12.40am. If the election had been single-member first-past-the-post on current boundaries, the result would have been National 41 seats, Labour 21, Maori 5, minor parties 3. Make that preferential, and give Labour 75 per cent of Greens preferences and split the others evenly, and there’s little change: National 40, Labour 22, Maori 5, minor parties 3.
10.55pm. Regarding that ninth Green Party seat, Antony Green writes: “Unlike Australia, they do not count special (absent, postal etc) votes progressively, but as a lump in about 12 days time. It will be two weeks before they do the final allocation of seats.” Strong Green performance on special votes has been a notable feature of past elections.
10.45pm. Green Party leader Jeanette Fitzsimons addressing supporters. Haven’t mentioned them much because the result has left them marginalised. The party has gained two seats, from six to eight, although Fitzsimons is holding out for an ninth. Not bad, but less than the polls had indicated.
10.38pm. Labour and NZ First principals venting about the media, in time-honoured fashion.
10.33pm. Peter Dunne confirmed in his speech 10 minutes ago that he would back a National government, and there’s no doubt left that that’s what we’ll be seeing.
10.28pm. However, Labour has taken the lead in Christchurch Central, where they trailed earlier after winning by 23.7 per cent in 2005 – though I can’t speak for redistribution effects.
10.20pm. Nikki Kaye has won for National in Auckland Central, in what seems to be the biggest electorate seat boilover. Labour won by 9.3 per cent in 2005, presumably on different boundaries.
10.14pm. Remember that when Elections NZ says 90 per cent counted, they mean 90 per cent of booths counted. The ones outstanding are presumably big ones, mostly in Auckland. So the current 45.6-33.6 gap might narrow a little further than you’d think.
10.01pm. Peter Dunne home and hosed in Ohariu, Maori seats now definitely 5-2. Only question is how things are looking beyond 61 seats. National still slowly losing ground, but will win at least 58 seats, ACT NZ looking very good for five, maybe only four if they’re unlucky. No question that we’ll be seeing a National-ACT NZ government.
9.48pm. Antony: “The best estimate I see for the new Parliament is 58 National, 5 ACT plus Peter Dunne – Right with 64, then 44 Labor, 8 Green, Jim Anderton, giving the Left 53, plus 5 Maori. 122 seat Parliament.” Third on the ACT NZ list is Roger Douglas, Treasurer in David Lange’s Labour government in the 1980s famed for his free-market reforms, who could well be back in cabinet.
9.45pm. National vote edges down enough to cost them a seat, so make that National 59 and ACT NZ 5.
9.37pm. We’re likely looking at an overhang of two, so 61 will be a majority with an independent Speaker. Current figures suggest National 60 and ACT NZ five, although the former are fading a little.
9.33pm. Little change in Te Tai Tonga with a big advance in the vote, so the Maori seats are firming up as five Maori Party and two Labour Party, with a very remote possibility that Labour might yet make that 4-3 with Te Tai Tonga.
9.30pm. Big advance in the Ohariu count, but the vote has changed very little, so Peter Dunne should be home.
9.28pm. National Party down to 46.7 per cent with 56 per cent counted, so the prospect of majority government is diminishing.
9.21pm. Antony sticking with his 45-35 prediction.
9.20pm. New Zealand First surely gone now, fading to 4.3 per cent with 47.4 counted.
9.19pm. Labour beginning to gain a little on the National Party as the southern Auckland vote comes in.
9.18pm. Maori seats. Labour home in Ikaroa-Rawhiti; probably done enough in Hauraki-Waikato; only slightly behind in Te Tai Tonga 44.2 to 41.8 per cent, but with 60.3 counted the Maori Party candidate is probably home. Other four seats held by the Maori Party.
9.15pm. Local observers excited the National candidate is ahead in Auckland Central, and in the hunt in Christchurch Central.
9.13pm. Silly woman on Radio New Zealand complaining that UNZF and Progressive Party are in parliament with a small share of the national vote. Of all the criticisms to make of MMP …
9.11pm. Peter Dunne back down from 33.2 to 32.6 per cent in Ohariu with 26.1 per cent. Still likely to win with Labour second on 29.7 per cent, though worth keeping an eye on. It’s probably only his own seat that’s at stake: party’s national vote is 0.9 per cent, whereas they would need at least 1.5 per cent for a second seat (more if NZ First makes the threshold).
9.04pm. National vote count up to 34 per cent, and the National vote still a strong 47.8 per cent. However, ACT NZ is looking at five seats and far the most likely result is a National-ACT coalition. Antony Green discusses talk of Peter Dunne being made Speaker.
8.58pm. Count in Ohariu up to 19.6, Peter Dunne gains a bit of ground from 32.1 to 33.2.
8.54pm. Antony: “Really looking like National 45%, Labour 35% at this stage. National plus ACT still looking at just reaching a majority.”
8.53pm. Commentators on 3News expect NZ First to lose ground when special votes are admitted.
8.51pm. Assuming NZ First don’t pull a rabbit out of the hat, it’s looking like the vote for excluded parties will be 6.5 per cent, meaning the National Party will need a bit under 47 per cent to get a majority.
8.50pm. Labour looking increasingly safe in the Maori seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti, leading 51.3 to 41.6 with 28.2 reporting.
8.44pm. Antony confirms that the booth votes should even up the vote in the terms I suggested earlier, to about 45-35 in favour of the National Party. Booths currently coming in are very small ones. City booths later on should see Labour and the Green Party go up (from 31.3 and 6.3 at present, to the National Party’s 48.7).
8.43pm. Jim Anderton has opened up a handy lead in Wigram, 42.4 per cent to 32.4 per cent National.
8.42pm. 15.2 per cent of booths in from Ohariu, and Peter Dunne has faded a little further to 32.1 per cent, against 29.2 per cent Labour and 28.3 per cent National.
8.35pm. Maori Party still looking good in Te Tai Tonga, leaving two of the seven in doubt but favouring Labour.
8.29pm. Labour still looking good in the Maori seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti: leading 49.7 to 43.7 with 12.9 counted (that’s 12.9 per cent of booths, not votes).
8.27pm. No great change in Ohariu with count up from 4.3 to 8.7 per cent.
8.21pm. Commentator on Radio NZ makes the point that the higher NZ First gets without crossing the threshold, the lower the vote the National Party needs for an absolute majority. At present the NZ First is almost exactly where the National Party would want it – 4.5 per cent.
8.17pm. Count in Ohariu up from 4.3 per cent to 6.5 per cent, and Peter Dunne is up from 33.2 per cent
8.15pm. Much as we saw in ACT, we appear to be in a lull between the entry of “advance” votes and booth votes in significant numbers.
8.10pm. Peter Dunne of United Future NZ is down on raw figures from 45.9 per cent to 33.2 per cent in Ohariu with 4.3 per cent counted. He may have suffered from the redistribution which changed the name of his seat from Ohariu-Belmont. At the moment it’s a tight three-horse race: Dunne 1197, National 1032, Labour 1001.
8.03pm. Antony: “The advance votes tell us National will win. But did the gap between National and Labor tighten at the end of the campaign? If it did, then it might be closer. Will Labor plus the Greens come close to National plus ACT? It doesn’t look like Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton will do anyhting other than elect themselves.”
7.58pm. No change in Maori seats: the Maori Party leads in five, but trails slightly in Ikaroa-Räwhiti and Hauraki-Waikato.
7.50pm. Antony on the advance vote: “in 2005, Labor rose from 36.8% to 41.1% at the end of the count, National from 43.5% to 39.1%, Green 4.8% to 5.3%, NZ First 6.1% to 5.7%, United NZ 3.0% to 2.7%, Maori 1.6% to 2.1%.” Does that mean the current raw figures of National 49, Labour 31.5, Green 6, NZF 4.5 should be adjusted to National 44.5, Labour 36, Green 6.5 and NZF 4?
7.48pm. Winston Peters now getting thrashed in Tauranga, and NZ First national vote has faded a little to 4.6 per cent with 4.6 per counted.
7.45pm. ACT NZ on 3.3 per cent so far, and I imagine would go higher with big Auckland booths, compared with 1.5 per cent (two seats) in 2005.
7.41pm. TVNZ projecting a slight National Party majority with 63 seats out of 123, the remainder going 40 Labour, 8 Greens, 6 Maori, 4 ACT New Zealand, one each for Progressive and United Future New Zealand. Even if the National Party is reined in a little from here, they could surely rely on backing from ACT NZ.
7.34pm. Antony (hell, just read his blog): “Models are looking better for Labor than the raw vote, but still not enough to prevent a change of government.”
7.30pm. Antony reckons we’re in for “quite a wait” to see if the National Party wins a majority – but if those are the stakes, it seems there’s very little prospect of any kind of Labour government being formed.
7.28pm. However, Labour leads 730-632 in Ikaroa-Räwhiti. Maori leads of varying sizes in the other five.
7.26pm. Antony projects five of seven Maori seats going to the Maori Party, but the first one I’ve looked at is the one reckoned Labour’s best chance of hanging on (Hauraki-Waikato), and Labour’s lead is only 490-475.
7.24pm. Antony Green reports: “Early models are matching votes up in line with current percentages, which would point to a National majority government.”
7.19pm. Very early results provide hope for NZ First: they’re bobbing around the threshold mark, and Winston Peters leads in Tauranga 236 votes to 224.
7.18pm. National vote with 3 per cent counted: National 49, Labour 32, Green 6 per cent, NZ First 4.5 per cent.
7.17pm. Jim Anderton comfortably ahead in Wigram with 2 of 64 booths reporting.
7.15pm. Peter Dunne only slightly ahead in Ohariu, with 2 of 46 booths reporting.
7.12pm. Antony Green says the “first advance votes” are in line with the polls: National high 40s, Labour mid-to-high 30s, Greens 7 per cent, NZ First 3.8 per cent.
7.10pm. It doesn’t look like they’re providing booth-level figures for tonight’s count either, which pretty much leaves us completely in the dark. In 2005 the early count looked diabolical for Labour to the untrained eye, but that was because rural booths were coming in early. If any media outlets are making the effort to match booth results, I would be pleased if someone could bring it to my attention.
7.02pm. Curses to the NZ Electoral Commission, which claims to have CSV files of booth-level results from 2005 on its site – but all the links are broken. Let’s hope it gets a lot better from here.
7.00pm. A quick guide for beginners. New Zealand has a proportional representation electoral system, which normally means the non-local observer need look no further than the national vote. However, mixed-member proportional brings the complication that minor parties must clear one of two hurdles to win seats proportional to their vote share: either they must win 5 per cent of the national vote, or win at least one constituency seat. The minor parties in play are:
- The Green Party, who current polling suggests are sure to clear 5 per cent. Notwithstanding party leader Jeanette Fitzsimons’ win in Coromandel in 1999, they will probably need to.
- New Zealand First, closely associated with its troubled leader Winston Peters and presumably in big trouble. Peters lost his constituency seat of Tuaranga in 2005, but his party scored 5.7 per cent of the national vote despite a 4.7 per cent swing. In spite of everything, Peters might have some hope of recovering Tauranga with the retirement of one-term National Party MP Bob Clarkson.
- The Maori Party, believed likely to capture most of the seven dedicated Maori electorates (it currently has four), potentially causing a significant overhang (see below).
- ACT New Zealand, the free-market party led by Rodney Hide, who retained his seat of Epsom in 2005 with 42.3 per cent of the vote against the National Party’s 33.7 per cent.
- United Future New Zealand, led by Peter Dunne, who is very likely to be re-elected in his seat of Ohariu.
- Progressive Party, led by veteran Jim Anderton who polled 46.6 per cent in his seat of Wigram in 2005.
In normal circumstances, the parliament will consist of 63 general electorates, seven Maori electorates and 50 list seats. However, these numbers can be increased in the event of an overhang, which occurs if a party wins more constituency seats than it would normally get from its share of the national vote. This is almost certain to be true of the Maori Party, which might win as many as seven seats despite having a national vote of between 2 and 3 per cent according to the polls. The Progressive Party constituency seat is also likely to be won from a negligible national vote that wouldn’t account for a seat. Taken together, that could lead to an overhang of between two and five seats, for a total of up to 125 seats rather than 120. As such, attention here will be focused on the national vote; Tauranga, Epsom, Ohariu and Wigram; and the Maori electorates.
6.10pm (NZ time). Welcome to my live coverage of the New Zealand election count. I’m getting in early here to advertise the fact that I’m doing this – polls in New Zealand do not in fact close until 7pm.
557 Comments
Shy Noos is covering the election from 5.00pm AEDT.
Good work Mr Bowe. I will make sure to check back from time to time. I suspect this will be an end for Labour’s hold over NZ. The interesting question will be who they turn to after 15 years with Helen Clark.
Agreed, ltep. I think that Glen’s horse will win by a country mile ……
The electoral system makes it quite hard to pick who’ll win, Clark is a master at coalition building. If the Nationals don’t get a majority of seats which going by polls they will struggle to do, it could go either way.
Five headed monster!!!
Also, thanks Bird of Paradox for the Gallagher Index link. Exactly what I was thinking of.
I think we shall have a repeat of our 2007 election.
Key should romp it home if the polls are anything to believe.
I hope NZ First get thrown out.
National should be able to govern by the end of the night with ACT and United Future and if it is a complete rout Key may be able to govern without them, but that would require something special.
ahhhh finally an election i can look forward to lol!
I reckon the Labour vote is underestimated and the National Vote will come down.
Hoping for Nats/UF/ACT to have less than a majority!
Come off it Glen, we gave you the WA election. Don’t be greedy. LOL
Ah well, at least we still don’t have Howard.
During his last few years I used to joke “We should move to NZ”. I guess it’ll be the conservatives saying that now.
Apparently there have been isolated instances in the past where one party or other has been tipped to win easily, according to the polls, and have come up well short. Who knows. I wouldn’t be betting on the result though.
I can live with Key. Howard and Bush 3 would have been too much.
A bit depressing that the Roy Morgan poll is the best we have to hope for.
Gary but you had NT, ACT and the Presidency of the USA that counts!
All we have had it Italy, Canada and now hopefully NZ.
lol
The Nats were predicted to win last time in 2005 but they fell short…they are far ahead than they were in the polls in 2005 so i still think National will win.
Poll closing time!
Yay!
I think you’re right Glen, Key should win. With their system it’s just not as certain as some elections.
I got the time on the dot!
Yay!
That is true Gary, MMP is a little out of the ordinary.
It makes it awfully hard to govern in a majority.
Streams?
Some votes are in:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_minisite_index_skin/news_election_08_group
No idea how many.
National in the lead on 44%.
Im not getting too excited as i was in 2005 i thought Brash was in like Flynn until the South Auckland votes came in and bam National were gone.
Nats on 45%
Labour on 35%
0.6% counted….very early days
Have the non-conservative parties in Aus, NZ, UK, and the US ever been in power at the same time?
Interesting question. Damn you Canada, ruined the left-wing Anglo alliance. Would’ve been a cool 4 days.
Possibly, Churchill, Menzies, Eisenhower and maybe if National were in Government in the 50s sometime i guess maybe then in the 50s.
National on 48% of the vote
Labour 32%
1.7% counted whoooo
I’m listening to Radio New Zealand. Is anyone out there keeping a particular eye on other outlets, who could take on the job of telling us what they’re saying?
None of the streams are working!
“Would’ve been a cool 4 days.”
Bear in mind Bush and the Republicans are still the incumbents in the US.
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/
With NZ’s population less than Australia and well and truely less than the US
how long does it take to “count” the votes? I understand that horsetrading and so on goes on after the fact for alliances, etc. over a period of days (probably not dissimilar to the amount of time it took the ACT to figure out what they were going to do?) but how long on average to count the raw votes?
Antony Green also says:
7:12 – first model makes this election look close. TVNZ will publish the numbers soon at which point I can let you in on the battle.
Yes the streams are dead.
TVNZ is rubbish. They only have percentages of each party, not even the total counted or anything else.
NZHerald has 0% for everything, lol
3.3% counted
National 49% and with projected 65 seats…an absolute majority.
If things keep up this good they wont need ACT or United Future.
1945-1949 From the election of Attlee`s Labour to the defeat of Labour in New Zealand.
Labour in Australia till just after that and Truman in the White House.
Am I right in thinking the Maori Party are expected to win all seven Maori seats except Hauraki-Waikato, where Labour’s Nanaia Mahuta might hold on? Are other seats thought in doubt?
Keys said he’ll put people from both in his cabinet regardless. Whether he will or not is a different story.
elections nz had them (maori) on 5 projected seats…
Julie, each booth does its own count, so the total vote shouldn’t be much quicker than an Australian election: their big booths are only slightly smaller than ours.
The early results would be small booths wouldn`t they?
Which I would guess would favour National.
Btw these figures include 184,000 advance votes.
Labor has narrowed the gap somewhat since then. Well according to Roy Morgan at least.
Sigh, not a single online working stream. Just Radio National.
Still to have Labour barely on 30% is not a good sign for later on.
National are pushing 50%…
Would you trust Morgan?
Antony Green blogging here;
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/
We can have Canada and NZ as the token examples that the conservatives can do no better, and infact probably worse, in the current global economic turmoil.
I think the same way about WA. It’s all good and well to call a government incompetent, but when the other side isn’t running the show anywhere, it’s a very easy and misleading claim to make.
After a term of the WA Liberals, people will be able to compare. Two problems however, in that the WA Nationals will moderate them somewhat, and WA is flush with cash before and after their election due to the mining.
BRIDGES, Simon (NAT) ahead by 1841 votes from Winston Peters in Tauranga…not looking good for NZ First.
From what I’m hearing on Sky last election National lead comfortably at this stage too.
But they are all in one time zone (except for the odd small territory which are to the East and in earlier time zones) with no low population western appendages that don`t even slow down knowing who has won unless the election is close.
Radio New Zealand stream is working for me. Tom, Antony’s projections are based on modelling, so these are not raw figures he’s discussing. Labour might hope there’s a swing in rural areas that won’t translate in the cities, but there’s no particular reason to think that’s in prospect.
What do you expect, they have one cable coming over to us.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg
3.8% counted
National on 49.01% of the vote and projected 66 seats
Labour on 31.49% of the vote and projected 42 seats
Looking good for Key so far
Yes, quite right, Tom. I should have made my point of comparison an Australian state election.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_minisite_index_skin/news_election_08_group
has NZF on the magic 5%.
They rounded that up from 4.6%.
Not so magic.
Winston Peters looking very unlikely to get up in Tauranga.
Antony on the advance vote: “in 2005, Labor rose from 36.8% to 41.1% at the end of the count, National from 43.5% to 39.1%, Green 4.8% to 5.3%, NZ First 6.1% to 5.7%, United NZ 3.0% to 2.7%, Maori 1.6% to 2.1%.” Does that mean the current raw figures of National 49, Labour 31.5, Green 6, NZF 4.5 should be adjusted to National 44.5, Labour 36, Green 5.5 and NZF 4?
It looks to me like we’ve had 227,371 advance votes counted out of 231,837 overall.
Looking closeish in Ohairu for Peter Dunne (United Future)… he’s on 1197, with National 1032 and Labour 1001 (off only 4.3% of the vote, though). Was this a safe seat for him before?
Maori Party on track to win five seats according to NZ radio.
Except Greens should be 6.5 not 5.5.
Quite so, Oz, thanks.
Peter Dunne of United Future NZ is down on raw figures from 45.9 per cent to 33.2 per cent in Ohariu with 4.3 per cent counted. He may have suffered from the redistribution which changed the name of his seat from Ohariu-Belmont. At the moment it’s a tight three-horse race: Dunne 1197, National 1032, Labour 1001.
Are any TV streams working?
Nope.
So if only more Labour and Green voters had tactically electorate voted for National, then National would be less likely to win.
Click the link under the photograph of the man at the centre of the page
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_minisite_index_skin/news_election_08_group
30,000 new votes (not advance) counted and not much has changed.
Other minors:
Jim Anderton (Progressive) leads National 1302 – 1048 in Wigram, with Labour a lot further behind.
Rodney Hide (ACT) is rock solid in Epsom: he leads National 2253 – 1020. They’ve got nothing to worry about.
Thanks ShowsOn, but I’m not getting any further than the National Bank ad – after that it goes blank.
Blank here too. Pretty poor really!
What if you open the link directly in Windows Media Player?
http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_video/windows/one_news/live_election_081108_128k.asx
Same here.
That`s capitalism for you, the Ads work but the program does not.
Is it working for you ShowsOn?
Forget the Sky Noos coverage. It’s a bloody shocker. Any election coverage program that tries to run a comedy hour at the same time is not worth watching.
http://www.decision08.co.nz/Decision08Home/LiveResults/tabid/229/Default.aspx
I deserve a medal.
Click the link and away you go.
Hmm, RNZ was working for me before but not anymore.
It takes a while to load btw.
Here’s a different TV channel, but they are currently showing the nightly news:
http://www.3news.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/3NewsLiveStream/tabid/387/Default.aspx
I don’t they expected anyone besides themselves to give a crap about the election so didn’t bother putting aside the right amount of bandwidth.
http://www.3news.co.nz/portals/0/video/electionPlayer.html
National vote is now actually higher than the advance figures with Labour down as well as NZF.
And they are right, apart from tragics like us here gathered.
National ahead in 45 electorate seats compared with just 17 for Labour.
Still early days with 15% counted but Key is looking good.
He’s won, move on.
I’ll take Australia and America for New Zealand any day.
Don’t bother with 3 News. They’re spending more time covering the food at each party’s function than the election.
A merchant banker for PM – talk about turkeys voting for Xmas.
Video ius unfortunatly not watchable. Too little bandwidth…Maybe there are not planning for people with ACTUAL broadband?…
It’s still early. While it looks good for National, if the Nats/UF/ACT get just a single seat below a majority, I would say Labour will get back in.
I’m willing to throw in the U.K. too.
What about Austria ShowsOn?
The SPO got up there too.
Labour is gaining ground in Ohariu on the Nationals, maybe on a later surge they could overtake Peter Dunne? The race is narrowing in Hauraki-Waikato.
That election was defeat for all types of centrism. We both lost there Glen.
There will need to be a pretty big Labour comeback for Clark to win from here, but apparently this is always the way NZ election counts progress.
The Elections NZ website now predicts five ACT seats.
And Spain showson dont forget Spain.
But we’ve still got Malta, South Korea, Italy and Canada….
Winston has now dropped to 4.3% in the party vote.
No but we’ll form a Grand Coalition there…so we win.
I see your Austria and raise you a Maldives.
Let’s stick with real countries who haven’t had sanctions placed on them.
Harper is to the left of most Australian Liberals. Berlusconi will assume the mantle of worst democratic politician in the on January 20th, 2009.
Do you really want to claim kinship with the archcrook Berlusconi and his neo-fascist sidekick Fini, Glen?
Harper actually leads a Conservative Party not a ‘Liberal Party’…he is a conservative he just has to run to the centre as he’s in a minority government.
Also we have Japan with the LDP…
A bunch of lazy and corrupt hacks who have run the Japanese economy into the ground – such friends you have Glen
hmmmmm we’ll he’s better than a left wing mob who couldnt govern themselves let alone the country and better than communists…but no there is much even i dislike about Silvio but he’s been rejected and come back…that’s like Howard losing in 2007 staying on and winning in 2010…
I would more call Fini a racist than a fascist…
You also have Iran.
But I thought this thread was about New Zealand.
Don’t forget Poland
But there being conservative means you’re a religious fanatic which i am not so no kinship to the conservatives in Iran, I would be a liberal in Iran i can tell you!
