Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's a built-in problem with the Maori seats combined with our version of MMP. We don't do nuances, we don't do German-style multiple options for coalitions, everything is "Are you going with Labour or National?". Any challenger to Labour in the Maori electorates is going to be Not-Labour, ergo ... yeah, you see where I'm going with this.
There needs to be a party that gets stuck into Labour, stops them taking those seats for granted, and then gets concessions from Labour in return for confidence and supply. How you get that across in our binary-brained media, I really don't know.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, 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?
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, 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.
-
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.
-
Thanks for doing this, Graeme.
A point overlooked by many of the talking heads is that numbers can and do change during a term. Parties break up (NZ First, Alliance in the first two MMP terms), parties are formed when MPs break away (the Maori Party, Mana), individuals leave parties to become independent (pushed, or jumping), by-elections, etc.
This is relevant now because a putative Lab-NZF-Green deal would require Winston to keep all his caucus on board, and given past behaviour, there's a non-zero chance that some hitherto unknown NZF MP will be seduced across the floor by a bauble or quit the party on "principle". Not tomorrow, but next year, who knows?
And if there's a NZF-Nat deal, the anti-Nat numbers need to increase to stop any maverick from becoming Alamein Kopu when NZF quit the coalition over the [Insert Name Later] scandal of 2018. (I know she was Alliance, but the point stands - the party-hopping prevention law died years ago).
-
I'd say there's almost no chance of Labour/Greens having 62 on election night, and even L/G plus Maori Party is a long shot.
But the real concern is that there will be negotiations based on incomplete numbers, and specials will change the picture (i.e. give the only correct picture) after the narrative has been established. It could be the 2017 version of 2005 "the rural booths came in and National had won, only to be robbed by the big urban booths at midnight". Obviously it's idiotic to pretend that votes have different values depending on when they are counted, so ... thank goodness there are no idiots in our media, and they all totally understand MMP (*cough* Hosking ...).
On the plus side, the prospect of National celebrating a "win" and then specials taking away a seat or putting the Greens over 5% would be one to savour ...
-
Hard News: The Day After Tomorrow, in reply to Jason Kemp,
The media focus is on Advance Voting, but it's the enrolment numbers that really matter. For 18-24s they're not encouraging, and there are major differences, e.g.
-
My optimism/pessimism level fluctuates like the spring weather, but anyway:
Optimistic - because post-Helen the Labour party has been varying degrees of disappointing, sometimes depressingly so, and it now looks better (not just in polls but in general "vibe") than it has for over a decade, more like first term Helen
Pessimistic - because the Greens were supposed to go into a Lab/Green gov't in a position of strength (10%+) but now won't, and since every minor party in the MMP era has lost support in government, they will have a real battle even (or especially) if they finally get what they've always wanted
Optimistic - because if National win, it will be very unpopular very soon, and soon Peters will join Dunne in retirement and the left will win a landslide next time
Pessimistic - because National will have won in the worst way, and all the wrong lessons will be learned
Optimistic - because if Labour aren't going to move on tax until 2020 anyway, win or lose, better to do it properly from opposition, with a bold reform programme, instead of having it defined and diluted by ruling in/out things that need to be addressed. Give the "working group" a blank sheet, nothing off the table, and if they say "CGT on everything, and cut income tax or GST" then that can be considered properly, not on the hoof
OK, enough already.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
I would have liked Jacinda to put him on the spot, to counter-attack from left field (sic).
e.g. on the inevitable which-way-Winston questions, she could say:
"As Prime Minister, I want to bring people together, not drive them apart. So I can tell you now: there will be no referendum on the Maori seats. I would rather be in opposition than preside over a destructive, divisive conflict that will hurt us all and achieve nothing. How about you, Bill?"
In fact, I think she would be telling the truth. She has time on her side and could lead a Winston-less government next time, if not this time. But even if she was insincere, she'd be making English look waffle-weak ("Er ... won't negotiate in the media") or he'd have to commit one way or t'other, both bad options for National's base.
I know, I'm armchair strategising, which is easy,but still: it has been frustrating to watch. Defending against lies is incredibly difficult, counter-attacking to change the discussion is a better option. She hasn't been great at that.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to Dennis Frank,
My take is that publicising the Labour `make it up as you go along' tax policy has worked for the Nats big time. Labour has not offered any excuse to the public to explain why nine years of opposition isn't ample time to design a credible economic policy - they just keep dodging the question. The Nats just needed to point this out to floating voters to deflate the bubble.
And this is why they lie. If that is your "take" after all the evidence, then lying works, and next time they will lie some more.