http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cf...jectID=10350720

I doubt that he'll have the powers to do that.

Oh fuckity fuck. I hope this means he doesnt do anything stupid like align you people with american.

if he does then you will be the bombed.

This only shows how desperate and scheming Uncle Helen is.

I love Aunty Helen! Then again, wasn't Brash talking with the Maori Party as well?

This is exactly why I wanted one of the major parties to win with a clear majority, so we wouldn't have stupid situations like this one. Labour with NZ First? National talking with the Maori Party? It's a world gone mad!

Moari Party and National talking is probably one of the greatest things that resulted from this election.

Would one of the politics geeks be kind enough to explain what Peters role as Foriegn Affairs Minister will be in practical terms? Judging by the article on wiki if the "Trade" part is taken out of the portfolio then it sounds just like a fluff position for prestige, would that be correct? What does a MoFA actually do?

Blame MMP for the madness. This is exactly what you'd expect. Aunty Helen is probably punishing the immigrants for not voting Labour by giving Peters a position that can tighten immigration laws. I am appalled that such a tactless man can be appointed to such an important position. While attempting to promote an image of multiculturalism, the representative chosen is an ardent racist. We live in a age of irony!

Politicians will make any fucked up deal they have to in order to cling onto power, both left and right.

I have a few good friends here on temp visa's I hope this doesnt affect them

He may have lied about going into coalition, but they were right about him being the king (queen) maker.

foreign affairs dont deal with immigration. Thats for the immigration minister.

With Peters on Cabinet, you'll see a Pandora's Box opening.

well theorectically ure wrong. He's not in cabinet. Its an out of cabinet post. Plus he's bound by collective responsibility which means he can't disagree with cabinet decisions.

The point I'm trying to make is that, with him in government, he has the right to influence decisions.

Again, thereotically he's not in government. Hes on a "supply and confidence" agreement with an out of cabinet position to influence foreign affairs, racing and old ppl issues. but thats what they're trying to sell to the public.

Oh god we are so fucked

Normally the minister of foreign affairs IS responsible for trade, he's normally the guy (at least traditionally in New Zealand) who actually co-ordinates what the minister of trade does. It can be a pretty risky position if you have a nutjob in the position, but normally they just shove ambitious losers (a la Phil Goff and Winston) in there to shut them up, and Winston was very well behaved back when he was Deputy Prime Minister in 96/97 (he travelled quite a lot, and was well received in Asia apparently).

Stuff he can actually fuck up: a) Relations with anyone if he insults them B) Free trade deals c) New Zealand's involvement in the UN and other international institutions, including disarmament commissions and such like that we actually gain a lot of respect for being part of internationally.

Potentially, he might be able to alter our overseas aid, though we'll have to see about that considering there is another minister for that I believe.

Overall, I'm not too worried, but if he loses his cool, and tries to play hardball when the time isn't right, or decides to start using his post to attack immigration, that's when things will turn to custard.

I went to the Foreign Affairs seminar they had at uni about a month before the election - all the foreign "spokespeople" for each party were there talking about their foreign policy aims. Apart from labour, the greens and i think maori they were all pro-US and were keen to get on board with their shit.

They really have to watch it. I'm really fucking worried for you all.

Well if they get in bed with the states and the states calls on us to fight some gay war for them and they start drafting, Im hauling ass to Canada

First off, you can get it all here, no fuss: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/NZFirst.pdf

Basically, he gets prestige. He answers directly to Helen Clark herself, though he is bound by collective responsibility to the Cabinet, so he has to do what they say. The foreign affairs ministry is one that doesn't spend a lot of money, so it makes more sense than making him Minister of Health or Education, because then he would be in an intense fight for funding with Michael Cullen.

She had to deal with what the voters dealt. The alternative is letting National govern, or taking over the country in a dictatorship. And "Uncle Helen"? Please, engage with the substance of the debate, rather than personal insults.

Tough bickies. It's not a stupid situation, its just a realistic one.

Goff has done quite a bit on trade, but obviously that won't feature greatly in Winston's portfolio. Most likely he will represent NZ to world leaders and at international venues, along with Clark and Cullen. He is bound by collective responsibility with the Labour in this role, so he cannot unilaterally declare war or such.

MMP is about creating healthy dialogue, rather than dictatorship. We've been over this before however, so we'll leave it there. Clark would not punish immigrants, and Peters has only asked for a review of immigration to ensure it is not open to abuse and is meeting our needs. Labour did this twice already over the last six years, so hardly earth-shattering stuff. "Ardent Racist", "Tactless Man"? Um, I could make a few snarky comments there...

No, most wouldn't. I find most politicians have extremely strong beliefs.

Not before their visas' expire.

...? He's not on/in Cabinet, (maybe a whisky Cabinet?) and I don't think he can do anything from his foreign affairs role which can't be undone.

Not so much as you'd think, he has the right to be consulted, but most of his policy is already sewn up.

Only time will tell.

We already have quite close relations with the US, whatever the National party tells you. The current Labour Government would not allow conscription to happen unless there was a pretty massive emergency (think WW3)

No, he hasn't sought concessions on foreign aid either way. The Foreign affairs portfolio doesn't cover aid.

