There have been several articles published in recent months that
portray Labour's results from this election as 'decisive' when it was
not. The current case in point is this:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/might-kamala-harris-be-about-to-get-a-stardust-moment-like-jacinda-ardern

Watkin seeks to compare the situation with Biden and Harris as
analogous to Little and Ardern in 2017, with Ardern going on to be
victorious.

The long and short of it is Ardern did not win the 2017 election.
Labours share of the party vote was 36.9% compared to National on
44.4%, Labour had 46 seats vs National with 55. For Labour, that was
a vastly improved result compared to the 2014 election and when Ardern
took over from Little as leader Labour were polling around the same as
the 2014 result.

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:29:11 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

There have been several articles published in recent months that
portray Labour's results from this election as 'decisive' when it was
not. The current case in point is this:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/might-kamala-harris-be-about-to-get-a-stardust-moment-like-jacinda-ardern

Watkin seeks to compare the situation with Biden and Harris as
analogous to Little and Ardern in 2017, with Ardern going on to be >victorious.

The long and short of it is Ardern did not win the 2017 election.
Labours share of the party vote was 36.9% compared to National on
44.4%, Labour had 46 seats vs National with 55. For Labour, that was
a vastly improved result compared to the 2014 election and when Ardern
took over from Little as leader Labour were polling around the same as
the 2014 result.

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

The other decision was for the Green Party and Labour to accept NZ
First, but yes with Winston's agreement that the government was
formed. A difference from the current Government was that Jacinda
Ardern was seen by all (including the other coalition parties) as the
Leader of the Government. The change this time is that the Prime
Minister has little control over the Ministers and Leaders of ACT and
NZ First - in effect they make their own decisions, and as has been
pointed on by supporters of those parties, decisions on policies by
those Ministers, and ethical considerations relating to party MPs are
decided by the party leaders, not the "Prime Minister."

So yes, in a real sense, Jacinda won the election - whether Luxon did
is, to be generous to him, at least debatable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:29:11 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

There have been several articles published in recent months that
portray Labour's results from this election as 'decisive' when it was
not. The current case in point is this:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/might-kamala-harris-be-about-to-get-a-stardust-moment-like-jacinda-ardern

Watkin seeks to compare the situation with Biden and Harris as
analogous to Little and Ardern in 2017, with Ardern going on to be >>victorious.

The long and short of it is Ardern did not win the 2017 election.
Labours share of the party vote was 36.9% compared to National on
44.4%, Labour had 46 seats vs National with 55. For Labour, that was
a vastly improved result compared to the 2014 election and when Ardern
took over from Little as leader Labour were polling around the same as
the 2014 result.

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

The other decision was for the Green Party and Labour to accept NZ
First, but yes with Winston's agreement that the government was
formed. A difference from the current Government was that Jacinda
Ardern was seen by all (including the other coalition parties) as the
Leader of the Government. The change this time is that the Prime
Minister has little control over the Ministers and Leaders of ACT and
NZ First - in effect they make their own decisions, and as has been
pointed on by supporters of those parties, decisions on policies by
those Ministers, and ethical considerations relating to party MPs are
decided by the party leaders, not the "Prime Minister."

So yes, in a real sense, Jacinda won the election - whether Luxon did
is, to be generous to him, at least debatable.

Absolute nonsense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 03:25:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:29:11 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:

There have been several articles published in recent months that
portray Labour's results from this election as 'decisive' when it was >>>not. The current case in point is this:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/might-kamala-harris-be-about-to-get-a-stardust-moment-like-jacinda-ardern

Watkin seeks to compare the situation with Biden and Harris as
analogous to Little and Ardern in 2017, with Ardern going on to be >>>victorious.

The long and short of it is Ardern did not win the 2017 election.
Labours share of the party vote was 36.9% compared to National on
44.4%, Labour had 46 seats vs National with 55. For Labour, that was
a vastly improved result compared to the 2014 election and when Ardern >>>took over from Little as leader Labour were polling around the same as >>>the 2014 result.

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that >>>delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

The other decision was for the Green Party and Labour to accept NZ
First, but yes with Winston's agreement that the government was
formed. A difference from the current Government was that Jacinda
Ardern was seen by all (including the other coalition parties) as the >>Leader of the Government. The change this time is that the Prime
Minister has little control over the Ministers and Leaders of ACT and
NZ First - in effect they make their own decisions, and as has been
pointed on by supporters of those parties, decisions on policies by
those Ministers, and ethical considerations relating to party MPs are >>decided by the party leaders, not the "Prime Minister."

So yes, in a real sense, Jacinda won the election - whether Luxon did
is, to be generous to him, at least debatable.

Absolute nonsense.

I agree. Rich is reaching new heights of irrationality.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 14:06:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:29:11 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

There have been several articles published in recent months that
portray Labour's results from this election as 'decisive' when it was
not. The current case in point is this:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/might-kamala-harris-be-about-to-get-a-stardust-moment-like-jacinda-ardern

Watkin seeks to compare the situation with Biden and Harris as
analogous to Little and Ardern in 2017, with Ardern going on to be >>victorious.

The long and short of it is Ardern did not win the 2017 election.
Labours share of the party vote was 36.9% compared to National on
44.4%, Labour had 46 seats vs National with 55. For Labour, that was
a vastly improved result compared to the 2014 election and when Ardern
took over from Little as leader Labour were polling around the same as
the 2014 result.

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

The other decision was for the Green Party and Labour to accept NZ
First, but yes with Winston's agreement that the government was
formed.

What absolute twaddle. NZF held the balance of power - Labour/Greens
on one side and National/ACT on the other. Winston met with both
leaders and chose Labour.

A difference from the current Government was that Jacinda
Ardern was seen by all (including the other coalition parties) as the
Leader of the Government. The change this time is that the Prime
Minister has little control over the Ministers and Leaders of ACT and
NZ First - in effect they make their own decisions, and as has been
pointed on by supporters of those parties, decisions on policies by
those Ministers, and ethical considerations relating to party MPs are
decided by the party leaders, not the "Prime Minister."

Again absolute twaddle. Ardern had as much control over NZF ministers
as Luxon does now - for exactly the same reasons. NZF were the key to
Ardern being able to command 'the confidence of the House'. Without
NZF, Labour and the Greens were not part of the Government. NZF were
always going to be in Government and got to choose which major party
to partner with. Don't forget, the Greens were not part of that
Labour/NZF coalition - they were a third-party with a
confidence-and-supply agreement.

So yes, in a real sense, Jacinda won the election - whether Luxon did
is, to be generous to him, at least debatable.

Totally incorrect and irrational.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-22, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

There have been several articles published in recent months that
portray Labour's results from this election as 'decisive' when it was
not. The current case in point is this:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/might-kamala-harris-be-about-to-get-a-stardust-moment-like-jacinda-ardern

Watkin seeks to compare the situation with Biden and Harris as
analogous to Little and Ardern in 2017, with Ardern going on to be victorious.

The long and short of it is Ardern did not win the 2017 election.
Labours share of the party vote was 36.9% compared to National on
44.4%, Labour had 46 seats vs National with 55. For Labour, that was
a vastly improved result compared to the 2014 election and when Ardern
took over from Little as leader Labour were polling around the same as
the 2014 result.

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

First off the comparasion is one of the leader one of the parties stepping aside and leaving the deputy in the limelight. In NZ case it was not the
then existing PM, but the other major party.

Ardern was a somewhat unkown and this gave her a big advanatge. Harris is
59, and has some history.

At this point things diverge in that NZ has an MMP system and nothing like
the USA system. As has been pointed out in the newgroup.

So Joe jettison himself removes him self and his baggage from the voters choice. Harris is the clear replacement, after all she is the deputy.

Adern formed a coalition Government as was the expectation under MMP, it was the 2020 election which Labour was given a FFP situation to govern with.

Over these two elections I think that MMP evolved into what it was promised
by it avocates way back in the early 1990's. Some of this credit must be
given to the 2020 result.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

Something which Winston would never have done but for the visceral
hatred which National showed him for so long. In particular, National
could have conceded him his incumbent Northland seat, an arrangment
similar to that with ACT in Epsom. If they had done that, Winston
would totally have formed a government with National. But how do you
make a coalition with someone who hates you?

It was National's small-minded hatred of Winston Peters which gave us
Jacinda as PM in 2017. All so pointless, all so preventable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:22:16 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

Ardern subsequently became Prime Minister solely because Winston
Peters decided to go with Labour. It was Winston's decision that
delivered a Labour/NZF/Greens government in 2017.

Something which Winston would never have done but for the visceral
hatred which National showed him for so long. In particular, National
could have conceded him his incumbent Northland seat, an arrangment
similar to that with ACT in Epsom. If they had done that, Winston
would totally have formed a government with National. But how do you
make a coalition with someone who hates you?

It was National's small-minded hatred of Winston Peters which gave us
Jacinda as PM in 2017. All so pointless, all so preventable.

Ha! You are treating Winston as rational.

National have always stood a candidate in Epsom, but encouraged their supporters to vote for ACT as the electorate candidate. Even so,
Goldsmith comes 2nd and National takes the party vote.

Peters stood in Northland in a by-election only (2015). He has never previously contested that electorate (unlike National) and was
defeated in 2017 when National stood a candidate as usual. Since then
the NZF candidate has been Shane Jones and he has finished a distant
3rd.

Apart from the 2015 by-election in Northland, Winston has been a
list-only MP. There is no parallel between the Northland and Epsom electorates, and Winston is not usually an electorate candidate so
National cannot do a deal with him.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

Apart from the 2015 by-election in Northland, Winston has been a
list-only MP. There is no parallel between the Northland and Epsom >electorates, and Winston is not usually an electorate candidate so
National cannot do a deal with him.

Bollocks, Winston was the NZ First electoral MP for Tauranga in the
period 1993-2005.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)