I had this discussion with you a while back here: g.blog: Let’s ALL do the Double Dipton

So I’m still not sure what’s going on here, are the Green’s rorting the system or what?

Tell you what. If it’s found that the Green MPs were knowingly rorting and that it wasn’t simply a mistake, I’ll resign from membership of the party. Not that you’d care, but I’m sincere in my belief that the result will exonerate them.

That’s not a bet. That’s just saying what you’ll do if the Green MPs are shown to have knowingly rorted the system. Somehow I suspect you’ve chosen the weasel-words “knowingly rorting” deliberately, so you’ve left yourself enough wiggle-room if the outcome isn’t quite to your liking.

Now, moving on, the point where your proposal became a bet was, as I said above, when you challenged DPF.

You’ve been saying across a number of Kiwiblog threads now that you think Bill English has, to put it neutrally, a perception problem. So why aren’t you prepared to bet the equivalent of one year’s Green Party membership against DPF’s generous 8:1 terms?

I agree on general matters VI and put myself in your category too, but on this matter, I would be very surprised if DPF knew more than you and I. What’s in the public domain is what the issue is. There isn’t anything more to know about it.

It’s a question of political judgement and prediction. I agree with DPF on this because to me the issue always has been clear. English did structure his affairs in the same way that people setup an LAQC to take advantage of the income-offset. Difference is, English is a public figure and how dare he. Nevertheless, he was and always has been, within the rules, and that’s been clear since the outset. The rules that tolerated his unwise action are the issue, as well as his judgement. But it’s not illegal, never was.

Now you suggested that bet, and you can’t really in my view, walk away from it without conceding that Blingish as you lefties like to call him, was actually not doing anything wrong.

Here’s my original proposal:

Tell you what. If it’s found that the Green MPs were knowingly rorting and that it wasn’t simply a mistake, I’ll resign from membership of the party. Not that you’d care, but I’m sincere in my belief that the result will exonerate them.

Are there any National party members willing to pledge to throw theirs in if Bill English is found to have rorted, not mistakenly claimed?

Having siphoned off 75 IQ points to join the party, I’m sure you’ll understand my reluctance to change the deal in to favour those I’ve challenged.

Your original challenge to DPF: “But you’re not confident enough to back him David? You won’t express your faith in Bill by promising to throw in your National Party membership if he is found ‘guilty as charged’?”.

DPF’s original challenge: “Here is what I am willing to do. A cash bet that the Auditor-General will not find any wrong-doing by Bill. I’ll even give you 5:1 odds for a minimum $200 from you.”

You’re betting about the same event but proposing different at-risk contributions:
- The same event because a finding of ‘guilty as charged’ (your bet) is effectively the same as the Auditor-General not finding any wrong-doing by Bill (DPF’s bet). So you’re both betting on a binary event, and only one of you can be right.
- Proposing different at-risk contributions because in your case, apparently, it’s your Green Party membership. In DPF’s case, it’s money – but he’s offering you generous 8:1 odds.

Now, allow me to propose revised terms. The Green Party website says this (extracts only):

Join the Green Party

Annual membership is only $15, but please give more if you can afford it.

If you don’t want to become a member of the Green Party, you can become a Supporter instead. Supporters give $120 per year and receive a subscription to our quarterly printed newsletter, Te Awa.

You say you pay the $15 annual membership fee plus a bit extra. So how about accepting the bet with DPF on revised terms: the same 8:1 odds for a minimum $15 bet from you? That way you’d be betting the financial equivalent of an annual Green party membership, and DPF would be betting a large multiple of his National Party membership fee. But you’re both sure you’re right about Bill English, remember?

Fair’s fair?

VI, I really really really doubt that DPF has “inside information” on what the AG is going to rule in the English matter.

Really.

Perhaps you’re thinking of the way that Hulun used to run her scandal cover…

Well they must go down the toilet, Kimble, because they sure as hell don’t appear whenever the Greens make a policy announcement.

Nomestradamus, it costs one soul, all your credibility, and 75 IQ points.

Kimble – re soul/credibility/IQ, I’d suggest greenfly has only one of those to offer.

Their hypocrisy has no bounds.

David – upping the ante eh! You can afford to risk money, I can’t (I’ve a family you know) so I’ll stick with the original bet – my party membership and yours. Are you nervous and insecure? I’m not.

Just to cut through this bluster, if I may, how much do you pay in Green Party membership fees – whether it’s a one-off contribution or annual subscription?

8 to 1 odds are just too good for anyone to knock back, especially for someone who honestly thinks they are right.

You DO honestly think you are right, right?

DPF’s membership is worth much more than yours. You aren’t even using your real name, so your membership, technically, doesn’t exist.

The other interpretation is that your membership to the party is worth less than $200 to you. Way to be a man of conviction!

Unlike DPF, of whom we can only say that he values his party membership above the $1600 he is offering you.

In the end, of course you wont accept, because you know the Greens did wrong, and deliberately so, and Bill English did not, but did the honourable thing anyway.