iPredict Election Update #48: Labour Government Possible?
October 21st, 2011 at 12:18 am by Kokila PatelKey Points:
* Growth and current account forecasts slip
* Epsom now marginal, making a Phil Goff-led government more plausible, even without Hone Harawira
* National’s Simon O’Connor tipped for Tamaki
* Greens still riding the crest of Rena’s waves while National and Labour sink
* Alan Bollard now expected to increase OCR in March 2012
* Fonterra’s forecast 2011/12 payout increases slightlyCommentary:
Act’s chances in Epsom have dropped to marginal levels, making it just possible that Phil Goff could be our next Prime Minister, according to this week’s snapshot by New Zealand’s online prediction market, iPredict. With John Banks hovering at just over 50% chance of winning Epsom, and New Zealand First nearing MMP’s 5% threshold, a Phil Goff-led government isn’t out of the question. The stocks on National’s Tamaki selection suggest that Simon O’Connor is most likely to be the party’s candidate, while the Greens are still predicted to get a record 14 MPs. In economics, Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard is now expected to raise the OCR in March 2012, GDP and Current Account forecasts have worsened, while Fonterra’s forecast 2011/12 payout has increased slightly.
Economic Context
Expectations for GDP growth have deteriorated this week. Growth is expected to be 0.5% for the September 2011 quarter (down from 0.6% last week), 0.6% for the December 2011 quarter (steady) and 0.4% for the March 2012 quarter (steady).
Expected unemployment has remained steady this week. Unemployment remains forecast to be 6.4% in the September quarter, 6.2% in the December quarter, and 6.2% in the March 2012 quarter.
Inflation expectations have improved slightly this week, with annual inflation expected to be 5.0% in the September quarter (steady), 2.8% in the December quarter (steady) and 2.5% in the March 2012 quarter (down from 2.6% last week).
Expected petrol prices have lifted slightly this week, being $2.08 for the week ending 28 October 2011 (steady), $2.10 for the week ending 25 November (steady) and $2.08 for the week ending 30 December (up from $2.07 last week).
Fonterra’s expected final payouts have moved this week. Fonterra’s final payout for the 2011/12 is expected to be $7.35 (up from $7.33 last week), the 2012/13 payout $7.74 (steady), the 2013/14 payout $7.42 (steady) and the 2014/15 payout $7.42 (down from $7.43 last week).
This week’s snapshot suggests an earlier OCR rise than last week’s. The market now predicts that the Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard will increase the OCR in March 2012 when it will rise to 2.75%, and then again in June to 3.00%.
The expected 90-day bank bill rate for 1 December is 2.80% (down from 2.90% last week).
Current Account deficit expectations have increased this week. The market predicts a deficit of 4.08% of GDP for the year to September (up from 3.95% last week) and 3.18% of GDP for the year to December (up from 3.13% last week).
Parties & Personnel
The selection for the safe blue seat of Tamaki is underway after National’s Allan Peachey stood down. The market predicts that Simon O’Connor is the lead contender with 63%, next is Mark Thomas at 17%, Denise Krum 10%, Toni Millar 6%, and Seby Reeves at 5%.
All current leaders of parliamentary parties have at least a 94% probability of remaining in their positions until the election. The most vulnerable is now Maori Party Co-leader Tariana Turia, but with the market forecasting just a 6% probability she will be replaced prior to the election (down from 7% last week).
There is a 12% probability (up from 10% last week) that there will be changes to the top ten of the Labour Party list, announced on 10 April 2011, when it is registered with the Electoral Commission.
There is a 10% probability that a Minister will depart before the election.
Annette Sykes continues to be forecast to be the highest ranked person on the Mana Party list other than Party Leader Hone Harawira (89% probability up from 86% last week).
Key Electorate Contests
In other electorates, the probability that National will beat last election’s majority in Rangitata is 81% (up from 80% last week), in Tauranga 79% (down from 81% last week), in Clutha Southland 78% (steady), in Helensville 69% (steady), in Bay of Plenty 43% (down from 45% last week), in North Shore 40% (down from 45% last week), in Rangitikei 24% (down from 26% last week), in Rodney 22% (steady) and in Ilam just 18% (down from 19% last week).
