|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: New Zealand elections: Let's speculate |
 |
|
When are they?
Who's running? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What's New Zee.. Sei... Sealland, anyways? Does Stamford University have a branch campus there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: New Zealand elections: Let's speculate |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
When are they?
Who's running? |
I've been waiting for someone to ask that!
Our next parliamentary elections are in 2008, though the exact date is determined at the discretion of the ruling party/coalition. Common practice is to call an election straight after a major sports victory so that everyone is feeling good about the country. Major losses have resulted in electoral delays while the government gives people time to forget about the crushing sense of shame that comes from being beaten by France in rugby.
Here are the current parties in the House of Representatives (there are 120 seats):
New Zealand Labour Party 41.1% (50 seats, centre left)
New Zealand National Party 39.1% (48 seats, centre right)
New Zealand First 5.7% (7 seats, centre/populist)
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 5.3% (6 seats, left)
Māori Party 2.1% (4 seats, left)
United Future New Zealand 2.7% (3 seats, centre)
ACT New Zealand 1.5% (2 seats, right)
New Zealand Progressive Party 1.2% (1 seat, left)
(We used to have a Christian Party but it turned out the leader was a pedophile. No joke.)
We have a somewhat complicated system of representation that involves voting for a candidate in your electorate, and voting for a party overall, which is why some of the percentages do not match with the numbers of seats.
The head of our government is (technically the queen of England, but let's forget about her and talk about) Helen Clark, a former politics lecturer at Stamford University. Clark is now in her eighth year as prime minister, and is quite popular, despite her manly voice and uncharismatic husband.
The current government is formed by a coalition between the Labour Party and Jim Anderton (aka the Progressive Party). In addition, New Zealand First, United Future and the Greens have all agreed to vote with the coalition on confidence and supply issues. The understanding seems to be that the overall mandate is to the left.
My pick is for Labour to remain in more-or-less a similar position next election, with Clark remaining prime minister. National has continuously screwed up the opposition over the last 8 or so years, and the right-wing support base appears to be shrinking. I don't pay much attention to New Zealand news most of the time because 90% of it is "DUCKLING FALLS DOWN DRAIN" but the economy is doing quite well, we have our lowest unemployment rate since the 1960s, crime is down to 1980s levels, and nothing much is really going badly for us. Of course, a lot of people feel like the government has been too socialist, and want lower taxes, etc, but their criticisms have been muted by the apparent success of these policies.
Perhaps the most emotive issues here have to do with (non-white) immigration, the Treaty of Waitangi (i.e., regarding redress for Maori), and spanking. In fact, a bill to make it easier to prosecute parents who beat their children (we lead the developed world in beating our children to death, apparently) has generated an enormous amount of controversy recently. Sue Bradford, the Green MP who introduced the bill, has even gotten death threats about this - spanked to death, etc.
New Zealand Elections 2008 - COME GET SOME!
(Oh yeah, I'm going to vote for the Labour candidate in my electorate; for the party vote I haven't decided yet. Because our system makes it extremely difficult for any one party to gain an outright majority and necessitates coalitions, votes for the outlier parties are in effect votes for the centrist parties, but also send messages about the mandate. Thus, despite thinking that a lot of Green Party policy is hippy rubbish, I may vote for them just to show support for the general idea of the Green Party.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I keep wishing the US would overhaul their system and develop something similar. Let the outliers have their say, and keep them from mucking up the parties for everyone else. And every once in a while, a system with confidence votes would do wonders. Like right about... now.
In the meantime, we'll all be following the NZ elections closely. When is the next major sheep tossing World Cup, or whatever the hell sport it is you guys base your elections on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the summary of NZ politics, gang. Interesting.
Just a question: Is it economically efficient to turn Parliament into a work program just to get unemployment figures down? I mean, 120 members for 4 million people.
Second question: I understand the government can call an election (following a major sports victory), but how long are terms if the government doesn't call for an election?
Third: We have a phenomenon in American politics in which a president's second term is almost always much less successful than the first term--usually one scandal followed by another scandal. Do you have the same?
Fourth: We had a two-term tradition that got turned into a Constitutional amendment. Most people feel 8 years is enough for one person to hold executive power and get kind of burned out (it may be related to our media and people getting sick and tired of hearing boring details about the president's kids and dogs). Is there an 'enough is enough' sentiment in NZ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Huffdaddy: Sheep-throwing season is during our Winter, and elections usually come in the Spring, near the end of the year. A good season of sheep throwing means that the elections come sooner rather than later, or so they say.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Just a question: Is it economically efficient to turn Parliament into a work program just to get unemployment figures down? I mean, 120 members for 4 million people. |
Good question, and one asked by many New Zealanders as well. There's a movement to get the number of seats reduced back down to the pre-1996, pre-proportional representation number of 99. I think we had a referendum on it relatively recently (we're big on referenda) and it came down on the side of status quo.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Second question: I understand the government can call an election (following a major sports victory), but how long are terms if the government doesn't call for an election? |
Terms are three years. I'm open to arguments that this term is a bit short. I think there's some impetus to get a referendum going on this issue.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Third: We have a phenomenon in American politics in which a president's second term is almost always much less successful than the first term--usually one scandal followed by another scandal. Do you have the same? |
I'm really not sure. Obviously we do have pendulum effects, so you do see support shifting. I'm wondering though if proportional representation serves to mitigate this somewhat - new deals have to be struck between coaliton partners at the beginning of each term, so this may give some impression of fresh starts. Also, because votes for smaller parties still have quite a bit of influence, voters who are dissatisfied with ,say, Labour, don't have to cross the centre line and vote for National; they can vote for smaller parties that are still consistent with their political outlook. I'm just speculating that it may work this way, however.
It's also probably worth noting that our scandals are pretty small beans, and tend to come from both sides of the house. For example, just recently it came out that the leader of the National Party (our Republicans) had publically lied about whether or not he was having an extra-marital affair. He resigned in pretty short order.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Fourth: We had a two-term tradition that got turned into a Constitutional amendment. Most people feel 8 years is enough for one person to hold executive power and get kind of burned out (it may be related to our media and people getting sick and tired of hearing boring details about the president's kids and dogs). Is there an 'enough is enough' sentiment in NZ? |
Hmm. I've never heard any New Zealanders concerned about term length - if it ain't broke, etc. At eight years, Clark is about the 8th longest serving Prime Minister we've had. My great, great uncle Keith Holyoake served for about 12 years in the 60s-70s, for example, and even he's not in the lead. Clark is our longest serving female prime minister though - the previous one only lasted two years (1997-99).
The other thing important thing here is that the prime minister is a roughly equivalent position to Speaker of the House in your system. Because she is indirectly elected, holds limited executive power, and only remains in her position by virtue of support from within her own party, she's not really seen as much of a figurehead by the nation. A change in prime ministers here doesn't have the kind of huge effects that a change in presidents has in the US, because most policy is determined by the party, and the leader has only limited influence over that. If a prime minister is seriously screwing up it will damage the party's re-election prospects, so the party will likely vote no-confidence and replace him/her in short order. Here's what wikipedia says about the office:
| Quote: |
The role of the Prime Minister is not formally defined, being based on constitutional convention rather than specific legislation. According to these conventions, the Prime Minister is leader of Cabinet (itself a body existing by convention), and takes a co-ordinating role.
The Prime Minister is regarded by convention as "first among equals". He or she does indeed hold the most senior post in the administration, but is also required to adhere to any decisions taken by Cabinet. The actual ability of a Prime Minister to give direct orders is surprisingly limited; most of the position's power comes about through other means, such as:
* The ability to set the Cabinet agenda, thereby controlling what issues will be discussed.
* The ability to appoint and dismiss ministers. The extent to which this power can be exercised varies between different parties; the Labour Party, for example, places most of this responsibility in the hands of the Caucus, leaving the Prime Minister only with the power to choose which portfolios a minister is given. Furthermore, the MMP electoral system has complicated this, as the Prime Minister may have to consult with another party leader.
* The influence a Prime Minister is likely to have as leader of the dominant party. These powers may give him or her more direct control over subordinates than is attached to the Prime Minister's role itself.
* The power gained simply from being central to most significant decision-making, and from being able to comment on and criticise any decisions taken by other ministers. |
Oh, above the prime minister we have the governer-general (currently Anand Satyanand), who is nominally the queen's representative. The only real power this office holds is to dissolve the government and call new elections, though this power has never been exercised. If/when we eventually become a republic, this office would probably be replaced by a ceremonial presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oh-Ran-Ji
Joined: 25 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| delete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the info.
New Question:
Is there, or has there ever been, any talk of annexing Australia? It strikes me that you could pacify them by renaming the country the Empire of East Tasmania (a sop to the heathens, as it were). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have another question as well. Is there any tension between the North Island and the South Island? Is there any chance of a Civil War breaking out between the two? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Is there, or has there ever been, any talk of annexing Australia? It strikes me that you could pacify them by renaming the country the Empire of East Tasmania (a sop to the heathens, as it were). |
Already under way. We're doing it stealth style, going in under the radar as it were. Already 500,000 or so of us over there, lazing around on their beaches, drawing their dole and complaining about their XXXXing XXXXty beer. Of course, without an army, that's really the only strategy we have available to us. We call them 'The West Island'.
| Huffdaddy wrote: |
| Is there any tension between the North Island and the South Island? Is there any chance of a Civil War breaking out between the two? |
There is a bit of tension, it's true. The "Mainlanders" (the South Island is about 5% larger than the North) like to get their bitch on every so often about how much they contribute to the nation's economy but don't get fair representation or mad cash action. I can hear them now - "We makes arrrl the coal and the hydrrrroelectric, we does, arrr". Also, they oppose the abolition of slavery.
But actually, the largest tension is between Auckland the rest of the country. Aucklanders are nasty, greedy, chardonnay-drinking goblins and we hate them. Word of the day: JAFA (Just Another F--king Aucklander).
Fun Auckland Fact: Koreans keep ending up there instead of Oakland, CA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
According to my sources, South Islanders are MUCH friendlier and nicer people than North Islanders. My source may be biased, but seems to be trustworthy. Any opinion?
Re: West Island. Is there a way to speed things up? I'm working with 3 Aussies (Ozzies?) and two are kind of geeky. It would be nice to walk in to work one day and say, "Oh, sorry about you losing your sovereignty. Here's W5,000 toward a gun so you can go home and defend yourself." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| According to my sources, South Islanders are MUCH friendlier and nicer people than North Islanders. My source may be biased, but seems to be trustworthy. Any opinion? |
I was going to say something about how, yes, people with the Down's are generally lovely. But then I thought, nah, it's probably true. I mean, my lawyer flatmate is a mainlander, and she's nice and non-retarded. Of course, Christchurch has a reputation for being the centre of the New Zealand neonazi movement, so it's not all sheep and roses down there.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Re: West Island. Is there a way to speed things up? I'm working with 3 Aussies (Ozzies?) and two are kind of geeky. It would be nice to walk in to work one day and say, "Oh, sorry about you losing your sovereignty. Here's W5,000 toward a gun so you can go home and defend yourself." |
How to speed up anschluss? I'll let you in on a secret: New Zealand's nuclear-free policy since the 1980s has actually been a clever ruse to divert world attention while we rush to get the bomb. Keep mum about this, ok? Just wait for the smoking gun mushroom cloud over Canberra.
Fun New Zealand Fact: New Zealand burned down Parliament House in Canberra in the war of 1812. The ozzies are still sore about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otus
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I first left NZ in '96 I saw one or two documentaries on Korean TV and also in the States about the economic reforms in the early 1980's. That was the last thing of any international significance that New Zealand politics accomplished and is likely to accomplish given the way the system was reformed with MMP.
In the early 90's Jim Bolger was the one who called for electoral reform and it was quite a reasonable call given that too much legislative power was invested in the executive branch of government.
Bolger sensibly mooted for a bicameral system and a republic, but that was a little too difficult for the average Kiwi to intellectually grasp: both the conservative old f_rts and the lunatic lefties.
Instead, a high court judge had to instruct New Zealanders on what system to vote for. (What in the name of God was the High Court doing being involved in a political debate where no case ruling was involved you ask? So do I.)
There were too many options and no one option was going to get a majority vote. So we were told to either vote for MMP or maintain the status quo. That was simple enough for geriatric conservatives and lefties to be able to understand.
Don't get me started on the nuke issue.
It'll be a long time before New Zealand politics ever makes a splash internationally again. Jenny Shipley destroyed the National Party and Helen Clarke was the only thing left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Otus wrote: |
| It'll be a long time before New Zealand politics ever makes a splash internationally again. Jenny Shipley destroyed the National Party and Helen Clarke was the only thing left. |
Uh, what kind of 'splash' do you have in mind? I mean, there's only 4 million of us, what's wrong with just getting on with things? Only insecure countries like Korea feel the need to make a 'splash' on the international scene. We don't have to front like we're trying to prove anything.
(note for non-NZ readers: '1984' refers to 'Rogernomics', a series of radical neoliberal economic reforms implemented by the Labour Government in the 80s. New Zealand was seen as something of a guinea pig for the policies, and thus the effects of the reforms were watched quite closely by economists around the world. Oh, to get back to those halcion days when people made documentaries about us...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How is the battle to revert "Tasman Sea" back to "West Sea" going? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
