sharetrader
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63
  1. #11
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Seems OK to me FPP was like a democratically elected dictatorship with nearly half the country not needing to bother voting if they lived in an electorate not aligned with their political ideology. National might have to provide some concessions to Winston but both parties need to do what is best for their supporters or risk losing them. Way better than the old system.

    Sad that TOP didn't even get halfway to 5%, never mind fear and greed won the day. Seems appropriate for this site. I see Gareth Morgan suggested a Greens National coalition (I don't think National could afford the loss of their farming voter base). maybe Gareth is a bit politically naïve he should have targeted some marginal electorate seats. No one likes ACT's policies yet they have a voice in Parliament.

    All politicians from all parties are in Parliament, I would hope to make NZ a better place for everyone. It is just their ideas how this is achieved that is different.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    It is interesting to see the different and more mature approach in Germany where they've just voted overnight in a MMP election. Merkel and her sister party with approximately 33% combined are hailed as winners and she has undisputed authority to try to put together a Government.
    Hmmmm not sure about mature... noting that the third ranked party, Alternative for Germany (AfD) secured 13% of the vote and sees the return of the far-right to the Bundestag for the first time in 50 years.

  3. #13
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    . Surely the party with the biggest share of the vote should have the preemptive right to form a government ?
    In NZ, thats not how MMP works - we dont have those kind of rules. Any party has the right to try and form a government and that's not a bad thing. However its the party that goes to the governor general and says we can command the support of the majority of the house that's gets to be government - and tin practice lead it.

    So given majority of people voted for Labour plus Greens Plus NZ first shouldn't we have a government that represents that majority?

    That said I am not sure what would happen if NZ First decides it could reach a coalition agreement with both Labour (and greens) and National. I dont know who gets first dibs in that kind of unlikely scenario. I presume Labour or National woudlnt allow that as part of their base terms of agreement.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    Can I throw in a curved ball here for debate. Would a N.Z. Frist / Labour / Greens coalition have the moral authority to govern ? Nearly 50% of the population didn't vote for any of those parties. I think if we end up getting this sort of coalition then MMP is a farce. Surely the party with the biggest share of the vote should have the preemptive right to form a government ?
    A Labour/NZ First/Greens coalition with 61 seats (potentially another with the specials*) has to find a speaker (Trevor Mallard will be putting both hands up for that job) as well as hang on with a slim one seat majority for the next 3 years - likely to be a Labour/NZ First cabinet with a Green confidence and supply deal (no Ministerial roles) as they have their colours firmly pinned to their masthead. Losing one or two MPs over the next 3 years to byelection (death/resignation/sacking), waka-jumping to the other side makes that precarious... although no party has managed re-election with NZF as a coalition partner - it's the Kiss of Death to date...

    * Specials have previously gone to the left leaning parties - although advance voting looked strongly to National so I think we all need to wait and see what happens in two weeks... Winston will be...

    I'd note that we have a unicameral parliament - no senate or president and under FPP, the executive had total control via the government - MMP does provide some safeguards to prevent the sort of unfettered authority and retrospective legislation by press release that we endured during the 70s - we should be glad that it does in many ways.

  5. #15
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    In NZ, thats not how MMP works - we dont have those kind of rules. Any party has the right to try and form a government and that's not a bad thing. However its the party that goes to the governor general and says we can command the support of the majority of the house that's gets to be government - and tin practice lead it.

    So given majority of people voted for Labour plus Greens Plus NZ first shouldn't we have a government that represents that majority?
    But the majority voted for National plus Winston First.

  6. #16
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    No one likes ACT's policies yet they have a voice in Parliament.
    You would deprive Epsom the right to have an elected representative? 0.5% of voters like ACT policies relative to the other decisions that had to be made. Like ensuring National got a decent party vote.

  7. #17
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    But the majority voted for National plus Winston First.
    No matter how its cut and sliced the combined majority of voters will be represented in the next government.

  8. #18
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    But the majority voted for National plus Winston First.
    Virtually everyone who did not vote national voted for a change. So Labour/Green/NZfirst were the biggest block

  9. #19
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    Virtually everyone who did not vote national voted for a change. So Labour/Green/NZfirst were the biggest block
    Sort of agree, but half the NZ First voters would be National if NZ first did not exist. THe Left block or change in govt block was/is Labour and Green. And they do not have the majority by a long way. IN fact they together even lack National.

  10. #20
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    You would deprive Epsom the right to have an elected representative? 0.5% of voters like ACT policies relative to the other decisions that had to be made. Like ensuring National got a decent party vote.
    No not at all well done national and Act and if you could guarantee ACT winning Epsom you could also support ACT with your party vote in the hope David Seymour can bring in a second or third MP.

    I can't believe how thick the lefties in Epsom are. Surely there should be no electorate votes for Labour or the Greens candidates in Epsom. They can still give their party vote to the left but they should all be voting National for the electorate vote.

    If they could get the National man voted in ACT is a goner.
    Last edited by Aaron; 25-09-2017 at 09:41 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •