I hope the local Kiwis can forgive me for pre-empting this, but...

New Zealand election article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/tim-colebatch/nz-shows-how-good-policy-can-win-elections/2005/09/20/1126982063980.html)

I remember HB mentioning in passing a couple of weeks ago that the New Zealand general election was drawing virtually no media attention outside its own borders. It certainly didn't attract the vitriol, argument and debate that the last US election did - not on these boards, anyway.

Having read the above article, I have to say that it gave me a slightly warm-and-fuzzy feeling to see an election that had been fought primarily on race, land rights and tax cuts (instigated mainly by the more conservative side of politics in NZ) didn't end up being decided by them.

Is it possible to have a progressive government that receives recognition for cautious management in a larger country? Is this result a consequence of cooler, politically-aware heads prevailing and not buying into smokescreen issues (AFAIK, voting is compulsory) and the success of proportional representation in election? Or is it the reverse? On current numbers, the conservatives virtually doubled their share of the primary vote and their number of seats in the NZ Parliament.

PS: I don't have a particular barrow to push here; I'm really interested to know how others (particularly New Zealanders) are viewing this. I'll try to add more Australian news links as I find them.

EDIT: Here's a few more:

MP's joke turns sour (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mps-joke-turns-sour-for-clark-in-nz-poll/2005/09/18/1126981948227.html)

Kiwi poll tipped to go down to the wire (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kiwi-poll-tipped-to-go-down-to-the-wire/2005/09/16/1126750123293.html)

[ September 21, 2005, 08:07: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

Wow, someone has started a thread about the NZ election!

Yes, it has been an interesting one, given that we've had the election, but still don't know who our government is yet, because there wasn't an obvious majority.

People have used this situation as a criticism of our proportional representation voting system, but I still think that this is the best and fairest way to do things because it forces various parties to co-operate.

As for tax cuts, you could say that they haven't been an election winner, but the National party did DOUBLE the result they received at the last election so the promise of tax cuts did have some significant effect.

But I think one of the deciding factors for National might have been that business with the Exclusive Brethren. For those who don't know, the Exclusive Brethren (who don't even vote because it is evil) set out on a campaign of distributing pamphlets telling everyone how evil the Labour and Green parties were. The National party leader denied ever meeting the Brethren but later admitted that he had. I think he might have lost some credibility on that one.

Hang on... they don't vote because it's evil?

Maybe in a two-party-dominated state where there is no practical difference between the major parties (that's Australia, folks), but when there's a fluctuating house based on proportional representation? How the hell is that 'evil'?

To be fair, these people sound like nutjobs, so I guess "reason" won't enter the equation.

They're the Exclusive Brethren so there are plenty of things that are 'evil', like TV and the Internet, which their members are banned from using. So being associated with these people didn't do his credibility any favours.