Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Only a flimsy connection to the 'crap in Sunday papers' theme, but this made me laugh (or weep):
What happens when media orgs start sacking the subs, episode 37:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/2382509/Supermarket-magnet-wins-Panama-election
-
having been flown in from overseas at the behest of party leaders and not at the invitation of the local electors.
Apparently John Key was recruited by the National party president after a stellar career at Merrill Lynch's Helensville branch.
-
Breaking News! National's by-election hopes dashed!
-
Paul, everybody was playing with a new toy in 1996. Results were all over the place (e.g. the Christian Coalition). And Wellington Central is another country. They do things differently there.
*runs and hides from the PA Public Service Posse*
-
On deals: the stars have to be aligned too.
Hide won his seat because Don Brash was clearly sympathetic to ACT. National's voters in Epsom were asked to take a small step for their party, not a giant leap of faith for mankind.
You can't tell voters what to do (e.g. the Ron Mark Rimutaka fantasy last time). Curse the people, they get ornery when poked.
-
Mikaere said:
IMO, it would be useful for the Greens to start targetting potentially winnable seats, and Mt Albert will serve as a key learning exercise in this regard. Winning and holding an electorate seat may be key to the Green's survival in the future, especially if National succeed in wrecking MMP.
Yes, the electorate seats have been a lifeline for minor parties (Peters, Dunne, Hide, Anderton etc).
But here's the thing. No "minor" party candidate has gained (as opposed to defected and then held) a General seat from National/Labour against the wishes of said major party since Sandra Lee in Auckland Central, 1993. (Maori seats are a different story, of course).
The single electorate rule helps long-term incumbents (Greens have none) and those prepared to make tacit deals with the NatLabs (as in Epsom). It's a shame that NZ's version of MMP has developed this feature, but there it is. Without a nod and a wink, breaking the FPP-style stranglehold on electorates is a huge task for the Greens.
If they weren't so damned principled, they'd be better off encouraging potential party-hoppers ... ;)
-
As a counterweight to the PA Popular Front's doom n' gloom, it should be added that getting out to vote for change (unspecified) and voting to say "thank you" require very different levels of motivation.
I'd suggest National's 2008 party vote is softer than my third chin.
-
Let's play with the Law of Unintended Consequences:
Norman wins seat.
2011, Labour (reluctantly) downgrade Mt Albert campaign, in an Epsom stylee. Norman holds seat.
Greens poll 4.9%. Mt Albert saves them.
Labour/Green government formed, with support from Hone Harawira's breakaway Real Maori Party.
(Centrebet, here I come ...)
-
Oh, and why do media memory batteries have to be recharged every three years? So Labour and Greens fight, so they can't work together later?
Er ... Bolger and Peters 1996, Clark and Anderton for years, Tariana Turia and Don Brash 2005, Clark and Peters 2005, etc ...
(edit - as Mikaere points out)
-
I would agree Garner's choosen to run Farrar's comments but I doubt he's naive about it
He's not naive, he just thinks we are (or doesn't care). Garner was less than forthcoming about his sources. From their website:
3 News has obtained articles written by Mr Shearer
Well, yes, but it wasn't exactly old school investigative legwork by the reporter.
And as for the Green/Labour "split", it should be a non-issue. Separate parties act in their interests. Sadly, much of the media are still stuck on good old binary FPP. We have a proportional representation system, and the politicians are learning to work with it, but not yet the fourth estate.