperbolic and used in a which creates confusion about the legality, I have taken issue with them.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am
oops: read “like” for “unlike”.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Struggling Lower-Class Still Unsure How Best To Fuck Selves With Vote
October 30, 2008 | Issue 44•44
WASHINGTON—As election day nears, millions of the nation’s poorest voters have reportedly yet to settle on the most profound and enduring way to completely fuck themselves over when they head to the polls this year.
“On the one hand, I’m pretty sure Barack Obama will undermine my best interests by maintaining the same centrist, pro-corporate policies of previous Democratic administrations,” said Jim Estey, 34, a recently laid-off assembly-line worker. “Conversely, I agree with McCain and Palin on abortion, which might just balance out the fact that they’ll further marginalize people like me by supporting deregulation and slashing social programs. So it’s pretty much a toss-up at this point.”
Though such behavior appears to directly undermine their own well-being, lower-income voters have historically supported candidates determined to screw them six ways to Sunday, including Bill Clinton, who incarcerated them in record numbers and cut the welfare benefits many depended on for day-to-day sustenance, and George W. Bush, who widened the gap between them and the rich and sent thousands of them to die in Iraq. This year’s election is reportedly unique in that the nation’s poor must not only weigh how deeply and painfully their chosen candidate will penetrate their rectums, but must also consider unforeseen outside circumstances—such as economic collapse and terrorism—that might allow the next president to bend them over and brutally rape them in ways they never thought possible.
The latest polls indicate that a majority of lower-class citizens might choose not to vote at all Nov. 4, preferring instead to leave the details of how they get fucked to the moneyed classes
October 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Tracey, so much stirling work here from you over the last couple of days!
I agree with you on MMP vs FPP. I think it’s possible that MMP is closer to what elections were initially meant to be like. When I looked back at Idiot/Savant’s on a 1928 NZ election and followed his links to wikipedia on it, it seemed to me, back then, there were a majority of parties people chose from. At least 3 had around 30%, and they were the highest ranking parties. The 2nd & 3rd ranked parties formed a post-election coalition to govern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election_1928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Party_(New_Zealand)
It seems likely to me that this range of choices resulted in coalitions that led to the National and Labour parties we have today. This was probably to make it more likely for one or the other to get the biggest number of votes & seats. But to do this, they’ve had to keep the negotiations of any differences within a party mostly behind closed doors. It makes the party hierarchy fairly authoritarian.
With MMP, we have the Nats still with this kind of structure. And we keep hearing rumours of disagreements between factions within the party, possible leading to the Hollow Men leaks.
With the way the left is split into different parties, the public gets to hear the disagreements amongst left parties. Then we get to have a say about which views we prefer via our party vote.
My preference is for an LPGM coalition/agreements, through which Labour and the left can be refresh itself. I would much prefer Clark as PM and leading this coalition, than have Key as PM, and probably negotiating with ACT. I will split my vote again this election, giving my electorate vote to the Labour candidate as being the best left candidate on offer. I will give my party vote to a smaller party that is closer to many of my policy positions than Labour.
More preferable situation for me than any FPP option.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Hey Craig
Are you a binary-hologram from the past?
When National were in power in 1990-1993 thy were a ghastly government that persecuted the less well off. Under MMP is no way that they will be able to be in that position of power again. Sorry bro -tough luck
Craig Ranapia Says:
And Labour’s real agenda is to try and force us all to be Marxist-Lesbianists. That is No. 1 above all else… God, this is fun.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Brian Tregaskin:
No, but you seem to be a witless drone who should take your crystal ball to that work scheme for fake psychics — Sensing Murder. I intend to hold fire on my predictions about the next Government until the results are in from the one poll that’s worth the paper its printed on. It will be held in seven days, in case you were wondering.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:56 am
Craig Ranapia
You are correct here…. I intend to hold fire on my predictions about the next Government until the results are in from the one poll that’s worth the paper its printed on.
At least you are not fooled by the TV One Colmar Brunton polls which are laughable
November 1st, 2008 at 8:07 am
Carol
It seems likely to me that this range of choices resulted in coalitions that led to the National and Labour parties we have today. This was probably to make it more likely for one or the other to get the biggest number of votes & seats. But to do this, they’ve had to keep the negotiations of any differences within a party mostly behind closed doors. It makes the party hierarchy fairly authoritarian.
I see the demoratic and political process as pretty organic and give alot of credence to your analysis above as a result. There are those who find change an anaethma and tend to be in favour of change only when it means changing a leader of one or other party rather than real organic change. I see nothing of change in National or its policies, if they are to be believed they almost get my vote because they are morphing into what Labour used to be. Sadly for them I have moved on and never wanted the Labour of the 1970s anyway.
I wish National could have lived up to its apparently positive bilboards “a brighter future” but that seemed to be the beginning and end of anything bright.
“Who don’t you want??” would have been the most honest billboard or media by-line this election
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
My god, the righties are at their usual worst on this one.
As someone who often fervently disagrees with Chris, I think he’s on the money here. Let me explain why:
The rule of law has always been that the party or coalition consisting of the majority of parliament informs the governor general that they are forming the Government. This is in our constitution and it is explicit. To change it would require 75% of parliamentary votes, and in practice, that’s not going to happen without the mandate of a referendum on the issue.
What TVNZ has done is framed a question in such a way that it makes you sound undemocratic to disagree with it. In short, the question is loaded: By saying “with the most votes”, they are trying to play to democratic sympathies of the electorate. The problem is that the party with the most votes is not the same thing as the government that has the support of the parties who collectively received the majority of votes. If National were to have a mandate to govern with a mere plurality, (ie. less than a majority, but more than any other party) then the appropriate question would be: “Does the party with the most votes have a moral right to be government, even without the support of the majority?” This question is neutral because it mentions both upside and downside of the decision. In fact, the question may even favour National supporters this election because it places the upside first, but I would count it as fair enough that I think a telephone poll asking that question could be worth a minor mention in the news.
But beyond EVEN the blatant attempt to manipulate poll results- this question seeks to challenge our constitution during an election campaign. While I am all for constitutional reform, (I am a republican after all…) an election campaign is the one time that we should not be trying to initiate it.
Why? Because you cannot change the rules while the game is being played. Yes, the refs can make bad calls- this is essentially what happens when a party joins a coalition their voters didn’t want them to- but actually making the rules up as you go along is the sort of thing we should leave to toddlers, don’t you think? The country is too important to gamble on that kind of sophistry.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The TV One Colmar Brunton polls are laughable and are are essentially rule of thumb fudge factors.
The big problem is “likely voter” models .
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I am looking forward to the day that Labour has say 38% of the vote and National with say 42% of the vote. National claims victory with the most votes. John eyes Winston and says ” Winston my friend. You have 10% of the vote. Now I command you to be on my side to get me over into the majority. We will be the Govmint!”
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Ianmac
Just what is it about “No” you dont understand?
Admittedly watch Helen flip flop (Entrenching Maori seats anyone) and Winston (NO- cheques, just cash) it is understandable
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
One more point on MMP.
FPP type results are still possible within MMP. MMP type results are NOT as possible within a FPP system.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Entrenchment is a red herring, any party can agree to entrench, get it passed and then have a referedum asking the people. Then when/if the people dont want Maori seats at all the entrenchment is superfluous.
It’s ridiculous to think that even privately the LP hasnt considered this concession before now. With a large Maori vote in the LP box they are much more likely to be open to it than Nat.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Bye bye Helen
The great Michael Jones and Inga come out in support of Key and National as offering a better future for their children and she makes a back hand comment about them acting like Uncle Toms - she can be the most bilious bat possible at times !
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Time to hang up the hat Chris…all over bar the shouting for HC.
Oh and I’ll repeat from earlier posts I made, mark my words that the Maori Party WILL be part of the National/ACT/United coalition after crushing victory by National!
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Hey Dire Straits
Don’t count your chickens……
Hey Helenistoast
Michael Jones has been on fringes of National for a few years now-nothing new yawn
New Mercury rev -The Strange Attractor full-length album includes eleven FREE tracks. That’s right, this album is absolutely FREE to download right now for anyone who chooses to do so.
http://www.mercuryrev.com/
November 4th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Always liked to see Inga and Jones play rugby - brilliant players. But I don’t agree with their politics. The impression I’m left with, after hearing their reasons for suporrting key/National, is that, if you dom’t support LGBT rights, then Key’s your man, and National is your party.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:51 am
interview with John Key here about the other National Party members
http://www.95bfm.com/assets/sm/189395/3/jklm.mp3
November 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Michael Jones and Inga are lovely boys. Great rugby players. They are also anti smacking and anti prostitution, both of which will remain unchanged under National. I wonder if they can name the National MP of pacific island origin who will be sitting around a National Cabinet table? Or the maori or women Nat Mps who will be doing the same?
National opposed 8 rises to the minimum wage in the last 9 years. In otherwords, had they been government they woud have kept the mw at $7 ph. What would that have meant to Inga and Michael’s factory workers??
Key and his donors NEED PI folks in factories on low wage and low skilled jobs. That is HOW Capitalism works. This is beginning to sound like the fatally flawed “american dream” myth. Our system of enrichment is a triangle, it NEEDS the low paid and low skilled at the bottom to make it work. Otherwise we call it a line.
November 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Very good points, Tracey.
Interesting item on Nat Rad this morning about how the Pasifika vote has tended to Labour while most of the people have been within the lower paid sections of society. They reckoned that as some Pasifika people become upwardly mobile and earn bigger incomes, the votes will be more diverse, amongst different parties, like a lot of other groups in NZ.
Also don’t forget that Labour had the support of King Kapisi and Oscar Kightley at their launch.
November 4th, 2008 at 8:44 am
My belief is more of the vote will drift to the so-called “christian” or “faith” parties. INteresting that one reason Jones turned down a plumb list seat with the Nats is because he doesnt see parliament as the best way to change things.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Idiots like Espiner are, as per usual, missing the point and inventing the news.
The beauty of MMP is it has disolved the ‘you must choose Labour or National’ unfairness.
MMP is about left and right values, in the current Government the common left values outweigh the right therefore they have the mandate to govern, thats democratic.
Its undemocratic to suggest that because it has the lions share of the party vote the National Party should govern when those with common left values make up the majority. Everyone is entitled to a voice and shouldnt have to fit either National or Labour beliefs.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I think its going to be an interesting day on Saturday!
November 5th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Mighty celebrations ahead for sure Brian! Make sure to have plenty of anti-acid on hand
I’m all for reducing and then capping the min wage to $10 per hour…people get enough Govt hand-outs, without needing more for booze, drugs and lotto in my opinion.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The K Foundation are the source behind the tapes given to TV3 from the cocktail party at National’s August Conference.
Check out some of their other achievements
google Drummond and Cauty
November 6th, 2008 at 12:04 am
The ONE News Colmar Brunton Election 08 Polls was under dispute on One News tonight.
Also discussed was software used to make automated calls to phone in polls and how the phone in polls are rigged,
eg a few phone numbers phoning in thousands of times each
I wonder where the money is coming from for that?
Love to know what you think about this Chris?
November 6th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Brian Tregaskin:
I heard Brian Edwards making some allegations, but I certainly hope that kind of advice isn’t the kind of service being offered by “New Zealand’s leading media trainers”
Callingham & Edwards.
A less conspiratorial — but much more plausible — explanation is that opt-in phone polls are, by their very nature, based on a self-selecting sample. Who knows, there might well be a disturbingly large number of sad anoraks who really care that much about debate that, in my opinion, have run the gamut from asinine to banal and back again.
And if I wanted to be really cynical, could a very media-savvy Labour Party insider (and high profile political and media commentator) be laying the groundwork to claim, in the event of a change of government, that the election was “stolen” by the vast right wing (and foreign owned) media conspiracy?
November 6th, 2008 at 8:11 am
This claim about bliz voting via computer programmes has been claimed by others online before Edwards repeated it. It draws attention to the inadequacies of such phone-in polls and the need for them not to be used in any serious election coverage.
Edwards asked an important question about whether such poll results are credible. In comparison, the latest of the regular media political polls have shown a fairly even context between Clark and Key as preferred PMs. Given that the TV debates were fairly evenly contested overall, the mismatch, between the speedy phone-in polls and the regular on-going polls, is cause for some re-think of the news media’s polling techniques. It also questions whether such polls should be used as evidence of anything substantial in election commentary and analysis.
The dissatisfaction with the tendency for at least 2 of the main MSM news outlets to lean right, has been articulated from a wide range of people for quite a while. This is a sincerely held view and is held by many well beyond the Labour Party and/or its core. It’s not some calculated strategy of dubious intent. It is a part of many people’s considered assessment of the most dominant news media in this country.
What this mostly adds up to is the need for NZ’s main news media to be re-structured, or re-vamped so that it achieves a far higher standard, and one fitted to their role in enabling democracy to operate fairly and successfully.
November 6th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Both TV channels and some of our newspapers lead comments about the debates have been;
who “won” ; and
who won in the txt/phine in poll
WTF???? Is that really genuine “news” coverage. Surely, even those two (clark and key) said something, one sound bite that was worthy of comment about where they want to take NZ or nuts and bolts policy?
As disenchanted as I am with politicians and this campaign I am disgusted at what masquerades as “news” coverage in this campaign. Left or right, it is mostly opining not analysis.
I had a friend here from Christchurch last night who I havent seen for a year. The eletion came up. She said
” I am no more enlightened by TV and newspaper coverage in the last 5 weeks about what Lab or Nat actually intend doing in the next three years and why it will or wont work than I ever was.”
I am all but decided on who I will vote for and it wont be for Lab or National. I was even considering not voting, something that has never crossed my mind before, this seriously. I have decided that I am going to vote “for” something, even if there are those who say “if you vote for X you are really voting for Y”. That may be the consequence and I have considered it but in the end I am going to vote for that party wwhich I see as having something worthwhile, however small to contribute to the future of NZ.
Some condemn the small parties but a quick look over policy direction in the last 12 years will show that they DO have an impact and are NOT the tail that wags the dog.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Yes, I agree, Tracey, on both the news coverage of the debate, and voting for a minor party.
I listened to the Nat Rad Morning report, minor party leaders’ debate this morning. They all said that it was the minor parties that had ideas for change, which they claimed most people want, unlike the status quo 2 major parties.
It also seemed to me that the left/left-leaning parties (Progressive, Greens, Maori Parties) showed more solidarity and/or a positive relationship between them than the right parties. [Here I cross post] Key’s two top-of-his-list cabinet ministers are already disagreeing on their campaigns to influence Nat party policy. Hide sees his party’s role to ensure the old neoliberal, Roger Douglas policies be urgently adopted by government. Dunne sees it as his mission to stop the government adopting ACT type policies, and to keep the Nats a centrist government. Heated difference of opinions between them. How is Key going to agree with both of them at the same time during a cabinet meeting?
November 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Ever heard that “bias” is in the eye of the beholder? I once wasted a delightfully tedious evening having two people “articulate” to me in arse-numbing detail that the NZ Herald is (simultaneously, I guess) biased to the right and the left. Personally, I think it’s real problem is under staffing, under resourcing, and content that for the most part is thick as pig shit but not as useful.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Is TV One asking Colmar Brunton about duplicate phone numbers for these phone in polls?
Does Colmar Brunton filter out all the duplicate calling numbers over a thresold?
If not there is a serious flaw and B. Edwards claim that the phone polling is rigged may have legs
Quick google of software that can be adapted for automated calls and IVR responses
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Search/phone_dialer.html
http://www.acarda.com/survey-telemarketing.html
November 6th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Tonight
The TV3 TNS poll John Key was the preferred Prime Minister on 36.4 per cent, with Helen Clark on 34.2 per cent.
The TV One Colmar Brunton “phone in poll” for preferred Prime Minister 75% -John Key was the preferred Prime Minister. 25% Helen Clark
We estimate that $10,000 is spent by a lobby group per *each* phone in poll (10,000 automated calls )
Again love to see the list of duplicate calling numbers!
November 9th, 2008 at 7:32 am
“We won, you lost, eat that”
Michael Cullen
November 9th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Crab:
Don’t gloat — it’s rude and ageing.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“OK, it sucks. Really sucks,”
“But before you go and cash it all in, let’s, in the words of Monty Python, ‘always look on the bright side of life! things can only get better”
Michael Moore Nov 7th 2004 –Democrat election defeat 2004
17 reasons why “not to slit your wrists”
November 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Craig, nicely put as always. Congratulations.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
And to add to the ‘injustice’, those cheeky Maoris are still going to side with National…go figure.
Try not to be sore losers…
November 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Dire Straits
It will be interesting to see what deal is done when Key meets with them last on Tuesday. I am going to assume there is some hope in Key wanting to consult with them anyway… and am ignoring finishing this sentence with “said the spider to the fly”.
As an aside I am v impressed by Sharples, in another time he may have cntended, genuinely, for first Maori PM… then again, I think he may just not be ruthless enough.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Chris Trotter
Do we assume you have abandoned your blog?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Heh, sure Craig. Its funny how words can come back to haunt. Youre possibly right about the aging. I reckon the last three years have really cost Cullen.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Can anyone please crunch the numbers and tell me what the number of seats would be for each party if New Zealand First just scraped in on 5% with the special votes.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
It’s not going to happen Brian. I wonder if there is a website with software that allows that number crunch tho?