Hard News: Madness in Mt Albert
328 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
The government has a majority with ACT alone (63/122 seats). If the Nats won Mt Albert, that wouldn't change (they'd have 64/122 seats).
The size of the majority would increase by one, but it wouldn't give them the ability to rule alone or anything.
A National victory would mean that they could govern/pass laws etc. with just an ACT abstention. At present, National needs support from Peter Dunne in addition to an ACT abstention to get things done.
-
A National victory would mean that they could govern/pass laws etc. with just an ACT abstention. At present, National needs support from Peter Dunne in addition to an ACT abstention to get things done.
Oh, wow. So a National victory would make A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE ...
Has anyone else worked this out? It seems germane.
-
full praise to the irony;
There's an extra bonus for our household: our older boy, who turned 18 earlier this year, gets to vote for the first time in his life. That's more important to me than a Wellington gotcha.
-
Mikaere said:
IMO, it would be useful for the Greens to start targetting potentially winnable seats, and Mt Albert will serve as a key learning exercise in this regard. Winning and holding an electorate seat may be key to the Green's survival in the future, especially if National succeed in wrecking MMP.
Yes, the electorate seats have been a lifeline for minor parties (Peters, Dunne, Hide, Anderton etc).
But here's the thing. No "minor" party candidate has gained (as opposed to defected and then held) a General seat from National/Labour against the wishes of said major party since Sandra Lee in Auckland Central, 1993. (Maori seats are a different story, of course).
The single electorate rule helps long-term incumbents (Greens have none) and those prepared to make tacit deals with the NatLabs (as in Epsom). It's a shame that NZ's version of MMP has developed this feature, but there it is. Without a nod and a wink, breaking the FPP-style stranglehold on electorates is a huge task for the Greens.
If they weren't so damned principled, they'd be better off encouraging potential party-hoppers ... ;)
-
stephen walker chastised me (gently) by saying:
nobody needs to stand aside. quite a few people on this thread have said that all parties should give it their best shot. so it is annoying when someone suggests that the Greens might need to stand back while the Big Boys fight it out--stand aside so as not to let National win by "splitting the vote".
I should explain I was partly responding to the comment up-thread by Gary Rawnsley which was:
It probably make senses for Labour to help gift the Greens an electorate to try and get the latter an insurance policy akin to Act's Epsom. Perhaps Rongotai when Annette King retires?
I don't think Gary is claiming to speak for the Greens but I've had conversations with Green members over several years where some sort of deal has been actively sort. I don't think the Greens can have it both ways; seek a deal in one instance and resent the suggestion in another.
-
I don't particularly mind parties making deals with each other.
I just don't think the result of this election is significant enough to matter.
Greens in/out of parliament at an election, 5 MPs on the coattails of an electorate win, that's significant. Sure, Labour pushing their candidate to the back for the good of a coalition winning the election, no problem.
A bi-election where if National win what's been a safe labour seat for umpteen years, they get one more to add to their coalition majority which is already very solid... not particularly important except for the people involved. The parties should go at it in a vaguely civilised manner, it'll be interesting to see how the Greens go and if National can get close to/topple Labour.
-
@Paul:
i totally agree. the Greens should target the electorates they think are winnable and not rely on someone else standing aside. just like Labour should not yell "you bastards split the vote!!!" if they happen to lose Mt. Albert.(btw, blaming the ALCP in 2005 for costing the Greens a seat i also think is bs, and blaming Nader for Gore's loss to Bush is pathetic...)
-
they get one more to add to their coalition majority which is already very solid... not particularly important except for the people involved
I think the legislative advantage outlined by Graeme isn't trivial. It would genuinely strengthen National's hand.
But perhaps I should downgrade my VERY BIG DIFFERENCE to a QUITE BIG DIFFERENCE ...
;-)
-
bi-election
THIS we should totally do.
I don't think the Greens can have it both ways; seek a deal in one instance and resent the suggestion in another.
Those may, in fact, be two different kinds of people who happen to support the same party, not one group changing their opinion when it suits them. I do say 'may' here.
-
On deals: the stars have to be aligned too.
Hide won his seat because Don Brash was clearly sympathetic to ACT. National's voters in Epsom were asked to take a small step for their party, not a giant leap of faith for mankind.
You can't tell voters what to do (e.g. the Ron Mark Rimutaka fantasy last time). Curse the people, they get ornery when poked.
-
<quote>Those may, in fact, be two different kinds of people who happen to support the same party, not one group changing their opinion when it suits them. I do say 'may' here.
<quote>Fair point, and I should add that the discussions have reflected various times and circumstances and have not been at senior levels.
-
THIS we should totally do.
Wasn't that a different Auckland electorate??
-
You can't tell voters what to do (e.g. the Ron Mark Rimutaka fantasy last time). Curse the people, they get ornery when poked.
I think Mark Thomas, National candidate for Wellington Central in 1996, may beg to differ. Wellington's National voters appear very compliant.
-
Paul, everybody was playing with a new toy in 1996. Results were all over the place (e.g. the Christian Coalition). And Wellington Central is another country. They do things differently there.
*runs and hides from the PA Public Service Posse*
-
Breaking News! National's by-election hopes dashed!
-
Hide won his seat because Don Brash was clearly sympathetic to ACT.
Having a dodgy incumbent Nat MP probably helped too.
-
And Wellington Central is another country.
What did Prebble used to say, the smartest electorate in the country?
-
Hide won his seat because Don Brash was clearly sympathetic to ACT.
Having a dodgy incumbent Nat MP probably helped too.
Yes. He's not otherwise known as "Richard Worthless" in my flat for nothing.
-
THIS we should totally do.
Heh. Can I blame Freud?
-
I just read the Harold piece on Michael Cullen's valedictory speech . Clair Trevett quoted him as saying.
"a hatred of poverty - not of wealth, to which, within reason, we can all aspire - but of poverty with its grinding degradation and fundamental fairness".
Weheras what he actually said was
...............and fundamental unfairness".
So, are we to believe that Ms Trevett has the slightest understanding of the diference between Labour and National?.
-
Weheras??
What the hell....
GRRRRR edit button
Where as...... -
What did Prebble used to say, the smartest electorate in the country?
To which he was eventually proven right in 1999.
-
To which he was eventually proven right in 1999.
I agree entirely.
-
That's what I have a problem with, and its what some labour supporters seem to be implicitly demanding.
I imagine that what most people who oppose National are worried about is a National win in Mt Albert. If this is what you use your vote to avoid, then it helps if you can count.
-
By the way I've just voted for PA on the Net Guide web awards
Post your response…
This topic is closed.