Yes for A, less so for B, (And your against them anyway in general, Hauser) C NO. We have a large body of ministers who deal with Foreign affairs-related things, like Trade, Disarmaments etc

Still, it is less than ideal. We have to give the new Government a little time, Its been a while since Winston was in power, so maybe hes a little older, wiser. He'll be mindful that he nearly lost everything at this election, and he doesn't want to go to another one without positive things to show for his efforts.

Cheers, guys. So by the sounds of it he will be going out and representing Labour's policies around the world. As an individual he is likely to strike other world leaders as someone charasmatic, forceful, but also respectful. I think he'll actually be a good face for our country to have. Like maybe both our policies and the man putting them forward at these international conventions will make our country look both strong and independant. Now that I think about it I'm sure the Prime Minister wouldn't put him in this position if he could be a threat.

Everything will be just fine! :clap:

Yeah and more voters wanted National in than all the small parties combined. Instead she sides with parties that hold less share in peoples political views.

Something I heard this morning:

:lol:

:hilarious:

What, are you proposing that National instead governs with even more of those 'parties that hold less share'? Or are you thinking of a Labour-National coalition?

:wow:

Someone really, really needs a strong black coffee.

The logic of that criticism absolutely mystifies me. In 1996, more people voted for decently sized small parties (that is parties that received above 4% of the vote) than voted for National (and National was in government!). Including parties that received above 0.5% of the votes, they collectively hold a decent multiple point lead on the Nats. Does this prove anything?

No, and neither does the fact that more poeple voted for National than all the 'third parties' combined. All it means is that smaller parties (at least in simple terms) had lost their very large levels of support they had gained in 2002, and that the majority of opposition to Labour has gone back into National.

The four parties that form the government hold 50.7% of the party vote, and a near majority of electorate seats. If we include the Greens as part of that party vote, which we basically ought to as they will be guaranteed to be supporting the majority of the government's initiatives in reality, that means the governing parties will hold 56% of the popular vote. I direct you to the 1996 election, where National and NZ First did not even have a majority of the votes together.

Labour-National

That National is just as bad as Labour. Also I was talking about the current election vote spread, not the previous one (which is irrelevant).

Once again, I don't care about previous election results.

All I know is, National + Labour Coalition would hold over 80% of the popular vote and therefore be more reflective of the wishes of the people as compared to 56%.

So when Helen goes to decide who to partner with, she elects to use gain as little support as possible to form a government, rather than acknowledge that ~40% of the people wanted policies along the line of National.

mrt, honestly do u actually think that a Labour-National govt will EVER happen (apart from a world war situation)? Or is it just an ideal notion you hold or maybe lingering bitterness that National lost the election?

But that kind of coalition would not agree on anything and nothing would end up getting done.

Also I thought Trolling was Oobs job

i think its more of "trolling" as an excuse :P

Well, one idea that we could pursue to satisfy you is that we set the threshold for a Government to operate in Parliament be higher; ie we say they need the support of 75% of Parliament. (usually 90 out of 120 MPs)

The reality is however that we need a Government, and setting the threshold at 50%+1 lets the Government enact its vision.

I can't disagree that your entitled to your opinion, but I think the majority of people accept the cyclical nature of politics, in that different visions will be enacted at different times.

Centre-right coalition. Who'd have thought.

The Herald points out that Peters responsibly fulfilled his duties as Treasurer for National, and he may well do the same as FOM.

I didn't think you were entitled to an opinion, Sproull ;)

And I've come round to mrt's way of thinking. I think we should go one step further though, and have a Labour-National-ACT-NZF-Maori Party-United Future-Green-Progressive coalition.

That way, 96% of the voters will be represented.

We could have tax cuts, free student loans, kyoto, no kyoto, abolish the RMA and strengthen environmental protection, tarrifs and FTAs, Maori and no Maori, and family values and progressive social reforms.

It'd be awesome.

* Whoops, wrong thread...

Actually it would be over 98% of voters.

And there is no way you could get all of those parties to agree, you go into poltiics to change things, and nothing at all could be agreed under such a regime.

I was merely suggesting that if Helen was interested in pleasing more people, she'd partner with the bigger parties which drew more peoples votes. It would be better for the nation if there was a coalition that was more representative than one that was less. Of course, I don't expect any two parties with major ideological differences to get along together well, and not knowing much about the differences between the two major coalition partners in Germany, I will say that I will be very interested to see how it follows through.

No, she wouldn't please more people by joining up with National. They have differing programmes, and trying to horse trade out a deal between the two would leave us unable to implement most policies and certainly unable to respond to different pressures, such as the economy piking.

It is good for people to be represented in Parliament, but it is not necessarily right to say every MP should be in Government - because it just wouldn't work.

Of course, you could say this is a weakness of Democracy, but its only under Democracy that your disagreement means anything.

Can I first point out that I was 'aving a larf.

Yes.

A coalition like that would actually please fewer people than a minority coalition, because no one who voted for Labour wanted National in, no one who voted for National wanted Labour in, therefore 80% of the population would be unhappy with the arrangement.