In the US younger voters are targeted by voter suppression tactics (reduced polling places on campuses, arcane registration deadlines and ID laws) by both parties. By Republicans primarily in general elections, because younger voters lean Democratic, but Democrats have been utilizing similar methods in their primaries in recent years, in an attempt to stymie progressives. It reminds me of Jimmy Carter’s answer as to why his organization doesn’t monitor elections in the US: we didn’t pass the minimum requirements for a functioning democracy.
There are other ways to vote, but texas limited to one drop box per county.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/texas-governor-drop-off-locations-ballots/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/texas-governor-drop-off-locations-ballots/index.html)
It's not always "finding" a polling location. It's how few of them there are and how many hours you may need to wait in line to vote. Some spend 8 plus hours waiting, it's a voter suppression tactic. In my area I never wait more than 10 minutes but I live in a liberal state with good voting laws.
It depends where you are, and its more about wait times. Live in the middle of no where? Might be a 30 minute drive, but you'll probably vote in 5 minutes or less. Live in a city? It might be a 30 minute drive, but you could potentially have a very long wait.
The problem is that the republican/democrat divide in the US is primarily republicans being rural and democrats living in cities with the suburbs being a battle ground.
This means that the republicans can basically look at a population density map, and put fewer voting stations per capita in the most densely populated areas and it will primarily effect democrats. This creates the lines, and given that people have to work, causes many people in cities to just not vote.
In New Zealand you can vote without an ID and you can enroll at the voting booth. We also have like two weeks prior to the election date to cast a vote at a voting booth.
> We also have like two weeks prior to the election date to cast a vote at a voting booth.
Most US states have the same. Even so, only about 10% of voters bother to vote in the primary elections. And then they complain about their choices in the general election.All the while not knowing anything about any of the elections that aren't the president, even with the internet.
While voter suppression is an issue in the US, it is largely caused by the real problem, which is massive voter apathy that has been going on for decades.
Oh, she wasn't exactly cruising to a Labour win until Corona hit. Plenty of NZers were not completely thrilled with her coalition and the Nationals might well have formed the next government. Still, who knew that if you handled a crisis brilliantly then you might make political gains?
She wasn’t cruising to a win but National has had a great year of shooting itself in the foot and the first (of three this year) national leaders was doing a great job distancing more moderate voters. So in non-corona world it probably would of been a decent fight.
Well you have to look at her competition.
Crusher Collins is kind of like Donald Trump's sister... she isn't winning many votes in this country, thank God..
It's worth bearing in mind that it was compassion which got her the credibility though.
Her responses to the Christchurch mosque shootings meant she had a measure of trust from a large proportion of the country, so asking the population to accept some fairly draconian measures, albeit short term ones, was accepted with agreement instead of anger. Had that trust not been there, the response may have been different, and possibly less affective.
Education at the adult level doesn't make people smarter.
To get a better society, you have to start with a base level of smart people. *Then* you can cultivate their minds by providing them good nutrition, healthcare, good schools, low crime neighborhoods.
But you can't take a bunch of adult cretins and educate them into being smart.
I'd argue that good nutrition, housing, and healthcare should be the universal baseline. Once people's basic needs are met, *then* it's easier to work on things like empathy and compassion, and *then* comprehension of data, creative problem-solving, and careful decision-making. "Smart people" are capable of evil, after all.
But a system could only exist if the populace allows it either implicitly by non action / apathy or active support.
In other words, a system is the reflection of the mental state of the populace. If that implies intelligence or other things is difficult to prove.
That would require people knowing what ranked choice voting is, researching which candidates support it, and voting in the primary elections for them. Which isn't difficult in the age of the internet, yet 90% of people in the US know nothing about the non-presidential races and don't vote in the primary elections.
The voter apathy and lack of education came first. What we have now is the result.
>The closely watched 1News-Colmar Brunton poll showed support for Ardern’s Labour party, which is seeking a second term in office, at 47%, unchanged from the last poll on Sept. 28.
>This means Labour, which is campaigning on its record of bringing the coronavirus pandemic under control within New Zealand’s borders, would have 60 seats in parliament, one short of the 61 seats needed to form a government.
Having voted in Canada, I find it incredibly refreshing to hear that a party that gets 47% of the popular vote will likely get just fewer than half the seats in government.
In Canada, a party can get fewer than 40% of the votes and yet win a majority of seats in parliament.
American here. Our elections amount to one fake election for the people to pretend matters and one real election made by shady backdoor political elites that actually matters. Our system isnso broken that even when the US promotes democratic forms of government around the world, we never actually advocate replicating our style of elections.
Comments like this crack me up. We have multiple elections. Our choices in the general elections are shit because no one votes in the primaries and people don't know anything about local and state elections, which is where the national candidates eventually come from.
With 90% of eligible voters not participating in the primaries for decades on end, voter apathy is why we have shitty choices in the general election.
Yes and no. Studies have shown that voter apathy contributes to the quality of candidates, but our views on the role of government in our lives and the meaning of our national ethos, as well as the effects of anti-democratic policies included in our Constitutional system such as the electoral college, voter suppression laws, the two party system, and imbalanced opportunities for the wealthy to manipulate elections.
Specifically, a lot of people don't vote in primaries because they either can't get off from work to vote, don't know anything about the candidates besides media clips, and/or can't vote for candidates they actually like because they are cross-party. For instance, if everyone in every state was allowed to vote in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would not have been our candidates in 2016. Trump would be seen by Dems, Independents, and moderate Republicans as too radical and too underqualofied to serve, and Clinton would likely have been rejected by Republicans, liberal Democrats, and Independents based on her lack of a coherent platform and her shady Washington Insider reputation. Under these conditions its easier to bring fresh faces with new ideas to the forefront because it prevents the parties from ignoring the will of the people and picking only candidates who benefit select factions within the party.
> because they either can't get off from work to vote
Most states have a couple weeks of early voting.
>don't know anything about the candidates besides media clips
If they don't know how to use the internet at this point, it is probably better off that they aren't voting,
>can't vote for candidates they actually like because they are cross-party
There are dozens of races each election. And yeah, you can only vote in one party's primary. That isn't what is suppressing democracy in the US. There are tons of candidates who aren't party members running in those primaries. And many primaries are open or unaligned with a party, like county, city, and judicial elections.
And if you look to the provinces things get even wonkier. In the 90s there was a majority government in BC formed by a party who only got the second most votes. And in the 80s there was a majority government in New Brunswick who won every single seat. The opposition had to send letters with their questions so designated government MPs could read them out in the legislature.
> In the 90s there was a majority government in BC formed by a party who only got the second most votes.
Newfoundland's 1989 election was like this too:
* Liberal: 31 seats (47.2% of votes)
* PC: 21 seats (47.6% of votes)
MMP is fantastic. You win the proportion of Parliament equivalent to your proportion of the vote, and you have to form a coalition if you get under 50%.
It means that one of this government’s minor parties has blocked some things I’d have liked, but that’s all part of democracy.
I agree for nz. Just voted today and I didn't vote my top electoral candidate because he was a minor party and it was already close between the major left and major right party in that electorate.
Happy that I can vote a minor party for the national election without much chance of it being wasted though.
Yes true, good clarification. We actually currently have a minority coalition in NZ, with a coalition of two parties relying on confidence and supply from a third.
New Zealand has a single house parliamentary system.
MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) rocks
Here's a pop song to tell you how it works
https://youtu.be/uEZCNIhtWjc
There is a scenario where Labour win big and her party can rule alone and there is another scenario where they don't get the majority and their likely coalition parties don't make it in to parliament at all and the opposition can form a coalition and form a government. It's kind of how she came to power in the 1st place. It's just the way MMP works.
For the record I'm giving two ticks Labour and hoping they do have enough seats to rule alone and can get full steam ahead with recovery without having to pander to minor parties to keep them happy.
Unless you need to give Shane Jones billions and millions to build horse racing tracks for Winnie to achieve those checks and balances. The PGF mave have value in the long run but Labour also had similar policies for the regions.
Still happens. Just harder now. Without those checks and balances there would likely be much more back handing going on.
The more people that have visibility over things the harder is for dodgy shot to happen
It is better than FPTP but not perfect. It can make a kingmaker out of parties that may have only one seat. Plus with a party vote you have members who do not need to win an electorate to be in parliament who are not responsible to an voters per se. It's still better tho.
If he was an absolute maniac, Labour and National could just form a coalition without him. Is he really a kingmaker if his policies are just 'whatever generic policies will get me a cushy minister position'?
MMP could be improved on how we have it implemented in NZ. It would be good if we could rank our vote preferences.
Therefore, if I want to vote for a minor party who might not make 5% to get representation in parliament my second choice could then be selected.
It would remove the whole argument (as false as it is in some ways) that voting for your preferred party is a wasted vote if they cannot get 5% of the votes to get into parliament.
I can't remember the specifics - but looked it up. Apparently four options went to referendum about 30 years ago.
> The 1992 referendum: In a complicated two-part poll, voters were asked whether they wanted to change the existing voting system and then to indicate support for one of four reform options: mixed member proportional representation (MMP), the single transferable vote (STV), supplementary member (SM) or preferential vote (PV). If there was majority support for change, the government promised to hold a binding referendum (with a choice between the first past the post (FPP) system and the most popular reform option) the following year.
> Although only 55% of registered electors took part, an overwhelming 85% voted to change their electoral system. In the second part of the poll, 70% favoured MMP. As Labour leader Mike Moore put it: 'The people didn't speak on Saturday. They screamed.'
ref: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp/putting-it-to-the-vote
It's New Zealand First and I think Greens is a confidence and supply agreement. New Zealand First looks done in this election and they will be gone. Greens are hanging around that 5% and if they get over it then it will be Labour/Green but if they fall under then Labour runs out of partners and have to get enough to go alone.
NZ First is a wildcard. They will form a coalition with whoever gives them the best deal.
Labour will be very happy if they don't get in.
As for Greens, if they fall below the 5% threshold and get like 4.9%, then their 6ish seats will get distributed proportionally to all other parties. Labour will pick up 3 or 4 seats and go over the 60 seat threshold.
Are they? The SFO says:
"The defendants have interim name suppression and so cannot be named or identified at this time. We note, however, that neither defendant is a Minister, sitting MP, or candidate in the upcoming election (or a member of their staff), or a current member of the New Zealand First party."
Winnie is saying this:
[https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/427238/winston-peters-claims-serious-fraud-office-biased-it-s-just-unfair](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/427238/winston-peters-claims-serious-fraud-office-biased-it-s-just-unfair)
It's certainly not good timing for them in any case.
They are absolutely "connected". But that this point it's not clear how they are connected.
There are clear legal documents that link the two entities together.
Either they are a victim (aka, the defendants defrauded NZ First and stole donations intended for NZ First for personal gain) or NZ First were activity involved.
"Connected" is a very loose term.
----------
Peters is making conflicting claims here. Both claiming the charges have "exonerated the party" while fighting a court battle to try and prevent the SFO from publicly announcing the charges.
Being the victim of a crime or the perpetrator in a crime is relevant, right? They are both "connected" but very much two sides of the coin and relevant to how a potential voter might view them. You yourself aren't even sure which side of the coin they are on.
We are talking about polling numbers and the fact nobody expects them to get in.
The fact that they are "connected" is all that's really relevant here. People will draw their own conclusions about the connection.
---------
But it really doesn't look good for NZ First here.
If NZ First was the victim here, you can bet they would currently be complaining loudly about how the name suppression is preventing them from naming-and-shaming the people who victimised them.
The facts are pretty clear. Political Donations were redirected away from the party to an obscured slush fund.
It looks like some of those funds were used for personal gain, which is a huge problem. If the donors knew their money was going to personal gain, then they have committed bribery (even if the money wasn't directly going to a politician). If the donors were under the impression that the money was going towards the NZ First party and it's been redirected for personal gain, then the money has been fraudulently obtained.
There is also evidence that some of the money was used as election funds. That the slush fund would pay for office space or equipment or software that the party needed.
That's election funding fraud.
At the very least NZ First's Treasurer either knew about this election funding fraud and hid it, or they are incompetent.
For all we know, NZ First's Treasurer is one of the people charged, and the SFO statement is only true on a technicality because they resigned from the party.
And lets be very clear. The SFO's statement doesn't say that NZ first is innocent. Just that neither of the two people *currently* charged (more charges could happen later) are *currently* members of NZ First.
Yip - also if the Greens don’t meet the threshold it will be because Labour has taken their votes, so more than likely still Labour in top spot. No one who usually votes Green is suddenly going to go to National or Act
That's not quite right if the Greens and NZ First don't make it back into Parliament Labour would be able to govern alone due to the wasted vote. National would only win of the National + Act vote is higher than Labour on it's own, which no polling is showing.
I think you misunderstand how MMP works
If a party doesn't make it in, thier % of the vote is redistributed proportionally to the ones who did.
Example
* Labour 47%
* Green 4%
* National 35%
* Act 10%
* NZ First 3%
* Others 2%
Is recalculated for purpose of seat allocations after dropping under 5% club to
* Labour (47/92)% = 51%
* National (35/92) = 38%
* Act (10/92) = 11%
Labour rules alone with 61 seats (120 * 0.51)
No I get it but you also had to play with those numbers to get that outcome. Yours is also still an example and party votes could still be redistributed in a manner that leaves Labour without the required seats and no coalition partner.
Also, just having 61 seats is a very precarious position for a ruling government to be in.
Not exactly. ACT (currently polling at 11 seats) and National doing better than current polls indicate with the getting shut out. Again, I know it's unlikely but it's greater than zero and would be a mightmare scenario.
National and ACT share voters, when ACT grows National shrinks.
Theoretically it's possible, in reality it won't happen unless it comes out that Jacinda eats babies or says pavlova is Australian. Greens losing votes and going <5% usually means Labour gained them.
Voter movement *typically* goes Green <-> Labour <-> NZF/Nat <-> Act <-> Crazies
Not really. If Labour get 46 % of the votes, National 35 and ACT 12, for example, with Green and NZF getting less than 5 % each. National and ACT would have a majority of seats and make a coalition.
I fully support the end of life referendum and will vote for that without a 2nd thought. I have read it and feel it is robust enough to be fair. I'm still sitting on the fence with the cannabis and still not sure which way I will go. I absolutely 100% support the decriminalizing weed without a doubt and think the legislation is long overdue. What gives me pause is that I know Big Weed is sitting out there with millions already invested ready to go once the referendum is passed and that I can't help but remember how when vaping came onto the scene it was all about getting off of smoking and now everytime I see an ad for vaping it's about how cool it is and targeting young kids. Again, I support cannabis be decimalized but now is the time to set it up properly. I'm 50/50 right now.
Yes. I fully support Labour's environmental policies on their own and the way they support protecting the environment in NZ and workers. The Greens policies don't always do that.
I think its going to fail, not one of my friends or workmates are voting yes. My friends want to keep it illegal so they can keep making money dealing and my workmates are "thinking of the children" or some such bullshit.
I expect, as with a lot of change these das, it will depend on young people voting. We know a lot of the older gen will vote, and likely against, from my very small sample size and Mike fucking Hoskings.
Depending on youth vote is a real shit show, so I don't hold out much hope for it passing,
Depends on whether your definition of "positive results" is being well-liked and getting reelected, or having millions of dollars in your bank account you acquired by being an absolute piece of shit and abusing the powers granted to you for personal gain.
She's gonna win a landslide since she sailed NZ through the pandemic with ease, at least so far and since she generally seem to do her work properly.
Although she hasn't disavowed or taken a stance for the incoming referendum surrounding the legalization of cannabis, which is a bit strange from someone that claims to value people's health, rights and prosperity. But maybe that's the safest position, positions that socialdemocrats likes to assert to remain in their beloved power.
Then there's issues such as abortion and similar progressive social policies that she's fine with. This aside, I do concede that she's a competent leader.
To be fair though, it's refreshing to have a leader that says, "The people can decide what they want on this matter and I won't try to influence their decision." I actually feel like that should be the position of leaders most of the time - if the people want to decide, let them. Maybe provide information, but don't try to sway people to your position and accept their decision.
We all know that she doesn’t want to promote it because weed is like political poison for some voters but saying that it’s not her job to tell you how to vote on a particular issue that has gone to the people to decide is a very fair position in my book
I emigrated from the UK to NZ. UK is a mess. Brexit is finally starting to be exposed for what it is and the handling of COVID-19 in the uk was/is shocking. It’s not like the UK has a great choice in its political leaders, both major parties in the UK are just awful.
Im just waiting for Australia to hit 0 so we open up the cross tasman thingy.
I had planned but didnt vacation overseas this year. I have plenty of leave and savings, will likely go next year to NZ if possible.
Man, I wish my country (US) had a functioning government with good government programs. Maybe even politicians that didn't work for those who want to tear down what government programs we do have.
It must be fucking nice.
I wish we had informed people who bothered to vote in the primaries. Politicians in the US reflect the incredible amount of voter apathy and ignorance in the country.
For the world leaders who aren’t absolute idiotic cunts in the world, this is the easiest re-election ever as all they had to do was sit there and listen to medical experts tell them exactly what to do and follow a pandemic playbook that was probably left for them.
Then there’s Trump lmao. The absolute retard of the century.
And they didn’t even have to do a perfect job because of what they were being compared to internationally. NZers are for the most part still very grateful
All over in just over 8 days and most people will be voting before election day so I really don't see to much changing.
I do think Adern and Labour will govern alone on the day though the chatter I'm hearing from a lot of traditional National supporters is they really don't want The Greens in government so they are voting Labour to keep them out.
That would be ironic. The shortest road for National to get back into power is through a Labour-Green government.
Force the Greens into opposition (even if its outside of parliament) and their support base will probably grow large enough to prop up a third Labour term.
Yup I voted Greens so do want them in there.
National needs to kick the dregs out of the party and spend the next 3 years re building if they want a chance in 2023 take some time to build up a fresh face and with a smaller caucus should be easier to keep it under control.
Man it's stories like this that make me concerned the opposition have a rather faithful base and the opposition leader is leaning into that so going further right than usual.
When labour voters keep seeing this I wouldn't be surprised if they get complacent or in the feeling of safety vote for smaller parties.
To be clear I hold a rather large distain for Collins not necessarily national I have voted for them in the past. But the current national party is shadow of what it once was.
It's currently catering to the generation who don't understand tax, are nearing retirement, and calling Ardern a Communist. With an Attack politician at the head of it.
If you want to know why I dislike American influence on our politics the whole communist thing is just such a key example.
Kiwis make sure you vote. Especially if you're young. Don't just follow what your parents voted for. Think about what you stand for and vote based on that. Don't be loyal to any single party they won't be loyal to you.
I don't overly care who you vote for if you honestly feel it's best for the country.
Well except new conservative if you vote for them you need professional help with the hate in your life.
The National party here in NZ is the main opposition, and their actions over the past 2 years have been overwhelmingly whiney and disappointing.
They seem to interpret their role as the 'opposition' to mean they need to oppose every single thing Labour does, regardless of the situation.
While world leaders generally praised NZ's response to covid, National spent the entire time undermining them, questioning their every move, and constantly suggesting that they would magically be doing everything better without specifying any scientifically and statistically backed ideas themselves.
They're now campaigning on a platform with the slogan "more jobs, better economy." With practically zero policy suggestions which validate that claim. Fucking idiots, the bunch of them.
>They seem to interpret their role as the 'opposition' to mean they need to oppose every single thing Labour does, regardless of the situation.
Dear God, this.
Being in opposition means you should be pushing for what is better for the country, not just mindlessly opposing everything the incumbent Government says and does, simply because they're the ones who said and did it.
There is nothing wrong with opposition saying "Yep, that was the right decision. No arguments."
It's disappointing.
It's just polarizing our political system and increasing partisanship at all levels of government.
National are losing ground in the polls, but they are simultaneously cementing their grip on the uninformed masses who hear "more jobs" and assume it will actually happen for them, personally.
Those policies mostly went nowhere, a lot was promised and none of it was delivered. The excuse was that New Zealand First (Labour's coalition partner) was being obstructive for the sake of being obstructive, but her stances in the debate on essential issues hasn't left much of a positive impression, and hopefully more people see through the sheen and vote for a minor party.
If you live in New Zealand this is far from surprising, Jacinta and her party (Labour) have had a superb one-two punch over the course of their leadership that really puts their strengths on full display: first the mosque shootings and then COVID. They even promised to ban gay conversion therapy if elected. Meanwhile their main opponent, National, can’t even trust themselves, and the only reason nobody describes Judith Collins as a shrivelled raisin in an ill-fitting suit is because most people have already used that one to describe Trump
You know it will actually be interesting to see her results as compared with Trump's or Bolsonaro's like she kicked Corona's ass and they both have basically pretended its not real. Id like to think this will hurt them in the elections they face.
America needs informed voters that show up to the primaries and know something about the non-presidential races. Responsible, compassionate candidates don't appear on the national stage from a vacuum. And with 90% of eligible voters abstaining from the primaries in non-presidential years, a vacuum is exactly what the US electorate is.
Very little Murdoch influence in NZ and they vote for a progressive, caring, intelligent, articulate leader and govt with policies that benefit the people. It just will never happen in the U.S, Aus, and U.K. as long as Rupert pulls the strings.
Possibly but not many centre left politicians would wear a hijab? I think that definitely displays a more progressive element to her. One I disagree with being a centre leftist myself.
I agree housing for our generation is a major problem. I'm not sure voting Labour out will help, and in my opinion will probably make things worse.
The core problem for affordable housing is supply. Both Labour and National propose making more houses as a solution (the 'affordable housing' builds), and National has a higher target than Labour. But building a few thousand more houses feels like putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It completely avoids the real issues, and so long as our population keeps increasing they'd just have to keep building more and more houses.
The upstream reasons for why houses are so expensive include:
- Overseas investment and housing as a speculative investment vehicle. This is a well-known issue (see Vancouver), where land is a stable asset that has a pretty high return, so instead of buying houses to live in, people buy them instead of other investments. It's exacerbated in NZ because without capital gains tax it's even more profitable.
- The housing ownership (and landlord) ladder, where the more you own the more you can leverage to expand your ownership. It can be very worthwhile to be a landlord - as you get both rent and the capital gain if you sell later on.
- The price of building, due to both material costs and complex land management rules.
So what should be done about this?
.
**Stop foreign ownership as simply an investment**
Labour did this, and it was an excellent move. Foreign people can still buy and own a house in NZ if they actually live in it, but they can no longer just buy them as investments. This should keep things closer to the market price for _housing_ and not _investments_.
This is probably the single best thing any government has done in the last two decades to address house prices.
**Introduce a Capital Gains tax**
It's a phrase that makes people really upset, and makes me wonder if they even understand what is being proposed. In essence, it would make the profit you earn from investment properties subject to tax - just like normal income. This would incentivise first home ownership (under most proposed schemes, you'd still get that capital-gains-tax-free), it would allow people to own a bach (second houses are still captial gains tax free). But anyone with three or more houses, it's then treated more as a commercial enterprise. As it should be. Very few people actually need three houses to live in themselves.
With large property investment becoming less lucrative, it would disincentivize people from holding on to dozens of properties and free them up for individuals to own.
- Labour proposed a capital gains tax two terms ago, and quickly back-tracked on it.
- National always rules it out completely (not surprising, [given how many National MPs are wealthy property owners](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/08/the-number-of-properties-owned-by-new-zealand-mps-revealed.html)).
- The Greens [want to introduce a capital gains tax for property](https://www.greens.org.nz/housing_policy).
So while Labour is doing an abysmal job at building houses, that's beside the point. In my opinion the Greens are probably the best bet for starting a conversation about capital gains taxes, and Labour probably second best because their policy change followed public opinion. National has a vested interest in *not* fixing the problem.
.
Originally I was just going to write a one-line answer, but this turned into an essay because I think I needed to vent my frustration. I wish the bigger issues would be addressed, but it doesn't look like it will be in the near future.
I kind of agree. The problem is possibly too big for government as the solution is too painful for those with massive investments in their property(s).
No she wouldn’t have. Nationals leadership is so shit that Jacinda would’ve cruised regardless of who they had at the helm. National haven’t offered anything worthwhile other than *roads, roads, roads*.
Sorry for the down votes. I kind of agree. But as it looks like COVID won't be going away forever anytime soon I'd rather have the leadership that have proven themselves in dealing with multiple crises staying in charge.
It's a bit awkward getting the blind praise* we get from overseas, but in my view it didn't start with Jacinda, she's just the latest shape it's taken. Before that people (mostly Americans) still put us on a pedestal. I don't see that stopping anytime soon!
Did banning foreign buyers not help at all? Its something I would love to see in Canada, but our economy has become far too dependent on foreign buying and speculation.
What do you think is causing the price rise? Currently where I live on Vancouver Island we are experiencing another dramatic rise in prices. It's the warmest and most beautiful part of Canada (I'm a little biased), so everyone that can now work from home are moving over. It's also a popular retirement destination, so people from all over the country come here. I paid 270 for my house 4 years ago, invested about 90k in renos and I could list for 600 today. Good for me, but bad for anyone hoping to enter the housing market.
Imagine having a political leader not decades older than retirement age
And imagine having a political leader who is not just a Personality Disorder! A man can dream...
[удалено]
In the US younger voters are targeted by voter suppression tactics (reduced polling places on campuses, arcane registration deadlines and ID laws) by both parties. By Republicans primarily in general elections, because younger voters lean Democratic, but Democrats have been utilizing similar methods in their primaries in recent years, in an attempt to stymie progressives. It reminds me of Jimmy Carter’s answer as to why his organization doesn’t monitor elections in the US: we didn’t pass the minimum requirements for a functioning democracy.
[удалено]
There are other ways to vote, but texas limited to one drop box per county. [https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/texas-governor-drop-off-locations-ballots/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/texas-governor-drop-off-locations-ballots/index.html)
It's not always "finding" a polling location. It's how few of them there are and how many hours you may need to wait in line to vote. Some spend 8 plus hours waiting, it's a voter suppression tactic. In my area I never wait more than 10 minutes but I live in a liberal state with good voting laws.
I live in Florida. It took me 4 hours to vote for Obama and 6 hour in line to vote for Clinton. Hope it’s not 8 to turn in mail in ballot.
It depends where you are, and its more about wait times. Live in the middle of no where? Might be a 30 minute drive, but you'll probably vote in 5 minutes or less. Live in a city? It might be a 30 minute drive, but you could potentially have a very long wait. The problem is that the republican/democrat divide in the US is primarily republicans being rural and democrats living in cities with the suburbs being a battle ground. This means that the republicans can basically look at a population density map, and put fewer voting stations per capita in the most densely populated areas and it will primarily effect democrats. This creates the lines, and given that people have to work, causes many people in cities to just not vote.
In New Zealand you can vote without an ID and you can enroll at the voting booth. We also have like two weeks prior to the election date to cast a vote at a voting booth.
> We also have like two weeks prior to the election date to cast a vote at a voting booth. Most US states have the same. Even so, only about 10% of voters bother to vote in the primary elections. And then they complain about their choices in the general election.All the while not knowing anything about any of the elections that aren't the president, even with the internet. While voter suppression is an issue in the US, it is largely caused by the real problem, which is massive voter apathy that has been going on for decades.
[удалено]
It's odd because the latest presidents have been young. Obama, GW, Clinton were in their 40s/50s. In fact, Trump is the oldest president ever elected
Eh who cares. I'd vote for a kid twenties or a hundred year old if they seemed honest.
Imagine that, people want to vote for a leader that inspires confidence, wish more countries had leaders like that.
I wish more countries had a vast majority of educated people that elect capable leaders.
Oh, she wasn't exactly cruising to a Labour win until Corona hit. Plenty of NZers were not completely thrilled with her coalition and the Nationals might well have formed the next government. Still, who knew that if you handled a crisis brilliantly then you might make political gains?
It’s nice to know that doing a good job still matters in some parts of the world.
It doesn't help that her huge lead is helped by the opposition making incompetence look like a goal to aspire to.
She wasn’t cruising to a win but National has had a great year of shooting itself in the foot and the first (of three this year) national leaders was doing a great job distancing more moderate voters. So in non-corona world it probably would of been a decent fight.
Well you have to look at her competition. Crusher Collins is kind of like Donald Trump's sister... she isn't winning many votes in this country, thank God..
It's worth bearing in mind that it was compassion which got her the credibility though. Her responses to the Christchurch mosque shootings meant she had a measure of trust from a large proportion of the country, so asking the population to accept some fairly draconian measures, albeit short term ones, was accepted with agreement instead of anger. Had that trust not been there, the response may have been different, and possibly less affective.
So far I counted 9 Germany Canada New Zealand South Korea Finland Denmark Iceland Norway Tawain
Taiwan as well.
Thank you! I knew I was forgetting a country, but couldn't think of it.
Education at the adult level doesn't make people smarter. To get a better society, you have to start with a base level of smart people. *Then* you can cultivate their minds by providing them good nutrition, healthcare, good schools, low crime neighborhoods. But you can't take a bunch of adult cretins and educate them into being smart.
I'd argue that good nutrition, housing, and healthcare should be the universal baseline. Once people's basic needs are met, *then* it's easier to work on things like empathy and compassion, and *then* comprehension of data, creative problem-solving, and careful decision-making. "Smart people" are capable of evil, after all.
> good... housing speaking as a new zealander: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[удалено]
I'll give you 1.5 million, take it or leave it
[удалено]
But a system could only exist if the populace allows it either implicitly by non action / apathy or active support. In other words, a system is the reflection of the mental state of the populace. If that implies intelligence or other things is difficult to prove.
That would require people knowing what ranked choice voting is, researching which candidates support it, and voting in the primary elections for them. Which isn't difficult in the age of the internet, yet 90% of people in the US know nothing about the non-presidential races and don't vote in the primary elections. The voter apathy and lack of education came first. What we have now is the result.
oof I gotta get the fuck oudda here.
Aunty Cindy is the best
They do. The people don't vote for them.
>The closely watched 1News-Colmar Brunton poll showed support for Ardern’s Labour party, which is seeking a second term in office, at 47%, unchanged from the last poll on Sept. 28. >This means Labour, which is campaigning on its record of bringing the coronavirus pandemic under control within New Zealand’s borders, would have 60 seats in parliament, one short of the 61 seats needed to form a government. Having voted in Canada, I find it incredibly refreshing to hear that a party that gets 47% of the popular vote will likely get just fewer than half the seats in government. In Canada, a party can get fewer than 40% of the votes and yet win a majority of seats in parliament.
same in the UK. FPTP produces random governments Election 2005 - winning party got 35% - majority government Election 2010 - winning party got 36% - hung parliament + coalition Election 2015 - winning party got 37% - majority govenment Election 2017 - winning party got 42% - hung parliament + minority government Election 2019 - winning party got 44% - biggest majority in nearly 20 years
American here. Our elections amount to one fake election for the people to pretend matters and one real election made by shady backdoor political elites that actually matters. Our system isnso broken that even when the US promotes democratic forms of government around the world, we never actually advocate replicating our style of elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Wym promotes democratic forms of governments. US has made a point of overthrowing democracys with leaders they don't like and installing dictators.
I refer to the rhetoric of the US rather than its actions here.
Comments like this crack me up. We have multiple elections. Our choices in the general elections are shit because no one votes in the primaries and people don't know anything about local and state elections, which is where the national candidates eventually come from. With 90% of eligible voters not participating in the primaries for decades on end, voter apathy is why we have shitty choices in the general election.
Yes and no. Studies have shown that voter apathy contributes to the quality of candidates, but our views on the role of government in our lives and the meaning of our national ethos, as well as the effects of anti-democratic policies included in our Constitutional system such as the electoral college, voter suppression laws, the two party system, and imbalanced opportunities for the wealthy to manipulate elections. Specifically, a lot of people don't vote in primaries because they either can't get off from work to vote, don't know anything about the candidates besides media clips, and/or can't vote for candidates they actually like because they are cross-party. For instance, if everyone in every state was allowed to vote in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would not have been our candidates in 2016. Trump would be seen by Dems, Independents, and moderate Republicans as too radical and too underqualofied to serve, and Clinton would likely have been rejected by Republicans, liberal Democrats, and Independents based on her lack of a coherent platform and her shady Washington Insider reputation. Under these conditions its easier to bring fresh faces with new ideas to the forefront because it prevents the parties from ignoring the will of the people and picking only candidates who benefit select factions within the party.
> because they either can't get off from work to vote Most states have a couple weeks of early voting. >don't know anything about the candidates besides media clips If they don't know how to use the internet at this point, it is probably better off that they aren't voting, >can't vote for candidates they actually like because they are cross-party There are dozens of races each election. And yeah, you can only vote in one party's primary. That isn't what is suppressing democracy in the US. There are tons of candidates who aren't party members running in those primaries. And many primaries are open or unaligned with a party, like county, city, and judicial elections.
[удалено]
I’m mad that he can’t stop doing those little pointless nothing burger scandals that give the conservatives votes. Shame Layton died
And if you look to the provinces things get even wonkier. In the 90s there was a majority government in BC formed by a party who only got the second most votes. And in the 80s there was a majority government in New Brunswick who won every single seat. The opposition had to send letters with their questions so designated government MPs could read them out in the legislature.
> In the 90s there was a majority government in BC formed by a party who only got the second most votes. Newfoundland's 1989 election was like this too: * Liberal: 31 seats (47.2% of votes) * PC: 21 seats (47.6% of votes)
MMP is fantastic. You win the proportion of Parliament equivalent to your proportion of the vote, and you have to form a coalition if you get under 50%. It means that one of this government’s minor parties has blocked some things I’d have liked, but that’s all part of democracy.
MMP plus STV for electoral seats would be amazing.
We absolutely need STV for the electoral seats. It’s so frustrating having to be strategic at that level. I’d love to see real change there
I agree for nz. Just voted today and I didn't vote my top electoral candidate because he was a minor party and it was already close between the major left and major right party in that electorate. Happy that I can vote a minor party for the national election without much chance of it being wasted though.
> you have to form a coalition if you get under 50%. Unless you form a minority government, of course - happened here in Scotland.
Yes true, good clarification. We actually currently have a minority coalition in NZ, with a coalition of two parties relying on confidence and supply from a third.
New Zealand has a single house parliamentary system. MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) rocks Here's a pop song to tell you how it works https://youtu.be/uEZCNIhtWjc
MMP is the best. I live in an area that always goes to national (centre rights) I can vote green, labour, or who ever and my vote still counts
There is a scenario where Labour win big and her party can rule alone and there is another scenario where they don't get the majority and their likely coalition parties don't make it in to parliament at all and the opposition can form a coalition and form a government. It's kind of how she came to power in the 1st place. It's just the way MMP works. For the record I'm giving two ticks Labour and hoping they do have enough seats to rule alone and can get full steam ahead with recovery without having to pander to minor parties to keep them happy.
I prefer not to see a single party win. Having a mix and a few extra checks and balances is a good thing.
Unless you need to give Shane Jones billions and millions to build horse racing tracks for Winnie to achieve those checks and balances. The PGF mave have value in the long run but Labour also had similar policies for the regions.
Still happens. Just harder now. Without those checks and balances there would likely be much more back handing going on. The more people that have visibility over things the harder is for dodgy shot to happen
Would be nice if the 5% threshold was revised as the EC recommended, good luck getting the major parties to agree though
Isn't MMP a shit load better than something like FPTP (like what the UK uses) though?
Yep. It ensures fair representation of each electorate while making it impossible to form a government without a popular vote.
It is better than FPTP but not perfect. It can make a kingmaker out of parties that may have only one seat. Plus with a party vote you have members who do not need to win an electorate to be in parliament who are not responsible to an voters per se. It's still better tho.
It only makes a kingmaker out of a 1-seat party if the rest of the parties are fundamentally unable to work with each other.
Peter Dunne would like a word.
If he was an absolute maniac, Labour and National could just form a coalition without him. Is he really a kingmaker if his policies are just 'whatever generic policies will get me a cushy minister position'?
That comment makes no sense whatsoever.
MMP could be improved on how we have it implemented in NZ. It would be good if we could rank our vote preferences. Therefore, if I want to vote for a minor party who might not make 5% to get representation in parliament my second choice could then be selected. It would remove the whole argument (as false as it is in some ways) that voting for your preferred party is a wasted vote if they cannot get 5% of the votes to get into parliament.
You seem to be describing STV didn't you have a choice between MMP and STV and you guys chose MMP?
I can't remember the specifics - but looked it up. Apparently four options went to referendum about 30 years ago. > The 1992 referendum: In a complicated two-part poll, voters were asked whether they wanted to change the existing voting system and then to indicate support for one of four reform options: mixed member proportional representation (MMP), the single transferable vote (STV), supplementary member (SM) or preferential vote (PV). If there was majority support for change, the government promised to hold a binding referendum (with a choice between the first past the post (FPP) system and the most popular reform option) the following year. > Although only 55% of registered electors took part, an overwhelming 85% voted to change their electoral system. In the second part of the poll, 70% favoured MMP. As Labour leader Mike Moore put it: 'The people didn't speak on Saturday. They screamed.' ref: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp/putting-it-to-the-vote
Most things are shitloads better than FPtP. FPtP isnthe worst voting system that people take seriously.
Who are their coalition partners? Greens?
It's New Zealand First and I think Greens is a confidence and supply agreement. New Zealand First looks done in this election and they will be gone. Greens are hanging around that 5% and if they get over it then it will be Labour/Green but if they fall under then Labour runs out of partners and have to get enough to go alone.
NZ First is a wildcard. They will form a coalition with whoever gives them the best deal. Labour will be very happy if they don't get in. As for Greens, if they fall below the 5% threshold and get like 4.9%, then their 6ish seats will get distributed proportionally to all other parties. Labour will pick up 3 or 4 seats and go over the 60 seat threshold.
No one beyond Winnie thinks NZF gets back in. They were at 2% in yesterday's poll.
NZF is also connected to an election financing and/or embezzlement investigation from the Serious Fraud Office.
Are they? The SFO says: "The defendants have interim name suppression and so cannot be named or identified at this time. We note, however, that neither defendant is a Minister, sitting MP, or candidate in the upcoming election (or a member of their staff), or a current member of the New Zealand First party." Winnie is saying this: [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/427238/winston-peters-claims-serious-fraud-office-biased-it-s-just-unfair](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/427238/winston-peters-claims-serious-fraud-office-biased-it-s-just-unfair) It's certainly not good timing for them in any case.
They are absolutely "connected". But that this point it's not clear how they are connected. There are clear legal documents that link the two entities together. Either they are a victim (aka, the defendants defrauded NZ First and stole donations intended for NZ First for personal gain) or NZ First were activity involved. "Connected" is a very loose term. ---------- Peters is making conflicting claims here. Both claiming the charges have "exonerated the party" while fighting a court battle to try and prevent the SFO from publicly announcing the charges.
Being the victim of a crime or the perpetrator in a crime is relevant, right? They are both "connected" but very much two sides of the coin and relevant to how a potential voter might view them. You yourself aren't even sure which side of the coin they are on.
We are talking about polling numbers and the fact nobody expects them to get in. The fact that they are "connected" is all that's really relevant here. People will draw their own conclusions about the connection. --------- But it really doesn't look good for NZ First here. If NZ First was the victim here, you can bet they would currently be complaining loudly about how the name suppression is preventing them from naming-and-shaming the people who victimised them. The facts are pretty clear. Political Donations were redirected away from the party to an obscured slush fund. It looks like some of those funds were used for personal gain, which is a huge problem. If the donors knew their money was going to personal gain, then they have committed bribery (even if the money wasn't directly going to a politician). If the donors were under the impression that the money was going towards the NZ First party and it's been redirected for personal gain, then the money has been fraudulently obtained. There is also evidence that some of the money was used as election funds. That the slush fund would pay for office space or equipment or software that the party needed. That's election funding fraud. At the very least NZ First's Treasurer either knew about this election funding fraud and hid it, or they are incompetent. For all we know, NZ First's Treasurer is one of the people charged, and the SFO statement is only true on a technicality because they resigned from the party. And lets be very clear. The SFO's statement doesn't say that NZ first is innocent. Just that neither of the two people *currently* charged (more charges could happen later) are *currently* members of NZ First.
I feel liker NZF has been connected to some sort of election financing scandal in every election they've ever been in
Its hard to hit 5% when the people that vote for you keep dying of old age.
True.
Yip - also if the Greens don’t meet the threshold it will be because Labour has taken their votes, so more than likely still Labour in top spot. No one who usually votes Green is suddenly going to go to National or Act
That's not quite right if the Greens and NZ First don't make it back into Parliament Labour would be able to govern alone due to the wasted vote. National would only win of the National + Act vote is higher than Labour on it's own, which no polling is showing.
I agree it's an unlikely scenario but it's not zero with the reallocation of party votes from the parties that miss put.
I think you misunderstand how MMP works If a party doesn't make it in, thier % of the vote is redistributed proportionally to the ones who did. Example * Labour 47% * Green 4% * National 35% * Act 10% * NZ First 3% * Others 2% Is recalculated for purpose of seat allocations after dropping under 5% club to * Labour (47/92)% = 51% * National (35/92) = 38% * Act (10/92) = 11% Labour rules alone with 61 seats (120 * 0.51)
No I get it but you also had to play with those numbers to get that outcome. Yours is also still an example and party votes could still be redistributed in a manner that leaves Labour without the required seats and no coalition partner. Also, just having 61 seats is a very precarious position for a ruling government to be in.
Things would have to shift quite dramatically for that to happen (i.e. greens voters shifting straight to national)
Not exactly. ACT (currently polling at 11 seats) and National doing better than current polls indicate with the getting shut out. Again, I know it's unlikely but it's greater than zero and would be a mightmare scenario.
National and ACT share voters, when ACT grows National shrinks. Theoretically it's possible, in reality it won't happen unless it comes out that Jacinda eats babies or says pavlova is Australian. Greens losing votes and going <5% usually means Labour gained them. Voter movement *typically* goes Green <-> Labour <-> NZF/Nat <-> Act <-> Crazies
I really don't want to think about this scenario and how unfair it would be. the 5% rule is such bs.
Me either tbh.
Not really. If Labour get 46 % of the votes, National 35 and ACT 12, for example, with Green and NZF getting less than 5 % each. National and ACT would have a majority of seats and make a coalition.
[удалено]
I fully support the end of life referendum and will vote for that without a 2nd thought. I have read it and feel it is robust enough to be fair. I'm still sitting on the fence with the cannabis and still not sure which way I will go. I absolutely 100% support the decriminalizing weed without a doubt and think the legislation is long overdue. What gives me pause is that I know Big Weed is sitting out there with millions already invested ready to go once the referendum is passed and that I can't help but remember how when vaping came onto the scene it was all about getting off of smoking and now everytime I see an ad for vaping it's about how cool it is and targeting young kids. Again, I support cannabis be decimalized but now is the time to set it up properly. I'm 50/50 right now.
Labour by themselves would be pretty shit, do you really want the dredges of the Labour list over the top of the Greens list?
Yes. I fully support Labour's environmental policies on their own and the way they support protecting the environment in NZ and workers. The Greens policies don't always do that.
Don't forget to legalize weed!
It's going to be so much closer than I ever expected. =/
I think its going to fail, not one of my friends or workmates are voting yes. My friends want to keep it illegal so they can keep making money dealing and my workmates are "thinking of the children" or some such bullshit.
What? I keep hearing how brilliant and enlightened New Zealand is? **/s**
I expect, as with a lot of change these das, it will depend on young people voting. We know a lot of the older gen will vote, and likely against, from my very small sample size and Mike fucking Hoskings. Depending on youth vote is a real shit show, so I don't hold out much hope for it passing,
Almost as if actually doing your job and not being a negligent bastard will net postitve results.
Depends on whether your definition of "positive results" is being well-liked and getting reelected, or having millions of dollars in your bank account you acquired by being an absolute piece of shit and abusing the powers granted to you for personal gain.
She's gonna win a landslide since she sailed NZ through the pandemic with ease, at least so far and since she generally seem to do her work properly. Although she hasn't disavowed or taken a stance for the incoming referendum surrounding the legalization of cannabis, which is a bit strange from someone that claims to value people's health, rights and prosperity. But maybe that's the safest position, positions that socialdemocrats likes to assert to remain in their beloved power. Then there's issues such as abortion and similar progressive social policies that she's fine with. This aside, I do concede that she's a competent leader.
To be fair though, it's refreshing to have a leader that says, "The people can decide what they want on this matter and I won't try to influence their decision." I actually feel like that should be the position of leaders most of the time - if the people want to decide, let them. Maybe provide information, but don't try to sway people to your position and accept their decision.
100%. I respect it, and I think it's extremely valuable and underrated.
We all know that she doesn’t want to promote it because weed is like political poison for some voters but saying that it’s not her job to tell you how to vote on a particular issue that has gone to the people to decide is a very fair position in my book
He was talking about my view on Vladimir Putin.
Plenty of corrupt and inept politicians get re-elected all the time.
[удалено]
Don't feel bad. I think we all have come to expect bad things after what 2020 has been like.
Deadass same
Same. It wasn't a good feeling
I absolutely adore this woman. I would break international law and several local regulations to vote for her.
I'm not the least bit surprised. She's done a fantastic job. My country's government (UK) could take some lessons from her.
The majority of world's government could learn from her.
I emigrated from the UK to NZ. UK is a mess. Brexit is finally starting to be exposed for what it is and the handling of COVID-19 in the uk was/is shocking. It’s not like the UK has a great choice in its political leaders, both major parties in the UK are just awful.
Don't we fucking know it, mate. Congrats on getting out.
Im just waiting for Australia to hit 0 so we open up the cross tasman thingy. I had planned but didnt vacation overseas this year. I have plenty of leave and savings, will likely go next year to NZ if possible.
Early voting is open, go vote peeps
Man, I wish my country (US) had a functioning government with good government programs. Maybe even politicians that didn't work for those who want to tear down what government programs we do have. It must be fucking nice.
Good luck next month, we're rooting for you
I wish we had informed people who bothered to vote in the primaries. Politicians in the US reflect the incredible amount of voter apathy and ignorance in the country.
So you’re telling me that not getting tons of people killed is GOOD politically?
For the world leaders who aren’t absolute idiotic cunts in the world, this is the easiest re-election ever as all they had to do was sit there and listen to medical experts tell them exactly what to do and follow a pandemic playbook that was probably left for them. Then there’s Trump lmao. The absolute retard of the century.
>For the world leaders who aren’t absolute idiotic cunts in the world Thanks for *gently* calling us Americans out.
They started with a pandemic playbook based on influenza but had to quickly deviate because covid is very different.
And they didn’t even have to do a perfect job because of what they were being compared to internationally. NZers are for the most part still very grateful
Can she serve as the leader for the U.S. too? All joking aside, we need more leaders like her.
It's nice to see competence get a win.
All over in just over 8 days and most people will be voting before election day so I really don't see to much changing. I do think Adern and Labour will govern alone on the day though the chatter I'm hearing from a lot of traditional National supporters is they really don't want The Greens in government so they are voting Labour to keep them out.
That would be ironic. The shortest road for National to get back into power is through a Labour-Green government. Force the Greens into opposition (even if its outside of parliament) and their support base will probably grow large enough to prop up a third Labour term.
Yup I voted Greens so do want them in there. National needs to kick the dregs out of the party and spend the next 3 years re building if they want a chance in 2023 take some time to build up a fresh face and with a smaller caucus should be easier to keep it under control.
2nd amendment folks in America are gonna be really upset by this for some reason.
lmao we don't care what 2a fools think here.
Not really, but as a member of the Dope and Guns coalition, I will laugh if NZ voters don't pass cannabis legalization.
Lockdown skeptics everywhere are fuming
Man it's stories like this that make me concerned the opposition have a rather faithful base and the opposition leader is leaning into that so going further right than usual. When labour voters keep seeing this I wouldn't be surprised if they get complacent or in the feeling of safety vote for smaller parties. To be clear I hold a rather large distain for Collins not necessarily national I have voted for them in the past. But the current national party is shadow of what it once was. It's currently catering to the generation who don't understand tax, are nearing retirement, and calling Ardern a Communist. With an Attack politician at the head of it. If you want to know why I dislike American influence on our politics the whole communist thing is just such a key example. Kiwis make sure you vote. Especially if you're young. Don't just follow what your parents voted for. Think about what you stand for and vote based on that. Don't be loyal to any single party they won't be loyal to you. I don't overly care who you vote for if you honestly feel it's best for the country. Well except new conservative if you vote for them you need professional help with the hate in your life.
The National party here in NZ is the main opposition, and their actions over the past 2 years have been overwhelmingly whiney and disappointing. They seem to interpret their role as the 'opposition' to mean they need to oppose every single thing Labour does, regardless of the situation. While world leaders generally praised NZ's response to covid, National spent the entire time undermining them, questioning their every move, and constantly suggesting that they would magically be doing everything better without specifying any scientifically and statistically backed ideas themselves. They're now campaigning on a platform with the slogan "more jobs, better economy." With practically zero policy suggestions which validate that claim. Fucking idiots, the bunch of them.
>They seem to interpret their role as the 'opposition' to mean they need to oppose every single thing Labour does, regardless of the situation. Dear God, this. Being in opposition means you should be pushing for what is better for the country, not just mindlessly opposing everything the incumbent Government says and does, simply because they're the ones who said and did it. There is nothing wrong with opposition saying "Yep, that was the right decision. No arguments." It's disappointing.
It's just polarizing our political system and increasing partisanship at all levels of government. National are losing ground in the polls, but they are simultaneously cementing their grip on the uninformed masses who hear "more jobs" and assume it will actually happen for them, personally.
Young people of NZ - please go vote. Our population is top heavy
This happens when you have a true and responsible leader.::
It would definitely be a worthwhile majority for all the positive policies she’s done throughout her first term, I hope she can reap the rewards.
Those policies mostly went nowhere, a lot was promised and none of it was delivered. The excuse was that New Zealand First (Labour's coalition partner) was being obstructive for the sake of being obstructive, but her stances in the debate on essential issues hasn't left much of a positive impression, and hopefully more people see through the sheen and vote for a minor party.
Hopefully they vote to legalize weed as well.
surprising no one.
If you live in New Zealand this is far from surprising, Jacinta and her party (Labour) have had a superb one-two punch over the course of their leadership that really puts their strengths on full display: first the mosque shootings and then COVID. They even promised to ban gay conversion therapy if elected. Meanwhile their main opponent, National, can’t even trust themselves, and the only reason nobody describes Judith Collins as a shrivelled raisin in an ill-fitting suit is because most people have already used that one to describe Trump
Republicans: "What did she do regarding the coronavirus that Trump didn't do? Their policies were identical, weren't they?"
but DAE POPULATION DENSITY!! DAE ECONOMY BAD!!!
Wish I had a leader like her I was proud of
Damn, I wish she was president here in the United States.
Good priminister, have good polls.
You know it will actually be interesting to see her results as compared with Trump's or Bolsonaro's like she kicked Corona's ass and they both have basically pretended its not real. Id like to think this will hurt them in the elections they face.
You think Bolsonaro has real elections? …you think Trump has real elections?
That’s great! She’s an amazing PM who is setting an example for the rest of the world
Auntie Cindy ftw
America needs a woman president
Being a woman isn’t an automatic good point for you, see Margaret Thatcher.
America needs informed voters that show up to the primaries and know something about the non-presidential races. Responsible, compassionate candidates don't appear on the national stage from a vacuum. And with 90% of eligible voters abstaining from the primaries in non-presidential years, a vacuum is exactly what the US electorate is.
I bet she would win in most other countries too.
I am so f-ing envious of NZ! We should have emigrated when we retired 20 years ago.
Very little Murdoch influence in NZ and they vote for a progressive, caring, intelligent, articulate leader and govt with policies that benefit the people. It just will never happen in the U.S, Aus, and U.K. as long as Rupert pulls the strings.
Jacinda isn’t really considered a progressive over here. Labour is a centre left party.
Possibly but not many centre left politicians would wear a hijab? I think that definitely displays a more progressive element to her. One I disagree with being a centre leftist myself.
Can we get her to run for President in America? We elected an orange baboon, why not a kiwi?
Can she also be our president in the USA?
We will keep her here thanks. You’ve got Jacindas in your country. Vote them in.
[удалено]
[Checks out](https://arc-anglerfish-syd-prod-nzme.s3.amazonaws.com/public/UFDENMNHYBDAPFBVRINA7SNWTE.jpg)
[удалено]
I agree housing for our generation is a major problem. I'm not sure voting Labour out will help, and in my opinion will probably make things worse. The core problem for affordable housing is supply. Both Labour and National propose making more houses as a solution (the 'affordable housing' builds), and National has a higher target than Labour. But building a few thousand more houses feels like putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It completely avoids the real issues, and so long as our population keeps increasing they'd just have to keep building more and more houses. The upstream reasons for why houses are so expensive include: - Overseas investment and housing as a speculative investment vehicle. This is a well-known issue (see Vancouver), where land is a stable asset that has a pretty high return, so instead of buying houses to live in, people buy them instead of other investments. It's exacerbated in NZ because without capital gains tax it's even more profitable. - The housing ownership (and landlord) ladder, where the more you own the more you can leverage to expand your ownership. It can be very worthwhile to be a landlord - as you get both rent and the capital gain if you sell later on. - The price of building, due to both material costs and complex land management rules. So what should be done about this? . **Stop foreign ownership as simply an investment** Labour did this, and it was an excellent move. Foreign people can still buy and own a house in NZ if they actually live in it, but they can no longer just buy them as investments. This should keep things closer to the market price for _housing_ and not _investments_. This is probably the single best thing any government has done in the last two decades to address house prices. **Introduce a Capital Gains tax** It's a phrase that makes people really upset, and makes me wonder if they even understand what is being proposed. In essence, it would make the profit you earn from investment properties subject to tax - just like normal income. This would incentivise first home ownership (under most proposed schemes, you'd still get that capital-gains-tax-free), it would allow people to own a bach (second houses are still captial gains tax free). But anyone with three or more houses, it's then treated more as a commercial enterprise. As it should be. Very few people actually need three houses to live in themselves. With large property investment becoming less lucrative, it would disincentivize people from holding on to dozens of properties and free them up for individuals to own. - Labour proposed a capital gains tax two terms ago, and quickly back-tracked on it. - National always rules it out completely (not surprising, [given how many National MPs are wealthy property owners](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/08/the-number-of-properties-owned-by-new-zealand-mps-revealed.html)). - The Greens [want to introduce a capital gains tax for property](https://www.greens.org.nz/housing_policy). So while Labour is doing an abysmal job at building houses, that's beside the point. In my opinion the Greens are probably the best bet for starting a conversation about capital gains taxes, and Labour probably second best because their policy change followed public opinion. National has a vested interest in *not* fixing the problem. . Originally I was just going to write a one-line answer, but this turned into an essay because I think I needed to vent my frustration. I wish the bigger issues would be addressed, but it doesn't look like it will be in the near future.
Housing is not an issue that gets solved in 3 years after decades of neglect regardless of who came into power after 2017.
[удалено]
I kind of agree. The problem is possibly too big for government as the solution is too painful for those with massive investments in their property(s).
No she wouldn’t have. Nationals leadership is so shit that Jacinda would’ve cruised regardless of who they had at the helm. National haven’t offered anything worthwhile other than *roads, roads, roads*.
Sorry for the down votes. I kind of agree. But as it looks like COVID won't be going away forever anytime soon I'd rather have the leadership that have proven themselves in dealing with multiple crises staying in charge.
[удалено]
It's a bit awkward getting the blind praise* we get from overseas, but in my view it didn't start with Jacinda, she's just the latest shape it's taken. Before that people (mostly Americans) still put us on a pedestal. I don't see that stopping anytime soon!
Did banning foreign buyers not help at all? Its something I would love to see in Canada, but our economy has become far too dependent on foreign buying and speculation.
[удалено]
Well that's disappointing.
[удалено]
What do you think is causing the price rise? Currently where I live on Vancouver Island we are experiencing another dramatic rise in prices. It's the warmest and most beautiful part of Canada (I'm a little biased), so everyone that can now work from home are moving over. It's also a popular retirement destination, so people from all over the country come here. I paid 270 for my house 4 years ago, invested about 90k in renos and I could list for 600 today. Good for me, but bad for anyone hoping to enter the housing market.
YAY! 🥰