The parties on MMP

May 15th, 2013 at 12:24 pm by David Farrar

15 May 2013_Party Positions on MMP

A useful table showing the total lack of consensus on the recommendations.

I’d be careful concluding that retaining the status quo is beneficial to . Neither United Future or ACT got any List MPs via the one seat threshold in 2011, and frankly I am dubious they would so in 2014.

If anything the party most likely to bring in a List MP might be Mana.

Also lowering the threshold from 5% to 4% is most likely to benefit the Conservative Party, which is a potential coalition partner for National. So again retaining the status quo is not really of much benefit to them – in fact could disadvantage them.

Tags: ,

15 Responses to “The parties on MMP”

  1. BeaB (2,057 comments) says:

    Labour has announced they are calling Judith Collins’s bluff by putting forward a private members bill.

    I think they are too late. Yesterday she called their bluff – and that of the Greens.

    Poor David.. As always too little too late and too lame..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. GConnell (20 comments) says:

    The National party simply has to review the MMP recommendations, and implement changes it chooses to. The idea that it considers a lack of consensus in the house as a valid reason for not implementing ANY of the recommendations is ludicrous. I’m pretty certain that there is a lack of consensus on National policy in the house generally, but that doesn’t stop them from enacting unpopular legislation. National have chosen not to implement change for reasons other than those stated, this is very clear. What those reasons are, we can only speculate, but it would be very naive not to include self interest among them.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Mark (1,360 comments) says:

    National had a clear preference for no change so it can be no surprise that Collins acted as she did. I cannot see why Labour is whinging about the outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. OneTrack (2,581 comments) says:

    All the parties are obviously in full agreement. No work needed for a consensus there. What was Collins thinking :-).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The issue of a consensus is a red herring. There was never going to be complete agreement. Let’s face it, the turkeys were never going to vote for an early Xmas. Which is why the Electoral Commission was tasked with looking at our system. The Commission came up with eminently sensible suggestions. Unsurprisingly, the government has once again been too cowardly to act.

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/stop-wasting-our-time

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    National had a clear preference for no change so it can be no surprise that Collins acted as she did. I cannot see why Labour is whinging about the outcome.

    If National didn’t want any change and was determined to get it’s way, it should have told the thousands of submitters and all those who voted on the referendum. I for one wouldn’t have bothered wasting my time. In fact, the referendum cost millions of dollars. What a gross waste of taxpayers’ money.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. s.russell (1,559 comments) says:

    NZ First has gained at least 4% in every election it has contested. But it has twice failed to clear 5%. Retaining a 5% threshold clearly increases the chances of that party being squeezed out.

    As for the Conservatives, there is little sign of their obtaining even 4% support. But a lower threshold may encourage more people to vote for them, thinking thet they will do so: a tactic that could easily backfire if they fail to reach that target anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. s.russell (1,559 comments) says:

    According to that table:
    * There is a 68-53 majority for retaining the 5% threshold
    * There is a 65-56 majority for retaining the coat-tail provision
    Labour’s failure to provide a position on the other issues makes the numbers less certain, but there appears to be a majority against change on every recommendation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. smttc (689 comments) says:

    A good outcome. Can we ditch the report on constitutional reform as well please.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,760 comments) says:

    I’d be careful concluding that retaining the status quo is beneficial to National.

    Funny … that’s a somewhat different line to the one you ran here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/09/national_response_to_mmp_review_proposals.html

    The Electoral Commission has proposed changes which would arguably have seen National not able to form a Government in any of the six MMP elections to date. You’d have to be the most incredible optimist to think this would lead to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kleva Kiwi (281 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,363) Says:
    May 15th, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    What a gross waste of taxpayers’ money.

    Oh hey. You just explained every Gweens/liabour policy out there. Thanks for summing it up for us!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    I remain surprised just how parties are acting in their immediate, not long term, interest. It’s in the interest of all small parties to have a lower threshold, and didn’t the Greens almost come into parliament on an electorate a few years ago?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. nzmalc (2 comments) says:

    Why does it matter what the parties think? They should listen to what the public want and what the Electoral Commission have recommended. The parties own opinions frankly don’t matter.

    We don’t get to decide what laws we follow and what our tax rates are so why should the government get to decide the rules they follow. The power to change the rules should be with the Electoral Commission.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. oglet (2 comments) says:

    Exactly, nzmalc. But party politics rules in NZ. Time for a second chamber to hold them to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ianmac (26 comments) says:

    United, Act, Mana have one member each but a “vote” equal to Parties of much greater numbers.
    Since National have the lions share on an individual MP basis, once they “voted” for the status quo to protect their interests, then of course it was dead in the water. But what a shameful way to treat Democracy and the will of the Commission and of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.