McCarten on how Labour can win
Matt McCarten looks at how Labour can win despite the polls:
The polls are disastrous for Labour, no matter how you try to spin it. National consistently wins more than 50 per cent in the polls while Labour sits in the low 30s. …
Clark’s claim that the polls aren’t accurate is dubious at best. She has some legitimacy when she points out that they tend to under-count young people and the less well off, who are more likely to be her supporters. Only people with landlines are polled, which excludes many young and poor people. Anecdotal evidence suggests that about one in three people on the electoral roll does not have a landline.
Many polling companes weigh their results to counter any under-representation of key demograpgic groups. And the numbers on the electoral roll with landlines is over 90% not 70%.
But even so, this would probably make a difference of less than 5 per cent. With polls showing up to 25 points between the two big parties, that won’t be much comfort to her parliamentary colleagues.
People may be surprised by how little weighted results often differ from raw results.
But Clark isn’t giving up and at her caucus retreat, read the riot act to her MPs: buck up and fight. As the cliché goes, a week is a long time in politics and Labour has four months to close the gap. If it can narrow the gap to 10 points or less it will win.
I said a long time back that a gap of less than 10% is a probable Labour Government. A 10% to 15% gap is pretty uncertain and over 15% is very probably National.
The election finance and anti-smacking legislation have been disasters for Labour. But I’m not sure they’re as important as people make out. The election restrictions are more of an obsession for political commentators and media owners.
They are, but a constant string of negative stories does have a background effect on the public, and it makes it difficult for the Government to get momentum.
Some of our media spin doctors have fixated on the difference between National and Labour, and ignored the other parties. Take it as read that for Labour to have any chance it will need the support of the Green, New Zealand First and the Maori parties.
There is little doubt in my mind these three parties will, between them, get more than 15 per cent of the vote. The remaining minnow parties are electorally irrelevant and can safely be ignored. But if National doesn’t maintain at least a 15-point gap over Labour, it will be in trouble.
Not necessairly in trouble per se, but I agree at less than 15% Labour starts to get options.
If you didn’t have to deal with the vanities and the complicated personal relationships between party leaders, Labour’s electoral strategy would be very simple. It would be a smart move to endorse the Maori Party candidates in the seven Maori seats for the price of counter endorsement giving Labour the party vote and a pre-election coalition agreement. This would give the Maori Party a clean sweep of all the Maori seats without a fight and would increase Labour’s party vote by at least 2 per cent, giving it at least 10 additional seats in a Labour-led, post-election government.
This is true, but it would be a highly unproportional result and MMP would inevitably die as a result. Matt needs to be careful about winning battles but losing the war. Using overhang as a delebrate strategy to win an election would generate a massive backlash. As it happens I think we saw with Shane Jones and Derek Fox that the bad blood is so massive Labour endorsing Maori Party candidates is highly unlikely.
The Green Party is a guaranteed supporter, and Labour just has to give tacit support to its more left-leaning and liberal voters giving their party vote to the Greens. This should help the Greens get over 10 per cent and adds another 13 Green MPs.
Votes from Labour to Greens don’t increase the chance of a left wing Government – they do make it more left than centre though. I agree with Matt that the Greens are guaranteed to go with Labour despite their protestations. They’re like the battered spouse always coming back for more!
New Zealand First, of course, is a little more complex, but personal support for Peters is still strong. National is running an aggressive campaign to prevent Peters from winning Tauranga. If Labour kneecapped its own candidate and openly endorsed Peters to win that seat back, Peters would no doubt bring his MPs into a Labour coalition.
Except Winston says he wants no deals to win. And at the moment is not the time to talk abour Labour endorsing Winston!
Of course, that kind of realpolitik strategy would have the political chattering classes in an uproar. But if Clark really wants a fourth term, the Maori Party wants a guarantee of all Maori seats, the Greens want to be in Cabinet, and New Zealand First wants to survive, this is the way do it.
In these desperate times, Labour had better start thinking outside the box – and fast.
One can’t rule it out. But of course the long term consequences might be New Zealand dumps MMP, the Maori seats are abolished and Winston loses Tauranga anyway even with Labour’s endorsement.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“..This is true, but it would be a highly unproportional result and MMP would inevitably die as a result..”
do you really believe that..?..dpf..?
i see a lab/grn/mp/whatever govt..getting stuck into what ails us..
as being a ringing endorsement of mmp..
and in fact..the first ‘real’ mmp government..
i’m looking forward to it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: If for example National gets 51% of the vote but Labour gets to form a Government due to overhang in the Maori Seats, then you will have a backlash you couldn't even imagine]
July 13th, 2008 at 9:22 am
dream on mate, the mp HATE labours guts and would NOT form a government with them.
the greens could do worse than cosying up to the mp instead of getting reamed by layboring.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:31 am
and dpf..i accept there is widespread desire for change..
i share it..
how things are now cannot continue..for a raft of reasons..
..and you lot have no answers..
.you are just reheating your old 90’s pancake..
national..a party that is always looking back..
with a leader who is nought but a symbol of the rapidly disintergrating international/local economy..
bah..!
but this is what a ‘true’ mmp government would/could bring..
all those changes we/the planet are screaming for..
and i would urge all the potential participants to take a deep breath..
and to remember obamas’ reference to the hopi indian saying..
“..we are the people we have been waiting for..”
and..um..!..i think the time is now..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 9:39 am
and..um..!..dpf..
you left this bit out..
“..The second point is about the leadership competition between Clark and Key.
Despite electoral exhaustion, people still rate Clark highly.
If she can dominate Key and expose him as a political lightweight and an empty suit, she may bring a few waiverers back.
