We told you this was the culture war election of the Overhang echo chamber
Look, you can read it here first on The Daily Blog or wait for the mainstream media to catch up…
MMP overhang debate: How strategic voting could expand Parliament and benefit the right
The trouble with the debate over strategic voting is that everybody is right to some extent.
Sir John Key was right when he said that National supporters giving their party vote to Act or New Zealand First and electorate vote to National could result in getting rid of some of National’s best ministers for no-names from other parties.
Commentator Ben Thomas was right when he said the effect of strategic voting could be to get rid of some of National’s most senior MPs for no-names from National.
Former National leader Don Brash, businessman Harry Mowbray and New Zealand First’s Michael Laws are right that an engineered overhang that gives National more seats than its party vote entitles it to, and boosts Act and New Zealand First, makes it harder for the left to form a government.
The so-called “helpers” strategic voting campaign implores National supporters to vote for its party only in the electorate and to give their party vote to Act or New Zealand First.
NZ Herald
…we’ve told you that this is the culture war election of the Overhang echo chamber.
Culture Wars
All NZ First and ACT have this election is culture war grievance, malice and spite.
ACT are the racist right and NZF are the cooker right.
This country is not failing because of karakia, honouring the Treaty, vaccines or the Trans.
This country is failing because Big Polluters, Property Pimps, Banks, Corporations and the mega wealthy use their political influence to lock into place their monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies to ensure plutocracy.
The Right manipulate peoples petty bigotries for their donors interests.
Defining a woman, denigrating Te Reo, making English an official language, rejecting the WHO’s 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations are not policy wins, they are mutilations.
This Government has adopted an anti-Māori, anti-Treaty, anti-environment, anti-Union, anti-worker, anti-renter, anti-beneficiary and anti-disabled agenda to strangle the common good for their donors interests.
That’s not speculation, that’s provable.
Look at their donors and the fast track approvals.
Matthew Hooton once infamously said…
…and how true did that turn out to be.
National exists to keep Labour out and Labour exists to keep the Left out.
Labour is good for capitalism, National is good for capitalists.
National have no actual policy beyond legislative reforms their donors want.
To fill in the lack of policy, they bash Māori.
What has been unique about this Government is how spineless and weak Luxon was as PM.
Sold as the great CEO deal maker, none of his CEO skill set meant anything up against alpha political apex predators like Seymour and Winston.
The total lack of spine by Luxon has allowed the very worst parts of NZs psyche to play out as performance art.
We have culture war revenge fantasies masquerading as social policy.
Culture War Boomer Right wing voters are not voting for solutions, they are voting for grievance.
The manipulators of right wing bigotry deflect attention away from the causes and solutions facing us by feeding the fear and uncertainty to blame the ‘other’.
They tell the Culture War Boomer that the Right can’t get you decent wages, affordable housing or properly funded public services, but they certainly can make the ‘others’ suffer!
The Culture War Boomer satisfaction comes not from an improvement in their quality of life, but by making others’ lives worse!
Echo Chambers
Luxon has agreed to only 3 debates and turned down a second TVNZ debate and that should anger everyone.
ACT and NZF pulled out of the BHN debates and that will be seen throughout this election as the Right pull back into their right wing echo chambers which makes the mainstream debates so important.
I think no Left wing candidate should consider appearing on the Taxpayers Union debates as they will be bad faith performance art for the reactionary Right.
This election won’t be about convincing the centre because that doesn’t exist any longer thanks to social media hate algorithm polarisation as the dropping support of National and Labour attests.
This is about turning out the base, not winning the middle.
Overhang
What is fascinating will be the role of the overhang this year.
I think TPM could win 5 electorates while recycling their party vote to the Greens and that will create an overhang, but also, National very much could generate one as well!
National 25–26% + 38–40 electorate victories = perhaps 6–8 overhang seats.
Suppose the election produced something like:
- TPM: 1% + 5 electorates → perhaps +3/+4 overhang
- National: 27–28% + 38 electorates → potentially another +3/+4 overhang
You could conceivably end up with a Parliament of around 126–128 MPs.
Crucially, you couldn’t then use the normal 61-seat majority assumption.
128 requires 65.
That’s potentially very important in a close National/ACT/NZF versus Labour/Green/TPM/TOP election because both sides could generate overhangs simultaneously.
This will be the Culture War Election of overhangs and echo chambers.
We won’t know who has won on November 7th, it will need the Specials on the 27th and that 20 days will see a level of frenetic pressure on TOP that they aren’t prepared for.
Independent Media is more important than ever, especially in the lead up to the Election. TDB is the largest Left Wing Blog in NZ and we have been operating for 13 years. We get zero funding from NZonAir and we don’t have no rich backers. If you can donate please do so here or directly into our account –12-3065-0133561-56
Christopher Luxon when asked if he would work with TOP said that he would not work with a high tax party.
Guess what?
No surprise, Qiulae Wong has announced TOP 5 bottom line policies, tax is not one of them.
When you think of all the air space that has been alloted by the media and ink spilt on debating TOP’s land tax and UBI, it was a huge and complete, total waste of time and energy. Just one great huge diversion.
When you analyse TOP’s 5 bottom line policies all but one are centrist policies that National could live with.
The only policy of the five that Luxon might balk at, is the cap on corporate donars.
The Opportunity Party’s five bottom line policies for post-election negotiations
Source RNZ
1/ Empower the Commerce Commission to target monopolies and excessive market power.
RNZ: Wong said the problem was broadly agreed, and it was time to do something about it.
(Labour and National have already agreed to this)
2/ Introduce lobbying regulations, and a $30,000 donation cap.
RNZ: “….no one should be able to buy disproportionate political influence,” Wong said.
(The one policy that National will hate)
3/ Create a 10-year health plan.
RNZ: “A 10-year plan would give the health system a stable direction for its workforce, infrastructure and funding,” said Wong.)
(What’s in the plan is more important than it’s length, this policy is so vague as to mean nothing)
4/ In consultation with the fishing industry, phase out bottom trawling.
(What does ‘phase out’ mean, in practice?, 2 years?, 3 years?, 10 years?)
5/ Recommit to the Paris Agreement and protect the independence of the Climate Change Commission.
RNZ: “We will not support a government that walks away from our international obligations or undermines the independent Climate Change Commission,” Wong said.
(Our agricultural export industry will be penalised if we don’t recommit to the Paris agreement, and the Climate Change Commission is a toothless tiger with zero statutary powers)
From RNZ:
…. She [Wong] pushed back on the idea the party was getting ahead of itself announcing bottom lines before it’s even made it into Parliament. “We don’t see other parties releasing bottom lines, but we recognise as a new party people want to know what are we going to prioritise in that negotiation”.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1643401/health-supermarkets-and-political-lobbying-among-opportunity-party-s-bottom-lines
What does “prioritise” mean?
Are some TOP bottom lines more of a priority than other TOP bottom lines.
Which one would TOP be prepared to ditch to get a deal with National.
By continually claiming that the door is always open to do a deal with National, Qiulae Wong has made it abundantly clear that her preference would be a deal with National.
Wong has said that despite what Christopher Luxon said about ruling TOP out, National would pick up the phone to TOP to form a government if they needed to.
Qiulae Wong says she is still open to working with National, or Labour. But don’t be fooled. A vote for TOP is a vote for National.
To fully expose TOP’s treachery, Chris Hipkins needs to cut Qiulae Wong off at the pass, by immediately announceing that a Labour government led by him will agree to enact all of Qiulae Wong’s bottom lines.
I’ve long held a suspicion that TOP is Trojan horse.
I agree with you about TOP .Every move they make indicates a desire to joint National. Unfortunately I doubt if they would take votes from NZF so they will be the dominant party in any Right Coalition
Mandate the vote and return to ‘first past the post’ voting for the want a better term.
A time line to the dreadful, awful cluster-fuck political environment of back then which we must rid ourselves of no matter what today.
” Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) representation was introduced to New Zealand through public referendums held under the National Party government led by Jim Bolger, following a recommendation originally made by a Royal Commission appointed by the previous Labour Party government. ”
So roger douglas and his acolytes got to Sir Paul reeves the governor general of the day.
New Labour: Key Policies: Famous for “Rogernomics”, a radical program of free-market economic reforms, privatization of state assets, and the introduction of a nuclear-free zone policy. Prime Ministers: Led first by David Lange (1984–1989), then briefly by Geoffrey Palmer (1989–1990), and finally by Mike Moore (1990).
So. Mike wife-basher moore slithered in to slip the blade into our backs.
The most terrifying thing you’ll see and hear about our politics today is this.
RNZ Students explain why young people are turning off voting
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019053956/students-explain-why-young-people-are-turning-off-voting
The Greens seem to be running the same play. Party vote Green, and apart from the seats they hold, constituency vote Labour. It seems probable that Labour will win at least some seats from National. So potentially both National and Labour could be in a small overhang position.
So far only TPM have an official electioneering policy of split voting. In part its a recognition of what Maori voters do amyway
National most definately dont want their supporters to split their vote. It is really only far right agitators who are calling for a split vote. Act only have the ability to win one electorate seat, and only then because of a long standing foolish National party agreement that has now well and truly bitten them on the arse. The Greens, two, and NZF, even with that mighty kahikatea of a leader and his gorse bush deputy cant even win one.