Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Where are all the polls at?

228 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

  • tussock,

    And because there's no better place for it, my tri-annual, stop stealing people's seats and giving them to the big parties, you bastards, post.

    First divisor 1.4, no threshold, from the night's results.

    National 56 (-2)
    Labour 44 (-1)
    NZF 9
    Greens 7
    TOP 3 (+3)
    Māori 1 (+1)
    ACT 1 (-1, +1 overhang).

    Which is the same, except tens of thousands more people have a voice in parliament, and ACT could just die instead of the Nats giving them that lifeboat just in case anyone votes for them again.

    Since Nov 2006 • 594 posts Report Reply

  • izogi,

    More of the same, I guess, but I’ll be interested to see what’s happened after specials.

    It’s a shame they take so long to come in because a government forming deal may well be done and dusted by that time. How does 16% of advanced votes being specials compare with previous years, especially given the absolute number of advanced votes was so much higher? https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97170107/election-2017-jacinda-ardern-hoped-for-better-after-strong-national-result

    Looking at some of the electorate results (eg Nelson) I once again think it’d be worthwhile using a preferential system for electorate voting. The higher number of options for non National voters seems to suggest vote splitting between similar candidates is a common thing in electorates, and I cringe when I see candidates and supporters complaining about that, but I don’t see preferential voting happening any time soon.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1131 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I see Joyce tweeted "I stand by the way we campaigned" - which says it all really - what loathsome lying lowlifes.

    If National was really paying attention to 'the will (and mood) of the people' English would have announced they were seeking to form a government with The Greens, not Winston's motley crew. .

    So here's hoping Winston wants to leave a legacy that shows he desires the best for NZ by working with Labour and the Greens to turn this 'ship' around.

    ...and Epsom - what's wrong with you people?
    (is there something in the water?)

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7704 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I see Joyce tweeted "I stand by the way we campaigned" - which says it all really - what loathsome lying lowlifes.

    I find the tactics disgusting yet cannot help but think it still works. As long as people are content to respond to this stuff, it's always going to happen.

    I guess there are a million ways to frame the outcome, but to me there are just a heap of people don't want things to change. An excuse for the status quo is needed, National throws it in front of its supporters, and it's accepted.

    In 2014, the lying excuse was "but Dirty Politics is normal for all politicians!" (ie. everyone's as bad as we are). This year it was about $11 billion and non-existent taxes.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1131 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I don't understand where the Sunday Star Times gets it's figure of 1.2 million votes for National (or the idea of 'victory'?

    New Zealand’s biggest-ever election turnout delivered National’s highest ever vote: 1.2 million. Last night, reports Adam Dudding, was a landslide.
    National’s Bill English has blown away the stardust and stormed to victory with a record 1.2 million votes, defying all expectations. English has told the Sunday StarTimes the biggest-polling party has the ‘‘moral authority’’ to have first go at creating a coalition, and last night he claimed that authority. In a speech to supporters he said he was ready to stitch up a coalition with Winston Peters to form a ‘‘strong and stable’’ government.

    The Official Election results say: National Party - 998,813 with 100% counted (but not specials as yet)
    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/

    Bill is deluded if he thinks he has the 'moral authority' to have first crack at making a coalition - it is is up to all parties to make the negotiations they choose, and the chips fall as they may - after the campaign they ran they have no moral anything!

    Whenever I hear them talking about a 'stable' government I immediately think of Animal Farm - I think a 'Stay Bill' government is what they really mean....

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7704 posts Report Reply

  • Dennis Frank,

    We're likely to get our first ever refugee into parliament due to the usual boost to the Greens from special votes. Golriz is a specialist in human rights law, so will add considerable value. Her bio describes her as Kurdish/Persian (Iranian).

    As James Shaw has been pointing out, the three parties who campaigned to change the government have a substantial majority. Presuming they will collaborate is unwise: none of them signalled any such collaboration to the electorate in advance of the voting. The failure of the leftists to invest the MoU with any substance instead signalled to the centrists that they must keep supporting NZ First, so they did.

    The congenital inability of leftists to comprehend that swing-voters are centrists who control the outcome of our elections is sociopathic. Most humans learn from experience. Leftists don't. It has long been obvious that our governments change when centrists can see a viable alternative government in waiting. The leftists who control both Labour & the Greens gambled that they didn't need to provide that collaborative design. A foolish gamble, competing instead of collaborating. Zero-sum thinking that fails to cater to our common interests.

    Best outcome now depends initially on the extent to which Winston has already identified common-ground policy priorities with Labour/Greens. If he reaches a significant extent of consensus in the preliminary negotiations, a viable three-way coalition becomes more likely. I'm seeing the preliminary election result as a verdict on neoliberalism: as Gareth Morgan said, the nation voted on the basis of self-interest, and nearly half the country want the status quo. If Winston really sides with those who aren't getting the trickle-down, since he now has the opportunity to help shape a genuinely-progressive new government his negotiating strategy ought to prioritise that design.

    New Zealand • Since Jun 2016 • 212 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    1.2 million

    Reckon they multiplied the % of votes for National by the total number of registered voters, rather than the number of actual voters. Muppets.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1802 posts Report Reply

  • Trevor Nicholls, in reply to Dennis Frank,

    The congenital inability of leftists to comprehend that swing-voters are centrists who control the outcome of our elections is sociopathic.

    Would you like some fish with that chip on your shoulder?

    Wellington, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 299 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    A reminder of the Herald poll on page 4 of this thread.

    Relevant today as misinformation and misunderstanding of MMP abounds. Don't read Stuff comments - or a bunch of other outlets - if you'd like to believe that NZ voters understand their own democracy, and the system they chose in a referendum only 6 years ago.

    There's an MMP election in Germany today. Perhaps they could show us how it's done.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1252 posts Report Reply

  • Neil,

    If National do indeed get a 4th term then Key's resignation will turn out to be one of the more brilliant manoeuvres in NZ politics.

    Since Nov 2016 • 209 posts Report Reply

  • linger,

    Nah, just a less than brilliant opposition (with a surge coming too little, too late).
    Want to look back at the "lessons to be learned for Labour" comments after the 2014 election? Things like:
    (i) Labour should adopt a more collegial leadership structure, with co-leaders.
    (ii) Labour should visibly, consistently, and positively work with the Greens and other potential coalition partners throughout the term.
    (iii) Labour should do much more to express opposition to National's policies, and explain what they would repeal and do differently.

    Were those lessons learned? No, they were largely ignored for almost the entire term. The relatively amicable passing of leadership from Little to Ardern was about as close as they came to (i), and came only after 2 years of backbiting; meanwhile, partnership with the Greens wasn't pursued in any timely sense and remained sketchy up to the last, while any possible partnership with the Maori Party wasn't allowed to outweigh the battle for electorate votes.

    Sometimes it feels like being a Cassandra in a coalmine.

    (i.e. no-one listens ... but if you stop complaining,
    that doesn't mean things have gotten any better...)

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1802 posts Report Reply

  • Neil,

    Peters will have plenty of considerations but perhaps an important one will be setting up heir apparent Shane Jones.

    Thinking that through I'm not sure which major party is favoured.

    Since Nov 2016 • 209 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to izogi,

    I guess there are a million ways to frame the outcome, but to me there are just a heap of people don’t want things to change.

    And they very much in the main live in Auckland;

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97191224/election-2017-auckland-tips-the-balance-in-nationals-favour

    Despite all the talk of unaffordable housing, unchecked immigration and gridlocked roads, their is no mood for change in our biggest city. Or if there is, none of the other parties are doing anything to capture it.

    National's party vote held firm or increased in all but a handful of Auckland's electorates.

    The main exceptions were Mt Albert (Jacinda Ardern's electorate) and Auckland Central, which saw one of the biggest swings to Labour in the country.

    All 10 of the electorates in which support for National increased by more than 2 points were in Auckland.

    Many of those were heartland Labour territory in the south and west of the city, where National's overall vote share is still small and Labour's is large, but they also grew their support in blue strongholds like Botany, Pakuranga and Papakura.

    I suspect its the size of the mortgages up there - across the political spectrum.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 784 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Dennis Frank,

    If Winston really sides with those who aren’t getting the trickle-down, since he now has the opportunity to help shape a genuinely-progressive new government his negotiating strategy ought to prioritise that design.

    This is a great re-read;

    http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/rt_hon_winston_peters_budget_speech_2017

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 784 posts Report Reply

  • Caleb D'Anvers,

    What I'm seeing suggests that the Greens are in fact electoral poison with the non-Left bloc. "Centrists" might consider voting for a right-dominated Labour Party if the other options have lost all credibility, but they won't countenance voting for a Labour Party that would go into any form of coalition with the Greens.

    London SE16 • Since Mar 2008 • 482 posts Report Reply

  • simon g, in reply to Caleb D'Anvers,

    I think the Metiria story makes any broader conclusions about the Greens pretty shaky, really. It was a double self-inflicted wound (the original story, but more so, weeks of the not resigning/then resigning follow-up, which was more or less the worst way to handle it).

    More generally, we've had a problem ever since the first MMP election, with "centrists" found in other multi-party democracies being represented here by NZFirst (which has little in common with the usual centrist parties overseas) and by United, which was formed by Nat/Lab MPs to be sort of euro-liberal-centrist but then got sidelined and reinvented by several increasingly desperate mergers.

    There should be room for MMP parties that can coalesce with National or Labour, but god only knows when a credible one is going to emerge. We need a better option than just waiting for the next rich man's toy.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1252 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    Attachment

    …and Epsom – what’s wrong with you people?
    (is there something in the water?)

    They where told how to vote.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4011 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to simon g,

    For all practical purposes, unless the threshold is reduced to <1%, that better option would have to involve a locally popular sitting electorate MP forming their own party. Any takers?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1802 posts Report Reply

  • simon g, in reply to linger,

    Too true. History of minor parties getting into Parliament under MMP (some predated the change of voting system), and how they first got there:

    NZF - sitting Nat MP. Alliance - sitting Lab MP. United(Future) - sitting Nat and Lab MPs. ACT - recycled Lab MP (Prebble) who was quasi-gifted a seat by National (they did also get over 5%). Maori Party - sitting Lab MP.

    The Greens got in as part of the Alliance, and then broke free. So real outsiders breaking in: none. Have I missed any?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1252 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to simon g,

    Social Democrats pre-MMP, maybe. The Bob Jones vanity project got to double-digit support back in the day, too, but again, rich man's hobby, and guess which two digits I'm raising to that.
    Anybody starting without a representative already sitting has a huge disadvantage. Maybe someone with a massive media profile could break in, but you look at the possible contenders there, and you think, how could they be any kind of force for change?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1802 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to simon g,

    The Greens got in as part of the Alliance, and then broke free. So real outsiders breaking in: none. Have I missed any?

    It’s early days. A real outsider is hard to imagine in a country as small as ours. This latest election demonstrated that there is little appetite for change. Real change, not just a change of clothing. Even If Labour and the Greens had been given a mandate to govern without NZ first, that’s not change. That’s more or less the same government we already had, but with much more capable professionalism.

    Mabe as our population diversifies we might start to become comfortable about economic ideas similar to Islamic finance. When it becomes better known that small groups of outsider people (Islamic immigration) are living in Auckland and doing housing for there families with interest free credit, then slowly, very slowly, we might see an appetite for fundamental change. (not suicide bombs:-), Rather than the Claytons change, that most of us are obviously happy to settle with.

    The cost of running a political party outside of parliament is probably inhibiting.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4011 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    Mana party got in under a sitting Māori party MP, though he won a by-election first when he switched to Mana.

    Greens had sitting MPs from the Alliance, and won a seat their first time on their own, though only just on special votes. They also trace back to the Values party that used to split the left vote in the 70's, and has had seats on and off for a rather long time. Bloody splitters.

    I liked Gareth Morgan's comment that people vote on self-interest, in that 1: no they don't (it's complicated), and 2: that is how it's supposed to work, if your policies won't help most people, maybe just fuck off.

    But vanity parties that go nowhere will always be a thing because rich people aren't especially smart. It's obviously cheaper to just buy policy off the National party.

    Since Nov 2006 • 594 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to tussock,

    Values (1972-1990) never won a single seat in any election. Their best showing was in 1975 (5.2%, which under FPP still got them nothing).

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1802 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to tussock,

    2: that is how it’s supposed to work, if your policies won’t help most people, maybe just fuck off.

    Yes and no. Minority groups sometimes have specific needs. So altruism is also an important political attribute, unless it’s the act party where high levels of psychopathy makes top dog.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4011 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to linger,

    Values (1972-1990) never won a single seat in any election. Their best showing was in 1975 (5.2%, which under FPP still got them nothing).

    They influenced other party policy’s and put the squeeze on Social Credit.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4011 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.