Minor Parties
March 31st, 2008 at 8:27 am by David FarrarNZPA reports on the minor parties debate held on TVNZ’s Channel 7 yesterday. Winston refused to take part as he thinks he isn’t a minor party. Well Winnie, you got 1.1% in the latest poll – can’t get much more minor than that.
The positions of the minor parties on post-election support is interesting:
- Maori Party says they will consult with members after the election, but said could not support National if retained policy of abolishing Maori seats. My reading of this, is that they would require that policy to be dumped as one of the prices of support after the election, not that having that policy pre-election is fatal in itself (esp as the Maori Party entered negotiations after 2005 with National despite similar policy)
- Greens will declare before the election who they support, based on policies. This will be Labour. What will be interesting is if they rule out say abstaining on supply and confidence for National in return for suitable policy concessions
- United Future says it will negotiate first with the largest party
- NZ First a couple of weeks agao also said it will negotiate first with the largest party
- ACT indicated it would back National, but a bottom line would be removal of the 39c tax rate. That is a very cunning demand, which I may blog on separately at some stage
- Progressives say they will back Labour
So what you effectively have is Greens and Progressive backing Labour, ACT backing National, NZ First and United Future giving preference to the largest party, and the Maori Party genuinely swinging.
The decisions (which are unchanged from 2005) for United Future and NZ First to give first preference to the largest party, makes things very hard for Labour. You see while it is quite plausible that National’s gap over Labour may drop to say 7%or 8%, making it plus the Greens approx equal to National, it is highly highly unlikely that Labour will actually get more seats than National. And NZF and UFNZ have said they will give preference t the largest party not the largest bloc.
So in reality Labour (including Progressive) only have the Greens and maybe the Maori Party to make it over 60 seats.
Ironically their best chance of making it, is for NZ First not to be there. If NZ First get knocked out, then their vote is effectively redistributed proportionally to the parties which do qualify. If NZ First do make it, then it is very very hard for Labour to get to 61 seats with just the Greens and Maori Party (who are far from certain anyway).
The other irony is that it is arguably in National’s interest for NZ First to stay in Parliament.
Related posts:
- The minor parties and the Internet
- The honest minor parties
- Do minor parties do better in the election campaign?
- The minor parties
March 31st, 2008 at 8:34 am
The Nats have no intention of dealing to race based seats in the next three years and therefore would fit Sharples proviso.
Why does Anderton continue to maintain the charade of a separate party to Labour?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 8:48 am
Radvad – maybe Andertons ego is as big as Winstons, hes just not as big of an arsehole about it.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 8:53 am
So this is MMP
Minority parties who barely register 5% – blackmailing the major parties, who in turn have to accept their outrageous demands if they want to form a government. (And then look bad when they do)
I believe the minor parties (those with less than 5% of the vote) should have to vote as a block in parliament.
NZ First, United, Act etc, should have to come to an agreement to vote a certain way issue by issue, there is no way they should be able to hold the country to ransom with their childish behaviour. Let’s face it they are only there because they have had a falling out with a major party at some point in the past, and have an electorate seat.
And the largest minor party should have to form a confidence and supply arrangement with the largest party. FULL STOP
I am tired of elections, where you don’t know the outcome until weeks after you have voted, and then we get to see the parties perform a sick type of courtship dance, to decide who governs our country.
I believe a democracy should at least deliver your government on the night, even the Americans manage that most of the time.
MMP is a farce – WHO STOLE OUR DEMOCRACY?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 8:58 am
Democracymum, as an ACT voter are you telling me that my vote should be appropriated by some Green with your minor party bloc-vote idea? And that that’s more democratic? That just seems weird to me.
Democracy is about the most accurate expression of what the people want, not the quickest formation of a government post-election.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 8:59 am
Got a better idea democracymum?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:01 am
NZ First and United Future will negotiate firstly with whichever party receives the most votes.
When outrageous demands are made as the price for coalition, either party will negotiate with the second highest polling.
“firstly” does not mean “exclusively”, or even “in good faith”.
MMP will continue to deliver Labour-led Governments.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:02 am
democracymum: MMP is a farce – WHO STOLE OUR DEMOCRACY?
True. I intensely dislike the idea that a party getting 5% of the vote decides who governs the nation. In effect it is not New Zealanders casting their vote, but that single block of 5% MPs. Like flipping a bloody coin.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Single transferable Vote
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:06 am
Winston Peters said that he would also look to the party with the most votes, so it remains to be seen what he`ll do if the party with the most votes does not get the most seats. And if National says it wont scrap the Maori seats in the next Parliamentary term, that may fit in with the Maori Party’s policy in the interim. Act can support National if it scraps the top tax rate – and replaces it with a 38 percent tax rate.
So it is possible that the Maori party and Act can support a National Government – provided Douglas is not in cabinet.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am
STV results in people choosing candidates, not parties; why would any party support it? I like it; it works wonderfully in another country where I have citizenship [Ireland] but would Labour and National accept it?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
pushmepullu
As much as I am a big supporter of Rodney Hide, I do believe that parties under 5% should have to block vote.
This would reduce the disproportionate amount of power that MMP gives them.
Voting together, they would act like another party,
Last election Winston should have and did go with Labour at 5.7%
Having to provide supply and confidence, would also reduce his bargaining power
This was the makeup of the other minor parties
Greens 5.3%
United Future 2.6%
Maori 2.1%
Act 1.5%
Anderton 1.1%
Altogether these parties only accounted for 12.6% of the vote
Even together they barely constitute another party
MMP unfairly tips the balance of power towards the minor parties,
my suggestion to
1) Make it compulsory for the largest minor party to provide confidence and supply
2) For other parties to block vote
in my opinion redresses the balance of power!
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:15 am
The Kiwi Party is ahead of United Future in the latest poll and equal to where ACT was in the last poll. How high will will they have to go before they will get a fair go?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10500861
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:15 am
The other irony is that it is arguably in National’s interest for NZ First to stay in Parliament.”
That’s not so much irony as the prisoner’s dilemma!
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:15 am
As far as I am concerned, this is a FPP election this year, and there is a plain and simple choice. If you want to get rid of Labour, the only way to do it is to party vote National. That way, the minor parties will remain just that, and not get a bloated view of their self-importance.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:17 am
MMP and Political Correctness is Marxism with a Smiley Face .It is a disease and Liberalism is a mental disorder. Is it any wonder our country, a tiny Nation CANNOT sort its SHIT OUT? Funking idiots the whole lot of them !!
PC + MMP = INSANITY.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:18 am
Single Transferable Vote
I suspect the Nats will be pragmatic about the Maori seats and just acknowledge that over the fullness of time they wont be needed with Maori themselves deciding when to let them go. We are seeing Maori realise that Labour have used them for decades and they have become politically active in their own right and using their own voices. This will increase to the point where they are strong enoung and established enough to go it alone.
The danger the Nats face is NZers offshore supporting The Greens. I doubt those voters are aware that the Greens here are not like the Greens in Europe. A big mailout campaign and billboards in the UK is needed…..
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:26 am
Iv2 – “If you want to get rid of Labour…..”
I’m not so much concerned with getting rid of Labour as I am concerned with changing the direction of our government and country. I will not be content with more of the same but under a blue banner. So I humbly suggest you are wrong Iv2. Giving your party vote to ACT will change the government still but it will provide some backbone and policy direction to an otherwise bereft-of-their-own-ideas National party.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:33 am
radvad … re why Jimbo stays as the leader of the Progressives rather than just folding it into Labour … IIRC don’t leaders of parties get higher allowances than everyday MPs? So there may be a simple commercial incentive to stay standalone. But, just as importantly to attention-seeking politicos, if Jimbo folded into Labour he’d get a lot less media attention. Just look at last nights TV7 deal, Jim got an invite because he’s the head of a minor party rather than because he’s an MP.
Where I come from we call it the “King of Tonga syndrome” … lots of people would rather be the King of Tonga than the Duke of Westminster.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:40 am
Re the general sentiment that MMP stole my baby … I always feel that SMP never got a fair deal. With SMP (Supplementary Member Proportional) there’d be the current arrangement of electorate and list seats as we have today. But the parties list vote would only be applied to the list seats.
So if the Greens get 6% of the list vote then they get 6% of the 50 list seats. If National win 38 of the electorate seats and 42% of the list vote then they get 59 seats (38 + 42% of 50).
If I had the info I’d run the numbers to see how SMP would have changed the composition of the House in the last few elections. I suspect the Nats would have won the 2005 election under SMP.
SMP ensures that small parties are represented. But it also ensures that large parties which attract strong electorate and list support get a larger share of the House. I suspect that in practise SMP would mean that the major parties wouldn’t get a majority on election night, but would only have to deal with one or two minor parties, not a panopoly of small tyrants.
Why didn’t SMP get the nod ahead of MMP? I think Rod Donald saw that the Greens biggest chance was clearly going to be under MMP and he mounted a very effective campaign to get MMP selected in the referendum. I admire him for his political achievement, but I do think it’s hurting us as a country.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:45 am
MMP did steal democracy. Yes, it’s helped get a much more representative House, but the disproportionate amount of power it gives to tiny parties is bad for the country and basically un-democratic IMHO. Select Committees were supposed to provide a level of balance and oversight and under Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s ideal working model of MMp but I don’t think they work very well this way at all.
I still think STV and an Upper House would be the way to go.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:57 am
So democracymum, when I voted ACT in 2005 the hope of getting rid of Helen, you’re unhappy about the fact that the politicians who got into parliament with my anti-Helen vote didn’t vote supply and confidence for Helen’s government? You think it’s democratic that they voted against a party their voters wanted to bring down? That’s really interesting.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:00 am
virtualmark – Labour would have had more seats than National under Supplementary Member following the 2005 election. The two parties got the same number of electorate seats, and Labour got more party votes, giving them an extra list MP (maybe two).
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am
an actite..’building bridges’ with national…
“…Giving your party vote to ACT will change the government still..
..but it will provide some backbone and policy direction to an otherwise bereft-of-their-own-ideas National party..”
(heh-heh..!..’trouble in paradise’..?..luvvies..?..)
i reckon the tensions between national and act will be one of the main (fun!) stories of this upcoming election..
‘smiling john’..with (‘scary’) ‘grumpy wodger’ looking over his shoulder/standing behind/ ‘standing-over’ him..
(double heh-heh..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Stephen Got a better idea . Well actually Yes Abolish political parties Individuals only to stand in 60 seats . FPP voting in each seat.
Local representation by local resident pollies for local resident voters.
Stuff the charade we have at present These people dont represent us They represent their party who represent minority power and pressure groups.
Corrupt behind the scenes dealings to defeat the wishes of the citizens and ensure the power elite stays in power. Command control of the masses by the few.
Government The enemy of the people
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Gee, the anti MMP crowd are out in force these days. There are two problems here:
1. We got MMP to deal with the fact that National and Labour took our votes for granted, because we had nowhere else to go. A consequence of a wider set of views being represented in parliament is that those views also get exercised. To me it is like the mortgage stress bleating – we all care that housing is unaffordable, but we don’t want our own house price to drop. We all care that some views aren’t represented in parliament, then we complain when those views actually have a say.
2. National and Labour could squash the minors any time they wanted by forming a “grand coalition.” Or even an agreement on certain uncontroversial legislation, so that the minors didn’t get a chance to push something outlandish in it. As long as these two refuse to offer any support to each other on any issue, the minors will continue to have power. I’d love to see Labour (in this election), or National (in some earlier and maybe future elections) say “the people have spoken, our opponents are the largest party, we will give them support on confidence and supply so long as they aren’t outside their election manifesto. We’ll support on issues where we agree with them.” That would really screw the minors.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am
It’s odd that there is all this stamping of foot about minority views being represented in Parliament.
