Talk Elections

Happening in less than a year, and likely to deliver an expected result. John Key has stepped down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals, and Bill English, endorsed by Key as the next leader and therefore PM before the 2017 election.

The Nationals are averaging around 47%, Labour 28%, the Greens 11%, and NZ First 9%. This will likely change when English officially becomes Leader and PM.

If. There's a few mutters of a contested caucus - it's the last chance for a few people. But barring a Donald Trump event from within the Nat caucus, English will be PM.

The last possible date for the election is 18 November, but an early election is expected - partly to minimise the 'unelected PM' stage, and partly because at least two Electorate MPs are expected in the Bubble to leave Parliament by some means or other over the coming months, and nobody wants to fight a by-election so close to the GE.

Will the National Party gain or lose ground with Keys gone?

Oh, there's no question that Key was one of the most popular PMs we've ever had, and he still is. This was the perfect political resignation - he left about 50% of the country begging for more.

Bill English is much less charismatic and and a lot less popular. He led the Nats before, and led them into the disastrous 2002 election. Fair enough, most of that failure was not his fault, and fair enough, he's been the backroom mastermind of the Key project, but that points to serious issues with the Nats that they'd give him another shot when there are loads of MPs who are younger, fresher and more electable. I have no doubt that English's National Party will attract fewer voters than Key's did.

However, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Labour, much as it pains me to say it so few days after our barnstorming success in Roskill, is still struggling in the wilderness, and is still having to confront the fact that a lot of voters are put off by our putative coalition partners. If we win, we win with Green and NZ First support. That doesn't sound like a three-term Government to me.

Andrew Little really isn't three-term Prime Minister material either. There is generally a tendency to go with the bigger personality in NZ politics, but in this election neither candidate will have that going for them. Little might have a chance because of that.

Labour should put Jacinda Ahern in charge, capture that Trudeaumagic

Ex-Labour Leader David Shearer is resigning from Parliament to head up the UN process in South Sudan - Murray McCully leaked this to the entire National Party before most Labour people knew, by the way.

This means that a by-election before the next election is possible - we won't know until Bill English is PM. The alternative is a general election within the next six months or so.

In the red corner, Jacinda Ardern is basically nailed-on to replace Shearer in his Mount Albert electorate, barring upsets.

And here's a link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11762554 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11762554)

I could see them calling an early election. 6 months should be enough for English or whomever. Nice to hear that Ardern is likely to get a seat of her own.

Sad news as Winston Peters announces he will kill himself in the ultimate political stunt:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11766014

This is an excellent idea and he should totally be allowed to do it.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/323564/new-zealand-to-vote-in-general-election-on-23-september (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/323564/new-zealand-to-vote-in-general-election-on-23-september)

The General Election will be on September 23, 2017.

As a redditor noted, the All Blacks (NZ's national rugby team) do not play that weekend.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz//opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11791809 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz//opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11791809)

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/01/24/tdb-summer-election-special-understanding-maori-party-mana-movement-in-2017/ (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/01/24/tdb-summer-election-special-understanding-maori-party-mana-movement-in-2017/)

Apparently Mana and the Māori Party are getting along better. This could be interesting in September.

Any recent polls on how things look in the "post-Key" landscape?

I haven't seen any that include Gareth Morgan's Opportunities Party, which could be a big player (5% would shake things up quite a bit). The last polls I've seen still have the National Party at 45-50%. Wikipedia only has one poll from after Key's resignation and I haven't found any others online.

It won't be a big player. If Gareth's lucky, he'll equal the Internet Mana score in 2014.

That's definitely plausible. Random polarizing rich person trying to get into politics. He doesn't seem quite as bad as KDC, but he doesn't have other politicians (Harawira and Harre) backing him.

Which side do you expect to be more affected?

I guess the Nationals are going to remain in power for the next 30 years or something?

I'm guessing poll numbers will change as people start to pay more attention to the news/election. This will be English's first election as PM (second as party leader; see 2002). Key was quite popular, but I'm not sure if English will be as popular. NZ First could be on the rise. We need more data. As I said, I've hardly seen any polling from the last few months. Labour has been pretty weak. If Little loses in September, I think Ardern could be the next leader.

I fear it will be National and Peters like in 1996.

Mana and Māori will be working together, details to be announced.
 (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/324679/mana-and-maori-to-confirm-election-plan)

Harawira propping up a National government would be pretty hilarious.

Though (hopefully) both of them getting burned would be even better tbh.

He did support them from 2008-2011. I'd like to see him back. He's interesting to watch, just like WINston is. Can't say I'd want either of them in power though.

Mana will stand Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau and Māori will stand candidates in the other 6 Māori seats. Both will compete for the party vote. http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/89581527/hone-harawira-gets-clear-te-tai-tokerau-run-for-mana-not-running-against-maori-party-in-other-seats (http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/89581527/hone-harawira-gets-clear-te-tai-tokerau-run-for-mana-not-running-against-maori-party-in-other-seats) and http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/324894/maori-and-mana-parties-sign-deal-to-work-together (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/324894/maori-and-mana-parties-sign-deal-to-work-together) among other articles.

Honestly, this seems like a bum deal for Mana. Yes, they'll likely win a seat, but they're locked out of any other Māori seats and I don't see them winning in any general electorate seats. Assuming Harawira wins, they'll need something like 1.5% of the party vote to get a second seat (assuming my understanding is correct). Mana got 1.08% in 2011 and 1.42% in 2014.

If Māori can pull off more electorate wins, we could see a number of overhang seats.

Edit: If Internet Mana had won Te Tai Tokerau in 2014, IM would have gotten 2 seats.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11851294 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11851294)

A number of new(ish) microparties are popping up for this year's election.

Expats Party - Advocates for NZer's rights abroad
NZ People's Party - Pro-immigrant
The Opportunities Party - Gareth Morgan's play toy
Seniors Party - Seems obvious
Advance New Zealand - See Below

Let's see if these guys go anywhere. I doubt they will.

why would anyone ever

Especially what seem otherwise like lefty-environmentalists? Although, does "introduction of a capital gains tax" mean capital gains aren't taxed currently in New Zealand, or do they want a lower rate the way the US and some other countries have as opposed to taxing them at the same rate as earned income?

We don't currently have a CGT, which is part of why we have a housing bubble in Auckland.

The Upper House is not an idea that has common currency, but it makes a lot of sense, for two reasons:
1) We only have 120-ish MPs, and around a quarter of them are Ministers, which means that they are forced to support any Cabinet decision in Caucus and in the House. Which means that Caucus always votes with the Cabinet. Which means that the law is passed without any chance of defeat at any point, even if it is only supported by a majority of the Cabinet and nobody else. If we had an Upper House, it could send bills back for review.
2) The ability of MPs and their staff, especially in Opposition, to write good bills is extremely limited, partly due to lack of funding (which would be increased with an Upper House) and partly due to lack of time to study all bills, because again, we only have 120-ish MPs. The Upper House would double the manpower available to research and formulate policy, and also slow the legislative process down so that hasty, badly-written bills (of which we have rather a lot) can be withdrawn or amended in response to negative feedback from the public.

It's not the only solution to these problems, but if you had much experience of the Beehive, you'd be desperate for anything.

This opinion piece tries to make comparisons between NZ and pretty much every European country that isn't Austria. (https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/macron-factor-lurking-politically-calm-nz)

The Greens updated their list. Most notably, Chloe Swarbrick is in the 9th spot and is a near lock to become an MP following the election. (http://m.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11866075)

Peters claims "Fake Polls" and says he'll get 20% (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/331363/peters-calls-polls-fake-claims-he-ll-win-20-percent-of-vote) haha, fat chance WINston.

Why not just increase the number of seats in parliament? Seems more effective than creating an entirely new body.

Haven't been able to find much lately. Google is stupid and is only giving me stuff about the UK election whenever I search for "New Zealand Election." I did find this though:
If anyone wants to read a rant by Hone Harawira, enjoy. (http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/283150)

A One News/Colmar Brunton poll from late May has the following results:

National 49
Labour 30
Green 9
NZ First 9
Māori 1
ACT 1
TOP 1
United Future 0
Mana 0
Conservative 0

Labour down big, Greens and NZ First up in Newshub/Reid poll.

National: 47.4% (-0.3)

Labour: 26.4% (-4.2)

Greens: 12.5% (+1.3%)

NZ First: 9.4% (+1.8%)

ACT: 0.9% (+0.5%)

Opportunities: 0.8% (NC)

Conservatives: 0.8% (+0.4%)

Māori: 0.7% (NC)

United Future: 0.3% (-0.1%)

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-06-2017/gloomy-news-for-labour-in-latest-newshub-poll-and-shane-jones-drops-hint-about-future/ (https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-06-2017/gloomy-news-for-labour-in-latest-newshub-poll-and-shane-jones-drops-hint-about-future/)

Boy New Zealand seems to have by the most BORING politics in the English speaking world - no change from the last election, so swing to the left like we have seen in the UK or Australia or BC, no rise of rightwing populism...what happened? NZ used to have lots of high drama politically

Their polling companies don't even treat us to any LULZpolls. The Nationals, I think, have led every single published opinion poll since 2007.

WINston has been around for a while, so it isn't as dramatic of a rise for NZ First. It's not like they're a new party or one that has never gotten more than a seat or two in the past.

Scandal time!

Prime Minister Bill English is facing awkward questions about how he handled a lawmaker who is accused of making secret recordings and then lying about what he did. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/zealand-leader-faces-questions-alleged-secret-tapes-48146860)

Todd Barclay recorded conversations that he was not privy to and then paid the person whose privacy was invaded a larger than usual sum.

Also, Barclay will not stand in this fall's election. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11880064)


Anyone from NZ have a more informed perspective?

The Nationals are pretty moderate except for being centre-right on economics. Meanwhile their stance on social issues is pretty liberal which lets them grab social liberal votes/stops social liberals from turning out since they don't feel threatened.

NZ did have a populist surge in the 90s with the populist right-wing NZ First and populist left-wing Alliance party(most of their voters eventually shifted to the greens) because of a crap economy since the recession of the early 80s and another in the early 90s.   

But the economy has been doing pretty well since the early 2000s due to a export boom to growing Asian economies which made support for populist right and left parties to stagnate as they were in the 90s, winning no more than the 450-500K vote range ever since.


()



Also lot of unemployed kiwis immigrated elsewhere especially to Oz in the 80's/90's. Which meant less potential populist voters that could of went either NZ First or the left-wing parties.

Hone Harawira is calling for the execution of Chinese meth dealers. (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/06/harawira-serious-about-executing-chinese-p-dealers.html)

Kelvin Davis trolled him pretty hard though:


Typical bluster from Harawira. I had liked him having around because he could be useful for a laugh sometimes, but this is just going too far.

Big news today.

Andrew Little resigned as Labour Party leader and was replaced with Jacinda Ardern. Her deputy will be Kelvin Davis. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11897447)

What do you think, now that it's actually happened?

Labour up big in two recent polls. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/336857/second-poll-shows-jump-for-labour-slump-for-greens-and-nz-first) Greens are slumping as Turei resigns. National stable and NZFirst down slightly.

()

But being serious,

I still think the Nationals are still in a better position to form government, unless NZ First goes with Labour+Greens, which is highly unlikely, and would surprise me if they decided to form with them.

However, if Labour keeps climbing, and takes mostly from the Nationals, rather than the Greens, then I could see the potential for Ardern to become PM, with Green support.

NZ First WILL be the kingmaker, however.

Had a feeling that English would be vulnerable if the left just got its act together.


I was thinking "Helen Clark with charisma" rather than of Trudeau.

Yeah, it's not a complete game change, but gaining 10% is no small feat. If they can get the Māori Party to join in, that would be another two seats or so. I'd still lean towards a National government at this point in time. Coalition between National and WINston wouldn't be shocking and is probably what we'd get if the election was today.

Poll shows Peter Dunne (leader of United Future) losing in Ohariu, the party's only seat. (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/peter-dunne-set-lose-seat-latest-q-colmar-brunton-snap-poll-reveals)

If he is "Dunne", then that just strengthens NZ First's position of king maker.
(sorry for the absolutely horrible pun)

Haha! ACT can probably hold on to Epsom, but the Māori Party could be questionable. Their alliance with Mana makes me think that they're looking more towards the left.

NZ First is right where WINston wants to be. It will be interesting to see if the Greens drop any further.

And drop they did. (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/1-news-colmar-brunton-poll-greens-plummet-below-five-per-cent-jacinda-effect-keeps-labour-climbing)

National 44%
Labour 37%
NZFirst 10%
Greens 4%
Māori 2%
Opportunities 2%

Preferred PM
Bill English 30%
Jacinda Ardern 30%
Winston Peters 7%

Bad news for the Greens. They may get a dead cat bounce and get back above 5%, but they're not in a good way right now.

Edit: This poll was conducted from August 12 to 16 by ONE News and Colmar Brunton.

If they continue to stay below 5%, could some Labour vote strategically for them so as to increase the chances of Labour forming government since if the Greens get shut out, Labour has to rely on New Zealand First and considering ideological differences as well as possibly not having enough seats, not sure that would work.  While you cannot say anything for sure, I think a good night for Labour would be to form a strong opposition and then in 2020 win.

Arguably, it would be easier to form a two party "coalition" between Labour and NZ First, then one that requires the Greens as well.

Remember that labour (and the greens as well, for that matter) are running on anti-immigration message this time round, and that NZ First aren't directly comparable to similar populist right groups in Europe. They aren't too far apart, is all I'm saying (I.e. Them working together is not out of the realm of possibility, which would be very different in almost any European context, Greece aside).

NZ First was in coalition with Labour from 2005 to 2008 and with the Nationals from 1996 to 1998. Neither should really be out of the question at this point.

I know this is probably not the best question to ask, but do you think Jacinda Adern being young and good looking wins her any votes.  I know were supposed to vote on policy not looks, but people do vote on looks.  While not the only reason he won, it certainly helped Justin Trudeau and to a lesser extent you could say that with Macron.  Also if I am not mistaken played a big role in Sebastian Kurz taking the OVP in Austria from third in the polls to first.  So just wondering if that is part of it or is she just a better communicator with better ideas than Andrew Little.  One can go lots of younger voters without being good looking if their passionate (think Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders) and is her gains mainly from younger voters or across the age demographic?

A) Kurz is not good looking. And to be honest, the same goes for most politicians labelled as attractive - if a young person of average attractiveness spends all day around middle-aged career politicians they tend to look "attractive" by comparison, even if it's merely because they have a full head of hair or whatever.

B) I think people like something new in politicians.. Trudeau, Sanders and Corbyn don't look or sound like your typical politicians, for different reasons; and neither does Adern (her farm girl aesthetic is very different from what most female politicians, even those of a similar age, typically go for; which may be a slightly calculated move.

(Atlas Forum: come for the politics and maps, stay for bitching about foreign politicians hotness levels)

Agreed looks shouldn't matter sadly enough in politics it seems charisma, looks, public speaking ability do play a major role in how people vote, I especially find that is true amongst younger voters.  I can definitely say living in Canada this played a role in Trudeau's win.  Harper was going to lose no matter what as people wanted him gone, but I think looks, charisma, and surname played a big role in them choosing Trudeau over Mulcair.

On another issue, I heard Bill English unlike John Key plans to raise the retirement age to 67 starting in 2037 and Winston Peters has said that would be a red line in forming a coalition that the retirement age remain at 65, so does that improve Labour's chances or do you think National would be willing to drop this to please New Zealand First as this wouldn't take effect for many years anyways.

I've been reading that Labour is trying to get back at some rural voters. Having Ardern run as something of a farm girl would help with that.


Amen.


It could help Labour. One of WINston's biggest demographics is old people. Granted, a lot of them will be dead in 20 years, but I'd say that National would have to be flexible on that if they wanted NZ First's support.

In 2014, Labour supported raising the retirement age. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/252537/labour-pushing-later-retirement-age)

However, as of March of this year, they backed away from that and are supporting keeping the age at 65. (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/labour-utterly-committed-to-65-for-super.html)

Roy Morgan finally come out with their poll conducted from July 31 to August 13.

National 42.5%
Labour 32.5%
NZ First 11.5%
Green 9%
Opportunities 2%
Māori 1.5%
ACT 0.5%

I'd guess that Greens are probably lower than 9 given their recent troubles. The length and age of that sample make it a bit hard to get a lot out of that poll, but Labour did gain 2% over the last Roy Morgan poll (Nation dropped by 0.5%, Greens dropped by 4.5%, NZ First gained by 3.5%).

Neither United Future nor Mana were polled in either the Roy Morgan poll posted here or the One News Colmar Brunton poll at the bottom of last page. United Future is dependent on Peter Dunne winning Ohariu, which is unlikely according to a poll of that electorate. To my knowledge, the Greens are not running a candidate in that seat.

Mana is dependent on Hone Harawira taking back Te Tai Tokerau from Labour's Kelvin Davis. Davis was recently named Labour's Deputy Leader and beat the incumbent Harawira back in 2014. I'm not really liking Harawira's chances at getting back in.

Mana and Māori have agreed to not stand multiple candidates in the Māori seats, which means that Māori isn't running anyone against Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau and Mana won't run anyone in the other 6 Māori (race, not party) seats. That could be good news for the Māori Party, who have done quite well in the Māori seats, often creating overhangs under New Zealand's MMP system.

The Opportunities Party (TOP) is a new party created by Gareth Morgan and is mostly centrist with some environmentalist tendencies. They've been struggling to take off. Without an electorate seat and only about 2% in the polls, they won't make it into Parliament.

ACT has been cemented in Epsom and Bill English has endorsed David Seymour of ACT in Epsom and Peter Dunne in Ohariu. (https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95119031/bill-english-calls-for-tactical-voting-in-epsom-ohariu-to-elect-support-party-leaders)

Of the aforementioned minor parties. I think that ACT has the best chance at being in Parliament post-election. Māori has a good shot. United Future should probably be writing their own obituary while they can. I don't like Mana's chance at winning back Te Tai Tokerau and TOP isn't likely to spin enough to get 3% more than their polling.

The Austrian women disagree (polls show that Kurz does extremely well with the Austrian ladies, young and old):


()

And he's popular with the ladies abroad:

()

Kurz looks like an uglier Patrick Bateman.

I know looks shouldn't matter, but I only brought it up as I feel it does have an impact.  Anybody who watched Canada's last election would note there weren't a lot of people taking selfies with Thomas Mulcair or Stephen Harper, but many were with Justin Trudeau.  He is even nicknamed prime-minister selfie.  Off course I would argue oratory skills are just as big.  In many ways Obama's success can be attributed heavily to his oratory skills.  Off course you have some like Corbyn and Sanders who are old and not exactly the greatest speaker, but had great passions and thus able to invigorate the young.

Going back to New Zealand politics, I could be wrong, but it seems for left leaning parties how well they do depends heavily on their ability to mobilize younger voters who tend to lean to the left as opposed to older voters who are usually more conservative.  While probably not this extreme, in the last UK election Labour had a 40 point lead amongst millennials while Tories a 40 point lead amongst seniors and it seems amongst millennials image matters more than it does amongst older voters.  Perhaps maybe their politics are different, but in New Zealand politics do they have the strong age divide with younger voters favouring Labour and older favouring National or is it more like Germany where support is fairly even across age brackets?

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any cross tabs.

Also, here's a new poll from UMR, which does internal polls for Labour. (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/08/election-tightens-as-national-drops-3-percent-in-new-poll.html)

National 40
Labour 37
NZ First 9
Greens 8

No minor party numbers, unfortunately.

3.6% MoE based on a 750 person sample. Labour is within the margin of error according to their internals.

Regarding Maori seats, iirc, Maori voters can choose to vote either in the Maori or the "normal" seat - is there any data on how many choose either? and what sorts of people choose which?

I assume that people voting in Maori electorates tend to be more traditionalist/more likely to be Maori speakers?

Also, correct me if I am wrong - but I've always thought of the Maori party as being fairly conservative on many issues, coalition government with the Nats and all, but allying with Mana seems to indicate otherwise?

Māori votes can choose either one. I'm not sure how "Māori" is classified in this case. Wiki says that 7 out of 70 (10%) of electorates are Māori electorates compared to the 18% of NZers that identify as Māori.

If anyone has some good demographic sources, those would be greatly appreciated. I would have to guess the same as you in terms of the type of Māori who vote in those seats.

As to the Māori party's overall position, there's definitely some conservatism, and I think it bears noting that National doesn't run in electorate seats. Above all, the Māori Party cares about Māori issues. I'm not sure how they'd fit on a two axis scale. The alliance with Mana seems to suggest that. Both parties care greatly about Māori rights and would like to advance them. I'm not sure that the alliance will be that successful for Mana (they haven't been registering in most polls), but not having to compete against Mana in the Māori electorate seats should be a boon to the Māori Party. Not having to run against a Māori Party candidate does give Harawira an outside glance at winning Te Tai Tokerau, but Kelvin Davis is now the incumbent and is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

Since 2008, the Māori Party has supported the National government. From 2005 to 2008, Wiki says that the Māori Party abstained on supply and confidence.

Maori voters to my understand choose whether they want to be on the Maori electoral roll or the standard electoral roll when they register to vote, and seats are distributed based on the number of registered voters on the Maori rolls vs. the standard rolls. When a Maori voter shows up to vote, if they are on the Maori roll, they can only vote in Maori seats, and, if they are on the standard roll, they can only vote in the standard seats. Given the Maori percentage of the population vs. percentage of the electoral rolls, somewhat more than half of all Maori are registered on the Maori rolls.

The Maori Party is to my understanding a lot like other ethnic group-based parties around the world: ideologically malleable so long as they get pork for their ethnic group.

The New Zealand Electoral Commission gives a brief history of the Maori seats and explains how the system works.

http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/maori-representation

To expand on this, based upon books I have read about New Zealand history.

In the 19th century New Zealand started out with a single voters roll, which any British subject who met a landowning qualification could qualify for. In theory the Maori could qualify but in practice few did because the Maori tradition of communal land ownership was incosistent with European ideas about how land could be owned by individuals.

The Maori became discontented over the amount of land settlers had taken over. The Europeans did not realise how discontented until the King Country War broke out. This was a big enough threat to the colony that Imperial troops had to be sent from as far away as India to reinforce the colonial militia.

As an emergency measure, so that the Maori could express their grievances by participating in politics and not have to resort to war, it was decided to create four Maori seats in the New Zealand legislature. This was originally intended to be a temporary measure, but the Maori liked the system and it was made permanent.

The Maori seats elected Maori members to a small legislature, so they could exercise significant political power. This distinguishes the New Zealand practice from that in South Africa, where all the members of legislatures had to be of European descent both before and after communal representatives were introduced into the House of Assembly.

The preamble to the Maori Representation Bill 1867 states:-


http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_bill/mrb1867431247/

Peter Dunne Quits Politics (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=11908155&ref=twitter)

Dunne is stepping down as leader of United Future and will not be running in Ohariu. He said that recent poll numbers influenced him.

He has been in parliament for how long now, 33 years? I think that the tie is right for him to step down.

Anyway, that's +1 Labour.

Maori TV Election Poll of Māori Electorates (https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/politics/first-maori-election-poll-reveals-red-wash)

Labour 46.5% (+6.7%)
Māori 17.5% (---)
NZ First 13.8% (+5.2%)
National 9.5% (-2.6%)
Green 9% (+0.3%)
Mana 1.8% (-7%)
TOP 1.5% (+1.5%)

Undecided 4.9%

Percent changes are from this time during the 2014 campaign. 2,515 voters surveyed from July 11 to August 11. This is only among those registered in Māori electorates, not the Māori population as a whole.

Seems like this matches my understanding.

One question I do have, though, is how they determine who is eligible to be registered on the Maori rolls. It sounds like anyone who says they are of Maori descent can register on the Maori rolls such that theoretically someone with no Maori descent could claim Maori descent on the Census and then register on the Maori rolls. Does anyone know if there is any oversight/regulation on who can claim to be of Maori descent?

Good to see that this will be United Future's last ever election. Hopefully it will be the same for the ACT.

RIP UFNZ HP

Any polls for that one ACT seat?

If I read it right, it seems like you would indicate that you are maori when you register. I seem to remember that quite a few self-identified maori basically look white, and  I have no idea how and if they check someone's credentials

By the looks of it, about 55% of maori register in maori electorates.

It's widely expected that when the government closes all the Treaty of Watangi settlements, the Maoiri seats will be phased out.

Jacinda Ardern just proposed free tertiary education.  Was this a hail mary moment or could this come back to bite her.  On the one hand much like with Corbyn's promise in the UK, I could see it bringing out more younger voters which would be good for Labour, but at the same time if the costs don't add up I could see National easily hitting them with the idea this is fiscally unsustainable.

We're finally getting some Māori electorate results. (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/08/it-s-all-on-polling-for-three-maori-electorates-released.html)

Te Tai Tonga
Rino Tirikatene (Labour) 57.1%
Mei Reedy-Taare (Māori) 22.1%
Metiria Turei (Green) 20.7%

Te Tai Hauāuru
Howie Tamati (Māori) 52%
Adrian Rurawhe (Labour) 39%
Jack McDonald (Green) 9.1%

Ikaroa Rāwhiti
Meka Whaitiri (Labour) 55%
Marama Fox (Māori) 39%
Elizabeth Kerekere (Green) 6%

Labour leads in 2, Māori leads in 1

There's still 4 more Māori electorates and it sounds like we'll be getting those numbers soonish.

While still over three weeks and just one poll, Labour is now at 43%, National 41%, NZ First 8% and Greens 5% so that means when you factor in the margin of error a Labour-Green coalition might be plausible although I still am skeptical whether that will happen.  Certainly changing leaders has improved their fortunes, the question becomes has Ardern peaked too early or will the momentum continue.  It does seem though choosing a younger more charismatic type can turn around fortunes.  In Canada when Trudeau took over as Liberal leader the party went from third place to first place overnight while in Austria you saw a similar thing when the OVP went from third to first.  Still unless something dramatic happens I think there is a good chance New Zealand First will be the king makers.  Any idea which party they will lean towards?

Shocking new poll has Labour in the lead! (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-labour-rockets-ahead-national-in-stunning-colmar-brunton-poll-result)

Labour 43%
National 41%
NZ First 8%
Greens 5%
TOP 1%
Māori 1%

Damn, you just beat me.

NZ First's position is looking tenuous. Winston is trying to appeal to the rural areas north of Auckland in a strategy that reminds me of Trump going after the rust belt. Something tells me that he's scared of the 5% threshold and wants to secure at least one electorate. Speaking of that, the Greens are really close to the 5% threshold. Historically, they've lost a percent or two between polls and the actual results. If you're looking for a left leanings coalition, I'd throw your party vote to the Greens to make sure that they hit 5%.

A Labour-Greens-Māori coalition is looking possible. If Hone can win Te Tai Tokerau, he would probably be an overhang seat and I'd assume that he would favor a left leaning coalition. Throw him a bone and that's an extra seat. I'm guessing that Māori will end up with 2-3 seats.

As to Jacindamentum, she's still rising. I'm not sure how much further she'll rise as at least some of that rise is likely from cannibalizing the Greens. I won't be able to see the debate until at least tomorrow evening, so I won't be able to provide any insight on that for another 24 hours or so.

Prediction:

Labour: 52
National: 50
NZ First: 12
Greens: 7
Māori: 2
ACT: 1

Most likely coalitions:
Labour-Green-Māori (61)
National-NZ First (62)
Labour-NZ First (64)

Labour now has more possible paths to a majority, while the Nationals MUST get NZ First on their side

There really should be some mechanism by which sub threshold parties can have their wasted votes redistributed to bigger parties. (Unless it leads to some sort of Australian microparty vote farming situation)

That is, if you accept the logic behind thresholds to begin with, which I personally don't.

Also are there no Christian/Conservative parties running anymore? Man, that wing really is unlucky.

I'm ok with thresholds, but 5% is a bit too high. Maybe 3%.

I think that the Conservative Party is still running, but they've collapsed entirely since 2014.

Speaking of the Conservatives, is the fact that Labour won the Napier electorate in 2014 pureky down to how well the Conservatives did in that constituency? Any reason they did? it seems to be a personal vote based on the level of ticket splitting - was Garth McVicar that noteworthy?

Personally, I wish everyone would go full Netherlands. Threshold = 100%/number of seats :)

Never heard of the guy before, but he seems to have been rather popular there. I'd be interested to see what would happen if NZ First stood a candidate there. They haven't stood anyone since 2005. Looking at the Wikipedia page, it looks like McVicar may have cost National that seat (not that that matters in MMP). National could take it back, but Nash is an incumbent and Labour's prospects are looking up.

Side note: Jacinda is a former Mormon, who left over over the church's social views in 2004.

Newshub/Reid Research Poll (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/newshub-poll-national-and-labour-in-one-on-one-fight-for-power.html)

Aug 22 to Aug 30

National 43.3% (-1.1%)
Labour 39.4% (+6.3%)
NZ First 6.6% (-2.6%)
Greens 6.1% (-2.2%)
TOP 1.9% (-0.1%)
Māori 1% (-0.5%)
ACT 0.6% (---)

Changes from Aug 2-8 poll.

Since WINston's superannuation (pension) "scandal" broke, his numbers have been on the decline. Historically NZ first has done better than their polls and the Greens have done worse, but apparently at least some of the pollsters have been attempting to compensate for that.

Jacindamentum!

Ew. Do the NZ posters/posters who know NZ politics well think the Nats would have done better with Key? Key was pretty popular. But it doesn't look like the Nats lost much, it looks like it's mainly Labour winning votes. And are there any polls on voting by income/education/age in NZ?

Looking forward to the possibility of there only being two parties in parliament, just like the old days.

NZ first holds an electorate seat, so they will be able to still claim list seats even if they slip below threshold.

The Greens really should have made that part of their initial deal with labour - to be granted a constituency somewhere so they also wouldn't have to worry about the threshold.

It would be foolish to assume that Northland is safe.

lets be honest; it'd be Labour, the Nats and the one ACT person who always seems to win

The future that we deserve

Is there a list of marginal seats anywhere? I know it's MMP so it doesn't matter so much but judging from the map of the last election there doesn't seem to be that many marginals.

John Key was seen as rather charismatic, especially in comparison to his Labour counterparts that he faced in 2011 and 2014 (as well as Andrew Little). Bill English just doesn't have the magic touch. The consensus on reddit's NZ subreddit is that English was coasting off Key's popularity and Little's relatively boring persona. Perhaps the greatest thing that Little did for Labour was to step down when he did. Jacinda has brought great energy to the Labour campaign.

Labour has been gaining lots of votes, yes. Notably, NZ First and the Greens have been on the decline. One of the Greens co-leaders (Metiria Turei) resigned as co-leader is face of a benefits scandal dating back to the early 1990's. As of late, WINston has been embroiled in a scandal of his own; he was forced to pay back superannuation (Social Security/state pension) overpayments. I haven't spoken to any former NZ First supporters, but WINston and NZ First tend to do well with older folks. I can't imagine that they would like to hear that their leader was taking more than he should have been.

I can't say whether or not NZ First voters are going directly to Labour or if they're going to National and a similar number of moderate National supporters are going to Labour, but National has been relatively steady since #Jacindamentum began. They've lost a bit, but not nearly as much as Labour has gained.

I have not been able to find any breakdowns by demographics, which is extremely distressing. There is some polling for the Māori electorates, both individually for some (apparently we'll get the results for the other seats sometime before the election) and the 7 Māori electorates as whole, but that's about it, really. It's also debatable as to whether or not the other 50% or so of Māori voters who are registered in normal electorates will vote the same way.


I would have to agree with you on this one. NZ First hadn’t ran a candidate in Northland since 2005. If you look at the 2015 by-election results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northland_by-election,_2015), you’ll see that Labour got a whopping 4.7%. Funny things happen in by-elections and special elections. I would highly doubt that Labour will get that low of a result in three weeks. Northland is certainly a seat to watch, especially if NZ First continues to have issues. WINston is a sneaky critter though, I wouldn’t call his career over until he’s dead *and* buried.

As to the second part of CrabCake’s post, that would’ve been quite advantageous. Preferably somewhere in a city (there’s probably somewhere in Auckland or Wellington that would vote Green in the absence of Labour).

Well, it certainly wouldn’t be a United Future, now would it?

I would be surprised if the Māori party doesn’t get in, but at this rate, a four party parliament, with two giants and two ants would no longer shock me. I would be surprised (but not shocked) if neither Greens nor NZ First make it. The Greens have been worrying me though and that’s why I would suggest that left-leaning voters pick Green for their party vote to hopefully keep the Greens above 5% to have a better opportunity of Labour leading a government and keeping NZ First out if it.


I swear that there used to be a list of them on the 2014 General Election Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2014#Electorate_results), but I am either mistaken or it was removed. The main electorate result list also isn’t sortable by margin, which irks me. I’d look for anything under 1,500 votes as a seat to watch.

Even though it is MMP, I’d definitely watch some of the seats. The 7 Māori electorates will be interesting given the relatively united front put on by Māori and Mana. Epsom (ACT’s lone seat) will be interesting as well. I’d watch Ohariu as well just to see what it does without Peter Dunne. As previously mentioned, Northland could also be interesting (and important if NZ First misses 5% as previously discussed)

The two Hamilton seats as well as Northcote (in northern Auckland) are regarded as bellweather seats. Hamilton West has not missed an election since the start of MMP in 1996 (only 7 elections, but that’s still better than the others). Hamilton East missed 1999 and 2005 in the MMP era, with Northcote missing 2005 as well.


Indeed. :)

Thanks. Although I note there is only one National held electorate with a majority smaller than 1,500: Auckland Central.

(God, the margins on the some of the Suburban and Rural held National seats are enormous).

Also one of these days I would like someone to explain to me the patterns in the flag referendum. I see that all the electorates in favour of safe National ones, but why those ones? What was going on?

One thing to note: polling in New Zealand has historically tended to overestimate the Nationals (and since they've been a factor, also the greens) and to underestimate Labour and the various populist parties. Of course a tendency isn't the same thing as a rule.

True enough, but you can see the opposite happen.  In the UK, pollsters tend to underestimate the Tories and overestimate Labour, yet last election the opposite happened.  In 2012 in the US, most pollsters overestimated Romney and underestimated Obama whereas in 2016 it was the reverse.  In Canada pollsters have a long history of underestimating the Tories and overestimating the NDP, but usually are pretty bang on for the Liberals.  In Ontario though I've found pollsters don't tend to underestimate a particular party, but rather tend to underestimate the governing party and overestimate the opposition.

There's a few more. Hutt South and Ohariu plus a couple of the Māori electorates were also under about 1,500. 1,500 is just BS number that seemed close, btw.

Couldn't really say anything to the flag referendum.

A 20,000 vote margin is huge considering that only 35,000 votes were cast in Selwyn (as an example). Fortunately, MMP does help take care of any issues that might be caused by these huge margins. Mangere is the only comparable electorate for Labour in 2014. Given Labour's increasing fortunes, we might see more like Mangere than Selwyn this time around.

Yes, but I said Auckland Central was the only National held one. Given the polls, I wouldn't expect much Labour held electorates to be in danger of flipping.

I swear I graduated college!

Hutt South could flip. Long-serving MP Trevor Mallard has retired and the National candidate Chris Bishop is pretty popular and effective(deservedly so IMO). I'm not sure if he can overcome Jacindamania but I wouldn't rule it out.

Sad that Mallard is leaving.  A few years back, he proposed resurrecting the moa, an extinct flightless bird related to the kiwi. (http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/10216641/Time-to-bring-back-the-moa)

Didn't go down well for him.

No. No, it didn't. I remember laughing when I saw it proposed.

Who won the second debate in your opinion? 

I haven't watched it yet.

Me neither. I'll see if I can find it on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVUwhdX56oc

This poor little sod thinks Peters will be the next PM.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The media company who did the production for the debate is blocking all videos about the debate.

From what I can see, one of the main points from the debate was that Steven Joyce's claim to Labour apparently having an 11 billion dollar black hole in their budget was exposed as complete and utter bullsht.

Yes, the same Steven Joyce that had this happen to him:

()

It's disappointing how cynical the National Party has revealed itself to be, that they see one poll showing Labour in the lead and decide to mislead the public and use dirty tricks, in a desperate ploy to muddy the waters and deceive the electorate. I hope it backfires, as it deservedly should.

So Trump and May (horrible people who ran horrible campaigns) win their elections while the NZ Nats (who had a decent track record) might end up losing? I f**king hate conservatives in 2017. Anyway, is there a chance that it will be an UK 2017-style landslide with young voters? Ardern does seem like someone who appeals a lot to young people (+ the free three years of tertiary education, but aren't most people aged 18-29 beyond that already?). Then again I don't think English is as toxic to young people as May (or Brexit) was in the UK.

It's not over and also New Zealand unlike the US or UK uses proportional representation so it will probably come down to whomever New Zealand First backs and they've formed governments with both and don't seem to be leaning in anyone direction.  There is a slight chance Labour-Green coalition may be possible, but at the moment looks unlikely.  As for youth turnout, hard to say but definitely possible.  Not just the UK, but also in Canada 2 years ago you saw a youth turnout surge for Trudeau.  In the US you saw it for Obama not Clinton so it does seem for parties on the left (not so much the right as they tend do better amongst older voters who always vote) turnout amongst millennials is key to their success.

Prediction (September 6)

Labour: 53 (+1)
National: 51 (+1)
NZ First: 10 (-2)
Greens: 6 (-1)
Māori: 2
ACT: 1
TOTAL: 123 (61/62 will be needed for a majority, due to overhang seats)

Most likely coalitions (no changes)
Labour-Green-Māori (61)
National-NZ First (62)
Labour-NZ First (64)

I am rating this election currently as a toss up, tilt National, but with both parties saying they would work with Winston Peters in some way, anything could happen.

A meme has been circulating that Joyce failed 8 economics papers at uni. It turns out he quit most and only actually failed one. The one he did fail though was 'Labour Economics.'

New ONE News/Colmar Brunton poll (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/new-poll-labour-widens-lead-over-national-4-points-in-latest-1-news-colmar-brunton)

Labour - 43%
National - 39%
NZ First - 9%
Green - 5%
Māori - 2%
TOP - 2%
ACT - 0.1%

If those numbers hold I think a Labour-Green-Maori or perhaps even a Labour-Green coalition would be sufficient thus a progressive one whereas up until now it was assumed New Zealand First would be the kingmaker.  Under this would they be able to still form a National-New Zealand First as I cannot see the Greens going into coalition with National. 

Off course there is still over 2 weeks left and I suspect as the frontrunner Ardern will come under more scrutiny, so will the momentum continue resulting in a bigger labour win than expected or is this a case of Labour peaking too soon.  Will find out over the next little while which it is or perhaps maybe things will stabilize.

I need an "ITS HAPPENING" gif with JACINDA instead of Ron Paul.

Same here! Not sure how to add text to a gif or if there's suitable source material though.

Also, prediction time for me.

Labour 42% 52 Seats
National 38% 48 Seats
NZ First 9% 11 Seats
Greens 5.85% 7 Seats
Māori 1.9% 2 Seats
TOP 1.6% 0 Seats
ACT 0.3% 1 Seat (overhang)
Mana 0.2% 0 Seats
United Future 0.05% 0 Seats
Others 1.1% 0 Seats

If NZ First falls by just 2, the Nationals WILL NOT be able to form a majority, as the Greens will not work with English.

I am now rating this election as Lean Labour

The Stuff Leader's debate didn't seem to go well for English. The best he could do on Jacinda was calling her 'stardust'.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96581255/live-english-ardern-face-off-in-stuff-leaders-debate

When they asked who Ardern would work with, why the hell did they completely leave out Māori?! Labour-Green-Māori makes up a majority.

Also, Nationals still peddling their bullsh**t "Labour has a budget black hole"

This is going to destroy the Nationals.

The 'budget hole' is National's 'alternative facts', trying to deceive and mislead the voters of New Zealand. However it appears they are smart enough not to fall for it.

The stuff poll on who won the debate:
()

Of course it's just an online poll, but the consensus across the country is that Ardern won.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/public-politicians-divided-over-water-tax.html (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/public-politicians-divided-over-water-tax.html)

Peters still dismisses the polls, calling them "wrong", and "junk science"
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/338969/peters-dismisses-junk-science-polls

Holy S*** this is big if true.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/08/46799/labour-gap-women

Looks like also a very similar age divide to the most recent UK election the big difference is Labour is doing better amongst those in their 40s thus why ahead, but amongst seniors massive National lead while massive Labour lead amongst millennials.  I wonder what internal polls say since Ardern seems quite calm sort of looking like a frontrunner while English seems panicked like someone falling behind.  We will have to see if other polls confirm or disprove this one.

Link Broken

It shows Labour 45 to National 30. I will try and get another one but National at only 30 and Labour ahead by 15 that is massive and devastating for National. Off course this could be a rogue poll so let's see what others say.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/08/46848/election-15-days   Try this link and read through the whole thing it is near the bottom. The other got taken down and also removed on Wikipedia too.

I'm on board with Jacindamania.

I'm still waiting for Billmentum :(

What did the Nats do to deserve this clobbering with young people? There isn't a Brexit situation in NZ and Bill English hasn't beem campaigning on social conservatism right? Is it because of rising tuition fees and lack of affordable housing for young people (or other economic issues)?

I think it's bullsh**t how Gareth can't get into the debates with 2%, but yet United Future can, and their numbers are so small most pollsters don't include them anymore.

This poll is big news if it is true.

If the poll was to be accurate, Labour would even need Māori to form government, they could just get the Greens. Labour would have 56, and the greens would have 8 under this poll, which adds up to 64, with the Nationals not able to form government AT ALL.

I've been gone from here for awhile, so I haven't read over the posts, but, while good on Labour for promising to legalize abortion, after reading the platforms of both the Labour Party and the National Party, I fully endorse Damien Light and the United Future Party.

I now expect Future Mania.

I would suggest the slogan "if you don't have a United Future, you'll have a divided future."

UF's time was back in the late 90s, and early 2000s. They are dying, and will probably never go back into Parliament.

This is unfortunate because The National Party is basically a follower of right wing supply side economics nonsense while, under Jacinda Ardern, the Labour Party is basically a follower of further left post Keynesian Bernie Sanders 'quasi socialist' type economics nonsense.

No political party in New Zealand is representing the sensible center.

The rules are that parties have to poll at 3% or more to get in, or have a seat in parliament. As United Future have a seat they get to be in the debates. It allows incumbents to get a fair hearing, but could also unfairly entrench incumbent politicians.

The youth vote in the UK was about far, far more than Brexit and Tory culture wars

I guess austerity also played a role, but May did much worse than Cameron with young voters. If it was about austerity or other economic issues the Tories should have imploded with young voters in 2015, and they still got 32% of the 18-29 vote. Maybe Corbyn energized young voters more than Ed did, but I think Brexit and culture wars were very big reasons for the Tory implosion with young voters.

Wasn't turnout extremely low amongst young voters in 2015? I don't think it was entirely about culture wars, because not only have young voters been disproponatly affected by austerity, but also if it was about Brexit and culture wars, why didn't the lib dems do better?

We probably shouldn't sidetrack the thread - but there was a huge economic side to it; house prices and tuition fees being the most obvious factors, but also little things like job precarity, low wages, abolishing housing benefit for the under 25s at the same time as year-on-year real increases to pensions.

I mean, remember how little Corbyn/Labour even talked about Brexit during the referendum.

Look at this YouGov poll from August (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/csp176lsi3/TimesResults_170831_VI_Trackers_W.pdf) for example. The 18-24 group are far less likely to identify Brexit as the most important issue than older voters, and more likely to identify Education or housing. Obviously, comopulsory warning about cross tabs, but pretty much all polling is giving a similar picture.

But these problems also existed in 2015 and young voters didn't bother to turn out. Corbyn would have done better than Miliband with young voters anyway, but the difference between 2015 and 2017 was huge. Anyway I'm looking at some polls from before the Brexit (ugh crosstabs...) and apparently young people already trended Labour before Brexit but after Corbyn's election so you're probably right. And I agree that we probably shouldn't derail the thread anymore :P.

Agreed we shouldn't derail this although I think if this pans out there seems to be a trend where millennials at least in the English speaking world are trending heavily towards progressive parties.  Whether it be Justin Trudeau in Canada, Bernie Sanders in the US, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and now Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand there is a trend.  Each had their own unique reasons off course, but interesting trend nonetheless.  Now outside of the English speaking world you don't see this too much as I believe Merkel is still ahead amongst millennials although in France in the first round Melenchon won amongst millennials but Le Pen did just as well as amongst millennials as older voters although Fillon skewed heavily towards seniors.  I think in the Nordic Countries parties on the right do fairly well amongst millennials but could be wrong, although in the Netherlands Green Left despite coming in fifth I believe came in first amongst millennials.  So it is still interesting to see the trends and do cross country comparisons.

Another poll has Labour ahead 37 to National 34 but looks like this one is not removing the undecided voters as it doesn't add up to 100.

The main difference is than Milibrand didn't focus on these issues in 2015, unlike Corbyn.

Coming from the party that has implemented 18 new taxes in their time, this is extremely hilarious.

All of them are dead too so not possible.  Still kind of silly and had the main party did this I think it would backfire rather than help.  The comments on facebook are mostly negative.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918231

Now, THIS is interesting, and quite a cool idea.

Quick question: How did Bill English get his job given that he led the Nats to a disastrous defeat in 2002?


1) I wonder how much of this is due to immigration vs 'native' millennials rejecting their parents' politics.

2) What do you think this will mean for politics in ~20 years when millennials are middle aged, the boomers are dying off and a new generation is voting?

Essentially because he just happened to be deputy leader.

Here is an interesting point about the most recent poll:

If Māori do get 2 percent, and hold their electorate, under Sainte-Laguë, they would go on to win 3 seats, not just 2.

It hardly matters when it comes to forming government though, as a Labour-Green coalition would easily form a majority (56 and 8)

()

Same.

I think trotting out the "communists" trope is a tacit admission things aren't going away - both Les Républicains in France and the Tories in Britain pulle out similar lines when it was clear things were going badly wrong.


This would be an interesting conversation to have (be careful about that word "trend" though), but probably best done in another topic :P

I had seen a headline about it in supermarkets, but then the article also mentioned having booths in airports, which is neat.

Someone on Reddit made this:

()

New Māori TV/Reid Research poll for Hauraki-Waikato (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Hauraki-Waikato)

Candidate Vote

Nanaia Mahuta (Labour) 78%
Rahui Papa (Māori) 22%

Party Vote

Labour 52.6%
NZ First 15.1%
Māori 14.5%
Mana (not reported)

New Māori TV/Reid Research poll for Waiariki (http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/flavell-runs-polls)

Candidate Vote

Te Ururoa Flavell (Māori) 60.1%
Tamati Coffey (Labour) 39.9%

Party Vote

Labour 49.6%
Māori 26.5%
NZ First 10.2%
National 5.6%
Greens 4.8%

Here is a poll on how Chinese voters would vote, which I guess isn't too big of a surprise although in most Western countries usually the non-white vote tends to hurt parties on the right.  In the US the Chinese used to go heavily GOP but now heavily Democrat as the party has swung rightward.  Here in Canada they vary between Liberals and Conservatives, but never NDP.  I was wondering about other groups like East Indians or other Asians, do they also favour the National or do they favour Labour.  I suspect the Maori probably favour Labour.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11919332

Another poll shows most want NZ First to back a Labour over National government.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/1-news-colmar-brunton-poll-kiwis-want-nz-first-go-labour-not-national

Actually in the recent BC election the NDP made major inroads among the Chinese and elected 4 Chinese MLAs and won several heavily Chinese ridings

True enough although very recent.  Seems though in New Zealand that isn't happening at least if the poll is correct.  I also think in BC its generational too as the NDP vote probably came mostly from Chinese millennials who were either born in Canada or came as children.  Amongst the older Chinese who came as adults I am pretty sure the BC Liberals won that cohort quite handidly.  Not sure the breakdown in New Zealand of those born there or not born there.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2017/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504338&objectid=11921278

I find this hilarious.

Does New Zealand usually provide exit polls and if so how accurate are they?  If not how quickly do the results come in.  Since it will be midnight the day before for me on Friday, I am wondering if it is worth staying up for (usually I stay up until the bars close at 2AM on Fridays so 9 PM New Zealand time the next day) or better just to check in the morning.

No, there usually aren't exit polls.

The very first results usually take around 15-20 minutes to come in,

I'm also in that time zone. I'm planning on staying up until 2-3 AM Saturday on our time. I'm figuring that we'll have a good idea by then. Hopefully.

()

Seems like National has bounced back although it looks like the polls are a bit over the place.  One that has Labour up by 15 while this with National up by 10 so unless something dramatic happens this could be a rogue poll although we should have a better idea as the week progresses if others confirm the same.  On best PM not much change with English slightly ahead.  Bill English also commented their polls show them neck and neck (although he could be lying just to avoid complacency), but the reaction of the two leaders suggests their own internals show  things being tighter.

Yeah, it's a shocking poll. The race is still in flux. National ahead by 10 seems like a stretch.

Also Labour ahead by 15 in an earlier poll seems equally silly.  I suspect it's probably less than 5 points separating the main two.  I believe Colmar Bruton who is the most accurate will come out with one near the end of the week so interesting to see what they say.  If they show National pulling ahead then this could be onto something, but if they still show Labour ahead then probably a rogue poll.

I don't see anything that could have caused this seemingly random bounce for the Nationals.

Spot on with that 15 for Labour. I mentioned it in other posts in other sites/conversations. I don't trust that one for a moment.


Perhaps Joyce's $12 billion hole got to people? Also, apparently Labour has been somewhat secretive with their tax policy. Not sure that that adds up to a 10 point lead for National though.

Highly, highly unlikely, as this poll would have been taken entirely after it was exposed as a massive lie.

I think Colmar Brunton who has a good track record comes out later this week.  If they show National surging ahead then it is probably a trend, but if they still show Labour in the lead then likely a rogue poll.

Apparently Roy Morgan is likely coming out this week as well. They have a good track record as well, for what I've heard.

Here are the results of the test.  Not surprised I was closest to ACT but surprised National Party was last as I am generally on the right on economic issues although left on social issues so figured New Zealand First and Greens would be further down.

Parties you side with...










ACT
87%ACT
Electoral • Domestic Policy • Immigration • Science • Housing • Environmental • Social • Healthcare • Economic • Foreign Policy • National SecurityVote for


72%Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
National Security • Electoral • Education • Domestic Policy • Immigration • Housing • Social • Healthcare • Foreign PolicyVote for


Māori Party
67%Māori Party
Immigration • Foreign Policy • Healthcare • Social • Electoral • National Security • HousingVote for


New Zealand First
66%New Zealand First
Foreign Policy • Healthcare • Social • Immigration • Education • Electoral • HousingVote for


Green Party
65%Green Party
Housing • Foreign Policy • Healthcare • Social • Immigration • Domestic Policy • Electoral • National SecurityVote for


The Opportunities Party
65%The Opportunities Party
Immigration • National Security • Foreign Policy • Healthcare • Social • Domestic Policy • Housing • ElectoralVote for


Labour Party
63%Labour Party
Housing • National Security • Electoral • Immigration • Social • Healthcare • Foreign PolicyVote for


United Future
62%United Future
National Security • Electoral • Immigration • Social • Healthcare • Foreign PolicyVote for


Conservative Party
61%Conservative Party
Immigration • Foreign Policy • Economic • Healthcare • Education • Electoral • HousingVote for


61%Mana Party
Foreign Policy • Healthcare • Social • Immigration • Domestic Policy • Electoral • National SecurityVote for


National Party
56%National Party
Foreign Policy • Healthcare • Immigration • Electoral • HousingVote for

My results

https://newzealand.isidewith.com/en/results/3289392690

My results (https://newzealand.isidewith.com/en/results/3289447789)

I would vote Green in hopes of a Labour/Green coalition.

My highest match was TOP, with 74%, then Labour at 71%, with the Greens in 3rd at 68%. Interesting that there isn't a super close match for me.

Greens - 80%
TOP - 77%
Maori party - 69%
Mana - 69%
Legalise Cannabis - 68%
Labour - 66%
NZ First - 58%
United Future - 55%
National - 53%
Conservative - 39%
ACT - 37%

I thought TOP were a broadly centrist party? A bit surprised about that

TOP give me the Lib Dem sort of vibes - as in the sort of party that tries to be everything to everyone.

I got:

77% Greens
71% Labour
71% TOP
64% Maori Party
58% NZ First (???)
53% Legalise Cannabis Party
51% Mana Party
49% United Future
47% National Party
43% ACT
34% Conservative Party
31% Ban 1080 Party

NZ First seem to stick out a bit but I think that I mentally link them with the likes of UKIP when they are a very different party.  Other than that, not overly surprising...

Regression to the mean after what was an extraordinary bounce to Labour.

TOP 52%
Labour 49%
Green 42%
Moari 41%
ACT, National, United Future 40%
Legalise Cannabis 37%
Mana 36%
Conservative 33%
NZ First 30%
Ban 1080 party 26%

Yeah, I wonder is TOP payed to have results lean towards them.

TOP 75%
Green 73%
Maori 70%
Mana 69%
Labour 66%
Legalise 65%
United Future 56%
NZF 53%
National, ACT 51%
Ban 1080 47%
Conservative 39%

Colmar Brunton is coming out with a poll this evening so either it will confirm or disprove the recent Newshub poll showing National pulling ahead.

Looks like the newshub poll might be a rogue poll as Colmar Brunton has very different numbers.

They have

Labour 44
National 40
Green 7
NZ First 6
TOP 2

Best PM

Ardern 34
English 32

It will be interesting to have a third poll as I've found when polls disagree best to get another one as usually if two point in one direction and another one way the one that is off is probably wrong.  Anyways still close enough that National is not out of it and notwithstanding the Newshub poll Labour still is very much in the game and in fact a progressive one of Labour-Green may be a real possibility although far from certain. 

I was wondering what turnout is amongst millennials as my understanding is much like the last British election there is a big age gap with National well ahead amongst seniors but Labour well ahead amongst millennials.  Her move towards free tuition could help as that seemed to be what helped Corbyn do better than expected.

Roy Morgan should supposedly come soon. Very glad to see the Greens at 7%. 51% overall is very good, given that there will be some wasted party votes. I'm guessing 5% or so. Likely TOP's 2% or so, Mana's 0.5%, whatever bits UF gets, plus random single issue parties.

Later today or tomorrow?  Interesting to see which side it goes with or does fall in between the two.  The one area the two polls were consistent on was best PM as both showed the two very close and both in the low 30s.  Not sure about New Zealand, but I know at least here in Canada usually best PM tends to tilt towards the incumbent and anytime the incumbent falls behind they are in big trouble.  In 2015, Trudeau was only two points ahead of Harper on best PM yet won quite handidly mind you most who said Mulcair probably had Trudeau as their second choice.  I suspect most Greens prefer Ardern over English, but New Zealand First could go either way although since they are strongest amongst seniors I would tend to think more favour English over Ardern.

If the Roy Morgan poll shows similar numbers to Colmar Brunton, I think that it's become very likely that Ardern will be the next PM.

I think that Roy Morgan will release sometime early afternoon tomorrow.

my result
green 84%
alct 81%
labour 80%
maori 78%
mana 77%
NZF 72%
TOP 71%
UF 66%
Ban 1080 63%
ACT 56%
National 52%
Conservative 44%

I knew I wasn't impressed with any of the parties all that much:

I side with
Green Party 59%
The Opportunities Party 57%
Labour 56%
Maori 51%
ACT 50%
Legalize Cannabis 49%
Mana: 49%
New Zealand First: 44%
United Future: 39%
National Party: 39%
Conservative Party 31%

Hahaha that test was terrible and I couldn't answer half the questions because I would need more details about how things work in New Zealand before answering

Anyhoo...

TOP - 60% (looool)
Green - 59%
Labour - 57%
Maori - 49%
Mana - 46%
National - 46%
ACT - 45% (45 too high, the test is bad, see)
Legalise Cannabis - 44%
United Future - 42% (are they even running now?)
New Zealand First - 37%
Conservative Party - 32% (better)

Do you know what time they are supposed to come out with the poll?  It will be interesting to compare.  At this point I think the real thing is can Labour + Greens get a majority which means Ardern is next PM or do both parties have to rely on NZ First who could go to either side and not necessarily either which party gets most votes.

My ISideWith:

67% Greens
66% TOP
62% Labour
60% Māori
54% Mana
53% ALCP
52% NZ First
50% Nats
50% ACT
47% United Future
40% Conservative

Why is everyone getting higher scores for NZ First than me?

Because you're better than everyone else?

Roy Morgan still have not released their poll yet, and they way it's going, it doesn't seem like it will be released at all this week.

Also, the Roy Morgan site is currently down.

---

Uh, I never implied that?

Roy morgan has FINALLY released, annnnd, it's looking like a toss up according to them.

National 40.0
Labour 39.5
Green 9.0
NZ First 6.0
Māori 2.0
ACT 0.5
Conservative 0.5 (Why are they getting polled???)
Other 2.5

Link:
https://public.tableau.com/profile/roy.morgan.research?publish=yes#!/vizhome/NewZealandPrimaryVote2002-2017/NZVotingIntention

Averaging out the 2 polls gives us

Labour 41.5
National 40
Green 8
NZ First 6
Maori 2 (only have one poll to go off)
TOP 2 (One poll)

What are the odds of Winston Peters holding Northland?

Very unlikely, imo.

Also, this is what the Colmar Burton poll looks like when converted into seats:

()

Well with both Greens and NZF flirting with 5 % at some point this campaign, its not out of realm of possibilities that both miss out on seats.

Either of the majors could win a majority too...

Both polls strongly suggest to me that Labour+Greens might just be enough to have a majority; on one they were 51% combined and the other has them 48.5%.  It would depend on whether there's any overhang (on those numbers I don't know whether ACT would cause an overhang if they won a constituency seat; if the Maori/Mana party pact works then that may well force an overhang as well) but usually a set of parties getting that close to 50% in an MMP election usually guarantees that they'll get a majority.

The other big thing for the National Party in this election is that they haven't really got any natural coalition partners that get a significant amount of support in the way that Labour has with the Greens - the small centre and right wing parties have vanished into irrelevance bar in their small electorate fiefdoms with the exception of NZ First, who aren't really the typical populist right party and seem to rather work with Labour than the Nationals.  That's not an issue when you're two or three short of an absolute majority as the National Party was in the last few elections, but when its a close race its a huge mountain that they have to climb.

I'm pretty sure that no polls have NZ First and only one poll all campaign have had the Greens missing 5%.  If the latter did then it basically makes Peters the kingmaker able to go whichever way we wanted, if NZ First miss then it basically guarantees a Labour government unless the Nationals get very close to an overall majority.  I think that both will get in though, although both will lose seats - plus Peters has the outside chance of holding Northland which would be very handy for them if they are flirting with missing the threshold.

The march of advance voting continues unabated

http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics (http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics)

Ordinary and special votes cast within New Zealand - 9 days before election

2011:   57,347
2014:   147,560
2017:   229,259

Keep in mind there was no voting in the third last week this time

Historically, the Greens have done worse than their polling and NZ First has done better. The polling companies have apparently tried to correct for that; we'll see how they do in a week.

I talked to someone who has ties to the Labour Party and they said that Hone Harawira (Mana Party) isn't doing that well. Their party vote has collapsed, but Māori seat voters are willing to split their votes. I wouldn't count Harawira out without seeing a poll for Te Tai Tokerau though.

The Māori Party could potentially cause an overhang if they win 3 electorate seats, depending on their party vote. I think they'd have enough to get two seats regardless of whether they win one electorate or two.

ACT probably won't be an overhang. They seem to be polling about 0.6%, which should be enough, I think.


Hard for me to say about Peters in Northland. Labour did abnormally poor in the by-election, which makes me think he might not be that strong if Labour rebounds a bit.

Also, concerning that parliamentary layout, I feel like Māori will win at least two seats.

In terms of chances, what do you think the odds are for each.  I think in terms of popular vote it is truly a toss up.  I would give a slight advantage to Labour in forming government since if Labour + Greens get the majority they will definitely form government but if NZ First is the kingmaker I feel they could go either way.

Another Horizon's poll showing everything tied up,

Horizon Research
9–14 Sep 2017
38.5  National
38.2  Labour
7.7   Green
9.8   New Zealand First
0.6   Maori Party
1.4   ACT
0.0   United Future
0.9   Conservative
0.2   Mana
2.3   TOP

Is Northland actually Winston Peter's best shot as a seat? My impression that NZ First's heartland was always Tauranga/Bay of Plenty thanks to the combination of wealthy retirees + Peter's friendly Maori. Winning Northland in a by election is all well and good, but as Mark Reckless would testify, a protest vote in a by election is a very different thing to the actual general election.

If Labour wins the election, I pray they do so with enough votes and seats such that they don't need Winston Peters (the Kiwi version of Stephen Bannon) as a kingmaker. 

My new predictions Sept. 15, 2017

Labour 42% 52 Seats
National 38.5% 48 Seats
NZ First 7.25% 9 Seats
Green 6.25% 7 Seats
Māori 2% 2 Seats
TOP 1.8% 0 Seats
ACT 0.7% 1 Seat
Mana 0.3% 0 Seats
United Future 0.05% 0 Seats
Others 1.15% 0 Seats

I narrowed Labour's lead by 0.5% from my last predictions from 8 days ago, Sept. 7, 2017 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=254032.msg5813839#msg5813839). Labour would have to form a coalition with the Greens and Māori to form the next government. WINston's position as kingmaker is quite vulnerable, I'd say. NZ First has been declining in the polls (I have them down 1.75% from 8 days ago. WINston is also rather toxic and many potential coalition partners would reject working with him. Basically, NZ First needs to be strong enough to be the lone party needed for either a National or Labour government. 52+7+2 gives Labour+Greens+Māori a narrow lead in Parliament. 52+9 Labour+NZ First would give the same number, but I don't think that would be Jacinda's preference. At this point, I don't see National being able to form a coalition. Māori seems to be leaning towards Labour, United Future is toast, and ACT is only 1 seat versus NZFirst's 9. I wouldn't be shocked if this is ACT's last winning election.


I know that Tauranga was his base back in the day. He seems to be trying to appeal to the "Make New Zealand Great Again" crowd. From what I've read, Northland in general (not just the electorate) has fallen on hard times over the last decade. WINston wants to build NZ's next main port up there as a means to revitalize the area.

I'd crack up if NZ First managed to hold on by winning an electorate that wasn't Peters's Northland seat. Without polling, it's hard to really say how he's doing up there though.

Is there a possibility that the Greens overtake NZFirst?

I know that Tauranga was his base back in the day. He seems to be trying to appeal to the "Make New Zealand Great Again" crowd. From what I've read, Northland in general (not just the electorate) has fallen on hard times over the last decade. WINston wants to build NZ's next main port up there as a means to revitalize the area.

I'd crack up if NZ First managed to hold on by winning an electorate that wasn't Peters's Northland seat. Without polling, it's hard to really say how he's doing up there though.
[/quote]
Two things.

One: ACT tends to do well when National is demoralized and when National do badly. Much as the Greens do well when Labour are sh**t. If your natural party is in opposition, you tend to radicalise. So ACT may return in a reasonably big way in 2020, simply because there are no other plausible alternatives to National for right-wing voters, especially if NZ First are in coalition  with Labour.

Two: if Winston had run away from the fight in Northland, h ed have been called a chicken, and Winston doesn't like being called a chicken. Meanwhile, the voters of Tauranga have got wise to him, which is why they booted him out in the first place. And since then, his vote there has decreased whatever he does. That's with over half of his membership living in the electorate, by the way. So Northland is his only shot, and it isn't a great one. Their only other prospect of a gain is Whangarei, and there hat isn't happening either.

That is a good point; we've seen the Greens stumble (in part due to their internal problems) as Labour gains. ACT has been limping along like UF has (is it too soon to say "had"?). They haven't won more than Epsom since 2008. I guess it will only have been three elections, but I guess we'll see what happens in Jacinda wins.

Your first sentence about WINston seems absolutely right. Good to know about Tauranga. Whangarei doesn't seem to be biting according to a poll from there. Shane Jones is running in about second, far behind National's candidate and nearly tied with the third place Labour candidate. Poll on Wiki. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Whangarei) I definitely wouldn't bet the farm on Winston winning in Northland. Not saying that he'll lose, but it will be narrow, I think.

Amen. I'm hoping on a Labour/Green coalition. Maybe Māori as well if Labour/Greens need two or so more seats.


Stranger things have happened, but I'm leaning no. Maybe a 1 in 12 chance of it happening?

Give this genius a medal!

You may now accept your accolades.

How does the speaker work.  Does the governing party always put one up as I am thinking if a coalition is only 61 seats the speaker would put them down to 60 seats although I am assuming they will break the ties, but do they break them along partisan lines or do they follow Denison's rules breaking them to maintain debate?

Of course someone from BC is asking this question haha. Can't say I have an answer though.

In 1993 National won a 1-seat majority, which they'd have lost if a National MP became the Speaker. So they put up Labour MP Peter Tapsell as Speaker, enabling them to survive the 3 years.

Surprised Labour went along with it.  Here in BC, the BC Liberals got 43 seats out of 87 so one shy of a majority while NDP 41 seats and the Greens 3 seats.  The Greens decided to back the NDP thus a 44-43 split however one BC Liberal decided to run for speaker giving them an advantage and the BC Liberals were so outraged they booted him from caucus so if politics is as polarizing as here, I would think if an opposition party did this there would be a lot of anger.  Off course if ACT or United Future win a seat, maybe they could that would seem like a reasonable way to avoid the impasse.

I'm a strong believer in a form of the way that Ireland does things - the election of an impartial Speaker who is automatically elected without needing to contest a seat.  Ideally this would lead to the seat that they were elected to becoming vacant and there being a by-election in the constituency or the next person filling any list seat - would make sure that there were was no partisan change in the composition of parliament based on whoever is chosen as speaker.

I'm not a great fan of the system but for New Zealand there is an easy solution to this - ensure that the Speaker is a list MP.

UF will never get another seat in the house, Ōhāriu was their only future hope of holding on to a seat, and Dunne was DOA to begin with anyway, hence his resignation.

I've looked this up because I thought that would be a sensible thing to do rather than just make wild assumptions based on British Columbia (which is never a good idea).

New Zealand has three ways on voting on legislation in parliament - the voice vote (done in the way that you expect; if any member objects to this though they either hold a Party Vote (where the parties usually vote as blocs with occasional individual members specifying differently, or party leaders telling the Speaker how their party has voted if there's a deeper split) or a Personal Vote (normally used more for matters of conscience rather than anything, this is a Westminster-style vote with people going into one of two lobbies to vote for or against a motion).  The Speaker has been included in the Party Vote numbers since the adoption of MMP in 1996, and the trend has been for the Speaker to vote in Personal Votes as well.  If there's a tie on a motion, the motion is defeated.  So the partisan composition of the House does not change when a Speaker is elected, so its not worth worrying about.

Ordinary and special votes cast within New Zealand - Sunday before election

2011:   90,861 (27% of final advance votes cast)
2014:   225,513 (31% of final advance votes cast)
2017:   445,350

http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics (http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics)

While there are some differences between 2017 & the past 2 elections, the majority of the advance votes are cast in the last 5 days.

If we assume that 70% of advance votes are cast in the last 5 days, the number of advance votes cast could be about 1.1 million.

Assuming an 80% turnout on a roll of about 3.2 million, then 1.1 million advance votes equates to about 40-45% of all votes cast.

All in all it will diminish the effect of the late swing on the final outcome.

Only Tapsell went along with it. They offered the Speakers hip first to several other Labour MPs who refused, including David Lange . Tapsell was elected Speaker unopposed though, despite an attempt by Winston Peters to stop him.

God bless.

Tbh it was pretty obvious if you follow NZ politics that Ardern would give Labour a significant boost, compared to Andrew Little. The question now is whether that's enough for Labour to go from 24% less than 2 months ago to actually winning the election.

Yeah, she was polling well (for a non-leader) in the preferred PM race for a while.

Going from 24% to being in close contention is basically Corbyn 2.0. The question, as you say, is whether or not she can pull it off.

According to this, we should have a good idea of the results very early on. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/339669/early-votes-point-to-a-swift-election-night-result) Good thing because I don't want to stay up past 9 PM or so their time (2 AM Calif time).

Jacinda Ardern's grandmother has died.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/jacinda-ardern-s-grandmother-dies.html

RIP. Feel eerily similar to 2008 and Obama's gma.

My two possible election predictions.
2017 NZ election
Jacinda Ardern-Labour: 53+21 42.71%
Bill English-National: 50-9 40.59%
Winston Peters(lost electorate)-NZ First: 7-5 5.86%
James Shaw-Green: 7-7 5.76%
Te Ururoa Flavell/Marama Fox(lost seat)-Maori: 2_ 1.35%
David Seymour-ACT: 1_ 0.49%
Damian Light-United Future: 0-1 0.10%
120 seats
61 for majority

National cannot form a government. Labour forms a coalition with the Greens and confidence and supply from the Maori Party. Winston Peters is not the kingmaker.

2017 NZ election
Bill English-National: 56-3 43.36%
Jacinda Ardern-Labour: 53+21 41.19%
Winston Peters(lost electorate)-NZ First: 8-4 6.03%
Te Ururoa Flavell/Marama Fox(lost seat)-Maori: 2_ 1.42%
David Seymour-ACT: 1_ 0.48%
James Shaw(lost seat)-Green: 0-14 4.78%
Damian Light-United Future: 0-1 0.09%
120 seats
61 for majority

Labour gets the same MPs in both scenarios but National gets more MPs. Winston Peters is the kingmaker. A National-NZ First coalition is formed.

She seems more comparable to Trudeau in Canada than Corbyn or in many ways even somewhat like Obama too in terms of charisma. I guess sort of the age as Corbyn seemed more the type like Sanders who could excite passion on issues people felt strongly about while she seems more like a younger charismatic type who can get those not interested in politics interested.  When Trudeau became leader of the Liberal Party you saw a similar jump in support as when Ardern became Labour leader although after 18 months of Tory attack ads he fell behind but gradually improved during the campaign.  Another comparison is Sebastian Kurz in Austria as the OVP was in third place in the low 20s before he became leader and is now leading.  Otherwise I would put Ardern in the Kurz and Trudeau category as well as maybe Sadiq Khan in London, charismatic types that get the normally apathetic youth excited, while Corbyn and Sanders are more your old timers but who are very passionate and bring out those who feel the same anger.  Otherwise the latter two appeal to those who are angry at the system and want radical rather than small change whereas I think Ardern more like Trudeau and in fact even Obama too more get people optimistic and hopefuly. 

I mean the idea that Corbyn didn't get "normally apathetic youth" excited is a very silly one, that any look at the election results or any of the post-election "how did the country vote?" polls would disprove.  The New Zealand Election thread isn't the place to be talking about it though!

My very soft prediction is that Labour get the most seats, and that the Greens get over the 5%.  Very RADICAL prediction, but I don't feel that I know enough about New Zealand specifically to go into more depth than that.

()

So, tonight and tomorrow night. Usually they seem to come out at 11 PM PST.

Should be interesting although not sure much has happened to change things much and with advanced polls they could have less impact.  Could Ardern get some sympathy votes over the death of her Grandma?

I am thinking there are three things to watch for.

1.  Does Labour + Greens get a majority, possible but still I think not the most likely outcome

2.  Do Greens get above 5% or not.  If they get above that improves Labour's chances while if they get below it helps the National.

3.  Is New Zealand First the kingmaker and who do they go for.  If they become the kingmaker my understanding is we won't know until October 12th who will form the next government as that is when they will announce who they are backing.

I feel like Labour+Greens+Māori will have a majority. Not sure if Labour+Greens will. I think the Greens will break 5%.

That obviously would mean that NZ First won't be kingmaker. Honestly, I think Winston might lean Labour? Maybe? Not really sure.

Also, Hone will probably be out.

()

If this happens Canada will no longer be the sole Anglosphere country with a non-right wing government.  After Trump's win we took that role mind you ironically in 2009 Canada and New Zealand were the only two with right wing governments.  Off course UK, Australia, and US all show the non-right either tied or slightly ahead but that is a whole different topic to be discussed elsewhere.

Also, bringing back up the question of exit polling.

There are no exit polls, because any and all polling on election day is actually illegal.

Here is another very interesting fact:

Since 1990, each party has been in power in 9 year blocks:
National: 1990-1999 (Bogler 1990-1993, Shipley 1993-1999)
Labour: 1999-2008 (Helen Clark was never booted out while Labour was in Government)
National: 2008-? (Key 2008-2017, English 2017-?)

Looks like the earlier Newshub poll might not be a rogue one or could be just volatility otherwise looks like National is on track to win but lets see what the final polls say.


National 46%


Labour 37%


Greens 8%


NZ First 5%


TOP 2%


Maori 1%

Also on best PM

Bill English 37%
Jacinda Ardern 31%

So perhaps Jacindamania is ebbing a bit.  Still not over but I would say National is probably the favourite at the moment but we shall see.  Either way with Labour making a strong comeback they will be in a good position to win in 2020 and no reason Ardern shouldn't stay on win or lose.

I wouldn't put stock in this poll, considering how far of an outlier it is to literally EVERYTHING else...

It matches Newshub and one reporter said it also corresponds with their internal polls mind you turnout especially amongst younger voters, advanced voting as well as last minute swings could all change things.  Agree Labour can still win it's not over, but I do think National at least in popular vote has the edge at the moment.  Now if NZ First falls below 5%, which is unlikely then things can get interesting since if Labour + Greens is less than National they might be close to a majority on their own but if it exceeds them, then with the help of the Maori they may still form government.

I still don't see how the nationals have shot up when nothing major has happened that would suggest something like this.

Does seem strange.  One possibility is the undecided broke heavily in their favour, I've seen that happen in many other jurisdictions late in the game where the undecided breaks heavily in favour of one side.  The other is youth turnout looked lower so they weighted it less.  I guess tomorrow's newshub poll and maybe Roy Morgan if one comes out will confirm or deny this and then off course once the results actually come in.

Also National's internal polls were leaked which were:

National 43%

Labour 39%

NZ First 6%

Greens 6%

So actually within the margin of error but a bit tighter.  Also they claimed their numbers softened overnight.  I guess though with the violatility probably a good reason to vote as I could matter and likewise probably good reason not bet a lot of money on any particular outcome.  It's not like the German election the day after where you could probably safely bet on the CDU/CSU coming in first whereas in New Zealand making such a bet for either would be a bit risky.

It has been 7 weeks since Ardern became leader, maybe the new leader poll bounce is wearing off.

Also interesting both NZF and Green still flirting with 5%. While majority of polling evidence has both at 5% or over, still puts their place in Parliament in play.

Interesting thought, does Labour want NZF in Parliament?

If we take the CB as the current state of play, if NZF are knocked out, it turns Parliament into a straight National-ACT vs Labour-Greens-Maori two horse race.

If NZF are knocked out then Nationals could win outright or with ACT which is more or less the same...

ardern is hardcore liberal, clintonite of worst kind, she cant win. her 'safety net' plan can get her boost, but not win.

Applying American meanings of words to non-American politics...ugh.

I mean "clintonite" is an entirely meaningless and stupid term to be using outside the American context; its a bit like me going around moaning at random yank politicians being Blairites...

I mean its also nonsense in another way; all of the "hardcore liberals" will probably be either the Nationals or ACT ;).


I think that they'd rather that NZ First weren't in Parliament, but that they'd rather have them in if it avoided the Nationals either being able to form a single party majority government, or some kind of deal with ACT.  That's a bit of a wishy washy way of looking at it but it is a bit of a nuanced thing.

I'd always be skeptical of leaked private polls - its not like the actual data is publicly available and usually parties have reasons to be leaking private polling data - and its not like you can verify that the numbers are definately 100% accurate.  Any Labour victory depends on how strong the turnout of young people is in my eyes - in some respects there being a week of early voting might help them since it makes voting a lot easier but I'm far from an expert.  That's one other thing that they have going for them as well actually; even if Jacindamania is no longer running wild then it matters less because a large chunk of people already have voted at the start of the week.  We'll see at the weekend though!

Has it really dissipated that quickly?! F**k, Schulz lasted longer than that!

I don't think that really works as a comparison - the SPD polls now are basically the same as they were right before Schultz took over as Chancellor candidate while Ahern has clearly boosted the Labour numbers by at least 10 points from what it was under Little.  I mean before she became leader it looked like this would be an incredibly boring election with the question being whether the Nationals could get a majority this time; with no real prospect of Labour winning; while now even with these polls you have an opportunity that Labour could put something together; may it be something that needs New Zealand First or not.

Maybe, but if that was happening, your party wouldn't lose 6 points in one polling period, it would be sliding off a little bit slower, don't you think?

If the poll is correct which is a big if, Labour probably didn't actually lose anything, rather the undecided voters from previous polls broke heavily in favour of National.  Lets remember most polls exclude those who are undecided so if that number goes down and they break heavily in favour of one party, things like that can happen.  I guess we will have to see what the remaining polls say and the results.  At this point I think there is a strong probability that National will come in first in votes but unless they win a majority or get close enough they can rely on ACT we probably won't know until October 12th who forms government or not.

Newshub Poll coming out at 6 PM Auckland time.  My guess is National will be in the lead but will it be a big lead or a small one.

So, 11 PM for us again. I'm guessing like a 5% lead for National. Greens+Labour will be ahead of National though.

NEWSHUB POLL:
NAT 45.8
LAB 37.3
NZF 7.1
GRN 7.1
SEAT PROJECTION:
NAT 56
LAB 45
NZF 9
GRN 9
MA 2
ACT 1

Based on the two final polls being similar enough, I will make the following two predictions.

1.  National wins the popular vote
2.  New Zealand First is the kingmaker so we won't know whether Bill English will continue as PM or Jacinda Ardern becomes PM until October 12th.

The final poll of the election. After this chaotic and unpredictable campaign, it has perhaps the most predictable outcome-National in the lead but Winston Peters decides.
()
()

The Stuff Poll of Polls for the entirety of its existence, from mid-2008 to present. Notice the recent Labour surge.
()

I graphed the Colmar Brunton and Newshub/Reid Research polling for this election, and added trendlines for the National Party lead. The straight line is the 5% threshold.
()
()

Your links are broken, pal - might help to upload them somewhere where people don't need to login somewhere else to see them.

Fair point - forgot just how sh*te Labour were doing pre-Ahern.

The previous poll could have been a labour friendly sample and the current poll a National friendly sample the underlying shift could be less than 6 points.

But even with the similar NewsHub poll tonight I would not rule out a Labour vote in the 40s. The polls have been bouncing around and we don't have too many data points

Changes from the previous Newshub poll:
Nat -1.5%
Lab -0.5%
NZF +1.1%
Green +2.2%

Any chance the polls are doing what they did in the UK, and adjusting their weightings to the point of being irrelevant?

Seems to be the pattern when their is a sudden change followed by wild fluctuations

I'm pretty sure I heard that Colmar Brunton changed their weighting with their last poll.

This is pretty obviously what is going on (it's done for obvious commercial reasons o/c). They may even be right to (and such was the suddenness of the shift in this case from landslide re-election to potential defeat that maybe this call is sounder than always), but...

This could very well be possible. We'll all see if this is happening when the results come in.

Prediction:

National 42% 52 seats
Labour 39% 49 seats
Greens 7% 9 seats
NZ First 5.8% 7 seats
Māori 1.9% 2 seats (2 electorates)
TOP 1.8% 0 seats
ACT 0.7% 1 seat
Mana 0.3% 0 seats
Random BS (includes UF) 1.5% 0 seats
120 seats

My prediction is as follows, don't know the seats so someone else might be able to give what they would be, but below is the percentages I predict

National Party 45%
Labour Party 38%
Green Party 6%
New Zealand First 6%

While cannot speak on the rest, but I am guessing 2 Maori seats and one ACT.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2017/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504338&objectid=11925334

Everyone they asked were national-leaning, especially Hosking, who is known to be massively bias in favour of them, even while on air, and has been highly criticized over the issue. But hey, right-leaning Herald is gonna ask right-leaning people.

The result of the advance votes at the 2014 election had very little difference to the overall result.

With a much larger advance vote this time we should see these small differences disappear....

Or should we? 

This time around we are seeing a much more energised left-of-centre voters.

Is it possible that the advance votes could lean to the left by a few points this time compared to the overall result?

This could happen, and it's one of the reasons why I won't be relying too much on the final election day vote total, especially seeing how close it could be.

Yes, the special/overseas votes can always shift one seat from right to left. Have they ever moved more than 1?

My NZ prediction:

40.3% National Party (51 seats)
39.1% Labour Party (48 seats)
  8.1% Greens (10 seats)
  7.7% NZ First (9 seats)
  4.8% Others (2 seats)

Turnout: 77.2%

Does anyone have a live TV stream for NZ that works?

Thanks!

I think part of Labour's "collapse" is people who were saying they were voting to Labour are now convinced that they'll be close enough that they just need the Greens and/or Maori to form a government, and are now backing one of those two parties.

True enough as much of the drop in Labour support has been offset in rising Green support.  That being said National has gone up a bit so the question is did the undecided voters from earlier break heavily thus why National is pulled ahead or is it amongst progressive voters many went into the undecided column and then once they decide they will go Labour or Green.  While I know we should avoid bringing cross country comparisons, in 2015 here in Canada, the Tories pulled ahead in late September as up until then most progressives were backing the NDP, but when the NDP started to fall behind and Liberals grow much of the progressive vote went into the undecided column thus allowing the Tories to shoot up in poll numbers even though they didn't pick up any support, but later one when it became clear the Liberals were the best vehicle they moved into that category thus they pulled ahead.  So if that is the case good news for Labour, but I am a bit skeptical, I tend to think more some who maybe liked Jacinda Ardern personally but still think the current government is doing a good job have decided to stick with what they know.  Even if Ardern doesn't become PM, she will probably get another kick at the can.

Final advance voting statistics are in.

http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics (http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics)

Total votes cast: 1,240,740
Voters on roll: 3,252,269
Advance votes cast as share of total roll: 38.15%

I expect given the tight contest that total turnout of enrolled voters should be 80%.

So advance voting has come close to but not exceeded 50% of all votes cast for the election

In terms of advance votes counted for tonight, I understand that special votes (people who enrolled when voting) will not be counted. 

At previous elections 85-87% of advance votes were able to be counted for the night, so I'd expect an advance count of about 1.05 million or about 40% of votes cast at the election

To provide a bit of context to the early advance vote results I will be posting projections of the final result based on the early advance vote.

I have put together a model based on an adjusted advance vote for each electorate, a 50-50 combination of the 2014 advance vote and the 2014 non-advance vote. The adjustment is designed to reflect the increased advance vote at this election which has effectively doubled. 

The 2017 advance vote will be compared with the combined adjusted advance vote of the electorates which have reported. From this we can get a swing to apply to the final 2014 results to give a projection of the final 2017 result.

These are my projections and should not be confused with the official results of media projections.
 
If for some other reason the advance vote is different to the overall results (energised left-leaning voters, late swing), then the projection will reflect this and will be off from the final results

Even though at the last election the advance vote was close to the final result, in a close result I would wait until election day votes are in by sufficient numbers to call the result.

Based on 2014, this projection should be of most use the first hour of the count.

I hope this is of use to readers.

The polls close in 30 minutes. Radio New Zealand will have YouTube coverage, but I'm unsure if it'll be available abroad.

Usually TVNZ streams its coverage and I have viewed it in Australia in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-XwG7YJe3g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-XwG7YJe3g)
News channel link on youtube.

Jerry, if that works, you're an absolute ledge.

Have got it open and waiting for the countdown clock to finish - fingers crossed!

Thanks

This is also working:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/livestream-watch-newshub-s-election-special.html

Official results:

http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/

Polkergeist Projection

NAT   46.3%   56
LAB   36.5%   45
GRN   8.4%   10
NZF   6.3%   8
MRI   0.4%   2
ACT   0.4%   1
OTH   2.0%   0

Advance vote reported in 26 of 71 seats      

Looks like the final polls got it right.

#JacindaDerailed
#CantKillTheBill

NZ Outdoors Party.

That sounds like my party.

Can anyone tell me more about them ?

Polkergeist Projection #2

NAT   46.5%   57
LAB   36.8%   45
GRN   5.7%   7
NZF   7.2%   9
MRI   0.6%   2
ACT   0.5%   1
OTH   2.7%   0

Advance vote reported in 48 of 71 seats   

I'm with Tender, the final polls are pretty much it at the moment, although NZF is outpolling the Greens

Winston is leading in Northland

http://electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-details-35.html (http://electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-details-35.html)

Also Labour is leading in all 7 of the Maori seats, even in the one seat the Maori Party holds Waiariki

http://electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-details-71.html (http://electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-details-71.html)

Polkergeist, did you spot turnout figures on that NZ election page yet ?

The raw figures are from http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics (http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics)

The 80% turnout was my estimate.

At this point the raw figures are as good as any as all seats have reported.

http://electionresults.govt.nz/index.html (http://electionresults.govt.nz/index.html)

Currently in terms of seats NAT 57 LAB 45 NZF 9 Grn 8 ACT 1

It's looking like Maori party are out. Their closest seat is Te Tai Hauāuru where they are running Rugby League player Howie Tamati

Winston has fallen behind National in Northland

Can't say I expected the Māori Party to be doing so poorly.

A couple of things to consider - the vast, vast majority of the vote that we have in at the moment is advanced polls which might not be entirely representative (the trend in the past always was for the Nationals to start high and drop off through the night, but that didn't happen last time and you'd think that the spike in the number of advanced votes ought to make the results from it more representative) and a chunk of that early vote (TVNZ are saying 6%) is special votes mostly from people registering to vote and voting at the same time and that won't be counted until next week.  That's unlikely to dramatically swing the overall result from tonight but - last time on election night it looked like the National Party had an overall majority; but then they dropped a seat after the special vote was counted.  That usually favours Labour and the Greens and might be important - especially if the Maori Party manage to win an electorate and possibly also even a list seat if their percentage ticks up ever so slightly and the results tonight end up suggesting that the Nationals+ACT+Maori barely got 61 seats.

I'm pretty sure that the Maori Party won't get in though so that's not entirely worth thinking about; the result won't be clear tonight other than the National Party clearly being the biggest single party.

Matt McCarten just said Maori Party was out, but the panel is hailing his "bias". So I don't know what to make of that...

Even if Maori Party pull it out of the fire and win two seats. They can only be of help to National to form a Government if National win two more party seats than they are right now.

That would require a lift in the National party vote from here to about 47.5% which is a bit of an ask.

For my prediction, I hope Labour can catch up once the election day results come in.

Currently it is only advance votes that are being counted.

National flirting with a 58th seat at the expense of Labour or the Greens with the first election day votes coming in from small mostly rural booths. I wouldn't call a significant difference in election day votes vs advance votes just yet.

Nats have hit 59 seats on the raw results but One News says their computer projection has National on 56 seats and Labour on 46 seats.

At the moment the election day votes (about 330k)  are Nat 49.7% Lab 32.4%

Nats back to 58 seats on the raw vote

Election day votes have started to drift back to advance votes/polls levels,

At 546k ed votes, Nat are 48.5%, Lab at 33.3%, NZF at 7.9%, Grn at 5.4%

Interestingly, the Opportunities Party is at 2.5% on ed votes.

With about 950k advance votes counted and 700k election day votes counted, here is the comparison of the advance vs election day vote shares for each party

(advance vs election day)

National (45.6% vs 47.7%)

Labour (36.7% vs 34.0%)

NZF (7.1% vs 7.9%)

Greens (6.2% vs 5.4%)

Now with 900k election day votes counted

(advance vs election day)

National (45.5% vs 47.4%)

Labour (36.7% vs 34.3%)

NZF (7.1% vs 7.8%)

Greens (6.2% vs 5.5%)

Wow, that's a landslide ... I thought Jacindamentum would be bigger.

I don't know about a landslide for National they haven't won a majority in their own right.

Labour seems to have taken most of their gains from the Greens. Ultimately Jacindamentum was a left-facing phenomenon.

Back to turnout, the political scientist on One just said turnout had gone into the low 80's.

I guess what is remarkable about Nationals' vote tonight is that they kept a relatively high vote share when turnout rose.

1.03M election day votes counted

(advance vs election day)

National (45.5% vs 46.9%)

Labour (36.7% vs 34.7%)

NZF (7.1% vs 7.8%)

Greens (6.2% vs 5.5%)

By "landslide" I mean the fact that 2 weeks ago it looked like Labour was pulling ahead by as much as 5%.

Now they are down by 11% with 90% of the votes counted ...

Every single ing kiwi who voted for the Nationals are ing sheep...

Well yes by that definition, you are definitely right.

However when the economy is good generally change in leader is a bit of a sugar hit in the polls which fizzles out. See Schulz in Germany.

Ardern might have been able to hold on because the election was only 7 weeks away when she was elected leader, but it was not to be.

Jacinda is about to speak.

I wouldn't think tonight was a defeat for Labour. They may not form the next Government, but they have returned to the prime position on the centre-left. Before the change of leader that was in doubt.

Oh it certainly isn't a defeat. Their vote is up by 10%, and they've gained quite a few seats (13 seats to be exact).

I would easily take Winston in coalition if it meant that English was knocked out of government.

Also, turnout is ABYSMAL compared to the last election. Newshub reporting a 67% turnout, down from 77.9% at the last election.

1.13M election day votes counted

(advance vs election day)

National (45.5% vs 46.6%)

Labour (36.7% vs 34.9%)

NZF (7.1% vs 7.9%)

Greens (6.2% vs 5.5%)

They were commenting on Newshub that with the special votes, Labour could take 1 more seat from the Nats.

I think one of the stories of the night is that the youthquake did not end up happening this year

"

The traditional centre-left parties in "the west" are made up of the of a voting coalition of the middle class social liberals and working class populists. In NZ those are represented by Greens and NZF.

Up until 7 weeks ago Labour had lost voters on a medium term basis to both Greens and NZF, they were losing the component parts of their voting coalition. Tonight many of these people came back to Labour.

Also its only Labour that can lead a coalition with both NZF and the Greens, however difficult it might be.

There is no way the Greens could be in a NZF led Government or vice versa.

Yeah, what happened to turnout ?

It was 78% in 2014 and now stands at 67% - with 99% counted.

Are there some additional votes counted later (those who registered to vote on election day) ?

But nonetheless, it seems turnout won't hit 70% ...

I'm not expecting them both to work together in a formal coalition with Labour, what would happen is that one of them would be in coalition with Labour, while the other would work in confidence and supply.


The youth vote didn't end up turning out in a big way, it seems.

This the best sum I can do. I am willing to be corrected here

Votes counted at 11:40pm NZST: 2,151,966
Advance votes not counted tonight*: 238,695
Votes from overseas**: 40,000

Estimated final no of votes: 2,430,661

Voters on roll: 3,252,269

Estimated turnout: 74.5%

* Advance votes cast (1,240,740)  less advance votes counted (1,002,045)
** Number of overseas votes in 2014

Actually I am pretty sure there are special votes cast on election day in NZ that need to be included in the above.

What are the chances that the uncounted special votes could move one seat one way or the other? How close is National to a 59th seat or of falling back to 57 if the special votes skew one way or the other?

I think that it's more likely that the Nats go back one.

In the past overseas votes have taken a seat off National given it to either Labour or the Greens

What are the chances that ACT joins a possible LAB-NZF-Green coalition?  If not does not this potential coalition have only a tiny margin of error even if NAT loses one more seat to be at 57 instead of 58.

ACT would never join with Either Labour or Greens.

LOL, Peters lost Northland. He's obviously back as a list MP though.

It isn't a landslide, the government has only just about squeaked re-election. And they've done so in a way that, how shall we say, stores up trouble for next time round...

and even then, no one even knows if WINston will even want to form a coalition with the Nationals yet.
Winston literally is in total control of the future of the country, with his position of kingmaker.

I'm pretty sure that ACT won't be in government at all this time - they sounded like they were thinking of going into opposition when their leader was interviewed because of the... distaste that they have with Peters and vice versa.  Don't know how that bodes for their future since at every election since 2005 the Nationals have effectively gifted them an electorate seat in Epsom to get them in (although I'm pretty sure their majority was cut and the National vote was up this time) and if they aren't working together the Nationals might not do that next time.

Why? As a right-winger I'm obviously bound to disagree with you but I thought the NZ Nats were much more palatable to the left than the Tories, Liberals or Republicans.

I mean they were sheep in the fact that they swallowed the nationals blatant lies hook, line, and sinker.

Why does Peters hate ACT? Is it ideological or is there something more?

Maori Party wiped out.

Has there been any estimate Of how many New Zealanders split the vote between their constituency vote on their list boat in other words how many people or how many riding select a different party at the constituency level than they vote for at the national list level

Looks as if we will have to wait until October 7 before we get the final results. 

The only likely difference between these results and the final results are that the special votes will take one, possibly two, seats from the Nats and give them to Labour and/or the Greens.  That won't affect the mathematical situation though; any Labour-led government would need to include both NZ First and the Greens to get a majority.

Labour was always going to need both NZ First and the Greens. I don't think any poll showed Labour and Greens alone winning enough.

The best case realistic scenario was that Labour came ahead of the Nationals and was seen as having a mandate, pressuring NZ First to join them.

Not only did Labour finish behind the Nationals though, the combined forces of Labour and the Greens won fewer votes and fewer seats than the Nationals alone.

The Nationals won this.

I can't see NZ First giving this to the objective runners up unless they get a super sweet deal and even then it would be surprising.

The seats reserved for Maori voters went to the Labour Party.

Maoris, like most minorities, vote centre left. The Maori Party backing a centre-right government (and flip flopping on privatization) was a dumb move.

I recall a poll that showed Labour/Greens/Māori with enough.

Elections New Zealand does a report on "Split votes" but it is only available at the return of writs.

In 2014 31.6% of voters voted for different party for their electorate vote than their party vote.

They have breakdowns by party vote as well.

http://archive.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/elect-splitvote-summary.html (http://archive.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/elect-splitvote-summary.html)

In terms of the seats or ridings where the party that won the largest number of party votes was different to the party than won the electorate vote, I have listed them below as at the current count

(Electorate winner/Party Vote Winner)

ACT/National
Epsom

National/Labour
Maungakiekie
Nelson

Labour/National
Mt Roskill
Napier
New Lynn
Ōhāriu
Palmerston North
Port Hills
Te Atatū
West Coast-Tasman
Wigram

Electoral commission saying that with special votes, turnout will be 78.8%

I call bullsh**t, considering how low it was last night.

Here is the turnout calculation directly from the electoral commission.

The preliminary results are based on the 2,179,668 votes counted on election night, which includes 9,866 party informals (votes where the voter’s intention wasn’t clear).

Special declaration votes still to be counted are estimated at 384,072 (15% of total votes). This includes an estimated 61,375 overseas and dictation votes.

The total estimated votes (those counted on election night plus estimated special votes to be counted) is 2,563,740.

Voter turnout for the 2017 General Election is estimated to be 78.8% of those enrolled as at 6pm Friday 22 September.  This compares with a final 77.9% turnout of those enrolled in 2014.

Source: http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/preliminary-results-2017-general-election (http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/preliminary-results-2017-general-election)

That was not much of a rise in turnout.

And another thing. National did benefit from the collapse of the Conservative Party vote. Most of the CP vote would have gone to National and a few percentage points of the National vote went to Labour.

It seems to have not been mentioned given the Conservative Party organisation collapsed a few years ago and has vanished from the radar since then.

So National's results are a bit less impressive than it seems...or their 2014 vote understated their position... take your pick.

It looks like Labour underperformed although I think in early August had you told most Labour supporters they would get 36% they would have then been quite happy.  Perhaps Jacindamania made some get over confident.  I think Labour was hurt by two things.  1.  Many progressives were afraid the Greens would fall below 5% so some voted strategically so the Greens wouldn't fall below 5%.  2.  The undecided vote which was quite high broke heavily in favour of National as it seems Nationals were still fairly popular and even if people liked Jacinda Ardern they weren't at the stage of throwing the bums out.  Otherwise Obama's win in 2008 and Trudeau's in 2015 were quite different as both were facing off against parties that had very low approval ratings thus why they succeeded where Ardern didn't.  If English had a 33% approval rating like Harper did in Canada or 25% like Bush did in the US, I suspect we would be talking about a Labour landslide.

My guess is probably National + New Zealand First but a Labour + Green + New Zealand First is certainly possible so otherwise Winston Peters will once again be kingmaker.

From what I've read getting the Greens and New Zealand First into a coalition will be nearly impossible to pull off.

It's because Jacinda made a big mistake in her 'captain's call' on tax in leaving open changes to the tax code before the 2020 election and then being forced to make a U-turn, as well as National's attacks on Labour, some of which were less than honest. That meant Labour blew their opportunity(unless they still get in with Winston).

I like the guy. I hope he chooses the Labour-Greens over National-Act.

I don't see NZ First going with Labour-Greens. Too much policy difference with the Greens and many NZ First voters can't stand them. Abolishing Maori seats is still quite possible since National also supports abolishing them unlike Labour.

Personally its better for NZ First to prop up a minority National government, but sit in the middle, but Winston is too power hungry for that.

Well, ACT is pretty much out of the coalition. Things will look a bit worse for National once the special votes come in. If they drop 2 seats, that's a serious problem for National.

Remember that both parties don't have to be in a formal coalition with Labour for them to have a majority. One party could join up with Labour, with the other party being there for confidence and supply.

Not sure Labour will wean itself off the Greens for a minority Labour-NZ First government. Still thinking its a National-NZ First government

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/97254904/potential-economic-sticking-points-between-national-and-nz-first

Reading this, i still think it will be a National-NZ First government

The special votes will be counted by October 7. Winston will make his decision on October 12.

If Winston goes with Labour, will it spur renewed anti-MMP sentiment and calls for reform on the political right in NZ?

It will from the peple who don't have half a brain on the right, that's for sure.

There are already editorials lamenting MMP in the media. It will be a bit of a shock to the system as under MMP the party with the most party votes has always formed the government, despite it being entirely possible and even likely that the 'losers' would get to govern. However I think it will just be  a fit of pique at having lost power and not a lasting change in public opinion.

But surely Winston's supporters would be happy with whichever party he chooses to back?

Plenty of National Party supporting commentators are already attacking MMP.

Why don't people get that with MMP, there are no winners or losers until a government is formed.

There's still a lingering FPP mindset, and given that there hasn't been a situation where the biggest party lost, the automatic assumption is that the biggest party wins. Hopefully that is disproven this election.

Even in FTFP it is possible to have a party with fewer seats form government if a hung parliament.  Happened in BC in 2017 and Ontario in 1985.  Likewise in the UK if Labour + SNP + PC get a majority of seats I suspect you will see Labour form government even if the Tories get more seats.  FTFP simply means usually the largest party wins the majority of seats and looking at the gap between Labour and National it is likely with FTFP National would have won a majority.  I think the best solution in my personal opinion is AV like Australia has as I suspect most Greens would have chosen Labour as second choice while tough to say where New Zealand First voters would go.

Relevant historical comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_1948)

I think that given the voting system went through a referendum less than a decade ago, any push for MMP to be repealed will run out of steam. That being said, the argument that a minority party choosing the Government will probably rankle many.

However there are ways to reform MMP to front load the coalition formation process, so that voters can choose between at least two possible coalitions at the election. Here is how it could be done.

Multiple parties can register as coalitions
On the ballot paper the coalition parties will be listed together has consecutive party lines. Voters can choose any one of the individual parties.

For the purposes of allocating seats the Coalition will be treated a one party with the sum of the constituent party votes.

Allocating seats within Coalitions will be done by the current Sainte Lague process as is currently used taking into account all party votes won.

Only use party votes above the threshold
Only votes above the 5% threshold will be used in the Sainte Lague process. For example, if a party or coalition wins 300,000 party votes and the 5% threshold equates to 200,000 votes, then that party/coalition will only have the difference, 100,000 votes, in the Sainte Lague process.

Parties that win constituency seats but are below the 5% threshold would have 0 votes in the Sainte Lague process.


Abolish overhangs
The Sainte Lague process will commence for each party/coalition at the number of constituency seats won, like in Scotland.


In short this system would encourage minor parties to join coalitions to gain more seats for a given share of the vote.

Major parties would be encouraged to form coalitions with minor parties to build the coalition with the largest support.

Voters would be given a fully informed choice between two potential governing coalitions and they would be able to influence the balance within their coalition of choice.

Edit: Better description of threshold issue

I'm pretty sure that the only reason why there's significant grumbling about this is that its really the first time in nine years that government formation has been vaguely challenging.  In 2008 National+ACT had a majority by themselves anyway (they brought Dunne in anyway because why not) and in 2011 and 2014 the government was clearly re-elected, the only addition needed being agreeing confidence and supply with the Maori Party in 2011.  That effectively made the post-election period a lot less important than it is in post countries with PR, since there wasn't these long periods of lengthy negotiations to put something together nor was there really a viable alternative government.  Its also the first time that there's been a true kingmaker since... 1996 and NZ First?  Its not exactly a problem that people didn't know about, its just that the political situation in New Zealand in recent years has basically hidden it, plus the lingering culture of majoritarian FPTP.

The only changes that I'd support to the system would be some way of moving away from closed lists - I don't think that Open Lists with up to 120 candidates in an MMP election would be entirely viable though so there'd have to be another way of doing it - maybe best losers?  Overhangs aren't a huge issue when you're talking like one or two seats which is all that you're ever likely to get in New Zealand (the 100+ seat overhang + balancing seats mess of the Bundestag elections are a different story) and really the best way to get rid of them would just be to chop off whoever the last one or two list members elected were rather than move to the way that we do things which would lead to slightly different results.

The first formal coalition negotiations for government formation were held today. The reason the negotiations have been delayed is that Winston Peters won't negotiate until all the special votes are counted on October 7, and says he will reach a decision on October 12. On that note, Winston peters also said that the special votes may take even longer to count, so I'm sincerely hoping the process isn't drawn out anymore. Bill English made a good point when he said that 5 days would be a very tight timetable to negotiate a coalition agreement, but Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern did not agree.
The meetings were short, with Winston meeting with National's team first and then Labour's. Winston stated before the meetings that the parties "wouldn't want somebody's past behaviour and obnoxiousness to be a part of the problem". National's negotiating team included Finance Minister Steven Joyce-who Winston is reported to hate, while Labour brought former Deputy PM Michael Cullen onto their negotiating team, Cullen having worked with Winston in government from 2005-2008.
It turns out the negotiations were only about protocol for the coming negotiations, and no work was done on actually negotiating a coalition agreement. Winston demanded that the negotiations be confidential, saying that otherwise "we may as well hire the Westpac Stadium* and turn on the lights and turn on the loudspeakers and just go for it. Now, we are not going to have that sort of circus."
Afterwards Peters said he felt as if he were "between the Devil and the deep blue sea", not talking about the parties(despite blue being the National Party's colour), but saying "we just can't win - you can't win with the public, you can't win with the media, you can't win with the commentariat. You can't win with people who believe it is all about First Past the Post, even though it is an MMP environment. And they just bang on day in, day out." Despite that political news, little of substance was actually done and until October 12-and hopefully not later-I honestly don't know what will happen.

It's so weird how NZ people think their election system is so complicated and weird when it's just basically the same system they use in every European country that isn't the UK or France.

Wow, you've got PR. It's not that complicated.

Is National even trying?

I'm not sure. They could still easily end up governing for the next 3 years. However if Winston chooses to go with Labour I think that Bill English and the National Party would have felt too entitled to govern and treated Winston going with them as inevitable.

All of Winston's demands:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/10/the-comprehensive-list-of-winston-peters-bottom-lines.html

Special vote totals are being released in 25 minutes.

56 Nat
46 Lab
9 NZF
8 Green
1 ACT

http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2017/

WINston no longer has the, as newshub put in on election day, 'moral obligation' to join up with English, considering there is only a 2 seat difference between Nats, and Labour-Greens, and the party vote is within a point or so.

These results are brilliant and mean a Labour government is a  real possibility.

National's party vote fell by a lot to 44.4%. This is their worst performance since 2005, and Bill English did worse than John Key ever did.

Any particular reason special votes go more heavily Labour than regular as seems a rather large shift. Looks like Labour did a lot better than Nationals in the special votes. Anybody have the breakdown how special votes compared to regular.

There seemed to have been a surge of late youth enrollements and youth enrolling and voting on the same day so a mild youthquake could explain why the effect was bigger than expected.

If not this year, in 2020.

Final turnout: 79.8% (+1.9 compared with the previous election)

... and the highest since 2005.

http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/new-zealand-2017-general-election-official-results

We still have to wait till the 12th until we know who WINston will go with.


Please let it be Labour...

In what universe does one add the Labour and Green votes and seats, but, one does not add the National and ACT votes and seats?

There is a 10 seat difference Labour and Nationals. There is a 12 seat difference between National-ACT-NZF and Labour-Green. There is a six seat difference between Labour-Green-NZF and National-ACT. Does a 12-seat majority have a greater "moral" mandate than a 6-seat majority? Probably, it does under some moral theories [the significant plurality {10-seat} party ought to have the first shot at forming the government,] but, not under others [Aside from siding with hostile nationals directly at war with New Zealand, or soliciting graft or other illegal behavior, elected officials are free to take any decision they wish for any reason they choose, or for no reason at all.]

Personally, I have always subscribed to latter moral theory. If Peters hasn't promised the electorate to support either party, it is purely his call.

Of course, four members of NZF could break away from a Peter's decision to go with Labour, or six members could break away from a National agreement.

ACT will NEVER work with NZF, and vice versa. As UF, and Māori have disappeared, and NZF are king maker, they have become irrelevant in coalition building. To be fair, ACT is irrelevant legislatively as well.

ACT is irrelevant as they would never be part of a National-NZ First coalition, due to the mutual hatred between ACT and Winston Peters.

On what issues would NZ First choose to side with Labour over National?

Unlike in other western countries, the center-left party is more anti-immigration and the center-right party is more pro-immigration. So WINston's immigration views migth be more closely aligned to Labour's.

Cuts to immigration, banning/restricting foreign buyers of land/farms/housing, maintaining the retirement age at 65, manned re-entry of Pike River Mine (a coal mine that had a fatal methane explosion; the families of the dead deeply want to re-enter to retrieve bodies and this has been a big cause for Peters - a policy at odds with the Nats who want to permanently close it), raising the minimum wage and abolishing youth rates and abolishing coat-tails and lowering the election threshold are the major election pledges of First that would be easier done under Labour; some of those would deeply irritate the Nats, but at the end of the day they want to maintain power.

 Labour have less obvious landmines in coalition building, although that's partially obscured by the fact Peters' campaign was very anti-government in nature. Peters dislike of the Greens may present a crucial sticking point. Labour/Greens wanted to introduce water charges for farmers, which will be nixed by NZ First. NZ First have made a big deal of getting rid of the Maori seats, something Labour will not agree to quickly, especially following their sweep.

Remember that Peters is fundamentally a prickly old weirdo, and he gets more prickly, old and weird every day. A lot of the decisions he makes will be based on his eccentric and odd grab-bag of pet issues, some of which are cartoonishly populist, some amusingly  off-beat (e.g.  "Establish a Crown Company to develop 'ecoFur' as the world's only ecologically friendly fur label to support a value-adding New Zealand fur industry (wild possums, stoats and ferrets)

Why does Winston hate ACT?

Thanks guys for answering my question. NZ politics is pretty interesting

Note with Winston Peters and the Maori seats that he claimed during the campaign that having a referendum on abolishing the seats was a 'bottom line' for him, but that may no longer be the case. Peters argued there may no longer need to be a referendum because the Maori Party is no longer in parliament(he hates the Maori Party too), saying that "And so some of the elements to the environment which the promise was made have since changed - that's all I can say."

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/winston-peters-hints-at-u-turn-on-maori-seat-referendum.html

My gut feeling right now is that WINston will go with Labour.

I think so too, though it's 50-50(though I'd be fine if you said it was 60-40 either way).

60-40 sounds about right. I'm definitely not super confident, but enough to pick a side at least.

My theory is that the Nats are holding back cause they think a three party coalition will be a trap for Labour.

Good thing there weren't any three or four party coalitions in the very recent past.

Winston doubts that a deal will be made by the end of the week.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97799911/winston-peters-last-day-of-coalition-meetings-begins

Looks like will find out on Saturday who forms the next government.  While it could really go either way I give it a 60-40 in favour of National.  The reason is with National it would be a two party coalition whereas with Labour the Greens have to be included.  I think if Labour + NZ First got a majority Peters would have gone with Labour.  Nonetheless neither would surprise me.  Besides for Labour being in opposition for another three years will probably improve their chances in 2020 and perhaps maybe even make a Labour-Green one probable whereas if going into government it could be quite shaky.  I think whichever party forms government will ultimately face a tough chance at re-election in 2020.

Still going for a NZ-National First government. No way in hell NZ First will go into coalition with the Greens, unless the Greens support Labour-NZ First from the outside which they won't.

WINston will NOT be making a decision this week.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11932794

Because ACT is the only party that isn't power-hungry/spineless enough to bend to Winston's every whim.

I know this may sound a little silly, but how about one side agreeing to allow Winston Peters to be prime-minister but whichever party he forms a coalition with would get most of the cabinet posts.  This will probably due to his age be his last election so allow him to go out on a high note while whichever party he partnered with would still largely drive the agenda.

ACT leader routinely bitching about Winston highlights his butthurt at not being at the negotiating table lololol

Seymour will lose his seat next election..hopefully

Surely Winston's dislike of ACT is at least partly a matter of principle. They represent Rogernomics, whereas Winston is an old school protectionist.

Is there any reason Winston Peters is dragging this out so long?  I also wonder if this will make it easier to convince people to return to First Past the Post so they can avoid this in the future.  In addition with New Zealand First being mostly a Winston Peters' party and him being 72, I wonder if the party will disappear or become like ACT and United Future once he retires.  The question is does it benefit Labour or National more.  I would tend to think National since his support is strongest amongst older voters, but the platform is quite interventionist so could benefit Labour.

Nah, Kiwis are fine with the electoral system, much to the irritation of the establishment. And a party like NZF will always have a niche, even if it isn't NZF in particular. Heck, one could draw comparisons with the pre-MMP era Social Credit party, which was at some times very popular (although not enough to actually make it into parliament)

One of the weird things about MMP is although people often scaremonger about a huge number of minor parties and nutcases proliferating, New Zealand's party system has stayed relatively, well not stable exactly, but very much rooted in the traditional system. Especially now all the oddballs like the Maori Party have gone or been rendered as harmless puppets (i.e. the Greens making the steps into becoming a permanent annex of Labour and ACT being kept alive at the whims of National), you now have a good old "two and a half party" system.

It's only "good old" if you're a big fan of the "Half Party". I'd rather not have to rely on xenophobes to do everything.

I don't like NZF, but in the grand scheme of things they are relatively benign all things considered. In fact, I would say that National has been far nastier in its history (e.g. Muldoon's raids on Pacific Island workers and the Don Brash open appeal to Pakeha grievances). Even this election cycle, their basic platform was mainly about immigration from a numerical/economic point of view rather than potentially more toxic ideas about "values" that you hear all over the place in Europe (and more to the point, it was remarkably similar to what Labour and Greens were saying, so they can't complain too much).

BREAKING:
Peters to annouce his decision tomorrow.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/10/live-updates-nz-first-nearing-a-decision.html

It's about damn time.

Any guesses.  While a bit contrarian, my guess is 60% chance he goes with National and 40% chance with Labour.  I think the inclusion of Greens will be the reason I lean towards National but really could go either way.

Well, whichever party he goes with is the one I'm not supporting in 2020.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98031249/winston-peters-decides-national-labour-may-learn-fate-at-same-time-as-the-public

The announcement is expected this afternoon, but we are not being told if it will be early or late afternoon.

Grrrr.

Winston's showmanship is seriously starting to tick me off.

https://twitter.com/avancenz/status/920802640245563392 (https://twitter.com/avancenz/status/920802640245563392)

Ugh now he might be delaying further.

Also this is just cruel: https://twitter.com/avancenz/status/920802860283052033

This is getting annoying.  Why is Winston Peters taking so long.  If they had FTFP instead of MMP Bill English would have won a majority assuming people voted the same way or perhaps maybe enough Greens and perhaps NZ First (I suspect they would have split evenly between the two) would have voted Labour to allow a Labour win but probably a National Majority albeit a smaller one would have occurred.  Either way a government would be decided by the people not one man. 

This could mean something:

https://twitter.com/patrickgowernz/status/920852980693209089

Winston must be enjoying this so much. What an a**hole.

I wonder if this is going to cost New Zealand First valuable support in 2020.  I have no doubt National and Labour (and the Greens) are going to remind voters of their attention-whoring come election time. 

Just two quick questions for the all of you:

If Winston goes with National, does Jacinda resign?

If Winston goes with Labour, does English resign?

If Winston goes with National no Jacinda stays on as she dramatically improved the party's fortunes and with the government being 12 years old by 2020 her chances of winning will be even better.

If Winston goes with Labour, I don't think English will resign right away as he probably expects it to not last until 2020, but if by next fall the government is still in place and appears no chance of falling he may resign although polls will play a big role.  If he is trailing then he probably will, but if well in front he might try to make a comeback in 2020.

Meanwhile, the NZ Herald is reporting that Labour is Peters’ first choice.

Anyone would think a heap of horse-trading is going on as the self-imposed deadline approaches (or has past, depending on whether you believe 5pm has taken us from Peters’ promised afternoon announcement into evening).

The Herald reports that the Green party is holding a meeting of delegates this evening, taken to be a sign that the third party in a potential Labour/NZ First/Green coalition is gearing up for government.

The number of ministerial and cabinet posts is also believed to be an issue in the negotiations between Labour and NZ First, with reportedly fewer posts on the table in the Ardern offer than that proposed by English.

New Zealand First is largely a Winston Peters' party as he is the only leader they have ever had.  Since he is 72, I doubt he will run again in 2020 so I would not be surprised the least bit if the party falls below the 4% mark.  I also think after this, especially if National wins a majority in 2020, they will have another referendum to switch back to FTFP to reduce the risk of this happening again.

Literally the press is split on who he's going with.

God damn it Winston.

The one good thing about them being split on the number of cabinet positions is that it looks like Winston probably hasn't been offered PM.

James Shaw, NZ Greens leader:

Winston did say that he never wanted the job anyway.

The Guardian:
That suggestion earlier that the NZ First leader was waiting to crash the 6pm (4pm AEDT/6am BST) TV news bulletins is firming up, with several reports now that Peters is preparing his speech. To say what exactly we still don’t know.

Announcement will be at the hour, per The Guardian.

(probably a little later than that; Winston will likely tease it as long as possible during his speech before announcing his decision)

Alright, 20 minutes left. Let's make some final predictions.

I think he goes with Labour.

I am going to be contrarian, but stick with my prediction of National.

https://twitter.com/henrycooke/status/920874288357314560

This is almost as intense as the floor reports from the July 31 healthcare vote.

He's obviously going to go with Labour.

Well, its the hour.

Let's see.

He likes to play tricks so it looks like Labour, but he might surprise us like 1996.  Should know in a few minutes.

www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/10/livestream-winston-peters-makes-announcement.html

Livestream of the press conference.

Stick with National winnie

Surprise no leak yet, usually these things are leaked to the media by someone before so he must be keeping his cards really close to his chest.

Oh yes. He may not have even told the leaders yet. (Or at least he hadn't until like the last hour or so).

Has he even told his own caucus at least?  My guess is he probably created a deal with both thus giving each the impression it was possible and then will choose the best of the two.

lol@that one press guy who said 'smile you miserable buggers'

Imagine if he just doesn't show up and leaves us hanging for like an hour and then says there's not going to be a decision today.

That seems to be Winston Peters alright for you seeks maximum attention.  I almost wonder if it will be a blessing in disguise for whomever he doesn't choose.

He's 20 minutes late.

He might actually be doing it!

one of the press pool just asked if the afternoon still had 4 hours to go XD

PFFFT HAHAHAHA!

https://twitter.com/jo_moir/status/920879803766489089

LOL

Could one of the leaders issue an ultimatum, either announce his choice in the next 24 hours or the deal is off and that might force him to stop playing games although he did this in 1996.

wouldn't surprise me.

That would take English and Shaw going into coalition talks.

(Which I'm secretly hoping will somehow happen)

It won't, Both English and Shaw hate each other. I don't get why you endorse a NAT-GRN Coalition when it was never going to happen in the first place.

But wouldn't the Green Party pay a big penalty for propping up National.  I've generally found that when Greens prop up centre-right parties such as in Ireland and Czech Republic they take a big hit the next election.  So while a National-Green coalition is probably the most stable option, the Greens probably are avoiding it more out of political calculus.  The Liberals Democrats in 2010 in the UK would have been in much better shape had they not gone into coalition with the Conservatives, but the country would be worse off due to instability (One with Labour would have been Labour-SNP-PC-Green-SDLP-LibDems or at least most of these and much less stable).  Nick Clegg when he lost his seat this past June mentioned about putting the country ahead of party even though his party and eventually even he himself paid a big price.

Are you kidding me? Live on Facebook??!! DID HE FAKE OUT THE PRESS?

And will he fake out of the facebook live.  I almost would dread wanting to work this guy in government.

Some very wishful thinking on my part.

I'm probably going to support ACT next round - tired of everyone else kissing up to Winston.

Lol did anyone else hear that Windows disconnect sound on the stream?

No, but I don't think the press pool know they've been fooled yet.

They definitely know about the Facebook stuff.

Also, my stream is no longer loading.

Jacinda to speak immediately following Peters. English will likely speak afterwards.

The question is: is the concession going to come first? Or the victory speech?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqOof4BjvY8

YouTube live stream of NZ Herald.

Man, Peters is taking forever.

and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever

If he is this late, do you really want him anywhere near power.  Good politicians are usually punctual unless there is a good reason for not being.

This is why I'm endorsing the only Winston-less coalition possible, even if it is reaaaly unlikely.

Also he's apparently "on his way"

Announcement to come? Or just more faking out?

How about just another election.  I suspect after his antics, New Zealand First won't make the 4% cut off so either it will be a National majority or a Labour-Green government.

I thought an earthquake just occurred, turned out it was a cameraman moving the camera.

FAKE OUT!!! they are streamimg the Beehive theater
The media have not been fooled.

and there he is

HE'S HERE!!!

Lol at him trashing Germany

Just say who it is and explain the reasoning after enough of the suspense.

lmao "not that of their leader". Yeah Right.

PETERS JUST SAY IT I WANNA GO TO SLEEP

He's going with Labour. He's talking about fixing capitalism.

And there it is.

It looks like it is Labour.

He's going with Labour.

ARDERN IS THE NEXT PM!!!

Congratulations to Jacinda Ardern, 40th Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Well I guess Canada is no longer the sole Anglosphere country with a centre-left PM.  Trudeau must be feeling old as first Macron, then Kurz, and now Ardern it seems choosing young leaders is becoming popular.  UK and US interestingly enough have fairly old leaders of their parties.

As long as Greens does not have any influence im ok with labour-nz first...expect a large chunk of nz first voters to swing towards national in 2020

Robertson confirmed as Finance Minister.

And Wikipedia edits done.

Again, congratulations to Jacinda.

I guess this puts me in the National column for 2020 (for now).

Alright everyone.

Here's the question:

Does English resign?

Changed my username for the celebration.

We'll have to see the Greens reaction, but it seems that NZ will have a change in government. Hasta la vista English!

How long until Jacinda Ardern is officially prime-minister.  My understanding is anytime there is a change in government there is always a transition period.  In Canada it is usually around 2-3 weeks typically where the outgoing PM remains PM until the incoming one takes over.  The US has a ridiculous 10 weeks transition so on what date approximately does she get sworn in?  On the other hand the UK usually does it the next day where the incoming one visits the PM at least if there is a majority.  If a hung parliament then it takes a bit longer.

Maybe Ardern winning Mt. Albert earlier in the year was a good omen. Helen Clarke also held that seat during her tenure as PM

Winston went with Labour. Greens are in cabinet.  Ardennes has spoken and addressed the nation, 'honored to be PM'.

Doesn't seem quite right to me as National did end up 7.5% end of Labour.  I'm not sure if the Greens are sort of an assumed Labour Party coalition partner as Labour and the Greens combined would have only been about 1% behind National.

The default in NZ is to count Labour and the Greens together.

Ah, well that's different. :)

Remember MMP is a proportional system, while the Nationals had the most votes, they did not obtain a majority alone. Labour-NZF-Greens have a majority and have now agreed to form a government.

Yes, I think National will be favored in the next election if only because their voters will have that 'we wuz robbed' drive that the ruling coalition will not have. 

[SoreLoser]LOSEston. I'm looking forward to see a National landslide in 2020 :). The right should avoid working with pathetic figures like Peters anyway.[/SoreLoser]

Anyway, congratulations with selling your soul to the devil Winston Peters. I hope you'll like it :).

This was hardly that surprising - from all accounts Peters worked better in government with Labour in the past than he did with the Nationals and the relationship was a lot more positive with them, so it makes sense.  Also consider that he is getting old and the talk was that this would possibly be his last election and the party would go to hell without him anyway, so may as well go for the people who would think that you'd work better with since its lot like you'll be the one cleaning up the mess afterwards.

This is arguably the biggest test of public reaction to PR in New Zealand: in that its the first election where the clear "winner" in a FPTP context won't be forming government.  I don't think that there'll be any real demand to move away from MMP but it might annoy a few people...

Ideally, Winston retires at the next election, NZF falls apart and Labour absorbers their voters.

A tiny beam of light for Social Democracy, which had a horrible year so far ...

Totally destroyed in the Netherlands (less than 10%), eliminated in France in favour of a working-class bashing Neo-Liberal, didn't make it in the UK, removed from power in Germany (getting their lowest result ever), still out of power in Norway (+ lost support), a surprisingly stable election result in Austria after all the trouble (but they will probably lose their government spot to a right-wing coalition).

Labour in NZ agreed to immigration curbs demanded by NZ First.   If Social democracy stops kowtowing to their further to left wings to not act on immigration they will win.

Okay, let's look at the Cabinet so far:

Winston, Mark, Tracey Martin, and Shane Jones look to be in. Winston has also been offered the deputy PM role and is "considering it".

I'm assuming Winston asked for and will get Foreign Affairs, don't know about the others.

As for Labour's side of things, Winston confirmed that he didn't get the Finance Minister post, meaning that the position will likely go to Robertson.

Is there anything else known that I missed?

General discussion thread is up. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=275279.0)