The 2017 Election Thread

[Voltaire]

Jeebus, it's only been twenty bloody years of MMP or so.

The only way for a single party to 'win' an MMP election is to get more than 50 percent of the vote...which so far has never happened.

Otherwise it's wheeler-dealing all the way to the ninth floor, compromising your 'principles' left and right until a coalition 'agreement' is hashed out. I actually feel sorry for the politicians that they still get mercilessly criticised by some for having to do that. I don't blame any of them for exploiting the system they've been given to work with, that's what people do.

I suspect the sooner the older generation of pollies shuffle off to their cosy directorships the better the system might start to work (yes that's you too Winston).

I would not count on it, something happens once they get into the Beehive..... Rodney Hide started of as Perk Busters and look how that ended.

I'm surprised Politicians do referendums....look at Brexit what a shambles.

" We don't want foreigners over here taking all the jobs", yet the crops lay rotting in the fields as no one want to do that anymore

[Grumph]

Two points - Support for NZ First is never very visible between elections as we pensioners generally don't get polled...I can only assume we're not sexy enough.

And National couldn't cobble a coalition together cos they had no friends. I'd like to know what's happened to the Nat who thought releasing Winston's pension details just prior to the election was a good idea...

[Ocean1]

Nah. You're reading too much into that. Polls usually show a drop in support for minor parties between elections. When voting time looms their support goes up. That seems to happen every time.

Like Jim Bolger said, "Bugger the pollsters".

It does. When it comes to Winston's antics and faced with the same promises all over again some of us have either very short or very selective memories.

What post election polls usually show is a firming of support for the govt and a drop in support for the opposition. Read into the recent results whatever you want.

[Ocean1]

Two points - Support for NZ First is never very visible between elections as we pensioners generally don't get polled...I can only assume we're not sexy enough.

And National couldn't cobble a coalition together cos they had no friends. I'd like to know what's happened to the Nat who thought releasing Winston's pension details just prior to the election was a good idea...

I did one of those survey things, apparently I align most with NZF policies. The ones I don't agree with more than offset the ones I do, though. And Peters continues to present as the rabid divorce lawyer from the Hollywood movie of your choice, the man perfectly represents everything that's wrong with an already seriously compromised electoral system.

[husaberg]

He conceded that Peters had the legal ability to make the back room deal he did, in spite of the fact that no NZ government had ever previously been assembled by anything other than the highest polling party. Apparently Labour also recognised the fact that they'd come second and had more or less resigned themselves to another term in oposition, until Peters had a wee chat. Sounds more like a legal technical loophole needs closing than any natural authority to assume power.

Unless you've been hiding under a rock you'll be aware that poling data since the election shows that a) National not only polled higher than any other party at the election but have done so ever since. b) Winston First's support has completely collapsed, giving you some idea of what most of NZ thought about the resulting farce, and, c) most of NZ thought the Green leadership's doubling down in support of benefit fraud wasn't the sort of behaviour they saw as fit to be let loose with the taxpayer's cheque book. At least it looks like neither of the last two have any future in NZ public life, thank fuck.

Ocean i see it still grates you personally to face up to nationals loss, but we have MMP under which the people that form a government have the majority of the seats in a coalition or a confidence and supply agreement.
National did not have this, due to their general lack of negotiating ability and alienation of other parties.

Suck it up, they lost the election otherwise the would obviously still be the government.

Note National for years has attempted to make sure it carried a coalition partner into parliament and not ran in opposition of other parties to make sure they dragged in extra seats ie Peter Dunne and ACT
Peter Dunne become a coalition partner with National, despite at times receiving under 1% of the party vote.2008,2011,2014

If you want to make sure your beloved national party is always in power maybe, you should get them to amend NZ's constitution to reflect that we have a dictatorship rather than a democracy

[Graystone]

Ocean i see it still grates you personally to face up to nationals loss, but we have MMP under which the people that form a government have the majority of the seats in a coalition or a confidence and supply agreement.
National did not have this, due to their general lack of negotiating ability and alienation of other parties.

Suck it up, they lost the election otherwise the would obviously still be the government.

Note National for years has attempted to make sure it carried a coalition partner into parliament and not ran in opposition of other parties to make sure they dragged in extra seats ie Peter Dunne and ACT

Ocean is right, they didn't lose the election (they had the most votes of any party, by a significant margin), they lost the government because they deemed it unacceptable to compromise their values/policy to the degree that labor did.

[husaberg]

Ocean is right, they didn't lose the election (they had the most votes of any party, by a significant margin), they lost the government because they deemed it unacceptable to compromise their values/policy to the degree that labor did.

Really what was the election that they won for? i could have sworn it was to decide who should govern NZ for the next 4 years.

Note National did not even know that Peters was not going to be entering a coalition with them, until after he had said he was going with Labour. So to suggest they refused or deemed it to be a unacceptable compromise to enter a coalition with NZF is rather amusing .

English conceded defeat.... National would be the strongest opposition the country had ever seen. He batted away questions over his future as leader after the second time he has taken his party to electoral defeat.

English says questions of leadership are not for tonight but for the weeks ahead.

But it is the second time he has led National to general election defeat. In 2002, under his leadership, National had its worst-ever electoral defeat, losing to Labour’s Helen Clark.

“We had satisfactory negotiations,” says English of talks with Peters and NZ First, adding: “He had more influence on forming a government than we did.”

He says speculation about disagreements over ministerial roles is “quite wrong”, but declines to go into details about what National offered to Peters.

He says learning that he was no longer PM via Peters’ televised speech, and not in advance, English dismisses it as “a bit of a detail”.

[Graystone]

Really what was the election that they won for? i could have sworn it was to decide who should govern NZ for the next 4 years.

Note National did not even know that Peters was not going to be entering a coalition with them, until after he had said he was going with Labour. So to suggest they refused or deemed it to be a unacceptable compromise to enter a coalition with NZF is rather amusing .

Who got the most votes?

Don't be such an idiot, they both had talks with Peters about coalitions. Of course Peters would get the deal all signed with Labour before announcing he wasn't going with National. Peters may be a cunt, but he has a lot of political savvy, unfortunately the same cannot be said for James Shaw, Nats/Greens could have been a great govt...

[husaberg]

Who got the most votes?

Don't be such an idiot, they both had talks with Peters about coalitions. Of course Peters would get the deal all signed with Labour before announcing he wasn't going with National. Peters may be a cunt, but he has a lot of political savvy, unfortunately the same cannot be said for James Shaw, Nats/Greens could have been a great govt...

The most votes was the Coalition of Greens Labour and NZ first and the most seats.
Under FPF who got the most votes was irreverent Nation often won elections with less votes but more seats.
Under MMP who gets to govern is who can muster the most seats.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

[Graystone]

The most votes was the Coalition of Greens Labour and NZ first and the most seats.
Under FPF who got the most votes was irreverent Nation often won elections with less votes but more seats.
Under MMP who gets to govern is who can muster the most seats.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

I don't recall seeing that option on the ballot...
FPP was shit too.
Under MMP, the Coalition you 'voted' for, is only confirmed after all the votes have been cast, even the fucking flag referendum was better thought out than that shit.

[husaberg]

I don't recall seeing that option on the ballot...
FPP was shit too.
Under MMP, the Coalition you 'voted' for, is only confirmed after all the votes have been cast, even the fucking flag referendum was better thought out than that shit.

its the fundamental reality of MMP that any group that forms with the most seats can form a government.
If you don't like MMP maybe you should move to the USA, Russia or Zimbabwe.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

[Ocean1]

Ocean i see...

Yes, I've long since given up any attempt to interpret what you see from what anyone else posts, you've got this perpetual straw-man response set up and it's pointless trying to discuss anything at all with you.

[Katman]

Yes, I've long since given up any attempt to interpret what you see from what anyone else posts, you've got this perpetual straw-man response set up and it's pointless trying to discuss anything at all with you.

Welcome to the club.

[husaberg]

Yes, I've long since given up any attempt to interpret what you see from what anyone else posts, you've got this perpetual straw-man response set up and it's pointless trying to discuss anything at all with you.

A strawman arguement is when someone throws up continued topics that were nothing to do whith waht was posted this is how you have operated.
It is also how your new mate steve operate welcome to his club, but remember what the initiation is.

[Graystone]

its the fundamental reality of MMP that any group that forms with the most seats can form a government.
If you don't like MMP maybe you should move to the USA, Russia or Zimbabwe.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

And what Ocean was pointing out, and now what I'm pointing out, is the fundamental reality of MMP is that the formed govt is not the party that received the most votes, nor is it a group listed on the ballot.
Maybe I live here based on NZ's other virtues... I sure as shit didn't move here for the MMP system anyway.