On 2017-12-10, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out: https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government
actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and
seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a
better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get
past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Winston once explained many moons ago, to the feeding frenzy, that all the electors did was to elect 120 people who became MPs in The House and it was then their job to Govern the Country. How they do this is up to them as long
as they stay within certain guidelines.

All MMP does is says who will enter The House, as does any of the other
voting systems.

The Government is not elected, it is formed after the election and the good
old Governer General signs off on the formation.

It is kind of ironic but National did so well that its allies went into
history so National was left going it alone. Politics is a number game and National by itself did not have enough.

Under MMP going it alone does not work, which is good as other we would have first past the post by another name.

A functioning House requires an oposition. Which is really part of
the Government in the wider sense of the word.

Jim Bolger at the time MMP was being talked about showed more understanding
of how it might work that even the good Dr. Smith is to-day.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out: >https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government
actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and
seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a
better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get
past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: >https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in
Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the
current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Interesting times indeed.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 12/11/2017 9:20 PM, Crash wrote:

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the
current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Interesting times indeed.

And any real bad stuff ups get relegated straight to the peters party.
The mechanic has been reported for his medals and although it may seem a
'So what' ex-service, both men and women will be everywhere where ever
he is and they have long memories


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >>Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out: >>https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government
actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a
better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get
past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: >>https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in >Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the >electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the
current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to
Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.
ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Interesting times indeed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:32:38 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >>>Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find out: >>>https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/ insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government >>>actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >>>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a >>>better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get >>>past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: >>>https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly- say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted. A >>quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary shows >>this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does not >>listen or consult - because if this were true they would never have
enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in >>Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere 7.2%
of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the >>electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the >>current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties - ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5% between
the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to Labour,
2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote. ACT had
nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying with
National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not listening
. . .

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/99734505/Lack-of-post- election-bounce-an-ominous-sign-for-new-Government

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 7:32:41 AM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >>Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out: >>https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government >>actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a >>better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get >>past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: >>https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in >Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the >electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the >current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.
ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Interesting times indeed.

Guess you'll be pushing for a change to the rules for the next Olympic games Rich. In line with your dream the third place getter will decide who gets the gold medal :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 07:32:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >>Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out: >>https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government >>actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a >>better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get >>past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: >>https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in >Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the >electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the >current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.

Conveniently Dickbot thinks National losing 0.5% of 44.9 is worth mentioning but the Greens losing 0.42 of 6.7 is not.

That's because Dickbot is extremely dishonest.

And in a discussion of political cannibalism, how could Dickbot forget that in the Turei fiasco Labour cannibalised the Greens down by about half!

ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Interesting times indeed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 13:43:54 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 07:32:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw
Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government
actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >> >>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a
better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get
past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in
Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the
electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the
current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to
Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.

Conveniently Dickbot thinks National losing 0.5% of 44.9 is worth mentioning

but the Greens losing 0.42 of 6.7 is not.

I also didn't mention the 0.9% that both United Future and Jim
Anderton got in 2008 - at that time Jim Anderton was about as close to
Labour as ACT was to National, but UF could have gone either way -
Dunne chose to go with National. Those two cancel each other out, but
the 3.5% drop for ACT probably delivered extra votes to National -
supporting them from a drop they may have otherwise experienced.

The Maori party went from 5 seats to none - much more significant than
the drop in votes for them, whereas ACT stayed at 1 seat, and UF also disappeared at this election, with abour taking that "extra' seat that
had supported National..

That's because Dickbot is extremely dishonest.

No dishonesty from me - you may have been deliberately spinning, but I suspect it is more incompetence on your part that you did not see
significant changes . . .

I wasn't the one posting about it, you dick. You were. And you made a song about National cannibalising partner votes while covering your eyes as Labour devoured the Greens.

And in a discussion of political cannibalism, how could Dickbot forget that

in the Turei fiasco Labour cannibalised the Greens down by about half!

Explain how Labour "cannabilised" the Green Party then - they
certainly didn;t force the Greens to highlight National record on
poverty in that way - the Greens support jumped before dropping again,
but the Greens do not see Labour as having caused the drop.

Do you see ACT as having been "cannabilised" by National? Certainly

They may well have. What's that got to do with you hiding from Labour gobbling up the Greens?

Seymour had few wins in government; if anything charter schools
destroyed the reputation of ACT, but from National's perspective they
"won" by the drop in support for ACT; who still delivered Epsom with
the drop largely going to National. Had ACT retained the 5 seats they
got in 2008, that could have brought National closer to being in
government . . .

The key difference is WinstonFirst. As is universally the case, coalition partners get gobbled up and WF will be no exception.

ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Interesting times indeed.

The stupidity and closed minds of National leading to the "We wuz
robbed" mantra are perhaps well illustrated by this: https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/12/not-sour-grapes-reasoned-argument/

Dickbot desperately trolls the interweb and come up with a cite from BlubberOil
- hilarious. Are you trying to make a fool of yourself?

Its not a very reasoned argument, but the bit you may want to think
about is:
"The Labour Party had less voter support yet they won. The female high
school student avoided harder more academic subjects yet she won. She
knew that to win it was a simple calculation. The person with the
highest average over all subjects would be Dux. Likewise, Jacinda
Ardern knew that if she treated Winston Peters with respect and was successful in negotiations with him she would be Prime Minister."

Slater ignorantly missesthe point of MMP - Yes Labour won, but
importantly so did NZ First and the Green Party - and of course from
another perspective New Zealand. If all it would have taken was
treating Winston Peters with respect, why did National not try it? THe problem really is that for many years National have deliberately set
out to destroy other parties, including NZ First. Respectis not seen
as necessary or even desirable by National - sums it all up really
doesn't it!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 07:32:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw
Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government
actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and
seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a
better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get
past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in
Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the
electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the
current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to
Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.

Conveniently Dickbot thinks National losing 0.5% of 44.9 is worth mentioning but the Greens losing 0.42 of 6.7 is not.

I also didn't mention the 0.9% that both United Future and Jim
Anderton got in 2008 - at that time Jim Anderton was about as close to
Labour as ACT was to National, but UF could have gone either way -
Dunne chose to go with National. Those two cancel each other out, but
the 3.5% drop for ACT probably delivered extra votes to National -
supporting them from a drop they may have otherwise experienced.

The Maori party went from 5 seats to none - much more significant than
the drop in votes for them, whereas ACT stayed at 1 seat, and UF also disappeared at this election, with abour taking that "extra' seat that
had supported National..

That's because Dickbot is extremely dishonest.

No dishonesty from me - you may have been deliberately spinning, but I
suspect it is more incompetence on your part that you did not see
significant changes . . .

And in a discussion of political cannibalism, how could Dickbot forget that in

the Turei fiasco Labour cannibalised the Greens down by about half!
Explain how Labour "cannabilised" the Green Party then - they
certainly didn;t force the Greens to highlight National record on
poverty in that way - the Greens support jumped before dropping again,
but the Greens do not see Labour as having caused the drop.

Do you see ACT as having been "cannabilised" by National? Certainly
Seymour had few wins in government; if anything charter schools
destroyed the reputation of ACT, but from National's perspective they
"won" by the drop in support for ACT; who still delivered Epsom with
the drop largely going to National. Had ACT retained the 5 seats they
got in 2008, that could have brought National closer to being in
government . . .

ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Interesting times indeed.

The stupidity and closed minds of National leading to the "We wuz
robbed" mantra are perhaps well illustrated by this: https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/12/not-sour-grapes-reasoned-argument/

Its not a very reasoned argument, but the bit you may want to think
about is:
"The Labour Party had less voter support yet they won. The female high
school student avoided harder more academic subjects yet she won. She
knew that to win it was a simple calculation. The person with the
highest average over all subjects would be Dux. Likewise, Jacinda
Ardern knew that if she treated Winston Peters with respect and was
successful in negotiations with him she would be Prime Minister."

Slater ignorantly missesthe point of MMP - Yes Labour won, but
importantly so did NZ First and the Green Party - and of course from
another perspective New Zealand. If all it would have taken was
treating Winston Peters with respect, why did National not try it? THe
problem really is that for many years National have deliberately set
out to destroy other parties, including NZ First. Respectis not seen
as necessary or even desirable by National - sums it all up really
doesn't it!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:58:24 PM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 13:43:54 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 07:32:41 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >> >>Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government
actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >> >>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a >> >>better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get >> >>past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted. >> >A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens >> >are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in
Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the >> >electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the >> >current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party. The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to >> Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.

Conveniently Dickbot thinks National losing 0.5% of 44.9 is worth

mentioning but the Greens losing 0.42 of 6.7 is not.

I also didn't mention the 0.9% that both United Future and Jim
Anderton got in 2008 - at that time Jim Anderton was about as close to Labour as ACT was to National, but UF could have gone either way -
Dunne chose to go with National. Those two cancel each other out, but
the 3.5% drop for ACT probably delivered extra votes to National - supporting them from a drop they may have otherwise experienced.

The Maori party went from 5 seats to none - much more significant than
the drop in votes for them, whereas ACT stayed at 1 seat, and UF also disappeared at this election, with abour taking that "extra' seat that
had supported National..

That's because Dickbot is extremely dishonest.

No dishonesty from me - you may have been deliberately spinning, but I suspect it is more incompetence on your part that you did not see significant changes . . .

I wasn't the one posting about it, you dick. You were. And you made a song

about National cannibalising partner votes while covering your eyes as Labour devoured the Greens.

And in a discussion of political cannibalism, how could Dickbot forget

that in the Turei fiasco Labour cannibalised the Greens down by about half!

Explain how Labour "cannabilised" the Green Party then - they
certainly didn;t force the Greens to highlight National record on
poverty in that way - the Greens support jumped before dropping again,
but the Greens do not see Labour as having caused the drop.

Do you see ACT as having been "cannabilised" by National? Certainly

They may well have. What's that got to do with you hiding from Labour

gobbling up the Greens?

Seymour had few wins in government; if anything charter schools
destroyed the reputation of ACT, but from National's perspective they
"won" by the drop in support for ACT; who still delivered Epsom with
the drop largely going to National. Had ACT retained the 5 seats they
got in 2008, that could have brought National closer to being in government . . .

The key difference is WinstonFirst. As is universally the case, coalition

partners get gobbled up and WF will be no exception.

ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Interesting times indeed.

The stupidity and closed minds of National leading to the "We wuz
robbed" mantra are perhaps well illustrated by this: https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/12/not-sour-grapes-reasoned-argument/

Dickbot desperately trolls the interweb and come up with a cite from

BlubberOil - hilarious. Are you trying to make a fool of yourself?

Its not a very reasoned argument, but the bit you may want to think
about is:
"The Labour Party had less voter support yet they won. The female high school student avoided harder more academic subjects yet she won. She
knew that to win it was a simple calculation. The person with the
highest average over all subjects would be Dux. Likewise, Jacinda
Ardern knew that if she treated Winston Peters with respect and was successful in negotiations with him she would be Prime Minister."

Slater ignorantly missesthe point of MMP - Yes Labour won, but
importantly so did NZ First and the Green Party - and of course from another perspective New Zealand. If all it would have taken was
treating Winston Peters with respect, why did National not try it? THe problem really is that for many years National have deliberately set
out to destroy other parties, including NZ First. Respectis not seen
as necessary or even desirable by National - sums it all up really
doesn't it!

Jacinda showed no respect for Winston Rich. She just knew that sooner or later the price would be right all she had to do was keep uping it till she found Winston's levels of greed and spite!

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:32:38 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:20:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:41:14 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am suprised the Nat-trolls haven't been shouting it all day -
National came out top in the Colmar Brunton survey! Again! Yes you
heard that right, National clearly won!

Perhaps while the nutters are revelling in the excitement, they may
like to learn why that is perhaps not as exxciting to intelligent Nw >>>Zealanders as it is to themselves - read or listen to this to find
out: >>>https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018624383/insight-mmp-democracy-or-power

Who'd a thunk that under MMP it actually matters that a government >>>actually listens to others, respects different opinions and views, and >>>seeks consensus - and yes - even from National MPs! That there is a >>>better way is evident, that such a good start has already been made
seems to have slipped past National MPs - perhaps they just can't get >>>past their absolute conviction that "National Won!"

I'll leave you with this: >>>https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/345867/poll-voters-broadly-say-yes-to-new-government

Your attempt at sarcasm in respect of where National is now is noted.
A quick look at electionresults.co.nz for the 2008 election summary
shows this:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

Compare this to the 2017 election:

http://electionresults.co.nz/electionresults_2017/index.html

and you will see that the numbers for National, Labour and the Greens
are much the same. For National to clock these numbers going for a
fourth term is remarkable - debunking your claim that National does
not listen or consult - because if this were true they would never
have enjoyed the support they have in the last 4 elections in
particular.

The difference between 2008 and 2017 is largely that NZF were not in >>Parliament in 2008 but had the balance of power in 2017 with a mere
7.2% of the party votes. The current government was not chosen by the >>electorate directly. Winston used his leverage to choose whether the >>current government would be Labour-led or National-led.

Analyse it how you like, Crash - yours is as simplistic as "National
Won!" just because they got a higher percentage of the vote than the
next largest party.

Then you fail completely to understand the point that I am making -
being that national sustained very similar levels of party-vote
support in 2017 to 2008.

The significant movement is in all the parties -
ACT dropped 3.5%, the Maori party over 1%, as well as National 0.5%
between the two dates you refer to - that 5% drop went roughly 2.5% to >Labour, 2.5% to NZ First. So the story is actually more about how
National cannabilised its partners to retain its share of the vote.
ACT had nowhere to go - the Maori party hierarchy must regret staying
with National. . . . Friends are important, but National was not
listening . . .

Those are tiny numbers - both individually and cumulatively. At north
of 45% party-vote support National is perilously close to a simple
majority. We have a Labour-NZF-Greens government with NZF not being
tolerant of the Greens. If the Greens can see their way clear to
being environment-centred first and tolerant of socialist National
attitudes then the political landscape may change again.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)