Abortion Legislation Bill passes final vote

The Abortion Legislation Bill has passed it’s final vote in Parliament by a comfortable but not substantial majority 68-51. abortion will now be removed from the Crimes Act.

Earlier today a vote initiated by NZ First for a referendum to make the final decision was defeated by 19-100 votes.

Tracey Martin voted for the bill, rebelling against the NZ First party vote against the bill due to not getting their referendum.

Good on her for that.

Another NZF MP Jenny Marcroft also voted for the Bill.

I think this is a very good result, tidying up a farcical law. It gives women the right to choose for themselves what happens to their own bodies, up to a point where a new life becomes viable and deserves rights of it’s own.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

Adams A Faafoi K (P) Marcroft J Swarbrick C (P)
Allan K (P) Falloon A Martin T (P) Tinetti J
Andersen V Genter J (P) McAnulty K Tolley A
Ardern J Ghahraman G (P) Mitchell M (P) Twyford P (P)
Bennett D Henare P (P) Nash S (P) Wagner N (P)
Bennett P (P) Hipkins C Parker D (P) Wall L
Bidois D Hudson B Prime W (P) Warren-Clark A
Bishop C (P) Hughes G (P) Radhakrishnan P Webb D (P)
Carter D Huo R (P) Robertson G Williams P
Clark D Jackson W Ross J (P) Willis N
Coffey T (P) Kaye N (P) Russell D Wood M
Collins J Kuriger B Sage E Woods M (P)
Craig L (P) Lees-Galloway I (P) Sepuloni C (P) Yang J
Curran C Little A Seymour D
Davidson M Logie J Shaw J (P)
Davis K (P) Lubeck M Simpson S
Doocey M (P) Luxton J (P) Sio A (P) Teller:
Eagle P (P) Mallard T Stanford E Dyson R

Noes 51

Bakshi K (P) Hipango H (P) Ngaro A Smith N
Ball D (P) Jones S (P) O’Connor S Strange J
Barry M (P) Kanongata’a-Suisuiki A (P) O’Connor D Tabuteau F (P)
Bayly A King M O’Connor G Tirikatene R (P)
Bridges S (P) Lee M Parmar P (P) Upston L
Brown S Lee D Patterson M van de Molen T
Brownlee G Macindoe T Penk C Walker H (P)
Dean J (P) Mahuta N (P) Peters W (P) Whaitiri M
Dowie S (P) Mark R (P) Pugh M (P) Woodhouse M
Garcia P McClay T (P) Reti S (P) Young J (P)
Goldsmith P (P) McKelvie I Rurawhe A Yule L
Guy A (P) Mitchell C (P) Salesa J (P) Teller:
Hayes J (P) Muller T (P) Scott A Loheni A

(P is a proxy vote)

Bill read a third time.

100 years that women have been allowed to stand for Parliament

On 19 September 1893 a new Electoral Act was signed giving women the right to vote in parliamentary elections in New Zealand. into law. It was the first self-governing country in the world to allow this.

It wasn’t until 1919, a hundred years ago today, that women were allowed to stand as candidates.

Women weren’t allowed to vote in most other democracies, including Britain and the United States, until after this.


In 1916 Alice Paul formed the National Woman’s Party (NWP), a militant group focused on the passage of a national suffrage amendment. Over 200 NWP supporters, the Silent Sentinels, were arrested in 1917 while picketing the White House, some of whom went on hunger strike and endured forced feeding after being sent to prison. Under the leadership of Carrie Chapman Catt, the two-million-member NAWSA also made a national suffrage amendment its top priority. After a hard-fought series of votes in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures, the Nineteenth Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution on August 18, 1920.[4] It states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Britain (Wikipedia):

In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. This act was the first to include almost all adult men in the political system and began the inclusion of women, extending the franchise by 5.6 million men[2] and 8.4 million women.[3] In 1928 the Conservative government passed the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act equalizing the franchise to all persons over the age of 21 on equal terms.

Australia gave some women the vote after New Zealand, but allowed them to stand for office before us.

In 1897, in South AustraliaCatherine Helen Spence was the first woman to stand as a political candidate.

