Cracker by Damian Christie

Read Post

Cracker: All In

129 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    So let me get this right, the world is falling apart (for those poor wee souls with lots of money)

    and our banks are definitely in a damn sight better shape than other parts of the world.

    as I would say also Craig, and I'm glad we had a frugal Finance Minister and umm I don't understand why pigging out on lamingtons is now a good idea? And I don't understand why we should now trust someone who ( completely aware of where finance was heading in the world) played this awful financial game for years to suddenly fix it all now. As was said earlier let's just cut the shit and get real. But me, mere pleb with no idea eh :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    So let me get this right, the world is falling apart (for those poor wee souls with lots of money)

    Not quite that simple. I'm not quite literally walking away from my home because I can't make the payments on my mortgage. Haven't gotten a pink slip for an early Christmas present either. But other people are, and I can't quite get my righteous schadenfreude on. Sorry.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Jackie and Craig, I'm sorry but having your head in the sand won't stop this recession. NZ could have been managed like pure magic but we are still massively reliant on international factors. We will hurt bad if foreigners stop spending money. Some more than others of course - if you ride it out without feeling it you're fortunate.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    And it's not the people with lots of money who are going to suffer the most. It never is and it never will be. One very likely local scenario is that an incoming National government will plausibly use this disaster as an excuse to cut a lot of benefits. I know they usually do that anyway, but it's usually a whole lot less plausible so they can't take it too far.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    And it's not the people with lots of money who are going to suffer the most. It never is and it never will be.

    Agreed, although the first I hear to complain, but yes

    One very likely local scenario is that an incoming National government will plausibly use this disaster as an excuse to cut a lot of benefits. I know they usually do that anyway,

    That's my take also.One more con. Actually I should just say .....What Ben said.innit.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Agreed, although the first I hear to complain, but yes

    They didn't get rich by not knowing when to complain.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Jackie and Craig, I'm sorry but having your head in the sand won't stop this recession.

    No, but I'd asphyxiate in fairly short order. :) You're right, using your head as a butt-plug isn't a smart move and it's not happening in this house. But neither is being Chicken Little. I've got as my desktop a picture of a British WW2 poster that just has the text "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON". And as Theodore Dalrymple so neatly put it, information without context is just a higher form of ignorance.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I'm not suggesting we act like Wall Street. You'd need no memory or multiple personalities to do that. Google News has these 2 headlines amusingly juxtaposed this morning:

    Stocks rise after Fed cuts rates by half a point The Associated Press
    US stocks drop despite Fed interest rate cut International Herald Tribune

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Damian Christie,

    Scrooge preferred notes; coins were for burrowers.

    Idiot: Really? Try a google image search of "Scrooge McDuck"... :)

    Having written that column yesterday, I went out drinking last night with a journalist far more in-the-know than I am when it comes to Maori Party politics. He believes Maori Party are genuinely preparing themselves to do a deal with National, and the hui will be as much a farce as they were last time. The grass roots will say "go with Labour", Turia will stand up and say "this is why we are going with National", and that's what will happen.

    I'm not moving my chips, but I might put off calling Centrebet.

    Paul: Have Labour specifically ruled out working with Act? I'm pretty sure it's somehow implicit, but has it been stated in this campaign? I don't think so. (Prepared to be corrected of course).

    Craig: I'm with you buddy. F&%$ Winston Peters. Voting strategically for NZF is about as sensible as the catch-cry I heard from those who voted for him in 2005 "to keep them honest". I've said it before and I'll say it again, IMHO, the only way Winston keeps anyone honest is by comparison.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    He believes Maori Party are genuinely preparing themselves to do a deal with National, and the hui will be as much a farce as they were last time. The grass roots will say "go with Labour", Turia will stand up and say "this is why we are going with National", and that's what will happen.

    So, looking ahead, in 2009 we'll have:

    - a Parliament with Roger Douglas and without Winston Peters
    - the Maori Party "going with" National (probably means abstaining and allowing, but the nuances won't let them off the hook)
    - a National government promising a Change and getting a Crisis
    - a referendum on Bradford's law and all the inevitable fallout in the National caucus
    - and (not least) by the next election, the demise of most of the alternatives to voting Labour (Dunne, Peters, Anderton, Maori Party)

    Phil Goff has planned all this, hasn't he?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    the Maori Party "going with" National (probably means abstaining and allowing, but the nuances won't let them off the hook)

    That will be interesting. If you assume that Maori Party get two list MPs (plus overhang electorate MPs), and Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton are both overhang MPs, then those two balance out. If Maori party abstain you have 120 MPs left. In order to form that government you need 61 votes. Peter Dunne is 1, Act is 2, maybe 3. National needs 57, maybe 58. That's 48% of the party vote, I don't see that happening.

    If that's the case, in order to form a government, National need to the greens to actively vote for them.

    Or have I missed something in my in-my-head calcuations?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Kyle, there could be 5% of wasted votes (Winston plus Kiwi, Family etc). So 47.5% = 50%.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I'd also point out, Rich, that the linked story was rather careful not to allege any criminal wrongdoing against Key.

    And I don't believe he's engaged in any. He worked as an FX trader. That's about making money any (legal) way you can. Mostly. Some players in that game don't bother with the legality bit. Read Liars Poker, or hang out in the City of London for a while.

    Some people in his firm and their customers considered that when the stock market tanked in '87, it wasn't them that were going to lose out. The way they achieved this definitely wasn't legal. Key's knowledge of this isn't really discoverable.

    The upshot of this for me is: do we want someone as PM who regards all this experience as valuable preparation for the job? Particularly when said financial markets have again got the world in a right mess - which the next government will need to be part of getting us out of. Will Key be batting for NZ, or for his mates in the money markets?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    The grass roots will say "go with Labour", Turia will stand up and say "this is why we are going with National", and that's what will happen.

    So the Maori Party is really just another personality-based breakaway? They don't want to go with Labour because Helen dissed them over the Foreshore & Seabed.

    They'll join a National government, be linked with that governments abuse of Maori and others, and lose much of their support. In two or three parliaments, they'll have gone the way of Mauri Pacific, NZ First, United Future, the Jim Anderton Party and all the other vehicles-for-personal-pique that have briefly sullied NZ politics.

    They did have the option to become a real party like the Greens. They probably even have the option to lose the F&S act as part of a deal with Labour. But it's not about policies, it's about people. Two or three people.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Kyle, there could be 5% of wasted votes (Winston plus Kiwi, Family etc). So 47.5% = 50%.

    I was meaning after they eliminated that lot.

    And yes, I know a couple of polls are showing National at about that level, but I think they'll get 43, maybe 44, which will become 46 after the very minor parties are eliminated.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Rik,

    Great commentary people - really enjoying reading it.

    Except this cynical post:

    i had the sneaking suspicion it was only a flashy layer of coins around a hollow centre.

    in other words, a bit like an actual rich person.

    Says a lot about the author, I suspect.

    Since Jun 2007 • 130 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    They'll join a National government, be linked with that governments abuse of Maori and others, and lose much of their support. In two or three parliaments, they'll have gone the way of Mauri Pacific, NZ First, United Future, the Jim Anderton Party and all the other vehicles-for-personal-pique that have briefly sullied NZ politics.

    I suspect if they do go with National, they'll get burned, but not to extinction. Turia would lose the leadership, Sharples might take over, and they'll be attached to Labour come the next election. Labour won't gift them the Maori seats, but their candidates there will campaign more for the party vote than the electorate one.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Seriously, I'm considering doing a special. This will make my vote feel more important if there is a nose to nose finish, on the night. I will know that my vote still needs counting.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    Jackie and Craig, I'm sorry but having your head in the sand won't stop this recession.

    No, but I'd asphyxiate in fairly short order. :) You're right, using your head as a butt-plug isn't a smart move and it's not happening in this house. But neither is being Chicken Little. I've got as my desktop a picture of a British WW2 poster that just has the text "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON". And as Theodore Dalrymple so neatly put it, information without context is just a higher form of ignorance.

    No heads in the sand in our house, either. I suspect we're not feeling it because we've had to tighten our belts as far as they will go for the last couple of years anyway. But I would agree with Craig that there's no point in the big panic either.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • Damian Christie,

    Yeah I agree, really good discussion here guys, keep it coming.

    Kyle: I could be wrong, and often am, but re your calculations for the Maori Party, I'm pretty sure you don't actually get list MPs if you have an overhang, by definition. List MPs top you up to the level of MPs you should get based on the percentage of your vote.

    Also, Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton aren't necessarily overhang MPs, or at least the two of them don't represent an overhang each, do they? If United and the Progressives each get an average of 0.83% of the vote, then there's no overhang created.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Kyle: I could be wrong, and often am, but re your calculations for the Maori Party, I'm pretty sure you don't actually get list MPs if you have an overhang, by definition. List MPs top you up to the level of MPs you should get based on the percentage of your vote.

    I mean, 2 of the MPs will be covered by the party vote, so won't increase the size of parliament. I should have said "covered by the party vote" rather than list MPs, which they indeed won't have. The remaining 4 or 5 or whatever will be overhang.

    Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton will be overhang if their parties only get to 0.5% or whatever.

    If there's 5 Maori overhang MPs, plus Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton are both overhang MPs, parliament will have 127 MPs. If all Maori party MPs abstain, there'll be 120 voting on confidence and supply. You'll need 61 from National, Act, and Peter Dunne to get there, which seems unlikely to me.

    And if Rodney didn't win Epsom, that would seem to be impossible.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Which is how I reach my conclusion that unless they do better than expected next weekend, National need the Maori Party to actively support them for them to form a government.

    And if they did actively support on confidence and supply, you'd have to wonder how many pieces of legislation they'd actually vote for.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    I could be wrong, and often am, but re your calculations for the Maori Party, I'm pretty sure you don't actually get list MPs if you have an overhang, by definition. List MPs top you up to the level of MPs you should get based on the percentage of your vote.

    Yeah, that's about right. List seats vs electorate seats is an either/or kinda thing. If you get 1.75% of the party vote (which is roughly one seat) and you win an electorate, you only get one seat total.
    Overhang comes in when you get more electorate seats than is equivalent to your percentage of the party vote, a la the Maori Party this time around. It cannot happen in reverse.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Over the other side of Pacific, watch this video of a screwed up voting machine:

    Seriously, an argument for little bits of paper if ever I saw one.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Damian Christie,

    If you get 1.75% of the party vote (which is roughly one seat) and you win an electorate, you only get one seat total.

    See I worked out it was 0.83%. 100/120. Which is why Act got 1.5% or whatever it was last time, and got to bring Heather Roy in on the list.

    Anyway, I'd say more conservatively, once you take out the 5 or whatever percent of 'wasted' party votes, the Maori Party will have 3 or 4 overhang MPs, and Jim and Peter will only represent a maximum of 1 overhang between them. So 124 or 125 in Parliament, meaning if as you say the Maori party abstain, it could only be 59 votes needed, or 44% of the vote (less without the wasted votes taken out). Again, I think... :)

    Also... if the numbers aren't there to do that, then more will be offered to the Maori party to give their votes to the Nats. I'm sure they'll go further than abstaining if the pot is sweet enough. As Hone Hawawira said the other day, it's a choice between the red devil or the blue devil, both will eventually screw us over, so we might as well get what we can out of them up front.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.