On August 21 2011 22:08 Dali. wrote: Whenever I hear someone say they're voting for ACT, I eagerly await the punch line. It never comes.
I hate people like you, who seem to think their political ideology is the only right one. Even when Brash and Clark debated on TV in 2005 they spoke of their admiration for each other's goals, despite believing in different ways of achieving them.
You hate me cause I made harmless fun of a cetain group of voters? Would you react so strongly if I was talking about Legalise Cannabis Party? If not, isn't that a double standard, considering you seem to be projecting a relativistic view.
On August 21 2011 21:38 DarthXX wrote: I don't live in NZ anymore but I am on the electoral roll and I've got to ask, where is NZ First in this poll .
My vote will however go to the Bill&Ben Party, assuming they run again this time.
NZ First did not get over the 5% threshold or attain an electorate seat needed to get into Parliament, so has been absent for the last 3 years.
NZ First got about 4%, which is more than what ACT got. ACT of course managed to win Epsom through Rodney Hide (who has been dethroned). So the single person responsible for getting Act's sorry ass into Parliament has lost his power and won't stand in Epsom again. He may as well be gone from Parliament. In essence, the ACT party doesn't deserve to be in Parliament right now at only 3.65% and Rodney laid to waste. The ACT party is a walking talking joke.
On August 21 2011 21:38 DarthXX wrote: I don't live in NZ anymore but I am on the electoral roll and I've got to ask, where is NZ First in this poll .
My vote will however go to the Bill&Ben Party, assuming they run again this time.
NZ First did not get over the 5% threshold or attain an electorate seat needed to get into Parliament, so has been absent for the last 3 years.
NZ First got about 4%, which is more than what ACT got. ACT of course managed to win Epsom through Rodney Hide (who has been dethroned). So the single person responsible for getting Act's sorry ass into Parliament has lost his power and won't stand in Epsom again. He may as well be gone from Parliament. In essence, the ACT party doesn't deserve to be in Parliament right now at only 3.65% and Rodney laid to waste. The ACT party is a walking talking joke.
Why don't they 'deserve' to be in Parliament if they've met the requirements for being in Parliament? By that same token, Jim Anderton and the Maori Party and Harawira don't 'deserve' to be in Parliament either. And if your argument is that the current leader is outside of Parliament, then that is the same situation as when Norman was still a leader outside of Parliament for the Greens.
You keep making blanket statements which really just goes to show you focus on personal attacks rather than debating policy. I could just as well say: "The Green Party are a walking talking joke period."
On August 21 2011 21:38 DarthXX wrote: I don't live in NZ anymore but I am on the electoral roll and I've got to ask, where is NZ First in this poll .
My vote will however go to the Bill&Ben Party, assuming they run again this time.
NZ First did not get over the 5% threshold or attain an electorate seat needed to get into Parliament, so has been absent for the last 3 years.
NZ First got about 4%, which is more than what ACT got. ACT of course managed to win Epsom through Rodney Hide (who has been dethroned). So the single person responsible for getting ACT's sorry ass into Parliament has lost his power and won't stand in Epsom again. He may as well be gone from Parliament. In essence, the ACT party doesn't deserve to be in Parliament right now at only 3.65% and Rodney laid to waste. The ACT party is a walking talking joke.
Why don't they 'deserve' to be in Parliament if they've met the requirements for being in Parliament? By that same token, Jim Anderton and the Maori Party and Harawira don't 'deserve' to be in Parliament either. And if your argument is that the current leader is outside of Parliament, then that is the same situation as when Norman was still a leader outside of Parliament for the Greens.
You keep making blanket statements which really just goes to show you focus on personal attacks rather than debating policy. I could just as well say: "The Green Party are a walking talking joke period."
Your reasoning fails because you evidently do not understand how MMP works. To get into Parliament (or 'deserve' to be there) you need to get over 5% nationwide support or win an electorate seat. ACT didn't get 5%, so the only way they could get into Parliament was because Rodney Hide won Epsom. Under MMP, ACT deserved to get into Parliament when Rodney still had influence. But now that Rodney Hide has been disposed of, the ACT party effectively does not deserve to be in Parliament. No Rodney = not enough support to be in power.
The analogies you used demonstrate your lack of understanding. Jim Anderton and Hone Harawira won Wigram and Te Tai Tokerau respectively, and they continue to be at the forefront of the Progressive Party and the Mana Party, unlike Rodney Hide who has been neutered. These two parties therefore deserve to be in Parliament.
My argument isn't necessarily about a 'leader' it's about the specific person who gained an electorate seat in a party polling under 5%. Even if it were, in the instance you talked about the Greens still had over 5% whereas ACT doesn't.
All these analogies you used have material differences from the ACT-Hide situation. I don't know how you can bring them up if you had a full knowledge of how the MMP thresholds work.
Just as an aside you'd do well to be more respectful of other peoples views. The Act party met the requirements through Rodney Hide winning Epsom and that gave them the mandate to be in parliament until next election. I just don't understand your reasoning, if a party was elected, then the party changes its membership does it no longer have any right to be in power and the slightly different party should have to be re-elected all over again? That seems impractical and pedantic.
On August 22 2011 10:08 CaptainCharisma wrote: Your reasoning fails because you evidently do not understand how MMP works. To get into Parliament (or 'deserve' to be there) you need to get over 5% nationwide support or win an electorate seat. ACT didn't get 5%, so the only way they could get into Parliament was because Rodney Hide won Epsom. Under MMP, ACT deserved to get into Parliament when Rodney still had influence. But now that Rodney Hide has been disposed of, the ACT party effectively does not deserve to be in Parliament. No Rodney = not enough support to be in power.
The analogies you used demonstrate your lack of understanding. Jim Anderton and Hone Harawira won Wigram and Te Tai Tokerau respectively, and they continue to be at the forefront of the Progressive Party and the Mana Party, unlike Rodney Hide who has been neutered. These two parties therefore deserve to be in Parliament.
You're so full of shit - 'material difference' my ass. Rodney Hide is still an MP. Just because he is no longer the leader, does not mean he is no longer the MP for Epsom. He deserves to be there because the voters of Epsom voted him in and he deserves to be there until the end of his term. As a law student it's pretty ridiculous you think that just because one has been demoted from leader and has less than five percent support, their party does not 'deserve' to be in Parliament. ACT deserves to be in Parliament until the end of this term of Parliament. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that because Labour now have only 27% support, a number of their existing MPs "do not deserve to be in Parliament".
On August 01 2011 23:14 Klesky wrote: Is the senate ready?
Lower house?
Speaker?
Alright, let's discuss politics.
3 pictures ---- 90cents making everyone who opens thread laugh - - - - - priceless
Honestly, good pun.
But on a brighter side of things, I agree with OP, his opinions seemed solid.
Only someone who isn't from NZ would find those pictures funny. It's just as unfunny as posting a picture of Bryan Adams in a Canadian politics thread.
On August 01 2011 23:14 Klesky wrote: Is the senate ready?
Lower house?
Speaker?
Alright, let's discuss politics.
3 pictures ---- 90cents making everyone who opens thread laugh - - - - - priceless
Honestly, good pun.
But on a brighter side of things, I agree with OP, his opinions seemed solid.
Only someone who isn't from NZ would find those pictures funny. It's just as unfunny as posting a picture of Bryan Adams in a Canadian politics thread.
Only someone who isn't from NZ would find those pictures funny. It's just as unfunny as posting a picture of Bryan Adams in a Canadian politics thread.
I'm not saying that ACT do not have a right to be in Parliament, clearly if you got in in the first place you have a right to be there. I'm not saying the ACT party should be booted from Parliament, because that is not how the system works. What I am saying is ACT is in a quirky situation where the sole person responsible for their being in Parliament has been all but ousted by the party, which leaves ACT in a position which IS NOT akin to any of the other minor parties for reasons I explained above. ACT has little to no credibility at the moment for these reasons.
On August 22 2011 10:59 Kiwifruit wrote: I'd also be interested to know what year you are in for your law and economics degree. Have you even made it into second year law?
I stated in the post you are referring to what year I am. What do you do? You've shown a basic lack of knowledge on the smacking debate and MMP, not to mention the Mana Party/Hone Harawira.
On August 22 2011 11:24 CaptainCharisma wrote: I'm not saying that ACT do not have a right to be in Parliament, clearly if you got in in the first place you have a right to be there. I'm not saying the ACT party should be booted from Parliament, because that is not how the system works. What I am saying is ACT is in a quirky situation where the sole person responsible for their being in Parliament has been all but ousted by the party, which leaves ACT in a position which IS NOT akin to any of the other minor parties for reasons I explained above. ACT has little to no credibility at the moment for these reasons.
What reasons? The sole person responsible for their being in Parliament is still the MP for Epsom and Minister of Local Government. He is currently responsible for the committee stages of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, a legislation drafted by ACT and supported by ACT members. The only difference is that the leader is now a leader outside of Parliament - as was with Russell Norman before he was elected. On what grounds do you say ACT is in a position that is not akin to any of the other minor parties?
You show a basic misunderstanding of public law and the MMP process.
On August 22 2011 11:24 CaptainCharisma wrote: I'm not saying that ACT do not have a right to be in Parliament, clearly if you got in in the first place you have a right to be there. I'm not saying the ACT party should be booted from Parliament, because that is not how the system works. What I am saying is ACT is in a quirky situation where the sole person responsible for their being in Parliament has been all but ousted by the party, which leaves ACT in a position which IS NOT akin to any of the other minor parties for reasons I explained above. ACT has little to no credibility at the moment for these reasons.
What reasons? The sole person responsible for their being in Parliament is still the MP for Epsom and Minister of Local Government. He is currently responsible for the committee stages of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, a legislation drafted by ACT and supported by ACT members. The only difference is that the leader is now a leader outside of Parliament - as was with Russell Norman before he was elected. On what grounds do you say ACT is in a position that is not akin to any of the other minor parties?
You show a basic misunderstanding of public law and the MMP process.
How many times do I have to explain it to you? The answer to why ACT is not akin to the other minor parties are contained in my posts above.
Dress it up any way you like, but Rodney Hide has clearly been ousted and has little to no influence in the workings of the party, unlike Jim Anderton with Progressive, Hone Harawira with Mana and Peter Dunne with UF. These four people are the sole reasons why their <5% party is in Parliament. Which one is the odd one out?
On August 22 2011 11:24 CaptainCharisma wrote: I'm not saying that ACT do not have a right to be in Parliament, clearly if you got in in the first place you have a right to be there. I'm not saying the ACT party should be booted from Parliament, because that is not how the system works. What I am saying is ACT is in a quirky situation where the sole person responsible for their being in Parliament has been all but ousted by the party, which leaves ACT in a position which IS NOT akin to any of the other minor parties for reasons I explained above. ACT has little to no credibility at the moment for these reasons.
What reasons? The sole person responsible for their being in Parliament is still the MP for Epsom and Minister of Local Government. He is currently responsible for the committee stages of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, a legislation drafted by ACT and supported by ACT members. The only difference is that the leader is now a leader outside of Parliament - as was with Russell Norman before he was elected. On what grounds do you say ACT is in a position that is not akin to any of the other minor parties?
You show a basic misunderstanding of public law and the MMP process.
How many times do I have to explain it to you? The answer to why ACT is not akin to the other minor parties are contained in my posts above.
Dress it up any way you like, but Rodney Hide has clearly been ousted and has little to no influence in the workings of the party, unlike Jim Anderton with Progressive, Hone Harawira with Mana and Peter Dunne with UF. These four people are the sole reasons why their <5% party is in Parliament. Which one is the odd one out?
That's because JA, HH and PD are the ONLY MPs in their parties. Your argument is pretty much that if a party leader is no longer party leader he shouldn't be in Parliament. That's a load of bullshit. The Epsom electorate elected him to be their MP for three terms. He is still available in his electorate office three days a week if constituents wish to see him for any public duties. And all of ACTs members are aware of the things Rodney is currently doing as Minister of Local Government because we receive the member updates regarding the regulatory changes and attend the party meetings. Unless the law says someone who loses the leadership of a party does not deserve to be in Parliament and should be removed from office, then you're just full of shit. You keep saying the answer is contained in your posts, but all of your posts in this thread have been you making ridiculous statements with no substance to back them up. That is your method of debating - focusing on personal attacks and not actually discussing policy. You say things as if they are fact when in fact all you are doing is giving your ad hominum opinions and you've been doing that throughout this entire thread.
