Comments on: Reasonable http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/ hopping along the corridors of power Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:39:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: RedGreen http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6503 RedGreen Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:22:18 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6503 Chris: Making ad hominem attacks on someone whose views you disagree with does you - or what you have to say - no credibility. Chris:

Making ad hominem attacks on someone whose views you disagree with does you - or what you have to say - no credibility.

]]> By: ChrisBishop http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6467 ChrisBishop Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:22:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6467 Finlay writes well. Too bad he's nuts. Finlay writes well. Too bad he’s nuts.

]]> By: katie http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6346 katie Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:32:27 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6346 The particular nature of MMP is that parties with too many "bottom-line" positions create for themselves the box they are buried in. With flexiblity and a good grasp of policy areas where consensus may be reached "newer" parties can maximise the benefits of MMP coalitions, without having hangups about the FFP definitions of "power" (ie: total domination) which are causing such agonising outpourings from the right wing media and campaign hacks. Perhaps the good professors would like to run some seminars for the collective journalists of the capital, to explain the point of MMP, and how the advantages of a truly MMP electoral process will flow on from this election, which has provided the first truly representational result since 1996. The particular nature of MMP is that parties with too many “bottom-line” positions create for themselves the box they are buried in.
With flexiblity and a good grasp of policy areas where consensus may be reached “newer” parties can maximise the benefits of MMP coalitions, without having hangups about the FFP definitions of “power” (ie: total domination) which are causing such agonising outpourings from the right wing media and campaign hacks.
Perhaps the good professors would like to run some seminars for the collective journalists of the capital, to explain the point of MMP, and how the advantages of a truly MMP electoral process will flow on from this election, which has provided the first truly representational result since 1996.

]]> By: csm http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6332 csm Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:19:30 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2005/09/26/reasonable/#comment-6332 I understand the need to feel like you've won the battle, even if you haven't but I can't see how the Green's benefit if they don't get at least one ministerial position. (a) A deal with Labour that gives them influence in policy etc. is nice, but if it is not conspicuous to the public that they have this influence then people are still going to be scared of their "extremist" policy and the Greens will not be able to make it as a "commonsense" option. That is, their range of possible voters seems unlikely to grow much (Perhaps someone can tell me some figures on the percentage of the voting population is dark greens compared with BlueGreens and RedGreens etc.) (b) From what I can see the Green's are the only party at the moment that look like being a long term third party option. When Winston/Jim/Peter and Rodney? (without charismatic successors) all retire the Green's (and possibly Maori) may find the total third party contingent too small to have any influence and we will revert back to an FPP system. Long story short, Green's need to hurry up and get some ministerial experience if they wish to become a serious future contender. I understand the need to feel like you’ve won the battle, even if you haven’t but I can’t see how the Green’s benefit if they don’t get at least one ministerial position.

(a) A deal with Labour that gives them influence in policy etc. is nice, but if it is not conspicuous to the public that they have this influence then people are still going to be scared of their “extremist” policy and the Greens will not be able to make it as a “commonsense” option. That is, their range of possible voters seems unlikely to grow much (Perhaps someone can tell me some figures on the percentage of the voting population is dark greens compared with BlueGreens and RedGreens etc.)

(b) From what I can see the Green’s are the only party at the moment that look like being a long term third party option. When Winston/Jim/Peter and Rodney? (without charismatic successors) all retire the Green’s (and possibly Maori) may find the total third party contingent too small to have any influence and we will revert back to an FPP system.

Long story short, Green’s need to hurry up and get some ministerial experience if they wish to become a serious future contender.

]]>