NZ and UK political spectrums

50 comments on “NZ and UK political spectrums ”

• Comments are now closed

1. DoublePlusGood 1

   30 May 2017 at 8:24 am

   It’s worth noting that positions changed a lot in the UK 2017 compared to 2015 – at least, UK Labour has, since it was in the blue section.
   We can expect some degree of change for the New Zealand 2017 one when they make that – NZ first and United Future should definitely be more authoritarian, Māori further right, fuck knows where TOP is.

   Also, if I’m way down in the bottom left corner, who the hell do I vote for?
   • Wonderpup 1.1

     30 May 2017 at 8:48 am

     I have much the same problem. Party vote Green, electorate vote tactically, I suppose. Labour, I feel, is coming home.
     • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.1.1

       30 May 2017 at 11:15 am

       …or Mana, except they don’t seem to have a show of getting over 5%, so tactically pointless at the moment.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.2

     30 May 2017 at 10:53 am

     Yes, the change in position of UK Labour is stark and encouraging, here is the comparison for 2010:

     https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

     And now UK Labour are starting to see a groundswell of genuine popular support – not just the “slightly less worse than the alternative” stuff we have been seeing for so-called left-wing parties lately.

     We need our Labour to do the same – actually stand for something better.
   • Matthew Whitehead 1.3

     30 May 2017 at 12:26 pm

     You vote for the Greens. I’m not sure under what criteria they’re ranking the greens so little to the left or liberal poles, but as someone pretty close to that corner too, I’m pretty comfortable with the Green Party’s position on basically anything, and I don’t see that it has to be different for anyone else.

     Yes, sometimes the party has to go a little slowly slowly compared to what its base would like, but that’s because it’s trying to communicate effectively and bring the country with it. It’s filled with people who believe the same things you do, and it’s been one of the most effective parties in Pariament for some time now.
     • DoublePlusGood 1.3.1

       30 May 2017 at 9:47 pm

       Yeah, I basically agree. They just do some silly things from time to time. I guess I just have high expectations.
       • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.1.1

         1 June 2017 at 4:10 pm

         It’s hard to avoid when you’re dealing with real people with passionate opinions. It also doesn’t help that despite how many times they’re told, the media don’t understand that Green votes in Parliament are pragmatic choices about what’s best for the country, not hidden signalling about bloc alignments like we sometimes get from NZ First, or UF.

         Besides, the solution to that is to get better candidates, which means becoming a member so you can vote for the ones who don’t do that sort of thing. I think we (the members) did pretty well in that regard with the current final list.
   • mosa 1.4

     30 May 2017 at 8:34 pm

     Who to vote for from the bottom left hand corner ?

     Maybe The Alliance.

     http://alliance.org.nz/
2. Wayne 2

   30 May 2017 at 8:32 am

   National more authoritarian than Conservatives and NZF?

   Seems pretty unlikely.

   Also the Jamie Whyte/David Seymour ACT Party being the most authoritarian party in New Zealand. That is patently absurd.

   Whoever did this was spinning furiously to make a political point, pretty disconnected to actual policy positions.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     30 May 2017 at 8:43 am

     “Absurd”.

     Who was it that pushed the three strikes legislation? No true Scotsman eh?
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       30 May 2017 at 8:46 am

       +111
     • DoublePlusGood 2.1.2

       30 May 2017 at 8:53 am

       That was probably what did it. For the 2011 election, political compass had ACT as less authoritarian than National and United Future
       • Wayne 2.1.2.1

         30 May 2017 at 9:14 am

         Except that the three strikes legislation was done in 2009. Whyte and Seymour had no role in that whatsoever, and they are both more liberal than the leaders of Act in 2011.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     30 May 2017 at 8:46 am

     National more authoritarian than Conservatives and NZF?

     Seems pretty unlikely.

     Yes and it seems perfectly reasonable once you understand the right-wing mindset.

     Also the Jamie Whyte/David Seymour ACT Party being the most authoritarian party in New Zealand. That is patently absurd.

     Scratch a libertarian and find an authoritarian. I’ve seen it time and time again. They tend to be financially liberal but that’s about it and they’re not very liberal there either – they tend to insist that we have to follow the failed capitalist dogma.
   • weka 2.3

     30 May 2017 at 9:36 am

     The ACT one surprised me too, because we all know they’re libertarians right? I suspect that if we looked at their voting record in parliament we’d find that’s not true. They’re libertarian on top, but underneath authoritarian by nature. Or libertarian when it suits them.

     You could always run the test as if you were ACT and see where it comes out.
     • rhinocrates 2.3.1

       30 May 2017 at 10:34 am

       More onanistic nonsense from Wayne Blimp. I doubt he believes that North Korea is really a democratic people’s republic just because it calls itself one, yet he believes Nact is all about freedom.

       Act might call itself libertarian, but their reactionary voting record and press releases when it comes to disciplining the uppity poor and their infatuation with corporate authoritarianism/plutocracy say otherwise. Do you think that authoritarianism is limited to government? Not when the power to affect a nation’s laws against the will of the people is granted to corporations by things like the TPP.

       “A libertarian is an anarchist who wants police protection from his slaves.” – Kim Stanley Robinson

       “Inside every revolutionary there is a policeman” – Gustave Flaubert (attr).
       • weka 2.3.1.1

         30 May 2017 at 10:39 am

         that KSR one is good.
         • garibaldi 2.3.1.1.1

           30 May 2017 at 12:18 pm

           Good word there rhinocrates….. I had to look it up, and had a good chuckle.
   • Anno1701 2.4

     30 May 2017 at 2:07 pm

     “libertarians” are just conservatives who like to get high and shag close relatives basically …
3. Wayne 3

   30 May 2017 at 8:49 am

   OAB

   One policy does not make a party fundamentally authoritarian, certainly not the most authoritarian party in New Zealand in 2014, when Whyte and Seymour were the leaders. Act would have to be led by David Garrett for that to be true.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     30 May 2017 at 9:06 am

     See DoublePlusGood’s comment.

     Plus what DtB said: most Libertarians pay lip service to liberty, but when push comes to shove they worship power, like their crackhead guru, Rand.
     • rhinocrates 3.1.1

       30 May 2017 at 10:42 am

       The National-Act commitment to “freedom” is utter self-deluding bullshit. “Freedom” to them is only what they can grab for themselves. The real test is whether they’re willing to give freedom to people unlike themselves in different circumstances and they fail every time.

       They worship power. You can see it in their behaviour towards those they perceive as more and less powerful than themselves. Brownlee is all bullying, shoving and ignorant contempt at home, yet when he visits Australia, it’s all “Yummy, your boots are delicious!
     • Jeremy 3.1.2

       30 May 2017 at 6:46 pm

       I think Classic Liberals or Libertarians – whatever handle you want, have been more influenced by the ideas of John Locke, Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat and, well, lots of other people who have been dead a while, rather than a mad Russian women who seems to have inspired a small subset of people on the far right.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1

         30 May 2017 at 6:50 pm

         No classic Scotsman would do this.

         anarchists who want police protection from their slaves is the best description I’ve heard for a while. I don’t care what they pay lip service to.

         “The sage dwells in the fruit, not the flower”. Lao Tsu.
       • Jeremy 3.1.2.2

         30 May 2017 at 7:02 pm

         You don’t agree that one should understand the ideas of those you disagree with as well (or better) than they do?

         As an example, I’m not an Atheist but I’ve read plenty of material relating to Atheism. I find reading with an open mind, understanding the arguments and considering, and thus far, rejecting them strengthens my own existing beliefs. Surely politics works the same way?

         I made a hearty effort at Atlas Shrugged, but only got 2/3 of the way through before I felt I had learnt everything I needed to throughly understand and reject the Objectivist ideology. It’s the only ideology either left or right that I’ve come across that rejects charity, as um, charitable.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.2.1

           1 June 2017 at 4:19 pm

           How do you think I noticed the lip service? 🙂
   • Matthew Whitehead 3.2

     30 May 2017 at 12:37 pm

     Funny that under Seymour’s new “liberal” leadership they’ve made no moves to repeal prior ACT mistakes then, or even National Party ones that ACT supported, like stripping prisoners of voting rights, something you would expect libertarians to be furiously against.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1

       30 May 2017 at 6:51 pm

       That’s because they’re poxy hypocrites.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1.1

         1 June 2017 at 4:13 pm

         I totally agree, I’m just playing along with the assumption based on Seymour’s rhetoric that he’s so liberal in order to challenge its own inconsistencies. We should look at rhetoric, voting records, and the context of their general conduct when evaluating an MP’s political values, and by those means, Seymour is a tax cut champion with basically no other principles.
4. rhinocrates 4

   30 May 2017 at 10:58 am

   It’s worth taking the test that presents scenarios, not just saying vague things that make you feel good about yourself. For example, we had Pete Beige, who insists on telling us that he’s neither left nor right, a while back suggesting that the poor be discouraged from having children because they would be a burden on the state while wealthy grifters like Blinglish can have as many they like, consuming as much as they like. That’s a far-right reactionary policy or class-based eugenics (with an implication of racism) not to mince words.

   Then one has to consider actual commitment to avowed principles. Consider the case of Peter Thiel, who calls himself a libertarian, but thinks that it was a mistake to give women the vote and uses aggressive lawsuits to suppress freedom of the press. National seems quite enamoured with him, so their commitment to democracy is swayed by his wealth.

   You’ll probably find a good many self-nominated leftists adopting reactionary and authoritarian positions on certain issues too.

   (Full disclosure: strong lower left in the chart, more so than I expected to be actually)
5. Bill 5

   30 May 2017 at 11:02 am

   So, roughly then –

   NZ Labour = UK Lib Dems,
   Mana = UK Labour,
   NZ Green = UK Green?

   Yup. Sounds about right imo.

   On the UK chart, I’m a bit suspicious over the positioning of the SNP which I’d have thought ought to be right next to Plaid Cymru which themselves ought to be placed as slightly less authoritarian than UK Labour. But hey.

   Scottish Labour (if it had been given a spot) would have been right the way over there next to NZ Labour, which given that Scottish Labour is…, well, do I need to spell it out?

   Okay, I’ll spell it out. 😉

   If NZ Greens go loud, and front foot on an overtly social democratic platform after this current election, NZ Labour are gone. Unlike in the UK where Corbyn was able to pull UK Labour back, and possibly even take the winds right out of the SNP sails by the time of the next election, NZ Labour’s got nothing.

   The left of NZ Labour has been cleansed. And internally, there just isn’t a way to shift the careerists and liberals now because the caucus holds the “selection process” ace card up its sleeve.
   • weka 5.1

     30 May 2017 at 11:28 am

     Probably, but I don’t know much about the new people coming into Labour. Still reckon we* need to do an analysis of all the Labour MPs. Probably after the election though 😉

     *or someone.
     • weka 5.1.1

       30 May 2017 at 11:29 am

       needless to say (although apparently this week needful to say), to get the Greens to go left requires supporting them. I’d say vote for them, but also lefties joining the party and being active within it would help too. Plus some good solid push from the non-party political politicos in various places.
       • Bill 5.1.1.1

         30 May 2017 at 1:48 pm

         Thing is, voting for a party basically endorses where that party stands, or their direction of travel. So merely voting for the Greens doesn’t push them left or encourage them to go left – not unless they’re already heading in that direction.

         I could say I’m more intrigued at the position of Mana in relation to UK Labour. That would suggest that NZ Labour supporters who are unhappy with NZ Labour’s embrace of liberalism could ‘encourage’ NZ Labour to have a second look at themselves by voting Mana 😉

         And also…well, NZ Labour’s wholly negative attitude to Mana. Maybe Mana aligning quite well with UK Labour shines a wee light on that one? 🙂

         (Yes, I know it’s just a graph. And yes I’m just having fun and shit stirring. )
         • weka 5.1.1.1.1

           30 May 2017 at 2:17 pm

           I think that’s true in general about voting (para 1), but in this case the Greens are being dragged to the centre because that’s what gets them more votes from the liberals (who *are voting for them). More specifically, in this election if they get enough MPs to be more on an equal footing with Labour and thus not consigned to tag-on minor party status, then they will be fighting for more left wing and progressive policies than Labour would ordinarily do. To my mind that opens the space for conversation publicly around yes we can be more left than (current) Labour. The Greens have worked really hard to get themselves into a position of being seen as competent and so have much more chance of affecting the electorate than Mana.

           A strong Green presence in government also increases the chances of Mana being accepted into the political space.

           I also agree with the second paragraph, except that I think the risk is too great this year and would rather the govt was changed than trying to shift NZ left and ending up with a 4th term of National. Which might prove galvanising for a progressive movement in NZ, but more likely it wouldn’t.

           (some issues with Mana, the authoritarian left thing, plus they had their chance with IMP and blew it).

           As for fun and shitstirring, that’s what the post was for 🙂
           • Bill 5.1.1.1.1.1

             30 May 2017 at 2:30 pm

             More specifically, in this election if they get enough MPs to be more on an equal footing with Labour…

             I think that’s a far more cogent point than the ‘pull left’ line. “The greater attracts the lesser” is a kind of truism I guess, but the more influence the lesser can exert…

             In terms of Mana and authoritarianism, they are (correctly in my opinion) sitting in the libertarian quadrant of the graph – almost right where UK Labour sits. As for being worthwhile to vote for given the peculiarities of NZs voting system, well maybe polling during the election campaign will be helpful in deciding that one.

             All I know is that there a few parties not worth voting for in NZ, no matter what the polls say.
6. UncookedSelachimorpha 6

   30 May 2017 at 11:30 am

   OK, I scored -8.25 and -6.0….I’m a rabid LWNJ it seems, but more so economically

   I’ll have to move to the right and vote for Mana or the Greens.
7. UncookedSelachimorpha 7

   30 May 2017 at 11:34 am

   A fascinating guest post (and data set) would be to simply ask for all commenters who would like to, to post their scores!
   • weka 7.1

     30 May 2017 at 11:43 am

     I was thinking that too, it would be very interesting to have a range of TS commenters run the test and we could compile them. Last time I did it I was to the left and below the Greens and Mana.
   • mac1 7.2

     30 May 2017 at 1:03 pm

     Econ -7.63
     Social -5.95

     One time when being a minus is a plus!
   • You_Fool 7.3

     30 May 2017 at 1:31 pm

     Economic Left/Right: -3.5
     Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
8. Wayne 8

   30 May 2017 at 11:50 am

   Personal Score
   Economic 1.13
   Social -2.26

   Puts me me in the right lower quadrant, though relatively near the centre.
   • weka 8.1

     30 May 2017 at 12:00 pm

     Shouldn’t you have been in the Labour Party then? Oh, right, your peers *were in the Labour Party, that’s what happened to it.

     What stands out for me in that chart is where the supposed centre is now. And how much it has moved because of what happened to Labour in the 80s.
   • Brendan 8.2

     30 May 2017 at 1:20 pm

     According to some, probably National and ACT rhetoricians, that makes you possibly centre-left. Funny that eh? If you’re way out right, you’re a good common-sense centre-right voter. But if you’re hanging out just left of centre on the compass you’re a far-left socialist-communist-libtard.
     • Wayne 8.2.1

       30 May 2017 at 3:37 pm

       So far, apart from me, the three personal scores could be properly regarded as far left, which uncooked admits anyway.

       Would this be the norm for most Standardnistas, which if true would explain the attraction of Mana/Internet to many commenters on The Standard during the last election. But hardly representative of mainstream political positioning.
9. Gareth 9

   30 May 2017 at 12:28 pm

   Any idea where the Opportunity Party sits on the axes?
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.1

     30 May 2017 at 3:12 pm

     Hope this isn’t that Gareth asking this question!!
10. Cynical jester 10

    30 May 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Labours an interesting kettle of fish, its grassroots are extremely socialist but its caucus is liberal. Labour has been trying, its been purging neoliberal mps like goff,king,shearer id like to see the back of mallard and woods though.

    If labour loses the election, socialists should join on mass and change it from within, at the same time i do feel labour is slowly changing and I’m seeing some positive things, a lot of the new candidates are self described socialists and the majority of the activists im canvassing with detest Hillary Clinton, labour is not there yet but I do think it has a good future ahead of it.
11. Roy 11

    30 May 2017 at 9:24 pm

    I was down the left by Chomsky, but I thought I would have been further centre. Maybe the questions are a little ham-fisted? Maybe I’m answering what I would like to be rather than what I am, who knows.
12. DS 12

    31 May 2017 at 9:04 pm

    The designer of the NZ compass doesn’t seem to have noticed that the Maori Party are National Party stooges.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS