Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If however, by some horrid chance, a criminal, fascist aligned organization grew to any appreciable size in NZ, it would be perfectly possible for them to steal the ballots for an entire electorate, and work out how every individual in an electorate voted.
But I already told Act how I voted.
-
Some people actually want to ban that completely. I’m positing a slightly less drastic alternative.
Same effect in reality though. What political party is going to let someone run off the list to an electoral by-election, if it means they lose a seat in the house?
-
They don't "know" that. It's simply likely. But with 10% of the vote still to count, and a large proportion of that coming from the one group of people who represent the average sentiment in NZ least - people who are not living in NZ, it does actually seem premature to call an election that is extremely tight. What if all the Maori in Australia actually chuck Pita Sharples out? What if the Greens and NZF pick up a seat each at the expense of National?
If Greens and NZF both pick up a seat at National's expense then National-Act-United Future-Maori Party will have 63 seats to 58. Even if one of the Maori MPs lost their seat it'd be 62 - 58 (overhang disappears).
Five seats need to change hands for this coalition govt not to work. For that to happen about 90% of the special votes would have to not be for national. They also couldn't be for ACT of United Future.
It's not 'likely' it's electoral maths. We're just waiting to see if one seat shifts over, two if something really bizarre happens.
-
And, if the Maori Party do decide to rejoin National in government, what’s going to happen when (if?) Tariana and Pita step down during the term and we get by-elections for Te Tai Hauāuru and Tamaki Makaurau? The Maori Party really are between a rock and hard place.
That is an interesting point. I'm going to guess that at least one of them will be asked to wait until it's close enough to the election that there isn't a by-election.
But Prebble – with the protection of Parliamentary privilege – lost and then accused the Surveyor General of corruption. What an arsehole
But at least he was consistent about it. The arsehole that is.
He’s been picking the new Labour leader himself. All right “desperately” is overegging it. “Hopefully” is closer to true – because they surely can’t think the Maori Party so stupid as to enter serious negotiations until the numbers are actually known.
They quite happily met with him and then left the party leadership in further meetings with him a couple of days ago to get down to business. They know that at most National will lose one seat, no point waiting a fortnight to get that confirmed as it doesn't change anything significant as Dunne and Banks still get them the numbers that they need.
What might happen next time is National drop a few points making it very difficult for them to form a government without making a lot of concessions to a lot of parties who have more seats in parliament.
This is the problem for National in 2014 - coalition partners. All three of their current ones look in trouble, and they're going to find it hard to do a deal with NZ First.
-
And while I very much respect Brian Edwards, especially after what he has done for Phil Goff lately, ew.
That post is by Judy, not Brian.
-
I think Labour has to transform now. The union movement doesn’t justify its constitutional status in the party at the moment.
My union sent me a pamphlet from the CTU telling me how to vote - Labour/Greens, MMP.
Few things are more likely to make me vote some other way. Why the hell they didn't present a pamphlet with "here are relevant policies from all the major parties to do with employment and other major areas"? I don't mind being led to vote a particular way, I heartily object to being told how I should vote.
-
Yes, I am going to Wellington again next month...
I'm beginning to suspect that living in Christchurch is just a front for you :)
I’ll go out on a limb and say When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts was the most depressing four hours of dubiously legal viewing I’ve ever had.
I watched it back to back in a theatre. By hour three I was just numb from the pain. I don't know how anyone can do justice to a story that is that fucked up however.
-
(by which I mean, it feels like in effect they're resigning from parliament, being replaced from the list, and then winning the election and coming back into parliament. Except it all only happens if they win)
-
I’m thinking about whether there should be one in respect of list MPs who contest by-elections. I’m still forming my view, but my initial thinking is not to ban the practice, but to prohibit the replacement of the successful list MP as a list MP (i.e. Parliament would reduce in size by one list MP for the remainder of the term). Very interested in alternate views.
That would seem likely to prevent a list MP from ever running for a mid-term electorate position, I can't imagine why we'd want to do that.
Having them replaced by whoever was next on the list would seem to match best.
-
Everyone has been talking about requiring 61 to form a government. 62 surely, given the overhang and the need for a speaker?