by frog
What will Helen do? That’s the question that every political journalist in the country will be asking in earnest over the next couple of weeks. My truthful answer to it is: I haven’t the first clue.
Members of the Press Gallery (e.g. TV One’s Guyon Espiner and TV3′s Duncan Garner) have been floating the idea that Labour could be considering offering the Greens Ministerial positions outside Cabinet. This would allow Clark to pull Greens into the Executive, and would require a formal coalition agreement
If Clark did go for this LPG option, she would have 57 votes in a 121-seat Parliament – or four short of a majority. She would then need to sign confidence and supply agreements with the Maori Party and NZ First (perhaps with a view to getting both to abstain on confidence motions), and a co-operation agreement with United. And, for each piece of legislation, she would need agreement from either the Maori Party or NZ First – either of which could provide an LPG government with the additional four votes needed to pass Bills.
This arrangement would be similar to the one she has had in the past Parliament. Between 2002 and 2005, she could look left to the Greens or right to United for support to get legislation past. The arrangement floated above as a hypothetical would simply replace the Greens with the Maori Party and United with NZ First. As I’ve said before, if Labour brings no other parties (except Jim Anderton) into the Executive, the management of legislation would become a huge challenge. The Government would need to convince two often quite disparate parties outside of government to support a piece of legislation, and the scope for gridlock would be increased.
However, how the complex, six-party negotiations unfold over the next few weeks is anybody’s guess. Only the foolish and/or brave would hazard a prediction. The people have dealt Helen Clark a challenging hand. It’s now over to her to play it.
Published in Campaign by frog on Sat, October 1st, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
look mate, it’s bloody good news that Nandor isn’t back ‘cos i hate the thought of $120,000 of taxpayers money funding someone who doesn’t contribute anything more besides legalising dope. the best option now for Labour is to go with Jim and UF or something but leave Greens out of coalition
that’s my opinion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
$120,000 is nothing compared to the cost of enforcing cannabis prohibition, JC. That would be a very effective use of taxpayer money, if his presence achieved that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JC don’t believe everything you hear/read in whatever sources you use for information.
Nandor is hard working, effective and very well respected in parliamentary circles and satelites etc.
He will be sorely missed by many.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ignore the troll.
I wonder how likely a LPGM majority coalition is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, JesusCrux is an Act supporter, for Goodness’ sake.
I love the irony of a so-called Liberal party not having their shit together enough to accomodate cannabis law reform. Pathos personified.
Nandor will indeed be sorely missed – as will Rayna, his irrepressible Parliamentary secretary. They both made awesome contributions to the Green movement, and will provide inspiration to many aspiring Green political activists.
Kia kaha ra !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mikaere,
ACT is a party based on Liberal economic values. Within the party we have both social liberals and social conservatives. As Cannabis Law Reform would be a conscience issue, there is little point in having it as party policy as MPs are not required to vote along party lines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Falloon – what a cop out. The social conservatives just don’t belong in ACT. Let them go join National or NZF. No wonder the party’s support has dropped – it can’t get its message clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
man you guys are dumb, so if someone has a negative opinion of Nandor they’re a troll. talk about anti-freedom of speech. also i’m not against cannabis reform, i’m simply saying that’s all Nandor ever talked about and any other Green Party member or Rodney Hide can talk about it, Nandor’s simply a waste of space, he’s done pretty much nothing all these years the only thing i remember about him was when he came to Nelson to open some environmentally friendly toilet or something that no-one ever uses ‘cos it’s unhygienic and doesn’t even flush
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nandor has done and said a whole lot more in Parliament than just advocate cannabis law reform:
* student debt/student loans
* restorative justice
* clean slate bill
* alcohol promotion/alcohol control
* drug education
* more humane rules for prisoners / private prisons
* constitution / supreme court
* civil unions
* industrial hemp / hempseed as food
* Ngawha prison
* police corruption
are just a few…
http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/docs_author.asp?class=PR&auth=85
also I would like to highlight that he is just about the only politician who does anything on IT issues. The only exception would probably be Paul Swain who is the minister for this area. Nandor has put out about 20 or 30 PRs on IT issues, and he is often quoted in the press afterwards. He has covered:
* software patents
* school censorship software
* open source software
* e-waste
* spam and spim
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now who’s being anti-free speech JesusCrux. Apparently Cristiaan isn’t allowed to call you a troll for being negative towards Nandor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey JC
Play the ball – or leave the field.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey:
Thanks for that partial list of Nandor’s involvements. It is good to have it in print! (I recognise every item on the list, but couldn’t have reproduced it.)
Something I would like to add is Nandor’s friendly, gentle and accepting attitudes and behaviour towards others. Many Kiwis would do well to follow his example in this regard!
The ignorant “sound bites” one still hears about Nandor are an inditement on those who, from working with him in Parliamentary circles, know them to be untrue, but for political advantage allow them to be spread anyway.
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew,
1) In an interview with Rodney Hide a while back, he was asked by a Craccum journalist whether ACT also stood for liberal social values, and he replied in the affirmative. Whether or not Rodney said so simply to ‘play to the students’ is another matter; the point is that he stated, rather emphatically, that ACT believes in social liberal values.
2) Cannabis not being ACT party policy? Then why has ACT placed ads in NORML News, on several occasions, advertising itself as believing in the right of individuals to choose (to use cannabis)? The ad tied ACT’s belief in inidividual freedom to that of the decision/choice to use cannabis. So either you’re saying that ACT:
a) Is unsure where it stands; or
b) Is simply trying to present itself as what it is not (i.e. deliberately obfuscating its stance); or
c) Presents itself as amenable to cannabis use, irrespective of the dissenting/differing views within the party.
3) I’m glad you actually acknowledge that ACT stands for liberal economic values. During the 2002 Election Campaign, ACT had billboards all around with the slogan ‘ACT – The Worker’s Party’. Just how you can speak for corporate elites like the Business Roundtable and workers (which will included unions, mind you) at the same time is simply mind-boggling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1) In an interview with Rodney Hide a while back, he was asked by a Craccum journalist whether ACT also stood for liberal social values, and he replied in the affirmative. Whether or not Rodney said so simply to ‘play to the students’ is another matter; the point is that he stated, rather emphatically, that ACT believes in social liberal values.
Rodney Hide personally believes in liberal social values – it’s a conscience issue. he didn’t say it simply to play to the students, he did it ‘cos it’s what he believes in
2) Cannabis not being ACT party policy? Then why has ACT placed ads in NORML News, on several occasions, advertising itself as believing in the right of individuals to choose (to use cannabis)? The ad tied ACT’s belief in inidividual freedom to that of the decision/choice to use cannabis. So either you’re saying that ACT:
a) Is unsure where it stands; or
b) Is simply trying to present itself as what it is not (i.e. deliberately obfuscating its stance); or
c) Presents itself as amenable to cannabis use, irrespective of the dissenting/differing views within the party.
ACT knows where it stands – it’s a conscience issue, MPs have the freedom to choose and decide whether or not they support it, and the reason a few ACT MPs such as Muriel Newman don’t support it isn’t because they’re against the moral right to smoke cannabis, but they disagree with Nandor as to the social cost of legalising it. if there was much much better evidence where one side totally showed that there wouldn’t be negative effects (eg. kids ODing as a result of adult supply) then i’m sure they would support it
3) I’m glad you actually acknowledge that ACT stands for liberal economic values. During the 2002 Election Campaign, ACT had billboards all around with the slogan ‘ACT – The Worker’s Party’. Just how you can speak for corporate elites like the Business Roundtable and workers (which will included unions, mind you) at the same time is simply mind-boggling.
it was actually the 2005 campaign, and tell me what other party supports 15% tax for workers who earn under 38,000? they are the workers party, the greens and labour are the welfare beneficiaries party
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JC:
1) Yes Rodney does come across as a social liberal; he made that point quite clear. However he attributed it (his social liberalism) to ACT’s philosophy. By doing so, he is implying that every ACT MP also subscribes to it. (Note this is an *implication*, not an *explicit statement*.)
2) I’ll break this section up into three if you don’t mind ‘cos there’s three issues you touch on:
2A) The Greens want to DECRIMINALISE cannabis, not legalise it. For legalisation, you’d have to go to the ALCP.
2B) You say that “if there was much much better evidence where one side totally showed that there wouldn’t be negative effects (eg. kids ODing as a result of adult supply) then i’m sure they would support it”. TOTALLY show? You mean like ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘absolute certainty’? The onus, you say, is on the advocates for reform of drug laws to prove conclusively that by decriminalising cannabis, ABSOLUTELY no-one will be harmed. If that were the case, then alcohol and tobacco would have been criminalised aeons ago.
Even with the raising of the drinking age to 20, there is still no absolute safeguard against minors getting hold of alcohol. Why, all they have to do is sneak into their parents’ liquor cabinet. Your line of reasoning simply doesn’t hold, I’m afraid. With your threshold test, a good many of the substances we readily and openly consume in society would be criminalised JUST LIKE cannabis.
2C) You missed my point re. the NORML News ad reference. My point is this: When the Greens place an ad in the papers advocating the benefits of public transport, as they did in the Herald during this recent campaign, this is because (i) it is Party policy, (ii) every MP supports the line taken and (iii) the Greens associate themselves with the issue. By placing an ad in a magazine espousing the reform of cannabis laws, the ACT Party, AS A WHOLE, is ASSOCIATING ITSELF with the stance taken in the magazine. Furthermore, the Greens place ads in NORML News because ALL its MPs support the reform of drug laws. Not all ACT MPs, as you correctly pointed out, do so; therefore it is misleading and disingenuous to place a PARTY ad in there. The Libertarianz do so (place ads) because it is party policy to legalise cannabis, and they are justified in so doing. That’s not the case for ACT as it isn’t party policy. If Rodney and other ACT MPs support the reform of drug laws on a INDIVIDUAL BASIS, they should place their individual ads in the magazine, not place an ad ON BEHALF OF the ACT Party.
3) You have, I’m afraid, missed my point once again. I wasn’t talking about whose policy is more worker-friendly per se, but since you have touched on it, let me say this: It sounds all peachy until workers find out the sacrifices in public services that will be incurred as a trade-off. Mind you, the Greens want the first $5,000 of income TAX-FREE – and the Maori Party wants the first $25,000 tax-free. So ACT’s tax policy isn’t so attractive to workers now, is it?
Moreover, the Greens, the Maori Party and even NZ First want to raise the minimun wage to $12.00 an hour (the Maori Party wants it to be $12.50, I believe). So reduction of taxes on VERY LOW WAGES isn’t exactly very beneficial is it? It’s like saying “Oh, you’re earning peanuts, are you? Well here’s a couple more peanuts for your collection. Enjoy.” 
Ok, now that’s over with, here’s the real crux (no pun intended) of my point:
You cannot act (no pun intended once again) for workers AND businesses AT THE SAME TIME. This is a *conflict of interest*. An attorney cannot at once advocate the position of the employee while advocating the position of the employer CONCURRENTLY. It is then contradictory – if not hypocritical – for ACT to say that it speaks for workers when it so clearly speaks for business interests. Besides, the two positions are diametrically opposed to each other. That’s like being a member of the NRA while being a member of a gun-control lobby group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JC:
1) Yes Rodney does come across as a social liberal; he made that point quite clear. However he attributed it (his social liberalism) to ACT’s philosophy. By doing so, he is implying that every ACT MP also subscribes to it. (Note this is an *implication*, not an *explicit statement*.)
2) I’ll break this section up into three if you don’t mind ‘cos there’s three issues you touch on:
2A) The Greens want to DECRIMINALISE cannabis, not legalise it. For legalisation, you’d have to go to the ALCP.
2B) You say that “if there was much much better evidence where one side totally showed that there wouldn’t be negative effects (eg. kids ODing as a result of adult supply) then i’m sure they would support it”. TOTALLY show? You mean like ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘absolute certainty’? The onus, you say, is on the advocates for reform of drug laws to prove conclusively that by decriminalising cannabis, ABSOLUTELY no-one will be harmed. If that were the case, then alcohol and tobacco would have been criminalised aeons ago.
Even with the raising of the drinking age to 20, there is still no absolute safeguard against minors getting hold of alcohol. Why, all they have to do is sneak into their parents’ liquor cabinet. Your line of reasoning simply doesn’t hold, I’m afraid. With your threshold test, a good many of the substances we readily and openly consume in society would be criminalised JUST LIKE cannabis.
2C) You missed my point re. the NORML News ad reference. My point is this: When the Greens place an ad in the papers advocating the benefits of public transport, as they did in the Herald during this recent campaign, this is because (i) it is Party policy, (ii) every MP supports the line taken and (iii) the Greens associate themselves with the issue. By placing an ad in a magazine espousing the reform of cannabis laws, the ACT Party, AS A WHOLE, is ASSOCIATING ITSELF with the stance taken in the magazine. Furthermore, the Greens place ads in NORML News because ALL its MPs support the reform of drug laws. Not all ACT MPs, as you correctly pointed out, do so; therefore it is misleading and disingenuous to place a PARTY ad in there. The Libertarianz do so (place ads) because it is party policy to legalise cannabis, and they are justified in so doing. That’s not the case for ACT as it isn’t party policy. If Rodney and other ACT MPs support the reform of drug laws on a INDIVIDUAL BASIS, they should place their individual ads in the magazine, not place an ad ON BEHALF OF the ACT Party.
3) You have, I’m afraid, missed my point once again. I wasn’t talking about whose policy is more worker-friendly per se, but since you have touched on it, let me say this: It sounds all peachy until workers find out the sacrifices in public services that will be incurred as a trade-off. Mind you, the Greens want the first $5,000 of income TAX-FREE – and the Maori Party wants the first $25,000 tax-free. So ACT’s tax policy isn’t so attractive to workers now, is it?
Moreover, the Greens, the Maori Party and even NZ First want to raise the minimun wage to $12.00 an hour (the Maori Party wants it to be $12.50, I believe). So reduction of taxes on VERY LOW WAGES isn’t exactly very beneficial is it? It’s like saying “Oh, you’re earning peanuts, are you? Well here’s a couple more peanuts for your collection. Enjoy.” 
Ok, now that’s over with, here’s the real crux (no pun intended) of my point:
You cannot act (no pun intended once again) for workers AND businesses AT THE SAME TIME. This is a *conflict of interest*. An attorney cannot at once advocate the position of the employee while advocating the position of the employer CONCURRENTLY. It is then contradictory – if not hypocritical – for ACT to say that it speaks for workers when it so clearly speaks for business interests. Besides, the two positions are diametrically opposed to each other. That’s like being a member of the NRA while being a member of a gun-control lobby group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It seems Clark will want something with a majority larger than 1. LPGM is only 61, which is a very thin majority if someone defected. LPG with NZF abstaining is 57 versus 57, a tie. It seems quite probable, especially with Clark’s statements, that all of the parties she is talking to will be involved in some way. L/P/G/NZF abstain could work with the help of Maoris or United Future, but relying on only one of them could be dangerous. So there could something like, LPG coalition, NZF abstain mostly, Working relationship with Maoris and United Future. Quite a handful. NZF support would make it much easier, but you can’t rely on that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)