This is good.
A more diverse parliament and more importantly government is better for everyone everywhere.
I think we might end up seeing the period of 2002-2020 as somewhat unusual in the broad scheme of MMP. Every election during this period, one of the major parties has had 40%+ of the vote, and in a few, the second largest party has been close to 40. The only times smaller parties got a decent share was when National or Labour ended up in the 20s.
1996 might be seen as a more “normal” election, where no party reached 35.
Of course, a long time to go until the election, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens this time around.
I think that 2002-2020 period was also probably informed by a lot of older voters who got spooked by the instability of the National-NZ First coalition and it became more desirable to have one really strong party for those voters too.
But there’s now a whole generation of voters who weren’t alive when Shipley rolled Bolger basically because he was moving slowly to keep his coalition partner on board, only to find that pissing off your coalition partner kinda destabilises your government. I wasn’t yet a voter, but that National Party shift was basically from a PM trying to work within the new rules of MMP to one that wanted to act as though National had an outright majority.
I imagine a lot of the frustration of this Labour government is that they didn’t do a lot with an actual majority :) But then there’s an advantage to being able to pin unpopular policies (that you still really want to do) on your small coalition partner - ie Act pull National governments further right than National parties campaign. But it strikes me that they’re quite happy with the policies, just know they can’t campaign on them.
Yeah, really good points. I think the coalition negotiation process was also very messy after that first MMP election (part of the why the coalition broke down). But Helen Clark introduced a very streamlined process in 1999, and that has basically been the blueprint ever since.
(As a side note, when the UK was doing a review of its electoral system, they sent people out to see what was happening in NZ. It happened to be during the first MMP term when the coalition had broken down. They concluded that MMP was a nightmare and the UK should avoid it. So that’s probably part of the reason it was never offered as an option when they had their own electoral system referendum. If they’d come over just a few years later, they’d have seen how that was an anomaly, and MMP runs extremely well here now!)
Also agree on National… my view is that National at its core is more right than centre, but Labour is more centre than left at its core. So National are happy to pick up Act policies, but Labour are more hesitant to pick up Green policies.
He tends to waffle on a bit, doesn’t he?
Also, Chloe showing up in the preferred PM list when neither Marama nor Shaw have the privilege is absolutely brilliant.
I wonder if we’ll see atleast one of the minor parties achieve 5% this election.
We’re almost certainly going to see five parties with seats, as TPM will likely win an electorate. NZ first may or may not get in.
Top? Lol.
I’ve only recently started paying any real close attention - what makes you doubt TOP the most out of those 3?
Because their voter base consists entirely of terminally online policy nerds. Both the party and their supporters are completely unable to sell their ideas to normal people.
Also, their tax proposals are dumb.
I’ll be amazed if they make 1%.
haha good to know some insight. I’m getting the feel that they are quite detached from reality then?
Detached from reality, and also mostly broke students, from what I can tell.
There’s also a disturbing lack of empathy for the people that will be negatively affected by their policies, in particular a vilification of the elderly for wanting to live in their house post retirement. Maorimegacricket on r/newzealand is a notable example of this.
A lot of their supporters are, quite simply, not very pleasant people.
Oof haha. Someone should make a Common Sense party.
Honestly, their biggest issue is there’s not much wrong with our current tax system anyway. All we need to do is adjust the brackets for inflation, and perhaps tweak the rates a bit. We don’t need a radical overhaul.
I’m a terminally online policy nerd and am not voting for them - and where the hell are their crime/ law and order/ justice/ policing / corrections policies? I’m not voting for them or anyone until I see those thank you very much. I do like the unrelated policies I do see on their site, but without those crucial policy areas addressed and in some detail I cannot put my vote their way
As a minor party, is it not ok for them to have policies in some areas that they will push for, and have no policies in others where they will go with what the coalition government is proposing?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I have no idea about those things with TOP, but I’m just proposing the question because I feel like you may have an interesting answer 🙂
That’d be fine depending on who they go into coalition with - and if tha’s what they intend to do, they should say as much on their site.
That said, its an important policy area not just to me but to a lot of the public (second most important issue in surveys of late if I recall rightly) and I think it would be in their own interests to commit to a policy direction so that people know what they are voting for
That’s a pretty solid stance, and makes sense. But to be honest I was hoping for a bit more of an exciting policy nerd answer 😛
