Hard News: Where are all the polls at?
216 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
linger, in reply to
Or in other words, any National deal's a killer, electorate gift or no.
-
linger, in reply to
That's taking a shortsighted view. The Greens have a political identity that can survive individual members' careers. Winston personally has a strong political identity, but NZF, not so much. You've previously mentioned the upcoming succession problem: Shane isn't Winston.
-
Neil, in reply to
I agree the Greens have a special character. But that does mean they lack leverage.
It seems to me there's an element of the electorate punishing small parties for trying to do the achievable and not hang out for the unlikely.
The Maori Party had a number of impressive achievements one of which, Whanau Ora, has been adopted by Labour and would not be there if not for the MP.
-
linger, in reply to
The Greens have so far been fairly adept at maintaining their own independent voice (and James’ communique clearly shows they do recognise the potential problems). I don’t know if it’s “the electorate” punishing the minor parties though, so much as that the major parties still haven’t fully accepted that they need to cooperate with rather than compete with them, throughout the term and during the election cycle. Nurturing a minor partner is much more than lifeboat deals (offered, you’ll note, when they advantage the partnership rather than the minor party alone): it’s about allowing them the freedom to have an independent critical voice and to maintain a clear stance in the media, and giving explicit credit when adopting their policy initiatives. The majors have an unfortunate tendency to see minor parties as nuisances to be used when needed and tossed aside when that’s no longer the case. So in a way the Greens have been fortunate to have been largely excluded from government so far; and Winston has survived by not letting himself get walked over, and thereby maintaining his own singular voice.
-
Neil, in reply to
The intricacies of Common Knowledge.
Everyone knows that everyone knows The Greens won't go with National.
Everyone knows that no one knows what Peters will do.
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
This is a great re-read;
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/rt_hon_winston_peters_budget_speech_2017
Taken at face value it provides reasons to assume he'll be favourable to the Labour/Greens option. May seem a tad naive to assume he means what he says, but I'm inclined to regardless. I suspect he's now primarily motivated by the need to create his legacy.
Provided Labour pull finger and transcend their sectarianism, a new government designed on common ground is feasible. I'm confident James and Jacinda have the goodwill and intelligence required to produce a suitable outcome. I'm not confident that Winston is sufficiently adept to yield to the public interest when necessary.
He probably has a sense that the win/win/win three-way coalition is possible, and I bet his bias against the Nats is so strong now that he won't repeat that mistake from 20 years ago willingly, but being stubborn and holding out for all his bottom lines could yet be the character flaw that denies him an exceptional legacy.
-
Isn't this whole perceived Winston dilemma a hangover from FPP days? As a population, we're still in a collective mindset of wanting big parties to run things, but that also means that we end up with giant blobs of parties that aren't allowed to mix.
If this is what those voters want then whatever. It has its advantages, but under MMP it also means that every time there's no absolute majority (ie every time so far) there are very few minor parties around, to negotiate with. If National, however, were really 2 or 3 separate parties that people could elect according to the lines they preferred, it's more feasible that one or two of them might even be able to fit with Labour, or even the Greens, and form a decent government.
Labour shrank a while back and many who might have been Labour voters previously are probably now established Green voters, or at least content to switch between the two depending on various factors. Voters in that area get to influence what they want their side to look like.
National doesn't really do that, though. Differences all stay behind closed doors and are handled within the party, and there's just a brick wall for voters to throw their votes at.
It's this obsession with having large controlling parties, which can't practically mix, that makes someone like Winston the centre of attention. Everyone hoping to form a government has to deal with him, even though few really like him around except the 1/13th of voters who elected him.
-
News hub Reid Research poll *reputation intact* .Hats off to them for picking up on the early trends.
-
One of the weirdest things about the discussions of who will form a coalition with whom has been the idea that it's a bad thing for one party to have to compromise.
But compromise is good, we teach our kids to compromise to reach a consensus solution to a problem, we reach compromises in business and our day to day jobs.
Compromises are about recognising that some things are very important to other people and other groups.
Surely we want our representatives in parliament to understand compromise and work towards achieving a government that can make appropriate and fair compromises.
All the talk of bottom lines and lines in the sand is just childish (looking at you MSM).
-
For balance - or to fill up a slow day while we wait for specials - here is the most detailed and sort-of plausible list of National-Green policies that I've seen so far, if the impossible coalition happened. Lance says that he voted/supports Greens, so it's not just Nats playing silly buggers (which most of this chatter has been). I voted Green too, and I'd settle for that list.
Now I'd say the chances of National agreeing to those would be zero, but it would be fun if they did. Save the environment while watching the National Party implode, what's not to like? Of course the deal would have to be announced at a public meeting in Morrinsville ...
-
Yeh, nah. National might be desperate enough to offer a deal, but Shaw is very clearly minded to suggest they investigate the invigorating possibilities of a hilltop ramble.
-
simon g, in reply to
But that's the narrative National shills want - we're so reasonable, it's only Shaw and his stubborn lefties who are stopping a green dream. It's BS, and he plays into it.
Call their bluff, I say. Do it with the same concern-trolling that they're doing to the Greens. ("I believe Bill English is privately open to a pollution tax, even though he said he opposed it before the election, and I'd love to have a chat with him about it"). Then watch him squirm.
-
izogi, in reply to
If National offers a deal then I think it'd be largely so it can claim to its supporters that it tried, and that it was the Greens who were being unreasonable, the Greens' fault that NZ First is inflicted upon everyone, and yadiyadiyada.
-
Do the Greens really need to care what National supporters think?
The only kind of deal the Greens could accept would be something that addresses everything National has failed to do on the environment or on social issues in the past 9 years. Not vague promises of studies for future implementation, but real action now. Ain't gonna happen. -
simon g, in reply to
I think the Greens need to care what the media report, and since the standard "analysis" is usually to get some Nat-aligned commentator to give reckons (because free and easy) then, yes.
If that didn't matter then Metiria Turei would still be co-leader. The Greens can certainly say "don't care", and I'd be fine with that, but they shouldn't say "don't care, but will later after entirely predictable pressure".
-
izogi, in reply to
I think the Greens need to care what the media report
Yes and no. I'm not a Green Party insider, but especially after Kennedy Graham and David Clendon resigned, it seems to me like what happened to Metiria Turei went deeper than just media. For a moment that came from right within the core support base of the Green Party, which apparently felt as if it hadn't been adequately consulted.
Anyway if the Greens did risk extermination by going into a coalition with National, I can't imagine it'd be a stable government long term. More likely it'd go the way of the Land and Water Forum, where a bunch of high profile environmentally-focused NGOs ended up leaving because they thought their input was being ignored and their presence was merely being waved around to make the government look good.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.