Politics

[Basil]

I'm still relaxed about this.  Good things take time.  The wily old dog will be a good counterbalance for the inexperienced newcomers.  Everyone needs checks and balances including Christopher Luxon.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/incoming-governing-parties-going-line-by-line-over-policy-as-finish-line-approaches/ONNV5I5EIFDHRGV7EXUSHUDB4E/

[BlackPeter]

And most of that delay was due to the Electoral Commission so I'm not sure why some have their panties in a bunch given coalition negotiations would be significantly more difficult than counting votes.

Wrong.

The problem was not the electoral commission, it just did as it was told by the government of the 2017 NZ First - Labour government. Never forget that it was Winston Peters who supported that voters can still enrol on election day. The result is obviously a significant delay of the final count, given that every enrolment needs to be verified before the vote can be counted.

Don't blame the bureaucrats. The culprit is the populist who is currently playing with the greenhorn who seems to be alone in his believe that he is a great negotiator.

What a circus ...

[Ferg]

If it takes 3 weeks to verify an ID and count a vote then the process is broken at the Electoral Commission.  It is disingenuous saying negotiations have taken 5 weeks given the parties to the negotiation and their proportion of votes were not known for the first 3 weeks due to.....wait for it.....Electoral Commission processes.  It's not the only Government Department with broken processes under what was NZ's worst ever Government.

[Untamed]

It really doesn't matter who, or what is to blame.  The point I made earlier still stands. Anyone with even half a brain knew the  likely outcome of the election was going to be a Nat/ACT/NZF coalition. All three parties could have made the process a heck of a lot smoother (and potentially quicker) had they had the balls and common sense to put aside the posturing, and do the preliminary work on coalition talks. There is absolutely no reason why they could not have done that. Obviously, the process could not have been fully completed until after final results were in, but the groundwork could have been done, and a draft plan formulated, ahead of time, the finer details of which could then have been worked on now. The whole thing feels like a PR stunt.

If it takes 3 weeks to verify an ID and count a vote then the process is broken at the Electoral Commission.  It is disingenuous saying negotiations have taken 5 weeks given the parties to the negotiation and their proportion of votes were not known for the first 3 weeks due to.....wait for it.....Electoral Commission processes.  It's not the only Government Department with broken processes under what was NZ's worst ever Government.

[BlackPeter]

If it takes 3 weeks to verify an ID and count a vote then the process is broken at the Electoral Commission.  It is disingenuous saying negotiations have taken 5 weeks given the parties to the negotiation and their proportion of votes were not known for the first 3 weeks due to.....wait for it.....Electoral Commission processes.  It's not the only Government Department with broken processes under what was NZ's worst ever Government.

Nobody said it takes 3 weeks to verify one voter. However - if not one voter but 20% of the voters choose to enrol on election day, than yes, it takes a bit longer.

Look - I understand that certain people love to bash innocent bystanders instead of looking for the real problem. That is what populists do, and so much easier to bash your favorite victims instead of analysing the problem, isn't it?. However - it would be nice if we could keep the discussion here on a somewhat more elevated level.

The problem was a decison of the NZ First /Labour government from 2017. Feel free to beat the culprits up (Winston deserves whatever bashing he can get) ... but leave the poor electoral commission out of the play. They said from the beginning that this decision will create problems.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/winston-peters-blames-delayed-negotiations-on-decision-supported-by-winston-peters/T2J6B2EUKJETNJEXXIDGAZXK5Q/

While I don't always agree with David Seymour, I must say - his statement that Winston is the most untrustworthy NZ politician sounds about right to me. The good thing about this however is - he will bring the next government down, as he did with all the governments he was involved in before with the exception of the 2017 NZ First Labour government. In that he brought NZ First so fast down, that he didn't had the time to take Labour with him ...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501639/act-s-david-seymour-reverses-rule-out-of-working-with-winston-peters-in-cabinet#:~:text=He%20did%20not%20regret%20his,%22the%20most%20untrustworthy%20politician%22.&text=%22No%20I%20don't%2C,the%20will%20of%20the%20voters.

