Ha. I use Kiwibank when I'm in NZ, which is a few weeks every few years, and I've always found them wonderful -- not like a bank at all. It's possible they are not enough of a bank for us five- percenters who travel the world and all, but for ordinary decent citizens with not much money, I can't imagine why you'd want any other bank.

BenW :
Since the question obsesses you so : Laila is working on raising her geek profile: apparently she got told to shut up about technical details on Q&A
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a/s2014-ep13-video-5987463

And what do you actually know about how geeky she is? Her husband runs a software company... Oh and she's not aiming to get your vote anyway... you're too old for her anyway :)
But each day when she walks to the sea,
She looks straight ahead – not at he…

Girl from IPMana (sexist meme of the day)

Coat-tails... Well, I can see a scenario where the campaign catches fire, for Mana as well as for Internet, and they get, say, four Maori seats, 4% of the list vote... and Laila doesn't even make it into parliament. That would still be an excellent result, but not really the one Dotcom's paying for. Another scenario : a couple of Maori seats, and Laila and John Minto off the list. Would they dissolve the grouping, as they claim, six weeks after the election, leaving Laila as sole Internet MP? I think not. Laila would function as an additional Mana MP (while still defending the Internet issues, no problem there). And when the coat-tails thing bites the dust, as it must, there is a strong enough Mana brand, to the left of Labour, to survive in the longer term.

Let's be clear... anywhere else in the world, it would be called the Pirate Party... but Dotcom is already in a power of sh*t with the FBI, so that name was out of the question. If you look at the history of pirate parties in Europe, they tend to last one electoral cycle and get swept aside, because they don't manage to broaden their agenda or acquire wider legitimacy. But the essential questions they raise are very important ones, not at all trivial. And by starting out as part of a broader alliance, Dotcom has a chance to make his mark. NZ needs a party to the left of Labour (why should the right wingers get all the fun?), and this Mana/Internet tie-up looks like a historic opportunity. And if it doesn't work... they will be out in 2017. But I trust Laila to build something that will last.

Surprised? I'm completely gutted!
I signed up Laila to the Labour Party many moons ago... I was delighted that we were finally back in the same Green waka... and she jumps ship again! That'll take some getting used to.
But it certainly makes the "Reddit Karma" party (thank you Civilian) a going concern. I've always thought that NZ needed a parliamentary party to the left of the Greens and Labour... I thought it might be Laila's Alliance, back when she ditched Jim... If this gets more people to vote, it could be a game changer.

OK what about Helen's legacy?

In classical NZ socio-economic terms, she's got to be the best since the original 30s Labour government.

On the other hand, in 21st century terms, she's done a pretty poor job of preparing NZ for the poo it's in now. This isn't a short-term financial crisis, it's economic chickens coming home to roost. It's quite ironic that the Nats end up holding the baby.

Just adding up the popular vote numbers... Nat/Act/Dunne = 49.something% ...

Is this the first minority government under MMP?

<quote>If John turns out to be in bed with the right of his party and tries to let Rogernomes loose on the manufactured crisis pretext, National will govern for three years out of the next 15.</i>

Tell you what, it's going to be fun to watch!

Key has pledged to govern as a centrist, broadly following the culture of government established over a decade by Clark.

If he's ransomed by the ACT madmen, he'll be between a rock and a hard place. If he governs as a centrist, he'll probably only last three years anyway.

Guilty as charged sir... Moral : if you aspire to bore people at parties with this stuff, best get it right eh?
Yes, STV, correctly implemented, is pretty good, but not very transparent -- not easy to explain or to understand intuitively -- which is a major drawback in my view. An interesting mix of "ideology" (party list) and "personality" politics, embodying all the ambiguity of real political life.

I confess I have a sentimental weakness for the two-round system à la France : it ensures that the winner has actually gained a majority of votes, which is intellectually satisfying. But I would not recommend it anywhere, in any circumstances : it is bi-polarising (it enables fragmentation on the left or on the right, but obliges second-round alliances), yet rewards hegemony (the Socialists have effectively squeezed out the Communists and Greens in France, reducing them to vassal status).

I share with the author a shameful past in Labour Youth, and I also voted Labour several times (1978, 81 and 84, to be precise, whereafter, aghast at the results, I left the country.)

From my Olympian height of "overseas", MMP looks like a best-of-breed version of parliamentary democracy. I would like one of the STV proponents to explain how it would be FUNCTIONALLY any different from FPP : i.e. you would get an absolute majority for National or Labour every time. If that's what you want, then say so.

Just remember this about two-party democracy : it's twice as democratic as one-party democracy.