Most voters know very little about Key and if he performs badly against her during the campaign, National’s inflated support could droop..”
now..we all know that’s gonna happen..eh..?
a viewing of any questiontime will only confirm that..
eh..?
you lot really have no justifications for the poll-bender you are on..
eh..?
if you think about it for more than five minutes..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“This is true, but it would be a highly unproportional result and MMP would inevitably die as a result. Matt needs to be careful about winning battles but losing the war. Using overhang as a delebrate strategy to win an election would generate a massive backlash.”
Where is the inevitability that MMP would die?
How would a massive backlash manifest itself into electoral change?
There is no mechanism for MMP to be altered, except by the collusion of the beneficiaries of the strategies that McCarten suggests.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Except … The Labour party do not want to win. If they win, Goff might as well retire too.
To win would lumber them with Clark and Cullen for another three years, then Cullen as heir apparent. The new blood needs to pick up the pieces of the party and rebuild it, before they are too old.
A win for Helen is a lose for Labour. That is why they are letting her self-destruct, she will be the sacrificial lamb needed if Labour is to regain its credibility as ‘the Peoples’ party’ as opposed to a breeding ground for fruity-loop apparatchiks with a hidden agenda they are determined to force-feed us whether we approve or not.
I think that Labour’s strategy is to lose this election, but to leave a scorched earth behind while they do so. Helen’ Clark’s strategy is to win. But she is a lone voice in the wilderness.
.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I look at how Labour can win despite the polls:
1. A massive hypnosis program, with subliminal hypnotism being broadcast on both TVNZ channels each night in order to encourage conformity, chanting, and respect for the Leader.
2. Government boffins develop a wormhole joining our universe to a parallel one where aliens have pointy ears or wrinkly foreheads or something. They then fool 2 million NZers to take a one-way trip through the wormhole, and every single one of those 2 million just happen to be a National supporter.
3. Magic. On an industrial scale.
4. Exclusive Brethren are paid by Karl Rove to invade the South Island. Helen Clark personally leads the campaign to retake the island… abseiling down the sides of buildings and killing people silently with knives and stuff like a modern day Joan of Arc with a Steyr. Nicky Hager writes a book alleging that Rove and the Brethren were being controlled by John Key and Labour win by a narrow majority.
5. It turns out that National Party supporters (and face it, that’s just about everyone these days) are all robots, sent from the future to kill Summer Glau. Labour and the Greens quickly pass an amendment to the EFA to ban robots from advertising or appearing on the television.
Short of that, they’re toast and will get by with a much smaller caucus room in 2009.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:00 am
wow..!..that’s an interesting little paranoid fantasy/delusion you’ve got running there..lee..
is there a conspiracy-meister..
or is that ’secret’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am
24 Hours can also be a long time in politics. This article was probably written on Friday at the latest. Yesterdays revelations about Winston being exposed as a liar wil have no end of damage to his party (and any party associated with Winston (How much did Clark know?)
So I think we can now guarantee Winston will not be back. Neither does he deserve to be back. Clark will over the next week demonstrate her cowardice and not fire Winston as a Minister (Winston is going to stick to his lie at all costs and admit nothing)
July 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
The possibility of a Labour/Progressive/Green/NZ1 government is one of the most compelling reasons for the swinging voter to vote centre right!
In fact I think it should be mentioned ad nauseam until Nov 8.
Vote Labour……… get Cullen, Winston, Anderton and Norman in Cabinet and running your lives!
Be afraid!
July 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Political manipulations such as suggested by McCarten are a stench in the nostrils of the electorate and so would carry huge risk for Labour to even consider.
The Nats could easily point out the left are once again rorting the system to gain power, just as they did last time with $800k of stolen money.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Lee C: I think that Labour’s strategy is to lose this election, but to leave a scorched earth behind while they do so
I’m inclined to agree. And let’s face it. New Zealand is heading for an economic tightening of the belt. I’m full well expecting that the next government is going to uncover more unpleasantness that Labour has hidden in the books. Labour has done it before, after all, when they hid the true nature of New Zealand’s finances from the public and the opposition. And then blamed it on the National Party for the next twenty years
They’re setting them up for the same again, because the next government is going to have to make some unpopular decisions. What better reason to hand over power to somebody who can fix it and take the blame for fixing it, when Labour will just step in again, refreshed, and ride a new wave of economic opportunity into the ground, taking credit for all the good while claiming National was responsible for the bad.
They’ve done it before, they’ll do it again.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I agree to a degree Pascal, it’s just that I think Clark would happily ruin the economy if it guaranteed her a fourth term and her precious “legacy”. Thats why she wants to win and will be as “vicious and nasty” in doing so.
The Labour “party” on the other hand?
July 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“…the Greens are guaranteed to go with Labour despite their protestations. They’re like the battered spouse always coming back for more!”
Perfect.
And could we please get rid of philu? I feel like a battered spouse every time he comes back for more. Scrolling through his drivel is very tiring on the forefinger.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
ah..ansell..upholding rightwing mantras of freedom of speech again..?..are we..?
and you still haven’t answered that question..
have you ever been involved in an election campaign where the candidate/party has won..?
or..are you..as is widely rumoured..
zero for zero..?
and um..!
“..And could we please get rid of philu? I feel like a battered spouse every time he comes back for more..”
a confession from the act campaign manager..that i ‘deal’ to him..on a regular basis..aww!!!
mind you..going on his scrawlings to date..that ain’t much to crow about..eh..?
talk about ’sitting ducks’..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 11:49 am
“a confession from the act campaign manager..that i ‘deal’ to him..on a regular basis..aww!!!”
Hardly that you self important fuckwit. I’d guess that like many other readers, he supremely bored to see Kiwiblog apparently at the mercy of a multi-posting rambling boring self obsessed bludging loser like you. Five posts on this thread alone, and the same uninteresting drivel on almost every other thread. I think what he’s trying to say is “Fuck off you mindless worthless narcissistic bore.” If he is, I’m in full agreement.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
no reddy..
this is what he said..
“…And could we please get rid of philu? I feel like a battered spouse every time he comes back for more..”
in his own words..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
What a cynic Matt McCarten is. Can he really believe that the Maori Party would sell its soul to improve its chances of winning three more seats? Being an independent Maori voice unbeholden to pakeha is their whole raison d’etre. I may disagree with many of their policies, but I think they have far more integrity than Matt supposes.
As for the idea that National might get 51% of the vote and still lose, that would indeed be appalling and disgraceful. It would surely turn people back to FPP where that sort of thing never happens… ah… hang on a minute, there’s a little problem there (thinking of NZ in 1978, 1981, Al Gore in 2000…)
July 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Labour couldn’t win this one if they sacrificed Clark to the volcano gods.
Although it would give them a bump in the polls.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Amusing David, you are suggesting an overhang would be undemocratic
while knowing that the nats were happy with a undemocratic system in
78, 81.
[DPF: No I am suggesting a deliberate manipulation of overhang in MMP to get a non proportional result is wrong. All parties could do this, and if they did it woudl be chaos]
July 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
s.russell. Except that FPP was never supposed to be proportional. MMP was, and we tolerate the other problems with it in order to get that proportionality. As soon as someone starts rorting that system then one of three things will happen:
– we shift either back to FPP, or to a genuinely proportional system (i.e. no electorates)
– we get rid of the Maori seats
– we see National split into two parties, both registered for the list vote, one called “National electorate party” and one called “National list party”. The list party stands in no electorates, the electorate party tells people only to vote for it on the electorate vote. Then, the next election, MMP is dead because of the size of this abuse of the loopholes in the system.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Does everyone here think Helen Clark is not capable of pulling any tactics out of the Vladimir Putin box to win the next election? Heck, she can get away with Watergate-style hits on her political opponents confidential information, the MSM will give acres of editorial to the conspiracy writings of the most radical leftists and will also reliably smear campaign against any REAL conservative or business backing of her political opponents, the Cops can be relied apon to NEVER prosecute her, heck, what a wonderful “checks-and-balances” Westminster Democracy we’ve got, eh?
July 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Whoar said : “Despite electoral exhaustion, people still rate Clark highly.”
What people? Maybe the beneficiaries and bludgers, the ones living at the expense of others, the mentally deficient, the Luddites, the gullible, the feeble-minded, the totalitarians, the socialists and communists of NZ.
Obviously, the damage inflicted by P on your brain is irreversible.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
fuck you’re an idiot..man-so-low..
i said no such thing..
what was that about ‘p’-inflicted’ brains..?
oh no..that’s right ..
alcohol-pushing is your poison..eh man-so-low..?
idjit..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
National have no viable coaltion partner, they still think they can win it outright. Dream on. And they refuse to endorse the ACT party, who I would have thought were the likely candidate.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
yeah..but have you heard about acts’ campaign manager..?
zero for zero..eh..?
and i mean..he thinks wodger douglas is ‘a good idea’..
priceless..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Philu:
Two comments.
First, your childish name-calling: here “Man-so-low” – but you engage in name-calling on just about every Kiwiblog thread. On this thread you say: “ook..!..’add-on’ fink is descending to kindergarten level..” – in the context of a discussion you started about John Key’s farts (what were you thinking?). By the way, I’ve seen you persist with your line that Manolo runs a tavern, or some such thing – and as far as I know, he’s never confirmed it.
DPF warned Phillip John/Roger Nome yesterday about trolling. How about you growing up and debating like the intelligent adult you claim to be?
Second, regarding Manolo’s mistake, I scrolled back and had a look at what you wrote:
The entire quote is in italics – but the way you’ve written it up, part of it could easily be mistaken as your commentary. A genuine mistake in the circumstances, I would have thought.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Murray: “Labour couldn’t win this one if they sacrificed Clark to the volcano gods.”
That could be how they plan to kick off their campaign Murray, or maybe that’s how they plan to detonate their neutron bomb. Let’s hope so, and they televise it live. It would be rather better than the usual opening broadcasts, which is usually such treacly bullshit I can’t watch them lest I vomit.
LMBL: “National have no viable coaltion partner, they still think they can win it outright.”
In my view that’s why Key is currently compromising all over the place. I think the Nats maybe did feel like that last election, but they know that now and they don’t want to do it again.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
hey dickwad..!
ever noticed how man-so-low repeatedly accuses me of being a ‘p’ user..?
despite me repeatedly pointing out i have never used the foul muck..
who’s the troll..?
and that’s all he ever fucken says..
he’s a brain-dead one-trick-pony..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Philu:
So you’d rather be nasty? Fine, thanks for proving my point, you link-whoring troll.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
philu: despite me repeatedly pointing out i have never used the foul muck..
You’re a drug user. Why the hell should anybody believe you? I know I don’t.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
hey..write/talk drivel like a dickwad..and i’ll call you one..
end of story..
you know the cure..
try engaging your brain..before your fingers..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
oh look..!..another one..!
what do you call a group of dickwads..?
a ‘wad of dicks’..?
that’ll do..’a wad of dicks’..
where’s ratty and mad-muzza..?
and that guy phil-the-inferior..
(the one who’s using self-control to battle homosexuality..whoar..!..)
they should be here with you..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Philu:
I’m happy to have Kiwiblog users declare, as between you and me, who’s the biggest village idiot.
Oh, if you’d like to have an egotistical wank-off, I’m happy to compare my credentials against yours. We could start with qualifications and occupation. Or we could get back to dealing with my original points: (1) you regularly engage in childish name-calling; (2) you’re the one who talked about John Key’s farts on the other thread; and (3) Manolo’s mistake was easily explained in the circumstances. But if you’d rather carry on as you are, hey it’s DPF’s blog.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Hey everyone, it’s an egotistical wank-off.
P.S. I vote for phil as the biggest village idiot.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
you go first..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Fine, Phil.
What did I suggest, qualifications and occupation? Ok, I have a Bachelor of Management Studies and a Bachelor of Laws – both with First Class Honours. I work as a commercial lawyer. Happily married, with our first child on the way. I read Kiwiblog and comment with DPF’s permission, and so far haven’t received any demerits for bad behaviour.
Your turn.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
i gotta go..
i’ve been told i shouldn’t engage in circle-jerks with strangers..)
‘management studies’..’law’..
(priceless..!..you’d be a fountain of sparkling repartee at dinner parties..!..eh..?)
and only a ‘b’..”..?
i’ve got an ‘m’..(hons too..tee-hee..!..)
and ‘no demerits’ yet..?..you say..
double priceless..!
is that one of those conversational nuggets you drop at those dinner-parties..?
eh..?
um..!..a virgin on your wedding day..?..i presume..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Well, it seems to me that every village should have an idiot. And that this blog is kind of like a village – there are probably a good few thousand regular readers, and a few hundred active contributors. What I’m not sure of is why we have to be cursed with about four of them – it’s like an idiot clan.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Philu:
And yet you feel fit to mock my contribution. Well, thanks for showing yourself up as a wanker. Why aren’t I surprised that you ‘d rather not comment on your life achievements? I’m beginning to see why others resent funding your stay-at-home lifestyle.
Yes, piss off you link-whoring troll.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
(as i sneered..)..
‘only a batchelors’..?
so..’business management’..and ‘commercial law’..eh..?
you’d be au fait then with the writings/ideas of the great thinkers..?
and..making a ‘real contribution’ to society there..are you..?
..in your ‘commercial law’ doings..?
priceless..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Philu:
You still haven’t mentioned your contribution to society. These wonderful qualifications of yours, what have you done with them? Nothing, you say? Now why might that be?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Crikey phil you didn’t last long did you?
Hope you’re not like that in the sack too (for the sake of your partner I hasten to add – I don’t really care myself you understand).
Apparently Nomestradamus, you’re the winner of this inaugural egotistical wank-off. Congratulations. Tell us how you feel.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
he feels..’somewhat diminished’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Reid:
It’s hard to claim victory when Phil doesn’t want to play. My dealings with him on this thread remind me of a certain well-known maxim about pigs and mud. Time to take a shower!
Philu:
I seem to recall you were a strong believer in Sensing Murder. Unless you claim those special psychic powers for yourself, I’d suggest you try not channeling my thoughts. I’m quite capable of responding to Reid myself.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Oh I think phil wanted to play Nomestradamus, but your devastating opening salvo left him feeling somewhat diminished, perhaps even a bit less of a man.
Did he attack you in the head phil? Tell us how it happened.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
You’re right of course Phil. All that dirty content should be discouraged in qualifications. Much better some sort of Masters in studying dead people and what they thought. Is that perhaps what you have? No surprise you’re on a benefit – although I’m sure that being drug addled also has impacts on your worth to a potential employer.
How are the hits on your blog going? I’m sure with all this deep thinking you are capable of there’d be thousands of people coming to get inspiration. What’s that you say? You just copy and paste shit from elsewhere, and put a bit of punctuation (focusing on ….) around the place. Hmm. Lots of big thoughts there. I’ll bet that degree helps you to know where to put that punctuation, right? And helps you to write clear English that your audience can understand.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
i..i’m devastated..!
he has the intelligence/wit of a young oscar wilde..
i could do nothing against his powers..
(i mean..’management-study’..?..and ‘commercial law’..?
whoar..!..
he must be an intellectual titan..!
and..and..imagine how charasmatic he must be..?
(not as ‘eye-clawingly-boring/ponderous’ as others have (so unfairly) claimed..
eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Philu:
It’s funny how you’re desperate to attack me personally. A case of small-dick syndrome?
I’m still waiting for you to explain how you contribute to society. No response will be taken as “no contribution”.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Whoar has a Masters degree on Hemp Studies from the University of Addis Ababa (signed by Selassie himsef). He also received a degree, admittedly by e-mail, from the University of Kingston, Jamaica, on cannabis pipe-smoking.
At the moment he’s enrolled on P-related chemistry studies, extramural of course, with Beijing University.
As you can tell, Whoar is quite a bludger, an intellectual powerhouse!
July 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
as you can tell..
man-so-low is as funny as a carbunkle on your arse….
(especially when he ‘trys’..)
and isn’t that lawyer guy fucken boring..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Philu:
Whereas “interesting” for you is, what, childish name-calling and talking about John Key’s farts? You’re quite the intellectual giant, aren’t you?
July 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
phil how’re you going? Ready to explain to the audience why you didn’t fire even one return volley?
Now as you know this is virtually unheard of in the exciting world of EWO (Egotistical Wank-Off). Understandably, the audience is curious to know exactly how this could have happened.
Please tell us phil. Please please please please please.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
boring lawyer/management guy..?
q.e.d..?
(he’ll understand that..he’s a lawyer..didn’tyaknow..?..specialising in ‘management’..as i understand it..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Reid:
Since Phil wants to be nasty, I’ll oblige. But don’t hold your breath, Reid, as Phil has under-performed so far on this thread (best you tell Phil which NCEA standard he should aim for).
It’s apparent to me that Phil has no life achievements to speak of. I understand he shamelessly draws down a benefit on dubious grounds. Apparently, if I understand Phil’s argument: he needs to be at home on a benefit as otherwise he couldn’t cope with school holidays – even though most other working families cope.
I guess, for Phil, name-calling is his way of equalising the talent pool (at least in his mind) and expunging his sense of moral guilt.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Personally phil I myself find commercial law a very interesting field. I don’t practice it, but I find it interesting.
The fact you find it boring is of much less interest to myself and I suspect the audience, than the question of how you came to lose so decisively – completely utterly thrashed. Your britches, pulled down, Corporal Punishment gave you six of the best while you bent over and took it.
It was the most amazing thing I think I’ve ever seen. Your splendid Masters degree was ripped up and torn to shreds by a Commercial-Law_with_management tornado of biblical proportions.
This demands a response phil, an explanation, something to justify the complete and unprecedented magnitude of defeat suffered on the EWO battlefield this very afternoon.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
q.e.d..?
and reid..you find commercial law ‘very interesting’..?
q.e.d..2
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Sure I find commercial law interesting phil. It’s all about high-stakes complex arrangements between parties with very deep pockets who play interesting games in any industry you want. There’s litigation to the supreme court level, there’s politics, there’s power plays. You have to analyse, negotiate, and advise senior executives about multi-million deals. I admit I find that interesting.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
yawn..!!
oh..!..ok..!
whatever lights your tort..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Now we’ve got that out of the way phil how about a response to the audience?
Is this something like Marty McFly where I have to call you a chicken before you come back?
July 13th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
love quarrel!
July 13th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
if anything reid..
youare becoming as boring as that lawyer guy..
why don’t you email him..?
you have so much in common..
i think i’ll just ‘leave you to it’..now..
eh..?
off you go then..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
c’mon phil, admit your love for reid, here and now, make it good.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Reid:
Priceless!
July 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
For everyone who has had a gutsful of Philu and his parasitic sucking from us – I encourage you to call the below hotline!
Benefit fraud allegations 0800 556 006
Monday – Friday 7.30 am – 5.30 pmNot available on Public Holidays.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Phil:
I’ve let quite a bit of nastiness from you go – but I think it’s time to even the score.
A noticeable double standard from you. On this thread you say “i’ve been told i shouldn’t engage in circle-jerks with strangers“. But, on this thread, back in February 2005, you said: “i’m all for voluntary outing kimble”. You went on to say: “i’m glad you’ve thrown down this gauntlet and am looking forward to you telling us who you are, so we can put a face to the bile that seeps through your lips.”
Since you haven’t finished playing our game, Phil, I’ll lend you a hand. Here’s what else you said:
And you have the temerity to mock my credentials, Phil? Thanks for playing!
July 13th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
matty roo..
what a class act you are..eh..?
careful you don’t overload the lines..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“my name is phillip ure; i am an ex junkie (15 yrs clean of junk; still use pot), ex con (armed robbery of chemist shop whilst going through smack withdrawels), vegan,dpb supported sole dad(thanks), environmental/animal rights activist/supporter.”
Wow. Whoar, a jailbird, who can hardly spell and is proud of being on the dole for many years, while claiming to look after his son (a lame Luddite excuse for not seeking employment).
As our national anthem says: God defend new Zealand. Indeed!
July 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
man-so-low..
have you met walk-on-kangaroo..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Phil’s son reportedly does very well at school Manolo.
Phil, please accept my apologies for taking the piss out of you. This is not joking. From where I stand, beating junk is huge. Raising a son, is huge.
I still think EWO has a future as a gaming platform, but let’s just wait and see.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I wish you guys would treat phule with a little more compassion.
It’s fairly obvious that the guy has some pretty severe mental health problems and coupled with his inability to get a job it’s really a life sentence on some sort of benefit or another.
Oscar Wilde said something along the lines of ‘the more a man specialises, the bigger idiot he becomes’ or words to that effect.
Now phule claims to have a Masters degree (not that you’d know from his political analysis) so I think old Oscar was on to something.
In closing, phule has been getting his arse handed to him for years on this site and really its all just a little easy which is why I don’t bother any more, so maybe you guys could take it a little easy on him please. Thanks.
Back on subject – Labour are dogtucker no matter how they dice it, it will be interesting to see whether they’re fresh kill or some manky old leg thats been on the shed roof for a couple of weeks though.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Chicken Little:
Your thoughtful post deserves a response.
I’ve never met Phil, and can only judge him on the basis of what he posts here. It’s always seemed to me that Phil enjoys robust debate, and gives as good as he gets; I’ve always read Phil’s comments in that light. Truthfully, I simply hadn’t recognised the possibility that he suffers from the issues you’ve mentioned, and if he does, that’s a no-go area as far as I’m concerned.
Having said that, while I make some allowances for Phil, as I do for D4J, it has to work both ways – “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has to count for something. I thought my original contribution to this thread was constructive. But Phil apparently doesn’t react well to constructive criticism. It was wrong for Phil to get me to disclose details of my background (in good faith), then proceed to ridicule me publicly. Until now Phil and I have been on fairly amiable terms, but I’m simply not going to tolerate his unsolicited vitriol, such as that levelled against me on this thread. There’s a big difference between me critiquing Phil’s comments, and Phil attacking me personally. That’s something Phil might care to reflect on, and I’ll leave that ball in his court.
Now on the subject of this thread…
I agree with Matt McCarten that Labour can’t be ruled out of the race just yet – but they’re definitely on the back foot. In fact, I’m loving the frantic rustlings behind Labour’s curtains, but this is only a curtain-raiser before the campaign begins. So far, according to Labour, we’ve had a number of “rogue polls” which eventually became too numerous to be anything other than a clear statistical trend. Even McCarten now begrudgingly accepts this. Having lost that argument, Labour’s revised strategy seems to be to target Key personally, but I can’t see what they hope to achieve. For one thing, I’m not convinced that most New Zealanders like personality politics, at least to the extent where Labour has become obsessed with Key. Labour is treading on dangerous ground here, as National can just as easily point to the conduct of *certain* Labour Ministers and question their fitness to govern. Moreover, it seems to me that these distractions help National, by allowing it to focus on narrow issues like Key’s shareholding history.
Why shouldn’t National hold back the details of its policies until Labour announces an election date? Labour has been strategic about this – but failed dismally. I seem to recall Michael Cullen proudly proclaiming that this year’s budget was designed to neutralise National’s policy mix before the election. The tax cuts were brought forward to just before the election – a naked political bribe.
Anyway, while Labour waits for the chance to beat the “National for privatisation” drum, it’s been making strategic blunders all year. Who cares about National’s policies when Labour is providing so much political entertainment?
I also disagree with McCarten’s view that the election restrictions are “more of an obsession for political commentators and media owners”. This confuses substance and process. One can disagree over the substance – personally, I think some parts of the electoral finance legislation were ill-considered, but that’s a separate debate. But Labour is exposed on the process. Here, the plain fact is they stuffed up. They fast-tracked the legislative process, and as DPF has shown, certain aspects of the legislation were designed to serve Labour’s naked self-interest. But more to the point, Labour’s dismissive attitude shown towards opponents, including accusing them of having a hidden agenda, was polarising and despicable.
So, while I wouldn’t rule Labour out of the race just yet, I think the public sentiment has moved strongly against Labour. It’ll be a bruising fight, possibly with some busy courts ruling on electoral law issues (thanks to Labour), and I’m look forward to it!
July 13th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
“..In closing, phule has been getting his arse handed to him for years on this site and really its all just a little easy which is why I don’t bother any more,..”
in yer dreams..chicky..
provide just one example..chicky..
c’mon..!..archives where your mouth is..!
i’d almost forgotten you..
but now i remember..
you’re a nasty little piece of shite..
racist/all the rest of it..eh..?
why don’t you just crawl back into your hole..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
“..Truthfully, I simply hadn’t recognised the possibility that he suffers from the issues you’ve mentioned, and if he does, that’s a no-go area as far as I’m concerned.
Having said that, while I make some allowances for Phil, as I do for D4J, it has to work both ways – “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has to count for something. I thought my original contribution to this thread was constructive. But Phil apparently doesn’t react well to constructive criticism. It was wrong for Phil to get me to disclose details of my background (in good faith), then proceed to ridicule me publicly. Until now Phil and I have been on fairly amiable terms, but I’m simply not going to tolerate his unsolicited vitriol, such as that levelled against me on this thread. There’s a big difference between me critiquing Phil’s comments, and Phil attacking me personally. That’s something Phil might care to reflect on, and I’ll leave that ball in his court…”
heh heh..!..you pompous prick..
if i were you..i’d tie a broom between my ankles..
you’re so far up yourself..
you’re in danger of disappearing..
and seriously..!..i really couldn’t give a flying fuck what you think about anything..
eh..?
get over yourself..!
eh..?
hall monitor at school..?..were we..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Phil:
You attract more negative karma than a rat in a sewer.
And … you’re . in … danger . of … disappearing . between … your . butchered … punctuation . whoar … eh?
You never got back to me about your life achievements – are you proud of them?
July 13th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Phil why is your first reaction always to attack?
You were on a winner just a half-hour ago and then you made another inflammatory remark.
What’s the deal? Would you rather fight, or understand?
July 13th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
btw..i’d stick with the commercial law..eh..?
y’know..a bit of conveyancing..
cos’..seriously..
you’d be useless in court..
you couldn’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
‘understand’ what..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
The answer’s 42, phil. 42
Mate I mean, aren’t we all on a journey, isn’t life about learning?
What’s the point of debate if you can’t admit you’re wrong or that you need to change your previous position due to new information.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Phil:
You seem intent on attacking my professional credibility. It’s truly fascinating that you seem able to pass judgment on this. I’m happy to let my firm judge how useful I am to them (we live in a performance-based pay world, after all) – and let’s just say I pay my fair share of taxes.
Again, I’m happy to compare my occupation (commercial law) against yours. Now what was your “profession” again?
July 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
amongst other things..i try to avoid bores..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Phil:
Ah, that’s rich chocolate, coming as it does from someone whose idea of an exciting lifestyle involves live-blogging parliamentary question time, while expecting the more gainfully employed to support his (self-preferred) stay-at-home lifestyle.
In the hope of getting this thread somewhat back on the track, Phil, you repeatedly claim (on other Kiwiblog threads) that Clark and Cullen will “monster” Key in televised election debates. I doubt Jo and Jill public care much for parliamentary oratory, and polls would suggest that’s the case, so no that’s not going to count for much in the court of public opinion. Are you arguing that a simplistic public will favour style over substance? Because, frankly, the “National in the 90s” and “slippery John” lines are sounding like a scratched CD – and if they’re the best Labour’s got then they’re in trouble.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:18 am
While not wishing to be a total arsehole, most of you guys should and do have more brains then a bull can shit but common sense has left the keyboard when you add Philu to your comments (i.e 61 posts mention Philu out of 83 on this forum ) Philu is playing you like a fiddle, he lives for attention and most on Kiwiblog are only to happy to reply. I believe Philu is a sad lonely individual who would argue over two cats fighting over a fish head. By all means reply to him but don’t ever think that whatever you say will ever make one bit of difference thats not what it’s about with Philu.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Labour are finished.