[Ferg]

It really doesn't matter who, or what is to blame.

The argumentative oracle of negative reps does not have a grasp of basic facts, including NZ Stats arrival & departure information being reliable, so maybe you should direct this comment at him/her given he/she is blaming Winston for the Electoral Commission processes.

The point I made earlier still stands. Anyone with even half a brain knew the  likely outcome of the election was going to be a Nat/ACT/NZF coalition. All three parties could have made the process a heck of a lot smoother (and potentially quicker) had they had the balls and common sense to put aside the posturing, and do the preliminary work on coalition talks. There is absolutely no reason why they could not have done that. Obviously, the process could not have been fully completed until after final results were in, but the groundwork could have been done, and a draft plan formulated, ahead of time, the finer details of which could then have been worked on now.

It is better to have potential problematic parties in the tent instead of outside, so yeah they coulda, shoulda woulda started negotiations earlier with NZF inside the tent, much like John Key worked with The Maori Party in 2008.  But what's with the rush?  I would rather they got it right to ensure a stable Government than some half assed job that will not stand the test of time.  And whilst negotiations could have started earlier, it could have been a complete WOFTAM so I see no harm in waiting to work with what is known, rather than a hypothetical.  I see no harm done...

In any case, given this earlier comment:

This Nat/ACT/NZF coalition, is going to be an absolute nightmare.

...I am surprised you want the negotiations over quickly, and I'm assuming successfully, for what you view as a nightmare coalition....wouldn't you rather negotiations failed?  Genuinely curious....

The whole thing feels like a PR stunt.

I'm sure some would never let such an opportunity for the limelight go to waste! 

[Ferg]

The good thing about this however is - he will bring the next government down, as he did with all the governments he was involved in before with the exception of the 2017 NZ First Labour government.

Did you just make a prediction?   

[Untamed]

Why on earth would I want the negotiations to fail?

Here's a thought though. What would a "successful" coalition agreement even look like? I suspect your idea of successful might be quite different to mine.

.....In any case, given this earlier comment:...I am surprised you want the negotiations over quickly, and I'm assuming successfully, for what you view as a nightmare coalition....wouldn't you rather negotiations failed?  Genuinely curious....

[Buzz]

Why on earth would I want the negotiations to fail?

Here's a thought though. What would a "successful" coalition agreement even look like? I suspect your idea of successful might be quite different to mine.

I think we will find out fairly soon what the coalition agreement is, getting one will be a success, but whether the government is a success will take a lot longer. The really big rock facing any incoming government this time is reversing the things they don't like, let alone implementing the things they want to happen.

[Untamed]

I agree. Anything promised prior to the election, by any of them, is meaningless now. They can only fulfil their respective promises with the support of the other two parties. I did not vote for any of them, but I do hope National does not end up being the party that concedes/sacrifices the most. I will be extremely disappointed if Seymour or Peters get the Deputy PM role, but no doubt I will be in the minority with that view.

.... The really big rock facing any incoming government this time is reversing the things they don't like, let alone implementing the things they want to happen.

[Ferg]

You stated earlier you thought this coalition would be a nightmare....and my (erroneous) conclusion was you wanted them to fail.  My bad and I apologise for assuming based on your earlier post that you would rather see the back of this coalition than not.

To me success is not necessarily measured by the agreement itself (more on that later*) - rather success to me would see the coalition survive full term and then be wholly or partly returned in the next election.  For that to happen, there will have been a number of desirable policies enacted and the majority of the electorate would have to be in some sort of agreement.  Failure would see the coalition collapse or not be returned to power in the next election.

*Regarding the agreement itself, I don't see it as being a success or otherwise depending on which pre-election policies are adopted or not.  I suspect there are very few real differences between the starting positions of all 3 parties such that I am likely to be ok with whatever is negotiated given my gut feel is the policies I like will probably be adopted (e.g. simple shit like inflation indexed tax brackets etc., nothing too radical).  I am assuming 20% of issues will cause 80% of the problems and, assuming the 3 parties involved behave like adults with the country's interest in mind, I'm hoping that 20% of disagreeable stuff is sufficiently fringe to not be a significant issue for the (majority of the) electorate.

What does a successful coalition (agreement) look like to you?

[Ferg]

The really big rock facing any incoming government this time is reversing the things they don't like, let alone implementing the things they want to happen.

I expect that won't be for a lack of will power, rather it will be a lack of funds.......I suspect the financial state of NZ Inc is far worse than we have been told.

[Buzz]

I expect that won't be for a lack of will power, rather it will be a lack of funds.......I suspect the financial state of NZ Inc is far worse than we have been told.

That's true for sure, though reversing policies stops the spend on them, which hopefully means more money available to implement the things that the new government wants to do.

There's no doubt money will be tight, labour have also left a few poison pills/dead rats that the new government will have to deal with.

[Untamed]

Yes, you misinterpreted my comment (thanks for the apology). I have no desire to see this coalition government fail. The people voted and that is how democracy works. Whether we voted for them or not, or whether we even like them, is irrelevant. We are "stuck" with them for better or worse, so of course I am hoping for the former.

When I expressed my belief that the coalition will be a "nightmare" it is because I honestly don't feel confident about any of the three parties OR about how they will operate as a coalition government. Seymour and Peters will be thorns in Luxon's side, and while they will no doubt eventually come to an "amicable" agreement to govern the country, they won't make it easy for National along the way. I really hope Luxon is up to it.

You are more than likely right that "20% of the issues will cause 80% of the problems" but I think that is actually a concern. Those fringe issues need to be put to bed, so they can focus on the important stuff to get NZ back on track. There are a couple of things I personally would like to see "disappear" from both ACT and NZF's policies/promises (I  am not going to speak to them though as I know nobody here will agree) - I would be hoping they do not find their way into the final agreement.

Time will tell - let's just hope it's not too much more time. But I do think Luxon/National has the most to lose, if they get this wrong.

You stated earlier you thought this coalition would be a nightmare....and my (erroneous) conclusion was you wanted them to fail.  My bad and I apologise for assuming based on your earlier post that you would rather see the back of this coalition than not.

To me success is not necessarily measured by the agreement itself (more on that later*) - rather success to me would see the coalition survive full term and then be wholly or partly returned in the next election.  For that to happen, there will have been a number of desirable policies enacted and the majority of the electorate would have to be in some sort of agreement.  Failure would see the coalition collapse or not be returned to power in the next election.

*Regarding the agreement itself, I don't see it as being a success or otherwise depending on which pre-election policies are adopted or not.  I suspect there are very few real differences between the starting positions of all 3 parties such that I am likely to be ok with whatever is negotiated given my gut feel is the policies I like will probably be adopted (e.g. simple shit like inflation indexed tax brackets etc., nothing too radical).  I am assuming 20% of issues will cause 80% of the problems and, assuming the 3 parties involved behave like adults with the country's interest in mind, I'm hoping that 20% of disagreeable stuff is sufficiently fringe to not be a significant issue for the (majority of the) electorate.

What does a successful coalition (agreement) look like to you?

[Ferg]

Thanks for that.  Zero debate from me given I agree except for 2 points:

1.  1st sentence 2nd paragraph - I don't have the same concern but that's your opinion which is fine.  If your concerns come to pass then good on you for seeing and saying it.  I am genuinely ambivalent about this coalition although I do want to see it succeed for the same reason as you: to get this country back on track.

2.  3rd paragraph "I am not going to speak to them though as I know nobody here will agree".  You may be surprised.  If you want to air your concerns and are happy to defend your position then go for it.  Free speech and all that.  I expect other posters will be respectful of differing opinions and I think some will agree with you.  Most people are reasonable - not all those who voted for Act are gun nuts and not all those who voted green are watermelons.  This is not ShareTrader so those sorts of posts and people can stay there.  I post here for a reason...long may that continue.