The Dim-Post

August 12, 2011

Ringing endorsement of the day, stand by your blogger edition

Filed under: blogging,Uncategorized — danylmc @ 1:11 pm

From the Herald’s live chat with ACT Party Grand-Dragon Don Brash:

About these ads

30 Comments »

  1. To be fair, it’s not like he can give comments about the selection process without being accused of imparting some sort of bias. From what I know, there are interviews scheduled later this month.

    Comment by DerpDerpington — August 12, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

  2. Classic:
    Q What will your plans be, should Banks win Epsom but ACT fail to gain 1.7% of the party vote to get you into the house?

    Don Brash: That possibility hasn’t crossed my mind . Some weeks ago the Herald asked people whehter New Zealnad would be better off, about the same, or worse off if a John Key led National Party was in coalition with a Don Brash led ACT Party after the election. 11.4% of people said “better off”.

    Really clutching straws there

    Comment by max — August 12, 2011 @ 1:32 pm

  3. Don Brash (or his internet interview proxy man) needs a bit of an education in identifying trolls on the internet.

    John Banks is the candidate that turns me off voting for ACT again this year, at least Cactus appears to have principles that align with the original thrust of ACT.

    Comment by Bed Rater — August 12, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

  4. They didn’t ask him my question about the gold standard. :(

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 12, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

  5. Really clutching straws there

    Come now, the real clutching at straws must be from Sarah, who implies: “I could vote for other ACT candidates, but Odgers makes me think twice”.

    Comment by Phil — August 12, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  6. Q What will your plans be, should Banks win Epsom but ACT fail to gain 1.7% of the party vote to get you into the house?

    Under MMP in New Zealand only 1.17-1.25% of the party vote is needed to get a second MP.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — August 12, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

  7. Nor did they ask him my question about only exercising power to the point of his mandate or not taking Ministerial positions given that he’s said the “3rd-place getter” (NZFirst) in 99 and 05 had no mandate and shouldn’t have demanded Ministerial positions. :(

    Comment by garethw — August 12, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

  8. What a pity he wasn’t asked to show publicly his magical poll data used to roll Rodney Hide. Now where have I seen that trick before? Think think think……….

    Bingo! ! !

    Helen Clarke, getting rid of Police Commissioner Doone.

    What a pity he wasn’t asked why it was John Ansell who was arseholed out when both Brash and Boscowan approved that damned fool ad?

    Now where have I seen that trick before? Think think think……….

    Bingo! ! !

    Helen Clarke, hanging her drivers out to dry.

    Whether it’s 1.17 or 1.17 I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t make it. Nobody wants a dessicated, politically inept version of Clarke back.

    Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — August 12, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

  9. Should read “Whether it’s 1.17 or 1.7, I won’t be surprised……..”

    Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — August 12, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

  10. Bomber could at least find a masculine pseudonym. Sarah? Please. Dr Brash never is one to mince words so I take it as a win I am not toxic.

    Comment by Cactus Kate — August 12, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

  11. Q: Do you believe that Climate Change is happening and is a problem that needs to be addressed?

    Don Brash:
    There’s no question that the climate is changing – as it has done since time immemorial. You may be asking whether human activity is causing the global climate to warm. I think that is a much harder question to answer. Obviously, many scientists believe that it is. Others believe that it is not. (I wonder what Greenland looked like when Europeans first called it Greenland!) So I do not have a firm view on this question. But the ACT Party (and I) believe it is crazy for New Zealand to have an all sectors, all gasses, Emissions Trading Scheme – which clearly hurts our consumers and producers – when none of our major trading partners have anything remotely similar.

    Yet another example of his firm grasp of the scientific issues at hand:

    Etymology

    The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland (“Greenland”), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.[7][8]

    Greenland was also called Gruntland (“Ground-land”) and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt (“ground”), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glaciers) is relatively green in the summer.

    Comment by eszett — August 12, 2011 @ 2:07 pm

  12. “Under MMP in New Zealand only 1.17-1.25% of the party vote is needed to get a second MP.”

    You’re assuming, of course, that Don Brash is placed at number one on the ACT Party list. That remains to be determined by the ACT Party board (apparently) …

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

  13. You’re assuming, of course, that Don Brash is placed at number one on the ACT Party list.

    No. I’m not. I’m assuming that Brash and Banks fill the top two slots in some order.

    Also, even if Brash was third (or lower), the 1.7% figure would still be wrong. ~2% is needed for three MPs.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — August 12, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

  14. 3 codgers would be toooo much. . .

    Comment by Owen — August 12, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

  15. “Also, even if Brash was third (or lower), the 1.7% figure would still be wrong. ~2% is needed for three MPs.”

    Not if we assume a massive wasted vote, as NZ First, the Conservative Party, Libertarianz and Labour all poll 4.9% without winning any electorate seats …

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

  16. One codger would be excessive, let alone a brash and a codger.

    Comment by donny — August 12, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

  17. @andrew geddis

    You really think Labour is in danger of getting below 5%? That surpasses even Danyl’s levels of pessimism…

    Comment by insider — August 12, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

  18. I think Labour’s chances of dropping below 5% are about equal to the Libertarianz of rising to 4.9%.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

  19. Andrew (or Graeme), what would happen if no party broke the 5% threshold, and every electorate was won by an independent? Would Parliament be formed without any list members?

    Comment by Nick — August 12, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

  20. Totally innappropriate for him to discuss whose on the ACT list before decisions have been made by the board. DMCL you’re asking the wrong question.

    Comment by NZ Groover — August 12, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

  21. ACT’s board decide the list ranking. While Brash is a board member by virtue of being party leader, he is only one vote of about 10 in the process. Therefore he didn’t comment as he could be over-ruled. The same would apply to questions about higher profile candidates like Boscawen, Nicholson, Eckhoff or any other candidate for that matter.

    I would expect Banks will not have a list ranking – he wins Epsom, he becomes an MP. I do recall in 1996 he almost lost his Whangarei electorate seat to Brian Donnelly and while special votes were being counted he indicated he wouldn’t enter parliament as a list MP

    Comment by Michael — August 12, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

  22. Nick, speaking of likely scenarios, what do you think would/should happen if everyone forgot to vote, so in fact no candidates got any votes?

    This seems like an important question to know the answer to.

    Comment by Richard — August 12, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

  23. Actually the NZ Bloggers Union have been very quite on this. If they don’t ” act ” soon I will start a Cactus support group and track down Sarah. Somehow I don’t think she is going to be Bradbury though. I rather suspect he failed to spot this opportunity to self promote. That said I could be wrong because I just couldn’t be bothered reading the live chat, unlike Pablo’s live chat last week that was excellent.

    Comment by IHStewart — August 12, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

  24. “…and Labour all poll 4.9% without winning any electorate seats …”

    Hell Andrew, I knew it was bad but that bad ?

    Comment by IHStewart — August 12, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

  25. Nick,

    Yes – we’d have a House of Representatives with 70 members. Next question … how would you form a Government with 70 independents?

    Richard,

    Jose Saramago wrote a novel sort of taking that as a starting point – “Seeing”. (Actually, the bulk of the people don’t forget to vote – they turn up and cast a blank ballot.) Basically, the Government decided it was terrorism, declared a state of emergency and quarantines the city.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

  26. I didn’t know ACT even allowed women to join, let alone be parliamentary candidates. I learn something new every day.

    Comment by Mr February — August 12, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

  27. @ Nick – you don’t need all the electorates to be won by independants to get no list MPs. You can have the usual mix of Labour and National MPs winning their electorates, but the voters collectively giving all the parties less than 5% of the party vote.

    Time for the 5% threshold to be scrapped – let parties get however many list MPs they earn with their party vote! That would make Parliament a damn sight more responsive to voters, as it would be far easier for new small parties to form if the existing parties mess voters round.

    Comment by bob — August 13, 2011 @ 12:42 am

  28. You can have the usual mix of Labour and National MPs winning their electorates, but the voters collectively giving all the parties less than 5% of the party vote.

    [begin NERD]

    In this situation, as long as Labour and National got at least one party vote each, they would divvy up the list seats between them.

    [end NERD]

    Comment by bradluen — August 13, 2011 @ 7:57 am

  29. bob, the problem with being pedantic is it only works if you’re right

    Comment by Kahikatea — August 13, 2011 @ 11:03 am

  30. Please stop picking on codgers.

    There are good ‘uns, and bad uns. The rest are bores.

    Anti codger sites deserve attention from the Human Rights Commission.

    Anti bore sites are a YAWN.

    Comment by peterlepaysan — August 14, 2011 @ 10:15 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 407 other followers

%d bloggers like this: