I don't think it's ignorance. It's spin doctoring. It's trying to put another column on record for the idea that National still has a moral authority to be the government.
if it were to mean that many people's first election was when they were still in a school environment
got to eliminate the charter schools first then!
The parties really have no case for objecting to a version of MMP which returns one MP for a party based on a no-threshold party vote, because right up until the 2017 election they have shown themselves perfectly happy to make accommodations that produce one electorate MP for a party that fails the party vote test.
Patronising claptrap from somebody called Stacey who has apparently earned an opinion column in Stuff: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97367387/stacey-kirk-honour-above-the-environment-greens-hold-a-deck-of-aces-theyre-refusing-to-play
While the Greens remain stubbornly ignorant of what they could gain from National, a deal won't work.
I don't know why she couldn't write "While the Greens are aware of what they could gain from National, they also recognise that a deal won't work and so are not offering one." Except that wouldn't make the Greens look stupid or stubborn, which is the impression I think she wants to put across...
So keeping the Greens happy is the price of keeping National in power.
But getting National out of power is the price of giving the country a sustainable future.
Fairly easy calculation if you are genuinely supportive of green issues, I'd have thought.
I just wonder at people who say that the Greens with their ~6% support should be pushing themselves while excoriating NZF with their ~8% support for making too much of themselves.
There's clearly a real push now underway in the commentariat to try to engineer a Nat-Greens coalition. The main idea seems to be attempting to shame the Greens into cooperating. But I haven't seen a single exception to the rule that says that the writers of these opinion pieces simply want a National government without Winston, and that they have no Green-cred at all.
If anyone can find me a genuine friend of the environment making the case for a blue-Green coalition I'd be interested to read it.
DPF et al are surveying themselves stupid ostensibly trying to demonstrate that the country wants this outcome. What I hope we realise is that he really isn't interested in establishing what the country wants so much as he is trying to find a way to persuade them that they want what he wants.
How do we make the editors and producers who let such lies into print or on-screen accountable?
It's probably the media owners and politicians who should be accountable for making their cosy relationships explicit.
Trust and respect – for the politician with some of the most offensive views.
Tell you what, when I lived in England many decades ago the two politicians I had the greatest respect for were Tony Benn and Enoch Powell. From hearing them talk (a lot!) I have no doubt that they each found the other's views on dozens of topics completely offensive, and yet had the greatest respect for each other. Trust and respect do not require agreement.
The congenital inability of leftists to comprehend that swing-voters are centrists who control the outcome of our elections is sociopathic.
Would you like some fish with that chip on your shoulder?