David Clendon, Green. tech. 19th list. Waitakere, wanted leadership....
I immediately imagined them:Sub-gluteal fleshy folds spreading sideways at right angles to the perpendicular;or the one that bisects you allvertically down and back…None straight forward,all curved dark spacesthat can suck us in…… I now need strong liquorto burn that dreadful moonfrom my ‘retainers’…
He talked of his dreams in a strangely poetic fashion; making me see with terrible vividness the damp gluteus of slimy flesh - whose geometry, he oddly said, was all wrong, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours - and hear with frightened expectancy the ceaseless, half-mental calling from underground: "Cthulhu fhtagn", "Cthulhu fhtagn."
It’s hard to see the use of Horan to IP
Ya have to have a weatherman
to know which way the wind blows...
nah, there's an app for that
Any ship with Horan aboard is destined for troubled waters. We're talking a guy who always thinks he's the captain.
Curran's also in a relationship with Trevor Mallard, so presumably Cunliffe thinks it's less hassle to keep both of them within caucus. She is also, her IT snafus aside, a very good, highly-respected locally, electorate MP.
I can see why some people may want to keep KDC in NZ for amusement value or because they sort of admire his outrageous entrepreneurialism. However, I cannot begin to fathom the kind of person who would actually vote for the Internet Party. The alliance with the left, the random left wing ideological stuff that has been sprinkled into the principles of the Internet Party, and the fact that KDC is clearly trying to use the political system to achieve a legal outcome would surely put off all those young well off liberals with their right wing leanings that an internet issue focused party party is supposed to appeal to. Then looking in the opposite direction, someone with a left wing ideology is probably going to have a problem voting for a guy who when all is said and done stands for piracy, flaunting his wealth and mistreating his "underlings". Then finally for anyone who just likes the KDC personality and doesn't care about either policies or principals, there is the fact that you cant actually vote for KDC but instead would have to vote for one of his unknown hirelings....so who would do it.. (By the way this isn't just meant as a rant against KDC I am genuinely curious to find out what sort of person the party could possibly appeal to.)
liberals with their right wing leanings
You're confused about what a liberal is.
KDC is clearly trying to use the political system to achieve a legal outcome
Isn't that what it's for:
- New Zealanders vote for a parliament that decides what our laws are to be
- Nobody can be extradited for something that isn't a crime in New Zealand
- It's highly debatable as to whether Dotcom's past actions constitute criminal copyright infringement
- As a permanent resident (and hence a person with a right to vote in NZ elections), Dotcom has standing to lobby for changes in our laws*
- Such a change might involve clarifying the law on criminal copyright infringement
- Which may block his extradition**
* Actually, anyone does, but voters might get listened to more.
** Yes, I know it's the law at the time of the conduct that matters in theory, but in practice, it would usually be considered unjust to extradite someone for conduct that has ceased to be an offence. We wouldn't (I hope) extradite a gay man to some neanderthal regime just because the relationship took place in 1985.
KDC is using his huge personal wealth to bankroll a political party with a pretty clear subtextual goal of influencing a minister's use of discretion in a matter in which he a huge personal interest. It's not pretty.
So not only is it ok to bring a somewhat trumped up case against him at the behest of foreign multinationals (whose wealth dwarfs Dotcoms), but he should be disenfranchised from political involvement as part of his pre-conviction punishment?
You’re confused about what a liberal is.
Tories usually are.
all those young well off liberals with their right wing leanings that an internet issue focused party party is supposed to appeal to.
If you mean liberal in the Hayek/von Mises classical liberal sense, maybe - these days they're more popularly known as 'libertarian'. In modern times, 'liberal' now refers to a much broader church.
And the liberal Left and libertarian Right have made for strange bedfellows in the States, in wake of the Wall St bailout programme and Edward Snowden. You know the world's gone mad when Ralph Nader and Ron Paul manage to make nice on TV.
Curran was quick to categorically rule herself out.
Horan says he has had no communication with Dotcom. He's not an electorate MP anyway and I don't see him being any use to the IP.
Harawira is probably the only one, and he seems to have backed off, or been backed off by some of his party.
I hope they close the internet party down before it starts. OK some people have fees to bill and so they are working on a set of policies but it seems to be very much the wrong way around to have a party with no announced policies.
I'm sure the Greens / and/or Labour could come up with some internet related policies that would be more likely to get traction. The catch 22 is if any voters are serious about those proposals - having them adopted by a coalition with a chance of winning is a much more pragmatic bet.
Unless the internet party is mostly a flag waving exercise and maybe a think tank at best - it needs to be dropped.
Unless the internet party is mostly a flag waving exercise
Ha! I got confused, thought you were talking about John Key and his flag waving party for a minute there.
(By the way this isn’t just meant as a rant against KDC I am genuinely curious to find out what sort of person the party could possibly appeal to.)
The Internet Party is interested in Mana
Why Not? Both Parties have representation of people who feel they have been treated wrongly or illegally or discriminated against. They do make sense.
I'm sure the Greens / and/or Labour could come up with some internet related policies that would be more likely to get traction.
they already have some, though I'd note traction takes more than having a policy
I'm not sure who this tedious, unfunny video on the new Internet Party website is meant to attract:
A commentary from someone who'd prefer not to be named on the Internet party's Constitution:
1. There is a special role called 'party visionary.' This is defined as Kim Dotcom, or a person selected by Kim Dotcom. THis visionary has the automatic right to sit and vote on the party's executive and policy committee and cannot be kicked out by the membership.
2. To stand for election to the party's executive, in addition to being nominated by current members of the party you've got to be nominated by a current member of the National Executive. This locks in the incumbents.
3. The party's executive has nearly unfettered control over the list: they put together an initial list, send it out to the membership to vote on, and then they ultimately decide what the final list should be having regard to the member's choices.
4. The national executive chooses who stands in what electorate. No local member input at all.
5. The party secretary has a very important role (eg they get to solely arbitrate over disputes; they set out the process for amending the constitution, they decide the process for electing office holders; they're a voting member of the National Executive). The only problem is they're legally an employee of the party's shell company, meaning that it is very hard for the members to exercise democratic control over the secretary (you can't just fire an employee).
6. On a related note: the way the Internet Party is structured is so all its assets are kept in a shell company (Internet Party Assets Inc), away from the party itself. I don't know what the purpose of this one was TBH. (the rules of this company were meant to be attached to the constitution in a schedule, but as far as I can see they're not there)
7. They're using the old 'vote in Parliamentary caucus' decides leader method. To be fair, most parties use this though. There is a bit of a quirk though that until we know their list we don't know who their party leader is, because if they're outside of Parliament their party leader is just whoever is at number 1 of the list. (I also note there's no way to remove a leader if they don't have representation in Parliament)."
Thanks for linking and commentary on the rules. It would've been good for your anonymous commentator to comment against each of the points as to how they compare with other parties to point out what's 'usual' and what's not.
As to Internet Party Assets Incorporated, it hasn't been incorporated yet. Almost every political party in NZ has a political organisation and a separate arm that looks after finances, contracts, etc. What varies is the nature of that separate arm. The Internet Party selected the form to be an incorporated society.
I'm happy to answer any questions, criticisms, or comments about the Internet Party's rules.
Internet Party Chief Executive
Certainly the separate property arm is usual and the fact the informant quibbled it reveals a lack of familiarity with the arcana of political party constitutions.
But, Vikram, wouldn't you say that the lack of member input into list, electorate, and leader election is both unusual for New Zealand political parties, undemocratic, and in conflict with the Internet Party's values of transparency and accountability?
There will be lots of member inputs, more so than any other political party. But final decisions will be made by the Executive Council. That's what the rules (and, by the way, the law) says.
But unlike Labour or the Greens, party members will have no direct voting ability on the Leader, no? Which is surely less membership input?
And whereas the Greens elect the party list via delegate conferences and a party wide vote, the Internet Party executive will have the sole discretion to determine the party list, no? Which is surely less membership input?
And whereas Labour, the Greens, and National all put selection of electorate candidates in the hands of the local party, the Internet Party puts that power in the hands of the executive, no? Which is surely less membership input?
And where Labour and the Greens elect their peak policy making bodies from the membership, the Internet Party appoints its, at the absolute discretion of the Executive, which is surely less member input?
By the way, where does the law require that the executive council make the final decisions on leadership, list, etc?