Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Slave to the rhythm

A few nights ago, a friend suggested that a really good way to get back at the Tories would be to send them images of coffins. After I explained that such an action would be a death threat and thus (strictly speaking) illegal he modified his proposal. I suppose I should have added that, in order to comply with the Electoral Finance Act, a death threat would probably have to bear the name and address of its authorising agent. Nevertheless, this idea got me thinking.

So, what should we do? Here's one idea: let's beat our Greens. This offer applies to registered voters in electorates such as Auckland Central and Ohariu-Belmont, where the combined votes of the Labour and Green candidates are more than those of the winning candidate. You are smart people, so I don't need to explain this much further, but the people in these electorates are either not so smart or have some sort of death wish. If you know any of these people, sit them down with a nice cup of chamomile tea in and tell them "you voted National, you idiot."

You might then like to club them with something heavy and with a huge carbon-footprint, like a truck axle. They might protest that do not like Judith Tizard or Charles Chauvel; they might complain, in relation to the former, that they do not like Section 92a of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008. Don't let these objections stop you.

You might also add that the Green candidates did not want these people's electorate votes. They asked for Party Vote Green, not "vote for me and ensure a Labour loss." Of course, it may be that some people who vote Green would otherwise vote Tory, if it were not for Hector's Dolphin. It may be that some people really believe Nikki Kaye's claim to be some sort of Green Tory. Or it may be that they just don't understand how the electoral system works. They vote Green because it makes them feel good. It is now our duty to make them feel bad by explaining that they voted Tory.

Still at least they tried. On Sunday morning, I met a man - a father of three - who not only failed to vote but did not know how the election had turned out. I suppose I should respect his democratic right to be stupid but, frankly, I felt like clubbing him to death like a baby seal.


Amanda said...

You can't make me feel bad. I live in Ohariu- Belmont and I party voted Green and electorate voted for Charles Chauvel just so as not to vote for National. I bet more people would have too had he remotely made an effort to campaign in the area but he didn't. Katrina Shanks, the National candidate, really worked for the votes she got. She was constantly around at local events, in the local media and in my mailbox. Charles Chauvel was an invisible candidate and I don't think he can take too much personal credit for all the votes he did get. Maybe Labour should sit down with a nice cup of chamomile tea and think on that.

Paul said...

I think they should. Their national campaign was appalling and local campaigns seem to have been pretty bad, with some honorable exceptions. I think they lost the will to win.

Anonymous said...

I know you are still very angry and bitter with the voters for turfing out your much-loved Judith Tizard Paul, but have you ever thought that one of the reasons is that Nikki Kaye is hard-working, and Judith Tizard isn't?

Has it ever occurred to you that a big chunk of green voters actually thought that Nikki Kaye might be a much better constituency MP than Judith Tizard?

Voting for Judith Tizard for the electorate vote would not have increased Labour's MPs in Parliament. It simply would have kept the lazy and ineffective Judith Tizard in Parliament, at the expense of one of Labour's bright new blood.

You might not like the results that democratic systems sometimes produce, but it doesn't do a lot of good abusing voters, and in particular your ideological allies in the Greens, for making the decision they did.

On second thoughts, please please please spend the next nine years in opposition scrapping with the Greens over their support base.

Paul said...

If anyone has high expectations of Ms Kaye, they will be disappointed. She is a moppet, who became the candidate because of an internal coup and is in politics for her CV, which to date has been largely fabricated.

I worked for Judith and know her to be extremely hard working, to the point that it made her very ill. She held portfolios which involved introducing important legislation, which she handled very well. Somehow, I do not see Ms Kaye in a similar role.

And yes, Judith is much-loved. She did a lot for Auckland and for New Zealand.

Giovanni Tiso said...

Regardless of one's opinion of JT, Tim got you there: you seem to be the one who doesn't know how the electorate system works. Had she been elected, Tizard (or whomever else in a seat where the Green + Labour electorate vote was greater than National + Act) would have taken the place of a Labour list MP.

You haven't given me enough reason to go out and slap one in four of my neighbours, sorry.

Paul said...

I do recognise that it would not have made a difference to the overall result: more people voted for rightward parties than leftward parties. My point was that Auckland Central would not have Nikki Kaye as its MP and that Peter Dunne would have been done. It is the sheer horror of being represented by a sock puppet which is troubling me.

I would have voted Green if the Green candidate were the most likely to win. Vote early, vote tactically (or rather, strategically).

Giovanni Tiso said...

I'm with you on the Dunne front, he almost got ousted this time and it would have been oh so sweet. It's not clear to me though why it should be the smaller party that takes a step back. I recall Labour contesting Waitakere against Laila Harre in spite of the fact that had she won the left would have gained one or possibly two MPs. Seems a bit rich to attack the Greens from running everywhere, or the voters for thinking that they should choose Tizard over the candidate they prefer, in spite of the net gain of zero MPs for their side.

And voters do so vote strategically where they see merit: look what happened in Wellington Central, where National voters rejected their own candidate.

Anonymous said...

Paul, keep abusing Nikki Kaye if it makes you feel better. It just shows how bitter and twisted you are.

Nikki Kaye knocked on ten thousand doors during this campaign. How many did Judith knock on? Go on, you've got her on speed-dial. Ask her.

As for your reports that Judith is much-loved, the evidence suggests otherwise. She was voted out of office, and of the Labour MPs who were unseated from their electorates, she had the biggest majority. The Greens didn't endorse Judith Tizard. The non-endorsement wasn't helped by Judith going around claiming she had been endorsed by the Greens when she hadn't.

Judith had the lightest portfolio load of any Minister. Face it, she was the PM's handbag.

I find it amusing that Judith Tizard complained at the beginning of the campaign that she was disliked because she was a high-profile, successful woman, by a bunch of nasty nats, yet the abuse you level at Nikki Kaye is strangely reminiscent of the very same.

What's the matter, Paul? Can't stand losing to a bright, vibrant, energetic female?

stephen said...

"... new legislation, which she handled very well"

That is not the opinion of anyone operating a network. The new copyright legislation is difficult to work with and Tizard's stock in those quarters is very, very low. I respect your opinions Paul, but she managed to alienate everyone on the ISP side of the fence.

stephen said...

Apropos my previous comment, link for those not following the s92 debacle:

Paul said...

Stephen, I agree about Section 92. It should never have happened.

Giovanni, I would like to see Labour make deals with other likely allies before elections, and not to stand candidates in those allies' seats. Instead we have had deals made after the election, with the results that the likes of Dunne have been able to dictate matters. Had Labour and the Greens made a deal then, we would probably all be better off now.

Tim what exactly does bright, vibrant and energetic Nikki Kaye believe in?

Giovanni Tiso said...

Had Labour and the Greens made a deal then, we would probably all be better off now.

I'm with you there, but it's not what you're suggesting in your post. There you toe the party line that any electorate vote that is not for the candidate who's most likely to win (which ALWAYS happens to Labour) is a wasted one. I don't see why Green voters should engage in such quid pro no quo whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

"Tim what exactly does bright, vibrant and energetic Nikki Kaye believe in?"

Give her a call and ask her Paul, instead of bitching and moaning about it all the time. Unlike Judith Tizard, Kaye is actually accessible to her constituents. For one, she obviously believes that winning campaigns is about doing some basic hard work. Like knocking on ten thousand doors. How many did Judith knock on? I asked you last time, and didn't get a response. A stunning silence, in fact.

You're starting to sound obsessed. Very poor form. Are you so unemployable to the rest of the world that your only saviour is a job in Judith Tizard's office?

Get over it. Nikki's team won. Your team lost. If you are so upset about the consequences of democracy, then go to Cuba or North Korea, where you never have to put up with the pain of your beloved idols being voted out of office.

Paul said...

Tim, don't be a dick.

Paul said...

Giovanni, I like to think that I would have the good sense and moral courage to vote for the leftish candidate most likely to win (although, that said, I could not find the strength to vote for Dick Hubbard in the last mayoral round). Such candidates do happen to be Labour folk these days but I would not vote Labour for the sake of it (between you and me, I am not sure if I would vote Labour at all, under the Goff/King regime; don't tell Tim).

Giovanni Tiso said...

Good sense and moral courage? Que? So you're saying that the Green supporters in Auckland central who voted for their candidate showed poor judgment and moral cowardice? That's an extraordinary thing to say. What's wrong with voting for the candidate that you prefer? I reiterate, Tizard winning her electorate seat represented a zero gain in MPs for the centre-left; so unless you think she would have done wonderful things for your area (and I'm highly sceptical of the added value of having an electorate MP from your side, I have to say), I'd say go and vote for whomever you prefer - we don't need to be tactical until the bitter end, sort of takes the pleasure and the beauty out of voting sometimes.

Paul said...

No, I am not saying that Green voters lacked sense or courage. I was speaking for myself. I would also not presume to know the motives of those who voted Green in Auckland Central. Labour people do tend to think that Green voters are natural allies but that may not be the case.

Perhaps we should just vote for our preferred candidate, but we should be aware of the consequences of doing so.

Anonymous said...

There's a good argument that Labour voters should have supported Denise Roche instead of Judith Tizard. It will be interesting to see what the split vote analysis says this time, but last time many labour voters voted for Nandor. Both Denise and Nandor would have been much harder-working, more energetic voices for Auckland Central than Judith Tizard. Judith has given Auckland Central a bad name. If the Left really wanted to hold onto Auckland Central, they would have either deselected Judith in favour of somebody who was going to put some real effort into it—like Jordon Carter or Conor Roberts or Kate Sutton, or they would have supported Denise Roche.

Clinging to somebod
y as lazy and
ht side getting rid of Judith does allow some new broom to sweep through. When even Bomber Bradbury is telling people to vote Nikki to get rid of Judith, then you know your cause is lost, Paul.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Tim lovely?