Tuesday, 18 April 2006

The Swinging Whig

This week's Whig Status Report shows The Whig swapping party affiliation back from Compulsion Touter to National Socialist, ie., from the party of scandal-mongering back to the party of weasel-worded nannying. Any bets as to how long this latest expression of undying loyalty will last? Anybody like to put together a Whig-o-meter showing where his week-by-week affililiation lies? Would a Whig-o-Meter showing The Whig's swinging allegiance be as as a useful a political barometer as the pendulum showing the allegiance of the swinging voter?

LINKS: The Whig is now a mainstream New Zealander - The Whig

TAGS: Politics_ACT, Politics_National, Nonsense


  1. Anything would be more useful than Nigel S Roberts Electoral Pendulum.

    "Yes, exactly as we predicted except that the other side won..." - M Python

  2. I have hitherto never been an active member of the National Party, so I don't know what you are talking about. I've consistently supported ACT for the last five years. Your charge that my affiliations have been oscilating wildly is not based in any reality whatsoever.

    My rationale is that if a wrecked home is letting in the rain it's time to either fix the roof or move house. Personally I think the roof is beyond repair, so I am moving house.

    You might think it more principled that the crew of the Titanic go down with the ship, but more practical people will agree I have made the correct judgement.

  3. I have hitherto never been an active member of the National Party, so I don't know what you are talking about. I've consistently supported ACT for the last five years. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. Etc. Etc.

  4. Come on Blair....you have been giving the impression of a confused whore lately...

  5. So now you are accusing me of being a liar as well? Peter, you are thoroughly full of shit.

    Dare you to find anything that contradicts what I have just said. You're lucky buggerall people read this blog or I would sue your ass.

  6. the Spitting Llama18 Apr 2006, 14:35:00

    Buggerall people? The llama reckons the referrals he gets from a Not PC link closely numbers those of blog-god Farrar himself. That said, I understand where Blair is going. ACT is not the "mainstream" Liberal party anymore. They've become all about throwing muck at whomever comes too close to their cage; and that's no good. No point in wasting a vote on them.

    Snare Blair for Libertarianz? :wink:

  7. Actually Peter, I think you ought to admit that you cocked up your facts there. If Blair has never been a member of National, then it's hardly true for you to claim that he's gone back to them, could he?

    All he's ever done is let his ACT membership lapse out of frustration, and then rejoin in the hope he could make a difference. He's worked out he can't, so he's leaving for good.

    In the spirit of "A is A", then surely you should do the decent thing and apologise for getting your facts wrong.

  8. In the spirit of "A is A", then surely you should do the decent thing and apologise for getting your facts wrong.


    I thought you were against commenting while drunk Aaron?

  9. If Peter has got his facts wrong, then he should say sorry

  10. If Peter has his facts wrong he will apologise. But does he?

  11. Yes Peter, I think you do have your facts wrong.

    You claim that Blair's party affiliation is "back from ACT to National", which is an assertion that he was with National prior to being a member of ACT.

    He has never been a member of National, until he declared just now that he was changing his membership. I've never heard of any involvement in National in the past and I would be in a position to know.

    So apologise.

  12. I too would want an apology if someone were to point out that I used to support the National Party. Perfectly inderstandable. Should I apologise too for pointing out that he voted for them last time?

    Look, I don't have a clue which party card Blair carried when or which jelly doughnut he consumed on which street corner, and nor do I care. He's been flip-flopping all over the scenery with his party loyalties for so long now, telling anyone who cares to hear who he cares for this particular week or that particular day, that charting his various allegiances would be a full-time research project for some young PolSci student, could they be bothered. I'm sure it would correlate with something -- the hemlines or midriff exposure of young PolSci students perhaps?

    And even his recent statement didn't actually say he'd actually joined the Nats. All it said was he wants "to get involved," whatever that might mean. Perhaps that offers him deniability for later?

    So sue me. You and Ian Wishart.

  13. All you just proved in that comment Peter is that you're full of ad-hominem rubbish and you don't have the guts or the intellectual honesty to admit you shot your mouth off. I'd also note that the begining of his post was all about his desire to join National.

    Its no wonder that the libertarian movement in NZ are nothing more than amusing but oddly behaving cargo-cultists when they preach a mantra of absolutes (especially in truth) but prefer to behave in shades of grey when weaseling out of admitting their mistakes or obfuscating their arguments with even more attacks.

  14. Why is this so important to you, Aaron?

  15. You maligned his character! It's not important to me but if you are going to preach absolutes of truth on your blog , I'd at least expect you to be consistent in it. Is that so much to ask?

    Are you going to recognise that you got your facts wrong?

  16. As an addendum to my last post, I note that you have described my party as one of"weasel-worded nannying".

    This from a man whose entire post and defense of his comments represents weasel words!

  17. Peter, you persist in blatant lies and misrepresentation of me. I have not "flip-flopped" my party allegiances. I have supported ACT for the past five years. I have been a member of ACT for most of that time.

    A month after the last election I resigned from ACT. Please read what I wrote. Please read my reasons. Pay special attention to the bit where I say "ACT is still the closest reflection of my political views", the bit where I say "Ultimately, it came down to the realisation that the current structure and leadership of ACT is unlikely to change, at least in the short to medium term." and especially the bit where I say "I have absolutely no intention of joining any other political party at this time."

    Since that resignation I continued to be very critical of several National MPs on my blog, including Paul Hutchinson, Jacqui Dean, Allan Peachey, Richard Worth and Gerry Brownlee.

    I rejoined ACT in January when it became clear that the structure and leadership of ACT would change. Since then, however, I have become disillusioned with Rodney Hide's leadership and because of this now regard ACT as a lost cause. National is a better vehicle for my principles and my beliefs.

    My stance has been consistent throughout. My beliefs have been consistent throughout. If anything I have been guilty of being overly loyal to ACT far beyond what it has deserved.

    As for you Peter, it is your flip-flopping that I cannot understand. You wrote a post several days ago welcoming joint members of National and the Libertarianz. And yet you are so scathing of a small hop from ACT to National? As a libertarian I would have thought you of all people would realise that political parties do not choose individuals but individuals choose parties.

    I challenge you AGAIN to find the inconsistencies in anything regarding this matter on my blog over its seven month life.

    You have no credibility here. Admit you are wrong and apologise.

  18. In addition I will address two points you made:

    1. I had two votes at the last election, cast one of them for ACT and the other for National, like many ACT supporters around the country;
    2. No, I have not *actually* joined National yet. I have not decided what electorate I will involve myself with yet. That is my only reason.

    You really are steeped in bullshit aren't you?

  19. All this huffing and puffing really is increasingly bizarre -- all this concern with how other people see you -- how unusually thin-skinned for someone who wants to be in politics. Perhaps the explanation is that when you're a Compulsion Touter you have to be without principles, but to be a true National Socialist you also have to lose your sense of humour? ;^)

  20. I note that you've stopped defending your falsity, but couldn't bring yourself to an apology.

    What a gutless wonder, a man so convinced of his own righteousness that the very mantras you preach on truth and intellectual honesty don't actually apply to you. And isn't it funny that you can't even see that your falsities could be seen as offensive - that you only claim that the post was in humour?

    "wouldn't know honesty if it leapt up and bit him in the scrotum."

    Peter Cresswell on Rodney Hide, August 11 2005.

    What a wonderfully crude phrase. And what an irony it now applies to you.

  21. Aren't you getting rather intemperate over somthing rather silly, Aaron? I disagree with your estimation of the enormity of the satire, even if it were wrong, and of its importance in the overall scheme of things, even if it were right.

    Let's say it were wrong: aren't Blair's shoulders big enough to take it? Does he really think that which party he's keen on this week is a matter of National importance? Do you? Is that really the most important thing happening today? Is it even important at all? I'm glad you've been digesting my mantras on truth and intellectual honesty, but is that really what all this hyperventilating is about?

    In any case, based on what I've read on Blair's blog since its second coming, I don't think the 'Swinging Whig' satire is either wrong or unearned. It's certainly the estimate I've formed from occasional reads of his blog, and its an estimate on which at least a couple of commenters here seem to agree. (Perhaps the Whig-o_Meter should also have a short fuse, eh, to make it more accurate?)

    And have ACT changed anyway? No, I don't think they have. As I said to you some years ago, Aaron, back when you were still a fresh-faced and enthusiastic ACT suppporter bagging me over some scandal you were touting about Deborah Coddington (then Libz deputy - Oh, the irony!), ACT have always been scandal-mongerers, and it doesn't advance in any way at all the cause ACT sometimes says it stands for. But ACT MPs have always done that since day one, so for Blair to say now that they've changed and he hasn't is more than a little rich in any case.

