And/or perhaps these folks;
James Shaw posts on their site;
How can they have meaningful data on this at all?
Yep, I asked myself the same question.
Here's the authors explanatory page about the book;
And the link on that page to the data sets on each NZ electorate;
How else do you explain the 10% drop??
This authors analysis suggests some of it was in part a move to TOP;
And that Labour’s vote increased predominantly from those who had previously voted National, Maori and NZ First;
And then the direct analysis of the Green vote is here;
Quite a strong rebuttal! But I would be very interested in any scientific polling of knowledge of MMP.
Certainly not scientific, but over many years I've gained a bit of anecdotal understanding as I teach bachelor degree candidates in both the humanities and the sciences on the history of environmental law in New Zealand.
I find very little is understood about the origins and progress of the concept of democracy, and even less about the form of our own Parliamentary democracy - and even less again about how laws are made and amended. And that's before I even get to anything to do with our electoral system (which I don't get into because I'm not teaching core civics - I'm just trying to provide some context to law making and the inputs from civil society that have shaped environmental law).
To my mind, civics education is desperately needed here. Civics is not politics - two different subjects to my mind. Civics is about forms of governance and public participation in decision-making; whereas politics is about ideological expressions/premises.
Youtube clip of Fox and Flavell singing’ Santa Baby’ in the house ….deleted as it didn’t appear to load proper…
Here you go;
that the MP seems to represent folk at the…better heeled end of the spectrum. Like the Treaty settlements…there’s not a lot of trickle down to the plebs in the iwi.
Tama Iti made this point this morning on Marae and Hone's made the same point on a number of occasions. My stomach turned when I read the covenants Ngai Tahu put on their Wigram Skies residential subdivision;
A more blatant initiative towards exclusionary design criteria (as a means to 'hold up' land and build prices to keep those in need out) would be hard to find.
But when you’re out of material and have to get to print, you rerun old stories.
Having just watched Winston’s media conference (or onslaught), I am now officially “relaxed” about the negotiations. If NZF can support Labour on confidence and supply only, I’m fine with that.
But if he wants to be a Minister, National can have him.
Have you read the headlines recently? No wonder he treats the media with disdain:
Hail Caesar – calling the tune with just 7½%
Tyrant, Tyranny, Tyrannised
It is not treachery to hanker for the certainty of FPP
English and Ardern should not sit around waiting for more than a fortnight for Mr 7½ per cent to decide when he is ready to play ball
The megalomaniac reigns all over National’s parade
You need to read this to get the full flavour of the vitriol
What he said in that press conference was that he’s waiting for the full vote count. What could be wrong with that?
That’s hard to square with her suddenly claiming she trusts and respects Peters.
Why do you say that? He proved himself trustworthy with the Clark/Cullen administration.
No one is talking about it - so I'll add it to the mix.
Winston Peters as Prime Minister - Ardern and Shaw as co-Deputy PMs and first time Ministers in the portfolio(s) of their choosing, with the balance of Ministerial portfolios distributed on a proportional basis.
In other words, the real kind of change that the majority of NZers voted for and MMP at its collaborative finest.
NZ just fell for it.
It doesn’t feel that way to me. The swing was most certainly toward Labour. The Nats (and their coalition partners) were the biggest losers to my mind.
One of the best statements made on election night was, David Parker I think – who pointed out that Jacinda was the only Prime Ministerial candidate who came out with her integrity intact.