Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread

Thanks for the compliment, yes I do have a good grasp on politics and football.

Pat, I actually get that, but the fact is HE  did decide the government.

Watching former Prime Minister John Key's unofficial mouthpiece melt down on TV1 last night was the best comedy gold you could have asked for. Poor Mike.

He leads a party that positions itself in the centre of the party spectrum. If United Future was bigger, it would Peter Dunne could have been in a similar position. It's why the Green and Act aren't in the same position. 

Dale, I also understand that. The point is that Winston is egotistical and belligerent and his only interest is in himself, so you can expect to see him in the limelight for the next few years. I think Ardern is going to have a tough time.

Interesting sidenote... our new PM has been in parliament 3 years longer than John Key had when he was first elected

#notinteresting

 Yes,I was looking at the previous election results. Nats got 44% and WP got 7%.  Same thing for me.

Will be interesting to see if NZ First get wiped out at the next election.

Here's some more of "mad Mike" and his mature reaction to Governmental change...#scaremonger

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11934989

Well I thought it was interesting, just to clarify. 

He's not wrong on a lot of that stuff, but unfortunately being up National's behind means his comments can't be seriously taken as neutral.

I did laugh at his final comment "... we have had a great run. Let's hope what happened last night doesn't derail it."

Yep I'm sure you and the other high earners and multiple-property owners have indeed had a great run in this economic environment Mike. Unfortunately the middle and lower classes have not, and that's why the majority have voted for change. 

About as much as English did then.

Yep, at least Jacinda got some life experience and worked outside of the country. A part from growing up on the family farm English has never worked outside of Wellington let alone outside of the government.

He's spent his entire adult life in Wellington which makes it even more absurd that he forgot that he lived here and thought that he still lived in Southland.

Well. I am going to be honest. My world hasnt changed yet. I feel like ive been lied to!

I was replying to the reply though.

All my National voting mates still don't understand MMP after 20+ years.

What is not to understand. The minority can stick it to the majority.

I think the government could be more representative. 

Having NZF being the only one holding the balance of power isn’t ideal (I’d be saying this no matter who he chose). 

Greens of course had the opportunity to also influence the government but campaigned on the fact they weren’t even going to talk to national, so that literally only left NZF holding all of the cards. That isn’t ideal. 

Lowering the 5% threshold to enter parliament would help this situation a lot. It’d result in more parties being able to enter coalition talks, instead of the 2 major parties wooing NZF we have at the moment.

It’d also result in those minor parties doing a lot better as people would actually be able to vote for the party they think represents them best. Currently some people don’t vote for those parties as its likely a wasted vote. For example, I think TOP would have done better in this election if there wasn’t a 5% threshold for seats.

Overall this would result in a government and a coalition that is more representative of what people would vote for. 

Exhibit A

Have not voted National for more than 20 years so your comment is pointless. 

I agree with most of this

with the Greens, everyone that is saying they could of gone with National, don't really understand the Greens. If they had done that it would have killed the party, true it left NZF with all the cards, but it could have been the greens had they not screwed up their campaign

I agree the threshold should be lower - 3 or 4%, not lower than 3% though, the review last year of MMP recommended reducing the threshold to 4% but National rejected it.

The smaller parties need to start looking at seats (well those on the left do, ACT have worked it out) and doing deals eg in Nelson Nick Smith won by 4000 but if you add the Labour and Greens vote together he would have lost by 5000 and Labour won the party vote there

Remember kids!

Majority used to mean a different thing before MMP!

Come one now- Bill worked with the ordinary folks in the Treasury!

Well- the Nats and their apologists saying the Greens should bail them out is a laugh. 

They chose to ignore the review of MMP and now that instinctive anti-democratic impulse has come back to bite them on the arse. 

If they had done something we'd probably not have ACT and we'd likely have TOP. 

Bail them out = form a coalition? 

Did NZF bail labour out then? 

I just think it’s silly to campaign on the fact that you won’t talk to national at all - it means you have zero leverage in coalition talks. Don’t associate any further meaning to it than that.

I actually think a lowering or removal of the 5% threshold would largely help labour anyway, so I don’t think it’s bitten them in the arse. I also don’t see how it’s anti-democratic or how it would result in ACT not existing. 

Also not sure how voting for National this election makes me an apologist. National are a centrist party - they’re hardly controversial, especially relative to labour they’re really not that different. Nor are they unpopular, as they got 44% of the party vote. I also think I’ve been fairly sensible in my comments? 

The majority do not think you are sensible Tegal

Trouble is tegal, National played the cards so that they would not talk to anyone but if anyone wanted to talk to them, they might have listened, except for the Greens. Act will always be a National partner, even if they survive another election.

For my own point of view, I would like us to switch to an STV voting system. If not, I would like the party list system amended. If you are a sitting MP, you should not be allowed on the party list. So if your electorate gives you the flick, then tough luck. The party list made up of non sitting MP's gives us a fairer selection of people. And yes, Peters would have been gone if that was in place, along with a few others.

There are heaps of good arguments against MMP - certainly surrounding Winston Peters having a disproportionate amount of say. However, with first past the post 44% of the votes would have been represented, with MMP we currently have a greater number of votes than 44% represented. 

National campaigned on a gamble, that gamble was that them and their partners would get enough votes to form a government. They smeared Winston Peters despite the media and polling making it pretty clear it would be Winston's decision. National could have just given him an Epsom deal in Northland, it was on the table. 

People need to chill now, its done and dusted. Rather than judging the new government now one day into their term, lets do it in three years time.

[quote = Tegal]

No: bail them out means help them when plans A and B have failed. 

To a degree Labour were bailed out by NZ First as their first plan was coalition with the Greens. But coalition with NZF was their second plan. It was clear some of their policies were moving that way.

Fairly easy on the ACT thing- no coat tailing means no extra MPs. Why should National keep running a puppet party that commands fewer votes than people who attend the 'Nix (he said hopefully about 'Nix attendees)

In this election TOP might have made an agreement with National. It, at least, was more likely they would than the Greens or NZF. Not having a lower threshold skewered that, so that's why I said that had bit them on the arse. 

Apologists are the media making out that everything the Nats have done is ok. Laughing about not measuring child poverty? Banter etc etc...

I can't agree with you that National are a centrist party. They have members who are more centrist. 

I think we essentially agree on 98%. I have yet to see, even from Nandor Tanczos, a coherent idea of how the Greens and National could co-exist. It could perhaps only happen after climate change policies had been enacted, intensive and dirty dairying had been curtailed, DOC had returned to protecting the conservation estate, with water quality and public transport being high on the agenda. With that being the status quo the Nats wouldn't change, perhaps. But honestly, a greener National fairly much equals Labour...I hope!

Let's not pretend that previous overhang coalitions have been that representative. 

This is all so tricky, we should just get FIFA to run NZ from a distance.

They do like brown envelopes allegedly.

Now Simon, if you want to replace Bill, and be like John, make sure there are plenty of hot dogs on hand!

National Party found guilty of Eminem copyright breach

I guess sometimes "pretty legal" just isn't a high enough standard. Probably got off lightly at the judge asserting that there was no bad faith and putting more damages on, having chosen a track called "Eminem-esque".

Ridiculous that the National party is in trouble or even involved in this. Surely it's the advertising company and then the company that licensed the music that are liable?

I doubt someone at the national party went to said advertisement firm and asked for music (that accompanies a video about rowing which is about as far away from downtown Detroit as you can get) to sound like Eminem.

At the worst they would have been given options and chose the one that they liked the most.

Exactly Ryan. Despite not being a "Nat", I thought this was a bit of overkill and most certainly, the blame is at the feet of the commercial maker/s.

Is there compensation to pay? And if so, who is going to foot the bill? Joe Mug tax payer?

$600,000 to be paid by the National Party. In other news, Grant Robertson being announced Sport and Recreation Minister bodes well for football.