They nearly lost the unlosable election last time during the economic good times. The economy has turned to custard, Labour is blamed for it, National win by a massive landslide. Simple as that.
What we are playing for here is the future direction of New Zealand as well as the destruction of Labour as a viable political force for the next decade plus.
The problem with John Key’s strategy of “Slowly slowly catchy monkey” is he wins the election by a landslide that he would have achieved anyway but feels limited in his ability to act in the best interests of New Zealand. The economy sinks without trace, New Zealand ceases exist as an entity and all Kiwi’s are expunged from history and life goes on (Until Humanity ultimately expires at some point further down the time line).
C’est la vie.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:01 am
See what I mean guys, all just too easy, as you can see from phules life story, he makes a habit of shooting himself in the foot, over and over, just too easy.
I like the way he pulls out whichever card he thinks will do damage.
With me he tries the race card.
What have I ever said against whitey thats so bad phule?
I honestly can’t remember.
If there’s any ‘race’ that I don’t like it’s bullshit bludgers who seem to think that the example of long term welfarism is a good one to be giving their child (when they are obviously capable, education wise, of having a job).
As for your ‘archives’ call phule – you only need to read this thread to see you make a complete idiot of yourself yet again.
Reid – 42, yup.
SSB – Of course it makes no difference, I just enjoy watching phule get more and more rabid as his flimsy intellectual foundations are exposed for all to see.
Nomestradamus – Phule can’t put up his achievements up here because walking the dogs twice a day doesn’t really stack up against someone who actually goes out in the world and makes their own way. No substance there mate. Nothing. Nada.
…eh…?
July 14th, 2008 at 8:06 am
“..As for your ‘archives’ call phule – you only need to read this thread to see you make a complete idiot of yourself yet again..”
so..when called on your bullshit claim..and asked to provide an example..
..you can’t..
thereby..proving before all..
that you are totally ‘full of it’..
bye bye chicky..!
you just crawl back into your hole now..for another few months..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 14th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Phil. This entire fucking thread shows you making a complete idiot of yourself. We can’t help it that you’re too doped up on marijuana, P or whatever your drug of choice is today to notice.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Phools little nappy wetting outbursts a just a taste of how his idol is going to go off come election night when we fire sorry ass.
She and the drug abuser are going to go spastic on the conspiracy express after that.
Shame no one will give a crap.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am
You just keep on giving phule.
On this thread you have had your arse handed to you, as noted by several commenters.
Now, if several other commenters jump on here and say they don’t think you’ve had your arse handed to you then I shall dutifully canvas the archives of this site to find one of the many examples of you being a dickhead. Other than that happening we’ll just let public opinion stand shall we?
I notice you still haven’t give any answer to Nomestradamus as to your achievements and profession phule. Wonder why?
July 14th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
” agree with Matt that the Greens are guaranteed to go with Labour despite their protestations. They’re like the battered spouse always coming back for more!”
Well, if Labour are wife beaters, then I dare say National are prospective murder-rapists! Which would you choose DPF?
July 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“and isn’t that lawyer guy fucken boring..?”
yeah, it certainly has been noted before phil U. He reminds me of this blur song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQhLtd58Jxc
Kind of nails him don’t you think?
July 14th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Another thing that’s been overlooked on this thread is that around 25% of potential voters are still undecided as to who they’ll vote vote for. Then there’s the overseas votes, which always favour the left. It’s just impossible to predict a result at this stage, though I’d say a Labour lead government would be odds-on if Labour were to follow McCarten’s advice. There would doubtlessly be a backlash in the media because of the use of gerrymandering, but I don’t see that this would necessarily hurt the government in any material way.
The electoral system has been gerrymandered in the right’s favour for almost all of the last 100 years (i.e. FPP and “the country vote”), time for the left to have their turn I reckon!
July 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Roger Nome: The electoral system has been gerrymandered in the right’s favour for almost all of the last 100 years (i.e. FPP and “the country vote”), time for the left to have their turn I reckon!
Philip John Mason, willing to justify anything for the Party. At least it provides some context. The next time you bleat on about transparency in elections, fairness and so forth it would be good to remember that you are willing to manipulate elections to get the result you want – as long as it’s your side.
So why the pretense of being objective and honest? Why not simply adopt your partisan colours Philip John? You’ve been known as a partisan hack for so long now, why not just admit it?
July 14th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“The Greens are like the battered spouse always coming back for more!”
True. But they do it because the NZ Greens are also moles from the left prepared to to do whatever it takes to subvert democracy from within. They have flexible principles and always operate fifth-colum style.
It’s appeal to the young, naive, Luddites, unreformed old-hippies, and academics on the grounds of environmentalistm is a facade hiding the true socialist ideology they profess.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Oh my goodness – a whole comment dedicated to me! And funny how Phillip John waits until the threads come to the end of the road before piping up.
Oh really? Who, apart from you and Phil, have a problem with my contributions to Kiwiblog? Names and evidence please.
And look, I’m blessed with one of Phillip John’s love song ditties! Such a badge of honour – Deity Nigel will be impressed! The point seems to be to mock my educational credentials. And it’s all empty rhetoric – which is disappointing, Phillip John, as you aspire to be a “high-paid academic”. Remember saying that?
What grates you, Phillip John, is your credibility on Kiwiblog has been shot to pieces so many times. That’s why you always get negative karma here.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
the thing is..boring lawyer guy..
..is that you just ‘don’t get it’..eh..?
..and people like you..never ever will..’get it’..
..face it..!..tis’ your cross to bear..!
and ..stop howling into the void/darkness that surrounds you..
(it’s very undignified..eh..?..)
and just accept your lot..
we know you ‘don’t understand..’do you mr jones..?’
or..you could..say it loud..!..say it proud..!
‘i’m a bore..!…..and now i will follow with a long explanation /my qualifications to be considered a ‘bore’..
(and have you noticed that peoples’ eyes glaze over when you attempt to engage them in commercial law/management ’small talk’..)
‘listen to’ these hints/messages..eh..?
(and you do have our ’sympathies’..eh..?..at the ‘load’/boredom curse you must carry..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Phil:
Oh, Phil, read back the thread and tell me where your support base is – apart from the highly discredited Phillip John. Go on. Chop chop.
*Yawn*
I can’t be bothered dealing with you anymore. You’re a total waste of bandwidth and my productive time.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
This thread has to be the biggest bitch slapping of all time. Philu gets his arse handed to him – (and Roger Bigot jumps in to cop a feel)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
POC- Where’s the love song? It’s a satirical piece, which caricatures people like you, who come from a very sheltered and privileged background, and just lack character and a realistic view of society because of it (thus your far-right views). Though of course, it’s hardly surprising that you lack the self-consciousness to be cognisant of these things.
“That’s why you always get negative karma here.”
From what i’ve seen, anyone who posts from a left-wing perspective gets negative karma here. I have seen D4J get upwards of 30 positive karma points though. Yep, kiwiblog, the ultiamte arbiter of an argument’s veracity!
“Phillip John waits until the threads come to the end of the road before piping up.”
Wrong. There was no waiting. I never wait to have a laugh at your expense POC – the “supa dupa rich lawyer guy” who spends his days trawling the internet looking for ways to threadjack blogs by entering into petty personal disputes.
I would have thought you’d find something interesting to do with all that money. Or are you just so bored/boring that you’ve got nothing better to do? Kind of sad when you think about it like that hey?
July 14th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
POC
“tell me where your support base is”
Well, you’ve got the support of various fanatical right-wing loonies. I’d say having no support base is better than that.
“You’re a total waste of bandwidth and my productive time.”
That’s a bit disingenuous POC. You’re always pissing away your productive time by simultaneously threadjacking blogs and smearing people that you don’t know. Think about it, you could be away at a tropical resort, pissing beach goers off with your obnoxiously loud, rented jet-ski, being a condescending arsehol to the waiters and cleaners at your hotel, and whatever else it is that pricks like you do with their spare cash/time.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Interesting fact. In Philu’s posts in this thread to date there are 7,654 full stops and miscellaneous punctuation marks. Must be a record.
Rogered nome “ad whatever else it is that pricks like you do with their spare cash/time.”
As a matter of interest what do bludging socialists do with their free time?
July 14th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“..Interesting fact. In Philu’s posts in this thread to date there are 7,654 full stops and miscellaneous punctuation marks. Must be a record..”
brian..brian..you counted..?
i..i’m ‘touched’..
you..you..care..!
um..!..have you thought of macrame..?..y’know..!..as a hobby..?
it’s obvious detailed/counting type work is your forte..brian..
are you an accountant..?
or do you put little widgets together..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
roger: “…around 25% of potential voters are still undecided…”
That’s great news roger, for Emeritus Professor Keith Chapman developed a predictive model for elections in which the main predictor was the size of the undecided vote. The larger that was, the bigger the swing against the incumbent govt. I’ve monitored that for six elections now and it has legs.
Oh dear.
Phil it’s a shame you appear to have such a cynical mindset. See my first thought on Brian’s interesting comment was how did Brian do that without counting? Maybe he used some code, I know one thing, he didn’t count them by hand. OTOH phil, you leapt straight into speculation about the personal traits of someone I presume you’ve never met. Which is often risky if accuracy of understanding is the objective.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
Oh sookywahwah. The most prolific Kiwiblog commenter, who just happens to be the most discredited, doesn’t have anything nice to say about me. Oh diddums! Well, Phillip John, I’m not in the slightest bit intimated by your tummy-thumping. You seem to fling “far-right” around as an insult; if it wets your nappies, I’ll wear it as a badge of honour.
You claim to be a better person than me. I’ll let others be the judge of that. Just to help them make up their mind, though, here’s a recent example of bigotted Phillip John in action (karma -30):
Wow! I think that’s a case of Phillip John pissing away his non-productive time by simultaneously threadjacking blogs and smearing people that he doesn’t know. Hoist by your own petard, loser!
Feel free to provide a comment of mine that even comes close to that level of bigotry. But I know you can’t. Diddums!
I don’t see anyone laughing with you, Phillip John, but at you.
The reason you get negative karma, Phillip John, is because you’re a bitter and twisted troll. I think DPF summarised the position very well:
Note the karma on that comment: +32! So that’s at least 32 Kiwiblog readers who’d like to see you banned. I think the laugh is on you!
July 14th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
33. Make that 33. After what he said about my wife, for which I’m still waiting for an apology I’d be only too happy to see the back of that odious little fuckwit. And after reading his comments about disabled people – yeah. The blog would definately be better off without Philip John Mason.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Well folks it looks like a wrap on the inaugural EWO game and what a game it was.
It may well come back sometime. Imagine a Clark and Key election EWO. This has potential.