The importance of Epsom

December 3rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm by David Farrar

blogs:

Forecast party vote shares are: National 44.5% (down from 45.0% last week), Labour 35.4% (down from 36.6% last week), Greens 8.2% (down from 8.3% last week), New Zealand First 4.2% (down from 4.5% last week), Maori Party 2.8% (down from 3.1% last week), Act 2.8% (up from 2.4% last week) and UnitedFuture 0.3% (steady).

The probability of Act Leader Rodney Hide winning for his party continues to rise.  The market now indicates he has a 60% probability of retaining the seat for Act, up from 55% last week and 52% the week before.

Based on this data, the market is now forecasting the following Parliament: National 57 MPs, Labour 45 MPs, Greens 10 MPs, Maori Party 5 MPs and Act 4 MPs.  There would be 121 MPs, requiring a government to have the support of 61 MPs on confidence and supply.

What this shows is that if Rodney holds Epsom, a centre-right Government is forecast.

If Rodney does not win Epsom, then the Maori Party is expected to hold the balance of power.

Food for thought.

Tags: ,

62 Responses to “The importance of Epsom”

  1. dave (985 comments) says:

    I still think, though, that Peter Dunne will win his seat – and by a bigger margin than Kris Faafoi did in Mana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Interesting. I can imagine voting for ACT if that means a centre right govt. If we get to a situation where the Maori Party hold the balance of power that means either:
    – they go with Labour as their natural home, despite all the things Labour have done to them over the years. That would be bad
    – they go into extended horse trading to see which major party will give them the most. That would be even worse.

    I think it important that ACT get their act together, and get back to a point of being electable. I think Rodney’s done a good job on the super city, a tough role that seems to have worked out fine (far better than most expected). The constant side show that is the leadership speculation, the old guy hanging around, the sensible sentencing trust etc, are the problem. That stuff needs to go away, and then I think ACT would be a reliable and electable coalition partner.

    In short, I think they should stop trying to be a 20% party, and therefore inventing populist policies to try to get there. They should focus on being a party that a core of 5% of socially and economically liberal people will vote for – that gives them focus and clarity, and gets rid of the dross. And whilst I like Roger Douglas’ ideas, and respect his history, his time has been. He needs to move on. I realise ACT asked him to come back when they got into a panic last election (same time they brought in the sensible sentencing people) – but they need to hold their nerve this time and not jump at quick fixes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    The latest Roy Morgan poll has National up 1 to 51% and Labour up 0.5 to 33%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Rex Widerstrom (5,259 comments) says:

    And if Winston stood against Rodney in Epsom…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    LOL the Maori is left, right and centre (depending on the circumstances of every given day).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    Just a thought, but what would happen if ACT were to take a second electorate seat? I haven’t looked – did they come within shouting distance last time? Would it be strategically sound for them to focus on 2 electorate seats + (say) 5% of the party vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (22,805 comments) says:

    But if Hide loses Epsom and Act don’t get any seats it comes very close. Hard to know what the numbers will be like in nearly a year – especially National and Labour. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Greens drop lower, wouldn’t even be that surprised to see them miss 5%, that would make a big difference.

    I’m sure enough voters will suss it all out then and vote accordingly.

    Offshore, after one electorate seat it’s the party vote that matters most for Act. They seem to keep struggling to get much movement upwards with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. trout (900 comments) says:

    Hide will win Epsom at a canter. The Nats have never told us to vote for Rodney; we can add. We would welcome Winston as an opponent, the oldies around here are not so easily conned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    OK thanks.

    So, if the watermelons drop below 5% (as you surmise they might), that would really set the cat amongst the pigeons. Their fairweather friends would go where? Liarbore perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Why would anyone vote for Rodney?? just another ”do as I say , not as I do man.”..surely NZers are sick of the hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    NZ can not afford a Labour lead Govt .. they would be in with the Greens, who are a mixed bunch of weirdos lead by a Aussie and a Nutjob.
    Give the treasury benches to the left and god help us all.
    The 1st term with the Nats was always going to be about settling in and getting a gripe on the issues with the 2nd term the moving term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jimbob (640 comments) says:

    That is why the media hate Rodney with venom. Every election they predict he is a goner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,446 comments) says:

    All this shows, is that Epsom’s stay-at-home mums will vote for the Trough Rodent pretty much irrespectively of how feckless or marginalised or hypocritical he may become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    This is what I always maintained -national are by no means looking a good bet in the next election.

    I’ll be screwed if labour get in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. reid (15,942 comments) says:

    “Why would anyone vote for Rodney?”

    They won’t unless he can point to tangible benefits eventuated or in the near future arising as a direct result of the SuperCity. If he can’t do that then he won’t win the seat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. CJD (334 comments) says:

    Despite rumours to the contrary ACT is not in tatters. Rodney will win Epsom, not at the whim of National but because the people of Epsom want him to be their MP. ACT is in the process of reform that will see a return to the value that matter and there is a healthy recruitment of talent waiting in the wings. Parties evolve-they are not the property of any particular politician.
    Advances on eduction, law and order and the super city have al been largely ACT-driven while National has concentrated on more popularist policy. National will return next election and ACT will play an even bigger part in ushering in the reforms needed to revitalise our economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    @jaba

    Give the treasury benches to the left and god help us all.

    Are you suggesting the left don’t currently have the treasury benches? Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Hmm interesting, on the electorate vote alone would rodders vote be enough to beat all the Labour voters voting National to fuck the ACT party ?

    Of course a campaign showing Rodder’s ranting about his right to tax payer paid holidays will help.
    Along with a reminder of what history the present ACT MPs knew about Garrett before they selected him.

    Or, will the Nats not stand a candidate in Epsom ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. redqueen (456 comments) says:

    What would the electoral distribution be if ACT loses Epsom? Maori can’t deliver, under the above scenario, a party win for a Labour-Green coalition. So who’d get the extra seats under a loss by ACT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    All this shows, is that Epsom’s stay-at-home mums will vote for the Trough Rodent pretty much irrespectively of how feckless or marginalised or hypocritical he may become.

    Ohhhh diddums – they just don’t want Labour that is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Why would anyone vote for Rodney?? just another ”do as I say , not as I do man.”..surely NZers are sick of the hypocrisy.

    NZers still haven’t forgotten your corrupt lot yet. Rodney is one man – Labour is a whole fucken party!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. CJD (334 comments) says:

    Whether you like Rodney or not (and I do) you have to remember that he brings with him the upstanding Mr Boscawen who is hard-working and honest, as well as Hilary Calvert (who deserves a chance to show her skills) and a number of new and talented list candidates in the wings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    Oh the sooner the Crazy Loony Nasty Party otherwise known as ACT is gone from the NZ political scene the better for everyone. Truly. Madly. Deeply.
    Let’s hope they get Don Brash on board. That will hasten their demise for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Epsom voters are smart enough to vote strategically. Voting for Rodney on the electorate makes no difference to how many MPs National get, and helps the chances of a National govt. Of course they’re going to do it.

    As for the questions about rorts etc – well, I think the only thing Rodney did that upsets people is that he took his girlfriend on a holiday using subsidised travel – on a subsidy that was deducted from his salary package. Kind of like complaining when you give someone a car as part of their salary package, and then they use it. Sure, he’d argued lots of times that the travel perk should be changed – pay MPs properly, and then bulk fund the Leader’s office. But nobody else agreed with him – so what, he should not use the travel? Note that he didn’t suggest travel shouldn’t exist, just that the funding should shift to the Leader’s office. So given that it didn’t move to the Leader’s office, makes sense he’d use it where it was.

    The internal ructions are of more interest and cause more problems. Looks like ACT are working on sorting those out. I’ll be interested to see how they go with that – it probably is the thing that would swing my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. CJD (334 comments) says:

    @ PaulL “The internal ructions are of more interest and cause more problems. Looks like ACT are working on sorting those out. I’ll be interested to see how they go with that – it probably is the thing that would swing my vote.”

    Expect good new-soon!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    CJD – so long as the outcome is that the party becomes clearer on what it stands for, and starts arguing with people about why their existing beliefs are right instead of just swaying in the winds of populism, then I’ll be interested. And to be clear, to me that means:
    – yes, tough on crime, but not at the expense of civil liberties. So banning gang patches – don’t agree. Taking vote from criminals – don’t agree. 3 strikes – do agree.
    – absolutely in favour of the rule of law, and one rule for all. The new foreshore law is OK, but fully agree with the amendment to specifically ban any charges. I’m sure there is more mischief hiding in that bill, but ACTs amendment was a good one
    – school vouchers, public/private partnerships, insurance based health system, ACC opened to competition, sell part shares (or all shares) in SOEs, all core ACT policies
    – marriage not the government’s business, no discrimination on any of the usual reasons, standing up for people’s rights – all should be core ACT policy
    – credible and clear economic analysis of all policies, cost benefit and allowances for unintended consequences, clear understanding of the problem we’re trying to solve before we pass laws to solve it – also all core ACT
    – global warming denialism, dodgy science and populism – not core ACT. Rodney is scientist enough to know that the planet is warming, and that increasing CO2 is scientifically a part of the cause. He is also right to question whether prevention or adaptation is the better answer, and to ask cost-benefit questions about proposed solutions. He needs to be much clearer about whether he’s denying the warming at all (given it’s a measured and scientific fact), or whether he’s saying we don’t need to have the government interfere.

    In short, any policy that ACT is coming up with needs to have the question asked “what voters am I driving away, and what voters am I attracting”? It isn’t necessary to have a policy on everything – any policy will annoy half the voters (roughly speaking). Sometimes it is better to not have a policy than to annoy 50% of your voters over something that wasn’t core anyway. It just gives the media a free kick, and drives away people who might have voted for you if your only policies were school vouchers, decent health care and social liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. CJD (334 comments) says:

    PaulL
    You may recall that ACT MP’s did not vote in favour of banning gang patches and I certainly don’t support Paul Quinn’s whacky idea of preventing prisoners from voting.
    As regards the foreshore issues, we never denied that Iwi have their right to their day in court. What we did oppose was Chris Finlayson’s right to do secret deals behind closed doors. ACT wants all New Zealanders to have absolute clarity on these processes.
    I have no arguement on your next two points. Individual freedom is a core ACT principle.
    The next point is covered by ACTS Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights proposal and Regulatory Responsibility Bill
    What ACT is saying about the climate change debate is that National’s ETS is a waste of time. It costs the taxpayer ($20 000 000 over the next three years for my electorate, Mana alone) without ANY benefit to the environment. Jeanette Fitzsimons publically agreed with us on this when I debated her in the 2008 election.
    And finally I agree entirely with your summing up. We can be very heavy-handed with policy. In sales terms policy is a feature and voters (consumers) purchase (vote) on benefits-what a particulary policy really means to them or their families. In this way we saw the Greens do well in 2008 without really articulating any policy at all but rather concentrating on positive visuals in their electioneering material.
    Now it is clear the Greens actually don’t have any real policy, only an ad hoc wishlist that seems to grow and grow. However my party would do well to sell a (genuine) positive image in order to draw voters close enough to where they will care to understand and support particular policy platforms. We certainly have the solutions we just need to attract sufficient buyers.
    I hope that makes sense-I’ve tried to address your points as much as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (13,358 comments) says:

    ACT, a political party that once promised much, has turned to be an utter disappointment, won over by the perks of power and unable to put any spine or gain any traction over Key’s Labour-lite. A true pet of his jellyfish master, with so little barking to impress anyone.

    Rodney Hide is responsible for much of this debacle.

    Do they need another chance? I don’t believe so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Manolo, I don’t agree. A small party only gets as much power as it gets votes. ACT is supported by a small proportion of the electorate, and has correspondingly small power. Key was also astute in coalition forming, getting to a position where neither ACT nor the Maori Party had veto rights. I personally think this was good for National, ACT and the Maori Party – they had to find common ground rather than issuing ultimatums, and ended up with better policy because of it.

    CJD – you need to work on your communication style!! I get your point, but it is a bit unclear.

    On climate change, anything that NZ does has no significant impact in statistical terms. Problem is, that’s also true for about 80% of the countries in the world. But collectively they account for a decent proportion of emissions. If we agree that CO2 is causing some amount of warming and we wanted to do something about it (I agree with the first, unsure on the second), is it ACT’s policy that China, India and the US should fix the problem, all the other countries are too small to matter? Can you see where that would lead? The question is whether we’re doing our share. Our share is small, our action should be small. But that’s not the same as no action. I’ll easily agree the ETS is a shambles, and a couple of elections back only ACT and the Greens had decent CO2 policies – both proposed a low and universal carbon tax. That would have had very low impact on the economy, no impact on exports, and given us all the green cred we needed. If ACT had also pushed for offsetting income tax savings, I’d have been ecstatic. Instead, we have the mess we have today, because ACT decided to be outside the debate – instead of having a bang-for-the-buck discussion, they decided to say that we shouldn’t spend any money at all.

    On policy, my point is that policy not just attracts voters, it also pushes them away. Some people feel so strongly about something that they’ll vote for you, irrespective of your other policies. Others feel so strongly against something they’ll not vote for you, irrespective of your other policies. Some of the policies ACT is picking (assisted by media misrepresentation) drive away far more voters than they attract – people will not vote based on a single issue, but rarely be drawn to a party by a single issue. ACT needs to have a philosophy and an image that attracts people (as the Greens do), and stay away from too much detail unless it’s a core policy. People understand that a small party only gets a few policies up – we need to know what those policies are, and then the principles that will apply to any other decisions that you need to vote on. The Greens may have wacky policies, but they understand minor party politics – globally they’ve been doing it for decades and they talk to each other.

    I think there is potential in here for ACT, and personally I joined ACT one year just so I could vote for Rodney in the primary, I have no problem with him. He just needs to be a bit more of a leader, bring his people with him, and make sure to vet the MPs to make sure they actually align with the party principles, rather than taking in people who only partially fit. A small party cannot afford disagreements, a larger party can be a broader church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Will be interesting if ACT do not make it back and the Maori party ends up as King makers.
    So what would be the price, Maori to have clear title on the Foreshore like some visitors to NZ have on parts of the Foreshore ?
    Nah, National or Labour would never agree to that would they in return for those minister’s perks ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori: the “visitors” as you characterise them bought that title at some point in the past. Maori also had title at some point in the past, they signed a lot of that to the Crown with the treaty. Some bits of that title potentially remain on the foreshore, the Labour government stole that from Iwi. The National government has given it back, but requires that Maori actually prove their title, rather than just handing over the entire coastline. Would it make you feel better if they also required all current title holders that own property (rather than the collective title that Iwi might have) prove their title as well? Do you think that very many of them wouldn’t be able to prove their title?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (13,279 comments) says:

    The Watermelons are in real danger, they always poll much higher between elections, last time I think they were at a constant 9-10% and ended up with 6.72.

    What will really hurt them is the absence of the “nice granny” symbol in Fitzsimons, many people voted for the Greens because she came across as a decent person, none of the current Greens have that same mass appeal.

    I think they will go very close to not making the 5% threshold, should they fail I will be the first to piss on their grave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @big bruv 8:41 pm

    The Greens have built a core vote of at least 5% – . Hoepfully, the Greens will poll well above that at next election (most current predictions are around 10%), but unless some Green MP stuffs up seriously, you won’t be pissing on anyone’s grave.

    ACT, by contrast, rely on an MP who is accused by his former Deputy of being a bully and who rorted his travel expenses to take his girlfriend on an international bonkathon , to gain any representation at all.

    Bruv, there will be a serious campaign in Epsom, and it will all be about the Rorts of Rodney. As a Green, I would even back a Nat candidate there to get rid of Rodney the Rorter.

    Maybe Joyce should stand there. While I don’t like his politics, he is a very smooth and informed politician, which sets him aside from most of the rest of the Cabinet, the PM; Power, Finlayson and Ryall excepted.

    The rest of them don’t seem to have the first clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. reid (15,942 comments) says:

    The Greens have built a core vote of at least 5% [in Epsom]

    What is it about those guilty housewives toad? How do you turn them mental?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    It was Keith Locke doing the walk up Broadway in his g-string, reid.

    It turned a lot of the voters (housewives or not) Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    @ Rex

    And if Winston stood against Rodney in Epsom…?

    If you’re that confident Rex, come back and run his campaign :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Shazzadude (505 comments) says:

    If Winston stood for Epsom, if I were Labour I would stand Raymond Huo with the intention of sneaking in the back door on the Chinese vote while the rest of the vote is split three ways.

    It will be interesting to see where Winston stands. Papakura is the only general electorate in Auckland that New Zealand First got more than 5% of the vote, but he’d have no chance against Crusher Collins. My pick is Hunua.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. emmess (1,368 comments) says:

    Bruv, there will be a serious campaign in Epsom, and it will all be about the Rorts of Rodney. As a Green, I would even back a Nat candidate there to get rid of Rodney the Rorter.

    So Toad, why would any one on the right want to support the Green/Left agenda of booting ACT out of parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Inky_the_Red (735 comments) says:

    strange conclusion, surely there are two other ways to maximise ROC vote

    1. All ROC vote National (I think recent poll indicate they will get more than 5%)
    2. Form an alternative ROC party to take ROC voters who won’t vote for National it could be a Country Party or a Liberal Party or a Conservative Party.

    ACT have too many nutters to be credible

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Two points.

    Whilst I strongly dislike NZF, the above shows how MMP needs to be tweaked for consistency where to have members coming in on a list you need greater than the min threshold, otherwise you get ridic situations where NZF gets 4.5% of the vote and no representation and Act gets 4 Mps. My view would be the same no matter what party was losing representation. Have list seats, but you cant bring people in on them.

    Secondly Act sold out their principals about two elections ago.

    They used to be the party of “choice”, be it economically or socially. I.e. Leaving responsibility in the hands of the individual. I.e. believed in looking after yourself, but also respecting the freedom of speech and choice. Now they only want freedom for business, individuals they believe in an authoritarian state.

    My vote by proxy is going to the Nats at the moment, mainly because Labour is a headless chicken. However I wish I could do such a vote on the condition of Tolly being booted from the house. I hold her in about as much esteem as Judith Tizard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    Reid@9.35 pm. Big Assumption there, mate. I’m not a housewife, never have been, never will be. I’m a working professional with 3 degrees and a 3 figure salary and I am a Green voter. Always have been, always will be. And many of my friends are the same. Just sayin’….

    (and none of us would EVER vote for the Nasty Party)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    People should not vote for Rodney Hide in Epsom. He has proven himself a hypocrite on the issue of perks, and seems to have sold out his principles this term, if he ever had any.

    Additionally, it is false to ask National voters to vote tactically in Epsom – they are National voters! They will be giving National their party vote, not ACT. They don’t add to the party vote tally for ACT. The only person they are getting if they vote for Hide is Hide, and they don’t want him.

    If ACT needs Hide to survive, it is not worth having them exist. They should be campaigning for 5% – it’s not like there is no room for them to do so, policywise. And frankly, I have seen very little this term that suggests they make much difference to this fairly left wing National government. If National needs the Maori Party instead, so what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    (and none of us would EVER vote for the Nasty Party)

    I’m guessing you mean Labour? If you mean National, they’re about as nasty as a limp bus ticket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    I wonder if many even slightly right of centre realise what government we would have had last election if Rodney had not won Epsom.

    If Rodney fails to win Epsom this election and ACT disappears we are likely to end up with a Labour led government supported by the Greens and the Maori Party. The best case scenario is National wholly dependant on the Maori Party

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. James (1,338 comments) says:

    ACT, by contrast, rely on an MP who is accused by his former Deputy of being a bully and who rorted his travel expenses to take his girlfriend on an international bonkathon , to gain any representation at all.

    What “rorts” toad….?When? Rodney took legit trips with his partner that were signed off on and on which he also worked as a minister furnishing reports.He even paid the cost back even though he had no cause to.He did nothing wrong and doesn’t have a case to answer to scum like you.Hes done more for the NZ taxpayer than any other MP you can name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Blair, my last post was for anyone right of centre but the question applies to you particularly. Do you think you know more than John Key as well as all in the ACT Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    @Blair, 6.36 am: No Blair, I meant ACT. I could also have said “The rorting party”. Or “the hypocritical party” or “the racist party” or “the misogynist party”

    But I decided to lump them altogether in one epithet :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    You know Chuck, I’m looking back and forth between the farmers and the pigs and back to the farmers again and I’m damned if I can tell which one is which on that crazy animal farm.

    It would be nice to have a party – just one – in NZ which believed in reducing the size of government, as the Conservatives in the UK do.

    I’d probably rather have a Labour Government if it had the side effect of getting rid of the bratpackers who run National and returned them to their founding values. There seems to be very little difference between this government and the last one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Manolo (13,358 comments) says:

    “I’d probably rather have a Labour Government if it had the side effect of getting rid of the bratpackers who run National and returned them to their founding values. There seems to be very little difference between this government and the last one.”

    An astute and almost entirely correct assessment. I would’ve replaced the very little with no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (13,358 comments) says:

    “The best case scenario is National wholly dependant on the Maori Party.”

    Isn’t this the case today? Aren’t Key and his minister selling out to the racists now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    “Isn’t this the case today? Aren’t Key and his minister selling out to the racists now?”

    No. It would be much worse if ACT was not there to support the government on the majority of legislation.

    Key is playing the same game as Clark did with the Greens and Winston First.

    If after the election ACT is no longer there and the Maori Party has a choice between National and Labour it would not be good for NZ.

    If they did a deal with National they could constantly threaten to jump Waka.

    It is about time we had a referendum on the Maori seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Mark (1,360 comments) says:

    The idea of only beng eligible for list seats in parliament if you secure 5% or more of the total vote makes a lot of sense. It is an absolute anomoly that ACT gains 4 seats in the scenario above. Act has kept its head down for the last six months or so and Hide is slowly improving in the Epsom polls but it is clearly a party with deep divisions and with a group that small in caucus it is important to have a common sense of purpose. Hide has not been able to generate this which casts huge questions about Hides leadership ability. ACT survives purely at the whim of National. National is a party that has few natural political allies and desperately needs ACT in the mix otherwise Labour will govern under a wider coilition. The next election will eb facinating. The best ioption is for National to win over 50% of the vote and govern alone. To rely on the Maori party or Act has resulted in compromised and poor policy making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    It isn’t an anomaly, it was designed in to the system.

    The logic is that a party needs to be broad based – it needs to show that it caters to more than just a few people. The definition of broad based was that you either needed 5% of the population to support you, or a plurality of the voters in a single electorate/region. I think the logic was that if your policies are wacky, you’ll never be able to win a seat and you’ll never get more than 5% of the vote.

    You can say that you don’t agree with that principle, but it’s wrong to describe it as an anomaly, it’s a design feature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Shazzadude (505 comments) says:

    “Additionally, it is false to ask National voters to vote tactically in Epsom – they are National voters! They will be giving National their party vote, not ACT. They don’t add to the party vote tally for ACT. The only person they are getting if they vote for Hide is Hide, and they don’t want him.”

    That’s dependent on ACT’s party vote. If ACT get more than 1.25% of the vote, Epsom effectively elect at least one list MP and Rodney Hide by voting for Hide as their electorate MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Both major parties serve their foreign masters so of course they are the same..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Epsom (1 comment) says:

    If it is odds on that Hide will win, why has he not done any polling in Epsom? I would have thought that, given the importance of Epsom, the ACT Board would be insisting on polling it a year out from the election. The Nats are and, apparently, the results are not good for Hide – despite what iPredict may think!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Manolo (13,358 comments) says:

    “If after the election ACT is no longer there and the Maori Party has a choice between National and Labour it would not be good for NZ.”

    Why would it be worse? At least bloody Labour wore its socialism on its sleeve and was keen to proclaim it to the world, in contrast to Labour-lite, which endorsing the same socialist agenda has the audacity of claiming to be different. After two years in power there is not much evidence to the contrary.

    At least that could help with flushing National’s current pinko leaders and could lead to the party reclaiming its founding right-of-centre principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    # Atheist1 (161) Says:
    December 4th, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Reid@9.35 pm. Big Assumption there, mate. I’m not a housewife, never have been, never will be. I’m a working professional with 3 degrees and a 3 figure salary and I am a Green voter. Always have been, always will be. And many of my friends are the same. Just sayin’….

    (and none of us would EVER vote for the Nasty Party)
    …………………
    so not really down there having to battle it out? Can move easily between jobs, suburbs, countries? You can afford to be a liberal!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    Who is this joana person? She sounds like a third hand parody of Rik from the Young Ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. CJD (334 comments) says:

    “and none of us would EVER vote for the Nasty Party” no just for the stupid party! Keen to rush right back to the stoneage are we??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. jackp (668 comments) says:

    It’ll be interesting to see how the economy goes. Right now, most retailers are struggling, even now. Toad, let’s hope the greens go below the 5 percent with the economy the way it is going.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. jackp (668 comments) says:

    # Atheist1 (161) Says:
    December 4th, 2010 at 9:42 am

    @Blair, 6.36 am: No Blair, I meant ACT. I could also have said “The rorting party”. Or “the hypocritical party” or “the racist party” or “the misogynist party”

    But I decided to lump them altogether in one epithet :)

    Athiest, my guess is you are a government employee. Three degrees? You sound like an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.