http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/labour-s-phil-twyford-can-t-rule-out-dumping-m-ori-seats-in-nz-first-negotiations.html
So much for Labour having any principles. They've just been kept in the game by Maori electorate voters, but cannot rule out throwing them in the bin if required to get three years of coalition with Winston?
I hope they do this for many reasons.
Labour ... They've just been kept in the game by Maori electorate voters, but...
So you don't know what overhang in MMP is, and presumably you think ACT areproportionally represented too?
On Monday 25 September 2017 at 23:24:38, JohnO wrote:
So you don't know what overhang in MMP is, and presumably you think ACT are proportionally represented too?
ACT's party votes entitle them to one seat. So ACT are proportionally represented and ACT's Epsom seat is not an overhang. The only overhang
in the last Parliament was United Future in Ōhāriu.
This red herring is irrelevant to your earlier nonsense. If the Māori
party were to have overhang seats, they could also bring those into a Labour-led coalition.
On Monday 25 September 2017 at 23:24:38, JohnO wrote:proportionally represented too?
So you don't know what overhang in MMP is, and presumably you think ACT are
ACT's party votes entitle them to one seat. So ACT are proportionally represented and ACT's Epsom seat is not an overhang. The only overhang
in the last Parliament was United Future in Ōhāriu.
This red herring is irrelevant to your earlier nonsense. If the Māori
party were to have overhang seats, they could also bring those into a Labour-led coalition.
On Monday 25 September 2017 at 23:24:38, JohnO wrote:
So you don't know what overhang in MMP is, and presumably you think ACT are proportionally represented too?
ACT's party votes entitle them to one seat. So ACT are proportionally >represented and ACT's Epsom seat is not an overhang. The only overhang
in the last Parliament was United Future in ?h?riu.
This red herring is irrelevant to your earlier nonsense. If the M?oriExcept that many voters in those seats were not confident that the
party were to have overhang seats, they could also bring those into a >Labour-led coalition.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:53:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/labour-s-phil-twyford-can-t-rule-out-dumping-m-ori-seats-in-nz-first-negotiations.html
So much for Labour having any principles. They've just been kept in the game by Maori electorate voters, but cannot rule out throwing them in the bin if required to get three years of coalition with Winston?
I hope they do this for many reasons.
Twyford merely said that he did not have a mandate to set conditions
for the negotitations, but that Labours position in supporting the
seats is clear. No problem here for Labour - just the result of a
weasely interviewer incapable of understanding that he was not taling
to a person with the authority to speak on that matter on behalf of
the marty.
Read the whole article and listen to the whole interview. "Helpful
advice" to a political party can be an attempt to derail that party -
listen to Hooten for some classic self-serving National-favouring
advice he regularly gives to Labour and the Greens . . .
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:by Maori electorate voters, but cannot rule out throwing them in the bin if required to get three years of coalition with Winston?
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:53:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/labour-s-phil-twyford-can-t-rule-out-dumping-m-ori-seats-in-nz-first-negotiations.html
So much for Labour having any principles. They've just been kept in the game
I hope they do this for many reasons.
Twyford merely said that he did not have a mandate to set conditions
for the negotitations, but that Labours position in supporting the
seats is clear. No problem here for Labour - just the result of a
weasely interviewer incapable of understanding that he was not taling
to a person with the authority to speak on that matter on behalf of
the marty.
Read the whole article and listen to the whole interview. "Helpful
advice" to a political party can be an attempt to derail that party - >>listen to Hooten for some classic self-serving National-favouring
advice he regularly gives to Labour and the Greens . . .
I can see why Labor wants to keep the Maori seats. Five guaranteed
seats for them this year.. Under FPP this could make the difference
who won the election. I seem to remember close elections where labor
only got in because of the Maori seats.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 20:40:05 UTC+13, John B. Standard wrote:proportionally represented too?
On Monday 25 September 2017 at 23:24:38, JohnO wrote:
So you don't know what overhang in MMP is, and presumably you think ACT are
one seat overhang.
ACT's party votes entitle them to one seat. So ACT are proportionally
represented and ACT's Epsom seat is not an overhang. The only overhang
in the last Parliament was United Future in Ōhāriu.
LOL. ACT's 0.5% vote gets them 0.6 of a seat but they have one seat so it's a
You claimed that Party Vote got Maori Party their seats. That is completelyincorrect.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:45:04 +1300, Mutlley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:53:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/labour-s-phil-twyford-can-t-rule-out-dumping-m-ori-seats-in-nz-first-negotiations.html
So much for Labour having any principles. They've just been kept in the game by Maori electorate voters, but cannot rule out throwing them in the bin if required to get three years of coalition with Winston?
I hope they do this for many reasons.
Twyford merely said that he did not have a mandate to set conditions
for the negotitations, but that Labours position in supporting the
seats is clear. No problem here for Labour - just the result of a
weasely interviewer incapable of understanding that he was not taling
to a person with the authority to speak on that matter on behalf of
the marty.
Read the whole article and listen to the whole interview. "Helpful
advice" to a political party can be an attempt to derail that party -
listen to Hooten for some classic self-serving National-favouring
advice he regularly gives to Labour and the Greens . . .
I can see why Labor wants to keep the Maori seats. Five guaranteed
seats for them this year.. Under FPP this could make the difference
who won the election. I seem to remember close elections where labor
only got in because of the Maori seats.
They were no more guaranteed than other seats - Maori seats have
changed party quite a few times over the years. It would not surprise
me if another party rises to challenge Labour again. For the next parliamentary term however Labour is likely to have the most MPs with
a close connection to Maori that any party has had for a long time, if
ever. Interestingly National seem to placidly accept that they have
no credibility with those on the Maori roll - and the demise of the
Maori party is seen as having in part resulted from National not
allowing that party their 'time in the sun'.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:36:07 +1300, John B. Standard <jbs@example.com>proportionally represented too?
wrote:
On Monday 25 September 2017 at 23:24:38, JohnO wrote:
So you don't know what overhang in MMP is, and presumably you think ACT are
ACT's party votes entitle them to one seat. So ACT are proportionally
represented and ACT's Epsom seat is not an overhang. The only overhang
in the last Parliament was United Future in ?h?riu.
For party votes to provide a seat the threshold is 5% - ACT were never
going to reach that level at the recent election. The tactic of
'encouraging' National supporters to vote for Seymour and give their
party vote to National effectively delivers another seat to a secure
National supporting party at the expense of another partyIt could have
been countered by Labour and Green supporters in the electorate
"holding their nose" and voting for the National Party candidate, but
that did not happen.
Many believe that the threshold should be abolished, or at least
reduced to just over the level required for one seat (say 1% of party
votes). That would have delivered Colin Craig a seat at the previous election.
This red herring is irrelevant to your earlier nonsense. If the M?oriExcept that many voters in those seats were not confident that the
party were to have overhang seats, they could also bring those into a
Labour-led coalition.
Maori Party would not again support National - while Mt Eden voters
may be happy with a clear National poodle party, Maori voters did not
want to support National - confirming that National just do not know
how to operate in a coalition omn a long term basis.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:37:24 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,673 |