Nobody believed Nats would actually win this seat, but last night's result was still a surprise for me. Shearer did not just win the seat, but with a huge 63%:17% margin. Percentage wise, Shearer beat his predecessor, former PM Helen Clark and even Labour's performance in safe seats like Mangere.

However, this is not a serious set back for National as well. First Mt Albert has always been a red seat, secondly, the turnout was less than 50%, it appears that many right wing votes chose not bother to vote, as the result is inevitable. Lee's blunder to blunder performance and media stir up also contributed to this. If this was a general election, I believe the result would be quite different, Labour would still win, but with a smaller margin.

There were only two races last night, first was the race between Melissa Lee and Green's Russel Norman. As previous polls suggested, Green may have chance to beat National, so I was really wondering whether Mt Albert can humiliate National further by place Lee on the third place. However, it didn't happen though, but the margin between the two is very small, about 5%.

Another surprise race emerged from last night's result, the race between United Future's former deputy leader, Judy Turner, and candidates from other small parties.  Although Turner herself is not in the parliament, but as a member of a parliamentary party, being beaten by Bill and Ben and Legalise Cannabis should be something she didn't expect.

This is more of a party contest now.

Unlike a lot of tories dreaming of getting an extra seat but have no vote in this, I happen to actually live in the electorate. You have to admit this is a very red seat, National never took it before, the last close call I could remember was in the 1990 election, but Clark still managed to hold on the seat despite Labour's poor showing nation-wide. If this is a National-Labour contest, I could see no chance for National.

But this is more than a two party contest, so National may got a chance, but just. It will depend on:

• Performance of Russell Norman, his ability to split hard left votes.
• How successful Nats could brand Shearer as the "national-lite".
• Turn out rate.
• Development of the supercity proposal.

It's still too early to call but I understand Labour does felt a bit nervous right now, many of residents got Labour polling phone calls recently, but that's understandable, given that the party has just lost an election, and Shearer is a relatively new face, therefore there are a lot of uncertainties.

For me, I do admire Shearer's career as a international aid worker, for that, I think he deserves this seat, as his skills of managing refugee camps would come quite handy as some parts of this electorate do give you a refugee camp kind of feeling. Although Clark was a successful Prime Minister, I do feel she owes quite a lot to her electorates, some areas didn't gain a lot from the economic development in the last few years.

National was the ‘natural party of government’, and Labour's time in power was usually short. But there's something unique for the left in New Zealand, a tradition of strong grassroots movement that keeps the spirit alive.

Here's the first one I'm aware of since the election night:

The Campaign to Save MMP

We respect National's desire to hold a public referendum on the issue. A second referendum on the issue is not something to fear, but an opportunity for New Zealanders to show they believe in fairness in their electoral system. The Campaign to Save MMP will be an independent, non-partisan effort to inform voters of the benefits of MMP and show them the downside of other electoral systems.

Well, good luck.

However, I'm also aware of the weakness of MMP demonstrated in the last election, the case of NZ First and ACT:

• ACT: 3.72% of the vote, 5 MPs
• NZ First: 4.21% of the vote ...  no MPs.

That's all because Rodney had won the Epsom seat.

I acknowledge the fact that 5% threshold is needed to keep extremists and idiots out of the parliament, and I think that kind of threshold should be in place because there are really idiots out there.

But ACT's (and United Future, Progressive ... ) case just exposed an if scenario -  lets assume that 1% of eligible voters are idiots(Sure I don't mean people who voted ACT are idiots), and 50%+ of them live in one electorate?

Well I mean, if the local idiots want one of their kind to represent them in the Parliament, I have no problem with that, that's what local representation is all about.

But does that mean other 50% of the idiots who live in other parts of country should also be represented, given the fact that they only make up 1% of total voters?

Well, your call.

It can happen. The case I can think of (just for fun) is if I'm an extremely rich cult leader and I call half of my idiot followers to move to the same electorate, it won't require a lot of money from me as those idiots will pay for themselves.

I think we should make the current 5% threshold a concrete one. Village idiots can still be represented as the electorate seats still count, but winning an electorate seat should not release any party from that rule.

To compensate minor parties the threshold can be reduced to 4 or 3 per cent. Or it can be like, for every one electorate seat a party had won, remove 0.5% or 1% of the threshold requirement.

I don't quite understand why some people found MMP 'confusing'.  What part of "Everyone has two votes, one for party and one for local representation" they don't understand so they want to dump it?

The system does need a bit of change, but I failed see the need to dump it, well unless there are real alternatives that are both simpler for some ... well ... to understand and yet still fair to everyone else. I don't know what that alternatives can be, but clearly FPP is not one of them.

It's also because I can never forget and forgive the massive incompetence of the last National Government and how that was ended nearly in tragedy.

Helen Clark and the Labour Party have done a good job in last nine years. There were downsides and unpopular movements, but if you look back, most of them were from Green politics.

I personally admired Helen Clark's strong leadership, a courage to do what's best to the country, not what electorates want. History will prove this.

She was also a great ambassador of New Zealand, she won respect for herself and New Zealand when she said no to invasion in Iraq. In China, many of my friends admired New Zealand's dignity, impartiality and selflessness as Clark first tipped the milk scandal in China.

And I'm glad to have her as my local MP for the last 27 years. She fought tirelessly for the benefit of the local community, and helped me during my hard time.

There was no doubt that National is on the road to form next government, but as I marked in my twitter, no matter who wins, it will sure be a sad turning point of New Zealand politics. As New Zealand First gradually fades away, New Zealand departed from centrist route, becoming vulnerable to irresponsible acts done by either extreme right wing like ACT or extreme left represented by Greens.

I consider myself pretty centred so it was a hard choice for me.  But when I looked at the current economic crisis, I had to come to the conclusion that John Key might be a better choice - there's no doubt that bankers and capitalists like John Key are responsible for the current world economic crisis, so he should know how to manage New Zealand through it. Why? Arsonists are usually the best fire-fighters, because only they know where the fire started.

It must be warned that John Key needs to be strong enough to resist temptations from old guards inside the National Party. I don't know much about John Key, but most of us know fairly well about old faces like Bill English, a guy like him should never be left in charge of anything alone.

John Key was also given a mandate to keep National as a centrist party and not influenced by 5 ACT MPs especially Roger Douglas otherwise he risks to become a one term PM.

Finally, just a condolence to Labour party and last nine years, it has been good nine years. Brooke Fraser, arithmetics(although it is actually a Christian song):

Bear's Blog Chinese will be offering latest results, web digests and analysis from me and other members of the internet community after 7pm.

Some of those items will be published on my Twitter, it will be in Chinese, well, but you can click on links, most of them will be in English.

Latest from my Twitter:

For other minor parties,Greens will be the big winner, 7%+ of votes will get them a hell lot of seats, especially in an environment with strong major parties.  Other parties, except Maori, are all quite likely to become one man party after tomorrow - ACT has a better chance, so let's say two for ACT, but I still doubt whether there will be a seat for Sir Roger.

And I bet 10 bucks that we'll be waving hands to Winnie to say goodbye after tomorrow.

If that's not your style to say goodbye to a politician like him, let's do this to him together(Source, copyright status unknown, fair use apply.):

haha

But seriously, he'll be sadly missed.  NZ First is the true centre part in New Zealand Politics, and Winston was a good politician as what I always say: "A good politician must be able to serve his/her electorates,  or at least to entertain them." Rodney's only able achieve latter, but Winnie can kind of do both(although I don't like his ideology and policies, especially on immigration).

That's about it, just don't forget to vote tomorrow. I guess Chinese must be the ethnic group with highest turnout - you don't get a chance like this to have a say back in China. I feel quite sad for people who don't bother to participate, they will only appreciate the value their votes if they fought for it hard.

For the next National government, the last thing I want to see the is the abolishment of MMP system - I explained this in my Chinese blog, but I just don't have time to write that much here, so just three words: checks and balances.

However the system will be challeged no matter who forms the government after tomorrow - National will call for a referendum, and there will be more questions on MMP if Labour gets to form the government with less votes.

It was a decisive victory. Obama's victory was set when Ohio called for Obama, there was just no way for McCain to win all central states and at least one West Coast state. News netowrks around the world called Obama victory at 5pm nz time as polling stations in west coast states closed, it was without a doubt that these states will go for obama.

I don't know much U.S. domestic issues, but for the rest of the world, I think this is a good outcome as it is likely to leads to a U.S. foreign policy change, and it renewed the concept "American dreams" - anything can happen if you worked hard.

The only interesting thing happened was around the Anti-smacking Bill. Maybe it was so boring so that two leaders actually started to claim the credit for this very unpopular bill, instead of give the “credit” to the other party.  Well this reinforces what I said in my Chinese blog – if you want real change, don’t expect that from major parties.

It was so boring so I have to say that both of them did quite bad. In fact, I think the only winner of the debate, was John Campbell.

Despite others’ comments, I thought John Campbell did very well. The questions were succinct and right to the point.  And most important of all, he can control the debate far better than Mark Sainsbury, Helen Clark was unable to yell as she did in the first time, and asked for ”fairness” (when was the last time you see this?). Campbell did very well by given each other fair amount of time to respond to questions, and when someone is way off the topic, Campbell interjected very quickly.

I understand those who criticised Campbell do not like too many interjections in a debate, well, that’s really a matter of individual preferences, for me, I don't want to see two people just yell to each other without any form of mediation, in that situation nobody gets anything out of the debate.

John Campbell was the clear winner of the debate. I usually watch Close Up at 7, but I’ll sure consider Campbell live in the future.

For two party leaders, I think Helen Clark did better than John Key, compare with last debate on TV ONE. Key played it very safe, but lacked energy and motivation. Clark didn’t yell much this time, but was still fierce and energetic – well she had to hadn’t she?

But I just keep feeling creepy every time this ad appears on TV. Last line of the ad reads something like "...you know you can trust Helen Clark and Labour." I don't know whether it's just me feeling this way, is this some kind of brainwashing ad with a hidden subliminal message "you should trust Helen Clark"?

I mean the wording of the last line is bit strange. How come they know that I know Helen Clark is more trustworthy? It made me quite scared that they may possess some kind of mind reading secret technique.

But if not,  then don't tell me what I suppose to or not to know. I know (well, everybody knows) Auntie Clarkie signed paintings which were done by someone else.

"trust" and "politician" are just two very incompatible words and I think Clark is quite stupid to set the tone of the election in this way. The ad itself also played a very stupid logic game: any fully minded person should know that an "untrustworthy John" does not logically equal to the statement "Labour is trustworthy".

BTW ... here's a story about two Helens ...

New Zealanders are always proud of their progressive, sometimes radical social values. They are part of our nation's identity. We cannot compete in economy with countries like USA, but we can lead the world in social issues.

We did not seek a balance between rugby matches and our value, we also shouldn't do like what Mr Key said, "a balance between environment and economic development". Mr Key also should not be hesitate to answer the question on the 1981 Springboks tour, I agree the past has no value in order to help us solve our current issues, but Mr Key's personal values are  important though, for me, to assess whether he's the right man. His hesitation to answer that question, shows me that he got no social value at all - that was the defining moment of our country and yet you have no opinion on that?

For that reason, National is definitely off my list for now - if we lose our identity, New Zealand will no longer be New Zealand.

--------

In terms of the debate itself, both did fine. But clearly John Key is more energic and won the debate. After 9 years of Helen Clark, you can even tell what she's going to say before she actually says it.

And it's quite weird that John Key didn't mention the phrase "national party" a lot in the debate ...probably only once or twice.

Well sure this policy is not targeting at current university student like me, so I won't benefit much from it. The real target of this is the middle-class family: 40ish couple, with a bit of money but not too much, got a kid or two that is about to enter the university but don't want kids to ruin their life.

Middle class people do not form the stable vote base of neither major party, and they are the real king/queen makers of the election. People will eventually have children at a point of their life (well most of them), so a few bucks of tax cut sure is no match to Auntie Helen's big cash out bribes.

Just need to see how would the voters respond to this policy...

Although I will not benefit from it, it does, however make me swinging more toward Labour. I like left-wing more than right wing Nats - lefties usually tell public what they really think, wheres Nats tend to tell you what you like to hear - I cannot understand why National's cash dishing policy (tax cut) can be branded as "smart" "helpful to economy", but Labour's same type of policy is branded as "big election bribe". So why high income earner's spending can stimulate economy, but give more money for students' to spend is a bribe?

Some people are really  too greedy, 2% more of taxation in exchange for the cheaper labour and social stability, that's the best deal in the world. Most importantly, that 2% reduces the gap between the rich and poor,  prevent proletariat to become lumpenproletariat class (gosh, such a long word).

Nats need money to fund their tax cut,  so they slashed the government contribution and reduced employer contribution into the fund; some people praised for that as well.

But wait a minute  -  for us, especially ones who joined the KiwiSaver, isn't this just politicians play your money around? give you a $1,000 tax cut, and take out $1,000 government contribution from your KiwiSaver?

Em....

It's about this.

Botany voters can't go wrong - Vote Kenneth Wang, get Wang + Wong!

If you don't know what this is about, it's in Botany Electorate.

This ad has caused a bit of trouble because, according to  National's Pansy Wong office, it sort of endorse votes to go for Pansy, effectively making it an election campaign for Pansy Wong, without her financial agent's authorisation.

Kenneth completely rubbished the claim that he might breached the Elecoral Finance Act. I kind of agree. Kenneth is an electorate only candidate, a vote for him sure means no vote for Pansy. "get  ... and Wong" means get Wong through the National's party vote. The ad is more like a statement of fact, rather than a promotion for National.

But I was somewhat amused by Kenneth Wang's claim that this ad is offering voters 'two for the price of one' deal for the Botany electorate. Well I knew politicians are usually cheap, but I didn't know they are THAT cheap:)

Despite of that, politician is not something that you want more when IT IS at the half price.

Nah just joking. Botany electorate would be a very interesting spot to watch in the election. It's not just about who wins, it's more about how Asian, especially how Chinese vote.

So the vital question for both major party is, can Winston hang on?

NZ First's poll usually moves between 1 - 3% in last month, which isn't enough to help it to gets back to the partliament.

The Tauranga Electorate looks bad for Winston as well. In Augest he was 20% behind the National rival. I haven't see a recent poll but I won't be surprised to see a wider gap between the two.

However, the new website, iPredict, has a different result. The majority of people think that NZ First will win at least 4%.

But in my opinion, this parliament is the last one that we'll see Peters in it. The poll in Tauranga not only shows that people there have moved on, it is also a nationwide trend.

John Key has made a smart move by distancing himself from Peters. I think Labour should consider to do the same now. Wonder if they ever played that game called "mafia", if your mafia buddy will be definitely vote dead by majority, it's actually better to vote FOR his death to disguise yourself. So instead of live in the fading hope believing that you'll get re-elected, Labour should do the right thing now by stop providing useless protection to Mr Peters.

So a smart move for Labour today would be, give at least half of its vote fore the censure or to let each MP vote for themselves. You need to at least show people that this case was not decided on a political ground.

So if you have the right to vote, you need to enrol asap, preferably before October 8, otherwise you may miss the chance to vote.

The interesting bit is that this date is just few days after the U.S. election, and labour can be disadvantaged regardless of who wins that election. Obama is about "change" - sure labour doesn't want that, and McCain is right wing.

It would still be interesting to see who will be able to get his/her hands on the Howick seat.

It is also glad to see more ethnic minorities on the list.

Here's the whole list.

The new Botany Electorate seat, should be quite interesting to watch in next election.

National has confirmed that Pansy Wong will contest this seat. About labour ... it's not yet clear whether its Chinese candidate Raymond Huo will be there as well.

Plus Kenneth Wang from the ACT, this seat will almost definitely fall in the hands of a Chinese candidate.

I cannot find the detail on the demography of the electorate, but the new seat is very likely a National seat as the area was long dominated by Nats.

However, if Kenneth Wang do his job well, like how Rodney did in Epsom in 2005, I think he has a fair chance to capture the seat as well.

In fact this seat might be quite important to ACT. After living dangerously for things like Dancing with the Stars in the last three years, I won't be surprised if Mr Hide actually loses his Epsom seat in the coming up election.

Well, it's too early to tell.

But if this happens, subject to National and Labour's overall preformance, either Sir Doug or Kenneth may needs to win the seat to keep ACT in the Parliament. Sir Doug will attempt another new seat: Hunua (which is the area around the Hunua Ranges), which is also another National dominated area.

Kenneth Wang, although not very well-known, has possibly more popularity in Chinese community among the other two contestant.

I known all three fairly well. What I like about Kenneth is, he really believes in ideology of the Party he represents (although I'm bit leftie). The other two, they are just the "I don't care where, as long as I'm Mayor MP"  type of politician, especially for the "Raymondo" Huo, he just went for the party which gives him the highest party rank.

I personally do not trust those MPs, even if they are Chinese.

It will also maximise the number of Asian MPs in the Parliament as other two "I don't care where" will get in the Parliament through the party lists anyway.

So if you happens to be a Chinese live in the area, why not consider vote ACT in this election?

In council and community board elections, right wing groups overturned their defeat in 2004.

Citizens & Ratepayers has a 2 seats majority in Auckland City Council. That puts Mr Banks in a comfortable position to implement his policy and purposals in his three year term.

Citizens & Ratepayers has also won the majority in most community boards in Auckland.

I hope this mayor can stay longer than just one term. We have three one term mayors already, there is no need to add another one.