Westminster Honeypot Scandal

What is it about male British politicians? They simply cannot keep it in their pants.

https://www.politico.eu/article/westminster-online-scam-police-launch-inquiry-into-uk-parliament-honey-trap-scandal/

A Coup for Britain

Let's be honest, there is no longer a Conservative government in the UK. They now have a Remainer-led, globalist, Labour agenda, tax and spend party. Today, Penny Mordaunt while standing in for the prime minister (who could not even show up in the House of Commons), denied the accusation that there had been a coup. It appears obvious to anyone that this is what has happened.

Jeremy Hunt is effectively now the British prime minister. The man nobody wanted, is now leading and there is nothing that can be done about it. Or is there?

Press Release: Parliament Protesters Wellington

The following is a press release from the protesters outside New Zealand's parliament in Wellington:

https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/press-release-parliament-protesters-requests-meeting-with-government/

Full text of Press Release:

Today marks one week since tens of thousands of New Zealanders from all walks of life, ages and ethnicities came together in a peaceful protest.

They travelled from all over the country and have been supported in many ways by hundreds of thousands of Kiwis.

They are united in condemning the government’s flagrant breach of human rights, deliberate divisiveness, and discrimination. The constant law changes are inconsistent with the government’s duties to the New Zealanders it was elected to represent.

The protest is a result of immense frustration and concern. People are outraged by the conduct of the government and its lack of respect, dismissive attitude and unwillingness to engage.

The position of protestors and the government have become entrenched, but this protest can end.

This communication summarises the views of the majority of groups present at Parliament today:

• Convoy 2022 NZ
• Freedom Alliance
• New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science
• Outdoors & Freedom Movement
• The Freedom and Rights Coalition
• Voices for Freedom.

We have come together and we are in agreement that the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act and all the orders and mandates made under that legislation must be revoked immediately.

The government needs to lift the unnecessary mandates, and an urgent meeting has been requested with senior cabinet ministers to open dialogue.

The infection fatality rate of Omicron is lower than the seasonal flu. Before the global pandemic, it was considered ‘normal’ for 500-700 New Zealanders to die from the seasonal flu each year. On average, 100 Kiwis die each day from various causes. There needs to be perspective.

The Traffic Light system, the ‘no jab, no job’ laws and other mandates are discriminatory, unjustified and a breach of fundamental human rights.

Not one Government representative has engaged in dialogue with the peaceful protesters. Their response of soaking the ground with high-pressure irrigation, bright lights, blasting music and ads at the gathering is infantile and highly unhelpful to bringing about a resolution. We are concerned that unless these tactics cease, they could cause significant damage to any trust held by the protesters that their elected representatives are interested in listening to them.

In addition, the behaviour of the Police last Thursday was unconscionable. New Zealanders, our friends, and the media worldwide watched in horror the deplorable and unlawful police conduct towards peaceful protestors, including women and children.

We reiterate that our request is that the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act and all the orders and mandates made under that legislation be revoked immediately in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

Until the end of the mandates, participants are determined to maintain their presence.

The media is grossly misrepresenting the situation. The protestors are friendly, peaceful, hardworking New Zealanders who are pro-medical freedom. Government and media must stop their deliberate and sustained misinformation campaign.

**PRESS RELEASE ENDS**

Protesters have sent a letter to all MPs requesting an urgent meeting with senior cabinet members to open dialogue.

The government is yet to respond.

Update to follow.

Getting Greens Below 5% Threshold

New Zealand is saddled with a political party that represents anachronistic political ideologies, a party of wreckers with their snouts in the trough. That party is The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (I'll just call them Greens). They offer nothing constructive.

How to get rid of these people? The task will not be an easy one but it is achievable. That's because as the decades have passed, voters have grown up and abandoned the Greens. These days they're perpetually below 10%, stuck close to the all-important 5% threshold which would see them exit parliament if absent an electorate. Currently, they have one electorate seat, that of Auckland Central plus nine other members of parliament off the party list.

Who or what are the Greens? They're communists re-branded; red becomes green. Politically, they like to position themselves as having a monopoly on all things environmental (they don't). In recent years they've started to misrepresent themselves to the public by saying they're in government. They're not in government and never have been. That makes them shameless liars too. 

Before I get to what can be done about the Greens, a little primer on how NZ's Mixed Member Proportional system or MMP works in effect. 

When NZ adopted its electoral system in the mid 1990's it was believed it would solve the recurring problem of minority governments. It didn't do that at all and minority governments became the norm just as they had before. But MMP turned out to be worse than its first-past-the-post predecessor. That's because any party making the 5% threshold could hold the whip hand. A party with tiny support got to dictate the direction of the country. This condition was particularly evident when in 2017, Labour and tiny NZ First formed a minority government that had a smaller proportion of the popular vote than the opposition National party. Labour and NZ First got to govern through the Greens offering their confidence and supply vote in the House of Representatives. What a shambles.

But wait, things are looking up. The Greens are now vulnerable. They're still in opposition but have an understanding with the ruling Labour government. This gives them a couple of ministerial positions outside cabinet, so long as they don't criticise. They're muzzled. Silenced but not in government. Neither Arthur nor Martha. 

The Greens won't see any benefit. Labour will claim credit for anything positive, while Greens won't be able to let rip as any opposition party is expected to do. They'll come across as neutered. Time then to take action against them.

I can imagine people thinking, that's not very nice. Well no, it isn't but that's the way MMP works. It is a negative system, learn how to use it. Yes, a negative system. I'll give you a theoretical example to illustrate.

Let's say one major party has 30% support while another much smaller party has 6% going into an election. Both are safely in parliament because they make the 5% threshold. To be the government, the much larger party must get to at least 40% and then look for a coalition partner to get itself into a winnable position. Why not 50%? That's because of wasted votes which can be as much as 10% of all votes cast (these are votes for parties which fail to make 5% or which cannot win an electorate seat). 

So that 30% party works its butt off and manages to achieve 43%. They then need the 6% party to get itself into government. That 6% party has just sat there and done nothing but it gets rewarded. That's what makes MMP a negative system.

It gets worse. What should the 30% party do knowing its efforts will be coat-tailed by the much smaller party? It is actually more effective to drive that smaller party below the 5% threshold, making votes for it wasted. Then all this large party needs to form a government is find a party with a lone seat or two, with a small voter base. This in effect is what has happened, with the Maori party and ACT both performing this role.

To remind the reader, MMP is a negative system.

How to get rid of these communists, given they offer nothing, coat-tail others efforts and are enemies of civilisation. Three broad approaches appeal:

1. Organise a band of fifth columnists and have them join the Greens to wreck the party from within. Do this by having them promote every wackadoodle and extreme viewpoint the party comes up with. Help elect extremist elements within the Greens to high position within the party, and see the party turned off by the electorate and thus become unelectable. This is quite achievable as the party harbours these extremist elements in any case. It wouldn't be hard to fan the flames.

These fifth columnist elements should operate in semi-autonomous cells and have regular virtual meetings with external controllers to keep them on track with the primary goal, and to ensure these infiltrators do not become seduced by the party they've joined.

2. Separately, establish an alternative party for young people. While the Greens desperately try to attract new first time voters, they are actually a party established by boomers that reeks of privilege. The Greens are hypocrites, selling utopia to gullible people. Of course when these voters get older and enter the workforce, they soon learn that life is not the way the Greens see it and they soon change their support to a more mainstream party. This new party established by and run by young people would cut off the oxygen supply for the Greens.

However, this approach would be expensive to set up, and young voters are unreliable. Think about this then and how to ensure they wouldn't later merge with the Greens. 

3. Harness the conservative conservationist vote. Some within Greens stay within the party even though they're not communists. That's because they do not see a viable environmental alternative. These people realise that capitalism allows for growth, that simply taxing and throttling enterprise won't work in protecting the environment. These voters want markets to work within a framework that protects, not exploits nature. They're somewhat more pragmatic and realise mining, industry and agriculture is necessary to maintain standards of living. 

This approach is workable and could be successful. It'd work better if this new party could win an electorate seat. Boomers would be its core support, along with later generations, it would be able to fund itself and stay focused on its goal of crushing the Greens and replacing them with a better brand. In time, once the Greens are out they could reverse merger and take over the whole environmental ground politically, within a market economic framework.

My approach is part destruction, part construction. Social media marketing needs to be effective, and it has to be said that environment parties have not been good in this area, including the Greens. To be successful the game has got to be played harder and smarter.

What are your ideas?

NZ General Election 2020: Was It Rigged?

Update as @ 27/07/2025: we now know that the below blog post was 100% correct. 2020 was the year of stolen elections. In the US, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard has recently revealed the scale of the treasonous coup launched by the Obama White House, to undermine 2016 President elect, Donald Trump. I believe, the NZ election held just before the US Presidential Election in 2020 was a practice run for the real thing, the rigging of the 2020 US presidential election. Further, that all of the drama during 2020 was an exercise to effect the removal of Donald Trump. We only now know this was the case because Donald Trump was NOT assassinated in 2024, and he was duly re-elected.

I am giving this update prominence as there has been a recent daily lift in visitors to my blog and this post is top of the list. People are starting to connect the dots. I feel vindicated. At the time I wrote the below post, I only had suspicions, but now we know the truth. And my call for a recount cannot be held as all the ballots have been destroyed. Yeah - rigged.

I am surprised by the number of people saying to me that the New Zealand General Election was rigged. For many, the results appear too cute to be real. Almost right across the board, with only one or two exceptions, a majority in each electorate party voted Labour. This includes even safe and solidly 'blue' seats held by National. I'll give you some examples; Judith Collins is the Leader of the Opposition and holds the safe Auckland seat of Papakura for National. She won on the night with a comfortable majority of nearly 6,000. However, the party vote was lost to Labour by 400.  

Selwyn is also interesting. It is a largely rural seat in the South Island, full of rich farmers. It is a safe National seat formerly held by Amy Adams who was standing down. The new candidate for National was Nicola Grigg and she held the seat with a majority of nearly 5,000. For a first time candidate, that's pretty good. However, the party vote was lost to Labour by a whopping 2,385 on the night. That's almost unthinkable in a seat considered very Blue. 

Rangitikei is its equivalent in the North Island. National to the core, the National party candidate won comfortably but the party vote was lost to Labour by 4,583. Do you see the pattern? Even if truly conservative in nature the pattern is almost always the same, National lost to Labour when the party votes are counted. Even Botany in Auckland, being contested for National and won by the high profile former CEO of Air Zealand, lost the party vote to Labour.

Those saying the result is rigged look at the cuteness of all this and then say that this should not be consistent throughout the country. Voting for a candidate different from the party is somewhat difficult. In the polling station you're given a form and it has on the left hand side of the page the parties contesting the election, and then on the right hand side of the page, next to the party name is the candidate for that very same party. If choosing one party, it is highly likely the voter will also tick the name alongside that same party. This didn't happen in so many cases, consistently people voted for Labour and then searched down the list of candidates to find the National electorate candidate. Is this credible?

Epsom is a counter example. For many elections, voters have given their party vote to National but preferred as their local member of parliament, ACT leader David Seymour and many of his predecessors before him. This was a strategic move, ensuring National had a coalition partner. Voters were being tactical and not throwing away their party vote at all. They remained National, but they gained a coalition partner for their party, who was returned to parliament as an electorate member along with others off the party list if ACT received enough party votes.

What can normally be expected to happen? In the past, when the tide was going out for National, Labour held seats went even redder, while National seats moved to the left but still held up, albeit with a smaller majority. The trend tends to be for rock solid National supporters to never vary their party vote, however examples do exist of them changing their less important candidate vote. 

Do you see where I'm going with this? The 2020 result is remarkable because across the entire country, solid National voters ditched and voted for the enemy, but nevertheless had the good sense to vote for their National party electorate candidate. Is this believable?

Clearly, while not proven election interference, close scrutiny must be given to the results. Perhaps a recount could be held in Selwyn and Rangitikei, with independent scrutineers present. If nothing is done, this could lead to further distrust of the process.

Update: it has been pointed out to me that rigging the outcome of the election would be a relatively simple affair. Here was me thinking it was complicated, that data entry operators would have to be in on it. No, ballots could simply be thrown away, or at the very least not counted at all and then thrown away later when the opportunity presented itself. But wouldn't this make the turnout look wrong?

It would, but there were two referendums being held at the same time as the general election, both on very contentious issues, euthanasia and the recreational use of cannabis. What if this led to a high turnout, say, 90% of registered voters? Say 10% of votes, all National were dumped; if included they would shift the outcome to 34% National, 8% ACT. Labour would drop to 43%. The Greens would then be Kingmakers and hold the balance of power.

The fix wouldn't be to shaft National. It would be to prevent Greens holding the whip hand. 

And what of the technological angle? It has been suggested that the most efficient approach would be to have a program running that manipulated the figures as data is entered. This would happen imperceptibly behind the scenes. Support for this view comes from observing how the election night evolved. Results were thoroughly consistent with little variation. The usual ebb and flow as electorates reported was simply absent. 

What do you think?

Important update: Dan Lacey has found out that the anti-malware program the Electoral Commission was running at the time of the election was Windows Defender Antivirus - for real - this is Keystone Cops stuff. Incredible stupidity: 

https://gab.com/danlacey/posts/105745049923598189

[updated 6:23pm 20/1/2020 version from that originally published]

[updated 9:00am 21/10/2020 version from that originally published]

[updated 8:32pm 17/02/2021]

New Zealand Politics: Getting Over That 5% Threshold

Over recent years I have had representatives of minor New Zealand political parties approach me for advice about how to get over the party vote threshold of 5%. Without winning an electorate, a party without 5% of the party vote cannot enter parliament. At first glance this target doesn't sound insurmountable, to be safe it represents about 150,000 party votes. However, in reality it is a huge hurdle and I'm about to explain why that is.

My advice to these minor parties doesn't get far. I should be better at this, as maybe I could turn it into profit for myself, but I just don't have it in me to string them along. The conversation starts out with these hopefuls asking, what does it take to get that all-important 5%? My answer is brief; got $2 million to kick things off? Then $1 million each year thereafter until the election period starts and your spending is statutorily limited. 

There is silence around the room. Err. I never hear from them again.

Okay, so let's back this truck up and load the rig properly. I'm assuming this minor party has no sitting member of parliament able to use the machinery of the institution to help things along. No sweetheart deal with a major party gifting them a seat. And they're not a splinter group of an already established outfit, the way the Greens were when originally part of the Alliance back in the 1990's. 

We start out by gaining party members. The minimum is 500 financial members who are eligible to vote. That's not nearly enough. If we take a conservative approach and say that this party needs to be present in at least 60 electorates, with a minimum 50 members in each to cover for those dying, getting ill or busy in their life; we need a total membership of 3,000 at least.

These 3,000 members have to be supported by a paid party infrastructure, on deck 24/7 dealing with problems as they crop up. Their numbers don't have to be large but they'll be on the road a lot and they must be experienced and discreet. Thus, they'll be well paid.

What I've just described is very expensive. Obtaining those members presents a problem in itself. It costs money just to get members who in return may not have the money to donate back to cover set up costs. It's a bit like an initial public offering of shares to the public that falls over, the stock brokers taking a bath on the exercise.

But assuming these members are found and they're able to financially support operations through subscriptions and donations alone; how then is this party going to win those 150,000 votes from that small base of supporters? This is where it gets tricky, and almost every minor party has failed thus far.

The party must have access to media, both in the traditional and in new media such as YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Personally I recommend online newspapers and YouTube channels. A mixture of paid advertising and simple free promotion and mentions. Sounds good so far, right? Wrong, as there is another huge hurdle and it is bio-chemical, yeah, for real.

Advance NZ and New Conservatives both failed to understand this bio-chemical component of the political process. They thought that by engaging using social media, and let's face it they've been everywhere leading up to the 2020 General Election, they'd break through. Nope, didn't happen.

Why not? When in the polling booth voters revert to type. Bear in mind both Labour and National have been around a long time. They're cross-generational. The trauma of past events has been planted in voters genes, so when they vote, they're using instinct. Even though people may attend meetings of those minor parties, agree about everything and promise to vote for them, they do not. Why? Their genetic inheritance kicks in and they vote as their parents did and their grandparents and so on.

Breaking this cycle is where the money goes in bulk. This new party has to be about as popular as Keeping Up with the Kardashians to break through using social media, or just about own a major news outlet using traditional channels. 

And then lastly, timing. There has to be an appetite for this new brand. Without it that shelf space will disappear quickly as no-one will be buying. On top of that, the organisation has to be kept running smoothly with everyone on topic, every day. You can't force feed a message the electorate doesn't want and neither can you have the right message but it be disjointed or haphazard in application.

Sometimes I'm asked, of all minor parties, which has been most successful? They imagine I'll talk about the MMP era, but I go back farther and look at Social Credit's 20.7% in 1981 and the New Zealand Party backed by Bob Jones in 1984 which achieved 12.25%. The latter is important because that party effectively split the centre/right vote and ensured an easy victory for Labour. Both are interesting as they were successful through different means. Social Credit simply plugged away for decades, while the NZ Party was formed and became active quite swiftly.

So, anyone out there ready to talk? I know how things run, been around a long time.

Prorogation

People have found a new word, prorogation. Those in the UK trying to derail Brexit are calling the Prime Minister's proroguing of parliament a coup. Err, except far from it. To prorogue parliament means to discontinue a session. It is not a coup as parliament is not being overthrown, power is not being seized illegally. The bluster from those complaining is quite incredible but also very funny. The PM has every right to govern, especially when you consider he intends exercising the will of the people which was the result of the referendum held in 2016, and that was to leave the EU. Get over it and get on with it.

Prediction for 2019: Jacinda Ardern

Don't be surprised if New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern decides to step down and takes up a UN job. It could happen and becomes highly likely if the Greens, Labour's partner on confidence and supply, start polling below the 5% threshold.

Think of it like this; Ardern has already finished the race in first. It was close but she got there. But she only gets the prize because two very minor parties support her and one of them has now dropped below that critical 5%. If the Greens go the same way, that means come the next election she's looking at being Leader of the Opposition and a former Prime Minister. That doesn't have quite the same cachet now does it. And then her record will be closely examined. Then finally, to have her leadership challenged would be very unbecoming.

So the way I see it, she has to step down and go out on top. To overseas markets she's much more valuable now. The future for her lies in cashing in overseas, if she sticks around in NZ, all that offers is uncertainty and a slide.

Back in 2017 I was the first to predict a Labour victory. Everyone else thought it couldn't happen. After I noticed a wave of people all saying they were voting Labour, and pointed it out, a few commentators and bloggers jumped on board. When the inevitable happened, they all claimed to have been first (surprise surprise). Well, note this prediction and if you use it and I'm right, kindly have the good grace to apply credit where it is due, and that would be me.

Labour Panic

The Prime Minister of New Zealand is an ineffectual buffoon living in his own delusional world of make-believe. He cannot organise a piss-up in a brewery, so what does the main opposition party do? They throw one of their better campaigners overboard that's what.

Annette King was an effective deputy and well liked. More importantly she was good at keeping on message and she had no ambitions for the top job. Labour leader Andrew Little is a somewhat grey man and Annette King's more down to earth style was a useful counterpoint. Most Labour voters still identify with the type of person Ms King was, than they do the book-worm nerd that Andrew Little is. You can imagine King on the loading dock reading the riot act to the union membership but not Little. He'd get laughed at, Little by name, Little by nature.

King, at 69 was likely considered too long in the tooth. Big mistake that as she would be needed in any future coalition negotiations if Labour was to find itself in position to form a government.

Instead what we have is the almost certain elevation of Jacinda Ardern to the position of deputy to Little. Another lightweight standing alongside.

The line-up looks like this:

For National it's Bill English (ineffectual) and Paula Bennett (Westie) vs Labour's Andrew Little (lightweight) and Jacinda Ardern (even more lightweight).

So it's National to be re-elected in September then, unless another party rises to challenge the status quo and becomes King maker.

>>Link Thingie<<

Tail Wagging the Dog Law

The problem with MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), the voting system currently used by New Zealand, is parties with a smaller proportion of the vote have their power magnified. That's because the larger parties need them in coalition in order to form a government. I call this the tail wagging the dog.

My solution: scrap the current five percent threshold but all parties receiving less than 11% of the vote achieve observer status only. They can participate in select committees, debates, individually be appointed as Minister, but cannot vote in the House of Representatives.

This would have the effect of allowing the majority to rule. By majority I mean the party with the most votes, in particular most votes amongst all those parties receiving the bulk of electoral support.

The exception would be if any member of parliament had been directly elected to an electorate seat. But then only those members so elected could vote. If their party received less than 11%, then list members could not vote. This would give Maori representatives more say, as they tend to win Maori seats but do not get widespread support across the country as a whole.

The rationale behind my thinking is that MMP has failed to deliver the solution to the problem it was intended to address. That was that New Zealand was always led by a minority government. In a first past the post type system, the winner with a one vote majority takes the election even though the combined votes of all the opponents may total more than the total of votes for the winner.

Instead what happened is New Zealand is still led by minority governments, that is, governments that receive less than 50% of the vote. This occurs because there are wasted votes, that is votes cast for parties that do not get over the five percent threshold; those votes are effectively thrown away (the votes are redistributed so that all seats are taken up, but the point I'm making is the voter's choice is not exercised in the way the individual voter intended).

So a party with 45% of the vote, along with a motley crew of small-timers, the total vote for which is still less than 50%, governs. And here's the rub, those small parties get a much greater say than is appropriate for their small stature. For instance they routinely receive ministerial portfolios. They are bribed in other words.

And here's where NZ is heading: imagine in the future, a situation with Labour sitting on 25% of the vote, National 20%; but four far right and assorted environmental fringe parties, each with 10%, forming a coalition to govern with 40% collectively (the balance being discarded as cast for parties that don't make the cut). The ultimate tail wag.  Unless the die-hard enemies, Labour and National, formed a grand coalition (hard to imagine that one), then NZ would be governed by an unstable brew.

What New Zealand did in introducing MMP was to put the country at risk of this type of instability or injustice; where the two largest voter blocs representing the simple majority could be ignored.

My solution allows for inclusiveness but with limits, and acknowledges that the parties receiving the largest voter support must be the ones to make the decisions. What do you think? You are welcome to discuss this over at the forum

http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php