Are you the same “Ari” who wrote this over at frogblog?

“I would dispute whether the Green party list was “decided entirely by party member votes”. An elite group made up of those with the time and money to go to Auckland for a 2 day conference, as well as sufficient influence within the party to be elected as delegates, made an initial list, which was then sent to members.

In theory members make up their own mind based on the profiles given and do not have to pay any attention to the initial list (this is the approach I took). In practice however, most members simply rubber stamp what has already been decided for them. The first 10 candidates were exactly the same as that in the initial list, with the exeption that one pair had swapped one place.

A more democratic way of making the list would be for everyone to make up their own mind without an initial list. Contact numbers on the profiles would make it easier to make a more fully informed choice. I would have liked to have rang a few candidates up and asked them about their opinion on certain issues.”

It is also a bit rich for you to talk about “retirement” given the way that your party is going to rort the system to get Comrade Norman into the house before the election.

Oh right, because retirement should be up to the members themselves, not the people who will potentially be voting for them. Sounds very democratic to me

[DPF: It's called representative democracy.]

There should be 6ish new MPs EACH election including for elections where the tide is going out. Of those 6 there should be 2-3 very good peoiple who could potentially assume the highest positions should they become available. One cannot have hard and fast rules but there should be a clear expectation that this will happen.

Yes, one can have hard a fast rules. They’re called term limits. Their disadvantage is that a talented and hardworking MP might be forced out just because their time is up even though they still have a lot to contribute. However, you’ve proposed a brilliant solution, Tim. Impose a percentage quota on each party, and let the members decide who gets put out to compulsory pasture.

No we should not damn well calm down. This is PC bullshit that the National party should be trying to distance itself from. BB is perfectly correct. Ethnicity should not be any kind of factor in selecting candidates. How can the Nationals defeat Labour when they speak the same perverted language and have the same perverted ideas??? Calm down?? To hell with that. Its time for some anger. I’m sick to death of these charlatans under-mining and betraying the conservative side of politics. McCain- Bush- Key- all useless, and provoking growing dissatisfaction amongst the ranks. There’ll be a boil over soon, and if not, there damn well should be if the Nats (or the Republicans) are ever going to stand for anything.

I’m very pleased to see that National has a large number of ethnic candidates coming on board. Rather than a desire to pander to ethnic votes, it probably more closely reflects the fact that ethnic groups are finding that the National Party now represents their political home. And it’s great that these ethnic groups are seeking to get active in the political process.

One allied issue the Party will deal with at next years constitutiional conference is the proposal by Northland, endorsed by the Northern Region, that sitting MPs be excluded from the (current) five Board nominated positions which effectively bypasses the list ranking process. That process is designed to facilitate entry into parliament of outstanding candidates who, for whatever reason, are unable to take part in the normal selection process. Tim Grosner benefited from that last election but it is wrong that under current rules he could, if he wished, lobby for the same treatment this time (can I make it clear however that he hasn’t and will instead contest Te Atatu). The point is that the Board entry facility should be a one shot process

Any chance we can have out party back please John?

Well, Big Bruv perhaps “we” should calm down a little. When Key starts talking about bringing in a patronising vagina quota or ethnic preferences I’ll be the first to fire up the burning brand and sharpen my pitchfork. But it would be nice to see some sections of the National Party (and not looking at anyone in particular) just getting out of their comfort zones. Just because Labour is arrogant enough to Balkanize New Zealand into ‘us’ and ‘them’ doesn’t mean National has to play the same old game by the same old rules. I don’t think talent, or center-right values, are the exclusive province of middle-aged white chaps.

Will somebody please remind John Bloody Key that he is leading the National party, a party that should value ability over all other sickly liberal PC considerations.

Any chance we can have out party back please John?