networkn:

gzt:

6FIEND:

sdav: Also the greens stubborn refusal to consider working with a National government does them no favours. They are now going to be out of Government for 9 years. There is a lot they could have achieved in that time.

This is a fundamental strategic decision for the Greens.  They essentially have two options available to them to ever have any chance at being relevant in government:

1) Obtain a strategic alliance with Labour and campaign cooperatively in 2017  (this was their preferred option this time and Labour denied them the opportunity, which Labour retrospectively say they regret.)
2) Stick to core environmental principles (grass roots), dial back the socialist rhetoric and campaign to be part of a 2017 National government.  (Minister for the Environment, Conservation Minister, etc, etc.)

Continuing with the status-quo will only see a continuation of their first 15yrs in Parliament.  (i.e. Never getting a Cabinet seat)  ...Labour will never treat with them because they have nowhere else to go, and Labour will need to woo more centrist groups like NZF and (or even Conservatives (at a stretch)) to form a 2017 govt. 

My impression was there was some kind of internal revolt in the Greens against the possibility of working with National again. This occurred not long after Harawira had spat the dummy with the Maori party. It seemed to be a trend at the time. That's my recollection.

Well it's all but the only way they will actually be able to achieve something in Parliament to be honest. Surely with National holding power alone, National can stop them doing anything, so they are better to try and get something than sit doing nothing for 3 years?

I agree. Besides, they can try and get through what they want under the National Government and then when the inevitable boredom sets in and the pendulum swings left again they can get their more extreme polices through. I don't see why progressive politics means "change everything NOW"!

joker97: the gay marriage law came from the greens

trig42: The Greens refusal to work with the 'right' is what puts me off them. I like some of their environmental and social policies (not all) but would never consider voting for a 'environmental' party that rules out working with a party that they do not agree with financially/socially.

gzt:

networkn:

gzt:

6FIEND:

sdav: Also the greens stubborn refusal to consider working with a National government does them no favours. They are now going to be out of Government for 9 years. There is a lot they could have achieved in that time.

This is a fundamental strategic decision for the Greens.  They essentially have two options available to them to ever have any chance at being relevant in government:

1) Obtain a strategic alliance with Labour and campaign cooperatively in 2017  (this was their preferred option this time and Labour denied them the opportunity, which Labour retrospectively say they regret.)
2) Stick to core environmental principles (grass roots), dial back the socialist rhetoric and campaign to be part of a 2017 National government.  (Minister for the Environment, Conservation Minister, etc, etc.)

Continuing with the status-quo will only see a continuation of their first 15yrs in Parliament.  (i.e. Never getting a Cabinet seat)  ...Labour will never treat with them because they have nowhere else to go, and Labour will need to woo more centrist groups like NZF and (or even Conservatives (at a stretch)) to form a 2017 govt. 

My impression was there was some kind of internal revolt in the Greens against the possibility of working with National again. This occurred not long after Harawira had spat the dummy with the Maori party. It seemed to be a trend at the time. That's my recollection.

Well it's all but the only way they will actually be able to achieve something in Parliament to be honest. Surely with National holding power alone, National can stop them doing anything, so they are better to try and get something than sit doing nothing for 3 years?

Parliament has many formal processes where non-government ministers can and do make a contribution.

For example the select committee process where ministers and the general public can contribute to legislation. Mostly this improves the quality of legislation but from time to time it also adds content.

Similarly private members bills and opposition bills can have the effect of prefiguring government legislation to some extent.

joker97: the gay marriage law came from the greens

MikeAqua: It was a private members bill from Louisa Wall (Labour).

joker97: can anyone help me i've never been able to figure this out.

So under MMP your % party vote = no of seats as a percentage

but if a party wins an electorate and only gets 0.2% of the vote then who loses a seat?

joker97: i've read that page, AND the govt page, and still none the wiser :D

joker97: if a party wins 4.9% of party vote and doesn't get into parliament wheredo the seats go to?

bazzer:

joker97: if a party wins 4.9% of party vote and doesn't get into parliament wheredo the seats go to?

I believe the 120 seats get allocated based on your percentage of the "useful" votes. So, I suppose, the 4.9% would get shared equally amongst the other parties in proportion to their party vote.