Why I voted two ticks Green

Written By: - Date published: 11:42 am, September 20th, 2017 - 83 comments
Categories: class war, election 2017, greens, liberalism, social democracy - Tags:

Way back whenever this election campaign began, I said the election, at least for those on the left or progressive side of politics, was far more about The Greens and NZF than it was about National and NZ Labour.

And so yesterday I threw my party vote at the Green Party. They have by far the boldlest, people centred set of policies. That means they are the best challenge to Liberalism that NZ has at the moment. If I had an old school conservative streak running through me, I might have voted NZF by way of challenging the Liberal dominance of NZ politics. But I haven’t. So I didn’t. As I see it, NZF need to be ‘disappeared’ to prevent NZ Labour following what I believe to be their preferred option – a hook up with NZF to run conservative social policy off the back of Liberal economic policy settings.

My electorate vote also went Green. I dare say Clare Curren will be returned as the MP for South Dunedin. But I threw my vote for “Little finger” (I can’t remember his actual name atm) more to signal what I believe will become a major shift in NZ politics over the next three years. I don’t expect anyone within NZ Labour to be paying attention, but there you go.

In short then, two ticks Green because I’ve had enough of the Liberal bullshit that has hammered NZ these past decades and because I can finally see a viable parliamentary alternative to the tired and destructive “same old”.

I’d raise a glass to a government that was any combination of NZ Labour/Green/MP/Mana.

But I’d simply be drowning my sorrows if NZF or National had any influence in government.

The real work starts after September the 23rd and has nothing to do with parliament. I really am looking forward to jumping in with Metiria Turei and everyone else who would forge a movement to move on this society’s poverty and associated ills – that’s where my real ticks of approval and endorsement go.

 

 

 

83 comments on “Why I voted two ticks Green ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bearded Git 1
    20 September 2017 at 11:51 am

    +1,000,000 Bill

    A completely unscientific poll today on Stuff of 2,400 voters (so far) has 26% voting for minor parties, which is encouraging for the Greens.

    • popexplosion 1.1
      21 September 2017 at 11:19 am

      Sorry but double voting is inefficient. MMP means split voting. Party vote Green, get a Green mp, locally vote Labour get a second mp. it’s the system, first past the post thinking ain’t cool.

  2. SpaceMonkey 2
    20 September 2017 at 11:55 am

    Agreed emphatically! I was a week ahead of you and for exactly the same reasons. Party voted Green and Electorate voted James Shaw… though I’m pretty sure the Labour incumbent – Grant Robertson – will be returned as the elected representative for Wellington Central.

  3. Roy 3
    20 September 2017 at 12:27 pm

    Good post. I going Shaw and GP as well. I went off the Maori roll to vote for Grant last census, now I’m kicking myself I can’t vote for Met. Next time.

    • DSpare 3.1
      20 September 2017 at 1:37 pm

      In Wellington Central it does make sense to electorate vote for Shaw; he has got the profile as sole coleader, the GP got a higher party vote than Labour in 2014, and Robertson is fourth on the Labour list so will get in anyway. If nothing else, it’d be good if Shaw beat the Nat for second place.

      In Dunedin North I party voted Green, but went for Clark; the Labour electorate candidate, mainly because Woodhouse is so despicable. Also Turei isn’t an option this year. The Māori roll being on a five year cycle with the electoral system on a three year one is just another impediment to voting for Māori. I go for the general roll myself because there is more likelihood of my vote being counted – but also because Tirakatene is so entrenched in Te Tai Tonga.

      However, I am curious as to why Bill calls Shane Gallagher; “Little finger”. I get that it is a GoTs reference, but don’t see the parallel. Is it just the Irish accent?

  4. weka 4
    20 September 2017 at 12:50 pm

    Awesome post. I’m really looking forward to what will happen extra-parliamentarily, including here on TS.

  5. Robert Guyton 5
    20 September 2017 at 12:54 pm

    Going to hear Metiria speak tonight at a “Poverty” debate in Invercargill. I love listening to her speaking truth to power.

  6. tracey 6
    20 September 2017 at 12:54 pm

    “their preferred option – a hook up with NZF to run conservative social policy off the back of Liberal economic policy settings.”
    This ^^^^^^

    • SpaceMonkey 6.1
      20 September 2017 at 1:19 pm

      A frightening but very real possibility. The ABC’ers are still strong in the Labour Party… they will be wanting to keep the Greens at arms length.

  7. Union city greens 7
    20 September 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Head and heart split my vote labour/green.
    Tactical in electorate, and party vote for the benefit of us all.

  8. Sabine 8
    20 September 2017 at 1:04 pm

    “I really am looking forward to jumping in with Metiria Turei and everyone else who would forge a movement to move on this society’s poverty and associated ills – that’s where my real ticks of approval and endorsement go.”

    well said,
    and this is why i voted two ticks green. here is hoping it works. really really hoping as i am very tired of seeing so much human capital wasted in this country, going to the dogs out of boredom, lack of money, education, due to location and luck of birth and being hungry, cold and neglected all the time.

  9. Molly 9
    20 September 2017 at 1:16 pm

    Took three first timers down to vote this morning.

    Placed my electorate vote for Nanaia Mahuta, (choice of Labour and Maaori Party candidates only) and party voted Green.

    • Molly 9.1
      20 September 2017 at 1:27 pm

      “I’d raise a glass to a government that was any combination of NZ Labour/Green/MP/Mana.”

      With you there Bill.

      • Frida 9.1.1
        20 September 2017 at 1:48 pm

        Me too @Bill. I have the champagne on ice in hope and readiness.

        Fully respect your post. I am too tribal Labour, and have been working too hard for Labour out here in Kapiti, to vote any other way than two ticks red. However, I have been encouraging anyone who is not so entrenched to consider Labour-Green. I’m very confident the Greens will make over 5% and I’m looking forward to a Labour-Greens (and maybe MP?) win on Saturday.

        I hope NZ First are confined to the dustbin of history. And Act.

        And I hope National have a long time in the wilderness to contemplate what they’ve done to this country.

  10. KD 10
    20 September 2017 at 1:48 pm

    I feel that a combination of Labour with Greens, MP, and Mana is the best option for all New Zealanders, with perhaps the exception of the pillagers and yes John Key, Bill English, Judith Collins, Jerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce I am talking about you. If Winston Peters loses his electorate and NZF come in under the 5%, David Seymour loses Epsom, Hone wins his electorate, Labour wins more votes than National and the Greens win at least 9% of the party votes, then I will feel safe in NZ again.

  11. weka 11
    20 September 2017 at 1:53 pm

    The problem with the whole Greens will make 5% thing is that 5% isn’t enough. At 5% the Greens will lose a chunk of their MPs, and parliament needs that experience. It will also lessen the influence that the Greens can have on climate change and poverty, which inevitably means a more centrist approach from Labour.

    • tracey 11.1
      20 September 2017 at 2:21 pm

      Agree weka. And people voting Labour cos they are confidant Green will make 5% need to hope most do not think that way.

      A nod nod wink wink deal up in Smiths seat woukd help. Alot. But too late now and risk is Greens will vote electorate Labour and vice versa.

      As fof those who think Act will die… Epsom does as it is told.

    • Bill 11.2
      20 September 2017 at 2:24 pm

      Yup. I get kinda pissed off with this “no need to bother, 5% is cool” bullshit. 5% is not cool. 5% is a disaster.

      And any NZ Labour voter who claims to be progressive but who votes for NZ Labour “because” deserves sleepless nights should NZF become a part of government off the back of a lower Green vote that they themselves (the so-called progressives) could have and should have bolstered.

      • tracey 11.2.1
        20 September 2017 at 2:27 pm

        Ot is definitely an election where I am tempted to say it is a vote for Greens or NZF to determine our direction.

        IF Labour has to partner with Greens consider this;
        Labour can use Greens to push more progressive and assauge its base by saying ” we are partners we need to give them something”. Nats used Act to implement its desired right wing p9licies/desires but wouldnt campaign on, like Charter schools.

    • DSpare 11.3
      20 September 2017 at 2:50 pm

      5% Green Party Vote translates to 6 MPs (all current). A nominal 5.6% (more likely lower; maybe 5.4%, once you factor in redistribution from TOP & other subthreshold parties) would see Swarbrick in as a new voice in parliament. Nominal 6.4% for also new Ghahraman; 7.2% (say; 7.0%) would bring back Matthers. At 8(ish)% Coates would also return, but that seems a bit unlikely – though polls don’t factor in international voters.

      What strikes me about this is that would give 9 GP MPs a gender balance of 7 female to 2 male, which would be unprecedented in NZ parliament. If NZF were to get the same number of MPs, this would be reversed at 2 female to 7 male (a ratio that would be more common in our parliament). Together these would even out to 9 female to 9 male ratio in Labour’s likely coalition partners.

      • Sans Cle 11.3.1
        20 September 2017 at 3:20 pm

        I’ve convinced three international voters (so far) to do their civic duty. I’m almost sure (but not certain) they’ve Party voted Green. 💚💚💚

  12. Macro 12
    20 September 2017 at 1:59 pm

    I really am looking forward to jumping in with Metiria Turei and everyone else who would forge a movement to move on this society’s poverty and associated ills – that’s where my real ticks of approval and endorsement go.

    So totally agree with this.

    Poverty Action have been working long and hard on this but we need to get a movement going nation wide. A Hikoi on Poverty has been in the back of my mind for a while now. But it cannot stop there. Continual affirmative action, forcing governments to actually listen to the people, and hear their cries for justice.
    Lifting x number out of poverty is just simply billshit (yes I spelt that correctly).
    No one. No one should live in poverty, in this land of plenty.

    • tracey 12.1
      20 September 2017 at 2:22 pm

      My understanding is Turei is ONLY back if she wins Te Tai Tonga

      • Macro 12.1.1
        20 September 2017 at 4:06 pm

        That is quite correct. But don’t think that Met is just going to quietly stand back and let poverty in this country continue Tracey. I’m sure she will be rolling her sleeves up in due course to continue the movement towards change. I think that that is what Bill is referring to and to which many I think will affirm.

  13. cleangreen 13
    20 September 2017 at 2:22 pm

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201859192
    At 7 minutes into this audio it confirms the following.
    It has been reported by the Electoral commission in an incident complaint where apparently electoral commission staff have been taking home voting boxes full of early voting ballot papers home with them, and Electoral Commission said it was not a security problem as they had seals on them.

    We are concerned about this freely transported non secure voting papers are being handled in this way, as they may be subject to electoral tampering with the election results.

    Last year when we conducted a full review of the Election system at the Electoral Comission.

    They told us in an email that they never allow their staff to leave the voting centres with any ballot boxes because they always have monitors veiwing their activities to keep security.

    But it appears they lied to us back then and we have the email evidence to prove this.

    What should we do with this evidence?i

    [edited to add better link – weka]

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/339823/polling-staff-can-take-polling-boxes-home

    • boggis the cat 13.1
      20 September 2017 at 2:31 pm

      It isn’t a good idea to do that, but I doubt vote tampering would be an issue due to the paper-trail created within the system.

      The usual problems are the recently departed voting (and sometimes the quite long departed), and the group of people running two or more identities getting more than one vote. Neither should be hugely significant.

      • weka 13.1.1
        20 September 2017 at 5:16 pm

        There’s competency and security, and then there’s perception of competency and security. Both are important.

        Given what is happening with Māori voters this election, on top of what happened last time, and now this? Not a good look for the EC or the professionalism of their staff.

    • Bill 13.2
      20 September 2017 at 2:35 pm

      wtf!

      So when I dropped my voting paper into the appropriate cardboard receptacle and reflected to myself that it would be pretty damned easy for someone to put their fingers down the slot and pull my paper back out…..

      I shouldn’t have worried. Peeps is taking them home!!!!

      I honestly thought those cardboard drop boxes would be periodically emptied into very secure containment with “more witnesses than you could shake a stick at” in attendance, and that said secure containment would be further secured within some very secure cupboard/room.

      Maybe there are procedures in place. But the Electoral Commission keeping schtum on the grounds of “security” absolutely does not fill me with confidence.

      • McFlock 13.2.1
        20 September 2017 at 4:02 pm

        Cardboard’s probably better than something more “secure” – the objective is to make tampering obvious, rather than protect the papers from theft.

        So you tape the box shut, and anyone opening it will tear the box or break the seal tape. Like plastic bags for evidence.

        Taking the boxes home would be an expedient for more distant booths, but I reckon it possibly needs updating if the bulk of votes will be advance votes. Maybe stored at a police station? Or a box-within-a-box, and the storage box is countersigned by a third party who’s not involved in the election, maybe a cop or something? So the person verifying that the storage box hasn’t been tampered with is not a person who has access to the ballots themselves.

      • DSpare 13.2.2
        20 September 2017 at 6:46 pm

        It doesn’t seem as bad as it looks at first glance. However, if party scrutineers neglect to attend the early vote counting (instead opting to show the party colours in front of undecided voters) , then there won’t be any independent check on whether the boxes have been tampered with.

        “All ballot boxes and materials are regularly returned to electorate headquarters as part of our security processes. The only times ballot boxes will be secured at the home of an electoral official are when the venue has no secure lockable rooms or that the venue has multiple keyholders,” an Electoral Commission spokeswoman said…
        “During the initial assessment of all of our advance voting places Returning Officers are required to assess storage options. We generally require access to a solid, lockable room or cupboard to which no one else will have access during the voting period.

        “This, however, needs to be balanced with our ability to offer services in some public spaces. In instances where there are no suitable storage facilities on site, electoral officials/advance voting place managers may take materials back to the electorate headquarters. Only if none of these options is possible would we allow an electoral official to secure the voting materials at their home overnight.”

      • swordfish 13.2.3
        20 September 2017 at 10:43 pm

        wtf!

        So when I dropped my voting paper into the appropriate cardboard receptacle and reflected to myself that it would be pretty damned easy for someone to put their fingers down the slot and pull my paper back out…..

        I wouldn’t worry, Bill. I suspect, as we speak, various polling booth staff are enjoying themselves practicing Origami on your voting paper … first sculpting a beautiful Crane, then a graceful butterfly, then setting fire to its edges to create a replica Pirate’s Map, before finally ripping it into tiny shreds for confetti. It’s all good. For you … a fundamental democratic right / for Electoral Commission staff … the basis of a solid evening’s entertainment.

  14. Andre 14
    20 September 2017 at 2:36 pm

    “… I’ve had enough of the Liberal bullshit…”

    “I really am looking forward to jumping in with Metiria Turei and everyone else who would forge a movement to move on this society’s poverty and associated ills…”

    Woohoo! Looks like we’ll have an illiberal party to vote for next election!

    But seriously, I think there’s room for a party focused on eliminating poverty to get over 5% and into parliament. All power to you, Bill, if you’re willing to take on part of the task. Keep the focus on poverty and keep a lid on larger-than-life personalities, and it’s possible even I would vote for it.

    But I’d also suggest changing terminology away from slamming liberalism. Even if that is the strictly correct technical term in political science circles. Because everyone I know that would be supportive of that kind of movement self-identify as liberal.

    • Bill 14.1
      20 September 2017 at 3:04 pm

      A party standing firmly on a social democratic platform I imagine – ie, not “illiberal”. Fuck knows where you’re getting the idea that Liberalism in in any way emancipatory btw. The only things it grants freedom to is finance and markets – from which all other freedoms flow according to the theory.

      Anyway. Each and every one of these small l liberal markers you seem concerned with are enhanced within a social democratic framework.

      • left_forward 14.1.1
        20 September 2017 at 4:05 pm

        Because Bill – this is the broadly accepted definition of liberalism –
        A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favouring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

        The alternative at the time that it was advanced, was the arbitrary rule of absolute monarchy.

        I agree with Andre and many others who have objected to your narrow interpretation.

        • Bill 14.1.1.1
          20 September 2017 at 4:18 pm

          Gee. A definition of Liberalism that has nothing to say about markets. Really!? Where’s it come from? Got a link?

          Also. Socialism was a very prominent and widely supported alternative to both a Liberal market economy and the monarchy.

          Social democracy also became an alternative to Liberal capitalism.

          There was also the authoritarian alternatives ranging from the Bolshevic’s state capitalism (they mis-called it communism) to Mussolini’s fascism and its variants…a fair few of which were supported by your founded on the natural goodness of humans adherents to Liberal ideology .

          But I get where you’re coming from. There is no alternative (TINA).

    • weka 14.2
      20 September 2017 at 5:18 pm

      “Because everyone I know that would be supportive of that kind of movement self-identify as liberal”

      liberal as identity in NZ is not the same thing as Liberalism as Bill uses the term. As I’m sure you well know.

      • KJT 14.2.1
        20 September 2017 at 10:17 pm

        Well I wish Bill would listen and stop confusing readers. Not using your readers language, is a form of arrogance.

        • weka 14.2.1.1
          21 September 2017 at 6:42 am

          I also wish he would, but that applies to Andre in this case too. Looked to me like Andre knew what Bill meant and was obfuscating to advance his own politics.

        • Bill 14.2.1.2
          21 September 2017 at 11:17 am

          What is the name of the political/economic philosophy that was ‘promoted’ in the 1800’s that was based on the idea of ‘free’ markets delivering wider freedoms?

          Was it not called Liberalism?

          What was the political/economic philosophy that underwent a resurgence in the late 70’s? Was that resurgent Liberalism somehow, or in any way different to the Liberalism of the 1800’s?

          No it wasn’t.

          Granted, the wider political/economic environment it exists within has changed somewhat insofar as it’s perhaps more financialised and society contains some left over elements of social democratic governance….that continue to be rolled back and destroyed.

          The truth of the matter is that Liberalism today is the same Liberalism that the likes of Dickens condemned. But a “neo”, that some or many confused with notions of “newness” or “sexy sparkly different” and/or “progress” got thrown into the mix and opposition over a return to the laissez faire capitalism of the 1800’s became somewhat dis-armed.

          Anyway. I’m just calling a spade a spade as far as economic philosophy goes. If you want to understand what’s going on today, you can read all about it in books (fiction and non-fiction) from over a century ago. There’s nothing new about it.

          But if you hang on to the commonly held notion that “neo-liberalism” isn’t Liberalism – that it’s somehow different – then you’re essentially wasting time flapping around with only a few decades of reference to guide you and jettisoning entire, very useful, working class, literary and academic histories.

          • KJT 14.2.1.2.1
            22 September 2017 at 3:26 pm

            Language does change. And Liberal does not mean the same thing in everyday language that it meant in the 1880’s.

            • Bill 14.2.1.2.1.1
              22 September 2017 at 4:32 pm

              This is a political blog. If it was a physics blog, you wouldn’t insist the word “work” have any ‘everyday language’ meaning attached to it, would you?

              • Andre …
                22 September 2017 at 4:47 pm

                If I were commenting on a physics or engineering blog that had a lot of non-professionals participating, I would try hard to use language that would be clear to the professionals and non-professionals alike.

                And if I found my use of specific technical terms was confusing to readers I was trying to communicate with, I’d try very hard to change the language I used to become clearer. Particularly when those technical terms are also used in general language but have quite different meanings to their technical professional meaning.

                But hey, that’s just me. You do you.

                • Bill …
                  22 September 2017 at 6:11 pm

                  Thing is Andre, you understood exactly what I was talking about but decided to throw some disingenuous bullshit into the comment stream.

                  You care to give me another term besides Liberalism for the school of political philosophical thought that holds all freedoms flow from upholding or protecting the principle freedom of markets?

                  • Andre …
                    22 September 2017 at 6:23 pm

                    In modern general usage that is called neoliberalism.

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

                    And because you put very little effort into explaining what you actually do want and a lot of effort into slamming liberalism, I’ve still got only a vague idea of what you want in NZ politics. So it really does take a conscious effort not to think you’re a fan of illiberalism when you’re on one of your rants about liberalism.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2017 at 6:31 pm

                      Sorry, that’s ridiculous. Illiberalism as in anti-democratic, authoritarian, against individual freedoms, against progress and solidarity politics? Do you even bother to read what Bill writes?

                      He’s an anarchist with a libertarian bent and this year he’s been writing about the need for NZ to move from neoliberalism to social democracy. That he says ‘Liberalism’ instead of ‘neoliberalism’ is annoying but it’s not that hard to parse if you pay attention (i.e. Bill is right that you are quite capable of understanding what he means).

                      If you’re having trouble following his politics, that’s fine, he does talk about complex things, but maybe try engaging in good faith instead of misusing what he writes to push your own centre left position (which to be frank is how you’ve come across in this thread, and I don’t even agree with how Bill uses the language on this).

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2017 at 6:36 pm

                      Here you go. The post with a few word substitutions,

                      Way back whenever this election campaign began, I said the election, at least for those on the left or progressive side of politics, was far more about The Greens and NZF than it was about National and NZ Labour.

                      And so yesterday I threw my party vote at the Green Party. They have by far the boldlest, people centred set of policies. That means they are the best challenge to neoliberalism that NZ has at the moment. If I had an old school conservative streak running through me, I might have voted NZF by way of challenging the neoliberal dominance of NZ politics. But I haven’t. So I didn’t. As I see it, NZF need to be ‘disappeared’ to prevent NZ Labour following what I believe to be their preferred option – a hook up with NZF to run conservative social policy off the back of neoliberal economic policy settings.

                      My electorate vote also went Green. I dare say Clare Curren will be returned as the MP for South Dunedin. But I threw my vote for “Little finger” (I can’t remember his actual name atm) more to signal what I believe will become a major shift in NZ politics over the next three years. I don’t expect anyone within NZ Labour to be paying attention, but there you go.

                      In short then, two ticks Green because I’ve had enough of the neoliberal bullshit that has hammered NZ these past decades and because I can finally see a viable parliamentary alternative to the tired and destructive “same old”.

                      I’d raise a glass to a government that was any combination of NZ Labour/Green/MP/Mana.

                      But I’d simply be drowning my sorrows if NZF or National had any influence in government.

                      The real work starts after September the 23rd and has nothing to do with parliament. I really am looking forward to jumping in with Metiria Turei and everyone else who would forge a movement to move on this society’s poverty and associated ills – that’s where my real ticks of approval and endorsement go.

                      Are you honestly saying that you don’t understand what is being said there? It has zero to do with being illiberal.

                      btw, Bill now uses Liberal with a capital so it’s very easy to differentiate it from liberal (the term that NZer use to refer to progressive politics).

                    • Bill …
                      22 September 2017 at 7:01 pm

                      And there you go.

                      Look up neo-liberalism on wiki 🙄 and even there you will find it given the identical definition as Liberalism. That’s because they are one and the same thing.

                      But.

                      You want to dismiss reference to Liberalism? That means you want to bury well over a hundred years worth of history and writing that sheds a bright light on post ’70’s Liberalism.

                      Now why would any left leaning/progressive/working class person willingly do such a thing?

                    • marty mars …
                      22 September 2017 at 7:13 pm

                      Why do it if it is confusing? I can’t go past arrogance but that doesn’t fit with my impression of you, maybe stubborness eh ☺

                      The point is, there is no point in doing it.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2017 at 7:23 pm

                      “The point is there is no point in doing it.”

                      Well, it certainly gets us all talking about it in ways we wouldn’t otherwise. There is political legitimacy in using language in ways that subvert the establishment and require it to think more deeply. As far as I can tell both Bill and adam use ‘Liberalism’ to do that.

                      On the other hand, I just reread the thread and it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that both Andre and Bill are doing pretty much the same thing, misusing terms to push their political agenda. I don’t have a problem the political agenda bit, but the misusing terms looks dishonest.

                    • Andre …
                      22 September 2017 at 7:34 pm

                      weka, I’m trying to help Bill understand one of the reasons why he frequently gets hostile reactions from people that are pretty close to him politically. And how he could make a simple change that would make his messages a lot clearer to most of his audience.

                      But I’ve given it my shot now. So everybody, as you were.

                    • marty mars …
                      22 September 2017 at 7:40 pm

                      ĞWell they are both bright guys for sure.

                      Although there is benefit in debating the exact meaning of terms, for me it is a bit of a wank. For me it is always subjective and mysterous and trying to nut that out is a very ummm ‘certain type’ way of looking at it.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2017 at 7:41 pm

                      Sure, and I’ve done that too. But I think in this case you brought in your own level of hostility-inducing stubbornness 😉

                      (not sure how close you are politically btw. You both want a LW govt, but I think the how and who etc are probably diverging at that point, which is part of why this argument is happening)

              • weka …
                22 September 2017 at 6:17 pm

                “This is a political blog. If it was a physics blog, you wouldn’t insist the word “work” have any ‘everyday language’ meaning attached to it, would you?”

                No, but I’d still point out the confusion being caused when a scientist used a jargon term not familiar with a largely lay audience, and when that use was politically motivated. Don’t mind the political motivation, do think the confusion is unnecessary.

                I also think that Andre was out of line with the original poke, shitstirring for political reasons.

                • Bill …
                  22 September 2017 at 7:07 pm

                  🙂 You do know the Andre’s of this world are likely to come flying back at your use of the term “libertarian” and claim it means I’m way out beyond ACT – somewhere on the right wing fringes of political madness, yes?

  15. lurgee 15
    20 September 2017 at 2:37 pm

    99% decided I’ll give ’em my party vote.

  16. AB 16
    20 September 2017 at 3:22 pm

    Overturned 40 years of voting Labour (apart from a 1990 abstention) to Party vote Green today.
    Felt more than a bit disloyal – especially as Jacinda has done so amazingly well and worked so hard. But thought it was necessary this time at least.
    Electorate vote Labour because the Nat member (Coleman) is so odious.

    • Cynical jester 16.1
      20 September 2017 at 3:52 pm

      Me here too. Felt disloyal as hell but i knew the greens staying in parliament was more important for my party and im deadset against the TPP. The patting on the back of greenies giving their electorate vote green is a kick in the guts to anyone doing it tough right now when the greens should be hammering strategic voting constantly. Disgusting thst they’d risk it on any electorate other than TTT or Nelson where the stakes arent high. They don’t call us the looney left for nothing.

      • KJT 16.1.1
        20 September 2017 at 10:21 pm

        Well I am tactical voting Labour for the electorate, and party vote Green. There is a chance that the Labour candidate may get in, in Whangarei.

        Hopefully Ash, the Green candidate, will get another go further down the track.

    • Brendan 16.2
      20 September 2017 at 4:35 pm

      Shannon has my vote. Coleman is heartless. Will party vote Green.

      I always ceremoniously leave my voting until election day, when I go to the polling booth with my wife, so we can vote exactly the same.

      I’m hoping for the Greens to crack at least the 6%. Given what’s happened in the last few weeks, I think that can be counted as a success. James Shaw for either Environment Minister or Climate Change Minister.

      Kia kaha Kākāriki.

    • srylands 16.3
      20 September 2017 at 10:25 pm

      Why don’t you like the Minister? He has done a tireless job to improve health outcomes, especially for the disadvantaged.

  17. Cynical jester 17
    20 September 2017 at 3:46 pm

    I tactically party voted green to keep them in parliament, bloody shame the greens cant do the same in the electorates. Utopian dreaming isn’t going to deliver any change. I cant believe the arrogance of the people who claim ti care about poverty.

    I have had 4 friends under the age of 25 kill themselves in the last 12 months. I’m in chch central surrounded by homelessness and suffering but hey you hold onto your ideals because its better that l/g stay in opposition thsn actually get in govt. Cheers. I tell you what, if green vote splitting costs labour chch central AGAIN I’ll be perfectly ok with the greens not being in a labour led coalition and will only be sad if the greens fail to get 5% not the devestated I was going to be before this post, chch central an area with so much suffering hasnt had any progressive representation in so long… but as long as the hard left get to feel pure about their vote.
    Hopefully your utopian day dream can fund mental health I’m a corbynista but good grief strategic voting is key and promiting otherwise is about as helpful
    as prayers after a dissaster 👏👌

    • Bill 17.1
      20 September 2017 at 4:06 pm

      You’re being all wrong headed about this.

      Is there a safer NZ Labour electorate than South Dunedin?

      And apart from some exceptions, (Ch/ch central might be one) the reality of the electorate vote in terms of parliament’s make-up, is that it does nothing beyond putting a particular person from a party in parliament regardless of their party list placing.

      Sorry about your level of upset.

      • weka 17.1.1
        20 September 2017 at 5:21 pm

        He’s talking about having a good local MP I think. Which is actually fair enough. Imagine having Metiria as your local MP instead of Clare Curran (although I think Curran is a reasonable good local MP).

      • popexplosion 17.1.2
        21 September 2017 at 12:17 pm

        It’s like a National site declaring people double vote ACT. It’s dumb, and legal. In fact the whole idea that there is something illigitament about split voting is highly offense. Double voting means letting in a mp back on the list, no matter how bad a beating they took.

        • lprent 17.1.2.1
          21 September 2017 at 12:31 pm

          If they can’t hold a seat, bearing in mind the value of incumbency, then they really need to have some special skills before I’d double vote for them.

  18. gsays 18
    20 September 2017 at 5:12 pm

    Hey cheers for the post Bill, well put.
    3more sleeps till a change of the guard.

  19. weka 19
    20 September 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Michael put this in the GP manifesto thread, reposting because it’s good,

    This is the best contribution to political debate in NZ I’ve read for a long time – certainly better than anything I’ve seen from “Labour” in recent years. And yes, I gave the Greens my Party Vote (the first time I’ve ever voted for a Party other than Labour since 1990, and Party Voted since the inception of MMP). As someone posted, above, the Greens won’t be in a position to implement any of this; while I think they will poll higher than 5 percent of the Party Vote, their caucus in the next Parliament will be smaller than it was in the last. Consequently, “Labour” will treat the Greens, and their policies, with all the respect and consideration that it has displayed toward them to date. That is a terrible pity for our country and its people. Business as usual after 23 September.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/the-green-party-policy-manifesto-full-costed-and-seriously-progressive/

    Haven’t thought too far ahead, but it’s on my mind about what lefties will do if Labour wins and goes with NZF, or the Greens don’t get much of a say.

  20. UncookedSelachimorpha 20
    21 September 2017 at 12:15 am

    I party voted Green today, because their policies align most closely with my views and because we need them well above 5%. Electorate for Damian O’Connor (electorate vote has no influence or strategic value in my electorate).

    Walked to the booth with the CEO of a large company – he is rich, worships money and voted National, so we cancelled each other out. His company has received millions of taxpayer money and free public resources. He earns 50+ times more than his lowest paid employees.

  21. Stuart Munro 21
    21 September 2017 at 12:34 am

    Two Green for me – blue haven’t a ghost of a prayer around here and red need a nudge leftwards. Metiria restored my faith in the Greens – I knew them through Rod & kind of lost touch after he passed away.