2014 New Zealand Election thread

[Prince EWS]

It's hard to say whether the Australian Libs are more right-wing than National, actually. Their rhetoric is, and they are on social issues and foreign policy.. but in terms of economics and the size of government I think National are actually a lot truer to Right principles in their execution, although quite possibly because they're simply more competent.

It's something that I think is begrudgingly going to have to be accepted in the ACT post-mortem. Obviously the Banks scandal and the overall history of the party played a part too, but the fact of the matter is that classical liberals just don't have that much to complain about with regards to the Nats, who basically lean classically liberal themselves. Of course there are some disagreements and of course progress is sometimes slower than most classical liberals would like, but when you have a governing party lowering spending and taxation while simultaneously giving people more social freedoms such as marriage equality, there's just not enough reason for people to rebel and vote for a minor party on classical liberal grounds (especially when it's as damaged as a brand as ACT is).

 

[Flem274*]

ACTs main issue is New Zealand was forced to swallow Rogernomics in the aftermath of Muldoon and his staunch belief in the welfare state and economic projects like Think Big. That was a big shock and it hurt a lot of working class and middle class people. While those people live, libertarianism will never be a thing here. National are about as libertarian as people are willing to go and they're pretty softcore considering they have plenty of handouts in their policy list.

Jamie Whyte wanting to privatise everything and anything was never going to catch on. This election was a lost cause for them from the start.

Personally I'm quite glad this version of ACT was almost destroyed. I'm still doing my research on Rogernomics though. I know the general details and what happened but I haven't formed a strong opinion on whether it was right or wrong.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I find it interesting how the Greens seem to be identified by their individual members more than other parties. I remember when they were first on the scene people made a huge deal about Rasta Nandor and hippie Bradford, etc. Even now the public still associate them with those members even though their policies are much more varied. Meanwhile you have dudes like Richard Prosser who no one really cares about because NZFirst is basically all Winston.

 

[Prince EWS]

ACTs main issue is New Zealand was forced to swallow Rogernomics in the aftermath of Muldoon and his staunch belief in the welfare state and economic projects like Think Big. That was a big shock and it hurt a lot of working class and middle class people. While those people live, libertarianism will never be a thing here. National are about as libertarian as people are willing to go and they're pretty softcore considering they have plenty of handouts in their policy list.

Yeah I think that's a fair assessment, but ACT still polled much lower than what they believe is the classical liberal leaning part of NZ. Obviously it's not a big movement right now, but in 1996, 1999 and 2002 ACT still polled 6%-8% and that was with Rogernomics still in recent memory.. this time they polled 0.7%. ACT's target voters who believe in their cause just aren't voting ACT, and I think a lot of that is because New Zealand classical liberals have a lot less to complain about with National than other classical liberals/libertarians in other countries. I think if National were more like the Australian Liberal Party (which as you said lies somewhere between National and NZ First) then I think ACT would get more votes. National is a pretty good deal as a major centre-right party if you're libertarian.

 

[Bahnz]

I find it interesting how the Greens seem to be identified by their individual members more than other parties. I remember when they were first on the scene people made a huge deal about Rasta Nandor and hippie Bradford, etc. Even now the public still associate them with those members even though their policies are much more varied. Meanwhile you have dudes like Richard Prosser who no one really cares about because NZFirst is basically all Winston.

I don't think that's true anymore though. Besides Turei, Davis and Denise Roche, I couldn't name anybody in the green party. The Greens obviously decided some time ago that including weirdos like Bradford in the party wasn't good for their long term prospects of getting back into Government, and have instead gone more mainstream with their public image.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah I think that's a fair assessment, but ACT still polled much lower than what they believe is the classical liberal leaning part of NZ. Obviously it's not a big movement right now, but in 1996, 1999 and 2002 ACT still polled 6%-8% and that was with Rogernomics still in recent memory.. this time they polled 0.7%. ACT's target voters who believe in their cause just aren't voting ACT, and I think a lot of that is because New Zealand classical liberals have a lot less to complain about with National than other classical liberals/libertarians in other countries. I think if National were more like the Australian Liberal Party (which as you said lies somewhere between National and NZ First) then I think ACT would get more votes. National is a pretty good deal as a major centre-right party if you're libertarian.

Nah you've got this the wrong way around.

NZ libertarians don't vote ACT because ACT is barely a libertarian party anymore. Even Rodney Hide wasn't particularly liberal, but when you add in the Banks thing the party basically became a voice for conservatism.

National and Key are quite steadfastly pro regulatory policy, particularly Bill English.

NZ classical liberals don't have a lot to complain about because it's a pretty liberal society in general, and we're not particularly weighed down by bureaucracy in the way that the US, Australia and the UK are. We have a government, a governor general, and local councils. There's just not all that much to complain about for libertarians.

 

[_Ed_]

So Andrew Little's the new Labour leader.

The caucus didn't want him to be the leader, the Labour party members didn't want him to be the leader, and if there had been a poll amongst the general public they wouldn't want him to be the leader either. But he sneaks in due to union support.

Damn it, Labour. I do not believe this guy can win the election. The public just won't relate to him or like him.

I hope Jacinda Ardern leads a coup in a year or 18 months.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

this is further proof that labour has been infiltrated. They're literally trying their hardest to lose. [/itsaconspiracy]

 

[hendrix]

Honestly this is ridiculous. Just a terrible, terrible decision.