In 1902, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, which established a uniform franchise law for the federal Parliament. The Act declared that all British subjects over the age of 21 years who had been living in Australia for at least 6 months were entitled to a vote, whether male or female, and whether married or single. Besides granting Australian women the right to vote at a national level, it also allowed them to stand for election to federal Parliament.[5] This meant that Australia was the second country, after New Zealand, to grant women’s suffrage at a national level, and the first country to allow women to stand for Parliament.

But that wasn’t universal:

However, the Act also disqualified Indigenous people from Australia, Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands, with the exception of Māori, from voting, even though they were British subjects and otherwise entitled to a vote. By this provision, Indian people, for example, were disqualified to vote.

The restrictions on voting by indigenous Australians were relaxed after World War II, and removed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1962.[7] Senator Neville Bonner became the first Aboriginal Australian to sit in the federal Parliament in 1971. Julia Gillard became the first female Prime Minister of Australia in 2010.

In modern Aotearoa it seems odd to have been so sexist when it comes to democracy, as all but a few of us have been born since women were given the vote and were allowed to stand for Parliament, but equality in democracy is still an issue here.

We have our third female Prime Minister, the first to have a baby while in office, but she is frequently attacked and smeared because of this.


I think most voters can manage a couple of referendum votes as well as party and candidate votes

That sounds like nonsense to me. I’m fairly sure most voters will be able to manage a couple of referendum votes on top of a couple of general election votes (one party vote, one electorate vote).

It will still be far simpler than local body elections where there are multiple STV votes (here it was city mayor, city council, regional council and DHB board) where ranking of a large number of candidates is required.

The two referendums – one on cannabis, the other on the End of Life Choice bill – may attract more people to vote.

More negative commentary on the referendums:  Labour and the referendums of dread

Both of these referendums are a potential problem for the Government and not insignificant ones. The first and most obvious reason is that cannabis and euthanasia could crowd out whatever issues the Government is running on: be it the Zero Carbon Bill, trade deals, a strong economy, low unemployment.

This could, of course, be a problem for both the Government and the Opposition. At key points in the lead-up to and during the campaign, either party’s momentum could be stalled if the wrong drug or euthanasia issue crops up.

But the political downsides are potentially much worse for the Government. First, and most obviously, the National party has a leader who genuinely and simply opposes both of these things. And secondly, as this column flagged a couple of weeks ago, National is going to sharpen its focus on cost of living issues, which it sees as of key importance for voters. National can effectively paint any focus away from those things as a distracted Government concerned with peripheral issues.

The euthanasia bill is probably not so much of a problem – it wasn’t the Government’s idea and it was supported by MPs across the political divide. Cannabis is a different story. Counting the Nats, NZ First voters at the last election – nominally conservative voters, plus probably not an insubstantial conservative working class Labour vote, this could be a lose-lose issue for Labour. Lots of Labour voters, and the Prime Minister has said this of her own experience growing up in small rural towns, know the damage drugs can do.

While Ardern may see merits in legalisation for health reasons, she is very far from being some sort of pro-drug flag-waving leftie. Essentially the Prime Minister wants to be a citizen like everyone else in this issue, in all the difficulties it poses. The problem is that in the heat of a campaign, that could be politically difficult.

Yet as the election moves on, the issues could prove hard to avoid and there is probably no ‘right’ side of the argument for Labour. It could potentially lose votes either way.

It could potentially do nothing like this as well.

The fact is we are having two referendums alongside next year’s general election.

I’m fairly sure Labour and National will figure out campaign strategies the run alongside the referendum issue debates.

And I think that most voters will manage a couple of yes/no votes (if they choose to vote on the referendum questions) as well as choosing a party and an electorate candidate (if they bother to vote on these).

It won’t be complicated. Sure the extra votes could deter a few people from voting. But I think it is more likely to encourage more people to vote – those who are passionate about either of the referendum questions, and those who can’t usually be bothered voting for parties and politicians.


Brexit vote imminent, no win situation for May and UK

No matter what the outcome of the crucial Brexit vote in the UK Parliament this week the outcome may be bad.

There is the potential for financial catastrophe if the deal passes, and the complete decay of democracy if it fails. The country voted in favour of Brexit in a referendum and democracy-wise Parliament has a duty to act on that majority decision.



Tomorrow is the ‘meaningful vote’ on the EU Withdrawal Agreement.

It is getting a little complex with machinations of some of the MPs trying desperately to stop Brexit. A group of MPs are reportedly going to use the Parliamentary Liaison Committee, (a committee of the chairs of all 32 select committees), to take power away from the Executive to manage Brexit. I am not sure if this is possible and haven’t had a chance to read up on the Standing Orders around this, but it is being described as a coup by some.

A Government whip has resigned in order to vote against the Government on the deal, and it is reported that at least 112 Government MPs have declared they will vote against the agreement.

Jeremy Corbyn has said that if the Government is defeated he will be calling a vote of No Confidence in the Government. Conservative MPs have been told if they vote against the Government in a Confidence vote they will have the whip withdrawn and be kicked out of the party. The DUP have previously stated that they will vote with the Government on a Confidence vote if it is called in the event of the withdrawal agreement being voted down. In theory the Government should win a vote of No Confidence in these circumstances.

If the agreement passes it has been suggested the DUP will call a vote of No Confidence in the Government in which they are likely to either vote against the Government or abstain. This will no doubt depend on Labour and how confident they are going into a General Election knowing that there is a deal they voted against already agreed. If they want to bring down the Government at any cost then the DUP will either hold their nose to vote with them, or most likely abstain, (since they have said they will never vote with Labour on matters of Confidence, and would abstain first). This also will depend on the Greens and Lib Dems, and what chance they think they have of stopping Brexit altogether.

In the event of a General Election Article 50 can be delayed until after the election.

In response to Facing loss on Brexit vote May warns of catastrophic failure:

Higher likelihood of catastrophe if the agreement is passed than not, higher likelihood of complete decay of democracy in the UK if the agreement is not passed.

It is a no win situation, May has botched this completely and put herself, and worse her Government, in a tenuous position.

Alan Wilkinson:

Surely it is impossible for her Brexit to pass? Everyone hates it. She seems to have stacked her Cabinet with Remainers and failed to get them on board anything approaching a saleable Brexit. Every move she has made seems to have weakened her position.

It is seemingly impossible for it to pass, but there are some unknowns in the mix.

1. numbers on the Conservative benches are based on rumour and estimates, and to be honest the media have been shocking at reading how some of the MPs will vote.

2. No one is sure how the Lib Dems and Greens will vote.

3. Despite Labour saying they will vote against the deal there may be some that are anti Corbyn and will vote for it in the hopes it will prevent a Confidence vote and GE. There are only about half a dozen Labour MPs for sure that will vote against the deal.

4. No-one is sure what the Tory rebels will do. They may vote for the deal as a least worst option, or they may try to go for the nuclear option and vote against to try and force Article 50 be cancelled.

No confidence vote in Theresa May confirmed

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has made a botch of Brexit since her calling of a snap election backfired.

A no confidence vote has been signalled for days. It looks like it’s about to happen.

May may be responsible to an extent for the growing mess, but if she gets the boot they are still left with a Brexit mess.

9:45pm NZ time May is about to address the media outside 10 Downing Street.

She has started. She says she will contest the no confidence vote strongly, then launches into a spiel saying how great she has been over the last forty years. So I  turned it off.

Next step is the vote, I think in the morning NZ time.

Division over Kavanaugh nomination continues towards vote

the Kavanaugh nomination for the Supreme Court wil go to a preliminary vote soon, but a final vote won’t happen until Sunday NZ time.

The Hill:  Bitter partisan battle over Kavanaugh enters final chapter

The Senate will take a pivotal vote Friday on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as the battle over President Trump’s pick enters its final chapter.

Four senators — three Republicans and a Democrat — remained undecided on Thursday, though two of them signaled a sense of satisfaction with the FBI’s investigation of sexual misconduct allegations that threatened to torpedo Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Senate Republican leaders plan to hold a key procedural vote Friday morning, setting up a confirmation vote for Saturday afternoon. Friday’s cloture vote is scheduled to happen at 10:30 a.m.

That’s 6.30 am NZ time.

If senators vote Friday to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination, as expected, they will have to allow another 30 hours for procedural debate, putting the final vote in mid-afternoon the following day.

Kavanaugh went to the extraordinary length of writing an op-ed. Fox News: Kavanaugh, in op-ed, decries ‘vicious’ attacks while saying he ‘might have been too emotional’ at hearing

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, decrying what he described as “vicious” attacks against him while admitting he “might have been too emotional” during his hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

“I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times,” Kavanaugh wrote. “I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.

Some have said that this sort of emotion is not good for a judge, and others have questioned Kavanaugh’s partisanship – Reuters:  Kavanaugh does not belong on Supreme Court, retired Justice Stevens says

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court because of “potential bias” he showed in his recent Senate confirmation hearing.

Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said he started out believing that Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed, “but his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind.”

Stevens cited commentary by Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe and others suggesting Kavanaugh had raised doubts about his political impartiality when he asserted that sexual misconduct accusations he faced stemmed from an “orchestrated political hit” funded by left-wing groups seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

However partisanship in judicial matters appears to be an accepted norm in the US.

The four editorials listed at RealClear Politics give an indication of the division over the nomination.

Many have taken sides and put reason aside to defend their entrenched positions.

Whichever way the votes go today and tomorrow a lot of people are likely to be very unhappy.

In a number of ways this nomination has been an indication of how much of a mess politics, democracy, and increasingly the judiciary, has become in the US. And there is no indication it will go anywhere other than downhill from here.

One thing that Donald Trump has already achieved as President is the most huge amount of division imaginable, and he gives every indication he intends to continue to play his game that way.

I’ll update this post today as the results of the first vote become known

Irish vote on abortion

Trump threatens over UN Jerusalem move, NZ to vote regardless

President Donald Trump has threatened to cut funding to countries that vote against the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

New Zealand is likely to vote against Trump regardless.

AP: Trump threat to cut aid raises stakes in UN Jerusalem vote

President Donald Trump’s threat to cut off U.S. funding to countries that oppose his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has raised the stakes in Thursday’s U.N. vote and sparked criticism at his tactics, which one Muslim group called bullying or blackmail.

Trump went a step further than U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley who hinted in a tweet and a letter to most of the 193 U.N. member states on Tuesday that the U.S. would retaliate against countries that vote in favor of a General Assembly resolution calling on the president to rescind his decision.

Haley said the president asked her to report back on countries “who voted against us” — and she stressed that the United States “will be taking names.”

At the start of a Cabinet meeting in Washington on Wednesday, with Haley sitting nearby, Trump told reporters that Americans are tired of being taken advantage of and praised the U.S. ambassador for sending the “right message” before the vote.

Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, tweeted after Trump’s comments: “Our government should not use its leadership at the UN to bully/blackmail other nations that stand for religious liberty and justice in Jerusalem. Justice is a core value of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.”

The Palestinians and their Arab and Islamic supporters sought the General Assembly vote after the United States on Monday vetoed a resolution supported by the 14 other U.N. Security Council members that would have required Trump to rescind his declaration on Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and not move the U.S. Embassy there.

NZ Herald:  NZ likely to vote against Trump and the US in UN vote on Jerusalem tomorrow

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has signalled that New Zealand will criticise US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in a United Nations vote tomorrow.

But she stopped short of calling him a bully, as Trump threatened to cut US aid money to countries that voted against him.

Ardern was critical when Trump first recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital earlier this month, saying it “will make things difficult” for peace.

Today she said the logistics around tomorrow’s vote were still being ​worked through, but New Zealand’s position had not changed.

“Some of the things we saw by international actors like the US recently, those are decision that should only be made in the context of a [UN] resolution around a two-state solution. It took us backwards, not forwards.”

Asked about possible aid sanctions, she said: “I would push back strongly and say New Zealand has and will always have an independent foreign policy. We base our decisions on principle, not on being bullied.”

She was not concerned by his threats to cut off aid.

“We’ve always made decisions that represent our beliefs and our position, and we’ll continue to do that. We’ve done it on things like nuclear issues before and we’ll continue to do so.”

Asked if she thought Trump was a bully, she said: “People make their own interpretations.”

UPDATE: New Zealand voted in favour.

Pondering who to vote for

I am yet to decide who to vote for. I’l make up my mind tomorrow. Some thoughts on it…


Have done a reasonable job over nine years in sometimes very challenging circumstances. Making worthwhile moves to address social issues more effectively. Too slow to react to housing issues. Bill English is reliable and has had a good campaign.

The safe vote, but on on the cusp of needing refreshing with a new government. Now or next time?


Have been poor in opposition for 9 years. An inexperienced lineup with little ministerial experience. Jacinda Ardern has turned them around in the polls and shows promise, but unproven even as a party leader. Is this an election too soon?


Dragged down by Turei’s power play and their swing to social and from environmental issues. Shaw has done a very good job of repairing the damage, they should beat the threshold and should be in Parliament, but a risk if too influential in government. Hampered by their refusal to work more with National.

NZ First

Unknown who they would side with and what they would ask for in coalition negotiations, so a big risk. Vague bottom lines. Many vague and some bizarre policy positions. Winston Peters obviously past his prime, he has had a poor campaign. An anonymous party beyond Peters. If Shane Jones is the answer what is the question?

Maori Party

Working hard for their constituency, play a useful role in Parliament, prepared to work with any party to achieve what they can – that’s how MMP should work.


Overshadowed by National. David Seymour has worked hard during the term but seems to have faded in the campaign. struggling to be more than a one person party, but a partner MP for Seymour would be good. A useful voice for limiting government power and spending.


Some very good campaigning and some very poor campaigning. Polls suggest they are well short of the threshold, Gareth Morgan claims the polls are wrong but everyone blames the polls when things don’t look good. They would only sit on the cross benches promoting more evidence based policy so would be a useful addition to Parliament, but the system (threshold) is stacked against them.

A vote for any other party would be futile.

I won’t vote for NZ First. I will consider voting for any of the others.

I think the big questions are whether National has done their dash or will be ok for another term, and whether it’s too big an ask for Ardern to lift herself another notch to lead a poorly performing Labour caucus as well as either or both of Greens and NZ First in a coalition/governing arrangement.

Personally I have most to gain from a National government, paying $1000 less tax per year is very tempting. But there are other factors, and I’m tempted by a Government refresh, and Ardern has shown promise.

For me it comes down largely to the proven, warts and all, versus new but unproven, warts and all.

Why do people vote for National?

Someone on Reddit has asked “I’m curious as to why National has so much support” – ELI5 why people vote National:

So im reasonably new to this whole voting thing. Im curious as to why National has so much support as other parties are also promising a strong economy but are also offering a lot more in terms of social and environmental issues.

Is it that people dont care about these issues or am I missing something?

The presumption there seems to be that National doesn’t offer anything social and environmental issues, and the promise of ‘a strong economy’ from Labour, Greens and NZ First is as good as National’s promise.

A response from a provincial electorate where National is strongly supported:

Ok, so I was born in a very pro-National electorate and currently live in a very pro-National electorate. I can tell you the things I’ve heard from people.

  1. I’m doing fine, so why would I look to change things?
  2. Labour are too uncertain so how do we know what the consequences will be?
  3. Labour will benefit Aucklanders and Wellingtonians by hurting us
  4. I don’t really know much about politics, but I do know that my parents/boss/people of influence in my community are worried about the consequences of some of Labour’s plans.
  5. If Labour are in government then they will be in coalition with Greens, and Greens want to destroy the industry that I am dependent on for my livelihood (dairy)
  6. Labour’s policies may sound good, but how do we know that we can afford them?

I think a lot of it, at least in the provinces, comes down to people not understanding the problems we have seen under the National government. For example, the Selwyn electorate has been a National seat since 1946. Last election, National won the electorate vote with 69.97% of the vote, 20,000 votes ahead ahead of their closest competitor.

Selwyn currently has 2.3% unemployment. Do you think you see homeless people in small owns with 2.3% unemployment? Hell no, because most of those unemployed people are spouses, children or relatives of people who make significant income from primary industries whether directly or indirectly.

House prices increased by 2.4% over the last year in Selwyn. The average house price is $543,463 ($80,000 under the national average) but these aren’t just quarter acre sections, this includes lifestyle blocks and sections large enough to maintain profitable agricultural and horticultural businesses on. Do you think the fact that an apartment in Auckland costs > $800,000 registers as a problem to somebody who lives in a place where you can buy a lifestyle block for <$800,000 (source 123)?

Then, you have to remember, what Labour offers doesn’t really appeal to people. For example, many of the people who are wealthy in these places didn’t get a tertiary education. They don’t see why people need university education when they are millionaires having inherited a small sheep farm, converted it to dairy, and selling the property without ever having even gotten a trade. They don’t realise that this isn’t available to most people, and that they were lucky to be able to do this, because, honestly, everyone they know did that.

Edit: One thing that somebody said to me recently that I found interesting: “I think Bill English is a bit like Barack Obama. Like, Obama didn’t do anything amazing or different, he didn’t make much change. He just kept things going steady. Bill English will keep things going steady. But Labour want to change lots, and I don’t really know what the consequences of that change will be. So why would I take that risk?” When you don’t see the growing class divides that are largely restricted to urban centres, and only see people who are doing well, maintaining the status quo is an obvious decision. This sub talks a lot about National’s scaremongering, but where I live, discussions about homelessness and property prices and growing class divide are the scaremongering, because people haven’t directly, personally experienced those things.

A different take from nzmuzak:

I had a conversation with a work friend about this lately. He’s smart but not super political and he said “I’d like to vote labour but I don’t have any faith that they’ll be able to run the country successfully.” For him it isn’t about policy at all, because he doesn’t really care about that, he just wants a party that will be able to do what the government does with minimal fuss and he believes National does that.

I think National PR and the media have done a good job of painting every other party as ineffective, think of those rowing/running ads where it shows a coalition struggling while National succeeds. Those ads/that type of message has been incredibly successful.

Many people prefer not much change. Not many people want upheaval after every election.

Another regional perspective from Nationapartyshill:

Reasons I would vote National:

  • I hate poor people
  • I think flexible labour markets allow for economies to adapt to changes in market conditions and reduce long-term unemployment. And I think it’s practical for small-medium sized businesses to have a bit of flexibility to try out staff (90 day periods) without fully committing to hiring them without knowing if they’re useless. It’s pretty much impossible to fire someone in this country, and inevitably to get rid of a toxic or unreliable staff member you have to pay them out to avoid constructive dismissal action. This sucks for smaller business owners who take a punt in good faith but the worker turns out to be crap. Labour are proposing a new workforce bargaining regime which looks similar to Australia’s. I think that scheme has merits, and would probably lift wages. On the other hand, it looks like it will severely reduce flexibility or have a lot of anomalies and technicalities that will have unintended consequences. I think their policy contrasts with National’s, and there’s may increase unemployment.
  • I like National’s immigration policy more than Labour’s – in the region I work in, we need more people to grow our local economy. There’s low unemployment and lots of businesses want to expand but are struggling to get workers.
  • I like the work that National is doing for the most vulnerable New Zealanders — using the Integrated Data Infrastructure system to get good information about the sorts of people successive governments have put in the ‘too-hard basket’ and to change their lives for the better – while saving me money as a taxpayer. I have seen a lot of talk from Labour about helping the middle class, but not enough about the lowest 1%. These people won’t be better off because of families packages from National or Labour, or university subsidies, or adjustments to tax rates. They need a government who is demanding better public services and cross-ministry/department action to wrap services around them. Those ministries and departments will probably be better funded under Labour, but even when funding levels were good (under the last Labour government), no one was driving this type of approach. I’ve been impressed by how much change in approach Bill English has driven through the public service.
  • I don’t think the answer to Auckland’s housing crisis is the government just building 5,000 houses over ten years there and a capital gains tax. I want more social housing, but National’s already doing it and they’re focused much more on Land supply and streamlining local governments’ role – I think this approach is a much better way of fixing the long term problems of under-supply.

Direct quote from a national voter:

“Because labour just gives handouts and people will leave their jobs and go back on the benefit”

Former nat voter here:

Going against this term. Most of my friends are nat voters. Few key reasons in my world:

  • Stability. Probably key one. For most who are earning over median income, especially those in the housing market, National don’t shake the cage too much. So much so, even mild uncertainty is a scary thing. Things aren’t terribly broken from their position, so why risk it? To be fair, things could be a lot worse.
  • Lack of decent alternative. Only recently has this changed. When Key and Little were about, Labour really weren’t an approachable option for swing voters.
  • Wealth protection. It’s a sad reality of human nature that those that have it, don’t want to give any of it up. Many, rightfully so. Even if they understand the possible unfairness and social problem found in residential capital gains. This one especially, I think most people would have a second think on the instant they bought an investment property.

It’s no mistake that most high income voters go for National.

There are many more than just high income earners amongst 40-50% voters.

My parents when I asked:

“Labour wants to tax capital gain on our properties.”


I think labour have the wrong go about for fixing problems.

very strongly disagree with their free tertiary program. It will waste a lot of money, negatively impact current and future students due to increased enrolment of people who fairly shouldn’t enrol but no longer have a deterrent. Making the last year free would.be a significantly better step. Or they could keep the interest free, non inflation adjusted loans.and use the money to fix up living costs. The tertiary policy here is just the one people want to hear for votes, not the beneficial one at all.

The build more homes to fix the housing crisis has severe negative economic effects that aren’t addressed by their policy. Actively devaluing property is a very big deal, especially for people who are going to be paying off 35% more than what their home is actually worth before lending fees and interest.

Labour make out that there’s this black and white divide between the poor and the rich.

Labours cannabis stance is too open, i prefer the medicsl, inspected view of the blues.

I dont really think the nats are doing anything particularly amazing, but i don’t like labours policies.

If we talk just about leaders, despite this being not the US; Jacinda had this rather annoying showman thing going on. When discussing the budget hole,.which is it’s own can of worms, she just reiterates that it’s about “trust, bill” and gets cheers, there the i don’t need thirty seconds for weed while bill explains exactly what they want to happen. She comes across as shallow and not particularly well explained, we know that’s not true.. she has a long parliamentary history and we shouldn’t discount either leaders intelligence, but as far as the debates go, bill is the one in get behind.

There are still a number of voters who never change their preferred party (probably no more than about 20% for both National and Labour, and possibly quite a bit less).

My dad is a staunch National supporter from way back. His reasons are twofold: firstly economic – he doesn’t believe what he earns should be taken and redistributed, and secondly a moral reason – he believes National as a party are upright and on the money with their ethics.

I love my dad, and there’s no convincing him otherwise. He’ll be voting blue for the rest of his life.

Corrugata is shifting to Labour but with a warning:

I’ll explain why I voted for them in 2008. Pure self interest, I earned a few hundred dollars per month more when the top tax rate dropped to 33%, at a time when I was financially in a bad place.

In 2011, Labour was a shambles, so National it was again.

In 2014, we were really struggling to get into the housing market, and National didn’t give a shit, so over to Labour we went.

This year, National hasn’t really done anything much since 2014, that would change the fact that life really sucks for a significant part of NZ still.

I’ve “got mine” now, so technically it’s in my interest to vote for the status quo, but it should be possible for others to achieve the same if they work hard, I don’t see that happening under current National who are stuck in the past a bit at the moment.

I also support shifting the spending around a bit to favour education and healthcare. I don’t think they’ll spend like drunken sailors, I lived through three terms of Aunty Helen and they handed National a surplus, how irresponsible of them.

But in no way does this mean Labour have a lock on my vote.

I just consider them least bad.

Negatives about Labour are the fact that you run the chance of getting Greens and their wonky anti-science nutters. And one way to guarantee me switching back to National is to touch income tax to revise it up. CGT I’m fine with, and I think their stance on immigration, to slow it down a bit, needs doing.

Let’s see if they keep their 2021 promise. If not, this will be be a blue household again for a long time.

It’s common to see people sounding surprised that others would consider voting for a party they don’t like, but the reality there are many voters with quite different views and preferences.