And so we have a Government!

The Third Term begins - in an arrangement marked by constitutional innovations and odd people in odd places.

Progressives - coalition partner.

NZ First - confidence and supply partner, with Winnie as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

United Future - confidence and supply partner, with Peter as Minister of Revenue.

The Greens - what looks like a confidence and supply partner without confidence and supply, and Green MPs being government spokespeople in a few defined areas. Novel, and interesting.

Overall the arrangement is not the one I would have preferred. My view has always been that the best outcome would have been a Labour/Greens coalition.

Why don't we have one? Simple. The left didn't get enough votes. Through Labour's campaign not being good enough, and the Greens dipping down, we just could not hold enough of the vote to pull through the government our supporters wanted.

We also have to contend with a Maori Party which misled its supporters, through anti-National rhetoric being followed by an unwillingness to deal with Labour due to the personal vendettas of its leader.

So it'll be an interesting three years. One thing I do expect is that the govt will be stable. None of the minor parties involved will want to see an early election, and Winston is on his way to retirement now. The incentives on him, without a seat, are to transform into an elder-statesman type guy.

I would be happier being in government without parties like NZ First and UF, and without politicians like Dunne and Peters, but that is not what the voters dealt. I just hope that in three years time, we can manage something rather better.

Comments

[Anon]

Jordan says: "We also have to contend with a Maori Party which misled its supporters, through anti-National rhetoric being followed by an unwillingness to deal with Labour due to the personal vendettas of its leader."

Has it ever occured to you that the Maori Party may have policy differences with Labour???? Like that they are opposed to welfarism and concerned about property rights and the rule of law????

Or are you just another one of these subliminally racist Labourites who think the natives should know their place and fall into line behind the socialist regime?

[sock thief]

You really have no idea Jordan.

How on earth has the MP "mis-lead" its supporters? Why the hell shouldn't the MP talk to National given that it felt betrayed by Labour? How is that just a personal vendetta? For the Maori Party, Labour betrayed the very foundations of The Treaty. How on earth can you sit there and claim that this is just some sort of tantrum on the part of Turia?

You really have no idea what many Maori feel. No wonder Tariana felt that Labour was talking Maori for granted if views like Jordan's are common within Labour circles.

[Jordan]

My, you both make the same point.

I suggest you go to the Election Results website and have a look where the party vote went in the Maori seats.

You're ranting. Calm down and go look at the numbers.

[Matthew M]

I do agree it could have been better, but I think Helen has managed this just brilliantly.

Winston's post will send him overseas regularly - this will indeed turn him into an 'elder-statesman type guy' - and get him out of Labour's hair!

Dunne's post will show him just how things work in an area he's been moaning about for years.

And we always have the Greens - so that's a lot of support in a minority environment. I'm expecting a stable government for the next three years - thanks to the experience and expertise of Helen Clark.

[Anon]

No, it is not a rant. You just don't get it do you? The Maori Party stands for independence. You want it to be a little socialist patsy. That may be to Labour's benefit. But how can it be to the Maori Party's benefit? Just because people are brown does not make them red.

[sock thief]

I don't need to look anywhere, I just listen to the people around me. And they believe Labour betrayed them and see the MP doing the right thing by playing National and Labour off agianst each other.

You really don't know Jordan. And neither does the Labour Party.

And you might like to know that I supported Labour over the seabed/foreshore issue and strongly disagreed with the MP over splitting from Labour. I have had many heated discusions with my partner over this issue. But seeing the sneering and patronising of labour supporters like you, I've changed my mind.

[Jordan]

So what, you'd change your position because you don't like someone's tone? What a joke. Do you actually expect me to take that comment seriously?

I repeat. Maori Party voters made a pretty clear steer: they split their votes Labour/MP. They did this, one assumes, because they did not like the racism inherent in what Don Brash was saying. The Maori Party and the Labour Party campaigned against that racism. Both said that the assimilationist bullshit of Don Brash and co was unacceptable.

In the wake of the election, the last thing that one might have expected is to see the Maori Party allowing itself to be positioned as a viable coalition partner for National. A fourth rate strategist would have thought this would increase their bargaining power with Labour, but anyone better than that would have understood the result: doing so, and not rejecting Brash's claim that he had 57 votes, increased the bargaining power of Winston Peters instead.

If the Maori Party had wanted to be considered as part of a progressive government, all it would have had to do is deny immediately it had any agreement with National. That would have caused Winston's influence to fall, and the outcomes might have been different.

It is close to reverse racism to suggest that I have no useful view on this matter. I regard what the MP have achieved as about as useful as what NZF achieved: gaining Maori votes on false pretenses, and practically offering them up to the right.

If you want to argue with that view, then put a different position. Don't waste your time or mine patronising me.

[stephen]

"a Maori Party which misled its supporters."

In what way did it mislead them? I don't recall them promising to support Labour or cut a deal with them before the election. Am I wrong?

[Jordan]

It attacked National, for perfectly obvious reasons. It also attacked Labour, fair enough, but the tenor of those attacks was different.

As it happens they have not betrayed their voters, because they are not supporting a National government. But they let themselves be portrayed as such.

[Anon]

Jordan says: "Maori Party voters made a pretty clear steer: they split their votes Labour/MP. They did this, one assumes, because they did not like the racism inherent in what Don Brash was saying. The Maori Party and the Labour Party campaigned against that racism. Both said that the assimilationist bullshit of Don Brash and co was unacceptable."

Labour did not campaign against Brash on race issues! It "assimilated" his ideas into its own policy. It most certainly never indicated it was "unacceptable". (By the way, to whom was it "unacceptable"? Is "unacceptable" a replacement for the left's equally meaningless "inappropriate"???)

But Jordan goes on: "In the wake of the election, the last thing that one might have expected is to see the Maori Party allowing itself to be positioned as a viable coalition partner for National."

Really? The "last thing one might have expected"???? The Labour Party expected it, dimwit, because it ran radio ads against the Maori Party claiming exactly that the Maori Party would deal with National! Why was it the last thing YOU expected? The only answer I can think of is because you think the natives should know their place just and accept Labour's handouts.

Then there is more. Jordan said: "If the Maori Party had wanted to be considered as part of a progressive government, all it would have had to do .... "

But it didn't want to be considered as part of a "progressive" - read: "trendy, liberal, hand-out mentality" - Government.

It wanted to be part of a government that would promote autonomy, self-determination, the rule of law, property rights, and end to the damage of welfarism. This is what it campaigned on!

Even the tone you use ... "if it wanted to be considered [by the white woman]... all it would have had to do was [roll over and do what it was told]" ... sounds like a colonial master. Do you apply the same tone to Peter Dunne who was far, far more closely embroiled with National than Turia ever was?

You really don't see it, do you? Because you can't think outside a white, Wellington, socialist framework, where people are supposed to be GRATEFUL for what the Labour regime grudgingly gives them.

Try thinking outside that framework - and think about autonomous people wanting to develop their own communities - and perhaps you might develop a strategy for Labour to avoid losing the party as well as the electorate votes in the Maori seats next time.

[Rich]

Personally I'd hope it all falls apart and we get an early election. I really hope that someone comes up with killer dirt on Peters or Dunne and gives Helen an excuse to pull the pin.

[stephen]

I'm going to take that as an admission, Jordan.

On other fronts, I'm inclined to agree with Idiot's take ( http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2005/10/ever-get-feeling-youve-been-cheated.html ). A coalition with Peters and Dunne is regressive. About the only good thing I can see is that Dunne as revenue minister might stop Cullen taxing my Australian shares on unrealised capital gains.

Perhaps it is better to have Peters inside the tent, pissing out, but my preferred outcome was confinement to a treatment facility for the politically incontinent.

[sagenz]

80 years of patronising Maori and you think nothing changes. Spin your labour BS that it is just Turians. But Pita Sharples approach and Nationals policy on welfare is ever so much closer than Labour-Maori party. Harawira represents tha traditional view. Maori are tribal Labour. Give it a few more years and Maori will catch up with their leaders thinking. National self reliance offers far more in the longer term than Labour's patronising and segregationist policies. treatment of Te Wananga is about as racist as it gets. You can have unlimited money cos Maori are just like that, but you are not allowed to teach honkeys.

[Jordan]

And Anon, you are possessed of the ignorant arrogance that can only come from a young, right-wing male.

Unacceptable = wrong. Did Labour say we'd remove the Treaty references in statute? No. Did Labour pledge it would abolish the Maori seats? No. Would Labour repeal the F&S legislation and marginalise Maori customary rights as a result? No. All those things National would do.

You're free to prattle on about autonomy blah blah. Nothing Labour has done in office, perhaps apart from the Property Relationships Act and the anti-smoking legislation, has had any negative effect on people's personal autonomy. Most people understand that, which is why your assumed backlash against Labour never materialised in the election results.

People, generally, care about community. It seems to me that the rebuilding of Maori communities which has been going on for thirty years is a damn good thing. It's even better that it has been driven by the communities themselves not by top-down state intervention.

It's pretty obvious which of the major parties is more committed to supporting that process as it goes ahead, and devolving autonomy and responsibility to Maori and other communities in a range of areas e.g. health and education services.

That is not National, the party which called te Wananga o Aotearoa a major embarrassment to Labour, and whose empty racist rhetoric was simply designed to garner white votes.

[Jordan]

Sagey - for the record, I think Mallard's call on the Wananga with respect to that was wrong. I said so at the time and I hope the new Minister of Education reverses a plain wrong decision.

The reason you lot keep getting Labour wrong is you keep attributing 1970s statist policies to the current government. I would have thought that three election losses in a row might indicate that you were slightly off the planet on that front.

National doesn't give a toss about people. It cares about tax cuts for those who do not need them, and leaving communities to fend for themselves. Labour wants to deploy the resources of the state in support of communities, and that is what we've done.

Of course, the facts when inconvenient are routinely ignored. Please keep ignoring them. You'll keep losing as a result.

[Anon]

I am not young. Nor am I particularly right wing.

You really don't see it, do you?

You ask for a debate, for people to argue a position, but you can't really because you are incapable of empathy to another view.

Don't you see how patronising your attitude is? You say, for example, that Labour is committed to "devolving autonomy and responsibility to Maori and other communities in a range of areas e.g. health and education services".

Don't you see how patronising this language is?

More traditional Maori - the ones who vote in the Maori seats - don't believe that responsibility was ever taken away from them by the Crown/State/Labour Regime - call it what you will. They feel they have always had the responsibility and right to make decisions about health and education.

Through these eye, there is nothing to be devolved!

You seem to think that today's nation state exists prior to Maori self-determination. That there was no Maori society before that state, so it is just a case of the white colonial master deciding if and when to DEVOLVE to various Maori organisations.

And, of course, this leads Labour to devalue traditional Maori social structures and try to replace them with modern constructs such as Urban Maori Authories and government departments etc.

Just try to look at the world through different eyes. It shouldn't be too difficult. I thought many of these same issues existed in Canada.

[Jordan]

I suppose it's possible to see the state as a colonial construct.

If you did, and you were aiming for a de-colonisation process, would part of that involve devolving the control and use of public resources to communities - including or especially Maori communities - and leaving them with the responsibility to use them as they like?

[Jordan]

And the other key debate you hit on with your last, is the conflict between Enlightenment values of liberalism, individual autonomy etc - which leads some on the left to utterly reject any support of traditional whanau or iwi structures - and those of respecting indigenous social structures as having inherent value in and of themselves.

Now that would be an interesting debate to see. I instinctively find myself caught between them. I'm in strong agreement with most of the tenets of liberalism, but think that the cultural imperialism inherent in stamping those values over traditional social structures makes it an impossible and wrong thing to do.

Do you think we're muddling through this debate? Getting it right? Getting it wrong?

[Tony Milne]

I recall the Maori Party coming out after Don Brash released his policy on the Treaty/eradicating the Maori Ministry etc (about 2 weeks before the election) saying that the Maori Party would not go with National and would do all they could to keep Don Brash out. Until then they were havig a bob each way.

[Russell Brown]

In what way did it mislead them? I don't recall them promising to support Labour or cut a deal with them before the election. Am I wrong?

Pretty much. It didn't guarantee support for Labour, but on August 29, Tariana Turia herself comprehensively ruled out supporting National:
---
The Maori Party made a strategic shift in its post-election options last night, categorically ruling out working with National. "We will do our utmost to ensure that the National Party does not make it to the Government benches," co-leader Tariana Turia said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10343088
---

This is, of course, impossible to tally with things Turia and her MPs said and did later on. But it is absolutely beyond doubt that the Maori Party told its supporters it would do its "utmost" to keep National out of government.

So yes, it did mislead its supporters. There is simply no question about it. And after the election it negotiated with staggering ineptitude, and it's hard to blame anyone else but Turia for that.

This isn't "patronising". It's a realistic assessment. The Maori Party would have looked good had it simply stayed on the sidelines (as it also promised to during the campaign). Instead, Turia entertained National's spoof coalition offer (which was *never* going to happen) and contributed to needless damage to her party. It was a bloody shambles.

Cheers,
RB

[Russell Brown]

Sock Thief: "You really have no idea Jordan. How on earth has the MP "mis-lead" its supporters? Why the hell shouldn't the MP talk to National given that it felt betrayed by Labour? How is that just a personal vendetta? For the Maori Party, Labour betrayed the very foundations of The Treaty. How on earth can you sit there and claim that this is just some sort of tantrum on the part of Turia? You really have no idea what many Maori feel."

And neither do you, Neil. It was, after all, Dr Ranginui Walker who accused Turia of acting on a "personal grudge", and he was not the only one in Maoridom to do so. And, as noted above, Turia unequivocally committed, before the election, to keeping National out of government.

Don't be so bloody pompous yourself.

Cheers,
RB

[Penny]

I am really and honestly confused by those who claim that Maori values are closer to those of National than of Labour.

I have just spent three days up in Northland with Maori youth workers, health providers, teachers, community workers and parents. The overwhelming immpression I got was the huge emphasis on the importance of community and caring, on compassion and aroha and supporting the weaker members of a community, on the fact that sometimes the contributions people might make to society are not measurable in terms of money, but are every bit as valuable. The Maraes I visited seemed to work pretty much along the lines of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. Individualistic behaviour that valued the satisfaction of personal desires and needs above all was held in extremely low regard.

These values are not at all values I sense coming from the Right. National's policies seem designed to reward self-reliance and individualistic behaviour above all even if this means the community as a whole, and its weaker indivisual memebrs suffer.

Am I missing something? can sagenz and sock thief and anon help me out here?

[Penny]

I am really and honestly confused by those who claim that Maori values are closer to those of National than of Labour.

I have just spent three days up in Northland with Maori youth workers, health providers, teachers, community workers and parents. The overwhelming immpression I got was the huge emphasis on the importance of community and caring, on compassion and aroha and supporting the weaker members of a community, on the fact that sometimes the contributions people might make to society are not measurable in terms of money, but are every bit as valuable. The Maraes I visited seemed to work pretty much along the lines of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. Individualistic behaviour that valued the satisfaction of personal desires and needs above all was held in extremely low regard.

These values are not at all values I sense coming from the Right. National's policies seem designed to reward self-reliance and individualistic behaviour above all even if this means the community as a whole, and its weaker indivisual memebrs suffer.

Am I missing something? can sagenz and sock thief and anon help me out here?

[Tony Milne]

Thanks for that factual information Russell. The only thing I'd add is that Turiana wasn't a passive participant in the negotiations. It was Tariana that called the meeting with the centre-right leaders to see if they could form a centre-right government.

[stephen]

So it seems I am indeed wrong. Ah well :-)

[Graeme Edgeler]

I thought I'd take issue with a slightly different aspect of the "misleading supporters" thing - it may be that Maori party voters voted for Labour, but I recall Turia advising those who didn't want to give both votes to the Maori party to *not* give their party vote to Labour (to give it to the Green party instead).

Maori voters *were* on notice that Turia didn't want to work with Labour.

[Brian]

"I just hope that in three years time, we can manage something rather better."

The elephant in the room is MMP. Time to ditch it.

[Russell Brown]

Graeme: "Maori voters *were* on notice that Turia didn't want to work with Labour."

Good point. Sort of. But on the ground, I think MP people *were* enouraging Labour Maori voters to split in favour of the MP electorate candidate, something Labour was desperately telling them not to do.

Cheers,
RB

[Russell Brown]

Brian: "The elephant in the room is MMP. Time to ditch it."

In favour of what, exactly?

Cheers,
RB

[Idiot/Savant]

A system which allows the right to rule with a minority of the votes, of course. What else would they agitate for?

I don't like this government, and I've called it a government that no-one wanted. But at the same time, the parties forming it unquestionably had the support of over 50% of the electorate on election night - which is far greater support than any FPP government has had since the 50's, and certainly far greater than certain results in the past which have seen parties forming governments despite not even winning a plurality.

MMP means compromise, and at the moment we are still working out exactly what that means. The taste of it is sometimes exceedingly bitter, but I still prefer that to the unrestrained lunacy we had before.

[Craig Ranapia]

Russell:

You can't fault the MSM for citing Ranginui Walker at every oppotunity - after all he's accessible, not exactly a couple of kumara short of a hangi and gives great quote. But let's just say he's got his own history of "personal grudges" where senior figures in the Maori Party are concerned, and it might be nice to see MSM commentators actually... well, ask a few Maori not on their speed dials what they think.

Otherwise, this is a delightful weapon of mass distraction from the prospect of Winnie turning New Zealand into an international laughing stock the minute he goes feral. Oh, and how his wish list is going to be paid for.

[Aj]

Winston's wish list is still a moonshot short of National's policy costs.
The Maori Party may be in trouble with Turia's actions.
Dunne & Peters support may hold - or just as easily sink.
The Greens are likely to increase in support - still there next time as an ally for Labour.
National are the ones with real problems, having done thier best to consume the right vote and coming up short or numbers and partners.

[Russell Brown]

Another angle on all this: my unscientific survey of lefty-liberal types indicates that people are *way* more pissed-off about Dunne being in the tent than they are about Winston, notwithstanding everyone's understandable trepidation about Winston representin' fo' us overseas.

Indeed, that they loathe Dunne in a way they do not loathe Peters.

Am I right on this?

Cheers,
RB

[Idiot/Savant]

I think Peter Dunne is petulent, jealous, and his crusade against the Greens is a terrible stain on a man who has otherwise generally pursued a cooperative style of politics. But on th eplus side, at least he's not a rabid xenophobic bigot.

[Jordan]

I thought we'd got used to having Dunne on board. The good thing is he has fewer MPs this time and so is largely irrelevant.

The leftie libs I know are far angrier about Winston than Peter.

[Tom S]

Dunne is a useful tool for Labour - he will allow Labour to dish out some tax cuts and cut the feet from under National, without Cullen having to perform a back flip.

[Anon]

Penny - I doubt there is such a thing as "Maori values" anymore than there are "Pakeha values". People are different. The Maori youth workers, health providers, teachers and community workers are likely to have different perspectives than Maori businesspeople and investors. But I do think you'll find that the people you met would feel more strongly about local social services being localised and reflective of the community than many Pakeha. The idea that social services should be reflective of the communities they serve is very much a National Party ideal - in contrast with Labour which tends to focus on equality of provision and tries to deliver this through sameness of provision - one size fits all. Historically, National has led the move to support Maori (and other local) initiatives such as the ones you sound as if you were associated with. Labour has tended to follow behind afterwards, because it is suspicious of diversity.

[Russell Brown]

Jordan: "The leftie libs I know are far angrier about Winston than Peter."

Hmm, interesting. Because, OTOH, I got this email from a leftier-than-me friend this morning:

"The deal with Peter Dunne sticks in my craw! Fancy him on Friday in Donnie's office trying (desperately if the Maori Party was involved) to stich a right wing govt together, then running off down the road to Helen when Peters shows the tiniest bit of resolve. I don't have much trouble with NZF but this deal with UF is a deal breaker for me. Greens all the way!!"

Even Tze Ming seems inclined today to give Peters the benefit of the doubt. And I find myself agreeing, partly because Peters' leverage on immigration is strictly limited under the deal, but mostly because I think Dunne is a horrible, smug hypocrite and his party's policy platform was overall much worse than Peters'.

It's sort of like NZ Idol in the bizarro universe: which one do you like least?

Cheers,
RB

[anon nat]

RB- Dunne's Chief of Staff wrote Brash's letter to Peters on Friday. He was leading the charge to form a Brash-led Government.

[Amanda Hill]

I'm not sure which I like least - a man who bangs the drum of the family and of common sense but who threw his toys out of the cot when the Greens looked a likely coalition partner, or the man who hates Asians but will represent us, a small island in an international community which trades heavily with South East Asia.

The Greens got shafted and they are right to be bitter. Helen was right in that she had an obligation to create the most stable government possible in the circumstances and the voters dealt her a shite hand. Winnie has no associate Minister, and I suspect our foreign-affairs-obsessed PM will be looking over his shoulder every step of the way - something I prefer, as she has an excellent grasp of our place in the world.

MMP isn't the white elephant in the room. "Ditch it for what?" is the right sentiment - the only thing I'm uncertain of is the five percent threshold - maybe it should be lower to allow greater representation of minor parties.

I've just read the PM's address to the CTU conference, where she points out that all the major policy reform has been done, and the goal now is a stable government with fresh people and ideas that can manage a slowing economy.

We have Civil Unions, and the ERA, and Prostitution Reform, and no soldiers in Iraq, and still no nukes - the idea of the next three years is to hold steady and manage the problems and fix the challenges (tertiary education, NCEA, the police, etc).

Better this government now than in 1999.

As for the Maori Party - I know there are a lot of disaffected members. Tariana has diverged (or given the impression of diverging) from the wishes of the majority of her members. I don't know if that was the nail in the coffin for the Greens, but it certainly helped with the doling out of the 'baubles of office' to Winston and Peter.

Cabinet will be interesting, and I'm glad to see Lianne Dalziel back in from the cold.

[tim barclay]

The maori party have been dicked by Labour, but they have been putting out this spin about them talking to National. Labour had no intention of talking to the maori party. Last cab off the rank she said. The last cab (i.e.after National/Act). Labour rejected the maori party because it intends to paint them as National supporters and crush them, they hope. But the one cost is Labour had to shaft the Greens as well. I just love the way the Labour Party treats its friends. Never mind, its political opponents will finish them off at the next election.

[Russell Brown]

Tim: "I just love the way the Labour Party treats its friends."

That's pretty rich coming from a National Party member :-)

And I'm sorry, but *who* has been putting out "this spin" about the MP talking to National? Wasn't it Gerry Brownlee claiming to have the Maori party signed up? And then being contradicted by Pita Sharples? Honestly Tim, you'll have to try harder than that ...

Oh, and don't be entirely surprised to see the Maori Party extended some sort of olive branch. They have actually agreed to vote for Labour on the first confidebce vote (which the Greens presumably won't) and Tariana's been weirdly nice about the new government ...

Cheers,
RB

[weizguy]

"Labour had no intention of talking to the maori party."

Hmmm, that'll be why they contacted them but heard nothing back would it?

"Last cab off the rank she said. The last cab (i.e.after National/Act)."

Rubbish - only in your bizarre rightists fantasies. It was last cab off the rank of those that they could work with. That didn't include the far right.

If you seriously believe that you're more cracked than I feared.

[Brian]

I/S: Karl Popper once observed that the issue of who rules is much less important than the issue of how bad rulers and bad policies can be eliminated.

It is on this basis that I unashamedly support the district system. You cannot create good policy by averaging opinion, nor, conversely, can you eliminate bad policy by doing the same. Knowledge generation in politics works best when one party is given a clear mandate to govern and when that party is clearly accountable for its policies. Without this sort of mandate, it becomes much harder for new ideas to enter politics and for bad ideas to be eliminated. This can be clearly seen in Germany. Under their MMP system, East German communists and their supporters won 9% of the vote in the recent election and that has been enough to stymie necessary reforms in the German economy. It can also be clearly seen here, with our new government that has been, in the words of Peter Cresswell, "Frankensteined together".

Democracy is about choosing policy in such a way that those policies can be criticised and changed if need be. It is not about giving everybody some fair share of control over policy. Your mistake, I/S, is to think it is.

[tim barclay]

Helen could have cut a deal with the MP but they chose not to. Afterall Peter Dunne was talking to National, watched Don Brash sign the letter saying he had 57 votes. So why reject the MP for talking to National but you accept the UF party. I do feel a lot of spin is being talked about here. because having drop kicked the MP (who still thought as of yesterday they had something going with Labour), you had to drop kick the Greens as well. With a friend like the Labour Party who needs enemies as well.

[Idiot/Savant]

Brian: seeing as I don't think government is _about_ "good policy" or seeking some perfect world, but rather about _our_ policy - meaning something that represents the public's wishes - then I don't regard that as any sort of problem.

Rather, I see the ability to ram through "reform" regardless of how grossly unpopular it is as the problem. If it's so great, our leaders should fucking well convince us of that fact. if they can't, then they don't deserve to be our leaders.

[tze ming]

Jordo - back on 'the leftie-libs angrier about Winston than Dunne' tip -

I somehow just find myself laughing about Winston Peters. The xenophobic wing of his policy platform has been largely neutered by the MFA appointment, leaving his only real-money gains basically oldskool nationalist welfarism. Like Russell (plugged into the PA hive-mind today I guess) I AM more pissed about United getting a Cabinet post, for the same reasons. He's a smug, pissy, jumped-up hypocrite. And Christian fundamentalist party with the Associate Health portfolio does not make me and my reproductive system feel safe.

[tze ming]

Sorry, I meant 'outside-Cabinet Ministerial post'.

[tim barclay]

Further to my post. The greens knew last Monday they were being shafted. AND that meant Labour had decided at least by then they were not dealing with the MP. That was BEFORE the Don Brash 57 vote letter. That further backs up my claim that Labour had no intention of dealing with the MP/Green option. But now they are putting out all this spin the MP cannot be trusted for talking to National (but that was after the Greens were rejected).

[Thomas]

I'm far more annoyed about Dunne - he is such a petulant little hypocrit - and with him being Assoc Health Min, I'm worried about his voting record on public health issues. At least Winnie is a player and is one of the best at politicking, I don't think he'll go feral, he's too experienced (and getting on a bit).