Call you him what you want.
“Dear comrades, MSI claims its right to refer to fascism” (1988), “We are fascists, the heirs of fascism, the fascism of the year 2000″ (1991), “After almost half a century, fascism is ideally alive” (1992), “There are phases where freedom is not among the key values” (1994), ” Mussolini was the greatest Italian statesman of the twentieth century” , “Fascism has a tradition of honesty, correctness and good government” (1994)”
Why is Italy in the G8 when they can’t even sort out a waste collection crisis in one of their major cities???
He has formally renounced fascism since he said those things – believe him or not as you choose. I still class him as a neo-fascist. But there is no doubt that Berlusconi is a gangster, the most corrupt major politician in Europe. The fact that the Italian electorate don’t seem to care doesn’t alter that.
From Antony:
TVNZ predicting National 58, ACT 4, Labour 45, Green 8, Maori 5, plus Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton. A Parliament of 122, National plus ACT 62, and there has been a rumour of Peter Dunne becoming Speaker.
Italy is hilarious
Belusconi owns a large chunk of it and all media must be government registered or something.
Anyway go China. Hooray for actual dictatorship
I guess Italians like having a heavy set, half mad, crook as their leader given how easily Mussolini took power.
That would make
Nat+ACT+UF = 63
Lab+Grn+Maori+Prog = 59
Close but not close enough
Lulwhat.
ABC news just called the election a “nail-biter”.
???
Commiserations to New Zealanders. Here’s hoping its short and relatively painless.
That’s why there system is just bonkers…the Nats are thumping them but their system gives Labour as of now 20 extra seats…
If it was just a democratic FPTP system…
National 39
Labour 23
ACT 1
UF 1
Prog 1
Maori Party 5
That’s a National majority government of about 10 seats.
Labour has gone up from 20 to 23 district seats in the last 20 minutes
National seems to be getting a fair amount of Party votes above their candidate votes.
It depends on your view of democracy Glen. They are getting the amount of seats in the Parliament that they’ve been voted to get. Seems democratic to me.
At least 2 of those only 15% of polling booths counted and Labour ahead by a hundred votes…dont get too excited Adam.
The consolation prize is the disappearance of NZF. I almost stopped supporting Clark after she did her deal with Peters.
People should take a look at Te Tai Tonga, the only possible Maori gain at this point. Early in the night they were leading by 10%, but the gap is now less than 3%.
Glen,
“8:29 – Some history. The last landslide election was 1990, under first past the post, when National won 47.8% of the vote and Labor 35.1%. Under that system, National won 67 seats, Labour 29 with one New Labour.”
Say what you want about instability etc. but the current system is far more accurate in reflecting actual voter intent.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/0a29046.html
Shows A split parliament. (Providing the Maori Party supports Labour)
If one more seat goes to the Left Parties, I reckon Labour will stay!
It’s not over yet!
Bahaha… clod.
(I assume UNZF = United Future?)
Why should the Greens get 6% of the vote and get 8 seats in a Parliament of 120 (notional) that’s considerable!
At least you had stable governments with FPTP now you virtually have to make Coalitions every single time.
Ok i cannot count.
What’s 6% of 120 Glen?
That’s your answer.
They are a minority party and dont deserve to have such power to determin the government of a country as they could do tonight.
Why not?
Oh no! Having to respond to the wishes of the populace! What a terrible shame.
Er 8/120 is 6.6% The Greens are currently on 6.4%
Ironic that you’re promoting FPTP and criticising The Greens for getting more seats than they deserve (which is wrong).
He’s the only person in the country who still believes in FPTP. Don’t bother.
They’re not going to decide the result, Glen. It’s going to be a National-ACT government.
Just wait and see how many votes they end up with and how many people voted and they will not account for much of a % and yet you’d let them decide who forms government.
Yes I would. Parliaments are meant to represent the people. Otherwise you have a parliament which does not provide representation for a substantial proportion of voters.
Most likely Ben, I am surprised ACT has been projected to win that many seats with such a small % of the vote.
Itep and Oz before you criticise my opinion can i ask you a question.
Should all citizens get 1 vote for a party?
It’s still going to be National or Labour predominantly making up any government, despite the fact that they never attract a majority of the party vote. Why should they have so much power without ever getting majority support?
Again, what’s 3.7% of 120?
They would have majority support in the Parliament though Ben.
A stable 2 party system is the best arrangement when it comes to democratic governance.
All citizens eligible to vote should be able to vote for whoever they choose. I’m not sure what you were asking?
Still you havent answered my question Oz????
Jesus Christ, calm down. I just read it.
Versus what, zero votes?
You’re criticising PR, I’m in it’s favour. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
That’s your opinion Glen. My view is that it’s insulting to individual voters to ignore their wishes and impose majoritarian governments on them if it’s not what they want.
If people choose to vote in knowledge that it won’t create a stable government then that’s how they choose to vote.
I am saying that when you get into a polling booth that as a citizen you have the ability to have your vote count for 1 political organisation in other words do you believe in the principle 1 citizen 1 vote?
Pretty much, but I don’t think FPTP has a monopoly on “1 citizen 1 vote”. What it does is give a minority of citizens one vote and the majority zero votes. I’m a fan of preferential voting.
Now buy a calculator.
On the understanding I have of what you’re saying… yes. First past the post doesn’t exactly get you that.
By the way, you realise NZ has FPTP?
But then don’t you end up with the Italy scenario of government’s constantly falling apart, until a moronic, yet charismatic, megalomaniac like Burlusconi keeps getting back in, seemingly because Italians are sick of elections?
It would be interesting to see how many electorates Labour would be winning if they had preferential voting. Presumably the increased Green vote is handing some seats to National.
From Antony:
A National/ACT govt should be interesting…
ShowsOn, If people are bothered by it they will vote for one of the more major parties. Otherwise, minority, fragile governments are what the people want.
viz Auckland Central – if National wins it will be because Greens voters can’t preference Labour as they would in Australia.
Just because you say that 2-party systems are better doesn’t make it so, Glen.
People like cherry picking Italy and Israel, but what about NZ? Sweden? PR’s the constant. The variable in Italy is an extremely diverse population. Geographically, socially, culturally and politically. And Belgium. Rofl. That country has a lot of problems but PR is not the cause of them.
Nationals ahead in Auckland Central by about 500 votes now up from 100 a min ago.
59/43 now
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/electionmain.asp
Nader strikes again.
The Darth Nader effect it should be called.
The variable in Italy is a very high level of tolerance for corruption and incompetence.
No its because Labour couldnt convince those who cast ballots for the Greens to back them instead.
Why should Greens voters and all those who vote for minor parties get 2 votes while those who vote for major parties only get 1 its undemocratic!
Thankfully NZ has FPTP for half of its Parliament.
Those who vote for major parties get the same opportunity as any other voter. If the major party is excluded before the minor party then their preference determines who wins the seat.
I don’t think people want governments that can’t do things. That seems to be counter intuitive. They wouldn’t bother voting at all if that is what they actually wanted.
How do they get “two votes”?
Everyone in NZ gets “two votes”. One for party, one for electorate.
Yes, thank god that the majority of votes in most electorates are thrown out the door.
See I always thought democracy was government for the people BY the people. Not for the people by a certain amount of them. That’s why I don’t get the “stability” argument. As if the government is some other class entirely who dictates our every whim as opposed to a place where the views and opinions of the country are represented and debated.
Bah it is undemocratic to give some people 2 votes and others just 1.
That’s why FPTP while for its weaknesses is still the most democratic way of electing people, and why majorities are discussed in terms of votes ahead of the 2nd most popular candidate.
No they dont Itep because their votes in a preferential system get locked in whereas those who vote Green get to vote Green and then Vote Labor that’s why they get 2!
ShowsOn. They can do things with the support of other parties. What you’re seeking to do is deny substantial portions of the public with representation in the parliament.
Who represents their views? You think their views are worthless. I don’t.
Nikki Kaye (NAT) ahead by more than 1000 votes in Auckland Central what an upset that would be.
Man, I have been sitting here watching this for too long. You miss the point. MMP is undemocratic because half the parliament is UNELECTED! There is nowhere in the world who believes anymore it is a worthwhile system. NZ only introduced it because the system they had (FPTP) did not deliver good Government. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
MMP should die a sad lonely death.
Key has said he will change it and that would be an excellent idea. The only supporters of it are the small parties who otherwise would not get a voice.
Glen, so in an electorate where the Greens outpoll Liberal do you think the Greens still get 2 votes?
No then the Liberals get 2 votes and that’s unfair/undemocratic on those voting Labor as they only got 1 vote.
On my screen she’s 270 ahead
And why is a system where you churn through a lot of governments and have a lot of small parties better than a system of elected dictatorship where most people are alienated from a small number of parties?
Except you keep ignoring the fact that most peoples votes are ignored…
But once the Liberal candidate has been excluded the Liberal vote gets reduced to 0 and the other vote (whoever they preferenced) gets increased by one.
It doesn’t mean they voted twice. I don’t understand what you’re saying Glen.
I have her ahead by 858 on 58.5% of the count Adam what do you have???
People don’t get two votes in preference voting! Everyone has one vote, but for some people the vote moves from one person to another. Jesus, how ridiculous to say that Greens voters somehow have more power in a preference system!
I’m a supporter of PR, though not too keen on MMP. There are many problems with MMP, too many to go into here. One feature that is rather bizarre as to how MMP operates in NZ, is that party’s that win electorate seats are not subject to the 5% threshold rule. I don’t see why these parties should have special consideration. If MMP was to be refomed in NZ, this is a feature of it that would need to be changed.
Oh not really, I am just one of those old fashion types that think government has a legitimate role in getting things done, and government’s constantly falling apart due to fracturing coalitions doesn’t aid that.
My preferred system is an executive government removed from a legislature, then a proportional representation based legislature. But in systems where the executive is derived from the legislature, I prefer the Australian system where the lower house is biased in favour of the major parties to help create a solid working majority.
I do support voluntary attendance at voting and optional preferential though. So I think those two things bring us somewhat closer.
Their views are represented by whoever they give their second preference to.
I live in a reasonably safe Liberal seat, featuring a candidate I didn’t vote for. Who represents MY view?
Itep but how does it get reduced to zero???
They give that vote to another party ie that person then got 2 choices or two votes rather than just one!
Glen, in the UK in 1997, Labour got 43% of the vote, which gave them 63% of the seats. Do you consider that to be a democratic outcome?
No ShowsOn, I support compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing.
Noone represents your views which is exactly the flaw of the system.
“They give that vote to another party ie that person then got 2 choices or two votes rather than just one!”
They don’t have two votes. Their vote moves from the Greens to Labor. It ceases to be a Greens vote. The Greens don’t benefit from that vote at all. Thus they only have one vote. It’s why it is called a “Single Transferable Vote” (the name applies to both single-member preference voting and preferential proportional).
Why on earth do you support compulsory preferencing! That means people have to preference party’s they HATE just to make a formal ballot. How is THAT representing their actual views?
No, that’s the nature of democracy. The view’s of the entire electorate are measured, and whoever gets more support wins.
I guess the founding fathers would say that the Senate is the back up opportunity where everyone receives some representation.
No Glen, they still only get 1 choice, or the same number of choices anyone else is given. I completely don’t understand your argument.
Your counting each time their preferred candidate is excluded as an additional vote. It’s not. It’s all one vote.
Yes.
The Tories got far less of the vote than Labour so they won a large majority.
Nobody in that 1997 election got their vote counted twice, hence it was democratic.
Each person got one vote, and it counted only once. That is fair and democratic in my book.
He is represented by his party’s Senators. If NZ had an upper house they wouldn’t need a PR lower house.
Also i am in favour of non-complusory voting.
The crux of it is this.
FPTP risks a minority Government (i.e. minority popular vote gets majority of seats – therefore minority wish governs the majority)
MMP risks minority party holding balance of power (i.e Government policy becomes unbalanced due to minority party having undue infuence – therefore very small minority directs government of the majority)
Both suck big time. Australias PR has hairs on it as well but it is a much more democratic system At least the result is a majority Government voted for by the majority.
Is it just me, or has every website in NZ suddenly stopped working?
ShowsOn, that’s your view of democracy, not mine. My view of democracy is that every individual is a rational, thinking agent capable of informed judgment. Disenfranchising large portions of people from the legislature is an insult to these individuals and undemocratic.
The Senate was not set up on a proportional representation basis so that’s not what the ‘founding fathers’ envisaged. It was initially FPTP, then preferential then proportional. Originally the party getting the highest vote in a state would win all 6 seats in a state, leading to extremely lopsided chambers.
It’s rooted for me too William, they really didnt plan on all these aussies pressing refresh every 20seconds did they lol!
That is apart from the compulsory voting which is not at all democratic!
Yes Adam, having a PR Senate helps. There’d be no need for 2 houses if the lower house had some system of PR.
Elf, in Australia the Government is rarely voted for by a majority of the people. Name the last time the Government was elected with greater than 50% of the primary vote.
I’ve got the same problem William, I lost the NZ election results site and my RNZ audio feed.
What happened to New Zealand?
Are they ok?
Elections NZ is working for me.
The point remains that Senators have no say in forming government, which means much of the governing is taken away from that house. It isn’t the same to have a PR Senate when you continue to have an elected dictatorship in the house of government.
Duh, Itep. That is the point. With PR, the primary vote is never used, it always goes to preferences. EVERY seat is won by a majority of the votes (once preferences are considered).
This is much fairere than FPTP where in NZ a seat could be won with as little as 35% of the popular vote.!!!!
electionresult.govt is still working, but the main Elections NZ website is down.
Do I gather there has been a redistribution since the last election?
Yes but they won the most votes so they should win the seat.
You are giving all those people who backed a minor party another choice on who they want so why should minority groups decided election results…
The DLP helped the Libs for years as have the Greens since 1990, it isnt democratic and it isnt fair.
Ben:
Why should 10% of the voters – the Greens – influence the government of the other 90%
National ahead in Auckland Central by 993 votes with 82.9% of polling booths in, she’s looking good lol Greens and Labour split their vote
!
Even commercial radio got chopped.
But your statement “at least the result is a majority Government voted for by the majority” is incorrect. It is not a government voted for by the majority. e.g. in Australia last election 43% wanted a Labor Government, 7.8% a Green Government etc. etc.
Dear me. I thought the Tizard family were entitled to a seat by hereditary right.
Mary is right!
As is the case here only 3% of NZders who backed ACT will end up deciding that National forms government….
Adam: yes, there has been a redistribution. I’m gathering that’s why Peter Dunne has had trouble getting re-elected: his seat of Ohariu-Belmont is now just Ohariu.
Mary,
They should have 10% of the say. That is what proportional representation is about. Everyone gets a say in a proportion of the Parliament. If you simply exclude those who vote for a minor party you are excluding a significant proportion from having any representation at all. Unless they win 50% of the vote, the major parties are minorities too. The point is that usually when a major party and a minor party vote together (such as National, ACT and UF), then they are a majority.
Mary Hannah Wide, you could turn that around and ask why 43% of voters – Labor voters – influence the government of the other 57%
National ahead by 1003 votes in Auckland Central…i wonder what the odds were on a National victory there you’d have made a killing if they go on to win that seat.
No Glen 46% of National voters and 3% of NZ ACT voters decide that National forms government with the support of NZ ACT.
This election system is too complicated for my poor brain
From what I understand there is a normal 70 electorate FPTP setup. OK I get that and then a “List” with 50 extra seats. But how does National with 46% get 18 “list” seats and Labour with 33% get 22 “list” seats? Wouldn’t it make sense that National get 46% of the 50 “list” seats 23 and Labour 33% of them 16. Green with 6% of the vote should get 3 seats out of 50 and yet somehow they have 8 seats
Or perhaps and even “fairer” system there should be 70 electorate seats and 70 list seats
Itep.
You are talking about the primary vote. But the way preferencing works is everybody is asked a simple question. If your first choice cannot win who is your next choice and so on down the list. There the END result is that the successful candidate is voted for by GREATER then 50% of the voters in any particular seat. It cannot work any other way. That is the beauty of preferential voting.
It is the END result you need to concentrate on, not the first round.
1077 votes ahead lol hahahahah Tizard must be livid oh boy 90% of polling booths in id call it National now
Robert Key must be feeling like this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1o
Thread at Kiwiblog is interesting reading, though we’re currently beating them 207 comments to 162.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/11/election_results_thread.html#comments
But that still disenfranchises everyone who doesn’t want to be governed by either of the major parties.
Yes they have had a redistribution.
http://www.elections.org.nz/mapping/report/proposed_electoral_districts_2007_all.pdf
So I have to draw a new set of maps – and I haven’t even started Canada yet.
Of course everyone is CAPABLE of making an informed judgment, but some people JUST DON’T CARE, and I think it is important that democratic institutions including the electoral process itself respect that ‘view’ or ‘lack of view’. Hence voluntary voting, and optional preferential.
What if someone comes to the rational conclusion that they don’t want to vote? Or don’t want to preference someone? Shouldn’t THAT rational decision be respected?
They can do so by voting informal.
Agree with you there ShowsOn.
Have they found the ‘Bradley Effect’ at long last?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541828
I have posted the electoral maps in Google Earth format on my blog, if people want to look at them. Might be helpful for you Adam, if you change the colours to have 100% opacity you can easily do a “print-screen” and make a copy to do what you want with them.
Bob Katters Hat,
It works something like this.
Ther are 120 seats in the house. If National get 50% of the vote they are eligible for 60 of those seats. If they have already won 40 in the ‘electorates’ then they get another 20 from their ‘list’. If Labour get 50% of the vote they are eligible for 60 of those seats. If National won 40 of the 70 electorate seats then Labour won only 30. So they then get 30 ‘list’ candidates in the house. This is how parties with higher electorate percentages can get less list candidates. But the end result is that the parliament is balanced based on the popular vote – I think.
That is my very simple interpretation. May be wrong though.
# Johnboy (712) Vote: Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“Breaking News: TV3 Reports that Helens makeup artist was seen leaving her house in a B Train with six inch paint brushes, airless spray equipment, buckets of polyfilla and a couple of spare heads falling out the back.”
classic comment on kiwi blog cruel though
Elf, just because I get to have a say in Labor-Liberal doesn’t mean I am represented. Sure, it is better than FPTP where me voting Green means I’m completely locked out of having any say, but the fact remains that I didn’t choose to vote for either of those parties. 10% of the population prefer to have a Green, and I doubt that there’s many Greens voters see the Labor MP their preferences may have elected as their representative.
Thanks Ben. There are also some nice outline maps at the Elections NZ site which should be easy to work from.
Ben,
I don’t disagree with you and I am not really advocating PR as a foolproof method. It has holes! BUT, when put next to FPTP and MMP it is light years in front.
They’re still forced to go to the polls. That’s unfair, and doesn’t respect their will.
Further to Elf’s response to BKH, think of the list seats as “top-up” seats, they aren’t elected independently of the list seats.
Since FPTP electorate seats don’t get distributed proportionally, the list seats are there to restore propotionality. So if a party gets a disproportionately high number of electorate seats, they get less list seats to restore that proportionality.
Right on ShowsOn
I like how quickly you jump from one argument to another without acknowledging that nothing you’re saying makes sense.
The government did not get 90% of the vote.
The better question is, why does 43% get to govern for 100%? You say “10% having influence” as if it’s a bad thing. Why should 10% of Australian’s views not be represented in Parliament?
Im sure several people in WA didnt feel like voting at all in the 2008 election, they didnt like anybody…
Ben and BKH
Actually when you stop to think, maybe MMP is not such a bad system eh?
Yeah, but the advantage with mine is you can zoom in and out however as you wish, and you don’t need to get rid of the bits inside such as roads and towns etc etc. Anyway, they are always up there for anyone who wants to use them.
They are in the Senate Oz.
It depends on your view of democracy and the role of legislatures as to how large the holes in PR/MMP are. If you view the role to be to provide stable, majoritarian government then preferential/FPTP is the way to go. If you view the legislature as the forum that is a microcosm of the spectrum of views and wishes of the community then I think PR/MMP is more democratic.
Both are equally valid opinions to hold.
They probably don’t like paying taxes either, but they recognise they have a social obligationto do so. Voting should be seen the same way.
I agree, MMP isn’t that bad. My main beef is the tendency for unknown list MPs to be elected on party tickets, particularly when a party is basically a front for a single person (like Peter Dunne, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters). That’s why I much prefer PR-STV, Hare-Clark, whatever you wanna call it.
Exactly as I was going to say Adam.
No but if democracy is about freedom and choice why should people be forced to vote if they dont like anything on offer?
93% of the vote counted, Nat+ACT+UF is still 65 of 122. Are we calling it?
I would.
I am also calling Auckland Central for National who are ahead by 1246 with 97.6% of polling booths in.
If they don’t like anything on offer they should stand themselves. If they are not inclined to do that, they can vote informal. Being “forced” to spend half an hour going to vote once every three or four years is hardly an imposition.
William called it roughly half an hour ago.
He also pointed out that interestingly Roger Douglas is back in parliament and a possibility to reenter Cabinet.
What Glen and Mary seem to ignore is the question as to why a party with one extra vote should be entitled to ignore everyone elses voting intentions. Theres never a bleat when the final 10% of the Liberals (or Labor) controls an outcome. Betrays some not very democratic leanings I suspect….. Always simpler when the ‘right’ people sort things out eh what?
If no party exists that you can bear to vote for, then that’s the fault of people not to create those political parties, there’s nothing you can do about that. And in the end people have a choice to vote informal if they really can’t bear to vote for anyone. Although personally I’m not that fussed about compulsory voting in Australia.
But you can’t compare that to when 10% (or 5%) actively choose to vote for a different party.
Have any in the media called it?
Why should they be even forced to vote informal, by not voting they have sent a message to the pollies to lift their game.
Key said he doesnt want him in Cabinet.
Ben, agreed. I too have an issue with the ‘unelected’ parliamentarians. It is perhaps too simplistic to let this colour my view of the MMP ’system’ as a whole.
ITEP. My view of democracy is that a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a pipe dream and was first spoken of by a politician who wanted to get elected in a faraway land that has since turned septic tank. Democracy is really just another name for a system where we all get to have our say and ‘think’ it makes a difference to the ‘beauracrats’ who ACTUALLY run the country.
Some New Zealanders are happy to see the end of Winston…
# Banana Llama (51) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Winston giving his speech, threw a bit of a tanty with media lmao!
“this is not the end”
Oh yes it is my friend, pack up your (s word) and GTFO!”
Why would anyone want unstable government? We elect politicians to represent us in order to get things done, to improve the country, and put in place policies that help increase living standards (health, education). I don’t think unstable government is conducive to creating those things.
Exactly. And people pay taxes because they expect a return in terms of services. Over time they can decide if what they got in return was worth it.
But if someone is compelled to vote for a candidate they hate, what have they received in return for doing so?
‘Beauracrats’ don’t run the country.
Reading Kiwiblog, I gather Key has ruled out a cabinet post for Roger Douglas?
That’s what you think ShowsOn. I don’t think minority governments are necessarily unstable. It just means there needs to be more of a consensus on policy formation. Under PR/MMP WorkChoices would never have passed as it never should have.
Have you watched ‘Yes Minister’ Itep???
If they are good at what they do they do.
ITEP.
uhhuh
Why should I be “forced” to pay taxes for things I don’t use, or for programs I don’t support?
Do you know what form of government that the system described by that motto replaced? Would you really want to go back to that earlier system, where the average person had no say whatsoever?
Democracy is about governing ourselves. It’s not just about a “vote”. Not engaging in the democratic process is not “democratic” because it gives you “choice” it’s undemocratic because you aren’t taking part in a system of government designed for the purpose of giving you the right to decide what kind of society you want to live in.
It’s a major problem with NZ’s system but say you had to number candidates like in the ACT. How many people would turn up to number hundreds of candidates?
Unless I misunderstood and you mean dividing the party list into different electorates as well?
ShowsOn, do you think people who vote Greens really want a Labor Government? No, they’d prefer either a Greens Government or a Government that is forced to negotiate with the Greens. That doesn’t necessarily mean it will be unstable.
WB – would you give a cabinet position to Roger the Dodger? He is a pretty big whale for a brand new PM to try to push around I would have thought.
He previously said that Douglas wouldn’t get a cabinet post, but I think ACT’s position was publicly “fair enough then” and privately “well we’ll see what he says when we have the balance of power!”
No ShowsOn I would not. I am simply stating that we have not reached this ideal and I don’t think we will. No harm in keepng trying though eh?
Peter Dunne’s called it, FWIW. Elf, I personally would like to see it happen, but what I don’t know about NZ politics could fill a warehouse.
How’s this for a compromise:
At the bottom of every ballot there’s an option “None of the above”.
If people genuinely can’t find anything good about any of the candidates they tick that. If “None of the above” gets the most votes, there has to be another election.
I reckon Hare-Clark would work fine in NZ, I don’t see why it wouldn’t. If you divided the country into 24 five-member electorates to elect 120, you wouldn’t have that many candidates. Personally I prefer the way that candidates are listed in Ireland to Robson Rotation. In Ireland there are no party columns, and candidates are listed in a random order, like in our House of Representatives. It encourages parties to only run as many candidates as they think they can win, and most constituencies have max. 10 candidates running for 3, 4, or 5-member constituencies.
Indeed, Ireland is bigger than NZ, with 4.4 million people, compared to 4.2 million in New Zealand, and they’ve used the same system for 80 years.
Why is National getting 59 seats with 45/46% of the vote? Is it because there aren’t enough smaller parties getting over the 5% threshold?
Because if you don’t, there will be no compulsion on others to pay taxes for programs you do support and use.
Because taxes are needed to sustain the State into the future, so you can use your democratic right to reform it, so it does more closely represent your views.
Because some things your taxes pay for are beneficial to others, which in the long term may help you, even if you don’t directly use them. For example, a university can educate people, which lifts their wages, which could lower tax rates in the longer term. Or criminals are put in prisons that you helped pay for, which makes society safer for all.
Of course that’s what I think, that’s why I wrote it. I don’t think WorkChoices is a good example, because it demonstrated the current voting system working effectively, a silly policy ended a government.
Does anyone follow NZ politics closely enough to know exactly what issues brought Clark undone, or was it just that they were sick of Labour after three terms?
It was a rhetorical question, ShowsOn. You really need everything explained in words of one syllable, don’t you?
ShowsOn, are minority governments always unstable?
I disagree.
By the time the election came along it was too late for some people and Labor for whatever reason gave us Workchoices Lite.
Adam
Seem to be the same as here. The populace was sick of the Government but happy with the governing! Go figure. That is why Key campaigned like Rudd – very similar policies to the Government. Who said pollies don’t learn?
I don’t think there was anything particularly awful, although a few bills were particularly controversial, including the Electoral Finance Act.
I think it was a combination of things Adam, but mostly an ‘it’s time’ factor. I also think people were getting sick of social policies such as the ’smacking’ law.
Speaking of the smacking law, they will have to hold a referenda/plebecite on it at some stage under their citizen initiated referendum law.
Itep they did win or are winning 41 electorate seats…that’s why.
She was in for 9 years just about as much as people can take before they want a change.
There aren’t any “issues” in NZ. Labour and National over there are closer in policy terms than Labor and Liberal here, and that’s saying something.
“That weird looking lady’s been in for a while… we’re in something called a “recession”… let’s give that other bloke a go, he knows something about money”.
Jeanette Fitzsimmons says that the Greens may get a ninth MP on special votes.
Oz:
“That weird looking lady” wishes she was still campaigning in a time before TV. She’s a good radio pollie.
They could win 0 electorate seats and still win Government, it doesn’t make a difference.
Good on Jeanette.
What are “special votes”?
ITEP, that made no sense at all.
I hate to ask what the “smacking law” might be.
No ’smacking” allowed of any sort. No smacking a child and no smacking up your nose!
Sorry for that last bit.
What is Key’s position on IR? Did Labour run a scare campaign suggesting that Key would bring in a NZ-WorkChoices? If not, why not?
I thought they were pretty much guaranteed 8?
Why do you always question my intelligence? I have only called you intellectually ignorant, but never stupid.
Not necessarily. I just think our system is better because the executive comes from the legislature. If the executive was appointed by the head of government from outside the legislature, then I would support a proportional representation voting system for the lower house. Because then it wouldn’t determine how governments form and fall.
Yes Oz, that was a mistake, since corrected.
Because Adam, that would be dishonest.
Also im sure Key isnt that stupid he saw what happened to Unca Howie and he wants to stick around for some time yet.
Turnbull must be envious of Mr Key right now, wonder if he’s calling him asking him how’d you do it?
Because you consistently say such idiotic things.
Who are you quoting, Oz? They are fairly solidly sitting on eight seats. I think she was talking about absentee votes, postal votes etc, which tend to benefit the Greens. They are on 6.5% now, they got 7% in 2002 and won nine seats, and considering that there will likely be a lot more wasted votes this time, due to NZF being wiped out.
Adam:
stops child abusers being able to get off scot-free by claiming “reasonable chastisement”
no adult would accept the kind of treatment given out to kids – the blaise attitude towards child abuse in some quarters also sticks in my craw
Pro-union, funnily enough.
See? Weird country.
So here’s what I learnt tonight; Antony Green hates Winston Peters.
My boy Malcolm will be PM inside 4 years. Just remember, I called it first, right here with The Poll Bludger.
aren’t there more important things for government to do than smacking laws?
A brief question from the Sunset Home for the Terminally Confused.
I’ve seen references to ACT getting 3 or more seats from the lists. Yet, they appear to be stuck on 3.7% even further from the threshold than NZ First.
I know that they have a constituency seat in Auckland (Rodney? Hide as the Member), so that accounts for 1. Do they have any other constituency seats? Otherwise I can’t see how they will get 3-5 seats, and it seems even more inexplicable that they’ll get any list seats.
Elf
“My boy Malcolm will be PM inside 4 years. Just remember, I called it first, right here with The Poll Bludger.”
NZ aint big enough for his ego
He’ll say “Well you have to not be an arrogant, greedy idiot”. So bad luck Malcolm.
William, but he said it was a typo.
Mary Hannah Wade
This is not the forum for this discussion but….duh. The smacking law in NZ went way further than you obviously think. It actually STOPPED ALL smacking, actual true reasonable chastisement included. Therefore no child in NZ can legally be ‘chastised’ with a quick smack on the bottom. This so-called “Law” WILL be overturned.
Oh not this uncle business again.
LOL!
That you just dismiss without being able to argue against!
Peter Fuller, once you win an electorate seat you don’t need to meet the 5% threshold any more.
If you get a constit seat, you then get allocated list seats proportional to your vote. So they 3.7% of 122, minus they one they already have.
Adam and ShowsOn – are you 2 in love or something?
Peter, there’s two ways to get list seats. One is to cross the 5% threshold and the second way is to get just one electorate seat. So now they’ve got one, they’ll get list candidates based on their vote.
98.3% counted 59 seats national to 43 Labour
Elf, you realise the referendum isn’t binding. John Key has said that the outcome of the referendum will not commit him to repealing the law.
As far as I can tell there’s some weird love triangle between Adam, ShowsOn and GP.
Glen, I think the epidemic of child-beatings (not smacking, beating), particularly in the Maori community, is a perfectly good thing for governments to deal with. It was a private members’ bill, pushed by a Greens MP (one of the Sues, I can’t remember which one).
Don Brash, who led ACT in 2005, was much more right-wing, and was jokingly called the “ninth ACT MP”. John Key has much more followed the David Cameron model of moving towards the centre.
Adam,
A not especially informed observation about reasons for Helen Clark’s decline in popularity: I’m sure the fatigue with Labour was a key factor, along with the fact of the Government’s being constrained by its coalition of mutually inconsistent partners.
However, I’d also point to the fact that the NZ economy turned down well before the GFC s**t hit the fan.
WOAH! Leave me out of this, it’s Adam and G.P. only.
Itep: It would be a brave politician to go against a citizen initiated referendum. Key is talking tough but at the end of the day he is not a dumb person.
Clark has conceded, according to someone on Kiwiblog.
ShowsOn, I have seen a lot of people say a lot of stupid things at this blog, and no doubt I’ve said some myself. But your assertion last night that the Christian doctrine of the soul can be scientifically disproved by the evidence of post mortem examination of the brain was truly the most cretinous statement I have ever seen here. And I say that with due respect to Glen, who I know is proud of the many and varied stupid things he has said here over the past year.
It’s 11 in NZ. How long is it going to take for Clark to concede?
Ben that’s why its good the Libs have Malcolm he isnt a Abbott (ie like a Don Brash).
Adam and Edward St. John more likely.
If he gets it over and done with early in his term, it’s unlikely to follow through for 2 and 1/2 years.
I think if Labour changes its leadership they’ll be in for a good chance next year. Not because there’s any problem with Helen Clark, just that refreshing your line up and getting some new faces, as long they aren’t idiots, is always a good idea.
Adam and Oz, thanks; I didn’t realise it was either criterion. I thought the Party kept its constituency seat, but needed to jump the 5% hurdle as well to take part in the division of the list seats. As ever, Bludgers are a source of enlightenment.
It’s funny because Glen’s here.
Yes Adam i think that takes the cake over my rantings in German about General Wenck and Unca Howie…but hey….i have said stupid things but i am at least not the only one lol!
Helen Clark conceded
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541856
So… when’s the next election?
We’ve had so many this year it’s going to be boring coming down from them.
Adam, ACT do not get 3.7% of 122 seats. It is first out of 120, the extra seats are overhang and out of the equation. Second, once the 5% or so of votes for parties that are excluded, like NZ First, the % effectively goes to 3.9%. There is no quota, it is a divisor system, as used in most Eurpoean PR systems, where seats are allocated to produce representation on the basis that an MP for each party represents roughly the same number of voters.
That is one cheap graphic on that NZ Herald story.
Israel is in Feb…Ukraine in December…
Listen to the speeches here JamesJ in couple of minutes.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/streaming/newstalkzb-streaming.asp
Here is the TVNZ podcast page for election night coverage.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/410965/1319350
No OZ, again it is not like Australia. NZ allows CIR’s which usually only get a guernsey if the community felling is very strong. Ergo, 2 1/2 years is NOT long enough to dispel feeling that strong. Seriousl;y this law was a huge mistake. Talk about chucking the baby out with the bath water. They should just change it to be in line with what Mary was syaing earlier about beatings. Unfortunately where do you draw the line – so chuck the whole thing out.
Child abuse would still against the law as it is here. But to refuse parents the right the discipline their child, no matter how mildly, is just asking for a generation of mongrels.
It’ll be interesting to see if Labour manage to bungle a chance to make a huge comeback at the next election by electing an unpopular leader. I’m giving that a pretty good chance.
I think Labour even acknowledged at the time that the law wouldn’t do much and that it was just symbolic. Symbolic laws should be avoided like the plague.
Guinea-Bissau on 16 Nov. I keep track of them here
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/
I do like the way NZ gets its election night over so early
Ultra-orthdox vs. Not-so-orthodox-but-still-pretty-orthodox
and
The People’s Party vs. the other People’s Party vs. the People’s Union vs. the Ukrainian Union.
I can’t wait.
Antony, I stand corrected.
William writes:
10.38pm. Labour and NZ First principals venting about the media, in time-honoured fashion.
Ha… so true. It’s only ever the losers who whine about the media.
Guinea-Bissau is cool and all but for some reason I doubt William will be live blogging.
There’s also an election coming up in Quebec in December, and then an Israeli election in early 2009.
RNZ just reported that HC just left home for Labour HQ.
Adam, I respect that. But (and Im quite serious here,) how do you follow the G-B election? Is there a national electoral commission with a website?
Apparently the poor old Israel Labour party will be lucky to crack 15%. It’s basically Tzipi vs Bibi – centre-right vs far right.
Glen, Malcolm has the potential to fill a Cameron-Key-style role, but he won’t be able to do it without purging a bunch of the wingnuts at the 2010 election.
I gather there’s little doubt Phil Goff would succeed Helen Clark as Labour leader, assuming she quits (I gather we’ll find out very shortly).
Ms Clark’s done a good job and is an amazing media operator. Much like our Ms Gillard…
There was a Guinea-Bissau election website in 2004. African countries are always a bit hit-and-miss. The excellent African Elections Database tries to keep track of them.
http://africanelections.tripod.com/
True that Ben.
But im sure National have some wingnuts still in his party and he was able to win.
Ahhh the joys of picking centre-right or right, if only i was an Israeli.
Let’s just say Obama will be hoping Kadima wins…
In NZ Don Brash had only had one election to bring in his type of people (although the 2002 devestation means that most of the National caucus are from the class of 2005) whereas John Howard had over a decade.
Hmm, so I cant host a live G-B election party. No updating site. denied!
As much as some would like, I don’t think Israel is at the top of his agenda.
Considering no-one gave Clark a ghost of a chance when she started out, and considering the amount of ridicule she’s had to put up with, she has indeed had an outstandingly successful run, just as a matter of politics. I don’t know enough to say how good she’s been in policy terms.
The Israeli situation is complicated by the Jewish parties not having anything to do with the Arab parties (the feeling may be mutual).
From wikipedia:
“Goff is a strong advocate of putting ethical issues before national interests.”
I see dark horizons for Mr Goff and Labour.
Wow rowdy Labour supporters. You wouldn’t know they lost.
Speak English woman!
They also have the only Zionist Green Party in the world.
She can speak, Helen Clarke.
HAHAHA a roomful of GP’s.
“NOOOOOOOOO!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!”
lol
I’m watching the sun rise out of my window, and I’d have to agree with you there. Next time round I just hope there’s some decent TV-type stuff… I want to see the Kiwi version of what the ABC has.
A few minutes ago, ABC News (Perth) said the new parliament will have 121 seats, so only one overhang seat. What does that mean? The Maori party got more % vote / less electorates than expected? Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton managed to justify their one seat? Or maybe the ABC just got it wrong…
Israeli politics are vastly complicated because of (a) PR with a low threshold (b) religious and ethnic divisions in the Jewish community cutting across the standard left-right divide, and (c) a 20% Arab minority whose representatives generally don’t take part in government formation. You have several ultra-orthodox parties, both Sephardic and Ashkenzi, you have a Russian party, you have several minor leftist parties. It’s a wonder they ever form a government at all.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol
She’s gone!
Helen Clarke resigning as leader.
NOOOOOO!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
The sun rises out of your window? At last, the mystery of the sunrise is solved!
Clark standing down as Labour leader.
I’d be saying yes. It’s about time.
15 years is a long time.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
This is correct! McCain would win Michigan; McCain is like Winston Churchill come immediately to mind.
I never wrote or intended to imply this. I simply demonstrated that there is a much more LIKELY explanation for human behavior based on the last 30 years of scientific inquiry, which now means there is no good reason to believe it. I apologise for assuming that you had the intellectual capacity to see that clear distinction. Please stick to history; science just isn’t your thing.
N.Z. Labour has a history of doing this, not letting U.S. nuclear subs dock for example.
Isn’t the current election simply the result of an unresolved deadlock?
I have a horrible feeling Netanyahu will win.
Yeah, it appears that the Israeli Greens may be on track to win their first seats, if their polling is correct.
In other news, Helen Clark has resigned as Labour leader.
Man New Zealanders have a huge chip on their shoulder.
They keep comparing it to the US election.
But isn’t that how we felt after 11.5 years of Howard?
Or if they are mainly young voters, they may of never known a non-Labor government.
Pffft. I’ve heard plenty of people try and compare Obama to Rudd as well. We certainly have gone through a lot of changes recently.
-Canada 2006
-Australia 2007
-USA 2008
-NZ 2008
But of course they all have their own reasons.
Fair enough.
Apparently at the National Party reception, they booed when Helen got on stage.
You guys one. It’s not like she’s some kind of Communist who destroyed the country and John Key is a divine saviour. The country is plodding along and it’ll keep plodding along.
Interesting to note that both NZ leaders have left their homes to travel to their respective Party celebrations, you’d think they’d spend the evening in a private room at the hall/hotel listening to the results.
You’re joking.
Anyone who isn’t in cabinet?
Ah, whoops… should be sets, of course. I’m in Perth, not New York.
Rudd and Obama share one thing in common, they received massive majorities (like 2:1) amongst young voters. Megalogenis wrote an interesting comparison article:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_parallel_universe/
lol@Radio NZ Timecall – “21 to Midday” someone has had a long day
I’m sure after 9 years of Rudd we’ll all be wanting a change too lol if it gets to that!
Rudd and Obama share one thing in common: a love of tedious catch phrases.
Aren’t they close to recession?
They’re IN recession.
I don’t think he will be P.M. then. I think he will have 2 more elections tops. Then it will be on to Shorten.
That helped them WIN ELECTIONS!
Move that to the top of the list of why Labour lost.
“A few minutes ago, ABC News (Perth) said the new parliament will have 121 seats, so only one overhang seat. What does that mean? The Maori party got more % vote / less electorates than expected? Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton managed to justify their one seat? Or maybe the ABC just got it wrong…”
BoP, here are the seats:
SEATS
National 59
Labour 43
Green 8
Act 5
Maori 5
Progressive 1
United Future 1
A control freak like Rudd giving it up…hardly he’ll stay as long as he can.
National supporters don’t hate her because of 6 months of recession after 9 years of growth.
They hate her for a number of reasons. Mostly because she is Labour and walloped them at 2 elections and beat them at another.
The only people who think that recessions make a huge difference are the media. No one cares whether GDP growth is at 1% or -0.3%. Stupid metric anyway.
Rudd is a member of a political party that has the guts to take on its leaders for the good of the party.
What is it then? She’s too boring?
Clark should’ve run on the winning slogan of Go for Growth.
What you wrote was:
That is an assertion that the Christian doctrine of the soul can be scientifically disproved by physical examination of the body: “I can’t find a soul, therefore there is no soul.” That is the equivalent of saying: “There is no God because I can’t see one,” which is what I used to say when I was about ten.
I never said that McCain would win Michigan. I said Michigan was in play, which at the time it was. I’ve asked you before to produce a quote to support this allegation, which you have not done.
Woah! That’s a pretty huge difference to me!
Itep i agree that would the worst political slogan i have ever seen.
Not letting nuclear-armed warships of one side in a serious potential nuclear conflict means that the other side is a lot less going to target you.
What real threat was there to New Zealand in the 1980`s (or is there now for that matter) that New Zealand would need America to defend them from? (answer none).
Therefore no nuclear-armed warships is the sense over sentiment side.
“Interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government” was probably sillier.
Yeah ok, the core National membership exist because NZ went into recession earlier this year.
You need to go to sleep.
I dunno Glen… I can think of worse ones. “More to do but we’re heading in the right direction’ is one.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KEY ON STAGE
What a crap speech.
Worse than Rudd’s even.
He seems to be shouting alot lol i guess he’s just happy.
Omg he’s doing a Turnbull and talking about his poor childhood.
Turnbull has children? I always assumed he was like a Ken doll.
SNIP: Fantastically boring comment deleted – The Management.
K so apparently his government is going to some kind of liberal-socialist-collective.
Earlier this year my wife and I met up with a New Zealand couple, whom we first encountered while travelling in Europe three years ago. Since them we’ve maintained superficial contact.
I didn’t know what if anything was their interest in politics or their political inclination. I’d assumed from their background – reasonably affluent, small business, small town – that they would probably be conservative, and therefore National voters.
However Ms. Fuller was gobsmacked when the female of the couple initiated a discussion with words to the effect : “Thank goodness we’ll get rid of this hopeless Government later this year”. My wife’s mild demur and defence of Helen C. was met with the observation: “She’s a communist lesbian”, and “the marriage is just a front.”
So fyi Oz, although I’m not suggesting this is representative of anything other than one person’s (extreme) opinion, it’s clear that some across the ditch saw HC as a sinister/threatening figure.
I was asking a serious question!
No, you’re right. They absolutely hate her. But my point is, in policy terms, they have no reason too. Especially considering that National policy is 99% the same.
My guess is they took out U.S. citizenship and then voted for McCain / Palin.
Oh god, please don’t resurrect (pun intended) the soul discussion.
Maybe you could set up “Adam’s psephology/theology blog”
I hope Mrs Key is ready for a ripe royal rodgering tonight. This guy is on fire
No I’m not, I’m an atheist.
Sorry.
He thinks he is Barack, so he will probably invite Michelle Obama instead.
I was thinking of posting something questioning ShowsOn’s misrepresentation of the soul debate but I agree… we don’t need to go there again.
“I hope Mrs Key is ready for a ripe royal rodgering tonight. This guy is on fire”
Yuck
The NZ conservatives now have the opportunity to show us if they have learned anything at all from the world wide financial crisis. My guess is they will continue singing from the same old song sheet – free markets, small government, surpluses at all costs, privatise everything in sight etc, etc. Who would want to be a New Zealander right now? (apart from Glen).
Adam
dont know if youve checked the US thread but both ron and i have pointed out an error re your presidential 2008 map
pps for political/religious tragics ABC2 is showing “a man for all seasons”
They will stuff up by privitising a lot of things. Privitisation is never popular.
LOL!
And you STILL can’t see the absurdity of the position that you are defending? You know, the bit about the fact the dogma isn’t supported by any evidence! If you can’t see how that bit of dogma is wrong, you should think God exists. Along with creationism itself, which can’t be conclusively disproved either (there is simply a much more LIKELY explanation called evolution).
Theology discussion over.
They have promised not to privatise anything in their first term.
Does NZ have anything left to privatise?
Kiwibank is one of them ShowsOn.
SNIP: Commentary on moderation deleted – The Management.
Core or non-core?
The rail network is back in government hands.
Quite a bit of the electricity sector too.
The post office and Kiwisaver.
A large stake in Air NZ.
The motorway network.
Prisons.
The workplace insurance scheme.
Water.
The foreshore and seabed.
The healthcare system.
Schools and universities.
The fire brigade.
Police.
Tax collection.
Elections.
Government itself.
I propose that any democratic government would be crazy to privatise any of these!
Remember that ACT are in the new government too.
And of course TVNZ
I’m surprised Glen is carping on about the inexperience of the new government.
SNIP: Commentary on moderation deleted – The Management.
Yes, would you believe John Key has NO ministerial experience. The horror.
How could I forget the government broadcaster?
How silly of me.
“She’s a communist lesbian”, and “the marriage is just a front.”
That was the Exclusive Brethren’s contribution to NZ politics wasn’t it?
So all in all there were 17 seats gained by parties and 7 seats lost by other parties.
What a ridiculous system. Sums up NZ to a tee really
Rubbish. I demonstrated that it is extraordinarily unlikely, and that we have better explanations for human behavior. I am sorry you can’t understand this distinction.
Complete and utter garbage. Science explains more as each year passes, therefore it is explaining things now that were considered theological questions 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. Before Newton how the planets moved (not what they moved around) was considered a theological question that science couldn’t explain! Before Darwin the existence of species was considered a theological question explained only by the bible. There is no epistemological division, that is pure fiction that is in your brain seemingly to stop yourself from asking and finding answers for complex questions.
Yes. Did they get involved this year?
Or do we only find out a few months from now?
SNIP: Exasperating violation of #411 deleted – The Management.
“So all in all there were 17 seats gained by parties and 7 seats lost by other parties.”
What are you talking about? UF lost 2 seats, Labour lost 7 seats, NZF lost 7 seats. Greens gained two seats, ACT gained three seats, Maori Party gained one seat, and National gained eleven seats. That’s 16 seats net lost by the government parties and 17 seats net gained by the opposition parties.
Is a communist lesbian different from a lesbian communist? Gosh, where does one stress their collectivism; the bed or the private estate?
Commiserations to Big Helen, at least NZ had a leader you could look up to in the last decade, unlike that Tory toad we had to suffer.
Slightly off topic but I was watching Mythbusters earlier this evening and in one of their tests they used a model ship and showed footage of the box which had the name of the ship on it. Guess what the name was?
shows,adam,oz,ltep etc
if you keep on about souls I’ll come up with another real stinker of a pun/joke.
promise
If anyone cares: had the election been single-member first-past-the-post on current boundaries, the result would have been National 41 seats, Labour 21, Maori 5, minor parties 3. Make that preferential, and give Labour 75 per cent of Greens preferences and split the others evenly, and there’s little change: National 40, Labour 22, Maori 5, minor parties 3.
Are you using electorate vote or party vote for each electorate?
William 434, Big Helen was stuffed what ever way you cut it?
how about this?
if you keep on about souls I’ll punch you in the face.
ben
I prefer my option
Electorate vote, Tom. An Cu: it would have taken a hell of an electoral system to give Labour victory from 45.45-33.77.
Yes indeed Billy Boy, you’d have needed an old New Zealander by the name of Joh to win that one!
Hey I haven’t said anything about souls!
Yulia Tymoshenko?
The US Presidential system, even.
I say that because many people vote differently in the electorate vote and the party vote and I think that the party vote would be closer to how they would vote in a one vote election.
Nobody has tried to guess which ship yet.
S.S Soul?
See #441
On a side note I just noticed my new jeans are torn. =(
just tell us the effing name of the ship Tom …
SNIP: ShowsOn, do this again and I’ll ban you – The Management.
McCain?
shows
“if you keep on about souls I’ll come up with another real stinker of a pun/joke.
I’ve already forgotten your last one, so you could just reuse it.”
sorry I entered your intellectual orbit,
will henceforth resume snuffling around,without your obvious brilliance to guide me.
I suspect the lively interest shown in the Nuw Zulund election has been rather overshadowed by the soul argument. This could become one of those performance pieces destined for the condemnation of the PM. Anyone got any good snaps, either analogue or digital that could be used?
What do you suppose Malcolm will have to say about it tomorrow – headline in ABC Online News? “The PM has been too tardy, no, too quick to condemn the Nuw Zulund gov’t, for b%%%%%%%%g up the Australian economy and its comedic roots” said the PM in waiting. He added , somewhat sheepishly, that Barack hadn’t yet returned his phone calls, and couldn’t understand why.
I simply can’t remember what you wrote. I didn’t write that in a denigrating fashion whatsoever.
I`ll give you a clue it`s Norwegian.
cheers shows
( i think the rt hon billbo would rather us not dwell on matters theological btw)
that said i still consider yourself the equivalent of BB and in no way was i being churlish.
Sorry, condemnation by the PM @449. Doesn’t read right otherwise, you understand?
gus488, HAH, pissah! ShowsOn, I’m thinking of a term that rhymes with anchor…
Malcolm should have a stay at home day tomorrow. His explanation today of why cutting the petrol excise is now a dumb good idea, instead of a good dumb idea, was hilarious.
He’ll probably probably send Julie Scissorhands to Insiders or Meet the Press instead.
Tampa
Tanker?
M.V. Tampa
Holy crack hour, Robyn, what the hell are you guys imbibing this evening? Nuw Zulund votes for the sheep herders? Lead by the ..what the hell is he anyway? Get a grip.
I should’ve thought of that sooner.
I wonder if they knew about its significance?
An cu
I truly respect most posters on this blog.
shows on is one of few that I truly value in terms of opinions
nuff said
(most people who know me,know that when i go mongrel i go mongrel)
Does it really matter?
Or are you worried that now more N.Z.ers are going to come here, so the RBA will have to sell some more government bonds to cover the increase in Centrelink payments?
I doubt it. It would not have got much coverage in America and not been brought up repeatedly over years.
I was hoping it might be this fine vessel.
http://www.offshorelobster.org/main/gallery/William%20Bowe.jpg
That’s only cos we usually agree.
They did have a fishing trawler but that does not have anywhere near as much Australian political significance.
Well done on the ship guess showson, and aplos if the ‘anchor’ snipe seemed a little churlish after your rejoinder to Gus, chronology being what it is etc, I was late onto the plate, Tanker is good but not quite there…
I know what you meant, I just used ‘Ta’ to match with Tampa.
And it certainly would’ve been bad taste to name one SIEV X.
Shows On. The ego that masquerades as Malcolm will no doubt be out and about tomorrow, telling, nooo, demanding that President elect Obama, should do exactly what Malcolm demands. He’s looking a lot like a buffoon in my opinion.
The collapse of the neocon agenda is not complete, it would seem with the Nationals returned in N.Z. What the hell are they going to do with their economy, and how weensy they are? Are they that much bigger than Tasmania as an economy?
As the show is produced by Beyond Productions, I’m pretty sure most of the Australian Crew who work on Mythbusters would’ve realised it’s significance
Today out there at the press conference it was just like he was waving his arms around while saying HELLO, HELLO! OVER HERE, HERE! I’m ALIVE!
He is irrelevant at the moment, and it’s killing him.
Oh, and he got a nice verbal touch up the other night from PJK.
Nuts, didn’t realise it had that Oz link.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
To the claim that only a Joh electoral system could have won government for Clarke is rubbish. It would have made the National victory bigger because it would have given the advantage to the National voting rural areas. Only a reverse of Joh (a Hoj) using Lenin`s argument that the proletarian workers votes have a right to the most weight (he actually argued that as why the results of the elected assembly, for which the elections were held after the Bolshevik takeover but still gave them an overall minority within a large leftist majority, was dissolved in his eyes legitimately (Marx predicted that the socialist revolution would come from urban industrial workers therefore according to Leninism they were more important)) (a majority of industrial urban workers voted for the Bolsheviks).
an cu
i feels as though the wires are crossed here somehow
sorry for any disrespect-what i meant about mongrel was that i would have called shows a prick,simple as that
What sort of leftists did the rural / peasent types vote for?
And even I concede that would’ve been fair.
But honestly, my memory failed me.
Gus 473, got ya, apos from this end too, got a rush of blood on that last one, thanks for your oil on the water, cheers,
Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) (including left SRs*) and Mencheviks.
*Lenin also agued that the SR/Left SR division was not reflected in the election results because they had been organised before the November Revolution (I do mean November because I use the Gregorian calendar).
Shows On @ 461, What a very strange question to pose of me. Look, boyo, I’m a social worker, and a bloody old one at that. I’m a bit behind Margaret Whitlam’s vintage. I’m a damn sight more concerned that those who are disadvantaged in this society, don’t get left out in the construction of a new society. Mind you, I’m not holding my breath.
Ooops thanks Ben – that makes a lot more sense.
My own fault for not delving deeper into the Wikipedia article I was reading.
Which you would think would teach me to NOT read such articles but I digress.
I think all of us have made the wikipedia mistake from time to time.
Sorry, I was being silly. I just don’t think the change of government there matters much to Oz.
The change of the U.S. government… that’s different.
william
i beg leave of the blog to proffer a pearler {coutesy of one o wilde]
“your majesty is like bats piss”
hushed silence
’say what mr wilde’
mutter mutter
“when all else is darkness,you shine out like a shaft of gloden light”
court descends into hysterics
pps i first posted this on peter martins blog pre the oz fed election,for those that remember he was the first to question the fibs economic superiority.
gloden=golden
bloody chardonnay!
I thought gloden was a poetic word that was enjoyable to pronounce!
goodo, Shows On. I’m clearly a grumpmy old b*&^%$#d. And please pass the kardonnay, preferrably unwooded.
The NZ CEO site has all the results. For each electorate there is a figure for “Less than 6 votes taken in Polling Places” – what is the significance of this?
I note that the MP won only 5 of the 7 reserved seats and that the NP did not run in any of them which seems strange in view of the fact that their party vote in some of them what not totally disastrous.
Albert Ross, Antony Green explains:
In other words, if you’re one of only a couple of people voting in a Maori electorate at a small booth, the secrecy of your vote would be endangered if booth results were reported. That said, I’m not sure why they need to point this out on election night, when as far as I can see they weren’t reporting booth-level results at all.
That’s interesting, William. What do you make of that, if anything?
Thanks WB. Does anyone know:-
* if the booth staff have to sit around all day waiting for voters (who may or may not turn up given non-compulsory voting) or do they organise things and get it over with like Dixville Notch?
* if Maori electors get multiple votes ie. in both an open and reserved electorate?
* if anyone knows what the % turnout was. The defeated Lab candidate for Auckland Central was bitching about the large number of people who stayed home.
* what the odious Don Brash was banging on about when he said Keys will be reforming MMP? Are NZz unhappy with MMP?
I’m a bit late to the party, but big congratulations to Mr Key for winning government in NZ. Conservatism is not dead yet, and neither is capitalism.
Albert, Maori voters have the right to go on either the Maori or the General roll, not both, so they only get one vote. Each booth exists in a General electorate and a Maori electorate, but the number of votes taken from the Maori roll may be very small which is where you get the booths with less than 6 votes. It is usually less than 6 votes on the Maori roll, but the booth may take hundreds on the general roll.
Well, GP, I think we’ll swap you NZ for the US anyday.
Albert, I was going to provide a link saying the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party has also resigned, on the ‘08 election highlights’ there is a story about the case against MMP. I also understand that National has proposed to abolish the seven Maori seats but whether this will change in government, nobody seems to know.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541911
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541905
Once you have PR or MMP I don’t see what rationale there can be for separate Maori seats. Plenty of Maori are getting elected on the party lists.
GP:
“Conservatism is not dead yet, and neither is capitalism”
Capitalism never looked like dying as far as I can see…
Albert Ross
Everyone in their right minds is disenchanhted with MMP, even New Zealanders!
Adam in the big C.
Maori seats were invented to give the Maori a voice when they were not getting one. It was a good idea that may have had it’s day as the NZ society becomes more integrated.
No 497
Affirmative Action is crap. Barack Obama proves that you need not have positive discrimination to become the most powerful man on earth. You do so by being the better candidate.
Yes, and now Obama is President there is no disparity amongst different ethnic groups in America, or anywhere else around the world, and the glass ceiling has been shattered.
What a hero.
Cheers Harry,
From one social worker to another.
Keep up the good word, we all know it is a lifelong one, and there will always be disadvantage, but it is the little victories along the way that keep us going.
Here’s to the underdog
Oz:
You’re right – racism sexism and bigotry doesnt go away just because a bi-racial has been elected POTUS
Something a lot of people caught up in the euphoria seemed to have forgotten.
I also think it’s funny the way the Australian media has been referring to the USA as “The country with a history of racism”
“A country that only recent gave blacks equal rights”
When exactly did we give Indigenous people the right to vote? When did we start counting them as people instead of plants and animals? And what is the disparity between their lifestyles and those of non-indigenous Australians? Questions that I think are relevant regarding the success of Barack Obama, though I do know there are significant differences between African-Americans and Australian Aborigines.
MHW and OZ
Puhlease, you both make me laugh so hard…………… If you fall off that high horse you may break something….maybe your fragile holier than thou attitude which would be a good thing.
Obama has been elected but does not take office until next year. It is almost a given that his election will begin to change USA society attitude. And with changing attitude comes changing situation for those who are hanging out for it.
I think GP is right. Positive discrimination fixes nothing. Never has, never will.
Elf, simple question. Why do statistics demonstrate women, African Americans and racial minorities are under-represented in high paying positions proportionately?
Do you think it’s because they’re less qualified for the positions due to their sex or race?
Using the election of Barack Obama as proof as to why affirmative action is not necessary is stupid.
For every Barack Obama there are thousands of African-Americans living on the other end of society. Obama never “rose up” out of that. That has nothing to do with being on a “high horse”, it’s a fact.
Itep
Honestly, that question has as many barbs as any I have come acorss and there is no way to answer that in one sentence. However I will ask you this. What proportion of positions are held by women, afro-americans and minorities? You see if you cannot answer that question then you are just jumping on a band wagon. Without knowing the current situation, accurately and factually, it is a pointless argument.
OZ
Go back and read my posts. I in no way said Obama was proof affirmative action didn’t work. What I said was that to downplay the importance of Obama’s election (as you did) was stupid and that positive discrimination does not work.
If you read my posts again you will see I am actually saying what you said in 505. I am fully aware that Obama is not the result of positive discrimination…hence my stance.
No 505
Affirmative action is not necessary Oz. At the end of the day, if an employer wants to hire whites only, or blacks only, then they are only doing themselves a disservice by ignoring a significant portion of the labour market.
But even still, affirmative action doesn’t work in resolving the disparate living standards of different ethnic groups. You solve that problem by giving people an education and opportunity, not by enforcing arbitrary employment quotas based entirely on skin colour rather than intellectual capacity.
GP
You have a way with words.
Further to what GP has said. Does anyone know the statistical proportion of minority groups graduating from College/University vs the proportion of those groups in high paying jobs?
Maybe the important thing is to try to get these groups into higher education? Just a thought.
Please point where I said it was. I doubt the fact that I didn’t see that will have any effect. Who am I to stop you from having a big rant about the evils of whatever you’re ranting about.
You said “GP is right”. That’s exactly what he did. Maybe you should have read his post again.
Many studies have found that there is a huge disparity for high earners in comparison to proportions of people by race and gender Elf. That is both in representation in the work force at higher level positions and in the pay that they receive for the same work. Taking one profession for instance, over 50% of law graduates are female, yet 85.3% of barristers and 66% of solicitors are male. Similarly, the proportion of female judges is very low. You may choose to ignore it as in inconvenient fact but it doesn’t make it go away.
Funnily enough it’s usually white, upper/middle class men who are against affirmative action.
Itep,
I have no wish to ignore it. However please tell me, from your obviously deep font of knowledge on this topic, how many 1st, 2nd and 3rd year practicing barristers and solicitors are women?
You see to expect last years graduating class of 50% to automatically next year change the balance would be a nonsense. But I could guarantee to you that the % of women practicing law in the first few years after graduation has increased substantially from what it was just a decade ago.
And subject to other factors notwithstanding, such as motherhood, this upward trend will continue. Being a women I in NO WAY want to get a job, just because of my gender. I want to get it becasue I am the best.
But do you want to NOT GET ONE because you are a women? Because that happens.
OZ
Duh….when I said GP was right I was talking about the positive discrimination as my next sentence illuminated. Just because I think he is right about one thing does not mean I am wedded to his every ideal. Grow up.
OZ
Where are you living? I have never come across that. Obviously you must have for which I feel sorry for you. Maybe you lost that job because you were not the best and not because you were a women. But of course it is much easier to tell yourself that it is a gender thing eh?
No 512
Yes, but first of all, those figures ignore the unavoidable reality that women are the child-bearing sex and thus many women will be out of the workforce for that reason. Secondly, try asking a female barrister that they should have got their job via affirmative action instead of through hard work and self-sacrifice. They’d be grossly offended. Same principle with minority ethnic groups – it is wholly offensive to suggest they are incapable of succeeding on their own merit.
Finally, any law firm that refuses to hire female solicitors is doing themselves a disservice by ignoring 50% of educated graduates.
Elf beat me to the punch.
Ah so because you’ve never come across something it clearly can’t exist.
Have you ever had AIDS?
Discussing different ways to fix a problem is one thing, flat out denying the problem exists is something else entirely.
Elf, the number of female graduates from law has increased rapidly over the last 10-20 years with little difference to the proportion of senior female lawyers and judges. It’s changing (very slowly) but mostly at the lower levels and not filtering through to high level positions. This has nothing to do with womens’ ability to work in higher level positions and everything to do with an inbuilt gender bias within the industry.
In theory you’re right GP, but in practice statistics don’t show that that is true. You seem to think that everyone who is hired is hired merely on their merit which you only need to work a short time to know is untrue.
I don’t agree with enforced affirmative action but see no problem with it if an individual workplace wants to
No 520
Oz, where’s the evidence that AA actually works? It doesn’t – it simply lowers standards and reinforces degenerative, racial victimhood.
Oz…that was funny that line about AIDS!
I am not really denying it happens OZ. It is just that for white middle class liberal males to keep suggesting that the only way women can get ahead is to “let us men” give them a helping hand ( Poor lasses, woudn’t stand a chance otherwise would we?) really makes my blood boil.
Affirmative action (or positive discrimination) DOES NOT work. It promotes the stupid and lazy and alienates everyone else in the workforce and taints every other women with the whispers of “She got the job because shes a women”.
Oz, if you are a WMCLM then please drop this case ‘cos you are way on the wrong track.
I was right, nothing is going to stop you from arguing against a make-believe point.
For the second I ask you to point where I said affirmative action is something that should be pursued.
No 521
Yes, I’ve seen the same studies regarding the legal industry and the alleged “men’s clubs”, but it is changing quite substantially at the tertiary education level. It will only be a matter of time before women assume a more prominent role in the upper echelons of the justice system (by virtue of the fact that more women are graduating in law degrees than men), just like it was only a matter of time before the United States would have its first black president.
No, I don’t believe in every case that people are hired based on merit. But in most cases if you have the appropriate skills, whether you’re black, white, Asian or Hispanic, you’ll get the job. And that’s it should be.
*Last sentence of 525 should be “And that’s how it should be”.
I’m not sold on affirmative action either, but I wouldn’t agree with the points GP and Elf are making about workplaces being fair on gender or racial employment grounds.
No 524
What’s make believe about my point? I have always objected to affirmative action because I’ve not seen any evidence that it actually works in resolving racial/gender disparities. Simple as that.
You said I was stupid to use Barack Obama as an example against AA because others still are being negatively discriminated. Implicitly, you’re supporting AA.
Male, female, Jew, Muslim, Hindu…
What a naive view. Of course you’ll respond and demand to be showered in studies showing disproportion and then you’ll say “prove this disproportion exists because of race/sex/religion and not merit”. If I could do that, those people would be in jail.
But seriously, extremely narrow, naive perception.
No 527
ltep, like I said, the way you solve ingrained prejudice is through education and opportunity, not reverse discrimination.
What’s make believe is that you’re saying I’m against something when I’ve never said so.
Now you’re telling me what I actually meant? Someone has serious ego issues. If you actually read my first post on the topic instead of working yourself up into a rabid froth you’d understand what I actually did mean.
It’s not always that simple though, particularly when you look at Indigenous Australians. That, however is severely off topic so I won’t go there.
No 529
What is with the obsession with proportionality? Just because there are X female law graduates does not necessarily mean there needs to be X female solicitors or X female judges. People have a variety of choices and not everyone studies for the purpose of practising in their chosen field of study.
Every time this debate arises, people always refer to proportionality when that’s not the key point. The key point is whether all groups in society are able to access the same educational opportunities. I don’t believe in equality of outcome, but I do believe in equality of opportunity.
Yes GP, but unless you’re assuming a greater proportion of white male upper class graduates are likely to practise in their chosen field of study that’s entirely irrelevant.
Oz …. 529
Seriously, you did not say that. LOL.
If discrimination cannot be proved then on what basis are you saying it happens? On a hunch? Because someone you know didn’t get a job and you think they are fab? Because you read it in a book? Because your lecturer told you it did?
I mean please, can we have some sensible discussion here?
No 532
Yes, but entrenched indigenous disadvantage has a lot to do with the failure of government policy (from both sides) over the years, rather than active negative discrimination. Whitlamite welfarism has murdered indigenous opportunity and aspirations, leaving whole communities to languish off the government teat in unsustainable, economically unviable remote villages. Those who live closer to economic centres in larger towns and cities are highly likely to be faring much better thanks to better access to education and health services.
536
I though Itep said not to go there!!!!!!!!
No 534
Why does that matter? If upper class white males choose to exercise their options more than others, then why is that necessarily bad?
mmmmmmm…. good noght all. You are an interesting bunch.
No 531
Well, if you believe I have misinterpreted you, actually state what you mean. As I said, you’re arguments seem very much in support of affirmative action.
*your arguments, not you’re arguments.
That’s an assumption you’re making Generic Person. There’s no reason to assume upper class white males are more likely to ‘choose to exercise their options more than others’ unless you have some logical point from which to hang it.
Hi I’m back. Just thought I wold drop this. This was my call on September 13. Not perfect but not bad either.
“New Zealand has a mixed member proportional voting system so it is inherently diffcult to win a majority in your own right. However this Government is on the nose.
The Nationals won 48 seats the last time around, up from 27 in 2002. Labor only won 50 and had to gain support of minor parties to govern. It would be fair to say the mood of the nation will deliver Government to the Nat’s in their own right.
So……….
Labour 45 – 50
National 61
New Zealand First 0
Other Minor parties 10 – 15″
No 542
I made no such assumption. I merely asked a question.
The comment was a reflection on GP’s argumentative method.
SNIP: Off-topic comment deleted – The Management.
Already being/been discussed in the Federal thread.
Does anyone know if Helen Clark will do a JH and lose her seat? Or assuming she doesn’t, will she stay in Parliament? (Presumably resigning the Labor leadership) Or the 3rd option, do a Iemma and Keating, resigning from Parliament all together and thus forcing a by election?
It’s virtually impossible for her to lose her seat, even if she lost her electorate, due to the electoral system. Regardless, she won her seat. She’s already resigned as Labor leader but said she “has been elected to serve her constituents” so she’ll probably chill out in the parliament.
Ok, thanks, Oz, sounds as if she is doing the Peter Costello thing
It’s mainly an Australian thing that defeated leaders are expected to leave parliament – Edward Heath was an MP for 26 years after losing the Tory leadership
Labour couldn’t lose Mt Albert if they ran Jack the Ripper.
Costello is hanging around in the hope that the party and/or the voters will come to their senses and summon him to the leadership which his birthright. Clark is saying (if she is) because she wants to serve the working-class voters of Mt Albert – that’s the difference between them.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24635227-12377,00.html
Phil Goff elected leader of NZ Labour.
Its wonderful to see the National Party return to Government in New Zealand after a nine year absence. Lets hope the Nationals success in New Zealand rubs off on the National Partys throughout Australia in coming State and Federal elections.
Even here it’s fairly recent: PMs Fraser, Hawke and Keating and non-PMs Latham. (Hewson left soon after but not immediately after.)
Menzies and Whitlam resigned as leader, Whitlam stayed in Parliament for 7 months after.
Gorton, McMahon and Hayden all stayed in Parliament for some time after they lost party leadership/election, as did non-PMs Snedden, Downer, Crean and Beazley (first time).
Holt is a special case, as is Howard
Adam,
Stop drinking the coolade. I know we are the party faithful but if you think for one minute Clark has higher virtues than any other politician then I think you need to leave Canberra because you are clearly missing oxygen to the brain from living in that place for too long.
Actually I do think that. I didn’t agree with everything Clark did (she’s a bit to the left of my views), but on a personal level I think she’s one of the most admirable politicians of recent times.
How is the late counting progressing?