[Milliemoo]

I've only just glanced at the budget, but it got me thinking about what I actually know about politics in NZ. The answer being, hardly anything!

Can anyone give me some facts about each of the main parties. I know everyone seems to hate Labour, but I can remember reading something about how people have very short memories because it was atrocious under National last time round.

What I really need is say a top ten of key FACTS about each party and then at least that might spur me on to look into certain elements that I feel are personal to me.

Any ideas? Any good sites to look at. I really want facts not opinions though.

Milliemoo

[James 1077]

I was thinking the same as I'm not sure on all that many policies either and there are a silly number of parties out there!

I'm a right-wing libertarian under the various political tests so general believe in a small state with low taxation, low benefits but with increased incentives for working and governments doing as little as they possibly can with respect to non-core business; while ensuring that people are free to do anything that they would like provided it doesn't impact directly on the lives or wellbeing of others.

I've only really started looking but found this (http://www.act.org.nz/files/pledge/20pointplan.pdf)on ACT which seems to cover their policies. I must say I agree with most of them but will probably vote National to ensure that things shift to the right!

[Carol]

Dont forget - you have to vote twice!
Once for the candidate and once for the party.....


Just to make it even harder for you!

:nice1

[Tia Maria]

I thought I'd give this thread a bump, as I'd like to make an informed choice rather than voting for Helen Clarke just because she seems to drink in Devonport a lot! (I think she has a niece in the navy or something...)

So even if you come across a good link or interesting bit in the paper, let us know what you find out!

Of course you may already be well aware of where the different parties stand, in which case fill me in please! :D

Cheers

Tia

[KerryS]

The system here is a tad confusing, because, under MMP you have to vote twice - once for the candidate in your electorate, and once for the party.
If a party gains more than half the 120 seats in Parliament at a general election it can form a majority government by itself.
If no one party has an outright majority of MPs, two or more parties with a combined majority of seats can form a majority coalition government. If no one party has an outright majority and no majority coalition can be agreed upon, one or more parties can form a minority government with the support of other parties outside the government.

This is the state of the current government, which was formed in 2005 as a coalition of Labour, Progressive, New Zealand First and United Future.

Most of the main parties have their policies on their websites - the main parties are:
Labour - Centre left and socially liberal.
National - Centre right and conservative.
New Zealand First - Conservative, Nationalist. Want to preserve NZ's culture by reducing immigration; bring crime under control by increasing judicial sentencing; and reduce payments made under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Green Party - focus on green policies and environmentalism.
United Future - Centrist, formed from the old Christian democratic FutureNZ and the centrist UnitedNZ
ACT - Free market liberals, with a philosophy of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Progressive - Moderately left wing with a focus on job creation and full employment.
Maori - founded in 2004 over the Seabed and Foreshore vote.
Alliance (currently holds no seats in NZ parliament but was once the 3rd largest party)
(Disclaimer - all info is from Wiki not my opinion, - there is much more to be read on each of their respective websites, but far too much to write here.)

You also get other smaller parties and individual candidates standing - Destiny Church were one that had several candidates at the last election.

As I knew very little last time, I asked each candidate in my electorate for their manifesto, and also got the main party manifestos to read, which helped quite a bit.

[Tia Maria]

Wow thanks Kerry! :nice1

I'd been kind of combining National and NZ first together in my mind and wasn't even aware of Progressive ..... bit more research methinks!

Cheers

Tia

[BaldyBeardyBloke]

Link to all registered political parties websites.

http://www.elections.org.nz/record/registers/registered-political-parties.html#gen0

Also may be of interest - overview of NZs system of government

http://www.elections.org.nz/democracy/system-of-government.html

Getting all this from 'elections' website

http://www.elections.org.nz/

Lots of interesting stuff on there.

[Caroline and Dave]

Oh dear, No Monster Raving Loony Party ( Or is that Helen Clarke in Disguise?) What am I going to do ? :uhoh

[BaldyBeardyBloke]

Start one.

Cheese Puff Lunacy Alliance or something.

[StevieD]

Oh dear, No Monster Raving Loony Party ( Or is that Helen Clarke in Disguise?) What am I going to do ? :uhoh

No, this is no disguise she really looks like this :laugh:laugh:laugh

[cappuccino]

We should start an Immigrants Political Party - that would surely get a lot of votes if we had good policies

[BaldyBeardyBloke]

Yay.

Cheap cheese
Mandatory insulation and central heating
Mother In Law visits illegal
Free Broadband for all
18 weeks holiday a year
Free healthcare for all
PR for Leccy-Lee
Existing PR holders get to select new immigrants

[slider]

Yay.

Cheap cheese
Mandatory insulation and central heating
Mother In Law visits illegal
Free Broadband for all
18 weeks holiday a year
Free healthcare for all
PR for Leccy-Lee
Existing PR holders get to select new immigrants

:laugh Brilliant
BBB for PM :nice1

[andrewp]

:laugh Brilliant
BBB for PM :nice1

Here here :clap:nice1

[lnz]

Thanks for the links. Very interesting!

I hadn't realised that you could vote as a permanent resident and don't have to be a citizen. Does this mean that you can also be selected for Jury Duty as a PR?

I lived in the US for 5 years and was selected for Jury duty from the driving licence register. They didn't let me serve, though, as I wasn't a citizen.

Are NZ jurors selected from the electoral roll or from some other list?

[Kiwi-In-Texas]

Jury Service in New Zealand.... Names are selected at random from the Electrol Roll.





Suzanne.

[Tia Maria]

Thanks for the links. Very interesting!

I hadn't realised that you could vote as a permanent resident and don't have to be a citizen. Does this mean that you can also be selected for Jury Duty as a PR?

I lived in the US for 5 years and was selected for Jury duty from the driving licence register. They didn't let me serve, though, as I wasn't a citizen.

Are NZ jurors selected from the electoral roll or from some other list?

Yes, I was selected for Jury service in the first year of being in NZ, we have PR.

Cheers

Tia

[wiki]

Thanks for the links. Very interesting!

I hadn't realised that you could vote as a permanent resident and don't have to be a citizen. Does this mean that you can also be selected for Jury Duty as a PR?

I lived in the US for 5 years and was selected for Jury duty from the driving licence register. They didn't let me serve, though, as I wasn't a citizen.

Are NZ jurors selected from the electoral roll or from some other list?

OH is serving on a jury this week. Today was the first day.

She's only been in the country for seven months on PR, and on the roll for about three months!

I'm gutted as never been called, let alone selected... but there is little chance they'd let me serve since I'm a journalist. I'm very jealous of OH

[dharder]

She's only been in the country for seven months on PR, and on the roll for about three months!

How did she get on the electoral roll after a few months? I was told I'd need to be a resident for 12 months with PR if I want to vote.

I'm want to vote, too!

Daniela

[wiki]

How did she get on the electoral roll after a few months? I was told I'd need to be a resident for 12 months with PR if I want to vote.

I'm want to vote, too!

Daniela

We were told at our local council it was only six months - she filled out the form with the length of time at our current address, and the previous address as the UK and no one challenged those dates.

Looking online now, it does seem to be 12 months. - so technically, that's all highly illegal!

[dharder]

Looking online now, it does seem to be 12 months. - so technically, that's all highly illegal!

Lucky her :) But I managed to vote for Tony back in 1997, got a poll card in the mail, even though I wasn't technically allowed... This would have been the first general election in the UK I could have voted in, and I'm not there... (will have to do a postal vote).

Thanks for checking, wiki.

Daniela

[Caroline and Dave]

Well.the time is looming and I am no wiser as to who to vote for. Each party seem to have their bad points and it seems to be getting worse.
The Winston Peters thing is a huge joke and is dragging on and on. Now today they have bought someone in with the name of Mr Crapper. Is this for real I ask?
National seem to have hidden agendas which Key keeps squashing but its his own ministers saying these things. Or is it a case of better the devil you know?

[James 1077]

National seem to have hidden agendas which Key keeps squashing but its his own ministers saying these things. Or is it a case of better the devil you know?

To be fair I think that all parties have hidden agendas - National just aren't very good at keeping their's hidden! :)

I've decided what I'm doing - National for my candidate vote and ACT for my party vote. ACT seem to be closest to my political views but the National candidate is more likely to win our area and I want to help make sure that this happens!

[Tia Maria]

ACT want to create a 'competitive market' in education and health - what does that mean?

Cheers

Tia

[dharder]

ACT want to create a 'competitive market' in education and health - what does that mean?

Nothing good, inmho.

Daniela

[James 1077]

ACT want to create a 'competitive market' in education and health - what does that mean?

Cheers

Tia

Education-wise I think that they want to go for the Scandanvian system of "education vouchers" provided to families so that they can take their children anywhere. Schools will have to provide education at the cost of the voucher (so you don't have to top up) and abiding by the National Curriculum but they will be free to decide how they go about doing it and won't have state interference (ie companies / charities could be set up to build / own / operate schools - they would compete with each other for pupils and schools that parents don't want to send their kids to would end up going out of business).

The system was set up in Sweden (I think) and it really improved the quality of education there.

Health-wise I'm not as sure but I see this as a privatisation of the health system with the government funding health insurance for everyone. Again you are free to decide where / when you want your operation and hospitals will compete to get your business. Again probably through a mixture of companies and charities (but probably some state / local authority provision as well). Under this sort of system there are funding caps where the government won't fund more than $X per operation but, similarly, the hospital must provide the operation for that cost within set time limits and to set conditions. If the hospital wants to charge more then it may and in return you get faster treatment / better rooms etc but if you don't want to pay the extra then they can't not give you the treatment.

I want to get some more info on these before deciding to votefor ACT for certain but this is how I see it working - and is precisely how I think that this sort of thing should work!

[James 1077]

The election date has been set for 8th November so we can expect some campaigning in the next few weeks.

It will be interesting to see everyone outline their policies in more detail so that everyone knows who / what they are voting for.

My current position is to vote National with my electorate vote and ACT with my party vote but National could still persuade me to give them both votes (and there may be another libertarian / right party that I don't know much about as well).

[Mickstim]

Our neighbour recently lent me a book called 'Absolute Power (the Helen Clark years)' by Ian Wishart, and having read that I would not be voting for the lady. It's a very interesting read indeed.

I don't get to vote this time around unfortunately as we haven't been here 12 months.

Bx

[James 1077]

I don't get to vote this time around unfortunately as we haven't been here 12 months.


Oddly enough I'm allowed to vote even though we only arrived in March. This is because I lived in New Zealand until I was 3 and, as such, have "lived in New Zealand for one year or more without leaving the country".

I originally had to enrol at our previous address (from 27 years ago) in Bulls but have now changed that to our Devonport address.

[kanatakiwi]

Our neighbour recently lent me a book called 'Absolute Power (the Helen Clark years)' by Ian Wishart, and having read that I would not be voting for the lady. It's a very interesting read indeed.

I don't get to vote this time around unfortunately as we haven't been here 12 months.

Bx

You can vote for whoever, but please don't base it on Ian Wishart!

[Derv]

IMHO, the MMP system results in a very slow and ineffectual system of goverment where nothing happens for a very long time. It even takes several weeks to get a government in place after a General Election. First-past-the-post may have its faults but it provides a govt that can actually do things at a sensible pace.

At present the polls seem to show that National may actually be able to govern on its own - and I'm not supporting any party here, just commenting on the system of govt - it would be nice to have a NZ Govt that can actually get on and do things.

It also seems entirely wrong to me that the MMP system means that NZ has MPs who don't have constituencies (or electorates as they are called here) and so don't have any direct connection with the public.

But in NZ's favour, it was the first country to give women the vote, several decades before the UK did so.

[M-Squared]

I hate first past the post, but I hate the electoral college system in the US even more. You can lose the popular vote, and still win.... uh.... what???

Proportional Representation is truly democratic, love it! :nice1

[James 1077]

Proportional Representation is truly democratic, love it! :nice1

Got to disagree with you there - PR just means that the power ends up in the smaller parties who are able to decide who to back in a coalition. This means that you can get a party with 10% of the vote pretty much controlling the policies rather than the party that polled, say, 45% of the vote.

[M-Squared]

Got to disagree with you there - PR just means that the power ends up in the smaller parties who are able to decide who to back in a coalition. This means that you can get a party with 10% of the vote pretty much controlling the policies rather than the party that polled, say, 45% of the vote.

Woulc you prefer that those in the minoty having absolutely no say at all?.....
Just try the US! :laugh :D

[chocolate cake]

Least you vote means something in PR. In the UK govts get in on approx 40% of the vote, and the majority of the seats are irrelevant as they either solidly labour or tory, it's the middle of the country that decides the election result.

[talisker]

But as James says, under PR the power that parties end up with bears even less relation to the popular vote than UK government elections. At least there, the party with the most votes forms the government. But under PR, tiny minority parties end up with a huge influence as they are often brought into coalition to form a majority. For example, in the 2005 NZ general election, Labour got 41% of the vote, National 39%. So you might expect that under the wonderful democratic PR system, we'd have power shared fairly equally between those two parties, reflecting the views of the country, perhaps with some National MPs in the cabinet. Err, no. Instead National form no part of government, and Labour effectively forms a coalition with NZ First (6% of the vote) and Progressive (a laughable 1% of the vote), with their leaders being appointed ministers.

So as far as I can make out, under PR you get exactly the same problems as first past the post, just a bit worse - i.e. parties govern with only around 40% of the vote, plus tiny fringe parties that nobody votes for get significant power. And it takes longer and is much more complicated. Brilliant.

[KerryS]

What Tallisker said. It took ages for the government to be formed after the last election. Lots of Winston Peter holding the balance of power over whether he would side with National or Labour - whoever would give him the powerful position in the govt would get his party's support. So we ended up with an unelected person (Peters got into Parliament solely on the Party vote, as he was ousted from his electoral seat) being the most powerful person in the country, and representing NZ as Foreign Minister! If you think that's a fair system you think very differently to me...

[Gran]

It was fairly miserable last time when National was in, I think I will let Michael Cullen keep his steady hand on the tiller at this time with so much turmoil in the financial world. I am not keen on the others giving handouts and borrowing to be able to do it. Whatever Ian Wishart says has to be taken with a fistfull of salt in my opinion, but remember it is illegal not to register if you are elligable to vote, although you do not have to vote, you must register, only a few days left.

[Tia Maria]

When we first arrived everyone was going on about getting Helen Clarke & Labour out, so I assumed they must be pretty bad. But having looked into it I just don't get it. To me Helen Clarke seems quite genuine and works hard for NZ, even our local Labour candidate seems a lot better than the National one:


Phil Twyford - Labour

Phil has spent the last 15 years of his life working for the humanitarian and development organisation Oxfam. As its first chief executive he led the NZ organisation for nine years, raised millions of dollars for anti-poverty projects in developing countries, and built Oxfam into an influential New Zealand aid agency. Under Phil’s leadership Oxfam was one of the first humanitarian organisations to move into the war-torn island of Bougainville where it helped people in remote villages recover from a decade of civil war.

On the strength of Oxfam’s global development work, Phil became a leading commentator on development aid and foreign policy. He led successful campaigns to change government policy on the ban on landmines, spending on overseas aid, East Timor, and other humanitarian issues.

In 1999 Phil was recruited to a key leadership post with Oxfam International – a global aid group with a combined budget of $800 million working in more than 100 of the world’s poorest countries. Phil was based in Washington DC and headed up the group’s global advocacy and campaigns. He managed a team of lobbyists dedicated to influencing the policies of the World Bank, IMF, WTO and United Nations in favour of the poor in developing countries. Phil’s team led a series of global campaigns which helped secure debt relief for the poorest countries, opposed the invasion of Iraq, successfully fought for more money to get kids into school in developing countries, and challenged unfair global trade rules (www.maketradefair.com).
(Click here to download and read the Listener’s 2002 profile of Phil’s work with the Global Campaign for Education.)

Phil returned to New Zealand with his partner Joanna and their teenage son Harry in 2004.

“After living in the United States it was wonderful coming back to a New Zealand that is optimistic, confident, moving ahead on so many fronts, and sure of our place in the world.

“I think a lot of the credit for that goes to the Labour Government of Helen Clark. Labour’s prudent economic management has delivered economic growth that has allowed overdue investment in our infrastructure, established the superannuation fund that will give security to New Zealanders when they retire, and allowed significant new investments in health and education.

“My years with Oxfam taught me some fundamental lessons. The first was our common humanity. I met struggling families in the suburbs giving a monthly cheque to help people they’d never met on the other side of the world. The second was the courage and innovation of people who were up against the odds. I met Ethiopian farmers running their own micro-credit schemes so they could work their way out of hunger. And third, I became convinced that high performing societies need capable government that works for all citizens.

“For all these reasons I am campaigning to return Labour to government, and win the seat of North Shore. I grew up on the Shore. My Mum raised five of us at Albany. I went to primary school in Glenfield and did my high school years at Westlake Boys’. The Shore offers a great quality of life and unquestionable beauty but it is feeling the strains of rapid growth and development. I want to serve the people of North Shore and work with them to tackle these challenges.”

and


Dr Wyne Mapp - National:

I was born in Te Kopuru in 1952 and grew up on a farm in Reporoa.


After completing a Bachelor of Laws with Honours at Auckland University in 1976 I travelled to Canada, where I obtained a Master of Laws from the University of Toronto.

I then returned to New Zealand to practice law in the areas of commerce, taxation and litigation.

I joined the Territorial Armed Forces (3rd Battalion, Auckland and Northland) where I attained the rank of Captain.

In 1981 I married lawyer Denese Henare and with her support completed a PhD in international law from the University of Cambridge, England.

I returned to New Zealand to lecture at Auckland University where I was an Associate Professor of Law until I entered Parliament in 1996.

In the National Caucus, I have held portfolios in Justice, Housing, Foreign Affairs, Treaty Negotations, Labour and Industrial Relations.

I am currently the National Party Spokesman for Defence, and Auckland Issues.

Residing in North Shore enables me to enjoy a number of recreational activities, including sailing (I’m a member of Devonport Yacht Club), kayaking and cycling. I also take part in a wide range of community activities and support the arts, youth projects such as Project K and sport, and support for the elderly, including the North Shore Hospice.

I hold a private pilot and gliding licence and enjoy being a member of the North Shore Aero Club.

I am an avid reader of history, social anthropology, science and politics. I enjoy James Bond movies.


Am I missing something here - why do so many people hate Helen Clarke & Labour?

Cheers

Tia

[Moorf]

I feel the same as Tia - since being here there's been an attitude towards getting her out, yet I can't see any viable alternatives to someone who seems to have NZ's interests genuinely at heart.

Are we looking at change for change sake, perhaps?

[BaldyBeardyBloke]

I agree with the Moorfster and Tia too.

Since they've started their formal TV campaigns now I do think HC comes across much better than JK. Just my humble opinion of course.

JK is all about me me me, look at meeeeeeeee!!!!!!

HC seems more focused on realistic delivery and a team effort.

Again, just my observations.

[kanatakiwi]

Me too! Key is an untested commodity and seems far too glib to me. I was not certain until he started in on Kiwisaver but that tipped it for me. I find it shocking that until recently NZ had no retirement savings incentive scheme, and its a pretty modest one too, without National starting to hack away at it.
KK

[James 1077]

I'm not the biggest fan of John Key or National's tax policies. But I do hope that National get in after the election.

The way forward is through small governments which don't have a controlling impulse where they want to do everything and this is more likely to happen on the right of the political spectrum.

[M-Squared]

The problem is with right-of-centre governments is that they promise government cuts then somehow fail to deliver. Just look at the States... 8 years of right-wing rule and the debt clock ran out of available digits just a couple of days ago...

[Gran]

The Labour Party under Norman Kirk established a compulsory retirement scheme in 1975, then when the National party under Rob Muldoon took over in 1976, they cancelled the fund and returned all our payments to us, I'm retired now, and I often wonder how well off I would be if that fund had been left alone. Also how well off the country would have been with a large fund like that.
I guess since then the Labour Party has thought it would hardly be worth while to start a fund again, which appears to be true, as the National Party is about to interfere again, given the opportunity.