National no friends

Written By: - Date published: 8:27 am, October 2nd, 2017 - 194 comments
Categories: bill english, climate change, Environment, ETS, james shaw, Media, national, public transport, same old national, sustainability, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, transport, winston peters - Tags: ,

I just listened to Bill English being interviewed on Radio New Zealand.  He disclosed that he had rang Winston Peters personally on the weekend but that Peters had not returned his call.  He also talked around and then gave a really weak response to the question whether he had offered the Greens James Shaw the Deputy Prime Minister’s position or the Finance portfolio if the Greens lined up with National.

This was not an accidental disclosure.  English also revealed the unanswered call to Duncan Garner on the AM show.

He tried to avoid discussing the crisis that will be caused when the special votes are counted and National’s majority is trimmed if not obliterated.  And I can understand National’s desire to negotiate now.  I am confident that waiting for the specials to be counted will mean that the negotiating dynamic will be different.  Rather than a Labour-Green-NZ First Government relying on a knife edge majority a more substantial majority will mean that such a proposition will be more feasible.

National is trying to manoeuvre the Greens into a position where they have to enter negotiations, even though this will be damaging to the Greens.  But having one of your paid help describe the Greens as mainly hippies and drug addicts and then expecting them to negotiate in a civilised manner six weeks later requires lots of chutzpah.  After nine long years of environmental degradation and dirty politics can National really expect anything different?

And the Herald is continuing its Pro National Government coverage with an interestingly article with the title As New Zealand waits for a new Govt, more come out in support of National-Green deal.   It is only after reading the article that you realise that the “more” is former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger.

With the greatest of respect the article does not make sense.  For instance it contains this passage:

Until now, the people urging Greens to consider talks with National have come from outside the party.

That includes senior National ministers who have floated the idea of a National-Green coalition in a bid to strengthen their hand in talks with NZ First leader Winston Peters.

I always thought that senior National ministers were members of the National Party.  Have I missed something?

Nandor Tanczos is mentioned in the article.  But he says that the Greens going into coalition with National would be political suicide.  This is hardly what could be described as “support” of a National-Green deal.

Perhaps National should show it is serious by offering fundamental changes in policy.  Adding agriculture to the Emissions Trading Scheme for one.  Committing to meet New Zealand’s climate change goals by internal carbon sequestration and CO2 and methane suppression would be another.  Placing Eugenie Sage as Climate Change Minister and Julie-Anne Genter as Transport Minister would be other offers that could be made.  Cancelling the roads of national significance projects and putting the billions of dollars into public transport, walking and cycling projects and rail should be part of the mix.  And not having a real target for reducing child poverty would be a deal breaker.

New Zealand First and the Greens are doing the right thing in not negotiating with National right now.  National’s desperation is showing.

Update:  I have just reread the Herald article and it seems that it was suggesting that Nandor Tanczos was the person outside of National who was urging the Greens to talk with National.  He said it would be political suicide.  No wonder I was confused!

194 comments on “National no friends ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. marty mars 1
    2 October 2017 at 8:36 am

    What a sad sack admission (planned and deliberately spoken about) from Bill. Did not return the call lol. English looks like, and is, a total loser around this. This is good theatre like married at first sight with ex partners – not good in any way and hard to turn away from.

    • alwyn 1.1
      2 October 2017 at 2:01 pm

      Perhaps you should read the Herald.
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11928639
      Winston says he was up North and out of cell phone coverage but called Bill this morning.
      Now it appears to be the Labour leader who is panicking.
      Oh well. The joys of MMP and the negotiations with the wiliest politician in the country.
      When, I wonder, will the Labour Party break it to the Greens that, if Labour do manage to arrange a deal with Winston there will be, just as in 2005, no place at the adults table for the watermelons?
      As Yogi Berra might have said. “It will be deja vu all over again”. Perhaps the Green Party will learn this time around.

      • marty mars 1.1.1
        2 October 2017 at 2:16 pm

        Wow your esp is outstanding al, amazing talent – can you guess what I’m thinking about you now?

        • alwyn 1.1.1.1
          2 October 2017 at 5:55 pm

          All the evidence I have seen is that you are entirely incapable of intelligent thought.
          It is quite safe to say that, even if you are thinking, it is of no interest to anyone. Why therefore should I bother considering the matter any further?

          • marty mars 1.1.1.1.1
            2 October 2017 at 6:40 pm

            Well it could have built your credibility but sadly that is now unlikely. You seem to know what labour are thinking even though you are a rabid rightie – the only explanation is mind reading. Thus my offer to you which, through either fear or ignorance, you have declined.

        • CoroDale 1.1.1.2
          2 October 2017 at 8:47 pm

          “…no place at the adults’ table for the watermelons?”

          Some melons can age well, post harvest, for up to three months, increasing in colour and sweetness.

  2. Carolyn_nth 2
    2 October 2017 at 8:38 am

    The National Party is showing their ugly bullying, dishonest face in this election. They show there is nothing they won’t do or say to hold onto power: no morals, and no principles other than winning and ruling according to whatever rules they make up at the moment.

    • Wayne 2.1
      2 October 2017 at 9:05 pm

      Carolyn,

      Where on earth do you (and Tracey) get your “bullying” allegations from?

      Writing articles or giving interviews on the options for the Greens is not bullying, at least not in my world. It is normal free speech in a democracy, and I would note all the articles and suggestions I have read are in appropriately respectful language. Most also acknowledge it would be a big step for the Greens. The Greens are perfectly able to say “no”.

      As Jim Bolger said on Q &A, if you can’t even stand to have the question asked, maybe you should not be in Parliament.

      • mauī 2.1.1
        2 October 2017 at 9:25 pm

        Free speech in New Zealand is at the moment endless media talking points on:

        The Greens can go either way.
        Greens are missing out by not going with National.
        Greens are not using the power they hold.
        Greens haven’t achieved anything in Government.

        Why are there no articles or opinion pieces in the media on what a Labour-NZFirst-Green coalition would like then? What policies they might implement, etc. That would provide some balance wouldnt it? There is no free speech in our corporate media. That much is obvious.

    • georgecom 2.2
      2 October 2017 at 10:40 pm

      I think National and it’s supporters is showing how desperate it is for government even suggesting a deal with the Greens. Not desperate in terms of the Greens offering some very good policies and mapping out a future that puts people and the planet first. But desperate in terms of trying anything to cling to power. And English is desperate to get what he has longed for since 2001, to be Prime Minister. I imagine he will be nervous as heck and feel sick every time he contemplates that the opportunity may slip through his fingers.

  3. Andre 3
    2 October 2017 at 8:50 am

    It’s looked to me like the language of this whole issue has been that the Greens should be making all the moves to try to form a coalition with the Nats. I haven’t seen anything that says English or any other Nats have even attempted to approach the Greens. Let alone show they’re willing to turn around on any of the many issues where they are diametrically opposed to Greens principles.

    • tc 3.1
      2 October 2017 at 10:07 am

      That’s the MSM messaging (Dirty Politics business as usual) which should not be confused for reality nor what the majority of voters officially called for ….CHANGE !

  4. One Anonymous Bloke 4
    2 October 2017 at 8:56 am

    So significant they need building twice.

    It’s hard to trust people when you can’t stop laughing at their hubris and incompetence.

    • tc 4.1
      2 October 2017 at 11:00 am

      Yes drove that road earlier this year and was just gobsmacked at the appalling quality of it. It’s symbolic of the regime behind it, focused on appearing like they’re doing something when in fact it’s leaving a legacy of repair and rework.

      Why wasn’t the job wasn’t done properly first time ?

      Corners being cut and crony deals with the likes of FH/Fletchers/Downers possibly, it’s not the only shite road that’s been lauded as ‘moving NZ forward’ one pothole at a time was what they left off that slogan.

  5. Pete 5
    2 October 2017 at 8:58 am

    So the smell isn’t the dead cat, it’s the crapped National nappies?

    • marty mars 5.1
      2 October 2017 at 9:03 am

      Lol good one and so true

    • mary_a 5.2
      2 October 2017 at 1:34 pm

      Pete @ (5) … now your comment reminds me of a saying I heard years ago. It goes something like this …

      ‘babies nappies and politicians are not dissimilar, because both need changing regularly, for the same reason.’

      So true.

  6. AB 6
    2 October 2017 at 9:01 am

    The conclusion I am drawing from all this bizarre behaviour is that the intention is just to throw mud at MMP in general. Prepare the ground by persuading the public that MMP doesn’t work, then mount another attack on it via a Peter Shirtcliffe-style National Party proxy. If the Nats are thwarted, we are heading into dangerous times.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1
      2 October 2017 at 9:19 am

      They’ve already challenged the outcome of the election with this “moral right” bullshit. I can’t see Bill English suddenly becoming a decent honest man after all these years.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      2 October 2017 at 3:02 pm

      That’s the way I’m reading it. National, like all RWNJs, only like democracy when it delivers what they want. All other times they view it as illegitimate. It’s why they removed democracy in ECan and why they tried to get us to replace MMP with a worse system.

    • Wayne 6.3
      2 October 2017 at 9:11 pm

      Given that the public have voted on MMP twice (1993and 2011) both times under National, I am pretty certain you won’t see such a campaign, at least not a serious campaign.

      As for “dangerous times”, don’t be ridiculous. New Zealand has elections every three years. If people want to change from a prior decision, it is easy to do so.

      One of the reasons we have such a peaceful democracy on any international scale is because all the political parties know they get to re-run the contest in just another three years.

      • AB 6.3.1
        2 October 2017 at 11:40 pm

        Well Wayne, by “dangerous”, I meant dangerous for democracy, not physically dangerous. At least not necessarily so, although right-wing violence is definitely a ‘thing’ as we saw in 1981, 1951 and particularly 1913. I think you are over-sanguine and complacent in these matters. (Deliberately so of course as the threat almost entirely comes from your end of the political spectrum)
        Both the MMP referenda were close-run things and both were befouled by well-funded campaigns from the business-right who will not easily tolerate an excess of democracy, and will clearly try again if conditions look propitious. Two defeats may make them circumspect, but they are tireless in their quest for domination.

  7. Sanctuary 7
    2 October 2017 at 9:05 am

    This doesn’t surprise me. The media has worked itself into a terrible two tantrum over Winston Peter’s decision to wait until the specials are counted. But asking around my workplace and friends, there is a pretty broad consensus that it is perfectly reasonable to wait until all the votes are counted. People have got on with their lives, it is only the beltway obsessives who can’t cope with a fourteen day wait, and besides why is it going to take two weeks to count the specials anyway?

    Into the vacuum has galloped a thousand opinion pieces of mostly rubbish, but we will know within a few weeks anyway.

    • Pete 7.1
      2 October 2017 at 9:31 am

      The game has not finished, on the scoreboard they’re ‘sort of’ in front, but they want the cup to be presented, the medals to be handed out, their names to be carved on the doors and everyone else told to go home.

    • CoroDale 7.2
      2 October 2017 at 5:51 pm

      Hope the electron board isn’t a State Owned and gnat operated…

    • Phil 8.1
      2 October 2017 at 10:36 am

      There are quite a few issues with that Newsroom analysis

      1) 2014 appears to be an extreme case of left-gains and national-losses, at least compared to the previous two elections. If anyone has a longer history of special vote data, that would help to determine whether the Newsroom base case for 2017 is genuinely robust as a base case or starts with the playing field tilted slightly optimistically to the left.
      See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97255715/election-how-the-special-votes-have-fallen-in-past-elections

      2) The evidence for a 2017 youthquake seem weak. Yes, late-campaign enrollments were up (compared to 2014) but that seems to be an offset of early-campaign enrollments being down (again, compared to 2014). That would tend to support the idea of Jacindamania being roughly equal and offsetting to Littlenthusiasm (that catchphrase needs work…).

      3) The newsroom model makes no mention of TOP. Overseas voters tend to be younger and higher educated than the average voter, so i’d be very surprised if TOP didn’t improve their share as a result of this. TOP voters seem to have a lot of crossover with the Greens, so a big chunk of expected rise in the Green vote could bleed off to the TOP wasted vote.

      All in all, I expect National’s maximum losses on the special votes will be one seat to the Greens. The prospect of losing two seems more like optimistic wishful thinking from left activists.

      • BM 8.1.1
        2 October 2017 at 10:47 am

        There was no youthquake, watching newshub a couple of days back they quickly blurted out that youth enrolments were actually down this year, before rapidly moving on to the next article

        Obviously, a bit embarrassing for newshub when the facts didn’t quite correspond with the narrative they were trying so hard to push

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1
          2 October 2017 at 10:55 am

          No-one knows whether there was a ‘youthquake’ yet because the special votes haven’t been counted.

          Don’t let that stop you parroting someone else’s certainty as though it’s your own opinion, though.

        • Baba Yaga 8.1.1.2
          2 October 2017 at 1:48 pm

          You’re right, BM, there has been no ‘youthquake, but you will not get anyone in the media admitting it because it would be to accept they got the pre-election commentary wrong.

          The voter turnout in 2017 was 78.8%, in 2014 it was 77.9% (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=256208). The voter turnout in 2014 was 74.21%, so the increase in 2017 was minimal.

          Here’s a link to an article by Bryce Edwards that makes it clear: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11924009. Quote:

          “In the initial stages of the election campaign, the Electoral Commission reported a surge of youth voter enrolments, which gave greater weight to the idea of a coming youthquake. Subsequently, however, enrolment numbers have slowed down considerably amongst the young. As of today, the total enrolments of 18-24 year-olds stands at 314,702, out of an estimated eligible population of 460,890, which means that only 68 per cent of this age group has enrolled. This is actually less than this time three years ago..”

          From my observation, Edwards, of all people, called this correctly before anyone else.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.2.1
            2 October 2017 at 1:55 pm

            From my observation, we won’t know what the demographics of the turnout were until the final result.

            Edwards hasn’t “called it”, he’s listed arguments for and against. Your “observation” is 100% projection.

            There’s a clue in the headline: “Political Roundup: Is a ‘youthquake’ looming, or not?”

            • Baba Yaga 8.1.1.2.1.1
              2 October 2017 at 2:06 pm

              Yes, the final result will confirm the demographics; all I’m saying is that enrolment does give us something to work with now.

              Beyond that discussion, from http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2014-general-election/election-results-and-reporting/2014-general-election-voter-turnout, in 2014 only 62.73 of 18-24 year old enrolled voters voted, and only 62.11% of enrolled 25-29 year old voted. The nationwide average was 76.77%. My 20 year old son voted, but his partner didn’t. This level of participation by this age group is a tragedy IMHO.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                2 October 2017 at 2:10 pm

                something to work with

                Sure, and “work with” it you did. Or was it Mike Hosking: you all look the same to me.

                You’re right, BM, there has been no ‘youthquake, but you will not get anyone in the media admitting it because it would be to accept they got the pre-election commentary wrong.

                • Baba Yaga …
                  2 October 2017 at 4:18 pm

                  The final enrolment data is available at http://www.elections.org.nz/research-statistics/enrolment-statistics-electorate.

                  This shows that only 72.29% of the 18-24 age group enrolled, the lowest of any age bracket.

                  In 2014 (http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2014-general-election/election-results-and-reporting/2014-general-election-voter-turnout) this same age group had the second lowest voter participation c.f. enrolments (62.73%).

                  The numbers enrolled in the 18-25 bracket were 338,269 in 2014, 333,164 in 2017. In other words, the number of 18-24 years olds enrolled actually DECREASED, when the overall enrolments GREW from 3,140,417 to 3,298,009.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 October 2017 at 4:34 pm

                    So 10% more in that age group enrolled. What’s the official definition of a “youthquake” again?

                    • Baba Yaga …
                      2 October 2017 at 8:25 pm

                      “So 10% more in that age group enrolled. ”

                      No. Enrolment in that age group actually declined by just under 2%. Here’s the extract from my post above that includes the numbers:

                      “The numbers enrolled in the 18-25 bracket were 338,269 in 2014, 333,164 in 2017. In other words, the number of 18-24 years olds enrolled actually DECREASED, when the overall enrolments GREW from 3,140,417 to 3,298,009.”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 October 2017 at 8:38 pm

                      Are raw numbers the same as percentages on your planet?

                      I can’t be bothered playing your games, Maninthemiddle.

                    • mickysavage …
                      2 October 2017 at 9:20 pm

                      Wait for the special votes and the final analysis Baba.

                    • Baba Yaga …
                      2 October 2017 at 9:26 pm

                      “Are raw numbers the same as percentages on your planet?”

                      You made a mistake in reading the data, that’s all. You said “So 10% more in that age group enrolled.”

                      The numbers enrolled in that age group DECREASED. There was no “10% more”.

                      And stop calling me whatever your calling me.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      2 October 2017 at 9:33 pm

                      “Baba”?
                      I’m interested in why you’ve chosen “Baba Yaga” as a handle, mitm?
                      Baba Yaga has iron teeth, eats children and lives in a hut that stands on chicken legs – curious choice.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 October 2017 at 9:46 pm

                      I doubt it’s that sophisticated. “Baba Yaga” was the nickname russian mobsters gave the character John Wick in the movie of that name, if I recall correctly.

                      Our Baby aga may just see themself as skewering countless faceless commenters with grace and skill, like Keanu in that movie. Twenty years ago they would have been jabbering about red pills and blue pills and spouting Baby’s First Cartesian Doubt (not my phrase but a good ‘un).

                      It could always be a private reference to some personal or cultural experience, but… maybe not.

      • Pat 8.1.2
        2 October 2017 at 11:45 am

        1. not sure where you get the idea 2014 was extreme in terms of specials weighting…the Greens have always performed well in specials since inception…your own link supports that and clearly demonstrates the consistent left favourability

        2. there is as yet no evidence as to the size of the youth vote…that information will arrive with the specials results i believe….anecdotal however was sizeable numbers of young voters at early voting booths….this dosnt of course indicate preference however i would suggest Jacinda is the most likely beneficiary

        3. Tops share of the vote in general indicates it is not going to have any increased impact in specials.

        All in all I expect historical trend to continue with a possible improvement for labour resulting iin a change of seats of 1 or 2 for lab/green with an outside chance of 3…..and note wishful thinking exists on both sides of the divide

        • Phil 8.1.2.1
          2 October 2017 at 12:40 pm

          not sure where you get the idea 2014 was extreme in terms of specials weighting

          The stuff data shows that the Greens did disproportionately well in special votes in 2014, compared to 2011 and 2008. I don’t know (and neither do you, and neither does Newsroom) if 2014 presents a new-normal level of Green improvement on the special votes, or if it was a quirk of the 2014 election and the level of Green improvement returns to 08/11 levels. If it’s the latter (back to 08/11 levels) then it’s almost impossible for the Greens and Labour to gain two seats from National.

          there is as yet no evidence as to the size of the youth vote
          We know there were roughly 380,000 special votes – up on 2014 but not really materially so. We also know that youth enrollment during the campaign was, overall, not particularly unusual compared to past elections.

          anecdotal however was sizeable numbers of young voters at early voting booths

          Early voting was already counted on election night. If you mean early special voting (i.e. with registration) then we’ve already got a sense of it (see previous comment).

          Tops share of the vote in general indicates it is not going to have any increased impact in specials
          Like I said, Top’s target demographic was the young and well educated. I.e EXACTLY the stereotypical overseas voter. If Top improve their overall share after the specials, at the expense of the Greens (the most likely other party for young, well educated, overseas voters) that would do significant harm to the Greens chances of picking up seats.

          • Carolyn_nth 8.1.2.1.1
            2 October 2017 at 1:32 pm

            It may well be that the GP wil only gain one seat and the Nats none after special votes have been counted. Or, Lab-Green could gain 2 and the Nats lose 2 – we’ll just have to wait and see.

            Special votes include those who enrolled and voted at the same tome at advanced booths. This likely included a lot of young people.

            I have seen stats that show the proportion of votes to the main parties at University advance voting booths – that is from votes already counted. Labour got about 40+%, Nats in the 20s-30s, if I remember correctly, and the GP in the 20s also – very close to the Nat proportion.

          • Pat 8.1.2.1.2
            2 October 2017 at 2:05 pm

            “The stuff data shows that the Greens did disproportionately well in special votes in 2014, compared to 2011 and 2008. I don’t know (and neither do you, and neither does Newsroom) if 2014 presents a new-normal level of Green improvement on the special votes, or if it was a quirk of the 2014 election and the level of Green improvement returns to 08/11 levels. If it’s the latter (back to 08/11 levels) then it’s almost impossible for the Greens and Labour to gain two seats from National.”

            what the stuff data clearly shows is an increasing trend of left favourability in line with the increasing volume of specials….that trend of increased specials we know has continued therefore it is reasonable to expect the corresponding trend of increasing favourability will also continue.
            “The amount by which vote share changes has increased in each of the last three elections as the number of special votes has increased.”

            ‘We know there were roughly 380,000 special votes – up on 2014 but not really materially so. We also know that youth enrollment during the campaign was, overall, not particularly unusual compared to past elections.”

            An over 16% increase…and one we currently have no real knowledge of the makeup…..we know youth enrollment NOT including specials was not unusual ….we as yet know nothing of the demographics of those that enrolled and voted at the same time

            “Like I said, Top’s target demographic was the young and well educated. I.e EXACTLY the stereotypical overseas voter. If Top improve their overall share after the specials, at the expense of the Greens (the most likely other party for young, well educated, overseas voters) that would do significant harm to the Greens chances of picking up seats.”

            Irrespective of TOPs target demographic we know they achieved a 2% support level which will not reach the 5% threshold with specials and therefore its limited numbers will be excluded and have no material impact

            • Phil 8.1.2.1.2.1
              2 October 2017 at 2:33 pm

              what the stuff data clearly shows is an increasing trend of left favourability in line with the increasing volume of specials

              Oh, come on, Pat. That is a weakest of weak-sauce arguments. All we’ve got is three data points and no idea what the history looked like before ’08, so to say there is a ‘clear’ trend is woeful misuse of data.

              Irrespective of TOPs target demographic we know they achieved a 2% support level which will not reach the 5% threshold with specials and therefore its limited numbers will be excluded and have no material impact

              With all due respect, you clearly don’t understand the MMP Sainte-Laguë
              allocation formula. If TOP increase their overall share of the vote, regardless of if they hit 5%, then that share has to come from somewhere. The Greens are an obvious candidate of where that TOP increase could come from. Anything that depresses the Green special vote reduces the chance they’ll pick up a seat on the specials.

              AND, because of the allocation formula, anything that increases the wasted vote (be it TOP, MP, or others) disproportionately benefits National, because they currently hold the 120th allocated seat and that’s the one most ‘at-risk’ of changing to another party.

              • Pat …
                2 October 2017 at 2:47 pm

                “Oh, come on, Pat. That is a weakest of weak-sauce arguments. All we’ve got is three data points and no idea what the history looked like before ’08, so to say there is a ‘clear’ trend is woeful misuse of data.”

                lol…not as weak sauce trying to claim..” 2014 appears to be an extreme case of left-gains and national-losses,” with the same data

                as to understanding Sainte_Lague I understand it well enough to know that TOPs level of support within specials is not going to materially impact the final result….unless you believe TOP are going to soak up a significant proportion of the specials…a truly magnificent example of wishful thinking.

                As stated previously, my expectations are one to two seats moving left with an outside chance of 3…..your welcome to state your best guess and well see whos right come the weekend

                • Phil …
                  3 October 2017 at 9:23 am

                  lol…not as weak sauce trying to claim..” 2014 appears to be an extreme case of left-gains and national-losses,” with the same data

                  Ooooh, you almost got me. So close. If only you hadn’t completely misrepresented what I said:

                  2014 appears to be an extreme case of left-gains and national-losses, at least compared to the previous two elections. If anyone has a longer history of special vote data, that would help to determine whether the Newsroom base case for 2017 is genuinely robust as a base case or starts with the playing field tilted slightly optimistically to the left.

                  • Pat …
                    3 October 2017 at 10:40 am

                    lol…no need for a gotcha when you are already stumbling over the data…. seriously after 20 hours thats the best you can come up with?….and still no best guess based on your superior analysis?…now theres a surprise

                    • Phil …
                      3 October 2017 at 1:32 pm

                      after 20 hours thats [sic] the best you can come up with?

                      1) I had to work.
                      2) Fuck you.

                      and still no best guess based on your superior analysis?

                      I don’t trade in guesses. I let the data tell me what it can and (unlike you, apparently) don’t try to make shit up on the fly.

                      For National to lose three seats, that would require their portion of the specials to be as low as 35%. That’s almost laughably absurd.

                      The Greens will almost certainly pick up a seat. Anything more than 6.8%-ish of the specials would get them there, and that seat would most likely come from National (because they have the 120th seat allocation). For the Greens to gain a second seat, they would have to get approximately 12.3%.

                      The problem for ‘The Left’ is that the 119th seat is currently allocated to Labour. This means that if the Greens pick up two seats, they’re more likely to be 1xNat and a 1xLab pickup, than 2xNat pickup.

                      But, ALL OF THIS depends on the wasted vote. The greater the wasted vote compared to election night, even if it’s only a few 10th’s of a percent, could be the difference between National losing one or two seats.

                  • Pat …
                    5 October 2017 at 12:08 am

                    “I don’t trade in guesses. I let the data tell me what it can and (unlike you, apparently) don’t try to make shit up on the fly.”

                    “All in all, I expect National’s maximum losses on the special votes will be one seat to the Greens. The prospect of losing two seems more like optimistic wishful thinking from left activists.”

                    https://thestandard.org.nz/national-no-friends/#comment-1394940

                    “For National to lose three seats, that would require their portion of the specials to be as low as 35%. That’s almost laughably absurd.”

                    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jrn6_5uCoAYfqBmc9R64nza4oHlua3rCsoykpLQrjII/edit#gid=654160597

                    dont trip over your own feet on the way out…

                • Phil …
                  3 October 2017 at 12:52 pm

                  TOPs level of support within specials is not going to materially impact the final result….unless you believe TOP are going to soak up a significant proportion of the specials…a truly magnificent example of wishful thinking.

                  I literally do not know how to say it any simpler, so i’ll just requote my previous comment.

                  If TOP increase their overall share of the vote, regardless of if they hit 5%, then that share has to come from somewhere. The Greens are an obvious candidate of where that TOP increase could come from. Anything that depresses the Green special vote reduces the chance they’ll pick up a seat on the specials.

                  AND, because of the allocation formula, anything that increases the wasted vote (be it TOP, MP, or others) disproportionately benefits National, because they currently hold the 120th allocated seat and that’s the one most ‘at-risk’ of changing to another party.

          • Craig H 8.1.2.1.3
            2 October 2017 at 2:44 pm

            A key difference between 2011 and now is that overseas specials had to be faxed or posted, and faxes were getting very difficult to find, but from 2014 could also be scanned and uploaded to a secure online server.

            • Wayne 8.1.2.1.3.1
              2 October 2017 at 9:21 pm

              Craig,

              But the Electoral Commission already know how many in this category (overseas votes). I believe it is 91,000.

              I personally think it is ridiculous we have to wait 14 days for the specials to be counted.

              Most of the specials are votes of registered electors who cast their vote outside their electorate, either on the day or in the preceding two weeks. These have probably already been counted. Why can’t that total be released? After all we get progressive counts on election night. We don’t wait till midnight for a single announcement.

              The two week period is because overseas postal votes have two weeks to come in. But how many of these will there be these days. Probably not many.

              I would hope the Parliamentary Select Committee that deals with all of this in the upcoming Parliament will sort tis out. We should be able to do better than waiting two weeks.

              • Craig H …
                3 October 2017 at 9:55 am

                Wayne,

                I agree. I was commenting on the idea that 2014 was an outlier compared to 2011 – basically, I think 2014 was closer to the new norm for final outcomes of special votes because of the change in how overseas special votes are allowed to be cast.

        • Baba Yaga 8.1.2.2
          2 October 2017 at 1:51 pm

          “2. there is as yet no evidence as to the size of the youth vote…that information will arrive with the specials results i believe….anecdotal however was sizeable numbers of young voters at early voting booths….this dosnt of course indicate preference however i would suggest Jacinda is the most likely beneficiary”

          The information is available already based on enrolments. Please see my link above to a Bryce Edwards article in which he claims that enrolments in the 18-24 age range were actually down on the same stage in 2014 (article written 19/9/17).

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.2.1
            2 October 2017 at 2:06 pm

            The information Edwards cites is based on an article published at Libertas on 15th September. It says:

            …there’s no sign of a youthquake this election. But there are signs of a significant greyquake. While there’s still time for that to change, it would have to be a massive upswing in 18-24-year-old enrolments in the 11 days from 12 September to the election.

            My bold.

            Meanwhile, in reality, it doesn’t have to be “massive”.

            Note that this article doesn’t make any predictions either.

            • Baba Yaga 8.1.2.2.1.1
              2 October 2017 at 4:21 pm

              The enrolments for the youngest voting bracket are actually down on 2014. You’re right, the voting % may rise dramatically within this age group, but its clear the youth quake didn’t extend to getting a lot of extra people to enrol.

          • Pat 8.1.2.2.2
            2 October 2017 at 2:12 pm

            as noted above those numbers do not include specials which contain those who enrolled and voted at the same time, part of the 385000,,,so in effect those stats are worthless when determining final data, …we do know there was an increase in voter numbers by 150,000 however.

            • Craig H 8.1.2.2.2.1
              2 October 2017 at 2:45 pm

              And before seeing the results of the specials, it looks like all of them effectively voted Labour or TOP.

            • Baba Yaga 8.1.2.2.2.2
              2 October 2017 at 4:24 pm

              “so in effect those stats are worthless when determining final data”

              No they aren’t. Enrolments are at least an indicator of where change may occur, because they provide us with the age make-up of the registered voter demographic. That is, assuming the theory that the younger disproportionately vote left. That itself may no longer apply.

        • Baba Yaga 8.1.2.3
          2 October 2017 at 4:19 pm

          “there is as yet no evidence as to the size of the youth vote”

          The total number of 18-24 years olds enrolled actually dropped between 2014 and 2017.

          • Pat 8.1.2.3.1
            2 October 2017 at 5:25 pm

            two points which you continue to ignore….first the youth vote is both the 18/24 and the 25/29 demographics…and more importantly you ignore the fact anyone was able to enrol and vote at the same time for the first time and as these are classed as special votes of which we have 385000 we have as yet no idea of the youth turnout…the stats you insist on quoting only apply to the preliminary turnout which we know was only 85% of the total and not necessarily representative of the specials distribution so cannot be automatically extrapolated…..but you can have your reasoning and Ill stick with mine and we will all find out at the weekend.

            • Baba Yaga 8.1.2.3.1.1
              2 October 2017 at 8:38 pm

              “…first the youth vote is both the 18/24 and the 25/29 demographics…”

              Wow that’s a stretch…29 year olds described as ‘youth’? But ok, let’s look at those numbers.

              The total enrolments within the two demographics added together were:

              2014: 583,645
              2017: 604,331

              So even using your parameters, the increase in enrolments is still only 3.5%, less than the overall (all demographics) increase of 5%.

              “and more importantly you ignore the fact anyone was able to enrol and vote at the same time for the first time and as these are classed as special votes of which we have 385,000 we have as yet no idea of the youth turnout…”

              No, I haven’t ignored that because I haven’t been basing my position on voter turnout but on enrolments. The idea being touted was that we would have a ‘youthquake’. The data proves that the enrolment rate of youth (even given your rather broad definition) is well below the national average. How can you have a ‘youthquake’ with a lower enrolment increase than all other demographics together?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                2 October 2017 at 8:41 pm

                By turnout being higher.

                • Baba Yaga …
                  2 October 2017 at 9:13 pm

                  But given the enrolment trend, turnout would have to be massively higher in that demographic. And as a fair number of the 18-24 would be first time voters, then…well you can’t vote if you’re not enrolled.

              • Pat …
                2 October 2017 at 9:34 pm

                “No, I haven’t ignored that because I haven’t been basing my position on voter turnout but on enrolments. The idea being touted was that we would have a ‘youthquake’. The data proves that the enrolment rate of youth (even given your rather broad definition) is well below the national average. How can you have a ‘youthquake’ with a lower enrolment increase than all other demographics together?”

                because enrollments do not determine votes…turnout does.
                its all very well being enrolled but you need to get off your arse and vote for it to count.

                In 2014 583,645 18/29 yr olds enrolled but only 364,613 actually voted
                in 2017 604.331 enrolled BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY VOTED until the official count is completed…..that is where the scope is for an unmeasured youth quake

                http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2014-general-election/election-results-and-reporting/2014-general-election-voter-turnout

                for all we know half of those 385000 votes may be under 29 yr olds

                • Baba Yaga …
                  2 October 2017 at 10:15 pm

                  “because enrollments do not determine votes…turnout does.”
                  Until we know the turnout, your point is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that interest amongst the youngest demographic, as measured by enrolment, is tepid, at best.

      • swordfish 8.1.3
        2 October 2017 at 3:46 pm

        Phil

        Election Night vs Final Results
        Party-Vote %

        Election Night … Final Result … Diff

        National
        2014
        48.06 ……………… 47.04 …… Down 1.02

        2011
        47.99 ……………… 47.31 …… Down 0.68

        2008
        45.45 ……………… 44.93 …… Down 0.52

        2005
        39.64 ……………….. 39.10 …… Down 0.54

        .

        Labour
        2014
        24.69 ……………… 25.13 …… Up 0.44

        2011
        27.13 ……………… 27.48 …… Up 0.35

        2008
        33.77 ……………… 33.99 …… Up 0.22

        2005
        40.73 ……………….. 41.10 …… Up 0.37

        .

        Green
        2014
        10.02 ……………… 10.70 …… Up 0.68

        2011
        10.62 ……………… 11.06 …… Up 0.44

        2008
        6.43 ……………….. 6.72 ..……. Up 0.29

        2005
        5.07 ……………….. 5.30 ….….. Up 0.23

        .

        NZF
        2014
        8.85 ……………… 8.66 …… Down 0.19

        2011
        6.81 ……………… 6.59 …… Down 0.22

        2008
        4.21 ……………… 4.07 …… Down 0.14

        2005
        5.84 ……………… 5.72 …… Down 0.12

        Wouldn’t surprise me if Labour – rather than the Greens – turn out to be the main beneficiary of the Specials (similar to 05 – only more so)

        • Phil 8.1.3.1
          3 October 2017 at 2:43 pm

          Thanks Swordfish – those are useful.

          The Greens don’t need to win a much higher percentage of the specials than their election night tally to win an extra seat. It would be a massive undershoot of their past history to not pick up a seat – they only need 6.5 or 6.6% of the specials to get it.

      • swordfish 8.1.4
        2 October 2017 at 4:03 pm

        Phil

        The newsroom model makes no mention of TOP. Overseas voters tend to be younger and higher educated than the average voter, so i’d be very surprised if TOP didn’t improve their share as a result of this. TOP voters seem to have a lot of crossover with the Greens, so a big chunk of expected rise in the Green vote could bleed off to the TOP wasted vote.

        Both you & the MSM Punditry place too much emphasis on Overseas voters – they in fact comprise a pretty small % of Specials

        2014
        Overseas Specials 38000 …,,… 12,7%
        NZ-based Specials 263000 …… 87,3%

  9. marty mars 9
    2 October 2017 at 9:11 am

    Joyless sex, jealousy, curfews, scandals and it gets worse – oh sorry wrong headlines for another pretender.

  10. CraigGlenEden 10
    2 October 2017 at 9:22 am

  11. Molly 11
    2 October 2017 at 10:08 am

    “”Until now, the people urging Greens to consider talks with National have come from outside the party.”… I always thought that senior National ministers were members of the National Party. Have I missed something?”

    I assumed that badly written sentence meant that the urging people were from outside the Green Party. If you take that interpretation, it works. Still pitiful, as a method of filling column inches though.

  12. Ad 12
    2 October 2017 at 10:54 am

    Get ready for New Zealand FIrst on the cross benches, and the Governor-General having to sort two competing bids. Final Result Day doesn’t mean we have a government.

    • patricia bremner 12.1
      2 October 2017 at 11:48 am

      12. Well as I have said in earlier posts, “A wounded National is a dangerous beast”

      They are muddying the waters, and with the repeated impatience of their journalist friends constantly carping about Winston, they’re creating a feeling of unfair outcomes under MMP.

      Even James Shaw has been convinced to comment. Now the call to Winston.

      They want us to see National as reasonable.

      Ready to build that “brighter future” in tandem with the Greens, now we have the money.

      National feels it is a shame these selfish people are rorting the system!! Tell you what, it would work better if …..

      So, when Winston makes his move there is a climate of anger and impatience carefully cultivated, to test the legitimacy of the decision. Imagine the headlines!!!

    • alwyn 12.2
      2 October 2017 at 6:09 pm

      It would make a difference whether Winston said whether his party would vote, or abstain on a Confidence and Supply issue, and I think the G-G would ask him that very question.
      If he said he would abstain only National would be able to form a Government. In the absence of a NZF vote they would win a C&S vote whereas Labour/Green would lose.
      That assumes of course that National don’t lose 4 seats to Labour and the Green parties.

  13. Whispering Kate 13
    2 October 2017 at 10:56 am

    Nandor Tanczos said on the RNZ news this morning that he thought that a coalition with National by the Greens would not be a good thing this time around. He then did go on and say that Labour and National are very similar and that the Greens need to make sure they preserve their own integrity and image and continues that image exactly as is supposed to be – for sustainability – not endless growth at the expense of the planet. He didn’t dismiss entirely that a coalition with National couldn’t be on the cards but not this time.

    Labour in the past hasn’t been kind to its friends and the Greens should be well aware of that.

  14. Cinny 14
    2 October 2017 at 11:23 am

    Not long to wait now, does anyone know what time on Saturday we will know the results of the specials please?

  15. DSpare 15
    2 October 2017 at 11:32 am

    I saw a cutdown version of the linked Herald article in the ODT (attributed to NZME rather than Davison, so good to see the original was a bit better). Where there was an error in the very first line by describing Tanczos as; “a former Greens co-leader” (the closest he came was being beaten by his former assistant Norman in 2006).

    The bit that stuck out was the truly pathetic claim of (note the number of highly speculative “could”s):

    Common ground In National and Greens

    Biodiversity/pest control: National have set a goal of ridding NZ of pests by 2050, and could be open to the Greens’ policy of doubling funding for Department of the Conservation rangers.

    Climate change: The two parties fundamentally disagree on whether farmers should be accountable for their emissions. But National could be persuaded to lift its emissions target.

    Water quality: National could be persuaded to act faster on cleaning up New Zealand’s rivers, or increase the number of rivers which will be cleaned up.

    Public transport: National is increasingly under pressure to fix Auckland’s transport woes, and could agree to Green policies like bringing forward rail from the CBD to the airport.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/election-2017/ex-pm-says-talk-national

  16. RedLogix 16
    2 October 2017 at 11:40 am

    MMP is in trouble; every minor party that goes into coalition with either Lab or Nat comes out of it damaged and at risk of going below 5%. As a result the minors … essential to forming govt …. are increasingly reluctant to form coalitions.

    Right now there are four theoretical coalition govts we could form, assuming the minimum number of seats required for a Parliamentary majority:

    1. Nat/NZ1

    2. Nat/Grn

    3. Nat/Lab

    4. Lab/NZ1/Grn

    None of these options feels like a natural fit of policy, trust and history, none of them looks any more likely than the others, and none of them feels anything like a ‘win’ for progressive politics. On the face of it, which option we finish up with at this stage is a roll of the dice.

    But given that 3 out of 4 of these options includes the Nats, the OP article “National No Mates” isn’t all that grounded in reality. Yes they’ve got no natural allies in Parliament … but neither does anyone else.

    Perhaps the least worst outcome right now would be Option 3 … the so called ‘Grand Coalition’ between the two parties with probably the most in common.

    • Paul Campbell 16.1
      2 October 2017 at 12:14 pm

      5. Nat/NZ1/Grn

    • tuppence shrewsbury 16.2
      2 October 2017 at 1:05 pm

      Maybe Nat / Grn will be be the biggest win for progressive politics. very few people seem to have considered how dragging national further left will further erode the support for the right in new zealand. the immediate policy concessions from national to the greens will be substantially more progressive than anything labour and NZF will provide with the greens shut out of real power.

      • RedLogix 16.2.1
        2 October 2017 at 1:17 pm

        Agreed. The difference in value drivers between National and the Greens would make such a coalition really tough in practise; but in terms of pure political interests it has certain radical logic to it.

        National do tend to be somewhat more pragmatic in their thinking, so it’s not all that surprising they’re pushing the idea out there … whether we trust their motives or not is another question.

        • Phil 16.2.1.1
          4 October 2017 at 12:37 pm

          National do tend to be somewhat more pragmatic in their thinking, so it’s not all that surprising they’re pushing the idea out there

          Imagine if the situation were reversed – something like Labour needed one of NZF and… ACT?… to form a governing coalition while National needed both NZF and ACT.

          I would 100% expect that Labour would try to strengthen its bargaining position with NZF by raising the prospect of working with ACT. That’s just politics, plain and simple.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.2
        2 October 2017 at 1:28 pm

        National agrees to do the right thing* under duress. Apparently you don’t see that as unusual in any way.

        *terms and conditions apply.

        • RedLogix 16.2.2.1
          2 October 2017 at 1:42 pm

          Apparently you don’t see that as unusual in any way.

          No I don’t; of all the parties they are the least ideological; they will ‘do whatever it takes to maintain power’ if you want to express it in those terms.

          Which means they’re the party most likely to approach negotiations with all the options in play. And they have more plays available to them than anyone else at the moment.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.2.1.1
            2 October 2017 at 1:50 pm

            My reply was to Tuppence Shrewsbury.

            I agree, it isn’t unusual behaviour for National.

        • tuppence shrewsbury 16.2.2.2
          2 October 2017 at 4:06 pm

          I don’t see it in such a binary FPP way as you do, where whoever performs misogynistic chest thumping the loudest about how their way is right and all other ways are wrong.

          I’m thinking about how, from a progressive point of view, taking the largest party and natural leader of the right and curtailing their ability to impose right wing policy through being in cabinet with them, could create the fastest progressive and environmental gains in New Zealand.

          Far more progressive and environmentally friendly than Labour / NZ first with their strong conservative rumps could ever hope to enact while shitting on the greens as irrelevant to the conversation.

          But because national might get power again as a result of the conversation and it was all taken for granted that the greens support labour, it’s all to scary for the “serious” green voters and the daffy do nothing mp’s who are on the way out.

          thump your chest some more OAB. I love that personal tinge of reactionary negativism you bring to the conversation when something new rears up and scares your (desultory) thought process to an outcome it couldn’t possibly have foreseen, as you don’t agree with it.

          I think the real terror amongst the anti-nat / green proponents is that they secretly fear it might be the most successful coalition since New Zealand had MMP.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.2.2.1
            2 October 2017 at 4:20 pm

            My desultory thought process? Regarding the Greens’ position I’m guided chiefly by what James Shaw and various other actual Green MPs and members say.

            I’m not in the least bit worried that National will get power again as a result of the desperate lies they’re telling and you’re repeating, I’d just like to know why you vote for a party that only does the right thing under duress.

            As for “progressive” – is this the new talking point? The National Party is “progressive”. Hilarity ensues 😆

            Edit: the only “real terror” is that which you’re projecting. Savour it.

            • tuppence shrewsbury 16.2.2.2.1.1
              2 October 2017 at 4:33 pm

              the national party is progressive in many ways. Maybe not what you consider to be progressive, but it’s a subjective term. I’m saying that the greens would make the government progressive as you see it. WOW!! MMP!

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                2 October 2017 at 4:37 pm

                I’m saying I don’t see how that could work, because the National Party’s word is worthless, and everything James Shaw said.

                • tuppence shrewsbury …
                  2 October 2017 at 4:46 pm

                  The strong centre right party of the last with the principled left leaning enviromentalism of the greens. Far more palatable to voters in 2020 than the has-been, the nearly-was and some others. that’s the real issue here

                  Plus everything James Shaw said means nothing when he realises that he can’t achieve anything by trying to little sibling with labour when they’re all starry eyed with winnie.

                  David seymour may be the highest paid beneficiary, but it now looks like the party who support rorting the system may join that illustrious group

                  James Shaw knows what he can achieve if he starts talking with national. If he pulls the proverbial rabbit out of the hat and presents it to the green party, then lets the green party decide. ruling it out now is not MMP. All those on the left who normally support labour know it weakens labours position, hence the vehement opposition to it

                  the dance of the seven veils doesn’t only have to be performed by drunken octogenarians to be sexy.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 October 2017 at 4:48 pm

                    So your argument is all about insulting other parties. You really really don’t understand the way the Greens do politics eh.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      2 October 2017 at 4:50 pm

                      How is it insulting of the greens to realise that neither lab or nzf will never take the greens seriously if they don’t go and actually make a play to get their green policies enacted? exactly as winnie is doing right now.

                      the Greens really don’t understand MMP if they think it’s insulting to just take being insulted and not at leat talk with the nats

                    • red-blooded …
                      2 October 2017 at 4:54 pm

                      Hmmm… I don’t endorse TS’s line of thought, but I will point out that a heck of a lot of Green supporters spend a heck of a lot of time insulting other parties on this site. Prior to the election, I was constantly saying things like, “You can express your support for the Greens without running down Labour”.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 October 2017 at 5:01 pm

                      More projection, with a side-order of desperation. It’s music to my ears but please don’t expect to be taken seriously: your word is worth as much as National’s.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      2 October 2017 at 5:46 pm

                      desperation is Labour right now, hoping the greens don’t throw compost over the winston deal.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 October 2017 at 5:50 pm

                      Labour did it too? Then you’re on familiar territory 😆

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:27 pm

                      Confusing past and present tense again OAB?

                      easy enough mistake when you can’t quite believe that all parties have options, and not just the ones you like

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 October 2017 at 7:53 pm

                      National have no mates. You’re just going to have to choke on it.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      3 October 2017 at 1:41 pm

                      National have a position of power and series of policies they’d like to see enacted in this parliamentary term. They may be willing to negotiate with either the greens or nzf as to how much of this and how strongly national these policies are. No doubt the greens and nzf, being their own parties with their own principals, will have much the same agenda.

                      Maybe each could find common ground with National and national can form a minority government. Maybe the greens owe labour nothing and they can sit on the cross benches if labour and Nzf form a coalition.

                      But that would be too radical and progressive for you to consider, so you’d probably choke on it.

                      For someone who bangs on so much on this site, you really don’t understand the potential MMP brings.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 October 2017 at 1:48 pm

                      Keep telling yourself that.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      4 October 2017 at 8:35 am

                      showing the paucity of understanding of politics there ol chap. Must hurt coming to the conclusion that labour can’t count on greens being their “little buddy”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 October 2017 at 8:56 am

                      I’m a Green voter. Sorry, did you just waste a whole lot of wishful thinking and projection? Oops.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      4 October 2017 at 9:48 am

                      Feel good about standing in the way of progress by voting green but not allowing them to make a difference?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 October 2017 at 6:23 pm

                      Not allowing them

                      Ok you got me: I ackshully have the power of mind control over all members of the Green Party. I use HAARP to mess with their frequencies and Buzz Aldrin does the rest.

                      I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you pesky kid.

              • In Vino …
                2 October 2017 at 4:37 pm

                What tendentious waffle! No chance of it tuppence. You need to up your understanding of the Greens.

                • tuppence shrewsbury …
                  2 October 2017 at 4:48 pm

                  Maybe the greens need to up their understanding of MMP and just how much power they currently hold under it. How much power that could be used for GREEN purposes.

                  They don’t even have to jump into bed, just go on a date and sound each other out. Bit pointless not to do at least that. Go get a free meal and some nice wine instead of being dateless and alone as your crush is out with the old bugger from up the road.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    2 October 2017 at 6:28 pm

                    Yeah yeah.

                    “The Greens are sitting on a goldmine! Look at all that cheddar!”

                    That’s unobtanium – so named ‘cos you ain’t getting it.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:36 pm

                      Interesting that you look at it from the viewpoint that only National want something out of the talks. the greens shouldn’t engage if they don’t wish to progress their agenda.

                      So it’s Labour & NZF, and somehow that’s progressive?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:43 pm

                      There’s no point in talking to crooks unless you mean to become one.

                      The Gnats are beyond the pale. Lying to parliament and stealing public money are not compatible with any ethics, much less Green ethics.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      2 October 2017 at 9:22 pm

                      *cheesy grin!

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      3 October 2017 at 1:42 pm

                      and yet you talk to yourself in the mirror every day telling yourself how right you are about everything.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      3 October 2017 at 1:47 pm

                      Oh I’m sorry – is there some reason I’m supposed to favour your opinion above my own?

                      Make an argument if you can, and if you can’t, go and jump in the lake.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      4 October 2017 at 8:40 am

                      Stuart, i’ve made plenty of arguments about this. The sole response I get it is “Nah-ah, cos National”

                      lets talk about the idea of a change in government, a national lead government really isn’t possible with the greens as a coalition partner. It would have to be a partnership precisely because of the values the greens would rightly adhere too if they entered into a coalition with “the natz”. So National has to work with the greens, which means becoming green. which then raises the issue of who is the senior party in the coalition?

                      This is MMP politics 101, but all the anti-nat green cheerleaders are still stuck in high school.

                      You made some christmas cracker joke about a natural mineral and think you’ve made an argument. You in particular are stuck in Kindergarten.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      4 October 2017 at 8:52 am

                      Well you can’t expect to persuade people when you are so blatantly in error.

                      It happens sometimes, that we must retreat from cherished but indefensible prejudices.

                      The Gnats have departed so far from the ordinary principles of Westminster government that even Winston, who basically prefers their worldview, is likely to feel obliged to give them a miss.

                      How the Greens, who are by no means their natural ally, are to stomach them when he cannot is difficult to imagine.

                  • In Vino …
                    2 October 2017 at 6:29 pm

                    More emotional waffle. The Greens themselves understand their situation far better than you do because you see it in pictures of dating. How pretentious of you to suggest that the Greens do not understand MMP. They exist largely because of it. They know more about the ‘power’ you and your Nats pretend to offer than you yourself – largely because they have watched how it has been wielded. Go to Tinder if that is your main interest.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:40 pm

                      I see it in terms of mmp, parties coalescing on points where they can and disengaging on areas they can’t.

                      Dating is an apt analogy as each party is trying to jockey for attention with the voters and then translate that attention into something they believe to be useful and beneficial.

                      The “greens” you are talking about will consign their party to sitting on the largest organic compost heap looking very smug but achieving next to nothing. I would have thought if you could achieve more by being part of the community that will have to strive achieve the greens goals, the greens would be being truer to their own principles. Not just turning the other cheek ‘coz nationl

                    • In Vino …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:57 pm

                      Tuppence – Your silly prattle about sacrificing all else to get some temporary influence (‘power’ to you) says once again that you are in no position to offer advice to the Greens. I am sure that the Nats would value your guidance.. The Nats have nothing else to sacrifice in any case.

                  • McFlock …
                    2 October 2017 at 6:31 pm

                    Get a “free meal” and lots of nice wine from a boring sociopath who will try to manipulate you into doing something you really don’t want to do… yeah, more fun to stay home and wash your hair, methinks.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:42 pm

                      Are the greens so naive they’d be that easily manipulated? you should cut the patronising tone. if they can’t get what they want out of being the real power broker in parliament then everyone should stop listening to them.

                      They’ve got as many seats if not more than winnie once specials are in

                    • McFlock …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:54 pm

                      Dude, it’s not about power and manipulation between parties. It’s about whether the next government is good for the people and the environment, or not. National will be bad for both, and if it’s with the greens’ assistance the greens will go sub-5% quicker than you can say “tory lackey”. National cannot be good for people or the environment: national’s priorities are corporate capitalists and corporate farmers.

                      The method the greens have to get a government that’s good for people and the environment is simple: they can only support, via a direct decision of its membership, a government that will be good for the environment and for people. Any party or combination of parties that cannot fulfill that requirement will never get green support. There’s not even any point “negotiating” about it.

                      But a party or combination of parties that might be able to fulfill that request can negotiate policy specifics with the greens, and if their objectives are close enough to green objectives, the coalition deal will go through.

                      Green policy will happen via a support agreement. If Labour and NZ1 want that support, they’ll be close to green values. Otherwise, Labour won’t be in government.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      2 October 2017 at 6:56 pm

                      @TP

                      They’ve said they’ll listen. That’s frankly amazingly generous considering what a tainted offering the Gnats are.

                    • In Vino …
                      3 October 2017 at 12:20 am

                      Well said McFlock. I will want to copy and paste that one for many future ripostes.. That is the one starting ‘Dude’.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      3 October 2017 at 1:46 pm

                      How can national be bad for the environment if they need the greens for supply and confidence? the critical part of forming a government.

                      National: “Greens, what do you want in return for you support on supply and confidence?”

                      Greens: “enact our conservation policies with no amendment”

                      National: “Interesting, worth considering”
                      …….

                      McFlock – “No… nationals involved so automatically this is bad for the environment”

                      See how naive and anti-environmental this anti-national stance could end up being for the greens? they could get every single environmental policy they campaigned on introduced in one term. And achieve way more than they have in what, 7 terms, of supporting labour through government and opposition?

                    • McFlock …
                      3 October 2017 at 2:41 pm

                      they could get every single environmental policy they campaigned on introduced in one term

                      Bullshit.

                      Every single one of these?
                      Lol – yeah, right.

                      Oh, the greens might get one or two tokens for things that even the nats know are on their way in anyway, but every single policy? Nowhere near.

                    • tuppence shrewsbury …
                      4 October 2017 at 8:42 am

                      If they get even half of them, is that not better than waiting another 3 years for the chance to get maybe one of them.

                      This, not MT’s moment of clarity, is the real opportunity for the greens to become the 2nd major party in parliament. It’s juvenile to disregard the opportunity.

                      The 2nd major party isn’t the one with the largest amount of seats in opposition, they’re just the opposition party. Think about it a while

                    • McFlock …
                      4 October 2017 at 12:55 pm

                      Oh, so now it’s gone from every single one to half of them. You’re pulling the likely success rate out of the same place national will draw their coalition promises to the greens, and by the time the promises are demonstrably false the greens have provided support to the fuckwits for two years. For which they’ll have nothing to show.

                      Way to commit electoral suicide. Thanks for the advice, please give it to someone else.

            • Stuart Munro 16.2.2.2.1.2
              3 October 2017 at 12:11 am

              The Gnats are progressive. In the same way as Hogarth’s Rake.

    • DoublePlusGood 16.3
      2 October 2017 at 1:40 pm

      Sorry, how exactly does this mean MMP is in trouble? People and parties have to work together collaboratively to govern, and that is somehow bad for our system of government?

      • RedLogix 16.3.1
        2 October 2017 at 1:46 pm

        The primary purpose of MMP is to prevent concentration of power into one party and represent a diversity of interests.

        But right now all the minor parties … essential to fulfilling this purpose … face an existential crisis every time they form a coalition.

        • left_forward 16.3.1.1
          3 October 2017 at 7:56 am

          I would say that proportional representation is the primary purpose. This may freely result in having a party with over 50% of the vote, so it wasn’t designed to prevent the concentration of power in one party.
          To improve proportionaloty and better assist smaller parties, we should remove the 5% threshold as recommended by the Electoral Commission a few years back (totally ignored by the Gnats).

          • RedLogix 16.3.1.1.1
            3 October 2017 at 8:46 am

            This may freely result in having a party with over 50% of the vote,

            True enough. Still in practice having more than 3 or 4 parties around makes this much less likely than with FPP where it was a certainty every election.

            Keep in mind also that MMP was only introduced in NZ in response to the Muldoon and Lange govts who both grossly abused their absolute power.

            • left_forward 16.3.1.1.1.1
              3 October 2017 at 2:29 pm

              I agree that MMP created the opportunity for minor parties and that it reduced the likelihood of >50% parties, but this wasn’t its primary purpose.
              The specific problem was the sequence of Governments being elected under FPP that didn’t have >50% of the support of the electorate.

              There may well have been people who voted for MMP in the referenda who were motivated to break up the duopoly of the two larger parties – but that was not the fundamental motive of those who initially proposed electoral reform.

              I am making these points because I believe that your argument that ‘MMP is in trouble’ is wrong. MMP is not in trouble because a return to a non-proportional system would not be in the best interests of democracy in NZ.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.4
      2 October 2017 at 3:11 pm

      But given that 3 out of 4 of these options includes the Nats, the OP article “National No Mates” isn’t all that grounded in reality.

      Two of of those three most definitely aren’t going to happen and the third is, going on policy alignment and the wishes of NZ1st voters, not going to happen either and that’s all because of the dishonesty and policy conflicts of National.

      So, yeah, solidly grounded in reality.

      Yes they’ve got no natural allies in Parliament … but neither does anyone else.

      I’d say that Labour/Greens are natural allies and that NZ1st is actually friendly (policy wise) to those two. Labour and the Greens have many policy overlaps and even NZ1st has overlaps with the Greens and Labour.

      National is the only party that doesn’t have any policy overlap with those three.

      • RedLogix 16.4.1
        2 October 2017 at 3:25 pm

        I’d say that Labour/Greens are natural allies

        Superficially yes; but in all the years both parties have been around there has been precious little evidence of a sound working relationship, and many moments of mistrust and missteps. The worst betrayals come from with those who you hoped where your friends. Keep in mind the Greens are substantially a middle-class urban liberal party, while Labour is not.

        Nor will it be forgotten how Winston locked the Greens out of coalition with Helen Clark’s govt the first chance he got. There isn’t much trust in that relationship either.

        I’m not saying Lab/NZ1/Grn is impossible; indeed of the four options it may be the most workable … but we really shouldn’t kid ourselves that it will be an easy or natural alliance. A NZ1 presence in any coalition will be a tight handbrake on any progressive reform.

        That was my point really … that NONE of the four viable options look particularly attractive or natural.

        • NewsFlash 16.4.1.1
          2 October 2017 at 9:26 pm

          The current Green Party is a whole different to that of 10 yrs ago, Labours association with the Greens is now more equitable, the Greens have matured considerably, and have a good solid base of supporters, both parties have a common belief and both parties have a high degree of principle, as seen during the election campaign.

          Any differences of opinion (between L & G) are actually good for democracy, I certainly don’t see Labour and National held under the same light by any stretch of the imagination.

        • Phil 16.4.1.2
          4 October 2017 at 12:56 pm

          The worst betrayals come from with those who you hoped where your friends. Keep in mind the Greens are substantially a middle-class urban liberal party, while Labour is not.

          Nor will it be forgotten how Winston locked the Greens out of coalition with Helen Clark’s govt the first chance he got. There isn’t much trust in that relationship either.

          I can envisage a situation where the Greens enter a coalition with Labour and NZF now, then spend the next three years being shat on from a great height by Winston’s unique brand of political bullshit.

          It’s entirely possible you then could see a 2020 election where the Greens are forced to present themselves as a viable centrist party that could work with both major parties, just to stave off electoral oblivion.

  17. savenz 17
    2 October 2017 at 12:05 pm

    National are Nigel no friends. And it’s their own fault.

    Also we have to reflect it was classy strategy by Labour under Andrew Little to get Greg to win Ohariu and Willy Jackson to unite the Maori electorates. Without that, Natz would have been in a much stronger position.

    If only Greens and Labour NZ First had collaborated on the electorate votes aka Northland, Auckland CBD and Nelson. In particular Nelson, to see Nick Smith wiped out would be justice for his appalling assault on the environment.

    (Majority for NZ First/Labour/Green not National and special votes still to be counted)

    Northland
    KING, Matt 13,686
    PETERS, Winston 12,394
    PRIME, Willow-Jean 7219
    HUGHES, Peter 1375

    Nelson
    SMITH, Nick 14,966
    BOYACK, Rachel 10,956
    LAWREY, Matt 8324
    SARA, Susan 1262

    Auckland CBD
    LEADING CANDIDATE: KAYE, Nikki 10,068
    WHITE, Helen Ione 8,549
    ROCHE, Denise 1875
    EDWARDS, Frank 426

    • simonm 17.1
      2 October 2017 at 2:12 pm

      Maungakiekie
      Denise Lee, National 12,338
      Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Labour 10,395
      Chlöe Swarbrick, Greens 2,995

      National total 12,338
      Combined Labour/Greens total 13,390

      Both Radhakrishnan and Swarbrick ended up in Parliament anyway because they were high on their parties’ lists. National retained the seat.

      • savenz 17.1.1
        2 October 2017 at 2:57 pm

        exactly simonm – it is rubbish that the majority of voters (even in very rich areas) want a centre right government. People want a centre left government but their votes are split,

        Labour and Greens and NZ First need to work together to remedy that so that people who want a centre left government have a clear mandate who to vote for in the electoral votes.

        Also heard a lot of crowing about some MP’s from National getting huge votes. I note that social media had A LOT of people posting about capital gains taxes on lifestyle property under Labour. That clearly spooked a lot of people and made them vote National.

        Who knows whether it was genuine people worried on social media, or some dirty politics campaign that certain National MP’s are known for.

  18. Whispering Kate 18
    2 October 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Labour and National, both in their own ways, are arrogant and want it all and to just suffer the smaller parties to prop them up while in power. When the attitudes of both of the larger parties mature and grow up and accept this is an MMP environment, mandated by the will of the people, then maybe we will get some successful grown up coalitions where the larger parties do not kill off their smaller support parties – its no wonder the smaller parties face coalition talks and/or partnership with intrepitation.

    Like this waiting period for the overseas votes to be counted, the MSM and its mouth pieces just can’t leave it alone, they’re like kids with a “whining gimme gimme I want it now” constant refrain – its enough to do the electorate’s head in. As I heard someone on the news say lately – Germany faces 3 months of coalition talks and the country hasn’t fallen down on its ears. Like during the summer recess the country ticks over – it makes you wonder if we do need a Government at all, fat use they are.

    National are being pathetic with their desperation and phoning Peters. Leave it to him to make up his own mind.

    • RedLogix 18.1
      2 October 2017 at 12:38 pm

      its no wonder the smaller parties face coalition talks and/or partnership with intrepitation.

      Precisely … and the 5% threshold just exacerbates this. National and Labour are still essentially FPP parties; it’s clear they would like to go back to forming majority govts on their own, with all the unlimited power our unicameral house system confers on them.

      NZ’s political constitution is weak and is overdue a major re-think.

    • Anne 18.2
      2 October 2017 at 1:12 pm

      National are being pathetic with their desperation and phoning Peters. Leave it to him to make up his own mind.

      I think you will find it is part of maintaining the public momentum for a National- led coalition govt. It’s also part of an attempt to push Labour out of contention in the minds of the public. They are hoping Peters and co. will have to take cognizance of that when coming to a decision.

      English didn’t have to mention he had phoned Peters twice on two morning news programmes. It is part of the ‘mind game’ strategy I mentioned on another of today’s posts.

      • AB 18.2.1
        2 October 2017 at 1:24 pm

        The unanswered phone call (mentioned twice) is to reinforce the “Winston is intransigent” narrative which quickly turns into the “MMP doesn’t work” narrative.
        As someone who remembers how hard we had to fight against Shirtcliffe and his cronies to get MMP in the first place, it’s all very obvious and telegraphed

      • veutoviper 18.2.2
        2 October 2017 at 2:11 pm

        Winston Peters is no fool and has responded accordingly to English and others re English’s call yesterday to Peters in this well worded statement.

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1710/S00003/calls-to-new-zealand-first-are-responded-to.htm

        Jacinda Ardern has also been in direct contact with Peters today and has also issued this very short statement – described as ‘chill’ by Russell Brown and by others as in total contrast to the ‘shrill’ statements etc from National.

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1710/S00012/statement-regarding-coalition-negotiations.htm

        • Anne 18.2.2.1
          2 October 2017 at 3:14 pm

          Both Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern are playing an honest and straight game.

          The difference between them and National – maturity and immaturity.

          • veutoviper 18.2.2.1.1
            3 October 2017 at 10:30 am

            Anne, i agree re that both Winston and Jacinda are playing a straight, honest game – as opposed to the dishonest,’ power is everything and ours by right’ approach by English and co.

            I have been impressed by Jacinda since our paths crossed over 10 years ago when she was working in Cabinet Office for Helen Clarke and I was still in the Public Service. Her maturity, ability to grasp different ideas/opinions were well beyond her age to a much older, experienced person (me!) and even then she had the aura of someone who would/should go far.

            Her communication skills have really come to the fore during the election compaign – and particularly how she is handling this hiatus, walk on egg shells situation we are currently in. I was really impressed with her performance this morning on the AM show – link in this comment of mine on another post thread this morning.

            https://thestandard.org.nz/good-call-from-ardern/#comment-1395352

  19. Stuart Munro 19
    2 October 2017 at 1:05 pm

    The Gnats – trivial pestilential vermin – have always seen themselves as some kind of apex predator. Like the invasive South African praying mantis Miomantis caffra, their sexual cannibalism has proven to be a major cause of mortality in ex-partners.
    One can almost see the Crosby Textor strategists salivating as they read “Fatal attraction: sexually cannibalistic invaders attract naive native mantids”

    Where the mantis analogy falls down of course, is that unlike Gnats, mantids are green.

    • garibaldi 19.1
      2 October 2017 at 4:59 pm

      As an aside SM I find it sad that the vast majority of NZers don’t even know about the presence of the Sth African mantis and how aggressively it has replaced our beautiful native species.
      I have not seen a native one for a couple of seasons now and assume they have been wiped out here in the Waikato.
      It is this Sth African mantis which is also wiping out more monarch caterpillars than the paper wasps.

      • In Vino 19.1.1
        2 October 2017 at 6:48 pm

        Interesting… I have seen paper wasps hunting down and slaughtering younger SA mantises, as well as grown male mantises (mantids?). I believe the wasps are harder on Monarchs. The mantises go on preying after the wasps’ hunting season has ended, but it is after the end of the wasp ‘hunting for protein’ season that the Monarchs now get their window of survival.
        This is at the very end of summer, when the voracious mantids are at their peak. So I suggest to you that the wasps are by far the greater problem. Early in the season, the mantids are babies and too small to bother the monarchs. The paper wasps are doing the damage, and Monarchs are all but obliterated until late summer. They survive when the wasps stop, not the mantids.
        But both voracious species may have saved us from the insect plagues that were earlier forecast with the arrival of warmer winters. Both species arrived at about the same time.
        (Oh dear… Garibaldi – I fear that we may both be headed for Open Mike.)

        • Robert Guyton 19.1.1.1
          2 October 2017 at 9:27 pm

          Monarchs are immigrants too. It’s the Admirals I worry about…

          • Stuart Munro 19.1.1.1.1
            2 October 2017 at 10:09 pm

            ‘I never was much of a fist at Latin,’ said Jack. ‘Not like Philip Broke. But I do remember dux, a leader, an admiral as you might say: and the plural is duces. So you could construe duces tecum as the admirals are with thee; and I don’t ask better than that.’

            • In Vino 19.1.1.1.1.1
              3 October 2017 at 12:10 am

              duces tecum is so selective. How about duces vobiscum to be more inclusive?

              • Stuart Munro …
                3 October 2017 at 12:14 am

                You are almost certainly right, though I’d never pick bones with Patrick O’Brien, I’ve a feeling he’d get the better of me.

                • In Vino …
                  3 October 2017 at 12:34 am

                  Assuming that Patrick said ‘duces tecum’, he was speaking to a singular person. I made it ‘you plural’ to be more inclusive. We need to get our ducks in a row. (Dux in aro.) From that wonderful inscription on a desk where there were fortibus es in aro.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    3 October 2017 at 2:09 pm

                    It is apparently a legal form, a subpoena for documents.

                    My object of course was to bring the admirals into the war against the Gnats. With Dux in aro as well they may find themselves seriously outclassed.

      • Stuart Munro 19.1.2
        2 October 2017 at 7:05 pm

        Kids need to get a chance to go fly-fishing. Every fly fisherman becomes an amateur entomologist for life.

        • In Vino 19.1.2.1
          2 October 2017 at 7:17 pm

          A dying breed, I fear. With Nats’ water standards, more and more waterways will become fly-fishing-free. Of course, they might remain wadable… with those huge rubber wading trou that keep you totally out of contact with the algae-ridden water.

          • Stuart Munro 19.1.2.1.1
            2 October 2017 at 7:37 pm

            Restoration is by no means a forlorn hope.

            The Han river in Seoul as well as many of its tributaries are once more fishable and in many places drinkable. Shanghai’s Huangpu is recovering as aeration and reworking of below standard sewerage works frees it from oxygen debt and restores it to life. These places have forward-looking governments of course, but the pressure on our vile oppressors will only increase until, like some fatburg of unprecedented size, they are swept away.

            • In Vino 19.1.2.1.1.1
              2 October 2017 at 8:14 pm

              Cool. Germany was doing this in the 70s… Aware that Cadmium and Nitrate levels were getting too high in soil and table water in agricultural areas, they acted. The Rhine had been a dead river. But when I lived in Cologne in 1979, fishermen were catching fish from the cleaned- up (relatively) river. But they knew it would not be wise to eat the fish. Verboten. They explained to me why they threw them back into the river.
              We live in hope, unlike righties, who wish in wilful ignorance.
              We should have stared acting years ago like the Germans, but here we have Fonterra advertising that we live in a clean, dairy-for-life paradise.

              • Stuart Munro …
                2 October 2017 at 9:39 pm

                Fonterra are going to find out what happens when you try to fool your customers pretty soon. Reckon it’ll get a bit bumpy.

                • In Vino …
                  2 October 2017 at 9:54 pm

                  Bumpy and bloody sad.

                  • savenz …
                    2 October 2017 at 10:40 pm

                    Luckily not so bumpy for Fonterra CEO Theo Spierings who can take his 8 million plus salary and run. Lucky he’s not measured on either profits (Fonterra down $100million less than in the previous year, staff lay offs, in 2015 more than 700 staff were laid off, debt, Agricultural debt has risen over $60billion in the last few years, or any environmental targets…. )

                    You have to wonder WTF????

  20. mosa 20
    2 October 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Its is funny that for years the National party has used the Greens as a scare tactic to ensure that the public have serious doubts about the destruction a Green appointed minister would do to the country if allowed to be in charge of anything , or god forbid the finance role would not bear thinking about.

    Yet here we are with National with its invitation to come in and help prop up everything the Green party and its voters despise to maintain government.

    The things you do when you are just short of the magic 61 seats and imagine being in opposition and not the beehive.

    The Greens will see right through this of course and will have to wait just a little longer to play their part in a proggressive government that is serious about real change.

  21. Adrian 21
    2 October 2017 at 2:09 pm

    Hows this for playing silly buggers.
    Labour should be talking to David Seymour, yeah, yeah, I know, it’s because Winston is most likely to go with sitting on the cross benches and Seymour has been shit on from a great height by English ” Fuck off old boy we don’t need you now” and if Labour/Green get a few more on the finals with Seymour they could equal Nats.
    Now that would be fun.
    It’s more likely than Nat/ Green and scadenfruede is a lovely thing to behold.

  22. nzsage 22
    2 October 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Personally I think it’s great news the MSM are calling for Peters to work with the Natz.

    After all Peters LOVES the media and is sure to do their bidding…right?

    Meanwhile the Greens will meet the Natz and string them along all the way.

    Prepare for government Jacinda!

  23. greg 23
    2 October 2017 at 7:29 pm

    nobody wants to play with bill the snitch and the rest of yesterdays gang

  24. eco maori 24
    2 October 2017 at 7:56 pm

    I bet that all the swing voters that voted national are men whom are not up with the play on economics.
    I have talked to a few and I get dum ass quote’s from them interest rates will go up under Labour and they say when Labour was in government interest rates were high .
    My reply is that interest rates were high all over the World an that the reason interest rates are low is because of the GFC and other country’s are keeping interest rates low to stimulate growth in there economy and national had nothing to do with our low interest rates .
    I then turn the topic to our health system and the waiting list he could not understand my reasoning for treating any ailments with any living thing needs to be treated immediately as it is much more human and cost effective to treat the patient immediately I.E when treating a lame cow if you treat her strait away she will suffer less pain and only cost $50 if you put her on a waiting list of 3 months one would have to get a vet and have to use the most expensive antibiotics and walar there goes $500 ten times the cost well fuck I no what I would choose/ do and that is treat strait away.
    There are many examples were national have stuffed up there main goal all the time they have been in power is to hold onto that power and change policy’s to benefit there M8 and them selves plan and simple.
    A lot of men can not admit to there flaws I.E self examination and admitting they were wrong and if one can not do that than one is not going to click on to OUR reality of climate change / catastrophe poverty E.C.T . So I say to you Lady’s with men in powerful positions in OUR society kick there ass until they see reality and make them do the right thing YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS. BECAUSE THERE IN NO MULTIVERSE WE HAVE ONE PLANET AND WE MUST LOOK AFTER HER .Ka Pai

    • cleangreen 24.1
      3 October 2017 at 6:08 pm

      Ka Pai Eco maori,

      Bang on there 100%.
      “I bet that all the swing voters that voted national are men whom are not up with the play on economics.”

  25. JustMe 25
    2 October 2017 at 8:53 pm

    English is obviously getting desperate to court Winston Peters. I mean why should he(English)obsessively phone Winston? Is he(English)going to repeat history of the Barclay debacle and text Winston more than 300 times???!!!!
    This sorry excuse of a prime minister is an embarrassment to both the NZ National Party and for NZers.
    A mature and responsible adult wouldn’t rush someone like Winston Peters but quite obviously Bill English is neither mature let alone responsible. Winston will make his decision in HIS OWN time and once the special votes have been counted He doesn’t like being pressured especially by someone with the reputation of being a Double Dipper.
    But then English’s obvious desperation to reach a deal with Winston comes across as artificial and shallow. Over the years English has shown little or no regard to NZers especially those on low income. And now he wants to court Winston because he is so obsessed with remaining pm of New Zealand that he will resort to desperate measures and goals.
    How shallow. How pathetic. How ridiculous of a person like Bill English.

    • georgecom 25.1
      2 October 2017 at 11:27 pm

      It’s worth remembering how desperate English is to be Prime Minister. Not just having it handed over to him, but being elected. In 2001 he was humiliated. When Brash left National English thought he had the chance again only for Key to snatch it away. The deal done between the 2 was for English to be Finance Minister and for Key to eventually step aside to give English some time as PM and smooth the way for him to have another go at being elected. English is desperate to be elected PM. That’s where the “moral mandate” spin comes from. English will be increasingly sick and desperate as he considers his chance may not come.

    • cleangreen 25.2
      3 October 2017 at 6:14 pm

      yes JustMe,

      Bullshit Bill is history now as the days go by we are seeing most kiwis are re-awakening every morning with a ray of new realisation we could now finally rid theser evil traitors called “national” from our country and actually take it back again.

      I wake up positive again as I used to be in 2008 before the election then when Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had bought our rail back again, as part of restoring our flagging infrustructure.

  26. Sparky 26
    2 October 2017 at 9:58 pm

    Oh dear poor old National. In spite of all the marketing in the world including in my opinion the majority of the MSM they are still coming up short. Reality is people can see whats in front of their own eyes. The old system is broken and needs to be replaced by something better.

  27. cleangreen 27
    3 October 2017 at 5:41 pm

    National are in the shit.
    National = are known as anti-rail.
    National = are now a train wreck.

  28. rhinocrates 28
    3 October 2017 at 6:37 pm

    Prostetnic Vogon Joyce on RNZ now. Hilarious.