The notion that minor parties must operate in a bloc is odd, considering the purpose of MMP. It’s very odd considering the relative closeness in policy terms between the two big conservative parties: Labour and National. The natural policy bloc is a Labour/National coalition.
There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of minor Parties having a disproportionate influence over a government in our history with MMP. In fact all the evidence is the reverse: the dog continues to wag the tail. I doubt the future will be different from the past in this regard.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Meh… how about National and Labour get their spines out of hock and do this :-
1) Start laying down some ‘bottom lines’ of their own. Those of us who support the two main parties deserve to know what parts of the platform can — and will — be negotiated away for the keys to the Cabinet room.
2) Make a joint statement saying that if Winston Peters gets back on the inevitable immigrant-bashing bandwagon, then he can get used to the Opposition benches. Also, call his bluff on any threat to pull down the government. If NZ First wants to go back to the polls within months, and explain why he collapsed a legitimate and lawful government… bring it on.
And I can’t believe I’m actually feeling kind of sorry for the Maori Party and Greens. After all, if they’re just Labour party lapdogs (as most of the commentariat seem to think) why bother voting for them at all? They have no leverage, and the fan-dance can only go on for so long without looking more than usually ridiculous.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:52 am
This idea that MMP gives small parties disproportionate influence is nonsense. There is no evidence for that at all. Since 1996 the junior partners in government have all given confidence and supply on the basis of a few key policies, a cabinet post or two, and nothing more. They have not set the agenda or wagged the dog. We have still had either Labour or National dictating the bulk of government policy in this country. And there is nothing to stop them forming a grand coalition if nothing can be agreed with other parties.
The MMP haters need to ask themselves whether they really want to go back to the bad old days of parties winning the popular vote but still losing the election (as happened in ’78 and ’81). I for one would rather that a government had the mandate of at least 50% of the electorate – something that did not happen prior to MMP after 1951.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
The only way to get rid of this corrupt Labour government is to give your party vote to NATIONAL. Quite simple really……
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 11:46 am
That level of analysis is pretty shallow Ramsay. You should perhaps try explaining to voters why that is the case rather than shout at them.
You finish by saying quite simple really. Well how so? Do you think voting for ACT won’t also change the government? I can assure you that Rodney will win Epsom. Also it does beg the question that I have asked before, do you want a government that is a change in name but not a change in direction? Or would you prefer to have a government that changes the direction of this country?
Quite simple really…….
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
“Meh… how about National and Labour get their spines out of hock”
You’re joking right? Its the proliferation in this country of PC propagandists like you who have turned National into the confused bunch of fuckwits they are today. You’re right, they need to grow a spine, but that’s impossible while the party is contaminated by the ideas of panty waisted pseudo liberal dropkicks who are ideologically better suited to the Labour party.
That aside, here’s what the Nats need to do. Say they’re going to abolish the Maori seats. Say “Come hell or high water, if you elect the National Party, the race based Maori seats will be abolished”. Be firm on that one issue and the election is won, probably by National on their own. They won’t tho. Directionless and with a vacillating political novice at their head, milling and baaa-ing like sheep, National have got no ideas, they’ve got no guts, and therefore, they’ll get no glory.
There’s nothing for Conservatives in this election. My advice is to pack up and leave. Things will change, but only after this country bottoms out. Spare yourself the learning curve that leftists need to experience. Go overseas, and come back when the pain and suffering that will inevitably result from NZ’s fascination with socialism has run its course.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Well put Red.
I can’t believe some think another 2 tick National policy would actually work…. like it’s worked before! Yeah right.
How many votes for ACT translate into list MP’s Vs how many for Nationals list turn into MPs?
2 ticks will work for Labour, because the Greens will lie down for them no matter what. But for National to adopt that anti MMP position again is crazy. And they wonder why they have to beg for coalition partners….hell – right leaning Dunne and Peters ran a mile last time. It’s time for a sensible MMP approach from National. I know many ACT voters will split for the Nats, how about a little love back?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Oh, fuck off you twat. What the hell have you ever achieved with your rabid, cowardly posturing? This…
You first, Master Baiter, and don’t let the door hit you in the brain on the way out.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
That’s your problem RedBaiter. You think one dimensionally, and you think that National is a conservative party. There are more people on the right than just conservatives.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Heh – I’m most certainly not a conservative and I’m on the Right. I think Craig would object to being called leftwing too.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Saying you are on the Liberal right is rather odd as the right has always been traditionally conservative, but anything goes as a new species of man has developed called the Me Generation ( If it feels good -do it ) . The conservative right is nowhere to be seen in this Land of the Liberal Wimp.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Nah D4J,
I just don’t want anyone telling me how to lead my life, be they socialist pickpockets or moralist conservatives. There are no inconsistencies in any of my positions – they are based on sound philosophy.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Did your “sound philosophy” create the most corrupt bunch of politicians in New Zealand’s history ?
Vote:On your bike Mike!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I particularly like Peters being a no-show saying he’s not a minor player…I do hope that when the real election debates start that we have major debates with just Clark vs Key, then other debates with all the others together. If Peters decides not to turn up, then it’s his loss.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
first time – it depends. Peters does better with very little coverage by the media, other than a few big wins. He might do pretty well if he’s in none of the small debates, but gets time in the one or two debates that include both the majors and the minors. He is good under pressure, and he could turn in a “worm” experience for us all by having a couple of good nights.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Is there anything wrong with being socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
and now we have had all the social liberalisation that we can tolerate, so now lets get down to some serious right wing conservative economic management.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
D4J,
If you are trying to link me to the Labour party you are misguided. I’m not getting on my bike any time soon. My philosophy has nothing to do with the socialist pickpockets.
Put simply for you, I do not see it as a contradiction that I support keeping the government out of my pocket as well as my bedroom.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Don’t try to be funny Mike, as I can’t see any obvious difference between National and Labour ,because they both got a bad case of liberalism, which I believe is a personality disorder. Only moral – conservative right wing attitudes will put New Zealand back together again matey.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
d4j: Saying you are on the Liberal right is rather odd as the right has always been traditionally conservative
In general saying you’re on the left or on the right are essentially meaningless terms. They provide useful frames of reference for a general position on matters, but there are many different thoughts across the spectrum.
For example, I put myself on the right side of the spectrum because I oppose big governments and heavy taxation, am in favour of free markets, and believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in families, neighbourhoods and communities as essential building blocks to a healthy society. I also personally believe in God. I find abortion abhorrent, but I am as open to same sex marriages as I am to heterosexual marriages. I do not like prostitution, but I am not adverse to it. But, I do not want to enforce any of my beliefs on everyone else. They should be as free to make their own choices and to suffer the consequences of their choices as I am.
Does that qualify me as on the liberal Right? Or where would you place me? See what I mean with left/right being a stupid measure of a persons political views?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Haha you believe in God and same sex marriages. Holy Hell Batman, get with it Robin, as my point is proven. Anything goes !
Edit ; The liberal right is a nonexistent vacuum.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
BlairM +3 Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 10:52 am
“The MMP haters need to ask themselves whether they really want to go back to the bad old days of parties winning the popular vote but still losing the election (as happened in ‘78 and ‘81).”
FPP was all about “matchplay”. The party that won the most seats formed a Government. As in golf matchplay, the cumulative number of votes (strokes) was irrelevant. The fairness was in the geographic representation of equal-sized blocks of electors who chose a Member of Parliament to represent their district, who could (and did) vote against party lines.
Mike Collins +0 Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 11:46 am
“I can assure you that Rodney will win Epsom. ”
Unless you are solely in charge of counting the votes, without scrutineers, in Epsom, then your assurance has no validity.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
d4j: Haha you believe in God and same sex marriages. Holy Hell Batman, get with it Robin, as my point is proven. Anything goes !
No, there is a bit of a difference d4j. I believe in God and would not enter into a same sex marriage. I believe it to be morally wrong. But, that does mean that I cannot proscribe to people of other religions or of no religion what their sexual orientation should be. In that manner I am open to it – as it is not my choice to make – but that persons’. They are responsible for their own choices.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Have to say I agree with Mike Collins on this one.
I see no inconsistency in being both socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. As Mike points out, this essentially means limiting the size and role of state – I simply do not want government interfering in the way I live my life. Just as I don’t think government needs to control an airline, I don’t see what say they should have over what I eat, how often I smoke, or who I choose to have a consensual relationship with.
It’s one of the reasons I left the National Party last year and more recently joined Act. Unfortunately (at least in my area) the National Party is entirely dominated by conservatives who allow no room for opposing views. For all the talk of being a “broad church”, I sadly saw no evidence of it.
I’m very happy with my new choice of party. While there are a number of conservatives, they seem to co-exist nicely with others of a more liberal persuasion.
Some on this thread seem to have the view that the only way for a change of government is to double-tick National. Unfortunately, MMP just doesn’t work like that. With constituency MPs effectively cancelling out list MPs, a party vote is far more valuable with a smaller party. I look forward to having John Key as my Prime Minister, but I will be voting Act to achieve it.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Yeah I only call myself Liberal Right to help others with their understanding. I would prefer to refer to myself as a Classical Liberal.
Thank (insert preferred deity here), that you aren’t running our lives D4J. I would hate for someone morally sanctimonious and full of his own issues to say how I should be leading my life. I have no problem with moral conservatism – just when others try to impose that on me or anyone else.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Well, yes there is. At least in the eyes of those who are socially Palaeolithic and fiscally incoherent.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Progressives’s are Labour, Own Goal Jimbo!!!!
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I really don’t think ACT and Nat voters on this blog will ever agree on vote splitting unless we are taking votes from the left…there is no point splitting the vote. We need to increase the vote, not by moving it around between the two parties on the right.
I don’t care who you sleep with and how you run your bank account, but let’s just get rid of this blimmin’ govt!
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
go on then, my 5cents worth
“MMP is a farce – WHO STOLE OUR DEMOCRACY” Last two Muldoon Govts were minority govts, MMP or STV is democracy like it or not.
forget the rest of the equation DFJ = Insanity
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I actually agree with you, and what ACT has to do is deal with their own internal issues and run a decent campaign on its own behalf rather than sniping and whinging then wondering why you’re not getting hugged for it. Then the voters get to make their own call. Sorry to write the reality check here, but it’s not the responsibility of the National Party to cluster fuck its candidates, or run a de facto party vote campaign for ACT, because that party can’t get its act together.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“We need to increase the vote, not by moving it around between the two parties on the right”
I think that happens already to an extent. Both my flatmate and girlfriend are Act supporters largely due to their liberal streak. In the absence of Act, they would likely give their vote to the Greens or possibly Labour, but never National. Similarly, I think there are probably National supporters who would never give their vote to Act.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I see the Kiwi Party in number 2 on the poll. Maybe National might reconsider supporting Bradford’s anti smacking legislation.
If the Kiwi Party had been invited to take part in their TV debate they may see the rating go up considerably.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Chuck, what is it with everyone taking the piss on this blog tonight, outside of the blogosphere NOBODY knows who the f*** the Kiwi Party is.
39 votes on this blog (out of how many 4.3 Million kiwis) isn’t even a mandate to start a sunday school committee, let alone launch the next great political party.
If Kiwi Party had been included on last nights show, then the masses would be saying “look any loopy can get on Telly these days”
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Some people do not think it loopy that 80% of the voters should be listened to.
350,000 people signed a petition with the idea of overturning Bradford’s law that attacks good parents.
