Discussion:
Integrity
Add Reply
Tony
2020-02-02 01:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Gordon
2020-02-02 02:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
But did he rule out a uturn?
Tony
2020-02-02 02:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
But did he rule out a uturn?
About the same as this government has (and has executed such).
But then who trusts politicians?
Rich80105
2020-02-02 03:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 20:37:42 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
But did he rule out a uturn?
About the same as this government has (and has executed such).
But then who trusts politicians?
I don't see it as solely a question of trust; it is a truism of
management and war that few plans survive the reality of battle. That
is exacerbated with a coalition government, and we have quite some
experience with those now; but needing to negotiate with another party
does mean that some pre-election policies will change. Most new
governments also discover work in progress that discloses information
that they were ot previously privy to. Then there are those that for
political purposes wish to reduce trust in any poiliticians - they are
most likely to use the "but they all do it" statement Tony has used
above. By reducing trust in all politicians, the intent has in some
cases been to encourage acceptance of less government, ot of more
authoritarian government - the ""trust us we know what we are doing"
sort of would-be dictators.

So no, some politicians can be trusted - and they will tell the public
when things go wrong or not as planned. I accept however the
implication from Tony that he does not trust Simon Bridges at least,
and perhaps other politicians as well.
Tony
2020-02-02 19:55:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 20:37:42 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
But did he rule out a uturn?
About the same as this government has (and has executed such).
But then who trusts politicians?
I don't see it as solely a question of trust; it is a truism of
management and war that few plans survive the reality of battle. That
is exacerbated with a coalition government, and we have quite some
experience with those now; but needing to negotiate with another party
does mean that some pre-election policies will change. Most new
governments also discover work in progress that discloses information
that they were ot previously privy to. Then there are those that for
political purposes wish to reduce trust in any poiliticians - they are
most likely to use the "but they all do it" statement Tony has used
No I haven't, I suggest you read more carefully what I wrote.
Post by Rich80105
above. By reducing trust in all politicians, the intent has in some
cases been to encourage acceptance of less government, ot of more
authoritarian government - the ""trust us we know what we are doing"
sort of would-be dictators.
So no, some politicians can be trusted - and they will tell the public
when things go wrong or not as planned. I accept however the
implication from Tony that he does not trust Simon Bridges at least,
and perhaps other politicians as well.
No such implication, it was your silly and baseless inference.
As a matter of fact I trust very few politicians but I trust Simon Bridges much
more than any NZ First MP and much more than many Labour MPs, but that is not
saying much.
I suggest you stop putting words into the mouths of others or is that
impossible for you to control?
George
2020-02-02 19:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Good. That cuts out 90% of the bullshit.
And shock horror the fake news reported it..
What is going on in the newsrooms that actual news is escaping ???
Crash
2020-02-02 20:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.

This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.

Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable. This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.


--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-02-02 23:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable. This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-03 03:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.

Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Crash
2020-02-03 07:47:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense. The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
Post by Rich80105
- and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-03 08:33:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense.
Yuop are correct that a single instance is not sufficient, but it
confirms the experience of NZ First, The Maori Party, and also ACT -
all asaw working in government with National as ultimately
detrrimental to electoral success.
Post by Crash
The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
As someone said recently, if you go by the polls National quite
frequently don;t need support from any other party - if you go by
actual election results, in practice they have never achieved it. If
you look at the governing coalition in Australia, being in coalition
does not necessary indicate weakness. In factthe whole idea of MMP is
to better reflect the political views of voters - we fall short by the
arbitrary 5% list votes required to get a seat (and the stupidity of
allowing one electorate seat to allow more seats based on list votes).
It is fundamentally wrong.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
I suspect without the animosity which National have to Wonston Peters
personally, NAtional could happily work with most other NZ First MPs.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
- and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Crash
2020-02-04 00:47:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense.
Yuop are correct that a single instance is not sufficient, but it
confirms the experience of NZ First, The Maori Party, and also ACT -
all asaw working in government with National as ultimately
detrrimental to electoral success.
NZF have survived elections after their one-and-only coalition with
National. The Maori Party have been in Parliament since the 2005
election so it seems likely that their defeat in 2017 was because they
failed to get the support of voters in the Maori seats. ACT simply
failed to retain voter support.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
As someone said recently, if you go by the polls National quite
frequently don;t need support from any other party - if you go by
actual election results, in practice they have never achieved it.
Correct but they are just a few percentage points short.
Post by Rich80105
If
you look at the governing coalition in Australia, being in coalition
does not necessary indicate weakness.
Completely irrelevant. Politics in Australia bear no relation to
here. They do not have an MMP system and coalition governments have
always involved the same two parties.
Post by Rich80105
In factthe whole idea of MMP is
to better reflect the political views of voters - we fall short by the
arbitrary 5% list votes required to get a seat (and the stupidity of
allowing one electorate seat to allow more seats based on list votes).
It is fundamentally wrong.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
I suspect without the animosity which National have to Wonston Peters
personally, NAtional could happily work with most other NZ First MPs.
I suspect that without Winston Peters, there will be no NZF in
Parliament.

Note that Winston was the member for Tauranga up until the 2005
election when he lost out to the National candidate (Bob Clarkson). In
2008 Winston again lost Tauranga to the National candidate (this time
Simon Bridges who is still the member for Tauranga) and because NZF
failed to get over the party-vote threshold they were out of
Parliament. NZF have not won an electorate since. Using your logic,
NZF got into this parlous state because after the 2005 election they
had a confidence-and-supply agreement with Labour and the electorate
punished them for this in 2008.

As the wine-box inquiry all those years ago taught us, Winston holds
grudges and Simon individually as well as National collectively are
clearly not flavour-of-the-month with Winston. Winston now knows that
for him to retain the 'baubles of power', he needs to be part of a
Labour-led government.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
- and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
--
Crash McBash
George
2020-02-03 18:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 20:47:22 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political
actions that fit that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity
in saying to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I
can absolutely relate to that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this
could be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense. The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
Peters has wiped out his preelection nonsense.
No-one wants him so hes stuck with labor and this time hes not the boss
Rich80105
2020-02-03 19:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 20:47:22 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political
actions that fit that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity
in saying to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I
can absolutely relate to that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this
could be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense. The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
Peters has wiped out his preelection nonsense.
No-one wants him so hes stuck with labor and this time hes not the boss
Labor is the Australian political party, here in New Zealand we have
Labour. He is part of a coalition - ie a team of three parties, each
with the ability to stop any legislation they wish, but with the need
to work in cooperation with the other two parties to agree on any
legislation that his party wants. He is not the Prime Minister, but
under a coalition that is the leader of a team. National have a
fixation on a 'Shtrong single leader who mandates all policies which
must be wholeheartedly agreed to and publicly supported by every
member of caucus.' National's problems with "coalition partners is
thet they see the smaller party as a "support partner"and expect them
to follow the same pattern. Bu you are correct that for some reason
the current National hierarchy do not want him; which is why NZ First
went into coalition with Labour after the last election.
Tony
2020-02-04 01:53:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 20:47:22 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political
actions that fit that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity
in saying to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I
can absolutely relate to that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this
could be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense. The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
Peters has wiped out his preelection nonsense.
No-one wants him so hes stuck with labor and this time hes not the boss
Labor is the Australian political party, here in New Zealand we have
Labour. He is part of a coalition - ie a team of three parties, each
with the ability to stop any legislation they wish, but with the need
to work in cooperation with the other two parties to agree on any
legislation that his party wants. He is not the Prime Minister, but
under a coalition that is the leader of a team. National have a
fixation on a 'Shtrong single leader who mandates all policies which
must be wholeheartedly agreed to and publicly supported by every
member of caucus.' National's problems with "coalition partners is
thet they see the smaller party as a "support partner"and expect them
to follow the same pattern. Bu you are correct that for some reason
the current National hierarchy do not want him; which is why NZ First
went into coalition with Labour after the last election.
They don't trust him to behave according to agreements reached in good faith -
and National know that.
It is however not the reason that NZ First went with Labour, that was because
he knew that he would be unable to bully National the way he has bullied Labour.
Crash
2020-02-04 04:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:53:39 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 20:47:22 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political
actions that fit that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity
in saying to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I
can absolutely relate to that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this
could be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Drawing a conclusion that National is demonstrating an inability to
work with other parties from the announcement that they will not work
with NZF after the upcoming election is nonsense. The fact is that
National are a broad-based party with broad-based electoral support
far exceeding any other party. National are hovering near an absolute
majority in party-vote support, meaning that they only need the
support of other small parties if at all. After the 2017 election
there were not enough such small parties.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go
While some may be good enough at what they do - their fate is sealed
by the fact that they chose NZF. That shows flawed judgment so
significant that no other party should touch them.
Peters has wiped out his preelection nonsense.
No-one wants him so hes stuck with labor and this time hes not the boss
Labor is the Australian political party, here in New Zealand we have
Labour. He is part of a coalition - ie a team of three parties, each
with the ability to stop any legislation they wish, but with the need
to work in cooperation with the other two parties to agree on any
legislation that his party wants. He is not the Prime Minister, but
under a coalition that is the leader of a team. National have a
fixation on a 'Shtrong single leader who mandates all policies which
must be wholeheartedly agreed to and publicly supported by every
member of caucus.' National's problems with "coalition partners is
thet they see the smaller party as a "support partner"and expect them
to follow the same pattern. Bu you are correct that for some reason
the current National hierarchy do not want him; which is why NZ First
went into coalition with Labour after the last election.
They don't trust him to behave according to agreements reached in good faith -
and National know that.
It is however not the reason that NZ First went with Labour, that was because
he knew that he would be unable to bully National the way he has bullied Labour.
That is more credible now that Simon (the member for Tauranga) is
National's Parliamentary leader.


--
Crash McBash
BR
2020-02-03 16:26:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?

Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.

Bill.
Rich80105
2020-02-03 19:31:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
BR
2020-02-04 04:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
So if it required no change, why sign it?

Bill.
Rich80105
2020-02-04 04:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
So if it required no change, why sign it?
Bill.
So what principle did Winston Peters betray?
John Bowes
2020-02-04 06:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
So if it required no change, why sign it?
Bill.
So what principle did Winston Peters betray?
Honesty! not doing to well on the ethics front going by the goings on with the NZF Foundation!
BR
2020-02-04 16:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
So if it required no change, why sign it?
Bill.
So what principle did Winston Peters betray?
The name of his party is New Zealand First.

Signing up to UN immigration pacts is NOT putting New Zealand first.
It is putting people to whom he has no duty before the people of the
country he was elected to represent.

So he betrayed his first principle, the one on which his party was
founded.

Cappiche?

Bill.
Rich80105
2020-02-04 18:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
So if it required no change, why sign it?
Bill.
So what principle did Winston Peters betray?
The name of his party is New Zealand First.
Signing up to UN immigration pacts is NOT putting New Zealand first.
It is putting people to whom he has no duty before the people of the
country he was elected to represent.
So he betrayed his first principle, the one on which his party was
founded.
Cappiche?
Bill.
I was responding to this statement:
"So if it required no change, why sign it?"

If signing made no change, then it does not prevent any party or
person from putting New Zealand First. Cappiche?
BR
2020-02-05 06:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views
What are NZF's views?
Winston Peters betrayed the one principle he has always claimed to
stand for when he signed up for the odious UN immigration agreement. I
hope his face is never seen and his voice is never heard in the NZ
parliament again after the next election.
Bill.
What principle is that, Bill? My understanding is that the agreement
is merely to treat applications for asylum by genuine refugees with
dignity and compassion - it does not impose any particular rules on
any government; and had National been part of the current government,
would have required no change to the policies they had for the prevous
9 years.
So if it required no change, why sign it?
Bill.
So what principle did Winston Peters betray?
The name of his party is New Zealand First.
Signing up to UN immigration pacts is NOT putting New Zealand first.
It is putting people to whom he has no duty before the people of the
country he was elected to represent.
So he betrayed his first principle, the one on which his party was
founded.
Cappiche?
Bill.
"So if it required no change, why sign it?"
If signing made no change, then it does not prevent any party or
person from putting New Zealand First. Cappiche?
That wasn't the question you asked.

You asked: "What principle did Winston Peters betray?"

You have your answer.

Now you can answer this question.

Winston Peters signed an immigration pact with the UN.
What's in it for the New Zealand taxpayers, i.e. the people he is in
parliament to represent? For what purpose did Winston Peters sign?

Bill.

Tony
2020-02-04 01:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-04 04:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
The greens have the power to vote against as well. Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.

Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Crash
2020-02-04 05:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely relate to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
Correct
Post by Rich80105
The greens have the power to vote against as well.
Incorrect. The coalition agreement is between Labour and NZF (only).
NZF and the Greens do NOT have equal rights because of this. The
Greens have said they will never support a National-led government so
have no-where else to go but with Labour and no alternative to their
role as confidence-and-0supply partners because Winston will not allow
a 3-way coalition. If the Greens vote against a Labour-led government
proposal it will most likely be something that Winston wants and the
Greens oppose. Voting against a Labour-led government puts them in a
politically impossible position and Winston knows very well about such
things.
Post by Rich80105
Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.
Very much a one-off situation unlikely ever to be repeated.
Post by Rich80105
Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
Why National? When have they done this recently? Winston on the
other hand....
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-02-04 05:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely
relate
to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
The greens have the power to vote against as well. Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.
Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
You stated that the Greens had the power to stop, that is not the same as the
right to vote.
They do not have the right to stop, they are not a coalition partner.
My post stands.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-04 09:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:17:43 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely
relate
to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
The greens have the power to vote against as well. Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.
Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
You stated that the Greens had the power to stop, that is not the same as the
right to vote.
They do not have the right to stop, they are not a coalition partner.
Are you saying the Greens are not allowed to vote with Labour? Or are
you saying they are not allowed to vote against Labour? Or can they
not vote with, or against NZ First? Sorry I dont follow - just what
are you saying here?
Post by Tony
My post stands.
Stands where?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-02-04 19:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:17:43 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely
relate
to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
The greens have the power to vote against as well. Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.
Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
You stated that the Greens had the power to stop, that is not the same as the
right to vote.
They do not have the right to stop, they are not a coalition partner.
Are you saying the Greens are not allowed to vote with Labour? Or are
you saying they are not allowed to vote against Labour? Or can they
not vote with, or against NZ First? Sorry I dont follow - just what
are you saying here?
Apology accepted.
This may help you.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119271037/the-greens-didnt-completely-lose-at-the-infrastructure-announcement
In other words they are less important than any other party (only fair
considering their lies) and have no veto.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
My post stands.
Stands where?
Don't be silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-05 03:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:40:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:17:43 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions that fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely
relate
to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
The greens have the power to vote against as well. Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.
Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
You stated that the Greens had the power to stop, that is not the same as the
right to vote.
They do not have the right to stop, they are not a coalition partner.
Are you saying the Greens are not allowed to vote with Labour? Or are
you saying they are not allowed to vote against Labour? Or can they
not vote with, or against NZ First? Sorry I dont follow - just what
are you saying here?
Apology accepted.
No-one had apologised
Post by Tony
This may help you.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119271037/the-greens-didnt-completely-lose-at-the-infrastructure-announcement
No, it does not explain why you claim that the Greens do not have the
power to stop. This does not explain it.

You do keep tryong to avoid questions by changing the subject, don;t
you Tony!
Post by Tony
In other words they are less important than any other party (only fair
considering their lies) and have no veto.
They are as important as that number of votes makes them - justthe
same as any other party.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
My post stands.
Stands where?
Don't be silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-02-05 03:54:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:40:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:17:43 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:55:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 17:38:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 19:37:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119215711/simon-bridges-rules-out-working-with-nz-first-after-election
Interesting that you choose that word as the subject when posting
about this.
I nearly didn't because I think there are very few political actions
that
fit
that word.
However on this occasion I believe there is an element of integrity in saying
to Mr. Peters that they don't want to deal with him. I can absolutely
relate
to
that.
I agree. This is a calculated risk by Simon Bridges, but he is being
honest and open about his intentions. In effect he is confirming that
National as a party do not work well with those who do not wholly
share their views - and since those that vote NZ First are probably
closer to National in their views on policy than to Labour, this could
be detrimental to the chance of a National-led government.
Wishful thinking, the reality is that Mr. Peters cannot be trusted.
Post by Rich80105
Realistically, Winston is not likely to last forever, and some of the
other NZ First MPs have shown that they would be assets in either a
Labour-led government or a National-led government; it would be a
shame to see them go - and in my view both Labour and National have
not acted in the interests of the country in not accepting the
recommendation of a review of electoral laws to reduce the 5%
threshold slightly - in my view a coalition government may well be
more desirable than a single party government, as they must work
though issues in some detail before decisions are made. An interesting
story about Mike Moore was his workig through some trade policies to
see what was wrong with them and how they cuold be defeated - and
finding that in fact they should be supported.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This initiative is well-overdue - National's failure to do this prior
to the 2017 election (they did this for the 2008 and 2014 elections)
may well have been why they are now the opposition.
Something that the news media seem to miss is that National-led
governments are typically numerically dominated by National and
therefore more predictable and consequently more stable.
In Australia the conservative parties are the Liberal and Country
parties - they do not appear to be regarded as less predictable or
less stable as a result. In large part this is a personal spat between
a conservative politition , Winston Peters, and a Conservative
politician, Simon Bridges. But good on him for being clear that he is
preared to accept an electoral loss rather than endeavour to work with
a politician that is elected by NZ Voters.
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
This is in
contrast to the current government that was formed because NZF (with
just 7.2% support) chose to join a coalition with Labour. Labour
dominate numerically but not enough to call the shots with the Greens.
Any one of the threeparties have enough votes to stop any particular
policy, but realistically all wish to achieve similar goals - with
many of those goals also shared by the National Party!
Proven recently to be untrue. The Greens have no such power.
Had NZ1st gone with National in 2017 they could have withdrawn their
votes in exactly the same way as they can with Labour and the Greens.
The greens have the power to vote against as well. Interesting that
there is the possibility of National and NZ First combining on a
members bill this year, and getting it though even if Labur and the
Greens vote against.
Sometimes it pays to compromise rather than throw toys out of the cot
- National don't appear to have learned that lesson.
You stated that the Greens had the power to stop, that is not the same as the
right to vote.
They do not have the right to stop, they are not a coalition partner.
Are you saying the Greens are not allowed to vote with Labour? Or are
you saying they are not allowed to vote against Labour? Or can they
not vote with, or against NZ First? Sorry I dont follow - just what
are you saying here?
Apology accepted.
No-one had apologised
You said sorry, I accept that apology.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
This may help you.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119271037/the-greens-didnt-completely-lose-at-the-infrastructure-announcement
No, it does not explain why you claim that the Greens do not have the
power to stop. This does not explain it.
Seek assistance.
Post by Rich80105
You do keep tryong to avoid questions by changing the subject, don;t
you Tony!
I have avoided nothing. Please be more specific.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
In other words they are less important than any other party (only fair
considering their lies) and have no veto.
They are as important as that number of votes makes them - justthe
same as any other party.
Nonsense
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
My post stands.
Stands where?
Don't be silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Loading...