On August 22 2011 11:24 CaptainCharisma wrote: I'm not saying that ACT do not have a right to be in Parliament, clearly if you got in in the first place you have a right to be there. I'm not saying the ACT party should be booted from Parliament, because that is not how the system works. What I am saying is ACT is in a quirky situation where the sole person responsible for their being in Parliament has been all but ousted by the party, which leaves ACT in a position which IS NOT akin to any of the other minor parties for reasons I explained above. ACT has little to no credibility at the moment for these reasons.
What reasons? The sole person responsible for their being in Parliament is still the MP for Epsom and Minister of Local Government. He is currently responsible for the committee stages of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, a legislation drafted by ACT and supported by ACT members. The only difference is that the leader is now a leader outside of Parliament - as was with Russell Norman before he was elected. On what grounds do you say ACT is in a position that is not akin to any of the other minor parties?
You show a basic misunderstanding of public law and the MMP process.
How many times do I have to explain it to you? The answer to why ACT is not akin to the other minor parties are contained in my posts above.
Dress it up any way you like, but Rodney Hide has clearly been ousted and has little to no influence in the workings of the party, unlike Jim Anderton with Progressive, Hone Harawira with Mana and Peter Dunne with UF. These four people are the sole reasons why their <5% party is in Parliament. Which one is the odd one out?
That's because JA, HH and PD are the ONLY MPs in their parties. Your argument is pretty much that if a party leader is no longer party leader he shouldn't be in Parliament. That's a load of bullshit. The Epsom electorate elected him to be their MP for three terms. He is still available in his electorate office three days a week if constituents wish to see him for any public duties. And all of ACTs members are aware of the things Rodney is currently doing as Minister of Local Government because we receive the member updates regarding the regulatory changes and attend the party meetings. Unless the law says someone who loses the leadership of a party does not deserve to be in Parliament and should be removed from office, then you're just full of shit. You keep saying the answer is contained in your posts, but all of your posts in this thread have been you making ridiculous statements with no substance to back them up. That is your method of debating - focusing on personal attacks and not actually discussing policy. You say things as if they are fact when in fact all you are doing is giving your ad hominum opinions and you've been doing that throughout this entire thread.
Thank you for telling me what my argument is, but you are way off.
This isn't some sort of legal issue on whether or not ACT should be in Parliament, my point is the ACT party is now a farce since all their member got in on the back of Rodney, who is now neutered within the party. I feel their existence within Parliament lacks credibility at the moment because of this. Also, I have made very few (I can't remember any) ad hominem attacks. I have called people stupid based on inaccuracies of fact or illogical statements. You are the one who has tried to bring up my education. You have called me an ass many times, but I don't get all fragile about it.
On August 21 2011 18:43 brendaaan wrote: i like Nation with the new benefit scheme... no longer will my hard earned tax dollers be wasted on drugs and alcohol!
Yeah, now it's just your untaxed dollars that will be.
On August 22 2011 15:18 wonderwall wrote: Whats this, fellow NZ Law Students on TL? What year/university are you in?
Now's not the time to admit to being a law student. This thread was terrible to begin with and continues it spiral down the shitter. It's not just that people are arguing about politics on the internet (an exercise in futility), they are arguing on minute points of detail that have nothing to do with what they were originally talking about. Seriously guys, just take your arguments to private messaging, noone wants to read 10 posts a page of you guys attacking each other. I still hold some little hope of reading some positive policy discussion in this thread.
Tbh though the only reason the OP wasn't shifted to blogs immediately is that none of the mods know anything about NZ politics. The fact that the OPer triple posted and then got banned within 15 minutes should have been a clue.
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--DFGYlCUYF0/TctEhOO-e9I/AAAAAAAAAJY/_kgfXjzmyaY/s1600/3369064-Sheep_everywhere-New_Zealand.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://philip.greenspun.com/nz/sheep.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2448748665_aaf13e4db0.jpg)
