New Zealand First has a lot of policy that aligns with Labour - closing corporate tax loopholes, introducing guaranteed benefits for students, removing GST from things like food... that sort of thing. You can find their policy page here, if you're at all interested (which you probably aren't).

The other thing is that Winston implicitly campaigned on a promise of change, with slogans such as 'Had Enough?'. On top of that, he appears to be starting legal proceedings against some National Party members - something to do with the way he and his party were treated when he was in coalition with them.

Believe me, there's plenty of small-minded partisanship in New Zealand, too. Some of the rage from National supporters was almost as bad as Republicans' response to Obama's election. Our system of government encourages it less, though. People can vote for the bigger small parties and have a reasonable expectation of that vote actually mattering to the makeup of the government, unlike in the US, where FPP turns every single election into an us vs. them between the far right and the moderate right, with no room for anyone else.

I would certainly be in favour of some kind of mental health check - dementia screening, for example. But I wouldn't say that older people can't be effective members of the government.

What I do support is more engagement of younger people with politics. More possibility for younger people to run for election with a hope of winning, and more young people getting out and voting. The latter is widely regarded as what caused Theresa May to throw away her majority - Jeremy Corbyn managed to get young voters to actually come out and vote.

If the people who are going to have to live with the consequences for longest decide that age and experience is more valuable than what a younger candidate is offering, great - that's how democracy works. But America was offered a choice between Trump and Clinton, both around 70 (and Bernie at 75!); Britain was presented with May at 60 and Corbyn at 68. In ten years, all of them except Mrs May will be beyond the point where today's policies really affect them (except in terms of healthcare, but HAHA they're all rich anyway so who cares about the poor amirite?); why were they the only options for making those policies?

hS