Ministers in a Lab/Green govt

Written By: - Date published: 7:32 am, December 4th, 2012 - 143 comments
Categories: election 2014, greens, labour - Tags:

Paddy Gower looked fit to burst with excitement over ‘Greens and Labour fighting over Finance portfolio‘ last night. Of course, the actual quote not so exciting – just Russel Norman saying it was one portfolio that would be the subject of negotiations in the formation of a Labour/Green government. But it does raise a valid question – who would be ministers in a Labour/Green government?

OK. First off, lets assume the government MPs are 30% Green, 70% Labour – roughly in line with the current polls. Next, we’ll have to assume that the current portfolios hold – ie Shearer is leader, Cunliffe is in purgatory for the sin of not having a dirt operation on the scale of Mallard/Hipkins/Mold/Robertson, and Jones has no portfolios either. However, we will assume that King leaves for Wellington mayoralty (the housing policy will help with that – and she’ll be gone before its economics get torn apart in the full election release).

I’ve chosen what I regard as the top 20 portfolios – the ones that wouldn’t usually be held simultaneously with any of the others in the top 20 – and looked at the spokesperson from each party for each. Simply, I’ve chosen the best of the options in each portfolio – excepting that Shearer would be PM. And I’ve made a few changes where there’s someone else better than either incumbent or political necessity.

There’s 7 Greens out of 19 there, over-represented on the current polls but, in reality, Norman would probably get Economic Development and Parker Finance – the trade-off would be an extra Green Cabinet minister.

There’s a problem with Justice and Attorney-General. They shouldn’t both be Chauvel but there’s not many spare lawyers with an interest in justice in the ranks.

For the ministers outside Cabinet (Key has a record 28 ministers) I would choose Walker (would be in Cabinet except giving Turei MSD means giving Ardern Housing), Delahunty, Clark, Sio, O’Connor, Fenton, Curran, Mackey and Street.

All up, it’s 12 women (4 on the front bench), 3 Maori, 2 Pasifika, 3 gay, and a pretty good geographic distribution.

I have to say, I like the look of that Cabinet. They would have much better policy, of course and, apart from the top name, nearly all of them would better the current minister in sheer competence.

143 comments on “Ministers in a Lab/Green govt ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    4 December 2012 at 8:02 am

    My question is why Gower is so quick to anoint a Shearer-Norman led government?  That was the subtext of his little puff-piece.  TV3 is going all-out spinning for this since the Labour conference.

    If there was a Labour-led government, are there any likely ex-MP candidates that would return to parliament, and who might be front bench material? 

    • toad 1.1
      4 December 2012 at 8:24 am

      Carmel Sepuloni, Stuart Nash?

      • Lanthanide 1.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 8:58 am

        Darren Hughes? Could come back in 2014 and potential get an associate position, and move up in 2017.

        • King Kong 1.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 10:28 am

          I would run screaming and naked through the streets if that ever happened.

          • lprent 1.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 11:43 am

            Bookmark that comment. But you really have to give an opportunity to us all to get the buttocks shot with the dangling shriveled penis…

    • mickysavage 1.2
      4 December 2012 at 9:43 am

      Yep Gower’s spin is appalling.  He kept saying that Shearer was being undermined.  All that I saw was a damned good debate and an increase in democracy in the party and then a speech from Shearer that was well received.

      Then they try to paint the labour in turmoil meme and Labour goes up in the polls.

      As to motivation, well the assistance that this Government has given to mediaworks speaks volumes … 

      • King Kong 1.2.1
        4 December 2012 at 10:04 am

        Ha ha. Your spin isn’t so flash either. You really can’t expect us to buy this “passion of the Cunliffe” stuff.

        • Craig Glen Eden 1.2.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 10:33 am

          No King Kong believe Gower Cunliffe was going to do a take over at conference and Shearer is amazing best thing since…..since….. ABC.

          • King Kong 1.2.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 11:09 am

            The Gospel According to [deleted]

            And lo, the savior rode into conference on a donkey and the members fell at his feet and there was much rejoicing. The shadow cabinet saw this and they became afraid.

            During the procession a member asked “Messiah how can we serve you better?” and the savior replied “The jealousy of man is strong when faced with my omnipotent radiance. Lower the threshold for my ascension to the throne and the kingdom of the Labour party shall be yours, my member”

            Later that night as the disciples shared a meal the Messiah touched Nania and Charles gently on the face and spoke. “Tomorrow a cock (from TV3 news) will crow 8 times and my purpose will be betrayed. All through that night the savior was alone, starring at his reflection in a pool.

            Three days after the glorious entrance at conference, our savior was hauled in front of the caucus. “So you call yourself King of the party” accused Pontius Shearer. With a holy countenance the Messiah replied “You may strike me down now but untold riches await my resurrection in February for the will of my children will be done”

            [lprent: I’m not happy with using real names for no apparent reason especially in view of some of the legislative pogroms that seem to be looming on the horizion. As soon as my current workload subsides, I will talking around the authors about adding substantial portions of RFC1855 to our policy, especially the sections on respecting pseudonymous handles.

