I’ve been promoted!
May 29th, 2011 at 9:03 am by David FarrarThe SST writes on the pro-SM campaign:
David Farrar, National’s pollster and a well-known right-wing blogger and columnist, is providing strategic advice.
I never knew that three or four phone calls totalling probably 30 minutes over six months makes me a strategic advisor. I should stick it on my CV and send someone an invoice!
There is a second longer story on the campaign here.
No tag for this post.
May 29th, 2011 at 9:16 am
You are quite good at analysis even if I disagree with you at times, but strategic advice??? I don’t think so. John Key however, now that is a different matter. I think he does think strategically even if his day to day tactical skills are not so good at times. The BMW fiasco comes to mind.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Hmmm, another shocker of a SST Antony Hubbard biased persuasion piece dressed up as “news”, but is in reality trying to rally the SST readership into battle against the evil “right-wing personalities” plotting the downfall of Hubbard’s favoured electoral system.
Hubbard’s trying to smear the RW bloggers etc, who coincidentally are well read (across the political divide).
It’s war, as they say!
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Congrats on the new job.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 9:47 am
“I never knew that three or four phone calls totalling probably 30 minutes over six months…”
A curiously evasive answer. Was it 3 or 4? Was it more or less than 30 minutes? Was it 6 months or half a year?
Discussion over at The Standard for the next fortnight …
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Oh oh – and we can expect a breathless lead story on TV News tonight: ‘the VRWC is setting about undermining New Zealand’s electoral fabric by secretly plotting to deprive Maori of Parliamentary representation guaranteed under the treaty.. [take a breath] … and we cross now to Guyon Espiner who’s with Hone Harawira.
Bwahahahahaha
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:14 am
I bet the EB’s are behind it all. Where the hell is Hagar when he’s really needed?
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Right wing? RIGHT WING. Bwahahahahahah
Really some of these commentators don’t know their lefty from their righty.
No disrespect to you David but there is no way in the world you could be classified as a right wing advisor. Next they will be teaming you up with Redbaiter. 8)
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Is this story a Labour Press Release taken up and reported as fact by the Media?
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Hubbard’s such a bullshit artist, from his article:
Hubbard: “History has shown MMP is very stable”.
Sure, if we ignore the first MMP Govt 1996-1999 fractionating (National – NZF – Alamein Kopu etc), the second MMP Govt 1999-2002 fractionating (Labour – Alliance), the 4th MMP Govt 2005-2008 (Labour – NZF) nearly self-destructing (only saved by H1 pretending there was nothing to see here, move along, which showed the sheeple in the electorate, that shucks, H1 does actually lie thru her teeth).
So if Hubbard thinks 3 unstable MMP terms & 2 relatively stable terms (2002-2005 & 2008- ) equals “History has shown MMP is very stable”, well I guess kiwis shouldn’t think he is an unbiased journalist presenting balanced analysis.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:38 am
The enthusiasm for SM is hard to understand. It combines the worst features of FPP with the least popular parts of MMP.
We’d go back to a system where elections can get determined by the bureaucrats who draw up electoral boundaries and if you live in a safe seat your vote isn’t worth spit.
We’d still have 30 list MPs.
And we’d still get hung Parliaments most of the time. Aside from the list seats which would go to the minor parties, the number of Maori seats would be increased. The Maori Party and Hone would win more seats without needing any extra votes.
And the whole system would be non-proportional: so it wont be the votes that decide the makeup of Parliament, but the twist of the laws and the wriggle of electoral boundaries. Parties with support focused in a few electorates (like the MP) win big, parties with support spread across the country (like the Greens and Act) get dumped on, winning fewer seats even if they get many times the number of votes.
From a rational point of view, SM is simply bonkers.
[DPF: I think SM is preferable to FPP. It is semi-proportional, and it means third parties get some representation and also allows parties to be more diverse. I genuinely have not decided whether I would vote for MMP or SM. If it was 70/50 SM I'd be more likely to, but 90/30 is less likely for me. I agree with your criticism that boundaries become all important under SM - for me that is a major drawback. However it doesn't mean your vote is meaningless in a safe seat, as you still have a party vote which has some impact.
At some stage I will blog on the pros and cons of MMP, SM and fPP as I see them]
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Well whatever one thinks of SM, Hubbard’s on the anti-anti-MMP case (SM & FPP etc) and supporting the cause to retain MMP.
Hubbard:”the Supplementary Member (SM) system, which is basically First-Past-the-Post with a small number of list MPs added”.
There you go, simplistic one liner, that oversimplifies the case, but perfect sound bite for the masses to accept the need to support the “keep-MMP-as-it-is” cause.
Over to this so called VRWC to counter this simple propoganda technique, to win the masses over then eh
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:03 am
The current MMP system needs to have some alterations or needs to go altogether. Do we have to copy other systems or can we have our own unique system. David you would have a better idea of a system that would work for NZ voters.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Remove whipping in the Parliament for all but confidence and reduce the Mp’s back to 100 and system fixed. Simple stuff.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:20 am
I think the statement is quite fair. It is possible to have a electoral system using the Supplementary Member (SM) voting system that isn’t first past the post (FPP) with a few list MPs, but we wouldn’t. The Electoral Legislation Committee decided – without public input – that our form of SM would have 90 electorates and 30 list MPs. That will pretty much – except in close elections like 2005 – be “FPP with a small number of list MPs added”.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Good on you, DPF.
Vote:I expect the sub-Standard to write a few complimentary words about you. Stand by for the accolades, led by the limp-wristed comrade Lynn.
May 29th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Political poll results may exclude 30% of those who respond?
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Press Release: Horizonpoll
The Electoral Commission might be well advised to see if some research companies are excluding up to 30% of respondents in published party vote poll results.
One of its criteria to allocate the money includes considering “public support for a political party such as the results of opinion polls”.
However, Horizon Research says an investigation may show some polling firms are excluding up to 30 out of every 100 people who respond to them from published results, providing a distorted picture of party support levels in the electorate as a whole.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Sorry wrong thread.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:46 am
No disrespect to you David but there is no way in the world you could be classified as a right wing advisor.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA…Pardon your ignorance there Viking2 but you’re just so far wrong it’s laughable !
So I assume DPF you’re getting paid for this gig and that naturally this doesn’t conflict with any other interests or paid work you are undertaking ?
[DPF: Why do people not read what I said. I am not a member of any campaign. I am not being paid to advise or do anything. I have not attended any meetings. In fact I don't even know for sure if there is a formal campaign. I have had three or four phone calls with people over a campaign, where my advice each time was basically you need to start early and you need to make the case for SM, rather than the case against MMP. I don't think it is yet a crime to answer my phone.
I've also had drinks with the pro-MMP campaign head and also offered some advice over drinks. This does not make me a member of the pro-MMP campaign.
My main interest is in fact that there are campaigns and there is a debate, and people make an informed choice. This is probably the last vote on electoral systems in our lifetimes. It deserves a good debate]
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Black with a vengeance: did you not read the post? 3-4 phone calls, 30 minutes. Doesn’t sound paid to me.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 11:57 am
I won’t hold my breath for the headline – “Self serving minority groups forming Pro MMP campaign so unelectable individuals (eg sue bradford) can continue to suck of the public tit”.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
So I guess you will be in gossip columns now with pictures of you about town with young hotties hanging off your arms. Does Felicity Ferret still do the big smoke chat ? Probably time to dry clean the tux.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Oh i read the post PaulL, but i hardly believe anything DPF writes without questioning motive and intent. He just seems so much more mercenary these days
[DPF: Oh I am mercenary in terms of my polling. I'll do polling for anyone, so long as it is not a direct conflict with existing clients. I've polled for leftwing candidates for Mayoralties. I'd poll for the pro-MMP campaign, or a pro-SM campaign. I'd poll for the CTU if they wanted me to.
Polling is how I make a living to pay for food, shelter etc.
What I write and advocate publicly though is not for sale. That is always my opinion]
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
That was what I figured Black, but I kinda wanted you to come out and say it. Because I don’t really get the logic in visiting the blog if you don’t believe anything the blog owner writes. DPF has generally been pro-MMP in my experience, so whilst I can imagine him giving some advice (same way he often gives the Labour party free advice on this blog), I can’t really imagine him being part of the campaign.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I take it from this outrage in the SST/The Standard/Red Alert that Labour, the Greens and unions won’t be expending a single dollar on a ‘Save MMP’ campaign?
I think MMP would work with a few tuning adjustments, but the way this is being spun would make you think DPF was trying to blow up Parliament. How dare private citizens decide to lobby for a system they believe is in the best interests of the country! Unless they’re staunchly left-wing, democratic expression is not something citizens should apparently be afforded under any circumstances.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
It’s more that i don’t believe everything he writes PauL. Like a blog and column piece supporting SM over MMP won’t be seen as supporting the campaign and wouldn’t be seen as paid work nor would it be requiring of a “donation” by the “powers that be” with vested interests now would it ?
Guess we’ll never know, so let’s just give DPF the benefit of the doubt and buy every line of bullshit he spins…yeah ? No need to keep the bastards honest and ask the hard questions of both the media and the government is there ?
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Black with a Vengeance (83) Says:
Pardon your ignorance there Viking2 but you’re just so far wrong it’s laughable !
Really. Obviously you don’t know your left from your right let alone the bit in the middle. (which is the bit you are playing with right now).
DPF by his own admission is centre right which basically in this country means left of right.
I see you are a newbie here so that probably accounts for your ignorance, though your writing very much resembles other nasty little lefties we have entertained from time to time under various names. Have you been banned from here before?
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
SST and Hubbard making up “news” not reporting it – neither know how !
Pathetic as usual, for both, but the other paper is even worse, possibly.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Ah yes, and which way does the scale tip if the weight is distributed more to the right of centre then Einstein…Left of right ?
BWAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA…you’re as funny as you are gullible.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Black with a vengeance. I don’t believe everything he writes. My way of dealing with it is to divide into things that are opinion, things that he asserts as fact that are verifiable, and things that are asserted as fact that cannot be verified.
Things that are opinion, you weigh up against other opinions, and you look at the logic. That is to say, if what he says has good logic behind it, then it is irrelevant what his affiliations are or who might provide funding.
Next are facts that DPF provides that can be checked. It is very rare that I’ve seen him post facts that later have proven to be wrong. I have seen him post facts (statistics) where other people have had argument about interpretation, whether that particular statistic is the right one to choose, but I haven’t seen him make up statistics. So if you are disbelieving things that are verifiable just because he’s DPF, then that seems weird.
Finally, we have personal statements. When DPF says he did a few phone calls and a total of maybe 30 minutes, I have no reason to disbelieve him. I haven’t known him to lie. I guess if you frequent one of those blogs where people like to create an alternate reality where everything on kiwiblog is automatically untrue, then you might get in the habit of thinking that. I haven’t seen any objective evidence that DPF lies, and I don’t see any reason why he would do so. I got banned briefly from the Standard by asking questions of someone that asserted that DPF was in the habit of posting on other blogs under fake names, which seemed to me to be a rather bizarre allegation – I can’t see why anyone would think he’d want to or would have time to do that.
In short, seems to me you’re being contrary for the hell of it. And if you’re going to do that, like I say, why bother visiting at all?
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
niggly (295) Says:
May 29th, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Hubbard’s such a bullshit artist, from his article:
Hubbard: “History has shown MMP is very stable”.
Sure, if we ignore the first MMP Govt 1996-1999 fractionating (National – NZF – Alamein Kopu etc), the second MMP Govt 1999-2002 fractionating (Labour – Alliance), the 4th MMP Govt 2005-2008 (Labour – NZF) nearly self-destructing (only saved by H1 pretending there was nothing to see here, move along, which showed the sheeple in the electorate, that shucks, H1 does actually lie thru her teeth). ”
The following FPP terms were far more unstable than all of those combined: 1981-1984, 1987-1990, 1993-1996. Take your pick.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
I love how Tony Hubbard managed to stretch a few assumptions and conspiratorial naval-gazing into an article that long.
Keep it up, lad, you’ll be able to be the SST editor a good few weeks before it goes bankrupt.
Vote:May 29th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
To be fair Antony Hubburds piece was listed in the Opinion section
Vote:But I would like to know what he has against democracy?
What is the point of having a referendum without public campaigns of supporting or opposing the options?
Would he just like to rubber stamp MMP and censor any discussion of it merits or otherwise?