That motherfucker just won't die

Ab · 28th May 2011, 15:35

Draco pointed me to this:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO110...rous-wedge.htm

An Orewa church hall? How can he step across the threshold? And all the crucifixes. Shouldn't he just burst into flame?

MrTTTT · 28th May 2011, 23:31

Holy crap I just read his whole speech and WINSTON IS MY IDOL. I fully agree with his rage against the separatist bullshit.

Ab · 28th May 2011, 23:39

That from the guy who held the balance of power after the 1996 election because his party won all 5 of the Maori seats in parliament.

Now he's out on his arse, so it's all "ONE LAW FOR ALL! NO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR MAORIS!"

MrTTTT · 28th May 2011, 23:50

I won't deny he may be a hypocrite. But taking the speech in isolation of everything else the man has said/done, it makes sense to me!

BoyWonder · 29th May 2011, 01:07

Sorry to burst your bubble but the douche will say anything for a free lunch, except its not really free... you'll be paying for it indirectly.

Golden Teapot · 29th May 2011, 10:06

This is simply playing the game that MMP requires. He has a very good chance of getting in again. If he gets in and it's a marginal situation where the left could form a coalition then this guy is effectively the prime minster; not in name of course but in terms of calling the shots that matter.

MMP is explicitly designed to get lunatics into parliament. It is very efficient at doing this. Given that the two sensible parties tend to hold a similar number of votes each (long term position - short term labour is fucked) this means that MMP is explicitly designed to ensure lunatics hold the balance of power most of the time.

I didn't vote for MMP the first time around and I'll certainly be voting to have the system changed to something more sensible. STV was my preference last time but to be honest first-past-the-post has merit versus the status-quo and lets be honest STV is too complicated for most voters.

Lightspeed · 29th May 2011, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

MMP is explicitly designed to get lunatics into parliament. It is very efficient at doing this. Given that the two sensible parties tend to hold a similar number of votes each (long term position - short term labour is fucked) this means that MMP is explicitly designed to ensure lunatics hold the balance of power most of the time.

So you're saying that there are documents somewhere in parliament stating the intent and desire to get more lunatics into power and how this can be achieved by MMP?

Or are you using hyperbole because of the weak position of your views?

pervy · 29th May 2011, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

This is simply playing the game that MMP requires. He has a very good chance of getting in again. If he gets in and it's a marginal situation where the left could form a coalition then this guy is effectively the prime minster; not in name of course but in terms of calling the shots that matter.

MMP is explicitly designed to get lunatics into parliament. It is very efficient at doing this. Given that the two sensible parties tend to hold a similar number of votes each (long term position - short term labour is fucked) this means that MMP is explicitly designed to ensure lunatics hold the balance of power most of the time.

I didn't vote for MMP the first time around and I'll certainly be voting to have the system changed to something more sensible. STV was my preference last time but to be honest first-past-the-post has merit versus the status-quo and lets be honest STV is too complicated for most voters.

I will take the worst proportional system over the best plurality system anyday. In my view FPP has no merit vs the current system, or would you like a repeat of the old days when a party holds government even though it has less votes that its opposition?

I do agree that STV would be my preferred alternative method but I believe that adjusting the threshold would help to resolve some issues with our current MMP system.

Ab · 29th May 2011, 14:28

I've voted in a few STV elections here in Oz and it isn't perfect. But I'll take it over the MMP disaster in NZ that's for sure.

doppelgänger of someone · 29th May 2011, 15:30

Don't blame the inadequacy of the two major parties on the polling system. If one or two 'natural fit' parties (e.g. National + ACT; Labour + Greens) gets more than 50% of the vote there is no need for backroom deals for odd couples like we have now or Winnie the Poop in bed with Labour.

Lightspeed · 29th May 2011, 16:02

I don't see why people expect our political system to go from the logical conclusion of FPP (two major parties) straight into the best outcome of MMP in a couple of election cycles.

fixed_truth · 29th May 2011, 16:33

True. MMP has been great in strengthening NZ's democracy and it's no longer such an old boys club.

http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civi...overnment.html
http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civi...overnment.html

Though some tweaking would be great. Perhaps candidates that have won a constituency still need their party to pass the 5% threshold to bring in list MPs.

MrTTTT · 29th May 2011, 22:37

MMP makes shit more entertaining!!

Golden Teapot · 30th May 2011, 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

e.g. National + ACT; Labour + Greens.

act and green are both extremist parties and not natural fits for either of the two centrist parties you've noted. Under MMP and given the political disposition of NZ they are unfortunately a necessary fit for there to be a government. The natural fit is labour plus National in coalition.

laboor finds itself in an awkward position. There are not enough voters left alive that want government any further left than it currently is. Worse there are several parties fighting over this rapidly shrinking demographic. National is occupying the center-left ground very successfully and looks like it has comprehensively taken over. Perhaps labour needs to move quite a long way toward the right where there are plenty of voters not well served? A party between National and act would work quite well, and it's not as if labour is really any different to National at the moment except that they fired years ago all of their excuse for talent and are thus truly fucked.

adonis · 30th May 2011, 21:25

If we're so far to the left GT, what countries are further to the right than us, and for what reason?

adonis · 30th May 2011, 21:52

The purpose of having a democratically elected government is to represent the population as closely as possible, even the "lunatics". If there is a problem with our current system, it has to do with specifics rather than proportionality.

The problem isn't that it's too proportional. The fact that people are even considering using less proportional systems like SM instead of tweaking the rules around supply and confidence, thresholds etc, shows that these people consider democracy to be something that is just an inconvenience for them. But then, democratic representation does favour the left, so I guess it's too be expected.

Personally I'd scrap electorate seats completely. Have a party based STV vote with a threshold or 2-3% to determine central government. Overhaul all local representative systems with the same system and give them some protection from central government decisions. Why do we have local MP's and mayors? Local government in this country is a joke, strengthen it and you remove the need for electorate based representation in central government. Tweak the requirements for supply and confidence so that IF a small party tries to wag the dog too much it can't bring the entire government down.

Lightspeed · 31st May 2011, 12:37

But the lunatics, adonis, the lunatics! You know, the bulk of the people who don't want power and wealth to be controlled be a minority. We can't have crazy fucks like that getting a say!

adonis · 31st May 2011, 23:03

It's too late, this guy (I forget his name) told me MMP was explicitly designed to get them into government. I read it on the internet it has to be true.

^BITES^ · 1st June 2011, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by adonis

It's too late, this guy (I forget his name) told me MMP was explicitly designed to get them into government. I read it on the internet it has to be true.

Where did he post? Hopefully its a better read than you and lightspeed waffling on like old women because someone disagreed with you on the internet.

Lightspeed · 1st June 2011, 18:29

Further up the page.

PhX · 2nd June 2011, 10:43

Bring back OPTRTA - One Party To Rule Them All -- Dictatorship. I'll put my hand up for El Dictator, who's with me?

Draco T Bastard · 3rd June 2011, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

act and green are both extremist parties and not natural fits for either of the two centrist parties you've noted.

Wrong. Greens are centre left and their policies fit with those of Labour. Act is radical right right along side the radical right of National. About the only difference between National and Act is that National are slightly more authoritarian (They're both dictatorial).

Quote:

Under MMP and given the political disposition of NZ they are unfortunately a necessary fit for there to be a government. The natural fit is labour plus National in coalition.

You would think so considering that Labour is a centre right party but, being far more liberal and actually being democratic, it just doesn't fit with Nationals hard-right dictatorial mindset.

Quote:

laboor finds itself in an awkward position. There are not enough voters left alive that want government any further left than it currently is.

Actually, Labours biggest problem is that it isn't a left leaning party and it's just not gelling with the majority of voters who are on the left.

Quote:

National is occupying the center-left ground very successfully and looks like it has comprehensively taken over.

Nope, but they do seem to have fooled you about that as well. National are radical right. They effectively had to move over there when Labour became a centre right party in the 1980s.

Quote:

Perhaps labour needs to move quite a long way toward the right where there are plenty of voters not well served?

Nope, Labour have to move to the left to start picking up it's original voter base. Basically, the 20% that didn't vote in the last election because they don't have any party to represent them. Or, maybe, a new party could pick them up allowing Labour to stay centre-right.

Parties actual political leanings is here. It may not be completely accurate but, as it's a constant measure, gives a better idea than just stating your opinion.

PhX · 3rd June 2011, 23:57

^^ sounds like a bunch of opinions without justifications? Prove me wrong (im sure).

Ab · 4th June 2011, 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

About the only difference between National and Act is that National are slightly more authoritarian (They're both dictatorial).

Parliamentary parties that support dictatorships, eh? I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Lightspeed · 4th June 2011, 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhX

^^ sounds like a bunch of opinions without justifications? Prove me wrong (im sure).

Isn't that all political discussion? I don't see any justification for GT's bullshit.

crocos · 4th June 2011, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Parties actual political leanings is here. It may not be completely accurate but, as it's a constant measure, gives a better idea than just stating your opinion.

Riiiiight. That makes Act look like the GOP

fixed_truth · 4th June 2011, 09:12

Greedy Old Perverts?

Golden Teapot · 4th June 2011, 09:12

Referring to the quote of Draco and so not sullying myself with his actual post.

The analysis is flawed in several ways. Its use is really only to try to fool those who are clever enough to know what a graph is but not clever enough to understand how easy it is to deliberately mislead a naive audience using such a tool.

For example, there is no notion of potential scale (and so the reality of the variance is distorted - deliberately in this case I imagine). The exclusion of parties from other countries allows the cheating that has occurred in representation of the data. Putting the US and Cuba on there would improve the situation dramatically and would be a very low effort activity. Of course the graph would become very boring with most of the NZ parties squashed around very close to the center.

Seeing something for 2011 would be nice too. Political parties and peoples' views of political parties have been changing very quickly; contemporaneity of data for today is important. Everything Draco posts is biased to support his extreme left point of view and so I have to assume that his quoting something out of date is a very deliberate act on his part.

It surely has not have passed attention that it's always members of the extreme left (20% of NZ's population of whom seem to post in these threads) who put forward this nonsense. Perhaps because there is an audience for them here whereas out in the real world there isn't. If only they realised that it's a comedy-central audience with the odd tomato thrown to start them up again once they've got boring.

28th May 2011, 15:35	#1
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	That motherfucker just won't die Draco pointed me to this: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO110...rous-wedge.htm An Orewa church hall? How can he step across the threshold? And all the crucifixes. Shouldn't he just burst into flame?

28th May 2011, 23:31	#2
MrTTTT	Holy crap I just read his whole speech and WINSTON IS MY IDOL. I fully agree with his rage against the separatist bullshit.

28th May 2011, 23:39	#3
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	That from the guy who held the balance of power after the 1996 election because his party won all 5 of the Maori seats in parliament. Now he's out on his arse, so it's all "ONE LAW FOR ALL! NO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR MAORIS!"

28th May 2011, 23:50	#4
MrTTTT	I won't deny he may be a hypocrite. But taking the speech in isolation of everything else the man has said/done, it makes sense to me!

29th May 2011, 01:07	#5
BoyWonder	Sorry to burst your bubble but the douche will say anything for a free lunch, except its not really free... you'll be paying for it indirectly.

29th May 2011, 10:06	#6
Golden Teapot Love, Actuary	This is simply playing the game that MMP requires. He has a very good chance of getting in again. If he gets in and it's a marginal situation where the left could form a coalition then this guy is effectively the prime minster; not in name of course but in terms of calling the shots that matter. MMP is explicitly designed to get lunatics into parliament. It is very efficient at doing this. Given that the two sensible parties tend to hold a similar number of votes each (long term position - short term labour is fucked) this means that MMP is explicitly designed to ensure lunatics hold the balance of power most of the time. I didn't vote for MMP the first time around and I'll certainly be voting to have the system changed to something more sensible. STV was my preference last time but to be honest first-past-the-post has merit versus the status-quo and lets be honest STV is too complicated for most voters.

29th May 2011, 14:28	#9
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	I've voted in a few STV elections here in Oz and it isn't perfect. But I'll take it over the MMP disaster in NZ that's for sure.

29th May 2011, 15:30	#10
doppelgänger of someone	Don't blame the inadequacy of the two major parties on the polling system. If one or two 'natural fit' parties (e.g. National + ACT; Labour + Greens) gets more than 50% of the vote there is no need for backroom deals for odd couples like we have now or Winnie the Poop in bed with Labour.

29th May 2011, 16:02	#11
Lightspeed	I don't see why people expect our political system to go from the logical conclusion of FPP (two major parties) straight into the best outcome of MMP in a couple of election cycles. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

29th May 2011, 16:33	#12
fixed_truth	True. MMP has been great in strengthening NZ's democracy and it's no longer such an old boys club. http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civi...overnment.html http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civi...overnment.html Though some tweaking would be great. Perhaps candidates that have won a constituency still need their party to pass the 5% threshold to bring in list MPs. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

29th May 2011, 22:37	#13
MrTTTT	MMP makes shit more entertaining!!

30th May 2011, 21:25	#15
adonis	If we're so far to the left GT, what countries are further to the right than us, and for what reason?

30th May 2011, 21:52	#16
adonis	The purpose of having a democratically elected government is to represent the population as closely as possible, even the "lunatics". If there is a problem with our current system, it has to do with specifics rather than proportionality. The problem isn't that it's too proportional. The fact that people are even considering using less proportional systems like SM instead of tweaking the rules around supply and confidence, thresholds etc, shows that these people consider democracy to be something that is just an inconvenience for them. But then, democratic representation does favour the left, so I guess it's too be expected. Personally I'd scrap electorate seats completely. Have a party based STV vote with a threshold or 2-3% to determine central government. Overhaul all local representative systems with the same system and give them some protection from central government decisions. Why do we have local MP's and mayors? Local government in this country is a joke, strengthen it and you remove the need for electorate based representation in central government. Tweak the requirements for supply and confidence so that IF a small party tries to wag the dog too much it can't bring the entire government down.

31st May 2011, 12:37	#17
Lightspeed	But the lunatics, adonis, the lunatics! You know, the bulk of the people who don't want power and wealth to be controlled be a minority. We can't have crazy fucks like that getting a say! __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

31st May 2011, 23:03	#18
adonis	It's too late, this guy (I forget his name) told me MMP was explicitly designed to get them into government. I read it on the internet it has to be true.

1st June 2011, 18:29	#20
Lightspeed	Further up the page. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

2nd June 2011, 10:43	#21
PhX	Bring back OPTRTA - One Party To Rule Them All -- Dictatorship. I'll put my hand up for El Dictator, who's with me? __________________ xyf

3rd June 2011, 23:57	#23
PhX	^^ sounds like a bunch of opinions without justifications? Prove me wrong (im sure). __________________ xyf

4th June 2011, 09:12	#27
fixed_truth	Greedy Old Perverts? __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.