A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an
outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from
ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current
Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to
major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through
leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance
(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership
behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes
(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free
doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour
after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count,
the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority
position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them
into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring
coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy
than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outsideLabour should seriously consider this following the partial (maybe total) collapse of TPM and the currently idiotic Greens but I am not sure NZ politicians are mature enough to work towards a common goal - this country's wellbeing.
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from
ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current
Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to
major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through
leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count,
the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority
position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them
into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy
than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
I would like to be proven wrong.
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outsideLabour should seriously consider this following the partial (maybe total) >collapse of TPM and the currently idiotic Greens but I am not sure NZ >politicians are mature enough to work towards a common goal - this country's >wellbeing.
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from
ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current
Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to
major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through
leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count,
the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority
position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them
into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy
than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
I would like to be proven wrong.
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an
outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from
ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current
Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to
major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through
leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance
(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership
behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes
(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free
doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour
after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count,
the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority
position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them
into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring
coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy
than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
--
Crash McBash
On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:10:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from
ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current
Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to
major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through
leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count,
the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority
position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them
into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy
than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
--
Crash McBash
That would be a disaster. It is far better that they hate each other's
guts than for them to start kissing up to each other. They would
conspire against the population to further their own self interest,
and there would be no effective opposition.
The fact that this is even remotely possible shows what a disaster MMP
has been for this country.
New Zealand has arrived at the place MMP was always going to take us.
An electoral choice between villainy and gutlessness. Let us hope that
the two never amalgamate.
That would be a disaster. It is far better that they hate each
other's guts than for them to start kissing up to each other. They
would conspire against the population to further their own self
interest, and there would be no effective opposition.
The fact that this is even remotely possible shows what a disaster
MMP has been for this country.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 05:55:43 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:10:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:What an absurd and extreme view. Hate is such a destructive emotion
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from >>>ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current >>>Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to >>>major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through >>>leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count, >>>the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority >>>position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them >>>into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy >>>than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
--
Crash McBash
That would be a disaster. It is far better that they hate each other's
guts than for them to start kissing up to each other. They would
conspire against the population to further their own self interest,
and there would be no effective opposition.
and it has no place in Parliament. Having said that I agree that
there are no longer any insurmountable policy hurdles between National
and Labour, and a 2-party dominant coalition has advantages in terms
of a contest of ideas.
The fact that this is even remotely possible shows what a disaster MMPMMP has delivered us from single-party minority Governments. With
has been for this country.
every Parliament elected under FPP since the emergence of political
parties, the government was formed by the party that won the most
seats, and in every case most voters did not vote for that party.
Despite this lack of popular support, that party could do what it
liked.
New Zealand has arrived at the place MMP was always going to take us.
An electoral choice between villainy and gutlessness. Let us hope that
the two never amalgamate.
Forming a coalition Government is not amalgamation and never will be.
MMP has taken us exactly where it was supposed to - proportional >representation in Parliament and is a huge improvement over what
happened with the Muldoon and Lange governments.
MMP is not perfect and does need tweaking, but reverting to FPP is
most certainly the preserve only of dictator-style minority
government.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 05:55:43 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:10:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:What an absurd and extreme view.
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside
the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from >>>ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government
is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy
meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current >>>Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to >>>major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in
1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through >>>leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing
young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical
practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT
will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count, >>>the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority >>>position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them >>>into Government without relying on parties who have become more
extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not
as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to
Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy >>>than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
--
Crash McBash
That would be a disaster. It is far better that they hate each other's
guts than for them to start kissing up to each other. They would
conspire against the population to further their own self interest,
and there would be no effective opposition.
Hate is such a destructive emotion
and it has no place in Parliament.
Having said that I agree that
there are no longer any insurmountable policy hurdles between National
and Labour, and a 2-party dominant coalition has advantages in terms
of a contest of ideas.
The fact that this is even remotely possible shows what a disaster MMPMMP has delivered us from single-party minority Governments. With
has been for this country.
every Parliament elected under FPP since the emergence of political
parties, the government was formed by the party that won the most
seats, and in every case most voters did not vote for that party.
Despite this lack of popular support, that party could do what it
liked.
New Zealand has arrived at the place MMP was always going to take us.
An electoral choice between villainy and gutlessness. Let us hope that
the two never amalgamate.
Forming a coalition Government is not amalgamation and never will be.
MMP has taken us exactly where it was supposed to - proportional >representation in Parliament and is a huge improvement over what
happened with the Muldoon and Lange governments.
MMP is not perfect and does need tweaking, but reverting to FPP is
most certainly the preserve only of dictator-style minority
government.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 10:47:25 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 05:55:43 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:10:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside >>>>the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>>>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from >>>>ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government >>>>is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy >>>>meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current >>>>Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>>>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to >>>>major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in >>>>1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through >>>>leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>>>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>>>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>>>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing >>>>young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical >>>>practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>>>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT >>>>will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>>>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>>>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count, >>>>the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority >>>>position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them >>>>into Government without relying on parties who have become more >>>>extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not >>>>as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to >>>>Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>>>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy >>>>than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
--
Crash McBash
That would be a disaster. It is far better that they hate each other's >>>guts than for them to start kissing up to each other. They would
conspire against the population to further their own self interest,
and there would be no effective opposition.
What an absurd and extreme view.
I would rather see politicians bleating and bickering with each other
than to see an orderly and well behaved debating chamber.
Dictatorships have quiet parliaments.
Hate is such a destructive emotion
and it has no place in Parliament.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of it on display. It seems quite evident
that the Maori party and the greens despise those who stand in their
way. I suspect they don't like each other very much either. Hate is
one of those emotions that those with an unhealthy lust for political
power have seem to have in abundance.
There is an unpleasant quirk in human nature that is particularly
strong in some people (not all, but certainly far too many). The
desire to control other people and boss them around.
Politics
represens a very attractive carreer path for such people, and they are
over represented in the politics of every country. The default
political system is dictatorship. You only have to look at the vast
majority of governments around the world to see evidence of that. Representative government is very fragile, and a grand coalition
formed out of the gutless and evil politicians that make up a
significant part of today's parliament would be very difficult to get
rid of.
Having said that I agree that
there are no longer any insurmountable policy hurdles between National
and Labour, and a 2-party dominant coalition has advantages in terms
of a contest of ideas.
I suspect that any coalition formed between National and Labour would
feature the worst aspects of both parties.
There are only two political stripes. Rich80105 used to blather on
about a 2 dimensional political compass, but the political spectrum is
a one dimensional line, with big controlling government at one end and
small, core-function focused government at the other. All political
parties are either in favour of more taxes, regulations and
restrictions, or the opposite. There is no political system, either
real or conceived, that does not have a place on this like somewhere.
The fact that this is even remotely possible shows what a disaster MMP >>>has been for this country.MMP has delivered us from single-party minority Governments. With
every Parliament elected under FPP since the emergence of political >>parties, the government was formed by the party that won the most
seats, and in every case most voters did not vote for that party.
Despite this lack of popular support, that party could do what it
liked.
I have never promoted FPP as an ideal system, but it is better than
MMP which puts people in parliament who have no public mandate and are motivated only by party loyalty.
MMP was sold to a gullible public by
the media. STV seems to be a far better system than either of these.
No voting system is perfect, but MMP was a retrograte step in this
country's politcal history, particularly since the racist Maori seats
still exist, and which MMP should have rendered unnecessary.
New Zealand has arrived at the place MMP was always going to take us.
An electoral choice between villainy and gutlessness. Let us hope that >>>the two never amalgamate.
Forming a coalition Government is not amalgamation and never will be.
It would be if the two major parties unified and formed a government.
Who could stand against it?
MMP has taken us exactly where it was supposed to - proportional >>representation in Parliament and is a huge improvement over what
happened with the Muldoon and Lange governments.
It's not though. A small party has the ability to hold a government to ransom. That is not proportional representation.
MMP is not perfect and does need tweaking, but reverting to FPP is
most certainly the preserve only of dictator-style minority
government.
Where have I ever advocated a return to FPP? The most obvious tweak
would be to get rid of the Maori seats and replace MMP with STV.
Bill.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 10:47:25 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 05:55:43 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:10:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:What an absurd and extreme view.
A stupid notion at first sight, but for those of us who think outside >>>>the square, along with political developments since 2023, there is an >>>>outside chance this could be considered.
The current Government has seen 'reformist' actions come entirely from >>>>ACT and to a minor extent NZF. Inherited from the previous government >>>>is mountainous debt and shrinking revenue from a stagnant economy >>>>meaning spending outstrips revenue by some margin. The current >>>>Government have tinkered at the margins, reducing some spending on >>>>consultants downsizing some government departments, but committing to >>>>major road and rail projects. The incoming Bolger-led government in >>>>1990 was in a similar situation, but Richardson's first budget was
very different to Willis'. Luxon is a likeable but muddle-through >>>>leader, more intent on style (quarterly targets etc) than substance >>>>(tackling economic pain), and lacking in courage.
Labour are looking to not only leave the legacy of Ardern's leadership >>>>behind but actually jettison it completely under Hipkins. Under his >>>>leadership, they are steering a very different course with backing >>>>young GPs and Nurses to buy into co-operatively-owned medical >>>>practices. They are also steering a traditional course with new taxes >>>>(CGT) and spending it before there is revenue to support it (the CGT >>>>will not bring in significant revenues until beyond 2030, the 3 free >>>>doctors visits starts immediately). While there is a lot of policy
not released yet by Labour, there is also not the wide gap in
political philosophy between the two. It should be remembered that
ACT was founded by former Labour and former National MPs (Roger
Douglas and Derek Quigley).
So what chance of a coalition government featuring National and Labour >>>>after the 2026 election? Assuming both parties dominate the MP count, >>>>the one with the most MPs leads, the other has a strong minority >>>>position. The opposition is all the other parties.
For Labour in particular, if they are the largest party this gets them >>>>into Government without relying on parties who have become more >>>>extremist in recent years - the watermelons and the Tamihere party.
For National, if they are not the largest party then retaining power
as the minor party with Labour may well be preferred to a repeat of
the current coalition. I acknowledge though that NZF and ACT are not >>>>as toxic to National as the watermelons and Tamihere party are to >>>>Labour.
If Labour are the largest party after the 2026 election, exploring >>>>coalition options with National may well be vastly preferable to Hippy >>>>than coalition options with the watermelons and Tamihere party.
--
Crash McBash
That would be a disaster. It is far better that they hate each other's >>>guts than for them to start kissing up to each other. They would
conspire against the population to further their own self interest,
and there would be no effective opposition.
I would rather see politicians bleating and bickering with each other
than to see an orderly and well behaved debating chamber.
Dictatorships have quiet parliaments.
Hate is such a destructive emotion
and it has no place in Parliament.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of it on display. It seems quite evident
that the Maori party and the greens despise those who stand in their
way. I suspect they don't like each other very much either. Hate is
one of those emotions that those with an unhealthy lust for political
power have seem to have in abundance.
There is an unpleasant quirk in human nature that is particularly
strong in some people (not all, but certainly far too many). The
desire to control other people and boss them around. Politics
represens a very attractive carreer path for such people, and they are
over represented in the politics of every country. The default
political system is dictatorship. You only have to look at the vast
majority of governments around the world to see evidence of that. >Representative government is very fragile, and a grand coalition
formed out of the gutless and evil politicians that make up a
significant part of today's parliament would be very difficult to get
rid of.
Having said that I agree that
there are no longer any insurmountable policy hurdles between National
and Labour, and a 2-party dominant coalition has advantages in terms
of a contest of ideas.
I suspect that any coalition formed between National and Labour would
feature the worst aspects of both parties.
There are only two political stripes. Rich80105 used to blather on
about a 2 dimensional political compass, but the political spectrum is
a one dimensional line, with big controlling government at one end and
small, core-function focused government at the other. All political
parties are either in favour of more taxes, regulations and
restrictions, or the opposite. There is no political system, either
real or conceived, that does not have a place on this like somewhere.
The fact that this is even remotely possible shows what a disaster MMP >>>has been for this country.MMP has delivered us from single-party minority Governments. With
every Parliament elected under FPP since the emergence of political >>parties, the government was formed by the party that won the most
seats, and in every case most voters did not vote for that party.
Despite this lack of popular support, that party could do what it
liked.
I have never promoted FPP as an ideal system, but it is better than
MMP which puts people in parliament who have no public mandate
and are
motivated only by party loyalty. MMP was sold to a gullible public by
the media.
STV seems to be a far better system than either of these.
No voting system is perfect, but MMP was a retrograte step in this
country's politcal history, particularly since the racist Maori seats
still exist, and which MMP should have rendered unnecessary.
New Zealand has arrived at the place MMP was always going to take us.
An electoral choice between villainy and gutlessness. Let us hope that >>>the two never amalgamate.
Forming a coalition Government is not amalgamation and never will be.
It would be if the two major parties unified and formed a government.
Who could stand against it?
MMP has taken us exactly where it was supposed to - proportional >>representation in Parliament and is a huge improvement over what
happened with the Muldoon and Lange governments.
It's not though. A small party has the ability to hold a government to >ransom. That is not proportional representation.
MMP is not perfect and does need tweaking, but reverting to FPP is
most certainly the preserve only of dictator-style minority
government.
Where have I ever advocated a return to FPP? The most obvious tweak
would be to get rid of the Maori seats and replace MMP with STV.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:56:46 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,205 |
| Posted today: | 1 |