National still does not get MMP

62 comments on “National still does not get MMP ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sacha 1

   14 August 2019 at 8:38 am

   Of course National is trying to blame the Government for the Census problems.

   Hence the ongoing noise, I agree. They are relying on it being a complex topic and many people mistaking the conviction of their denunciations as leadership.
   • Gabby 1.1

     15 August 2019 at 10:16 am

     Nuttyanal wouldn't mind predominately Labour electorates being somewhat larger.
2. Barfly 2

   14 August 2019 at 8:41 am

   "woof woof…..woof woof woof!"
   • Sacha 2.1

     14 August 2019 at 8:48 am

     That's more woofs than the last census, your honour.
   • esoteric pineapples 2.2

     15 August 2019 at 11:53 am

     One dog barks at a shadow, 1000 turn it into a reality
     • Incognito 2.2.1

       15 August 2019 at 12:01 pm

       Deaf by a thousand barks.
3. tc 3

   14 August 2019 at 9:20 am

   Look at MOI ! screams simple slimon…..we should be in power wah wah wah.

   Based on Trump/Johnson it's all your going to see from the hollow side of NZ politics till the likes of Luxon does a Shonky IMO.

   Bridges, Collins, Pullya etc all have way too many skeletons and history. It’ll be dog whistle all the way and pray for that legendary kiwi electorate apathy.
4. Dukeofurl 4

   14 August 2019 at 9:23 am

   The real story behind this is that National uses the detailed Census data down to mesh blocks for its version of the US GOP gerrymandering project called RedMap

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

   National uses this – Farrer seems to be deeply involved for them- to pre empt the NZ government officials who draw the electorate boundaries. National and Labour both have seats on the committee so can push for their preferred solution.

   Of course a lot of boundaries dont change much, but National still wants the seats.

   We can see in the central North Island plenty of illogical boundaries . Taranaki is split into 3. Whanganui includes part of Coastal Taranaki but excludes the inland areas like Taumaranui , Te Kuiti which historically looked to the port city.

   Waikato area show signs of gerrymandering as the Taupo electorate goes from the Desert Rd to Cambridge. King Country runs from outskirts of Ngaruawahia to outskirts of New Plymouth and includes Inglewood!

   Rotorua excludes the 'timber towns' of Tokoroa and Kawerau which would look to Rotorua, but includes Te Puke which is the outskirts of Mt Maunganui-Papamoa

   In Wellington once recent boundary changes in Hutt Valley excluded Naenae National knew the numbers and a well funded campaign by Beehive staffer Chris Bishop would bring the seat within reach.

   This is why National is beating the drums, no longer can they have census data which they construct a model of mesh blocks who vote national or lean that way. Probably by using individual income data , home owners etc.

   MMP of course gives a total number of seats based on nationwide party vote , not electorates but I see Nationals strategy as to build the party vote by on ground work from its electorate Mps using the money from party donors to fund astro turfing groups aligned to partys electorate office.

   We can see the result in Nationals still high party vote in the polls.

   And Bridges goes around saying things like this-
   “‘you know what, actually National at the last election got 44 per cent, the system was, in a sense, gamed, there was one old rooster who held the country to ransom’.”

   The system wasnt gamed, National lost, as it didnt matter to them in pre MMP days that Labour could get more votes than National and still not be in government.
   In those days ‘less than 200 votes’ in 2 or 3 seats would decide the government’
   Thats Ok for national when it advantages them.
   • mickysavage 4.1

     14 August 2019 at 9:41 am

     Thanks interesting … so the data is not sufficient to allow National to continue with its inbuilt advantage …
     • Sacha 4.1.1

       14 August 2019 at 12:33 pm

       They will be wanting to micro-target for influence like the trump and brexit campaigns did.

       Because our Electoral Commisison does its job well, no NZ political party is able to "gerrymander" boundaries – unlike the US where it's as natural as A,B,C .. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kx8qn/this-font-is-made-of-ridiculously-gerrymandered-congressional-districts
       • Dukeofurl 4.1.1.1

         14 August 2019 at 1:16 pm

         Not to the extent that they do in US.

         But a lot a electorates that national hold their boundaries dont make sense, the finger prints of gerrymandering are there.

         Not really micro-targetting anymore , that was in the old days of direct mail …so last century.

         That is done on Facebook now.

         There cant be any real reason for National to break the Census-Boundaries lock unless they need the extra household data from the census.

         Auckland will likely get a new seat , and national wants to make sure its drawn to their advantage..already seats wind all over the place and ignore community interest criteria.

         Pukekohe is banged in with Whitford – because they are national voting areas and in between is Flat Bush !

         Collins seat of Papakura is curved round to grab expensive areas of Manurewa ( The Gardens , Wattle Downs) and the rich enclaves of Karaka and lifestyle belt to cancel out labour voting Papakura central
         • Sacha 4.1.1.1.1

           14 August 2019 at 1:17 pm

           Not really micro-targetting anymore

           Does the name Cambridge Analytica mean nothing to you?
         • Sacha 4.1.1.1.2

           14 August 2019 at 1:23 pm

           national wants to make sure its drawn to their advantage

           What advantage? It's not FPP any more.
       • Rapunzel 4.1.1.2

         14 August 2019 at 1:50 pm

         Just prior the "flag referendum" and the numbers not looking good for change I am pretty sure there was a pamphlet mail-out that only went to suburbs that were National/Key friendly and therefore likely to be influenced to change their option.
   • AB 4.2

     14 August 2019 at 10:59 am

     "but I see Nationals strategy as to build the party vote by on ground work from its electorate Mps using the money from party donors to fund astro turfing groups aligned to partys electorate office"

     That looks like a pretty astute assessment. Anyone who knows provincial areas will have run into National's stranglehold on opinion-forming centres of influence in the local community. Of course under MMP, gerrymandering of boundaries has no direct effect on the outcome any single election – but the indirect effect over a long time of having mostly National electorate MPs may be significant.

     One related thought – would a low census turnout by Maori mean an under-counting of the self-identified Maori population that results in no increase, or even a decrease, in the no. of Maori seats? If so, wouldn't putting the census online be a pretty obvious way of achieving that, at least in the short-term?
     • greywarshark 4.2.1

       14 August 2019 at 11:28 am

       This is all very interesting. The democracy that you have that is played by a delicate instrument which is an organ of the ruling Party.

       This is the instrument
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5L0SYpjRls (They get up to all sorts of theings in Arizona – interesting place.)

       We need to bark at their heels:

       (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKT0fLgkLmI
     • Dukeofurl 4.2.2

       14 August 2019 at 4:23 pm

       "mean an under-counting of the self-identified Maori population that results in no increase, or even a decrease, in the no. of Maori seats? "

       That mostly comes from the Maori roll. As a rough estimate the Maori are 60/40 maori general roll. As the Maori roll option recently hasnt increased as much as previous times the seats wont increase. It wont decrease either.

       The undercounting may make the maori seat boundary adjustments more problematic but not the 'quantum' of seats.
   • Anne 4.3

     14 August 2019 at 11:18 am

     That is fascinating Duke.

     And of course National have an advantage over Labour in that these provincial areas already house most of National's support base, so they have a better over-view of the population spread within each region.

     Are Labour fully aware of this mesh system being used by National to gerrymander the outcome of boundary changes? If not, why not? If they are, then why does their representative on the committee not protest loudly and consistently to ensure the government officials are well aware of what is going on?

     I recall back in the late 1970s a former senior Labour MP talking about a similar problem and how Labour acquired the services of someone with a photographic memory as their representative who was able to recall sufficient details enabling Labour to counter the machinations.
     • Dukeofurl 4.3.1

       14 August 2019 at 4:31 pm

       Labour obviously wants to protect its 'safe' seats- which generally follow the community of interest and compactness.

       Without the data of mesh blocks that favour labour over national they really cant do anything. Doubt they have the money to even go there
       • Anne 4.3.1.1

         15 August 2019 at 11:31 am

         Doubt they have the money to even go there.

         They haven't.

         National can afford to hire PR firms and the like who do all the hard yards for them. Imagine what a mess they would be in if they couldn't. I doubt they would even be able to run a cake stall properly without assistance.
   • swordfish 4.4

     14 August 2019 at 12:03 pm

     Dukeofurl

     But surely if this is National's strategy … they could far more easily accomplish it simply by analysing the Booth-by-Booth Party & Candidate Vote results ? Would they really need to delve into all the minutiae of Census data right down to the Mesh Block level ?

     Maybe, just possibly, this sort of very fine-grained analysis … pinpointing micro-areas with such precision … could be appropriate for Electoral Boundaries in Built-Up Urban Areas like, say, the Hutt Valley (for eg if National were looking at a suburb that was Left-leaning in the Party-Vote but equally divided in the Candidate-Vote … & decided to use multidimensional political modelling to identify the specific cluster of streets most likely to Candidate-vote Right … and thus ensure those streets were on the side of the Electorate boundary most advantageous to the Nat candidate) …

     … but surely this kind of nuance would be utterly pointless when it comes to the sort of Rural / Semi-Rural seats you're talking about ? … The Booth-by-Booth Party & Candidate Vote results would more than suffice.
5. Sanctuary 5

   14 August 2019 at 9:23 am

   Right wing populism is a disease that seems to have infected Simon Bridges. His advisors, encouraged by Australian right wing political operatives, seem to think the path to electoral success lies in asymmetric polarisation by the right with incessant attacks on the legitimacy of state institutions, the politicisation of process and the use of a culture war smokescreen to divide the electorate.

   If National persist in this strategy it will prove an interesting test of MMP, which after all was designed to stop exactly this sort of wing nuttery..
   • Robert Guyton 5.1

     14 August 2019 at 10:28 am

     Good assessment, Sanctuary.
   • Stuart Munro. 5.2

     14 August 2019 at 4:18 pm

     It's hardly surprising – his personal take on drumming up popularity – a limo tour of NZ, wasn't an outstanding success. By using professional advice he avoids being in the gun when the wheels fall off in 2020, in the absence of a credible leadership contender. If Luxton gets a lukewarm seat result, and Bennett runs the campaign and gets blamed for it, Simon may survive to help the Gnats shamble towards defeat in 2023.
6. Stuart Munro. 6

   14 August 2019 at 9:35 am

   I wonder that the Gnats haven't worked out yet that Yang's negative associations from state links and possibly bought list places makes it difficult for him to lead any issue, in spite of being manifestly much smarter than Bridges. In a party of embarrassments he is not the least.
7. alwyn 7

   14 August 2019 at 12:01 pm

   If, as you say, "And besides this is an MMP environment. Concerns about some electorates being slightly bigger than others do not matter.".

   If you really believe that what is wrong with using the 2013 boundaries? After all you don't seem to think it will make any difference do you?

   Leave the boundaries the way that are is perfectly valid conclusion from your argument, after all. Can you actually show, without destroying your whole argument that there would be any problem in doing so?

   Apart from some thoroughly deserved embarrassment for the failure of the Minister of Statistics, the XY leader of the Green Party.
   • Sacha 7.1

     14 August 2019 at 12:43 pm

     More than one Minister owns that failure, and moreso the previous 5 the report mentioned, who signed off the census programme plan and approved budget for it.
     • Sacha 7.1.1

       14 August 2019 at 1:09 pm

       List from p72 of the review report: https://twitter.com/kaupapa/status/1161443566092029953/photo/1
     • veutoviper 7.1.2

       14 August 2019 at 2:57 pm

       Give up Sacha. Alwyn and I had that argument re the number of National Ministers involved pre Shaw back in January and February 2019 and nothing will convince Alwyn that the whole 4+ year process preparing for the 2018 Census was basically already set in concrete by the time Shaw became Minister on 26 Oct 2017.

       On 14 February 2019 @ 7.2 on Open Mike14/02/19 I replied to a comment by Sanctuary @ 7 re a post at Kiwiblog about the 2018 Census at this link https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-14-02-2019/#comment-1583143 In it I summarised my earlier response to Alwyn on 8 January 2019 re the various Nat Ministers involved which aligns with the Review report now out (and your photo of page 72 of that report).

       That comment was reasonably short so here is a quote from it:

       In Open Mike 8 January 2019 I called bullshit on a claim by Alwyn @ 7 that James Shaw was to blame for the problems with the 6 March 2018 Census held just 132 days (4 and a half months) after Shaw became Minister of Statistics on 26 Oct 2018. By that time all policies, processes, procedures had been well set in concrete leaving Shaw with very little if any ability to change anything – by no less than five National Ministers, none of them Nick Smith*.

       In my reply at 7.1.1.1 on OM 8 Jan 2019 (won’t attempt to link due to problems with those currently, I summarised the whole process for the 2018 Census which began immediately after the 2013 Census had taken place and the National Ministers of Statistics involved.

       In summary the latter were:
       — Maurice Williamson 2013 – May 2014 (c. 14 months)
       — Nicky Wagner, May 2014 – Oct 2014 (c. 6 months)
       — Craig Foss, Oct 2014 – Nov 2016 (c. 26 months)
       — Mark Mitchell, 01 Dec 2016 – 24 April 2017 (c. 5 months)
       — Scott Simpson, 24 April 2017 – 26 Oct 2017 (c. 6 months)

       So Craig Foss was the National Minister responsible for longest time (2+ years) , followed by Mitchell and Simpson for a matter of five and six months respectively in the latter stages of the 2018 Census processes, procedures etc being finalised, before Shaw became Minister on 26 Oct 2017.

       * [Sanctuary’s comment @7 on OM 14 Feb 2019 suggested that Nick Smith had also been involved. Much as I have no time for Smith, he was not involved as a Minister in the work leading to the March 2018 Census.​​​​]

       And here is the link to my earlier much more detailed comment on Open Mike on 8 Janaury 2019 on the above timeline, Ministers and actions and decisions taken over the four plus years preparation for Census 2018 https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08-01-2019-2/#comment-1569487 A long thread developed in which Alwyn would not accept that the Nat Ministers were responsible for the vast majority of the decisions etc leading to the problems with the 2018 Census; and again he refused to do so in Feb 2019 despite the long thread that also resulted.
       • Sacha 7.1.2.1

         14 August 2019 at 3:29 pm

         Thank you. They do seem resistant to facts, but that's the new game I guess. Another year of bullshittery and obfuscation..
       • adam 7.1.2.2

         14 August 2019 at 4:01 pm

         I thought Shaw did well being handed such a sack of shit.

         Funny story, the 0800 number the nats had put at as the census 0800 number, got you a loan/credit outfit on the other end of the line. It was when a college of mine and I called that we found it. Then when we followed up and talked to Statistics, they didn't even know a number had been published. To there credit, they had the number under their control by the time the forms went out.

         Anyone who thinks you can fix a broken process from the previous 4 years in 3 months is in lala land.

         Maybe that is what we call Alwyn now, LalaAlwyn.
         • Dv 7.1.2.2.1

           14 August 2019 at 4:05 pm

           just imagine the crap natz would have thrown IF Shaw had cancelled the census
         • Dukeofurl 7.1.2.2.2

           14 August 2019 at 4:18 pm

           You look at detail in the report and the cost cutting is everywhere.

           After the last census , the staff and systems they had to employ short term census workers was closed up and thought they would just use a recruitment firm.

           Another factor is Statistics , is like most other government departments full of managerial careerists who job hop around the bureaucracy, and tend to not have much real knowledge about what that department is doing.

           I had pointed out to me the new Ministry of Housing 'leadership team'

           below the CEO is about 8 or 9 people with Deputy CEO job titles, which includes the person who runs 'the Office of the CEO' is also a deputy CEO (DCE), a glorified executive assistant.

           https://www.hud.govt.nz/about-hud/leadership-team/
       • greywarshark 7.1.2.3

         14 August 2019 at 5:38 pm

         One would think that an excellent, detailed and comprehensive comment like that would have laid that matter to rest. But it has long been apparent to the regulars here, I would think, that the RW dilettantes who come here are really just time-wasters with no intention of conducting an intelligent and illuminating debate about anything. It's just a mouse wheel for them to constantly regurgitate their petty points, not pretty!
   • Dukeofurl 7.2

     14 August 2019 at 1:00 pm

     Auckland will get another seat , maybe two.

     That changes a lot of other things downstream. It cant be 'undone' just because national still wants to gerrymander where it can
   • mickysavage 7.3

     14 August 2019 at 1:02 pm

     Auckland Central may be 50% oversized. Why should the redraw be delayed?
     • Sacha 7.3.1

       14 August 2019 at 1:14 pm

       Makes no difference to the party vote – I do have some sympathy with that view. Biggest harms from the Census undercount will be to funding of social services, especially Māori ones.
       • Dukeofurl 7.3.1.1

         14 August 2019 at 4:07 pm

         Maybe there is some numbers for marginal electorates which show that the party with the electorate MP boosts the party vote in the electorate.?

         Its muddied a bit as its not a binary situation, National exists on its own on the right but Labour and Greens and the left.
         • Sacha 7.3.1.1.1

           14 August 2019 at 9:04 pm

           'Marginal electorate' is an FPP concept.
8. Wayne 8

   14 August 2019 at 5:00 pm

   A major part of the issue is that it is now too late in the electoral cycle. The census results are not even finalised.

   Doing electoral boundaries involves consultation, draft boundaries, further consultation, then final boundaries. That puts it into June next year. Way too late.

   Better to go with the current boundaries for 2020, and do the new boundaries in 2021. No-one is advantaged or disadvantaged.

   I know MickyS wants to make every single thing a highly partisan battle (going by his posts over the last few months). But sometimes the issues are simply a matter of pragmatism.
   • observer 8.1

     14 August 2019 at 6:50 pm

     Or we could just draw a reasonable conclusion from National's bad faith behaviour over the past months.

     The electoral roll is not determined by the census. We provide our details to the Orange Man, not the Minister of Stats. Of course you know that, people who follow politics generally do. Simon Bridges and his MPs know it too.

     But remember 2017? Mike Hosking on Seven Sharp telling viewers they could only vote for the Maori Party if they were on the Maori roll. This was false, but the intended target was probably hit … viewers who are uninterested in the details, but receptive to a lazy "reckon" (= lie). Smear and undermine faith in our democratic process, it doesn't get more "partisan" than that, does it? And it's coming from the leadership, not some obscure blogger.

     "Cindy gonna rort us" is a bare-faced whopper, but people who claim the last election was stolen and the government illegitimate will lap it up. Those are Simon's people now.

     (of course if they believed any of this for one second they would be employing lawyers, go the the courts, appeal to Governor-General, etc. But they won't, because they don't).
9. Wayne 9

   14 August 2019 at 7:25 pm

   observer

   You are wrong. Electorate boundaries are set by the population census. But it is not even complete yet. In my view they have run out of time for the 2020 election. By the time electorate boundaries (and the number of electorate seats) is finally determined, the election will be virtually on us.

   Better to sort it out for the 2023 election. At one level MS is right (though in a different way to his argument). MMP is largely about the party vote. Better to wait and do a proper job on the electorate seat issues, rather than rushing it and doing a bad job.
   • observer 9.1

     14 August 2019 at 7:57 pm

     Not wrong. I said exactly what I meant. "Electoral roll". Not "Electorate boundaries".

     As you say (correctly) it is the party vote that matters. Like Hosking 2017, Simon Bridges is deliberately muddying the waters – in bad faith. The OP is wrong to say "National does not get MMP", because it is not a genuine mistake, it is a cynical falsehood. Preying on ignorance, and undermining

     It is the same misinformation that says "National won on election night", and gains currency through media repetition. In fact, there is only one election result, and it is not election night. National lost TWO further seats on the final – and only – result. Hence "election night" (an irrelevance) being the preferred (and false) measure for National propaganda.

     Please do not treat us like fools. We know how USA Republicans operate. We don't need that here.
     • Wayne 9.1.1

       14 August 2019 at 8:14 pm

       Observer,

       Like MS, you have become an ultra partisan on this issue. Just because National raises an issue, you automatically think they are wrong. No consideration of the point raised, just an automatic condemnation.

       You don't even try to address the point about lack of time.
       • observer 9.1.1.1

         14 August 2019 at 8:51 pm

         I'm happy to engage in good faith. There is ample reason to believe that Bridges is not. And I don't matter at all, but the leader of the official opposition surely does.

         Let's cut to the chase: is the National party raising the issue because:

         1) they are genuinely concerned about the validity of the 2020 election?

         or

         2) because they think they can score political points which (and this is the crucial issue) fit the strategy that they have been following under Bridges' leaderhip?

         You would have to be incredibly naive to think National's real concern is for the democratic process. But then, I'm sure you don't believe Ardern is a "part time PM", or "National won the election", or any of the other attack lines Bridges has used (and repeated even today).

         This is not about the policies of the government. It is about the very legitimacy of the government, especially if/when it is re-elected. And you'll have to decide for yourself if that's a card National should be playing … and a price worth paying.
         • Sacha 9.1.1.1.1

           14 August 2019 at 9:06 pm

           They are barking at every passing car, as oppositions sometimes do. Nothing ultra-cunning going on.
       • New view 9.1.1.2

         14 August 2019 at 9:18 pm

         Of course you’re right Wayne. National are doing their best to position themselves for the future. Why wouldn’t they. They’re the opposition. All parties will do it where they can. The government isn’t going to support electoral changes it thinks will disadvantage it. Why would they. Many in this forum take any comment that criticises the current Government as a personal insult and can’t imagine how any comment coming from a Nat could be taken seriously. The fact is nearly half the voters in the country voted National and most likely will continue to do so. Most here think MMP is great but I don’t. This current Government is hobbled by tiny NZF. How dumb is that.
         • observer 9.1.1.2.1

           14 August 2019 at 9:27 pm

           "The government isn’t going to support electoral changes it thinks will disadvantage it."

           Party vote party vote party vote party vote …

           (Apologies to everyone else for the repetition but after 23 years … sheesh).

           As for MMP, it got more votes than National (or Labour) ever have. Twice. That is a genuine majority … unlike National's fantasy one.
           • New view 9.1.1.2.1.1

             14 August 2019 at 9:42 pm

             I would suggest many who voted for this version of MMP we have are disappointed with what it dishes up. As for the party vote, sheees, the only decision that counted was whether Winston went left or right.
             • observer …

               14 August 2019 at 9:50 pm

               New Zealanders voted for MMP in 1993. It began in 1996.

               After 15 years they had had enough experience to decide how "disappointed" they were.

               And so in 2011 they voted for it again.

               But anybody who is still disappointed is – of course – entirely free to launch a campaign, petition parliament, march on the streets, take any action they wish to advocate for change.

               There is no such group. No such action. Anywhere. That answers your question.
             • Incognito …

               14 August 2019 at 10:10 pm

               He did the right thing.
10. peterlepaysan 10

    14 August 2019 at 8:23 pm

    National, Bridges are desperate and talking rubbish. Which the media love, it gives them headlines. I have met criminals I would trust more than media shouters.

    A botched census does not compromise the next election. A botched census was done under National supervision. Bridges and his advisors (if he has any he listens to ) are idiots.

    The Electoral Commission makes the rules. National risks any remaining credibility if they interfere with that.
11. observer 11

    14 August 2019 at 9:08 pm

    On Bridges' bad faith (as described above), you have his interview on Morning Report (see OP) and further …

    Simon Bridges, AM Show, today:

    "But what I would say to you is this: I reckon that there is a very strong majority of New Zealanders right now who say, 'you know what, actually National at the last election got 44 per cent, the system was, in a sense, gamed, there was one old rooster who held the country to ransom'."

    That's the line, repeated often – with zero evidence cited – since the government was formed. If you believe this then the government is not legitimate, and so the democratic process is broken.

    But if you DON'T believe it, then you are only using it as a tactic, and that is very dangerous indeed. Here's the (non-partisan) Andrew Geddis, today (SpinOff):

    "The only way that he [Bridges] could try to force the issue risks damaging a set of very important unwritten societal, political and constitutional presumptions. In other words, this is one of those issues where the long-term consequences matter more than the immediate politics of the matter at hand."

    Well said.
    • Stuart Munro. 11.1

      14 August 2019 at 9:49 pm

      Bridges is actually talking past the media and us, his message is to anyone dumb enough to fall for his no true Scotsman fallacy "a very strong majority". Those who fall for that line are likely to begin to support him because of the bandwagon effect.

      It's clever in that perverse way that Gnat cleverness is generally expressed – he certainly wouldn't win any votes by honestly representing his policies, and he has no intention of honestly representing our citizens.
    • New view 11.2

      15 August 2019 at 7:21 am

      Observer. Zero evidence. The capital gains tax wasn’t shot down by Labour, although they did wilt like a dying leaf. There are more instances aren’t there. And what are these “ unwritten societal blah blah presumptions you’re talking about. Your 11 comment pretty much says what I think is the case along with Simon Bridges and thousands of others. This Government is not proportional or representative. It’s one man who decided at the last moment which way he would jump. You and Thousands like you like this Government because it enabled a labour led coalition. My opinion is if you like labour so much why not vote for them on their merits . This Miss Matched Proportional system let’s the tiny parties rule. Negotiated policy is watered down policy in my opinion.
      • Gabby 11.2.1

        15 August 2019 at 10:34 am

        What new poo is that? All policy is negotiated policy.
        • New view 11.2.1.1

          15 August 2019 at 12:04 pm

          Gabby. When policy is generated within a party, in my opinion you have a better chance of a better result that reflects that parties ideas. Often when outside parties are involved they are trying to prove a point of difference sometimes to the detriment of the policy and sometimes just pigheaded and obstructive. If calling my comment new poo makes you feel witty that’s cool but it’s not much of a contribution.
      • Sacha 11.2.2

        15 August 2019 at 11:58 am

        The government represents the votes its parties received, which were more than other options could muster. Same will apply after the next election.
        • New view 11.2.2.1

          15 August 2019 at 12:21 pm

          But it doesn’t represent a proportional accumulation of policy ideas. NZF has a disproportionate amount of power for the number of people that voted for them. Worse than that labour needs to be nice to them. At least with FPP you knew what you were getting and knew what policies would be implemented whether you liked that party or not. I don’t know how MMP can work better but in my view it has to because what we have now is good intentions that are either shelved watered down or implemented so slowly that the problem it’s trying to fix gets worse.
          • Sacha 11.2.2.1.1

            15 August 2019 at 12:38 pm

            At least with FPP you knew what you were getting and knew what policies would be implemented

            1984.
            • New view 11.2.2.1.1.1

              15 August 2019 at 1:03 pm

              If you don’t like them you vote them out
              • Sacha …

                15 August 2019 at 9:38 pm

                If you live in the right marginal electorate.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS