https://tinyurl.com/bdhutamy

Reading the start of the article reminded me that Winston Peters has
said words much like this in the past, inventing the term
"crossbenches" (there is the term Cross Bench but this is singular -
perhaps Winston used the wrong word and this continues).

Seymour forgets that for the major parties, a coalition is the
least-favoured option as it requires formal acceptance of some junior
coalition party policies. ACT is seen as largely compatible with
National even though they have significant differences on some
policies.

If we have a National government with ACT providing
confidence-and-supply then if ACT votes against the Government
(inevitably supporting Labour and the Greens) on anything they will
have some various explaining to do to the electorate.

If ACT joins a coalition government they will get at least some
positions in Cabinet (including Deputy PM), and this gives them far
more leverage over National than being outside government in
Parliament.

I believe this article has more value to ACT in presenting themselves
as a formidable coalition partner to National.

Unless, of course, ACT has more seats than National after the next
election.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 11:05:45 UTC+12, Crash wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/bdhutamy

Reading the start of the article reminded me that Winston Peters has
said words much like this in the past, inventing the term
"crossbenches" (there is the term Cross Bench but this is singular -
perhaps Winston used the wrong word and this continues).

Seymour forgets that for the major parties, a coalition is the least-favoured option as it requires formal acceptance of some junior coalition party policies. ACT is seen as largely compatible with
National even though they have significant differences on some
policies.

If we have a National government with ACT providing
confidence-and-supply then if ACT votes against the Government
(inevitably supporting Labour and the Greens) on anything they will
have some various explaining to do to the electorate.

If ACT joins a coalition government they will get at least some
positions in Cabinet (including Deputy PM), and this gives them far
more leverage over National than being outside government in
Parliament.

I believe this article has more value to ACT in presenting themselves
as a formidable coalition partner to National.

Unless, of course, ACT has more seats than National after the next
election.

--
Crash McBash

I think Seymour has it right. Entering a coalition makes the minor party a doormat to the major party. This is what has made the Greens completely ineffectual over two terms. As a confidence and supply partner the minor party can pick and choose its
battles and it can still be the tail wagging the dog when it needs to be.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:30:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 11:05:45 UTC+12, Crash wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/bdhutamy

Reading the start of the article reminded me that Winston Peters has
said words much like this in the past, inventing the term
"crossbenches" (there is the term Cross Bench but this is singular -
perhaps Winston used the wrong word and this continues).

Seymour forgets that for the major parties, a coalition is the
least-favoured option as it requires formal acceptance of some junior
coalition party policies. ACT is seen as largely compatible with
National even though they have significant differences on some
policies.

If we have a National government with ACT providing
confidence-and-supply then if ACT votes against the Government
(inevitably supporting Labour and the Greens) on anything they will
have some various explaining to do to the electorate.

If ACT joins a coalition government they will get at least some
positions in Cabinet (including Deputy PM), and this gives them far
more leverage over National than being outside government in
Parliament.

I believe this article has more value to ACT in presenting themselves
as a formidable coalition partner to National.

Unless, of course, ACT has more seats than National after the next
election.


--
Crash McBash

I think Seymour has it right. Entering a coalition makes the minor party a doormat to the major party. This is what has made the Greens completely ineffectual over two terms. As a confidence and supply partner the minor party can pick and choose its

battles and it can still be the tail wagging the dog when it needs to be.

The Greens don't have a coalition agreement currently (Labour did not
need one) - but they do have a "co-operation agreement" that included Ministerial appointments outside Cabinet for Shaw and Davidson. This
is because the Greens had no leverage - normally the smaller party is
crucial to confidence issues and therefore gets the deputy PM role and ministers inside Cabinet. That is why Labour can ignore the Greens -
purely because it has 65 MPs.

My point though is that Seymour discounts the value of a coalition. He
clearly thinks that independence may well trump being part of
National's inner-circle that is inherent to holding the Deputy PM role
and having ministers inside Cabinet.

Being consulted on every law change has its downsides for the smaller
party - if ACT refuses to back a law change then National can choose
to call a new election and ACT may well suffer the consequences of
causing it.




--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 14:32:55 UTC+12, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:30:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 11:05:45 UTC+12, Crash wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/bdhutamy

Reading the start of the article reminded me that Winston Peters has
said words much like this in the past, inventing the term
"crossbenches" (there is the term Cross Bench but this is singular -
perhaps Winston used the wrong word and this continues).

Seymour forgets that for the major parties, a coalition is the
least-favoured option as it requires formal acceptance of some junior
coalition party policies. ACT is seen as largely compatible with
National even though they have significant differences on some
policies.

If we have a National government with ACT providing
confidence-and-supply then if ACT votes against the Government
(inevitably supporting Labour and the Greens) on anything they will
have some various explaining to do to the electorate.

If ACT joins a coalition government they will get at least some
positions in Cabinet (including Deputy PM), and this gives them far
more leverage over National than being outside government in
Parliament.

I believe this article has more value to ACT in presenting themselves
as a formidable coalition partner to National.

Unless, of course, ACT has more seats than National after the next
election.


--
Crash McBash

I think Seymour has it right. Entering a coalition makes the minor party a doormat to the major party. This is what has made the Greens completely ineffectual over two terms. As a confidence and supply partner the minor party can pick and choose its

battles and it can still be the tail wagging the dog when it needs to be.

The Greens don't have a coalition agreement currently (Labour did not
need one) - but they do have a "co-operation agreement" that included Ministerial appointments outside Cabinet for Shaw and Davidson. This
is because the Greens had no leverage - normally the smaller party is crucial to confidence issues and therefore gets the deputy PM role and ministers inside Cabinet. That is why Labour can ignore the Greens -
purely because it has 65 MPs.

My point though is that Seymour discounts the value of a coalition. He clearly thinks that independence may well trump being part of
National's inner-circle that is inherent to holding the Deputy PM role
and having ministers inside Cabinet.

Being consulted on every law change has its downsides for the smaller
party - if ACT refuses to back a law change then National can choose
to call a new election and ACT may well suffer the consequences of
causing it.

Seymour simply is not that interested in cabinet seats per se. He wants the policy wins.

The reality is that all the negotiations would happen long in advance of any legislation getting near sunlight.

It is extremely unlikely that National would call an early election. They'd have more to lose than ACT.

--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-06-09, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:30:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 11:05:45 UTC+12, Crash wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/bdhutamy

Reading the start of the article reminded me that Winston Peters has
said words much like this in the past, inventing the term
"crossbenches" (there is the term Cross Bench but this is singular -
perhaps Winston used the wrong word and this continues).

Seymour forgets that for the major parties, a coalition is the
least-favoured option as it requires formal acceptance of some junior
coalition party policies. ACT is seen as largely compatible with
National even though they have significant differences on some
policies.

If we have a National government with ACT providing
confidence-and-supply then if ACT votes against the Government
(inevitably supporting Labour and the Greens) on anything they will
have some various explaining to do to the electorate.

If ACT joins a coalition government they will get at least some
positions in Cabinet (including Deputy PM), and this gives them far
more leverage over National than being outside government in
Parliament.

I believe this article has more value to ACT in presenting themselves
as a formidable coalition partner to National.

Unless, of course, ACT has more seats than National after the next
election.


--
Crash McBash

I think Seymour has it right. Entering a coalition makes the minor party a doormat to the major party. This is what has made the Greens completely ineffectual over two terms. As a confidence and supply partner the minor party can pick and choose its

battles and it can still be the tail wagging the dog when it needs to be.

Sure the minor coalition party can only get the major one to agree to an
item of two. However this is in line with MMP, as in only 14% voted for the minor part so it can not expect to push the 38% party around. It is expected that the 14% party will get some ot is legislation enacted.

The Greens don't have a coalition agreement currently (Labour did not
need one) - but they do have a "co-operation agreement" that included Ministerial appointments outside Cabinet for Shaw and Davidson. This
is because the Greens had no leverage - normally the smaller party is
crucial to confidence issues and therefore gets the deputy PM role and ministers inside Cabinet. That is why Labour can ignore the Greens -
purely because it has 65 MPs.

My point though is that Seymour discounts the value of a coalition. He clearly thinks that independence may well trump being part of
National's inner-circle that is inherent to holding the Deputy PM role
and having ministers inside Cabinet.

Being consulted on every law change has its downsides for the smaller
party - if ACT refuses to back a law change then National can choose
to call a new election and ACT may well suffer the consequences of
causing it.

Sitting on the cross bench allows the 14% party to vote on in accordance
with their policy. ( Sort of another form of Co-governance.) As long as the supply and confidence is in place it matters not a great deal that some
bills are never turned in Acts.

At this stage ACT is using the Cross Bench threat as kite flying exercise.
Let the people give the numbers and then we will see who does what.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

YEAH --- BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT NEW ZEALAND
IS NOW RUN BY DRACULA KING OF BLOOD DRINKERS
AND PEDOPHILES --- VAMPIRE ROTHSCHILDS KING.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)