Key and Act’s Epsom deal is just so filthy.
Those are very strong words from Patrick Gower. He was reacting to the news that John Banks will only win Epsom if John Key gives voters the nod and he was directing his anger at the wrong target.
It’s no use criticising people and parties for the way they play the game when they’re playing within the rules.
If anything’s wrong it’s not the players, but the rules and the system which allows this sort of deal that gower should be criticising.
What would he prefer – that parties stay silent before the election and then engage in backroom deals?
MMP allows that too and it’s one of the reasons that it’s is not my preferred voting system.
But given that’s what we’ve got I’d much prefer to know parties’ intentions before I vote so I can do so with my eyes open, than take a stab in the dark and wait while the leaders and their confidantes work out how to get the best deal afterwards.
Critics of pre-election machinations ignore a very salient point. No matter what parties do or say it’s the voters who wield the power.
If enough people in Epsom tick John Banks he’ll win the electorate and allow Act to stay in parliament. If too few opt for him, neither he nor his party will have any seats.
Act, National, their leaders and candidates can nod and wink as they will, or won’t. The voters can choose to take notice of what they say or do or not. They are the people with the votes and it’s up to them to exercise them as they choose regardless of what any parties or their leaders suggest.
Homepaddock 
“It’s no use criticising people and parties for the way they play the game when they’re playing within the rules.”
National and it’s cheerleaders (you’re but one, Ele) use this rationale frequently to justify what Patric Gower so correctly describes as their ‘filthy’ deals.
I suspect you’ll not be able to understand what I’m trying to convey here, Ele, as it seems to be something embedded so deep into your ideology as to be invisible to you. But National and her constituent parts are not alone in thinking this way. Other politicians and political parties embrace the idea. Some though, reject it, quite rightly. This usually puts them at a disadvantage and those who believe in it, as you do, see that as foolishness. It’s very important to win at the game of politics, isn’t it. No matter what. And it’s at this point we find Gower’s ‘filth’.
Boo!
LikeLike
Robert – the Green Party also stands candidates in electorates and makes it quite clear they are seeking only the party vote. Most of the wee parties do.
The party-vote only strategy isn’t without risk – National voters opted for Peter Dunne in three elections which enabled him to prop up Labour. Green voters usually support Labour candidates but Labour never invited them in to government.
If I remember correctly that was because Winston Peters said he wouldn’t work with them. I’d agree that’s filthy – the leader of a wee party wielding power far in excess of voter support and holding the bigger one to ransom.
Secret deals or tricky ones after the election give parties more power than voters.
Being open before the election leaves the power with voters. It’s similar to what happens in Australia with preferential voting.
LikeLike
So why does the Green Party stand candidates in every seat Robert, only to tell us that they are solely campaigning for the party vote? Isn’t that “filth” too, and simply a manipulation of MMP?
Ele’s right; it’s the system that is an ass. Vote for Change.
LikeLike
Did Patrick Gower call the Greens behaviour ‘filthy’?
Nope.
Nice try at deflection there, Inv2, but Gower’s correct to call the Epsom ‘business’ filthy and by association, those who are creating that filth, National and Act. How the voters there can stomach it, I don’t know. In fact, I hope they kick the unctous Banks for touch.
And National too 🙂
LikeLike
“How the voters there can stomach it” – the voters don’t have to stomach anything.
That’s what’s good about being open. If they don’t want Act or its candidate they won’t vote for him.
LikeLike
No-one is forcing voters one way or the other.
But they can be advised.
Epsom voters have long known that without Rodney Hide as MP, ACT would disappear.
Nothing has changed.
Without John Banks as Epsom MP, there will be no ACT MPs.
But National just might need them.
LikeLike
The last government was thrown out of power but tragically an equally if not more damaging one was put in its place. The people doing the actual hands on work –those running small businesses, the working and middle class, the professions, mothers and fathers, are only too aware that they are up against deal-making political parties. And that most politicians are nothing more than ‘persuasive talkers’ who have hijacked the democracy of New Zealand.
LikeLike
Sally’s correct. As to Ele’s self-delusional, “If they don’t want Act or its candidate they won’t vote for him.” – hardy hardy ha! Very amusing.
Banks is not someone anyone would willingly vote for, given his own unctuousness, the fact that he’s not Act at all, and that the party he ‘represents’ no longer resembles Act in any way or form – Epsom voters are being played with and Ele’s ‘if they don’t want Act’ will ring hollow up and down the leafy streets of Epsom, I’m guessing.
Filthy indeed.
LikeLike
RG – did I not see the juvenile Gareth Hughes on Backbenchers saying that he was standing in the Ohariu electorate for the Party Vote only and he wanted voters to support the `smarmy’ (my word) Charles Chauvel.
What is so different about Epsom?
LikeLike
The Greens are a real political party, pdm. Act is a hollowed out shell, infested with National Party hacks, Banks and Brash.
That’s the difference.
It’s a con all round and the people of Epsom are being asked to pretend it isn’t. They won’t be liking that.
LikeLike
If they don’t like it Robert, they can show that when they vote.
What is it about giving people information so they can make an informed decision that you object to?
LikeLike
I am one of the few voters on the right (recent change) who will admit to voting for MMP .. what a mistake.
Why I hear bOb say, Winny is the answer
LikeLike
As a green voter I agree with Robert that the Epsom situation is an ass. At the same time it is quite within the rules so theres not much that can be done about it.
Personally I think that it’s not a good look for the Nats but so what, they are entitled to endorse another parties candidate if they desire.
I do however hope that the MMP review throws out the anomoly of list MPs coming in on the coat tails of an electorate MP when thier party has not reached the threshold.
LikeLike
Ele, you misrepresent my view. Bearing in mind that it’s Patrick Gower who has said, “Key and Act’s Epsom deal is just so filthy.”, it’s difficult to steer away from the obvious here – that Gower is correct. I know you are obliged to deny the obvious in the service of Bill and John, but really Ele, this one’s blatant and what’s more, it reeks. Where the Greens are encouraging voters to give them the party vote and vote for a different candidate, your argument is valid, but in Epsom, the smell of dead fish and the gagging that goes with swallowing them, is obscene, as Gower alludes. That you can’t smell it, shows how de-sensitised your olfactory sense has become (from all the dead fish swallowing you’ve had to do since you signed on with National). That smell emanating from Epsom, btw, is beginning to cling to Key.
jabba – here’s a joke only you will understand
– Winston Peters is a летачко возило!
(I knew you’d laugh – it’s an old Macedonian joke, as you know full well!)
LikeLike