National’s 2008 Party List
National has released its party list for the 2008 election.
Now the nominal list by itself is only a partial picture. One has to look at the “Effective List” to work out who may come in when. The Effective List is the likely List MPs, after taking account of those who will win their electorate seats.
Now let us assume the 29 candidates who already are Electorate MPs will retain their seats. Let us also assume Amy Adams will win Selwyn (replaces Rakaia which is ultra safe National) and Simon Bridges will win Selwyn Tauranga (based on Colmar Brunton poll).
Which other candidates may win their seats? Well there are no public polls in those seats, but I did calculate an electoral pendulum back in May which calculates what seats would fall on a standard swing. The swing never is standard of course, so these are not predictions – just an assumption on the best public data there is. The One News Colmar Brunton is the only poll which asks how people will vote on the electorate vote, and in July it had a gap between National and Labour of 15%. Now on the electoral pendulum this would see the following seats picked up:
- Taupo (Louise Upston)
- Rotorua (Todd McClay)
- Otaki (Nathan Guy)
- Hamilton West (Tim Macindoe)
- West Coast-Tasman (Chris Auchinvole)
- Palmerston North (Malcolm Plimmer)
- Auckland Central (Nikki Kaye)
- New Plymouth (Jonathan Young)
So assuming National wins 39 electorate seats, you then ask how many seats National would win overall based on its party vote. Now we do not know what vote National will get, but let us go off the date and time weighted average of recent polls at curiablog which has National at 50.9%. One also then needs to work out what National’s share of the effective vote is, eliminating the parties that fail to qualify for representation. At present the minnows get 1.1% and NZ First 4.4% which means 5.5% is wasted. National’s effective vote is 50.9%/(100% – 5.5%) = 53.9%. This would get National 64 MPs in total and on the assumptions above 39 electorate MPs, and 25 list MPs.
Now NZ First is close to 5% and if they make it, that will have an effect, so in the table below I’ll do two columns. The first showing what percentage of the party vote is needed for a candidate to come in off the list if NZ First do not make it (and wasted vote is 5.5%) and if NZ First do make it (and wasted vote is say 1% as it was in 2005).
Now once again this is not a prediction. This is a scenario based on publicly available polls. I am not saying National will win 65 seats, nor am I predicting what electorate National will win. I am reflecting the current public poll data.
Now let us look at some of the individual winners, before we look at the overall possible Caucus.
Caucus are all in the top 50, which will be pleasing to them. Unless National drops below 43% (if NZ First do not make it) or 45% (if NZ First do make it), all MPs will be returned.
Of the 2005 intake, the top ranked are Chris Finlayson and Tim Groser who are ranked 14 and 15, which is no 2 and no 3 on the effective list. Next is Tau Henare at 26 (7), Jonathan Coleman 29 and Kate Wilkinson at 30 (8).
Of the new candidates, Steven Joyce is in a league of his own at no 16 (4). Then four new candidates are placed in the 30s, above some MPs and guaranteed of entry so long as National polls as well as last time. They are Sam Lotu-Iiga, Hekia Parata, Melissa Lee and Kanwal JS Bakshi.
After the top 50, you have seven mainly relatively young candidates in Simon Bridges, Amy Adams, Louise Upston, Todd McClay, Tim Macindoe, Aaron Gilmore and Nikki Kaye. On the standaed pendulum, most of them will win their seats and not need the list place.
After them making up the 50s is Cam Calder, Conway Powell and Stephen Franks, all in winnable places. In fact few positions are not winnable on current polls (which is why six extra list only candidates were added onto the bottom of the list as an insurance policy in case National got more than 67 MPs. The Fairfax poll yesterday would have it receive 70 MPs. Roy Morgan however would have only 58 MPs.
So what does the next National caucus look like? Well on the current public polls average, it would be a caucus of 65 with:
- 17 female MPs (26%)
- 13 MPs under 40 (20%)
- 7 Maori MPs (11%)
- 1 Pacific MP
- 3 Asian MPs
What if things tighten up? What would it be if NZ First do make it, and National gets say 47%? That would be a caucus of 57 with:
- 17 female MPs (29%)
- 11 MPs under 40 (19%)
- 6 Maori MPs (10%)
- 1 Pacific MP
- 3 Asian MPs
Under either scenario it will be a relatively diverse caucus, with a lot of new talent coming through.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“Let us also assume Amy Adams will win Selwyn (replaces Rakaia) and Simon Bridges will win Selwyn (based on Colmar Brunton poll).”
DPF, as much as you love National, it’s actually impossible for 2 National members to win one seat. Also, I didn’t know Colmar Brunton did a poll for the electorate vote in Selwyn.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Excellent analysis
Pity mainstream media don’t do this more.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Stephen Franks is far too low, given his experience and ability.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I think the list has the look of a potential caucus that is very representative of our country. I hope that there is enough in there to form a decent cabinet.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Excellent detail. None of this is terribly surprising (apart from seeing yesterday’s men like Terry Heffernan and Marc Alexander having a vague chance of getting into Parliament) – especially that National is diversifying itself. This is a natural progression, and means that National is catching up with Labour, and in fact the caucus will increasingly look like Labour over time.
But apart from the “superficial” identity politics of the ethnicity and gender of politicians (which I think is far over played – especially by the left), it’d be interesting to know the current/previous professions/jobs of the candidates. I.e what percentage of the National caucus will be lawyers, teachers, farmers, etc.?
If you’re interested in reading some more about the: ‘The social composition of National Party caucuses’, I’ve written a post on this at:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2008/05/political-party.html
In this I argue that the social composition of National MPs has been changing significantly over the last couple of decades. Historically, the party has drawn most of its parliamentarians from its traditional core group of supporters: higher-income groups, such as farmers, professionals (lawyers and accountants especially), and businesspeople. In 1969, for instance, of National’s candidates for election, 40% of the party’s candidates were farmers, 24% were ‘top professionals’ and 6% were company directors (Mitchell, 1969b: p.8). In the 1990s the parliamentary party was gradually becoming dominated by professionals. Farmers only made up a quarter of a caucus dominated by those with professional backgrounds (constituting about a third of the caucus).
By the end of the 1990s, farmers were clearly a decreasing influence in politics and society, and in 1999 there were only 14 MPs in Parliament who gave their occupation as ‘farmer’, and 4 of them were not in the National Party. Also, although the party elected an ex-farmer as president in 1989, Geoff Thompson was also a lawyer and had been an MP between 1978 and 1984. Since the 1980s, most presidents – Sue Woods, Neville Young, John Collinge, John Slater, Michelle Boag, and Judy Kirk – have been urban professionals.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Bryce – that will be very interesting I agree. I might try and collate that data at some stage and do an analysis. What occupational areas would you suggest I use? I am thinking:
* Farmer
* Lawyer
* Teacher
* Business Owner
* Private Sector Manager
* Public Sector
* IT Professional
* Other Professional
* Community/NGO Manager/Staff
I may just e-mail all the candidates, so having a checklist of options would help.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
David – your list looks pretty good. Off the top of my head I’d add:
Unionist
University lecturer
Labourer
Home maker
Journalist / broadcaster / Media worker etc.
Some of the categories might be redundant for National, but using a wide array of such categories would be useful for comparative analysis with other NZ political parties. There’s probably other useful categories. And I’m sure there’s plenty of humourous options to add…
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Great analysis David. Thank you. There will probably be some debate around the edges but all in all I think the List Ranking Cttee have reflected the mood of the Party and the need to produced a balanced list. Like Reid I would have preferred that Stephen Franks was slightly higher but I won’t die on my sword over that.
Its going to be fascinating to see the ‘other’ list drawn up against a backdrop of polls in the low/mid 30s. Guess there are going to be some very nervous Labour MPs and so there should be.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
ACT was to release its list today but will delay it for a week as a result of national anouncing today. It seems the Asian Chapter of the ACT Party has promised a donation of $80k if they get their man at #2 on the list.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It’s interesting to see Stephen Franks explain/justify the fact that he didn’t get a higher list placing due to National’s diversity project:
‘The party list is a shop-window. It is reported as a symbol of the kind of people who will be looked after by a party. Accordingly, though I believe strongly in appointments by merit, not quota, it is imperative for the party to show that it is not composed only of people like me. There are plenty of people my age, colour and sex, so the shop window needs to emphasize those who are not.’
A very diplomatic explanation! I guess we can read between the lines of this carefully written paragraph, but I’m very surprised and amused to see Franks professing such support for National’s “diversity project”.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I agree with Bryce that I’m not terribly pleased with the placings of Heffernan and Alexander. But overall, a very encouraging line up and it’s great that National didn’t have to implement an A-list for its selection of electorate candidates like Cameron’s Tories.
And you could add Minister of Religion to that list, but that’s only because I know Jonathan Young
August 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Still not that representative of the population split. Good to see Mr Bakshi up there in the middle, but I think National needs more Indian and Chinese candidates on the list as they do make up 10% of the population and traditionally lean towards the left.
Also where are the South African’s? National should get rid of McCully and put a good rugby playing, beer drinking, boewors eating Safa in the East Coast Bays seat. That would upset all the PC wankers.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Southern Raider would you kindly email me at chuckbird@hotmail.com
August 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Re List positions of Franks, Alexander and Heffernan. Makes one think National is not too keen on taking those who defect from other parties. Probably not worth the strife it would cause on those within the National party caucus.
I hope Franks wins Wellington Central (and kicks Heather Roys butt in the process). Franks was treated badly by a Roy clique within ACT last time who put the lightweight Roy at #2 on their list (despite the party members putting her at #6).
August 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Chuck check you inbox
August 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
What about adding Activist/Advocate to the list of categories, and sports person too, although I don’t think anyone in the current list would qualify for that.
Or even Police/Defence, or are you lumping that in with public sector?
August 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Interesting posting JayDee … So it appears in the ACT Party lexicon a Number 2 position on the list is worth $80k. Wonder what Rodney paid for his and won’t Heather Roy be a trifle miffed?
Seems democracy is out and money rules ok.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
The Franks list placing is a disgrace. ACT should offer him their own list placing!
August 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I worked for several years alongside Terry Heffernan. While there’s no denying he’s been through a few parties – Social Credit, Alliance, NZF, now National, though some would see that as a maturing of ideology perhaps
– I don’t see how he can be called “yesterday’s man” when he has never had the opportunity to demonstrate his considerable capacity as a Member of Parliament.
Excluding John Key, you have to go to 15 on the List to find someone who isn’t more deserving of the title (or “yesterday’s woman” as the case may be). And then the rest of it is riddled with names who are even tireder. Wasn’t Eric Roy, for instance, in Richard Seddon’s Cabinet?
Given the choice of seeing Lockwood Smith floundering and grinning through another portfolio or giving Terry Heffernan a go as a backbencher I know what I’d prefer to see.
Amongst his many talents Terry can recite Standing Orders in his sleep (not that we’ve ever slept together, you understand) and thus in the unlikely event National loses will be a formidable weapon in keeping the Speaker honest. He also has an uncanny ability to recall not just people’s previous positions on an issue but virtually an exact recall of the words they used and, if you’re lucky, the date on which they said it so you can find it in Hansard. Again, a formidable weapon in exposing hypocrites.
Terry is an exceptional House tactician who actually has respect for the traditions and rules of Parliament. If he is elected National ought to immediately make him Junior Whip and put him on whatever group manages House tactics these days. Unless he’s changed incredibly over the past ten years you’ll find him one of the the hardest working MPs in any party, and someone with an ingrained integrity of the sort that can’t be bought – by baubles or anything else.
Trust me, he’ll be an asset, and I wish him well.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
DPF said: “Under either scenario it will be a relatively diverse caucus, with a lot of new talent coming through.”
Hmmm, interesting to see how one defines ‘relatively diverse’…if it is in comparison to previous National Party lists, then maybe DPF has a point, but ~26% women in a likely caucus? I don’t advocate quotas or expect it should be much closer to 50% but it is a strong indication of how poorly the National Party attracts females. Maybe this low % is also a reason why.
[DPF: National is attracting more female voters than Labour is at present. And if you look at Parliaments around the world, close to 30% is at the higher end]
August 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
only two names that are NOT allready MPs on the first 34 names!!
So much for new faces that DPF bleated about
[DPF: Pathetic attempt. What party is only to get 34 MPs? Maybe Labour, not National? There are seven new candidates ranked higher than one or more caucus members and almost guaranteed to be MPs. That's a shitload more than Labour I predict]
August 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
And why is Simon Bridges ranked so highly? Yes he’s one of their best candidates but one of the major things Winston has going for him in Tauranga is that the dear old National loyalists, who don’t want to harm the party but go all week at the knees for a smile in a double-breasted suit, believe that it’s okay to vote for Peters as their electorate MP if they give their party vote to National.
By ranking Bridges so highly, National are giving them that level of comfort – believing they can have the illicit thrill of rebellion by ticking WP as the MP and still get “that nice young Mr Bridges” by giving National the party vote.
Of course there might not be enough of them still thinking that way, but it’s still a rookie mistake to leave that door open… unless National are doing more than just leaving the door open to a post-election coalition with NZF (which is unprincipled enough) and actually trying to ensure the party survives, which crosses from unprincipled to reprehensible.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ghostwhowalks:
You betray your desperation when you stop at the first 34 names:
And what do you have to say about this Ghostie:
Kind of makes The Standard look a wee bit silly don’t you think?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
[I'll post this again as my comment - with only one link, not three - has gone into moderation]
Ghostwhowalks:
You betray your desperation when you stop at the first 34 names:
And what do you have to say about this Ghostie:
August 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
GWW2 … Question .. just what is the relevance of No. 34 when on current polling National is likely to end up with 60+ MPs. Answer of course is it suits your arguement. But if you go to just 38 it increases to 5.
Care to have a bet that when your mob releases its List there won’t be five new faces in the first 38. Just the same of bunch of misfits and many with their noses out of joint that their placing will have ensured the electoral oblivion.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Test – comments going into moderation.
Edit: Ross, yes, I’ve also called Ghostie on that self-serving ‘analysis’.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Cue a whole lot of negativity about “university student politicians”…”with no real-world experience”… “getting into parliament through The Back Door…”
Oh no, sorry, that’s unique to the Labour Party list, my bad…
August 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
GWW2 “only two names that are NOT allready MPs on the first 34 names!!
So much for new faces that DPF bleated about”
Given National are going to have circa 60 MPs, why on earth do they need the new people to be in the top 34? They can have the new people in places 35-60 if they want. Recognition of experience is not a crime you know.
Edit: Looks like everyone is calling GWW on his stupidity.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Rex … can I suggest those “dear old National loyalists, who don’t want to harm the party but go all week at the knees for a smile in a double-breasted suit, believe that it’s okay to vote for Peters as their electorate MP if they give their party vote to National” have mostly moved on or passed out.
The Tauranga demographic (like the rest of NZ) means the election will be decided by the 65 who long ago figured out WP for the fraud he is.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
re my last … insert < before 65
August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Rex questions why I label Terry Heffernan as ‘yesterday’s man’. Well, he’s actually been through more than just ‘a few parties’! He’s been a wannabe politician now for over 30 years.
He’s been desperately trying to get into parliament through the following parties: Values, Social Credit, the Democrats, the Liberals, the Alliance, NZ First, and now the National Party! He’s been a serial party hopper, often leaving parties under a cloud of bitterness, gossip, and intrigue. He’s Tim Shadbolt without the colourful and interesting past, or the charisma. And like Shadbolt, Heffernan can’t even stick to one location – he’s attempted to get into Parliament via: Sydenham, Wanganui, Wellington Central, Albany, Waimakariri, Tauranga – and now Port Hills!
His party-hopping has even surpassed Gilbert Myles. Actually he worked for Gilbert Myles in Parliament too. Heffernan has worked for virtually everyone as their cynical backroom tactician and schemer. He’s been working at Parliament on and off since 1980!
He’s a pure political chameleon and will drop one political belief in favour of another purely for tactical gain. That’s why he was with Winston Peters for so long. Unfortunately that is what people like Heffernan are all about – strategy, tactics, and never ideology, politics, beliefs, and principles. Funnily enough, Heffernan once said he was writing a book about honesty in politics. He obviously had trouble coming up with anything to say.
Heffernan is a true member of the “political class”. His slogan for standing for different political parties is: “I don’t care for who; is as long as I’m in.” In fact this year he is standing in Christchurch for Port Hills and won’t even move across town from Papanui to live in the electorate unless he wins! Truly committed.
So Rex is right that Heffernan ‘has never had the opportunity to demonstrate his considerable capacity’, but this year he’s having his 10th attempt at getting into Parliament! I would have thought that National would have learnt enough from Heffernan’s previous 9 attempts to know better than try to include him as part of their new “fresh face”.
I don’t know Heffernan myself, but I remember he was the person behind establishing NZ First’s xenophobia in the 1990s. He convinced Peters to go with all the anti-immigrant and anti-foreign investment populist stuff. I’d criticise Heffernan for being a “xenophobe”, but the reality is that he probably doesn’t actually believe in anything. So, then again, maybe he’s not actually “yesterday’s man”, but probably the perfect candidate for modern politics – a true hollow man.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
This looks to me like the most talent-packed list any party has put before voters since the dawn of MMP.
(No, I am not a member of the National Party, and other parties have some excellent people too.)
Like others I might have put a few names a little higher or lower. My knowledge of these people is (I admit) limited. In some cases I know nothing more than what National has put on its website. Despite that, I am impressed. Not only does this auger well for the fifth National government, but also for the sixth.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
DPF:
Any chance you can add (out) GLB/queer to your caucus diversity indicies? Or is that not a community of interst to the Nats?
d
August 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Southern Raider- as an ex-South African allow me to say that although many of us support National [for some of us, having never voted National back in SA, this is a bit of a dissonance] we aren’t so keen to stand up because we are aware that it is very easy for Labour to get all PC and criticise us- before the issue is sorted out the mud of racism etc may have had a detrimental effect on polling elsewhere.
But it would be worthwhile to irritate the left by putting up a Safa; but it would be necessary to check their background pretty carefully. Many of us were soldiers; imagine the fun that Labour would have on that issue. Of course, there are a few like me [ex-conscientious objectors (and also ex-soldier)] which would be even more amusing.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Ross, The $80k donation offer has been made to ACT (foolishly in writing)… not sure if has been accepted in whole or negotiated. Three years ago The ACT’s Asian Chapter offered $250k as a donation in a deal to have their guy (Kenneth Wang) high on the list. Not sure how much they did donate in the end but Wang was placed high enough to get into Parliament when Prebble resigned from Parliament.
I wonder if these offers are unqiue to ACT, or whether the asian business interests behind ACT’s Asian Chapter are making similar approaches to other parties.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Hi BlairM. You say “The Franks list placing is a disgrace. ACT should offer him their own list placing!”. Truth is Hide and Roy shunned the former ACT MPs and blocked them from any involvement with the party. Hide did not want his leadership threatened (remember Franks challenged Hide for the leadership and the Board was equally split as to whether it would be Hide or Franks).
Remember also that Roy was #8 on the list and was elevated to #2, even ahead of the then deputy leader. Everyone knew that this was a manipulation by a Roy clique on the board which ignored the wishes of the members who ranked her at #6. Roy therefore is worried shitless that had the former MPs been involved in the current list round she would be relegated to a position more deserving of her skill shortage.
It is by design that none of the former ACT MPs (apart from Wang but see my post about the $80k donation offer for the reason for that) are going to appear on the ACT list when it is announced next week.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Grant. I’m married to one and have one as my boss. It would be hard to find a Safa over 40 that wasn’t in the army.
Yes I agree that it is stereotypical for the left to paint all South African as supporters of Terblanche.
It would be good to see though. Hopefully National will open the doors to South African and Zimbabwe immigrants.
Have you seen the photos of the NZ Expo in Joburg? Queues of hundreds lining up to get in.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Grant
While you are right when you say it would be prudent to check their background you would surely only do that for the right reasons, if we on the right are afraid of putting up a South African just because he or she IS a South African then we are again letting the left set the agenda.
One of the most important tasks of the incoming National govt is to change the way things are done in NZ, we must stop pandering to the bloody socialists and start setting an agenda of our own.
It is NOT evil to be a success in business, being a trade union official is NOT always an honorable thing to have done before you enter Parliament and we MUST stop being afraid of researching he political background of another prospective (or sitting) Labour MP just because they happen to come from the Rainbow faction of the Labour party.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
big bruv: “if we on the right are afraid of putting up a South African just because he or she IS a South African then we are again letting the left set the agenda.”
No;
if you “on the right are afraid of putting up a South African just because he or she IS a South African” then you are IMAGINING that the left will play some sort of race card and try to demonise your South African candidate, and THEN on top of that you are assuming your candidate will not have the capability of rising above that sort of thing (if it happens.)
Then you go on to say Boo those nasty lefties, always trying to find dirt in our candidate’s backgrounds, before going on to implore the right to start doing the same to Labour candidates, because wouldn’t it be great if you uncovered “damning” revelations of being queer or a union member (BTW which crime is worse, in your mind?) or similar in their backgrounds?
It is generous of you to set out such a clear a manifesto of your paranoia. Your post says precious little about anything else though.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Or RRM some damning evidence about the true nature of the relationship between Mr Davis and Ms Clark?
August 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Such as…?
They are conspiring to help the russkies or the aliens invade us?
Peter Davis does the cooking in their household because he gets home from work earlier…?
Tell me what you’re trying to say.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
So who did Stephen Franks piss off?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
RRM don’t give us that bullshit. If the media had some balls to tell the truth Labour would go down quicker than a Zepplin.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Radar, one would think the ACT electorate.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
RRM
Such eloquently written bullshit.
The left under Clark have no morals or scruples , she is the one who dishes the dirt then runs away yelling “they are being nasty to me” whenever some comes back her way.
You always know when she is cornered because she insists on reminding the media that National are the ones who invented the “rumour” that she is gay despite the fact (not something she ever lets get in the way of her lies) that the Nat’s have said no such thing.
Of course the left will play the race card, for you to suggest otherwise displays either an amazing ignorance or its an outright lie, I suspect it is the latter.
Oh, and by the way, when I talk about refusing to play the game by the lefts agenda it means that I will not ever be bullied into defending accusations such as those you make in your second last paragraph, the only thing I will say is that if you think a persons sexuality is that important in todays world then perhaps you are the one who has the problem.
These are the new rules RRM…learn to play by them as soon as you can otherwise your party and your politics will become increasingly irrelevant over the next ten years or so.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Who brought up “the Rainbow faction” again?
(Hint: must have been either me at 6:11, or you at 5:48)
August 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I did RRM, ..and your problem is?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
bb: But you’re saying that I’M the one who “thinks a persons sexuality is that important in todays world”
Southern Raider: Spit it out, man!
WHAT about Clark’s relationship with Davis would so horrify the voters that “Labour would go down quicker than a Zepplin”???
August 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
PS:
“I will not ever be bullied into defending accusations such as those you make in your second last paragraph”
LOL
August 17th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
jaydee: any evidence of that ACT/asian slur? I haven’t heard it before, and it doesn’t really sound all that believable.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
deleted, can’t be bothered bringing up that old chestnut
August 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
stephen – now you have me wondering.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
RRM how about Clark feeding incorrect information to the SST on the ex Police Commisioner.
All the Police reports and witnesses said that the breath tester was never visible and that the Commissioner never said “that won’t be necessary”.
The SST journalist and editor both swore under oath in court that Helen told them these facts. And you can’t claim the SST is a right leaning paper.
She got someone sacked because he didn’t fit under her mould.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Lets see, is JayDee a factionalist conspiracist type by any chance? Anyhow, maybe we can just do some facts, to set caring minds at rest. $80000 and Asian Chapter was mentioned. Yes, this is ACT Asia Chapter’s proudly expressed campaign budget set earlier this year for which they are enthusiastically fund raising for to be used as part of ACTs party vote campaign.
Any claimed association with a list position is just that – claimed. No it’s less than that, just cheapshot scuttlebutt which says more about how the claimant does his or her bitter little life. It’s factually false, worthy of ignoring except that in this instance I thought it was a slight against our Asian Chapter community, I have friends there and if you think I’m taking this a little personally you could be right.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
$80k for a number 2 placing JayDee? Are you serious?!
What a joke. $80k is nothing, and I would have thought such a suggestion would be laughed at.
One position it might buy though – last. I heard that ACT candidates (used to?) bid on the last spot on the list – a perverse sort of honour. Garry Mallett coughs up quite a few thousand for it apparently
August 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Bruceh… Thank you for confirming the $80k. You may be right.. it could all be a series of coincidences… it could be a coincidence that Mr Wang is now seeking the #2 slot on the list… a conincidence that in 2005 the Asian Chapter offered a donation of $250k for a high slot for the same candidate … and a coincidence that Mr Wang did receive a listing high enough to become an MP on Richard Prebbles retirement. Yes… I fully accept those could be a series of coincidences.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Like I suggested, JayDee is a happy conspiracist, enjoying his own closed circuit world. What psychopathology is he needing to feed by continually bringing this thread off topic?
August 18th, 2008 at 12:09 am
JayDee, I think you will find that ACT are keen to court the vote that a fluent Mandarin speaker and prominent Chinese New Zealander such as Wang could campaign for on their behalf. It may well be that this also brings donations for ACT, but obviously the point is to get votes. You pick candidates that can get those votes and you rank them on your list so as to maximise your vote. ACT is a political party, not a cartel or a business. Do you have a problem with ACT maximising its vote so it can implement its policies?
August 18th, 2008 at 4:39 am
JayDee said ‘and a coincidence that Mr Wang did receive a listing high enough to become an MP on Richard Prebbles retirement’
I thought Kenneth became an MP after Donna was removed? Did Richard not stay a MP until the election?
This is a rather borning list, which is a very good idea for National. It has some talent further down and will not scare the horses. It was also great to see Franks down so low, he would have been a pain in the ass in cacus.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I think we can take it as given that the National party has BLACKBALLED Stephen Franks.
Voting National is hardly a vote for change. Only ACT is going to deliver New Zealand economic salvation.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Bruceh… Thank you for confirming the $80k. You may be right.. it could all be a series of coincidences… it could be a coincidence that Mr Wang is now seeking the #2 slot on the list… a conincidence that in 2005 the Asian Chapter offered a donation of $250k for a high slot for the same candidate … and a coincidence that Mr Wang did receive a listing high enough to become an MP on Richard Prebbles retirement. Yes… I fully accept those could be a series of coincidences.
So where is the evidence of this 80k in writing again?
JayDee (8) Says: Ross, The $80k donation offer has been made to ACT (foolishly in writing).
August 18th, 2008 at 8:02 am
BlairM, yes there is of course merit in a political party targeting a sector for votes, and the best of luck to ACT. The concern is where a donation from an interest group to a political party has strings attached. The public is very concerned about that as the Glenn and Peters donations scandals show.
ACT does not disclose (even to its own candidates!) how members ranked the list placings. There is a very good reason for this; there’s very little correlation between the Board list ranking and the members ranking. The ACT list is in effect done by appointment by a small Board, not selection by party members. If it were the latter, there would be no concern and no grounds to suggest impropriety. If ACT is to continue with this degree of non-disclosure about its selection process it needs to be more transparent about the source of its political donations. It needs to do what it is asking other parties to do.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:19 am
“BlairM, yes there is of course merit in a political party targeting a sector for votes, and the best of luck to ACT. The concern is where a donation from an interest group to a political party has strings attached. The public is very concerned about that as the Glenn and Peters donations scandals show.”
You are saying that the ACT Asian Chapter is an “interest group” My understanding is that the Asian Chapter is just that, the Asian Chapter of the ACT Party – an internal component of the ACT Party like ACT on Campus. They are represented on the Board as a wing of the party. They are not an “interest group”.
I would also point out that (it is my understanding) that ACT is one of only two parties that allow their members to vote. All other parties have their Board or other powerful cliques process the entire list. I think it is admirable that ACT allows people to vote at all. I’d love for National to do something similar.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am
PaulL, obviously 4 other people aren’t too happy with my holding back either!
August 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Ahh, so you’re online this morning Jay Dee. So, about that evidence for this:
JayDee (8) Says: Ross, The $80k donation offer has been made to ACT (foolishly in writing).
Source? I mean, you’ve been relying on this throughout this entire thread. Just curious where you got this information, or whether you’re just making shit up as you go along, that’s all.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bryce, David:
My 2cents worth: I’ve put your combined list below, and expanded it slightly.
I added “or ECE worker” to Teacher and added in a “Engineer or Research Scientist” category (a combination what would have most scientists and engineers I know spitting, but what the hey). In memory of Rob Muldoon and to round out your list of traditional professions I also added “Accountant”. I even found a polite phrase for “Writer, Painter, Artist, Potter, Musician or other arty-farty type”.
I don’t know what you meant by “public sector”. There are public sector managers, public sector IT workers, public sector accountants… if what you mean is “public sector manager or policy analyist” then you’d best say so.
But people just don’t pigeonhole well. Take that both as a political philosophy and as a reason why this sort of thing is hard:
* Farmer
* Lawyer
* Accountant
* Journalist / broadcaster / Media worker etc.
* Teacher or ECE worker
* University lecturer
* Business Owner
* Private Sector Manager
* Public Sector
* Engineer or research scientist
* IT Professional
* Other Professional
* Unionist
* Other Community/NGO Manager/Staff
* Labourer
* Artist, Musician, Craft worker or similar
* Home maker
August 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I was sadenned to read of Stephen Franks being placed so far down the list.
So far below Tisch and Goudie.
There is something unreal here.
National may suggest to TVNZ that they have a panel discussion involving all parties’ 60th candidates. Franks would eat them all, then spit them out. It would give us viewers a good understanding of the depth of a party’s list. Any outfit that has Franks at “60′ must have many superb candidates.