National lose majority

Written By: - Date published: 2:18 pm, October 4th, 2014 - 216 comments
Categories: election 2014 - Tags:

Official results. From The Herald:

Final election result
National: 47.04 (60 seats)
Labour: 25.13 (32)
Green: 10.70 (14)
New Zealand First: 8.66 (11)
Maori Party: 1.32 (2)
Act Party: 0.69 (1)
United Future: 0.22 (1)
Conservative: 3.97 (0)
Internet Mana: 1.42 (0)

Some highlights:

National loses a seat
Greens gain a seat
Andrew Little is safe

Props to mickysavage for accurate predictions. (No doubt evidence that The Standard is leaked top secret data from the Electoral Commission – wooo see Labour does it too Dirty Politics! That was a joke by the way, r0b.)

Updated with some tweets:

https://twitter.com/danylmc/status/518222427835215872

216 comments on “National lose majority ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Richies McClaw 1
    4 October 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Granted a cynical observation would hold that Nats and ACT are ultimately no different (essentially a good cop and bad cop act), this is actually harmful for the vulnerable given that it increases the leverage of the ACT party.

    • karol 1.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

      Seymour must surely be a weak link being so inexperienced and given responsibilities immediately…?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

        Plus hes a dick to boot- did you see him sitting waiting waiting waiting for Jetstar flight after election.
        He was opposed to ‘state airlines’ on principle.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

          “He was opposed to ‘state airlines’ on principle.”

          We’ll see how long that opposition lasts, when IIRC government employees get free flights on Air NZ but not on any of the others…

          • alwyn 1.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 2:42 pm

            Politicians can travel, without limit and regardless of the cost of a fare, on any airline they like within New Zealand I believe.
            What does IIRC mean by the way?

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 2:45 pm

              If I Recall Correctly.

              Anyway, even if that is the case, I’m sure he’ll end up flying on AirNZ at least occasionally, due to convenience.

              • dv …
                4 October 2014 at 2:47 pm

                Maybe 49% of the time as that is the public ownership!!!

              • alwyn …
                4 October 2014 at 2:50 pm

                I would certainly hope so. At least there is a reasonable chance that the flight will take place. Personally I will never fly with Jetstar, no matter how low the fare. I want to see the plane take off with me on board. And, I will point out, I pay for my own fares.
                Thanks for the explanation of IIRC. I didn’t think of that.

              • CnrJoe …
                4 October 2014 at 4:07 pm

                Lanth – do you mean – ‘A,EITTC, I’m sure he’ll end up flying on Air N…..?’ ;- )

                • Kiwiri …
                  5 October 2014 at 10:03 am

                  And people should take pictures of him going into and hanging out at Air NZ’ s Koru Club.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.1.2
            4 October 2014 at 2:53 pm

            Thats what he may have alluded to, when Seymour was heard to mutter- “public servants telling him what to do”-

            Maybe they were saying we have a discount deal only with Air NZ.

            You can see just how jumped up this pretentious little electrical engineer is !

        • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.2
          5 October 2014 at 2:08 am

          To show his Randian independence, he shovels more state money towards a private business. What a total wanker.

      • Jenny Kirk 1.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

        Seymour definitely a weak link but given a helping hand by not having to answer questions in the House or being subject to Official Info Act !

      • lurgee 1.1.3
        4 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

        Seymour must surely be a weak link being so inexperienced and given responsibilities immediately…?

        Seymour’s there to front unpopular policies. He won’t mind taking the shit for it, because he’s getting paid an awful lot of money and isn’t going to lose popularity. It is hard to imagine the good people of Epsom getting too upset if the Nat-ACT government push through bulk funding, wreck the Teachers’ Council, scrap the decile grading system and pick a fight with the teaching unions.

      • Tracey 1.1.4
        4 October 2014 at 4:55 pm

        those on the right of national will whisper in his ear.

        douglas is still troughing his way through his and his wifes free travel.

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      4 October 2014 at 2:29 pm

      “this is actually harmful for the vulnerable given that it increases the leverage of the ACT party.”

      Act never had any leverage based on the previous results and this doesn’t change that.

      What it does do, is give National a fig-leaf they can use to blame unpopular policies on Act. When they had an outright majority, they necessarily had to own the consequences of all legislation passed. But now if there are particular parts people are unhappy with, they can blame their support parties instead.

    • Paul Campbell 1.3
      4 October 2014 at 5:04 pm

      But the ACT and UF electoral seats are essentially overhang seats, if the Nats were forced to win Epsom they would get one less list seat – I think that what the Nats did to Hone/IMK is fair game for Epsom next time around – force ACT out to reduce the Nat’s coalition

      Equally if Labour were smart they’d get Hone back next time – trading an electoral seat for a list seat but increasing their coalition by one

      The thing is that even without the 5% rule you can increase your coalition by forcing overhangs in electoral seats (especially if you get the coalition partner to give his/her electoral votes to you or your coalition) – it’s what National is doing with Act/UF today

  2. karol 2
    4 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

    And this that I posted on the other thread:

    Overall, Green Party vote dropped by 0.9% compared with 2011. Labour dropped in party vote by 2.35%

    NZ First went up by about 2%.

    UF, ACT & Maori Party went up a fraction.

    Conservatives went up dropped by about 1.3%

    Nats dropped by 2.7%

    • Saarbo 2.1
      4 October 2014 at 5:23 pm

      Actual % drops then equate to:

      Greens dropped 11.88% and Labour dropped 9.35%…why aren’t people attacking the greens for their drop since 2011, it was actually bigger than Labours % wise.

      What this clearly illustrates is that the Left vote failed, and David Cunliffe is taking the heat. If Cunliffe is taking the heat on the drop f the labour vote by9.35% why aren’t Metiria and Russel taking the heat fro Greens dropping 11.88%…a very weird double standard here.

      • Murray Olsen 2.1.1
        5 October 2014 at 2:15 am

        Russel Norman reflected the heat to Dotcom, Harré, and Hone. He seems to be about as good as Key at accepting responsibility. In fact the only person I’ve seen unreservedly accept responsibilty for all our failings is Dotcom. We all fell short and collectively need to do better in the future. Crying about Epsom or Ohariu on a daily basis just makes us look like sore losers.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    4 October 2014 at 2:27 pm

    If Greens and LAB had got another 80,000 votes combined, Key’s ability to form a government would be fucked. That’s how close it was.

    Very pissed off still that Hone and Laila are not in Parliament, and we have bloody Kelvin Davis instead.

    • weka 3.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:30 pm

      so roughly 10% of the non-vote?

    • karol 3.2
      4 October 2014 at 2:31 pm

      The Internet Mana share in the vote actually went up a fraction from 2011.

      So, if Hone had got in, it may have made all the difference.

      The 3 biggest parties vote share dropped, but the Greens noticeably dropped by the least. They held pretty strong.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

        You have lost me here. Greens are up , they are down, they have lost the least ?

        Less spin please.

        • karol 3.2.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 3:58 pm

          Basically. They’ve pretty much held their ground. I’m just looking at the facts, which are kind of mixed, but don’t show any noticeable shifts – especially in comparison to Nats and Labour. They have the same number of MPs as before.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.2
        4 October 2014 at 4:24 pm

        Yep, if Greens had withdrawn their Ohariu candidate and Labour their TTT candidate, Labour + Greens + IMP + NZF could govern.

        • karol 3.2.2.1
          4 October 2014 at 4:32 pm

          In Ohariu, I think if the Greens hadn’t stood an electorate candidate, and all their electorate votes went to Labour, Labour would have got about 17,500 votes.

          The Nats would probably then have put out the word for Nat voters to vote Dunne.

          Dunne got 13, 569
          The Nat candidate got 6,120

          That would give Dunne 19,000+ votes.

          Generally, I think the Greens are not into game playing. In this case, it could just have backfired if they hadn’t stood a candidate.

          TTT is another matter as there was no Nat candidate.

          I’m not sure where Davis’s votes would have gone if Labour hadn’t stood a candidate.

          The Nats might still have put out the word to vote Maori party.

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.2.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 4:48 pm

            Ohariu, like Epsom, has a better understanding of the electorate vote than other areas in the country, because the people there who actually understand MMP talk to their friends, colleagues, and relatives that don’t. It would probably have effected the Green vote, but I imagine it would be unlikely to make the difference between losing a seat and not losing a seat.

            But yeah, it was more a counterfactual on the point that if the Left parties had run a more co-ordinated campaign this election was a lot more winnable than the media is presenting it as having been. Especially if Labour had connected to voters better.

            • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.2.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 5:03 pm

              And yeah, you have a good point that there may have been some degree of retalition from National electorate voters in those electorates, especially if the National Party publicises their own strategy on that matter. Obviously one small change can’t be taken in isolation, but likewise, if we had had a more co-ordinated Left-wing campaign, it may also have effected the Party Vote turnout.

              Labour’s votes in TTT would have needed to go to the Maori Party very significantly for the withdrawal of Kelvin Davis to not have brought in Hone and IMP, but I imagine it would still have been a close race given that clearly there was a certain amount of backlash among the electorate to the idea of Hone using the seat to lifeboat in other politicians who were not perceived as serving their interests.

              • karol …
                4 October 2014 at 6:35 pm

                I was never keen on the whole IMP development. Especially so late in the electoral cycle. Hone and Mana had developed a strong and recognisable identity. The very strong association of KDC with IMP probably just confused a lot of people, and made them wary.

                Without the IP Hone would most likely be back in parliament.

        • Tracey 3.2.2.2
          4 October 2014 at 5:00 pm

          and if the labour party hadnt supidly run an electoral vote campaign in epsom

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.2.2.1
            4 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

            Actually it would have taken the votes of both the Labour and Green electoral candidates in Epsom moving to the National Party, and no more than about 1,500 voters for the National candidate re-enforcing David Seymour to have elected Paul Goldsmith in Epsom and remove ACT from Parliament.

            I think the level of understanding to have left-wing voters vote for the National candidate in Epsom would probably have also moved a lot of Paul Goldsmith’s votes to David Seymour- polling on intended electorate candidate votes in Epsom suggests a similar effect that a significant minority (in polling it was about 11%) of electors didn’t understand that voting for David Seymour actually benefitted the government, and would have moved their votes. (There were also some who didn’t understand that but would NOT have moved their votes)

            Shifting Epsom away from ACT will definitely require more than just the Left being better at strategic voting than the Right.

            • Wayne 3.2.2.2.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 5:37 pm

              If one of the major parties actually withdraws a candidate to game the system, then the others will do it too. So in Epsom if there had been no Labour or Green candidates with the objective that all the Green and Labour voters would vote for National, do you think National would do nothing. And I am also sure a lot of the Labour and Green voters would be very angry with their party if they denied them the choice of deciding how to vote.

              Fortunately those in the major parties who decide such things know that to game seats like this would be going way too far.

              There seems to be a consensus that allows a suggestion that say you need ACT, so long as you keep your own candidate in the race. That way the voters still make up their own minds.

              • Hanswurst …
                4 October 2014 at 7:09 pm

                I agree with this. There was a definite potential downside for Labour had it done electorate deals. It had hammered Act, National and Banks particularly on that score, with the principle of not “gaming the system” being seen as a difference between the two major parties. If Labour had then signalled deals in or close to election year, that would have given ammunition to their opponents and the media on the “tricky” front, the idea that Labour was in a mess, didn’t stand for anything, was desperate for seats and in fear that their vote would collapse, etc..

                Having said that, that isn’t the case now. Three years out from the next scheduled election, Labour can afford to put about the idea that the election was very close, and that Harawira winning a seat, with Seymour, Dunne and Flavell losing theirs would have seen a very different parliamentary makeup. They can support the “Feed the Kids” bill vocally before parliament in tandem with the Greens, and look for electorally promotable common ground between Labour, Mana and the Greens. They needn’t explicitly signal that they will do deals in any electorates, just show that they are working together consistently (on more than just electricity policy) and continually point out that these deals may have been all that kept National in power. Highlighting the charter-school mess and any other bullshit attributable to Seymour and pinning it to his face would also be a principled and decent thing to do (yes, I do mean that sentence as it is written).

                Depending on how polling stacks up a year or so out from the election, they can then start signalling that they might do a deal in the odd seat, stressing the good work they have done with the parties in question, and that it is an unavoidable step if these deals are potentially the only difference between the government benches and opposition for all of those parties. All parties of the left should then campaign on a common platform of MMP-reform to reduce the party-vote threshold and abolish the coat-tailing provision.

                In short, the Left can afford to combat National on its own terms with electorate deals, but it needs to have a clear chance of winning them the election, and it needs to be based on groundwork laid years in advance showing positive cooperation between all involved parties, rather than what could be persuasively presented as cynical gamespersonship. It also needs to be coupled with the promise to tighten up the electoral system in order to render any future use of such tactics largely ineffective.

      • Poission 3.2.3
        4 October 2014 at 4:59 pm

        The 3 biggest parties vote share dropped,

        the vote ( in absolute terms) increased by 159000 voters,the 3 biggest parties combined share was 72000 or around half,a significant decrease in potential.

    • Tautoko Viper 3.4
      4 October 2014 at 2:47 pm

      +1

    • cricklewood 3.5
      4 October 2014 at 2:48 pm

      I doubt that Cunliffe would have been been any better placed to form a govt…

    • whateva next? 3.6
      4 October 2014 at 3:09 pm

      Could we have suggested Greens asked for party vote only in ohariu, Auckland, giving Jacinda, Virginia a seat, and thus, a majority???

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.6.1
        4 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

        Greens always ask for the Party Vote only. They run electorate candidates as a visibility device only and do not seriously contest any electorates. (Although at this rate of growth in Green electorate votes, a couple of electorates in Wellington would go green through grassroots support alone in about 9-12 years)

        Jacinda winning a seat does not add a seat to the Labour Party total. Virginia winning a seat removes a support partner for the government, but still does not add a seat to the Labour Party total. Thus Labour winning seats off National Party support partners is important electoral strategy for Labour, only due to it removing those supporting parties from Parliament.

      • karol 3.6.2
        4 October 2014 at 4:35 pm

        No. Key would probably have told the Nats to vote Dunne. The Nat candidate plus Dunne got more votes than Virginia and the Green candidate together.

        • Matthew Whitehead 3.6.2.1
          4 October 2014 at 4:52 pm

          That post wasn’t actually on whether Ohariu could be won by Labour, it was on the impacts of who wins Ohariu and why the Greens withdrawing from other electorate seats could not conceivably aid Labour in forming a government in any way.

          I thought that Key had actually officially backed Dunne for Ohariu anyway? Granted no media circus, but I think given the close polling if Key had thought it would help, he probably would have done a similar event for Dunne this election.

          • DoublePlus Good 3.6.2.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 7:21 pm

            You know, the Greens could have done an electoral accommodation and voted for the National candidate in Hutt South, to get rid of Trevor Mallard. That would have been good for the left also.

        • Hanswurst 3.6.2.2
          4 October 2014 at 7:20 pm

          I don’t think one can assume that all National voters would vote Dunne. I’m not sure what the voting patterns looked like on the night, but looking at the Epsom comparison, Colmar Brunton indicated in early September that about one third of National voters would be likely to vote tactically for the Act candidate, with just under half supporting the deal in principle.

          • karol 3.6.2.2.1
            4 October 2014 at 7:39 pm

            Yes. But you also can’t assume that all people who voted for the GP candidate would switch to the LP candidate.

            Dunne plus the Nat candidate = 19,689

            Lab + Green candidates = 15,632

            That’s a 4,000 majority to the right.

            • whateva next? 3.6.2.2.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 10:00 pm

              If a third of voters who had voted green electoral had given vote to Labour, Virginia would have won seat, so another Labour seat, (and one less for right block) and if same had happened in Auckand, that’s 2 extra seats for Labour,)another person would have got Jacinda’s list place) 1 less for National, ……but then Maori and Act would be the 2 extra to counter a Labour/Green/NZF coalition anyway…but just maybe David Seymour and Flavell may have a conscience and vote against bad stuff at least, oh if only.

    • Chooky 3.9
      4 October 2014 at 4:07 pm

      +100 CV

    • lurgee 3.10
      4 October 2014 at 4:11 pm

      If Greens and LAB had got another 80,000 votes combined, Key’s ability to form a government would be fucked. That’s how close it was.

      This this party called New Zealand First. You may have heard of them.

      Also, it we’re playing Fantasy Politics, the Conservatives were only 20,000 votes short of the 5% threshold.

      You can’t pleasure yourself with one scenario and ignore the other. National are unlikely to be so cavalier towards the Conservatives next time around.

      • Kiwiri 3.10.1
        4 October 2014 at 4:15 pm

        The superannuation age is safe with NZ First !

      • boldsirbrian 3.10.2
        4 October 2014 at 4:47 pm

        .
        @lurgee (3.10)

        National are unlikely to be so cavalier towards the Conservatives next time around.

        I don’t think DirtyJohn was cavalier. The Conservatives were so much on the lunatic side of politics that even DirtyJohn didn’t want to have anything to do with them. DirtyJohn could see that if the Conservatives got in, there is a likelihood he may have had to rely on them as a coalition partner, and introduce at least one of their policies. And there were none available that wouldn’t have made DirtyJohn look even dirtier.

      • Tom Jackson 3.10.3
        4 October 2014 at 5:56 pm

        You don’t understand. The election shows that nothing has really changed.

        I used to torment the half wits at Kiwiblog with the fact that there is no electable conservative majority in NZ, and even now there still isn’t.

        This is the best election under MMP that the right has ever had, and National still had to rely on electorate seat rorts to win. The other times they’ve won post 1996 they’ve either had to do the same or nobble Winston’s chances as they did in 2008 (to nullify some of the anti-National vote). If it came to a fair election with no BS, they would lose every time.

        The Conservatives have proven unelectable on their own twice now. With all that money, and the electorate more friendly to the right than it has ever been, they still couldn’t win a seat. The only way they will ever do so is with a National Party rort like Epsom or Ohariu.

        When it comes to parties that will support the kind of right-wing free-market policies that National’s backers favour, there just aren’t enough votes to allow the right to win without trying to rort the system. On the other hand, when the parties that oppose those free market policies are doing well, they easily make it over 50% combined (and in 2002 about 60%).

        This election is supposed to have been a dominant performance by the right? Bullshit. Their elected parties (ACT and National) couldn’t even get over 50% of the vote, and could only cobble a majority together by rorting MMP.

        No wonder there was such a desperate media campaign against Labour and the IMP. The right are clinging on by their fingernails every time.

        • lurgee 3.10.3.1
          4 October 2014 at 8:35 pm

          This is the best election under MMP that the right has ever had, and National still had to rely on electorate seat rorts to win.

          Not quite. The 5% threshold stopped them getting a majority that they warranted. National + Conservatives = 51% of the vote.

          So electoral seat deals balanced out the effect of the 5% threshold.

          • Tom Jackson 3.10.3.1.1
            5 October 2014 at 1:09 am

            You’re missing my point. The Conservatives – entirely of their own accord, since they were left to their own devices – didn’t make the 5% or win an electorate seat, so they are irrelevant. If National wanted them as a partner, they would have had to offer them a seat, which would have proved my point over again, which is that the parties of the right cannot win a parliamentary majority without some sort of rort or dirty tricks.

            National can’t win without rorting the MMP system, because they can’t get enough of the vote (which means enough to them and enough to their potential partners to cross the 5%) to gain a majority.

            The only time they ever did was in 1996, because Peters was dumb enough to go with them (a mistake he would not make again). That’s because the division in NZ politics is between parties that support the free marketers agenda of privatisation and so on, and those that don’t. NZF as economic nationalists do not. That’s why Peters signalled he could work with the Greens if necessary.

            Ever since MMP National has had had to rely on electorate deals and deals with centrist parties that don’t share their right wing economic views. Labour has been luckier, since it has had the Alliance, Greens and NZ First as parties that share it’s distrust of privatisation mania and cutting state services.

            For example, in 1999 the left parties won over 50% of the vote. Labour 39%; Alliance 8% and Green 5%. In 2002 Labour, the Progressives and the Greens had 50% of the vote (Labour chose to go with confidence and supply from Dunne, because they could, not because they had no alternative). In 2005 the left parties had about 47%, but Clark chose to go with Winston and Dunne again rather than the Greens. In none of these cases were there rorts of electorate seats.

            The parties of the right have never managed to get over 50% of the vote translated into parliamentary seats. They just can’t do it. In 2008 they would have been beaten again had Peters made it back into parliament, which is why they spent much of the campaign trying to suppress the NZF vote.

            The natural limit for the right wing parties that get into parliament appears to be between 47 and 48% which is about as much as National and ACT can manage at their best (and ACT’s share depends on a rort). The numbers speak for themselves. National cannot win a majority unless it either rorts the system or engages in dirty campaigning against NZF. It then has to hope that the rorts are enough (they were this time) or that it can partner with a party that doesn’t share its economic philosophy. Hence the existence of moribund parties like ACT and UF whose only function is to allow National to cheat the system.

            The left has no such problem. It has shown it is able to win an absolute majority of the vote without rorting MMP, and it can always partner with NZF which is more naturally a partner of the left, because it holds a similar antipathy towards right wing economic policies (which was the reason it was founded in the first place).

            So it turns out that Labour were right. There is a natural ceiling to the right wing vote that is well below the natural ceiling to the left wing vote. If the left can get its voters out, it will always win. National’s strategists know this, which is why we have Dirty Politics (the avowed aim of which is voter suppression).

            The numbers don’t lie.

            • Murray Olsen 3.10.3.1.1.1
              5 October 2014 at 2:34 am

              Seems entirely plausible, Tom. Now all we need is a strategy to get everyone within that natural left ceiling to actually vote. That’s the hard part, but if NAct can convince so many people to vote against their interests, we should be able to get them to vote in favour.

            • lurgee 3.10.3.1.1.2
              5 October 2014 at 8:33 am

              The parties of the right have never managed to get over 50% of the vote translated into parliamentary seats. They just can’t do it. In 2008 they would have been beaten again had Peters made it back into parliament, which is why they spent much of the campaign trying to suppress the NZF vote.

              You’re almost heroic in your avoidance of the fact that the rightwing parties won more than 50% of the vote. Only the mechanics of MMP stopped them turning that majority into seats. So getting huffy about ‘rorts’ in seats is beside the point. Under a completely proportional system, National and the Conservatives would have more than 50% of the votes and seats.

              They were only kept at bay by the vagaries of MMP. Which hurt the left as often as they hurt the right. The 5% threshold needs to go.

              • Shrubbery …
                5 October 2014 at 10:52 am

                Yeah, lurgee is exactly right here – the far right got more than 50% in this election, but got less than 50% of the seats because of the unproportionality of the 5% threshold. Without that threshold, the Conservatives would have got 5-6 seats in parliament. That they aren’t represented is unfair to their voters, as it is unfair that Mana voters aren’t represented by 2 MPs
                The threshold is undemocratic.

                • Tom Jackson …
                  5 October 2014 at 12:40 pm

                  The threshold is undemocratic.

                  That’s a separate argument. I’m not claiming that under some other system than the one we have that the right can’t get a majority without rorts, but that under the system we actually have, that they can’t get a majority without rorts.

                  People can deny this all they want, but the numbers don’t lie. There appears to be a natural ceiling to the right wing vote for electable parties (i.e. parties that can win a seat or make the 5% threshold on their own).

                  If you want to deny this, then show me one NZ election in which the parties of the right have a combined result of above 47-48% which is comprised of votes only from parties that got into parliament without being gifted a seat by a National rort.

                  You can’t, because no such result exists in NZ under MMP.

                  If you ask the same question for the left, there are multiple occasions in which the left has managed a result above that without any dodgy deals. In our system of government, the natural ceiling for the left vote for electable parties is somewhere between 5-7% higher than that for the right vote, and the natural ceiling for the anti free market vote is 60%. For the right it appears to be 47%, because they can’t get more into parliament without rorts.

              • Tom Jackson …
                5 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

                You’re almost heroic in your avoidance of the fact that the rightwing parties won more than 50% of the vote. Only the mechanics of MMP stopped them turning that majority into seats.

                Perhaps you should learn to read, or are you purposely being obtuse? We don’t have a completely proportional system.

                As I said, the parties of the right cannot get a majority in parliament without rorts. The mechanics of MMP did indeed stop the right getting an outright majority. That’s my point: with MMP the way it is, they can’t win without rorting the system.

                The fact remains that National cannot get enough votes on its own to constitute a majority. It so happens that there are no other right wing parties who are capable of getting to 5% on their own, so National has to cheat the system to ensure that the vote of those parties is not lost. There appears to be a ceiling of about 47-48% that the right can get without gaming the system. The left can get more and have done so on multiple occasions.

                This is the fact:

                UNDER THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM WE HAVE THE RIGHT CANNOT MUSTER ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR A PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY WITHOUT GAMING THE SYSTEM.

                It’s that simple.

        • Mark 3.10.3.2
          4 October 2014 at 10:51 pm

          One suspects the halfwits at Kiwiblog are still feeling pretty smug after this election result despite the 1 seat loss by National

    • Jenk 3.11
      4 October 2014 at 4:30 pm

      Me too CV re TTT and did you notice that NZ First’s Party vote in TTT for 2014 is almost twice that in 2008. Was THAT why Winston gave the nod to Kelvin Davis ? a deal ? ? ?

    • Cave Johnson 3.12
      4 October 2014 at 4:41 pm

      @lurgee Which highlights that this election was actually a relatively narrow defeat for the centre-left (incl NZF) rather than a rout.

      • Kiwiri 3.12.1
        4 October 2014 at 5:11 pm

        which highlights that this election was actually a relatively narrow defeat for the centre-left

        I have no doubt that, given some elements of the restrictive and challenging circumstances (e.g. intra-party with the odd few belligerent caucus members, inter-relationship with progressive parties, and the battle against combined corporatised support-right wing MSM-dirty politics-cum-John Key forces), Cunliffe did run a very good campaign.

        A longer lead-in period for the new leader, a skilful mix of team advisors and staff, more time for Cunliffe to have face-to-face town hall and board room meetings, a revised policy agenda (sorry, Parker is not cut out as a consensus-building social-democratic parliamentarian who listens and who does the job helping to organise as deputy), soft media ‘smile and wave’ type of public image being developed for Cunliffe, etc, would have further enhanced Labour’s campaign.

        A Shearer-led Labour would have been disastrous (but the silver lining for progressives would have been the Greens getting a few more MPs), a Shane Jones-led party (well, that was never going to happen) ….., and Robertson would have been thrashed by John Key.

        So, thanks Maryan Street, and thanks to the democratised caucus-membership-affiliates voting in Sep ’13.

  4. swordfish 4
    4 October 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Many of us have been saying for weeks that the Specials should see the overall Labour and Green % rise and National’s fall. Many of us have been aware that the Nats might just lose a seat and the Greens pick one up if the Specials fell in the roughly the same pattern as last time.

    And yet we’ve had this nonsense in the MSM, day after day, that the Nats’ have – against all precedence – improved on 2011 to 48%, that, astonishingly, they can govern alone, and that Labour’s down on 24% (also repeated endlessly by Grant Robertson and his supporters), despite the fact that – even on the Preliminary result – they should have been rounded up to 25%

    A bit of patience and honesty wouldn’t have come amiss.

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

      +100

      • Saarbo 4.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 5:45 pm

        +1%

        That rounding error really pissed me of for some reason…and the Greens dropped by a bigger % than Labour but no Leadership issues in the Green Party. The drop in the Left vote can only be put down to Dotcom because that really is the only significant factor that changed between 2011 and 2014.

    • Stifflittlefinger 4.2
      4 October 2014 at 3:53 pm

      Holy scheisse batman
      Break out the balloons. Cunliffe got 25% not 24.7%
      Celebrate good times cmon.

      • swordfish 4.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 4:20 pm

        Accuracy, sweet-pea, accuracy. It’s what journalists are supposed to do. Particularly when it’s something as momentous as to whether or not a Party can govern alone.

      • Matthew Whitehead 4.2.2
        4 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

        If you’re rounding a number to a whole, you should round to the nearest percent. It’s pretty reasonable as a request.

    • Anne 4.3
      4 October 2014 at 5:05 pm

      Many of us have been saying for weeks that the Specials should see the overall Labour and Green % rise and National’s fall.

      Yep. My own conclusion was: a significant portion of the specials come from overseas, and therefore are less likely to be influenced by the ‘Dirty Politics’ being conducted by the Nats, and the relentless media anti – Labour and Green crap we’ve had to endure for the past three years.

      Interesting result in more ways than one.

    • Tracey 4.4
      4 October 2014 at 5:07 pm

      i enjoy y your contributions.

  5. Barfly 5
    4 October 2014 at 2:31 pm

    AND if the left had played the MMP game better ……perhaps no “rotten borough” Epsom and Ohariu seats and 2 IMP seats hmmm……

    • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:40 pm

      Wrong to assume that all votes would move automatically to another candidate if you dont run.
      Greens should get out of the electorate vote business, its killing their chances of increasing party vote.

      • karol 5.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 4:04 pm

        The Greens need to run electorate candidates to give them local visibility. if they didn’t run electorate candidates, their party vote would most likely drop.

        They make it clear they are campaigning for the party vote. A lot of the problem is that many voters don’t understand that it is most often the party vote that is crucial – need more educating.

        • Chooky 5.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 4:14 pm

          well imo the Greens should have held off in Ohariu…and maybe put their candidate in Palmerston North …or somewhere where they didnt field a Green candidate….it is NOT too much to ask to win an Election! …a little bit of cooperation

          ( and I worked for the Greens and donated to the Greens…so i am not happy with them at the moment…particularly with Norman’s blaming the Int/Mana party and Dotcom for their loss…when Green voters went out the door because of Norman’s perceived flirting with the Nacts at the last moment)

          • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 4:38 pm

            Well, if Labour had responded to that pre-election coalition offer, I think it’s pretty reasonable for the Labour at that stage to request the Greens run a Green Party vote/Labour Electorate vote campaign in key electorates that could effect the composition of Parliament, and withdraw their electorate candidates from those particular races as part of the deal.

            However, Labour (unwisely in my view) ruled out co-operating in the campaign, so the Greens focused on their own party vote, and held their ground pretty well. The Labour party needs to concede that it simply will not be able to govern in the foreseeable future without the Greens, and that more active co-operation will be good for their base, and cover their left flank better.

            • greywarbler 5.1.1.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 5:22 pm

              @ Matthew Whitehead
              That sounds eminently sensible. I wonder if anybody out there is listening who is in a position to make changes so that the m.o. could be e.s. in future. But possibly its all foaming glasses at present.

          • Tracey 5.1.1.1.2
            4 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

            if labour had withdrawn a candidate from ohariu and say, all their voters went green… and dunne was defeated by a green candidate, based on ten percent of the party vote how many seats would greens have?

            labour dont want to compromise chooky, they want everyone else to accomodate them. they cant even get their own candidates to campaign for party vote… let alone expect greens to… cunliffe was clear he and labour preferred winston to the greens.

            too many blaming greens for not doing what was best for labour…

          • marty mars 5.1.1.1.3
            4 October 2014 at 6:53 pm

            “so i am not happy with them at the moment…particularly with Norman’s blaming the Int/Mana party and Dotcom for their loss…when Green voters went out the door because of Norman’s perceived flirting with the Nacts at the last moment)”

            I agree with this Chooky – I think there has been a failure of The Greens that no-one I notice is fronting up to. In today’s world for the Greens to have at best maintained is pretty poor and Norman has to wear that one – he goes off at IMP calling them something like kooky when just a few weeks ago that was the right-wing meme for the Greens.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.3.1
              4 October 2014 at 7:09 pm

              I felt pretty angry with Norman for using the term and concept of ‘crazies’, particularly because of the GP history of being marginalised.

              However when I listened to the whole Waatea news piece, and looked past his own anger and bitterness, his political analysis did make some sense. I don’t agree with all of it, but the GP have been at this a long time and I think it’s valid for Norman to feel his political prediction proved right (he asked KDC not to set up a party that would undercut the GP vote), and his analysis that the IP in particular distracted the MSM and people from the GP message (I don’t think this is the only reason for the GP not increasing their vote, but I doubt the GP think that either).

              The IMP were a gamble, and they lost and we’re all paying for that. That Norman is naming that makes sense (would prefer he was more careful in his choice of language though), and his anger is completely understandable when you look at this from his point of view.

              The thing that stood out for me in the interview (apart from the crazies bit and being an arse towards his natural allies) was that Norman sounded almost blase or casual with the anger. He looks like someone who has had enough, angry and almost doesn’t gve a shit (as in, what’s the fucking point if this is what all this work leads to). I thought this about that TV interview before the election when he had to front up and explain the ‘highly unlikely’ stuff re National. There was something off about where he was coming from in himself.

              Sorry, can’t make better sense of that URL

              http://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_story_id/ODAwNg==/National/Greens?__utma=1.54410197.1412402512.1412402512.1412402512.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1412402512&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1412402512.1.1.utmcsr=waateanews.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=-&__utmk=62183084

              • Chooky …
                4 October 2014 at 7:31 pm

                they all need a bloody good holiday!

                ….and despite my respect for Norman’s intellect and fronting up in opposition to Nactional….the last week before the Election put potential Green voters off ….because they thought the Greens were trying to do a deal with Nactional and John Key ….and they hated this…it caused great alarm and consternation!

                …i believe it was a set- up by the right wing spinners and journalists eg the likes of Hooton….but Norman and the Greens did not counter it well!…they lost an awful lot of votes from this I am sure!

              • marty mars …
                4 October 2014 at 9:35 pm

                “He looks like someone who has had enough, angry and almost doesn’t gve a shit (as in, what’s the fucking point if this is what all this work leads to).”

                I have empathy with that – so close and yet so far and all of the chances to show the truth about the gnats, from many directions and angles and still the left ends up barely able to keep the old head above water. Personally I felt worse for the Greens than Mana – I really expected some big gains to be made by them. I’d be a bit bitter too if I was Norman but I wonder if he accepts any blame personally for the poor, imo, result.

            • Richard 5.1.1.1.3.2
              4 October 2014 at 7:33 pm

              I think Norman bit the media apple that DC was snubbing them and wanted to win alone without them. Childish payback, Rush of green blood to his Vulcan head. IDNK

              As the only info I got was from the Herald and TV1 and 3 it certainly was portrayed that way, pre voting day.

    • alwyn 5.2
      4 October 2014 at 2:45 pm

      Please look up what a “rotten borough” was. It was one where the number of electors was vastly less than a normal electorate. Epsom and Ohariu are not in that category. The nearest thing to an example would be the Maori seats.

      • Lanthanide 5.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 2:49 pm

        The usage in this context is that the party gets into parliament, despite having vastly fewer votes than anyone else that got into Parliament.

        In UF’s case, the borough is so rotten that he caused an overhang. I hope he gets to sit in the naughty seat at the back.

      • Barfly 5.2.2
        4 October 2014 at 3:21 pm

        perhaps I should use the term “corrupt” though it seems analogous

      • Andrea 5.2.3
        4 October 2014 at 4:41 pm

        Would ‘pocket borough’ please you more?

    • tc 5.3
      4 October 2014 at 2:56 pm

      National would be gone if the opposition parties worked towards that goal as the top priority.

      Joyce would be thankful for the ineptitude whilst others are rightfully very very fucked off with it…..again.

      • Aaron 5.3.1
        4 October 2014 at 3:57 pm

        If the Greens hadn’t stood in Ohariu and the Green’s and Labour hadn’t stood in Epsom National would have been negotiating desperately with the Maori party right now.

        I can’t do the maths but if Kelvin Davis wasn’t such an idiot Internet Mana would be in parliament with 2 MPs and (depending on the maths) that might have given NZ First the balance of power. Any of these outcomes would have been better for the country which tends to make me assume the parties on the left are more focused on fighting each other than on doing what’s best for the country.

        Am I right?

        • Chooky 5.3.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 4:21 pm

          @ Aaron…”National would have been negotiating desperately with the Maori party right now..”.

          …and if Labour had not rejected the Maori Party as a potential coalition partner BEFORE the Election…National wouldnt even have that option!

        • Shrubbery 5.3.1.2
          5 October 2014 at 11:38 am

          If the left had done any negotiating in Ohariu, John Key would just have had a cuppa with Peter Dunne to make things a bit clearer for right-aligned voters. The electorate is pretty solidly right-leaning – National has a majority in the party vote, for instance.

  7. Colonial Viper 7
    4 October 2014 at 2:37 pm

    So what basis is Robertson using now, to move Cunliffe on?

    • fisiani 7.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:58 pm

      Robertson as Labour leader is obviously going to poll better than Cunliffe in 2017. The election was closer than the media have been saying and Robertson believes he can unify the caucus after he forces Cunliffe to leave.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 3:04 pm

        John Howard was PM in Australia for 12 years after losing an election to Hawke and losing the leadership of Liberals.
        Comebacks do happen.

        Helen lost 2 elections in a row

      • lprent 7.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 3:44 pm

        Might be able to do something in caucus. So far he looks like a damp squib in the party.

        What is a political party if it just consists of a caucus plus sychophants?

        united future…

        • karol 7.1.2.1
          4 October 2014 at 3:48 pm

          And Andrew Little?

          • Kiwiri 7.1.2.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 8:06 pm

            Andrew Little should think things through. He has just got in narrowly on the list, he doesn’t currently have an electorate nor has he had an electorate in the past to launch a leadership bid from an electorate base. Although he has the experience on the party side as ex-President, he ought to bide his time. He makes a good parliamentary representative and many people would hate to see his talents prematurely wasted because of entering in a bit early for a leadership contest.

            • karol 7.1.2.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 8:12 pm

              OK. I have seen him do some excellent speeches – other times meh. Can be a bit ponderous. Don’t know how he’d be as a caucus manager. Not sure he would get widespread public support.

              He may be a bit centrist/neolib for me.

            • Hamish 7.1.2.1.1.2
              4 October 2014 at 10:19 pm

              I’d like to see Andrew Little as leader, he’s well respected and doesn’t faff about.

        • greywarbler 7.1.2.2
          4 October 2014 at 3:54 pm

          A caucus plus sycophants. Sounds like a Russian folk orchestra with ancient horn instruments.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.3
        4 October 2014 at 7:02 pm

        Thats what they said about Bill English back in 2002. There was a lot spite thrown around, Williamson being the loudest.

        Now of course they ‘ are champion rowers’

    • cricklewood 7.2
      4 October 2014 at 3:02 pm

      At a guess, that given the Nats were looking for a third term, were mired in scandal & had to sack a minister. He managed to lead a labour party that secured less of the vote than last election. At least partly because he couldn’t unify his mp’s behind him…
      The unity thing is now insurmountable.

      • Kiwiri 7.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 3:12 pm

        Nah, not just unity given the belligerent ones staying around.
        Also need renewal of caucus.
        Plus scheduled retirement of those who have been there for a long time (esp those who will have access to the old superwonderful superannuation) as well as the ones who cannot work for the benefit of the overall party like Cosgrove and Mallard. Parker should go back to legal practice or an Akl-based career.

    • Chooky 7.3
      4 October 2014 at 4:51 pm

      he is giving a Robertson reason

  8. karol 8
    4 October 2014 at 2:39 pm

    The turnout as percentage of enrolled voters went up by about 3%. ButI think the percentage of people enrolled compared with those illegible, went down.

    And the Greens party vote increased by nearly 10,000 votes.

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9
    4 October 2014 at 2:43 pm

    A little woodlouse tells me it’s time for a smear campaign against the Electoral Commission. What’s so “special” about these votes: clearly they’re reserved for Lefties. How does that work?

    These so-called pro-democracy types just hate winners, don’t they?

    A sewer too far even for the National Party?

  10. Lanthanide 10
    4 October 2014 at 2:44 pm

    So here’s a calculation showing Maori Party + NZFirst would be the king-makers if:
    1. Labour had won Ohariu
    2. National had won Epsom
    3. Mana had won TTT

    59 seats G + L + NZF + IMP vs 59 National

    Lets say Mana had won Wairiki as well:
    Bizarrely this puts National on 61 vs 59 for the rest

    So if the left had learned how to MMP, we could now have a very strange parliament with 1 party on 59 seats and all of the other parties forming a coalition against them. Or, it could be 1 party with 61 seats and all of the other parties against them.

    • greywarbler 10.1
      4 October 2014 at 3:58 pm

      @ Lanthanide
      I thought that might be the case but didn’t care, or dare to work it out. Damned if we did and damned ….

  11. left for dead 11
    4 October 2014 at 2:50 pm

    @MS..good to see,you don’t have to eat your hat.shame on the left supporters in Epsom an the Hairs electorate.Hmm.We need to do much better .!

  12. Utu 12
    4 October 2014 at 2:55 pm

    All opposition parties need to fire all their guns at Mr Seymour from now. As Karol said he is a weak link and the public needs to be reminded of the rort that is ACT.

    • Richard 12.1
      4 October 2014 at 3:24 pm

      Perhaps I can bribe the local Black power to deposit some Air NZ tickets in his car and a pound of dope. /humour

      • greywarbler 12.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 4:00 pm

        @ Richard
        Very wise to give us that humour/sarc tag.. No knocks on the door then, I hope.

      • KJT 12.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 5:22 pm

        On the past record of ACT MP’s, we probably will not have long to wait before he has a criminal prosecution.

        • Kiwiri 12.1.2.1
          4 October 2014 at 5:31 pm

          And on the past record of Nat MPs’ new rookie intakes that should reveal themselves to be Aaron Gilmorean or Claudette Hauitian, we will not have long to wait for scandals and resignations. This is a government made up of the mentally and morally/ethically unstable.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1.2.2
          4 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

          A quick visit to Ontario may be in order !

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2
      4 October 2014 at 3:25 pm

      That’s why he’s been turned into PUS: no OIA, no Parliamentary questions.

      Mr. Dunne has the most to gain from Mr. Seymour’s demise.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 12.3
      4 October 2014 at 3:25 pm

      Prebble was the campaign mastermind- and he failed 150%.

      For these minor parties, some sort of telegenic avuncular silver haired statesman type is all you need to get around 6%.

      But of course ACT is full of swivel eyed loons, so Seymour is the best they can do

      • Rodel 12.3.1
        4 October 2014 at 7:15 pm

        ghostie-
        O yeah. Of course! In the midst of all the nonsense, the gloating, the despair and the glorious news that National don’t have an absolute majority ( and so can’t gloat), I forgot that Richard Prebble (turncoat man) was a huge loser. Yay!

        The news today that Nats didn’t have their vainglorious victory is cause for a wee dram. Cheers!

        • Richard 12.3.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

          I worked near Firth, which is near Inverness carting grain for the distilleries.

          A wee dram you say. What of? and when I was there, it was big drams with sips of beer as chasers!!!!

          And those that shall not be named not getting their majority is damn well a good day for a celebratory dram or three of the good stuff. Bottoms up! laddie.

      • felix 12.3.2
        5 October 2014 at 7:51 am

        “Prebble was the campaign mastermind- and he failed 150%”

        True, but a failure that nets you a fully funded high office, invented just for you for the specific purpose of infecting public policy with your extremely unpopular elitist and unelectable claptrap with no accountability or oversight?

        Well let’s just say that’s not too heavy a failure to bear.

  13. Barfly 13
    4 October 2014 at 3:14 pm

    In terms of playing the MMP “game” the left parties must be more aware that a large percentage of National voters are perfectly happy to knowingly and deliberately corrupt the electoral systems integrity by voting for “sock-puppet / stooge” candidates in Epsom and Ohariu. A common strategy agreed upon by left parties to counter this may be helpful……

    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1
      4 October 2014 at 3:29 pm

      This is a contradiction, you cant accuse one side of playing the game, when you think the answer is to play another game on the voters.

      • Barfly 13.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 3:43 pm

        It may end up being hypocritical depending upon whatever strategy (if any) is used but not contradictory.

        I believe that the right is “gaming the play ” rather than “playing the game”

        To not counter it is ummm…….. shall we say “needlessly disadvantageous”

      • greywarbler 13.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 4:02 pm

        @ ghostwalker
        Are you for the right Right or for the left, left again? If a hole exists some mouse will get through it. Either put down a trap or take advantage if it isn’t swingeingly dishonest.

  14. Andrew Welsh 14
    4 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

    If, maybe, miracle, rhetoric from the left is always so positive.

  15. Realblue 15
    4 October 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Just heard Dunedin South and Dunedin North party vote now both to National with specials, interesting result again. Dunedin would be better served without Curran.

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 6:20 pm

        Your flawed comment added nothing to the analysis for Dunedin South. It is a formerly deep red electorate turning more and more blue under the watch of an MP who is now in her third term. So name recognition should not be a problem right? But the electorate is turning more blue in terms of loss of electorate majority, AND in terms of loss of party vote.

  16. Blue 16
    4 October 2014 at 4:44 pm

    The raw numbers between 2011 and 2014 are interesting.

    Number of votes cast
    2011 – 2,257,336
    2014 – 2,416,481
    Change: +159,145

    Number voting National
    2011 – 1,058,636
    2014 – 1,131,501
    Change: +72,865

    Number voting Labour
    2011 – 614,937
    2014 – 604,534
    Change: -10,403

    Number voting Green
    2011 – 247,372
    2014 – 257,356
    Change: +9,984

    Number voting NZ First
    2011 – 147,544
    2014 – 208,300
    Change: +60,756

    Number voting Maori Party
    2011 – 31,982
    2014 – 31,850
    Change: -132

    Number voting Act
    2011 – 23,889
    2014 – 16,689
    Change: -7,200

    Number voting Mana
    2011 – 24,168
    2014 – 34,095
    Change: +9,927

    Number voting Conservative
    2011 – 59,237
    2014 – 95,598
    Change: +36,361

    Number voting United Future
    2011 – 13,443
    2014 – 5,286
    Change: -8,157

    Number voting Other
    2011 – 16,256
    2014 – 20,411
    Change: +4,155

    Now for the blocks:

    Total ‘Government’ block: (National, Act, United Future, Conservatives, Maori Party)
    2011 – 1,187,187
    2014 – 1,280,924
    Change: +93,737

    Total ‘Opposition’ block: (Labour, Green, Mana, NZ First)
    2011 – 1,034,021
    2014 – 1,104,285
    Change: +70,264

    Total ‘Right’ block: (National, Act, UF, Conservatives)
    2011 – 1,155,205
    2014 – 1,249,274
    Change: +94,069

    Total ‘Right minus Conservatives’ block: (National, Act, UF)
    2011 – 1,095,968
    2014 – 1,153,476
    Change: +57,508

    Total ‘Left’ block: (Labour, Green, Mana)
    2011 – 886,477
    2014 – 895,985
    Change: +9,508

    Points:

    The number of people voting increased by around 160,000. Only around 67,000 of these ‘new’ votes seem to have gone to the established Right or Left blocks (roughly 57,000 to National and 10,000 to the Greens). Most seem to have gone to NZ First (roughly 60,000) and the Conservatives (roughly 36,000).

    National would have sucked up about 15,000 votes from the collapse of Act (-7,000) and United Future (-8,000). Therefore the real increase in their vote was around 57,000.

    The Left block increased their votes by 9,500. Labour lost approximately 10,000 votes. The Greens and Mana each gained slightly less than 10,000 votes each. The problem is that the increase from Mana is cancelled out by the fact that they did not make it into Parliament and the rise in the Greens is cancelled out by Labour’s loss. This leaves the Left block largely treading water and going backwards due to not keeping up with inflation.

    The parties that ‘won’ out of this election are National, NZ First and the Conservatives. National added nearly 60,000 votes, NZ First put on a cool 60,000 and the Conservatives added 36,000 and might make it into Parliament next time. The question is why so many votes went to these three parties, and who these voters might otherwise have voted for (or perhaps not voted at all).

    The losers are Act and United Future, who are bleeding votes to National, Mana, who sucked up a lot of left vote before they tanked, and Labour, who lost 10,000 votes from last time and failed to increase to keep up with inflation.

    • boldsirbrian 16.1
      4 October 2014 at 5:04 pm

      .
      @ Blue (16)

      and the Conservatives added 36,000 and might make it into Parliament next time

      I am being optimistic. Craig had a half hearted campaign last time. This time he put everything into the campaign, oodles of money, and the best (cough) candidates he could find (chuckle McVicar) (snigger Rankin). And he had an increase, but still didn’t crack 4%

      Next time, voters will be concerned about wasting their vote and be far more wary. In some ways it will be worse for the left, because most will go to DirtyJohn. And I’ll be honest and say that I’d rather have a couple of DirtyJohn’s finest than anything resembling a Craig/McVicar/Rankin clone.

      DirtyJohn will not want to deal with them, simply because their policies are so far out on a limb that even he would have difficulty swallowing the relationship.

      My conclusion (Ok it includes no pessimism, and a bucket of hope) is that the Conservatives have been dealt a three strike, and are sentenced to indefinite detention. The confident smirk on McVicar is gone forever, and even Radio NZ will not invite Rankin back. ??

      Mr. Botany (B.)

    • MrSmith 16.2
      4 October 2014 at 7:19 pm

      Someone here should post this or maybe you should send it in Blue.

  17. blue leopard 17
    4 October 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Congratulations to the right wing of New Zealand for understanding the value of cooperation.

    This is very ironic, because the right tends to stand for individualism and ‘it’s a dog eat dog world’, yet they cooperate and the left don’t unite, rather preferring to compete with one another and pull one another down. How excellent.

    Really hope the NZ left learn to cooperate and be more strategic.
    The poor results from lacking these abilities have been going on for far too long.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      4 October 2014 at 6:23 pm

      The elite right does not stand for “individualism”. That’s just PR for the masses. As you have already identified, they work very closely in co-ordination for maximum results.

      • blue leopard 17.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 11:20 pm

        That doesn’t explain why those on the left who supposedly stand for community spirit and valuing collectivism can’t cooperate.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 11:50 pm

          There are many well understood reasons for why that is now particulary the case; but in truth the Left has always been an unruly bunch of splitters even in the formative days of the NZ Labour Party.

          • blue leopard 17.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 11:57 pm

            lolz 🙂

            I think it is a good thing to be able to observe and admit our weaknesses because that allows us to improve.

            If only we could learn to be a bit more cooperative, I really hope we can develop that somehow because then it would turn the diversity we have on the left into a strength, as it should be, At present we are making it into our weakness, due to our inability to cooperate.

  18. blue leopard 18
    4 October 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Congratulations to the right wing of New Zealand for understanding the value of cooperation.

    This is very ironic, because the right tends to stand for individualism and ‘it’s a dog eat dog world’, yet they cooperate and the left don’t unite, rather preferring to compete with one another and pull one another down. How excellent.

    Really hope the NZ left learn to cooperate and be more strategic.
    The poor results from lacking these abilities have been going on for far too long.

    [Having problems getting this comment to post – might cause a double-up]

  19. Chooky 19
    4 October 2014 at 4:56 pm

    +100 thanks …very interesting…NZF 60,000 vote increase was the “pissed off” vote with Nactional asset sales, housing sales to foreigners, GCSB surveillance etc…which was potentially Labour’s imo

    • Huginn 19.1
      4 October 2014 at 5:12 pm

      Chooky,

      Yes, very likely. Possibly also reflects anxiety about CGT which lots of people recognise as being good in the long term, but which would also possibly have reduced the value of many people’s houses.

      It’s a huge structural shift and more thought should have been put to explanations of how it would be implemented.

      • Richard 19.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 6:51 pm

        You hit a nail on the head there. the one policy of labours I was worried about was CGT, however as my home has lost value from 125k to 87k for me not such a biggie. Like it’s only about 40k….

        Labour then wanted a CGT all those rentals here (Tokoroa)would have come on the Market as landlords off loaded, I thought, and my house price would have crashed into negative equity, the ANZ may have required a sell off. IDNK how banks feel about negative equity when It happens.

        Now if you take my worries and compound them by a nation and different area’s and what they would have been worried about then yes I can see how that cost a boat load of votes. Maybe that’s why labour did not get the party vote. Sounds logical.

        I suppose, someone that owns a half million dollar home in Auckland did not want a few thousand homes flooding the market if they were tight on equity. As most people a few years back could borrow with only a 10% deposit their equity and potential to sell on at a big profit is just to much greed to ignore.

        IMHO.

        • karol 19.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 6:53 pm

          You reckon landlords would all have offloaded at the same time?

          • Richard 19.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 7:05 pm

            Well as it was not explained properly who knows? thanks to the media we didn’t get any depth into policies just focus on Dirt.

            I suppose if they sold them they would have to pay the tax on them. God knows what will have happened, the point I failed to make was it’s the worry of what would happen! the Uncertainty? the unknown, I suppose. When we talk about voting for a party with an uncertain policy with no definition of the expected outcomes of implementing it.

            For me wondering if there would have suddenly appered thousands of homes in real estate agents plummeting house prices was a REAL big concern. However I saw past that and maintained my nerve and voted two ticks labour anyways.

            I just cannot speak for others just what was going through my head at the time.

            Here prices are dropping I owe 71k on a 87k house that was worth 125 after I did it up. yet I’m still paying 125k rates prices. it’s all FUBAR.

        • Chooky 19.1.1.2
          4 October 2014 at 7:36 pm

          yeah…maybe we need a Capital Loss Tax Refund

  20. fisiani 20
    4 October 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Grant Robertson massively improved his majority in Wellington Central. Surely that proves he is popular with voters.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 20.1
      4 October 2014 at 6:54 pm

      Its the party vote that wins elections

      John Keys majority decreased from 2011. Does this prove hes a ‘loser’
      ( was 21000 now 18000+)

      hello boundary change, I knew you were hiding somewhere

    • CAnker the pig fucker 20.2
      4 October 2014 at 8:13 pm

      Do you want him to lead Labour Fis? If so that’s enough to make me think twice and twice again about giving him my vote.

      It makes me deeply suspicious that the right are so against Cunliffe.

    • Shrubbery 20.3
      5 October 2014 at 11:39 am

      Apparently ‘massively improved’ is now equal to ‘gets 1000 more votes’

  21. blue leopard 21
    4 October 2014 at 5:01 pm

    How come my comments aren’t going through? (just testing this browser)

  22. felix 22
    4 October 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Well at least National and their media sycophants can shut the fuck up about that now.

  23. Richard 23
    4 October 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Lots of developing news today,

    Firstly this one, well done Greens, well done. More people should look to the positives not the negatives, the greens have proven last election results were not a one off or fad.

    They have slightly increased their vote count have they not. Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey. Good on the Green team even if I don’t vote for them.

    Little entered the labour leader election according to TV3 news which adds depth to the selection I will face.

    I would not choose Robertson, but Little, I will seriously consider. Once I read up on where he wants to take labour, if I can find some deep insight into him somewhere, shouting out for help on that. He seems pretty good from what I have seen of him in the past.

    National losing there majority will only stop the RMA but I suspect their little (not the Labour guy) puppy Rimmer or Chris Barrie look alike, whatever his name is(so memorable I’ve already forgotten it for the moment) will vote for them, just greatful for the half a million he gathered in for Act. He’d pass granny bashing I suspect now.

    He actually bowed to Key when they met to sign the supply agreement did anyone see that!

    So a wise man would dig deep on the Act guy, time to dig dirt or watch him like a Hawk. If he can be dismissed, preferably out for a duck, that will stop their most harmful policies from happening. Sorry Act guy but their is a price for coat tailing and the target is firmly painted on your forehead.

  24. Anne 24
    4 October 2014 at 6:50 pm

    I couldn’t agree more with Andrew Little. On the TV news this evening, he blamed the raising of the super age as the primary reason for Labour’s historic loss. He said it was mentioned with him time and time again. I give him full credit for having the guts to come out and say it.

    But no, no no… the caucus ‘powers that be’ did not listen to us philistine members. How many times did Colonial Viper, myself and plenty of others plead with them to reconsider that policy – here and elsewhere? Over and over again. But our little friends did not listen because THEY KNEW BEST.

    Lets put the blame where it lies. David Parker. And I have no doubt a small coterie of our neo-liberal mates in the Caucus gave him the nod to go ahead with it. And who have they lumbered with the blame for that loss? David Cunliffe.

    I want to know the truth about what happened. Was David C cowered into acceptance of this politically crazy policy? Or did he just acquiesce too easily?

    Someone please tell me the truth.

    • Richard 24.1
      4 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

      Anne , now I only heard this after Cunliffe supposed Gaff, but did they not say it was DC’s policy? he wrote it? I like DC, but it was a good policy, badly timed, and badly explained. Not something I would go to the polls with. Just saying. Not if I wanted to win against the JK fan club.

      The big question left unanswered was what would happen to all our house prices if masses of homes entered the market, especially to people with low equity.

      Remember the banks were chucking home loans at people who could not afford it, a few years back. They have no room for price drops.

      • karol 24.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 7:01 pm

        CGT only kicks in when people sell their homes – and it wasn’t going to be on the family home.

        My understanding is that lots of people don’t suddenly start paying CGT immediately – it’s something that only has an impact gradually over time.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 24.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 7:05 pm

          Not quite. It would kick in when ever a house is sold ( excluding family home) after indroduction.

          But of course any gains before tax was introduced would be untouched. And then its only at 15% of the gain. You get to keep 85%. House prices in Auckland have doubled roughly every 8-10 years.

        • Richard 24.1.1.2
          4 October 2014 at 7:13 pm

          Hi Karol, yeah I understood that, but half of Tokoroa seems to be rentals. If landlords panicked they may have tried to offload the instant labour were elected to beat the CGT before it was passed into law? To reap a non taxed profit.

          So many worries so little by the way of reassurance from labour. Yet how could they the media gave them NO coverage.

          That’s also part of the issue it’s just to easy for other parties to scaremonger if you are not distributing information on your policies.

          The only party pamphlet I received was 2 days before election from the Greens. Not even national sent me one. The greens had nothing on policy apart from naming them, absolutely no information on them.

          • Karen 24.1.1.2.1
            4 October 2014 at 7:40 pm

            Richard it sounds as if there was some scaremongering going on re the effect on the CGT. Long term it is designed to reduce the tax free attraction of property speculation compared to investment in production industries.

            There is no advantage for lots of landlords in Tokoroa to all ditch their rentals just to avoid a CGT. For one thing the drop in value if a lot did this at once would mean there would be no capital gain anyway. Secondly, if Labour had got in then the increase in value that is taxed would be the difference between the value at the time the tax came in and the value when sold. I suspect in Tokoroa there is no rampant property price boom currently, so landlords are better off getting the rent.

            If Labour had got in and implemented their forestry policies there could be more work in towns like Tokoroa.

            • Richard 24.1.1.2.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 8:10 pm

              Thanks you Karen for that info. As usual a mind with no answers to it’s questions is a very worrying mind.

              Pity you were not around pre election to answer peoples questions like the one I had…unless you were 🙂

              I hadn’t thought of that RE landlords not selling better off with the rental incomes as house prices had lowered a very good point I had missed completely. Which you have now told me.

              What I just said and got answered is a lot of the concerns of average folk.

              Not all of us come up with the right anwer to our issues.

              Like also the raising of the retirement age, it does not effect you if your 48 or older it ramps up in years lower than that age. Roughly. That’s one thing that was not said enough to keep the middle aged and elders from jumping to Winnie as people have said.

              I think key learned to hide worrying policy after the asset sales hoo ha. Probably promised himself not to tell the sheep to much they only get angst and give him grief. perhaps we should stick to user friendly policy and make the hard sells an after election implementation if that is possible.

          • Murray Olsen 24.1.1.2.2
            5 October 2014 at 3:20 am

            Richard, I don’t think people buy houses in Tokoroa seeking a capital gain. They do that in an area where house prices are going up, like Auckland. I don’t think the tax would make much difference to landlords down there.

            • Richard 24.1.1.2.2.1
              5 October 2014 at 8:07 am

              House prices have only been going down since national got in. Not that they had anything to do with that I suppose, or maybe..

              But Anne helped me on that, as it certainly was a worry for me, and as I had thought if I had concerns there must be 100’s of others with similar concerns if not hundreds of thousands.

              The fact I thought they might dump before the legislation was passed to reap a tax free profit, we all know the greed even for that 15%, if labour or the left won. Real concerns real worries.

              For me to still have thoughts like that after the election is a failure of that policy to be explained adequately in the run up. IMHO

              To much focus on other things like large Germans and Dirty Politics.

      • Anne 24.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 7:06 pm

        … but did they not say it was DC’s policy? he wrote it?

        I don’t think so Richard. Parker has claimed ownership of that policy from the start. He first started to talk publicly about it well before Cunliffe became leader.

        • Richard 24.1.2.1
          4 October 2014 at 7:16 pm

          Ahh cheers Anne. I am adamant that some media stated Cunliffe should have known the answer to Keys debate question as he wrote it(The CGT).

          Do you remember that?

          it will come to me later..

          • Anne 24.1.2.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 7:28 pm

            I think we’re at cross purposes Richard. My original comment is about the raising of the super age. That was definitely Parker’s idea although it was obviously accepted by his senior colleagues. I agree the CGT was also complicit in Labour’s loss but, in my view, the super age policy was the primary cause. I think you will find the middle aged former Labour voters and soon to be pensioners… crossed over to NZ First in droves!

            • Richard 24.1.2.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 7:46 pm

              Hi again Anne yes your right my bad. I watched little and must have mistakingly thought he said lots of people asked him about CGT not retirement age.

              Cheers for clearing that up.

              Yeah I see it I missed my second post and read on from talking about CGT with Karol, definitely my bad. Sorry mate.

      • Jenny Kirk 24.1.3
        5 October 2014 at 9:54 am

        The financial policies were David Parker’s, Richard. CGT and raising super age, etc.

        And when policies are agreed – via Party or caucus – then the Leader is obliged to go with them and support/explain them, as are all MPs. These are a part of the rules governing Labour MPs.

        They’re also all meant to get behind the Leader and support him/’her – but as you’ve seen from the raggle-taggle bunch of more senior MPs in the Labour caucus, they’re not following that particular rule.

      • mac1 24.1.4
        5 October 2014 at 11:10 am

        I attended the Grey Power AGM held earlier this year at which Cunliffe spoke and took some time to explain the Superannuation policy. First, I have to say that I did not hear any mutterings from delegates, but I did hear the Minister Jo Goodhew tell us earlier that Super would stay at 65 years at 66%.

        This is what Cunliffe told us but which never made it out into the media. As Richard says above, it was badly explained in that the conditions which made it a palatable policy were not explained. Like the Capital Gains Tax and like having a leader for a decent interval, these policies if allowed enough to be fully explained and known about will cease to be bogies- even accepted.

        If we keep changing policy like we seem to want to keep changing leaders, we in Labour will be seen to be flaky, insincere, vote-buying, vacillating.

        This is what Cunliffe told Grey Power in a passionate and well delivered speech.
        He was impressive. I took copious notes as I edit a Grey power newsletter.

        Check what you know about Labour’s Superannuation policy against this list. If you know less than what I know, why is that? Therein is part of the problem for parties of the Left.

        Cunliffe suggested 65-67 as the increase in age of Superannuation for 2020 till 2032. It would advance at two months for every year. Those aged over 59 would not be affected. This 2020 start gives people lead time to adjust.

        And now, what made it an acceptable policy in my view. For those who were unable to work or who were disadvantaged in equity- e.g. women with children who can’t work to earn- and for people who had difficulty keeping work there would be a special benefit paid at 65 at the same rate as the Super.

        Now, why did that policy never get out there in its entirety?

        Too complicated, too difficult to administer, too difficult to explain easily, or was it ignored by the media, under-reported, under exposed to the public for easy assimilation or undersold by its proponents?

        • Anne 24.1.4.1
          5 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

          I think it was a bit of all of those things mac1. The media were definitely not helping. As a pack, they had decided to give Key another term at leading the government. Their reasoning had little to do with policy and a lot to do with self interest.

          Having said that, I don’t think Labour sold the policy at all well. In the last few months I noticed they stopped talking about the the Super policy altogether. I suspect their internal polling was telling them it was a big loser, so they hoped by keeping their mouths shut it might go away. It didn’t of course and that is something they should have recognised would happen from the start. Plenty of other people did.

          There are ways and means of introducing unpopular policy planks without scaring the horses. It could be termed ‘policy implementation by stealth’ but provided it is done carefully and fairly across the board, then the horses will eventually come back to the water to drink.

    • CAnker the pig fucker 24.2
      4 October 2014 at 8:16 pm

      I can’t tell you for sure Anne, but I do remember seeing DC on the Nation earlier this year, and he seemed not entirely committed to raising the retirement age.

  25. Richard 25
    4 October 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Hmm housing it’s a minefield, your damned if you meddle with it, your damned if you don’t. I defer to experienced professionals on this, I’m an out of depth home owner who’s just plain worried.

  26. logie97 26
    4 October 2014 at 7:19 pm

    If you get a chance, listen to a Week In Politics on RNZ.
    Brent Edwards recorded it before the today’s final results
    It really is amusing to hear Jokey Hen’s statements and the laughable Dunne.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/focusonpolitics

  27. slipery 27
    4 October 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Don’t the Nat$i party supporters wish fisi !, why are they so afraid of DC?(why are you going so RED prime mincer?)

    [lprent: sigh, still auto-spamming. I will be back later so will look then if I am sober enough.. ]

  28. Binders full of women 28
    4 October 2014 at 8:39 pm

    mmm hope that means Little puts his hat into the ring. I know so little about him though… the Vic-Labour crew did a lovely little hagiography on Grant so I am now reminded that he filibustered for like forever on that really important for jobs (ie labour) that was his obsession with VSM (really gonna woo the smoko rooms and car dwellers with that one..NOT)… and DC… well the unions and flaxroots may love him but the electorate….. they’ve given their verdict.
    Members- DC
    Unions- AL
    Caucus- GR
    might come down to 2nd preferences??

  29. Ovaries Muddy 29
    4 October 2014 at 9:12 pm

    Me thinks this is all a bit of a setup…..

    Jamie Whyte resigns, and people think Mr Seymour is inexperienced.

    Note one of the Foundations he worked at is backed by Koch (big Oil). Seymour also just seems to be the groomed child of Mr Roger NZ Douglas. Douglas still lives……………………It Lives, It lives…….

    Check out the Manning Foundation (trains people in right wing ideology) and Frontier Foundations…… Perfect match with JK and co…. save the Libertarian bullshit for someone else. They are cool hard monetarism monkeys.

    We are fxxxkd…

    One of their Key Mineral reports (I forget which one of the foundations released it) basically said the NZ RMA was too harsh and needed reforming to make it easy to do business.

    So I see Mr Seymour has worked at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (circa 4 years?)

    Oh look, Roger Douglas was an advisory board member

    “you will see that one of those members is Roger Douglas, the man who turned New Zealand inside out with his horrendous slash and burn polices”

    and

    “Douglas was also the driving force behind Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper and Preston Manning, and it would appear that he is still helping to shape neoconservative policy.”

    The Winnipeg Labour Defense League, protested at the Frontier Centre during 10th Anniversary, because of FPP’s promotion of damaging policies, including:

    privatized child-care;
    a frozen minimum wage;
    privatized utilities for Hydro and Water;
    a “flat tax” where those with lower incomes pay the most;
    even more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations;
    no pay equity for women or other discriminated groups;
    no marketing boards such as the Wheat Board to protect farmers and consumers from the big Agri-monopolies.

    http://harpercrusade.blogspot.com/2010/03/roger-douglas-and-frontier-centre-for.html

    I see young Seymore has worked for Manning Foundation to.

    Oh, one last thing when considering charter schools.

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1228988-charter-school-push-aims-to-undercut-public-sector

    When considering all the information and mixed results achieved by charter schools, one wonders what can possibly be gained by allowing them to open here in Nova Scotia, and why, exactly, AIMS seems so bent on them.

    The obvious reason, of course, is that charter schools are often staffed by non-unionized teachers who are paid less and have fewer benefits than their unionized counterparts. Having fewer taxpayer dollars going into workers’ pockets is probably deemed a rather attractive option, regardless of how students are served

    • Richard 29.1
      5 October 2014 at 7:56 am

      Jeez, thanks I did not know that. Wow, If only that could be leaked to a mainstream prepared to print it. Boy I think the public would be a little taken aback.

      Roger Douglas. What breed of ugly is this low life.

  30. AmaKiwi 30
    4 October 2014 at 9:29 pm

    Labour’s policies are what lost it the election.

    We were the very smart doctor telling the public they MUST take our unpalatable advice.

    Politics does not work that way. You promise them what they want (NZ power, more teachers, etc.) and play doctor after you win. Many don’t want a capital gains tax, higher retirement age, etc. So STFU.

    The campaign was stupidly run. We (Labour) deserved to lose. Hopefully we will learn something.

    • Anne 30.1
      4 October 2014 at 9:57 pm

      Politics does not work that way. You promise them what they want (NZ power, more teachers, etc.) and play doctor after you win. Many don’t want a capital gains tax, higher retirement age, etc. So STFU.

      Yep. Stupid is as stupid does.

      And they can’t say they weren’t told Amakiwi because plenty of us did try…

      • Jenny Kirk 30.1.1
        5 October 2014 at 9:58 am

        Yep – we did. And they wouldn’t listen ! (Well – Parker and his cohorts wouldn’t).
        I think Cunliffe would have been prepared to adjust those ideas if the other MPs would have let him ! But they all know best …… not us out here in the doon blocks. We’re just dumb voting fodder.

    • Colonial Viper 30.2
      5 October 2014 at 12:11 am

      Labour’s policies are what lost it the election.

      Yes. But Labour’s policies also cannot win it elections. For that, gutsy vision and gutsy leadership is required. Cunliffe and Labour’s front bench promised much but just didn’t deliver, in the 6 months before Sept 20.

    • ScottGN 30.3
      5 October 2014 at 8:24 am

      I couldn’t agree more AmaKiwi. CGT and raising the retirement age may well be policies with a lot of merit but they are contentious (and complex) and it was just plain dumb of Labour to try and win back government with them. It seems no one in Labour has had the brains to look at the way National cleverly decided to wait until their second term to go forward with a divisive policy like asset sales and how incumbency can give you the electoral muscle to pull it off.

  31. Observer (Tokoroa) 31
    4 October 2014 at 9:37 pm

    To our once proud Labour Party

    It seems to me the Labour Party in this election, as in the last, wanted to get a name for reform and major change in New Zealand.

    Labour would be the heroes. They would shove a difficult to understand Capital Gains Tax on every asset sold – except the family home – and they would refuse to pay a Pension to people under the age of 67 years.

    The Pension delay was an effective loss of nearly $36,000 for every person. The Capital Gains Tax was very difficult to quantify, but costly nevertheless.

    John Key did not go near this kind of poison. So, Labour represented gain, and Labour represented pain.

    Which is to say, the Labour Caucus was insane to go out into a troubled financial world with plans to strip money off individuals.

    On top of that, they behaved in Caucus like catty children and prima donnas. They have not even yet begun to reform that stupid behaviour.

    David Cunliffe spoke at length about Housing, and that would have been a positive. But National also had a Housing platform. National had a wage increase policy too.

    The Green Party also approached the Electorate with reformist causes – mostly concerned with our vital environment. Possibly costly causes. It is a worthwhile platform, but again people steer away from embracing it because of its unknowns, especially in less prosperous times.

    New Zealand First, went into the election with easily understood concepts – such as not selling off New Zealand land to overseas buyers. Keeping State owned Assets for New Zealanders, thereby keeping costs down on essential services and keeping job opportunites open as a result.

    They also do not believe in Race based parties… because New Zealand has to govern for all – not for special interests. This is fundamental to Sovereignty and Democracy. They also value the ageing people of New Zealand. They also want Mr Key’s bloated GST Tax taken often food. Every bit of food that you buy gets clipped by Mr Key by a whopping 15%.

    New Zealand First received a big boost in its votes and rightly so.

    Labour going into an election “promising five new Taxes” was plain suicide. It was suicide in the previous election. It will be in the next election; and in the election after that …. ad infinitum.

    Taxing the very very wealthy or getting them to actually pay their taxes – is not suicide. John Key will have made them very rich anyway, by any means he can.

  32. Penny Bright 32
    4 October 2014 at 11:59 pm

    What happens when Judith Collins is forced to resign as the MP for Papakura if one of the three inquiries finds against her?

    In my considered opinion, National cannot take Papakura for granted if / when there is a by-election.

    Penny Bright

    • boldsirbrian 32.1
      5 October 2014 at 12:47 am

      `
      @Penny Bright (31)

      Wonderful. Definitely looking on the ‘Bright’ side of things. And your thought is worth far more than a Penny. ~ smile~

      (Yeah I know, humour using a person’s name is a little weak. Hope you can forgive me 😉 )

      Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Richard 32.2
      5 October 2014 at 7:51 am

      Judith surely will go, Williamson is in the firing line too. Key himself has yet to clear the case against him on GCSB leaking OIA information by the Ombudswoman.

      If they think winning the election means they have a mandate to sweep it under the carpet well e know what ALL opposition parties should be focusing on right now, at every media outlet at every opportunity. Hold them to account MP’s, hold them responsible.

  33. slipery 33
    5 October 2014 at 12:41 am

    Lynn ,I know you got me under moderation still, that’s fine as you don’t have to accept this post because this one is not contributing to the conversation, unlike my others, if you want to allow it your wellcome to move this to open mike, anyway sadly the moderation means my post is printed often way after the particular subject is moved along, but I am dissapointed you accuse me of being an auto spammers, I see its plural so it may appear its not the first time I’ve had an issue with comments doubling up, I suspect its no doubt my fault as I’m on my stupid tablet cost my P.C crashed. I have been reading & visiting daily for months & I know your a fair moderator, you have to deal with trolls, Pete G’s & auto spammers so fair snuff you gotta be on guard,s great you say why you have an issue + often I agree. But I have only posted my 2’nd comment in 2-3 months & you call me an autospammer (again?). I am not telling you what to do I am apologising for a miss understanding involving comments that appeared doubled up which is user interface error not an issue with the website reply function. Please forgive my fo’ par 🙂 and enjoy your evening/morning.

  34. bearded git 34
    5 October 2014 at 3:21 am

    Little could stand in Papakura

    • alwyn 34.1
      5 October 2014 at 5:45 pm

      If the circumstance ever arose that would guarantee that National would hold the seat. I think he may have his eye on New Lynn actually. If Little won the leadership would Cunliffe quit?

  35. felix 35
    5 October 2014 at 8:05 am

    Without discounting all of Labour’s various woes, it seems to me that the election was in large part won and lost in Te Tai Tokerau.

    I hope Mr Davis is reminded of this every time he opens his mouth to rail against National’s callous and inhumane indifference to the suffering in his electorate.

    • Richard 35.1
      5 October 2014 at 10:20 am

      I have very strange I suppose beliefs regards the left parties binding together. here is my thoughts on it.

      National Act and UF(Forget maori they jump waka willy nilly) mass together to get elected. they use two parties that are not even in popular voters minds. Act would be gone without national for all intents and purposes it’s a hatchet party to bring in more lists members than 1 single National MP would do under MMP.

      Labour, the Greens are two POPULAR parties with a main stream large following.

      Couple decades ago Labour were polling like National are these days, what is needed is labour to have rigged seats just like Act. Mana was one, but still Hone would be uncontrollable.

      What’s really needed are a couple of easy seats for a cuppa tea deal in a safe labour electorate for a couple of Act/national like labour clones. Just like hollow men we need a completely fluff party to install a labour guy in and support him /her in getting elected and bringing in more MP’s for the cause.

      Whatever National can do we can do better.

      Siding with the greens is just splitting votes. I like the Greens I like their environmental ideology however they are both harming each other. Both need to adopt better MMP strategy. The greens could do the same in a Green safe seat. thereby increasing the lefts MMP numbers even more.

      Voting numbers would need careful examination, parties formed but unless we try some avenue like this nationals supporters will continue to follow the mantra and elect these freaks. therefore electing national.

      • alwyn 35.1.1
        5 October 2014 at 5:47 pm

        Labour had the Alliance of course, which became the Labour equivalent of ACT. Then old Jim simply couldn’t keep going any more.

      • Richard 35.1.2
        5 October 2014 at 10:29 pm

        Even I see the problem with my idea, the ideology of the right allows their conscious to do such a thing as cheat on a voting paper by voting in a party with policies they wouldn’t ever vote for. But the lefts caring ideology would just make that unpalatable.

        Cheating Aussie underarm bowling party of wall street …sounds like bankers..

        I mean isn’t the crux of National saying

        Vote for this party, our loyal National voters ……so we can cheat the electoral system, democracy itself and what it’s based upon, and we will get more MP’s into parliament than normal.”

        kind of election cheating when you get down to the bare facts people?

        Edited.

        Oh and if their is a so called electoral commission or election monitoring body exactly what are they doing to uphold the principles of democracy? Fair elections.

  36. Pat O'Dea 36
    5 October 2014 at 11:08 am

    So what does all this mean in practical terms?

    The opposition will very likely get their chance to test this out in the very first days of the new parliamentary term.

    With a total of 59 seats, Labour the Greens, NZFirst and the Maori Party all (nominally) support the Feed The Kids bill. Compare this to National and ACT’s 61 seats. Counting Peter Dunne’s seat, but taking out one for the speaker gives the government a narrow two seat majority on the issue of the Feed The Kids Bill.

    Some fierce lobbying by the opposition MPs might be able to shift Peter Dunne to cut the government Majority to one. With further pressure the opposition parties should be aiming to at least get this Bill to the Select Committee hearing stage. This is where groups like Child Poverty Action and the Salvation army and other NGOs could then present their submissions with all their evidence for the need for this programme.

    John Key has made a big play about be willing to discuss measures to end childhood poverty.

    Let’s take his words at face value.

    John Key and National must be challenged by opposition MPs to allow the evidence in support of this suggested child poverty relief measure to be heard and debated in parliament.

    If John Key is not prepared to even let the evidence be heard, this exposes him as a liar and a hypocrite at least in regards to being concerned about the 100,000 kids in this country that go to school hungry every day.

    Post script:

    “The recognition I think we all have is that there are some extremely poor children who are missing out”
    John Key

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10535794/Child-poverty-on-Key-agenda

    “It is encouraging so early in the life of the new Government that the Prime Minister is signalling a need to address child poverty”
    Major Campbell Roberts of The Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1409/S00507/sallies-pleased-at-fresh-ideas-to-tackle-child-poverty.htm

    Prime Minister John Key has asked his officials for fresh ideas on tackling child poverty.

    On his first day back at Parliament since being re-elected on Saturday, Key said he had ordered Treasury and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet officials to start presenting new ideas.

    ‘‘The recognition I think we all have is that there are some extremely poor children who are missing out,’’ Key said yesterday.

    ‘‘And so then the question is how do you resolve those issues, it’s not straightforward but there will be more you can do.’’

    Key said it needed to be done without narrowing the gap between the incomes of those on benefits and those working, to ensure people were still encouraged into work.

    Breakfasts in schools, free doctors’ visits for young children and tax credits for low and middle income families were examples of policies that could be used to tackle the problem, as could programmes such as Whanau Ora.

    “Child poverty on Key agenda” Stuff.co.nz September 24, 2014

    • alwyn 36.1
      5 October 2014 at 5:51 pm

      ” but taking out one for the speaker”
      When are people finally going to get it through their heads that The Speaker’s vote is counted and has been since MMP came in in 1986?

      • Richard 36.1.1
        5 October 2014 at 6:08 pm

        +100

        Yes alwyn I was just going to say that too but you beat me too it. But just in case he’s not sure if your right or not i’ll repeat it too.

        Whatever party the speaker belongs to his vote is added to their voting tally.

Links to post