Posts Tagged ‘SM’

Some thoughts on the anti-MMP campaign

15 December 2011 1 comment



With the referendum come and gone, it’s worthwhile looking back at the anti-MMP clique,  the so-called “Vote for Change“.

As far as campaigns go, “Vote for Change” had to be one of the most amateurish in living memory.

First, it was uncovered that “Vote for Change” was to be organised by National and ACT apparatchiks. People like Simon Lusk, David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Jordan Williams – all deeply connected or associated,  in one way or another, with right wing politics,


Full Story


If those revelations were deliberately “leaked” to the media for free publicity – it was not a “good look” to let the public know that “Vote for Change” was a front-organisation for National and ACT.

If that leak was not authorised, then someone in the “Vote for Change” camp was not happy. An unhappy camper was not a very auspicious start.

Then, it was discovered by another blogger, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, of “Tumeke”, that one of “Vote for Change’s” supporters was a white-supremacist who advocated nazi-style racial separation,


Full Story


Vote for Change” was quickly developing an image as an elitist club for assorted right wingers.

The only exception to “Vote for Change’s” roll call of conservative businesspeople; right wing politicians; and National/ACT activists was former Labour Party president and Waitakere mayor, Bob Harvey.

But he quickly realised the political bed-fellows he was associating with, and made his own call to quit,


Full Story


These were fatal blows to the anti-MMP lobby group. They never really recovered from these gaffes and the public perception was of a conservative organisation that was wanting to take New Zealand backward, to the days of single-party Parliamentary rule.

Even “Vote for Change’s” announcement on 29 October that their group had chosen SM (Supplementary Member) to promote as an alternative to MMP was seen by many as a return to FPP-by-the-back-door. It was another blow to their credibility; “Vote for Change” was not advocating change at all.

It was a strategic mistake for “Vote for Change” to promote SM. SM was the least known of all electoral systems, and in the 1992 referendum had polled the lowest at just over 5%.

If  “Vote for Change” had really wanted change – they should have chosen STV. But they did not – STV is also a proportional system and that is the last thing Williams, Lusk, Farrar, et al wanted for New Zealand.

It was blindingly obvious that their  agenda was to destroy any semblance of multi-party government and replace proportional representation with a system that would allow for single-party rule.

They were seeking absolute power for National.

Most people, I believe got this. Older, Baby Boomers, of a liberal persuasion, had unpleasant memories of the outrageous  abuses of power by Muldoon, Douglas, Bolger,  Richardson, et al.

Younger people who had no experience of FPP regimes most likely had no interest in a system that favoured only two parties and reduced their choices. (Neo-liberals, in this respect, had successfully socially re-engineered NZ society to prefer choice over a two-party, take-it-or-leave-it, offering.)

Aside from National Party supporters, New Zealanders did not want to take A Giant Leap Backwards.  “Vote for Change” offered nothing except an old, discredited electoral system, and fear-mongering,




Using Winston Peters as a scare-mongering tactic was not just clumsy – but evidence that “Vote for Change” had no real intellectual rigour in promoting their cause. Demonising one man – as disliked as he might be by some voters – is not really a sensible reason to throw out MMP and turn our entire electoral system upside down, on it’s head.

This was the tactics of spoilt children who could give no other reason to cater to their whims except, “do it –  or else!”.

Not exactly a  convincing  argument.

But perhaps the best example of a *facepalm* situation was having National Party candidate, Simon Bridges (now MP),  on their website,




Bridges was positively fuming when he complained,

It gets under my goat that list MPs are not subject to direct democracy.  They’re chosen by a small power elite in each party, so MMP has taken power off the voter.”

FYI: Simon Bridges was #30 on National’s  Party List. Had he not won the electorate of  Tauranga, he would have returned to Parliament as a Party List MP.

That would’ve been interesting.



Pundit: I’ve just been internalising a really complicated situation in my head



Learn to count, Mr Prime Minister.

30 November 2011 5 comments


Full Story


John Key bemoans the fact that, in winning 47.99% of the Party Vote, that his government will have “only”  60 seats in Parliament. This, despite the fact, that 60 seats is approximately 48% of the total seats in Parliament (plus over-hangs).

In fact, Key makes this bizarre statement,

But it’s a funny system when you can poll this massive number and still theoretically be wondering whether you’ve got a government.

”If this was First Past the Post and there were 100 MPs, there would be roughly 65 National seats and 35 Labour, so it would be this massive majority.

”Yet under MMP you sit there and go, ‘you’ve got this hugh result and yet it still feels tight’.”  Source

Mr Key needs to understand that  proportional representation gives a Party the number of seats that they are entitled to – no more, no less, generally speaking.

For him to say that  ”if this was First Past the Post and there were 100 MPs, there would be roughly 65 National seats and 35 Labour” is nonsensical. If the Tooth Fairy existed, I’d have fifty cents for a tooth I lost some years ago.

For one thing, under First Past the Post, there is no guarantee that a Party will recieve seats in Parliament according to how the punters vote. Two (in)famous examples are the general elections of 1978 and 1981, where Labour won more votes than National (under FPP) – and yet National gained the majority of seats. Muldoon’s government was elected with a minority of votes.

There is no internal logic to FPP. It is a purely random system that does not deliver rational results, set on any sound principle.

There is no sound reason why Key’s belief that –  ”if this was First Past the Post and there were 100 MPs, there would be roughly 65 National seats and 35 Labour” – would come true. It could equally be true that under FPP, Labour would have won more seats.

Let me explain it to Mr Key in terms that he should be able to comprehend;

Mr Key is selling shares in Company X. Each share is $1. If I am buying $400 worth of shares,  and another guy is buying $600 worth of shares, how many shares do we each get?

Test on Monday.

If John Key thinks he should get 65 seats out of 100 (65%), then let him campaign for that result.

Otherwise, as the immortal Bard put it, “Suck it up, dude, and deal with it!”






Categories: The Body Politic Tags: , ,

Latest Horizon Poll – released today!

24 November 2011 5 comments




The latest Horizon Poll has been released today, with results on,


  • the electoral system referendum
  • political party ratings
  • Maori voting intentions


Electoral system referendum


MMP is still the preferred option, with FPP coming in second place. This will no doubt annoy the heck out of the “Vote for Change” lobby group, who chose the FPP-variant, Supplementary Member (SM) as their preferred option.

Big mistake, boys. I know why you did it – you believed that FPP was tainted by past political abuses of power (which is correct) and that Supplementary  Member would be a welcome alternative. “Vote for Change” even touted SM as a “compromise between FPP and MMP – which it isn’t, of course. But you relied on low-information voters not knowing this and following your lead.

Unfortunately for “Vote for Change”, their non-existant campaign achieved very little. In fact, it was distinctly amateurish, to put it mildly.

The results,


Full Results


Political party ratings


As usual, Horizon Polling results differ markedly from Roy Morgan, Herald-Digipoll, et al, because Horizon prompts Undecided respondants to state a preference. Other pollsters also often do not include Undecideds when calculating their percentages.

The poll results,


Full Results


It’s interesting to note that the poll results for ACT, Labour, and the Greens match very closely other political opinion polls – only the result for National is markedly different.

For example, a Fairfax Media-Research International poll released yesterday had the following results;

  • Labour – 26%
  • Greens – 12%
  • ACT – 0.7%

Very similar results to the Horizon Poll, with two important exceptions – Fairfax had the following results for National and NZ First;

  • National – 54%
  • NZ First – 4%

Significantly different to the Horizon Poll.

As the poll above stands, a Labour-led government is possible, with NZ First support. (And woe betide Winston Peters if he plays silly-buggers with Supply & Confidence.)

The election results will point to which company has gauged voter preferences the most accurately.


Maori voting intentions


As Maori politics follows Pakeha political movement and fragmentation along classic Left/Right lines, Mana and Maori Parties are becoming critical potentional partners for National and Labour. (Phil Goff may say he won’t go into Coalition with the Mana Party – but I believe he will need Hone Harawira’s Supply & Confidence to govern. He is hardly likely to turn down Mana Party support – critical if the left are to win on Saturday.)

Party Vote Results:

  • Labour is attracting 27.6% of Maori nationwide
  • Mana 14.9%
  • Maori Party 14.9%
  • NZ First 11.3%
  • Green 11% and
  • National 9.5%.

Full Results

It is interesting to note that, generally speaking, Maori still favour Labour-led government;

  • 20% of Maori want the Maori Party to enter a post-election coalition agreement with National.
  • 53.5% would prefer it enter a Labour coalition.
  • 45.8% of Maori would prefer Mana to enter a coalition agreement with Labour, 9.2% National.

If Horizon Polling is accurate – and I believe that their results are more realistic than the 50%, 53%, 56%, results that other polling companies have been coming up with  – then National is on-course to being a one-term government.

And if John Key follows comments he made earlier this year, he will resign from Parliament.

Interesting times, indeed…



Election Eleven – Thursday

24 November 2011 2 comments


Election Eleven – Thursday



It appears that stress is starting to show on National’s campaign team,



Hasling the bus driver is not a good look. Nor is it particularly sensible when he has to focus on driving that big blue tank along some of our more… challenging” roads…

Word of caution, guys. Don’t upset John (the busdriver).   Not unless the next votes you’ll be canvassing will be at the Pearly Gates.

Mind you, could it be that Dear Leader’s mega-star status is waning?



If John Key thinks that reception was “frosty” – he ain’t seen nothing yet.  Another three years of his smile & wave vacant optimism is going to wear very thin – especially as wages continue to lag; unemployment stays high; and the economy continues to stagnate.

On top of that will be the open, festering ‘sore’ that is Christchurch. The slow re-build and insurance companies abandoning that city (and possibly the rest of the country?) will really piss people of.

An election victory for Mr Key may be a glittering  chalice containing a toxic brew.

Cheers, Mr Prime Minister!



So much for customer loyalty; good corporate citizenship; and the “free market” providing a service,



And so much for John Key’s blind faith in insurance companies doing the “right thing”,

One thing I do know is that as things settle down – and they will settle down in Christchurch – eventually what’s going to happen is a lot of insurers are going to look at that market and say, ‘wow, there’s quite a lot of premium in there,’ and you will see insurers coming back more rapidly than you think.”  Source

And is John Key still concerned? As he said in September,

“”This is something the government is monitoring. Obviously, if insurance companies aren’t doing their job properly that is a concern to us.“”  Source

If ever there was a case for the New Zealand government top have retained State Insurance in state-ownership – we are seeing it now.

Corporations are fair-weather “friends”. They will supply us with services and products as long as it suits  them. When it no longer suits their bottom line, they will depart our shores, along with the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits that they have extracted from us.

And National wants more of the same?

I think it is high time we re-asserted our sovereignty and revisited the state’s role in matters such as  insurance.  We  simply cannot rely on the beneficence of the free market. (Did we ever?)

Something to consider on Saturday, when your marker-pen is hovering over which Party box to tick.




At the TV3 Leader’s Debate last night, John Key asserted that he’ll be voting for SM (supplementary member) in the upcoming referendum because he preferred proportionality in our electoral systems.

Key repeaterd this in the latest “Upper Hutt Leader”, where he said,

I’m going to vote “no” to MMP and “yes” for Supplementary Member.

“My view is that, on balance, I would prefer a proportional system to first past the post.”  Source

John Key is either uninformed about Supplementary Member – or is being deliberately disingenuous.

Supplentary Member is not proportional. It is not even close to be proportional.

SM is actually a form of First Past the Post where ninety out of 120 Parliamentary seats are contested on a FPP basis. It offers the prospect of a return to unbridled power by the two main Parties, with minimal (if any) representation by smaller Parties.

If the Prime Minister doesn’t know this – that is concerning.

If he is aware of this, and still claims that SM is “proportional” – then he is deliberately mis-leading voters.

John Key has done this sort of thing before. He is increasingly revealing himself to the public as being loose with the truth



Whether one accepts that the convo between the Two Johns was private or public (and this blog leans toward the preposterous assertion that one can hold a “private conversation” with 30+ journos about a metre away), the Prime Minister’s complaint and subsequent raids on media companies is nothing less than a complete waste of police time,



It is also a chilling example of how a politician in high office can mis-use the power of the State to “make a point” and to intimidate opposition.

There have been previous examples of this government pressuring, ridiculing, and intimidating  those with dissenting views.

Is this the road New Zealanders want to go down on?



Ahhhh, as we suspected,



John Key is “warning the election could be closer than voters think“?  Pundits and bloggers have been voicing suspicion for the past month that National’s internal polling was showing results that were far closer than main stream polling has been giving us.

John Key has finally confirmed this.

If people want a centre-left, Labour-led coalition government – they need just go out and vote for it.

Yup. It doesn’t get simpler than that.




Supplementary Member system – it’s a bloody rort!

30 October 2011 2 comments



“Supplementary Member” – It’s a rort!


Full Story


When “Vote for Change” spokesperson, Jordan Williams makes the claim that, “there is growing consensus that Supplementary Member is a good compromise between MMP and First Past the Post” – he is, of course creating a new “reality” to suit his group’s political agenda.

For one thing, “there is growing consensus that Supplementary Member is a good compromise” – is not true. There is no such “consensus”, growing or otherwise.

In fact, a poll conducted by UMR Research Ltd in May showed only 3% of voters supported that system,


Full Story


Williams’ claim that “Supplementary Member is a good compromise between MMP and First Past the Post” is also nonsensical wishful thinking.

MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) is a proportional system.  The number of MPs is determined (generally) by the percentage of Party Votes that a political party wins.

For example, if the Greens get 10% of the Party Vote, they get 10% of the seats in Parliament: 12 (10% of 120 = 12)

FPP (First Past the Post) is not proportional. The results of how many seats a political  party wins is purely random. In fact, in 1978 and 1981, Labour won more seats than National – but because of the vaguaries of FPP, National was given more seats in Parliament. (FPP is quite  arbitrary in the results it throws up.)

SM (Supplementary Member) is simply another version of FPP – but with “add-ons”.  It is not proportional.

To quote the Electoral Commission’s own website,


SM – Supplementary Member

There are 120 Members of Parliament. There are 90 electorates, including the Maori electorates. Each elects one MP, called an Electorate MP.  The other 30 seats are called supplementary seats. MPs are elected to these seats from political party lists and are likely to be called List MPs.
Each voter gets two votes.
The first vote is to choose the MP the voter wants to represent the electorate they live in. This is called the electorate vote. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. They do not have to get more than half the votes.
The second vote is for the political party the voter chooses. This is called the party vote. The share of the 30 supplementary seats each party gets reflects its share of the party vote.
For example, if a party gets 30% of the party vote, it will get about 9 List MPs in Parliament (being 30% of the 30 supplementary seats) no matter how many electorate seats it wins.
This makes SM different from MMP where a party’s share of all 120 seats mirrors its share of the party vote.
One or other of the major parties would usually have enough seats to govern alone, but coalitions or agreements between parties may sometimes be needed.


To paint a picture of the difference between MMP and SM;




– Yes

Does the percentage of voter support equate to seats in Parliament?

– Yes. With some rare exceptions,  parties gain only as much seats as the percentage of Party Votes they win.

Eg; 25% of Party votes = 25% of Parliamentary seats (30)

50% of Party votes = 50% of Parliamentary seats (60)


Can one of the Big Two parties win more seats than their Party Vote entitles them?

– Generally, no.

Is MMP fairer to voters who vote for small parties such as the Greens, ACT, etc?

– Yes. Supporters of smaller parties stand a better chance of representation than under FPP or SM.

Do unelected Party List MPs get into Parliament under MMP?

– No. This is a myth. Party List MPs are firstly selected by their own Party members. Then, to win a seat in Parliament,  that Party must win over 5% of the Party List votes (or an electorate). So the Green’s 9 MPs were elected into Parliament by 157,613  New Zealanders voting for them. Likewise, ACT’s 4 MPs were elected by 85,496 New Zealanders voting for ACT.

How many seats will there be in a MMP Parliament?

– 120




– No

Does the percentage of voter support equate to seats in Parliament?

– No. A Party can win more seats than voter support. That is, because as with FPP, a candidate can win a seat with as little as 30% of the electorate vote. There is little correlation between percentages of voter support to final seat numbers.

Can one of the Big Two parties win more seats than their Party Vote entitles them?

– Yes. As with FPP, this will be quite likely.

Is SM fairer to voters who vote for small parties such as the Greens, ACT, etc?

– No. Smaller parties who can’t win electorate seats, and rely instead on the Party Vote, will win only a few seats.

Do unelected Party List MPs get into Parliament under SM?

– No. Again, Party List MPs will be voted in by ticking the appropriate Party Vote. The big difference is that there will be a under-representationfor those New Zealanders who happen to support parties other than National or Labour.

How many seats will there be in a SM Parliament?

– 120


An example of what a SM-style election result might  look like would be  the 1984 General Election, which was held under FPP,


Final results for NZ General Election (1984)


Under MMP, the final shape of Parliament might have looked like this, given the same percentages translated to Party Votes,


Final results for NZ General Election (1984) - Projected, under MMP System


Anti-MMP proponent, Jordan Williams, claims that SM “ is a good compromise between MMP and First Past the Post“. It clearly is nothing of the sort.

MMP is already a compromise between FPP and proportional representation because  70 of the seats in Parliament are still elected under FPP. The rest, 50,  are proportionally allocated according to each party’s Party Vote.

SM is simply FPP, with add-ons. The small number of proportionally-allocated seats under SM (thirty out of 120), do not result in a proportional Parliament. It does not give fair representation for smaller Parties. And more importantly; it returns dominance to the Big Two: Labour and National.

And by sheer “coincidence”, the majority  of “Vote for Change” supporters are also National supporters. This is because under FPP or SM, National (or Labour) could govern on their own, without any real break on their executive power.

Past history has shown us – whether under Muldoon’s strictly regimented, centralised economy  – or under Labour’s Rogernomics – than both National and Labour will ram through policies without smaller parties exercising a “braking” effect on their political power. In effect, they have “unbridled power”, as Sir Geoffrey Palmer once said.

Personally, I do not trust politicians with such unbridled power (even ones I vote for). Not because politicians are inherently “evil” – they are not “evil” – but being human, are liable to make mistakes like the rest of us.

MMP at least gives us an opportunity to put the brakes on politicians.

SM is taking the brakes off – and putting your foot on the accelerator for three years.

No thanks. That is why, on 26 November, I will tick the MMP box, to Make Mine Proportional.


“Vote for Change” and a Big Leap Backwards…



Having looked at the “Vote for Change” website, their statements are highly subjective and some are downright misleading. For example,

MMP allows List MPs who have been voted out by their local electorates to sneak back into Parliament on party lists.”

This is only half the truth. What V.f.C has “forgotten” to tell the reader is that any candidate  who enters Parliament on the Party List is there because New Zealand voters ticked the Party List vote for that particular party.

Eg; The Attorney General, Christopher Finlayson, stood as National’s candidate in the Rongotai Electorate in the 2008 election. Finlayson failed to win in Rongotai, and was beaten by Labour’s candidate, Annette King.

However, Chris Finlayson won 10,594 Electorate Votes (as opposed to Ms King’s 19,614 electorate votes) and also won 11,950 Party List votes. In total, Finlayson won 22,544 votes.

So Chris Finlayson did not “sneak” back into Parliament: he was elected with 22,544 Electorate and Party votes.

Opponents to MMP, generally, will often skew situations to suit their own p.o.v.

There is more on V.f.C’s website that is a blatant misrepresentation of  the truth… but I’ll leave that for another day.

Instead, I can reaffirm that this blog author supports retaining MMP, and will vote accordingly on 26 November.

I encourage you to do likewise.

Thank you.



Electoral Commission: Referendum 2011

Campaign for MMP | Facebook

Campaign for MMP

“Vote For Change”

MMP Or SM? A Big Decision Looms For New Zealand Voters



Plucking figures from outer space vacuum?

9 October 2011 2 comments

This is Q+A,



Q+A is TVNZ’s “flagship” weekly, current affairs programme, usually hosted by well-known broadcaster, radio host, and author, Paul Holmes.

This is Guyon Espiner,


Guyon Espiner


Espiner is TVNZ’s interviewer on their current affairs programme, Q+A.

On the weekend of 8/9 October, Espiner led a debate on MPP with Lianne Dalziel (L) and Simon Bridges (N). Dalziel was supporting the pro-MMP debate; Bridges was promoting the anti-MMP/pro-SM debate.

During the debate, Espiner raised the issue of the ratio of MPs-per-population, in several countries. He said,

One of the questions that people have about MMP – and, in fact, it would be the same with Supplementary Member because theres 120 MPs under both systems. In Australia, theres one MP to every 97,000 people. England – one MP to every 95,000 people. New Zealand – one MP to every 36,000 people. Simon Bridges, isnt the problem-?Source

Espiner compared Australia’s one MP to every 97,000 to New Zealand’s one MP to every 36,000 people.

According to Espiner, we have just over two and a half times more MPs-per-head-of-population than Australia.

Can this be true?

No, it’s not true.

Whoever researched those figures stuffed up.

The actual figures are;

  • Australia:  one MP per 28,000 (approx)
  • New Zealand: one MP per 36,000 (approx)

In fact, we have less MPs per-head-of-population than Australia.

How did Espiner (or Q+A’s researchers) make such a blunder? The answer is simple arithmetic-gone-wrong;

New Zealand’s population is (approximately) 4.4 million people.

We have, at present, 122 MPs.

4.4 million divided by 122 = 36,000 (approx)

Q+A estimated their incorrect figure in the following manner,

22 million divided by 226 MPs = 97,000 (approx)

But there are two errors in that calculation.

1. The population of Australia is (approximately) 22 million – not 20 million.

2. There are indeed 226 Federal MPs in Australia. But there are also an additional 583 State MPs in Australia, making 809 Members of Parliament in total.

Federal and State MPs are broken down thusly,

226 in the two houses of the Australian Federal Parliament:

– The House of Representatives with 150 elected representatives.
– The Senate (the upper house) has 76 elected senators.

17 in the single house of the Australian Capital Territory Parliament:

– The Assembly with 17 elected representatives.

135 in the two houses of the New South Wales State Parliament:

– The Assembly with 93 elected representatives.
– The Legislative Council (the upper house) has 42 elected senators.

25 in the single house of the Northern Territory Parliament:

– The Assembly with 25 elected representatives.

85 in the single house of the Queensland State Parliament:

– The House of Representatives with 85 elected representatives.

58 in the two houses of the South Australian State Parliament:

– The House of Representatives with 47 elected representatives.
– The Senate (the upper house) has 11 elected senators.

40 in the two houses of the Tasmanian State Parliament:

– The House of Assembly with 25 elected representatives.
– The Legislative Council (the upper house) has 15 elected members.

128 in the two houses of the Victorian State Parliament:

– The House of Representatives with 88 elected representatives.
– The Senate (the upper house) has 40 elected senators.

95 in the two houses of the West Australian State Parliament:

– The House of Representatives with 59 elected representatives.
– The Senate (the upper house) has 36 elected senators. Source

In the interests of fairness and accuracy, it is vital that our media present information that we can rely on. This is not some academic matter of debate – we are considering whether or not to change or retain our electoral system.

Sloppy presentation of incorrect information will not be helpful.

One hopes that TVNZ will lift it’s game in the coming weeks as the General Election and Referendum approaches.




I emailed Q+A on the same day (Sunday, 9 October 2011 5:55 p.m.) that this episode appeared. My email consisted of my blog entry, as given above.

Tim Watkin, Q+A’s producer responded, two days later (Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:02 PM) with this email,


from:    Q+A
to:    [email]
date:    Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:02 PM
subject:    RE: Comment – A Programme – Q+A

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your comments, but rather than being sloppy etc, we’ve just
taken a different measure than you. The comparisons we made with other
countries included federal parliamentary MPs only, not State MPs. I
imagine you’ve figured this out yourself.

We don’t have State MPs in NZ, so it would be comparing apples with
oranges to include them. Sure, Australia and other countries have that
extra layer of democracy – but they are not MPs as we know them in this
country and do not have the same power and responsibility, so it seemed
to us the more accurate (or at least less inaccurate) comparison was to
limit our comparisons to national MPs. That way we’re comparing like
with like.

We decided that to most of our viewers “MP’ would mean members of a
national parliament, not a state one. Obviously you are one who defines
MP differently, but I suspect you’d be in the minority of viewers.


Tim Watkin
Producer, Q+A


To which I replied, on the same day,


from    [email]
to    Q+A <>
date    Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:15 PM
subject    Re: Comment – A Programme – Q+A


Thankyou for your response.

With regards to your explanation, I would submit the following;

“The comparisons we made with other
countries included federal parliamentary MPs only, not State MPs. I
imagine you’ve figured this out yourself.”

Indeed, I realised that immediately. This is an error made recently by another media outlet and I recognised the basis for the figures almost immediatly, as I had seen them before.

However, as you pointed out, it is worth noting that I’d be perhaps one of a handful of people who would realise this. The rest of the country watching that segment would take the figures  mentioned at face value.

“We decided that to most of our viewers “MP’ would mean members of a
national parliament, not a state one. Obviously you are one who defines
MP differently, but I suspect you’d be in the minority of viewers.”

I disagree and that explanation seems somewhat artificial. No mention was made of your definition between Federal and State MPs. State governments in Australia are just that; state governments with their own MPs, Parliaments, and Governor Generals. They pass their own laws; have their own Police; have a (somewhat loose) border-controls;  and even  extradition treaties with other (Australian) states.

Perhaps it would have been appropriate to point this out to viewers so that they could come to their own conclusions? As it is, only one interpretation has been presented, and that interpretation is, well, open to interpretation.

You’re correct; we don’t have State MPs. In which case comparing Australia with New Zealand was not comparing apples-with-apples. (Australia would probably prefer that we don’t mention our apples to them, at any rate.) So it wasn’t an accurate comparison even by your definitions.

All the best,



Categories: Media Tags: , , , , ,

MMP – the “Marketplace” of Politics…

… and offering the voters real choices, other than the gerrymandered riggings and back-room deals of First Past the Post and Supplementary Member.

The good folk of Epsom now have a wide range of candidates to choose from, this coming November.  Labour MP, David Parker, is experienced, articulate, and with a good common-sense attitude.

Spoilt for choice, Epsom folk?

Can David Parker win Epsom? Should he even try? What is the point of offering oneself in a safe National-seat that is as “blue ribbon” as one can find in this country?

I’m thinking that David Parker has a very simple plan: to Give It A Go.

New Zealanders love that  “give it a go” attitude. The same attitude that has seen various individuals achieve stuff that – on the face of it – was practically unheard off. Whether climbing a bloody big mountain and “knocking the bastard off”, or producing a few ‘splatter’ movies and eventually becoming one of the biggest Names in Hollywood (Miramar Branch) – these individuals just gave it a go.

Now it may be a long-shot that David Parker wins Epsom. That’s a bloody high mountain to climb in anyone’s books.

But Kiwis love the “battler”; the Little Guy Up Against It. Hence why “Goodbye Pork Pie” is one of our most endearing movies?

I think that’s the rationale for David P to try it on in Epsom. He may not get anywhere – but by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I think he’ll earn bucketloads of respect from the local Epsomites. ‘Cos he Gave It A Go.

Who knows – he may even…

As for the Parker Game Plan – I’m picking he’ll opt for Deputy Leadership if/when the Labour leadership issue ever arises.