Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: The Government lost the election, in reply to linger,
Every minor party that has taken portfolios has lost votes. It's all part of our unchanged two-party mentality, within a multi-party system. You'd probably need a psychologist more than a political commentator to help explain it. Reward the strong, punish the weak.
I'd link it to our continuing deference to the monarchy: respecting power from the top, not building power from the bottom. Or "let's get a CEO as PM, they know how to get things done". But that's another rant ...
-
We've had MMP for twenty years now.
Of course this is true, and Joshua's argument is sound. I've been pulling my hair out, and on Saturday night I had to switch off the talking telly heads before inserting foot in screen.
But "twenty years" covers 7 previous elections, and of those 5 were effectively decided on election night. In a way, they weren't (seen as) MMP elections. Clark (1999 and 2002) and Key (2008-14) knew they were going to be Prime Minister, and could be annointed as such. There were election night celebrations 5 times. The kind you see in non-MMP democracies most of the time (UK's latest was an exception, but generally, our TV-shaped view is of winners making victory speeches, losers conceding). Since 2005, John Key has just been getting too many votes for National. The memory of the two post-election negotiations has dimmed.
So in those twenty years our understanding of theory has not been backed up by much experience of practice. Furthermore, on all 7 occasions the largest party has gone on to lead the government. That's a result, not a requirement, but it has been reinforced in the public mind. That's what made it easier for Bill English to flat out lie in the final leaders' debate, when he claimed a special status for the incumbents, if the largest party.
None of this excuses woeful ignorance by media people who should know better. But, as so often in life, first-hand experience (possibly a painful one!) will ram the learning home, in a way that a hundred whiteboard lectures won't. That could take a few elections yet.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to linger,
I think the Greens need to care what the media report, and since the standard "analysis" is usually to get some Nat-aligned commentator to give reckons (because free and easy) then, yes.
If that didn't matter then Metiria Turei would still be co-leader. The Greens can certainly say "don't care", and I'd be fine with that, but they shouldn't say "don't care, but will later after entirely predictable pressure".
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to linger,
But that's the narrative National shills want - we're so reasonable, it's only Shaw and his stubborn lefties who are stopping a green dream. It's BS, and he plays into it.
Call their bluff, I say. Do it with the same concern-trolling that they're doing to the Greens. ("I believe Bill English is privately open to a pollution tax, even though he said he opposed it before the election, and I'd love to have a chat with him about it"). Then watch him squirm.
-
Sadly, I suspect their thinking will be "we're toast next time regardless, Winston will be gone, so let's cash in for 3 years".
The prospect of Minister Shane Jones being on "my team" is enough to make me squeamish about winning, or relaxed about losing, in the Big Negotiate.
-
For balance - or to fill up a slow day while we wait for specials - here is the most detailed and sort-of plausible list of National-Green policies that I've seen so far, if the impossible coalition happened. Lance says that he voted/supports Greens, so it's not just Nats playing silly buggers (which most of this chatter has been). I voted Green too, and I'd settle for that list.
Now I'd say the chances of National agreeing to those would be zero, but it would be fun if they did. Save the environment while watching the National Party implode, what's not to like? Of course the deal would have to be announced at a public meeting in Morrinsville ...
-
Legal Beagle: Election 2017: the Special…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
That's true in isolation, of course. But there's a wider context: Labour don't want to be confined to a fortress in 4 main cities. They held seats like Rotorua, New Plymouth and Taupo when they were in government. There are longer-term knock-on effects.
-
In Auckland Central I voted for Helen White (Labour), which I suppose was also a vote to put Nikki Kaye back on the list, and deprive somebody else (Nicola Willis?) of their spot.
In Ohariu I would also have indirectly voted for Helen White of Auckland, by not voting for Greg O'Connor (if he hadn't won the electorate, Helen is above him on the list).
So yeah, these things can get complicated.
-
Meanwhile we can enjoy the Blue-Green coalition fantasies being circulated on social media. Possible motivations include blatant mischief-making, genuine fear of Winston destroying the Nats yet again, the prospect of Ron Mark ("Go back to Korea!") sitting next to Melissa Lee with 3 years of the government saying "we're not racist but ...". Oh, and we can't rule out simple delusion, where the environment is miraculously saved and nobody has to pay for it at all.
I'd love James Shaw to say "OK National, let's talk, but first you have to gift us an electorate, because this deal will kill us otherwise. So who's it gonna be?".
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to ,
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.
Steven, that really isn't true. A Labour-Green government would have been (will be next time?) markedly different, in a vast number of policy areas. Not just different from National, but from Clark 2002-08, when the Greens were on the outer.