So it’s all down to the personality of the leader, and some of the other potential MPs. Education for instance, talks about how much money in billions will be added, and how that’s also going to ballence in the books. But there is no indication there is any plan to even review national standards.
This is the sort of problem I've been struggling with for TOP. The leadership's said lots of interesting stuff which I find engaging (plus the odd thing that makes me really mad at them), but there also seem to be big gaps in the written policy.
eg. I care about a variety of things, but one area I care deeply about is Conservation policy. I've repeatedly been referred to TOP's Environment policy, which is packed full of incentive-speak about things like river pollution and climate change, but says virtually nothing about management of 1/3 of the country that's Conservation Estate, nor even mention words like 'pest', 'predator' or 'conservation'. The only vague reference to it is about a $20 border levy for investment in biodiversity and local infrastructure. There's virtually no detail about expected outcomes, costs of administration, or... anything really about what TOP actually wants.
It's not that TOP doesn't care about conservation policy. Geoff Simmons says plenty at random all over the place, but as far as I can tell none of it's clearly written down or formalised. It's just his personality speaking. So if I'm to vote for TOP on that basis, I feel like I'm really just voting on some kind of enthusiasm and trust that the leadership will "do the right thing", whatever that is. Maybe people who choose TOP genuinely only care about the issues on which TOP's defined and announced comprehensive policies, but beyond that I'm not sure how it's different from someone who votes for Labour because they trust Jacinda, or voting for NZF because they trust Winston, which it seems to be trendy to criticise people for.
Personally, I'm just going to do something weird and vote for the party whose policies I most agree with.
That's fine as long as you trust the party of choice to actually follow through and fight for or implement the policies as advertised.
I've found The Spinoff's Policy tool interesting, but mostly in terms of how I used it. It's built around selecting the policies you like after which it'll tell you which party has the most of your favourite policies, but I found myself looking at similar policies from different parties and second-guessing whether I thought that party actually had any genuine intent to push the policy in a way I wanted. eg. I had a strong bias against including much from National in my preferences, even if some appeared consistent with other parties, simply because I feel I'm already aware of how it's treating so many of those stated policies and that's part of the reason I'm really struggling to consider voting for it.
In NZF's case I wonder if many supporters like it for the one or two things they care about (if not simply Winston's attitude), yet strong in the belief that there's no way in hell that NZF will follow through with some of its other policies that those supporters might think are insane.
Where do all those NZF supporters go once Winston Peters is eventually gone, anyway? Could the party even survive without him?
they lost my vote for ... dumping Metiria
Not that the method should change your view, but do you see it as the Greens having dumped her?
There was obvious internal conflict (esp shown by Graham and Clendon's thing) and maybe that's what you're thinking of, but what I saw was a Greens' leadership that was prepared to stick it out and defend her vigorously in the face of a public that was looking for any random excuse to discredit the party by attacking her, until she decided to leave.
For comparison, when National has problems it tends to be in the context of maybe 50% of the population looking for excuses to bag them, but another 50% looking for excuses to justify why it really doesn't matter. For the Greens it's more like a 85/15 split.
I think they need about 7% to get both Chloe Swarbrick
I'd heard about Auckland's local election, but it wasn't really until Backbenches on Wednesday that I saw Chlöe Swarbrick speaking for the first time. I was impressed with just how informed and assertive she was with the issues she was confronted with. Not every candidate nor MP can pull that off.
It's probably easy for someone who looks for excuses to write her off as as young wannabe who came third in Auckland because of the electoral system, but if she can have an opportunity of getting into Parliament it'd be awesome, imho. She comes across as a genuine future leader.
Ignoring the party lists is an endemic failure in our election coverage
It's mostly trivia but yesterday I bothered to google position #75 on the National Party list, Graham Collins. The top result was this Herald article from late last year, where his accusation of physical assault against Michael Wood (whom he accused of manhandling Parmjeet Parmar's husband) was categorically disproved by video evidence of the event, as well as showing that Wood had been provoked.
I get that #75 will almost certainly never be elected, even from National, but assuming the Herald's account is accurate, how does a destructive liar like this even get onto that party's list?
The Stuff article above doesn’t really refer to undecided voters (its numbers add to 99%), but TVNZ’s article says it’s gone from 20% to 13%. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/1-news-colmar-brunton-poll-greens-plummet-below-five-per-cent-jacinda-effect-keeps-labour-climbing
I’d wondered if maybe some former Green respondents had just not wanted to commit to saying Green, but I’m not sure that’s a favourable number for them either. It’d very hard to know why people answer as they do from poll to poll, though. I suppose a Green optimist could hope there's been a surge from undecided to Labour at the same time as a smaller surge from Green to undecided.
So what else might happen? The potential for a close election and a change of government causes an unusually high turnout? Do the non-voters of recent elections mobilise, and if so how do they vote?
The latest Colmar-Brunton poll doesn't look nice for the Greens. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95896855/green-party-out-of-parliament-labour-surges-in-new-poll
It's could be a temporary dip or a margin of error thing, but whenever I see something like this, I wonder if the whole 5% thing in a poll must cause people to reconsider if they want to risk voting for a party that mightn't make it over.
Also, anyone with a reasonable lawyer on NZ legislation, and Barnaby Joyce's basic family history, could confirm as much info as DIA were ever going to provide.
The main important thing DIA might add is if Joyce had registered renunciation of his citizenship, but it was never going to because apparently everyone was merely asking hypothetical questions about imaginary people.