Unforgiveably Naive

The Shooters Party’s latest newsletter to members (with the quite flexible date of Second Quarter 2007) refers to this blog in interesting terms. Written mostly by John Tingle, whose grammatical errors are a dead giveaway, it describes it as “sad” and “representing a Party which is unregistered”.

Perceptions of sadness are a matter of opinion. We’ll let others make up their own minds. But representing another party? That’s transparently fiction. There is nothing on this site, beyond a link to the LDP, Shooters Party and Fishing Party, to suggest a connection to any party. We are simply shooters who happen to think John Tingle and Robert Brown should be held to account, otherwise the next eight years will bring no greater progress than the last 12.

As for my involvement with another political party (to which I am perfectly entitled), that has nothing to do with this blog. The Shooters Party only has about 1200 members, yet there are 180,000 firearms licensees in NSW. Clearly, the vast majority of shooters do not support the Shooters Party enough to be a member either. As for how we all vote, well, it’s a secret ballot isn’t it?

The Newsletter also claimed we were “unbelievably naive” for suggesting the Shooters Party could have had a much greater impact in the election if it had contested lower house seats and exchanged preferences with a major party. In fact we said nothing about “exchanging” preferences. See for yourself – our comments can be found here. However, we did suggest the impact of shooters would have been greater if lower house seats had been contested and preferences used to increase the party’s leverage.

Is that naive? The Greens do it, and they don’t think so. The Christian Democrats do it, and they don’t think so. The Fishing Party did it, and their preferences determined the outcome in at least one seat. In fact, every minor party EXCEPT the Shooters Party does it.

Psychiatrists have a term for people who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. It’s called bipolar. Perhaps even unbelievably bipolar.

Finally, the Newsletter refers to us (among others) as “an attempt by a handful of people to have the Shooters Party defeated.” That is a bald-faced lie. Questioning the party’s strategy, which I am uniquely qualified to do, is not the same as seeking to have it defeated.

One of the reasons the Shooters Party has been such a failure in terms of genuine gains for shooters has been its absurd preoccupation with shooters who do not share its peculiar view of the world. Indeed, it has spent far more time and effort in disputes with fellow shooters than in fighting those who would remove the legitimate rights of its constituents. That’s not only unbelievably naive, but enormously tragic. As well as incredibly dumb.


23 Responses to Unforgiveably Naive

  1. Steven says:

    RUBBISH! We all know who you are and what your aims are…GIVE UP!

  2. Good to see you back Steven. Perhaps this time you’ll have something useful to say.
    What do you think my aims are exactly? And what should I give up? As Pauline would say, please explain!!

  3. Steven says:

    After you replied to several of my posts, then deleted them days later, as they made you look stupid, I am not bothering to say anything of any importance on this wretchd site> I will however keep an eye on you and subsequently inform the hunting/shooting forums when you need a bit of hate and derision hurled your way.
    If you need any explanation please refer to my posts you deleted, o mighty defender of freedom of speech.
    [Offensive comment deleted]!

  4. Thank you Steven. It’s nice to know what to expect from you. Keep taking the medication.

  5. fishfinger says:

    I find a number of matters on this site disturbing.
    The sniping of shooters at each other with little constructive criticism… merely negative and pejorative statements aimed at each other.
    Then there is the general negativity of the blogger’s posting.
    I agree that both Robert Brown and Roy Smith should be held accountable but if you have anything you’re not happy with – tell them. I do and I’ve had a positive hearing.
    Posting critical messages here starts to give the appearance of simple egocentricity, or a hidden agenda, if the subjects of your criticisms haven’t been advised of your unhappiness. And if you don’t give them an opportunity to respond or give them a fair chance to correct the matters you want corrected that says a lot about the real purpose of this blog.
    I, for one, would like to see the standard of the game here lifted.

  6. Bill says:

    Bullshit fishfingers, this is no different than a newspaper. I like to see a bit of stirring – it stops wankers from believing their own propaganda.

    Go for it fellas.

  7. fishfinger says:

    Thank you Bill for your pejorative remarks. You’ve just proved the point I was trying to make about constructive criticism.
    It wouldn’t kill us to disagree and still remain polite.
    You wouldn’t want to sound like a Union Leader or a Green, would you?

  8. Fishfinger, the comments policy is found on the “About this blog” page. It reads:

    Personal abuse and defamatory statements are liable to be deleted.

    You are talking about matters of style. That’s up to individuals.

  9. fishfinger says:

    It is possible to disagree and have a civilised debate without resorting to words like “wankers” to describe someone with whom you disagree.
    That, to me, is more than a matter of style.
    Let us, by all means, abuse the anti-gun nuts but let us be polite to each other… we’re supposed to be on the same side. We all want the same thing even if we try to get there in different ways.

  10. Subject to the policy above we have a free speech attitude here fishfingers.

    If the worst name used is ‘wanker’ it will be most uncharacteristic of shooters.

  11. ChrisPer says:

    In my opinion, the kind of comments displayed on this site – and its underlying tone – would be better reserved for private occasions,

    It is a waste of useful life to sepnd time being petty in public.

  12. the kind of comments displayed on this site – and its underlying tone – would be better reserved for private occasions

    It is a waste of useful life to sepnd time being petty in public.

    What is your objection to public comments?

    Would you like to explain what, in this context, would be a private occasion?

  13. Belle Star says:

    David when are you going to learn that you are not allowed to have an opinion of your own, naughty boy. you must not speak in public, this is reserved for the those who own the game, like Mugabe.

  14. TopGun says:

    There aren’t any “preferences” in NSW state elections anymore. The parties don’t get to direct them. They can only suggest to their voters appropriate secondary choices.

    I like the style of you libertarian lounge lizards. On the one hand you pompously dissect the expenditure of the Shooters Party on the election suggesting that it was inappropriate for it to obtain funding from SSAA (unless all the members agreed I suppose in accordance with libertarian fantasies)., whilst now suggesting that an even more expansive and non productive campaign be waged for Legislative Assembly seats.

    No doubt at the next election you will be pondering the grammar of your how to vote cards whilst the rest of the real politicians go about getting votes. Your MLC Watch is kind of like the diary of a pervert looking through a keyhole. Don’t worry, we know what you do when you look through that keyhole.

  15. SightAlignment says:

    TopGun, you socialists obviously have a bit of trouble understanding politics.
    Try to get your facts straight. Preferences are very important in NSW elections. Just because they are optional and, for the Upper House, determined by the voter rather than the party does not make them unimportant. Numerous seats were determined by allocation of preferences.

    MLC Watch may have created the keyhole, but you are looking through it. Most people would call it public scrutiny, but your analogy might be correct in your own particular case.

  16. Josh says:

    Hi All,

    Again a tirade of misconceptions and narrowmindedness from some of the regular bloggers. Sight Alignment, your perception that preferances had anything at all to do with the outcome of the election or any of the seats in the recent NSW elections is absolutely obsurd. I can say this because I was one of the thousands of people who counted votes. The way it works is that voting papers are classified by their first preference vote and if it is close, the second preference vote will be counted on the following basis:

    – The voter must have indicated their preference on the voting card.
    – If a voter has only indicated 1 preference, then the vote is exhausted after the first count.
    – A party cannot exercise a preference on any vote that it receives.

    The crux is that Top Gun is correct. The only thing that a party can do is to provide a how to vote card that lists numbered preferences that a voter would have to individually write down.


  17. Sightalignment says:

    The way it works is that voting papers are classified by their first preference vote and if it is close, the second preference vote will be counted.

    Josh, that’s quite correct. However, to then say that preferences had nothing to do with the outcome is quite incorrect. In fact, most voters followed the how-to-vote cards of the parties and allocated preferences. As a result, preferences determined the outcome in a large majority of seats.

    Even in the upper house, preferences were significant in determining the outcome (unlike in 2003) although most voters did not allocate preferences.

    This is not a matter of opinion, but simple fact. All the information is on the State Electoral Commission website. For the lower house, look here: http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/state_government_elections/election_results/legislative_assembly_results/2007_state_election
    Look under Notional Distribution of Preferences.

  18. TopGun says:

    SightAlignment, I think that the left hemisphere of your cerebellum needs to be adjusted for windage.

    I had a look at your web reference, but it wasn’t at all clear which seats were won on preferences. Perhaps you should ask Laze at home, to look up the word notional for you in a dictionary. He gets off on that sort of thing, I gather.

    Maybe you could explain how a party which commands less than 3% of the Legislative Council vote, could, by use of its preferences, change the outcome of the last State election in the Legislative Assembly. I’m sure that those voters who begrudgingly give the Shooters Party their vote in the Legislative Council would be happy to vote against their usual party in the Legislative Council in their preferences, and I suppose the Shooters Party could run candidates in all the seats of the Legislative Assembly just to test out the idea.

    I think that you and Laze at home have been eating too much flapdoodle at the Greens all night vegetarian cafe, and it has given you mental indigestion. Maybe you could explain your advanced political preference theory by pointing out the seats which would have been lost if preferences were different, and why they would have been lost.

  19. SightAlignment says:

    TopGun, I presume your silly name calling refers to my colleague David Leyonhjelm. As it happens, I did discuss this with him and he said there’s no point explaining preferences to you. He thinks people like you and your dumb mates are too thick to ever understand.

    My opinion is there’s always a chance that your last functioning neurone, not yet destroyed by alcohol, might catch on. Even if you don’t, maybe some other readers will. Hence this response.

    In the seat of Port Stephens, Labor got 17,536 first preference votes. The Liberals got 17,881, a difference of 345. As there were 6,660 votes for other parties, the Liberals did not win an absolute majority. Thus the preferences from the other parties were distributed.

    Of those who voted for another party, 3910 (59%) gave a preference. Those preferences determined which party won the seat.

    The allocation of preferences is shown on the SEC website here: http://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/lapreferential.port%20stephens.aspx

    Most of the Christian Democrats preferences and half the Fishing Party preferences went to the Liberals. Most of the Greens preferences went to Labor.

    After distribution of preferences, the Liberals won the seat by just 368 votes. If the Fishing Party or Christian Democrats had not been standing, their preferences would not have been available to go to the Liberals and the seat would have been won by Labor.

    There are lots of other seats where preferences also decided the result. It’s not rocket science, so have a look for yourself.

  20. TopGun says:

    SightAlignment, I think you have overtightened the screw on your elevation. I had a look at your favourite seat of Port Stephens. Your example shows the level of your psychological delusion.

    By Count 4 when TFP was eliminated, 1151 distributed votes had been exhausted. Leaving 1063 to be distributed. I guess that means that by that stage some voters don’t give a damn. The Libs had more votes than Labor right from Count 1. When Count 4 was reached 321 TFP voters gave it to Labor and 241 gave it to the Greens which totals 562 votes with 501 going to your beloved Libs from the remaining TFP pool. Which means that in terms of preferences, most TFP voters did not want the Libs. It seems to me a mighty strange bunch of voters who vote for TFP and then prefer the Greens to the Libs.

    So in summary, more than half of your TFP voters didn’t vote to the point where they helped the Libs. And at the point when they did, more than half did not vote for the Libs. So I would not be taking credit for getting the Libs into that seat. And for all that effort, TFP managed to back the party which does not govern the State.

    Next I suppose you will be telling me that TFP, working in conjunction with the Greens, gave the Libs the seat.

  21. Belle Star says:

    Good discussion boys, we are all confused now so keep it up so we can all learn at the end of the year how the system works. We will know where our votes went or are likely to go, maybe ,God Damn more confusion.
    Leyonhjelm and Tingle fought over this for 6 months and at the end of the day nobody won,just a pile of ego driven crap, you have to have the numbers up front or your not in the game

  22. Sightalignment says:

    Looks like Leyonhjlem was right – TopGun is too thick to get it. He tells me it’s because you hang around with Browneye and Ratsak, or more likely you are one of them. I don’t actually care.

    I’m finished trying to explain something that all political parties except for the Shooters figured out years ago. Preferences in NSW elections still determine who wins seats, and therefore who wins government. End of story.

    But you go ahead thinking you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Just because everyone laughs at you doesn’t mean you’re funny.

  23. TopGun says:

    Don’t be like that Sight, I didn’t mean to be so rough on you. Its just that you political girly men from the LDP don’t get one basic fact. Parties can’t direct preferences now, only voters can, so each voter when they make a preference vote are making it like a fresh vote, with their own choice involved.

    As demonstrated by your example, TFP voters, if they were told to vote a preference to the Libs, seemed to ignore the direction from TFP. Some of the last distributed votes by Count 4 were probably not TFP voters, but residuals from CDP or who knows.

    So if a TFP candidate said to me, “Hey lets swap “preferences”. I would say to them “I’d like to oblige, but my voters wont just do what I tell them to do, and I can see that your voters certainly wont do what you tell them to do, although mine are probably more likely to listen to me than yours are to you, so you would get the better deal.

    Lets say the Greens, CDP and TFP didn’t run for that seat. Their votes probably would have been given in roughly the same proportions to Labor and the Libs, and the Libs would have still narrowly won it.

    A party like Shooters can never win a lower house seat in NSW, and it can’t control how its voters preference, so what would be the point? If other parties want to play the Democrat game and run candidates in lower house seats, fine, go do it. They might just end up like the Democrats, with no seat in the upper house either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: