Saturday, July 19, 2014

THE CONSERVATIVES ARE A DEAD ISSUE FOLLOWING ....

Christine Rankin's statement to her Party Conference here that they could work equally with either Labour or National.

Can I invite some apologist for that Party to give me a semi-coherent reason why National should throw them East Coast Bays on the chance they could ditch John Key and throw their hat in with the Labour in a Labour/Green/Winston First/Mana/Internet Party coalition.   This election is going to be close, despite what the polls say, and just why National should take the chance with a mob that could just as easily go with the dark side of politics sure beats the hell out of me.

It's shades of Winston First without the makeup on.      At least with ACT and United Future you know who they're supporting.

You will note Rankin's claim that the Conservatives polled 80.000 votes last time round and only 40,000 short of the 'magic' 5%.     In actual fact they polled 59,237 votes or 2.65%.    That was 52,530 votes short.    So, in addition to wondering whether man really landed on the moon and whether chemtrails can make you sterile it appears they don't 'do' maths.     That's comforting for a party that advocates for a flat tax regime.

The so called Conservatives are just too flaky for National to take a chance with them.


18 comments:

gravedodger said...

The guy's political skills preclude my having any desire to encourage his big spend.
Have a residual respect for Rankin and what she achieved in welfare in the face of the bullshit she was forced to endure.
That said as a team they rank with Lilly Harry and much of the rabble in the cellar.

I probably identify with those who ideally see CC and WRP both around 3% each to mop up many whose vote should be dumped not treasured.

Now Jamie Whyte he seems to have something to offer in resurecting the ACT corpse that Brash Hide and Banksie left on the roadside to die.

Thank god we do not have to cope with that abortion that is the Aus Federal Senate what a bombsite.

JC said...

Winston is complaining Craig is stealing his policy but Craig is saying both parties are chasing the same bunch of people.

There's a good chance they'll cancel each other out of the election and for those who want a starboard option the sensible Whyte looks to be a beneficiary.

JC

Edward the Confessor said...

Yeah, Whyte's really sensible, and you guys will finally be able to marry your sisters. Your taxes will have to go up to pay for all the new private prisons you'll need if his criminal justice "initiatives" happen, but hey, she's worth it right?

gravedodger said...

Nah Backward you can marry yours, sometimes line breeding worked with dogs but a lot of them were put down.
You are one very sick pup.

Edward the Confessor said...

It's Whyte's idea of a good time, not mine. I won't be voting for him.

The Veteran said...

EtC ... all the more reason for Party Vote National.

With the more balanced observers from the 'Dark Side' queuing up to jump on board why don't you join my mate from Winston First and 'enjoy' the plunge?

JC said...

Its hardly worth pointing out but I suppose someone should set that particular record straight.

"He said he was "very opposed" to incest.

"I find it very distasteful I don't know why anybody would do it but it's a question of principle about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn't do it."

He did not believe the increased risk of congenital disorders in children from incestuous relationships was a valid reason for it to illegal.

" The probability of having some problem with the children is greater when the mother is over the age of 35 but I've never heard anyone suggest that anyone over the age of 35 shouldn't be allowed to have sex."

His view was not Act policy and "nobody who votes for Act has anything to fear".

Not a very wise statement for a would be politician in a climate where politics is now considered a job for life particularly on the left, but I think its probably a less harmful statement than policies around resurrecting Moa to roam the hills around Wainuiomata before being used for oversized KFC legs to gain your vote, or removing the presumption of innocence at a rape trial as far more experienced, intellectual and wise politicians have suggested and indeed stated as policy in the rape matter.

JC

Edward the Confessor said...

ACT's irrational and fear-driven criminal justice policies and ant-science views on the environment are far more dangerous than Whyte's odd view on incest, you are correct.

Anonymous said...

Back on topic Colin Craigs Conservatives need to be able to say they could work with either National or Liarbour. The point being if they didn't John Key could treat them like Aunty Hulun treated the Greens.

As for you ETC - why does Act scare you so much that at the mere mention of their name you revert to standard practice and lie about Whytes supposed comments and their sensible AGW policy.

Paranormal

Edward the Confessor said...

What, the Cons need to tell lies, subnormal? Interesting approach (although Colin should probably have fibbed when asked about whether he thought the moon landing was real).

Since when is denying reality sensible? You might vote for that, but then you're special.

Psycho Milt said...

The obsession of some on the left with Whyte's opinion on incest is just odd. He expressed the view that incest between consenting adults shouldn't be a matter for the criminal justice system - it's a sensible opinion and one that I hope most people share. There's something distinctly childish about the reaction to it from various quarters.

Angry Tory said...

At least Whyte didn't apologise for being a man. Or demanding funding for bringing back the moa.

But he did promise to back every single red cent of Labour's --- oops sorry National's -
welfare spending. Ever last cent.

(And it's important that it's National - because National is spending more on welfare than Labour ever did - and over the last six years, almost all borrowed money)


the only party with a policy to limit welfare to the deserving is the Conservatives.

Edward the Confessor said...

Milt, it's stark evidence that he thinks he's Spock, less some hair and the pointy ears. The oh-so-very-clever uber-rationalist lands in some pretty weird places. Being able to marry your father is just one example - Act's criminal justice policies are even worse. Ridicule is what he deserves.

Psycho Milt said...

The oh-so-very-clever uber-rationalist lands in some pretty weird places. Being able to marry your father is just one example...

I refuse to characterise rationalism as undesirable in a politician. In this particular instance, 'rational' is certainly the last word you could apply to commenters at The Standard or the Daily Blog mocking Whyte for thinking it would be OK to allow people to marry their fathers (not sure he actually did say that, by the way), having just spent years wittering on about how essential "marriage equality" is to a civilised society.

At least Whyte didn't apologise for being a man.

And here's an example of childish mockery from the right. If a Labour Maori MP got up at a meeting of child abuse social workers and said they felt ashamed of being Maori in front of this group, you guys would be going on about courage and how it's about time someone said it and so on - rationalism's about as far from your response as it's possible to get.

Edward the Confessor said...

"I refuse to characterise rationalism as undesirable in a politician."

In broad terms it's not wholly undesirable. However, there are limits to the application of reason, both in politics and elsewhere. This is because our knowledge is imperfect. We don't know everything. We don't even know what we don't know most of the time. This is where wisdom comes in. Whyte either understands this but hopes everyone else doesn't (in which case we'll all bow to his unrelenting genius), or he's an idiot.

The Veteran said...

Angry Tory ... So, as a self confessed 'Conservative' voter please answer the simple question. Just why should National throw Craig East Coast Bays when your Party states publicly that they could do a deal with Labour.

As for welfare reform ... National has walked the walk viz

» 16,196 fewer people on a main benefit than a year ago

» A 5% decrease for all benefits from June 2013 to June 2014

» An 11% decrease for sole parent support benefits

» A drop in the proportion of working age adults on welfare from 11.2% to 10.5%

» Lowest number of people on welfare since 2008 before the Great Recession

» The number of teen solo parents is down 12%.

Talk is 'cheep' and and having an 'interesting' CEO who can't do basic maths goes a long way to proving the point that if the Conservatives are the answer, then it must have been a stupid question.

JC said...

"He expressed the view that incest between consenting adults shouldn't be a matter for the criminal justice system - it's a sensible opinion and one that I hope most people share."

I just wish he was in National.. its about the most sensible leader comment made this election cycle.

JC

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Vet

You and I have had this discussion many times and I have taaken the stance that the Cons as a partner would be better than Winston, if push comes to shove.

However, as each day passes I am more inclined to your view on this.

Winston talking of contesting ECB is the clincher.