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


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:

“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

From Kiwiblog comments:

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.

-7C in Whakatane? WTF?

Did someone put the thermometer in the freezer or something. And check out the windchill -15C and 7 layers of clothing needed… quite literally off the chart.

The Control Centre

I have been planning this post for a while now… I just had to clean my room to make it happen. Here is my “Control Centre” in 2008. The last time I took one of these pictures was in 2006 and you can see the comparison between the two years. (they are also two different flats)

The Control Centre as it appears today. And below as it appeared in 2006

Also for those who don’t know how small my room is here is a good shot.



Is NZ going to the dogs?

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:

  • 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.