It would be a shame if National lost their chance at power because they also hold the view of the majority in contempt.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Have to agree with Paul re:kiwi party. Media outlets organising debates have to draw the line somewhere, or there’d be the Alliance, Social Credit, Legalise Cannabis, Libertarianz and who knows else all lined up expecting to get the same treatment. I think a fair decision was made – best to keep it to parliamentary parties. If the other parties want to get together and do their own, it’s all relatively easy in the age of the internet.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Craig: I actually agree with you, and what ACT has to do is deal with their own internal issues and run a decent campaign on its own behalf rather than sniping and whinging then wondering why you’re not getting hugged for it.
True to a degree, but there can be instances where a National list candidate that won’t make parliament on current polling standing back and having a strategic vote for ACT might make a difference. An exceptional circumstance, but I’d rather see another MP from that side of the spectrum and have the potential of a coalition than wasting a number of votes on somebody who won’t make it in. If such a thing happens they would need to have some very strict conditions for that placed upon ACT however.
First prize of course – ACT getting it’s ACT back together. There has been an upswing recently which I’m following with great interest.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
yous a funny dude farrar when you say that it is in NAT interest for Winston first to be treasurer or foreign treasurer or frankly whatever he want, again, I like it, I agree, that is what yous saying isn’t it farrar yes it is, because you know you dont get NZ first party without a Cabinet wedge Winston, all dissenters in his party now sacked farrar, but then again farrar, yous people NZ NAT GOVT 2008 got a long way to go before you know how to make our country NZ great again, more later dude,
Vote:you next client philu dont know how to work you machine farrar,
March 31st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“..There has been an upswing recently..”
that’d be the ‘wodger’-factor..then..?
up to 0.7%..?
‘way to go’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
First Time Caller:
“I really don’t think ACT and Nat voters on this blog will ever agree on vote splitting unless we are taking votes from the left…there is no point splitting the vote. We need to increase the vote, not by moving it around between the two parties on the right”
One of the purposes of voting for a particular party is that it represents your views. If enough of your fellow citizens share your views and agree that the particular party is worthy of voting for, what does it matter what other voters may or may not be doing with their vote for other parties?
The “bloc” analysis stuff makes not a jot of difference to voters. Nor do I think its how MMP actually works in New Zealand. In essence we see Labour claiming the Maori Party as its “bloc” property. Yet factually the Maori party are actually in competition with Labour but not National. I doubt the Nats will be too hardline over the Maori seats issue, since they don’t contest them and would need to build Parliamentary support for that view – I doubt there will be a majority for it.
The Nats have always been in at least two or three minds over ACT. First it’s irrelevant (or tricked voters by claiming that it would help Brash as PM in Epsom). Now the line is that ACT might cost the Nat’s the election because Roger Douglas scares voters. We passed through the “National will form a Government in its own right” stuff on the way to Roger will ruin everything line.
One should never take too seriously characterisations of one party by the partisans of another – its mostly unbalanced. Who would have thought that Labour who previously implied that Winston First was a racist xenophobe, would now see them work so well together – almost hand-in-glove. He appears more stable in coalition with Labour that he has been in the past with National.
In the end National is responsible for its own levels of support and voter attractiveness as is ACT. Trying to engineer stuff between them is likely to end in tears – voters don’t like being told what to do with their vote.
Key as a potential PM will have to have the leadership skills to build Parliamentary support for a programme. It’s one of the skills that MMP requires of the big party leaders. He is personable and bright I can’t see what the problem is.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Chris Diack said “In the end National is responsible for its own levels of support and voter attractiveness as is ACT. Trying to engineer stuff between them is likely to end in tears – voters don’t like being told what to do with their vote.”
National supporters are good at giving/raising funds for campaigns. They lack the political nous and the commitment to campaigning on a one to one basis on behalf of the party. National’s fortunes will pitch and yaw with the polls. National’s heirachy is oblivious to the need to build a strong, broad, voter base. Internal debate at conferences, and listening to entertaining speakers at functions for the party faithful use up most of their “time” resources. In the end National is responsible for its own levels of support……….
Vote: