Tag Archives: Elections

Left or Right. There is no centre.

Posted on by Brad Heap

This is a summary graph of the political polls over the past three years. Look at the recent end. National is dropping. But so is Labour. Who is rising? The Greens and Act. What does that mean?

a) The minor parties matter!

b) A vote for Act or National will result in a right wing government. A vote for the Greens or Labour will be a left wing Government.

The choice is yours! This election is not all over. It is not a done and dusted result. It is wide open and your vote matters.

Rock the Vote. November 8 2008.

At least the media commentators understand MMP even if the politicans don’t.

Posted on by Brad Heap

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539439

With regards to the Maori Seats, Overhangs, 5% thresholds, electorate seats and United Future trying to take a line on removing them:

“United Future has been one of the more anomalous features of the political landscape since the introduction of MMP. In 1996 and 1999, Dunne carried his electorate, Ohariu-Belmont, but his party’s shares of the vote (0.9 and 0.5 per cent respectively) would not have seen it in Parliament otherwise; in 2002, United Future got eight MPs, partly by feasting on the remains after National’s massacre and partly because an electronic worm in a leaders’ debate responded positively to Dunne’s repeated intoning of the phrase common sense.”

…

“By the last election United Future’s boilover of support had noticeably cooled: the party got three MPs, one of whom has since defected. And in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey, it is at the very bottom of the party-vote pile, on a paltry 0.2 per cent.

Right now, Dunne is the very last person in our politics who should be complaining about a party’s over-representation in the House on the strength of its showing in electorate contests. That same poll has Maori Party support at 2.4 per cent well short of what it needs to get list seats in Parliament, but some 12 times as much as United Future can muster. Dunne has always had a wildly inflated sense of his place in the scheme of things, as his tantrum on election night in 2005 famously demonstrated, but numbers like those should give even him pause for thought.”

This is MMP:

“The influence that the Maori Party may exert in the formation of the next Government will strengthen the argument of those who feel that, under MMP, small-party tails are wagging large-party dogs. But that does not, of itself, argue for the abolition of the Maori seats. NZ First, Act, United Future and the Progressives have all, at different times and to different extents, exerted influence disproportionate to their mandate. That is MMP.”

…

“There is an argument to be had as to whether a party-vote threshold, perhaps lower than the existing 5 per cent, should have to be crossed before local success can deliver a seat in Parliament. But the need for that discussion arises because of all the minor parties and the different demographics of their constituencies. It is not an issue raised by the case of the Maori Party alone.”

I personally think that the 5% rule should be removed and if you win enough votes to get a seat you get it. Or if this is going to bring too many “randoms” into parliament and create 12 headed monsters then make it 3 MPs like they do in some other MMP countries. (I also think no party should be able to get over 35% of the vote but lets not go there).

And from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539435

“It seems strange that the media still promote poll results as if it’s merely a contest between National and Labour. It’s actually between a Clark-led centre left coalition and a Key-led centre right coalition. At present it’s too close to call.”

…

“Smith’s unguarded comments expose a nasty side of the Nats that won’t be lost on the Pacific Island and other migrant communities.

If the publicity of these comments even knocks 1 or 2 per cent off National’s vote it may be the difference between winning and losing, and certainly puts it at the mercy of the Maori Party.

It will make it harder for the Maori Party to convince its supporters that National has changed its spots and be considered a possible coalition partner. Maori voters overwhelmingly prefer Labour over National.

National’s post-election price to the Maori Party was always going to be high. Polls show the size of Parliament will increase to at least 125 seats and therefore make it almost impossible for National and its right-wing allies to get a majority without the Maori Party.

National would probably have to repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation and guarantee the future of the Maori seats for the Maori Party to risk its electorate base. It’s a big ask, of course, but after nine years in the wilderness I think the Nats would trade their grandmother if they had to.”

…

“Clark and Key understand that they are almost certain to have to deal with the Maori Party if they want to be prime minister. If we believe the polls, Clark’s best chance of keeping her job is if the number of MPs in Parliament is increased above 120 because of an overhang.

If that happened National and its allies would just fall short of a majority of MPs. This would only happen if the Maori Party won more electorate seats than its party vote percentage allowed. Ironically Labour’s slim chance to remain in government may happen if the Maori Party defeats it in the seven Maori electorates and National won’t repeal the seabed and foreshore legislation. How delicious.”

And ironically at the end of the day it could be Labour losing the Maori Seats that keeps them in power. Politics, nothing is ever clear cut.

Why the Greens went with Labour

Posted on by Brad Heap

From Kiwiblog comments:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_least_surprising_decision_of_recent_times.html#comment-498529

Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.

And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth – from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?

The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.

Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.

If only those blind people following populist speakers would for once listen to sound policy and debate.

Is NZ going to the dogs?

Posted on by Brad Heap

I say no.

And I’m sick of people saying it is.

And saying that the National Party will be the knight in shining armour to save us.

The reality is that we are doing pretty well.

Excerpts From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand%27s_international_rankings

  • Political freedom ratings – Free; political rights and civil liberties both rated 1 (the highest score available)
  • Global Peace Index – 4th, at 1.35
  • Corruption – In a three-way tie for least corrupt, at 9.4 on index
  • Economic Freedom – 5th equal freest, at 81.6 on index
  • Failed States Index, 172/177, being one of the few “sustainable” states in the world.
  • Global Prosperity Index – 5th country in overall
  • Ease of paying tax – 9th easiest
  • Top Country Award – New Zealand has won the honor two years in a row (2007, 2008) by Wanderlust Magazine.

More of National’s Secret Agenda Revealed

Posted on by Brad Heap

National Party tertiary education spokesman Paul Hutchison said students should be able to decide for themselves whether they wanted compulsory membership of student associations.

“I’m aware there are concerns by some that say there isn’t strong accountability for the money they get,” he said.

“All the time, I hear murmurings of there being inappropriate usage of student levies by the unions.”

It was important that accounts were “absolutely transparent” to show that each student dollar was being spent well on students, he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4707318a6530.html

Dr Hutchison has stated three times this year that he wants to see Students’ Associations become voluntary. Yet it is not a National Party Policy.

For the record Dr Hutchison and National:

  • Students’ Associations are incorporated.
  • They are required to be externally audited.
  • They are required to be registered with the companies office
  • They are required to hold AGMs and keep their books open.

So where is this inappropriate use and mismanagement? The reality is there isn’t any. If there was there would be lots more cases of fraud. Which there isn’t.

Green Party Billboards

Posted on by Brad Heap

Yesterday the Green Party launched its billboards for the upcoming election. I particularly like this one:

The problem however is that New Zealand is not on the centre of the earth. It must be!

So in setting out on resolving this problem I decided to be inclusive of all and therefore put the entire globe, spinning behind it. And viola!

Universal Living Allowances

Posted on by Brad Heap

There has been a lot of noise in the media recently about Universal Living Allowances for all students.

I am a strong believer in the fact that you go to University to learn and get an education that will better you and the country. I do not believe that you should have to distract yourself away from studies to do part time work to support yourself financially. If the Government wants an knowledge economy of the future they must first fund it.

What I propose is a Universal Living Allowance for all fulltime students as follows:

  • To qualify you must be enrolled as a fulltime student in a course with a minimum length of 6 months.
  • The student allowance rate should be set at the same amount as the dole.
  • Once you have completed your first year on the USL you can only qualify for subsequent years if and only if you pass 75% of your papers in your previous years.
  • USL should only be available to undergraduate and honours students. Any research driven post-graduate qualifications should be paid for through scholarships.
  • Only University and Polytech students in a recognised post-secondary course should be eligible.

Now I have no idea of how much this would cost. But this is what this country needs. Hand ups to those who deserve it, not hand outs to those that don’t.

Young Voters

Posted on by Brad Heap

The New Zealand Herald has an article today about first time voters this year.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10485396&pnum=0

The article is mainly focused around one person, and comes from a very left wing point of view. Parts of the article are very good, other parts leave a lot to be desired. Some particular comments:

On May 12, she’ll turn 18 and become one of the 190,000-195,000 New Zealanders who, by September 30, will have come of voting age since the 2005 general election. This year, roughly one in 15 (6 per cent) of eligible voters will be first-timers.

This is a large number, and has potential to (if they vote wisely) affect the election.

What do they care about? What will sway them? Will they bother to vote?

Maddy’s mind is already made up. “I’ll vote Green. I don’t know that much, but I just like the ideas. Freedom of speech… I think most kids from here will vote for them because they think it’ll mean legalising weed.”

This is a sad comment, although, it is probably quite true, a sad reflection of today’s youth. People should know who they are really voting for rather then just voting for a party because they are “cool”.

Bradford’s bill, passed into law last winter, reinforced Maddy’s Green leaning. So did the party’s campaign to raise (ideally abolish) minimum youth rates. At $13.50 an hour gross, Maddy knows she’s on good pay for her age, but she struggles to save. She’s reconciled to a student loan for the four-year bachelor of design course at Unitec she begins in March. Her parents, whose earnings disqualify her from a student allowance, will help but with fees of $5700 a year plus living expenses, Maddy expects to rack up around $40,000 of debt.

I believe that this will be one of the reasons that many young people will vote for left leaning parties. This is the culture that the youth of today are being brought up in.

“I don’t stress out about it. I do want to go overseas after, and you get interest when you go overseas, but I don’t want to hang around here until I pay it off.”

This is another issue. When people are becoming qualified they are immediately leaving. See wiping interest did not do much for keeping people in New Zealand, what is needed is a cultural shift. We need a culture that values and respects workers. I doubt that many people today would be strongly proud of their country, except on the rugby pitch.

But she knows of others who’ve been put off tertiary studies because of student loans.

I know of a few as well, but not many. I don’t think that the true figure will be very high.

Young people are often maligned as apolitical and apathetic, but Maddy says political engagement is more to do with parental role models.

Lessons on MMP at school (she wasn’t taught about the system), a free gig carrying political messages, and ads on the radio could reach more youth. Teenagers with parents who don’t care, she predicts, “will grow up and not care either; not because they’re teenagers but because they’ve never really talked about it, nobody’s shown them how it affects them directly. They can’t see how it changes things for you.”

Absolutely agree, unless politics is made “cool” and relevant todays youth few will be interested. 6% of the population maybe newly able to vote, but how many will vote? The youth could really turn this election on its head.