Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Time for another #NZPol poll

Time for another #NZPol poll

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
nzpol
38 Posts 7 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:

    @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.

    Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
    Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
    Isaac Freeman
    wrote last edited by
    #29

    @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.

    Hippo Giraffe CovfefeS JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • Isaac FreemanI Isaac Freeman

      @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.

      Hippo Giraffe CovfefeS This user is from outside of this forum
      Hippo Giraffe CovfefeS This user is from outside of this forum
      Hippo Giraffe Covfefe
      wrote last edited by
      #30

      @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.

      Isaac FreemanI 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • Hippo Giraffe CovfefeS Hippo Giraffe Covfefe

        @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.

        Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
        Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
        Isaac Freeman
        wrote last edited by
        #31

        @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

        JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Isaac FreemanI Isaac Freeman

          @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.

          JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J This user is from outside of this forum
          JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J This user is from outside of this forum
          JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:
          wrote last edited by
          #32

          @isaacfreeman

          Well, going back to your original statement about wanting to see Greens with less than 30% of the share of the next coalition govt.

          Firstly if Greens only get around 10% or less of the vote in the next election there will be no problem for Labour to decide as they will be in opposition along with the Greens.

          Secondly if Greens has around 40% or more of the members of a propositional coalition govt then Labour has far less power to exclude them from ministerial positions inside cabinet.

          Regardless, neither of our opinions are going to change the outcome of the 2026 election but hopefully we will be in a position in early 2027 to judge how Labour treats Greens & TPM as coalition partners.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • Isaac FreemanI Isaac Freeman

            @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

            JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J This user is from outside of this forum
            JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J This user is from outside of this forum
            JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:
            wrote last edited by
            #33

            @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.

            Isaac FreemanI 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:

              @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.

              Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
              Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
              Isaac Freeman
              wrote last edited by
              #34

              @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

              Isaac FreemanI JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • Isaac FreemanI Isaac Freeman

                @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

                Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
                Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
                Isaac Freeman
                wrote last edited by
                #35

                @jeremy_pm To illustrate with an extreme scenario that's very unlikely: suppose we had 15 Green MPs and Labour gave us a choice between two options:

                1. All 15 Green MPs get an associate minister role outside Cabinet for an area they really care about.

                2. Greens get only one minister, but it's the Finance Minister, deciding where money gets spent across the whole government

                I would pick the second option. Hard on our MPs, but more power to get stuff done.

                Obviously this won't happen, but realistic scenarios will be somewhere between these extreme options, and we'll need to decide which are worth it.
                @Salty

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Isaac FreemanI Isaac Freeman

                  @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

                  JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J This user is from outside of this forum
                  JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J This user is from outside of this forum
                  JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:
                  wrote last edited by
                  #36

                  @isaacfreeman

                  I don’t disagree with your desire to see Green MPs with significant ministerial portfolios the only thing we really ever disagreed about is my hope that the Greens have a larger proportion of representation in the next government.

                  It seems you no longer totally disagree with that either so I’m now somewhat confused about what we’re debating.

                  Thanks for a fun discussion that appears to have gone a full circle.

                  Here’s hoping for the best.

                  @Salty

                  Isaac FreemanI 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:J JeremyJupiterJones :tinoflag:

                    @isaacfreeman

                    I don’t disagree with your desire to see Green MPs with significant ministerial portfolios the only thing we really ever disagreed about is my hope that the Greens have a larger proportion of representation in the next government.

                    It seems you no longer totally disagree with that either so I’m now somewhat confused about what we’re debating.

                    Thanks for a fun discussion that appears to have gone a full circle.

                    Here’s hoping for the best.

                    @Salty

                    Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
                    Isaac FreemanI This user is from outside of this forum
                    Isaac Freeman
                    wrote last edited by
                    #37

                    @jeremy_pm I don't think we're debating, just two people on the same side talking about political strategy.

                    We probably won't figure it out perfectly, but I'm pretty sure the confusion comes down to whether we're counting the number of ministers a party has, or estimating how much power those ministers have to get things done.
                    @Salty

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • leighelse{}L leighelse{}

                      @jeremy_pm Ooohhh ... I'll vote twice!

                      Jon PJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      Jon PJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      Jon P
                      wrote last edited by
                      #38

                      @leighelse @jeremy_pm vote early, vote often. That's my motto!

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R ActivityRelay shared this topic
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups