Will an ACT candidate really represent Epsom people? Considering the whole thing seems to be a deal to build a better majority for National in the house.
Well they don't seem to think ACT as a party will better represent them. Only 939 people in Epsom voted for it in 2011, whereas 15,835 voted for Banks. National got a crushing majority of the party vote with 23,725. But Labour and the Greens were actually more popular than ACT itself, by a large margin.
One possible response: a couple of the most popular Labour candidates could break off as independents, on the cuppa-tea proviso by Labour that they will not push their candidate there, and multiple statements by those independents that they firmly support Labour. If they also said they will more strongly advocate for the local electorate than before as their reason for doing so, it would hardly be less Machiavellian than the Epsom scenario. Could be a good way for the needs of, say, Mangere to reach Epsom levels of importance.
Hmmm. I wonder which electorate King Kapisi would like to stand in for the Internet Party ? Any chance of IP getting another electorate seat ?
Act taking Epsom is moot, they will sit below the 5% list threshold on 0 to 1 of the party vote.
If Act manages to get 1.3% of the party vote it gets a second MP, assuming Epsom voters do as that nice John Key is instructing. So it's not in the least bit moot. If Act had got a second MP in 2011 there would have been no need for National to reach an agreement with the Maori Party. On single MPs do major incursions into civil liberties lie.
Just a coincidence that the richest lifestyle blocker of all happens to be Kim Dotcom, then?
Which one? Finance/Insurance/Real Estate? Oil? Military? Police?
Telecommunications. IT geek libertarians and financial climber/grasper salesfolk.
Labour's principled response will not pay off, and so your suggestion that some of their most popular electoral candidates declare themselves as independents is probably the best way to ultimately get rid of coat tailing and the gerrymandering provisions in MMP.
Oh and that Graeme Hart too. So unproductive for National's NZ Inc.
Interesting, since most of the IT geeks I know are of the leftie-lite persuasion. Except for the pockets of Christian fundamentalist/evangelical ones you find dotted about in odd places. IT geeks in the financial sector in the UK seemed to be more rightward-leaning.
men of note...
And lest we forget Salmonella Dub's ever prescient contributions...
<hat tip to BP>
and Rosemary McLeod weighs in and finds that John Banks' 'crimes' are not as bad as disposing of children's bodies in a septic tank...
Good to get some reasoned perspective on these things...
No carton character, this...
Oh and that Graeme Hart too...
Having just sold the 'just beating' heart of the North Island to Japan
(not to mention a big chunk of NZ's corporate history - Carter Holt Harvey)
He is now thinking 'outside the box' and contemplating flicking on SIG Combibloc Group Ltd
I can't imagine much of the possible $US5 billion for that, plus the billion from carving up CHH, returning to NZ, when there are much better tax domiciles to be had.
I suspect he's happy to be the 'Rank' outsider, but I'm also happy to be proved wrong, perhaps he'd like a tilt at governing, he does seem to have some success at managing change and privatising profit...
...actually, forget I just said that,
that's not the change I'm after...
That way we'd only end up with 'small change'
and begging for 'spare change'
we need 'sea change'
Aye. Not the subdividing sought.