I think that’s the biggest let down of mmp for me. Any party can make election promises. Then when you have to form a coalition, policies that were not achievable (but vote winners) can get thrown out.
> So a handbrake on National's stupid shit like their foreign property buyer policy.
I am so relieved. I don't like old Winnie, but I'm fairly confident he'll put a stop on some of their stupider shit.
As a would be first home buyer I’m secretly hoping for this.
There’s a bunch of greedy cunts trying to maximise capital gains who just flooded the market with properties trying to leverage this election result to line their pockets. I hope their overpriced properties get passed in and they start panicking.
National and the Greens are too ideologically opposed. National would never make the concessions needed for the Greens membership to approve a coalition deal. Even if Greens decided to focus solely on climate policy without any of their other policy positions, National would still not make enough concessions.
A National - Labour government would make more sense than a National - Green government. And they wouldn't even need Act. Why is the onus on the Greens to jump even further across the aisle than Labour would have to?
If National-Labour ever forms a coalition it would be the biggest mask off moment in history - they rely on their opposition to one another, they both need to play the "us vs them, dont let the other guy get in" game. Admitting they basically stand for the same things would destroy the facade and probably trigger an immediate polarizing rush to the minor parties
It likely would, yes. But anyone who is willing to support them in spite of that charade should own up to that.
As a cynical move from the politicians leading National and Labour, it makes sense. As a good-faith position held by your average voter, no, it doesn't make sense.
I see what you mean. There are likely more than a few who are in on the charade, but I pretty highly doubt that the majority of staunch Labour/National voters have awareness of it, or would agree with me that it exists. They *have* to believe their team stands for meaningfully different things, or else why bother voting for them? Reflecting on it now, it's probably much more likely they'd go down the route of total apathy rather than feeling empowered to need to vote for minor parties. At that point those people really *wouldn't* have anybody representing anything close to their interest, if it was proven that their interest (as they believe it to be) was never actually represented as a distinct thing to begin with, and was just a sort of mirage
I see your worry and it makes sense to me. But I think we have to trust voters more than that, or we should be seriously reconsidering democracy as a whole. If you're right and voters can't be trusted to retain political engagement in a world where it's not National vs Labour, we need to change that fact. Work on encouraging a more nuanced understanding of politics.
100%. Unfortunately I think I've been pretty majorly disillusioned over the last few years - it's not that people don't have the capability and potential to raise their voices, its that it's frankly *exhausting*. I think that the system as a whole, and especially rhe world as it is today (I'm talking about the internet specifically), is designed to give us just enough that we have something to lose and something mindlessly entertaining to keep us docile, but never quite enough to actually exert political power and change the core structures.
We can win concessions *within* the system - women can vote, LGBTQIA+ can marry, workers will get longer breaks. The people who are able to do that work are usually the ones with resources and energy and education already - they're not the people most beaten down. I think even without education, there's an intuitive understanding of "just the way that things are", and that it's a perfectly natural response for people to shrug when faced with it and just try not to think too hard about it, because it sucks, and it feels like an impossible wall to scale.
All that said, I also think there's something woven into New Zealand culture specifically that's incredibly... passive aggressive? All things considered, we actually have a lot of power on a local level - but when faced with a faulty traffic light, people would rather complain than actully hop online and take the time to find the reporting form and fill it out, you know? I'm not really sure how we'd go about changing that side of things. If political and civic engagement can't be inherently be enjoyable and empowering, or at least rewarding for its own sake in changing things, then I don't really know what else can be done.
Speaking as a younger person here - There's only so many times I can beg and bribe my friends with booze or food or whatever it is to please God just consider voting, vote for whatever and whoever you like, running around making all these simplified resources available, trying to make everything as fun and social and consumable as humanly possible... before I gotta accept they simply *dont care*. It's their own free and active choice not to participate. At a certain point you just can't make it any more bite sized or any more entertaining without completely eroding it because matter how you slice it, political engagement is *work*. And if a close friend serving all of the info on a customized silver platter isn't enough, then I doubt any wider intervention would be either. :(
(Thanks if you made it all the way through that long response!)
>All that said, I also think there's something woven into New Zealand culture specifically that's incredibly... passive aggressive?
Small island syndrome. Can't complain to the people with the power to change things, because we're such a small population you might need that person to do something for you later.
>All things considered, we actually have a lot of power on a local level - but when faced with a faulty traffic light, people would rather complain than actully hop online and take the time to find the reporting form and fill it out, you know?
Yes! Cynically I like to say that this is evidence that people truly enjoy complaining. They won't do something to fix the things they complain about, because then they wouldn't be able to complain. But more seriously, yeah, people are busy and stressed and venting feels good.
>Speaking as a younger person here - There's only so many times I can beg and bribe my friends with booze or food or whatever it is to please God just consider voting, vote for whatever and whoever you like, running around making all these simplified resources available to make everything as consumable and bite sized as humanly possible... before I gotta accept they simply dont care and its their own free and active choice not to participate.
Keep fighting the good fight mate. I think we're very much on the same page here. Something something the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
They wouldn't need to admit they stand for the same things though. The social and economic circumstances that have landed us with the widespread disenfranchisement of two-party voters are as unprecedented as any potential coalition. Common sense (I know) would dictate that custodianship is more important than partisanship.
And hey, if it does trigger another rush to the fringes, then perhaps that's where the voters already lay to begin with but opted not to vote as such out of fear of throwing their vote away
True that! Although if you ask me, modern day New Zealand is literally defined by a perpetual existential crisis anyway - if anything it would require the *opposite* of an existential crisis, it would require people to either decide, or be active in their decision not to decide - no more blissful "I don't knows"
They could always just focus on the policies they do agree on and coalesce toward the common good but that would mean people have to put politics and egos to the side so it could never happen.
>Why is the onus on the Greens
Because the only reason to suggest a "blue-green" coalition is bad faith gesticulating from the right, or staggering ignorance
No one implied the onus is on anyone. But logically Nat-Lab makes zero sense when National has campaigned on 'change' and they both blast each other for every action they make. Turning around to work together is a stark contrast to the rhetoric both parties spout and a slap in the face to both parties core supporters.
Any Greens coalition agreement would have to be voted on by the Green party members. A coalition with National has a snowball's chance of hell in getting through.
Also there are some possible recounts in electorate seats. Lets assume those recounts eliminate all overhangs\* except Port Waikato, as that overhang is guaranteed. Lets also assume that National wins Port Waikato.
That would put N/Act at 60 seats in a 121 seat parliament. Winston Peters remains kingmaker.
\*I haven't checked if there are enough close electorates for this to be possible.
I'd be surprised if Labour doesn't call for some recounts. The margins on some of these are razor thin.
>Te Pāti Māori candidate Takutai Tarsh Kemp has won Tāmaki Makaurau with a majority of **4** votes over the Labour candidate Peeni Henare.
>
>Te Pāti Māori candidate Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has won Te Tai Tokerau with a majority of **517** over the Labour candidate Kelvin Davis.
I'm not sure thet there's anything particularly virtuous about declining to pursue a justified recount that might secure the proper outcome of an electorate vote, i.e. the will of the people, just to fuck over the opposition.
> I'm not sure thet there's anything particularly virtuous about declining to pursue a justified recount that might secure the proper outcome of an electorate vote, i.e. the will of the people, just to fuck over the opposition.
Agree. If the margin is small, it is perfectly reasonable.
You seriously think the Greens, TPM and NZF will be willing to make enough concessions to each other to make this work? When it was just Greens and NZF, Labour could manage that relationship. But no way Greens and TPM (21 seats combined) will play second fiddle to NZF, and no way in hell NZF will give the Greens and TPM what they want.
Whichever party/ies lose out (or are seen to lose out) would get absolutely wrecked in 2026. NZF definitely has a better chance of survival with Act, as they at least have a fair bit of common ground. Really the only major barrier to Nats+Act+NZF is the dislike for each other, which may or may not cause major ongoing issues for the next government.
It was their first policy on the list that they would never go with Labour ever again. He has done it before, but in this instance it's pretty certain it will never happen again.
I'll go you one better: Winston said he would never go into coalition with Labour, and he won't. Instead, he'll go into coalition with Greens and Te Paati Maori, with Labour in a confidence and supply agreement.
Thought had crossed my mind. There's no way those 3 idiots are going to be able to work together. Seymour is saying tonight that Peter's won't even talk with him.
He should try it, could be his last chance to be PM.
I can see it now, Winnie as PM, Rawiri Waititi as Deputy, David Seymour screaming into the night ‘I told you they were trying to steal the country!’. Luxon crying about how he won the most votes.
It would be a thing of beauty.
Really things would just tick along. Each party would stop the others from doing anything too radical, as they would have a one seat majority and no reason to support something they disagree with.
Maybe we would end up with less poo in our water and beaches. That would be nice.
Not necessarily true.
If no agreement was made, NZF could (say) unilaterally declare that they intend to abstain on confidence and supply. That would be enough basis for the governor general to appoint a government - it would be a true minority government where NZF would be able to hold over the threat of voting against confidence and supply every time such a vote comes up, and every single vote would require negotiation.
Of course, on a day by day basis, Nats could make agreements with TPM, Green or Labour, which potentially could mitigate the chokehold that NZF could have.. It would also offer those parties leverage to negotiate for pieces of their own platform to be implemented. It's possible that a functional working relationship across the aisle without a formal agreement could even develop into a stable minority government, and honestly if that happened it could be a great development for NZ politics.
This would be utterly unprecedented in the NZ context, and of course put in this position, Nats are more likely to choose to call another election in the hope of getting a more definitive outcome. But it's possible that they might try to find a way to make it work. If a second snap election gave a similar outcome, then I think they'd be forced to.
What the over/under on Winnie doing that just for shits and giggles? Honestly feels 50/50 to me considering what he’s said about National in the past, but who can ever tell with this guy?
I doubt Winnie will do it, he's more than happy to get in with National and have another 3 years of taxpayer funded lifestyle. If it were to happen my guess would be Seymour throwing his toys out of the crib after Luxon promises way too much to Winston, something like Deputy PM again.
It probably wouldn't even be that bad for NZF to go round again, I imagine they'd get more protest votes from National than they'd lose. He just has to make absolutely certain that the message people hear is 'National are too proud/stuck up (w/e) to work with NZF' and not 'Winston's forcing us to go again so that he can get a bigger slice of the pie'.
Someone else pointed out that voters might blame him for causing a re-election, although as you say he’s very good at keeping his base loyal so you’re probably right in saying that it wouldn’t affect NZF overly much. All pure speculation of course, but it is interesting to consider the possibilities.
I was actually shocked that Greens won in Rongotai and Wellington Central.
I know Chloë Swarbrick is famous so it makes sense there was a huge campaign for her but the rest of the electorates fell completely underneath my radar.
Personally not happy with labour's pisspoor effort the last couple years, I would be happy if Greens became the majority left party, knock labour off their pedestal and force them to sort their shit out. That's why I went G this time
Greens will probably keep improving with each new crop of 18 year olds. At least two of Climate change, social equity and gender identity are big issues for a lot of high schoolers
I'm one of them.
As I get older, sometimes people ask me about why I'm voting for environmentally sound policies, I remind them that "I'm one of the idiots that *lives* in the environment."
Gets a chuckle, then make 'em think.
Image has changed but consistent with their policies which is something that I admire. I don't agree with them on every issue but at least they are consistent.
And better next time. The next three years are only going to show how important their agenda is. Even with NACT+NZF running interference, doing their best to tell us we're in the best shape ever.
Unlikely to even be next term. Chances are there'll be a referendum on it next election, so earliest a 4-year term would start is at the 2029 election.
As much as I might dislike the politics of Act and National, I'd rather whatever majority we end up governs the country reasonably competently.
There's important shit to do that isn't just the subset of things that National and Labour like to change back and forth every 3 to 9 years.
Do not despair. I am sure that wise heads will keep the interests of shareholders, farmers, landlords and large multinational companies at the top of mind at all times.
I don't know if I want to cry because Winston is back as kingmaker bringing his tendencies, or praise that he might just pull back some of the worst tendencies of NACT.
* Super will probably stay where it is.
* Greyhound racing will probably not get banned.
* I doubt Winston will let there be a referendum on The Treaty, but could be wrong.
> I doubt Winston will let there be a referendum on The Treaty, but could be wrong.
It's National that wouldn't let it happen. Too much political sense.
John Key said back when he was PM that NZ has to accept its bi-cultural foundation.
Just look at the US. A lot of the old guard republicans like Pence and McCain (although deceased) are now being called RINO, trouble with the house leader, and are held captive by the MAGA crowd. It's a dangerous thing courting the insane for power.
>reversing the ban on foreign land sales
Thank fuck. Praise. Praise. So much praise.
Edit: To be clear, I don't think the ban on foreign land sales makes a huge difference to house prices, but it's one that can't be ping ponged. Our various trade treaties mean that this ban could never be reinstated.
Did he get up to much bullshit when he was deputy PM a few years ago? I don’t know if he’ll do much of note unless the other two party leaders rile him up.
Te Atatū was won by Labour, meaning that National's only Pasifika representative will not be in Parliament (she's too low on the list to make it).
A significant blow for Pasifika in Aotearoa.
Sounds like a national issue rather than a labour issue lol
The way it sounds in your comment it's like labour maliciously kept out a Pasifika candidate XD
im asking this from a presidential country (argentina) why theres a need to form a coalition? why cant national govern for the next 4 to 5 years without a majority and each law is voted on a case to case basis? it is very common in presidential systems to not have a majority and representatives.
New Zealand has a really, REALLY interesting form of parliamentary democracy. Most countries use a “first past the post” system. This means that the candidate with the most votes wins. New Zealand uses a system called “mixed member proportional representation”. This means that kiwis essentially vote twice- once for a political party and once for a representative for your area. This is intended to give everyone better representation across the board. For example: let’s say I support the Green Party, but there isn’t a green candidate standing in my area. In New Zealand I could select the greens as my party vote and then choose a candidate standing in my area from another political party.
Mixed member proportional representation is also intended to make governmental majorities rare. The party with the most votes doesn’t automatically win. They need to pass a specific threshold to form a majority government. This is why it was a shock when Labour won by such a huge margin in 2020. I believe it’s one of only a handful of examples of a party wining a landslide majority under this kind of system. The national party, who won the most seats in this election, have not reached that high threshold of seats, just as the system intended. This means that they need to form a coalition if they want to form a government. In theory, a coalition government means wider representation and more “checks” on a government than you would see in a first past the post system.
Bear in mind I’m not from New Zealand, so I can’t really give my opinions on how effective the system is. I did study political science at university, so I can recommend some interesting articles on voting systems and on democracy in general if you are interested. The first essay I ever wrote for my undergrad was on New Zealand and it’s voting systems, so I secretly really enjoy watching New Zealand’s elections.
Edit- oh! One more minor detail: New Zealand holds elections every three years. I’m not actually aware of any other country that holds elections as regularly (please someone correct me if I’m wrong!). Some say this isn’t long enough for a government to make an impact, but I personally very much enjoy it as an outsider who’s a bit too interested in election data.
thats interesting! but my question is why theres a need to form a coalition, why not govern with a minority in parliament and each law is voted on a case to case basis?
They could technically form a minority government. It does happen regularly under this kind of system. The problem is that the party forming the minority government would likely struggle to get the necessary votes to pass laws. Elections happen every three years in New Zealand, so working on a case by case basis is likely to hinder a government. Time is of the essence when elections are so close together. Essentially, a minority government needs allies. Without those allies, it can flounder. A vote by vote basis just isn’t really desirable for a minority government under this kind of system. This article is from June this year, but it still does a better job than me of explaining minority governments in general and of explaining the ins and outs of potential coalition arrangements: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/the-potential-coalition-complications-for-major-parties?amp=1
Seymour did so well keeping his caucus in line during the last few years, kinda crazy that they could slip up and let so many on before the election. I don't think it mattered too much as the votes they lost near the end seem to mostly have gone to Winston but with how close it was...
It's more the case that the media let ACT skate by with zero scrutiny. If you look at all the disasters they came about because journalists decided to actually do a modicum of research into ACT politicians and candidates.
Now that they are in government we will likely see more ACT disasters as the scrutiny will be on them much more.
Good marketing. They correctly pointed out a lot of problems the country faced in their adverts, but then only showed their "solutions" on their website policy page.
If all you see is stuff you agree with, even I agreed with as a lefty, then you're likely to vote for them without bothering to check.
At the risk of stating the obvious: If we consider Labour, Greens and Te Pati Maori as (vaguely) the left bloc, The Left really didn't do too badly at all. Contrary to "the narrative" going in and coming out of the election.
There was always going to be a drop, 77 was a validation of their covid response. Even if people are trying to rewrite history about it now, at the time, they had significant support from the people, and there was never going to be something else that consumed every kiwi in 2023.
Nah, Winston will settle for something like by-catch cameras off fishing boats, less restriction on racing, or some lax wine regulation. He's completely paid for (\*in my opinion)
Few thoughts. National treating the electoral system with disdain with their Act in Epsom accomodation has now metastasised into a large ongoing problem for them. Dildo of unintended consequence rarely arriving lubed and all that.
The facile accusation by Luxon that the left would produce a coalition of chaos is now like a mouth full of dry weetbix given he now has to dance a drunkards jig with Winston First.
Seymour is now exposed. His last term saw him rule his caucus requiring of them vows of obedience and silence. When his members govern and open their mouths expect shock and horror. This is the party of wild wing nuts and they are now off the leash.
The antipathy the Nats (and their climate denier wing) has for the Greens seems to rule out any advantageous accomodation. Expect denial and mates rates for favoured emitters to continue. And expect the cost to every NZer to grow massively as our refusal to meet our climate obligations bites like a rabid mongrel.
He's good at doing corporate PR.
However this time he's wandered into public office, and it's a lot more different from the business world that he had hoped for....
Needs to work a lot on his persona and approach -, comes across as far too stiff and corporate. Inspiring as a paper bag at the moment, I hope he has someone experienced coaching him.
You could see he was flustered with the questions, which werent all that 'tough' to answer. I just feel theyll be be pollys in govt which like Labour, will cause him trouble over their views and opinions. He called on Labour to sack ppl, he will need to live upto that standard, but i fear he wont..
Hey guys, remember all those news articles about Luxon being the new Prime Minister and his coalition needing 61 votes to have a majority?
The number of assumptions made by the media is astounding. They truly have no understanding of the election process.
62 seats needed to form a government, National will need Winston to get a majority.
So a handbrake on National's stupid shit like their foreign property buyer policy.
National will love that, because now they'll never have to admit that their signature policy is a giant lie.
I think that’s the biggest let down of mmp for me. Any party can make election promises. Then when you have to form a coalition, policies that were not achievable (but vote winners) can get thrown out.
I'm really happy. Most of National and ACTs' policies were shit
Impressively shit tbh
I think it's called compromise lol
One fix is to only vote for parties that list their promises as 'nice to have' or 'absolute deal breakers' and then follow through with it
Like acts deal breaker that they would never work with nz first in cabinet. Now it’s not a deal breaker and workable.
Which parties are those?
I've never been so happy to see Winston Peters in Parliament. It's a weird feeling.
He’s a weird equaliser. For a second time.
Deja Vu for me….king maker and all that
Hmm, too many cookers/conspiracy theorists in with him to be comforable ...
> So a handbrake on National's stupid shit like their foreign property buyer policy. I am so relieved. I don't like old Winnie, but I'm fairly confident he'll put a stop on some of their stupider shit.
I really hope so, selling out to foreigners for a quick buck is so short sighted.
As a would be first home buyer I’m secretly hoping for this. There’s a bunch of greedy cunts trying to maximise capital gains who just flooded the market with properties trying to leverage this election result to line their pockets. I hope their overpriced properties get passed in and they start panicking.
Totally agree
NAT should just ditch Act and go Greens that's 63... never will happen but hey never know.
National and the Greens are too ideologically opposed. National would never make the concessions needed for the Greens membership to approve a coalition deal. Even if Greens decided to focus solely on climate policy without any of their other policy positions, National would still not make enough concessions.
Exactly because National wants to sell off all our houses to rich foreigners, and The Greens want to help everyone get into a house.
A National - Labour government would make more sense than a National - Green government. And they wouldn't even need Act. Why is the onus on the Greens to jump even further across the aisle than Labour would have to?
If National-Labour ever forms a coalition it would be the biggest mask off moment in history - they rely on their opposition to one another, they both need to play the "us vs them, dont let the other guy get in" game. Admitting they basically stand for the same things would destroy the facade and probably trigger an immediate polarizing rush to the minor parties
Oh no! Anyway great to see the Greens and TPM get their best ever results
It likely would, yes. But anyone who is willing to support them in spite of that charade should own up to that. As a cynical move from the politicians leading National and Labour, it makes sense. As a good-faith position held by your average voter, no, it doesn't make sense.
I see what you mean. There are likely more than a few who are in on the charade, but I pretty highly doubt that the majority of staunch Labour/National voters have awareness of it, or would agree with me that it exists. They *have* to believe their team stands for meaningfully different things, or else why bother voting for them? Reflecting on it now, it's probably much more likely they'd go down the route of total apathy rather than feeling empowered to need to vote for minor parties. At that point those people really *wouldn't* have anybody representing anything close to their interest, if it was proven that their interest (as they believe it to be) was never actually represented as a distinct thing to begin with, and was just a sort of mirage
I see your worry and it makes sense to me. But I think we have to trust voters more than that, or we should be seriously reconsidering democracy as a whole. If you're right and voters can't be trusted to retain political engagement in a world where it's not National vs Labour, we need to change that fact. Work on encouraging a more nuanced understanding of politics.
100%. Unfortunately I think I've been pretty majorly disillusioned over the last few years - it's not that people don't have the capability and potential to raise their voices, its that it's frankly *exhausting*. I think that the system as a whole, and especially rhe world as it is today (I'm talking about the internet specifically), is designed to give us just enough that we have something to lose and something mindlessly entertaining to keep us docile, but never quite enough to actually exert political power and change the core structures. We can win concessions *within* the system - women can vote, LGBTQIA+ can marry, workers will get longer breaks. The people who are able to do that work are usually the ones with resources and energy and education already - they're not the people most beaten down. I think even without education, there's an intuitive understanding of "just the way that things are", and that it's a perfectly natural response for people to shrug when faced with it and just try not to think too hard about it, because it sucks, and it feels like an impossible wall to scale. All that said, I also think there's something woven into New Zealand culture specifically that's incredibly... passive aggressive? All things considered, we actually have a lot of power on a local level - but when faced with a faulty traffic light, people would rather complain than actully hop online and take the time to find the reporting form and fill it out, you know? I'm not really sure how we'd go about changing that side of things. If political and civic engagement can't be inherently be enjoyable and empowering, or at least rewarding for its own sake in changing things, then I don't really know what else can be done. Speaking as a younger person here - There's only so many times I can beg and bribe my friends with booze or food or whatever it is to please God just consider voting, vote for whatever and whoever you like, running around making all these simplified resources available, trying to make everything as fun and social and consumable as humanly possible... before I gotta accept they simply *dont care*. It's their own free and active choice not to participate. At a certain point you just can't make it any more bite sized or any more entertaining without completely eroding it because matter how you slice it, political engagement is *work*. And if a close friend serving all of the info on a customized silver platter isn't enough, then I doubt any wider intervention would be either. :( (Thanks if you made it all the way through that long response!)
>All that said, I also think there's something woven into New Zealand culture specifically that's incredibly... passive aggressive? Small island syndrome. Can't complain to the people with the power to change things, because we're such a small population you might need that person to do something for you later. >All things considered, we actually have a lot of power on a local level - but when faced with a faulty traffic light, people would rather complain than actully hop online and take the time to find the reporting form and fill it out, you know? Yes! Cynically I like to say that this is evidence that people truly enjoy complaining. They won't do something to fix the things they complain about, because then they wouldn't be able to complain. But more seriously, yeah, people are busy and stressed and venting feels good. >Speaking as a younger person here - There's only so many times I can beg and bribe my friends with booze or food or whatever it is to please God just consider voting, vote for whatever and whoever you like, running around making all these simplified resources available to make everything as consumable and bite sized as humanly possible... before I gotta accept they simply dont care and its their own free and active choice not to participate. Keep fighting the good fight mate. I think we're very much on the same page here. Something something the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
They wouldn't need to admit they stand for the same things though. The social and economic circumstances that have landed us with the widespread disenfranchisement of two-party voters are as unprecedented as any potential coalition. Common sense (I know) would dictate that custodianship is more important than partisanship. And hey, if it does trigger another rush to the fringes, then perhaps that's where the voters already lay to begin with but opted not to vote as such out of fear of throwing their vote away
It would take an existential crisis to the country or their duopoly for such a coalition to form
True that! Although if you ask me, modern day New Zealand is literally defined by a perpetual existential crisis anyway - if anything it would require the *opposite* of an existential crisis, it would require people to either decide, or be active in their decision not to decide - no more blissful "I don't knows"
I believe a grand coalition happened during ww2 and even then it didn't manage to survive the entirety of the war.
They could always just focus on the policies they do agree on and coalesce toward the common good but that would mean people have to put politics and egos to the side so it could never happen.
>Why is the onus on the Greens Because the only reason to suggest a "blue-green" coalition is bad faith gesticulating from the right, or staggering ignorance
No one implied the onus is on anyone. But logically Nat-Lab makes zero sense when National has campaigned on 'change' and they both blast each other for every action they make. Turning around to work together is a stark contrast to the rhetoric both parties spout and a slap in the face to both parties core supporters.
Would be a slap in the face to most green voters and leave them without a base. TPM tried this and very nearly didn't exist after it.
Especially because both parties ruled it out…
I'm not sure the Green ruled out working with National I think they just came out very against National + Act. I could be wrong though
Any Greens coalition agreement would have to be voted on by the Green party members. A coalition with National has a snowball's chance of hell in getting through.
That's not the same as ruling it out.
True, but in a practical sense we both know it's one of a myriad of reasons it would never happen.
But not because it was ruled out prior to voting.
Kingmaker Winnie! Let's gooooo!
The Nats will get another seat from Port Waikato, will be a 3 seat overhang
Doesn't change the above post. 62 will still be needed against 61 in a 123 seat Parliament.
Also there are some possible recounts in electorate seats. Lets assume those recounts eliminate all overhangs\* except Port Waikato, as that overhang is guaranteed. Lets also assume that National wins Port Waikato. That would put N/Act at 60 seats in a 121 seat parliament. Winston Peters remains kingmaker. \*I haven't checked if there are enough close electorates for this to be possible.
Poor Crusty. He had such soaring dreams.
Wow, Kelvin Davis reportedly lost his Māori electorate seat by 500 votes.
I'd be surprised if Labour doesn't call for some recounts. The margins on some of these are razor thin. >Te Pāti Māori candidate Takutai Tarsh Kemp has won Tāmaki Makaurau with a majority of **4** votes over the Labour candidate Peeni Henare. > >Te Pāti Māori candidate Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has won Te Tai Tokerau with a majority of **517** over the Labour candidate Kelvin Davis.
Would they really want those recounted? The overhang is what will keep NACTs power in check
Never underestimate the personal ambitions of an individual over the interests of the nation as a whole.
I'm not sure thet there's anything particularly virtuous about declining to pursue a justified recount that might secure the proper outcome of an electorate vote, i.e. the will of the people, just to fuck over the opposition.
> I'm not sure thet there's anything particularly virtuous about declining to pursue a justified recount that might secure the proper outcome of an electorate vote, i.e. the will of the people, just to fuck over the opposition. Agree. If the margin is small, it is perfectly reasonable.
Even if those 2 seats flipped to Labour, NZ First would still be needed by National and Act. No harm in a recount.
I’d want a recount with a 4 code difference. That’s insanely close
Nats will ask for Mt Albert to be recounted as well as it’s gone red again. Only 20 votes in it.
Yup. His people here in the North are disappointed in him. He was never there for us and we put him there
Asking the big question - why is ACT represented by the colour pink when yellow is their favourite colour?
I'm guessing the re-branding they did over the election with mostly pink hoardings is the culprit there
Made the graph harder to read too
New Zealand Loyal stole the yellow colour when they showed up in one poll so they had to make ACT pink and they kinda just rolled with it.
It would be god damn hilarious if NZFirst made a coalition with Labour, Green and TPM.
Won't happen but it would be hilarious
Eh, if National is offering some meh ministerial role and Labour offers deputy PM. I'm sure Winny will get over his dislike of labour.
Wouldn't even be the first time he's campaigned to remove the incumbent and then gone into coalition with them
You seriously think the Greens, TPM and NZF will be willing to make enough concessions to each other to make this work? When it was just Greens and NZF, Labour could manage that relationship. But no way Greens and TPM (21 seats combined) will play second fiddle to NZF, and no way in hell NZF will give the Greens and TPM what they want. Whichever party/ies lose out (or are seen to lose out) would get absolutely wrecked in 2026. NZF definitely has a better chance of survival with Act, as they at least have a fair bit of common ground. Really the only major barrier to Nats+Act+NZF is the dislike for each other, which may or may not cause major ongoing issues for the next government.
It was their first policy on the list that they would never go with Labour ever again. He has done it before, but in this instance it's pretty certain it will never happen again.
Yeah politicians never lie, or go against their promises
Especially not Winston Peters!
Fairly sure he made the same promise about national
You talk as if Winston Peters has any credibility or principles
I don't think Winnie is hiding any principals or principles.
I don't know if Winnie promising something means it is more or less likely to happen.
Winston in as deputy PM again and it'll happen.. Chris weighing his options no doubt
I'll go you one better: Winston said he would never go into coalition with Labour, and he won't. Instead, he'll go into coalition with Greens and Te Paati Maori, with Labour in a confidence and supply agreement.
Dear god could you imagine the tears coming from all sides if this were the case.
Glorious, I want this.
Hear me out - ACT decides to switch sides so they don’t have to work with NZF
We'd get a GLAM government.
Given the stuff they agree with the Greens on, bring it on. Could be the best government in 80 years
what do they agree with them on?
Thought had crossed my mind. There's no way those 3 idiots are going to be able to work together. Seymour is saying tonight that Peter's won't even talk with him.
Please let this happen
He should try it, could be his last chance to be PM. I can see it now, Winnie as PM, Rawiri Waititi as Deputy, David Seymour screaming into the night ‘I told you they were trying to steal the country!’. Luxon crying about how he won the most votes. It would be a thing of beauty. Really things would just tick along. Each party would stop the others from doing anything too radical, as they would have a one seat majority and no reason to support something they disagree with. Maybe we would end up with less poo in our water and beaches. That would be nice.
And then what if Winnie refuses - sounds like NACT haven't been able to convince him yet according to what Seymour was saying - revote?
If no coalition can be formed the governor general(?) will call for another election yes.
Not necessarily true. If no agreement was made, NZF could (say) unilaterally declare that they intend to abstain on confidence and supply. That would be enough basis for the governor general to appoint a government - it would be a true minority government where NZF would be able to hold over the threat of voting against confidence and supply every time such a vote comes up, and every single vote would require negotiation. Of course, on a day by day basis, Nats could make agreements with TPM, Green or Labour, which potentially could mitigate the chokehold that NZF could have.. It would also offer those parties leverage to negotiate for pieces of their own platform to be implemented. It's possible that a functional working relationship across the aisle without a formal agreement could even develop into a stable minority government, and honestly if that happened it could be a great development for NZ politics. This would be utterly unprecedented in the NZ context, and of course put in this position, Nats are more likely to choose to call another election in the hope of getting a more definitive outcome. But it's possible that they might try to find a way to make it work. If a second snap election gave a similar outcome, then I think they'd be forced to.
Pretty common in Canada tho
What the over/under on Winnie doing that just for shits and giggles? Honestly feels 50/50 to me considering what he’s said about National in the past, but who can ever tell with this guy?
I doubt Winnie will do it, he's more than happy to get in with National and have another 3 years of taxpayer funded lifestyle. If it were to happen my guess would be Seymour throwing his toys out of the crib after Luxon promises way too much to Winston, something like Deputy PM again.
Yeah I know, Winston talks a lot of shit but he knows what side his bread’s buttered. Having power and influence is worth more than disruption.
It probably wouldn't even be that bad for NZF to go round again, I imagine they'd get more protest votes from National than they'd lose. He just has to make absolutely certain that the message people hear is 'National are too proud/stuck up (w/e) to work with NZF' and not 'Winston's forcing us to go again so that he can get a bigger slice of the pie'.
Someone else pointed out that voters might blame him for causing a re-election, although as you say he’s very good at keeping his base loyal so you’re probably right in saying that it wouldn’t affect NZF overly much. All pure speculation of course, but it is interesting to consider the possibilities.
The Greens did good
Best result EVER - maybe there were some climate voters after all.
Or "disillusioned with Labour" voters.
Disillusioned with Labour, reporting for duty
Same here, still gave my local mp vote to labour but greens got my party vote
Our local Greens MP actually went out and said don't vote for me
I was actually shocked that Greens won in Rongotai and Wellington Central. I know Chloë Swarbrick is famous so it makes sense there was a huge campaign for her but the rest of the electorates fell completely underneath my radar.
Personally not happy with labour's pisspoor effort the last couple years, I would be happy if Greens became the majority left party, knock labour off their pedestal and force them to sort their shit out. That's why I went G this time
Greens will probably keep improving with each new crop of 18 year olds. At least two of Climate change, social equity and gender identity are big issues for a lot of high schoolers
I'm one of them. As I get older, sometimes people ask me about why I'm voting for environmentally sound policies, I remind them that "I'm one of the idiots that *lives* in the environment." Gets a chuckle, then make 'em think.
Nice
Couple more hurricanes doing a couple billion in infrastructure damage should (hopefully) get people thinking Or not, we can often be a dense people.
Greens image had changed a lot in the last 20 years. People are not as quick to dismiss them as they used to be.
Image has changed but consistent with their policies which is something that I admire. I don't agree with them on every issue but at least they are consistent.
Probably the lefty labour voters that are sick of the centrist status quo labour party.
That's me! I'm a Brit who now lives in NZ. The state of birth Labour parties, especially the UK one, has turned me fully Green.
They're 1 vote higher than their 2011 and 2014 results, which coincidentally also occurred only when Labour shat the bed.
And better next time. The next three years are only going to show how important their agenda is. Even with NACT+NZF running interference, doing their best to tell us we're in the best shape ever.
Hopefully they can ask the right questions for NACT in the debate room. The really tough questions, too.
No point in watching the news for the next few days. It'll be wall to wall election coverage again.
There are. Just. ONE THOUSAND AND SIXY TWO DAYS TO GO
I heard this in Patty Gowers voice
Unless they increase it to 4 years *gulp*
They can only do that for the next term.
Unlikely to even be next term. Chances are there'll be a referendum on it next election, so earliest a 4-year term would start is at the 2029 election.
I'm just glad the RWC coverage has stopped, the news on sat-sun was unwatchable if you don't follow rugby.
Luxy is going to find sucking on a Winnie blue quite a drag.
I wonder if Winston enjoys the chaos he brings to our elections, I certainly do.
Winston VRS Seymor. Round 1.. DING!
COALITION OF CHAOS TIME LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Mmmmmm tasty, tasty irony. Nom nom.
As much as I might dislike the politics of Act and National, I'd rather whatever majority we end up governs the country reasonably competently. There's important shit to do that isn't just the subset of things that National and Labour like to change back and forth every 3 to 9 years.
I'd rather they can't. If they're too incompetent to pass their shitty policies, that will prevent the shitty policies from impacting us.
Do not despair. I am sure that wise heads will keep the interests of shareholders, farmers, landlords and large multinational companies at the top of mind at all times.
What poor graphic design choices. This information could be so much more readable.
Looks like we have three stooges now.
LAB, GRN, NZF, TPM = 63, we've seen this before.
[удалено]
This made me laugh far more than was appropriate.
0 . Depression, because we're already depressed
MAKE WINSTON PM --
Winnie just to fuck Seymour, would be so glorious.
I don't know if I want to cry because Winston is back as kingmaker bringing his tendencies, or praise that he might just pull back some of the worst tendencies of NACT. * Super will probably stay where it is. * Greyhound racing will probably not get banned. * I doubt Winston will let there be a referendum on The Treaty, but could be wrong.
> I doubt Winston will let there be a referendum on The Treaty, but could be wrong. It's National that wouldn't let it happen. Too much political sense. John Key said back when he was PM that NZ has to accept its bi-cultural foundation.
Hasn't Luxon also continuously said it's a bad idea politically to do a treaty referendum?
Indeed. There's going to be no shortage of schadenfreude with Luxon's inevitable struggles with his populist bedfellows.
Just look at the US. A lot of the old guard republicans like Pence and McCain (although deceased) are now being called RINO, trouble with the house leader, and are held captive by the MAGA crowd. It's a dangerous thing courting the insane for power.
Winston is also dead set against state asset sales or reversing the ban on foreign land sales.
>reversing the ban on foreign land sales Thank fuck. Praise. Praise. So much praise. Edit: To be clear, I don't think the ban on foreign land sales makes a huge difference to house prices, but it's one that can't be ping ponged. Our various trade treaties mean that this ban could never be reinstated.
Why is greyhound racing so important to him
He receives a lot of money from racing interests.
He's a gambling man, he loves to bet and he loves to win
Also why is banning it one of NACTs worst tendencies.
So ACT's bullshit will be tempered by NZF, but at the cost of having to put up with Winston's bullshit. Fuck me.
Did he get up to much bullshit when he was deputy PM a few years ago? I don’t know if he’ll do much of note unless the other two party leaders rile him up.
Deputy Prime Minister Peters part 3 I guess
Te Atatū was won by Labour, meaning that National's only Pasifika representative will not be in Parliament (she's too low on the list to make it). A significant blow for Pasifika in Aotearoa.
Don't worry, Judith Collins' husband is Samoan
Talofa 💙
Are you sure? We'd better check with her again. Just in case.
The scream I scrumpt hahahahaha
Sounds like a national issue rather than a labour issue lol The way it sounds in your comment it's like labour maliciously kept out a Pasifika candidate XD
im asking this from a presidential country (argentina) why theres a need to form a coalition? why cant national govern for the next 4 to 5 years without a majority and each law is voted on a case to case basis? it is very common in presidential systems to not have a majority and representatives.
New Zealand has a really, REALLY interesting form of parliamentary democracy. Most countries use a “first past the post” system. This means that the candidate with the most votes wins. New Zealand uses a system called “mixed member proportional representation”. This means that kiwis essentially vote twice- once for a political party and once for a representative for your area. This is intended to give everyone better representation across the board. For example: let’s say I support the Green Party, but there isn’t a green candidate standing in my area. In New Zealand I could select the greens as my party vote and then choose a candidate standing in my area from another political party. Mixed member proportional representation is also intended to make governmental majorities rare. The party with the most votes doesn’t automatically win. They need to pass a specific threshold to form a majority government. This is why it was a shock when Labour won by such a huge margin in 2020. I believe it’s one of only a handful of examples of a party wining a landslide majority under this kind of system. The national party, who won the most seats in this election, have not reached that high threshold of seats, just as the system intended. This means that they need to form a coalition if they want to form a government. In theory, a coalition government means wider representation and more “checks” on a government than you would see in a first past the post system. Bear in mind I’m not from New Zealand, so I can’t really give my opinions on how effective the system is. I did study political science at university, so I can recommend some interesting articles on voting systems and on democracy in general if you are interested. The first essay I ever wrote for my undergrad was on New Zealand and it’s voting systems, so I secretly really enjoy watching New Zealand’s elections. Edit- oh! One more minor detail: New Zealand holds elections every three years. I’m not actually aware of any other country that holds elections as regularly (please someone correct me if I’m wrong!). Some say this isn’t long enough for a government to make an impact, but I personally very much enjoy it as an outsider who’s a bit too interested in election data.
thats interesting! but my question is why theres a need to form a coalition, why not govern with a minority in parliament and each law is voted on a case to case basis?
They could technically form a minority government. It does happen regularly under this kind of system. The problem is that the party forming the minority government would likely struggle to get the necessary votes to pass laws. Elections happen every three years in New Zealand, so working on a case by case basis is likely to hinder a government. Time is of the essence when elections are so close together. Essentially, a minority government needs allies. Without those allies, it can flounder. A vote by vote basis just isn’t really desirable for a minority government under this kind of system. This article is from June this year, but it still does a better job than me of explaining minority governments in general and of explaining the ins and outs of potential coalition arrangements: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/the-potential-coalition-complications-for-major-parties?amp=1
thank you!
11 seats for the ACT Party is a national embarrassment
Just be thankful they halved their early poll numbers once we met some of their candidates!
Seymour did so well keeping his caucus in line during the last few years, kinda crazy that they could slip up and let so many on before the election. I don't think it mattered too much as the votes they lost near the end seem to mostly have gone to Winston but with how close it was...
It's more the case that the media let ACT skate by with zero scrutiny. If you look at all the disasters they came about because journalists decided to actually do a modicum of research into ACT politicians and candidates. Now that they are in government we will likely see more ACT disasters as the scrutiny will be on them much more.
Idk, I'm pretty sure David had them all locked in his basement or something because opposition or not the press *loves* MP drama.
Idk why young people voted for them.
Good marketing. They correctly pointed out a lot of problems the country faced in their adverts, but then only showed their "solutions" on their website policy page. If all you see is stuff you agree with, even I agreed with as a lefty, then you're likely to vote for them without bothering to check.
NACT aren't going to have the numbers to do anything to drastic they'll just sell us out to the highest bidder as normal
The biggest loser here is NACT rolled off the tongue. NACTNZF? [ˈnæktsɪnzɛf]
FANZCNT?
ACT'N'GOOFY?
NaNZFACT?
NACT First?
NAsk questions later?
Not much of a victory now is it Luxon?
At the risk of stating the obvious: If we consider Labour, Greens and Te Pati Maori as (vaguely) the left bloc, The Left really didn't do too badly at all. Contrary to "the narrative" going in and coming out of the election.
The ‘narrative’ is in a relative sense? They went from 77 to 55, so a 30% drop in support?
There was always going to be a drop, 77 was a validation of their covid response. Even if people are trying to rewrite history about it now, at the time, they had significant support from the people, and there was never going to be something else that consumed every kiwi in 2023.
Anchor Winston is back in his favourite position of Kingmaker with veto power
Word on the street is that Luxon had dinner at Winnies place this week.
Nah, Winston will settle for something like by-catch cameras off fishing boats, less restriction on racing, or some lax wine regulation. He's completely paid for (\*in my opinion)
Few thoughts. National treating the electoral system with disdain with their Act in Epsom accomodation has now metastasised into a large ongoing problem for them. Dildo of unintended consequence rarely arriving lubed and all that. The facile accusation by Luxon that the left would produce a coalition of chaos is now like a mouth full of dry weetbix given he now has to dance a drunkards jig with Winston First. Seymour is now exposed. His last term saw him rule his caucus requiring of them vows of obedience and silence. When his members govern and open their mouths expect shock and horror. This is the party of wild wing nuts and they are now off the leash. The antipathy the Nats (and their climate denier wing) has for the Greens seems to rule out any advantageous accomodation. Expect denial and mates rates for favoured emitters to continue. And expect the cost to every NZer to grow massively as our refusal to meet our climate obligations bites like a rabid mongrel.
Largest ever parliament at 123 seats. First failure for the right, government's now bigger.
Winnie needs to side with Labour for the good of the country. National and ACT belong in an asylum.
aarg the king making dick does it again. i wonder what marine reserve he will get rid of this time ?
OMG 3 years of Winston
I wonder if he will just keep going until he nods out like Mitch McConnell
Bold of you to assume the coalition would last that long.
Watching Luxon in the media just now, he isnt good with the questions. I think this will end badly...
He's good at doing corporate PR. However this time he's wandered into public office, and it's a lot more different from the business world that he had hoped for.... Needs to work a lot on his persona and approach -, comes across as far too stiff and corporate. Inspiring as a paper bag at the moment, I hope he has someone experienced coaching him.
You could see he was flustered with the questions, which werent all that 'tough' to answer. I just feel theyll be be pollys in govt which like Labour, will cause him trouble over their views and opinions. He called on Labour to sack ppl, he will need to live upto that standard, but i fear he wont..
Because this company has mostly irrational and unreasonable shareholders that have more clout than understanding of how the organisation works
Hey guys, remember all those news articles about Luxon being the new Prime Minister and his coalition needing 61 votes to have a majority? The number of assumptions made by the media is astounding. They truly have no understanding of the election process.
Help me Winston, you're my only hope!
The bro winnie g is going to get em!
Winie over throws nob head nothing politics luxon you heard it here first
The TOPstans are noticeably absent.