Why don’t they lead by example?

The Internet Mana Party has launched a petition wanting to end the 5% threshold and get rid of the coat-tail prevision.

Internet Party leader Laila Harre is relying on Hone Harawira to win his northern Maori seat in order to get into Parliament as the alliance is only attracting 1.3% of the vote.

However, despite a plan to do it, Internet and Mana want the coat tailing provision gone.

“So what happens at the moment is a person can win an electorate seat with less than 7,000 votes but if you don’t have an electorate seat then you’ve got to get 100,000 (votes) just to get your member into parliament now that’s ridiculous, it’s unfair,” says Mana Party leader Hone Harawira.

Tonight the alliance is launching an online petition calling for the immediate scrapping of coat tailing and the lowering of the MMP’s 5% threshold. . . .

They will be pushing this petition at the same time they’re campaigning to be elected as the oddest-couple MMP has yet served up to voters.

Is there no end  their hypocrisy?

If they want the coat-tailing provision gone they should lead by example and decouple their two disparate parties.



12 Responses to Why don’t they lead by example?

  1. RBG says:

    National wants to get rid of the Maori seats, but are prepared to use them to prop up their parliamentary majority. If Internet Mana are hypocrites, then so are National.

  2. Gravedodger says:

    I understand National policy will move to end the apartheid seats when Maori mature to where they wish it.
    No other party has a better record in nominating citizens of Maori descent in winnable electorate seats than National.

    Having made the charge of National hypocrisy RG prey inform us where the Hypocrisy you allude to, exists, it escapes me.

  3. homepaddock says:

    RBG – There is a huge difference between a temporary coupling between parties with nothing but a hatred of John Key in common and the party which gets the most votes working with the cards the voters deal up.

  4. RBG says:

    No Homepaddock. You accuse Internet Mana of hypocrisy because they may benefit from a system/situation that they happen to want to get rid of. Using that measure National are also hypocrites for benefiting from the Maori seats, there is not a huge difference.

  5. homepaddock says:

    RBG – there is a huge difference between the first which is hypocrisy and the second is pragmatism and also showing respect for the MPs who were elected.

    National was widely praised for inviting the Maori Party into government when it didn’t need the votes. I have yet to read or hear anything but disdain for the IMP.

  6. “H” is for Homepaddock.

  7. “I have yet to read or hear anything but disdain for the IMP.”

    Then your blinkers must be firmly glued-on, Ele.
    There’s praise for the IMP across the Interweb.

    “Yet to read…”
    Maybe you should look outside of your bubble!

  8. RBG says:

    Your party benefits from something (in this case Maori seats) which you don’t agree with, Internet Mana hopes to benefit from something (coat-tails legislation) which they don’t agree with. You say you are being ‘pragmatic’ and they are hypocrites – yeah right!

  9. homepaddock says:

    RBG You keep missing the point – the Internet and Mana parties have nothing in common but their hatred of John Key and will divorce a few weeks after the election. Worse Kim Dotcom is an example of just about everything Laila Harre and Hone Harawira are opposed to. that’s the biggest hypocrisy.

    The Maori Party and National have a lot in common and have been working together for nearly six years.

    Robert – can you point me to any unbiased commentator who has anything but bad to say about IMP?

  10. RBG says:

    Homepaddock in your post you say Internet Mana are hypocrites for starting a petition against the coat-tail legislation even though they plan to use it to get into parliament. I got that point quite clearly thank you and pointed out that National making use of the Maori seats, while being quite open about their wish to remove them, must then also be hypocritical, unless both groups are merely being pragmatic. That you find the marriage of convenience between Mana and the Internet party distasteful is beside the point. What is very relevant is that National appears likely to use the coat tail rule to try and bring 3 separate support parties in to parliament. Perhaps you should ease off the indignant posting about coat tails a bit before your party offers the same deal to Colin Craig.

  11. […] And yet right wing commentators [trigger-warning: Failoil] had the nerve to mock the Internet Party’s strategic use of the coat-tailing provision as “hypocrisy”! […]

  12. calebmorgan says:

    If you think the Internet Party and Mana have nothing in common, you don’t understand either. Which is not surprising, given your reading has been so limited you’ve read nothing in support of Internet Mana.

    Also: your blog ignores the fact that the Internet Party cannot “lead by example” and invite themselves to Parliament after earning a party vote lower than 5% without an electorate seat. You would only have a point if they were advocating for abolishing coat-tailing while retaining a high (4-5%) threshold. But that’s only half their proposal, and the proposal makes perfect sense when you take both halves into account, which you have refused to do.

    The coat-tailing exception is the only hope small and new parties have of convincing voters a vote for them won’t be wasted – let alone getting into Parliament. It’s the only (partial, inconsistent) safeguard against the anti-proportional situation introduced by the threshold, whereby small and new parties having to work doubly hard for each vote. The threshold is anti-democratic both for how it functions and for how it’s justified – an evidence-free contention that big parties are “safer” or more “stable.” The Internet Party want to get rid of this anti-democratic threshold and, with it, the imperfect-and-inconsistent-but-sadly-necessary-at-the-moment coat-tailing exception. But until that happens, they’ll make use of the imperfect-and-inconsistent-but-sadly-necessary-at-the-moment coat-tailing exception. There’s nothing inconsistent there.

    Moreover, RBG is quite right that it’s no more “hypocritical” than National’s stance towards the Maori seats – or, for that matter, ACT accepting public funding that they’d abolish if they got into power. You haven’t offered any argument as to why one of these is “hypocritical” and the others are “pragmatic” – and that’s because you don’t have one; you simply have one set of standards for parties you like and another for parties you don’t.

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: