MMP in NZ is safe

datePosted on 12:53, May 6th, 2010 by Lew

shirtcliffe ad
Evidence:

  • It has been found to work pretty well and all parliamentary parties except ACT support it.
  • The UK election is about to remind people how perverse FPP is.
  • Peter Shirtcliffe is spamming people in order to gain support for his anti-MMP campaign.
  • His google ad campaign looks like this ====>

Seriously. That’s him. A ranting white middle-aged elderly patrician of the sort New Zealand’s governments were almost exclusively composed before the change in electoral system — and on a soap-box, for goodness’ sake. A starker warning of what’s in store should the electoral system change is hard to envisage. Also: it’s visually busy and garish. The blue is neither National-party royal blue, nor ACT-party aqua-blue, nor flag-Navy; it’s nothing. The message is over-long and confused (campaign for an effective referendum? Don’t you mean to campaign against the electoral system? No? Ok then.) And the cartoon …

Thanks, Peter, you’re doing your country a great service.

(Thanks to Lyndon Hood in the comments to Russell’s thread linked above for the pic.)

[This line inserted to fill whitespace].

L

categoryPosted in Blogosphere, Democracy, UK | printPrint

11 Responses to “MMP in NZ is safe”

  1. Bill Bennett on May 6th, 2010 at 13:58

    “all parliamentary parties except ACT support it.”

    Does anyone else find this ironic?

    Thanks to MMP ACT – with bugger all popular support – gets to dictate its bonkers policies. Meanwhile NZ First, which scored more votes than ACT is out in the cold and doesn’t get to inflict its bonkers policies.

    BTW, MMP is a good system, but it could do with a warrant of fitness and a service.

  2. Lew on May 6th, 2010 at 14:13

    Bill, yeah, it is one of the strange ironies of a party whose commitment to principle is positively self-destructive. One wonders, however, whether they would hold such a position if there was any realistic threat of a return to FPP or another such non-representative system.

    Some principles, I should say. Other of ACT’s more anti-authoritarian principles have fallen by the wayside recently.

    L

  3. Hugh on May 6th, 2010 at 18:27

    Good point Lew. I was going to say ACT’s commitment to its own oblivion shows that the stance clearly does come from principle, but then it may simply be signalling to its target voters.

  4. Pascal's bookie on May 6th, 2010 at 18:31

    What is the principle exactly?

    Is it the ‘gummint needs to be decisive’ thing?

    If so, I’d be uncharitable enough to say that it’s a rather self serving sort of a principle, all factors factored.

    And yeah. That ad. eww.

  5. Lew on May 6th, 2010 at 19:36

    Yeah — small, streamlined, unitary government. Less bureaucrats, fewer PC consultation, that sort of thing. I agree it’s both signalling to the base and a calculated gamble that (assuming they do get in) they get to do what they please. That’s a very safe gamble at present, though. You could argue it shows a genuine clarity about how much actual influence they do wield when their views don’t coincide at least in some measure with those of another major party — that is, not very much.

    L

  6. Hugh on May 6th, 2010 at 21:30

    Well I think we can all agree that there are certain principles that lead one to support FPP. They’re just not principles most of us would agree with.

  7. richgraham on May 6th, 2010 at 21:36

    “. A ranting white middle-aged elderly patrician . ”
    Pretty pathetic thing to say Lew, you a racist or something ? What’s his age and ancestry got to do with it ? Why not get adult and discuss and criticize his ideas and proposals, and leave the abuse to the retards and children ? Do you think this is making your cause any allies ? the opposite I suggest – NZers are sick ‘n tired of that stuff, you’ll turn people away from MMP. I’ll look at what Mr S. is saying with interest now, knowing he is the target of this sort of abuse.

  8. Lew on May 6th, 2010 at 22:03

    Rich, thanks — but no thanks — for the concern troll.

    What it has to do with it is that these are the attributes he has chosen to emphasise in his ad. That’s what I was critiquing. I’m not talking about his ideas and proposals — though I can, that wasn’t the point of the post) — I’m talking about the ad campaign and Shirtcliffe’s marketing tactics.

    As for “making my cause any allies” — MMP is not “my cause”. While I personally want to retain it, I’m happy for the best system, as judged by the electorate, to win in a fair contest, and I don’t harbour any grand delusions about my ability to influence that decision either way, regardless of whether you, or mythical “NZers” are supposedly prone to change their votes on such trivial bases. However Peter Shirtcliffe does wield such influence, and judging by how he’s wielding it, the advantage is with MMP, not against it. If you have a counter-argument to make about how his marketing campaign of spam and poorly-constructed google ads speaks to you, then by all means make it.

    As for “abuse” — pull the other one. Are you trying to argue that in the caricature he’s not presented as ranting, white, elderly or patrician? Good luck with that line of reasoning.

    L

  9. Ag on May 6th, 2010 at 23:48

    As for “abuse” — pull the other one. Are you trying to argue that in the caricature he’s not presented as ranting, white, elderly or patrician? Good luck with that line of reasoning.

    New Zealand doesn’t have any patricians. We only have vulgar wealthy.

  10. [...] in NZ is really safe Posted on 10:49, July 13th, 2010 by Lew As I’ve said before, Peter Shirtcliffe’s campaign to scupper MMP (again) is probably a blessing in disguise for [...]

  11. [...] sort of shade, neither ACT’s teal or National’s royal blue, similar to the shade I criticised previously when used in anti-MMP ads by Peter Shitcliffe. There’s no good reason not to have chosen a [...]

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment: