[quote = Tegal]
[quote = Tegal]
I think the government could be more representative.
Having NZF being the only one holding the balance of power isn’t ideal (I’d be saying this no matter who he chose).
Greens of course had the opportunity to also influence the government but campaigned on the fact they weren’t even going to talk to national, so that literally only left NZF holding all of the cards. That isn’t ideal.
Lowering the 5% threshold to enter parliament would help this situation a lot. It’d result in more parties being able to enter coalition talks, instead of the 2 major parties wooing NZF we have at the moment.
It’d also result in those minor parties doing a lot better as people would actually be able to vote for the party they think represents them best. Currently some people don’t vote for those parties as its likely a wasted vote. For example, I think TOP would have done better in this election if there wasn’t a 5% threshold for seats.
Overall this would result in a government and a coalition that is more representative of what people would vote for.
[/quote]
Well- the Nats and their apologists saying the Greens should bail them out is a laugh.
They chose to ignore the review of MMP and now that instinctive anti-democratic impulse has come back to bite them on the arse.
If they had done something we'd probably not have ACT and we'd likely have TOP.
[/quote]
Bail them out = form a coalition?
Did NZF bail labour out then?
I just think it’s silly to campaign on the fact that you won’t talk to national at all - it means you have zero leverage in coalition talks. Don’t associate any further meaning to it than that.
I actually think a lowering or removal of the 5% threshold would largely help labour anyway, so I don’t think it’s bitten them in the arse. I also don’t see how it’s anti-democratic or how it would result in ACT not existing.
Also not sure how voting for National this election makes me an apologist. National are a centrist party - they’re hardly controversial, especially relative to labour they’re really not that different. Nor are they unpopular, as they got 44% of the party vote. I also think I’ve been fairly sensible in my comments?
No: bail them out means help them when plans A and B have failed.
To a degree Labour were bailed out by NZ First as their first plan was coalition with the Greens. But coalition with NZF was their second plan. It was clear some of their policies were moving that way.
Fairly easy on the ACT thing- no coat tailing means no extra MPs. Why should National keep running a puppet party that commands fewer votes than people who attend the 'Nix (he said hopefully about 'Nix attendees)
In this election TOP might have made an agreement with National. It, at least, was more likely they would than the Greens or NZF. Not having a lower threshold skewered that, so that's why I said that had bit them on the arse.
Apologists are the media making out that everything the Nats have done is ok. Laughing about not measuring child poverty? Banter etc etc...
I can't agree with you that National are a centrist party. They have members who are more centrist.
I think we essentially agree on 98%. I have yet to see, even from Nandor Tanczos, a coherent idea of how the Greens and National could co-exist. It could perhaps only happen after climate change policies had been enacted, intensive and dirty dairying had been curtailed, DOC had returned to protecting the conservation estate, with water quality and public transport being high on the agenda. With that being the status quo the Nats wouldn't change, perhaps. But honestly, a greener National fairly much equals Labour...I hope!
Let's not pretend that previous overhang coalitions have been that representative.