On 19 Dec 2016 05:32:11 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-12-19, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 19/12/2016 11:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

... is the word that comes to mind, viewing Labour list MPs scurrying >>>>around like cockroaches exposed to the light, as they frantically search for a
safe seat to rescue their political careers.

Jacinda looks to have Mt Albert in the bag, after years of failure in >>>>Auckland Central. At least she has a connection with the place.

Angry little Andy, having transformed safe Labour seat New Plymouth into >>>>safe National, has been sniffing Annette's seat in Rongotai. But not so fast,
Andy. There's an actual Rongotai local in the running and the locals like him.
Will Andy be parachuted in against the local's wishes? Why not, that's how >>>>Labour's central planning rolls.

The reason for all this scurrying is, of course, that Labour's polling is >>>>so miserably low, that they could well end up with *no* list seats - bye bye
Angry little Andy!

Yup. N' Angry Andy isn't quite dumb enough to take his name off the list >>> because he knows he'd be the kiss of death for any safe Labour seat :)

This I have to see. It is my belief that you could put any franchised >>person in a safe seat and they would be elected if they were standing
for the "right" party.

Brownlee MP, is not exactly liked in Christchurch and yet he is in a

safe seat.

One of the good things that the government has finally done is to
ensure that the process for the latest eathquake claims is better than
for the large Christchurch ones - all claims are directed through the
private insurer who acts as agent for EQC. I have expressed my view in
this group that Brownlee should have sat with EQC and the insurers and >engineers when the 2nd Chch quake happened and sorted out the process
to reduce the infighting and double/triple handling caused by the
complex process. That a little of this has evidently happened is most >welcome.

Of course the changes have been made with little consultation, and as
is National's way they have undoubtedly been resolved in favour of the >private companies - we do not knew the level of charges paid to the
private insurers for acting as agent for EQC, and we do not know the
extent to which there is a perverse incentive to accept otherwise >questionable claims on behalf of EQC, or whether there is any checking
/ audit on claims on behalf of EQC

- secrecy is the Brownlee and
National way . . .

ACT winning Epsom with candidates of variable and at times dubious
value candidates, and Peter Dunne in Ohariu, are examples of jack-up
of the MMP rules by National. They are different from the Wigram
Electorate in 2005 and 2008, where Labour stood against Jim Anderton, >although Anderton effectively supported most Labour policies. National
have encouraged the voters in Epsom and Ohariu to vote for ACT /
United Future for the electorate seat, but to give National their
party vote - effectively gaining an extra seat from the split in the
votes. Naturally National resisted any changes which would have made
such tactics ineffective.

Mt Roskill is be a seat that National should have hopes to increase
support and possibly take at some stage - it is becoming less
affordable for lower paid Aucklanders, and increasing propoerrty
prices will increase the trend towards those more likely to support
National. They have clearly assessed that the prospect of a thorough
drubbing at a by-election is too likely at present, and that it would
be too damaging to their 2017 election goals to be worth standing. In
doing so they give up the contact with voters that Labour have shown
they can do very well; National are likely to be shut out of the Mt
Roskill seat due to this decision for at least two further elections.