Tripe or starvation

The majority of National Party supporters would like Prime Minister John Key to work with New Zealand First after the 2014 election, a new poll indicates.

This puts me firmly in the minority.

Then we see the reason behind the response:

Mr Key says National supporters want him to do a U-turn on previous promises and work with Mr Peters, if it means stopping a Labour-Greens government, and a 3 News/Reid research poll backs this up. . .

“I think partly it reflects that the country doesn’t want to see Labour and the Greens in office,” says Mr Key, “and so if it means having to deal with New Zealand First, a lot of our supporters would prefer to see that situation.”

If it makes National supporters prefer Peters the thought of the LabourGreen alternative must make them feel very, very bad.

It would be a bit like preferring tripe and liver to starvation.

 

 

54 Responses to Tripe or starvation

  1. robertguyton says:

    Well done, Ele, you are holding to your principles. John Key has none and those he claims to have are expedient – he’ll abandon them in the blink of an eye. You and I can both clearly remember Key’s unequivocal dismissal of Winston Peters as a partner for National because he couldn’t be trusted. That’s all forgotten now. Key has a desperate need for a partner in order to win an election and he’s showing that he’ll do whatever it takes, no matter what he’s promised his supporters, like you and Keeping Stock and dear jabba (jabba – so keen on the word hypocrisy – let’s see if he uses it to describe John Key where it would be the most appropriate word right now. Hypocrisy Savour it, jabba.).
    What a lovely coalition this will make! And Winston, Deputy PM – super!

    Like

  2. homepaddock says:

    You’ve misinterpreted the post, Robert.

    The message is that the thought of the damage a LabourGreen government would do is so awful that Peters would be less worse.

    Like

  3. Andrei says:

    Tripe is good (why don’t give your guests this weekend that great South American dish mondongo 🙂 ), liver is good.

    If we didn’t have MMP you wouldn’t have this problem

    If National hadn’t totally alienated values voters you wouldn’t have this problem

    Like

  4. homepaddock says:

    You are right that MMP is to blame.

    But it wouldn’t matter what National did, governments always alienate some voters and it’s almost impossible to get more than 50% of the vote under MMP.

    Like

  5. jabba says:

    the thought of working with the Winston Peters and his band gives me the sh*ts .. BUT in politics, as Dr No found out with his money printing idea, compromise is part of the game .. swallowing a few dead rats is the term that springs to mind. a Labour/Gween Govt must not happen.
    bOb .. you are the last person on earth to accuse ANYONE else of hypocrisy .. oh to have your “pay” increase off the back of the poor

    Like

  6. Viv K says:

    Don’t worry about the Winston dead rat guys, no swallowing will be required. After Labour prunes out the dead wood and Cunliffe replaces Shearer, it will be a win for Labour/ Green in 2014. I’m good at predicting the future, I know this because I picked this week off work ages ago for a mid winter break and look how nice the weather is :-).

    Like

  7. robertguyton says:

    Winston Peters and John Key make a perfect couple.

    Mutually insincere, lying, deceptive pricks whose sentences make no sense.

    It is a match made in heaven.

    People on other blogs are saying stuff like this. Awful stuff.

    Like

  8. robertguyton says:

    Winston will make an excellent Deputy Prime Minister in the National/NZFirst Government. You will praise him to the heavens, because John requires you to.

    Like

  9. jabba says:

    gee .. I almost agree. Cunliffe is their last hope but who will be his No2?

    Like

  10. TraceyS says:

    In fine form today Robert and being true to your character I see.

    Like

  11. Mr E says:

    How unkind Robert.

    Like

  12. TraceyS says:

    No Robert, it will be because that’s what people (who know how MMP works by now) have voted for. Man, don’t you have any respect for democracy?

    Oh yeah, democracy is democracy when it delivers just what you want right? Wrong.

    If we get a National/NZ First government then that will be because people have voted for that over a Labour/Green/…../….. alternative.

    National doesn’t need another coalition partner. What they need is to run first-rate candidates in disillusioned, disenchanted, disenfranchised red electorates. The polls don’t account for that prospect do they?

    The people I talk to will never swallow the massive dead rat of a tripartite government made up of little parties over a government formed and led by the clear winner. It would last one term and be the end of MMP for sure. Be careful what you wish for. Us fools out here are not silly Robert.

    Like

  13. TraceyS says:

    Beware your confirmation bias, Viv.

    People are no good at predictions, although we can safely predict that the election will be won by one corner or the other. Look at that earthquake in Wellington as an example. With all the high tech we have these days who saw that coming? Who will see the next one coming? Who knows what the world’s climate will be like in 50 years?

    Or maybe you are the next Ken Ring.

    Like

  14. Armchair Critic says:

    People are generally quite good at prediction. Put simply, we understand cause and effect. It’s also known as rational thinking. Looking at the earthquake in Wellington as an example, I think most of the country saw it coming. Seriously – a big earthquake strikes Wellington and you think no one saw it coming? A couple of hundred years of recorded history, and millenia of geological evidence disagree with you. So it’s pretty easy to predict that there will be another big earthquake in Wellington. Sure, it’s difficult to predict the timing of earthquakes, there’s no getting around that, yet. Blanket statements like “People are no good at predictions” are simply incorrect.

    Like

  15. Armchair Critic says:

    National doesn’t need another coalition partner. What they need is to run first-rate candidates in disillusioned, disenchanted, disenfranchised red electorates. The polls don’t account for that prospect do they?
    They would also need to win more than 50% of the list vote. The polls account for this. You seem to be suggesting that National, having won the 2008 and increased its proportion of the popular vote (a rare thing) in 2011 will increase its proportion of the popular vote again at the next election. That is possible, but it seems unlikely and I wonder if it has ever been done by any government in the history of NZ. I have my doubts. The polls have shown little change since the election and National’s main hope of re-election is David Shearer, or if that plan doesn’t work, a major meltdown in the Labour Party.
    The people I talk to will never swallow the massive dead rat of a tripartite government made up of little parties over a government formed and led by the clear winner.
    To quote a commenter above “Beware confirmation bias”. Perhaps you might consider talking to other people.
    It would last one term and be the end of MMP for sure.
    Ah, a prediction! I’ve been told that people are no good at them. Irrespective of that, I agree with the first part of this prediction – I think there will be a change of government in 2017, irrespective of who wins the next election.

    Like

  16. TraceyS says:

    It was a warning, not a prediction.

    I don’t see the point in making predictions. Did I not make that clear?

    Like

  17. TraceyS says:

    Rational thinking is a cognitive process that leads us to believe that we understand cause-and-effect in many situations where we don’t.

    It is not rational for people to keep cats as pets when they carry protozoa which cause brain lesions in humans. The more lesions, the greater the attraction to the animals.

    And yet we do keep cats. Apparently we have done so for around 2,000 years. And we can rationalise this in all manner of ways. Our brains (even with lesions) are built for it. Keeping of cats is certainly not irrational despite the effects of toxoplasmosis.

    Cause-and-effect relationships can and are used to make predictions. But there are certain criteria to be met, specifically; validity, reliability (or repeatability) and accuracy. Climate change science, for example, is a very long way from meeting these requirements in my view. Until it does, it is ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’ science. A mix of both social and physical sciences: interesting, but useless at making predictions.

    You equate rational thinking to cause-and-effect. But the latter seeks to exclude variables and the former seeks to include as many as possible. In that way they are very different. Rational thinking is a process. Cause-and-effect relationships are fundamental laws of nature.

    Like

  18. TraceyS says:

    I regret that you missed my satire, AC. My *prediction* that someone will win the election :). Of course someone will win the election. That’s a fact, not a prediction.

    It’s just sad to think that whoever “wins” the election (in my view the most popular single party) may not get to govern. And I propose that this outcome, if it happens, would cause outrage among the people and in turn bring about the end of MMP.
    It’s an untested hypothesis.

    The Labour and Green parties could prevent the testing of this proposition if they simply merged prior to the election. They would be undemocratic not to.

    Like

  19. Viv K says:

    ‘Fundamental laws of nature’, such as the laws of physics and chemistry that explain anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification.

    Like

  20. Viv K says:

    Please explain Tracey how it would be ‘undemocratic’ for Labour and the Greens to continue to exist as separate parties. ACT, NZfirst, Conservatives, United future, what about them? Are they to join together and then all join National? Mana, Maori? All these separate parties existing , undemocratic is it?

    Like

  21. Armchair Critic says:

    That looks like a verbose way of backing away from your “people are no good at predictions” statement, Tracey.

    Like

  22. TraceyS says:

    To explain phenomena, the models should be predictive power – ie. accuracy, reliability.

    They have face validity I agree. That makes them seductive. Yet I am not seduced by this. Causality is more than rationality.

    Like

  23. TraceyS says:

    *have* not “be”.

    Like

  24. TraceyS says:

    That looks lie a lazy way of saying you didn’t understand, AC.

    Like

  25. TraceyS says:

    Ooops! Before I am accused of name-calling, I meant *like* not “lie”.

    Like

  26. Mr E says:

    Does anyone win with MMP? More like – Yay we got the most votes, now how do we govern?

    Like

  27. Viv K says:

    Tracey, there is no social science in climate science. There may be social science in analysing the human responses to global warming. ‘To explain phenomena the models should have predictive power’. It appears you are confusing explaining observable phenomena with predicting future events. However predictions made about climate change decades ago have now become observable phenomena, the melting of Arctic sea ice being a clear example of this.

    Like

  28. TraceyS says:

    No problem with them all “existing” as separate parties, Viv. But three separate parties governing where none of them holds a strong majority of the votes cast? Shudder. Is that what most of us actually want? If it turns out it is, I will eat my words. I would not want that no matter which parties were involved!

    If two main opposing parties were close, like in 2005, then the one slightly behind forming a government would be palatable. But it isn’t shaping up as a close race between two parties. Which could change of course. Say if Green and Labour became one and retained their current support (which they might not).

    I think MMP has made elections more interesting. And provided minority issues an opportunity to be voiced and heard. But a three-way (say 28%, 13%, 10% split) running things? Many people would balk at that. Especially if another single party got the other 49%.

    The 65% of people who currently prefer John Key as Prime Minister might be a bit peeved don’t you think? How would that outcome reflect on the MMP system? Badly I feel. You can be your own judge.

    Like

  29. TraceyS says:

    Cheer up Mr E.

    Like

  30. Viv K says:

    If 51% of voters vote for 3 different parties knowing that those parties will need to form a coalition to govern, then that beats 49% voting for a single party. That’s democracy under MMP, the political system that NZers democratically voted to retain. The Greens have no wish, or need, to merge with Labour. There is nothing ‘undemocratic’ about them being separate. Why aren’t you calling for Act, the Conservatives, or United Future, to merge with National? Using your logic it is ‘undemocratic’ for them not to.

    Like

  31. TraceyS says:

    “If 51% of voters vote for 3 different parties knowing that those parties will need to form a coalition to govern, then that beats 49% voting for a single party. That’s democracy under MMP,”

    Doesn’t sound very likely does it. But if people want a dogs breakfast then they are free to ask for it. I give people more credit.

    “The Greens have no wish, or need, to merge with Labour.”

    Yes, that is obvious. There are far too many fundamental differences. Labour can’t even work with itself.

    “There is nothing ‘undemocratic’ about them being separate.”

    Of course there isn’t. But if you think MMP is a more democratic system than alternatives, then you should also care about the impact a minority three-or four-way could have on people’s perception of the MMP system. Personally, I think people would loathe that outcome. Maybe enough to reject MMP.

    “Why aren’t you calling for Act, the Conservatives, or United Future, to merge with National?”

    Because that would reduce diversity and representation of minority voices. Something I value.

    Like

  32. TraceyS says:

    I think there are plenty of scientists who would disagree. Can we rule out the null hypothesis: that climate change *is not* caused by other factors than human activity?

    No. Until we can, there will be no accurate predictions.

    Correlation is interesting and suggestive and may well lead to hypothesizing and eventually evidence and proof of phenomena. But correlation alone doesn’t prove causation. One can find correlations all over the place which are completely meaningless.

    Like

  33. robertguyton says:

    “Because that would reduce diversity and representation of minority voices. Something I value.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

    Like

  34. Andrei says:

    You do well to laugh Robert as I do myself, the “D” word used in this context by lefties even those who masquerade as creatures of the right is much misused.

    Diversity only applies to strictly controlled identity groups and not to political opinions and certainly not to merit – indeed the whole purpose of the exercise is to ensure mediocrity among MPs.

    And looking at our Parliament you can see how successful it has been in meeting that goal

    Like

  35. Armchair Critic says:

    I understand how it could that way to you, Tracey. However, I understand well enough what you were doing, and, quite separately, what you said
    What you said had passing reference to the subject. What you did was attempt to distract from the fact that you had been caught out, and don’t have the courage to directly accept responsibility for writing things that are demonstrably untrue. The whole incident makes me think you are prone to flights of fancy, falsehood and misinterpretation.

    Like

  36. robertguyton says:

    Tracey’s a lefty, masquerading as a creature of the right, Andrei? Could be so. Armchair Critic is having trouble getting Tracey to answer a simple question honestly, so the ‘masquerading’ part of your assessment might fit. I’m worried about one thing Tracey said, that John key’s followers might get ‘peeved’ by losing to a coalition. Imagine all those peeved Tories! All that foam! Interestingly, Tracey calls the coalition she doesn’t support, a ‘dog’s-breakfast’. Quite a demeaning choice of words, really. I wonder what she calls the present National, UnitedFuture-Dunne, Act-Banks, Maori coalition?
    People say it’s a den of shysters and thieves, but I’d not call it that. Tracey, do you have a suggestion for a title for the somewhat stained hotch-potch that is our present coalition Government>

    Like

  37. Viv K says:

    Right then Tracey, so you’ll be taking back the comment about it being undemocratic for Labour and the Greens not to merge. Then you can tell us where you have found scientists who don’t think the Arctic sea ice is melting. As an expert in human diseases caused by domesticated animals, you may not be satisfied that there is enough evidence to prove the AGW hypothesis, but 97% of climate scientists say there is. As a non expert in climate science, but someone with a tertiary level science education (not a google one) I’m more convinced by the climate scientist’s arguments than those you present.

    Like

  38. TraceyS says:

    Use of analogy doesn’t make someone an expert in anything, nor should it be taken as an implied claim of that either. I have no idea why you would interpret things in this way unless you are just trying to make me feel small.

    Why does it annoy you that I am well informed and have a range of knowledge? I consider this to be a good thing.

    Our history is littered with people who have contributed well outside their main field of learning.

    Like

  39. TraceyS says:

    The aftermath would be the “dog’s breakfast”. Three or more ‘leaders’ all vying to position themselves as top dog won’t have their eyes on the ball (and one of them is that same “dead rat” you said National will have to swallow).

    Imagine your council with three chairmen/women, or even two.

    Like

  40. TraceyS says:

    Good one Andrei, you that know Robert will believe anything that is expedient to him.

    Like

  41. robertguyton says:

    Ah, Tracey, how you adore that ‘top-dog’. Your character seems to be one that needs a ‘saviour’, a ‘daddy’, a ‘lord’. John Key is perfect for you then. The idea of a party with co-leaders, such as the Green’s enjoy, must cause you to rip your knickers, to shreds!
    No naming suggestion for the Nat/Act/UF/Maori coalition Government?
    To untidy for your rigid mind? I’m betting the ‘John Key-led Government’ really sends a shiver up your spine.

    Like

  42. TraceyS says:

    It is revolting when people start referring to your underwear.

    Rigid mind, ripped knickers, saviour-daddy-lord. Don’t go any further with this line will you Robert. You can’t get much lower.

    Like

  43. jabba says:

    yes he can Tracey.
    HIS council has no need for a chairperson, they have bOb to lord it over the rest of them. His behaviour here suggests how he treat HIS fellow councilors .. who would dare question him?

    Like

  44. robertguyton says:

    Is it, Tracey? I’m sorry you’re (note!) offended. Seemed a mild enough expression to me, ‘don’t get your knickers in a twist’ is something I hear every now and then 🙂 ‘Shiver down your spine’ doesn’t upset you? It throws jabba into a jellied-wobble, as he lacks one.

    Like

  45. Viv K says:

    I’m not trying to make you feel small Tracey, that’s not in my nature. I do think you should retract your comment that it would be undemocratic for Labour and the Greens not to merge. I have no idea whether you are well informed or not. I am irritated by your regular dismissal of the scientific consensus on AGW on the grounds that you know about the science, but find it wanting. You seem happy to comment on an issue you are not expert on, but don’t extend the same courtesy to others as you demonstrated earlier this week when you dismissed my comments on the forestry industry because you were the expert not me.

    Like

  46. TraceyS says:

    I made the mistake of thinking you were actually interested.

    Like

  47. jabba says:

    so how is the MASSIVE pay rise going bOb .. hope the lower paid ratepayers are getting their monies worth

    Like

  48. robertguyton says:

    That’s for the next intake of councillors, jabs, but thanks for your vote of confidence 🙂

    Like

  49. Viv K says:

    Pardon? I don’t understand what you are refering to?

    Like

  50. jabba says:

    so you are resigning bOb .. wow, the ratepayers will be devestated

    Like

  51. Viv K says:

    Oh about how to reduce deaths in the forestry industry, sorry, of course. Yes, I did want to know what you thought could be done, you will have a much better idea than an outsider about the practical, ‘on the ground’ things that could make a difference. Your answer was mostly about regulations as I recall, and loosening some, especially environmental ones and being able to more easily fire people who don’t make the grade.

    Like

  52. robertguyton says:

    jabs – can I help you to understand local body politics a little?
    Every three years, those who seek to represent their communities on a council, put up their hand (this is metaphorical talk, jabs) for the job. If they campaign successfully and attract enough support, they’ll make it on to the council. Three years ago, I did those three things. Name recognition is an important part of any campaign and I’ve cultivated that for the past 3 years to the point where I’m surprisingly well known throughout my electorate. I write letters to the editor, jabs, speak to clubs and societies, have a regular radio show (96.4fm – Get Down to Earth) and one on RadioLive (you can listen to me tomorrow morning at 8:08am, discussing gardening – you up by then, jabs?). I also write regular columns in the NZGardener magazine, OrganicNZ, Coastline and other magazines on occasion so you can see I’m investing in having a profile that’s visible. Why am I telling you this, jabs? Because it’s clear you have a very strong interest in me. You engage with me at every opportunity and are quite personal with your comments. I just thought you might like to get to know a little more about me. And I want to share a secret with you, jabs – using your real name is liberating. It’s exhilarating and refreshing. People respect you for doing so. Give a a whirl, old chum. You’ll feel much better about yourself if you do.

    Like

  53. jabba says:

    you just brought a tear to my eye .. so are you staying on and taking the 18% pay rise and huge increase in travel money and those others extra payments or not .. simple question bOb. And will you DEMAND YOUR council ban the secret discussions on the council agenda bOb .. yes or no?. You know who I am bOb so what’s the issue?

    Like

  54. robertguyton says:

    Sorry to make you cry, jabs. Your questions are good ones, but it’s only fair that I wait til you’ve stopped your blubbing before I upset you even further by answering. Can’t have you weeping and wailing all over the show, jabs. Upsets the neighbours.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: