An open letter to James Shaw

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › An open letter to James Shaw

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1875997 2-Oct-2017 11:19

MikeB4:

I have no issue with James Shaw as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, he would certainly do a better job with the later than Steven Joyce and his manner compliments Bill English well. He also has a long history in sustainable management.

I think our political system is seriously screwed up if we have to resort to giving big positions to minority party members in Government. I don't care who that person is, or how good they are, If they were not democratically elected to be there, then they should not be there.

Our MMP system is seriously flawed, A party with 7% of votes, should never be in a position to decide who will be government.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1876014 2-Oct-2017 11:34

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

I have no issue with James Shaw as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, he would certainly do a better job with the later than Steven Joyce and his manner compliments Bill English well. He also has a long history in sustainable management.

I think our political system is seriously screwed up if we have to resort to giving big positions to minority party members in Government. I don't care who that person is, or how good they are, If they were not democratically elected to be there, then they should not be there.

Our MMP system is seriously flawed, A party with 7% of votes, should never be in a position to decide who will be government.

James Shaw is in parliament by way of a democratic election. A party with 7% is not deciding it is either a party with circa 46% or circa 36%. that is making the ultimate decision and the voting public made it so. Just because you may not agree with the outcome does not make undemocratic.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1876022 2-Oct-2017 11:43

MikeB4:

James Shaw is in parliament by way of a democratic election. A party with 7% is not deciding it is either a party with circa 46% or circa 36%. that is making the ultimate decision and the voting public made it so. Just because you may not agree with the outcome does not make undemocratic.

I'm not saying he should not be in parliament.

I am referring to suggestions that he should be deputy PM, and finance minister. Its ludicrous to say that democratically he deserves those positions when his party only managed to secure 5.9% of the votes.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1876035 2-Oct-2017 11:56

The max he would get is Minister of the Environment. He is way to left to even understand how much he could achieve under National compared to a 3 ring circus with Jacinda and Winston.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1876045 2-Oct-2017 12:14

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

James Shaw is in parliament by way of a democratic election. A party with 7% is not deciding it is either a party with circa 46% or circa 36%. that is making the ultimate decision and the voting public made it so. Just because you may not agree with the outcome does not make undemocratic.

I'm not saying he should not be in parliament.

I am referring to suggestions that he should be deputy PM, and finance minister. Its ludicrous to say that democratically he deserves those positions when his party only managed to secure 5.9% of the votes.

So you are saying that a party that has been democratically elected does not have the right to make decisions and the two or three entities that make up that government do not have the right to make decisions.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dwilson

162 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 123

#1876184 2-Oct-2017 15:34

The MMP system is working very well from what I can see. Previously under FPP, large chunks of the population that voted for anyone aside from the main two parties had no say in government, under MMP they get a little say, depending on how negotiations go. On this particular occasion the party that won the previous times has lost many of it's minor parties due to poor performance of those minor parties, the voting public has removed them.

Working as intended.

If one of the two main parties wants to skip bartering a deal with one or more minor parties they just need to tailor there policies to capture 51% of the vote. Should be fairly straight forward, there is little real difference between the pair of them.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1876292 2-Oct-2017 18:18

dwilson:

The MMP system is working very well from what I can see. Previously under FPP, large chunks of the population that voted for anyone aside from the main two parties had no say in government, under MMP they get a little say, depending on how negotiations go. On this particular occasion the party that won the previous times has lost many of it's minor parties due to poor performance of those minor parties, the voting public has removed them.

Working as intended.

If one of the two main parties wants to skip bartering a deal with one or more minor parties they just need to tailor there policies to capture 51% of the vote. Should be fairly straight forward, there is little real difference between the pair of them.

And in case anyone is not aware of it, before James Shaw can 'make a deal' with National, he has to get 75% of green party membership to agree/vote yes. He has stated, that as the green party vote on the 23rd was for a change of government, he doesn't see a coalition with national as a valid option as he doesn't believe he'll get the support from from the party membership.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1876309 2-Oct-2017 19:33

MaxLV:

And in case anyone is not aware of it, before James Shaw can 'make a deal' with National, he has to get 75% of green party membership to agree/vote yes. He has stated, that as the green party vote on the 23rd was for a change of government, he doesn't see a coalition with national as a valid option as he doesn't believe he'll get the support from from the party membership.

Fair point about the 75% agreement, which of course would mean at least a 100% reply from 100% of their members and 3 out of 4 agreeing. But does that also apply to them trying to do a deal with Labour?

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1876442 3-Oct-2017 00:35

DaveB:

MaxLV:

And in case anyone is not aware of it, before James Shaw can 'make a deal' with National, he has to get 75% of green party membership to agree/vote yes. He has stated, that as the green party vote on the 23rd was for a change of government, he doesn't see a coalition with national as a valid option as he doesn't believe he'll get the support from from the party membership.

Fair point about the 75% agreement, which of course would mean at least a 100% reply from 100% of their members and 3 out of 4 agreeing. But does that also apply to them trying to do a deal with Labour?

They have already agreed to the 'memorandum of understanding' with labour in 2016 to get a change of government this year, which is another reason why they wont go into a coalition with national.

The Labour Party and the Green Party have announced today (31/05/2016) they have signed an historic agreement to work cooperatively to change the Government.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties commits them to working cooperatively to change the Government including closer work at parliament and a possible joint policy announcement or campaign.

I'd say any coalition with labour would be an extension of this agreement.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1876532 3-Oct-2017 09:58

Setting aside electorate percentages for a moment ... I think that in every coalition, ministerial portfolios should go to capable and experienced people. When they don't bad things happen (e.g. Max Bradford's electricity reforms). No-one in the Greens has been in government, let alone in a ministerial role.

I don't see James Shaw as capable of Min Finance. I do see him as capable of dep PM. I thought he coped as well any leader could have under the trying circumstances of Meteria Turei. He seems to be the most pragmatic and grounded person in the Green's line-up.

I don't really see anyone else in the Greens' shadow cabinet as capable of being Minister of anything in their first term. They are all IMO a bit too starry eyed and idealistic. Associate Ministers: Yes absolutely - a good apprenticeship for keen people, new to government.

Mike

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1876542 3-Oct-2017 10:20

I think the portfolio(s) that Mr Shaw may be or not offered will not be Bill English's decision to make it will be Jacinda Arderns and I don't envy her. The ship named Aotearoa is heading towards stormy seas.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#1876543 3-Oct-2017 10:20

MikeAqua:

Setting aside electorate percentages for a moment ... I think that in every coalition, ministerial portfolios should go to capable and experienced people. When they don't bad things happen (e.g. Max Bradford's electricity reforms). No-one in the Greens has been in government, let alone in a ministerial role.

I don't see James Shaw as capable of Min Finance. I do see him as capable of dep PM. I thought he coped as well any leader could have under the trying circumstances of Meteria Turei. He seems to be the most pragmatic and grounded person in the Green's line-up.

I don't really see anyone else in the Greens' shadow cabinet as capable of being Minister of anything in their first term. They are all IMO a bit too starry eyed and idealistic. Associate Ministers: Yes absolutely - a good apprenticeship for keen people, new to government.

Julie-Ann Genter ran rings around Brownlee when she was Green transport spokesperson and he was the minister. That is just one example off the top of my head.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1876550 3-Oct-2017 10:26

MaxLV:

DaveB:

MaxLV:

And in case anyone is not aware of it, before James Shaw can 'make a deal' with National, he has to get 75% of green party membership to agree/vote yes. He has stated, that as the green party vote on the 23rd was for a change of government, he doesn't see a coalition with national as a valid option as he doesn't believe he'll get the support from from the party membership.

Fair point about the 75% agreement, which of course would mean at least a 100% reply from 100% of their members and 3 out of 4 agreeing. But does that also apply to them trying to do a deal with Labour?

They have already agreed to the 'memorandum of understanding' with labour in 2016 to get a change of government this year, which is another reason why they wont go into a coalition with national.

The Labour Party and the Green Party have announced today (31/05/2016) they have signed an historic agreement to work cooperatively to change the Government.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties commits them to working cooperatively to change the Government including closer work at parliament and a possible joint policy announcement or campaign.

I'd say any coalition with labour would be an extension of this agreement.

The agreement expired the day after the General Election. This was by design to ensure that it did not interfere with any coalition negotiations.

The MoU was an agreement to campaign cooperatively with a common purpose and no surprises.(Interestingly, both parties failed to uphold their respective ends of that bargain) By all measures, it was a failure.

* Labour spiked Turei

* Green support plummeted

* Split voters in several key electorates

* Outcome Green + Lab < National

...anyone still clinging to that old chestnut might want to make a quick reality check :-)

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1876562 3-Oct-2017 10:35

6FIEND:

MaxLV:

DaveB:

MaxLV:

And in case anyone is not aware of it, before James Shaw can 'make a deal' with National, he has to get 75% of green party membership to agree/vote yes. He has stated, that as the green party vote on the 23rd was for a change of government, he doesn't see a coalition with national as a valid option as he doesn't believe he'll get the support from from the party membership.

Fair point about the 75% agreement, which of course would mean at least a 100% reply from 100% of their members and 3 out of 4 agreeing. But does that also apply to them trying to do a deal with Labour?

They have already agreed to the 'memorandum of understanding' with labour in 2016 to get a change of government this year, which is another reason why they wont go into a coalition with national.

The Labour Party and the Green Party have announced today (31/05/2016) they have signed an historic agreement to work cooperatively to change the Government.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties commits them to working cooperatively to change the Government including closer work at parliament and a possible joint policy announcement or campaign.

I'd say any coalition with labour would be an extension of this agreement.

The agreement expired the day after the General Election. This was by design to ensure that it did not interfere with any coalition negotiations.

The MoU was an agreement to campaign cooperatively with a common purpose and no surprises.(Interestingly, both parties failed to uphold their respective ends of that bargain) By all measures, it was a failure.

* Labour spiked Turei

* Green support plummeted

* Split voters in several key electorates

* Outcome Green + Lab < National

...anyone still clinging to that old chestnut might want to make a quick reality check :-)

And yet both labour and greens still refer to this agreement when discussing a possible/probable coalition, with NZF to form a government. It may have expired, but it's still the basis of their joint 'understanding.'

And it's still one of the many stumbling blocks to any possible national/greens coalition.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1876641 3-Oct-2017 13:43

The possibility of National and the Greens coming together to form a government has been floated by some commentators.

But Mr Shaw said that speculation was getting a bit boring.

"Our job is to form a government with the Labour Party, that's what I said on election night, that's what I campaigned on for the last 18 months and that's what we are busy working on.

"I said on election night that I think the numbers are there for a new government and that's what we are working on, so everything else frankly is noise and no signal."

Mr Shaw said talk of a 'Teal Deal' is all being fed through proxies and is all PR and fluff, saying there was no substance to it.

Asked whether he believed it was a paid campaign to promote the idea of a National-Greens deal, Mr Shaw said he did not know, and he did not care.

"I'm busy trying to form a government with the Labour Party and presumably with New Zealand First as well, and I said on election night if Bill [English] wants to call, I'm happy to take the call and to have a conversation with him, but he hasn't called, so as far as I'm concerned, everything else is pure speculation."

source

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12