Discussion:
Farmers want Labour to govern alone - Federated Farmers
Add Reply
l***@gmail.com
2020-10-19 21:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/

How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.

Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.

After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.

So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
Gordon
2020-10-20 06:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.

It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.

There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
Rich80105
2020-10-20 19:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
One of the things that the election did was confirm that Labour and
the Grees had been right in their concern over National's policies
under Key/English - all parties are now in agreement that there is a
housing crisis, that climate change is real (farmers are telling
National that unusual fires, drought / rain patterns and temperatures
are indications of climate change; that we do have poitential problems
with both water quality and water availability, and that there is now
general agreement that inequality has gone too far and that benefits
and the minimum wage were inadequate, even though Labour has started
correcting that to some extent.

The election results do not say that Labour should govern alone - in
fact they endorse Labours policy of working with others, including
where necessary opposition parties - that was at the heart of the
Prime Ministers ethos and statements. Many are tired of the old
'attack everything' attitude of National - a gentler, kinder
government that actually listens is preferred, even when it is known
that progress in some areas may not be as violent as the attack
policies of National.

Labour and the Greens do share some (but not all) policies, so why not
work together? And of course some believe that the Greens (or Labour)
have lost the plot - those are the National supporters that couldn't
tolerate National any more and turned to ACT, and some of the normal
ACT and National supporters - they are not enough to give National the
support and allies needed to be in government.
Crash
2020-10-20 20:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
One of the things that the election did was confirm that Labour and
the Grees had been right in their concern over National's policies
under Key/English
Incorrect. This election confirmed that a majority of party-voters
supported the Labour party. The National party led by Key and English
is history and completely irrelevant to current times and current
issues.
Post by Rich80105
- all parties are now in agreement that there is a
housing crisis, that climate change is real (farmers are telling
National that unusual fires, drought / rain patterns and temperatures
are indications of climate change; that we do have poitential problems
with both water quality and water availability, and that there is now
general agreement that inequality has gone too far and that benefits
and the minimum wage were inadequate, even though Labour has started
correcting that to some extent.
Your usual baseless political rhetoric. All that can be truthfully
said is that all parties have completed an election campaign and the
voters have made their choice. All parties now need to plan their
future based on the election results.
Post by Rich80105
The election results do not say that Labour should govern alone
They most certainly do - in the context that Labour were hamstrung by
a 'handbrake' coalition with NZF in the Parliamentary term just ending
- and now have a clear majority. The expectation is that we now will
see 3 years of relentless delivery. Labour will be judged on this as
they should be.
Post by Rich80105
- in
fact they endorse Labours policy of working with others, including
where necessary opposition parties - that was at the heart of the
Prime Ministers ethos and statements. Many are tired of the old
'attack everything' attitude of National - a gentler, kinder
government that actually listens is preferred, even when it is known
that progress in some areas may not be as violent as the attack
policies of National.
Again you indulge in political rhetoric. Whether or not Labour work
with other parties is irrelevant. They do not need to. They need to
deliver.
Post by Rich80105
Labour and the Greens do share some (but not all) policies, so why not
work together? And of course some believe that the Greens (or Labour)
have lost the plot - those are the National supporters that couldn't
tolerate National any more and turned to ACT, and some of the normal
ACT and National supporters - they are not enough to give National the
support and allies needed to be in government.
More political rhetoric. The Greens are irrelevant to what Labour
have in front of them - a 3-year term of relentless delivery on their
commitments, unhindered by a 'handbrake' coalition partner. That does
not mean that all their commitments will meet with universal approval,
but it does mean that if they get things wrong National need to be
there to articulate a viable, credible and popular alternative.
National may or may not be able to do this.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-10-20 21:46:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
One of the things that the election did was confirm that Labour and
the Grees had been right in their concern over National's policies
under Key/English
Incorrect. This election confirmed that a majority of party-voters
supported the Labour party. The National party led by Key and English
is history and completely irrelevant to current times and current
issues.
Post by Rich80105
- all parties are now in agreement that there is a
housing crisis, that climate change is real (farmers are telling
National that unusual fires, drought / rain patterns and temperatures
are indications of climate change; that we do have poitential problems
with both water quality and water availability, and that there is now
general agreement that inequality has gone too far and that benefits
and the minimum wage were inadequate, even though Labour has started
correcting that to some extent.
Your usual baseless political rhetoric. All that can be truthfully
said is that all parties have completed an election campaign and the
voters have made their choice. All parties now need to plan their
future based on the election results.
Post by Rich80105
The election results do not say that Labour should govern alone
They most certainly do - in the context that Labour were hamstrung by
a 'handbrake' coalition with NZF in the Parliamentary term just ending
- and now have a clear majority. The expectation is that we now will
see 3 years of relentless delivery. Labour will be judged on this as
they should be.
Yup. But for now there'll still be that other irreducible handbrake - limited financing, and this in a world of rapidly escalating debt, our own included. For good measure, also add the sheet-anchor of a depressed global economy of indeterminate duration. What price 'relentless delivery' now? The other point we are reminded of not nearly often enough is that we share with all other nations a vital mutual economic dependence without which this nation simply cannot function. In trading and finance, reputation and reliability are all. Our measure of 'reliability' in the international markets is gauged on our stability, both economic and political. In this respect we enjoy top 'cred' among our economic partners and financers. Jeopardise either of these and it's goodbye, nice to have known you, New Zealand. Robertson's got his work cut out, and then some.
.
Post by Rich80105
- in
fact they endorse Labours policy of working with others, including
where necessary opposition parties - that was at the heart of the
Prime Ministers ethos and statements. Many are tired of the old
'attack everything' attitude of National - a gentler, kinder
government that actually listens is preferred, even when it is known
that progress in some areas may not be as violent as the attack
policies of National.
Again you indulge in political rhetoric. Whether or not Labour work
with other parties is irrelevant. They do not need to. They need to
deliver.
Post by Rich80105
Labour and the Greens do share some (but not all) policies, so why not
work together? And of course some believe that the Greens (or Labour)
have lost the plot - those are the National supporters that couldn't
tolerate National any more and turned to ACT, and some of the normal
ACT and National supporters - they are not enough to give National the
support and allies needed to be in government.
More political rhetoric. The Greens are irrelevant to what Labour
have in front of them - a 3-year term of relentless delivery on their
commitments, unhindered by a 'handbrake' coalition partner. That does
not mean that all their commitments will meet with universal approval,
but it does mean that if they get things wrong National need to be
there to articulate a viable, credible and popular alternative.
National may or may not be able to do this.
That doubt will continue over this new parliamentary term. After all, every thieves' kitchen is not only host to cockroaches of every noxious stripe but also to countless rats' nests concealed in every dark niche and corner, all of vermin which must now be brought to light and bludgeoned mercilessly into oblivion. So crucher Collins will at last have something actually useful and constructive to be getting on with while satisfying her unwholesome passion to debase, degrade and destroy at the first opportunity she gets - or, more usually, manufactures. Best of all though, in her unknowing irony it was Collins herself who told the world that in her elevation to National's top smell she had, and I quote verbatim, "been handed a hospital pass." Quite so, but she underestimated herself. In a trice, single-handedly and unimpeded, National's very own judas goat has led John Key's long since moribund legacy straight from the hospital and into the hospice conveniently prepared for her and her party next door.

But my one concern at this juncture is that the media keep referring to Labour as 'negotiating' with the Greens, as if Labour with its four-seat majority is somehow hostage to them. Readers may have noticed that in this context I consistently use the term 'accord' and this, I believe is as far as it should go. An understanding, yes, but never an agreement. So, for the Greens:

No cabinet seat. Period.

Executive apportionment -if any - should be set no higher than the rank of junior minister in the most minor and least sensitive/critical portfolios. Period.

And Shaw and Swarbrick should both thank their lucky stars should Ardern even be so generous (misguided?) to allow them these positions since there are no other 'friends' in Parliament the Green party can cleave to or be guaranteed protection from. Period.

During the third year of this probationary term, a review of current conditions should determine whether or not the accord can be renewed or revised for a further (possible) term
James Christophers
2020-10-31 21:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
One of the things that the election did was confirm that Labour and
the Grees had been right in their concern over National's policies
under Key/English
Incorrect. This election confirmed that a majority of party-voters
supported the Labour party. The National party led by Key and English
is history and completely irrelevant to current times and current
issues.
Post by Rich80105
- all parties are now in agreement that there is a
housing crisis, that climate change is real (farmers are telling
National that unusual fires, drought / rain patterns and temperatures
are indications of climate change; that we do have poitential problems
with both water quality and water availability, and that there is now
general agreement that inequality has gone too far and that benefits
and the minimum wage were inadequate, even though Labour has started
correcting that to some extent.
Your usual baseless political rhetoric. All that can be truthfully
said is that all parties have completed an election campaign and the
voters have made their choice. All parties now need to plan their
future based on the election results.
Post by Rich80105
The election results do not say that Labour should govern alone
They most certainly do - in the context that Labour were hamstrung by
a 'handbrake' coalition with NZF in the Parliamentary term just ending
- and now have a clear majority. The expectation is that we now will
see 3 years of relentless delivery. Labour will be judged on this as
they should be.
Yup. But for now there'll still be that other irreducible handbrake - limited financing, and this in a world of rapidly escalating debt, our own included. For good measure, also add the sheet-anchor of a depressed global economy of indeterminate duration. What price 'relentless delivery' now? The other point we are reminded of not nearly often enough is that we share with all other nations a vital mutual economic dependence without which this nation simply cannot function. In trading and finance, reputation and reliability are all. Our measure of 'reliability' in the international markets is gauged on our stability, both economic and political. In this respect we enjoy top 'cred' among our economic partners and financers. Jeopardise either of these and it's goodbye, nice to have known you, New Zealand. Robertson's got his work cut out, and then some.
.
Post by Rich80105
- in
fact they endorse Labours policy of working with others, including
where necessary opposition parties - that was at the heart of the
Prime Ministers ethos and statements. Many are tired of the old
'attack everything' attitude of National - a gentler, kinder
government that actually listens is preferred, even when it is known
that progress in some areas may not be as violent as the attack
policies of National.
Again you indulge in political rhetoric. Whether or not Labour work
with other parties is irrelevant. They do not need to. They need to
deliver.
Post by Rich80105
Labour and the Greens do share some (but not all) policies, so why not
work together? And of course some believe that the Greens (or Labour)
have lost the plot - those are the National supporters that couldn't
tolerate National any more and turned to ACT, and some of the normal
ACT and National supporters - they are not enough to give National the
support and allies needed to be in government.
More political rhetoric. The Greens are irrelevant to what Labour
have in front of them - a 3-year term of relentless delivery on their
commitments, unhindered by a 'handbrake' coalition partner. That does
not mean that all their commitments will meet with universal approval,
but it does mean that if they get things wrong National need to be
there to articulate a viable, credible and popular alternative.
National may or may not be able to do this.
That doubt will continue over this new parliamentary term. After all, every thieves' kitchen is not only host to cockroaches of every noxious stripe but also to countless rats' nests concealed in every dark niche and corner, all of vermin which must now be brought to light and bludgeoned mercilessly into oblivion. So crucher Collins will at last have something actually useful and constructive to be getting on with while satisfying her unwholesome passion to debase, degrade and destroy at the first opportunity she gets - or, more usually, manufactures. Best of all though, in her unknowing irony it was Collins herself who told the world that in her elevation to National's top smell she had, and I quote verbatim, "been handed a hospital pass." Quite so, but she underestimated herself. In a trice, single-handedly and unimpeded, National's very own judas goat has led John Key's long since moribund legacy straight from the hospital and into the hospice conveniently prepared for her and her party next door.
No cabinet seat. Period.
Done.
Executive apportionment - if any - should be set no higher than the rank of junior minister in the most minor and least sensitive/critical portfolios. Period.
Done.


Ardern has wisely taken my advice - virtually to the letter, in fact - and secured what amounts to a confidence and supply agreement with the Greens. Which is exactly as it should be since it further consolidates her and her party's position while further boosting the overall stability of her 74-seat majority administration.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-results-key-green-party-membership-overwhelmingly-backs-arderns-new-green-deal/ZJTR2KTZBVLPEREM77H2MP4OIE/
And Shaw and Swarbrick should both thank their lucky stars should Ardern even be so generous (misguided?) to allow them these positions since there are no other 'friends' in Parliament the Green party can cleave to or be guaranteed protection from. Period.
During the third year of this probationary term, a review of current conditions should determine whether or not the accord can be renewed or revised for a further (possible) term.
As I say...
Rich80105
2020-10-31 22:46:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 14:11:54 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
One of the things that the election did was confirm that Labour and
the Grees had been right in their concern over National's policies
under Key/English
Incorrect. This election confirmed that a majority of party-voters
supported the Labour party. The National party led by Key and English
is history and completely irrelevant to current times and current
issues.
Post by Rich80105
- all parties are now in agreement that there is a
housing crisis, that climate change is real (farmers are telling
National that unusual fires, drought / rain patterns and temperatures
are indications of climate change; that we do have poitential problems
with both water quality and water availability, and that there is now
general agreement that inequality has gone too far and that benefits
and the minimum wage were inadequate, even though Labour has started
correcting that to some extent.
Your usual baseless political rhetoric. All that can be truthfully
said is that all parties have completed an election campaign and the
voters have made their choice. All parties now need to plan their
future based on the election results.
Post by Rich80105
The election results do not say that Labour should govern alone
They most certainly do - in the context that Labour were hamstrung by
a 'handbrake' coalition with NZF in the Parliamentary term just ending
- and now have a clear majority. The expectation is that we now will
see 3 years of relentless delivery. Labour will be judged on this as
they should be.
Yup. But for now there'll still be that other irreducible handbrake - limited financing, and this in a world of rapidly escalating debt, our own included. For good measure, also add the sheet-anchor of a depressed global economy of indeterminate duration. What price 'relentless delivery' now? The other point we are reminded of not nearly often enough is that we share with all other nations a vital mutual economic dependence without which this nation simply cannot function. In trading and finance, reputation and reliability are all. Our measure of 'reliability' in the international markets is gauged on our stability, both economic and political. In this respect we enjoy top 'cred' among our economic partners and financers. Jeopardise either of these and it's goodbye, nice to have known you, New Zealand. Robertson's got his work cut out, and then some.
.
Post by Rich80105
- in
fact they endorse Labours policy of working with others, including
where necessary opposition parties - that was at the heart of the
Prime Ministers ethos and statements. Many are tired of the old
'attack everything' attitude of National - a gentler, kinder
government that actually listens is preferred, even when it is known
that progress in some areas may not be as violent as the attack
policies of National.
Again you indulge in political rhetoric. Whether or not Labour work
with other parties is irrelevant. They do not need to. They need to
deliver.
Post by Rich80105
Labour and the Greens do share some (but not all) policies, so why not
work together? And of course some believe that the Greens (or Labour)
have lost the plot - those are the National supporters that couldn't
tolerate National any more and turned to ACT, and some of the normal
ACT and National supporters - they are not enough to give National the
support and allies needed to be in government.
More political rhetoric. The Greens are irrelevant to what Labour
have in front of them - a 3-year term of relentless delivery on their
commitments, unhindered by a 'handbrake' coalition partner. That does
not mean that all their commitments will meet with universal approval,
but it does mean that if they get things wrong National need to be
there to articulate a viable, credible and popular alternative.
National may or may not be able to do this.
That doubt will continue over this new parliamentary term. After all, every thieves' kitchen is not only host to cockroaches of every noxious stripe but also to countless rats' nests concealed in every dark niche and corner, all of vermin which must now be brought to light and bludgeoned mercilessly into oblivion. So crucher Collins will at last have something actually useful and constructive to be getting on with while satisfying her unwholesome passion to debase, degrade and destroy at the first opportunity she gets - or, more usually, manufactures. Best of all though, in her unknowing irony it was Collins herself who told the world that in her elevation to National's top smell she had, and I quote verbatim, "been handed a hospital pass." Quite so, but she underestimated herself. In a trice, single-handedly and unimpeded, National's very own judas goat has led John Key's long since moribund legacy straight from the hospital and into the hospice conveniently prepared for her and
her party next door.
No cabinet seat. Period.
Done.
Executive apportionment - if any - should be set no higher than the rank of junior minister in the most minor and least sensitive/critical portfolios. Period.
Done.
Ardern has wisely taken my advice - virtually to the letter, in fact - and secured what amounts to a confidence and supply agreement with the Greens. Which is exactly as it should be since it further consolidates her and her party's position while further boosting the overall stability of her 74-seat majority administration.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-results-key-green-party-membership-overwhelmingly-backs-arderns-new-green-deal/ZJTR2KTZBVLPEREM77H2MP4OIE/
And Shaw and Swarbrick should both thank their lucky stars should Ardern even be so generous (misguided?) to allow them these positions since there are no other 'friends' in Parliament the Green party can cleave to or be guaranteed protection from. Period.
During the third year of this probationary term, a review of current conditions should determine whether or not the accord can be renewed or revised for a further (possible) term.
As I say...
All very well handled by both parties. It should be possible for all
Ministers to work with MPs of both parties to ensure that appropriate
training is given and experience used to benefit a continuation of
what has worked well, and also to provide for inevitable cabinet
re-shuffles as work priorities change.

I am very pleased at this: "The Prime Minister also signalled that she
will be looking to work with the opposition on a number of areas of
cross-party cooperation, such as extending the parliamentary term and
the abolishing of the "coat-tailing" rules."

Personally I am fairly neutral on exending the term of parliament, but
in light ofthe manifest problems with teh USA versin of "Democracy" it
would be good to ensure that our system is as fair as it can be. The
"coat-tailing" rule appears unlikely to affect the results of this
year's election, but it distorted results in past elections. In
fairness, the threshold should also be reduced to the number required
for a list MP.
Gordon
2020-11-01 04:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 2020-10-31, Rich80105 <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Snip
Post by Rich80105
I am very pleased at this: "The Prime Minister also signalled that she
will be looking to work with the opposition on a number of areas of
cross-party cooperation, such as extending the parliamentary term and
the abolishing of the "coat-tailing" rules."
Personally I am fairly neutral on exending the term of parliament, but
in light ofthe manifest problems with teh USA versin of "Democracy" it
would be good to ensure that our system is as fair as it can be.
Here you go again Rich, letting your fingers wander into a total separate
area.

The term of parliament, has very little to do with How the MPs are elected.

Mentioning the two in the same paragraph shows some muddled thinking.

Of course there is also the case where the US of A and Australia have two
levels of Government. Federal and State which adds another variable/factor.

Now how long does Jacinda wish the extended term should be? 4 years or 20?
Or somewhere in between? It does make a difference you see.







The
Post by Rich80105
"coat-tailing" rule appears unlikely to affect the results of this
year's election, but it distorted results in past elections. In
fairness, the threshold should also be reduced to the number required
for a list MP.
Rich80105
2020-11-01 07:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Snip
Post by Rich80105
I am very pleased at this: "The Prime Minister also signalled that she
will be looking to work with the opposition on a number of areas of
cross-party cooperation, such as extending the parliamentary term and
the abolishing of the "coat-tailing" rules."
Personally I am fairly neutral on exending the term of parliament, but
in light ofthe manifest problems with teh USA versin of "Democracy" it
would be good to ensure that our system is as fair as it can be.
Here you go again Rich, letting your fingers wander into a total separate
area.
The term of parliament, has very little to do with How the MPs are elected.
Mentioning the two in the same paragraph shows some muddled thinking.
They were mentioned in the same sentence by the reporter! Readthe url
that you carefully snipped!

Both involve electoral law. If the relevant law is being reviewed
for one issue, it is sensible to at least discuss other issues.
Post by Gordon
Of course there is also the case where the US of A and Australia have two
levels of Government. Federal and State which adds another variable/factor.
Which does give some reason for the problems - but the electoral
college for President is in a different category altogether ; what may
have been suitable when it was put together is now being seen as
undemocratic by many around the world.
Post by Gordon
Now how long does Jacinda wish the extended term should be? 4 years or 20?
Or somewhere in between? It does make a difference you see.
Most discussion has been around moving to a 4 year term, but I am not
aware of any statements from parties - politicians from both National
and Labour have raised the possibilty of four years. Yes it does make
a difference - well done. There are in my view valid reasons for
either retaining 3 years or moving to 4.
Post by Gordon
The
Post by Rich80105
"coat-tailing" rule appears unlikely to affect the results of this
year's election, but it distorted results in past elections. In
fairness, the threshold should also be reduced to the number required
for a list MP.
The Threshold and the coat-tailing provisions do distort results. Do
you agree that they should be changed, Gordon?

Rich80105
2020-10-20 21:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green ideas if
you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the Greens
to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of being
an advocate for the evironment.
One of the things that the election did was confirm that Labour and
the Grees had been right in their concern over National's policies
under Key/English
Incorrect. This election confirmed that a majority of party-voters
supported the Labour party. The National party led by Key and English
is history and completely irrelevant to current times and current
issues.
The decision to prefer Labour over National is implicitly related to
policies espoused by those two partis, and to the extent that this
relates to policies which National still endorse and Labour reject, at
least some Labour and Green supporters are likely to have preferred
Labour/Green policies over those of National, but I accept that some
had other views such as those you referred to.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
- all parties are now in agreement that there is a
housing crisis, that climate change is real (farmers are telling
National that unusual fires, drought / rain patterns and temperatures
are indications of climate change; that we do have poitential problems
with both water quality and water availability, and that there is now
general agreement that inequality has gone too far and that benefits
and the minimum wage were inadequate, even though Labour has started
correcting that to some extent.
Your usual baseless political rhetoric. All that can be truthfully
said is that all parties have completed an election campaign and the
voters have made their choice. All parties now need to plan their
future based on the election results.
Post by Rich80105
The election results do not say that Labour should govern alone
They most certainly do - in the context that Labour were hamstrung by
a 'handbrake' coalition with NZF in the Parliamentary term just ending
- and now have a clear majority. The expectation is that we now will
see 3 years of relentless delivery. Labour will be judged on this as
they should be.
And if that can be accomplished by making arrangments for closer
cooperation with the Green Party where policy views are shared then
that does not preclude a a closer governance arrangmeent with the
Green Party (and possibly also on siilar grounds with the Maori
Party). On some issues Labour and National and/or ACT may also
agree; and closer relationships may assist appropriate actin in those
areas.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
- in
fact they endorse Labours policy of working with others, including
where necessary opposition parties - that was at the heart of the
Prime Ministers ethos and statements. Many are tired of the old
'attack everything' attitude of National - a gentler, kinder
government that actually listens is preferred, even when it is known
that progress in some areas may not be as violent as the attack
policies of National.
Again you indulge in political rhetoric. Whether or not Labour work
with other parties is irrelevant. They do not need to. They need to
deliver.
Agreed, and if that is helped by working with others so be it. The
election results do not say that Labour should govern alone, or in
coalition or any other governance arrangement.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Labour and the Greens do share some (but not all) policies, so why not
work together? And of course some believe that the Greens (or Labour)
have lost the plot - those are the National supporters that couldn't
tolerate National any more and turned to ACT, and some of the normal
ACT and National supporters - they are not enough to give National the
support and allies needed to be in government.
More political rhetoric. The Greens are irrelevant to what Labour
have in front of them - a 3-year term of relentless delivery on their
commitments, unhindered by a 'handbrake' coalition partner. That does
not mean that all their commitments will meet with universal approval,
but it does mean that if they get things wrong National need to be
there to articulate a viable, credible and popular alternative.
National may or may not be able to do this.
I see your political rhetoric is saying much the same as my comments.
All parties will be judged on the perception of what they do and say
durng this next three years. NZ First made a feature of being a
'handbrake" - expressed as keeping them honest, but seen as promising
an ability to prevent extremism while still allowing widely accepted
policies to be progressed. They were seen to have overstepped the
mark, but also the need for such a 'handbrake' is seen to be less as
Labour presented themselves as not being particularly extremist (to
the disappointment of some suporters), and National attempted to
shore up its base and lost appeal to centrist voters - again much to
the disappointment of some of their supporters.
George
2020-10-20 19:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 20 Oct 2020 06:39:29 GMT
Post by Gordon
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green
ideas if you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the
Greens to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of
being an advocate for the evironment.
The government isn't quite the bogeyman yet.
So far its a first past the post and hopefully realises that it has to
'behave' to score a further three years after this one.
One way to do this is to ignore the greens
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-10-20 21:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On 20 Oct 2020 06:39:29 GMT
Post by Gordon
I certainly can see the logic in not be seen as taking on any Green
ideas if you can go it alone.
It is also fair to say that there are some townies who would like the
Greens to not be green and silly.
There are others who plan think that the Greens have lost the plot of
being an advocate for the evironment.
The government isn't quite the bogeyman yet.
So far its a first past the post
Of course it is not "first past the post" - it is an MMP result; the
number of MPs held by each party is proportionate to the party votes.
Had it been a first past the post result, ACT would have had only one
MP; as it is they have 10 (subject to specials).
Post by George
and hopefully realises that it has to
'behave' to score a further three years after this one.
That is always the case in a reasonable democracy, regardless of
whether it is FPP or MMP; although the degree of "fairness" is
subjective - the bias towards small states in the presidential and
federal elections in the Unites States is either a welcome or
unwelcome 'feature' of their system, depending on your viewpoint.
Post by George
One way to do this is to ignore the greens
Or not, depending on yur view - but I suspect one of the reasons
Labour has been succesful is that they do not prpose to ignore any
group of New Zealanders; that is what made National so unpopular.
BR
2020-10-21 04:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
Farmers don't want Labour to govern alone, they just don't want the
Greens to be part of any government.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
James Christophers
2020-10-21 05:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by l***@gmail.com
Here's why, direct from the milking parlour, as it were.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmers-want-labour-to-govern-alone-federated-farmers/TZX63EEOP45YVW4E3YAFCMQX4I/
How National will be handling the seismic shock of Labour’s deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyone’s guess. Worse still for National, this is the first time this has happened since the introduction of MMP.
Ardern must surely know that such a heaven-sent gift will be hers to forfeit unless she keeps the Greens on a tight rein and well and truly at arm's length in whatever accord she may be planning between her party and theirs.
After all, as Crash has pointed out, New Zealanders have not only given Labour a clear mandate to govern only and solely, but the party also has a sufficient majority comfortably to do so.
So my view is that with a mere 3 years to go until the next election, Ardern should consider laying it on the Greens that they're only in Parliament by a hairs' breadth, so all they can expect is to be treated on a probationary basis and during this new parliamentary term to know their place and to mind their P's and Q's.
Farmers don't want Labour to govern alone, they just don't want the
Greens to be part of any government.
In which case, why not also make this known to Sally Murphy of RNZ, making sure to name the person or source that has told you this?
Loading...