Speaker: The Government lost the election
166 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Mr Mark, in reply to
2014 New Zealand Election Study
Party or Electorate vote more important ?Party vote more important 56%
(2011 = 42%) (2005 = 58%)Equally important 25%
(2011 = 38%) (2005 = 30%)Electorate vote more important 10%
(2011 = 9%) (2005 = 6%)Don't know 10%
(2011 = 12%) (2005 = 6%) -
linger, in reply to
That’s disturbing, and certainly supports a need for public education, though to be fair, “importance” is a value judgement with more than one dimension, and even in the intended narrow sense of “importance for determining makeup of Parliament” may depend on local circumstances. In 2014, voters in at least four electorates key to potentially including minor parties (Internet-Mana/Maori/UF/ACT) might legitimately have considered their electorate vote more important than their party vote in terms of its possible effect on makeup of Parliament.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Wellington high, I believe, Is reasonable about running the school as a democracy. But there are plenty of secondary schools that are are way out of alignment with how our society operates.
not to mention universities. from conception most universities have had democratic impulses - being run by communities of scholars. alas, no more. the corporate university has no time for such niceties.
-
dirty politics keeps on unwinding https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/04/51558/whaleoil-ex-mp-pr-man-to-face-jury-trial
this is a key moment: good chance the paid character assassination gets a thorough exposure to sunlight. -
izogi, in reply to
I think there's a reasonable argument for lowering the voting age if it were to mean that many people's first election was when they were still in a school environment.
-
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
if it were to mean that many people's first election was when they were still in a school environment
got to eliminate the charter schools first then!
-
nzlemming, in reply to
dirty politics keeps on unwinding
Worth it for the photo caption :-D
-
Fran O'Sullivan confirms business interests have been campaigning post-election for a Nats+Greens 'teal deal'.
-
andin, in reply to
business interests have been campaigning
When the societal scales have been tilted in your favour for what seems like at least 3 centuries with very occasional rebalancing. It gets to the point where those who have benefitted think they have a monopoly the way society is organised. But right at the moment, they need to seriously pull their head in and navel-gaze for a while. Their agenda should be considered of minor concern, very minor.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Fran O’Sullivan confirms business interests have been campaigning post-election for a Nats+Greens ‘teal deal’.
Let's wait til 'business interests' campaign to ax the tax cuts, cut back the RONs, bring on a carbon tax, and put the money into climate change initiatives. Then (maybe - if we accept poverty in a land of plenty as just fine) there could be talks. But I'm betting it will never ever happen.
-
stever@cs.waikato.ac.nz, in reply to
Pressure is now on the Greens from business allies to shift base
I'd be really interested to know who these business allies of the Greens are, and what shifts they want.
And if they are allies of the Greens, why pressure them to go with the Nats and not Labour?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Let's wait til 'business interests' campaign to ax the tax cuts, cut back the RONs, bring on a carbon tax, and put the money into climate change initiatives. Then (maybe - if we accept poverty in a land of plenty as just fine) there could be talks. But I'm betting it will never ever happen.
While O'Sullivan claims that "Pressure is now on the Greens from business allies to shift base", she's predictably coy as to who these allies might be. If the legendary bluegreens had demonstrable substance beyond their ongoing political unicorn status I'm sure that Kennedy Graham would have been rapidly reinstated weeks ago. Instead events have removed any doubt that he's anything other than the mildly charming stuffed shirt who's done sweet FA in his time with the Party beyond providing a token don't-frighten-the-chooks candidacy in Gerry Brownlee's fiefdom.
-
Sacha, in reply to
who these business allies of the Greens are
Not sure where you got that quote from but it wasn't me.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Not sure where you got that quote from but it wasn't me.
It's from the story you provided a link to - third line from the end.
-
Sacha, in reply to
sorry, hadn't spotted that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
who these business allies of the Greens are
Nearest organisation I can think of would be the Sustainable Development Council. Here's their pre-election wishlist (1.8MB PDF). Nothing on their website about the Green party though.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
And/or perhaps these folks;
http://pureadvantage.org/about/
James Shaw posts on their site;
http://pureadvantage.org/news/2017/09/19/vision-plan-net-zero-carbon-economy-2050/
-
tussock, in reply to
Uh, just to note, a lot of people's Electorate Votes are more important than their Party Vote, certainly in previous elections, the representation of the Māori Party, Mana Party, United Future, and ACT were dependant on them winning electorate seats for most of their existence.
Few less this time, but their lack of representation also comes down to people's Electorate Votes (the Labour-Green electorate deal got rid of United Future, for instance).
I'm not sure it's 10% of people in that situation, but given that 96% of people who answer surveys agree they are not already dead while doing so, it's probably close enough. As long as we have the 5% threshold, some people's electorate votes will remain more important than their party vote.
Your electorate vote is also important for getting a local MP who isn't a terrible person sometimes, which might be a nice thing for some people.
-
linger, in reply to
Agree entirely. Thought I’d made the same points, actually (perhaps too obliquely?): (i) that in some electorates (equating to ~5% of voters in 2014) the “right” answer was indeed that the electorate vote was more “important” (where it determined whether one of four minor parties would be included at all); and (ii) there were other possible reasons for thinking the electorate vote at least as “important” — such as the one you state: wanting a local representative who’s not a total douchetard. Though that’s more complex: depending on list rankings and overall party vote share, it might not matter how you cast your electorate vote, both the aforementioned douchetard and your preferred representative might still get in.
(…Hm, douchetard … is that a word? meh, should be… :-)
But regarding (ii): if the context of the question defined “important” more narrowly, then, even given (i), about 30% of the responses would arguably be wrong. -
linger, in reply to
buggrit, ran out of editing time:
wrong
in the sense of showing incomplete understanding of the system.
["Don't know" responses presumably should be included in that category.] -
Virtually every commentator in the country has been calling the two seat transfer from special votes, but Audrey Young is shocked... Shocked, I tell you.
Was there ever a scenario where National somehow gained seats? Only in Audrey's imagination or some bizarre alternative universe.
To be fair, the story doesn't match the headline. But that didn't stop the Herald running this nonsense as the lead story on their site.
-
Footnote: as expected, not enough nett swing to change the result in the Māori electorates. The specials instead further favoured Labour candidates, except in Te Tai Hauāuru, where Adrian Paki Rurawhe's majority over Howie Tamati decreased slightly (to just 1,039). That's how agonisingly close they came to getting in; and if they had, they were only just under the party vote level required for two seats.
-
simon g, in reply to
Unfair on Audrey Young. Her summary is factual and fair, it's just filtered through the weekend kids at the Herald online.
It really is an embarrassingly bad website. Errors abound, every day.
-
’old codger’ exposes himself on radio!
Newstalk ZB host Leighton Smith called Jacinda Ardern a “chicky babe” during a broadcast on Wednesday.
Smith was discussing one-on-one coalition talks between the Labour Party leader and her New Zealand First counterpart Winston Peter, which took place on Tuesday evening.
Shortly after the 8.30am news, he invited listeners to imagine how the private discussions between the 72-year-old Peters and the 37-year-old Ardern unfolded.
"How do you think the meeting between Winston and Jacinda was? What do you think?" Smith said.
"Here's a guy of 72 with a 37-year-old chicky babe."Leighton Smith (born 1946 – ie he’s 71) fantasises about NZF/Labour negotiations and reveals more about himself than anything useful – also says a lot about his employers/enablers as well – might be time to let Mr Smith out to pasture – even send him back to Australia…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/98023842/newstalk-zb-host-leighton-smith-calls-jacinda-ardern-chicky-babe -
Labour coalition govt - yeehah - so far so good!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.