I don’t know a single person voting Nats but my gut feeling is they will get it. And likely not by a huge margin, meaning Nat-Act govt likely.
ITT no discussing why X should or shouldn’t be in, just your predictions.
Also, is it illegal to bet on elections?
I’d wager good money that a white guy named Chris will be our next PM 👍👍
deleted by creator
Winston went back on his word and went with National in 1996, and went back on his word and supported Labour in 2005. So I dunno, it could come down to what parties decide ‘work with’ means
deleted by creator
I agree it does seem more likely it’ll go that way at the moment, but it also seems far less of a done deal than things were looking a couple weeks ago
I don’t think Labour would, or could form a coalition with Green, TPM & NZ1.
Coalitions aren’t the only option
True, a minority govt with Winston on confidence & supply is an option too. Probably not especially viable though.
Unfortunately it would (given it is Winston after all) be the other way round Labour-NZF minority gov with TPM & Greens for confidence and supply
Apparently not, and odds are pretty good for Nat:
Those odds aren’t really lining up with current polling which is putting NZFist and Act on or about the same number of seats, if not NZ1 above.
NZF often polls lower than its support on the day.
Why so high for Act? Would they not be considered part of the government in a coalition with Nats?
Yes but Seymour wouldn’t be PM
That’s only if no majority is achieved though.
My feeling is NACT with NZF support form a government.
I’m hoping they don’t need Winnie, but we’ll see.
If they’re gonna get in, I’d rather it be with winnie as a bit of a handbrake against the most eggregious of their anti-working-class policies.
Whoever Winston picks, is my guess.
Thinking of writing to beg him not to let National do the things to me they want to do.
Not especially related to the OP, but another thought I have…
NZ First’s rise after it became apparent via polling that they were more than a chance of returning suggests to me that there is potentially more support for small parties than voting intention suggests.
I think kiwis are smart and when asked who they’ll vote for probably aren’t saying TOP because they don’t see them as likely getting in & thus their vote being wasted.
Ideally the thresholds would be adjusted which would make it easier, but it also makes me wonder if there’s not a bit of a strategic blunder by both National & Labour to not do an electorate deal with TOP. That would give both of them an option in the centre to prop up their governments, even if on just confidence & supply and help blunt the influence of Act / NZ First, and NZ First / Greens respectively.
I’m generally a fan of lowering the threshold to 1 seat (~0.8%), but on the flip side that would mean a bunch of loony conspiracy parties would also get in so I’m not too sure.
Ideally Kiwis would vote for local candidates less on party grounds, and we would see other parties (or independents even) heading to parliament.
If current polling trends pan out on election day then its starting to look like a National - NZ First coalition is what likely voters prefer1, with support from Act. Assuming any supposed talents or experience as a CEO bear any relation to negotiating political agreements.
But, it really boils down to turnout I think. ie are the poller’s right in picking likely voters or not. If they’ve over-represented turnout then NACT is more likely. If they’ve under-represented then there’s still a chance of Labour-Green-TPM just making a majority.
1: What the voting public are actually saying is National-Labour should form a grand coalition. This isn’t as stupid as it sounds. Chris pulled Labour to the right to appear more centrist, and Christopher pulled National further right to (successfully) win supporters lost to Act.
But apart from their historical animosity, their more natural politics in this incarnation would be that National curb what they see as Labour’s bad spending, and Labour curb what they see as National’s rewarding landlords and wealthy people. It would probably make a bunch of kiwis fairly happy to not have what they see as the extremes of Green or Act or NZ First involved.
I’d hate it.
Probably National.
Bear in mind, the people most likely to tell someone their political leanings goes as follows
Top Green Labour ACT National
I’m not really sure where TPM and NZ first fit into this, but the left is extremely vocal, meaning they appear much more popular than they are.
With that in mind, National-Act, hopefully without the need to look to Winston for help.
Top Green Labour ACT Nationa
Interestingly, that hadn’t been my experience at all. I’ve found the most vocal are those farthest from the centre, on either side of the spectrum. From my experience, I would put it as:
Green/Act, Top/NZF, Labour/Nats
You can’t seriously think Act voters are less vocal than TOP. Bearing in mind, Act voters outnumber TOP ten to one, based on current polling.
It’s been my experience they are, yes. Bare in mind I’m not really counting online interactions, as that is pretty skewed.
In person I’ve experienced several rants on the usual rightwing talking points from people who have confirmed they are voting ACT, and a similar number of environmentalist rants from people who clearly are greenies. I’ve never met anyone in-person who has pushed a TOP talking point or claimed they are voting TOP, ditto NZF although I know people who lean one way or the other based on other conversations.
An additional point, the only people I’ve seen around on street corners with banners, or walking the streets drumming up support, are Freedum party loonies, Act, Nat and Labour (in that order). I find this interesting, but not really scientific lol.
It’s an old cliche: Whoever wins - We lose.
This will be the last time I ever vote. Back when I voted in 2020 - All I got was Jury Duty. And I had to ride my e-bike all the way from one end of Hamilton, to the other. Never again
