The Jacinda haters have someone new to spew their bile at. Best of luck to Chloe Swarbrick. She will need it.

@Rikkitic Seymour is already mansplaining to Chloe about how to be a leader.

Been a while coming. Unsure what the future holds for the Greens. Spend the next couple of years cracking into National and then fighting a war on two fronts against Labour and a resurgent Maori Party?

GV27:

 

Been a while coming. Unsure what the future holds for the Greens. Spend the next couple of years cracking into National and then fighting a war on two fronts against Labour and a resurgent Maori Party?

 

I don't see there being any serious fight against TPM. They don't seem very interested in contesting general electorate seats - which they would never win - and it is actually in their interest not to campaign heavily on party vote because if they win a clean sweep of the Māori seats but only a small party vote, then there's an overhang which gives them an outsized influence. Policy-wise, TPM & TPK are aligned on many issues.

They're more of an ally than anything else.

Chloe Swarbrick could bring a lot of young voters to the Green Party. If parliament had been brave enough to lower the voting age NZ green could be a real challenger, there lays the reason why parliament won't lower the voting age.

MikeB4:

 

Chloe Swarbrick could bring a lot of young voters to the Green Party. If parliament had been brave enough to lower the voting age NZ green could be a real challenger, there lays the reason why parliament won't lower the voting age.

 

You need a better reason than that to lower the voting age. A referendum may be necessary.

Bluntj:

 

You need a better reason than that to lower the voting age. A referendum may be necessary.

 

He didn't say that was a reason to lower the voting age. He said that (that young people may vote Green) was a reason the two major parties would not want to lower the voting age.

And I don't think a referendum would be necessary. Why would it be?

We elect governments to make decisions, referenda allows them to abdicate from that function.

It'll be interesting to see what Swarbrick has learnt from the Cannabis legalisation referendum. She and the greens made a mess of it and let the usual suspects spread all sorts of FUD. IMO if it was more competently run and, a more detailed bill had been proposed for implementation, it would have passed.

Given the comments above about Seymour it is interesting the contrast between that referendum and the euthanasia referendum. That was very well done by Seymour. 

SaltyNZ: Yep they should have just pushed to make it law. No referendum was necessary.

Their "push" would have simply failed. There was no way that they would have had support from Winston and, without that, they didn't have the numbers. The referendum was the best they could hope for.

Personally, although the Bill was badly designed in many respects, I wish it had passed. It nearly passed, and it should have passed. It would have passed if there had been a competent strategy to persuade the undecided voters. Chloe et al made a complete botch of the campaign to get it over the line. Too much time spent in mutual admiration sessions in echo chambers with people who were already in favour, too much time wasted ranting at people who were deeply opposed and would never vote for it, and not enough effort putting reasoned arguments to group who were undecided but might be persuaded.

Handle9:

 

It'll be interesting to see what Swarbrick has learnt from the Cannabis legalisation referendum. She and the greens made a mess of it and let the usual suspects spread all sorts of FUD. IMO if it was more competently run and, a more detailed bill had been proposed for implementation, it would have passed.

 

Given the comments above about Seymour it is interesting the contrast between that referendum and the euthanasia referendum. That was very well done by Seymour. 

 

As deeply as I dislike Seymour's politics, I was very impressed by the way he handled the euthanasia referendum. I especially enjoyed the way he exasperated Dr Sinead Donnelly during their debate on the subject. He is very clever and highly intelligent, more so than he lets on. He also has a sense of humour, something that is woefully lacking in many leaders. I liked the way he joined with Jacinda Ardern to benefit charity over her hot microphone moment. He could be a genuinely appealing leader. It is just unfortunate that his political ideas are so screwed up. 

Good luck to her, her ascending to leader was as certain as Ardern ascending to leader of Labour. Will be interesting to see what approach she takes with the role. Impassioned speeches with all the buzz words work for a crowd, but when in the big chair, a cool head and reasoned / substantiated arguments are needed to push forward an idea/agenda and actually get things done (and I have seen elements of both approaches from her).