Sunday, June 10, 2018


A totally inept media and a bunch of moronic "experts"  attempting to spin the results of the contest to replace the well respected  retiring Jonathon Coleman dont just miss the target, their powder is wet and they are reduced to throwing their pens  as spears and keyboards as anti personal mines.

Nine months ago Coleman held easily by scoring more votes than his entire opposition totalled. Yesterday only a number close to that who voted for Coleman last year voted, and the drips under pressure are reading that result as trending in favour of their beliefs.

Yesterday more voted for Bidois the winning candidate than voted against him even though good ole boy Willie Jackson spent our money exhorting Maoris to temporarily  switch to the general roll to try and skew the vote for the socialists.

Did a party that is intent on reducing spend for roads while screwing motorists with ever increasing fuel taxes to fund the Tugger Jones rorts, seriously see an opportunity to regain a seat they last held nearly two decades ago when Me Tu's inlaws held sway while the Clark phenomena was ascendant.
It was reported that  then  MP Anne Hartley was later  the paternal grand mother of Me Tu's child at the center of the welfare rort leading to the burnout of the shooting star melon Co leader.


Psycho Milt said...

Did [Labour] seriously see an opportunity to regain a seat they last held nearly two decades ago...

Not likely. It's pretty rare for a government take a seat off its opposition in a by-election under any circumstances, let alone one in which the previous incumbent had a pretty good majority. They had to talk up the possibility though, it's called "election campaigning."

The Veteran said...

PM ... there's an element to that but Labour threw the full force of their union support behind their candidate as well as trying to gerrymander the result by having supporters switch from the Maori Roll to General Roll ... they failed.

Mind you, having a candidate with a dodgy c.v. didn't overly help.

A correction to my previous post ... I said Winston First wimped out by failing to field a candidate ... they did and they didn't. What they did was to allow their candidate in the General Election to run as an independent. Fat lot of good they did him ... he polled less than 100 votes ... less than one half of one percent.

What the result does show is that both National and Labour might have some difficulty in attracting viable coalition partners next time round. For National the by-election confirmed that ACT is dead in the water. For myself I think any new/reinvented party on right is going to be pushing shit up hill getting off the ground given that many on the right now see Judith Collins as their standard bearer in National. A Blue Green Party is a possibility but it has to be 'organic' and not just National's poodle. National could throw them a seat (Epsom) but all that would do would be to reinforce the poodle bit. The 5% hurdle is pretty much a bridge too far for a new Party.

For Labour and it has to be a worry that the Greens vote dropped to just 2.9%. It shows that what I had previously assumed as their bedrock support (6-7%) ain't. That is real danger territory. I accept however there may have been some tactical voting by Green supporters but !!!!!! ..... As for NZ First and there's nothing to be said.

28 months out from the election and much could change but one has to say that come 2020 we might just be back to a two party parliament.

Psycho Milt said...

...Labour [tried] to gerrymander the result by having supporters switch from the Maori Roll to General Roll...

They did? I wouldn't accept that without concrete evidence that it was more than a few people's expressed personal opinion. And even then, I wouldn't accept it was their core election strategy rather than something peripheral, because, you know, I don't think they're stupid.

For Labour and it has to be a worry that the Greens vote dropped to just 2.9%.

It was a by-election, so there was no party vote. Most of the Green voters would vote tactically for the Labour candidate, especially if they thought he had a chance.

The Veteran said...

Labour not stupid? You mean like their Party President sending out invitations to a fund raiser event promoting Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, as the Guest Speaker and then when called out on the matter changing the story claiming he was there in his private capacity as an ordinary run of the mill MP ... now that's stupid as stupid be.

Re Greens ... spin it what way whichever ...the history of MMP politics is that the major Party in government cannabises the vote of its support parties. You should be concerned ... I would be.

Psycho Milt said...

Oh, they can be very stupid in trivial ways, yes. National's stupid tends to come in much less trivial forms, like "I'm not going to stop pulling her ponytail, what's the worst that could happen?", or "If we just pay off the person who was illegally taped, the story will die," or "Our much-ballyhooed war on drugs is resulting in people being evicted from their homes on spurious grounds. No worries, we'll just have Farrar write some blog posts vilifying the people we're evicting."

The Veteran said...

PM ... I feel for you. That 2.9% must be really hurting.

alwyn said...

I don't think that 2.9% will feel that bad.
Many Green supporters are fans of homeopathy. One of its credoes is, I believe, that the greater the dilution of the active ingredient the more effective it is.
In the same way I am sure that they will be able to persuade themselves that the lower their percentage of the votes the more influential the party is becoming.
Roll on the 0.001% when they will be all powerful