    So yes, I think the satire is earned, and based on what I've read as a blog reader that's how I view him. However, I'm willing to apologise if I've got it wrong and that view is unearned. Perhaps, since how he's seen is where you're concerned, the easiest way to determine if I've got it wrong is to see if other blog readers also see him that way; so how about we ask posters here:

    A) Do you think my suggestion of a Whig-o-Meter was unjustified?
    B) Does this matter?

    If a sufficent number think I'm wrong and that it matters, then I'll apologise. How's that? And if too few comment to make a difference, it will suggest perhaps that no-one other than you and Blair's lawyers really give a toss.

    PS: "...wouldn't know honesty if it leapt up and bit him in the scrotum." That's not a bad line, is it. Does it really appy to me, readers? Answers on a postcard, please. ;-)

  22. I'll admit I'm smiling now. There's irony a plenty in the charted courses of Libz, ACT and National political figures.

    I'm not the least bit concerned about your "whig-o-meter", more the fact that you've claimed he's lacked integrity and that you've got your facts wrong.

    Whether people jump in and be counted as to whether you ought to apologise or not is irrelevant. After all, you've never argued that the righteousness of your libertarian message was dependent on public support.

    So why should the truth being told on your blog depend on public support either?

    And yes, the "scrotum" line was an amusing line when you first posted it. Which in some ways makes you cutting edge - you were talking about testicles at least a few weeks before a National candidate was.

    But I do believe you should apologise, or at the very least regret the nature of your error.

  23. Joining National inevitably requires some compromises of principle. the choice that Blair, Aaron, myself and many others have made are as to where our political efforts can do the most good in advancing a genuinely liberal agenda. Sacrificing some of the moral high ground to achieve something in a party like National achieves more than a holier than thou slagging off for the acceptance of the practicality of some elements of compulsion in a long term move towards more individual freedom. I very much doubt Whigs basic values have changed.
    a little bit of piss taking would be expected, and a thick skin is definitely required in politics.
    I have said to Peter before he would achieve far more politically advancing his ideas from within the National tent and continue to believe that. He would no doubt get severe stick from Libz if he moved to National. So some ribbing is only natural. PC has every tight to post his own opinion. Taking the moral high ground and not getting involved is so much easier than having the guts to recognise that politics involves some pragmatism and compromise to achieve your long term aims. i say again here, well done on your decision Blair and to PC, When are you going to recognise you too will achieve more within national?

    Lets focus on attacking Helengrad rather than perceived faults within the footsoldiers of the right.

  24. To quote the Gipper: "There you go again..."

    Where in God's name did I ever say that ACT had changed? I just can't even fathom the logic as to how you reached that conclusion based on what I have written. If anything, ACT hasn't changed, or not quickly enough to save itself.

    For the third time, put up or shut up. Publish the links where I change my mind. They must exist - you seem so convinced they do! To tell us it's not important enough and I should just let it lie is just laziness. You've made some statements, been corrected, and yet persisted in saying that your representation of my opinions is the correct one and mine is dishonest. That's a pretty fucking big call, and yet you now find yourself lacking the balls to back it up?

    I no longer care if you apologise for my sake, but you are looking like a prize dick right now. You should apologise for your own sake.

  25. You do look like a dick, Peter. You wont apologise for talking crap though. The best we can hope for is that the crap stops now.

  26. This is classic overreaction! What a good read.

    I too thought Whiglet did go to National last year before the election but he was actually was homeless until ACT was guaranteed it's place back in parliament...

    He has found his home in some other parties (in the past) like the Christians for instance, so I feel that the National party will be a better home for him than ACT.

    Now can we focus all this anger towards Labour boys?!

  27. The most surprising thing in all of this is that we have not yet seen the appearance of Graham Watson in the discussion. Wherever the Whig and Bhatnagar are spotted giving someone a working-over Graham is usually soon to follow.

  28. You call that a working over?

  29. I sense Graham does have something to say, but is choosing not to get into this bout of handbags :)

  30. Well, it looks like aside from Rick -- who can safely be ignored as insane -- and Aaron -- who's neutrality is somewhat in doubt -- no-one shares your view that pointing out Blair's pendulum-like progress was either unfair [The Christians, yet!], or important.

    So, Blair, may I offer you a piece of advice from Otago University, "Get over it." If you can't take a friendly bit of ribbing in your stride then perhaps you should consider getting out of politics altogether and into something more suited to your sensitive soul. Flower arranging perhaps. Or macrame.

  31. Since when did numbers of responses ever justify the reasons for not giving an apology or refusing to admit a mistake? That's what I call a cheap cop-out on intellectual honesty.

    The next time you claim the righteousness of libertarian truth in a blog post, I'll be sure to remind you that no-one cares and you must be wrong because the libertarianz don't poll any more than a handful of votes in elections.

  32. Perhaps it's time someone explained satire to you, Aaron. You know, satire:
    "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit... The humor of such a satire tends to be subtle, using irony and deadpan humor liberally." As George Carlin says, you can joke about anyything, ir all depends on the exaggeration.

    Here's an example. If I were to say, Aaron, that you were anal, self-important, and unable to spot a joke without a geiger counter that would be mild criticism and could be easily comfirmed or denied. If I were to say you were a a pompous power-groupie with a stick up your arse, that would be mild abuse. But if I were to say you're a pin-striped respectability worshipper who wears his suit to bed and sleeps with a blow-up rubber doll of Richard Worth, that would be satire, albeit not awfully funny satire. But it's late. And I'm almost out of here.

    The 'Whig-o-Meter' idea is satire, Aaron. Richly deserved satire. Maybe neither literate nor funny (there you go, I'm neither literate nor funny), but it's satire nonetheless. If you have to explain a joke to someone too humourless to get it, it's tiresome for everyone, especially me. And if you have to explain satire to someone too offended over too little to see it, then it's time to go home and cool off.

    So in other words, if you don't like it, then sod off.

  33. A very clever retort Peter, that deftly sidesteps the actual issue in favour of some amusing ad hominem digs.

    I've said above that I never had a problem with your satire - your "whigometer" or whatever. Clearly you've ignored that. You just wasted two paragraphs of typing on something I didn't have an issue with.

    I did call you out for getting your facts wrong, and your response to this is that you wanted to have public opinion to weigh in as to whether you should apologise.

    For a person who preaches truth and absolutes regardless of how the numbers fall, thats a smarmy cop-out and a double-standard.

    It's pretty clear that your refusal to apologise or even acknowledge that you made a mistake without conducting a poll indicates that your commitment to intellectualism is shallow at best. It might impress the fellow Libz to bang on esoteric points of liberty, but when it comes to admitting a mistake, you're a third rate smarm factory and a hari-krishna of truth-speak.

    I don't like it, so I will sod off.

  34. "I did call you out for getting your facts wrong..."

    Fact is he's cried wolf too often for his latest call to be taken seriously.

    "...when it comes to admitting a mistake, you're a third rate smarm factory and a hari-krishna of truth-speak."

    Ouch, I'm offended. Does that mean I can sue?

    If I were to say, Aaron, that you were anal, self-important, and unable to spot a joke without a geiger counter that would be mild criticism and could be easily comfirmed or denied. If I were to say you were a a pompous power-groupie with a stick up your arse, that would be mild abuse. But if I were to say you're a pin-striped respectability worshipper who wears his suit to bed and sleeps with a blow-up rubber doll of Richard Worth, that would be satire, albeit not awfully funny satire. But it's late. And I'm almost out of here.

    Aaron, you got served!

  36. Ha ha,

    Whether it matters or not Peter does not have the spine to apologise to another blogger for incorrectly calling him a flip flop. There is no need to get out any handbags to give Peter the slap, he has done that more than adequately to himself, and looks rather foolish.

    I have tried to get Blair to join National many times, and his resolve to stay with ACT and give it a chance did not break. Finally he decided he'd had enough, thats his prerogative and not the sign of an oscillating voter.

    Ommmm, Ommmm, Ommm, Peter, carry on chanting your rose coloured Libz mantra's to your tiny group of adherents, while the rest of us concentrate on displacing from power the bigger state Labourites.

    Or maybe you could get real and join us?

  37. Personally, I'm all for this bitch-fest continuing. It's very nice to know that some right wingers think other right wingers are pieces of shit. It kind of backs up those odd thoughts I have sometimes.

    Attack! Attack! Attack ye footsoldiers of the brave!


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.