Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?

**jrandom** · 18th September 2005, 06:32

Originally Posted by Milky

The next couple of weeks will be intriguing, given Dunne's position on Labour-Green coalition, and the possibility of a Maori party/National agreement on the other side.

The Mâoris won't have a bar of supporting or entering coalition with a party that went into the election promising to abolish the Mâori seats. Their constituency may leech off the hardworking Pakeha and form 50% of the jail population, but it ain't stupid.

Turia and Sharples will mumble a bit to Helen about the foreshore and seabed stuff for a couple of days, and end up realising that they'll do better to let that go and get on with achieving what they can in the next term, which will be more if they're in coalition.

There'll be a 61-seat-majority coalition-of-four-parties Government within a fortnight. Peters and Dunne will be left out in the cold. Good job.

Originally Posted by Milky

What are your thoughts on Brash?

Power-hungry pig who hasn't learned to keep his snout clean. He'll get better at it with time.

**jrandom** · 18th September 2005, 06:44

Originally Posted by MikeL

Should I dignify this with a reply?

Nup. Given as this was my first contribution, and you dont have a meaningful target since I dont actually have a position.

Come to think of it, perhaps I should run for government.

Originally Posted by MikeL

his whole post is a non-sequitur...

True, but whats with the hyphen? And the 'his'?

Originally Posted by MikeL

flaky...

But toothsome.

Originally Posted by MikeL

go back to mending my sandals.

I bet you wear them with socks.

**Sniper** · 18th September 2005, 08:02

Originally Posted by campbellluke

I was a counter last election where some asshole decided to use their right to vote to do that. Had to ring and announce that there was a person the voted in a "special" way for no specific party. Really annoying and a waste of time.

I hope you didn't do that for the sake of the counters :-(

I didn't actually do that in the end as the threat of sleeping on the couch for a week deterred me.

**Indiana_Jones** · 18th September 2005, 14:32

I knew labour would just hang onto it

But still there are still special votes etc, but don't hold your breath they always goto the greens and ligealize pot party

And we still haven't seen what coalitions will be made, but.....

EPSOM!!!!!!

ACT IS BACK!!!!!

-Indy

**N4CR** · 18th September 2005, 14:41

Thank goodness we didn't get all the christians into govt... fundies are not good to govern...

Nice reasonably hidden christian agenda brash.

My mate knows a political statician... he was correct on every count predicting last night: nats lead, then labour picks up and pulls out a narrow lead as such.

**Motu** · 18th September 2005, 15:00

I thought it was a bit over the top when with only 5% of votes counted the TV people were wondering when Labour would conceed defeat,I thought they were supposed to know more than dummies like me.I have never voted in a National stronghold,everywhere I've lived has been strong Labour and I've been happy to vote minor paties knowing I won't make a scrap of difference.Yesterday I voted not for what I wanted for my country,but for what I didn't want.I was not on the Electoral Role,I did some sort of special vote,dunno if I was counted last night or not....didn't see my name.

If Don Brash doesn't get into power there is talk of him dropping out of politics,the guy is not there for the long haul,he was used to get votes.The guy is a total sham.

**Quasievil** · 18th September 2005, 15:59

here is a definition of a country about to go down the tiolet.

Labour + Greens + Maoris = Fucked country

**MacD** · 18th September 2005, 16:26

I wouldn't rule out the Maori Party supporting a National-based coalition government. Here's an alternate view.

In many ways the Maori Party could be considered to be a brown version of ACT. It was formed as a response to a perceived alienation of individual (albeit at the iwi level) property rights, it strongly supports intellectual property rights, self-determination (ie. less government interference) and its manifesto included tax cuts.

Maori trusts and corporations are quite friendly with the business sector with whom they have to work closely, particularly in the areas of fisheries and forestry.

While the stereotype of Maori still seems to be of dole bludgers the reality is that there are many successful small and large Maori business groups operating in the community.

The Maori Party could also claim to hold greater sway over a National Government than a Labour Government. They could claim that they turned around the National Party plan to abolish Maori seats (which was probably always a hollow promise anyway) as a means of demonstrating their political power. What would being a member of a Labour government give them? Nothing more than the status quo.

Finally I suspect Tariana Turia would join a National coalition just to spite Helen Clark and the Labour party.

I guess we will see.

**oldrider** · 18th September 2005, 16:26

Originally Posted by campbellluke

Labour - Progressive - United Future - NZ First - Maori Party makes 64 seats?

Hopefully the special votes will bring Progressive up to 1.3% to take up another seat and screw up National even more

So OK, I offer you no argument but how is this result going to benefit you and me?

I have seen alternative Labour/National governments running this country since 1939. (or there abouts)

Have any of them really been interested in my welfare? I think not!

The results have been the same no matter which one has been in power.

Greater erosion of my individual rights and freedom. Greater erosion of the purchasing power of my income. More and more rules and regulations for what I can or can not do in my own home. Etc etc etc.

I do note there has been one exception.

When Rob Muldoon bankrupted the country completely.

The 1984 Labour Government set about turning the circle around.

I did not vote for them, I did not agree with their actions.

I did however watch and listen intently and believe the following to be true:

The actions taken by the 1984 Labour Govt are the reason why we are experiencing better times today.

Clark, Anderton and Langey were deserters from that course of action.

All that the 1984 Govt represented and the proponents moved out of the Labour party to ACT.

The National and Labour parties then resumed the same old circle of crap of selling the voters two versions of the same rubbish to choose from aided and abetted by the news media.

This mob have combined their efforts in constantly denouncing ACT at every opportunity. What are they afraid of? ACT exposing their little club?

I am not an ACT supporter but I do not think our best interests for the long term are with the two main parties offering today.

2005 Briefly:

In the short term National offered to return more of our purchasing power to "us" to spend as "we" will.

Labour on the other hand wanted to continue to erode our purchasing power even more. They then spend the money they have stolen from us where "they" want to spend it for "themslves" and promote their poltical expediency?

Ask yourselves, are you going to be better off with the Labour coalition or a National coalition for the next three years.

I voted two ticks for National. Am I happy with that? In the short term yes!

Does that make me a National Supporter?

In the short term, yes.

In the long term NO.

How can I break free from this damn cycle?

Some thoughts written down, for what they are worth. John.

**jrandom** · 18th September 2005, 16:34

Originally Posted by MacD

the Maori Party could be considered to be a brown version of ACT...

What's te reo for 'Sieg Heil'?

**Wolf** · 18th September 2005, 16:39

Originally Posted by Quasievil

here is a definition of a country about to go down the tiolet.

Labour + Greens + Maoris = Fucked country

Thing is with our so called "Democracy", neither of the two "main parties" Nats or Labour have more than 41% of the country's support - i.e. Whichever one makes a govt, around 60% of the public doesn't want them in power. And when they get in they repeat their time-honoured practises - Labour fucks up the country one way, National fucks it up another way. They also each make things better for some people.

Maybe STV would have been a fairer system than MMP, perhaps if we'd already been using STV for local council for a few years when the referendum re parliamentary elections was held, the result would have been different.

FWIW, I am glad we have ditched the FPP system, though. I like the fact I can vote for any party I want, not just the ones who have a candidate in my electorate as with the old FPP system.

Yes, I did vote, and I tried some strategic vote-splitting of party vs candidate votes - didn't vote for either Nats or Labour, so whichever gets in I still reserve the right to bitch about them and the bastards wot voted for 'em

Under FPP I would have had only the electorate candidates to vote for, so if my preferred party did not have a local candidate (it didn't) I would not be able to vote for that party and would have to choose between not voting and voting for another party that I didn't really want.

I still don't think the main parties have come to grips with MMP, yet - they are not capable of courting enough public support to gain a clear majority on their own. Makes me wonder if they only got majorities under FPP owing to people voting for them solely because MacGillicuddy Serious didn't have a local candidate...

**jrandom** · 18th September 2005, 16:46

Originally Posted by Wolf

MacGillicuddy Serious didn't have a local candidate...

Now there's a proper political party for you. If I had the balls to do it (metaphorically speaking, as I don't have any to start with) I'd change my name to Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel and get it up and running again.

**MacD** · 18th September 2005, 16:53

Originally Posted by Fish

What's te reo for 'Sieg Heil'?

So are you drawing a parallel between the rise to power of the National Socialist party in Germany following the First World War, based on promises of self-determination for the German people who felt they had been very harshly treated following the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of the Maori Party in NZ who also promote self-determination and nationhood?

Or was it just a throw-away line?

**jrandom** · 18th September 2005, 16:57

Originally Posted by MacD

So are you drawing a parallel between the rise to power of the National Socialist party in Germany following the First World War, based on promises of self-determination for the German people who felt they had been very harshly treated following the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of the Maori Party in NZ who also promote self-determination and nationhood?

Nice!

Can I keep you around to lend depth and meaning to my posts on a regular basis, then?