One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that
both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total
last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy
wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the
dog.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply
agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The
minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement
may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same
way.

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties
need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the
house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just
that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate
minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce legislative changes.


--
Crash McBash

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

On 2025-06-16, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that
both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total
last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy
wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the
dog.

The media sure is placing the spot light on the minor coalition parties and there bills. National is still never the less gettings is bills into the
House.

FFP was thrown out and MMP brought as it allowed a more representive
selection of MPs. This has, as expected, caused the Government needing to respond to the wishes of the people.

It must be remembered that the voters elect the MPs to the House and they
then have the task of forming the Government. If they can not do so the services of the Governor General will be called upon.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The
minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

Is that not what we have got at the moment? The minor party will offer confidence and supply is you will support our bill in the house. This was
done by/with the Greens when they were advocates for the environment. They
took their numbers to either Labour or National and said you have our
support provided you pass this bill. By doing so they achieved their goal of caring for the environment.

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement
may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same
way.

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties
need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the
house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just
that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate
minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce legislative changes.

This brings up the question as to why the minor parties exist? The voters
who voted them in sure expected then to do what they can to carry out
their manifesto.

I am not sure what is the perfect answer, or what will be better than we
have at present.

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

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:05:45 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that
both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total
last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy
wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the
dog.

And that is largely true, but you are right that it is a common
perception, and that it goes back to the negotiations that formed the
current government. Winston knew what he wanted, and that was largely
baubles and party financing with a few pet peeves in their as well,
but importantly he was the only experienced negotiator. Luxon and
Seymour share many political views; he is to the right of most
National Party members, but in a fairly naive way. All three consulted
with a small group of MPs / party members, but Luxon appeared to need
Nicola Willis more than the other two needed support. He was the least
prepared and could see little beyond the thrill of being PM, but
Nicola Willis had been a lobbyist for Fonterra and had prepared for
political life by spending time on the Board of Export NZ (part of
Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation) and then a
but less than a year as a Director of the New Zealand Initiative; an
Atlas Network linked think tank. Philosophically, she appears to be
close to Seymour; while many are concerned at her lack of financial
knowledge; ACT will have been delighted to have someone that shared so
many of their far-right pro-"free"-market views; her influence may
well have enabled Seymour to get a lot more agreed than he expected

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply >agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy >concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The
minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

That is exactly what most coalition governments have been based on,
and if National are in a position to lead the next government I
suspect they will keep a tighter rein on the negotiation team -
agreements on policy are likely to be broader with the ability to
disagree on detail; Seymour has over-played his hand this term and may
well find National put up a better candidate in Epsom next time . . .

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement
may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same
way.

Labour will probably win back some Maori seats, but they will not find
a relationship difficult - not being obnoxiously racist helps with
that . . .

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties
need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the
house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just
that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate
minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce >legislative changes.

All MPs are entitled to put forward legislation, and a good coalition government is likely to allow each party to have a few small "wins" to
keep their supporters happy - but that will also need the smaller
parties to understand the limits and talk through proposals before
they are made public - the two bills ACT has put forward are
endangering support for the current government; the National Party
Leader (still likely to be Luxon but with considerable uncertainty;
but he has the advantage that there is little competition in the
party) may well find tighter control from the party on negotiations
than there were last time, should they be in a position to have those discussions.

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:05:45 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that
both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total
last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy
wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the
dog.

And that is largely true, but you are right that it is a common
perception, and that it goes back to the negotiations that formed the
current government. Winston knew what he wanted, and that was largely
baubles and party financing with a few pet peeves in their as well,
but importantly he was the only experienced negotiator. Luxon and
Seymour share many political views; he is to the right of most
National Party members, but in a fairly naive way. All three consulted
with a small group of MPs / party members, but Luxon appeared to need
Nicola Willis more than the other two needed support. He was the least >prepared and could see little beyond the thrill of being PM, but
Nicola Willis had been a lobbyist for Fonterra and had prepared for
political life by spending time on the Board of Export NZ (part of
Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation) and then a
but less than a year as a Director of the New Zealand Initiative; an
Atlas Network linked think tank. Philosophically, she appears to be
close to Seymour; while many are concerned at her lack of financial >knowledge; ACT will have been delighted to have someone that shared so
many of their far-right pro-"free"-market views; her influence may
well have enabled Seymour to get a lot more agreed than he expected

Wow, more humour. That is the secondo attemp to be funny this year.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply >>agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy >>concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The >>minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

That is exactly what most coalition governments have been based on,
and if National are in a position to lead the next government I
suspect they will keep a tighter rein on the negotiation team -
agreements on policy are likely to be broader with the ability to
disagree on detail; Seymour has over-played his hand this term and may
well find National put up a better candidate in Epsom next time . . .

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement
may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same
way.

Labour will probably win back some Maori seats, but they will not find
a relationship difficult - not being obnoxiously racist helps with

It would if only it were true. They are a racist party and have proven it - and you know that to be correct.
The current coalition is, obviously, not racist despite your lies.

that . . .

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties
need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the
house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just
that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate >>minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce >>legislative changes.

All MPs are entitled to put forward legislation, and a good coalition >government is likely to allow each party to have a few small "wins" to
keep their supporters happy - but that will also need the smaller
parties to understand the limits and talk through proposals before
they are made public - the two bills ACT has put forward are
endangering support for the current government; the National Party
Leader (still likely to be Luxon but with considerable uncertainty;
but he has the advantage that there is little competition in the
party) may well find tighter control from the party on negotiations
than there were last time, should they be in a position to have those >discussions.

I am impressed, a third failed attempt at humour.

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

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:46:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:05:45 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that
both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total
last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy
wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the
dog.

And that is largely true, but you are right that it is a common
perception, and that it goes back to the negotiations that formed the
current government. Winston knew what he wanted,

No different to 2017 when Winston decided to put Labour into
Government.

and that was largely
baubles and party financing with a few pet peeves in their as well,
but importantly he was the only experienced negotiator. Luxon and
Seymour share many political views; he is to the right of most
National Party members, but in a fairly naive way. All three consulted
with a small group of MPs / party members, but Luxon appeared to need
Nicola Willis more than the other two needed support. He was the least >prepared and could see little beyond the thrill of being PM, but
Nicola Willis had been a lobbyist for Fonterra and had prepared for
political life by spending time on the Board of Export NZ (part of
Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation) and then a
but less than a year as a Director of the New Zealand Initiative; an
Atlas Network linked think tank. Philosophically, she appears to be
close to Seymour; while many are concerned at her lack of financial >knowledge; ACT will have been delighted to have someone that shared so
many of their far-right pro-"free"-market views; her influence may
well have enabled Seymour to get a lot more agreed than he expected

This thread is not a review of the current government so you have
wandered off-topic again in your haste to post political rhetoric. I
could post a similar diatribe about the 2017-2-20 Government but that
is irrelevant now.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply >>agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy >>concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The >>minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

That is exactly what most coalition governments have been based on,
and if National are in a position to lead the next government I
suspect they will keep a tighter rein on the negotiation team -
agreements on policy are likely to be broader with the ability to
disagree on detail; Seymour has over-played his hand this term and may
well find National put up a better candidate in Epsom next time . . .

Coalition Governments are based on the fact that the minor parties are
part of the Government. Confidence-and-supply agreements make the
minor parties independent of the Government except on issues of confidence-and-supply. We need to get over our fear of minority
Governments.

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement
may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same
way.

Labour will probably win back some Maori seats, but they will not find
a relationship difficult - not being obnoxiously racist helps with
that . . .

That has no relevance to forms of government I raised in this thread.

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties
need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the
house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just
that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate >>minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce >>legislative changes.

All MPs are entitled to put forward legislation, and a good coalition >government is likely to allow each party to have a few small "wins" to
keep their supporters happy - but that will also need the smaller
parties to understand the limits and talk through proposals before
they are made public - the two bills ACT has put forward are
endangering support for the current government; the National Party
Leader (still likely to be Luxon but with considerable uncertainty;
but he has the advantage that there is little competition in the
party) may well find tighter control from the party on negotiations
than there were last time, should they be in a position to have those >discussions.

It seems I need to remind you that all legislation introduced by the
current Government was decided with the respective Coalition
agreements.

With confidence-and-supply there is no such agreement, the dominant
party needs to negotiate on a case-by-case basis to get legislation
through. They may well introduce legislation changes that are
unlikely to pass as a ploy, but for the most part the minor parties in confidence-and-supply agreements need to be careful as minority
Governments may use the inability to pass legislation as an excuse to
call an early election.


--
Crash McBash

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

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:37:00 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:46:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:05:45 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that
both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total >>>last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy
wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the
dog.

And that is largely true, but you are right that it is a common
perception, and that it goes back to the negotiations that formed the >>current government. Winston knew what he wanted,

No different to 2017 when Winston decided to put Labour into
Government.

and that was largely
baubles and party financing with a few pet peeves in their as well,
but importantly he was the only experienced negotiator. Luxon and
Seymour share many political views; he is to the right of most
National Party members, but in a fairly naive way. All three consulted
with a small group of MPs / party members, but Luxon appeared to need >>Nicola Willis more than the other two needed support. He was the least >>prepared and could see little beyond the thrill of being PM, but
Nicola Willis had been a lobbyist for Fonterra and had prepared for >>political life by spending time on the Board of Export NZ (part of
Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation) and then a
but less than a year as a Director of the New Zealand Initiative; an
Atlas Network linked think tank. Philosophically, she appears to be
close to Seymour; while many are concerned at her lack of financial >>knowledge; ACT will have been delighted to have someone that shared so
many of their far-right pro-"free"-market views; her influence may
well have enabled Seymour to get a lot more agreed than he expected

This thread is not a review of the current government so you have
wandered off-topic again in your haste to post political rhetoric. I
could post a similar diatribe about the 2017-2-20 Government but that
is irrelevant now.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply >>>agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy >>>concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The >>>minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

That is exactly what most coalition governments have been based on,
and if National are in a position to lead the next government I
suspect they will keep a tighter rein on the negotiation team -
agreements on policy are likely to be broader with the ability to
disagree on detail; Seymour has over-played his hand this term and may
well find National put up a better candidate in Epsom next time . . .

Coalition Governments are based on the fact that the minor parties are
part of the Government. Confidence-and-supply agreements make the
minor parties independent of the Government except on issues of >confidence-and-supply. We need to get over our fear of minority
Governments.

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement
may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same
way.

Labour will probably win back some Maori seats, but they will not find
a relationship difficult - not being obnoxiously racist helps with
that . . .

That has no relevance to forms of government I raised in this thread.

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties >>>need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the
house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just >>>that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate >>>minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce >>>legislative changes.

All MPs are entitled to put forward legislation, and a good coalition >>government is likely to allow each party to have a few small "wins" to
keep their supporters happy - but that will also need the smaller
parties to understand the limits and talk through proposals before
they are made public - the two bills ACT has put forward are
endangering support for the current government; the National Party
Leader (still likely to be Luxon but with considerable uncertainty;
but he has the advantage that there is little competition in the
party) may well find tighter control from the party on negotiations
than there were last time, should they be in a position to have those >>discussions.

It seems I need to remind you that all legislation introduced by the
current Government was decided with the respective Coalition
agreements.

With confidence-and-supply there is no such agreement, the dominant
party needs to negotiate on a case-by-case basis to get legislation
through. They may well introduce legislation changes that are
unlikely to pass as a ploy, but for the most part the minor parties in >confidence-and-supply agreements need to be careful as minority
Governments may use the inability to pass legislation as an excuse to
call an early election.

I understand that - one of the ''features'' of the current government
was that the initial agreements covered so much that other business
has to an extent been crowded out, and National have found that they
agreed to support two bills that are now anathema to a large part of
New Zealanders. I agree that they would have been better to go for
confidence and supply . . .

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:37:00 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:46:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:05:45 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that >>>>both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total >>>>last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy >>>>wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the >>>>dog.

And that is largely true, but you are right that it is a common >>>perception, and that it goes back to the negotiations that formed the >>>current government. Winston knew what he wanted,

No different to 2017 when Winston decided to put Labour into
Government.

and that was largely
baubles and party financing with a few pet peeves in their as well,
but importantly he was the only experienced negotiator. Luxon and
Seymour share many political views; he is to the right of most
National Party members, but in a fairly naive way. All three consulted >>>with a small group of MPs / party members, but Luxon appeared to need >>>Nicola Willis more than the other two needed support. He was the least >>>prepared and could see little beyond the thrill of being PM, but
Nicola Willis had been a lobbyist for Fonterra and had prepared for >>>political life by spending time on the Board of Export NZ (part of >>>Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation) and then a
but less than a year as a Director of the New Zealand Initiative; an >>>Atlas Network linked think tank. Philosophically, she appears to be
close to Seymour; while many are concerned at her lack of financial >>>knowledge; ACT will have been delighted to have someone that shared so >>>many of their far-right pro-"free"-market views; her influence may
well have enabled Seymour to get a lot more agreed than he expected

This thread is not a review of the current government so you have
wandered off-topic again in your haste to post political rhetoric. I
could post a similar diatribe about the 2017-2-20 Government but that
is irrelevant now.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply >>>>agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy >>>>concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The >>>>minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

That is exactly what most coalition governments have been based on,
and if National are in a position to lead the next government I
suspect they will keep a tighter rein on the negotiation team - >>>agreements on policy are likely to be broader with the ability to >>>disagree on detail; Seymour has over-played his hand this term and may >>>well find National put up a better candidate in Epsom next time . . .

Coalition Governments are based on the fact that the minor parties are
part of the Government. Confidence-and-supply agreements make the
minor parties independent of the Government except on issues of >>confidence-and-supply. We need to get over our fear of minority >>Governments.

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement >>>>may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same >>>>way.

Labour will probably win back some Maori seats, but they will not find
a relationship difficult - not being obnoxiously racist helps with
that . . .

That has no relevance to forms of government I raised in this thread.

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties >>>>need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the >>>>house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just >>>>that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate >>>>minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce >>>>legislative changes.

All MPs are entitled to put forward legislation, and a good coalition >>>government is likely to allow each party to have a few small "wins" to >>>keep their supporters happy - but that will also need the smaller
parties to understand the limits and talk through proposals before
they are made public - the two bills ACT has put forward are
endangering support for the current government; the National Party
Leader (still likely to be Luxon but with considerable uncertainty;
but he has the advantage that there is little competition in the
party) may well find tighter control from the party on negotiations
than there were last time, should they be in a position to have those >>>discussions.

It seems I need to remind you that all legislation introduced by the >>current Government was decided with the respective Coalition
agreements.

With confidence-and-supply there is no such agreement, the dominant
party needs to negotiate on a case-by-case basis to get legislation >>through. They may well introduce legislation changes that are
unlikely to pass as a ploy, but for the most part the minor parties in >>confidence-and-supply agreements need to be careful as minority
Governments may use the inability to pass legislation as an excuse to
call an early election.

I understand that - one of the ''features'' of the current government
was that the initial agreements covered so much that other business
has to an extent been crowded out, and National have found that they
agreed to support two bills that are now anathema to a large part of
New Zealanders.

No cite for that of course!

I agree that they would have been better to go for
confidence and supply . . .

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

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:48:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:37:00 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:46:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:05:45 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:

One of the over-riding impressions of the current Government is that >>>>both minor parties, representing under 20% of the party vote in total >>>>last election, are getting legislation passed based on their policy >>>>wins in their coalition agreements.

The clear impression is that with this Government, the tail wags the >>>>dog.

And that is largely true, but you are right that it is a common >>>perception, and that it goes back to the negotiations that formed the >>>current government. Winston knew what he wanted,

No different to 2017 when Winston decided to put Labour into
Government.

and that was largely
baubles and party financing with a few pet peeves in their as well,
but importantly he was the only experienced negotiator. Luxon and
Seymour share many political views; he is to the right of most
National Party members, but in a fairly naive way. All three consulted >>>with a small group of MPs / party members, but Luxon appeared to need >>>Nicola Willis more than the other two needed support. He was the least >>>prepared and could see little beyond the thrill of being PM, but
Nicola Willis had been a lobbyist for Fonterra and had prepared for >>>political life by spending time on the Board of Export NZ (part of >>>Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation) and then a
but less than a year as a Director of the New Zealand Initiative; an >>>Atlas Network linked think tank. Philosophically, she appears to be
close to Seymour; while many are concerned at her lack of financial >>>knowledge; ACT will have been delighted to have someone that shared so >>>many of their far-right pro-"free"-market views; her influence may
well have enabled Seymour to get a lot more agreed than he expected

This thread is not a review of the current government so you have
wandered off-topic again in your haste to post political rhetoric. I
could post a similar diatribe about the 2017-2-20 Government but that
is irrelevant now.

Both National and Labour should consider using confidence-and-supply >>>>agreements instead. While these agreements may still include policy >>>>concessions, they should include commitments at policy level only. The >>>>minor parties would actually introduce legislation - National or
Labour would do it with their approval.

That is exactly what most coalition governments have been based on,
and if National are in a position to lead the next government I
suspect they will keep a tighter rein on the negotiation team - >>>agreements on policy are likely to be broader with the ability to >>>disagree on detail; Seymour has over-played his hand this term and may >>>well find National put up a better candidate in Epsom next time . . .

Coalition Governments are based on the fact that the minor parties are
part of the Government. Confidence-and-supply agreements make the
minor parties independent of the Government except on issues of >>confidence-and-supply. We need to get over our fear of minority >>Governments.

For Labour to lead a future Government the prospect of a coalition
with the Maori Party is toxic, but a confidence-and-supply agreement >>>>may not be. Equally they might well treat the watermelons the same >>>>way.

Labour will probably win back some Maori seats, but they will not find
a relationship difficult - not being obnoxiously racist helps with
that . . .

That has no relevance to forms of government I raised in this thread.

It should be noted that to form a government, the two largest parties >>>>need only demonstrate that they can 'command the confidence of the >>>>house' on passing a budget. Confidence-and-supply agreements do just >>>>that, but on everything else both National or Labour need to negotiate >>>>minor party support for all legislative changes.

The core difference here is that minor parties do not get to introduce >>>>legislative changes.

All MPs are entitled to put forward legislation, and a good coalition >>>government is likely to allow each party to have a few small "wins" to >>>keep their supporters happy - but that will also need the smaller
parties to understand the limits and talk through proposals before
they are made public - the two bills ACT has put forward are
endangering support for the current government; the National Party
Leader (still likely to be Luxon but with considerable uncertainty;
but he has the advantage that there is little competition in the
party) may well find tighter control from the party on negotiations
than there were last time, should they be in a position to have those >>>discussions.

It seems I need to remind you that all legislation introduced by the >>current Government was decided with the respective Coalition
agreements.

With confidence-and-supply there is no such agreement, the dominant
party needs to negotiate on a case-by-case basis to get legislation >>through. They may well introduce legislation changes that are
unlikely to pass as a ploy, but for the most part the minor parties in >>confidence-and-supply agreements need to be careful as minority
Governments may use the inability to pass legislation as an excuse to
call an early election.

I understand that - one of the ''features'' of the current government
was that the initial agreements covered so much that other business
has to an extent been crowded out, and National have found that they
agreed to support two bills that are now anathema to a large part of
New Zealanders. I agree that they would have been better to go for
confidence and supply . . .

Yes National have been boxed in by their coalition partners, but at
least the current Government has stuck entirely to the respective
coalition agreements even so. That cannot be said for the Labour
governments of 2017-2023, particularly their performance of 2020-2023
where they had a total majority in Parliament.

There seems to be a political fear from Labour and National to form
minority Governments with confidence-and-supply support. They do need
to get over this.


--
Crash McBash

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