Meh just kicking back refreshing the RNZ results page on repeat while trying not to get a stomach ulcer
0 Boosts
0 Likes
Looks like from the ~700k special votes, we'd need to see at least 2x of: Nelson Bays, Wairarapa, Whangarei, and Hamilton East shift before Parliament is hung.
At that point, Opportunity becomes 'kingmaker', choosing major party with most seats (NAT). And so the only plausible pathway for Left at that point is a scenario where negotiations between Opportunity and NZ First implode to dumpster fire, Opportunity then calling Labour.
Does that sound right?
So Luxon could remain, but weaker than ever with Act and NZ First combining as a very big tail to wag the dog. With Willis out, this gives Seymour disproportionate negotiating power to become, l'horreur, Finance Minister.
Plausible, however brutal?
@JulianOliver Seymour has spent the last fortnight humbly accepting the job whenever anyone mentions it. He absolutely is rubbing his hands together this morning.
@JulianOliver "If the Opportunity board blocks a formal coalition and keeps the party outside government, Opportunity won’t be bound by Cabinet rules to back government bills - meaning they can hold every single law hostage for the next three years."
I don't think that's true at all. I mean yes they could veto laws they didn't like. But they have zero power to advance their own interests because ultimately the executive sets parliament's order of business, not a small crossbench party.
At best they could make the Luxon govt a lame duck. But why would they do that when their stated policies are nearly all aligned with the left bloc, with whom they could form a coalition and actually get some or all of them implemented?
This position makes no sense.
@Salty The Reddit post speaks about veto's, not about power to push their own agendas, so is technically correct.
Q has repeatedly said they'd work with the Right, has even said if NAT won't work with them "that leaves Labour", their second choice.
It makes sense they'd prefer the Right. Many Opp policies are already part of the Left agenda; they have no clout, less voice in that bloc. Q is vocally critical of Greens as extremist, yet has never termed NZF or Act the same.
@JulianOliver "Q is vocally critical of Greens as extremist, yet has never termed NZF or Act the same."
Which is a big part of why I am suspicious of her. ACT wants to tear up Te Tiriti and nix any regulations that hinder rich people from stomping on any bugs/other people who might inconvenience them. How is that not "extremist"? NZF wants us to leave the WHO, ban trans people and tell all the migrants to go back home where they lie like flatfish. How is that not "extremist"?
What part of the Green Party's agenda is so much worse that it gets the epithet but ACT and NZF are ok?
What principles are Q displaying by saying that people like Peters, Laws and Jones have morally repugnant views to 90% of the population (including, one would have thought, a woman, a person of Asian descent, or even perhaps a woman of Asian descent) but hey totally fine with getting around a table and working with these guys every day for the next three years even though you're never sure whether they're judging you for your dress being too long or too short or too black or not black enough or fantasising about what you're like post sex or wishing you were back in China where you (didn't) come from?
And also, technically, I didn't say the poster was wrong. You *can* stop laws you don't like by sitting on the cross bench.
I said the strategy made no sense, because it means you only stop things you don't like. The other strategy (going left) means you automatically stop all the things you don't like plus you get to do some or all the things you do like.
@JulianOliver so yeah... I am deeply suspicious ...
@JulianOliver note - it may have come across as if I'm hostile to you. If so, sorry - I'm not. Just can't see where they are really coming from.
@JulianOliver it's an awful thought. Honestly I wish we could just have nat+labour coalition in the centre with no crazies. But they would never do it
Tough night.
That vote-splitting campaign by the right wing businessman Mowbray worked well.
While National is 9% less popular than last election on the party vote (not even breaking 30%), & where proportionality has almost always decided elections, this time it does not matter. The overhang has meant they have the electoral seats to get them well over the line.
Good overview here;
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/2424149/election-2026-has-vote-splitting-saved-a-battered-coalition
Election 2026: Has vote splitting saved a battered coalition?