Hard News: Democracy Night
773 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
Christopher Dempsey, in reply to
Laws against that kind of thing surely?
The same laws that apply to finding female parliamentarians 'babes'. I am here simply equalising the power of straight men to transform female politicians into babes - if they can do it, I can transform male politicians into studs.
The one thing the MPs I have met have never persuaded me of is their “hotness” quotient.
You are correct to a large extent, but as with all things, there are exceptions. Nathan and Chris are hot. (am trying to think of other hot male MPs...)
-
Yeh Josh, but where does Kaye stand on returning cricket to Eden Park number 2 and test cricket in general to Auckland?
I think these should be equally important issues to village greens supporters
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Although apparently the iPredict one got it right.
It's the only indicator I've paid much heed to during the campaign. The reason it's more accurate is pretty obvious - it takes considerably more information into account than polls do. It uses all the polls, and all of the news, and every other little tidbit that can give a tiny trading advantage to people who actually have money at stake, rather than more nebulous stuff like reputations.
because I think that getting rid of Nikki Kaye would have sent a really important message to National about a certain rail project.
I am a bit dubious about the advantages of improved rail to Auckland Central residents. Most of them either live within a painless walk, bike ride, bus ride or car trip from the city, or actually live in the city itself. Or they live on Waiheke, which will never ever be connected by rail to the city. It's one of the only electorates that doesn't really have much to gain. Even the North Shore suburbs would gain from the pressure that rail would take off the road infrastructure they rely on.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
The situation with ACT now is pretty messed-up.
My understanding is that the ACT support-base is mostly aligned with classical liberal/Libertarian positions represented by the likes of Stephen Whittington.
Meanwhile, their one representative in parliament is John Banks, homophobe.ACT supporters have become irrelevant, because their representative is elected by Nats in Epsom.
However fucked up this is, I do have to say that the comeback to it is so damned obvious that it's not clear why Labour haven't done it yet. They should do the exact same thing in a relatively safe Labour seat. Mt Albert, for instance, could stand some old faithful Labourite, perhaps some old guard with a big name and a history of being typical of the party in every way, running for the Lab0ur party, a completely different party to Labour in the register, and then either instruct voters to install that person, or not even run against them. They would be tied completely to Labour. Not a defector, but perhaps a retiree, with a well known name.
Yes, it's a perversion of the intent of the system, but so is what's happening in Epsom, time after time.
There would, in fact, be nothing to stop them doing this in many safe seats. In fact, they could stand in no electorate seats at all, leaving them entirely to the Lab0ur party, thus picking up an overhang as big as their entire electorate membership. Every single Labour voter could split their vote Lab0ur/Labour and get twice the voting power.
I pose this strategy as a simple thought experiment to show what I think is most fucked about MMP - the electorates are still FPP. Only the Epsom voters get it, and the rest of the country complains about how unfair it is. The complaints might get a lot more attention if Labour started playing the game too. Obviously the Nats would play it too, they would have no scruples, indeed they have been playing it with ACT for some time now.
Then, it might finally make it clear to the dickheads running this country that MMP does need to be reformed, and it should be done in a way that is fair. Thresholds should be removed, and electorate seats should be proportional (I'd go for an STV type system, ideally). That is the only way that these bullshit tricks can be stopped.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Hebe, I don’t know how to put it politely, but I don’t think you have a very good grasp of the Christchurch Labour Party’s views on the Greens.
Hey, Keir, for all you know they were having the meetings on how to steal our rightful Labour votes back from those crazy Greens when we were out of the room. It's possible, right?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Craig, a former National supporter
Oh, I still am but, I'd like to think, just not a mindless elect-bot. I don't want anyone, even the right people, having unbound power. I've also said more than once, that as a citizen rather than a partisan I also need a strong opposition no matter what tint the government is - our democracy works best when the government of the day is most strongly checked and balanced.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Oh, I still am but, I’d like to think, just not a mindless elect-bot. I don’t want anyone, even the right people, having unbound power. I’ve also said more than once, that as a citizen rather than a partisan I also need a strong opposition no matter what tint the government is – our democracy works best when the government of the day is most strongly checked and balanced.
+1. I was thinking about it the other day, and even as a Labour member/supporter I'd much prefer a coalition government where Labour did have to negotiate seriously to pass bills to an outright - or even close to an outright - majority. I think it makes for better laws and more serious debate. Any government being able to do whatever they want without having to consult anyone else is a recipe for Very Bad Things. Even if it starts off well, inevitably some issue will come along that they'll screw up.
-
So, about that negotiation. Are we picking more or less (ab)use of urgency during this term?
Tracy Watkins love-fest for the return of Key has the bold opinion that 48% of the vote means you can do whatever you like, and bolsters that by claiming that broad asset sales and beneficiary bashing don’t constitute a lurch to the right.
I’m going to guess that because so many (although not a majority) of the people voted for them, their overwhelming use of urgency to pass bills without debate is just going to be classed as “Giving the majority of New Zealanders what they asked for at the election”.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Hey, Keir, for all you know they were having the meetings on how to steal our rightful Labour votes back from those crazy Greens when we were out of the room. It’s possible, right?
It's probably a moot point, because here's where Burns is putting the blame now:
The exodus of thousands of eligible voters following the September, February and June earthquakes had played a part in the result but he was hopeful of winning the seat on special votes.
"We have, by my calculation, 4586 fewer voters this election compared with in 2008."
He said the loss of those voters had affected his preliminary tally more than Wagner's, because they were likely to have come from Labour heartland areas such as Richmond, Shirley, and the inner city east from Barbadoes St across.
Wow. Even if he's right (and I don't know if that's the case), one might think it's a little tone deaf to be talking about red flight. (One could also note with some asperity that Lianne Dalziel & Ruth Dyson are taking their still-healthy-but-reduced majorities well. Also would have picked Megan Woods' majority in Wigram being larger than it turned out, but still.)
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Wow. Even if he’s right (and I don’t know if that’s the case), one might think it’s a little tone deaf to be talking about red flight.
Why?
-
DexterX, in reply to
Yes, it's a perversion of the intent of the system, but so is what's happening in Epsom, time after time.
It is also what happened in Waitakere this time and almost worked in removing Paula Bennett, if it had worked would that have been a perversion?.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Tracy Watkins love-fest for the return of Key has the bold opinion that 48% of the vote means you can do whatever you like
Key called it "a huge majority" on Morning Report today. I really wish he wouldn't do that.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Why?
Because I know too many damn people who’ve lost their homes, businesses and are facing a future that could most charitably be described as on a dimmer. A lot have stayed, and good on them; but others have left and it’s been terribly painful. And yes, Mr Burns, that includes a fair number of Tories.
The dead heat in Christchurch Central is one hell of an election night WTF, and I certainly don’t envy Burns and Wagner the uneasy nights sleep they’ll be having until the final is declared. But it would have just been a little classy of Burns not to bring red flight into it.
Key called it “a huge majority” on Morning Report today. I really wish he wouldn’t do that.
But we can agree on that - "largest share of the party vote in any MMP election" is enough of an achievement, and has the added benefit of being precise. Also, to be bloody minded about it, the National-led government (with ACT & UF) has a majority but not a huge one.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The dead heat in Christchurch Central is one hell of an election night WTF, but it would have just been a little classy of Burns not to bring red flight into it.
And you'll give him a good lecture about it from Auckland?
After all those suburbs have been through, I'm pretty sure they can stand Burns making a demographic observation that is likely to be true.
-
But if you really want to nit-pick, Key could more accurately, if inelegantly, say National scored "a huge plurality" of the party vote on Saturday night - 21 points clear of the next largest bloc. :)
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
And you’ll give him a good lecture about it from Auckland?
Thanks, Russell. I guess I'm also geo-blocked from saying I wish Nikki Wagner would stop saying the result is, in large part, some shining endorsement of National's post-#eqnz actions. It may also be perfectly true, but am damn near certain Emma, David H. and a number of other PAS-ers up and down the country would demand to differ.
I'm also shocked to find myself saying this: The usually class-free zone that is Clayton Cosgrove played it right on Morning Report. Congratulated Kate Wilkinson on a strong campaign, but he'd just wait until the specials were all counted.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Also, to be bloody minded about it, the National-led government (with ACT & UF) has a majority but not a huge one.
That's not bloody-minded, it's true. That's why John Key gets to form a government. But National didn't win "a huge majority", or a majority at all. Stonking plurality, yes, majority no.
Turning on the radio to hear the Prime Minister again apparently not knowing what words mean was vaguely dispiriting this morning.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Turning on the radio to hear the Prime Minister again apparently not knowing what words mean was vaguely dispiriting this morning.
You listened? What if it was a private conversation? ;-)
-
Lilith __, in reply to
But it would have just been a little classy of Burns not to bring red flight into it.
There was some research done for the Canty Health Board into post-disaster demographics that found the most likely to move were poorer people, who aren’t as firmly tied to property or work. So I think this was fair comment.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Turning on the radio to hear the Prime Minister again apparently not knowing what words mean was vaguely dispiriting this morning.
Be fair, Russell - he was probably disorientated by the new experience of appearing live on Morning Report. :)
-
BlairMacca, in reply to
Key called it “a huge majority” on Morning Report today. I really wish he wouldn’t do that.
Oh, NOW he decides to go on Morning Report....
-
All the talk about 'huge majorities' is making me wonder whether I can't see the numbers on my screen properly. A quick analogy - Key scores 48 points for his side (Nat, Act, UF) to take them to a total of 49.7 points (51 if you add in the Maori Party) while the other team (Everyone else) scored 50.3 (or 49). That's great individual result for Key but ...
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I can’t see the numbers on my screen properly.
Plus the turnout was only 74 percent.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I am a bit dubious about the advantages of improved rail to Auckland Central residents. Most of them either live within a painless walk, bike ride, bus ride or car trip from the city, or actually live in the city itself. Or they live on Waiheke, which will never ever be connected by rail to the city. It's one of the only electorates that doesn't really have much to gain.
Ideologically, you realise that makes it first cab off the rank. Or first tram, as it were. Rich folk need choice as well as reward.
-
BlairMacca, in reply to
All the talk about ‘huge majorities’ is making me wonder whether I can’t see the numbers on my screen properly. A quick analogy – Key scores 48 points for his side (Nat, Act, UF) to take them to a total of 49.7 points (51 if you add in the Maori Party) while the other team (Everyone else) scored 50.3 (or 49). That’s great individual result for Key but …
Im not making excuses, my guys got routed. But, the government as a whole, actually lost seats. National gained 2 seats, Maori lost one (two if you count Hone), Act lost 4. Thats a net loss for the government of 4 seats. Plus on specials National, after all that could only gain 1 seat.
The difference being this time is the wasted vote is very small with NZ First being back. Sure its a strong government, but if National drops back over the next term (very likely) things will get whole lot harder for them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.