The government’s mandate

Written By: - Date published: 8:49 am, October 22nd, 2017 - 27 comments
Categories: election 2017, labour, leadership - Tags: , ,

A really useful analysis:

The source Michael Appleton has done lots of breakdown like this, well worth a look.

27 comments on “The government’s mandate”

  1. Sanctuary 1

    GOVERNMENT (sp).

  2. red-blooded 2

    These facts and figures are worth remembering and repeating. We know we’re going to hear this “coalition of losers” crap for a while…

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3

    Trolling the poor wingnuts with talk of a mandate! What a meany! I think I can hear something.


  4. Patricia Bremner 4

    Well Well!! We need to fact check all their lies and rebut them through well known figures.

    Like Vernon Small’s reference to more Labour baubles for Winston, when National offered him more in fact.

    The Herald blaming Jacinda for the All Black loss should be thoroughly rubbished!!!

    Garner’s “accidental PM” should also be demolished. What utter tripe.

    • red-blooded 4.1

      Hey, the Herald didn’t blame her for the AB’s! They said there had been some “tongue-in-cheek” stories on social media. Not the same thing.

      • WILD KATIPO 4.1.1

        Hehehe… but they certainly picked up on it fast to include front page for the sake of having a dig , however.

        National lost .

        The elections over .

        Isn’t it great ?


      • RedBaronCV 4.1.2

        But the herald chose to highlight it as a worthy news point which is even worse

        fake judgement

        • red-blooded

          It was a fluffy piece of “entertainment”, not styled as a news article. We can sometimes look too hard for conspiracies and bias.

          • Anne

            Yes it was just a fluffy piece but the following is not! I posted on Open Mike but think it deserves to be repeated elsewhere.

            Anyone else spot the online news from Australia? I think it was either the NZ Herald or Stuff.

            The Premier of NSW issued a snarky press statement about Jacinda Ardern and “invited NZers to come and live in NSW where growth is on the rise and they would be welcomed”.

            Included was a video message from the leader of the NSW Labour Party apologising to NZ for the Premier’s statement and assuring Jacinda she would be warmly welcomed when she visits NSW.

            How disgusting!

            The item plus video was there less than an hour ago but now seems to be have been removed.

            • red-blooded

              Well that’s pretty shitty, I agree. Probably aimed more at the domestic (Aussie) audience than us, but very poorly judged and undiplomatic.

    • Tracey 4.2

      I thought Small pointed out Nats offered NZF 5 cab possies?

  5. tracey 5

    Uncy Wayne carving out his new carers as rent a commentator. Fact checking shall be required on the Master of selective dexterity

  6. AB 6

    Useful numbers – shows how catastrophically anti-democratic FPP is. Only one MMP election among the bottom 16 places in the table.

  7. Philg 7

    Are there any journalists in NZ that are capable of producing this type of information or are they too busy reading tea leaves?

  8. swordfish 8

    As % of Parties that crossed the threshold /made it into Parliament only

    Party Vote %
    ……. Gov Parties ……… Oppo Parties

    2017 …… 52.8 ……………… 47.2
    2014 …… 52.5 ……………… 47.5
    2011 …… 52.2 ……………… 47.8

    (eg 2017 = Lab + Green + NZF = 52.8% of Total Party Vote for Parties that made it into Parliament)

    • hoom 8.1

      Yes, its only 50.8% if you include wasted votes, healthy 52.8% without waste.

      Wasted votes included the 2014 Key Govt is 49.27%.

  9. Michael Shanahan 9

    Even apart from that table, which is pretty telling, there is no issue over mandate.

    If only National could legitimately form a government it indicates that NZ First MPs should somehow be compelled to give them confidence and supply. (Or maybe Green MPs should be compelled, or why not some Labour MPs?) There is no legal basis for that, and if there were it would be a gross violation of the freedom of action our MPs have traditionally had. Actually it would make a nonsense of the whole idea of a vote on confidence and supply.

    As for some sort of moral expectation, voters can only really hope to hold politicians to account on what they commit to, and NZ First was notably quiet on this issue before this election, having had, I think, a largest party position in the past.

    And it again cuts across the freedom of MPs to say there is some sort of moral obligation that National voters can put on NZ First representatives (or Green ones, or Labour ones) with regards to confidence and supply.

    • red-blooded 9.1

      Even in the past, NZF have only said that they’d negotiate with the largest party first. They never committed to doing a deal with that party.

      • Michael Shanahan 9.1.1

        red-blooded, thanks for the correction. One more thing.

        Being taken for granted and having it demanded of them that voters of another party be given priority over their own are just the sorts of things that would turn off Winston Peters and his colleagues, so it may be the case that the right have talked themselves into opposition.

  10. cleangreen 10

    Wev’e just lived through nine years of torment and sheer hell.

    So why vote these treasonous buggers back again when they and their creeping “austerity” was bankrupting this country and widening the gap between rich & poor ever more?????

    The people have choosen to change the government finally for their sins and welcome in a “kinder, gentler Government.

  11. Sparky 11

    They are losers if they follow through on signing the f**king TPPA and it looks like they will. Really done with politics and politicians.

    • millsy 11.1

      Some times we need to be a bit pragmatic. What Jacinda needs to do is have teams of lawyers and researchers hitting the books to see how we can get around the TPPA’s restrictiveness.

  12. Thinkerr 12

    This is MMP working for you.

    It stops lobby groups or business initiatives being able to decide the winner of an election by throwing money at it.

    The party with the biggest share may not be the eventual winner.

    FPP had big risks of becoming undemocratic in that way.

  13. millsy 13

    Who gives a shit anyway. National would have pulled off a deal like this if it was in the same position, and they know it,

    This is New Zealand’s October Revolution. Some times we have to pull off something like that to be able to make the changes we need, or in this case, stop things from getting worse. Had this not happened, we would have had at least two more terms of National

Recent Comments

Recent Posts