Post by CrashPost by Rich80105Post by GordonPost by l***@gmail.comHere'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 Labours deepest-ever incursion into their historical voting base is anyones 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 CrashPost 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 Rich80105The 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 CrashPost 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 CrashPost by Rich80105Labour 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.