Planet Rugby Forum

Personally I don't care if English has zero personality- I just care about policy- and ability to run the country

If you think ardern and a ramshackle left is a better option then we would have to disagree

1. I reckon it would be completely counter-productive for Labour to ditch the MOU at this stage. Even if it is ditched, National will just tie Labour to the Greens anyway. Also, it will likely alienate a large bloc of tradtionally left voters. So at this late stage of the election campaign, they will just have to wear it and ride it out to the end. Cunliffe spent half the 2014 election dodging and weaving this question of whether or not he'll work with the Greens for no real gain. At this election that issue is put to bed despite all the hoohah happening on the Greens side. It expires on election day anyway and I bet you the likes of Kelvin Davis is working hard behind the scenes to keep NZF in the loop.

2. Best thing to do from a Labour perspective is to simply try and grow the Labour vote by bleeding the greens and NZF and try and get swinging Nat voters. The argument that the swinging Nats will not come over to Labour because of the MOU is fairly meh because even if the MOU is ditched, Labour is tied to the greens anyway. Also, the only ones likely to be in a labour-led cabinet are James Shaw and Julie Ann Genter. Refer to point one above.

True Blue wrote:I know I already said this in jest, but it has to be said in seriousness also. Why can't National and Labour go into govt together? Is there some unwritten law that they must be in opposition to each other? In reality, their policies are probably closer together than National/Act or Labour/Greens.

Personalities and egos. Absolutely no reason they can't, although labour is campaigning on changing the govt so would be breaking all kinds of promises.

Tbf, the whole leadership of the opposition probably makes it impossible for that party to seriously join the govt immediately afterward.

Wilderbeast wrote:

True Blue wrote:I know I already said this in jest, but it has to be said in seriousness also. Why can't National and Labour go into govt together? Is there some unwritten law that they must be in opposition to each other? In reality, their policies are probably closer together than National/Act or Labour/Greens.

Personalities and egos. Absolutely no reason they can't, although labour is campaigning on changing the govt so would be breaking all kinds of promises.

Tbf, the whole leadership of the opposition probably makes it impossible for that party to seriously join the govt immediately afterward.

Ideologically it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the cobbled together alliances amongst the other parties.

But this is always the way things turn out.

Those most closely aligned would rather team with the devil than the brother across the fence.

Stuff:

Long-serving MPs Kennedy Graham and David Clendon will leave Parliament immediately - the caucus on Tuesday approving a motion from co-leader James Shaw to oust the pair for the remaining two weeks of the Parliamentary term.

The Greens' hierarchy was also moving through procedures to expel them from the party, Greens co-leader Metiria Turei confirmed.

I'm not sure what power a party has to expel an MP from Parliament - reporter must be confused between Parliament and the caucus, or maybe a party can expel a list MP? That'd be unhealthy for democracy though. Ex-communication from the party as well though - that's cold.

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:Stuff:

Long-serving MPs Kennedy Graham and David Clendon will leave Parliament immediately - the caucus on Tuesday approving a motion from co-leader James Shaw to oust the pair for the remaining two weeks of the Parliamentary term.

The Greens' hierarchy was also moving through procedures to expel them from the party, Greens co-leader Metiria Turei confirmed.

I'm not sure what power a party has to expel an MP from Parliament - reporter must be confused between Parliament and the caucus, or maybe a party can expel a list MP? That'd be unhealthy for democracy though. Ex-communication from the party as well though - that's cold.

Stuff seems to have changed this to them now being expelled from the caucus, not Parliament.

brat wrote:Personally I don't care if English has zero personality- I just care about policy- and ability to run the country

I'm still concerned about the ethics he displayed now that it has become clear he knew all about the Todd Barclay events but did nothing about it, either internal or external to the party. That's not a good look.

deadduck wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

deadduck wrote:Kennedy Graham is 71 years old, David Clendon was placed at 16 on the list

Massive losses to the party these two

They're long serving and well respected in the party. No you're right, it's a good look.

I'd bet 9/10 people who vote for the Greens wouldn't even know who they were

I think you would be wrong, given the vast majority of Green supporters are there for the environmental issues and not Metiria's narcissistic ego trip, laughably disguised as caring for those on benefits

Graham was working on global environmental issues, nuclear issues and climate issues before it became the "in" thing to do and before the Green Party was created

Dark wrote:I think you would be wrong, given the vast majority of Green supporters are there for the environmental issues and not Metiria's narcissistic ego trip, laughably disguised as caring for those on benefits

Graham was working on global environmental issues, nuclear issues and climate issues before it became the "in" thing to do and before the Green Party was created

Matthew Hootton and Mike Williams were discussing that earlier - that if expulsion was a matter for the members rather than the party executive, it was far from clear that they'd get the numbers.

do parties have to stand candidates in electorates? seems silly the greens undermine Labour by standing in electorates when they won zero electorates last election and have practically zero chance of winning any this election.

Turei looking very power hungry imo. Will she quit if her staying harms the Greens prospects? Some would say that's already happened.

Kahu wrote:do parties have to stand candidates in electorates? seems silly the greens undermine Labour by standing in electorates when they won zero electorates last election and have practically zero chance of winning any this election.

No, they don't but having a candidate does tend to lift the profile of the party so I reckon it's a good idea

Gordon Bennett wrote:

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:Stuff:

Long-serving MPs Kennedy Graham and David Clendon will leave Parliament immediately - the caucus on Tuesday approving a motion from co-leader James Shaw to oust the pair for the remaining two weeks of the Parliamentary term.

The Greens' hierarchy was also moving through procedures to expel them from the party, Greens co-leader Metiria Turei confirmed.

I'm not sure what power a party has to expel an MP from Parliament - reporter must be confused between Parliament and the caucus, or maybe a party can expel a list MP? That'd be unhealthy for democracy though. Ex-communication from the party as well though - that's cold.

Stuff seems to have changed this to them now being expelled from the caucus, not Parliament.

brat wrote:Personally I don't care if English has zero personality- I just care about policy- and ability to run the country

I'm still concerned about the ethics he displayed now that it has become clear he knew all about the Todd Barclay events but did nothing about it, either internal or external to the party. That's not a good look.

Tbh I don't really care about any of the side shows like Barclay or turei or arderns teeth...yeah sure you can question integrity but end of the day the only thing that really matters..the stuff that effects your day to day life.. is policy

For me it's all about stable govt. Of course personality/ego etc has its place in stable govt but just can't see how a labour / greens/ nz first could be stable cf national / nz first

Why would it be less 'stable' exactly ?

Frankly I'm not sure stable is cutting it anymore anymore.

Wilderbeast wrote:Turei looking very power hungry imo. Will she quit if her staying harms the Greens prospects? Some would say that's already happened.

Don't underestimate the power of the salary. Not sure what hers is, but I'm sure it's 200k plus.

eugenius wrote:Why would it be less 'stable' exactly ?

Frankly I'm not sure stable is cutting it anymore anymore.

I've just spent three months in Melbourne, Straya!'s a complete fcuking mess, government a basket case in a deeply structural way, can't get any sensible decisions made without bribes to coalition partners, government might fall over what sort of vote that have over marriage equality. Deficit is off the charts, cuts to spending, etc. They're about to subsidise new Queensland coal mines by squillions.

UK. Total mess. Government is dependent on racist, sexist, literally-believe-the-bible fcuktards.

US, well no need to comment.

Stable centrist government is a very very good thing.

To answer your first question, Labour / NZF might be OK if the deal with Winston is a sound one. Maybe.

Well, my constituency's Green candidate has bitten the dust. In what is likely to be a very closely fought battle between National and Labour, that could swing the electorate vote Labour's way. Surely too late to find a quality candidate now? I guess they could get Holly Walker to do one last job?

brat wrote: For me it's all about stable govt. Of course personality/ego etc has its place in stable govt but just can't see how a labour / greens/ nz first could be stable cf national / nz first

Be very careful with the stable mantra. I was just over in the UK during their election, and the 'stable' that the Tories were repeating like a terrace chant couldn't have been further from the truth in the final wash up. Given our MMP system, I think you use the term 'stable' very much at your own risk.

eugenius wrote:Why would it be less 'stable' exactly ?

Frankly I'm not sure stable is cutting it anymore anymore.

Less stable, as in more parties of a similar support base involved, some of which have an obvious dislike for one another. Stability breeds confidence.

A National led government can form with two parties, but there is a dominate lead. A Labour led government would require a minimum of three and given the Greens current melt down possibly four and with the lead party (potentially) not gaining that much more votes than their next partner. The more parties the more unstable, the closer the result the more influence each party has and the more they need to differentiate themselves to jockey for position in the next election. This can work if they can all get along but Winston's record in government hasn't exactly been complementary, his distaste for the Greens is also well known. That said a National/Winston First government is probably just what Labour needs to regain the 9th floor.

Turei goooooooooone!! The 6pm poll must be shocking.

Had to come.

What a crazy election.

Julie Ann Genter, please stand up.

(even though I know Marama Davidson will probably be tapped)

Yep, had to happen.

Auckman wrote:Had to come.

What a crazy election.

Julie Ann Genter, please stand up.

(even though I know Marama Davidson will probably be tapped)

Na give it to the Jaguar. My newly minted nickname for the greens transport geek.

Newshub Reid Poll

Nats - 44%
Labour - 33.1%
NZF - 9.2%
Greens - 8.3%

Jacinda Ardern - 26%
Bill English - 27%

Only one poll but game on.

NZF are the kingmakers (as usual)

That's a huge swing!

More blood and deaths than Game of Thrones

Auckman wrote:Newshub Reid Poll

Nats - 44%
Labour - 33.1%
NZF - 9.2%
Greens - 8.3%

Jacinda Ardern - 26%
Bill English - 27%

Only one poll but game on.

NZF are the kingmakers (as usual)

Wow that's a pretty big swing. Labour need to go for jugular on txtgate

Enzedder wrote:More blood and deaths than Game of Thrones

Plenty of tits as well.

RuggaBugga wrote:Wow that's a pretty big swing. Labour need to go for jugular on txtgate

Damn straight.

Like I said not fit to govern . There's more to come out/ is coming out about her past, she had no choice but to quit.

Looking back over this thread there was a poster called Slow Wing who said she would one day be pm.

harvey wilson wrote:Like I said not fit to govern . There's more to come out/ is coming out about her past, she had no choice but to quit.

Looking back over this thread there was a poster called Slow Wing who said she would one day be pm.

Not familiar with Slowy?

RuggaBugga wrote:

harvey wilson wrote:Like I said not fit to govern . There's more to come out/ is coming out about her past, she had no choice but to quit.

Looking back over this thread there was a poster called Slow Wing who said she would one day be pm.

Not familiar with Slowy?

Yeah , from lurking here. Seems like a smart guy but when he buys in to something he seems to buy in 100% and there's no changing his mind .

Turei had to go, but her resisting doing so has fried the greens chances this time around. Labour NZF coalition or NATs and Winnie, either way Winnie gets to be deputy PM if he wants it. That will be his price and no doubting that he has the ego to demand it.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:Turei had to go, but her resisting doing so has fried the greens chances this time around. Labour NZF coalition or NATs and Winnie, either way Winnie gets to be deputy PM if he wants it. That will be his price and no doubting that he has the ego to demand it.

I don't get this. Why would he want that? He's in his 70s. He doesn't want to do any work unless he's in the top job. Why would he be in the game to anoint a somewhat silly 37 year old woman as PM? What's in it for him?

He gets to be PM when she screws it up. Sheesh.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:Turei had to go, but her resisting doing so has fried the greens chances this time around. Labour NZF coalition or NATs and Winnie, either way Winnie gets to be deputy PM if he wants it. That will be his price and no doubting that he has the ego to demand it.

I don't get this. Why would he want that? He's in his 70s. He doesn't want to do any work unless he's in the top job. Why would he be in the game to anoint a somewhat silly 37 year old woman as PM? What's in it for him?

He gets to be PM when she screws it up. Sheesh.

She wont screw up. There are no skeletons for starters and I think she would be cautious enough to not make any big errors. Popularity shouldn't be a problem.

I reckon there are two situations: Lab / NZ 1st with Winston as PM for a limited time, or he just goes with Bill as dep PM with no workload, but influence on policy.

I just don't get why he would go with Adern as her deputy. Nothing in his dna suggests he would run with that. She's a nice person, but is just simply not up to the top gig.

He probably won't however the option is there and I get the feeling that while the Nats are closer to Winnie in political terms Labour are far more likely to sell out (to his demands) to get back to the 9th floor.

blackblackblack wrote:He probably won't however the option is there and I get the feeling that while the Nats are closer to Winnie in political terms Labour are far more likely to sell out (to his demands) to get back to the 9th floor.

The other factor though is what's in it for English and Ardern. If English isn't PM then he's gone, maybe not the next day but this National government is tired and needs refresh at the top. English was always an interim leader. So if not now, then never, so hold his nose and offer Winston the baubles.

Complete opposite for Ardern. She'll be keen on the top job of course but she'd also be well served to take a result in the low 30s - great progress, hold the high ground by saying Winston wanted too much that she couldn't agree to on principle, and spend three years chucking rocks and building a team to sweep to victory in 2020 over a spent National party.

blackblackblack wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:Turei had to go, but her resisting doing so has fried the greens chances this time around. Labour NZF coalition or NATs and Winnie, either way Winnie gets to be deputy PM if he wants it. That will be his price and no doubting that he has the ego to demand it.

I don't get this. Why would he want that? He's in his 70s. He doesn't want to do any work unless he's in the top job. Why would he be in the game to anoint a somewhat silly 37 year old woman as PM? What's in it for him?

He gets to be PM when she screws it up. Sheesh.

She wont screw up. There are no skeletons for starters and I think she would be cautious enough to not make any big errors. Popularity shouldn't be a problem.

I reckon there are two situations: Lab / NZ 1st with Winston as PM for a limited time, or he just goes with Bill as dep PM with no workload, but influence on policy.

I just don't get why he would go with Adern as her deputy. Nothing in his dna suggests he would run with that. She's a nice person, but is just simply not up to the top gig.

He probably won't however the option is there and I get the feeling that while the Nats are closer to Winnie in political terms Labour are far more likely to sell out (to his demands) to get back to the 9th floor.

You reckon - Bill E would sell his soul to stay in

NZF's big issue is immigration.

Haven't Labour been the ones who have been closer to them on that issue? Labour wants to cut immigration. They have been saying that since last year haven't they?

National do not think anything is wrong with immigration levels at present.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

harvey wilson wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

harvey wilson wrote:Like I said not fit to govern . There's more to come out/ is coming out about her past, she had no choice but to quit.

Looking back over this thread there was a poster called Slow Wing who said she would one day be pm.

Not familiar with Slowy?

Yeah , from lurking here. Seems like a smart guy but when he buys in to something he seems to buy in 100% and there's no changing his mind .

Slowy is a smart guy, but politically absolutely fcking insane. He's not the only one on here of course. Take a look at the T rump thread if you want to see complete denial and mind boggling dumb shit.

Yeah I find his fascination with Lorde a little odd as well.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's had the misfortune of encountering Winston in full flight late at night. Years back I had a couple of nights out spoiled by his drunken braying, one time was at a mates restaurant where he first told them their whiskey selection was rubbish and then insisted on sending back the fish because it apparently wasn't fresh and he's a Maori so he knows what fresh fish tastes like. My friend swears the fish was passed around the kitchen staff who took turns spitting on it gave it a quick fry both sides and sent it back out . Part of me hopes that kitchen staff don't do such disgusting things but then again it is Winston . Tana Umaga and him circa 1996-1998 tied for awful late night behaviour that never seemed to make the papers. Tana settled down though, no sign of Winston doing the same. He's basically our version of Silvio Berlusconi with a touch of Rob Ford.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:Turei had to go, but her resisting doing so has fried the greens chances this time around. Labour NZF coalition or NATs and Winnie, either way Winnie gets to be deputy PM if he wants it. That will be his price and no doubting that he has the ego to demand it.

I don't get this. Why would he want that? He's in his 70s. He doesn't want to do any work unless he's in the top job. Why would he be in the game to anoint a somewhat silly 37 year old woman as PM? What's in it for him?

He gets to be PM when she screws it up. Sheesh.

She wont screw up. There are no skeletons for starters and I think she would be cautious enough to not make any big errors. Popularity shouldn't be a problem.

I reckon there are two situations: Lab / NZ 1st with Winston as PM for a limited time, or he just goes with Bill as dep PM with no workload, but influence on policy.

I just don't get why he would go with Adern as her deputy. Nothing in his dna suggests he would run with that. She's a nice person, but is just simply not up to the top gig.

I couldn't see his ego allowing him to be deputy to a 37 year old woman.

It will be Bill E & The Goat

Seneca of the Night wrote:
I have a feeling even old Winnie sees it that way too. If he can get alongside the Nats and bring the immigration racket into line, and prod them a bit on housing and transport and inequality, then that will be the best outcome for all in my view.

I think, for all their faults, that would probably be for the best too.