The probability that Labour will decrease its majority in Te Atatu is 88% (up from 80% last week), in New Lynn is 87% (down from 88% last week), in Hutt South 58% (down from 60% last week), in Manurewa 52% (steady), and Dunedin South (50% down from 52% last week). Labour Leader Phil Goff looks set to increase his majority in Mt Roskill (57% up from 50% last week), as with Labour’s Megan Woods in Wigram (52% from up from 48% last week).
Act now has an 86% probability of having a reduced majority in Epsom. The chances of the party winning the seat at all have also dropped markedly to marginal territory of 57% down from 66% last week.
In Ohariu, the odds of United Future’s Peter Dunne retaining the seat have reduced slightly this week with the market forecasting he has an 80% probability of being re-elected (down from 83% last week).
New Zealand First remains below MMP’s 5% threshold, with a forecast 4.7% vote share (steady). Party leader Winston Peters has an 18% probability of returning to Parliament (up from 17% last week).
West Coast-Tasman remains unchanged this week, although the race remains close with Labour’s Damien O’Connor on a 50% probability of winning the seat, while National’s Chris Auchinvole is marginally behind at 48%.
Expectations that Mana Party leader Hone Harawira will retain the Te Tai Tokerau seat in the General Election have increased slightly this week at 81% this week (from 80% last week).
The probability Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples will win Tamaki-Makaurau reduced slightly this week. Dr Sharples now has a 74% probability of retaining the seat (down from 75% last week), over Labour’s Shane Jones at 23% (up from 26% last week).
Maori Party co-Leader Tariana Turia is still expected to retain Te Tai Hauauru (93%, up from 89% last week), and her colleague Te Ururoa Flavell is expected to retain Waiariki (79%, steady).
For the Labour Party, Nanaia Mahuta is expected to retain Hauraki-Waikato (85%, up from 82% last week) and Labour’s hold on Ikaroa-Rawhiti is steady at 80% probability.
Te Tai Tonga remains forecast to change hands, with a 70% probability it will be won by Labour’s Rino Tirikatene from the Maori Party’s Rahui Katene (steady).
In marginal electorates other than those mentioned above, the probability National’s Jonathan Young will retain New Plymouth is 74% (down from 83% last week). There is a 72% probability that National’s Nikki Kaye will retain Auckland Central (down from 73% last week) and an 80% likelihood National’s Paula Bennett will retain her Waitakere seat (down from 84% last week). In the Te Atatu electorate, Labour’s Phil Twyford has a 73% likelihood of winning the seat (up from 72% last week), and Iain Lees-Galloway has a 66% probability of victory in Palmerston North (down from 68% last week).
On a seat-by-seat basis, National is expected to win 40 electorate seats, Labour 24, the Maori Party 3 and Act, United Future and the Mana Party 1 seat each.
Party Vote, and Election Results
Forecast party vote shares are now: National 45.0% (down from 46.0% last week) Labour 29.7% (down from 31.0% last week), the Greens 11.1% (steady), New Zealand First 4.7% (steady), Act 3.6% (up from 3.1% last week), UnitedFuture 1.9% (up from 1.6% last week), the Maori Party 1.2% (steady), the Mana Party 1.0% (down from 1.1% last week), the Conservative Party 0.9% (down from 1.0% last week), and the New Citizen Party 0.4% (down from 0.5% last week).
Based on this data, and the electorate results above, Parliament would be as follows: National 58 MPs, Labour 38 MPs, the Greens 14 MPs, Act 5 MPs, the Maori Party 3 MPs, UnitedFuture 2 MPs, and the Mana party just 1 MP. There would be 121 MPs, requiring a government to have the support of 61 MPs on confidence and supply. John Key’s National Party would be able to govern with any one of the Greens, Act or Maori Party.
Given New Zealand First’s proximity to MMP’s 5% threshold, and Act’s shrinking chances in Epsom, iPredict has also analysed what might happen should New Zealand First win 5.0% of the vote and John Bank’s loses Epsom. Under this scenario, Parliament would be as follows: National 57 MPs, Labour 38 MPs, the Greens 14 MPs, New Zealand First 6 MPs, the Maori Party 3 MPs, UnitedFuture 2 MPs, and the Mana Party just 1 MP. There would be 121 MPs, requiring a government to have the support of 62 MPs on confidence and supply meaning Phil Goff’s Labour Party could govern with the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party, and would not need the Mana Party.
Overall, however, the market indicates a 93% probability there will be a National Prime Minister after the election (up from 92% last week).
MMP Referendum and Miscellaneous
The probability New Zealanders will elect to retain the MMP voting system in the referendum to be held on Election Day has increased to 87% (steady).
iPredict is owned by Victoria University of Wellington. Details on the company and its stocks can be found at www.ipredict.co.nz The company is providing full election coverage this year, with contract bundles for the party vote and for every electorate race in the country now available for trading, along with other contract bundles on a wide range of economic, political and social issues. The weekly political snapshot is taken at a random time each week to avoid market manipulation by political parties or activists. This week’s was taken at 8:50am today.
Related posts:
- iPredict Election Update #37
- iPredict Election Update #36
- iPredict Election Update #41
- iPredict Election Update #39
October 21st, 2011 at 12:35 am
Isn’t it strange, Epsom voters probably want a right leaning government, but, a vote for national is a vote for labour in the Epsom seat.
And people want to keep mmp?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 1:24 am
Epsom voters are a bunch of dumb elderly conservatives that have pretty much fucked up ACT’s willingness to attack National like they used to ever since Rodney started appeasing them in 2005. It’s true ACT wouldn’t be in Parliament now if it wasn’t for Epsom but ACT went from being the backbone of the opposition when National and Labour were in power in the 90s and early 00s to being pussy-whipped cheerleaders for “a John Key-led government” from 05 onwards.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 1:24 am
Well fucking pray that it doesn’t happen. Has anyone read the latest policy announcement from Labour?
“Labour is also committed to protecting the returns farmers deserve for the quality of their work. While the total value of exports doubled between 1999 and 2008, our recent high and unpredictable exchange rate has left many farmers struggling. Like the rest of the country they should be doing much better.
Labour will amend the Reserve Bank of NZ Act 1989 to broaden the Bank’s primary function so that it includes stability of the currency to give farmers and exporters greater certainty.”
I know it’s off-topic, but what the hell.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 5:13 am
Wakey wakey voters of Epsom…pull your stupid conservative heads from your arses and take MMP seriously and the power its put in your hands over NZ’s future…
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 6:50 am
Get those passports ready!
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:06 am
Trevor and his mate Spud are all excited about it…. http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/10/20/ipredict-game-on/
Vote:G
October 21st, 2011 at 7:55 am
A Labour win would be like the French win over Wales. One team carried all the play, performing as well as desired and expected, showing the moves and the power – but still losing through the freakiness of fate and fortune. Politics is about the essential task of governing the country and it should be about choosing the best government for the people, not the best system for political parties!
Demonstrably, MMP is far more about accommodating the parties of the lunatic left than the people and it’s cost this country the plot. It enables the undeserving – candidates and parties. The commendable realism of recognising the individual candidate with the highest personal support from each electorate has been prostituted into political wishy-washy-ness.
The accommodations of MMP have cost us intelligent, practical administration and, determinably, our resolve. FPP is the only way back to electoral excellence.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:58 am
“Overall, however, the market indicates a 93% probability there will be a National Prime Minister after the election (up from 92% last week).”
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:06 am
@Positan says
“Demonstrably, MMP is far more about accommodating the parties of the lunatic left than the people and it’s cost this country the plot.”
Correction:
It is about accommodating the parties of both the lunatic Left AND right.
Tail wags dog……
Gerrymandering…..
Not MMPs fault per se, but the way it is set up.
Vote:A dog’s breakfast.
* Maori seats
* List MPs AND constituency MPs
* Low electoral threshold
October 21st, 2011 at 8:11 am
Math fail. 61 is a majority in a 121 MP Parliament.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:13 am
Can’t see it happening, especially after the Labour/CTU industrial relations announcement. The union movement is not as popular as they would have you think.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:14 am
“National 58 MPs, Labour 38 MPs, the Greens 14 MPs, Act 5 MPs, the Maori Party 3 MPs, UnitedFuture 2 MPs, and the Mana party just 1 MP.”
The Gweens could get 14 MPs without winning a single electoral seat !
Scary. Real scary.
Reason #1,078 why MMP should be given the flick at the earliest opportunity.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:16 am
There’s nowhere near as much tail wagging dog as some keep claiming.
But shouldn’t it be the dog’s owners, the voters, who dictate via smart voting? Use MMP in every electorate and with strategic party voting, and take much of the manipulation out of parties hands.
It looks like Epsom voters are again showing some independence from party coercion. More electorates should break old habits and party dictates and shake the parties up. If they are put on their electorate toes they will be more attentive to the electorate.
We should wag the dog, apathy is more likely to deliver a mongrel.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:41 am
iPredict is not a poll, and is not necessarily accurate.
Vote:And those of you knocking MMP, how dare you say that the people voting for minor parties have no right to be represented in Parliament? Just because a community isn’t geographically bounded, does that community therefore not deserve representation? The flaws you are talking about ought to be fixed, and voting for MMP in the referendum will let a review fix the aspects people don’t like, such as coat-tailing in all likelihood.
October 21st, 2011 at 8:47 am
OK, that’s scary…
Just pinching myself.
In complete agreement with awb!
Here, I said it.
Vote:Too early for a drink?
October 21st, 2011 at 8:53 am
We are constantly told how smart the voters are in Epsom – let’s see if they are as smart as a lot of the voters in the Maori seats (who do seem to understand the advantages of splitting their votes, overhang seats etc).
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 9:01 am
I guess it depends how smart the Labour vote in Epsom is, if I was in Epsom I would vote National if I was the tribal Labour voter I used to be.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 9:17 am
re Other_Andy:
“Correction:
It is about accommodating the parties of both the lunatic Left AND right.
Tail wags dog……
Gerrymandering….. ”
Yet it was the parties of the Left that pushed for MMP over all the other choices with typically Leftist sneakiness. Have you forgotten the TV efforts of Rod Donald, in sports jacket and tie, hair combed and parted – pretending to be a thoughtful young conservative as he sought to impart the “benefits” of MMP?
No one ever saw him such clobber ever again.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 9:22 am
It is clear what David Farrar’s motive is. That is to scare Epsom voters into voting for Bank’s but lead the rest of the country into believing that a vote for ACT would likely be wasted.
As someone pointed out iPredict is not a poll and can be manipulated by someone happy to lose a few dollars.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 9:28 am
@awb – I don’t share your support for MMP for reasons including:
Is it ‘right’ that an MP who has been dumped from an electorate seat by the voters in the same electorate, can still return to Parliament because they have a high ranking on a List?
Is it ‘right’ that a Party committee can effectively decide who gets into Parliament because they determine the pecking order of their Party List?
It is ‘right’ that we are inflicted with low calibre MPs because who only get into Parliament because they have curried sufficient favour with their List selection committee?
Is it ‘right’ that unelected [List] MPs can effectively hold the balance of power?
Is it ‘right’ that scenarios where Winston Peters held the country to ransom for several weeks whilst he went through a Dutch auction with both Labour and National over baubles of office, can happen again?
Is it ‘right’ that a party that has gained (say) 6% electorate support, can go to the two main parties and declare a ‘bottom line’ for any coalition deal? [Remember, 6% support means that 94% of the electorate didn't want their policies.]
If I vote for a particular candidate in an electorate but they are out voted by someone else, at least we know that the will of the majority [within the electorate] has prevailed. Thats democratic.
But when the flea on the tail of the dog decides who [of the two main parties] gets into power, thats not right. It effectively means that a party with [say] 6% support can decide the direction of the country for the next parliamentary term – when the reality is that 94% of the electorate has already rejected their policies. Whilst this scenario is lapped up by the minority interest parties, thats clearly not democratic for the majority of voters.
MMP needs to be dumped. We really deserve better. Hence the referendum. Vote wisely.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 9:30 am
It would be nice to see the results of simple single question polls in Epsom and Rodney by an independent pollster not looking for a desired result.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 9:52 am
@Elaycee
STV, best of both.
Vote:Plus…..
* Remove the Maori seats
* Higher threshold
October 21st, 2011 at 9:59 am
@Elaycee
Beautifully articulated.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 10:15 am
Elaycee – Your problem is with politicians, not the electoral system. Under FPP there were extremely safe seats which would be a guarantee of getting into Parliament, just as a high list ranking is under MMP. The people selected for those seats were there because they had “curried favour with the selection committee” (your words) Under the Winston scenario you mentioned, he ended up going with the party with the most votes. The same has happened in every MMP election. And if a party has 6% support, they should occupy 6% of the Parliament. Its called democracy.
Other Andy – Thanks, hopefully lightning will strike twice some day.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 10:34 am
Re awb @ 8:41
“The flaws you are talking about ought to be fixed, and voting for MMP in the referendum will let a review fix the aspects people don’t like, such as coat-tailing in all likelihood.”
There’s no guarantee that a review will fix anything, it could well introduce other “flaws” and, if I remember correctly, the results of a review will not be binding on the government of the day.
In my view the flaws of MMP outweigh the benefits, which is good reason to vote for an alernative in the referendum. The referendum is stacked in favour of MMP as it gets another bite second time around, even if “dumped” in this coming referendum.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 10:34 am
@awb
“And if a party has 6% support, they should occupy 6% of the Parliament. Its called democracy.”
No, not necessarily.
You have to have a reasonably high threshold unless you want to end with a unworkable type of situation like they have, for example, in Italy.
(I suppose lightning seldom strikes twice at the same spot)
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 10:40 am
awb says: “Elaycee – Your problem is with politicians, not the electoral system.”
Not at all. The SYSTEM allows an MP who has been dumped by his / her electorate, to return to Parliament via the List.
The SYSTEM created the farce that was Winston Peters.
The SYSTEM allows a minority interest party to be the flea on the tail of the dog etc.
The SYSTEM is the problem.
Thats why we need to dump MMP. And thankfully, we have the opportunity in November to commence the process…
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 10:44 am
Italy’s problems are down to regionalism and corruption, plus they have a much larger Parliament than we do. With 120 MPs, a threshold of almost 1% already exists by definition. A few one man parties would get in, but Australia deals with independents in their parliament fine, there’s no reason why we wouldn’t treat one man parties in the same way.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 10:47 am
The SYSTEM that created Winston was FPP my friend. He was a National MP before jumping ship, and in many elections won an electorate seat.
Vote:Furthermore, the SYSTEM allows a minority interest party to get one, maybe two policies through each term, and very little else. ACT have been in government, and all they got was VSM and 3 strikes. Hardly a tail wagging the dog scenario.
October 21st, 2011 at 11:34 am
awb – Haha – stop it! I can’t handle any more laughter….
The SYSTEM that allowed Winston to hold the country to ransom for several weeks in 1996, was MMP. The Peters Party won 17 seats and held the balance of power. Neither National nor Labour had enough support to govern alone. Neither party could form a majority without the backing of New Zealand First, meaning Peters could effectively choose the next prime minister. He did. His decision took weeks. He held a Dutch auction. Remember the bollocks when Peters pretended to answer a red mobile and then a blue one? In any event, Peters exacted a high price for allowing Bolger to stay on as PM – Peters became Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer (senior to the Minister of Finance), the latter post created especially for him. Indeed, Peters is a good example [and reminder] why we need to dump MMP.
The SYSTEM that allows rejected MPs to keep slurping at the trough via their position on a List, is MMP.
The SYSTEM that gives the flea on the tail of the dog the ability (not the right) to determine a political direction, is MMP.
The SYSTEM that grants MP status to a moron who lists on his CV that he once wore a McDonalds outfit, is MMP.
I’m sure you’ll get the picture. MMP is totally buggered. Times up.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
But Elaycee, you still haven’t adequately explained why any other system is more democratic than MMP, all you have done is list a bunch of periphery issues. Yes, there are kinks in MMP, but you can’t tell me that its less democratic than other systems, given that in a national election, you should be measuring the national mood, rather than a selection of local elections which end up determining the makeup of Parliament.
If MMP is so awful, what is your alternative, and how will it deliver a more democratically elected Parliament?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@ awb – Like every left-leaner, awb appears able to grasp only such facts as appear to support his beliefs/argument. As his other missteps have been adequately addressed, I’ll content myself with pointing out that what happens in Italy or any other country is completely irrelevant to what happens here.
If awb can’t see the obvious and determinable flaws of MMP and the electoral and administrative chaos that has ensued from our playing to PC and all its attendant inanities, that’s his problem – and, instead of trying to defend the indefensible, he should try to be far more objective than his contributions to date would indicate.
All systems have flaws, but to pretend we’re now better off with MMP than we were under FPP indicates almost certifiable delusion.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Elaycee-”The SYSTEM that allowed Winston to hold the country to ransom for several weeks in 1996, was MMP. The Peters Party won 17 seats and held the balance of power. Neither National nor Labour had enough support to govern alone. Neither party could form a majority without the backing of New Zealand First, meaning Peters could effectively choose the next prime minister. He did. His decision took weeks. He held a Dutch auction. Remember the bollocks when Peters pretended to answer a red mobile and then a blue one? In any event, Peters exacted a high price for allowing Bolger to stay on as PM – Peters became Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer (senior to the Minister of Finance), the latter post created especially for him. Indeed, Peters is a good example [and reminder] why we need to dump MMP.”
And New Zealand First would’ve almost certainly held the balance of power had the 1996 election been FPP anyway. They still would’ve won Tauranga and the Maori seats, and a non-aggression pact with the Alliance could’ve seen other seats like Whangarei, Bay of Plenty and Rotorua go to NZF. Also as it happened, NZF was only a couple of hundred votes in Kaimai away from holding the balance of power in 1993.
FPP doesn’t necessarily mean that coalitions aren’t needed-heck, in the final years of FPP Jim Bolger had to form a coalition with Peter Dunne and the United Party to remain in power.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Positan – What a pointless comment. Please answer my actual question, rather than just giving a rant about left-leaner. Play the ball, not the man.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 12:45 pm
awb says: “all you have done is list a bunch of periphery issues..”
Hardly. I’ve given you clear examples why MMP (in its current form) is a farce. No peripheral issues at all – just examples.
The best outcome (IMO) would be for the referendum next month to reject MMP. Then all options can be tabled and discussed. But status quo should not be an option.
But it all depends on whether voters are happy with the prospect that the flea on the tail of the dog, can determine who will be the next PM.
But at least the majority of voters (50+%) will decide – not 6% of the voter pool. Perhaps you can see the irony?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Okay, let me rephrase that question then. Which alternative system will you be voting for in the referendum?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
@awb – “Which alternative system will you be voting for in the referendum?”
Its actually none of your business.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@awb – I was playing the ball – your argument. You referred to Italy – as I said, an irrelevance here.
I addressed your apparent obsession with “representation” at of effective “government” – effective government surely being the objective to which we aspire? Which do you want – lunatic representation or effective government?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Positan – re effective govt vs representation, effective government isn’t provided by Parliament at all. It is provided by the civil service. The civil service, being apolitical, just gets on with their job of running the country regardless of who is in Parliament or government. Therefore I think it is more important that an electoral system delivers accurate representation of the whole population, rather than a majority of Parliamentarians being selected by a minority of voters, as happened under FPP.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 2:03 pm
And I referred to Italy in response to someone else referring to Italy. Makes more sense when you read the full context.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Im with Elaycee who sets out the flaws with MMP very well. MMP allows a very small minority to over rule the wishes and will of a significant majority.
If a pollie cant get elected in an electoral seat then they dont have the support to be in the House. I have always seen political parties as gangs in suits. I want a House of Independents where each member has been elected by a majority of the electors in that electorate.
A person who come to the House to represent ALL the people of their electorate. Not as we have now a bunch of yes men and yes women who spout the party line like they have a CD rammed up their arses. Who are frightened to upset the Party leaders lest they be dropped down the List. Who take orders from the Party leadership and do as they are bid.
I want democracy NOT the feeble excuse we have now
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Im with Elaycee who sets out the flaws with MMP very well. MMP allows a very small minority to over rule the wishes and will of a significant majority.
Except that doesn’t happen. Generally the amount of power a party (in government) has is relative to it’s size.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Lastmanstanding – Under FPP MPs were yes men to the party leadership, as the leadership had the power to remove them from safe seats, or undermine their electorate campaign. Once again, the problem you have is with politicians, not the system. Changing the system will give you… politicians.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:32 pm
shall we mark this post from farrar as the end of that era of gloating triumphalism..?
way back early in the day..i laid out for you why john key would be a on-term prime minister..
..’one-term-john’..remember..?
..and those reasons were:
(eventual) widespread revulsion at what we have become as a country after two plus decades of neo-lib policies..the policies of greed..
..namely our world beating rates of child poverty etc..
(that has come to pass..)
widespread questioning of our role in afghanistan…
(how about that hilarious claim today..that we have nothing to do with torturing..we just hand them over to the torturers…
..occaisonally we hear bumps and screams..but like ‘good-soldiers’..we just ignore them..)
(..that is now coming to pass..)
(eventual) widespread revulsion at the environmental degradation of our country…another result of follies/failures by both labour and national..
..(that is now coming to pass..)
..the evergrowing inequalities driven by both national and labour in the past…(c.f..those neo-lib policies..again)
..and ramped up by this govt..making us one of the most unequal countries in the oecd..
..the top 1% own 16% of our wealth..
..(that has now come to pass..)
..i predicted a widespread rejection of all this..but occupy is surpassing my best hopes..
..and what is national promising..?
..just more of the same..only more so..
..you guys are dog-tucker/played-out..
..about to be swept away by change..
..and if you can’t see that..you have yr heads in the ideological-sand…
..and of course the assumption from you all that the maori party is somehow ‘yours’ also has me currently chuckling..
..maybe you missed it…but very recently sharples was asked if he/the maori party could support a centre-left.
..his answer was an impatient ‘of course..!’..
..’one-term-john’ it is then…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Tell you what philu, if John Key is voted back in, would you agree to never post on KB again?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I can see it all now. Rich pricks camping out in civic square in their Armani suits and Calvin Klein sleeping bags and screaming for the good old days when they had staff to serve their champagne instead of having to get the bloody bottles out of the chilly bin themselves.
Oh the humanity.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:47 pm
and yr pledge in reply..?..there..adze..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Nothing phil, I just wanted to see how sure you were of your predictions…
So whaddya reckon?
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:00 pm
shall we mark this post from farrar as the end of that era of gloating triumphalism..?
Why would we do that, phil?
Since this country seems still to enjoy Key’s gloating triumphalism, doesn’t it. Without ever appearing to realise that Key’s behaviour is actually that. To the contrary, the people of NZ seem for some reason to hallucinate that Key’s a straight-up, no-bullshit sort of bloke. Isn’t that complicated for your side to work out. How could this possibly be? Aren’t those damned polls so very confounding for your side of the spectrum phil.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not gloating.
Even though as you know, we conservatives quite enjoy gloating and we do it all the time.
But I’m not doing it right now.
I’m a compassionate conservative these days, phil. I’ve mellowed.
So no gloating.
From now on.
Vote:October 21st, 2011 at 8:25 pm
i have said that he will be a statistical-oddity…the most popular prime minister ever voted out of office..and after only one term..
..it isn’t him the electorate will reject..it is his/nact-policies…it is those two-plus decades of neo-lib…that will be rejected..
..i think the general feeling could be summed up as ‘enough already!’…
..and the campaign hasn”t even started yet…
..wait ’till hone gets cracking…(as he noted…’if all the poor vote for us..we will have half the seats in parliament..’..
..mana have potent policies..go check them out..if you don’t believe me..(and all costed..too..)
..and of course you can hear the rustling of feet as the soft-nats move to the greens..
…(and i haven’t even mentioned that poisoned-chalice of the asset sales..and how many (last time voted) national are horrified by that promise of economic-lunacy…)..
..the reasons why you lot are dog-tucker are multi-fold…
..(also..don’t underestimate the hold ‘occupy’ will have on the global/local-zeitgeist by then….,,and the greens..and mana..and (increasingly/surprisingly) labour messages answer those calls directly…
..we are very fortunate here..thanks to mmp..we can have our revolution at the ballot-box..
..and in just a few short weeks too..
..i am excited…
..(and as a marker in the sand..when you have jim mora..both his guests…and the opining expert… in agreement that something momentous is going down…around this occupy thing..you gotta listen/watch-up..eh..?..)
..and don’t forget…we are the 99%…eh..?
..eventually/numerically…we win…
..it’s called democracy..
..(sleep tight..!..eh..?..no election-result nightmares..eh..?…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote: