Open mike 08/05/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 8th, 2025 - 27 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

27 comments on “Open mike 08/05/2025 ”

  1. Bearded Git 1
    8 May 2025 at 6:32 am

    The Australian Greens, appear to have won only one seat, Ryan, in the House of Representatives due to the fairly useless electoral system.

    Luckily the Australian Senate is elected by proportional representation, meaning the Greens, with 11 seats, are needed by Labour, with 28 seats, to form a majority in the 76 seat Senate. The Senate is relatively powerful:

    "The Senate's law-making powers are equal to those of the House of Representatives except that it cannot introduce or amend proposed laws that authorise expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the government or that impose taxation. The Senate can, however, request that the House of Representatives make amendments to financial legislation and it can refuse to pass any bill.

    The Senate is a house of review and a powerful check on the government of the day. The proportional representation system of voting used to elect senators makes it easier for independents and the candidates of the smaller parties to be elected. In recent decades this has meant that the government party usually does not have a majority of votes in the Senate and the non–government senators are able to use their combined voting power to reject or amend government legislation. The Senate's large and active committee system also enables senators to inquire into policy issues in depth and to scrutinise the way laws and policies are administered by ministers and public servants."


    https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/senate/about_the_senate

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/results/senate

    Maybe we need a Senate in NZ.

    Reply
    • Kay 1.1
      8 May 2025 at 8:19 am

      Like the one we had but with more teeth, and unable to be stacked?

      MMP was supposed to 'put the breaks' on terrible legislation, but in reality has prevented good legislation, and encouraged the bad. And our courts aren't any sort of hand break, So yes, we need a senate.

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/history-and-buildings/evolution-of-parliament/legislative-council

      One of my ancestor's name of the list of former councillors from the early days, I'm not sure that's something to be proud of?

      Reply
    • Ad 1.2
      8 May 2025 at 8:52 am

      Or maybe the Australian Greens are just shit.

      Biggest leftward shift in 30 years and yet Greens are all but gone.

      Their party leader is gone.

      They need an honest rebuild before they start blaming one election system or another.

      Reply
      • Bearded Git 1.2.1
        8 May 2025 at 10:06 am

        Dumb comment Ad. Clearly you don't understand how preferential voting works.

        As I said before the Greens polled roughly the same in 2025 and 2022. The whims of PV caused them to lose seats.

        Under MMP they would have got around 18 seats in both elections.

        Reply
        • Visubversa 1.2.1.1
          8 May 2025 at 10:19 am

          Could it be that the Green candidates could have got the same number of votes but the PV voters put them further down their preference lists?

          Reply
          • weka 1.2.1.1.1
            8 May 2025 at 10:49 am

            I don't know if they can see in the Australian system post-election but that's what I'd be wondering. But,

            The second factor was only partly outside the Greens’ control: the Liberal primary vote shrank a little, while the Labor primary vote surged. The failure of Peter Dutton as opposition leader, and the sheer discipline of Anthony Albanese as prime minister, delivered a new reality for the Greens.

            The dynamic was clear in the vote count. Officials assumed Melbourne would end up as a two-party contest between the Greens and the Liberals. It ended up a fight between Labor and the Greens instead. And more than three quarters of the voters sent their preferences to Labor, not the Greens.

            It is totally inadequate for the Greens to argue, as they will, that Liberal and One Nation preferences delivered victory for Labor. The parties do not fill out the ballot papers – the voters do. More people in Melbourne wanted their preferences to go to Labor.

            Sydney Morning Herald.

            https://archive.is/1AGqR#selection-3565.0-3595.261

            Reply
          • Bearded Git 1.2.1.1.2
            8 May 2025 at 11:34 am

            It's more how the preferences fall. Because My about topped the vote or came second above the Greens in many seats because they got a high first preference vote, the Greens preferences flowed to Labour rather than the other way round.

            Reply
          • AB 1.2.1.1.3
            8 May 2025 at 11:43 am

            With preferential voting, order matters.

            Put briefly, the Greens ideally need to be 1st or 2nd on the primary vote, with the LNP also in the one of the top two positions, with Labour running 3rd. That's because the Greens can be pretty sure that a fair swag of Labour voters' second preferences will come their way. In contrast, LNP voters' second preferences will seldom go to the Greens and are much more likely to go to Labour. So, it's bad for the Green's to be sharing one of the top two spots with Labour.

            It appears that this may have done the Greens in this time. Labour's strong performance has seen them running 3rd on primary vote less often. In essence, Preferential Voting is a bit shit. It's somewhat better than FPP not because it gives voters what they asked for, instead like FPP it tends to entrench two-party systems. But it seems like quite a good tool for avoiding what you really dislike – at least at the level of the individual electorate. That's good, but not adequate as a whole voting system, and I've never understood why Australians seem so proud of it.

            Reply
        • weka 1.2.1.2
          8 May 2025 at 10:47 am

          this is the best thing I've read so far, from David Crowe in the Sydney Morning Herald, about GP leader Adam Bandt and why he lost his seat.

          https://archive.is/1AGqR#selection-3241.0-3259.9

          He names four factors:

          1. electoral boundary changes leading to a less left leaning electorate (not in GP control)
          2. the Labour surge in Melbourne meant it was a Lab/G fights, not a G/Lib fight (partly in GP control). I think people put the Lab candidate as first preference and then down voted the Green candidate?
          3. GP policy and approach in parliament: lots of fighting against Lab, less focus on environment, lots of questioning if they were being too obstructive to Lab.
          4. GP and Bandt in particular campaigned very hard over a long time on Palestine, and there were perceptions of anti-semitism. Younger voters want the radical, but become less radical over time.

          The main thing here is whether green voters and parties can take feedback or double down. If we blame PV primarily without look at other analysis, then we repeat the mistakes. This result affirms Res Publica's post about the potential for sudden losses and how to protect against them.

          Reply
        • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.3
          8 May 2025 at 5:29 pm

          It wasn't a dumb comment at all. Preferential voting means candidates who spout batshit-crazy ideas get down-voted to oblivion due to the overwhelming majority of voters preferring sane MPs, There are one or two NZ Green MPs who should be very grateful we don't have preferential voting here.

          Reply
          • SPC 1.2.1.3.1
            8 May 2025 at 6:03 pm

            1.2.1.1.3

            Reply
          • Bearded Git 1.2.1.3.2
            11 May 2025 at 9:07 am

            Psycho-the Greens got 12% in both 2022 and 2025, losing only a fraction of their vote this time. Under MMP they would have got at least 18 seats in both elections.

            The Greens GAINED 3 seats in the Senate, which gives them the balance of power. The Senate is quite powerful.

            So it wasn't such a bad night-shame about the leader though.

            Reply
      • tc 1.2.2
        8 May 2025 at 10:43 am

        Bandt failed to change them so they lost the hardcore green image and made minority govt unattractive into the bargain.

        Their preferences system did the rest.

        Reply
        • Bearded Git 1.2.2.1
          11 May 2025 at 10:01 am

          Many people vote for the Greens because they are genuinely "hardcore green" and not "greenwashing green".

          Reply
      • SPC 1.2.3
        8 May 2025 at 12:03 pm

        1.It was the highest ever vote for the Green Party in Australia.

        Whenever Labour surges here, Greens do not do so well.

        When Liberals surged back in the Canadian race, it was at the expense of their coalition partner and the Green party.

        In this light they did well.

        2.As for the seat loss. There have been issues between Labour and the Green in the lower house over working together for some time and thus more antipathy towards them from Labour in their campaign strategy.

        3.1 and 2 combined, Labour’s surge changed the preferential voting dynamics.

        Reply
    • Ad 1.3
      8 May 2025 at 8:54 am

      For 5 million people?

      I'd rather have solid local government.

      Reply
    • Res Publica 1.4
      8 May 2025 at 10:45 am

      I’m not aware of any jurisdiction where both the lower and upper houses are directly elected using the same proportional system.

      In practice, if New Zealand introduced an MMP-elected upper house, its composition would almost certainly mirror that of the House of Representatives: unless we deliberately introduced a radically different electoral cycle or structure.

      So, if we’re serious about creating a Senate, the real question isn’t whether we need one, but how it would be selected — and what purpose it would serve.

      Reply
    • SPC 1.5
      8 May 2025 at 12:34 pm

      A Senate is a mandate check on the lower house, something more important when a party with less than 40% of the vote can win control of (federal) government.

      It's purpose when the lower house has a built in democratic majority syste, as ours does, is more questionable.

      If I was reforming our system I would bring in preferential voting in the electorate seats and adjust the threshold system – 5% and full eligibility (6 seats now). 4% 3, 3% 2 2% 1 seat. This opens up the process to greater change.

      If I was reforming their one, I'd bring in SM seats based on party vote into the lower house, so those represented in the Senate would also have some voice there. It would be enough change to require coalitions most of the time. But a change government might still have a majority for a first term. And that would face scrutiny in the Senate.

      Reply
    • SPC 1.6
      8 May 2025 at 12:39 pm

      The Senate's large and active committee system also enables senators to inquire into policy issues in depth and to scrutinise the way laws and policies are administered by ministers and public servants."

      This is how parliament is supposed to work, unlike the urgency rush to dismantle the 2020 pay equity legislation.

      The neo-liberals like process to restrain democratic mandate, but are the biggest hypocrites.

      Where was our Regulation Minister? Cheering on the bonfire.

      No RIS?

      Reply
  2. Binders full of women 2
    8 May 2025 at 1:41 pm

    Not liking MMP is one of a few things I agree with David Parker on. I too would like a simple CGT on any individual's 2nd home. IE a couple could own a bach or one rental (one house person) any more and it's CGT. No Trusts, no companies, just adult owners. I agree with Parker that Shane Jones is likeable. I disagree with Parker on Wealth Tax (too complex) and his Freshwater standards that failed most rivers in the Conservation Estate.

    Reply
  3. SPC 3
    8 May 2025 at 2:25 pm

    Luxon

    Says, New Zealand is living beyond its means.

    Means, Those who are sorted (private schools, health insurance means to ensure their children can buy a home) do not like paying for a first world state where government is for all, rather than just for some. Thus exploiting public sector (women) workers and under-funding public services.

    Reality check, we remain the only nation in the OECD without even one of CGT(risible 2 year bright-line test since 2015)/estate tax (gone 1993) /wealth tax/stamp duty(gone 1999)/gift duty (gone 2013) and or estate tax (the UK and Ireland have all 4)

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360605837/live-politics-blog

    Reply
  4. Joe90 4
    8 May 2025 at 4:21 pm

    The prudent fiscal management of Peters and Willis has cost taxpayers $507.3 million, and it's estimated to rise, with not a ferry to to show for it.

    Fucking idiots.

    The rail company has confirmed to RNZ that to date it has cost the taxpayer $507.3 million.

    The costs included spending on the procurement and design of the replacement ferries, terminals design and consenting, enabling and early construction work.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/560273/kiwirail-reveals-500-million-spent-on-axed-cook-strait-ferry-project

    Reply

Leave a Comment