Understanding New Zealand 3: Who Voted National In 2020

The 2020 General Election was a disaster for National. Their vote count collapsed from 1,152,075 (44.4%) to 738,275 (25.6%). This catastrophic result saw National with no chance of negotiating their way into government.

National lost voters in two major directions. Not only did they lose votes to their fellow right-wing party ACT, but they also lost votes across the centre to Labour.

Although National never got many votes from young people (the correlation between voting National in 2017 and being aged 20-29 was significantly negative), they got even fewer in 2020. Young New Zealand voters followed the general trend of drifting away from conservative parties between 2017 and 2020.

One pattern here is very striking: support for National rises as age rises, up until the 50-54 year old age bracket, at which point it levels off. National support increases the most quickly between ages 30-45, because this is the age in which the largest number make the transition from renter to homeowner, and therefore from a victim of the Establishment to a beneficiary of it.

People in the age brackets where homeownership is very high, i.e. those aged 50 or above, are solidly National supporters. The correlation between voting National in 2020 and owning one’s own home in a family trust was 0.81, and with owning or part owning one’s own home outright it was 0.56. The correlation between voting National in 2020 and neither owning one’s home in a family trust nor outright was -0.75.

The reason for this is obvious: National is more interested in taxing labour than capital, so those who own a lot of capital vote National out of self-interest. The New Zealand homeowner can rest assured that the National Party will never impose a capital gains tax nor a land tax. They are very much the representatives of accumulated capital.

The ongoing and worsening housing crisis is probably the foremost reason that National lost many younger voters, but maintained their position among the middle-aged. After all, the more arduous and difficult it is for a young person to get into a house, the more cruisy and luxurious life is for those who own the houses.

If Labour are the established party of the working class, National are the established party of the Establishment.

If National is the party of the Establishment, then they predictably get a lot of votes from white people. In 2020, the correlation between voting National and being of European descent was 0.53. This is strong enough to suggest that the vast majority of National support comes from white people.

Support for National sank noticeably among Pacific Islanders and Asians, however. Asians are almost completely indifferent to National, and Pacific Islanders now dislike National almost as much as Maoris do. It’s possible that National becomes more and more a white person’s party over time.

The National Party isn’t just the party of those holding wealth, it’s also the party of those earning it. There were significant correlations between voting National in 2020 and having a personal income of over $50,000 per year. The correlation between voting National in 2020 and having a personal income of over $70,000 was 0.41.

However, the correlations between being wealthy and voting National were not as strong as the correlations between being old and voting National, and the correlation between earning over $70,000 and voting for a party was stronger for the Greens (0.52) than it was for National. This speaks to the degree to which votes for National are often cast for reasons of social conservatism.

On the subject of social conservatism, this has traditionally been where National got a lot of its voters. Christians are generally happy to have homosexuals, prostitutes and cannabis users locked up in prison for moral reasons, and to that end they tend to vote National.

In 2017, the correlation between voting National and being Christian was 0.33. But by 2020 this had fallen to 0.10. Support for National also fell between 2017 and 2020 among Buddhists (0.20 to 0.12), Hindus (-0.06 to -0.14) and Muslims (-0.10 to -0.19). These voters probably didn’t switch because of moral reasons, but because of the poor example National set with their multiple changes of leadership.

In 2017 National and Labour were heavily polarised, and appealed to very different demographics. The correlation between voting National in 2017 and voting Labour in 2017 was -0.94, suggesting that there was very little overlap between the two voting blocs.

By 2020, the correlation between voting National and voting Labour was -0.16. This was because so many elderly, rich, white, Christian voters switched to Labour that there was no longer any significant difference between the voters of the two parties. National was still older, richer, whiter – but not by anywhere near as much.

So many old, rich, white people abandoned National for ACT in 2020 that the correlation between voting for either party in 2020 was 0.92. In 2017 this correlation was only 0.61.

There were also strong correlations between voting National in 2020 and voting New Conservative in 2020 (0.68) or voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 (0.50).

Significant negative correlations existed between voting National in 2020 and voting Maori Party in 2020 (-0.71), voting Vision NZ in 2020 or voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2020 (both -0.60). These parties have a young, poor and brown demographic and are therefore different to the National-voting demographic in several major ways.

None of the correlations between voting National in 2020 and voting for the other parties in 2020 were significant, which speaks to the degree that National is a middle-of-the-road party.

*

This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Is The Fiat Currency System Collapsing?

BitCoin enthusiasts have been overjoyed in recent months to observe the rise of their favourite cryptocurrency against the US Dollar. The price of BitCoin recently touched USD40,000 earlier today, making predictions of an eventual six-figure value seem believable. But the good news for BitCoin holders might herald bad news for everyone else. This could be the collapse of the fiat currency system.

The rise in the price of BitCoin has to be understood in the wider economic context.

Ever since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007, Western governments have taken to what is known as quantitative easing. This involves the widespread printing of fiat currency, a practice that has seen the price of everything go up. New Zealand recently increased the Quantitative Easing limits to $100 billion, up from $60 billion, meaning that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will help to fund the Government through buying bonds.

Almost 24% of all US Dollars in existence have been created over the past 12 months. This money printing has led to a much greater supply of money in circulation, which means one thing: inflation. The fiat currencies of the world are rapidly becoming worthless. This is evident when comparing their value to housing, bullion and BitCoin.

In New Zealand, the average house price has doubled since 2009, but wages have only gone up 40% since then. The average house cost ($330,000/$25) 13,200 hours of labour at the average wage in 2009. By 2020, it cost ($700,000/$34) 20,600 hours. So measured in house-buying terms, the average wage has lost 50% of its power since the Global Financial Crisis.

This is despite that fact that the value of housing stock has served as a kind of heat sink that has taken the steam out of the economy. That sink has now absorbed all the energy that it can. The extra is manifesting as inflation.

The rise in the price of silver bullion is even more striking. Silver bullion has doubled in value since April 2020. The reason for this is mostly uncertainty around fiat currency (the last time silver bullion spiked was in the immediate aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis). Silver has traditionally been seen as an alternative to fiat currency owing to its millennia of trade use.

It’s a similar story with gold bullion, the price of which has tripled since the Global Financial Crisis.

Most striking of all is the price of BitCoin. At the time of writing this article, the price of BitCoin had gone up 30% over the previous week. It had gone up 500% over the previous nine months. BitCoin has gained fame as a digital alternative to fiat currency, owing to the fact that it is not under centralised control.

Many people have predicted that BitCoin will take over once the fiat currency system collapses completely. It will be evident when this is happening, apparently, from a sustained spike in the BitCoin price. Well, there’s a spike in the BitCoin price right now, as well as a spike in the silver price, the gold price and the house price.

All of these trends point unmistakably to one conclusion: the fiat currency system is collapsing. This isn’t surprising to those who were already aware of the life cycle of fiat currencies. Soon, fiat currencies might be worth so little that some people refuse to take them in trade. Then the shit will hit the fan.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Understanding New Zealand 3: Who Voted ACT in 2020?

The ACT Party won a mere 13,075 votes in 2017, barely more than the joke parties. But in 2020 it won 219,031 votes. This 16-fold increase radically changed the composition of the ACT voting demographic.

The main reason for the massive increase in ACT support was wealthy, old white people abandoning the National Party, but not abandoning the right wing. The correlation between being of European descent and voting ACT in 2017 was not significant, at 0.17. By 2020 this correlation had leapt to 0.74, which means that ACT now has the whitest supporters of any registered party, even whiter than New Conservatives.

That these voters came predominantly from National is apparent when one looks at the strength of the correlation between voting National in 2020 and voting ACT in 2020: 0.92. This is much stronger than in 2017, when it was 0.61, or 2014, when it was 0.40. In 2020, ACT voters and National voters were basically the same sort of people.

In fact, the correlation between voting ACT in 2020 and voting National in 2020 is so strong that the two voting demographics are close to identical. There were also strong correlations between voting ACT in 2020 and voting for the other parties whose demographics are wealthy, old and white (i.e. enfranchised), such as New Conservative (0.68) and Sustainable NZ (0.54).

Unsurprisingly, then, there were strong negative correlations between voting ACT and voting for the young and brown parties, such as the Maori Party (-0.64) Vision NZ (-0.60) and ALCP (-0.48).

The ACT Party also got much older. In 2014, the correlation between median age and voting ACT was 0.02. By 2017, it had increased to 0.26. By 2020, it had increased to 0.54 – stronger than the correlation between median age and voting National that year.

Most notably, the correlation between voting ACT in 2017 and being aged 65+ was 0.11, but the correlations between voting ACT in 2020 and belonging to any age bracket above 65 were all at least 0.63. The ACT demographic of today is much, much older than the demographic of even a few years back. Whether this reflects a permanent shift or just a temporary change in sentiments remains to be seen.

The easy assumption up until now was that the ACT Party appealed to a younger, more educated and more liberal demographic than National. This assumption used to be accurate, but by 2020 it no longer was. The ACT Party got so many votes from core National supporters that the two voting blocs are barely distinguishable when it comes to age, race, education or wealth. Even the correlations between casting a special vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum

One of the main reasons for the increase in ACT support was their support of firearms rights. Many of the new ACT voters were rural firearms enthusiasts. This is evident from the fact that the correlation between living in an urban electorate and voting ACT switched from a significantly positive correlation in 2017 (0.37) to a borderline significantly negative correlation of -0.23 in 2020.

Fitting with the high level of rural support for ACT are the significant positive correlations of 0.39 between voting ACT in 2020 and voting Outdoors NZ Party in 2020, and of 0.43 between voting ACT in 2020 and working in agriculture, forestry or fishing. There were also positive correlations, if not significant ones, between voting ACT in 2020 and working in mining or construction.

The most striking correlation here is the one of -0.65 between voting ACT in 2020 and working in administration and support services. The reason for this is likely because ACT appeals mostly to those willing to take financial risks and to gamble, whereas the choice of administration and support services as an industry is usually made by those who like to play it safe.

That such a strongly historically urban party such as ACT might get more support from rural electorates than urban ones is striking, and speaks to the sense of betrayal that the right-leaning firearms community felt about National supporting restrictive firearms legislation. Almost all of these new, rural ACT voters will have been National voters in the previous election.

In several ways, the correlations between belonging to certain demographic categories and voting either ACT or National in 2020 are identical. Voting for either party had a correlation of 0.17 with casting a special vote for Yes in the euthanasia referendum, one of 0.58 with being aged 45-49 years old, one of -0.60 with voting for Vision NZ in 2020, and one of 0.68 with voting for the New Conservative Party in 2020.

The two parties have slight differences in some other ways.

In stark contrast to earlier years, when it was possible to write of ACT that they had the lowest proportion of New Zealand-born voters of any party, the correlation between voting ACT in 2020 and being New Zealand-born was -0.01. This is because the vast majority of their new elderly and rural supporters were New Zealand-born.

One notable difference between National and ACT voters is that the former are less likely to be employed part-time. The correlation between voting National in 2020 and being employed part-time was 0.27 – for voting ACT in 2020 it was 0.50. This speaks to the degree to which the ACT voters of 2020 value community engagement – in stark contrast to earlier years.

There is also a religious component. The correlation between having no religion and voting ACT in 2020 (0.37) was notably stronger than the correlation between having no religion and voting National in 2020 (0.16). ACT voters are less likely to be Hindus or Muslims by a similar margin. This speaks to how National has always pandered to Establishment religious sentiments whereas ACT has not.

In summary, from 2017 to 2020 ACT transformed. In 2017 they were a fringe party for Chinese takeaway shop owners. By 2020 they had become a mainstream movement with the potential of challenging National as the de facto leader of the right wing.

*

This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clown World Chronicles: Elections In Clown World

That Clown World is at the point where democracy tips over into tyranny is evident from the state of elections today. If there’s anything in today’s world that could be compared to a grotesque circus, it’s our general elections. The political world has always been like a circus, but in Clown World the circus is 24/7.

Problems with starting a democracy in places like Africa, it is said, don’t generally arise during the first election. It’s in one of the subsequent elections, when the winner of the initial election loses, that the problems start happening. It’s all well and good for one party to assume control after winning the first democratic election. What matters more, though, is what happens when they lose control and are asked to hand over power.

Characteristic of democratic elections in African scumholes is that they are contested. Almost inevitably, the loser accuses the winner of cheating, either by stuffing ballot boxes or by intimidating opposition voters into staying home. This is especially likely to be true if the loser won the previous election. It’s common for these disputes to end up in massacres or even civil wars.

Characteristic of democratic elections in the West is that the loser accepts the result. This is why it was so shocking for the 2000 American Presidential Election to drag on for as long as it did. But in Clown World, elections in the West have started to go down the African route.

The first real sign of it was the Russian interference conspiracy theory that was pushed by Democrat Party operatives in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. This conspiracy theory suggested that the election result might not have been legitimate because it was influenced by the actions of the Russian Government, who supposedly purchased enough FaceBook ads to switch the result from Clinton to Donald Trump.

At time of writing this chapter, the result of the 2020 American Presidential Election still isn’t clear. Seven weeks after the election, neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump has conceded (although the mainstream media has anointed Biden the winner). Trump has mounted a number of legal challenges relating to the vote, and rumours persist that he might try to enlist the military in a coup.

The tendency of Clown World politicians to dispute election results is made worse by the fact that the elections themselves have become detached from reality. The election process presents an image of a politician that 99.9% of voters will never meet. So it’s almost impossible to know if the results of a general election reflect the will of the country. This makes disputes much more plausible.

In Clown World, elections come down to a battle between competing narratives. Whichever narrative can assert itself the strongest wins, regardless of what any vote tally might say. Elections aren’t so much won as consent for one side’s victory is manufactured. This has made elections into permanent public relations exercises more than temporary leadership contests.

Buying media space is how positive public relations are maintained, and thereby how most elections are won. 90% of the time, the better-resourced candidate wins. This is because most voters in a democracy simply vote for the candidate with the most name recognition. If they saw Candidate A on the television and not Candidate B, that must mean that Candidate A is superior.

It’s even possible to calculate how much money you need to buy enough positive attention to win. A seat in the United States House of Representatives, for example, will cost around $1.6 million. However, it’s not always as simple as money – Michael Bloomberg spent $500 million to win the Democratic nomination for the 2020 Presidential election, and failed. Generally speaking, the lower the office the easier it can be bought.

No matter how hard it is to buy an office, though, people will always try. Because of all the mainstream media propaganda and disinformation this leads to, we still don’t know who has won the 2020 Presidential election. Faith in institutions is so low that there’s no-one we trust to tell us the definitive truth about who the President will be. FaceBook will censor anyone questioning Biden’s supposed victory, but as of right now it’s not clear that Trump intends to concede.

The great risk when elections become disputed is that it can lead to tyranny. The logic is that if the other side isn’t going to play fair, then why should we? Mistrust can escalate to the point where both sides reason that they had better get their retaliation in first. At that point, the country is essentially in a state of civil war.

Unfortunately, if the last two decades of American presidential elections are anything to go by, civil war is almost inevitable. It seems like the election results are becoming more and more heavily disputed by the loser. Trump is digging in his heels right now, and ill will is so widespread that if he called for a million Republican supporters to hit the streets with firearms he might get it.

For democratic elections to work, there has to be widespread confidence that the electoral process is legitimate. This means widespread confidence that there is no voter suppression, no foreign interference, no collusion with outside third parties and no influential disinformation campaigns. If one or more of these factors are present, the results are liable to get disputed.

It might well be that democratic elections themselves are inherently signs of Clown World. But the decay doesn’t stop at democratic elections. The predictable future is increased Weimarisation, up to the point where the system collapses or is overthrown. One possible pre-emptive solution is withdrawing the franchise from certain anti-social groups.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in January 2021.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!