National are up three at 50%, Labour up 1 at 35.5%, Greens are down at 6.5% and Winston Peters is where he deserves to be. Out on his arse.
| arty name | Party Votes won | Party seat entitlement | No. of electorate seats won | No. of list MPs | Total MPs | % of MPs | |
| Act New Zealand | 1.50% | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 1.60% |
| Green Party | 6.50% | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | | 6.40% |
| Jim Anderton's Progressive | 0.00% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | * | 0.80% |
| Labour Party | 35.50% | 44 | 0 | 44 | 44 | | 35.20% |
| Maori Party | 2.50% | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | * | 5.60% |
| National Party | 50.00% | 62 | 0 | 62 | 62 | | 49.60% |
| United Future New Zealand | 0.50% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | 0.80% |
| Totals | 96.50% | 120 | 10 | 115 | 125 | 100.00% |
Notes:
11 comments:
comfortable coalition with a majority of two seats.
Or three seats counting Dunne.
Now let's see, if a couple of percent of the Maori party's party vote goes to Labour, or if Labour/Green picks up just another couple of percent of National, or if Winston comes back from the grave (labour tatical voters in Tauranga will do it)
then, the most likely result on this poll is still a Labour government
you may not like that fact - but that's what the numbers actually say. It's what happens when National has to compete in a Maorimandered electoral system
Interesting how you slag off 'Actoids' and 'policy buffs' one day and the next assume they want to be in a coalition with National.
Did you forget Jim Anderton, Adolf? He's not retiring or anything is he?
So the result of MMP is?
The party that wins, loses!
If so, I think we could well have some kind of constitutional crisis on our hands.
National are only going to govern with ACT if no other options are available, and this poll suggests there are.
So the result of MMP is?
The party that wins, loses!
If so, I think we could well have some kind of constitutional crisis on our hands.
Yep. Big surprise. And that's without about 30 electorate seats and the party vote coming under huge numbers of claims under the EFA for corrupt practice.
So it will come down to the jugdes and GG - appointed by guess who?
PM, sorry about that. Fixed
Lindsay
No, I'm not slagging off Actoids. I just wish they'd show a bit more loyalty to their party and the people in it who work their arses off.
Adolf, Yesterday you said, "Well, all I can say to you policy wonks is 'good luck' as you buy your policies from the biggest gang of crooks and liars who ever walked."
Today you say, "No, I'm not slagging off Actoids. I just wish they'd show a bit more loyalty to their party and the people in it who work their arses off."
Well, I'm now thoroughly confused.
Lindsay, let's put the comments in context. Yesterday's comment was in the context of a number of people arguing that 'policy' is what counts. I'm trying to suggest to them that 'policy on its own without people of at least some integrity' is a mirage.
As for ACT not wanting to go into coalition with National, well hello! Are you one of those who would rather be pure in opposition for ever rather than sitting around the cabinet table and actually getting SOME of your olicies enacted?
You forget that a lot of ACT people came from Labour backgrounds and don't have some sort of residual loyalty or leaning towards National. While policies and people intertwine to a degree, the policies are still paramount. I would rather see ACT in opposition than supporting a government retaining WFF, the current method of funding education and the current welfare system. Those are the things that matter to me.
I would rather see ACT in opposition than supporting a government retaining WFF...etc
See, now that's a party that stands for something and has some bollocks. Of course, it's also a recipe for permanent opposition, because coalition partners with 1.5% of the vote don't get to tell the majority vote-holder what the policy's going to be. Coalition govt entails many sorrows.
Post a Comment