A brighter future for New Zealand

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The-Rabid-Monkey
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:00 am UTC
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby The-Rabid-Monkey » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:27 am UTC

Tonight, us New Zealanders have manged to throw out the nine year Labour run of turmoil and replace them with a bright cheery National run government. GO JOHN KEY!

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Key-pledges ... fault.aspx

I feel so happy!!! :mrgreen:
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. - Salvor Hardin, From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation".

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:10 pm UTC

I almost cried. Goddamnit. Goddamn the idiots who voted National.

I now live in a country where fucking Roger Douglas is in government. Goddamnt.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby psyck0 » Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:40 pm UTC

National Party sounds like some rabble-rousing, conservative, militaristic, Christian idiot party. Am I right?

If so, you have my condolences.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:48 pm UTC

Minus the Christian bit, yes. And they're in coalition with Act, who are utterly delusional and insane. Between them there'll be nothing left in this country that hasn't been sold to their rich mates. It'll take decades to recover, if we ever do.:(

I'm just as sad about Helen Clark standing down as I am about Labour losing the election. Possibly the greatest Prime Minister in New Zealand's history.

Man I wish I could still edit thread titles and remove that B.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:23 pm UTC

I don't really follow NZ politics, but what, exactly, is this "run of turmoil"? Has unemployment and insecurity shot up (more than, you know, everywhere else in the world in recent months)? What were the growing problems that caused Kiwis to "vote for change"?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:43 pm UTC

There were none, OP is an idiot. Unemployment has been at historical lows, Labour has done amazing things to improve the standard of living for the poor and families, and it has generally been one of the best governments this country has ever had. But, of course, after nine years of the same people, the electorate simply begins to want change for the sake of change. It's very easy for another party to come along and yell "vote for us and every single thing in the universe will improve tenfold!" without actually mentioning what they'll do at all, and that's exactly what the National party has done.

This is the worst possible time for them to win, as well. This is the worst economic crisis in a century, and what we need now is a steady, responsible government who will help keep NZ together, and shelter the worst off from the most devastating effects. In other words, the opposite of a Natonal/ACT government. I don't see our country recovering from this for a very long time.

There has always been a small, but rabid, group of people, who the OP is apparently one of, who really loathe Helen Clark. Hate with a burning passion which really exceeds the usual politician-hate you always get. Honestly, I think some of it at least stems from the fact she's a woman, and the fact she refuses to act like the submissive, feminine figure they think women should be. They certainly make enough "her voice sure is deep huh lol" and "she looks like a man" jokes.

Oh, and just for the record, before someone calls me overly biased, I don't even agree with Labour. I politically opposed to them on nearly every front, and I have been very upset by some of their actions. But there's no denying the positive effects they've had on this country, and there's no denying the negative effects that a National/Act government will have, and I do think Helen Clark has been a legendary leader who will undoubtedly go on to significant international roles now.

I'd link to a few articles and blogs and so on, but my PC is screwed so I'm on my PS3 and don't know how to.

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Gojoe » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:51 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:There were none, OP is an idiot. Unemployment has been at historical lows, Labour has done amazing things to improve the standard of living for the poor and families, and it has generally been one of the best governments this country has ever had. But, of course, after nine years of the same people, the electorate simply begins to want change for the sake of change. It's very easy for another party to come along and yell "vote for us and every single thing in the universe will improve tenfold!" without actually mentioning what they'll do at all, and that's exactly what the National party has done.

This is the worst possible time for them to win, as well. This is the worst economic crisis in a century, and what we need now is a steady, responsible government who will help keep NZ together, and shelter the worst off from the most devastating effects. In other words, the opposite of a Natonal/ACT government. I don't see our country recovering from this for a very long time.

There has always been a small, but rabid, group of people, who the OP is apparently one of, who really loathe Helen Clark. Hate with a burning passion which really exceeds the usual politician-hate you always get. Honestly, I think some of it at least stems from the fact she's a woman, and the fact she refuses to act like the submissive, feminine figure they think women should be. They certainly make enough "her voice sure is deep huh lol" and "she looks like a man" jokes.
Well to be completely fair, she does look a bit like a man...

But I totally agree with you. Tha labour party was doing the right thing. All John key was saying was that we were leaving to go to oz... I think that the direction we were going was looking good. Helen Clarke was dong a bloody good job. BAH! DAMN YOU NATIONAL!
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

User avatar
LeopoldBloom
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:24 am UTC
Location: Waitaks

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby LeopoldBloom » Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:09 am UTC

Well to be completely fair, she does look a bit like a man...

So does John Key- Your Point?

And roger douglas is back from the grave, scary.
The annoying thing though is that with a better system of voting the middle left would have won- in total they got a little over 50% of the vote (counting the maori party, who could NEVER go with the nats and still hold any pretense of being representive of the tangata te whenua) but because of the 5% threshold the NZF party's (who I personally despise as fascist sh*ts but still prefer to National and Act ) 4.5% of the vote didn't count.
And now NZ is once again the odd one out of the english speaking free-world. Only instead of being the only place not ruled by right-wing warmongers such as the U.S, Uk and Oz we're now unique in being the only country whose leader supported Iraq etc whilst everone else has gotten over it. Late to the party as usual.

Possibly the greatest Prime Minister in New Zealand's history

Sorry, just have to disagree with you here. Savage was far far better, starting statehousing and good public health whereas all Clark really did was keep things stable and rebuild and rebuy what had been sold of and run down by Rogernomics and the Nats (not saying these are bad things by any means, but not great things).
Nuke the Gay Islamic Whales for Jesus!!!!!

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Jack Saladin » Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:43 am UTC

Agreed on the bullshit 5% threshold being entirely undemocratic. Act, 3.7% of the vote, 5 MPs. NZ First, 4.5% of the vote, zero MPs. That simply isn't right - pesonally I wouldn't say no to electorates being scrapped entirely and just basing the whole thing off lists, but at the very least the 5% limit has to go. The only percentage you should have to win to get a seat in parliament should be one seats worth - something like 1.2%.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby psyck0 » Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:29 am UTC

To be fair, our PM would have liked to send us to Iraq as well. You're not ENTIRELY alone.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Joeldi » Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:11 am UTC

If what Saladin believes is true, the best thing to come out of this would be that I no longer have to hate how horrible my government is compared to New Zealand's.

If things pan out that way, Jack, I'll be the first to say "Thank you John Key for making Australia look less of a terrible place."

Time when I decided I liked Helen Clark - When she was being filmed by The Chaser and they were immaturely trying to get her to say "six". She handled it well, and it still made great Television.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Hawknc » Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:59 am UTC

So does this mean we're going to have even more New Zealanders living in Australia now?

User avatar
The-Rabid-Monkey
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:00 am UTC
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby The-Rabid-Monkey » Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:15 am UTC

Helen Clarke ran an entirely terrible campaign.

It was a smear campaign against John Key, the ads on TV included no policies at all, all they said was "John Key Can Not Be Trusted"

Also the Labour people protesting at the National speeches caused many people I know who were on the brink to fall onto Nationals side.

Roger Douglas is going to be kept under lock and key and have no say in anything. I believe John Key will make sure of this.

Also, I have no idea why people are complaining about NZF and Winny getting the boot. If it wasn't for this stupid MMP system, they would have gotten the boot last time. Winny is a moron in all aspects.

I'll happily agree that Labour have done many good things, but they've also done undeniably stupid things. Like having that sleezy moron Michael Cullen as financial minister, one minute saying we've got a few billion dollars to spare, then soon as the voices of "tax cuts" come up, suddenly it's vanished. They've done their dash, it's time for National to do theirs.

Jack Saladin, you need to crawl out of Labours arse. Sure, they did some things well, and they did some shit things, but National is in now and you need to just live with it. Or move to Australia. The National party has made many very good promises, that if kept (They bloody better) will indeed "improve our country tenfold".
Also, worst economic crisis in the past century was 1926, the great depression. Also might I point out that John Key is a highly successful business man, he knows economics, he will know what to do.
As for the loathing Helen Clarke piece, you notice in Helen's speech, she just couldn't help near the end telling New Zealand that they couldn't trust John Key, that's loathing, you're loathing him right at the time of that post of yours being made.
What did John key do in his speech? He pointed out what good Helen had done for the country, and then went on to say, they would improve on that and do it better. How is that loathing? He respects her, but he does think he can do better.
Jenny Shipley was a woman, for National, so don't bring out that "Oh they only hated her because she was a woman" bullshit, or I might aswell pull the "Oh you only hate John Key because he's half jewish" bullshit card.
Also might I point out that the looks more like a horse ;)
Roger Douglas will be kept under lock and key, which a couple of shotguns kept by and several whips. He won't be getting a say.
Just give em a damned chance, and then in March/April, you can blast them for anything you want.

To gmalivuk. The Labour party has done many good things, as I stated above, but recently they've done a large amount of severely pointless, trust losing things, like removing the ability for parents to properly disipline their children, by allowing the kids to pull the "If you smack my bum and send me to my room for trying to start a fire in the living room, I'll call the cops and you'll get in shit" card. In a time where people were calling for help because the petrol prices are going insane, they spent a billion dollars buying a bloody train set. We now need to spend the next few years updating it, and then after that maintaining it. It's going to cost a shit-load and a half. Michael Cullen is a sleezy moron who loves spending money he doesn't have, or might do, we never know with him, as one second we have a few billion excess, then we suddenly don't, and now it's been revealed we're 800,000,000 in dept, and that's only from a quick look at the books.
As for turmoil, I might have gone a little bit over the top, but it has been for us, compared to our usual quiet atmosphere. Murders running rampant in south Auckland, and the way everything is being run is terrible, a man who hit the guy robbing his store with a baseball bat is being put up for assault, when the man had a knife or gun, I forget which.
Many of our students dropping out from school as soon as possible, all due to this stupid education system that they introduced, which encourages mediocrity. I should know, I'm making my way through it, basically you bum around for the first few years of NCEA (school cert, but worse), then last year, you work hard, but not overly hard, get a scholarship, and hit uni.
I don't care to count just how many companies have outsourced because of Labour and their increasing taxes making it uneconomical to operate here, which has in the past few months lost many people their jobs. I will readily admit that the current financial crisis has helped some of this along, but Labour hasn't done Jack to stop it.
Also they're allied with the Green Party, who will ultimately ruin Tasman, the West Coast and Southland, from all their anti emission policies and anti coal mining and anti everything. The true greenie should kill themselves, because they are themselves, contributing to polluting the enviroment by eating crops that have been collected by harvesters, which use oil, by using electricity, which produces emissions, breath, passing wind and driving their cars around.
I've had my fill of Labour, and in my opinion, they've past their due by date three years ago.

Note to Hawknc, I've heard of a lot of Labour people suddenly finding Australia attractive. We'll live, if they want to chicken out and head there, so be it. Us people who wish Labour gone, have had to endure nine years, six of which have been enough, and we have, we didn't say "Oh fuck this" and move to Aussie, we stayed, and trudged on.
Last edited by The-Rabid-Monkey on Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:28 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. - Salvor Hardin, From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation".

User avatar
The-Rabid-Monkey
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:00 am UTC
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby The-Rabid-Monkey » Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:18 am UTC

psyck0 wrote:National Party sounds like some rabble-rousing, conservative, militaristic, Christian idiot party. Am I right?

If so, you have my condolences.


Also, no.
John Key is an agnostic half Jew.
Their views on Iraq, Iran etc, seem to be much like everyone elses, no matter what Labour made out in their smear campaign (Using quotes from nearly 5 years ago, a long time in politics, might I add).
Conservative? Nope, more liberal, central right wing to be specific.
Don't get what you mean by rabble-rousing.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. - Salvor Hardin, From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation".

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Darkscull » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:18 am UTC

So what you're saying, The-Rabid-Monkey, is that Labour are bad because they aren't right wing enough for you?
That's what I get from your post, because of all the bad things your attribute to Labour, I either disagree that they're bad, or I don't see how it's the fault of the government. That's discounting the things I can't judge on like the massive deficit because I don't have the details.

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote: Also might I point out that John Key is a highly successful business man, he knows economics, he will know what to do.


Shall I point out that whether you're a successful business man depends as much on the state of the economy as it does on your skills, and also that currently even professional economists don't have a clue what to do?


NB: I don't know anything about NZ politics, I'm just going literally from what is written in The-Rabid-Monkeys post, and general knowledge/experience.


edit: to clarify, I'm not saying that preferring a more right wing government is bad, just pointing out that it appears the only reason The-Rabid-Monkey thinks they're bad is personal opinion on whether what they did was good or bad, rather than any more impartial measures of whether they're resulted in good or bad things.
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:19 pm UTC

Thanks for the additional info.

However: To NZ political fanboys/girls: cut it out with the ad hominem attacks some of you were so fed up with coming from Americans during the campaign and election...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Belial » Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:25 pm UTC

On the same note, The Rabid Monkey: Quit doubleposting.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:21 am UTC

I was expecting the title to be sarcasm . . . but sadly it is not :(

I wish the Bill and Ben party had got in. They would be great leaders of this country . . .

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Gojoe » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:51 am UTC

Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel wrote:I was expecting the title to be sarcasm . . . but sadly it is not :(

I wish the Bill and Ben party had got in. They would be great leaders of this country . . .
Speaking of which, what happened to them? Did they get their 0.5% so that they got their $1000 back?
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Marquee Moon » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:46 am UTC

I don't understand how people got so partisan about this election. They're policies are so similar because John Key's pulled National towards the center.

My thoughts on policies:
-I'm hoping National makes some structural changes to how health care is funded, like getting rid of the district health boards. I think they're rhetoric was funding front line health care so this sounds probable
-National standards for primary school kids is horrible. Sounds like NCEA for primary school. I'm hoping something stops this from getting through, but considering labour was the one that put in NCEA, I doubt it.
-Students get a quick repayment discount on their student loans vs the universal allowance Labour promised. I wish someone would advocate for giving more money to the actual Universities instead of the students.
- I think National will be better at running the economy, but I'm a economic conservative so that's not surprising. But you know who would have been really good for the economy? Don Brash. He was head of the Reserve Bank for more than a decade. Too bad that exclusive Brethren thing happened.


The annoying thing though is that with a better system of voting the middle left would have won- in total they got a little over 50% of the vote (counting the maori party, who could NEVER go with the nats and still hold any pretense of being representive of the tangata te whenua) but because of the 5% threshold the NZF party's (who I personally despise as fascist sh*ts but still prefer to National and Act ) 4.5% of the vote didn't count.


Really? Going by the official preliminary numbers National + ACT + United Future go just over 50% (50.6). If we exclude the tiny parties their lead is even stronger.

psyck0 wrote:National Party sounds like some rabble-rousing, conservative, militaristic, Christian idiot party. Am I right?

If so, you have my condolences.


Conservative? Economically yes. I don't think social issues have been raised at all in this campaign, and John Key (National leader) is an atheist. Militaristic? John Key said he supported going to Iraq when it started but now he's switched cause he realised what an idiot he was. I think his comment half "disagree with whatever the government says" and half "suck as much American dick as possible so we can get a free trade agreement". Practically, I think there's little chance of us going to war and now we're gonna be sucking Obama's dick, which is probably a good thing.

Edit:
Speaking of which, what happened to them? Did they get their 0.5% so that they got their $1000 back?


0.51%. I don't follow Pulp Sport. What's the story around the $1000?

User avatar
The-Rabid-Monkey
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:00 am UTC
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby The-Rabid-Monkey » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:41 am UTC

Marquee Moon wrote:0.51%. I don't follow Pulp Sport. What's the story around the $1000?


To put a party on the register you have to pay $1000. You get it back at 0.5%, although I thought they only got 0.4%, but I wouldn't know exactly.
Also on the note of if the Bill and Ben party got a seat, wouldn't that make a mighty fine mockery of MMP? Terrible system, because it means that all these parties that people REALLY don't want to have a voice (Act, NZF, The Greens) do get one, and introduce retarded and stupid things (Tax on anything possible, anti-smacking law).
I'm not saying go back to FTP, because that also has it's stupid things, but a medium would be great.


EDIT: Also just noticed that only 2.1 million people voted, when we're around 4.5 million, now my guess is there's probably about 3 million people eligible to vote. So that probably greatly contributed to our brand new government. Remember, failure to vote at all because you don't like the current leading party is ALWAYS a vote for the opposition. So remember, protest vote, try to legalise cannabis mmmk?
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. - Salvor Hardin, From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation".

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Gojoe » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:14 am UTC

The MMP system here is greatly flawed. I grew up in the states, and had to learn all about the MMP system before I voted (so I could be properly informed). The system gives so much power to the little parties that do not get many votes. Which is silly. The big parties that have the biggest backing should not have to bend over to the smaller parties, just so they get the swing vote.

Everyone I talk to thinks that the MMP system should be changed. How would this happen? Talking to people, it seems as if it used to be a different system, and then was switched to this a while ago. How was that change implemented? Is it possible to switch back?
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Marquee Moon » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:51 am UTC

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:
Marquee Moon wrote:0.51%. I don't follow Pulp Sport. What's the story around the $1000?


To put a party on the register you have to pay $1000. You get it back at 0.5%, although I thought they only got 0.4%, but I wouldn't know exactly.


Thanks for the explanation.

EDIT: Also just noticed that only 2.1 million people voted, when we're around 4.5 million, now my guess is there's probably about 3 million people eligible to vote. So that probably greatly contributed to our brand new government. Remember, failure to vote at all because you don't like the current leading party is ALWAYS a vote for the opposition. So remember, protest vote, try to legalise cannabis mmmk?


According to Wikipedia historical voter turnout is 88% which is quite good compared to other countries. Don't know about this election though.

Gojoe wrote:The MMP system here is greatly flawed. I grew up in the states, and had to learn all about the MMP system before I voted (so I could be properly informed). The system gives so much power to the little parties that do not get many votes. Which is silly. The big parties that have the biggest backing should not have to bend over to the smaller parties, just so they get the swing vote.


I don't think it's clear who gets the most power in MMP. This probably has a lot to do with the nitty gritty details of policy formation like, who gets a seat is cabinet, or the specific minister positions. I think I know more about this than most people, and I have no idea. From what little I do know, I think political power is determined a lot by your interpersonal skills. A charismatic likable minor party leader could get a lot of sway, but a fat ugly oaf couldn't.

Also keep in mind that the large parties don't actually make up a real majority of the vote (more than 50%). You can also argue about the tyranny of the majority and that minority views should be represented even though they may not be part of the 51% (or 50.6% in our case :D ).

Everyone I talk to thinks that the MMP system should be changed. How would this happen? Talking to people, it seems as if it used to be a different system, and then was switched to this a while ago. How was that change implemented? Is it possible to switch back?


Here's a good explanation of the history. New Zealand doesn't have a written constitution so I think the "mechanics" of government can be change fairly easily. Cause there are no rules! I think if we were to change back to FPP or something different we'd probably have a referendum, but in the end the final decision would come down to parliament to actually pass the law.

I'm strongly in favour of MMP, at least when compared with FPP. In the American system you have a president, and two legislatures/congress things (I think that's how it works, I'm not really familiar with it). In New Zealand we only have one parliament. We have a governor general who officially has to sign laws to make them official but they're just for show, they'll sign everything. FPP tended to favour the two major parties, so the winning party would have full control of parliament and with nothing else to keep things in balance they could do whatever the fuck they wanted for a few years. With MMP minor parties get in, members of parliament are proportional to New Zealand as a whole and this dictatorship thing is harder. I personally don't think it goes far enough. New Zealand needs a president.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby psyck0 » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:42 pm UTC

BC is probably going to be changing over to MMP in this coming election, from FPTP. I'm surprised to hear your complaints about how it gives the small parties representation; that's the entire point. B.C. had over 32 parties registered for the last election and only 2 got any seats. 2 elections ago, the B.C. liberals (actually very conservative) got all but TWO of the house seats with only 60% of the vote or thereabouts.

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Gojoe » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:22 am UTC

MMP when I first heard about it, makes sense. But I think in practice its a bit... not good.

I think that it was made with the idea that all the parties have a similar size. For instance if their were 5 main parties, and they were all getting more or less 1/5 of the votes, it makes sense that they each have equal say etc. It is when the majority of voters go for the 2 main parties, and then a few voters go for the little parties. The 2 main parties are pretty much at tipping point of becoming the government. But because they are both so close, they need the tipping power of the little guys, which in my mind gives them far more power than they have earned from the votes.

I could be completely wrong about this btw. I only just learned about this on a crash coarse just before the election.

Also, this thread is pulling in all the kiwis here that i didn't know we had.
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Dream » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:47 am UTC

Gojoe wrote:It is when the majority of voters go for the 2 main parties, and then a few voters go for the little parties. The 2 main parties are pretty much at tipping point of becoming the government. But because they are both so close, they need the tipping power of the little guys, which in my mind gives them far more power than they have earned from the votes.


Yes, it is. But that has to do with the make up of the legislative chambers, rather than the votes that filled them. In any voting system, a junior coalition partner will have greater real power than they have voting power. Objecting to proportional representation because it can cause coalitions seems to me to be objecting fundamentally to those junior parties having representation at all.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:02 pm UTC

Gojoe wrote:Also, this thread is pulling in all the kiwis here that i didn't know we had.


Dude. We're like, infested with you guys.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:08 am UTC

Marquee Moon wrote:I don't understand how people got so partisan about this election. They're policies are so similar because John Key's pulled National towards the center.

My thoughts on policies:
-I'm hoping National makes some structural changes to how health care is funded, like getting rid of the district health boards. I think they're rhetoric was funding front line health care so this sounds probable
-National standards for primary school kids is horrible. Sounds like NCEA for primary school. I'm hoping something stops this from getting through, but considering labour was the one that put in NCEA, I doubt it.
-Students get a quick repayment discount on their student loans vs the universal allowance Labour promised. I wish someone would advocate for giving more money to the actual Universities instead of the students.
- I think National will be better at running the economy, but I'm a economic conservative so that's not surprising. But you know who would have been really good for the economy? Don Brash. He was head of the Reserve Bank for more than a decade. Too bad that exclusive Brethren thing happened.


The annoying thing though is that with a better system of voting the middle left would have won- in total they got a little over 50% of the vote (counting the maori party, who could NEVER go with the nats and still hold any pretense of being representive of the tangata te whenua) but because of the 5% threshold the NZF party's (who I personally despise as fascist sh*ts but still prefer to National and Act ) 4.5% of the vote didn't count.


Really? Going by the official preliminary numbers National + ACT + United Future go just over 50% (50.6). If we exclude the tiny parties their lead is even stronger.

psyck0 wrote:National Party sounds like some rabble-rousing, conservative, militaristic, Christian idiot party. Am I right?

If so, you have my condolences.


Conservative? Economically yes. I don't think social issues have been raised at all in this campaign, and John Key (National leader) is an atheist. Militaristic? John Key said he supported going to Iraq when it started but now he's switched cause he realised what an idiot he was. I think his comment half "disagree with whatever the government says" and half "suck as much American dick as possible so we can get a free trade agreement". Practically, I think there's little chance of us going to war and now we're gonna be sucking Obama's dick, which is probably a good thing.

Edit:
Speaking of which, what happened to them? Did they get their 0.5% so that they got their $1000 back?


0.51%. I don't follow Pulp Sport. What's the story around the $1000?

Our PM is gay? Huh, I never would have known if you hadn't told me he wants to suck Obama's dick . . .

Why not just give everyone a vote? Would that not fix everything? (assuming everyone isn't some moron who goes "lol wut?" at everything)

Nougatrocity wrote:
Gojoe wrote:Also, this thread is pulling in all the kiwis here that i didn't know we had.


Dude. We're like, infested with you guys.


Is this a "that's what she said" moment? :twisted:

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Gojoe » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:08 am UTC

That was a lot of quoting for a silly comment... and I hate that smiley you use all the time!
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

User avatar
LeopoldBloom
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:24 am UTC
Location: Waitaks

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby LeopoldBloom » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:41 am UTC

So, a week into our "brighter future" and I still don't need any shades. So far we have plans to privatize acc and Key making an arse of himself at APEC. Hows everyone else feeling? A lot of my friends are now telling me how much they regret voting National. Still, only three more years.
Nuke the Gay Islamic Whales for Jesus!!!!!

User avatar
NoDirectionHome
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Location: Middlesbrough, United Kingdom

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby NoDirectionHome » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:51 pm UTC

When i saw the title of this thread the first thing that came to my head was Murray from Flight Of The Conchords...

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Marquee Moon » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:53 pm UTC

LeopoldBloom wrote:So, a week into our "brighter future" and I still don't need any shades. So far we have plans to privatize acc and Key making an arse of himself at APEC. Hows everyone else feeling? A lot of my friends are now telling me how much they regret voting National. Still, only three more years.



I'd say wait more than one week before making a judgment.

Here's John Key's APEC speech for anyone who wants to read it. I think John Key did pretty well. He showed he has a good grasp of the financial situation, like his comments about hedge funds and public policy maybe becoming more anti-cyclical. Considering his background in money trading this isn't very surprising. Then he pushed world leaders to get started on free trade, which is the whole point of APEC. If we don't get any action on free trade, APEC is just a place where world leaders can have a chat and wear stupid outfits. So yeah I think he did well. I'm surprised we didn't hear more about John Key's financial knowledge before the election.

What do you think he did badly at APEC? He seemed a bit smiley in all his interviews, like he was just happy that he got invited to the cool kids' party. And it was funny how the Chinese representative cancel on him at the last minute.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Indon » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:09 pm UTC

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:To gmalivuk. The Labour party has done many good things, as I stated above, but recently they've done a large amount of severely pointless, trust losing things, like removing the ability for parents to properly disipline their children, by allowing the kids to pull the "If you smack my bum and send me to my room for trying to start a fire in the living room, I'll call the cops and you'll get in shit" card.

I read this as, "Creating and enforcing child abuse laws." If your kid is calling child abuse on you out of malice or understanding combined with a complete lack of moral upbringing, you should seriously consider that you've already irrevocably failed as a parent, and beating your little scumbag is just going to turn him into a violent, child-abusing little scumbag as an adult.

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:In a time where people were calling for help because the petrol prices are going insane, they spent a billion dollars buying a bloody train set.

I read that as, "Implementing mass transit."

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:As for turmoil, I might have gone a little bit over the top, but it has been for us, compared to our usual quiet atmosphere. Murders running rampant in south Auckland, and the way everything is being run is terrible, a man who hit the guy robbing his store with a baseball bat is being put up for assault, when the man had a knife or gun, I forget which.

How precisely are recently passed laws affecting this case? Is he actually likely to be convicted, or is it a likely affirmative defense on the part of the owner?

If I kill someone in self-defense, I'm pretty likely to be tried for murder. I won't be convicted, but I'm still likely to be tried. Is this a travesty of the American justice system?

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:Many of our students dropping out from school as soon as possible, all due to this stupid education system that they introduced, which encourages mediocrity.

That sounds like a [citation needed] to me.

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:I don't care to count just how many companies have outsourced because of Labour and their increasing taxes making it uneconomical to operate here, which has in the past few months lost many people their jobs.

So, did anyone count these companies? And is it actually because of increasing taxes, or is it because the cost of business is already so much lower in Third World Country X that the expected wages alone make it less profitable?

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:Also they're allied with the Green Party, who will ultimately ruin Tasman, the West Coast and Southland, from all their anti emission policies and anti coal mining and anti everything. The true greenie should kill themselves, because they are themselves, contributing to polluting the enviroment by eating crops that have been collected by harvesters, which use oil, by using electricity, which produces emissions, breath, passing wind and driving their cars around.

I... what?

What?

Do you have any idea of what sustainability or really anything "green" even is?

Here, I'll tell you. Sustainability is when you do things that you can keep up indefinitely - i.e. you don't run out of anything, and you don't do more of something than the environment can take. The environment can take some emissions - ideally, you would use sustainable fuel, but that's what things like taxing gasoline and establishing mass transit is about.

Edit: A tip - when you can take someone else's position and supposedly 'logically' extrapolate ridiculous results from it, you probably don't understand their position (example: "If you believe in heaven, why not die right now and get there faster?" The response: Heaven doesn't work that way), and thus don't know what you're talking about.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
LeopoldBloom
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:24 am UTC
Location: Waitaks

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby LeopoldBloom » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:39 am UTC

Please don't judge us by The-Rabid-Monkey.
Wer'e really not like that.
Nuke the Gay Islamic Whales for Jesus!!!!!

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Gojoe » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:48 am UTC

LeopoldBloom wrote:Please don't judge us by The-Rabid-Monkey.
Wer'e really not like that.
QFT! My views differ SO much from his. I personally think of him as a fool.
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

drunken
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby drunken » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:44 pm UTC

As a New Zealander I have to say I still think MMP, while not perfect, is still fairly good and anyone who blames it for John Keys election is not looking at the numbers. We voted for John Key, we have no one to blame but ourselves. It was because of voter apathy and ignorance. It was also due to the tradition in NZ (just like most two main party systems) to prefer the warmed up shit over the cold shit. We automatically start to hate our government no matter what they do after we have forgotten the previous government (which takes about 4 years) and then we vote for change for it's own sake without thinking about the policies.

Someone here commented that Key will have good economic sense because he is a shrewd businessman. I totally agree with this. I also think it is a bad thing. In his business life he was known amongst his colleagues and opponents as "The Smiling Assassin". He is ruthless, calculating and greedy. He is friends with most of the business roundtable. Given his character combined with the usual conservative policies of his party I think he has the potential to do as much damage as the Roger Douglas administration.

For those who do no know about Roger Douglas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Award he was resposible for starting the trend of privatising state owned enterprises. Two notable enterprises that were privatised were NZ Telecom and the rail company, although later by Jim Bolger. It was this rail company which the Labour government recently bought back for $1bn. The Labour government also unbundled the Telecommunication infrastructure, weakening Telecom NZ's monopoly especially where internet is concerned. For those that use trains and the internet the results were amazingly fast, with the western line finally being double tracked, and the average speed and price of internet, as well as the number of competing companies providing it, improving almost immediately. There is even "Naked" DSL now available in some test suburbs in Auckland, meaning you can have internet without having to pay an automatic minimum $40/month to the telco for a phone line that you may never use for phone calls.

The way it seems to me is that greed and conservative economic policy have done immense damage to the quality of life in New Zealand. The last Labour government was able to bandage and splint some of that damage, and it had begun healing. Now we are faced with another maniac with dollar signs in his eyes. I am out of the country at the moment but when I get back everyone I meet is getting a piece of my mind.
***This post is my own opinion and no claim is being made that it is in any way scientific nor intended to be construed as such by any reader***

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby psyck0 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:30 pm UTC

Why would a conservative grant a monopoly to a public service once it's been privatised? It's now a business and should face competition. How did they justify giving them monopolies at all?

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Ari » Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:10 pm UTC

The-Rabid-Monkey wrote:...
Also on the note of if the Bill and Ben party got a seat, wouldn't that make a mighty fine mockery of MMP? Terrible system, because it means that all these parties that people REALLY don't want to have a voice (Act, NZF, The Greens) do get one, and introduce retarded and stupid things (Tax on anything possible, anti-smacking law).
I'm not saying go back to FTP, because that also has it's stupid things, but a medium would be great.


EDIT: Also just noticed that only 2.1 million people voted, when we're around 4.5 million, now my guess is there's probably about 3 million people eligible to vote. So that probably greatly contributed to our brand new government. Remember, failure to vote at all because you don't like the current leading party is ALWAYS a vote for the opposition. So remember, protest vote, try to legalise cannabis mmmk?


The problem with MMP here is that Party lists are closed lists. The only party with any sort of list vote is the Greens, and we only vote among our party members. All the other parties just hand their list down from some party committee. Mandating that lists be voted on by party members would be a good first step. An even better second step would be to disband electorates and have completely open primaries for the party lists. (This is better than trying for a compromise system or regressing to FPP because it allows you to "punish" ineffective MPs directly without influencing which party you vote for at all)

I find it interesting you mention the Greens as a party people really don't want when the closest we have are the Progressives and United Future, both of which have been reduced to one-man bands, while the Greens are our third-largest party.

Gojoe wrote:The MMP system here is greatly flawed. I grew up in the states, and had to learn all about the MMP system before I voted (so I could be properly informed). The system gives so much power to the little parties that do not get many votes. Which is silly. The big parties that have the biggest backing should not have to bend over to the smaller parties, just so they get the swing vote.

Everyone I talk to thinks that the MMP system should be changed. How would this happen? Talking to people, it seems as if it used to be a different system, and then was switched to this a while ago. How was that change implemented? Is it possible to switch back?


This isn't a feature of MMP, really, so much as large parties perhaps being too lenient on their very small partners- which is a result of New Zealand First's initial deal with National. Parties only get seats in proportion to their votes, and the only favours the system does to smaller parties is that the algorithm is more likely to round their fractions up.

We're also a very weird MMP nation in that we don't have a large centrist party- Labour initially moved into that void, and then National followed them this election. Usually there's a large centrist party in MMP systems that holds the balance of power and moderates the other large parties' policies by choosing the more practical set. So essentially our left and right parties are all small parties, which the larger parties use as an excuse to follow their leanings to the left or the right. The dog's still wagging the tail, it's just trying its hardest to look like it isn't ;)

Gojoe wrote:MMP when I first heard about it, makes sense. But I think in practice its a bit... not good.

I think that it was made with the idea that all the parties have a similar size. For instance if their were 5 main parties, and they were all getting more or less 1/5 of the votes, it makes sense that they each have equal say etc. It is when the majority of voters go for the 2 main parties, and then a few voters go for the little parties. The 2 main parties are pretty much at tipping point of becoming the government. But because they are both so close, they need the tipping power of the little guys, which in my mind gives them far more power than they have earned from the votes.

I could be completely wrong about this btw. I only just learned about this on a crash coarse just before the election.

Also, this thread is pulling in all the kiwis here that i didn't know we had.


While it's not perfect, it's a HUGE step forward from a first past the post system. Under MMP, we don't chuck out 40-50% of the electorate's results after we determine a winner, instead all of their party votes count towards the proportionality of Parliament. As I've explained above, the perception that the "tail wags the dog" under MMP has come from the lack of a significant centre swing party, which most other MMP democracies have had. Instead our two major parties have taken on the centrist roles becoming almost indistinguishable, and expressed their real political character through their concessions to the smaller parties- hence why the Greens passed every one of their Members' Bills that got put to Parliament last term, and hence why Act has such ridiculous concessions in its coalition agreement like reviewing the science of climate change to see if it even exists.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: A brighter future for New Zealand

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:12 am UTC

I've been avoiding this thread because I knew I wouldn't be able to resist disputing every other post in here, but I see someone has already started for me.

Ari, I (think I) know of another person in the New Zealand interwebosphere who uses that handle, do you use that name elsewhere?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests