Labour Green seat deals – about bloody time

69 comments on “Labour Green seat deals – about bloody time ”

• Comments are now closed

1. save nz 1

   29 November 2016 at 1:02 pm

   It’s worth it just to see Gower’s head explode! I hope the camera is far enough away we don’t see the spit hitting the camera as he hissy fits into it. With his teeth bared he’s like a dangerous dog on the loose.

   As for the Greens and Labour, of course they should strategically place their candidates.
   • aerobubble 1.1

     29 November 2016 at 2:27 pm

     Wanting to win is Trumps gift to Nz politics, National are clearly worried as shwn by their press lackies hissy fits.
   • Cinny 1.2

     29 November 2016 at 3:04 pm

     Lmfao for reals? gotta watch it now, I get this weird kick out of seeing Gower fizz, cracks me up.

     Yes strongly agree with u SaveNZ strategic placing of candidates for sures. Boots on the ground and all that too.
2. james 2

   29 November 2016 at 2:31 pm

   to quote the link you posted Back room deals to “guarantee some success at least in next years election”

   Doesn’t sound like he’s very confident of labour / greens victory does it?
   • aerobubble 2.1

     29 November 2016 at 2:47 pm

     You have to remember how lame our media is. Take, for example, on NZ politics nine to noon that i caught the end of. Hooten was having a organism over deregulating taxis, it was all fantasy but this is all about neo-lib wishlists rather than any sensible poltical discussing. Giving Hooten his own soap box every monday, without a counting agent that will laugh their heads off a his ideologica straightjacket. Its just so lame, neo-lib have destroy our way of life, and are targetting our planet, our viability as social, financal and even part of gaia. Dont waste your time listening to nine to noon, neolib lackies.
     • James Thrace 2.1.1

       29 November 2016 at 3:47 pm

       The New Zealand taxi shysters operators are already amongst the most deregulated in the western free market neoliberal economy thrust upon New Zealand from 1984.

       What’s Hooton on about then?
       • tc 2.1.1.1

         29 November 2016 at 4:54 pm

         Rent a rant does as requested, cheques in the mail, turning a few more off RNZ is an added bonus.
         • aerobubble 2.1.1.1.1

           3 December 2016 at 11:58 am

           Yes of course National want to axe RNZ, talking point, based on the idea that some thinks they are too neo lib. Pot rental black.
     • garibaldi 2.1.2

       29 November 2016 at 4:08 pm

       There’s one word you might like to change in there aerobubble!
   • North 2.2

     29 November 2016 at 6:51 pm

     Poor James. He’s in a shock/awe moment. And Tory reflex has him right into ‘average’ and ‘intelligent/not’ talk and it’s a helluva hoot but the spelling’s shocking. All down to a sense of impending threat to the seedy PM.
   • Red Hand 2.3

     29 November 2016 at 7:42 pm

     Why would anyone be “very confident” at this stage in the process ?
3. james 3

   29 November 2016 at 2:34 pm

   As for the deals – I have no issue with it – and good on labour / greens for doing it.

   However – you will loose any moral hugh ground splitting hairs and saying that what national / act etc do is terrible and dirty politics etc, yet when the left do it – its all above board.

   the average voter will see it for exactly what it is – the same thing.

   Although I would guess that the average epsom voter is more intelligent than a lot of other areas – so it may well backfire a little for labour and the greens – we will just have to wait and see.
   • aerobubble 3.1

     29 November 2016 at 2:54 pm

     Govt Minister introduces three strikes, binds hand of judiciary, then accuses the judiciary for the judgment, that the bum pinching was a judicial decision. No outcry from the lawsociety for such blatant misleading attacks by a lawyer. Is there anything the law society will do when their profession is brought into disrepute. Honest governer i did not bind their hands, the judge did it to themselves.

     Collins should hand in her lawyer creds. If the press do this shit to her she wants theme hangout. Horses for courses.
   • framu 3.2

     29 November 2016 at 3:26 pm

     “the average voter will see it for exactly what it is – the same thing.”

     except for the fact that act need epsom to even be in parliament – the greens and labour dont as they are both >5%

     and i reckon many are quite aware of exactly how act come to be in parliament
     • james 3.2.1

       29 November 2016 at 3:43 pm

       Yep – they get voted in. National at least stand a candidate so people can vote for him (or her) if they so wish.

       Labour and the Greens sound like they are not even going to give the voters that option – by no standing any opposition in that seat.
       • framu 3.2.1.1

         29 November 2016 at 4:20 pm

         pretty lame side step there james

         would act be in parliament without epsom – yes or no?
         • james 3.2.1.1.1

           29 November 2016 at 5:18 pm

           No – obviously.

           But there is no need for them to get over 5% – they only need to win a seat – and win Epsom they have.

           They are there quite legitimatley.

           Thems the rules.
           • alwyn 3.2.1.1.1.1

             29 November 2016 at 6:07 pm

             “Thems the rules”.

             Indeed they are. What do you think kept Jim Anderton and his safe vote for Labour in Parliament for so long. It certainly wasn’t his winning personality and popularity for the last 9 years of his time in the house was it?
             The party vote was just as low as ACT is currently but Jim won Wigram.
           • framu 3.2.1.1.1.2

             30 November 2016 at 7:36 am

             never said it wasnt within the rules james.

             but national striking a deal to help act in epsom is quite clearly not the same thing as labour/greens striking deals – ie: the labour/green deals dont affect their ability to be in parliament.
       • North 3.2.1.2

         29 November 2016 at 7:14 pm

         Yeah James I know blah blah blah but the moral “hugh” ground (sic) is something you and your ilk have always mocked as pathetic and weak so a bit rich to be calling it now.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.3

         29 November 2016 at 8:07 pm

         Yep – they get voted in.

         Only if you consider people doing as they’re told and voting for their second choice a free and fair election.
         • james 3.2.1.3.1

           29 November 2016 at 9:27 pm

           a – they are not “told” to do it.

           b – They still have the choice to vote for their first choice should they want.
           • framu 3.2.1.3.1.1

             30 November 2016 at 7:40 am

             of FFS. Whats the “cup of tea” about then? Just two dudes having a private meeting with the press in attendance?
   • garibaldi 3.3

     29 November 2016 at 4:13 pm

     Bad luck James. We won’t “loose any moral hugh ground” because we have become pragmatic and aspirational !
   • Red Hand 3.4

     29 November 2016 at 7:51 pm

     What National and Act did in Epsom is manipulative and treated each candidate as a pawn in the wider game. Anyone can see that. The Labour Green MOU and subsequent suggestions not to stand in certain electorates is honest, open and shows respect for the electorate.
     • Gosman 3.4.1

       30 November 2016 at 5:28 am

       To paraphrase – When the other side does it it is underhand and wrong. When my side does it it is open and good for democracy.
       • framu 3.4.1.1

         30 November 2016 at 7:42 am

         who’s the sub 1% party again?

         If ANY party is doing deals to help another party with that low a % get into parliament its a bad thing.
         • Gosman 3.4.1.1.1

           30 November 2016 at 7:45 am

           Do you think the potential deal between Mana and Maori parties is wrong then?
           • framu 3.4.1.1.1.1

             30 November 2016 at 7:49 am

             dont know anything about it- cant comment on it
     • aerobubble 3.4.2

       3 December 2016 at 12:14 pm

       Offering up the notion that splitting your vote to increase the representatives from your region is all Epsom are doing, maximizing their influence is not underhanded. Telling voters to double vote Labour is stupid and misrepresentative of voter aspirations un the best way, to advantage themselves and their area.
   • Matthew Whitehead 3.5

     30 November 2016 at 8:50 am

     Hahaha no they don’t. There’s a huge difference between two list parties standing aside from various electorates to simplify the races and one list party deliberately throwing electorate races in order to gain extra overhang seats through their coalition microparties.
     • alwyn 3.5.1

       30 November 2016 at 10:32 am

       “overhang seats”.
       The only overhang seat in the current Parliament is the one held by Peter Dunne.
       The only way to get rid of it is to tell the people in his electorate something like.
       “We don’t care that you voted for him. We are simply going to exclude him from Parliament in order to have only the 120 members set down”.

       An overhang seat is NOT one where a small party gets into Parliament with list members because they won an electorate. Any party with list members does not have overhang seats.
       An overhang seat is one where a party wins more electorates than its party vote would justify members.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.5.1.1

         1 December 2016 at 3:34 pm

         Or you know, for people in his electorate to get tired of him.

         Or for him to finally retire, as he is literally the longest-sitting MP in Parliament. (and we talk about careerist MPs in the Labour Party! Dunne takes the cake)

         Or for us to switch to a fully proportional Open List system.

         Both the ACT and UF parties are electorate MPs, not list MPs. Check the 2014 election results, I’ll wait: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/partystatus.html

         I may have been a little incorrect to say “overhang seats” instead of “overhang seat,” as of course, it’s currently only one seat. I assure you I wasn’t talking about the composition of this Parliament in particular.

         Because of residual party votes for these micro-parties and the way Saint-Lague works, each seat for an electorate-only party gets you about half of the way to an overhang seat. However, that works out to a significant advantage with just two seats from electorate-only parties, as it’s what allows National to pass legislation without the Māori Party.

         I am aware that minor disproportionalities like this are necessary to work single-winner electorates into a semi-proportional system like MMP. It’s one of the worst parts of our system, as it allows for coalitions to game the system using small parties campaigning primarily for electorate votes in order to create an overhang. The Right actually agreed with me, back in the day, when the beneficiaries of this were an ascendant Māori Party who they thought they could never work with. (lol)
     • aerobubble 3.5.2

       3 December 2016 at 12:20 pm

       Yes. In a byelection sure its okay to stand aside. Not in general as partys need to explain why splitting harms Labours concentrating power in fewer Labour MPs yet helps increase the number of MPs and the representation from the local area. Labours insufferable policy against splitting is just the same as National who just want rich Epson to have four local MPs, ACT, Nat, Green all from Epson. And no doubt a few more live in the constituency.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.5.2.1

         3 December 2016 at 1:02 pm

         I don’t particularly think that it being a by-election makes a huge difference to the morality of standing aside, tbh. What it does do is make it higher stakes, as for some reason we still keep the idea that by-elections should outright replace a retiring electorate MP, rather than maintaining the (approximate) proportionality of Parliament and just replacing the lowest list MP if a non-incumbent list party wins.
4. Cinny 4

   29 November 2016 at 3:01 pm

   Awesome for Nelson, awesome. Bring it on, full support to whom ever takes on and takes down Nickoff, use that MOU.

   Nelson has had enough, time for a change, they are a conservative bunch over that side of the bay, but they are very environmentally aware and love the outdoors, being a coastal electorate the beach is important.

   Nelson needs someone whom has a better answer than that bloody southern link meal ticket that Nick has been milking for decades with little or no progress and huge massive opposition by the locals.

   MMP for the win, use it to full advantage and play the game. When nothing goes right, go left, because left is best.
5. save nz 5

   29 November 2016 at 4:52 pm

   This was posted by Ropata on another thread – “Also, our income inequality and the gap between the rich and the poor, has grown since the mid 1980s, with a trajectory that put us in the top end of the OECD for the growing gap (but the USA and UK are still above us, but Aus is not).”

   So if we look at how voters in the UK and USA are reacting with Brexit/Trump – maybe it is time that the Labour – Greens seriously look at proposing a solution to solve inequality and not just tinker at the edges. People want a change away from neoliberalism that is fair.

   I think the time is right for a referendum of a UBI and look at a robin hood and a transaction tax to fund it.

   If the centre left keep trying to go Nat Lite with more taxes that hit the middle class (capital gains, increasing retirement age which were not popular polices last election) and avoid the super rich avoidance schemes it is adding to the problem rather than hitting everybody and those who spend more pay more (which is the whole idea of taxation).

   At present someone can come into NZ buy up a 20 million dollar farm or business, run it at a loss and then pay zero taxes. If there was a transaction tax that managed to take off a micro payment of every transaction such as when they buy the farm or business, sell the farm/business, buy stock for the business, pay wages for the business etc etc then we would get the taxes coming in and that could fund a decent standard of living in NZ. Capital gains do not touch those people as they are buying not selling. Even if they sell, there are so many ways to avoid taxes when you are rich. Capital gains is a 20th century solution – we need a 21st century solution like a transaction tax.

   If everyone had access to super which is about $300 p/w before they had to earn anything else it would remove much of the equality and increase productivity in this country.

   We could have our cake and eat it too by having globalism but actually also having a high standard of living paid for by those who are wealthy enough to be making transactions.
   • alwyn 5.1

     29 November 2016 at 6:00 pm

     You propose that “If there was a transaction tax that managed to take off a micro payment of every transaction”
     and also “If everyone had access to super which is about $300 p/w before they had to earn anything else”
     They are of course contradictory. If you were to pay this amount out to everyone in the country, and assuming that you don’t have to allow for people already getting National Super it would cost about $60 billion/year.
     The current taxes paid in New Zealand are about $70 billion so you would have to come close to doubling the taxes paid in New Zealand. “micro” payments certainly wouldn’t pay for it.
     This was all discussed, ad nauseam in the debates over a UBI that were held on this site.
     Why not go back and read them?
     • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1

       30 November 2016 at 9:00 am

       You can do a UBI at a similar level to super. (I modelled one that paid $20k annually, and assumed that there would be some migration to the lower tax brackets in doing so, that worked out to enhancing government revenue if it were paired with revocation of certain benefits, an end to NZ super as a seperate program, a Capital Gains Tax, a migration to a two-tier income tax of 45%/55%, and a little bit extra revenue from a more aggressive ETS or a carbon tax)

       My model required about $72.3 billion in gross payouts, but it netted out to $14.15 billion in net payouts once you deducted the two-tier income tax from it. (which is why I paired it with some conservative assumptions about additional tax revenue)

       It’s perfectly practical to afford a UBI right now, we just have to be willing to change our tax model a bit, and be more open to taxing extreme wealth and/or waste.
       • alwyn 5.1.1.1

         30 November 2016 at 10:19 am

         My comment wasn’t meant to imply that you couldn’t bring in a UBI at National Super levels.
         It was that you couldn’t do it without having to collect much more tax than we do at the present. Your numbers don’t differ greatly to my back of envelope $60 billion do they? They do require roughly doubling the tax haul.

         What I was pointing out is that a happy assumption that you could do it by applying ” If there was a transaction tax that managed to take off a micro payment of every transaction” you are dreaming. It has to roughly double the total tax income and “micro” payments aren’t going to do it.

         Your numbers reflect reality. They don’t make out that it requires small changes and “micro” taxes to pay for a UBI at National Super rates though.
         One would hardly regard lifting the base tax level from 10.5% to 45% and the maximum rate from 33% to 55% as just being the minor changes that save nz seems to think are sufficient.
         • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.1.1

           1 December 2016 at 10:02 am

           Oh yeah, it’s definitely an overhaul. I modelled it specifically as a counterpoint to people saying that a universal basic income needed to be small to be affordable.

           Changing the income tax rate to be higher for everyone is much more reasonable in a system where you also get a basic income. It works out that people earning $40k or under are all net beneficiaries of a UBI, and compared to the current tax regime, a high-benefit high-tax UBI is probably of net benefit to most middle class earners.

           Roughly doubling the current revenue is approximately correct, although a little bit of an overshoot. I took the figures from VUW’s proposed CG tax of $16.68 billion, and assumed a carbon tax of roughly $7.1 billion, which between those and the savings, netted out to roughly an extra $785.5 million for government spending. Total government revenue in the model I worked off was $29.2 billion, so I was about $6 billion short of doubling government revenue.

           Now, add to that the fact that you can deduct the entire NZ super out of the equation, (I had that costed at $12.3 billion) and you can also deduct a large chunk of benefit costs. (Exactly how much of a saving that represents is debatable, but I think I modelled it as deducting roughly 80% of what I isolated as unemployment-related benefits, as I was trying to be pessimistic. This doesn’t assume any savings from not needing as many staff or offices for WINZ’s successor agency. I didn’t deduct the entire cost because some new benefits might need to be put in place to cover cases that are currently wrapped up in NZ Super or in various unemployment-related supplements) These savings are what makes so much of the package possible, and they can kick in as soon as you make the transition to a UBI. I assumed the payments would be per-adult, so I didn’t even look at things like benefits to enable child care.

           I haven’t bothered to try and model medium-term savings like winding down some of WINZ’s responsibilities, and there would also be long-term savings from the likely effects on diseases of poverty, (which might not be eliminated but likely would go down) new start-up businesses and artists funded by the UBI, decrease in stress-related illness from people who could cut down on work or simply feel more economically secure, and so on. Over time I expect you could probably cut some of the new taxes, you just need to be willing to get rather aggressive on revenue collection at the beginning of the transition until the real savings start kicking in.
           • alwyn 5.1.1.1.1.1

             1 December 2016 at 11:54 am

             I had a great deal to say about a UBI when it was first floated and every man and his dog was pontificating about the subject on this site.
             I have pretty much decided not to bother with the topic again until, if ever, one of the larger parties actually puts forward a real proposal.

             As an aside though I don’t see what your comment of “Total government revenue in the model I worked off was $29.2 billion” can mean. At the moment Core Government Revenue is about $76 billion of which taxes are about $70 billion.
             http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/revenue
           • save nz 5.1.1.1.1.2

             1 December 2016 at 1:53 pm

             God you two sound like the pseudo/economists who have put us wrong for so long. People like Bernard Hickey/Shamubeel Eaqub (ex Goldman Sachs Group Inc) who have sworn for last 20 years that property will burst and was a terrible investment (wrong), immigration has little to do with the housing crisis. Now they are screaming how greedy people are who ignored their advice and bought a house because they taking it away from millennials and new migrants.

             Love how all the economists talk about capital gains taxes A LOT but never transaction taxes or robin hood taxes to get revenue which will take money from banks and super rich people… funny that.

             As for anybody who believes the government figures anymore. Who ever gets into government is going to find the cupboard is bare, asset stripped by the Natz.

             And Labour and Greens won’t get into government if they keep trying to tax the middle class people higher and home owners while ignoring the rich who make their money on paper.

             And whether intentionally or unintentionally people who are advising the left to ignore moving to a different system of taxation on transactions and instead concentrate on higher PAYE and capital gains taxes (Capital Gains Tax, a migration to a two-tier income tax of 45%/55%) to fund a UBI are a huge part of why the left ideas are gaining little traction from voters.

             People want and expect fairness from taxation. No one likes seeing someone driving around in a rolls royce, living in a 10 million dollar mansion and paying little tax because their tax affairs are off shore or structured to earn nothing taxable. And if you can’t beat them join them is clearly the route that the government is offering and many people have been advised to join them by their accountant experts. Don’t blame people who use the system legally.

             The left should be advocating lowering taxes like PAYE to help working people. A transaction tax and robin hood tax will ensure taxation becomes fairer as well as raising revenue and taxing consumption.

             My point is, that the left could easily campaign for a referendum on UBI & robin hood and transaction tax, they don’t have to have everything planned out, just campaign to change to a fairer system.

             But to say to increase PAYE, retirement age or capital gains is election death – especially when there are clearly many other options that are fairer and harder to avoid.

             As for not being able to afford to pay UBI at super rates, the government is happy to fund migrants parents after 10 years, not a peep about that or any economist figures about how much it will cost to the current tax payers.

             I
             • Matthew Whitehead …

               1 December 2016 at 3:15 pm

               You’re kicking at the wrong target, mate, as I think I agree with all of your reasons for what you’re saying, even if I disagree with most of the facts you’re giving.

               I’m not an economist, but doing some really basic modelling on a policy can help you see if it’s in the realm of plausibility. A generous UBI is. You would want a more thorough analysis to see what it’s likely benefits and costs are, as mine were a quick google-excel job.

               You are somewhat incorrect that economists don’t talk about transaction taxes. A lot of the best economists are highly supportive of the idea, but it’s unpopular in neoliberal circles, as half of them protest that everyone else needs to go first so investors don’t abandon you for other countries, and the other half say that it’s bad for measuring confidence in companies because it slows down the sharemarket. Obviously both are wrong. 😉 Most of the estimates of revenue for a NZ transaction tax I can find give it as about $1 billion. Even a wimpy $12.5k annual UBI like Labour considered would have a $42 billion negative entry in the balance sheet, and need approximately $16 billion in extra revenue when combined with an increased income tax tax similar to my model. In other words, a transaction tax is small change compared to a UBI.

               Now, I agree a Transaction Tax is a good idea, don’t get me wrong. I just view it as more useful for cutting down on speculation and funding more modest spending, like healthcare increases or better education policy, than a huge outlay like a UBI.

               The switch to a flat tax as part of a UBI actually makes a certain amount of sense, as the UBI itself functions to make the tax system more progressive the same way a bracket-based tax curve does, and you can tie it into PAYE as a tax credit to make the whole thing easier to administer. Part of the point of switching away from the current tax system when implementing a UBI is that it costs less to administer a simple system, and it helps to eliminate some accounting tricks that rich people use to hide their income. All in all, when combined with the UBI it creates a reasonably fair tax curve, it reduces the cost we need to pay for IRD by simplifying the tax code, and it allows those resources to be shifted into tax compliance where it’s still necessary, such as with corporate taxes, to allow later cuts to working people’s income tax as compliance increases and savings kick in.

               Paying a slightly higher rate of income tax isn’t unreasonable when you get $20k per person per year from the government, because even at a 50% rate, you need to be earning $40 per year before you stop getting money from the government. (At which point, you’re earning $40k per year and paying no net income tax, so most entry-level office workers will be waaaay better off, paying little or no income tax) That’s a pretty pro-worker policy, and my modelled version is actually more generous to workers than that. The reason you would want either a flat tax or a two-tier tax (I set the top tier at $80k, which is a reasonable point at which people are no longer “middle-class”)

               You say a CGT is “election death.” Have you actually looked at polling on this after it was part of the 2014 Labour policy? People actually supported a CGT after the election, and favourables on it have actually gone up since then because people realise it will help with the housing crisis. Labour has won the argument on this issue, but is so sensitive of looking bad to rich centrists that it’s dropped the ball anyway in case it can steal votes off National. That’s not how Labour wins elections. It wins by appealing to working voters, not to rich urban liberals who vote National most of the time anyway! A CGT in itself isn’t a great way to get working voters on side, I agree. That’s why you lead with what you’re going to pay for with the CGT, and then tack on at the end: “Oh, and we’re going to pay for it by taxing investment properties using a CGT that exempts your family home,” which is exactly how they won the argument on this.

               I agree with you that not all policies need to be rigorously costed before going into an election with them, some can be worked out if and when you win. But a UBI is a hugely costly policy, so it’s just ridiculous to go around proposing something that’s a paper cost of between $40 billion and $90 billion (depending on how generous the benefit is) without gaming the various scenarios that make it affordable in the short term before the medium- and long-term benefits kick in. As a comparison, the government only took in $29 billion in revenue in the 2015 budget I based my model on.
6. mauī 6

   29 November 2016 at 5:12 pm

   Granted I don’t know much about the Nelson electorate, but why is Labour ceding to the Greens when Labour is getting a much larger candidate vote? The previous Green candidate got about 3,000 votes to Nek Minut Smit’s 20,000, while the Labour candidate is getting around 12,000 votes.

   Why not get a Labour candidate with good green credentials and stand them there and let the Greens step aside??
   • alwyn 6.1

     29 November 2016 at 5:54 pm

     “why is Labour ceding to the Greens”.
     Probably because the people of Nelson don’t really care for the current incarnation of the Labour Party.
     It was a safe Labour seat from 1957 to 1996. That was 14 elections and 4 different Labour MPs. Since the Labour Party has become the home of hack ex-student politicians who haven’t actually had a real job in their life the people of Nelson don’t want to have a thing to do with them.
     • Cinny 6.1.1

       29 November 2016 at 8:05 pm

       Alwyn, dude, Nick Smith is just how you describe…

       “hack ex-student politicians who haven’t actually had a real job in their life”

       You know nick is an ex engineering student whom started his political career via Rangiora Council, where he was a councillor at 21 and also worked there as an engineer, then worked at the family business, before heading to parliament in 1990 been there ever since…

       He was in Tasman, until the electorate boundaries changed, then he bailed and went to Nelson electorate, because he didn’t want to take on Damo.

       Now we have Nelson Electorate and WestCoast/Tasman Electorate.
   • Pete George 6.2

     29 November 2016 at 6:06 pm

     1 News reported that Greens had been given “a chunk of money by an anonymous donor” which specifies that it must be used in Nelson/West Coast only.

     https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/labour-and-greens-begin-bargaining-2017-election-seats?auto=5226876263001
     • Phil 6.2.1

       29 November 2016 at 6:21 pm

       which specifies that it must be used in Nelson/West Coast only.

       Of all the electorate seats in the country, those two must rank pretty low on the list of likely Green pick-ups. I feel like there’s a curious story* to be told about the circumstances of that donation.

       *Probably not a conspiratorial or corruption story. Far more likely to be just a passionate wealthy eccentric with little grasp for electorate math.
       • mauī 6.2.1.1

         29 November 2016 at 6:43 pm

         Bugger, I think you’re right.
       • Cinny 6.2.1.2

         29 November 2016 at 8:14 pm

         IMO Greens will chasing the party vote for westcoast/tasman rather than a seat.

         Nelson is a whole other story, can’t wait to hear whom will be standing, go for it Greens, go for it.
7. Gosman 7

   30 November 2016 at 5:25 am

   This is exactly the same as Epsom and Ohariu and no amount of leftist spin is going to change that fact. That isn’t to state it isn’t a clever move however an electoral accommodation is still an electoral accommodation regardless of it being formal or informal.
   • Leftie 7.1

     30 November 2016 at 7:31 am

     Is it really the same? Would have thought the MoU between Labour and Greens makes it transparent.
     • Gosman 7.1.1

       30 November 2016 at 7:42 am

       Why does a MoU make it somehow a different beast in terms of outcomes? In fact I could argue it is more anti-democratic in that Labour and The Greens are denying the voters of the electorate’s in question the ability to vote for the candidate of the political party they want to vote for.
       • Leftie 7.1.1.1

         30 November 2016 at 7:55 am

         I thought the MoU was self explanatory and I cannot see how it is anti democratic.
     • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.2

       30 November 2016 at 9:09 am

       Transperancy helps. It also helps that both parties are List parties, (ie. neither will gain any extra seats from this deal, so they’re not gaming Parliament) and that they’re simply making a choice not to stand at all, rather than this will-I-won’t-I BS of standing a candidate but saying you wouldn’t not be happy if the voters elected your coalition partners.

       It also helps to get this done well before the campaign starts, so that voters know what they’re getting and can judge if they like it. Being transparent isn’t helpful if you tell everyone at the last minute. 🙂

       Compare this with how Winston deals with things if you like, where he tries to push off every decision until after the election and won’t tell the public what’s going on.
       • Pasupial 7.1.2.1

         30 November 2016 at 10:32 am

         It is conceivable that Labour might get more electorate seats than party votes next year (though not if they lose the Māori electorates). They only got five list MPs last election; so if they got 5% less party vote, then they might have an overhang. I’m not saying this likely, or desirable, just possible.
         • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.2.1.1

           1 December 2016 at 10:05 am

           Actually it’s not particularly likely, I just looked into it for a different reason. (I was writing about how long-term, the South Island Quota is likely to cause the Labour Party to overhang seats, assuming their party vote gets this low again and the Greens don’t start taking electorates off them) They would need to poll significantly lower in the party vote and hold onto all their current electorates for this to be a risk, and no individual poll has them at results where they’d achieve overhang seats. They might, however, be in a situation where they only had 1-3 list seats if the election goes very badly.
   • framu 7.2

     30 November 2016 at 7:47 am

     go and look at the party % and get back to us.

     None of your usual tired lines can escape the fact that national actively assist a party with staggeringly low % get into parliament .

     Can you point to the same thing with the labour/green deal?

     note: yes its within the rules, but maybe drop the idiotic charade that you dont recognise exactly what happens in epsom

     note: yes act have won epsom before alone – but the topic is the deals that are made, more than the result
   • Matthew Whitehead 7.3

     30 November 2016 at 9:03 am

     Bwahahaha troll harder next time. We were always very specific in our criticisms of Epsom and Ōhāriu being about an attempt to manipulate away some of the proportionality of Parliament, and you need to actually attack the left’s positions to establish hypocrisy, not your perception of them.
     • Gosman 7.3.1

       30 November 2016 at 9:33 am

       What’s your view on the proposed arrangement between Mana and the Maori party then?
       • Pasupial 7.3.1.1

         30 November 2016 at 10:04 am

         Gosman
         I’d have to agree with Framu from the last time you asked the same question upthread: It is difficult to have an opinion when we don’t know the details of any M/MP agreement, or even if it will occur.

         I don’t expect facts to stop you having already formed an opinion though.
         • Gosman 7.3.1.1.1

           30 November 2016 at 10:31 am

           Let me put it to you as a hypothetical then. Would you oppose a deal between Mana and Maori parties if both sides agree to not stand candidates in some electorate’s so as to increase the chance of the other party winning? Pretty straight forward question and one that has been mooted.
           • Pasupial 7.3.1.1.1.1

             30 November 2016 at 10:41 am

             Gosman
             Not if they did so openly and transparently with input from the electorates concerned. It would seem to be a sensible management of resources to stand only in those electorates where they had a reasonable chance of success.

             The important thing that we don’t know the answer to, is whether there will be both; a Mana and a Māori party at the election, or one combined party (for the duration of the election at least). If so, then your question about acting to; “increase the chance of the other party winning”, no longer makes any sense. Would you expect National to stand two different candidates in the same electorate?
       • Matthew Whitehead 7.3.1.2

         1 December 2016 at 10:24 am

         Well, the Māori Party has a List seat, but only because they have an electorate lifeboat. It’s splitting hairs a bit to try and call them a List party, a term which has only ever referred to parties polling above the threshold, so first I would be very clear I view them as an electorate party because they’re in the lifeboat situation, even if that is because we have an unfairly high Party Vote threshold.

         I’m not particularly comfortable with the arrangement of two electorate parties agreeing not to field candidates in order to get out of each others’ way, but I’m also very conscious that as a Pakeha, it’s not my place to offer anything more than polite suggestions about Māori politics. Māori get to decide at the polls whether they are comfortable having Hone back, or whether they like the idea of more Kelvin Davis, and the rest of us will deal with what their decision is. I’m sympathetic to Mana in general, (I actually considered voting for them and the Internet Party post-merger in 2014, but wasn’t willing to risk the possibility of Hone failing to win his electorate, and didn’t regard their policies as particularly realistic compared to the Greens, even if they were willing to move the political discussion a lot further in a direction that appealed to me) but if I were asked for my opinion, I would say I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea of such a deal, but it’s not entirely unreasonable if done openly between two independent parties, and if their electorates are overwhelmingly in favour of the idea.

         Which is co-incidentally one of the main reasons I wouldn’t view such an agreement in the same way as the agreement with National and Act or National and UF, however, as it’s not essentially a vassal relationship where a party that comprises most of government gets, on average, 1 free seat from overhangs because it has two “independent” parties it encourages its supporters to support in a non-official way. It would require a lot of very tortured logic to conclude that the miniscule power difference between the Māori and Mana parties amounts to anywhere near close to the same thing.

         One of the reasons openness and transparency is important is that it allows you to turn the electorate contest into something of a referendum on whether people are comfortable with the electorate deal, which makes it a little better, even if you’re still in a position of overturning proportionality. It’s a little different though if Mana starts polling at 1% for the Party Vote, too. At that point, they deserve to get a seat, so the electorate is just the populace giving them their mandate.

         I wouldn’t say that Labour and the Greens should rule out going into coalition with Mana out of principle were they elected under such a relationship, if that’s what you’re digging for, but Labour at least will likely be running a candidate that will aggressively compete with Mana for that seat, something that the Māori Party won’t be doing, so I’m not sure that they can be accused of hypocrisy either way, because unlike National, they will be no best-of-both-worlds deal. They will be trying to lock Hone out of Parliament, or dealing with him after he defeats their new golden boy in the Māori electorates, Mr. Davis, and that scenario is a radically different one to the current government, which routinely passes bills (like the TPPA bills, for instance, that circumstance of the US election managed to kill) relying on the extra vote given to it by its two vassal parties.
8. Pasupial 8

   30 November 2016 at 10:24 am

   Turei has been talking about going back to standing for the Te Tai Tonga electorate for a while now (it is where she votes after all), so this is not too much of a surprise. Even standing mainly for party vote; she is still going to take more electorate votes away from Tirikatene than Langsbury. But he got over; one and a half thousand votes, more than the combined M/MP last election.

   This does leave the GP Dunedin North seat open though. Possibly for Chris Ford? I imagine the candidate selection meeting will be soon (it was about this time of year in 2013). So an increased majority for Clark over Woodhouse next year in the electorate.
9. Takere 9

   30 November 2016 at 1:53 pm

   Who really cares what Paddy “BumFace” Gower says or thinks? The guy is a moron.
   Taking out Nationals support parties is a must in 2017.

   Mana-Tainui Inc-MAori Kupapa Parties are history.
   Calling for Marama Fox to run as an independent is the smart money as the Chief strategist Mr Underpants & Willie Jackson wants an all boys club!
   Dunne needs to go & the Nat’s might just need to repo Epsom?

   GameOn!
10. rsbandit 10

    30 November 2016 at 5:07 pm

    Dirty.

    This is not giving local voters a choice of *candidate*. No, I don’t want the Green candidate, I want a Labour one.
    • Matthew Whitehead 10.1

      1 December 2016 at 10:30 am

      Fair enough, however, it is reasonably up to the Labour Party to decide not to stand a candidate in a seat where it feels it will split the vote.

      If you really want more choice, we should be using a system other than FPP for electorate votes. (I personally support Range Voting, but IRV is also a possibility) Doing that would mean that the Greens and Labour can safely field electorate candidates in every seat they want to without significantly hurting each others’ chances.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS