Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“In fact I predict that in the event of the Greens and Maoris having enough seats to force a coalition with either National or Labour, they will be rejected in favour of a National-Labour grand coallition..”

in my ‘long game’..of the greens becoming a major party in new zealand..

..i have long thought a grand coalition between labour and national would be an outcome..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Greens were perceived as being strange and unworldly.

Again; if the Greens would drop their more extreme policies and focus on the particular green ideals that are more widely accepted, they would easily be the preferred partner of both National AND Labour.

This will continue to be even more true over the next 6 years of National led government.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’ve just had a look. On election night they didn’t have the number certainly. But of course, declaring a government before the special votes were counted was not possible (since the results left room for changes in support agreements).

The special votes were released on 1st October 2005 and the overhang was reduced to one, giving room to a Green Maori Prog Labour arrangement of some sort. The Greens nearly clinched a 7th seat, but after 1st October that wasn’t necessary (although it would have been nice). The Government was announced two weeks later.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s a similar position to where the Greens were at in 1999, and a similar confidence and supply agreement might have been negotiated.

The OCR has been higher than it needed to be due to oil-driven price inflation, something that the Government hasn’t tried to address. Even this week they’re trying to commit us to even more new multi-billion dollar roading projects, rather than trying to reduce our oil dependency.

As Michaela says above, this is a thoroughly neoliberal/free-trade/market based Government, which looks at infrastructure as a business investment rather than for its ability to improve the quality of life of New Zealanders. It’s the standard economic model that most ‘mainstream economists’ subscribe to. This doesn’t contradict their social policies, which are about raising incomes and employment, and paying for social services from taxes on this increased income. The problem however is that it just isn’t sustainable in any sense, and GDP doesn’t equal wellbeing. Which is where the Greens diverge from the Government, and why the Greens (and Maori Party to a great extent) were a much greater challenge to the orthodoxy this Government runs on than Peters and Dunne.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

> Whereas I thought Labour was one seat short of the MP and Green option … and thus was left with Hobson’s choice ‘to the Maori (sign or live with the Tuhoe).

Labour + Anderton + Green + Maori would have given a majority of 1, the same as what they got with Labour + Anderton + UF + NZ First. I think the reason it didn’t happen was that the Maori party didn’t really feel ready to go into government with only one experienced MP, so they decided not to try particularly hard to get a deal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

What cost the government was not social policy – the report out yeseterday showed a smaller group of poor and a closing of the gap between the top 20% and bottom 20%.

What cost them (IMO) was 3 things (no particular order) – 1 the 2005 pledge card and subsequent management of this issue and campaign finance, 2 the sense that middle class people/singles with a job were losing out now while Labour was being responsible (deferring tax cuts, savings, building up public service capability/WFF and ETS etc) – this called the people being tired with their government and thus the opportunity to the opposition trying to woo the voter 3 failure to improve performance in the economy.

Maybe if Labour had chosen to be pro-active on the economy – manipulating a lower OCR (cheaper business borrowing costs and improved export sector returns – and a surcharge on new mortgages was one way of doing this) and regulating finance companies and changing housing policy to stall the asset bubble …

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Maori Party went to talk with Labour about policy and bottom lines. I think that Pita Sharples is one of the most sincere and genuine people in Parliament, and am convinced he went into that process with complete sincerity, and is smart enough that they wouldn’t have asked the earth from Labour. They would almost certainly have asked for a repeal of the Seabed and Foreshore Confiscation Act, and this was evidently too much. Pride? A desire to stay on the right side of popular opinion? A strong ideological belief that it was the right thing to do? I don’t know.

What I do know is that based on the last three years of Green and Maori Party votes in the house the public were denied a chance for a Government that would have championed social justice, environmental protection, ethical foreign policy, and civil rights. All things that Labour Party claims to support, but in practice is consistently willing to compromise when it suits them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

you’ll be voting green then..?..

..seeing as you feel so strongly about this..?

“..Something no party has sought to address in its policies. I believe the ‘goodies’ view that these people are better off in the community, as opposed to in the care of caring professionals, is the most cynical approach to creating an underclass there is today..”

(mmm..??..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Strings, take a look at this report from the Ministry of Social Development entitled “Pockets of Significant Hardship and Poverty”.

People with mental illness frequently are among the non-working poor, of course. And Green policy does not support the “…view that these people are better off in the community, as opposed to in the care of caring professionals…”:

– A mandate that any hospital-based, long-stay tangata whai ora are not moved into community settings without clear protocols and robust processes to ensure the continuation of good care and support.

- Improved funding and support for vocational rehabilitation and placement services for patients recovering from mental illness and for groups providing paid and voluntary employment opportunities for the people with impairments.

- Greater funding for a variety of options for accommodation and related services for people living with, and recovering from, mental illness.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

..discounting any moralities/legal outcomes..

..the ‘long game’ here for national..

..is that most new zealand first voters are de-facto national supporters..

..so..no nz first..

..more votes for national..

..peters is ‘doing a nader’ on nationals’ support-base…

..phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

He’s playing the odds, Phil.

A vote for NZFirst is now a vote for Labour & the Greens. That will split the NZFirst vote, thus taking them out of parliament. Labour voters aren’t going to risk splitting their vote, so will go with Labour, thus damaging the Greens. If the Greens were a smart party, they would have voted against the ETS, made it a condition of a coalition agreement and state clearly they will go with any party that supports it.

Key is showing his trading skills. It’s all about playing the odds and forcing deals. The Greens are showing their backgrounds as school teachers, who clearly know nothing about either.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)