|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Lol every TOP supporter I know is now lashing out at the Greens and claiming that by not forming a coalition with National, they're putting their 'party before the environment'.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
If only people/the media cared about those who will suffer and die because of National policies as much as they care about a few dairy farmers going out of business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Won't someone think of all those poor concentration camp guards who'll be out of a job when the allies win the war?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Lol every TOP supporter I know is now lashing out at the Greens and claiming that by not forming a coalition with National, they're putting their 'party before the environment'. It is extremely unlikely that the Greens will form a coalition with National, but that unlikeliness is entirely based in how their policy platform is incompatible with the Green Party's policy objectives. It is entirely about the environment, and nothing about the party -- National are bad for the environment, Greens won't work with them unless they do a total 180 on the offending policies and uphold it. I mean their social and economic policies suck too and we'd do everything in our power to change that, but that kinda feels like trying to win a boxing match with a brick wall. SurreptitiousMuffin fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Sep 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
the thinnest of silver linings is no more under-secretary seymour
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Those dairy farms are in places where dairy is not viable. It is only the fact that they don't need to pay for their inputs that allows them to be dairy farms. If not they would be meat or barley or something else which the nature of the land would support. There was an article on the economic impact of getting Lake Ellesmere to the proposed national standard. https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/95610302/improving-lake-to-national-standard-would-have-severe-social-and-economic-consequences Which basically says to me that the environment is propping up dairy farming in Canterbury at least to the value of $250 million. So gently caress those farmers. I do not give one gently caress if some of them lose their farms and livelihoods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:lol James Shaw actually got up and explicitly said he hadn't ruled out working with National. He said it would need a major reworking of their core policies because their core policies are bad for the environment, but those TOP supporters are categorically full of poo poo. I totally get your point here, but I also tend to think, if you can do something to help New Zealand's environment, it's better than nothing. Like yeah they won't have much effect on National's policy if they form a coalition but they won't have any effect if they don't. The voters are something to consider as well though. I feel like the Greens could stand to lose a bunch of party support if they look like they're "selling out" or watering down their policies in a National coalition. But hell maybe voters will also see that a Green vote is more powerful because they can work with either party that gets in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Greens going with National would be political suicide. Even in the imaginary best case scenario where National acts in good faith and doesn't attempt to gently caress them over at every turn, a huge proportion of Green supporters would revolt. It would fracture the party. The Lib Dems going with the Tories in the UK decimated them. The Maori Party going with the Nats here has literally wiped them out of Parliament. Who in their right mind would think that the Greens siding with a party that is against everything they stand for would work out in any way whatsoever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
^^ exactly There's a lot of people (myself included) who vote/d Green more for their social policy than environmental, I think they'd absolutely lose a shitload of voters if they went in with the Nats. I'm not sure how much change the Greens could realistically make in terms of the balance they'd have with the Nats, I think for the most part it'd just come across as a lack of integrity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Nition posted:I totally get your point here, but I also tend to think, if you can do something to help New Zealand's environment, it's better than nothing. Like yeah they won't have much effect on National's policy if they form a coalition but they won't have any effect if they don't. You know parties are able to effect change while being in opposition, yeah? National+Green coalition means the Greens have to massively compromise all their core principles, in return for gently caress all. It's much better for them to be in opposition, get a few private members bills into law which otherwise would not be tabled if there were no Greens in parliament at all. Is it worth destroying the party forever in return for 3 years in government where they will accomplish next to nothing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
National is poisonous and destructive and working with them is literally the worst thing that any party can do. The only one that's survived working with National so far is New Zealand First and that's only because their leader is even more of a fuckwit. Anyone calling for the greens to go to bed with blue is calling for the greens to die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Perhaps the national party should get good environmental policy? just a thought
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Somfin posted:National is poisonous and destructive and working with them is literally the worst thing that any party can do. The only one that's survived working with National so far is New Zealand First and that's only because their leader is even more of a fuckwit. The centrist morons who are calling for the Greens to go in with National fundamentally don't understand that some other people believe in stuff and that getting into power at any cost isn't their raison d'etre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
National would gain mana for all of their policies from partnering with the Greens - they would be the proverbial black friend. Lowered water standards? The Greens are on our side. Child poverty is an issue? It can't be, we have the Greens. Mining protected forest? Greens. Implementing regressive taxes? Greens. For their participation in this the Greens would gain literally nothing - you might argue as part of their compact they could pass some policy, but they are so diametrically opposed to National on every single issue, other than the economic centre all the parties occupy to a degree, that those policies will be bought with 30 pieces of silver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Yeah lol at anyone who watches literally all but one of national's coalition partners die by association and turns around to say the greens should follow suit Also they can't agree on anything at all Midget Fist posted:Won't someone think of all those poor concentration camp guards who'll be out of a job when the allies win the war? yes an apt comparison
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Yeah lol at anyone who watches literally all but one of national's coalition partners die by association and turns around to say the greens should follow suit um I think you'll find that Gareth Morgan is extremely smart and knows what's best for everyone furthermore, Green voters are actually destroying the environment, because
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
exmarx posted:Perhaps the national party should get good environmental policy? just a thought They'll just knick the policies they like from the greens. It's what the greens are there for. Also there may be something in national supporters being super grumpy if there was a blue green coalition They already have the blue greens in house 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Non-kiwi here. Do National need the greens for a majority?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Gum posted:Non-kiwi here. Do National need the greens for a majority? National are currently stalled on 58 seats, and their current sole coalition partner ACT, have just the 1 which means they lack a viable majority (you need 61+ to govern). National have just lost 2 of their coalition partners (United Future and the Maori Party), which would have given them the majority (not to mention all bar Ilam from Christchurch). If the Special Votes go to form, they're likely to lose 1 or 2 seats. The Greens would probably have the numbers, as they tend to benefit from the special votes, but it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that such a coalition would never actually happen. Their likeliest option is New Zealand First, who are currently the largest of the major parties, but they've spent the last 6 years and a bit years antagonising him, and they may have been party to a privacy breach that was supposed to discredit the NZF leader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Either way ACT is out of the game and no matter what it will be exceptionally hard to claw back from this result. Ten thousand votes across the country is by far the worst result I could think of for them. Here's Seymour having a cry about it and saying the Edge gave him a better platform than RNZ to outline his policies... http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/340171/video-we-live-again-act-party-leader
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
ACT have an electorate seat so unfortunately they're not out of the game at all, though
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
He's not going to get any cabinet positions at least. If Labour and the Greens are really serious about getting rid of him then they'll need to pull their candidates from Epsom, which I don't see them doing e: Jesus Willie Jackson is a tool, I wish he wasn't back in parliament. Marama Fox has her issues, but the way he talks to her here is loving infuriating https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1434662149945569&id=156865404391923 voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Sep 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Here's an interesting (and constantly updated) calculator for special votes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jrn6_5uCoAYfqBmc9R64nza4oHlua3rCsoykpLQrjII/edit#gid=654160597
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
I don't see why National won't still give Seymour a title, it helps legitimise whatever policies they want to run through the ACT brand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I don't see why National won't still give Seymour a title, it helps legitimise whatever policies they want to run through the ACT brand. As much as it is believable as anything else he says, Winston has specifically said he won't go into any coalition with Act, so I'm guessing English is playing the appropriate lip service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I don't see why National won't still give Seymour a title, it helps legitimise whatever policies they want to run through the ACT brand. Coalition negotiations with Winston are a lot easier if they just ditch ACT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
loving lol at the morons asking greens to suckle on the national teat. What's even the point of getting in power if you have to throw away or water down all your policies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Xik posted:loving lol at the morons asking greens to suckle on the national teat. What's even the point of getting in power if you have to throw away or water down all your policies. No you see we should all work towards a perfect centrist compromise, the Greens are just showing their emotional and political immaturity, furthermore *starts making GBS threads violently*
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:No you see we should all work towards a perfect centrist compromise, the Greens are just showing their emotional and political immaturity, furthermore *establishes TOP*
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
whooole lot of bullshit opinion pieces going around at the moment
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Unlike before the election
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
cptn_dr posted:Unlike all the time everywhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
I think the greens should offer national a deal, and let national turn them down. Then they can take the moral high ground. If national take them up on it, then that's even better! But that would never happen with the sort of deal the greens are willing to offer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Lincoln? My bestie studied soil science there, didn't think it'd be that right-wing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
it's literally farmer university dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Lincoln? My bestie studied soil science there, didn't think it'd be that right-wing. Isn't Lincoln largely an agriculture uni? Not surprising
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Dang, was hoping it was more on the science than the soil. e: She's of the persuasion that is most definitely not tolerated by the right-wing unless they're trying to court centrist votes. WarpedNaba fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Yeah lol at anyone who watches literally all but one of national's coalition partners die by association and turns around to say the greens should follow suit Finn here. Our Greens went into government with our National Coalition (they're even the Nats too!) several years ago and they got murdered at the polls for it. Don't do it. Right-wing conservative parties are political poison, the current government is them + right-wing rear end in a top hat populists + agrarian centre-right party. It's been two years, the populist party has split in half (the other half is in opposition now), the agrarian party has lost a quarter of its support and the Coalition party is doing better than ever. This is a fascinating phenomenon and I'm not quite sure where it comes from and what causes it. Structural neoliberal orthodoxy is the "default setting" I suppose and large mainstream parties that follow this orthodoxy prosper while the same structure forces other parties to cooperate with it, destroying their ideological fundamentals in the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
god i'm sick of chris trotter being called a 'left wing political writer' he hasn't been left wing for years. He's the 'even the liberal national review' of NZ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 08:34
|
|
