On Wed, 13 May 2020 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers Post by Crash
On Tue, 12 May 2020 21:52:21 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers Post by Crash Post by Rich80105 Post by Crash Post by Rich80105 Post by George
On Tue, 12 May 2020 22:50:45 GMT
Post by Willy Nilly Post by George
Thanks Peters now F--- off and die
It's curious to blame Peters when he's been a moderating force in the
formulations of the emergency levels. Don't like that he's in
coalition with Labour? He couldn't go into coalition with National
because National had so thoroughly poisoned the waters. If National
had agreed Peters to retain the Northland seat, we'd have a
National-NZFirst government today. It became visceral in the end.
Probably in the next election Peters will be the only one standing
between us and a Labour-Green government -- it all depends on NZ First
reaching the 5% threshold. Watch out where your grudges take you.
Do you actually read what you write before you type?
Peters was never going to go with National and from his reactions never
And being hectored by a willie ???
If you missed the last election liebor became government because Peters
Following the announcement form Peters there were stories that Natonal
had offered more in terms of "baubles" than Labour, but it was the
honesty of Arderns commitment to consensus that won him over. We may
never know the whole story, but your attitude George mirrors those
fostered on Kiwiblog (Farrar carefully does not say the nasty things
himself, he just posts the dog-whistles that happen to result in the
comments which give his site the nickname "The Sewer." Their frequent
attacks on NZ First, as well as the attacks on NZ First by National
MPs in the house has really given NZ First (whether Winston is there
or not) no real option of giong with National - at least under current
National MPs are of course the only MPs in the house that are free to
attack NZ First but you ignore that with your usual relentless
That may well be the case, Crash, but it still does not explain why
National and perhaps particularly National supporters should so
virulently attack NZ First rather than the three government parties
more generally. Given that they are more likely to seek a future
accomodation with NZ First - as they actively sought to go into
coalition after the last election - it is all the more surprising that
they should avoid even attempting to build bridges on issues where
they could expect NZ First to have sympathy for a National party
Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
So you stick to your guns, George - just be aware that a high
proportion of injuries from guns are self-inflicted by the owner or
the owners family - National have destroyed most who go into
government with them in the past; ACT only exists because he delivers
a potential additional seat because he does not take too many party
votes from National - in effect Epsom gets two MPs.
Again Rich, you make assertions in respect of National and other
parties that have been in government with them, that are not backed by
fact but are the result of your relentless anti-National rhetoric.
As I have said before, the Maori party and ACT have both
Certainly there are some in the Maori Party that regret their
arrangments with National, but I accept that National and National
supporters wuld not see it that way.
Post by Crash
Neither of them were a part of a National-led
government - they were in the same position as the Greens are at
present. NZF are a part of the current Government purely because the
tiny percentage of the party vote (and the resultant 9 MPs) were
crucial to a major party securing the 'confidence of the House' in
Indeed, and had NZ First decided to go with National, Simon Bridges
would now be our Prime Minister. Are you so certain that votes could
not produce a similar situation again where reliance on NZ First
Support could be needed to enable National MPs to form part of a
The previous coalition between National and NZF did not go its full
term despite National's leadership at the time being the sort of
experienced operators that comes with a third-term government (both
Bolger and Shipley). In the end though Shipley engineered Winston's
dismissal and the government survived through to the 1999 election
because enough NZF deserters stayed on as independents with
confidence-and-supply arrangements with National.
As with Labour/NZF, a National/NZF government would have seen an
first-time PM with an experienced Deputy PM from NZF. With both we
have a PM beholden to Winston.
The most attractive way forward is that NZF are out of Parliament
after the next election. If the SFO investigation reveals the
Electoral Commission suspicions to be confirmed, the ensuing
revelations (hopefully prosecutions) should ensure the dishonourable
retirement that Winston so richly deserves, is delivered.
However it turns out, justice and just desserts are seldom if ever one and the same. Equally, the relationship between the law and justice is essentially no different.
In the case of electoral politicking of the MMP kind, when have Peters's machinations ever significantly altered the course of New Zealand politics for the worse? And how could this be conclusively proved?
Every time he has been a part of a Government (twice now).
And (again) how could this be conclusively proved to have been for the worse? (The proof is always in the eating.)
Post by Crash
He gets to
shoot down any initiative he feels will get him maximum exposure.
For as long as our MMP form and style subsists, there's always the risk of an opportunist likely lad or an iconoclast putting a spanner in the works. But if nothing else, it gives governments pause, and Lord knows how often this is what's needed.
Post by Crash Post by James Christophers
After all, the decision to incorporate Peters into any administration is solely in the gift of that same adminstration - i.e. its call, its accountability.
Completely incorrect. In both Governments that involved NZF the major
party was forced to count on NZF support to command the 'confidence of
Both choice and responsibility taken are still in the gift of the majority party, Hobson's though they be.
Why not, then, look to the constitution of New Zealand-style MMP rather than the actions of a one-off capricious MP operating under it?
Post by Crash
There was no choice on their part because NZF commanded
the balance of a government consisting of 61 or more seats.
Again, that's down to the facts of life under New Zealand-style MMP including such critical factors as the threshold percentage. New Zealanders voted for their politics and governance to be this way, didn't they? Were you with them?
Post by Crash Post by James Christophers
This is why on this count alone, Peters gets off scot-free not just once but every single time, and personal accountability be damned.
He does but he gets to call the shots with just 5% or more (7.2% in
2017) of the party vote. Equally if NZF support drops by 2-3% they are
out of Parliament so we can all live in hope.
Such influence from a minority party is, to me, unduly disproportionate. I've always thought this but after more than 25 years here, I consistently find that whoever governs New Zealand and how they govern, reflects the makeup of the electorate which, across the board, is predominantly a smigeon left of centre. Vanilla. Simply disregard the personalities and their foibles and the insulting, sub-adolescent commercial media, and there's really precious little to frighten the horses.
Certainly I think our representation in parliament is better under MMP
- under First Past the Post we had single party governments at least
twice that had received fewer votes than the other major party. I
suspect that we have in the past been preceived as predominantly as
smigeon right of centre - which is preceived by some as having
resulted in the National Parties attitude to having a "natural right
to rule." With extremist right leaders (if not also the party that
supported them) in the USA, UK and Australia; our views may be
slightly distorted regarding right or left. Certainly we strongly
support our public health system, and nearly as strongly a
predominantly state school system. I suspect we are wary of change in
general - to that extent we could be described as slightly
conservative (small c).
The big change that has happened is that MMP has brought in a lower
precentage of "wasted votes" - votes for parties that do not get any
seats in parliament. That has given us better representation, and a
wider range of views.
That wider range of views does favour parties that are tolderant of
different ideas, that are prepared to talk issues through and to
compromise. I don't see that as a left / right issue; for example
Holyoake, Marshall and Bolger were notable for being prepared to
compromise and discuss rather than just pressing ahead and fostering
resentment. Undoubtedly however the "cult of the leader" that National
has adopted in recent times and their attitude towards a significant
potential support party must amaze many of their supporters as much as
it gratifies Labour.
I have written before about the desirability of adopting the
recommndation of the last independent review of our election system,
to reduce the 5% threshold.
Reults of the last election gave :
Party Party Votes (000's) Seats
National 1152 56
Labour 956 46
NZ First 187 9
Green 162 8
ACT 13 1
TOP 63 0
Maori 31 0
(no other party received more than 8100 votes)
For the 4 largest parties, party votes / seat were between 20,000 and
21,000) Becasue of the 'deal' with National, ACT gained an electorate
seats with only 13075 party votes nationa-wide. National received
22,875 party votes in Epsom - enough that it could be said that Epsom
elected two MPs . . .
So what would the seats have been without the 5% threshold? The
system is complex, but in broad terms I think it would have been
NZ First 9
Under that scenario, would we have had a National / NZ First
Post by James Christophers
In any case, this is a sovereign nation politically beholden to none but itself. If things ain't right, the powers to change them are, likewise, vested **solely** in the people and no-one else.
So why haven't they gone about changing things for what they think would be for the better? What's stopping them?
I suspect that Labour will not feel it can take the time now to change
the threshold, but given National's antipathy to their only possible
support partner, why should they worry? TOP appears to have largely
It may however make sense for Labour to come to an "Epsom" deal with
both the Green Party and NZ First - that may galvanise National to
seethe need for "reform"!.