Time for another #NZPol poll

@libroraptor @ArrestJK

Curiously, recent polling shows a notable loss of support for the 2 main parties and that support shifting across the spectrum to the minor parties.

@jeremy_pm @libroraptor Yes people don't like National, and don't trust Labour to not sell us all out AGAIN

@libroraptor @jeremy_pm Well seeing as we're talking about what we want

I'd like a Govt where parties represented different interests and would negotiate outcomes that worked for most if not all...like MMP is designed to work.

@ArrestJK @libroraptor

I enjoyed listening to Marama Davidson's kōrero in the #NZPol debate on the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday.

She spoke of the parliamentary system being built on a system of conflict and competition rather than cooperation. It's really worth listening to.

Marama Davidson begins at 1:59:35

https://www.youtube.com/live/EGJSeuFbxVQ?si=q9kObCXnh8KnP6qY&t=7175

@jeremy_pm @libroraptor Westminster system is, MMP isn't. We've carried the old into the new slowly changing

Time for another #NZPol poll

If a 2026 Labour coalition government is elected later this year what proportion of that coalition would you like to be represented by Greens and Te Pāti Māori?

Based on current average polling and assuming they would need a collective minimum of 50.5% to form a government the Greens and TPM would make up around 15% of that vote meaning they would represent approximately 30% in a Labour led coalition govt.

@jeremy_pm I’ve chosen “below 30%”, but with some specific reasoning.

The baseline should be that the total number of ministerial roles is proportional to the number of seats the parties bring to the coalition. However… for smaller parties the raw numbers aren’t enough: it's important that they remain visible in the media and can demonstrate that their most important policies are taken seriously. The coalition will fail if smaller parties disappear from view, so they shouldn't accept just a bunch of associate roles: they need a disproportionate number of senior Cabinet posts.

At the same time, Cabinet isn't huge. So if the trade-off is that a prominent Cabinet post comes at the expense of a less-than-proportional total number of ministerial roles, so be it.

This means that ambitious people in the larger party need to recognise that they're not guaranteed Cabinet posts. Which I feel is good, because it means they have to understand that a coalition isn't just on paper.

@isaacfreeman

I am not sure I follow your logic. Surely the higher the number of minor party members in a coalition government the more influence and control they have over government decisions.

I appreciate that this could lead to a more fractious coalition but as we’ve seen with the other lot, the main party has two choices either risk losing control by refusing to accommodate coalition partners or cooperating with them to create at times compromised outcomes that work for all.

@jeremy_pm It's not just about the numbers, because ministerial roles have different degrees of influence. A finance minister has effective veto power over all government decisions. A Deputy Prime Minister gets constant media attention. A minister inside cabinet gets to participate in all collective decisions. A full minister outside Cabinet can only has influence over their particular portfolio, to the extent Cabinet allows. An associate minister outside Cabinet… is ignored until there's a scandal they can be blamed for.

So if Greens and TPM are 30% of MPs and have 40% of roles, but all the roles are outside Cabinet and mostly associates, I'd consider that a bad deal. I'd rather have 20%, but in Cabinet with significant influence over collective decisions, not just isolated portfolios.

@jeremy_pm It's not just about the numbers, because ministerial roles have different degrees of influence. A finance minister has effective veto power over all government decisions. A Deputy Prime Minister gets constant media attention. A minister inside cabinet gets to participate in all collective decisions. A full minister outside Cabinet can only has influence over their particular portfolio, to the extent Cabinet allows. An associate minister outside Cabinet… is ignored until there's a scandal they can be blamed for.

So if Greens and TPM are 30% of MPs and have 40% of roles, but all the roles are outside Cabinet and mostly associates, I'd consider that a bad deal. I'd rather have 20%, but in Cabinet with significant influence over collective decisions, not just isolated portfolios.

@jeremy_pm So far, Labour has only ever shared Cabinet with New Zealand First. They've never had a coalition with Greens in Cabinet, and they've treated the achievements of Green ministers outside Cabinet as things to rip up at the first opportunity in order to court National voters.

I don't think Labour is prepared for a full coalition with Green ministers inside Cabinet. While some Labour people may have absorbed that it would be different, I expect there to be mid-ranked Labour MPs who resent Greens getting posts that they feel entitled to based on their positions within the Labour Party. I'd like to see more evidence of a cultural shift in Labour to be ready for this situation.

@isaacfreeman

Yeah, I'm not much of a hurry up and wait kinda person particularly when we have an economic and environmental existential crisis to deal with.

@jeremy_pm Me either. We're dealing with multiple interlocked crises and we've wasted the last century or so making them worse. I want to have strong values and know what the right direction is, then seize every opportunity to move in that direction.

In government, you can only do that short-term opportunity-seizing inside Cabinet. Outside, you can get wins, but you're always vulnerable to Cabinet deciding they don't care about your longer-term direction.

The most powerful Green minister so far was James Shaw for Climate Change. The best he could achieve was a framework system for the longer term, deferring most of the actual work, and punting the obvious problem of agriculture that Labour were too gutless to confront. It's been comprehensively ignored by National. I'm not excited by more ministerial roles like that. I think we need to make hundreds of short-term concrete decisions in the right direction, not a few big abstract ones.

@isaacfreeman

This is where and how I disagree with you.

Firstly the only reason Greens were left out of cabinet in the first Jacinda Ardern Labour led govt was Winston Peters refused to work with Labour if Greens were coalition partners. Labour really had no other choice but did as you say work with the Greens in a number of areas outside of cabinet. The 2020 election result delivered Labour the first majority single party government so Labour had no reason to form a coalition with the Greens.

Labour might be far more centrist than the Greens but they’re not stupid, they can read the room. If they try to ignore a large mandate from the voters to share more power with the Greens then that will be detrimental to Labour as a party.

And that’s why I am in favour of a large turnout for the Greens in the next election.

@jeremy_pm I disagree that we disagree. You're quite right that Labour's coalition choices have been defined by rational political calculus. I'd have made the same decision each time in their position.

But I also don't expect them to offer more to the Greens than the absolute minimum they can get away with. Not because they hate us or anything, but because they have their own people to be loyal to. They will want to fill powerful positions with Labour people.

So I expect Labour to offer the same deal even if NZ First isn't in the picture: Cabinet posts for Labour ministers only, one important ministry for a Green co-leader outside Cabinet, a smattering of associate roles. And I think we should be willing to sit on the cross benches instead of accepting that, because it seems like a similar degree of power in practice.

I guess my bottom line is that we're consulted on everything, whether that's in Cabinet or seeking our votes in Parliament for every bill.

@isaacfreeman @jeremy_pm I tend to agree re cross benches. I don't think the weak associate minister outside cabinet positions we had previously really added significantly more value than we have gotten on cross bench, Possibly James & Marama had somewhat increased parliamentary services funding?

But unless we were offered cabinet level positions this time round I would play it tougher. Make sure they *have* to give us what we really want if they want to make progress, or else go cap in hand to National & ACT and see how well that works out for them.

@jeremy_pm I disagree that we disagree. You're quite right that Labour's coalition choices have been defined by rational political calculus. I'd have made the same decision each time in their position.

But I also don't expect them to offer more to the Greens than the absolute minimum they can get away with. Not because they hate us or anything, but because they have their own people to be loyal to. They will want to fill powerful positions with Labour people.

So I expect Labour to offer the same deal even if NZ First isn't in the picture: Cabinet posts for Labour ministers only, one important ministry for a Green co-leader outside Cabinet, a smattering of associate roles. And I think we should be willing to sit on the cross benches instead of accepting that, because it seems like a similar degree of power in practice.

I guess my bottom line is that we're consulted on everything, whether that's in Cabinet or seeking our votes in Parliament for every bill.

@Salty The context is also different this time.

James always said that his project was to see the Greens into government and out the other side, which I took to mean demonstrating that we're a stable coalition partner and not just a protest vote. That’s been achieved, and we don't need to prove it over again. Next time, we should have a different political objective.

That might look like showing we can run major parts of government, or it might be something new: showing that we can make the cross benches a new way to exercise power. If I was making decisions for Labour I'd prefer the former.

@jeremy_pm

@isaacfreeman @Salty

This still doesn't explain your wish for Greens to have a poor or average than expected turn out at the next election.

I still argue the more votes they get the more options they have.

@jeremy_pm I think we've misunderstood each other, and it's probably due to an ambiguity in what it means to be “in government”. I'm an active Green Party member, and I want the Greens to have as many MPs in Parliament as possible. I also want those MPs to be part of a majority bloc that forms a government. I believe we're all in agreement there.

However… “government” can also mean the Executive, i.e. ministers, which are appointed by the Prime Minister. Not all ministerial roles have equal power, and I'd rather have a smaller number of powerful ministers inside Cabinet than a larger number of weak ones outside. That way we have influence over all decisions, including short-term day-to-day ones.

Because the PM appoints ministers, it's not a given that more ministers automatically means more practical power. It depends a lot which ministries and whether they get to participate in Cabinet.

@Salty