            And repetition by you and some of the others who try to sneak them in is going to be unwise in the interim. I’m liable to start high in my personal moderator deterrence and get higher. ]

            • alwyn 1.2.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 11:35 am

              I’m not sure what you are smoking but please tell me where I can get some.
              The image you conjure up is a wonderful one.

            • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1.2
              4 December 2012 at 11:58 am

              Hah, nice RFC, haven’t seen that before.

              • lprent …
                4 December 2012 at 4:57 pm

                As you can see it has been around for a while. It was just a compendium of things that were common before usenet on other forums like BBS’s. You find the same general principles in all subsequent net forums.

                Wish the legislators would make and effort to read what net cultures have already developed for them.

      • ad 1.2.2
        4 December 2012 at 10:04 am

        I think it’s good that the story is moving on from “who will lead the Labour Party” to “The inevitability of a Labour-Green coalition”.

        Gower isn’t going to change. The Shearer leadership has used him, and the rest of the MSM, the best.

        The MSM is being employed to help write the narrative of inevitable success and in turn to write history towards the next election.

        Long may it last.

      • The Fan Club 1.2.3
        4 December 2012 at 11:43 am

        Hey how’d the complaint to NZ Council go then eh? What a bunch of whingers.

        • mickysavage 1.2.3.1
          4 December 2012 at 2:21 pm

          FC as usual you are Anything But Coherent.

          • The Fan Club 1.2.3.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 2:29 pm

            Ohh so not so good then? What. A. Shame.

            • the pigman 1.2.3.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 9:23 pm

              You are such a sarcastic little cock. Keep lapping up Grant Robertson’s KoolAid (or whatever else he’s got you and your Young Labour chums on) and quit attacking a member with the best interests of his branch/country at heart.

              Hope the weather is fine in Wellywood.

              • The Fan Club …
                5 December 2012 at 12:23 pm

                Now now, watch the expletives. It lowers the discursive tone.

                (And yeah. I’m not a Wellingtonian, or a Young Labour member. So yeah. Better luck next time.)

    • Peter 1.3
      4 December 2012 at 11:41 am

      Right now the MSM are trying to portray the L/G side as overconfident and incompetent. Instead of being baited into answering questions about who will be doing what in the first hypothetical Labour/Green coalition party, leaders would be better off increasing their electoral following. The loaded questions of the MSM are only of interest if L/G win in two years time.

      • xtasy 1.3.1
        4 December 2012 at 4:51 pm

        Peter:

        Yes, I am afraid, that is what seems to be going on, especially via TV3 and their news reporters.

        The creeping up polls for L/G and decline of Key and Nats do not go down well with some of their staff, I am sure. Discredit the opposition now, so they get stunted again, that is the MSM agenda.

        • karol 1.3.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 5:20 pm

          While ultimately the end result may be the MSM turning against Team Shearer, I really don’t think the majority of them think that far ahead.

          There may be one or two influential people deliberately aiming for that.  But i think most of the people in news teams won’t be thinking far ahead on political strategies. 

          I think it’s more likely that many news people will just repeat the narratives that make most sense to them in terms of their own political positions: e.g. they may just prefer the right wing Labour attitudes tho the left wingers asking for a more radical break with the neoliberal consensus.

          Whatever the news people have in mind, the are producing a low quality news product that is very skewed political.  They are not doing what Nicky Hager values: relentlessly seeking facts and truth.

          They are constructing a narrative that doesn’t match up with all the facts available.  It is a clumsy and distorted construction of Shearer being the best leader Labour can offer, and the most likely next PM – at least that’s the MSM/TV3 narrative for now, and probably til February. 

          • xtasy 1.3.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 5:48 pm

            MSM = may be a bit like the “endless” gossiping parroting chain, doing the merry go round “I have heard”, “oh, I told you so”, “see, that is what they are all about”, “oh, yes, I must agree”, “oh, really, that is interesting”, “yes, I agree”, as “I have no mind of my own”.

            Story written, printed, read, broadcast, done.

            analysis – zilch
            facts – zilch
            objectivity – zilch

          • BLiP 1.3.1.1.2
            4 December 2012 at 7:13 pm

            .

            Bingo! The MSM focus is on what might happen somewhere else rather than what is actually happening right in front of their noses – National Ltd™ systematically handing over public assets and resources to its international business mates, and lying while doing it. Still, relentlessly seeking facts and telling truth to power requires time and resources, something the frontline MSM “journalists” are short of, and deliberately so, thanks to deliberate underfunding. The last thing the MSM wants is an informed public.

  2. Brad 2
    4 December 2012 at 8:03 am

    LOL. The Greens would need at least half of Labour’s vote to even consider getting Finance. As Shearer said, it’s not going to happen.

    • Crimson Nile 2.1
      4 December 2012 at 8:13 am

      Although in counterpoint, Labour will need at least half of the Green Party’s vote to even consider getting into Government. It could be considered a sensible political trade.

  3. Tom Gould 3
    4 December 2012 at 8:04 am

    If ever the Tories needed a lifeline, you just gave it to them. Besides, the Greens would be more likely to get slots outside Cabinet. Only Norman and perhaps Turei have shown any real aptitude for the rigors of Ministerial responsibility, inside Cabinet, and maybe Graham who would make a fine Attorney General and even Treaty negotiations. As for the finance role, that would go to Parker to settle the markets and prevent a run of the currency, and Norman would have to settle for economic development with a mandate to work up the eco-economy stuff. That’s about it for them.

  4. higherstandard 4
    4 December 2012 at 8:05 am

    Interesting, with a few notable exceptions this just shows that, along with the incumbent ministers there is a woeful lack of talent amongst our current crop of politicians/troughers.

  5. just saying 5
    4 December 2012 at 8:07 am

    Your predictions seem likely. I think there would be real benefit to shaking things up, but that never happens.

    For example, I’d prefer Little to take education. Partly I guess, because I can just see him being the bearer of the shit sandwich to workers, of labour laws that change sfa. And hard-selling them as being another of those ‘necessary compromises’ that union management has become expert in promoting to members as ‘reasonable’ and ‘inevitable’.

  6. Bunji 6
    4 December 2012 at 8:12 am

    Obviously Parker and Norman switch from your list as you say. And a good line up.
    A couple of thoughts: It would be hard to take King and Fenton off their portfolios as they (especially King) are making a good fist of them. Little might have to bide his time, but Ardern does need something senior… (Health?)
    Similarly Twyford has to be in there, but surely you’e got to have a Green on Environment (Hague?)? (Twyford for Police?)
    A few tough choices to work out, but definitely like the list.

  7. Hilary 7
    4 December 2012 at 8:23 am

    What about Broadcasting or Disability Issues? Education and Health also need a couple of associates, and Special Ed will be particularly important by 2014 as schools are expected to be inclusive by then and if not will require a lot of attention.

    Mana, the Maori Party and NZ First are likely to be there too and may expect cabinet positions.

  8. Bill 8
    4 December 2012 at 8:37 am

    Somebody needs to haul Gower’s head out from whosever arse he has it firmly planted up and give it a good slapping.

    This Norman thing looks like carbon copy of the technique used on Cunliffe with the same intended consequences – a manufactured scenario that presents the puppet boy with an opportunity to look independent and decisive.

    • karol 8.1
      4 December 2012 at 8:47 am

      It’s probably not just Gower, but a TV3 News thing.  It goes hand-in-hand with Garner’s reporting that reinforces the worthiness of Shearer (e.g. his analysis of the poll results); plus the News anchors’ summarising Gower’s reports and unsubstantiated conclusions as if they are statements of fact.

      Who benefits?  Maybe look at Labour’s potential policies on reviving public broadcasting? How it might benefit TV3 to have a weak and right-leaning PM overseeing the policy developments?

      • Bill 8.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 9:44 am

        I’m tempted to be a tad more cynical and suggest that whereas Paddy might be somewhat directed by the ABC clique, the natural inclination of TV3 would be to happily to pump up Shearer short term because he can he so easily and so completely destroyed pre-election – unlike the situation were a certain back bencher to assume leadership of the party.

        • geoff 8.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 10:02 am

          Absolutely Bill, the likes of Gower would love to see Shearer fall to pieces during the election campaign in front of their cameras.

          • Akldnut 8.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 11:59 am

            Spot on Bill, Shearer is being pumped up purely because he will be decimated by Key and his cronies come next election, they (Gower and other political reporters) can clearly see this and have already started maneuvering with this in mind.

  9. Peter 9
    4 December 2012 at 8:50 am

    You missed out the most important portfolio – conservation. There’s a massive job there to rebuild morale within the Department and generally fix things up after 6 years of Wilkinson’s mess.

    I’d pick Eugenie Sage for that.

  10. Lanthanide 10
    4 December 2012 at 8:57 am

    Oh god, not Hughes in any position of responsibility.

    • King Kong 10.1
      4 December 2012 at 9:33 am

      By just suggesting that little dweeb is Ministerial potential has stripped any credibility from this post.

      I would be nervous about him running the fries section at the local McDonalds (if only because he is not tall enough to reach the handles).

  11. cardassian 11
    4 December 2012 at 8:59 am

    You’ve given Little labour and police.

  12. marsman 12
    4 December 2012 at 8:59 am

    Gower has become a shrieking turd focusing on manufacturing ‘news’, neither he nor the bombastic self-important Garner seem to have a clue about journalism let alone investigative journalism.

  13. arants 13
    4 December 2012 at 10:04 am

    What about the Trade portfolio? Labour’s recent Conference remits have effectively withdrawn support for the TPPA in anything like its current form. However, Goff & Cosgrove are actively undermining this position, stridently supporting TPPA during the current Auckland round. If Shearer doesn’t bring them to heel they could do more damage to a potential coalition than Jones.

  14. ad 14
    4 December 2012 at 10:08 am

    Isn’t this a whole lot more fun than obscure arguments about which policy isn’t extreme enough?

    Feels like a tide turning!

    Anyone want to admit the pro-Shearer writers were right yet? Too early?

    • King Kong 14.1
      4 December 2012 at 10:40 am

      Please don’t make them apologise. There are some great prototype National election ads ready to go and they wont work if all the crazys show contrition and admit poor judgement.

      The one I saw goes along the lines of;

      “Political lightweight”, “Mr Bumbles”, “too inexperienced”, “doesn’t know what he stands for”, “lacks integrity”, “Just a puppet for a powerful cabal” – And that is just what the Labour party members say about David Shearer.

      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 11:48 am

        There are some great prototype National election ads ready to go and they wont work if all the crazys show contrition and admit poor judgement.

        But neither National nor Act will ever show contrition and admit poor judgement. It’s part of their psychology – they actually think that they’re right all the time even when the evidence shows that they’re wrong.

        • Akldnut 14.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 12:05 pm

          “doesn’t know what he stands for”, “lacks integrity”, “Just a puppet for a powerful cabal”

          You just described John Key but missed out “Liar, ripoff merchant & prince of clowns and photo ops “

        • Pascal's bookie 14.1.1.2
          4 December 2012 at 3:59 pm

          No party wants to start on that game KK.

          It’s a M.A.D. M.A.D. world.

        • OneTrack 14.1.1.3
          4 December 2012 at 8:11 pm

          Exactly like Labour and the Greens.

      • Blue 14.1.2
        4 December 2012 at 3:47 pm

        There are some great prototype National election ads ready to go

        I thought they were going to use the photos of John Key eating maggots with Bear Grylls.

  15. Jackal 15
    4 December 2012 at 10:10 am

    James Henderson

    Apart from the top name, nearly all of them would better the current minister in sheer competence?

    You can’t honestly be arguing that Shearer should eat some crickets and maggots, decrease our clean and green branding by millions if not billions of dollars with a few untimely off the cuff remarks and being an international disgrace in terms of GHG emissions and negotiations not to mention insulting a sports super star and many in the gay community by trying to appear blokey? Personally I would have thought the high unemployment rate and increased inequality etc etc would reflect on Keys ability as a so-called leader of New Zealand? But I guess your comparison of competence as Prime Minister is a relative thing dependent on your preference of Labour leader or something?

    Having said that I think your list is pretty spot on. I would like to see a 50/50 split though re male and female (a pipe dream at this stage) and some more fresh faces in there… Although Hughes as Minister of energy will be strongly resisted, good call. I would also give Phil Goff the NZ Security Service portfolio with Shearer perhaps having Foreign Affairs LOL. Shearer is reasonably qualified in that area and will have gained international respect for his previous humanitarian work. Goff is the man to sort out our faulty security services. I think it’s important that trade becomes more conscientious and besides, Labour could take a leaf out of the Nats playbook and effectively whisk the PM away in the face of any controversy. I think it’s more likely that Parker will get finance, but I guess that all depends on how the vote goes in 2014.

  16. travellerev 16
    4 December 2012 at 10:19 am

    Bliss, two clowns with absolutely no idea about international finance with Russel actually actively ignoring what is happening internationally vying for the position of finance minister. That will really help New Zealand over the next couple of years as the global finance scam implodes.

  17. Matthew Hooton 17
    4 December 2012 at 10:20 am

    List looks about right, except Tamihere will be Social Development.

    • millsy 17.1
      4 December 2012 at 10:28 am

      His first act being to deny the sickness benefit to those with HIV.

      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 10:55 am

        Yep. If you contracted it through a blood transfusion you’ll be OK, if you caught it through being gay, you’re history.

    • Lightly 17.2
      4 December 2012 at 10:31 am

      tamihere won’t even be ranked high enough to get in, if he makes the list at all. Remember, there’s reforms coming to give the membership more power over that – so being Shearer’s drinking buddy won’t be enough. JT’s obviously worked out he’ll never get the LEC onside to Waitakere.

  18. millsy 18
    4 December 2012 at 10:34 am

    The main portfolios will go to Labour ministers, but I reckon the Greens will get Conservation. I’m also going to make a curly call, and give Science and Innovation/CRI’s to Norman, then he can set about implementing his green economic strategy without seeming to frighten the horses.

    • Lightly 18.1
      4 December 2012 at 11:04 am

      why would the greens be fobbed off with minor portfolios? How would that represent the people who voted for them?

      • King Kong 18.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 11:14 am

        They would best represent those who vote for them by keeping lots of cats and talking to themselves in the aisles of New World.

        • Lanthanide 18.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 11:37 am

          Or my favourite example, when I went to vote in 2008 at a somewhat busy polling place, an ‘activist’ woman harangued the voting officials asking them why the podiums and tables were made out of cardboard and whether they would be stored away for future elections or just thrown out, and shouldn’t they just be using perfectly acceptable wooden trestle tables etc.

          • felix 18.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 11:45 am

            A reasonable question, given that most polling places have no shortage of tables and desks. Do you have a reasonable answer?

            • King Kong 18.1.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 11:48 am

              Calm down and feed your cats

              • felix …
                4 December 2012 at 12:02 pm

                Have you noticed the alarming increase in numbers of multi-cat people who talk to themselves in the supie? 11% in the last election and 13% in recent polls.

                On the other hand it could be that your lazy attempt at stereotype humour is a bit flacid.

              • mike e …
                4 December 2012 at 5:08 pm

                Felix cats cost more than your peanuts

            • Lanthanide 18.1.1.1.1.2
              4 December 2012 at 12:02 pm

              I should imagine that while most polling places may have tables available, it’s reasonable to assume that not all of them would.

              It’s also good to have a consistent experience across polling places, as well as being recognisably official.

              • felix …
                4 December 2012 at 12:13 pm

                What makes the experience “recognisably official” and “consistent” across polling places?

                Is it the officials in marked clothing? Is it the posters and signage? Is it the presence of the electoral roll? Is it the uniform paperwork?

                Or is it the cardboard booth?

                • Lanthanide …
                  4 December 2012 at 1:07 pm

                  All of the above. If any of those things were out of place, I think you’d be right to question it.

                  • felix …
                    4 December 2012 at 3:00 pm

                    Really?

                    If you went into a booth and it wasn’t disposable, you’d not trust it?

                    I find your value system arbitrary and confusing.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 December 2012 at 3:40 pm

                      If I had expectations around what a polling place should consist of, and came across a polling place that did not meet those expectations, then I would be suspicious.

                      Just as anyone would.

                      I simply expect to see cardboard booths as polling places, evidently you don’t have any such expectation.

                      This is of course entirely irrelevant to the point at hand: the crazy activist lady loudly arguing with people that had no control over any part of the process. There’s a time and place (and manner) for those sorts of questions, which she evidently didn’t understand.

                    • felix …
                      4 December 2012 at 5:30 pm

                      Irrelevant?

                      My dear boy, this entire discussion is irrelevant.

                      It’s premised on the idea that the polling place you visited was of such a poor standard that you knew who other people there were voting for, yet you’re holding it up as a model of best practice!

                    • Lanthanide …
                      5 December 2012 at 8:57 am

                      Sorry felix but where did I say I “knew” (your word) who she was voting for?

                    • felix …
                      5 December 2012 at 9:23 am

                      You said it was an example of what KK described as “those who vote for” the Greens.

                      Of course, that’s just my simplistic interpretation based on nothing more than the actual words you used, the meanings of them, and the context.

                      I’m sure you have some other, far more interesting way of explaining what you meant that has nothing to do with such mundane tools and I can’t wait to read it.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      5 December 2012 at 10:24 am

                      That doesn’t mean I “know” that she voted for the Greens, just that I’m stereotyping her and assuming she did.

                    • felix …
                      5 December 2012 at 10:55 am

                      Which is precisely why I said the whole discussion is irrelevant.

                      Either you know how she voted, in which case your beloved disposable booths aren’t up to much, or you don’t, in which case your “favourite example” of a green voter was bullshit all along.

              • Colonial Viper …
                4 December 2012 at 12:18 pm

                It’s also good to have a consistent experience across polling places, as well as being recognisably official.

                Indeed. A consistent experience is important for those citizens who intend to vote early, and to vote often on E-day at different polling places.

                • Lanthanide …
                  4 December 2012 at 1:08 pm

                  It’s important that no voters can complain that some polling place they voted at influenced their decision, or made it difficult for them to vote. This is best achieved by applying a consistent standard to all official equipment used as part of the election that has been approved by the appropriate official body.

                  • Kevin Welsh …
                    4 December 2012 at 2:06 pm

                    Really?

                    I found that the A4 cellotaped to the door that said ‘Polling Booth’, was all I needed.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 December 2012 at 3:41 pm

                      It’d be easy for someone to set up a fake polling place and rob you of your vote, in that case.

  19. Craig Glen Eden 19
    4 December 2012 at 10:54 am

    Once again Shearer shows his inexperience by even entering into a discussion about Ministerial Portfolios. He should of just said we will wait for voters to give us the mandate before we start counting our Chickens.In stead he makes it look like he is already carving the ham and has decided who will get what, this allows Gower to run with division line, when will Shearer learn, I honestly didnt think he would be this bad for this long.

    • Johan 19.1
      4 December 2012 at 2:35 pm

      I fully agree CGE, it is obvious that Shearer has jumped the gun. In the last election we had many Labour supporters who voted New Zealand First, simply due to lack of choice in Labour leadership. I ask you, has that situation changed with Shearer as leader?? Labour/Green coalition, what a miss-match, since the Greens have already shot themselves in the foot with their method to fix the economy, they simply want to print more money, which will likely increase inflation.
      Also, the Greens want to create more jobs by setting up govt sponsored schemes which means more tax payer money . This simply means borrowing more money from overseas.

      • millsy 19.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 10:21 pm

        So what would you do? Clearly there is a need for job schemes, because the current practice of sending your CV out and knocking on doors isnt working.

  20. Poission 20
    4 December 2012 at 11:05 am

    What sound policy can we see from Norman that would validate his role as Finance minister?

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      4 December 2012 at 11:47 am

      CGT, reform of the RBA, and taking steps to minimise currency war and peak debt effects on our dollar (ie printing money).

      • alwyn 20.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 1:24 pm

        But Poisson asked for SOUND reasons.
        Printing money indeed. That is a policy that Mugabe followed of course, just on a slightly larger scale.
        I suppose you consider moderate inflation like a little bit pregnant.

        • thatguynz 20.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 2:45 pm

          And the US are doing, and the UK, and Japan.  Not saying I agree with the approach at all but citing Zimbabwe repeatedly is disingenuous.

        • bad12 20.1.1.2
          4 December 2012 at 5:57 pm

          Check out the US rate of inflation after that country having printed trillions of dollars and the Prez openly saying that He will print and feed into the US economy billions more,

          Printing money does not necessarily lead to run-away inflation, any economy run by any other than some form of Neanderthal race of Chimps knows that money can be printed and spent into an economy in such a fashion as to keep inflation in that economy within the requirements of the stated inflation band policy,

          The present cohort of neanderthal chimps in control of the economy could have instead of borrowing and spending into the economy 300 million dollars a week simply printed and spent the same amount with the exact same inflationary outcome as what borrowing has caused,

          You should educate yourself befor you go tossing the inflation of Zimbabwe into the debate, the printing of money by the Mugabe regime was not the cause of most of this inflation but as a response TO the inflation,

          As a response to the regime in Zimbabwe seizing lands occupied by white farmers ‘the West’ imposed sanctions upon that country severely restricting the import of the necessary goods of daily life, flour, fuel etc etc etc, such goods then had to be smuggled into Zimbabwe from neighbouring countries at a highly inflated price…

      • Neglect is 20.1.2
        4 December 2012 at 5:31 pm

        Can you clarify your stance cv.
        My understanding is that nz economy is finely balanced at moment and we don’t have the capacity to ‘keep’ the money in the system. If the bounce happens in a few years then our expanded m3 money supply unnaturally unbalanced will cause inflation. We have to borrow from outside in a temp measure as the total borrowed amount will eventually be outflow so an equilibrium is reached. Bigger countries have the capacity to print money as well as borrow as they can absorbe the expanded money supply without inflationary effects when the economy returns to normality.

        If we don’t come out of the crunch then print way upto a point that doesn’t effect inflation.

        • mike e 20.1.2.1
          4 December 2012 at 5:43 pm

          So all this borrowed money doesn’t cause inflation

          • Neoleftie 20.1.2.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 6:33 pm

            Not really as at same point you have to repay it so there is net outflow of the money supply and hence inflationary influencers.

            • Colonial Viper 20.1.2.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 6:41 pm

              So, just used a forced savings rate (eg via Kiwisaver) or higher taxes to have the same effect for printed debt free money.

              Anyhows I don’t think your premise is quite right: excess inflation only occurs when the productive (supply) and competitive (non-speculative) aspects of the economy cannot keep up with the volume of cash in circulation.

              This is easily evident in the NZ housing market.

              In the wider economy however we could print the cash required to create 10,000 new full time jobs and no excess inflation would be created – because there is still a massive excess of labour after that point.

              • Neoleftie …
                4 December 2012 at 6:49 pm

                Yes at the moment but what about the bounce effect when normality returns and we are left with An expanded money supply that causes inflationary pressures.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  4 December 2012 at 6:53 pm

                  The Chinese have pioneered the way here. When there is a “bounce” or signs of some kind of speculative bubble forming, you withdraw the excess money out of the economy.

                  Many ways of doing this, from increasing bank reserve ratios and tightening lending criteria, to outright forcing increased savings and higher tax rates to pull cash out of the economy.

                  • Neoleftie …
                    5 December 2012 at 6:52 am

                    It disagree money is still in the system just reallocated from one type to another. The only way is a complete transfer out of our economy say overseas investment by SOE on a massive scale.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.2.2
          4 December 2012 at 6:30 pm

          Neglect. Country has plenty of spare unused productive capacity, competitive ability and labour at the moment.

          We can print $500M a year into the wider economy (of $202B), and distributed wisely, it would still be just a drop in the bucket. But it would be enough to get massive social, public transport and energy infrastructure projects underway. As well as jobs, lots of jobs.

          • Neoleftie 20.1.2.2.1
            4 December 2012 at 6:37 pm

            So another think big but with a green tinge funded from non inflationary printed money…correct

  21. felix 21
    4 December 2012 at 11:46 am

    Deputy PM?

  22. Rich 22
    4 December 2012 at 1:06 pm

    I believe that the next left-wing government in NZ will be Green-led with Labour as a support partner.

    We might see Grant Robertson given responsibility for State Services. Apart from that it’s whoever the caucus faction dominant at the time puts forward. Maybe:
    – Trevor Mallard – associate sports
    – John Tamihere – mens affairs
    – Taito Philip Field – (after having been accepted back into the party and given a seat) – associate corrections (from jail)

  23. Robert M 23
    4 December 2012 at 2:26 pm

    At first glance. I thought the only intelligent response was-leave the country. However on a moments reflection- it is a much better lineup than the National Government and my only real objection is that Cunliffe has to be in a top position preferably finance and I wouldn’t put Norman in a Finance portfolio- but might put him in an environmental or
    local govt position to restore the CRC and stop the expansion of consents in the South Island to stop over use of water and land and the giving of farms to those unsuitable.
    Cunliffe should be an excellent specialist minister and is essential if there is to be any sensible financial and economic budget and the next Labour government not blow out like Whitlams.
    There are half a dozen Nat ministers who are outrageous conservatives or incompetents- English, Smith, Heatley, Wilkinson. Brownlie, Zip it. Collins is also intolerable but I agree with her on D.Bain.
    To me its concievable the presentable, cunning, trained and slick Tolley could win an election but I regard Collins as too large and nasty to be electable.

    • Magnus McManus 23.1
      4 December 2012 at 4:39 pm

      “the presentable, cunning, trained and slick Tolley”?
      Sorry, what?! The woman’s brain is flat-out counting past 10!

    • Anne 23.2
      4 December 2012 at 6:58 pm

      Cunliffe has to be in a top position preferably finance…

      At last!! Someone has mentioned Cunliffe. I don’t give a damm about factions. I want to see the very best person holding the Finance portfolio, and that person is Cunliffe.

      • Neoleftie 23.2.1
        4 December 2012 at 7:02 pm

        Trouble is labour is all about factions and power divisions but yes bring on the man to lead us the people to a better way of life.

  24. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 24
    4 December 2012 at 4:20 pm

    You’ll have to find room for Winsome.

  25. Chalupa Batman 25
    4 December 2012 at 7:37 pm

    If it looks like National won’t get the numbers then I’m party voting Labour so hopefully the Greens can get shafted

    • felix 25.1
      4 December 2012 at 8:02 pm

      That’s an excellent plan, I hope you encourage all your National voting friends to do the same.

      You might also want to consider making a sizable donation.

      • Chalupa Batman 25.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 8:14 pm

        That’s an excellent plan, I hope you encourage all your National voting friends to do the same.
        -Lesser of two evils

        You might also want to consider making a sizable donation.
        -Don’t think I’ll go that far

        • felix 25.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 8:40 pm

          Gee I wish you’d find a better way to indicate quotes.

          • Chalupa Batman 25.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 9:46 pm

            Quote: Gee I wish you’d find a better way to indicate quotes. End quote
            -Better?

            • Te Reo Putake 25.1.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 9:55 pm

              Nope. Still illiterate. Have you considered trying quotation marks? They look like this: ”
               
              Your teacher tried teaching you how to use them when you were about seven years old, CB. Remember?

              • Chalupa Batman …
                4 December 2012 at 10:44 pm

                Who says lefties don’t have a sense of humour

                • Albert Roskill …
                  5 December 2012 at 10:08 pm

                  Wonder why Cunliffe is not listed, oh that is right because he and all his sycophantic biatches on this site are down a vacuous hole, never to be seen again, sucked in!

    • Reagan Cline 25.2
      4 December 2012 at 8:09 pm

      I dislike the greens because they use fear about the “end of the world is nigh
      unless you do as we say” tactics to con people into voting for them.

      There is a flash house in Grey Lynn with a green flag and a big fucking wrap around verandah – fuck the bastards !!

      I would vote for any party that pledges “NO ALLIANCE WITH THE GREENS”.

      The greens could kill labour because they put “the environment” before human beings.

      They know fuck all about the “environment” and what they do preach is based on scientific evidence, which by definition is falsifiable.

      • Chalupa Batman 25.2.1
        4 December 2012 at 8:19 pm

        I have similar viewpoints. Alternative fuels and green-tech may well work in the future but right now we need to encourage more mining. Cunliffe will but the Greens won’t.

        Silent T for all his smugness and arrogance probably does want the best for NZ, the Greens want the best for NZ as long as its an image the Greens approve of

        • McFlock 25.2.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 8:26 pm

          Fascinating to unpack that statement: the encouragement of labour to split, the assumption that actually deserving the tag “100% pure” is a luxury not a necessity, and the dissonance of talking about the “smugness and arrogance” of “Silent T”.

          Revealing snapshot of your perspective, there.

      • OneTrack 25.2.2
        4 December 2012 at 8:19 pm

        “I dislike the greens because they use fear about the “end of the world is nigh””

        If they get into power, they will be right.

      • Draco T Bastard 25.2.3
        4 December 2012 at 8:22 pm

        They know fuck all about the “environment” and what they do preach is based on scientific evidence, which by definition is falsifiable.

        Well, considering that they’re basing their arguments on scientific evidence then it would seem that they know quite a bit and just because scientific evidence is falsifiable doesn’t mean to say that it’s wrong. In fact, it usually means that it’s right because it hasn’t been. All this is in direct contradiction to National and Act whose theories aren’t based upon fact. In fact, if National and Act took note of reality they’d have to throw all their theories and ideas out but they won’t because they’re delusional.

        Once we get an economy based upon reality then we can see some improvement in our living standards and that’s far more likely to come from the Greens than it is from most other parties.

      • millsy 25.2.4
        4 December 2012 at 10:30 pm

        So you dont support clean air and water regulations then?

    • millsy 25.3
      4 December 2012 at 10:19 pm

      So I take it you support pollution of our air and water then. Ill let everyone know that they can dump their toxic waste at Chalupa’s house.

      I have a few issues with some Green policies (the fact that a Think Big style programme is needed to achive their objective being one), but the idea that we should conserve resources, and clean up after ourselves is a sound one. Everyone benefits from clean air and water.

    • rtoz 25.4
      4 December 2012 at 11:57 pm

      Seriously? If you’re really a National supporter, then that’s incredibly short term thinking. The lefties here must be thrilled that there are people who think like you that will further damage National if it is in fact on its way down at the next election.

      • chris73 25.4.1
        5 December 2012 at 6:37 am

        Not really. I want National to win (unless Labour ever goes back to its roots as the working mans party which is unlikely) if National can’t win then the next best scenario is Labour with the majority (or at least Labour supplying the Finance minister). Worst case would be Labour winning needing the Greens

        Thus I’ll go for the best of a bad situation

        • felix 25.4.1.1
          5 December 2012 at 7:48 am

          What from Labour would constitute, in your view, a return to it’s “roots as the working mans party”?

          Compulsory unionism? Commitment to Clause IV?

          Or what?

  26. millsy 26
    4 December 2012 at 10:42 pm

    There was talk about inflation further up on this thread.

    I think people are getting too carried away with the evils of inflation, given that our living standards were at their highest during periods of high inflation, sad but true.

    Now with inflation at 0.8% or something like that, we are seeing the concequences in other areas, such as high rents, low wages and conditions for workers, underfunded social and public services, high unemployment, homelessness, underinvestment in infrastructure, and so on and so forth.

    Case in point. The inflation rate was only brought down in this country by massive cuts to public services, closure of hospitals, driving down of wages and conditions, throwing people out of work and closing down industries, cutting benefits, and pricing people out of decent housing, all because some rich pricks didnt want the price of their BMW to go up too much.

    Economics is all about trade offs, and I think that 5-6% inflation is probably nessesary to ensure everyone has a decent standard of living.

  27. Andrew McMillan 27
    4 December 2012 at 11:30 pm

    …and a pretty good geographic distribution.

    I’m struggling to see your justification for this assertion James. Of the names listed in the “Chosen” column, 4 are currently MP’s for Auckland electorates, 2 are MP’s for Canterbury electorates, and one is an MP for a Maori electorate which encompasses Auckland/Waikato. The rest (11 of them) are currently List MP’s, representing no geographic location. And of the list MP’s, I’d suggest that only Cosgrove would have a sniff of gaining a seat at the next election.

    Contrast this against National’s current cabinet, 20 MP’s in total, with only 5 of them being list MP’s. And outside of Auckland (5) and Canterbury (3), you’ve also got Southland (1), Hawkes Bay (2), East Coast (2), Bay of Plenty (1), and Northland (1) represented.

    I’d argue the “Chosen” list you’ve put together is a very poor geographic distribution, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it would turn out to be the worst geographic distribution the country has ever had.

  28. rtoz 28
    5 December 2012 at 12:05 am

    I think you’re a tad confused. Pretty sure he was referring to the geographic distribution of the MPs who make up Cabinet, he didn’t appear to mention electorates or specifically electorate MPs at all.

    I can’t be bothered analysing the actual geographic distribution of the proposed Labour Cabinet, but fillin in the hole you leave in the National Cabinet, you can add Auckland (3) and Wellington (2).

    • Andrew McMillan 28.1
      5 December 2012 at 12:24 am

      Clearly I’m making an implicit assertion that list MP’s don’t have a geographic location.

      I can’t be bothered analysing the actual geographic distribution

      Either could James, it would appear. But I’d ask (the both of you now), if you’re not prepared to do your homework then why are you prepared to offer an opinion?

  29. Meg 29
    5 December 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Ha I love how you’ve excluded Trade and Primary industries… Obviously not proirities for Labour or the Greens.

  30. You.reap what you sow 30
    7 December 2012 at 7:16 am

    Norman as Minister of Finance wont work. Labour, if anything stands for higher employment and opportunities. To do this they need to implement policies that increase the rate of economic growth.

    The Greens are opposed to Growth, unless it fits a tightly defined set of green criteria.

    Norman as MOF would control Labour. It would have the making of a massive interparty disconnect and feud.

Links to post