quote:

---

National leader Don Brash may have dug himself deeper into a hole over his attitudes to women, after proudly asserting to a group of workers in Paraparaumu that he was "not a feminist".

...

"Can you have men feminists? I thought a feminist by definition was a woman."

...

Dr Brash sparked a furore this week when he suggested that he went easy on Miss Clark during a televised leaders' debate because it was not appropriate for men to shout at women.

---

Ah, dear. Brash is apparently trying to score points by playing the "gentleman" to explain why he didn't do so well in the debates, while a few of the reactionaries quoted are so upset by Ms. Clark for being an "aggressive woman". Horror of horrors, that. Aggressive and in politics, no less.

1. The governing Labour Party of Helen Clark and the mainstream conservative National Party are more or less tied.

2. If Stephen Harper was in New Zealand, he would have been one of the founders of ACT, which grew out of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, to the right of the National Party. In the last election it got 7.1%, nicely over the 5% threshold, giving them 9 of the 120 MPs. Currently it has dropped to 1% in the polls and will apparently disappear from Parliamant. Have its voters seen the light? Or has National just moved further right? A very Canadian question. (Curiously, ACT now calls itself "ACT - the Liberal Party.")

3. In the last election, the voters were reluctant to give Helen Clark a blank cheque, but didn't want to make her hostage to the Greens' anti-GM food demands. They looked for a moderate centrist alternative to hold the balance of power, and found United Future which jumped up to 6.7%. Currently it has dropped to 2% and may also disappear, unless its leader Peter Dunne holds Ohariu-Belmont, his local seat, which he has held since 1984. Under New Zealand's system a party must either win 5% or one local seat. Their 120 MPs are from 69 local seats, plus 51 "top-up" MPs from party lists. The 69 local seats include 7 Maori seats with their own voters lists, from a parallel set of ridings across the whole country.

4. Similarly Jim Anderton's little Progessive Party depends on him winning Wigram, his local seat, again. This in turn depends on whether Labour voters in his riding still see him as a worthwhile ally. Last time his party got only 1.7% which gave him only two seats, his own local seat and one list seat. Currently he seems to be running no more than 1%, barely worthwhile as an ally, but he's still a very able cabinet minister.

5. Will Tariana Turia hold her seat? If so, her new Maori Party will likely get two seats. She was Labour's Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector. Concerned about the significant impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in extinguishing the customary rights of tangata whenua, on 30 April 2004 she announced her decision to vote against the Bill, and to resign from the Labour Party.

One seat separates a Labour-led coalition from an outright majority, the latest polls show. That would be Labour/Progressive/Green. The Maori Party and/or United Future would hold the balance of power.

The Ontario Legislature's Select Committee on Electoral Reform finds this election such an interesting example of the workings of the Mixed Member Proportional system that they all want to drop in and chat to politicians and others there next month, as well as visiting Scotland to see their system. (Critics in New Zealand say MMP stands for Many More Parties.) The legislature's Board of Internal Economy is considering this very reasonable plan, but I haven't heard of a decision yet.

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
How is the Green party doing?

---

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
He could very well be chasing the further-right vote.

---

He has been and is, no doubt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
One quibble, Scotland's system is called additional member over here rather than mixed member. Could be the same, but most people here say additional member.

---

The one difference in Scotland is that they run 8 separate elections in 8 regions, with no province-wide proportionality, an odd twist which they invented for some reason. Results in four of Scotland’s eight regions were not proportional in the last two elections. The Labour Party won so many local seats in those four regions that seven regional MSPs were not enough to compensate. In Glasgow, Labour won 59% of the total seats on 38% of the vote. In West of Scotland it won 50% of the seats on 33% of the vote. Sweeps in one region are not compensated by other regions, unlike most MMP (or AMS) systems.

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
it sounds like the smaller parties are mostly weakening and disappearing instead of proliferating.

---

quote:

---

In 2002 Helen Clark looked at her high poll ratings and asked the voters to give her a single party majority Government. The result, exacerbated by the Corngate spat with the Greens, saw a dramatic shrinking of the Labour vote and a minority Government forced to cobble together the numbers issue by issue.

This time around Miss Clark has learned her lesson. Far from seeking a majority she is talking co-operation and relationships, and has even offered to campaign jointly with the leaders of her support parties.

In contrast with the last campaign, Labour's ratings have risen . .

In 2002 it was clear from early on that National would not lead the next Government, and voters embraced their tactical options ticking United Future and New Zealand First, to give Labour alternatives to the Greens.

This time around National is back with a real chance, and as a result the centre and centre Right parties are being squeezed badly.

It may be that we are close to completing the progression to a more stable line-up of parties than we saw during the transition years from first past the post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Basically the same. Political scientists use the term MMP in English. ...

The one difference in Scotland is that they run 8 separate elections in 8 regions, with no province-wide proportionality, an odd twist which they invented for some reason.

---

My one big fear about PR is the way coalitions are formed. I can imagine supporting a small party - say the Maori party in NZ - only to see them form a coalition with Labour. Labour's limiting Maori land claims, so there isn't a natural fit, even if the Maori party leader used to be a Labour MP. So, if Ms. Turia were to support the government there would be a lot of contention I imagine. Those decisions have to communicated well if turnout rates are to be kept up, because otherwise the same kind of malaise can set in as in FPTP: votes don't count because the programme of the government reflects little of what the voter actually chose. That's not a blanket criticism: it depends largely on the party system and the degree to which party executives control it. But for me, personally, it's a pretty good reason not to accept any form of MMP or AMS that has closed lists. I notice that unlike Finland, NZ doesn't have open lists.

edited for a typo

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: kurichina ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
for me, personally, it's a pretty good reason not to accept any form of MMP or AMS that has closed lists. I notice that unlike Finland, NZ doesn't have open lists.

---

Many women involved in electoral reform prefer closed lists. Wales got to 50% women with closed lists, although the local seats were the major factor. Sweden got to be the best country in the world for female representation with closed lists. In local government they had open lists for decades, and studies showed these hurt women.

But then Sweden finally moved to an open list system nationally, although most voters didn't do much with it. If I recall correctly, only 6 candidates broke the party slate, 4 women and 2 men. Not much to go on there.

The Ontario Citizens Assembly will be grappling with this issue next year.

Back to New Zealand, they considered going to open lists on the Bavarian model when they recently reviewed their MMP system, but decided not to. However, that was not a referendum decision. I've been watching to see if the issue would resurface as an election issue this month. I haven't seen it yet.

n/m, i read the previous post

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

National, New Zealand First and United Future are the men's parties.

ACT is the party of young high-income earners. Hmm, not too many of them.

NZ First has become the pensioners' party.

The archetypal Labour voter is a young woman earning $27,000 a year.

The archetypal National voter is a man in his late 50s earning $65,000 a year.

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

- abolish all references to the Treaty of Waitangi and to "partnership" with the Maoris. Abolish their special MPs too.

- Endangered native species such as the kiwi, kaka and kakapo will no longer receive special protection . . "All species currently living in New Zealand should be equal under the law, regardless of how long they have been here . . . If they cannot stand on their own two feet without government hand-outs, they are clearly not the kinds of species we want or need in this country."

- after unemployment rises by 0.5 percent overall, and by 4 percent for Maori, the unemployment benefit is to be abolished completely. "This will particularly benefit Maori, because they are the group which has suffered the most from welfare dependency."

- a new work scheme for all women on benefits who are aged under 35, and are not already in paid work for at least 20 hours a week. For nine months every two years, they will be given jobs with the new crown health enterprise, a commercial surrogacy service. "Unlike prostitution, surrogacy is entirely family-friendly. It requires very little additional spending on childcare, as most of it can be done from home. We expect that this scheme will rapidly reduce welfare dependency among healthy, fit young women."

---

Brash lost the leaders' debate, but Peters did well.

Or perhaps Peters got nowhere.

And perhaps Brash was cool and confident.

Is the uncertainty because a debate with eight leaders is a zoo?

Take your pick.

[ 08 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I will be watching mainly for Jim Anderton, myself.Which raises the question - does the slump in support for the Progressives signify a return to a more traditional leftist position by the Labour Party, or are they still firmly Blairite?

---

I'd rather see themore civil libertarian Greens (who are also quite leftist in NZ) do well as opposed to Jim Anderton's simple-minded prohibitionist teatotallers: Not only are they staunchly supportive of America and China's fascist war on cannabis, but they also favour banning adults under the age of 20 from drinking.

http://www.progressive.org.nz/pdfs/progressive-2005-manifesto.pdf

I believe in liberty, equality, and democracy and do not think that being controlled by prohibitionist organisations like MADD is conducive to those goals.

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugo the Liberator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hugo the Liberator:

I'd rather see themore civil libertarian Greens (who are also quite leftist in NZ) do well as opposed to Jim Anderton's simple-minded prohibitionist teatotallers: Not only are they staunchly supportive of America and China's fascist war on cannabis, but they also favour banning adults under the age of 20 from drinking.

http://www.progressive.org.nz/pdfs/progressive-2005-manifesto.pdf

I believe in liberty, equality, and democracy and do not think that being controlled by prohibitionist organisations like MADD is conducive to those goals.

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugo the Liberator ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So why has the Progressive Party in NZ so totally disintegrated? They had 7% of the vote last time and now they are at alike 1%. what happened?

---

Most anti-authoritarian leftists would prefer not to vote for a party that regurgitates America's lies about cannabis and that is borderline-prohibitionist on alcohol when more civil libertarian alternatives exist. Therefore, they choose to vote Green.

[ 11 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugo the Liberator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So why has the Progressive Party in NZ so totally disintegrated? They had 7% of the vote last time and now they are at alike 1%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Actually
they got only 1.7% last time. I assume the problem is that they aren't that distinct from the Labour Party. It's really Jim Anderton's personal brand.

---

They were pretty fucking distinct when they left the party during the Roger Bolger-era neo-liberal era: Labour was weird during the 1980s: Very pacifist, anti-American, and civil libertarian but also extremely capitalist on economics.

What changed in Labour? For all their willingness to get in bed with right-wing sleaze like United Future (socially conservative fundamentalist wackos), they've improved significantly economically...

Maybe Anderton and his prohibitionist gang (who are also in the coalition with Labour and United Future) should just disband and join the religious loonies (for the prohibitionists) and the Greens (for the libertarians among their ranks)...

Incidentally, isn't it funny that a party can claim to be "progressive" and "social democratic" while backing alcohol and cannabis prohibition and sucking face with Christian fundamentalists?

If Jim Anderton had his way, New Zealand would be renamed to New DEAland.

[ 11 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugo the Liberator ]

quote:

---

If he loses Tauranga, Peters can still get a seat as a "list" candidate. But to do that, his New Zealand First party has to win a minimum 5 per cent of the vote, and the polls show it hovering perilously just above this threshold. If Peters fails on both counts, it will mark the end of a spectacular political career which has polarised New Zealanders.

---

The Greens want two cabinet seats. The Greens are firmly on Labour's side. They could gain a seventh seat from special votes, which are still to be counted. But they escaped political death by only 0.07% of the vote.

New Zealand First is committed to first offering support to the party with the most seats. Labour were trying to make sure NZ First stayed in Parliament: in Peters' local seat 6,585 Labour or Green voters voted for Peters, plus his 4,481 Party voters, but only 1,549 National or ACT voters, along with 297 United Future voters and 219 others. As it turned out, National beat him locally by a slim 568 votes, but his party made the 5% threshold so it didn't matter. However, all this can't make him very grateful to National.

quote:

---

United Future, like NZ First, is committed to backing the party with the most seats but its leader, Peter Dunne, said tonight he would not back a government with Green MPs at the cabinet table.

---

Maori Party leader: "I think if they want to talk they will call us." The fare's just gone up:

quote:

---

"We are the last cab on the rank and the fare's just gone up," said Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples last night, alluding to Clark's pre-election comments that his party would be the "last cab off the rank" for any deal-making.

---

The ACT party narrowly escapes political death when its leader wins a local seat with 43.8% of the vote in a three-way race. But of his 13,661 votes, only 1,078 really supported his party. Of the 18,537 National party supporters, about 11,744 voted for Rodney Hide in order to avoid the ACT votes being wasted since the party would get less than the 5% threshold. So did another about another 839 right-wing minor party supporters. Meanwhile, in a bizarre twist, 3,534 left-wing voters voted for the local National Party candidate to try to keep Hide, and ACT, out of parliament. So ACT is clearly National's satellite party.

In the same way, Jim Anderton owes his election to Labour: of his 14,754 votes, 8,972 came from Labour Party supporters, 475 from Green Party supporters, 2,057 from his hard-core supporters, and 3,250 from supporters of other parties (including about 2,124 National Party supporters who apparently vote for "the best man" locally and have personal respect for Anderton.)

So New Zealand is really down to six parties: Labour, Greens, Maori Party, United Future, NZ First, and National.

United Future remains the property of Peter Dunne, who continues his amazing balancing act: his 15,428 local votes include 7,852 from National Party voters, 5,230 from Labour or Green Party voters, 542 NZ First voters, and only 1,804 of his own party's voters.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

This election once again shows the lure of tax cuts. You can be sure that our Liberal Party will be very mindful of the New Zealand results. I understand that the New Zealand Labour Party and the Canadian Liberal Party are pretty close.

---

First of all the Labour party in NZ is the analog to the NDP in Canada - its just that the NDP is not as successful electorally. But the Labour party is backed by unions and is part of the Socialist International.

The Maori Party are the big winners but are expected to back Labour:

quote:

---

More than 20,000 Maori Party members will decide the issue of coalition at hui around the country over the next six days. Earlier polling, which showed Maori voters giving their party vote to Labour, suggest they will tolerate only an alliance with Labour.

---

Labour's star gays and lesbians were targetted by a "Community Standards" Press Release: Maryan Street, Louisa Wall, Georgina Beyer, and Cabinet Minister Chris Carter. All but Louisa Wall were elected.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Helen Clark also said something like "we share a lot of information with the Liberals in Canada, we have a lot of the same policies."

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Helen Clark also said something like "we share a lot of information with the Liberals in Canada, we have a lot of the same policies."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

"Your search - "Helen Clark" "Liberals in Canada" - did not match any documents."

---

It wouldn't be at all surprising had she said such a thing, though.

From an Economist interview in 2003

Do you see New Zealand as a leader among small nations, particularly small nations that see themselves as part of the western alliance that may have had difficulties with the US?

Well, in this crisis of recent times, most international opinion has been in the zone that New Zealand is in. It hasn’t been hard to find other like-minded countries. Canada for example is in an identical position to us. The US, its closest friend and neighbour, went the other way. Our closest friend and neighbour, Australia, went the other way. So we’ve been diplomatically working with countries like Canada, Ireland, Norway, Sweden—that’s far from being the end of the list—countries that feel pretty much about it at we did, countries that have got strong stakes in the multilateral system, who want to see this issue put behind us and focus on trying to get the world to work together again.

And from a BBC interview that same year

Bridget Kendall:
We've had an e-mail about the impact of this on New Zealand. This is from C. Whittfield in France who says: "Do you believe there will be a significant economic impact on New Zealand as a result of its public opposition to the US-led war in Iraq (either by sanctions or "backroom" exclusion)?"

Helen Clark:
No, not at all because throughout this New Zealand has taken a principled position. It hasn't set out to bag its oldest friends who took a different decision. It was quite an unusual situation because on one side of this debate you had Canada and New Zealand and on the other side you had Australia, Britain and the United States. Now as a group of five English speaking democracies, no group of countries could be closer, but they didn't agree on the issue. So I think that is generally respected and no I wouldn't expect New Zealand, as the smaller player in the group, to be in any way disadvantaged.

Bridget Kendall:
Do you mean you're hiding behind Canada?

Helen Clark:
Well I think that Canada was in a very similar position to New Zealand. Canada, like New Zealand, has been one of the foremost advocates of the United Nations, of multilateralism, of the charter and we find ourselves on very similar ground.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Yst ]

When asked about Labour Turia said any bad blood between her and Helen Clark was not personal and it was about politics. And she said with the Greens there is more that unites the two parties than divides them and they always work constructively.

(Note that National could not put a coalition together unless all three "other" parties -- NZ First, Maori and United Future -- joined National's coalition. Not likely. Still, the Left and the Maori Party together have only 61, exactly half of the 122 MPs. Tricky.)

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Helen Clark also said something like "we share a lot of information with the Liberals in Canada, we have a lot of the same policies."

---

I hate to break the news to you, but Jack Layton and the NDP could also be described as "sharing information with the Liberals" (ie: they talk)and the NDP and the Liberals also have lot of the same policies.

quote:

---

Labour, by contrast, has only one new face and will have a frontbench dominated by old Left warhorses . . . "It would be a very strong Opposition well-placed to present as the next government of New Zealand, against a rather tired old Labour Party."

---

Well, they have four new MPs: Sue Moroney with a background in the nurses' union, a bright young Maori with an MPA from Harvard Shane Jones, an out lesbian Maryan Street who is new although aged about 50, and a woman union leader Darien Fenton.

Young Labour is proud to have two MPs: Moana Mackey, born in 1974, an MP for only two years, and New Zealand's youngest MP Darren Hughes, elected at age 24 three years ago. And then there's Clayton Cosgrove, 35, who this year was the first New Zealander selected as one of 237 members of the Forum of Young Global Leaders.

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Right wing parties actually got more of the list vote. Is this fair?

---

Labour and the other three left parties (assuming the Maori Party counts as left) got a total of 49.0% of the vote and 61 seats. The other four parties (some of which are more centre than right) got 49.71% of the vote and also got 61 seats. Of the original 120 seats, this vote, in total, looks like it would have given the left 60 seats, barely (59.57, actually) and the other parties 60 seats too (60.43.) However, when you break it down between the parties, because of rounding effects it would actually have been 59 to 61 against the left.

But the real result is 2 extra seats for the Maori Party because of the vote splits. "Overhang seats:" they got more 2 local seats than their share of the party vote should have given them. So the Parliament is 122 MPs, not 120. This doesn't change the fact that the "left" still needs support from one of the centre parties to pass laws: 61/61.

How do you manage a deadlocked House? For a start, everyone is waiting for the absentee ballots to be counted. A one seat change could make all the difference.

Is this result fair? Well, in Germany some of the states not only have "overhang seats" but also some "balance seats" to offset this effect. Definitely fairer, but of course it expands the legislature, and if there is no cap on the balance seats, it would have expanded the New Zealand Parliament to about 200 MPs. In federal elections Germany does not do this, and I think they once had the same problem.

That's actually a minor problem compared with the other German problem: the 5% threshold for list seats (which New Zealand also has) can produce strange results when one party gets just under the 5% threshold. In the second last German election, that cut the PDS to just their two local MPs, which almost handed the right an undeserved victory. (German democracy would not have understood this result, and there would have been renewed pressure to lower the threshold to the more common 4%, as the FDP and Greens have long demanded.) Germany has a "backdoor" provision which gives a party list seats despite the threshold if it wins 3 local seats; the PDS got only 2.

New Zealand has the same "backdoor" if a small party wins one single local seat. This gave two of your "right-wing" parties three list seats they would not otherwise have gotten. ACT got one of them, for no other reason than National Party voters voted locally for the ACT leader, and then gave their party votes to National, to prop up the ACT party and avoid the loss of a couple of seats for the right. Same "split vote" tactic used by the Maoris.

All of which just shows that, once voters get used to the MMP system, they learn to use tactical voting even under MMP. Still, it makes no difference except a couple of seats, which can matter in very close elections, while FPTP gave skewed results almost every time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Whats an open list?

---

In Germany, the state of Bavaria has open lists in their MMP model. When New Zealand last reviewed your MMP model, that was the main issue -- should New Zealand rethink this, and copy Bavaria, which was not the original choice when you designed your MMP model? The decision was no, stick with your model. But this issue may not go away. The BC Citizens' Assembly, before they decided on STV, got most of the way through designing an MMP model which they decided would have had open lists. (Sweden, Belgium, Brazil, Iceland, Finland and other places each have their own open list mechanisms, different from Bavaria's, so I don't know exactly how BC's would have worked.)

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Southlander ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Anyway, I got the impression over there that some people didn't understand how it worked, and they go a lot of invalid votes.

---

quote:

---

Australia is one of the few Western democracies where voting is compulsory.

But the success of this law is now being questioned, after the federal election four weeks ago saw an increase in the number of protest votes, where people deliberately spoiled their ballot papers or simply left them blank.

Story from ABC News Online

---

quote:

---

(from the same story)...across Australia, five per cent of voters, over 600,000 people, failed to vote correctly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:

Could perhaps be blamed on the high percentage of the population with english as a second language, or perhaps just because they're Aussies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Also thanks for the explaination of open lists. they have something similar in Aussie, where they have the single transferable vote, people rate parties in order, not people.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Suzette ]

These are when the 50 Labour M.Ps were first elected. Some were defeated and subsquently reelected, I've counted them from when they were first elected.

First elected, number of M.Ps
1981, 3
1984, 3
1987, 2
1990, 5
1993, 9
1996, 6
1999, 9
2002, 5
2005, 4
not sure, 4

The four I'm not sure about are:
1.Mita Ririnui
2.David Hereora
3.Ashraf Choudhary
4.Georgina Beyer

So, most have been elected since 1990. The reason there is so little turnover each election is because elections are every 3 years: a 3 term M.P in New Zealand has basically served as long as a 2 term M.P in Canada.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Adam T ]

Labour already has the support of the Greens and the Progressive Party and can expect the backing of the indigenous Maori Party.

Labour's margin widened on the final count after absentee ballots:

quote:

---

The National Party has dropped a seat in the final election result, leaving Labour in a stronger position to form the next government.

Final election results show Labour steady on their election night tally of 50 seats, but National down one seat to 48.

National's share of the party vote dropped slightly after the counting of special votes from 39.63%, to 39.1%, while Labour's has risen slightly to 41.1%.

The National Party is the only one to be affected by the final result, which will means the parliament will now be comprised of 121 seats instead of the predicted 122.

---

The Official Count is:
Labour 50
Progressives 1
Greens 6
Maori Party 4
Total left-of-centre 61
New Zealand First 7
United Future 3
National 48
ACT 2
Total others 60

The shift of one seat has broken the tie. Helen Clark will not need to rely on either of the centre parties unless a dispute with the Maori Party occurs. The question now is, will the Greens and the Maori Party actually join the Labour-Progressive coalition and get cabinet seats?

If anyone cares, what really happened was the Maori Party took a seat away from National on the final count. The Maori Party has now earned 3 seats, not the previous 2. They won, however, 4 local seats. Previously this resulted in 2 "overhang" seats. Now that the Maori Party has earned 3 seats, there is only 1 overhang seat. Therefore the Parliament, normally 120 MPs, is only expanded by 1, not by 2. Got it?

Okay, that means the 1-seat margin comes from an overhang seat, not from a proportional seat. But no harm done, the four left-of-centre parties got 49.68% of the vote while the other four got 49.00% of the vote. So it's fair.

Note that only 1.32% of the votes were "wasted." Wonderful, eh?

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

The Maori Party will hold 20 meetings with its members across New Zealand to consult them. Wow, that's real consultation:

quote:

---

The Maori Party made a commitment before the General Election, that whatever governing arrangements were discussed with the Party, post-election, the members would be fully consulted on before any decisions confirmed.

The four Members of Parliament for the Maori Party will be embarking on an intense series of hui, commencing next Wednesday 5 October. . . ending Saturday 8 October.

---

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

[ 03 October 2005: Message edited by: Southlander ]

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has in effect ruled out a coalition.

New Zealand First plans to abstain on confidence votes. And United Future will not support a coalition government that includes the Greens.

A shame. A Labour-Green-Maori coalition would have given New Zealand a stable progressive government. Perhaps the Maori Party will change its position after this weeks' consultations.

[ 03 October 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

New Zealand First and United Future hold posts outside Cabinet without signing up to a formal coalition agreement.

The new cabinet.

[ 19 October 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]